Hi, During my studies about Ashvamedha, I came across a Rigveda hymn translation which talks about the sacrifice of a horse. The translator is Ralph T H Griffith. R C Dutt, in his 'History of India part I' suggests that horse sacrifice was in practice during the Vedic times however this practice soon became very rare and only the performer of the Ashvamedha right used to indulge in the horse sacrifice. The reason may be that horse was a rare commodity and very useful during wars so preserving it was a necessity.
Being a Hindu we are usually preached to avoid animal sacrifices though many of us may be non-vegetarians, however we always feel that Hindus do not indulge in such sacrificial practices. There were many instances quoted by Europeans where they witnessed such sacrifices in temples, and I still feel that few of these temple practices are still going on. Anyway, my intention is to understand this particular Rigveda hymn, as the translator is an European scholar so I would like to know if any Hindu scholar has translated this particular hymn in some other manner. This is 162 hymn of the first mandala of Rigveda. Any help in this regard will be useful.
Dear Saurabh, The Great Madhvacharya has stated that a live animal is not to be sacrificed.An animal is created out of flour and then that doll is to be sacrificed. There are several controversial passages even occuring in the ramayanawhich will give an impression of Rama and Sita consuming meat.Even in uttarakanda there is a passage that mentions thatRama gives Sita madhu mayuraka which translates into wine. Sita devi herself offers "suragata sahasrani" which means 1000 pots of wineto goddess Ganga !!!!You can refer to Memoirs of European travels of Swami Vivekananda for this. But this has been split and translated as to mean something very nice in the Gita press edition of Valmiki Ramayan.The commentaries of Govindaraja and others clearly specify that same sankrit wordused for flesh can be used for bulbs and other vegetables.Gita press does a fine job of translating the proper indian context of these words in sanskrit. There is a passage in Bhagvata itself that"marriage has been made to restrict the carnal desire of the man,in similar way the sacrifices involving the animals has been made to restrict the desire to consume non-vegatarian food"
Meat eating was/is never banned in sanatana dharmaOnly in Kaliyug vegetarianism made compulsary for brahmins. Also pl note that has nothing to do with the advent of jainism.
Till date yagams like Vajapeyam has animal sacrifice.
At the same time it dosenot mean that yagams were conducted only for eating meat.
Please go through the book Deivathin Kural vol 1& 2 or its englsih translation Hindu dharma both available online in kanchikamakoti.org
That is one book where all the doubts on hndusm can be clarifed.
The word suraghata sahasrena in the same sarga in 89 th verse is split as belowsureshu devesu na ghatente na santheerthathaha thesham sahasram thenameaningmamsa bhotu danena is the next word and is split aas followingma nasti amsou rajabhogo yasyam sa eva bhu prithvi cha utham vastram cha aadena cha yethesham samahaaraha thenameaningwill worship you thousand articles not available to gods as well as lands free fromrevenue rainment and cooked rice. the verse that you are specifying is translated as belowhaving hunted down four large deers varaha,rsya,prasta and maharuru for sportand taking food consisting of fruits etc fit for being consigned to oblationin sacred fire, they felt hungry , two brothersquickly sought a tree where they had stationed sitafor taking rest duing the night !!!! Thus the hunting of the deers is termed as being first getting a feelof forest life, a trial.The hunting of the deer is not for food !!!!!!!!!! I am quoting from the Gita press - Valmeeki ramayana.They have taken the help of all orthodox commentaries like Ramayana Siromaniand other great books. Regards,S.KarthikVandemataram
I disgaree with Shankar sirthat Rama was a non-vegetarian.There is clearly the statement of Sri Rama where he statesin Ayodhya Kanda Sarga 20 -29th verse thathe is going to live only on fruits and roots !!!!Then how can the lord go back on his given word.Moreover in sanskrit the same word has 2 or more meaningsfor the word Mamsam can mean flesh or the pulp of the bulb calledGajakanda!!!!! I also disagree on vegetarianism only as a kaliyug phenomenon.The upanishads and vedas clearly have references to ahimsa!!!Krishna was called Govinda not in Kaliyug but in treta yuga!!!Bhagavata clearly states that meat eating is found in vedas only asa way to restrict its usage!!!!! I am totally with Paramacharya and his deivathin kural and I must sayI disagree with Shankar's conclusion that the acharya says that vegetarianismis a kaliyug phenomenon. All that acharya was commenting on was whether himsawas permitted in a sacrifice.Regarding Agastya and vatapi episode, agastya is a personality of Ramayana times.Shankar is contradicting himself when he says that vegetarianism is after agastya andalso is a kaliyug matter. Regards,S.KarthikVandemataram