The part 1 to this debate containing my counter-arguments can be obtained from

http://www.scribd.com/doc/27431552/Ramayan

After this, ankur’s subsequent arguments can be obtained from

http://www.scribd.com/doc/27190527/Rama

In order to read the Sanskrit shlokas, u can download the fonts from
http://www.valmikiramayan.net/devanagari.zip

An excellent addition by Kanika ji http://www.scribd.com/doc/27228812/Now-we-come-to-Sita

Black italics are ankur’s arguments & others are mine. You may not be able to read the
Sanskrit shlokas online, so please download this file & install the above-mentioned fonts
& then open this file.

One thing in the responses have struck me prominently is that none of the people who
responded have commented on Rama actually offering Sita to marry either Lakshmana,
Bharat, Shatrugan Sugreev or even Vibhishan. Probably because thats the one which is
hard to justify

Ankur, If u actually make a sincere effort to UNDERSTAND and ANALYSE what I

wrote in my last post, you would see that I DID address this thought very well, however,
if u still haven’t understood, no issues I will explain once again. Also the translations
given on the valmikiramayan.net are quite haphazard & full of mistakes. Better buy one
book of Gita press, Gorakhpur and refer from it. No wonder u are seeing stuff from
internet and getting all wrong meanings. Same goes for sacred texts.

"Mansa" is even today used to describe meat. I have never seen it being used for Pulp
of fruit. Madhu has been used for both liquor and honey as well known

Well mamsa can be used for meat, but who says meat necessarily means the flesh of animal
(carcass) ? Most of us DO NOT understand English that well. The following are the meanings of
meat acc. to standard dictionaries.

Meat = Essence or main point (babylon dictionary)

Meat = biscuit (babylon dictionary)

Meat = vegetable mold (babylon dictionary)

meat = an offering of food, esp. of a cake made of flour with salt and oil. (babylon dictionary)
meat = the inner and usually edible part of a seed or grain or nut or fruit stone (word net 2.0)
meat = plant part, plant structure (word net 2.0)
meat = seed (word net 2.0)
meat = the choicest or most essential or most vital part of some idea or experience (word net
2.0)
meat = kernel, substance, core, center, essence, gist, heart, heart and soul, inwardness, sum, nitty-
gritty (word 2.0)
meat = content, cognitive content, mental object (word 2.0)
meat = the edible part of fruits (oxford dictionary)

Valmiki is a poet and what he composed was a ‘kavya rachna’ & being a poet urself, I don’t have
to tell u that he meant all the words metaphorically (as explained earlier by Kanika ji through an
example). Now, if u make a poem that ur girlfriend is lotus-eyed, DOES IT MEAN THAT UR
GF HAS LOTUSES INSTEAD OF EYES? 

Rama has given up eating Meat and Liquor and has taken to eating
only what grows in the forest and has been served for him. (Meat and Liquor is even
today seen as a way of enjoyment and Rama giving up enjoyment certainly makes
sense).
In this context does the meaning pulp even suit here? Rama giving up fruit pulp and is
living on what is grown in the forst doesn’t even seem to make any meaning considering
the situation Hanumana and Sita were in. And if fruits and roots don’t grow in forest then
where do they grow?

This is precisely why I told you to READ CAREFULLY what I post. First of all, Hanuman never
talked of Rama giving up Meat or Liquor. What hanuman is saying is that Lord Ram has stopped
eating the nice & juicy parts of fruits (i.e. reference to meat here) or drinking honey (reference
to madhu). In a forest, these juicy fruits and sweet honey can be thought of a symbol of luxury.
Instead, he is eating “WILD FRUITS” (which’re usually tasteless or bitter) and boiled wild rice.
This shows his agony and pain. Read the next verse, he is so much pain that he is also unable to
drive away the gnats, insects, mosquitoes and even the reptiles from his body, his mind
constantly fixed on Mata Sita.

I know u’ll still find it hard to get convinced although I rebutted all ur arguments & given u
many verses supporting the fact that shri ram never took meat or alcohol. Let me show u some
more.
Please read the end of the page of http://www.ramayanaepic.com/sarga_k2_s51-52.htm which
beautifully explains that Rama never took meat.

Moving on, let me show u more verses, which convey that Rama never took meat.

Refer to Ayodhya Kand, Chapter 96 verse 1 and 2

ta< twa dzRiyTva tu mEiwlI— igirinçgam!,

in;sad igiràSwe sIta< ma<sen cNdyn!. 2£96£1

#d< meXyimd< SvaÊ inòÝimdmi¶na,

@vmaSte s xmaRTma sItya sh ra"v>. 2£96£2

It says Having shown on that occasion the hilly stream (Mandakini) to the aforesaid Sita,
Sri Rama for his part sat down on a single (flat) rock humouring sita with a description of
the pulp of fruits fit for consumption of ascetics (as follows) :-

The next verse says, “This (fruit) is fit for being offered as an oblation into the
sacred fire, this is luscious and this (bulb) has been roasted well in fire.” In this
way, the celebrated Sri Rama (a scion of Raghu), whose mind was devoted to
rightesousness, spent his time with Sita.

This certainly goes well with his vow and is clearly spelled out in the following verse:

Refer to Ayodhya kaand chapter 54 verse 16

ipÇa inyua -gvn! àve:yam> tpae vnm!,

xmRm! @v Aacir:yam> tÇ mUl )l Azna>. 2£54£16

This verse states that "Oh, Venerable sage! Commanded by our father, we are entering
a lonely forest to practise asceticism, living on roots and fruits."
Now, shri Ram was absolutely righteous and if he consumed meat, this statement would
go against his vow. Sanyasis even today DO NOT indulge in meat eating & hence u can’t
say that ascetics at that time, used to take meat.

If Shri ram wanted to “break” the vow of his father, he could have done it long back. If
he wanted to necessarily enjoy the luxuries and eat meat, why roam around in forest
and suffer?

Importantly, where exactly will be find LIQUOR in the forest? Do u know a way of
manufacturing LIQUOR through roots/plants/fruits, etc.? Logic negates it.

At the same time, the site which u refer to i.e. valimkiramayan.net itself contradicts
itself at many places & it is quite clear that shri ram subsisted on roots, fruits and honey.

To still convince u, let me cite a few more verses. Refer to, ayodhya kand Chapter 104,
verse 9-16 : shri ram offering pulp of ingudi fruits to his father. Now acc. to u if Ram,
Bharat, etc. all took meat, why should Shri Ram offer “fruits” to his father? Many sites
quote that non-veg can be offered as oblations to the dead, which is GROSSLY WRONG.
Only Sattvik food like roots, fruits, etc. can be offered.

HENCE, SO FAR I HAVE INVALIDATED ALL UR ARGUMENTS AND THIS

CONCLUSIVELY SHOWS THAT SHRI RAM NEVER TOOK MEAT OR LIQUOR. IN THE
NEXT PART, I SHALL ALSO SHOW THAT UR THINKING OF ASHWAMEDHA YAGNA
IS ALSO INCORRECT.

Bharat and Ram come from the same family. He eats non-veg. There is a
mention of him being offered Fish Meat and honey by Gruha when he goes out to find
Rama. This is the verse... Ch 84 Ver 10 Ayodhya kandha
Again notice the usage of the word “madhu” and the same site talks of “honey”
and not liquor. Now Valmiki was very intelligent and obviously if Shri Ram would have
consumed alcohol, Valmiki wouldn’t have used the same word i.e. “madhu” for honey and also
alcohol. Besides, “madhu” means sweet (from the word ‘madhur’), referring to honey. This also
PROVES that the translation given in valmikiramayan.net is WRONG & interpolated.

This also shows that ur understanding is also WRONG & what I am saying makes more sense. So
please learn to accept that u can be wrong and understand the facts with a broad mind.

First of all the logic is flawed. Just because the Guha brought meat for Bharat, does it mean that
Bharat ate it OR does it mean that even if Bharat eats meat, Shri Ram eats it too? Please be
rational. My brother eats meat, but I don’t. So, what does it mean? Can u prove that someone
is a rascal just because his brother is? If that is so, then we should shoot all the family members
of terrorists just because one of their family members is a terrorist. I am surprised that u talk so
illogically, even though u work for a software company. The translation acc. to u just says that
Guha brought fish (maybe because he used to eat it & could not afford to bring royal feasts for
bharat). Hence, maybe acc. to him fish was royal and hence, it was symbolic of royalty. But
nowhere it can be implied that bharat necessarily ate fish/meat and that shri ram also did.

The problem comes when u try to understand one meaning ignoring the others. It can happen
in any language. Eg. Take the word ‘CROP’. Crop can refer to the agricultural crop i.e. harvest.
Crop can also mean “to shorten” while it can also mean, to increase (which is totally opposite in
meaning) as in “problems crop up”.

Coming to the verse u’ve quoted.

#it %®va %paynm! g&ý mTSy maMs mxUin c,

Ai-c³am -rtm! in;ad Aixpitrœ guh>. 2£84£10

The correct translation is “Saying so and taking sugar-candy, the pulp of fruits and
honey as an offering, Guha, the chief of the Nishadas, proceeded to meet Bharata.
you can go to Ch 128 of Yudha Kandha. It mentions of Rama performing many Yagnyas
including Ashwamedha and Vajpeya Yagya...both of which involve Animal sacrifice.
What is Ashwamedha is clearly mentioned in Rigveda..If you google it you will find
enough details and even direct translation of Rig Veda

The problem is u refer to all the meaningless translations of foreign indologists, who
have bullshitted hindu scriptures. Sacred-texts is the most useless site, giving the
RUBBISH Griffith translation. So first of all, start using authentic sources to understand
the scriptures. Next, Let me show u the meaning of Ashwamedha yagna. By the way,
go to vedpuran.com and download the authentic copies of Vedas and puranas, if u
actually want to understand hindu scriptures. Stop seeking shortcuts and then trashing
ur mind with hate and venom after reading stupid translations.

Referring to the image below,

This is the authentic translation given in Kalyan publications. Please see the underlined
part, which states that ashwamedha yagya doesn’t refer to an actual horse. This is also
supported by Yajur veda. Likewise, in one place they mention ‘aja’. Now u will come
back and say that they sacrifice a goat too.

To substantiate my point, I want u to see the following links which will remove ur
ignorance regd. this

http://agniveer.com/no-beef-in-vedas/

http://www.satyavidya.org/must-read/unchangeable-vedas/154-swami-
dayanand-unique-contribution-to-yajnic-thought

http://www.hindunet.com/forum/showflat.php?Number=9851

The yajna were meant for producing inner peace and purity. It doesn’t involve the
Islamic ways of killing animals. Also, as the links clearly states that killing of such
animals was against the Vedas. So, how could Shri Ram do a vedic yagna and
not follow the principles laid in the Vedas.

there are numerous instances which point out clearly that Rama was a non-vegetarian
how many will you deny

My friend, so far I’ve PROVED EACH AND EVERY POINT U’VE SPECIFIED
TO BE INVALID.

So far, u would have realized that u CAN’T triump against the TRUTH. Whether u
accept shri Ram or not is not my concern, but maligning him for what he is/was not, is
the greatest sin and I’ll not let that happen. So, if u still feel that he took meat, then I
suggest that u personally come and meet me because after so many proofs u CAN’T
just prove that he took meat in any form.

The heart of King Rama, as he saw Seetha, (the beloved of his heart) near
him, was torn for fear of public scandal.(Yuddha Kanda 115 verse 10.) Is the heart of
Rama torn for Sita or is it torn for Public scandal? he is more worried about public
scandal than Sita’s happiness. He assumed that there would be a public scandal

First of all, did Rama or Valimiki talk in English? Your understanding and deduction is
merely based on ur understanding of English and the translation. To understand the
inner meaning, u should learn Sanskrit, to talk in that depth.

But since u’ve asked, I made it quite clear that Rama admits that he knew it all along
that Sita was pure. BUT, he had to follow dharma. What would happen if someone
raises a finger on sita’s purity after Rama took her back? You can see the foolishness of
people that even after Sita gave agni pareeksha, some stupid people in ayodhya still
raised doubts over her purity. So would have happened if Rama hadn’t asked her for an
agni pareeksha at all?? I guess the whole world might have blamed her.

Why is he worried for a public scandal? As I said earlier, please think rationally. Rama
was the powerful king and NO ONE could have dared to speak against him but had
people been left with this doubt, they would have certainly accused her somewhere or
the other, down the line. To remove all such doubts, forever, Rama thought it to be fit to
ask Sita for agni pareeksha. Now who’re we to decide what Rama should have done or
not? Do u ever command God as to how he should run the world?

Rama and Sita were NOT ordinary couples. THINK RATIONALLY, if rama was so
concerned about his own image and not sita’s happiness, why should he wage a war in
the first place? He could have gone back leaving sita alone. Who would question him or
his decisions? Again, this also shows that u haven’t read the links I’ve been giving in my
posts for u would have read more on agni pareeksha.
Another reason for agni pareeksha (though not mentioned in valmiki ramayan) is that
shri ram came to earth to kill ravan and created an illusory sita, for ravan, to be
kidnapped. The real sita was kept in the protection of agni dev. The agni pareeksha was
just a means for the illusory sita to go into the fire and the real sita to come out from the
fire. As I said, that mata sita was goddess lakshmi while Lord Ram was God Vishnu. A
god doesn’t need to indulge in these materialistic pursuits of preserving image or
whatever. Whatever he does has a reason behind it & we need to understand the same
with reverence and NOT PERVERSION.

he has undertaken a war for his pride and not for Sita. Rama just comes across as a
self-obsessed individual

To understand this, understand the back-ground story as to why Lord Ram took an
avtar. Calling Sri Ram as “individual” shows ur clear lack of knowledge and complete
ignorance. Reads this link to know on why he took avtar :
http://www.orkut.co.in/Main#CommMsgs?cmm=16352&tid=5391642321392744716

All he could do was tell her that due to suspicion that might arise on her character he
can not accept her

God doesn’t work at ur whims and fancies. You can compose ur own set of Ramayan,
but as I have proved that ur mind is totally ignorant and hence u’re comparing acc. to ur
own narrow thinking.

I also clarified that Shri Ram showed a “mock” anger on sita & he knew all along that
Sita was chaste.

Ravan had Sita in his captive. He could have done whatever he pleased with her. But
even he doesn’t do anything respecting Sita's wish

Really? Dude, seriously buy a book from Gita press, Gorakhpur and start studying
Ramayan. You know nothing, it seems. Ravan kidnapped Sita. He wanted to force
himself on her, but he couldn’t because he had been CURSED by nalkuber that if
he ever tried to molest any woman (just like he had done with nalkuber’s) then
ravan’s head will split into 7 pieces. That is why like a coward all he could do is to
try to frighten try, convince her with wealth, etc. or use his trickery. So, if u think
highly of Ravan, go ahead.

yet he says he has made up his mind and that Sita should choose other partner liken
Laxmana, Bharat Shatrugan, Sugreev or Vibhishan

lolz, let me give u a better question to ask. Why would Shri ram go along searching for
Sita, if he knew all along that he is God Vishnu and he has incarnated to kill ravan and
sita is in ravan’s place.

As for ur question, if it was only his pride and there is no love for Sita, why should he
feel lifeless that he stops taking sweet fruits and honey and instead take only ‘wild fruits’
(which even he isn’t able to procure but others do because he feels so lifeless) and why
he reaches in such a state of grief that he isn’t able to even remove mosquitoes from his
body.

As I made it clear in the 1st post, u can’t judge a story merely from a scene, and that too
without understanding the essence of the scene.

Whatever be the fight between your parents will you even forgive your father if he
suggested your mother some grooms?

Neither me, nor my father can be as virtuous as shri ram. The same shri Ram who left
his kingdom as a mere command of his father and didn’t even utter a single word
against the mother who turned him out of the kingdom.

What would u do, if tomorrow ur brother throws u out of the house and takes all ur
property?

Tomorrow if ur wife is kidnapped, and someone (who also needs help) says he will help
u in finding ur wife. Would u say to him that first u will help or will u first ask for his help?
Shri ram didn’t say to sugriv that first the latter should help him & then only he
will help sugriv.

Tomorrow the guy who kidnaps and harasses ur girlfriend, surrenders before u, would u
forgive him? Shri ram offered to forgive ravan, if the latter comes and seeks
protection and apologises.

Even though Bharat was head-over-heels to make shri ram come back, Shri Ram
refused because he followed Dharma and it was dharma that made him undergo
the tough life of 14 yrs in the forest.
It is easy to talk nonsense, but very hard to understand the righteous character.

Finally, if my father says something like that, I would want to understand why it is said
like that. I wouldn’t make any pre-conceived judgements like u.

he doesn’t apologies her for making her go through this ordeal

Now would u tell God what he should or should not have done? Gimme a break.

It wasnt anyones business what Sita does in her Private life. Rama shouldn’t have let
Sita take the test at all. If he wanted her then pure or impure he should accept her

It isn’t anyone’s business to talk what Rama did in his personal life but still people like u,
make it their business… isn’t it?

Rama and Sita weren’t ordinary couples. Your problem is that u confuse with that. Shri
Ram had come to set some moral principles. Just imagine, what would happen if we
stop questioning today’s government’s attitude. They could do the hell they like. Agni
pareeksha was also symbolic that one can’t go scot-free (whether they’re to be blamed
or not). Even in the court of law, whether one is guilty or a culprit, one has to prove
himself whether he/she is guilty or innocent.

Shri Ram wasn’t just a husband. He was also a king and also God. If for his own needs,
he sets convenient principles, then wouldn’t the world follow it? Maybe u, as a common
man, would not care and also sita, as a role model for women, truly had shri ram in her
heart and soul, all the while. But what about a modern woman? What if tomorrow ur wife
spends a night with her male friend? Wouldn’t u question her? Shri Ram being a king,
had a duty to answer the people. He couldn’t just ask them to shut up & mind their own
business. Dharm-acharan (i.e. following the dharma) doesn’t work acc. to one’s wishes.

How many people could be answered if agni pareeksha wasn’t there? Sooner or later
someone with a corrupt mindset would have accused her. Then wouldn’t the purpose
for which Shri Ram and Bhagvati Sita took incarnation become futile.

Hence, Agni pareeksha wasn’t for Shri ram or any of his egos but for the world to know
that devi sita was forever chaste.

After all he was the one responsible for her safety and he failed to protect her

Agni pareeksha was a means to retrieve back the original sita. The original sita was
under the aegis of agni dev. So now would u say that god failed to do something…..
lol… dude, God knows everything…. It is just our SMALL and CORRUPT minds which
can’t comprehend his greatness. Again, read the link I gave u to understand why God
takes avtar. It clearly answers to this question.

Rama's act here is worse than Changez Khan!

Changez Khan killed millions of people, desecrated & destroyed thousands of temples,
raped many women and tried to impose his religion over others.

Rama on the other hand:

1) Left his kingdom & wealth and accepted the life of a hermit in his youth, merely at
his father’s will.
2) Didn’t even curse his step-mother even once for making this condition of his.
3) Happily gave the kingdom to his brother, Bharat & despite the latter’s insistence
to come back, Rama served to stay back to face the hard life of the forest just to
fulfill his father’s vow.
4) Helped sugriv get back his kingdom & didn’t impose any condition on him to help
himself before he helped sugriv.
5) Was ready to forgive ravan, the demon kidnapped & harassed his wife, if the
latter would apologize & seek Rama’s protection.
6) Observed dharma in all respects, even if it meant forsaking his own pleasures
and comforts.
7) Didn’t seek shelter in the search of comforts in any city, true to his word.
8) Loved his wife dearly & fulfilld his vow never to marry another woman, even
though he was given the offer many times.
9) Was so kind-hearted that he even gave respect to Manthara, the woman-servant
of Kaykeyi, who was the prime accused in corrupting kaykeyi’s mind to exile
Rama.
10) Was kind-hearted to all, whether human beings or vanaras like sugriv or demons
like vibhishan…. And even put his life on stake to save their lives.

I can go on writing about virtues of Shri ram for at least another 100 pages and still they
won’t end…… ! It is said that even the Vedas can’t describe him in full, so many gunas
are there in him.

So, all I will say is that, you haven’t understood Rama at all….. Finally, refrain from
such attacks based on ur pre-conceived judgements. You’re bound to get personal
comments from others, if u make such vicious attacks, esp. when u nothing about
Rama or ramayan.

Mere copy-paste from internet will not make u an expert in ramayan or in debating with
me.

JAI SHRI RAM 