They should not change the truth - Page 4

Originally posted by: Darshils

Hi mate,
Not anywhere in the Mahabharat a scene where rishis are eating meat.

Please refer to Mahabharat Anushashan Parva Chapter 88 where Bhishma is advicing Udhisthir to sacrifice animal. Now, why were the animals sacrifice when they were not used to be eaten.

Originally posted by: Darshils

Hi mate,
3. manu-smriti makes it very clear.. that eating meat allows for vices to come into u... eg. ur mind become unstable and animal-like.... so it says that a sresth vyakti i.e. an erudite being will not eat such things and be satvik aahari ... eat vegetables and fruits only...

Plants are of lower in conciousness level than animal. That means when we eat plants, we will become of lower concious level as we inherit their character.

- They are showing that Lord Shiva and Vishnu had diffrent opinions about diffrent tradition. Hard to believe.
- Lord Vishnu took the Lanka by force from Sumali but they did not show the reason, why it happened?

well it's just a programme, n ders bound to be different interpretations of the original one, but i agree that they shouldn't chnage it too much. 😃

It might be diffrent interpretations but some stuff they showed are very hard to digest.

1. Ram did not shoot a brahmastra to kill raavan
2. Lachiman will never be scared "Raam anarth ho jayge"- if u don't believe me, read ramcharimanas and learn lachiman's character
3. Muni Agastya wasn't in Lanka with Ram.. he had better things to do {QUOTE}

Ram used the Brahmastara to kill Ravan (Matli told him he could) written by Valmiki

And rishi Agastya went to Ram the morning of the final day of war to teach him new mantras.....

Dhruvi, I do not think Ram ever used Brahmastara to kill Ravan.

Point to think :-When Ramji used bhramashtra on ravan and they showed that Ravan thought not to use it. That was really to misguide ppl by showing that Ravan was good and Ramji was wrong. They showed that Ravan thought that oh Ram bhramashtra saad rahe hai, mai bhi sadhoonga to poori duniya nasht ho jaayegi something....if Ravan cared abt ppl so much then why would Vishnu bhagwaan take an avatar of Ram? What is the need for him to take an avatar....obviously Vishnu bhagwaan came to this earth as Ram avatar to destroy evilness, guide ppl abt humanity....

Over all the only thing they trying to prove is Ravan was HERO, he was the only guy started the concept of revolution, which is kind of hard to digest. If he was the HERO then why would lord have to come to kill him? Can someone answer plz

Please refer to Mahabharat Anushashan Parva Chapter 88 where Bhishma is advicing Udhisthir to sacrifice animal. Now, why were the animals sacrifice when they were not used to be eaten.

Hey mate, sry i am replying after a long time. Thanks for the refernce... it indeed does say that animals are sacrificed... sorry i missed out on that then.. but if u read the same chapter, Bhishma says, "which King Manu has described in length".. so essentially what Bhishma told Yudhistar (regarding sacrficing of animals) comes staright from teh Manu Smriti which I had written of in my last post!
Firstly, Bhishma and Yudhistir are Kings (Khshatriyas) and not Rishis (i dont deny the fact that both were great beings.. Bhishma is one of the AshtYadus and Yudhistir is Dharamraj).. Secondly, I never denied the fact that some brahmins didnt eat meat... they did (and this i tackled in the last post). Rishis dont eat meat, that is whythey are called Rishis; Brahmans can, Rishis dont! A Rishi is a Brahman with certain yams and niyams.. and the first yam (of the 5) is AHINSA..
And yes, they sacrificed meat to eat.. again, everyone is allowed to eat meat, but eating the meat after sacrifice (something like Halal in Muslim ideology) is better, but not eating at all is best and even Manu Smriti agrees with this..
Also, plants are not lower than humans! Even science agrees that plant genes are very sophisticated and of much higher orderthan humans (it was in the BBC afew days a go). Plants create their own food via a non-violent way and never in their life are under any form of vices such as anger, lust, fear... and hence are considered pure and eadable. Furthermore, Hindu (and even Budhist/Jain for that matter) believe in doing least possible hinsa... it is not possible to not eat.. You are right that eating plants is a form of violent act... however it is relatively less, as the eater doesnt feel bad in eating the plant, and the plant shows no emotions of hurt... killing a chicken to eat for instance is visible violent activity in which u feel that u r misusing ur power and the chicken is hurt...
And this wasnt the point at all.... if brahmins (not rishis) ate meat.. it does not mean that Ravan was right to kill that bull just because it destroyed his plants!!! The Brahmins, if they ate cows orany animals for that matter, were not doing right (is they call themselves brahmans and strict believers), but they ate meat perhaps as food and for sacrifice (again which i dont support).. BUT Ravan killed the cow as revenge! Mate, two wrongs dont make a right... what the brahmans did wasnt right but what the Ravan did was certainly not right as well...
NB. Brahmans are not Rishis... and whenever i have reffered to Brahmans, please note that I mean to say people who are Brahman by action and not by birth...

Thanks mate for reading this post. I am not in any form of argument with anyone. I have presented my thoughts and I welcome ur thoughts with respect.
|| RAM ||

Originally posted by: dhruvi2007

Ram used the Brahmastara to kill Ravan (Matli told him he could) written by Valmiki

And rishi Agastya went to Ram the morning of the final day of war to teach him new mantras.....

Hi Dhruvi,
In one of my posts I did say that in the Ramcharitmanas (by Tulsidas) Ram did not use the Bhramastra and Rishi Kumbhaj (Agastya) wasnt present in the time of war.. I even gave the chawpai from the Ramcharitmanas as proof... and after that I had said that in other forms of the Ramayana, the use of the Brahmastra might well have been the case, and I bow my head to such pieces of writing... Rishi Valmiki wrote what was about to happen (as his perception)... and Sant Tulsidas (believed to be a rebirth of Valmiki) wrote what he got from Shankar bhagwan... I bow my heads to both.. but I am a firm believer of Ramcharitmanas and hence as a point of my belief (which these forums are meant for) wrote out... Thanx.