Was he or wasn't he a vegetarian? That is the question! Big issue it is currently. What I found quite funny about the controversy is that once upon a time, not so very long ago, citizens of a certain inclination would always doubt that Lord Ram ever existed at all. Such people would always shout from the rooftop that Ram was just a literary character.
Why, recently at the Dusshera time, he was disowned, and Ravana was glorified so much so that there were threats against Ravana Dahan, burning the image of Ravana on the Dusshera Day! Even then I found it funny that such people dismiss Ram as a mere literary character, while the antagonist from the same literary text is real for them!
I am absolutely sure that most such people embroiled in the controversy would not have read the Ramayana. Tough to believe they would have! At least they could refer to the Ramraksha Stotra which is quite commonly recited in almost every household. Even if it is not recited by them/theirs, it should have been an easy cross reference for them as it is not as big as the Ramayana!
In the Ramraksha Stotra, which consists of just thirty-eight couplets, Shloka Number Eighteen clearly begins with "falmulashinau"(फलमुलाशिनौ ) which absolutely transparently and obviously indicates that Lord Ram (and his brother Lakshmana, too) subsisted on fruits and roots! If that is not vegetarian, what is?!?
In their hatreds and dislikes, what have certain people reduced themselves to! Such 'citizens' would assert everybody's right to eat whatever he/she wants to. They would, however, insist that a deified literary character (as they see him) better hunt animals and eat the meat because it suits their interpretation, their version of the story! Hey Ram indeed!
Pratima@Anthropomorphism is interesting indeed only if it sheds light on issues fundamentally human(e)!
No comments:
Post a Comment