Is it true that the Pandavas and Lord Rama ate meat?

One question many may have after studying different translations of the Mahabharata and Ramayana are passages that say that the Pandavas and even Lord Rama ate meat.

One question many may have after studying different translations of the Mahabharata and Ramayana are passages that say that the Pandavas and even Lord Rama ate meat. We are very strongly prohibited from eating meat, and animal killing for the satisfaction of the human palate is considered extremely sinful, so how is it possible that the Pandavas, who are role models for us, were eating meat? What about Lord Rama, who is God himself?

Before jumping to conclusions, there are several important considerations to make.

The first is that translations of scriptures are often incorrect. Scriptures are extraordinarily difficult to translate because one has to have not only technical knowledge of the language, but even more important, one has to have very solid knowledge about the context and the conclusions of the scriptures, which one can obtain only by being connected with the proper links of the Paramparā. Scholars usually have knowledge of the language, but not of the context and conclusions of the text, and this leads to many mistakes in the translations.

In reality, the word "translation" when applied to scriptures is incorrect, and leads to the mistake of accepting everything we read in the text as absolute truth, when most of the time it isn't. Producing an English version of any Sanskrit text involves interpretation, therefore, it is more about trusting or not the author. A direct translation of a Sanskrit text very rarely makes any sense, therefore, it has always to be interpreted by the author, and the quality will thus vary wildly. In general, only a self-realized soul, or at very least someone who studied the works of previous ācāryas under his own spiritual master and absorbed well the conclusions of the scriptures, can make proper interpretations of Vedic texts. Simply being a Sanskrit scholar is no qualification.

For example, the word "māṁsa" is generally translated as "meat", but in many contexts it refers to edible offerings, and not literally flesh. Used in this sense, māṁsa may refer to fruits, roots, wild grains, etc. The word "mṛga" which is generally translated as "deer", can also be used in the sense of forest fruits and roots, or other types of vegetarian food found in the forest, a meaning that is particularly common in older texts and in the context of forest life. In reality, mṛga means "what is foraged, hunted, or sought in the forest”, which applies not only to animals, but to edible and useful plants. Ṛṣis and Tapasvīs would subsist on forest "mṛga", in the sense of wild grains, fruits, and roots, as well as other types of natural foods, collected without cultivation. The expression mṛga-vṛttiḥ, for example, refers to a lifestyle of wandering through the forest and collecting food that is naturally available, not by killing animals.

Therefore, when it is said that one was eating "mansa" it may just mean one was eating fruits and roots, and expressions such as "mṛga-anveṣaṇa” or “mṛga-vyādha" can mean to simply collect fruits and roots. Such passages are greatly dependent on the context, and often open to interpretation.

This said, there is also another point to consider, which is the fact that meat eating is actually not strictly prohibited in the scriptures. It's true that generally human beings are forbidden from eating meat, and we of course follow this principle strictly, but there are situations where meat eating is considered acceptable, like in the case of famine, or in cases where one is living in the forest and there is no other food available. Prabhupada himself mentions in a few passages that Viśvāmitra, in a situation of dire need, was forced to live on dog meat, and this didn't affect his position as a great sage.

Dharma is based on a delicate balance between different principles, and often what is considered sinful in normal circumstances becomes the right thing to do in another. Just to give a few examples:

a) Killing animals is condemned everywhere in the scriptures, but at the same time, animals are killed when offered in sacrifice, because such killing brings benefit for both the animal and the one who performs the sacrifice. Similarly, Kṣatriyas kill tigers, lions, and other ferocious animals in the forests to curb their populations and thus reduce the risks of attacks on innocent people. This killing is thus considered part of their duties as rulers and protectors.

b) Normally, it is considered extremely sinful for a man to have a sexual relationship with the wife of his brother (or anyone's wife, for that matter), but we have the example in the scriptures of Vyāsadeva begetting children in the wives of his brother, Vicitravīrya. How is that? The point is that Vicitravīrya had died before leaving descendants, and Vyāsadeva was requested by Satyavatī, his mother, to beget children in the widowed queens to continue the dynasty. In such a case, this type of union is considered to be according to the principles of dharma. We can see that it led to the birth of Pandhu and Vidhura, two great devotees of the Lord.

c) Kṣatriyas, especially when living in the forest, would resort to eating meat to preserve their strength. Kṣatriyas were meant to protect people, and for that, keeping their physical strength was fundamental. Therefore, eating meat when there was a need was considered a religious duty for them. There are no supermarkets in the forest, and even edible fruits and roots are scarce. The situation of a Kṣatriyas living in the forest is thus very different from someone with a well-stocked fridge living in the city.

d) Apart from Kṣatriyas, Brahmanas, and sages living in the forest would sometimes also eat meat if no other food was available, for the same reason. A Brāhmaṇa has to maintain his life and continue to perform his religious duties as the highest principle; therefore, if there is nothing else to eat, one may eat meat, even if this means killing a dog or other less evolved animal. In this case, such meat-eating also becomes a religious duty. Similarly, Sudras would also sometimes eat meat, because they were not expected to follow the same rigid principles as people from the higher classes.

In Kali-yuga, however, most of these practices are prohibited because people lack the proper understanding, qualification, and mental control to perform such activities without degrading themselves. A man begetting a child in the womb of his brother's wife, like in the case of Vyāsadeva, would do it solely as a religious duty, and not for enjoyment, and the lady would accept it on the same basis. However, who would be able to do the same nowadays? Similarly, animal sacrifices are also prohibited because there are no Brāhmaṇas qualified to perform the ceremonies and especially to revive the sacrificed animals.

As quoted on CC Adi 17.164: “‘In this Age of Kali, five acts are forbidden: the offering of a horse in sacrifice, the offering of a cow in sacrifice, the acceptance of the order of sannyāsa, the offering of oblations of flesh to the forefathers, and a man’s begetting children in his brother’s wife.’

Even sannyāsa is generally prohibited in Kali-yuga, because most people lack the proper qualification. Vaishnava sannyāsa is different from Vedic sannyāsa because it is simply based on the vow of using body, mind, and words in the service of Krsna, and not in following all the rules and regulations for the orthodox sannyāsa order. One may take Vaishnava sannyāsa if one is capable of following it, but a Kali-yuga man trying to follow all the rules and regulations of the Vedic sannyāsa order would simply make a mockery of the whole system.

So, coming to the conclusions, did the Pandavas eat meat while in the forest?

Probably yes, based on the principle of preserving their life and their strength to perform their duties as Kṣatriyas. Prabhupada himself mentions this in a few passages, like on March 14, 1974, Vrndavana, for example:

"Those who are kṣatriyas, they can, they're allowed sometimes to eat meat. It is understood Bhīma, Bhīma also eating sometimes meat. Bhīma. Amongst the Pāṇḍavas, only Bhīma. Not others. So if the kṣatriyas, they want to eat meat, they can be allowed on particular occasions. But they must go to the forest and kill the animal. Not that for meat-eating regular slaughterhouses should be maintained. This is all nonsense, degradation. If you want to eat meat, you go to the forest. And the śūdras, they also sometimes eat meat. Or the caṇḍālas."

However, even if we accept eventual meat eating in the case of the Pandavas, this was the exception, not the rule. The Mahabharata describes that they were generally eating fruits and roots, like in this verse, for example:

phalāni mūlāni ca bhakṣayantaḥ
payasā vṛkṣa-mūleṣu vāsaṁ kṛtvā tapasyantaḥ

"Living under trees, eating fruits and roots, and drinking water, they practiced austerities." (Vana Parva, Section 1)

In another example, Draupadī describes:

phala-mūla-mṛgaiḥ sārdhaṁ valkalājina-vāsinaḥ
śītena tapyamānāś ca vātebhyaś ca samāhitāḥ

"We eat fruits and roots like hermits, wear tree bark and deer skins, and endure heat and cold without complaint." (Vana Parva, Section 12)

However, we should be attentive when reading translations, because not all passages may be correct. In general, any translation that is not from a devotee we trust should be taken more as the author's opinion, and not as absolute truth.

What about Lord Rama eating meat?

This is probably the result of bad translation.

In the Araṇya Kāṇḍa, Lord Rama says:

phalāni mūlāni ca me mṛgāḥ caiva varānane
aśnan vanyaṁ yathākāmaṁ prajānāmi tapodhanān

This is usually translated as: "O beautiful lady (Sītā), I shall live on fruits, roots, and the flesh of forest animals (mṛgāḥ), according to the need and will of the ascetic sages."

However, mṛgāḥ can in this context be used in the sense of wild grains that naturally grow in the forest, which were commonly consumed by sages. In this case, the correct translation would be:

"O beautiful lady (Sītā), I shall live on fruits, roots, and wild grains, according to the need and will of the ascetic sages."

Even if we accept the first translation, it simply means that Lord Rama accepted the idea of living in the forest, accepting the habits of sages living there (including the eventual meat eating in situations of necessity). In other words, it describes His determination, and not that He was effectively eating it.

In the Ayodhyā Kāṇḍa, Bharata and Śatrughna met with Guha, the chief of the Niṣādas, who described:

iha vāsaṁ gataḥ rāmaḥ saha bhrātrā siyā ca ha
vasan śayyāṁ kṛtavān saḥ ca mṛga-carma-ajina-utkṛtaḥ
phalāni mūlāni caiva madhūni vividhāni ca
upanīya ca mṛgaṁ saṁprasādam akarot tathā

This verse can be translated as:

"In this place, Rāma, along with Lakṣmaṇa and Sītā, took up residence, sleeping on bedding made of deer skin and grass. He accepted fruits, roots and honey. Deer meat was also offered."

The verse describes that deer meat was offered, not necessarily that He accepted it. And again, mṛgaṁ can also be interpreted as wild grains or other ingredients available in the forest.

Therefore, we can see that the conclusion that Rama was eating meat based on these verses is highly interpretative. Sages were eating meat sometimes, and the Nishadas (tribes of hunters living in the forest) were certainly eating it. They could have offered meat to lord Rama we they visited them, but we know from the scriptures that the Lord doesn't accept meat and other non-vegetarian food, even if offered by a devotee, therefore there is no basis to, even if accepted the Nishadas offered meat to Him, that Lord Rama accepted such an offering.