Meat eating vs commitment to not eat meat by Sri Rama - contradiction
Follow up to my
post 81
One of the items that have come up in the past is about the vow supposedly made by Sri Rama to his mother before leaving for the forest and not honoring it.
I want to address this aspect as well as the Dharma aspects of meat eating.
The story is supposed to have taken place around 500 BCE or earlier. Meat eating was prevalent for survival and certainly so for the Kshatriya Varna which Sri Rama was part of.
While I really had no interest in reading the verses of Valmiki Ramayana, during another thread about two years ago, I learnt from Sri Sangom about consumption of meat occurring in Valmiki Ramayana. He actually produced specific verses then.
The claim I want to address now is that somehow adharma was implied by the sequence of events. In my understanding, there was no acts of Adharma.
Once again, concept of Dharma is a not a simple concept. Debates and discussions of this kind can help clarify what is meant by this word, and also provide what it means to live a life of Dharma.
In nature, one life form consumes another. This itself is an expression of Dharma. When we breath we kill many germs which are all Jivas of some kind. We eat plants and fruits which amounts to killing also. What is adharmic is to kill and waste (including plants).
It is also adharma to cause pain like it will cause pain to us in animals
while we have other options. Saving our life in a jungle means dealing with 'kill or be killed' law. It is adharmic to create suffering in our own body by not eating as well.
So when no other options are available killing an animal to eat is perfectly Dharmic. Animals do not kill others for fun, they do so by and large only when they are hungry. So if Sri Rama ate meat to survive in a jungle when no options are available, then it is not adharmic. It is abiding by the law of the jungle.
Similarly, sexual interest is basic law of nature and is dharmic. It is adharmic when pain is *
not minimized* as a result of our actions to anyone. While we have guidelines in Vedas about speaking truth etc, there are no commandments in our teaching. This is because human beings are endowed with wisdom as to know what is right in a *given circumstance*. This context is very important to understand what is Dharma and what is adharma.
Rama grieving and thinking about Sita in sensual manner is not Adharmic regardless of when it took place. Lakshmana's wife is safe and he made supreme sacrifice in going to the jungle. But she is safe in the palace. Just because a poet leaves out all the conversations does not mean we should think that in the story (real or imagined) that concern for his brother was not there. These are pure reflection of our mind. We see the world we are conditioned, not the way it is.
There are NO adharma acts committed regardless.
=========================================================================
Let us look at a verse (I can be corrected) that led Rama to make the so called 'vow of veganism' to his mother
चतुर्दश हि वर्षाणि वत्स्यामि विजने वने |
मधु मूल फलैः जीवन् हित्वा मुनिवद् आमिषम् || २-२०-२९
29. vatsyaami = I shall livevane = in forest; vijane = bereft of people munivat = like sagechaturdasha = fourteen varshhaaNi = years hitvaa = leaving off aamishham =meat; jiivan = living madhu muulaphalaiH = with honey; rootsand fruits.
"Ishall live in a solitary forest like a sage for fourteen years, leaving offmeat and living with roots, fruits and honey".
Sri Sangom may be referring to the following verses about meat consumption by Rama, Lakshmana and Sita
क्रोशमात्रम् ततो गत्वा भ्रातरौ रामलक्ष्मनौ || २-५५-३३बहून्मेध्यान् मृगान् हत्वा चेरतुर्यमुनावने |
33. tataH = thereafter; gatvaa = having travelled;kroshamaatram = only a couple of miles; bhraatarau = the two brothers;raamalakshhmaNau = Rama and Lakshmana; hatvaa = killed; bahuun = many; medhyaan= consecrated (edible as per Shastras); mR^igaan = deer; cheratuH = ate;yamunaavane = in the river-forest of Yamuna.
Thereafter having travelled only a couple of krosas,the two brothers Rama and Lakshmana killed many edible varieties of deer andate in the river-forest of Yamuna.
The verb root चर (cara) means"to eat" as also "to move, to go" and certain othermeanings like to graze, etc., which may not fit in here. If we take theescapist route of 'go' as the correct one, we will come to the meaning—
Thereafter having travelled only a couple of milesthe two brothers Rama and Lakshmana killed many edible varieties of deer andwent to the river-forest of Yamuna.
तौ तत्र हत्वा चतुरः महा मृगान्।वराहम् ऋश्यम् पृषतम् महा रुरुम्।आदाय मेध्यम् त्वरितम् बुभुक्षितौ।वासाय काले ययतुर् वनः पतिम्॥ २-५२-१०२
Having hunted there four deer, namely Varaaha,Rishya, Prisata; and Mahaaruru (the four principal species of deer) and takingquickly the portions that were pure, being hungry as they were, Rama andLakshmana reached a tree to take rest in the evening.
रोहितान् वक्र तुण्डान् च नल मीनान् च राघव॥ ३-७३-१४पंपायाम् इषुभिः मत्स्यान् तत्र राम वरान् हतान्।निस्त्वक्पक्षानयसतप्तानकृशान्नैककण्टकान् - यद्वा -निः त्वक् पक्षान् अयस तप्तान् अकृशान् न अनेक कण्टकान्॥ ३-७३-१५तव भक्त्या समायुक्तो लक्ष्मणः संप्रदास्यति।भृशम् तान् खादतो मत्स्यान् पंपायाः पुष्प संचये॥ ३-७३-१६
"Oh, Rama in that Pampa Lake there are bestfishes, red-carps, and blunt-snouted small porpoises, and a sort of sprats,which are neither scraggy, nor with many fish-bones. Lakshmana willreverentially offer them to you on skewering them with arrow, and on broilingthem on iron rod of arrow after descaling and de-finning them. [3-73-14b, 15,16a]
पद्म गन्धि शिवम् वारि सुख शीतम् अनामयम्।उद्धृत्य स तदा अक्लिष्टम् रूप्य स्फटिक सन्निभम्॥ ३-७३-१७अथ पुष्कर पर्णेन लक्ष्मणः पाययिष्यति।
"While you eat those fishes to satiety,Lakshmana will offer you the water of Pampa Lake, which will be in the bunchesof flowers of that lake, and which will be lotus-scented, pellucid, comfortablycool, shiny like silver and crystal, uncontaminated and that way pristine, bylifting it up that water with lotus leaf, making that leaf a stoup-likebasin... [3-73-16b, 17, 18a]
=======================
Let us understand if there are any contradictions in terms of the verse 2.20.29 by examining the context.
When Sri Rama in the story announced his desire to keep the word of his father and leave for the jungle, it is possible for one to have a doubt that he might change his mind after leading a few days of harsh environment of a jungle. This is like some people who made vow to go to India for good from America only to return within 2 years. Nothing wrong with them, but they ensured they had return plans and infrastructure intact to get back.
What is very moving in the story is that Sri Rama, a prince systematically dismantles his entire infrastructure of possessions. He gives them all away but does not insist Sita do so (she kept her ornaments) when she joined him to go the jungle. Sri Rama ensure that there is no possibility of him returning for any reason. He made a commitment to lead a life of Tapas and not one seeking for any pleasures. If he enjoyed meat he was ready to give up. That is all the verse means. It does not say he will never eat meat to survive. The verse means that he is not seeking enjoyment or relishing meat.
In fact there are other verses Sri Rama reiterates his vow (to be understood as when options exist). The vow does not mean to die and kill oneself which is adharmic in this context also.
कुश चीर अजिन धरम् फल मूल अशनम् च माम् |विद्धि प्रणिहितम् धर्मे तापसम् वन गोचरम् || २-५०-४४
"Knowme as under a vow to be an ascetic, wearing the robes of bark and deerskin andby piety, I am determined to live in the forest by eating roots and fruitsonly."
पित्रा नियुक्ता भगवन् प्रवेष्यामः तपो वनम् |धर्मम् एव आचरिष्यामः तत्र मूल फल अशनाः || २-५४-१६
"Oh,Venerable sage! Commanded by our father, we are entering a lonely forest topractise asceticism, living on roots and fruits."
न मांसं राघवो भुङ्क्ते न चापि मधुसेवते |वन्यं सुविहितं नित्यं भक्तमश्नाति पञ्चमम् || ५-३६-४१
"Ramais not eating meat, nor indulging even in spirituous liquor. Everyday, in theevening, he is eating the food existing in the forest, well arranged forhim."
The last one is from a later Kanda.
To claim that there are immorals taught is Ramayana is not supported. That is the bottom line
