On this Rama Navami day, let me recall a story told
by Sita to Rama that is found in Aranya khanda of Valmiki Ramayana. Sita talks
about a Dharma of shunning cruelty to people with whom there is no enmity. This
idea is relevant in shunning meat food too, as meat is procured by killing the
hapless animal which had not done any harm to the eater and to the one who
kills it for selling as food. This particular episode in Aranya khanda is vital
for understanding that Rama did not eat meat as per any verse of Valmiki
Ramayana. A discussion on this was earlier done by me in my blog Does
Sanathana Dharma support eating meat? (Part-1)
The setting is in Aranya Khanda after meeting the
sage Suteekshna. He requests Rama to vanquish the demons of Dandaka forest as
they were constantly giving trouble to the sages like him who are engaged in
ascetic life in the forest. Rama agrees to do that. Sita hands over the bows
and swords to Rama and Lakshmana. But she is distressed while doing that. She
expresses that to Rama which can be read in 9th
sarga in Aranya khanda.
She says that there are three definite products of
self- gratification that arise from desire. One is speaking
falsehood. The second is desire for another
man’s wife. The third is cruelty without enmity.
The first two are irrelevant in Rama’s case. But by agreeing to Suteekshna’s
request Rama is at the verge of sticking to the third, namely cruelty without
enmity.
Sita goes on to explain that Rama is set out to
destroy the people whom he does not know and with whom he has no prior enmity.
Rama has come to the forest to lead the life of a sage. His parents would be
happy to only hear that of him. But by taking up the arms now, the faculty of
the weapons would eventually come to stick to him.
To explain this Sita tells the story of a sage who
lived in the forest amidst animals that adored him. He never intended to do any
harm to any life. As if to challenge his nature, once Indra came to him and
asked to him to take care of his sword until he returned. The sage agreed and
started to guard that sword. To keep up his promise, he could not leave the
sword when he went out to do his daily chores. So he started carrying that
weapon all the time. But what happens is that the faculty of the weapon comes
to stick to the carrier of that weapon. Anger, infuriation and ultimately the
propensity to use the weapon driven by such faculties overpowered the sage. As
a result the sage did things that led him to hell.
Sita says that all this happened owing to the reason
of associating with a weapon constantly, and the sequel of constant association
with weapon is as good as constant association with fire.
Rama being a kshatriya has already carried the
weapons, but that was in Ayodhya. In the Dandaka forest where he has come to
lead a life of a hermit he must not carry it as the association with it would
cause him to injure people with whom he has no enmity, even though they happen
to be demons. As a Kshatriya he can use weapons (cruelty) only as a means to
protect the suffering people. Otherwise the constant contact with weapons would
transfer the quality of weapons to him and make him act as directed by that
quality.
Rama convinces her that by agreeing to the request
of Suteekshna he is only agreeing to protect him and other sages. So it is
perfectly justifiable to kill the demons unknown to him and with whom he has no
direct enmity. After all it is only for the protection of the hapless ones, he
is going to kill the people with whom he has no direct enmity.
The outward message of this episode is that Rama is
always there for protection of suffering people. But the inner message of this
episode that he will not do any harm to any life where there is no enmity with
him and that wherever such cruelty is perceived to be done by him it was for
the purpose of protecting some deserving people who has suffered on account of
those people.
And this
nature – not being cruel to beings that have in no way harmed you or not being
an enemy with you – is the justification for shunning food got by killing
animals. Sita tells this tendency – cruelty without enmity – as one of the
three desires of man that are fundamental to self- gratification. Killing a
life for the gratification of the stomach is therefore not desirable. Such a
thing is permitted only in the case of saving life when one is dying of
starvation (Apad Dharma).
Based on this one can say that Rama could have never
eaten food that was procured by killing a life. The so-called verses in Valmiki
Ramayana that are interpreted by non-vegetarian lovers as indicating that Rama
ate meat are pure mis-interpretations.
That Sanatna Dharma had never supported food
procured by killing can also be noted in the way one Satyavratha earned the
name “Trishanku”. According to Harivamsam,
tri-shanku means three blemishes. Satyavratha came to be called as Trishanku
due to three blemishes or dosha he had.
One is pithru dosha - common form is the debt to one’s parents that is unpaid.
The second is Guru droha by having killed the milk
cow (Kamadhenu – the wish-giver) of Vashishta - a common form of this is the harm done to environment and others while fulfilling one’s
wishes.
The third is eating
unsanctified food. This does not mean that meat got by killing an animal
can be sanctified by means of mantras or prayers. As cruelty without enmity is
the dictum, meat itself is unsanctified food. Eating that would create its own
karma which cannot wiped out by prayers but by undergoing the same suffering
that the animals underwent.
One must not interpret this dictum – cruelty without
enmity – to mean that cruelty is justified if there is enmity. In the case of
enmity when one is drawn into tit for tat like fights, whatever justification
is there on the part of one to inflict injury on the other would to some extent
modify the retributive karma that accrues out of that act. In the case of
cruelty without enmity as in the case of killing life for food, there is
absolutely no justification that can reduce the retributive / resultant karma
that accrues to one for having been the cause for that cruelty to a hapless
life.
