Hare Krishna dear devotees!
I have a question that I hope some of you can assist me with.
It is now, of course, well known that Hindus have not always been traditionally vegetarian and that, in fact, the earlier portions of the Vedas are replete with references to animal sacrifices, etc. Indeed, as Jha pointed out in his book 'The Myth of the Sacred Cow', the cow was not exempt from animal sacrifice prescriptions and indeed cattle were often slaughtered for food and ritual purposes. Of course, things developed and animal sacrifices came to be seen as morally problematic and over a course of centuries vegetarianism became the preferred diet for aspiring spiritualists.
Now none of this is itself controversial. Personally, I am persuaded by the ethical case against meat-eating and I find that reading animal rights treatises contribute to my understanding of the myriad ethical issues involved in our treatment of animals. From a devotional perspective, I feel that non-vegetarianism, with all the violence and injury that it entails, is not conducive to my practice of bhakti and therefore is best avoided.
However, I find that Shri Ramachandra's practice of eating meat (as it is described in detail in the Valmiki Ramayana) often problematises my own attempt to articulate the case against non-vegetarianism from a Hindu devotional perspective. All of the traditional arguments offered to countenance Ram's meat-eating seem insufficiently persuasive in my view. To say that we mustn't do as Ram did (but that we should rather do as he said) seems, for example, to undermine his position as 'maryada pursottoma' and thereby to diminish the moral value we can derive from his actions and conduct.
How do all of you negotiate Rama's meat-eating with your own (presumably) strongly-held ethical beliefs against non-vegetarianism.
Sincere apologises for the triviality of my question!
Not a trivial question Anuj!
Briefly, I would say that Rama, as maryada purusottama, is the aspect of divinity that is most difficult to follow. He is an example of extreme morality for a time long long ago, so I wouldn't really suggest that a Hindu argument for vegetarianism be made from the morality of Rama anyway. His social class as a ksatriya is also different, and there are different rules for ksatriya's than other classes, what to speak of kali-yuga classless people. There are plenty of secular arguments for vegetarianism which are more compelling because they deal with our current times.
As for a spiritually based argument for vegetarianism, we would be more inclined to follow the example of Caitanya Mahaprabhu. He is the avatara and example for our age. Our other prominent deity, more so than Ramachandra is Govinda Krsna who is more "human" than Rama. He is an agricultural deity, demonstrating the protection of cows and the cultivation of land. For morality and divinity, our example is Mahaprabhu, and he worships Govinda/Gopala - the protector of cows.
But there are many followers of Rama - who consider him their istha-deva yet follow a vegetarian diet. What is their impetus for vegetarian diet? If Krishna ate the flesh of animals, would we?
Meat-eating is one thing. Animal slaughter is another.
Rama would only do something if it was good for everyone to follow - but that "something" was the following the dharma, and as Madan said, different actions constituted dharma for different classes - the dharma of the ksatriya included killing of animals for the protection of crops and citizens (even just by serving as a target to hone their battle skills) and the eating of animals before going into battle. but because they were all tied into a dharmic-system through which they all progressed, the souls in the animal bodies were elevated. But who now lives according to Vedic dharma - who lives such a dharmic-ly pure life that they can liberate their food.
This is the planet of death - no one lives without the expense of another's death. Rama's eating meat, upon occassion, if actually at all, liberating the animals as a result of living a perfect dharmic life, is a far cry from any meat-eating culture that one could compare it to today. By dharmic standards, I wouldn't liberate a carrot what to speak of living such a pure life to justify exposing a sentient being forced to experience the untold nightmares of current slaughter-house conditions during a time when alternatives are available.
In this day and age, the path to tread is supra-dharma. We could not swim in the river of dharma with Kali-yuga currents - so the Lord created a path along the bank of that river, and extended his hand to us as our master guide, who after first plucking us from that river, can lead us on that path as it gently winds up the mountain, down the valleys, eventually leading to the village of Nadiya.
Also Rama ate meat in tho forest, I believe. No? If so, what else would he eat as a warrior? Not leaves and roots. There are no grains or veggies growing there and no cows to milk. Agriculture is different from forest dwelling. Given this context, his meat eating is hardly something one can site today as a justification for meat eating.