- Inspired by lunch/dinner table discussions
Almost at all lunch/dinner table, this is the most frequent discussion that I find myself engaged into- a subject I sincerely feel for and want to work for in future – the right of animals to live on our planet. Should we be a vegetarian adhering to what shastra calls satvik bhojan or should we satify our taste buds by chopping animals. I try to bring out my thoughts here with the help of key findings from some research reports and anecdotal evidences. I have also tried to compliment thee findings with some of the religious beliefs that are embedded into their respective spiritual fabric.
Let me begin this with an anecdote - Once George Bernard Shaw was very ill and the doctors said that unless he started taking meat and meat soup, he would die. As he was a strict vegetarian, he refused to follow the doctor’s advice. Medical experts warned him that there was no guarantee that he would survive the illness if he would not take their advice on a suitable diet. Shaw called his personal secretary and in the presence of his doctors, dictated his will – “I solemnly declare that it is my last wish that when I’m no longer a captive of this physical body, my coffin when carried to the graveyard be accompanies by mourners of the following categories: first birds, second sheep, lambs and cows and other animals of the kind, third, live fish in an aquarium. Each of these mourners should carry a placard bearing the inscription “O Lord! Be gracious to our benefactor, G B Shaw, who gave his life for saving ours.”
I am a proud Indian and a proud Hindu. Hinduism has always had a way to deal with all aspects of life – be it through the four tier societal system or the stages of life and the orientation to life in all the respective ages. Most major paths of Hinduism hold vegetarianism as an ideal. The three main reasons for this are : the principle of nonviolence (ahimsa) applied to animals; the intention to offer only "pure" (vegetarian) food to a deity and then to receive it back as prasad and the conviction that non-vegetarian food is detrimental for the mind and for spiritual development.
Jainism is one religious idea that has vociferously appealed to all in favor of a vegetarian diet. Followers of Jainism believe that everything from animals to inanimate objects have life in different degree and they go to great lengths to minimise any harm to it. Most Jains are lacto-vegetarians but more devout Jains do not eat root vegetables because this would involve the killing of plants. Instead they focus on eating beans and fruits, whose cultivation do not involve killing of plants. No products obtained from dead animals are allowed. Jains hold self termination from starvation as the ideal state and some dedicated monks do perform this act of self annihilation. This is for them an indispensable condition for spiritual progress. Some particularly dedicated individuals are fruitarians. Honey is forbidden, because its collection is seen as violence against the bees. Some Jains do not consume plant parts that grow underground such as roots and bulbs, because tiny animals may be killed when the plants are pulled up. This is a sublime thought of highest degree.
Those were the religious aspects (which I strongly believe have had scientific rationale attached to them). However, to those who would want to delve into the realm of what they would call “real” and “modern” science let me try to cover this subject. While science teaches that all matter is composed of various combinations of chemical elements of the periodic table, the ancient scriptures of the East introduce a further dimension of knowledge. They tell of a life force within the various life forms - man, animal, bird, reptile, and plant. The least life force is found in the plants. To explain this, the scriptures speak of five creative and component qualities which are water, earth, fire, air, and ether.
Man's body is said to contain all five qualities, and he is considered to be the highest and most valued in creation. The killing of one's fellow man is regarded as the most heinous crime and in history it has merited capital punishment. The next in value are the quadrupeds and beasts which have four qualities, with ether being absent, or forming a negligible portion. According to most laws, killing of an animal usually entails a penalty equal to the price of the animal in question. The third category includes birds which have three active qualities in them - water, fire, and air. If someone kills a stray bird, he usually goes scot-free, and if a "protected" bird is killed the hunter may have to pay a small penalty for it. Lesser still is the value of reptiles, worms, and insects which have only two active qualities, earth and fire as the other three qualities exist in a dormant form. The death of this species of life does not involve any penalty according to most of the laws in this world. The least value is placed on roots, vegetables, and fruits which contain only the quality of water in an active state.
Thus, ethically speaking, the vegetarian or fruitarian diet is least pain producing, and by adopting it, man contracts the least karmic debt. Sarmad, a seventeenth century Sufi of Jewish origin, expressed the same truth in the simplest of words: "The Light of Life, which is the Lord, is dormant in the mineral world, is in the dream-state in the vegetable world, awakens in the animal world, and comes to full consciousness in man."
A major report published by the World Cancer Research Fund in 1997 recommended we lower our risk of cancer by choosing predominantly plant-based diets rich in a variety of vegetables and fruits, legumes and minimally processed starchy staple foods, and to limit the intake of grilled, cured and smoked meats and fish. Over 200 studies have revealed that a regular consumption of fruits and vegetables provides significant protection against cancer at many sites.
I somehow cannot understand the hypocritical nature of those who eat animals and at the same time would love reading/watching animated animal videos with exclamatory remarks of “How cute!” They probably find it cuter as a prospective diner. What goes through their minds all the time – Delicacy? A friend of mine has a dog who she claims she loves more than…well almost everyone, however, non vegetarian diet forms an important part of her daily life ( perhaps barring the religious day of Tuesday – here also, either you believe in religious preaching or you do not. Consistency would either want you to eat them on any day or not at all).Her ‘love for animals’ is but a lie – she is conditioned to loving the canine by virtue of it living under the same roof.
You cannot love birds and slurp at the sight of a marinated chicken at the same time! Empathy is a long lost virtue – an aspect that gave additional meaning to us being Human (a superior species). One of the shows on Discovery was showing how an animal on his voyage to a distant land came across a corpse of his ancestor – and instead of continuing with the journey, he paid his homage before leaving. Many instances show how well these animals lead their community life with friends and families – we take that away from them; their right to enjoy their mother’s warmth, to live with their brothers & sisters, to hug their father on a certain feat. Try to fill their shoes, try and imagine how would you feel – you wake up on a pleasant morning to be guillotined or see your loved ones go under knife. We screamed watching
35 comments:
great job...
A vegetarian world is impractical. There is a delicate balance maintained by virtue of food chain in our universe. We cant disturb it for fulfilling Bernard Shaw's wishes. If we stop eating chicken , they would multiply in number and we would have hens flying all around. The tigers and cheetahs would venture into cities for the rich prey. It would lead to chaos.
Apart from that, these animals in wild would soon become carriers of harmfull viruses leading to H1N1, SARS and other deadly diseases.
We have been eating non vegetarian diet right from homoerectus ages. Humans as non vegetarians is crucial for the world food chain. Any abrupt change in our diets would threaten the very existence of our civilization.
So though your thoughts are compassionate to the lower forms and appreciable, we non vegetarians have to continue with our diet to sustain the civilization.
@ ashish ...
Many thanks bro
@Bharath
The logic of Non-vegetarians as the emancipators of an anticipated future world (where situation would be chaotic - thanks to too many animals, unless we butcher them), is rather a lame excuse to cover up something that you yourself deep within know is wrong.
When you talk about H1N1 and SARS ...try mapping the same to humans. By that logic I will kill my colleague who has influenza or suffers from any other communicable disease. The Govt. (if they take your views) would starts eliminating poor who suffer from harmful disease, by virtue of their inability to provide themselves with good medical care.
My point is this - If we can be happy and healthy without killing animals, y kill them?
blog is very nicely written ...grt jod done....but at the same time I hope that Mr. blogger himself doesn’t go to Mc.Ds or pizzahuts(if u r so sensitive towards this issue)....bcz going to such places means indirectly promoting non-vegetarians ....even though u order veg burgers or pizzas but at d same time u dnt hav any probs wid d slaughtering of animals being done in d same utensils....
@ Neha :
Valid point made... On a personal note my visit to these place are not so frequent.
Having said that, if I look at things from a broader perspective, it is the demand for vegetarian diet that has made KFC (Kentucky Fried 'Chicken') incorporate vegetarian burgers in its portfolio. Moreover there are hardly any place where I would get 'just vegetarian' food - I would stick to just Sagar Ratna in that case.
I hope these guys manage their stats. A trend toward vegetarian food might help them understand that that is preferred.
Well written... you good at proving wrong things too.. but i agree with your friend- Bharath. It is not a lame excuse to cover up something...
Lets be practical here..
Love for animals is one thing and being practical is another...
Blog is very well written. I hope I am able to turn into a vegetarian one day.
U have extrapolated my views. I have confined my views only to lower beings(non humans).
Incase of humans, we have medical facilities to cure diseases and we are believed to be more hygienic than other beings. If u propose to have a ur happy and healthy world. We will have to ensure medical facilities for every creature from mouse to mammoths.
Another point i would like to add is we are what we are now coz of the non vegetarian diet of our ancestors. read this for more info
http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/article493716.ece
@ Somya
Love for animals is far more a practical endeavor than gulping their meat. Why don't we stop the forceful animal breeding??
@ Ashima
Many thanks. Hope you turn into a vegetarian very soon !
Rahul Dear
We are not resourceful enough in many small or big ways to stop animal breeding. Its not natural also.
@ Bharath
Many thanks for the research done and sharing the Hindu article. Apologies if any misinterpretation of thought took place from my side. Having said that, being the most intelligently “hygienic” race, we ourselves have conveniently defined the “lower beings” for centuries and ages. Poor and deprived are ( atrocious but true) but one part of the same wing (if we analyse historical trends and beliefs). Anyways, won’t digress further.
My belief is totally for a world class Veterinary facility in every city.
As to this report, I would like to differ with the entire theory. First it is a hypothesis. So let us not get carried away by that and mislead the readers. Moreover if that were the rationale (eating fish led to our brain development), crocodiles and grizzly bears would have been seated at the Fed and North Block (to name a couple). The Darwinian theory of evolution is under scanner to add on as a fringe note (and the other on lighter note would be that Mammoths no longer exist)
@ Somya
I didn't mean that...I was mentioning the practice of force breeding of species we eat.
we arent able to provide bare minimum healthcare facilities to 70% of our population and u r talking abt "WORLD CLASS" veterinary services!!! be pragmatic
Though report is a hypothesis if u study abt human evolution u will realise the importance of non vegetarian diet. The rate of evolution intensified with hominids shifting over to a non vegetarian diet.
& when i said mammoth it was w.r.t size and not the species/animal
So basically the article is of no consequence here.
Now I also wrote about the Darwinian theory. Having said about the healthcare system in India, do you think it is anyways related or correlated to us having an animal hospital? Narrowly looking , yes. Broadly - No.
Rwanda has better health insurance system than that of the United States. Economics takes a secondary role here. It's the political will and societal resolve that guide a public health policy complimented by funds.
A piece of fact - after evolution (basing this on the premise that we are an evolved race) - the intestines of meat-eating animals are short (about three times the length of the trunk of their body) so that the flesh is absorbed or expelled before it putrefies and produces poisons. But man has very long intestines (about ten to twelve times the length of the trunk of his body). Moreover our teeth are never designed to eat animals but are suited for vegetarian diet
:-)
Darwinian theory is of no significance here. Darwin talked only about natural selection. There are many more modern theories which have proposed forces of evolution like genetic drift, hybridization etc. Evolution of humans has no link with darwinian theory.
Now u have talked abt intestines but u forgot about appendix
Appendix is for the purpose of digestion of cellulose which is present in green leafy plants. Today it is a vestigial organ in our body. This indicates that future will be a non vegetarian world. Already there is a fall in no of vegetarians. Even the orthodox sections of society who abstained from non vegetarian diet are gradually shifting to it having realized the immense protein content in animal food.
Hey rahul..very nicely written...:)
well researched and well written...
but I go with "to each his own..." and yeah I kinda agree with your friend Bharath...
I find the argument interesting and well-written. I see 4 premises on which the argument is based and others have commented on many of these.
I will comment on the premise about religion because I have not seen a comment on that and I have a different perspective not being Hindu or Jain. To me a lot of this argument rests on one's religious beliefs and since I subscribe to a different religion I find it less persuasive. I have much respect for both religions and have to say that doing Darshan at the banks of the Ganges is one of the most amazing experiences I've ever had. However, I am, in fact, a poorly practicing Catholic. I say poorly practicing because I am not a very religious person, but here's what I remember from 13 years of Catholic school.
Catholics believe that we have dominion over the other creatures in the world (plants, fish, pigs, cows) and that it is our God-given right to harvest, slaughter and eat those other creatures. However, "good" Catholics also give thanks to God for our food before each meal as a sign of respect, these are after all His creatures and not ours. So, it is not as though we kill and eat without recognizing we are taking life, but we are not morally conflicted about taking that life.
For Catholics, the only time meat eating is a problem is during Lent. (Lent is one of the oldest Christian celebrations and it marks the period of Jesus’ trials, tribulations, and death.) During this period Catholics do not eat meat as a form of penance and self-sacrifice for our sins. However, we do this because we see meat eating as a normal and healthy part of life. It is only through it's absence that we are pained or punished.
So I do not find the religious/moral aspect of your argument to be very convincing to a Catholic.
@ Aditya
Many thanks for the kind words
@ Neha
"To each his own ..." for me is applicable not here. My whole view point is drawn from the fact that one should be compassionate and that animals should be allowed to live just the way we do in community life.
@ Bharath - You've got more fans through my blogs than yours. I need royalty ..ha ha
Bharath
Exactly my point on the Darwinian Theory. It was raised because the article had a base on the same.
Continuing from where I left, I would still not want to digress into the vestigial debate. Even goose bumps are supposed to be vestigial. I sucked at Biology for heaven’s sake! Hehe…. Btw from what I can remember, appendix has additional roles to play.
Now when you talk about the trend toward Non-veg diet, I totally detest the research finding that you must have referred to. On the contrary, the trend seems to be more toward vegetarian diet – this from my own experience as well. People today do not say “Why vegetarianism?”, they wonder if they would ever be if their “palate” allows. Moreover, even if you see a commercial picture, why do you think KFC would come up with a vegetarian portfolio when its core area of focus since its inception has been “Chicken”? If your argument is “It’s India specific strategy”, I would want to highlight the many brands in US are bringing vegetarian products. Hence there are more conscious people who like Vegetarian life style.
Here is an excerpt that talks about the American scenario:
“Proof of this trend toward vegetarianism can be found in the grocery store. Where Heinz used to be the only vegetarian baked beans available, now there are several varieties on the shelf, from Campbell's to store brands. As we previously informed our readers, Archer Daniels Midland and Green Giant (Pillsbury) are introducing the vegetarian (vegan) Harvest burger in about half the supermarkets across the country this year. Where before you couldn't find Mexican food, cakes, or breads without lard, almost all supermarkets now have choices which are animal-free. If you think back a few years, you will realize the magnitude of this change”
Lastly, with that “orthodox” people, if you are referring to people like me, then I m still a vegetarian. Though there is no orthodoxy about vegetarianism.
@Rahul
Assuming your appeal to world to go veg is heeded by everyone where do u think we are going to get the food from??
The world food grain production is going down and population rate is rising. At this juncture we need to look out new sources of food. We cant let the poor of world languish in starvation for the sake of your compassion for animals
Which Diet is better - Vegetarian or Non-Vegetarian?
First of all, there are 5 different types of vegetarians.
Those who don't eat meat of some animals (eg., Beef or meat of rabbit etc.) or some organs (eg. Brain)
Those who eat only fish and dairy products
Those who don't eat meat or fish but will eat eggs and drink milk. These are the most common type of vegetarians.
Those who do not eat meat or any animal product.
There are a few who do not eat anything but fruits.
Advantages of vegetarian foods are:
They are easily chewable, especially for the elderly who have lost their teeth.
Many elderly feel that vegetarian food is more easily digestible.
Vegetarian foods are cheaper than non-vegetarian foods.
Some vegetables can be eaten raw preventing the loss of nutrients while cooking.
Vegetarian foods do not contain as much fat as non-vegetarian foods.
Vegetarians should take care to include soyabeans, groundnuts, lentils, mushrooms and so on to get a sufficient supply of proteins.
Advantages of Non-Vegetarian foods are:
Non-vegetarian foods are rich in protein of high biological value and in Vit B complex, especially B12 which is not available in plant foods.
Fish, especially the small varieties are a rich source of calcium.
Egg-white is good source of protein and easily digested.
The incidence of high BP, Heart disease, Obesity and high cholesterol levels is found to be greater among non-vegetarians. Elders who suffer from these problems should reduce the intake of fleshy foods in their diet. Egg-white and most varieties of fish contain less fat, but are rich in protein, vitamins and minerals.
Vegetarian or non-vegetarian, the decision depends on various factors such as cultural or dietary habits of the family, personal preference, taste and avoidance of certain foods for health reasons. Whatever the case, a well-balanced diet supplying proteins, fats, carbohydrates, vitamins and minerals should be taken.
HI--------------N K S
Which Diet is better - Vegetarian or Non-Vegetarian?
First of all, there are 5 different types of vegetarians.
1.Those who don't eat meat of some animals (eg., Beef or meat of rabbit etc.) or some organs (eg. Brain)
2.Those who eat only fish and dairy products
3.Those who don't eat meat or fish but will eat eggs and drink milk. These are the most common type of vegetarians.
4.Those who do not eat meat or any animal product.
5.There are a few who do not eat anything but fruits
Advantages of vegetarian foods are
===================================
1.They are easily chewable, especially for the elderly who have lost their teeth
2.Many elderly feel that vegetarian food is more easily digestible.
3.Vegetarian foods are cheaper than non-vegetarian foods.
4.Some vegetables can be eaten raw preventing the loss of nutrients while cooking
5.Vegetarian foods do not contain as much fat as non-vegetarian foods.
Vegetarians should take care to include soyabeans, groundnuts, lentils, mushrooms and so on to get a sufficient supply of proteins.
Advantages of Non-Vegetarian foods are
===================================
1.Non-vegetarian foods are rich in protein of high biological value and in Vit B complex, especially B12 which is not available in plant foods.
2.Fish, especially the small varieties are a rich source of calcium.
3.Egg-white is good source of protein and easily digested
The incidence of high BP, Heart disease, Obesity and high cholesterol levels is found to be greater among non-vegetarians. Elders who suffer from these problems should reduce the intake of fleshy foods in their diet. Egg-white and most varieties of fish contain less fat, but are rich in protein, vitamins and minerals.
Vegetarian or non-vegetarian, the decision depends on various factors such as cultural or dietary habits of the family, personal preference, taste and avoidance of certain foods for health reasons. Whatever the case, a well-balanced diet supplying proteins, fats, carbohydrates, vitamins and minerals should be taken
I appreciate your in depth take on the matter..
Thank god I am a vegetarian... so never actually thought on these grounds.
another feed for your love of writing and gaining knowledge... have you seen the movie "Food, Inc".. do watch it.
Regards
Manpreet Singh
@ Gerald
Glad you found the argument interesting and many thanks for a Catholic perspective. It almost gives a sense of completeness to the section based on religious premise. It’s wonderful to see an American enjoy the bliss of “Ganga Darshan”
Having said that, the purpose of my blog is to evoke a sense of humane responsibility for lesser beings who I feel have all the rights to live on the planet. They were the ones who came into existence first! Here is something I could find, that may show a different picture and interpretation of your great religion :
If we carefully study the Holy Bible we find that God intended man to be a vegetarian. In Genesis, God says, "I have given you every herb-bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree-yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat" (Genesis 1:29). Even when God gave Moses the Ten Commandments, vegetarianism was necessarily implied. If we follow the commandment, "Thou shalt not kill" (Exodus 20:13), it is naturally out of the question to eat meat, fish, fowl, or eggs. How can we claim to be lovers of God, lovers of His creation, if we kill the humbler members of God's family?
Jesus Christ was the Apostle of Peace; he was the embodiment of nonviolence. He taught, "Whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also" (Like Gandhi manifested) (Matthew 5:39). If he was nonviolent to that extent, could he have been violent to the lower rungs of God's creation? Christ taught universal love and total nonviolence. He asked us not to indulge in any killing, and he commanded that we have love for all.
Moreover Gerald, with regards to the premises used, my religious orientation does not allow me to use religion and moral in a hyphenated manner. Moral is simple and does not need to be viewed through the lens of Religion. Taking away their right to live is something I will never be a party to.
@ Bharath
Since you were apparently not so happy about me going to “American Scenario”, I will take the last issue that you have raised in an Indian context. However, for a global appeal, parts of this can be mapped universally.
Being a fan of Mr. Sainath (something we agree on, I hope), you must be pretty well aware of the food scenario and so called food security issue. There are tones of grains rotting in our nation and despite the SC slapping the government, we have not done anything! Secondly, I am not convinced by your argument where you say that the world food production is going down. That’s logically impossible and if that were to be an unfortunate possibility, there would have been civil wars in many a nation.
You say - “We cant let the poor of world languish in starvation for the sake of your compassion for animals.”
Well…when was it that you saw a beggar asking for “chicken” or any malnutrition stuck family crying in protest to the government stating that the government does not provide them with two meals of chicken a day?? If you have, then probably you’re to re-living Atlantis. Non vegetarian diet never forms a possible solution to the food issues of the poor of the world. They need bread and grains. If we open the door of our godowns , it will be a logical step economically and socially. There is no need to kill animals, specifically here to save “poor” from starvation
@ Manpreet
I am glad you liked the blog and wonderful to have you as an obedient vegetarian.
Thanks for suggesting me the movie. Though last week I had this book with same name, don't know if the book is mapped on the silver scree or any association, if any!
(Disclaimed - Never got down to reading it)
Many Thanks
@ Mr./Ms. Anonymous
I appreciate your visiting my thoughts. Having said that it would be wonderful from the next time that you post under you name to avoid any identity crisis.
The content of your post takes a very equivocal approach towards the issue. Though you have brought out academic elements on the subject, I would say that we can substitute very well the NV diet with more satvik options.
@ Rahul - however much I m in support of vegetarianism, I see a flaw around your argument. If u r applying "non-violence " to non killing of animals.. or any creature lower than humans .. then the same applies to us eating plants too then .. we sure are killing them as well for our veg diet .. and that's another form of violence if we buy your argument.. but unfortunately we do not have any argument to support our eating plants !! and your "least karmic debt " theory does not go down too well with me :)
@bharat - these days due to a large number of people turning non-vegetarians, many of these animals meant for non-veg diet are a result of artificial breeding .. these animals are kept under poor conditions for long until they mature to the right time for them to get butchered.. and to feed these extra animals.. a lot of veg diet goes into use..one animal eating veg food in a quantity approx equal to that meant for 30 humans.. I suppose these few facts are enough to understand what is disturbing the food chain created by nature !!
Post a Comment