Vegetarianism - Plants have life too. (Seek Answers)

[Guest guest]

Why Vegetarianism?

 

Dear Devotees: Humble Pranams:

 

adiyEn has the bhagyam of working with some kids in the Universities in the

Chicago area.

 

One of the Basic Tenets of VEDICS (Vaishnavaism) is Vegetarianism.

=======================================================

Now the Kids normally ask plants have life too, how can you kill or eat the

plant alive.

 

We normally say that plants do not have a Central Nervous System to feel the

pain.

(Minimal suffering to all beings)

 

Now is there any other explanation. (that would make sense to kids)

If we dig in the Vedas there are so many places where meat eating is allowed,

and recommended.

(Thank god these kids do not have access/knowledge of these, but adiyEn would

like to get

answers that would satisfy the scientific mind)

 

 

azhwAr emberumAnAr JeeyAr thiruvadigalE saranam

 

adiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan

Mukundan Vangkipuram Pattangi

http://www.radioramanuja.com

[Guest guest]

Shrimathe Raamanujaaya Namaha.

Dear Sir,

My sincere pranamams to you and all the bhagavathas in this list.

I have some information to share with you regarding this message.

 

You had mentioned that - One of the Basic Tenets of VEDICS (Vaishnavaism) is

Vegetarianism.

I slightly differ from this. Vegetarianism is One of the Basic Tenets of VEDICS

(Brahminism). The Brahmins(the knowledge caste) have to remain vegetarian so as

to sustain the saatvika gunas in them. In fact there are some exceptions in the

vegetables too like onion, garlic, drum-stick, raddish, vegetables that grow

under the earth that the brahmins should not eat, so as to maintain the saatvika

character. If they eat meat the rajasa and the thamo gunas will enter them.

 

Vaishnavism has nothing to do with vegetarianism. Guhan, who helped Sri

RamachandraMurthy a lot, ate and served meat to the lord. He is still one of the

well known Vaishnavas that the vaishnava community has known.

 

Vaishnavism in fact doesn't belong just to human beings but also to all living

beings in this universe(famous example - gajendra the elephant). It is not

specific to any of the 4 varnas (the 4 castes namely Brahmana, Kshatriya,

Vaishya and Kshudra). Under Vaishnavism, everyone(including the non-human living

beings) are considered to be Baghavathas, those who surrender everything to the

Lord(saranagathi) and claim that whatever they do is a service to the God.

 

Hence, Vaishnavism and Brahminism shouldn't be confused. We have lot of examples

of people who weren't Brahmanas but were Vaishnavas like Vibheeshana(asura

community), Arjuna(Kshatriya community), many azhwars etc.

 

Vedas recommend eating meat to the appropriate caste. We should go through the

explanation of the Vedas by our aacharyas to understand the same. If we read

anybody else's explanation we would fall into the illusion of their

interpretation of what the Vedas mean, rather than understanding the actual

intention of the same.

 

 

Coming to the trees and the animals, yes it is definitely correct that they have

life.

So, how do the brahmins(not vaishnavites) justify that eating the plants alive

is correct. I have few thoughts on this and if they are wrong I request the

great scholars in this list to excuse me and feel free to correct the same.

 

The basic concept of life in this world is (Scientifically and Logically) LIFE

EATS LIFE and all the living beings in this world have to abide this rule. This

is the law of nature. When we say that life eats life, very few exceptions are

taken into account like great saints who just breath/eat air, drink water and

survive for ever and the plants which doesn't eat any other life rather they eat

the minerals, water, light, air etc - which are nothing but the basic five

elements of this prakrthi - the panja bhoothas.

 

Let me first define what is meant by living to understand the following better:

 

Living means to eat, to grow, to reproduce and to die.

 

A -- THIS world is made of 2 things:

1. Non-living - those that donot eat, grow, reproduce and die - made of the

different combinations of the basic five elements - scientifically agreed. EX:

Water, minerals etc.

2. Living - the one that lives, eats, grow, reproduce and die - scientifically

agreed

 

B -- The Living beings are categorised into 2:

1. The one that cannot move, see, feel etc - plants which eat the non-living,

like water, minerals etc - scientifically agreed.

2. The one that can move, see, feel etc - animals which eat the living

beings(including plants) - scientifically agreed.

 

The plants are considered to be inferior to the living beings as they cannot

move, see, feel etc.

 

C -- The animals (living beings that can move, see, feel etc) are again

categorised into 2:

1. Non-humans - which cannot think or rather which donot have the sixth sense -

scientifically agreed.

2. Human - which can think or rather which have the sixth sense - scientifically

agreed.

 

The Non-humans are considered to be inferior to the Human as they cannot think.

 

According to the law of survival every living being has to eat

something(Brahmins are no exceptions to this). The basic design of the human is

such that human cannot just eat the non-living(the minerals, water etc the combo

of the five elements) alone to survive.

So the human have to eat living beings too.

So the question at this point is, why do brahmins(the vegetarians) eat plants

and not animals. This is justified by the point B mentioned above. Plants are

inferior to animals. They don't see or feel. They don't feel hurt. So, when

compared to eating animals, eating the plants make better sense. This may be one

of the possible ways, by which, being a vegetarian shall be justified.

 

In that case why the other 3 caste people don't follow this? This cannot be

answered scientifically at this point because the concept of the Saatvika,

Raajasa and the Thamo gunas, the concept of aathman etc have to be first

understood by going through the proper explanations and justifications from the

Vedas through our Aacharya's explanation. Also, it is not within the scope of

the current context.

 

Hope the above mail was useful to atleast a little extent.

 

If I had made any mistakes it is purely out of my ignorance and if I had given

some fruitful reply it is because of the blessings of my lord Sriman Narayanan

and my aacharyar Shri Raamanujar.

 

Thanks for reading my mail with patience.

 

Sarva aparaadhaan kshamasva...

 

Aazhwar Emberumanaar Jeeyar Thiruvadigale Saranam.

Raamanuja Daasan,

Lakshmi Narasimhan

 

-

Pattangi

Thursday, November 08, 2001 1:27 AM

bhakti-list

Vegetarianism - Plants have life too. (Seek Answers)

 

Why Vegetarianism?

 

Dear Devotees: Humble Pranams:

 

adiyEn has the bhagyam of working with some kids in the Universities in the

Chicago area.

 

One of the Basic Tenets of VEDICS (Vaishnavaism) is Vegetarianism.

=======================================================

Now the Kids normally ask plants have life too, how can you kill or eat the

plant alive.

 

We normally say that plants do not have a Central Nervous System to feel the

pain.

(Minimal suffering to all beings)

 

Now is there any other explanation. (that would make sense to kids)

If we dig in the Vedas there are so many places where meat eating is allowed,

and recommended.

(Thank god these kids do not have access/knowledge of these, but adiyEn would

like to get

answers that would satisfy the scientific mind)

 

 

azhwAr emberumAnAr JeeyAr thiruvadigalE saranam

 

adiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan

Mukundan Vangkipuram Pattangi

http://www.radioramanuja.com

 

 

-----------------------------

- SrImate rAmAnujAya namaH -

To Post a message, send it to: bhakti-list

Archives: http://ramanuja.org/sv/bhakti/archives/

 

 

Your use of is subject to Get

more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

>Why Vegetarianism?

 

I wrote couple of articles related to why Vegetarianism several years

ago in response to some questions in alt.hindu. I am reproducing

them without editing since it address some of the issue raised.

Would respond to any questions on these articles leisurely when I

find some time. PraNaams.

Hari OM!

Sadananda

------------

Here is Article I

 

Sub: Does Hinduism require one to be a vegetarian

 

Recently two questions were asked - Does Hinduism require one to

believe in God? Does Hinduism require one to be a vegetarian? In a

recent article, I have addressed the first question. Here I will

provides some thoughts for the second question.

 

In relation to the first question, I have discussed what Hinduism

stands for and who is truly a Hindu. In essence, Hinduism is

Sanatana Dharma, and that Dharma is from time immemorial - it

involves pursuit for Moksha. Therefore the one who is seeking for

Moksha is a true Hindu, irrespective of the nationality, caste, creed

or gender. With that catholic understanding, one can see that

Hinduism becomes a way of life because the pursuit of the essential

purpose of life is the goal of the Hindu life.

 

With that perspective, it is easier to analyze all other questions

including whether Hinduism requires one to be a vegetarian. Since

the purpose of life is securing liberation or Moksha, until we reach

that we need to live. Only death is the death of the ego that

happens in the spiritual awakening. Hence, keeping the body alive by

nourishment is the our Dharma. That means one has to eat to live

(not the other way - living for eating sake!)

 

Life lives on life. That is the law of nature. Whether I eat an

animal or plant I am destroying a life. Among all life forms Man is

different from the rest of the life kingdom. He has the capability

to discriminate the right from wrong. That also gives him the

freedom of choice. Plants have just body and perhaps a rudimentary

mind. Animals have both body and mind to express feelings and

suffering, but rudimentary intellect. Man has not only body, mind

but also well developed intellect to discriminate, decide and to

choose. He always has three choices - Karthum sakhyam, Akartum

sakhyam and anyatha karthum sakhyam meaning he can choose to do, not

to do and do it other way. For animals and plants there is no

freedom of choice. They are instinctively driven. Cow does not sit

down before meals, and inquire whether it should be a vegetarian or

non-vegetarian. So is a tiger. For a Man the discriminative

intellect is very evolved. Plants and animals do not commit sin in

their actions because there is no will involved in their actions. For

a human, the story is different. You may wonder why I brought sin in

the argument. Let me explain.

 

Sin is nothing but agitations in the mind. It is these agitations

that prevent me in my journey to Moksha. Mind has to be pure (meaning

un-agitated) for me to see the truth as the truth. (Bible also says

Blessed are those whose minds are pure). To define sin more

scientifically - it is the divergence between the mind and intellect.

Intellect knows right from wrong - but we feel like doing things even

though we know they are wrong - that is, the intellect says

something, but mind which should be subservient to intellect rebels

and does whatever it feels like. This divergence is sin. After the

action is performed - there is a guilt feeling, because intellect,

although was overruled, does not keep quite, it keep prodding " I

told you it is wrong. Why did you do it?" With peace of mind gone Man

goes through a "Hell". Man is not punished for the sin, he is

punished by the sin. - Think about it.

 

All yogas, if you analyze clearly, are bringing this integration

between the body, mind and intellect. For a Yogi - What he thinks,

what he speaks and what he does are in perfect harmony or alignment

(Manasaa vacha karmana). In our case, we think something but have no

guts to say what we think, our lips says something different from

what are thinking - if you watch the lips and the actions that

follow, they are again different! - There is no integration any

where. We live a chaotic life. Besides deceiving others, most

pathetic is we deceive ourselves, and the worst thing is we don't

even realize that.

 

Now, when a tiger kills and eats, it does not commit a sin. Because

its intellect is rudimentary, and it does not go through any analysis

before it kills - should I kill or not to kill - Should I be a

non-vegetarian or should I be vegetarian". When it is hungry, to

fill the natures demand, it kills it pray and eats what it needs and

leaves the rest when it is full. It is not greedy either. That is

its Swadharma. It follows a beautiful ecological system.

 

It is only man who destroys the ecology by being greedy. "Should I

be a vegetarian or non-vegetarian?" is asked only by a man. Why that

question comes? Because man has discriminative intellect, and he

does not want to hurt others to fill his belly. He learns what

`hurt' means because he surely does not want others to hurt him.

Plants are life forms too, should one hurt them?. You may ask. If

one can live without hurting any life forms that is the best, but

that is not possible. Life lives on life - that is the law of

nature. My role as a human being with discriminative intellect is to

do the least damage to the nature for keeping myself alive. At

least, I am not consciously aware of suffering of the plants. That

is why eating to live and not living to eat is the determining

factor.

 

In Bhagawad Geeta, Krishna emphatically says that a Sadhaka (one who

is in pursuit of Moksha) should have a compassion for all forms of

life - Sarva Bhuuta HitErathAH. In the spiritual growth, one

develops subtler and subtler intellect (Sukshma Bhuddhi in contrast

to TeeKshna Buddhi, i.e. sharper intellect). That is, the mind is

becoming quieter, calmer and self-contended. Your sensitivity to

suffering of others also grows. Hence it is advisable to be a

vegetarian.

 

Even the traditional non-vegetarians repel against eating dogs and

cats or other human beings! Why? Meat is a meat after all! But with

familiarity grows compassion.

 

There are many two legged animals in human form with rudimentary

intellect. They behave like animals, as we heard a case recently in

Michigan of man-eating humans keeping them in the refrigerator. But

in the evolutionary ladder one develops subtler and subtler

intellect, then it is advisable to be a vegetarian - only taking from

nature what it needs to keep the body going. One should not hurt any

life forms to satisfy the craving of ones tongue.

 

Should Hindu be a vegetarian? Since such a question already arose in

your mind, you have a degree of sensitivity not to hurt other living

forms to satisfy your belly. Then you may be better off not eating

meat and you will be at peace with yourself. Since you are

sensitive to this the intellect directing you one way and your mind

wants some baser pleasure and directing you the other way. When you

go against your own intellect you commit sin. That is against your

SWADHARMA as Krishna puts it. Swadharma in a nut shell is what your

intellect or conscious believes in.

 

Besides, now, even the traditional non-vegetarians are choosing

vegetarianism not because of any compassion to other animals but they

are recognizing that it is not good for their health.

 

I have already mentioned that Hinduism do not overemphasize the doos

and don'ts, as commandments, but you determine your own doos and

don'ts based on your intellectual values, culture, education and

primary goal in life. You will find that following your Swadharma

makes you comfortable with yourself. It is not others to judge, it is

for you to judge. If you are agitated, that means you are loosing

peace of mind for these and that is a sin! Imagine your self that

chicken or cow that you are eating. Would you not advice the guy who

is eating you to be a vegetarian instead and spare its life. Do not

say you are not killing the animal yourself, and killing will go on

whether you eat or not. If you don't eat, one animal is spared.

This is the demand and supply. I may not be stealing my self, but if

I buy the stolen property knowing that it was stolen, it is a crime!

Is it not? Now there are imitation meats too - so why the crave for

a dead meet. Why do you want your stomach to be a burial ground for

a dead animal.

 

From Hinduism point, it does not really care. All it wants is for

you to pursue the path towards the Sanatanadharma. So do what is

needful to keep your mind calm and un-agitated. Purification of the

mind is the means for attaining salvation, and that is the goal of

human life. Since by willful actions we got ourselves into this mess

of SamsAr, or suffering, it is by willful Sadhana (your efforts)

only we can get out of it. Lord has given us the intelligence to

accomplish this - Krishna declares - you are better off following

your swadharma than paradharma. Swadharma (is not just what caste

you belong or what religion you belong) in the final analysis it is

what your intellect or conscious dictates. Because, after the action

is performed, it is your mind that has to settle accounts with your

intellect.

 

Do yourself a favor - eat only what you need, I do not think eating

meat comes as your essential need. In fact it could even be harmful

for your body if not to the mind.

 

Hari Om and Tat Sat. - Sadananda

 

 

--

K. Sadananda

Code 6323

Naval Research Laboratory

Washington D.C. 20375

Voice (202)767-2117

Fax:(202)767-2623

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

>Why Vegetarianism?

 

Here is article II. answers to some questions raised by one Mr.

Srinivas who was a Vaishnavate slipped into some wrong habits.

----------------

 

Srinivas,

 

Greetings! I am happy to read your discussion on my article.

I am giving below some more thoughts for you to ponder about. Do not

accept them but do not reject them either. But contemplate on them

to see if they make some sense.

 

The question of - should I be a vegetarian or not - obviously comes

to only for a man who has a choice to make. In fact he has no

choice but to choose. All other life forms instinctively fall within

the system or blend with the nature. Only because, man stands tall

in the creation with his intellect highly evolved is capable of

making that choice. The other life forms have less of choice and are

governed more by the instincts. In the anatomy of all life forms,

the plants come the lowest with the body, if at all with a

rudimentary mental development ( as shown by the Dr. Bose) and no

conceivable intellect. Animals come with body and mind to some

degree but with very limited intellect. (I read a story where a cat

in New York ran back in to the house that was in blaze to save her

kittens and in the process sacrificed her own life). Only in humans

(in most of them) body, mind and intellect developed to the maximum.

They understand what hurt means since they feel intensely when

someone hurts them. All dharmas (doos and don'ts) that are taught in

all religions are only based on these simple principles.

These are universal values, irrespective of time and space. What I

expect others to do to me, I should do to others - this is my dharma.

I expect others to tell me truth - then telling the truth is my

dharma. I expect others to be considerate, kind and forgiving my

faults, not to steal my property, respect me as I am, not to hurt me

by action, by word or by thought. Then these are my does. The

reason is I have a value for these since I value others to follow

these towards me. When I compromise my values for pleasure or for

money for whatever sensuous reason or even for fear, I raise

conflicts in my own mind and intellect. Feeling of guilt is due to

the divergence between what my conscious (intellectual values)

dictates versus what I feel like doing (mental or sensuous

enjoyments). I am giving this just as a background. All dharmas or

values are not for the sake of religion but only fundamentally

related to keep me in a state free from conflicts, to be in peace

with myself; which everyone values the most.

 

Based on the evolutionary ladder in the life forms, all life forms

are not the same, even the expression of life through the equipments

are not the same. Plants operate mostly at body level, animal mostly

at body and mind level and human at body, mind and intellect level.

On that basis killing plants is not the same as killing an animal

which is not the same as killing a human being. Even by law the

last one is a no-no in any society even though human is as much as a

mammalian as a cow or dog or cat or monkey. Human meat can be

consumed since it solves both the food problem and the population

problem. But even the notorious meat eaters repel at the thought of

that- why? Only law alone can kill a human when that human behaves

worse than an animal as it has happened for the Oklahoma bombing

culprit.

 

I do agree that in destroying plants you are killing the life forms

too. But are you sensitive to that? My discussion pertains not just

to intellectual understanding as a thought, after the belly is full.

It is not understanding as a thought it should be an understanding as

a fact. It is called an assimilated value. Let me give you a gross

example. That I am man and not a woman is not just an intellectual

understanding as a thought but understanding as a fact. There is no

misconceptions any time about my identity. In the killing of animal,

the understanding is without a question but the suffering of the

animal is vivid to our understanding. True plant-suffering we

cannot see - since our sense are not sensitive. Even though

intellectually at a scientific level we understand that they are life

forms too, the comprehension of their suffering is not there. Thank

God for that! Otherwise we will be starving to death.

 

Remember, I did not advocate killing of the plants either if you are

truly sensitive about it. Our saastra-s have recognized this as a

problem. In olden days when the plant kingdom was plenty, those that

are contemplative were asked to eat only the fruits that fall from

the tree and plat the seed afterwards. That is why I said, food is

advised to be taken on a need basis. I have to keep this body alive

till I have self-realized or God-realized (read my related article on

Hinduism). Hurting my body is as much a no-no as hurting another

body. So I have to eat to live. Life lives on life. Since I have a

choice I should exercise the right choice to keep my body alive.

Eating plants is therefore more preferable than eating animals or

humans.

 

Since there is a sacrifice of life, the scripture advice us not to

eat without first offering to the Lord, who is the enlivening factor

in all life forms. There is a sandhyaa vandanam - I donot know if

you are brahman and had gone through upanayanam where they teach you

the trikaala sandhya. It is said that sandyaavandanam is essential

for a brahman ( here true brahman is one who has a satvik mind - a

mind sensitive to the feeling of others - brahman charati iti

brahmanaH - a contemplative student - truly it is not based on birth

) and it is said he does not gain anything by doing sandhya but if he

does not do he incurs a sin. If you understand the true import of

the mantras you see why it is said like that - It is the recognition

of the fact that you are standing on a platform supported by your

lineage(gotram), benefiting from their culture, traditions and values

that have been passed on from generations and you are getting benefit

from all life forms and from the very source of the life in this

plant, the sun. It is a recognition of the fact and recognition of

the problem and request that your sins (commissions and omissions) be

forgiven. The purpose is not to chant mechanically but to make one

to be sensitive to where we stand in the society in the hierarchy in

the creation. It is oblations to our ancestors, oblations to the

nature and oblations to creation. Before the food is taken, it is to

be offered and then taken - then it becomes a prasaadam - part at

least symbolically should be offered first to bhuutas - crows or

other scavengers who help us indirectly. Food should be taken as

prasaadam automatically imply that one cannot be greedy and only take

what is needed.

Before the former tills the land, he does prayer to the earth since

in the tilling process he is destroying many living organisms.

Before the harvest is taken, prayers are offered. These are

developed to make one responsible and make one sensitive to the

nature. That is why not doing is said as a sin. Jews offer prayer

before they butcher an animal and then only they sell that meat as

kosher meat.

Now coming back to your situation, you say that you were brought up

as a vegetarian, and you become non-veg because of the need. I do

not see a need to become for the sake of a convenience. I came to

this country in 30 years ago when there are no places that offer

vegetarian food, yet I survived. We have brought up our daughter in

this country and she is a student at Northwestern Medical school.

She is a strict vegetarian. She used to cook rice in the microwave

and eat with the pickles and yogurt, even when she was in the dorm to

supplement bland so-called vegetarian food in the cafeteria. Her

room became an attraction to many Indian Students who were longing

for some spicy food. In your case compromise may be a better word

than convenience.

 

You say it is not religious, but if one understands the true import

of so-called religious dharmas, they are taught only for making one's

life simple and straight forward with peace of mind that everyone

longs for. It is intellectual if one understands in their true

import. Intellectual and religious are not contradictory - in fact

they are the same. If we don't understand the true import of the

religious manual we need to confirm, giving the benefit of the doubt,

since it is intended to make us better humans. If we understand in

their essence, then we don't have to confirm, we naturally follow not

to the letter but to its essence.

 

Values become mandates only if we don't assimilate them. If the

value of the value is understood then it becomes our nature. We may

compromise a lower value to follow a higher value. Killing is wrong,

but not when you have to do to protect higher dharma. To save a life

I may lie, there is no internal conflict. Krishna's teaching to

Arjuna is what is called active goodness not passive goodness.

 

You can be a non-vegetarian if that does not bother you. Obviously

there is some conflict - either because of your upbringing or the

values you are taught to the degree that in your subconsiousness

there is a degree of sensitivity in eating meat, even though you may

justify that I don't physically see the butchering of the animal.

A colleague of mine used to argue that he is doing a favor to the

cows since they are brought into life (in forms) because there is

demand for the meat. One can use the same argument to develop humans

as cattle and grow them in forms and feed them to become healthy and

one day butcher them for their meat. The thought itself is repelling.

 

One can develop any argument that sounds intellectually convincing,

to justify eating meat. But in the final analysis the question boils

down to: are you sensitive to it or not. Would you appreciate

somebody else killing you and eating your meat? Even a notorious

thief would not like that his stolen property be stolen by any other.

 

I tried to justify killing of plants at the expense of animals or

humans since one has to eat to live. Since we are not sensitive to

the suffering of the plants, whatever the reason may be, we have no

internal conflicts in eating vegetables. If we are carnivorous, we

would not have any conflict in eating meat. The situation is that we

do have a choice. That is the glory of human life. Because we have

the choice, we can use the choice to evolve ourselves or damn

ourselves. That is the choice we need to exercise. If you really

can justify to your own satisfaction that eating meat is necessary

rather than convenience or tasty then go ahead and eat - no question

asked - no discussion needed. The arguments end there. All the

above arguments are only if there is a question in your own mind,

which you seem to have since your brought up and your value system

demands that introspection. Then my advice to you is to stop

justifying your self for compromises and live up to the values you

believe in or grown in. Advice by Krishna is one should follow one's

own Dharma - swadharma - than follow others even if it is convenient.

Let us have guts to follow what is right rather than what is

convenient. When one follows ones swadharma, even if it is

inconvenient, there is less internal conflicts, more self

satisfaction. More importantly, the mind becomes moldable for higher

pursuits since you could say no to it in spite of its demands. This

is the greatest asset for a human.

 

I too went on writing, repeating myself. But I hope the thoughts are

clear. I hope you make the right choice and follow it through which

makes you proud of yourself.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

--

K. Sadananda

Code 6323

Naval Research Laboratory

Washington D.C. 20375

Voice (202)767-2117

Fax:(202)767-2623