Some observations on 'Vegetarian'ism

[Guest guest]

Dear Sriman Mukundan, Sriman Sathya, Sriman Srikanth,

 

I am sure a lot has already been discussed on this

august list on spiritual aspects of why a 'satvik'

diet is essential for anyone interested in seeking the

guidance of the Lord and why vegetarian food is more

likely to be of satvik variety than other foods. I

humbly submit my two cents' worth.

 

With regard to the question posed to Sriman Mukundan

by the young kids, the question is not about food and

whether eating plants is ok, but not animals, but

about relativist versus absolute ethics. As in most

circumstances, there are two (or possibly more)

ethical principles operative here. One of these is

'the principle of non-violence to other beings';

another principle is the 'promotion of well-being of

oneself and other members of one's family'. (A third

principle could be that of serving others). If we

interpret either of these principles absolutely, we

have extreme positions:

 

-one where you cannot eat anything at all and hence

starve to death or

 

-where only your enjoyment matters and nothing else

(and not even the lives of other beings -in extreme

case, cannibals).

 

Absolute interpretations cannot take us very far in a

world where (ethical) conflicts exist.

You can ask the kids, if the road is for vehicles,

then pedestrians should not set foot on the road. They

will probably tell you, yes, but, you can cross at

places marked on the road as pedestrian crossings. It

is possible to build cities where pedestrian paths and

vehicle paths never cross each other, but history

shows us that it is both impractical and inefficient.

On a similar logic, you can say that our elders want

us to be non-violent to other beings but at the same

time, they do not want us to starve to death and

hence, like the pedestrian crossing, they have

provided these allowances. It is for us to observe the

allowances and not abuse them. (You can relate the

above arguments with incidents in Mahabharata and why

dharma allows violation or transgression of a lower

order principle when it is done solely in the

achievement of a higher order principle).

 

The questions posed by Sriman Sathya involve another

moral principle, that of non-cognisance (or

ignorance). Are you morally responsible for using

incense sticks if you were ignorant that a certain

animal product was used in their making? In any case,

I am not sure, in our sampradayam, agarbathis are

used. As far as I know, in the DDs, only special types

of resins (sambrani) are used. However, the question

is still relevant. (Instead of incense sticks, think

of a garland you have purchased, but not sure if the

person who made it used their teeth to cut the thread,

for example.). In such cases too, there is no absolute

answer. Once again it depends on the context.

 

Practising of dharma involves both the identification

of moral conflict in a particular context and also the

relative placement of the moral principles involved.

As in case of a Supreme Court judge weighing various

factors, we are also required to show our judgement,

keeping in view of course the various laws, the

precedence and established judgements in similar moral

dilemmas. At the same time, we are not supposed to

take umbrage of ignorance as a solution. We are

supposed to actively seek knowledge so that we do not

commit mistakes of ignorance (similar to the

requirement of passing a theory test before taking a

practical driving test and becoming a driver).

 

I attach below a few excerpts from some of my notes on

vegetarianism. Hope these are of some interest.

 

Apologies if I spoke too much.

 

Adiyen, Ramanuja dasan,

Anand PB

--------

Some Personal Notes on Vegetarianism.

(mainly based on history and not scriptures or

teachings of acharyas or faiths)

 

1. According to historians, vegetarianism or a

preference for non-flesh diet evolved in both Indian

and Greek traditions at about the same time (the

middle of first millennium BC) - which also coincides

with the development of Budhist and Jain traditions.

Among the prominent early proponents was Pythogoras of

Samos (530 BC) - though these ideas continued to be

seen in the teachings of Plato onwards. While in

Budhist and Jain traditions, non-violence towards

sensient beings seems to be the main reason, the Greek

tradition appears to be closer to the 'satvik'

reasoning mentioned above (avoidance of opulence, food

as a means than a festish and so on). Two plausible

reasons are suggested for the development of

vegetarianism in Indian subcontinent during that

period:(a) the moral conflict between recognition of

cow as sacred and flesh-eating; (b) economic

circumstances rather than ethical choice. The former

is more likely to have been the reason during the

period 500bc to approx. ad500 (coinciding with the

spread and then gradual waning of budhist practice in

India) and the latter as the likely reason for the

period after that. We can only speculate.

 

2. Though early christian teachings also maintained

discussions on the benefits of vegetarianism, we are

told that in the western world, many of these subtle

messages were lost in the so called 'dark ages'

i.e.,until about the middle of AD second millennium

(except in some specific orders of catholic church).

Thereafter, we are told, some of the lost traditions

were rediscovered (about AD1500) and by early 19th

century, harbingers of modern vegetarian societies

began to emerge, mainly from particular branches of

christian thought. One early event is attributed to

the formation of a vegetarian society in 1809 in

Manchester (England).

 

3. In the late 19th and early 20th century, we are

told that in Germany, a different and more interesting

interpretation of vegetarianism was given by relating

it not to vegetables but to the Latin root of

'vegetus' to mean being active and vigorous (according

to Foods and Nutrition Encyclopedia,volume 2, ).

 

4. Among the various prominent people whose names are

quoted by different sources to have supported the

benefits of vegetarianism or a non-flesh based

diet(not the same thing as claiming that they were or

are vegetarians) are: Voltaire, PB Shelley, Thoreau,

more recently Annie Besant, Leo Tolstoy, GB Shaw, and

even closer to present times, Olympian Moses and

Martina Navratilova.

 

(When a certain sanitarium in Battle Creek, Michigan,

offered a job to a particular young man in 1866 to

develop a cereal based diet for vegetarians, none of

those involved may have envisaged that the decision

will eventually lead to the emrgence of a

multi-national corporation producing breakfast

cereals!)

 

5. For a lot of excellent info on vegetarianism etc.,

if you have not already seen, see the homepage of

International Vegetarian Union

http://www.ivu.org/

 

6. Scientific opinion, per se, as to whether by nature

(i.e., the genetic design - for example,relating to

digestive track or the evolution of the shape of our

teeth) we are supposed to be vegetarians or otherwise,

is divided. The site mentioned above has some

interesting articles on this.

 

I am quite comfortable with the view that our

spiritual teachers (our well-wishers) have in their

wisdom suggested this to be in our interest.

 

7. Is vegetarianism equal to self-denial? I think the

'satvik' reasoning is important to remember. It is

very easy to be vegetarian and gluttonous

simultaneously. Our acharyas remind us the meaning of

the word 'annam' (one which destroys the person who

consumes it) and why in our sampradayam we do not

desire food as an end but only as a means to Lord's

service.

 

However, nutritionists tell us that to absorb the

required amount of (daily allowance) of protein and

iron, for a person with vegetarian diet, the problem

is not protein per se, but that of amino acids of

plant origin which are difficult to digest. If

adequate calories are provided by the food - then, it

seems, absorption of amino acids will not be a

problem. (Hence, the need for properly balanced and

adequate amount of food.).

 

8. To look up: Some years ago, HH Srimannarayana

Chinna Jeeyar Swamyji clarified in an excellent and

very easily accessible article in Bhaktinivedana, a

number of important aspects of vegetarianism. The

article was titled 'kokkorokko' (the alarm call of

rooster). It will be nice if we can access that

article or its gist.

 

Sources:

Britannica, Macropaedia, Uni of Chicago.

Foods and Nutrition Encyclopedia, Pegus Press, Cal.

Various articles in food magazines.

 

 

=====

Anand Prathivadi Bhayankaram, PhD

 

 

 

Everything you'll ever need on one web page from News and Sport to Email and

Music Charts

http://uk.my.