This is truthful living and without truthful living one cannot enter into the path of spiritualism.�…….

[Guest guest]

……“Non-vegetarians believe in eating the flesh of some species, their

milk, eggs of birds, etc. Whereas some people claim to be purely vegetarian in

food habits, non-vegetarians can never call themselves purely non-vegetarian,

since they also take fruits, vegetables and milk etc. Neither any non-vegetarian

nor for that purpose any vegetarian person can be said to be pure in the true

sense of the term. Food items like cakes, biscuits and many other products

available in the market, certain medicines, tonics etc. contain ¬different

enzymes and materials from non-human species, as do many of the items that we

use on a day to day basis, like creams and soaps which contain animal fats etc.

The vegetarian group belonging to the so-called intellectual class of society is

fully aware of the inclusion of non-vegetarian elements in the so-called

harmless vegetarian items. Yet they take these items beholding some traditional

or acquired value of

vegetarianism. This has always been the case with the intellectual group. It is

expediency, which justifies everything. Taking out milk from the mouth of a calf

and yet worshipping the cow as a mother is justified on the grounds of

expediency. It is expediency which forces the human society to create hybrid

varieties of ¬different species of animals and birds ultimately to eat them

like chicken or put them into different uses. Most of the demonstrative

compassion shown towards animals, birds and other species comes out of this

utilitarian mindset of the homosapiens. In the recorded history of mankind the

highest compassion to other species was shown by Mahavira Jain, but very few

people understand it and follow it in the right spirit.

 

Whatever be the justification in killing the members of other species, the mute

question is “Does anyone wish to be killed?†Does any human being wish to be

killed and eaten by any other species except in cases of rare psychological

predispositions like suicide etc? Will any hen or goat when asked say that it

wants to be killed? Have we not observed the pain and terror in the eyes and

tremor in the bodies of the animals and birds when they are being slaughtered?

When the very man who does not want to be killed at any cost or even to be

injured kills an animal, is he not being totally insensitive to the pain of

others? This logically justifies the theory that the strong rule or have a moral

right to rule and exploit the weak. This is true in the animal world where

instinctively the tiger kills the deer, as intelligence has not developed in it

as in human beings. Once its hunger is quenched, it kills no more till hunger

propels it, instinctively again,

to kill a prey. The human species, on the other hand, even keep a stock of

flesh of dead animals in packed or frozen condition for eating whenever it

likes.

 

The word ‘Humanism’ (Manav-vada) used by the so-called civilised society

explains an attitude/act of kindness and understanding towards other human

beings to whatever breed they belong. The word ‘Manav-vada’ does not

necessarily include ‘Prani-vada’. And this is where the human society

falters. The urge to kill animals when further extended as a psychological

condition can lead a person to kill other human beings and strengthens the

mental trait of violence. Have not we observed that even today human beings are,

at times, cruelly killed by other human beings in the manner in which an animal

is killed by another animal. Have we not read that in the places where the sages

and saints lived, even animals lost their cruel instincts? Why? Because of the

non-existence of killer mindset and an attitude of peaceful co¬existence of

different species. Can’t the human species create an atmosphere of peaceful

co-existence with the animals? Has not God

provided us with enough of agricultural products, fruits, roots, etc. on which

human society can subsist!

 

The question is left open to the reader to decide for himself rationally, even

if not from the religious or spiritual points of view. A non-vegetarian person

may not personally kill or be a part of the process of killing, but he certainly

contributes to such killings as a consumer. To appreciate the issue properly, it

would perhaps be better for a non-vegetarian person to visit a place where

animals/birds are being killed, observe the painful reactions of these harmless

species when death is being inflicted on them and then decide whether he should

continue to be a non-vegetarian.

 

The direct experience of things (and not information alone) brings knowledge and

creates a conviction whether to do or not do a thing. A progressive man should

have direct experience and then decide on the course of action he likes to take.

This is truthful living and without truthful living one cannot enter into the

path of spiritualism.â€â€¦â€¦.