Plants vs Animals

[aksh]

Are we the vegeterains, justified eating plants???

 

1. Does the difference between the animal and the plant cell justify the argument for vegeterians.

2. Or does it boil down to the fact that eating members of one's class of species(animal) isn't right while we are justified eating members of (another class) - the plant species.

3. Or eating members of lesser consciousness(i.e. plants) is itself justified. Can anyone list down a things present/absent in both species. Is the feeling of pain the decisive factor. Don't plants feel the pain.

 

Lastly what else can we eat..fruits, vegetables..(but aren't the fruits and vegetables produced for plant itself. - are we justified in eating them)

 

Just a Thought!!!

 

[shvu]

 

Who is the sarvajna who decides what is right and what is not? Every person will say a different thing and believe it or not, everyone's opinion is equally valid.

 

According to the vegetarian, killing plants is not wrong, consuming milk is not wrong. Why? Because otherwise he cannot survive. Rather the plants than him, is the logic. Man thinks it is more important for him to live than the plants. Similarly the meat eater eats anthing without problems. It doesn't bother him and he is fine with it. He believes he has a prerogative over all other forms of life, while the vegetarian believes that he has a prerogative over some forms of life. In reality, both are doing the same.

 

It is all a matter of convenience. Do whatever we want to do, and find fault with things that others do [which we don't agree with]. And then, try to justify this fault-finding nature by giving it religious overtones, quoting x,y and z, etc. The same old sour grapes story.

 

 

Cheers

 

[Gauracandra]

Every action has karma associated with it. Eating plants does kill a living entity and so there is a karmic reaction to such activities. This (in my opinion) is the reason for offering all foodstuffs to the Lord, to sanctify it.

 

As for eating animals and plants, perhaps lets focus in on just animals for a moment and it might be clearer (I think). I had this conversation at work once - what sorts of animals was it better or worse to kill. In general it would seem the higher the consciousness of the animals, to me and my co-workers the worse it is to kill them. If I had two animals in front of me - an ape and a cockroach - and was told I HAD to kill one, I would definitely kill the roach. There would be a reaction in both instances, but due to the level of consciousness killing the roach I think would be less. Some people like to make silly points that all killing is equal. Killing a child is the same as killing a roach, is the same as killing a plant. So nothing wrong with any of them (killing is killing). But there is clearly a difference to any sane person. Just as all jumping is not equal (or any other activity you want to select). You can jump from a 1ft step, jump from 10 ft up, or jump out of an airplane. The activities are all "jumping" but they are not all the same.

 

When asked about why I am a vegetarian by my co-workers, I always give a real simple response "There is already enough pain in the world, if I can avoid adding any more to it, I think I should." I've tried explaining it in the past with no luck, but found that this simple statement usually silences them on the issue - at least for a few days

 

Gauracandra

[shvu]

Gauracandra,

 

How does one decide about the level of consciousness of an animal, as you put it? You say, between a Ape and a roach, you would kill the latter.

 

What about a 'chimp and cow' or 'elephant and cow'? Chimps are more intelligent than any other animals, and an elephant is bigger than a cow. How does one decide in such cases? I am trying to understand the concept of different levels of consciousness and the basis of determining them.

 

I had a discussion with a co-worker once and I was telling him that many Indians are ok with eating lamb and chicken, but not beef. Similarly Islam people eat any meat except pork. He was seriously amazed at this and wanted to know if there was some logic behind this and I could not find anything other than that it is a religious rule.

 

Thanx

 

 

[This message has been edited by shvu (edited 08-02-2001).]

[Gauracandra]

Certainly as the differences between animals come closer it is more difficult to separate out which to choose. This is why I chose an ape and roach just to bring up a principle. It certainly does become more difficult to determine as one gets closer, and in those cases I am sure other factors come into play. We are never in a social vacuum, and so there are reasons certain activities (like eating pork) are considered off limits.

 

I don't think the pork issue is an illogical one. I'm not real familiar with Islam, but I'm sure there was a reason for this, most likely health related. I had a talk with a Jewish friend (again at work) about the kosher laws. One kosher law states that one should not cut his vegetables on the same surface or with the same utensils as one cooks ones meat. This seems a little odd. Why do this? It is his opinion that it was an early form of health code. Meat tends to have salmonela (sp?) and other contaminants. When the meat is cooked these contaminants usually are destroyed. But the cutting surfaces and knives etc... will still have the meat juices and such. So when cutting vegetables the salmonella can be transerred. So the prohibitions against pork probably have some basis, but we may be too far removed to know what it is.

 

Gauracandra

[Guest guest]

When I was a boy, 40 or more year ago, we did not have the usage of eat too much meat. I live in Brazil a tropical place, like India. There is a fundamental problem with meat in a hot place: it gets rotten very fast. So, people in general used to eat very little amount of meat, not everyday and mainly at fests.

 

Nowadays people are literally dying of meat eating up here. Special because of the freezer industry. The freezers were introduced up here about 30 years ago and by now people eats tons of all sort of meat during all over the year.

 

Why this change of usage? Specially because meat is tasteful than rice and beans with potatoes. And also because of the low prices up here. People grow soybean to feed animals to eat animal meat. It is a large and intricate market and industry working all over, millions of jobs, and for certain it is completely out of control of some human beings to stop its working. Indeed the largest part of the whole population is working directly or non-directly in the production of meat.

 

This is Kali-yuga!!!

 

[Audarya lila]

It is a natural feeling within all of us to have compassion on all living beings and to try to avoid causing pain to others. If we extend this to our eating habits, which of course we must if we are thoughtful about it, then we will naturally choose a vegetarian lifestyle. We will also tend to eat only what is required for our sustenance and gravitate toward foods which are thoughtfully grown and tended such that the earth remains healthy and vital. The Srimad Bhagavatam tells us that one living entity is food for another - so if we choose to live, we must thereby deny another entities life. That is why Krsna says that food which is not offered first in sacrifice is a great source of sin. We are all called to be progressive and thoughtful in our approach to life and to try our best to treat our environment with love and respect.

 

What I am talking about here are two types of consciousness which are not unrelated. The first is a consciousness of our world and all life within it and trying to be a good steward to that life and world such that we oursleves are a source of rejuvination and life giving rather than a source of death and decay. The second is understanding the ground upon which all life rests - spirit. When we move in that direction and try to serve our spiritual natures we will see that the two are indeed related and the first finds it natural fullfillment in the second.

 

Your servant,

Audarya lila dasa

 

[This message has been edited by Audarya lila (edited 08-02-2001).]

[ggohil]

Irrespective of all the rules, personally speaking I clearly feel the difference in slaughtering animal and chopping vegetable.

 

Apparently not everybody feels this way.

[animesh]

Sometimes I wonder if the way everything has been classified under living and non-living is proper. There are many things which are too far apart but both are considered as living beings. We usually think that living beings can feel happiness and sorrow. But, I do not think modern biologists consider this as an essential criterion for something to be considered as "living". Do plants feel pain? Of course, many experiments have been done to show that they do. But, none of these experiments prove that plants can feel pain. The results could just be because of chemical reactions.

[Gauracandra]

That all depends on how you define pain. Without a central nervous system I think it is very difficult to say plants "feel" pain, certainly not by the same definition that animals feel pain.

 

Gauracandra

[animesh]

At least, do they have feelings? Do they become happy and sad?

[Guest guest]

In the Chandogya Upanisad (7.26.2), we have the following:

 

"Clean food leads to clarity of intellect. The clearness of mind conduces to firm meditation. When meditation is firm there is vision of the Divine and all ties are unloosed completely."

 

And the Vedanta-sutra (3.4.31) corroborates the Upanisadic instruction:

 

"Therefore, the scripture teaches that a sage should not act according to his will in matters of food, disregarding sastric injunctions."

 

The sruti conclusion on the subject matter of food is that a sage should always eat the remnants of a sacrifice (Gita 3.13).

 

One may ask: "Are sruti texts instructing that only plants and animal products extracted without violence are to be considered as pure foodstuff and fit to be offered in as a sacrifice?"

 

The answer is that not only plants and animal products extracted without violence are to be considered as pure foodstuff by Vedas. Animal meat extracted with violence is also to be considered pure and fit to be offered in a sacrifice.

 

If someone argue that this kind of sacrificial act is unholy, Badarayana Rsi himself gives his answer in Vedanta-sutras (3.1.26):

 

"If it be said that a sacrificial act is unholy, we say it is not so, because the scripture declares it sacred." Or "If it be argued that rites (involving killing of animals) is unholy, we say, no, since they are sanctioned by scriptures."

One may argue: "Sacrifices that require the killing of animals cannot be said pure, for killing is really a sin. Scriptures states: ma himsyat sarva bhutani - "Let him not kill any animal." This is an universal rule. So, sacrifices were animals are killed will cause a kind of mixed karma, with good and bad fruits, and should be avoided."

 

But Baladeva's reply to that objection is the following: "This argument is not valid. The sacrificial acts are not unholy, because scriptures enjoin it. The Veda sates; agnisomiyam pasum alabheta - "Let him sacrifice an animal sacred to Agni-soamna."

 

"Since Vedas enjoins the killing of animals, it cannot be unholy. For the right and wrong, holiness and unholiness of an action, is to be learned from Vedas alone. Therefore, those sacrifices which enjoin killing of animals must be considered to be holy and cannot be considered unrighteous, because killing of animals in sacrifices is enjoined by the Vedas.

 

"Let him not kill any animal is a general rule, but there is the exception that animals may be killed in yajñas like the Agnisomiya sacrifice and others. Hence every killing is not a sin."

 

Sankaracarya agrees with Baladeva in this subject matter while commenting the same sutra (3.1.26)," ...knowledge of virtue and vice is derived from the scriptures. The scriptures alone are the source for knowing that such an act is virtuous, for merit and demerit are supersensuous realities and they are not invariable for all space, time, and environment. Any deed that is performed as virtuous in relation to certain place, time, and circumstances, becomes non-virtuous in relation to other places, times, and circumstances, so that nobody can have any knowledge about virtue and vice unless it be from the scriptures. And from the scriptures, it is ascertained that the Jyotishtoma sacrifice, involving injury, favour, etc., is virtuous."

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by Satyaraja dasa (edited 08-03-2001).]

[Guest guest]

What about not eating anything that takes a life, period? Is that even a possibility? Would it be possible to eat only things that were byproducts or fruits of a plant and still be healthy? For instance, one could eat an apple because the apple is not living, the tree is where one could not eat a carrot as the carrot is a root and one would have to kill the plant in order to eat it. I'm very interested to know if this is a possible solution to not wanting to take life in order to survive.

[Guest guest]

You can live well as a fruitarian. Many do. Nuts and fruits from trees. Berries, tomatoes, cucumbers etc. There is ample such food available.

 

Problem is when you approach the tree to harvest the fruit how many insects do you step on? Perfect ahimsa is not possible in this world of death. Offering the foodstuff to Krsna or at least appreciating it as krsna's gift to sustain us is vital

 

We try to greatly minimize our impact though and such a diet is certainly in the mode of goodness.

 

 

[Guest guest]

>>> Perfect ahimsa

 

--- If you are interested in this, try reading up on jainism!

[Guest guest]

 

Jainism is certainly more rigorous that any other religious system in practising non-violence, but it is by no means perfect.

 

The way nature is designed is one form of life lives off another - directly or indirectly. Take into account all forms of life including bacteria. There is no way anyone can live on the planet without -- in the process -- killing off several other lifeforms.

 

However, this by itself is not a problem. The problem is with trying to go against nature by imposing our own ideas on the natural functioning of life -- an inevitable problem with most religions. These religions requires man to go against nature by one or more of starvation, repression, abstinence, etc. The more involved the individual becomes, the more paranoid he gets for that is not how he was designed to live or function.

 

In short, one can move from normal to iskcon to jainism, but it does not end there. If you choose to, you can go on further to meet your threshold level, whatever that may be.

 

Cheers

 

 

Cheers

 

[Guest guest]

depends where you jump from I guess but certainly to compare is ludicrous

 

Krsna states offer Me with love and devotion a leaf flower water I will accept

 

so clearly you need to understand what is life and what is meant as foodstuff.

 

the apple tree does not die when you pick the fruit

the berry bush like wise , in as much eating carrots or roots the plant produces seed to perpetuate the species.

 

but you cut the throat of any animal it bleeds and dies period.

 

so is there a difference if I jump a thousand feet or two you do the math in fact you see if the effect is the same in both jumps if you dont take my word for it. heh trust me !

 

before you do the jumping though try picking a pear or other fruit and see if the tree lives longer than you.

 

the whole to eat or not to eat is a redundant one for in the end you have to ask -did God like what we made him for breakie ?

 

besides many places through out various scripture ther Lord specifies what to eat or no.

--when you offer your prayers to Me I do not hear them for your hands are full of the blood of the inocent animals --

 

anyway you get the idea ?

 

 

[Guest guest]

i am a vegy i no we eat plants.

well i no we dont eat animals we eat plants

[Guest guest]

i am a vegy we do eat plants we dont eat animals