Response to Harsha and Ahimsa.

December 9, 1999

Dear everybody,

<<

"Harsha (Dr. Harsh K. Luthar)" <hluthar

Thanks for your post Tony. I have great respect for your feelings and views

on this matter as I myself am a vegetarian. I am also an advocate for the

vegetarian diet and certainly feel we should treat all living beings with

the highest amount of compassion and kindness that is available to us at any

given moment. It seems that food choices are highly personal and embedded

deep in people's physiological and psychological makeup. Maybe we eat

according to our Karma. In any case, I am not in a position - nor would I

want to be- to make dietary choices for everyone else. Many people in my own

family as well as many friends eat meat. What can I do? Should I argue with

them at every opportunity and give them severe looks of disapproval? People

are free to choose their life style and live according to what suits them

and learn from their own experiences. Certainly if someone asks about the

benefits of a proper and nutritious vegetarian diet, I am happy to discuss

it and refer them to experts in the field such as Dr. Dean Ornish (disciple

of Swami Satchitananda). I am not exactly sure what else you would have me

say or do Tony. I agree with your views but my expression is constrained by

my own personality.

Harsha

>>

KKT: I want to add some thoughts, but not

for the controversy. I think it is impossible

to practise Ahimsa quite absolutely in the

practical daily life. I think Ahimsa in the MIND

is far more the real issue, as J.Krishnamurti

states in the following excerpt from his

"Commentaries On Living, Third Series".

KKT

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

KILLING

[...] A small group had come, one woman and several men, but

only three or four took part in the discussion. They were all earnest

people, and you could see that they were good friends, though

they had differences of thought. The first man who spoke had a

well-trimmed beard, an aquiline nose and a high forehead; his dark

eyes were sharp and very serious. The second one was painfully

thin; he was bald and clear-skinned, and he couldn't keep his

hands off his face. The third was plump, cheerful and easy of

manner; he would look at you as though taking stock, and being

dissatisfied, would look again to see if his count had been right.

He had shapely hands, with long fingers. Though he would laugh

easily, there was about him a depth of seriousness. The fourth

had a pleasant smile, and his eyes were those of a man who had

read a great deal. Though he took very little part in the conversation,

he was by no means asleep. All the men were probably in their

forties, but the woman appeared to be much younger; she never

spoke, though she was attentive to what was going on.

"We have been talking things over amongst ourselves for several

months, and we want to discuss with you a problem that has been

bothering us," said the first speaker. "You see, some of us are

meat-eaters, and others are not. Personally, I have never eaten

meat in my life; it's repulsive to me in any form, and I can't bear

the idea of killing an animal to fill my stomach. Although we have

not been able to agree as to what is the right thing to do in this

matter, we have all remained good friends, and shall continue as

such, I hope."

"I occasionally eat meat," said the second one. "I prefer not to,

but when you travel it's often difficult to maintain a balanced diet

without meat, and it's much simpler to eat it. I don't like to kill

animals, I am sensitive about that kind of thing, but to eat meat

now and then is all right. Many strait-laced cranks on the subject

of vegetarianism are more sinful than people who kill to eat."

"My son shot a pigeon the other day, and we had it for dinner,"

said the third speaker. "The boy was quite excited to have brought

it down with his new shotgun. You ought to have seen the look

in his eyes! He was both appalled and pleased; feeling guilty, he

had at the same time the air of a conqueror. I told him not to feel

guilty. Killing is cruel, but it is part of life, and it is not too serious

as long as it is practised in moderation and kept under proper

control. Eating meat is not the dreadful crime that our friend here

makes it out to be. I am not too much for bloody sports, but killing

to eat is not a sin against God. Why make so much fuss about it?"

"As you can see, sir," went on the first speaker, "I haven't been

able to convince them that killing animals for food is barbarous;

and besides, eating meat is an unhealthy thing, as anyone knows

who has taken the trouble to make an impartial investigation of

the facts. With me, not eating meat is a matter of principle; in my

family we have been non-meat-eaters for generations. It seems to

me that man must eliminate from his nature this cruelty of killing

animals for food if he is to become really civilized."

"That's what he's everlastingly telling us," interrupted the second

one. "He wants to 'civilize' us meat-eaters, yet other forms of

cruelty do not seem to cause him any concern. He is a lawyer,

and he does not mind the cruelty involved in the practice of his

profession. However, in spite of our disagreement on this point,

we are still friends. We have discussed the whole issue dozens

of times, and as we never seem to get any further, we all agreed

that we should come and talk it over with you."

"There are bigger and wider issues than killing some wretched

animal for food," put in the fourth one. "It's all a matter of how

you look at life."

What's the problem, sirs?

"To eat meat, or not to eat it," replied the non-meat-eater.

Is that the main issue, or is it part of a larger issue?

"To me, a man's willingness or unwillingness to kill animals for

the satisfaction of his appetite indicates his attitude towards the

larger issues of life."

If we can see that to concentrate exclusively on any part does

not bring about the comprehension of the whole, then perhaps

we shall not get confused over the parts. Unless we are able

to perceive the whole, the part assumes greater importance

than it has. There's a bigger issue involved in all this, isn't there?

The problem is that of killing, and not merely killing animals for

food. A man is not virtuous because he doesn't eat meat, nor

is he any less virtuous because he does. The god of a petty

mind is also petty; his pettiness is measured by that of the mind

which puts flowers at his feet. The larger issue includes the many

and apparently separate problems that man has created within

himself and outside of himself. Killing is really a very great and

complex problem. Shall we consider it, sirs?

"I think we should," replied the fourth one. "I am keenly interested

in this problem, and to approach it along a wide front appeals to me."

There are many forms of killing, are there not? There is killing by

a word or a gesture, killing in fear or in anger, killing for a country

or an ideology, killing for a set of economic dogmas or religious

beliefs.

"How does one kill by a word or a gesture?" asked the third speaker.

Don't you know? With a word or a gesture you may kill a man's

reputation; through gossip, defamation, contempt, you may wipe

him out. And does not comparison kill? Don't you kill a boy by

comparing him with another who is cleverer or more skilful? A

man who kills out of hate or anger is regarded as a criminal and

put to death. Yet the man who deliberated bombs thousands of

people off the face of the earth in the name of his country is

honoured, decorated; he is looked upon as a hero. Killing is

spreading over the earth. For the safety or expansion of one

nation, another is destroyed. Animals are killed for food, for

profit, or for so-called sport; they are vivisected for the 'well-being'

of man. The soldier exists to kill. Extraordinary progress is being

made in the technology of murdering vast numbers of people in a

few seconds and at great distances. Many scientists are wholly

occupied with it, and priests bless the bomber and the warship.

Also, we kill a cabbage or a carrot in order to eat; we destroy a

pest. Where are we to draw the line beyond which we will not kill?

"It's up to each individual," replied the second one.

Is it as simple as that? If you refuse to go to war, you are either

shot or sent to prison, or perhaps to a psychiatric ward. If you

refuse to take part in the nationalistic game of hate, you are

despised, and you may lose your job; pressure is brought to

bear in various ways to force you to conform. In the paying of

taxes, even in the buying of a postage stamp, you are supporting

war, the killing of ever-changing enemies.

"Then what is one to do?" asked the non-meat-eater. "I am well

aware that I have legally killed, in the law courts, many times;

but I am a strict vegetarian, and I never kill any living creature

with my own hands."

"Not even a poisonous insect?" asked the second one.

"Not if I can help it."

"Someone else does it for you."

"Sir," went on the vegetarian lawyer, "are you suggesting that we

should not pay taxes or write letters?"

Again, in being concerned first with the details of action, in

speculating about whether we should do this or that, we get lost

in the particular without comprehending the totality of the problem.

The problem needs to be considered as a whole, does it not?

"I quite see that there must be a comprehensive view of the problem,

but the details are important too. We can't neglect our immediate

activity, can we?"

What do you mean by "a comprehensive view of the problem"?

Is it a matter of mere intellectual agreement, verbal assent, or do

you actually comprehend the total problem of killing?

"To be quite honest, sir, until now I haven't paid much attention

to the wider implications of the problem. I have been concerned

with one particular aspect of it."

Which is like not throwing the window wide open and looking at

the sky, the trees, the people, the whole movement of life, but

peering instead through a narrow crack in the casement. And

the mind is like that: a small, unimportant part of it is very active,

while the rest is dormant. This petty activity of the mind creates

its own petty problems of good and bad, its political and moral

values, and so on. If we could really see the absurdity of this

process, we would naturally, without any compulsion, explore

the wider fields of the mind.

So the issue we are discussing is not merely the killing or the

non-killing of animals, but the cruelty and hate that are ever

increasing in the world and in each one of us. That is our real

problem, isn't it?

"Yes," replied the fourth one emphatically. "Brutality is spreading

in the world like a plague; a whole nation is destroyed by its bigger

and more powerful neighbour. Cruelty, hate, is the issue, not

whether or not one happens to like the taste of meat."

The cruelty, the anger, the hate that exists in ourselves is expressed

in so many ways: in the exploitation of the weak by the powerful and

the cunning; in the cruelty of forcing a whole people, under pain of

being liquidated, to accept a certain ideological pattern of life; in the

building up of nationalism and sovereign governments through intensive

propaganda; in the cultivation of organized dogmas and beliefs, which

are called religion, but which actually separate man from man. The

ways of cruelty are many and subtle.

"Even if we spent the rest of our lives looking, we couldn't uncover

all the subtle ways in which cruelty expresses itself, could we?"

inquired the third one. "Then how are we to proceed?"

"It seems to me," said the the first speaker, "that we are missing

the central issue. Each one of us is protecting himself; we are

defending our self-interests, our economic or intellectual assets,

or perhaps a tradition which affords us some profit, not necessarily

monetary. This self-interest is everything we touch, from politics

to God, is the root of the matter."

Again, if one may ask, is that a mere verbal assertion, a logical

conclusion which can be torn to shreds or cunningly defended?

Or does it reflect the perception of an actual fact that has

significance in our daily life of thought and action?

"You are trying to bring us to distinguish between the word and

the actual fact," said the third speaker, "and I am beginning to

see how important it is that we should make this distinction.

Otherwise we shall be lost in words, without any action -- as

in fact we are."

To act there must be feeling. A feeling for the whole issue makes

for total action.

"When one feels deeply about anything," said the fourth man,

"one acts, and such action is not impulsive or so-called intuitive;

neither is it a premeditated, calculated act. It is born out of the

depth of one's being. If that act causes mischief, pain, one

cheerfully pays for it; but such an act is rarely mischievous.

The question is, how is one to sustain this deep feeling?"

"Before we go any further," put in the third man earnestly, "let's

be clear about what you are explaining, sir. One is aware of the

fact that to have complete action, there must be deep feeling, in

which there is a full psychological comprehension of the problem;

otherwise there are merely bits of action, which never stick together.

That much is clear. Then, as we were saying, the word is not the

the feeling; the word may evoke the feeling, but this verbal evocation

does not sustain the feeling. Now, can one not enter the world of

feeling directly, without the description of it, without the symbol or

the word? Isn't that the next question?"

Yes, sir. We are distracted by words, by symbols; we rarely feel

except through the stimulation of the term, the description. The

word 'God' is not God, but that word leads us to react according

to our conditioning. We can find out the truth or the falseness of

God only when the word 'God' no longer creates in us certain

habitual physiological or psychological responses. As we were

saying earlier, a total feeling makes for total action -- or rather, a

total feeling IS total action. A sensation passes away, leaving you

where you were before. But this total feeling we are talking about

is not a sensation, it does not depend on stimulation; it sustains

itself, no artifice is needed.

"But how is this total feeling to be aroused?" insisted the first

speaker.

If one may say so, you are not seeing the point. Feeling that can

be aroused is a matter of stimulation; it's a sensation, to be

nourished through various means, by this or that method. Then

the means or the method becomes all-important, not the feeling.

The symbol as a means to the feeling is enshrined in a temple,

in a church, and then the feeling exists only through the symbol

or the word. But is total feeling to be 'aroused'? Consider, sir,

don't answer.

"I see what you mean," said the third one. "Total feeling is not

to be aroused at all; it's there, or it's not. This leaves us in a

rather hopeless state, doesn't it?"

Does it? There's a sense of hopeless because you want to

arrive somewhere, you want to get that total feeling; and since

you can't, you feel rather lost. It is this desire to arrive, to

achieve, to become, that creates the method, the symbol, the

stimulant, through which the mind comforts and distracts itself.

So let us again consider the problem of killing, cruelty, hate .

To be concerned with 'humanitarian' killing is quite absurd; to

abstain from eating meat while destroying your son by comparing

him with another is to be cruel; to take part in the respectable

killing for your country or for an ideology is to cultivate hate; to

be kind to animals and cruel to your fellow man by act, word, or

gesture, is to breed enmity and brutality.

"Sir, I think I understand what you have just said; but how is total

feeling to come about? I ask this only as a query in the movement

of search. I am not asking for a method: I see the absurdity of that.

I see, too, that the desire to achieve builds its own hindrances, and

that to feel hopeless, or helpless, is silly. All this is now clear."

If it is clear, not just verbally or intellectually, but with the actuality

of the pain that a thorn causes in your foot, then there's compassion,

love. Then you have already opened the door to this total feeling of

compassion. The compassionate man knows right action. Without

love, you are trying to find out what is the right thing to do, and your

action only leads to greater harm and misery; it is the action of

politicians and reformers. Without love, you cannot comprehend

cruelty; a peace of sorts may be established through the reign of

terror; but war, killing, will continue at another level of our existence .

"We haven't got compassion, sir, and that's the real source of

our misery," said the first man feelingly . "We are hard inside,

an ugly thing in ourselves, but we bury it under kindly words and

superficial acts of generosity . We are cancerous at heart, in

spite of our religious beliefs and social reforms. It's in one's

own heart that an operation must take place, and then a new

seed can be planted. That very operation is the life of the new

seed. The operation has begun, and may the seed bear fruit."

December 9, 1999

Namaste All, Harsha.

What exactly is your position on meat-eating and

Ahimsa? If meat eating is fine then what is Ahimsa?

A child may bully as a child ---fine. The child

doesn't have a developed conscience. However does that

excuse the same behaviour as an adult?

Does understandable or excusable make it right/ahimsa?

I know all is ullusion etc.

What then is Ahimsa? if killing cruelly is excusable?

If all is one, can we kill humans, or eat them? I

suppose we could then? The natives near Australia call

it 'Long-pig', a bit like pork they tell me. They have

no conscience about this on the'fly river', in

Papua-New Guinea, it is their culture, is that alright

then? Are they right or like the child, in ignorance?

Are we talking about Ahimsa or what stage of

developement people are in? So don't offend them

for,'Father forgive them for they know not what they

do.'-Jesus.

I understand the broader aspects of Ahimsa in thought

word and deed etc but this is a discussion group. I

really would like to know your answer to this!

Love, Tony the ignorant.