Recently, an avid meat eater
asked me about the ethics of vegetarianism, which I seemed to have advocated implicitly
through my ideas on karmic reality of cells and organs (in the chapter on ‘Idiosyncrasies’)
in my book Karmasutra.
The question was this: if vegetarians
claim that killing of life is unethical, are they themselves not guilty of
killing plants?
Before I go further and answer
this question, I felt a disclaimer is warranted: I am not a vegetarian. I do
eat meat, but increasingly try to avoid meats of higher animals, or, if
unavoidable in social milieu, try to limit the quantity I take. Perhaps some people might accuse me of stark
hypocrisy, which is a label I am happy to embrace. Having said this, I also believe that scientists
who proclaim, based on their own research, that cigarette smoking is highly
injurious do not necessarily negate the truthfulness of their statements merely
because they themselves might be occasional smokers.
Now that the disclaimer has been
made and the label of hypocrisy embraced, I can state that ethically, in terms
of karma, there are no two ways about it. Killing of animals, especially higher
animals with a well-developed sense of intelligence, emotions, pain etc. merely
for food or protein, when there are other viable alternatives present, is ethically
untenable.
Here is where my friend’s
question fits in. After all, as my meat-eating friend asked me, if killing of
life is unacceptable on ethical grounds, why is it okay to ‘kill’ plants but
not fish or chicken? I recently watched an Asian TV channel debate on cow
slaughter and found the same argument being repeated by one of the panellists.
It is worthwhile going into this
argument - but in my typical style, touching digressions here and there.
The cornerstone of living a
karmically higher quality ethical life is to ascertain the wish of any living
or non-living creature before we do anything with it. This applies to every
form of ‘intelligence’ and consciousness – from the lowest (what we in common
parlance refer to as ‘non-living’) to higher forms such as humans. Anything done against the will of the being
is a negative karma. Of course, as I have mentioned in Karmasutra, all
molecules have some form of life, even those which we today consider to be
‘non-living’ objects. Just because our present limits of science do not permit
us to communicate with a stone idol or an ancient statue or a car does not mean
that there is no vibration flowing through them. There is indeed some subtle
vibration flowing through them and each complex machine or so-called
‘non-living’ object has a wish and an intelligence of its own. ‘Non-living
objects’ also proceed through life sticking to their dharma (put in a simplistic way, dharma means ‘duty’). For example,
an average car has the dharma to be
driven. It is happy to be driven
because that is the purpose of its creation.
Now, when the ancient rishis (spiritually accomplished seers) of the East wanted to make advances into spiritual areas they
started avoiding meat. There were several reasons but one major one was the
ethics of not killing any life. Unfortunately
and sadly, as of now, because our system of Western science has not yet designed the appropriate mechanism
to communicate clearly with forms of consciousness which are substantially different
from humans, the Western thinking is that the focus should be on the welfare of
human being. Needless to say, this is
selfish and one cause of the rising environmental damage to our planet is
caused by this thinking that everything exists in our planet for the benefit of
humans, to be used or abused by us. On
an unrelated front, this focus on welfare of humans globally, has given rise to
the whole paradigm and industry of Human Rights. Even in democratic societies, human will is
considered the one which is to be respected, especially if the human will does
not harm another human’s life or property. If a person abuses a liver by
consuming excess alcohol in the ‘freedom-loving’ West, there is no NGO which is
ready to take up that cause, because the abused livers in humans cannot get
together and stand in front of Parliament and shout slogans. Similarly the skins cannot get together and
put their case against those who abuse their skins for purposes of beauty by
piercings, too much artificial tanning etc.
Coming back to this whole idea of
ascertaining wish of beings, the rishis (ancient seers) were able to
communicate or feel the wishes of organisms.
Therefore they would not kill plants to eat them. The leaves would be
taken after asking the permission of the plants. Most of the plants would not
mind giving up some of their leaves. Plants are selfless and always enjoy
giving. They are not egoistic. They do not keep an account of how much they have given and expect proportionately in return, like many of us humans do. They are
not transactional. For example, trees provide shade even to the woodcutter who
is resting for a while before cutting them from their roots. Besides this
altruistic nature, plants are also happy to provide us some proportion of their
leaves because it is good for their overall health (just like periodic blood
donation does humans some good). Plants are also happy to give their fruits
because discarded seeds would help their procreation.
Having said this, like all beings, plants are not happy to annihilate their own existence. The great rishis understood
this. That is also one reason why rishis would not eat vegetables which consisted almost entirely of the main root of the plant. They would avoid main root vegetables and
stick to leaves. They might also use the fruits given willingly by plants. (Here, when we refer to
fruits we are talking botanically. What is considered a fruit botanically is often treated by those who eat and cook as vegetables simply because these ‘fruits’ lack sugar and are more savoury. For
example, Bell pepper or mild chillies should be considered a fruit rather than
a vegetable in the strict sense.
Interestingly many ‘vegetables’ such as spinach are leaves.)
The rishis (seers) would often eat these fruits etc. uncooked, because cooking often destroys what
the fruits/vegetables have to give us. If plants could speak to us loudly
in words, they would have said that they will donate their leaves and fruits to
us, only if we agree to eat it uncooked (in most cases). After all, cooking by
strong heat also often destroys the seeds of plants and thus destroys their intended
purpose of procreation.
Hence, the pinnacle in terms of
ethical living would be to stick to leaves, fruits (including vegetable ‘fruits’)
and any other plant kingdom product which does not kill the plant itself. When
we eat root vegetables like potatoes, onions, radishes, carrots, we could keep
this in mind. Killing a plant, of course, in most cases, is still far less worse than killing a cow
or a goat for food, but in my humble opinion, it is possible for us humans in
today’s world (at least in the Western world) to be nourished without killing a
plant by its root.
Now let us dwell a tad deeper into nuances.
If we are very much used to eating central roots, what do we do? Perhaps a slightly ameliorating way would be - in a field, if we
have to pluck a plant from its main roots, to make sure some plants are
killed while others are left standing. Of
course, it is still against the will of the individual plant which is plucked from
its roots and killed, but we are also telling the plant that we are not
destroying their whole clan. I know,
this is clutching at straws, but small nuances of mercy and love always
help.
We are able to live in this world
while sticking to what plants give to us willingly and joyfully. Many great rishis and munis (great seers and
meditators) lived like this, based on this abiding principle of not taking
anything by force and coercion, but only accepting gifts given with love. (There
are other reasons also why many rishis and great spiritual masters avoided eating onion and
garlic, but let that remain for another blog.)
Today many vegans also avoid drinking
milk, while true vegetarians in India love having milk-based products and do
not see any conflict in calling themselves vegetarians. [In my humble opinion, those ‘vegetarians’ who eat egg, prawns or fish are
certainly not ‘vegetarians’, although
in some parts of the world these people find it fashionable to call themselves
‘vegetarians’. ]
I would say that those who drank milk and used dairy products in ancient India included many rishis and seers. Some people would argue that if the rishis were ethical, how could they
drink milk? After all, does the cow not produce milk for its calves? How can
drinking milk be ethical? As I mentioned earlier, the rishis could communicate with or at
least understand the wishes of the animals through the vibrations and movements. They could communicate with the cows easily. The special aspect of
cows and many similar higher mammals is that they often produce milk in excess of the
requirements of the calf. A good cow is
most happy to give away several litres of milk to its owners with love and
affection, knowing well that a few litres given to its owners will not starve
its calf. Moreover, the cow often wanted to express its gratitude to the owner
for providing it with lush green grass and protection from the elements. Due to
this, the cow would happily gift some of its milk to its owner. Hence, it
is ethically consistent to obtain milk from the cow. The cow is also relieved
to remove the excess milk from its system. But the important thing to note is that the
great seers had the ability to understand the will of the cow. It is now easier to see why devout adherents of the Hindu lifestyle often treat the cow as
holy. Just because this argument is not always very well articulated does not mean there is no underlying truth here.
Since Brahmins (priestly class) in India have descended from ancient rishis and linked to these seers by gotra, they also are generally expected
to follow the ethical footprints of these seers. (For readers who are not familiar with Hindu caste
hierarchy, to put it simply, Brahmins are the highest in the caste order
and are priestly class among Hindus. Upper castes in general and Brahmins in
particular are expected to abstain from meat and keep a satvic (spiritually clean) vegetarian diet to maintain their
holiness.) Yet we see Bengali Brahmins and Gaud Saraswats
eating fish as part of their mainstream diet. How does it fit in with their ethical
paradigm then? There is an ancient story
about Gaud Saraswat Brahmins which I have heard. There are many types of Brahmins, in India,
based on their region of origin etc. Saraswat Brahmins, as the legend goes,
lived by the banks of Saraswati river. When this river (some say, mythical river),
dried up these Brahmins could not do their farming. They were allowed to eat fish as per their
diet.
Within the myths inside the
legends, as things in India go, there is another story. The story goes that the
Brahmins from the South of India met the Saraswat Brahmins and expressed their outrage at
the fact that Saraswats were eating fish.
‘Being a priestly class how can you kill fish for food…?’
fumed the Brahmins from South India. The
Saraswats replied that they did not kill the fish. ‘We ask the permission of
the fish… and live on their generosity. The long fish which permit us are
caught by us and then we cut off their middles and use that for our food
protein requirements. Then we join the heads and tails by chanting curative mantras (chants) and release them back
into water and they go back to live and reproduce….’ When the South Indian Brahmins heard this
reply, they approved of the conduct of the Saraswat Brahmins and went back
chastened.
In fact there are cosmic lessons
from this, for those meat eaters who somehow cannot embrace a purely vegetarian
diet for various reasons. Learning from the
story of Saraswat Brahmins, some ethical alternatives for the spiritually inclined,
to have meat, without killing animals for food could be :
- Use medical sciences to take small animal cells and create whole tissues separately in the laboratory. For example, use small chicken cells to grow chicken breasts or chicken legs in the laboratory. (Similar to developments in stem cells technology which can multiply and give rise to certain organs/tissues). Hence, in the future, meat lovers can eat a beef steak without killing a cow for it. The whole laboratory/factory should be able to produce beef steaks by using a few cells taken from a living and healthy cow.
- Eating only the meat of animals which have died natural deaths or deaths due to non-infectious diseases. For example, the meat of chicken, goats or cows which have either died naturally or due to other diseases of a non-infectious nature (which does not make the meat unfit for consumption) could be eaten.
If we are increasingly opting for
ethically grown coffee and sustainably fished salmon or tuna, there is no
reason why the ethical meat eater cannot use the options given above, in the
future, if eating meat is desired.
The whole spiritual philosophy of
not doing anything against the wishes of another intelligent system, whether it
is a plant life system or an animal life system is the backbone of cosmic
harmony. As we humans evolve we must aspire to get to this level of spiritual evolution.
Before ending this blog, a small
note on the topic of Bonsai. Once, a spiritually accomplished person had told
me not to keep a Bonsai tree in the house, as it seems, the Bonsai tree releases
negative vibrations. In fact, many Feng
Shui and Vaastu (Indian system) experts say that Bonsai is not an auspicious to
have in the house.
When I contemplated upon this,
the reasons were not far to see. Bonsai is a symbol of sadism and torture. The
plant is not allowed to die but its destiny of natural growth is cruelly
destroyed, not once, but periodically and systematically. It is like a
periodical torture regime. Can we imagine, how we would feel if we were forced to remain 10 cms. tall (by
repeatedly chopping off our growing limbs) merely so that others can view us as
an object of amusement, show or entertainment?
We would definitely curse those who treat us so sadistically and also
those who participate in our humiliation. The overwhelming sadness of the silent
Bonsai tree releases these vibrations of sadness and melancholy into the rooms
of the house in which it is kept. Needless
to say, the principle of like attracts like operates in the cosmic world. (Even when people use the phrase ‘opposites
attract’ we must always remember that only those opposites which are alike in
some fundamental ways get attracted to each other. To give a simple example,
the male of the lion is attracted to the female of the lion, not the female of
a snake.) Thus, the melancholy of the Bonsai attracts melancholy from the
universe into the house.
©Staju Jacob, 2017.
Staju Jacob is the author of the path-breaking book Karmasutra The Karma of Sex, which deals with the karmic spirituality of consensual sexual actions. This book is available globally on various Amazon sites in Paperback and Kindle, Sony Kobo, Google books, Iphone Ibook etc. He may be contacted on Twitter @KaRmasutraTKOS
