One of the most prominent issues in Hinduism is the question of vegetarianism. While many Hindus are vegetarian, they cite a variety of reasons behind their choice. These are three of the most popular reasons:
- Ahimsa, or nonviolence. Some Hindus, including me, are vegetarian purely because they believe in ahimsa, or nonviolence, and the fair treatment of animals. People who are vegetarian for this reason avoid eating meat in order to forestall the killing of animals.
- Purity. Other Hindus categorize meat in terms of the three gunas: saatvic (balanced, pure), rajasic (excitable, pungent), and tamasic (slow, passive). They label meat either rajasic or tamasic and, as a result, detrimental to the body, mind, and soul. This framework emphasizes the impurity of meat, rather than the act of killing the animal, as the primary rationale behind vegetarianism.
- Caste. The “caste” argument, while addressing meat as impure, specifically asserts that Brahmins should avoid meat due to a “higher standard” of purity. Hindus who decide to be vegetarian for this reason view their choice as an expression of caste identity.
Of course, these arguments are not mutually exclusive: one can cite any or all of them as their rationale behind vegetarianism.
Hindu scripture does not take a clear stance on the issue, and poses arguments both for and against vegetarianism. Simply within Chapter V of the Laws of Manu, one can find several verses that isolate vegetarianism to the Brahmin (verses 19-26), and condone meat-eating in sacrificial rituals (verses 27-30). Verse 56 presents meat-eating as man’s natural state, but then goes on to encourage abstention. This sort of ambiguity exists throughout scriptures and epics: the Rig Veda advocates vegetarianism, but then goes on to portray animal sacrifices. In general, scriptures are used to defend a prior decision of vegetarianism or non-vegetarianism: one can easily find the appropriate quotes that are most sympathetic to their lifestyle choice.
Despite the ambiguity of vegetarianism in Hinduism, there are several secular reasons for vegetarianism today, including animal rights and environmental sustainability. The former is pretty self-explanatory, but I’d like to expound a bit on the latter. Producing meat takes more energy and resources than producing vegetarian foods. According to the New Scientist, if the global population switches to a low-meat diet, greenhouse gas emissions would reduce by nearly 10%. As a result, the recent drive to reduce energy consumption has further encouraged vegetarianism. In any case, a good portion of people are becoming vegetarian without any sort of explicit religious framework.
So, my question to all of you is: to what extent does Hindu tradition play a role in your choice to be vegetarian or non-vegetarian? Do you see an ethical imperative for vegetarianism beyond religion?
Related posts:
3 Comments
Again I apologize for not making the discussion this week, but I have my thoughts to share below…
I think the principle of ahimsa goes much deeper than just nonviolence and the fair treatment of animals. It is literally the restraint from imparting harm to other individuals. In Hindu principle, every animate object has a life force (some even argue that everyTHING has atman–or a soul). The practice of vegetarianism derives from ahimsa because if you regard every animal as having a life force similar to our own, killing an animal is the same moral error as killing another human being (if you subscribe to reincarnation, you know that a person could very well be born again as that animal–so there is a small distinction to be made between animals and humans in moral condemnation of murder).
But in that way, I think vegetarianism provides an avenue for the redemption to moral corruptions of ahimsa. In the course of a day, people DO inflict harm (emotional just as much as possibly physical) to others—be they friends, family, or strangers. But they reach out to vegetarianism as a way of saying that they fulfill their moral duty as a Hindu, or as an independent follower of ahimsa (regardless of religion). It too often provides a moral “get-out-of-jail-free” card for individuals who see it as fulfilling their duty as a Hindu, but in reality, it is a small practice that seeks to replace a larger and more comprehensive philosophy that people sometimes equate as the same, which they actually are not fulfilling. Though, I think there is a big distinction between the practices of nonviolence that include vegetarianism and the greater practice of the philosophy behind it—ahimsa. I think vegetarianism is NOT necessary to fulfilling the duty as a Hindu and plenty of Hindus are NOT vegetarians. Hinduism has a greater emphasis on imparting no harm to others that needs to be addressed first. Are individuals meeting that need and tenet of Hinduism? Do we inflict pain to others knowingly—emotional acts of violence that demand greater restraint than the need to resist eating meat? The relationships we need to empower in our daily lives are more important concerns than the side issue of vegetarianism. The redress and duty to impart no harm to others comes before not eating meat.
Hinduism is very hierarchical and so it seems contradictory that there is no place for a food chain to find justification in the religion. Reverence is given to cows and other animals for the nourishment that they provide to us—milk, protection, and transportation (in the old days). But I think the Native American approach to respecting the buffalo for everything it offered is what Hinduism would justify as well—not wasting anything is a much more important practice than restraining from killing cows for food. I think it is worse when I waste food than if I were to kill an animal for nourishment and consumed it all—respecting the sacrifice the animal had to make to help the natural progression of the world. As long as I offer that gratitude, it can be justified. It is the same as offering gratitude to your parents for raising you, or providing the means to your college education. I know this raises its own set of questions; in particular, what gives HUMANS the right to justify killing other animals for their own nourishment? I don’t think we are necessarily becoming paternalistic in nature in doing that, as food chains exist at all levels in nature. But as long as killing animals serves a purpose of feeding our young, it is justified morally and in nature. Killing for the sake of killing is NOT justified—but if it serves a purpose, as Harvard students, our intuitive Econ cost-benefit analysis should kick in.
Just as qualifier I want to say that—I, myself, am and intend to be vegetarian for that was how I was raised—but that has more to do with my cultural practices growing up, than any religious reasons for its perpetuation in my life and hopefully in my children’s lives.
I understand why someone who is brought up as a vegetarian (for cultural/nominally “religious” reasons, as Ashin indicates) would like to remain so, whether or not they have a specific reason besides habit. However, for what reason must vegetarianism persist in this person’s children’s lives? Why raise one’s children as vegetarian if the moral aspect of vegetarianism is less a motivating factor than retrospective reasoning? If it comes from a pride in one’s cultural traditions, then why does vegetarianism stick out so much – for example, many Indians I know are vegetarian but not necessarily culturally inclined in any other way.
Shouldn’t children be given the choice? And if so, when is the appropriate age to let them choose? I wonder, though, if children are raised vegetarian and then given the choice, they will automatically choose to stay vegetarian out of a sense of discomfort.
As I said in discussion today, I speak from the position of someone who has always eaten meat. After going through a period of time where I tried and failed to become vegetarian, I realized that I have no real objections to eating meat, and for me, vegetarianism is not morally superior. Granted, given the ways of the meat industry in this country, vegetarianism is more humane and sustainable…
Being a vegetarian alone does not mean one is practicing Ahimsa. Ahimsa or non violence is not as simple as being just a vegetarian. An evil thought itself is enough to commit Ahimsa. Being vegetarian is a personal preference. In a soceity a butcher by his profession or dharma kills the animal as humanely as possible in order to provide food. The person who eats meat like any other food and I do not see any guilty in it unless his health decides otherwise. Chinese will starve to death if they stop eating meat.
Hindus should stop making big deal about being vegetarian.
Post a Comment