To a great extent, we fall on this implicit trust in our activities and conversations, whether it’s getting guidance on a problem set, asking what movies or music to watch, or hounding a roommate or close friend with existential questions and musings.

In retrospect, calling Yelp a religion was a significant leap of faith on my part: after all, Yelp sought to simply share opinions and explain tangible experiences and services, from cups of coffee to the DJing at a set bar or club. For the most part, I have conceptualized religion as a system that attempts to explain the unknown or intangible. Regardless, this wave of online user-generated content and information sharing undoubtedly plays a crucial role in daily life: many individuals use the term “Web 2.0” to describe this phenomenon.

Wikipedia is a prime example of this; I certainly visit it as a dependable resource. When Saketh first told me about creating Swadharma as a blog, I became extremely excited as I thought this would be a great way to leverage a powerful market trend in order to create a resource and forum for self-identified and interested Hindus throughout the college campus scene. Initially, I saw Swadharma merely as students sharing their opinions and interpretations on religion, as a forum and community to discuss a variety of difficult, ambiguous questions and issues.

As I thought more about Swadharma, however, I came to realize why these issues (take vegetarianism and abstinence, for example) are so “ambiguous”: a lot of these questions depend on an individual’s will and inclinations. In a society or group, the individual will has to adapt in relation to the needs of the group: a spectrum of theorists discuss this, from Hobbes to Rousseau to Smith. Especially given our social interactions, we need some sort of benchmark or parameter to orient us when we are confused or entertain thoughts and desires distant from the norm.

Emile Durkheim examines this issue heavily in The Elementary Forms of Religious Life. Durkheim researched collective representations and rituals in primitive societies to purport that religion categorizes the world into sacred and profane, and as a result, naturally promotes order through standardizing the lens of interpretation.

I envision Swadharma as playing a crucial function in this process; beyond a discussion forum, Swadharma creates a collective norm, a benchmark, for individuals struggling with disconnects and challenges from their individual inclinations. In a sense, Swadharma is almost a Wikipedia of spirituality: while each individual writes a post from his perspective, the critical mass of content eventually sets up a collective representation, a backdrop against which we measure our individual wills. I would not go as far as to say that Swadharma defines an abstract general will. Religious questions, by my earlier reckoning, carry a certain element of the unknown that will always create room for debate. The reality that Swadharma and the issues it discusses have a level of ambiguity makes the process that much stronger.

When frequenting Swadharma and other blogs, individuals are actually searching for subjective interpretations rather than objective information and news. Swadharma is user-generated religion, “Religion 2.0”, and it undoubtedly plays a central role in the dialogue between the individual will and the needs and norms of the community.

Related posts:

1. Question of the Week: Challenges to Faith at Harvard Next week, I’m going to be a panelist at an...
2. The Ashramas of Life It is noted that in almost every religion, there are...
3. Not too recent, but always relevant “Finding common ground among faiths can help us bridge needless...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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:

1. Is Vegetarianism Flawed? Eating food for survival and Ahimsa pose a deep conflict...
2. Question of the Week: Why caffeine? Because it is Superbowl Sunday, I thought to write about...
3. Why am I a vegetarian? I don’t know why I am a vegetarian. I was...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.