Should I be a Vegetarian

One asks if Hindu's should be vegetarians. Instead, one should ask ''him/herself if  'I' should be vegetarian". Since such a question has already arisen in your mind, perhaps you have developed a degree of sensitivity about harming other living forms to satisfy your physical hunger. If that is true, you may be better off not eating meat. That way you will be at peace with yourself. Since you are sensitive to this issue, your intellect may be directing you towards being a vegetarian. It is a possibility. However, your mind wants the pleasure of eating meat and your body may crave it due to past habits. So you have to reflect on this. Why has this question come up for you? What is the right thing for you to do?

In my last post I spoke about Sattvik lifestyle and what makes us a Brahmin. In the same context, I am going to touch on Advaita Vedanta and the definition of it.

Advaita means non dual, Vedanta means Philosophy. So when we say non dual, it means, you and I are the same. the cow and you are the same, the chicken and you are the same. When we broadly 'similarize' all living beings of different forms, then the soul that dwells in you, the chicken, the kangaroo and cow is the same. The pain and pleasure experienced physically differs,but all living beings experience some sort of pain and pleasure. Having said that, is it right to slaughter to feed? When we kill a human, we call that a murder. When we kill a fish, we call that fishing, when we kill a chicken, we call that poultry. What's the big deal in categorizing 'life taking' when it all means 'TO KILL'?

There's distinct difference between the Gunas of all living beings. The Gunas here are the characteristic. The Tri-Gunas (three characteristics) are Tamasik, Rajasik and Sattvik. Tamasic is pure spiritual ignorant stage, vastly noticed in animals (some human beings too), Rajasic and Sattvik, are noticeable in civilized human beings.So only with highest level of intellectual, intelligence and spirituality, one progresses from Tamasik to Rajasik and finally Sattvik. Animals will not be able to progress through this due to obvious limitations. 

Among all life forms, Man is different from the rest. He has the capability to discriminate right from wrong. That gives him the freedom of choice which animals and plants lack. Now, when a tiger kills and eats, it does not commit a sin. Because its intellect is rudimentary, it does not go through any analysis before it kills and asks should I kill or not? Should I kill this cute deer? A tiger does not ask itself, should I be a non-vegetarian or a vegetarian? When it is hungry, to fill the natures demand, it kills its prey and eats what it needs and leaves the rest when it is full. A tiger does not overeat. There are no fat tigers in nature. A tiger is not greedy either. It does not seek luxury beyond satisfying its needs. Animals and plants and birds and bees and insects and all living things follow a beautiful ecological system. Yes, it does look baffling and strange that all life-forms should devour and live on another life-form.  One may invent all sorts of explanatory justifications and narrate plausible stories for one life-form destroying another life-form invoking theories of karma, sin, past lives, a pecking order of superiority in living beings etc.  But on a deeper examination by a questioning mind, all such reasonings crumple like a pack of cards. The bottom line is life survives eating another life in the game of life! Yes again, Advaita does say all that is there, is only One Consciousness-Beingness-Infiniteness which is designated by the name Brahman. All forms arise within Brahman. Brahman allows all to appear within Itself without let or hindrance. And also remember that all forms are made up of (permeated by) Brahman only and nothing else. This quality of Brahman being in identity (oneness) with all forms is described as “Love.” It is only man who destroys the ecology by being greedy. But Man also has the beautiful instrument of the intellect and the ability to develop it and to meditate on the reality of the universe. 

Vegetables/plants is eaten just to continue the functioning whereas meat in most cases is eaten because of taste attachment, killing for taste is not a question of correct or incorrect it is not aesthetic. If you want to eat flesh eat people then. Will you? 

So yes, should I be a vegetarian or non-vegetarian? This question is asked only by a man. Why does that question come? It comes due to reflection. Because man has a distinctive  intellect, he can reflect on the nature of pain and suffering. Perhaps a man may think at some point in his life whether it is justifiable to harm and kill an animal to fill his belly. A person may reflect whether eating animals is consistent with the golden rule of 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you'. A man may consider whether this maxim applies to all forms of life or just other human beings.

Yes, arguably plants are life forms too. Should one hurt them? You may ask. If one can live without hurting any life forms that is the best, but that is not possible. Life lives on life, that is the law of nature. My role as a human being with distinctive intellect is to do the least damage to the nature for keeping myself alive and well. 

At least, I am not consciously aware of suffering of the plants. That is why eating to live and not living to eat is the determining factor. In Bhagawad Gita, Sri Krishna emphatically says that a Sadhaka (one who is in pursuit of Moksha) should have a compassion for all forms of life. There may come a point when it is advisable to be a vegetarian, only taking from nature what you need to keep the body in optimal health. Note that, no where in the scriptures or Puranas, it is mentioned that Hindus must be vegetarians. For example, when you are making choices between a best choice and better choice, you should make the best choice. Lets say there is a baby and a Snake and this snake is about to attack the baby. Who should we kill since both have/are sentience? We can in this situation kill snake’s body and not the baby’s because it has more life-force and may be it’ll become a great master one day and will make a great difference in pointing so-called ( ‘so-called ‘because there is no individual entity doing seeking) seekers toward enlightenment.

In one's spiritual growth, one develops subtler and subtler intellect. That is, the mind becomes more sensitive, calmer, and self-contented. Your sensitivity to suffering of others also grows. Hence, the thought about becoming a vegetarian may come. Only you can decide what is right for you and not someone else, not even Sri Krishna or Lord Shiva. Any decision that is imposed on you from the outside does violence to your nature. Hence, the beauty of our teaching is to not propagate any form of violence (internally and externally) and or extremism.

Oshadibhyah annam – says Taittiriya Upanishad. Food means plants. Every biologist will agree that the food chain invariably starts with plants. The reason why the Upanishad says food means plants, is because only they have the ability to manufacture/convert sunlight, water, minerals into edible food. All animals either eat plants, or eat those animals that eat plants; they have the ability to only digest food and not manufacture food. Therefore, food means plants only. We have great Saints calling the stomachs of non-vegetarians as a graveyard, since that is the place fit for dead animals. This is so true that Human Beings are naturally plant eaters and not meat eaters. A fair look at the evidence shows that humans are optimized for eating mostly or exclusively plant foods, according to the best evidence: our bodies.We are most similar to other plant-eaters, and drastically different from carnivores and true omnivores. Those who insist that humans are omnivores, especially if their argument is based on canine teeth, would do well to look at what the evidence actually shows: 

I think the above explicitly explains the answer to being a vegetarian. Now, diving in deeper to answer if vegetarians can or cannot eat eggs and fishes. By now, it is more evident to you on the concept of life force present in the animal kingdom vs Human Beings. Hens and other female fowl can lay both fertilized and unfertilized eggs. Some vegetarians have ethical issues with eating eggs because they believe that this destroys a developing animal. In reality, this is true only of fertilized eggs. In the commercial egg farming industry, egg-laying hens are kept separate from roosters at all times. This almost completely eliminates the possibility that the roosters will impregnate the hens. As such, almost all commercial eggs are unfertilized and purely vegetarian. Question arises is it even ethical to deprive one's freedom to mate. By nature, hens and roosters have the urge to mate and have their little chicks. So Ahimsa in a wider spectrum , it is against this very nature to separate them for the very reason to fulfill our urge and taste buds. Right? Likewise fish is a living animal and they suffocate to death when removed from the water. This is torturous. Hence, human beings even coin the term Veganism. Which goes further to condemn the farming for milk and dairy products. Vedic teachings propagates consumption of dairy products and even used in rituals, such as milk, ghee, curd, etc. In today's world, merely for material aspects to gain higher volumes of milks and to meet demands, cows are injected, calves are separated from their mothers, etc for higher productivity. Finally, when the cow is slaughtered when she stops producing milk or productivity declines. Is it right to consume a deprived calf's portion of the milk? Worth pondering.

     
Flowers grow in their own time. Whether you are vegetarian or not does not matter. Whether you consume eggs and fishes doesn't matter ultimately. We are all flowers blooming in the light of the divine.