Ahinsa and non-vegetarian food

That day I was roaming in electric house area in South Mumbai. It was evening time and I felt like refreshing my self with some snacks. I went in a restaurant and ordered for a plate of potato bhajia with chutney. While I was waiting for the plate to come to my table I was looking around that restaurant and saw that a few foreigners were sitting in a corner. One of them was also looking at me with some sort of curiosity. I gave him a casual smile just out of courtesy and stopped looking at that group of foreigners. I started looking out of the restaurant through a big glass window and began to watch movements on the road. While I was doing it I felt a little jolt to the table I was occupying. It was that young foreigner, he had come to sit and share my table. I was a little startled and before I can give any reaction he politely requested to me that he wants to talk with me.

I was wondering what on earth he wants to talk to me and on what subject? I did not say anything but gave him a smile. He made himself comfortable in the chair right in front of me. It was for him to begin the conversation and so I kept quiet waiting for him to start the talk. He began saying, “Sorry to disturb you like this. I am here in India to know a few things about your philosophy. Can we talk?

I nodded and showed my interest in the matter. That gave him some assurance and he began by asking me a question, “Are you a vegetarian or non-vegetarian?”

“I am a non-vegetarian,” I replied.

“Do you believe in Ahinsa or to say in English non-violence?” He

“It depends.” Me

“What do you mean by it depends?” He

“I would like to know at what you want to hint? Please, be more clear.” Me

This made him realize that I did not know what he has in mind and realized that I cannot understand the import of his question unless he clears it. At this he gave a big smile and said, “Sorry, I should have made myself more clear in the beginning.” Then he continued, “If you believe in Ahinsa or non-violence then why you at the same time eat meat. Is it not contradictory to belief in non-violence and at the same time enjoy meat and fish preparations?”

Now I understood what he was hinting at. I could not laugh and I did laugh at that. “Well you mean non-violence and eating non-vegetarian food is not matching. Am I right?”

He nodded to accept my interpretation of his comments. Then he began to explain his point of topic. He said, “if you eat non-vegetarian food you encourage killing of that creature at some point somewhere and that means it is violation of the principle of non-violence.” He was sure that he had caught me red handed in the argument. That was clear from his bright face. Gleefully he started giggling at me. As if he had won over me.

I really enjoyed his reactions. A foreigner comes to India and tries to beat me at our own philosophy was an interesting experience to me. Now it was my turn to put an argument and I did put one by asking him a question.

“Before you come to conclusion let us discuss some tacit point in the matter. Are you ready for that?” He twisted his lips with a mischievous smile as if he has no objection for further argument and actually he had come to my table for that very thing!

“Here we have to think of other dimension of violence or killing.” Me

With a surprise on his face he queried “What other dimension you are talking about?”

“I shall explain.” Me

“Let us take an example, two chicken killing and one chicken killing in this which is more violence?” Me. “Of course two” He said.

“That means killing one is lesser violence than killing two; do you agree?” Me

He nodded with a look of surprise and suspense in his eyes. He kept on looking at me with great curiosity. My second question was, “Do you know vegetables are a living beings?”

“Yes, but what has that to do with this?” he counter questioned. “When we eat a bread or rice we use grains of those cereals which are polished and grounded (in case of bread) and we make food out of them and eat. Is it not violence?” Me

Then I continued by telling him about some of the sayings in our philosophy. There is a saying that says, and then I quoted Sanskrit words, “Jeevojivsya Jeevanum”. Then I explained to him the literary meaning of the saying “We live by killing other life.”

That means the principle of non-violence is not applicable for food matters. This principle is referring to killing of living things which one can avoid. I completed my explanation. That had almost completely non-plus the young man. Now he was thinking to himself and was busy putting things properly in his mind. At least I felt that way.

Then I gave him some statistics I had collected to find out the measure of violence that we do when we eat vegetarian food and compared it with non-vegetarian food.

In the mean time my plate of steaming hot bhajia arrived. I offered to my new found friend to share it and he willingly obliged. We were enjoying the delicacy and at the same time thinking to ourselves about what discussion was going on. After gobbling a few bhajia with hot chutney on it he started sweating all over his face. I was amused to see him beating at it.

“Yes, you were telling me about some of your statistics.” He said hurriedly while cleaning his face of the sweat.

“If you are ready.” Me

He stopped eating for a while and ordered for some coke. Now he was feeling relaxed, the bhajia had been finished.

“My statistics shows that eating vegetarian food is by dimension more violent than eating non-vegetarian food.” I completed my statement and looked to him for his reaction.

By movement of his palm he suggested that I further continue my argument.

I gave him my statistics. It was like this, one chapatti of medium size needs 800 to 1200 grains of wheat. To make morsel of rice it takes at least 300 grains of rice. That means when we eat chapattis and rice which is principal vegetarian food all over the world we kill so many lives. But when we kill one chicken kill only one life. So killing wise we can say that non-vegetarian food is less Ahinsa (violence prone) than vegetarian food. When we eat vegetables like onion and potato we kill millions of cells where each one is a living thing. Then I told him if we want to stop this mass killing of small lives we shall have to stop eating vegetarian food altogether.

“Where did you collect this data?” He

I smiled at that; and told him collecting data of various things is my hobby. When I was cleaning rice grains before cooking I started counting them and I found out average of the count and found the data for rice similarly with wheat I did count and by finding average got that figure. He was amazed at my explanation and said, “Do you cook your own food?”

“Yes I do it myself, I believe in self help.” Me

We again turned to the main topic of the discussion. I told him that instead of talking in terms of vegetarian or non-vegetarian food let us use terms violent food and non-violent food. He agreed. Other factor involved was that of relative violence. More violent and less violent and in that to honor the principle of non-violence where violence is unavoidable we have to take to lesser violence similar to the policy of lesser evil. My new found friend immediately accepted the premise and we continued the discussion.

I told him killing one chicken feeds maximum two persons, killing one goat or sheep feeds about forty persons, killing one bull feeds about one thousand people and then I told him to hold this data for a while we take other data about vegetarian food. In that one person eating two chapattis with bowl of curry and some green vegetable dressings and a plate of rice is instrumental for killing approximately 20 million or more of small lives!

“Can you compare the two?” Me

He was spell bound at my explanation. He murmured to himself, “I cannot believe it.”

I continued vehemently to push my argument, “Looking to these data one can say with assurance that vegetarian food is by any standard more violent than non-vegetarian food.”

“Then why the concept of vegetarian food to be non-violent was propagated?” He

“That was done in ancient times. All our philosophical concepts are evolved in period when people were absolutely ignorant and all the concepts need be revised on the basis of modern proven knowledge. But we are reluctant to do it out of prestige issue. We are emotionally attached to those old out dated values. If we are honest to the principle of non-violence we must take to non-violent food and that makes of mostly meat and fish. Vegetables do not make noise while being killed so our ancient philosophers felt that there is no violence in eating them but Sir Jagadish Chandra Bose the great Indian scientist had prepared an instrument to show that plant does cry while being killed.” Me.

“You mean to say there is no life in meat of killed animals?” He

“Unlike plant tissue, where tissue culture is possible because each cell is a complete plant, in meat, fat and bones of killed or dead animals there is no life left and so no further killing happens by eating or cooking that meat. One plant is made of many lives in its every cell; while in animals there is only one life in the whole body.” Me

“Some people do not like meat and fish preparation for example myself, I do not like that food or rather I do not relish it even though I was brought up eating that. Ever since I came to this country and started eating vegetarian food somehow I prefer that.” He commented.

“If you like any particular food preparation have it; do not bother for what it causes, whether violence or not, more violence or less violence. Remember the principle of Jeevojivsya Jeevanum and just enjoy it.” I suggested to him. He smiled at that and said, “I would like to know if there is any food that is vegetarian and at the same time non-violent. Can you suggest some? Since you have the hobby of collecting data I feel you must have that data also.” He concluded.

I was thrilled at that request because I always have such information under my sleeves. I told him the items that can be considered as non-violent food. That means that food which we get without killing small or big lives.

Fruits, fruit preparation, unfertilized eggs or eggs from poultry farms, milk, milk products, honey, salt and water, I finished my list. One can survive on these foods I told him. To have non-violent diet one shall avoid use of condiments since they are made by crushing seeds of spices. Sugar can be used but for that before crushing sugarcane nodes must be removed. Crushing sugarcane with its nodes amount to violence (killing of the life in it). At present we do not get such non-violent sugar, I told him and could not help laughing.

I told him to be non-violent we will have to take to eating big games such as bull, cow, camel, deer, amongst fish we should kill only big fish such as shark and that will help commit lesser killing than taking smaller games such as chicken, ducks, small fish. Principle of lesser violence should be propagated instead of absolute non-violence that is possible and fits with other principle of Jeevojivsya Jeevanum. Challenging this natural law, Jeevojivsya Jeevanum, will not work for long. I told him.

I have a last question, can you answer it? He pleaded to me. “Why not, go ahead we are enjoying the meeting and I am happy that a non Indian is curious about our philosophy.

“If not in food according to the principle of Jeevojivsya Jeevanum, where we should practice the principle of non-violence?” he questioned.

According to Mahavir Jain the great exponent of Jainism the process is not in action but in one’s thoughts (mind). Sin is committed in one’s mind at thought level and not at action. So be non-violent at thought and automatically your actions will be non-violent.” Me. I told him an example of a butcher in Upanishad in that the butcher was asked about how he continues in this profession and still be a sage? He replied, "I do not indulge in this act at mind level but since people eat meat somebody has to do this. So I am doing it!" Body action is immaterial when thinking of sin or non-sin. Examples of warriors at war who kill many enemy soldiers and still attain Moksh were told to him. Violence is equated with sinful act and so it is to be avoided but if your mind is clean and doing a kill for a good purpose then that is not violence according to Upanishad, I told him.

“That is no answer to my query”, he ejaculated roughly.

I got his point and added, “To protect one’s self, one’s pride (this amounts to protecting one’s soul), one’s security the law allows to do violence. To protect lives of dependents. To protect life we have to kill germs. To protect plants from attacks of lesser lives. Ethically and morally these killings are justified.” Me

Violence for pleasure, for indulging in cruelty, do injustice, revenge, to prove superiority, by negligence, without any apparent cause are not allowed in the law. I told him.

“Jainism says total non-violence without any exception. How you consider it?” He

“Jainism is based on, ignorance of people and not on the basis of latest proven knowledge and so it needs to be corrected. But due to ego of the people who practice it they are reluctant to do the amends” Me.

We had finished our refreshment and the Coke. The discussion had come to the last phase of talk. We both enjoyed the discussion thoroughly. In the rush of all this talk I forgot to ask him his name neither he asked for mine and we parted.

How about you? Did you like the discussion? Send your comments on the topic.

Send your comments on this very important topic. You may be having something to say, please write it without fear and send it for other people to comment on. True development takes place when we discuss our problems and thoughts sincerely and frankly. Give your comments on the comment box below.

You may contact me on my Email ID given below,

ashokkothare@yahoo.co.in

ashokkothare@gmail.com

You are invited to visit my other blog if you are interested in after death life.

http://ashokkotharesblog.blogspot.com

http://kothareashok.blog.co.in