What Does Yoga Have to Do with Vegetarianism?
This article is excerpted from the author's new book, Yoga and Vegetarianism: The Diet of Enlightenment, published by Mandala Publishing.
The most important part of the yoga practice is eating a vegetarian diet.
-Sri K. Pattabhi Jois
The Sanskrit term yoga is found in the Vedas, the most ancient of the Indian scriptures, prehistoric in origin. The Indian philosopher Patanjali did not invent yoga, but he did write an important manual, the Yoga Sutras, several thousand years ago. The word yoga is derived from the Sanskrit yuj, which means "to yoke," and describes the yoking of one's individual small self to the cosmic eternal Self, or God. Reaching this blissful state of union with the Divine is called enlightenment, liberation, Self-realization, super-consciousness, or samadhi. Jesus referred to this state when he reputedly said, "I and my father are one." In all probability, he didn't use the English word "father." Most likely he used the Aramaic word for the Divine, which is Alaha. Alaha means the interconnectedness of all beings and things: the oneness of being. A more apt biblical translation of that New Testament passage might be: "I know myself as one with all that is." Jesus was describing Yogic enlightenment.
When Patanjali states, "Yogash chitta-vritti-nirodhah," in the first chapter of the Yoga Sutras, he is giving us both a definition of Yoga and a directive as to how to attain it. This sutra can be translated as: "When you stop (nirodhah) identifying with the divisive nature of your mind (chitta vritti), then there is Yoga (yogah), which is enlightenment." The union of the separate with the whole implies that enlightenment is actually the underlying ground of being and that otherness is an imposition or distortion of a more unified reality.
If we are interested in Yoga, we might ask ourselves, "What is Yoga interested in?" Yoga has one goal: enlightenment, a state in which the separateness of self and other dissolves in the realization of the oneness of being. What holds us back from that realization is a false perception of reality. Instead of perceiving oneness, we see separateness, disconnection, and otherness. Because the term Yoga refers not only to the goal of enlightenment but also to the practical method for reaching that goal, all of the practices must address the basic issue of "other." Otherness is the main obstacle to enlightenment. Killing or harming others is not the best way to overcome that obstacle. How we perceive and relate to the others in our lives determines whether or not enlightenment arises.
When most people think of yoga, they think of the physical postures taught in yoga classes. This is a yoga practice called asana. It is one of the many yoga practices, such as meditation, pranayama (breathing exercises), and yama (restraint), that can help us realize our true nature. The practice of asana, for example, is the perfection of one's relationship to the Earth. What is a perfect relationship? One that is not one-sided or selfish but mutually beneficial. If we are still eating meat, fish, or dairy products, we might question whether or not our relationship to the animals we are eating is mutually beneficial and, with that answer, decide if our eating choices serve our ultimate goal: the attainment of Yoga.
Compassion brings about the arising of enlightenment. All yoga practices are designed to help one develop compassion and, by means of compassion, dissolve the illusion of otherness. Through practice you begin to realize that everyone else in your life is really coming from inside you. Through compassion you are not only able to acknowledge this but also absorb everyone back into the fullness (or emptiness) of your own being. In Yogic terminology this is referred to as shunyata-emptiness (or fullness, if you want to see it that way).
Our experience of everything we see and everyone we meet is colored by our own perceptions. We are actually the most important people in our lives because we determine who the others are and what significance they hold. This is not a subjective occurrence that happens consciously in the moment of perception, but rather a conditioned response developed over time through repeated actions or karmas. These karmas plant the seeds that create our understanding of others, of reality, and of ourselves.
Yoga teaches us that we can have whatever we may want in life if we are willing to provide it for others first. In fact, whatever we are experiencing in our lives is a direct result of how we have treated others in our past. The way we treat others will determine how others treat us. After all, they are only acting as agents of our own karmas. How others treat us will influence how we see ourselves. How we see ourselves will greatly determine who we are, and who we are will be revealed in our actions.
The others in our world can provide us with the opportunities we need to evolve. The world will either keep us in bondage or provide us with the means to liberation. When we give to others that which we want for ourselves-when an action is selfless-it leads to the type of karma that will eventually lead to liberation.
As yogis seeking liberation, we strive to perfect our actions. Every action is preceded by a thought. To perfect an action, we must therefore first perfect our thoughts. What is a perfect thought? A perfect thought is one devoid of selfish motive: free of anger, greed, hate, jealousy, and the like.
If you wish to truly step into transcendental reality and have a lighter impact on the planet, adopting a compassionate vegetarian diet is a good place to start. Not everyone can stand on his or her head every day, but everyone eats. You can practice compassion three times a day when you sit down to eat. This is one of the many reasons that so many yoga practitioners choose to be vegetarians.
Ethical vegetarians eat only plant-based food in order to show compassion toward animals and other humans and to benefit the planet. Some people say they are vegetarian but still eat milk products, eggs, and fish. Ethical vegetarians do not eat dairy products, eggs, and fish because these are not vegetables and eating them causes great harm to other beings and the planet. Vegans are ethical vegetarians who seek to extend their ethics to include not just what they eat but everything they consume: food, clothing, medicine, fuel, and entertainment, to name a few. When I use the term vegetarianism in this book, I am referring to ethical vegetarianism or veganism.
The term veganism was coined in 1944 by Donald Watson (1910-2005), who founded the Vegan Society in England. Vegans do their best to refrain from exploiting animals for any reason and believe that animals do not exist as slaves to serve human beings. A vegan is a strict vegetarian who abstains from eating or using any products that have been derived from animal sources. The mission statement of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) sums it up this way: Animals are not ours to use for food, clothing, laboratory experimentation, entertainment, or any other exploitative purpose.
Some meat eaters defend their choice by saying that it is natural, because animals eat one another in the wild. When people bring this up as a rationale for eating meat, I remind them that the animals that end up on our plates aren't those who eat one another in the wild. The animals we exploit for food are not the lions, tigers, and bears of the world. We eat the gentle ones-vegan animals who, if given the choice, would never eat the flesh of other animals, although they are forced to do so on today's farms when they are fed "enriched feed" containing rendered animal parts.
Some may say a vegan diet is difficult to follow. What does difficult mean? How difficult is it to suffer and die from heart disease caused by a diet high in saturated fats and cholesterol? Still, many people would choose to go through invasive bypass surgery or have a breast, colon, or rectum removed and take powerful pharmaceutical drugs for the rest of their lives rather than change their diets because they think veganism is drastic and extreme. How difficult is it for the beings who suffer degrading confinement and cruel slaughter, dying for our dining convenience? How difficult is it for all of us to be confronted with the effects of global warming, deforestation, species extinction, water, soil, and air pollution that are a direct result of raising confined animals for food? How difficult is it for us to endure being hurt and abused, being lied to, worrying about money and security, experiencing mental and physical illnesses, and not knowing what is in store for us next?
By following the yamas prescribed in Patanjali's Yoga Sutras, we begin to realize that suffering is inevitable only to those who are unenlightened about the truth, which connects us all. Our own actions bring about the situation we live in. Yoga has the potential to heal the disease that we are all suffering from -- the disease of disconnection. War, destruction of the environment, extinction of species, global warming, and even domestic violence -- all of these stem from the disease of disconnection. You can only abuse and exploit others if you feel disconnected from them and have no idea about the potency inherent in your own actions. If you feel connected, you know that it's you, as well as other living things, who will suffer from the suffering you inflict.
It is wise for the yogi to consider that killing and eating another being perpetuates the wheel of samsara-the cycle of birth, life, and death. The yoga practitioner is attempting to be free of samsara and, therefore, would want to step out of the so-called natural cycle of the dog-eat-dog world. Some may argue that human beings have been doing certain activities "forever" and that, therefore, they are normal, natural, and should be allowed to continue. The fact that a belief or behavior is long-held does not make it inherently just, or even right. Consider, for example, the fact that men have been raping women for thousands of years. Does this mean that such behavior is normal and should be allowed to continue? We are fortunate enough to live in an era in which human beings have come to recognize rape as a crime. A yogi investigates all long-standing habits and behaviors, even if they have been in place seemingly forever, and asks: "Is this activity necessary now? Does it bring me or the world closer to enlightenment or peace?"
Eating meat is a long-standing habit in our culture. Many Western yoga practitioners argue that they have to eat meat to keep up the strength required for a physically demanding asana practice. Yet Sri K. Pattabhi Jois, the Indian master of the physically demanding style of Ashtanga yoga, has stated clearly that a vegetarian diet is a requirement for the practice of yoga. He was initially very reluctant to teach Western students because they were meat eaters. It was only in the last twenty years or so that he opened his doors wide to Western students. I had assumed the reason was that he felt there would be language difficulties, but when I asked him if that was why he refused Western students for many years, he replied: "No. It was because they weren't vegetarians. If someone is not a vegetarian, they won't be able to learn yoga. They will be too stiff in their body and their mind."
"But, Guruji," I said, "you teach mostly Western students now. What caused you to change?"
"In my country, we are vegetarians because our parents are; we were born that way," he replied. "At first when Westerners came to me, I assumed a lot about them. Most Indian people do. But then some students came to me, and I learned that they were vegetarians, and they weren't born that way. They had decided on their own to become vegetarians. This seemed very unusual, and I felt that it was interesting and significant. And so I began teaching them because I felt they could learn."
The popularity of yoga worldwide has grown tremendously in the midst of a global crisis. This is no coincidence. Yoga holds the promise that could help us transform our ways of relating to animals, the Earth, and one another. Through yoga practice, we purify our past karmas and in turn develop self-confidence. We begin to feel like integrated beings as we start to heal the disease of disconnection that has separated our hearts from our minds and our bodies. Then the illusion that we are separate from the rest of creation begins to dissolve. With that disconnection dissolved, we begin to perceive our connection to the Divine, and the truth of who we really are is revealed.
I am thankful that yoga is being embraced in our Western culture by a growing minority, because we desperately need to stop viewing the Earth and all other beings as ours to exploit. Much of our culture's influence has been negative and quite destructive. It is based on the lie that "the Earth belongs to us." Yoga has always opposed this proprietary worldview and has offered humanity an alternative over the centuries: the means to live harmoniously with the Earth and all beings. If human beings can't find a new way to live with this planet, then our own annihilation as well as the planet's is certain. Without planetary harmony, no cosmic harmony can be hoped for. I believe that the teachings and practices of yoga are very important, perhaps even crucial, for the survival of life on Earth. That is why I am passionate about practicing and teaching yoga.
The choice to become yogis and the choices we make about what to eat are karmic, political, and economic decisions that affect our mental and physical health. They have repercussions in our families as well as in our larger communities. It is an indisputable fact that a vegan diet causes less harm to ourselves, to animals, to plants, and to the Earth. To say that what you choose to eat is nobody else's business is to belittle yourself and deny the impact that your actions have upon the lives of others.
The biggest consumer of fresh water is the meat and dairy industry. It is also responsible for most of the water pollution. The livestock industry is the single biggest contributor to global warming, as it creates far more greenhouse gas emissions than all forms of transportation combined![1] There are more cows (most of them hidden from our view) in the United States than there are human beings. By enslaving these animals and abusing them through lifelong torture and degradation, we deprive them of their freedom and happiness. How can we ourselves hope to be free or happy when our own lives are rooted in depriving others of the very thing we say we value most in life-the freedom to pursue happiness? If you want to bring more peace and happiness into your own life, the way to do so is to stop causing violence and unhappiness in the lives of others. Yoga reminds us that all of life is sacred, that all of life is connected, and that what we do to another we eventually do to ourselves. The best way to uplift our own lives is to do all we can to uplift the lives of others.
How we behave toward others and our environment reveals -- more than anything else -- our inner state of mind and the current condition of our personalities. How have we become so estranged from our true Divine nature and from nature herself? Are human beings naturally violent, deceitful, selfish, manipulative, and greedy? Or have we learned and perfected these negative traits over time? Could the practice of yoga not only challenge the basic assumptions expressed by these negative traits but reverse them and, in doing so, allow us to recreate ourselves, our societies, and the world we live in?
In the Yoga Sutras, Patanjali lays out an eight-limbed plan for liberation called Raja yoga. The first limb is called yama, which means restraint, and includes five ethical restrictions.
ahimsa satya asteya brahmacharya aparigraha yamah PYS II.30
1. ahimsa: nonharming
2. satya: truthfulness
3. asteya: nonstealing
4. brahmacharya: continence
5. aparigraha: greedlessness
The yamas describe how an unenlightened person who desires Yoga should restrict his or her behavior toward others. Patanjali says that as long as you still perceive "others" and not one interconnected reality, then (1) don't harm others, (2) don't deceive them, (3) don't steal from them, (4) don't manipulate them sexually, and (5) don't be greedy, selfishly depriving them of sustenance and happiness. Through the practice of yama, Patanjali tells us that we can begin to purify our karmas and remove the obstacles to our enlightenment, which are rooted in our misperception of others.
In this book, we investigate how the yamas relate to vegetarianism, as well as what one can expect as a result of being established in the practice of each of the yamas. This is called pratishthayam, which means "to become established in." Patanjali suggests that if we work for the freedom of other beings, we will become free. By becoming established in the practice of the yamas, we can look forward to a peaceful world free of violence (through ahimsa), lies (through satya), and stealing (through asteya); the enjoyment of physical and mental vitality and the end of disease (through brahmacharya); and a future free of poverty and bright with opportunities for increased happiness and creativity (through aparigraha).
What would we find if we were to investigate the yamas in terms of how we are treating the animals we put on our plates every day? Are we harming them? Are we deceiving them? Are we stealing from them? Are we manipulating them sexually? Are we impoverishing them through our greed? What impact does our treatment of these "other" animals have upon our inner and outer environment?
Don't wait for a better world. Start now to create a world of harmony and peace. It is up to you, and it always has been! You may even find the solution at the end of your fork.
FOOTNOTE:
[1] Henning Stanfield, Pierre Gerber, Tom Wassenaar, Vincent Castel, and Mauricio Rosales, Livestock's Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2006).
Copyright 2008 by Sharon Gannon. Published by Mandala Publishing. All rights reserved. Used with permission.
Image by GrahamKing, courtesy of Creative Commons license.
Tweet
- 11-13-08
- Sharon Gannon's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- Printer-friendly version
Comments
Conundrum
Sharon: Thank you for a beautiful article. I have a question that I've been dying to ask for awhile which has been bothering me greatly. Perhaps you can help.
I have severe IgE food allergies. In particular, I am highly allergic to all forms of vegetarian protein, including soy, all legumes, gluten, nuts. I'm also quite allergic to many common types of fruits and vegetables and I must be very careful of how I eat. If I partake, I need hospitalization. In light of this very serious medical condition, how can I still adhere to ahimsa? Would I still be welcome into your yogic community?
Thank you.
"You have to grow from the inside out. None can teach you, none can make you spiritual. There is no other teacher but your own soul." - Swami Vivekananda
Game Hunter
One step at a time
a couple of things
//The animals we exploit for food are not the lions, tigers, and bears of the world. We eat the gentle ones-vegan animals //
Isn't everything a product of the same "oneness." This sentence seems to insinuate that there is some sort of heirchy in place. Doesn't this contradict our 'true nature' which indeed, is oneness?
//"In my country, we are vegetarians because our parents are; we were born that way," he replied. "At first when Westerners came to me, I assumed a lot about them. Most Indian people do. But then some students came to me, and I learned that they were vegetarians, and they weren't born that way. They had decided on their own to become vegetarians. This seemed very unusual, and I felt that it was interesting and significant. And so I began teaching them because I felt they could learn." //
This seems like the spreading of a religion in a meme like fashion, based on the notion that you are something solely because your parents are. This sort of thinking in other contexts is looked down upon by rational types (oh, I'm a Christian because my parents are) - yet, when applied to this situation, is it somehow different? Same means, achieving different ends. In order to be philosophically consistent, I think that it is important for the main reason to adopt any thought paradigm should be other than "oh, because I was born that way."
// Yoga reminds us that all of life is sacred, that all of life is connected, and that what we do to another we eventually do to ourselves//
Where do we draw the line, is it arbitrarily drawn at plants? Why? Aren't plants just another form of this sacred life? If so, environmental issues aside, why is being a vegetarian seen as a morally superior position?
One other thing I may comment on is that meat eating in Buddhism, as long as you are not doing the actual killing yourself, is generally, not looked down upon. Although you are still part of the chain, you are not doing the actual killing.
The following is copied and pasted from a few sources.... The First Precept admonishes us to refrain from killing, but meat eating is not regarded as an instance of killing, and it is not forbidden in the scriptures. (speaking mainly of the Pali scriptures. Some of the Mahayana scriptures, notably the Lankavatara Sutra, take a strong position in favor of vegetarianism). As recorded in the Pali scriptures, the Buddha did not prohibit consumption of meat, even by monks. In fact, he explicitly rejected a suggestion from Devadatta to do so. In modern Theravada societies, a bhikkhu who adheres to vegetarianism to impress others with his superior spirituality may be committing an infringement of the monastic rules. There are many places in the Buddhist scriptures which tell of the Buddha and his monks being offered meat and eating it. Monks and nuns may eat meat. Even the Buddha ate meat. Few of us are in a position to judge meat eaters or anyone else for "killing by proxy." Being part of the world economy entails "killing by proxy" in every act of consumption. The electricity that runs our computers comes from facilities that harm the environment. Books of Buddhist scriptures are printed on paper produced by an industry that destroys wildlife habitat. Worms, insects, rodents and other animals are routinely killed en masse in the course of producing the staples of a vegetarian diet. Welcome to samsara. It is impossible for most of us to free ourselves from this web; we can only strive to be mindful of entanglement in it. One way to do so is to reflect on how the suffering and death of sentient beings contributes to our comfort. This may help us to be less inclined to consume out of mere greed. Those who believe that vegetarianism is not necessary for Buddhists have equally compelling although more complex arguments to support their view: (1) If the Buddha had felt that a meatless diet was in accordance with the Precepts he would have said so and in the Pali Tipitaka at least, he did not. (2) Unless one actually kills an animal oneself (which seldom happens today) by eating meat one is not directly responsible for the animal's death and in this sense the non- vegetarian is no different from the vegetarian. The latter can only eat his vegetables because the farmer has ploughed his fields (thus killing many creatures) and sprayed the crop (again killing many creatures). (3) While the vegetarian will not eat meat he does use numerous other products that lead to animals being killed (soap, leather, serum, silk etc.) Why abstain from one while using the others? (4) Good qualities like understanding, patience, generosity and honesty and bad qualities like ignorance, pride, hypocrisy, jealousy and indifference do not depend on what one eats and therefore diet is not a significant factor in spiritual development.
" If you have built castles in the air, your work need not be lost; that is where they should be. Now put the foundations under them."
Veganism is not for everyone
I agree very strongly with many of the points made in this article, but I also find some major problems with some of them. I was a vegan for almost a year and did not find the diet provided me with enough sustenance. Even though I ate all the right foods and even took some supplements I ended up very skinny. My eyes looked sunken and my skin had a tone which I call vegan gray. Everyone's body is different. If someone can follow a vegan diet that's great. But personally, although I still avoid dairy and red meat, I enjoy fish, eggs, and poultry from time to time(with no antibiotics etc).
That being said, we should all strive to reduce our meat consumption drastically, because factory farming is horrible for our body (their is only one body, Gaia's). We should also try and eat fish that is ethically caught (for this I recommend Taras Grescoe's book Bottomfeeder and many of the links on his site).
I think part of recognizing our oneness means coming to terms with the fact that death is a necessary part of the life cycle and we all eat one another (denying this is more ego). Even vegans have to kill to eat. Plants are sentient beings and we raise them for no other reason than to eat them. Animals eat other animals. The earth is a system of recycling matter and energy. Grant Morrison discusses this beautifully here:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2846659702181362743&ei=f-kdSfSc...
I find the counter argument that we don't eat predators a misunderstanding of the original argument. It seems to imply those making the argument justify eating animals out of some kind of revenge for eating other animals.
I also find the following passage very troublesome, "whatever we are experiencing in our lives is a direct result of how we have treated others in our past". Although this has some truth to it, I would not state this so firmly. Is the child born into a slum responsible for their experience? What about victims of genocide? Although we can bring good and bad upon ourselves via our behavior, saying this so absolutely reinforces complacency amongst those in comfortable positions. Perhaps that's why India has the caste system. If the buddha would have had this attitude he never would have left the palace to seek enlightenment.
Furthermore, if someone wants to make the argument that a vegetarian diet makes them more compassionate and less egotistic they should reflect that in their own behavior.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7644437228277455167&ei=ZN8dSZSI...
I think this video speaks for itself.
Preaching to the converted here....
Thank you for your well written article. It all makes very good sense to me. I have been vegan since about 1999 and veggy since about 1993.
The key in my opinion is to make diet changes at a pace that can be coped with by the body and the mind. The most difficult part is standing up again majority opinion; but this only get easier over time. I did try making the step to a raw food diet, but found that in terms of variety and ease of fitting it in to everyday living, plus cost in time and money, too problematical. However, I do tend to go for a high percentage of whole foods/ organic foods where I can. It's not an entirely puritanical lifestyle that I led either. Do enjoy the odd alcoholic beverage, now and again!
Certainly don't expect the readers of this comment to agree with me, as long experience confirms that food regime is one of the most contested subjects of humankind! :~)
I have thought for most of
I know what you are trying to say...
I know what you are trying to say, but it also smacks of cultural imperialism, that your culture or system knows better. That stance is absolutely anti-yogic, as in its own way violates ahimsa, aprigraha, santosha and ishwara-pranidhana. This could also open yourself to some flames. Perhaps reconsider how you phrase yourself?
"You have to grow from the inside out. None can teach you, none can make you spiritual. There is no other teacher but your own soul." - Swami Vivekananda
Funny
No i am not making this up.
oh boy
First, let it be stated that I am a lifelong lacto-ovo vegetarian, from in utero to the present day. I spent my high school years as an on-again, off-again vegan. I am very sensitive to the many issues that motivate and prevent people from cutting meat out of their diets. I DO, however, take issue with the argument in this article.
First of all, I am of the belief that plants are also sentient beings, and they too are involved in the karmic cycle. The plants we eat for food are grown in equivalently deplorable conditions as those in which animals are raised, and the agricultural methods that produce the majority of food available in North America are INCREDIBLY bad for the environment. Brazilian rainforest is being destroyed to raise soybeans, not just cattle.
I don't care whether it's fungus, mineral, plant, or flesh. If it is grown in a manner that perpetuates greed and makes no consideration of what is good for the earth, I want nothing to do with it.
For hundreds of years before agribusiness emerged, plant and animal agriculture worked in tandem, INTERDEPENDENTLY, and left the land in better condition at the end of every season than it was at the beginning. Proper plant and animal husbandry made use of every waste product, plant and animal. Animals did not live in steel-and-cement warehouses, and plants were grown in ways that negated the need for chemical fertilizers, pesticides, and the like.
While I do advocate an animal-free diet (i'll get to my reasons in a minute), I think that the author's solution to the problems she sets forth are very short-sighted - from a pragmatic and yogic standpoint. I feel that it would be better karmically to eat a respectfully raised animal than a factory-farmed vegetable. The reason the karma associated with consumption of animals is bad is because the intention involved in their production was greedy and violent. How is eating a vegetable produced with this same intention any better for the yogic self?
The solution is to stop supporting this agricultural system in all ways - become a 'locavore': eat locally and know where your food comes from (surlytemple, the inuits are doing exactly this. while they're doing it with animals, they're way better off than the vast majority of people in the western world). what business of mine is it if you eat meat that was responsibly raised? Refraining from eating factory farmed meat is hugely important, because it IS incredibly bad for the environment on so many levels (from feed production to slaughter): again, the whole system is interdependent. But you're not singlehandedly solving the problem just by abstaining from meat. the whole agricultural system is sick.
all that being said, i firmly believe that removing animal protein from your diet is good for you on an individual level - spiritually, if not physically - and I will always advocate it (but i will not proselytize as it is a personal choice). but i also acknowledge that we would not have the choice of being vegetarian today had it not been for animal agriculture supporting civilization as it propelled forward throughout history. i believe that one day we will evolve out of eating meat, but only because we will have evolved enough as a civilization to support this change(technologically, i think we're there already, but spiritually not so much).
My perspective on being a vegetarian has been shaped my many things. I believe that the consequences of diet choice are so multi-faceted that there is no one solution for everybody. In my struggles with anorexia, I have used my vegetarian/whole-foodism as an excuse to ignore what my body is telling me it needs, not to mention deprive myself of some small pleasures(I definitely believe that life is something to enjoy, and sensory pleasure is generally a good thing!). Abstaining from meat seemed to be another way that I was depriving myself of potential pleasure, so as a recent spiritual exercise I bought myself some beef jerky (something I'd enjoyed when trying it but told myself was totally off-limits). Eating it, i was extremely conscious of the life I'd contributed to taking and partook with more conscious gratitude than I ever do when I'm eating a plate of broccoli, which I am wont to take for granted due to its leafy nature. Eating the jerky also reminded me that my diet restrictions are entirely self-imposed and that in this infinite universe, I have the freedom to eat and do whatever I want as long as I am willing to deal with the consequences(I still went back to abstaining from meat afterward). My point is, it's all in how you look at things, and everything has to do with the individual's situation.
Some problems with 'Hindoo' yoga
As it stands today, or as we have received it, the system of "yoga" has become culturally appropriated and doesn't fully describe, happily, what happens amongst the majority of 'mortals' here on earth.
It appears to be a series of records of different ages and the accomodations each succeeding age has allowed as being 'acceptable'.
Even a cursory examination of such records allows us to speculate that some persistent and over-seeing 'kindness' or 'providence' doesn't just shut-down and say: you are unworthy! ATE MEAT! Killed! Death to you!
The concept of the Saivites seems to allow that meat eating is okay, as long as we acknowledge we are being fed by God, and that that is God giving us food in very flesh.
When we think we have the right to take life, unrequited, and without regard to inherant rights in that life, we are automatically defined as rapacious, and domineering and ignorant of the law: do unto others as you would prefer they do unto you.
The idea that eating the flesh of plants somehow is less rapacious seems rather a matter of lack of sensitivity and a kind of self-permission to be mean.
The essential idea of the Upanishads is that what sustains us is not the physical forms of food, but the essential principle of PRANA.
If 'ultimate consciousness' or a consciousness that can produce 'body' at will or dissolve body at will is the big idea, then 'food' can be seen as, in all its forms, as a form of 'Christ' or 'Siva' writ substance.
In fact, the idealism preserved in Hinduistic lore tells us the very 'King of Heaven' as an 'elect' was once chased by his enemies and he took 'abidance' in a grain of wheat.
So the king of 'heaven' lived in a grain of wheat. And yet wheat was still eaten as in the form of bread or 'nan' or 'chapati'.
Indra was mentioned by Krishna as having that status of 'King of Heaven' by 'works' or 'sacrifice'.
And what is food?
Jesus is said to have said: unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you have no part in me.
While some think this an admission that Jesus was an incarnation of Siva, I think it more likely it admits a correspondence between Jesus and Indra.
Eating meat is no sin. Killing is also no sin if we allow that the animal giving of its flesh is very Christ.
And reverantly done, as was common amongst the Native Americans, eating meat is acknowledgment that one is receiving bodily life from one very much more advanced than oneself as yet unable to live from the universal vitality termed PRANA.
That is 'older brother' or 'older sister' serving at the very utmost of 'love'.
No greater love than laying down ones' life for ones' friends.
There is no difference between eating plants than eating animals when there is no gratitude nor reverence.
A story about those stoics called "mountain men" and American 'natives' is that recommendation by one of two starving souls in a wasteland: 'stick yer knife in my ribs and eat my flesh, that ye might live, 'cause I'm a gonner'.
We take the story of the Donner Party as a kind of abomination of human depravity.
Polite society would rather that the entirety of these died than any should have lived off of the dead flesh of others. If it was a matter of murder, that is one thing, but if someone is dead, and a living sould could continue by means of that corpse, we demean that from the comfort of our living rooms. With knowledge of food in our larders.
No doubt, taking the life of animals in times of abundance, is an abomination.
They have eyes, and they have souls. And we would be most cruel to think it alright to just murder for some sake of facility towards hunger.
What we seem to lack is an ability to thrive by direct communion with a principle of life and so thrive without having to kill.
It seems to be a question of less and less evil until we come into direct contact with life itself. And when we take in this PRANA? And PRANA becomes us? That is NOT killing?
The unveiling of a common cause of all life or an 'internal potency' is the revelation of Krishna, who also said: I acted under the influence of spirit.
Prana, too, is a life form according to that chronology and the revelation of Krishna was akin to the same revelation of Jesus: All authority is mine, all power is mine. And I have to give, and let anyone come to me, and I will give.
That, apparently, is a level of 'metaphysic' beyond us. We aren't willing to accede to that.
Yet in everyday experience, I think we see such in just ordinary parental self-sacrifice for children.
And in the eating of meat by some or even all, that can be deemed a common awareness of that principle.
Even a sprout can be deemed as 'meat'.
So what do we mean? The ultimate 'Hindoo' would see 'grain eaters', even, as 'abominations' and cruel chewers.
'Those who hord their life will lose it; and those who give their lives will actually keep it everlastingly being eternal.'
John 12:25
We either realize that life is permanent and indestructible or we don't. And this realization or lack thereof delineates our mode of life.
If meat is set before us, and we choose not to eat, we deny that that is the flesh of a very Christ and one whose life has value.
It is a common saying in my neighborhood, when we feel we are being discounted as unimportant: eat me.
Some take this as just an empty or crude expression. I think it is very deep. It is the best rejoinder to anyone who thinks they are somehow different from one and is an offering that says: you may hate me, but I'm still willing you should live and even thrive by using me to so thrive.
So eat me.
OF COURSE I'm taking the
Thank you!
Dear Surly: Thanks for the information. I have a habit of taking people literally.
Dear Roger: That's the most accessible comment I've seen you write, and I'll be saving that one. It helped to answer my initial question, and it is much apprecited, particularly the idea of cultural appropriation and twisting therein.
The Weston Price Foundation holds that there are no indigenous food cultures that are vegan. There are a 2-3 indigenous food cultures that are purely carniverous. The Hindus are not vegan by any stretch. They might be vegetarian, but never vegan. I've attempted to ask about the food showcased in my apartment complex aka Little India. (It smells wonderful around my apartment.) The few immigrants who will talk to me generally report that they eat varying degrees of dairy, chicken, and fish, a heck of a lot of curry, but never beef or pork. No one has been vegan.
David Life (Sharon Gannon's partner) has argued in an article that I forgot the name but read in Yoga Journal, that most Indians have little understanding of yoga or their own religion's ethical underpinings. If anyone remembers the article, I'd appreciate it if you could cite it.
"You have to grow from the inside out. None can teach you, none can make you spiritual. There is no other teacher but your own soul." - Swami Vivekananda
A Perfect Thought
Ages of Life
Euphrates' cities and
Palmyra's streets and you
Forests of columns in the level desert
What are you now?
Your crowns, because
You crossed the boundary
Of breath,
Were taken off
In Heaven's smoke and flame;
But I sit under clouds (each one
Of which has peace) among
The ordered oaks, upon
The deer's heath, and strange
And dead the ghosts of the blessed ones
Appear to me.
Friedrich Hölderlin 1770 - 1843
translated by David Constantine
He was no vegeterian, but i think we should not blame him.
Perhaps we should re-examine the usual arguments for veganism?
I was vegan for many, many years. After moving to a rural area I let my veganism go, because it was just too difficult to get hold of the mass-produced food items, such as tempeh, tofu, Tofurkey, etc., that make veganism easy in urban areas. Tofu is difficult to get here, TVP is available at one store 25 miles away, and the "health food" department at the local supermarket has about 5 items in it.
However, I have recently decided to go back to vegetarianism - still eating some small amount of dairy and eggs. I see by this article that the arguments against eggs and dairy are still based on the industrial methods of agro-business production. But the eggs I eat are from hens kept in someone's yard, roaming freely, eating anything that comes in their way. They're fresh, delicious, and cheap. I cannot see that the hens are exploited in any way (though I don't know whether the owner sometimes kills and eats the hens). As for dairy, I am decreasing it in my diet, but cheese and yogurt are easily available from local farms where the cattle are not kept in bad conditions, so far as I can tell.
Now, what I'd like to know is, if one is not supporting the industrial methods of production, are there still ethical arguments against consuming some animal products? Let's face it, there are very, very few people in this country who are not dependent on industrial agriculture for sustenance. The products that make veganism easier for most of us are from huge agro-business concerns (often the same ones running the usual junk-food industries).<p>Arguments for veganism usually focus on either the agro-business model or actual killing and eating flesh. But animals were domesticated for their "by-products", if you will, as well as their flesh: cattle were the only way to turn grass into something consumable by people, and not just their flesh, but their milk and all the products developed from that. But if a hen is not kept in a tiny box, fed fake food, and is going to lay eggs anyway, is there an ethical argument for not availing oneself of the eggs? Especially if they haven't even been fertilized?
I believe in veganism, but I'm also practical. If I'm going to live on this earth, I'm going to have to consume food, preferably the kinds that keep me healthy and strong. To remain alive on this earth, we must eat. If you get your soy beans from an agro-business concern, or buy a plastic package of tempeh from your supermarket shelf, then the earth has been exploited to create, package, and transport that product to you. I feel that if we can mitigate this exploitation as far as possible, then we've moved quite a way down the road to ethical consumption. I look forward to seeing comments.
What about the botanical life forces taken forgranted?
The concept of vegetarianism in respect to animal cruelty is highly respectable. But so many times the cruelty to plants is forgotten...do not these sacred beings that transform the light of the Sun into substance deserve respect, if not more respect than the grazing animal? I believe that for any food to be rightly consumed, one must maintain singleness of thought, and prepare that food out of love and gratitude for that which is being transformed. One cannot deny evolution either. Homo Erectus has the tooth structure of an omnivore, designed to pull meat off of the bone, and also to grind fibers of plants and such to a pulp for digestion. That being said, the amount of meat in ones diet should be moderate at best. To quote a sacred book: "All things in the season thereof". My diet consists of whole oats with dried fruit and honey, organic yogurts (and homeade when fresh milk is available), fresh eggs and cuts of meat that I obtain from a local farm (a blessing to know the lady who runs the farm...she maintains wholistic practices with her animals), fresh produce from the farmer's market, and of course, my favorite: rice!
-Daniel Efros
We're all in this together
I would be remiss if I didn't also add that I think it possible that we are just barely above being 'abominable beings' while living in ways that are 'least evil' while we 'give thanks' to our 'neighbors' for giving their lives so that we 'others' might live. We can be two people eating the same 'steak' and one is 'least evil' while the next-door neighbor is most evil or cruel. What would the difference be?
One feels mercy in eating. The other feels a right to kill. I can't imagine as of yet some other scenario. It pains me to think about it.
This entire thing seems to be the 'principle' of 'mortal life'.
I am fully cognisant of a principle of being that allows that life is permenant and indestructible and that there can be another mode of living of FOR living than just 'taking' life or borrowing energy and mass.
As we are, and all are as far as we are generally aware, we live by the constant dissolution of form to preserve form . . . OUR form or forms.
With our present ability to believe and allow probity or honesty and BELIEVABILITY of physical thought or natural philosophy as summarized under the term 'physics', we might permit ourselves to think that thought itself is the most rediculous anomally.
It is so rediculous, that we might as well allow that even BREATHING is a kind of addiction. Even PHYSICALITY and MORTALITY is a kind of momentum or ADDICTION.
A habit. Maybe the worst of habits.
I think the VEGAN sentiment, the direction that that sentiment is going, is most beautiful. Even most kind.
I think I conveyed to some extent what I feel as being an accomodation to my kin who MUST EAT.
If I cannot also say, while I eat, eat me too, then I am most definitely a hypocrit.
At the same time, what it is that is 'me', I think is not eatable and also doesn't have to 'take' to BE.
And if that is true for me, it must be true for ye and all others.
Then, should we attain to that independence from that violent form of eating, and just a form of breathing or taking in and giving out without also anihilating a life-form: we hopefully will find some interface kind of existence that has 'virtual' eating as merely some kind of 'play' while the bottom line is more like what we put most in the background: lust for life amongst others and 'eating' the variety of personality possible. And we can know already that there is no limit to that!
I think that really is what it's all about already, but we seem to have no idea about how much suffering we permit while we pursue other objectives.
I think that most cruel. That we give no thanks, and think not. We don't really think. We don't really feel.
After all, in terms of meat, as far as I know, the only animals that willingly give their bodies willingly to humans as meat . . . that is, consciously: are buffalo (Bison), chickens and Elk.
As far as the culture of eating such, the majority of Americans know nothing about that. They haven't chased, killed nor eaten raw meat. Don't know about no beaver tail, nor 'sweet bread' nor 'carribou salad' nor the natural emotional reaction to the hunt.
Killing for living, eating meat as for life doesn't creat any 'religion', but the reaction of this process DOES induce definite emotional responses and a kind of reverence and gentelness that isn't seen amongst mere 'meat eaters' who get their meat at the grocery store or some fast-food restaurant.
I even think that eating meat without ever having hunted does create a kind of menace-mentality amongst mankind. An evil.
So, to conclude, I think the trend amongst us of people who want to be 'vegan' is a natural tendancy for non-hunters and and gatherers. And ultimately that is cutting edge consciousness writ 'trend' or 'mode'. It is only real when it also moves towards many other levels of 'abstention' or 'boycott' that can also move into very interesting areas including areas that are supposedly, and I believe incorrectly relegated to only 'yogis' or 'initiates' or some odd ideas of the 'occult'. That would be very sad if that should be abrogated to such.
I know that that is not the case having had a close association with a child who seemed never to eat, but just 'play' with her food. And she was a fat child.
She's in good health today, and is a vegan. And I take careful pains not to talk about her 'diet'. I'm only interested in observing this new wave.
I hope you'll excuse any errors of logic or grammar herein, but of all the subjects I've written about on this site, this has been most trying. When my mother told me that the hamburger she was preparing for us boys didn't grow on some plant . . . I wanted to know what kind of plant it was that grew this stuff . . . I began to cry. I was inconsolible. And from the age of 3 to I don't know how long they began to give me food in which 'meat' was hidden . . . like spagghettti sauce . . . I would not eat meat.
But my family were hunters with bow and arrow and eventually I began to see from their point of view.
But I have never divorced myself from that little boy.
======================
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance -- that principle is contempt prior to investigation."
As far as the plant is concerned
Please forgive me for going on. I don't mean to be verbose for its' own sake. But as far as the life of plants' is concerned, I think SOMEWHAT the same applies, but not exactly.
Having given much thought and much feeling-thought about this, I have the impression that PLANTS as FOOD see us as 'subjects', and that being eaten they are actually taking advantage of us. For plants, seed is the very life. And the life of seed isn't in just one or another seed as we might eat, but belongs to a collective trend or momentum that has a percentage of BODY that can be sacrificed as long as the END of perpetuation of body continues by some percentage of seed.
The same seems to applicable to all life. The life is in the 'seed'.
The big furor about 'stem cells' amounts to about the same thing.
We don't need any 'embryonic' stem cells. There are 'embryonic' stem cells dispersed throughout all adult bodies. The question for researchers today is why such 'dispersed' cells don't replicate the fully developed form in place. That two adults can produce a child at all should have produced by now the doubt about any need for some detritus of an aborted human life. And the fact we can get cancer indicates there must be such 'totipotent' cells or 'stem' cells, since all cancers show definite 'markers' identical to embryonic placental cells or 'trophoblasts'. That is not possible from any differentiated cells or 'somatic' tissues as far as can be proven by any current scientific data. All cancers must arise from 'stem cells'. Such 'stem cells' however can merge with differentiated or 'adult' cells. And so they can show the 'site of origin' of any cancer by metastases.
The fact that scientists don't question their premises is an abomination. And when we can show that all adults must have such 'totipotent' cells in order to be subject to cancer, reliance on embryonic tissues has to be deemed illogical.
If an adult can produce a totipotent cell that can combine with another adults' totipotent cell so as to make another separate human being, would it not be logical to ask: why can't such precursors (haploid or precursor to haploid cells) also not contribute to perpetual self regeneration of the contributors? What limits this?
I'm not at all convinced that we understand this.
The 'Siddha' tell us that this limitation is entirely the product of our expectations reflected from our ego into our modus operandi as mind or 'bringing forth what we gaze upon'. This goes far beyond mere 'Ayurveda'. While the Ayurvedic treats problems, the Siddha attack first principles.
That in turn revolves upon some relationship of attention and energy and energy from the 'vacuum' and all manner of UNKNOWNS as far as physics and biochemsitry are concerned. Current science is mostly concerned with telling the public about so-called KNOWNS. That is in the nature of the 'publish or die' trend of education extant. In fact, SCIENCE is about UNKNOWNS and we should be honest about this. What we KNOW as far as science is concerned is miniscule compared to what we DON'T KNOW or have as of yet to know.
I know political junkies laugh about Donald Rumsfeld's seemingly rediculous remarks about this, but he actually stated something very profound in talking about 'Unknown Unknowns'. In the context in which he spoke, in the milieu in which he said that, that was rather rediculous. But in terms of pure science, he said the veritable facts about the lack of facts. It is impossible to draw conclusions from 'lack of facts'. In science, this is true. In politick, such a statement is utterly rediculous.
I think it enough as far as consciousness is concerned and issues of confidence in our own intelligence and 'faith' in that and projection or 'imagination', that we are pretty much busy recreating limitations by means of imagination; furthermore at the same time we some are breaking the 'rules' by the very same means so as to lead us into a better future. A kinder future or less limited future. As we look forward and project our expectations with feeling that is hopeful, those things draw unto themselves the substance and power that make them matters of 'reality'. It takes some numbers for that to be perceptible at large evidently. Otherwise, we say: that one is a kook.
Their 'visions' are not really 'real'. But they are as real as what we have acceded to thus far. They are mere stepping stones or relevant conventialities or reference points we take as 'issue' and 'esse' writ 'existere'.
We 'buy' that. Anything too far out or away from such conventions are utterly invisible to us.
Some point in time allows some threshhold to be crossed and we look back in embarrassment and wonder how such 'obvious' facts could be missed.
I'm sure, if plants take too much offense, they'll win in the end. Unless they develop 'ego' too much.
As it stands, we are their 'brain', and we are eating our own bodies. As such, we are merely containers of 'seed'. Once we appreciate the potency of life, perhaps, we'll be around to learn from our great-great-great grand-children's insights.
Maybe.
I hope should we attain to such long life it won't be towards limiting such insights.
Furthermore . . . blah blah blah . . .
Why more people are eating less meat and going vegetarian...Yoga
It has been interesting to read the various comments...
However, most people reading this will be in the midst of westernised consumer society. And have the choice to choose various regimes of food. In centuries gone by, most people would have tended to eat quite high proportions of vegetarian foods, what little meat they did eat, would have been from 'on the hoof' wild animals, who would have had an appreciably better life than most of the factory farmed animals of today. There would have been a lot less fat on these animals too, as they got no opportunity to 'fatten' for market (!).
With the human world population of today, the one most effective thing that we 'Westerners' can do is to move down the food chain, and so reduce our individual consumption 'footprints' - something that the credit crunch is helping us to do anyway! The 'plants have feelings too' argument really cuts little ice, as biologically, plants are quite a step down in complexity to animals.
Everyone is really on a journey, and so it is with diet.... Meat reducing, cutting out red meat, cutting out white meat, cutting out fish, veggy, vegan, fruitarian etc. Of course I can live with myself a little easier, been a vegan... but certainly don't consider myself perfect. Still eat too much chocolate, sugar in various forms, crisps/ chips, alcohol. And if a product states that it "...may contain traces of dairy product...due to the manufacturing process", well, that maybe 0.0001 % not vegan, but for practical purposes the manufacturer has taken reasonable precautions. So that counts as vegan in my book!
To get back to the original subject: of course yoga and vegetarianism go together. They both help towards a 'union' with 'life' and so aid sensitivity in realising this goal. Hopefully this post has been of some interest. Have to admit I'm not the greatest academic and so this article will not come across as the most logically coherent piece. Still believe it makes some important points though. :~)
no one hunts wild chicken...
Scared eggs!
yoga has nothing to do with vegetarianism