PDA

View Full Version : Is eating plants a vegetarianism? *if yes then how?*



Shivam
02 May 2012, 10:00 AM
praNAm
This idea of eating plants and to say self a vegetarian is clogging my reasoning.

*(FACT)*
1 Plants grow and die!

*(Reasoning)*
2.IF plants are non-alive( not dead or else they were to be alive at some point of time) , how did they grow?
**
3. Because only living thing can die OR/AND grow, even if we the humans did not take away the life of plants, is it not that we eat the dead of plants - as the plants were at some point of time alive and offcourse plants are not stones.
4.how am i a vegetarian then?, it confuses me. :(
please guide!.

IcyCosmic
02 May 2012, 10:54 AM
Welcome to the forum Shiv. First of all we can live without meat, the consumption of meat is purely for our own bodily gains and taste buds. That's black and white in itself.

Do you need meat to survive? No.
Do animals need to get killed for you to have meat? Yes.

Another thing is that it is unavoidable to kill plants and survive, however killing animals is avoidable. There's no way to walk on the ground without killing insects so and so forth, it is unavoidable. If there is an alternative to eating plants please let me know.

Thirdly plants do not have the same feelings as animals, im pretty sure thats scientifically proven my friend.
It's like saying hey because I have to kill 'A' thing to survive might aswell kill 'B' all the way down to 'Z' . Even though you can't really compare plants to animals.

Though, I'm not basing this on hinduism - my personal morals I have formed WITHOUT religion. So maybe wait for a more learned member to describe it from their point of view.

Take care and I hope you find your answer shivam!

realdemigod
02 May 2012, 01:41 PM
Shivam,
Your question is confusing. The definition of vegetarianism itself is eating only plants based foods. If you mean killing them is same as killing animals then it's different. Plants do not have soul like rest of the living things do..so they can't take part in spiritual journey and reach salvation. If you are killing animals you are destroying their spiritual journey and hence you will encounter sin.

wundermonk
02 May 2012, 01:58 PM
Plants do not have soul like rest of the living things do..so they can't take part in spiritual journey and reach salvation.

Actually, atleast as per Nyaya, the identity mark of a self are desire, aversion, volition, pleasure, pain and cognition. [Nyaya Sutra 1.1.10]

That is, it is only those entities that can feel desire OR aversion OR volition OR pleasure OR pain OR cognition that can be said to possess a self.

Now, the Nyaya claims that plants respond to sunlight by growing towards them, etc. because they are able to atleast cognize and grow towards the sunlight out of their volition. [Volition and cognition are marks of the self per Nyaya.] Thus, plant do possess a self.

To respond to the OP, it is probably true that since plants do not have a nervous system, they do not feel pleasure or pain.

In general, I think it is a good idea for homo sapiens to consume food that is further away in the evolutionary tree. Plants/Vegetables being further away than animals in the evolutionary tree to humans, I think a moral case can be made for being vegetarian and avoiding meat.

Here is a counter-question to the OP:

Assuming you believe in evolution, where would you like to draw the line of which species of animals meat-eating humans can consume and which species of animals should not be consumed? Please provide justification to your answer.

Shivam
02 May 2012, 03:49 PM
thanks @all for replying Actually I found the flaw in my own argument as I was pondering over it,
WARNING to Readers: post has lot of equations :D

First of all , what I think is

IN the WESTERN(W) CONCEPT

EATING(W) = EATER(W) +EATEN(W)
So,
EATING(W) =

EATER(W) ( when eaters are Humans =>with a conscious state) +
EATEN(W) (when animals/vegetables => with NO consciousness)

( as in WESTERN sense ,no concept of consciousness on vegetables/animal is imposed may be because they dont think that vegetable/animals have conscioussnes or soul in philosophical sense ),

IN SANATAN DHARMA(S.D)
The concept of EATING is deeper. (or perhaps thats what I see or think)

EATING(S.D) = EATER(S.D) + EATEN(S.D) + *Non-Violence* ,
So,
EATING(S.D)=

EATER(S.D) ( when eaters are Humans =>with a conscious state) +
EATEN(S.D) (when animals/vegetables => with a consciousness)
+
*Non-Violence*,

so all in all it has an extra layer of codition of non-violence to be with for Eating.

So even having said that, when we impose the concept of EATING (S.D) on western EATING(W)

Result(Test passed) for EATING(S.D) = EATER(W)( Humans with consciousness.) +EATEN(W)(animals/plants with NO coscioussness even when alive)+ *Non-Violence*
here as in western concept animal/plants don't have any consciousness, their is no violence done by the EATER on EATEN. hence test passed,

Whereas when concept of EATING (S.D) is applied on S.D itself,

Result(Test failed) for EATING(S.D) = EATER(S.D)( Humans with consciousness.) +EATEN(S.D)(animals/plants with A coscioussness even when alive)+ *Non-Violence*
here as in S.D concept animal/plants have any consciousness, their is A violence done by the EATER on EATEN. hence test failed,


The flaw is in defining the concept of *Non-Violence*.

So,basically I should ponder over what is *Non-Violence* instead of what is Vegetarianism or Non-Vegetarianism..
Can anyone guide how to *Look THROUGH* the concept of *Non-Violence* and NOT to "LOOK AT" it,

For starting point let me throw a wild guess,
I think Non-Violence is Minimum harm for Maximum Good with MAXIMUM harmony ( of two states of consciousness= here in example of EATING ,the consciousness states are of HUMANS AND ANIMALS/PLANTS. )
whats you all say? am just *wondering*.
thanks for reading. please enlighten with your comments., plz ignore any spelling mistakes :D

devotee
02 May 2012, 11:16 PM
Namaste,

You can't survive even a few minutes without killing some or the other life-forms. So, don't try to be too literal on "AhimsA" ... it is your intention that matters.

OM

Shivam
03 May 2012, 12:01 AM
Namaste,

You can't survive even a few minutes without killing some or the other life-forms. So, don't try to be too literal on "AhimsA" ... it is your intention that matters.

OM
praNAm
Thanks for your reply,
I also think that the concept of non-violence is more wide in S.D than in any other concepts.
As Buddha once said,
Their is suffering, the first Noble truth
so also I think that the truth of the Manifested Form(shape,idea,thoughts,actions etc)+Material(conscious material,physical material) is as and when two or more Forms/material coexist the violence is unaviodable, may be thats why Karma is always clinged . Sri Krishna tells us in B.G to
remember his Ultimate form and then He guides us to break that cycle of clinging of karma
May be the violence is an unaviodable truth that No One can deny but then their is a way to Minimize the violence and that is Non-violence, so Non-Violence must be far wide than we think of it.
What all you think, am I thinking right?.

Shivam
03 May 2012, 12:24 AM
I think because of karma(like eating) there is a violence( among different states of life and form) so their is the sufferings attched at the end result. So to minimize the effect of karma and the end result sufferings non-violence is a path, may be it means harmonizing the *gunas* and then enhancing *sattva guna* as much as possible first , and then after that we need the realization of our true nature that we are Brahma , the purest and beyond the three gunas so that the cycle of karma is broken. How to realize that we are Brahma?(I know it but I am unable to feel it :( may be due to disharmony in my gunas).

Tāṇḍava
03 May 2012, 03:58 AM
praNAm
This idea of eating plants and to say self a vegetarian is clogging my reasoning.

*(FACT)*
1 Plants grow and die!

*(Reasoning)*
2.IF plants are non-alive( not dead or else they were to be alive at some point of time) , how did they grow?
**
3. Because only living thing can die OR/AND grow, even if we the humans did not take away the life of plants, is it not that we eat the dead of plants - as the plants were at some point of time alive and offcourse plants are not stones.
4.how am i a vegetarian then?, it confuses me. :(
please guide!.

If you want to take it to the extreme you need to become a fruitarian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruitarianism). Fruit is produced by the plant as a means of spreading the seeds, so eating it is part of the natural process and does not kill the plant.

Shivam
03 May 2012, 04:18 AM
If you want to take it to the extreme you need to become a fruitarian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruitarianism). Fruit is produced by the plant as a means of spreading the seeds, so eating it is part of the natural process and does not kill the plant.

praNAm,
aha! it struck me in accord with Non-Violence, yes,in that way - using food grains(cereals, pulses), fruits ,milk and its byproducts ,honey, lemon,coconuts, leafs (tea, coffee), seed, etc for EATING we are following the definition of Non-violence , as they do No or do Minimum Harm possible and in that way I can remain sattvic, it satisfies me now,
Dhanyvad. :) , so we need no killing of plants, am relieved, am happy now.

PARAM
03 May 2012, 11:50 AM
---------------------

Are you trying to defend eating flesh by this? Somebody have strayed you to believe in something that is already answered in different Dharma Grantham.

Plants don't have any soul, neither they are made of blood or flesh.
Plants are the gift of nature and not something that grow or die type, it is called grow and die just to make someone understand about botany.

Many plants can be grown only when farmers sow their own parts, plants produce seeds only when they rot, but this is not possible with any living being. You just don't need to destroy the place where you grow plants, just as you don't need to cut down tree, trees have life but you will grow another tree only when you will cut the fruit and get the seed out of it.

This is vegetarianism

Breehimattam yavamattamatho maashamatho tilam
Esha vaam bhaago nihito ratnadheyaaya dantau maa hinsishtam pitaram maataram cha
(Atharvaveda 6.140.2)
Eat the vegetables, rice, barley, grins, sesame; these cereals are specifically meant for teeth to eat. Don't kill living beings for food, they are capable to become parents of other living beings.

Shivam
03 May 2012, 02:00 PM
praNAm
@param thanks FOR THE SUTRA, With your help and some logic I have found the answer, plant eating is not violence because plants can be reproduced even after being cut by grafting onto the stems of other plant. they dont have flesh and blood. Thanks.

anirvan
04 May 2012, 07:39 AM
it is absurd that plant has no souls.the what about yamla-arjuna trees which got liberated by child krishna? Dr Bose also proved the pleasure and pain of plants and also they communicate. Again last month in a research ,its proved that plants communicate fellow plants about any impending danger by transmittig chemicals.

Hindu scripture definitely prescribe the solutions. It has asked us to pray the plant before plucking a flower for worshiping and asking to forgive for the pain he is going to give to the plant by plucking the flowers and also dont take extra then necessary.this is even applying to plucking fruits,reaping paddy,wheats and doing pujas.

Seeds/cereals is called brahman in vedas and he has taken this form for our survivals.

The amount of violence committed by killing a animal to plant is enormous. And that violent pain/thought is carried to our body via food.

Mostly the cereals/Dals etc we eat are harvested from dead or naturally dying corps.

realdemigod
04 May 2012, 10:58 AM
anirvan,
I agree that plants can communicate and show symptoms of life because of the life force acting through the nature. But I don't think plants have souls..any expert comments?

sunyata07
04 May 2012, 02:08 PM
Namaste,

I think I brought this up as a subject some years ago and the conclusion many members came to was much the same as it is now. And that is that while adhering to a vegetarian diet is the best way to follow the basic tenet of Sanatana Dharma which is ahimsa and showing compassion for sentient beings, this does not mean that plants are to be considered a lesser life-form or soul-less beings. If anything, they can be considered the highest contributor to life because it is from them that we receive our energy from life-giving Surya. And as Devotee says you need energy to survive. No physical body on this planet can live for very long with sustenance from another lifeform. This is why the Vedas claim "jiva jivasya jivanam" - life depends on and exists on life (via nourishment). Before the Buddha attained enlightenment he had taken ahimsa far too literally and nearly died from starvation and malnourishment, before he seen for himself how pointless this was. As with all things virtuous and harmonious, there is a middle path to tread here. Plants feed all other creatures on earth. Even carnivores indirectly (and directly when they need help with digestion) eat from plants to survive. The fate of every creature on earth depends on plants, flowers, trees. I think it's a good topic to consider it while becoming used to a vegetarian lifestyle. IMO, it shows thought, compassion and sensitivity that is starting to extend itself beyond humans and animals. The key really is in the attitude. A respect for what we eat, even if it is plants.

Not to turn this subject off its track, but another point I'd like to discuss. I'll be the first to say that I'm no expert when it comes to the scriptures, but I believe firmly that all beings have a soul, and that all beings make up the pieces that form Universal Consciousness, i.e. Brahman, regardless of whether or not they have sentience in the meaning that they possess active thought. Even a rock contains consciousness. How else does it interact with gravity and adhere to the law of physics? With this in mind, how can one claim so boldly that plants do not have souls? It's most strange when you consider that most of us believe that there is nothing the Self does not pervade! :cool1:

wundermonk
04 May 2012, 02:15 PM
But I don't think plants have souls.

Perhaps it may help if we are able to answer - What is a soul? Does it exist? If it does exist, is it perceived? Is it inferred? What is the relationship between cognition/awareness and soul?, etc., etc.

Does a stone have a soul? If yes, why? If not, why not?

sunyata07
04 May 2012, 02:37 PM
Perhaps it may help if we are able to answer - What is a soul? Does it exist? If it does exist, is it perceived? Is it inferred? What is the relationship between cognition/awareness and soul?, etc., etc.

Does a stone have a soul? If yes, why? If not, why not?

Namaste Wondermunk,

Agreed that it would help, if that didn't start the ball rolling for a whole load of other questions, of which this would only be one, and a rather small one at that. :)

Om namah Shivaya

devotee
04 May 2012, 10:06 PM
Namaste,

A lot of good ideas have come up. I admire Sunyata's contribution indicating how Buddha realised the importance of "Middle Path".

We are not supposed to go to extremes :

1. This human body is an important tool for all Dharma-Saadhana (Spiritual journey). This is why in all Yoga-SAdhana, the first part taught is how to keep the body fit. However, this doesn't mean that we should give undue importance to this body by being attached to it. Not that but it has its purpose and we should try not to waste it just like that.

2. We cannot stop killing lives, as this is how this body is designed. There is no moment when the body defense system is killing millions of bacteria which attack this body-system. There is no breath which you can take without taking inside millions of bacteria. The food that we eat like yoghurt is full of bacteria and when you eat such food you are killing a number of bacteria in the process with your digestive juices and acid in the stomach. There are innumerable bacteria in our stomach which help us in digestion of food. When you are ill and have to take antibiotics, innumerable bacteria and life-forms in our body are killed whether benign or malignant.

3. There is no plant which is devoid of life and if you eat them you are killing something which is alive.

***********

So, what to do ? What should an Eskimo do in winter in Greenland where there no vegetation in winter ? What should the people living in coastal area do whose main food is fish ?

So, let us not go to extremes. We all are supposed to follow the middle path. Lord Krishna says in Bhagwad Gita that an aspirant of Yoga must follow a life of middle path. We cannot attain Yoga (joining with the Reality) by adopting extreme life-styles.

Like what Sunyata suggested : The whole creation is food. We eat something considering it as food ... something else eat us (our body) by considering it as food.

OM

Eastern Mind
05 May 2012, 07:30 AM
Vannakkam: Eskimos, and other natives of Canada did recognise (How they figured it out, I have no idea) the need for the minerals and vitamins, so ate the stomach contents of caribou, rabbits, etc.

Just a tidbit.

Aum Namasivaya

PARAM
05 May 2012, 08:13 AM
------------------------


This is wrong information added in later parts, trees and other plats have soul but not eatable plants, vegetables that are produced by lord as food for human and vegetarian animals don't have soul. Cutting down trees is a violence but cutting down those yamla-arjuna trees was already mentioned that lard will release them by disrooting them as trees, they were already dead trees when their time was over.

Hinduism do not support any meat eating, and flesh eaters are making this as their logic with the help of meat eaters. You cannot bring seeds without cutting the fruits and letting the plant rot, this is the true natural way.