Debate:

Religious extremism via vegetarianism

Writing to the Sunday Observer of September 17, G.G. wants to lock horns with vegetarian "extremists such as Dr D P Atukorale and the likes". I step in, not because I fit that description, but as an ex-activist of the vegetarian 'movement' in Sri Lanka.

I write because I found GG's article considerably informative and instructive. It tells us a lot about the fears that vegetarianism invokes. Perhaps we can also learn to avoid mistakes that veggie activists probably commit due to not understanding the feelings and convictions of those around them.

Vegetarians have every reason to be grateful to GG. His article would have been all the more valuable had he chosen to reveal his identity, but let that be; let us study his views and his apprehensions.

Apprehensions GG certainly has, but that is not because he objects to vegetarianism per se, but because he thinks there are spaces where veggie advocacy does not belong. See this: "We appreciate the resolve of the Buddhists to prevent meat eating and cattle slaughter, which is part of their religion.

Our main question is how could they impose their beliefs on others? This is very unethical, unlawful and immoral? Please do not interfere with the lives of non-Buddhists who have their own values and practices."

Confusion

I do not wish to engage in any kind of polemic with GG; but, in view of the above statement, I cannot help wondering why earlier on in the article he took such pains to argue that vegetarianism is not a part of Buddhism since the Buddha has not forbidden the consumption of meat.

It would be a great mistake to think that only Buddhists are vegetarians. In fact the world's largest vegetarian community is in Hindu India, 300 million according to a recent survey. Among western vegetarians Christians and Jews form the majority.

In the modern world the veggies are a motley lot, coming from all the great religions of the world: Hindus, Jains, Buddhists, Christians, Jews and also significantly a small number of Muslims. Religion in the narrow sense has not much to do with modern vegetarianism.

This deserves a little exploration. We don't know the full history of vegetarianism, but it is very, very old. Whether GG agrees or not, there is no denying that we are descended from the great apes who are essentially herbivores.

Just as apes occasionally eat ants and worms, humans also turned to other foods and eventually became omnivores. Yet our anatomy is not fully adjusted to eating flesh, as are the carnivores. The evolutionary need for our so-called canine teeth may have been the fact that before we invented cooking, we had to tackle harder kinds of food like nuts and unripe fruits.

However, anatomy is not why some humans have an aversion to flesh. It is the moral impulse. It is our sense of justice and compassion that is offended when we see a fellow-being killed for food. GG is absolutely right when he says that plants also feel and are every bit alive as are the animals.

He is equally right in saying that unfortunately (or fortunately from a survival point of view) our sensitivities are within a limited range. We are guided by these limitations and do not feel as offended when we see a potato plucked as when we see a hare skinned.

When science offers us insights into our partiality to animals as opposed to plants, we heave a sigh and rationalize. We decide that we will not try to do the impossible but will try to do the best we can, i.e., limit the violence as much as possible. Actually, we do just what GG commends: we refrain from killing unnecessarily.

The vegetarian's position is that we can very well do without eating animals. If there are some hiccups (like the B12 problem for vegans), there are also remedies readily available.

So, in every age there have been individuals who were propelled into the vegetarian way by the considerations mentioned above. In the East they propounded the teaching of ahimsa, which was nurtured in three great religions of India: Hinduism, Jainism and Buddhism, With Buddhism, it reached the Far East and illumined the spirit of China and Japan.

In all these countries, vegetarianism took root and flourished, in varying degrees of observance. A vegetarian food culture of great richness developed as a result.

Big revolution

In the West there was nothing like this, though there were individuals (and a few movements) through the centuries that embraced and espoused vegetarianism. But something happened in early nineteenth century that was the small beginning of a big revolution.

A Christian cleric of England, Fr. William Cowherd argued that it is only a diet of plant foods that is compatible with biblical teachings and therefore the Christian Church should foster such a diet.

Disdained by fellow clergymen, he broke away from the parent Church and in 1817 founded the Bible Christian Church. In 1847 he founded the Vegetarian Society of England which flourishes to this day. It was this Society that became the spearhead for a movement that progressed slowly over the years in Britain and other western countries including the United States.

The movement was invigorated by the actions and writings of great literary figures like Leo Tolstoy of Russia and George Bernard Shaw of England.

Nothing very dramatic happened for a long, long time. Until the middle of the 20th century that is, roughly speaking. Then came the environmental and animal rights movements and the great "books that changed the world", like Rachel Carson's Silent Spring (1962) and Peter Singer's Animal Liberation (1975). Hard on their heels there followed research, advocacy and activism on an unprecedented scale.

Already in 1971 Frances Moore Lappe in her influential work Diet for a Small Planet was arguing the case for vegetarianism from an environmental perspective.

The now matured vegetarian movement was the natural ally of the young activists who banged on the doors of the social and political establishment, yelling for help to preserve the flora and fauna of the planet and their habitats so that this fragile and beautiful world of ours would be preserved for future generations.

Scores of organizations sprang up across the world, but mostly in USA and Europe, militantly arguing the case for animal rights and vegetarianism and against the inhumanities and environmental crimes of factory farms, slaughterhouses, chemical fertilizers and pesticides, pollution of waterways and destruction of forests and other habitats of the animals of the world.

Research

At last people began to listen and to change. More and more people became vegetarians. Scientific and medical research on vegetarian diets rapidly multiplied. In consequence, scientific evaluation of these diets became routine.

From 1987, the premier nutritional authority of the world, the American Dietetic Association, started issuing five-yearly progress reports or Position Papers on the status of current medico-scientific knowledge on veggie diets, which they consistently regarded as healthful when properly planned.

The world vegetarian movement was now firmly afoot. The International Vegetarian Union, founded in the early years of the 20th century played an important role by organizing the biennial World Vegetarian Congresses, at which the feisty representatives of the vegetarian societies of the world assembled to celebrate their achievements, swap their success stories and sample every conceivable kind of vegetarian, vegan, fruitarian and raw-food dishes from all over the planet. (The 37th WVC was held in September 2006 at Goa in India). But the IVU and the other veggie organizations were an entirely different lot from the usual affluent NGOs.

These societies invariably functioned on shoe string budgets, and were usually run by volunteering office bearers. They often maintained websites on the Internet. There are scores of such websites from which new vegetarians glean useful knowledge as well as inspiration and mutual support for their new-found enthusiasm. As the numbers increased, the business world took note.

The US vegetarian food industry, 330 million dollars in 1990, is estimated to progress to 2800 million in 2006. Slowly but surely, vegetarian dining facilities are cropping up, though not enough for the liking of aficionados. (Economies always adjust to changing lifestyles: why worry about the impact of vegetarianism on the economy, as GG does?).)

So in many parts of USA, UK and other western lands vegetarianism is no longer regarded as a weird or eccentric habit or a fad. It is part of the main stream of social life. The advocacy of vegetarianism has also changed face. It no longer rests on narrow religious arguments. The arguments today are based on ethics (justice and compassion), animal rights, health and ecology.

Vegetarian explosion

In the early period of the vegetarian explosion in countries like Britain and America, parents dreaded to hear a son or a daughter announce his or her change of diet. It looked like the abandonment of one's culture. It would surely not be viewed so today. Parents also have greater resources to cope with the change. They can look up the Internet and find ways to feed the young rebel. Soon enough, the family too learns to enjoy a vegetarian meal.

I think the reader will now be able to understand the differences between the vegetarian experience in the West (and in India or China for that matter) on the one hand, and in Sri Lanka on the other. From GG's article it becomes crystal clear that there is a fear among some Lankans that conversion to vegetarianism equals embracing Buddhism.

A lot of people speak as if there is a disagreement between vegetarianism and the Buddha's teaching; but they also take vegetarianism to be a more faithful observance of the first precept, of the teachings of ahimsa and loving kindness. In short a way that is actually more compatible with Buddhism.

My hunch is that this is the fear that haunts GG. I do not know whether I can assuage his/her feelings, but I can say that one does not become a Buddhist by becoming vegetarian. Nor is it necessary to invoke religion to justify the conversion to a more compassionate and (what to me is a personal experience) healthful way of life.

As the founder of the Sri Lanka Vegetarian Society, the late Dr E. W. Adikaram used to say "I do not eat flesh, because flesh comes from an animal killed". That is sound enough an argument, if one wants arguments.

But this is not a matter for argument. It is a matter for the heart, for one's innate sense of justice and compassion. GG has said many other things, most of which do not bear scrutiny. For example he says that the Buddhists' objection to cattle slaughter is because cattle are a "big asset for the public in Sri Lanka". The other animals are more expendable, like parents in advanced oldage. Surely GG, even you will find that laughable when you read it in print.

Isn't it incredible that GG says that vegetarian advocates are trying to "impose their belief on others who are not followers of their faith"? The veggie people cannot force others to accept a belief. What power have they to do that? And you won't deny someone's right to advocate a cause?

Finally, a word about Dr Atukorale. GG berates him really hard. Why? Because "Dr A and the likes" are "maligning religions like Christianity and Islam". Really? Where on earth has he done that?

Come on, GG, you must quote chapter verse and prove your point. Then we may be able to understand your sentiments with regard to Dr. A. If I may guess a reason for this extra-ordinary blast against Dr A, I would say it is the fact that he is an eminent doctor. When a doctor of his repute says that the veggie diet is good for health, that carries a lot of weight. That does rattle the ideological non-vegetarian.

Prof. Mahinda Palihawadana, Former President, Sri Lanka Vegetarian Society.

******

Confusing vegetarianism with religion

Reference the above article by one G.G. of Colombo 6 in your issue of September 17th I wish to categorically state that nowhere has Dr. D. P. Atukorala tried to impose his beliefs on others.

G.G. tries to confuse vegetarianism with religion whereas there are a large number of non Buddhists who are vegetarians. I have read practically all the articles written by Dr. Atukorala and I have never come across any article where he has tried to forcibly impose his views on others. G.G. discloses his utter ignorance of the Dhamma when he speaks of 'Hell Fire' with reference to the Dhamma.

He admits that there is a controversy about 'Sukara Maddava'. The Buddha who has spent a lifetime spreading the doctrine of Ahimsa would not have craved for the flesh of animals. He has supposedly proved that it was meat - like proving the Pythagoras Theorem.

He has tried to bring in a Red Herring in the form of 'Eskimoes'. Who requested the Eskimoes to avoid meat? This reminds me of how we were taught the Dhamma by Mr. L. H. Mettananda the former Principal of Dharmaraja College, Kandy. One of my classmates questioned about the Eskimoes and their food. His reply was, 'if your brother requests you to do something would you refer up to see what the Eskimos of Labrador would do? That settled the matter.

From G.G.'s writing I am more or less inclined to believe that he is directly or indirectly involved in the Flesh Trade. If the majority of the people of this country adopted a Vegetarian Lifestyle it would be a threat to the Flesh Industry. When a child died after eating contaminated sausages the industry was subject to a severe setback. So was the spread of Mad Cow disease in other countries.

Finally I wish to state that I have nothing but utter contempt for people who hide under Pseudonyms. G.G. throw off your mask and come out into the open!

G. H. I. De Zoysa, 171 Dolosbage Road, Gampola.