Vegetarians and Non Vegetarians

Years back I used to be proud of being a vegetarian. Our family was (is) a vegetarian family and maybe I inherited the pride as well! Anyway, the pride came from the assumption that vegetarian food was pure in the sense it avoided cruelty to animals.

Over the years, the understanding evolved and today, it is clear to me that there is no inherent difference between vegetarian food and non vegetarian food. There are some aspects that enhance suitability of vegetarian food for human consumption in both a scientific and social sense – namely:

1. Humans are herbivores. The digestive system is suited for vegetarian food, but that is no reason for being proud. Anyway, when we are talking about kAra uruLai varuval (கார உருளை வருவல் - spicy potato fry) and koththu parotta (கொத்து பரோட்டா - minced spicy paratha) , this argument is blunted. It does makes a lot of sense when we are talking of a primarily raw diet (fresh fruits and vegetables)

2. In today’s population scenario (7.5 bil?), a vegetarian diet is socially relevant. How? As we move up the food chain, the amount of primal food consumed to generate the same calories increases exponentially. For example (example includes the numbers listed also) – if 1 kg of rice yields 1000 calories of energy, to generate the same level of calories from beef or pork would require, say 25 times more base food (the food consumed by the cow or pig to reach the state of suitability of generating meat). So, hypothetically, if the whole world started consuming vegetarian food, it would be very easy to supply food for all of the population because much of the domestic animals present today are farmed to generate meat. These can be reduced (not create them in the first place) and the bandwidth used instead for raising rice, beans – whatever! However, this again is a moot point. For we already have enough food (today at least) for the entire planet. But we choose to starve a good section of the population for various reasons. But this argument will be very relevant in the future years, when India hits the 2 bil mark (gulp!) and the world hits the 8 or 9 bil mark in population.

However, one resounding similarity between vegetarian and non vegetarian food exists:

“Something that is living is dying so you may live”

Whether vegetarians or non-vegetarians, I feel it is very important that we remember this. This reminder will generate a lot of respect when we consume food in whatever form. I read about native American tribes who would apologize to an animal they were about to kill for food. Some tribes also place an offering for the animal’s spirit as a form of gratitude for the food they were about to consume. These were the same tribes who were nearly hunted out of existence because they were “primitive” and are now isolated to reservation camps. Anyway, that is a different topic!

So that leaves us with one stark difference between vegetarian and non vegetarian food – the visible suffering we see in the generation of meat. I happened to read a lot of material about how meat is generated and the amount of suffering that animals go through is unimaginable. I just have one question to the meat-makers:
We have so many innovations in place for humans to avoid suffering (epidural, anesthetics, pain killers for wounds and so on). Can’t we put something even primitive in place for animals before they are slaughtered for meat, so they die without pain? I remember a quote I heard recently – “If humans make up their mind, it is possible in a moment”.

Eat all the meat you want – for taste, health – anything, for I am convinced there is no inherent difference between vegetarian and non vegetarian food. But this one difference (how they are generated) is striking! And that difference continues to exist only because in the majority of the minds, animals are somehow lower-life forms. Unfortunately, I understand I may be perceived as being vegetarian-biased, but it is not so. Though I cannot conceive myself eating meat except under extreme circumstances, in my mind, meat is perfectly fine. I perfectly realize that killing a plant is equivalent to killing a cow – for one form of life is giving itself up to sustain another life form. It is deeply spiritual. My only question is whether all these animals need to go through so much pain to sustain us!

If you are wondering what triggered this post – today while driving, I saw a partially scalded hen being carried in a motor bike by its legs. I only hope it was already dead by then!

Left to Tell

This is not an ordinary book. Not because it is great literary work, nor because it was written by some one popular, but because it involves experiences most of us cannot even conceive going through. Importantly yet, fewer can conceive coming out stronger from those experiences. Yet, that is what Immaculée Ilibagiza did. And we are talking about the Rwandan genocide.

Humanitarian divisions are very common. We see them everywhere. In fact, they are so ubiquitous that you frown when you don't see them. Blacks and whites, Hindus and Muslims, Protestants and Catholics - and even between divisions, subdivisions and micro subdivisions - the way the human mind works is mapped with the way humanity is divided. And in Rwanda, we have Hutus and Tutsis. Funnily, these divisions were created by Belgian rulers arbitrarily through judgement, and in retrospect turned out to be the most heinous of decisons. When the Rwandan president was murdered (a Hutu), it was assumed that Tutsi's did this. The exact causes, I am not sure - the most pivotal aspect was that the Hutu's had a good reason to remove the Tutsi minorities out of Rwanda (and the face of the planet).

What followed next is beyond any comprehension. In a span of 100 days, one million corpses were generated (over 400 corpses an hour, round the clock on average). Machetes were used primarily for killing - and the Government supplied grenades, machine guns and regular guns and empowered the Hutu civilians to carry out the genocide. The country was shut down until the "job was done". The whole world watched as Rwanda descended into hell. This was 1994,  I wasn't even watching. I was in school that time, programming in Pascal. No one was spared, the young, the old, men, women, babies. Something of this scale in the recent past, as the book quotes, was the extermination of Jews by the Nazis. I think the Rwandan genocide was worse for two reasons. It happend just fifteen years ago, when we were supposed to have come far away from such epic atrocities. Second, I think a form of madness overtook everyone. Because, eventually it was not just the Tutsi's who were targeted. Moderate Hutu's were targeted as well. These were people who were Hutu's, but did not want to kill. Eventually, the killing machine started spinning just for the sake of killing. Corpses - hundreds, thousands were piled up on the road.

Anyway, this book is unique not for the suffering depicted, but for the faith of the author. She hid in a pastors home (who was Hutu) along with 6 or 7 other women in a 6x4 feet bathroom for over two months. Hutu hunters searched for her in the pastor's house to kill her. Hundreds of them, multiple times over the duration of the two month period. The bathroom was hidden, and at times, less than two inches of plaster and wood separated the killers and the ladies. Please think about her for a moment. If she was caught, she would be killed. Not ordinarily, but in ways you probably do not want to think about. As fear gripped her, she tried to pray to God to protect her. Earlier, when there was in the bathroom, with nothing else to do, she prayed. She prayed for hours together and went to a space of peace within her. She was also tormented by hatred and anger towards the killers. Then, she knew God demanded unconditional love - nothing less, to meet her. And eventually, in her heart, she found it in her to pray to God to forgive the killers. In one such episode of a hunt in the pastor's bedroom (which had the bathroom they hid in), the possibility of her getting caught was menacingly close (how hard would it be for 100 people searching the room to spot the bathroom and find the six-seven ladies?). And she was praying for faith. As her prayer intensified, with no response, she desperately asks God, "God, I am praying so hard. What would it take for you to help me?" And she receives a response. "Immaculée, faith moves mountains. But if faith were easy, all mountains would be gone." She then sees a blinding flash of light (a cross) screen the entrance to the bathroom. She jumps in joy and shouts to her companions, "Don't worry, we will be safe". The killers leave the house again finding nothing. Up until this point, I was reading the book in my mind. I knew what I was reading. I read grimly, without any emotion. This portion of the book broke me. With her prayer and devotion, she was able to blind the killers to her existence in that tiny bathroom.

In another instance, she stares at a killer with a machete right in the eye and prays to God to send a message of love to him. The killer turns away and drops his machete. And finally, after all the nightmare ends, she goes to the jail to meet the man who murdered her mother and brother to tell him she forgave him. I remember watching an American journalist describe an incident when he was videographing her later. She hugs a man she meets. The journalist asks her who he was, and she says it was the man who murdered her mother and brother (I think, anyway it was someone close to her). The journalist steps back in alarm, and she says "It's ok!". The journalist tells us, "No it's not ok! How can it be ok?".

Here Immaculée is, after losing her father, mother, two brothers in the genocide, sending a message of forgiveness and unconditional love. I think it is the power of people like her all over the planet that counterbalances the devil in all our hearts. She says she could, at one point after her initial rage and vengeance, see the killers as victims; when God tells her "You are all my children"; she sees the killers as children who were hurting others not knowing what they were doing.

The genocide is a scar on humanity. The wounds are not fully healed and may be lurking beneath the surface. The scars will never go. At our current state of evolution, we see that something minor can spark of a trail of violence. We are not at peace with ourselves. In that respect, I have the following observations about the genocide and what we can do to learn from them:

1. It is very important to ward off evil thoughts - anger, irritation, frustration. While we can think we can never bring ourselves to do something as extreme as what happened in Rwanda - I was shocked to hear about friends and neighbors killing Tutsis. The madness that gripped people was unbeleivable. I was hurt when I learned about friends killing friends; teachers killing students! How could you kill someone whose shoulder you had your hand in one day? As it turned out, Immaculé's brother was killed brutally, and his friend was among one of the killers. They were people who did things together in college, played basketball together. Eventually, the remorse that gripped him tore him apart. He vowed never to kill again and mentioned that it burned him more than anything. 
2. Unconditional love - the very phrase removes all questions on who deserves the love and what actions they have performed or are currently performing. Is this even possible? We can turn to Immaculé's life for answers. Whoever avenged us, whatever bad happened to us, can it be worse that what happened to Immaculée? Her life is proof that this is the only true way to go. Indeed, years later after the genocide, one of the Tutsi survivors reached out to her learn how to forgive. The hatred and anger she was living with were burning her up and she couldn't stand them any longer. The killers (at least a few I read about) were suffering because of what they had done. The victims where suffering because of their hatred and vengeance. Only Immaculée could go beyond because of her forgiveness, while yet acknowledging the pain of what happened.
3. You can find God even amid the Rwandan holocaust! Why not anywhere else? It is just that, faith and devotion require a child like trust which is not easy to come by. This is similar to Bhakti Yoga, where you make yourself a zero (as Sadhguru used to say). It is the fastest, yet the hardest path. In some sense, I am very glad (very very glad) for the Sadhana I have. Long time back, I used to pray to God asking for things. After Sadhguru mentioned that it was not devotion but only survival, I stopped doing that. As I thought about this, I realized how true devotion is very hard to come by. It is saying, no matter what happens, "Thy will be done! My hands be used!". I later concluded that true devotion was not my path, I was not made that way and it has been a long time since I have prayed. Now looking at Immaculée makes me think about prayer again. What to pray about? If anything, it has to be to send out a message of love and compassion out. Anyway, things are not at all clear and are very hazy and confusing - but in a very good way :)
4. You can come out stronger from any situation - no matter what. I remember a story about Master who was challenged by a general. "Do you know I can run this blade through you without batting an eyelid?". The Master responded, "Do you know I can have this blade run through me without batting an eyelid?". Who is the stronger of the two? But we are not made of material like that. Stories like these seem very far away. But Immaculée was one of us! She felt the same trembling about death, the anger and vengeance, the pain  - and she was able to transcend this all. And more yet, she came out stronger.

This book is a must-read. As despairing as what triggered it, you will only come out inspired.

---

Note: The image in this post is licensed with creative commons.
The copyright for this image belongs to deepakkt. Click on the image to view the image on deepakkt's website.

---

Breaking a question

Typically, we like our questions answered. We store the answer with the question and it settles down for the period. There is not much transformative value in this approach - though this is very very usual.

Masters break the question. The question comes from a particular state of mind of the questioner. If the questioner is with the question when the response is given, and if the questioner is willing, the Master can also break the questioner (the mind pattern from which the question came). Immature minds then come up with further questions. Mature minds seize the opportunity and assist the Master's effort to make them silent. The immensity of the patience of Masters is such that they keep breaking them as they come.

Some examples (forgive me - they may not be verbatim)

To Osho: Who do I know if some one is a sincere friend?
Osho: You are asking the question from the wrong angle. You need to ask - "How do I be a sincere friend".
(of course, he went on to explain further - but see how he changed the entire context of the question up front)

To Sadhguru: இப்போ யோகா பண்ணி நாங்க சந்தோஷமா ஆயிட்டோம். இனிமே நாங்க கோயிலுக்கு எல்லாம் போகணுமா?
(We are very happy now after all these Yoga practices. Do we need to visit temples anymore?)
Sadhguru: நாங்க யோக பண்ணி சந்தோஷமா ஆயிட்டோம். இனிமே நாங்க சினிமாவுக்கு எல்லாம் போகணுமான்னு ஏன் கேக்க மாட்டீங்க?
(You are very happy after all these Yoga practices. Why don't you ask if you need to visit cinema theaters any more?)
Same comment as above

A personal experience: It was my first personal Satsang (20-25 people only) with Sadhguru and I was very keen to ask a smart question.

Me: Sadhguru, you spoke about your vision for the new milennium. You also spoke about living "in the moment". Isn't there a contradiction?

Sadhguru sincerely explained why there was no contradiction. Stupidly enough, I was so full of myself for having come up with the question, that when he turned to me in the end and asked, "isn't it so", I wasn't even paying attention. Only later did I realize my folly. He looked at me for a couple of moments and then turned to the next question. He must have realized I did nothing with the question or the response.

Masters speak in words only because of our attachment with them. Otherwise, a verbal Satsang is not even necessary. The Master's true work is behind the words. As seekers, we need to look for that instead of settling for intellectual curiosity.