Yoga Michigan

To be or not to be vegetarian ... This is an often-debated question for yogis. For many vegetarians, the reason of having become one was to spare animals of their suffering. The logic is that if you eat meat, then an animal must be killed on your behalf. In ancient times, people had to go out and secure their own food. If you wanted to eat meat, then oftentimes this meant that you had to go out and kill the animal yourself.

 

One of the most important teachings of yoga is ahimsa (non-violence), and this is probably where vegetarianism got linked to ahimsa. The Yoga Sutras say that we must strive not to commit violence, whether through thoughts, words or actions. But when you carefully study the Sutras, nowhere does it say that one must not eat meat. True, a sattvic diet full of fresh nutritious fruits and vegetables is considered to be healthier than a tamasic diet of heavy meats, but should the act of eating meat itself be considered an act of violence?

 

If you answer in the affirmative, then you must also admit that eating plants is equally as violent. If all souls are equally divine, then who are we to judge that the soul dwelling in a plant is less worthy than one dwelling in a beast? Just because they lack the capacity to fight back or express pain does not mean that they appreciate being killed. Is it not hypocritical for a plant-eater to call a meat-eater violent when he himself kills in order to quench his hunger?

 

Once there was a very strict vegan. He would not touch a plate if even a drop of milk were in it. Whenever he went out and ordered a vegan meal at a restaurant, he would interrogate the server and oftentimes have the chef called out to question every ingredient that was used in the dish. If anything of animal origin was found to have been added, he would angrily curse the staff and storm out of the restaurant. He did this on more than a couple of occasions. What is ironic is that the man claimed that he became a vegan in order to practice "non-violence." 

 

What do sages have to say on this matter? It is interesting to note that Jesus Christ was a meat-eater. He says, “One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him.” (Romans 14:2-3)

 

What it boils down to is that food choice is affected by personal conviction and the culture we were raised in. The hard truth is, no matter what we do, our existence itself brings harm to other living creatures in one form or another. Even the acts of breathing, walking or driving can bring harm to other creatures. That is just a part of life. The importance is that no matter what our food preference may be, we must respect the choices of others.

 

We can declare that the real importance is to respect our food and to not waste it, but then someone else can argue about the definition of “wasting.” Does it mean that if a human being eats it instead of a maggot, worm or other "lower life form," then it is being put to better use? Such a debate can open a whole new can of worms.