 |
||
|
||
| Advertise with us! |
|
|
I appreciate Mani Varadarajan's comments on my earlier post. Mani
wrote:
>
> Daly de Gagne <ambika@mbnet.mb.ca> writes:
> >Most of these quotations come from an excellent feature Hinduism Today
> >did on vegetarianism a few years ago. The article stated: "There
> >developed early in India an unparalleled concern for harmony among life
> >forms, and this led to a common ethos based on non-injuriousness, and a
> >minimal consumption of natural resources--in other words, to compassion
> >and simplicity."
>
> Do you really believe anything that Hinduism Today prints?
I don't believe _everything_ any publication prints. I have found that
much of what Hinduism Today prints is accurate, helpful, and makes
Hinduism more accessible and relevant to ordinary people. I also
appreciate the fact that Hinduism Today is non-sectarian, even though it
is published by an organization which has very clear beliefs and a
specific path. That to me reflect some of the openness of Hinduism.
> Time and time again they misrepresent
> the complexity of traditional Indian beliefs and philosophy.
> This ``excellent'' article on vegetarianism is just the tip of
> the iceberg.
I think such a strong attack warrants examples, or it becomes one more
example of the kind of discussion which abounds on the internet. Yes,
Indian beliefs and philosophy are very complex, especially at the level
which some of the philosophers work, and others whose academic and
intellectual proclivities outstrip a desire for practical implementation
of what they believe.
> This should not be construed as a rejection of vegetarianism
> as a value, but from a critical standpoint, India has not had
> an ``unparalleled concern'' for harmony among life forms,
> and has not had a common ethos of non-injuriousness.
I'd argue the sense of unparalled is in comparison to other countries
and parts of the world. Would it not be hard to deny that the concern
in India has been much greater than it has been, until most recently
perhaps, in Europe or North America?
I would agree about not having a common ethos of non-injuriousness. My
experience of India is that there is not much which can be said to be
truly common to _all_ Indians or all of India. I have that in mind when
I read articles which suggest otherwise. However, from the article I
referred to, I had no sense the writer was saying all Indians have this
value.
> This may
> have been true among the educated, religious elites, or among
> sects such as the Jains, but most others have relatively
> freely eaten meat and fish if they could afford to do so.
My post also noted that probably only 50 per cent of Hindus keep veg,
and I called that figure a guess-timate, asking someone to provide a
more informed estimate than mine. If you factor in Muslim, Christians,
most Sikhs, the percentage of Indians who are veg obviously will be much
lower.
The idea of being able to afford to eat meat and fish is interesting.
It suggests that having these items on the table might almost be a
source of status, a way of saying to one's guests that "see, we can
afford meat." Unfortunately, such status has also been co-related to a
number of health problems, more commonly seen in western countries, such
as some cancers, coronary artery disease and inflammatory joint
diseases. Status has a price.
> Ancient Sanskrit and Tamil literature is replete with examples
> of popular feasts where meat was served.
That's true. But it does not deny that within our Hindu tradition there
has been a strong current which has favoured vegetarianism and argued
for it strongly.
I would agree with you 100 per cent if you said it's important that we
don't paint a rosey picture of Hindus or India as being vegetarian or
non-violent. India and the Indian traditions to me are an incredible
conglomeration of beliefs and traditions and contradictions. Blanket,
simplistic statements of, "India is this..." or "India is that..." are
misleading. Similar statements about Hinduism can also be misleading.
> It should then come as
> no surprise that KFC and McDonald's are among the most popular
> places to eat today.
I agree, and I certainly was not surprised. I think this popularity
reflects more than just the number of meat eaters. When I was in India
in 1974, I was not vegetarian. Most places I did not particularly care
for the meat. But at some of the Muslim restaurants, I found excellent
meat preparations, far tastier (and healthier) than anything McDonald's
will ever make.
I think one reason for KFC and MickeyD's doing well in India has to do
with the idea that anything from the west is cool and good -- even if
it's not. It's the same phenomenon as that of the westerner who says
anything from India is good, and fails to see the contradictions, and
the need to be discerning.
And now, I think I've come full circle to where we started!
> This is not to say this is good; only that it is true.
You're right.
Daly
|
||
|
||
| Advertise with us! |
|
|