recitations from a herbivore

Here, I try to defend my practice of vegetarianism, and I fail.

For many people, the philosophy of vegetarianism begins in what Marx described 'the opium'.
But does, and more importantly, should, religion really take such a tough stance regarding our everyday aliment? Does religion really advocate vegetarianism?, and if so, what justification does it give for it?

Let's quote.
There is nothing on earth that is superior to meat in point of taste. There is nothing that is more beneficial than meat to persons that are weak, or afflicted with disease. Eating meat rapidly increases strength. It produces great development. There is no food, that is superior to meat.
These words are orated by Bhishma, on his death-bed, to Yuddhishtira, in the Mahabharatha. But, he continues, the merits are great that attach to men that abstain from it.
Now what these great merits are, that attaches to you if you abstain from eating meat, you can read Bhishma's (not so convincing?) discourse in defence of vegetarianism and understand yourself. There are enough and more translations of the great epic available on the net.
In the Gita also, there is a discourse on three types of food, and the three types of people who eat them, and though it does not explicitly mention non-veg food,if you really want, interpretations can be, and are easily made.
It seems there are explicit discourses in other ancient texts like the Manu-Smrithi, that mention one should eat only plant-products. But since I have not read them yet, I cannot give my opinion.
But, in whatever little I have read in the ancient texts, the strongest advocate of vegetarianism I have felt, is Bhishma, when he talks to Yuddhistira, in the Anusasana Parva.

Anyway, the underlying doctrine of any religious reference exhorting people to undertake a strict vegetarian diet seems to be that of non-violence. Non-violence is the essence of vegetarianism.It basically means, and I don't need to explain,that you don't cause others harm - whether it be humans or animals - you just don't hurt any living being.Period. There should be compassion to all living beings.And just for the record, this is not such a bad principle to follow.

Now, just because it is mentioned in an ancient text that you should discard meat, should you?

Ofcourse, it depends.You can read the religious texts with an objective mind, always doubtful, as when you read any scientific text. Also, you can read them with a mentality that if you don't follow it word for word, you are doing something wrong. Though I personally would recommend anyone to do the former type of reading, usually it is the latter form of reading that takes place, if at all it does.
All things mentioned in the ancient texts need not seem logically correct to everyone. Infact, just to emphasise on this point, consider this, that in the same discourse, Bhishma emphasises on caste being determined by birth(contradictory to the Gita!), and more relevant to the present topic, he discourses that though animals may not be killed to be eaten, they may be killed for sacrifice(If I remember correctly, Bhishma quotes Manu here), assuming the proper rituals are conducted before they are killed . According to Bhishma, all other slaughter other than that for sacrifice is to be avoided, as they are useless slaughter!

Now,how much ever I think about it, I can never get over this hypocrisy. I mean, you either don't mind killing animals, or you really do. How can it be that you can't kill animals to eat (which atleast does some good to your health), while you can kill to sacrifice them? This is not non-violence.

Hence in my opinion, if one does become a vegetarian for religious reasons,following the religious text word for word, one does not have a logical explanation for the troubles. If you don't agree, please enlighten me on how sacrifices are non-violent.
Of course, you can still become a vegetarian due to religious reasons,following the religious texts, but oppose the killing for sacrifices, in which case, you are not strictly following the same text which bound you to be a vegetarian in the first place!
I don't know if I have made my point clear, but what I am trying to say is, your choice to be a vegetarian or a non-vegetarian, can be, but need not be decided based on what is prescribed in religion.

Now, when you put forward your well thought-out 'non-violence towards animals' theory of vegetarianism to non-vegetarians, even your close friends, a gleaming face asks you a counter-question regarding the 'violence' towards plants. When you cut part of the stem to get a potato, for example, or any other vegetable for that matter, or even when plucking the curry leaf, are you not hurting the plant? I know this sounds like taking the debate a bit too far, but it is really amazing, all the sort of questions people can ask!
Before continuing this particular aspect of the debate, one can notice that, in the ancient scriptures, which usually answer all possible questions that can arise, as far as my limited knowledge goes, the question of violence towards plants has not been addressed. This is because, until Bose came around, even scientists did not know that plants responded to stimuli. Don't tell me that even if your teacher hadn't taught you, you would have guessed that plants respond to external stimuli just like animals do.
Anyway, now that we know that plants do have 'life' as in they respond like animals do- infact you also might have read somewhere that trees do send out something like pheromones, when they are in peril, so as to sort of warn other neighbouring trees- this 'violence towards plants' counter-argument to vegetarianism is really valid.
Having said that, scope for an argument always exists, doesn't it? You can always argue that the damage done to plants is minimal, compared to animals (it can always re-grow its root,or leaf or branch, but can the chicken regrow its leg?), or more selfishly, if you only care about what you feel, rather than what actually happens, you can argue that we cannot sense the 'pain' of the plants, while for the animal the pain they endure is clearly visible. Because of this reason, you can argue, plants are a sort of 'lesser life' and eating them does not alter your conformity to non-violence.
One argument which I like, and which I read somewhere, is the comparison of killing plants to a murder in self defence (you need to eat atleast plants to survive) and the slaughtering of animals to murders by a serial killer. Here again, proponents of non-vegetarianism can argue that murder once and murder many times is the same sin. This debate never ends.And, this debate happens at a different level of thought than that required to understand the pleas of PETA. Depending on which side of the fence you stand, and what beliefs you have, you can argue and counter argue as much as you want to.
Now let me try answer why I still practice vegetarianism. I would really like to say it is because I am a great exponent of the principle of non-violence, but I am not. I would also like to say I am very religious and follow correctly everything in the religious texts, but other than the occasional sandhyavandanam, and the yearly avani-avittam in which I perform some religious rites, more out of compulsion from my mother other than anything else, I am not that into religion.
Hence let me be frank. I am a vegetarian, because, from childhood, I was taught to be and brought up as a vegetarian, bound by religion, ofcourse. And even though there is no defence, or no logic in favour of it (or against it, for that matter!),and why should there be?, I find no need to change, and why should I?. Infact, I would like to think of it as yet another temptation, with which you can test your control over yourself by trying not to yield to it.
Thus let me make my opinion clear.I believe that there is nothing wrong in following a vegetarian diet, and there is equally nothing wrong in following a non-veg diet.You can choose to eat the food you like, and feel no obligation to justify your choice to others.
But there are actually two things that seem wrong to me.
First of all, if you are a non-vegan, and you think being a vegan is something stupid or inferior, then you are totally wrong. A very large number of such people do exist, even writers and movie makers - how many burlesque dialogues we have seen taking a jibe at vegans.This also includes those 'vegetarians', who 'secretly' eat non-veg food, and think they have done something great, and even brag about it and try to coerce other innocent vegans into the path of their new found greatness. I marvel at the nescience of such people. For them, I have nothing to offer except my pity, and my finger.
Then again, there are those vegans, who carry forward a sort of contempt or disgust to non-veg food and people when they eat it. This attitude is also very wrong. But at least, hopefully this attitude can result in the lives of some animals to be saved!

the grad

Hmmm....
8 months since i came to Bangalore
Seven months,the time we worked on our final project.
6 months since i last visited home
Five months into eight semesters.
4 months since i last took a leave from work
Three months of classes attended in an year.
2 months since i last washed my jeans. Filth. But people are so surrounded by it they don't notice.
One month per year in front of textbooks.

10 months ago i passed out of college.

Yesterday i got a certificate as proof of that. :)