Vegetarian?

Should I Become a Vegetarian?
Recently two questions were asked – Does Hinduism require one to believe in God? Does Hinduism require one to be a vegetarian?
In a recent article, I have addressed the first question. Here I will provide some thoughts for the second question. In relation to the first question, I have discussed what Hinduism stands for and who is truly a Hindu. In essence, Hinduism is Sanatana Dharma, and that Dharma is from time immemorial; it involves pursuit of Moksha through self-reflection, inquiry, and Self-Knowledge. Self-Knowledge in Hinduism is synonymous with Moksha (Liberation from the cycle of birth and death).
Therefore, the one who is seeking to understand the ultimate mystery of existence and thereby gaining salvation or release is a true Hindu, irrespective of the nationality, caste, creed or gender. With that catholic understanding, one can see that Hinduism becomes a way of life because the pursuit of the essential purpose of life is the goal of the ideal Hindu life. If you ask most Hindus whether they believe in God, you will get a firm “Yes”, in response.
With this perspective, it is easier to analyze all other questions including whether Hinduism requires one to be a vegetarian. Since the purpose of life is securing liberation or Moksha, until we reach that we need to maintain our body. Keeping the body healthy through proper nourishment is the Hindu Dharma. The human body is considered a temple of God. Therefore, it is sacred and should be treated with respect.
You asked whether a Hindu has to be a vegetarian. Well, it is a fact that not all Hindus are vegetarians. Hindu kings and princes and the warriors have eaten meat for thousands of years. So your question is not whether a Hindu should eat but whether you should eat meat. Since such a question has already arisen in your mind, perhaps you have developed a degree of sensitivity about harming other living forms to satisfy your physical hunger. If that is true, you may be better off not eating meat. That way you will be at peace with yourself. Since you are sensitive to this issue, your intellect may be directing you towards being a vegetarian. It is a possibility. However, your mind wants the pleasure of eating meat and your body may crave it due to past habits. So you have to reflect on this. Why has this question come up for you? What is the right thing for you to do?
Follow Your Self-Nature
When you go against your own intellect and good understanding of life you commit a sin. An act that is contrary to your SWADHARMA (your own nature) creates a conflict within you. So you have to reflect on whether being a vegetarian is natural to you or not. Now, of course, even the traditional non-vegetarians are choosing vegetarianism not because of any compassion to other animals but they are recognizing that meat is not good for their health.
I have already mentioned that Hinduism does not say to you “don’t do this and don’t do that”. You must determine your own actions based on your intellectual values, culture, education and primary goal in life. You will find that following your Swadharma (your own nature) will make you comfortable with yourself. It is not for others to judge what food is right for you! It is for you to decide.
While you are trying to decide whether to be a vegetarian do this experiment. Imagine your self to be a chicken or cow who is about to be slaughtered for food. Would you not advise the guy who wants to make a dinner out of you to be a vegetarian instead? The golden rule of “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” can sometimes help shape our analysis.
Life Lives on Life
Life lives on life. That is the law of nature. Whether I eat an animal or plant, I am destroying a life in some form. Among all life forms, Man is different from the rest. He has the capability to discriminate right from wrong. That gives him the freedom of choice which animals and plants lack.
According to ancient teachings and our observations, plants have just a body and perhaps a rudimentary mind. Animals have both body and mind to express their feelings and suffering, but rudimentary intellect. Man has not only body and mind but also a well developed intellect to discriminate between good and bad, and to choose.
Man always has three choices: He can choose to do something, not to do it, or find another alternative way to do it that is more satisfactory. For animals and plants there is no freedom of choice. They are instinctively driven. The cow does not sit down before meals and inquires whether it should be a vegetarian or non-vegetarian. Same with the tiger or the eagle. They don’t say prayers before eating like we do. They just act according to their nature. No one can hold that against them.
Man and Sin
For a Man the discriminative intellect is much evolved. Plants and animals do not commit sin in their actions because there is no will involved in their actions. For a human, the story is different.
You may wonder why I brought sin in the argument. Let me explain. Sin is nothing but agitations in the mind. It is these agitations that prevent me in my journey to Moksha. Mind has to be pure (meaning un-agitated) for me to see the truth as the truth. (Bible also says blessed are those whose minds are pure).
To define sin more scientifically: It is the divergence between the mind and intellect. Intellect knows right from wrong. But we feel like doing things even though we know they are wrong . That is, the intellect says something but mind which should be subservient to the intellect rebels and does whatever it feels like. This divergence is sin.
After a wrong action is performed there is a guilt feeling. Intellect, although it was overruled, does not keep quiet. It keeps prodding “I told you it is wrong. Why did you do it?” With peace of mind gone, Man goes through a “Hell”. Man is not punished for the sin; he is punished by the sin! Think about it. All the Yoga schools, if you analyze clearly, are bringing this integration between the body, mind, and intellect so that there can be harmony. With harmony, there is peace.
For a true Yogi, what he thinks, what he speaks, and what he does are in perfect alignment. In our case, we think something but have no guts to say what we think. Our lips say something different from what we are thinking. Sometimes people say, “Watch My Lips or Read My Lips “. They mean to emphasize that what they say can be counted on. However, if you watch their lips as requested and follow their actions these are again different! There is no integration anywhere. Our lips and our hips have divergent paths. We live a chaotic life of freestyle dancing! Besides deceiving others, we deceive ourselves, and the worst thing is sometimes we don’t even realize that.
Animals and Sin
Now, when a tiger kills and eats, it does not commit a sin. Because its intellect is rudimentary, it does not go through any analysis before it kills and asks “should I kill or not kill this cute deer”? A tiger does not ask itself, “Should I be a non-vegetarian or a vegetarian?”. When it is hungry, to fill the natures demand, it kills its prey and eats what it needs and leaves the rest when it is full. A tiger does not overeat. There are no fat tigers in nature.
A tiger is not greedy either. It does not seek luxury beyond satisfying its needs. Animals and plants and birds and bees and insects and all living things follow a beautiful ecological system. It is only man who destroys the ecology by being greedy. But Man also has the beautiful instrument of the intellect and the ability to develop it and to meditate on the reality of the universe.
Should I be a vegetarian or non-vegetarian?
So yes, “Should I be a vegetarian or non-vegetarian?” is asked only by a man. Why does that question come? It comes due to reflection. Because man has a discriminative intellect, he can reflect on the nature of pain and suffering. Perhaps a man may think at some point in his life whether it is justifiable to harm and kill an animal to fill his belly. A person may reflect whether eating animals is consistent with the golden rule of “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”. A man may consider whether this maxim applies to all forms of life or just other human beings.
Plants are life forms too. “Should one hurt them?” you may ask. If one can live without hurting any life forms that is the best, but that is not possible. Life lives on life – that is the law of nature. My role as a human being with discriminative intellect is to do the least damage to the nature for keeping myself alive and well.
At least, I am not consciously aware of suffering of the plants. That is why eating to live and not living to eat is the determining factor. In Bhagawad Geeta, Sri Krishna emphatically says that a Sadhaka (one who is in pursuit of Moksha) should have a compassion for all forms of life. There may come a point when it is advisable to be a vegetarian – only taking from nature what you need to keep the body in optimal health.
In one’s spiritual growth, one develops subtler and subtler intellect. That is, the mind becomes more sensitive, calmer, and self-contented. Your sensitivity to suffering of others also grows. Hence, the thought about becoming a vegetarian may come. Only you can decide what is right for you and not someone else. Any decision that is imposed on you from the outside does violence to your nature.
Many young people are now becoming vegetarians. They all have their own reasons. Fortunately vegetarianism is mainstream now and accepted. Most schools and universities offer vegetarian and even vegan meals and so the option to become a vegetarian is easier today than ever before.
Flowers grow in their own time. Whether you are vegetarian or not does not matter ultimately.
You are all flowers blooming in the light of the divine.
Hari Om and Tat Sat. – Sadananda

Three Types of Teachers

There are three types of teachers:
1. One who knows the shAstra-s and is also firmly established in that knowledge, i.e. a shrotriya and a brahma niShThA.
2. One who does not know the shAstra-s but is firmly established in the knowledge, i.e. only a brahma niShThA.
3. One who knows the shAstra-s but is not firmly established in the knowledge, i.e. only a shrotriya.
Of these, the first one is the best and the scriptures advise one to approach such a teacher.
The second is a problem since, although he may be a brahma niShThA, he is not a teacher. Shankara says that one should avoid such a teacher. He may inspire one to inquire but he cannot guide others.
The third one is the second best, since at least one can learn from that teacher.
Now the problem is that a brahma niShThA alone will know that he is a brahma niShThA - no one else can know. One can only guess by studying the person’s behavior for a prolonged length of time; observing that he does not get excited, for example, as Krishna describes.
This means that the student can never know if his teacher is a brahma niShThA or not but he can find out if his teacher has studied the scriptures or not.
Since one needs shraddhA or faith in the words of the teacher, it is imperative for the student to assume that his teacher is realized (irrespective of whether the teacher is realized or not). Then, if he learns, the student can realize since he has faith in the teaching.
Ultimately, a teacher is one who directs the disciple to the scriptures and not to himself as the authority, since the scriptures ultimately form the means of knowledge.
Now the question is: why do we need a teacher or guide? Why cannot just a book or tape recorder or CD player be a teacher?
Firstly, this is a subjective science involving non-objectifiable truths. The preconceived notions of the seeker form impediments to knowledge. If we cannot do a PhD without a guide, as stipulated by any university rules, it is even more imperative to have a guide for this more subtle inquiry. Furthermore, simply having a PhD does not mean that one can guide another student. Either one has to have both a PhD and be involved in continuing inquiry or research or one may be well established in research but not actually have a PhD. The same thing applies to this more subtle inquiry.
Hence the Vedic instruction is that we should always approach a teacher for the knowledge.
Ultimately, it is due to the merits of many lives that one can find a proper teacher who can guide us to salvation.
Hence, the vivekachUDAmaNi says:
manushyatvam mumukShutvam mahApurushasamsrayam - dulabham - daiva anugraham
Being born as human being with discriminative faculty,
having a desire to become free from bondage and
having the acquaintance of a great soul.
All these three are rare indeed – and it is only due to the grace of God that it can happen.
A student has to discover his teacher for himself; no teacher will come and say ‘I am your teacher’. A student will discover his teacher when he has full faith in the teaching. Without that full faith, no teaching can takes place. ShraddhAvan labhate j~nAnam says Krishna

What is success?

By Acharya Sadanandaji
What is success?Normally success is measured in terms of one’s achievement. It is said that success comes before work only in the dictionary.  Hence every success involves hard work. One wants to acquire good education that secures good job and that gives more opportunities to become more successful in future. The one who is most successful is the one who has the most of everything that all others desire – a good education, a secure high paying job, with all the personal relations with all other beings, exactly the way one wants. Like in fairy tales, he lives happily ever after. Unfortunately, every set-up changes continuously and that is the law of nature. All set-ups are not necessarily conducive for ones likes and dislikes. The changing set-up can always up-set the metal frame of a person, even though he is successful in terms of his accomplishments.Listen to any parent – the success of his child is seen in every accomplishment, in gaining that is worthy to gain. His success is connected to the success of his child. He first feels that the child is successful if he gets first rank. Then the next success depends on his securing an admission in very good university, then his completion of his studies with high rank, then getting a job in prestigious company. That is not settling yet. Then, he feels his son is completely settled once he is married. Indian parents proudly declare that all their children are ‘settled now’. What it means, as any parent can explain, is all the daughters are married and now ‘settled’, - and all the boys are ‘settled’ with secure jobs and married, etc. All his children are settled but he is not settled yet. Now all he wants is to have grand children; with the cycle that starts again; their school admission, their education, their marriages, etc. Hence, none
 feels at any time, he is completely settled with what he has. None is happy with what he has; but always wants something more to settle – complete settlement is where there is no more longing for the mind to have anything else in order to settle. Wanting mind will never settles down with having what it wanted, since the wanting mind keeps moving forward at a faster pace with some more wanting than settling down with having fulfilled what it wanted before.‘Having’ is living in the present, while ‘wanting’ is to achieve something in future. ‘Owning’ is identifying with what one is having as one’s own.  In the same way, renouncing is also some kind of notion of owning, since one has to own in order to renounce. Thus it involves renouncing the ownership of things, which one never really owns, to begin with. The true renunciation is not renunciation of things, but renunciation of the notion of ownership. The wanting keeps shifting to the future all the time without settling down with the present. One wants to want, than just settled with what one has. Thus wanting mind never settles with just having. On the same token any statement that renunciation of external things is needed for one to realize one own self implies inherently ownership of things that one never owns.Nobody is happy with what he has or what he has achieved. He is happy, of course, when others envy what he has or others long for what he has. He can measure his success in counting what he has in relation to others who do not have and would want to have what he has. Yet, that is not where the mind can settle down and say I have no more wants since I am happy with what I have.  I am happy with what I have, but I will be happier if I have this, this, and this, which I do not have. Wanting mind is the desiring mind and scripture says feeding the mind by what it wants is like pouring ghee to put out the fire. The wanting mind includes those that one wants to have and also those that one wants to get rid off. These in the language of Vedanta are called as Vaasanas or likes and dislikes.
The wanting mind can never settled down with what it has, unless it has, of course, everything in the universe and there is nothing left to want. That means having infinite that is Brahman, the limitless. However, finite being can never achieve or acquire infinite by adding finite things. That is mathematically illogical.  Thus the problem can never be solved since wanting mind remains all the time wanting. It is a useless advice to ask the mind not to want more, since that feeling of inadequacy and wanting to be adequate is natural and instinctive too.
The reason is simple. The wanting is the very nature of the ego. Ego arises by identification with what I have, with automatic exclusion of what I do not have that I want to have, to feel that I am an adequate being.  This forms the fundamental human struggle; nay the struggle of every being in the universe; from the first born (hiranya garbha) to the blade of grass, says Shree Sureswara in his introduction to Naiskarmya siddhi.
Hence, what one has represents the present state. Future is where one is heading with his - wants to have this and that. Wanting mind is the one which longs to have this and that in the future, and gains a measure of success in achieving what it wants. Achieving puts the man with the present as having what one wanted. However, the mind never settles down in the present with what one has; hence it wants all that it still does not have; the struggle continues till death. Nay, it continues ever after death. Even if one goes to heaven the problem continues. In Tai. Up., it says, in its amicable style, that there are three different colonies even in heaven, just like here, the slums, the middle class and the hierarchically elate class. Shankara says, the slum class residents are those who reached there by noble deeds prescribed by smRiti texts, the next higher class is those who reached there by following the righteous actions prescribed by Shrutis, and of
 course the elate class are the natives who hold very important positions like MP and ministers etc – they are supposed to be 33 of them. They do not have any ministers without portfolio. They deal with the God on the first name basis. Each one is 100 times happier than the fellow down the next level. Happiest person is, of course, the first born, hiranya garbha, whose happy scale is 10 to the power of 23 times that of ideal happy human youth who is owner of entire earth with all the yellow and black gold resources at his disposal. But no one is happy, they are happier than the fellow who is below their rank or below what they have achieved. Every one falling in this happy scale has egotistical happiness, since happiness depends on what one has in relation to what others do not have and like to have. Actually everyone is only happier but no one is happy, since everyone is still left with a wanting mind that wants to want.
It is interesting to note that those who do not have and those who have, both are not happy.  Some people do not have anything not by choice, while some do not have by choice – shotriyasya akaamaya tasya. Some want to gain happiness by acquiring what they do not have. Others want to gain the happiness by renouncing what they have.  They quote scriptures that say that one has to renounce every thing to realize one is infinite or the interpretations of the scriptures that says so – tyagenaike amRitatvamaanasuH.  The fundamental problem remains. Happy state is state of limitlessness where there is no more wanting mind. A finite mind cannot but WANT in order to be happy or to reach that infiniteness or limitlessness. Finite can never reach infinite either by adding or subtracting finite things.  On the other hand, the pursuit to reach the infinite does not stop and cannot stop until the wanting mind ceases to want.
Thus there is a fundamental problem in all these – not happy with what it is – and having wanting mind that wants to want – be it absolute happy state by renunciation or wanting to reach that absolute happiness by trying to acquire everything in the universe. These are two sides of the same coin. The longing mind remains in both. Both are not happy with what it is. Present is always perceived as the stepping stone for the coming future. It is a transitory state or a passage for the future happy and absolute state. Unfortunately future never comes. There is no bridge from the present to the future, since future is just a segment of mental projection.
Thus, we have fundamentally two overriding factors: longing to achieve absolute happiness and not relative happiness, or being fully adequate all the time, which is very intrinsic nature of all beings. Not to have that wanting mind is not the solution since it is the intrinsic nature of the limited mind. Hence neither renunciation of what it is (the present state), or what one has, is the solution to the problem.  In either case, the wanting mind remains wanting and not happy with what it is, since there is a desire to become something other than what it is. This is also what JK calls it as conditioned mind. A mind conditioned to look for or to want for things that make one to be absolutely happy. Unconditioning is not a process since any process reconditions in some form. Solution to this desperate problem is to recognize the problem correctly. This is what Krishna calls the solution as sanyaasa yoga – what Gurudev Swami Chinmayanandaji translates it
 as detachment-attachment technique. It is an oxymoron to solve a problem, which cannot be solved by any process.  This does not include either sanyaasa or yoga, but sanyaasa-yoga that involves seeing what it is. What it is – is present and not what one wants it to be. It is neither by not wanting what it is, since both are wants to want something other than what it is. True sanyaasa is not renunciation of things that one owns, but it is the renunciation of the very notion of ownership. It involves the recognition that I never own anything.  This is true sharaNaagati or a complete surrendering of the wanting mind to the infinite wisdom. In the process, the wanting mind ceases to be wanting, since it rests with that infinite mind that pervades everything as His vibhuuti. In the sanyaasa of giving up the wanting mind to the infinite, one gains the yoga (of or with) the infinite - the essence of sanyaasa-yoga. The complete surrender involves
 identification with the totality where the individuality ceases to be separate for it to want any thing separate from the infinite. It is the same as knowing that I own everything or the whole universe of things and beings, and therefore wanting mind that wants is no more wanting, since there is nothing more to want.  The notional wanting mind ceases to be in the unity of the totality that underlies the plurality.
I am - is the present, not an entity in the future, with something that I want my self to be, either by gaining or by achieving or by getting rid of or sanyaasa of what I have. Sanyaasa in the sanyaasa-yoga involves renunciation of not what I have but renunciation of the very notion of separate ownership and the associated renunciation of the wanting mind which always wants to want, through yoga or by shifting my attention to that the enlivening presence because of which the inert mind dances to its wants.  It is ‘as though’ yoking the mind to the very existence-consciousness because of which I am conscious of the wanting mind that wants to want things that I do not possess, or that wants to renounce things that I possess. By being conscious of the very wanting mind that wants to want or wants to renounce what one has, one is beyond the wanting mind or beyond the longing for something in the future that never comes. That is the same as being the
 witnessing consciousness or saakshii by renouncing all mental misconceptions of ownerships those results, in both wanting things and in renouncing things. Here sanyaasa is not renunciation of things but renunciation of notional ownership to the things that one never owned.  It is true, that external renunciation can help in this internal renunciation of the notional ownership. However, to say that it is essential, I am giving notional ownership more reality that what it is. The true sanyaasa is mental detachment to the notion of ownerships, and attaching or abiding oneself as the very existence-conscious entity that I am. That is the essence of SharaNaagati. In that very understanding, the wanting mind itself gets resolved, since it can exists only as long as the conscious entity which enlivens it by identifying with it and with its limitations. It survives as long as there is an identification with the wanting mind as - I am the mind - continues
 irrespective of whether external changes I do at the physical level. One cannot renounce notional ownership by a process. It can be done only by clear understanding that there is no reality for notional ownership of things and beings.
It can be only achieved by recognition that I am – is complete by itself – without any need of the wanting mind that wants things that one does not have, or renouncing things that one has. It is recognition that I am full and complete by myself with recognition that I do not own anything even to renounce or I own everything since I am that everything. ‘aham annam, aham annam, aham annam - aham annado aham annado aham annado is the screaming song of a realized master – I am all that which is consumed or desired and I all that who is consuming or desiring – I am that which is supported, and I am all that which supports everything – in essence there is nothing that is separate from me – I am the desirer and the desired– I am all that, yet beyond all that –I am immaculately pure with neither desire nor desired – I am that I am without a second - the very living present which transcends time, since there is no time in the present, as it is
 the meeting ground where past meets the future. What is there in the present is not the time-gap but that which transcends the time itself – where there is only the very presence of the existence-consciousness that I am. Now - alone is that which counts, and is that where one truly lives, or in that only all experiences takes place, but that which is beyond any experience itself – that beyond any sanyaasa or yoga.  Wanting mind dissolves into the very presence in that present, since there is no more wanting in it which relates to future. What is there is only MY PRSENCE – AS I AM with simultaneous recognition that I AM is the essence of the world too, the things and beings that I wanted, since I AM is the infinite presence that pervades both the mind that wants and the wants that mind wants.
Hari Om!
Sadananda