Does anyone wish to be killed?

[Guest guest]

Note: forwarded message attached.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

……“Non-vegetarians

believe in eating the flesh of some species, their milk, eggs of birds, etc.

Whereas some people claim to be purely vegetarian in food habits, non-vegetarians

can never call themselves purely non-vegetarian, since they also take fruits,

vegetables and milk etc. Neither any non-vegetarian nor for that purpose any

vegetarian person can be said to be pure in the true sense of the term. Food

items like cakes, biscuits and many other products available in the market,

certain medicines, tonics etc. contain ¬different enzymes and materials from

non-human species, as do many of the items that we use on a day to day basis,

like creams and soaps which contain animal fats etc. The vegetarian group

belonging to the so-called intellectual class of society is fully aware of the

inclusion of non-vegetarian elements in the so-called harmless vegetarian

items. Yet they take these items beholding some traditional or acquired value

of vegetarianism. This has always been the case with the intellectual group. It

is expediency, which justifies everything. Taking out milk from the mouth of a

calf and yet worshipping the cow as a mother is justified on the grounds of

expediency. It is expediency which forces the human society to create hybrid

varieties of ¬different species of animals and birds ultimately to eat them

like chicken or put them into different uses. Most of the demonstrative

compassion shown towards animals, birds and other species comes out of this

utilitarian mindset of the homosapiens. In the recorded history of mankind the

highest compassion to other species was shown by Mahavira Jain, but very few

people understand it and follow it in the right spirit.

Whatever be the justification in

killing the members of other species, the mute question is “Does anyone

wish to be killed?” Does any human being wish to be killed and eaten by

any other species except in cases of rare psychological predispositions like suicide

etc? Will any hen or goat when asked say that it wants to be killed? Have we

not observed the pain and terror in the eyes and tremor in the bodies of the

animals and birds when they are being slaughtered? When the very man who does

not want to be killed at any cost or even to be injured kills an animal, is he

not being totally insensitive to the pain of others? This logically justifies

the theory that the strong rule or have a moral right to rule and exploit the

weak. This is true in the animal world where instinctively the tiger kills the

deer, as intelligence has not developed in it as in human beings. Once its

hunger is quenched, it kills no more till hunger propels it, instinctively

again, to kill a prey. The human species, on the other hand, even keep a stock

of flesh of dead animals in packed or frozen condition for eating whenever it

likes.

The word ‘Humanism’

(Manav-vada) used by the so-called civilised society explains an attitude/act

of kindness and understanding towards other human beings to whatever breed they

belong. The word ‘Manav-vada’ does not necessarily include

‘Prani-vada’. And this is where the human society falters. The urge

to kill animals when further extended as a psychological condition can lead a

person to kill other human beings and strengthens the mental trait of violence.

Have not we observed that even today human beings are, at times, cruelly killed

by other human beings in the manner in which an animal is killed by another

animal. Have we not read that in the places where the sages and saints lived,

even animals lost their cruel instincts? Why? Because of the non-existence of

killer mindset and an attitude of peaceful co¬existence of different species.

Can’t the human species create an atmosphere of peaceful co-existence with

the animals? Has not God provided us with enough of agricultural products,

fruits, roots, etc. on which human society can subsist!

The question is left open to the

reader to decide for himself rationally, even if not from the religious or

spiritual points of view. A non-vegetarian person may not personally kill or be

a part of the process of killing, but he certainly contributes to such killings

as a consumer. To appreciate the issue properly, it would perhaps be better for

a non-vegetarian person to visit a place where animals/birds are being killed,

observe the painful reactions of these harmless species when death is being

inflicted on them and then decide whether he should continue to be a

non-vegetarian.

The direct experience of things

(and not information alone) brings knowledge and creates a conviction whether

to do or not do a thing. A progressive man should have direct experience and

then decide on the course of action he likes to take. This is truthful living

and without truthful living one cannot enter into the path of

spiritualism.”…….