FWD: One man’s meat

[Guest guest]

***************************Advertisement***************************

eCentral - Your Entertainment Guide

http://www.star-ecentral.com

 

 

*****************************************************************

This message was forwarded to you by yitzeling.

 

Comment from sender:

for vegetarians

 

This article is from thestar.com.my

URL:

http://thestar.com.my/lifestyle/story.asp?file=/2002/4/16/features/vegefare & sec=\

features

 

________________________

 

 

Tuesday, April 16, 2002

One man’s meat

WHY, oh, why must a fair proportion of those going vegetarian for non-secular or

health reasons often expect vegetarian fare to taste like meat? This is borne

out by the fact that it is the rule rather than the exception for vegetarian

restaurants to sell food that is artfully and painstakingly prepared to resemble

the texture and flavour of meat.

 

 

 

Indeed, often the menu reads like those found in non-vegetarian eateries. And it

has been perfected to such a culinary art that they attract a breed of

connoisseurs who know where to go for the best “roast duck” or “beef rendang”,

for instance, a la vegetarian style.

 

But the crux of the matter resides in the fact that if one wishes to go

vegetarian, more so if done for religious reasons, isn’t it incumbent on one to

forgo this atavistic carnivorous desire for meat? Isn’t it implicit in the act

of going vegetarian that one forgoes this desire for meat, either in form or

content?

 

Often it is argued that eating such food doesn’t compromise one’s principles

since the ingredients are non-meat in origin. Hence there is no guilt attached

to consuming such food. This line of defence is adopted in the light of

criticisms that eating and preparing mock vegetarian food is hypocritical.

 

However, one could also argue that the guilt remains, for it is still the case

that in essence one fails for one is unable or unwilling to rid oneself of this

taste for meat. The fact is that a fair proportion of people who go vegetarian

want to have their cake as well as eat it. This is especially the case with

those who do it occasionally or for health reasons.

 

The bottom line is that they often find it difficult to separate the

sybaritic/gourmet aspects of eating from the philosophy underlying a practice

such as vegetarianism.

 

In fact, to many it is viewed as another gastronomic adventure, and often this

means that the vegetarian fare has to appeal to their seasoned palates, which is

one that is meat based. And this really goes against the very essence and spirit

of the entire exercise.

 

Why is it that they find it so difficult to forgo this longing such that even

when they go vegetarian in the context of religion, their taste buds need to be

comforted and assuaged that what they are eating tastes and has the texture of

meat so beloved of them?

 

Such attitudes and expectations negate the intention in the first place and when

seen from a religious perspective makes one question the role of religious piety

in the undertaking. Where is the sense of conviction?

 

While it could be argued that going vegetarian is already a positive action, the

provisos, either explicitly or implicitly attached to it, tend to sully the

intention. Such attitudes could be construed as a lack of discipline or

commitment, which reveals an inherent weakness. And in this case, an atavistic

craving for meat.

 

Indeed, one would have thought that the rationale for going vegetarian,

especially in the religious context is founded on a desire to abstain and

cleanse oneself of whatever corrupting influences or effects meat has on the

human mind, body and soul. And this means forging all representations and

verisimilitudes; for to go vegetarian yet expect the food to taste, feel and

even smell like meat is to sully the very essence of what vegetarianism stands

for.

 

Thus, it is incumbent on those who are often caught up in this display of piety

to ask themselves if their culinary expectations vis-à-vis vegetarianism doesn’t

negate the very essence and rationale of going vegetarian in the first place?

For that matter, going vegetarian, even from a non-religious perspective, is a

practical and spiritual act. Divorcing the two makes the act incomplete.

 

Of course what is even more preposterous is the fact that it is almost a

culinary must that a lot of vegetarian food served in religious places and

during religious festivals be made in the likeness of meat. This points to the

fact that even in a religious context mankind is compelled to compromise his

principles. Or is this religious pragmatism?

 

It would appear, therefore, that we want all the blessings and benefits but not

the sacrifices. Seen thus it amounts to a token display of piety.

 

In fact in all honesty it would be more laudable to actually say that one can’t

do without meat than to say that one is going vegetarian but on one’s terms. It

is a case of call it by any other name as long as it satisfies the carnivore in

us!

 

Feedback to this article can be sent to <a

href= " section2 " >section2</A>. Please inlude

full name and address and a pseudonym if desired.

 

 

________________________

Your one-stop information portal:

The Star Online

http://thestar.com.my

http://biz.thestar.com.my

http://classifieds.thestar.com.my

http://cards.thestar.com.my

http://search.thestar.com.my

http://star-motoring.com

http://star-space.com

http://star-jobs.com

http://star-ecentral.com

http://star-techcentral.com

 

1995-2002 Star Publications (Malaysia) Bhd. All rights reserved.

Reproduction in whole or in part in any form or medium without express written

permission of Star Publications is prohibited.