Religion, for the Wild?
Being from a Hindu family, I have been taught to be tolerant and respectful towards all the other things — relgions, ideas, beliefs, creatures and being; just like all the other religions. However, after seeing a LOT of animal documentary films based on various relevant and data-backed environmental pillars (welfare, anti-abuse, protection and speciesism), I began to question the very concept of the current religious practices in not one, but many religions—Are the humans doing it right? Is the supreme creator happy with humans? Are we really “pleasing” the God(s)? Introspect. Revisit the holy scriptures.
Disclaimer: This article is a mere outcome of an opinion-based long-term self-discussion and should not be considered as any kind of advice to any — religous, social, personal or econmic groups of — people, societies or families. Due to the social nature of this site, you might consider me anti-religious or something similar, but I do not intend to portray myself that way. Feel free to challenge my thoughts and confirm that your understanding of what I said is the same as what I intended to convey.
Religion is a social-cultural system of designated behaviors and practices, morals, worldviews, texts, sanctified places, prophecies, ethics, or organizations, that relates humanity to supernatural, transcendental, or spiritual elements (Merriam-Webster). Moreover, in John Morreall and Tamara Sonn’s 50 Great Myths of Religion, the very first myth is that “All Societies Have Religions”. Also, there is no scholarly consensus over what precisely constitutes a religion.
According to African Studies Association; University of Michigan (2005). History in Africa, there are an estimated 10,000 distinct religions worldwide.[10] As per the Global Religious Landscape, about 84% of the world’s population is affiliated with Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, or some form of folk religion. The religiously unaffiliated demographic includes those who do not identify with any particular religion, atheists, and agnostics. While the religiously unaffiliated have grown globally, many of the religiously unaffiliated still have various religious beliefs.
Veganism, on the other end, is the practice of abstaining from the use of animal products, particularly in diet, and an associated philosophy that rejects the commodity status of animals. An individual who follows the diet or philosophy is known as a vegan. Distinctions may be made between several categories of veganism. Dietary vegans, also known as “strict vegans”, refrain from consuming meat, eggs, dairy products, and any other animal-derived substances. An ethical vegan, also known as a “moral vegan”, is someone who not only follows a vegan diet but extends the philosophy into other areas of their lives, and opposes the use of animals for any purpose. Another term is “environmental veganism”, which refers to the avoidance of animal products on the premise that the industrial farming of animals is environmentally damaging and unsustainable.
Different religions may or may not contain various elements ranging from the divine, sacred things, faith, a supernatural being or supernatural beings or “some sort of ultimacy and transcendence that will provide norms and power for the rest of life”. Diverse religious practices may include rituals, sermons, commemoration or veneration (of deities and/or saints), sacrifices, festivals, feasts, trances, initiations, funerary services, matrimonial services, meditation, prayer, music, art, dance, public service, or other aspects of human culture. Religions have sacred histories and narratives, which may be preserved in sacred scriptures, and symbols and holy places, that aim mostly to give a meaning to life. Religions may contain symbolic stories, which are sometimes said by followers to be true, that have the side purpose of explaining the origin of life, the universe, and other things. Traditionally, faith, in addition to reason, has been considered a source of religious beliefs. And this very diversity has led to a paradox of pleasing the very source of the religions we follow.
Our beliefs about what is (and is not) acceptable to eat typically derive from our cultural inheritance, rather than any Biblically informed ethic. After all, if, as we Christians might initially be tempted to think, it is okay to eat lambs and pigs because humans were given dominion over God’s creation (Genesis 1:26–28), then it will also be okay to eat cats and dogs, for nothing in Genesis (nor any other book in the Bible) suggests that lambs and pigs are for eating while cats and dogs are for cuddling. Yet most people find the idea of eating cats and dogs horrific. Recognising that such a mixed attitude towards animals — a desire to eat pigs and cuddle cats — is a cultural inheritance which doesn’t obviously square with the Biblical idea of human dominion over animals is helpful; it gives us the chance to distance ourselves from those cultural beliefs and ask ourselves afresh what attitude towards animals the Bible most clearly teaches.
In sketching an answer to this question, looking at the beginning, in the book of Genesis, perhaps the portion of the Genesis creation narrative most relevant to this topic is Genesis 1:29–30:
God said, ‘See, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit; you shall have them for food. And to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.’ And it was so.
In these verses, God institutes a plant-based diet for both humans and non-human animals alike. God, in other words, created the world vegan. And it is this vegan world which God proceeds to declare very good (Genesis 1:31). What, then, of human dominion over all other creatures (Genesis 1:26–28)? Some have used the idea of human dominion to justify the eating of non-human animals: humans are allowed to eat other animals because humans were given dominion over other animals.
While we cannot deny that such thinking has been influential, there is one simple point which counts decisively against any such interpretation of ‘dominion’. This point is that humans are given dominion over other animals immediately prior to and as part of the very same narrative in which God gives humans a plant-based diet. Whatever ‘having dominion over’ means, then, if God’s subsequent institution of a plant-based diet is to make any sense, it cannot involve the permission to kill, eat or abuse animals: dominion simply does not mean complete and utter domination.
Just as the Bible’s account of creation’s beginnings depict an initial scenario free of violence, so does the Bible’s depictions of God’s intentions for the goal of creation. This is captured in the idea of the Peaceable Kingdom: a time in which the Messiah will reign, bringing universal peace and harmony: shalom. One of Isaiah’s descriptions of this Kingdom is particularly apt (Isaiah 11:6–8):
The wolf shall live with the lamb,
the leopard shall lie down with the kid,
the calf and the lion and the fatling together,
and a little child shall lead them.
The cow and the bear shall graze,
their young shall lie down together;
and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.
The nursing child shall play over the hole of the asp,
and the weaned child shall put its hand on the adder’s den.
Here we see a clear statement that this Messianic Kingdom — for Christians, the Reign of God inaugurated by and to be summed up in Jesus — will feature no killing animals for food. This foreshadows the book of Revelation, where the renewal of all things is pictured as the new Jerusalem descending to this earth (Revelation 21–22). God’s ultimate project is to restore this creation to himself, not to replace this creation with something else entirely. God values this creation, and every creature it contains — a point Jesus underscored when he noted that even sparrows, sold for mere pennies, were known to God (Matthew 10:29).
The Bible’s account of creation’s beginnings and its account of creation’s ultimate summing up both speak of peaceful living, peaceful eating. This is not to deny that there are passages which can and have been used to justify eating animals. These passages are best interpreted, however, in light of that overarching theme of peace, a theme embodied, of course, in the person of Jesus Christ. The Bible makes clear that at every turn, Jesus actively, though non-violently, resisted oppression and evil. He stood up for the marginalised, loved his enemies, and preached peace in the face of Roman violence and hostility.
For many Christians, major stumbling blocks are the belief that Christ ate meat and the many references to meat in the New Testament. But close study of the original Greek manuscripts shows that the vast majority of the words translated as “meat” and “trophe, brome,” and other words that simply mean “food” or “eating” in the broadest sense. For example, in the Gospel of St. Luke (8:55) we read that Jesus raised a woman from the dead and “commanded to give her meat.” The original Greek word translated as “meat” is “phago,” which means only “to eat.” The Greek word for meat is kreas (“flesh”), and it is never used in connection with Christ. Nowhere in the New Testament is there any direct reference to Jesus eating meat. This is in line with Isaiah’s famous prophecy about Jesus’s appearance, “Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call him name Emmanuel. Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil and choose the good.”
Most importantly, by focusing on Jesus and the ethic he embodied, we can situate ourselves in God’s story. We were made to live peacefully, and will one day inhabit God’s Peaceable Kingdom. Recognising these things, and remembering that many of our beliefs about animals stem not from the Bible but from cultural habit, might enable us to evaluate honestly the violence we are now implicated in, not so that we can condemn ourselves or be condemned by others — but so that we can turn from it, and join with God in seeking that Peaceable Kingdom. As we read the Bible, our prayer should be that God would deliver us from the evil of causing unnecessary violence and/or abuse, of any kind, to animals.
The cruelty free, vegan lifestyle is often associated with healthy living in general. Thanks to many social media sites and the rise of the bloggers (and influencers), it is depicted as a brand-new trend; a cool Western way of living and addressing many of the modern woes we face. Naturally, since this has become the image of the vegan lifestyle, people are surprised when a vegan lifestyle can be derived as one of the direct results of Islamic beliefs.
We are all too aware of representation halal meat has received on the mainstream media. The Western media specifically has broadcasted outrage at the treatment of animals under the name of Islam and halal practises. It has garnered much disdain from environmental and animal rights organisations. People resented eating it due to their belief that it has been ‘slaughtered cruelly’.
Needless to say the argument is hypocritical since most other meat widely used has been intensively farmed in horrendous conditions, yet concerns around animal welfare only arose within the public domain where halal meat was concerned.
So, how can the religion that is percieved in such a way that it “encourages such cruel methods of slaughter” be the very thing that can make its followers (more) ethical, and adopt a meat-free way of living? Well, there is great emphasis on respecting the Earth and all beings on it, that comes first and foremost within Islam. Choosing a vegan diet is obviously a lifestyle choice, and of course it makes sense that other ethically conscious choices follow, however these decisions mean so much more than that. They are made to feed the soul as well as the physical body. As a Muslim, one must care about what actions they exercise in the world and how it helps others, not just themselves.
“O children of Adam! … eat and drink: but waste not by excess” (Surah 7:31)
It is vital that sustainability and environmental protection is taught as an Islamic responsibility since it is stated as such within the religious scriptures. Thanks to the perceptions people have of cultures and practises that are associated with Islam, like high-octane and luxurious lifestyles in Dubai to oil production in many Middle Eastern countries, eco-friendly ways of living aren’t synonymous with the religion as they should be.Over-exploitation, mass production which leads to waste, intensive farming are all prohibited considering the pain and waste they create. Our habits are supposed to benefit others, of all species.
“God has ordained kindness (and excellence) in everything” (Sahih Muslim, Hadeeth)
With the workings of our planet, of how intricate our existence is, how complex and beautiful each being is and we’re made to create a harmonious ecosystem, it doesn’t become difficult to integrate eco-aware habits into everyday Muslim life. Islam is the reason that one can start thinking about the environment and ethics in general, which can lead to a healthy, fulfilled and informed life that is focused on doing the best for oneself, others and everything around one.
Additionally, staying fit and nutritionally aware ensures that one can can make the most of this physical body whilst here on Earth, respecting and caring for it is also encouraged in the Quran. The teachings regarding the environment are ways to appreciate the bounties on Earth and to become more mindful of our surroundings, impacts and existence. I’m not arguing with the fact that the Quran states that animals have been given to people by God as sustenance; it is clear that Islam teaches that animals should be used for food. However, the use of animals as food requires very specific conditions which are very similar to organic methods of farming. The animal should be raised in an open, respectful and healthy way, it should not be killed in front of other animals, all tools to make the death quicker and as painless as possible should be utilised, etc. Rather, I am pondering over the fact that do we actually need to sacrifice an animal and feast on it, even in 2020, to celebrate the sacrifice of a Prophet towards God and God’s compassion towards him? Can we replace the “object” of sacrifice?
In Thus Spoke Mohammed (the translation of the Hadith by Dr. M.Hafiz Syed), the disciples of the prophet Mohammed ask him, “Verily are there rewards for our doing good to quadrupeds, and giving them water to drink?” Mohammed answers, “There are rewards for benefiting every animal.”
Since I don’t feel that the conditions cannot be met, veganism and ethical consumerism in general is a great option to abide by the environmental and moral teachings of Islam. It also takes into consideration the waste and labour conditions of others who are often treated inhumanely within fast paced industries. When you are an ethical consumer, you take into consideration how something was produced, who produced it and ensuring they are treated fairly. Clearly, there is space for veganism and ethical consumerism in general within Islam, and it could be integrated into teachings as a core element of this rich and beautiful religion more often.
Every living being has a specific purpose for its existence. The purpose, definitely, is other than being killed and eaten by others. In the Bhagavad Gita Lord Krishna says sarva–yonishukaunteya (BG, 14.4): “In every living being there is a spirit soul.” That means even in the animals there is a soul, so we do not have the right to kill or eat flesh.
Just as there are government laws, so there are laws of nature, or God Laws. If we kill then that binds us to Karma, and we will get the reaction. The analogy of Karma means ‘To every action there is an equal opposite reaction’. So either we do good or bad karma, we are still binding ourselves more to this material world. Also just by seeing a meat dish on your plate does not mean everything is ok, there has been so much violence gone into it before you see the finishing product. Lord Krishna says that he is the original father of all living entities (aham bija-pradah pita — BG, 14.4), so we do not have the right to kill anyone. If we do not have the right to give life to a living creature we also do not have the right to kill them unnecessarily. A Devotee is full of compassion and he cannot see anyone suffer, even the animals.
Naakrtvaa praaninaam himsaam maamsamutpadyate kvachit. Na cha praanivadhah svargyastamaanmaamsam vivarjayet. (MS 5.48)
Anumantaa vishasitaa nihantaa krayavikrayii. Samskartaa chopahartaa cha khaadakashchetighaatakaah (MS 5.51)
Being raised in a Hindu family, I have met so many people who say “… but I am not actually killing the animal but just eating, that’s not wrong..” The Manu Samhita scriptures tells us that all the people get the reaction for being involved with meat. The flesh of animals is obtained only after killing him, which is a sin, and the killer of animals never enters the celestial abode. All those involved in killing, consenting the killing, helping the killing, carrying, selling, buying, cooking and eating the meat of an animal are equally sinful as the killing of that animal.
The person who eats meat is also encouraging and, in one sense, supporting the killing. For example if few dacoits goes to rob a house, and one stands outside the house to look out and other few dacoits steal from the house, if they get caught everyone will be punished by the laws, because the person who was outside was also supporting the crime. Similarly, one who eats meat is also involved and is liable for punishment.
Some ignorant people who argue by asking, “Plants and Vegetables are also living being is it not a sin to kill them for food too?” The explanation to this, is given in Srimad Bhagavatam (3.29.15). The answer is that eating vegetables is violence, and vegetarians and vegams are also committing violence against other living entities because vegetables also have life. Non-devotees are killing cows, goats and so many other animals for eating purposes, and a devotee, who is vegetarian or vegan, is also killing. But here, significantly, it is stated that every living entity has to live by killing another entity; that is the law of nature.
Jīvo jīvasya jīvanam: one living entity is the life for another living entity. But for a human being, that violence should be committed only as much as necessary. A human being is not to eat anything which is not offered to the Supreme Personality of Godhead.
Yajna-sistasinah santah: one becomes freed from all sinful reactions by eating foodstuffs which are offered to Yajna, the Supreme Personality of Godhead. A devotee therefore eats only prasada, or foodstuffs offered to the Supreme Lord, and Krishna says that when a devotee offers Him foodstuffs from the vegetable kingdom, with devotion, He eats that. A devotee is to offer to Krishna foodstuffs prepared from vegetables. If the Supreme Lord wanted foodstuffs prepared from animal food, the devotee could offer this, but He does not order to do that.”
So yes even plants and vegetables have souls and killing them unnecessarily and for personal sense gratification causes sin, that’s why it is recommended to offer the vegetarian food to Lord Krishna first then later eat that food as Prashadam or mercy. Lord Krishna can do anything so he transforms the food offered to him into spiritual food, this will free us from sin and karmic reactions.
Eating only food offered to Krishna is the ultimate perfection of the ideal Hindu vegetarian diet. After all, pigeons and monkeys are also vegetarian, so becoming a vegetarian is not in itself the greatest of accomplishments. The Vedas inform us that the purpose of human life is to reawaken the soul to its relationship with God, and only when we go beyond vegetarianism to prasada can our eating be helpful in achieving this goal.
The Bhagavad-gita says sarva-yonisu, “In all species of life the soul exists.”
The body is like a suit of clothes. Doesn’t matter if you have black clothes, saffron clothes or no clothes. But within the dress you are a human being, and I am also a human being. Similarly, the bodies of the different species are just like different types of dress. There are soul, a part and parcel of God. Suppose a man has two sons, not equally meritorious. One may be a Supreme Court judge and the other may be a common laborer, but the father claims both as his sons. He does not make the distinction that the son who is a judge is very important and the worker-son is not important. And if the judge-son says, “My dear father, your other son is useless; let me cut him up and eat him,” will the father allow this?
We have to understand the evidence of the soul’s presence within the body. Then we can see whether the human being has a soul and the cow does not. What are the different characteristics of the cow and the man? If we find a difference in characteristics, then we can say that in the animal there is no soul. But if we see that the animal and the human being have the same characteristics, then how can you say that the animal has no soul? The general symptoms are that the animal eats, you eat; the animal sleeps, you sleep; the animal mates, you mate; the animal defends, and you defend. Where is the difference?
In Hinduism, meat eating has a very bad effect on our spiritual life and we are in danger to become the slave of our own senses, which we never can satisfy. And then in the afterlife it is very likely that we meet the animals we ate or killed. But this time they will be the human and we the animal. In this world we can’t do anything without bearing the reactions of our karma.
What we have done to others, we have done to ourselves. It’s Karma. There is a very tight restriction if someone wants to eat meat — People have to worship Kali Maa because she accepts meat as an offering. This is a concession only. It is only for those who are so addicted that they can’t give it up. The process is that once a month, on a dark moon night (i.e. no moon), they’re allowed to take some lesser animal, like a goat/pig, and they take it out into the country, where no other people are around, or in the temple grounds (of Kali Maa), and then they chant “Mam sa khadatiti mamsah” … ie “whatever I am doing to you, you can do to me in my next life”. Then they personally have to slit the throat of the animal.
Mam sa khadatiti mamsah. The Sanskrit word is mamsa. Mam means “me,” and sa means “he.” I am killing this animal; I am eating him. And in my next lifetime he’ll kill me and eat me. When the animal is sacrificed, this mantra is recited into the ear of the animal — ”You are giving your life, so in your next life you will get the opportunity of becoming a human being. And I who am now killing you will become an animal, and you will kill me.”
But after understanding this mantra, who will be ready to kill an animal? Many do. Because they don’t know this mantra in the first place. It is clearly stated in Vedic literature that cruel masters who kill innocent animals will undoubtedly be killed in the next life by a similar process.
mam sa bhaksayitamutra yasya mamsam ihadmy aham etan mamsasya mamsatvam pravadanti manisinah
“That creature whose flesh I am eating here and now will consume me in the next life.’ Thus meat is called mamsa, as described by learned authorities.” In Srimad-Bhagavatam this grizzly fate of animal killers is described by Narada Muni to King Pracinabarhi, who was excessively killing animals in the so-called sacrifices.
Narada uvaca bho bhoh prajapate rajan pasun pasya tvayadhvare samjnapitan jiva-sanghan nirghrnena sahasrasah
ete tvam sampratiksante smaranto vaisasam tava samparetam ayah-kutais chindanty utthita-manyavah
“O ruler of the citizens, my dear King, please see in the sky those animals which you have sacrificed, without compassion and without mercy, in the sacrificial arena. All these animals are awaiting your death so that they can avenge the injuries you have inflicted upon them. After you die, they will angrily pierce your body with iron horns.” (SB 4.25.7–8) Such punishment of animal killers may take place under the jurisdiction of Yamaraja on the planet of the lord of death. In other words, one who kills an animal or who eats meat undoubtedly acquires a debt to the living entity who has contributed his body for the satisfaction of the meat-eater. The meat-eater must pay his debt by contributing his own body to be consumed in the next life. Such payment of one’s debt by offering one’s own body to be eaten is confirmed in the Vedic literature.
All major religions that are somewhat similar to Hinduism also advocate similar ideologies. The Annushasen Parva, Mahabharat says “Undoubtedly all those human beings who prefer meat to several forms of food are like vultures.” The Manusmrti says “All supporters of meat eating are sinners.” It further states, “One whose meat I eat will eat my flesh in the next life.” Guru Nanak, Founder of the Sikh Faith, said “My disciples do not take meat and wine.” Lord Buddha said, “Meat is food for sub-human beings”. The Acharang Sutra of the Jain Faith said, “All creatures desire self-preservation, hence no creature should be slaughtered.” Gandhiji (not a religious preacher or a leader) said “I do feel that spiritual progress does demand at some stage that we should cease to kill our fellow creatures for the satisfaction of our bodily wants.” In the Mahabharata (the epic poem which contains 100,000 verses and is said to be the longest poem in the world), there are many injunctions against killing and abusing animals.
Your offerings to the almighty depend on your choice and there is no restriction that he has put on that. But in 2020, where you have the choice to offer as well as eat food which has an evidence-based no-abuse history in its making or the usual openly-declared cruelty-backed food (emphasizing on dairy)?
Lord Buddha is known particularly for His preaching against animal killing. He established ahimsa (nonviolence) and vegetarianism as fundamental steps on the path of self-awareness and spoke the following two maxims, “Do not butcher the ox that plows thy fields,” and “Do not indulge a voracity that involves the slaughter of animals.” The Vedic scriptures of India, which predate Buddhism, also stress nonviolence as the ethical foundation of vegetarianism. “Meat can never be obtained without injury to living creatures,” states the ,manu-samhita, the ancient Indian code of law, “Let one therefore shun the use of meat.” In another section, the Manu-samhita warns “Having well considered the disgusting origin of flesh and the cruelty of fettering and slaying of corporeal beings, let one entirely abstain from eating flesh.”
I agree that the holy scriptures that mention the God(s)’s preachings to the mankind are for us, and are open to individual interpretation(s) and everyone should be allowed to do so; instead everyone should do so too, to find answers to the unknown. All the religions point towards one ideology, “Humans should not eat meat” and not “Humans do not eat meat”; but in the pursuit to seek refuge under the supreme creator(s) do we really live a life that He would’ve considered ideal?
In 2020, does veganism combined with your religious lifestyle not make you more religious? Will the change — use of vegan diary rituals (rather no wastage of any edibles), the giving up of animal sacrifices, prioritizing of keeping animals alive instead of “humanely” killing them, and stopping animal abuse for self-pleasure and dietary needs — make our God(s) happy? “God knows!”
P.S. I am an agnostic moral vegan from a Hindu family. The order of religions that I talked about was in the descending order of the population census of the religions. This literary piece is merely an outcome of my opinions, doubts and understanding of a few diverse and different religions — Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism. I intend to show no bias towards niether of these nor the religions that are not mentioned here.
