CHAPTER 14, TEXT 16: The result of pious action is pure and is said to be in the mode of goodness. But action done in the mode of passion results in misery, and action performed in the mode of ignorance results in foolishness.
In this purport, Prabhupad lays out clear logic that "indulgence in animal killing for the taste of the tongue is the grossest kind of ignorance." This is not Prabhupad being judgmental or disgusted. He is simply building upon this verse, 14.16, especially "action performed in the mode of ignorance results in foolishness."
How is killing animals for the sake of the tongue foolish? How come it's it in the mode of ignorance?
The foundation of this logic begins with the word ignorance, which is translated as "lack of knowledge or information" (Oxford Languages).
Simple.
If one performs an action without appropriate knowledge or information, the action and the results are often harmful to the self and to others.
For example, I am ignorant of surgical procedures. I have a lack of knowledge and information (A BIG LACK) in order to produce a result that won't harm my patient (stab an artery...??) or harm myself (all those malpractice lawsuits!). In this regard, "the performer is without knowledge, and therefore all his activities result in present misery." This means that a lack of knowledge (ignorance) when we perform an action results in misery, not just a hazy confusion or discomfort.
Misery.
And misery for everyone.
Lack of awareness and the repeated choosing to ignore and turn away from knowledge and reality leads the soul to "go on toward animal life. Animal life is always miserable, although, under the spell of the illusory energy, māyā, the animals do not understand this." Animals are all in varying states of ignorance, surviving from day to day, operating from a place of instinct and driven to eat, mate, and defend. This is a miserable existence, but souls in these bodies are not even aware just how miserable they are. In a sense, animals are innocent. Animals do not produce karma, or reaction to their actions, because they are simply acting out of instinct.
But human beings can choose to act from a place beyond instinct, humans can act from a place of knowledge. Prabhupad writes, "Slaughtering poor animals is also due to the mode of ignorance. The animal killers do not know that in the future the animal will have a body suitable to kill them. That is the law of nature." Only human beings who kill animals or participate in the process of killing and eating animals recur this reaction to one day be slaughtered in kind. As Prabhupad says here, "That is the law of nature." If karma is working in all other spheres of existence as a divine system of justice, then this system also applies for killing animals. Thus, if one kills an animal to enjoy the tongue, "one has to pay for it." Action and reaction is a law of nature.
Thus we come to where we began this post: "indulgence in animal killing for the taste of the tongue is the grossest kind of ignorance." Animal killing is the grossest kind of ignorance because there is such a fundamental lack of knowledge and information that if I kill another living being I am responsible for its death.
What's more, "A human being has no need to kill animals, because God has supplied so many nice things." Nowadays, some would reject this statement and assert that some people just can't not eat meat because of his or her blood type or constitution. My sister professes that if she does not eat meat she becomes very unhealthy. I confess, I'm not a nutritionist or health science expert. That said, I am going off of Prabhupad's purport here, and he is emphasizing that [all] human beings do not need to eat meat, as "God has supplied so many nice things."
Okay, so if one is aware of the law of karma and aware that killing animals to enjoy meat is not the best for a bunch of reasons, how come this post or any debate or discussion is unlikely to change anyone's stance on eating meat?
I once debated this topic of vegetarianism in a Bioethics class in my undergraduate degree. We discussed all the reasons, from environmental impacts, to health reasons, and for this class especially, the ethical obligations of slaughtering animals for meat.
The conclusion was pretty obvious: don't eat meat.
But no one in the class, including my professor, was moved to make a change in behavior.
One day, I approached my professor after class to assert that really there is only one reason that people eat meat and will not give it up: the taste. People enjoy the taste, texture, and experience of meat.
The professor, a highly educated, sharp man in his thirties, at last conceded. He said, "I find it to be one of the greatest failings in my life that I'm not a vegetarian. But... I just love the taste of meat,"
One may have the knowledge and philosophical reasons to not eat meat, but at the end of the day, the fact that meat tastes good trumps all. In this sense, if one has the knowledge and information to not eat meat - that's not ignorance any more, right? In this case, then, ignorance is a true "ignore-ing" of what meat is (flesh of animals) and what the consequences are (being killed in kind). So "If one indulges in meat-eating anyway, it is to be understood that he is acting in ignorance and is making his future very dark."
Full purport here: https://vedabase.io/en/library/bg/14/16/
No comments:
Post a Comment