Popular belief we have, that
vegetarian food is non-violent and so without any sinfulness. Many
believe that vegetarian food is produced without pain to anybody and
so very harmless. They also believe that there in this type of food
no killing is involved. In the last century one Hindu scientist from
India, Sir Jagdish Chandra Bose, had done some revolutionary
discovery that exposed these popular beliefs. He showed through his
specially developed instrument that plants have pain when they are
killed to make our vegetarian food. Many sects in India such as
Jainism, Brahmanism and many others became interested in this belief
and so they insist to do only vegan diet and they vehemently avoid
meat food because it involves killing, violence and so painfulness to
dying animal. They claim that meat diet is causing much pain when
animals are killed and so that food is bad. Since, this discovery is
by an Indian scientist who is also a Hindu we should take it
seriously and rethink about our concept of vegetarian food. Following
article elaborates on this topic. Please see what Sir Jagdish Chandra
Bose discovered.
The truth that plants are capable of
feeling emotions was first recorded in 1848, when Dr. Gustav
Theodor Fechner, a German experimental
psychologist, suggested that plants are
capable of emotions and that one could promote healthy growth with
talk, attention, attitude, and affection towards plant.
Indian
scientist Sir Jagadish
Chandra Bose, from Bengal,
began to conduct experiments on plants in the year 1900. He found
that every plant and every part of a plant (tissue) appeared to have
a separate (independent) sensitive nervous
system and responded to shock by a spasm
in protoplasm just as an animal muscle does. In addition Bose found
that plants grew more quickly midst pleasant music and more slowly
midst loud noise or harsh sounds. He also claimed that plants can
"feel pain, understand affection etc.," from the analysis
of the nature of variation of the tissue
membrane potential of plants under
different circumstances. According to him, a plant treated with care
and affection gives out a different vibration compared to a plant
subjected to torture.
One visitor to his laboratory, the
vegetarian
playwright George
Bernard Shaw, was intensely disturbed
upon witnessing a demonstration in which a cabbage
had "convulsions" as it was boiled to death. Bose found
that the effect of manures, drugs, and poisons could be determined
within minutes, providing plant control with a new precision. He
repeated his tests on metals, administering poisons
to tin,
zinc,
and platinum,
and obtained astonishing responses which, when plotted on a graph,
appeared precisely like those of poisoned animals. In conclusion he
said:
"Do
not these records tell us of some property of matter common and
persistent with living beings? That there is no abrupt break, but a
uniform and continuous march of nature's law? These experiments
showed that all matter whether plant or animal or seemingly non
living material have a life force within some measure, however
minute it may be."
According
to Bose, all nature
is full of life forces and life force is not limited to only animals
and plants. Seemingly
Non-living material also has some incipient life element in it. That
means whole world is filled with life force of different measures.
Only when the strength reaches a level that humans can notice it.
That life force becomes evident to humans not otherwise. This goes
well with ancient Hindu belief that even a stone can become reverent
when the incipient life force in that stone grows to the level that
it can be felt by humans. This explains the concept of idolatry (idol
worship) and litholetry (stone worship similar to Shivling and Kaaba,
Black Stone, in Mecca) that continues to exist in Hindus.
Plant
perception or bio-communication
is the idea that plants
are sentient,
that they respond to humans in a manner that amounts to ESP
and that they experience pain
and fear. Plants also do communicate with one another and with
insects via chemical "distress
signals".The theory was earlier
dismissed by scientists because plants lack a nervous system.
Bose
subsequently made a number of pioneering discoveries in plant
physiology. He used his own invention, the crescograph,
to measure plant response to various stimuli,
and thereby scientifically proved parallelism between animal and
plant tissues. Although Bose filed for a patent for one of his
inventions due to peer pressure, his reluctance
to any form of patenting was well known.
To facilitate his research, he constructed automatic recorders
capable of registering extremely tenuous movements; these instruments
produced some striking results, such as Bose's demonstration of an
apparent power of feeling in plants, exemplified by the quivering of
injured plants. His discoveries are explained in his two books,
Response in the Living and Non-Living (1902) and The
Nervous Mechanism of Plants (1926).
His major
contribution in the field of biophysics was the demonstration of the
electrical nature of the conduction of various stimuli suchlike
wounds, chemical agents in plants, which were earlier thought to be
of a chemical nature. These claims were later proven experimentally.
He was also the first to study the action of microwaves in plant
tissues and corresponding changes in the tissue membrane potential
which may cause cancer in humans. He researched the mechanism of the
seasonal effect on plants, the effect of chemical inhibitors on plant
stimuli and the effect of temperature. From the analysis of the
variation of the tissue membrane
potential of plants under different
circumstances, he hypothesized and proved through his experiments
later that, plants can feel pain, understand affection etc. That
means plants are a living being full of sentience similar to animals.
Recent research has shown that plants can respond to electrical
impulses, but their lack of a central nervous system and nociceptive
A delta fibers implies that plants have no feeling of pain "exactly
like animals". However, hypothesis suggests that plant being of
a very different structure these nociceptive A delta fibers may not
be required to feel pain. Central nervous system and nociceptive A
delta fibers are required to carry pain and pleasure causing impulses
to brain and back to that tissue but since plants do not have brain
these are not required as some experts opine. In case of plants each
tissue has its own nuclei and the pain and pleasure is felt at that
point, that means, each tissue feels pain and pleasure independently.
While one part of plant is suffering from pain other parts may not be
having that pain. This arrangement is very different from that
animals have. In animals pain is registered at the level of brain and
that feeling is carried all over the body through the nervous system
and thus all body feels the pain. At the end of the day, we have to
understand that plants do feel pain though in a different way. What
Bose concluded in his work is more relevant than the other opinions.
One more point comes to be evident that a plant is not one life but a
collection of many life forces working together in unison to make a
whole plant; this is very different from animals. in animals it is
only one life force that exists for the whole of that body.
This also
explains why tissue culture is possible in plant tissues while it is
not possible in animal tissue. In plant tissues the system is
complete in itself but in case of animal tissue it is not complete in
itself. So long as it is connected actively with central nervous
system it functions normally but as soon as it is separated from that
it ceases to function normally and so dies completely. A plant tissue
does not die in this way. Even a single tissue can function as
complete life and so it responds to tissue culture techniques. Plant
tissue dies only when subjected to wrong environment such as heat,
chemical or mechanical pressures.
Veganism
is based on the belief that plants do not have pain and pleasure,
sentience. Above information shows that this belief is not
scientifically proven. Ancient Jains and other people did not know of
this and so they probably went by simple common sense reading of
plant behavior. Since, now we know that plants do feel pain and
pleasure, killing a plant tissue is also violence. Veganism stands to
lose its claim on this account. We have activists to protect animal
from cruelty but nobody bothers for what cruelty is shown to plants.
We shall
do some calculations to show how killing vegetable tissues and
killing animal tissues is not theoretically very different. Since
animals have, as mentioned above, Central nervous system and
nociceptive A delta fibers their pain is not felt at the tissue level
unless the pain impulse is carried to it by brain. When animal is
killed the Central nervous system and nociceptive A delta fibers ends
from functioning normally and so no pain is carried to parts of the
body which are affected by the action of killing. In case of animals
each and every tissue is not functioning independently like plant
tissues and so these tissues do not feel any pain once the animal has
died or subjected to treatment to inactivate it (anesthesia). If an
animal is subjected to treatment of making its senses inactivated and
then killed he will not feel any pain and in that case there we
achieve a painless death. Anesthesia works on central nervous system
but since, plant tissues do not have such arrangement anesthesia does
not work on it. That is why all plant tissues always have active
sensuality. This reality is exactly opposite the usual belief of
veganists. When body parts of the killed or dead animal cut in pieces
each piece having no sentience, no violence is happening in that
process. Whereas in case of plant even when it is cut in pieces, each
tissue in those parts continues to feel sentience. Therefore, when an
animal is killed that amounts to only one pain (and one kill) count
while in case of a plant when the plant is killed every tissue dies
independently. Therefore, when an animal is killed only one count of
pain is recorded; whereas in case a plant dies several tissues record
pain and so the count of pain is much more. For example, if a cow is
killed only one count of pain and one count of kill is recorded
whereas when a potato is boiled all tissues of that one potato
register pain separately increasing the pain count to many thousands
depending upon how many tissues that potato had. This explains why
killing a potato is more violent than killing a cow! An apparent
paradox we see here. Therefore, what commonly we believe that
veganism is lesser violent than non-vegetarianism is actually wrong.
I take cow for example because it is one animal big enough and so it
shows the difference in count better. Human sensitivity for many
lights as well as sounds is not good enough to perceive them that
does not mean they do not exist. Similarly pain expressed by plant
tissues are not perceived by humans. However, they can be recorded by
using equipment such as crescograph.
This may
explain why ancient Sanatan Dharma recommended to eat cow and so
sacrificed it. That was probably because it was least violent. May
be, those ancient sages were fully aware of this truth. That wisdom
was lost in due course of time and then ideologies such as Jainism
developed professing vegan diet as non-violent food. Brahmanism
adopted it from Jain ideology and propagated it among Hindus.
More
examples we shall see to understand this subject. A chapati (bread)
of small size needs about 400 grains of wheat. So to make one chapati
400 grains are pounded to make floor. That means when one chapati is
eaten the man has made 400 kills and so 400 pains and as many sins.
As we presume here for the sake of argument; sin is equal to the
count of pain. If pain count is taken as measure of sin count then by
eating one chapati eater has made 400 count sins. Violence count is
also related with sin count one to one. In case of this example 400
count of violence we have record. While for killing one cow only one
violence count will be recorded. This shows that killing one cow is
less violent then eating one chapati. Meat of one cow can satisfy
about 200 people (approximate) that means by simple arithmetic, one
eater has committed 1/200 count sin and also responsible for equal
count of pain. If 200 people eat one chapati each, total sin and
violence and pain count comes to 80000 counts in all for all people
who eat that. These simple calculations show adequately how vegan
food is more violent, more painful and more sinful. Some readers may
take it as a joke but believe me it is truth and no joke.
When we
talk about sin we should first decide what is sin in this context. As
per Hindu belief sin is committed in mind of the person and if it
reaches high level of intensity then an act of sin is committed. We
should also note that Jainism is having same approach. If a person
commits killing of anything unconsciously that is no sin similarly if
that killing is done for self defense it is not sin. Here we shall
take the previous example of chapati. A person pounds quantity of
wheat grains in a mill not with intention to kill those grains but
for food (self defense argument) then by the definition provided by
Hindu belief that is no sin however pain it does cause to those
grains and so violence committed. Here we should note that violence
has two types, one violence due to sin and other due to pain. Vegans
are more concerned about violence due to pain.
One has
to decide in these four things, kill, pain, violence and sin; and the
definition of violence, whether sin is violence or pain is violence?
If pain is priority then eating chapati is violence but if sin is the
consideration then there is no sin and so no violence committed. A
series of study shows in every food habit whether it was sin or not
but in all cases pain count was confirmed. I do not know what makes
vegan society insist for vegan food. If it is for pain then actually
vegetarian food is most painful and so most violent. I do not know in
Jainism what is definition of violence against which they complain.
If we form a society to protect plants from cruelty (similar to
protection to animals from cruelty), we probably would have to
abandon eating plant food.
We have
to now find out what vegan food is not causing violence(pain). Parts
such as ripe fruits, flowers do not have such arrangement (capacity
to be used for tissue culture) and so cooking and eating it is not
violence. Here I have taken pain is violence. We shall compare
different food habits taking sin as violence later. About animal
produces, eating non-fertile eggs is no violence but eating fertile
egg is definitely violence because one unit life is killed in that
process. We generally feel that eggs from poultry farms are
non-fertile and so eating them is not violence but lately I have
found that in some poultry farms particularly owned by Christian and
Muslim farmers, they allow cock in the cage. By this most eggs become
fertile. They do it because fertile eggs have longer shelf life and
they do not need refrigeration to preserve them. Hindu poultry
farmers do not put cock in cage and so one who is particular about
violence should avoid eating eggs from a Muslim or Christian farmer.
However, it is not possible to know from which farm eggs have come in
shop! If animals are slaughtered after making them unconscious then
there will be no pain and so no violence. We can make it a condition
that all animals will be slaughtered only after making them
unconscious. Then we shall have meat without pain. However, Muslim
butchers kill animal by their religious law and by that if killed
animals have to undergo much pain. Hindus should prefer to take meat
only from Hindu butchers to have only painless meat.
Finally,
we may come to conclusion that eating vegetarian food is more violent
than eating animal meat. Anybody who wants to justify vegan diet
giving excuse of violence is absolutely baseless. However, if he says
he does not like meat diet and so does not eat it; that will be
better. Because, one should not eat that food which he does not
relish. Let us remember that Sanatan Dharma says one life lives by
eating other life. We cannot exist unless we kill some life
somewhere! Therefore, talking of non-violent food is blasphemy and
amount to hypocrisy.
Discussion
on the true definition of violence, sin, pain and kill, we shall take
for chatting some other time.
You may contact me on
my Email ID given below,
You are invited to visit
my other blogs
I
reckon,
http://kotharesviews.blogspot.com/
for philosophy
You
may visit blog, Freedom
of Expression,
http://blogs.siliconindia.com/kothare/
for intelligent discussions.
No comments:
Post a Comment