ahimsa

“Fools rush in where angels fear to tread…” thus do I enter into the thorny issue of yoga and vegetarianism.

There was an interesting article in the New York Times recently about yoga and food, and how some studios and restauranteurs are bringing them together in surprising (and somewhat icky – who wants to use their sweaty, nasty yoga mat as a place setting for an after class meal?) ways. This, of course, raises the question of what sorts of foods are fit for us yogis to eat. Patañjali’s Yoga Sutras list ahimsa as the first part of the first limb of yoga – he is clearly making a statement of importance here by listing it right up front. Usually, we translate ahimsa as non-violence; not hurting each other. For a lot of yogis, this means adopting a vegetarian or vegan diet. The reasoning, I believe, is as follows: If I’m committed to not hurting other people, why would I be willing to benefit from the death of other animals? Especially when it is certainly possible to survive without consuming any animal products?
Well… I’m not completely sold on the idea, and my basic argument against it boils down to, ironically perhaps, my appreciation of the incredible complexity of life. How do we draw the line between what we can (ethically) eat and what we can’t? Is it a simple division based on kingdom? If so, then why are animals more important than plants, or fungi, or protozoa for that matter? We all started from the same biological miracle; we all have 4.5 billion years of evolution behind us. It’s not as if we can pretend that non-animal life is less advanced or more primitive than animals are, and therefore less worthy of survival on an individual basis. We all, essentially, share the same birthday and are growing old together.
It’s a fundamental truth that animals need to feed on other life. If we live on plants, we’re still eating something that once lived and was killed for our benefit. Something needs to die in order for me to live. This can’t be avoided.
When I think about the idea that the only ethical diet is a vegetarian or vegan diet, it also brings to mind the diets and lifestyles of other cultures. Traditionally, the Inuit lived on a diet that consisted exclusively of animal products. They did so because these were the resources available to them – in the far North, there are no edible plants. There are birds, there are sea mammals, there are polar bears, there are caribou, and that’s about it. Does this make the traditional Inuit diet unethical? No, and I don’t think anyone would claim that it does. Let’s progress into murkier territory, then – other foods are now available to many in the far north, foods that have been grown and processed in the south and flown to the Arctic at great expense. Now, does this recent availability of plant based foods make contemporary adherence to the traditional Inuit diet unethical? Is it wrong for the Inuit (or anyway, those among them who can afford the imported foods) to continue to adhere to their traditional diet when other options are now available? I’d argue that the answer to this question is also No; to answer it otherwise would be to suggest an inherent inferiority of the traditional Inuit culture, which is ridiculous. To suggest the superiority of one’s own culture or belief system is paternalistic at best, patronizing at worst.
A lot of the argument around vegetarian/vegan diets for yogis strikes me this way – paternalistic. Why should I let someone else decide for me what ahimsa means? Isn’t it my own responsibility to make peace with my decisions and with the world? Isn’t that part of svadhyaya, self-study, which is also listed in Patañjali’s eight limbs of yoga? I did not become involved with yoga to become pious and superior, nor to kowtow to those who are. I’m involved in this practice because it helps me find meaning and beauty in the world.
Is it possible to practice ahimsa as an omnivore? Is it possible to eat meat and practice non-violence? I think this question is far more nuanced and complex than many in the yoga community admit. The answer cannot be reduced to a simple yes or no.
Ugh… this post definitely needs more editing, but frankly I’m tired of working on it. These ideas have been on my mind for a long, long time, and I will probably return to them at some point in the future.
As always, comments are welcome and encouraged, especially if you respectfully disagree with me or find flaws in my arguments.
Advertisements

4 Responses

  1. Tough questions-and VERY brave of you to qeustion them publicly. Yoga definitly keeps us thinking…

  2. I agree totally.
    Nothing wrong with following what nature intends.

  3. Thanks for your comments! Clare, it’s not actually so brave, this blog has barely any readers, most of whom are my friends, so it’s not very public! 🙂

    Madelain, thanks for your feedback too. The word “intends” is troubling to me, though; I think to suggest that nature intends something is anthropomorphize (or gynopomorphize, if you’ll indulge my second wave feminism linguistic wordplay) nature, and that seems presumptuous to me. But we did evolve as omnivores, and not all of us do well on a plant based diet, for reasons personal, cultural, medical.

    Vegetarian, vegan, omnivore, or pastafarian, we all need to find our own way to practice ahimsa and live with the inevitable contradictions wrought by our choices.

  4. Hey havematwilltravel

    perhaps using the word “intends” was not a good choice and explaining my comment would have been better.
    I’m not trying to compare nature to humans or give animals human traits and vis versa.

    I have no problem with what others choose to do or not do with their diets or how it best suits them to follow their ahimsa.

    It’s not presumptuousness either. I hear a lot of people trying to separate our race (as evolved humans) from nature. what I’m simply trying to say I guess, is that, we are able to digest animal products because our bodies produce multiple enzyme to break it down. Our dentistry (our canines teeth AKA eye teeth ) suggest we eat meat. (I’m not going to get into the whole Australopithecine Hominina sub-tribe thing. But, We ARE omnivores and not excluded in the cycle of life. We do have conscientious abilities to change our innate nature as individuals to whatever serves us best. Like you said… based on personal,cultural, medical reasons.
    Still doesn’t change the fact that our race’s biology does need a protein source found from living off other animals. with that said, many obviously survive as veggies just fine according to some I know. (I aint brave enough to try that LOL)

    As for the non-violence thing, well it’s just my opinion that this is the way things are. Always has been. Eagles, lions and other predictors (including omnivores) tear their prey up far more grossly/painfully and cruelly that most good farmer do their herds. All we need to do is be concious about the meat we eat, where it’s from and how it’s treated. I’d love it if most commercially farmed animals were not exploited and treated like they are.

    My apologies if I seemed presumptuous. but that’s what I meant.

    LOL had a good time reading about the “pastafarian”. never seen that made up word before. Funny.

    Namaste

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: