Caring for oceans by Rasasthali Dasi

 

We just finished watching the ‘Blue Planet’ series about the ocean life. It is an amazing film and I strongly recommend it to anyone. As a bonus feature, there was a movie where scientists showed the incredible damage caused by fishing. First of all fishing contributes to extinction of some fish species. Around 1/3 of fishes and other sea organisms that are caught by fisherman are discarded because often some ships are specialized and interested in just one particular species, like squid or some fish species. The other organisms – dead or dying – are disposed of. Secondly, using very heavy fishnets causes death of old – one could even say ancient – coral reefs. One day, one fishing, and thousand year coral reef is gone forever. The loss is horrendous.  Moreover, some fishermen use cyanide to catch fishes living in coral reefs. In this way the whole reef dies, together with many other organisms that leave there. It is extremely invasive and illegal method, but it is still quite common. Scientists are terrified looking at the state of some stocks of fishes and other sea organisms.

 

If I were not a vegetarian, after watching this movie and validating these facts, I would never eat a fish in my life. This is a very good and convincing argument for vegetarianism: it illustrates how our support for the fishing business makes a huge contribution to extinction of sea species. It is clear that every lover of fish dishes, especially the ones consisting of exotic sea organisms, but not only, is directly responsible for these species and sea environment. If not for consumers, the fishing ships would not destroy the reefs as well. Because of this and other reasons I am a strong advocate of vegetarianism and I propose that everybody who is concerned with the fate of this planet and other organisms, makes an effort to limit the amount of meat and fish in his diet.

A Darwinian Argument For Vegetarianism by Janakirama Dasa

I’ve been a vegetarian for most of my adult life. Although I’ve always felt strongly that the needless killing of animals that is and has been such a central feature of Western civilizations is morally wrong, but recently I’ve come to feel even stronger about it. Last night I had a dream, and based on this dream I’m going to make an argument against the slaughter of animals.Animals such as cows, chickens, lambs, and pigs are certainly less intelligent, and certainly have less complex emotions than humans do. However, one of the great contributions of Charles Darwin’s Descent of Man (1871) was to argue that man must have descended from lower vertebrates because they also have limited forms of reason, aesthetic appreciation, emotions, etc. Of course, we all know this to be true. Any dog owner knows that dogs are sad when they see their owner leaving, happy upon his return and that they can think and reason in remedial ways. We know how clever squirrels and raccoons can be in the matter of getting the food they want. I’ve had the pleasure to spend a few weeks serving in a cow hospital in Vrindavana, India. This hospital took in cows that have been hit by cars and trucks, or have been abandoned to die by their owner. (Even in the  land of Krishna, who is the lover of cows, the residents of Vrindavana do severely mistreat and abuse cows.) Based on my experience in helping these cows, I can say without any doubt, that they have very developed emotions, and they are able to think and reason in a limited manner.I take it as a given that cows, and even lower animals like pigs, chickens and lambs have limited forms of reason and emotion. Certainly there is a huge gap between the rational and emotional capacities of the animals that humans typically slaughter and human beings themselves.

Some people say that it is because humans are so much smarter that they are justified in killing animals because they are so far less developed than humans. However, conduct the following thought experiment:In the future human beings make contact with an alien race who posses intelligence and emotional sensitivity that is much greater than ours. Let us say they are as smart to us as we are to a chicken. In other words, the gap in intelligence between a human and a chicken is the same between a human and this alien race.Suppose the aliens wanted to breed us as a food and energy source; would they be justified? Those people that think humans are justified in killing animals because animals have less developed intellects and emotions run into trouble with this question. People often say that we can kill animals because they don’t understand pain, fear or separation from their children the way a smart human does. In the same way, these super intelligent aliens could say that because humans are so much less intelligent one is justified in using them for one’s own purposes. But of course if it did come to be the case that aliens bred humans merely for food, those same humans that had been getting fat and happy off the bodies of animals would feel their rights had been violated.The cow gives us so much: the milk for our cereal, the cream for our tea and coffee, the cheese for our pizza, yogert, butter, and so many other delights. It is cruel, heartless and completely ungrateful to then kill those very creatures who give us so many pleasures. A civilization based on such ingratitude, which India is swiftly becoming, just as the West always has been, is surely not the sort of civilization that will create persons of good character who can lead and guide us to peace and prosperity.Although Darwin is often criticized by Vaishnavas, one of the great contributions he did make is to show that so-called lower animals have the sorts of emotions and mental powers that humans have, and this fact suggests meat-eaters need to rethink the morality of meat-eating.

Science, Religion and Vaishnavism: The luxury of being an outsider by Janakirama Dasa

I had a funny experience in my early teens.  I befriended a fellow student who had just moved to my town from
California—let’s call him Louie.  We got along great.  Louie soon invited me to his house, a newly built mini-mansion on a quite street.  When we met his mother in the kitchen, she and Louie immediately began to yell at each other, as if I weren’t even there.  However, as the “discussion” heated up, Louie began to enlist my support, and eventually so did his mother.  Despite my youth, I made the wise decision to stay out of it.  I made it clear I was not going to take either side.

I’ve had similarly funny experiences in talking with scholars, scientists and philosophers about science and religion.  With groups like Intelligent Design theorists and the stark opposition they have met in the courts and media, people are becoming more and more aware that there is a growing interest in this area.  Moreover, the scientist Richard Dawkins and philosopher Daniel Dennett have gained international recognition for their books on science and religion.  It is often presupposed people like Dawkins and Dennett that one must take a side:  Either you are for science, or for religion, but you can’t be for both, or neither.  Most of my work in the academy is in the field of Vaishnavism and its relationship with science and Christian theology.  Yet I often find people expecting Vaishnavism to side with their side of the discussion, even though Hindu traditions are outsiders, neither science nor religion.  Most of the issues debated in the area of science and religion were constructed between various systems of thought that made little or no reference to Hindu though and practice.

As Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, Taoists and other Eastern traditions become more exposed to Western sciences, I think the best approach is to see them as having the luxury of being outsides.  They don’t have to take either side, or align themselves with any party.  They have the luxury of observing, while not being classifed as either being for or against science, for or against religion. 

Louie and I remained friends until we graduate high school, but I always looked on their situation as an outsider—I was committed to not investing my energy in either side.  In the long, I think Louie appreciated that and I think his mother did too.

Ecology, Human Motives and Self-Reform by Janakirama Dasa

 

Many world leaders, scientists and scholars are arguing that the planet Earth is troubled by a major ecological crisis, and that human race is directly responsible for this crisis.  Many feel that if the human race does not change its course of action, the then we may be headed to our ultimate peril.  What have we done to pollute Mother Earth, and what can we do to fix the problems?  Much of the literature on the environmental crisis attempts to motivate people to live in a more ecologically sustainable manner.  I think that Hinduism, and Vaishnavism in particular, has a unique and helpful contribution to these discussions, one that has yet to be explored by environmentalists and ecologists.

I am referring to the “four aims of man,” or purusha-arthas.   The first is that human beings seek to satisfy desire, and this is called “kama.”  For instance, in the famous book the Kama-sutra the art and science of satisfying sexual desire is discussed in vivid detail.  It teaches how to refine and enhance eroticism and romance so as to fully experience human desire.  But in order to enjoy worldly delight one needs to have wealth, property and a social position.  Consequently, Indian thinkers argued that a second aim of man is “artha,” or the disposition to acquire material assets. In most traditional Indian systems of thought the expression of desire and the acquisition of wealth was meant to be couched within moral and religious principles, and this was called “dharma.”  Although dharma can have many meanings, the sense I mean here is that duty and virtue were seen to temper and direct a person’s actions as they went about satisfying desire and gaining capitol.  Dharma in this sense was not so much about subverting desire and material endeavors as it was directing them in righteous ways.  The fourth aim, often considered the final and highest aim, was liberation, or moksha.  The majority of Indian philosophers believed that the self is forced to reincarnate into another body after death.  Those that favored liberation argued that true happiness is not found in any sort of body, and that the attempt to fulfill desire, gain wealth or act according to religious codes were not the highest goals.  For instance, the Bhagavad-gita (4.19, and 18.66) say that one should give up all dharmas.  Adding to this list, Hindu theologians from Vaishnavism schools (which ISKCON represents) argued that devotion for God is goal of life.  For them, devotion for God is even more important than liberation from the cycle of reincarnation.

It seems that ecologists have argued for people to act in less polluting ways in terms ofkama, artha and dharma.  For instance,Al Gore, in his recent film “An Inconvenient Truth,” argues that we must preserve natural resources because it is the right way to act.  Gore appeals to a sense of virtue and duty.  There are, however, other reasons one might argue that the human race should adopt more sustainable and ecological responsible attitude.  As I discussed above, liberation, or mokña, is the aim of ending the cycle of reincarnation.  How does this happen?  In the Bhagavad-gita it is said that the purity of one’s consciousness is greatly influenced by the external environment, and that a pure state of mind is necessary to obtain freedom from saàsära, or the cycle of birth and death.  A pure and clean environment facilitates the sort of state of mind required to achieve moksa.  Thus, one might argue that ecology is needed for moksa.  Lastly, I mentioned that Vaishnavas say devotion for God is the highest aim of man.  How does this relate to ecology?  In a well-known Vaishnava text called the Bhagavata Purana, it is argued that the world can be seen as God’s cosmic body.  Consequently, we live in God and are sustained by God at every moment.  Keeping the Earth clean and sustaining its natural resources could thus be seen as a way of expressing love and devotion for God.

Although these ideas are interesting and could inspire a more ecological consciousness, ultimately I think it really comes down to each individual person – starting with me – being willing to change their own life.  We have to be willing to give up the little pleasures in life that cost the earth so much, willing to spend a bit more on products that are more ecological, and willing to take the time and effort to find out and avoid those things that are ecologically costly.  Self-control and self-reform are the ultimate message of ecology…but that is something so very hard for a Europeans, British and Americans to even think of, let alone do!

Test

This is Janakirama and Rasasthali’s blog. We are both enquirers into Nature and Science. Janakirama studies science and religion (hinduism) and I work as a scientist (biochemistry) and study science itself.