posted September 12, 2009 09:08 AM              

These days many seekers have lost touch with this core aspect of spirituality, and, for them, spirituality in general has come to be associated with the holding of certain beliefs or abstract principles concerning the ultimate nature of reality (and, in some case, the cultivation of divinatory skills). For these seekers, what is most authentically spiritual is furthest removed from the fundamentally human dimension of our experience, and a spiritual person is one who has detached and divested him/herself most completely from the immediate concerns of the human drama, in order to dwell in some dissociated, transcendent limbo, untouched by the world and its inhabitants.

Yet Buddhist teachers like Thich Nhat Hanh and Pema Chodron continue to emphasize in their teachings the understanding that doctrine and meditation are not enough, and that what is absolutely necessary for the practice of a truly spiritual life is the keeping of an open, tender heart, as well as active involvement with the affairs of the world. For Buddhists, as for the followers of many other religions (at their best), one of the most indispensible qualities of a truly spiritual person is active compassion and concern for all sentient life. "Sentience" means awareness, and, more specifically, the sensitivity to pleasure and pain. So, we are invited, if we would walk a truly spiritual path, to respect and care for all beings who feel pleasure and pain.

Buddhists have always included animals in their definition of sentient beings, and encouraged a life which honors the suffering of our animal brothers and sisters. Now, what does it mean to honor our animal brothers and sisters? Does it mean that we can exercise a heavy-handed authority over the course of their lives, then slaughter them, so long as we say a "respectful" prayer just before consuming their rotting flesh? Or, does it mean that we actively seek to preserve their freedom and well-being, and not to contribute in any way to their suffering or death? Well, according to the Buddha and his followers, it means the latter; that we actively seek not to harm, and, if possible, to alleviate the suffering of these sentient beings. This has always been a core feature of any true and authentic spiritual discipline.

Can we honestly concern ourselves with daily meditation, or study and reflection upon basic and complex scriptural principles, while still indulging in the flesh of imprisoned, often tortured, and slaughtered sentient beings, -- and still think of ourselves as spiritual people? It would, perhaps, be better not to contribute to the suffering of these beings, and never think at all about so-called spiritual things, than to think regularly on spiritual matters, while still inflicting unimaginable suffering for the sake of our appetites, or because we erroneously believe that the consumption of animal protein is a necessary component of our health. Sufficient evidence has been presented, for those who care to seek and acknowledge it, to conclude that the consumption of animal protein is not only superfluous, but, largely detrimental, to the health of the human creature. In light of this evidence, what "spiritual" argument can we make in favor of the subjugation, mistreatment, and murder of our fellow sentient beings? None.

The tragedy is that so many of us would have come to these conclusions long ago, had we not been "hoodwinked blind"; fooled into thinking that spirituality consisted entirely in something other than compassionate respect for the suffering of all sentient life. We have been misled into thinking that spirituality concerns reflection upon, and identification with, scriptural dogmas, or with formlessness; or the infinite space of potentiality out of which all things arise, -- and nothing more terrestrial than this. But the truth is that this identification with dogmas and/or formlessness may be just as meaningless and delusional as a focus entirely attached to the world of objects.

As the mystic poet Rumi wrote upon the death of the mystic poet Sanai, "He knew what both worlds were worth: a grain of barley." True spirituality is the ability to exist equally in the realm of the finite and the absolute, and not to esteem either one above the other. "To be in the world, but not of it," as the Christian Bible says, is to perform the tasks of righteousness without attachment. It is not to abandon those tasks, and take refuge in some false and superficial detachment. Nor is it to perform those tasks with a mind and will entirely identified with their performance. It is to do good works, and to credit the grace of the Giver, not oneself, with having done it.

We must remember the immediate, human element of spiritual living, while still regarding the importance of the infinite and transcendent. Who can accomplish these two things, and bring them into one, has already achieved an uncommon degree of enlightenment, and a profound understanding of the spiritual life. Such a person does not think of animals as objects, or as property, the purpose of which is to be fattened, killed, and eaten. Nor do they think of the world as an illusion with no ultimate import. Conversely, they do not credit themselves for any understanding, motivation, or ability they may have been granted by the Creator. They feel blessed, not inflated, by the graces they've received. Nor do they deny having received those graces, out of some misguided humility, for they know that graces testify not to their own blessedness, but, first and foremost, to the greatness of God, who gives.

This is the way of a spiritual warrior: To do good, without attachment or expectation, and, most importantly, to care for all sentient beings; without placing their own immoderate appetites before the rights of other beings not to be tormented and killed. This is spirituality 101. Anyone with a remotely sturdy connection to Spirit will instantly recognize this as truth, and attempt to live accordingly.

Likewise, if there is a mark by which a spiritual individual may be known, it will be that he/she does not consume the flesh of other sentient beings; which is not to say that all who do not consume flesh are spiritual, but, that all who consume flesh are not spiritual (assuming they have a reasonable choice in the matter); or, at least, that they are not living in accordance with Spirit. While many will disagree with this definition, we need only to reflect upon the phenomenon of meat-eating from the perspective of the cow, chicken, or pig. With empathy, it is not difficult to imagine the terror and agony which these unfortunates experience at the hands of their human predators. With knowledge and compassion, it is impossible to make choices which effectively contract or encourage that suffering. "Who has ears to hear, let them hear."

From the Hindu perspective, it is often asserted that one of the best arguments in favor of a vegetarian or vegan diet is karmic. Ancient Vedic scriptures tells us that the man or woman who consumes the flesh of animals will be reincarnated in the form of an animal, and will him/herself suffer at the hands of a human predator. Whether or not this is true, it is unnecessary to invoke this argument in order to persuade a reasonable person of the inadvisability of a carnivorous or omnivorous diet. It is enough to acquaint them with the suffering of the animals, and the voluminous scientific evidence which shows that a person may be healthy without eating meat. When these conditions are met, a reasonable person will abandon consumption of flesh in favor of a lifestyle which honors non-violence.

It may be argued that even to assert the truth of a conviction in this way is somehow arrogant and overbearing. But there is nothing arrogant about holding firm to the most emphatic emotions and convincing thoughts of which we are capable. Only timidity and an excessive political correctness would demand of someone that they emasculate their message (and their belief in themselves) by saying, "Of course, I could be wrong", or "This is only my opinion". Nor is there anything overbearing in taking a moral position, though the guilty conscience will always feel stung. No matter how gently you articulate these truths, they are bound to disturb people's consciences. That can't be helped.

The freedom we must preserve is not men and women's freedom (or, one should properly say, "license") not to be confronted with an ethical challenge, but, the freedom of all sentient beings to live a full life of their own, without being confined, tortured, and killed. This is not an issue which people may decide for themselves whether or not to consider and confront, for the simple reason that they are already involved; already making choices which profoundly affect the lives of other sentient beings. In other words, this is not about the author's agenda, or the agenda of any vegan or animal rights activist(s); rather, it is about the rights of these innocent and defenseless animals, who deserve fair and ethical treatment; regardless of the level of consciousness of those who exercise a demonic power over them.

In summation, we should never forget the importance of compassion for all who suffer, or neglect to admit this consideration into our reflections on spirituality. There can be no comprehensive spiritual worldview which does not give a high place to the heart, and there can be no heart-centered worldview which does not give a high place to the rights of our animal brothers and sisters. Less than this would be uncivilized, to say nothing of being spiritual.



~ Valus

------------------

"Now I do not proselytise, I merely want to state the truth. We shall get to know still other effects of meat diet; we shall be obliged to discuss this subject in some detail. This is why progress in inner anthroposophical life gradually produces a sort of revulsion against meat. It is not as though one has to forbid meat to anthroposophists, but the healthily progressing instinct gradually turns against meat and no longer likes it. And this is much better than becoming a vegetarian out of some abstract principle. The best is when spiritual science causes man to develop a kind of aversion for meat." ~ Rudolf Steiner, Nutrition and Stimulants

posted March 03, 2013 03:32 PM            

quote:

---

In summation, we should never forget the importance of compassion for all who suffer, or neglect to admit this consideration into our reflections on spirituality. There can be no comprehensive spiritual worldview which does not give a high place to the heart, and there can be no heart-centered worldview which does not give a high place to the rights of our animal brothers and sisters. Less than this would be uncivilized, to say nothing of being spiritual.

---

posted July 23, 2017 08:33 AM            

I hope he is well out there in the uni-verse.