इंसान और पशु-पक्षी भाग 4

इंसान और पशु पक्षी : भाग 4

पी के सिद्धार्थ
www.bharatiyachetna.org
www.pksiddharth.in
www.suraajdal.org

मैं और जोई आकाश मार्ग से उड़े जा रहे हैं। सहसा जोई मुझे ले कर एक मंदिर में उतर जाता है। मैं चाँद के प्रकाश में देख सकता हूँ कि यह एक जैन मंदिर है। जोई मंदिर की ऒर मुख कर पीछे के पैर पीछे और आगे के पैर आगे फैलाकर बिलकुल लंबा हो जाता है, जैसे साष्टांग प्रणाम कर रहा हो। फिर अपने पैर समेट कर वह मुझसे मुखातिब होता है।

जोई : पशु-पक्षी जिस धर्म को सबसे अधिक आदर देते हैं, वह जैन धर्म है। पशु-पक्षियों के प्रति इतना आदर और रक्षा-भाव किसी दूसरे धर्म में नहीं। ये लोग शाम को ही भोजन कर लेते हैं ताकि अंधकार में कीड़े-मकोड़े गलती से भोजन के साथ अंदर न चले जाएं। इनके संत मुख पर सफ़ेद पट्टियां बांध कर रखते हैं ताकि सांस के माध्यम से कोई छोटे जीव इनके अंदर प्रवेश कर क्षतिग्रस्त न हों।

वास्तव में भारत में पैदा हुए लगभग सभी धर्म पशुओं को बहुत आदर और प्रेम देते हैं। जितने ऐसे पशु-पक्षी हैं जिन्हें मनुष्यों ने अन्धविश्वास या उनसे होने वाले खतरों के कारण नुकसान पहुँचाना  शुरू किया उन सभी की रक्षा करने के लिए हिन्दू ऋषियों ने किसी-न-किसी देवी या देवता का वाहन या संगी बना दिया।

"जैसे?", मैं पूछ कर उसके ज्ञान की परीक्षा लेता हूँ। मुझे यह भान हो रहा है कि जोई जानवरों के अंतर्राष्ट्रीय संगठन का महासचिव बनने की क्षमता रखता है।

जोई : जैसे उल्लू को लक्ष्मी की सवारी बना दी: सांप को भगवान शिव के गले में लपेट दिया ताकि लोग साँपों को भी जीने दें और मारने से कतराएं। नागपंचमी-जैसे पर्व बना कर नाग-पूजा का विधान बना दिया। जिस पशु ने आदमी की अब तक सबसे ज्यादा मदद की - अपना दूध पिला कर - उसे माँ का दर्जा दे कर उसका ऐसा आदर किया कि ऐसा उदहारण कहीं पूरी दुनिया में नहीं मिलता।

मैं : ("जानवरों को इतना आदर दिया, मगर मनुष्यों के एक वर्ग को उनकी मदद और सेवा के बदले आदर क्यों नहीं दे पाये ये हिन्दू?", मैं मन-ही-मन सोचता हूँ।) मगर वैदिक कर्मकांड और यज्ञ में कभी-कभी पशुबलि भी तो हिंदुओं ने दी।

जोई : कुछ दिन वैदिक काल में यह परंपरा रही, मगर उसका विरोध भी हुआ, और वह रुक भी गयी।

मैं : मगर दुर्गा-काली के मंदिरों में तो अभी भी पशु-बलि चलती ही है।

जोई : इसे हिन्दूधर्म पर हम जानवर एक काला धब्बा मानते हैं। इसीलिए तो मैं तुम्हें सबसे पहले जैन-मंदिर में लाया।

...और तुमने 2011 की भारत की जनगणना के परिणाम देखे?

मैं : कौन-से परिणाम?

जोई : कि भारत में किस धर्म के लोग 70 साल से अधिक सबसे बड़ी संख्या में जीते हैं?

मैं : याद नहीं आ रहा। मगर तुम इतना ज्ञान कैसे रखते हो? तुम्हारे पास बुद्धि और सोच  की उच्चतम कोटि की जीन्स हैं, यह तुमने बताया। मगर थिंकिंग या इंटेलिजेंस की जीन्स तुम्हें बिना पढ़े-लिखे इतनी सूचनाएं तो नहीं दे सकतीं!

जोई : मेरे दिमाग में चिप्स लगायी गईं जो मुझे ऑनलाइन समाचारपत्रों और विकिपीडिया से जोड़ कर रखती हैं। मेरे एक ब्रेन-चिप में पूरी इनसाइक्लोपीडिया ब्रिटानिका और इनसाइक्लोपीडिया अमेरिकाना इंस्टॉल्ड हैं।

इस जानवर को देखते-सुनते मेरी हैरानी लगातार बढ़ती ही जा रही है। यह कमबख्त तो मुझसे भी अधिक इन्फर्मेशन अपने दिमाग में कैरी करता है!

मैं : तो 2011 की जनगणना के परिणाम क्या बताते हैं लंबे जीवन के बारे में?

जोई : कि जैन लोगों के बीच भारत में सबसे अधिक सेप्टुअजेनेरियन्स हैं?
वह कुछ देर चुप रह कर मेरी ओर ऐसी निगाह से देखता है जैसे भांप रहा हो कि मैंने उसके द्वारा प्रयुक्त अंग्रेजी शब्द का मतलब समझा या नहीं समझा।

मैं : मगर इससे क्या निष्कर्ष निकलता है कि जैनियों में सबसे ज्यादा सत्तर वर्ष से ऊपर के लोग हैं?

जोई : यही कि जो पशु-पक्षियों का मांस नहीं खाते वे, बाकी परिस्थितियों के सामान रहने पर, मांसाहारियों की अपेक्षा अधिक दिन जीते हैं। जैन लोग सबसे अधिक शाकाहारी होते हैं, और इसीलिए लंबा जीते हैं।

मैं  भी जैन मंदिर में नतमस्तक होता हूँ। महात्मा महावीर और अन्य जैन तीर्थंकरों के प्रति मेरी अगाध श्रद्धा उमड़ती है।

जोई मुझे आकाश मार्ग से फिर एक चर्च में ले जाता है। हम चर्च के प्रांगण में उतरते हैं।

मैं : अब मुझे इस चर्च में क्यों ले आए, जोई?

जोई : यह सामान्य चर्च नहीं है। यह सेवेंथ डे अड्वेंटिस्ट्स चर्च है।

मैं : सुना नहीं कभी।

जोई : यह ईसाइयत की एक शाखा है। बाइबिल में शाकाहार के लिए समर्थन साधारणतः नहीं पाया जाता। मगर 19वीं सदी में एक महिला ईसाई पैगम्बर हुईं एलन वाइट। उन्हें एक दिन ईश्वर ने यह ज्ञान प्रकट किया कि पशु-मांस मनुष्य के लिए बिल्कुल उपयुक्त नहीं है। यह उसे शारीरिक रूप से बीमार करता हैं, बौद्धिक और नैतिक रूप से कमजोर करता है और नीच पाशविक वृत्तियों को जगाता है। इसीलिए इस चर्च के अनुयायी ईसाई मांस-मछली नहीं खाते। एक सर्वेक्षण में यह सामने आया कि ईसाइयों के बीच सबसे लंबी उम्र इसी चर्च को मानने वालों की होती है।

मैं : बुद्ध के बारे में तुम्हारा क्या विचार है, जोई?

जोई : बुद्ध के ह्रदय में जानवरों के लिए अपार करुणा थी। मगर एक घटना ने बाद में बुद्ध के कुछ अनुयायियों को मांस खाने का बहाना दे दिया। बुद्ध एक ही बार खाते थे। वह भी भिक्षा में मिला हुआ भोजन। अपनी दोनों हथेलियों को जोड़ कर कटोरा बनाते थे और जितना उसमें अटता था उतना ही खाते थे।  एक दिन उनके इस कटोरे में किसी ने भिक्षा में मांस डाल दिया। लोग साधारणतः उन्हें निरामिष भोजन ही भिक्षा में देते थे, और बुद्ध मांस खाने की सोच भी नहीं सकते थे। मगर उन्होंने उस दिन भिक्षुक का धर्म समझ कर वह मांस खा लिया। हम जानवरों की निगाह में उन्होंने बड़ी भूल कर दी। उन्हें उस दिन भूखे रह जाना चाहिए था। इस दृष्टान्त का गलत मतलब निकाल कर कुछ बौद्ध सम्प्रदाय के लोग यह मानने लगे कि अगर जानवर को उन्होंने नहीं मारा, और उनके लिए ही वह जानवर नहीं मारा गया, तो उसका मांस खाया जा सकता है।

मैं : और मुसलमानों के बारे में तुम्हारा क्या ख्याल है?

जोई :  ह्म्म्म्म! (जोई थोडा चिंतित और भयभीत दिखता है।) उनके भी जानवरों के बारे में वे ही ख्याल हैं जो दूसरे सेमेटिक धर्मों के हैं : जानवर आदमी के खाने-पीने के लिए ही ईश्वर ने बनाये हैं। मगर मुसलमानों से जानवर सबसे ज्यादा भयभीत रहते हैं।

मैं : क्यों?
(क्रमशः)

पी के सिद्धार्थ
17 अक्टूबर, 2016

Non-violence: a Great Contribution of the #IndianCivilization

Ahimsa or Non-violence: the Great Contribution of  the Indian Civilization.

The Indian civilization is the oldest of the now surviving ancient civilizations. In the ancient period it gave birth to three great religions: the Sanatan Dharma, now known as Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism. All three of them highly emphasized the concept of non-violence  or Ahimsa in different degrees. This wider concept of non-violence is not so emphatically found in  any other country or faith. It is not to be found in  any developed sense in the Old Testament, which is full of violence  and 'tooth-for-a-tooth' attitude. Jesus did practice and preach non-violence to a great degree, but his non-violence did not include compassion for the non-human living beings in  the way it was found in India. Jesus did not refrain from eating meat, and was not a vegetarian. 

The world is realizing today in  the midst of mindless violence and terrorism the value of the idea of non-violence. The Indian society itself is moving away today from non-violence essentially due to severing of its links with the Indian culture and civilization and the books that documented and created this civilization. The links need to be restored, and the Bharatiya Chetna Kendra is doing its bit to  ensure that those books, especially the Gita, the the Tulsi Ramayan and the Bhagavat Puran reach every home that is ready to  welcome them. Join us in this endeavor. 

Visit www.bharatiyachetna.org  |  Or email  bharatiyachetna@gmail.com   |    Or phone +91 8252667070

#JIHADIST GENOCIDE IN #PARIS : #ParisAttack, #Terrorism, #IslamicTerrorism,

REASON AND RELIGION: THE CONTEXT OF RELIGION INSPIRED GENOCIDES

Organised religions of the world have made a great contribution to humanity by binding humans, by and large, to rules of ethical conduct in the initial phases of the growth of human civilization. In fact all of them have, in varying degrees, been great civilizing influences on humanity. However, blind faith in the words of holy books and messengers of God has led to considerable distress to sections of humanity. It is wrong to presume that science and rationality on the one hand and religious faith on the other cannot go hand in hand - that you can be either religious or rational! There is much rationality in religions too, and much 'faith' in science, especially where the truth lies beyond the reach of senses and empirical verification with complete finality (one such area is the origin or the universe, or quantum physics).

Religions are based primarily on REVELATION and then on interpretation of revelations or elaboration of the revealed word with the hep of human understanding. If only we are able to apply common sense with a little bit of the scientific temper, we would understand why it is very risky to take every word of our holy books - the Gita, the Bible and  the Koran etc, as without doubt the WORD OF GOD. We would then understand the need to be careful in accepting every word of the holy books.

Presume somebody starts getting revelations in the form of sounds to be heard by the physical ears or by the 'ears of the mind', and the sound explicitly claims to be the sound of God. The person receiving the REVELATION will without doubt be thrilled and presume that he was the privileged and chosen one to whom God spoke directly? How does that person know that the claim of being 'God' was correct? May be God, or may be some other celestial being claiming to be God!

When the word of 'God' is so revealed, the person receiving the revelation will suffer some loss of memory (is ordinarily bound to), and when he conveys the revelation to others he is bound to, in some degree, put his own words and interpretations into it. Then the people receiving the REVELATION from the messenger of God, will interpret in their own way, adding their own imagination and information. In many cases the prophets did not pen down the revelations themselves and conveyed to others by spoken word. Those who heard them took notes when they went back, or the sayings were recorded after a long time based on hearsay. This is what happened  in the case of Rama, Jesus, Mohammad and the Buddha. In fact the Koran was compiled after the prophet's death by the their Calif Uthman who constituted a committee to collect and compile the notes of those who had heard Mohammad speak about the word of God. The Committee found differences in the accounts of the different followers of the prophet and chose the accounts that they found most amenable to their taste (or the taste of the third Caliph). Then the Caliph ordered that all other accounts be burnt. The friends of the prophet refused to to do and they became so angry that they together murdered their Caliph. This is what you may find in the introduction to the new translation of the holy Koran published by Penguin, The translator is an eminent Islamic scholar Tarif Khalidi. Penguin books are sold worldwide and read worldwide, and if this were wrong there would be world-wide protests. Khalidi says that although there were differences in the different accounts as to what Mohammad said, the differences were 'minor'. If the differences were so minor, why did the friends and followers of Mohammad become so angry as to kill the Caliph? In addition, what may be considered  'minor' may be of major significance sometimes. Shifting of a comma in "Kill not, leave' to 'Kill, not leave' may be 'minor' linguistic issue, but may leads to a major happening.

Religious pundits may say that when God reveals something to His chosen one, He also gives him infallible memory to bring God's word to humanity in the form He conveyed it. Possible. But how to decide whether the Word truly emanated from God, and not from some other celestial entity?

In other words, how to verify the truthfulness of the revelation in any religion? 

To address this issue, we may go to the three theories of Truth propounded by Bertrand Russell in the Problems off Philosophy.

One of the tests of Truth is 'coherence' or lack of inner contradiction where empirical verification is not possible, Example: God is very kind, all powerful, all knowing, and present everywhere. All these four cannot be true together. If He is kind, and knows about miseries of His creatures, and has power to remove those miseries, then why does He not do it if He is really so kind? This has to be explained in a coherent manner, which may theologians have tries to do with varying degrees of success or failure.

When a certain assertion in the REVELATION is empirically verifiable in some manner, in some degree, it can be straightaway be put to test. In the Vedas there is a revelation that states the time taken by the sunlight to reach earth. This revelation was made thousands off years back. But now this is empirically verifiable. But the messengers of God are seldom found, including in the Vedas, stating such empirically verifiable
facts. Yet there are many. Take the theory of rebirth. It is, in a manner, empirically verifiable. The Virginia university parapsychology department has documented 3000 positive cases of this kind where children claimed memories of their previous lives and the claim was verified and found to be true But a man with a scientific temper would not allow this verification to lead one to believe that whatever Hinduism, Buddhism or Jainism (which believe in rebirth) say is all true. It should be on a case to case basis.

As regards ethical norms preached by the religions, the theory of empirical verification does not apply as ethical norms are not statement of facts; they are prescriptions. The sole judge of the godliness of these prescriptions is our inner conscience that knows how to judge what is godly and what is not, what is truly good and what is not. Sometime ethical prescriptions may be manufactured by the seers and messengers of God. Sometime these ethical prescriptions may be inserted into the Holy books by vested interests. Therefore, one has to be careful, and has to go to his inner conscience to judge if the prescription is of God or of a well-intentioned 'messenger' of God, or was manufactured by an unholy mind with his or his clan's interest in mind. The system of segregation of the class of people called shudras is a case in point as regards Hinduism. Chopping off the heads of all those who did not believe in Allah ('atheists' as interpreted by liberals, and 'people of non-Muslim faiths' as interpreted by fundamentalists) , as found in the Holy Koran, is a case in point too which is casing so much of genocide even today.

The point is that some amount of rationality can make one more truly religious than the one who does not apply his or her mind at all to the sayings in the holy books.

Virtues of Vegetarianism: Modern Reasons for Changing to an Ancient Practice

Though in the Hebrew Bible is recorded the belief that in the paradise the earliest human being had not eaten flesh, evidence suggests that the Homo Sapiens had developed a taste for meat soon after they found themselves on the mundane earth.  In a global perspective, vegetarianism would not be found to be a very prominent strain in the cultural make up of the peoples of the larger parts of the world.    In spite of the often repeated belief credited to the findings of science that the human food canal is so designed by nature as to be friendly to vegetarian food alone, the carnivorous tendencies of the human beings across the gamut of time and space have been found to be amazingly strong.  Eating of animal flesh, sometimes combined with cannibalism, found widespread endorsement among the prehistoric tribal religions, which dominated the globe prior to the emergence of the major world religions of the day.  Though cannibalism has declined amongst the existing tribal people with the growth of civilisation, consumption of animal flesh has by all accounts remained largely undiminished.  Hinduism, the oldest among the major religions of the day has not been completely unequivocal in renouncing animal sacrifice and flesh eating, with mainly the dominant Vaishnav sects unambiguously advocating complete avoidance of animal sacrifice and eating of meat, fowl and fish.  In the Christian world, vegetarianism has found favour in actual practice among very few sects like the Seventh Day Adventists who have always constituted a tiny minority.  Few votaries of vegetarianism can be found in the Islamic world, although some Sufi mystics did recommend a meatless diet for spiritual aspirants.  Jainism and Buddhism in India were more unequivocal about the killing of animals and Buddhism carried the practice to north and east of the world as far as China and Japan.  However, in many countries which came under the influence of the Buddhistic compassion a large class of interpreters allowed themselves to be served meat of a carcass if someone else supplied it.  In some countries fish were included in an otherwise fleshless diet.  In short, the sublimating influence of the more advanced religions of the world could also not persuade the larger part of humanity to stop cruelty to animals for satiating their palate.

In the pre-modern era, the main grounds on which vegetarianism was advocated were ethical and philosophic.  Though vegetarianism was practised in India much before the birth of Christ, the first major boost to vegetarianism came around the middle of the Ist millennium BC more or less simultaneously in India and in Eastern Mediterranean lands as part of the philosophical awakening of the time.  In India, Buddhists and Jains led the movement, whereas in the Mediterranean lands it was the philosophy of Pythagoras and his followers that gave it a thrust.  The Pythagorean believed that the kinship of all animals was one basis for human benevolence towards other creatures that should not be killed for food.  From Plato onward many Pagan philosophers, e.g. Epicures, Plutarch and particularly the Neoplatonists recommended a fleshless diet on principles of cosmic harmony in accord with which human beings could live.  In the medieval era too the practice of vegetarianism was promoted mostly by religious and philosophical movements, but at few places in the world vegetarianism as a cultural practice and a way of life could gain as wide an acceptance through the ancient and medieval periods as in India. This was certainly in large measure due to the fact that religion remained the predominant factor in the life of Indians from the prehistoric times and most religions of the Indic origin preached compassion for all living beings with varying degrees of emphasis.  In the medieval times, the practice was further reinforced by the surge of  Bhakti Movement. It was only after the advent of the modern period, especially in the 20th century, that vegetarianism in practice started witnessing a sharp decline under the influence of the West, which had never practised vegetarianism as a way of life on a large scale.

History is full of ironies.  Until recently the lacto-vegetarian way of life was practised in India by the majority and shunned in the West by most.  In an ironical reversal of the situation, now it is the West that has come up in favour of the lacto-vegetarian way of life, although there it still represents the norm rather than the actual practice.  The change in the outlook this time has not been occasioned by religious faith or philosophical awakening.  It has also not really been caused by a concern for the survival of other creatures on earth.  Interestingly, this time the attitudinal change has been brought about by mankind's concern for his own survival.  The architect of this transformation has been science and not philosophy.

Scientific research in the recent times has shown that a vegetarian diet has several advantages over a non-vegetarian one.  A number of scientific surveys have confirmed that vegetarians tend to be lighter in weight, or rather closer to the desirable weight than the meat eaters.  This thesis may be earnestly contested by many of the television viewers in India who have watched Mr. T.N. Seshan canvassing for vegetarianism.  It must be conceded that Mr. Seshan's fulsome figure does not do full justice to the ideals of vegetarianism. However, it may be borne in mind that Mr. Seshan is always an exception rather than the rule. Scientific research has also established that the greater the degree of adherence to vegetarianism the lower the blood cholesterol tends to be which in turn reduces the risk of heart disease.  Mr.R.L.Philips in  ' Role of life style and dietary habits in risk of cancer among Seventh Day Adventists’ has recorded the results of a survey on the Seventh Day Adventists, which show that the members of this Christian Sect had lower mortality rates than the general population from cancer. A study in the Great Britain by P.N. Sweetnam and M.L. Burr provides evidence of reduced mortality from heart disease among vegetarians.  It is today widely known that dietary fibre has a great role to play in keeping at bay many ailments.   However, it is perhaps not as widely known that the fibrous looking animal flesh or meat as well as other animal food products do not contain any dietary fibre. Plant food, on the other hand, contains a lot.  Another feature which has drawn the attention of the scientific community in favour of vegetarianism is that the cholesterol generated in the human body comes from animal sources, which contain a lot of it.    This is one reason why food scientists recommend use of vegetable oils as cooking medium, especially those, which do not contain saturated fat and do not freeze at room temperature, rather than butter or 'ghee' (clarified butter) drawn from animal milk.  This has been already known for long that a non-vegetarian diet, especially the animal flesh, puts the human digestive system to considerable stress, which has adverse consequences for the whole system.  In addition, since meat is procured usually from the market, it is not often fresh; and if the stuff is in a degenerative state, it is fraught with formidable risks.

                A controversy as to whether a vegetarian diet could meet all our nutritional needs dragged on for some time in the past.  It is widely accepted now that a lacto-vegetarian diet can provide us with all the nutrients and a number of nutrients provided by such diets often exceed the Recommended Dietary Allowance.  It has been widely known for quite sometime that fruits and green vegetables provide vitamins and minerals in abundance.  Doubts were, however, expressed regarding the ability of the lacto-vegetarian diet to meet the protein requirements of the human body.  Sometime back the issue was widely debated among the scientists but thanks to the findings of research which are widely accepted now it has been established that a lacto-vegetarian diet can easily meet the protein needs of adults and children if they are properly planned.  A purely vegetarian diet, it is well settled now, can provide adequate amounts of all the nine essential amino acids.  It may be recalled that milk from animal sources forms part of a normal vegetarian diet regimen.  The modern western concept of vegetarianism includes eggs too.  The non-fertilised eggs or the eggs which are produced without the agency of a cock (the farm eggs in the market are produced without cocks) do not have potential for life and have been accepted as a part of vegetarian food by many since no harm is caused to life in consuming them, just as in the case of milk.  These animal protein sources which form part of vegetarian food are also excellent sources of all the essential amino acids and they are also admitted to be higher in biologic value than meat. The traditional Indian concept of vegetarianism does not include eggs, and it is established that a vegetarian diet with milk and without eggs is sufficient to take care of all our nutritional needs including the protein needs. Due to unusual concentration of cholesterol in the egg yellow, consumption of too many eggs is not recommended even in the West. The protein controversy related to vegetarian diet has been, therefore, finally laid to rest.

                In scientific acceptance of vegetarianism, discovery of abundant protein in the plant kingdom has been important. However, more than protein, it is the ecological concern that has given impetus to the movement that has built up in favour of vegetarianism in many places in the world. A diet that includes a large proportion of food of animal origin places a drain on the meagre natural resources, namely fuel, water, and land. A vegetarian diet has a favourable ecological effect because a much smaller quantity of grain and legumes is required for feeding people directly than for feeding animals. This has the effects of less land being needed for cultivation and less fuel being required for making fuel-based fertilisers, operating agricultural machinery, and transporting and storing food. A vegetarian way of life also makes lesser demands on water that may be needed for maintaining livestock and rearing crops for animal feed. Clearly, it would be possible to feed many more people a vegetarian rather than a meat-based diet. However, the question that painfully and unceasingly glimmers in the eyes of an animal is neither scientific nor ecological: How long will man take in his journey towards civilisation to be mindful of the suffering of other sentient beings that happen to share the planet with him, and how long will he take to expand the scope of his ethics of non-violence and civilised behaviour to include other living beings whom he sacrifices to the cravings of his own poor palate?