Thursday, January 15, 2009
Jainism and the "being hierarchy"
The discussion of the Aristotelian hierarchy of being reminded me of a similar hierarchy of beings within the religion of Jainism. Unlike the Aristotelian view, Jains believe that all souls are essential the same, but that they occupy physical forms that reside in various levels (this is due to Jainism's roots in Hinduism and its grounding in the concept of reincarnation). The attitude that Jains take toward the beings in each level is also decidedly different from the Aristotelian view. Keeping in mind the belief that all souls are equal and the idea of karma, Jains live endeavoring to do the least amount of harm possible, practicing a the concept of "ahimsa" or a reverence for all life. In order to contribute the least amount of suffering possible, the ranking of beings on the hierarchy come in handy. The different levels of physical being are determined by the number of senses that being has. Humans, deities, mammals, birds, fish reptiles, ect. all posses five senses. Thus, it is a sin (resulting in negative karma) if one harms one of these beings in any way. Other beings, such as insects and worms, posses fewer senses ( and consequently suffer less) but are to be respected because they do have souls and are alive. Plants only posses one sense (the sense of touch, to be precise) and are the only being that Jains allow themselves to "harm." In practical application, Jains only consume foods of plant origin, do not wear clothes of material derived from animals, and cannot work at any occupation in which people, animals, or other beings are harmed (Early Jain monks reportedly starved themselves because they refused to harm even plants, but if all Jains did that, there wouldn't be any left...). Their approach to life is what they call "dynamic harmlessness."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
While this perception or way of life is extremely helpful to our "environment" as a whole, this is sort of a far-fetched goal to achieve. As we discussed in class today, we face many of the problems we do today due to our societies "greed". Our society and culture has been built to think in a mentality of "kill or be killed". This is why majority of our population thrives and feeds off of meat (animals) and will continue to do so. We have been raised this way and in all reality will continue on this way, until there is nothing left. So, while I believe the Jain way of life is "dynamicly harmless", its unrealistic for our culture.
ReplyDeleteThough I agree with the statement that the American culture at large would claim that such a way of life is impractical and unrealistic, there is a growing minority of those who would disagree. Vegans, though not necessarily holding the same theological belief system as the Jains (as veganism is not a religion), practice this lifestyle that centers around ahimsa and dynamic harmlessnes. While a minority, we don't think such a lifestyle is unrealistic.
ReplyDeleteImpractical yes, but unrealistic? Maybe not. I think it all goes back to greed. It may be a hard endeavor to change ones lifestyle like those of the Jains, vegan, or vegetarian people but why is it hard? Because we would have to give up some luxuries in life. Maybe you love meat but I'm certain that most people could stop eating it if need be. Humans can survive on plants alone and its been proven to not only be enviornmentally friendlier but healthier too. For instance, milk is used by cows, goats, even humans to help their young grow. Humans are the only species that continue to drink milk after infancy. Why? We surely can get calcium from other sources. I think its all about greed and not wanting to change a comfortable lifestyle for someone or something else even if it be for the future of our Earth. This subject is interestig because it brings to light how people can knowingly see the harm humans are causing to the Earth and because they are comfrotable in their way of life do nothing or think about doing nothing to change it.
ReplyDeleteKohak touches on the idea that, if more people had to kill their own animals for meat, they would undoubtedly eat much less of it. I have to agree, and I think that part of the only reason such practices as meat eating remain societal norms is because people aren't intimately involved with the process. I can't count how many people I've met who said that they eat meat, but they could never kill an animal themselves. My mother, for one, can cook up a chicken or fish no problem... so long as it doesn't have it's head attached. Once it can look back at her, it ceases to be dinner and blatently screams "I'm an animal's corpse!"
ReplyDeleteKohak also brings up the odd phenomenon of "specieism." Why is it that people can butcher a cow no problem, but abhor the thought of eating a dog? (Then again, mnay Hindus abhor the idea of eating a cow) What makes some animals pet-worthy and others left to be eaten. And then you've got the issue of the family farm, where animals are treated humanely, named, even loved before being turned into lamb chops, rump reast or some other such dish. HAve such animals reached "pet status" in this situation, or have they remained in the dinner category from the beginning simply because of their species? Kohak draws on some scary but otherwise relevent comparisons between such animal prejudices and those prejudices towards Afican Americans (slaves) and Jews. And actually, the conditions of the modern factory farm eerily resemble those found in the Nazi concentration camps... scary.