Wednesday, March 4, 2009

East versus West

Perhaps the most telling example of difference between Western and Eastern thought on the subject of animal rights is given by Kipling. He describes an instance of the “Oriental tender mercy” in which a man feeds a tiger pieces of his own flesh. Kipling writes, “This may be heroic, but like many other illustrious examples of Oriental goodness, it is also absurd, and so remote from every possibility of ordinary life and conduct as to exert no practical influence as a lesson.” (X251)

The gap between east and west extends to all aspects of life. [1]

The choice of the word “absurd” is interesting considering how that is the absolute standard for many in Asia. This difference is derived from the fact that Western religions worship an intangible deity, whereas eastern faiths like Jainism and Hinduism look to animals to find symbols of power and beauty. In “Jainism and Ecology, we see a description of the Jainist mindset and how their practice of ahimsa (defined as absolute nonviolence) has a direct relation to their reverence for animals. Perhaps the most famous person to practice nonviolence is Mahatma Gandhi, “who combined love and nonviolence”(X231). Gandhi describes the virtue of ahimsa as a “means” and continues to say “In its positive form, ahimsa means the largest love, greatest charity”(X231). I must disagree with Gandhi. The keyword, here, however, is “positive” ahimsa. Simply, ahimsa for the sake of ahimsa is not love—it is a practice of nonviolence and nothing more. I would correct him to say that love (and compassion) for animals is the means and ahimsa follows as the end. From West to East, I think the lack of love because of different symbols of reverence accounts for Kipling referring to Oriental practices as “absurd.”

I understand better now our practice of "love channeling." It is the basis of all compassion.[2]

The article then begins to discuss the cause of the ecological crisis from a Jainist perspective as a lack of spirituality and perpetuation of greed. Lily de Silva said, “We have to understand that pollution in the environment has been caused because there has been psychological pollution within ourselves” (X232). The “psychological pollution within ourselves” is the same as the absence of Love and reverence for animals in western thought. At some point, concern for the environment, for animals, and for all living things must come from the heart. From a western perspective, however, deeming this “pollution” seems somewhat condescending. In discussing the apparent idealism and hints of absurdity that taints Jainism from a western eye, the article discusses a situation when a disciple raises a concern about the natural tendency of human survival to cause suffering on some living things. Lord Mahavira’s response is simply, “If you are aware of all of your actions, and are careful about what you do in relation to other living things, you will develop spirituality and be in perfect harmony with the natural world” (X234). How is this at all a valid response to the disciple’s statement? It seems like a shirking of reality, revealing the unattainable idealism inherent in Jainism. While I respect the practice, Kipling hits the nail on the head: it is almost absurd to expect a wide range of humans to practice such ahimsa. Upon researching, as per Wikipedia, less than 1% of the Indian population (let alone the world’s) is Jain.

In the article “Man, Culture and Animals in India,” the institutions of the pinjrapole and goshala are described as places of sanctuary, so to speak, for cows. According to the article, the words “ahimsa paramo dharma” are written above the gateways to all pinjrapoles. Translating to “ahimsa is the greatest of religions,” according to the article, “In this aphorism is summed up the entire raison d’etre of pinjrapoles, for it is the extension of ahimsa and the related concept of jiv-daya (compassion for life) to embrace all animal life that accounts for the presence of the institutions in Inida today” (X266). Just like in Gandhi’s words, the virtue of ahimsa can only exist with a certain love or compassion that must inherent in one’s heart. Otherwise, ahimsa exists for ahimsa alone, futilely, as I said before. Perhaps the reason this love exists in Asian culture is because of the reverence shown toward animals, rather than believing in the intangible powers of theism. In discussing the reason behind the worship of animals, the article explains that “reverence for the bull as a symbol of masculinity and power” and “the cow, too, emerges as the symbol of a female deity” (X272). These animals are referred to as symbols because that is as closed to a deity as they can possibly come. I think that Jain, Hindu, and other Indian religious practices exist because of some faith that the followers have in the animal, just as those in the West have a faith in God. Either way, I call it a faith because it takes a certain feeling in the heart to submit to this sort of spirituality, and not everyone’s heart is in the same place.

The more I think about the topics in the class, the more I realize that, no matter what facts and opnions are discussed, what you feel in your heart is all that you are capable of. [3]

Reading this blog entry again, I realize how western my train of thought is. But I guess that makes sense.




[1]http://listverse.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/east-vs-west.jpg
[2]http://www.katyelliott.com/blog/uploaded_images/love_print-791839.jpg
[3]http://www.creativeartspaceforkids.org/store/images/Art-from-the-Heart-2.jpg

No comments: