Índice
Geral das Seções
Índice da
Seção Atual
Informação: Este livreto foi gentilmente enviado ao Site Anna Kingsford pelo Sr. Brian McAllister. Ele contém o texto de uma palestra para a Sociedade Vegetariana de Croydon em 13 de novembro de 1928. Uma versão resumida da palestra foi publicada como um panfleto pela Sociedade Vegetariana de Londres.
FOOD & CHARACTER.
BY
SAMUEL HOPGOOD HART
SOLICITOR,
THE
149, SHROFF BAZAR,
(p. 1)
INTRODUCTION.
This small but important treatise so ably written by Mr.
Samuel Hopgood Hart, the eminent Food Reformer and enthusiastic worker of the
London Vegetarian Society made its appearance only six months ago through the
generosity of the great Jain philanthropist Rao Saheb Raoji
Sojpal
from whose munificent donation the League could publish 25,000 copies of the
first edition. Its rapid circulation created a very great demand from men of
genuine thirst for Knowledge on the question of Diet. The first edition having
been so soon exhausted, and the demand for more books being continuous and
pressing with numerous letters of appreciation of the treatment of the subject
by the learned Author, the League has to issue this 2nd edition (25,000) from
its general funds scanty though they are. The great and growing demand for the
booklet is indeed a matter of satisfaction to the author and the publisher,
besides being a testimony of its public utility. Mr. Hart took considerable
pains in preparing this lecture. In a letter to Mr. Ambalal
Sarabhai, a prominent millowner
of Ahmedabad, who sent us this brochure, Mr. Hart
writes:
“I think it would do much good if such a lecture as this could be circulated for
people in
(p. 2)
missionaries who are sent from
These missionaries do not preach the true Christianity when they seek to prove
that there is no connection between food and morality.”
Nature has not made the consumption of flesh necessary and
the bodily needs of man are not in continual antagonism to his reason and to his
spiritual instincts. Mr. Hart has well explained in this lecture what the Best
Food is and what are its effects are on Character. The readers can benefit
themselves by adopting the views expressed therein and abstaining from the use
of flesh-diet, which is unsuited to the structure and organs of man,
comparatively innutritious, largely impure and unsafe, and extremely costly.
We also once more thank Mr. Samuel Hopgood Hart for his
praiseworthy efforts in preparing this lecture, and Mr.
Ambalal
Sarabhai who kindly brought this valuable Pamphlet to
our notice.
Such Literature on Food Reform is published by the League
from time to time and the same can be had from the League’s office by sending a
one anna postal stamp for postage expenses.
149, Shroff Bazar,
February, 1931.
Lallubhai
D. Jhaveri
President,
B. H. League.
(p. 3)
FOOD & CHARACTER
By Samuel Hopgood Hart.
Food may be defined as “anything on which a living animal
feeds,” or “what supplies nourishment to organic bodies”; but I do not now use
the word in quite such a wide sense as this. I use it rather as including “every
article that is used for food or drink by man.”
Using the word in this sense, it will be my object to show that while some foods
are good and beneficial and therefore lawful and right; others (though they may contain nourishment) are neither
good nor beneficial, and, therefore, are not right foods. Then, apart from the
question of the kinds of food, there is the question of how much food we should
eat. This also is of importance when considering the
connexion
between food and character, because the relationship between food and character
may be considered from the standpoint of temperance. There should be “temperance
in refection” – not only for bodily health and well-being, but because
sensuality and spirituality are in opposition, and he who aspires to the highest
must not be ruled by the bodily senses. We must learn to distinguish excess from
necessity and be temperate. The natural appetite requires food for the sustaining of nature, and the food should
be of the right kind; but the sensual appetite considers only the pleasure of eating apart from the benefit or
otherwise to be derived from the food eaten. I am not against the enjoyment of
proper and wholesome food, but it must not be overlooked that the object of
eating is for the benefit of the eater on all planes
(p. 4)
of his being, and not merely for the
gratification of the sensual appetite. A sufficient quantity of the right kind
of food must be eaten if health and well-being are to be sustained; but food
should not be eaten for the mere pleasure of eating and apart from reason if
greatest and highest good is sought. Sensuality in feeding easily develops into
gluttony, and gluttony is a form of intemperance. This applies to foods that are
lawful and right as well as to others. The true end, aim, and object of feeding
is to enable us to live at our best and do the work that is before us.
Good wholesome and natural foods, such as vegetarians advocate, and particularly
those that are uncooked, are not, I think, so likely to be an occasion for the
kind of intemperance to which I have referred as are the cooked and frequently
highly seasoned flesh-foods. You have only to read such accounts as the
following to know that temperance does not always rule the Board when the
greatest and highest good is sought. In a recent account of a “Colchester Oyster
Feast”, at which it was said there were four hundred participants, it is
recorded that there was one who boasted of having “broken the record for
Colchester” by eating eight dozen oysters, the feast also including “rich brown
stout served plentifully in jugs and brewed specially for the feast,” and brown
bread and butter. Other participants were stated to have eaten as many as six or
seven dozen oysters each. (The
Daily Express, 26th October 1928). Necessity must be our
guide. Gluttony and excessive drinking produce evil conditions from which the
world has suffered much degradation. The mere pleasure of eating – even such
foods as are lawful –
(p. 5)
must not be allowed to rule our lives,
and the kind of food we eat and drink must be considered.
Character and disposition are much the same. In the broad
sense, character includes moral character of which the disposition is a
manifestation. In general, character may be regarded as the expression of the
personality of a man which reveals itself in his conduct. There are two classes
of factors that go to make men what they are. First, there is that which they
inherit from the past, and secondly, there is that which they acquire during
their lives in the world. As regards the first there is a double inheritance,
namely, that which they inherit from their own past lives (which is by far the
most important), and there is that which they may be said to have inherited from
their ancestors. The ancients called this inherited character “the temperament.”
No two people are born with exactly the same temperament, and with no two people
are the experiences of life exactly the same. At the end of life all that we
shall be able to claim as our own will be our characters. The temperament of
each individual will largely determine how he will respond to his environment
during his earth life, but every
man is responsible for his temperament because he has the power to fashion it as
he will and the manner in which the will is exercised, is the final and
determining factor in the character of the man.
What we have to consider is: What connection (if any) is
there between a man’s character and the food he eats? I recently came across the
following quotation in a daily paper: “Tell me what you eat, and I will tell you
what you are.” Can our food
(p. 6)
affect our personal qualities? I shall show
that our characters are affected as well as indicated by the food we eat, and
for this reason: A man’s original disposition or temperament
must be affected by his acquired habits, of which his mode of feeding is one,
and one of the most important.
This fact was some years ago brought forcibly to my notice under the following
circumstances. A friend of mine, who is a doctor, told me of a lady who had
consulted him regarding the unruliness and bad behaviour
of her son, a young boy, who was so unruly and ill-behaved that his mother could
not do anything with him, and she did not know what to do. The boy’s health had
not been good, and to this his mother had put down his bad
conduct, and she wanted to know if the doctor could advise anything that
would help in the matter. My friend, being a vegetarian, and thinking that
possibly food was at the bottom of the trouble, asked the lady what she gave her
son to eat, when she said that he was accustomed to have three meals a day with
meat at each meal. She had made a point of giving him plenty of meat, because
being delicate, he needed extra nourishment. On learning this, my friend told
the lady that in his opinion the boy’s diet was responsible for his condition,
and he advised her to feed him differently when, he was sure, there would be a
change for the better. In particular the boy was not to have any more meat. All
flesh food was to be excluded from his diet, and in other respects his food was
to be such as vegetarians are accustomed to eat. My friend’s advice was
followed, and in the course of a few months, the boy became a changed boy. His
health, improved, aIso his disposition, and from that
time his mother had no further trouble with
(p. 7)
him. This may be an extreme case, but it
is a good illustration of the effect of food on character.
The fact that the kind of food we eat affects our character
as well as our health has been recognised from time
immemorial; and, whether admitted or not, the principle is continually acted on.
I need but refer to the question of taking intoxicating drink in confirmation of
this. Not only the health, but the character of the man who overindulges in
alcoholic drink is affected. When taken to excess, a man is said to be under the
influence of drink, and in such condition he will do things which in his sober
moments he would not think of doing. His character has for the time being been
affected for worse, and if the evil habit be persisted in, he may, as men say,
“go to the dogs.” For this reason, the taking of alcoholic drink as a beverage
is, by many, condemned. These facts are so well known that I need not press the
drink question further. The strange thing is that while so many people
recognise
the evil that follows alcohol drinking, comparatively
few people have any idea of the evil that follows flesh-eating, though there is
a close connection between the two because food and drink cannot be separated.
In my opinion, the eating of flesh is as much to be condemned as the excessive
use of intoxicating liquors, and perhaps more so, because it brings in its train
worse evils though they are not so apparent. Not only is flesh-eating conducive
to evil, but more than anything else it
stands in the way of man’s spiritual advance and evolution. Abstinence from flesh-eating is not, of course, an end in itself. Mere
abstinence will not make a saint. But it is a means to an end – an end
(p. 8)
to which we must all be assumed to be
striving – and one without which it may be impossible to attain. Buddha taught
that one of the signs that a man follows "the right path" is that he “sustains
life by means that are quite pure,” but Buddha was careful to make it clear that
mere abstinence from flesh diet would not of itself make a man wise. In one of
his sayings he emphasized this point as follows:
– “Neither abstinence from fish nor flesh,
nor going naked, nor shaving the head, nor wearing matted hair, nor dressing in
a rough garment, nor covering oneself with dirt, nor sacrificing to
Agni, will cleanse a man who is not free from
delusions.”
Given the power of choice of food, we are responsible for
the manner in which we exercise such power. Man has the divine gift of free
will, which makes him the arbiter of his own
destiny which depends upon the use he makes of this power – the power (that is)
to do evil as well as the power to do good. The manner in which this power is
exercised depends upon the ruling factor of the Will. It is a power to obey or
not to obey. Our Wills are the factors that go to make our characters, and they
must be brought into line with the Divine Will. What is the Divine Will as
regards our food? This can be known by ascertaining what is the Divine Character
– a character that has been revealed to us by all the great teachers of the
world throughout the ages – and it is revealed to us interiorly if we look
within for guidance: “Righteousness and equity are the habitation of thy seat:
mercy and truth shall go before thy face.” If the soul be raised very high, it
perceives things as God does – and “God is Love.” The
(p. 9)
higher we climb, the clearer will be the
guidance. The great teachers of the world have all been teachers of mercy and
justice to all, and their teaching was well summed up by the Prophet Micah, when
he said: – “He hath shewed thee, O
man, what is good; and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and
to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God.”
The real cause of wrong feeding is due to our defective
system of thought; a system which condones (if it does not approve) violence,
bloodshed and a denial of mercy and justice to our fellow-creatures whom we
regard as below us in the scale of life. It is the human character that is at
stake. Flesh-eating tend to lower the character of the man who eats it, and for
that reason is conducive to evil. If there were no flesh-eating, there would be
no killing of animals for food. Killing, except in case of necessity or in
mercy, is a terrible and degrading occupation. Which of us would desire a child
of ours to be a butcher? Who would choose such an occupation? Do we look among
butchers for the highest type of mankind? Most assuredly not! Those who sell
animals to be killed for food and those who willingly eat of such food when
provided, are as guilty of bloodshed as those who do the killing, although they
may not be so hardened. They are accessories either before or after the fact.
While among flesh-eaters there are many who would shrink from killing, there are
few who will trouble themselves even to make slaughter as humane as possible.
Most flesh-eaters wish to think and try to persuade themselves and others that
flesh-eating is necessary; but many of them know the contrary
(p. 10)
to be the case, and all the Vegetarian
Societies in the country are witnesses against them. But they are callous. If flesh-eating were necessary, then, however deplorable, there
would be nothing to say against it. But what shall be said of the man who
kills for pleasure – the “sportsman” as he is generally called? I
refer to him because he is one of the products of the flesh-eating habit.
Most flesh-eaters would become “sportsmen” if they had the means and
opportunity. There are few flesh-eaters who will condemn blood sports. Some of
them will condemn tame deer-hunting and fox-hunting, in which they have no
interest; but ask them what they think of killing animals for sport, and they
will not see any harm in it, particularly if the slaughtered animals are to be
eaten. Here again we see the evil effect of flesh-eating on the character of the
flesh-eater. If any one doubts this, let his attention be directed to the case
of “The Woman Pig-Sticker”, of whom I recently read in the Daily
Express (27th October 1928). It was therein
stated that “For every woman (in
(p. 11)
that he did not know of “anything more destructive of the Christian Character
and human intellect, than those accursed sports, in which man makes of himself
cat, tiger, serpent, and alligator in one, and gathers into one continuance of
cruelty, for his amusement, all the devices that brutes sparingly, and at
intervals, use against each other for their necessities,” and he speaks of “the
bitterness of the curse which the habits of hunting and la
chasse have brought upon the so-called upper
classes of England and France, until, from knights and gentlemen, they have sunk
into ... butchers by battue etc.” (Modern Painters: Vol. II). In the “Company of St. George,” which be endeavoured (without success) to establish, one of the rules
which the members undertook to observe was “not to kill nor hurt any living
creature needlessly, nor destroy any beautiful thing, but to save and comfort
all gentle life, and guard and protect all natural beauty upon the earth.” The
“Company” came to nought
for want of support – the difficulty of finding, among a flesh-eating community,
members who would oppose cruel sports being the reason for the failure. For the
same reason we have vivisection. It is not the vegetarians who support
vivisection. The late Edward Maitland, speaking of the low condition to which
flesh-eating has reduced the world, and realising
what a different place it would be to live in under humane conditions, said: –
“Man’s whole idea and habit of life have become so utterly at variance with all
possibility of the perfection of which his existence is capable, that only by
incessant and unsparing denunciation can he be in any measure impressed with
their heinousness”; and, Anna Kingsford, speaking on the same subject, and
turning her back to then present
(p. 12)
evil conditions, said: – “I know that at
some distant day, now, indeed, perhaps very remote, the message we preach in a
corner will become a religion of great nations.”
Abstinence from flesh food is necessary for the enhancement
of our spiritual faculty. Flesh-eaters cut themselves off from divine influences
that might otherwise reach them and help them on their upward way. They make
their path to perfection harder, and by so doing stand in their own light. It is
essential to clear spiritual vision that the body be subject to the rule of
purity, especially in respect of diet. After becoming a
vegetarian, Edward Maitland, in The Life of
Anna Kingsford (Vol. I, p. 70), says: –
“To my inexpressible delight I found myself coming into
possession of a strangely enhanced faculty of ideation which manifested itself
in a power of insight into problems which had hitherto baffled me. It was as if
my mental surfaces had been cleansed and sensitised
in such wise as to render them accessible to impressions and suggestions which
formerly had been too subtle and refined to obtain recognition.”
F. Haines (whose name is well known in the Insurance business world) recently, under
spiritual influence, wrote a book called Thus Saith Celphra which contains comments on our modem civilisation
as well as teaching of value, and one of the conditions to which he had to
submit to qualify him to write that book was that he “abstain from eating meat.”
He says, he was also, for similar reasons, required to forego intoxicating
liquor in any form. This prohibition was necessary for the purification of the
instrument and enhancement of the spiritual consciousness.
(p. 13)
The amount of truth which can be perceived is dependent on the purity of the
instrument, and if it be that our dispositions are our perceptions – for what we
perceive becomes our own – then how important becomes this question of purity of
instrument. The purer we can make our instrument the greater shall become our
perceptive faculty, and our power to know truth. When we would know how we
should live if we are to attain the highest spiritual consciousness, the
question of food and feeding presents itself for consideration.
All bodily growth, whether of plant or animal, must be
preceded by nourishment or food. The food of the plant may differ from that of
the animal (including man), but the process is the same for both. Speaking
generally, each kingdom should derive its nourishment from the kingdom below it:
that is to say, the vegetable from the mineral, and the animal from the
vegetable – in each case, of course, plus air and water. Plant life, therefore, is the link between sentient and
insentient creation. All life above plant life, must be
sustained by other life. The animal cannot live on the mineral. If the vegetable
kingdom failed, man could not live. This truth is well expressed in the
Psalms where it is said “He bringeth
forth grass for the cattle, and green herb for the
service of men in order that He may bring food out of the earth.” Mark how and
in what manner the food of man in to be brought “out of
the earth.” It is by means of the
vegetable kingdom. There is no suggestion of man having been given any right to
feed on the flesh of his fellow animals that share the world with him. The food
intended for man is to be found in the vegetable
(p. 14)
and not in the mineral or in the animal
kingdom. In each case, the nourishment or food taken from the lower kingdom has
to be transmuted by the consumer. As man must assimilate from his food the
material he requires for his physical development, and as the character of the
food he eats is determined by its vibration, the kind of food he eats becomes a
matter of importance, not only from the point of view of assimilation, but also
from the point of view of the vibratory effect that the food eaten will have on
the character of the man who eats it.
Let us give a few minutes to consider this question of
vibration. In a Lecture on “The Nature and Constitution of the Ego,”
which forms one of the Chapters in The
Perfect Way by the late Anna Kingsford and Edward
Maitland, it is stated that “Consciousness being inherent in Substance, every
molecule of the Universe is able to feel and to obey after its kind – the
inorganic as well as the organic between which there is no absolute distinction
as ordinarily supposed,” and that “Wherever there are vibration and motion,
there are life and memory,” and that “there are vibration and motion at all
times and in an things.” Now, each thought we encourage, whether good or bad,
has its own vibration that gives it an existence which under
favourable
conditions becomes an active power for progress or
retrogression, and if these
thought-powers be not in harmony or consistent with order,
peace, and love, they become positive
powers of evil. Every sentient creature has a soul of some kind which is a
thought centre, and the sum total of the thought
vibrations or powers for which each individual is responsible goes to make up
(p. 15)
the character. The soul of a man may be
regarded as representing a unison of thought entities,
and, as such, every soul is by the thought vibrations that it gives out, a most
powerful influence for good or for evil as the will of the man directs. ‘‘The
human-ego” said the late Edward Maitland “represents all the Consciousnesses of
man’s system centralised into a unity and polarised
to a higher plane.” The greatest power in heaven and earth is thought. All we
see around us is the outcome of thought. There are thoughts that bring life and
healing, and there are thoughts that bring death and destruction. A man’s
thoughts are his powers.
In the Buddhist Scriptures it is truly said: “As thou
thinkest, so art thou”; and in the Christian Scriptures we find: “As a
man thinketh, so is he.” Everything that is in harmony with
thought, all that is in tune therewith – be it good or bad – is drawn to or
becomes responsive to the thinker. We cast our bread of thought upon the waters
of the cosmos and, without doubt, it shall return to us again with increase.
This is sympathy. “Like to like.”
Thus, nature may be to each of us an inspiration. Let nature speak to us through
all channels that are open to us for the purpose. Our five senses, which
represent our bodily or earthly limitations, are not the only channels or the
most important through which thought vibrations may reach us. Vibrations are
received from planes other than the material (which is the lowest), and the
law of affinity holds good on all planes of Being. Like attracts like, and he that hath, to him shall be given much of his
own kind, and the soul of every man by the law of spiritual affinity, receives
or gathers from without vibrations that harmonise
with its own character.
(p. 16)
“Like to like.”
“He loved not blessing, therefore shall it be far from
him” (Ps. CIX, 16). Recognise
the freedom of the will which belongs to man as a spiritual being and the power
of his thought, and you must acknowledge the power of every man to fashion his
own character and thereby his own fate. Disraeli spoke the truth when he said
“Man is not the creature of circumstances. Circumstances are the creatures of
men.” In the book by Mr. Haines, to which I have referred, there occurs this
pregnant passage:
“Keep undefiled the avenues of approach to the higher. There are tremors of
spirit presence in every vibration of physical existence, tremors which sanctify
the heeding soul and create within it a perfection which glorifies by kinship
with the spiritual.”
Vegetarianism offers to those who will accept it a chalice
of peace. The whole creation may be as the voice of God to the man who walks
through life in a spirit of love and charity to all. But this does not include
those who elect to live by bloodshed and the slaughter of their fellow creatures
when another and better way is open to them. The “dogs” (or
carnivora) have their place outside the
(p. 17)
been well summed up as follows: “Ye shall
not take away the life of any creature for your pleasure, nor for your profit,
nor yet torment it. Ye shall not eat the flesh, nor drink the blood, of any
slaughtered creature; nor yet anything which bringeth
disorder to your health or senses.” Laws of nature are laws of health and health
and harmony go together, provided the harmony be
on all planes of man’s being. Health is order, obedience and government. Discord
spells disease. “It is love that is the binding principle of the Universe, and
without it dissolution and disintegration to the total extinction of
individuality must occur." “Their own iniquity” is the cause of the destruction
which God is said to bring upon evil doers. The following instruction bearing on
this subject was given to the late Anna Kingsford and Edward Maitland: –
“Purify your bodies, and eat no dead thing that has looked with living eyes upon
the light of Heaven. For the eye is the symbol of brotherhood among you. Sight
is the mystical sense. Let no man take the life of his brother to feed withal
his own. But slay only such as are evil in the name of the Lord. They are
miserably deceived who expect eternal life, and restrain not their hands from
blood and death.”
The salvation of the world is impossible while people nourish themselves on
blood. This teaching is not new. For ages men and women have gone to the
Psalms
for spiritual guidance and consolation, and what do they teach? They teach that
“The voice of joy and health is in the dwelling of the righteous.” Now,
righteousness is associated with justice. The righteous are the just, and I ask,
“Is the flesh-eater a righteous man? Is he a just man?” Whether, as
(p. 18)
regards feeding we live
righteously, or not, this is certain: our bodies are our dwellings, the “houses
of our pilgrimage” and if we would have in our bodily dwellings, or houses, this
voice or vibration of joy and health which is so desirable, we must live
righteously. The same truth is insisted on when we are told that “Health is far
from the ungodly”, and for this reason: “They regard not Thy statutes” – which
are declared to be “righteous altogether” and which, moreover, we are told
“rejoice the heart” – “They are the very joy of my heart.” “When Thou hast set
my heart at liberty”, says David, “I will run the way of Thy commandments.”
Again, we are told, if we make a “sepulchre” of our
dwelling – and that is exactly what the flesh-eater does – our beauty shall
consume therein. The wicked man is described as one “whose throat is an open
sepulchre” and “whose feet are swift to shed blood.” Here, indeed, is
shewn a connection between food and character. Flesh-eating is one of the signs
of wickedness – wicked, because of the cruelty and injustice that is implied
thereby, when there is open another and better mode of life which is described
as “the way of peace.” “Such as are gentle, them shall He learn His way.” (Ps.
XXV, 9) Christ, wherever manifest, is truly the “son of David,” who said: “I
will wash my hands among the harmless, O Lord, and so will I encompass
Thine
altar”; and who prayed: “O shut not up my soul with the sinners, nor my life
with the blood-thirsty.”
One of the best examples of the evil effect of flesh-eating
and all that it implies is to be found in the conditions which to-day prevail at
Chicago, where
(p. 19)
more animals are slaughtered and where
there is more bloodshed than in any other place in the world.
To derive from food the highest good, the vibratory forces of the food must be
suitable to those of the feeder, because the
assimilation of the food will mean a uniting of vibratory forces in the feeder,
namely, those of the food and those of the feeder. It will thus be seen that the character of man is affected for
(p. 20)
good or for ill as a result of
discriminate or indiscriminate feeding as the case may be. It is recorded that
when, in the wilderness, the children of
“The sooner man realises that what he eats contributes
important qualities to his spiritual being, the sooner will he progress to that
(p. 21)
higher vibratory condition of being towards which he progresses by Divine
will ... If you can rise to discriminate choice of viands, so that gross foods
and sense-degrading liquors be altogether excluded from the table, your
feastings would still further elevate your souls. What is now seldom more than
an orgy of self-indulgence with an aftermath of physical discomfort and
spiritual degradation might become an avenue of spiritual communion, elevating,
inspiring, full of joy and health-giving laughter, with precious results to all
who so rejoice together.”
We must ever bear in mind that “the life is more than the
food” – the life not only of the feeder, but also of those who obtain and
prepare our food. We must not consent to feed regardless of the cost to those
who toil in the getting or in the preparation of our food. In many a kitchen there is unnecessary toil and often waste. This is
by no means confined to the kitchens of the rich. Let us simplify our lives in
our feeding as well as in other respects and avoid luxury, extravagance and
waste. We must not allow our bodily desires to be our sole guide as to what and
how much we should eat and drink. If we do so, we shall soon find that they are
not guides but taskmasters, and that we no longer rule our lives. Many people
eat too much. We must use our intelligence in the selection of our food, live on
simple foods, and see that the food selected be of a
quality in vibration calculated to assist the spirit as well as feed the body.
To those who aspire to higher spirituality, what is to be the test of quality?
This question has been answered as follows: – “Those who seek the higher
faculties of identity with the Will of God, will abjure
(p. 22)
meat and strong drinks.” There is no
better food for man than that which nature has provided for him in the vegetable
kingdom, including, of course, nuts and fruit; and there is no better drink for
man than that which nature has provided for him in pure cold water and pure
unfermented fruit juice. This is the ideal diet of man, and this is the diet for
which he should strive, and it offers a fairly wide selection of choice. But if,
for special reasons, having regard to our present conditions of life or to some
particular circumstances, such a diet should prove too restrictive or
impracticable, then, milk, butter, and cheese may be added. Food reform on right
lines and character reform go hand in hand, and there will be no character
reform in an upward direction worth speaking of without the abandonment of
bloody foods. It is not revolution so much as reformation which is needed to right existing evils, and the first and most
important step towards this is Food Reform on the lines indicated. In this I am
not advocating anything contrary to nature, for man was not created a
flesh-eater. How or why man (or some races of man) first took to flesh-eating is
not a matter for present consideration, but it was a downward
step… It represented devolution. It was a
step the evil effects of which we reap in the world to-day. The evil, no doubt,
started in a small way; but in time it grew to large dimensions, and we see the
results. Flesh-eating must have been preceded by cruelty and blood-lust. First,
came the lust to kill and shed blood, then the eating
of flesh. Present conditions of life do not all make for joy and health. The
very methods of some among us who should stand for health are unhealthy and even
evil. We have, for example,
(p. 23)
Voronoff and his rejuvenation experiments, which
are the outcome of vivisection. Let not the newly
fashioned idols of orthodox science be
substituted for the crumbling idols of orthodox religion. The world will not be
redeemed by flesh-eaters. Their methods will not bring with them that health and
joy to which I have referred. Our earth conditions need readjustment. A
materialistic civilisation does not make for true
progress. It is our material minds that are responsible for so much of the evil which we deplore. These
must be dominated before we can reach perfection of character, and, to this end,
the question of food is an all-important consideration. Many people do ill who
mean well, and we rightly forgive them for their good motives, but right motives
must not be allied to wrong actions, for evil effects will follow. Flesh-eating
is selfish, and where selfishness is opposed to justice (which makes for
perfection) evil must inevitably result.
I recently came across the following in a religious
publication: “The History of mankind seems to shew that while the meat-eating
nations of the earth have been the most powerful and aggressive (growing, in
other words, like the things they feed on) yet they have been and continue to be
strenuous upholders of religious liberty and morality.” The truth of this
statement depends upon what the writer of the article understands by “religion”
and “morality.” A prominent Bishop (the Bishop of London) speaking as a
flesh-eater to his fellows has said: “We ourselves are not necessarily depraved
because we eat mutton chops.” (Daily
Express 15th Sept. 1925). It is refreshing to turn from
such teaching as this to an
(p. 24)
article written by Dr. Paul
Carton, who is well known in
“The meatless diet is above all other things an uplifting and
spiritualising
one. From the spiritual standpoint, a diet which includes flesh foods, can never
be anything else than positively degrading, tending as it does both to
sensuality and to a materialistic outlook on life. Yet, for the most part, the
religious leaders of the day seem totally blind to this aspect of things, that
is if we may judge from the indifference, with which they themselves are wont to
devour heavy meat meals, washed down with fermented drinks, sometimes also to
the accompaniment of tobacco smoke; all of which habits tend to disturb the true
equilibrium of the mind, as well as that of the body.”
“The fact of the pernicious influence of flesh foods on the mentality of the
individuals is, indeed, not difficult to establish. The practice of
slaughtering, like that also of excessive meat-eating, tends to induce habits of
violence, callousness and depravity amongst certain sections of those engaged in
the trade, while people who live chiefly on the flesh and blood of pigs (ham,
sausages, black pudding) – the use of which the Mosaic law so wisely forbade –
are notorious for their heavy wit, their coarse physical frames, their brutal
manners, their unbridled violence, their excessive reliance of merely physical
force and their unmitigated greediness. People, on the other hand, who incline
to Vegetarianism, are likely to be marked by
(p. 25)
a
greater refinement, a truer elegance of form, a more agreeable disposition, a
higher idealism and a more complete control of the appetites.”
“The saints and sages of the past were well aware that, from
the point of view of moral purity and of spiritual progress, the choice of food
is of the first importance. Thus, as already said, the diet of the Pythagoreans
was strictly vegetarian, while the Yogis of India abstain from flesh for three
reasons: (a) for the sake of the lower creatures, which also are evolving
sentient beings like man himself; (b) for the sake of their own spiritual
development, which would be retarded by the introduction of flesh foods into
their system; and (c) in the interests of bodily purity, which must needs be
corrupted by the toxic products of food obtained from such a source.”
And Dr. Carton quoted with approval the following passage (taken from Gorres) as another reason why man should not eat flesh
foods:
“That self-same flesh has already absorbed, in some degree, the life of which it
was aforetime at once the habitation and the vehicle, thus acquiring for itself
a character peculiarly its own, this character being the natural outer
expression of that peculiar ensemble
of appetites, passions and instincts which had characterised
it during life. To some extent, indeed, these instincts may be said to have
entered into the very flesh of the animal itself, and, on being introduced into
the life of another organism, they find there a nucleus to which they can attach
themselves and by means of which they become embodied in the new organism.”
That there is a connection between food and character is, I
feel, amply proved, and Vegetarianism must
(p. 26)
be regarded not merely as a factor in
physical health, but above all as a potent means of developing the moral life,
and of assisting the spiritual development, both of the individual and of the
human race.
I will conclude with those noble and never-to-be-forgotten
words – words that should be printed in gold – of Anna Kingsford who said: –
“I consider the vegetarian movement to be the most important movement of
our age: I believe this because I see in it the beginning of true civilisation. My opinion is that up to the present moment we
do not know what civilisation means. When we look at
the dead bodies of animals, whether entire or cut up, which with sauces and
condiments are served at our tables, we do not reflect on the horrible deed that
has preceded these dishes: and yet it is something terrible to know that every
meal to which we sit down has cost a life. I hold that we owe it to civilisation to elevate the whole of that deeply demoralised and barbarised class
of people: butchers, cattle-drovers and all other who are connected with the
deplorable business. Thousands of persons are degraded by the slaughter-house in
their neighbourhood, which condemns whole classes to a
debasing and inhuman occupation. I await the time when
the consummation of the vegetarian movement shall have created perfect men, for
I see in this movement the foundations of perfection. When I perceive the
possibilities of vegetarianism and the heights to which it can raise us, I feel
convinced that it will prove the redeemer of the world.”
