Sample: Spirituality/Diet Debate

Vegetarianism - Food for Thought

It’s an ongoing debate, an unending search for a definitive answer.

To be or not to be…a vegetarian.

There’s a book, for example, by Swami Sri Yukteswar, Guru to Paramahansa Yogananda, wherein he seeks to prove the idea of a certain diet by studying the functionality of human teeth as opposed to the teeth of natural carnivores in the animal kingdom. On page 43 (2021 English edition*), he posits and answers the question, “What is natural food for man?” He writes passages about observation of teeth, the observation of the digestive canal, and the observation of the sense of smell.

Observing teeth, he writes the following:

“By observation of the teeth we find that in carnivorous animals the incisors are little developed, but the canines are of striking length, smooth and pointed to seize the prey. The molars are also pointed; these points, however, do not meet, but fit closely side by side to separate the muscular fibers.

In herbivorous animals the incisors are strikingly developed, the canines are stunted (though occasionally developed into weapons, as in elephants), the molars are broad topped and furnished with enamel on the sides only.

In the frugivorous* all teeth are of nearly the same height; the canines are little projected, conical, and blunt (obviously not intended for seizing prey but for exertion of strength). The molars are broad-topped and furnished at the top with enamel folds to prevent waste caused by their side motion, but not pointed for chewing flesh.

In omnivorous animals such as bears, on the other hand, the incisors resemble those of the herbivorous, the canines are like those of the carnivorous, and the molars are both pointed and broad-topped to serve a twofold purpose.

Now if we observe the formation of the teeth in man we find that they do not resemble those of the carnivorous, neither do they resemble the teeth of the herbivorous or the omnivorous. They do resemble, exactly, those of the frugivorous animals. The reasonable inference, therefore, is that man is a frugivorous or fruit eating animal.”

*Frugivorous comprises any part of fruit life useful to man, and includes vegetables, nuts and grains. (publishers note)

He goes on to draw the same conclusions, about this “natural” diet of man, in discussions of the digestive track, as well as about the scents to which humans are naturally drawn or averse.

OK, that makes sense. Until we read Darwin. Or Sapiens by Yuval Noah Harari, or any book on the evolution of technology.

This is not an argument for or against, but a moment suspended in the seemingly endless question.

And from the question, so many questions arise:

  • Are we the only frugivorous animal who can design a knife?

  • Were we not supposed to do that?

  • Were we, instead of killing animals in winter when the trees were bare, meant to bundle up and go someplace warm? Every year? With our babies and forbidden tools in tow?

  • Did we learn to can and preserve vegetables before or after we learned to make sharp objects, and, if so, where we meant to store them while we were moving to a warmer climate?

  • Was no one meant to inhabit a seasonal place? Were we meant to confine ourselves to climates in which we could live outdoors?

  • If we were only supposed to live outdoors in human-friendly weather conditions, why isn’t there enough room to accommodate all of us in whatever swath of the latitudinal zones cuts precisely between the subtropic and the temperate? And why do we have a sex drive, a natural inclination to make more of us?

  • What about the innovation instinct?

  • The drive toward comfort and protection?

  • And regarding the paradigm of “naturalness”, does anyone ever fully sustain it, gather momentum with it?

  • Is it even natural to us to be “natural” or are we too inventive and experimental?

  • Are we too inventive and experimental for our own good?

  • If we weren’t inventive and experimental, would life be fun?

  • Is fun natural?

  • Was there a perfect manner in which to approach the resources of the earth; a set of ideal steps, once we trod upon it, that would have both preserved and protected “naturalness?”

  • Is it possible that humankind is an “unnatural” creature?

  • Or are we naturally savage, naturally scrappers, naturally survivalist, just getting by with what’s at our disposal, making a mess of it with all our extra skills, just doing the best we can?

Hard to know. In any event, it’s confusing. What to eat. What not to eat.

*Swami Sri Yukteswar, The Holy Science, ©2021, Must Have Books, Victoria, BC Canada