________________
Cow is an absolute vegetarian animal. If a pot of milk is placed before it, it will consume the milk. But if a pot of blood is placed before it, the cow will not even put its mouth to this pot. Thus cow itself proves the difference between milk and blood-flesh. If milk was made of animal flesh, why would the nonvegetarians need milk for their nutrition and health? Why can't they do with blood and flesh alone? Because there are no similar qualities in milk and flesh, the non-vegetarians have to consume milk for nutrition. On the other hand, the vegetarians who consume milk do not need flesh for their nutrition. Those who consume milk but not non-vegetarian food do not become malnourished. However, if nonvegetarians do not consume milk, they may become victims of diseases emanating from malnutrition. The protein in animal flesh does not prevent sickness in nonvegetarians. On the contrary, they fall prey to various diseases which can be attributed to non-vegetarianism. This also clearly distinguishes milk and flesh. It is common amongst the human specie that the new born sustains only on mother's milk after its birth for quite a few months. The infant gets all necessary nutrition from mother's milk. Nobody describes this situation as the 'infant surviving on the blood/flesh of its mother'. Jainacharya Shri Haribhadra Suri Maharaj Saheb has written a granth titled “Ashtak Prakaran". It is a compilation of eight stanzas on each selected subject. In the 17th chapter of this granth, the author has discussed the vice of non-vegetarianism. The concept floated by the vegans – ‘animal blood and flesh and animal's milk are both same as they are animal source, then how milk can be
Lighthouse
(97
