17. EXPERIMENTS IN DIETETICS :
THE STORY OF MY EXPERIMENTS WITH TRUTH
by Mohandas K. Gandhi
17. EXPERIMENTS IN DIETETICS :
As I searched myself deeper, the necessity for changes both internal and external began to
grow on me. As soon as, or even before, I made alterations in my expenses and my way of living,
I began to make changes in my diet. I saw that the writers on vegetarianism had examined the
question very minutely, attacking it in its religious, scientific, practical, and medial aspects.
Ethically they had arrived at the conclusion that man's supremacy over the lower animals meant
not that the former should prey upon the latter, but that the higher should protect the lower, and
that there should be mutual aid between the two, as between man and man. They had also
brought out the truth that man eats not for enjoyment but to live. And some of them accordingly
suggested, and effected in their lives, abstention not only from flesh-meat but from eggs and milk.
Scientifically some had concluded that man's physical structure showed that he was not meant to
be a cooking but a frugivorous animal, that he could take only his mother's milk and, as soon as
he had teeth, should begin to take solid foods. Medically they had suggested the rejection of all
spices and condiments. According to the practical and economic argument, they had
demonstrated that a vegetarian diet was the least expensive. All these considerations had their
effect on me, and I came across vegetarians of all these types in vegetarian restaurants. There
was a Vegetarian Society in England with a weekly journal of its own. I subscribed to the weekly,
joined the society, and very shortly found myself on the Executive Committee. Here I came in
contact with those who were regarded as pillars of vegetarianism, and began my own
experiments in dietetics.
I stopped taking the sweets and condiments I had got from home. The mind having taken a
different turn, the fondness for condiments wore away, and I now relished the boiled spinach
which in Richmond tasted insipid, cooked without condiments. Many such experiments taught me
that the real seat of taste was not the tongue but the mind.
The economic consideration was of course constantly before me. There was in those days a
body of opinion which regarded tea and coffee as harmful and favoured cocoa. And as I was
convinced that one should eat only articles that sustained the body, I gave up tea and coffee as a
rule, and substituted cocoa.
There were two divisions in the restaurants I used to visit. One division, which was patronized
by fairly well-to-do people, provided any number of courses from which one chose and paid for a
la carte, each dinner thus costing from one to two shillings. The other division produced six-penny
dinners of three courses with a slice of bread. In my days of strict frugality I usually dined in the
There were many minor experiments going on along with the main one; as for example, giving
up starchy foods at one time, living on bread and fruit alone at another, and once living on
cheese, milk, and eggs. This last experiment is worth noting. It lasted not even a fortnight. The
reformer who advocated starch less food had spoken highly of eggs, and held that eggs were not
meat. It was apparent that there was no injury done to living creatures in taking eggs. I was taken
in by this plea, and took eggs in spite of my vow. But the lapse was momentary. I had no
business to put a new interpretation on the vow. The interpretation of my mother who
administered the vow was there for me. I knew that her definition of meat included eggs. And as
soon as I saw the true import of the vow I gave up eggs and the experiment alike.
There is a nice [=subtle] point underlying the argument, and worth noting. I came across three
definitions of meat in England. According to the first, meat denoted only the flesh of birds and
beasts. Vegetarians who accepted that definition abjured the flesh of birds and beasts, but ate
fish, not to mention eggs. According to the second definition, meat meant flesh of all living
creatures. So fish was here out of the question, but eggs were allowed. The third definition
included under meat the flesh of living beings, as well as all their products, thus covering eggs
and milk alike. If I accepted the first definition, I could take not only eggs, but fish also. But I was
convinced that my mother's definition was the definition binding on me. If, therefore, I would
observe the vow I had taken, I must abjure eggs. I therefore did so. This was a hardship,
inasmuch as inquiry showed that even in vegetarian restaurants many courses used to contain
eggs. This meant that unless I knew what was what, I had to go through the awkward process of
ascertaining whether a particular course contained eggs or no, for many puddings and cakes
were not free from them. But though the revelation of my duty caused this difficulty, it simplified
my food. The simplification in its turn brought me annoyance, in that I had to give up several
dishes I had come to relish. These difficulties were only passing, for the strict observance of the
vow produced an inward relish distinctly more healthy, delicate, and permanent.
The real ordeal, however, was still to come, and that was in respect of the other vow. But who
dare harm whom God protects?
A few observations about the interpretation of vows or pledges may not be out of place here.
Interpretation of pledges has been a fruitful source of strife all the world over. No matter how
explicit the pledge, people will turn and twist the text to suit their own purposes. They are to be
met with among all classes of society, from the rich down to the poor, from the prince down to the
peasant. Selfishness turns them blind, and by a use of the ambiguous middle they deceive
themselves and seek to deceive the world and God. One golden rule is to accept the
interpretation honestly put on the pledge by the party administering it. Another is to accept the
interpretation of the weaker party, where there are two interpretations possible. Rejection of these
two rules gives rise to strife and iniquity, which are rooted in untruthfulness. He who seeks truth
alone easily follows the golden rule. He need not seek learned advice for interpretation. My
mother's interpretation of meat was, according to the golden rule, the only true one for me, and
not the one my wider experience or my pride of better knowledge might have taught me.
My experiments in England were conducted from the point of view of economy and hygiene.
The religious aspect of the question was not considered until I went to South Africa, where I
undertook strenuous experiments which will be narrated later. The seed, however, for all of them
was sown in England.
A convert's enthusiasm for his new religion is greater than that of a person who is born in it.
Vegetarianism was then a new cult in England, and likewise for me, because, as we have seen, I
had gone there a convinced meat-eater, and was intellectually converted to vegetarianism later.
Full of the neophyte's zeal for vegetarianism, I decided to start a vegetarian club in my locality,
Bayswater. I invited Sir Edwin Arnold, who lived there, to be Vice-President. Dr. Oldfield, who was
Editor of The Vegetarian, became President. I myself became the Secretary. The club went well
for a while, but came to an end in the course of a few months. For I left the locality, according to
my custom of moving from place to place periodically. But this brief and modest experience gave
me some little training in organizing and conducting institutions.
Next : 18. SHYNESS MY SHIELD -