As an outsider to Jainism, I find the evolving discourse on veganism within the tradition particularly intriguing. Over the years, I have observed how Jains articulate and respond to arguments regarding veganism and dairy consumption. In this reflection, I treat the “vegan question” and the “dairy question” as essentially one and the same, as dairy remains the central point of contention. Notably, these discussions tend to unfold within two key epistemic arenas: scripture and nutritional science.

 

Scripture and Science
One might expect a straightforward clash between, on the one hand, traditionalist Jains who support dairy based on the infallible authority of scripture and, on the other hand, modernist Jains who reject dairy based on secular scientific and philosophical reasoning. However, the landscape of “Jain modernism” is more complex. In this debate, both sides engage in what can be described as the scientization of scripture and the scripturization of science. The scientization of scripture refers to the reinterpretation of premodern Jain teachings as inherently “scientific,” aligning ancient doctrines with contemporary empirical knowledge in a forward-looking, adaptive process. Conversely, the scripturization of science involves validating scientific discoveries by demonstrating their congruence—however loosely—with Jain scriptural claims, representing a backward-looking, revisionist approach. A superficial example of this dual process is the modern rendering of nigoda (one-sensed microflora asserted by Jain cosmology) as “microbes” or “bacteria.” This reinterpretation not only updates scriptural understanding but also reinforces the legitimacy of scientific concepts through Jain textual tradition.

 

In the context of veganism, dairy proponents argue that Jain scriptures endorse dairy for both ritual and nutritional purposes. In addition, milk products are conspicuously absent from the Jain abhaḳsyas (forbidden foods). They also invoke science, emphasizing the nutritional benefits of dairy and its role in maintaining good health—another facet of “being Jain.” Conversely, opponents have less success (but still some) leaning on scriptural guidelines and traditional precedent. They tend to invoke scripture more generally, appealing to the foundational Jain principle of ahiṃsā. Scientifically, they highlight the negative health effects of dairy and widespread lactose intolerance (“lactose normalcy”). Dairy opponents may also cite the “science” detailing the environmental costs of dairy compared to plant-based milks and the global proliferation of affordable and accessible alternatives.

 

I identify these two discursive appeals—scripture and nutritional science—to make a controversial claim: neither make a convincing argument for or against veganism.

 

The Limitations of Scripture and Nutritional Science
Scripture can, and oftentimes is, used to make arguments for both sides of an issue. The case for or against a vegan Jainism is no exception, as its canonical texts lack any decisive stance. Additionally, strict adherence to textual literalism is at odds with a dynamic, engaged Jainism that values scientific, philosophical, and historical integrity. Furthermore, research suggests that younger generations—both Jain and non-Jain—are increasingly unmoved by religious dogmatism.

 

However, nutritional science alone will not sufficiently rebut pro-dairy perspectives. In my view, nutrition-based arguments against dairy represent the weakest case for a vegan Jainism (though I do not deny their practical efficacy). While dairy may have adverse health effects for some individuals, it is entirely possible to live a physically healthy life without excluding the consumption of all animal products. In certain contexts, consuming animal-derived foods may even be preferable for nutritional, economic, or practical reasons. Any argument—Jain or non-Jain—for the viability or even superiority of a vegan diet is not equivalent to an argument against the healthfulness of a nonvegan diet.

 

Roots and Reformulation 
Historically, Jain vegetarianism has not relied on scriptural mandates or claims of nutritional superiority for its stance against meat consumption. Rather, arguments for vegetarianism are commonly rooted in the ethical principle of ahiṃsā—the avoidance of harm. The philosophical and practical links between ahiṃsā and vegetarianism are so deeply embedded in Jainism that discussing one almost inevitably invokes the other. Hence, from my perspective, what makes veganism relevant to contemporary Jainism is not new hermeneutical or scientific revelations, but rather a novel ethical development: Contemporary vegan Jainism presents a more expansive and sophisticated understanding of harm and hiṃsā, particularly in its analysis of dairy.

 

The dominant vegan Jain argument is not that using animals for dairy used to be nonharmful and used to be nonlethal, and it is modernity and industrialization that have since led us astray. Rather, contemporary vegan Jainism asserts that dairy extraction is inherently harmful to domesticated mammals, even in premodern contexts, regardless of how it is procured. And while extracting and consuming dairy may be necessary for human survival in extraordinary circumstances, the argument from necessity only mitigates the moral culpability of the act of inflicting harm on animals for food—it does not erase the harm itself. In the absence of necessity, in dairy there is both harm and, technically speaking, hiṃsā.

 

A Scriptural Counterargument
An overarching objection from traditional Jainism might be: “If dairy production and consumption violates ahiṃsā, then why didn’t Mahāvīra explicitly prohibit milk, ghee, and curds?” Or more pointedly: “How can we, flawed and fallible as we are, claim to know better than an omniscient Tīrthaṅkara?”

 

This question returns us to the fundamental issue of textual literalism and its role in contemporary Jainism. Is ahiṃsā a living ethical principle that evolves in response to contemporary realities, such as an awakening to the inherent harmfulness of dairy production and the massive environmental impacts of industrial animal farming? Or is it confined to the literal injunctions recorded over two thousand years ago? If one accepts the former—and this remains an open question—then the ethical imperative for transitioning from vegetarianism to veganism becomes not only legitimate but compelling.