passenger1980

I also share the same doubts. I think it's a matter of faith (in my case in the Buddha and Dharma). I believe in karma, rebirth and the light at the end of the tunnel too. We all want to be happy and safe forever, we just don't know how or if it's possible.

However i will be honest, if tomorrow i would have the certainty that there would be absolutely no consequences of my acts, then my life (and the life of this world) will be very different. A lot of people think they are atheists but they aren't, they don't have that certainty (nobody has it luckily) and that's why they still value ethics and morals. I won't go out and kill everyone just because i could, but my mindset will definitely change for the worse.

If there were no karma or "divine justice" of some sort, then a lot of rules in this world will change, life will be finite, you will be a tickling bomb and world/long term issues won't matter, only instant gratification before dying, and the extreme avoidance of suffering/pain at all costs.

If you think about it, we are living in a society that's very similar to the previously mentioned...

Yes but that's what Karma actually is. Karma is not a force or law outside of ourselves. If we suffer consequences, then we must have created the causes for them. The teaching of karma goes hand in hand with anatta/no self, so we shouldn't confuse that as having a soul which migrates from body to body. Only karma remains after each lifetime. Just my two cents.

I've read somewhere that the Buddha taught different lessons/examples depending on the person spiritual and intellectual level. For common folks, karma is usually understood (at least as much as you can understand it) as being some sort of self punishment law, which it ressemble in some cases i guess.

But to great kings, monks and wealthy people with high intelectual Buddha explained it much more subtlely and had it clear that the law of karma couldn't be understood perfectly by the human mind. One thing is for sure i think, and that is that unwholesome intentions & deeds eventually leads to unwholesome results, and wholesome acts reaps good benefits. But sometimes a good act from a person, could accelerate some past bad karma, which can be seen like a contradiction, but it's actually a purifying process.

Of course, if you explain this to a mother who just lost her son and she's in great suffering because of this, it won't make sense to her and ceirtainly won't help her suffering. So we can all understand some basic principles of karma, but not all or even a big part of it. Kinda like we can't really envision god or the infinite, you would go crazy...

If that makes you feel better, then this is what is must be...no?

That poignant facts and scathing personal commentary can only come from someone in misery and with anger.

It must be a two-story high zafu.

 

(By the way...when I say "you"...it may not be so much an addressing of a personal "you".)

 

 

 

Yes, once acquiring food is equated with killing humans, Nazis, gas chambers and the jews, this is my cue to yield the floor to greater minds and insights than my own. I leave my "mess" for others to inspect and consider, reject or file away in "unresolved or-to-be-considered".

 

I thank you all for this golden opportunity. And I will consider the opinions of those who contributed toward the benefits of a vegetarian choice without bringing the holocaust into the fray. It is a useful example to see just how diverse opinion and practice is concerning something so basic as what to eat and sustain oneself...and that for me was worthy of my participation in this exchange.

I still haven't heard why i can't eat humans, what's the difference with animals, and why they can't be "processed" or acquired like you said. Especially human babies or mentally challenged people. My body can certainly process their meat, so it must be natural.

Look, we can discuss these concepts for years and not find an answer or even understand each other. There are so many problems in this world that even if we could find a way to regulate and fix them temporarily, another ones will appear, so it's ridiculous to fight over these, but you elevated the tone of this discussion and started a rant that i don't think i deserve.

But please be aware, that i didn't invent vegetarianism from my little meditation room with ikea furniture as you would have imagined. People have lived like this from many years ago, and others with a lot less meat than our current society (mediterranean diet is based on mostly vegetables and fish). And if you don't take my word, please take the word of many wise men that spoke about the benefits of this diet choice better than myself.

Considering the atrocities of the Nazis I'm sure they were and then probably fed to other Jews.

 

When the colonists started importing slaves from Africa and elsewhere there was this idea that these "creatures" were savages and deserved no better. You strike me as having that same opinion of plant life. You summarily decide to draw a line in the sand and say this being(cows, buffalo, chickens) are more important and more advanced than this being(broccoli, lettuce, carrots). I believe them to all have a life-force that is valuable. Everything I eat is sacred!

 

I don't disagree with you on the similarities between humans and the animals we eat. Just because plants are less similar structurally to humans does not make them any less sentient or valuable, no matter what the Buddha said!

No you are mistaken, i didn't say that, if you understood that then i perhaps didn't make it clear enough. I eat plants because that's the least i can do, i can't really survive without plants we can all agree, and i'm doing just fine without meat. Eating plants is like a curse, i just have to, if i could live without eating them it would be awesome. So while the majority of people eat animals AND plants, i just choose to not eat animals as i don't understand the need. We can get into the discussion about how much resources an animal needs, how many PLANTS they eat so we can eat it after that, etc.

And if you want, i do make my distinction based on my experience as i said, plants don't have defense mechanisms, if they are not eaten, they just go back into the earth, there are plenty of details one should be mindful of. I'm not saying it's morally superior, it's something that seems to me more adecuate and i'm confortable doing so. I don't hear any screaming, fear in their eyes, struggle, etc. That's very important in how it imprints in our mind, and that's the difference between humans and animals too. It's not the same killing a human than killing an animal or killing a plant. That doesn't mean the human is more important than the plant though...

Again, please separate the facts, i'm not morally superior because i do morally superior acts, or viceversa. Just like a prisioner in death row is not morally inferior to me. He/she certainly could be capable of more compassion and wise ideas than myself. Meditation, vegetarianism, simple life, spiritual paths won't guarantee you a wiser life, but they will certainly help.

If you want to discuss that the act of murder is "good" or has the same moral value than not killing, then this debate is over.

Explain to me the difference between animals and humans (tip : they are animals too) without resorting to a moral tale? Nature says things to you? it's natural to do that so we must do it? I should eat meat because i can?

At least jews were not dismemembered and cut into pieces.

Then you cannot conceive of man's real relationship with nature. I have actually removed myself from suburbia for mental and physical health reasons and immersed myself into an agricultural and livestock lifestyle to experience some of that reality. I have put thought and actual real life effort into what it would be like, for real, if corporations and industry were not supplying all my needs through the grocery stores. This was very important to me coming from a city environment and having lived in one all my life.

 

I have my own livestock, I have my own garden and fruit trees, I have my own water supply...and I can tell you right now, without a doubt...that without animal foods in this northern climate while living more in relationship with nature...there is no way a vegetarian could possibly survive...and certainly no way your children would be born and raised with exceptional health. Not if you really had to go at it...ALL natural. Leather and animal skin use for clothing would also make itself known immediately to you if you did not have the department store or mall to supply you something with a little synthetic added to it made in India or Bangladesh by slave-wage workers.

 

In order for a vegetarian to survive in the modern sense, they must rely on an industrialized system of food growing, harvesting, packing and shipping to get all their needs...the process itself is a hundred times more unnatural to make it happen for the modern day suburbanite yuppie vegetarian...many of whom have never even grown one green thing for their whole consumptive lives. And it is this actual disconnect that has allowed a parasite like Monsanto to creep into this disconnected system and inject into it its GMO death seeds. Because had your food come from your backyard all this time, rather than Whole Foods Market Corp., then Monsanto couldn't have crept into your garden.

 

If I were to remove gasoline and electricity from my experience back to nature, then the harsher demands of that lifestyle would even be more severe with no compromises allowable as to what you really have to do to survive. There is actually a family close to me that does not use electricity and gas in their farming and lifestyle as much as possible. No television, no computer. They excel in the arts as this is what takes up their idle time...painting, drawing, music etc. They too would admit that their is nothing inhumane about taking the life of one of their cherished livestock and putting food on the table. It is considered a sacred thing...so why soil it by demonizing it with an opinion from someone who just doesn't know...who truly is...ignorant?

 

And it is this disconnect coupled with the superiority claims that piggy-backed the propaganda claims you, at some time, mentally digested and now regurgitate that vegetarianism was a superior choice over consuming animal foods that leaves you lost in your...ethics. Nature does not share your subjectivity toward your ethics...it makes actual demands and the more you live in harmony with it...the less friendlier and more hard it can become. Suck it up or die nature demands of you when you expose yourself bare to its harsh realities, rather than sit high upon your zafu making unrealistic judgments while downing bean curd. Get out of your air-conditioned comfort zone and feel the harshness of aloneness in nature...feel its bitter chill and its uncompromising demands...new definitions and the way you frame reality will meet you head on...and it is here that you will find my recipe for meat cake more than ethical.

 

And when someone throws in Nazi Germany...well...all hope is lost on that one. They would only know this if they were removed from the comfort of the zafu and the History Channel.

Ok, you must a miserable man i think if you assume all that about myself, i read a lot of anger in your words, you don't know nothing about me and i tried to expose my opinions respectfully. The fact is that while i was not raised in the countryside, i have family living in those conditions, and they are the most simple people, honest, good in all fronts, amazingly kind. They respect the lives of animals, and as you said it is sacred to them. I couldn't say a word to them or judge them, they are certainly not bad persons or have deviant intentions for doing that. I understand how compromises sometimes must be made. If i have to eat meat to survive, then maybe i would do it, i'm not overly concerned about this, it's not the ultimate sin by any means.

Now, the world we live is another thing, i certainly don't need meat to maintain myself, i don't work with my body, etc. Why should i eat meat? If the human race wanted, we could definitely rewire our whole structure towards a vegetarian life, i don't understand why is that not possible. I agree with you that with the current structures many things do more harm than good, but not all things "artificial" are harmful. Of course like i said with our current society and systems, where we don't even have free energy or free access to water, a thing we all should have the right to, just as the air we breathe, is hard to keep your ideals.

Right, the same can be said about racial segregation...or any other (barbaric or not) ideas.

Mercy and compassion are virtues in my book, maybe they are not "natural" or maybe they didn't influence the evolution of man as much as you think.

Also again, i didn't point any fingers, nor i am morally superior to anyone because i don't eat meat, we all have our own opinions. Living a simple life is also "morally superior" and should be even more important than vegetarianism for that matter, but if you don't make any distinctions, you clearly have a nihilistic view of the world, and there's no point in debating much about anything then.

We still miss the point...if one adopts a holier than thou mentality, that's another problem, just like many people think they are better persons than criminals. But that doesn't change the fact that taking a human life is still "wrong" and it does not have good moral value. These debates always end up with the same scapegoats arguments that have nothing to do with the main point itself.

Saying that "what you eat has nothing to do with ethics, morality or being elevated" is like saying meditation has nothing to do with ethics, morality or being elevated. However, we can agree that all these acts if practised devoid of good intention and true contemplation/compassion are useless.

No problem! I still don't understand why you are accussing me of not accepting the "taking of lives of plants". I eat plants because we can all agree we can't survive without them not because i find them less than animals. The discussion of vegetarianism is about animals not plants, it's why i don't eat animals not why i eat plants, we all eat plants. A frutarian diet is certainly dangerous for your health, Gandhi tried that for a while but couldn't cope i've read somewhere.

If you've read my posts then you will know that i have compassion for both animals and plants, i consider them to have the same value as all living beings in this earth. Also, i didn't say meat eaters are more primitive in any of my posts. Cynical is to say why you eat plants, they have feelings too and that is what many meat eaters try to do, it's a cheap shot at most. It's certainly stupid if you ask me, they assume i don't care about plants, completely nonsense. I made a separation between plants and animals, just as you make a separation between animals and humans. I can give you points about my decision, can you do the same? You surely don't eat humans...

I'm actually a very laid back vegetarian, i don't believe in activism, i don't really care what other people eat, and i can't certainly demand we should abolish the killing of animals, it should be an individual decision or a majority decision, we live in democracy. I try to not judge people, i was a meat eater for many years and i'm certainly no more enlightened or morally superior from being a vegetarian, just as i'm not better than a butcher, a thief or a murderer as a person. The problem comes when in a thread like this, in a spiritual oriented forum, people who actually understand all the logic and morality that these acts involves still miss the point and try to justify something that can't

There's not a single valid or strong point against vegetarianism. They all revolve around the need for justification of a complete innecessary practice. Meat sure taste good! i can agree with that. Many who are concerned about how is not healthy to be a vegan or vegetarian, have no concerns in buying a Big Mac or eating tons of sugar a week...

As far as butchering meat...

 

I, out of curiosity, took an extra part time job for six months a couple years back at the local slaughtery.

 

It was during the fall season where a lot of sheep are being slaughtered. They processed about 4000 sheep a day and about 250 cows a day. These are small numbers for a company that supplies the local rural areas. I was able to work just about every position on the line, except the one where they electrically shock to kill the cow on the head and where they herd a bunch of sheep into a room and slowly deprive them of oxygen while increasing the CO2. The sheep fall asleep and die. I really wanted to witness the kill part of the operation, but was told that it was off limits because it takes a "special" kind of person to do that work and it is not on display to the public or anyone that doesn't need to see it.

 

Knowing that animal products are food and that we all are indebted to this practice for our existence I have no problem with the process.

 

It's what's for dinner.

This is what i'm talking about, people who can't see anything wrong with that picture amazes me. Now i don't have many problems with organic farming, i concede it's a much better way to do this, i may be a vegetarian but i'm not a cynic. However the person who approves this factory that kills 4000 sheeps a day, with gas chambers and proceed to cut them into pieces and think it's perfectly normal and natural (like if this was nazi germany) can't be serious. And the "that's what is for dinner" justification is laughable at best, i'm sorry if i offend you. That's not in my dinner plate.

Again, what if these were human beings? People compare animals to plants, with this pathetic argument that plants feel also (as if that changes anything for me) but to be honest the most fair comparison would be animals to humans (humans are animals actually remember?). What's the big difference between nazi germany and these modern day factory line killing machines?

Maybe we are not allowed to see that part of the killing process, because it proves my theory like i stated before. Most people can't and don't want to handle that and are suppressing their own compassion for the sake of their appetite. That's all there is to it. Like i said, i don't think they have any problem showing the harvesting of apples or potatoes...and i have no problem doing that or letting others do that either.

Also, very interesting about the Inuit. Not sure if you could still be as healthy (would like to see how long they live, etc) but you certainly can survive on meat alone, i was wrong indeed.

Either way, it doesn't surprise me, i am a vegetarian, but i think humans are omnivores, there's no denying in that, the human body is prepared to adapt and that's how we can survive in almost any region. Now, we do have a choice to eat much less meat, or none at all like me (and from your point, the same can be said about plants).

However if you put evolution into perspective, the human race could change in the future if we evolve into a vegetarian species (granted, i don't see how that will happen in the next years haha).

Again, let me point out that you are factually incorrect about a 100% carnivorous diet. Want an example? Check out the Inuit...

 

Other than that, I pretty much agree with all you are saying except that you are projecting and rationalizing without seeming to be aware of it. You project your emotions regarding compassion onto the butcher, you project your emotions regarding apple trees onto everyone else and you project your opinion about the comparative damage your choice of diet inflicts on an uncaring universe onto a framework of morality and equating that with spirituality. You rationalize the diet that makes you feel good about yourself by saying that it is an indisputable moral high ground but when challenged as to the criteria for that determination, you retreat to a position of, basically, "I don't like to think about it too much."

 

This thread started with you referencing a blog entry on how the Lord Krishna describes food as falling into one of three categories -- sattvic, sajasic or tamasic -- and the blog then says "as you can see" & states, basically that only a vegetarian diet is sattvic without any justification. How is meat incapable of being juicy, oily, stable and pleasing to the hear, for instance? Or why would it be reasonable to say that a vegetarian (but not vegan) diet would automatically be inured from the qualities of bitterness, pungency or "leftoverness"? (I think I made up that word! ) The blog posting itself is superficial and self-congratulatory and, despite the assurance at the end that this information comes straight from Lord Siva, offers no meat (if you'll pardon the pun...) You asked "how'd y'all feel about this topic?" and, for 70-something posts, vegetarians have said "oh, yes! that's all very true" while non-vegetarians have said "not so sure I buy it".

 

When we get to the end (assuming we are near the end here?), it turns out that your own position is that you are vegetarian (but not vegan) because you like the idea and it is consistent with your emotions and personal experiences. Man, that's great! I'm fine with it! I'm fine with you, too! In fact, I would say that it is better than great because it is truly important to live in harmony with yourself. Just don't try to slap a "spirituality" label on it and expect it to stick.

Hmm, not really sure what you meant about that blog entry, perhaps you are confusing me with someone else, i didn't start this thread nor i posted any link, in fact i just posted my first reply to this some hours ago.

Anyway, i can't deny what you said, the butcher certainly can feel different from what i described and it is an assumption from my part as many others. But to me (vegetarianism) it's still a very important part of the spiritual life. Perfection of morality is a center piece in all spiritual paths, even if we can agree that good and evil is a construction of the mind after all.

And you are right, to me being a vegetarian is a superior moral decision. It's not that i'm more holy than you are. The act is what is important, and if it's a compassionate act with a compasionate intention behind, that's it. Now, being a vegetarian won't make you holy or more wise, or anything like that, it's just a medium, a cause, to create certain conditions in your existence. It's also important as you said, to be clear of guilt, if ones truly hates the killing of animals, then certainly can't endorse that and keep eating meat like there's no tomorrow, there would be a clear conflict there.

What i assume (as you said) is that most people blocks compassion because of their appetite. I certainly believe that, even if you think otherwise. It's an assumption of course, and i'm very sure there are people in this world that are perfectly happy with that decision too.

I totally agree with you, passenger1980! I see some gotchas, though...

 

First, a minor technical correction -- it is certainly possible to live on an all-animal diet.

 

First is the damages argument. Are you saying that the criterion for food selection should be based on total biomass destroyed or by volume or by count of individual entities or cumulative energy consumed or what? This is a significant detail, I think, in establishing the framework because that same framework must then be applied to selection of which vegetation is deemed morally edible, too. Is a sunfish more moral to eat than a tuna because it converts energy into biomass more efficiently? Is a cashew less moral to consume than a bamboo shoot? Is grass more moral than an apple? What if you have to eat for 16 hours a day to get the content you need because you are eating low-energy stuff like grass?

 

Or is the criterion complexity? If so, is a slug more or less complex than a watermelon?

 

Or perhaps the criterion is intelligence or sentience? If so, we need to objectively determine the intelligence or sentience of each species (plant, animal, virus, fungus, whatever) and establish a morality scale so that people can judge their impact. Or we could just remove animals and animal products and simplify things -- except that introduces complications, too.

 

For instance, what if I start a "farm" in which I raise only brain-dead pigs, perhaps by introducing a hormone at conception that prevents brain development beyond the stem. Are those animals off-limit? What about the studies that suggest plants may sense injury, may communicate and may feel empathy (or something akin to that)? Are some plants more aware than others? If I pick a mushroom, does the entire subterranean organism suffer?

 

What about collateral damages? If I choose to cultivate some plants (or animals) at the expense of others, what is the moral calculus for that decision? If I turn a field into a vegetable patch, have I not selected a "winner" species to the detriment of others? I mean, field mice and frogs and crickets used to live in that field but I have taken it upon myself to replace them with eggplants? I thought I valued the animals more highly than the eggplant? Or is it that I value the human more than the animal? In either case, for the sake of the field mice, frogs and crickets, I need to plant that field with the crop that most densely concentrates biopotential (energy) for my consumption with the least impact on the the existing ecology, right? Well, that's the opposite of the cumulative energy consumed approach above but that's OK (the planet's energy cycle is not a sealed unit but rather comes from the sun's nuclear-powered radiation). What if, however, it turns out that a herd of cattle, eating grasses that I cannot directly consume but having little impact on the field mice, frogs and crickets, does less damage to that field's ecosystem than my planned crop of eggplants? Is it then more moral for me to eat cows or eggplants? Or should I intentionally select one species of plant at the potential extinction of several species of plants and animals?

 

We're just scratching the surface here, too. Not only is the foodstuff issue more complicated than this, but it extends far beyond just what we eat. For instance, most of the US paper-goods industry is supplied by sustainably managed pine forests (much of it here in the South) that provide extensive habitats for wildlife as well has reprocessing massive amounts of carbon dioxide into oxygen (at providing lots of jobs). The conservationist effort to "save a tree" is purely noble on face value but it becomes muddled when you realize this means replacing forests with housing developments and Wal-Marts.

 

The same sorts of complications arise when virtually any "feel-good" issue you wish to mention and, ultimately, it usually does truly boil down to what makes the individual feel good about themselves. When a significantly large percentage of the local population reaches the same decision, we say that "we" believe X or Y but that may not be universal. For instance, in the US, eating cats or dogs is generally abhorrent but that is not necessarily the case among other "local populations" and would be subject to change within our own population if the situation changed sufficiently.

 

Don't misunderstand me -- I'm not saying cavalierly destroy living things for your own pleasure or even for your own sustenance without a thought for the impact of your actions or for the origin of your materials. I certainly don't (although I think most of the world does, human or otherwise). I'm just saying the devil is in the details...

Well i think you are reading too much into that. Information is always good, we always need good information before making decisions. The problem is that we should not rely only on the intellect. All those questions have answers already from emotions and experience itself and not from science and the intellect.

A butcher certainly is supressing its compassion when killing, just as i would do, that's not good. He has to do its job and it's an ugly one. There is fear in the animal, blood, violence, death. The butcher himself experience emotions that disturb the mind. All these are not present when you pick an apple from a tree, at least if you do it carefully. So it's about the experience itself, that's where the answer lies. My example of the human baby or the pig, is not about who is more important or more valuable. To the universe, they are basically the same, the problem is that our mind reacts different to the killing of each of them. That's where morality comes into play.

I think we all agree that plants and vegetable life are live beings and should be respected, and they are as important as animals, we all have a place in this planet and we couldn't survive without them. So, if tomorrow science would say that plants do actually feel (i doubt they would feel the same way as animals though) i would still be a vegetarian, because it doesn't change anything. My compassion is not less for plants because i don't eat animals, i can't live without plants, if i could i would.

Also if you check the health food pyramid, meat products are a small % in our optimal diet, so being a 100% carnivore may not kill you but it won't be healthy at all in my opinion, as opposed to a vegetarian diet.

All your points are certainly valid ones, thinking about all things we consume and use is great, but you'll always lose that battle, you will always do some harm. I am aware that plenty of the vegetables i consume involves the killing of million of insects for example. But the bottomline should be that living a simple life, without much wasting and crazy consumption will benefit us all. Rocks, trees, plants, animals and humans!

I've read a lot of non-sense in this thread.

First, Hitler was not a vegetarian, it's a myth, and if he was, good for him. The truth is that he just loved animals, that's it. Second, vegetarians don't hate plants, most of us actually love "nature". You can't be just carnivore and don't eat plants, but vegetarians try to do the least damage possibly while being alive. Do you people take into account how much plants your animal needs to eat before being butchered?. Also a pig is more intelligent than a dog actually, not that if matters anyway though, but i certainly can't see a major difference in slaughter a pig and a human baby if you ask me. Is it better to slaughter a pig because it is from another species?...i relate more to the human baby of course, but like many of you said, that is a construction of the mind right?

To summarize, vegetarianism should be about compassion and nothing else, for both plants and animals if you want, but you clearly not need meat to survive or thrive (look at how many noble persons and athletes were/are vegetarians). Your will is stronger than all your mind tricks, if you truly want to become a vegetarian, you can. Meat does taste good, and i understand how meat eaters can't let go of that. But there wouldn't be any arguments here if meat wasn't as tasteful as it is. That's the bottomline.

Morality plays a huge part in the spiritual life and path.

When we refer to the "doer" of actions or "thinker" of ideas, we must not forget that it's just a word or name for it to make a conversation easier but does not represent a permanent entity. For example, we have a name for a river to make it simpler. But the river is actually an accumulation of water (another name for something else...)

This could be easily misunderstood. One should not pursue a life of renunciation for the sake of it. What this implies is the freedom that comes from letting go. As we learn to let go, we finally begin to experience life and reality without any anxiety or extreme suffering.

Agreed on many points, but i think the key here is the intention behind. I'm very inclined to pacifism and violence to me should be the last resort in all cases. However, when there's no other way, one should have a very clear mind and not resort to hate, rage, or going "ape shit" like someone mentioned. That is the real violence to me.

Also, there are plenty of ways to disable an enemy and not actually kill him, it's ridiculous nowadays that we have to kill someone to prevent something, our weapons should all be non-lethal, at least the ones used legally.

It sounds to me that deep down what we really want is the enemy dead and buried.

I need to find that specific quote from the Dalai Lama, but i most definitely sure he meant the following of customs, rituals, and others as problematic and a waste of time for the practitioner.

Anyway my intention was not to insult you with my opinions but i think i failed, hehe. English is not my primary language so sometimes things get lost in traslation. As for considering myself a Buddhist and not being compatible with what i said, i don't particulary agree with that. You see i'm a big fan of greek philosophy and i don't wear exotic robes or sandals. I consider Buddha the most important master of our times, his teachings are amazing, i have faith in all of them, but i understand that the historical and cultural context is very different from mine. This and the fact that i don't believe in organized religion pretty much sums it up.

Of course i completely agree this whole debate is off-topic, it just something i always found funny, western people reciting/praying in a obscure foreign language (this doesn't happen in Catholicism for example) and so on.

I don't want to sound harsh, but to me adopting rituals and practices from a completely different culture or religion like taoism or buddhism is kinda ridiculous. I understand this is a taoist forum, but it's very open minded. The Dalai Lama said something to that extent too. Now, i consider myself a Buddhist above all, but i could never feel confortable with such cultural barrier, repeating mantras in another language, praying in another language, burning incience, adopting a perfect meditation posture and many other things (buddhist or not).

I do understand that QiGong and TaiChi involves physical work that needs to be followed in a certain way, i'm just opening another debate i guess.

I agree with Old Man Contradiction. Addiction and attachment comes from the person not the object. There are infinite things that cause attachment during the course of a day in this modern society. Lust is even a burning desire that we feel naturally in our bodies.

Anyway, to add something to the discussion, i could agree that drugs don't make you wiser instantly or improve your spirituality, but they do open the door for many people that are too close minded, mundane and ordinary and can't seem to grasp any sense of a different reality or experience. Many people believe in god and call themselves religious but they certainly don't know what spirituality is.

Also, certain drugs like some of you mentioned are clearly more benefitial for mankind than alcohol, nicotine, prescriptions, etc.

I have the same problem, can't activate the account. I did received the first email saying that an administrator will activate it soon. Weird.

I think one should go on a retreat (temporary or permanently) without the feeling of evading society and worldly desires. Solitary retreats are not only for buddhists or taoists, but were done in all religions, and even by philophers and seekers of truth. We should be very honest regarding this and not delude ourselves.

Ultimately, the quest is for truth and a deeper insight of reality. That's basically it.

I agree one should not be feel forced to leave civilization if his/her desires are to have family, friends, enjoy art, enteirtainment, sports, etc. All these are wonderful things that bring joy to many of us, but any spiritual seeker knows that they are not a goal in themselves, they are impermanent and won't bring us true happiness or even peace for that matter. For some, these things don't bring the same exciment as for others though, they may have been in contact with a deeper reality and state of mind. For others the thought of being "alone" or without distractions in life terrifies them to death.

Ideally, the world could live perfectly fine with all these facets in balance, but not all of us have the same level of insight or wisdom. Sadly the time dedicated to mundane things is huge compared to the spiritual related.