Astral_Anima

Thoughts on vegetarianism?

Recommended Posts

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.

 

But you just equated a meat processing plant/slaughterhouse with Nazi gas chambers/concentration camps. That smacks a little of moral superiority to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok, you must a miserable man i think if you assume all that about myself, i read a lot of anger in your words

 

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".)

 

But you just equated a meat processing plant/slaughterhouse with Nazi gas chambers/concentration camps. That smacks a little of moral superiority to me.

 

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.

Edited by metal dog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

read a book called the vegetarian myth, if you want to understand why, a vegetarian world, is not possible or healthy for the world. please don't comment back on how it is wrong unless you read it first. But the idea that vegan planet is better is false, BIG time. Yes over fishing is bad, But there is more to the story and largley underrepresented side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

these are people who shake all the time as a part of their regular practice of kriya yoga. they honor the natural movements and manifestations that arise as a result of their awakened energy, and they allow madness to do its thing as well. what you are talking about is not the point they're addressing. even in Kunlun LOTS of people are encouraged to eat meat (as well as junk food, although i don't know what that's about) in order to lower the intensity because the energy can leave them so spun that they might find themselves somewhat unable to function. the shaking that happens during the practice is NOT the kind of shaking these people are talking about. they are talking about the trembling, like if you had drank 10 cups of coffee on an empty stomach. if you found that you could not sleep for 5 straight days, my guess is that you wouldn't just shrug off your misery and hallucinations as either cleansing OR a simple matter to running the correct channels.

 

and just like like with their use of the word "shaking," you're misinterpreting their use of the word "down" with regard to the energy. they're talking about the lessening of the intensity, NOT the ren mai channel down the front of the body. and it might help to know that guru-g is an authentic satguru. she has brought 7 of her students to realization so far, which is a pretty damn good track record if you ask me. but i offer that just to say that she's no chump. she's not an academic or an intellectual, but she's a real master, of the crazy wisdom variety. she knows the vedic texts, she knows the lived experience, and her journey was far from an easy one. and i'm not saying to just take everything she and her students say as gospel, but i AM saying that you should maybe give them a little more credit.

 

 

Hundun- I'm not completely denying that these people are indeed genuine, i'm not denying that meat made the energy "Less intense". However since i'm not entirely familiar with the phenomenon I have to question a few things...

 

First of all how to you measure "realization"? I mean anyone can just say they're "realized" and start talking about stuff claiming they're right. Certainly there must be some criterion that these people must meet in order to be considered "realized".

 

Second, I still have to question the idea of meat eating to control this energy. Back in the day before meat was mass produced and sold in supermarkets they would've had to kill multiple animals in order to keep this person's energy under control. That in and of itself is a good bit of karma right there. It doesn't seem to make sense that a "karma burner" would require you to create more karma so it can do it's thing better...

 

It honestly just seems like this Kundalini is causing changes in human beings and they're resisting the change. Maybe we're not supposed to live in a society like this. Maybe the Kundalini wants us to be in nature. Perhaps it's man's own attachment to this world that makes it so "unbearable" to hold this energy within them. I mean I don't know them personally so I can't judge or say, i'm just pointing out the possibility.

 

As per credit, i'm afraid I can only give credit where I see it due. IF she has indeed brought 7 people to "realization" (enlightenment or diff?) then I guess something's working. But naturally I have to question the validity of such a claim, just like I question if Buddha ever REALLY reached enlightenment (see the "Enlightenment" thread I started). Until there are set criterion or some way of measuring this "realization", and a way to test it, all claims remain in the "possible" bin and will not recieve dues out of me. Have they attained the siddhis? can they demonstrate to back up their claim? From what I read powers are supposed to be markers of how far you are. Perhaps there's a better criterion?

 

-Astral

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hundun- I'm not completely denying that these people are indeed genuine, i'm not denying that meat made the energy "Less intense". However since i'm not entirely familiar with the phenomenon I have to question a few things...

 

First of all how to you measure "realization"? I mean anyone can just say they're "realized" and start talking about stuff claiming they're right. Certainly there must be some criterion that these people must meet in order to be considered "realized".

 

Second, I still have to question the idea of meat eating to control this energy. Back in the day before meat was mass produced and sold in supermarkets they would've had to kill multiple animals in order to keep this person's energy under control. That in and of itself is a good bit of karma right there. It doesn't seem to make sense that a "karma burner" would require you to create more karma so it can do it's thing better...

 

It honestly just seems like this Kundalini is causing changes in human beings and they're resisting the change. Maybe we're not supposed to live in a society like this. Maybe the Kundalini wants us to be in nature. Perhaps it's man's own attachment to this world that makes it so "unbearable" to hold this energy within them. I mean I don't know them personally so I can't judge or say, i'm just pointing out the possibility.

 

As per credit, i'm afraid I can only give credit where I see it due. IF she has indeed brought 7 people to "realization" (enlightenment or diff?) then I guess something's working. But naturally I have to question the validity of such a claim, just like I question if Buddha ever REALLY reached enlightenment (see the "Enlightenment" thread I started). Until there are set criterion or some way of measuring this "realization", and a way to test it, all claims remain in the "possible" bin and will not recieve dues out of me. Have they attained the siddhis? can they demonstrate to back up their claim? From what I read powers are supposed to be markers of how far you are. Perhaps there's a better criterion?

 

-Astral

 

 

a couple of things:

 

1.) you didn't mention my point about the Kunlun practitioners. if that's a system that you're into now, then recognize that they agree with what i've stated and have recommended the same approach for the same reason.

 

2.) as per credit, if that is your position, i understand it and cannot really argue against that, but you should also understand that it kinda kills our conversation if your opinion and limited research is just as good as anyone who is recognized as an authority in the field. not only that, but it's an inconsistent position because one of your teachers had demonstrated NOTHING to you, ACCORDING TO YOU, and yet you're trusting his claims, even though you know for sure that he's not an authority even if EVERYTHING he has said is true.

 

3.) siddhis are not signs of enlightenment. they are phenomena that occur as a result of energetic development. Ya Mu is highly energetically developed, and he supports meat-eating, just as i do.

 

we can have that discussion another time, i guess. i gotta go meditate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a couple of things:

 

1.) you didn't mention my point about the Kunlun practitioners. if that's a system that you're into now, then recognize that they agree with what i've stated and have recommended the same approach for the same reason.

 

2.) as per credit, if that is your position, i understand it and cannot really argue against that, but you should also understand that it kinda kills our conversation if your opinion and limited research is just as good as anyone who is recognized as an authority in the field. not only that, but it's an inconsistent position because one of your teachers had demonstrated NOTHING to you, ACCORDING TO YOU, and yet you're trusting his claims, even though you know for sure that he's not an authority even if EVERYTHING he has said is true.

 

3.) siddhis are not signs of enlightenment. they are phenomena that occur as a result of energetic development. Ya Mu is highly energetically developed, and he supports meat-eating, just as i do.

 

we can have that discussion another time, i guess. i gotta go meditate.

 

Hundun-

Re-Kunlun. I don't care what they recommend. Mainstream advise is for mainstream people. I live to protect and cherish life, not to take it away. Then end does not justify the means in my mind. I would rather die of energy sickness or spontaneous combustion than take another sentient being's life. I don't blindly adhere to systems and if they have mandatory requirements that go against what I believe then it's not a system for me. However I know MANY traditions that have kundalini that are vegetarian. plus look at the story of the buddha(assuming it's true). He had been living on a grain of rice a day as an aesthetic, then he meditated for 6(?) years and reached enlightenment. No kundalini, no food, nothing, he just sat and afterward advocated a vegetarian diet. The essenes which actually DO work with kundalini but remain strict vegetarians. If they can make it work then it seems to me that there's some bit of information missing from the mainstream. What are they doing that makes it work that others aren't doing. The only thing I can think of it mind work. Both focus strongly on morality and ethics. Perhaps there has to be an inward transformation before kundalini can be safely raised. Perhaps cultivated compassion or something helps keep the energy in check. Idk, it just seems like it's possible but the reason why or what makes it possible hasn't yet been defined.

 

2.) The reason I trust that Chang was legit is because of multiple stories from varying sources/backrounds all saying the same thing, in the documentary he stood up to the scrutiny of scientists. He was tested in controlled environments and was shown to produce the same effects every time. He almost undoubtedly showed that he had this kind of power. So far as I know him and HRM are the only two people who have stood up to science and passed the "test", therefore I trust both of these people. I'd like to believe Max but i'm not at all impressed with what i've seen so far. Now if he can indeed turn transparent and sustain that state indefinitely (immortality) then perhaps i'll stick with his system. The reason I like kunlun is because it seems to do the same thing as Mo Pai's first two levels and gets results MUCH faster. However I don't believe it's as powerful or even a complete system. Therefore i plan to use kunlun as a tool to enhance my meditation and get results faster. However the fact that kunlun has been made public shows that it's only giving us the basics, perhaps there's more in the "inner circle" of it.

 

3.) Okay then how does know tell when one is enlightened?

 

-Astral

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest paul walter

:) Naah, just having a little fun with you there --

 

 

;) Yeah, it's interesting stuff, no? The potato is roughly 1% fat until it is fried after which it reaches about a 60% fat level :( . It's possible to do this typing biz as a vego or vegan--see the work of Gabriel Couosens if you're keen. He subscribes to the theory/science of it but adapts it to raw/vegan foods. Agartha has gone into this and more on other threads and has some very useful info on it. Paul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest paul walter

double post Paul

Edited by paul walter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest paul walter
Just ask Paul Walter why is he is trying to get you to spend your money, in this economy, on a metabolic typing scam. Could it be that Paul doesn't know? Or could it be that Paul--like a lot of Americans--easily falls for pseudoscience in the quest to be nutritionally and spiritually correct?

money sponge websites I say.

 

 

 

 

Thanks SF--you're way out of line as usual. I was just pointing him in the direction of a metabolic type test-actually didn't know the bastards charged for it. Shoot me. Psuedo-science is what your mate RD practices so why on earth can't others? Paul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest paul walter
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...

 

 

Check out Cleve Backsters 'research' with polygraphs on plants (polygraph testing has, of course, been "disproven" but who knows?)then tell me if you're not a mass murderer :P . It's just like the Holocaust all over again-out of sight, out of mind :o:P

Edited by paul walter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest paul walter

. The essenes which actually DO work with kundalini but remain strict vegetarians. If they can make it work then it seems to me that there's some bit of information missing from the mainstream. What are they doing that makes it work that others aren't doing. The only thing I can think of it mind work. Both focus strongly on morality and ethics. Perhaps there has to be an inward transformation before kundalini can be safely raised.

-Astral

 

 

Yeah, this is it Astral--something others on TTB don't want to go near. They'd prefer Hollywood special effects blockbusters to an 'obscure' Russian film on the same subject ('Inception')--same with "energy work"!. Cousens has kundalini running through him and it has never been a prob--he "should" be eating meat according to body needs but has been vegan for 35 years (with bee pollen).Very grounded guy. When you get the energy USE IT!!! (respect it)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah but Gold, this is just like saying my society is the standard by which I measure my 'potential'/goal. Believe me, after the first 20 years you get used to the rigours of looking under the salad leaves for bacon bits :D:P . I suppose it's like any othe 'practice'--if you would like to try to see what it has to offer and you give up from annoyance/convenience then it doesn't really say anything about vegetarianism but about the vegetarianee. So I suppose I'm asking why post this when it has nothing to do with diet as such. Paul

 

OK, when I was a vegetarian I noticed absolutely zero difference with regard to subtle energies or my state of being in general. I didn't feel better or worse. It was the same. The only difference was that I was disturbed almost every meal, because first I would look for what's available without meat, and then I'd have a little internal discussion with myself about how what I am doing is really justified. Except I wasn't convinced. And so I would argue with myself. So instead of enjoying my meal I would have an intense debate in my mind for the 30 minutes of the time it would take to consume the meal. As a result, I was miserable.

 

In a different culture and in a different environment I can see myself being vegetarian. To me, being one is not really about health or diet. It's about being better to animals and it's also about being more economical, because in regions where Earth can produce directly consumable vegetation, raising animals is inefficient.

 

So there are some good arguments for vegetarianism, but it's not high on my list of priorities. If that makes me more evil, so be it. I always set my goal to be a decent human being, but never good or angelic. I don't shoot that high.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest paul walter

OK, when I was a vegetarian I noticed absolutely zero difference with regard to subtle energies or my state of being in general. I didn't feel better or worse. It was the same. The only difference was that I was disturbed almost every meal, because first I would look for what's available without meat, and then I'd have a little internal discussion with myself about how what I am doing is really justified. Except I wasn't convinced. And so I would argue with myself. So instead of enjoying my meal I would have an intense debate in my mind for the 30 minutes of the time it would take to consume the meal. As a result, I was miserable.

 

In a different culture and in a different environment I can see myself being vegetarian. To me, being one is not really about health or diet. It's about being better to animals and it's also about being more economical, because in regions where Earth can produce directly consumable vegetation, raising animals is inefficient.

 

So there are some good arguments for vegetarianism, but it's not high on my list of priorities. If that makes me more evil, so be it. I always set my goal to be a decent human being, but never good or angelic. I don't shoot that high.

 

 

Yeah, of course I understand. It's just that with any 'practice' that brings up internal monologue/self-doubts I think it should be followed through. Not through becoming vego or not but through understanding the sources of conflict (self vs.culture?) and ignoring them to the best of ones capabilities, hopefully becoming stronger with 'time'/excercise. It's like all cultivation/evolution, it doesn't happen til the conflict becomes resolved (rather than perhaps ignored?). Paul.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, of course I understand. It's just that with any 'practice' that brings up internal monologue/self-doubts I think it should be followed through. Not through becoming vego or not but through understanding the sources of conflict (self vs.culture?) and ignoring them to the best of ones capabilities, hopefully becoming stronger with 'time'/excercise. It's like all cultivation/evolution, it doesn't happen til the conflict becomes resolved (rather than perhaps ignored?). Paul.

 

I embrace death and killing even of humans. What to say of animals? There is no conflict here Paul, other than what I was temporarily creating in my mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks SF--you're way out of line as usual.

 

If you are and I were marooned on an island together I would love to see your hifalutin moral diet constraints last when there are no coconuts and bananas on the island—while there is fish in the lagoon and enough straight wood on the island to fashion usable spears with.

 

I would find it very entertaining to snack on some fish while you starve. I'd even offer you some of my fish—but my guess is--you would turn it down because it's not a compassionate enough energy source—because a poor little fish had to be murdered in a calculated, premeditated homicide so that you or I could live. It's funny how quickly the certainty of self-righteous morality gets put in the crucible of pressure when your life or your death is on the line.

 

Care to tackle that scenario head on? Or will you dodge again—like you did when I asked:

 

Is the hawk and fish screwed for eternity because they can't see their base nature, realize the error of their ways and evolve? The deer and the vole get a free, all-access pass to transcendence by evolutionary design? Or is it only a human being, saddled with an overactive frontal lobe, that is tasked with (more like burdened with) a need to spiritually ascend and transcend?

 

Care to address that issue Paul? What say you--about the hawk and the vole and the frontal lobe?

 

I was just pointing him in the direction of a metabolic type test-actually didn't know the bastards charged for it. Shoot me. Psuedo-science is what your mate RD practices so why on earth can't others? [/i]

 

Wait—you didn't even know what the contents of the site was—before-- you sent a fellow TTBer there? And you say I am out of line?

 

Then you used RD as a red herring—again. You are clearly trying to communicate to me your disdain for one of the greatest rational thinkers of our time. I get it—you are anti-Dawkins. Now, why don't you go on over to Amazon and write a scathing one-star book review for 'The Ancestor's Tale' and call it pseudoscience. I wonder how long it would take the rational, left-brained sharks over at the infidel forums to detect the thrashing of a bleeding fish in the open water and come for your review to have a feeding frenzy.

 

Let me tell you something. I love all you guys. That includes you—Paul. And Astral. But I am an advocate and an activist. I spit in Big Pharma's eye. I risk being written off as whacko, antipsychiatry $cient0l0gist extremist,--every single day that I leave my highly critical analysis and condemnation of the practices of the American Psychiatric Association and Big Pharma online on my blog for all to see and read.

 

I know pseudoscience when I detect it. I do my homework. I analyze and criticize. I would help raise awareness of the bad science—bad medicine—that is endemic in today's pill-popping culture. I will stand up and tell people who suffer from emotional and mental problems that they are being scammed—lied to—and to stand up for themselves against The Machine.

 

Do you not think that I care as much about my fellow TTBums as I do psychiatric survivors, the mentally ill and those seeking treatment for it? Do you think I would not hesitate to call bs or shenanigans when one of my fellow Bums tells another of my fellow Bums to go to a website selling scams that you couldn't even be bothered to check out first?

 

What is wrong with you Paul? Am I also out of line for telling psychiatric customers that they don't really have a chemical imbalance like Big Pharma told them--and that the pills they take cause addiction and permanent neuropathy—and that there are alternative treatments for it? Because if I am out of line for alerting A Seeker and Co. about the scandalous nature of the metabolic typing site you recommended—then I must also be out of line for alerting the public about the scandalous nature of Big Pharma's debunked chemical imbalance pseudoscience and the sites where those scams are propagated too. Right?

 

Well almost everything we ingest affects us-often 'seriously'. The diet the world is 'choosing' is a very behaviour altering one. Do you know of the work of Dr. Yuri Nikolayev of the Moscow Institute of Psychiatry dealing with curing "incurable" schizophrenics with water fasts and no-meat diets? Also the book 'Depression Free for Life' has a food/supplement based stabilising programme that is worth a real look-at.

 

Did you just selectively filter out what I recently told you about my diet experiments? Re: Nikolayey: Did you selectively filter out what I said earlier about being on a fast for days under the supervision of a nurse? No clearing up of my schizophrenia mate. The mind is not in the colon. I have been depression free for over fifteen years without relying on fasting, the master cleanse or vegetarianism.

 

Re: Dr Nikolayey. He didn't do original research--he admitted he stole his ideas from Dr Shelton--who loved to practice medicine without a license and got a few people killed with his diet quackery. Then--despite the power of his diet and fasting ideas, Shelton came down with a neuromuscular disease--and nothing he could do about it could fix it.

 

Edit: apparently, according to A Seeker, I called you out as being some middle class yuppie, without knowing that you were not. I apologize for that and I've adjusted my post to correct that assumption. In the future I will simply do more intel on you first before sinking in my teeth.

Edited by SFJane

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem, apparently, is that you seem to have "self-interested/self-justifying blinkers on", SFJane. Or maybe the problem is that you are "middle-class"? I'm really not sure...

 

<see posts 23, 29 & especially 41 of this thread for a little more insight>

 

;)

 

I don't read every thread and every post man. If I miss something--I miss it. If I know that I missed it--as in this case, (thanks for letting me know btw), then I will admit my error and correct it. It just needs to be readjusted to take in a new perspective--new data. I do have self-interest here. I do not deny it. ;)

 

Edit: In fact--as I read the thread you linked, I see my main error was failing to do a more thorough intel check on my subject. I have a lot of fingers in a lot of pies right now, time wise. And it's true, I didn't scrutinize every single one of his recent posts--which if I had, would have led to a different assessment. Easy enough mistake, easily fixed.

 

As far as me being middle class--that's probably true. Now. It took--30+ years?--to reach entry-level middle class? And, that just barely. Through marriage. I married upwards from my caste. I've been homeless in Boston, and Nashua on the East Coast and homeless in Sacramento and San Francisco on the West Coast. I lived in the American River Parkway for awhile.

 

I've camped by the river eating tuna from a can and picked blackberries off of bushes. In times past, out of desperation--I've stolen, begged, bribed, threatened and beaten-up drugged out psychopathic people up who threatened my safety when I was homeless. You ever live like that, A Seeker? There is no virtue inherent in being middle-upper or lower class or homeless. It does give you different perspectives though.

Edited by SFJane

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey all,

Vegetarianism seems to be a common "requisite" for many spiritual traditions. Certain Buddhists, the Essenes, Hinduism, Certain Yogis, holders of the Light and Sound Meditation, etc. I was just reading this article...

 

http://www.hinduwebsite.com/divinelife/essays/veg.asp

 

...which makes a few interesting points about spiritual life in general. Thought it'd be fun to share. Love to hear sum opinions on this since it's still a rather controversial topic.

 

-Astral

 

 

There are several ways to look at this. I think the foremost question is does vegetarianism work to help a person be more spiritual and meet their spiritual (or health) goals? I think for some people it does and for some it doesn't and I think that is based upon a person's genetics and culture, to a large degree, but perhaps other factors.

The point here being why does a person become a vegetarian? Is it because they were told to be a vegetarian by their religion or their dietician? Or was it for "spiritual" reasons.

 

If for spiritual reasons, was it because they did not believe it right to kill animals. It appears the latter reason is one of the major reasons I've seen for why people become a vegegarian. But let's look at this a little closer. Why is it better to kill vegetables than animals? Is it because animals are "higher" in sentience than vegetables? Or is it because people believe that plants have no sentience? As a Ken Wilber fan, I go along with his ideas that sentience, like turtles, goes "all the way down". Yes, plants have less sentience than animals, but they are still aware at certain levels. An argument could be made for sentience in rocks and even atoms and quarks. Of course, here a certain definition of sentience is being made. On the other hand, I don't think anyone really knows what sentience is, nor consciousness, so I don't think a definitive definition of sentience has yet been made, so I use the perhaps more liberal one and so now we get into opinion, which I find is where it always ends up anyway, but I diverge.

 

Based upon my definition of sentience, nothing lives without something else dying. That is what I have observed. The sun, the source of our life in this solar system, is dying so that we may live. Fortunately very slowly, but hopefully you see what I'm getting at. The sun sends us light as it burns itself up, the plants "eat" the light, we and the animals eat the plants, ad infinitum.

 

Thus, vegetarianism done for philosophical reasons seems to me to be a choice of causing the least harm, not a choice of no harm (a variation of "ahimsa.". In other words, plants have less sentience than animals, so killing them is less "harmful" (another value judgment, but let's let that one go). But I still think we need to realize that by living, we (as humans) cause death to many beings, be they plants, animals, fungi, bacteria, let us not forget humans,etc. It is the nature of life...and death. It is something I'm still coming to terms with, since I really don't like to think about it. But when I look at life and death as some sort of dance of spirit, I feel better and understand that life and death is part of the how the universe is set up.

 

As an example, yesterday I found this injured bug and my urge was to put it out of its misery. However, I realized there was this bird eying the bug and that its death throes were just a dinner bell for the bird and is how the bird keeps living. Dying animals, bugs, and even plants are a way to "pass on" the life energy to whatever prays on them.

 

Hopefull this doesn't seem too morbid, but I spend a lot of time in my garden and I see a lot of this first hand. Since this appears to be how the universe "works", being of Taoist inclination, I tend to work to accept this rather than "rail against the machine." Perhaps someone else has a better interpretation than this. I could make one up that describes how there is reincarnation of energy and nothing dies, etc, however, I haven't yet personally experienced that, thus so far I'm just going with what I observe and experience. Perhaps once I'm enlightened I'll get a better idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are several ways to look at this. I think the foremost question is does vegetarianism work to help a person be more spiritual and meet their spiritual (or health) goals? I think for some people it does and for some it doesn't and I think that is based upon a person's genetics and culture, to a large degree, but perhaps other factors.

The point here being why does a person become a vegetarian? Is it because they were told to be a vegetarian by their religion or their dietician? Or was it for "spiritual" reasons.

 

If for spiritual reasons, was it because they did not believe it right to kill animals. It appears the latter reason is one of the major reasons I've seen for why people become a vegegarian. But let's look at this a little closer. Why is it better to kill vegetables than animals? Is it because animals are "higher" in sentience than vegetables? Or is it because people believe that plants have no sentience? As a Ken Wilber fan, I go along with his ideas that sentience, like turtles, goes "all the way down". Yes, plants have less sentience than animals, but they are still aware at certain levels. An argument could be made for sentience in rocks and even atoms and quarks. Of course, here a certain definition of sentience is being made. On the other hand, I don't think anyone really knows what sentience is, nor consciousness, so I don't think a definitive definition of sentience has yet been made, so I use the perhaps more liberal one and so now we get into opinion, which I find is where it always ends up anyway, but I diverge.

 

Based upon my definition of sentience, nothing lives without something else dying. That is what I have observed. The sun, the source of our life in this solar system, is dying so that we may live. Fortunately very slowly, but hopefully you see what I'm getting at. The sun sends us light as it burns itself up, the plants "eat" the light, we and the animals eat the plants, ad infinitum.

 

Thus, vegetarianism done for philosophical reasons seems to me to be a choice of causing the least harm, not a choice of no harm (a variation of "ahimsa.". In other words, plants have less sentience than animals, so killing them is less "harmful" (another value judgment, but let's let that one go). But I still think we need to realize that by living, we (as humans) cause death to many beings, be they plants, animals, fungi, bacteria, let us not forget humans,etc. It is the nature of life...and death. It is something I'm still coming to terms with, since I really don't like to think about it. But when I look at life and death as some sort of dance of spirit, I feel better and understand that life and death is part of the how the universe is set up.

 

As an example, yesterday I found this injured bug and my urge was to put it out of its misery. However, I realized there was this bird eying the bug and that its death throes were just a dinner bell for the bird and is how the bird keeps living. Dying animals, bugs, and even plants are a way to "pass on" the life energy to whatever prays on them. In dying, they are suffering, but they also serve this purpose.

 

Hopefull this doesn't seem too morbid, but I spend a lot of time in my garden and I see a lot of this first hand. Since this appears to be how the universe "works", being of Taoist inclination, I tend to work to accept this rather than "rail against the machine." Perhaps someone else has a better interpretation than this. I could make one up that describes how there is reincarnation of energy and nothing dies, etc, however, I haven't yet personally experienced that, thus so far I'm just going with what I observe and experience. Perhaps once I'm enlightened I'll get a better idea.

 

Yeah the Bushmen Khoisan -- the oldest human culture going back to 100,000 BCE -- when they kill an animal they don't eat the animal till the next morning. The reason is that the spirit of the animal would then tell the other animals that the humans are eating them!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites