Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to CLUBHOUSE11. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Vegetarianism; Does eating meat make one a "murderer"?
Topic Started: Jan 25 2007, 02:48 PM (119 Views)
Saxon
Member Avatar
One
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Excellent ruminations on vegetarianism on Tsarion's blog from Kthorn...

http://mtsar.blogspot.com/2006/02/mankinds-future.html

Quote:
 
To Wander...

I am not professing meat-eating as a holy truth, but presenting a perspective and some very interesting sources to investigate on an animal food eating perspective. Perhaps there are some vegetarians out there who will change their perspectives from such an investigation of those sources and possibly benefit their health. Deciding that eating animal foods is not necessarily a negative.

I can present the vegetarian perspective just as effectively. And yes, because one source says this and one says that...how can vegetarians label and make claims that animal eaters are in some way...inferior or practicing something unnatural?

But that is what I mean the discussing diet is like talking politics or religion. It rarely leads anywhere other than to name calling. I have found some of the Essene documents to be the most moving for me to consider and having practiced vegetarianism in the past. As Michael has stated his perspective and dismissed himself from such debate for he knows how it ends up as well.

But I am also addressing how some vegetarians outright label meat-eaters/non-vegetarians. And that their inner life or spirituality is now diminished or tainted as a result, That is a serious indictment against the choices of another. Rational debate and discussion, I believe is not a negative should those who are willing participate. Just blabbing out that I am inhumane, barbaric, or a practitioner of evil diminishing my spirituality does not address the issue very effectively nor present a rational for vegetarianism and its benefits over meat-eating. That feels more like a witch trial to me.

Perhaps I am looking for perspective that may help in determining if going back to vegetarian is ideal for myself, while presenting information as to why meat-eating may be a healthy choice. Seeing how there are so many contradictions in this area depending on what source you look at.

So I do look to see the contradictions science has to offer and weigh them with my own belief system.

But let us look beyond science and to the reality of populations of various people throughout history. Even here in Norway the Sami who practice good medicine and shamanism herd reindeer and consume them, they fish and hunt. Yet they live in better alignment with nature and spirituality than most suburban vegetarians or meat-eaters I have met. So does meat-eating diminish spirituality and inner life of these numerous societies of peoples going far back into man's history? Then there are the Aborigine. They eat all kinds of animals. Native Americans and the buffalo. See Weston A. Price for more of this interesting perspective. That was my main point, not necessarily science

So now I lean over to my wife who has a masters in Biology and working on her Phd. to see what the contradictory science community has to say. Her education has "indoctrinated" or indicated to her that the human skull and teeth are omnivore. So I ask and have you heard of any peer reviewed studies to indicate otherwise. Her answer, No. She adds a comment about ruminants and enzymes being present to digest cellulose, which humans don't have. And that most wild varieties of grains, rices, nuts and seeds contained chemicals that were toxic until domestication. Not a complete perspective, by far, but why should I dismiss rationalization to come to a choice. It is not my only guiding light.

You say...
"We can only navigate here on genuine intuition, on That which is beyond all words."
Yes, my intuition has told me once that vegetarianism was my choice, now my intuition tells me otherwise. But luckily, I am able to put that into words.

You further state...
"On a serious topic like choosing to either kill or not kill in order to eat, I think finding arguments only leads to arguments that lead nowhere."
I agree, and that same sentiment is expressed in my two previous postings.

"Either you feel that killing an animal to fill your belly is not OK or you don’t. Either you feel that you are what you eat or you don’t. And since it is a matter of feeling, one poet, like Shelley can be more clarifying than a thousand scientists."

I don't just eat an animal to "fill" my belly. I eat it to nourish my body especially my brain, which heavily benefits from the fats contained in animal foods. I am partially what I eat, but feel I am also more than what I eat, and not lessened spiritually by what I choose to eat.
And I don't agree that it just comes down to a matter of feeling. But that does figure greatly into the choices one makes.

And yes perhaps more than a thousand scientists, but what about hundreds of thousands or hundreds of millions of people who have lived in alignement with nature and ate of the earth's provisions, which included animal foods. Where do you place these people's intuition, choices and resultant health?




Quote:
 
Now it seems the people with the longest history and highest concentration of vegetarianism as a society would be from India and the Hindus. They tend to believe it is a sin to kill any living creature. Thus it is part of their religion. There are also ethical and economic factors. Then some are strict vegetarians, others eat fish and seafood, others are lacto-ovo. Others may just drink some milk or yoghurt or put paneer cheese into dishes.

Many northern Indians there are the Sikh vegetarian sects. Who believe if a cook is angry while making a meal, then the emotional vibrations could contaminate the food and those that eat it. These types wear blue belts. Then there are vegetarians who wear white turbans and will eat eggs. Then the Jains in Bangkok don't eat garlic, onions, mushrooms or any vegetable that grows underground because the can inflame the passions and make you crave more food.

And some of the famous vegetarians include Pythagoras, Socrates, Plato, Clement of Alexandria, Plutarch, King Asoka, Leonardo da Vinci, Montaigne, Akbar, John Milton, Sir Isaac Newton, Emanuel Swedenbourg, Voltaire, Benjamin Franklin, Jean Jacques Rousear, Lamartine, Percy Bysshe Shelley, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Henry David Thoreau, Leo Tolstoy, George Bernard Shaw, Rabindranath Tagore, Mahatma Gandhi, Albert Schweitzer, and Albert Einstein.

Here is a quote from an Ayurvedic source.

"It is accurate to say that original Ayurvedic principles included eating meat infrequently, and that Sage Charaka mentions that meat is nourishing when prepared and eaten under certain circumstances. However, this was under vastly different conditions. Meat formed a small proportion of the overall diet, and was obtained through traditional hunting methods and the animal lived in its native habitat and natural environment.

Charaka Samhita provides guidelines for eating both vegetable and animal products. It does not state or recommend routine meat eating. Rather, it states that meat is nutritious for the alleviation of certain diseases and when dehydrated, emaciated, weak or convalescing.

The text also mentions that meat is 'unwholesome' when it comes from an animal that has been raised in a habitat that is not its natural environment or in an area that it is not native to. Animal meat is toxic if the animal has eaten food that does not form part of its natural diet or does not come from its normal environment.

It is clear that meat, as it is prepared today, does not meet these guidelines for healthy eating."

And then the article goes on to support a vegetarian diet.

"It's true vegetarians have to kill some plants, and that is also violence, but we do have to eat something, and the Vedas say, jivo jivasya jivanam: one living entity is food for another in the struggle for existence. So the problem is not how to avoid killing altogether-and impossible proposal-but how to cause the least suffering to other creatures while meeting the nutritional needs of the body. (Yes, there should be minimal suffering for animals that will meet the nutritional needs of the body)

The taking of any life, even that of a plant, is certainly sinful, but Krishna, the supreme controller, frees us from sin by accepting what we offer. Eating food first offered to the Lord is something like a soldier's killing during wartime. In a war, when the commander orders a man to attack, the obedient soldier who kills the enemy will get a medal. But if the same soldier kills someone on his own, he will be punished. Similarly, when we eat only prasada, we do not commit any sin. This is confirmed in the Bhagavad-gita (3.13) "The devotees of the Lord are released from all kinds of sins because they eat food which is offered first for sacrifice. Others, who prepare food for personal enjoyment, eat only sin." this brings us to the central theme of this book: vegetarianism, although essential, is not an end in itself."

Lots of religious philosophy here even on the eating of plants.
"...but Krishna, the supreme controller, frees us from sin by accepting what we offer."
Does that only work if you believe in Krisha? What if you believe in the god of the self? Can you not free your own sin for consuming animals should you do so with a close alignment with nature, the sacred and minimizing the suffering of animals you choose to eventually eat?

"Beyond concerns of health, economics, ethics, religion, and even karma, vegetarianism has a higher, spiritual dimension that can help us develop our natural appreciation and love of God. Srila Prabhupada tells us in his explanations of Srimad-Bhagavatam, "The human being is meant for self-realization, and for that purpose he is not to eat anything that is not first offered to the Lord. The Lord accepts from His devotee all kinds of food preparations made from vegetables, fruits, milk products, and grains. Different varieties of fruits, vegetables, and milk products can be offered to the Lord, and after the Lord accepts the foodstuffs, the devotee can partake of the prasada, by which all suffering in the struggle for existence will be gradually mitigated."

Milk products...interesting.

Non-vegetarians need to have a sensitivity for why people have chosen a vegetarian lifestyle, and whether or not they are even practicing it wisely. There are some people who are simply not going to eat meat or animal products no matter what you tell them. Religious groups such as Buddhism, Brahmanism, Hinduism, Jainism, The Seventh Day Adventists and The Trappist Monks of the Roman Catholic Church all promote a vegetarian diet.
Is it my place to try to change peoples religious or social beliefs?

I have a friend who is a vegetarian and smokes a pack of cigarettes a day...go figure.

The book Chinese foods for Longevity; The Art of Long Life discloses the health benefits of everything from pork brain, to frogs and eels. In looking for a more complete view on the subject of vegetarianism, contemporary Taoist writers and nutritionists seemed a logical place to seek more detailed information.

The prevailing view among Taoist sources is that one should eat meat. The most common reasoning being the high demands of living in a competitive industrialized society are too taxing on the body to subsist healthfully on a vegetarian diet. In his The Great Tao, Stephen Chan emphatically states in large bold letters "DO EAT MEAT", stating that only animal products can supply the high energy levels that we need, unless living in an isolated retreat. Ming-Dao Deng, in his book on a Taoist lifestyle, shares this view writing:

"It is unnecessary to become a complete vegetarian. Vegetarianism arouse out of economic necessity or for specific high meditations. Meat is too active for the quiescent activities of a meditator. Temple living a very specific activity in a protected environment. The scholar warrior considers pure vegetarianism to be impractical in a competitive society. " 1

Master Hua Ching Ni, a Taoist spiritual teacher and practitioner of Traditional Oriental Medicine in Los Angeles also cautions against a strict vegetarian diet, upholding that the nature of ones life should determine the amount of meat one eats.

"Vegetarianism is okay if you live in a religious institution, without doing extremely hard work, but in this high pressure society where most of you work hard, I do not recommend it, especially in the winter." 2

Hua Ching Ni wisely comments , however, that perhaps monastery living is idealized too much and is not as simple as one might presume. Western holistic nutritionists, also share the idea that meat is necessary to modern living. Bernard Jensen, Ph.D. claims that a competitive occupation uses up lots of adrenaline which will not be accommodated by an exclusively vegetable diet. He also reasons that the level of consciousness required to subsist as a strict vegetarian has not been attained by most people. According to his calculations the amino acids would be burned up so rapidly that most people in the United States would starve to death. This idea of varied diets is reflected in ancient Indian culture in which meat as an article of diet was traditionally prescribed for the rajpats caste of warriors and rulers. Brahmins, who did not engage in battle, but focused on study and spiritual development, were forbidden use of meat. This brings up the next point on meat eating, and how it effects us spiritually. This view is both disturbing and confusing. For, what these authors seem to be saying is that for ideal spiritual development one should eat as a vegetarian , but for most of us with little hope anyway, this is not appropriate. Perhaps this is a bit facetious, but in examining the energetic qualities in meat, it is not held in high regard by Taoists, and it would seem something of a necessary evil for those of us living in modern culture.



Quote:
 
If you were in the desert for a few days, dehydrated, and saw that puddle by the roadside you would lap it up like no tomorrow along with your own urine that was soon to follow.
And loving it.
As it saved your life. Even if just for another hour.
You wouldn't even be thinking about that clear mountain stream as you were so busy and thankful for the mud you were sucking on.

Just as those who had a bad yield from their crops or had to pioneer and traverse hard terrain without pause would have to consume some animal products to survive.
Hunger and the need for good sustenance will prevail in such conditions. It is the separation from having to deal with nature face to face that has allowed some to shield the reality of how important these foods really are. And how they so effectively sustain health. For they do not experience the real world conditions of traditional peoples who thrived off of them. It cannot be perceived by their limited perspective the act of survival without a car, but a horse, without a house, but a teepee or igloo, without a refrigerator or freezer, but a hole in the ground to let it ferment, without electricity, but a fire. Nor plumbing, restaurants and trucks shipping in supplies, etc. And all the physical activity just to live life without all the modern conveniences.

I can imagine a vegetarian lost in the woods, who hadn't eaten for a few weeks now walks upon my campfire. And on that fire roasts some fresh deer steaks. There are no veggies because there is frost on the ground. And I surely would offer him up a slab or two for I know it is good food for him. And do you think he would not eat it and enjoy? And he would now discover how humans first discovered that animal foods were necessary.

Or would he refuse my offer, and wait for carrots in the spring only to die a slow death in front of my fire? It is unlikely. For your body and mind knows what is good for it and what it needs.

He might even be so hungry that if I denied it to him, he might kill me off and take the meat for himself and then cut me up into some steaks. That would be an even more real taste of how traditional peoples had to cope.

As do those survivors in airline crashes or in episodes of being stranded. I read somewhere that Nazis sometimes would cut off supplies to small towns and just wait. As the people trapped in the buildings would get so hungry they would consume each other. The young, weak and the old were probably the first to go. Sick, yes, but real.

Food is an interesting topic.

You have breatharians who try to live off no food and claim that water, sunlight, oxygen and chi are all you need.

An interesting perspective and one that I would not totally dismiss under certain conditions with the right frame of mind.

Then fruitarians who eat nothing but fruit. Some won't even pick it off the tree for that is unethical and only eat it off the ground.
Then vegetarians of their varied kinds and some include animal products.
Some who eat only certain meats or at certain times.
Full-fledged flesh eaters.
Some who eat it raw and some cooked.
Then you have human eaters.

I saw this one tribe of people relax a cow and shoot it gently in the neck with an arrow and drink the blood right out of the artery. With the cow just calmly participating in the event with no stress or trauma apparent whatsoever. Then they applied some pressure to the wound and it clotted right up. Done until the next feeding.

Who is anyone to claim that under their conditions with their beliefs that any of them are less spiritual, violent or in some way diminishing themselves by consuming animal foods when they have been doing for so long into human history? But I do take exception to human-eaters...I too, have my standards of acceptable diet and conduct.




Faithful and True
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Loveandbeloved
Member Avatar
Administrator
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
That is a really good post. :beerchug:

He mentioned Dr. Bernard Jensen, too, who has some excellent advice on food and eating.

Personally, I have been both - a vegetarian and a meat eater - and never really noticed any big differences in either manner of eating. I now have a pretty balanced diet - using organic, free range and pure/natural as a key. I don't eat a whole lot of meat and usually buy buffalo meat from a good source.

:carrot:
In Love
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
« Previous Topic · Natural Living · Next Topic »
Add Reply