Fw: Veg Vs. Non-Veg (From a non-vegetarian's point of view)

[Guest guest]

Dear Gurujans,

I welcome your Astrological comments/reasoning/views to the following

" my Astrology teacher says about longevity of a Native is determined by past

Karma and Brahma allots a count ( say a few billion life forms) for the native

to kill in this life time be it bacteria, microbes etc. etc. Thus a person

breathing in, taking food ( kills these bacteria, microbes etc. ) fulfills his

quota in this life time which determines longevity of the native. So, a person

who takes mita ( moderation) in everything lives longer, less number of breaths

/per minutes, less food etc... But then why is the saying " Paapi Chirayu " !!!

Can't seem to make sense of this saying! "

 

It is proven fact that those who practice Pranayama (Less # of breaths per min.)

and mita bhoja live longer.

 

Thanks,

 

Ravi.

 

--- On Sat, 12/12/09, Ravi Gollapalli <sbt_ravi wrote:

 

 

Ravi Gollapalli <sbt_ravi

Re: Re: Veg Vs. Non-Veg (From a non-vegetarian's point

of view)

 

Saturday, December 12, 2009, 10:41 AM

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sorry to sidetrack the main issue,

but my Astrology teacher says about longevity of a Native is determined by past

Karma and Brahma allots a count ( say a few billion life forms) for the native

to kill in this life time be it bacteria, microbes etc. etc. Thus a person

breathing in, taking food ( kills these bacteria, microbes etc. ) fulfills his

quota in this life time which determines longevity of the native. So, a person

who takes mita ( moderation) in everything lives longer, less number of breaths

/per minutes, less food etc... But then why is the saying " Paapi Chirayu " !!!

Can't seem to make sense of this saying!

 

--- On Sat, 12/12/09, Se Am <mahalaxmyey@ > wrote:

 

 

Se Am <mahalaxmyey@ >

Re: Re: Veg Vs. Non-Veg (From a non-vegetarian' s point

of view)

 

Saturday, December 12, 2009, 9:38 AM

 

 

 

 

 

 

when we breath we take in lot of bacteria and they are killed in the lungs

when we eat foot lot of bacteria are digested in stomach

our white blood cells keep on destroying invaders into the body

they are also living beings

how to account for them

 

 

 

 

 

vedic_pathak <vedic_pathak@ >

 

Sat, December 12, 2009 12:19:46 AM

Re: Veg Vs. Non-Veg (From a non-vegetarian' s point of

view)

 

 

 

 

Dear Rajarshi,

Do not think that I'll be offended or misunderstand you to be a cruel hearted

etc...

In this message, i am giving only what i feel right as per me and how i think

about the whole issue myself.  so pl. take that in consideration.

But to say that it is  immoral or that one does not reach God if one consumes

non-vegetarian food, is illogical, incorrect and pure bunkum.

In my previous message, i've clarified some points.  i put it again below:

Please do not consider my point for Veg/Nonveg with perspective of

Spiritual/Material, Good/Bad, Saatwik/Taamsik etc... My only point in

Vegterianism is related to Compession against cruelty. Dharma (Non Violence)

against Adharama (Killing Innocent creatures).

***

Anyway, my point is, I understand that it is good to eat totally vegetarian

food when you engage in sadhana, specially things like havans, or else it

conflicts with your system badly.

In my opinion, Saadhana or No Saadhana, if something is not correct will remain

Incorrect. killing for filling stomach is if Not right then for me it'll

remain *Not right in all conditions*. it is a different matter, if in future i

succumb to challanging conditions and start eating meat but even then it'll not

justify and make it proper thing.

***

Dear Rajarshi, Now i hope you don't get offended by my message. i apologise in

advance for my bluntness.

 your second Para and some writings in your earlier message gives me impression

that you are heavily philosophising. Karama, Desh/kaal etc... does not appeal

me. to be very honest. 

In my opinon, if one can justify eating popular meat of chicken, etc.. then

anything under the Sun is eatable.  with that logic, those people who choose to

eat Crab, Snakes, insects, cocroaches are perfectly alright. even people who

have started eating human flesh are also acceptable and not doing anything wrong

as per the 'their' thinking.

To talk about Karma, Conditioning, Culture etc..., and try to make quality

judgements by the logic of 'Direct killing' and 'eating meat of already dead'

does not go well with me. it is just a philosophy to cover up.

Poeple born in Those cultures have become Vegetarian becuase they hate killing

invloved. I gave an example of one such person and there are few more i know.

howvever they are very very very rare.

***

The above arguments are incorrect. I know some non-vegetarian people who provide

such arguements,  but these arguments are nonsensical and childish. Almost

Zakir Naik style of arguments.

 I agree completely. it is childish, Laughable and cruel jokes. Thats how i

also take it when such people talk such nonsense.

***

Lastly, i'll add a philospohical thought. If so much of killing every hourly

basis, mostly for the sole purpose of *Craving* goes on in the world, and the

prime mover is Human society, then how we hope to have a peacefull world without

blood shed and massacare. unfailing law of Karma (Cause & effect) will

find many ways to give it back to (in)Human societies.

Om Shaanti Shaanti Shaanti:

Warm Regards,

Utpal 

 

 

 

, rajarshi nandy <rajarshi14@. ..> wrote:

>

> Dear Utpal,

>  

> I hope you or others won't get offended by my mails. Please take them in the

right vein. I am merely discussing. Now some points:

>  

>  

> But I have often feel that they are themselves are not convinced when they

argue. they are 'hollow' arguments. However , I'll honestly say that i have no

answers for 'life in a Plant'.

>

> When I used to eat non-vegetarian food many of my friends who

were vegetarian people would give me a similar logic, as you mentioned in

your first writing. My point is, as a non-vegetarian I am not claiming that I

have any special sensitivity to plants, over animals. No. All I am saying is

that,  this logic that many vegetarian people provide to convince average

non-veg people to quit eating non-veg, does not hold good.

>  

> I personally can not look at butchery shops where one finds hanging goats. its

pathetic site. People in their excitements stand in queue to see the cutting of

throat of a chicken and then take away that as parcel. The flash of so cruelly

butchered Chicken or a Goat or a cow or pig, is so tasty for the humans that

they just overlook the voice of their inner self. a fish which comes out of

water is such a disturbing site. Panting for water (i don't have proper English

word to describe the condition of a fish out of water). and then the dead fish

thus is so tasty.

>  

>  

> I understand and appreciate you feelings, but I personally do not share them.

Call me cruel hearted.

>  

> When the question of sensitivity comes in, there is no universal standard for

such. It is moslty a case of conditioning. What one feels disgusted or pained

about may not affect another. Same rule cannot be used to judge everyone. 

>  

> Some of my non-vegetarian friends were watching discovery channel where they

showed that people in some parts of the world eat insects. My friends seemed

disgusted. I asked them, " Why? " . If you can eat a chicken or a fish, what is

wrong if someone eats an insect. Just because one is born in a certain area

in a certain culture in a certain set of value, one gets the believe that what

one is not accustomed to must be incorrect. I told them if in a future life time

they were to be born in that place, they would gladly keep eating insects

without the slightest doubt in their mind. We humans are incorrigible product of

our own conditions which in my opinion is all right. BUT the problem happens

when we think our conditions are the only possible conditioning in the world,

and therefore we wonder why don't others share similar ideas. That is incorrect.

Nature has created the world diverse, and so it is. Everything is

desh-kaal-patra. A person who is a

> vegetarian in this life, if he gets born in a place/culture/ family in a later

lifetime which eats non-vegetarian food, he would not even bat an eye lid

while eating the same. I know people who faint at the sight of blood, but

there are doctors who do multiple operations daily. So my point is, personal

sensitivity can be a very good reason for an individual, but it cannot

be a universal logic applicable to all.

>  

> A far better angle of tackling this is the idea of karma. Even then, if

someone can make sure he is not directly killing an animal, not selecting a live

animal to be killed, but rather buys dead meat/fish/egg, the karma generated can

be handled easily. Further, if someone (a non-vegetarian) does not want to

deal in the raw flesh, he can buy some cooked non-vegetarian food. The amount of

karma that you would get for it is quite acceptble IMO. It can be easily

handled. It is similar to the one you would get for buying some simple daal

which has come to the market through the hands of a middle man who has cheated

the farmer, or God knows what else. There is karmic repurcussions in all food we

eat in this age. It is unavoidable. There are some eggs - broiler eggs - which

never hatch into eggs. They are designed to be eaten because they never grow

into an animal. Alsmot like dead from birth. What karma does one get for

consuming that? God knows.

>  

> An average non-vegetarian, at least in India, to be precise is actually an

omnivorous. His staple diet consists of 80 percent vegetables/pulses etc and 20

percent non-veg. From a scientific point of view, this is a good combination.

People who feed on more than 60 percent non-veg food in their staple diet, are

prone to serious heath issues at a younger age. But this 80-20 veg/non-veg, is

biologically good.

>  

>  

>  If we don't eat fish then sea will be full of fishes:), Earth will be full

of chickens:0, Veg food will become unaffordable if everybody will become

vegetarian :Etc...are more often than not, put up such arguments to defend

however as i said earlier they are themselves not convinced.

>

>

> The above arguments are incorrect. I know some non-vegetarian people who

provide such arguements,  but these arguments are nonsensical and

childish. Almost Zakir Naik style of arguments.

>  

> Anyway, my point is, I understand that it is good to eat totally vegetarian

food when you engage in sadhana, specially things like havans, or else it

conflicts with your system badly.

>  

> But to say that it is  immoral or that one does not reach God if one

consumes non-vegetarian food, is illogical, incorrect and pure bunkum.I know a

devotee of Krishna - not just a devotee but one who sees Krishna during

his meditations and have experienced samadhi many times over, who

is omnivorous. For any average person, not engaging himself/herself in

specific sadhanas, I see no harm in having an omnivorous diet with a 80/20

vegetarian/non- vegetarian combination.

>  

>  

> -Regards

>  Rajarshi

>

>

> The upsurge (of consciousness) is Bhairava - Shiva Sutra

>

> --- On Fri, 11/12/09, vedic_pathak vedic_pathak@ ... wrote:

>

>

> vedic_pathak vedic_pathak@ ...

> Re: Veg Vs. Non-Veg (From a non-vegetarian' s point of

view)

>

> Friday, 11 December, 2009, 10:29 PM

>

>

>  

>

>

>

> Dear Rajarshi,

>

> As you have said, Most of these are sure shot arguments from the people who

eat Meat/fish. But I have often feel that they are themselves are not convinced

when they argue. they are 'hollow' arguments. However , I'll honestly say that i

have no answers for 'life in a Plant'.

>

> The people who argue such as': Most eat meat in the world, Egg is vegetarian,

Plant also has life, One will not get required nourishments only with vegetarian

food, If we don't eat fish then sea will be full of fishes:), Earth will be full

of chickens:0, Veg food will become unaffordable if everybody will become

vegetarian :Etc...are more often than not, put up such arguments to defend

however as i said earlier they are themselves not convinced.

>

> Vegeterian people have their own arguments but all these are mere arguments. I

personally can not look at butchery shops where one finds hanging goats. its

pathetic site. People in their excitements stand in queue to see the cutting of

throat of a chicken and then take away that as parcel. The flash of so cruelly

butchered Chicken or a Goat or a cow or pig, is so tasty for the humans that

they just overlook the voice of their inner self. a fish which comes out of

water is such a disturbing site. Panting for water (i don't have proper English

word to describe the condition of a fish out of water). and then the dead fish

thus is so tasty.

>

> The bottom line is that " They cannot overcome " the cravings for the meat, fish

and eggs. This is a naked reality.

>

> Dear Rajarshi, However i try, i am not convinced with arguments in favour of

Nonveg food. Only at the cold places and deserts where survival was the main

consideration, i can slightly agree but that too during ancient days. not

now...Now everywhere Veg food is easily available.

>

> ***

> Few months back, a young girl from Germany came to work in my office for 6

months. once i casually asked her as to what she eats during lunch. what she

said was not at all expected. she said that she is pure vegetarian and eats only

Veg food since 3 years now and wants to continue that way whole life. As

expected, i was very happy and i further asked the reason. The answer she gave

so much happiness. She said that She does not want to kill to eat. Vow! I salute

her from my heart.

>

> Best Regards,

>

> Utpal

>

> , rajarshi nandy <rajarshi14@ ...> wrote:

> >

> > Dear Utpal,

> >  

> > I slightly disagree with your below mail. Without offence, let me state a

few counter point for the sake of a discussion from a non-vegetarian' s point of

view. You said:

> >  

> > ¡§I don¡¦t wish to stuff my stomach with the

body parts of killed

> > creature. Would never think of troubling any leaving creature when

> > mother-nature has provided enough alternate food.

> >  

> > Even plants are living. The air we breath is living (organisms). Death is

part and parcel of natural law. One cannot avoid it however much one tries. The

Abrahamic religions are heavy on non-veg food. The areas where they grew, arid,

desert land, you need to have (at least during those days) animal flesh to

survive specially considreing irrigation options were so scanty. If you

live in the Artic region, you need to have fish oil to survive the cold.

The point is, death is a part of life. One does not survive without

death. That is how the world has been designed by the grand designer.

> >  

> > What right I have, to snatch away even a single life in

> > the universe for my selfish reasons. I consider that as very very

> > cruel and that is the personal thinking why I am a vegetarian and not

> > strictly due to any religious or cultural reason¡¨

> >  

> > What harm have plants done? Why not the same kind of feeling when it comes

to plant life? They too are living beings, just like anything else!

> >  

> > What you consider selfish maybe a law of nature.

> >  

> > Please understand I am not advocating non-vegetarianism. But if someone is

to do serious sadhana, no doubt vegetarian food is best. Otherwise, I am not

sure if it makes in any difference at all.

> >  

> > -Regards

> > Rajarshi

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > The upsurge (of consciousness) is Bhairava - Shiva Sutra

> >

> > --- On Fri, 11/12/09, vedic_pathak <vedic_pathak@ ...> wrote:

> >

> >

> > vedic_pathak <vedic_pathak@ ...>

> > Re: Veg Vs. Non-Veg

> >

> > Friday, 11 December, 2009, 7:36 PM

> >

> >

> >  

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > Namasrte SriRam,

> > Long back, i had posted the below message on this list.

> > I've put my argument in the message in which i firmly belive.

> > Its possible this may change the mind of your friend.

> > http://groups. / group/vedic- wisdom/message/ 411

> > The exact Argument is given again as under which is the extract from the

above message:

> > [

> > I couldn¡¦t hold back myself and honestly explained my

> > conclusive view point on the whole subject as follow

> > ¡§I don¡¦t wish to stuff my stomach with the

body parts of killed

> > creature. Would never think of troubling any leaving creature when

> > mother-nature has provided enough alternate food. Just for the sake

> > of filling my stomach or satisfying cravings of my tongue, I

won¡¦t be

> > responsible for killing innocent birds, animals, fishes directly or

> > indirectly. What right I have, to snatch away even a single life in

> > the universe for my selfish reasons. I consider that as very very

> > cruel and that is the personal thinking why I am a vegetarian and not

> > strictly due to any religious or cultural reason¡¨

> > ]

> > Even if Shri Krishna has not mentioned a direct wording of Non-vegetarian

food in Geeta, it is not right to take that excuse for slottering creatures.

> > I ask any body to think for him/her self in the light of what is right and

what is not...

> > Best Regards,

> > Utpal

> >  

> >  

> >  

> >

> >  

> >

> > , Astro Seeker <astro.seeker@ ...>

wrote:

> > >

> > > Namaste,

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > I am a firm believer of Veg being satwik food and consider non-veg as

hurdle to spiritual growth. But, a friend of mine who otherwise is trying to

make some spiritual progress, is a non-vegetatian. In our arguments over non-veg

food, he has put a counter argument. He says that if I can find him a single

shloka on this in Bhagwat Geeta, he would give up. 

> > > So, if anybody on this group can help me find the quote, it would be

great. He considers Geeta as the absolute reference and believes if Lord Krishna

has not spoken about it in Geeta, it is actually not worth discussing whether or

not you take non-veg. If anyone finds it, le me know so that 1 guy on this earth

can become vegetarian.

> > > He also quotes Sai Baba, Jesus and Mohammed Prophet adhering to non-veg.

If any of you know the counter argument, please help.

> > > Best Regards,Sriram

> > >

> > >

> > > The INTERNET now has a personality. YOURS! See your Homepage.

http://in.. com/

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > The INTERNET now has a personality. YOURS! See your Homepage.

http://in.. com/

> >

>

>

>

The INTERNET now has a personality. YOURS! See your Homepage.

http://in.. com/

>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Gurujans,

I welcome your Astrological comments/reasoning/views to the following

" my Astrology teacher says about longevity of a Native is determined by past

Karma and Brahma allots a count ( say a few billion life forms) for the native

to kill in this life time be it bacteria, microbes etc. etc. Thus a person

breathing in, taking food ( kills these bacteria, microbes etc. ) fulfills his

quota in this life time which determines longevity of the native. So, a person

who takes mita ( moderation) in everything lives longer, less number of breaths

/per minutes, less food etc... But then why is the saying " Paapi Chirayu " !!!

Can't seem to make sense of this saying! "

 

It is proven fact that those who practice Pranayama (Less # of breaths per min.)

and mita bhoja live longer.

 

Thanks,

 

Ravi.

 

--- On Sat, 12/12/09, Ravi Gollapalli <sbt_ravi wrote:

 

 

Ravi Gollapalli <sbt_ravi

Re: Re: Veg Vs. Non-Veg (From a non-vegetarian's point

of view)

 

Saturday, December 12, 2009, 10:41 AM

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sorry to sidetrack the main issue,

but my Astrology teacher says about longevity of a Native is determined by past

Karma and Brahma allots a count ( say a few billion life forms) for the native

to kill in this life time be it bacteria, microbes etc. etc. Thus a person

breathing in, taking food ( kills these bacteria, microbes etc. ) fulfills his

quota in this life time which determines longevity of the native. So, a person

who takes mita ( moderation) in everything lives longer, less number of breaths

/per minutes, less food etc... But then why is the saying " Paapi Chirayu " !!!

Can't seem to make sense of this saying!

 

--- On Sat, 12/12/09, Se Am <mahalaxmyey@ > wrote:

 

 

Se Am <mahalaxmyey@ >

Re: Re: Veg Vs. Non-Veg (From a non-vegetarian' s point

of view)

 

Saturday, December 12, 2009, 9:38 AM

 

 

 

 

 

 

when we breath we take in lot of bacteria and they are killed in the lungs

when we eat foot lot of bacteria are digested in stomach

our white blood cells keep on destroying invaders into the body

they are also living beings

how to account for them

 

 

 

 

 

vedic_pathak <vedic_pathak@ >

 

Sat, December 12, 2009 12:19:46 AM

Re: Veg Vs. Non-Veg (From a non-vegetarian' s point of

view)

 

 

 

 

Dear Rajarshi,

Do not think that I'll be offended or misunderstand you to be a cruel hearted

etc...

In this message, i am giving only what i feel right as per me and how i think

about the whole issue myself.  so pl. take that in consideration.

But to say that it is  immoral or that one does not reach God if one consumes

non-vegetarian food, is illogical, incorrect and pure bunkum.

In my previous message, i've clarified some points.  i put it again below:

Please do not consider my point for Veg/Nonveg with perspective of

Spiritual/Material, Good/Bad, Saatwik/Taamsik etc... My only point in

Vegterianism is related to Compession against cruelty. Dharma (Non Violence)

against Adharama (Killing Innocent creatures).

***

Anyway, my point is, I understand that it is good to eat totally vegetarian

food when you engage in sadhana, specially things like havans, or else it

conflicts with your system badly.

In my opinion, Saadhana or No Saadhana, if something is not correct will remain

Incorrect. killing for filling stomach is if Not right then for me it'll

remain *Not right in all conditions*. it is a different matter, if in future i

succumb to challanging conditions and start eating meat but even then it'll not

justify and make it proper thing.

***

Dear Rajarshi, Now i hope you don't get offended by my message. i apologise in

advance for my bluntness.

 your second Para and some writings in your earlier message gives me impression

that you are heavily philosophising. Karama, Desh/kaal etc... does not appeal

me. to be very honest. 

In my opinon, if one can justify eating popular meat of chicken, etc.. then

anything under the Sun is eatable.  with that logic, those people who choose to

eat Crab, Snakes, insects, cocroaches are perfectly alright. even people who

have started eating human flesh are also acceptable and not doing anything wrong

as per the 'their' thinking.

To talk about Karma, Conditioning, Culture etc..., and try to make quality

judgements by the logic of 'Direct killing' and 'eating meat of already dead'

does not go well with me. it is just a philosophy to cover up.

Poeple born in Those cultures have become Vegetarian becuase they hate killing

invloved. I gave an example of one such person and there are few more i know.

howvever they are very very very rare.

***

The above arguments are incorrect. I know some non-vegetarian people who provide

such arguements,  but these arguments are nonsensical and childish. Almost

Zakir Naik style of arguments.

 I agree completely. it is childish, Laughable and cruel jokes. Thats how i

also take it when such people talk such nonsense.

***

Lastly, i'll add a philospohical thought. If so much of killing every hourly

basis, mostly for the sole purpose of *Craving* goes on in the world, and the

prime mover is Human society, then how we hope to have a peacefull world without

blood shed and massacare. unfailing law of Karma (Cause & effect) will

find many ways to give it back to (in)Human societies.

Om Shaanti Shaanti Shaanti:

Warm Regards,

Utpal 

 

 

 

, rajarshi nandy <rajarshi14@. ..> wrote:

>

> Dear Utpal,

>  

> I hope you or others won't get offended by my mails. Please take them in the

right vein. I am merely discussing. Now some points:

>  

>  

> But I have often feel that they are themselves are not convinced when they

argue. they are 'hollow' arguments. However , I'll honestly say that i have no

answers for 'life in a Plant'.

>

> When I used to eat non-vegetarian food many of my friends who

were vegetarian people would give me a similar logic, as you mentioned in

your first writing. My point is, as a non-vegetarian I am not claiming that I

have any special sensitivity to plants, over animals. No. All I am saying is

that,  this logic that many vegetarian people provide to convince average

non-veg people to quit eating non-veg, does not hold good.

>  

> I personally can not look at butchery shops where one finds hanging goats. its

pathetic site. People in their excitements stand in queue to see the cutting of

throat of a chicken and then take away that as parcel. The flash of so cruelly

butchered Chicken or a Goat or a cow or pig, is so tasty for the humans that

they just overlook the voice of their inner self. a fish which comes out of

water is such a disturbing site. Panting for water (i don't have proper English

word to describe the condition of a fish out of water). and then the dead fish

thus is so tasty.

>  

>  

> I understand and appreciate you feelings, but I personally do not share them.

Call me cruel hearted.

>  

> When the question of sensitivity comes in, there is no universal standard for

such. It is moslty a case of conditioning. What one feels disgusted or pained

about may not affect another. Same rule cannot be used to judge everyone. 

>  

> Some of my non-vegetarian friends were watching discovery channel where they

showed that people in some parts of the world eat insects. My friends seemed

disgusted. I asked them, " Why? " . If you can eat a chicken or a fish, what is

wrong if someone eats an insect. Just because one is born in a certain area

in a certain culture in a certain set of value, one gets the believe that what

one is not accustomed to must be incorrect. I told them if in a future life time

they were to be born in that place, they would gladly keep eating insects

without the slightest doubt in their mind. We humans are incorrigible product of

our own conditions which in my opinion is all right. BUT the problem happens

when we think our conditions are the only possible conditioning in the world,

and therefore we wonder why don't others share similar ideas. That is incorrect.

Nature has created the world diverse, and so it is. Everything is

desh-kaal-patra. A person who is a

> vegetarian in this life, if he gets born in a place/culture/ family in a later

lifetime which eats non-vegetarian food, he would not even bat an eye lid

while eating the same. I know people who faint at the sight of blood, but

there are doctors who do multiple operations daily. So my point is, personal

sensitivity can be a very good reason for an individual, but it cannot

be a universal logic applicable to all.

>  

> A far better angle of tackling this is the idea of karma. Even then, if

someone can make sure he is not directly killing an animal, not selecting a live

animal to be killed, but rather buys dead meat/fish/egg, the karma generated can

be handled easily. Further, if someone (a non-vegetarian) does not want to

deal in the raw flesh, he can buy some cooked non-vegetarian food. The amount of

karma that you would get for it is quite acceptble IMO. It can be easily

handled. It is similar to the one you would get for buying some simple daal

which has come to the market through the hands of a middle man who has cheated

the farmer, or God knows what else. There is karmic repurcussions in all food we

eat in this age. It is unavoidable. There are some eggs - broiler eggs - which

never hatch into eggs. They are designed to be eaten because they never grow

into an animal. Alsmot like dead from birth. What karma does one get for

consuming that? God knows.

>  

> An average non-vegetarian, at least in India, to be precise is actually an

omnivorous. His staple diet consists of 80 percent vegetables/pulses etc and 20

percent non-veg. From a scientific point of view, this is a good combination.

People who feed on more than 60 percent non-veg food in their staple diet, are

prone to serious heath issues at a younger age. But this 80-20 veg/non-veg, is

biologically good.

>  

>  

>  If we don't eat fish then sea will be full of fishes:), Earth will be full

of chickens:0, Veg food will become unaffordable if everybody will become

vegetarian :Etc...are more often than not, put up such arguments to defend

however as i said earlier they are themselves not convinced.

>

>

> The above arguments are incorrect. I know some non-vegetarian people who

provide such arguements,  but these arguments are nonsensical and

childish. Almost Zakir Naik style of arguments.

>  

> Anyway, my point is, I understand that it is good to eat totally vegetarian

food when you engage in sadhana, specially things like havans, or else it

conflicts with your system badly.

>  

> But to say that it is  immoral or that one does not reach God if one

consumes non-vegetarian food, is illogical, incorrect and pure bunkum.I know a

devotee of Krishna - not just a devotee but one who sees Krishna during

his meditations and have experienced samadhi many times over, who

is omnivorous. For any average person, not engaging himself/herself in

specific sadhanas, I see no harm in having an omnivorous diet with a 80/20

vegetarian/non- vegetarian combination.

>  

>  

> -Regards

>  Rajarshi

>

>

> The upsurge (of consciousness) is Bhairava - Shiva Sutra

>

> --- On Fri, 11/12/09, vedic_pathak vedic_pathak@ ... wrote:

>

>

> vedic_pathak vedic_pathak@ ...

> Re: Veg Vs. Non-Veg (From a non-vegetarian' s point of

view)

>

> Friday, 11 December, 2009, 10:29 PM

>

>

>  

>

>

>

> Dear Rajarshi,

>

> As you have said, Most of these are sure shot arguments from the people who

eat Meat/fish. But I have often feel that they are themselves are not convinced

when they argue. they are 'hollow' arguments. However , I'll honestly say that i

have no answers for 'life in a Plant'.

>

> The people who argue such as': Most eat meat in the world, Egg is vegetarian,

Plant also has life, One will not get required nourishments only with vegetarian

food, If we don't eat fish then sea will be full of fishes:), Earth will be full

of chickens:0, Veg food will become unaffordable if everybody will become

vegetarian :Etc...are more often than not, put up such arguments to defend

however as i said earlier they are themselves not convinced.

>

> Vegeterian people have their own arguments but all these are mere arguments. I

personally can not look at butchery shops where one finds hanging goats. its

pathetic site. People in their excitements stand in queue to see the cutting of

throat of a chicken and then take away that as parcel. The flash of so cruelly

butchered Chicken or a Goat or a cow or pig, is so tasty for the humans that

they just overlook the voice of their inner self. a fish which comes out of

water is such a disturbing site. Panting for water (i don't have proper English

word to describe the condition of a fish out of water). and then the dead fish

thus is so tasty.

>

> The bottom line is that " They cannot overcome " the cravings for the meat, fish

and eggs. This is a naked reality.

>

> Dear Rajarshi, However i try, i am not convinced with arguments in favour of

Nonveg food. Only at the cold places and deserts where survival was the main

consideration, i can slightly agree but that too during ancient days. not

now...Now everywhere Veg food is easily available.

>

> ***

> Few months back, a young girl from Germany came to work in my office for 6

months. once i casually asked her as to what she eats during lunch. what she

said was not at all expected. she said that she is pure vegetarian and eats only

Veg food since 3 years now and wants to continue that way whole life. As

expected, i was very happy and i further asked the reason. The answer she gave

so much happiness. She said that She does not want to kill to eat. Vow! I salute

her from my heart.

>

> Best Regards,

>

> Utpal

>

> , rajarshi nandy <rajarshi14@ ...> wrote:

> >

> > Dear Utpal,

> >  

> > I slightly disagree with your below mail. Without offence, let me state a

few counter point for the sake of a discussion from a non-vegetarian' s point of

view. You said:

> >  

> > ¡§I don¡¦t wish to stuff my stomach with the

body parts of killed

> > creature. Would never think of troubling any leaving creature when

> > mother-nature has provided enough alternate food.

> >  

> > Even plants are living. The air we breath is living (organisms). Death is

part and parcel of natural law. One cannot avoid it however much one tries. The

Abrahamic religions are heavy on non-veg food. The areas where they grew, arid,

desert land, you need to have (at least during those days) animal flesh to

survive specially considreing irrigation options were so scanty. If you

live in the Artic region, you need to have fish oil to survive the cold.

The point is, death is a part of life. One does not survive without

death. That is how the world has been designed by the grand designer.

> >  

> > What right I have, to snatch away even a single life in

> > the universe for my selfish reasons. I consider that as very very

> > cruel and that is the personal thinking why I am a vegetarian and not

> > strictly due to any religious or cultural reason¡¨

> >  

> > What harm have plants done? Why not the same kind of feeling when it comes

to plant life? They too are living beings, just like anything else!

> >  

> > What you consider selfish maybe a law of nature.

> >  

> > Please understand I am not advocating non-vegetarianism. But if someone is

to do serious sadhana, no doubt vegetarian food is best. Otherwise, I am not

sure if it makes in any difference at all.

> >  

> > -Regards

> > Rajarshi

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > The upsurge (of consciousness) is Bhairava - Shiva Sutra

> >

> > --- On Fri, 11/12/09, vedic_pathak <vedic_pathak@ ...> wrote:

> >

> >

> > vedic_pathak <vedic_pathak@ ...>

> > Re: Veg Vs. Non-Veg

> >

> > Friday, 11 December, 2009, 7:36 PM

> >

> >

> >  

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > Namasrte SriRam,

> > Long back, i had posted the below message on this list.

> > I've put my argument in the message in which i firmly belive.

> > Its possible this may change the mind of your friend.

> > http://groups. / group/vedic- wisdom/message/ 411

> > The exact Argument is given again as under which is the extract from the

above message:

> > [

> > I couldn¡¦t hold back myself and honestly explained my

> > conclusive view point on the whole subject as follow

> > ¡§I don¡¦t wish to stuff my stomach with the

body parts of killed

> > creature. Would never think of troubling any leaving creature when

> > mother-nature has provided enough alternate food. Just for the sake

> > of filling my stomach or satisfying cravings of my tongue, I

won¡¦t be

> > responsible for killing innocent birds, animals, fishes directly or

> > indirectly. What right I have, to snatch away even a single life in

> > the universe for my selfish reasons. I consider that as very very

> > cruel and that is the personal thinking why I am a vegetarian and not

> > strictly due to any religious or cultural reason¡¨

> > ]

> > Even if Shri Krishna has not mentioned a direct wording of Non-vegetarian

food in Geeta, it is not right to take that excuse for slottering creatures.

> > I ask any body to think for him/her self in the light of what is right and

what is not...

> > Best Regards,

> > Utpal

> >  

> >  

> >  

> >

> >  

> >

> > , Astro Seeker <astro.seeker@ ...>

wrote:

> > >

> > > Namaste,

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > I am a firm believer of Veg being satwik food and consider non-veg as

hurdle to spiritual growth. But, a friend of mine who otherwise is trying to

make some spiritual progress, is a non-vegetatian. In our arguments over non-veg

food, he has put a counter argument. He says that if I can find him a single

shloka on this in Bhagwat Geeta, he would give up. 

> > > So, if anybody on this group can help me find the quote, it would be

great. He considers Geeta as the absolute reference and believes if Lord Krishna

has not spoken about it in Geeta, it is actually not worth discussing whether or

not you take non-veg. If anyone finds it, le me know so that 1 guy on this earth

can become vegetarian.

> > > He also quotes Sai Baba, Jesus and Mohammed Prophet adhering to non-veg.

If any of you know the counter argument, please help.

> > > Best Regards,Sriram

> > >

> > >

> > > The INTERNET now has a personality. YOURS! See your Homepage.

http://in.. com/

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > The INTERNET now has a personality. YOURS! See your Homepage.

http://in.. com/

> >

>

>

>

The INTERNET now has a personality. YOURS! See your Homepage.

http://in.. com/

>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

My 2 Ounces about Non veg...

 

I some how do not like the argument that eating a cooked dead-meat lessens the

Himsa done.

 

Just imagine in this market economy there are some animals which were " bred to

be killed " . They were also " fed " so that they can satisfy our jihva better. They

were also crammed into a small place with no place to move.

None of us are doing this, but our appetite for their meat is causing it. Even

the owner of the farm may say, I am not doing it, only the worker employed to do

so is actually performing the act.

 

Even at Copenhagen, people talk about the Global Warming caused by eating

non-veg food.

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=20772 & Cr=global & Cr1=warming

Animal breeding for human consumption causes 9% of CO2 and 65% of NO2 (256 times

more powerful than CO2) and 37% of Methane (23 times more powerful than CO2).

So lets say " Go Green " .

 

Thanks

Krishna

[Guest guest]

Speaking of Copenhagen, it is interesting that a large amount of fossil fuel was

utilized in bringing people to Copenhagen (planes, cars, buses etc) ;-)

 

One of the Native american canadian environmentalist declined an invitation to

visit Copenhagen because it would require fossil fuel to get him over there.

 

RR

 

, " pkssk " <pkssk wrote:

>

> My 2 Ounces about Non veg...

>

> I some how do not like the argument that eating a cooked dead-meat lessens the

Himsa done.

>

> Just imagine in this market economy there are some animals which were " bred to

be killed " . They were also " fed " so that they can satisfy our jihva better. They

were also crammed into a small place with no place to move.

> None of us are doing this, but our appetite for their meat is causing it. Even

the owner of the farm may say, I am not doing it, only the worker employed to do

so is actually performing the act.

>

> Even at Copenhagen, people talk about the Global Warming caused by eating

non-veg food.

> http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=20772 & Cr=global & Cr1=warming

> Animal breeding for human consumption causes 9% of CO2 and 65% of NO2 (256

times more powerful than CO2) and 37% of Methane (23 times more powerful than

CO2).

> So lets say " Go Green " .

>

> Thanks

> Krishna

>