(was ROLL CALL) Now: khessedan, pescatarian, vegetarian, vegan, etc.

May 23, 2009

Hi Pat,

I very much appreciate your kind, soul-filled words. I agree that

pollo-vegetarian and other variants makes no sense. Pescetarian specifically

identifies the top level of the food chain consumed. Pollotarian would make

more sense, but sounds more like a political party...

Also agree with your statement that we don't need to consume any of the walking,

crawling, flying, entities around us.

Yes, we are all at various stages. Some of us cook for families that are

non-vegetarian, so moving my wife from mostly beef and chicken to mostly fish

and sometimes completely vegetarian has taken some time and patience, but mostly

successful. (I don't tell her what to choose when we go out, but if I'm

cooking, generally she'll eat it so I pick the more healthy direction, which is

non-meat. Some times I compromise with pesce.)

Agreed with your point that it is still killing and does a hierarchy really

exist. I don't see it is a spiritual-religious hierarchy, but I do recognize

the levels in the sense of food chain.

Now, I have friends who are sensitive enough to sense the beings in plants. I'm

not sensitive to that, but can recognize their sincerity. Does it not extend

that we should also not kill plants? Even bacteria are alive. So, should we

make sure we don't consume bacteria? Should we only consume up to the level

where we aren't sensitive to the life being consumed? It is easy to see the

intelligence of mammals (well, except maybe except for our dalmatian ;-), for

any warm-blooded creature. As one moves down the food chain toward plankton it

becomes less easy to sense the entity as being intelligent and thus we

rationalize that it is ok to consume them. If spiritually sensitive, one can

sense the life in all of the creatures and for some, even in plants. My

sensitive friends still eat up to some level, but typically most are vegetarian,

though one definitely is not, yet he seems to be able to sense and communicate

with all the levels.

I know, the argument gets to a point of banality.

I sincerely respect and admire the path of those who work to walk this world

trying to avoid killing creatures. Problem is, we get energy from something; it

is all an energy exchange. Better to keep it to lower levels than upper (as in

food chain). I have rationalized myself from the upper levels down to pesce and

working toward removing that as well. It is a rationalization to what level one

goes. For some, it is recognizing the spirit, the essence of those entities,

for others it is recognizing that toxins build up in higher level consumers, so

better to eat lower on the consumption tree.

What ever we consume, I feel the approach of many groups (often indiginous) of

thanking the entity we are to about kill and consume, whether fleshed or plant,

is a great way of acknowledging. This care, this concern, this love, this

*chesed* (or *khessed*) approach seems important.

I would hope we can all move to the lower levels.

Now, maybe moving this topic toward an even more spiritual bent, I've heard some

folks raise the idea that maybe we'll be able to move away from needing energy

from other entities at all. No, not that we would genetically modify our skin

to add photosynthesis genes (but that might be a cool science fiction story!)

but changing our vibrational level. Must say I don't follow the thinking, yet,

but an interesting concept.

+ John

Hi John,

Thanks for your input here - very useful. I also find that merciful eating is

a comforting thought - as is merciful living - but eating wild fish doesn't

really help much because the poor creature is still killed instead of continuing

to live free. One might just as well argue that putting a bullet in, say, one of

a herd of wild deer would be 'merciful', although I am aware that many people

think that there is and should be a hierarchy or animal life, mammals at the top

and fish/sea creatures followed by insect life, etc., at the bottom And this

is where I go on record as saying: We do not _need_ to eat animal flesh in any

form - and by 'animal' vegetarians mean the flesh of any once-living creature,

including those that fly, swim, crawl, etc. OK, finished now

I haven't read the book you mention. I'll see if it's in our library (it's a

good library!) but I won't purchase it if it advocates eating non-veggie things.

'Pescatarian' is a useful word. It correctly describes those who eat no animal

flesh _except_ for fish, regardless of whether or not they eat eggs and/or

dairy. Some say 'pesco-vegetarian' but that makes as much sense as saying

'pollo-vegetarian' (meaning those who eat chicken) or 'pesco-pollo-vegetarian' -

both of which make the rounds occasionally - since it negates the concept

'vegetarian'. There are several pescatarians on this group, some of whom plan to

give up the pesco part of their diet in future and others who don't. We're a

varied lot, aren't we!

.

May 23, 2009

Hi John,

Okay, briefly then . . .

You say

> Agreed with your point that it is still killing and does a hierarchy

really exist. I don't see it is a spiritual-religious hierarchy, but I

do recognize the levels in the sense of food chain.

Food chains? My only 'food chain' is plants. As humans who have learned to not

only hunt and gather (as we used to do way back when) but now have learned to

farm, produce food in various ways, we are no longer reliant on any food chain

as usually described. That's for the creatures who do not and cannot live as we

do right now. As vegetarians we choose not to eat those fellow creatures. That's

where it begins and ends for ovo-lacto vegetarians. Vegans otoh choose not to

eat the 'food' produced by these other animals, that is to say we choose not to

eat eggs or dairy and many of us eschew honey as well. Lifestyle vegans also

prefer to live without leather, wool, feathers, silk, etc.

So the food chain does not come into it, you see?

You also say

> Now, I

have friends who are sensitive enough to sense the beings in plants.

I'm not sensitive to that, but can recognize their sincerity. Does it

not extend that we should also not kill plants?

Vegetarians, I say again, are defined as those who do not eat any living or

once-living creature. (And within vegetarianism may also be included vegans,

although this group is vegetarian with many vegan members and this vegan

co-owner.) So sensitivity to the rights of plants is not necessarily part of

ahimsa ('do no harm'). However, I do have among my friends, including also cyber

friends, vegans who prefer to eat only those parts of the plant which the plant

discards or would discard in any case, therefore doing no harm to the parent

plant, eg. fruit - in the botanical as well as the usual sense. That's a matter

of choice according to ethical belief. I believe we have several fruitarians or

frugivores on this group.

You also mention bacteria. I think this is going from the ridiculous to the

sublime, as they say We cannot live without bacteria. Also, we have no

control over our bodies' use of bacteria, likewise germs and any microscopic

'animal' life. Ahimsa means not doing intentional harm. Some philosophies and/or

religions carry this to the point of sweeping the path in front of the feet so

not to walk on any insects and to refuse root vegetables because of destroying

insect life in harvesting them, and so on. For the majority of the world's

vegetarians, however, I believe lacto-vegetarian or veganism may be the norm,

without more extreme forms.

Hope this helps - because I think we have just about exhausted this topic, as

you suggest

Namaste.

Pat

---

http://www.vegandonelight.com/spice

http://beanvegan.blogspot.com

http://river-rambles.blogspot.com

" As long as you derive inner help and comfort from anything, keep it. " Mahatma

Gandhi.

________________________________

" drpatsant " <drpatsant

Saturday, May 23, 2009 2:10:55 PM

Re: (*was* ROLL CALL) Now: khessedan, pescatarian,

vegetarian, vegan, etc.

---

http://www.vegandonelight.com/spice

http://beanvegan.blogspot.com

http://river-rambles.blogspot.com

" As long as you derive inner help and comfort from anything, keep it. " Mahatma

Gandhi.

________________________________

John Daleske <john

Saturday, May 23, 2009 12:34:49 PM

(*was* ROLL CALL) Now: khessedan, pescatarian,