Energy is one!

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 11/18/99 12:32:05 PM Pacific Standard Time,

aoclery writes:

 

<< For example one has to have a purified Buddhi or

intellect to be spiritual, and this requires not

eating meat, alcohol, smoking, gambling etc etc.

Eating meat indicates a lack of compassion or

connection with the animal but it also introduces

heavy animal vibrations into the bodies. These

vibrations have to be purified, usually by spiritual

practices.

 

To achieve enlightenment through K, one has to purify

and consciously and one-pointedly, make a 'spiritual'

effort as opposed to an experiential pastime.

 

Love Tony.???????????

>>

Dear Tony:

 

I agree with most of your recent post...and even agree with the basic

underlying philosophy you expound, which, if I understand it correctly, boils

down to, "spiritual progress or enlightenment through Kundalini practices are

limited or not possible unless the practitioner also purifies or attains a

spiritual nature."

 

This is fine, up to the point where you insist that this must mean that

"spiritual" means that a person cannot eat meat or drink wine, etc.

 

With all due respect, you have not comprehended the Bhagavad-Gita if you

suggest this. One can practice Ahimsa and yes, strangely enough, eat meat.

One can drink fermented juices and alcohol...so long as one has reasonable

restraint and appropriate thought. If we draw the line at "eating meat"

because it incurs the death of a living creature, then we must judge all

people who kill living creatures harshly...unworthy of spiritual progress.

This is absurd reductionism. Why? Because we all kill living creatures

every day. Oh, but these are small creatures, you may argue. What does that

have to do with spirituality? That is purely a prejudice or bias in favor of

the large at the expense of the tiny. Insects, mites, and single celled

organisms engage in a rich and varied life, without which larger organisms,

such as ourselves would perish, or would never have come into existence.

 

Let's consider instead the intent or mental state of the person, rather than

their diet. Since diet is being predicated on the premise of nonviolence or

not killing living creatures, let us instead look at the discussion of Arjuna

with Krishna before the great battle. Arjuna anguishes over the idea of

going into battle with a known destructive tyrant. He worries about all of

the deaths that will ensue. Krishna explains that death and life are merely

forms...illusions or manifestations of the Nonduality that is the higher

consciousness of Brahma...of existence itself. All animals live on living

things...plants, animals, etc. A plant is no less alive than is an animal

merely because it moves more slowly.

 

Do plants have no "feelings" ? No, research shows that they have memory,

feeling and enjoy things just as "animals" do. Our bias is based on our own

"animal" nature.

 

If we are wanton and destroy with no respect, no reverence for life...we

destroy our spiritual nature. Native Americans almost always had a broad and

varied diet, but revered all living creatures and plants that provided them

with food. They rarely acted in a wanton or wasteful manner with food.

Respect and cultivation of sensitivity and love for living things is most

important. But if threatened by a dangerous animal, perhaps one that has

suffered injury, disease or is mad, then one has an obligation to protect

life...one's own. In order to survive we all must, as all other animals and

living things do, process the flesh of living creatures and plants.

 

If one can rise to a level of eating only the unborn children of trees,

shrubs, bushes and plants (you would call them nuts, berries, and fruits) you

might convince others that you have evolved to a "more spiritual" level. I

am not convinced. You would still be murdering countless millions of dust

mites, insects, and single celled organisms each day. Your ignorance of

these murders does not reduce their number. Who can place an absolute value

on any given living thing? Yet, we know that in the final assessment, it is

upon human beings that we will place the ultimate value upon. Since this is

the ultimate conclusion, our choice of diet is of little consequence as long

as malice, hatred, wanton destruction and purposeful suffering are not

imposed by us.

 

Dogs will often risk their lives to protect their human friends. If we

mistreat a dog, but eat no meat, how then have we aspired to spirituality?

If we are unkind to our neighbors or superior in our attitudes but do not

drink wine...how then our spiritual progress?

 

I suggest realistic guidelines and realistic standards of "spirituality"

which means that I question any of us who think that we fully understand or

can suggest rules for others. Illusion is a much bigger barrier to

enlightenment than is diet or thirst slaking beverages.

 

When we learn to see a universe in a grain of sand...then we are making

spiritual progress.

 

Blessings

Love,

 

Zenbob