Guest guest Posted November 20, 1999 Report Share Posted November 20, 1999 Dear Jan - Thanks for your comments. I thought I'd provide a response from someone who practiced vegetarianism for perhaps two or three years, enjoyed "falling off the wagon", and who now, apparently, follows far less dietary restrictions than you do. My perspective is that dietary rules are simply dietary rules. Eat what agrees with you. (Hitler was a vegetarian by the way.) >Some will argue that living and dying are the two sides of one coin and >seeing predators capture a prey, conclude that humans have the same right. Nature is nature, it isn't a matter of rights. Rights are inventions of human ideologies. >One counter argument is that few humans would be willing to kill a creature >with bare hands and eat it raw, just like predators do. If they can, it >isn't a problem until the +until+ is met. The +until+ has been presented >nicely in the movie "Soylent Green". Indeed, what is the problem of >recycling naturally deceased bodies? Who could possibly object to that? Few humans would walk three thousand miles, but we have cars and airplanes and use them. This is our nature, to invent and use technologies, just as spiders spin webs and ants build colonies. We have learned to use fire and cook, make clothing, etc. This is our nature. Human beings follow human nature, making use of technologies seems unavoidably an aspect of how we function. Not eating people has to do more with moral repugnance than anything else, but may have some kind of species-survival mechanism to it. Of course, that mechanism has been overridden by various cultures, subcultures, and individuals in unusual situations. Moral or biologically-based, this repugnance seems to have much to do with a basic code of survival in a community. Soylent Green was about practicality under dire circumstances, as well as governmental manipulation. Both worth being aware of. A good movie. >The >dislike for that is one side of the coin and the other is the like for >non-human animal protein. If one still is a believer in the protein-myth, >unwilling to take the experiment but claiming a nondual perspective, it has >to be clear that attachment to a deceased body violates that perspective. You don't sound very accepting of much of the human race, here, Jan. It sounds like, according to you, only a select group of people who eat according to your rules can "claim a nondual perspective". My view is that nonduality is not a claim of a perspective, rather "simple awareness" as reality. Such awareness is not based on a platform from which to make judgments of people, in my humble opinion, including being judmental of vegetarians :-). Most of the world would be glad to be able to have adequate protein in their diet, and more vitamins and minerals, too. Protein is especially important in the development of neuronal structures early in life, and remains important throughout life, including association with B vitamins that regulate stress. Attachment is not a matter of what someone ingests, it is a matter of emotion and attitude. One can be attached to the idea of nonviolence, for example, or the idea that one will attain special powers through a special diet, or the idea that one is better than others who eat things one doesn't. This seems to be at least an aspect of why religions invent dietary laws, IMO. One can be attached to popcorn, lima beans, or the dead bodies of sugar cane plants. >From the perspective of love, any act of killing for food is out of the >question unless no choice is left. >From the perspective of love, love is evident in nature from top to bottom, just as killing for food is evident throughout. Killing a plant is killing, killing single-celled organisms is killing, being born and dying are not separable. >If one is convinced not to be the body, >it rather is an act of compassion to feed one's body (which has served its >purpose) to a predator, temporarily unable to capture a prey and I can >vaguely remember a story describing just that. The consequence of the >nondual perspective is that there is only +you+ and its consequence is that >what is seen as "life", are all aspects of only +you+. Is is repeatedly >stated that life is game and the essential rule is: all actions will always >bounce back to +you+. As long as one makes a distinction between the bodies >of a deceased loved one, a deceased pet and a slaughtered chicken, one is >showing attachment to deceased bodies, disliking to eat some but liking to >eat others although from a nutritious perspective there isn't a difference. >Or attachment to beliefs like the protein-myth; experiential evidence has >been the only "meat" for this one As any action, arguably violating the >nondual perspective, will bounce back to +you+, it could mean "heavy >weather" until these inconsistencies are resolved... Jan, it seems to me that what bounces back is one's awareness, attitude, and approach to living. A nonviolent attitude could be evidenced by respect for animals that are killed for food, making sure their lives are allowed harmony with their surroundings, and so on. Thus, violence is more evident in the attitude and environments in which we raise and slaughter animals than in the physical act of eating. I do support your idea that we need to be aware of our approach to life and living things, and this includes eating (as we will be eaten - by bacteria if nothing else). Laws regulating the kinds of environments and slaughtering practices for animals on farms would be very useful. >Because, resolving ALL >inconsistencies is synonymous with completion of transformations. Which >leave as the last remark that learning and resolving from the perspective >of love is far easier than from deductive reasoning I like your way of summing this up. Thanks. Resolving all inconsistencies, to me, means resolving the human tendency to place ourselves outside of nature. We are, ourselves, nature. We are the lion, the bear, the elk, the sheep, the river, the fish, the mountain, the ocean. Interesting to me that sheep seem to be the metaphor of choice for Christianity, with the lion relegated to a symbol for the evil one. What a different religion it might have been with different metaphors, if humans might not only be considered "good" if they are "sheep" who acknowledge a "shepherd," but might be good if they are lions or bears, might be good if they are eagles as well as "pigeons" :-). Vegetarianism seems a similar metaphor to the "humans are better as sheep" idea -- cows and sheep might be considered "good" and bears and lions "bad". Of course, sheep might be more easy to control and manipulate than lions, and this might be a reason that organized religions use such concepts. My resolution of contradictions means not to place a lens of "good" and "bad" over nature, and to accept all of humanity, vegetarians and meat-eaters, as expressions of the One Body which we are. At heart, I am in agreement with nonviolence as primary awareness. I'm glad you're discussing an approach that validates this important realization. Nonviolence, to me, includes not being violent toward ourselves by formulating ideals that we then use as judgments against our selves and our inherent natures. Trying to reach an ideal has been associated with all kinds of violence within and between groups, throughout history. I remain unconvinced that vegetarians can't be ferocious warriors, as this has been shown through centuries in India, China, Japan, and other countries. There are even vegetarians in the good old U.S. Marine Corps, although most Marines probably would like meat with their potatoes. -- Love -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 20, 1999 Report Share Posted November 20, 1999 On 11/20/99 at 5:07 PM Dan Berkow, PhD wrote: >Dear Jan - >Thanks for your comments. >I thought I'd provide a response from someone >who practiced vegetarianism for perhaps two or three years, >enjoyed "falling off the wagon", and who now, apparently, follows >far less dietary restrictions than you do. Who is talking about restrictions? I most certainly am not. The fact of labeling something "restrictions" points to the fact that "personal" like/dislike is a factor in determination, not common sense or reasoning. >My perspective is that dietary rules >are simply dietary rules. Eat what >agrees with you. (Hitler was a vegetarian >by the way.) What agrees? On what basis? Like/dislike? Food isn't just food. With the help of technology any taste can be added to grinded paper so how can "what is agreeable" be a basis for a choice? If you happen to own a dog, apply that rule to the dog and the animal will choose things like cheese instead of "dog food". On mainly cheese, the dog won't live long... Better still (or worse, depending on perspective), the dog certainly will like chocolate and that is lethal to dogs. >>Some will argue that living and dying are the two sides of one coin and >>seeing predators capture a prey, conclude that humans have the same right. > >Nature is nature, it isn't a matter of rights. Rights are >inventions of human ideologies. Nature has its laws and the present choice of food is a human ideology; that of like, dislike and money. >>One counter argument is that few humans would be willing to kill a creature >>with bare hands and eat it raw, just like predators do. If they can, it >>isn't a problem until the +until+ is met. The +until+ has been presented >>nicely in the movie "Soylent Green". Indeed, what is the problem of >>recycling naturally deceased bodies? Who could possibly object to that? > >Few humans would walk three thousand miles, but we have cars >and airplanes and use them. This is our nature, to invent and use >technologies, just as spiders spin webs and ants build colonies. >We have learned to use fire and cook, make clothing, etc. This >is our nature. Human beings follow human nature, >making use of technologies seems unavoidably an aspect of >how we function. Ha!! "We" have arms, tons of them, invent ever better ones and it is our nature to use them or invent a reason to do so. It is also our nature to go after the pleasures of the senses and when problems arise due to that, to remedy just the symptoms. One of the main problems is sedentary lifestyle and it will become far worse until technology has provided the possibility of transplanting a human head on a robot. That would certainly be ideal from the perspective of instant sense gratification and would also free spirituality from Kundalini >Not eating people has to do more with moral repugnance than anything else, >but may have some kind of species-survival mechanism to it. Of course, that >mechanism has been overridden by various cultures, subcultures, and >individuals >in unusual situations. Moral or biologically-based, this repugnance seems to >have much to do with a basic code of survival in a community. Soylent Green >was about practicality under dire circumstances, as well as governmental >manipulation. Both worth being aware of. A good movie. Well, it isn't exactly a surprise that humans mainly judge on like/dislike. So in Soylent Green, it was kept a secret that human bodies were recycled for food and without knowledge of the ingredient, it tasted OK. I am merely pointing to the discrepancy that killing an animal is preferred over non killing despite there being no nutritious difference. There has been a lot of archeologically confirmed cannibalism and it isn't far off to state that every human has a forbear who ate another human. >>The >>dislike for that is one side of the coin and the other is the like for >>non-human animal protein. If one still is a believer in the protein-myth, >>unwilling to take the experiment but claiming a nondual perspective, it has >>to be clear that attachment to a deceased body violates that perspective. > >You don't sound very accepting of much of the human race, here, Jan. >It sounds like, according to you, only a select group of people who >eat according to your rules can "claim a nondual perspective". My view >is that nonduality is not a claim of a perspective, rather "simple awareness" >as reality. Such awareness is not based on a platform from which to make >judgments of people, in my humble opinion, including being >judmental of vegetarians :-). Accepting (taking things as they are) and reasoning are different things. I didn't and won't start a movement to change things, knowing the impossibility of that. But who is speaking about rules? Inconsistencies and beliefs are included in that simple awareness. Unless they are eliminated, how can one say it doesn't make a difference? The famous chief Tuiavii of Tivea had this simple awareness as well, exactly because of the absence of such inconsistencies. What he didn't have, was any knowledge about nonduality. But who would be satisfied with simple awareness unless the definition of Sat_Cit_Ananda applies? A simple awareness of that kind enables one to be rational and sensible about the choice of food, not a believer. Most of the world would be glad to be >able to have adequate protein in their diet, and more vitamins >and minerals, too. Protein is especially important in the development > of neuronal structures early in life, and remains important throughout >life, including association with B vitamins that regulate stress. Most of the world still is suffering from the result of destruction of their culture thanks to colonialism and practice of slavery, selectively eliminating the "best" part of the population from local society. This is the main reason for overpopulation, underdevelopment and hunger. Why not take the experience to live on vitamin pills and protein? The result would be disastrous (tests for astronaut's food have proved that). Any fruitarian has a protein intake, less than the minimum according to conventional belief but has a vitality far exceeding "average". >Attachment is not a matter of >what someone ingests, it is a matter of emotion and attitude. One can be >attached to the idea of nonviolence, for example, or the idea that one will >attain special powers through a special diet, or the idea that one is better >than others who eat things one doesn't. This seems to be at least an aspect >of why religions invent dietary laws, IMO. One can be attached to popcorn, >lima beans, or the dead bodies of sugar cane plants. If attachment is a matter of emotion and attitude, you are providing an excellent example for that statement: "Eat what >agrees with you." is something I can only interpret as attachment, not as an invitation to sensibly and rationally determine one's intake of food... >>From the perspective of love, any act of killing for food is out of the >>question unless no choice is left. > >>From the perspective of love, love is evident in nature from top to bottom, >just >as killing for food is evident throughout. Killing a plant is killing, >killing >single-celled organisms is killing, being born and dying are not separable. For a tiger there is a difference between prey and another tiger, a tiger isn't conscious of killing a prey. Only a human is. BTW, I didn't just coincidentally mention fruits a source of food. The purpose of the fruit isn't invalidated per se by eating it. It isn't without reason that meat is heavily processed: the relation between animal and product is destroyed to the extent that identification with the animal has become impossible as hardly anyone will eat a living animal no matter the taste. The fact that without salt, herbs etc. meat is rather tasteless is another reason to suspect that without these additives and way of processing it wouldn't be a favorable food. When meat would become very expensive, a Soylent Green scenario would be a likely Mafia operation and as long as no one knows, it wouldn't be repugnant as the difference in source wouldn't be reflected in the taste. >>If one is convinced not to be the body, >>it rather is an act of compassion to feed one's body (which has served its >>purpose) to a predator, temporarily unable to capture a prey and I can >>vaguely remember a story describing just that. The consequence of the >>nondual perspective is that there is only +you+ and its consequence is that >>what is seen as "life", are all aspects of only +you+. Is is repeatedly >>stated that life is game and the essential rule is: all actions will always >>bounce back to +you+. As long as one makes a distinction between the bodies >>of a deceased loved one, a deceased pet and a slaughtered chicken, one is >>showing attachment to deceased bodies, disliking to eat some but liking to >>eat others although from a nutritious perspective there isn't a difference. >>Or attachment to beliefs like the protein-myth; experiential evidence has >>been the only "meat" for this one As any action, arguably violating the >>nondual perspective, will bounce back to +you+, it could mean "heavy >>weather" until these inconsistencies are resolved... > >Jan, it seems to me that what bounces back is >one's awareness, attitude, and approach to living. If someone is insulted there is the possibility of receiving an insult back but it can be a bullet as well. >A nonviolent attitude could be evidenced by respect for animals >that are killed for food, making sure their lives are allowed >harmony with their surroundings, and so on. This is the most strange form of respect I've ever seen. One consequence of that kind of respect is that when a crook-like politician is living, he is despised but as soon as he dies, he is glorified, becomes a hero and a statue is erected. To me it is just an inconsistency, paving the way for more of them. Thus, violence >is more evident in the attitude and environments in which we raise and >slaughter animals than in the physical act of eating. I do support >your idea that we need to be aware of our approach to life and living >things, and this includes eating (as we will be eaten - by bacteria >if nothing else). Laws regulating the kinds of environments >and slaughtering practices for animals on farms would be very useful. Laws usually will lead to their violation. The funniest story ever was about a pig farmer in Israel, growing pigs "for export only". But pig meat being much cheaper than "kosher" meat, it all ended up as "kosher" meat on the Israelian market... One of the rational arguments against meat consumption is that eating it US-style will require another planet like earth, just filled with meadows and cows. As there isn't a suitable planet in the neighborhood, the alternative is to decrease the population to accommodate US-style meat consumption for the the rest or to abandon the habit altogether. >>Because, resolving ALL >>inconsistencies is synonymous with completion of transformations. Which >>leave as the last remark that learning and resolving from the perspective >>of love is far easier than from deductive reasoning > >I like your way of summing this up. Thanks. >Resolving all inconsistencies, to me, means resolving the human >tendency to place ourselves outside of nature. We are, ourselves, >nature. We are the lion, the bear, the elk, the sheep, the river, >the fish, the mountain, the ocean. Interesting to me that sheep >seem to be the metaphor of choice for Christianity, with the lion >relegated to a symbol for the evil one. What a different religion >it might have been with different metaphors, if humans might not only >be considered "good" if they are "sheep" who acknowledge a "shepherd," >but might be good if they are lions or bears, might be good if they >are eagles as well as "pigeons" :-). Vegetarianism seems a similar >metaphor to the "humans are better as sheep" idea -- >cows and sheep might be considered "good" and bears and lions "bad". >Of course, sheep might be more easy to control and manipulate >than lions, and this might be a reason that organized religions >use such concepts. My resolution of contradictions means not to place >a lens of "good" and "bad" over nature, and to accept all of humanity, >vegetarians and meat-eaters, as expressions of the One Body which we are. According to chief Tuiavii of Tiavea, white man has lost all connectedness with nature and that was in the thirties. No matter from which perspective one looks at it, 1/3 of all species is exterminated by man and the process is accelerating. A recent article in New Scientist showed that contrary to belief, natives have contributed to that as well but not on such a gigantic scale. If that is the consequence of human inventions and technology, it will be clear "where" humanity will end; as a matter of fact this end has been predicted. BTW, thanks to the wonders of modern technology, this century is the most violent one on record. A milestone in human development it certainly isn't, only in "things". >At heart, I am in agreement with nonviolence as primary >awareness. I'm glad you're discussing an approach that validates >this important realization. There are a few cases of predators who became vegetarian, one of them a tiger. Normally, all felines require taurine but not this cat. Ramana had quite a few meetings with wild animals; I don't know if some became vegetarian after the meeting but it is possible. For dogs it is documented that a proper vegetarian diet gives a health advantage as well. There isn't enough space to feed 10 or so billion humans primarily with animals. The most important realization is that life is a game, the dinosaurs didn't ask for extermination but disappeared nevertheless and galaxies are destroyed within a wink of an eye. From that perspective 10 billion so called intelligent creatures don't really matter. >Nonviolence, to me, includes not being violent toward >ourselves by formulating ideals that we then use as judgments against >our selves and our inherent natures. Trying to reach an ideal has been >associated with all kinds of violence within and between groups, throughout >history. Someone once formulated an ideal as something that will require another ideal as soon as it is fulfilled. In other words, solving one relative issue is likely to create another one. What is "inherent nature"? The way I see it is that it is buried deep under a pile of increasing conditioning. Like the fact that obesity has become default appearance and most do not like obesity, is one of the little indications that man is violating his/her body; just apply the biblical rule of the thumb "love thy neighbor as thyself" to that and violence in society has to be "default" too... >I remain unconvinced that vegetarians can't be ferocious >warriors, as this has been shown through centuries in India, China, >Japan, and other countries. There are even vegetarians in the good >old U.S. Marine Corps, although most Marines probably would like >meat with their potatoes. > >-- Love -- Dan It is rather likely vegetarians are the "better" warriors as with a proper diet it results in a higher level of energy and a smaller "recharge" time. A high level of energy and good health are on the two sides of the equal sign, not to mention longevity. But most pleasant is that a high level of energy serves Kundalini rather well. The discovery of course is that when eating is no longer a primal pleasure, one can take experiments, only to verify that the "paradise" diet indeed combines health, energy, longevity, swift Kundalini progress and Ahimsa. It is simple, practicable and from that perspective doesn't have anything to do with an ideal. Regarding Ahimsa, it leaves the question, what if there is no alternative to avoid one case of violence to prevent say, 100 cases? Or to apply a little suffering to avoid a lot of it? Jan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 22, 1999 Report Share Posted November 22, 1999 In a message dated 11/20/99 8:08:23 PM Pacific Standard Time, janb writes: << For dogs it is documented that a proper vegetarian diet gives a health advantage as well. >> Documented where? This is phenomenal bunk! I raise dogs and cereal/vegetarian diets alone do not provide the type of calcium and protein necessary for healthy dogs. They have canines and bone crushing teeth needed for eating a diet rich in protein. Furthermore, most dental problems associated with modern pet dogs are due to "soft food" diets heavy with cereals and vegetable proteins and poor in calcium and meat. Please do not quote "documented studies" that cannot be attributed and that do not bear the scrutiny of scientific, well distributed over time case histories. Exceptions to rules exist in all of nature, but the exception never invalidates the rule. And by the way, although a dog may enjoy a bit of cheese as a snack, they will ignore the cheese and go for fresh meat in an instant, given the choice. Chocolate, a deadly poison to dogs, is avoided unless it is sweetened and is sought only by dogs that have been "spoiled" with "sweet treats" from puppyhood by owners that do not realize that sugar additives to dog treats are more deadly for dogs than for humans, if that can be believed. We constantly work to educate our owners and dog friends about what constitutes healthy balanced foods for dogs, and the results are evident in eye, coat, stamina, physical weight, lean body/fat ratios, etc., birth weights of pups and survival rate, which is exceptionally high, with only one loss out of 46 births between three breeding dams. Yes, the dogs love avocados, too. They will usually not consume most vegetables unless covered in a meat gravy. Given a choice, they prefer lamb, poultry and beef. They are kosher, however and are not allowed to eat pork, because it tastes like "long pig" (human flesh). Blessings Love, Zenbob Writing as Director of Arctic Kennels, California Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 23, 1999 Report Share Posted November 23, 1999 There is plenty of info on vegg-pets and when searching long enough one will find statistics too. http://www.vegetariandogs.com/ http://www.vegetariandogs.com/index.order.html http://www.peta-online.org/stinks/lvegdog.html Being pragmatic in worldly affairs, observation tells people won't buy fresh meat for their pets but waste meat, dry dog food or stuff from a tin. The so called ready_to_eat foods contain a lot of waste meat and consequently a lot of things that do not show up on the package, like hormones, antibiotics etc.. It is quite possible a pet will develop an allergy because of ready_to_eat food. From that perspective which goes for the majority of pets, well prepared vegg meals are preferable. Another matter is exercise. Most dogs don't get enough and it influences eating habits. I've never met a dog that wasn't fond of cheese, in fact every dog owner I asked, could verify the fact that their pet would favor cheese over the usual meal. Apart from that, cheese is probably the oldest trick to silence a watch dog. Another observation was an experiment with a cat who was a guest for a few weeks. The cat could choose from fresh, raw liver or soft cat food. Of course the cat choose the cat food; not once but always. A cat is much closer to nature than a dog; an abandoned cat here is likely to survive whereas an abandoned dog is likely to die, unless abandoned in a city. So in the mountainous areas I have seen abandoned sporting dogs, quite able to capture one of the many rabbits, withering away despite abundance of food (rabbits) and water. But in the same hostile surroundings, cats do survive (until caught by a bird of prey). BTW, the former names of the Canaries was Dog's Isles as dogs were and are abundant, so there is plenty to observe, which is easy as time doesn't matter. On 11/22/99 at 9:52 PM ZEN2WRK wrote: >ZEN2WRK > >In a message dated 11/20/99 8:08:23 PM Pacific Standard Time, >janb writes: > ><< For dogs it is documented > that a proper vegetarian diet gives a health advantage as well. >> >Documented where? This is phenomenal bunk! I raise dogs and >cereal/vegetarian diets alone do not provide the type of calcium and protein >necessary for healthy dogs. They have canines and bone crushing teeth needed >for eating a diet rich in protein. Furthermore, most dental problems >associated with modern pet dogs are due to "soft food" diets heavy with >cereals and vegetable proteins and poor in calcium and meat. > >Please do not quote "documented studies" that cannot be attributed and that >do not bear the scrutiny of scientific, well distributed over time case >histories. Exceptions to rules exist in all of nature, but the exception >never invalidates the rule. > >And by the way, although a dog may enjoy a bit of cheese as a snack, they >will ignore the cheese and go for fresh meat in an instant, given the choice. > Chocolate, a deadly poison to dogs, is avoided unless it is sweetened and is >sought only by dogs that have been "spoiled" with "sweet treats" from >puppyhood by owners that do not realize that sugar additives to dog treats >are more deadly for dogs than for humans, if that can be believed. > >We constantly work to educate our owners and dog friends about what >constitutes healthy balanced foods for dogs, and the results are evident in >eye, coat, stamina, physical weight, lean body/fat ratios, etc., birth >weights of pups and survival rate, which is exceptionally high, with only one >loss out of 46 births between three breeding dams. > >Yes, the dogs love avocados, too. They will usually not consume most >vegetables unless covered in a meat gravy. Given a choice, they prefer lamb, >poultry and beef. They are kosher, however and are not allowed to eat pork, >because it tastes like "long pig" (human flesh). > >Blessings >Love, > >Zenbob >Writing as Director of Arctic Kennels, California > >>All paths go somewhere. No path goes nowhere. Paths, places, sights, perceptions, and indeed all experiences arise from and exist in and subside back into the Space of Awareness. Like waves rising are not different than the ocean, all things arising from Awareness are of the nature of Awareness. Awareness does not come and go but is always Present. It is Home. Home is where the Heart Is. Jnanis know the Heart to be the Finality of Eternal Being. A true devotee relishes in the Truth of Self-Knowledge, spontaneously arising from within into It Self. Welcome all to a. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.