Anabhogya-Carya

well said, well said. thats pretty brutal. I can't believe the amount of trash. And on a site for people who like books! Maybe they don't read them, just make wishlists.

Everyone is so caught up in debating the existence of man made global warming. Who cares? The fact is that the air over our cities is disgusting, water is polluted, wildlife is being destoryed, forests are burning, wetlands are disappearing, etc. etc. This part is not because of some natural cycle. Car exhaust is in our atmosphere and around our cities, not to mention factories and busnisess spewing out chemicals, it would do everyone good to have less of it, whether it contributes greatly or marginally to the warming of the planet. And there are plenty of enviromental problems that are not part of a "natural cycle" (maybe the warming of the planet is not either).

That sounds very interesting. Is this book well known? enough that I would be able to find it in a local book store?

That is still debated. It is not as simple as you claim. And I ask do you eat only things that fall from a tree? Put it on a scale, there are healthy altenatives to eating meat, the healthy alternatives to not eating plants are few and far between. Again, since there are healthy alternatives why would I? Fair enough. But that does not mean it is not a social construct. ex: "Do this because it generates good karma, don't do this because it generates bad karma." ex2: "do this and you go to heaven, do this and you go to hell." (the other traditions). I agree that suffering is not a matter of right or wrong, and neither is the transcendance of it. But that does not mean that "karma" is in fact a universal law. It may be, but it is not necessarily.

You say it is a fact, and second it by saying it is a belief. These are very different things my friend. I never put my values above yours, personally I do not believe in an objective moral standard. Unlike your view of karma (which is a moral system) I don't hold certain things to be objectively right or wrong. But this does not work well in a pragmatic sense. I am merely addressing the mystical justification used for eating animals in this on-going topic, opposed to one based on compassion. Maturity does not bring specific moral conclusions. Again, intelligence is not an unqualified superiority. Superiority is a social construct based of subjective values and factors (ex: my race is better than yours, my country is better than yours, my species is better than yours, etc.). And yes our bodies and nature are probably designed to eat both animals and plants, but in our modern age (and throughout most of history, but especially now) there are alternatives that are just as good as an omnivorus diet. Thus through our intelligence we can overcome our "natures". The naturalization argument is a rather weak one, especially on a spirituality and religion forum. Many things are claimed to be part of our nature, killing each other, polygamus relationships, spreading our seed, fighting over resources, the will to power, etc. But yet many of our systems focus on overcoming these things (Taoism, Buddhism, Democracy, Communism, etc). We are built to do lots of things, but many of them are restricted to achieve "higher" goals. Of course a moral center is a state of mind. All ideaological and value systems are a state of mind based on perceptions. No cosmic order view holds water (in the most general sense) when you admit that this view is merely a state of mind. I respect your beliefs and meat eating is so prevelent I have little choice not to, and if I did I would anyways. I do not believe in forcing or dictating. But that does not mean that when you express your views on an open internet forum that they will not be challenged. There is no need to get angry. I am fine with it being your belief, I have many friends that eat meat, my girlfriend eats meat, my entire family eats meat, obviously I don't have a "lack of compassion to meat eaters." It is not necessarily the eating of meat that bothers me, it is the life that meat animals live that bothers me. As for being eaten, if I am eaten then I am eaten. Do I try and avoid being eaten? Of course. But I would object to raising humans for the sole purpose of being food just as I do animals. If a hunter in some village goes out and kills a deer to feed his family I do not care, this seems natural and necessarly in a society in which survial is based on such things. But when an industrial society commits the horrors that are carried out in mechanized factory farms and the wholesale breeding of animals, who lead miserable lives, for the satisfaction of its meat craving customers (and yes, as the article states, the obsession with meat has erupted in the last few centuries), this I have a problem with. I would not wish this life for any human, nor do I for any animal. Thanks. And we can end this here since it has been established that we have our different beliefs or you can respond of course.

In fact, I do think it is likely that there is other life in the universe. I just said that there is no great proof that an alien lifeform has visited us on earth. Thus because I have nothing more than the rational possibility of existent alien life in my mind, and no solid empirical proof I don't go around making claims that "aliens 100% exist, I know that for a fact." This is what I was addressing, not that the existence of aliens is immpossible or even unlikely.

And so what? Lack of intelligence means what? They still feel pain and can make efforts to avoid pain. You know we may not be the most intelligent creature in the universe right? Does that make us inferior? Or merely food? intelligence is a faculty, not a unqualified sign of superiority. And still no mention of compassion. Abstract metaphysical ideas of unknowable things are sad justifications. Placing gastromonic preferences and claims of mystical energy gains above compassion. How convenient a claim.

How would you like to be born, bred and killed for the sole purpose of being eaten?

I went to sleep atop of "adam, eve and the serpent" by elaine pagles last night. i have never read it and it is safe to say that I still have not.

Something that can not easily be doubted... all projects of hyperbolic doubt and metaphysical subjectivity aside.

Sleeping on books could save me alot of time reading for my courses. If it worked, as if mere connotated scribbles on a piece of tree could transfer information into my brain by physical contact. Nonetheless I will try it tonight. Await my report tomorow!!

I disagree. Why limit yourself to one thing when many traditions and philosophies have much to offer? The Jains teach the concept of Anekantavada in which all views contain some truth and no view has a monopoly on all truth. All traditions and philosophies are crafted to some extent by synthesis, why should that be closed once they are formed?

I have watched countless videos of "UFO sightings." I have yet to see one that was convincing or even close to convincing. A pictures are even worse: "Look at the sky there is a faint triangle speck in this grainy photo I took, Aliens exist!" And nowadays with photoshop and special effects much can be forged. There have been plenty of 'first hand experiences' with countless things throughout history: ghosts, reptilians, gods, demons, aliens, big foot, mole people, mothmen, men in black, etc. The earth was even flat for so many centuries, talk about mass delusion. Are we to believe that these all are real? Just because a few thousand people call into late night radio shows and have chessy geocities websites with alien pictures and theories does not mean that they exist. And by no means am I saying they do not exist. Life outside of earth could very well exist and even be plentiful. The universe is vast and largely unknown to us. But at the same time, it does not mean that aliens have visited us, have the capabilities to or, again, do in fact exist. Who knows? I merely think that nobody has any good evidence and to claim that there is good evidence is absurd. It is an unsolved mystery and one that if genuine discoveries are made, I am sure we will all know about it.

Much like the paradox in Plato's cave. Do you go back into the cave to try and help (and probably fail), or do never return because you have found something greater?

Why do you think that?

It may very well be, but he did not make many claims. He just suggested the possibility, which is a nice break from many of the religious people who 'know' everything.

I only drink evil water.

I was expecting some kind of pseudo-science garbage, but that was actually quite interesting. Thanks.

Anekantavada

I don't think it is a matter of health. Its like saying breathing is unhealthy, sex and ejaculation are biological imperatives of all life.

Who is Mr. Tolle? Or is it obvious?

My point exactly.

Sure, but there is nothing outside of NOW. Only one subjective moment at all times.

And would it not be nice if thats all there was, and a general understanding of what it is. Unfortunatly this is rarely the case amongst the practitioners of mass religions.

Most of your replies are anthropocentric. There seems to be little regard for the animals, merely whether you can live to 110 or have some sort of energy balance.