Thoughts on vegetarianism?

[jago25_98]

my instint is that it effects only the physical... but this in turn allows benefit for the mind and then the spirit, potentially.

 

how much benefit it brings to the body depends on who we are. for me it was a great help, and I learnt lots about myself. our digestion is all different, find what is best though experiment.

[Lucky7Strikes]

Well we can change the way the Universe works. And our sense of morals can make a better world...and we can adapt to a new digestive system. I really don't like the whole things about being stuck on an island and would you eat fish? If I was disciplined enough I would just starve to death because I wouldn't mind dying. But if I was scared or cannot take the pain of starvation I would probably eat fish. Or maybe if I was powerful enough I wouldn't have to eat anymore. Alchemy is about transforming oneself, so is the Bodhisattva's vow, so is meditating, so I really don't get all this stuff about "acceptance" and "nature"

Edited August 25, 2010 by Lucky7Strikes

[Guest paul walter]

If you are and I were marooned on an island together I would love to see your hifalutin moral diet constraints last when there are no coconuts and bananas on the islandwhile there is fish in the lagoon and enough straight wood on the island to fashion usable spears with.

 

Well,I've been on this "island" enough in my life to put quite a bit of your hypothesis into practice--I have starved. Not pleasant but hey...

 

I would find it very entertaining to snack on some fish while you starve. I'd even offer you some of my fishbut my guess is--you would turn it down because it's not a compassionate enough energy sourcebecause a poor little fish had to be murdered in a calculated, premeditated homicide so that you or I could live. It's funny how quickly the certainty of self-righteous morality gets put in the crucible of pressure when your life or your death is on the line.

 

I bet your sadistic self would find it "quite entertaining" . I haven't preached anything about being vegan (something you bastard meat eaters never get on these threads ) merely talked about my own diet and to others who are interested in having a discussion about various aspects of it as per the original intent of the thread. I've lived under the direct spectre of imminent violent death for years and have behaved in a near exemplary way , so have little to prove in the survival-at-any-costs department--there are things more important than survival IMHE. I'm only talking about myself when I talk of vegan eating so mind your own biz

 

 

Care to tackle that scenario head on? Or will you dodge againlike you did when I asked:

 

Care to address that issue Paul? What say you--about the hawk and the vole and the frontal lobe?

No idea--do you want to book tickets to an island with me and test stuff out? All I ask is that I get all the coconuts if there are any.

 

 

Waityou didn't even know what the contents of the site wasbefore-- you sent a fellow TTBer there? And you say I am out of line?

Yeah, the internet is an "easy" place to navigate--have made a decision long ago not to give peole instant gratification in the info dept--make people work for it or they take it for granted like everything else. So my memory of doing net searches of the metabolic typing stuff brought that up to mind and that was my first (though not only response).

 

 

Then you used RD as a red herringagain. You are clearly trying to communicate to me your disdain for one of the greatest rational thinkers of our time.

 

Yes! That's it-you finally got it. After seeing his Crusade (pun? intended)against 'alternative' therapies I don't need to formulate arguments against the great man--let him hang himself. You've gone so far against your early life and its illusions/delusions that you've thrown the baby out with the bathwater. I 'like' a bit of RD, just like I'm not preaching veganism, and like I follow Bruce Frantzis' methods (not that I thik we'd have anything to agree with on that either). There's no contradictions, evasions etc here with me really, it's more a case of your anger/rage getting the better of every person you (think you )disagree with. My axe is ground-don't have any more grinding to do in life really. BTW, you read any non/anti/critical works on Darwinism ?

 

Let me tell you something. I love all you guys. That includes youPaul. And Astral. But I am an advocate and an activist. I spit in Big Pharma's eye. I risk being written off as whacko, antipsychiatry $cient0l0gist extremist,--every single day that I leave my highly critical analysis and condemnation of the practices of the American Psychiatric Association and Big Pharma online on my blog for all to see and read.

 

 

I "love" you too--I see your project and totally am in line with it!!

 

I know pseudoscience when I detect it. I do my homework. I analyze and criticize. I would help raise awareness of the bad sciencebad medicinethat is endemic in today's pill-popping culture. I will stand up and tell people who suffer from emotional and mental problems that they are being scammedlied toand to stand up for themselves against The Machine.

 

Do you not think that I care as much about my fellow TTBums as I do psychiatric survivors, the mentally ill and those seeking treatment for it? Do you think I would not hesitate to call bs or shenanigans when one of my fellow Bums tells another of my fellow Bums to go to a website selling scams that you couldn't even be bothered to check out first?

There's so much shit on the web, it was an honest mistake-I thought he would just go to another site and find what he needed to know for his satisfaction that's all. I don't spend hardly any time on the net (just here) so don't spend time checking much out.

 

What is wrong with you Paul? Am I also out of line for telling psychiatric customers that they don't really have a chemical imbalance like Big Pharma told them--and that the pills they take cause addiction and permanent neuropathyand that there are alternative treatments for it? Because if I am out of line for alerting A Seeker and Co. about the scandalous nature of the metabolic typing site you recommendedthen I must also be out of line for alerting the public about the scandalous nature of Big Pharma's debunked chemical imbalance pseudoscience and the sites where those scams are propagated too. Right?

Well I hardly think "scandalous" is the right term to use!! Are you saying MT is bunk? It is something that is evolving and comes from a good non-'scientifically' respected pedigree--Weston A.Price and Co . Jane, if you really understood the irony of you thinking you have to defend? your position regards Big Pharma, treatment, science etc from me , well.... I'll give you that PM and clear some things up ok, but it might be a few days.)

 

 

Did you just selectively filter out what I recently told you about my diet experiments? Re: Nikolayey: Did you selectively filter out what I said earlier about being on a fast for days under the supervision of a nurse? No clearing up of my schizophrenia mate. The mind is not in the colon. I have been depression free for over fifteen years without relying on fasting, the master cleanse or vegetarianism.

 

Yeah, I got all that--it was suggested because of your interest in real alternatives to bullshit psychiatric 'practice', not for you personally.

 

Re: Dr Nikolayey. He didn't do original research--he admitted he stole his ideas from Dr Shelton--who loved to practice medicine without a license and got a few people killed with his diet quackery. Then--despite the power of his diet and fasting ideas, Shelton came down with a neuromuscular disease--and nothing he could do about it could fix it.

Yes, none of this is invalidating to my reference to Nikolayev's work with "incurable" shizophrenics. My post wasn't about fasting per se but about the effects of certain chemicals in cooked meat on the brains of psychotics. More about vego diet. Cousens works clinically with this type of thing (Oh, and he also had his licence revoked )

 

Edit: apparently, according to A Seeker, I called you out as being some middle class yuppie, without knowing that you were not. I apologize for that and I've adjusted my post to correct that assumption. In the future I will simply do more intel on you first before sinking in my teeth.

Thanks for the consideration. Could see the anger against the educated middle class long back--that's why I love ya . Paul.

Edited August 25, 2010 by paul walter

[Guest paul walter]

I still haven't heard why i can't eat humans, what's the difference with animals,

 

Cause of the risk of tranferable pathogens etc from human to human that can infect the brain etc--can be very dangerous, otherwise why not...

 

(mediterranean diet is based on mostly vegetables and fish). And if you don't take my word, please take the word of many wise men that spoke about the benefits of this diet choice better than myself.

 

One of the funny/strange things about seeing the far Greek isles was the almost entire lack of fishing vessels both large and small. Seems most of the copious amounts of fish (and beef, lamb, chicken) they consume comes from southern Turkey cause the Aegean is almost fished out...

[mYTHmAKER]

.

Edited August 27, 2010 by mYTHmAKER

[de_paradise]

A half a billion eggs!?

 

So these mother hens, individually laying these eggs, even though they live in cages and dont see the sun, have their beaks chopped off so they dont peck others to death when they go crazy, even though they lived through that misery, somewhere they must expect that their eggs will turn into babies. Not just stolen. And for sure not just pushed into the landfill with 500 million others.

 

Doesnt this seem sick or perverse to you? At all? Is eggs simply whats on the plate?

[Ryan T.]

A half a billion eggs!?

 

Doesnt this seem sick or perverse to you? At all? Is eggs simply whats on the plate?

 

I totally agree.

 

But I see egg consumption as totally natural. If humans do anything really well it is perverting nature.

 

Sustainable egg production: free-range, local, organic = mostly as it should be.

 

System conventional egg production: chemical-laden, seeped in pain and torture, highly disease-susceptible = crime against nature.

 

Seems like you want to throw the baby out with the bath water.

[Vajrahridaya]

Being vegetarian is a good first step in the proper context -- and then going vegan and then going salt-free and then fasting, etc.

 

Yeah, then they challenge their limited ideas by eating meat out of compassion for the animals mind stream that they are eating in order to bless it, and drink wine for the sake of taboo breaking. Amongst other taboo breaking things that may seem too extreme to mention here.

 

At some point the fire in the system can burn so strong that a little butter and sugar is needed, as well as slight meat consumption. But really... enlightenment is available to anyone, regardless of how one regulates ones diet, as long as it's regulated for you personally and not due to some external ideas of confining dogma. Some people cannot be vegetarian, though most humans definitely can be completely vegetarian and probably should be due to how the human system works to digest. Mostly we are unable to digest meat properly due to our long intestines and enzymes more geared towards fruit and vegetables.

[Vajrahridaya]

I totally agree.

 

But I see egg consumption as totally natural. If humans do anything really well it is perverting nature.

 

Sustainable egg production: free-range, local, organic = mostly as it should be.

 

System conventional egg production: chemical-laden, seeped in pain and torture, highly disease-susceptible = crime against nature.

 

Seems like you want to throw the baby out with the bath water.

 

I refuse to buy eggs that are not free-range and organically fed. Even if they are more expensive, they taste a heck of a lot better and don't feel nearly as dense in the system during digestion.

Edited August 25, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

Sorry Hundun, I disagree. Energetic development does not equal spiritual development. They often go together, but are not fully linked.

[Vajrahridaya]

Sorry Hundun, I disagree. Energetic development does not equal spiritual development. They often go together, but are not fully linked.

 

Very true, as some demonic minded people have incredible personal power and energy manipulation powers, psychic powers, etc. but don't have a spiritual nuance in their psychology.

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

You agreed with me?!?

[Vajrahridaya]

You agreed with me?!?

 

Well, this is hardly a subjective situation here where you might disagree with whatever level of experience someone may have. You are pretty much objectively correct and this is probably universally understood that energetic cultivation is not always towards the goal of virtuous ends.

[Guest paul walter]

The problem, apparently, is that you seem to have "self-interested/self-justifying blinkers on", SFJane. Or maybe the problem is that you are "middle-class"? I'm really not sure...

 

<see posts 23, 29 & especially 41 of this thread for a little more insight>

 

 

 

No, SF Jane doesn't have those 'problems' A Seeker, those comments are for you alone at the minute. Paul

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

Well, this is hardly a subjective situation here where you might disagree with whatever level of experience someone may have. You are pretty much objectively correct and this is probably universally understood that energetic cultivation is not always towards the goal of virtuous ends.

 

Ah, you couldn't just take the fig leaf. Insufferable, as usual. I'm taking back my and shootin' ya a .

[Vajrahridaya]

Ah, you couldn't just take the fig leaf. Insufferable, as usual. I'm taking back my and shootin' ya a .

 

wow, you're insecure.

[Guest paul walter]

Well, this is hardly a subjective situation here where you might disagree with whatever level of experience someone may have. You are pretty much objectively correct and this is probably universally understood that energetic cultivation is not always towards the goal of virtuous ends.

 

 

It rarely is--it's mostly lust/desire. It's sheer laziness of the culture (not to mention racism/cultural misunderstanding) to equate energy with spirit development. It's because of the lack of rigour in this area that TTB is rife with conflict on this issue. The macho attitude that confuses power (energy) with spiritual stuff-you can have both but it looks very different to what I've read on here mostly. Paul

[Sahaj Nath]

Sorry Hundun, I disagree. Energetic development does not equal spiritual development. They often go together, but are not fully linked.

 

Very true, as some demonic minded people have incredible personal power and energy manipulation powers, psychic powers, etc. but don't have a spiritual nuance in their psychology.

 

...You are pretty much objectively correct and this is probably universally understood that energetic cultivation is not always towards the goal of virtuous ends.

 

 

WHAT ARE YOU GUYS TALKING ABOUT?

 

both of you are putting words in my mouth, and that pisses me off.

 

no, just kidding.

 

but allow me to quote what i actually said, key points in bold:

 

"energetic development" has a whole lot to do with spirituality. it's pretty much the basis for ALL of the esoteric traditions, and in my case it made the difference between studied beliefs and experiential understanding. not to mention the fact that the energy acts as a sort of "karma accelerator."

 

i'm biased in this particular issue because morality holds no particular value for me when it comes to categorical imperatives of this nature. but the question was about its relation to spirituality, and energetic development is very much germane to that topic.

 

i'm totally up for having a discussion about this, but lets first get straight on what the claims were. Songs, i don't necessarily disagree with you, and you have to consider the context for why i was making the point to begin with. i seldom roll with absolute notions, and not all energy development is directed towards spiritual ends, but i could still make a more nuanced argument about non-physical elements necessarily opening up awareness and interaction with non-physical reality, making intention a bit of a moot point. but i'd rather not. the point is that i never made the point with which you are disagreeing, as evidenced by my actual quote.

 

if anything, i'm arguing that esoteric spirituality equates to energetic development, NOT the other way around.

 

Vajrahridaya, YOU, on the other hand, are conflating virtue with spirituality, and if THAT is your basis for why i am wrong, then we probably need to have that discussion. virtue is such a value/morality-laden term, when your own understanding of the non-dual (not quite like my amorality, but certainly with intersections) is in conflict with the point you just made.

 

i'll be out of town for the next day and a half, but it would be great if you would clarify your position before i respond to it. just for the sake of having a truly healthy and informative discussion. see what we can produce from this.

Edited August 26, 2010 by Hundun

[Vajrahridaya]

 

Vajrahridaya, YOU, on the other hand, are conflating virtue with spirituality, and if THAT is your basis for why i am wrong, then we probably need to have that discussion. virtue is such a value/morality-laden term, when your own understanding of the non-dual (not quite like my amorality, but certainly with intersections) is in conflict with the point you just made.

 

 

Actually. I didn't even read your post. I was just saying that Songs was right that energy cultivation is not always in line with spiritual cultivation. I do equate spiritual cultivation with virtue cultivation.

 

It's very simple for me in that sense.

[Sahaj Nath]

Actually. I didn't even read your post. I was just saying that Songs was right that energy cultivation is not always in line with spiritual cultivation. I do equate spiritual cultivation with virtue cultivation.

 

It's very simple for me in that sense.

 

hmm...

 

again, i hope you will consider clarifying your point. i've read many of your posts in the past, and i don't believe that you've just suddenly decided to be lazy (if i might borrow from paul walter's jab for a moment) in your understanding. perhaps you will define what VIRTUE means to you? for instance, for me, the highest virtue is truth/clarity, and that doesn't always equate to being pretty or what most people would deem to be 'righteous' or 'good.' i'm a bigger fan of Nietzsche than i am of Kant, if that makes sense. you know, the whole "God's not taking a side when the red ants and black ants go to war" type of thing. all phenomena is moved by the same hand.

 

my spiritual cultivation has little to do with most people's notions of virtue/morality, or right and wrong. i'm seeking TRUTH. beyond good and evil. so does that make me non-spiritual by your standards?

[Astral_Anima]

Hundun- Hey...sorry i know this is off topic, but is your "avatar" the symbol from the "Thundercats" tv show???

 

Also idk if it's called for or matters, but my opinion on the whole "virtue" thing is that there's three main forces in the universe. Power, Love and Wisdom which all balance each other.

 

Power without love and wisdom is destruction, Wisdom without power or love is depression, love without power or wisdom is blind(but still tolerable for sum). Wisdom is by far the most important, for understanding things. Then is power for being able to choose the path wisdom has revealed, then is love to be able to enjoy it

 

Just thought i'd throw that out there.

 

Great conversations btw, i really like how this evolved keep it up!

[Vajrahridaya]

hmm...

 

again, i hope you will consider clarifying your point. i've read many of your posts in the past, and i don't believe that you've just suddenly decided to be lazy (if i might borrow from paul walter's jab for a moment) in your understanding. perhaps you will define what VIRTUE means to you? for instance, for me, the highest virtue is truth/clarity, and that doesn't always equate to being pretty or what most people would deem to be 'righteous' or 'good.' i'm a bigger fan of Nietzsche than i am of Kant, if that makes sense. you know, the whole "God's not taking a side when the red ants and black ants go to war" type of thing. all phenomena is moved by the same hand.

 

my spiritual cultivation has little to do with most people's notions of virtue/morality, or right and wrong. i'm seeking TRUTH. beyond good and evil. so does that make me non-spiritual by your standards?

 

Ok, first of all... i love you man... Yeah bro.

 

To make it as black and white, simple as possible. Virtue is reflective of connectivity and sin is reflective of dis-connection. Those crazy wisdom people, Guru's out there who there are many known writings about are so connected with endless-connectivity that their activity may seem to be in the throngs of wrong for most, but for them they see so far beyond the seeming now into the actually infinitely connected now that they transcend in their actions. This is to the point of seeming sin while really just burning karmas. So, yes, I'm with you on the point of crazy wisdom. Virtue is not always as it seems as these beings act within the context of infinite now, instead of finite now. So deep is this... I feel like Yoda now. Their inquiry into now far transcends those without insight. The virtue of an enlightened being may seem like sin to those without the same depth or infinite regress of the enlightened. This has nothing to do with emotional or intellectual excuses either.

 

 

Anyway... I wasn't directly responding to your post as I didn't read it. Energy cultivation is not always in alignment with virtue cultivation.