>>If eating meat is indeed part of our nutritional make-up and if diet
>>has anything to do whatever with enlightenment, which I think is
>>highly unlikely, it would seem that it would be a prerequisite rather
>>than an obstacle to attaining enlightenment.
>Could you expand on this, Peter?
Martha, I hope I do not confuse you even more but here goes: If indeed
eating some amount of animal foods in our diet is part of our
biological nature and physiological needs, any spiritual practice that
is in denial of this would in my opinion be somewhat limited.
Unfortunately, spirituality in most cultures has for millenia been
pitted against human need and its main purpose been to
suppress/sublimate human nature. An example of this is practising
celebracy to attain enlightenment which IMO is like drinking for
sobriety or fucking for virginity. :-)
>I think I follow your argument but I'm not sure. Maybe if I explain
>my outlook, you'll see why I'm having difficulty.
>>It seems to me that, if your goal is maximum physical health, then
>perhaps you might eat some small amount of meat (I'm not saying yes or
>no here**). But if your goal is spiritual enlightenment, you would
>walk down a different path where you follow your
>compassion/respect/whatever for all beings. It's a question of
>priority.
I doubt that a spiritual path that was not based on self-respect and
that would put you at odds with your own nature could lead to true
enlightenment or compassion. And if it is coded in my genes to eat
animals, then expressing these genes would IMO bring about compassion -
especially if done with gratitude & reverence like in many aboriginal
cultures. You have the same social conditioning as I in believing that
killing & eating an animal is a low and not very spiritual act. I am
arguing that if we do have even the slightest need for animal foods
whatsoever, then this conditioning holds no validity at all unless,of
course,that God is playing a very cruel joke on us all.
Sports hunting and killing for the fun of it on the other hand I find
to be sick expressions of a very perverted human culture - not to speak
of factory farming animals.
>From what I've read and heard, there's little or no corrolation
>between physical health and spiritiual growth. An example that comes
>to mind is Sri Ramakrishna, who died of cancer. Other lifestyle
>choices enter into the picture as well.
I agree - both health nuts & lethargic procrastinators can attain
spiritual growth. But I would tend to say that any spiritual path that
makes a certain dietary direction a prerequisite for enlightenment to
be false - especially if the recommended diet is undermining rather
than sustaining human health.
>While a saintly person might say "turn the other cheek," it's been
>shown that feistiness, standing up for oneself, is a common factor
>among long-lived people.
How dare you question my spiritual growth! ;-) Seriously though, this
sounds really interesting - tell me more! However, I am not sure that
assertiveness & agressiveness need to go hand in hand or that turning
the other cheek necessarily is on top of my spiritual list.
>** BTW, Peter, you, as a self proclaimed "vegan with an identity
>crisis," have done more to shake my faith in veganism as best for
>human health than Kirt with his many pro-carnage rhapsodies.
I am a big fan of Kirt's rhapsodies myself, but thanks for the
compliment!
>Not that I'm actually a vegan myself. I'm close to it, but it's been
>an elusive ideal for me, always out looking for non-leather
>replacements when my leather shoes wear out, etc. etc.
I am not sure that you are doing animals a favor by supporting the
petrochemical industry or the planet by using products that will take
forever to decompose.
>This reminds me.... My Reebok high-tops are coming apart. I loved
>those shoes, and wore them for years after most people would have put
>them out of their misery. Does anyone know where a non-leather
>equivalent can be had? Like denim or something, but that same
>high-top style?
>Cheers to all,
>Martha
Best, Peter
[log in to unmask]
|
