Hi, Peter!

>Just like that annoying stone in your shoe the longer you ignore it
>the more it will preoccupy your mind.

Used to be that way for me pre-raw.  Now I have no trouble at all
ignoring sex if I have more important things to think about.

>Celebacy can become a distraction just as easily as sex, though in
>moderation it will cause no harm & could be indicative for some
>individuals.

Agreed.

>many hunters are lousy shots causing the animals pain and to undergo
slow >deaths.

Reminds me of a true story I heard recently about a hunter who was
bending over his deer kill when another hunter shot him in the rear,
thinking he was looking at the hindquarters of another deer.


>>>But I would tend to say that any spiritual path that
>>>makes a certain dietary direction a prerequisite for enlightenment
>>>to be false

>>Weren't you just arguing the flip side of this coin, that true
>>enlightenment requires meat-eating if meat-eating is required for
>>optimum health?  Make up your mind.

>:-(  What I probably was trying to say was that  to
>the extent there is a (perceived)connection between the two, the more
>a diet is in conflict with our biological nature the less conducive it
>will be for our spiritual growth & enlightenment.

There, you just said it again.  Perhaps some people have different ideas
than you about what constitutes a non-conflicting diet.  Some say that
eating any meat at all is contrary to our true natures and thus would
lead to lessened enlightenment potential (by your own reasoning).

Bob Avery ([log in to unmask])