Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Thu, 5 Aug 1999 13:55:15 -0400 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Don and Rachel Matesz wrote:
> If you analyse the agri-cultural view of "spirituality" you find
> that, to be spiritual, you have to be un-natural. You have to be
> desireless, passionless, non-violent, sexless, selfless, etc.
> Basically, you have to be NOTHING. Of course, it is impossible to
> be nothing. So the next best thing is to try to deny every natural
> (animal) aspect of your self, and become a celibate monk or nun,
> otherwise you are a "dirty animal" being
Be careful, though - there are clear-cut exceptions to this. This
self-denial view of spirituality is not shared by all so-called
"agri-cultural" traditions. Some do believe that being spiritual does
not necessitate denial of one's "animal" drives. In fact, quite the
opposite is true; they view physical drives (when used properly) as a
means of attaining greater spirituality, not less.
> Your original claim was that vegetarianism is "more spiritual" than
> carnivory. You seem to be saying that people who do not eat meat
> are (automatically) more spiritual than those who eat meat. And I
> disagree with that.
So do I. Which is why I have such a problem with those in the
above-mentioned spiritual tradition who wish to re-invent it in their
own vegetarian image - they worship a "false god" of vegetarianism.
;-)
> It is like saying that people who are celibate are more spiritual
> than people who have sex.
No disagreement here.
--
Deanna
|
|
|