Subject: | |
From: | |
Date: | Wed, 04 Dec 1996 01:07:42 EST |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
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])
|
|
|