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