Jesus Was A Pantheist

John 17
21 that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us: that the world may believe that thou didst send me.

Jesus saw God the way Spinoza saw God

Nothing exists but God.

God is one, that is, only one substance can be granted in the universe. [I.14]

Whatsoever is, is in God, and without God nothing can be, or be conceived. {I.15]

God is the indwelling and not the transient cause of all things. All things which are, are in God. Besides God there can be no substance, that is, nothing in itself external to God. [I.17]

Jesus , Spinoza Einstein Are All Pantheist

Reality cannot be found except in One single source, because of the interconnection of all things with one another. (Leibniz, 1670)

Albert Einstein also had a good understanding of humans as an inseparable part of the One, as he writes;

A human being is part of the whole called by us universe ... We experience ourselves, our thoughts and feelings as something separate from the rest. A kind of optical delusion of consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from the prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty. The true value of a human being is determined by the measure and the sense in which they have obtained liberation from the self. We shall require a substantially new manner of thinking if humanity is to survive. (Albert Einstein)

John 10:30 I and My Father are one.
21 that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us: that the world may believe that thou didst send me.
John 17
11 And I am no more in the world, and these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep them in thy name which thou hast given me, that they may be one, even as we are.

Jesus

Again and again in John 17
13And now come I to thee; and these things I speak in the world, that they might have my joy fulfilled in themselves.

16They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.

21That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

23I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one

He prays for us all to be pantheist to remember that we are pieces of God

(21 that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us)

We are only separate because like Jesus we chose to DESCEND from heaven and incarnate. as I said before earlier.

5Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. You cant just be born of the water (womb) but of the spirit. But how can one be born of water and spirit? If you are born of flesh how can your spirit enter ?

How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?

6That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

But how does the spirit enter the body and be born after you die?
7Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
But when a man dies no one sees the spirit leave and when the spirit enters a body no one sees this ?
8The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.


But I don't remember being born so if I die where did my spirit come from in order for me to be born in the first place?

13And no man hath ascended up to heaven, except he that came down from heaven, even Jesus

We are all part of God manifesting as a "part" separate trying to become one. But where Jesus realizes this we believe religion and deny it.

"separate Beings of the same source."So," if" God decided to "manifest" Himself in the earth to accomplish His desires, He would have been manifesting one part of Himself in Jesus He would have been manifesting one part of Himself in you He would have been manifesting one part of Himself in me etc

Why should we be separate ? Why deny this ? Religion teaches repetition which is brainwashing. If you say something enough you will begin to believe it is true.

Jesus prays for us to remember who we really are !

We are ONE We manifest as separate beings to learn just as Jesus did but eventually we must return to The Source.

Eventually we must remember

Like Jesus did

So when Jesus became ONE he remembered and wanted us all to remember.

Jesus prayed for Pantheism

21 that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us: that the world may believe that thou didst send me.

22 And the glory which thou hast given me I have given unto them; that they may be one, even as we are one

Say this prayer in front of any Pantheist and they will recognize their own teachings!

What is Pantheism?

All things interconnected and interdependent. In life and in death we humans are an inseparable part of this unity, and in realizing this we can find our joy and our peace. (Harrison, Pantheism, 1999)



'God is not separate from the world; He is the soul of the world, and each of us contains a part of the Divine Fire. All things are parts of one single system, which is called Nature; the individual life is good when it is in harmony with Nature. In one sense, every life is in harmony with Nature, since it is such as Nature’s laws have caused it to be; but in another sense a human life is only in harmony with Nature when the individual will is directed to ends which are among those of Nature. Virtue consists in a will which is in agreement with Nature.' (Zeno, founder of Stoicism) (Russell, 1946)

The most important characteristic of the Eastern world view - one could almost say the essence of it - is the awareness of the unity and mutual interrelation of all things and events, the experience of all phenomena in the world as manifestations of a basic oneness. All things are seen as interdependent and inseparable parts of this cosmic whole; as different manifestations of the same ultimate reality. (Fritjof Capra, The Tao of Physics)

A human being is part of the whole called by us universe ... We experience ourselves, our thoughts and feelings as something separate from the rest. A kind of optical delusion of consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from the prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty. The true value of a human being is determined by the measure and the sense in which they have obtained liberation from the self. We shall require a substantially new manner of thinking if humanity is to survive. (Albert Einstein)

All things come out of the One and the One out of all things. (Heraclitus, 500BC)

Reality cannot be found except in One single source, because of the interconnection of all things with one another. (Leibniz, 1670)

Though One, Brahman is the cause of the many.
.. Brahman is the unborn (aja) in whom all existing things abide. The One manifests as the many, the formless putting on forms
(Rig Veda)

Behold but One in all things; it is the second that leads you astray. (Kabir)

The Universe is Brahman, the One that underlies and make possible all the multiplicity; the universal consciousness that is the soul of all existence. It is the primordial no-thingness from which all things arise, the one reality whose oneness is all-inclusive; and includes all that is, or shall be. It is Brahman; the source of the entire cosmos and all cosmic activities relating to the emergence, existence and dissolution of the terrestrial phenomena that form the cosmic rhythm. And this ultimate reality is One- absolute and indeterminable. (Sudhakar S.D. I am All)

By his silence Shakyamuni wanted to divert our attention from fruitless
questions to the all-important task before us: solving life's problems and
living a life which would bring happiness to self as well as others.

To a follower who insisted on knowing, "Is there a God?", Shakyamuni replied
with the parable of the poison arrow. "if you were shot by a poison arrow, and a doctor was summoned to extract it, what would you do? Would you ask such questions as who shot the arrow, from which tribe did he come, who made the
arrow, who made the poison, etc., or would you have the doctor immediately pull out the arrow?"

"Of course," replied the man, "I would have the arrow pulled out as quickly as possible." The Buddha concluded, "That is wise O disciple, for the task before us is the solving of life's problems; when that is done, you may still ask the questions you put before me, if you so desire."

And that is how I feel when asked "What is God? "

To me it is more important to know what God is NOT because until you get rid of all false or Ego concepts of God your mind is full of what you think. And there is no room for the actual nature of God to enter your mind and become one with you.

There is another story of a professor that thought he knew everything already but couldn't understand why he couldn't be taught zen.

A Cup of Tea

Nan-in, a Japanese master during the Meiji era (1868-1912), received a university professor who came to inquire about Zen.
Nan-in served tea. He poured his visitor's cup full, and then kept on pouring.
The professor watched the overflow until he no longer could restrain himself. "It is overfull. No more will go in!"
"Like this cup," Nan-in said, "you are full of your own opinions and speculations. How can I show you Zen unless you first empty your cup?"

A Relationship With God by Becoming One With God

I do not think that anyone's relationship with God is and illusion. I do not claim like most Buddhist that God can not exist. Most of our relationships with other people are complete misunderstandings. We think we KNOW the people we have relationships with. Many times we project our ideas on people. If we are cynical or mistrusting of people then we focus on any evidence in someones behavior that they want to manipulate or use us. If we are optimist that like to look at the brighter side of life we try to see the good in people. If an optimist meets a philosopher that is a skeptic that questions everything and doesn't always see the good in everyone then that optimist will see the philosopher/skeptic as a NEGATIVE person.

The RELATIONSHIP with these people is not an ILLUSION. But our biases create a misunderstanding of who these people REALLY ARE .

Again there are not just 2 alternatives. That is you know someone completely with NO MISUNDERSTANDINGS about who they really are. OR you do NOT KNOW or UNDERSTAND them at all.

I do NOT believe that relationships are like that. I believe that we can know someone and have a really good understanding of who they are but still at the same time be blinded with assumptions based on biases from our experiences. In some ways we may never truly know someone. The only way to truly know someone is to be able to trust them.

Many people have prejudice and biases against women or people of other races. For them getting to know a woman or someone of another race is very limited. If there is hate involved they may never get to know certain people that come into their lives. If they have worked through and gotten rid of hate they may still have prejudice or biases based on the fears left over.

What I am getting at is that is this. I am NOT claiming that anyone that doesn't see God the way I do isn't having a relationship with God. Nor am I claiming that God does not exist in a way that allows any personal connection or relationship. I am only claiming that all religions including Buddhism creates filters or assumptions about God that creates biases.

For me seeing God through religion is like looking at something with one eye closed. True what you are seeing IS real. But in order to see not only what is REAL but with true DEPTH you must look at what you want to see with BOTH eyes open.

It is my opinion based on my experience and studies and realizations that to see God is like seeking enlightenment. Until you let go of what you think you know and what you feel you need or desire actually KNOWING the nature of Reality or God is impossible. But this does not mean I deny that those that do not have enlightenment can not have a relationship with God. I am simply saying that God is beyond what religion teaches!

Not only does Jesus teach reincarnation

but Jesus also teaches Pantheism!

He admits that God's will is DIFFERENT than his own so he can only be claiming to be God in the Pantheist sense that we are ALL God!

John 6:38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.

Then admits that only God's will decides who is saved Again Jesus has his own separate will.
6:44 No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day.

Jesus can not make the decision because he is not God and he admit it.
John 8:54 Jesus answered, "If I honor Myself, My honor is nothing. It is My Father who honors Me, of whom you say that He is your God.

Over and over Jesus admits that his will/spirit/soul etc is DIFFERENT then God's will

John 7:17 If anyone wants to do His will, he shall know concerning the doctrine, whether it is from God or whether I speak on My own authority. John 7:18 He who speaks from himself seeks his own glory; but He who seeks the glory of the One who sent Him is true, and no unrighteousness is in Him.

Jesus does not speak from his own authority because he is not God !


Jesus taught Pantheism.

At one point he is so frustrated trying to explain being one with God without claiming to be God that he points out Jewish teachings that point to pantheism saying all are gods/or part of God But regardless to say that God's will is different and separate from his own will and at the same time claim to be ONE with God IS Pantheism plain and simple!

John 10:30 I and My Father are one.


Of course when he claims pantheism he is misunderstood as claiming to be God so he clears that up just as I said .

Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your law, 'I said, "You are gods" '? John 10:35 If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken),

Of course they would respond that they only let the spirit of God IN them just as you claim.

Even though God is IN all of us when you become ONE with God your connection is deeper. So deep in fact that those who never achieve becoming ONE with God misunderstand anyone who claims Pantheism the way Jesus did.

Jesus claims after becoming ONE with God that he does only God's will but it is still DIFFERENT and SEPARATE from his own
John 10:38 but if I do, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, that you may know and believe that the Father is in Me, and I in Him."

To say that God is IN me and I IN him IS Pantheism !
Otherwise Jesus would have said that God IS me or I AM him!

Jesus did say before Abraham was I AM but I AM is pantheism and he is also hinting at reincarnation which he explains in John when answering Nicodemus on how reincarnation is possible.


When ever someone becomes ONE with God they become God by letting go off all they think they are.

If you let go of things like "I am a man" or I have blond hair or anything else to do with the body. . Then let go of all of who you think of as "your personality Favorite colors music etc and then further let go of all your deepest desires and fears .. and all that you are as a person all that is left is your awareness or soul .

Since God IS awareness you become one with the source . You are no longer I am Matt or I am Brian . You just are.. You are IAM . God is in you and you are in God . There is NO separation because you give up your will. Of course I personally do not believe you give up your will . I believe your will is motivated by a higher and purer awareness. But to understand the nature of will or God or even your own soul you would have to become ONE with God.

This is very hard to do for a NON-Pantheist or for someone that HATES Pantheism. I(I am using your word hate ironically because you seem to think that anyone that disagrees with something that seems obvious and spiritual to you must hate what they disagree with)

A NON-Pantheist could become ONE with God by meditating but by doing so they would probably become a pantheist as soon as they achieved this awareness or at least they would be much more open to the idea.

Yeah Jesus made alot of people angry with his Pantheism and his teachings on the truth of Reincarnation threatened those in power. Socrates was killed for saying similar things and daring to challenge the accepted view of those in power. The Christians got rid of reincarnation from his teachings as well as his pantheism just like the Buddhist got rid of the soul from Buddha's teachings and for the same reason.

Without reincarnation religion keeps it's power and without a soul to reincarnate Buddhism is just another form of Atheism. Buddha refused to answer most people when asked about God because to do so would keep people from seeking to experience God directly without religion.

And Jesus never claimed to be God and admitted that he Incarnated just like everyone else and even tried to explain how reincarnation works. But most of his words and teachings were erased and replaced to create the churches we have today.

What we are left with is a world will people are mocked or killed for telling the truth and a Jealous Angry God that demands our fear and obedience and calls this love.

No religion knows or explains what God or Love or your Soul really is though they talk incessantly about these and build up myths and sacred symbols to hide the truth.

That is why Jesus taught to seek wiithin.

But nobody looks inside anymore

...and the few that CLAIM they are looking INSIDE themselves for answers and claim that they ask God to tell them what is true... always seem to find what religion has always taught and what they already believed before they even asked any questions.

Socrates (Who I believe was an Incarnation of Jesus) taught that an unexamined life is not worth living. But most people only examine life close enough to see that they were right all along and anybody that sees anything different must be wrong.

Does Freedom Evolve?

I have always been a fan of Dennet. Here is a part of a review I found on the book Freedom Evolves.


Dennett's Foil: Robert Kane's View of Free Willhttp://www.objectivistcenter.org/cth--766-The_Dogmatic_Determinism_Daniel_Dennett.aspx

That the nature of causality is vitally important for the free will versus determinism issue is highlighted by Dennett's critique of what he regards as "the best attempt so far" to defend free will against determinism: that of Robert Kane in his book The Significance of Free Will (Oxford University Press, 1996). Kane recognizes that free will is relevant to action in those cases in which a person has to choose between two contradictory courses of action and has strong reasons for both. However, he shares Dennett's event-event view of causality and dogmatic rejection of agent causation. To avoid acknowledging agent causation while also avoiding determinism, Kane tries to base free will on quantum indeterminacies that may occur in the atoms of the brain during the process of deliberating on the reasons for alternative actions, which make the person's final choice of action undetermined. Dennett easily demolishes the theory, correctly demonstrating that such quantum indeterminacies do not in any way help give the person control of his actions or provide support for holding the person responsible for them. "

But when examined this conclusion does not hold up as the only conclusion. Quantum indeterminism could be awareness itself in this case my soul. If this were the case then it is my soul that determines my actions. So I do have free will. In quantum physics possibilities collapse into probabilities and probabilities collapse into actualities. But in reality every time I make a decision I can change my mind. How many times can I change my mind. Theoretically I can change my mind an infinite amount of times. If I decide to go to the movies tomorrow the next morning I can decide not to go. I can make plans to do something else.

When we say "my plans fell through" it implies that due to circumstance beyond my control my alternative plans simply were not feasible. If this were to happen then I could change my mind once again and go see a movie. But in each case it is me that is deciding. Many times when someone wants to do something badly enough they can conquer the odds (The probabilities in QM) and find a way to do things even when things are against them. In the laws of physics if a coin falls not only does it eventually have to hit the ground but it has to collapse the probability of heads or tails when it does. It can not decide not to land. In the same way it is assumed that indetermism in QM can not allow for freewill. Any time we make a decision in life it is not only assumed that we must always choose between one action and another but that this choice has already been predetermined at birth. Somehow from this

Dennet wants to posit freewill as reason for morals without actually accepting freewill. Just as the theologian wants to answer the problem of Evil in theology with freewill even though theology teaches there is no such thing. Apparently God gives us the freewill to choose to follow God or not then test us to see how we use this gift by sending someone he has already designed to believe in him. So when an atheist meets a christian he is temporarily given freewill to accept or reject Jesus. If he accepts Jesus then his freewill is gone he now will do Gods will. If he rejects Jesus then God takes away his will to resist Satan. Of course this is what Christians believe this is not what theology or the bible teaches. Theology teaches that we never have freewill. God wills us to be believers or nonbelievers. God then test his creations to see how well they follow his design.

So somehow we are designed to act as if we are believers or nonbelievers acting out of freewill. For all intents and purposes of theology we have freewill to choose to be a believer or not but God already know what we will choose at any given moment. God wills everything to happen. This creates his design. Every time we resist his will we are exercising our own freewill but we can only resist according to the parameters of his design. He then rewards or punishes us based on his whim which Christians call grace. The scientist gives me the same type of predetermined will. Dennet doesn't seem to offer a freewill of indeterminism. In fact he claims that indeterminacy can affect reality on every level but one Consciousness.

"Dennett defends a particular form of determinism known as compatibilism. This is the view that the concept of free will should be redefined so that it no longer involves a free choice among alternatives and can thus be made compatible with the mechanist/reductionist model of the universe. "

To me this idea of freewill like the theological version it isn't even coherent let alone worth having.

"For Dennett, the significance of free will is that it is the basis of morality and moral responsibility, of engaging in moral judgment and holding people responsible for their actions. His thesis is that while free will in the ordinary sense is an illusion, these consequences of free will are real and compatible with his deterministic model of the universe, so free will should be redefined to refer to these consequences. Dennett suggests that calling an action "freely chosen" should not mean that the person had some other possible alternative action (which Dennett claims is never true), but rather should mean that we are justified in holding the person morally responsible for that action: "In other words, the fact that free will is worth wanting can be used to anchor our conception of free will in a way metaphysical myths fail to do"

Again I have to disagree with Dennet. He is offering the old theological model of freewill that Christianity used to justify theological morality. Having freewill can not be true so has no value in itself but believing in freewill allows us to create morals. Our society attempts to control us with psychiatrist and priest. If we had freewill in a real sense then both religion and behaviorism loses its power over us.

We can no longer be converted or social engineered into good citizens. If we actually have a soul that is independent of any behavioral reductionism or theological construct of obedience we might all become spiritual anarchist holding no authority higher than our own soul. Well I for one am already a spiritual anarchist and I hope one day to live in a world of spiritual anarchist because freedom means nothing if you can not exercise it.


URL: http://able2know.org/topic/152812-2

Descartes A Method of Faith?

I have been searching the net with no luck on Descartes to find arguments on him starting from a theistic conclusion and working his way back to to his premise. To clarify I think Descartes like most theist started with God and and worked his way back to a starting premise. He wants to prove God exist. Not as an agnostic arguing probability but as a theist who is already convinced. Since his most important work is based on a method of doubt it looks as if he is an agnostic doubting everything then surprise surprise his reasoning just happens to lead him to what he already believed. It is my understanding that any true agnostic using this method of doubt would go in circles like the dog chasing his tail.With each circle of reasoning he would end up with less and less faith until atheism all though not proven would seem the most probable truth. Descartes on the other hand seemed to go from his method of doubt straight to a theistic conclusion step by step with no missteps. I find this suspicious.

Sounds more like a method of faith. You start with your faith in God then pretend to doubt just so other skeptics will take your faith as actual reasoning. Many Christians today use this method in writing books that say they were once an atheist. Their writings fall down based on their misunderstanding of what atheism is. If you really were an atheist then you would know that atheism is a philosophy. Or more clearly a predisposition to non theistic philosophers/philosophies based not on prejudice but personal experience and an intelligent understanding of what philosophy is. Yet book after book is published and carried mostly by Christian bookstores claiming they once were atheist and how they lived a totally immoral life until some realization or dissatisfaction with that life led them to God. Who of course just happened to be the Christian God.

If you really chose atheism as just an excuse to be amoral and then became dissatisfied with an amoral life why not become a Jew? Jews believe in God. There is your meaning. If you claim all you need is God for meaning Judaism should be enough. Or why not Buddhism ? Buddhism teachings are all about compassion leading to enlightenment. With Buddhism amoralism is impossible. You can be an immoral person but not without conflict and if you want enlightenment you have no choice but to eliminate this conflict with mindfulness and compassion. So why do all these writers live such immoral lives and coincidentally find Jesus instead? To me it is obvious they are not being intellectually honest with themselves or with us by saying they were once atheist.

All atheist suffer the pains of agnosticism. Not pain necessarily from Pascals wager or or Christian Theism. Christians are not the only belief system with a concept of God.

A real atheist will study theism deism pantheism etc before making the commitment from agnostic to atheist. And a real agnostic would never be able to use their doubt to get to God. Only faith gets you to God. Doubt takes you to reality instead. I guess I am saying Descartes was a liar. Either he was a theist playing with words or he was an agnostic hiding behind theism to get published. Either way he misled people to believe he had proof of God and that this was more important then any honesty inquiry into the nature of metaphysics. Can any one offer some good internet links to substantiate or challenge my claims? Does any one here have a opinion on whether I have a point?

Metaphysics of Spirituality

Reactions: Problems with the Soul theory

The Cartesian Circle and The Clockwork Orange Paradox.

 

The Soul of The Atheist

 

Consumer Culture As A Form of Pornography?

compassion, consumer, consumerism, culture, education, equality, gender, materialism, media, men, money, politics, pornography, power, sex, sexism, society, values, wealth, women

I am writing a book on pornography with the premise that true pornography is any form of media that distorts men and women into predator and prey (Aggressor and Victim) Whether it be an adult film showing a woman to be used or a horror flick showing her as a victim and therefore sexy But even romantic comedy shows women as victims who need a man with money to validated their worth as a sex object

So my question is this. Is there a connection between the way feminism has been absorbed into a patriarchal materialist society and porn ? There are now women producing porn but for the most part it has not softened in to erotica The bottom line is money Has our materialist society corrupted feminism so that woman are fighting for equality to pursue money and power? Are these not male values? And the worse male values at that?

Why should women settle for equality as defined by the top 1% of soulless males that worship power We need your healing feminine energy to balance out the overly male energy There are other values besides wealth power and competition that take just as much strength if not more to add to our a society as appreciated values

We need to learn feminine strengths such as compassion openness vulnerability and many others (Some that can not be put into words easily) These traits that are encouraged in women are discouraged in men because they are seen as weaknesses The problem is that feminist do not want to be seen as weak so a lot of them accept our societies rules for what is a strength or a weakness and what should be valued.

I for one would like to start an organization of men who have power unfairly due to our societies unequal playing ground who will be willing to join their power to women who are struggling feminist who are trying to empower themselves

The goal of such a group would be

1. To balance out the playing field for both feminine and masculine values

2.Eliminate gender roles all together as well

3.Create other options besides male dominator ones to influence our politics or economic structure education system etc

Am I too much of a dreamer ? Or does anyone else want to see this new world I envision? Perhaps I should wait a thousand lifetimes reincarnate and ask again?

Debunking Christianity: Born Free

Debunking Christianity: Born Free

On Fucking Idiots

Ok I am having a lot of fun on George Carlin's board. And I after reading a post on his board that although is probably mostly true also left a lot of room for interpretation I decided to get in my two cents. Not the best I ever wrote but atleast amusing. I tried to think how Carlin would have answered the post then decided "fuck it" and went with my own style. Since some of my style is a bit like Carlin's I thought maybe others who like George Carlin's humor might appreciate my humor as well. If not well all I can say is fuck off I wasn't talking to you anyway.

Why those posting on this BBS are fucking idiots

by ted kackzynski

Fuck, you people are stupid. Why bother posting on an artist's website, if you're not going to take the time to understand the artist's content? Some things I've noticed about those of you posting on this site:

1) You seem to think that George is left wing, or gives a shit about partison politics. He doesn't. In his material, he repeatedly tells you that voting, and therefore partison politics is a waste of time. While he's critical of right wing ideologies that justify our framework, he also makes fun of leftists who want equality... for example, feminists who think that putting on a man-taylored suit will somehow liberate them. Equality won't help you within a framework that exploits you in the first place. Those of you in college - stop trying to project your curriculum onto George's work. Unlike you, he's not indoctrinated.

2) Yes, George IS ANTI-AMERICAN, in the sense that he's anti-group, and nation states are groups, kids. It doesn't mean that he hates people because they're american, so much as that "america" as an abrstraction is meaningless. George is pretty clear on this... to paraphrase, you'd have to be asleep to buy into the american dream.Whether it's religion, nationalism or some sort of corporate affiliation, as soon as people forfeit their individuality they become less human. And yes, George is anti-war, specifically because he's anti-government. His reasons for this are fairly clear: A government is a group of individuals. Most individuals are full of shit. Therefore, when the government tries to convince you that you should kill other people for money, or freedom, chances are it's a bullshit story. He summed it up in the 90's, when he said that the reason why politicians are dishonest and incompetant are because they're indicative of the population they represent...They're like YOU.

3) People on this site defend their poorly articulated, often rednech ideas by saying, "If it offends you, fuck off." For fuck's sake, there's a difference between have the right to SAY something idiotic, and whether what you're saying IS idiotic. If you say, "I fucking hate faggot cocksuckers because men shouldn't suck dick", of course you should have the right to say that. Still, saying that would make you an idiot. It's not the offensiveness of the language that makes you idiotic, but the context of the language you're using - that there's something immoral or loathsome about men who suck dick. This site is filled with sexist, racist and homophobic bullshit...

George doesn't promote hating people for WHAT they are (ie. their involuntary genetic traits, the social class they're born into, the people they're involuntarily attracted to) but WHO they are.It seems that many of you believe that saying something subversive means that it's funny. Anything of shock value is great. George would disagree with you. Any subject CAN be funny, but it's all in the context of what you're saying. Rape can be funny, but condoning the rape of a real person isn't. George makes a distinction that most of you don't.You people need to grow up, and maybe suffer a little bit more so that you develope empathy. Maybe that's why George has fun watching the likes of you suffer - maybe it's your last shot at acquiring some humanity. Otherwise, at least develope your reading comprehension skills, because the postings on this BBS are pretty sad.

Are The People On This Board Fucking Idiots?

By Spiritual Anarchist

Are people on this BBS fucking idiots? How do you know if the people they have sex with are idiots? What is wrong with fucking an idiot? Should somebody be deprived of good sex and some nasty down and dirty fucking because they are not that intelligent? Personally I have no problem fucking an idiot. Geniuses are obviously high maintenance. And being a genius myself I don't appreciate the competition mentally when all I wanted to do is get laid. I mean being intelligent, I like mental masturbation as well as anyone else; but in sex masturbation is really the least satisfying of all sex acts.

Actually I am not being completely honest here because intelligence does turn me on more than anything. Well except a really hot body. If you can have sex with someone with a really hot body what do you care if they are fucking idiots? If they will fuck me even though I am above average intelligence and they are not I figure I could be at least as reasonable as they are. After all they could be a good fuck.

Can you imagine fucking a person with a hotter body then you normally could get who is also a good fuck? Would it really bother you if after sex they admitted that they did bad on their SATs or never passed 6th grade and dropped out? Ok thats a bad example. We all know Einstein dropped out and school has nothing to do with intelligence and everything to do with obedience. So that would only concern you if you were into S/M. Let's say they actually voted for Bush instead. Still a good fuck is a good fuck right?

And since Bush has been fucking America over from the first day he got in office fucking over one of his supporters would be a good thing right? So fucking them over and over would be even better. And if they have a hot body and are a good fuck then intelligence never really enters into it. Since,like I was saying intelligence never enters into it,then it doesn’t really take brains to fuck anyway.In out in out etc. Hell animals do it. Even the dumbest animals can fuck.

Besides intelligence is relative which would make fucking anyone with intelligence incest. Besides if someone is intelligent enough to be able to do thier taxes while they are fucking you they can't be very smart to be wasting brain power when they could be enjoying themselves. Or it could be that you are a boring fuck in which case you should thank your lucky stars that even an idiot would fuck you.

That is why I find it so amusing that humans can believe in the concept of a "mind fuck". True some say that good sex is mostly mental. But to those people I say they are fucked in the head. Do you remember learning math in school for the first time? Now that was mostly mental. The only physical requirements was a writing utensil and paper. Fucking on the other hand is obviously mostly physical. All you need mentally to fuck is consciousness and some would debate that because only one of you has to be conscious. Some would say I am fucking out of my mind but that is the way fucking is supposed to be. I mean if all the fucking you did was only in your mind it wouldn't be fucking would it?

That is why I challenge the idea of a mind fuck. Some people would claim that mind fuck actually means when you get fucked over. But the whole point is to get fucked over. Well over and over again as much as fucking possible. Hell we wouldn't even be here if people didn’t fuck over and over each other. Its not that we as humans do not want to get fucked. It is really that we want to do the fucking. I do not want you to fuck me. I want to fuck you. So I guess what I am saying is fuck you. But more importantly fuck you even if you are a fucking idiot. I really don't give a fuck ...but I do have reasonable rates.

In conclusion I have only one thing to say to you fucking idiots. I say more power to you.Fuck idiots fuck geniuses like me and fuck the average folk. Hell fuck everybody. That is how we all got here and is the only way to keep from being extinct as a species. Do you think your dog cares how smart the dog is that he is fucking? Fuck no. That is why animals are smarter than us and will probably last longer on Earth than us. Because we are all fucking idiots in comparison.Hell we invented homelessness. Before us no creature ever became homeless.And our so called intelligence has been able to do nothing about it. The only way to get rid of idiots isn't to refuse to fuck them but to not become one of them.So if you are a fucking idiot don't stop fucking idiots just stop being one.

My Space Blog

Ok this is just a blog not my actual website. My actual website is on myspace. The link is on this blog. From time to time I will update my webpage on myspace. Sometimes I will feel the need to tell you what my plan is for my webpage on myspace. What I am doing there and why. When I do that I will not be posting the information here.


So if I am doing something important on my webpage on myspace how can you find out what is going on? Simple myspace as it's own built in blog. You can find my webpages PERSONAL Blog here. My Space Blog I will post anything personal I want you to know about along with webpage updates to myspace.

So what will I use the space on blogger for? This page you are reading now is not personal or about my webpage. I am sorry but you will just have to visit my webpage for that or the link above. This blog on blogger is about my thoughts. My philosophy. Not my life. Get it? Got it? Good :)

Choose Life

Choose Life

I am developing a page to dispel the myths that spiritual teachings such as Biblical or Buddhist scriptures do not support a vegetarian view This is not for the purpose of converting people to vegetarianism My point is only to dispel ignorance If you want to eat meat I can not and will not try to stop you but if you think Buddha or Jesus taught meat eating as a spiritual practice or believe that the scriptures of your religion support meat eating you might want to click on the links on this page before deciding

Christian Arguments Against Vegetarianism

Vegetarianism and Buddhism

Below is a copy of an article including the link to the original article on various faiths and vegetarain views EDITORIAL Source http://www.vnn.org/index.html October 6, 2001 VNN6911 Comment on this story center>
EDITORIALOctober 6, 2001 VNN6911

Comment on this story

Choose Life: Be Vegetarian!BY SWAMI B.V. PARIVRAJAKEDITORIAL, Oct 6 (VNN) —

This article aims to spread the vegetarian ideal and life awareness. It has four sections. In 'Vegetarian tradition in India' I attempted an analysis of the reasons why vegetarianism is losing ground in India.'Evidence from religious scriptures' is a collection of few quotes from the original texts of the most important world religions to prove that all the religions and their founders support loving compassion to animals and vegetarianism. 'Scientific evidence' proves that we are unfit to eat meat and that vegetarianism is a more congenial diet for men. In the last section, 'Food for the soul', I encourage the reader to approach and deal with food in a more spiritual way.

VEGETARIAN TRADITION IN INDIA

India todayThe non-vegetarian diet came increasingly widespread in India after the two major foreign invasions, namely the Muslims and the British. With them came the desire to be 'civilized', to eat as the foreigners did.However, those actually trained in Vedic knowledge never adopted meat in their diet.India is so famous in the world for its tradition of nonviolence that the average Westerners expect all Indians to be strict vegetarians. What a shocking and sad surprise for them to learn that, except for few hundreds of devotees who live in ashrams, the actual percentage of pure vegetarians in India, especially in the Bengal cultural area (Bengal, Orissa, Bihar, North-Eastern States) does not exceed the 2% of the total population! Meat is not the mainstay in India, but almost all Indians consume non-vegetarian foods now and then (eggs, fish, shell-fish, goat, chicken, mutton).

Many Indians define themselves as 'vegetarian and non-vegetarian' at the same time.Religious teachers and spiritualists have often forgotten to help people to understand the basics of religion (mercy, austerity, cleanliness and truthfulness) and the first steps in spiritual life.Some of them, carried away by their own high realizations, have failed to keep in touch with the day-to-day life of common people. Others are simply unaware of the problem.Negative valuesMost non-vegetarians are simply uninformed. A non-vegetarian diet is harmful to health, anti-economic, dangerous for the environment, contrary to ethics, inauspicious and incomplete.

Even extremist meat-eaters must eat vegetarian foods to feel satisfaction. The meat diet makes one insensitive to the suffering of others and indifferent to the exploitation of weaker elements of human society. Once these unethical values are accepted, they can be applied to children, women, sick, economically or socially disadvantaged, handicapped people, minorities, etc. A society based on such negative values cannot attain peace and receive properly the message of God. Enlightened preachers should help people to get out of their ignorance, by providing useful information and assistance. Health is everybody's business and over 90% of health problems are due to wrong diet and lifestyle. So, this is a good starting point.A growing section of Indian society views its vegetarian tradition in contrast with scientific progress.

My challenge is to show them, by example and precept, that the opposite is true.

EVIDENCE FROM RELIGIOUS SCRIPTURES

Christianity

The Old Testament of the Bible acknowledges that the soul is in every living entity and there is no difference between human soul and animal soul. "And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to everything that creeps upon the earth, wherein there is a living soul, I have given every green herb for meat" (Genesis 1.30) Popular translations render the above with a generic "wherein there is life." But the exact Hebrew words in the sentence are nefesh (soul) and chayah (living).These same Hebrew words are used to describe the soul of men and insects. Genesis 1.29 states: "And behold, I have given you every herb-bearing seed, which is upon the face of all earth, and every tree, in which the fruit of a tree-yielding seed - to you it shall be for food." This was the original Biblical law about human diet.Later on, Genesis 9.3 seems to allow the meat diet."Every moving living thing shall be food for you."

It should be observed, however, that this was God's concession on Noah, as all vegetation on earth had been destroyed after the great flood. It was an emergency situation. The recommended diet had been given earlier in Genesis 1.29.The Sixth Commandment of the Bible orders: "Thou shalt not kill." (Exodus 20.13) The original Hebrew reads lo tirtzach, that means, "You shall not do any kind of killing." This instruction is direct and crystal-clear, but it is rarely taken literally.

Nowadays many Christians believe that Jesus was not vegetarian. The New Testament cites several examples of Jesus asking for meat. However, a closer study of the original Greek reveals that the word 'meat' used in the English translations of the Gospels is inaccurate. The original words - broma, brosimos, brosis, prosphagion, trophe, phago - translate into 'food, nourishment, anything to eat.', but not 'flesh of animals'. Moreover, the life and teachings of Jesus and his disciples do not comply with a meat diet.Later on, Christians used mistranslations from the Bible to rationalize the eating of meat.

When an incorrect version came down through the centuries, it became part of the Biblical canon. The early Christian fathers and sects (Nazarenes, Therapeuts, Ebionites, Montanists, Gnostics and Essenes) practiced strict vegetarianism. More recently, the Roman Catholic Church ruled that practicing Catholics at least observe certain fast days and abstain from eating meat on Fridays (in remembrance of Jesus' death on the cross).

Islam

The Koran has 114 chapters and, with the exception of only one, they all begin with the invocation, "Bismillahir-rahmanir-rahim", "Allah is merciful and compassionate." If Allah would not be merciful to animals, this would be inconsistent with His magnanimous nature. Mohammed's love for animals is clear from his life and his many statements. "Whoever is kind to the creatures of God is kind to himself." (Hadith) Althoug unable to impose his view on the masses, Mohammed adopted the vegetarian diet. His biographers tell that he liked milk, yogurt, honey and fruits.The Prophet knew that his people were not ready to follow his strict dietary habits. So he tried to bring them gradually to the platform of compassion. For this reason, the Koran offers some dietary concessions."Only that which dies of itself, blood and swine's flesh, has God forbidden to you.

This indeed is a portent for people who think." (Surah 5, verse 1) Here Muslims fall in the same contradiction as the Jews.Eating the blood of animals had been forbidden several times in the Old Testament. (Genesis 9.4; Leviticus 17.14; Deuteronomy 12.16) The contradiction rests in the fact that it is impossible to completely separate blood from animal flesh. So, when one eats meat, blood is being consumed as well. This clearly indicates that the Biblical commandment and the revelations from the Koran were meant to discourage the eating of meat. The Koran endorses the eating of wholesome vegetarian food. "Therewith He causes crops to grow for you, and the olive and the date-palm and grapes and all kinds of fruit. Lo! Herein is indeed a portent for people to reflect." (Surah 16, verse 11) Modern Islam leaves to the individual to decide his/her own diet, but Islamic mystics, such as the Sufis, hold vegetarianism as a high spiritual ideal.

Buddhism

Once Lord Buddha said, "There may be some foolish people in the future who will say that I permitted meat-eating and that I partook of meat myself, but...meat-eating I have not permitted to anyone, I do not permit, I will not permit it in any form, in any manner and in any place; it is unconditionally prohibited for all." (Dhammapada) Buddha propagated ahimsa, nonviolence. He advented with the divine purpose to stop mass slaughter of animals under the pretext of Vedic sacrifices.Authentic Indian Buddhism is always remembered for its emphasis on nonviolence and reverence for all life. Shortly after Buddha's demise, Buddhism spread out of India and misconceptions regarding Buddha and vegetarianism began to rise. A spurious tradition declared that Buddha died after eating rotten meat, and more exactly pork. What actually Buddha ate was some sort of poisonous mushroom, in Pali language sukara-maddava. Sukara means pig and maddava is a root liked by pigs. In the Nineteenth Century, some scholars suggested that sukara-maddava could be nicely translated as 'a pig's delight' and certainly not 'pig's flesh'.Buddhism spread to China when Confucianism and Taoism were already established (2nd century BC-2nd century AD). It also merged with the indigenous religion of Japan, Shinto.

The Buddhism with which people are more familiar today is based on this merger. As in other religions, the later interpretations of Buddhism have been more relaxed in the matter of meat-eating.So-called Buddhists forgot completely that Lord Buddha had come to establish the doctrine of ahimsa and the vegetarian ideal with it. The original form of Buddhism taught compassion for all life and aversion to cruelty in any form as shown in this verse from Mahaparinirvana Sutra: "Eating meat extinguishes the seed of compassion." Vedic cultureThe Vedas are the original scriptures of India. These scriptures always supported vegetarianism and that is why vegetarianism became so deeply-rooted in India. Manu Samhita 5.49: "Having well considered the origin of flesh-foods, and the cruelty of fettering and slaying corporeal beings, let man entirely abstain from eating flesh."Manu Samhita 6.60: "By not killing any living being, one becomes fit for salvation."Yajur Veda 12.32: "You must not use your God-given body for killing God's creatures, whether they are human, animal or whatever."Mahabharata, Anu. 115.40: "He who brings flesh or sends for it, he who cuts off the limbs of an animal, and he who purchases, sells, cooks, eats and serves flesh ? all of them are performing himsa, violence, and are to be considered meat-eaters.

"Bhagavat Purana 11.5.14: "Those who are ignorant of real dharma and, though wicked, account themselves virtuous, kill animals without any feeling of remorse or fear of punishment. In their next life, such sinful people will be eaten by the same creatures they have killed in this world."All the Vedic scriptures promote sarva-bhuta-hita, or devotion and loving care for all living creatures, which include refraining from killing and eating animals. Unfortunately, the original Vedic culture is gradually disappearing from modern India under the influence of contemporary

Hinduism.

Animal sacrificesThousands of Vedis injunctions forbade the performance of animals sacrifices.sura matsya madhu mamsamasavam krisaraudanamdhurtaih pravartitam hyetannaitad vedeshu kalpitam"Liquors, fish, mead, meat, spirits, rice cooked with sesamum seeds, - all these have been inserted into the yajnas by wicked people. Vedas have not prescribed their use in yajnas." Mahabharata (Shanti parva 265.9) Nevertheless, before the advent of Lord Buddha, a current developed in India that allowed animal sacrifices under special circumstances. Worshippers of Kali were obliged to chant the Sanskrit word for meat (mamsa) into the goat's ear before slitting its throat. Mamsa can be broken into two words: mam (me) and sa (he). Here is the complete Sanskrit verse:mamsa sa bhakshayitamutrayasya mamsam ihadmy ahametan mamsaya mamsatvampravadanti manisinaha"That creature whose flesh I am eating now will consume me in the next life. This is mamsa according to learned authorities." (Markandeya Purana) The ritual of pronouncing the word mamsa into the goat's ear was meant to attract meat-eaters to a higher understanding (the law of karma), and ultimately to discourage them from the killing and eating of animals.Cow protectionCows are known as aghnya in the Vedic literature.Aghnya means 'not to be killed'. The Mahabharata explains, "The very name of the cows is aghnya. They should never be slaughtered. Who can slay them? One who kills a cow or a bull commits the most heinous crime." (Shantiparva 262.47)Five products of the cow (pancha-gavya) are considered purifying: milk, yogurt, ghee (clarified butter), urine and dung. Ancient sages regarded milk as the best food available for man. If taken alone, cow milk is considered a rejuvenator (rasayan).Yogurt helps to form blood, fat and semen. Ghee made from cow milk increases longevity, memory, discrimination and intelligence. It strengthen the body and delays the ageing of the body tissues. Cow urine is a powerful natural medicine. Cow dung serves in many ways: as a fertilizer, as fuel for cooking and as a cleansing agent.In the Indian religious tradition, the cow is compared to a mother because she freely gives her milk without expecting anything in return. Cow protection is a duty for all men.

Mahatma Gandhi once said, "Not even to win Swaraj (Independence), will I renounce my principle of cow protection." Cows are innocent, so we should give them all protection. The Skanda Purana advises that we respect cows if we want to reduce the reactions of our bad karma. Cows are very dear to the Lord. His love for the cows is immense. Child Krishna and His cowherd boyfriends enjoyed wonderful lilas with the cows and the calves in the pasturing grounds of Vrindavan. Thus Krishna became known as Govinda, 'the source of pleasure for the cows, the earth and the senses of all beings' and Gopal, 'the protector of the cows'.

SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE

Meat is not a natural food for man. If it were, would you not be willing to go into the first butcher's shop, cut a slice from a carcass, and put it in your mouth? You would not hesitate to do so to any fruit and vegetable. If meat is a natural food, would you feel any repugnance at eating dog flesh or cat flesh merely because you are not accustomed to it? You would rather like to taste a fruit!Unfit to eat meatCarnivora have long teeth and claws for holding and killing prey. Men and other vegetarian animals have short teeth and no claws.The saliva of carnivora contains no ptyalin and cannot predigest starches. Our saliva, like that of vegetarian animals, contains ptyalin.Meat leaves toxins in the intestine as waste matter.That is why carnivorous animals have short intestines so that the decomposing matter does not have to remain long time in their bodies. Men and other vegetarian animals have long intestines.Carnivora secrete large quantities of hydrocloric acid to help dissolve bones. Men, and the other vegetarian animals, secrete little hydrocloric acid. In each comparison, humans fit the vegetarian category. All the above mentioned points show that, if you have a human body, you are not fit to eat meat.Heart diseaseThere is correlation between meat-eating and heart disease. In USA, the highest meat consuming country in the world, one person out of every two dies of heart and vascular diseases. Such diseases do not exist where people eat less meat. A vegetarian diet reduces cholesterol intake.

There is less chance to become obese and then die from a stroke or a heart attack.Vegetarians never suffer of arteriosclerosis.Where to get proteins?Fear of not getting enough proteins is the reason why many people never become vegetarian. Most people, however, do not even know what is protein. In 1838, a Dutch chemist, Gerrit Jan Mulder, isolated a substance containing nitrogen, carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and other elements. He showed this chemical compound to be the basis of all life and named it protein. Protein means first rank. Later on it has been proved that protein is essential for life: every living organism must ingest a certain amount of it to survive.

This is so because proteins are composed of amino acids. Plants can synthesize amino acids from air, earth and water, but animals are dependent on plants for protein, either directly by eating plants or indirectly by eating an animal which has eaten and metabolized plants. In conclusion: Only the vegetable kingdom is capable of producing protein!World HungerDid you know that 16 kilos of grains produce one kilo of meat? This means that meat eaters take away the food of 15 other people. This points to a disturbing conclusion: meat-eating is directly related to world hunger."Keep young. Be vegetarian!"If we compare the human body to a machine, food is like the fuel to keep the body running smoothly.

The record shows that meat is a very inefficient fuel for the human machine. Those who live on meat become old very rapidly. Eskimos (North Pole), who live primarily on meat and fish, rarely live beyond 30 years. The Kirgese (Eastern Russia) lived chiefly on meat, and rarely survived past the age of 40. As far as the vegetarians, tribes like the Hunza, in the Himalaya, or groups like the Seventh Day Adventist, a vegetarian Christian group, tend to live between 80 and 100 years. Keep young. Be vegetarian!

FOOD FOR THE SOUL

There are thousands of good reasons to accept the vegetarian diet and ideal, but not a single reason in favour of killing and eating 'our younger brothers'.Here is some food for thought! Dr. Kellog, a famous Christian theologian and practicing vegetarian, said: "It is nice to eat a meal and not have to worry about what your food may have died of."Effects of food on the mindFood and thoughts are linked one another. Many other things are associated with one's dealings in life, but food is the main thing. One should be careful about what he eats and drinks because food affects thoughts and actions. If one aspires after peace and happiness, he should avoid unclean food in all circumstances.

After practicing yoga for years, many people confess that they are not improving as they wished. They have not become more peaceful and happy and wonder why. In many cases, these people have not attached much importance to the quality of their diet. They neglected to find out whether their food was pure or not in its essence and effect. They wished to achieve peace of mind, but impure food was an obstacle to the fulfilment of their objective.Three kinds of foodThe first step is to know which food to eat and which to avoid. According to the Bhagavad Gita there are three kinds of food:food in sattva guna, pure; food in rajo guna, exciting; food in tamo guna, impure.

Certain foods promote longevity, purify the blood, increase bodily strength, help to prevent disease, and bring about happiness and satisfaction. Such foods are filled with flavour, freshness and natural vitality and prove pleasing to the heart. Purified persons in harmony with nature's force of goodness (sattva-guna) naturally choose such delightful foods when making up their diets.A taste for very bitter, very sour or overly hot and spicy foods develop by the influence of the impassioning mode of nature (rajo-guna). Passion also causes persons to eat foods which are not healthy and produce disease.And it is under the spell of darkness (tamo-guna) that people become attracted to things with a putrid taste and smell, to decomposing meats and other untouchable foods.Spiritualize your food!The Srimad Bhagavatam 10.1.4 affirms that atma-hano-janah (the soul killers) is the only category of persons unable to understand spiritual knowledge. This definition applies both to those who have no interest for spiritual life, and to those involved in killing animals.

How can someone sincerely pray to God, the father of all living entities (aham bija pradah pitah) and, at the same time, slaughter or devour His children? Becoming vegetarian is a prerequisite for a life of love. It is a basic, fundamental step in God realization. All should be encouraged to accept the vegetarian ideal. All will benefit by such a choice.It is a choice based on love and compassion. It is recommended by all the great saints and by the Lord Himself, Sri Krishna.patram puspam phalam toyamyo me bhaktya prayacchatitad aham bhakty-upahritamashnami prayatatmanah"I come Myself to accept the love-saturated offerings of My pure devotees even if they be a simple leaf, a flower, a fruit or a little water." (Bhagavad Gita 9.26)Here Sri Krishna encourages vegetarianism and recommends that we offer our food to him. By offering food in sacrifice to the Supreme Lord, our conscience becomes purified. The food will turn into prasada, Krishna's mercy. We should spiritualize our food and eat only prasada. In an earlier verse, Sri Krishna had already recommended that food should be prepared for His pleasure, not for our own sense gratification.yajna-shishtashinah santomucyante sarva-kilbishaihbhunjate te tv agham papaye pachanty atma-karanat"Foodstuffs prepared with devotion have an uplifting and liberating effect on the devotees who consume them. Selfish people, who prepare food for their own sense enjoyment, eat only sin." (Bhagavad Gita 3.13) Selfishness is a grievious sin (agham).

Krishna says that the meals of selfish people have a degrading and reactionary effect on those who eat them. The eaters remain implicated in the violence of the food chain, and are guilty of blame. In other words, Krishna is telling that we have to become selfless, remove our false ego and serve Him with love. He is the absolute owner of everything. Nothing belongs to us. All the foodstuffs in the whole universe belong to Him. His position is such. And He is not really interested in any food of this world.If we offer our food to Him with a purified conscience, He will accept it. He can do that because His personality is divine. Krishna has transcendental senses through which He can enjoy whatever food we offer to Him. This is confirmed in the Brahma Samhita verse 32, angani yasya sakalendriya vritti manti."Each of the limbs of His body can perform the function of any other organ." So, God is not impersonal, for if He were, He would not be able to accept our offerings.Sri Krishna is the Supreme Lord, the Universal Father of all living beings.

He is not limited by mundane considerations. He loves all His creatures, regardless of the outer dress, the body. Our offerings to Him should be done with a spirit of universal love and compassion. Every act of irreverence for life is a step toward the love of death. Man must make this choice at every minute, every day. Choose life! Become vegetarian and tell others to do the same. May peace be upon all!Acknowledgements:My heartfelt thanks to Swami BB Bodhayan for providing computer facilities. Interested readers on the subject matter can write to:Swami B.V. ParivrajakACINTYA - International Movement for Unity in DiversityMail to: "Bhaktivedanta Parivrajak"bv_parivrajak@yahoo.comCopyright Free. Any portion of the essay can be reproduced; duly quoting the source. Both Worlds PublicationsComment on this storyContact VNN about this storySend this story to a friend
How useful is the information in this article? Not Somewhat Very - This story URL: http://www.vnn.org/editorials/ET0110/ET06-6911.html
11:02 PM - 0 Comments - 0 Kudos - Add Comment