Thursday, January 05, 2012

Jesus Was A Pantheist

My Blog has moved. Please click the link below for this article.

Not only does Jesus teach reincarnation

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.


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!

My Blog has moved. Please click the link below for this article.




Wednesday, November 02, 2011

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

Sunday, November 22, 2009

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

 

Thursday, February 15, 2007

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?

Sunday, January 28, 2007

Idiots Censored

Ok Im not sure anyone got the joke anyway. Since this post was on a message board which is probably offline I am censoring this post until a later date. Why ? Because when I tried to  share on Facebook this post was posted instead of my main page. So if you want to read my blog you will actually have to visit my blog. Sorry

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 :)

Friday, December 15, 2006

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

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
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