|
|
 |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Frank-in-SanDiego
USA
363 Posts |
 Posted - Dec 04 2005 : 4:54:51 PM
|
Hari Om
~~~~~~
Namaste Yogacara's ( practitioners of yoga)
Gandhi said "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated"
There has been several discussions about the consumption of meat. Many ponder what to do. I do not have your answer but wanted to suggest that meat eating is more about Yama and Niyama , then how you "feel" or what your meditations are like e.g. how the food stuffs change your mental state.
Patanjali-ji laid out the various limbs ( 6 of 'em) of raja-yoga and Yama ( from yam, to restrain) is part of it. As you folks already know its made up of:
Ahimsa - or non-injury
Satya - Truth
Asteya - non-stealing
Brahmacharya - continence some say celibacy - but the consideration of sukrya and ojas
Aparigraha - or keeping your mitts off of others property!
When one chooses not to eat meat( fish, fowl, eggs, etc) it’s a action of Ahimsa, or non-injury. There always comes the rebuttal of non-injury of plants/vegetables, etc. Yes, this could be made. Yet the way the system works, with every fruit and veggie provided on this earth, it comes with a replenishing system - seeds to grow 10X to 100X the fruit or veggie or grain consumed. Nature is intelligent and designed accordingly.
To me and where I am at in my progress its based upon the least amount of non-injury possible to the world around me. This has as much to do with ahimsa as it does with karma.
Now, additional conversations can be had regarding ones meditative experiences based upon the food stuffs consumed. Many a Vaishnava and Saivite avoid meat AND garlic + caffeine + carrots + alcohol + onions, etc . They are seen as dulling the system i.e. tamasic in nature. I am not promoting any dietary approach to AYP members here. Just giving you a POV on how others think their spiritual progress may be influenced or supported.
Over time actions in accord with the right thing to do become innate in ones behavior. In the interim, we need to choose what makes sense to do. This "sense" grows from what is right for me, then to my community, then my nation, my world, etc.
Finally stewardship at the cosmic level comes with enlightenment.
"All man’s miseries derive from not being able to sit quietly in a room alone " Pascal (the French mathematician)
Peace,
Frank In San Diego
|
|
|
Manipura
USA
870 Posts |
Posted - Dec 04 2005 : 7:57:30 PM
|
Hi Frank. Thanks for bringing up the subject of diet again. There are so many reasons that people choose their particular diets, some of which make little sense, even to the practitioner. I don't eat meat for moral reasons, but feel okay about eating fish. Makes no sense, so I've stopped trying to justify it. Some of the 'holiest' people I know eat meat. And Hitler was a vegetarian.
meg |
 |
|
|
Etherfish
USA
3615 Posts |
Posted - Dec 05 2005 : 12:23:19 AM
|
Sri Yukteswar (Yogananda's guru) wrote in "The Holy Science" that you can tell we weren't meant to eat meat by comparing the structure of our teeth
to animals who are carnivores. i tried a vegetarian diet for seven years when growing up, but finally gave it up. i do feel healthier when I eat less meat. My dad has been a vegetarian his whole life. I accused him once of discriminating against the small animals since we can't help but eat microscopic animals with the vegetables and water. So it has got to be an issue of effort towards non injury rather than actual number of lives lost.
Etherfish |
|
|
|
Lili
Netherlands
372 Posts |
Posted - Dec 05 2005 : 05:57:58 AM
|
Funnily I am allergic to carrots so it's cool they are black-listed here. At least one sub-yama that I can keep for sure  |
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Dec 05 2005 : 09:25:59 AM
|
>> My dad has been a vegetarian his whole life. I accused him once of discriminating against the small animals since we can't help but eat microscopic animals with the vegetables and water.
And if the focus is on killing rather than eating, a vegetarian diet leads to the death of many insects and even small mammals (like field mice and others). So one way or another we have an involvement in the process of killing whether we like it or not.
|
Edited by - david_obsidian on Dec 05 2005 09:30:30 AM |
|
|
|
Manipura
USA
870 Posts |
Posted - Dec 05 2005 : 10:25:28 AM
|
From my perspective, the focus is not so much on the killing of the animal, but on its treatment while alive. All living beings must die, and if they weren't meant to be eaten, God wouldn't have made them so tasty, or so the argument goes. Agreed. I really don't have a problem with that. It's the abominable of treatment of them which I protest. If I lived in the wild and had the ability to hunt and kill, I'd eat meat.
It's a personal decision that I'd never impose on anyone else.
BTW, what does anyone think of the karma aspect of this? Pissing off a bunch of chickens and then eating them - are we ingesting their angst?  
meg |
|
|
|
Jim and His Karma
2111 Posts |
Posted - Dec 05 2005 : 10:41:28 AM
|
I personally have very warm and personal feelings for plants. Not thrilled killing them (or being a party to it).
So my proposal is an entirely inorganic diet...neither plant nor animal. Small pebbles, styrofoam packing peanuts, coins. It''s surprisingly easy to get "that full feeling" without any digestion actually taking place. |
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Dec 05 2005 : 10:54:54 AM
|
>> Sri Yukteswar (Yogananda's guru) wrote in "The Holy Science" that you can tell we weren't meant to eat meat by comparing the structure of our teeth
ISCKON and others have followed and popularized related logic, which is flawed: they show that our bodies are not adapted as carnivores' bodies, and infer that this proves us to be herbivores. The truth is though that our bodies do not seem to be by any means the bodies of herbivores either, but rather -- wait for it -- the bodies of omnivores, neither exclusively carnivorous nor exclusively herbivorous -- eaters of both meat and vegetable matter.
We don't have the very sharp meat-cutting teeth of the chimp (another omnivore) but haven't needed them since some time back in our evolution, since we have used tools to cut our meat.
-D
|
Edited by - david_obsidian on Dec 05 2005 2:43:22 PM |
|
|
|
Manipura
USA
870 Posts |
Posted - Dec 05 2005 : 11:43:37 AM
|
| As long as they're cage-free packing peanuts, Jim. |
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Dec 05 2005 : 2:41:02 PM
|
quote:
I hate to admit it folks, but David is correct on this one.  Hahaha. Aren't I a big girl David? <---- and no, that's not my ego speaking. 
Yes this is big of you, Thanks. 
It's the first time you've confirmed what I said -- I pray on my knees that it is not the first time I am right.
|
Edited by - david_obsidian on Dec 05 2005 2:51:50 PM |
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Dec 05 2005 : 3:24:31 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by meg
From my perspective, the focus is not so much on the killing of the animal, but on its treatment while alive. All living beings must die, and if they weren't meant to be eaten, God wouldn't have made them so tasty, or so the argument goes. Agreed. I really don't have a problem with that. It's the abominable of treatment of them which I protest.
Hello Meg,
in that case, the way the food ... er living creature ... is raised is often more important than what basic type it is. For example, and this is quite ironic, one of the least 'cruelty-laden' of all non-veggie foods may be free-range eggs, while among the most cruelty-laden of foods commonly eaten in the western world may be regular eggs from factory-raised chickens -- these are arguably much more 'cruelty-laden' than, for example, beef.
Makes you think, huh? That your omelette 'may contain more cruelty' than your steak -- but perhaps much less than your steak if the eggs are free-range.....
-D |
Edited by - david_obsidian on Dec 05 2005 3:26:07 PM |
|
|
|
nearoanoke
USA
525 Posts |
Posted - Dec 05 2005 : 9:07:28 PM
|
I stopped eating non-veg 3 months back. I eat eggs though occasionally. I feel the reasons are less moral and more scientific in the sense the animal flesh entering our body creates more of rajasic (passion) nature in us. That increases desires and passion which is not good for spiritual progress.
For those who dont know rajasic (passion or overactivity), tamasic (dullness, inertia, laziness), sattvic (purity, goodness) are three natures that everyone has in varying degrees.
Genes are a result of karma RATHER THAN A CAUSE OF IT - Yogani |
|
|
|
Manipura
USA
870 Posts |
Posted - Dec 06 2005 : 10:31:23 AM
|
Hi David! Quantifying/comparing the cruelty from one animal food-group to another hasn't been much of an issue for me - it all seems to fall under the same category. On the scale of misery (assuming that animals know such a thing), a caged, plucked, beaked chicken may weigh in more heavily than a fenced-in, unshaded, but otherwise well-kept dairy cow.
>>"Makes you think, huh? That your omelette 'may contain more cruelty' than your steak -- but perhaps much less than your steak if the eggs are free-range....."
If the chicken is cage-free, then the omelette will contain a minimum amount of cruelty. If caged, the omelette will contain a considerable amount of cruelty. However, whether the cow was happy or tortured, the steak will contain some degree of cruelty.
:)
meg
|
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Dec 06 2005 : 11:26:00 AM
|
Meg said:
>>If the chicken is cage-free, then the omelette will contain a minimum amount of cruelty. If caged, the omelette will contain a considerable amount of cruelty. However, whether the cow was happy or tortured, the steak will contain some degree of cruelty.
Hello Meg,
I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. Perhaps you are saying at you don't care do make a distinction between exposing animal(s) to a small amount of suffering and a large amount of suffering?
Fair enough if that's your way. It wouldn't be mine though. For the sake of the animals, I am very concerned about the difference between the animals leading a tortured life or a relatively happy one.
|
Edited by - david_obsidian on Dec 06 2005 11:38:12 AM |
|
|
|
Manipura
USA
870 Posts |
Posted - Dec 06 2005 : 12:06:27 PM
|
>>That any amount of suffering, even if small, is as good or as bad as a lot????
Umm--no--that's not what I'm saying. (Insert nose-scratching, raised eyebrow icon here)------> X That's why I said "some degree of cruelty". If a cow is existing blissfully in a pasture and then is hauled off to the slaughterhouse, there is a degree of cruelty involved, and I think we can agree that, given its druthers, the cow would have preferred to remain in the field. On the cruelty scale of 1-10, that might register as a, what, 5 or 6? Somewhere in there. But if the cow was raised in a factory in the horrendous conditions that we hear about, the cruelty would weigh in at a solid 10. (Ironically, its killing could be considered merciful, but I'd still 'steer' clear of the steak). My point was that the omelette may or may not contain cruelty, but a steak will always contain some degree of cruelty, unless of course the cow just dropped dead in the field.
>>Fair enough if that's your way. It wouldn't be mine though. For the sake of the animals, I am very concerned about the difference between the animals leading a tortured life or a relatively happy one.
Wait - have I mentioned that I'm a vegetarian?
meg |
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Dec 06 2005 : 1:06:48 PM
|
Hello Meg,
well to me, the time spent in pain matters too. The cow gets maybe one unwanted adventure. It's not necessarily worse in terms of pain than maybe one unwanted trip to the vetinary surgeon.
So if I gave a cow-killing a 6 cruelty-points for a day, I'd give a factory chicken-raising 60 cruelty-points per day. ( That's saying that there is ten times as much pain in a factory-chicken-life day than in the cow-death day.) At one egg per day, that's 60 cruelty-points per egg. For a three-egg omelette (which I imagine you steer clear from .... ) that's 180 cruelty-points per omelette. At around 400 burgers per cow, that's 0.015 cruelty-points per burger, which contrasts to 180 cruelty-points per three egg omelette....
Put another way, you need to consume a burger a day for a year to provide the demand for one cow-death-day; you will provide the demand for three factory-chicken-life days by eating one three-egg omelette.
Put another way, you need to eat a burger a day for thirty years to create the demand to produce the same pain as went into one three-egg omelette.
Put another way, it takes 8000 burgers to produce the pain of one egg...
Put yet another way, the person who eats two non-free-range eggs per week produces as much pain as 2000 people who eat a burger per day...
>> Wait - have I mentioned that I'm a vegetarian?
Yes I saw that. You aren't an ovo-vegetarian, are you?
Anyway, I am not talking about your behavior at all.
My point is this -- from the point of view of the pain produced by the economic demand of their eating habits, an ovo-vegetarian (if not eating free-range eggs) may overwhelmingly exceed a multi-burger-a-day-muncher who keeps away from eggs and egg products.
Do you think the point has some merit?
-D |
Edited by - david_obsidian on Dec 06 2005 1:28:43 PM |
|
|
|
Manipura
USA
870 Posts |
Posted - Dec 06 2005 : 2:47:06 PM
|
I'm in 6 points of pain. :) I'm sure your point has merit, David. But if you're comparing factory chickens to grazing cows, that's not an fair comparison - of course the cruelty points of the chicken will exceed that of the cow. Logic tells me that little cruelty is better than a lot of cruelty, but zero cruelty is always preferable.
meg |
|
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Dec 06 2005 : 3:24:28 PM
|
>> But if you're comparing factory chickens to grazing cows, that's not an fair comparison - of course the cruelty points of the chicken will exceed that of the cow.
Oh maybe this is it, maybe you misunderstood me in this way: I am not actually comparing factory-fed chickens to grazing cows -- I am comparing the day of a factory-fed chicken to the cow's day of death, not its days of grazing.... So maybe someone could argue about the actual points I used, (maybe a day at the slaughterhouse is actually as bad as a day in a factory farm) but the numbers are so much in favor of the beef that it's hard to see a sensible case for preferring the omelette to the burger from the point of view of compassion for animal suffering.
For example, if we change the figures so that a day at the slaughter house is even ten times as bad as a day as a chicken in the factory-farm (which it hardly is -- I am proposing one tenth as bad) even still the person eating two eggs per week is producing as much suffering as 20 people eating a burger per day.
>> Logic tells me that little cruelty is better than a lot of cruelty, but zero cruelty is always preferable.
I'm not saying zero cruelty is not preferable. We are agreed on that much. Phew!
My point about factory-farmed eggs being 'worse' than beef is just based on the idea that a little cruelty is better than a lot....
The focus on suffering rather than on the act of killing produces very different results of what we should do.
-D
|
Edited by - david_obsidian on Dec 06 2005 4:14:06 PM |
|
|
|
Ute
39 Posts |
Posted - Dec 09 2005 : 9:15:14 PM
|
I hope the topic isn’t dead yet because I have a few thoughts on the subject. In the spirit of ahimsa I like to be mindful of how I get my food. The amount of suffering of my future fare is a consideration, but so is how many resources are consumed in providing me that food and what ecological impact that industry makes. I’m pretty appalled in how food animals are raised. Read “Fast Food Nation” for an eye opener. Although, I hear that improvements have been made since, and probably because, the book came out. I also know animals can be humanely slaughtered and there have been improvements in the industry. An autistic woman named Temple Grandin has designed most of the cattle chutes in the US, with the animal comfort in mind. She wrote an interesting book, “Thinking in Pictures”. It’s pretty amazing what impact her designs have had on animal welfare in slaughter houses. The caged chicken operations are pretty ugly, too. Last year there was an outbreak of Avian Flu in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia and they slaughtered something like 17 million birds. That’s not a very big area to have that many factory-raised birds! But we do have choices. Look for food raised with Sustainable Agricultural Practices. You will pay more, but eat healthier and more ethically. Also, eat locally produced food whenever possible. Not only will it be fresher, but you will also support your local economy, and save on fuel used for transportation.
My thoughts on diet are that there is not one right diet for everyone. Even our personal dietary needs can change under different circumstances. Wise is the yogi or yogini who can discern what it right for his or her body. My instructions from my teacher were to pay attention to the energetic impact certain foodstuff had on my body and learn from that. Attitude is also important. This teacher also said that one can have the most healthful diet, but if it is eaten with a poisonous attitude, it will be received as poison. Conversely, not to good food eaten with reverence can be received as nectar. I can’t vouch for the accuracy of this statement, but I am practicing it faithfully: I eat chocolate (in small doses) regularly with great reverence and delight and it hasn’t killed me yet.
|
|
|
|
Frank-in-SanDiego
USA
363 Posts |
Posted - Dec 13 2005 : 8:26:07 PM
|
Hari Om
~~~~~~~
quote:
Originally posted by Ute
I eat chocolate (in small doses) regularly with great reverence and delight and it hasn’t killed me yet.
From an Ayurvedic perspective, chocolate gives you one of the 6 tastes, bitter. When its sweetened up, we typically think of today’s chocolate. The 6 tastes (you probably already know) :
Bitter, sweet, salty, pungent, astringent, sour.
When in balance, we are in balance (I am not in balance in the winter months...been trying for years and keep trying).
In the USA we are seen world wide as over weight - we tend to favor sweet, sour and salty. We miss the balance, the other 3 tastes.
One Great taste is that of Ghee which stimulates Ojas in us.
[ in the Gita, Krsna suggests that in yajya, he is the ghee in the sacrifice]
I also believe the choice for least harm is the approach to take to practice Yama and Niyama. What we need to consider is our practice of Samyama on love, or friendship , unity, compassion, etc - all the wonderful qualities of an enlightened being, then we go out and have a burger at the expense of another being that has consciousness. For me its so upside down [ one legged as the rishi’s point out in the Upanishads] with what we wish to achieve compared to our behavior.
I do not find fault with others eating selections. My value of animals is they have feelings, consciousness, show emotions to their “kids” and their owners; I must respect them as co-inhabitants on this earth. I practice Yama as much as possible. Yes, bugs die on my windshield , but I prefer they didn’t. Its when there is choice, I choose they live. I prefer man-made shoes and buy them, but still have leather shoes, but prefer I do not. No leather interior seats or leather couch because I can choose not to have these.
Yes, I know things die – we live in a birth-death universe. When I can NOT be part of this death initiative, I chose that. Do I screw up, yep! Do I believe I am better then anyone else based on my values? Nope.
These are MY choices, and I do not reprimand any one for their actions... I viewed a slaughter house for cows on TV on how it works, how the animals where “processed”... On that day I chose not to ever eat meat again (that was 33 years ago).
Food is Brahman, Brahman is food - Upanishads.
Frank In San Diego
|
|
|
|
Anthem
1608 Posts |
Posted - Dec 13 2005 : 11:18:27 PM
|
Great post Frank.
quote:
I do not find fault with others eating selections. My value of animals is they have feelings, consciousness, show emotions to their “kids” and their owners; I must respect them as co-inhabitants on this earth. I practice Yama as much as possible. Yes, bugs die on my windshield , but I prefer they didn’t. Its when there is choice, I choose they live. I prefer man-made shoes and buy them, but still have leather shoes, but prefer I do not. No leather interior seats or leather couch because I can choose not to have these.
Yes, I know things die – we live in a birth-death universe. When I can NOT be part of this death initiative, I chose that. Do I screw up, yep! Do I believe I am better then anyone else based on my values? Nope.
This summarizes my sentiments exactly.
Thanks for this.
A |
|
|
|
love
USA
34 Posts |
Posted - Dec 26 2005 : 5:49:16 PM
|
| You are what you eat, just look at your health then look at your diet. For example the diets of most south American countries which consist of high starches the predominant disease is diabetes. In US people eat more meat, the predominant disease is cancer it is that simple. Dr. Walker who kept a healthy body to the age of 116 (American) he was on a 100% raw food diet with little bit of raw goat milk. |
|
|
|
noche
Colombia
16 Posts |
Posted - Feb 20 2006 : 8:51:43 PM
|
the next step in human evo is a diet of water and sun. actually, there are some people that use only sunlight, and occasionally tea at social meetings...
in lak´ech |
|
|
|
star
12 Posts |
Posted - Feb 20 2006 : 10:44:40 PM
|
| I did the breatherian thing for 1 year, (10 years ago) the only problem with that is it is very anti social. I had to stop after a 1 year and start eating again for social reasons. Now I’m body building and want to eat eggs for my protein because I don’t digest milk. |
|
|
|
Etherfish
USA
3615 Posts |
Posted - Feb 20 2006 : 10:50:02 PM
|
| I don't digest milk easily, but don't have any problem with whey protein. Have you tried that? Some of them are supposed to be much easier to digest than eggs. |
|
|
|
star
12 Posts |
Posted - Feb 22 2006 : 01:53:31 AM
|
| No whey does not work for me either. As soon as I drink milk, whey, eat ice cream any thing close to milk give me a cold. |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
| AYP Public Forum |
© Contributing Authors (opinions and advice belong to the respective authors) |
|
|
|
|
Carnivore or?
