|
|
| kulkarnn - 2007-09-08 9:50 PM
1(N).===> NO. The cause being 'killing an animal to eat meat' and 'causing a suffering to that animal' which later I have reap.
2.
(N)===> It is the Yoga Practice that depends on Body and Mind, which makes the Englightenment depend on them too.
3.(S)Of course we need a body and mind to reach realization, and food is needed for continuity of the body/mind. But this discussion is on which kind of food.
(N)===> Yes. But more than that, What is the process that food is obtained.
4.(S)The desire to be free brings realization. Sattvic food may help to make it easier to let go of identification with the body/mind until one is established ie samadhi (continuous).
(N)===> NO. Sattiv food makes the body cleaner and mind more serene, which helps in Meditation.
5.(S)How about , you THINK you are the body and mind (not you Are) until you REALIZE you are not. Realizing you are not, in every moment, is called enlightenment. Self Realization.
(N)===> THINKING is different from REALIZATION. One may think they are spirit, but then if one slaps them in public, they might forget their true nature! Jesus Christ never fought wars. But, his proponents burnt people at stake. That means they think they are Christian, but actually they are NON-Christian. Christian is that who can be crucified while remembering that he is son of God.
Answer to point 1 (from above quotes)... Most people don't kill the animal (like Tibetan monks or your average steak eating American, no difference...we are One) And what do you think will happen to you if you do?
Point 2...This is what I wrote , check 3(above). You just repeated what I wrote Neel, but in a turned around way .
Answer to point 4 above...
Again you wrote what I wrote but in different words, and use it as an argument.
Point 5...
With this one you didn't read properly what I wrote. How can we have a conversation?
I ask you to carefully read the posts please .
be in peace,
Soul
Edited by souljourney108 2007-09-07 7:28 PM
|
|
| |
|
| More on this Neel- it is resonating. Where can I find more information on sublimating the eating passion? I have been doing 1-3 day fasts that has been helping me a lot. Although I am only 20 pounds overweight, I find it hinders my practice. It's not about the food anyway, it's about the behavior. It seems every couple of weeks, I let go of any and all sane eating practices. Thanks for any feedback- |
|
| |
|
| i think that directing is better than sublimating. . .sublimating is about clamping down (IMO), whereas directing is about sending that energy into something that works, that is positive for you.
i fast for spiritual reasons--usually once a week--and it's a powerful practice. it's a day fast, with a simple early meal and a simple evening one (fruit and water for breakfast, steamed veggies and water and tea for dinner; water throughout the day). i do this to clear the body, focus the mind and unleash the spirit. i mostly focus on am asana, then contemplation and meditation throughout the day. it's fun and powerful. 
but, the energy or passion for food (and i'm passionate about food, which i think is ok, like being passionate about reading) should be used for good and not distruction. understanding how and why the energy has gone into one channel instead of another is really valuable.
oh, i know that marylisa can talk a lot about this. she knows a good deal about it. she's amazing, particularly in this excessive food passions issue. i love her. |
|
| |
|
| Hey Soul: It is not that I did not read your post. That happens due to my English background, I mean my NON English background. And, you have to forgive me for that. I am completely open to accept when I mis understand things. Let me now comment further.
Answer to point 1 (from above quotes)... Most people don't kill the animal (like Tibetan monks or your average steak eating American, no difference...we are One) And what do you think will happen to you if you do?
********* What I am trying to say is: In meat eating, an animal is killed (unless it was already dead due to natural causes, such as one in case of Aghoris, you quoted.) Whether it is killed by one person or another, all those eating that kill shall be reaping the fruit.
In other words, a particular karmaa may be executed by one person, or may be executed by a person through another person, or may be executed by one person and ecouraged by another person.
pratyakshaanumoditaa lobhakrodhamohapuurvakaa mrudumadhyaadhimaatraa dukhaadnyaanaanantafalaa... Patanjali
Point 2...This is what I wrote , check 3(above). You just repeated what I wrote Neel, but in a turned around way .
******* That may be. But my poiint 2 is a response to your point 2. And that whole thing goes like this
YOU: You are not the body. To suggest that enlightenment is dependent on diet is so limiting. What else is it dependent on then? You are already free. You are spirit, you are not the body. Your Self is always present no matter what you eat.
===> Yes, you are the spirit and not the body. But, to realize this in the totality, NOT In theory, is the Enlightenment. Until one actually realizes this, one is NOT Enlightened and one is a Yoga Student. And, what the Yoga Student does for being Enlightened is called Yoga Practice. And, Yoga Practice depends NOT ON What you are, but it depends on the Body and Mind. And, Body and Mind Depend on Diet. And, therefore, the Enlightenment depends on the Diet.
***** To make this repsonse complete, let me add: It is NOT limiting to say that Englightenment depeds on the Diet. And, diet does not only mean exactly the item used for eating, but it means all that goes in along with it, what Jonnie calls Karma.
Point 3:
***** My addition to you is "What process including mental process, not only physical action, that food is obtained. You yourself stated that most of us including monks do not kill animals. Why? Because, we do not want to see them being killed. But, we want to eat them later. But those who kill them have to see them being killed, and not that they like or enjoy it, but they do it because we later purchase and eat the kill.
Point 4
Again you wrote what I wrote but in different words, and use it as an argument.
******* Yes, now I see how both of stated the same thing in a different way. So, I accept what you originally wrote.
Point 5...
With this one you didn't read properly what I wrote. How can we have a conversation?
******** This is what I understand about our point 5.
a) We first stated:
(S)You are already Free. Eat what you will. You are not the body. You are not the mind.
(N)===> You are free to eat what you will. But, you are not free yet. And, you are the Body and Mind until you are truely free, that is enlightened. When an Enlightened eats meat, that is different from UnEnlightened eating meat.
b) Then we had:
(S)How about , you THINK you are the body and mind (not you Are) until you REALIZE you are not. Realizing you are not, in every moment, is called enlightenment. Self Realization.
(N)===> THINKING is different from REALIZATION. One may think they are spirit, but then if one slaps them in public, they might forget their true nature! Jesus Christ never fought wars. But, his proponents burnt people at stake. That means they think they are Christian, but actually they are NON-Christian. Christian is that who can be crucified while remembering that he is son of God.
***** Therefore, my response is really pointing to your 'eat what you will' part. And, then I thought you want use only "THINK"ing process to get to realization, as some of my friends are doing.
|
|
| |
|
| susbarb1 - 2007-09-08 1:06 AM
More on this Neel- it is resonating. Where can I find more information on sublimating the eating passion? I have been doing 1-3 day fasts that has been helping me a lot. Although I am only 20 pounds overweight, I find it hinders my practice. It's not about the food anyway, it's about the behavior. It seems every couple of weeks, I let go of any and all sane eating practices. Thanks for any feedback-
===> Refer to the Devotional Material used by the Vaishnavaites Sects. Also, you might read the biographies of certain Saints or Yogis, such as Shree Swami Vivekananda, Shree Yogananda Parahamhansa. Also, you can read autobiography of Mahatma Gandhi.
===> And, you can use, with benefit, listening to the Audio as instructed there: "Correct Weight Loss based on Authentic Yoga System" by SaeeTech, The Authentic Yoga School.
|
|
| |
|
| Yes Darling ZB. What you wrote is true. But, when a Yogi reaches levels where he is trying to be FREE and finds that an eating passion is in the way, he wants to sublimate it. If Marylisa can help, I can go her crawling!!!!
zoebird - 2007-09-08 8:59 AM
i think that directing is better than sublimating. . .sublimating is about clamping down (IMO ), whereas directing is about sending that energy into something that works, that is positive for you.
i fast for spiritual reasons--usually once a week--and it's a powerful practice. it's a day fast, with a simple early meal and a simple evening one (fruit and water for breakfast, steamed veggies and water and tea for dinner; water throughout the day ). i do this to clear the body, focus the mind and unleash the spirit. i mostly focus on am asana, then contemplation and meditation throughout the day. it's fun and powerful.
but, the energy or passion for food (and i'm passionate about food, which i think is ok, like being passionate about reading ) should be used for good and not distruction. understanding how and why the energy has gone into one channel instead of another is really valuable.
oh, i know that marylisa can talk a lot about this. she knows a good deal about it. she's amazing, particularly in this excessive food passions issue. i love her. |
|
| |
|
| kulkarnn - 2007-09-09 3:35 AM
Answer to point 1 (from above quotes)... Most people don't kill the animal (like Tibetan monks or your average steak eating American, no difference...we are One) And what do you think will happen to you if you do?
********* What I am trying to say is: In meat eating, an animal is killed (unless it was already dead due to natural causes, such as one in case of Aghoris, you quoted.) Whether it is killed by one person or another, all those eating that kill shall be reaping the fruit.
In other words, a particular karmaa may be executed by one person, or may be executed by a person through another person, or may be executed by one person and ecouraged by another person.
pratyakshaanumoditaa lobhakrodhamohapuurvakaa mrudumadhyaadhimaatraa dukhaadnyaanaanantafalaa... Patanjali
Point 2...This is what I wrote , check 3(above). You just repeated what I wrote Neel, but in a turned around way .
******* That may be. But my poiint 2 is a response to your point 2. And that whole thing goes like this
YOU: You are not the body. To suggest that enlightenment is dependent on diet is so limiting. What else is it dependent on then? You are already free. You are spirit, you are not the body. Your Self is always present no matter what you eat.
===> Yes, you are the spirit and not the body. But, to realize this in the totality, NOT In theory, is the Enlightenment. Until one actually realizes this, one is NOT Enlightened and one is a Yoga Student. And, what the Yoga Student does for being Enlightened is called Yoga Practice. And, Yoga Practice depends NOT ON What you are, but it depends on the Body and Mind. And, Body and Mind Depend on Diet. And, therefore, the Enlightenment depends on the Diet.
***** To make this repsonse complete, let me add: It is NOT limiting to say that Englightenment depeds on the Diet. And, diet does not only mean exactly the item used for eating, but it means all that goes in along with it, what Jonnie calls Karma.
Point 5...
With this one you didn't read properly what I wrote. How can we have a conversation?
******** This is what I understand about our point 5.
a) We first stated:
(S)You are already Free. Eat what you will. You are not the body. You are not the mind.
(N)===> You are free to eat what you will. But, you are not free yet. And, you are the Body and Mind until you are truely free, that is enlightened. When an Enlightened eats meat, that is different from UnEnlightened eating meat.
b) Then we had:
(S)How about , you THINK you are the body and mind (not you Are) until you REALIZE you are not. Realizing you are not, in every moment, is called enlightenment. Self Realization.
(N)===> THINKING is different from REALIZATION. One may think they are spirit, but then if one slaps them in public, they might forget their true nature! Jesus Christ never fought wars. But, his proponents burnt people at stake. That means they think they are Christian, but actually they are NON-Christian. Christian is that who can be crucified while remembering that he is son of God.
***** Therefore, my response is really pointing to your 'eat what you will' part. And, then I thought you want use only "THINK"ing process to get to realization, as some of my friends are doing.
Hi Neel,
Back to point 1.
Who will give out the punishment. There is no separate 'god in the sky' waiting to punish those who 'do bad', such as killing an animal to survive. This is belief in dualism. If a person eats meat, such as tibetan monks, and they have their yogic practices, such as meditation, who am I to say they can't reach enlightenment? That is ego speaking to say such a thing. Suggesting that a vegetarian, sattvic diet MAY be of help, is different.
...Point 2.
I don't agree that enlightenment is dependent on diet (what you eat). Again, how do I know what works for everyone on the planet? We'll have to differ on this one and I am not going to continue to try and convince you my friend.
...Point 5.
as I wrote ...You THINK you are the body and mind until you REALIZE you are not. And yes, as you wrote in point 2, "to realize this in the totality, NOT In theory, is the Enlightenment. Until one actually realizes this, one is NOT Enlightened". Now on this point we see the same way.
To the OP (this is not open for analysis or dissection by anyone else and I will not answer anyone else's posts on this... you are free to believe what you will... I am not attached),
It is suggested to eat a sattvic diet (ie vegetarian, no coffee, no drugs) in yogic texts, as this helps to calm the system down and purifies the body, along with asana practice, pranayam and other cleansing techniques. This includes proper sleep as well.
You will have more energy because of these practices, more prana flowing through the body. Most of us have seen how it is usually easier to react or get caught in negative thoughts when our energy is low.
This, in turn, may make it easier in your dharana practice (concentration) and Dhyana (meditation) may happen more easily.
In other words, you may be able to let go of identifying with thoughts easier as a result of these practices.
This was a way prescribed by yogis in India, and does not mean it is the ONLY way.
The big example in this post was the example of Tibetan monks eating meat. They still practice reading texts, concentration techniques etc. They have some beautiful practices. And there were and are people of this tradition who reached enlightenment.
The point is, you have to find out for yourself.
Just because i live a certain way, have a certain diet which works and has helped me, doesn't mean it is the ONLY way and everyone else is wrong. That would be operating from ego to speak in such a way.
Be in peace,
Soul |
|
| |
|
| Dear Soul: This is my response to your previous two points. I shall now give response in one response.
===> I think you have misunderstood my point. First, when I say Englightenment Depends on Diet, I mean that process towards reaching enlightenment which includes practices which involve body and mind for sure depend on the diet, and therefore the process of enlightenment is dependent on the diet. I am not saying that if a person has eaten meat, he shall not get enlightenment. I also wrote that it is NOT only the item of eating, but the whole gammut of eating which goes on is Diet it my definition, in this thread. So, if one has no other option than eating meat due to geo, background, whatever, then the situation is different from when all these are different from that. Again, the intention of eating meat is different for the Tibetan Monk as compared to that of an average persong going to Steakhouse. (On certain occassions, both of them may go to the same steakhouse, or even go together, but their mental states are different.) Next, I stated that in general Vegetarian Diet is superior to the non vegetarian diet in an average sense. Exceptions are to be omitted. For example, Tibetan monk eating meat does not mean that they recommend others to eat meat. I also offered to openly talk with Tibetan Monk authority on this. Next, if you know Buddhism, there is NO question that Compassion is a pinnacle of their precepts. Now, do you mean that a Buddhist Monk shall be ready to take a cutting gadget in his hand and compassionately kill a bison or any other animal? No, they do not do it as a part of normal practice. They do it as : Monk gets food from others. Whatever is offered they take. And they do not tell others or recommend others to serve them meat. If a Tibetan Monk comes to my home, he shall not expect me to serve meat, but he shall accept vegetarian food. And, if he lives in a Vegetarian place whole life, he shall only be vegetarian without eating any meat. And, he shall still be realized if he was that way. (BTW Monk does not mean realized.)
Lastly, I have not stated that there is a god in sky who is punishing. What I stated is the law of karma which depends on the intention of action, and if the intention of eating meat is: Kill the animal even if you see suffering, and when other food is available, then, that shall bear its own fruit. Whether one should take it as punishment or reward, is upto them.
Saying that Sattiv Diet is of help, is saying that non Sattvic diet is of less help. And, saying totally NON Sattivic Diet is of NO help. And, definitely meat is NOT a sattiv diet unless it is eaten without any other option.
Back to point 1.
Who will give out the punishment. There is no separate 'god in the sky' waiting to punish those who 'do bad', such as killing an animal to survive. This is belief in dualism. If a person eats meat, such as tibetan monks, and they have their yogic practices, such as meditation, who am I to say they can't reach enlightenment? That is ego speaking to say such a thing. Suggesting that a vegetarian, sattvic diet MAY be of help, is different.
...Point 2.
I don't agree that enlightenment is dependent on diet (what you eat). Again, how do I know what works for everyone on the planet? We'll have to differ on this one and I am not going to continue to try and convince you my friend.
|
|
| |
|
| I do not really want to aplogize for this statement. But I shall do it if someone likes that. I was only making a fun here. I am not trying make two groups to have a war. But, I was meaning that there is already a group of vegetarian verses non vegetarian, where they can have fun in discussion. You can take it as you like. Basically, I am not attacking any particular person, if you know what I mean.
kulkarnn - 2007-09-07 9:22 AM
Cyndiben is creative a group of wise persons, to later participate in the discussions with stupids!!!!
But, I am always there for her. Or, I welcome her (to our group)!!! |
|
| |
|
| Dear PlantHelper, now I feel that I never answered your question properly. I shall try that now. See ===> below. And, note that I am giving my opinion on the statements you made. I am not fighting with you.
planthelper - 2007-09-04 5:17 AM
I've been reading a lot about the bad reputation meat has within the yogic philosophy, i feel this can be slightly misleading in my own experience as here in mongolia due to its harsh climate and lack of fertile soil our main staple is sheep, cattle, camel and horse meat and dairy from these animals.
===> If this bad reputation is not coming from the sources that address or apply to your situation of 'harsh climate, lack of fertile soil, staple of cattle and horse meat, etc.', then you should disregard these particular sources. And, you should use sources of knowledge which address your particular situation.
I find my diet (about 90% meat and dairy)does not affect the progress asana or my ability to to reach deep states of meditation. I feel that times that i have tried to eat a vegetarian diet as my wife has asked me to try as the yogic tradition states, this i feel has in fact weakened my core strength and blocked my rising kundalini.
===> If you are sure about your findings, then you should not try things because wife or another vegetarian suggests you. If you are not sure, you should try their suggestion for the length they suggest. Whatever happens in that process, however, is your own responsibility always. Same with continuing with meat is your responsibility.
I believe could be very well to the fact that the Mongolian people have evolved to eat meat over a very long period of time allowing us to reach states of yogic bliss equaled to their Indian vegetarian counterparts.
===> Do not worry about Indian CounterParts. Bliss is bliss. You do not have to worry how much bliss Indians are getting. If you are blissful, you should not worry about this.
So for some folk meat can be a path to union and bliss.
===> Are you saying that 'Meat is a path to Union', that means 'they are getting union because they are eating meat and they shall not get the union if they give up meat'?
I'm wondering how many yogi's out there that are eating meat regularly with no adverse affects to their practice....is this a common occurrence or are most yogi's strict vegetarians?
===> Now, let us invite poll to these two questions:
a) How many yogis on this board who are actually eating meat and feel that there yoga practice is going wonderful with meat eating.
b) How many yogis on this board are strict vegetarians?
c) Let me ask some of my questions along with these:
c) What kind of Yoga practice the yogis who answered above questions are doing?
d) If there are strict vegetarians, why they are so?
e) Are there meat eating yogis on the board that feel their practice is going wonderful, but it will be less wonderful if they stop meat? Or, they feel that is irrelevant?
thanks
|
|
| |
|
| kulkarnn - 2007-09-08 4:12 PM
So for some folk meat can be a path to union and bliss.
===> Are you saying that 'Meat is a path to Union', that means 'they are getting union because they are eating meat and they shall not get the union if they give up meat'?
No I am saying "So for some folk meat CAN be a path to union and bliss." I don't know how much clearer i can make this, there is no absolute "is" in the statement. I am not really interested in a poll as much of what i wanted to know i have found out from this thread, you are welcome to have one tho kulkarn.
I have found this thread very helpful in my understanding of my diet and how it relates to my practice. Thankyou to everyone who contributed.
|
|
| |
|
| Hurray. I am glad that PlantHelper has found whatever he wants from the thread.
a) I do not know why he is using the word Path to Union. Because, Path means it is a main aspect of any goal to reach. To say, Meat Can be a Path, means Meat eating is the main thing in that approach. Where as what he means is: Meat eating is only one element in the life style, and nothing to do with Path, where as Path is Meditation as I can now see from he states.
b) Yes, I am very interested in that Poll. So, those who want to contribute should do so. Otherwise, I am happy, too. |
|
| |
|
Expert Yogi
Posts: 8442
    
| I don't usually wade into these discussions too much as the philosophy can get my brain in a twist   But I do have a lot of trouble with the notion that it is not possible to be enlightened if one eats meat. Certainly virtually all indigenous peoples have eaten meat as a staple part of their diets and have had many highly advanced spiritual practices and powerful shamans. It just doesn't make sense to me that a soul would have to live in an area where vegetarianism was practiced to become enlightened. |
|
| |
|
| tourist - 2007-09-09 11:20 AM
I don't usually wade into these discussions too much as the philosophy can get my brain in a twist But I do have a lot of trouble with the notion that it is not possible to be enlightened if one eats meat. Certainly virtually all indigenous peoples have eaten meat as a staple part of their diets and have had many highly advanced spiritual practices and powerful shamans. It just doesn't make sense to me that a soul would have to live in an area where vegetarianism was practiced to become enlightened.
===> Dear SisTourist. There is NO notion that enlightenment is impossible if one eats meat. The actuall notions are:
- meat eating is an inferior diet as compared to vegetairan diet, in case of humans.
- The above applies as far as physical health is considered and it is supported by many facts sufficiently, as an AVERAGE FACT, not in one particular case.
- The applies as far as mental and spiritual health is considered due to the 'killing and pain' aspect of eating meat.
- Meat eating is acceptable in particular cases. In the particular cases where you feel the people with meat eating reached the goal, the meat eating was acceptable. But, it is not a recommended approach in general. For example: A non vegetarian is encouraged or recommended to go vegetarian. But, a vegetarian is never encouraged or recommended to go NON vegetarian, as a part of Spiritual Practice. The latter recommendation may be present out of spiritual practice.
|
|
| |
|
| tourist - 2007-09-09 11:20 AM
I don't usually wade into these discussions too much as the philosophy can get my brain in a twist But I do have a lot of trouble with the notion that it is not possible to be enlightened if one eats meat. Certainly virtually all indigenous peoples have eaten meat as a staple part of their diets and have had many highly advanced spiritual practices and powerful shamans. It just doesn't make sense to me that a soul would have to live in an area where vegetarianism was practiced to become enlightened.
That was exactly what I was thinking, but then I realized the topic was yogic diet. Surely there were enlightened people eating meat, but they weren't enlightened on the path of yoga. I think yogis in India were vegetarian for thousands of years. Is this right? Then it would be in the DNA of someone of Indian descent to not eat any meat. I really believe that someone from a distinct line of hereditary has to take into account what their ancestors ate. It wasn't until recently that diets began to change radically.
I think it's equally important to look at the lifestyles of the Native societies and realize that they lived in the Americas for centuries, and yet the land was in it's original splendor. They were truly living as one with nature, and not harming their environment. When a settlement moved on the area was returned to nature in a few short years, with no sign of being disturbed. They used every bit of every animal they took, and also thanked it for it's sacrifice when they killed it. That's pretty powerful, but it's not yoga, it's a different culture entirely. Unfortunately the land base is gone to practice this lifestyle now, and what is left is polluted.  |
|
| |
|
Expert Yogi
Posts: 8442
| BQ - I think a lot of the reason indigenous people's did not destroy the land, aside from their reverence for it, was that there simply were not enough of them. Europe and Asia probably were closer to nature and balanced as well, until the populations expanded in a way that outstripped the ability of the land to support them all. This is off the topic a bit - I guess we shouldn't hijack the thread... |
|
| |
|
| I agree completely with this. But, there is some factor that while increasing the economy, the modern socieities did not pay heed to preservation, in spite of all propaganda to save forest, plant trees, etc. For example, a large suburban car being driven by a small 30 year old girl, who does not have any family, or a 10 bedroom house with a couple without kids.
tourist - 2007-09-10 10:20 AM
BQ - I think a lot of the reason indigenous people's did not destroy the land, aside from their reverence for it, was that there simply were not enough of them. Europe and Asia probably were closer to nature and balanced as well, until the populations expanded in a way that outstripped the ability of the land to support them all. This is off the topic a bit - I guess we shouldn't hijack the thread... |
|
| |
|
| bstqltmkr - 2007-09-09 1:05 PM
That was exactly what I was thinking, but then I realized the topic was yogic diet. Surely there were enlightened people eating meat, but they weren't enlightened on the path of yoga.
Fantastic Statement. Also, to add, dear bstqltmkr: the definition of enlightenment in yoga is different from that for non yoga people. It is like what is called God in one religion is NOT a God in another one. Oh, My God! |
|
| |
|
| Hi Tourist, Actually, that's not true. There were millions of natives when the Europeans arrived. The ones that are left survived a holocaust. Their original lifestyle made it easy to cover up the fact that so many existed in the first place. Part of this is because they lived in very tight knit societies, one family didn't occupy acres of land. They lived close together, and most of their homes weren't built as permanent structures.
Hi Neel, I was surprised how alike some Native American philosophies are with Yoga philosophies. Like all things being connected for example. I thought that was cool. Also, much of it embraces the concept of ego, and to realize that your true spirit is above that. Actually, the European governments at the time sponsored the religious groups to go in as a way to weaken the communities. They sent different branches of Christianity specifically to cause division in the people.
I also forgot to add earlier that if they were walking to pick medicine, they would thank the plant before they picked it. They were connected to the plant, same as they were connected to the animal.
Shelly
Edited by bstqltmkr 2007-09-10 11:30 AM
|
|
| |
|
| tourist - 2007-09-10 10:20 AM
BQ - I think a lot of the reason indigenous people's did not destroy the land, aside from their reverence for it, was that there simply were not enough of them.
Agreed. There are records of animals driven to extinction by the Australian bushmen. They were assumed to be hunted out of existence. Can't think of any examples from the Native Americans, but I don't entirely buy into the whole noble savage concept that's often advanced. They're people just like anybody else.
In fact, the thing about using everything I believe came from Buffalo hunters. They used everything, because they HAD to. I see similar attitudes in the generation that survived the Great Depression in this country. If we lived in a culture where it wasn't so easy to get anything you wanted people would be a LOT more conservative with their approach to resources. |
|
| |
|
| GreenJello - 2007-09-10 12:46 PM
tourist - 2007-09-10 10:20 AM
BQ - I think a lot of the reason indigenous people's did not destroy the land, aside from their reverence for it, was that there simply were not enough of them.
Agreed. There are records of animals driven to extinction by the Australian bushmen. They were assumed to be hunted out of existence. Can't think of any examples from the Native Americans, but I don't entirely buy into the whole noble savage concept that's often advanced. They're people just like anybody else.
In fact, the thing about using everything I believe came from Buffalo hunters. They used everything, because they HAD to. I see similar attitudes in the generation that survived the Great Depression in this country. If we lived in a culture where it wasn't so easy to get anything you wanted people would be a LOT more conservative with their approach to resources.
as soon as you could trade hides for alcohol, carcasses rotted in the sun
|
|
| |
|
| GreenJello - 2007-09-10 12:46 PM
Agreed. There are records of animals driven to extinction by the Australian bushmen. They were assumed to be hunted out of existence. Can't think of any examples from the Native Americans, but I don't entirely buy into the whole noble savage concept that's often advanced. They're people just like anybody else.
In fact, the thing about using everything I believe came from Buffalo hunters. They used everything, because they HAD to. I see similar attitudes in the generation that survived the Great Depression in this country. If we lived in a culture where it wasn't so easy to get anything you wanted people would be a LOT more conservative with their approach to resources.
Australian bushmen were on the other side of the world. There is no similarity in cultures with the Native Americans. "Noble Savages" is a disgusting label. There were millions of people here in existance when the Europeans arrived, and if they wanted to embrace a lifestyle of waste and destruction they could have done so. The Iroquois for example made decisions based on what was best for the seventh generation. That means seven generations into the future. That doesn't mean use up all the resources because I'm going to heaven after this, and that's what's really important. Christianity shifted the focus of importance from the natural world to the afterlife, and therefore gave people permission to trash the earth.
Actually only a small percentage of the Nations here hunted Buffalo, and so it doesn't apply. |
|
| |
|
| SCThornley - 2007-09-10 1:04 PM
as soon as you could trade hides for alcohol, carcasses rotted in the sun
Alcohol was introduced to further weaken a desparate, decimated society that had no experience with the drug. Genetically they had no way to deal with the affects of alcohol, and it's still a terrible problem today. It certainly isn't their shame that they were used in this way. What about the opium wars in China? Was that ethical? |
|
| |
|
| Ethics?
it's been six triumphant years since I've taken on the responsibility to overcome alcohol dependency and I refuse to let someone push blame to someone else, when I am the one with the power for my life
Yes, it is unethical to take advantage of those less fortunate or wise, it's even more unethical to be an enabler.
Ethics has obviously not played a great role in the development of the DOMINANT cultures or economies, thus far.
Since domination is not a concern of mine, I can consider ethics as a variable in my decisions.
AND SO, to turn the discussion back to the topic,
Ethics does play a role in what I will do to satisfy my hunger.
I choose to not eat animals or eggs, however, I do eat cheese amongst all the grains fruits seeds, and veggies, for now.
|
|
| |
|
| Dear Brother SCT: I have to take a training with you. Sometimes, I do not know exactly what your brief statements (sutras mean). However, I understand later when I see the commentaries by others. But, I wait until all commentaries are over including your own!!!
Dear bstqltmkr (I perefer to call you this rather than Shelly. Shell sounds like fish, a non vegetarian!!!) : Yes, what you are saying is somewhat true. What I personally feel is : Native Indians were more close to nature. But, I also know that initially, they had severe fights amongst the native tribes. Later,they came to know that they should not fight but coexist happily (similar to cultures of todays time, though not exactly in the same way). Then, they became more brotherly to each other. Yes, they did worship nature as you are saying. And, there are some similarities with Indians. But, you must understand that, as you yourself correctly said. their philosophy is different from that of Vedas in some ways. Such as liberation. In the Vedic times, the people also lived in Forests, I mean the ones who were Rishis etc. And, they did not take to meat eating as a part of spiritual practice. It was not related to only the geographical conditions or availabilty. It specifically evolved as a part of philosophy. In fact, some vedic people did eat meat and later the same vedic philosophy condemned it (Brother SCT falls into this category! I bow down to him.)
But, yes, I personally know that American Indians were much more tolerant than the Europeans who invaded them, at the time of invasion. And, they were more innocent too. But, you must accept that they were not literate and it was partly the cause of their downfall. But, of course, they had to yield to the modern weapons.
Dear SisTourist and bstqltmkr: However, I do agree the point of Tourist that population does play an important role in the preservation. And, that is a big challenge to the preservation movement. It is also called as Invitable part of KaliYuga.
If someone gives alcohol to you, and you take it, then it means that a) giver is of course bad. b) But, the taker does not know that alcohol is bad for them. So, both of them are equally at fault. When a person is knowledgeable in a spiritual way, he/she should know what is good and bad for them. Unless of couse, the alcohol is forced down the throat.
I personally do not know of any culture today, including India where I come from which is NOT capitalistic in a way they want to have more and more. So, it is not the property of only Europeans. All are caught in it. And, that is Kali Yuga. So, what we need now is kali Yoga, which includes:
- Loving each other regardless of black or white past
- Be Tolerant to each other's philosophy. But, maintain one's own philosophy and logic.
- Do as good as possible.
Peace |
|
| |
The Yogic Diet
