Vegetarianism

[JivanaKrishnaDasa]

Austen, you are doing a wonderful job, and keep reading Srila Prabhupada's books. The beauty of Krishna Consiousness is that you can dove tail it with your life. Dont sweat the small stuff and dont be concerned with the number of rounds you are chanting on japa beads. Its quality of japa we want, not quantity. In time, the quantity will come. But even 1 round of sincere Japa will bring infinite benefit and help you. There is really no controversy about Ritvik and Prabupada, except for some are confused. This is another subject we can discuss in some other thread. But its my pleasure to have your association, and please accept my humble respects. Also please accept my thanks for serving and protecting our country.

 

[(Q)]

Spiritual Knowlede is infinite. The mind is Finite. We are essentially trying to take something infinite and put it into a finite brain.

Sorry, didn't mean to interrupt your fantasy, Carry on.

 

[Paraprakrti]

It is a spiritual thing, some call it energy, others call it Chi, and so on and so on.

I'm well aware of the various forms of energy in the universe. "Spiritual" things have never been shown to exist, so to lump energy with spiritual is inappropriate.

So, if you can tell me what form of energy you refer, I'd understand what it is your talking about?

"Subtle" doesn't automatically mean spiritual energy. The mind is subtle, but it is not spiritual energy. In a transcendental sense, everything that is used in the service of God becomes spiritual. But comparatively, we can understand that spiritual energy, as opposed to "material energy-which consists of both gross and subtle- is ever-enduring in it's forms, unlike the material forms which only exist for a certain period of time. Regarding garlic, the idea is that garlic "vibrates" in the *material* mode of ignorance. (Jivana Krsna says that it is in the mode of passion, I was under the impression that it is in ignorance. Nevertheless...)
These modes are material. There are three of them: goodness, passion and ignorance. Eating food in the mode of goodness will result in good material benefit, but those who are seeking spiritual life eat only food in the mode of goodness only after it has been offered to the Lord. That type of food is called "prasadam". There is no mumbo jumbo involved here. This is simply what we accept. It is not such a big sacrifice to not eat garlic or onions. Nor are we concerned with health purposes. All that stuff is secondary to serving God. Nevertheless, you will find that the Vaisnava diet is quite healthy.

 

[JivanaKrishnaDasa]

Exactly what faith do you follow (Q)? Im not trying to start anything, just curious. Debate is good and healthy, that is why we are all here I suspect. But I dont get the impression you are sincerely inquiring, rather just bashing and making fun of it. Am I wrong?

 

[(Q)]

we can understand that spiritual energy

What is spiritual energy? Can it be detected? What is its source? How does it affect us? What mechanism exists that allows the spiritual to interact with the physical?

 

[JivanaKrishnaDasa]

Very good post Paraprakrti. Jaya Prabhu!

 

[Paraprakrti]

Austen, you are doing a wonderful job, and keep reading Srila Prabhupada's books. The beauty of Krishna Consiousness is that you can dove tail it with your life. Dont sweat the small stuff and dont be concerned with the number of rounds you are chanting on japa beads. Its quality of japa we want, not quantity. In time, the quantity will come. But even 1 round of sincere Japa will bring infinite benefit and help you. There is really no controversy about Ritvik and Prabupada, except for some are confused. This is another subject we can discuss in some other thread. But its my pleasure to have your association, and please accept my humble respects. Also please accept my thanks for serving and protecting our country.

Thank you for your respects, it is actually my pleasure...

Where can we discuss the Ritvik issue? I am interested in hearing what you have to say.

 

[JivanaKrishnaDasa]

I will start a thread I guess. Maybe that will please the moderators here?

 

[(Q)]

Exactly what faith do you follow (Q)? Im not trying to start anything, just curious.

Faith? That depends on what definiton of faith you refer. I have faith in the observable and verifiable, if that's what you mean.

But I dont get the impression you are sincerely inquiring, rather just bashing and making fun of it. Am I wrong?

I am inquiring but I'm not seeing any answers that are reasonable or make any sense. In that respect, it is I who is being made fun and is being bashed, don't you think?

 

[Druidus]

Q, I am afraid, is a classic example of a troll. By reading his posts I can guess he is one of two things. An atheist or a satanist. While in themselves nothing is wrong with these beliefs, a person who seeks to validate thier own beliefs by invalidating the belifs of others (impossible to do), is wrong. My suggestion is to merely ignore the blight that has befallen this thread (Q), and continue the discussion. I have so far found it interesting. As for you Q, please learn a little respect for other peoples beliefs, and do not call them mumbo-jumbo, or any other derogatory terms. I cannot force you to do this, but I ask it of you anyway.

 

[(Q)]

Q, I am afraid, is a classic example of a troll.

Ah yes, the typical response to ignore those who question by those who are unable to answer.

As for you Q, please learn a little respect for other peoples beliefs, and do not call them mumbo-jumbo, or any other derogatory terms.

Why should I respect beliefs in the unfounded? It most certainly is mumbo-jumbo as it does not conform to reality. I'm sorry you feel this way, but that is reality whether you choose to accept it or not.

 

[JivanaKrishnaDasa]

Its ok. I like this. (Q) So it is safe to say, that you only believe in things that you can, see, touch, taste, and feel, is that correct. Then what is real? This is a very relevant question. What is real? How do you define real? If this is based on what you can see, touch, feel, and taste, then technically real is just impulses and interpretations of your brain, it does not actually prove anything.

 

[JivanaKrishnaDasa]

Also, I might add, I dont think that he needs to respect my beliefs. He certainly has the freedom to express his mind. It can get to the point of where the discussion will really gain no progress. (Q) faith is everything. If you have no sincerity, then you can not gain faith. And without faith, you will never understand religion, philosophy and spiritual life. But to each their own.

 

[JivanaKrishnaDasa]

Another note, Science requires faith also. Science is constantly evolving and changing. You will find books from 50 years ago saying one thing, and that this and that is impossible, but now you will find that these things are being practiced daily. Some scientists believed it was impossible to fly, some believed trains were fantasy, and so on and so on. Science is constantly changing and requires faith. 100 years from now, Science will change again, and again. However, in Spiritual and Religious life, the Saints and Sages have been saying the same thing, over and over again since the beginning.... Devote yourself to the Lord, Serve the Lord, develop your relationship with the Lord, and so on and so on. Religion and Philosophy is the only true consistent constant in this world.

 

[Paraprakrti]

^^^^That is, if the philosophy is a "religious philosophy" authorized by Scriptures. There are many philosophers that are simply speculating one thing one day, and then speculating another thing the next.

 

[(Q)]

Its ok. I like this.

Excellent!

What is real? How do you define real?

One could define 'real' as being or occurring in fact or actuality - having verified existence.

If this is based on what you can see, touch, feel, and taste, then technically real is just impulses and interpretations of your brain, it does not actually prove anything.

Wouldn't that be a better philisophical argument?

I like to use the baseball bat analogy.

On many levels, one could argue a baseball bat simply does not exist, as per your post. I could argue that a baseball bat exhibits both particle and wave properties.

But in order to determine whether or not ones senses can actually prove the existence of the baseball bat one must strike it sharply against ones forehead.

The baseball bats existence at this point is irrefutable.

I dont think that he needs to respect my beliefs. He certainly has the freedom to express his mind.

Thanks. And by all means, if you think I'm an idiot, tell me so.

Another note, Science requires faith also.

Have you seen my thread on faith defined? I attempt to find clear distinction between the two definitons.

If you have no sincerity, then you can not gain faith.

Sincerity doesn't sound like a requirement for faith though - I would think a simple 'suspension of disbelief' is all one needs to gain faith.

And without faith, you will never understand religion, philosophy and spiritual life.

It's not tough understanding the subject matter. And aside from philosophy, you're dead right about me not understanding why people believe religion and spiritual life. I've not heard one single argument in its favor.

You will find books from 50 years ago saying one thing, and that this and that is impossible, but now you will find that these things are being practiced daily. Some scientists believed it was impossible to fly, some believed trains were fantasy, and so on and so on.

I'm sure there were such beliefs and books, as there are many such beliefs and books today. However, scientists didn't really hold those beliefs or write those books.

Science will change again, and again.

Well, science doesn't really change, it will always follow the scientific method. Science will certainly change our world and us along with it, but is that such a bad thing? We wouldn't be so pleasantly chatting this way if not for science.

Religion ... is the only true consistent constant in this world.

That doesn't mean it's right. Why are we so compelled to follow one set of logical inconsistencies and completely deny another? The right thing to do is deny both.

 

[Paraprakrti]

Its ok. I like this.

Excellent!

What is real? How do you define real?

One could define 'real' as being or occurring in fact or actuality - having verified existence.

Ok then, how do you define "fact" or "actuality"? How do you determine when an "existence" is "verified"?

If this is based on what you can see, touch, feel, and taste, then technically real is just impulses and interpretations of your brain, it does not actually prove anything.

Wouldn't that be a better philisophical argument?

I like to use the baseball bat analogy.

On many levels, one could argue a baseball bat simply does not exist, as per your post. I could argue that a baseball bat exhibits both particle and wave properties.

But in order to determine whether or not ones senses can actually prove the existence of the baseball bat one must strike it sharply against ones forehead.

The baseball bats existence at this point is irrefutable.

This does not prove, devoid of any tinge of faith, the existence of the baseball bat. For how do you prove the existence of pain? How do you really know (without having some degree of faith) that this result of pain constitutes the existence of the baseball bat? Now, it is not my position to deny the existence of the baseball bat. I accept it. But it is *ultimately* by faith that we accept anything to exist. This also requires faith for us to accept that "I", the observer, exists. How do we verify our own existence in order to verify the validity of the result of striking the baseball bat upon one's forehead?

Science will change again, and again.

Well, science doesn't really change, it will always follow the scientific method. Science will certainly change our world and us along with it, but is that such a bad thing? We wouldn't be so pleasantly chatting this way if not for science.

I think he means, scientific conclusions/theories.

 

[Druidus]

I concede my argument to you (Q). I only jumped in because I wouldn't like to have my beliefs called "mumbo-jumbo". Now I'll try a constructive method of debate.

I like to use the baseball bat analogy.

On many levels, one could argue a baseball bat simply does not exist, as per your post. I could argue that a baseball bat exhibits both particle and wave properties.

But in order to determine whether or not ones senses can actually prove the existence of the baseball bat one must strike it sharply against ones forehead.

The baseball bats existence at this point is irrefutable.

That is, if of course, reality exists in the form you now see. Imagine if you were to awake from a coma, and realize that you had dreamed that you had hit yourself with the baseball bat. Most certainly you thought that you were hit with the baseball bat, and most certainly, you thought it was real. However, it was not. You merely dreamed it. For that matter, our entire conciousness may not be true reality, for reality can be defined by the observer. For those experiencing hallucinations, due to any number of a myriad of causes, we'll go with cocaine, the hallucinations of bugs do seem real, and they do cause "pain" and "fear" as both are merely generated responses in the brain. Therefore, you can never really tell whether or not something is, or isn't, real. Real cannot be defined.

The reasons why one would follow religion are many. I was not born a druid. I was born Christian. I then became agnostic around 12, and atheist for a short period of time afterwards. Soon though, I discovered Druidry. I felt called to it. For reasons I do not, and cannot, understand how or why I felt called to it. But slowly I became a Druid. The beliefs behind Druidry suit me. They fit me completely so I follow nothing I don't want to. It doesn't matter anyway, as I may die and discover that I was wrong, and another was right, as might you. But if it makes one happy, then what is wrong with following a belief system?

 

[Ardhanariswar]

eek, we are kinda getting of topic. let me remind you, this is not on the debate forums. unless someone moves it....

science can change, we discover more and revise the truth. religion does change, sadly. the only thing that doesnt is God. theres a difference between religion and God. and God and spiritual ity are related, not replacable, but related.

as goes for garlic and onions, im not an avid believer in extrimism and following scripture to the max. i follow God and our personal relationship, hinduism allows that to flourish. i believe i have every right to enjoy life as long as it doesnt hurt anyone. i mean all those meat products on the shelves in market basket are going to waste if someone doesnt eat it! dont get me wrong, im not some fat, gluttoneous slob who bargains for expiry food. no. i believe we can donate this food, even though it goes against some religions, to poverty. its for a good cause. it sustains humanity. i dont believe in hunting. like shooting animals for sport. its utterly pointless. but we need food, unfortunitly humans do eat meat.

i dont believe in animal sacrifice...actually i dont believe in any offerings either. well they are okay, when someone eats it afterward as holy prasadam, but when priests do abishekam (bathing the statue in milk, honey, and turmeric and water) i really dont believe in it. its such a waste. really it is!

i enjoy life. i believe my calling is to help people, do good deeds, not watch out for onions and garlic.

(btw, do u kno that if you rub garlic on your pimples, you can reduce scarring? lol. totally relevant to the thread, trust me!)

 

[Druidus]

as goes for garlic and onions, im not an avid believer in extrimism and following scripture to the max. i follow God and our personal relationship, hinduism allows that to flourish. i believe i have every right to enjoy life as long as it doesnt hurt anyone. i mean all those meat products on the shelves in market basket are going to waste if someone doesnt eat it! dont get me wrong, im not some fat, gluttoneous slob who bargains for expiry food. no. i believe we can donate this food, even though it goes against some religions, to poverty. its for a good cause. it sustains humanity. i dont believe in hunting. like shooting animals for sport. its utterly pointless. but we need food, unfortunitly humans do eat meat.

Druidry has no scripture so I can't be an extremist.

Yes but consider this, if one person chooses not to eat meat, then 96 animals will not die this year (average). If more people do not eat meat then less meat will be sold, and therefore, less produced, it's simple economics. Eventually, no one will eat meat. Besides, as at least four independant studies I know of have show that vegetarianism and veganism is healthier then omnivourism. Vegetarians have less heart attacks (no cholesterol in veggies, fruits, pulses, nuts and seeds), less cancer (casein, which is in all meat, milk and eggs is one of the worst carcinogens in humans), and they tend to have more stamina. I'm willing to post the studies if need be. Human beings don't naturally eat meat either. Our digestive system is typical of an herbivore such as a bonobo, then that of a carnivore. A carnivores digestive system is 20 times stronger then ours, to make meat easier to digest. No carnivore can move their teeth from side to side, and yet, we can. All carnivores like the smell of rotting meat, and yet we don't. It simply doesn't make sense to eat meat anyway.