+- Bring4th (https://www.bring4th.org/forums)
+-- Forum: Bring4th Studies (https://www.bring4th.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: Healing (https://www.bring4th.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=45)
+---- Forum: Health & Diet (https://www.bring4th.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=22)
+---- Thread: an argument for optimum diet that is not vege vs omnivore (/showthread.php?tid=4941)
Pages:
1
2
an argument for optimum diet that is not vege vs omnivore - Plenum - 05-28-2012
food represents an input into the body.
setting aside the meat vs vege argument, let us look at the nutrients themselves. what do we know?
what do we need to eat?
* vitamins eg we cannot make Vitamin C, other animals can
* minerals eg calcium, potassium
* proteins, after all, where do you think that chin stubble comes from, or those long elegant nails?
* carbs/sugars, represents an energy source
* roughage, I guess I don't need to explain why
* fats/oils, some would argue yes and no, but I find it easier to cook with oils than without, and it helps me digest carbs.
- -
I think you run into severe problems when you deviate from the forumla, and go on 'fad diets- low carb, low protein etc etc no fat been there done that, not sustainable)
RE: an argument for optimum diet that is not vege vs omnivore - Patrick - 05-28-2012
We cannot manufacture new ascorbic acid (vitamin C) but we can recycle it to some extent. The more carbs we eat the less ascorbic acid can be recycled. That is because glucose and ascorbic acid use the same "door" to enter cells where ascorbic acid can be recycled.
I think the optimum diet is a myth. There can be great differences in what is optimum for each individual.
RE: an argument for optimum diet that is not vege vs omnivore - Tenet Nosce - 05-28-2012
(05-28-2012, 02:23 PM)plenum Wrote: I think you run into severe problems when you deviate from the forumla, and go on 'fad diets- low carb, low protein etc etc no fat been there done that, not sustainable)
Yes.
Well now that that's settled...!
RE: an argument for optimum diet that is not vege vs omnivore - Oceania - 05-28-2012
long elephant nails, nice image
i think the alkaline diet is a good one. everyone should do what they feel is best. ayerveda tells me i need to eat small hot meals frequently and eat dessert first. i also should eat cheese or something.
someone else might benefit from something else.
the blood ph should match the diet ph.
if you sungaze you don't even need to eat.
to me a optimal diet is organic veggies and fruit from a local farmer
organic honey from a local beekeeper who treats the bees well
basically local organic lovingly cared for
RE: an argument for optimum diet that is not vege vs omnivore - Monica - 05-28-2012
vibration supercedes nutrition formula
RE: an argument for optimum diet that is not vege vs omnivore - Tenet Nosce - 05-29-2012
(05-28-2012, 03:22 PM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote: vibration supercedes nutrition formula
Are you saying that, if we vibrate highly enough then the human body will start manufacturing its own vitamin C? Or if we vibrate high enough then the human body won't be as impacted by toxins in our food. Or...?
RE: an argument for optimum diet that is not vege vs omnivore - Aureus - 05-29-2012
Check out http://humannagold.com/ Listen to Dave talk about his research in ormic materials. It's a unique state of matter and probably exists in higher concentration in living food. Yet, this science is relatively new and not very well funded. I suspect in the future we will have better knowledge about this. I got a bottle in the mail a few days ago and I feel good ^^
RE: an argument for optimum diet that is not vege vs omnivore - BrownEye - 05-29-2012
Nutrition and Depression
RE: an argument for optimum diet that is not vege vs omnivore - Monica - 05-29-2012
(05-29-2012, 08:14 AM)Tenet Nosce Wrote:(05-28-2012, 03:22 PM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote: vibration supercedes nutrition formula
Are you saying that, if we vibrate highly enough then the human body will start manufacturing its own vitamin C? Or if we vibrate high enough then the human body won't be as impacted by toxins in our food. Or...?
Both. I think the human body can mutate (eventually to photon-based) and get more of its required nutrients more directly, as do plants. Ra said many entities are 4D dual activated. I think we can also become dual activated by raising our vibration. Lots of people are doing it; observe the raw vegan movement - it's gaining in popularity and I thin there's a reason for that. Also vibrational healing modalities like Reiki, homeopathy etc.
RE: an argument for optimum diet that is not vege vs omnivore - BrownEye - 05-29-2012
![[Image: medicine.jpg]](http://i276.photobucket.com/albums/kk7/VibratingPickIe/medicine.jpg)
RE: an argument for optimum diet that is not vege vs omnivore - 3DMonkey - 05-29-2012
(05-29-2012, 12:55 PM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote:(05-29-2012, 08:14 AM)Tenet Nosce Wrote:(05-28-2012, 03:22 PM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote: vibration supercedes nutrition formula
Are you saying that, if we vibrate highly enough then the human body will start manufacturing its own vitamin C? Or if we vibrate high enough then the human body won't be as impacted by toxins in our food. Or...?
Both. I think the human body can mutate (eventually to photon-based) and get more of its required nutrients more directly, as do plants. Ra said many entities are 4D dual activated. I think we can also become dual activated by raising our vibration. Lots of people are doing it; observe the raw vegan movement - it's gaining in popularity and I thin there's a reason for that. Also vibrational healing modalities like Reiki, homeopathy etc.
It's like the guy that turned 30 and decided to start running. He has been running almost constantly since then. You can do what you can do with your body. Which means, to me, do whatever you want. It's your body.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dean_Karnazes#cite_note-0
RE: an argument for optimum diet that is not vege vs omnivore - 52midnight - 05-29-2012
> I think the optimum diet is a myth. There can be great differences in what is optimum for each individual.
This is certainly true in my own experience. I was fortunate to come across the literature on "yogic diet" at an early age, and although I quickly realized that it had so become "faddified" as to be of little practical use, I derived a very useful insight from it.
Assume that you are contentedly healthy. What will you eat? Simple, you eat what you want to eat. In other words, the appetite of a healthy organism instinctively directs it to those foods best suited to its needs. The recommendation emerging from this is to bother less about WHAT to eat, and more about what you WANT to eat. Change that for the better, and diet is not a problem.
RE: an argument for optimum diet that is not vege vs omnivore - anagogy - 06-01-2012
(05-28-2012, 03:22 PM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote: vibration supercedes nutrition formula
I have to agree with Monica.
Really, there is no one diet that works, unequivocally, for everyone. We are all unique combinations of intelligent energy. No substance is necessarily bad for you or good for you. It is all dependent upon the vibrational mix that particular substance is introduced to.
The best advice I can give anyone, who wants to achieve optimal nutrition for their unique and particular vibrational mixture, is to sort out any emotional problems you have. Your emotions are not JUST a chemical cocktail in your body. They are your constant guidance from your higher self. They arise in response to what and how you are focusing on things.
Sort out your emotions, and you will naturally be drawn to those foods which are most appropriately aligned with your bodily health. I can tell you this, if you are vibrationally out of whack, down in the dumps, and experiencing extreme negativity in the emotional sense, even the most so called "nutritious" food will not revitalize you. You have to understand your power, as an extension of the creator. You are always forming your reality.
Your emotions are telling you all the time if you will like what you are creating down the temporal road from now.
And let us not forget the wisdom of Ra:
66.14 Questioner: Would you explain that last comment about the configuration in time/space?
Ra: I am Ra. Healing is done in the time/space portion of the mind/body/spirit complex, is adopted by the form-making or etheric body, and is then given to the space/time physical illusion for use in the activated yellow-ray mind/body/spirit complex. It is the adoption of the configuration which you call health by the etheric body in time/space which is the key to what you call health, not any event which occurs in space/time. In this process you may see the transdimensional aspect of what you call will, for it is the will, the seeking, the desire of the entity which causes the indigo body to use the novel configuration and to reform the body which exists in space/time. This is done in an instant and may be said to operate without regard to time. We may note that in the healing of very young children there is often an apparent healing by the healer in which the young entity has no part. This is never so, for the mind/body/spirit complex in time/space is always capable of willing the distortions it chooses for experience no matter what the apparent age, as you call it, of the entity.
And also:
4.20 Questioner: My objective is primarily to discover more of the Law of One, and it would be very helpful to discover the techniques of healing. I am aware of your problem with respect to free will. Can you state the Law of One and the laws of healing to me?
Ra: I am Ra. The Law of One, though beyond the limitations of name, as you call vibratory sound complexes, may be approximated by stating that all things are one, that there is no polarity, no right or wrong, no disharmony, but only identity. All is one, and that one is love/light, light/love, the Infinite Creator.
One of the primal distortions of the Law of One is that of healing. Healing occurs when a mind/body/spirit complex realizes, deep within itself, the Law of One; that is, that there is no disharmony, no imperfection; that all is complete and whole and perfect. Thus, the intelligent infinity within this mind/body/spirit complex re-forms the illusion of body, mind, or spirit to a form congruent with the Law of One. The healer acts as energizer or catalyst for this completely individual process.
RE: an argument for optimum diet that is not vege vs omnivore - Patrick - 06-01-2012
Looks like this thread escaped the move to the new Health forum section.
RE: an argument for optimum diet that is not vege vs omnivore - omcasey - 06-01-2012
One of the greatest/simplest things I ever heard anyone say about food was, "If it makes you salivate, eat it." ---BKS Iyengar
As a careworker, who works principally with people of an older generation, whose ideas about diet and a healthy diet are very different than those of our own I can appreciate this. If it makes you salivate it means you can digest it, and simply, most immediately, this is the important matter. If you can digest it you can derive benefit, the vitamins and minerals will be assimilated and the remainder will be processed and eliminated.
When this is true, it means there is an existing, potential symbiotic relationship between you and this food which is a part of the learning experience in this lifetime. The process of learning -all the many avenues and opportunities which arise and supply exactly the growth space needed through these relationships is the central item of importance. It is not the various acts that you/me/we are doing now [eating meat, not eating meat, etc..] that is truly the big thing, but the learning that is coming to us through them; we are ever in motion, ever learning, ever growing, always in motion. When this is realized - nothing is static - what argument can there be.
RE: an argument for optimum diet that is not vege vs omnivore - BrownEye - 06-02-2012
(05-29-2012, 10:14 PM)52midnight Wrote: The recommendation emerging from this is to bother less about WHAT to eat, and more about what you WANT to eat. Change that for the better, and diet is not a problem.
My health peaked around 19 years old on a diet of Hostess Fruit Pies and Mountain Dew. I exercised from early morning to late night, skateboarding or bmx freestyle. As soon as I stopped the exercise I got completely sick, long term. Not to mention what it did to my complexion when the body was unable to eliminate poisons as fast as I took them in. I have the type of DNA that can take a lot of damage. I happen to have reached my limit.
(06-01-2012, 11:02 PM)omcasey Wrote: If it makes you salivate it means you can digest it, and simply, most immediately, this is the important matter. If you can digest it you can derive benefit, the vitamins and minerals will be assimilated and the remainder will be processed and eliminated.
My sister told me a funny story yesterday. My dad had stopped by and gave her a deli sampler tray of lunch meats. She knows not to trust any of the food my dad brings by. My nephew could not resist and wanted to eat some of the sliced meat no matter the danger. The funny part is when he tried to take a slice it would not move. The whole plate was a fake creation for a permanent display. Not sure what he would have assimilated from that if he could have somehow eaten it.
Many people are poisoned and die simply because they ate something bad that either looked or sounded good to them. Not to mention the parents that do this to their children as well, believing they are doing right.
----------------
When people say that belief is the core importance of what we take in, it does not always work that way with food and drink. This is easily proven by modifying the water supply or the food. (of course, this is already done, but who really cares?) In this case it would be a simple thing to poison the school lunches and not have any effect whatsoever on the children that eat it. Their belief has not changed in the slightest, yet I would bet anyone that they would experience a direct effect.
Outbreaks of anything are not belief related. And I highly doubt that anyone on the forum has an advanced enough consciousness to transmute a poison.
In all honesty I do not understand where most of you are coming from.
RE: an argument for optimum diet that is not vege vs omnivore - Diana - 06-02-2012
(06-01-2012, 11:02 PM)omcasey Wrote: If you can digest it you can derive benefit, the vitamins and minerals will be assimilated and the remainder will be processed and eliminated.
The body may be able to derive some benefit from foods that are processed and unhealthy, but what about the negative affects? In processing and eliminating poisons to the body, the liver and kidneys will become overtaxed at the very least. And some processed foods I dare say have no value at all.
(06-01-2012, 11:02 PM)omcasey Wrote: It is not the various acts that you/me/we are doing now [eating meat, not eating meat, etc..] that is truly the big thing, but the learning that is coming to us through them; we are ever in motion, ever learning, ever growing, always in motion. When this is realized - nothing is static - what argument can there be.
One argument can be that this is a self-centered view. What of the food (the animals who are killed); and what of the planet (rain forests disappearing to graze cattle for one season to supply MacDonlad's and the like; pollution generated from factories producing lifeless, unhealthy boxed "food")?
RE: an argument for optimum diet that is not vege vs omnivore - BrownEye - 06-02-2012
Ah, another example.
My wife has been trying to get her mother to change her diet and improve her health. She has been taking stool softeners for quite some time, has extreme sensitivities to chemicals and fragrances. For the last couple years her biggest complaint has been stomach pain, problems with bowel movements, going for days without a movement. Also regular complaints of inability to lose weight.
She has ignored all advice from my wife, ignored any of the books sent to her, and yet when someone gives her a mainstream book with a name she recognizes she reads it, and changes her diet. 21 days ago.
My wife told her the likely culprits were wheat and dairy. Her first changes from the book were to drop meat and dairy. She says she has lost interest in meat, but she has always had an addiction to dairy, and would never give it up.
She has regular bowel movements now, and has said that she feels so good now that she is willing to give up her dairy addiction in order to retain the "good feeling". Of course her fundamentalist "handler" is harassing her about meat, saying that it is very important for her health, and that there is no way for her to get protein without it.
It seems that belief in the awesomeness of dairy did not do what she wanted. Or, was it just belief in the book that gave back some of her health? Why would the recent belief in a book override her belief in dairy? Why did her salivating not transmute or assimilate as some believe it would?
Is transmutation by belief only applicable to adepts?
RE: an argument for optimum diet that is not vege vs omnivore - omcasey - 06-02-2012
Just very quickly, Pickle, Diana..
What I am saying and what you are hearing do not yet seem to be in the most beneficial state of alignment. The pattern I am using to express [myself] here is not one of right/wrong.., the seed idea I am putting through is that each one of us is in our own unique stage of learning, and that this is not a static thing. It moves, it breathes, it carries us into ever greater growth and understanding. To stop at any juncture in our own unique stage of learning, to look back at others and deem them anything other than also learning and growing is a slip easily made. It is okay that we are each where we are. Together we constitute a whole picture; undivided. A kaleidoscope which to me is very beautiful. I enjoy being permitted to see the many ways people are working with ideas. Infinity is fascinating to witness.
RE: an argument for optimum diet that is not vege vs omnivore - BrownEye - 06-02-2012
If I seem blunt and arrogant it is because I am very solidly planted in 3D.
While I understand mind over matter, I almost never see it realized. So I try to follow the rules of this reality as best I can. I also know that the reality handed to me by society is not true.
Quote:To stop at any juncture in our own unique stage of learningWhat you are describing is belief, which is where I totally agree with you. Belief can hamper growth. But, no matter how much we can manipulate "reality", we are still bound by guidelines. It is well to know what the actual grid of unmoving reality is, and work within the spaces of what is actually malleable. I guess the trick would be getting to know which is which.
RE: an argument for optimum diet that is not vege vs omnivore - Patrick - 06-02-2012
(06-02-2012, 03:44 AM)omcasey Wrote: ...Together we constitute a whole picture; undivided. A kaleidoscope which to me is very beautiful...
Very beautiful indeed !
RE: an argument for optimum diet that is not vege vs omnivore - omcasey - 06-02-2012
(06-02-2012, 09:13 AM)Pickle Wrote: If I seem blunt and arrogant it is because I am very solidly planted in 3D.
While I understand mind over matter, I almost never see it realized. So I try to follow the rules of this reality as best I can. I also know that the reality handed to me by society is not true.
Quote:To stop at any juncture in our own unique stage of learningWhat you are describing is belief, which is where I totally agree with you. Belief can hamper growth. But, no matter how much we can manipulate "reality", we are still bound by guidelines. It is well to know what the actual grid of unmoving reality is, and work within the spaces of what is actually malleable. I guess the trick would be getting to know which is which.
Pickle,
From my own point of perception, learning occurs through experience, so I might suggest what I am talking about is this; where we are in our own evolution of experience. The idea, I think, is to acknowledge the evolution is taking place, that life and one's life experience is not a static/fixed thing but moving us each through a set of very precise avenues [often seen as food, sex, sleep and self perseverance] into ever greater understanding.
If where a person is in their understanding of food, perhaps in relation to their [own] state health, involves the consuming of animal products then this is where they are in their evolution of experience.. It is not that they are ignorant, or cruel, or in any way doing anything wrong. I feel it important to see this. And to not impinge on the free will choice of this one and others in a similar state of development by forcing where we are in our own state of development on them.
We have a very fine example of this non-impingement of free will in the Ra dialogues with Don/Carla/Jim. It is the area in which I find respect, and peace of simplicity in Iyengar's response to his student's queries to "what shall we eat?".. A yogi's practice of ahimsa [non-violence] is a decided and often quite confusing stage of their learning. Rather than attempt to remove them from where they are in their own understanding, as many teacher's do, Iyengar said "If it makes you salivate, eat it."
This left his student's unharmed, precisely where they were in their own evolution, to learn as they would through their own direct experience of what they brought into their bodies. It gave them permission to be where they were, and to learn from here, rather than prematurely attempt to be somewhere else. I find it to have been a great service. It certainly made a huge impact on me. Simplicity is often like this. And in his own peace, he could rest in the certainty that salivation in the mouth meant digestion and assimilation of the experience was most likely. I don't eat everything that makes me salivate, but when a food does, I too rest in the peace of a similar understanding, and I remember Iyengar, and send gratitude, for the choice left squarely in my own hands, where it belongs.
RE: an argument for optimum diet that is not vege vs omnivore - 52midnight - 06-02-2012
> In all honesty I do not understand where most of you are coming from.
Once upon a time, many years ago in a land far, far away, there lived the most powerful man in the world. He was Commander-in-Chief of the world's deadliest military force, and leader of the world's richest country. His name was Bill Clinton, President Clinton, POTUS to his bodyguards - the President Of The United States. Bill was a Big Man who smoked a Big Cigar, and like many Americans he was arrogant, conceited, foul-mouthed and an enthusiastic deviate.
One of his favourite amusements was to telephone senior officials and influential people from the most famous room in the nation - the Oval Office in the White House - whilst seated at his desk with his fly unzipped, enjoying fellatio lovingly administered by the horde of young interns who pandered to his every whim. When news of this peccadillo leaked out, many of those so treated were enraged, and there were loud calls for his impeachment. Such a blow to national pride was thought too damaging, but Dirty Bill was subpoenaed to the witness box under oath and required to testify.
Other than denying facts to which others had already attested, most of his statements were very simple, "I can't remember." The continuous repetition of this claim by the most powerful man in the world should give pause for serious consideration to every thoughtful person. Following his testimony, questions were raised as to the veracity of his convenient memory lapses, but Big Bill was on certain legal ground. During the hearing, he kept "chugging" diet cola from cans displayed prominently on the dock in front of him. Diet cola is loaded with aspartame, a neurotoxin whose main side-effect is memory loss in proportion to consumption. His medical team gleefully pointed out that anyone who had consumed as much aspartame as Bill obviously had would be lucky to remember what happened fifteen minutes ago, much less fifteen months. Bill got a slap on the wrist, was let off without penalty, and now earns huge speaking fees by touring countries like Australia, where he is greatly revered as a man's man, and an ideal role model for young boys.
So what's the point of this story, you may ask? Well, do you know what is the biggest selling product line in supermarkets all across the "developed" world? Yep, you've got it! Coca-Cola beverages - Bill's Brew - large plastic bottles filled with corrosive industrial chemical concoctions containing known neurotoxins and carcinogens that people, young and old, swill by the bucket-load. It is usually accompanied by fatty industrial pseudo-foods containing processed meats loaded with veterinary antibiotics, hydrolyzed proteins, hydrogenated vegetable oils, endocrine disruptors, neurotoxins, carcinogens, and increasing quantities of genetically modified products - synthetic industrial organisms unknown in Nature, the effects of ingesting which are completely unknown.
Not only do citizens of the "developed" world consume this toxic industrial waste, they feed it to their children, and then complain that they suffer from mood swings, irritability, excitability, rotting teeth, "attention deficits", poor digestion, immune deficiencies, and disfiguring obesities. They further insist that the cause of these ailments is a mystery, that they are undeserved and of no known origin. When the simple facts above are pointed out to them, they respond with ridicule, invective, denial and insults. Is it any wonder that many of their kids are foul-mouthed little perverts by the time they reach puberty, and thereafter decline to a state worse even than their parents? Don't believe me? Just ask any high-school teacher.
I AM NOT MAKING THIS UP, even though such crass stupidity seems quite incredible. If anything were needed to illustrate the complete failure of modern "education", this must surely rank high on the list. It also illustrates the degree to which Man's natural appetite has so been perverted as to lead him into folly.
RE: an argument for optimum diet that is not vege vs omnivore - BrownEye - 06-02-2012
(06-02-2012, 04:23 PM)omcasey Wrote: This left his student's unharmed, precisely where they were in their own evolution, to learn as they would through their own direct experience of what they brought into their bodies. It gave them permission to be where they were, and to learn from here, rather than prematurely attempt to be somewhere else.
There really is no point in learning through interactions with others then.
My view of interactions would be to combine/align energies in order to create the forward momentum needed in evolution of consciousness. To say "you are fine where you are" is similar to accepting stagnation, much like what is described in Eden.
In fact, suffering is specific catalyst added to this reality forcing us to change our ways and evolve. If everyone could learn from eachother's mistakes we would also remove ourselves from suffering all that much quicker. We do not learn from each other's mistakes because as a whole we are under the thumb of rule. How easy is it to tell your community about the benefits of a substance if TV and media have been telling us for years that it is the best thing for our health? If they get sick do they consider the cause? No, they are programmed to believe a doctor will give them a quick fix pill. If what you say about "leave them as they are" is actually accurate, then I have to say that social interactions are mostly STS activities. Everything said and done will be an infringement.
Yes, we are supposed to learn from our mistakes, but at some point we are also supposed to evolve beyond the individual and into the whole. That involves taking what is learned from others in order that we do not continue the same mistakes and continue the circle.
--------------------
To be specific, if we were to let everyone decide on their own that going through a door was instant death, how long do you suppose it would take before someone evolved/developed senses to allow them to know of the danger on the other side of the door?
Now if someone were to say "Hey! death waits on the other side of that door, don't go!", people would be able to move on beyond that door. Of course there will still be the skeptics that believe in "tradition" and will go through the door because of instilled belief/indoctrination. Or there will be the failed programs that want to end their incarnation.
Thing is, it takes learning from/through others, not learning for the self.
Hmm, if the grid goes down long term, there will be no food shipments, no gas for travel, no water pressure to even flush your toilet.
Weeds and plant life will take over. With societies current understanding of health and nutrition I think many will actually perish within a jungle of dense nutrition. They will have no base knowledge, no discernment, and for the most part be trained to believe only certain things are good for them. How ironic of an end would that be? Certainly a new generation of "beings" would rise out of that mess.
Of course, it would all have come down to choices.
I guess helping others is in reality helping yourself. And to allow others to make mistakes without warning them is to allow opportunities to pass you by.
Thank you for making me see this.
RE: an argument for optimum diet that is not vege vs omnivore - omcasey - 06-02-2012
Pickle Wrote:There really is no point in learning through interactions with others then.
Pickle,
Why would you say this?
It is not implied in any way in what I have put through.
I prefer to situate myself in, rather than in opposition to you so let me first say that nothing you have put through is contrary to what is my perception also. If this is not the case there with you, I might suggest that what is coming up as contrary [there] is being created on your end [not sent from here].
I find it true, no matter what the substance is we bring into ourselves, be it a physical food stuff or energy/idea of another self, the digestion and assimilation of the experience is most likely in the event it is something our system both needs and is open to. Otherwise that something leads to indigestion, which inevitably does harm in our system. On my own part, in relation to sharing with and helping other selves, it is first a matter of recognizing whether there is a sufficient opening/immediate need in the other self to receive new-and-certain information. I am not gifted in this recognition yet, I often fail to respect the degree of opening and exceed the bounds of what is truly helpful. Recognizing this does help me learn and now and again take a more mutually benefiting step in the direction of helping. Like all else, it is an art.
RE: an argument for optimum diet that is not vege vs omnivore - BrownEye - 06-02-2012
(06-02-2012, 05:47 PM)omcasey Wrote: Why would you say this?
It is not implied in any way in what I have put through.
Misinterpretations are part of the learning process, don't take anything I say personally.
(06-02-2012, 05:47 PM)omcasey Wrote: it is first a matter of recognizing whether there is a sufficient opening/immediate need in the other self to receive new-and-certain information.
When I was young I came to understand my position as a "karma" worker. Or "programmer", whichever sounds best.
When it is time to update perception we will connect with someone that hands us a different level/angle of perception. Not understanding, misinterpreting, ignoring, or refusing, etc, all activate a level of negative energy for us. We call it catalyst or karma. When we are ready we bump into these people. When we are to update others it is not fully our choice to decide whether they are ready or not. They made the connection, they made the choice. I am sure you are aware of the human ability to "zone out" or space off anything you have no interest in? That is like the safety margin for those "not ready". Different from consciously ignoring. I think most are not aware of their position as a programmer, while those at the top are fully aware, and not very subtle about it. They consider "us" animals.
So if I ramble on about anything and someone gets involved, one of us or both of us may have something for the other. In my case it can take up to two months before I "get" the new perception, and in the meantime I may be turning away all sorts of negatives that are trying to force me into action. Not always a "positive" action of course. Many of us tend to notice the negative influences more than the positive influences, and so positive messages can slip past and we only catch a wave of negative in its backdraft.
My user pic jokingly represents my position doling out catalyst programming. I tend to enjoy myself, but I walk a fine line between sarcasm(positive) and mocking(negative).
RE: an argument for optimum diet that is not vege vs omnivore - Eddie - 06-11-2012
Here's an excellent interview (from Red Ice) that is relevant to the discussion here:
The Paleo Diet, Primal Body & Primal Mind
http://rediceradio.net/radio/2012/RIR-120610-ngedgaudas-hr1.mp3
This is not a permalink so you should download it and listen within the next 12 weeks.
RE: an argument for optimum diet that is not vege vs omnivore - Monica - 06-11-2012
(06-11-2012, 06:31 PM)Eddie Wrote: The Paleo Diet, Primal Body & Primal Mind
What I don't get about the Paleo diet is: Why would we want to go backwards to what our ancestors (or us in past lives) did? I'd rather evolve forward to what they do in higher densities, not go backwards.
RE: an argument for optimum diet that is not vege vs omnivore - Eddie - 06-11-2012
(06-11-2012, 07:42 PM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote: What I don't get about the Paleo diet is: Why would we want to go backwards to what our ancestors (or us in past lives) did? I'd rather evolve forward to what they do in higher densities, not go backwards.
Your notions of "higher density" diets are speculative; but there is concrete evidence that diets low in carbohydrates are conducive to good human health.
Here's another good interview (also from Red Ice), on the dangers of wheat (and foods rich in simple carbohydrates in general):
http://rediceradio.net/radio/2012/RIR-120429-wdavis.mp3
Dr. William Davis, cardiologist and seeker-of-truth in health exposes "healthy whole grains" for the incredibly destructive genetic monsters they've become. Over 80% of the people he meets today are pre-diabetic or diabetic. In an effort to reduce blood sugar, he asked patients to remove all wheat products from their diet based on the simple fact that foods made of wheat flour raise blood sugar higher than nearly all other foods, regardless if the wheat is organic, multi-grain, whole grain or sprouted. The results were positively drastic. Dr. Davis will discuss the benefits of going wheat free. We'll cover genetic changes of wheat verses ancient grains. He explains how modern wheat is an opiate and appetite stimulant. William also breaks down the internal components of wheat and how they interact with the body in negative ways linked to a slew of health problems. He also explains the great lie of gluten free bread. Why aren't doctors giving this important research any attention?
RE: an argument for optimum diet that is not vege vs omnivore - BrownEye - 06-11-2012
Ever wonder why wheat is subsidized and heavily promoted?