In regards to eating meat

[Tenet Nosce]

Vegetarianism, as a philosophical construct, is based on the doctrine of ahimsa, or nonviolence toward living things. This concept was originally born in India circa the first millennium BC, and was largely a reaction to the practice of animal sacrifice, as prescribed by the Vedas. Ahimsa was largely promoted by Mahavira as one of the core tenets of Jainism, but as a philosophical principle, has become incorporated into many other belief systems.

At the core, ahimsa is simply a doctrine of nonviolence as a means to avoid acquiring additional karma. However it quickly became dogmatized into a strict practice of harmlessness toward all living things. Thus, the doctrine of ahimsa is inclusive of insects and plants.

There were obviously some big problems with this from the get-go. The first Jains were forced to quickly make concessions to the laypeople, and modified the philosophy to say that only an ascetic who took the "great vows" was required to follow a strict doctrine of ahimsa, while it was supposedly alright for the common person to simply abstain from killing animals.

To make such a strong declaration of philosophy, and then to try to backpedal and make concessions when the people do not accept it is, in my opinion, an unfortunate characteristic of all religions.

This is somewhat akin to saying that the First Commandment is Thou Shalt Not Kill... unless somebody is a terrorist, or invading your house, etc. While this kind of thinking apparently makes sense to a lot of people, it is completely defunct of any kind of sustainable logic.

Besides not eating meat, the doctrine of ahimsa also forbids Jains to eat after dark (in case an insect accidentally flies into their mouth), and requires them to carry little whisk brooms around with which they sweep the ground in front of their feet as they walk so as to not to inadvertently step on anything living.

For one to truly practice ahimsa would require them, for example, to allow their home to become infested with cockroaches and rats.

Extending this philosophy into the modern day, with our knowledge of microbes, would also require one with a raging case of pneumonia to forgo antibiotic treatment, for fear that killing the bacteria would cause one to accrue negative karma.

It would also require one to avoid drinking water from the tap, or even bottled water, since the processing of the water kills the microbes living within.

This is clearly absurd. Especially so when considered in light of the Law of One which says:

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.

If All is One, then All is Life. Therefore it is impossible for an entity to exist without taking other forms of Life into itself, thus violating the strict interpretation of ahimsa. Even if one were somehow able to subsist purely on light alone, they would still be taking the life of a star.

So OK maybe the whole harmlessness thing is a little extreme, but certainly we can get behind nonviolence, right?

Well yes, we can. But this poses a dilemma for the philosophical vegetarian because it would allow for the eating of animals that were raised and slaughtered in a nonviolent manner.

Vegans have it even worse from a philosophical standpoint as plants, too, are animal products. Plants would not grow if not for worms and other creatures in the soil, or if not for bees that spread their pollen, or if not for animals that eat their fruit and disperse the seeds in their feces.

Beyond that, it takes an animal (a human animal) to cultivate the plant, harvest it, package it, ship it, and place it on the grocery shelf for you to buy. So plants ARE animal products. (As animals are plant products) Sorry, but if a vegan wants to be a stickler for philosophy then so will I.

The only real reasons for vegetarianism that hold water are:

1. Unwillingness to participate in a system which perpetuates cruelty to animals.

2. The claim that vegetarianism is healthier for the body.

#1 - I have no beef with. (Pun intended)

#2 - There are some major problems with this idea.

The first problem with making these sorts of health claims is that they have never been scientifically shown to be true. In fact, vegetarians are at higher risk of certain vitamin and mineral deficiencies, as well as the usual concern about not getting enough protein. Science HAS shown that eating a plant-based diet is good for the body, but it has NOT shown that vegetarians enjoy any kind of special health benefits when compared to those who eat moderate amounts of meat.

While it is of course possible to meet the body's nutritional needs without consuming animal flesh, in practice many vegetarians and vegans subsist on all manner of processed garbage foods with all sorts of additives and chemicals somewhat curiously intended to make the food appear and taste like meat. This is not healthy for the body. Processed foods are junk to the body: vegan, vegetarian, or otherwise.

The second problem with the health argument is that it ignores the- now scientifically established- fact that every body is different. What is healthful for one body at one time, is not healthful for another body at another time. There is no "ideal" diet because there is no "ideal" person.

Consider this quote:

A ideal (healthwise) vegan raw food diet gets 80% of it's calories from raw fruit. This reduces harm to animals and plants. The rest of the 20% is from nuts (also do not harm plants) and vegetables for nutrients (which do harm plants).

Not only does a 80/10/10 vegan raw food diet reduce the amount of damage you do, it is literally the healthiest diet that human beings have discovered. It is literally the healthiest possible human diet and for most of the world it has been impossible to attain UNTIL TODAY. Thanks to modern agricultural practices we have enough bananas and oranges and mangoes and papayas so that people in the northern hemispheres can eat high-fruit diets year round and get the majority of their calories from fruit.

Come again, my friend? These claims are not based in any sort of science that I am aware of. This is somebody who is taking their personal opinion and trying to pass it off as scientific truth.

Not convinced?

The basic fruit sugar is glucose, which is the only sugar our body uses directly anyway, making high-glucose fruits the easiest food to digest in the world.

No, the basic fruit sugar is fructose, which furthermore CAN be metabolized directly by the body. There is no such thing as a "high glucose" fruit, nor is there much difference between the sugar content of most fruits. One cup of fruit contains about 15 grams of sugar. So, it's interesting to me how somebody can feel it's appropriate to make such STRONG CLAIMS about health and human physiology when they clearly haven't bothered to learn the basics of biochemistry.

Still not convinced? OK I did an experiment:

I constructed a 2000-calorie meal plan according to the rules proposed above. A nutritional analysis revealed it to be critically deficient in 3 essential vitamins and minerals as well as to only contain 50 grams of protein. This is barely enough protein to sustain the normal metabolic function of a 150-pound person who is completely sedentary (i.e. lying in a hospital bed). I will also point out that having 10% of the calories come from greens equated to 30 cups of raw spinach.

So, my friends, here is some dietary advice from somebody who is an actual bona fide nutrition expert as well as an avid student of the Law of One.

Seek first to understand what the actual physical needs of the human body are, i.e. what is the minimum amount of the 23 essential vitamins and minerals, essential fats, and protein needed for the body to function properly.

Secondly, seek to understand which foods contain which nutrients. It is not enough to simply eat "fruits and vegetables" for optimal nutrition. Especially if you are choosing a vegetarian lifestyle.

Thirdly, forget about all these supposed nutrition gurus who claim that their way is the one true way. There is no one true way.

In my opinion, the best reason to be a vegetarian is simply because you choose to be a vegetarian, and because you have the free will to do so. You do not need to justify your choice with any sort of philosophical argument.

And if you DON'T choose to be a vegetarian, please don't worry about whether or not this is going to retard your spiritual progress. Spiritual growth has much more to do with what is coming out of your mouth, than what is going into it.

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.

This is the bottom line. Everything else is an illusion. Including that hamburger.