In regards to eating meat

[Tenet Nosce]

True, no amount of attention paid to the physical body by the man will of itself give him spiritual life, but why should he hamper himself with an impure body? Why should he allow his powers, whether great or small, to be limited, thwarted, dwarfed in their attempts to manifest by this needlessly imperfect instrument?

"No amount of attention paid to the physical body by the man will of itself give him spiritual life..."

Indeed.

As for why should... I dunno, why not? Isn't this a "free will zone"? Is the point really to see how long we can live and how many magic powers we can develop? I don't feel that is the point... I feel like that is just another path one may choose among many.

If you are going down the rabbit hole of Besant, Blavatsky, and the Theosophical Society... be sure to learn about the works of Edward Bulwer-Lytton and Joseph Alexandre Saint-Yves. With some study, one can see how certain ideas were twisted by a man called Gerard Encausse (who also went by Papus) as well as the Synarchists. These streams of thought re-emerged in the Theosophical doctrine.

In this specific instance, you may wish to research how the notion of life force (or vril) got folded back on itself back into the doctrine of karman from the Jains. So the message got flip-flopped from acquiring more life force, to avoiding various "defiling" substances.

As for the rest, I will leave you with this symbol to ponder.

---

Paraphrasing here, it's been a while since I read this: Their findings on "the particles" of the human body were based on "seeing" by the members. They saw that the "particles" arranged themselves in layers from fine on the inside to course on the outside, making the outside shell the coursest. The idea was that you had to shed layers to get lighter, or closer to light, and the courser the outer shell, the more difficult.

Sounds like karman to me. As I understand it, the undistorted teaching which this was based upon was for the human to acquire more life force within. As this accumulates in the body, the outer dross shells fall away quite effortlessly and naturally. Like a butterfly.

---

I'm assuming such a textbook is accepted by mainstream dieticians?

I dunno. Actually, I would suspect that a dietician never sees this text, either. Somebody with a masters level eduction in nutrition, probably so. Dieticians and nutritionists are differently trained.

I think what goes on in the case of many MDs is that they simply forget their basic physiology. It gets buried under all the emphasis on diagnostics and pharmacology they later receive. If they went back and reviewed the basic physiology they might not conclude that giving drugs is the appropriate treatment of first resort.

But as for this particular textbook, it is a physiology textbook. Nothing about therapeutics. Most practitioners across the whole board agree upon the basic physiology working behind the scenes. Bottom line with digestive enzymes is that they are destructive. This is why the body takes great efforts to compartmentalize them and why an enzyme acting within a cell needs to be manufactured within that cell.

Digestive enzymes are also employed, for example, if a cell turns cancerous and needs to self-destruct. They are released inside the cell from storage containers called lysozymes.

Another related, overlooked, but critical point is that the digestive tract is technically outside the body. Not inside of it. We don't exactly want digestive enzymes passing from the outside to the inside.

Enzymes do not discriminate between "good stuff" and "bad stuff". An enzyme like lipase, which is designed to break down fat, will break down any kind of fat it encounters that has the proper chemical configuration. This would include, for example, the fats in the walls of arteries and veins that help them maintain flexibility.

I take your word for it. My point is just that the field of metabolism still has a lot of unanswered questions, and any textbook might not be up-to-date on all the clinical research.

Yes... and that was the 3rd edition so it is over ten years old I think. Though science has not, to this point, overturned some of these basic understandings to which I refer. Nor is it necessary to contradict this basic understanding in order to employ a workable holistic model and natural remedies.

And that's not even taking into consideration any possibility of mutation due to spiritual evolution.

Right!

Personally, I respect your training and experience!

Thanks!

NOT saying you're mainstream! I know you're an ND. I'm just suggesting that the lack of instant trust in your views based on your medical training not be construed as a lack of respect for you as a person or as a practitioner.

I get that. I am not really trying to throw my credentials around. But it might be helpful for others to understand that when I start going into nauseating detail on a subject... whether enzymes or Ra quotes... that is because I have personally and extensively studied the issue at hand.

In many cases, I have already gone down the tube that I see others going down, and I know that it is a sidetrack or dead end. But I suppose the only way for anybody else to really know for themselves is to go down it.

Remember, a highly credentialed RN/nutritionist is the one who got me addicted to excessive cleansing and drinking distilled water, which almost killed me!

To this day, since I encounter a lot of practitioners, I still come across highly credentialed people who recommend distilled water, as well as others who are horrified that anyone would still recommend it!

I meet highly credentialed practitioners who advocate heavy meat diets, while others advocate plant-based diets.

Again, I didn't mean to place undue emphasis on the credentials. In and of themselves, they are meaningless.

Even among the so-called 'experts' there is a wide variety of opinion about many aspects of health. Highly intelligent, highly trained people often disagree.

Yes, but when highly intelligent, highly trained experts do all agree upon something... that should be an indication that what they are agreeing upon is probably true.

In this case, we are not debating about the therapeutic value of enzymes. We are (apparently) debating about how enzymes work on a biochemical level in general.

So please understand that it's nothing personally directed at you, if some members of this forum question some things that might seem 'fact' to you.

Well, I certainly might be making things up in my mind about that. I will say that it appears to me that if I said the sky was blue, certain individuals would feel compelled to call it green. Not you. Also, I am saying this in the broader context of this forum, rather than just this specific thread.

I don't know enough about lipase to have an opinion.

Exactly. Now what would drive a person to go around making claims about lipase, if they don't even really understand what it is?

I am curious, though, what you thought of Viktoras' views on enzymes?

Haven't watched the video yet. I'm bad about that! LOL I will watch it and see if I can formulate an intelligent opinion on it.

Recently, one of the doctors (an ND) who bought a water machine from me, explained that when the body is too acidic, the areas of the body that are actually supposed to be acidic (stomach, vagina for example) have the reverse effect and are too alkaline. So those with acid reflux and poor digestion actually have stomachs that are too alkaline. When their body's overall pH is brought into a slightly alkaline balance, guess what, the stomach gets more acidic and, if female, the vagina gets more acidic.

That is an interesting angle which I haven't heard before. So I will refrain from making an assessment. I know that the acid/alkaline thing is another area that frequently gets oversimplified to the point where things are missed. It is true that different compartments of the body have different ideal pH ranges.

As regards enzymes- of all types- the body typically makes from 3 to 7 different isozymes, which are like a family of enzymes that all do the same thing... but function at a slightly different pH range. I can see how always having the body pushed to the acidic end of the spectrum could cause problems. But I would guess the optimum state is rhythmically moving from one end of the spectrum to the other. Always pushing the alkaline limits would probably have a negative effect as well, in my view.

Also keep in mind when we are talking about a range of pH in the blood it is between 7.35 and 7.45. The blood never actually becomes "acidic". If the pH falls below 7.35 for any length of time the body will cease to function altogether.

I found this to explain my own experiences with improved digestion and relief from previously chronic female problems. And, incidentally, taking enzyme supplements had never really helped me in any way that I could tell. But now, if I take enzyme supplements, I end up burping them up and get a bit of acid reflux! I don't know quite what to make of that! but have concluded that maybe now my stomach acid is what it's supposed to be, and maybe I don't need them anymore...?

I dunno. Generally speaking, if you take something that your body makes naturally long enough it will eventually stop making it on its own. This is generally not beneficial. Which is why I take issue with slapping "good" and "bad" labels on anything, including dietary supplements.

I think that, just as with nutrients from food vs artificial vitamin supplements, maybe there's a difference between enzyme supplements vs naturally occurring enzymes from living foods.

Actually, many supplement enzymes are food-derived. For example, bromelain comes from pineapple and papain from papaya. Both of these enzymes are proteolytic, which means they break down protein. Interestingly, neither pineapple nor papaya contain much protein. As with most fruits, they are more than 90% carbohydrate.

This is not uncommon. In actuality, many foods do not contain the enzymes needed for an animal to digest them. So this runs directly contrary to the raw food propaganda, and there are many examples of this I could provide.

The point is that it is your body which is supposed to secrete the enzymes needed to digest the food you eat. This is accomplished by a feed-forward mechanism which utilizes the senses of smell and taste. The body is supposed to anticipate what is coming down the hatch, and release the appropriate enzymes to digest it. These enzymes should have already been formed in their respective organs (stomach, pancreas and liver) and waiting at the ready.

So what I do now is eat more raw, live foods. And if I do have a cooked meal, I try to always have a glass of veggie juice with it. So I'm getting the enzymes but in food form instead of supplement form.

Depending on the individual situation, raw foods may place more strain on the digestive system. This is precisely because they don't contain all the enzymes which the human body needs to digest them, as is claimed by many gurus.

Now that being said... I doubt you are one of those individuals for which it is a poor choice. I am thinking about people whose bodies are already in a weakened state and/or not able to produce its own enzymes.

There is no one-size-fits-all in that sense.

Or in any sense. Maybe I am just shooting myself in the foot, but when I see an author/guru/practitioner coming from this perspective, I reject whatever conclusions they arrive because I don't agree with the thought process used to get there.

Absolutist thinking tells me that a person is not sufficiently prepared to be a leader or teacher. Now of course, it would seem that most people disagree, since they keep electing these types into various offices and buying their books/tapes/videos etc.

I see your point here. I seem to remember hearing something about "mainstream lab tests don't show systemic candida infections" or something like that. Does the mainstream even recognize candida at all though? I thought they didn't...?

People can and do get tested for anti-candida antibodies in the blood. What most mainstream doctors don't do is look specifically in the gut. But generally, candida is well-known even in mainstream medicine as systemic infection is a risk for those who are immunocompromised, such as an AIDS patient.

As for labs like Metametrix and Genova. These are totally legitimate labs. And insurance providers would pay for many of their tests... and specifically the digestive function tests... if practitioners (both mainstream and alternative) would bother to educate themselves about it rather than spreading rhetoric and disinformation. I know for a fact that Blue Cross reimburses for Genova's test, for example.

They are also available at a greatly reduced price for those who **shock and amazement** would actually PAY out of their own pocket for something which would directly benefit their own health.

Hey speaking of parasites did you hear about that tapeworm therapy? I actually met a woman who paid $7k to have tapeworm eggs injected into her body! CREEPY!!!

It astounds me that anybody... patient or practitioner... would see this as a valid option. It just goes to show the level of denial people are willing to accept if it suits their own distorted beliefs.

I think colon cleansing is a very valuable and important tool for someone transitioning from the SAD diet to a healthy diet. It can speed up the process of detox drastically.

Yes, if done properly and in the overall context of a carefully constructed detox program. Similar to the situation with enzymes or body acidity, there isn't just one detox pathway in the body. There are many, and detoxing the wrong pathway, or in the incorrect order, may actually cause harm.

This is why when people ask me what I think about "doing a detox" my first response is "Great! What are you detoxing?" This almost invariably results in a baffled look. What? You mean all "toxins" aren't the same?

So notice how these concepts we have discussed about enzymes, body acidity, and detoxing, all seem to be part of the propaganda put forth by certain natural practitioners. Can you see how they all rest upon a faulty logic that oversimplifies the situation, making it appear "black and white"?

After that, it shouldn't be needed anymore if the diet stays clean.

... and even if it doesn't! The body is actually designed to handle quite an onslaught of toxicity. The biochemical processes of life itself are toxic to the body, if not dealt with appropriately. This is a frequently missed, yet critical, point.

In a practical sense, if the body is in a healthy state, then it should snap back quite easily from a night of drunken debauchery... so long as they are few and far enough inbetween.

When a person's body can't tolerate a sip of alcohol, that is a sign of a problem. Ever wonder why some people who live a "squeaky clean" lifestyle still turn up with cancer and other debilitating diseases? This is because their body can't handle the toxins produced within.

From a metaphysical standpoint, I wonder if this might have something to do with denial of their own negativity and the destructive nature of their being. Going back to the trinity concept, in Hinduism we have the Creator, the Preserver, and the Destroyer. It is kind of like denying the Destroyer, or pretending that it doesn't really exist. Or kind of like the Triforce in the Legend of Zelda. When the Triforce of Power becomes separated from the other two, the result is a schism whereby the other two seek reunion (as represented by Link and Zelda). In Ra terminology, we have love and light... but no power. I notice that Q'uo has been speaking more in terms of love, and light, and power lately.

Or maybe just looking at it from a more naturalistic perspective. There is a destructive force in nature. It is actually a good thing. Nature kills physical forms so that the consciousness within may evolve into new forms, and to eventually become formless. This is why I don't believe that killing equates to harm. In order for there to be harm, there must be an intention for something different to have happened. And even with that, we are talking about on the level of the Higher Self, not on the level of biological preservation instincts.

The body will always seek to protect itself from destruction. I believe the body is the representation of the Preserver (Form) aspect of the trinity being. The other two are the Creator (Spirit) and the Destroyer (Consciousness).

I wonder if, in an unconscious individual, the Consciousness has to "trick" the body into dying through behaviors that erode away at its' health. Like say, heavy smoking or alcoholism. I imagine in the case of an individual who is both fully conscious and fully conscientious about the body, eventually they would have to end their life by an act of self-will.

I also ponder upon the difference between the doctrine of eternal life, and the doctrine of immortality. Now think back to certain Egyptian teachings that may have been sourced from Ra, and possibly how they could have become corrupted by STS and the false Yahweh.

Remember my name
Fame

I'm gonna live forever
I'm gonna learn how to fly
High

I feel it coming together
People will see me and cry
Fame

I'm gonna make it to heaven
Light up the sky like a flame
Fame

I'm gonna live forever
Baby remember my name

I wonder... what does this mean for states where the Consciousness becomes overly fixated on the preservation of the Form? Is that its' mission and purpose in life? To take care of the body?

But getting back to physiology... the biochemical processes of life themselves are toxic to the body. This is a fact, and I think profoundly relevant to the evaluation of certain philosophies which say "you should never harm the body". Whether yours, or even somebody else's.

But if the person focuses on just getting the right stuff in, the bad stuff will eventually come out. It'll just take a lot longer.

Maybe there is something important about the body's natural timing mechanisms.

Rapid detox might make the difference between living or dying for some people, especially those with cancer. They might really need to detox fast.

Possibly. But just as well could somebody be causing themselves more harm by detoxing too rapidly, or incompletely, or in the incorrect order.

If they are facing immanent separation of their consciousness from the form (which may not actually be a bad thing) then perhaps more extreme measures would be in order. But they come with a higher risk. So I believe it would be even MORE important to not run off half-cocked and fearful making rash decisions with the help of health gurus and ill-advised friends and family members.