Quote:One of the tenets of Buddhism is strict pacifism--to inflict no harm or suffering upon other living things. As an extension of these teachings, many Buddhist sects, including the Shaolin, practice strict vegetarianism. As a general rule, meat is not eaten and the use of eggs and dairy products is generally avoided as well, though the specifics may vary from one group to the next.
Because daily kung fu training can be strenuous, it is important for students to properly nourish themselves. Protein intake is thus an important facet of the Shaolin diet, as there are no sources of animal protein. This dietary gap is overcome by including non-animal protein sources into dishes. Soybeans and soy products like tofu are an important part of most meals in the monastery. Nuts such as peanuts and almonds also may be incorporated into some dishes.
Read more: http://www.ehow.com/way_5650324_shaolin-...z2iGm7OmHv
Considering vegetables are living things also, would it not contradict the entire premise? I mean, I'm not some anti vegan or anything but since Ra stated that there are some plants that are higher level 2nd density, where does the difference lie between the animal and the plant?
Many times throughout the veggie vs meat eater debates, it seems that most have a personal aversion towards meat because of the horrible conditions that they are raised and slaughtered. If what Ra stated is true then even though plants can't verbalize or contain an evolved neurological structure to emote pain, would they not also be harmed by the ceasing of their life
I agree. I struggle with the more 'spiritually' minded people who places the life of an animal above that of an insect and plants/trees. I don't suppose when the vegetables and fruits we eat first came into being, that they were placed in compact neat rows for ease of harvesting/farming. How is that different from battery chickens? At the end of the day you just have to accept that our sustinenace and survival is at the expense of something else that is living. Respect and give thanks and move along.
Oh and soy products arn't too great for the body at all. Peanuts have too much aflatoxins to be worthwhile to eat.
(10-20-2013, 11:09 AM)Jeremy Wrote: [ -> ]Considering vegetables are living things also, would it not contradict the entire premise? I mean, I'm not some anti vegan or anything but since Ra stated that there are some plants that are higher level 2nd density, where does the difference lie between the animal and the plant?
Many times throughout the veggie vs meat eater debates, it seems that most have a personal aversion towards meat because of the horrible conditions that they are raised and slaughtered. If what Ra stated is true then even though plants can't verbalize or contain an evolved neurological structure to emote pain, would they not also be harmed by the ceasing of their life
I have had similar thoughts but I wonder if plant's that we eat are actually serving others by being grown to feed higher density entities whether that be human or non human.
Eating soy is a great way to lower naturally occuring testosterone levels. Since these monks are celibate, it's not a surprising diet to adopt.
(10-20-2013, 11:51 AM)Rake Wrote: [ -> ] (10-20-2013, 11:09 AM)Jeremy Wrote: [ -> ]Considering vegetables are living things also, would it not contradict the entire premise? I mean, I'm not some anti vegan or anything but since Ra stated that there are some plants that are higher level 2nd density, where does the difference lie between the animal and the plant?
Many times throughout the veggie vs meat eater debates, it seems that most have a personal aversion towards meat because of the horrible conditions that they are raised and slaughtered. If what Ra stated is true then even though plants can't verbalize or contain an evolved neurological structure to emote pain, would they not also be harmed by the ceasing of their life
I have had similar thoughts but I wonder if plant's that we eat are actually serving others by being grown to feed higher density entities whether that be human or non human.
The same can be said for the entire food chain though. I'm wondering if a simple blessing by thanking the animal for the service by providing the needed nutrition would suffice.
I do not get the argument that eating animal products and plant products as similar.
Consider this:
1. Most plants (all?) lack a central nervous system that allows them to "feel" pain. They also can live out their lives naturally. Amongst them, MANY are that only live for one year, and plant many, many seeds for next year. Life and death is an inherent part of them, as a species.
2. I have yet to see that I torture a walnut tree for eating a walnut. A walnut tree was not killed in order for me to eat a walnut. Same goes for almost all fruits, seeds,legumes and vegetables. How can you compare that to some chicken meat? How?
3. "Just accept that there is always suffering and move on" is one thing. If you are capable of accepting the *extent* of the animals suffering for your needs to be met, I suppose many of us would actively seek more humane sources for their food. The problem is that usually the real state of being for your food is hidden from your very eyes. Because that forms a basis for the meat factories to exist. That is almost a necessity.
(10-20-2013, 02:30 PM)Jeremy Wrote: [ -> ]The same can be said for the entire food chain though. I'm wondering if a simple blessing by thanking the animal for the service by providing the needed nutrition would suffice.
I thought that it would suffice. But after seeing how these animals are treated, I was converted. I do not think it is enough. If someone tortured you your entire life, then you were -sometimes alive- butchered and processed into meat, would you feel that it was adequate that someone a few months later said "gee, thanks"?
This is especially true, considering that there is nothing in meat, nutritionally speaking, that is *needed* by us. The only weak points of a vegan diet is B12, D, and sometimes calcium itself. Those can be met with a properly planned diet, protein (a combination of all the essential and non-essential amino acids) is found in non-meat sources as well.
(10-20-2013, 11:09 AM)Jeremy Wrote: [ -> ]since Ra stated that there are some plants that are higher level 2nd density, where does the difference lie between the animal and the plant?
Can you name a tree that we eat?
Other than what the industry calls fiber added to processed food? (sawdust)
(10-20-2013, 05:14 PM)BrownEye Wrote: [ -> ] (10-20-2013, 11:09 AM)Jeremy Wrote: [ -> ]since Ra stated that there are some plants that are higher level 2nd density, where does the difference lie between the animal and the plant?
Can you name a tree that we eat?
Other than what the industry calls fiber added to processed food? (sawdust)
It states vegetables and especially trees so all veggies are 2nd density
Ra: I am Ra. There are three types of second-density entities which become, shall we say, enspirited. The first is the animal. This is the most predominant. The second is the vegetable, most especially that which you call sound vibration complex “tree.” These entities are capable of giving and receiving enough love to become individualized. The third category is mineral. Occasionally a certain location, place as you may call it, becomes energized to individuality through the love it receives and gives in relationship to a third-density entity which is in relationship to it. This is the least common transition.
In regards to Olden, a lot of what you stated is the same that I see from most vegetarians which is personal bias. I'm definitely not saying it's invalid so please don't take it as such. My point is that this passionate belief structure revolves around personal beliefs when Ra clearly stated that veggies are in fact on the same level as animals.
Jeremy: I understand that. I also stated that we do not eat the trees to gain his fruit. I am not against considering trees and bushes "2d" along animals, but when you eat a fruit of a tree, the tree lives on, and is unharmed, as the fruit naturally falls down every autumn, yet the tree lives on, whether there are passengers eating the fallen fruits or not.
Now, the situation with mass producing fruits, nuts and seeds is definitely a little less romantic, but still country miles above anything that the animals have to endure before they are slaughtered.
(10-20-2013, 05:42 PM)Jeremy Wrote: [ -> ]It states vegetables and especially trees so all veggies are 2nd density
Vegetable meaning "category". Not as in a carrot or tomato LoL!
If a person was truly compassionate about the death of plants they would educate themselves about the sheer amount of plants it takes to feed a cow and fatten it up enough to fill your plate. Complete forests are cut down just for this. The rainforest which is a source of life for the whole planet is being cut down, sort of just whittling down our very right to exist as oxygen breathing mammals LMAO!
If we look at simple multiplication the excuse is very pointless.
It is deplorable that the rainforest is destroyed for what is effectively "McDonalds" grade cattle. Grass-fed beef is nutritionally superior but most of that area isn't used as such. However, I still feel all life is equal and therefore ought be as much compassion for plant life as animal life. I think equality is what we're asking for in this 'argument'. Of course most of the meat produced is in disgusting conditions and ought to be avoided, but to call one life more important than another? No thanks.
I do agree with oldern regarding fruit from trees. However this only really applies to fruit rather than vegetables and too much fruit = too much sugar and not so good in a dietary sense.
Yeh I see these "Mcdonalds" grade cattle walking through the forest everywhere so dunno what your talking about. Gotta eat to survive mmmmmmman.
(10-20-2013, 11:09 AM)Jeremy Wrote: [ -> ]Considering vegetables are living things also, would it not contradict the entire premise? I mean, I'm not some anti vegan or anything but since Ra stated that there are some plants that are higher level 2nd density, where does the difference lie between the animal and the plant?
Many times throughout the veggie vs meat eater debates, it seems that most have a personal aversion towards meat because of the horrible conditions that they are raised and slaughtered. If what Ra stated is true then even though plants can't verbalize or contain an evolved neurological structure to emote pain, would they not also be harmed by the ceasing of their life
I've seen this argument so many times, but at its core it is false. The simple answer is plants don't show pain, and it takes about 10x's the amount of plant material to feed the animal than just eating the plants themselves. You save tons of plants by eating only plants. I'm a vegan for the sake of plants and animals, alike.
And now I see browneye's post...
(10-21-2013, 01:00 AM)MarcRammer Wrote: [ -> ]The simple answer is plants don't show pain
"Pain" being the animal equivalent of a survival mechanism, plants certainly do have their own equivalent survival mechanism which clearly shows they do not wish to be killed. If a plant is damaged in a way that indicates it is being eaten by bugs or something else, it releases pheromones to attract beneficial insects to kill the insect that is eating it. You might most commonly recognize this as the smell of freshly cut grass. This smell is actually the grass crying out for help in the way it knows how.
There are other such signs that plants do not want to die and will actively work to even support other plants in surviving. If one plant in a population of plants is struck with drought conditions, it will actually communicate to the other plants around it (pheromone signalling or possibly even through the root systems somehow) that drought conditions are approaching and the nearby plants will respond accordingly (curling leaves to conserve moisture).
And, of course, the most basic sign that a plant wishes to live rather than be eaten is that it grows towards the sun, not our mouths.
It's easy for us to identify with animals because we are one. We understand the pain an animal feels because we feel it too. We have a nervous system which communicates to us in a way to promote our survival. Just because plants do not have the same awareness or feedback system which our nervous system awards us, doesn't mean that they don't have their own mechanisms in place which promote their own survival. If the pain we relate to is the result of an animal not wanting to be killed, it doesn't take much of a stretch to identify with a plant being "pained" in a different way when its will to live is infringed upon.
In communications with trees they feel fear and pain from certain sources. Have not been able to communicate with table vegetables in order find out anything at all.
Some perspective
http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/1997...estock-eat
Can't really justify killing animals simply equating them to killing a plant, when it takes thousands of plant deaths to equal the single animal death that is based on taste buds more than anything.
This is what I see, that behind the killing of that animal for the personal plate is the forest of killing that could have fed a town. It is the actual death count that I take into consideration.
The veil gets thick when people stand to either side of the fence with food debates.
I might add that the pain for a tree is much more tolerable than a human. I would venture a guess the same tolerance compared to an animal. This would be why we are allowed locomotion as a way to escape that type of suffering. It is stated that trees are in a permanent state of meditation, which would be much like a hypnotic trance for a human. In the trance state it is easy for the human to shut off pain. There is not any way for me to imagine a higher order veggie experiencing traumatic pain of the sort to cause it to be lost or stuck, much less the lower order of table veggies.
IMO, plants are of the humblest, raised to be crushed, bear to be consumed, hence why the intensity of proliferation mayhap.
Also Ra suggests Carla to eat both vegetation, and a bit of meats with no preservatives, likely because of the ex-Mars humanoid genetic's inability to fully assimilate the vegetation here still.
Also trees apparently give and receive lots of love, green-ray energy so it may be assumed that they have an important/vital role in the bridging to 4th density. Undoubtedly the forest has healed this one many times already, a sanctuary of blessing.
Also apparently experimentation has been done with plants (trees?) hooked up to electrodes to it then start snapping branches, etc. No result. Then when the researchers
decide to move onto the burning stage the plant sends mass disturbed signals out. This is before the match is even lit. I can't confirm this.
Yet here I am with a bow and arrows and a hunting dog, can't seem to get over the idea of killing something...
Also, the mass cattle ranching is terrible for fresh water supply levels, which seem to be becoming scarce.
IMO most farming is beyond necessity and built off gluttony and off fear of nature.
The origin of human pathogens: evaluating the role of agriculture and domestic animals in the evolution of human disease.
Quote:Most human prehistory was spent as groups of hunter-gatherers usually with fewer than 150 individuals that were not often in contact with other bands. Because of this, epidemic or pandemic diseases, which depend on a constant influx of humans who have not developed an immune response, tended to burn out after their first run through a population. To survive, a biological pathogen had to be a chronic infection, stay alive in the host for long periods, or have a non-human reservoir in which to live while waiting for new hosts to pass by. In fact, for many 'human' diseases, the human is actually an accidental victim and a dead-end host. (This is the case with rabies, anthrax, tularemia, West Nile virus, and many others). Thus, much of human development has been in relation to zoonotic, not epidemic, diseases.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoonosis
the way the natives were living was perfect for this land.
I think we can find a way which is more closely related to their sustainable principles.
I ponder this often, it is not hard except most people fear change more than anything it seems.
Though apparently there are more native STOs here so with the right spark..! We will be moving back into the woods, home here.
PA,
Agriculture means 'field'-culture and the earth doesn't naturally produce fields, it produces forest. Forest gardening is the best way to go. With a good system set up there is no need whatsoever to kill an animal (although the closer to the artics you are the harder it is). Here's an example of someone doing it:
Quote:...
So, I sold my commercial organic vegetable and fruit farm in Montana and since 2009 have been listening to the woods: creating veganic forest gardens modeled after functioning forest ecosystems. These forest gardens are full of annuals as well as woody and non-woody, native and non-native perennial plants, with enough diversity and structure to be a home for wildlife, while producing food for humans and non humans, coexisting together with minimal conflict. The biology is the easy part, the hard part is my choices and needs. In DOING veganic permaculture, I discovered "radical simplicity" in a Montana forest garden.
Animals are not used in my veganic forest gardens, for food or for manure. They wander through and join the system as pollinators, biological managers, and consumers.
All nutrition and sustenance in these forest gardens comes from fruits, nuts, vegetables, beans, grains, and mushrooms. Grains grow in a diverse polyculture with legumes and flowering herbs.
http://www.veganicpermaculture.com
This person has great examples of how to live at peace and work with nature. Of course, eating vegan save the most lives, plant and animal, alike. It is a great first step.
Eating local and organic is a next good step.
But the best way is to be a part of the ecosystem with forest gardening instead of slashing it down with agriculture. I can't do this right now since I live in an apartment but I'm working on getting a place I can.
Me too! I hope to be able to purchase land by spring of '14 in BC somewhere.
Somewhere with a nice mountain spring that backs onto crown land so there's seemingly infinite travelling and wildlife.
I think it would be cool to live dotted through the land in small communities which trade/share and have rounded diversity in people. People who enjoy fishing can fish. People who want to chill and seed in the forest, make clothes, make meals, etc. Then they as collectives could perhaps focus on producing something as a whole which is helpful for whole communities, something special. That could be anything really. There would be individual and communities trade. And then there also coul keep being global trade as to balance the lopsidedness of our society due to classic hierarchy, especially for the beginning.
Fantasy land, where the whole planet is working together..
Could be a possible indicator of having crossed the threshold of positive 4D graduation as a collective consciousness methinks..?
They're called ecovillages. It's a hard work to do because it's hard for people to work together and set up systems that really work, but there are some out there that work really well. I wouldn't mind if the earth destroyed all our cities and forced us to live sustainably together in small villages that had trade routes.
LoO ecovillage lol. Our special product is white light.
(10-20-2013, 11:45 AM)Steppenwolf Wrote: [ -> ]I agree. I struggle with the more 'spiritually' minded people who places the life of an animal above that of an insect and plants/trees. I don't suppose when the vegetables and fruits we eat first came into being, that they were placed in compact neat rows for ease of harvesting/farming. How is that different from battery chickens? At the end of the day you just have to accept that our sustinenace and survival is at the expense of something else that is living. Respect and give thanks and move along.
Oh and soy products arn't too great for the body at all. Peanuts have too much aflatoxins to be worthwhile to eat.
My eight years as a vegetarian was spent eating too many meat substitutes made from soy. Ugh! Now I know that almost all soy products are genetically modified. Soy increases inflammation.
Peanuts are actually not a nut. They are a legume.
I suggest the readers familiarize themselves with aflotoxins if you have not before. They can promote cancers. Try eating more almonds. Almond butter is great and very tasty.
Homemade almond milk is the bomb. I eat too many cashews though, way too many nuts for sure.
(10-22-2013, 12:29 PM)Marc Wrote: [ -> ]They're called ecovillages.
For a while I was checking out intentional communities in Costa Rica. Seems that most were small "belief" based communities. One of them even considered themselves Orions.
Yea, I prefer to be in a community with no basis on beliefs, only a guideline of ethics that isn't reliant on something as shaky as beliefs.
And yea, soy is not really a food. It's best to keep that intake to a minimum. I eat a lot of hemp seeds for my protein. Hemp is the best!
I have been researching ecovillages in BC, maybe that is where I will end up soon..
There are some listed
here as described.
I've thought for a while that i'd stay in a place like that one day, and for a long time reasons unknown, i've fancied BC area of canada...
Porbably apples.
Well, just saying that that's probably one of them.
I have a British Columbian Black Wolf mixed with German Shepherd wolfdog. A canadian wolfdog. And he's the joy of my life.