A Friendly Conversation: Exploring Omnivorous vs. Vegetarian Diet

[Diana]

In my opinion, the issue is the sacredness of life, not about choice in diet. Life is the underlying principle, and what one eats flows from one's depth of understanding of, and inner-connectedness to, all life.

I can see the connection you make, but I don’t believe that one necessarily and invariably follows the other.

If that were true, ones diet (an indirect way of seeing ones respect of life because certain diets involve killing whereas others do not) would be an objective measure to segregate (in a non-pejorative sense) the advanced entity from the non-advanced. Isn’t that an unavoidable (if unintended) implication of what you’re positing? Vegetarians would have a greater “depth of understanding” and meat eater a lesser “depth of understanding”. But countless examples could be located to nullify both that rule, including the classic and commonly evoked vegetarian Hitler.

A good point. I feel the thinking may be too linear. Someone may be vegetarian simply for health/diet reasons, and this intention would have nothing to do with being connected to other life, as it is (self)centered on only one life.

As far as advanced states of being, the problem which keeps cropping up here in regards to eating, is the compartmentalization of that one aspect. One can't say a vegetarian is more advanced whatever the reasons for being so, without taking the whole person/being into consideration. So I see no efficacy or purpose in making those sorts of judgments.

I stand by what I wrote, that eating flows from the level of awareness and interconnectedness one has attained with the all (which necessarily awakens compassion at a certain point and beyond). If there is no interconnectedness, one eats anything; no blame here, just an observation that this individual has not awakened beyond a self-centered or 2D state. There are infinite degrees between that and being 100% aware and respectful of all life.

Questions regarding this line of thinking (not directed toward any individual, rather to the philosophy):

1. How is "needless/excessive suffering" defined?

2. What does "relatively natural" mean? (Natural for an animal is in the wild, on its own, in the environment it evolved in.)

In response to both questions, and admitting that I’m no expert on these things, in general I would say that an animal which is not beaten or treated with cruelty, which is given the types of food it naturally desires and not force fed food is wasn’t designed to digest, which is given an environment that attempts to approximate its natural environment (hence the word “releative”) including not being crowded into tiny spaces, being able to see the sunlight, being able to move relatively freely within certain bounds, not being injected with growth hormones and who knows what else, and a slaughtering process that is not alarming, is quick, and painless.

Much love, GLB

I agree that your above description is a giant step forward from where we are generally now. I would throw a party on Pluto if the world changed so. In the meantime every single farmer (like Austin) who farms conscientiously is a ray of light in a dark world.

I still think meat is not necessary at all, and I would like to see humans return their freedom, and their habitats to the animals.