On Whether to Eat Meat

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 10/6/2004 5:04:20 PM Mountain Daylight Time,

CelticCoyote writes:

> The only way I can

> see to solve the problem of killing for food would be to eat nothing and

> starve

> to death.

 

And yet, there are those who eat not, and yet they live...

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 10/6/2004 6:19:42 PM Mountain Daylight Time,

ammasmon writes:

> Accordingly, plants are less evolved than animals than

> humans.

>

 

I do not believe that plant entities have a less evolved consciousness than

animals -- only different -- but that is only my personal belief -- i feel

fairly certain that at least some others will share this belilef with me...

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 10/6/2004 7:29:46 PM Mountain Daylight Time,

malyavan_tibet writes:

>

> Yes, they are like the yogis who perform mind boggling tapas.

> Stand at a place for years together, get nourishment from the earth

> and sun and roam around mentally in the collective :-)).

>

> What distinguishes an animal from a human?

 

I hate to sound dense, ;-| ;-)

But I worked as a secretary for Fractal/Quantum Biologist(s) for a time ( you

know, like some species, they are best identified as Groups, the biologists

), and it was interesting to be, just on the other side of the partition, and

be privvvvy to things, one otherwise not be privy to.

I think, according to them, Plants live in Plant Communities, and so why

should we exclude plants in this consideration.

 

Humbly,

Cathie

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 10/6/04 5:19:10 PM US Mountain Standard Time,

ammasmon writes:

> The consciousness in all entities perceived as matter is the same;

> but the evolution of consciousness in different entities is

> different. Accordingly, plants are less evolved than animals than

> humans.

>

> The logic is this: the higher the evolution of the matter that you

> kill and eat, the more karma you incur.

 

I understand that this is the belief of many here. It is not my belief.

Some believe they are directed to eat meat by the deities they serve. Their

beliefs are no less valid than those of strict vegetarians, and as we all

know, there are many paths to enlightenment. Responding to the person who spoke

on purely economic terms, it is not necessarily true about cost/benefit: aside

from the fact that livestock animals are most likely to be grazed on land that

is unfit for farming anyway, science has found a correspondence, in the

skulls of early humans, between an increase in the intake of protein and the

jump

in brain growth that allows us to formulate these questions today.

 

Our bodies are formed to be omnivores, midway between the features of a

true carnivore and a true vegetarian. Some human races have adapted to eating

higher ratios of meat, and some very little. One can always find economic

reasons for a society's favoring or shunning meat, and often the spiritual

explanations come later in the development of that society. I decided to

respond to

the invitation to join this list with the understanding that: "Although the

Group's orientation is primarily Hindu, we welcome ALL who adore Her through

any tradition. Thus we count among our members Buddhists, Muslims, Christians,

Native Americans, Pagans, Wiccan, and more -- we are a very diverse group, but

all united in our love and worship of Goddess."

 

 

What I am asking is: does that mean only *vegetarian* Pagans, Native

Americans and the like?

 

Is there room here for my beliefs about the nature of plants and animals?

I came here to learn more about Hindu religion and the nature of Shakti, not

to be verbally smacked because of my own beliefs.

 

I am of course not referring to enlightened beings who can subsist on air

and sunlight. I don't think anyone here can claim that mastery, so it is a

moot point, and if I get to that place I won't have to consider this question,

will I?

 

<smile>

 

CC ^..^

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

, CelticCoyote@a... wrote:

>

> But I feel a strong life force from

> plants, as much sentience and self-awareness as from animals, even

if it is more subtle and not as notably active to humans. Many

religions take animals for food after they have precieved their

compliance in the matter. Many people

> have realized previous incarnations as trees or flowers or grains.

 

The consciousness in all entities perceived as matter is the same;

but the evolution of consciousness in different entities is

different. Accordingly, plants are less evolved than animals than

humans.

 

The logic is this: the higher the evolution of the matter that you

kill and eat, the more karma you incur. Let's take a crude example:

you will have to pay more to eat food from a plush restaurant than

MacD's.

 

The point is: the higher the evolution of the matter that you kill

and eat, the higher the price you in terms of karmic re-payment. so,

eating plants/veggies is more economical (financially and karmic-

ally) than animals. This is because while you eat food, there is

some violence involved (you are either killing plant-life or animal

life). Hence, the karma incurred in this event is the re-payment.

 

Remove the emotion from the argument; just use the cold logic of

cost-benefit analysis, and boom! you see why some folks advocate

vegetarianism.

 

Now, on a personal level, you got to decide one thing: if you are

willing to pay the karmic price of eating meat, then all power to

you; else stick to a veggie diet.

 

On a social level, some masters realized that most folks would be

better off in a veggie diet than meat because the spiritual

practices suggested by them are best suited by that diet. The key

there is understanding the guru's instructions and OBEDIENCE.

 

Jai Ma!

[Guest guest]

This is my short answer and my understanding

 

Going Veg would would help one to activate the higher chakras, be more

sensitive, sattwic, which means having. more sensory energy and

control, and attain deeper meditative states. I would say for higher

yogic practices like pranayama, khechari, etc this level of purity

would be required.

 

 

 

, CelticCoyote@a... wrote:

>

> ksimani writes: "Today more and more people go veg - it is sad to

see to remark in the mail."

>

> Um, do you mean it is sad to see a remark about a high number of

meat-eaters, or that more and more people are going veg? Just trying

to clarify the statement...

>

> About this question of whether or not to eat meat: I have long

realized that there is a strong emphasis on vegetarianism within

eastern religions. I assume, until someone enlightens me, that much

of this is to avoid killing animal spirits that may be reincarnating.

But I feel a strong life force from

> plants, as much sentience and self-awareness as from animals, even

if it is more subtle and not as notably active to humans. Many

religions take animals for food after they have precieved their

compliance in the matter. Many people

> have realized previous incarnations as trees or flowers or grains.

>

> I have weighed this matter considerably, and do not see that animals

are

> somehow greater than plants in spirit or right to live. The only

way I can

> see to solve the problem of killing for food would be to eat nothing

and starve

> to death. One can try to argue that plants offer seeds and fruit,

but if you

> eat a carrot, you've killed that carrot, and one might see the

offspring of

> animals as akin to seeds. In a field where mice overbreed, the fox

breeds

> greater numbers to keep the mouse population in check. Life

consumes life, and to live, one kills and eats - there is no way

around it. The fact that one eats something so unlike oneself that

they can justify it as not the "same" as

> killing a more similar being seems wrong to me.

>

> I am asking my question purely on religious or spiritual grounds - I

> don't want to even get started on the physical reasons and evidence

for whether or not to eat meat, as that will just get started down

another long meandering

> path that is not the apparent focus of this group.

>

> What I would like to know is: is there a place for my understanding and

> beliefs in this matter in this system? I must say, I do like

reading the sage

> comments by those here who are advanced in the Hindu religious

practices; some

> of them are quite enlightening and at the very least make me think

very hard.

>

>

> CC ^..^

[Guest guest]

Yes, they are like the yogis who perform mind boggling tapas.

Stand at a place for years together, get nourishment from the earth

and sun and roam around mentally in the collective :-)).

 

What distinguishes an animal from a human?

 

 

, SophiasHeaven@a... wrote:

> In a message dated 10/6/2004 6:19:42 PM Mountain Daylight Time,

> ammasmon@s... writes:

>

> > Accordingly, plants are less evolved than animals than

> > humans.

> >

>

> I do not believe that plant entities have a less evolved

consciousness than

> animals -- only different -- but that is only my personal belief --

i feel

> fairly certain that at least some others will share this belilef

with me...

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

They are in a sense more evolved, herbs and plants, so there it is the

reason for vegetarianism and use of herbs by yogis. More sattwic

tantra :-). Instead of embodying lower spirits, resonating with and

embodying higher spirits.

 

, SophiasHeaven@a... wrote:

> In a message dated 10/6/2004 7:29:46 PM Mountain Daylight Time,

> malyavan_tibet writes:

>

> >

> > Yes, they are like the yogis who perform mind boggling tapas.

> > Stand at a place for years together, get nourishment from the earth

> > and sun and roam around mentally in the collective :-)).

> >

> > What distinguishes an animal from a human?

>

> I hate to sound dense, ;-| ;-)

> But I worked as a secretary for Fractal/Quantum Biologist(s) for a

time ( you

> know, like some species, they are best identified as Groups, the

biologists

> ), and it was interesting to be, just on the other side of the

partition, and

> be privvvvy to things, one otherwise not be privy to.

> I think, according to them, Plants live in Plant Communities, and so

why

> should we exclude plants in this consideration.

>

> Humbly,

> Cathie

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

, SophiasHeaven@a... wrote:

> In a message dated 10/6/2004 6:19:42 PM Mountain Daylight Time,

> ammasmon@s... writes:

>

> > Accordingly, plants are less evolved than animals than

> > humans.

> >

>

> I do not believe that plant entities have a less evolved

consciousness than

> animals -- only different -- but that is only my personal belief --

i feel

> fairly certain that at least some others will share this belilef

with me...

 

 

I guess you can believe anything you wish to, just as I can too.

 

But, it's better to assess status with facts, here are mine.

 

plants can feel, but not move.

 

animals can feel and move and maybe perceive dimly (instinctually).

 

Humans can feel and move and perceive and think (instictually,

rationally as well as intuitively, if you care to see the last two

aspects as different).

 

what do i attribute these qualities to these entities? by observation

of their natures, habitats, and their strengths.

 

there is the evolution of consciousness demonstrated ....

 

let me ask you a shocker... if meat-eating is not bad and

consciousness is only different amongst the various entities, why

don't humans generally eat human meat?

 

if you felt a revulsion while reading this, i guess it's because even

you instinctively know that THAT'S GOING TOO FAR TO SURVIVE while you

have other options (like veggies and white and red meat and seafood

etc). the esoteric reason is the heavy karma you will incur by that

act which everyone feels but can't reason out just so. (don't tell me

cannibals eat humans; i am only talking of civilized humans here.

besides i believe they pay the price for that too. how and where, i

don't know; i am not god).

 

i am a simple guy; i know what i can afford to spend in life. i am

veggie, but i bear no grudges against my meat-eating friends. it's

their life and their decision.

 

jai ma!

[Guest guest]

sattic tantra uses vegetarian food and herbs precisely for this.

Purifying the body so more subtle and higher world spirits can embody

us than lower world spirits.

 

Pradeep

 

, SophiasHeaven@a... wrote:

> In a message dated 10/6/2004 7:29:46 PM Mountain Daylight Time,

> malyavan_tibet writes:

>

> >

> > Yes, they are like the yogis who perform mind boggling tapas.

> > Stand at a place for years together, get nourishment from the earth

> > and sun and roam around mentally in the collective :-)).

> >

> > What distinguishes an animal from a human?

>

> I hate to sound dense, ;-| ;-)

> But I worked as a secretary for Fractal/Quantum Biologist(s) for a

time ( you

> know, like some species, they are best identified as Groups, the

biologists

> ), and it was interesting to be, just on the other side of the

partition, and

> be privvvvy to things, one otherwise not be privy to.

> I think, according to them, Plants live in Plant Communities, and so

why

> should we exclude plants in this consideration.

>

> Humbly,

> Cathie

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

You seem to put kali in the heirarchy atleast. You worshipping kali is

a heirarchy. Kali worshippers does not say " I am Kali". Shiva

worshippers at the end say "I am Shiva"

[Guest guest]

part of srividya is called "Kali Kula".

 

malyavan_tibet <malyavan_tibet wrote:

You seem to put kali in the heirarchy atleast. You worshipping kali is

a heirarchy. Kali worshippers does not say " I am Kali". Shiva

worshippers at the end say "I am Shiva"

 

 

 

 

 

/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

vote. - Register online to vote today!

 

 

[Guest guest]

Means Kalis family right?. Is it the same as " I am Kali"

, sankara menon <kochu1tz>

wrote:

> part of srividya is called "Kali Kula".

[Guest guest]

, "Ellen McGowen"

<ellen.mcgowen@w...> wrote:> Plants are *exactly* as evolved as humans: about

four billion > years.

 

False. Taking age as the only criterion to determine evolution is

like saying "I am also 21, so I am Tara Lipinski". Evolution is a

question of maturity also, of living responsively to be able to

master the vagaries of the world. In that sense, humans come to the

top.

> Kali Ma does notcreate hierarchies among Her children. Only

> patriarchal men do that.

 

Mostly true. I would replace "patriarchical men" with "humankind".

Realizing that you have an unsually strong bias against men, I would

not even spend time to reason out my "humankind" stance, even if you

draw me to it.

> The hierarchy is the illusion.

Hierarchy maybe an illusion, but it an illusion we have to contend

with. The illusion affects our everyday lives, and that's the reason

we have to "organize and categorize" it to grow spiritually.

 

if there were no illusion, where is the need to grow spiritually? we

would have been already perfect (aka enlightened).

> Jai Ma, Kali!

> Ellen

 

Jai Ma!

[Guest guest]

When the massacre in the nepal royals happened i remember a news

saying they had a ritual of making a brahmin eat beef(someone who

previously never ate beef) and make him go away from that kingdom.

(ostracize). I was wondering the subtle meaning. Is this brahmins body

meant to be a vehicle for the departed spirit?.

 

Killing usually creates a subtle body(spirit) which cannot let go of

the memories easily. So instead of going to other realms it hangs out

in the same realm seeking some revenge. And this ultimately causes

violence.

 

A peaceful state is more liberating than a violent state of mind.

Since a violent state of mind is like a turbulent lake and the bottom

is not seen.

 

IMHO :-)

 

In , CelticCoyote@a... wrote:

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 10/7/2004 3:34:20 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

ellen.mcgowen writes:

We *were* "enlightened" before patriarchy was violently imposed. No

need to reinvent the wheel.

Patriarchy violently imposed? What do you suggest we replace it with to

benefit mankind?

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 10/7/04 11:07:41 AM US Mountain Standard Time,

malyavan_tibet writes:

> Killing usually creates a subtle body(spirit) which cannot let go of

> the memories easily. So instead of going to other realms it hangs out

> in the same realm seeking some revenge. And this ultimately causes

> violence.

>

>

 

I infer here - please let me know whether I am wrong - that you view

taking animals for food as killing and violence, but the taking of plants for

food

as somehow not really killing or somehow less violent. I do not see it this

way. Being killed can feel as frightening or as inevitable to any being that

is being slaughtered, plant or animal - this is what I have come to believe

very deeply and I have since discovered that tests on plants have proven the

depth of their awareness of the world around them and threats to their

well-being. Some types of killing may be much more subtle to our human senses,

and

therefore more difficult for us humans to take notice of. But that doesn't make

it any less violent to the being that is taken, be it plant or animal.

 

On my own path, treating all beings with respect, even if I need to eat

them to survive, and making peace with the beings I kill and thanking them for

providing sustenance - be it a chicken or a head of cabbage - is important.

My own culturally biased learnings and perceptions of some living beings as

"lesser" because they have evolved to be unmoving or have no vocalizations (or,

for that matter, because they do not do higher math or drive a car) are not an

excuse to kill without consciousness of what I am doing, or an excuse to

pretend that killing one life - animal or vegetable - is more or less moral or

right than killing another.

 

I don't disagree that a life-force, soul, whatever one wishes to call it,

feels a need for vengeance if it feels its killing was unjustified. Many

peoples around the world have developed solemn rituals that they perform when

killing a food animal, asking that it donate its life, appeasing its spirit, and

showing it proper respect and even love. They feel that if an animal agrees

to the sacrifice - and food animals know they are prey for hunting animals, so

they have an understanding of their place in the wheel of life just as food

plants do - the desire for vengeance is avoided. This system makes perfect

sense to me, and while I was never trained in a formal method of doing this, I

privately express my gratitude to any plant or animal that has given its life to

sustain me.

 

CC ^..^

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

My understanding is plants etc are exist more in the upper realms.

Their mind field is a collective mind field, so taking some body of

it, will not affect the mind field totally.

 

I have read in naturopathy(indian version) that humans are

frugivorous. Fruit eaters. Taking fruits from a plant, tree would not

cause much pain. Its like drawing milk out of breasts And the seed is

thrown which helps the trees/plants to propogate also.

 

Second reason is non vegetarian food has less prana in it. It is more

decayed, stored before consuming. Something left to decay is more

dense, and so is tamasic. Prana being important to shakti sadhana.

 

Well this is my 2 cents, dont know any more than this :-)

 

 

, CelticCoyote@a... wrote:

>

> In a message dated 10/7/04 11:07:41 AM US Mountain Standard Time,

> malyavan_tibet writes:

>

> > Killing usually creates a subtle body(spirit) which cannot let go of

> > the memories easily. So instead of going to other realms it hangs out

> > in the same realm seeking some revenge. And this ultimately causes

> > violence.

> >

> >

>

> I infer here - please let me know whether I am wrong - that you

view

> taking animals for food as killing and violence, but the taking of

plants for food

> as somehow not really killing or somehow less violent. I do not see

it this

> way. Being killed can feel as frightening or as inevitable to any

being that

> is being slaughtered, plant or animal - this is what I have come to

believe

> very deeply and I have since discovered that tests on plants have

proven the

> depth of their awareness of the world around them and threats to their

> well-being. Some types of killing may be much more subtle to our

human senses, and

> therefore more difficult for us humans to take notice of. But that

doesn't make

> it any less violent to the being that is taken, be it plant or animal.

>

> On my own path, treating all beings with respect, even if I need

to eat

> them to survive, and making peace with the beings I kill and

thanking them for

> providing sustenance - be it a chicken or a head of cabbage - is

important.

> My own culturally biased learnings and perceptions of some living

beings as

> "lesser" because they have evolved to be unmoving or have no

vocalizations (or,

> for that matter, because they do not do higher math or drive a car)

are not an

> excuse to kill without consciousness of what I am doing, or an

excuse to

> pretend that killing one life - animal or vegetable - is more or

less moral or

> right than killing another.

>

> I don't disagree that a life-force, soul, whatever one wishes to

call it,

> feels a need for vengeance if it feels its killing was unjustified.

Many

> peoples around the world have developed solemn rituals that they

perform when

> killing a food animal, asking that it donate its life, appeasing its

spirit, and

> showing it proper respect and even love. They feel that if an

animal agrees

> to the sacrifice - and food animals know they are prey for hunting

animals, so

> they have an understanding of their place in the wheel of life just

as food

> plants do - the desire for vengeance is avoided. This system makes

perfect

> sense to me, and while I was never trained in a formal method of

doing this, I

> privately express my gratitude to any plant or animal that has given

its life to

> sustain me.

>

> CC ^..^

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

What Ellen do you think about the Vajrayana?

-

Ellen McGowen

Thursday, October 07, 2004 8:11 PM

Re: Re: On Whether to Eat Meat

 

 

 

>>We *were* "enlightened" before patriarchy was violently imposed.

>>No need to reinvent the wheel.

>Patriarchy violently imposed?

 

Yes, dear, violently. That's what the Bronze Age invasions of Europe and

India were about,

violently installing patriarchy through military force. If you want to

learn more about this subject

read Riane Eisler's book The Chalice and the Blade. That is the best staring

point. She has a web

site also, at www.partnershipway.org

> What do you suggest we replace it with to benefit mankind?

 

A childrearing system that does not train males to self monitor against

nurturing. See www.gift-economy.com/

 

That is the way to secure Ma's Jai.

 

In Her Name,

Ellen

 

 

 

 

 

 

/

 

b..

 

c..

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

" installing patriarchy through military force...

 

What do you suggest we replace it with to benefit mankind?

 

A childrearing system that does not train males to self monitor

against nurturing."

 

 

There seems to be some misconception in feminist circles that

men are violent rulers while women because of a supposed

nurturing proclivity are non-violent rulers who govern through

consultation and have only everyone's best interests at heart.

 

The facts do not support this nonsense.

 

There have been three notable female heads of state in recent

history: 1. Golda Meir, 2. Margaret Thatcher, 3. Indira Gandhi. All

three ruthlessly suppressed minorities in their countries,

sometimes with bloodshed and expulsion and sometimes with

more sophisticated economic means. Meir would be considered

a terrorist by today's standards as she stole land over the bodies

of tens of thousands of Palestinians for use by her own tribe.

 

Let's put this ridiculous notion of women governing differently

from men out of its misery. Those who govern nations or

would-be nations have to be ruthless and will have their way no

matter what regardless of their gender.

 

And, as I don't want to start a political debate here as it would be

inappropriate, let's not have an avalanche of vituperative

response. The point is that when it comes to government and to

the spiritual path there is no consistent difference between men

and women.

 

Omprem

 

 

 

 

,

"Detective_Mongo_Phd" <detective_mongo_phd@h...> wrote:

> What Ellen do you think about the Vajrayana?

> -

> Ellen McGowen

>

> Thursday, October 07, 2004 8:11 PM

> Re: Re: On Whether to Eat Meat

>

>

>

>

> >>We *were* "enlightened" before patriarchy was violently

imposed.

> >>No need to reinvent the wheel.

>

> >Patriarchy violently imposed?

>

> Yes, dear, violently. That's what the Bronze Age invasions of

Europe and

> India were about,

> violently installing patriarchy through military force. If you want

to

> learn more about this subject

> read Riane Eisler's book The Chalice and the Blade. That is

the best staring

> point. She has a web

> site also, at www.partnershipway.org

>

> > What do you suggest we replace it with to benefit mankind?

>

> A childrearing system that does not train males to self

monitor against

> nurturing. See www.gift-economy.com/

>

> That is the way to secure Ma's Jai.

>

> In Her Name,

> Ellen

Sponsor

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Links

>

>

> /

>

> b..

>

>

> c.. Terms

of Service.

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

I second that. This "gender wars" bickering is not only tiring, but very

hypocritical for the "man-hating" side. Do not get me wrong, I loathe the

man-over-woman mindset, but what makes the woman-over-man mindset any

different? No offense, but I see both the same...just different sides of

the fence.

 

 

Blessings,

>"omprem" <omprem

>

>

> Re: On Whether to Eat Meat

>Sun, 10 Oct 2004 23:54:28 -0000

>

>

>" installing patriarchy through military force...

>

> What do you suggest we replace it with to benefit mankind?

>

> A childrearing system that does not train males to self monitor

>against nurturing."

>

>

>There seems to be some misconception in feminist circles that

>men are violent rulers while women because of a supposed

>nurturing proclivity are non-violent rulers who govern through

>consultation and have only everyone's best interests at heart.

>

>The facts do not support this nonsense.

>

>There have been three notable female heads of state in recent

>history: 1. Golda Meir, 2. Margaret Thatcher, 3. Indira Gandhi. All

>three ruthlessly suppressed minorities in their countries,

>sometimes with bloodshed and expulsion and sometimes with

>more sophisticated economic means. Meir would be considered

>a terrorist by today's standards as she stole land over the bodies

>of tens of thousands of Palestinians for use by her own tribe.

>

>Let's put this ridiculous notion of women governing differently

>from men out of its misery. Those who govern nations or

>would-be nations have to be ruthless and will have their way no

>matter what regardless of their gender.

>

>And, as I don't want to start a political debate here as it would be

>inappropriate, let's not have an avalanche of vituperative

>response. The point is that when it comes to government and to

>the spiritual path there is no consistent difference between men

>and women.

>

>Omprem

>

>

>

>

>,

>"Detective_Mongo_Phd" <detective_mongo_phd@h...> wrote:

> > What Ellen do you think about the Vajrayana?

> > -

> > Ellen McGowen

> >

> > Thursday, October 07, 2004 8:11 PM

> > Re: Re: On Whether to Eat Meat

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > >>We *were* "enlightened" before patriarchy was violently

>imposed.

> > >>No need to reinvent the wheel.

> >

> > >Patriarchy violently imposed?

> >

> > Yes, dear, violently. That's what the Bronze Age invasions of

>Europe and

> > India were about,

> > violently installing patriarchy through military force. If you want

>to

> > learn more about this subject

> > read Riane Eisler's book The Chalice and the Blade. That is

>the best staring

> > point. She has a web

> > site also, at www.partnershipway.org

> >

> > > What do you suggest we replace it with to benefit mankind?

> >

> > A childrearing system that does not train males to self

>monitor against

> > nurturing. See www.gift-economy.com/

> >

> > That is the way to secure Ma's Jai.

> >

> > In Her Name,

> > Ellen

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > Sponsor

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

>

> > Links

> >

> >

> > /

> >

> > b..

> >

> >

> > c.. Terms

>of Service.

> >

> >

> >

> >

>

>

>

 

_______________

Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!

hthttp://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/

[Guest guest]

It just shows the necessity of "saying grace" before

every meal, to thank God for having provided

sustenance for you to live through another day, and to

help negate the curses of the animal or vegetable

soulls that may be lingering around, and also to help

assimilate the energies on every level.

Lilith M.

--- CelticCoyote wrote:

> I don't disagree that a life-force, soul,

> whatever one wishes to call it,

> feels a need for vengeance if it feels its killing

> was unjustified. Many

> peoples around the world have developed solemn

> rituals that they perform when

> killing a food animal, asking that it donate its

> life, appeasing its spirit, and

> showing it proper respect and even love. They feel

> that if an animal agrees

> to the sacrifice - and food animals know they are

> prey for hunting animals, so

> they have an understanding of their place in the

> wheel of life just as food

> plants do - the desire for vengeance is avoided.

> This system makes perfect

> sense to me, and while I was never trained in a

> formal method of doing this, I

> privately express my gratitude to any plant or

> animal that has given its life to

> sustain me.

>

> CC ^..^

>

>

> [Non-text portions of this message have been

> removed]

>

>

>

>

>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Well, maybe in India, but people like the Inuit might

have something otherwise to say. Different climates

require different diets. It's easy to live on fruit

when you got it going on 365 days a year, or if you

live in America, where fresh fruit is shipped in from

all over. But with oil prices the way they are, pretty

soon those particular fruit supplies may very well

start drying up, or be priced out of the reach of

many.

Lilith M.

--- malyavan_tibet <malyavan_tibet wrote:

>

>

> My understanding is plants etc are exist more in the

> upper realms.

> Their mind field is a collective mind field, so

> taking some body of

> it, will not affect the mind field totally.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 10/12/2004 7:20:17 AM Mountain Daylight Time,

sephirah5 writes:

> Well, maybe in India, but people like the Inuit might

> have something otherwise to say. Different climates

> require different diets. It's easy to live on fruit

> when you got it going on 365 days a year, or if you

> live in America, where fresh fruit is shipped in from

> all over. But with oil prices the way they are, pretty

> soon those particular fruit supplies may very well

> start drying up, or be priced out of the reach of

> many.

> Lilith M.

 

Grains keep fresh all winter, as do seeds, and can be sprouted.

Lentil sprouts are high in protein and tasty.

You can use flax seeds soaked with soaked and drained sesame and sunflower

seeds, and a little lemon and salt (or Bragg's Liquid Amino) to make great

dehydrator crackers that are rich in healthy oils that feed the brain and body..

 

Nuts keep all winter as well. Sesame are high in calcium.

 

Quinoa grain is highest in calcium of allother grains.

I'm sure I'm leaving something out of this picture, but a person can easily

live on the things mentioned above.

 

Blessings,

Cathie

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Ekken ,

 

May I know which scripture have you taken this from ?

 

 

A garland of flowers represents yonis and represents abundant fertility. Kali is

the Grim Reaper, Grandmother Time.

Her necklace of warlords' heads is a clear message from the conquered to the

conqueror .

 

Grandmother Time says.: "I WILL REAP YOU".

 

 

Jai Maa!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

vote. - Register online to vote today!