Jump to content
IndiaDivine.org

there is nothing agressive in my position

Rate this topic


Guest guest

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

It is defensive.

 

I would like to express a viewpoint different from the partially

thought out positions presented here.

 

All of the issues discussed here are understood since ancient

times.Many think they have reinvented the wheel - this is because of

their limited understanding of the history and traditions of the

issues involved.

 

Plus yesterday Todd attacked Ayurvedic traditions - vegetarians - and

Indian culture. Doesn't this demand response - Gandhiji always

thought one should never let people intimidate you into submission.

He never gave even one inch to those who would try to shut him up.

This is the job of the mature people in society.

 

It is curious that vegetarians are somehow thought of as passive.

Vegetarians need not be made to feel inferior to the meateaters. For

many here the idea is ludicrous. Of course to try to demonstrate the

validity of the teachings of our Guru's in short arguments is not

possible.

as an example wants me to provide my B12 test results - and he

wants references for my assertions. I wonder if the Vedic scholars -

Ghandi - Vivekananda - Chinmayananda - the Shankaracharyas - Tagore -

Sri Ramakrishnan - Lord Krishna himself - Issac Newton - William

Blake - need to present their B12 results or site their sources.

 

This intellectual approach is useless and is not the one that best

demonstrates the truths of Ayurveda. Few of the leading Vaidyas in

the world know anything of these western scientific concepts. Yet

this in no way keeps them from understanding the patient and what is

needed to cure or treat the disease. The modern western research

model is not helpful for India since we already see the results of

having the pharmaceutical companies fund studies. There is really no

other research mechimnism in India.

 

Ayurveda and natural law in general is self evident and needs no

further validation. Actually it seems that those who are doubtful of

their own positions often hide behind studies - valid or not. It

absolves one from self responsibility.

 

If defense of our science,religion, race, and culture is an old mans

agression - I accept the role - since my God (Krishna and Rama) - my

Guru's and influences (such as Gandhi and Vivekananda) were not

shrinking violets - and advocated a strong defense.

 

I am not exactly sure what Noel thinks is my main fault - defending

myself and my traditions - being 64 - expressing an alternative

view???

 

I did not realize that one must submit to some particular PC code

here. I am not good at that - because I think for myself. I also

generally do not try to bolster my opinions with any other authority

or referances than the scriptures because all other intellectual

positions are mear speculation - no matter how broadly one has read

into the research.

 

Here is something I wrote about research for another forum -

 

If one goes into any group of people studying in this area (as well

as any other field you might want to mention) there will be as many

theories as there are people.

 

Several months ago I participated in a seminar in London on Genetic

Profiling in population studies. The theme of the seminar was the

unreliability of depending on research to define any issue. A man and

wife team from Berlin presented a demonstration showing how one can

prove almost any position one might propose. They took several

subjects and demonstrated the opposing sides and the incontrovertible

evidence on both sides.

 

One of the demonstrations was the popular controversy between the

vegetarians and meat eaters. He presented dozens of major studies

done in US - Japan - Europe that proved beyond a shadow of a doubt

that those who do not live on a high protein (animal flesh and fat)

low carbohydrate diet do not thrive and develop almost every known

physical disorder. He only took the least controversial - most

rigorously conducted impartial studies. Remember researchers above

all others are suspicious of studies because they know that a large

percentage of studies are designed for various intellectual and

financial reasons that are not related to scientific objectives.

The list was long of disorders associated with low protein high

carbohydrate diet.

 

The wife offered her presentation that refuted - with equally

rigorous research - the ravages of a high protein - low carbohydrate

diet. In these studies animal proteins and fats are demonstrated to

be major contributing factors in heart disease - cancer (especially

the evidence for the relationship of animal fats to breast and

prostate cancers)- arthritis - on and on.

 

One set of studies proved with out a doubt that eating animal

proteins and fats is toxic and will destroy health and that eating a

diet of natural grains, legumes, natural produced vegetable fats,

fruits, and vegetables is in and of itself restorative and healing

from many of these disorders - the other set of studies proves that

those eating a low animal protein, low animal fat, diet die early

from various degenerative processes. Many studies show that if one

switches to red meat and low glycemic foods one will rapidly and

permanently solve all of your metabolic disorders.

 

The fact is one can prove any point one wants with studies. That is

why one must have a personal overview of the subject one is

interested in otherwise one is at the mercy of studies and theories

that demonstrate little more than the intellectual or financial

interests of either the researcher or those funding the study.

 

I like the tendency of ordinary people becoming authorities in the

field of self healing and antiaging and many other areas of life. The

more one knows about oneself the better chance one has of solving the

problems that arise in life. But one tendency among some nouveau

researchers is that they often fall for the trap of throwing away all

evidence that does not fit their model. I believe the opposite

approach is more useful - study everything and slowly your own path

will start unfolding. It is a natural path.

 

I in no way see my struggle to expand my own and others consciousness

on this subject as a battle with you or your ideas or ideals. Ideas

exist in an abstract place where all things are ultimately true and

just as ultimately false. Not you,me, or anyone else has all of the

answers. But maybe you have part of the puzzle for yourself - and I

have part of it for myself.

 

Actually I am much less interested in theories than in practical

experience. I know very well that there are many people in the

internet who are setting in front of their computers in their

underwear - drinking chemical cocktails - smoking pot - overweight -

depressed - compulsive - lethargic - manic - angry - etc. who are

passing themselves off as scientific authorities. I know one person

in the Internet who weighs more than 400 pounds who thinks of himself

as a world authority on ideal diets. One must be alert and the best

defense against this trap is to know thoroughly all sides of the

issues.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ayurveda, "Noel" <sattva@p...> wrote:

> Dear Vinod

>

> I find it curious that a 64 year old vegetarian is so

> aggressive. Please forgive me if I have offended you. I was just

voicing my

> opinion; it wasn't intended to be a personal attack. Bless you my

friend.

> .... Noel ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest

>

> Plus yesterday Todd attacked Ayurvedic traditions - vegetarians - and

> Indian culture.

 

when did I do this Vinod?

it is clear that you misread & misinterpreted my comments

jumped to conclusions, made your assertions and attacks,

and then evaded responsibility for this

 

my apologies to those of you on the list who are bored/tired/shocked by the

nature and tone of the discussion

 

in internet terminology, i was 'flamed'

something that most internet protocols define as undesirable

 

obviously Vinod has felt some affrontry to anti-vegetarian web sites out there,

and she has channeled her pent up angst towards them against me

 

i'm sorry, but I refuse to play windmill to Vinod's Don Qixote

 

i have been passionately interested in Ayurveda and Indian culture for more than

ten years

i have studied Ayurveda from my teacher here in Canada (who by the way is a

vegetarian and a ISKCON member), and from my teachers in Kerala (some of whom

were Hindus, other Christians)

 

I have studied (north) Indian classical vocal, tabla, mrdangam and shanai

 

my second son was even born in India!

 

i have traveled all over India, from Goa to Orissa, from Tamil Nad to Punjab,

and enjoyed elements of every aspect of India culture: the people, the food, the

music, the movies: everything!

 

ALL, except the kind of fundamentalist "hindu" ethic and non-sectarian violence

that resulted in Ayodha: this I have also come across too often

 

Here in Canada I teach Ayurvedic medicine as part of a three yr clinical

training program in Western herbal medicine, and use Ayurveda in my daily

practice and personal life

 

I think its pretty clear, unless the criteria that Vinod maintains is purely

racial, that I have a strong and deep interest and passion for Ayurveda and

Indian culture, vegetarianism notwithstanding

 

 

>

as an example wants me to provide my B12 test results - and he

> wants references for my assertions. I wonder if the Vedic scholars -

> Ghandi - Vivekananda - Chinmayananda - the Shankaracharyas - Tagore -

> Sri Ramakrishnan - Lord Krishna himself - Issac Newton - William

> Blake - need to present their B12 results or site their sources.

 

Vinod, with all humility, are you saying you are in the same class as these

people?

 

you have more or less insinuated that asking for references or evidence is akin

to being a fanatic,

and hence have accused me of being a fanatic

 

***all for saying that vegetarianism has nothing to do with Ayurveda***

 

this has been my thesis at the outset, and every kind of argument has been

thrown at

me, except that nobody has contradicted this statement

 

my mistake was to even try to bother addressing the extracurricular arguments,

but I have to say, some of them are just so silly and twisted (like all the

major world religions support vegetarianism!), that i gave in to them

 

for all concerned, i ask for references b/c this one way to validate an argument

otherwise the argument goes round and round

 

Vinod's insistence on not providing references and even disparaging the WHOLE

CONCEPT of providing evidence has made this debate a lot longer and more

convoluted than needed

 

i'm sorry, but I have a scholarly ethic: what is fanatical about providing

sources of knowledge that others can digest and verify for themselves?

doesn't it seem rather more fanatic to say something is so, and then have no

evidence

to back it up?

 

isn't it this same kind of willingness to state explicit opinions based on

nothing except prejudice that allows for the true atrocities to happen? Some of

you may criticize science and academia, especially when it is funded by big

corporate interests, but my assertion is that well-thought out arguments

supported by relevant data is a respectable way to debate any issue, and it is

gold standard in every center of learning, India included

 

i'm not asking for scientific papers from Vinod except where the comments relate

to assertions about science

 

as far as Ayurveda goes, I also ask for references here as well, because if I'm

wrong I would like to know - if Vinod or any of you can find any comment in the

greater or lesser triad of Ayurvedic texts that states that vegetarianism is an

important principle of Ayurveda I shall prostrate myself before you and clearly

and humbly state that I am wrong

 

 

>

> Ayurveda and natural law in general is self evident and needs no

> further validation.

 

Despite the implications of what you are saying, there is good evidence that

Ayurveda is a heterodox tradition; for this I refer you and everyone else to

Kenneth Zysk's text "Asceticism and Healing in Ancient India"

 

in this text, Zysk makes the argument that it was the wandering vedic bhishaj,

and later, the wandering buddhist monks (and the essentially buddhist

uinversities such Taxashila and Nilanda), that made many of the innovations in

Ayurveda, especially those that relate to the mundane, but important elements of

Ayurveda such as herbal medicine (my speciality and interest)

 

this is paralled in the work of other wandering herbalists such as the

rhizomotoki of ancient Greece, of which Dioscorides is part, as well as the

modern day hakim of Unani medicine

 

Zysk contends that the bhishaj had an empirical bias towards Ayurveda, unlike

the magico-religious approach to healing of the brahmanic elite; the sruggle

between these two basic approaches is long evident in almost every culture: I

count myself among the former

 

its an interesting read, but perhaps only if you have an open mind...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest

>

> ALL, except the kind of fundamentalist "hindu" ethic and non-sectarian

violence

that resulted in Ayodha: this I have also come across too often

 

sorry, i meant Ayodhya

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...