Guest guest Posted March 2, 2006 Report Share Posted March 2, 2006 All such humble deserves to be respected as it is truth like science.If man makes science and man is biased how the product can remain as non biased. It is only penchant that classify as biased and non biased krishnan surya vishnu <surya_prakashvi wrote: Science is as much a bias as non-science. Higher and unifying truths than science or religion are experience/awareness and application ... My humble opinion .. Surya. Tanvir <ultimate wrote: Dear Prashant Ji As you have said it from a scientific angle I would like to try replying you in the same manner. #1 While science admits that eating vegetable is better for living longer, better health and everything, it also does say clearly that egg is still the BEST PROTEIN available in this planet. Egg is the best form in where the composition is best for human health. If you have the slighest doubt you can check from any good dietary / medical source. #2 Recently Harvard Medical School has published a revolutionary result that eating eggs has NO SORT OF RELATION with heart problems even though egg has fats. They did so much research over so many years and they did not get ANY evidence to relate egg consumption with heart problems. Any little search over the net can tell the full story. #3 Modern science also clearly speaks that most of the Vegetable proteins are LOW CLASS proteins and they cannot play the role of protein (ie maintenance of body) and so at last they are used by the body to make energies. It means most of the vegetable proteins do not really work as proteins or does what a good protein does. #4 On the other hand most of the animal proteins are rated as FIRST CLASS SOURCES of proteins by dietecians and doctors. Porks, beefs, muttons have fat problems, but then no one forces you to eat them. Take chicken, fish, they are free from health threats. #5 Scientifically humans are not purely vegetarian nor purely non-vegetarian. They are mixed and this has a separate scientific name, and this is seen through the body composition of human. Vegetarians say that human teeth are like those of vegetarian animals, but wrong. Humans actually have mixed structure of teeth and they still have sharp corner teeth looking slightly like tigers and meat eating animals. A plant eating animal does not have enough strength in it's jaw to crush meat, but human have. Nature has given human enough strong jaw to shew and crush meat. Scientific research shows cow etc do not have that strong jaw. #6 Let us not be childish enough to compare it with an elephant because to follow it in other things we must get back to pure wild life and not face the adverse effect of using technology that is on our health. A tortuise lives nearly 200 years cannot really suggest a life of it's style and a diet of it's similar one. Contrary to your statement all the plant living animals are weak ones like cow, goat etc while the meat eaters are tigers, lions etc. and when talking about strength we give examples of the tigers and lions only. The strength of an elephant lies in it's big size and the strength of a tiger versus the same strength of an elephant OF SAME SIZE should be considered. Now kindly do not tell me that eating plants makes elephant that big ! Joking... If anyone can logically convince me, I am ALWAYS open to be convinced. I was born in a Muslim family where beling in any other gods than Allah or worshipping it means the highest possible sin which can be never forgiven. But I practice Hinduism and do mantras because I see it works. I think there is a Sanskrit proverb that what works is the truth and what does not work in practice is not the truth. Science has no bias. It is discovering more and more of the same and we must also gradually know the problems of traditions if they teach something wrong. The way a small tablet makes a scary heart pain go away, the way humen landed on the moon, the way we are communicating data this fast - are all for the science. Only science prevails. Science has also defeated the fanatics by making it possible to make a girl child without the involvement of any male human being. Many fanatics called that it is going against Gods creation. But if God would be unhappy to reveal this magic to human then he would never even allow human to be this wise and knowledgeable to reveal this magic of God. It is God's own mysterious power to create living beings and if he does not want, human could never be this advanced in science to reveal this. How can you know Gods mysterious knowledge if he does not want to let you know? The simple laws of physics, chemistry, biology are the laws of the magics of God, who is maintaining this creation with the laws and as much of it human is knowing, as much less mysterious God is becoming. God is now getting all exposed and all non-mysterious and may be one day God will be revealed to all ! In ancient days people explained storms as the anger or fights among Gods but now it is all simply revealed as simple natural incidents. Gravity is a rule of God but then man has learned to ignore it too and flying really heavy, big aeroplanes. God is not remaining God anymore. Human are being Gods day by day. Nothing to deny it really. Human could not yet conquer death but when a dying patient hopes to survive, that HOPE is also made possible by science. Science is unbaised. Science is the truth. Let the truth win. Regards Tanvir What cannot happen, can never happen. Which is mine, is forever mine. http://www.jyotish-remedies.com - Vedic Astrology (Jyotish) Predictive astrology with incredibly powerful problem solving remedies Where relief and solutions are found - Prashant Kumar G B Wednesday, March 01, 2006 10:42 PM Re: Morality Maniv, Tanvir We agree with Mani he is right in his observation, notings one great votary to this veg is ELEPHANT THE MOST POWERFUL, STRONG ANIMAL isa vegetarian, lives long, helps every animal, plant, etc lives prety long too. where as the carnovorous don't. Martina Navratiolva played that long as she had a 100% veg diet, her blood chemsitry wa s15 yrs younger it iis said. she has writtena bok on diet so pl read it. Prashant SURRENDER JOYFULLY TO THE WILL OF THE ULTIMATE DIVINITY AND RELISH THE TASTE OF ABSOLUTE BLISS. Vedic astrology Astrology chart Astrology software Visit your group "" on the web. Mail Bring photos to life! New PhotoMail makes sharing a breeze. SURRENDER JOYFULLY TO THE WILL OF THE ULTIMATE DIVINITY AND RELISH THE TASTE OF ABSOLUTE BLISS. Vedic astrology Astrology chart Astrology software Visit your group "" on the web. Relax. Mail virus scanning helps detect nasty viruses! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 2, 2006 Report Share Posted March 2, 2006 There is a very famous book in Telugu called "khandana Khanda Khadyam" ... it extensively deals with application of logic/arguments to prove everything and disprove everything ... Just amused Tanvir <ultimate wrote: Dear Maniv Ji I like the idea that you are coming forward with what you think to be correct. As I always say, I am always open minded and would accept any new idea that I feel logical and practical. I think without this quality, one can never learn anything. If one only believes what he is taught in childhood, knowledge stops there forever. I am always open minded and would welcome any logical discussion to find an answer (even if different from mine) and if one can convince me, I am open to take that without any hesitation. Now let us go back to the original topic. #1. You write- "'Killing', as you label it, for the sake of ones sustenance, especially when there remains no practical alternative is not immoral in any way. Indulging in the consumption of meat does not fit this criteria as there exist ample alternatives" MY ANSWER: Do you really see what are you saying? "Indulging in the consumption of meat does not fit this criteria as there exist ample alternatives" If you say this then it clearly means that you are taking that plants have NO LIVES. You are saying that eating meat does not fall in this category BEC OTHER ALTERNATE IS THERE but what I AM SAYING is that the other ALTERNATES are killing AS WELL so they are SAME. So entirely you fail to understand my simple point and base your argument on this misunderstanding. My argument is simple that a plant has life like other living beings and it wants to live, and does not want to die. So destroying it's life is killing there can be no doubt or sane argument against it. When you are arguing with the above point it means you understood nothing of my original mail and going back to an idea as if plants have no lives. You entirely fail to understand my simple point. My another point is that, we really NEVER KNOW if killing a hen is MORE BRUTAL than killing a plant or tree. Repeating again, just because a tree cannot yell or moan does not mean it feels no pain but throughout it's all the silent acitivities it clearly shows it wants to survive like any other living beings. So if you want to speak about these ALTERNATIVES then you should either say that trees have no lives or they do not feel pain or they do not have the desire to live. Only then you can say that killing a plant is better than killing a hen. To say that first you have to prove something like trees have no desire to live or no lives in themselves. But as we do not have ANY EVIDENCE as of now to say or CLAIM that a tree's life VALUES LESS then we cannot really ever say that killing a tree is better than killing a hen. In that cases they ARE alternatives but they are EQUAL. This is our MERE PSYCHOLOGICAL PERCEPTION that a tree cannot shout in pain so even though we know that it has a life, we really do not apply this idea in our deeds. Same thing happens when dogs are killed, no one really cares that much comparing to killing a human just because the dog probably cannot speak of it's grief and pain. Vedic tradition goes to step further from common sense and forbids killing animals to eat them. But then with the same logic that Vedic tradition is using it is also came as a fact that even trees deserve the living right. If I hit two persons and one cries out in pain and another does not, it does not really mean that the one not crying is not feeling pain or anything, but in BEHAVIOUR we follow such things which is WRONG. I gave ample examples of lives being of equal values but then with your first point you go back to the previous position as if you have never read my original post. If you feel no pai to kill a plant it is for the fact that you do not hear it's moaning of pain, but that is WRONG perception. Because you do know it has a life and it wants to survive. THAT IS WHY, killing plant IS an alternate of killing a hen but in NO WAY it is a better alternate who people using either alternate (Whether killing a plant or a hen) are SAME. Because both have lives and want to live. One can express it's pain, one cannot. But this expression does not make ANY difference to THE FACT. Please as a human living in this 21st century do not only see the expression or be a hunt of wrong perception. As we perceive the Sun rises in the east and goes down to the west does not really mean that the Sun moves around the world ALTHOUGH by seeing this PERCEIVED movement of Sun the people of ancient times believed that Sun moves round the world ! Even Galileo had sacrificed his life for it but they never listened, because they believed their perception. As you and most of the people doing the same, never thinking about the lives of trees because they cannot moan and yell. If you really thought logically you could never claim that there are ample alternates, which you seem to suggest as better ones in terms or morality. #2 You wrote- "So while a vegetarian would be 'killing' only a minute fraction of living entities (plants), the meat-eater would be 'killing' unnecessarily a far wider selection." I again have to say that this is a wrong understanding and narrow vision of yours. How many types living beings you kill is at the end of the day, only KILLING. If I kill one American and one Indian (Total two) and you kill two Indians (Total two) can you say that you are less immoral than me (OR vice versa) ???? Think over it carefully. To answer the above question If you want to say that you are less immoral than me then you must say that an American's value of life is MORE than an Indian's life's value. BUT if you say that an American and an Indian has the same value of life then you must admit that we are same immorals because does not matter which nationality we killed, but we killed SAME NUMBER of LIVES. So we are same guilty. As per the example unless you can first prove that killing a plant is less immoral, you can never say "killing only plants" is better than "killing plants and animals". Because killing is killing only. RATHER, IT WORKS THE OTHER WAY AROUND. How much immoral the killing is will depend NOT only the type we killed BUT the NUMBER OF LIVES. In the above examples we both killed two persons so we are same guilty. If you kill only one rich American and I kill two poor Africans does not mean you are more guilty because you killed the rich one. I am more guilty because I killed more numbers, IN OTHER WORDS I DESTROYED MORE LIVES because each of the African people had SEPARATE LIVES. In that sense when a vegetarian eats 500 grams of vegetable he is responsible for killing more than one plants (generally) but when a non-vegetarian eats 500 gm of meat he is probably responsible for killing only one animal. In that case MOST OF THE TIMES a vegetarian KILLS more number of INDIVIDUAL LIVES than a non-vegetarian though they eat same amount of food. Yes, there are plants only of which offers more foods than one small animal, but it is not general. Most of the times a single plant offers smaller amount of food than an animal. This is especially true for people who eat big fishes like Ruhit etc. or eat pork (pigs), beef (cows) etc. So, in general, a vegetarian is DESTROYING MORE NUMBER OF INDIVIDUAL LIVES than a nonvegetarian by eating same amount of food. #3 You wrote - "Without the consumption of plant-based foods man would not survive; without the consumption of meat he can survive. The logic is really straightforward, and transparently rational." Again like before, your vision is very narrow and incomplete. Before you prove that plant lives are less valueable than animals lives, you cannot say that. It depends not upon the type of killing but the amount of killing and non-vegetarians are in that case BETTER because they kill less number of individual lives. Only by killing one big cow or only by destroying one life many people can eat but those same amount of food coming from veg source would cause a lot of plants killing, ie individual lives. A man living on totally plant based foods is no better than a man eating both plant-based and animal based foods. Saying again, do not be confused with the wrong perception as trees cannot yell. Do not believe in Sun moving around the world as it appears to be. Thanks, Tanvir What cannot happen, can never happen. Which is mine, is forever mine. http://www.jyotish-remedies.com - Vedic Astrology (Jyotish) Predictive astrology with incredibly powerful problem solving remedies Where relief and solutions are found - maniv1321 Wednesday, March 01, 2006 7:34 PM Re: Morality Mr Tanvir, I would refute the perspective you have purported with regards to vegetarianism. 'Killing', as you label it, for the sake of ones sustenance, especially when there remains no practical alternative is not immoral in any way. Indulging in the consumption of meat does not fit this criteria as there exist ample alternatives ( which have been scientifically proven to be far conducive to superior physical and psychological health). So while a vegetarian would be 'killing' only a minute fraction of living entities (plants), the meat-eater would be 'killing' unnecessarily a far wider selection. The proportion of 'immoral' behaviour that the meat-eater would be indulging in is thus substantially greater than that of the vegetarian. Without the consumption of plant-based foods man would not survive; without the consumption of meat he can survive. The logic is really straightforward, and transparently rational. Regards Maniv SURRENDER JOYFULLY TO THE WILL OF THE ULTIMATE DIVINITY AND RELISH THE TASTE OF ABSOLUTE BLISS. Vedic astrology Astrology chart Astrology software Visit your group "" on the web. Mail Bring photos to life! New PhotoMail makes sharing a breeze. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 2, 2006 Report Share Posted March 2, 2006 dear surya garu logic is something which is applied by the native to support his or her own theories irrespective of whether these theories are right or wrong. when painter M.F.Hussain painted various hindu goddesses and bharat mata in nude and put it up for auction to earn quick and fast name, fame and few crores by selling the moterland in nude, he applied his logical thinking that a painter has the freedom to paint anything in nude be it the goddesses of other religion or the motherland which gave birth to him. on the other hand an organisation in UP put an award of rs.51 crore to slay this famous painter applying their logic that he is a germ for the society. these people when interviewed by the media for taking an extremist posture asked the media to apply their own logic by venturing to ask the painter if he finds it logically correct to paint his own mother in nude. so logic is something which is applied by both good and bad people to support their own theories. with best wishes arjun , surya vishnu <surya_prakashvi wrote: > > There is a very famous book in Telugu called "khandana Khanda Khadyam" ... it extensively deals with application of logic/arguments to prove everything and disprove everything ... Just amused > > > > Tanvir <ultimate wrote: > Dear Maniv Ji > > I like the idea that you are coming forward with what you think to be correct. As I always say, I am always open minded and would accept any new idea that I feel logical and practical. I think without this quality, one can never learn anything. If one only believes what he is taught in childhood, knowledge stops there forever. I am always open minded and would welcome any logical discussion to find an answer (even if different from mine) and if one can convince me, I am open to take that without any hesitation. > > Now let us go back to the original topic. > > #1. You write- > "'Killing', as you label it, for the sake of ones sustenance, > especially when there remains no practical alternative is not > immoral in any way. Indulging in the consumption of meat does not > fit this criteria as there exist ample alternatives" > > MY ANSWER: Do you really see what are you saying? > > "Indulging in the consumption of meat does not > fit this criteria as there exist ample alternatives" > > If you say this then it clearly means that you are taking that plants have NO LIVES. You are saying that eating meat does not fall in this category BEC OTHER ALTERNATE IS THERE but what I AM SAYING is that the other ALTERNATES are killing AS WELL so they are SAME. So entirely you fail to understand my simple point and base your argument on this misunderstanding. My argument is simple that a plant has life like other living beings and it wants to live, and does not want to die. So destroying it's life is killing there can be no doubt or sane argument against it. When you are arguing with the above point it means you understood nothing of my original mail and going back to an idea as if plants have no lives. > > You entirely fail to understand my simple point. > > My another point is that, we really NEVER KNOW if killing a hen is MORE BRUTAL than killing a plant or tree. Repeating again, just because a tree cannot yell or moan does not mean it feels no pain but throughout it's all the silent acitivities it clearly shows it wants to survive like any other living beings. > > So if you want to speak about these ALTERNATIVES then you should either say that trees have no lives or they do not feel pain or they do not have the desire to live. Only then you can say that killing a plant is better than killing a hen. To say that first you have to prove something like trees have no desire to live or no lives in themselves. But as we do not have ANY EVIDENCE as of now to say or CLAIM that a tree's life VALUES LESS then we cannot really ever say that killing a tree is better than killing a hen. In that cases they ARE alternatives but they are EQUAL. > > This is our MERE PSYCHOLOGICAL PERCEPTION that a tree cannot shout in pain so even though we know that it has a life, we really do not apply this idea in our deeds. Same thing happens when dogs are killed, no one really cares that much comparing to killing a human just because the dog probably cannot speak of it's grief and pain. Vedic tradition goes to step further from common sense and forbids killing animals to eat them. But then with the same logic that Vedic tradition is using it is also came as a fact that even trees deserve the living right. > > If I hit two persons and one cries out in pain and another does not, it does not really mean that the one not crying is not feeling pain or anything, but in BEHAVIOUR we follow such things which is WRONG. > > I gave ample examples of lives being of equal values but then with your first point you go back to the previous position as if you have never read my original post. > > If you feel no pai to kill a plant it is for the fact that you do not hear it's moaning of pain, but that is WRONG perception. Because you do know it has a life and it wants to survive. THAT IS WHY, killing plant IS an alternate of killing a hen but in NO WAY it is a better alternate who people using either alternate (Whether killing a plant or a hen) are SAME. Because both have lives and want to live. One can express it's pain, one cannot. But this expression does not make ANY difference to THE FACT. Please as a human living in this 21st century do not only see the expression or be a hunt of wrong perception. As we perceive the Sun rises in the east and goes down to the west does not really mean that the Sun moves around the world ALTHOUGH by seeing this PERCEIVED movement of Sun the people of ancient times believed that Sun moves round the world ! Even Galileo had sacrificed his life for it but they never listened, because they believed their perception. As you and most of the > people doing the same, never thinking about the lives of trees because they cannot moan and yell. If you really thought logically you could never claim that there are ample alternates, which you seem to suggest as better ones in terms or morality. > > #2 You wrote- > > "So while a vegetarian would be 'killing' > only a minute fraction of living entities (plants), the meat-eater > would be 'killing' unnecessarily a far wider selection." > > I again have to say that this is a wrong understanding and narrow vision of yours. How many types living beings you kill is at the end of the day, only KILLING. If I kill one American and one Indian (Total two) and you kill two Indians (Total two) can you say that you are less immoral than me (OR vice versa) ???? Think over it carefully. > > To answer the above question If you want to say that you are less immoral than me then you must say that an American's value of life is MORE than an Indian's life's value. BUT if you say that an American and an Indian has the same value of life then you must admit that we are same immorals because does not matter which nationality we killed, but we killed SAME NUMBER of LIVES. So we are same guilty. > > As per the example unless you can first prove that killing a plant is less immoral, you can never say "killing only plants" is better than "killing plants and animals". Because killing is killing only. > > RATHER, IT WORKS THE OTHER WAY AROUND. > > How much immoral the killing is will depend NOT only the type we killed BUT the NUMBER OF LIVES. In the above examples we both killed two persons so we are same guilty. If you kill only one rich American and I kill two poor Africans does not mean you are more guilty because you killed the rich one. I am more guilty because I killed more numbers, IN OTHER WORDS I DESTROYED MORE LIVES because each of the African people had SEPARATE LIVES. > > In that sense when a vegetarian eats 500 grams of vegetable he is responsible for killing more than one plants (generally) but when a non-vegetarian eats 500 gm of meat he is probably responsible for killing only one animal. In that case MOST OF THE TIMES a vegetarian KILLS more number of INDIVIDUAL LIVES than a non-vegetarian though they eat same amount of food. Yes, there are plants only of which offers more foods than one small animal, but it is not general. Most of the times a single plant offers smaller amount of food than an animal. This is especially true for people who eat big fishes like Ruhit etc. or eat pork (pigs), beef (cows) etc. So, in general, a vegetarian is DESTROYING MORE NUMBER OF INDIVIDUAL LIVES than a nonvegetarian by eating same amount of food. > > #3 You wrote - > > "Without the consumption of plant-based foods man would not survive; > without the consumption of meat he can survive. The logic is really > straightforward, and transparently rational." > > Again like before, your vision is very narrow and incomplete. Before you prove that plant lives are less valueable than animals lives, you cannot say that. It depends not upon the type of killing but the amount of killing and non-vegetarians are in that case BETTER because they kill less number of individual lives. Only by killing one big cow or only by destroying one life many people can eat but those same amount of food coming from veg source would cause a lot of plants killing, ie individual lives. > > A man living on totally plant based foods is no better than a man eating both plant-based and animal based foods. Saying again, do not be confused with the wrong perception as trees cannot yell. Do not believe in Sun moving around the world as it appears to be. > > Thanks, > Tanvir > > > What cannot happen, can never happen. > Which is mine, is forever mine. > > http://www.jyotish-remedies.com - Vedic Astrology (Jyotish) > Predictive astrology with incredibly powerful problem solving remedies > Where relief and solutions are found > > - > maniv1321 > > Wednesday, March 01, 2006 7:34 PM > Re: Morality > > > Mr Tanvir, > > I would refute the perspective you have purported with regards to > vegetarianism. > > 'Killing', as you label it, for the sake of ones sustenance, > especially when there remains no practical alternative is not > immoral in any way. Indulging in the consumption of meat does not > fit this criteria as there exist ample alternatives ( which have > been scientifically proven to be far conducive to superior physical > and psychological health). So while a vegetarian would be 'killing' > only a minute fraction of living entities (plants), the meat- eater > would be 'killing' unnecessarily a far wider selection. The > proportion of 'immoral' behaviour that the meat-eater would be > indulging in is thus substantially greater than that of the > vegetarian. > > Without the consumption of plant-based foods man would not survive; > without the consumption of meat he can survive. The logic is really > straightforward, and transparently rational. > > Regards > > Maniv > > > > > > > > > > > > SURRENDER JOYFULLY TO THE WILL OF THE ULTIMATE DIVINITY AND RELISH THE TASTE OF ABSOLUTE BLISS. > > > > > > > Vedic astrology Astrology chart Astrology software > > > > > > Visit your group "" on the web. > > > > > Terms of Service. > > > > > > > > > > Mail > Bring photos to life! New PhotoMail makes sharing a breeze. > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 2, 2006 Report Share Posted March 2, 2006 Dear all, We are discussing Morality, here. Tanvir ji himself has said it is a vague(said vogue, a typo? and I have assumed he meant vague) idea. What exactly is it, how do you define it, unless it is precisely fit into a definition, how do you apply it to an action. Is it not a relative term? Does it not mutate if I may say so, over time. What is moral at one time is not moral at another. Man in another point in time killed and ate flesh raw and in the raw(pun intended). Did he debate whether it was moral or immoral? His sole instinct was survival and animalistic in the sense that it was not governed by the viveka so associated with humans. He has evolved, physically, socially and also morally? because we are now debating what is moral and what is not. Over the period he has found alternate sources of food and how that has evolved is evident. How and when did Man find the need to wear clothes? does wearing clothes make one moral , if so is the prehistoric man immoral? Then, is Morality, Socially accepted behaviour? Let us come to contemporary periods: What is moral in one culture is immoral in others. Marriages among cousins has different implications in the fabric of morality in different cultures.Dating, living together have different connotations in different social cultures. How morality has, can I use the term , evolved???, when unconventional in terms of marriage , was inter caste/inter religious, love etc.( people indulging in such were dubbed immoral and sometimes ostracised) Is it the same now? In most places unconventional now, may mean Same Sex marriages. Like in science, all others assumed constant, can we apply the same yard stick to morality. But is morality Constant, it is a variable, at most it can be a varying-constant(can there be one in science? it can be in English - an oxymoron. These are my humble views and not meant to denigrate or criticise others'. Regards Nalini , "panditarjun2004" <panditarjun2004 wrote: > > dear surya garu > > logic is something which is applied by the native to support his or > her own theories irrespective of whether these theories are right or > wrong. > > when painter M.F.Hussain painted various hindu goddesses and bharat > mata in nude and put it up for auction to earn quick and fast name, > fame and few crores by selling the moterland in nude, he applied his > logical thinking that a painter has the freedom to paint anything in > nude be it the goddesses of other religion or the motherland which > gave birth to him. on the other hand an organisation in UP put an > award of rs.51 crore to slay this famous painter applying their > logic that he is a germ for the society. these people when > interviewed by the media for taking an extremist posture asked the > media to apply their own logic by venturing to ask the painter if he > finds it logically correct to paint his own mother in nude. > > so logic is something which is applied by both good and bad people > to support their own theories. > > with best wishes > arjun > > > , surya vishnu > <surya_prakashvi@> wrote: > > > > There is a very famous book in Telugu called "khandana Khanda > Khadyam" ... it extensively deals with application of > logic/arguments to prove everything and disprove everything ... Just > amused > > > > > > > > Tanvir <ultimate@> wrote: > > Dear Maniv Ji > > > > I like the idea that you are coming forward with what you think to > be correct. As I always say, I am always open minded and would > accept any new idea that I feel logical and practical. I think > without this quality, one can never learn anything. If one only > believes what he is taught in childhood, knowledge stops there > forever. I am always open minded and would welcome any logical > discussion to find an answer (even if different from mine) and if > one can convince me, I am open to take that without any hesitation. > > > > Now let us go back to the original topic. > > > > #1. You write- > > "'Killing', as you label it, for the sake of ones sustenance, > > especially when there remains no practical alternative is not > > immoral in any way. Indulging in the consumption of meat does not > > fit this criteria as there exist ample alternatives" > > > > MY ANSWER: Do you really see what are you saying? > > > > "Indulging in the consumption of meat does not > > fit this criteria as there exist ample alternatives" > > > > If you say this then it clearly means that you are taking that > plants have NO LIVES. You are saying that eating meat does not fall > in this category BEC OTHER ALTERNATE IS THERE but what I AM SAYING > is that the other ALTERNATES are killing AS WELL so they are SAME. > So entirely you fail to understand my simple point and base your > argument on this misunderstanding. My argument is simple that a > plant has life like other living beings and it wants to live, and > does not want to die. So destroying it's life is killing there can > be no doubt or sane argument against it. When you are arguing with > the above point it means you understood nothing of my original mail > and going back to an idea as if plants have no lives. > > > > You entirely fail to understand my simple point. > > > > My another point is that, we really NEVER KNOW if killing a hen is > MORE BRUTAL than killing a plant or tree. Repeating again, just > because a tree cannot yell or moan does not mean it feels no pain > but throughout it's all the silent acitivities it clearly shows it > wants to survive like any other living beings. > > > > So if you want to speak about these ALTERNATIVES then you should > either say that trees have no lives or they do not feel pain or they > do not have the desire to live. Only then you can say that killing a > plant is better than killing a hen. To say that first you have to > prove something like trees have no desire to live or no lives in > themselves. But as we do not have ANY EVIDENCE as of now to say or > CLAIM that a tree's life VALUES LESS then we cannot really ever say > that killing a tree is better than killing a hen. In that cases they > ARE alternatives but they are EQUAL. > > > > This is our MERE PSYCHOLOGICAL PERCEPTION that a tree cannot shout > in pain so even though we know that it has a life, we really do not > apply this idea in our deeds. Same thing happens when dogs are > killed, no one really cares that much comparing to killing a human > just because the dog probably cannot speak of it's grief and pain. > Vedic tradition goes to step further from common sense and forbids > killing animals to eat them. But then with the same logic that Vedic > tradition is using it is also came as a fact that even trees deserve > the living right. > > > > If I hit two persons and one cries out in pain and another does > not, it does not really mean that the one not crying is not feeling > pain or anything, but in BEHAVIOUR we follow such things which is > WRONG. > > > > I gave ample examples of lives being of equal values but then with > your first point you go back to the previous position as if you have > never read my original post. > > > > If you feel no pai to kill a plant it is for the fact that you do > not hear it's moaning of pain, but that is WRONG perception. Because > you do know it has a life and it wants to survive. THAT IS WHY, > killing plant IS an alternate of killing a hen but in NO WAY it is a > better alternate who people using either alternate (Whether killing > a plant or a hen) are SAME. Because both have lives and want to > live. One can express it's pain, one cannot. But this expression > does not make ANY difference to THE FACT. Please as a human living > in this 21st century do not only see the expression or be a hunt of > wrong perception. As we perceive the Sun rises in the east and goes > down to the west does not really mean that the Sun moves around the > world ALTHOUGH by seeing this PERCEIVED movement of Sun the people > of ancient times believed that Sun moves round the world ! Even > Galileo had sacrificed his life for it but they never listened, > because they believed their perception. As you and most of the > > people doing the same, never thinking about the lives of trees > because they cannot moan and yell. If you really thought logically > you could never claim that there are ample alternates, which you > seem to suggest as better ones in terms or morality. > > > > #2 You wrote- > > > > "So while a vegetarian would be 'killing' > > only a minute fraction of living entities (plants), the meat- eater > > would be 'killing' unnecessarily a far wider selection." > > > > I again have to say that this is a wrong understanding and narrow > vision of yours. How many types living beings you kill is at the end > of the day, only KILLING. If I kill one American and one Indian > (Total two) and you kill two Indians (Total two) can you say that > you are less immoral than me (OR vice versa) ???? Think over it > carefully. > > > > To answer the above question If you want to say that you are less > immoral than me then you must say that an American's value of life > is MORE than an Indian's life's value. BUT if you say that an > American and an Indian has the same value of life then you must > admit that we are same immorals because does not matter which > nationality we killed, but we killed SAME NUMBER of LIVES. So we are > same guilty. > > > > As per the example unless you can first prove that killing a plant > is less immoral, you can never say "killing only plants" is better > than "killing plants and animals". Because killing is killing only. > > > > RATHER, IT WORKS THE OTHER WAY AROUND. > > > > How much immoral the killing is will depend NOT only the type we > killed BUT the NUMBER OF LIVES. In the above examples we both killed > two persons so we are same guilty. If you kill only one rich > American and I kill two poor Africans does not mean you are more > guilty because you killed the rich one. I am more guilty because I > killed more numbers, IN OTHER WORDS I DESTROYED MORE LIVES because > each of the African people had SEPARATE LIVES. > > > > In that sense when a vegetarian eats 500 grams of vegetable he is > responsible for killing more than one plants (generally) but when a > non-vegetarian eats 500 gm of meat he is probably responsible for > killing only one animal. In that case MOST OF THE TIMES a vegetarian > KILLS more number of INDIVIDUAL LIVES than a non-vegetarian though > they eat same amount of food. Yes, there are plants only of which > offers more foods than one small animal, but it is not general. Most > of the times a single plant offers smaller amount of food than an > animal. This is especially true for people who eat big fishes like > Ruhit etc. or eat pork (pigs), beef (cows) etc. So, in general, a > vegetarian is DESTROYING MORE NUMBER OF INDIVIDUAL LIVES than a > nonvegetarian by eating same amount of food. > > > > #3 You wrote - > > > > "Without the consumption of plant-based foods man would not > survive; > > without the consumption of meat he can survive. The logic is > really > > straightforward, and transparently rational." > > > > Again like before, your vision is very narrow and incomplete. > Before you prove that plant lives are less valueable than animals > lives, you cannot say that. It depends not upon the type of killing > but the amount of killing and non-vegetarians are in that case > BETTER because they kill less number of individual lives. Only by > killing one big cow or only by destroying one life many people can > eat but those same amount of food coming from veg source would cause > a lot of plants killing, ie individual lives. > > > > A man living on totally plant based foods is no better than a man > eating both plant-based and animal based foods. Saying again, do not > be confused with the wrong perception as trees cannot yell. Do not > believe in Sun moving around the world as it appears to be. > > > > Thanks, > > Tanvir > > > > > > What cannot happen, can never happen. > > Which is mine, is forever mine. > > > > http://www.jyotish-remedies.com - Vedic Astrology (Jyotish) > > Predictive astrology with incredibly powerful problem solving > remedies > > Where relief and solutions are found > > > > - > > maniv1321 > > > > Wednesday, March 01, 2006 7:34 PM > > Re: Morality > > > > > > Mr Tanvir, > > > > I would refute the perspective you have purported with regards > to > > vegetarianism. > > > > 'Killing', as you label it, for the sake of ones sustenance, > > especially when there remains no practical alternative is not > > immoral in any way. Indulging in the consumption of meat does > not > > fit this criteria as there exist ample alternatives ( which have > > been scientifically proven to be far conducive to superior > physical > > and psychological health). So while a vegetarian would > be 'killing' > > only a minute fraction of living entities (plants), the meat- > eater > > would be 'killing' unnecessarily a far wider selection. The > > proportion of 'immoral' behaviour that the meat-eater would be > > indulging in is thus substantially greater than that of the > > vegetarian. > > > > Without the consumption of plant-based foods man would not > survive; > > without the consumption of meat he can survive. The logic is > really > > straightforward, and transparently rational. > > > > Regards > > > > Maniv > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SURRENDER JOYFULLY TO THE WILL OF THE ULTIMATE DIVINITY AND RELISH > THE TASTE OF ABSOLUTE BLISS. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vedic astrology Astrology chart Astrology software > > > > > > > > > > > > Visit your group "" on the web. > > > > > > > > > > Terms of > Service. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mail > > Bring photos to life! New PhotoMail makes sharing a breeze. > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 2, 2006 Report Share Posted March 2, 2006 Dear Krishnanji, What you say is correct.I believe what is practiced can always be debated or discussed-if you beieve in pedantics. The main issue was to bring out various views,opinions and individuals'perceptions. I am sure Tanvirji meant to go about a healthy debate and would not mind a few digressions. Morality can never be constant, it is ever changing, it is in the individual as he perceives it. Morality is not an "experience", it is a way of life, and even if we are mostly old adults to learn, it is better late, than never. Nalini , vattem krishnan <bursar_99 wrote: > > Dear Nalini ji, > Morality as a constant factor becomes less tenable.For a humanbeing ever willing to learn(need also delearn yet times) by comparitive knowledge can always come out with balanced and acceptable views. > question how and when this can be possible:I some how even if we debate there is nothing wrong but must be open to know the good and bad of his views/practices. > Morality is only practised but not preached or other way it is only preached may not be true.it is an opinion or at best a view as one feels or understands.Ther is always room for it's variability whether one wishes or not. > For me morality is more a social concept but very personal and is not to encroached upon unless one comes up with his own views and is open to modifiaction. > Infact what ever taboos in society are more or less existed are only from some moral perspective .if not to instill morality. > so morality can be preached,practised and modified based on attitudes.The debate is not bad but be given an opportunity for conveying views and opinions only to analyse and understand. > what Shri Tanvir ji initiated has certainly stimulate many members and it is now for him to find how much deviations he has noticed as compared to others.if willing he may bring in necessary moderation. > krishnan > > auromirra19 <nalini2818 wrote: > True should be practiced, but when in doubt discussed:-) > Should be because it has been going on for quite some time and I > jumped into the bandwagon quite late in the day. > Nalini > , "rohiniranjan" <rrgb@> > wrote: > > > > Should morality be discussed or practiced? ;-) > > If/when practiced -- where remains the need for discussion? > > Morality is learned/incorporated when very young. Assuming most > here > > are young or old adults, the opportunity for leaning morality is > > gone, in the past. > > I am sure everyone here availed of the opportunity! > > > > This is a statement, my belief and not a desire to start another > > beating of gums (figuratively speaking -- given that I am typing > and > > so are most others! I am sure some techie-heads are using dragon > or > > via voice!!) > > > > RR > > > > , "auromirra19" > > <nalini2818@> wrote: > > > > > > Dear all, > > > We are discussing Morality, here. Tanvir ji himself has said it > is > > a > > > vague(said vogue, a typo? and I have assumed he meant vague) > idea. > > > What exactly is it, how do you define it, unless it is precisely > > fit > > > into a definition, how do you apply it to an action. > > > Is it not a relative term? Does it not mutate if I may say so, > > over > > > time. What is moral at one time is not moral at another. Man in > > > another point in time killed and ate flesh raw and in the raw > (pun > > > intended). Did he debate whether it was moral or immoral? His > sole > > > instinct was survival and animalistic in the sense that it was > not > > > governed by the viveka so associated with humans. He has > evolved, > > > physically, socially and also morally? because we are now > debating > > > what is moral and what is not. Over the period he has found > > > alternate sources of food and how that has evolved is evident. > > > How and when did Man find the need to wear clothes? does wearing > > > clothes make one moral , if so is the prehistoric man immoral? > > > Then, is Morality, Socially accepted behaviour? > > > Let us come to contemporary periods: What is moral in one > culture > > is > > > immoral in others. Marriages among cousins has different > > > implications in the fabric of morality in different > > cultures.Dating, > > > living together have different connotations in different social > > > cultures. How morality has, can I use the term , evolved???, > when > > > unconventional in terms of marriage , was inter caste/inter > > > religious, love etc.( people indulging in such were dubbed > > immoral > > > and sometimes ostracised) Is it the same now? In most places > > > unconventional now, may mean Same Sex marriages. > > > Like in science, all others assumed constant, can we apply the > > same > > > yard stick to morality. But is morality Constant, it is a > > variable, > > > at most it can be a varying-constant(can there be one in > science? > > it > > > can be in English - an oxymoron. > > > These are my humble views and not meant to denigrate or > criticise > > > others'. > > > Regards > > > Nalini > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , "panditarjun2004" > > > <panditarjun2004@> wrote: > > > > > > > > dear surya garu > > > > > > > > logic is something which is applied by the native to support > his > > > or > > > > her own theories irrespective of whether these theories are > > right > > > or > > > > wrong. > > > > > > > > when painter M.F.Hussain painted various hindu goddesses and > > > bharat > > > > mata in nude and put it up for auction to earn quick and fast > > > name, > > > > fame and few crores by selling the moterland in nude, he > applied > > > his > > > > logical thinking that a painter has the freedom to paint > > anything > > > in > > > > nude be it the goddesses of other religion or the motherland > > which > > > > gave birth to him. on the other hand an organisation in UP > put > > an > > > > award of rs.51 crore to slay this famous painter applying > their > > > > logic that he is a germ for the society. these people when > > > > interviewed by the media for taking an extremist posture asked > > the > > > > media to apply their own logic by venturing to ask the painter > > if > > > he > > > > finds it logically correct to paint his own mother in nude. > > > > > > > > so logic is something which is applied by both good and bad > > people > > > > to support their own theories. > > > > > > > > with best wishes > > > > arjun > > > > > > > > > > > > , surya vishnu > > > > <surya_prakashvi@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > There is a very famous book in Telugu called "khandana > Khanda > > > > Khadyam" ... it extensively deals with application of > > > > logic/arguments to prove everything and disprove > everything ... > > > Just > > > > amused > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tanvir <ultimate@> wrote: > > > > > Dear Maniv Ji > > > > > > > > > > I like the idea that you are coming forward with what you > > think > > > to > > > > be correct. As I always say, I am always open minded and would > > > > accept any new idea that I feel logical and practical. I think > > > > without this quality, one can never learn anything. If one > only > > > > believes what he is taught in childhood, knowledge stops there > > > > forever. I am always open minded and would welcome any logical > > > > discussion to find an answer (even if different from mine) and > > if > > > > one can convince me, I am open to take that without any > > hesitation. > > > > > > > > > > Now let us go back to the original topic. > > > > > > > > > > #1. You write- > > > > > "'Killing', as you label it, for the sake of ones > sustenance, > > > > > especially when there remains no practical alternative is > not > > > > > immoral in any way. Indulging in the consumption of meat > does > > > not > > > > > fit this criteria as there exist ample alternatives" > > > > > > > > > > MY ANSWER: Do you really see what are you saying? > > > > > > > > > > "Indulging in the consumption of meat does not > > > > > fit this criteria as there exist ample alternatives" > > > > > > > > > > If you say this then it clearly means that you are taking > that > > > > plants have NO LIVES. You are saying that eating meat does not > > > fall > > > > in this category BEC OTHER ALTERNATE IS THERE but what I AM > > SAYING > > > > is that the other ALTERNATES are killing AS WELL so they are > > SAME. > > > > So entirely you fail to understand my simple point and base > your > > > > argument on this misunderstanding. My argument is simple that > a > > > > plant has life like other living beings and it wants to live, > > and > > > > does not want to die. So destroying it's life is killing there > > can > > > > be no doubt or sane argument against it. When you are arguing > > with > > > > the above point it means you understood nothing of my original > > > mail > > > > and going back to an idea as if plants have no lives. > > > > > > > > > > You entirely fail to understand my simple point. > > > > > > > > > > My another point is that, we really NEVER KNOW if killing a > > hen > > > is > > > > MORE BRUTAL than killing a plant or tree. Repeating again, > just > > > > because a tree cannot yell or moan does not mean it feels no > > pain > > > > but throughout it's all the silent acitivities it clearly > shows > > it > > > > wants to survive like any other living beings. > > > > > > > > > > So if you want to speak about these ALTERNATIVES then you > > should > > > > either say that trees have no lives or they do not feel pain > or > > > they > > > > do not have the desire to live. Only then you can say that > > killing > > > a > > > > plant is better than killing a hen. To say that first you have > > to > > > > prove something like trees have no desire to live or no lives > in > > > > themselves. But as we do not have ANY EVIDENCE as of now to > say > > or > > > > CLAIM that a tree's life VALUES LESS then we cannot really > ever > > > say > > > > that killing a tree is better than killing a hen. In that > cases > > > they > > > > ARE alternatives but they are EQUAL. > > > > > > > > > > This is our MERE PSYCHOLOGICAL PERCEPTION that a tree cannot > > > shout > > > > in pain so even though we know that it has a life, we really > do > > > not > > > > apply this idea in our deeds. Same thing happens when dogs are > > > > killed, no one really cares that much comparing to killing a > > human > > > > just because the dog probably cannot speak of it's grief and > > pain. > > > > Vedic tradition goes to step further from common sense and > > forbids > > > > killing animals to eat them. But then with the same logic that > > > Vedic > > > > tradition is using it is also came as a fact that even trees > > > deserve > > > > the living right. > > > > > > > > > > If I hit two persons and one cries out in pain and another > > does > > > > not, it does not really mean that the one not crying is not > > > feeling > > > > pain or anything, but in BEHAVIOUR we follow such things which > > is > > > > WRONG. > > > > > > > > > > I gave ample examples of lives being of equal values but > then > > > with > > > > your first point you go back to the previous position as if > you > > > have > > > > never read my original post. > > > > > > > > > > If you feel no pai to kill a plant it is for the fact that > you > > > do > > > > not hear it's moaning of pain, but that is WRONG perception. > > > Because > > > > you do know it has a life and it wants to survive. THAT IS > WHY, > > > > killing plant IS an alternate of killing a hen but in NO WAY > it > > is > > > a > > > > better alternate who people using either alternate (Whether > > > killing > > > > a plant or a hen) are SAME. Because both have lives and want > to > > > > live. One can express it's pain, one cannot. But this > expression > > > > does not make ANY difference to THE FACT. Please as a human > > living > > > > in this 21st century do not only see the expression or be a > hunt > > > of > > > > wrong perception. As we perceive the Sun rises in the east and > > > goes > > > > down to the west does not really mean that the Sun moves > around > > > the > > > > world ALTHOUGH by seeing this PERCEIVED movement of Sun the > > people > > > > of ancient times believed that Sun moves round the world ! > Even > > > > Galileo had sacrificed his life for it but they never > listened, > > > > because they believed their perception. As you and most of the > > > > > people doing the same, never thinking about the lives of > > trees > > > > because they cannot moan and yell. If you really thought > > logically > > > > you could never claim that there are ample alternates, which > you > > > > seem to suggest as better ones in terms or morality. > > > > > > > > > > #2 You wrote- > > > > > > > > > > "So while a vegetarian would be 'killing' > > > > > only a minute fraction of living entities (plants), the meat- > > > eater > > > > > would be 'killing' unnecessarily a far wider selection." > > > > > > > > > > I again have to say that this is a wrong understanding and > > > narrow > > > > vision of yours. How many types living beings you kill is at > the > > > end > > > > of the day, only KILLING. If I kill one American and one > Indian > > > > (Total two) and you kill two Indians (Total two) can you say > > that > > > > you are less immoral than me (OR vice versa) ???? Think over > it > > > > carefully. > > > > > > > > > > To answer the above question If you want to say that you are > > > less > > > > immoral than me then you must say that an American's value of > > life > > > > is MORE than an Indian's life's value. BUT if you say that an > > > > American and an Indian has the same value of life then you > must > > > > admit that we are same immorals because does not matter which > > > > nationality we killed, but we killed SAME NUMBER of LIVES. So > we > > > are > > > > same guilty. > > > > > > > > > > As per the example unless you can first prove that killing a > > > plant > > > > is less immoral, you can never say "killing only plants" is > > better > > > > than "killing plants and animals". Because killing is killing > > only. > > > > > > > > > > RATHER, IT WORKS THE OTHER WAY AROUND. > > > > > > > > > > How much immoral the killing is will depend NOT only the > type > > we > > > > killed BUT the NUMBER OF LIVES. In the above examples we both > > > killed > > > > two persons so we are same guilty. If you kill only one rich > > > > American and I kill two poor Africans does not mean you are > more > > > > guilty because you killed the rich one. I am more guilty > because > > I > > > > killed more numbers, IN OTHER WORDS I DESTROYED MORE LIVES > > because > > > > each of the African people had SEPARATE LIVES. > > > > > > > > > > In that sense when a vegetarian eats 500 grams of vegetable > he > > > is > > > > responsible for killing more than one plants (generally) but > > when > > > a > > > > non-vegetarian eats 500 gm of meat he is probably responsible > > for > > > > killing only one animal. In that case MOST OF THE TIMES a > > > vegetarian > > > > KILLS more number of INDIVIDUAL LIVES than a non-vegetarian > > though > > > > they eat same amount of food. Yes, there are plants only of > > which > > > > offers more foods than one small animal, but it is not > general. > > > Most > > > > of the times a single plant offers smaller amount of food than > > an > > > > animal. This is especially true for people who eat big fishes > > like > > > > Ruhit etc. or eat pork (pigs), beef (cows) etc. So, in > general, > > a > > > > vegetarian is DESTROYING MORE NUMBER OF INDIVIDUAL LIVES than > a > > > > nonvegetarian by eating same amount of food. > > > > > > > > > > #3 You wrote - > > > > > > > > > > "Without the consumption of plant-based foods man would not > > > > survive; > > > > > without the consumption of meat he can survive. The logic is > > > > really > > > > > straightforward, and transparently rational." > > > > > > > > > > Again like before, your vision is very narrow and > incomplete. > > > > Before you prove that plant lives are less valueable than > > animals > > > > lives, you cannot say that. It depends not upon the type of > > > killing > > > > but the amount of killing and non-vegetarians are in that case > > > > BETTER because they kill less number of individual lives. Only > > by > > > > killing one big cow or only by destroying one life many people > > can > > > > eat but those same amount of food coming from veg source would > > > cause > > > > a lot of plants killing, ie individual lives. > > > > > > > > > > A man living on totally plant based foods is no better than > a > > > man > > > > eating both plant-based and animal based foods. Saying again, > do > > > not > > > > be confused with the wrong perception as trees cannot yell. Do > > not > > > > believe in Sun moving around the world as it appears to be. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > Tanvir > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What cannot happen, can never happen. > > > > > Which is mine, is forever mine. > > > > > > > > > > http://www.jyotish-remedies.com - Vedic Astrology (Jyotish) > > > > > Predictive astrology with incredibly powerful problem > solving > > > > remedies > > > > > Where relief and solutions are found > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > maniv1321 > > > > > > > > > > Wednesday, March 01, 2006 7:34 PM > > > > > Re: Morality > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mr Tanvir, > > > > > > > > > > I would refute the perspective you have purported with > > regards > > > > to > > > > > vegetarianism. > > > > > > > > > > 'Killing', as you label it, for the sake of ones > sustenance, > > > > > especially when there remains no practical alternative is > > not > > > > > immoral in any way. Indulging in the consumption of meat > > does > > > > not > > > > > fit this criteria as there exist ample alternatives ( > which > > > have > > > > > been scientifically proven to be far conducive to superior > > > > physical > > > > > and psychological health). So while a vegetarian would > > > > be 'killing' > > > > > only a minute fraction of living entities (plants), the > meat- > > > > eater > > > > > would be 'killing' unnecessarily a far wider selection. > The > > > > > proportion of 'immoral' behaviour that the meat-eater > would > > be > > > > > indulging in is thus substantially greater than that of > the > > > > > vegetarian. > > > > > > > > > > Without the consumption of plant-based foods man would not > > > > survive; > > > > > without the consumption of meat he can survive. The logic > is > > > > really > > > > > straightforward, and transparently rational. > > > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > > > > > Maniv > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SURRENDER JOYFULLY TO THE WILL OF THE ULTIMATE DIVINITY AND > > > RELISH > > > > THE TASTE OF ABSOLUTE BLISS. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vedic astrology Astrology chart Astrology > software > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Visit your group "" on the web. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Terms > > of > > > > Service. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mail > > > > > Bring photos to life! New PhotoMail makes sharing a breeze. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SURRENDER JOYFULLY TO THE WILL OF THE ULTIMATE DIVINITY AND RELISH THE TASTE OF ABSOLUTE BLISS. > > > > > > > Vedic astrology Astrology chart Astrology software > > > > > > Visit your group "" on the web. > > > > > Terms of Service. > > > > > > > > > > Relax. Mail virus scanning helps detect nasty viruses! > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.