Guest guest Posted March 2, 2006 Report Share Posted March 2, 2006 Dear all, I found a very interesting site on astrology and diet. http://www.findyourfate.com/astrology/diet/astro-diet.htm Any comments are welcome. Regards, pinvester , "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...
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.