09 Oct 11
1 edit
Consciousness is not the same for all people.
One person may have a consciousness that is in ignorance and bewildered and conditioned - and another may have a consciousness that is liberated, pure, knowledgeable and clear.
Most in this world have that consciousness which is conditioned..
To understand spirituality the consciousness MUST be raised to the transcendental platform to be able to understand spirituality properly.
I have noticed time and time again that persons are having trouble over the most simplistic ideas.
The trouble is not with the knowledge being presented - but with the consciousness of the person.
Vedanta Sutra is aware of this problem - and has the process for raising the consciousness to the transcendental platform for understanding to take place.
The process is called Devotional service. and I have not yet explained this in this forum.
Before understanding devotional service and the requirements - the person must at least come to the platform of honesty before that process is explained in detail because while persons are defending animal killing - then their consciousness is not ready to assimilate higher knowledge.
Understanding that animal killing is detrimental to spiritual advancement - is the most simplistic and first thing to accept in your new found spirituality.
Not accepting this - shows a very very un-ready consciousness. - a conditioned consciousness - an ignorant consciousness.
You could say that understanding that animal killing is sinful - is your first baby steps into spirituality and then you can move forward - and not before.
09 Oct 11
Originally posted by DasaPerhaps you will just have to accept that your definitions of words like "consciousness" and "spirituality" and "honesty" and "ignorance" and "advancement" are just neither relevant nor accepted by most of the people who participate in this community. Your unwillingness to use words such as these with their conventional meanings causes you a lot of difficulty in communicating any useful or inspiring insights that your religion may have afforded you. Furthermore, I believe you are being totally sincere and honest when you say that your vegetarianism is a central part of your belief system.
Not accepting this - shows a very very un-ready consciousness. - a conditioned consciousness - an ignorant consciousness.
You could say that understanding that animal killing is sinful - is your first baby steps into spirituality and then you can move forward - and not before.
09 Oct 11
1 edit
Originally posted by DasaWhy then the food chain pyramid, Dasa?
Consciousness is not the same for all people.
One person may have a consciousness that is in ignorance and bewildered and conditioned - and another may have a consciousness that is liberated, pure, knowledgeable and clear.
Most in this worldding that animal killing is sinful - is your first baby steps into spirituality and then you can move forward ...[text shortened]... t before- is your first baby steps into spirituality and then you can move forward - and not before.
09 Oct 11
Originally posted by DasaI believe to understand the horrors of killing is why God had the Israelites
Consciousness is not the same for all people.
One person may have a consciousness that is in ignorance and bewildered and conditioned - and another may have a consciousness that is liberated, pure, knowledgeable and clear.
Most in this world have that consciousness which is conditioned..
To understand spirituality the consciousness MUST be raised to th ...[text shortened]... ful - is your first baby steps into spirituality and then you can move forward - and not before.
take their best newborn lamb into their house as a pet for the children for
one year and then sacrifice this particular lamb, in exclusion of all others,
by killing it.
09 Oct 11
1 edit
Originally posted by DasaAmid high food prices in 1972, Sweden's National Board of Health and Welfare developed the idea of "basic foods" that were both cheap and nutritious, and "supplemental foods" that added nutrition missing from the basic foods. Anna Britt Agnsäter, head of the test kitchen at KF, a consumer co-op that worked with the Board, held a lecture the next year on how to illustrate these food groups. Attendee Fjalar Clemes suggested a triangle displaying basic foods at the base. Agnsäter developed the idea into the first food pyramid, which was introduced to the public in 1974 in KF's Vi magazine. The pyramid was divided into basic foods at the base, including milk, cheese, margarine, bread, cereals and potatoes; a large section of supplemental vegetables and fruit; and an apex of supplemental meat, fish and eggs. The pyramid competed with the National Board's "dietary circle," which KF saw as problematic for resembling a cake divided into seven slices, and for not indicating how much of each food should be eaten. While the Board distanced itself from the pyramid, KF continued to promote it, and food pyramids were developed in other Scandinavian countries, as well as West Germany, Japan and Sri Lanka. The United States later developed its first food pyramid in 1992.
Simply invented by the animal killers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_guide_pyramid
09 Oct 11
Originally posted by RJHindsGod didn't do any such thing.
I believe to understand the horrors of killing is why God had the Israelites
take their best newborn lamb into their house as a pet for the children for
one year and then sacrifice this particular lamb, in exclusion of all others,
by killing it.
09 Oct 11
Originally posted by RJHindsYes ........all created by fools and rascals if they include meat.
Amid high food prices in 1972, Sweden's National Board of Health and Welfare developed the idea of "basic foods" that were both cheap and nutritious, and "supplemental foods" that added nutrition missing from the basic foods. Anna Britt Agnsäter, head of the test kitchen at KF, a consumer co-op that worked with the Board, held a lecture the next year on how ...[text shortened]... oped its first food pyramid in 1992.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_guide_pyramid
09 Oct 11
Originally posted by DasaBut you've already addmitted it's ok for a Vedantic Krsna soldier to eat meat. Is it one rule for one, and one for other Vedic believers, or God instructors?
Yes ........all created by fools and rascals if they include meat.
Ahum, and I always thought religious beliefs were blanket rules for all.
What a big mistake did I make?
Glad I don't participate in false God beliefs!
-m.
09 Oct 11
Originally posted by mikelomWhy would you think religious strictures were meant to be universally applied? The rules we give for the moral education of children are different than the ones we apply to adults. Should any different be expected of spiritual instruction?
But you've already addmitted it's ok for a Vedantic Krsna soldier to eat meat. Is it one rule for one, and one for other Vedic believers, or God instructors?
Ahum, and I always thought religious beliefs were blanket rules for all.
What a big mistake did I make?
Glad I don't participate in false God beliefs!
-m.
09 Oct 11
Originally posted by bbarrOh! So kids are lied to then, and then expected to change, suddenly, in their beliefs when they mature?
Why would you think religious strictures were meant to be universally applied? The rules we give for the moral education of children are different than the ones we apply to adults. Should any different be expected of spiritual instruction?
I guess that's why so many elder kids are leaving their religious indoctrination behind and going their own way.
Makes sense.
-m.
09 Oct 11
Originally posted by mikelomWeird, nothing I wrote above has anything to do with lying. The point is that the commands or instructions offered to children will differ from those we use to advise and regulate adults. Children are dependent in ways adults are not, when young they have trouble with abstractions, they are often too inexperienced to recognize extenuating circumstances, etc. This means that we may give them instructions that are more general, or less subtle and nuanced.
Oh! So kids are lied to then, and then expected to change, suddenly, in their beliefs when they mature?
I guess that's why so many elder kids are leaving their religious indoctrination behind and going their own way.
Makes sense.
-m.
09 Oct 11
Originally posted by bbarrI know what you are saying, but what has that to do with the post you responded to?
Weird, nothing I wrote above has anything to do with lying. The point is that the commands or instructions offered to children will differ from those we use to advise and regulate adults. Children are dependent in ways adults are not, when young they have trouble with abstractions, they are often too inexperienced to recognize extenuating circumstances, etc. ...[text shortened]... This means that we may give them instructions that are more general, or less subtle and nuanced.
Are you saying Dasa isn't mature enough to yet realise that his religion does, in fact, give reason for meat eating? Are the Vedic soldiers more aware or more developed?
I don't understand that response.
-m.
09 Oct 11
1 edit
Originally posted by mikelomWell, read his very first post in this thread. The position is that not all people have the same clarity of consciousness, spiritual understanding, or whatever. All the stuff from the Bhagavad Gita about killing, for instance, indicates that Dasa's tradition allows for similar types of actions to be right for one person and wrong for another (depending, I guess, on the manner in which one is attached to the action or its outcome; I admit to not understanding this well enough to explain it...). You claimed that religious strictures were supposed to be universal. But this is clearly not Dasa's view. I was trying to give you a clear and relatively mundane example where, in another domain, there is a similar lack of universality in the application of rules. We typically think that moral claims (One should not lie) are universal in their application. What we find, though, is that as children mature into adults, we allow for exceptions to this general rule. In fact, we require adults to make exceptions (e.g., when the consequences of truth-telling would be exceptionally dire). So, why shouldn't it be similarly within a religious tradition that explicitly recognizes different levels of spiritual development and understanding?
I know what you are saying, but what has that to do with the post you responded to?
Are you saying Dasa isn't mature enough to yet realise that his religion does, in fact, give reason for meat eating? Are the Vedic soldiers more aware or more developed?
I don't understand that response.
-m.