More Positive but Less Harvestable

[Tenet Nosce]

That reminds me of what I hear a lot: "Everything is ok in moderation." But one person's idea of the 'middle path' or 'moderation' might be considered extreme to another. I've been told I was 'extremist' just for not eating meat or junk food. The 'middle' fluctuates depending on what the polar opposites are, in any given situation.

I say, "Everything in moderation, including moderation."

OK, interesting analogy.

Thanks! I have found that analogy to be quite useful myself.

We're already doing that, with Kangen Water. I've witnessed many people just naturally start making changes on their own, after drinking the water for awhile. It's uncanny.

Awesome!

That would be nice. But we can't just wait for that to happen. We have to start someplace, within our own sphere if influence.

You can do whatever you prefer. There is no judgment. I am just offering an angle here.

I disagree with this premise. Firstly, people become vegetarians for many reasons. Animal rights is just one of them, and if anything, I'd say most people are vegetarians for health reasons, not because of the animals. More of the vegans do it because of the animals, but middle-of-the-road lacto-ovo vegetarians generally do it for health reasons.

Well... hmm. I guess there would be no way to discern what percentages those might be. I do see things like this going on... here come take this yoga class it is good for your health... well now that you are here, did you know that yogis follow a vegetarian lifestyle? [INCORRECT, Bikram for example, eats meat]... what's that you say? you don't want to give up meat? well then we can't teach you the "secrets" of yoga because your body is not "pure" enough. End result: no yoga, no vegetarianism, no spiritual growth, only an umami aftertaste in one's mouth.

Do you see what I am getting at? Why does meat eating disqualify one from spiritual growth? It gets back to the whole thing about cleansing the body so that more of the soul's light can shine through. Well, OK, but that seems like the hard way to me. Why not attend first to the soul, and allow the body to harmonize itself to the higher vibration in its own way and time?

I just see so many people struggling with this question of what to eat. And overlaid upon various natural barriers of communication or education, you then have all these conflicting layers of religious and philosophical thought to contend with about what is "right and wrong", i.e. religious dietary laws, diet gurus, bonehead physicians, etc. Not to mention economic barriers, whether real or perceived.

So the diet thing often gets in the way when somebody tries to start there. Because they are attempting to change their body in order to effect a change in their mind. Which can work... kind of. But it doesn't usually last. And so, then the person (because of their faulty belief system) concludes that there must be something WRONG with them for not being able to uphold the strict ideal of food choices, whatever they perceive them to be.

Secondly, a vegan diet doesn't case 'great harm.' Zealotry causes great harm.

Got it.

There are far more examples of zealotry found in the Abrahamic religions, such as terrorists, people supporting wars on a grand scale, 'pro-lifers' who blow up abortion clinics in the name of 'life' etc. In those cases, the ratio of negative to positive is far greater than it is with a veg. diet. Pointing out the incongruencies of people proclaiming to be followers of the Prince of Peace, yet who support war, is far more effective than pointing out the handful of vegan fanatics, for the simple reason that the former involves many, many millions of people who have the political clout to influence new wars. A handful of vegan fanatics is a miniscule problem, by comparison.

Yes, and no. The problem with the Abrahamic mindset it that it attaches itself to everything in sight, like a parasite. So to all the vegetarians, and the vegans, and the health freedom fighters, and the animal rights activists, and the gay rights activists, and the dolphin activists, and the rainforest activists, and the anonymous computer hacking groups, et al. it may APPEAR that they are fighting against different things, and so there is an opportunity there for a negatively-minded group to use distortion tactics (misinformation, disinformation) to turn all these groups upon each other, thus having an overall depolarizing effect on their (seemingly respective) mission(s).

A possible solution, I would offer, is for the activist to look first in their own mind to see where program might be lurking, and to exercise wisdom in taking action based upon emotional zeal. I am sure that some already do this.

Secondly, the activist would turn to their own group and ask others to join them in the HIGHER purpose of promoting their cause with a mind to minimizing the potential for distortion. Again, there are those already doing this.

Thirdly, the activist group when reaching out would selectively target those "fringe dwellers" of society to help empower them to be more effective leaders in their respective social groups.

Anyway, just a thought. :-/

Ha, that has already happened! And the opposite too: Some 'chemistry professor' who was obviously paid by quackwatch.com or the FDA set up a website and paid a lot to get in the #1 slot on google search. He claimed to be an 'expert' and that our water was 'snake oil.' His site would have been hilarious, if it weren't for the fact that gullible people who don't know the difference between acid and alkaline, readily believed him, even though he mixed up acid and alkaline and made all sorts of other mistakes as well. No chemistry professor could be that stupid, so it was obviously disinfo.

Yes. But to the minds of many, it is not obviously disinfo. Ugh! The only way I have found to deal with quackwatch in my own mind is just to laugh. You know, I actually wrote Barrett and commended him for his commitment to end fraud in medicine. I also asked him how it was that I didn't see ANYTHING on his website about the frauds perpetuated every day by mainstream medicine. I mean... if he felt so STRONGLY on the matter why not, oh I dunno, turn to his own colleagues and try to do something about them first? Based on his reply, I don't think he found much value in my logic.

True. But what do you suggest be done about the zealots? They are loose cannons.

Are we not all things?

And when asked directly, or when an opportunity presents itself, I am very upfront that eating animals is wrong, because I believe it is, and it would be a disservice and a lie to say otherwise, just as you wouldn't say "war isn't wrong", would you?

I would say that what I have observed about war is that it does not lead to peace. Then I would ask what they have observed in their own experience.

War can't be "wrong" because it is birthed out of the very idea of wrongness. We are right. You are wrong. Boom, boom, you're dead! "Wrong" is the problem, and war is the offered solution.

The problem is the illusion of separateness which some choose to employ to demiurgically "create" an artificial boundary between the "right things" and the "wrong things" in Creation. The Abrahamic program confounds this more primal distortion through the identifying unity with sameness, or conformity of belief, i.e. we know the "one true way" and so are justified in making war (physical or otherwise) upon those who refuse to acknowledge the reality of our arbitrary artificial boundary [i.e. false creation].

This "Supreme Ultimate" ninja move comprises a catachresis, metonymy, AND synecdoche, applied through the hypocorism of the name changing of Yahweh and Brahma by agency of the Covenant.

No, we are free to choose war. I certainly don't see anybody stepping in to stop us, with the possible exception of nuclear weapons. Rather, let us be clear about what we also know, based upon history, archaeology and scientific fact, with regard to where it leads.

We've gone down that road before. We know where it leads. And I don't think that is where we want to be.