One who is said to be eating sin

[Ambient]

It is said in the Bhagavad Gita, one who does not offer his obeiscances and grattitude for a meal which is to be served is eating only sin.

I was contemplating the other day, in an intoxicated state, about to consumate my delicious herbivorically acceptable noodles: Is ravishing plant material not the same psychology and performance as ravishing animal material?

Many times I have encountered, largeley from the female portion of the human species "Oh that is so cute!"; what an atrocious and fluffy terminology! Yet, who gazez upon a plant and cognizes "how cute"... beauty perhaps, cute no. Anyway, one of the basic aspects through which we can verify if something is biologically living is "movement" or animation.

It is simply basic and natural, that as human beings with eyes, ears, nose, hands, tongue.... sight, sound, smell, taste and touch... we observe similarities between our own selves and these other animal selves. But all the biological atmosphere exemplify the same foundational symptoms, correct?

What I speak of, of course, is a social commentry on the descrepancy many of us harbour between various types and forms living entity. What is the rationale behind an incarceration of 99 years or perhaps even death penalty for "murder" in certain contexts ("civil"), but murder is simply "killing" in the context of war... or even just death when time takes life. Furthermore outside of this context, perhaps a more punitive one is "animal rights", alongside plant rights, fungi rights, protista rights, monera rights.

I cannot possibly gaze upon a human being and consider him or her to be of the same nature as a tree. However, when I gaze upon living things, a tree for example I do not conclude "this is of a different nature than I, therefore it is insignificant". If people cannot even grasp the concept of brotherhood, how will they even hope to grasp equanimity?

How many slaughter houses and lumber mills operate and destroy fellow living entities... and for what reason? Common good or the interests of a few?

When a girl is raped we see atrocity, when a cow is inseminated... it is just business. When man slits the jugular of another we see atrocity, when a tree is uprooted we see progress and advancement.

Is it that actually only human beings are important and that everything else is a chateu, a pawnable object, subject to the descretion of the planets overlords (us). Therefore when a human dies we lament, but when an animal dies we celebrate, and when a tree is fallowed we take such pride in the works we print on it?

I personally must agree that there is some contradiction to be so against the slaughter of animals, but consider the destruction of any "lower" living entity of no significance. Therefore even if I abstain from consuming meat but am still glutonous, I have failed.

I say, beyond the politics of diet, we should be grateful when sacrafice has occured. Literally every time we eat someting, a living beings life has been sacrificed... animal or plant or mushroom or yeast, we should be grateful. Otherwise we are in no way above or beyond a gluttonous animal, being envoloped by the gross matters of life, and not discerning and examining the finer subtle matters of life.

[ArmsMerchant]

The gratitude issue is one thing that separates NAive subsistence hunters from sport hunters. The Natives are grateful to the animals spirit, treat it with respect, use every bit of product possible--meat, hide, sinew.

The sport hunter smirks, has another beer, poses with his victim and pretty much says "Hyuck--looky whut I did with my big metal and wood and plastic penis!"

[Thecosmicexplosion]

Personally I just try to listen to my heart and act in the best faith possible, educate myself and not be ignorant of the gifts I receive.

This is good on this subject you will like to read this the hindu faith has lot's of good in it

http://www.krishnasmercy.org/dotnetn...2/Default.aspx

"Prasadam is food that has first been offered to God. Meaning “the Lord’s mercy”, prasadam is prepared specifically for God and offered to His deity, and is thus considered sacred."

"When we prepare and offer food specifically for God, He eats the food but through His mercy he leaves the remnants for us."

If you don't like God, replace God with "Good, or Nature, what is Just"

[Ambient]

Originally Posted by Thecosmicexplosion

..hindu...

"Prasadam is food that has first been offered to God. Meaning “the Lord’s mercy”, prasadam is prepared specifically for God and offered to His deity, and is thus considered sacred."

"When we prepare and offer food specifically for God, He eats the food but through His mercy he leaves the remnants for us."

Hindu is a pejorative and insulting term, the correct terminology is "Vedic Religion" or "Vedic Injunction". The ceremonious approach to nutritional consumption you speak of IS derived from teh Bhagavad Gita I paraphrased, if only in part.

[Headspin]

Be conscious about what you eat, and when you are eating. To say eating sin sounds to me like adding karma. And you add to your karma when you do thing with attachment. Like right now, I am adding to my karma because I am attached to what I am saying.

[Thecosmicexplosion]

Originally Posted by Devotion

Hindu is a pejorative and insulting term, the correct terminology is "Vedic Religion" or "Vedic Injunction". The ceremonious approach to nutritional consumption you speak of IS derived from teh Bhagavad Gita I paraphrased, if only in part.

Thankyou

[Lord hang man]

I never think about this but undoubtedly it is true. This is the concept behind saying a prayer of grace, but you can't just mimic thankfulness. I will consider this at my next meal.

[Rizzo in a box]

I think the idea of eating sin is beautiful. Eat sin, crap out joy. Self-transforming energy elves.

It reminds me of the story in "Be Here Now" where the guru eats the offering of fruit faster than Ram Dass had ever seen, apparently eating the "negative karma" of the people offering it.

[Headspin]

Originally Posted by Rizzo in a box

I think the idea of eating sin is beautiful. Eat sin, crap out joy. Self-transforming energy elves.

It reminds me of the story in "Be Here Now" where the guru eats the offering of fruit faster than Ram Dass had ever seen, apparently eating the "negative karma" of the people offering it.

Yeah, to further discuss, usually the bag of oranges he would give Marajji were handed out to other people... but every once in a while he would consume the entire bag himself.

I say that suffering is also beautiful, but where does the worst suffering occur? Physical? Mental? Emotional? Its easy to say something is beautiful when you are not truly experiencing it yourself, but even easier when you are.

[Thecosmicexplosion]

Originally Posted by Rizzo in a box

I think the idea of eating sin is beautiful. Eat sin, crap out joy. Self-transforming energy elves.

It reminds me of the story in "Be Here Now" where the guru eats the offering of fruit faster than Ram Dass had ever seen, apparently eating the "negative karma" of the people offering it.

That was the shit

[iSocrates]

Originally Posted by Greyfox

The gratitude issue is one thing that separates NAive subsistence hunters from sport hunters. The Natives are grateful to the animals spirit, treat it with respect, use every bit of product possible--meat, hide, sinew.

The sport hunter smirks, has another beer, poses with his victim and pretty much says "Hyuck--looky whut I did with my big metal and wood and plastic penis!"

says someone who sells hunting equipment.

[Ambient]

Originally Posted by Pinback

says someone who sells hunting equipment.

Is selling hunting equipment encouraging one to be violent?

I will set aside the zealous I generally find in being passionate about these things...

Firstly, violence is not synonymous with physical conduct. Violence in an attitude that is often accompanied with physical conduct, just as lamentation is often accompanied with tears. An example of violence without physical conduct could be words of wrath, this is defined as non-physical; actually what I mean is non-physiological. At the core, violence is an attitude, and example of physical conduct absent of violence would be self-defense... or nutritional gathering.

Greyfox clearly identifies the variety of hunter he speaks of "sport hunter". This implies a whimsical kind of hunting, think game (sport) fishing. The sport hunter is perhaps a rich man, endowed with great wealth, but perhaps little time. A person in such a position is prone to be an ingrate; lacking gratitude.

We all live, and therefore take, from our planet. Therefore it is not a crime to take, it is part and parcel of living. I am reminded of a scene in avatar, the anthropic beings offer obeisances and say a prayer of devotion for the animal's sacrifice.

It is not a crime to die, therefore it is not necessarily a crime to kill. However most draw distinction between death, killing and murder. We generally concur, murder is unfavorable. We agree, a savage death is murder... death imposed without philosophical foundation is murder. So it is not that the sportsman has some philosophical foundation that is disagreeable, it is that he has no philosophical foundation.

So it is not the gun, it is the mindset.

*Disclaimer: I find slaughterhouses (farms) in general to be irreverent, therefore I am vegetarian.