Re: [BardonPraxis] Re: Fasting

["Rawn Clark" <rawnclark@...>]

 Dear Jason,

>> Might we infer that to eat an animal and expect to take on its Karma
and emotional state (at the moment of death) is similarly unfounded?
I understand that Hare Krishnas avoid meat for this very reason: to
avoid the Karma & (final) emotional state of the deceased animal. <<

Karma is not something that can, in any manner, be passed along through
the consumption of flesh. It is not a *physical* substance. However,
the final emotional state of terror that commercially slaughtered
animals experience does effect their flesh and as a consequence does
effect the person who eats that flesh.

>> I understand that Buddhists avoid meat because the flesh of animals
is of a "lower vibrational frequency" than that of plants. And that if
one aspires to refining their own mental processes, avoidance of these
"lower frequencies" is recommended. <<

There is validity to the concept that different foods have different
"vibrational frequencies". In conjunction with this, different foods
require different actions on the part of the human body to digest. For
example, meat requires a different set of enzymes and acids to digest
than do vegetables. Many folks do find great value in a vegetarian diet
in relation to their spiritual quest. However, vegetarianism does not
in and of itself mean that one is therefore more spiritual than a meat
eater. I have personally know many vegetarians who possess a very "low
vibrational frequency" and also many meat eaters who possess very "high
vibrational frequencies".

>> Besides, surely the Karmic profile/emotional state of any incarnated
being (animal, plant, whatever) is not "stored" in the physical body
anyway, and therefore not transferred during the *eating* of that body?
<<

Emotional states are stored in flesh. For example, when an animal
experience terror, great amounts of adrenaline are excreted into the
blood stream. On top of the chemical composition, emotions are also
stored in the energetic composition of flesh.

>> Similarly, with respect to Buddhist philosophy, surely the ingestion
of material of a particular vibrational frequency by the *physical* body
would have little or no bearing upon the refinement of the *mental*
body? <<

Once again, it's an issue of the Earth Element (primarily) and its
function of holding the three bodies together.

>> Finally, regarding the other popular argument - that's it's cruel to
contribute to the slaughter of animals by being a meat-eater - while
compassionate, surely misses the point that it's *just* as cruel to kill
plants? Would a plant not suffer as much as an animal during
harvest/slaughter? <<

A vegetable is the plant's attempt to make seeds. It is not the life of
the plant itself. When you harvest a zucchini, for example, the plant
will feel the wound of where you've severed the zucchini and will
immediately begin the process of healing, but it does not experience
terror. Many other vegetables are harvested at the very end of the
plant's life cycle, such a rice, for example, when there is no loss to
the plant at all.

Commercial mono-culture however, is offensive to the plant's
consciousness, especially when it is treated with chemicals.

>> Which might leave one wondering: "What *can* I eat with impunity?".
I would suggest: "Anything you like!". Anyroad, I'm off to get a Big
Mac or two......... ;-) ;-) <<

It depends upon what you mean by impunity. Surely those two Big Macs
come with a high price to your health and to the planet in general.
Ignoring consequences is not impunity.

Since we must eat in order to sustain our bodies, it's more a matter of
which consequences do *you* feel comfortable bearing.

My best to you,
:) Rawn Clark
23 Aug 2003
rawnclark@...
rawn@...
http://www.ABardonCompanion.com
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BardonPraxis
http://E.webring.com/hub?ring=arionthebardonwe