Belief is in the brain, so beware

Believing in the supernatural is easy: our brains lead us down the belief road without our knowledge. So there's good reason to be skeptical of religious, mystical, or spiritual experiences.

Much, most, or all of the time (depending on your level of skepticism) your brain is fooling you.

Such is the fascinating message of Sharon Begley's "Why We Believe" in a recent issue of Newsweek. I read her piece the day after my wife and I believed we were at the right election night party place, but really weren't.

We weren't in a supernatural frame of mind, but some of Begley's believing findings sure seemed to apply to us. Such as:

As scientists began studying belief in the paranormal, it quickly became clear that belief requires an open mind -- one not bound by the evidence of the senses, but in which emotions such as hope and despair can trump that evidence. ... The idea that the brain constructs reality from the bottom up, starting with perceptions, is woefully wrong, new evidence shows.

If we really want something to be true (like being an elevator ride away from an Obama victory party), our perceptions and thoughts likely are going to be tilted in the direction of our feelings and emotions.

Ambiguous evidence will be construed as Yes, we're on the right track! In the same way, religious believers see what they want to see in a holy book, holy person, or holy place. If your mind is deeply attached to a religious symbol, it may conjure up sensations that seem real, but actually aren't.

Brain imaging shows that the regions that become active when people imagine seeing or hearing something are identical to those that become active when they really do see or hear something in the outside world. ...It is not too far a step for mentally healthy people to see or hear what they are thinking intensely about.

I'm reminded of stories told by disciples about gurus to whom they're devoted.

After being told by the guru that it is possible to be in touch with his astral (or "radiant") form, and spending many hours in meditation visualizing the guru's presence, one day the guru appears and talks to them. Well, maybe. Or, not.

Christina Puchalski, director of the George Washington Institute for Spirituality and Health, felt her dead mother's presence "with me in a very deep and profound way, emanating from a certain direction," she says. "Maybe if you're thinking very strongly about that person, your mind is creating the sense that he is there."

Believing that there is more to life than what is apparent here on Earth can be comforting. I certainly got a lot of satisfaction from my true believing days. It was wonderful to feel so special, so cared for, so clearly guaranteed a better life after this one ended.

I'd still like this to be true. However, I've reached a point where truth is more important to me than feeling wonderful. Sure, I want both.

However, I also want my reality to be as real as possible.

The universal human need to find meaning and purpose in life is stronger and more basic than any attachment to empiricism, logic, or objective reality.

Well, that may be. However, I'm still optimisic that people -- me included -- can find meaning and purpose in attuning themselves to how the world is, in contrast to how they'd wish it to be.

Comments

[apicturehelduscaptive]

"Can find meaning and purpose in attuning themselves to how the world is, in contrast to how they'd wish it to be."

But the world is neutral by itself. You have to make up value for it to exist in your world. Its a shame, but the kind of meaning you are looking for doesn't exist. Attuning yourself to the value of reality is like trying to tune a radio with the power unplugged.

The best thing you can do is to make up the values ourselves, or alow someone elses values in, and then figure out how to forget that they weren't there all along.

[Adam]

"Believing that there is more to life than what is apparent here on Earth can be comforting"

or terrifying. The thought that we can only perceive a limited bandwidth of phenomena means that there is a lot more going on than meets the eye, or ear, or nose.

I like the impulse behind your thought, Brian. It's sort of zen--trying to remove the obstructions and the mental clutter in the mind so as to "just be." I know a little about this experience--usually when I am concentrated and able to be alert as opposed to lost in thought--but I also am wary of your privileging of "reality" as a concept, because I wonder if this leads to further dogmatism. Your "reality" is opposed, for example, to "supernatural," meaning that your "reality" is one side of a dualism.

[Rain]

To believe or not believe both require the belief part of our brains. Maybe some have more desire to figure this out and can't live with mystery-- hence work harder.

My husband and I had this discussion just yesterday because of something I have been thinking about writing about for my blog but haven't yet. Because of the Hubble space telescope and the photos deep in space of possibly new worlds being generated. Life is self-generating in this universe. There is no god reaching out with big hands and forming a new planet. Unlike where the Bible says god shaped Jeremiah, we know it doesn't take any big hands doing that. Bodies are self generating once an egg and sperm come together in a welcoming environment. The system is in place to keep having some disappear and new being reborn.

It does not though mean we are not also self-generating souls, and that's the exploring my mind has been doing. I wish I was more intelligent because I keep thinking if my mind could go deeper into this, I could figure it out, but maybe not. Maybe it's just a mystery, and we wait to see when we die if we do know suddenly so much or maybe we just no longer are.

Once in awhile I find it endlessly fascinating to speculate but after awhile i know it's a waste of my time because I can't get there from here. I do believe a lot of spiritual experiences might be generated or then again... maybe not.

Personally I think reincarnation makes the most sense if we are self-generating possibly with the help of spiritual bodies or maybe not... Next down the line, dust to dust makes the most sense. (using logic)

The one I least want to believe is what so many fundamentalists have embraced-- a vengeful god who gives life forever to those who say the right words or do the right act but it's all grace except if you don't do it, a city somewhere else might get zapped.

That kind of reasoning doesn't fit anything I see in life but back to the beginning-- to me it is all a mystery, a wonderful, beautiful mystery and just living at all is the greatest one of all.

[Brian]

A comment on the comments above: yes, I agree that meaning comes from us, not the cosmos. Sensory impressions we pretty much agree on (people stop at red lights, and go at green lights). But the meaning we attribute to the world is decidedly subjective.

My point, which I may not have expressed very clearly, is that it is possible to find deep meaning in discovering and embracing the consensual sort of "traffic light" reality. This is the meaning that scientists (like Einstein) speak of: the wonder that we can comprehend a comprehensible universe.

The alternative is finding meaning in fantasies of our own making, a narrow constricted world where we shut off evidence that doesn't conform with how we want reality to be.

For example, a fundamentalist will find great satisfaction in believing that God created the universe all at once. He or she will ignore the overwhelming evidence in support of evolution. Subjective meaningfulness is elevated above a much more objective, shared meaningfulness.

I'm not at all against likes and dislikes that are recognized as such. It'd be a boring world if everybody liked the same music, movies, art, and so on. But when we take this attitude toward reality -- "I like believing this, so it must be true" -- that's dangerous, unwise, divisive.

This is the root of religious fundamentalism. And we all know the threat this poses to the world.

[Stuart Resnick]

> there's good reason to be skeptical of
> religious, mystical, or spiritual
> experiences.

It may be useful to distinguish between "experience" and "belief." If "experience" is what we're perceiving, feeling, and doing in this moment... then it's the one thing we *can't* doubt.

Entangled with our experience is our "beliefs" about it. The moment we think about experience, make and hold ideas about it, label it with loaded words... we then have a *belief*. It's these beliefs that we can be skeptical about.

If you have a mystical experience, it's not the experience per se that's in doubt. (You don't doubt your own experience, though of course you best doubt the claims of others.) But when you label that experience "mystical," you've attached a tangle of beliefs to that experience, and that's where the delusion begins.

It seems that a common dynamic in religious/spiritual groups is the failure to distinguish belief from experience. Someone meets a guru and has the most blissful feelings in their heart. Everyone tells them that they've experienced the guru's magical invisible energy ("shakti" or whatever). Authorities in the group confirm this; scriptures tell them that this means that they're on a path to perfection or some such.

And it seems that lots of people won't notice that the pure experience is limited to that particular feeling they felt in that moment. Everything else... the whole belief-system about shakti and perfection and guru's powers and on and on... it's all just ideas that got dumped on top of the experience, and got confused with the actual experience through inattention.

> I'm still optimisic that people -- me
> included -- can find meaning and purpose
> in attuning themselves to how the world
> is, in contrast to how they'd wish it to
> be.

Our perception of "how the world is" gets clouded by *any* idea or belief we cling to. If we think an experience is "spiritual," we're not seeing the exerience itself. It's exactly the same if we think the experience is "mundane" etc etc.

In each moment, if we throw away all beliefs, put down all opionins, question all ideas... then the sky is blue, the grass is green, sugar is sweet, and a quarter is 25 cents. Then finding meaning is possible in the reality of the moment: if you're hungry, eat; if someone else is hungry, feed them.

Stuart
http://home.comcast.net/~sresnick2/booboo.htm
http://stuart-randomthoughts.blogspot.com/

[Brian]

Stuart, I get what you're saying (I think). Sure, an experience can't be questioned. A drunk experiences a pink elephant in his living room. Yes, that's what he's aware of.

But not every experience is grounded in a reality outside of the experiencer. If his wife says, "There's no elephant there," as does everyone else in the room, then we can pretty darn sure that the guy is hallucinating a pink elephant.

This is what I meant by being skeptical of certain experiences. Dreams are real to the dreamer, but they're not a reflection of shared or consensual reality. I don't believe most of us want to live in a world that only exists within our own mind. That wouldn't be very satisfying.

So it behooves us to mostly be in touch with the world other people share with us, and only secondarily overlay those perceptions with our own subjective impressions.

[Adam]

Brian,
A good word I learned in college from a very interesting prof is "intersubjective"---the very "shared reality" you are pointing to. And I think that partially what's going on here is a war fought amongst differing intersubjective stories. One intersubjective experience might be an agreement that feelings of awe point to Jesus' presence, while another shared perspective claims that there is no proof for this, and it cannot be real. You (and I) are part of the second group, fighting against irrationality, because through thought experiments, and history and current events, we have come to believe that religious extremism is extremely dangerous. I think this fight is worth it. But, I would be sure to be aware of the fight for what it is and not think that our side winning means a win for reality--it is a win for an intersubjective reality, maybe, but not for reality with a capital R.

REALITY is something to be pointed to, and I think Stuart does a good job of explaining experience vs. belief. REALITY (big R) can be covered up with Jesus and reality (small r).

[Stuart Resnick]

Brian wrote...
> This is what I meant by being skeptical of
> certain experiences. Dreams are real to
> the dreamer, but they're not a reflection
> of shared or consensual reality.

If 1000 people get close to a fire, just about everyone will feel heat. If 1000 people ingest LSD, just about all of them will get very strange feelings. Evidence shows this.

If 1000 people visit a guru who supposedly radiates spiritual energy, or visit the most holy temple, or stand in a Sedona vortex energy spot... maybe 10 to 20% will feel something. For some of them, the experience will be as "real" as the heat from a fire. But unlike fire, LSD, etc, they don't share that "reality" with the other 80+%.

It's a distinction worth making, I find. We don't need to label either type "real" or "unreal" necessarily... but the consensus is wider in some cases than others.

Part of the richness of life is our personal experience... if your taste buds tell you that you're having a wonderful meal, it's a purely subjective matter... but one that most of us wouldn't want to avoid. Still, so much of our life is relating to others, that it's worthwhile to get clear on how wide the consensus is for various experiences.

Example: the 20% percent of the people who feel energy around Guru X gather together to live in an ashram. They all reinforce in each other this experience, till they mistakenly believe it's non-different from a 100%-experience like the heat of fire or the weirdness of LSD.

It may be prudent to keep clear about 100% vs 20%. Why not? If I think 70s Classic Rock is the best music in the world, it's fine for me to enjoy it myself, and share the preference with like-minded others. Still, why not retain the clarity that the superiority of this particular music is more like a 10%-consensus than 100%-.

For that matter... even when something really really seems like a 100%-consensus, why not retain a bit of doubt? Where is there ever a situation where we can be entirely sure that we're not like ashramites, confusing 10% with 100%?

Stuart
http://stuart-randomthoughts.blogspot.com/

[Robert Paul Howard]

Dear Brian,

De gustibus non est disputandum.

In your 10:41 AM comment yesterday, you stated:

"...when we take this attitude toward reality -- "I like believing this, so it must be true" -- that's dangerous, unwise, divisive.
"This is the root of religious fundamentalism. And we all know the threat this poses to the world."

Please apply that to vegetarianism just as well as you do to other "likes and dislikes that are recognized as such." (I suggest this for all others just as well.)

De gustibus non est disputandum.

Robert Paul Howard

[Brian]

Robert, likes and dislikes don't need to have reasons. Or, they don't have reasons. At least, not good ones. "Why do you believe Jesus saves?" I ask a Christian. "Because it says so in the Bible," I hear. Or, "Because I feel it in my heart."

Not good reasons. Much more in the "like" category, where people believe what they do just because they like the belief.

Vegetarianism is much different. There's loads of solid research showing why it is a healthier diet than meat-eating. Plus, it is obvious that animals feel pain, so the moral aspect of vegetarianism also is on a solid footing.

Go to a slaughterhouse, a feed lot, a factory farm. Then go to a soybean field. There's no comparison. Anyone who eats meat is responsible, through a chain of cause and effect, for killing an animal.

Yes, meat-eaters have their own reasons for doing what they do. I'm just saying that vegetarianism isn't a fundamentalist sort of belief, with no good solid scientific or moral reasons behind it. Not the same at all. Relativism is dangerous ground to stand on, the belief that all beliefs are equal.

[tucson]

Brian wrote: "There's loads of solid research showing why it is a healthier diet than meat-eating."

http://chetday.com/vegmyths.htm

[tucson]

Furthermore, contadicting Brian's statement, "There's loads of solid research showing why it [vegetarian] is a healthier diet than meat-eating.":

http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/vegetarian.html

[Don Pedro]

Here is a site that Brian, Tao and all other reb-blooded American vegie males will enjoy: www.vegan vixens.com

[Brian]

Tucson, I disagree. Regardless of the spin those two web sites try to put on meat-eating, there's much evidence showing that it is harmful to health. For example, here's a recent study:

http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-he-redmeat10-2008nov10,0,6312251.story

The article starts off with:

"The news for red meat seems to be getting worse and worse.

In December, a survey of more than 494,000 people by the National Institutes of Health found that men who ate more than 5 ounces of red meat each day and women who ate more than 3 ounces had a 51% greater risk of esophageal cancer, 61% of liver cancer and 24% of colorectal cancer than those who ate less than an ounce of red meat daily."

[tAo]

Pedro,

Btw, contrary to your comment, I am NOT a vegan. I am also technically not a vegetarian either.

I do eat 2 - 3 egg yolks daily, and I occasionaly shrimp or fish. And I will eat almost anything (except for beef) if I have to.

I was a vegetarian for about 40 years, but for the past couple of years, not any longer.

I have done a great deal of study and research about this: A moderate dietary intake of cholesterol is necessary and important, and cholesterol is used by the body mainly in its production of adequate levels of hormones, especially the hormone testosterone.

So for men, an adequate (but not excessive)and regular intake of dietary cholesterol contributes greatly towards being and remaining that "reb-blooded male" that you mentioned. It is also used to produce homones in females as well.

Vegans (specifically) generally suffer from low levels of hormones (especially testosterone) due to their not having any (zero) intake of dietary cholesterol. (dietary cholesterol is only had by consuming animal and/or dairy products - it is not contained in fruit or vegetable foods)

Also, Vegans tend to consume Soy products, which unfortunately mimic & tend to increase estrogen levels in males (and thus decrease their testosterone levels)... and Soy is also definitely known to be detrimental to proper thyroid function in females.

So I'm NOT a Vegan nor even a Vegee... and for men (especially men above age 40), in order to have an adequate level of male testosterone, I definitely do recommend (at the very least) consuming a couple of egg yolks daily, and also having adequate amount of protein intake and zinc.

[tAo]

PS:

Hey thanks for that Vegan Vixen site.

Hot Babes never fail to assist a "rise" in the ole male testosterone level too.

Dear Brian,

The citation you say "starts off" that article are actually preceded by these words in its subtitle: "Recent studies give red meat a bad name. But moderation, proper preparation -- and science -- can minimize the risks." Further, on its p. 2 it likewise states: "Scientists generally agree that lean red meat has a place in a healthful diet -- in moderation."

Like a Christian fundamentalist, you only cited the words/portion you "like" rather than what else was said in the text.

While it may be that "vegetarianism isn't a fundamentalist sort of belief, with no good solid scientific or moral reasons behind it[,]" your attitude toward the topic seems to me to be rather like that of a "fundamentalist."

From Jon Kabat-Zinn I cite the following:

"...We can all be imprisoned by incessant wanting, by a mind clouded with ideas and opinions it clings to as if they were truths.
"...Perhaps ultimately, spiritual simply means experiencing wholeness and interconnectedness directly, a seeing that individuality and the totality are interwoven, that nothing is separate or extraneous.
"If you see in this way, then everything becomes spiritual in its deepest sense. Doing science is spiritual. So is washing the dishes. It is the inner experience which counts. And you have to be there for it. All else is mere thinking.
"At the same time, you have to be on the lookout for tendencies toward self-deception, deluded thinking, grandiosity, self-inflation, and impulses toward exploitation and cruelty directed at other beings. A lot of harm has come in all eras from people attached to one view of spiritual "truth."
"...Moreover, our ideas of spirituality frequently ring with a slightly holier-than-thou resonance to the attuned ear. Narrow, literalist views of spirit often place it above the "gross," "polluted," "deluded" domain of body, mind, and matter. Falling into such views, people can use ideas of spirit to run from life."

Folks being vegetarians is fine with me - so long as they are not fundamentalists about their preference, i.e., being elitists who engage in rationalizations that "split themselves off from other people" as if they were/are somehow morally superior thereby.

You might consider your response to me once more.

Robert Paul Howard

[Robert Paul Howard]

To all,

I apologize for my failure to properly indicate my name in the introductory part of my just previous comment.

Robert Paul Howard

[Roger]

As a side hobby, I enjoy Science Fiction fantasy. Some futuristic space adventure to another world and the encounters found there in.

"The alternative is finding meaning in fantasies of our own making, a narrow constricted world where we shut off evidence that doesn't conform with how we want reality to be."

This hobby can involve participating in a wiki. Again, it's just a hobby, where One can dream of a new energy source, or the health effects of teleportation. All good fun, for the brief time spent there. One's imagination, experienced with others in the wiki, is a way to make friends from all around the world and have some fun. I'm not escaping from reality, I'm just jumping from one hobby to the next.

[Brian]

Robert, I'm not a vegetarian fundamentalist. We subscribe to several health letters, from Harvard, U of California at Berkeley, Consumer Reports.

We do our best to keep up on research regarding the health effects of meat-eating (and other subjects, naturally).

A classic book in this area is Jean Carper's "Food, Your Miracle Medicine." It's based on more than 10,000 research studies showing the connection between diet and health (as of 1994, but the basic conclusions still hold).

Browse through the table of contents:
http://books.google.com/books?id=YqV27LGcZGMC&printsec=frontcover&dq=inauthor:Jean+inauthor:Carper#PPR15,M1

It turns out that of sixty common foods that promote health, only one is animal'ish: fish and fish oil. All the rest are fruits, vegetables, dairy products, and beverages.

So research like this is what makes me say that meat-eating is bad for your health. It's a fact, like evolution or the big bang. People can deny facts, but that doesn't make them any less true.

[tucson]

Brian provided as a counter to my post regarding the myths of the veg diet:

"In December, a survey of more than 494,000 people by the National Institutes of Health found that men who ate more than 5 ounces of red meat each day and women who ate more than 3 ounces had a 51% greater risk of esophageal cancer, 61% of liver cancer and 24% of colorectal cancer than those who ate less than an ounce of red meat daily."

---The thing about such studies is that you can set them up to prove any hypothesis you want. There are too many variables which have not been taken into account for this to prove anything other than people get cancer. For example, people who eat less red meat may believe that doing so is healthier for them and by extension have better health habits overall than those who ate more red meat. They may also avoid smoking, exercise more, eat less prcessed food and less sugar, etc, etc.

It is well known that results of polls can be skewed simply by how the questions are phrased.

I can set up a study that shows people who eat more potatoes or doughnuts or decaf coffee or bread have higher cancer rates than those who do not, but this proves nothing in itself. Or, I can set up the parameters in such a way that people who eat these things get less cancer.

Food for thought: (pun cleverly intended)

One of the most potent anti-oxidants, alpha-lipoic acid, is found in meat:

http://www.nutritionrepoter.com/Alpha-Lipoic.html

The idea that cholesterol is bad for you is a myth:

http://www.ravnskov.nu/cholesterol.htm

Dietary lectins found in large amounts in grains and beans are bad for you:

http://www.krispin.com/lectin.html

Also, phytates/phytic acid found in grains and beans are detrimental to your health:

http://www.paleodiet.com/phytic.txt

As tAo stated, Soy can be hazzardous:

http://www.soyonlineservice.com.nz/

I can go on with stuff like this all day, and I am sure anyone can do the same to defend the veg cause. The point is, one simply can't say that a vegetarian, omnivorous or carnivorous diet is superior even though there is literature to support each point of view. Yes, even a pure carnivorous diet is supported by the lack of degenerative disease and cancer in pre-industrial diet Inuit who consumed almost nothing but animal food for generations.

On the contrary, I have seen many horses with cancer who subsisted soley on pasture grass. One was a fine little pony my kids grew up with. She lived to a ripe old age but cancer felled her.

Ah, the lord works in mysterious ways.

[tucson]

WTF? A couple of my links above don't work so I'll try again for the one or two of you who may be interested:

about alpha-lipoic acid, one of the most potent anti-oxidants and it is plentiful in meat:

http://www.nutritionreporter.com/Alpha-Lipoic.html

and about the dangers of soy:

http://www.soyonlineservice.co.nz

[zenjen]

One of my favourite sayings from my 2008 Zen calendar:

"What is the mind like if its not occupied with plans and schemes, and fears that the plans and schemes will fail? What if your unexamined beliefs were to fall away and you were to live without them, and also to live without the thought that you had given anything up?"

[tAo]

Tucson,

I hear you Bro.

My problem is... I'd like to be abvle to have more leeway in my eating, but after adhering and being restricted to a vegee diet for several decdes, it is very difficult (and almost impossible) to eat, much less enjoy eating meat again. The best I have been able to do so far is a little fish and shrimp. Eating eggs is pretty easy for me, especially if Tabasco is added for flavor. And eating some kinds of fish is not super difficult. I could also handle chicken, especially if it was mixed with rice, tortillas, vegees, etc.

BUT... for me to eat, much less even swallow, any beef or sheep or pork is virtually impossible at this point. And I don't expect that will ever change. Forty years of my being a vegetarian has altered me to such an extent that eating red meat (like beef etc) is extemely disgusting for me to even contemplate. Even after I totally broke and dissolved the mental fixation to being vegetarian, I still can't handle the thought of eating cows, sheep, or pigs.

So I guess I will just have to remain content with the extent that I am able to handle (eggs for sure, a little seafood, and maybe some poultry). I really don't need nor want to eat any red meat anyway.

I basically just needed to have cholesterol intake to assist in better adeqaute hormone production. And things like alpha-lipoic acid and B-12 etc etc can all be achieved via supplements. I also use lots of Whey for extra high-quality protein, especially when I'm doing bodybuilding and weight-lifting, which is at least every other day.

If you have any thoughts or good tips on how to better re-introduce fish, poultry, or meat into the diet, I would be interested to hear it.

It's kind of funny really... because most people who are diet conscious are actually trying to go the other way and get away from or lessen their meat eating.

I never thought I would ever leave being a vegetarian, but when I began breaking or dissolving my mental fixations, it just naturally became easier to expand and go beyond the taboos. And the necessity for dietary cholesterol and the hormone thing really helped to convince me to get beyond the limits and insufficiencies of the vegetarian belief system.

If you had asked me to eat animal products 10 or 15 years ago, I would have said "NEVER"... but when one begins to release and free oneself from various mental fixations and other self-imposed limitations, then the rest just follows.

And once you free yourself, then you can really see how others are still stuck and bound and fixated.... and being rigidly fixated on vegetarianism is just one of those self-imposed limitations.

Of course, there are also benefits to some aspects of being vegetarian as well. But there are also detriments too. I think the best and healthiest approach is a balance. But that requires that one be free of fixations and inhibitions.

Thanks for your comments.

[tucson]

My dear buddy tAo,

My intention on this topic is not to convert or convince people to eat meat. It is simply to dispell the notion that meat is detrimental to your health.

I completely understand the aversion to meat because of its taste or one's sensitivity to killing and eating animals. For these people I recommend eggs (no chickens need be harmed by this), supplementation with the amino acid L-Carnitine, and the ayurvedic herb coleus forscolli which promotes the production of cyclic-AMP for intra-cellular energy exchange and a more efficient metabolism. Of course vegans will have to supplement with vitamin B12. I recommend methyl-cobalimin which is a biolologically more assimilable form of B12 than the cyanocobalamin commonly found in most multi-vitamins.

However, there are some people who avoid meat because they think it is bad for them and as a result experience less than optimal health.

That being said, it is true there are some metabolic types that have difficulty assimilating meat, especially red meat due to a lack of enzymes or low production of hydrochloric acid in the stomach. This occurs frequently when a person has not eaten meat for a long time, there can be a period of adjustment as the body adapts to the unfamiliar food source. This can be remedied by a temporary course of supplementary enzymes and/or a tablespoon of cider vinegar with the protein meal to increase stomach acidity.

The thing to understand, whether one has moral issues with it or not is that humans have been eating meat in one form or another since the origin of the species. Paleo-Anthro-archaeology bears this out. It is natural food for man as are fruits, vegetables, tubers or anything that can be gathered or acquired with no more than a sharp stick, and can be eaten raw. We are omnivorous with a few caveats.

Grains and beans are relatively new in human nutrition, cultivation of which only began in the neolithic period which began some 10-12,000 years ago. Prior to that, in paleolithic times, humans were hunter gatherers and did not grow cereal crops but rather foraged vegetation and hunted game.

Since we are 99.9% genetically identical to our paleolithic ancestors our digestive systems have not fully adapted to cereals due to anti-nutrients phytates which inhibit assimilation of minerals, certain toxic lectins (protein compounds) which attack the epithelial cells of the small intestine resulting in leaky gut syndrome. This condition allows uncompletley digested proteins to enter the bloodstream which the immune system recognizes as foreign. When these proteins settle in joints or organs they are attacked as invaders which results in allergies, arthritis and auto-immune disorders.

In my case tofu is particularly bad. I am better off with tempeh which has been partially digested by the bacterial matrix. The thing is, I don't like tempeh.

Another offender is milk products. How would a primitive hunter gatherer obtain milk without receiving a lethal kick or horn thrust from a grazing herbivore on the African Savannah? Again, milk proteins (casein) and sugars (lactose) are not recognized as food by many human metabolisms. Many of us have not adapted to these foods. An exception is those with type B blood because the Type B antigen is D-galactosamine which is the very same sugar found in milk. Many asiatic nomads such as mongolian herdsmen have type B blood. Hense their success with the use of yak milk as a staple.

I can write a book on this topic, but to sum up I would say that most people should stick to meat (meaning any kind of edible animal and its parts), vegetables, fruit, nuts, seeds and certain roots and tubers. Vegans will have to eliminate the meat and get by with the others supplementing as i suggested.

Limit grains, beans, dairy and sugar.

Wheat (spelt and kamut) is especially problematic due to gluten which has no precedent in the paleo anthropologic record. Some experts estimate that up to 70% of the population has some degree of unfavorable sensitivity to gluten which is a very large, complex molecule that is hard to digest. Rye, barley and oats also contain gluten.

If you want to try introducing meat into your diet, do so gradually. I found after many years of vegetarianism that chicken was a pretty neutral place to start, especially white breast meat which has a mild flavor and texture. My first piece of animal food after 28-29 years was salmon expertly prepared by my wife who had not forgotten how to cook it.

Later on I had a mongolian stir-fry with beef in it. To my surprise, I felt great and highly energized. This is because I happen to be a metabolic type that thrives on red meat.

I try to obtain meat from sources where the animals are treated as humanely as possible. Grass fed, pasture raised beef without growth hormones or anti-biotics. I try to avoid meat produced by agri-business methods which is unnatural and results in more suffering for the animals.

It gives some perspective when you consider that the animals are going to die one way or another eventually and that death in the wild by starvation, disease, or being eaten alive by predators is more tortuous than the fate offered by humans who usually accomplish the killing quickly. To some this may be an inadequate rationalization, but for those who require meat for optimal health it offers some solace.

I went through this transition some ten or more years ago. At that time I was still athletic. After incorporating meat back into my diet, there was approximately a 10% improvement in my performances, a disappearance of arthritic symptoms, improvement in blood lipid and cholesterol profile, yes my total cholesterol went down from 211 to 190, triglycerides went from 150 to 48, and pre-diabetic symptoms diminished (aka metabolic syndrome).

Be vegetarian if you want, but meat won't hurt you.

In closing, I would like to say that our modern food production and distribution methods give us the option of idealistic diets. However, in the wild there are no tofu trees and, as I described, obtaining milk would probably get you killed.

Imagine yourself in a primeval temperate forest, naked with no more than a wooden spear and a piece of sharp flaked obsidian. What would you eat to meet all your nutritional needs? How would you stay warm? This may give you a better idea of the natural food of man.

[Roger]

Tao,

You stated,

"BUT... for me to eat, much less even swallow, any beef or sheep or pork is virtually impossible at this point. And I don't expect that will ever change. Forty years of my being a vegetarian has altered me to such an extent that eating red meat (like beef etc) is extemely disgusting for me to even contemplate. Even after I totally broke and dissolved the mental fixation to being vegetarian, I still can't handle the thought of eating cows, sheep, or pigs."

---The "red meat" that you reference, is it meat that has been cooked "rare?" Would a "medium rare" steak with seasonings, have a taste that you couldn't handle?
I'm not trying to turn you to eating meat, I eat very little. However, the "extremely disgusting" seems rather harsh.

Surely, there are things in this crazy world that deserve the category of extremely disgusting.

Anyway, how are you feeling? Torn muscles healing?

Roger

[Adam]

Hi Roger,

I was raised veg and have never tried meat, and can tell you that I find the thought of eating meat "extremely disgusting." I don't see meat as food--it looks like muscle to me.

[Don Pedro]

Good evening,

I would like to share with you a website for the organization called EarthSave. It is www.earthsave.org. It was founded by John Robbins who rejected his inheritance from the Baskin-Robbins ice cream company that his father helped found, became a crusader for the health of people, animals and the planet, and today is a buff 60 year old vegan. His most prominent book is titled "Diet for a new America" and his most recent book, "Healthy at 100" looks closely at the lifestyles of some of the longest lived people and where they live on the earth. Your membership includes a bi-monthly newsletter and a one-year subscription to Vegetarian Times Magazine. Check it out. Go for it if it resonates with you. I have been a lacto-vegetarian since 1970 and enjoy a wide variety of
edibles including goat milk products, superfoods like Maca powder, Goji berries and raw cacao powder, as well as mostly organic raw and cooked vegetables,fruits, nuts and seeds, beans and grains. I put whey protein powder in my vita-mix blender with almond and hemp or rice milk, add a tbsp of each of the superfoods mentioned above, a banana or berries and either stevia or agave nectar for a sweetener. This smoothie keeps me going for most of the day. I do eat tofu, tempeh and seitan(wheat gluten) a few times a week and purchase Ezekiel sprouted breads and tortillas for carbohydrates. There are other things that I eat in the healthy snack or treat categories including chips, desserts and energy bars but I won't elaborate on brand names and flavors. Natural food stores like Whole Foods carry everything and more that I mentioned above and a great website for supplements, cosmetics, superfoods, etc., is www.vitacost.com. Big discounts and top name brands. My wife and I get a shipment from them about once a month. I will be happy to share onformation on what has worked for me over the years with anyone who visits this site.

Goodnight, mi amigos

[Don Pedro]

Buenos Dias, mi amigos

Two other items that I put in my smoothie are lecithin granules and flaxseed oil with vegetarian DHA from Flora, Inc. The whey that I use is contained in a product called The Perfect Meal from Garden of Life. Try my recipe and see how it tastes and feels. Have fun and play with the ingredients according to your likes and dislikes.

Have a really peaceful,healthy day!

[tucson]

Our amigo, Don Pedro, has very kindheartedly presented many good healthy foods to consider, although I have no idea why someone as health conscious as he would consider seitan (satan) a component of a healthy diet. *See my discussion above regarding gluten which is all that seitan is...pure gluten.

In regard to his recommendation of flax as a vegetarian source of essential fatty acids I would like to clarify an issue that is not well understood by the average consumer.

Omega 3 fatty acids consist of docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) plus eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA). DHA is required in high levels in the brain and retina as a physiologically-essential nutrient to provide for optimal neuronal functioning (learning ability, mental development) and visual acuity, in young and old alike. DHA plus EPA are both considered to have beneficial effects in the prevention and management of cardiovascular disease plus associated risk factors as well as other chronic disorders.
DHA plus EPA are absent from plant food sources rich in ALA (such as flax, canola oil, and walnuts). Since the metabolic conversion of ALA to DHA/EPA (combined) by metabolism is very limited in humans, the most direct way of providing DHA plus EPA for the body is via their direct consumption.

This is why consumption of animal fat sources of Omega 3 fatty acids, such as fish oil or grass-fed beef, is prefered to vegetable sources because DHA/EPA is directly available without the enzymatic conversion from ALA.

This enzymatic deficiency varies, however. Many northern europeans and other ethnicities who, it is theorized, have a long ancestral history of consuming fish have completely lost this ability to bio-convert ALA since the DHA and EPA were directly available to them from the animal food sources.

If you happen to be one of these genetic types, you can consume all the flax, nuts and seeds that you want, but you will still be deficient in the essential fatty acids.

If you seem to be thriving on your strict veg diet over a period of many years then I would say that there is a good chance you can convert the ALA to EPA/DHA and you are OK with veg sources. Others, despite their fervent adherence to a strict dietary ideal may have to consider introducing Omega 3's via fish oil or another animal source.

[tAo]

Tucson,

Love your recent comments. Lots of excellent info which I have saved for future reference. Thanks Bro.

Now I myself have used flax oil off and on for many years, but have recently felt (or intuited) that Fish Oil migh be better. And now you have confirmed that. However I haven't had the time to research the issue very thoroughly. You can save me the trouble if you would kindly recommend what type, brand, amount, etc of Fish Oil would be good? (and I would generally prefer it in liquid form a bottle, rather than those soft geletin capsules, but that may be difficult to obtain other than cod liver oil). So then, which type and brand/s of fish oil would you recommend as being the best? And in what dosage?

I also always take a few tablespoons daily of Lecithin (ususally with my Whey protein). I do the lecithin at around the same time I eat a few cooked Egg Yolks.

But I also need to really try to consume more fish. What types of fish would you recommend? And is a moderate amount of tuna alright, or perhaps sardines, herring, or maybe salmon... which type is better or poreferable?. And I definitely want to start taking the proper type of Fish Oil for the resons that you mentioned.

I am also going to really try to see if I can handle some more chicken. As for the red-meat such a beef, I definitely hear you, and I would actually like to overcome my mental aversion. But I'm not there yet. I will press on though. Any suggestions how to begin? Should I just go out and eat a crappy non-organic fast-food hamburger? Or perhaps go get a Chinese or Asian type stir-fry with beef in it? Any suggestions?

I don't mind shrimp at all, although I've heard that shrimp isn't all that good for you. Any more thoughts about the benefits or detriments of various types of seafood?

From what you indicated previously, it sounds like red meat is the best for certain ethnic groups and blood types. I have read that book about the Blood type diet. I think I am a type O blood, but somehow I, so I will have to go check.

As for other supplements, I do a daily small dose of DHEA (10mg)... plus a 25-50 mg B-complex, 1200 units of vit E, 1 gram vit C powder, 50 mg zinc, 600 mg magnesium, 1200 mg calcium, 500 mcg B-12, and 1500 mg of the amino acid Arginine.

I will also check into the Carnitine that you suggested. And btw, why exactly is Carnitine beneficial?

In the past I have also used tons of all those other super-foods that someone else mentioned... I have used tons of Spirulina, Maca, Bee-pollen, Gogi berries, Brewers yeast, Raw Vegee & Green Juice, etc. etc.

But nowadays I just stick to a much more basic body-building approach: Eggs, Whey protein shakes, Lecithin, Fish oil (hopefully coming soon)... and also a few essential vitamin & mineral supplements.

I also occasionally (but not always daily) take Pancreatine which has very strong digestive enzymes. The Whey shake I ususally take before or after weightlifting is TwinLab Ultimate Protein System, or sometime just plain old whey.

Thanks again for all the cool info.

[tucson]

Well tAo, you have given me a pretty good homework assignment. I may not deal with every issue to your statisfaction but I'll try to touch on the main points.

First of all it is important to know that I went through a similar transition in 1997. I just wasn't doing that well physically and started some extensive research which is why I am able to speak with some knowledge on nutritional topics. I used to go to the veg blogs and get them all steamed up when I would blow their dogma out of the water much in the same way we deal with RSSB dogma here. I was actually blocked from some sites because I was not supportive of the unfounded beliefs some vegetarians have.

Anyway, I went back to the omnivorous diet with a great deal of trepidation and guilt. It was very weird, to say the least, to find myself eating meat again, but there was no denying the fact that it was agreeing with me.

My suggestion to you is to simply follow your heart and instincts, but try not to be influenced by emotion and guilt or the conditioning of your prior beliefs. Keep an open mind and find out what works for you.

Vegetarians like to get all bent out of shape about how disgusting meat is. You know, "How can you let the carcass of a murdered animal rot in your stomach?". But meat is just biological matter that happens to be packed with nutrients, the synergy of which is very harmonious with the human metabolism if it is prepared consciously (mainly eating it fresh and not over-cooking or charring it). It doesn't hurt to be grateful to the animal who is giving its energy to you.

People talk about how all the essential amino acids are found in the vegetable kingdom, which is true, but the bio-availability of these proteins is not the same as meat.

Mark Allen, the famous tri-athlete and multi-ironman winner was a vegetarian during a large part of his career, but one day he got a craving for a steak and went to a restaurant and ate one. He said it gave him a warm feeling all over like it was something his body needed for a long time. To my knowledge, he did not return to vegetarianism.

Personally, there are certain animals I will not eat, mainly pigs. They are very intelligent and there is something about the meat, although it tastes good, that feels wrong to my instincts, so I avoid it. There are other animals in that category, but their meat is not commonly available so it is not an issue. I also do not like to eat veal or lamb.

Generally, I try to eat lower on the food chain: eggs, chicken and seafood, but occasional red meat from cows is like a tonic. Bernard lagat, the evening before winning the world championship in the 1500 last year had a steak for dinner. He has been the best middle distance runner in the world for years and thrives on meat in his diet. He lives near me and his sister has trained with my son, so I know about this.

Many of the Kenyans are blood type O which is also the most common blood type in humanity in general. As you know from reading the work of D'Adamo, blood type O's are genetically especially well adapted to red meat. I would take the trouble to go to dadamo.com and order one of their blood type tests. Certainly, if you are type O you might want to give some quality steak a try.

I think some quality sirloin stir-fried with brown rice and vegetables is a good place to start. Or, simply go to a good steakhouse and order a petit filet mignon cooked medium along with a green salad on the side and see how you feel. Skip the potatoes and bread commonly served to get the full effect of the meat. Filet mignon has very little gristle or fat and may be more platable to the neophyte carnivore. Don't go to a fast food joint and order a crappy hamburger.

As for fish oil, Carlson's liquid cod liver oil is very good. They add a lemon extract which hides the fishy taste very effectively. Even kids won't complain. One teaspoon a day is sufficient and studies have shown the liquid oil to be better than the capsules.

Your supplements sound good, but some recent research is showing that daily doses of sythetic vitamin C in excess of 250 mg daily is causing some inflexibility of the carotid arteries. Save the mega-doses for the onset of a cold or flu symptoms, but it won't do you any good once the illness takes hold.

Calcium is a complex issue and deficiences attributed to it are actually rooted in inadequate magnesium and sunlight. Increase the intake of green vegetables and be sure you match every gram of calcium you take with half as much magnesium. Avoid calcium carbonate and get a more bioavailable form such as calcium citrate, aspartate or ascorbate.

Carnitine is simply an essential amino acid that is not especially plentiful in the vegetarian diet.

Whey protein may not be the best for you if you are blood type O. It works better for type B's. If you are O, I would suggest egg white protein instead.

Deep, cold water fish from the north tends to be less contaminated with mercury and PCB's. Wild salmon is usually best. Fish low on the food chain are also safe like sardines. Albacore tuna is lower in mercury than other types of tuna. Shrimp isn't all that good for you because much of it is polluted. Unfortunately, fish is kind of a crap shoot because you don't know where it has been and much of the oceans are polluted these days. Too bad, because fish is otherwise an excellent food source.

I am not so much into supplements as eating a variety of high quality whole, fresh foods. I use supplements mostly to deal with specific health issues if they come up.
Sugar is the worst thing you can eat followed closely by trans fats (margarine, hydrogenated fats, etc.)

There is a book called "Neanderthin" by Ray Audette which was seminal for me. It made so much common sense.

Best Wishes to all and to all a good night.

[manjit]

Tucson - you have been passing on some great info here, thanks.

Though, as I'm sure you're already aware, and have indeed mentioned yourself, research data can be used to prove many different things.

I'm sure you can appreciate there IS a good deal of research which show the comparitive *benefits* of a veg diet compared to a meat-eating one?

People tend to get very defensive of their eating habits. And I can appreciate why we appear to have selective discrimination when it comes to research etc.

Personally, I think the mind plays a far more important role than we currently understand in our health and well being?

I like your info though, I agree with much of it. However there are of course caveats (such as the vast majority of meat, chickens etc have lost the VAST majority of their essential oils like Omega3, due to intensive farming etc....I'm sure you know this, having mentioned 'grass-fed cows')

Still, I'm a veggie and in my personal experience I have found my health/fitness/wellbeing to be at least equal that of the majority of meat eaters I know, but I do make an effort to keep fit!

BUT, my main point in all of this, and this is not a defensive reaction or an attack on meat-eaters (because I have no issue with OTHERS eating meat....most of my family & friends do, and I NEVER even discuss it with anyone), is that for me personally, not eating meat is a *spontaneous act of compassion*. Not a CONCEPTUAL act, or a calculated act, or one designed to lessen some fictional karma or something.....but a spontaneous act of compassion. Killing animals just isn't NICE, in my experience. I have no concern for either religous tenets, karma or reaching some fictional heaven, or accumalating 'merit', or even my health (perhaps because it is in a good state?). Just like I spontaneously wouldn't mug some human for their purse, just so I can enjoy some temporal pleasure with their money....I wouldn't mug an animal for it's life just so I can enjoy it's flavour, or increase me so-called 'well being' in an barely noticable manner.

It's just not nice.

Simple.

PS, that 'warm' feeling from eating meat can also be had by ingesting protein WITH good amino acids (the amino acids is the important part). Weight training for veggies without these is not good for you, in my experience.

Thanks for the info though Tucson, some great points.

[tucson]

Manjit,

I can't argue with your main point. Killing is killing and it ain't pretty. If you don't want to participate, there are alternatives.

However, the difference between eating and not eating meat for SOME people is more than a warm fuzzy feeling of well being and a full stomach. For SOME it is the difference between thriving and basic physical maintenance. It has to do with optimal endurance, metabolic efficiency, weight control, immune response and a lot more. If they don't want that, they don't have to have it. No gun is pointed at their head.

I used to have a horse ranch in Oregon. I owned my own horses and also boarded horses. I was surrounded by ranches where cattle were raised and I was often invited to help round up the cattle for their ride to the feed lot and processing plant. This was conflictive for me because I was still a vegetarian at that time. But there is little I have done that was more exhilarating (even surfing a big wave) than running down a few strays at full gallop and bringing them back to the herd. (contrary to popular belief, cows are fast and are almost a match for many horses).

What I'm getting at is I witnessed first hand the life of these cattle. They were raised in idyllic conditions on green patures unmolested by predators. They could roam about chowing down with their herdmates, chew their cuds, mate, have offspring and have a jolly old cow time, probably better than if they were turned loose in the desert. Not all ranches are run this way, but it is common and could be the norm.

Anyway, these cattle get to live a good life, it is just that at their prime the end comes a little early. But is this worse than the fate they would meet in nature...infested with parasites, injuries, illness, starvation, thirst and being eaten by predators? Is the decline from their prime to the decreptitude of old age and vulnerability to these things a pleasure for them?

So, while this does not remove the fact that they are killed for humans to eat, maybe the cows aren't all that bad off after all.

[Brian]

Regarding the fish oil discussion... Tucson makes good sense. I just came to the same conclusion, having chosen to take a close look at the many supplements that I take every day.

I've been getting my DHA and EPA from algae oil. My wife takes fish oil supplements. I compared the labels and found that a couple of fish oil capsules supply way more Omega 3 fatty acids that the five algae oil capsules I've been taking.

As a vegetarian, I don't like the idea of consuming fish oil. But for a couple of weeks I've been taking one capsule of Nordic Naturals' "Ultimate Omega" morning and evening. This brand was recommended to my wife by an eye doctor at the Oregon Medical School, when she went for lasik and was concerned about dry eyes. He'd done research in the area of fish oil and eye health.

I haven't noticed a big uptick in my bad karma. Of course, how would I know?

Seriously... my resistance to taking fish oil was due to a lingering quasi-fundamentalist mindset: that it is morally wrong to eat an animal product. I still believe in vegetarianism, but there's nothing wrong with flexibility -- especially when the upside is a potential for better health.

I could be fantasizing this, but I seem to feel somewhat better after taking the Ultimate Omega. The label says it is formulated to support "better mood" among other benefits. Well, I'll take a placebo effect if it makes me feel better.

[manjit]

I hear what you're saying Tucson. It is a dog-eat-dog world where life subsists on life. I am the last person in the world to deny the beauty and majesty of this fact.

I should make it clear my comment in the original post is an entirely subjective opinion/preference/reaction to meat.

And that I *certainely* agree that if for some people the veg diet doesn't agree with them, that they should certainely eat meat or whatever's required, to do otherwise would be utterly foolish, imo.

I think the middle, or 'easiest' path is always preferable. I eat cakes with egg in, or things with gelatin or animal fat etc without paying attention. I have even considered taking fish oil for omega oil (as Brian also mentioned), and even contemplated eating certain forms of meat protein about a year ago.

It's just that my spontaneous or 'easy' reaction was to feel deeply unwell at the prospect of eating any of them, so I didn't! Personal preference, that's all.

But if living without meat is making you mentally or physically unwell, go for it I say......it's natural.....

[Adam]

veggie thoughts--

Minjit, I agree with you about he sopnatneous act of compassion bit.

I just can't look at a piece of meat without imagining the animal being killed, and for what?

Isn't it sad? :(

[Don Pedro]

Buenos Noches, mi amigos

Regarding Tucson's opinion of seitan/satan, I rarely eat it at home except when I make mock chicken salad sandwiches with vegenaise and have it a few times a year in Vietnamese restaurants as some form of mock meat in a main dish. I don't seem to have an allergy to wheat or other forms of gluten but can understand the need to avoid such products if you do. Tofu and tempeh provide protein for me typically in my dinner and my wife prepares them in a very tasty manner. She is also a lacto-vegetarian for 30 years. Brian, instead of fish oil I would recommend hemp oil and for your mood trying SAM-E and 5-HTP. I take both of these serotonin boosting supplements every day and am certain they help me stay in a positive mood and sleep better too. I take 400 mg. of SAM-E in the morning before eating and 100 mg. of 5-HTP with vitamin C and B-6 just before going to bed. I fall asleep within 10 minutes and sleep a solid 6 hours. The brand I use is called Doctor's Best and is available fro www.vitacost.com. Shifting gears, I went to see a movie last night at my local one screen theatre and it was called Religulous by Bill Maher. I laughed a lot and recommend this movie to all visitors to this site. Laughter is good medicine.

[tucson]

Don Pedro,

Not to be a nit-picking pain in the ass but hemp oil is the same as flax oil. All it has is the precursor to EPA/DHA which still must be bio-converted by an enzymatic process many humans do not have or at least do not do very efficiently.

Those people must go to an animal source such as fish oil as Brian has decided to try in order to get the fatty acids directly.

Read my comments on the subject above for clarification or better yet...Don't take my word for it. Do the research. Find out for yourself.

[ander]

all of these speculations exist in your heads. If you feel that u have to have fish oil then have it, if not then don't. Better health has nothing to do with one being spiritual.If this was the case then spirituality would be shopping from wild-oats and whole foods, having my cupboard filled with supplements,reading menus and labels like i'm studying form SAT's and maybe but not necessary being a vegeterian.

+ Notice how to follow this spiritual prescription in the west at least, one has to be rich and with a lot of free time. Whereas in latin america and africa and southeast and india or more accurately, most of the world outside the USA/UK/FR/etc (with their organic/vitamin/supplement neurosis ) is left with ''unhealthy'' diets and unhealthy nutrition. How unspiritual.

Some social anthropology. People who live in isolated village and do not get satisfactory nutrition, and may indeed suffer from some minor biological issue....which anyway is unavoidable,,,cannot be spiritual?

ONE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE OTHER...

The thing is, with your heavy critique of religion and spiritual paths,,,and i am not referring just to this post,,but to almost all the posts and replies by the regulars writers of this site, you have starting to exhibit Communist anti-religious behavior.
Yes..communist. Read some literature on how the communist fought religious and spiritual thoughts and movements and get back to me.Dont take my word.Do the research.Find out for yourself.

You think this obsession with fish oils and tunas and shrimps extends to the rest of the world?There areas people that survive only on beans and rice, work all day and are full of energy.

Im reading the posts,,,and they are so complicated,,as if im in space age. I do not mean to undermine some eating patterns that i tried to read.
Is just eating patterns have nothing to do with spirituality. Eat meat or not, it doesnt really matter. Spirituality is something else.

But, in this Church, all accounts of spiritual aspects and metaphysical truths are negated by references to science, or to mystical (which is self-contradicting) quotes, "there is no truth, there is no path", "no mirror to clear", "not even that space exists", "no birth no death", etc etc etc etc etc. The reference to science is also ambiguous since one quotes cartesian or newtonian science, another can quote quantum physics and another string theories,,,etc etc etc. Then there are the thousand neurobiology and sociobiology articles.And go to any university department and you will discover that almost noone agrees with each other.That is the whole point actually.

Its an obsessions with the material world that has made marxism so favourable.Real food, real work, real struggle, real problems, de-emphasis on nationhood and emphasis on global brotherhood, Many of the social and economic I agree with,,because they are social,,and economic. But that has nothing to do with spirituality. This Church does not seem to accept metaphysical truths whatsoever.

Church of the Churchless:

Tuscon said:
"How can you let the carcass of a murdered animal rot in your stomach?". But meat is just biological matter that happens to be packed with nutrients, the synergy of which is very harmonious with the human metabolism if it is prepared consciously (mainly eating it fresh and not over-cooking or charring it). It doesn't hurt to be grateful to the animal who is giving its energy to you."

If this is not an emphasis on material living then i dont know what is. Animal= so many proteins.Proteins= so much nutritious points= i eat, gain energy. I expend energy.Repeat procedure.No moral,ethical,laws apart from getting that energy.

Brian's realization that :

"Seriously... my resistance to taking fish
oil was due to a lingering quasi-fundamentalist mindset: that it is morally wrong to eat an animal product."

So Manjit that express the thought that

"But if living without meat is making you mentally or physically unwell, go for it I say......it's natural....." and this is quasi-fundamentalist.
Thus one of the basic tenents of many spiritual paths,,simple straightforward vegeterianism is ...almost fundamentalist. So when you call the vegeterians that believe in karma fundamentalist,,u enter a word in the equation that re-balances the scale.And can be perceived as communist.Quasi Fundamentalist Communists.

Even though Manjit says :"I hear what you're saying Tucson. It is a dog-eat-dog world where life subsists on life. I am the last person in the world to deny the beauty and majesty of this fact.

I should make it clear my comment in the original post is an entirely subjective opinion/preference/reaction to meat."

And then,,,the post is titled that belief is in your brain...

Thus the results of these medicines are 100 per cent guaranteed if you believe 100 per cent cause
"The label says it is formulated to support "better mood" among other benefits" ,,,

Enough,,,curse me at will. I read my science,I engaged myself in it,Im surounded by it all day,and im flexible with what i choose to accept.

I dont care...I want the drug that the guy who wrote this was having,and i have tried many but no drug has made me as crazy as this guy..This is the insanity i want,and this is what choose.Not fish oil or lsd. They dont sell Naam at whole foods.

"The gods and heavenly heralds, the Siddhas and seekers and Shiva in Samaadhi meditate in remembrance on the Naam, the Name of the Lord. The stars and the realms of Dhroo, and devotees like Naaraad and Prahlaad meditate on the Naam. The moon and the sun long for the Naam; it has saved even mountain ranges. That Undeceivable Naam, which carries the devotees across the world-ocean, came into Guru Amar Daas"
Adi Granth Sahib

[Catherine]

Good luck Ander.

Are animals food? Free-range humans who have had a happy life would be most nutritious too.

[manjit]

Hello Ander. I'm sorry, but a lot of what you wrote didn't make sense to me (language barrier?), but here's a few comments:

You wrote "Better health has nothing to do with one being spiritual", then later in the same paragraph "but not necessary being a vegeterian". It's things like this that confuse me. You appear to be unequivically equating 'spiritual' with 'vegeterian', using the terms interchangeably??! I'm sorry, but that is a HUUUUUGE assumption isn't it? Being vegeterian doesn't make you spiritual, and being spiritual doesn't make you vegeterian, in the opinion of a great deal of people. You need to be clearer in your usage of terms.

Plus, another assumption you make is that "better health has nothing to do with being spiritual". AGain, this is YOUR interpretation and definition, not neccessarily that everyone else agrees with. Indeed, most of the established 'spiritual' paths of India have their own articles on health and nutrition. This is true for the kundalini/shabd yoga practioners also. Only a foolish person would believe they could overcome senility, arthritis, parkinsons disease etc, and remain 'spiritual' and perform the practices, especially in the dualistically defined sense RS teaches.

Any division between 'health' and 'spirituality' is a very ill-advised one, imo.

Also, you write that "Yes..communist. Read some literature on how the communist fought religious and spiritual thoughts and movements and get back to me.Dont take my word.Do the research.Find out for yourself."

C'mon dude, who do you thing you're writing to here, a class of pre-schoolers? This is very well known, old stuff your passing off as something unheard of!! The only reason this argument would be considered baseless and irrelevant is because we ALL know that the injustices, censure, oppression, violence, mind-control/manipulation etc etc of RELIGOUS organisations far, far, FAR outweighs that of recent communism! But of course you are right, we should remember these things. However, I'm not sure to what extent your argument is misplaced? Deeply I suspect. There's no Stasi here. It's a free and open discussion! Maybe you just don't like what's being said and are getting overly defensive, as your belief structure is being criticised/shaken?

Remember, it was Brian was BANNED from speaking at Satsang. Brian, on the other hand, allows you (and me) to post here freely! Ah. The measure of a man/organisation?

PS, No, no I really don't want the drug that guy who wrote that verse was on :-/ And are you sure it's any better than any 'drug' available?? I mean, it is all neuro-biological manipulations isn't it? Why create dualisms between environment (chemicals and drugs) and self (body-mind organism)??? WHat difference between generating neuro-biological experiences by sitting motionless in bhajan for 3 hours, or by ingesting a part of 'God' manifesting as plant or chemical?

If God is all there is, then let's dance freely!

[tAo]

Ander, it appears that you are rather confused, and (as Manjit pointed out) your interpretations and (erroneous) assumptions about what other folks views are here, and what is being discussed here (re: diet), are quite obviously misplaced.

I don't quite know what your problem is, but some of your comments are contradictory and don't make alot of sense overall. Perhaps you should try to express your own thoughts and opinions and your own position in a simpler and more straightforward manner, without misintrepreting what others are sharing and discussing.

Nevertheless, here are my responses to some of your statements:

"all of these speculations exist in your heads." "Better health has nothing to do with one being spiritual."

-- I don't recollect anyone saying that it did. The main issue was diet, not spirituality. It is YOU who seems to be adding spirituality to the mix.

"Whereas in latin america and africa and southeast and india or more accurately, most of the world outside the USA/UK/FR/etc (with their organic/vitamin/supplement neurosis) is left with ''unhealthy'' diets and unhealthy nutrition. How unspiritual." "People who live in isolated village and do not get satisfactory nutrition ... cannot be spiritual?"

-- Whoa! Wait just a minute there dude! You are making some extremely incorrect and bogus assumptions. First of all, NOBODY here ever said that people in the third world have unhealty diets. And second, the consumption of organic food and the discussing of matters of nutritional science, are definitely NOT in any way a "neurosis".

So for you to think and actually say that, clearly shows that you must be either stupid, or uneducated, or both. You sound like a real ignoramus.

"The thing is, with your heavy critique of religion and spiritual paths ... you have starting to exhibit Communist anti-religious behavior."

-- Incredible! You a such a friggin douche-brain! You haven't got the slighest clue as to why people here engage in critique of religion and religious dogma and spiritual paths. Again, your pseudo-spiritual interpretation is way off the mark. And NO, none of us need to study communism. We are not uneducated fools like you are.

"You think this obsession with fish oils and tunas and shrimps extends to the rest of the world?"

-- Obsession? You are a foolish MORON, and this proves it without a doubt. Fyi you stupid dimwit, much of the entire world eats fish and fish oil etc.

"There areas people that survive only on beans and rice, work all day and are full of energy."

-- Incorrect. They may eat beans and rice, but they also eat meat, and poultry, and fish, and dairy... and in India they eat fish, poultry, and dairy. You obviously don't know squat about this subject. People like you have big mouths but little brains.

"Im reading the posts,,,and they are so complicated,,as if im in space age."

-- You are just stupid thats all. The issue being discussed was not complicated.

"eating patterns have nothing to do with spirituality. Eat meat or not, it doesnt really matter."

-- Nobody really said that it DID matter, as far as I can recollect. And so what? What the hell is your point anyway?

"Spirituality is something else."

-- And just what is that?

"Its an obsessions with the material world that has made marxism so favourable."

-- Whats your trip? Nobody gives a shit about "marxism" here. Its YOUR hang-up.

"But that has nothing to do with spirituality."

-- And what IS "spirituality" in your opinion?

"This Church does not seem to accept metaphysical truths whatsoever."

-- Don't be so damn stupid. This is not really a "Church", this is simply a Blog that includes guest comments.

"If this is not an emphasis on material living then i dont know what is." ... "No moral,ethical,laws apart from getting that energy."

-- I can see that you are just another lame-brained formulaic pseudo-spiritualist. You haven't a clue as to the paradox of existence and the mystery of life.

"Thus one of the basic tenents of many spiritual paths,,simple straightforward vegeterianism is ...almost fundamentalist."

-- All prescriptions are dogma, including vegetarianism.

"So when you call the vegeterians that believe in karma fundamentalist,,u enter a word in the equation that re-balances the scale.And can be perceived as communist."

-- I think you must be mentally deranged. You are trying to equate being non-dogmatic and rational... with being communist. Thats utter nonsense.

"I want the drug that the guy who wrote this was having, and i have tried many but no drug has made me as crazy as this guy..This is the insanity i want,and this is what choose. Not fish oil or lsd. They dont sell Naam at whole foods."

-- Ahhh... Now we see where you are really at. You are just another one of these dogmatic Santmat freaks, one of these "Naam" nuts. You suck. You are a jackass. Go back and suck on your master's dick some more why don't you? We just don't need more of your tired old "Naam" jive. And take all of your boring Santmat and Sikh quotations and myths with you. Fuck your lame-ass Sikh religious bullshit, and fuck your stupid old Adi Granth.

What is your problem? Why are you here bothering the rest of us anyway? Go hang with your fellow Sikhs where you belong, you self-righteous religious nut.