Also, vegetarianism isn’t all that great of an option when you live in a place and condition where vegetables are really only available for maybe half the year. Rocks may be full of minerals, but they’re not greatly nourishing.
According to Manu, the great author of civic codes and religious principles, even the killer of an animal is to be considered a murderer because animal food is never meant for the civilized man, whose prime duty is to prepare himself for going back to Godhead. He says that in the act of killing an animal, there is a regular conspiracy by the party of sinners, and all of them are liable to be punished as murderers exactly like a party of conspirators who kill a human being combinedly. He who gives permission, he who kills the animal, he who sells the slaughtered animal, he who cooks the animal, he who administers distribution of the foodstuff, and at last he who eats such cooked animal food are all murderers, and all of them are liable to be punished by the laws of nature. No one can create a living being despite all advancement of material science, and therefore no one has the right to kill a living being by one’s independent whims.
Actually, giving up meat-eating is not a question of Krsna consciousness but of civilized human life. God has given human society so many things to eat—nice fruits, vegetables, grain, and first-class milk. From milk one can prepare hundreds of nutritious foods, but no one knows the art. Instead, people maintain big slaughterhouses and eat meat. They are not even civilized. When man is uncivilized, he kills poor animals and eats them.
Civilized men know the art of preparing nutritious foods from milk. For instance, on our New Vrndavana farm in West Virginia, we make hundreds of first-class preparations from milk. Whenever visitors come, they are astonished that from milk such nice foods can be prepared. The blood of the cow is very nutritious, but civilized men utilize it in the form of milk. Milk is nothing but cow’s blood transformed. You can make milk into so many things—yogurt, curd, ghee (clarified butter), and so on—and by combining these milk products with grains, fruits, and vegetables, you can make hundreds of preparations. This is civilized life—not directly killing an animal and eating its flesh. The innocent cow is simply eating grass given by God and supplying milk, which you can live on. Do you think cutting the cow’s throat and eating its flesh is civilized?
According to Manu, the great author of civic codes and religious principles [...]
According to Huan-Yang, sagacious achitect of life and designer of the holy temples of life (our bodies), “[H]erein I give you teeth to chew and stomaches to ferment. And to those who shall eat of the herbs I have given teeth to grind, and of those who shall eat of the flesh, herein I have given you teeth to cut. Each of you has place in my cycle, break it not less the world shall return to the dust from which I fashioned it.”
So clearly those capable of, and designed to, eat meat like ourselves should keep it up or the world will end!
The innocent cow is simply eating grass given by God and supplying milk, which you can live on.
So it’s okay to kill and eat animals with no other use, like pigs, then?
Do you think cutting the cow’s throat and eating its flesh is civilized?
As long as you remember it is red wine with beef!
What cats and dogs will understand about philosophy? If a dog is barking and you speak with him very nicely “my dear dog, please try to control your barking, it is very disturbing” will he be able to understand? therefore we simply throw him a bone, and he is satisfied.
What cats and dogs will understand about philosophy? If a dog is barking and you speak with him very nicely “my dear dog, please try to control your barking, it is very disturbing” will he be able to understand? therefore we simply throw him a bone, and he is satisfied.
Basically, you’re admitting that your philosophy is incomprehensible to anyone not thoroughly inculcated to your, or a similar, mindset. This is in itself interesting as it implies that your philosophy has no objective merit but is merely the off-shoot of a particular state of mind. So whereas methodological naturalism can be explained to, and even adopted by, non-believers (as in the example of theist scientists), your veggie-nwo-ism appears entirely wedded to its mental framework and cannot be communicated or practised without it.
(Once upon a time Science opened up the door. We would feed the hungry fields till they couldn’t eat no more. But the potions that we made touched the creatures down below, and they grow up in a way that we’d never seen before. They were angry with the man because he changed their way of life. And they took their sweet revenge as they trampled through the night. For hundred miles or more you could hear the people cry, but there is nothing you can do for even God is on their side.)
What cats and dogs will understand about philosophy? If a dog is barking and you speak with him very nicely “my dear dog, please try to control your barking, it is very disturbing” will he be able to understand? therefore we simply throw him a bone, and he is satisfied.
I’m sorry, but after much thought and consideration your little allegory there still makes absolutely no sense to me at all. I understand it within its own context, but don’t see how it has any bearing on anything that’s been said here.
