I think he’s saying that it’s pointless to ask him questions as he can no more comprehend them than a dog could.
He also appears to be telling us he’s hungry.
For meat-eaters, that is what the Vedic culture recommends: “Eat dogs.” As in Korea they are eating dogs, so you also can eat dogs. But don’t eat cows until after they have died a natural death. We don’t say, “Don’t eat.” You are so very fond of eating cows. All right, you can eat them, because after their death we have to give them to somebody, some living entity. Generally, cow carcasses are given to the vultures. But then, why only to the vultures? Why not to the modern “civilized” people, who are as good as vultures? [Laughter.]
These so-called civilized people—what is the difference between these rascals and vultures? The vultures also enjoy killing and then eating the dead body. “Make it dead and then enjoy”—people have become vultures. And their civilization is a vulture civilization. Animal-eaters—they’re like jackals, vultures, dogs. Flesh is not proper food for human beings. Here in the Vedic culture is civilized food, human food: milk, fruit, vegetables, nuts, grains. Let them learn it. Uncivilized rogues, vultures, raksasas [demons]—and they’re leaders.
But don’t eat cows until after they have died a natural death. We don’t say, “Don’t eat.” You are so very fond of eating cows. All right, you can eat them, because after their death we have to give them to somebody, some living entity.
All the cows I eat die natural deaths. There’s nothing unnatural about dying when someone puts a four-inch steel bolt through your head.
Generally, cow carcasses are given to the vultures. But then, why only to the vultures? Why not to the modern “civilized” people, who are as good as vultures? [Laughter.]
You come with a laugh track now?
Dogs, vultures, basically you seem to have quite a downer on animals, except cows (whom you appear to advocate the exploitation of). Apparently, all your exposure to Vedic culture hasn’t managed to move you one inch from your comfortable Western bias. Contrary to the silly European ideas about them, vultures are remarkable and wonderful creatures. The ancient Egyptians praised them a great mothers and the vulture was used to as a symbol of protection over infants. In Africa they were frequently used as a symbol for love, due to their life-long and unusually close pair-bonding. Many cultures practiced (and still practice) ‘sky burials’, whereby the body of the deceased would be offered up to the raptors, their ecological necessity having been long recognised.
No argument but ad hominem. No evidence but opinions. LaMa is right (as usual), it’s simply the same old ideological bigotry in new clothes.
I’m assuming the milk you speak of being ‘human’ food is the milk from a human breast? Because milk from a cow, or a goat, or water buffalo, deer etc. is NOT human food. It was NOT designed physiologically to be suitable for humans but suitable for a calf of a cow (the cow’s baby - I thought I might have to make that clear) etc.
Some human children are allergic even to their own mother’s milk, let alone drinking cow milk.
Vultures are scavenging birds, feeding mostly on the carcasses of dead animals. Vultures are found in every continent except Antarctica and Oceania…..............
........Vulture seldom attack a healthy living animal, but may kill the wounded or sick. Vast numbers have been seen upon battlefields.
Nut allergy: the problem
Nut allergy is an increasingly recognised problem, particularly in children. Whilst it has been recognised for decades, it is clear that the proportion of children affected has increased dramatically in recent years. Its importance lies in the fact that on rare occasions it can kill, and that those who die from nut allergy have not necessarily had severe reactions before to warn them clearly of the danger.
Avoiding nuts is more easily said than done. In fact if you are allergic to nuts it is impossible in practice to guarantee that you will never eat anything containing nuts you are allergic to.
As pointed out earlier, human physiology is omnivorous, which includes carnivorous feeding: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnivore An omnivore (from Latin: omne all, everything; vorare to devour) is a species of animal who are “... generalized feeders, with neither carnivore nor herbivore specializations for acquiring or processing food, and who are capable of consuming and do consume both animal protein and vegetation.”[1]
If humans ignore their physical nature and deliberately deny any of the food groups, they can sicken and can even die.
I think it’s heartening that you adore your ‘culture’, but please respect that others also adore their own culture and beliefs with as much faith as you do yours. Your edict ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edict An edict is an announcement of a law, often associated with monarchism. The Pope and various micronational leaders are currently the only persons who still issue edicts.) amounts to thumping judgment and such nonsense is deemed by many as inappropriate.
As pointed out earlier, human physiology is omnivorous, which includes carnivorous feeding
And, somewhat ironically in this case, it is very likely our carnivorous tendancies that lead us to become civilised in the first place. Our hunter-gatherer ancestors gave us communication and cooperation. HG societies were more egalitarian, and being nomadic, tended to low-impact, low density communities with tight-knit social bonds.
Agriculture changed all that.
Nomadism threatened the basis of an agricultural society, the seizure and control of the land. Hence agricultural societies gave us genocide. The production of a surplus bequeathed us bureaucracies (to manage it), hierarchies (to own it) and denser populations (to consume it). The sprawling, static communities of the modern world are agriculture’s bastard children.
[My paleoanthropology is about 20 years old now, be kind if it’s a little out of date!]
As pointed out earlier, human physiology is omnivorous, which includes carnivorous feeding
And, somewhat ironically in this case, it is very likely our carnivorous tendancies that lead us to become civilised in the first place. Our hunter-gatherer ancestors gave us communication and cooperation. HG societies were more egalitarian, and being nomadic, tended to low-impact, low density communities with tight-knit social bonds.
Agriculture changed all that.
Nomadism threatened the basis of an agricultural society, the seizure and control of the land. Hence agricultural societies gave us genocide. The production of a surplus bequeathed us bureaucracies (to manage it), hierarchies (to own it) and denser populations (to consume it). The sprawling, static communities of the modern world are agriculture’s bastard children.
[My paleoanthropology is about 20 years old now, be kind if it’s a little out of date!]
Exactly.
I can ad to this, that a change in diet from low quality vegetarian food sources to a more omnivorous diet with higher quality food sources including meat, appears to be closely tied with the onset of brain expansion in our ancestors, hence the moment our Human lineage arose. It meant the possibility of reduction of the digestive tract, which freed the needed metabolic space to enlarge our energy-costly brains.
btw, if you (Mukundu Dasa) do some research you’ll find that many populations on this world cannot stand lactose (milk). The whole native population of New Guinea for example. Feed them milk and milk products and they’ll get sick and eventually die of gastroid problems. Which only goes to show that milk and milk products certainly are not a natural food source for humans, unlike you are arguing.
I can ad to this, that a change in diet from low quality vegetarian food sources to a more omnivorous diet with higher quality food sources including meat, appears to be closely tied with the onset of brain expansion in our ancestors, hence the moment our Human lineage arose. It meant the possibility of reduction of the digestive tract, which freed the needed metabolic space to enlarge our energy-costly brains.
Thanks, LaMa, this had completely slipped my mind[*]!
William Leonard, writing in Scientific American (December 2002)
Fossils, too, indicate that improvements to dietary quality accompanied evolutionary brain growth. All australopithecines had skeletal and dental features built for processing tough, low-quality plant foods. The later, robust australopithecines — a dead-end branch of the human family tree that lived alongside members of our own genus — had especially pronounced adaptations for grinding up fibrous plant foods, including massive, dish-shaped faces; heavily built mandibles; ridges, or sagittal crests, atop the skull for the attachment of powerful chewing muscles; and huge, thickly enamelled molar teeth. (This is not to say that australopithecines never ate meat. They almost certainly did on occasion, just as chimps do today.) In contrast, early members of the genus Homo, which descended from the gracile australopithecines, had much smaller faces, more delicate jaws, smaller molars and no sagittal crests—despite being far larger in terms of overall body size than their predecessors. Together these features suggest that early Homo was consuming less plant material and more animal foods.
[*My memory gets worse every day… Where am I?! Who are you people?! Nurse? Nurse, I’m frightened!]
