9 of 10
9
VIDEO - What The Anti-NWO Movement NEED TO UNDERSTAND!
Posted: 13 January 2007 09:47 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 89 ]
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  62
Joined  2006-11-25

Because man is rational animal. Man is rational. Man is animal, but rational animal. The special gift to man is that he can decide what is good, what is bad. He has got an extra knowledge than the animals. So at the present moment the education system is so bad that it is practically animal education. Animal education means when at the present moment the education system is so bad that it is practically animal education. Animal education means when we are too much interested with eating, sleeping, mating and defending, that is animal education. Eating, sleeping, mating and defending, oh, you’ll find in animals. There is no distinction. They have got their own defending measures, they have got their own sleeping measures, they have got their own mating measures. You are mating with your wife in a secluded place, in a nice room, in a decorated room, but a dog is mating on the street, but the result is the same. So to improve the method of mating is not advancement of civilization. That is animal civilization polished, that’s all. The animal also, the dog can also defend from other dogs. And if you think that you have discovered atomic energy to defend yourself, that is not advancement of human civilization. The defending measure, that’s all. Similarly, you go on analyzing.
  The analysis of man is perfect when he is searching after his constitutional position. “What I am? What I am? Am I this body? Why I have come to this world?” This inquisitiveness required. That is the special prerogative of human being. Therefore as soon as one begins to inquire “What I am?” and if he goes on searching after this, then he will come to God. Because he is part and parcel of God. He is sample of God. Therefore manusyanam sahasresu. Out of many, many thousands varieties of men, one, or say a few persons, may be interested to know God. Not only know… Not to know God, just to know himself. And if he actually wants to know himself, then gradually he will come to God.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 January 2007 06:49 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 90 ]
Five Star Member
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4243
Joined  2005-06-05
clare - 13 January 2007 05:42 PM

Milk products are surprisingly easy, tasty and it is a very inexpensive way to get your protein from milk products. The great thing is that they contain all the essential amino acids required to maintain human health, in absorbable forms and in perfect ratios for human needs.

So there is a very good argument in here somewhere for eating milk products as opposed to meat.

As has already been mentioned here, a large part of the world’s population are unable to digest milk products. There is also a very good argument to be made for eating meat; it is efficient. Contrary to much veggie propaganda, meat farming is not an inefficient use of the land. Much dairy and meat farming utilises land that is unsuitable for arable farming anyway, and meat (being much more energy dense that veg) requires less resources to transport to the end-user.

Certainly, we in the west eat far more meat than could be said to be ‘natural’, but the moral arguments are subjective, the economic arguments are inconclusive, the health arguments are equivocal, and Mukunda dasa’s arguments are just paranoid drivel.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 January 2007 07:28 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 91 ]
Five Star Member
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4243
Joined  2005-06-05
Mukunda dasa - 02 January 2007 01:55 PM

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.

It’s interesting how Muky abuses both humans and animals in his posts. Apart from demonstrating a fairly major lack of understanding about ethology, ecology, evolution and anthropology, it is also entirely self-defeating.

Muky compares people he disagrees with to vultures and jackals on the basis that they all practise a common behaviour, namely eating meat. Mind you, lions eat meat too, as do tigers and eagles. Now let’s substitute these animals into Muky’s diatripe and see how well it sits.

“The hawks also enjoy killing and then eating the dead body. “Make it dead and then enjoy”—people have become eagles. And their civilization is an eagle civilization. Animal-eaters—they’re like tigers, falcons, lions.”

Sounds good to me! And I’m sure Accipiter won’t mind being compared to an eagle too much. [New avatar time!]

Still there’s nothing wrong with being a vegetarian and emulating the noble chuckwalla or locust.
tongue laugh

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 January 2007 09:51 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 92 ]
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  62
Joined  2006-11-25
David B. - 16 January 2007 12:28 PM
Mukunda dasa - 02 January 2007 01:55 PM

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.

It’s interesting how Muky abuses both humans and animals in his posts. Apart from demonstrating a fairly major lack of understanding about ethology, ecology, evolution and anthropology, it is also entirely self-defeating.

Muky compares people he disagrees with to vultures and jackals on the basis that they all practise a common behaviour, namely eating meat. Mind you, lions eat meat too, as do tigers and eagles. Now let’s substitute these animals into Muky’s diatripe and see how well it sits.

“The hawks also enjoy killing and then eating the dead body. “Make it dead and then enjoy”—people have become eagles. And their civilization is an eagle civilization. Animal-eaters—they’re like tigers, falcons, lions.”

Sounds good to me! And I’m sure Accipiter won’t mind being compared to an eagle too much. [New avatar time!]

Still there’s nothing wrong with being a vegetarian and emulating the noble chuckwalla or locust.
tongue laugh

Another animal for ya:

“The frog in the well” logic illustrates that a frog residing in the atmosphere and boundary of a well cannot imagine the length and breadth of the gigantic ocean. Such a frog, when informed of the gigantic length and breadth of the ocean, first of all does not believe that there is such an ocean, and if someone assures him that factually there is such a thing, the frog then begins to measure it by imagination by means of pumping its belly as far as possible, with the result that the tiny abdomen of the frog bursts and the poor frog dies without any experience of the actual ocean. Similarly, the material scientists also want to challenge the inconceivable potency of the Lord by measuring Him with their froglike brains and their scientific achievements, but at the end they simply die unsuccessfully, like the frog.

[Srila Prabhupada from Srimad Bhagavatam 2.5.10]

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 January 2007 09:52 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 93 ]
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  62
Joined  2006-11-25
David B. - 16 January 2007 12:28 PM
Mukunda dasa - 02 January 2007 01:55 PM

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.

It’s interesting how Muky abuses both humans and animals in his posts. Apart from demonstrating a fairly major lack of understanding about ethology, ecology, evolution and anthropology, it is also entirely self-defeating.

Muky compares people he disagrees with to vultures and jackals on the basis that they all practise a common behaviour, namely eating meat. Mind you, lions eat meat too, as do tigers and eagles. Now let’s substitute these animals into Muky’s diatripe and see how well it sits.
http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/forums/editreply/181090/#
Smileys
“The hawks also enjoy killing and then eating the dead body. “Make it dead and then enjoy”—people have become eagles. And their civilization is an eagle civilization. Animal-eaters—they’re like tigers, falcons, lions.”

Sounds good to me! And I’m sure Accipiter won’t mind being compared to an eagle too much. [New avatar time!]

Still there’s nothing wrong with being a vegetarian and emulating the noble chuckwalla or locust.
tongue laugh

And another… i’m on a roll   LOL

The Vulture is Cursing

Therefore we refuse to accept any controller of this universe, because as soon as we accept some controller, then we’ll have to account for our sinful activities. As soon as there is a government, then we shall be responsible for our unlawful activities. But our position is that we want to continue our sinful activities. As such it is very good to deny any controller. That is the basic principle of godlessness. Why these rascals, they deny there is no God, God is dead? Because they want to continue their rascaldom without any restriction. That is the basic principle, they deny. But do you mean to say that denying the God, the God will die or God will…, there will be no God? No. There is a nice Bengali proverb, sakuni svape garu more na. Sakuni means the vulture. The vulture wants some dead carcass of animal, a cow especially. So for days together they do not get it, so it is cursing some cow, “You die.” So does it mean that by his cursing the cow will die? Similarly, these vultures, sakuni, they want to see God is dead. At least, they take pleasure, “Oh, now God is dead. I can do anything nonsense I like.” This is going on. Sakuni is cursing, the vulture is cursing the cow.
  So this sort of knowledge will not do. One must know that there is a controller. That is the beginning of knowledge. Why should you deny? In every field of activity we find some controller. How can I deny that there is no controller of this creation?

[Srila Prabhupada Lecture from Srimad-Bhagavatam 7.9.12, Montreal, August 18, 1968]

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 January 2007 09:55 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 94 ]
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  62
Joined  2006-11-25
David B. - 16 January 2007 12:28 PM
Mukunda dasa - 02 January 2007 01:55 PM

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.

It’s interesting how Muky abuses both humans and animals in his posts. Apart from demonstrating a fairly major lack of understanding about ethology, ecology, evolution and anthropology, it is also entirely self-defeating.

Muky compares people he disagrees with to vultures and jackals on the basis that they all practise a common behaviour, namely eating meat. Mind you, lions eat meat too, as do tigers and eagles. Now let’s substitute these animals into Muky’s diatripe and see how well it sits.

“The hawks also enjoy killing and then eating the dead body. “Make it dead and then enjoy”—people have become eagles. And their civilization is an eagle civilization. Animal-eaters—they’re like tigers, falcons, lions.”

Sounds good to me! And I’m sure Accipiter won’t mind being compared to an eagle too much. [New avatar time!]

Still there’s nothing wrong with being a vegetarian and emulating the noble chuckwalla or locust.
tongue laugh

it’s untrue…..  big surprise

The dog is barking


Prabhupada: The dog is barking. He is thinking, “I am dog. I am appointed here as watchman, watchdog, and as soon as somebody is passing, ‘Yow! Gow! Gow!’ ” So, and similarly, if I keep myself in the dog mentality and act like that—“Why you have come to this country [FORUM] ? Why you have come to my jurisdiction?” the same dog mentality.

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.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 January 2007 09:18 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 95 ]
Five Star Member
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4243
Joined  2005-06-05
Mukunda dasa - 18 January 2007 02:55 AM

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.

The parrot is squarking.

What do parrots understand about philosophy? If a parrot speaks philosophy you can be sure he has understood nothing, he is merely mimicing the sounds of wiser animals in hope of being given a cracker. If a parrot speaks of “God’s laws” you do not turn to engage it in meaningful discussion. If its pretence at intelligence amuses you, you might indulge it; if it annoys you, you cover its cage.

A wise man doesn’t confuse the fruitless repetitions of a parrot with philosophy, for he knows them for what they are. The sounds of a lazy animal begging for scraps.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 January 2007 09:21 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 96 ]
Five Star Member
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4243
Joined  2005-06-05
Mukunda dasa - 18 January 2007 02:55 AM

it’s untrue…..  big surprise

Which bit? That lions and eagles eat meat? Or that there’s nothing wrong with being a vegetarian?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 January 2007 08:37 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 97 ]
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  62
Joined  2006-11-25
David B. - 18 January 2007 02:21 PM
Mukunda dasa - 18 January 2007 02:55 AM

it’s untrue…..  big surprise

Which bit? That lions and eagles eat meat? Or that there’s nothing wrong with being a vegetarian?

Cardinal Danielou: But why does God create some animals who eat other animals? There is a fault in the creation, it seems.
Srila Prabhupada: It is not a fault. God is very kind. If you want to eat animals, then He’ll give you full facility. God will give you the body of a tiger in your next life so that you can eat flesh very freely. “Why are you maintaining slaughterhouses? I’ll give you fangs and claws. Now eat.” So the meat-eaters are awaiting such punishment. The animal-eaters become tigers, wolves, cats, and dogs in their next life—to get more facility.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 January 2007 07:35 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 98 ]
Five Star Member
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4243
Joined  2005-06-05
Mukunda dasa - 19 January 2007 01:37 AM

God is very kind. If you want to eat animals, then He’ll give you full facility.

How fortunate for me then that in this life God has put me in the body of an omnivore, someone who can eat either meat or veg with about equal facility. On the basis of your argument that God kindly gave me a body with the facility to eat both, I will eat both.

God will give you the body of a tiger in your next life so that you can eat flesh very freely. “Why are you maintaining slaughterhouses? I’ll give you fangs and claws. Now eat.” So the meat-eaters are awaiting such punishment. The animal-eaters become tigers, wolves, cats, and dogs in their next life—to get more facility.

I like eating both, so in my next life I’ll be an omnivore. I also like reading and doing puzzles, so I guess I’ll be in the body of a conscious, intelligent, literate omnivore. Like I am now.

This, BTW, is an example of a false dichotomy, you are asserting that the choice is between eating meat or eating veg. Clearly and observably this is not true, most people eat both in various proportions. It’s not a dichotomy, it’s a continuum.

It’s also an example of petitio principii (otherwise known as ‘begging the question’ ). You attach a stigma to eating meat with no basis other than you wish to show eating meat is wrong. The inverse argument is equally as valid. If you want to eat vegetables, God will give you the body of a rabbit in your next life—to get more facility.

It is also a direct contradiction to your earlier statements:

Mukunda dasa - 07 December 2006 03:40 PM

If one kills many thousands of animals in a professional way so that other people can purchase the meat to eat, one must be ready to be killed in a similar way in his next life and in life after life.

Mukunda dasa - 02 January 2007 01:57 PM

By killing animals, not only will we be bereft of the human form but we will have to take an animal form and somehow or other be killed by the same type of animal we have killed. This is the law of nature. The Sanskrit word mamsa means “meat.” It is said: mam sah khadantiti mamsah. That is, “I am now eating the flesh of an animal who will some day in the future be eating my flesh.”

Tigers are not (to my knowledge) regularly hunted down and consumed by marauding bands of divinely wrathful sheep. If I am to be a tiger, I am not going to be consumed by the same type of animal I have killed; if I am to be consumed (by herbivores), I am not going to be given a body of a creature that eats flesh very freely!

 

Image Attachments
TigerHunt.jpg
Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 January 2007 10:20 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 99 ]
Five Star Member
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4243
Joined  2005-06-05

There’s a ‘PM’ button to the left of the ‘QUOTE’ button at the bottom of this post. Just click it.

Profile
 
 
   
9 of 10
9