[QUOTE=David;48309]Fairtrade products do what?[/QUOTE]
That is, they are organic foods and groceries and such 
Fair Trade products do not have to be organic and are VERY RARELY local which is of utmost importance due to the embodied energy of non local goods. More info on what Fair Trade is.
“But I want to ask, should we really wait to achieive higher states of consciousness before we start behaving compassionately and start doing good deeds?”
That is certainly not necessary. But one should not have any attachment at all to the idea that there is anything “spiritual” about doing or not doing certain things. Morality is as relative as relativity can be, one can paint anything one wants out of it. And what we consider “good” or “bad” are going to be different according to our own likes, dislikes, and prejudices of the mind. So, I do not see something like the yama’s or niyamas of yoga as having anything to do with being “spiritual”. What they are trying to do, is just create a certain inner atmosphere which is helpful for transformation.
Hmmm, six pages is probably sufficient to flesh out even the most lofty of topics and yet as a yoga teacher I like to get people thinking so …
One might consider delineating compassionate intention versus compassionate action. In asana one may contract the quadriceps with the intention of being “lean”, or the intention of healing the knee, or of moving light into cells in order to mindfully move forward (read: evolve). The action is the same, the intentions are radically different. Therefore as a mix (in this case of only two variables, and there are more) the outcomes(s) must also be different. In surviving one may choose to operate in harmony with other living things (of which there are many) or in discord.
I would point out that animals eat animals and I don’t find that behavior to lack compassion. Native Americans also ate animals. And of course man has intellect and can choose while lion cannot. I would also point out that suggesting there is one answer for all people regardless of context is the threshold of dogma and there simply is no room in Yoga for dogma. And by dogma I mean [I]rigidly holding a set of beliefs without flexibility for unproved or unprovable reasons[/I].
It should also be mentioned, for those who choose to thump the sutras as though it were the Bible, that non-harming, in the times and context of their authoring meant that human beings should not kill other human beings. This concept of context also comes to bear on the brief mentions of asana in the sutras. While one might assert that Patanjali is saying physical activity is not “important” the light of context shows us that such things are presumed in his writings for people already lived active (not sedentary) lives.
It is obviously healthy to eat a diet rich in organic fruits and vegetables AND we, as a society eat far too many animal products AND due to that there are a myriad of practices relative to animal treatment that should be stopped immediately. However that, in and of itself, is not a complete condemnation of eating animal products for that person who chooses to or needs to. AND, of course, Yoga is available to the mindful carnivore, pescatarian, and vegan alike, just as it is available to the tall, short, thin, big, crooked, straight, supple, and stiff.
Ultimately, what must be decided is whether this path or that path is for “me” and how does it work in my living and align with my particular svadharma or life mission. My path as a teacher is to model that and share the wisdom of yoga so that students may wield it wisely on their own and not impose it on themselves or on others.
Ahimsa- but it is so personal, is more the reason than karma; personal because you can only kill in your heart. In reality nothing dies. In Hindu cosmogony there’s a creator, preserver and destroyer. I can believe in enlightened cannibals but it’s easier to believe in vegetarians who are at peace. I wish everyone enjoys their yoga today, Namaste
The truth is I stopped a long time ago trying to convince others of why they should adopt a plant base diet. I am sharing only my views.
My primary thought is to help raise awareness in the principle of Ahimsa, or non-harming, which ultimately brings light on an increasing concern for our environment and our animal inhabitants on this earth. Chosing to be a vegan/vegetarian is possibly one single change that could create a positive effect to protect both the environment, the animals, and not to mention ourselves. Still, the question of being a vegetarian arises. Maybe for health reasons we adopt a plant base diet or we feel strongly about the rights of animals, considering the US is the largest consumers of eating flesh.
The animals have an Atman, divine soul, which abides in these bodies. These animal feels love. They have feelings, emotions, attachments, and desires; just witness a calf being taken from its mother.
People call them pets when they live in their home but call them meat when they consume them.
The choice in what one chooses to eat is a statement of personal ethics and understanding of
suffering.
[QUOTE=David;48319]So by a few moments of logical reasoning I can conclude that you are eating local and organic because you are able to logically conclude that since the world is your greater self, if you’re not eating that way, then you’re harming yourself. And harming yourself would be illogical. Yes?[/QUOTE]
Yes, eating locally produced, vegetarian and organic food is not harming yourself and nor is it harming the world. I personally think the current way we consume is highly unethical, unsustinable and unnatural. Most of the food we eat is contamined with chemicals and genetic modifications, the air we breath is polluted with radioactive particles and toxins, the water we drink has flouride in it and lacks many of the natural minerals, and most people drink carbonated sugar drinks and alcoholic beverages. The spaces we live in are overcrowded concrete jungles, the energy we consume produces massive pollution. In addition to that we are destroying the ecosystems of this planet with our mass-exploitation of its natural resources for the purpose of profits.
That once sacred attitude that human cultures held all over the planet for nature is all but gone and replaced by relentless capitalistist greed, which is slowly but surely destroying this planet and destroying us. In short our current way of life is completely messed up.
There are healthier, greener and spiritual alternatives to how we live. We can locally produce our food eating organic fruit, vegetables, grains and nuts(no chemical preservatives, no chemical fertilizer, and additives etc). We can learn to harvest natural water sources such as rain, springs, lakes, sea(no flouride) We can tap renewable sources of energy such as solar, wind, sea. We can manufacture our products from cleaner sources like minerals, wood, metals, cotton, silk and only produce enough that is sufficient for our needs(as opposed to mass production of plastics, nylon etc) Even our medicines can be produced from natural herbs and minerals(as opposed to drugs) The environments we live in should be more connected to natural environments and evenly and openly spaced to allow a freer flow of energy.
Krishna talks about this in the Gita when he talks about the debt that humans have to nature, elements and animals. We are not here to exploit and rape this planet, but to look after this planet. This planet gave birth to us - mother Earth - and we have a debt to pay back to it for giving birth to us and nourishing us.
The only reason we live the way we do is capitalism. This is both destructive to our soul and to our world.
So, I do not see something like the yama’s or niyamas of yoga as having anything to do with being “spiritual”. What they are trying to do, is just create a certain inner atmosphere which is helpful for transformation.
Which is spiritual is it not? Anything that contributes to creating an inner atmosphere which is helpful for spiritual transformation is therefore a spiritual thing. Conversely, anything that contributes to undermining an inner atmosphere which is unhelpful for spiritual transformation is therefore not spiritual.
So which things contribute to spiritual transformation and which things do not? To illustrate this let us look at two extreme but common types of consumption that one would follow if they were living in an ashram or a city.
Sattvic consumption: One consumes only fruit, vegetables, nuts and grains and eats only enough to keep a healthy body. One spends most of their day outside in open environments doing their chores mindfully, meditating, practicing Yoga and socialising in the company of sagely people and seekers. Then they returns to their humble abode to wind down by 10pm and wakes up at 4am ready for another day.
Tamasic consumption: One consumes only red meat and overeats to make their body more massive. One spends most of their day indoors exposed to unnatural radiation(electric equipment) and overworks to meet stressful targets and deadlines. Later they go to the pub and drink 5 pints of beer and socialise with their buddies talking about football, cars, sex and television. They leave the pub by 10pm, and go back home to have sex and go to sleep at 1-2am and wake up 6-7am the next day ready for work.(On weekends they stay out to 4am in the morning in bars and clubs)
Which of the above modes of consumption do you think is helpful for spiritual transformation?
Again, to all the vegetarians and vegans out there who speak of compassion and ahimsa and not harming the environment. If you are not eating local AND organic, your eating of vegetables are doing FAR more harm to the environment than my occasional consumption of one of the naturally raised chickens in my yard.
If you don’t eat local and organic, you are responsible for ground water pollution, dead zones in the ocean, air pollution, and countless other forms of pollution that is directly killing those animals you hold so precious as well as their entire eco system.
I won’t get into the driving of cars and not being carbon neutral. My point here is that the vast majority of you who think you’re being compassionate are deluding yourselves.
Interesting. But my question was, are you? Because that would be logical.
Interesting. But my question was, are you? Because, you know, that would be logical.
Ethical consumerism is a more complex form of consumption than simply an either or situation. An ethical consumer will consume ethically in some areas, and not consume ethically in others, but may in the future expand their ethical consumption to include other areas. In my case I ethically consume only in the area of that I consume vegetarian food and do not smoke, but my current lifestyle is hardly ethical in general, in that I indulge in alcohol, sex and consume fast-food and a lot of food I consume is non-organic and local. This is partly due to me choosing a moderate left-hand path for myself to explore certain areas of my life because I can, before I go off to India to live a much more ethical lifestyle(only local and organic vegetarian food, no sex, no alcohol)
Ethical consumption is on a sliding scale. On one end you have breatherians who subsist on sunlight and oxygen and can survive in open environments and live in nature and then on the end you have cannibals who subsist on human flesh, live like animals in jungles and kill. The majority of people are somewhere in the middle.
One can either choose to be more human or more animal.
Eating animals, hmmmm? Let me see.
It causes heart disease, cancer, and is a hideous cruel thing to the animal.
Hmmm?
Do I want to make a cemetery out of my stomach? Hmmm? Would that hinder enlightenment? Yuck! I can’t read anymore. I’ll get nightmares.
Geez, eat a apple, please.
Best wishes, and I hope I wasn’t to offensive but I just wanted to give my two cents worth too, Gil.
[quote=High Wolf;48286]Could somebody explain me what is the rationale behind Yoga and being a vegetarian? Trying not to eat meat due to fear of karma, I reckon, is not a valid argument, but a generally accepted, unchallenged myth.
I don’t eat red meat because it disturbs my stomach. This is something I do, completely based on my own bodily experience. Yet I eat chicken and fish, as it seems, my body needs it.
So explain a valid rationale behind Yoga and being a vegetarian, that is, if you can.[/quote]
Yes, it’s the first Yama: AHIMSA, non violence.
Convinced?
[I]Should[/I] Yoga teachers be Vegetarian?
No.
But they can be.
[QUOTE=panoramix;48386]Yes, it’s the first Yama: AHIMSA, non violence.
Convinced?[/QUOTE]
No. It sounds too buddhist. I am a pagan, and I rely on embodied experience. On what my body calls me to do. And my body says enough of red meat, but still needs fish at the moment.
Have you heard how young Warlpiri people hunts [I]mala[/I] (Australian hare)? Hunter approches the animal, reachs out its spirit, and asks it, if the hunt is ready to give up its body. If the animal agrees, the hunt begins. If not, young Warlpiri hunter ceases the hunt. That is why elder Warlpiri people are often vegetarian, acknowledging the fact that when a person is young, his/her body needs meat.
No scripture, no dogma! Completely based on direct experience!
An act of non-violence growing out, based on worldhood experience.
There is no connection between the [I]concept[/I] Yoga and being vegetarian in my understanding.
There is a connection between [I]embodied[/I] Yoga and ceasing to eat meat.
The reason why meat is bad for your in Yogic science is because it has the preponderance of the quality of tamas(density, solidity, inertia). What this does is lower the vibrational frequency of of your mind and body and this is an obstacle in your spiritual development. As you say yourself you don’t like red meat, this is because red meat has a higher amount of tamas than fish meat(which is also tamasic).
Can you imagine enlightened cannibals? The reason that you may struggle to imagine this is because consuming human flesh is a very high level of tamas. Those who engage in this process then develop tamasic mind and body.
Meat is a much lower source of energy than fruit, veg and grains are. The meat that we consume such as from pig, consume their primary source of energy from vegetarian sources. Part of this energy is used for the development of its flesh. Therefore, we get a secondary source of energy, rather than a primary source. Now, if instead we eat tigers meat, then we will get an even more lower grade source: a tertiary source. This is why tigers meat is not very popular and is suppose to taste horrible. Now imagine eating a human that eats tiger, this is even a lower grade of energy.
There is truth to the statement you are what you eat. There is an Upanishad which explains how the food we consume produces our body and mind. The gross portion of what we eat is used to develop the flesh and the subtle portion is used to develop the mind. If somebody only ate human flesh, they would have very massive bodies and be incredibly strong and be highly violent people. And that is exactly how cannibals are.
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;48466]The reason why meat is bad for your in Yogic science is because it has the preponderance of the quality of tamas(density, solidity, inertia). What this does is lower the vibrational frequency of of your mind and body and this is an obstacle in your spiritual development.
[B]LOL Really. You sure sound almost like you got it all figured out.
But this is an Incorrect answer. [/B]
[I]As you say yourself you don’t like red meat, this is because red meat has a higher amount of tamas than fish meat(which is also tamasic). [/I]
[B]Again. You think you’ve got it all figured out Mr. Helpful but how do you know the reason he doesn’t like beef but likes fish? Guessing? Does it matter anyway? Are you just flexing your Jnana ? [/B]
[I]Can you imagine enlightened cannibals? The reason that you may struggle to imagine this is because consuming human flesh is a very high level of tamas. Those who engage in this process then develop tamasic mind and body.[/I]
[B]So thats why cannibals are not lit up? They eat people![/B]
[I]Meat is a much lower source of energy than fruit, veg and grains are. The meat that we consume such as from pig, consume their primary source of energy from vegetarian sources. Part of this energy is used for the development of its flesh. Therefore, we get a secondary source of energy, rather than a primary source. Now, if instead we eat tigers meat, then we will get an even more lower grade source: a tertiary source. This is why tigers meat is not very popular and is suppose to taste horrible. Now imagine eating a human that eats tiger, this is even a lower grade of energy.[/I]
[B]You are obviously not a nutritionist. [/B]
[I]There is truth to the statement you are what you eat. There is an Upanishad which explains how the food we consume produces our body and mind. The gross portion of what we eat is used to develop the flesh and the subtle portion is used to develop the mind. If somebody only ate human flesh, they would have very massive bodies and be incredibly strong and be highly violent people. And that is exactly how cannibals are.[/I]
[B]Horses eat grass and they are very muscular. Maybe you don’t have a clue what your talking about? [/B]
Enlightenment is possible with anybody and in many different ways- the zen idea of sudden enlightenment through insight that you are ready for ( read many different zen parables where the master does something inexplicable suddenly and so the student gets enlightened ) If someone who is through personality ready for enlightenment though his culture he lives in may be with cannibals- I can imagine that he could make the leap- but I read Stranger in a Strange Land when I was young, by Robert Heinlein, in it the hero, a very enlightened Michael Valentine Smith, engages in a religious ritual flesh eating, only a little- a thumb- of someone he loved- so he could grok ( a word invented in the book and subsequently made it’s way into one edition of Webster’s dictionary ) his essence. Also, the idea subconsciously may have been planted in my brain by being raised a Catholic and hearing at communion " take and eat for this is my body and blood ". I am joking around here of course, about cannibals etc. I agree with being vegetarian as sattvic etc. Although I believe it is possible though highly unlikely for a cannibal to be enlightened. A fool who follows his foolishment truly, ultimately gains wisdom. I’d rather take a wise path than a foolish one.Namaste
[quote=High Wolf;48411]No. It sounds too buddhist. I am a pagan, and I rely on embodied experience. On what my body calls me to do. And my body says enough of red meat, but still needs fish at the moment.
Have you heard how young Warlpiri people hunts [I]mala[/I] (Australian hare)? Hunter approches the animal, reachs out its spirit, and asks it, if the hunt is ready to give up its body. If the animal agrees, the hunt begins. If not, young Warlpiri hunter ceases the hunt. That is why elder Warlpiri people are often vegetarian, acknowledging the fact that when a person is young, his/her body needs meat.[/quote]
Embodied experience? Sociopaths have them as well…
Imagine that for unknown reasons my body demands human flesh and your spirit accepts to be hunted. Would you be molested when I beheaded you?
Personally I can’t figure out the spirit of millions of captive animals issuing a green card to our professional killers so that the slaughter can begin.
All creatures want to live. Do not feel offended but… Do Warlpiri hunters consume entheogens before departing for hunt?
[QUOTE=TonyTamer;48506 a religious ritual flesh eating, only a little- a thumb- of someone he loved- [/QUOTE] the thumb was in a stew shared by several followers and friends of the deceased.