[verklingen]

Originally Posted by JainVeganBuddha

the difference between you and I is very simple...there is no need for complex logic for me to express myself. your proliferation is required for you to rationalize something abominable.

let's analyze the logic each of us have put forth in this thread, and determine which is more complex. i'll define "more complex" as "the one which makes the most assumptions."

you:

• the sun provides life-giving energy which "has all pure and 'divine' or wholesome qualities" to the earth.
• this life-giving energy is most abundant in plants because they receive it directly.
• the animals which eat the plants maintain this energy in their body, but an animal which eats such an animal receives a polluted, diminishing return of the energy. this behavior is improper.
• eating animals condemns one to the same suffering the animals he has eaten experienced.
• carnivores build negative energies.
• "nonviolence is a spiritual/moral principle--not a belief."
• "meat-eating degrades the consciousness"
• "at the pinnacle of this development is the best that is found in this world: nonviolence toward all life forms; receiving subtle knowledge of the universe through meditation, purification, etc; non-possessiveness; silence and equanimity"

you make assumptions on the quality of energy coming from the sun and assume there is only one proper way of absorbing this energy. you assume that absorbing this energy in any other way is negative -- serving to degrade one's consciousness and reserving negative energy for later experience -- whether or not the being absorbing in this fashion believes in or understands it. lastly you assume there to be a pinnacle of development which is achieved the exact same way for all beings.

me:

• "plants are no different from animals in that they both are grown only to die and both serve their use to those who will partake of them"
• "eating is part of survival in this realm. . . there is no harm, only a progression and unfoldment of energy."
• "EVERYTHING is an idea."
• "there's no such thing as a right and wrong belief. all beliefs have their justifications, and all of them are reasonable and rational for those who hold them. there is no such thing as an objective rationale for belief because all beliefs are subjective to the person who welcomes their influence into his experience."
• "all conceivable experiences are innately devoid of meaning until a consciousness engages them."

i assume that both plants and animals die for consumption, and that there is nothing inherently wrong about it because it is an inescapable element in the process of our present awareness. i also assume that everything is an idea, and any idea will carry only as much weight as the carrier allows. finally, i assume that all experience is unique to the experiencer and only he is able to determine its quality, which i in turn assume determines what effects it may have on him and his circumstance.

i'm telling everyone that they decide what their actions/experiences mean to them, and you're dictating to everyone what their actions/experiences mean to them. THAT, to me, is abominable.

Originally Posted by JainVeganBuddha

the difference between you and I is that you are willing to violate, harm, and kill other living beings for some minor fancy--not out of necessity--for some certain taste/texture for a few minutes of eating. mind you there is a big difference in eating fruits or plant foods and animals. as living beings, they all express themselves according to their own nature. you choose not to listen to their voices, but to the (delusional) chain of thoughts in your head.

the only difference between you and i is that, even though you profess a belief in the equality of all beings, you make a distinction between the death of a plant and the death of an animal. taken to the extreme, your belief would have you eat nothing. but that wouldn't bode well for your survival so you've drawn a line between the two in regard to dietary behavior and placed yourself on what you deem as the "proper" side: without understanding that the only difference between behavior on one side or the other lies in your own personal definition of those behaviors which you've arbitrarily segregated into "proper" (eating only plants) and "improper" (eating any animals at all). who's making a chain of thoughts, now?

Originally Posted by JainVeganBuddha

you just want to argue. youre not trying to learn or improve yourself. so let your own karma be your teacher. what you do to those animals and other living beings will come right back to you in full blown reaction. so there is no point in arguing with each other--other than you needing to express your aggro karmic energy. just chill. there are many faces of the great spirit we will meet as teachers. one is the one who talks and explains nicely. the other is the one who gives your violent karma back to you.

youve pretty much eclipsed the whole thread with this painstaking pedantic style of cripple-dog point by point dullard argument on this one issue.

i certainly do not want to argue, i only seek clarity. i'm not out to "beat" you. i know that in the realm of belief there is no winner or loser. all we can hope to do is clarify our position as best we can in order to help others understand where we are coming from. sometimes others, such as myself in this thread, ask for clarifications to facilitate their own understanding. you did fine in your first reply, and i offered my take on what you had to say. . . which incidentally begged further clarification. the discussion then became about you preaching the virtue of your beliefs from a pulpit while debasing belief in any other way.

that's what you turned this thread into. i tried and succeeded to some degree in learning and improving myself by understanding your belief and its implications in contrast with mine, but you took my curiosity as an invitation to glorify your belief at the expense of contrary beliefs and therefor limited the possibility for mutual learning (because you speak of your beliefs only in light of your beliefs, much alike to discussion the existence of jesus using only the bible). and you speak of my ego!

Originally Posted by JainVeganBuddha

you still cant hide the vampirish, hideous, beast-like quality of your character as you grin, blood-spattered, slicing throats of bound animals, tearing out their inner organs, licking and chewing the stinking guts, and growling at anyone who comes near with a crazed barbarity of bloodlust. im just watching you with disdain from up in a tree, gathering apples and bannanas for my meal

yeah. . . have fun with that. all of it.