Conference hydra::dejavu

    	The generic description from 2nd edition American Heritage
    Dictionary, Office Edition 1983
    	Karma 1. Hinduism & Buddhism. The total effect of a person's
    actions and conduct during the successive phases of his existence.
    2. Fate, destiny. (Skt. karman, deed). kar-mic adj.
    
    comments?   BillM
    

    Hi All,
    
    Seeing the previous reply that is technically in correct, I will quote
    from the Veda's to give you the correct meaning.  The above is not all
    together incorrect but is missing quite a lot that makes it just
    speculation and nothing more.
    
    I am a bit busy at this time and will get back when I have time.
    
    Regards,
    
    Sunil

    .2 
    
    Forgive us for our ignorance,master.

    
    Re.3
    
    Marcello - sarcasm like that is not appreciated in this conference.
    Give it a rest.
    
    Sunil is more-than-qualified to talk about the subject at hand, and I
    look forward to hearing what he has to say, as do probably many others
    as well.  Furthermore I know he did not intend for his note to be
    interpreted in the way that you did (or maybe you're just having a bad
    Friday.)  
    
    In any case, Sunil, please skip over .3 and carry on.
    
    Cindy

    when two or more come together
    
    
    (does the person(s) who invented the word own the meaning??  genuinely
    wondering...)

    Hi All,

    To answer the question Karma we have to firstly have to answer two
    questions and these are:

    Why are we here ?  Who we really are ?  These are important questions
    as with them we will not get an understanding of Karma or Vikarma.  I
    also thought about opening with quotes from the Gita but I feel at this
    point perhaps a less formal approach is better.

    To answer the question "Why are we here ?" and "Who we really are ?"
    questions can not be separated !!!

    The Supreme Personality of Godhead Sri Krishna (mean the all attractive
    person who is the Supreme Control) as stated in the Gita Chapter 8
    Attaining The Supreme verse 9 :

    "One should meditate upon the Supreme Person as the one who knows
    everything, as He who is the oldest, who is the controller, who is
    smaller than the smallest, who is the maintainer of everything, who is
    beyond all material conception, who is inconceivable, and who is
    always a person.  He is luminous like the sun, and He is
    transcendental, beyond this material nature.

    The Lord also states to Arjuna the following:

    "There was not a time that you and I did not exist nor shall there be a
    time we cease to exist".

    All of us are the eternal servants of Sri Krishna and our true Dharma
    is to serve God with Love and devotion.  In our pure forms we are
    Sprit and transcendental to the material modes which are Goodness,
    Passion and Ignorance, just like the three colours of light that make
    up all the other colours (red, green and blue) the primary colours. 
    However the body is material and is called the "field" in the Gita and
    this field is the sensory field and has the following qualities sight,
    taste, touch, smell and sound that allows the soul to interface to the
    material world so that it can experience it, just like the virtual
    machines of today.  The body is created but the real us (the real ego
    has always been).  In the spritual sky (or some people like to think
    heaven), there is no time and only the material world is subjected to
    time.
    
    It's stated by the Lord
    
    "That supreme abode of Mine is not illuminated by the Sun or moon, nor
    fire or electricity.  Those who reach it never return to this material
    world".
    
    There are three planetry systems in the material world and these are
    the Heavenly systems (the abode of the demigods), the middle systems
    like Earth the abode of humans beings and hellish the abode of (ghosts
    and demons).  The spritual sky is beyond this material world that is
    full of suffering.
    
    God has infinate love for all and is impartial.  We who are here are
    here because we were envious of the Lord and wanted to Lord over
    everything and wanted to be the Supreme Enjoyers and wanted to server
    our sense.  So Sri Krishna expanded himself into Vishnu also known as
    Jaganath meaning the Lord of the Universe and lay on the surpent called
    Sash Nag in the causal ocean as he is doing so now.  Each breath of
    Vishnu is trillions and trillions of years (there is a number that I
    do not have at hand), during this breath the Lord exhales trillions of
    Universes so starts creation.  Each Universe then has Lord Brahma
    entering it since creation is in the mode of Passion, Brahma get's
    creation going and Lord Shiva is responsible for the destruction. 
    
    However as you well know it's easy to start something and to destroy it
    but to maintain it is very difficult.  So Lord Vishnu maintains the
    "project" if you like.
    
    As each Universe is created so the Jiva (the real us living entity) is
    given a body to interact with the material world, according to their
    nature.  The nature being Goodness, Passion and Ignorance and each
    being will have a combination of the three just like the primary
    colours produce a different colour depending on the mix.  The Jiva
    enters this material world so that it can be the enjoyer.  In this
    world we are subjected to the laws of material nature called Maya. 
    Each and every action we take has a resulting reaction and that is the
    law of nature which is Karma.  To put it quite simply how we sow that's
    how we reap.
    
    However, we are not just stuck with the fruits of our action we are
    given choices.  For example we can choose to go in any direction such
    as to carry out and act or not to carry it out, that's why we are given
    Budhi (meaning intelligence) and we are responsible for our actions. 
    Karma is fruitive actions ment for the enjoyment of the self with no or
    very little regard for God.
    
    Sri Krishna also states that we obtain our bodies by the following:
    
    "Whatever state of being one remembers when he quits his present body,
    in his next life he will attain to that state without fail".
    
    ie, remember the 3 modes.
    
    Now Vikarma means no results ie no reaping of the seeds as none are
    sown.  This occurs when we take shelter of the Lord Sri Krishna and
    carry out your prescribed duty.  As stated:
    
    "Therefore, Arjuna, you should always think of Me in the form of
    Krishna and at the same time continue your prescribed duty of fighting. 
    With your activities dedicated to Me and your mind and intelligence
    fixed on Me, you will attain Me without a doubt" (Bg 8.7).
    
    The Lord also assures us 
    
    "Abandon all varieties of religion and just surrender unto Me. I shall
    deliver you from all sinful reactions. DO NOT FEAR". 
    
    Thus the Lord takes all responsibility for one who surrenders unto Him,
    and He indemnifies such a person against all reactions of sins.  In
    other words Karmic reactions.
    
    If one follows the "laws" and surrenders to the Lord and sincerely with
    Love and devotion does everything for the Lord there is no Karma, ie no
    effect from the material nature.  All activities that are for the
    pleasure of the Lord are transendental and not subject to material
    laws.  This is Vikarma.
    
    This is an introduction and I want you to have time to think about
    things before I go on.  Please feel free to ask questions.   I have
    given you an insight into creation and our true natures.
    
    Thanks for giving me a chance to share with you, I am grateful for your
    kindness and patients.
    
    Regards,
    
    Sunil

    	Re:2051.1
    
    	It was simply made as a defining of the basenote for those who might
    have otherwise skipped this topic. Comments?, was a gesture to
    stimulate discussion, not ridicule.
    	In an ironic way, Karma has been defined here. Words, writen to
    hurt and belittle indicate a soul without karma, words of healing and
    love, indicate a soul in touch with the universal soul.
    	Meanwhile, this is Monday morning for me, I should get combat pay
    for any deep thinking. Remember folks, IT'S JUST A NOTESFILE! If we all
    can't get along here, how can we expect the people of Bosnia to work it
    out?
    BillM

    Re .4 
    
    My answer was directed to the author of note .2 not to you.
    
    

    
    Re.7
    
    Bill,
    
    Reminds me of the comment from the original "Tao Te Ching" (paraphrased):
    
    	"And the foolish man, when he heard about the Tao, he ridiculed it.
         If he did not ridicule it, it wouldn't be the Tao!"
    
    (;^)
    
    Cindy
                                                               

    re: .6
    
    questions
    
    why are there no material things or no matter in that place i will call
    heaven?
    
    what is matter?   the thought or device used so we can believe in
    karma, action/reaction?
    
    i thought there was joy in heaven, too.  can one feel joy in heaven
    without being an enjoyer?  or is it a different kind of joy in heaven
    than the joy stemming from karmic attitudes?   or is one no longer one
    once in heaven, therefore no longer gaining a sense of joy from karmic
    reactions?  or is one all, once in heaven?  or all one?  so there is no
    separate self to find joy from action/reaction.  or are we all really
    already in heaven since there is no such thing as time?  we just don't
    know we're there?
    
    who decides whether a fruitive action is or isn't in the name of god? 
    some people swear up and down they are closer to god than anybody,
    but it turns out that they are just self-serving.  some accuse genuine
    people of being fakes.  it so confusing.  who's kidding whom?
    
    
    in haste...
    

    
    As I peer into my crystal ball...yes!  I can see clearly that this is 
    going to be really interesting...     
    
    Cindy

    Hi,  

    Re: .10,

    You have some very interesting questions, I will answer them the best I
    can in the time I have.

    >why are there no material things or no matter in that place i will call
    >heaven?
    
    Because every thing is transcendental and is not material.  All material
    objects are temporary and therefore subject to the laws of nature. 
    Godhead is not subject to the material energy/laws.  Therefore once
    liberated you will not be subject to:
    
    	Birth, youth, old age, suffering and death.
    
    Because your body is material it is subjected to the above BUT the real
    you the sprite soul is transcendental and is not subject to the above.
    You do not require an interface for Godhead as you are in your real
    home.

    >what is matter?   the thought or device used so we can believe in
    >karma, action/reaction?
    
    What is matter ? Matter is material and Sri Krishna tells us it's his
    lower energy that is subject to the laws of nature.  In other words God
    has created matter for our pleasure to enjoy away from him.  I do not
    understand the next part of the question.
    
    >i thought there was joy in heaven, too.  can one feel joy in heaven
    >without being an enjoyed?  or is it a different kind of joy in heaven
    >than the joy stemming from karmic attitudes?   or is one no longer one
    >once in heaven, therefore no longer gaining a sense of joy from karmic
    >reactions?  or is one all, once in heaven?  or all one?  so there is no
    >separate self to find joy from action/reaction.  or are we all really
    >already in heaven since there is no such thing as time?  we just don't
    >know we're there?
    
    We all have an ego the real ego is covered by the body we are in.  What
    we see is the false ego, when we look in the mirror, we are not this
    body.  The real us is refered to Sac-cid-ananda meaning eternal,
    blissful and full of knowledge.  In the material world everything is
    fleeting and what we call joy may turn out to be not so joyful.  There
    is suffering (anxiety, decease, loss, old age and death), we have to
    work hard for everything and once we get it we are not satisfied.  We
    constantly hunger for more we look to satisfy our senses and this is
    never ending, what joy is there ?  This is what karmic reactions are
    and this is what we mean by action and reaction.
    
    In Godhead we have pure joy there is no need to thrust for anything we
    are fully enguaged in the loving and devotional service of the Supreme
    Lord.  Godhead is free from karmic reactions and is pure bliss as we
    have no more anxiety since we lack nothing.  
    
    Kamic attitudes are described in Chapter 17 called The Divisions of
    Faith.  I will not go and write everything so I suggest that you read
    the Gita (I suggest Bhagavad-Gita As It Is by Hi Divine Grace A.C
    Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada ISBN: 0-89213-134-9), it's the best
    translation of the Gita.
    
    17.1 Arjuna inquired: O Krsna, what is the situation of those who do
    not follow the principles of scripture but worship according to their
    won imagination ?  Are they in goodness, in passion or in ignorance ?
    
    17.2 The Supreme Personality of Godhead said: According to the modes of
    nature acquired by the embodied soul, one's faith can be three kinds -
    in goodness, in passion or in ignorance. Now hear about this.
    
    17.3 O son of Bharata, according to one's existence under the various
    modes of nature, one evolves a particular kind of faith.  The living
    being is said to be os a particular faith according to the modes he has
    aquired.
    
    There are quite a number of verses, but to put it in a simple way those
    who work for the false ego work under the three modes, they see the I,
    ME and MINE God is not in the picture or takes very little time in
    their lives.  People are always asking for more from God, give me this
    that and the other, but rarely do anything for God.  This is furtive
    action.
    
    On the other hand people who want to be free from Karma do what is
    desired by God.  Whole chapter is dedicated to this in the Gita, in
    fact much more.
    
    For example Sri Krishna tell's us 
    
    17.25 Without desiring frutive results, one should perform various
    kinds of sacrifice, penance and charity with the word tat. The purpose
    of such transendental activities is to get free from material
    entanglement.
    
    Meaning
    
    To be elevated to a spritual position, one should not act for any
    material gain.  Acts should be performed for the ultimate gain of being
    transfered to the spritual kingdom, back to home, back to Godhead.
    
    ---------
    
    The bottom line in this age of Kali yuga is that we need to follow the
    following regulations as laid in the vedas:
    
    1. No meat eating
    2. No alchol
    3. No illicit sex
    4. No gambling
    
    One should enguage one's self in the service of the Lord.  For the
    house holder one should do their work (ie employment to the best of
    their ability) to provide for their family.  One should bring up their
    children to be God conscious.
    
    One should offer all food stuffs that contain no eggs, fish, poltry,
    meat to God before eating.  One should use their wealth to look after
    the family and society by the proper use of Laxmi (money).
    
    One should think of God in all one does and spend time learning/gaining
    knowledge about God.  To do this there is not loss unlike in material
    life.  One may aquire a Degree, or a Huge house, car etc. but at the
    time of death this is taken away but what you gain on the God
    realisation path is never lost.
    
    >who decides whether a furtive action is or isn't in the name of god? 
    >some people swear up and down they are closer to god than anybody,
    >but it turns out that they are just self-serving.  some accuse genuine
    >people of being fakes.  it so confusing.  who's kidding whom?
    
    I think I have attempted to answer some of the questions above.  One is
    just kidding one's self if one thinks that she/he is liberated, none of
    us are since we are here.  There are many sympotoms that are described
    in the Gita of a renounced soul.
    
    In Chapter 18 Called The Perfection of Renunciation you will find your
    answers.  But breifly the Lord says:
    
    18.5  Acts of sacrifice, charity and penance are not to be given up;
    they must be performed. Indeed, sacrifice, charity and penance purify
    even the great souls.
    
    18.6  All these activities should be performed without attachment or
    any expectation of result.  They should be performed as a matter of
    duty, O son of Prtha.  That is my final opinion.
    
    18.7 Prescribed duties should never be renounced. If one gives up his
    prescribed duties because of illusion, such renunciation is said to be
    in the mode of ignorance.
    
    Remember what I said about the householder and ensuring you look after
    you family (not just husband, wife and childern it also includes
    parents).  By having a God concious house you are not subject to Karmic
    reaction.
    
    Please read the chapter if you get a chance.

    >in haste...

    No worries.
    
    I hope that people can see that I was not being arrogant with my reply
    to this topic.  There is much more to Karma then what is traditionally
    assumed.  Please ask questions and I will do what I can.  If you can do
    some reading from the suggested translation you will get a better idea
    and an insight into things.
    
    Regards,
    
    Sunil

    Hello,
    	  Is Karma similar to someones aura?
    		I still find this Karma a bit confusing.
    Mark.
    

    Hi Mark,
    
    Please explain what an "aura" is as I don't understand.  Perhaps I can
    help I am not sure.
    
    Regards,
    
    Sunil

    Well, Martin has used the dictionary explanation.
    As for me, I've never really been sure. It's just I've heard people
    talking about someones Karma or someones Aura as a projection of their
    inner being and qualities. 
    
    Mark.
     

    
    An aura is the field of energy that we have which extends beyond our
    apparent physical form.
    
    It is quite real.  Some people can see it...I can feel it.
    
    In the aura can be lodged 'stuff' from past/other lives which causes
    energy blocks.  If the blocks are significant, then eventually they
    work their way into the physical form as well.
    
    The true inner being has no energy blocks.  What happens when the
    blocks are cleared in the energy field is that the inner being begins
    to shine through in its true form.
    
    For a book on religious references to the aura, read: "Body Of Light",
    by Lar and Short.  For another excellent work, and more from a
    scientific perspective, read, "Hands Of Light", and "Light Emerging",
    by Barbara Brennan.  Dr.Brennan is formerly a NASA astrophysicist, and 
    she now heads the Barbara Brennan School of Healing in NYC.  A former
    DEJAVUer, Wayne Shumaker, is now in his 4th year there, and I've been
    one of his 'practice dummys' for the last 4 years now.  (;^)
    
    Cindy

    Well, I'm regretably still not entirely clear on what Karma is and I'm
    wasn't quite able to follow the material presented in .6.
    
    Anyone got a Western-style translation?
    
    Dave

    I'll try.
    
    Basically man can't refrain from taking action.  Even not doing
    something is taking action.  Every action that we take will result in a
    reaction, positive or negative.
    
    BUT (and this is a BIG BUT)  when we do actions from a point of view of
    ego: seeking a reward, looking for recognition or some sense of
    fulfillment, then we have set off a karmic reaction.  We have continued
    to enmesh ourselves in the bonds of karma.  
    
    When we do actions with no thought of reward, but do them from a sense
    of duty, of higher self, then we are said to have freed ourselves from
    the karmic reaction as the initial action is pure and we are not
    affected or touched by the outcome of the action.  The ultimate goal
    of Yoga is to do all actions from this starting point, thus freeing
    ourselves from creating future 'karma'.
    
    This is not to justify going around doing horrible things, of course,
    and stating that we don't care about the outcome of what we've set in
    motion as that would be a perversion.
    
    Again, according to Yogic philosophy, (see 'Patanjal's Yoga Sutras') 
    we are born into this life bringing with us all our past tendencies. 
    We basically start where we left off.  There is also the belief that we
    must fulfill any 'karmic' debts that we incurred in our past lives as
    well.  Thus, the more we free ourselves by doing action without motive,
    the less we incur these debts.  The ultimate goal is to free ourselves
    from accruing any further debts and to not have to be born again.
    
    Gita

    I'd have to read .6 closely before I'd attempt that Dave. However, as
    to auras, I can safely say that there is one participant in this file
    that I consider a highly evolved person. I have seen and felt the aura
    of that person. Not in color, but it appeared as heat waves surrounding
    the person. (Like a highway on a hot summer day) When I would hold my
    hands above this person's hands I would feel the heat, but if I
    actually touched this person's hands, they were quite cool to downright
    cold.
    
    It first happened when this person wore a particular crystal, but now
    it happens all the time. The only one that I'm able to regularly see or
    feel any thing like this from. Says to me that particular aura is
    strong.
    
    Individual in question makes a killer strawberry shortcake also. :-)
    
    Bright Blessings,
    
    PJ

Karma,

Isn't that a subtle blend of spices and banana in which meat, usually
chicken or lamb is maranded and cooked. Very nice served with a basmatti
rice and savoury nan.

Simon

    I believe that's korma, and if you believe in the law of karma, you
    wouldn't be eating meat because of the tremendous karmic debt that
    you'd be incurring!
    
    Gita

   .23 What tremendous debt?
    
    How come western people are so interested in oriental's religions?
    Are they so bored of their life? Or just jealouse of oriental people
    because they still got values?

    
    Re.24
    
    In the movie 'Marco Polo', he said that the more he learned about other
    religions and cultures, the more he understood his own.
    
    Cindy

    Hi Gita and Cindy,
    
    I like the summary that Gita you put together in reply .19 it's very
    good and thanks for helping me out.
    
    Re.25
    
    >In the movie 'Marco Polo', he said that the more he learned about other
    >religions and cultures, the more he understood his own.
    
    I agree with the above and I feel it can be of benefit to learn from
    one another.  The temple I go to here in Sydney make comparisions
    between faiths to help us build bridges.  There is a lot in common
    between faiths and many years back I was quite open to discussing my
    faith and sharing what I believe in but have become very closed over
    the last few years as I see quite a lot of condemnation of my faith.
    The people in this conference seem to be very open and willing to
    question things in an intelligent manner, I feel quite welcomed and not
    out of place.  So I like to thank you all for your honesty and welcome.
    
    Regards,
    
    Sunil

    
    re .24
    
    I think some people are interested in finding out how
    other people deal with life issues. IMO, it doesn't
    matter where one comes from, what one skin color is,
    one has the similar set of problems to deal with, like
    birth, death, sickness, fear, unknowns, human weaknesses,
    etc. I think it is a matter of comparing notes.
    
    
    Eva

    Hi Eva,
    
    You are correct in what you have said about about humans BUT you are
    missing one thing !!!  Sorry it should be *ALL* living being this
    includes, Humans, Plant life, Fish, beings on other planets etc.  We
    are *NOT* this body the body is just a covering that's all the real us,
    the real ego is the soul.
    
    So suffering and shared experiences go beyound just the human
    experience, if one looks at animals you will see their suffering is not
    too different.  Except they do not have the highly evolved Budhi or
    intelligence as we do to understand.
    
    It is said in the Veda's that humans are two legged animals if they do
    not question their existance or attempt to understand why they are
    here.  What is the difference between animals and us ?  If we 
    
    Sleep, eat, mate, hunt (humans now shop for food), etc. plus what you
    said "birth, death, sickness, fear, unknowns etc...." can equally apply
    to other beings.
    
    The animals do the same, this is the very basic form of "living".  To
    understand the Vedas one really has to change their view of the world
    and existance a different mind set is required.  This is possible but
    one has to be open to it and it takes time.  We are all the same at the
    end of the day and subject to the laws of material nature (Maya).
    
    Regards,
    
    Sunil

    People that believes in karma are not meat eaters because meat is
    coming from a living thing,etc.etc. What about vegetables? Or fishes?
    Are they living things or not? Seems to me that most vegetarian people
    eats that stuff,if they believe for really in karma,etc.they should
    live only breathing air. :-)

    
    Sunil,
    
    	>Sorry it should be *ALL* living being this includes, Humans, 
    	>Plant life, Fish, beings on other planets etc.
    
    	Yes, I agree.
    
    	
    Eva 

    pet rocks aside, what about rocks?
    on the atomic level, they may be just as alive.  an atom is an atom, isn't
    it?  or are we just talking about things that resemble ourselves? 
    humans, animals, some plants, some aliens.
    resemble?
    
    i don't suppose anybody here eats rocks, though.  (do food chemicals
    come from rocks (?) don't know)
    
      
    re .24
    
    i'm not certain everyone thinks in terms of us and them.  not all the
    time, anyway.
    

    Hi,

    Re: .29,

    >What about vegetables? Or fishes?

    It's an interesting question(s).  Firstly if you read my replies you
    will see that in Vedic terms you can not eat fish at all.  As to the
    question of vegetables.

    In the Vedas it's written that:

    One Jiva (living entity) is food for another in the material world.  To
    exist one has to kill another being.

    In the Gita the Lord has said:

    "Offer me with love and devotion a flower, water, fruits, vegetables and 
    grains I shall accept them"

    "Those who do not offer me foods they are eating sin"
    
    God has told us exactly what can be offered to him and he absolves you
    of all sinful reactions, because you offer him with love and devotion. 
    Love and Devotion are the highest and this means that you do as God
    asks.  I will get more details on this and recommend further reading so
    that you get a better understanding.
    
    Regarding the eating of rocks, did you know that there are some
    Aryuvedic medications that use mineral rocks to treat illnesses ? 
    
    Regards,
    
    Sunil

    >pet rocks aside, what about rocks?
    
    Why do you exclude pet rocks?
    Jamie.

I don't get all this Karmic debt stuff.

The animals where put onto this world for our care and attention so that
we may then use them to cloth our bodies and eat their flesh so that we
may survive. We are the primary species of the world and therefore
animals are there to serve us. What's wrong with this.

Simon

    .34
    
    Don't forget that karma is just a theory ,like religions,and no body can 
    prove it!

    
    re .34
    
    >The animals where put onto this world for our care and attention so that
    >we may then use them to cloth our bodies and eat their flesh so that we
    >may survive. We are the primary species of the world and therefore
    >animals are there to serve us. 
    
    This is yet another attempted explanation or philosophy of life on this
    planet. There is no proof to its validity either. 
    
    >What's wrong with this.
    
    IMO, this rather simplistic hypothesis, widely believed in the west, gives 
    humans a false sense of superiority and a self-glorifying authority to
    manipulate other species at will without consequences. From the humans' point 
    of view, IMO, it is certainly much much easier to think and live like we own 
    all of this, than to try to understand the complicated web of life and learn from 
    other species who have been playing this survival game a whole lot longer 
    than we have. IMO, it is an easy way out! 
    
    
    Eva    

    When you're given the 'care' of someone else, do you normally kill them
    so you can eat their flesh and wear their skins?  
    
    This is a rathole that many of us have been down before, and,
    personally, I don't want to go down it again.  Suffice it to say that I
    don't believe that we have been given stewardship of other living
    beings so they can become our food.  I'm not even convinced that we are
    the superior species on this planet when you consider all that we're
    doing to destroy it...
    
    Gita

 .37    I didn't know "someone" give to the humans the "care" of other species.

    Re.34
    
    >The animals where put onto this world for our care and attention so
    >that we may then use them to cloth our bodies and eat their flesh so 
    >that we may survive. We are the primary species of the world and 
    >therefore animals are there to serve us. What's wrong with this.
    
    Then how come people get all upset when an animal kills and eats the
    flesh of a human for exactly the same reason - survival?
    
    What's wrong with this?
    
    Cindy

What's wrong with that?

Nothing, just make sure to get out of the way
of that hungry grizzly.

    
    Would it be alright to send humans through a slaughterhouse to feed
    animals?  
    
    Cindy

    when bambi learns how to swing an axe.
    

    	continuing this rat...
    
    	Excellent Bumper Sticker sighting....
    
    			Support The Right To Arm Bears  ;>)!
    
    BillM

    RE: .41
    
    >Would it be alright to send humans through a slaughterhouse to feed
    >animals?
    
    Depends on the point of view:  Another human?  A direct predator of
    human beings?  From non-human vegetarian service providers selling  a
    product to non-human carnivore clients?  From Hanibal Lector' point of
    view?  ;-)
    
    It seems to me that as soon as you select a point of view, the answer
    pretty much naturally follows.
    
    Humans already have existing legal and moral codes against that type of
    activity.
    
    A predator looking for more leisure time would think it's great.  A
    predator who is health and exercise conscious would prefer live prey on
    the run.
    
    A vegetarian non-human purveyor would say business is business.
    
    
    Dave

    Hi All,

    During my student days I was wondering why people believed in God, I
    couldn't understand.  Even though I believed in God I couldn't
    understand why !!!!  Was it fear ? Was it love ? or was it because it
    was the done thing ?

    So I acted like an atheist and always opposed what ever was being said
    about God.  I was in my chemistry class where our teacher a Christian
    who mentioned during one of those discussion that asked the question
    "Well who created all of this ?".  I just mentioned the prevailing
    theory.  My teachers answer was God.  To this I said "prove God exists
    and I will believe in him" ?  To this he said you have to taste it for
    yourself.

    I began thinking well how am I going to describe to a blind man what
    the colour red is or any other colour ?  I also hear from my fellow
    Hindus who say you have to "taste the nectar for yourself".  Describing
    and actually allowing yourself to be open to an experience are two
    different things.  As I said to understand the Vedic culture one has to
    have a different mind set, to achieve this you have to be ready to
    experience it.

    Arguments about eating meat or not, or if Karma exists are futile.  If
    people can not accept it then it's your right not too !!!  By asking
    the same old question over and over again using different terminology
    get's you the same answer, the truth cannot be changed.
    
    It's rather like people saying they do not believe there is a law to
    prevent them from jumping the traffic lights.  But when they get caught
    they have to pay a fine, the results may not be present right away BUT
    they will come.  Having different points of view on the fact someone
    jumped the red light does not mitigate the fact that person has broken
    the law and has to pay a fine.
    
    As stated in the Gita Sri Krishna tells us:
    
    "By speculation you will not obtain me only through love and devotion"
    
    Further it's stated that:
    
    "I will give you the intelligence to understand me"
    
    God is impartial and all beings are equal before him.  However, those
    who show love and devotion and want to know him, God ensures that he
    "looks after you".  I could go on but I will leave this discussion and
    allow you to re-examine things and perhaps you will allow yourself to
    be open to experiencing what is !!!
    
    Regards,
    
    Sunil

    Re .34

    >The animals where put onto this world for our care and attention so
    >that we may then use them to cloth our bodies and eat their flesh so
    >that we may survive. We are the primary species of the world and
    >therefore animals are there to serve us. What's wrong with this.

    The above statement is perfectly true as you will see from the
    following quotation.

    Document: [BIBLE.OT]01-GEN--1.-KJV 

    1:27 So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created
    he him; male and female created he them. 

    1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and
    multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion
    over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every
    living thing that moveth upon the earth.

    Now you will note that this comes from book of Genesis, which is at the
    beginning of the Bible and was written by God personally. So it must be
    right. 

    Jamie.

    Hi Jamie,

    But is it not also true that the Bible mentioned in Genesis,

    Every herb bearing seed, etc.. shall be for you instead of meat.

    I have some 7th Day Adventist who will not eat, eggs, fish, meat or
    poultry, because they point out that the Bible tells them not to eat
    meat.
    
    >Now you will note that this comes from book of Genesis, which is at the
    >beginning of the Bible and was written by God personally. So it
    >must be right.
    
    Now note that the Gita is personal revealed by God and witnessed by the
    millions that were there.  So it must be right.
    
    Sunil

    It is still remarkable difficult to be sarcastic in here, isn't it.

    Jamie.

    re .50
    
    I don't think they were being sarcastic. 
    
    I think they'd like to have a sincere and serious discussion.
    

    No. Some were being serious, two were winding people up, and I was being
    sarcastic.

    Jamie.

    	IMHO, no such rigid doctrines need to be imposed. Look at how the
    American Indians celebrated and thanked the spirit of the deer, bison,
    etc as they killed it for food, shelter, utensils, etc. They can honor
    these animals as they hunted them as well as a person who chooses to
    follow a vegertarian path. Who is to say that in taking its life and
    honoring its gift of food, this act doesn't help the animal to a higher
    karma, itself?
    	Meanwhile, with our Science beenies on, Man was designed by
    (evolution, God, primal oooze, none of the above, etc) with incisorr
    teeth for the ripping and shredding of flesh. With the archaeologically
    recent introduction of agriculture, Man has now for the first time in
    millions of years, a chance to avoid meat in his diet if he so chooses.
    However, his originally designed factory model had the incisors come as
    standard equipment.
    	Many taboos, kosher laws, etc. are based on sound tribal oral
    traditions and become a law as memories of their original purpose
    is obscured. Not eating pork becomes a religious rite rather than
    an old wise tribal law that helps keep the people from suffering from
    parasites found in undercooked meats.                       BillM

    
    I agree with .53 that man was not designed to live on plant
    matter alone. I think as we get more modern and further away
    from our food sources (unless one works in or lives close to 
    a slaughter house), we forget who we really are and become
    frightened by our animal nature. We can change our habits,
    but we cannot change our past and our genetic programming, IMO.
    Sometimes I am puzzled by how some philosophies cannot seem to 
    be able to accept the animal instincts in us, trying to convert 
    humans into something un-animal like. 
    
    Eva
    
     

    We'll all be Eattin Soilent_Green stuff Soon Any_Ways.

    
    I knew you were being sarcastic, Jamie.  (;^)
    
    Re.44 - Dave, I'm on vacation right now, so will join in the discussion
    again next Monday.   
    
    Meanwhile, have fun everybody!  
    
    Cindy

    RE .46
    
    >Now you will note that this comes from book of of Genesis,which is at
    the beginning of the Bible and was written by God personally.So it must
    be right.
     I guess  you can prove that God wrote the Genesis book or it is just
    your believes?
    

    > I guess  you can prove that God wrote the Genesis book or it is just
    >your believes?
    
    I assume that you actually meant to type beliefs. Well as there was only
    God around at the beginning He must have wrote it, stands to reason,
    doesn't it.

    Jamie.

    .58
    
    I assume you can prove that there was only god at the beginning,can you?
    Even assuming that it's true,do you really think that "god" with all
    his powers was spending his time writing a miserable book?
    Maybe it stands to reason to you not to me,you have no idea how
    religions can brainwash people, they are doing that for  centuries
    after all is the best tool to control masses ever invented by humans.
    Everyone is free to choose what to believe but don't assume everybody
    has to agree with your beliefs.
    
    :-)

    Re .59

    For your arguments hold water you would have to make the massive
    assumption that God does not exist and the Bible is not 100% the word
    of God, and that of course is completely unthinkable. I fear the
    heretics and atheists have totally brain washed you and caused you to
    stray far from the path of righteousness.

    Jamie.

    .61
    
    As I said in my previous note everybody is free to believe whatever
    they want and "nobody" brainwashed me,that is  my beliefs,I have my own
    brain,I don't need heretics or atheists to tell me what to believe,in
    your case I can see that you're too stubborn,you're trying to convince
    people that your beliefs are right,good luck!  
    
                    :-)

    >As I said in my previous note everybody is free to believe whatever
    >they want and "nobody" brainwashed me,that is  my beliefs,I have my own
    >brain

    How can you be sure?

    Their methods are very subtle and it takes a keen mind to spot them at
    work. You may assume that your mind is free of their influence. But as
    your mind is is the very instrument that you use to reach this
    conclusion the results may be fatally flawed.

    You appear to use what is known as grasshopper logic, jumping straight
    to the most obvious conclusion without bothering to examine each step.

    Jamie.

    	Now, Jamie, let's not go around insulting grasshoppers by likening
    their actions to human thought processes.
    
    	PS: As amazingly obvious as this has been, I just don't think "this
    dog will hunt".
    
    	Yup, if the topic's being ratted out of control, then I must be in
    the Dejavu conference!
    BillM

    He's like that...he baits the hook and wait until someone bites.
    
    The topic is of no consequence...merely bait. It doesn't matter if
    it's black or white. 
    
    Now talk about making some Karma for yourself. I'm sure he'll have some
    to deal with at some point in time. I noticed that there are a few
    people in here that are on to him already.  I'm sure that some of them
    will give it to him whenever and however they can. 
    

    
    Oh...Jamie has a good heart.  (;^)  
    
    (Good going there, you ol' mischievous Scot!)
    
    Cindy

    .58 "... must have wrote it..."
    I assume that you actually meant to type written.

    
    Re.44 
    
    Dave,
    
    >From Hanibel Lector's point of view?  
    
    Who is Hanibel Lector?  (Is this a trick question? (;^))
    
    >Would it be alright to send humans through a slaughterhouse to feed
    >animals?
    
    I was thinking of another human...trying to show the (gruesome) idea of
    humans and what is done to animals in slaughterhouses without much
    thought, but might have a very hard time doing the exact same thing to 
    another human, given the same circumstances.  (Given, of course, that 
    the human is generally a good and kind person toward all people, and 
    not someone like a Hitler or Pol Pot.)
    
    >It seems to me that as soon as you select a point of view, the answer
    >pretty much naturally follows.
    
    I'm not sure about that.
    
    >Humans already have existing legal and moral codes against that type of
    >activity.
    
    It was more the visual idea of humans doing to cattle (and other animals) 
    in slaughterhouses, and yet having a problem when it comes to doing the 
    same to humans, that I was trying to conjure up here.
    
    >A predator looking for more leisure time would think it's great.  A
    >predator who is health and exercise conscious would prefer live prey on
    >the run.
    
    Oh, well that explains a lot!  I wonder how the beer-drinking hunter 
    image fits into this whole scheme though.  (;^)
    
    >A vegetarian non-human purveyor would say business is business.
    
    I don't know...since I'm a human vegetarian who speaks out for animals...
    
    Cindy
                       

    Cindy, Hanibal Lector is from the Jeffrey Dahmer School of Cooking of
    meat products. :-)
    
    Bright Blessings,
    
    PJ

    Re: .68 
    
    Cindy,
    
    It seems to me that your example is gruesom only because humans
    generally don't use other humans as a food source.  If we did, the idea
    would be less repelling than it is.
    
    If your underlying point is that we should treat our food animals
    better than we do, I rather agree.  At least as well as we treat
    animals in general.
    
    If your point is that humans shouldn't exploit animals as a food source
    at all, I look to the examples that nature herself provides of animals
    using others for food, then look at my own underlying animal nature and
    ask how the addition of sentience to that nature mandates that I can't
    follow the example set by the other omnivores and carnivores of my
    ecosystem.
    
    In other words, Huh?
    
    :-)
    
    Dave

The only real difference between man and the wild
animal is that we cultivate and harvest other animals.
When they are slaughtered it is usually done in a humane
way.

Where as the wild animals hunt their pray to exhaustion
and then proceede to rip its throat out etc letting it
die a slower and more painful death.

Simon

    If you honestly believe that animals are slaughtered humanely in this
    country, you should start doing some reading and research.
    Try reading "Animal Factories" or any of the other literature that
    clearly discusses the slaughter industry in this country.  They will
    open your eyes to a world of incredible torture and cruelty.
    
    You may never want to eat meat again.
    
    The issue is one of choice.  We can make a choice, be it based on
    ethical/moral, religious or health reasons not to eat meat.  Other
    members of the animal kingdom don't have that choice.  We have the
    means to keep ourselves alive without having to kill other sentient 
    beings to do so.  You can't say the same for a lion or tiger.  They
    MUST hunt other animals to live.  
    
    Gita

    	I don't buy into this "sentinent" theory. I've summered in Vt
    on a farm and work, pigs, chickens, and (stupidest of all) turkeys.
    Comparing these meat crops to my cat is a joke. 
    	On the otherhand, I've cut meat for 6 months and seen a Kansas
    City slaughterhouse in action. There's nothing humane about it. The
    whole operation is geared for efficiency, with only a casual thought
    to cleanliness. 
    	I look upon herds grown for meat as like corn planted. If they
    weren't needed, they'd have never been bred.  We gave them a short
    happy life on Earth pigging out and then they got the chop. That
    may sound incredibly cruel, but it is the way Man uses Nature.
    	Now, that's totally different from hunting for pleasure and not
    for food. Deer hunting, in the USA, is neccessary due to the lack of
    their natural predators anymore, wildcats, wolves, etc. I can
    understand why it's required, but I, myself, could never go out and
    commit Bambicide.
    	Some degree of hunting is always required in Nature. The natural
    process dictates it. If animals are left without natural predatorsd
    they soon overpopulate their environment and succumb to mass
    overfeeding and subsequent starvation.
    	However, I still support the right to ARM BEARS!    BillM

                                            
    Re.70 
    
    Dave,
    
    >It seems to me that your example is gruesom only because humans
    >generally don't use other humans as a food source.  If we did, the idea
    >would be less repelling than it is.
    
    I'm not sure about this.  I grew up in a meat-eating home and so for
    the first, oh, 27 years of my life, I was conditioned to consider meat
    as a primary food source.  This is unlike the majority of my Hindu 
    friends, for example, who were born and raised as complete vegetarians.  
    
    For the first 27 years then, eating meat did not repell me.  It does
    now though.  I didn't give up eating meat on ethical grounds...rather
    my tastes just slowly changed in that direction about 10 years ago, to 
    the point where 6 years ago I made my vegetarian status official (to
    all my friends and relatives).  
    
    >If your underlying point is that we should treat our food animals
    >better than we do, I rather agree.  At least as well as we treat
    >animals in general.
    
    Yes, most definitely...though the second statement, given the
    conditions of how a lot of animals are treated in general, it would be
    nice to raise this level up some too.
    
    >If your point is that humans shouldn't exploit animals as a food source
    >at all, I look to the examples that nature herself provides of animals
    >using others for food, then look at my own underlying animal nature and
    >ask how the addition of sentience to that nature mandates that I can't
    >follow the example set by the other omnivores and carnivores of my
    >ecosystem.
    
    Couple of things here.  First of all, our actions in this are are
    conscious ones, whereas in nature, the animals there are acting out of
    preprogrammed consciousness and cannot willfully change their actions.
    
    Secondly, it would be different if you or I were living in the jungles
    (or any natural habitat) where there was a balance kept between humans
    and nature.  
    
    But when we humans obliterate forests - especially the rainforests - 
    to raise cattle, which pound for pound costs more than it does to 
    sustain a vegetarian diet - then we are offsetting the balance of 
    nature.  Then the idea of the ecosystem in comparing yourself with
    other carnivores, cannot be done.  Carnivores hunt their prey - they
    don't take large machinery in to obliterate forests to raise animals 
    for their own consumption.  
    
    I was just down in Brazil, and I heard and saw for myself how costly
    and ecologically devastating it is to cut down rainforests and raise 
    cattle instead.  If people must have their meat, at least it is
    possible in the rainforests to kill the lizards and use that meat
    instead, which keeps the rainforest intact and the cost is far less 
    to produce this meat pound for pound, as well.
    
    One other item I've added to my diet-banned list as a result of going
    to Brazil, is hearts-of-palm.  One of our nature guides pointed out
    that hearts-of-palm are extremely costly to produce, and when they are 
    harvested, the entire tree is cut down (killed). There's also a lot of 
    illegal trade in hearts-of-palm, and chances are that when you see 
    them on the shelves here in the US, they are more-than-likely to be 
    illegally gotten. I happen to love hearts-of-palm, however for these 
    reasons, I will not eat them any longer.
    
    >In other words, Huh? :-)
    
    My thoughts exactly! (;^)
    
    Cindy
  

    
    Re.73
    
    Bill,
    
    >	I look upon herds grown for meat as like corn planted. If they
    >weren't needed, they'd have never been bred.  We gave them a short
    >happy life on Earth pigging out and then they got the chop. That
    >may sound incredibly cruel, but it is the way Man uses Nature.
    
    I cannot agree with that at all, except for the part that 'Man uses
    Nature'...or rather 'abuses' it, is probably more accurate.  I don't
    believe it's necessary - not for one moment - to breed and raise 
    animals like this, in order to feed the population.  
    
    As for a 'short happy life' - no way is this true for the majority of
    animals we use for food.  Have you ever seen how veal or pate fois
    gras is produced?  It's not unlike your slaughterhouse experience in
    terms of unhumane animal treatment, except it's one step before that. 
    I'll refrain from describing the processes, except to say that when I
    told a veal-lover about how it was done, he vowed to never eat veal
    again, and so far he has not.
    
    >	Now, that's totally different from hunting for pleasure and not
    >for food. Deer hunting, in the USA, is neccessary due to the lack of
    >their natural predators anymore, wildcats, wolves, etc. I can
    >understand why it's required, but I, myself, could never go out and
    >commit Bambicide.
    
    I don't know about that.  I often question such statistics that try to
    justify killing animals by hunting them. (Glad to see you don't
    participate in this, in any case...(;^)
    
    >	Some degree of hunting is always required in Nature. The natural
    >process dictates it. If animals are left without natural predatorsd
    >they soon overpopulate their environment and succumb to mass
    >overfeeding and subsequent starvation.
    
    Unfortunately this balance is more often than not upset by humans
    either purposefully or accidentally introducing non-native animal
    species into places where they shouldn't be, because there are no
    natural predators or conditions to keep their numbers in check.  In
    such cases, it is not a natural process at all.
    
    Cindy
                         

    I figured that'd get you going, Cindy!
    How'd I do, Jamie?
    
    	I respect your veggie ways, Cindy, I just ask you to respect mine
    which I'm sure you do.
    	As far as the rainforest is concerned, what needs to be done is to
    subsidize the Brazilian preservation of this world resource. we cannot
    expect them to not use this resource without compensating them. I can
    just imagine the laughter in a 1870 Congress if a person asked that the
    USA cease hunting Buffalo, strip mining, or clearcutting forests.
    	I think the most realistic way for an animal lover to help out
    their furry friends is to work on curtailing the most repugnant aspects
    of Man's war on the animal world.
    	It's amazing how fast I came up with this short list!
    	Fur Farms
    	Trophy hunting in "fenced" preserves
    	Cock fighting
    	Pit fighting of dogs
    	Shooting old greyhounds
    	Drowning excess puppies and kittens
    	Poaching, esp of elephants for ivory
    	Animal killing for Oriental medicinal "cures"
    	Whaling
    	Baby Seal Hunting
    	Bull Fighting
    
    	anyone got a few more?
    
    			No horses were killed or injured
    			in the making of this note.

    
    Get me going?  Where to?
    
    I really am not a stereotypical fanatic about this.  I realize all too
    well there are a myriad of points of view on this.  To the best of my
    ability, I try not to consciously contribute to any situation that
    causes others to suffer, be they humans or animals, or in the case of
    hearts-of-palm, the trees.  And I try to educate others so that they
    may also make a more conscious choice that does not contribute to the
    suffering either.
    
    Regarding the Brazil situation - it's not really that simple.  The tour 
    I took was a specialized botanical tour with several local botanists 
    and researchers as guides.  At different points during our days on the 
    Rio Negro, they went into the problem at great length - particularly Pia 
    who is a student from the Max Planck Institute in Germany, who is there 
    studying the effects of flooding and tree growth in the white water. 
    She's been there for 2 years now, and tried to give us an overall view 
    in 45 minutes or so, but even then there was so much she couldn't even 
    touch on.
    
    It's one *very* complicated situation, and on top of it all, the 
    government of the country is - according to a few of the native
    Brazilians who live there - very corrupt.  I almost would not know 
    where to begin to explain the situation.  As it is, there are countless 
    books out on the subject as well that were available there.  I have one 
    on loan from another person on the tour that is actually a counter book 
    to the view that there is even a problem in the rainforests. 
     
    Nevertheless, there are inroads being made in a positive direction, to
    find profitable ways to utilize the rainforest which already exists.. 
    While there, we visited IMPA, which is a research center specifically
    set up to find ways to effectively utilize the rainforests without
    creating so much damage to the environment.  Things like using the wood
    there already instead of cutting it down and planting all the same
    trees, for instance. There was an example of actual leather made out 
    of the piracu (sp?) fish, a commonly used very large fish in the diet 
    there (rather than throwing the skin away as is usually done).  The 
    swimming bikini they had made out of it was, um, interesting.  (;^)  
    Then a room dedicated just to rainforest plants with healing properties, 
    such as guarana (which helps alteriosclerosis, is a tonic, and a mild 
    aphrodisiac (;^). And so on.
    
    If things continue to go in this direction, there would be no need to
    subsidize because they would be able to make a very good profit from
    what is already there.  Some small businesses are actually involving
    the local people more and more, and cutting out the 'middle people'.
    Then they personally make sure that more of the actual profits go back 
    to the native people so they will be able to survive without being
    subsidized or bought by large companies that only seek to exploit them 
    (and there's plenty of that going on.) 
    
    Cindy

    
    Re.76
    
    >I can just imagine the laughter in a 1870 Congress if a person asked 
    >that the USA cease hunting Buffalo, strip mining, or clearcutting 
    >forests.
    
    And unfortunately, even though we know better now as a result of our
    collective stupid mistakes, there are those who still persist in this 
    kind of mentality right in this country even in 1995.  I even had a
    manager laugh at me here right at Digital because I was going through
    the contents of a bin that was full of paper and perfectly good office
    supplies that were all recyclable and reusable.  (If anybody needs
    binders, come see me.)
    
    As for hunting buffalo, for those who actually used all or most of the
    buffalo for survival purposes, then there wasn't a problem with that. 
    But what was done was to decimate the buffalo by using them for random
    target practice from the trains and leaving them to suffer and die on
    the plains.  That had nothing to do with 'hunting' whatsoever. That was
    a travesty of nature that they committed.
  
    Cindy

    	I knew you were tolerant on the subject, I was just being
    mischevious.
    	Interesting info on the rainforest.
    	You're not alone in the corporate world, Cindy. I get some weird
    stares from people when I take home a couple of boxes of my old
    newspapers for recycling!
    	Gotta run! Time to fire up the grill and thaw a nice thick T-Bone!
    BillM

Re: 2051.77

> I really am not a stereotypical fanatic about this.


;^)


Dave

    
    	I am asking this for a friend, she was told that there was some bad
    karma to burn off. I couldn't help her as I do not know what this
    means. Can anyone help me to understand what is mean't by this
    statement, and how would she go about " burning off bad karma"?
    	A medium told her " There is bad karma to be burned off ". But she
    never told her how to do it, or what she meant.
    	Thanks for any help you can give to my friend.

    	Thankyou for writing back on the burning off bad karma. Although I
    do not have any idea of what to tell her I did tell her this. I thought
    that she should just " let whatever the bad karma was about go" If she
    reversed her feelings and became possitive instead of negitive and
    could learn to better her mind, spirit, and soul with loving thought,
    and positive, and beleiving in higher powers ( of God ) that I am sure
    it would be away of burning off bad karma, and turn bad karma into
    goodness. Like I said I didn't know what to say to her, but I have
    learned about higer power through prayer, and also always being
    possitive. Do you think I told her the wrong information?
    

    I usually burn off bad karma by leaving the grill on preheat for
    10 minutes while painting the steaks with marinate and rubbing 
    black pepper onto them. ;>)!   BillM

    
    Re.85
    
    You told her exactly the right thing!
    
    Cindy

    
    Thank You Cindy. I am glad I told her what I did it made sense to me. I
    would hate to think I gave her bad advice.

    	From "Glimpse After Glimpse", by Sogyal Rinpoche
    
	Is karma really so hard to see in operation? Don't we only have to
    look back at our own lives to see clearly the consequences of some of
    our actions? When we upset or hurt someone, didnt it rebound on us?
    Were we not left with a bitter dark memory and the shadows of
    self-disgust? That memory and those shadows are karma. Our habits and
    our fears too are also due to karma, the results of our past actions,
    words, and thoughts. If we examine our actions and become really
    mindful of them, we will see there is a pattern that repeats itself.

    Whenever we act negatively, it leads to pain and suffering; whenever
    we act positively, it eventually results in happiness.