Ok, I am not sure if should post this here, but I am interested in hearing others thoughts on how food is a spiritual journey.

Totally torn between practicing Buddhism and adhering to my faith in God. I love both. Maybe it is the idea of being labeled.

Also, has anyone heard of SGI buddhism?

I do believe what we eat is related to our faith. Nature, God, the universe.. and it appears when I really follow the idea of doing no harm and living the "right" way, I have no desire or yearning to eat anything but raw. It feels so easy. However, when I stray from this belief or not practice my prayer and meditation, I seem to give into the cooked addiction or other non-raw foods.

Does anyone else encounter this or I am the only one?

I am an Orthodox Christian. If you follow the Christian calendar, you need to fast almost half of the year. Fasting means not eating any food with animal origin, eggs, milk or meat. Priests fast even longer (or the genuine ones do).

That being said, I find that if I follow raw food diet based on vegan principle, I am not in the 'mainstream' of Christian tradition, but I am sure that none of the existing religions have such a principle that would lead to raw food diet.

This type of knowledge is pre-religion, I believe. I believe we were gatherers and gardeners and lived by the sea or close to water, in the full harmony with nature and it's products. Then we left it. We left the God's garden and decided we could improve on God. We could plow soil (thus killing it) and we could destroy forests (that fed us). Going that route inevitably made us slaves. We are now slaves of the bad spirit which is a 'pay back' of the natural system. We are about to be exterminated by 'evil forces', actually by our own bad decisions thousands of years ago.

No offense to anyone's belief system, but for me, I wonder why we muck things up with man-created philosophies, when a simple understanding of nature is all that's required? We didn't walk away from god or try to improve on god, in my view, we're simply doing what every creature on the planet is attempting, but failing, to do, i.e., take over the planet through unchecked growth. Other creatures are just held back from doing so by the forces of nature: predation, food supply, etc., whereas we, thanks to our special abilities, have overcome those forces...so far. Eventually nature will win, it has to for life on this planet to continue.

I'm not an atheist, nor am I religious, I just believe in nature. Not that spiritual exploration isn't valuable - I explore it myself, I just do so from a nature-based foundation, and eating whole foods is a part of that. Feelings of spirituality typically get lost - or are reduced to traditional, acceptable standards - if you feel like hell from consuming processed foods. Much easier to explore our place in the cosmos if you feel alive and vibrant and connected to the earth.

No, it is not growth that is bad, it is the bad technology - we are forced to use dirty technology by our rulers - bankers and corporations. They just keep us as slaves.
That's it. If you don't see it, you are simply refusing to see it. It is plain and obvious.
Humans could live in harmony with nature even if they doubled in numbers. I don't believe that there is more than 4 billion people on Earth (probably less) but you don't have to agree with me. Even if there is 10, there is plenty of ways to make food natural way. We don't need grains. There are much more efficient ways to produce food for the millions.
First, people would need to start taking care of the nature. A simple decision like that would solve all the food problems in the world in 2 years.

We are mind slaves, the worst kind of slaves. We need to wake up.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/12/2013 06:12AM by rab.

michelemm

I find that when I am more in line with my spiritual nature, that healthful living comes more easily, including a healthful diet.

Torn between Buddhism and God? Do them both.

In the Bhagavad Gita, it says that one can achieve union with the divine by devotion/faith/worship to God, or by wisdom/direct experience, which is a path that contains meditation, or by work/action. So having a mix of these elements ought to be just fine.

While the Buddha didn't focus on God, he also didn't deny the existence of God. The Buddha didn't want people to follow ideas and beliefs blindly, but to have their own experience of the divine through meditation and various spiritual practices.

The Tao Te Ching says the Tao that can be named is not the Tao. Another way to put it is the God you read about or that people tell you about is not God, but merely ideas. Kind of like how the map is not the terrain, or a picture of an apple is not going to taste like an apple, or if you never ate an apple, having someone describe that apple is not going to be the same as tasting an apple.

rab Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No, it is not growth that is bad, it is the bad
> technology - we are forced to use dirty technology
> by our rulers.

Certainly dirty technology is a huge part of the problem, but we're not above nature, we are subject to the same laws of earth as every other living creature. Their numbers are kept in check through food supply and predation, keeping them in balance. If the population of any species becomes too large, many eventually starve from a lack of food. We, on the other hand, have found ways to expand our natural limits. I believe some scientists put our threshold at around 9 billion, then the real fun begins. The problem is our natural desire for growth, in combination with our use of "dirty technology" to get us there. But this gets away from the OP's question. I would think it would be difficult to be truly connected to our spiritual selves, if we are disconnected from the planet that sustains us, and how can we be in tune with its wholeness if we sap our moods by feasting ravenously on adulterated foods like zombie crack addicts while filling our lungs with mercury or other carcinogenic particulates from our petroleum-based party?

Religions are maps of reality. The map could have been made thousands of years ago.

I agree with Prana. A yogi named Mauni Sadhu, whose guru was Ramana Maharshi, called concepts 'word-labels.' People get so attached to the concepts that they never even explore the reality behind them. And I never understood the whole line on Buddhists being atheists. It's not true, in any case, although they differ a bit on how they view our divinity. I was always a little confused about their concept of the soul (calling it "heaps" and whatnot).

But any organized religion (including Hinduism and Buddhism) will tend to muck things up to some degree with their beliefs. My guy and I went to a local Buddhist temple once and a monk was telling us that he won't achieve enlightenment in this lifetime (according to the person above him) so he doesn't meditate that much. And then this same temple came under fire when a monk impregnated an underage girl and left the country Concepts versus Truth...

I don't know if this helps you or not, but Buddhism is not a religion - at least the way it is explained to me. Buddha did not teach that he was a god or that people follow blindly by his example, and he definitely did not want people to worship him (again, the way it is explained to me). It is up to each of us to become enlightened.

The Meditation Center I attend is led by a leader who is a Christian but practices Buddhism. He was trained by Thich Nhat Hanh.

I don't know about the food part, but to me, there is no moral, ethic, or religious conflict between Buddhism and Christianity.

Yah, what Prana wrote, basically. Now I'm rambling - sorry.

I will relate my view regarding food shortly; however, first I would like to say that I'm a spiritual person, but not religious. By this I mean that I don't practice organised religion. I totally believe in a creator, for the complexity of our universe couldn't just come about by 'blind' chance, not matter how many millions of years had passed. I had an assignment at University regarding this, and when it got down to the matter of how 'life' formed, the text book was full of maybe this occured, or perhaps this could have happened etc. In other words, they had not a clue, and all the pseudo explanations were full of bell, whistles and whiz/bang type stuff. But up till that point it all sounded quite logical, regarding the formation of all the elements; although, there were no actual evidence. And I began from the 'big bang' which is the currently accepted belief.

I remember we had a guest speaker at one of the lectures, and even though the debate on evolution/creation was nothing to do with the criteria, this man babbled on for 10 minutes trying to convince all in attendence (young impressionable minds) the proof of evolution and the absurdity of anyone who believed in creation. He said that given two hours, he would convince anyone in the lecture hall the validity of his argument.

By this time I was pretty mad, since his argument had nothing to do with the lecture material, and I was wondering why the lecturer didn't stop him. Anyway, after his offer of a debate, and since I was in the front row, I spoke up and said to him that I would accept the challenge but that I would expect actual evidence of his claims. He no doubt didn't expect anyone to accept his challenge by the look on his face, and the hall went very quiet for a few seconds. Thereafter he also accepted (well he had to, since he had offered it initially and couldn't very well back dowm. Imagine how that would look for him haha) He said he would talk to me afte the lecture. Great, we were now back to the original lecture format.

After the lecture I made a hasty beeline in his direction to prevent him from escaping, since he was heading for the fire door. He suggested we exchange email addresses since he had to consult his diary in order to fit me in. Despite a few reminders, he has never returned my emails, nor have I seen him around campus. So, I guess that when it comes down to the brass tacks, his debate offer proved empty. I'm not dogmatic about creation, or evolution, but the text books are full of references to evolution, when there is no need for it. For example, instead of saying that a particular moth had a certain ability to..... the text says that this particular moth has 'evolved' the ability to..... It gives the impression that evolution is a fact, rather than a theory. For you must remember that it's the 'theory of evolution' and not the 'fact of evolution'.

There is not a scrap of actual undeniable evidence that evolution exists, or creation for that matter. They both stand side by side, and you can believe one or the other or a mixture of either one. I believe that belief in a omnipotant being is not in the best interest of many people who wish to do as they desire, whether right or wrong. This is due to the responsibility that they would aquire in being subject to a higher form of life. Therefore, to believe in evolution is much more expedient for them, as they can do as they wish without any repercussions whatsoever, how very convenient.

So as far as food is concerned, people make up their own ideas, just as they produce their own forms of religion. It continues to amaze me how humans can justify just about anything and make it sound totally logical. We are indeed a highly intelligent species. To me, I don't believe that food has any bearing whatsoever on any spiritual teaching. I take them as separate; nevertheless, being a spiritual person, I have noticed that the closer I become a natural being, the closer I find my diet reflecting that natural state. In other words, a more natural diet, more raw as well as what I believe is the diet meant for humans.

And due to the 'fact' that we are all at various levels/stages of spiritual growth; therefore, we are all at a different phase in regard to our diets.

This all means that I do not believe that any religion should dictate any specific rules regarding what to eat or what not to eat.

What I've learnt, is that when a certain food is eaten on a specific day in the year, month or day, it usually relates to a particular meaning regarding a religious teaching on that year, month or day. So being a spiritual person rather than a religious person, those particular customs do not apply to me.

I hope all of the above makes sense, Jalan.

Oh, I have forgotten to make clear that it's not my intention to offend anyone in any way, and I apologise if I have done so unknowingly. What I have written is my opinion only.

Jalan x

Jalan: Your story sort of reminds me of situation I experienced, only reverse of yours.

I work at a university. At this university, sometimes brown-bag seminars are held - you know, seminars held during lunch and you bring your own food.

Well, this seminar was about weight loss. Most of our department went to this seminar. And the speaker was a dentist.

At first, the information he discussed was interesting - until he sequed into religion and praying to God.

I look around the room and it is a diverse crowd - I can safely say that everyone in that room was NOT Christian.

And it made me mad. I came to listen to weight loss - not to be preached to. I was upset because it was clear that not everyone was a Christian, and even more clear that they did not attend this seminar in hopes of becoming saved. It was just so random - such a kamikaze attack in a way. Completely unexpected. And had I known that this was going to happen, I would not have attended.

I feel as if I was creatively evolved, and that everything I see around me has also evolved creatively. There is plenty of evidence for evolution - few scientists today think of it as a theory anymore since much of science today has, well, evolved directly from the "theory" of evolution. On the other hand, life is all about creativity: from procreation to meal making to architectural design to the arts and music to how one raises a child to language to health care to...well, everything, and whatever is your chosen creative endeavor, you get better at is as you evolve. So, is there really a debate to be had...?

Yes Janetc, I think you have a right to be mad, and I was mad too and was the reason why I challenged him. You'll find a lot of people doing what they did, they have an audience, so they use it to their advantage, very unprofessional.

Jimtoo, you might be shocked to find that not all scientists believe in evolution, and I've not found any genuine evidence for evolution in my studies. If there had been, it would have been a huge media event. But you're right about people just accepting things until it's just accepted as truth, but for the individual, it's usually without researching anything for themselves just due to the fact that it becomes general consensus. Like, you never hear of the missing link anymore, but it's still an issue.

I remember back in the sixties when sodium fluoride was added to the water supply. Many Doctors and dentists spoke out against this halogen, and many books were written, seminars and debates were had. But now, people mostly just accept it without doing any research, even dentists.

It has become the same with food too. Once, not so long ago, we all know the shocked looks we'd get if we said that we didn't eat meat. I think that there's still people who believe that you'll die if you don't eat meat. It's the same thing with cooking too.

We all have a right to our opinion, and I suppose any further discussion that does not include food issues should be reserved for the other forums. I respect yours opinion Jimtoo, I hope you also respect mine.

Jalan

I wouldn't be shocked at all, which is why I used the word few. I doubt you'll ever see a huge media event on the subject given the belief systems in this country, as well as the nature of science. Is it huge news that experiments have been done with E. Coli proving evolution? That news isn't sexy enough, though some news agencies have probably mentioned it.

This has nothing to do with opinion, just what is considered to be factual evidence - by most - in the scientific community (I'm a biologist, for what it's worth). You can have an opinion that goes against the science that most scientists believe in. That is your right and your choice. I'm not an atheist and respect spirituality as long as it doesn't write off scientific findings. There are plenty of scientists who believe in evolution that also believe in christianity, believing evolution is driven by god. I can respect that belief because there is no evidence against it. You can't prove that god does or doesn't exist, and if someone wants to believe that a god created evolution to drive life on this planet, that's fine with me, but if someone tells me there is no strong evidence of evolution, then no, I find it hard to respect that opinion, because it is based on individual opinion and not the science of the day, and we are living in a time when too many are dangerously writing off ecological science because it doesn't fit their religious or political viewpoints, allowing for the continuous destruction of the planet.

Michele,

Like rab, I was raised Eastern Orthodox, and though I am not an adherent to any particular faith(I tend towards a sort of amalgamated Orthodox-Zoroastrianism), vegan fasting was not an alien concept in my life. If you believe in a benevolent Creator, or Creator Force, you can consider what humans in Creation are supposed to be: peaceful, custodial, harmonious, or vicious, destructive, and selfish. To me it's a no brainer that the exploitation of other creatures and the land is not the intention of a benevolent Creator or Force, but of its opposite. Which do you wish to aid, I guess is the question. How you do it really doesn't matter, IMO. What promotes good is good.

P.S. Jalan, I like you, man, but you are misunderstanding the word "theory" as it pertains to evolution

Janetc: Did you grow up with a severe faith inflicted upon you, either by parents or a religious school? In some parts of the country there is a lot of Christian fundamentalists and they tend to be aggressive in promoting their views, from what I have heard. I didn't grow up in such an area and so I don't get weirded out by it. I actually feel sorry for people who are compelled to do that because I don't believe that their faith is very strong. When you know who you are you don't have to externalize it and get other people on board.

I'm sorry that you find it hard to respect my opinion jimtoo, though I still respect yours. And since you don't due to the 'science of the day', I'd like you to post a link or two to this irrefutable evidence for evolution based on the 'science of the day', as I'd very much like to read it. I'm open minded, and if you can indeed produce such irrefutable evidence, then I'd have to seriously consider changing my opinion.

Recently however, I asked a lecturer regarding the obvious bias towards evolution that occurs in the uni text books, and text books that have been suggested as recommended reading depending on the course, and the reply I received was,'Yes you're right, and we'll have to do something about it'. I'd think that any irrefutable evidence would be easily available and widely known, especially at a university.

Since this is not the appropriate forum for this subject, perhaps it would be better to post your links/comments to me via the 'other topics' forum, as I'm not going to continue this conversation here. I believe that it's the last forum on the list.

Regards, Jalan

The theory of evolution has many defects. For example, it is not lineal in time. That's just a mind projection. A huge 'evolution' can happen in few years as opposed to millions.

BananaWho: You hit the nail on the head. I live in the bible belt. Honestly, I've been around it all my life, so I just let it go over my head. People can believe what they want to believe.

But I don't know: I saw all the diversity in the room - Muslim, Buddhist, agnostic, etc... and I got upset. And I was also upset because I wanted healthy tips - not a sermon!

janetc Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> BananaWho: You hit the nail on the head. I live
> in the bible belt. Honestly, I've been around it
> all my life, so I just let it go over my head.
> People can believe what they want to believe.
>
> But I don't know: I saw all the diversity in the
> room - Muslim, Buddhist, agnostic, etc... and I
> got upset. And I was also upset because I wanted
> healthy tips - not a sermon!

Right. I get it. I didn't understand why some people were so offended by that sort of thing until I realized how they grew up. Did you see "Jesus Camp?" I have heard it said that apart from the larger metro areas, many parts of the country are like that! Oy vey!

Hey Jalan,

I just started another Thread in the Other Topics Forum on Evolution for you...

The Twin-Nested Hierarchy…
[www.rawfoodsupport.com]

Peace and Love..........John

Jalan,

Hope you understand that I can respect you, I can respect your opinion on many subjects, but not all of your opinions. My own sister has become extremely religious. I have great respect for her in many ways, but she has closed her mind to anything that doesn't fall within her chosen religious belief system, to the point of becoming anti-science, and at times, downright dumb. It's enough to make me want to tear my eyeballs out of their sockets and turn them inwards so I don't have to witness any further decline. Thus, I can't respect her opinion on science because it isn't knowledge-based; it's become almost child-like.

I don't see a new thread in the other forums. I usually try to avoid internet debates as they are about as useful to me as talking to a wall. I'd rather read another book about evolution. So I'll just say this: if you are truly interested, google evolution and E. Coli, or google books on evolution. There are so many that you can spend the rest of your days evolving your opinion on the subject. Maybe try reading Dawkins for one. I don't know who your lecturer was, but if their seems to be "bias" in textbooks for evolution, it's for good reason. Every scientific discipline has expanded their knowledge because of evolutionary theory - it would be difficult to broaden our knowledge by use of a theory if the theory wasn't correct; eventually scientists would have to backtrack and say, well, using evolutionary theory hasn't led us anywhere, so it must be false. That hasn't happened, not even close. The opposite has.

As far as proof, well, that's a subject I don't want to debate, because whether you believe it or not depends on what bias you bring to the table. People see what they want to see. In the E. Coli experiments, numerous genetic changes - i.e., evolutionary adaptations - have been viewed through many generations, thanks to being able to monitor as many as 50,000 generations in just a few years. In other words, the E. Coli evolved. There's plenty of evidence, but I'm not going to get into a debate trying to get you to believe it. That is completely up to you. To debate this subject would be like debating a fundamentalist Christian on the age of dinosaur fossils. The evidence wouldn't matter if he believed no matter what that the earth was only 9,000 years old. Not saying that's you, just using the example. Anyway, if you're waiting to see a human evolve before you believe it, you're going to have to live a long time. Happy reading...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/16/2013 03:37AM by jimtoo.

Thx John, I'll head over there, and I respect you jimtoo and thx for being fair. But don't get me wrong, as there's a lot that religion has to answer for, such as most of histories wars, but I'm not debating various religious teachings, only whether we were created or evolved from nothing. When a creature displays a certain ability, then I beleive that the creature was created with that ability and not evolved it.

cheers, jalan

Take the flatfish, with both eyes on the same side of the head. The larvae are "normal," and then one eye migrates to the other side in the adult form. Fossil records show a relative of the flatfish with one eye on top of the head, i.e., partially migrated, eventually leading to today's form. Seems a strange choice for a creator to create the normal fish, then decide, wait a minute, I think during its metamorphosis I'll plop that one eye on top of the head, then later decide, what the hell, I'll let both eyes migrate to the same side. Sure, anything is possible, seems rather unlikely to me. Could a god sit around and slowly monkey with these changes and variations, or could a god put evolution into play and let nature take its course. If my choice is limited to those two options, I'd have to choose the latter.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/17/2013 01:57PM by jimtoo.

Prana Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> michelemm
>
> I find that when I am more in line with my
> spiritual nature, that healthful living comes more
> easily, including a healthful diet.
>
> Torn between Buddhism and God? Do them both.
>
> In the Bhagavad Gita, it says that one can achieve
> union with the divine by devotion/faith/worship to
> God, or by wisdom/direct experience, which is a
> path that contains meditation, or by work/action.
> So having a mix of these elements ought to be just
> fine.
>
> While the Buddha didn't focus on God, he also
> didn't deny the existence of God. The Buddha
> didn't want people to follow ideas and beliefs
> blindly, but to have their own experience of the
> divine through meditation and various spiritual
> practices.
>
> The Tao Te Ching says the Tao that can be named is
> not the Tao. Another way to put it is the God you
> read about or that people tell you about is not
> God, but merely ideas. Kind of like how the map is
> not the terrain, or a picture of an apple is not
> going to taste like an apple, or if you never ate
> an apple, having someone describe that apple is
> not going to be the same as tasting an apple.

This makes sense to me and thank you for your insight

The Bible has 2 dietary phases, 1. not under the curse and on good terms with God and 2. under the curse and on bad terms with God. Most of the Bible deals with conditions under the curse where the diet is cooked food with meat. But before the curse it was 100% fruit eating in the Garden of Eden with the Tree of Life with 12 different fruits. And then at the very end of the Bible the curse is lifted and it's again fruit eating with the Tree of Life restored + green leaves for healing. I suspect the green leaves are not the tree leaves but grass since Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel ate grass for months to return to God.
In summary the Bible says cooked food is for the cursed and fresh fruit is for the blessed.

PS. I am not a believer in the religious sense as they have little sense, thinking that they know things that they do not and unthinkingly accepting any dogma fed to them. I go in full of doubt about whether it is even true at all, and then if it seems to make sense, remain full of doubt about my understanding of it. I estimate that 33% of the Bible is true, 33% is nonsense, and 33% is outright evil (Old Testament primarily).

I fully accept evolution. The story of evolution is inalterably written in stone in great and abundant detail.

And of course the Essene Gospel of Peace of Jesus Christ is the seminal revelation of the raw food diet.

Jalan,

Thanks for that very well told story. I can relate to your experience - I feel as a dissident among atheists (as I am a creationist) but also among Christians, as I don't accept all aspects of the religion, rituals and symbols. I believe that some portion of Christianity contains a message from the past that is very important - we left the 'paradise' which was nothing but the beautiful place full of fruit and 'ate from the tree of knowledge' which is nothing but bad technology, destroying forests, fields, rivers and seas. Now, when I say this, any Christian priest will call me a heretic, but I see things this way and I can't help it.
There are other parts of Christianity and other religions which are simply an attempt by humans to remember something important - the only way they knew how to do it were rituals. The problem is that rituals often became hijacked or at least somewhat controlled by 'the other guy', by some darker forces. So, in church, like outside the church, there is good and bad. Same is, I believe, for any religion, even though I consider some of them better than others.

How did bread replace fruit? The answer is obvious to me. People decided to fight the nature instead of living with it, as God intended.

brome Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Bible has 2 dietary phases, 1. not under the
> curse and on good terms with God and 2. under the
> curse and on bad terms with God. Most of the
> Bible deals with conditions under the curse where
> the diet is cooked food with meat. But before the
> curse it was 100% fruit eating in the Garden of
> Eden with the Tree of Life with 12 different
> fruits. And then at the very end of the Bible the
> curse is lifted and it's again fruit eating with
> the Tree of Life restored + green leaves for
> healing. I suspect the green leaves are not the
> tree leaves but grass since Nebuchadnezzar in
> Daniel ate grass for months to return to God.
> In summary the Bible says cooked food is for the
> cursed and fresh fruit is for the blessed.


Thanks for that summary of Raw Food and The Bible, brome! I never knew that was so, and I will definitely share it.

Thank you Rab. I agree with you to, that the majority of people are mind slaves, based on their upbringing, what they were taught and what they saw and experienced as they grew up in their particular culture. To me, 'A culture is a way of living based on a social system and the meanings that are applied to it'. And each culture has stereotypical beliefs that are so entrenched, that it's near impossible to change.

Life and love, jalan