Shakespeare Was A Satvik Vegetarian

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Light..is/message/5451

My comments on "Taming of the Shrew:"

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Light..is/message/5450

MM:
Shakespeare was a Param Sant Sat Guru.  He was sent by the
Creator as a Guruavatar to save the sincere seekers.  I've been
discussing Shakespeare, lately.  His teachings are what is known today,
as Mysticism, Sant Mat, or Surat Shabd Yoga.

Paul Twitchell named the path, Eckankar.

Sincere seekers are welcome to join the group.  I have other groups, as
well.

Michael Martin

Report this post to a moderator

[  Post Follow-up to this message ]

I just remembered that Eckists do not necessarily follow the vegetarian
diet.  Sorry!  I was thinking of the connection to Kirpal Singh Ji
Maharaj, who was vegetarian.

Michael Martin

Report this post to a moderator

[  Post Follow-up to this message ]

ECKists do not follow a veetarian diet! If the individual chooses to
follow such a diet for personal reasons, then fine.. but no such
restriction is placed on members of Eckankar. Too bad you can't get this
sort of simple fact straight. So much for your mighty insights and
powers of observation, hey? <chuckle>


lackpurity wrote:
>
> I just remembered that Eckists do not necessarily follow the vegetarian
> diet.  Sorry!  I was thinking of the connection to Kirpal Singh Ji
> Maharaj, who was vegetarian.
>
> Michael Martin

Report this post to a moderator

[  Post Follow-up to this message ]

Do you think that Sant Mat is wrong, when it says that meat-eating
causes us to be choleric, or angy, as Shakespeare mentioned?

Many claim that meat-eating causes us to feel more agitated, which is a
hindrance to meditation.  What is your opinion on that, Cher?

If Paul Twitchell was a follower of Kirpal Singh Ji Maharaj, then I
would think that he must have agreed to the vegetarian diet.  Kirpal
Singh Ji Maharaj would not have accepted him, otherwise, I would think.
What is your opinion of this?  I know that Mr. Twitchell diavowed any
connection to Kirpal Singh Ji Maharaj.

I was thinking linearly.  I was not thinking to follow a Master, and
then suddenly reject the same teachings.  That's how I think.  Mr.
Twitchell must have thought differently, obviously.

Maybe you could discuss Mr. Twitchell's insights?  That should be
interesting.  Was it some insight, which might have caused this
apparent flip-flop?  Was it some power of observation of his?

Michael Martin

Report this post to a moderator

[  Post Follow-up to this message ]

If you're expected to sit for hours for on end in mediation, one would
understand that the density of meat products in the digestive tract
would begin to rot in the gut and cause discomfort. Meat is for lively
active people, not sedentary ones. <wink> Of course.. cultural
exclusions based on over population and poverty also have a place to
play in topic. I could care less what people choose to do, so long as
they're aren't so ignorant as to keep imposing such a thing mistakenly
on others. <wink> Maybe no meat plays havoc with ones functioning brain?
Are you getting enough protein, michael? You might want to look into
that! Personally I think all things in moderation. I don't believe that
fanatical excesses are ever a healthy alternative.

As to Paul having been a follower of kirpal once upon a time.. that
relationship was broken by both men long ago. You pretend to be
enlightened.. if want to know what Paul thought when he left kirpal
behind, then ask him. <smile>

lackpurity wrote:
>
> Do you think that Sant Mat is wrong, when it says that meat-eating
> causes us to be choleric, or angy, as Shakespeare mentioned?
>
> Many claim that meat-eating causes us to feel more agitated, which is a
> hindrance to meditation.  What is your opinion on that, Cher?
>
> If Paul Twitchell was a follower of Kirpal Singh Ji Maharaj, then I
> would think that he must have agreed to the vegetarian diet.  Kirpal
> Singh Ji Maharaj would not have accepted him, otherwise, I would think.
>  What is your opinion of this?  I know that Mr. Twitchell diavowed any
> connection to Kirpal Singh Ji Maharaj.
>
> I was thinking linearly.  I was not thinking to follow a Master, and
> then suddenly reject the same teachings.  That's how I think.  Mr.
> Twitchell must have thought differently, obviously.
>
> Maybe you could discuss Mr. Twitchell's insights?  That should be
> interesting.  Was it some insight, which might have caused this
> apparent flip-flop?  Was it some power of observation of his?
>
> Michael Martin

Report this post to a moderator

[  Post Follow-up to this message ]

cher wrote:
> If you're expected to sit for hours for on end in mediation, one would
> understand that the density of meat products in the digestive tract
> would begin to rot in the gut and cause discomfort.

MM:
Unless we put forth a major effort, mind will remain scattered,
dominated by its centrifugal habits.  Kabir Sahib mentioned that he
became emaciated due to longing, etc., and crows were pecking his legs,
thinking that he was a corpse.  It is that kind of desire for success
in meditation, that will produce the good results.

> Meat is for lively
> active people, not sedentary ones.

MM:
An active body influences our mind.  That is the point of it, and I
already mentioned that Rajasik and Tamasik foods tend to agitate the
mind.  It seems to me that Satvik foods ought to appeal more to
Eckists, since they don't usually want to meditate for long periods.

<wink> Of course.. cultural
> exclusions based on over population and poverty also have a place to
> play in topic.

MM:
This one doesn't seem very logical.  There are over-populated countries
which are vegetarian to a great extent, but there are also
over-populated countries that are predominately meat-eaters.  In
Indonesia, for example, then sometimes eat dogs.

> I could care less what people choose to do, so long as
> they're aren't so ignorant as to keep imposing such a thing mistakenly
> on others. <wink>

MM:
Who is imposing anything?  A discussion isn't necessarily an
imposition.

> Maybe no meat plays havoc with ones functioning brain?

MM:
Evidence is to the contrary.  Many of the brainiest people have been
vegetarians, such as Leonardo da Vinci.

> Are you getting enough protein, michael? You might want to look into
> that!

MM:
Oh, yes.  I eat lots of dairy products, beans, etc.  That is no
problem.

> Personally I think all things in moderation. I don't believe that
> fanatical excesses are ever a healthy alternative.

MM:
Why do you call it fanatical?  If something is logical, moral, and
helps with meditation, they why call it fanatical?

> As to Paul having been a follower of kirpal once upon a time.. that
> relationship was broken by both men long ago.

MM:
Oh, yeah?  I just read a couple of days ago, that Kirpal Singh Ji
Maharaj mentioned that disciples might leave him, but he would never
leave them.  So, maybe your statement is lacking credibility?  I'll
leave that one to the sagacity of the readers.

> You pretend to be
> enlightened.. if want to know what Paul thought when he left kirpal
> behind, then ask him. <smile>

MM:
The issue is not "what I want to know."  The issue is that you're the
most prolific poster at alt.religion.eckankar, so I thought readers
might be interested in your comments.

I notice that you dodged quite a few of my questions.
[vbcol=seagreen]
> lackpurity wrote: 

Michael Martin

Report this post to a moderator

[  Post Follow-up to this message ]

Excuse me.. for some reason you seem to think that i was engaging you
in conversation. That isn't true! I was simply correcting your
assumption that ECKist are vegetarians by design. Beyond that I don't
give a rats XXX what you think about any topic mm! I find you a cosmic
joke. Bye! <smile>

lackpurity wrote:
>
> cher wrote: 
>
> MM:
> Unless we put forth a major effort, mind will remain scattered,
> dominated by its centrifugal habits.  Kabir Sahib mentioned that he
> became emaciated due to longing, etc., and crows were pecking his legs,
> thinking that he was a corpse.  It is that kind of desire for success
> in meditation, that will produce the good results.
> 
>
> MM:
> An active body influences our mind.  That is the point of it, and I
> already mentioned that Rajasik and Tamasik foods tend to agitate the
> mind.  It seems to me that Satvik foods ought to appeal more to
> Eckists, since they don't usually want to meditate for long periods.
>
> <wink> Of course.. cultural 
>
> MM:
> This one doesn't seem very logical.  There are over-populated countries
> which are vegetarian to a great extent, but there are also
> over-populated countries that are predominately meat-eaters.  In
> Indonesia, for example, then sometimes eat dogs.
> 
>
> MM:
> Who is imposing anything?  A discussion isn't necessarily an
> imposition.
> 
>
> MM:
> Evidence is to the contrary.  Many of the brainiest people have been
> vegetarians, such as Leonardo da Vinci.
> 
>
> MM:
> Oh, yes.  I eat lots of dairy products, beans, etc.  That is no
> problem.
> 
>
> MM:
> Why do you call it fanatical?  If something is logical, moral, and
> helps with meditation, they why call it fanatical?
> 
>
> MM:
> Oh, yeah?  I just read a couple of days ago, that Kirpal Singh Ji
> Maharaj mentioned that disciples might leave him, but he would never
> leave them.  So, maybe your statement is lacking credibility?  I'll
> leave that one to the sagacity of the readers.
> 
>
> MM:
> The issue is not "what I want to know."  The issue is that you're the
> most prolific poster at alt.religion.eckankar, so I thought readers
> might be interested in your comments.
>
> I notice that you dodged quite a few of my questions.
> 
>
> Michael Martin

Report this post to a moderator

[  Post Follow-up to this message ]

"lackpurity" <lackpurity@yahoo.com> wrote

> Do you think that Sant Mat is wrong, when it says that meat-eating
> causes us to be choleric, or angy, as Shakespeare mentioned?

I think that broadstroking all of humanity, or Shakespeare for that
matter, indicates a lack of objectivity.


>Many claim that meat-eating causes us to feel more agitated, which is a
> hindrance to meditation.  What is your opinion on that, Cher?

Different 'stokes' for different folks.


> If Paul Twitchell was a follower of Kirpal Singh Ji Maharaj, then I
> would think that he must have agreed to the vegetarian diet.  Kirpal
> Singh Ji Maharaj would not have accepted him, otherwise, I would
think.
>  What is your opinion of this?

I'd guess Paul found the discipline wanting.  See "Herb's the Magic
Healers".


> I know that Mr. Twitchell diavowed any
> connection to Kirpal Singh Ji Maharaj.

Nope, he never did that. That's another David Lane myth.


> I was thinking linearly.  I was not thinking to follow a Master, and
> then suddenly reject the same teachings.  That's how I think.  Mr.
> Twitchell must have thought differently, obviously.

Obviously not the way you portray it.


> Maybe you could discuss Mr. Twitchell's insights?  That should be
> interesting.  Was it some insight, which might have caused this
> apparent flip-flop?  Was it some power of observation of his?

I don't think there was a flip-flop except in the way you perceive
Paul's spiritual growth.
`                                                       o
|
~/|
_/ |\
/  | \
-/   |  \
_ /____|___\_
(___________/
Rich~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Sailing the CyberSea~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Report this post to a moderator

[  Post Follow-up to this message ]

Hi Michael,

I have been intrigued by the nick u choose. and also not. I'm no master of
anyone or anything, but i do have an interest in health, marketing and
writing/communicating..especially with journalism/ads and the semantics of
spiritual writing. blah blah blah

"lackpurity" <lackpurity@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1118423595.827597.110860@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com..
> Do you think that Sant Mat is wrong, when it says that meat-eating
> causes us to be choleric, or angy, as Shakespeare mentioned?
>

On what basis could one judge Sant Mat right, or wrong on any issue? I'm not
sure the usual method is so useful. What is more important to me is what is
true, not what is right or wrong.

In the world of duality, if it is true that meat-eating causes us to be
angry, then it is equally true that NOT eating meat must cause "us" to be
NOT angry.

The question then becomes, have I ever seen an angry vegetarian, and well
the truth is yes, I have.

So when I look at the world around me, and see how people think and view
things, I know for myself that the the statement "meat-eating causes us to
be choleric, or angy" is not truth.

For me that's all I need to know. Seeing that the statement is however both
partly right and wrong, and neither at the same time, life becomes less
stressfull ... at least as far as being angry is concerned. <smile>



> Many claim that meat-eating causes us to feel more agitated, which is a
> hindrance to meditation.  What is your opinion on that, Cher?
>

My opinion is that, it;s not worth having an opinion about that.

The only important thing, only opinion worth pondering about, is what is a
hinderance to my meditiation, relaxation, health etc.

I also think it is a bonus when I don;t get agitated about what "many claim"
in the first place.

I trust my body to tell me what it needs, unfortunately my mind often
doesn't want to listen or to act on that knowledge. It thinks it needs
something else entirely, but that's just mind's opinion not truth.

I was told by a nutritionist type person, that after a detox, cleanse, or
fast, [and during as well] one of the best things to consume is a few
organic chickens .. the high concentrations of protien ansd other "stuff"
is incredibly effective at chemically bonding with toxic substances that
have been released from tissues and cells in the cleanse and thus safely
eliminating more of the said toxins and heavy metals etc quickly and
efficiently.... if this type of thing doesn;t occur near the end of a
fast/detox then much of the crap can be re-deposited into the body cells.

It was the "synergistic" properties of the organic chicken reacting in the
body [ that's slow boiled not deep fried btw ] not just the high protien
content that made the difference. Whilst vegetarian options are there they
were not felt to be as effective, and the quanties required were too much
for a normal person to eat in a day.

Of course, I donlt know if it's right or wrong, true or false, whatever. But
it rings true to me, as my body feels full of positive energy when i eat
organic free range chickens as much as when i eat organic chick peas.
<smile>

We raised chickens at home in the suburbs in the 60's before the world went
really crazy. Funniest thing was watching the chickens run around the yard
after their heads were chopped off. and they always tasted nice. A lot of
love and attention went into raising them.

> If Paul Twitchell was a follower of Kirpal Singh Ji Maharaj, then I
> would think that he must have agreed to the vegetarian diet.  Kirpal
> Singh Ji Maharaj would not have accepted him, otherwise, I would think.
> What is your opinion of this?  I know that Mr. Twitchell diavowed any
> connection to Kirpal Singh Ji Maharaj.
>

I think it doesn't matter. Such matters of gossip and opinions are
irrelevant to my own personal dietary needs.

Who KS accepted or didn;t accept as a student/chela/ has nothing to do with
good health and people's nutritional choices imho. What other people choose
to eat or not eat is none of my business. But I am interested in sharing
positive health and dietary tips to people. sharing knowledge never hurt
anyone. It's what people do with it that is the most problematic I believe.

Basically, everyone is different, everyone is unique, and the best person to
choose what is best, is the operson themselves. That takes time,
observation, interest, knowledge, intuition, and committment to work out
etc. imho.

> I was thinking linearly.  I was not thinking to follow a Master, and
> then suddenly reject the same teachings.  That's how I think.  Mr.
> Twitchell must have thought differently, obviously.
>

That's an interesting way to think.

> Maybe you could discuss Mr. Twitchell's insights?  That should be
> interesting.  Was it some insight, which might have caused this
> apparent flip-flop?  Was it some power of observation of his?
>
> Michael Martin
>

So it appears to me that maybe you aren't really interested in discussions
about "Shakespeare Was A Satvik Vegetarian"

or the anecdotal benefits of vegetarianism, but a discussion about Paul
twitchell's choices, insights and how he thought.

and you want that discussion to take place across  these newsgroups.
alt.meditation.shabda,alt.meditation,alt.consciousness.mysticism,alt.religio
n.eckankar,alt.yoga

I think that's interesting.

People have told me you claim to be a Sant Mat master or teacher. Is that
true?

Cheers Sean

Report this post to a moderator

[  Post Follow-up to this message ]

basic logic:

(A implies B) does not imply (not A implies Not B)

Just weighing in
J

"Sean" <santimvahNO@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3_SdnXQGbLqK3DffRVn-1w@inspired.net.au..
> Hi Michael,
>
> I have been intrigued by the nick u choose. and also not. I'm no master of
> anyone or anything, but i do have an interest in health, marketing and
> writing/communicating..especially with journalism/ads and the semantics
> of spiritual writing. blah blah blah
>
> "lackpurity" <lackpurity@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1118423595.827597.110860@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com.. 
>
> On what basis could one judge Sant Mat right, or wrong on any issue? I'm
> not sure the usual method is so useful. What is more important to me is
> what is true, not what is right or wrong.
>
> In the world of duality, if it is true that meat-eating causes us to be
> angry, then it is equally true that NOT eating meat must cause "us" to be
> NOT angry.
>
> The question then becomes, have I ever seen an angry vegetarian, and well
> the truth is yes, I have.
>
> So when I look at the world around me, and see how people think and view
> things, I know for myself that the the statement "meat-eating causes us to
> be choleric, or angy" is not truth.
>
> For me that's all I need to know. Seeing that the statement is however
> both partly right and wrong, and neither at the same time, life becomes
> less stressfull ... at least as far as being angry is concerned. <smile>
>
>
> 
>
> My opinion is that, it;s not worth having an opinion about that.
>
> The only important thing, only opinion worth pondering about, is what is a
> hinderance to my meditiation, relaxation, health etc.
>
> I also think it is a bonus when I don;t get agitated about what "many
> claim" in the first place.
>
> I trust my body to tell me what it needs, unfortunately my mind often
> doesn't want to listen or to act on that knowledge. It thinks it needs
> something else entirely, but that's just mind's opinion not truth.
>
> I was told by a nutritionist type person, that after a detox, cleanse, or
> fast, [and during as well] one of the best things to consume is a few
> organic chickens .. the high concentrations of protien ansd other "stuff"
> is incredibly effective at chemically bonding with toxic substances that
> have been released from tissues and cells in the cleanse and thus safely
> eliminating more of the said toxins and heavy metals etc quickly and
> efficiently.... if this type of thing doesn;t occur near the end of a
> fast/detox then much of the crap can be re-deposited into the body cells.
>
> It was the "synergistic" properties of the organic chicken reacting in the
> body [ that's slow boiled not deep fried btw ] not just the high proti
en
> content that made the difference. Whilst vegetarian options are there they
> were not felt to be as effective, and the quanties required were too much
> for a normal person to eat in a day.
>
> Of course, I donlt know if it's right or wrong, true or false, whatever.
> But it rings true to me, as my body feels full of positive energy when i
> eat organic free range chickens as much as when i eat organic chick peas.
> <smile>
>
> We raised chickens at home in the suburbs in the 60's before the world
> went really crazy. Funniest thing was watching the chickens run around the
> yard after their heads were chopped off. and they always tasted nice. A
> lot of love and attention went into raising them.
> 
>
> I think it doesn't matter. Such matters of gossip and opinions are
> irrelevant to my own personal dietary needs.
>
> Who KS accepted or didn;t accept as a student/chela/ has nothing to do
> with good health and people's nutritional choices imho. What other people
> choose to eat or not eat is none of my business. But I am interested in
> sharing positive health and dietary tips to people. sharing knowledge
> never hurt anyone. It's what people do with it that is the most
> problematic I believe.
>
> Basically, everyone is different, everyone is unique, and the best person
> to choose what is best, is the operson themselves. That takes time,
> observation, interest, knowledge, intuition, and committment to work out
> etc. imho.
> 
>
> That's an interesting way to think.
> 
>
> So it appears to me that maybe you aren't really interested in discussions
> about "Shakespeare Was A Satvik Vegetarian"
>
> or the anecdotal benefits of vegetarianism, but a discussion about Paul
> twitchell's choices, insights and how he thought.
>
> and you want that discussion to take place across  these newsgroups.
> alt.meditation.shabda,alt.meditation,alt.consciousness.mysticism,alt.relig
ion.eckankar,alt.yoga
>
> I think that's interesting.
>
> People have told me you claim to be a Sant Mat master or teacher. Is that
> true?
>
> Cheers Sean
>
>
>
>

Report this post to a moderator

[  Post Follow-up to this message ]