As I consume the remnants of my simple vegetarian meal and some herb of the field, I am reminded how lusters of flesh also insist that in the fourteenth chapter of Romans and also in the eighth chapter of First Corinthians Saint Paul said it was all right to eat meat, since it was provided by God, even if for the sake of weak people it would sometimes be good to abstain.
I feel they are misled by King James’ linguistics and like to play semantics. At the time of the King James version, “meat” was the common term for food in general. In the passages they refer to, the Greek word is actually 'broma" which simply means “food” (the Greek word for flesh appears to bekreas.) The controversy discussed by Saint Paul was not about flesheating, but about eating food which had been offered in pagan temples, the eating itself being considered an act of worship of the deities to whom it had been offered. Also, in certain areas, the pagans would take blood from their sacrifices and sprinkle it over all the food in the market, and then claim that by buying and eating that food though in innocence of what had been done the Christians were partaking of “the food of the gods” and thereby recognizing them. Saint Paul said that the blessing of Christians removed any defilement of pagan worship, but that food so obtained should not be eaten if it caused doubts in persons of more sensitive conscience.
In Romans 14:2,3 we read: “For one believeth that he may eat all things another, who is weak, eateth herbs. Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.” There is not a word here about meateating versus vegetarianism. Notice that Saint Paul speaks of those who “eat all things,” not those who eat meat. What, then, does it mean?
Unlike popular supposing, the Apostles did not go from city to city shouting on the street corners for people to come and “get saved.” In fact, they hardly ever spoke in open public situations. Rather, they went to a place and sought out those who were initiates of the various mystery schools whatever the religion might be and to these only, since they had an esoteric background, did they speak of Christ. these are they which had gnosis or inner knowledge ears to actually hear and eyes that actually see....
The various mystery schools of the Mediterranean world often had dietetic restrictions for their initiates, especially in relation to plants that were considered sacred to their particular deity and should therefore be treated with respect and not eaten. Some plants (vegetables) were looked upon as somehow harmful to esoteric development. For example, the Pythagoreans considered that beans had a detrimental effect on meditation, making the mind “heavy.” Others considered that root vegetables should be avoided since they grew under the earth in darkness. Others (as do the Indian yogis of today) felt that onions, garlic, and hot spices had a negative effect on the mind. For these reasons and because I know experientially the detriment these foods have to my level of subtle energy, I myself abstain from eating most roots, including potatoes, also mushrooms and stimulants such as onions garlic and other alliums. Also many foods seen by others to be stimulating to the physical body.
The Jewish Essenes for further example felt that everything listed in Numbers 11:5–fish, cucumbers, melons, leeks, onions, and garlic for which the Hebrews pined in the desert when they complained about eating manna, should never be eaten. (Some Hindus today will not eat cucumbers, considering them slightly toxic.) Because of Genesis 1:11, 12, and 29, they also would not eat anything which did not come from seeds, such as mushrooms (which Hindus also refuse to eat).
It was only natural then that when many of these people (including those Brahmins of South India who became disciples of Saint Thomas the Apostle) converted to Christianity they had an ingrained prejudice against those items they had abstained from for so long. This was especially true of those who had been taught to eat nothing but leafy plants (“herbs”) or things that grew above the ground and usually only those which were preceded by a flower. Agreement or disagreement with these ideas were what Saint Paul refers to as “doubtful disputations” which should be left up to the choice of the individual. But we can see by other passages from Saint Paul that he had no doubt at all about the wrongness of meateating.
At long last!!!!!The vision of Saint Peter and his sheet of clean or unclean meat (kinda like Joseph and his coat of varied colors) can you imagine a coat of unclean flesh? oh that is the body that meat eaters thrive to feed with more flesh tying them to these gross material things.
Another favorite scriptural “proof” sometimes set forth is that God gave Saint Peter a vision of animals, and told him to kill and eat them. What those who appeal to this incident seem to overlook is the fact that Saint Peter refused to do so absolutely!!!!!!! he refused!!!!!! Then it was made clear to him that the vision was ***purely symbolic,*** and indicated that he should not avoid the Gentiles as though they were unclean. And that was that. He never killed and ate. Centuries before that vision, God told Abraham to kill Isaac. He was willing to do so in obedience, thereby passing the test, but that hardly makes murder of one’s children lawful.
Are we killing plants?
I touched on this yesterday in another forum and that refers to the objection that is raised that we are killing plants to eat them ....lets see I will just copy it.....still searching..... . But that fallacy is not accurate, either. When we harvest vegetables, we do so at the end of their growth cycle; we don’t “cut them down in the prime of life.” Animals, however, are slaughtered long before their natural lifespan is finished. We must also distinguish between the fruit and the plant. When we pick, say a tomato, we do not kill the plant, but it continues to grow no life is taken. As for root vegetables such as carrots or potatoes, the “root” that we harvest is the final stage in the plant’s growth; if it were not harvested, the plant would merely rot in the earth. Furthermore, in plants the sensory mind is only potential, it is “asleep.” They do not feel pain. Although they do have a rudimentary nervous system that responds to injury, the conscious mind that would receive the message of pain in animal organisms is not functional.
In my experience (an many others well more knowledable that I) meat attracts entities that feed on the life forces being released as it decays. Newly-shed blood is especially potent, and those beings draw much power therefrom. In some rituals, meat was used in exorcism to draw off the negative disease energies and entities from their victim and into the meat. Wherever there is flesh and blood, there the life-sucking spirits congregate. The priests in the Temple in Jerusalem had to be constantly protected against the negative entities that swarmed there, attracted by the flesh and blood of the sacrifices. Alcohol can be used in the same way as blood. In some forms of voodoo the spirits are summoned by pouring liquor out on the ground and over offerings.
What, then, must be the plight of a human being that has these substances inside him, circulating through his body and brain? What defense has he against invasion by negative entities? And they are negative, for dead flesh carries the vibration of death like alcohol which is called 'spirits' for a reason.
if you want to feel you can bless your flesh and eat it too then so be it. Again God allows man free will. It does not mean that it is HIS will.
Aye (Three the hard way, still by the grace and the inside help of swamiji)