Re: vegetarianism

December 3, 2001

>>> Many medical and alternative practitioners will not treat

vegetarians " or other death wishers " as they put it.

This has bugged me all day. Personally, I think that qualifying

anybody's person diet choices in such a negative way should be

avoided. People here have a multitude of food and digestive issues

to deal with, and sweeping statements such as this are not

appropriate. Fortunately, we DO have several people on vegetarian

diets who were quite helpful in providing ways to assist with

protein. I would love for my kids to be munching down a few more

veggies each day.

The points on amino acids could have been made with out this.

.

P.S. The knuckled-headed " experts " I was refering to were from my

own experience, obviously not all docs are in this category.

P.P.S. Amber's pea soup recipe was a great hit here as well.

April 23, 2003

On Wednesday, April 23, 2003, at 06:21 PM, crystalpyramid@...

wrote:

> Dear Neil,

>

> I am replying not so much to you here (since I consider efforts to

> " convert " a waste of time), but to the others who may be following

> this thread, since IMO your views are often quite spot-on, but far

> from it in the question of vegetarianism.

I am not trying to convert anyone.

> I advise you to study the eating habits of gorillas, with the pig and

> with other primates one of the animals physiologically closest to

> humans, and one of the strongest animals on earth (the strongest

> humans can lift about 3 times their own body weight, the average

> gorilla can lift 10 times its own body weight). The gorilla lives on a

> low-protein diet of mostly fruit, other plant parts and the occasional

> ant for a tasty crunchy dessert :-):

>

> (from http://www.seaworld.org/infobooks/Gorilla/dietgor.html)

> " Diet.

> 1. Western lowland gorillas eat more fruit than the other subspecies;

> it is readily available within the lower elevations of their range.

> They are selective feeders that utilize the fruits, stems, flowers,

> shoots, bulbs, bark, leaves, and pith of over 200 plant species.

> 2. Analysis of dung suggests that gorillas choose their favorite

> fruits for the sugar content, unripe seeds of certain fruits because

> of low fat content, the stems of plants for fiber, and new leaves for

> protein (, 1990).

> 3. Gorillas seldom drink water; their succulent food items provide

> enough dietary water.

> 4. Gorillas have never been observed hunting or feeding on any animals

> other than invertebrates such as termites and ants.

> 5. Because gorillas are selective eaters, they never strip a feeding

> site bare. Adequate vegetation remains for regrowth. "

I will try to figure out a way to remember that just in case i happen

to somehow reincarnate as a gorilla in some future life. I used to have

a girlfriend who called me her big gorilla. I don't think that she

meant it literally though. If a gorilla's diet appeals to you, then by

all means, go for it.

> No, sorry, this is a completely different story considering their

> spiritual evolution and part in nature (as far as my reading makes me

> believe).

> If you go to www.paradisenow.net for instance, you can learn about the

> story of a lioness who adamantly refused to eat meat from the age of

> weaning and who was one of the finest specimen one could meet in spite

> of all the experts maintaining she would die from malnutrition...

I'm not going to talk evolution here, spiritual or otherwise. My

physical body is that of an omnivore. My dental structure is that of an

omnivore. My digestive tract is that of an omnivore with a length

relative to body length approximately half way between that of an

herbivore and a carnivore. How it got that way is of little interest to

me.

> Sorry, these are mere beliefs IMO. The body is extremely complex and

> as i see it, science has only scratched the surface of its true

> functioning on all levels, those visible as well as (and particularly)

> those levels which lie beyond the narrow frequency range of the human

> eye or even the microscope.

>

> Even the mind/beliefs can create nutrients. C.L. Kervran's book

> Biological Transmutations gives a good idea of the " everyday magic "

> happening in nature. " Biological Transmutations opens up new fields of

> inquiry based on the discovery of regularly occurring low-energy

> transformations in the elementary compositions of nature. Professor

> Kervran challenges the narrow-mindedness of those who ignore data that

> fails to conform to pre-existing scientific paradigms. In Biological

> Transmutations he demands - and provides - a new explanatory framework

> for a wide range of mysterious natural phenomena related to the

> environment and human health.

> Biological Transmutations illuminates the metabolism of dietary salts

> and minerals in health and disease, providing an explanation for the

> failure of standard medical

> treatments and the benefits of " activated water, " dietary changes, and

> other alternative

> forms of therapy. Biological Transmutations also provides a scientific

> basis for the " organic alchemy " by which plants create the nutrients

> that healthy soil requires, without the use of chemical fertilizers.

> Offering new paradigms for physics, biology, chemistry, and

> biochemistry, Biological Transmutations has immediate and extensive

> practical implications for the fields of medicine, natural healing,

> nutrition, agriculture, geology, and environmental science. "

Science, schmience. Neither science nor fancy words can change the fact

that we have the physiology of an omnivore.

> I do take artificial Vit D in winter, in an effort to keep my teeth

> strong.

Then why are you arguing with me? You have just proven my point.

> If animals are necessary to ensure sufficient dung/fertilizer

> production (humans obviously provide dung too, so do plants), you

> could still use just their milk or wool or eggs (or not use animals at

> all), i.e. there is no need to *kill* animals for the " fertilizer

> circle " to work (also see the above-mentioned book by C.L. Kervran on

> plants' ability to " create the nutrients that healthy soil requires,

> without the use of chemical fertilizers. " Where there is a will (not

> to kill), there is a way.

Once again, you prove my point. One has to mangle reality in order to

make the vegetarian view fit the facts

> I presume you are referring to Vit. B 12. Milk would be enough to

> supply this according to scientific lore, ie no killing required....

> (assuming you wish to follow this " belief system " (ie that the body

> does indeed absolutely need external input of this substance, without

> being able to synthesize it in sufficient quantities itself)). For a

> quite thorough treatment of the vegan Vit. B 12 sources question

> (incl. internally produced Vit. B 12), see for instance:

> http://www.ivu.org/faq/vitaminb12.html

B12 is one of them. Raw milk from grass-fed cows is an excellent source

of B12. Pasteurization, however, kills it

>

> In the following I am " shamelessly " copying from another list to touch

> upon another aspect of the vegetarian question:

>

> " ...the line from " Genesis " about " god " having given the humans every

> herb and plant bearing seed, etc. Eating carcasses does not even enter

> into anything that humans were designed to eat. And that is from a

> strictly " scriptural " perspective. Clearly, if we take the " Bible " as

> history--it is an anthology of a very few of the many stories of human

> origins--we find that humans were designed to eat raw vegan,

> fruitarian, diets, and they are what ensure optimal health and

> longevity.

> It never ceases to amaze me that people can actually choke down those

> dead animal carcasses, and think that they are nourishing their

> bodies. I think meat eating does something to deaden the spirit, as

> well as the body. "

You left out the line " ...to you it shall be for meat. "

> Personally, I think the karmic aspect is the most important, simply

> put: " what you do to others (good and bad), returns to you " .

It is not bad karma for an omnivore to eat what it was designed to eat.

> Just to round off this discussion which some may consider going a bit

> beyond the scope of this list anyway (though i do think it is quite

> relevant to physical and spiritual health), here a few quotes of

> " insane " Bernard Shaw, born 26 July 1856, died 2 November 1950

> of " natural causes " , " a staunch vegetarian " for 70 years and

> " teetotaller, anti-vivisectionist and opponent of cruel sports, a

> radical socialist and social reformer, and a noted caustic wit who

> remained active until his death at age 94, commended as one of the

> great thinkers and dramatists of his time " ...

> Of course, you could argue had he been " saner " and " eaten his meat " ,

> he would have turned 120 or 150 instead of merely a healthy 94...

The fact that GBH lived to 94 is one case. How about Burns? His

lifestyle (a cigar was his trademark) was almost a complete antithesis

to GBH's and he lived even longer. Dr. Weston A. Price, on the other

hand, spent his retirement years studying cultures, the members of

which tended to live into their nineties without cancer, heart disease

or even dental caries. A common factor among all of these cultures was

that they ate meat, and a lot of it.

> I read somewhere that there will be no end to war until there will be

> an end to slaughterhouses and it makes sense to me...

It would.

--

Neil Jensen: sumeria.net

The WWW VL: Sumeria http://www.sumeria.net/

" Soy serves as meat and milk for a new generation of

virtuous vegetarians. " Sally Fallon and G. Enig, PhD

April 24, 2003

WRT vegetarianism, I'd like to add my two cents...

There is a children's TV show that airs here on Saturday mornings on

NBC called " Prehistoric World " (or something like that). It's a

look back in time, and the graphics are very lifelike. Anyway, a

few weeks ago an episode aired that explained that our human

ancestor (can't remember which one, although it was just prior to

ancestral man's use of tools) often dined on dead animal flesh. The

narrator went on to explain that it was this consumption of animal

proteins that permitted brain development to progress to cognitive

thinking.

Dr. D'Adamo, in his book " Eat Right For Your Type " , states

that the foods one should consume are in direct relationship with

one's blood type. Type O's were the first on Earth, and these were

your hunter/gatherers. Type A's appeared with the agrarians. In

all honesty, I can't remember much about Type B's or AB's, because

it didn't apply to me and I read this book ages ago. However,

according to D'Adamo, Type A's are the only humans who should follow

a vegetarian diet. Makes sense to me!

Some people do very well on a vegetarian diet---I am not one of

them. But, it would be interesting to find out if these people are

Type A's...

Back to Lurking,

Marcy

April 25, 2003

I found a lot of what D'Adamo says rings true as well. I am

currently looking into the Metabolic Type Diet, whcih takes it a

step further. I am on the Blood Type diet, and I have found, if I

eat anything he says not to eat, that I get an unhappy digestive

system. I also wonder about people's blood types when they say a

vegitarian diet is what's best.According to the BT diet, Type B's

should get most of their protein requirements from red meat, and I

know several Type B vegetarians who are not thriving and healthy,

but don't beleive it's meat that they need. Just something to

consider.

Virginia

> WRT vegetarianism, I'd like to add my two cents...

>

> There is a children's TV show that airs here on Saturday mornings

on

> NBC called " Prehistoric World " (or something like that). It's a

> look back in time, and the graphics are very lifelike. Anyway, a

> few weeks ago an episode aired that explained that our human

> ancestor (can't remember which one, although it was just prior to

> ancestral man's use of tools) often dined on dead animal flesh.

The

> narrator went on to explain that it was this consumption of animal

> proteins that permitted brain development to progress to cognitive

> thinking.

>

> Dr. D'Adamo, in his book " Eat Right For Your Type " , states

> that the foods one should consume are in direct relationship with

> one's blood type. Type O's were the first on Earth, and these

were

> your hunter/gatherers. Type A's appeared with the agrarians. In

> all honesty, I can't remember much about Type B's or AB's, because

> it didn't apply to me and I read this book ages ago. However,

> according to D'Adamo, Type A's are the only humans who should

follow

> a vegetarian diet. Makes sense to me!

>

> Some people do very well on a vegetarian diet---I am not one of

> them. But, it would be interesting to find out if these people

are

> Type A's...

>

> Back to Lurking,

> Marcy

March 4, 2004

>I'll read the books at some time, but even while I recognise that

>many, if not most societies thrive on a meat diet, I know that it is

>not for me - and I don't believe it is going to show up in future

>generations. My children are particularly healthy, more so than

>other kids who always seem to be down with colds and allergies. I

>breast fed them both - my son for two years, my daughter for one

>year, while on a vegetarian diet, and they are both big for their

>ages, and have robust bodies. Neither of them were given meat in

>the first few years of life. Both have very healthy teeth, as well.

>I have bad teeth (from childhood) - and both my parents were meat

>eaters. And my husband is a meat eater and he has bad teeth, too. So

>the " bad teeth " gene overweighs with them, and still they have good

>teeth in spite of a meatless early start.

I gave only a brief summary of some of the points in the books and

couldn't possibly cover it all. I really urge you to read

" Traditional Foods Are Your Best Medicine. " It's fascinating and

eye-opening, whether one is a vegetarian or a meat-eater or not. I'm

not trying to get you to eat meat, but I think the evidence shows

it's often dangerous to raise children as vegetarians (especially

vegans). Just being a meat eater is no guarantee of health; I did not

say it did and the books I referenced didn't make that point. It's

never that simple. And since you do eat some animal foods, that's a

very good thing, according to the best evidence I've seen, and I

don't worry about your diet. It sounds like you're very careful. It

also sounds like you're a metabolic type that does well on a diet

lower in animal protein. But there's a big difference between " none "

and " some. " I don't eat a lot of meat myself, but I am careful to get

sufficient protein and essential fatty acids.

There's also a big difference between eating factory-farmed meat and

eggs and naturally raised, grass-fed, free-range meats, eggs and raw

dairy. Many people can't eat dairy of any kind unless it is cultured

(I am myself lactose-intolerant), but there's evidence it's best to

avoid the homogenized and pasteurized stuff. So not reacting well to

grain-fed beef or factory-farmed chicken treated with antibiotics and

hormones or store-bought milk doesn't necessarily mean one wouldn't

respond well to properly raised and prepared animal food. There are

other considerations of course.

What you or I *believe* is really immaterial; the point is to find

the best evidence and see where it leads. One's personal experience

is, of course, a part of the picture. But it is easy for us to draw

erroneous conclusions about our own experiences, especially in the

short term. I know I have at times. For instance, I used to be a

vegetarian, and initially I felt good, so if you had asked me at a

certain point, I would have told you that was the way to go. (For one

thing, I was young and my body was able to withstand a certain amount

of deprivation without obvious and immediate consequence.) I read

various books that supported that thinking. During that period my

cholesterol got down to 133. I thought that was really good because

of all I'd read at the time about how cholesterol should be low. I

later developed anemia, severe candidiasis and other problems. And I

was being careful!

But I am not simply drawing on my own experiences; I read

voraciously. Yet it was my experience with vegetarianism that drove

me to seek more information and seek other possibilities. One thing I

learned is that very low cholesterol is associated with depression,

and indeed I have had trouble with that at various times in my life

(I find taking fish oils and flaxseed to be helpful). Some reports

have contradicted those studies; the jury is still out, but I am

leaning towards " low cholesterol " not necessarily being healthful.

More recently I'm reading that low cholesterol does not correlate

with increased longevity, especially for women, and may have the

opposite correlation. Yet this is 20 years later. What seemed like a

good idea to me 20, 30 years ago doesn't look so good anymore. (Such

as, my understanding of soy foods has changed in that period.)

>As I mentioned befoe, the other cornerstone to my health is Yoga,

>and this cannot be ignored.

I am also a big fan of yoga and have been since I was a teenager,

going on 30 years now! You don't need to convince me of its benefits.

>I think if Dr Price had studied serious (as opposed to trendy!)

>practitioners of yoga he would also have found that their health is

>perfect, " despite " vegetarian diet.

I'm not aware that Dr. Price studied yoga at all; I've not seen any

reference to that. He studied indigenous peoples in many parts of the

world and their traditional diets. He did advocate an active life, if

I remember correctly. But the focus of his study was on diet. That

does not preclude there being other factors that affect health. I

sure he did not deny that and neither do I. But I was specifically

addressing dietary issues. I don't claim to have all the answers,

only to be seeking ever better explanations.

Cheers to your good health!

Jeanmarie

March 4, 2004

>I think if Dr Price had studied serious (as opposed to trendy!)

>practitioners of yoga he would also have found that their health is

>perfect, " despite " vegetarian diet.

" I'm not aware that Dr. Price studied yoga at all; I've not seen any

reference to that. "

Just to clarify: I was simply distinguishing between serious, classical Yoga as

taught by experts in India, and the trendy stuff that is passed off as yoga in

the west, especially by Madonna and her ilk twisting their legs around their

necks. That's NOT yohga! I wasn't suggesting that Price studied the latter.

There's a science behind yoga and only recently the wisdom behind it all is

being confirmed. Most people who practice it seriously sooner or later go off

meat; it happens naturally and there are good reasons for it. I don't believe

in stopping eating meat " because " you are doing yoga. As I said once, if you

still crave it, you still need it.

I will read those books one day, but you know, they won't change my mind about

eating meat because I KNOW I should not; as I said once, even if I wanted to I

couldn't - arguments based on population studies won't change my mind. I've got

my own background and my own experience, and that's what counts!

I have an absolute faith and trust in the body's intelligence and

self-regulating abilities; I've always tried to listen into mine and find out

what is right for me.. And it says quite clearly: no meat.

Sharon

August 2, 2004

,

In Hinduism there is the teaching of the three Gunas, which divides all foods

into various " energies " - blissful, passionate, or dulling. Meat is considered

to strengthen the sex drive which is why Indians avoid it. But unlike in the

West, in India it is considered a good thing to have a low sex drive.

Sexual energy can be diverted into other areas of consciousness - spirituality,

creativity, for instance. For me, that's a positive development. I am also

vegetarian and have been for the past 30 years or so. I once wrote an article on

this and I'll see if I can find it again.... I posted it on this message board

but it is very deeply buried!

Sharon

August 2, 2004

Re: vegetarianism

> ,

> In Hinduism there is the teaching of the three Gunas, which divides

all foods into various " energies " - blissful, passionate, or dulling.

Meat is considered to strengthen the sex drive which is why Indians

avoid it. But unlike in the West, in India it is considered a good

thing to have a low sex drive.

> Sexual energy can be diverted into other areas of consciousness -

spirituality, creativity, for instance. For me, that's a positive

development. I am also vegetarian and have been for the past 30 years

or so. I once wrote an article on this and I'll see if I can find it

again.... I posted it on this message board but it is very deeply

buried!

> Sharon

India has a huge population problem, and lots of very poor

people who cannot afford birth control, so I would see why India

would value a low sex drive.

Alobar

August 2, 2004

" India has a huge population problem, and lots of very poor

people who cannot afford birth control, so I would see why India

would value a low sex drive. "

Alobar, India's high population has little to do with this attitude. In fact,

you'd find it more among educated and/or upper class Indians who already have

access to birth control and only have a few children. It has more to do with the

fact that, in a comlete turnaround to Westren values, Indians regard chastity

and sexual abstinence as a source of strength, and sexual indulgence as

weakness. Thus whereas having lots of sex is considered healthy and desirable in

the West, in India it would be considered a waste of vital energy and a

dissipation of inner strength. Indians revere above all their holy men (and

women) who have never had sex. .

After couples have had the desitred amount of children they would strive for

chastity and more of a spiritual and mental unity. It sounds strange to Western

ears but that's the way it is, and they have their valid reasons. An Indian will

say that sexual pleasure is inferior to spiritual joy.

Among the poor, on the other hand, birth control is not particularly valued. As

they have is no old age pensions nor health and unemployment insuranece, and

the infant mortality rate is pretty high, they actually WANT many children. A

large family is the poor man's health and unemployment security plus his old age

pension!

Sharon

August 3, 2004

Let us say we disagree on this one, Sharon. If India were

not suffering from a big population problem, I do not think

philosophies extolling a low sex drive would propagate.

Alobar

Re: vegetarianism

> " India has a huge population problem, and lots of very poor

> people who cannot afford birth control, so I would see why India

> would value a low sex drive. "

>

> Alobar, India's high population has little to do with this

attitude.

August 3, 2004

India's population problem is fairly recent, and yet it has always had the

philosphy that less sex is better than more - this dates back thousands of

years! It is an integral part of Indian spirituality and has nothing to do with

reducing the amount of children. It's not really a question of agreeing or

disagreeing - you would have to live there to understand the mentality to see

that the attitude towards sex is a the complete opposite to the Western one.

Did you read my article on the three Gunas? this explains it in more detail.

Here it is in full:

The Three Gunas

By Sharon Maas

Thirty years ago I went on a ten-day trip up the Amazon on a rickety old

riverboat. Sounds exciting, and it was - except for the food, which was

excruciatingly boring. Breakfast was biscuits dipped in sweet black coffee

(cafezinho); lunch and dinner was meat, gravy and pasta - day after day after

day. For ten days, not one morsel of fresh fruit or vegetables. On day ten I

felt as heavy as a sack of wheat, and just as dense and lethargic.

Two weeks later I stayed with Marcus, a Swiss friend, in Lima. Marcus was a

practicing yogi, a vegetarian, an excellent and enthusiastic cook. For an entire

month I indulged in the most delicious meals based on fresh fruit and

vegetables, lovingly cooked. After just a few days I was buzzing with energy. I

felt as light as a feather, ready to dance for joy on the beach. That was my

first direct experience of the gunas of food.

According to this yogic teaching, all material nature, all life on earth, all

action, falls into one of three categories, called gunas - the sanskrit word

guna being roughly translated as " element, " " quality " or " energy " . Our lives are

made up the interplay of these three gunas, and part of the work of yoga is to

go beyond the limitation of seeing merely concrete forms and overt actions, and

to recognise the underlying qualities hidden to the eye. Once we can see the

energy at work behind a given mood or behaviour we can better understand

ourselves, and work consciously towards a higher quality of life.

One way of doing so is through diet. The yogic diet is a system of

classification of foods according to the energy they produce in our minds. The

three gunas at play are called sattva, rajas and tamas.

Sattva is a blissful, tranquil and clear energy. The sanskrit word is based on

the principle " sat " , which means " being; as it should be, perfect " . People that

are predominately sattvic are balanced, serene and compassionate. We've all had

glimpses of sattvic energy: the calm joy you feel at the sight of a beautiful

sunset or on hearing a glorious piece of music is fuelled by sattva. According

to classic yoga this is our natural state, a state of inherent happiness latent

in all of us.

Sattvic food promotes lightness of body and clarity and calmness of mind. It is

" sweet, fresh and agreeable " and includes most fruits, nuts, seeds, vegetables,

particularly green leafy vegetables, whole grains, honey, pure water, milk and

milk products.

Rajas is a passionate, excited, aggressive energy; sexual passion is rajasic.

Predominately rajasic people are full of desire, hedonistic, and driven by

competition and ambition. The sanskrit root means " impure " ; but a " raja " also a

king, a member of the warrior caste. It is also related to the root rakta,

" redness " , and raga, " passion. " Think of an animated crowd at an exciting

football match and you will get the feeling for rajasic energy.

Rajasic food nourishes the body, but promotes activity and therefore induces

restlessness of mind. Rajasic foods include most spicy foods, stimulants like

coffee and tea, eggs, garlic, onion, meat and fish, as well as most processed

food.

Tamas is dull, insensitive, gloomy and dark energy. The Sanskrit word literally

means " darkness, dark-blue, black " .

Tamasic people are low-spirited, sluggish, dull and greedy. They can be

characterized as lazy and slothful. Think of someone who has spent the night

clubbing, drinking himself into oblivion; on awakening the next day he will be

in a deep state of tamas.

Tamasic food induces heaviness of the body and dullness of the mind, and is

detrimental to both. It includes alcohol, as well as food that is stale or

overripe. Some foods such as meat, fish and eggs can be classified both as

rajasic and tamasic.

The three gunas encompass all existence and all actions and exist together in

equilibrium. Thus on an apple tree, some fruit is ripe (sattvic), some ripening

(rajastic) and some overripe (tamasic).

Each of us has inherent predominance of one or more gunas, and the combination

changes with time and place, giving rise to different energies at different

times and in different places. Sometimes sattva prevails, making us elated and

loving. Sattva regenerates and renews us, fills us with creative energy,

wellbeing and goodwill; when we are on holiday we are usually in a state of

sattva. If we lead demanding professional lives, we are governed by rajas. At

the end of a busy workday tamas beckons - the lethargy of slouching in front of

the TV with a can of beer and a microwave dinner, the mind dulled and virtually

" switched off " .

Recognising which guna is at play it helps to bring about a state of balance in

our lives. Cultivating sattva prevents us from being overwhelmed by the strains

of a demanding job, and relieves stress. Rajas is needed for an active

professional life, and rajasic food can help us overcome the tamas that befalls

us after a busy workday. But for the practice of yoga, a sattvic diet is best.

A sattvic diet is not only about choosing the right foods; it's also about the

effect of heat, time, and even thought on food. The nature of food can change

through heat: grains become sattvic only after cooking, while honey becomes

tamasic with cooking. Time also changes food. Generally, grains become more

sattvic through age, while fruits rot and become tamasic. Even the best food

left overnight becomes stale and tamasic.

For those who feel the need for a calmer life, for those who feel the call of

yoga, the craving for meat, alcohol, processed foods, stimulating beverages, and

other rajasic and tamasic foods gives way to a desire for more sattvic foods. A

meatless diet, the taste for whole and fresh foods organically produced, becomes

natural. For such a person there is no question of " renouncing " meat, and not

eating it is no sacrifice. I did not give up meat after my stay with Marcus; I

simply lost the urge for it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

August 3, 2004

On Mon, 2 Aug 2004 17:46:55 +0100, Sharon <smaas@...> wrote:

> ,

> In Hinduism there is the teaching of the three Gunas, which divides all foods

into various " energies " - blissful, passionate, or dulling. Meat is considered

to strengthen the sex drive which is why Indians avoid it. But unlike in the

West, in India it is considered a good thing to have a low sex drive.

---

Sharon - I'm trying to reconcile your statement with the Kama Sutra

:-) And all that spicy food, which always seemed to me a reflection of

a preference for the kinky side of things :-) And finally - all those

hot Bollywood dance numbers.

- jim

August 3, 2004

Jim,

the Kama Sutra is terribly misunderstood in the west. It's part of the Tantric

tradition and its ultimate aim is the sublimation of the sex drive THROUGH

sexual energy - NOT sexual indulgence, as we like to think over here! In fact,

it's terribly difficult. The following is an excerpt from an article by Georg

Feuerstein, who is one of the leading writers on tantrism today on the West, and

who is very critical of the western cult of what he calls neo-tantrism.

(Underlinings by me!)

" The peril of selfishness in popularized Tantrism is most readily apparent in

the attitude of some Neo-Tantrics toward orgasm. ....both Buddhist and Hindu

Tantrism generally enjoin on male practitioners to arrest the semen together

with the breath and the mind.6 In other words, orgasm is not part of the Tantric

repertoire. As the Buddhist Tantras put it: the " enlightenment mind "

(bodhi-citta) must not be discharged. That is to say, the semen is equated with

the impulse toward enlightenment. Orgasm does not lead to bliss, merely to

pleasurable sensations. The earnest practitioner must bypass orgasm.

Various techniques are recommended for this, mainly for men since they tend to

come to orgasm more quickly. Apart from great self-discipline and mastery over

their bodily responses, men are advised to apply pressure at the perineum to

prevent ejaculation. However, this technique can become a health hazard if it is

made a habit. It is far better to avoid sexual arousal to the point where

ejaculation is imminent. Besides, once the ejaculatory spasms begin, semen is

released into the urethra, and the perineal trick merely forces the semen into

the bladder.

Some practitioners, seeking the best of both worlds, learn to control their

genital functions to the point where they can actually suck up the ejaculated

semen again through the penis. This curious yogic technique is called

vajrolî-mudrâ, and is described for instance in the Hatha-Yoga-Pradîpikâ

(3.83ff.), a fourteenth-century manual on Hatha-Yoga.

The merit of this exercise escapes me, because the nervous system has already

fired and thus the creative tension that could serve as a bridge to ecstasy is

lost. The whole point of avoiding orgasm is to accumulate the subtle force or

nervous energy called ojas, which is wasted the moment the nerves fire during

ejaculation. "

As for the spicy food - it's good for the hot weather - apparently! Indians are

definitely more concervative than kinky!

The Bollywood dance numbers are a modern phenomenon; they are certainly not part

of the tradition!

August 3, 2004

(Reposting this - for soem reason it has not arrived in my mailbox. Apologies if

it has in yours!)