2.34.Question: Does the type of diet, such as vegetarianism or a raw food diet make a difference to the development of the essence (soul)?
Answer: Vegetarianism in general is negative. I’m told that we must not kill animals because they are living creatures, or that plants have been specially created by God to be eaten.
Has anyone asked the plants what they think about this? Are plants lifeless beings? Aren’t fruits the children of plants?
Do you know why seed has a fruit around itself? So that when a fruit, for example an orange, falls to the ground, the flesh will rot and create soil into which the seed will germinate well. So the plant did not come up with the idea to be eaten by us.
Think logically. When did plants appear, and when did animals appeared [on Earth]? Who appeared first? There were no animals at all [at first].
The fact that plants began to struggle to survive, and so that their children could grow, they began to produce many more fruits.
That was so if idiots like us ate them, then at least something would still grow again. They began to adapt to the conditions when predators appeared that ate them.
Herbivores are also predators; they eat grass, they eat plants. Aren’t plants living beings? Believe me, they can feel and have consciousness and many other things.
And they don’t like to die either. Due to the fact that man is used to animals having eyes, ears, and a mouth, [people think that] they are closer to us. So it's bad to kill them [animals], but plants can be [killed], because they have no eyes. Tears don’t fall like those from a calf when it’s killed. And they have no ears.
I have observed when animals are caught, for example, a chicken, for the soup. Even the chicken feels. Their eyes are different.
Other animals, for example, a cow, or calf, really can feel. The owner can herd his cow a thousand times and everything will be fine, but they telepathically perceive when they are being led to be slaughtered. And not just a cow.
And when the same owner, who has fed them every day, take a cow to slaughter, tears being to seep from cow’s eyes. She knows that she is being taken to be killed.
But plants just don’t have eyes that shed tears. That’s all there is too it.
I'm not saying that it's good that we should eat a living being. But the laws of life are such that we can not exist unless we consume another biomass.
It is all about us not doing things in such a way that it is wrong. A murder for the sake of murder - it's not right. When they hunt for the pleasure of the sport, they kill for the sake of killing. But if you take what you need for your life, you do not violate the laws of life.
Of course, there are certain penalties. Through eating meat you receive a certain punishment. When the animal is killed, certain toxins are synthesized (epinephrine is processed into cadaveric toxin) and when it gets into our body, it shortens our life span.
Plants do the same. Toxins are synthesized so that herbivores do not live for long, because the longer they live, the more plants they will eat.
These are the laws of nature. This is not parasitism. Man is an omnivore. If a person, especially a child, does not receive animal proteins, when children are raised on fully vegetarian diet, then they will lag physically and mentally very much behind. Rickets and many other pathologies develop.
Therefore, it's not about what you eat, but the fact that you really need to remember that killing for the sake of killing It seems to you that if a fruit is taken, you didn’t kill it, you just ate it.
So, what about a worm which eats your body after? It could also say “I’m not killing him, I’m eating him.” Or a wolf who tears at your throat, could also say I’m not killing him, I’m only eating.”
This is not a correct categorization of the animal world, between these that can be eaten, and those that can’t be. This is wrong. Therefore, for as long as we are forced to be in bodies that cannot do without biomass, we will die if we do not eat, and so any other living thing would die.
Before the end of today's meeting I'll tell you an amusing incident. There is a small warm-blooded creature, the Etruscan mouse. For a long time, this creature couldn’t be caught alive.
They were caught, of course, but when caught, they were usually found dead. Because the size of the Etruscan mouse is less than a matchbox. The ratio of the skin surface to the body volume is so huge that this creature must continuously eat. If it doesn’t eat for several minutes, it starts to freeze and die.
Imagine a creature that continuously eats. It is simply that the larger the size, the smaller the volume to surface area ratio, with a correspondingly lesser need for a larger volume of food.
But the smaller the size, the larger the surface area, and te greater the need for food, due to great loss of warmth.
It turns out that the most vile creature on Earth is the Etruscan mouse because it eats constantly. Once it stop eating, it dies immediately. This is a real fact. So, anything at all can be eaten.
I would recommend that a person listen to his body. The body always knows better than any diet what it needs at the moment.
If you want something, then it’s because the body needs these substances and they need to be provided. However, if you give [the body] too much of the good substances, they are harmful.
The organism will digest only what it can absorb and all that is surplus, is in principle a toxin. Why?
Because the chemical molecules from the food we receive have no intelligence. They chemically interact in our cells, independently of whether you need them now or not.
If the cell needs 10 molecules, for example, but 1000 were introduced into the cell. Do you think 10 molecules will be digested, and the remaining 990 will wait their turn? No! All 1000 molecules will interact.
Therefore, even good, positive substances for the body, if there are too many of them, are toxins and not good. Learn to listen to yourself.
If you learn to listen to yourself and take only what you need, you will supply it with the optimal amount of organic substances that the body needs for balance.
What can vegetarianism lead to? Which animal is considered to be not very smart? Sheep! In herbivores, the brain’s development is very slow.
Because plants produce substances that kill animals and these substances have a very strong influence on brain development.
That is why herbivorous animals do not particularly shine with their intellect. (from the hall) What about a horse? I say the majority. Not all.
Each animal has slightly different complexes. This is the level of development of the majority. But, nevertheless, most animal herbivores do not achieve a high intellectual development.
Horses have a huge brain. Monkeys are omnivorous. Most of them are. Especially humanoid monkeys. They are omnivorous. They eat birds eggs, beetles and even small animals if they catch them.
Humanoid monkeys are not our ancestors, by the way, regardless of how much they may try to impose this view on us. They are not our ancestors.
Not because we are so cool and better than monkeys. It's just a fact that they are not our ancestors. So they are also omnivores, and even have the tooth structure of humans.
At school, zoology was well studied at one time. There was a clear characteristic of predators by the structure of teeth; herbivores and omnivores.
So the presence of small eye tooth and the lack of developed incisors suggests that humans are omnivores, and consume both types of food.
Therefore, both foods are normal for us. Our organism is adapted and created precisely for such food; both vegetable and meat.
Although, again, both are living beings, and living organisms. They don’t create themselves or their children to be devoured by such any passing fool, such as I.