Scientists and ordinary people have been arguing over this issue for decades. On the one hand, it is convincingly proved that man needs certain amino acids, which are present only in meat – therefore, man can not live without meat. On the other hand, there are people who do not eat meat all their life and are not only healthy, but – according to statistics – even healthier than \ ” meat eaters \”. To this day, both nutrition systems have strong defenders who consider their system \ “the only correct \”. What is the basis for this contradiction?
Vegetarianism means that people do not eat meat, but do not give up milk and dairy products, eggs and fish – although there is no firm rule about fish and there are differences of opinion. That’s why in scientific usage vegetarian way of eating is called \ “dairy and vegetable diet \”.
What is so special about meat? What is the reason why vegetarians refuse meat, not milk and dairy products?
Some people disgust meat instinctively, from birth. Others make the following argument: if everyone had to slaughter the chicken or calf, they want to eat themselves, millions of people would immediately become vegetarians. In fact, meat is the muscle of an animal, which includes the heart. Different internal organs, such as the liver, lungs, thymus gland, stomach, used to be eaten more often; today meat is considered almost only muscles. In ancient times, we knew well what meat meant. If about two millennia ago we wanted to say that a certain spiritual or mental essence is connected to a certain organism, we called this process \ “инкарнацией\”, i.e.. \ “воплощением\”, \ “entering the flesh, in мясо\” (from lat. sago, carnis – meat). This expression has been preserved in the Latin text of the mass (\”et incarnatus est\”). At that time, we felt very accurately that a man lives in his flesh, first of all in the heart, and now we do not even think whether the soul is really in the brain, as our contemporaries believe.
From what we can conclude that the meat of a chicken, pig or cow contains not only life, but also something from the soul essence of the corresponding animal. It is not so much a question of biological, as of spiritual potentiality, which defines this creature, for it is inseparably connected with its flesh. Of course, this does not mean that he who eats a lot of chicken, gradually begins to acquire the properties of chicken. However, together with the meat of an animal, a small fraction of the animal, \ ” animal \”, of nature, penetrates into man. This can really be seen if you look at people who eat a lot of meat. They are livelier, more impulsive than others, sometimes even more aggressive, in them the soul is more vividly manifested. And the true science of man is quite aware of the fact that these qualities do not depend on the biological value of the food, although it creates the ground for the disclosure of the soul. It is impossible to do without biological life, but as far as the latter is imbued with spirituality, it is a special question.
The difference is even brighter if we are dealing with people who do not eat any food of animal origin: no eggs, no milk, no dairy products; these are the strictest, \ ” solid stones \” vegetarians. A person who has been living this way of life for decades has been showing noticeable changes; thus, the properties we mentioned above – aggressiveness, rapid manifestation of emotions, etc. – are completely disappearing. Some nutritionists argue that uncompromisingly strict observance of vegetarian prohibitions makes a person to some extent alien to life or even unviable. Even so, one may ask: does the current stressed aggressiveness make a person more viable and kinder to life? Nutrition can have a serious impact on everything, even on society.
From these examples it is clear that meat has an exciting effect on the human soul. The consumption of meat is invigorating and stimulating. How a person uses this inspiration and how he shows himself in this regard is a different, purely spiritual problem.
Opposition: Experience has shown that we feel much more tired after plenty of meat than after vegetable dishes. The observation is definitely correct. But we are not talking about the immediate impact, but about the consequences that occur after months, years or decades, that is, the impact on the constitution.
Nowadays, because of the one-sided material approach, the distinction between meat and dairy products like cheese is often erased, because both are reduced to only protein and fat content. This is a crude simplification that has nothing to do with the reality of things. What is said about meat has nothing to do with milk and its products. The fact that meat is red and milk is white is quite eloquent. Red is associated with warmth, inner excitement, even aggression, while white is neutral and soothing. Naturally, this difference can also be explained in terms of chemistry: blood contains iron, which determines its coloration. Milk, on the contrary, contains almost no iron. Baby, for which, in fact, the milk is intended, should not be active at all, and the more overactive, it should grow quietly, and this calm in the prince. pe should not leave him until maturity and sexual maturity. As many physicians today do not understand this, iron is often added to dairy products intended for baby food, but in most cases, it remains without consequences.
It has already been repeatedly stated that milk has a very sensitive and unstable protein, which does not contain the mental component of the animal contained in the meat. Therefore, meat in any form is not a suitable food for a small child, especially for infants.
It follows from this that older children should be given meat under certain conditions. Experience has shown that girls are most likely to have a special craving for meat or sausage, which is somewhat slow and slow in nature. If they are allowed to satisfy their need for meat, it is possible to observe that within a few weeks they literally \ ” wakes up at \” and begin to develop according to their age. Of course, this can also be explained by the fact that meat – again, in contrast to milk – contains more phosphorus and iron, which a growing child needs. In any case, this is a deeply individual problem, closely linked to the child’s constitution. However, it must be borne in mind that today’s excessive consumption of meat changes the constitution accordingly already in childhood, or has a devastating effect on it altogether. In either case, meat is not a mandatory staple, but rather a delicacy, and its increasing consumption is based on it.
Let us first consider the main types of meat. As mentioned above, any meat contains something from the essence of the respective animal. This explains why people have not eaten cats or dogs since time immemorial – at least not like regular meat. (In China, dog meat is eaten as a delicacy but not \ ‘normal meat \’). We have also mentioned that the cat and dog in turn eat primarily the meat of other animals. For this reason, dog meat can be called biologically defective, low quality. However, it is necessary to take into account also specifically animal soul component. Cats and dogs are inherently predators. If people ate their meat in large quantities or for a long time (many decades or throughout the life of generations), it is likely that something of the soul nature of these animals would pass into man. This is why man has long since rejected carnivorous meat as a normal foodstuff.
If, in contrast to dogs and cats, to look at a cow, it is immediately clear what is actually meant. A slightly blunt, dreamy look, slowness, pedigree indicate that this animal has an indestructible inner peace – a quality that even today unmistakably feel the people of India. That’s why beef is the real, perfect meat for us.
In recent decades, however, pork has been increasingly promoted and consumed, and no one has found anything special about it. Pork is advertised as a protein-rich product and, thanks to the latest methods of fattening, is not fat at all, and also contains a lot of vitamin B; all this is probably true, but takes away the essence of the problem. Although the total consumption of meat has been decreasing slightly since 1994, pork accounts for the largest share of total consumption (64%) – in Germany it was 40 kg per person in 1994.
It is known that Jews and Arabs are not allowed to eat pork. This ban has its roots in an era when religion permeated all areas of life. That’s why these peoples – and originally all! – there are regulations concerning medicine, nutrition, hygiene. Why in ancient times – more than ten thousand years ago – a taboo was imposed on a pig (more precisely: on all paired ungulates – animals with a split hoof and not being ruminants)? The modern man tries \ ” explain \” it is the untidiness of pigs. The explanation is very superficial, and in addition incorrect. It is natural for a pig to dig in the ground where it finds its food. Obviously, it’s difficult to stay clean at the same time. But if you observe the life of a pig family in a well-equipped stable, you can see that pigs do not defecate anywhere, and choose a special corner, that they have their own place to sleep and that they are not dirty at all. The other thing is that they are omnivores, and here comes the problem mentioned above again: man should not eat the meat of carnivores.
Even more important is the fact that the pig is the only animal that can be compared to man: it is not covered with wool, like man, naked, but with skin with rare hair. It’s not a random outward sign, but an expression of essence! In addition, the pig’s teeth are exactly like those of humans, although they are of course different in size. In other mammals, the teeth have distinct signs of specialisation, while in pigs they are not – and so is man. Furthermore, the pig’s most important internal organs (kidneys, liver, heart) show a very frightening similarity to the human organs. That is why, in these days when there are no human organs to be transplanted, surgeons are trying to replace the human heart with the heart of a pig. The fact that this is already practiced, and perhaps in the future will take on a larger scale, shows that man does not even have a vague idea of the essence of life, soul and spirit.
We may, of course, be objected that the similarities between a pig and a man may indicate that pigs are particularly good for man. Ironically, this is true to a certain extent, as pork is indeed easy to digest. That is the problem: since pig protein is relatively similar to human protein, it is not only easily digested, but other people do not recognize it at all as foreign, and therefore split in the body is not enough and participates in metabolism, so to speak, \ ” half split \”. The result is surely experienced by every rheumatist. From the soul of eating pork, he feels the next day a significant deterioration in his condition. And all because not completely split protein has penetrated into the body and the latter is forced to counteract it already in the metabolism, muscles and joints, which leads to very painful inflammation.
Again, we may be objected that what we’re saying is only rheumatica. And their example clearly shows what we’re talking about. Of course, a healthy person will not suffer any harm from a single or moderate consumption of pork. The danger is different: excessive or long-term consumption of pork meat – for millennia (!) – can change the constitution of an entire nation, not in the sense that people will resemble pigs, but that too close a nature \ ” animal \” can twist their constitution. Thousands of years ago, this truth was revealed to the then teachers of humanity.
In general, healthy people can eat pork without any danger, though, on the condition that pigs are grown in the same way as it used to be in every farmer’s farm, when they were fed with food waste, because the food was considered a gift of God and in no case was destroyed as it is now. Then once a year, one pig was slaughtered. Nowadays, many times more pigs are brought to the market than in the past, and in the future this has serious consequences, especially in the area of metabolism.
Chickens are poultry and will stand further away from humans than mammals. Birds actually live in the air and are not quite connected to the ground. Therefore, their meat, i.e. the carrier of their soul essence, is \ “легче\” and somewhat closer to Cosmos. It is not for nothing that a few years and even more decades ago it was widely known that chicken broth, for example, is an ideal strengthening agent, especially for those recovering from a serious illness. The broth does not contain meat, but contains its extract. Later, the recovering people were also given chicken meat. This was in accordance with ancient knowledge, which was based on the essence of the animal, now, however, it is no longer so important, because the content of chickens industrialized and does not necessarily meet the laws of their nature. Everybody understands very well that the cellular and battery content of laying hens and the industrial content of chicken broilers can not be called correct and environmentally friendly, but even a conscious poultry keeper with all desire practically can not compete with highly productive, profitable poultry farms and their cheap products.
This is an objective and widespread situation, and we have to reckon with it. Not only in crop production, but also in livestock and poultry, biological expediency is sacrificed to economic productivity. Pigs are raised for meat; but meat is muscle, and muscles serve the movement and are formed in movement, and what movement can we talk about in tight boxes? Meat is thus the movement organs that did not exercise during the animal’s lifetime, and therefore did not develop correctly.
Veal is naturally gentler than beef and therefore more expensive. Is it any wonder that breeders try to keep the calf as long as possible: calves are kept in dark stalls to inhibit the formation of hemoglobin, i.e. the formation of blood, so that the meat remains light. In addition to this, which is already quite large, \ ” calf \” continues to be fed with one milk – or rather, with milk powder made from surplus (mostly skimmed milk), because the milk of the mother cow is sold or the cow is again stele and therefore \ ” cheap \” as they say in the village.
It is not difficult to conclude from the above that the animal’s soul, which acts in its body at all levels, up to and including protein, continues to act in food products. And the sufferings which the animal consciously or unconsciously caused to the wrong maintenance and violent death, too, cannot but pass into the product. It must be stressed that the effects of this kind are never immediately visible; if they are not taken into account, they will certainly manifest themselves in years and decades.
The fish supply us with very special meat. Naturally, they are even further away from humans than birds, and this is determined by their environment and lifestyle. Of course, the way of life of fish can be very different – from trout, which lives in light-penetrating rivers and streams, if possible, climbing to the very source, to deep sea fish, living in eternal darkness and showing the eye the most terrible and unusual forms. In between these extremes, there are \ ” regular \” marine fish that man has aged to catch and eat. Many of these fish are raptors, which in turn eat fish. Thus, here, too, the mentioned food chain should act, when due to repeated absorption of one organism by another, biological life is decreasing. But this rule does not fully apply to fish, because the sea water in which they live is permeated with life. The sea is, in fact, the life reservoir of the Earth. Fish have no highly developed consciousness of land animals, which is associated with the processes of cleavage. By the way, in that episode of the New Testament, where Christ sated five thousand people with little food, we are talking about five loaves of bread and two fishes. Obviously, fish, like bread, can be carriers of cosmic impulses. It should be added that almost all sea fish form vitamins A and D, especially rich in these vitamins halibut and cod, whose fat (in use simply \ ‘fish grease \’) has – primarily due to the high content of vitamins A and D, as well as unsaturated fatty acids – invaluable healing properties. Recently, it has been discovered that fish from cold seas, such as mackerel, produce highly active oil, which is now used to treat diseases associated with various harmful deposits – especially atherosclerosis and heart diseases.
In contrast to sea fish, trout, which is mainly bred in ponds, does not have the fats mentioned. Since the diet of this fish is almost entirely made up of factory food and before cooking it must be soaked or well washed in water, its protein is rather a delicacy.
Since both humans and animals have protein as a direct carrier of life, it is often believed that the more protein you eat, the more life will enter your body. However, it was unequivocally emphasized above that it is not the quantity of this or that food, but its quality and what man does with it. Nowadays it is known that excessive protein intake into your organism can lead to chronic intoxication. Therefore, recently the recommended optimal protein amount has been significantly reduced, as people on average eat too much protein. However, many people, and not only vegetarians, try to find plant proteins and find them in mushrooms. Indeed, the consumption of mushrooms has suddenly and dramatically increased in recent years. Even twenty or thirty years ago mushrooms ate only at the time when they grew in nature, ie in late summer and autumn. New methods make it possible to grow them now at any time of year, without wasting energy on tedious searches and gathering.
What is the essence of mushrooms? Although they grow in forests and glades, they are not green at all. Which means they don’t have chlorophyll in them and they don’t live off the light. That’s why mushrooms are often grown in bunkers, in total darkness. There is already a problem: the mushroom feels like it is a plant! However, it is not, because \ “normal\” the plant lives off sunlight, but the mushrooms need decomposing, rotting food, which means they are no longer alive. That’s why they are bred in the dark on horse manure. Their metabolism is rather animal in nature, and the protein that they form is completely devoid of light. The matter here again is not in the composition, not in amino acids, vitamins, etc., but in the fact that the substance of the fungus is a protein that is deprived of light – this protein can certainly process, but the quality of its impact does not correspond to the true-life processes. This does not mean that edible mushrooms should not be eaten at all. The tendency to add raw mushrooms to almost every meat dish and almost every salad (in the USA) is questionable. Since, together with mushrooms, a substance deprived of light penetrates into the body and begins to have a qualitative effect, later it may have a negative impact not so much in the biological as in the mental sphere.