Discussion:
Question for Jahnu
Add Reply
Ted
2017-07-16 10:07:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
I was once fortunate enough to witness food being given to the gods at a
Hare Krishna temple. Can you elaborate, or point me to a reference, about
the gods' consumption of the food? TIA. :)
Christopher A. Lee
2017-07-16 12:27:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ted
I was once fortunate enough to witness food being given to the gods at a
Hare Krishna temple. Can you elaborate, or point me to a reference, about
the gods' consumption of the food? TIA. :)
Just like my little sister's pretend friend, Iggi.

She'd kindly ask for a second piece of cake for Iggi - and then very
kindly eat it for her.
Ted
2017-07-19 21:18:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Ted
I was once fortunate enough to witness food being given to the gods at a
Hare Krishna temple. Can you elaborate, or point me to a reference, about
the gods' consumption of the food? TIA. :)
Just like my little sister's pretend friend, Iggi.
She'd kindly ask for a second piece of cake for Iggi - and then very
kindly eat it for her.
LOL.
Jahnu
2017-07-20 07:17:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
LOL.
Rethinking the Meat-Guzzler

By MARK BITTMAN

Published: January 27, 2008


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/weekinreview/27bittman.html?_r=1&oref=slogin


SEA change in the consumption of a resource that Americans take for
granted may be in store — something cheap, plentiful, widely enjoyed
and a part of daily life. And it isn’t oil.

It’s meat.

The two commodities share a great deal: Like oil, meat is subsidized
by the federal government. Like oil, meat is subject to accelerating
demand as nations become wealthier, and this, in turn, sends prices
higher. Finally — like oil — meat is something people are encouraged
to consume less of, as the toll exacted by industrial production
increases, and becomes
increasingly visible.

Global demand for meat has multiplied in recent years, encouraged by
growing affluence and nourished by the proliferation of huge, confined
animal feeding operations. These assembly-line meat factories consume
enormous amounts of energy, pollute water supplies, generate
significant greenhousegases and require ever-increasing amounts of
corn, soy and other grains, a
dependency that has led to the destruction of vast swaths of the
world’s tropical rain forests.

Just this week, the president of Brazil announced emergency measures
to halt the burning and cutting of the country’s rain forests for crop
and grazingland. In the last five months alone, the government says,
1,250 square miles were lost.

The world’s total meat supply was 71 million tons in 1961. In 2007, it
was estimated to be 284 million tons. Per capita consumption has more
than doubled over that period. (In the developing world, it rose twice
as fast, doubling in the last 20 years.) World meat consumption is
expected to double again by 2050, which one expert, Henning Steinfeld
of the United Nations, says is resulting in a “relentless growth in
livestock production.”

Americans eat about the same amount of meat as we have for some time,
about eight ounces a day, roughly twice the global average. At about 5
percent ofthe world’s population, we “process” (that is, grow and
kill) nearly 10 billion animals a year, more than 15 percent of the
world’s total.

Growing meat (it’s hard to use the word “raising” when applied to
animals in factory farms) uses so many resources that it’s a challenge
to enumerate them all. But consider: an estimated 30 percent of the
earth’s ice-free land is directly or indirectly involved in livestock
production, according to the United Nation’s Food and Agriculture
Organization, which also estimates that
livestock production generates nearly a fifth of the world’s
greenhouse gases — more than transportation.

To put the energy-using demand of meat production into
easy-to-understand terms, Gidon Eshel, a geophysicist at the Bard
Center, and Pamela A. Martin, an assistant professor of geophysics at
the University of Chicago, calculated that if Americans were to reduce
meat consumption by just 20 percent it would be as if we all switched
from a standard sedan — a Camry,
say — to the ultra-efficient Prius. Similarly, a study last year by
the National Institute of Livestock and Grassland Science in Japan
estimated that 2.2 pounds of beef is responsible for the equivalent
amount of carbon dioxide emitted by the average European car every 155
miles, and burnsenough energy to light a 100-watt bulb for nearly 20
days.

Grain, meat and even energy are roped together in a way that could
have dire results. More meat means a corresponding increase in demand
for feed, especially corn and soy, which some experts say will
contribute to higher prices.

This will be inconvenient for citizens of wealthier nations, but it
could have tragic consequences for those of poorer ones, especially if
higher prices for feed divert production away from food crops. The
demand for ethanol is already pushing up prices, and explains, in
part, the 40 percent rise last year in the food price index calculated
by the United Nations’ Food and Agricultural Organization.

Though some 800 million people on the planet now suffer from hunger or
malnutrition, the majority of corn and soy grown in the world feeds
cattle, pigs and chickens. This despite the inherent inefficiencies:
about two tofive times more grain is required to produce the same
amount of calories through livestock as through direct grain
consumption, according to Rosamond
Naylor, an associate professor of economics at Stanford University. It
is as much as 10 times more in the case of grain-fed beef in the
United States.

The environmental impact of growing so much grain for animal feed is
profound. Agriculture in the United States — much of which now serves
thedemand for meat — contributes to nearly three-quarters of all
water-quality problems in the nation’s rivers and streams, according
to the Environmental Protection Agency.

Because the stomachs of cattle are meant to digest grass, not grain,
cattle raised industrially thrive only in the sense that they gain
weight quickly. This diet made it possible to remove cattle from their
natural environment and encourage the efficiency of mass confinement
and slaughter. But itcauses enough health problems that administration
of antibiotics is routine, so much so that it can result in
antibiotic-resistant bacteria that threaten the usefulness of
medicines that treat people.

Those grain-fed animals, in turn, are contributing to health problems
among the world’s wealthier citizens — heart disease, some types of
cancer, diabetes. The argument that meat provides useful protein makes
sense, if the quantities are small. But the “you gotta eat meat” claim
collapses at American levels. Even if the amount of meat we eat
weren’t harmful, it’s way
more than enough.

Americans are downing close to 200 pounds of meat, poultry and fish
per capita per year (dairy and eggs are separate, and hardly
insignificant), an increase of 50 pounds per person from 50 years ago.
We each consume something like 110 grams of protein a day, about twice
the federal government’s recommended allowance; of that, about 75
grams come from animal
protein. (The recommended level is itself considered by many dietary
experts to be higher than it needs to be.) It’s likely that most of us
would do just fine on around 30 grams of protein a day, virtually all
of it from plant sources .

What can be done? There’s no simple answer. Better waste management,
for one. Eliminating subsidies would also help; the United Nations
estimates that they account for 31 percent of global farm income.
Improved farming practices would help, too. Mark W. Rosegrant,
director of environment and production technology at the nonprofit
International Food Policy Research
Institute, says, “There should be investment in livestock breeding and
management, to reduce the footprint needed to produce any given level
of meat.”

Then there’s technology. Israel and Korea are among the countries
experimenting with using animal waste to generate electricity. Some of
the biggest hog operations in the United States are working, with some
success, to turn manure into fuel.

Longer term, it no longer seems lunacy to believe in the possibility
of “meat without feet” — meat produced in vitro, by growing animal
cells in a super-rich nutrient environment before being further
manipulated into burgers and steaks.

Another suggestion is a return to grazing beef, a very real
alternative as long as you accept the psychologically difficult and
politically unpopular notion of eating less of it. That’s because
grazing could never produce as many cattle as feedlots do. Still, said
Michael Pollan, author of the recent book “In Defense of Food,” “In
places where you can’t grow grain, fattening cows on grass is always
going to make more sense.”

But pigs and chickens, which convert grain to meat far more
efficiently than beef, are increasingly the meats of choice for
producers, accounting for 70 percent of total meat production, with
industrialized systems producing half that pork and three-quarters of
the chicken.

Once, these animals were raised locally (even many New Yorkers
remember the pigs of Secaucus), reducing transportation costs and
allowing their manure to be spread on nearby fields. Now hog
production facilities that resemble prisons more than farms are
hundreds of miles from major population centers, and their manure
“lagoons” pollute streams and groundwater. (In Iowa alone, hog
factories and farms produce more than 50 million tons of excrement
annually.)

These problems originated here, but are no longer limited to the
United States. While the domestic demand for meat has leveled off, the
industrial production of livestock is growing more than twice as fast
as land-based methods, according to the United Nations.

Perhaps the best hope for change lies in consumers’ becoming aware of
the true costs of industrial meat production. “When you look at
environmental problems in the U.S.,” says Professor Eshel, “nearly all
of them have their source in food production and in particular meat
production. And factory farming is ‘optimal’ only as long as degrading
waterways is free. If dumping this stuff becomes costly — even if it
simply carries a non-zero price tag — the entire structure of food
production will change dramatically.”

Animal welfare may not yet be a major concern, but as the horrors of
raising meat in confinement become known, more animal lovers may start
to react. And would the world not be a better place were some of the
grain we use to grow meat directed instead to feed our fellow human
beings?

Real prices of beef, pork and poultry have held steady, perhaps even
decreased, for 40 years or more (in part because of grain subsidies),
though we’re beginning to see them increase now. But many experts,
including Tyler Cowen, a professor of economics at George Mason
University, say they don’t believe meat prices will rise high enough
to affect demand in the United
States.

“I just don’t think we can count on market prices to reduce our meat
consumption,” he said. “There may be a temporary spike in food prices,
but it will almost certainly be reversed and then some. But if all the
burden is put on eaters, that’s not a tragic state of affairs.”

If price spikes don’t change eating habits, perhaps the combination of
deforestation, pollution, climate change, starvation, heart disease
and animal cruelty will gradually encourage the simple daily act of
eating more plants and fewer animals.

Mr. Rosegrant of the food policy research institute says he foresees
“a stronger public relations campaign in the reduction of meat
consumption — one like that around cigarettes — emphasizing personal
health, compassion for animals, and doing good for the poor and the
planet.”

It wouldn’t surprise Professor Eshel if all of this had a real impact.
“The good of people’s bodies and the good of the planet are more or
less perfectly aligned,” he said.

The United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization, in its detailed
2006 study of the impact of meat consumption on the planet,
“Livestock’s Long Shadow,” made a similar point: “There are reasons
for optimism that the conflicting demands for animal products and
environmental services can be reconciled. Both demands are exerted by
the same group of people ... the
relatively affluent, middle- to high-income class, which is no longer
confined to industrialized countries. ... This group of consumers is
probably ready to use its growing voice to exert pressure for change
and may be willing to absorb the inevitable price increases.”

In fact, Americans are already buying more environmentally friendly
products, choosing more sustainably produced meat, eggs and dairy. The
number of farmers’ markets has more than doubled in the last 10 years
or so, and it has escaped no one’s notice that the organic food market
is growing fast. These all represent products that are more expensive
but of higher quality.

If those trends continue, meat may become a treat rather than a
routine. It won’t be uncommon, but just as surely as the S.U.V. will
yield to the hybrid, the half-pound-a-day meat era will end.

Maybe that’s not such a big deal. “Who said people had to eat meat
three times a day?” asked Mr. Pollan.

Have a look at my art -

http://www.touchtalent.com//artist/118705/jahnu-das

https://www.youtube.com/user/jahnudvip?feature=watch

https://picasaweb.google.com/113672947796865733014/Jahnu

https://photos.google.com/u/1/?hl=en
Jeanne Douglas
2017-07-20 13:12:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jahnu
LOL.
Rethinking the Meat-Guzzler
Nobody cares what you think.
--
Posted by Mimo Usenet Browser v0.2.5
http://www.mimousenet.com/mimo/post
Ted
2017-07-22 16:13:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jahnu
LOL.
Rethinking the Meat-Guzzler
By MARK BITTMAN
Published: January 27, 2008
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/weekinreview/27bittman.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
SEA change in the consumption of a resource that Americans take for
granted may be in store — something cheap, plentiful, widely enjoyed
and a part of daily life. And it isn’t oil.
It’s meat.
The two commodities share a great deal: Like oil, meat is subsidized
by the federal government. Like oil, meat is subject to accelerating
demand as nations become wealthier, and this, in turn, sends prices
higher. Finally — like oil — meat is something people are encouraged
to consume less of, as the toll exacted by industrial production
increases, and becomes
increasingly visible.
Global demand for meat has multiplied in recent years, encouraged by
growing affluence and nourished by the proliferation of huge, confined
animal feeding operations. These assembly-line meat factories consume
enormous amounts of energy, pollute water supplies, generate
significant greenhousegases and require ever-increasing amounts of
corn, soy and other grains, a
dependency that has led to the destruction of vast swaths of the
world’s tropical rain forests.
Just this week, the president of Brazil announced emergency measures
to halt the burning and cutting of the country’s rain forests for crop
and grazingland. In the last five months alone, the government says,
1,250 square miles were lost.
The world’s total meat supply was 71 million tons in 1961. In 2007, it
was estimated to be 284 million tons. Per capita consumption has more
than doubled over that period. (In the developing world, it rose twice
as fast, doubling in the last 20 years.) World meat consumption is
expected to double again by 2050, which one expert, Henning Steinfeld
of the United Nations, says is resulting in a “relentless growth in
livestock production.”
Americans eat about the same amount of meat as we have for some time,
about eight ounces a day, roughly twice the global average. At about 5
percent ofthe world’s population, we “process” (that is, grow and
kill) nearly 10 billion animals a year, more than 15 percent of the
world’s total.
Growing meat (it’s hard to use the word “raising” when applied to
animals in factory farms) uses so many resources that it’s a challenge
to enumerate them all. But consider: an estimated 30 percent of the
earth’s ice-free land is directly or indirectly involved in livestock
production, according to the United Nation’s Food and Agriculture
Organization, which also estimates that
livestock production generates nearly a fifth of the world’s
greenhouse gases — more than transportation.
To put the energy-using demand of meat production into
easy-to-understand terms, Gidon Eshel, a geophysicist at the Bard
Center, and Pamela A. Martin, an assistant professor of geophysics at
the University of Chicago, calculated that if Americans were to reduce
meat consumption by just 20 percent it would be as if we all switched
from a standard sedan — a Camry,
say — to the ultra-efficient Prius. Similarly, a study last year by
the National Institute of Livestock and Grassland Science in Japan
estimated that 2.2 pounds of beef is responsible for the equivalent
amount of carbon dioxide emitted by the average European car every 155
miles, and burnsenough energy to light a 100-watt bulb for nearly 20
days.
Grain, meat and even energy are roped together in a way that could
have dire results. More meat means a corresponding increase in demand
for feed, especially corn and soy, which some experts say will
contribute to higher prices.
This will be inconvenient for citizens of wealthier nations, but it
could have tragic consequences for those of poorer ones, especially if
higher prices for feed divert production away from food crops. The
demand for ethanol is already pushing up prices, and explains, in
part, the 40 percent rise last year in the food price index calculated
by the United Nations’ Food and Agricultural Organization.
Though some 800 million people on the planet now suffer from hunger or
malnutrition, the majority of corn and soy grown in the world feeds
about two tofive times more grain is required to produce the same
amount of calories through livestock as through direct grain
consumption, according to Rosamond
Naylor, an associate professor of economics at Stanford University. It
is as much as 10 times more in the case of grain-fed beef in the
United States.
The environmental impact of growing so much grain for animal feed is
profound. Agriculture in the United States — much of which now serves
thedemand for meat — contributes to nearly three-quarters of all
water-quality problems in the nation’s rivers and streams, according
to the Environmental Protection Agency.
Because the stomachs of cattle are meant to digest grass, not grain,
cattle raised industrially thrive only in the sense that they gain
weight quickly. This diet made it possible to remove cattle from their
natural environment and encourage the efficiency of mass confinement
and slaughter. But itcauses enough health problems that administration
of antibiotics is routine, so much so that it can result in
antibiotic-resistant bacteria that threaten the usefulness of
medicines that treat people.
Those grain-fed animals, in turn, are contributing to health problems
among the world’s wealthier citizens — heart disease, some types of
cancer, diabetes. The argument that meat provides useful protein makes
sense, if the quantities are small. But the “you gotta eat meat” claim
collapses at American levels. Even if the amount of meat we eat
weren’t harmful, it’s way
more than enough.
Americans are downing close to 200 pounds of meat, poultry and fish
per capita per year (dairy and eggs are separate, and hardly
insignificant), an increase of 50 pounds per person from 50 years ago.
We each consume something like 110 grams of protein a day, about twice
the federal government’s recommended allowance; of that, about 75
grams come from animal
protein. (The recommended level is itself considered by many dietary
experts to be higher than it needs to be.) It’s likely that most of us
would do just fine on around 30 grams of protein a day, virtually all
of it from plant sources .
What can be done? There’s no simple answer. Better waste management,
for one. Eliminating subsidies would also help; the United Nations
estimates that they account for 31 percent of global farm income.
Improved farming practices would help, too. Mark W. Rosegrant,
director of environment and production technology at the nonprofit
International Food Policy Research
Institute, says, “There should be investment in livestock breeding and
management, to reduce the footprint needed to produce any given level
of meat.”
Then there’s technology. Israel and Korea are among the countries
experimenting with using animal waste to generate electricity. Some of
the biggest hog operations in the United States are working, with some
success, to turn manure into fuel.
Longer term, it no longer seems lunacy to believe in the possibility
of “meat without feet” — meat produced in vitro, by growing animal
cells in a super-rich nutrient environment before being further
manipulated into burgers and steaks.
Another suggestion is a return to grazing beef, a very real
alternative as long as you accept the psychologically difficult and
politically unpopular notion of eating less of it. That’s because
grazing could never produce as many cattle as feedlots do. Still, said
Michael Pollan, author of the recent book “In Defense of Food,” “In
places where you can’t grow grain, fattening cows on grass is always
going to make more sense.”
But pigs and chickens, which convert grain to meat far more
efficiently than beef, are increasingly the meats of choice for
producers, accounting for 70 percent of total meat production, with
industrialized systems producing half that pork and three-quarters of
the chicken.
Once, these animals were raised locally (even many New Yorkers
remember the pigs of Secaucus), reducing transportation costs and
allowing their manure to be spread on nearby fields. Now hog
production facilities that resemble prisons more than farms are
hundreds of miles from major population centers, and their manure
“lagoons” pollute streams and groundwater. (In Iowa alone, hog
factories and farms produce more than 50 million tons of excrement
annually.)
These problems originated here, but are no longer limited to the
United States. While the domestic demand for meat has leveled off, the
industrial production of livestock is growing more than twice as fast
as land-based methods, according to the United Nations.
Perhaps the best hope for change lies in consumers’ becoming aware of
the true costs of industrial meat production. “When you look at
environmental problems in the U.S.,” says Professor Eshel, “nearly all
of them have their source in food production and in particular meat
production. And factory farming is ‘optimal’ only as long as degrading
waterways is free. If dumping this stuff becomes costly — even if it
simply carries a non-zero price tag — the entire structure of food
production will change dramatically.”
Animal welfare may not yet be a major concern, but as the horrors of
raising meat in confinement become known, more animal lovers may start
to react. And would the world not be a better place were some of the
grain we use to grow meat directed instead to feed our fellow human
beings?
Real prices of beef, pork and poultry have held steady, perhaps even
decreased, for 40 years or more (in part because of grain subsidies),
though we’re beginning to see them increase now. But many experts,
including Tyler Cowen, a professor of economics at George Mason
University, say they don’t believe meat prices will rise high enough
to affect demand in the United
States.
“I just don’t think we can count on market prices to reduce our meat
consumption,” he said. “There may be a temporary spike in food prices,
but it will almost certainly be reversed and then some. But if all the
burden is put on eaters, that’s not a tragic state of affairs.”
If price spikes don’t change eating habits, perhaps the combination of
deforestation, pollution, climate change, starvation, heart disease
and animal cruelty will gradually encourage the simple daily act of
eating more plants and fewer animals.
Mr. Rosegrant of the food policy research institute says he foresees
“a stronger public relations campaign in the reduction of meat
consumption — one like that around cigarettes — emphasizing personal
health, compassion for animals, and doing good for the poor and the
planet.”
It wouldn’t surprise Professor Eshel if all of this had a real impact.
“The good of people’s bodies and the good of the planet are more or
less perfectly aligned,” he said.
The United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization, in its detailed
2006 study of the impact of meat consumption on the planet,
“Livestock’s Long Shadow,” made a similar point: “There are reasons
for optimism that the conflicting demands for animal products and
environmental services can be reconciled. Both demands are exerted by
the same group of people ... the
relatively affluent, middle- to high-income class, which is no longer
confined to industrialized countries. ... This group of consumers is
probably ready to use its growing voice to exert pressure for change
and may be willing to absorb the inevitable price increases.”
In fact, Americans are already buying more environmentally friendly
products, choosing more sustainably produced meat, eggs and dairy. The
number of farmers’ markets has more than doubled in the last 10 years
or so, and it has escaped no one’s notice that the organic food market
is growing fast. These all represent products that are more expensive
but of higher quality.
If those trends continue, meat may become a treat rather than a
routine. It won’t be uncommon, but just as surely as the S.U.V. will
yield to the hybrid, the half-pound-a-day meat era will end.
Maybe that’s not such a big deal. “Who said people had to eat meat
three times a day?” asked Mr. Pollan.
Have a look at my art -
http://www.touchtalent.com//artist/118705/jahnu-das
https://www.youtube.com/user/jahnudvip?feature=watch
https://picasaweb.google.com/113672947796865733014/Jahnu
https://photos.google.com/u/1/?hl=en
Informative and enlightening. Thank you, Jahnu.
Rudy Canoza
2017-07-23 06:20:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ted
Post by Jahnu
LOL.
Rethinking the Meat-Guzzler
[load of "vegan" bullshit]
Informative and enlightening. Thank you, Jahnu.
Go back and read the fake Hindoo's posts from early 2000s in
alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian. He's a complete fraud and phony. Don't
be taken in. He's at least as bad as Jay Stevens, aka "Jai Maharej",
another pious-sounding but entirely *FAKE* Hindoo.

I've bollixed both of these fucktards for years, Ted. You know I
wouldn't fib to you about that. Don't take either one of them seriously.
Ted
2017-07-23 06:37:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Jahnu
LOL.
Rethinking the Meat-Guzzler
[load of "vegan" bullshit]
Informative and enlightening. Thank you, Jahnu.
Go back and read the fake Hindoo's posts from early 2000s in
alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian. He's a complete fraud and phony. Don't
be taken in. He's at least as bad as Jay Stevens, aka "Jai Maharej",
another pious-sounding but entirely *FAKE* Hindoo.
I've bollixed both of these fucktards for years, Ted. You know I
wouldn't fib to you about that. Don't take either one of them seriously.
Thanks for the information, Rudy. I'll definitely have a look. I hadn't
known you were already familiar with him.
Rudy Canoza
2017-07-23 07:07:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ted
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Jahnu
LOL.
Rethinking the Meat-Guzzler
[load of "vegan" bullshit]
Informative and enlightening. Thank you, Jahnu.
Go back and read the fake Hindoo's posts from early 2000s in
alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian. He's a complete fraud and phony. Don't
be taken in. He's at least as bad as Jay Stevens, aka "Jai Maharej",
another pious-sounding but entirely *FAKE* Hindoo.
I've bollixed both of these fucktards for years, Ted. You know I
wouldn't fib to you about that. Don't take either one of them seriously.
Thanks for the information, Rudy. I'll definitely have a look. I hadn't
known you were already familiar with him.
Both of them are 100% ethnically white Americans who have dishonestly
adopted Hindoo names and phony persona. They are as much Hindoo as
Jared Kushner is - that is, not at all.
Ted
2017-07-23 09:31:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Ted
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Jahnu
LOL.
Rethinking the Meat-Guzzler
[load of "vegan" bullshit]
Informative and enlightening. Thank you, Jahnu.
Go back and read the fake Hindoo's posts from early 2000s in
alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian. He's a complete fraud and phony. Don't
be taken in. He's at least as bad as Jay Stevens, aka "Jai Maharej",
another pious-sounding but entirely *FAKE* Hindoo.
I've bollixed both of these fucktards for years, Ted. You know I
wouldn't fib to you about that. Don't take either one of them seriously.
Thanks for the information, Rudy. I'll definitely have a look. I hadn't
known you were already familiar with him.
Both of them are 100% ethnically white Americans who have dishonestly
adopted Hindoo names and phony persona. They are as much Hindoo as Jared
Kushner is - that is, not at all.
That seems kinda silly. And unnecessary.
Jeanne Douglas
2017-07-23 09:51:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ted
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Ted
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Jahnu
LOL.
Rethinking the Meat-Guzzler
[load of "vegan" bullshit]
Informative and enlightening. Thank you, Jahnu.
Go back and read the fake Hindoo's posts from early 2000s in
alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian. He's a complete fraud and phony. Don't
be taken in. He's at least as bad as Jay Stevens, aka "Jai Maharej",
another pious-sounding but entirely *FAKE* Hindoo.
I've bollixed both of these fucktards for years, Ted. You know I
wouldn't fib to you about that. Don't take either one of them seriously.
Thanks for the information, Rudy. I'll definitely have a look. I hadn't
known you were already familiar with him.
Both of them are 100% ethnically white Americans who have dishonestly
adopted Hindoo names and phony persona. They are as much Hindoo as Jared
Kushner is - that is, not at all.
That seems kinda silly. And unnecessary.
Jesper (aka Jahnu) isn't American.
--
Posted by Mimo Usenet Browser v0.2.5
http://www.mimousenet.com/mimo/post
Ted
2017-07-23 10:23:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Ted
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Ted
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Jahnu
LOL.
Rethinking the Meat-Guzzler
[load of "vegan" bullshit]
Informative and enlightening. Thank you, Jahnu.
Go back and read the fake Hindoo's posts from early 2000s in
alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian. He's a complete fraud and phony. Don't
be taken in. He's at least as bad as Jay Stevens, aka "Jai Maharej",
another pious-sounding but entirely *FAKE* Hindoo.
I've bollixed both of these fucktards for years, Ted. You know I
wouldn't fib to you about that. Don't take either one of them seriously.
Thanks for the information, Rudy. I'll definitely have a look. I hadn't
known you were already familiar with him.
Both of them are 100% ethnically white Americans who have dishonestly
adopted Hindoo names and phony persona. They are as much Hindoo as Jared
Kushner is - that is, not at all.
That seems kinda silly. And unnecessary.
Jesper (aka Jahnu) isn't American.
From where does he hail?
Jeanne Douglas
2017-07-23 21:31:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ted
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Ted
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Ted
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Jahnu
LOL.
Rethinking the Meat-Guzzler
[load of "vegan" bullshit]
Informative and enlightening. Thank you, Jahnu.
Go back and read the fake Hindoo's posts from early 2000s in
alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian. He's a complete fraud and phony. Don't
be taken in. He's at least as bad as Jay Stevens, aka "Jai Maharej",
another pious-sounding but entirely *FAKE* Hindoo.
I've bollixed both of these fucktards for years, Ted. You know I
wouldn't fib to you about that. Don't take either one of them seriously.
Thanks for the information, Rudy. I'll definitely have a look. I hadn't
known you were already familiar with him.
Both of them are 100% ethnically white Americans who have dishonestly
adopted Hindoo names and phony persona. They are as much Hindoo as Jared
Kushner is - that is, not at all.
That seems kinda silly. And unnecessary.
Jesper (aka Jahnu) isn't American.
From where does he hail?
Denmark.
--
Posted by Mimo Usenet Browser v0.2.5
http://www.mimousenet.com/mimo/post
Ted
2017-07-23 23:37:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Ted
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Ted
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Ted
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Jahnu
LOL.
Rethinking the Meat-Guzzler
[load of "vegan" bullshit]
Informative and enlightening. Thank you, Jahnu.
Go back and read the fake Hindoo's posts from early 2000s in
alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian. He's a complete fraud and phony. Don't
be taken in. He's at least as bad as Jay Stevens, aka "Jai Maharej",
another pious-sounding but entirely *FAKE* Hindoo.
I've bollixed both of these fucktards for years, Ted. You know I
wouldn't fib to you about that. Don't take either one of them seriously.
Thanks for the information, Rudy. I'll definitely have a look. I hadn't
known you were already familiar with him.
Both of them are 100% ethnically white Americans who have dishonestly
adopted Hindoo names and phony persona. They are as much Hindoo as Jared
Kushner is - that is, not at all.
That seems kinda silly. And unnecessary.
Jesper (aka Jahnu) isn't American.
From where does he hail?
Denmark.
Denmark, India? <j/k>
Rupert
2017-07-24 06:21:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by Ted
Post by Jahnu
LOL.
Rethinking the Meat-Guzzler
[load of "vegan" bullshit]
Informative and enlightening. Thank you, Jahnu.
Go back and read the fake Hindoo's posts from early 2000s in
alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian. He's a complete fraud and phony.
Don't be taken in. He's at least as bad as Jay Stevens, aka "Jai
Maharej", another pious-sounding but entirely FAKE Hindoo.
I've bollixed both of these fucktards for years, Ted. You know I
wouldn't fib to you about that. Don't take either one of them
seriously.
You're not really being all that specific about which bits of the
factual information given are inaccurate...

Jahnu
2017-07-20 07:25:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ted
I was once fortunate enough to witness food being given to the gods at a
Hare Krishna temple. Can you elaborate, or point me to a reference, about
the gods' consumption of the food? TIA. :)
Obviously, God doesn't need anything from you. You show your love for
God, when you feed Him. You also free the food from karma when you
offer it to God first. By eatintg prasadam, food offered to Krishna in
a sacrifice, will furthermore purify your mind from material
contamination.

To eat you have to kill, even a plant, and causing harm to other
living entities brings you suffering in return.

The karmic reactions to killing a plant is obviously lighter than
killing a sentient being like a pig or a cow.

Krishna says:

If one offers Me with love and devotion a leaf, a flower, a fruit or
water, I will accept it. —Bg 9.26

Whatever you do, whatever you eat, whatever you offer or give away,
and whatever austerities you perform – do that, O son of Kunti, as an
offering to Me. —Bg 9.27
Have a look at my art -

http://www.touchtalent.com//artist/118705/jahnu-das

https://www.youtube.com/user/jahnudvip?feature=watch

https://picasaweb.google.com/113672947796865733014/Jahnu

https://photos.google.com/u/1/?hl=en
Pettersen,Roald
2017-07-20 10:55:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.religion.vaisnava
Followup-To: alt.religion.vaisnava
Subject: Question for Jahnu
Post by Jahnu
Post by Ted
I was once fortunate enough to witness food being given to the
gods at a Hare Krishna temple. Can you elaborate, or point me
to a reference, about the gods' consumption of the food? TIA. :)
Obviously, God doesn't need anything from you. You show your love
for God, when you feed Him. You also free the food from karma when
you offer it to God first. By eatintg prasadam, food offered to
Krishna in a sacrifice, will furthermore purify your mind from
material contamination.
To eat you have to kill, even a plant, and causing harm to other
living entities brings you suffering in return.
The karmic reactions to killing a plant is obviously lighter than
killing a sentient being like a pig or a cow.
Krishna says: If one offers Me with love and devotion a leaf,
a flower, a fruit or water, I will accept it. -Bg 9.26
Whatever you do, whatever you eat, whatever you offer or give away,
and whatever austerities you perform - do that, O son of Kunti,
as an offering to Me. -Bg 9.27
Obviously God accept everything offered with love to Him.
So what you still have you can not have offered to God with love.
You may find God if you look for what you have lost with love.
Jeanne Douglas
2017-07-20 13:27:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jahnu
Post by Ted
I was once fortunate enough to witness food being given to the gods at a
Hare Krishna temple. Can you elaborate, or point me to a reference, about
the gods' consumption of the food? TIA. :)
Obviously, God doesn't need anything from you. You show your love for
God, when you feed Him. You also free the food from karma when you
offer it to God first. By eatintg prasadam, food offered to Krishna in
a sacrifice, will furthermore purify your mind from material
contamination.
To eat you have to kill, even a plant, and causing harm to other
living entities brings you suffering in return.
The karmic reactions to killing a plant is obviously lighter than
killing a sentient being like a pig or a cow.
Why? That a disgustingly bigoted statement.
--
Posted by Mimo Usenet Browser v0.2.5
http://www.mimousenet.com/mimo/post
Ted
2017-07-22 16:17:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jahnu
Post by Ted
I was once fortunate enough to witness food being given to the gods at a
Hare Krishna temple. Can you elaborate, or point me to a reference, about
the gods' consumption of the food? TIA. :)
Obviously, God doesn't need anything from you. You show your love for
God, when you feed Him. You also free the food from karma when you
offer it to God first. By eatintg prasadam, food offered to Krishna in
a sacrifice, will furthermore purify your mind from material
contamination.
To eat you have to kill, even a plant, and causing harm to other
living entities brings you suffering in return.
The karmic reactions to killing a plant is obviously lighter than
killing a sentient being like a pig or a cow.
If one offers Me with love and devotion a leaf, a flower, a fruit or
water, I will accept it. —Bg 9.26
Whatever you do, whatever you eat, whatever you offer or give away,
and whatever austerities you perform – do that, O son of Kunti, as an
offering to Me. —Bg 9.27
Have a look at my art -
http://www.touchtalent.com//artist/118705/jahnu-das
https://www.youtube.com/user/jahnudvip?feature=watch
https://picasaweb.google.com/113672947796865733014/Jahnu
https://photos.google.com/u/1/?hl=en
Thank you, Jahnu. I hadn't realized that a human eats the food afterward.
But (and I'm honestly not being sarcastic because I want to know) what is
the theory about how the gods eat the food?
Jahnu
2017-07-24 05:36:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ted
Thank you, Jahnu. I hadn't realized that a human eats the food afterward.
But (and I'm honestly not being sarcastic because I want to know) what is
the theory about how the gods eat the food?
In theory God eats the food offered to Him in love. Fortunately, the
food is still there, so you can eat the remnants of the food God just
ate. That food has now become karma-free, it's called prasadam.

How God eats the food and it is still there on the plate, I'm not
sure. It is said that Krishna can perform any sensory function with
any of His senses. He can eat with His eyes, touch with His eyes, hear
with Hs eyes etc.

So I guess, He eats the food by looking at it.

Visit any Hare Krishna center and taste the prasadam there, it will
be a blessing on your tatste buds.

Krishna says:

If one offers Me with love and devotion a leaf, a flower, a fruit or
water, I will accept it. —Bg 9.26

Whatever you do, whatever you eat, whatever you offer or give away,
and whatever austerities you perform – do that, O son of Kunti, as an
offering to Me. —Bg 9.27


Have a look at my art -

http://www.touchtalent.com//artist/118705/jahnu-das

https://www.youtube.com/user/jahnudvip?feature=watch

https://picasaweb.google.com/113672947796865733014/Jahnu

https://photos.google.com/u/1/?hl=en
Loading...