Lily Rose
Beloved Grand Eagle
Page 275, Steve quotes a Buddhist Monk: Thich Nhat Hanh -- His premise is that we ingest anger every day. We eat anger because that which we eat must be killed.
Living in the country for a great deal of my life, I have made long eye contact with various animals. I cannot conceive of the light within these warm, curious eyes being extinguished, so that they can be served up on my plate. Animals have a social structure. They have curiosity. They live in the present.
I had not considered, however, that the consumption might be considered a form of anger.
It is easy to make the purchase of meat neatly wrapped and displayed in stores. It isn't real. Just another product, like picking out prime produce, seeking the unblemished lettuce, unbruised apples.
What happens, though, when the process is considered? Is this likened to the unveiling of TMS/MBS itself? Awareness, acknowledgement? The media and big businesses tell us that meat is essential, that we will sicken without it. How parallel is this to the media and big businesses telling us that our illness is physical?
We are conditioned.
And this topic ... it carries a large factor of deniability.
Like TMS.
We need our pain to have a tangible, medical reason.
We need the flesh of animals to complete our diet.
Do we really?
For what reason did Steve include this in his book? To provoke thought? To invite this parallel concept? To open the door to the question itself?
What we do to ourselves, consciously and unconsciously, this matters.
In various aspects of this book, there are a multitude of examples in deniability, of excuses. I especially noticed the one that carried the repetitive statement: But I'm not angry, Steve ...
Denial. Unwillingness to delve too deeply. Reasons fed to us by those with strong motivations (money-induced). And just plain cravings.
Is this wrong?
I do not believe that things can summed up that neatly. Life is not about right and wrong ... rather, it is about the consequences of our actions, acknowledged or not.
If defensiveness is the first response ... this would beg examination.
I would like to offer my thanks and admiration to Steve for his very insightful and thought-provoking book.
with grace and gratitude,
^_^
Living in the country for a great deal of my life, I have made long eye contact with various animals. I cannot conceive of the light within these warm, curious eyes being extinguished, so that they can be served up on my plate. Animals have a social structure. They have curiosity. They live in the present.
I had not considered, however, that the consumption might be considered a form of anger.
It is easy to make the purchase of meat neatly wrapped and displayed in stores. It isn't real. Just another product, like picking out prime produce, seeking the unblemished lettuce, unbruised apples.
What happens, though, when the process is considered? Is this likened to the unveiling of TMS/MBS itself? Awareness, acknowledgement? The media and big businesses tell us that meat is essential, that we will sicken without it. How parallel is this to the media and big businesses telling us that our illness is physical?
We are conditioned.
And this topic ... it carries a large factor of deniability.
Like TMS.
We need our pain to have a tangible, medical reason.
We need the flesh of animals to complete our diet.
Do we really?
For what reason did Steve include this in his book? To provoke thought? To invite this parallel concept? To open the door to the question itself?
What we do to ourselves, consciously and unconsciously, this matters.
In various aspects of this book, there are a multitude of examples in deniability, of excuses. I especially noticed the one that carried the repetitive statement: But I'm not angry, Steve ...
Denial. Unwillingness to delve too deeply. Reasons fed to us by those with strong motivations (money-induced). And just plain cravings.
Is this wrong?
I do not believe that things can summed up that neatly. Life is not about right and wrong ... rather, it is about the consequences of our actions, acknowledged or not.
If defensiveness is the first response ... this would beg examination.
I would like to offer my thanks and admiration to Steve for his very insightful and thought-provoking book.
with grace and gratitude,
^_^