robdl

Member
  • Content count

    604
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About robdl

  • Rank
    - - -

Personal Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

4,133 profile views
  1. looking at the fact with the eyes of the past, which is the choosing/chooser --- liking-disliking. And the liking-disliking is the perpetuation/nourishment of the past.
  2. Perhaps it's better not to ask for a way, but for rather, for you to describe-explain what is meant by "seeing of the fact" or "staying with the fact."
  3. We can describe actions born out of belief that the ego may wish to take. But does realized non-duality, as mentioned in the thread title, take action in accordance with beliefs? Or is it action born out of wholeness or infinite karma that @Faceless speaks to?
  4. We think that there’s an “I” that stands apart from experience and knowledge and opinion. An “I” that has desires and experiences in life and gains knowledge and forms opinions out of that, for instance on meat-eating, that the “I” then holds. When in reality — accumulated thought experience-knowledge-desire itself just seeks experiences, beliefs, opinions, and information that reinforce-validate-sustain that very same accumulated movement.
  5. Indeed. An ego is perfectly capable of being a righteous vegan, righteous Christian, etc., focusing on the suffering of animals or sins of others, while also at the same time bullying their own spouse or child — conveniently forgetting about that. The selectivity-bias of ego. It picks and chooses, in accordance with its own purposes.
  6. We can think our opinions are formed from facts and safe assumptions, when in reality the opinion-bias is finding the facts/assumptions to suit its own purpose. This has been prevalent in this thread on either side of the opinion. There must be awareness to this movement in thinking as well.
  7. Are restaurants going to change beef and pork back to cow and pig on the menu? Probably not. But that is a separate argument from saying that these words came to use out of a desire to avoid empathizing, which your original claim was -- which is not true. I was simply providing the correct information. Sometimes it's just complicated etymology in language --- not a pro-meat agenda.
  8. Cross-pollination between languages (i.e. french into english, or vice-versa) has created an assortment of inconsistencies and quirks in the particular language --- in how words are used, in spelling styles, grammar, etc. Notice how we call it lamb or goat or chicken when referring to their meats? Because those english terms presumably didn't go through the same foreign language morphing process.
  9. We don't use the terms pork/beef to avoid empathizing. here's actually why: The French referred to cow as boeuf, which then got morphed to today's beef. The French words stuck and that is how we got the word beef and not cow, which makes sense, seeing as how French words tend to litter the English language. The French left their mark on other meats as well. Pig was referred to as porc, later becoming pork. Though I would say that most people refer to chicken and turkey as chicken or turkey respectively, the term poultry came from the French referencing females hens as poulet. https://spoonuniversity.com/lifestyle/why-is-it-called-beef-when-it-s-from-cows
  10. Thought will claim even being present in the moment, indeed. Thought's happy to use non-dual concepts to its end.
  11. "I don't want to get physically intimate with some human body that is sweating, excrementing, flaking, digesting, bleeding, and farting noxious gases." See how this language game works? How thought rationalizes-defends its choices through bias-selectivity? Does this rationalization, in the long run, demonstrate we've overcome lust, or that we've merely suppressed/denied it? Same thing goes with meat and any which unflattering way we've chosen to describe it.
  12. maybe the "savior complex" was that ego-identity you were looking to feed.
  13. We can make a piece of meat sound as disgusting as we want to fit a narrative. We can also make a piece of meat sound as delightful as we want as well to fit a narrative. The mouth-watering, juicy, fall-off-the-bone tender, piece of meat. We can do the same thing with the human body sexually, describing its grotesqueness --- the smells, the orifice excrement, the fluids, the pus-filled pimples, the dirt-filled pores, the bad breath, the sweat, the period/bleeding, the dead, flaky skin and the loose fat. We can say this to fit a narrative of celibacy. And we can also describe it in terms of its allure and beauty. The ickyness of the body doesn't change the fact we still physically lust after that same human body and will continue to do so. Same goes for the "ickyness" of meat and our desire to eat it.
  14. hehe nice. Was it that you became aware that you were making an ego-identity out of it and projecting onto others, looking to reinforce-validate your choice/identity?
  15. These can be unsettling, uprooting questions. And we want security/identity in ideals, beliefs, conclusions; certainty; the black and white.