 |
| :: Search :: |
 | |
| :: Contacts :: |
If you have questions about anything on this site, please feel free to ask!
|
 |
| | |
|
|
Teosophy: M. Jesus, the initiatory morale and vegetarianism
Topic:Question & Answer
|
Q: …It is fair to think that Jesus and his Apostles were vegetarians.
I really appreciate any kind of campaign that acknowledges ‘conscience to
life’. In order to achieve the goal, though, we can’t distort reality,
otherwise we get to the level of those who ‘lie’ in order to defend
their principles, even religious ones.
As an individual I agree in acknowledging the right to the conscience to animals.
The Bible is for me an historical document and I am not a follower at any rate;
it recognizes animals as vital spirits just as much as human beings.
In the Genesis we read: “this is the Pact between Me (God) and all the living
creatures (nephesh)”.
Therefore all animals are ‘nephesh’, living spirits although at a
lower level than man in the evolutionary scale; even man, though, has still more
animalistic elements than the spirit.
In the respect of historical reality, though, I consider unsuitable any false
statement, even when it is done with good intentions. It is false to extend the
principles of vegetarianism to M. Jesus and His Disciples (which are always mixed
up with his Apostles; apart from two of them, the others were not Disciples as
well).
Even if we don’t consider his statement: “Eat, this is my
body” there is still to consider the fact that during the last
supper they followed the rules of the traditional meal of the Hebrew Easter and
they had ‘wine, unleavened bread and lamb’.
The habit of ‘eating lamb’s meat’ is a very strong ‘religious
use’ in the Hebrew culture (it is the heritage of animal sacrifices that
replaced human sacrifices, see the story of Abraham). This use is followed in
Catholic and Islamic cultures, which are two minor derivates of the Hebrew culture.
Jesus was Jewish; he was pragmatic and he followed, by his own admission, the
rules of the Law (Thorah), from the circumcision – which was Peter’s
obsession – to the Ritual honors and the holy places of Hebrew religion.
He respected the Synedrium and he defended the Temple of Salomon from the merchants
(money-changers). Therefore Jesus wasn’t a revolutionary, as many people
say. He only stated the priority of Love and Comprehension (Tolerance and Forgiveness)
on the cold rigor of orthodoxy. He stated the prevalence of the heart on the ‘religious
costumes’: “…when you pray your Father, don’t flaunt yourselves
in your best clothes, but go down in the most secret room (the Heart); there you
will find your Father…”
Therefore in respect of his truth, it is fair to say that He always respected
the rules of His Law: the Thorah. He never questioned it. In order to avoid ambiguities,
then, before venturing in hypothesis, it is better to know and to check the position
of the rabbinic culture on the subject of vegetarianism.
…Dear Athos,
…the Essen Master Jesus… from all this we gather that He was a vegetarian…
I am positive about this, I am not trying to persuade anyone!”
Dear Friend, I think you’ve misunderstood the sense of my work. I wasn’t
starting a crusade (I’ll leave this to others) in favor of or against vegetarianism;
it doesn’t actually interest me much, because it doesn’t belong to
Agni Yoga or Raja, which I consider more relevant than other expressions such
as Hatha or Bhakti, which this Mail List is full of. My writing was based on the
analysis of historical data and not on the moral order. I can agree on the latter,
but it is not a data; it is only a convention that varies from a culture to another.
For this reason I know very well the moral ideas linked to vegetarianism. Even
if vegetarianism is appreciable, it can’t be considered an historical principle
because it is an indemonstrable hypothesis.
Unfortunately for many 'callers’ of esotericism facts and history count
less than their convictions. We know that everybody is free to believe in anything
they like; for people with ears to hear and eyes to see, though, facts determine
‘weighs and measures’.
Therefore, unless we want to picture M. Jesus as we ‘would like him to be’,
(Catholics have done this quite a lot) we can’t turn him into the ‘measure
in which’ we would like to see him according to our considerations. In this
way we would turn him into one of the many Totems of human idolatry.
Jesus is what he is, not what we want him to be. M. Jesus wasn’t a Brahmin
or a Catholic but, leaving aside any supposition, he was an ‘orthodox Jewish’.
So much that he said: “I don’t come to destroy (the Thorah) but to
add to it!”
On the subject of food, the Jewish sacerdotal tradition is inflexible. Jewish
religious orthodoxy, that is all those who refer to the God called Jehovah (like
Jesus), to the Thorah (his laws) and the Talmud (the laws of man) doesn’t
accept the assumptions that some readers have ‘hypothized’. These
ideas belong rather to the hindu tradition.
Jewish orthodoxy (see the principles of alimentation) and therefore Essen and
therapeutic orthodoxy, shows the blood as the only vehicle of the ego, the animal
ego as well. Not its flesh. In the rules of their Law (see the Bible) it is said
quite clearly what can be eaten and what is prohibited; there are plenty of details
on ‘how’ to prepare the food allowed, included meat. In other words,
it is described in which ‘conditions’ the ‘negative vibrations’
of the animal death (called: Kosher) will not reach the person who feeds on it.
This happens through a ritual procedure whose ‘only responsible’ is
a Member of the Community (ritually) designed by the Chief Rabbi.
A similar attitude is taken by Islamic people and, in old times, by Christians.
This thesis is debatable just like any other opinion. From a researcher, such
as I consider myself, it can be accepted as ‘verisimilar’ not as absolute
truth. This idea (the blood as the only vehicle for the ego) is confirmed in the
rosicrucianism of Max Heindel and the bishop Leadbeater.
On the other hand M. Morya wrote in one of his works: if being a vegetarian was
an essential requisite to the Initiation, all the cows would be Initiates.
It is obviously a paradox, but it contains a truth. Often the aspirant stops and
looks at his finger pointing to the sky (good propositions) and he forgets to
see the moon (the total Idea.) In the specific case, often we stop and discuss
about hypothesis, on the ‘sex of angels’ rather than working in order
to raise ourselves from a condition of ‘human, too human’.
Fraternally
Jesus’ vegetarianism (??)
It is certainly possible that a strict vegetarian regime helps to purify body
and soul…but I don’t think it’s possible that it can –
by itself – ‘raise’ a soul that is not already elevated..
Dear Francesca, what you say is correct. Jesus took the bread and the fish he
had multiplied and he offered them to the thousands of guests… they ate
them until they were full.
But why, we might ask, Jesus multiplied fish and not corn cobs?
Maybe because he didn’t think that vegetarianism was a fundamental condition
to his service, which wasn’t an healthy program or an alimentary principle.
I repeat my non-aversion towards the moral aspect that accompanies vegetarianism;
I don’t think it is a priority, though. I would like to add that, because
of the activity of service I carry out, here and elsewhere, I don’t like
positions which are too personal or extremist, full of: it seems to me, I believe,
I think, I say. In the field of research they are only ‘stopping positions’.
Therefore, although it is difficult, we should avoid any hypothetic radicalism,
that is for itself a paradox. And then, for goodness’ sake, making hypothesis
on characters of the highness of Jesus and mystifying his Work!
Furthermore, I think that the evolution of a subject must stop when it goes beyond
the realistic contest and enters the imagination field. We should oppose all that
goes beyond collective imagination. In the best of cases, in fact, they are only
‘dreams’ (oneiric culture) or pure illusion (Maya).
A researcher doesn’t look for ‘details’ that help ‘his
own’ convictions; it is not necessary to become a researcher, though. In
order to confirm an idea, he refers to the sense of the idea itself, that is facts,
not hypothesis: if this gives me that, then…
Therefore I think that ‘extremist radicalism’ hidden as a hypocritical
goody-goody attitude, used so much by devotional friends, can only excite their
simple souls. It is always effective to hear ideas illuminated by a lot of passion
but not a lot of intellect; they don’t persuade, though. When judgments
are cut using the wire of passion they become prejudices. The most suitable attitude
in front of the latter is to avoid the debate. The aim is not to abandon the scene,
but to use a ‘nicer veil’ to hide a discussion that is turning into
sterile controversy. I am keen on freedom of ‘opinion’ but I hate
the habit of dragging ‘saints’ into it.
Fraternally
Esonet’s Editorial Staff
Further studies:
• On the use of the word ‘Nephesh’ in the Old Testament, see
also
http://www.therain.org/appendixes/app13.html
|
|
 Printer Friendly Page  Send to a Friend
|
| |
| |
