I could never understand why so little importance is placed on diet in relation to metaphysical studies. You very rarely hear a master talk about the correlation between food and study. I have found that the proper foods and diet along with other lifestyle changes makes all the difference in gaining insight and understanding in Chinese and other metaphysical studies. I am on the 24th day of a 100% raw organic vegetarian vegan diet and I can tell you it is not much fun. No meat, cheese, milk, butter, eggs, sugar, chemical additives, etc. It is basically vegetables, fruits, and nuts. My girlfriend and I try to do a couple 100% raw diets a year and it is a lot more difficult than it sounds. It is almost easier to fast than to go raw. Overall, your physical energy diminishes to a great degree and I can't understand how the raw vegans boast of all the energy they receive from the diet. I don't believe it is a good diet for a long term period, but I am almost certain it has it's benefits for the shorter durations of say up to a few years.
The one certainty is the mental clarity that one receives from eating all raw foods. Your imagination begins to 'kick in' and your creative process begins to pour out. I believe it is a good diet for spiritual progress, but you have to be careful because you can lose a lot of weight if you carry the diet too far. If you are not concerned about losing weight, then I say you will have a lot of fun with the raw diet.
Since ancient times it has been noted how important a diet is in spiritual cultivation. Today's masters don't seem to agree with the ancients as most are stuffing their bellies with pizzas, hamburgers, french fries, ice cream, soda , and a host of other extremely dangerous foods that are poisonous to the body, mind, and spirit. When students attend a seminar, be it Feng Shui, Four Pillars, I Ching, or whatever, they are rarely if ever told about these dietary guidelines. They are being charged hundreds and many times thousands of dollars and they are not even being informed of this important issue. I suppose that one of the reasons is because many modern masters are quite round around the belly and for them to speak of the importance of diet would make them look hypocritical. One Chinese master once told me, and I quote, "If anyone claims to be a master, look at their belly and you'll know if he's lying or not". Anyways, if you're having trouble gaining insight or penetrating certain ideas, try thinking of diet. Short periods of fasting is probably best, grain-less raw foods next, and cooked vegetarian a long way third. If done properly, Fasting or Raw will very likely allow you to conquer many complicated situations and allow you to gain a deeper understanding of metaphysics.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
Dear Andy,
our ancestors. the cavemen, lived so much healthier than we do, it's a shame.
I dream of the day you retreat to a cave far away from internet access. The world will be so much better.
Wishing you all the best,
Robert
Dear Andy,
We all are energy and everything around us is energy at a different "vibrational" frequency, food included. Based on the ancient science of Ayurveda, there are three basic properties - satva, raja and tamas - that may be roughly translated as tranquil, energetic and inert. These properties are also discernible in ingredients of food.
For century, yoga has focused on the development of an eating philosophy based on a wholesome diet.The traditional holistic yogic diet is completely vegetarian (not completely raw thou).
Sattvic means "pure essence". A sattvic diet not only nourish the body but will calm and purifies the mind to maintain a peaceful state. This type of food generates vitality, vigor, energy and mental alertness, increases strength, eliminates fatique, and enhance spirituality, peace, and tranquility.
Rajasic food signifies a "can-do" attitude, but it creates imbalances, overstimulating the body. It is believe to generate anxiety, anger, violence, greed, sorrow, pain, lust, egotism, and stress.
Tamasic food(a diet mostly based on meat, fast food, soda, etc) benefits neither the mind nor the body. The body resistance is destroyed, and the mind is filled with pessimism and all negative emotions.
I don't want to take too much of your time or space, but I felt like pointing out few things. There are many great sources to study more about diet. The raw diet on a long term becomes rajasic :-) That's why you feel tired. But, by all means, you know how to find me if you want more information.
And, of course....as usual, I enjoyed your post very much.
Best wishes
Michelle
Hello Robert -
How do you know that the cavemen lived "so much healthier than we do"? From what I hear, their average life-span was about 19 years. That doesn't sound healthy to me.
In a way I have retreated in a cave for most of my life, so your dream has partially come true, but the world doesn't seem to be getting any better. If I could make the world a better place by leaving the internet, I would do it. It is no secret that you are not fond of me for telling the truth about some of the things that are happening in Chinese metaphysics. By the way, you may want to comsider distancing yourself from the fork and spoon and you may want to pass that advice to your "master" also.
Andy
Hi Michelle -
Thank you for your lengthy reply. Very informative ! I have long been fascinated with food and I read your comments several times. Thanks for sharing your opinions and I wish you the very best.
Andy
Andy,
Enjoyed your post. I've been raw for 2 years. You are right in sauing the diet can be challenging. I don't agree with robertschmitzberlin's comments about your views. I find your writing is extremely honest and strait to the point.
Regards
rgl
Hello RGL -
Thank you for your visit and comment. Two years on a raw diet is a long time. You must have a strong constitution and will power.
I don't get upset over what Robert has to say because it is not of much value or substance. Robert has been upset with me for the past couple of years because I have exposed his "master" in a few fraud schemes. If Robert or his master would like to discuss these issues in public I will be quite compliant. I have offered several times before but have never recieved a response. So I ask, who are the ones retreating in a cave far away ??? If they ever want to talk about anything I am right here. I'm not interested in running or hiding...only in Tellin' It Like It Is.
Very Best Wishes
Andy
Andy,
as usual joe yu only posts charts that fit, like steve irwins, but you wont see him posting charts on his site that dont like the one below og herman goering. Such a nice person with gracious output and Proper power. He certainly had a conscience Joseph?!!
bing ji gui ren
yin you chou chen
joe yu also started telling people not to expect astrology to tell you that you are this and that and that this will happen, after his failed perdictions. Since joe says he makes no claims, what actually means is he can say what he likes to make a chart fit. Get the point?
This is as old a trick as it can get
Dear Anonymous -
Thank you for your comments. I believe this is important and valuable information that people should know about so as to be better equipped and avoid getting ripped-off.
Best Wishes
Andy
Robert
Andy is not IDUNNO, I am
Paulo
Andy
Joseph or his wife mistakenly let one of my posts in on his blog under the name Idunno, i guess thats why Robert came here in defence of his master. He probably thinks it was you.
Heil Yu Robert
Hello Paulo -
Thanks for letting me know about this. Robert should make sure he has his facts straight before running his mouth. He has made some other comments about me in the past that were completely off. The guy has a tendency to jump to conclusions rather quickly.
His master status is not indicative of his true worth or even his potential.
Andy
this was the comment:
Limitations of Science
Astrologers often point to what they see as the limitations of science that stop it detecting astrological effects. They claim that science is impersonal or unspiritual or insensitive to deeper truths. Or they claim that astrology involves subtle factors not yet known to science. But science requires only that events be observable in some way. And if astrologers can observe the claimed effects, so can scientists.
So the limitations are straightforward -- if no possible observation could rule out a particular claim, the claim is untestable and science is irrelevant. As is the claim in the first place -- if nothing can show it is wrong, then by the same token nothing can show it is right.
Science of course is subject to greed, jealousy and politics like any other human activity. But the over-riding insistence that issues be decided by careful testing means that scientific knowledge is ultimately self-correcting. It may take years or decades, but ultimately errors in science do not survive. How does astrology compare?
Astrology
Campion considers four ways of defining astrology, namely as (1) a science that seeks empirical answers to questions, (2) a neo science that seeks empirical validation of its ideas, (3) a pseudo science that does false science, and (4) a humanity that interprets data. Note how these four are not the same as the previous three (astrology = its results, its tools, or what astrologers do).
Campion himself prefers (4). And its merits are obvious -- by confining itself to interpretation, astrology is elevated above any criticism based on grubby empiricism. (I come back to this point later). But rather than trying to define science and astrology in absolute terms, it seems better to consider what distinguishes one from the other.
Two possibilities
One possibility is consistency -- science demands it but astrology does not. Thus science would not tolerate tropical and sidereal zodiacs having the same meaning, but astrology sidesteps the issue by assuming each operates at a different level. This sort of thing happens all the time. Astrology (but not science) proceeds via assumptions. So anything goes. In fact in their 1979 critique of astrology, the astronomers Culver and Ianna were so struck by the typical astrologer's confident use of glaring inconsistencies that they labelled astrology the "Gemini Syndrome" after Gemini's supposed propensity for being two-faced.
Another possibility is level -- science is material stuff, astrology is soul stuff. This means that souls are a necessary component of astrology, and that astrology is essentially a religion. Such ideas would certainly distinguish astrology from science, but many (if not most) astrologers including Campion would disagree that astrology is essentially a religion. Areas of dispute can hardly form the basis for reliable distinction.
Main distinction
In fact the main distinction between science and astrology is their attitude towards the testing of claims. Science tests but astrology essentially does not, and scientific tests are typically deemed inadequate or the results are ignored. Science (but not astrology) insists that knowledge be based on observation. In astrology (but not in science) anything goes, generally with tradition as the default option if difficulties arise (as below). No astrologer ever prejudiced an idea by insisting on proper tests. The comment made in 1950 by ace researcher Donald Bradley still applies: "all improvements are welcome so long as the complacent surface of tradition is not disturbed."
Note that this difference is strictly one of attitude towards testing. So we cannot say that astrology is scientific because it uses a science-based ephemeris, any more than a book is scientific because it uses a science-based printing technology. Nor can we say that astrology is a science because both use symbols, albeit in different ways, namely qualitatively (JU = expansiveness) vs quantitatively (r = correlation coefficient). What we can say is that astrology's attitude towards testing means it has no resources by which error could be detected.
So science = testing and observation, astrology = anything goes, and there is no real overlap. For convenience let me now define art as any directed activity not a science, for example the activity of drawing and painting. (Do not confuse this with other definitions of art such as art = art objects eg paintings, or art = the expression of feeling, or art = a special skill eg the art of conversation; nor with craft, the skilled making of objects eg jewellery; the whole point of my choosing this definition is that it excludes science.) We can now say that astrology is entirely an art as defined above, and entirely not a science. Which is consistent with Campion's preferred definition of astrology as a humanity (an art that humanises).
Implications of an art form
If astrology is entirely an art as defined above, and entirely not a science, then the scientific approach must by definition be rejected. Of course many astrologers already do this. But they do not observe the consequences, which means not making testable statements and not making claims like "Jupiter indicates expansiveness."
Note the problem: Without a sound scientific basis, which astrology is now by definition incapable of having, nobody can legitimately claim that Jupiter indicates anything. All that could be said is something like "the ancient Greeks thought that Jupiter indicates expansiveness, but nobody knows if this is actually true." Anything else would turn astrology into a pseudoscience -- an art form falsely posing as a science, as when the testing of testable claims is rejected or ignored.
Post a Comment