I have followed with pleasure the considerations in this e-mail, especially because the narration lacked any imperative, extremist and absolutistic interpretation.

I understand the theories of vegetarianism, as I understand that they crash against the cultural dictates of ancient uses. But what I see is its correlation to other subjects which converge towards the same principle: human respect.

Respect towards oneself, others, nature and the planet is a mainstay of civilization. It is a gift of the intellect and not of the emotions, like piety, pity and condescension.

Respect and the consequent consideration for the other’s dignity reflect the spirit of civilization, which originates from the value of the being and not from the technological, strategic and economical availabilities.

Nourishment is a need connected to the exploitation of natural resources. And the word “to exploit” express itself an idea that sounds, although necessary, not very positive. Especially when the need to feed in order to survive stops and becomes pleasure of gluttony and taste for food.

Nourishment, therefore, is one of the many ways of undertaking social relationships (love and war included). These relationships are with and through oneself, and to and through others.

But others are not only us, humans, with our resources of vitality, wealth, strength and feelings, them vexed and exploited beyond the limits as well.

There is another view of the idea of “others” originated from a bigger sensitivity, which perceives a global view of the ecosystem. It is an idea that considers the vital rights of every “expression (of the same) of life”. It doesn’t exclude, opportunistically, the dignity of one or another form.

The principle of respect, in the highest meaning, acknowledges the dignity of existence to any form of life, sanctioning their right to live fully the existence from which its natural evolution depends.
Once we get to the intellectual perception of this principle, it is difficult to distinguish between the dignities of the different fragments of life in the same ecosystem.

That is because the degrees of dignity which make the “list for merit” between the different “appearances” is purely conventional; through these appearances (without involving God) the naturing Nature and the natured Nature are expressed.

Therefore, as we’ve already said, we’ve got only to square things up with ourselves, with the esthetical view of one’s own moral (what is good, what is right: according to me?).

If it’s put in an ethical perspective and not in a faith-like one, nourishment becomes a psychological and philosophical aspect of first rank. We can’t but wish that it ended in order to be more in the minds than in the stomachs of common people. Furthermore, it is still to be seen the reaction of the local esotericist, always in balance between the showiness of exterior habits and the fine theories of the initiatory teaching.

Fraternally
Esonet’s Editorial Staff