Q: …It is fair to think that Jesus and his Apostles were vegetarians?
A: 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 of animals to conscience. The Bible is for me an historical document and I am not a follower at any rate; it recognizes animals as vital spirits just as much as human beings.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; except two of them, the others were not Disciples).
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.
Especially because Jesus was a Rabbi.
Q: …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!”
A: Dear Friend, I think you misunderstood the sense of my words. 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 ‘hypothesized'. 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 will not reach the person who feeds on it, making it suitable (Kosher). This happens through a ritual procedure; the ‘only responsible' person 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 of Theosophy.
A Buddhist saying goes: ‘ If spirituality could be achieved only eating vegetables, the elephant and the cow would have achieved it a long time ago!'
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 global 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 
