The body really does know what it needs, but we tend to cover that with our compulsions and neurotic behavior (or you might say, our need to comfort ourselves through food, for whatever reason).

What I meant was, removing meat or anything else from one’s diet is not a prerequisite for liberation (if that is the right word). Just because one is a vegetarian, or whatever they may be, does not mean anything, in the sense we are speaking.

There may be other benefits, of course, but we are not really talking about that. There are real effects that food has on the body, and we are not denying that here. But one should not change their diet just because they seek liberation.

The seeker has problems greater than food selection.

These stories are too deeply ingrained that we may never know for sure what may have been the case. It has no real significance anyway, but it is interesting that some people actually fight over this very thing.

The way the man looked has become important to their belief in him. It is odd.

It is very curious to consider how deeply the story goes. And how little it makes sense.

But if we see the second is a quality whereas the first is the essence, we can step closer to what is.

That may be a necessary part of it all, but I cannot say for sure. Some may see it, then stop, believing that is all that is needed. My only concern is to find out if anything is beyond all of that.

The carrier, the actual thought, is movement within consciousness. That is us. But we miss this point in display.

A why also implies a who, does it not? It is an order of sorts, issued from the center, or point of reference. “Why am I doing this,” or “Why does this happen to me,” and so on.

Perhaps, instead of looking for the answer, look for the “who” trying to find the answer.