PSYCHIC PHILOSOPHER: Why all this fuss about vegetarianism and what we eat? With the best intention, no doubt, you regard the matter from too low a plane. Has not the greatest of teachers himself told us that "Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man"? VEGETARIAN: You know well the text has not the meaning you put on it. It could as logically be made to excuse any swinishness whatsoever. Flesh-eating is not a mere ceremonial question of eating "with unwashed hands," as that referred to in the text, but one that involves the gravest issues of right-doing and wrong-doing. PSYCHIC PHILOSOPHER: But to the pure all things are pure. VEGETARIAN: Possibly—if we know who _are_ the pure. But the mere eating of impurities is scarcely proof sufficient. PSYCHIC PHILOSOPHER: I cannot take your view of the importance of this question. To me, as to the Indian yogis, the choice of food is a matter of indifference. VEGETARIAN: I doubt if your butcher's bill would bear out that assertion. If food is one of the "indifferent" things, why do you hold fast to your flesh meat, like a snarling dog to his bone? Our psychic philosopher, in truth, is a wolf in sheep's clothing—a carnalist in psychical disguise.[33] Footnote 33: It is a curious fact that the Greek word _psychic_ had the double sense of _spiritual_ and _carnal_. See Tertullian's treatise, "Against the Carnal-Minded" (Psychicos). It will be objected, no doubt, that the injurious effect of flesh food on morals has never been scientifically proved,[34] nor indeed is it possible that absolute proof should be forthcoming until vegetarianism is widely enough practised to furnish data for comparison; there are, however, certain very marked indications that can hardly be overlooked. In the first place, as already stated, there is the immemorial belief, especially prominent in the usage of monastic orders, but scarcely less so in all systems of hygienic or spiritual exercise—amounting, in short, to a practical consensus of mankind—that a stimulating or excessive diet is harmful to sobriety and self-control; as evidenced by the far greater amount of crime rife among luxurious town-dwellers than among frugal peasants. Secondly, there is the fact, too well attested to be challenged, that flesh-eating and alcoholism are closely allied, and that the drink-crave dies a natural death when a stimulating diet is withdrawn; from which it may be further realised that the excitation caused by flesh food must necessarily, in many cases, act injuriously on the nerve-system and contribute powerfully to the vicious habits which moralists deplore. Footnote 34: