(08-24-2015, 06:23 PM)Aion Wrote: I do feel a little guilty though, not in regards to food, but because the comments that have been made, from Monica, Diana and TTP

(08-24-2015, 06:23 PM)Aion Wrote: That may be frustrating for you that your efforts had the opposite effect

(08-24-2015, 06:23 PM)Aion Wrote: that was before when I would only try to do things in service to others and avoid service to myself at all costs. I've realized now that I am negatively polarizing towards myself because service to others excluding yourself is NOT service to ALL.

(08-24-2015, 06:23 PM)Aion Wrote: I am learning I have to both accept the results of self-service and service to others for service to be polarizing for me.

(08-24-2015, 06:38 PM)Elros Tar-Minyatur Wrote: If we want to speak of indirectly causing sufferings, then no one would be free of the guilt when existing within any society like ours.

(08-24-2015, 07:01 PM)Monica Wrote:

(08-24-2015, 06:23 PM)Aion Wrote: I do feel a little guilty though, not in regards to food, but because the comments that have been made, from Monica, Diana and TTP

Our comments didn't make you feel guilty. A feeling of guilt comes from within. If one is clear and comfortable with their choices, then they will never feel guilty because of something someone else said, no matter what.

I actually did an experiment on this here at B4. I started a thread saying that eating tomatoes was STS.

People just laughed. No one took it seriously. No one got their panties in a bundle because I 'made them feel guilty' for eating tomatoes! In fact, I couldn't make them feel guilty, no matter how hard I tried!

Why? Because the idea is absurd.

Yet when discussing meat, people often feel offended, and accuse us of making them feel guilty.

Why? Because the idea isn't absurd. It is sound. That guilt is coming from within, and it's there for a reason.

We can't make anyone feel guilty.

(08-24-2015, 06:23 PM)Aion Wrote: That may be frustrating for you that your efforts had the opposite effect

We aren't attached to results. We're just doing what we feel called to do.

(08-24-2015, 06:23 PM)Aion Wrote: that was before when I would only try to do things in service to others and avoid service to myself at all costs. I've realized now that I am negatively polarizing towards myself because service to others excluding yourself is NOT service to ALL.

I know what you mean!

(08-24-2015, 06:23 PM)Aion Wrote: I am learning I have to both accept the results of self-service and service to others for service to be polarizing for me.

Serving Self isn't STS, as in, polarizing to STS. Only serving Self at the expense of others is STS-polarizing.

Serving Self is actually required to polarize STO.

...

(08-24-2015, 06:38 PM)Elros Tar-Minyatur Wrote:

(08-24-2015, 06:28 PM)upensmoke Wrote:

(08-24-2015, 06:03 PM)Elros Tar-Minyatur Wrote:

(08-24-2015, 05:46 PM)upensmoke Wrote: Elros Tar-Minyatur, do you eat meat and do you see your own personal meeting eating as a STS action or a STO action? depending on which one you pick could you explain why ? if you answered this question already or dont eat meat my apologies

I do eat meat and perceive it as currently non-polarized. I simply do not feel anything toward it and am you could say testing whether it remains that way or not.

If i were to not eat meat, I'd also perceive it as non-polarized. It would not bring any STO feelings within me either nor affect my polarity from my current perspective.

K i disagree with the idea that one must feel something for their actions to be polarized. Could you use that same logic in a different scenario and reach the same conclusion?  Also this is just my opinion but the action or concept of feeling nothing when you are aware of suffering is STS. you Feel nothing because it is separate from you. Separation is a STS concept and mindstate. You would feel something if you truly saw it as one with yourself. this is just my opinion thru my understanding of course 

I acknowledge sufferings as part of existence and not all sufferings do move my heart in the same manner as another catalyst might. I do not believe I would be any more right in trying to help than someone else who is partaking in creating suffering. What moves me and what I work upon relate to my own distortions.

If we want to speak of indirectly causing sufferings, then no one would be free of the guilt when existing within any society like ours.

(08-24-2015, 06:23 PM)Aion Wrote: Before I respond further, I would like to highlight that I haven never had to explain in detail the processes of my practice so there are times where I may use words or descriptions which are not quite but are just the way it flows. I am learning as well as teaching so bear in mind that I'm not coming in the pre-set ideas and laying them out, I am actually discovering the truth of my practices through exploring these explanations.

Quote:I do feel a little guilty though, not in regards to food, but because the comments that have been made, from Monica, Diana and TTP, have actually helped me to better understand my choice and actually helped me become more comfortable with it. That may be frustrating for you that your efforts had the opposite effect but you have given me the opportunity to have the utmost honesty with myself and I'm learning I have many expectations of myself based on how I believe I will be perceived by others. I'm learning to trust myself.


Let me just say, I am aware I polarize both negatively and positively at different times and that is one point that is relevant to my practice. As you said Diana, I was displaying some very martyr-like traits, but that was before when I would only try to do things in service to others and avoid service to myself at all costs. I've realized now that I am negatively polarizing towards myself because service to others excluding yourself is NOT service to ALL.

I am learning I have to both accept the results of self-service and service to others for service to be polarizing for me.

(08-24-2015, 07:11 PM)Aion Wrote: You clearly didn't read my whole thought there.

(08-24-2015, 07:11 PM)Aion Wrote: Of course my guilt is my own, but my point was it's not in regards with my desire to eat meat but in light of the fact that it appears you would rather me move away from eating meat, whereas I have become more comfortable with it. The guilt is in the perceived idea that in disagreement I am separate and not loving. The guilt will go away when I can finally accept that I don't have to agree with you for me to be loving and accepting of you.

Thus, I feel guilty for not giving you what you want and serving you in the way you want to be served.

(08-24-2015, 08:29 PM)Aion Wrote: So then it is that you wish for the animals to be served? Are you not a proxy of this?

(08-24-2015, 11:47 AM)Monica Wrote:

(08-22-2015, 09:38 PM)Aion Wrote: I don't care about agreement, I am just being honest with my disagreement. If anything I am just trying to not give in to the fear of expressing myself honestly because of how I may be perceived.

That's a risk we all take when we engage in an internet discussion. Any time we type any words, we run the risk of being misunderstood, and others form skewed opinions of us based on their limited perceptions from typed words only, without the benefit of tone of voice, facial expressions, body language, and all the other tools we have when communicating in person. This is a very limited mode of communication, to be sure!

For the record, I think you have expressed yourself very well, and much more fully in these last couple of posts.  

(08-22-2015, 09:38 PM)Aion Wrote: To Monica, I think we may disagree on exactly how the mechanics of the heart chakra works and I feel that may be closer to the root of our misunderstanding. You likely will not agree, but I see us as having very similar desires but we have chosen very different ways to approach the matter.

The thing is, the approach I am taking has been studied and explored considerably less than the approach you are taking, or so it appears to me and for that reason I can not 'toe to toe' with you because my experience has informed me in such a dramatically differing way it is mind blowing.

OK.

(08-22-2015, 09:38 PM)Aion Wrote: However, you have often asked about walking on the lawn and the response of the grass. My answer is that it depends what I am listening for. If I listen for agony, I find and hear agony. If I listen for bliss, I find and hear bliss. Thus, in my understanding plants don't seem to precisely experience emotions in the same way we do but rather seem to experience all emotions simultaneously at once which can be 'picked out' by a perceiving consciousness. Thus, if you are looking for bliss, you will find bliss. This is in regards to plants.

So, really, I think plants both suffer incredibly and experience the most profound bliss without any paradox because they still dwell largely within the unity of the Creator. Thus, they are all things. What we see in them is the reflection of ourselves.

OK I'll go along with that.

(08-22-2015, 09:38 PM)Aion Wrote: The same is true for animals and humans as well, the difference is that as you come in to third-density you gain veiled conditions. Second-density doesn't have the veil, every plant and animal is aware of itself as the Creator, it is only when it crosses into third that it obscures this awareness.

For example, 'lower' second-density creatures such as insects, worms and other such invertebrates are just as well aware of themselves as the Creator as a pig, sheep or dog. The veil isn't put on until the beginning of a third density incarnation so a second density being will always end its second density experience in full awareness of itself as the Creator and as its group and then it will begin to realize self-awareness and individuate.

Creatures, as they move through second density, gain all the understandings of tribal self as they see themselves as one with the family or species. When they individuate they start again except rather than being focused on species as self, the self is individual and the ladder is climbed again.

Here's the sticky part: You say and then it will begin to realize self-awareness and individuate. At what point does this happen? Ra didn't give a precise answer on that.

But, extrapolating from what we know about the criteria for graduation into other densities, we can make an educated guess.

We know that the criteria for graduating to 4D is a certain percentage of a certain attribute. So it logically follows that graduation to 3D would also require a certain percentage of a certain attribute.

In the case of going from 3D to 4D, that attribute is love, either of self AND other-self, or self only.

Now, I ask you this: Is it possible for entities to experience love, while still in 3D?

The answer is clear: Of course!

Look around you. Nearly all humans have the capacity to love, to some degree. Maybe not enough to be harvestable yet, but they sure do love, even if only selectively, even if it's only their children or spouse and they haven't yet learned to love freely. But they can and do love!

The objective for 3D is to refine that attribute of love!

So clearly, the attribute required for graduation to the next density is displayed, expressed and developed in the previous density!

Extrapolating from this, it makes sense that the attribute for graduation from 2D to 3D - self-awareness as an individual, or sentience - would also be found in varying amounts during the course of 2D, while being developed and refined over time.

So yes, while they're still 2D, animals do have the advantage of still being One with All. But I suspect - and this is just an educated guess based on my understanding, being that Ra didn't specify an exact point - that it's more of a ratio shift taking place. In other words, it makes sense to me that the more sentient they become, the less Oneness they feel. It's a process.

Just as we are building the structure for a Social Memory Complex, even though that is an attribute of 4D. We are still building it in 3D. So too, it seems to me, do late 2D entities build the structure for individuality, which presupposes being cut off from the collective.

Therefore, I contest your assertion that animals are still 100% aware of their Oneness, and your implication that this somehow reduces their anguish.

If that were true, then we wouldn't be seeing such obvious signs of anguish, quite simply! If that cow totally knew she was just getting merged back into the collective, she wouldn't be showing such terror in her eyes, and she wouldn't be valiantly, desperately struggling to escape the executioner.

If anything, your observations support my contention that early 2D entities have a collective consciousness, with full awareness of their Oneness with All, while late 2D entities (usually indicated by a face and pain receptors) have varying degrees of individual awareness, with less awareness of Oneness, as they are very close to losing that awareness of Oneness altogether.

Thus, early 2D entities, such as plants, do indeed reflect back myriad emotions and vibrations, as you observed. Why? Because they dwell in the group mind, undifferentiated. This is why a field of corn that has been violated with pesticides exudes sadness, while a lovingly tended garden may exude bliss, as you observed. But each individual stalk of corn isn't a sentient being. It is part of the collective. Monoculture farming, with its poisonous chemicals and disrespectful, even torturous machinery for harvesting, obviously harms the field of corn. No question about it. This is why those of us who care about such things make a point to buy organic and local whenever possible, to minimize our contribution to such abominable practices.

It is the same when comparing meat from cows who were allowed to graze in the pasture, vs buying meat from factory farms or eating in a restaurant (which uses meat from factory farms). Obviously, it is more of an abomination to first torture the animal, before killing him/her.

But, in the case of animals, you then have the added complication of individual sentience, on top of the offense made to the collective.

When supporting monoculture and chemical farming practices, one is supporting an offensive way of treating plants, and the plant collective is surely harmed.

But when supporting ANY meat or dairy, one is supporting Not only the offensive way of treating animals as a collective (as with plants), but also the direct enslavement and overpowering of a sentient being who clearly wants to live.

It is a much deeper, graver offense than that done to plants.

This is Not to minimize or demean the offenses to plant life! But it is of a different nature, because plants have a different nature. Plus, if one truly wanted to reduce those offenses done to plant life, then the logical way to do that is...to quit eating animals! Because many orders of magnitude MORE plants are killed, in order to feed farm animals!

In fact, the #1 cause of monoculture and chemical farming is...the meat/dairy industry!

You are right that simply going vegan isn't going to magically fix the whole food production system. Certainly, many vegans still support the poisonous and offensive system of monoculture. But they support it much LESS than their meat-and-dairy-eating counterparts.

Our food production system is very f***** up, no doubt about it. We have a verrrrrry long ways to go, towards living in harmony with the planet. Eliminating meat is the first step. It's the most important step, because everything else is a by-product of that.

Plus, look at how difficult it has been for even self-professed '6D Wanderers' to care about the suffering of beings who have faces, emotions, pain receptors and who bleed like humans. Do you really think we'd have better luck if we switched to a campaign to save the plants?

I mean seriously, people can't even muster up some compassion for a being that struggles, cries out in pain, and bleeds. Are they seriously going to care about the plight of the corn? Sorry, but the idea is absurd.

And it's useless anyway, because the main reason all that corn is grown the way it is, is to feed the cows!

At the end of the day, the best way - no, the only way - to help the corn is to quit eating the cows.

Maybe in a couple of decades, when we've accomplished that, there will be less need for farmers to use toxic chemicals, because the demand for corn will be so much less, because only humans will be eating corn and they won't have to artificially produce such huge amounts of it.

No matter how you slice it, the first step is always to quit eating animals. That is the lynchpin. Remove that and the rest will start falling away too.

(08-22-2015, 09:38 PM)Aion Wrote: However, the best way for second density to get to third is by investment by third or above.

Maybe not necessarily the 'best' but certainly the most expedient.

Farm animals are being invested by 3D humans, but Not in a good way. They're being invested by being enslaved, tortured, raped and killed.

(08-22-2015, 09:38 PM)Aion Wrote: This is the real problem for second density when the investment is one of suppression. Rather, these second density entities will be very, very slow in moving towards third density because they will perpetually be stuck in the lower sub-densities of second, due to no social interaction or self-reflection to build from orange to yellow.

I disagree. Remember, the criteria for moving towards 3D is self-awareness. There are many other ways to become self-aware besides being invested by humans.

First of all, humans aren't the only ones with social structures. Animals have social interactions too! They have complex social structures and have been observed having best friends and even playing jokes on others. We overestimate our importance when we think we are the only ones who can invest the animals. They can do just fine on their own, without us, thank you very much.

Think about the deer who stepped in a hole and broke her ankle, and now cannot keep up with the herd. She is easy prey for the wolves. Separated from the other deer, and stalked by wolves, she is alone and suddenly is very acutely aware of her predicament. That is self-awareness! Her body registers pain as they tear into her flesh. Her emotions surge in a sudden flare of panic and terror.

Oh yes, she has just taken a huge leap towards sentience!

I personally think it's a very crude system for triggering sentience, and being that this planet is an experiment, I like to think that most planets didn't evolve that way. Ra said that they didn't have violence on Venus. That sounds to me like they probably didn't have 2D entities killing one another for survival, like we have here. It makes sense to me that the very design of this planet, based on so much bloodshed, is a major factor in the continued bloodshed among 3D humans. The whole planet is awash in blood.

If we are evolving, then we must be the ones to stop the bloodshed. We can't expect the lion to lie beside the lamb, when we are still eating the lamb! We are, presumably, the elders on this planet. We must start with ourselves.

(08-22-2015, 09:38 PM)Aion Wrote: However, since the species shares a mind and experience it is questionable what happens to the souls of these creatures. I get the sense that there is a balancing mechanism so that an animal soul that experiences trauma will then incarnate to heal that trauma through a more peaceful life. This then alternates back and forth between difficult lives and easy lives so a full spectrum of individual content can be experienced to the point that there is enough dynamic in the consciousness to spark the sudden moment of self-awareness.

Good heavens, do you not think that having one's throat slit, or being scalded alive in boiling water, would spark a sudden moment of self-awareness?

As for alternating traumatic with peaceful lifetimes, that is an interesting speculation, but I see nothing to back it up. It's speculation, at best.

(08-22-2015, 09:38 PM)Aion Wrote: Now, this is where my theory will probably be infuriating to some. I believe that the animal souls that experience such trauma actually become more likely to be compassionate and more likely to choose the positive polarity in third density on a species level because they will already be empathetic and acquainted with both suffering and victims,

I  have expressed this idea before and in fact I agree that it is happening, at least some of the time. See my thread '2D Animals Evolving?' There are more and more instances of animals showing compassion for other animals being recorded. Yes, some of them are displaying signs of accelerated development.

But those cases are few and far between. I've seen maybe a couple of dozen of them, at least that were captured on video. Undoubtedly there are many more that weren't captured on video, but at best, that small number still pales in comparison to the many billions of animals who are being literally tortured and killed every year by the meat/dairy industry.

Where are all those souls going? Yes, some seem to be coming back as more highly-evolved beings. But what about all the others?

Here's what we know about humans who are severely abused as children: Many of them grow up to be sociopaths. There is a clear pattern that increases the likelihood of being a sociopath: Abuse as a child, without any love shown to them before age 7. If they still never got a chance to heal and bond with another human before age 7, that child has a high risk of being a sociopath because their character is pretty much 'set' before age 7. (I'm sure there must be some exceptions, but this is just what statistics show, based on studies of sociopaths.)

Does this mean that ALL abused children will be sociopaths? Thankfully, No. But a large percentage of them do.

Does this mean that ALL sociopaths will be psychopaths? Thankfully, No. Many sociopaths exist in society. But many of them do turn into psychopaths.

Extrapolating from that, it makes sense that it would work the same way with late 2D entities. I have been saying for awhile that the meat/dairy industry might be populating some dark planet somewhere...a society of sociopaths. I shudder at the thought.

(08-22-2015, 09:38 PM)Aion Wrote: On top of that, I think that most souls which go through those experiences only do so at most a few times but I think typically only once.

What is the basis of your speculation?

(08-22-2015, 09:38 PM)Aion Wrote: Honestly, I've glanced at your past lives a couple times, Monica and it appears that you had multiple animals lives with suffering but the reason it is so vivid for you is because you were actually a higher density being incarnating as an animal to see what it's experience actually was like. Needless to say you were rather affected by the experience. I think there are certain species which are connected to your own consciousness and they are ones you experienced bodies as.

Maybe so. If that's true, then there's a reason I took on this assignment.

(08-22-2015, 09:38 PM)Aion Wrote: I spent a good deal of time as a tree, so that maybe explains why I feel more defensive of plants. Honestly I think I just find it unfair that the animals get a crusade but the plants don't. I'm horrified by large-scale, hydroponic growing of plants for food. It's the exact same as a meat factory in my mind, never getting to be free or experience ecosystem and the diversity of nature only to be consumed, often without thanks. It's tough for second density all around it seems.

Then perhaps we should be working together. The best way to help the plants is to quit eating the animals.

...

(08-24-2015, 08:55 PM)Aion Wrote: There is a lot of text and I am usually replying on my phone while I don't have a laptop so that is why I sometimes only address certain points and not others. I try to address those points I see as being central to my current considerations and experience.

(08-24-2015, 08:55 PM)Aion Wrote: I would just like to run by you the idea that Ra said that before the veil, third density still had full awareness of self and other self as the Creator. The veil was brought in to distort and obscure this awareness between the Matrix of the Mind and Potentiator of the Mind, producing the distortion of the service to self polarity for the 'first time', even though it had been planned by the Logos. How do you factor this in to your assessment of the processes of second density moving in to third?

(08-24-2015, 12:02 PM)Monica Wrote:

(08-23-2015, 10:00 PM)Aion Wrote: This would be a good point to mention that consumption is the quickest way to merge an energy with yourself.

Perhaps. But it's Not the only way.

(08-23-2015, 10:00 PM)Aion Wrote: So, in taking in that energy and it becoming myself I then can transmute it by balancing its opposites.

Would your system work with human rape victims? Could one rape a woman in order to directly experience her trauma, and then transmute it?

What about war? That's a biggie. Or mass shootings? Would your system work for that? Could one shoot and kill 20 humans, in order to transmute the trauma of mass shootings?

This is an honest question. I commend your efforts and intentions, but you are leaving out the minor little detail that you are actually supporting the very suffering that you are attempting to alleviate, by actually eating the animal's flesh.

(08-23-2015, 10:00 PM)Aion Wrote: In a nutshell, I've basically learned that investment in the lower densities by higher densities doesn't have to just be an interaction of incarnate entities but can happen from any level to any level.

If it can happen at any level, then why not do it from afar? Why not do it without actually supporting the very thing you're trying to heal? Why not transcend physical matter and just work to heal the energies of trauma, without actually perpetuating it? Why not just take 2 steps forward, instead of 2 steps forward 1 step back?

(08-23-2015, 10:00 PM)Aion Wrote: The perk for me is that my body gains the nutrition it needs to keep it alive so I can continue the Great Work.

The human body doesn't need meat or dairy. So is the perk really about needed nutrients, or about the pleasure of eating?

(08-23-2015, 10:00 PM)Aion Wrote: There is also the distinct fact that the reason we are suffering so much is because of the veil. Without the veil everything and everyone would just know everyone and everything is the Creator so, as Ra said, no love would be terribly important and no suffering would be terrible painful, it would just be a sea of neutral bliss.

I agree with this.

...

(08-24-2015, 09:12 PM)Monica Wrote:

(08-24-2015, 08:55 PM)Aion Wrote: There is a lot of text and I am usually replying on my phone while I don't have a laptop so that is why I sometimes only address certain points and not others. I try to address those points I see as being central to my current considerations and experience.

No hurry. I hope you make a point to read it in its entirety, whenever you are able to. I wrote it 'specially for you!  

(08-24-2015, 08:55 PM)Aion Wrote: I would just like to run by you the idea that Ra said that before the veil, third density still had full awareness of self and other self as the Creator. The veil was brought in to distort and obscure this awareness between the Matrix of the Mind and Potentiator of the Mind, producing the distortion of the service to self polarity for the 'first time', even though it had been planned by the Logos. How do you factor this in to your assessment of the processes of second density moving in to third?

Are you asking if I think the veil affects those in 2D? If that's what you're asking, then the answer is yes. I explained why I think that in my marathon post.  

...

(08-24-2015, 09:12 PM)Monica Wrote:

(08-24-2015, 08:55 PM)Aion Wrote: There is a lot of text and I am usually replying on my phone while I don't have a laptop so that is why I sometimes only address certain points and not others. I try to address those points I see as being central to my current considerations and experience.

No hurry. I hope you make a point to read it in its entirety, whenever you are able to. I wrote it 'specially for you!  

(08-24-2015, 08:55 PM)Aion Wrote: I would just like to run by you the idea that Ra said that before the veil, third density still had full awareness of self and other self as the Creator. The veil was brought in to distort and obscure this awareness between the Matrix of the Mind and Potentiator of the Mind, producing the distortion of the service to self polarity for the 'first time', even though it had been planned by the Logos. How do you factor this in to your assessment of the processes of second density moving in to third?

Are you asking if I think the veil affects those in 2D? If that's what you're asking, then the answer is yes. I explained why I think that in my marathon post.  

...

(08-24-2015, 07:26 PM)upensmoke Wrote: Im not speaking of right or wrong concepts. i agree that it would be almost impossible to be free of guilt, But I disagree that your choice to continue to eat meat is not polarizing to you. You are aware of an option to serve an other self. you are aware of an option that would create less suffering and more benefit for the other-selfs. This option better serves other-selfs based on our understanding. You are aware of this option, but you choose the other. the one that continues the cycle pain because you dont feel anything. simply because you are not affected you choose that it is not your problem. That like saying I have the antidote to your poisonous snake bight, but since im not bitten, im not using it. It's not your obligation to use the antidote but you have to accept that such thinking is STS. STO includes STS so there is nothing wrong with saying that this specific plight is not my calling. I just believe that such a mind state is inherently STS. I also believe it is manipulation to say it would fall under any other identity. what are your  thoughts on this ?

Quote:

Clordio Wrote: Wrote:I am very conflicted on the issue of eating meat I would very much like to begin a dialogue as to why one should not or should be able to consume meat.

I would like to respond to your inquiries about eating meat, and your observation that plants have life which should be respected too. 

I agree that all life should be respected. Then, the problem remains, as we exist in 3-D and must consume food until we evolve to something higher, what do we eat? 

An animal has a strong instinct for survival, even when hunted in a natural environment. It experiences terror when chased by predators. This fear is only a fraction of what farm animals feel when taken to slaughter because they are trapped and cannot even run. Just considering the physical results of this fear and terror--release of hormones, adrenaline, fight-or-fight response--it is unwise to consume the meat as you will be ingesting these hormones too, which the animal's body has manufactured. Also, you cannot cut a leg off an animal without killing it.

You can, however, prune a plant and cut off leaves without killing it. You can harvest vegetables without killing the plant. Many plants "want" animals to eat them as it is their way of spreading seed and propagating. Fruit falls off trees, vines, and bushes to be eaten by animals so that the seeds can be spread. It seems obvious that it is less cruel to consume the life force from plants, rather than animals.

I agree with one of the posts here, that the Native American way of thanking the animal ceremonially is best if one has to consume meat. But does anyone HAVE to eat meat? Why not touch the world more lightly, more gently, and be healthier in the process? 

You might think of the issue this way:

Imagine the most Utopian future world you can. What would it be like? Perhaps at that point consuming anything but air and sunlight would be all we need? Draw a straight line from where we are now to that future world. Now start taking steps along that line.

(08-25-2015, 02:38 AM)Aion Wrote: I think I'm starting to get a spark of all this 'inherent' business. I think of how Ra said that catalyst will be more obviously able to be used to polarize negatively and greater effort is often needed to perceive or apprehend the positive or magical circumstance with which the catalyst can be used to polarize positively. (Obviously not Ra's wording...) So to me something which is more inherently STS, the more difficult to apprehend the positive or magical circumstance. I believe this is what my technique of transmutation allows me to do, is apprehend magical circumstances.

That being said, there isn't much purpose, in my eyes, in pursuing difficult circumstances but I do wonder, if you are working in the mind and not in the body, if perceiving magical, positive circumstances in catalyst which is more blatantly usable to polarize negatively produces a greater charge in ones polarity than catalyst which is more easily seen as positive quickly.

(08-24-2015, 09:16 PM)Aion Wrote: The reason I eat meat and the practice of transmutation are separate things for me.

(08-24-2015, 09:16 PM)Aion Wrote: I eat for survival of the body,

(08-24-2015, 09:16 PM)Aion Wrote: and enjoy food for its creative and social aspects.

(08-24-2015, 09:16 PM)Aion Wrote: I transmute out of love. The transmutation is the positively polarizing action. The eating is the negatively polarizing aspect.

(08-24-2015, 09:16 PM)Aion Wrote: However, I can generate more work and energy out of transmutation than the amount of negative polarization, I believe, I receive from the action of eating lovingly. Therefore the sum is positive polarization even though negative polarization is factored in.

(08-24-2015, 09:16 PM)Aion Wrote: The reason I eat meat is because my state of awareness brought me in to contact and unity with the Axis Mundi, the Soul of the World. I therefore am connected to every other human, animal and plant on the planet, and so awareness is as such. I see the Earth as being the archetype of my own body. I therefore feel out of balance severely if I am not accommodating the distortions of every being on the planet. This is an honour/responsibility I lovingly accept, even if it is challenging at times.

Thus, I eat meat because it feels accommodating to all of my distortions as a dweller on this planet. You might say, why not change your ways in order to change others? However, that would be negatively polarizing for me because I would be trying to infringe their free will by intentionally altering myself to influence them. I genuinely believe in the effectiveness of my technique so to try to change myself in order to limit myself to a narrower set of distortions would be infringement upon my own free will because I would basically be denying what I deeply truly felt to be the truth and natural within me.

Thus, I must patiently do the waiting game and by accommodating the distortions of others, I am unifying with them and they with I. You might call it a form of initiation or imitation magic, but I can only offer. To force change within oneself would be to force change upon others if you understand the essence of unity.

Also, yes, it tastes good and is quite nutritional once it isn't bogged down by painful energy. Again, I make a separation between the body in life and the body after death. Not that they aren't connected but rather that the desires of a disembodied animal soul are very different from an incarnate animal's desires. Incarnate maybe they would be troubled by the consumption, but I think disincarnate they would rather serve by nourishing with their body. Like Jesus, right?

(08-25-2015, 06:15 PM)Aion Wrote: May I ask you if you are scared of the possibility of causing harm?

(08-25-2015, 07:17 PM)Monica Wrote: No, not like Jesus at all. Jesus gave himself willingly. He chose to sacrifice himself.

The animals aren't consciously choosing to sacrifice themselves. It is being forced upon them. That is a very BIG difference.

...

(08-24-2015, 09:21 PM)Aion Wrote: Oh, I think I see where you explained although not in the same words as the question. So you think the veil starts in late second density rather than right at the threshold of third?

(08-26-2015, 12:21 AM)The_Tired_Philosopher Wrote: Does eating meat mean you killed the animal..?

(08-26-2015, 04:40 AM)Elros Tar-Minyatur Wrote:

(08-25-2015, 07:17 PM)Monica Wrote: No, not like Jesus at all. Jesus gave himself willingly. He chose to sacrifice himself.

The animals aren't consciously choosing to sacrifice themselves. It is being forced upon them. That is a very BIG difference.

...

There I disagree strongly. From the perspective of a 2D entity of course, as it is the whole point of the experience. On a soul level though, I do believe it is definitely a chosen experience as part of one's path. I do believe every suffering is willingly chosen by the Creator as a mean to know Himself, none not being a sacrifice of experiencing suffering for that purpose. Perhaps that is not seen until very far down one's path, but it ever will always be understood at one point.

(08-26-2015, 04:40 AM)Elros Tar-Minyatur Wrote: My main concern about you Monica in this thread, is that you reject the slaughtered animal's experience as part of their path.

(08-26-2015, 04:40 AM)Elros Tar-Minyatur Wrote: Deeming they are not meant to be, as it is a service you wish not to see provided nor provide yourself. STS always is STO, a STS entity is simply one that knows not that it's way of being equally exists for everything it will ever interact with. I already said this but the concept of polarities being separated from one another simply works because of the level of awareness of the entities experiencing them. STS and STO are both services toward growth for self and other-selves, which is the purpose of the infinite evolution of consciousness.

(08-26-2015, 04:40 AM)Elros Tar-Minyatur Wrote: About 2D callings, it is true that 2D entities can create calls. It is false to think that a calling implies that it needs to be answered.

(08-26-2015, 04:40 AM)Elros Tar-Minyatur Wrote: Denial is a service which is equally sought by souls on a much higher level as an experience in their path. In term of resonance, a call that needs to be denied will fall upon deaf hears whereas a call that needs to be answered will be heard by what can answer it. No coincidences, just always the exact right resonance.

(08-26-2015, 04:40 AM)Elros Tar-Minyatur Wrote: You can disagree with what I have said, but in my opinion an inevitable part of your path will be to acknowledge that this kind of services are equally perceived as STO when seen beyond a limited and paradoxal awareness of them. Unity is ever present, you not perceiving Love nor Unity simply reflects your own paradoxes to work upon. The comparison that Aion has made with Jesus as that of the martyr, is in my view awareness that suffering is always a chosen experience and that other-selves that provide this service exist for that purpose as they are required.

Everything simulatenously creates everything else it's path is interwined with, and we are simply the moving awareness or observer of it all happening.

(08-26-2015, 08:20 AM)The_Tired_Philosopher Wrote: So the difference is in awareness essentially?

I just question the logic of indifference making you guilty by extension.  I hit that area.  By that logic, everyone who buys GMO products, plastic based product, and doesn't take action (react/respond) are responsible and depolarizing.

Just.  Its a slippery slope.  Why is buying and eating meat depolarizing but not buying and discarding an endangered wooden desk? Or any ol' wooden desk?  Or a Seedless watermelon, or GMO lettuce?

Why are animals so special but everything else including people are exempt?

Quote:Just. Its a slippery slope. Why is buying and eating meat depolarizing but not buying and discarding an endangered wooden desk? Or any ol' wooden desk? Or a Seedless watermelon, or GMO lettuce?

Why are animals so special but everything else including people are exempt?

(08-26-2015, 10:02 AM)Jade Wrote: I just want to add, that in 2015, it's not impossible to be extremely ethical with most of your purchases. I try hard in all areas, not just food. The "trees and GMOs and people don't matter!" argument IS a slippery slope, and a strawman. I feel guilty when I pull weeds, and avoid it. I see wooden objects as a strange mutilation. I buy from local vendors and not huge conglomerates. I shop at an organic grocery store. I've avoided large technological purchases in recent times because I'm worried about the ethics of how we produce them. To assume that just because in a thread about eating animals, that no one is talking about reducing plastic waste, that it's something that nobody thinks about, either.

This isn't me bragging, this is just me explaining a few of the choices and lifestyle changes I have made to be a more conscious consumer of our Earth's resources.

Money is energy. We can spend it thoughtfully or thoughtlessly like all other forms of energy.