+- Bring4th (https://www.bring4th.org/forums)
+-- Forum: Bring4th Studies (https://www.bring4th.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: L/L Research Channeling Archives (https://www.bring4th.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=12)
+--- Thread: 2010.10.16 The responsibility of participation? (/showthread.php?tid=2087)
Pages:
1
2
RE: 2010.10.16 The responsibility of participation? - Monica - 01-22-2011
(01-22-2011, 07:09 PM)abridgetoofar Wrote: First, to address the issue of this particular session not resonating with people. Q'uo (and most other channels) encourage us to use our own discernment as the ultimate truth.
Someone told me, "You're the mod and you dared to disagree with one of Q'uo's channelings???" Well, yeah. Q'uo always tells us to discard that which doesn't resonate. Good thing this isn't a religious dogma!
(01-22-2011, 03:41 PM)Wander-Man Wrote: Claiming this session contains more distortions than others simply because it doesn't resonate with you as strong as others seems to be a very personal opinion.
I agree that may be true in some cases. It's more convenient to just say, "It must be distorted!" rather than boldly assert that it might actually be undistorted but it just doesn't resonate. For, what would that imply? How could we not resonate with something that is undistorted Truth?
That opens up a whole 'nother discussion!
I can't speak for others, but in my case, I'm not saying the session "must be distorted" just because I don't agree with it.
Rather, the reason I think it's distorted is that it involves a very volatile topic. Volatile topics tend to elicit strong personal feelings. It seems reasonable to me that a channel - any channel - might be more likely to color the transmission when it's a topic about something as personal as their diet, than they would about, say, how the pyramids were built.
For example, let's say a female channel was transmitting some channeled information on a highly volatile topic like abortion. Depending on whether or not that particular channel had ever had an abortion, and on her views and unresolved emotions regarding it, she will likely distort the info with her own biases much more than, say, a man who had never been personally affected by abortion. It's pretty much inevitable, when dealing with such volatile topics.
I think that's simply what happened in this case.
(01-22-2011, 03:41 PM)Wander-Man Wrote: If it's possible for that amount of distortion in this session, which you may not particularly agree with, then why feel that all other sessions that do resonate with you are less distorted?
Well, I didn't actually make that statement, but I'll address it anyway.
Personally, I feel that Truth (with a capital 'T') in its pure, undistorted form, would resonate with all of us, provided we were clear enough to handle it. The reason some of us resonate with some things and others don't, is because of our unique perspective, our own personal biases, blockages, etc. We all have these, so there's just no way that everyone will have exactly the same resonance with all spiritual information. (Hence, the countless various religions and spiritual paths.)
Then add to the equation, the fact (as told to us by Ra) that every bit of channeled data will have some degree of distortion (which is why Ra, Carla, Don and Jim worked so hard to minimize it), and you have an explanation of why Q'uo tells us to accept only that which resonates.
So, it isn't a judgment on the information or the channel, or on others who might consider the information pure. It's just the way it is. We don't all resonate with all the same stuff.
Another session that comes to mind, for me, is a session on Buddhism. Perhaps if I hadn't already known a bit about Buddhism, I might have felt that it resonated. But, because I already knew about Buddhism, just as I already knew about the meat industry, I viewed that particular session with perhaps more scrutiny than someone not familiar with those topics.
Just as someone with a scientific background is going to view any technical data with more scrutiny than someone without that background.
(01-22-2011, 03:41 PM)Wander-Man Wrote: I feel that discounting the purity of the message for everyone because it doesn't resonate with you alone is a subjective point of view.
How is my saying, "I don't resonate with that particular session because I think it is more distorted than most of the others" discounting it for others? It's just my opinion! Each person can decide for themselves whether they think it resonates or not, and whether they think it's distorted or not.
(01-22-2011, 03:41 PM)Wander-Man Wrote: I mean to ruffle no feathers here, but if this session has resonated with someone strongly, claiming that it is more distorted may make that person doubt themselves and to what they resonate. In my personal experience, doubt is very powerful and can be a difficult weed to pull.
Well, this is a Law of One forum, where each person already has the responsibility of deciding for themselves. In a religion, the members are told what to believe. They are told what it 'true' and what isn't. But that's not the way it is here. We all have our own opinions.
How can we possibly know everyone's opinion about any given piece of info, anyway? How could we ever express any opinion at all? Many of us have admitted here on this forum, that certain elements in the Law of One don't resonate. There are even some threads devoted to these topics! Where members have expressed their doubts about certain statements made by Ra. If they are asked, as I was asked, why they don't resonate with it, how then should they reply?
RE: 2010.10.16 The responsibility of participation? - unity100 - 01-22-2011
Wander-Man Wrote:I mean to ruffle no feathers here, but if this session has resonated with someone strongly, claiming that it is more distorted may make that person doubt themselves and to what they resonate. In my personal experience, doubt is very powerful and can be a difficult weed to pull.
firstly, if the entity is so weak in that resonation so that it is so easily shaken by someone disagreeing, maybe it means that that resonation is not a resonation at all in the first place.
or, secondly, if the entity is weak in resolve and understanding of its own spirit so that someone doubting something s/he truly resonates, can shatter the resonation, what that entity is doing seeking advanced spiritual information in the first place ? it is a path that is filled with pitfalls.
RE: 2010.10.16 The responsibility of participation? - Monica - 01-22-2011
(01-22-2011, 09:18 PM)unity100 Wrote: firstly, if the entity is so weak in that resonation so that it is so easily shaken by someone disagreeing, maybe it means that that resonation is not a resonation at all in the first place.
or, secondly, if the entity is weak in resolve and understanding of its own spirit so that someone doubting something s/he truly resonates, can shatter the resonation, what that entity is doing seeking advanced spiritual information in the first place ? it is a path that is filled with pitfalls.
Right. Those who rely on the opinions of others will more likely gravitate to religions, rather than here. Those who are ready to trust what resonates, will understand that others will do the same, and what resonates for one might not resonate for another.
RE: 2010.10.16 The responsibility of participation? - rva_jeremy - 01-22-2011
It is my opinion that this Q'uo reading was helpful. The information on the responsibility inherent in consumption was particularly profound. As always, the focus is on how this experience is used, not on what the experience seems to be.
Monica, are you familiar with any of the work of Temple Grandin? She's an animal behaviorist who pioneered many improvements in cattle ranches and slaughterhouses to help make them more humane. Her view is that it's ok to eat meat but we owe the animals respect in exchange. This is similar to the native american view of thanking the animal once it has been killed.
What if there is a way to kill with love? I suspect there is, though it's difficult to imagine. I think Q'uo's comparison of second density vegetation's "right to life" as on par with mammalian "right to life" is on the money. There is no certainty on these matters; we can only do what we think is right.
The problem is that we occupy a society which in many ways operates as a big machine. It chews through life in all its forms and hides the violence from us. Whether it's slaughterhouses, or wars, or highways that kill countless animals, everything is designed to sacrifice consciousness to convenience and efficiency at every step of the way. To me, it's less about particular actions such as eating meat and more about having a better awareness and appreciation for how you fit in with your surroundings and your world.
We understand so little of how the basic systems work that make our consumerist society possible. It makes us dependent and willing to relinquish control and responsibility to others. If you raise and slaughter chickens that you eat, I can see the catalyst of that accruing much more readily that if your experience of chicken is unwrapping a pre-cut breast. I bet if more people knew the details, they'd be more willing to go back to simpler, more sustainable, more local ways of satisfying their needs. Willing ignorance is quite a difficult nut to crack!
RE: 2010.10.16 The responsibility of participation? - Monica - 01-22-2011
(01-22-2011, 11:08 PM)jeremy6d Wrote: Monica, are you familiar with any of the work of Temple Grandin? She's an animal behaviorist who pioneered many improvements in cattle ranches and slaughterhouses to help make them more humane. Her view is that it's ok to eat meat but we owe the animals respect in exchange. This is similar to the native american view of thanking the animal once it has been killed.
Improving slaughterhouse conditions is certainly a step in the right direction. But I also think it creates a false sense of complacency; by thinking that one's meat was 'humanely' slaughtered makes it easier to justify it.
The Native Americans had to kill animals in order to survive. They did it in a way that honored and appreciated the animals. They took only the weakest in the herd, and they communicated with the soul of the animals as it left its body.
That is simply not possible in a slaughterhouse. By the time people eat the animal, its soul is long gone.
And, most importantly, it's simply no longer necessary to kill animals for food. I struggle to understand why people go to such great lengths to justify the slaughter of animals, when all they need to do is simply quit eating them and the entire issue is eliminated. It's something that we can control; it's a choice that we have the power to make, that has huge, just huge benefits for the whole planet.
This boggles my mind.
(01-22-2011, 11:08 PM)jeremy6d Wrote: To me, it's less about particular actions such as eating meat and more about having a better awareness and appreciation for how you fit in with your surroundings and your world.
This same idea has been expressed by many others, and I still struggle to understand it. I honestly, sincerely, genuinely do not understand how knowingly contributing to the suffering of our younger brethren can be reconciled with the STO path.
I'm not judging anyone. I am simply expressing something that troubles and confuses me.
(01-22-2011, 11:08 PM)jeremy6d Wrote: I bet if more people knew the details, they'd be more willing to go back to simpler, more sustainable, more local ways of satisfying their needs. Willing ignorance is quite a difficult nut to crack!
Yes. And I'd bet that if meat-eaters visited a slaughterhouse, many of them would no longer eat animals.
I have a friend whose husband was a vegetarian. They decided to give their children the option of eating meat or not. But they took the kids to a slaughterhouse, so the kids could make an informed decision.
I have a great deal of respect for their action.
RE: 2010.10.16 The responsibility of participation? - Monica - 01-23-2011
(01-22-2011, 07:09 PM)abridgetoofar Wrote: leading my mom to live within an image she has seen since she was a small child. My mom is a very caring, sympathetic, and in touch with nature. In the spirit of following her heart, not only has she started down a path exploring the world of growing vegetables etc., she has acquired goats and chickens.
Your mom sounds like a very loving and beautiful soul! Who has done the absolute best she could, given her paradigm that it was 'ok' to eat animals. She has clearly made the best of that situation and raised the farming situation to a higher level. That is admirable!
It is not my intention to judge anyone, whether to show approval or disapproval. Throughout the long discussion on the meat thread, I have avoided analyzing any particular person's personal choice of diet or lifestyle, in favor of discussing ideas and concepts instead. I am interested in exploring the very paradigm itself.
RE: The responsibility of participation? - zenmaster - 01-23-2011
(01-22-2011, 07:17 PM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote: If they aren't disconnected from Spirit, and don't mind offering themselves to be consumed by others, then why do they fight so hard to survive?I hate to say this, but instinct has a genetic component. Those that 'fought to survive' propagated that information. It's not that complicated.
RE: The responsibility of participation? - Monica - 01-23-2011
(01-23-2011, 04:29 AM)zenmaster Wrote: I hate to say this, but instinct has a genetic component. Those that 'fought to survive' propagated that information. It's not that complicated.
OK. But genetics were programmed by the beings who put us here on this planet. Why did they program such an instinct? And, why did they give the ability to flee from predators, to animals but not to plants?
RE: The responsibility of participation? - zenmaster - 01-23-2011
(01-23-2011, 10:34 AM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote:Here's a guess. The intent of any incarnation would be to maximize usable consciousness in order to evolve, and also do this in an efficient manner (try not to waste consciousness vs time provided).(01-23-2011, 04:29 AM)zenmaster Wrote: I hate to say this, but instinct has a genetic component. Those that 'fought to survive' propagated that information. It's not that complicated.
OK. But genetics were programmed by the beings who put us here on this planet. Why did they program such an instinct? And, why did they give the ability to flee from predators, to animals but not to plants?
There are different experiential modes of existence between plants and animals. Perhaps, to the plant-level consciousness (or 'plantness'), there is no awareness-evolving advantage to such an instinct because that flee action does not greatly modify what it means to be a plant (group of cooperating cells). Also plants might have a different experiential time scale, where they really don't 'get much out of experience' after a certain duration or cycles of being alive. The will and opportunity to use the will is much different in the plant than in the animal.
RE: The responsibility of participation? - unity100 - 01-23-2011
(01-23-2011, 02:01 PM)zenmaster Wrote: There are different experiential modes of existence between plants and animals. Perhaps, to the plant-level consciousness (or 'plantness'), there is no awareness-evolving advantage to such an instinct because that flee action does not greatly modify what it means to be a plant (group of cooperating cells). Also plants might have a different experiential time scale, where they really don't 'get much out of experience' after a certain duration or cycles of being alive. The will and opportunity to use the will is much different in the plant than in the animal.
or, due to always living in meditative state, the access of their thoughts and feelings are much wider than any animal is, bringing all the results of the life going on about around them to their mind/spirit complex.
RE: The responsibility of participation? - Confused - 03-01-2011
(01-23-2011, 04:21 PM)unity100 Wrote: or, due to always living in meditative state, the.....
Isn't meditation actually experiencing the present moment with intense alacrity rather than ruminating over the past or the future? In that case, trees and plants seem to enjoy a natural advantage over humans.
RE: The responsibility of participation? - zenmaster - 03-01-2011
(03-01-2011, 02:30 AM)Confused Wrote:The difference is that plants have no identity (to transcend), while the human does. So saying there is an advantage in this case is sort of like saying the human baby has an advantage in solving calculus problems or writing poetry, over the human adult, because it is free from knowing what these things are.(01-23-2011, 04:21 PM)unity100 Wrote: or, due to always living in meditative state, the.....
Isn't meditation actually experiencing the present moment with intense alacrity rather than ruminating over the past or the future? In that case, trees and plants seem to enjoy a natural advantage over humans.
RE: The responsibility of participation? - Confused - 03-01-2011
(03-01-2011, 04:33 AM)zenmaster Wrote:(03-01-2011, 02:30 AM)Confused Wrote:The difference is that plants have no identity (to transcend), while the human does. So saying there is an advantage in this case is sort of like saying the human baby has an advantage in solving calculus problems or writing poetry, over the human adult, because it is free from knowing what these things are.(01-23-2011, 04:21 PM)unity100 Wrote: or, due to always living in meditative state, the.....
Isn't meditation actually experiencing the present moment with intense alacrity rather than ruminating over the past or the future? In that case, trees and plants seem to enjoy a natural advantage over humans.
Nicely explained. Thanks, Zenmaster.
RE: 2010.10.16 The responsibility of participation? - kycahi - 03-01-2011
(01-22-2011, 11:29 PM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote:(01-22-2011, 11:08 PM)jeremy6d Wrote: To me, it's less about particular actions such as eating meat and more about having a better awareness and appreciation for how you fit in with your surroundings and your world.
This same idea has been expressed by many others, and I still struggle to understand it. I honestly, sincerely, genuinely do not understand how knowingly contributing to the suffering of our younger brethren can be reconciled with the STO path.
I'm not judging anyone. I am simply expressing something that troubles and confuses me.
Here is something from Ra that might help.
Quote:18.6 Questioner: Basically I would say that to infringe upon the free will of another entity would be the basic thing never to do under the Law of One. Can you state any other breaking of the Law of One than this basic rule?
Ra: I am Ra. As one proceeds from the primal distortion of free will, one proceeds to the understanding of the focal points of intelligent energy which have created the intelligences or the ways of a particular mind/body/spirit complex in its environment, both what you would call natural and what you would call man-made. Thus, the distortions to be avoided are those which do not take into consideration the distortions of the focus of energy of love/light, or shall we say, the Logos of this particular sphere or density. These include the lack of understanding of the needs of the natural environment, the needs of other-selves’ mind/body/spirit complexes. These are many due to the various distortions of man-made complexes in which the intelligence and awareness of entities themselves have chosen a way of using the energies available.
Thus, what would be an improper distortion with one entity is proper with another. We can suggest an attempt to become aware of the other-self as self and thus do that action which is needed by other-self, understanding from the other-self’s intelligence and awareness. In many cases this does not involve the breaking of the distortion of free will into a distortion or fragmentation called infringement. However, it is a delicate matter to be of service, and compassion, sensitivity, and an ability to empathize are helpful in avoiding the distortions of man-made intelligence and awareness.
The area or arena called the societal complex is an arena in which there are no particular needs for care for it is the prerogative/honor/duty of those in the particular planetary sphere to act according to their free will for the attempted aid of the social complex.
Thus, you have two simple directives: awareness of the intelligent energy expressed in nature, awareness of the intelligent energy expressed in self to be shared when it seems appropriate by the entity with the social complex, and you have one infinitely subtle and various set of distortions of which you may be aware; that is, distortions with respect to self and other-selves not concerning free will but concerning harmonious relationships and service to others as other-selves would most benefit.
I added the emphasis as a pointer to the part of this long answer that I think applies to whether to enjoy meat as food. Now I will attempt an interpretation.
Human need and human digestion require/allow the eating of meat. That is, IMHO, okay in 3D because we are here for experience, and so are 2D entities that provide the meat. They experience a life either as a free animal that a human catches for food or as a penned animal living with less stress and more indulgence (contemplative?), perhaps, at least until slaughter.
Ra says, to me, that some peoples' eating prepared meat is incidental to a life of experiencing a multitude of things for growth. Over time/lifetimes, people acquire discernment with more awareness of the One that eating other selves can be a hindrance of compassion toward the 2D creatures. So, believing that eating other selves is not good and doing it anyway would generate self-judgment, aka guilt, which is IMO, always counterproductive.
Animals eat other animals and, I interpret, serve the One in so doing. People eat other animals likewise, but along their 3D way can choose to stop that practice from noble reasoning or heightened awareness.
Serving the Law of Confusion, if all humans were to cease eating meat, the drastic reduction of demand will drastically reduce the 2D population and thus the opportunities for 2D experiencing. A bit of irony there. :-/
RE: 2010.10.16 The responsibility of participation? - Richard - 03-08-2011
If you eat anything at all in this world, you are consuming the remains of a living organism. What difference if its covered with fur or leaves?
Right now, I sit at my desk at work. My lunch consisted of a a salad, a bottle of water and an orange. Hey, a vegetarian meal. But, what is an orange? A fruit perhaps....or the physically amputated limb of a living organism for the sake of food. Without that organism's permission? Same for lettuce....a living organism ripped from its home ...etc, etc...
Again, its about the choices we make in life. In our heart, to ourselves. To the ones we love and the people around us. The reasons for that choice matter less than just making the choice and honoring it within your heart.
Monica chooses vegetarianism, someone else chooses another way of eating that includes animal proteins. All choices and reactions to catalyst. We'll all find out sooner or later the results of those choices....but not in this lifetime.
Richard
RE: The responsibility of participation? - unity100 - 03-08-2011
(03-01-2011, 04:42 AM)Confused Wrote:(03-01-2011, 04:33 AM)zenmaster Wrote:(03-01-2011, 02:30 AM)Confused Wrote:The difference is that plants have no identity (to transcend), while the human does. So saying there is an advantage in this case is sort of like saying the human baby has an advantage in solving calculus problems or writing poetry, over the human adult, because it is free from knowing what these things are.(01-23-2011, 04:21 PM)unity100 Wrote: or, due to always living in meditative state, the.....
Isn't meditation actually experiencing the present moment with intense alacrity rather than ruminating over the past or the future? In that case, trees and plants seem to enjoy a natural advantage over humans.
Nicely explained. Thanks, Zenmaster.
i think some kind of societal mind, racial mind may exist in between plants/trees too. but the biases and the loss of connection from intelligent infinity would probably be much much less.