In regards to eating meat

[BrownEye]

in comparison to the killing of later 2D entities - cows, chickens, goats - I see a clear distinction.

For me the difference is consciousness. Take any "thing" that exists and what will you suppose its consciousness will expand to?

Obviously a bug will be different than an animal will be different than a man.

On top of that you have huge gaps in consciousness between evolved Humans and lower Man.

This should not be a hard concept for people to grasp. A simple example, how large a consciousness did you have at 5 years old compared to now? I will hope everyone says their consciousness has expanded since that age.


This connects with what I have said before about killing a fully awake animal versus an animal that is not awake. Same also applies to plants that are in a permanent state of meditation, versus non-meditative fully conscious foraging.

[Tenet Nosce]

Vegetarianism, as a philosophical construct, is based on the doctrine of ahimsa, or nonviolence toward living things. This concept was originally born in India circa the first millennium BC, and was largely a reaction to the practice of animal sacrifice, as prescribed by the Vedas. Ahimsa was largely promoted by Mahavira as one of the core tenets of Jainism, but as a philosophical principle, has become incorporated into many other belief systems.

At the core, ahimsa is simply a doctrine of nonviolence as a means to avoid acquiring additional karma. However it quickly became dogmatized into a strict practice of harmlessness toward all living things. Thus, the doctrine of ahimsa is inclusive of insects and plants.

There were obviously some big problems with this from the get-go. The first Jains were forced to quickly make concessions to the laypeople, and modified the philosophy to say that only an ascetic who took the "great vows" was required to follow a strict doctrine of ahimsa, while it was supposedly alright for the common person to simply abstain from killing animals.

To make such a strong declaration of philosophy, and then to try to backpedal and make concessions when the people do not accept it is, in my opinion, an unfortunate characteristic of all religions.

This is somewhat akin to saying that the First Commandment is Thou Shalt Not Kill... unless somebody is a terrorist, or invading your house, etc. While this kind of thinking apparently makes sense to a lot of people, it is completely defunct of any kind of sustainable logic.

Besides not eating meat, the doctrine of ahimsa also forbids Jains to eat after dark (in case an insect accidentally flies into their mouth), and requires them to carry little whisk brooms around with which they sweep the ground in front of their feet as they walk so as to not to inadvertently step on anything living.

For one to truly practice ahimsa would require them, for example, to allow their home to become infested with cockroaches and rats.

Extending this philosophy into the modern day, with our knowledge of microbes, would also require one with a raging case of pneumonia to forgo antibiotic treatment, for fear that killing the bacteria would cause one to accrue negative karma.

It would also require one to avoid drinking water from the tap, or even bottled water, since the processing of the water kills the microbes living within.

This is clearly absurd. Especially so when considered in light of the Law of One which says:

All things are one, that there is no polarity, no right or wrong, no disharmony, but only identity. All is one, and that one is love/light, light/love, the Infinite Creator.

If All is One, then All is Life. Therefore it is impossible for an entity to exist without taking other forms of Life into itself, thus violating the strict interpretation of ahimsa. Even if one were somehow able to subsist purely on light alone, they would still be taking the life of a star.

So OK maybe the whole harmlessness thing is a little extreme, but certainly we can get behind nonviolence, right?

Well yes, we can. But this poses a dilemma for the philosophical vegetarian because it would allow for the eating of animals that were raised and slaughtered in a nonviolent manner.

Vegans have it even worse from a philosophical standpoint as plants, too, are animal products. Plants would not grow if not for worms and other creatures in the soil, or if not for bees that spread their pollen, or if not for animals that eat their fruit and disperse the seeds in their feces.

Beyond that, it takes an animal (a human animal) to cultivate the plant, harvest it, package it, ship it, and place it on the grocery shelf for you to buy. So plants ARE animal products. (As animals are plant products) Sorry, but if a vegan wants to be a stickler for philosophy then so will I.

The only real reasons for vegetarianism that hold water are:

1. Unwillingness to participate in a system which perpetuates cruelty to animals.

2. The claim that vegetarianism is healthier for the body.

#1 - I have no beef with. (Pun intended)

#2 - There are some major problems with this idea.

The first problem with making these sorts of health claims is that they have never been scientifically shown to be true. In fact, vegetarians are at higher risk of certain vitamin and mineral deficiencies, as well as the usual concern about not getting enough protein. Science HAS shown that eating a plant-based diet is good for the body, but it has NOT shown that vegetarians enjoy any kind of special health benefits when compared to those who eat moderate amounts of meat.

While it is of course possible to meet the body's nutritional needs without consuming animal flesh, in practice many vegetarians and vegans subsist on all manner of processed garbage foods with all sorts of additives and chemicals somewhat curiously intended to make the food appear and taste like meat. This is not healthy for the body. Processed foods are junk to the body: vegan, vegetarian, or otherwise.

The second problem with the health argument is that it ignores the- now scientifically established- fact that every body is different. What is healthful for one body at one time, is not healthful for another body at another time. There is no "ideal" diet because there is no "ideal" person.

Consider this quote:

A ideal (healthwise) vegan raw food diet gets 80% of it's calories from raw fruit. This reduces harm to animals and plants. The rest of the 20% is from nuts (also do not harm plants) and vegetables for nutrients (which do harm plants).

Not only does a 80/10/10 vegan raw food diet reduce the amount of damage you do, it is literally the healthiest diet that human beings have discovered. It is literally the healthiest possible human diet and for most of the world it has been impossible to attain UNTIL TODAY. Thanks to modern agricultural practices we have enough bananas and oranges and mangoes and papayas so that people in the northern hemispheres can eat high-fruit diets year round and get the majority of their calories from fruit.

Come again, my friend? These claims are not based in any sort of science that I am aware of. This is somebody who is taking their personal opinion and trying to pass it off as scientific truth.

Not convinced?

The basic fruit sugar is glucose, which is the only sugar our body uses directly anyway, making high-glucose fruits the easiest food to digest in the world.

No, the basic fruit sugar is fructose, which furthermore CAN be metabolized directly by the body. There is no such thing as a "high glucose" fruit, nor is there much difference between the sugar content of most fruits. One cup of fruit contains about 15 grams of sugar. So, it's interesting to me how somebody can feel it's appropriate to make such STRONG CLAIMS about health and human physiology when they clearly haven't bothered to learn the basics of biochemistry.

Still not convinced? OK I did an experiment:

I constructed a 2000-calorie meal plan according to the rules proposed above. A nutritional analysis revealed it to be critically deficient in 3 essential vitamins and minerals as well as to only contain 50 grams of protein. This is barely enough protein to sustain the normal metabolic function of a 150-pound person who is completely sedentary (i.e. lying in a hospital bed). I will also point out that having 10% of the calories come from greens equated to 30 cups of raw spinach.

So, my friends, here is some dietary advice from somebody who is an actual bona fide nutrition expert as well as an avid student of the Law of One.

Seek first to understand what the actual physical needs of the human body are, i.e. what is the minimum amount of the 23 essential vitamins and minerals, essential fats, and protein needed for the body to function properly.

Secondly, seek to understand which foods contain which nutrients. It is not enough to simply eat "fruits and vegetables" for optimal nutrition. Especially if you are choosing a vegetarian lifestyle.

Thirdly, forget about all these supposed nutrition gurus who claim that their way is the one true way. There is no one true way.

In my opinion, the best reason to be a vegetarian is simply because you choose to be a vegetarian, and because you have the free will to do so. You do not need to justify your choice with any sort of philosophical argument.

And if you DON'T choose to be a vegetarian, please don't worry about whether or not this is going to retard your spiritual progress. Spiritual growth has much more to do with what is coming out of your mouth, than what is going into it.

All things are one, that there is no polarity, no right or wrong, no disharmony, but only identity. All is one, and that one is love/light, light/love, the Infinite Creator.

This is the bottom line. Everything else is an illusion. Including that hamburger.

[BrownEye]

^^Sorry, all I see here is personal opinion.

---

Extending this philosophy into the modern day, with our knowledge of microbes, would also require one with a raging case of pneumonia to forgo antibiotic treatment, for fear that killing the bacteria would cause one to accrue negative karma.

It would also require one to avoid drinking water from the tap, or even bottled water, since the processing of the water kills the microbes living within.

This is clearly absurd. Especially so when considered in light of the Law of One which says:

All things are one, that there is no polarity, no right or wrong, no disharmony, but only identity. All is one, and that one is love/light, light/love, the Infinite Creator.

If All is One, then All is Life. Therefore it is impossible for an entity to exist without taking other forms of Life into itself, thus violating the strict interpretation of ahimsa.

Don't know what makes you think vegans are "ahimsa".

If all bacteria in your body die, so do you.

If all enzymes in your body die, so do you.



Now you can tell me how your life/consciousness is equal to a microbe as you have so eloquently tried to state in your write-up.



I will again bring up a concept to life that seems lost still.

We are supposed to evolve towards becoming beings of light.

The best health comes about from taking in light. Not death. The darkness inside folks just love to feed on death, with their mouth, with their eyes, with their ears. Kind of strange how Mankind is so easily manipulated by those that understand what forms and shapes your mind. I can guarantee that any person born into a natural vegetarian household will not begin to salivate when they see an animal run across their path. In fact you have to love the thrill of killing before the thought of killing even enters the mind when something crosses your path.

Can you tell me in simple terms exactly where you can take in light in the form of an ingestible substance?

It has taken a long time to create this system of mass production of death, and getting folks addicted enough to pay for it.

I wish there were more that were willing to step up against the false "Law" instead of taking the path of least resistance.

[Monica]

this poses a dilemma for the philosophical vegetarian because it would allow for the eating of animals that were raised and slaughtered in a nonviolent manner.

How can slaughter be nonviolent?

The only real reasons for vegetarianism that hold water are:

1. Unwillingness to participate in a system which perpetuates cruelty to animals.

2. The claim that vegetarianism is healthier for the body.

#1 - I have no beef with. (Pun intended)

#2 - There are some major problems with this idea.

The first problem with making these sorts of health claims is that they have never been scientifically shown to be true. In fact, vegetarians are at higher risk of certain vitamin and mineral deficiencies, as well as the usual concern about not getting enough protein. Science HAS shown that eating a plant-based diet is good for the body, but it has NOT shown that vegetarians enjoy any kind of special health benefits when compared to those who eat moderate amounts of meat.

Respectfully, Tenet, you are mistaken on this point. The myth that vegetarians don't get enough protein was laid to rest decades ago. While it is true that vegans may be at risk for vitamin B12 deficiency, protein deficiencies are extremely rare. Contrast that with the myriad risks for meat eaters. It has been conclusively proven that the more meat a person consumes, the higher his/her risk for all the major diseases: cancer, heart disease, diabetes, stroke, obesity, etc. For verification of this, read The China Study.

Proponents of meat-diets such as Dr. Mercola dispute The China Study. However, Dr. Mercola's arguments fall flat and in fact contradict his other points made elsewhere, such as the importance of clinical evidence. And, there were many other studies, prior to The China Study. A simple search will yield much.

While it is of course possible to meet the body's nutritional needs without consuming animal flesh, in practice many vegetarians and vegans subsist on all manner of processed garbage foods with all sorts of additives and chemicals somewhat curiously intended to make the food appear and taste like meat. This is not healthy for the body. Processed foods are junk to the body: vegan, vegetarian, or otherwise.

I agree about the processed foods, and it's certainly true that not all vegetarians eat healthy. That's because there are different reasons for being a vegetarian - not all of them health based. I've known vegetarians who smoke cigarettes and drink cancer-in-a-can! (soda)

But then, so do many meat-eaters, so it's a moot point. Discussing the vegetarians who eat junk foods, is kind of irrelevant, being that meat-eaters do too.

The bottom line is that, when all those other factors (exercise, smoking, other dietary considerations, etc.) are accounted for, vegetarians still have lower risk of most diseases than meat-eaters. This is a statistical fact.

The second problem with the health argument is that it ignores the- now scientifically established- fact that every body is different. What is healthful for one body at one time, is not healthful for another body at another time. There is no "ideal" diet because there is no "ideal" person.

In my opinion, the only reason that theory holds any water is because of the person's consciousness. As the consciousness is raised, the body adapts.

Consider this quote:

A ideal (healthwise) vegan raw food diet gets 80% of it's calories from raw fruit. This reduces harm to animals and plants. The rest of the 20% is from nuts (also do not harm plants) and vegetables for nutrients (which do harm plants).

Not only does a 80/10/10 vegan raw food diet reduce the amount of damage you do, it is literally the healthiest diet that human beings have discovered. It is literally the healthiest possible human diet and for most of the world it has been impossible to attain UNTIL TODAY. Thanks to modern agricultural practices we have enough bananas and oranges and mangoes and papayas so that people in the northern hemispheres can eat high-fruit diets year round and get the majority of their calories from fruit.

Come again, my friend? These claims are not based in any sort of science that I am aware of. This is somebody who is taking their personal opinion and trying to pass it off as scientific truth.

Yossarian didn't claim that those ideas were backed by scientific study. However I agree with him about the raw vegan diet, though the ratio is disputable. I just wouldn't claim it to be backed by scientific study, because, to my knowledge, the raw vegan diet hasn't been studied scientifically. However, there is an abundance of clinical evidence supporting it. And, it's intuitively reasonable that the human body would thrive on the foods naturally supplied by Mother Nature.

I constructed a 2000-calorie meal plan according to the rules proposed above. A nutritional analysis revealed it to be critically deficient in 3 essential vitamins and minerals as well as to only contain 50 grams of protein. This is barely enough protein to sustain the normal metabolic function of a 150-pound person who is completely sedentary (i.e. lying in a hospital bed). I will also point out that having 10% of the calories come from greens equated to 30 cups of raw spinach.

So, my friends, here is some dietary advice from somebody who is an actual bona fide nutrition expert as well as an avid student of the Law of One.

But, respectfully, apparently not well educated on the raw vegan diet. Which is understandable, being that it's a relatively new phenomenon. I invite you to become acquainted with the works of Dr. Gabriel Cousens. He's an MD and absolutely the most brilliant proponent of the raw vegan diet. However, he recommends a higher fat ratio than the 80-10-10. There are different schools of thought on the raw vegan diet. Dr. Cousens has the most clinical experience to back up his views.

Start here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiQE-YF11qU

when it finishes, #2 will pop up automatically

Here is #4, where he starts talking about problems in vegan diet:

04 - Problems of the Vegan Diet - Dr Gabriel Cousens MD - Overview of Great Health Debate, Dr. Cousens vs. Dr. Mercola
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DkXrBgSvyJ8&NR=1

05 - Common Deficiencies in Both Meat and Vegan Diets - Dr Gabriel Cousens MD
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRwlgHghPGM

06 - Meat Eater Scare Tactics - Healthly Vegan Mental Health -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VkDxdufj...re=related

07 - Healthly Vegan Mental Health and Healthy Vegan Babies Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8syy2NbeAQ&NR=1
(He talks about DHA in bluegreen algae here)

08 - Acidity Alkalinity and Mental Health - Dr Gabriel Cousens MD
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFsScI6ljd4&NR=1

09 - Creating the Right Diet for your Life Agenda
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B04lgiuzT...re=related

10 Live Food Turns on your Anti-Aging Genes and
Turns Down your Inflammation Genes
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_AIwYibEs...re=related

11 - Live Food Has the Potential to Create Super Athletes
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUNiF8pIu...re=related

12 - Eating According to your Age, Seasons, Location,
and Constitution: An Ayurvedic Approach
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFBu3tVi5a4

13 Holistic (Mind Body Emotions Spirit) Approach to Diet
Vs Allopatic
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nbR8JJlPdc

14 - Issues with High Carb Low Fat Diet
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUPa9eQSk...re=related

15 - The Enlightenment Cuisine
and Locavore Discussion
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIhJjVwctUI&NR=1

16 - Reality of Veganic Farming
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEV5ckhxW...re=related

17 - The Less you Eat, the Longer you Live
Energy as Food
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2Xz-vyji...re=related

18 - The Proven Dangers of the Meat Fish
Chicken and Dairy Diet
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mf7IINReIjk&NR=1

19 - Big Picture of the Health Debate Discussion
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5vBAoM6DkA&NR=1

20 - Evidence of Successful Live Food and
Plant Source Cultures in History
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXMOTLtrcMs

Seek first to understand what the actual physical needs of the human body are, i.e. what is the minimum amount of the 23 essential vitamins and minerals, essential fats, and protein needed for the body to function properly.

Those RDA amounts are all based on cooked foods, so those values are obsolete. Raw foods are absorbed so much better, that less is needed.

Check out these raw vegan bodybuilders:

http://www.markusrothkranz.com/muscledvd...ledvd.html

I purchased this dvd set and highly recommend it. Mind-blowing! Shatters all the myths about what the human body needs to thrive. These people are living it.

Secondly, seek to understand which foods contain which nutrients. It is not enough to simply eat "fruits and vegetables" for optimal nutrition. Especially if you are choosing a vegetarian lifestyle.

I don't know anyone claiming that only fruits and veggies are enough. The diet must also include nuts and seeds.

Thirdly, forget about all these supposed nutrition gurus who claim that their way is the one true way. There is no one true way.

True, because we're not all at the same place in our evolution. However, the raw vegan diet, by all indications, seems congruent with what Ra has told us about the direction we're going in - towards a nonviolent 4D reality, an eventually consumption of only living nectar. As I said previously in this thread, no one is going to make the leap from hamburgers directly to living nectars. It's a process. Eliminating dead animals is the first logical step.

In my opinion, the best reason to be a vegetarian is simply because you choose to be a vegetarian, and because you have the free will to do so. You do not need to justify your choice with any sort of philosophical argument.

No one needs to justify their choice. But why not? There are so many reasons to quit eating animals! The list of reasons is so long...

And if you DON'T choose to be a vegetarian, please don't worry about whether or not this is going to retard your spiritual progress. Spiritual growth has much more to do with what is coming out of your mouth, than what is going into it.

Tenet, after reading your excellent points about war, I am quite surprised by this. I view the slaughter of animals, in the same way you view war.

All things are one, that there is no polarity, no right or wrong, no disharmony, but only identity. All is one, and that one is love/light, light/love, the Infinite Creator.

This is the bottom line. Everything else is an illusion. Including that hamburger.

Including that child killed in a raid in Iraq?

Not trying to be sarcastic here! But just making a point. I agree with you 100% on war. I invite you to consider the incongruency, of viewing war as incompatible with the STO path, yet slaughtering animals is compatible and 'just an illusion'. How is animal cruelty an illusion, while cruelty to humans not an illusion? Why is war unacceptable, but supporting cruelty to our younger brethren, acceptable? Do you see the incongruency here?

I invite you to read this entire thread, Tenet.

---

If all bacteria in your body die, so do you.

If all enzymes in your body die, so do you.

Very true. We have more microbes in our bodies than we do cells. This is fact.

We are supposed to evolve towards becoming beings of light.

The best health comes about from taking in light. Not death. The darkness inside folks just love to feed on death, with their mouth, with their eyes, with their ears. Kind of strange how Mankind is so easily manipulated by those that understand what forms and shapes your mind. I can guarantee that any person born into a natural vegetarian household will not begin to salivate when they see an animal run across their path. In fact you have to love the thrill of killing before the thought of killing even enters the mind when something crosses your path.

Can you tell me in simple terms exactly where you can take in light in the form of an ingestible substance?

It has taken a long time to create this system of mass production of death, and getting folks addicted enough to pay for it.

I wish there were more that were willing to step up against the false "Law" instead of taking the path of least resistance.

Well said!

Life begets life.

Death begets death.

OK this is kinda over-the-top evangelical, but right on!

http://www.markusrothkranz.com/

[Tenet Nosce]

We are supposed to evolve towards becoming beings of light.

Says who? I say that we already are beings of light. Some of us remember, some of us do not.

Can you tell me in simple terms exactly where you can take in light in the form of an ingestible substance?

I believe I gave this explanation twice. It is the basic tenet of the Law of One. However I don't mind restating it.

All things are one, that there is no polarity, no right or wrong, no disharmony, but only identity. All is one, and that one is love/light, light/love, the Infinite Creator.

All is light. There is no darkness. There is no death. There is only light.

The apple is light. The spinach is light. The cow is light. And you are light. This is not just a metaphysical truth, but a physical one. It is expressed in the following equation:

E=mc^2

Can't get much simpler than that.

[Monica]

Says who?

Says Ra. The 3D vehicle is carbon based. The 4D vehicle is photon based. Or maybe it was Q'uo who said it.

Can you tell me in simple terms exactly where you can take in light in the form of an ingestible substance?

I believe I gave this explanation twice. It is the basic tenet of the Law of One. However I don't mind restating it.

All things are one, that there is no polarity, no right or wrong, no disharmony, but only identity. All is one, and that one is love/light, light/love, the Infinite Creator.

All is light. There is no darkness. There is no death. There is only light.

The apple is light. The spinach is light. The cow is light. And you are light. This is not just a metaphysical truth, but a physical one.

Do you really see no difference between eating a cow and eating an apple? Again I am surprised.

Yes, ultimately all is made from light, but you are leaving out the minor detail that we dwell in a heavy chemical illusion. On a purely physical level, it's a question of efficiency. A piece of meat isn't digested the same way as an apple.

Not to mention the spiritual considerations, which have already been extensively covered in this thread.

Regarding scientific evidence for decreased risk of disease among vegetarians, there is an abundance of info available. I found this with a quick search, for starters:

http://www.vegsource.com/harris/cancer_vegdiet.htm

Evidence from a broad scientific literature suggests:

A. Rates for at least six common types of cancer, country by country, correlate with the consumption of animal source food.

B. There is a modest negative correlation with these cancers and plant source food consumption.

C. A variety of phytochemicals present in plant foods have been demonstrated to be protective against the DNA damage that leads to cancer.

D. The veg*n diet, extolled by its advocates for at least 150 years as a cancer preventive strategy, is the logical end point of the dietary recommendations, now made by scientific organizations, to reduce animal food consumption.

E. A recent clinical review (49) concluded: "Up to 80% of bowel and breast cancer may be preventable by dietary change... Diet contributes to varying extent to the risk of many other cancers, including cancers of the lung, prostate, stomach, oesophagus, and pancreas... Generally, fruit, vegetables, and fibre have a protective effect, whereas red and processed meat increase the risk of developing cancer."

There are no logical arguments for the continued use of animal source food in the human diet.

And here is an excerpt from The China Study:

The research project culminated in a 20-year partnership of Cornell University, Oxford University, and the Chinese Academy of Preventive Medicine, a survey of diseases and lifestyle factors in rural China and Taiwan. More commonly known as the China Study, "this project eventually produced more than 8000 statistically significant associations between various dietary factors and disease."

The findings? "People who ate the most animal-based foods got the most chronic disease ... People who ate the most plant-based foods were the healthiest and tended to avoid chronic disease. These results could not be ignored," said Dr. Campbell.

---

The B12 issue is easily solved with a supplement. And, many meat-eaters cannot absorb B12, so this issue concerns meat-eaters as well. Furthermore, the raw vegan diet addresses this, if it includes fermented foods. In other words, there are healthy and unhealthy variations of the vegetarian diet. I find any mention of the very few health risks for vegetarians rather amusing, in light of the widespread epidemics of cancer, heart disease, diabetes, etc. among meat-eaters.

---

What I really like about Dr. Cousens is that he acknowledges that some people do have challenges following a vegan diet, but then offers specific solutions, that have been proven to work in his clinical practice. He also acknowledges that it's possible to be healthy while eating meat, but states that one's spirituality is also a factor; ie. a meat-eater who isn't spiritual might be healthy and content, but someone who seeks higher consciousness is less likely to be content eating dead animals. Thus, spiritual aspirations must be taken into consideration, when deciding on what constitutes a 'health' diet. I highly recommend listening to the interview I linked above - I'm certain you will find it most intriguing and illuminating! And I really doubt that anyone could find fault with Dr. Cousens' views - he really is extremely brilliant and I consider him the top expert in the field of raw vegan. When he and Dr. Mercola debated, Dr. Mercola was completely outclassed and humbled because Dr. Cousens totally eradicated all of Dr. Mercola's objections, and he did it with utmost graciousness and respect to Dr. Mercola. A class act!

---

All is light. There is no darkness. There is no death. There is only light.

Ultimately, yes. From the Creator's viewpoint, yes.

Can you apply this to the war issue? No death. Would that make war ok, then?

[Tenet Nosce]

How can slaughter be nonviolent?

With respect, gratitude, and a conscious effort to minimize or eliminate pain.

Respectfully, Tenet, you are mistaken on this point. The myth that vegetarians don't get enough protein was laid to rest decades ago. While it is true that vegans may be at risk for vitamin B12 deficiency, protein deficiencies are extremely rare.

I have seen plenty of meat eaters also that do not get enough protein. As far as I am aware, an active human body requires 1.0-1.5 grams of protein per kilogram body weight daily. If there is new info out there on this, I would like to see it!

But anyway, I am not advocating here for meat eating nor claiming that it is healthier to eat meat. What I was trying to get at is that the most important thing, from a health standpoint, is to get the proper nutrition. This can certainly be done with a vegetarian diet, but to say a vegetarian diet is automatically superior, simply because it lacks meat is also erroneous.

It has been conclusively proven that the more meat a person consumes, the higher his/her risk for all the major diseases: cancer, heart disease, diabetes, stroke, obesity, etc. For verification of this, read The China Study.

What, then, do vegetarians die of? Or do vegetarians all die peacefully in their sleep? I'm being a bit facetious, of course. I won't get into the whole China Study debate, but I'm pretty sure it didn't find low to moderate meat consumption to be significantly associated with higher disease rates. Correct me if I am wrong!

But then, so do many meat-eaters, so it's a moot point. Discussing the vegetarians who eat junk foods, is kind of irrelevant, being that meat-eaters do too.

Yeah. I almost took that paragraph out, but didn't. I guess the relevancy is getting back to the idea that vegetarianism is better simply because it is vegetarianism, and not because it is higher quality food. But it is mostly irrelevant to the main thrust of the post.

In my opinion, the only reason that theory holds any water is because of the person's consciousness. As the consciousness is raised, the body adapts.

There is a great deal of evidence to suggest different diets for different bodies. A breakthrough study not to long ago found that human beings fall into three distinct types, based on differences in gut bacteria, which affect (among other things) how food is processed. But I do agree consciousness is also a factor.

Yossarian didn't claim that those ideas were backed by scientific study.

You are right, he did not. But then those ideas are backed by... what then?

But, respectfully, apparently not well educated on the raw vegan diet. Which is understandable, being that it's a relatively new phenomenon. I invite you to become acquainted with the works of Dr. Gabriel Cousens. He's an MD and absolutely the most brilliant proponent of the raw vegan diet. However, he recommends a higher fat ratio than the 80-10-10. There are different schools of thought on the raw vegan diet. Dr. Cousens has the most clinical experience to back up his views.

I will check out that info as I am always open to new ideas. Though I will say your reply skirted around the issue that Yossarian's "healthiest possible human diet" can clearly be improved upon from a nutritional standpoint. Without having to add in meat, of course!

Those RDA amounts are all based on cooked foods, so those values are obsolete. Raw foods are absorbed so much better, that less is needed.

Mmmmm I will debate you on that one. I see a lot of people whose bodies do not produce enough digestive enzymes break down cooked food, much less raw food. And what is the evidence that makes the RDA values obsolete?

Check out these raw vegan bodybuilders:

Yeah, I have seen some of those guys. Obviously, they are doing something right! Again, nothing in my post was meant to insinuate that one must or should eat meat in order to be healthy..

I don't know anyone claiming that only fruits and veggies are enough. The diet must also include nuts and seeds.

I'm not talking about the experts here. I'm talking about your everyday people who decide on a whim to become vegetarian and think that an iceberg lettuce salad with two slices of cucumber and a cherry tomato is a good choice. You obviously have taken the time to educate yourself on the matter. Many people do not.

True, because we're not all at the same place in our evolution. However, the raw vegan diet, by all indications, seems congruent with what Ra has told us about the direction we're going in - towards a nonviolent 4D reality, an eventually consumption of only living nectar. As I said previously in this thread, no one is going to make the leap from hamburgers directly to living nectars. It's a process. Eliminating dead animals is the first logical step.

No argument here!

Tenet, after reading your excellent points about war, I am quite surprised by this. I view the slaughter of animals, in the same way you view war.

Don't really have a comment yet, but I wanted to acknowledge that I heard you.

Not trying to be sarcastic here! But just making a point. I agree with you 100% on war. I invite you to consider the incongruency, of viewing war as incompatible with the STO path, yet slaughtering animals is compatible and 'just an illusion'. How is animal cruelty an illusion, while cruelty to humans not an illusion? Why is war unacceptable, but supporting cruelty to our younger brethren, acceptable? Do you see the incongruency here?

Yes, I see the incongruency, and will ponder it.

Very true. We have more microbes in our bodies than we do cells. This is fact.

Right. About 90% of the cells found in or on the human body are bacterial cells. The body also devotes a large portion of its available energy to identifying which ones will be allowed to grow and which will be eliminated. So in a very fundamental way, life and death are inextricably linked. At least here in 3D. The body must take life in order to have life. People do not need to kill each other in order to live in peace.

Whew! I gotta get my bones to bed! But I will conclude for now with a quote from my own post:

The only real reasons for vegetarianism that hold water are:

1. Unwillingness to participate in a system which perpetuates cruelty to animals.

2. The claim that vegetarianism is healthier for the body.

So basically you and I agree on the reasons to be vegetarian. No?

Y'all jumped right past the first half of the post in which I was talking about philosophical arguments for vegetarianism based on an extreme ideal of harmlessness that is impossible to embody in the 3D world.

[Monica]

With respect, gratitude, and a conscious effort to minimize or eliminate pain.

But it's still an act of violence.

Case in point:

2 murderers. 1 of them killed his human victim swiftly. The other tortured her for many hours before killing her. In a court of law, the murder with torture is considered far more heinous than the one without torture. But, both are considered acts of violence.

I have seen plenty of meat eaters also that do not get enough protein. As far as I am aware, an active human body requires 1.0-1.5 grams of protein per kilogram body weight daily. If there is new info out there on this, I would like to see it!

The Dr. Cousens interview and books have a great deal of cutting-edge info. I'm not sure what exact amount of protein he advocates, but I do know that not all protein is equal. This is easily proven by those bodybuilders. If/when you watch the videos, you will see that the cab driver - the one with the biggest muscles - eats relatively little protein, considering his bulk. But it's all raw plant-based. And look at Markus Rothkranz. He's got incredible muscle and he lives on mostly weeds! He gets his protein the same ways cows and horses do - from greens.

Even gorillas get most of their protein from leafy greens. If I remember correctly, the natural diet of the gorilla in the wild is just leafy greens and fruit, with only a few bugs thrown in. Yet look at how strong they are! And human anatomy is the closest to the ape.

The thing is, most people don't eat much in the way of raw leafy greens. Until now...with high speed blenders like the VitaMix...now it's possible to down a huge amount of greens, so we don't have to spend all day chewing like gorillas do.

It could be argued that using a VitaMix to make green smoothies isn't 'natural' but then if humans were meant to fly we'd have wings, right? I see no reason not to use technology to achieve the desired purpose.

The VitaMix, dehydrator, and water ionizer are the new standard kitchen appliances for raw vegans. These cutting-edge devices change everything. They make it possible to eat highly nutritious, yet delicious foods, and drink water that can be found only in freshly melted glaciers, in Nature. They are tools for healing, and helping the body adapt to a higher frequency.

But anyway, I am not advocating here for meat eating nor claiming that it is healthier to eat meat. What I was trying to get at is that the most important thing, from a health standpoint, is to get the proper nutrition. This can certainly be done with a vegetarian diet, but to say a vegetarian diet is automatically superior, simply because it lacks meat is also erroneous.

Ah, thank you for that clarification! This is a very long thread, and much has already been discussed. I've stated previously that just cutting out meat doesn't make one's diet healthy, but perhaps you missed those old posts. I absolutely agree that just being veg doesn't make one healthy.

When I stated that vegetarians have lower risks of diseases, this was based on statistics that had already been adjusted to account for lifestyle factors such as smoking, exercise, etc. Certainly there are vegetarians who eat junk, smoke, etc. and some of these were included in the samples, along with the meat-eaters who ate junk, smoked, etc. But despite that, the vegetarians still had lower risks overall.

These are just statistics, so of course there are undoubtedly vegetarians who eat a lot of junk, who aren't healthy.

When I first became a vegetarian, I didn't know what I was doing, and didn't have much in the way of resources. This was 30 years ago! So my diet wasn't very healthy either at first. But since health was one of my reasons (along with spiritual, etc.) for going veg, I continued to learn as I went.

My husband and I have often marveled at people we know who are vegans yet smoke. It seems ludicrous to us, but those particular vegans obviously didn't become vegan for health reasons.

What, then, do vegetarians die of? Or do vegetarians all die peacefully in their sleep?

Oh, probably air pollution and fluoride...

Seriously, I have no idea. They certainly aren't immune to everything. We live in a very toxic environment. So obviously there are many factors to health besides diet. Still, being veg is something we can do, to minimize dietary risks.

I'm being a bit facetious, of course. I won't get into the whole China Study debate, but I'm pretty sure it didn't find low to moderate meat consumption to be significantly associated with higher disease rates. Correct me if I am wrong!

From what I understand, there was a direct correlation between animal 'foods' and cancer. The more animal 'foods' (including dairy) in the diet, the higher the risk of cancer.

Even Dr. Cousens acknowledges that some people can eat low to moderate amounts of meat and still be healthy. Some can get away with it and some can't, due to genetics etc. Being veg. isn't a surefire guarantee of anything. We all know the story of the man who smoked 2 packs of cigs a day and lived to be 95!

But just look at the stats. In the US, 1 in 2 people now get cancer at some time in their lives. 1 in 2! Children get cancer. I saw in the paper recently that diabetes is becoming rampant in children. And teenagers now have high cholesterol! And get this: there are now babies being born with cancer! Babies!! That's just wrong.

Obviously meat isn't the only factor here. We live in a toxic soup. But the body can eliminate or neutralize a lot of those poisons, if we consume lots of greens. Meat just adds to the problem because it's carcinogenous itself.

I guess the relevancy is getting back to the idea that vegetarianism is better simply because it is vegetarianism, and not because it is higher quality food. But it is mostly irrelevant to the main thrust of the post.

I understand your point, but only partially agree. I think vegetarianism is healthier for several reasons:

1. As you say, it's better quality food. Although not all vegetarians eat healthily, overall as a group they do tend to eat more fruits and veggies.
2. The carcinogenous meat has been eliminated.
3. Digestion is more efficient, because veg. foods pass thru the body faster. (I'm sure you've heard the argument about the digestive tract of carnivores vs. herbivores.)
4. Raw fruits and veggies help eliminate toxins from the environment, so have benefits beyond their nutritional profile.
5. Vegans aren't ingesting the hormones that were injected into the animal.
6. Vegetarians aren't ingesting the hormones that were produced by the animal when in a state of fear, just before being slaughtered.

There are probably more, but those are just off the top of my head.

But I do see your point. A person who eats a lot of junk food isn't going to be any healthier just because they give up meat.

There is a great deal of evidence to suggest different diets for different bodies. A breakthrough study not to long ago found that human beings fall into three distinct types, based on differences in gut bacteria, which affect (among other things) how food is processed.

I'm not familiar with that. But just as with the nutritional requirements, the raw diet may change everything. Those 3 types of people in that study might show different results if they switched to a raw vegan diet. Diet affects inner terrain.

But I do agree consciousness is also a factor.

You are right, he did not. But then those ideas are backed by... what then?

The 80-10-10 diet is one of many schools of thought, each one having its proponents who claim experience with patients or clients. In the 80-10-10 diet, the leading proponent is an athlete who has worked with many athletes. But essentially, it is still theoretical, as are all other specific dietary formulas. There are so many different diets out there, each one claiming to be 'the' right one.

Of those, raw vegan has the best track record for getting people off their deathbeds, so that says a lot. Check out some of the many books written by people who were on their cancer deathbeds, and survived and are now thriving, by doing some version of a vegetarian, mostly or all-raw diet, with lots of veg. juices. There are many thousands of those stories out there. The more radical the diet in terms of raw vegan, the faster the recovery, seems to be the trend. (This is my observation here; I'm not citing any particular study on this. But I've met some of those people and their protocols tend to be very similar: detox and rebuild, with plant foods.)

I will check out that info as I am always open to new ideas.

Great! I look forward to discussing it with you, if you're interested.

Though I will say your reply skirted around the issue that Yossarian's "healthiest possible human diet" can clearly be improved upon from a nutritional standpoint. Without having to add in meat, of course!

I agree with yossarian that a raw vegan diet is the healthiest possible human diet. Whether it's 80-10-10 or some other ratio, has not been determined, and it may be that different ratios may be appropriate for different people. While I do believe that a raw vegan diet is the eventual destination for 3D entities as they transition to 4D, I do acknowledge that slight variations of that might be appropriate for different people. Obviously, and athlete will have different needs than a sedentary person. I just don't take the 'different strokes for different folks' to the degree of some requiring meat and others not. With a few rare exceptions, maybe, but even then, I think the raw vegan diet would likely work in those cases too, provided the consciousness embraces it.

In other words, I think anyone who is attracted to the raw vegan diet, can make it work. But they may need to make some adjustments. Dr. Cousens elaborates on this. He says that some people who try the raw vegan diet but crave meat, are able to succeed by adding in superfoods like bluegreen algae, chlorella, bee pollen, etc. This eliminates the meat cravings. It's because we are in a transitional stage and our environment is so toxic. Once the planet is cleaned up, superfoods shouldn't be necessary. But right now, our produce is a mere shadow of its former self. You can compare USDA figures from half a century ago and see that foods have a fraction of the nutrients they had back then.

Mmmmm I will debate you on that one. I see a lot of people whose bodies do not produce enough digestive enzymes break down cooked food, much less raw food.

Cooking destroys enzymes, so more are needed to break down cooked foods. Raw foods still have enzymes intact.

And what is the evidence that makes the RDA values obsolete?

I don't claim to have evidence. It's simple observation. Since the vast majority of the population eats mostly cooked food, then it follows that the tables were based on humans who eat mostly cooked food. They haven't made a new table based on the needs of raw vegans. If they did, they would likely find the requirements different, or they might find that the requirements are the same, but they are met more efficiently.

Case in point: Vitamin supplements are often much higher than the RDA, because most of the vitamin goes thru the body and down the toilet. It isn't absorbed.

Yeah, I have seen some of those guys. Obviously, they are doing something right! Again, nothing in my post was meant to insinuate that one must or should eat meat in order to be healthy..

OK thanks.

I'm not talking about the experts here. I'm talking about your everyday people who decide on a whim to become vegetarian and think that an iceberg lettuce salad with two slices of cucumber and a cherry tomato is a good choice. You obviously have taken the time to educate yourself on the matter. Many people do not.

Agreed! And yet, despite that, vegetarians as a group still fare better than the meat-eaters as a group. Both groups have health-conscious people and junk-food people.

Don't really have a comment yet, but I wanted to acknowledge that I heard you.

Thank you!

Yes, I see the incongruency, and will ponder it.

Fair enough! I commend you for that. Many people won't even ponder ideas outside their paradigm.

Right. About 90% of the cells found in or on the human body are bacterial cells. The body also devotes a large portion of its available energy to identifying which ones will be allowed to grow and which will be eliminated. So in a very fundamental way, life and death are inextricably linked. At least here in 3D. The body must take life in order to have life.

Exactly! Which is exactly why I think, at this stage in our evolution, we have to do the best we can to minimize violence towards other beings, while recognizing that we cannot totally escape this cycle of life and death. We cannot avoid breathing in microbes; thus, I doubt that being breathed in is traumatic for the microbes. It is apparently a natural part of their life cycle.

Likewise, it's quite clear that plant foods are sustaining and healing. The nutrients (vitamin C, antioxidants, etc.) that have been proven to strengthen the immune system, decrease cancer risk, etc. tend to be found in...plant foods! While the destructive substances (saturated fats, etc.) tend to be found in animal 'foods'.

Could this be a clue?

I cannot prove that the carrots in my garden don't mind being uprooted. I believe that, when I eat them, their consciousness merges with mine. I cannot prove that either. But it makes sense to me that the very foods that have been proven to be healing, wouldn't be traumatized by being harvested and used for this very purpose.

Whereas, animals are clearly traumatized when they're slaughtered, whether in a 'humane' way or not. And animal 'foods' are unmistakeably associated with higher risk of diseases.

A clue?

What I'm saying is, until we get to the point (in 5D?) where we consume only 'living nectar' then it seems reasonable that we pay attention to what helps us thrive and what doesn't, as clues to understanding what we really should be eating. We can't avoid breathing in microbes. And if we want to be healthy, we really do need some plant foods in our diets. Whether the diet includes meat or not, there is no question that plant foods are necessary for good health. So it doesn't appear that eating plant foods - like breathing in microbes - is traumatizing to any entities. It just seems to be the natural way.

People do not need to kill each other in order to live in peace.

Right. And they don't need to kill animals to be healthy!

The only real reasons for vegetarianism that hold water are:

1. Unwillingness to participate in a system which perpetuates cruelty to animals.

2. The claim that vegetarianism is healthier for the body.

So basically you and I agree on the reasons to be vegetarian. No?

Well, you then said that you didn't agree with #2, and then proceeded to explain why the veg. diet wasn't necessarily healthier. So I took that to mean you only really agreed with #1. And even that was later confused, with the statement about an apple being the same as a hamburger.

Thank you for clarifying your views!

I can now say I agree with both of those reasons for being veg, but they aren't the only reasons. I would add: spirituality and environmental reasons, and even economic reasons as well. All are valid reasons. For me, it's all of the above.

Y'all jumped right past the first half of the post in which I was talking about philosophical arguments for vegetarianism based on an extreme ideal of harmlessness that is impossible to embody in the 3D world.

Sorry. I should have stated that I do agree with you on that. It truly is impossible.

[3DMonkey]

Great post, Monica. It is clear and also thought provoking. Admittedly, I am posting before reading further.

Until the time comes to slaughter them, when the child cries upon learning of the harsh reality of 4H clubs, and on that day becomes hardened

I know 3. Two women agree. The man, well, I'm not sure he was old enough to remember the day he was 'hardened', seriously :-/ (I'll double check to make sure)

What will the entity imprint on its consciousness, as it evolves towards 3D? What kind of 3D entity will it be, because of the circumstances in which it awakened to self-awareness?

Good questions to ask. We could put that in LOO thread

A 'humanely' raised animal will likely conclude that life might be good for awhile, but then, suddenly when you least expect, those whom you loved and trusted, betray you. Such an entity will likely have serious psychological issues when s/he becomes human. S/he may have trust issues...difficulty in forming attachments...difficulty in developing relationships.

Very interesting. As I read the scenarios, I am convinced that murder or no murder, issues or no issues, the life of the animal under a more compassionate caretaker will imprint more positivity into the aura of the entity.

There is one logical point I'd like to address. 2D animals, in all their reaching up to 3D light, are easily manipulated, much like a 3D toddler. I personally don't think that an animal, having no contemplative concept of the death awaiting it, natural death or not, is necessarily going to know or realize that it died as a direct action by its compassionate caretaker. It would be an assumption.

EDIT: And now that you have been in a more lenient perspective, I'm finally noticing that the feed farms and slaughter houses, well those animals see the death of others, right? Wow, there must be a serious 2D vibration of fear/control emitting from this environment....

---

Uh-oh. Here we go again...

I didn't go over point for point, but I tend to take Tenet's view. Which, I think, is not about 'march against animal cruelty' like I think is Pickle's, but more about letting the 3D Other's do as they see best for themselves because it is more congruent with seeing other as self.

[Monica]

Great post, Monica. It is clear and also thought provoking.

Thanks. I'm glad you found value in it!

I know 3. Two women agree. The man, well, I'm not sure he was old enough to remember the day he was 'hardened', seriously

You and I live in Texas, so we probably know more of these people because of all the ranchers here.

And now that you have been in a more lenient perspective,

Can you clarify what you mean here? I don't follow you.

I'm finally noticing that the feed farms and slaughter houses, well those animals see the death of others, right?

Yes, they do. And they not only see it, but they smell it. They smell the stench of fear, blood and death.

I've been reading books about organic gardening, and there is a bug repellent technique wherein the bug you're trying to repel is put into a blender with water, and then that is sprayed on the plants. The bugs won't come near the plants that have the liquified remains of their friends on them. I've never tried this (and don't intend to) but supposedly it's an effective technique.

Apparently animals have an instinctual repulsion to death of their own kind. They instinctively know not to go where others have been killed, because it's obviously dangerous for them.

Well, slaughterhouse cows have to be prodded by electrical shock, to force them onto the slaughtering platform.

Wow, there must be a serious 2D vibration of fear/control emitting from this environment.

Indeed.

Fear generates a physiological response in the body. There are actually fear hormones. Thus, when a human eats a dead cow, s/he is consuming all those fear hormones.

That can't be good!

I tend to take Tenet's view. Which, I think, is not about 'march against animal cruelty' like I think is Pickle's, but more about letting the 3D Other's do as they see best for themselves because it is more congruent with seeing other as self.

This point has been made by others in this thread as well, and I still don't understand the necessity of stating that each person is free to do as they wish. 3D humans are free to kill other humans, animals, whatever.

The question isn't whether we should 'allow' them to do so, because they can already do so, whether we like it or not.

The question is a philosophical one: How does killing lower density other-selves reconcile with the Law of One?

[3DMonkey]

And now that you have been in a more lenient perspective,

Can you clarify what you mean here? I don't follow you.

I just mean that I'm not combative. Been there

This point has been made by others in this thread as well, and I still don't understand the necessity of stating that each person is free to do as they wish. 3D humans are free to kill other humans, animals, whatever.

The question isn't whether we should 'allow' them to do so, because they can already do so, whether we like it or not.

The question is a philosophical one: How does killing lower density other-selves reconcile with the Law of One?

It is a slippery slope that, I think, needs an occasional safety harness.

When we are supporting others in asking themselves that question, and giving perspective and information thereof, we do well.

When we ask the question of others, or of what we think others should or shouldn't "realize", we begin to slide down the slope into argument rather than relaying answers to the clear question you have written above.

In my opinion, this is how I see the semantics playing out commonly.

[Monica]

When we are supporting others in asking themselves that question, and giving perspective and information thereof, we do well.

When we ask the question of others, or of what we think others should or shouldn't "realize", we begin to slide down the slope into argument rather than relaying answers to the clear question you have written above.

In my opinion, this is how I see the semantics playing out commonly.

The same could be true of any topic. But as I've said previously on this thread, each person is free to read this thread, or not read it, as they wish. If they choose to venture into a thread on any given topic, then on some level they are choosing to hear the opinions of others, on that particular topic.

If vegetarians infiltrated threads about, say, crop circles or UFO's, that would be inappropriate. But this is a thread about...eating meat!

[3DMonkey]

hahahaha. Yes it is

[Bring4th_Austin]

Monica, et al, the ideas you put forth are provocative in regards to the betrayal concept, but the only thing stopping this concept from extending to plants in a vegetable garden is personal opinion.

That opinion being, it's more "humane" to "violently slaughter" (as it would be put) a vegetable. You contend it's possible for the goats to feel betrayed when they are taken to be slaughtered, but I would contend it's possible for plants to feel that same betrayal.

Even things like fruit trees...how would that tree feel if it knew you were taking its fruit, which it put forth so it could procreate, and you not plant that seed? The fruit tree, especially one in an orchard for selling fruit, could feel very betrayed because none of the fruit it puts forward is being used for its true intended purpose.

Or how about lettuce, spinach, brocolli, and kale? Even if you utilize a "cut and come again" harvest method, once the plant starts bolting, how many gardeners continue to allow the plant to grow? In that plant's view, the human that "cared" for it its entire life simply came along, chopped off its limbs every other week, and then violently slaughtered it by uprooting it once it was no longer useful. I can hear the lettuce plant now, "I thought you loved me!!"

Then of course, single harvest plants I feel don't need an explanation.

Now, I understand it's your personal opinion that it's more moral to slaughter plant life than animal life, I just wish to illustrate that the betrayal concept plays in with that opinion. It easily extends to a vegetable garden when you meet a differing opinion.

in comparison to the killing of later 2D entities - cows, chickens, goats - I see a clear distinction.

For me the difference is consciousness. Take any "thing" that exists and what will you suppose its consciousness will expand to?

Obviously a bug will be different than an animal will be different than a man.

On top of that you have huge gaps in consciousness between evolved Humans and lower Man.

This should not be a hard concept for people to grasp. A simple example, how large a consciousness did you have at 5 years old compared to now? I will hope everyone says their consciousness has expanded since that age.

It's not a "hard" concept to grasp, but it is a questionable concept in my eyes, and you shouldn't assume that because someone disagrees with you that they don't "grasp" your understanding. Anyone can say "if you grasped my opinion, you'd agree with me!"

You're using your personal discernment to decide which 2D beings to slaughter. You can't say that this discernment isn't derived from opinion and speculation.

Your logic here in particular is flawed. My consciousness was indeed much larger at 5 years old, before going through the rigors of society. And if age had anything to do with this sort of matter, would you say it's better to slaughter a young goat rather than an old goat? I don't think this example you provided serves your true point though.

[BrownEye]

Can you tell me in simple terms exactly where you can take in light in the form of an ingestible substance?

I believe I gave this explanation twice. It is the basic tenet of the Law of One. However I don't mind restating it.

All things are one, that there is no polarity, no right or wrong, no disharmony, but only identity. All is one, and that one is love/light, light/love, the Infinite Creator.

All is light. There is no darkness. There is no death. There is only light.

The apple is light. The spinach is light. The cow is light. And you are light. This is not just a metaphysical truth, but a physical one. It is expressed in the following equation:

E=mc^2

Can't get much simpler than that.

You sidestepped the question. Not to mention you have picked a very small concept from LOO that is a diversion for those that follow the path of least resistance to sit on their hiney until they have reached a state of being allowing advancement. That quote you relied on allows you to stay in the current mode of existence for darn near infinity.

Here are is the source of the question I brought up, which anyone that knows anything about health can easily answer.

Overdependence on land-based food sources often lead to deficiencies in micronutrients and trace elements.

Phyto means Light and Plankton means Floating/Suspended. Scientists at NASA theorize that some 3 1/2 billion years ago, the world was changed forever. The appearance of tiny organisms with the ability to convert sunlight, warmth, water and minerals into protein, carbohydrates, vitamins and amino acids marked the beginning of life. Phytoplankton, the single-cell plants are the basis of all other life forms on planet earth, they are the 'vegetation' of the ocean. Phytoplankton are responsible for making up to 90% of Earth's oxygen. Phytoplankton are the food utilized by some of the world's largest and longest living animals and fish. Blue Whales, humpbacks, baleen whales and more all eat plankton and live between 80-150 years while maintaining great strength and endurance and are sexually active until they die.

Plankton have an alkaline pH, which is important, given the acidity of our diets high in refined sugars, soda pop, and farmed large animals. The high density of nutrients found in algae is extremely important for many reasons. Perhaps the most important (as noted above) is that these nutrients maintain human cell membranes in structure and function. This is vital for cell detoxification, and for the overall metabolism of human cells. In fact, the causes of diseases have been simplified to very specific mechanisms, all of which center on cell membrane function and structure. Inflammation, Oxidation, Toxicity, and Mitochondrial dysfunction keep cell membranes from doing their job effectively. Algae contain high levels of antioxidants, and anti-inflammatory micronutrients to fuel metabolism and detoxification. Also, they stoke the fires of the Mitochondria, where cells make energy required to carry out their function. Of course, photosynthesis is the mechanism whereby plants in general and algae in particular, harness life-sustaining solar energy. (J. Applied Phycology 1993;5:235.).

Dr. Robert Rowe Ph.D. - "...Our beliefs are even responsible for our genetic makeup. Your genes will change to meet your beliefs. To understand this concept better, read the book Biology of Belief by Bruce Lipton. There is a lot of solid scientific evidence to show that, on the smallest level, we are actually made up of light and energy, which we have at least some control over. And when we look at our world from this viewpoint, there is so much more to see and understand about its complexity, and it gives us more power over our destiny.

Dr. Jerry Tennant, M.D. - "One of those rare products that contains almost everything you need for life (and the rebuilding of a healthy life) is phytoplankton. It contains the nine amino acids that the body cannot make and must be consumed in our diet (essential amino acids). The essential fatty acids are also present (Omega 3 and Omega 6). Vitamins A (betacarotine), 81 (thiamine), 82 (riboflavin), 83 (niacin), 85 (pantothenic acid), 86 (pyridoxine), 812 (cobalamin), C, and D (tocopherol) and major and trace minerals are all present in phytoplankton. In short, it contains almost everything one needs to sustain life. Therefore, it contains almost everything one needs to restore health by providing the raw materials to make new cells that function normally. This is particularly true if one stops putting toxic materials such as artificial sweeteners and trans fats (partially hydrogenated fats) into our body."

Glyconutrients
Marine Phytoplankton is a rich source of glyconutrients which play an important role in good cell-to-cell communication. "Most of the Nobel prizes in Medicine and Biology have been awarded to the concept of “cell communication,” which is how our 100 trillion cells get their metabolic function coordinated (J. Science, November 26th, 2004.) They do this through a system of “messages,” which are well-known molecules like hormones, neurotransmitters, enzymes, etc. They form a vast network of communication, which should have never been separated into different components. The Psycho-Neuro-Immune-Endocrine system of cell communication to coordinate our metabolism is now considered to be the cornerstone of health and function in cutting edge research" Dr. Hugo Rodier (“The intricate interface between the immune system and metabolism,” J. Trends in Immunology 2004;25:193.)


Now, as a simple thought here, all of the largest animals on the planet ingest light in the form of plants.

The other side of the idea is that we ingest animals in a weak attempt to gain the nutrients that the animals have ingested. At its core it is laziness and lack of understanding that allows everyone to continue this push.

Just imagine eating someone simply because that someone had lived somewhere high in nutrients and your only access to those nutrients was to eat the person that ate them. This is all we are doing as far as the "nutrient" factor. To say we have to eat them for nutrients we have no other way to get is propagating a lie.

So lets see. Dropping you off in a remote jungle with no tools or weapons I suppose you would die. There is no way for you to run fast enough to catch an animal, or even the sort of teeth needed to cut through skin easily much less deal with the hair, no claws or fangs for rendering. I really think you would die from lack of knowledge rather than just eat the greens around you that most everything else naturally exist on. This shows you the separation between natural understanding and unnatural modern life. I will do fine even in an area full of poisonous plants. I have full use of natural senses and can easily tell what is safe to eat. Even including radiated substances.

[3DMonkey]

Lol. I disagree completely. If you find yourself dropped in a jungle, meat is the ONLY way you will survive, and where there is a will there is a way.

---

Imagine competing with squirrels to gather acorns. No contest. Ten squirrels win hands down. I imagine I'd find a way to elimnate the competition and enjoy a feast in the process.

[Monica]

Lol. I disagree completely. If you find yourself dropped in a jungle, meat is the ONLY way you will survive, and where there is a will there is a way.

Respectfully, 3DM, I invite you to get educated on the abundance of wild, edible weeds, roots, and berries. There is a veritable FEAST in a jungle. There's even a feast in your back yard! No, you most definitely wouldn't need meat to survive. There is plenty of food available! But unfortunately, most people are ignorant of it. Look at how people kill their dandelions, in favor of a perfect lawn. Dandelions! One of the most nutritious and prolific edible weeds.

Imagine competing with squirrels to gather acorns. No contest. Ten squirrels win hands down. I imagine I'd find a way to elimnate the competition and enjoy a feast in the process.

Nah, acorns are all over the ground, in abundance, just waiting to be picked up! In fact, the Native Americans relied on acorns as a staple food! They knew how to rinse out the bitter tannins to make them edible for humans. Now, driving thru town, I see acorns all over people's yards and in the streets, being crushed. It's painfully sad to see such a waste.

[Tenet Nosce]

Ahhhhh! I see what happened. Don't have time to reply fully right now but my post was not a response to Bring4th_Monica (#510) or Pickle (#511). When I started writing my reply those hadn't gone up yet, so I never saw them. (Not that you both aren't welcome to respond to mine- just clarifying!)

My primary intention with the post was to point out when and how the idea of vegetarianism was born. (I love tracing an idea back through time to its roots.) The secondary intention was to argue that a strict doctrine of harmlessness is untenable, therefore to philosophically base vegetarianism on this doctrine is also untenable.

In retrospect, I should have ended the post after #1 and #2 and saved the health discussion for a different post.

[Monica]

the only thing stopping this concept from extending to plants in a vegetable garden is personal opinion.

That's all any of us have: personal opinion. We're here on this planet which has an inherently violent design. Clearly this design was intended to facilitate catalyst of some sort. The challenge is to decipher it. That's what we're all trying to do.

I'm providing what I consider rational reasons for my opinions.

That opinion being, it's more "humane" to "violently slaughter" (as it would be put) a vegetable. You contend it's possible for the goats to feel betrayed when they are taken to be slaughtered, but I would contend it's possible for plants to feel that same betrayal.

Not if their purpose all along was to provide sustenance, as I've already explained.

My entire premise rests on the assumption that lower 2D entities exist as an extension of the Earth Spirit, rather than as individual entities.

Of course this is my speculation and cannot be proven. And of course I am fully aware that the logical counterargument is, "But animals were designed to be eaten" which I don't accept because it's obvious they weren't.

I readily admit that I could be wrong. I readily admit that it's possible that plants weren't designed to be eaten, and feel pain, anguish and emotions just as acutely as animals.

But it's not possible that animals don't feel pain, anguish, and even emotions.

Do you follow my logic here? If I say, "plants were designed to be eaten" then someone counters that with, "since plants were designed to be eaten, then so were animals" that counterargument doesn't hold water, because, just because a might be true, doesn't mean b is also true, especially when be is easily observable to be untrue.

It's easily observable that animals don't want to be slaughtered. Not so obvious with plants, which means it's inconclusive, and we must rely on rational thought and intuition to figure it out.

Conversely, if I say, "animals were clearly not designed to be eaten" then that doesn't negate the possibility that maybe plants were designed to be eaten!

Let's examine that possibility:

What is the difference between plants and animals?

1. Most plants are lower 2D, whereas animals are, presumably, higher 2D. Is this a justification for killing plants but not animals? No, not any more than it's a justification for killing animals instead of humans. Rather, I see it only as an argument to not kill animals, not an argument to kill plants. In fact, my entire premise all along hasn't been that it's 'ok' to kill plants! (which is what some people apparently perceive from me, much to my dismay.) Rather, my premise has been that, since we must eat something, it's more reasonable to eat plants (which we're not sure about) than animals (which we are sure about).

2. Plant entities inhabit bodies which are inviting to humans. The smell, appearance, and taste of fresh, living plants are generally pleasant, whereas the smell, appearance and taste of freshly killed animals is repulsive to most humans. Is this conclusive? No. Does it prove anything? No. But surely one can see that it's reasonable to factor this obvious fact into the equation. (Since we are, after all, stranded here behind a veil and must use our wits to figure it all out.)

3. Animals can fly, swim or run away from predators. Plants can't. Does this prove anything? No. But I contend that it would have been exceedingly cruel for the Logos to equip plants with fully functioning pain receptors and sentience, but no ability to be mobile. Our Logos has been accused of some cruel things (like fleas on wolves and the whole carnivorous animal design), but this would top the list. It's bad enough that a deer is killed by the lion, but at least the deer has a fighting chance to run away. Not so for the hapless plants. It would be beyond cruel, if plants felt as much fear and pain as the deer, but couldn't run away. If that lettuce plant feels intense torture every time a gorilla tears off a leaf and chews it. That would be so heinous, that it would lead me to believe we are existing in a totally STS world! It's simply unfathomable! Sure, it's a convenient argument, but I contend that it's an argument of justification, rather than standing on its own merit. Rather than face the cruelty of killing animals, it's more convenient to accuse vegetarians of being cruel to plants. It appears logical on the surface, but just a bit of rational thought shows the illogic of stranding untold vast numbers of plants, all completely helpless, defenseless victims of stampeding cattle, grazing cattle, and pretty much all life on this planet. Plant life is everywhere. Plants are being trampled everywhere. Plants are being pulled, cut, and chewed everywhere, constantly. And they can't do a damn thing about it. If there is a hell, then that must be it! To reincarnate as a plant! What kind of obscene torture is that? It's bad enough that the deer is slaughtered by the lion, but at least it actually dies. Not so for the hapless plant, who is denied death, but instead can regenerate its lost limbs again and again...who must endure the torment of having its limbs chewed again and again and again and again... If this is true, then this planet is sicker and more demented than I thought.

4. In order for an animal to be eaten, it must be killed. Once it's killed, it's a done deal. It ain't coming back. Plants, on the other hand, are able to regenerate. What is the purpose of this design? Is it only to inflict pain? Or is it possible that the design has a purpose: to feed higher 2D and 3D entities with a constant supply of nutritious food. I invite you to ponder that radical thought for just a minute. What if it's really true? What if we were never supposed to eat animals at all, but were supposed to figure it out on our own, that we can be healthier and happier by consuming living foods...living foods that don't die when harvested, but continue to give of themselves...continue to give of the Mother energy pulsing thru them. If so, if you can entertain the idea for just a minute, then you can see that it's quite an ingenious design. Cut and come again...wow, how efficient!

5. Animal 'foods' have been proven to contribute to cancer, diabetes, heart disease, obesity, and other chronic diseases. The research overwhelmingly proves that plant-derived nutrients combat those very same diseases! What's more, there are phytonutrients in plants that aren't even all identified yet. Many studies with synthetic or isolated vitamins fail to show any results, but when those same vitamins are found in natural, raw plant foods along with conutrients, they are effective! Advanced stage cancer patients have been healed by drinking carrot juice. Native peoples had the knowledge of how to use plants as medicine. Take a look at the Chinese herbal pharmacopia - it's extremely extensive! They even understand how certain herbs affect our emotions! Bottom line is that plants heal. Animal 'foods' cause death. Death begets death. Life begets life. Plants are alive and they facilitate healing. Doesn't that tell us something? In this crucially important time, so close to the Harvest, when so many people are poisoned by all the chemicals humans have dumped on the planet...so many are getting cancer and other diseases...PLANTS are our greatest ally! Even if you believe in allopathic medicine, most drugs are derived from plants! Isn't this a clue? It would be incongruent for plants to have such powerful healing abilities, while writhing in agony. That just flat doesn't make sense! Right now, there is a beautiful movement towards sustainable living...healing the Earth...cleaning up the mess...reducing or eliminating cruelty and violence...ALL of this hinges on transitioning to a plant-based diet! If eating plants were just as cruel as eating animals, then our Logos has a very sick sense of humor!

6. The plant population has the keys to healing not only our bodies, but the Earth as well. Is this some sort of sick joke? Or could it be that this really is what was intended? Earth changes? Grow your own food! Overpopulation? Feed many more people by switching to a vegetarian diet! Pollution? Plant more trees, algae and other plants! Plants truly do hold the key to not only surviving the Earth changes, but transitioning our bodies to light based instead of carbon based. I find this highly significant! It flies in the face of reason to think that I am torturing a sentient entity, when I am working to heal myself and others, and heal the planet. That just doesn't make any sense at all.

As you can see, I have good reasons for my opinions. Rational reasons. Of course I could be wrong. None of us can prove any of our opinions. But right now, we are on this planet to do some good. Helping people heal with plants is a good thing. There is a huge overhaul taking place right now, all over the world. People are waking up! If plants felt pain the same way as animals, then it would all be a farce.

The meat industry is a huge part of the problem. Violence, whether in war zones or in the slaughterhouse, is a huge part of the problem. Healing with plants is a huge part of the solution.

Therefore, I find the theoretical counterargument of plants feeling pain and emotions the same as animals, to be incongruent and illogical. I see no evidence of it. It's purely hypothetical and flies in the face of reason, as far as I can see.

Even things like fruit trees...how would that tree feel if it knew you were taking its fruit, which it put forth so it could procreate, and you not plant that seed? The fruit tree, especially one in an orchard for selling fruit, could feel very betrayed because none of the fruit it puts forward is being used for its true intended purpose.

I have an answer to that, but it's too long to post here. The answer is in a book. You can probably get it at your local library: The Botany of Desire: A Plant's-Eye View of the World by Michael Pollan. Amazing book! It fully addresses this very issue.

Excerpt from reviews:

Working in his garden one day, Michael Pollan hit pay dirt in the form of an idea: do plants, he wondered, use humans as much as we use them? While the question is not entirely original, the way Pollan examines this complex coevolution by looking at the natural world from the perspective of plants is unique. The result is a fascinating and engaging look at the true nature of domestication.

---
"What existential difference is there between the human being's role in this (or any) garden and the bumblebees?" "Did I choose to plant these potatoes, or did the potato make me do it? With profound questions like these, Michael Pollan pollinates your mind with a new world view of our relationships with plants, one in which humans are not at the center.

---

Pollan's book starts with an interesting premise. Instead of considering how people look at plants, think about how they look at us. Bees pollinate, birds spread seeds, and furry creatures carry burs, to name only a few of the ways that animals serve plants. People can be the most helpful, though - distributing a species to every part of the globe, planting it by the millions, ensuring its survival and spread more than any other animal could hope to. All the plant has to do is get our attention.

---

a strict doctrine of harmlessness is untenable, therefore to philosophically base vegetarianism on this doctrine is also untenable.

Practitioners of ahimsa are aware that 100% harmlessness is impossible. They aspire to minimize harm. They often state that eating plants still incurs karma; just not as much karma as eating animals.

---

Overdependence on land-based food sources often lead to deficiencies in micronutrients and trace elements.

Phyto means Light and Plankton means Floating/Suspended. Scientists at NASA theorize that some 3 1/2 billion years ago, the world was changed forever. The appearance of tiny organisms with the ability to convert sunlight, warmth, water and minerals into protein, carbohydrates, vitamins and amino acids marked the beginning of life. Phytoplankton, the single-cell plants are the basis of all other life forms on planet earth, they are the 'vegetation' of the ocean. Phytoplankton are responsible for making up to 90% of Earth's oxygen. Phytoplankton are the food utilized by some of the world's largest and longest living animals and fish. Blue Whales, humpbacks, baleen whales and more all eat plankton and live between 80-150 years while maintaining great strength and endurance and are sexually active until they die.

Plankton have an alkaline pH, which is important, given the acidity of our diets high in refined sugars, soda pop, and farmed large animals. The high density of nutrients found in algae is extremely important for many reasons. Perhaps the most important (as noted above) is that these nutrients maintain human cell membranes in structure and function. This is vital for cell detoxification, and for the overall metabolism of human cells. In fact, the causes of diseases have been simplified to very specific mechanisms, all of which center on cell membrane function and structure. Inflammation, Oxidation, Toxicity, and Mitochondrial dysfunction keep cell membranes from doing their job effectively. Algae contain high levels of antioxidants, and anti-inflammatory micronutrients to fuel metabolism and detoxification. Also, they stoke the fires of the Mitochondria, where cells make energy required to carry out their function. Of course, photosynthesis is the mechanism whereby plants in general and algae in particular, harness life-sustaining solar energy. (J. Applied Phycology 1993;5:235.).

Dr. Robert Rowe Ph.D. - "...Our beliefs are even responsible for our genetic makeup. Your genes will change to meet your beliefs. To understand this concept better, read the book Biology of Belief by Bruce Lipton. There is a lot of solid scientific evidence to show that, on the smallest level, we are actually made up of light and energy, which we have at least some control over. And when we look at our world from this viewpoint, there is so much more to see and understand about its complexity, and it gives us more power over our destiny.

Dr. Jerry Tennant, M.D. - "One of those rare products that contains almost everything you need for life (and the rebuilding of a healthy life) is phytoplankton. It contains the nine amino acids that the body cannot make and must be consumed in our diet (essential amino acids). The essential fatty acids are also present (Omega 3 and Omega 6). Vitamins A (betacarotine), 81 (thiamine), 82 (riboflavin), 83 (niacin), 85 (pantothenic acid), 86 (pyridoxine), 812 (cobalamin), C, and D (tocopherol) and major and trace minerals are all present in phytoplankton. In short, it contains almost everything one needs to sustain life. Therefore, it contains almost everything one needs to restore health by providing the raw materials to make new cells that function normally. This is particularly true if one stops putting toxic materials such as artificial sweeteners and trans fats (partially hydrogenated fats) into our body."

Glyconutrients
Marine Phytoplankton is a rich source of glyconutrients which play an important role in good cell-to-cell communication. "Most of the Nobel prizes in Medicine and Biology have been awarded to the concept of “cell communication,” which is how our 100 trillion cells get their metabolic function coordinated (J. Science, November 26th, 2004.) They do this through a system of “messages,” which are well-known molecules like hormones, neurotransmitters, enzymes, etc. They form a vast network of communication, which should have never been separated into different components. The Psycho-Neuro-Immune-Endocrine system of cell communication to coordinate our metabolism is now considered to be the cornerstone of health and function in cutting edge research" Dr. Hugo Rodier (“The intricate interface between the immune system and metabolism,” J. Trends in Immunology 2004;25:193.)


Now, as a simple thought here, all of the largest animals on the planet ingest light in the form of plants.

The other side of the idea is that we ingest animals in a weak attempt to gain the nutrients that the animals have ingested. At its core it is laziness and lack of understanding that allows everyone to continue this push.

Just imagine eating someone simply because that someone had lived somewhere high in nutrients and your only access to those nutrients was to eat the person that ate them. This is all we are doing as far as the "nutrient" factor. To say we have to eat them for nutrients we have no other way to get is propagating a lie.

So lets see. Dropping you off in a remote jungle with no tools or weapons I suppose you would die. There is no way for you to run fast enough to catch an animal, or even the sort of teeth needed to cut through skin easily much less deal with the hair, no claws or fangs for rendering. I really think you would die from lack of knowledge rather than just eat the greens around you that most everything else naturally exist on. This shows you the separation between natural understanding and unnatural modern life. I will do fine even in an area full of poisonous plants. I have full use of natural senses and can easily tell what is safe to eat. Even including radiated substances.

Excellent post, Pickle! I validate all of this 100%.

Thank you for articulating this info so well. All true.

[Bring4th_Austin]

I thought I had acknowledged that you were providing good rational explanations for your opinion, but I guess I forgot to put that in my post. You don't have to continue to explain these things (to me, anyways), I'm sure you're very tired of it by now!

Your opinion is based on rational explanations, but is also coupled with strong speculations.

Despite your well-explained speculations, I can't and won't accept the idea that plants were "created" or "designed" to be eaten. Speculating this because of their inherent properties, whether it be their self-regenerative qualities or healing properties after consumed, isn't a valid view in my eyes. It is a good argument for why we should eat them for our benefit, but I don't feel comfortable saying that they exist this way too be eaten. And just because something is easier to slaughter, does that mean is was designed to be slaughtered?

If this were a consideration of the Logos while it was "designing" life to whatever extent it really has control, we should be able to sustain ourselves on 1D material without having to slaughter any 2D beings. The Logos could easily design all 2D and 3D life to sustain off of 1D material (wouldn't that be a wonderful existence!).

Where our opinion differs, and where your arguments fail to sway me, is that I feel it is much more important to pay respect and be grateful for the entity which was slaughtered to sustain your life than to discern which entity to slaughter. A vegetarian who does not appreciate the plants giving their life for their existence isn't better than a meat-eater doing the same in my eyes.

Of course, discernment for personal health, environment impact, and things of that nature are important. We definitely agree on the fact that eating the amount of meat which is normal for Americans isn't healthy for ourselves nor the environment.


---

Unrelated, I know you've responded to specific Ra quotes about eating meat. I was curious about your interpretation of this particular exchange:

18.4 Questioner: Are there any foods that are helpful or harmful that the instrument might eat?
Ra: I am Ra. This instrument has body complex distortion towards ill health in the distortion direction corrected best by ingestion of the foodstuffs of your grains and your vegetables, as you call them. However, this is extremely unimportant when regarded as an aid with equality to other aids such as attitude which this instrument has in abundance. It, however, aids the vital energies of this instrument, with less distortion towards ill health, to ingest foodstuffs in the above manner with the occasional ingestion of what you call your meats, due to the instrument’s need to lessen the distortion towards low vital energy.

I understand it is a specific statement aimed at Carla in that specific circumstance, but Ra it's still Ra suggesting someone eat meat (to increase vital energy, no less), I was wondering what your take was.

[Monica]

I thought I had acknowledged that you were providing good rational explanations for your opinion, but I guess I forgot to put that in my post. You don't have to continue to explain these things (to me, anyways), I'm sure you're very tired of it by now!

OK thanks! And thank you for the respectful discussion. It's refreshing to be able to discuss differing viewpoints respectfully without getting buttons pushed, as so often happens with such a volatile and emotionally charged topic.

Your opinion is based on rational explanations, but is also coupled with strong speculations.

I acknowledged that.

Despite your well-explained speculations, I can't and won't accept the idea that plants were "created" or "designed" to be eaten.

Why not? Something had to be created or designed to nourish us! And being that everything is alive, then no matter what it was that was designed or created to sustain us, it would have to have some sort of lifeforce in it.

To reject the notion that something was created/designed to sustain us, would be to accept the notion that no thought at all was given to this issue by the Logos. Our bipedal vehicles were designed. Our opposable thumbs were designed. Surely a bit of thought was given to our digestive systems. The planet was terraformed, in preparation for souls' evolution thru 3D. Was diet not taken into consideration?

If something was created/designed to be consumed by us, it seems logical that it would be plant life, for the reasons I listed above.

(I'd be interested in a point-by-point rebuttal to my list of reasons, if anyone wants to tackle that.)

It seems to me that design is very much a part of the equation!

Speculating this because of their inherent properties, whether it be their self-regenerative qualities or healing properties after consumed, isn't a valid view in my eyes. It is a good argument for why we should eat them for our benefit, but I don't feel comfortable saying that they exist this way too be eaten.

You might feel differently after reading The Botany of Desire.

Furthermore, I didn't say that plants exist for the sole purpose of feeding us. I am proposing a mutually beneficial arrangement, as outlined in the book. I am proposing that the lifeforce of plants merge with ours. Not so with animals, because they already have individuated souls. That's why they incarnate in bodies that are mobile. It makes sense if you think about it.

And just because something is easier to slaughter, does that mean is was designed to be slaughtered?

It's not about being 'easier to slaughter.' It's about design.

Do you consider mowing your lawn a slaughter?

1. killing or butchering of cattle, sheep, etc., especially for food.
2. the brutal or violent killing of a person.
3. the killing of great numbers of people or animals indiscriminately; carnage: the slaughter of war.

Consider the Earth as a living entity. Our bodies are much like the Earth's; we are composed of 70-80% water, like the Earth. Our bodies have peaks and valleys, and rivers...and hair...just like the Earth.

It seems not only reasonable, but obvious, that plants are the hair of the Earth.

Is it slaughter when you get a haircut? Is it a brutal carnage when blades of grass are cut?

If this were a consideration of the Logos while it was "designing" life to whatever extent it really has control, we should be able to sustain ourselves on 1D material without having to slaughter any 2D beings. The Logos could easily design all 2D and 3D life to sustain off of 1D material (wouldn't that be a wonderful existence!).

Then we'd be having this same conversation, wondering about the sentience of 1D life.

Where our opinion differs, and where your arguments fail to sway me, is that I feel it is much more important to pay respect and be grateful for the entity which was slaughtered to sustain your life than to discern which entity to slaughter.

Where do you draw the line? That argument could be used to justify abusing other humans, then giving thanks for their involuntary 'service.' An example would be slavery. Rather than 'discerning' whether to utilize human slaves, one could just oppress them, then thank them and feel fine about it.

Why not discern? We do, after all, have the capability to discern. We discern that we shouldn't kill other humans, right? (well hopefully, some do anyway.) So why not discern that we shouldn't kill entities that are very close to being human? I don't think that's asking too much of us. It's doable.

A vegetarian who does not appreciate the plants giving their life for their existence isn't better than a meat-eater doing the same in my eyes.

I agree that vegetarians should appreciate the plants, but I disagree that it's the same as the meat-eaters. Appreciating the animal that was slaughtered doesn't excuse the slaughter.

(I realize that the reason we're disagreeing always goes back to the question of whether plants are also being slaughtered. So we go round and round on that one. Again, I sure would love for someone to address my list of points.)

My parents never gave me a single hug my entire childhood. My dad was emotionally abusive. My parents didn't appreciate me. I was just another mouth to feed. But I would never say that they were 'the same' as parents who horribly beat their kids, or sexually abuse their kids, or even kill their kids. Not being appreciated isn't on the same level as being abused or killed.

I understand it is a specific statement aimed at Carla in that specific circumstance, but Ra it's still Ra suggesting someone eat meat (to increase vital energy, no less), I was wondering what your take was.

Ra never dictated what anyone should do, in respect to free will. Carla tried various diets in an effort to correct her physical ailments, but to my knowledge she never had a strong conviction about being a vegetarian. I could be wrong about this, but the subject came up once on the radio show, and I think she would have mentioned that to me, had that been the case, especially knowing that I am a vegetarian. This leads me to believe that Ra simply accepted Carla's diet at the time, and offered suggestions that were in alignment with what was 'normal' for Carla. It would have been out of character for Ra to recommend huge, sweeping changes when Carla didn't specifically ask for that particular type of advice.

Had Don asked a different question, such as, "What is the optimal diet for 3D entities to aspire to, for maximum efficiency regarding spiritual evolution, in preparation for harvest to 4D STO?" then the answer would surely have been very different (had Ra chosen to answer it at all).

These quotes must also be taken in context, along with other quotes. Notice the part in bold:

84.2 Questioner: In the last session you mentioned the least distorted complex protein for the instrument since its body complex was capable of greatly increased distortion. Would you define the protein of which you spoke and in which direction is the increased distortion, towards health or ill-health?
Ra: I am Ra. We were, in the cautionary statement about complex protein, referring to the distortions of the animal protein which has been slaughtered and preservatives added in order to maintain the acceptability to your peoples of this non-living, physical material.

My interpretation is that this seems to imply that "non-living material" isn't really 'acceptable' to Ra, but Ra acknowledges that it's normal for 3D entities (on this planet anyway!), though they have to first disguise it to deem it "acceptable."

Although the 'caveman' diet has gained in popularity recently, most humans still are repulsed by the thought of eating a bloody animal. The carcass must be disguised, cooked, flavored, or preserved, to deem it 'acceptable.' Not so with plant foods. They are naturally attractive.

I don't see how this simple observation can be deemed insignificant.

And I don't think Ra was referring only to the preservatives. Else, why did they use the word "slaughtered"?

I have always perceived this quote as showing a bit of repulsion from Ra, like they were choosing their words even more carefully than usual, in order to remain neutral and not violate free will.

Notice also this quote, which is often used to justify meat-eating:

40.14 Questioner: In dietary matters, what would be the foods that one would include and what would be the foods that one would exclude in a general way for the greatest care of one’s bodily complex?
Ra: I am Ra. Firstly, we underline and emphasize that this information is not to be understood literally but as a link or psychological nudge for the body and the mind and spirit. Thus it is the care and respect for the self that is the true thing of importance. In this light we may iterate the basic information given for this instrument’s diet. The vegetables, the fruits, the grains, and to the extent necessary for the individual metabolism, the animal products.

This quote has been discussed in this thread extensively. For now, my point is that, in both cases where meat was mentioned, Ra seemed to attach a caution to it. It would have been uncharacteristic for Ra to bluntly say, "don't eat dead animals" because that was left up to the individual to discern.

[BrownEye]

Lol. I disagree completely. If you find yourself dropped in a jungle, meat is the ONLY way you will survive, and where there is a will there is a way.

I would love to see that. What I think you missed is the widely held belief that Man was created with fire in one hand and a spear in the other. Unless you want to believe that Man lived like jackals in the beginning, only eating flesh that was slow enough and sick enough to happen upon, I will stand by natural evolution and say it was impossible in the beginning. Even if it was not, then you have to accept that you are now at the bottom of the rung species wise, only having strength through reliance on technology and numbers, not brains or brawn.

I watched a nice show about a guy roughing it in the wild. He definitely had the will, but did not have the capability of the way. He was surrounded by flora and fauna, but believed he could only exist on animal matter. So even though he had a knife and emergency rations, he was pretty much starving from spending too much time hunting for porcupines which were the only thing slow enough for him to get close to. Instead of just eating what he had around him he wussed out and called for pickup in half the time that he advertised.

As I said earlier, it is a sick mind that ignores fruit hanging on a tree while salivating looking at an animal. If you see a cow eating flesh do you consider it normal? Or is it that it has not gone on long enough yet for society to believe it is completely normal? It is not natural or healthy, whether it applies to mind, body, or spirit. It is simply a result of programming by culture and society. The concept of programming the ego has been established since before the bible and Jesus brought it up himself in the most obvious text in the bible “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.”

I am not trying to convince you not to eat meat, You can eat your whole family and it would not bother me. What bothers me is when the wool is pulled over your eyes yet feeling the need to propagate that falsehood. Not you specifically of course, but any and all.

This quote has been discussed in this thread extensively. For now, my point is that, in both cases where meat was mentioned, Ra seemed to attach a caution to it. It would have been uncharacteristic for Ra to bluntly say, "don't eat dead animals" because that was left up to the individual to discern.

The answers have to do with the capability of the person to acquire the correct foods. Such as, no advice on a food that can not be easily had in her area. And no real info that may cause undo stress.

Almost a beating around the bush in a way, with the recipient expected to discern the truth if ready for it. I know someone else like that, a person that does his work in the astral realm, nobody understands his answers because they are not ready or mature enough.


BTW, I have heard a lot of guff about vegans having to go back to meat after so many years because of deficiencies. Somehow my wife has gone 35 years without any need of B12 supplementation and only supplemented while breast feeding. Yes we have raw kids, who never get sick or sunburn for some reason.

[Monica]

By the way, I have heard a lot of guff about vegans having to go back to meat after so many years because of deficiencies.

Yeah me too. Dr. Mercola (raw MEAT advocate) brought that up to Dr. Cousens (raw VEGAN advocate) and Dr. Cousens said that in nearly 100% of the cases of people who thought they 'needed' meat, if they just ate superfoods like bluegreen algae, chlorella and bee pollen, and a LOT of it, like 3 TBSP/day, the cravings for meat vanished. So there are solutions. Some people might need some superfoods to help with the transition, as the body adjusts to the higher frequency fuel.

Somehow my wife has gone 35 years without any need of B12 supplementation and only supplemented while breast feeding. Yes we have raw kids, who never get sick or sunburn for some reason.

That is so very cool! I raised my son veg - he's never had a bite of meat in his life - but not raw. I didn't have the resources then that I have now. But I'm happy that he's never eaten meat and that he stuck with it on his own.

B12 can be gotten from bluegreen algae and fermented foods like vegan kefir, and possibly miso and seaweeds. And it's easy to take a B12 supplement if necessary, so I see it as a non-issue.

[Bring4th_Austin]

I thought I had acknowledged that you were providing good rational explanations for your opinion, but I guess I forgot to put that in my post. You don't have to continue to explain these things (to me, anyways), I'm sure you're very tired of it by now!

OK thanks! And thank you for the respectful discussion. It's refreshing to be able to discuss differing viewpoints respectfully without getting buttons pushed, as so often happens with such a volatile and emotionally charged topic.

Likewise. People on my side of the discussion who get emotional or frustrated probably have not done much contemplation about the spiritual implications of eating meat, or eating period.

Despite your well-explained speculations, I can't and won't accept the idea that plants were "created" or "designed" to be eaten.

Why not? Something had to be created or designed to nourish us! And being that everything is alive, then no matter what it was that was designed or created to sustain us, it would have to have some sort of lifeforce in it.

I believe, rather than having food designed for us in that sense, the atmosphere was designed in which we, as living/evolving beings, were tasked with the objective of surviving. Some beings evolved to sustain off of provided 1D elements, some like us (unfortunately) evolved to sustain off of other 2D beings.

Like I said, if the Logos had this sense of control, why would it not give us a design which allowed us to sustain on 1D?

Also, to specifically answer the question of "Why not?", I personally don't feel it's appropriate to dub the easiest and most convenient things in life as designed to be that way. This could be applied to other situations which might not seem so spiritually sound.

To reject the notion that something was created/designed to sustain us, would be to accept the notion that no thought at all was given to this issue by the Logos. Our bipedal vehicles were designed. Our opposable thumbs were designed. Surely a bit of thought was given to our digestive systems. The planet was terraformed, in preparation for souls' evolution thru 3D. Was diet not taken into consideration?

I believe it would be a speculation and opinion to say that it was, and it's my personal opinion that the situation is closer to what I described above.

(I'd be interested in a point-by-point rebuttal to my list of reasons, if anyone wants to tackle that.)

I'm guessing you mean the reasons numbered 1-6? I'll give it a shot, although I'm not sure "rebuttal" would be the right term, rather that share why I don't share that opinion.

1. Most plants are lower 2D, whereas animals are, presumably, higher 2D. Is this a justification for killing plants but not animals? No, not any more than it's a justification for killing animals instead of humans. Rather, I see it only as an argument to not kill animals, not an argument to kill plants. In fact, my entire premise all along hasn't been that it's 'ok' to kill plants! (which is what some people apparently perceive from me, much to my dismay.) Rather, my premise has been that, since we must eat something, it's more reasonable to eat plants (which we're not sure about) than animals (which we are sure about).

Let's bump this concept up a density. Would you consider the murder of a more spiritually aware human more of a crime than the murder of a less spiritually aware person? Now, of course, not an argument for killing lesser aware humans, but do you feel that knowingly killing someone who is spiritually aware carries more spiritual implication than killing someone who isn't?

2. Plant entities inhabit bodies which are inviting to humans. The smell, appearance, and taste of fresh, living plants are generally pleasant, whereas the smell, appearance and taste of freshly killed animals is repulsive to most humans. Is this conclusive? No. Does it prove anything? No. But surely one can see that it's reasonable to factor this obvious fact into the equation. (Since we are, after all, stranded here behind a veil and must use our wits to figure it all out.)

I think this is a personal opinion rather than a concept that can be applied to all humans. I have family in Texas that can't stand vegetables and would prefer to eat their steaks right off of the cow. I think what one considers pleasant and unpleasant is more based upon psychological conditioning than inherent design. I have no problem with the opinion that this might be designed, but I definitely don't share it.

3. Animals can fly, swim or run away from predators. Plants can't. Does this prove anything? No. But I contend that it would have been exceedingly cruel for the Logos to equip plants with fully functioning pain receptors and sentience, but no ability to be mobile. Our Logos has been accused of some cruel things (like fleas on wolves and the whole carnivorous animal design), but this would top the list. It's bad enough that a deer is killed by the lion, but at least the deer has a fighting chance to run away. Not so for the hapless plants. It would be beyond cruel, if plants felt as much fear and pain as the deer, but couldn't run away. If that lettuce plant feels intense torture every time a gorilla tears off a leaf and chews it. That would be so heinous, that it would lead me to believe we are existing in a totally STS world!

And what of the squirrel I watched get eaten alive by a hawk? It was a very gruesome sight and I guarantee you that squirrel suffered much, does it get no consideration from the Logos? Why would the Logos allow the evolution of carnivores if it were so sensitive to the suffering? This is the concept behind "non-violent slaughter" which must be understood. When we process a chicken or a goat, the animal does not know it's going to be killed. Dr. Temple Grandin, advocate for animal rights as well as autism awareness, has put forth a lot of evidence behind the fear and anxiety felt by animals on their way to be slaughtered, and humane slaughter facilities work with her evidence to reduce anxiety, reduce fear, and promote humane treatment of animals. Animals suffer less being processed in a truly humane facility than they would being eaten in nature. Do we know if a plant suffers when being killed? No...but we can also be sure that the animal does not suffer either.
Also, I don't personally contend that plants can feel physical pain, but I have no doubt they can feel spiritual and mental pain.

It's simply unfathomable! Sure, it's a convenient argument, but I contend that it's an argument of justification, rather than standing on its own merit. Rather than face the cruelty of killing animals, it's more convenient to accuse vegetarians of being cruel to plants.

When there is no suffering either way, what's the difference? Slaughter is slaughter. We work to prevent suffering, both for plants and for animals.

It appears logical on the surface, but just a bit of rational thought shows the illogic of stranding untold vast numbers of plants, all completely helpless, defenseless victims of stampeding cattle, grazing cattle, and pretty much all life on this planet. Plant life is everywhere. Plants are being trampled everywhere. Plants are being pulled, cut, and chewed everywhere, constantly. And they can't do a damn thing about it. If there is a hell, then that must be it! To reincarnate as a plant! What kind of obscene torture is that? It's bad enough that the deer is slaughtered by the lion, but at least it actually dies. Not so for the hapless plant, who is denied death, but instead can regenerate its lost limbs again and again...who must endure the torment of having its limbs chewed again and again and again and again... If this is true, then this planet is sicker and more demented than I thought.

Like I said, I don't contend that plants feel physical pain. But I still see no difference in slaughtering a plant to sustain yourself. You're ending its life just as an animal's life is ended. And again, to emphasize the "non-violent" slaughter, the animal doesn't suffer. It is an instant and painless death, no anxiety, no fear. Look up Temple Grandin if you wish to know more about humane slaughter. (I know, I know, "how can slaughter be humane?" I ask the same thing about plant slaughter.)

4. In order for an animal to be eaten, it must be killed. Once it's killed, it's a done deal.

Same for many vegetables and plants, though not all.

It ain't coming back. Plants, on the other hand, are able to regenerate. What is the purpose of this design? Is it only to inflict pain? Or is it possible that the design has a purpose: to feed higher 2D and 3D entities with a constant supply of nutritious food. I invite you to ponder that radical thought for just a minute. What if it's really true? What if we were never supposed to eat animals at all, but were supposed to figure it out on our own, that we can be healthier and happier by consuming living foods...living foods that don't die when harvested, but continue to give of themselves...continue to give of the Mother energy pulsing thru them. If so, if you can entertain the idea for just a minute, then you can see that it's quite an ingenious design. Cut and come again...wow, how efficient!

As I said before, cut and come again is good, but not all vegetables, especially not all vegetables necessary for a vegetarian to have a balanced diet, can be that way. And what happens when the lettuce and spinach start bolting? How many gardeners do not uproot it? And why would we be greedy enough to cut broccoli to begin with, the part we eat is supposed to turn to flowers and allow it to reproduce. We're interrupting its natural life cycle by greedily chopping off its head for our own consumption.

5. Animal 'foods' have been proven to contribute to cancer, diabetes, heart disease, obesity, and other chronic diseases. The research overwhelmingly proves that plant-derived nutrients combat those very same diseases! What's more, there are phytonutrients in plants that aren't even all identified yet. Many studies with synthetic or isolated vitamins fail to show any results, but when those same vitamins are found in natural, raw plant foods along with conutrients, they are effective! Advanced stage cancer patients have been healed by drinking carrot juice. Native peoples had the knowledge of how to use plants as medicine. Take a look at the Chinese herbal pharmacopia - it's extremely extensive! They even understand how certain herbs affect our emotions! Bottom line is that plants heal. Animal 'foods' cause death. Death begets death. Life begets life. Plants are alive and they facilitate healing. Doesn't that tell us something? In this crucially important time, so close to the Harvest, when so many people are poisoned by all the chemicals humans have dumped on the planet...so many are getting cancer and other diseases...PLANTS are our greatest ally! Even if you believe in allopathic medicine, most drugs are derived from plants! Isn't this a clue? It would be incongruent for plants to have such powerful healing abilities, while writhing in agony. That just flat doesn't make sense! Right now, there is a beautiful movement towards sustainable living...healing the Earth...cleaning up the mess...reducing or eliminating cruelty and violence...ALL of this hinges on transitioning to a plant-based diet! If eating plants were just as cruel as eating animals, then our Logos has a very sick sense of humor!

You'll get no argument out of me that eating meat every meal every day is unhealthy, and that eating vegetables is incredibly healthy. But I feel there is more to be looked at in the perspective of how our meat is raised, treated, and manufactured rather than meat itself. Any food treated the way the mass meat industry treats meat is going to be unhealthy for you. The availability of grass-fed, naturally and sustainably raised, fresh meat was very slim until recently, and if you have any studies about these types of meats eaten in moderation (~3 times a week), I would be very interested in seeing them.

Not all plants are healthy either, some are poisonous and some can even kill you.

6. The plant population has the keys to healing not only our bodies, but the Earth as well. Is this some sort of sick joke? Or could it be that this really is what was intended? Earth changes? Grow your own food! Overpopulation? Feed many more people by switching to a vegetarian diet! Pollution? Plant more trees, algae and other plants! Plants truly do hold the key to not only surviving the Earth changes, but transitioning our bodies to light based instead of carbon based. I find this highly significant! It flies in the face of reason to think that I am torturing a sentient entity, when I am working to heal myself and others, and heal the planet. That just doesn't make any sense at all.

This sort of flies away from my argument. I was never necessarily contending that plants physically suffered, but that slaughtering a plant is akin to slaughtering an animal. Of course violent slaughter of an animal is notably different from violently slaughter of a plant (even though, as you admit, we don't know for sure to what degree the plant suffers). But we can control the suffering of the animal as well. It does not have to suffer in death.

Speculating this because of their inherent properties, whether it be their self-regenerative qualities or healing properties after consumed, isn't a valid view in my eyes. It is a good argument for why we should eat them for our benefit, but I don't feel comfortable saying that they exist this way too be eaten.

You might feel differently after reading The Botany of Desire.

If I manage to find some time I will read this, it does sound like an interesting book.

Furthermore, I didn't say that plants exist for the sole purpose of feeding us. I am proposing a mutually beneficial arrangement, as outlined in the book. I am proposing that the lifeforce of plants merge with ours. Not so with animals, because they already have individuated souls. That's why they incarnate in bodies that are mobile. It makes sense if you think about it.

I'm not sure if I agree with the idea that plants and animals exist in separate degrees of individuation. Maybe the book holds more for this discussion.

And just because something is easier to slaughter, does that mean is was designed to be slaughtered?

It's not about being 'easier to slaughter.' It's about design.

Do you consider mowing your lawn a slaughter?

It's funny you should mention that! Not necessarily, but ever since I was a small child I thought mowing the lawn was a very backwards thing to do. You plant all this seed, asking this grass to grow, and then you go and cut it down, stopping it from growing! I've always looked at yardwork as sort of a war...yard tools are the weapons, you prepare for battle and go out and wage war on nature by pulling weeds, killing bugs, and cutting off plants' limbs and appendages. I don't think its slaughter because you're not killing the grass, but I do consider pulling a weed slaughter. Why wouldn't you? You're killing a living being!

1. killing or butchering of cattle, sheep, etc., especially for food.
2. the brutal or violent killing of a person.
3. the killing of great numbers of people or animals indiscriminately; carnage: the slaughter of war.

This definition is biased towards animals. We can take number 1 and extend it to 2D beings, so "killing or butchering of cattle, sheep, beets, carrots, potatoes, etc. especially for food."

Consider the Earth as a living entity. Our bodies are much like the Earth's; we are composed of 70-80% water, like the Earth. Our bodies have peaks and valleys, and rivers...and hair...just like the Earth.

It seems not only reasonable, but obvious, that plants are the hair of the Earth.

Personally, I wouldn't consider our hair individual entities like I would plants.

If this were a consideration of the Logos while it was "designing" life to whatever extent it really has control, we should be able to sustain ourselves on 1D material without having to slaughter any 2D beings. The Logos could easily design all 2D and 3D life to sustain off of 1D material (wouldn't that be a wonderful existence!).

Then we'd be having this same conversation, wondering about the sentience of 1D life.

Possibly. I always thought the consumption of 1D wouldn't be such a dispute, because it persists through our consuming it, doesn't it?

Take water...we drink it, we process it, absorb it or pass it...it stays water no matter what.

Where our opinion differs, and where your arguments fail to sway me, is that I feel it is much more important to pay respect and be grateful for the entity which was slaughtered to sustain your life than to discern which entity to slaughter.

Where do you draw the line? That argument could be used to justify abusing other humans, then giving thanks for their involuntary 'service.' An example would be slavery. Rather than 'discerning' whether to utilize human slaves, one could just oppress them, then thank them and feel fine about it.

Again, let's extend the concept to this density as you are doing. More heinous to murder a less spiritually aware person?

Why not discern? We do, after all, have the capability to discern. We discern that we shouldn't kill other humans, right? (well hopefully, some do anyway.) So why not discern that we shouldn't kill entities that are very close to being human? I don't think that's asking too much of us. It's doable.

So why not discern that we shouldn't kill entities very close to being very close to being human? (Yes I typed that right :p) Either way we're taking their life for our own survival.

---

(I realize that the reason we're disagreeing always goes back to the question of whether plants are also being slaughtered. So we go round and round on that one.)

This may be where we have to agree to disagree, to avoid spending the rest of our lives typing!

[Monica]

Likewise. People on my side of the discussion who get emotional or frustrated probably have not done much contemplation about the spiritual implications of eating meat, or eating period.

Yeah.

I believe, rather than having food designed for us in that sense, the atmosphere was designed in which we, as living/evolving beings, were tasked with the objective of surviving. Some beings evolved to sustain off of provided 1D elements, some like us (unfortunately) evolved to sustain off of other 2D beings.

We didn't evolve here. Our souls were invested into ape bodies, which had already evolved to that point.

90.12 Questioner: Was there a reason for choosing the forms that have evolved on this planet and, if so, what was it?
Ra: I am Ra. We are not entirely sure why our Logos and several neighboring Logoi of approximately the same space/time of flowering chose the bipedal, erect form of the second-density apes to invest. It has been our supposition, which we share with you as long as you are aware that this is mere opinion, that our Logos was interested in, shall we say, further intensifying the veiling process by offering to the third-density form the near complete probability for the development of speech taking complete precedence over concept communication or telepathy. We also have the supposition that the so-called opposable thumb was looked upon as an excellent means of intensifying the veiling process so that rather than rediscovering the powers of the mind the third-density entity would, by the form of its physical manifestation, be drawn to the making, holding, and using of physical tools

Apes are primarily vegetarians, except for occasional insects. Their diet consists of mostly fruits and greens. So one can only wonder how and why early humans ever got the idea to eat animals (other than bugs stuck in the leaves).

Like I said, if the Logos had this sense of control, why would it not give us a design which allowed us to sustain on 1D?

Indeed. That is a very good question. My answer would be, why would it? If plants aren't entities, then there is no harm in eating plants.

The Logos chose the ape body to invest our souls in. Apes eat plants, fruits and occasional bugs. I think we can reasonably conclude that such a diet was deemed acceptable for 3D entities. Thus, no reason to create a new vehicle capable of living on 1D life.

The students enrolled in this school for juvenile delinquents had violent pasts. That might explain why they chose to mimic the carnivorous cats and wolves, and extended their violent nature to include the slaughter of animals for food.

The Logos didn't intend for Earth's new human population to become violent:

90.18 Questioner: There seems to have been created by this Logos, to me anyway, a large percentage of entities whose distortion was towards warfare. There have been the Maldek and Mars experiences and now Earth. It seems that Venus was the exception to what we could almost call the rule of warfare. Is this correct and was this envisioned and planned into the construction of the archetypical mind, possibly not with respect to warfare as we have experienced it but as to the extreme action of polarization in consciousness?
Ra: I am Ra. It is correct that the Logos designed Its experiment to attempt to achieve the greatest possible opportunities for polarization in third density. It is incorrect that warfare of the types specific to your experiences was planned by the Logos. This form of expression of hostility is an interesting result which is apparently concomitant with the tool-making ability. The choice of the Logos to use the life-form with the grasping thumb is the decision to which this type of warfare may be traced.

So, the Logos didn't intend for humans to use their thumbs to commit acts of violence against one another in the form of war. While they were using their thumbs to create weapons to kill one another, the humans apparently also used their thumbs to create weapons to kill animals as well. Those seem to go together. It logically follows, then, that the Logos probably didn't intend for humans to use their thumbs to kill animals either, just as they didn't intend for humans to use their thumbs to kill other humans.

In contrast, it was apparently planned that they eat plants, being that the ape body was already being nourished by plants. (And nourished quite well, I might add...gorillas are obviously quite strong!)

Also, to specifically answer the question of "Why not?", I personally don't feel it's appropriate to dub the easiest and most convenient things in life as designed to be that way. This could be applied to other situations which might not seem so spiritually sound.

As I just detailed, apes were already eating plants. Knowing this, the Logos invested our souls into the apes. This is a simple conclusion derived from what Ra has told us.

I believe it would be a speculation and opinion to say that it was, and it's my personal opinion that the situation is closer to what I described above.

I'd say it's more deductive reasoning, rather than mere speculation. I just provided the basis for my reasoning, from the material.

although I'm not sure "rebuttal" would be the right term, rather that share why I don't share that opinion.

Agreed!

1. Most plants are lower 2D, whereas animals are, presumably, higher 2D. Is this a justification for killing plants but not animals? No, not any more than it's a justification for killing animals instead of humans. Rather, I see it only as an argument to not kill animals, not an argument to kill plants. In fact, my entire premise all along hasn't been that it's 'ok' to kill plants! (which is what some people apparently perceive from me, much to my dismay.) Rather, my premise has been that, since we must eat something, it's more reasonable to eat plants (which we're not sure about) than animals (which we are sure about).

Let's bump this concept up a density. Would you consider the murder of a more spiritually aware human more of a crime than the murder of a less spiritually aware person? Now, of course, not an argument for killing lesser aware humans, but do you feel that knowingly killing someone who is spiritually aware carries more spiritual implication than killing someone who isn't?

No, of course not.

You seem to have misunderstood my premise. I don't think it's ok to kill plants because they are less evolved!

It's not about how evolved they are. It's about whether they are classified as entities.

I have explained this previously, in this thread. The entire debate hinges on whether or not plants are individual entities or not.

If they aren't, then consuming a single plant is akin to drinking a glass of water.

Once a 2D entity becomes self-aware, it no longer merges back into the group soul, but begins its own journey of evolution. (My understanding of this is based partially on the Edgar Cayce readings, which I find compatible with the Law of One.)

That starting point of individuation is what I am proposing as the demarcation between 'life force' and 'entity.'

My belief is that most plants aren't entities.

Ra seemed to support this, by saying that some trees might become sentient enough to be harvestable to 3D. If this were common among plants, then Ra wouldn't have stated it the way they did, as though an exception.

I have already built a sufficient case supporting this premise, and I'm dismayed that this point was missed. (It's ok to disagree with me of course; I'm just dismayed that what I thought was my central point, wasn't understood.)

2. Plant entities inhabit bodies which are inviting to humans. The smell, appearance, and taste of fresh, living plants are generally pleasant, whereas the smell, appearance and taste of freshly killed animals is repulsive to most humans. Is this conclusive? No. Does it prove anything? No. But surely one can see that it's reasonable to factor this obvious fact into the equation. (Since we are, after all, stranded here behind a veil and must use our wits to figure it all out.)

I think this is a personal opinion rather than a concept that can be applied to all humans. I have family in Texas that can't stand vegetables and would prefer to eat their steaks right off of the cow. I think what one considers pleasant and unpleasant is more based upon psychological conditioning than inherent design. I have no problem with the opinion that this might be designed, but I definitely don't share it.

But surely you will agree that the vast majority of humans (in the US at least) wouldn't want to bite into a freshly killed, bloody rabbit?

I think it can safely be stated that most humans don't find bloody carcasses appetizing. Hence, the popularity of reality shows, wherein contestants are grossed out by eating bugs etc. Americans don't like bloody carcasses. They prefer their animals neatly wrapped in plastic at the grocery store, or tucked between 2 buns. That's why they're fascinated by the reality shows.

3. Animals can fly, swim or run away from predators. Plants can't. Does this prove anything? No. But I contend that it would have been exceedingly cruel for the Logos to equip plants with fully functioning pain receptors and sentience, but no ability to be mobile. Our Logos has been accused of some cruel things (like fleas on wolves and the whole carnivorous animal design), but this would top the list. It's bad enough that a deer is killed by the lion, but at least the deer has a fighting chance to run away. Not so for the hapless plants. It would be beyond cruel, if plants felt as much fear and pain as the deer, but couldn't run away. If that lettuce plant feels intense torture every time a gorilla tears off a leaf and chews it. That would be so heinous, that it would lead me to believe we are existing in a totally STS world!

And what of the squirrel I watched get eaten alive by a hawk? It was a very gruesome sight and I guarantee you that squirrel suffered much, does it get no consideration from the Logos? Why would the Logos allow the evolution of carnivores if it were so sensitive to the suffering?

That's a whole 'nother subject; one which has been discussed in other threads. But you seem to have missed my point, which is that, it's bad enough that the animals are killing one another...that is distressing enough! And I plan to tell the Logos that I find it despicable! But now, on top of that atrocity, you're telling me that every time a cow chews on some grass, the grass is writhing in agony too?

If so, then it's far, far worse than I thought!

This is the concept behind "non-violent slaughter" which must be understood. When we process a chicken or a goat, the animal does not know it's going to be killed.

When a woman is murdered in her sleep, she doesn't know she is about to be murdered. But it's still murder, nonetheless.

Dr. Temple Grandin, advocate for animal rights as well as autism awareness, has put forth a lot of evidence behind the fear and anxiety felt by animals on their way to be slaughtered, and humane slaughter facilities work with her evidence to reduce anxiety, reduce fear, and promote humane treatment of animals. Animals suffer less being processed in a truly humane facility than they would being eaten in nature.

That's all very nice, but the point that is still being missed is: Why go to so much effort? Why not just quit eating animals? I mean, really, there is such a simple solution, which would actually benefit the whole planet as well. Why go to such great lengths? Why not just...quit...eating...them?

Do we know if a plant suffers when being killed? No...but we can also be sure that the animal does not suffer either.

Maybe that small minority of animals, sure. But all that effort that's going into 'humane' slaughter could be better spent educating people about the vegetarian diet, and thus reducing the slaughter of all those factory farm animals, who do indeed know they're about to be killed, and are indeed suffering.

It seems to me that, although the effort appears commendable on the surface, it is actually perpetuating the problems, by contributing to people's mindset that eating animals is acceptable. And, the 'humane' farmer can feel less guilt about his own small herd of meat, but that isn't helping the animals in the factory farm down the road.

Also, I don't personally contend that plants can feel physical pain, but I have no doubt they can feel spiritual and mental pain.

Definitely. But I contend that it's the group soul that feels the pain...the tomato oversoul, not each individual tomato plant.

When is it an individual plant? If a friend gives me a cutting from her ivy plant, and then I cut off a piece to give to another friend, how many plant entities do we have here? Did the 1 plant have babies? Will it keep making new souls every time I cut off a leaf? Is each blade of grass in your lawn an entity? Or is the entire lawn an entity?

It's simply unfathomable! Sure, it's a convenient argument, but I contend that it's an argument of justification, rather than standing on its own merit. Rather than face the cruelty of killing animals, it's more convenient to accuse vegetarians of being cruel to plants.

When there is no suffering either way, what's the difference? Slaughter is slaughter. We work to prevent suffering, both for plants and for animals.

As I've stated before, I do commend you for your efforts! But this discussion has gotten deeper. If they are all individual entities, there would be no difference. I contend, as I have all along but the point seems to have gotten missed, that most plants aren't entities. That is the crucial difference. All else is moot without understanding this point. (Even if you disagree, just understand.)

Like I said, I don't contend that plants feel physical pain. But I still see no difference in slaughtering a plant to sustain yourself. You're ending its life just as an animal's life is ended.

I've addressed this previously, multiple times. I don't believe the plant's life is being ended.

As I said before, cut and come again is good, but not all vegetables, especially not all vegetables necessary for a vegetarian to have a balanced diet, can be that way.

I hope you don't mind if I decline to answer points that I've already addressed elsewhere in this thread.

And what happens when the lettuce and spinach start bolting? How many gardeners do not uproot it?

Most surely uproot it. I let mine bolt.

And why would we be greedy enough to cut broccoli to begin with, the part we eat is supposed to turn to flowers and allow it to reproduce. We're interrupting its natural life cycle by greedily chopping off its head for our own consumption.

I don't think I'm succeeding in conveying my points. If you do decide to read Botany of Desire, please let me know! We could resume this part of the discussion then.

Not all plants are healthy either, some are poisonous and some can even kill you.

I don't follow the relevance here. Then simply don't eat those plants!

Of course violent slaughter of an animal is notably different from violently slaughter of a plant

How is it different? Can you elaborate?

I'm not sure if I agree with the idea that plants and animals exist in separate degrees of individuation. Maybe the book holds more for this discussion.

That's from Ra, not from the book.

It's funny you should mention that! Not necessarily, but ever since I was a small child I thought mowing the lawn was a very backwards thing to do. You plant all this seed, asking this grass to grow, and then you go and cut it down, stopping it from growing! I've always looked at yardwork as sort of a war...yard tools are the weapons, you prepare for battle and go out and wage war on nature by pulling weeds, killing bugs, and cutting off plants' limbs and appendages. I don't think its slaughter because you're not killing the grass, but I do consider pulling a weed slaughter. Why wouldn't you? You're killing a living being!

But unless you use lots of herbicides and have eradicated all your dandelions and thistles, every time you mow the lawn you are indeed killing weeds. And how do you know you're not killing individual blades of grass? Wait! Did you just say you're not killing the lawn? Well you're not killing the whole lawn, but you are killing parts of it. Where does 1 lawn 'entity' end and the next one begin? Is your back yard lawn a separate entity from your front yard lawn? Or is each blade of grass an entity? or...each cutting? After all, a single cutting can turn into a whole new lawn! Or...

This definition is biased towards animals. We can take number 1 and extend it to 2D beings, so "killing or butchering of cattle, sheep, beets, carrots, potatoes, etc. especially for food."

It's the standard definition, generally accepted by society. People don't generally think of eating salad as slaughter.

Personally, I wouldn't consider our hair individual entities like I would plants.

Then I invite you to expand your thinking to include the Earth...close your eyes for a minute and imagine what it might feel like to be Earth...what would be the equivalent of hair on a planetary being?

It's all a matter of perspective.

Possibly. I always thought the consumption of 1D wouldn't be such a dispute, because it persists through our consuming it, doesn't it?

Take water...we drink it, we process it, absorb it or pass it...it stays water no matter what.

Actually, water changes very much. People think all water is the same, but it isn't. It varies wildly, with many constituents. (I am in the water business.) It may have a variety of minerals, chemicals, toxins, microorganisms, etc. as well have different properties regarding pH, oxidation reduction potential, structure, surface tension, etc.

Water doesn't stay the same. It's constantly interacting with its environment.

And rocks change too. It just takes them a lot longer, so to us it looks like they're staying the same.

Again, let's extend the concept to this density as you are doing. More heinous to murder a less spiritually aware person?

No. That's a stretch. I have given a very precise demarcation. We might not always know whether the entity has reached that point, which is why I would err on the side of caution and never kill any animals, which are clearly higher 2D entities. Nor would I ever cut down an ancient tree (or any tree for that matter, if it can be helped).

So why not discern that we shouldn't kill entities very close to being very close to being human? (Yes I typed that right :p)

You seem to be implying that I am advocating some sort of elitism. Not at all. The demarcation is the qualifier that Ra gave us, for self-awareness. This is just my opinion of course, but again, until we are able to exist only on sunlight, it seems the most logical demarcation to me.

Either way we're taking their life for our own survival.

We can discuss this point further after you read the book, if you wish.

This may be where we have to agree to disagree, to avoid spending the rest of our lives typing!

Agreed! But as long as new points are being made, it's a topic worthy of deep discussion.

[zenmaster]

Again, let's extend the concept to this density as you are doing. More heinous to murder a less spiritually aware person?

No. That's a stretch. I have given a very precise demarcation.

But it seems that you haven't. You have invented an idea of what seems to be an arbitrary point of becoming 'self-aware', but have squarely placed it between the plant and animal kingdoms. However, according to Ra: "The second density strives towards the third density which is the density of self-consciousness or self-awareness." Unharvested 2D-entities do not live in the density of self-awareness, any more than 3D entities live in the 4th density of love or understanding. Native 2D entities are not yet enspirited in their cycle of evolution. They are still multi-billion year evolved body/mind complexes.

[Monica]

But it seems that you haven't. You have invented an idea of what seems to be an arbitrary point of becoming 'self-aware', but have squarely placed it between the plant and animal kingdoms.

No, I haven't specified where that point of self-awareness is. You are correct that it can vary. We really don't know. In some animals, it's obvious, as with our dogs and cats, that they have surpassed that point. But with the younger entities, we can't always tell. That's precisely why I'm suggesting that we err on the side of caution, and not kill any animals, just in case they have reached that point of individuation.

However, according to Ra: "The second density strives towards the third density which is the density of self-consciousness or self-awareness." Unharvested 2D-entities do not live in the density of self-awareness, any more than 3D entities live in the 4th density of love or understanding. Native 2D entities are not yet enspirited in their cycle of evolution. They are still multi-billion year evolved body/mind complexes.

Ra also stated that even 2D entities can activate green ray. Living in the realm doesn't mean we cannot activate that ray at all. If that were true, then your dog wouldn't have any self-awareness until he becomes a human, and your next-door neighbor wouldn't have any love until he graduates to 4D. Yet we know that dogs do experience self-awareness, and 3D humans do feel love. That is the criteria for graduating into those respective realms.

[zenmaster]

I interpret what Ra says differently. 'Love' is an expression of the logos. It is what has been uniquely actualized from that template. If we've evolved past the emotional need, then we have the beginnings of compassion - not the longing-for-acceptance stage experienced from late 2D to early-mid 3D.

That 2D dog's 'love' is the expression of the logos of an entity striving to enter 3D experience of self. It's a reflection of 3D catalyst offer to the 2D mind - a type of patterning. There is no capability for willed action, psychological projection, hopes, dreams, etc. 2D green-ray use does go beyond the point required for 2D harvest. It's also not the eventual green-ray activation point in 3D evolutionary learning where incarnations cease to become automatic and self-determination (use of will) is made.

The next-door neighbor's 'love' is similarly limited, not by what the 2D-experience of mind can provide, but by 'polarity' of an enspirited entity. Comparing that 'love' to 4D 'love' is like comparing a line to a plane or circumstantial understanding to certain understanding. It diminishes the concept of love in both cases.

[Bring4th_Austin]

I believe, rather than having food designed for us in that sense, the atmosphere was designed in which we, as living/evolving beings, were tasked with the objective of surviving. Some beings evolved to sustain off of provided 1D elements, some like us (unfortunately) evolved to sustain off of other 2D beings.

We didn't evolve here. Our souls were invested into ape bodies, which had already evolved to that point.

The ape bodies are what I was referring to, because it is what we inhabit. And I was more illustrating the point of "design for food" by the Logos. I don't think any being was designed to be eaten, but rather it became that way as a matter of survival.

Like I said, if the Logos had this sense of control, why would it not give us a design which allowed us to sustain on 1D?

Indeed. That is a very good question. My answer would be, why would it? If plants aren't entities, then there is no harm in eating plants.

But we know plants are living entities. And there are carnivorous animals. Why wouldn't the Logos design another type of food for them?

The Logos didn't intend for Earth's new human population to become violent:

That's dealing specifically with the "type of warfare we experience." We came out of 2D rather naturally violent. And I must reiterate again, eating animals doesn't have to be violent. We circle back to the murder of plants vs. murder of animals.

So, the Logos didn't intend for humans to use their thumbs to commit acts of violence against one another in the form of war. While they were using their thumbs to create weapons to kill one another, the humans apparently also used their thumbs to create weapons to kill animals as well. Those seem to go together. It logically follows, then, that the Logos probably didn't intend for humans to use their thumbs to kill animals either, just as they didn't intend for humans to use their thumbs to kill other humans.

We also created weapons to kill plants. I illustrated this point in my last post responding to your lawn-mowing question.

In contrast, it was apparently planned that they eat plants, being that the ape body was already being nourished by plants. (And nourished quite well, I might add...gorillas are obviously quite strong!)

Taking the logic of what we do in 2D is inherently what we should do in 3D can backfire on you pretty quickly. I understand your point but I have to dismiss the logic and classify the observation as circumstantial. Not useless, but circumstantial.

You seem to have misunderstood my premise. I don't think it's ok to kill plants because they are less evolved!

It's not about how evolved they are. It's about whether they are classified as entities.

I have explained this previously, in this thread. The entire debate hinges on whether or not plants are individual entities or not.

If they aren't, then consuming a single plant is akin to drinking a glass of water.

Once a 2D entity becomes self-aware, it no longer merges back into the group soul, but begins its own journey of evolution. (My understanding of this is based partially on the Edgar Cayce readings, which I find compatible with the Law of One.)

That starting point of individuation is what I am proposing as the demarcation between 'life force' and 'entity.'

My belief is that most plants aren't entities.

Ra seemed to support this, by saying that some trees might become sentient enough to be harvestable to 3D. If this were common among plants, then Ra wouldn't have stated it the way they did, as though an exception.

I have already built a sufficient case supporting this premise, and I'm dismayed that this point was missed. (It's ok to disagree with me of course; I'm just dismayed that what I thought was my central point, wasn't understood.)

Basing this argument on Ra, it's clear that an entity doesn't become "individualized" until it graduates to 3D. No matter what, a 2D soul returns to the group consciousness after incarnation. I'm not buying your argument here, a plant is a 2D entity, and goat is a 2D entity, neither have reached individuation. If I have two plants of the same nature standing next to each other, and two similar goats, I can kill one plant and it's gone, the other remains. I can kill one goat and it's gone, the other remains.

Either way, the soul returns to group consciousness. So why is the pain of death worse on animal group consciousness and not plant group consciousness? We return to the argument of plants being "designed" for us to eat.

But surely you will agree that the vast majority of humans (in the US at least) wouldn't want to bite into a freshly killed, bloody rabbit?

I think it can safely be stated that most humans don't find bloody carcasses appetizing. Hence, the popularity of reality shows, wherein contestants are grossed out by eating bugs etc. Americans don't like bloody carcasses. They prefer their animals neatly wrapped in plastic at the grocery store, or tucked between 2 buns. That's why they're fascinated by the reality shows.

Well, we did like raw meat at one point. The world has obviously gotten used to the idea of fire, using it to cook meats. We've become cultured to cooked meat, and evolved out of our ability to eat raw meat. It wasn't uncommon for hunter-gatherer tribes to eat what they could off of a freshly killed carcass before smoking the rest to be saved.

And what of the squirrel I watched get eaten alive by a hawk? It was a very gruesome sight and I guarantee you that squirrel suffered much, does it get no consideration from the Logos? Why would the Logos allow the evolution of carnivores if it were so sensitive to the suffering?

That's a whole 'nother subject; one which has been discussed in other threads. But you seem to have missed my point, which is that, it's bad enough that the animals are killing one another...that is distressing enough! And I plan to tell the Logos that I find it despicable! But now, on top of that atrocity, you're telling me that every time a cow chews on some grass, the grass is writhing in agony too?

My point was that, by your logic, the Logos obviously "planned" for meat to be eaten too (by carnivores), why give the plants preferential treatment? Just because when 3D humans come along, it's what they're "supposed" to eat? 3D will be a blink of an eye in time/space terms on Earth, and many many carnivores have inflicted much suffering on animals, I don't think the Logos said, "Well...plants are cool...they don't have to care about dying." I don't think the Logos would pick and choose who got to suffer based on what it wanted 3D humans to eat.

If so, then it's far, far worse than I thought!

Maybe it is? Or maybe it's not? I'm not contending that plants suffer when they die, I'm contending that non-violent killing of an animal is akin to non-violent killing of a plant. The animals don't have to suffer!

This is the concept behind "non-violent slaughter" which must be understood. When we process a chicken or a goat, the animal does not know it's going to be killed.

When a woman is murdered in her sleep, she doesn't know she is about to be murdered. But it's still murder, nonetheless.

Back to the murder of plants. In my eyes, murder, none the less. My point was, like I just stated, slaughter of plant and animal can be similar.

Dr. Temple Grandin, advocate for animal rights as well as autism awareness, has put forth a lot of evidence behind the fear and anxiety felt by animals on their way to be slaughtered, and humane slaughter facilities work with her evidence to reduce anxiety, reduce fear, and promote humane treatment of animals. Animals suffer less being processed in a truly humane facility than they would being eaten in nature.

That's all very nice, but the point that is still being missed is: Why go to so much effort? Why not just quit eating animals? I mean, really, there is such a simple solution, which would actually benefit the whole planet as well. Why go to such great lengths? Why not just...quit...eating...them?

Effort? I spend much, much (MUCH) more time in my garden trying to grow sustainable, responsible, organic vegetables to feed people. As I've stated before, I slaughter hundreds, THOUSANDS more 2D beings in my garden then from my herd.

What sort of effort does it take to responsibly raise and non-violently kill a goat? It's easier than being violent. And it takes much less effort than it does to take care of my garden!

The horrendous meat industry conditions were a result of corporate thinking. It's easier to get rich treating animals bad. It's also much easier to get rich growing crops irresponsibly. It's much easier to get rich doing ANYTHING irresponsibly.

If it were about effort, I'd concentrate less on my garden and more on building a herd. It would be MUCH easier, especially when humane treatment comes naturally.

Do we know if a plant suffers when being killed? No...but we can also be sure that the animal does not suffer either.

Maybe that small minority of animals, sure. But all that effort that's going into 'humane' slaughter could be better spent educating people about the vegetarian diet, and thus reducing the slaughter of all those factory farm animals, who do indeed know they're about to be killed, and are indeed suffering.

Oooooh Monica, you KNOW I do what I do because of the factory farm animals. People are becoming educated and want responsibly, humanely raised meat. True story, in the past week I've had two vegetarians buy goat meat from me because they simply stopped eating animals because of inhumane animal treatment. Now they know how to find farms which treat their animals humanely, and are ready to start eating meat again. I'm happy people are getting educated about the state of the meat industry as well as the availability of humane meat.

And, like I said, the "effort" of humane slaughter isn't effort at all. Using research about what makes animals anxious or scared and being conscientious about these things doesn't take any more effort.

It seems to me that, although the effort appears commendable on the surface, it is actually perpetuating the problems, by contributing to people's mindset that eating animals is acceptable. And, the 'humane' farmer can feel less guilt about his own small herd of meat, but that isn't helping the animals in the factory farm down the road.

Incorrect, the inhumane meat industry is dying because of the efforts. Farmers' Markets are exploding, and almost every single customer that buys meat, eggs, or vegetables from me asks me plenty of questions about how it was raised and processed. We have visitors to the farm that want to know about where their food comes from. There's a movement to become more conscientious about where your food comes from, for vegetables AND meat.

I could flip it around on you and say that promoting vegetarianism makes people think it's okay for the irresponsible crop farmers to do what they do. Believe me, there's much more suffering and pain on many levels from factory crop farmers than there is from human meat farmers.

I feel like the education should be "Know where your food comes from/Know your farmer," not "Eat vegetarian." Vegetarians who buy from mass producers are supporting an industry very much akin to the mass meat industry. Admittedly not as bad, but definitely not better than humane farming in any sense.

Also, I don't personally contend that plants can feel physical pain, but I have no doubt they can feel spiritual and mental pain.

Definitely. But I contend that it's the group soul that feels the pain...the tomato oversoul, not each individual tomato plant.

Well, the goat's soul travels back to the mass consciousness immediately after death, how is it different for the goat?

Also, it might be silly for me to point this out to you, but the tomato plant is one of the best plants that requires no killing to utilize :p

When is it an individual plant? If a friend gives me a cutting from her ivy plant, and then I cut off a piece to give to another friend, how many plant entities do we have here? Did the 1 plant have babies? Will it keep making new souls every time I cut off a leaf? Is each blade of grass in your lawn an entity? Or is the entire lawn an entity?

I don't think it's too far of a stretch to say that when you follow a plant to its roots, that is the entity. Who knows the metaphysical mechanics behind cloning plants, but I don't doubt individual plants are individuals.

As I've stated before, I do commend you for your efforts! But this discussion has gotten deeper. If they are all individual entities, there would be no difference. I contend, as I have all along but the point seems to have gotten missed, that most plants aren't entities. That is the crucial difference. All else is moot without understanding this point. (Even if you disagree, just understand.)

We'll have to hammer out this "plants as entities" thing to continue this discussion. I'll put a relevant Ra quote at the end of this post.

I've addressed this previously, multiple times. I don't believe the plant's life is being ended.

Because it's not "individual?" An individual carrot is an individual carrot, and when it ceases to have a 2D body to inhabit, its soul goes back to the mass consciousness. Same as a goat.

To take the point a little further, let's use the example of the plant which responded to the thought of its leaf being burned. Do you think every plant of the same type all around the world responded in this way when it was threatened? Or was it just that single plant?

Of course violent slaughter of an animal is notably different from violently slaughter of a plant

How is it different? Can you elaborate?

Well, as we've discussed, plants don't have pain receptors. Luckily it's just as easy for a small farmer to painlessly kill animals. I could attempt to tortuously kill a plant and it wouldn't do much physical trauma. Definitely trauma of some sort, but no immediate physical suffering, like an animal would experience. But it takes no more effort to insure painless processing.

I'm not sure if I agree with the idea that plants and animals exist in separate degrees of individuation. Maybe the book holds more for this discussion.

That's from Ra, not from the book.

Can you provide the reference? I will provide the quote where Ra says 2D entities return to mass consciousness until harvested to 3D, if you could provide reference for plants existing in a separate state of 2D individuation than animals.

It's funny you should mention that! Not necessarily, but ever since I was a small child I thought mowing the lawn was a very backwards thing to do. You plant all this seed, asking this grass to grow, and then you go and cut it down, stopping it from growing! I've always looked at yardwork as sort of a war...yard tools are the weapons, you prepare for battle and go out and wage war on nature by pulling weeds, killing bugs, and cutting off plants' limbs and appendages. I don't think its slaughter because you're not killing the grass, but I do consider pulling a weed slaughter. Why wouldn't you? You're killing a living being!

But unless you use lots of herbicides and have eradicated all your dandelions and thistles, every time you mow the lawn you are indeed killing weeds. And how do you know you're not killing individual blades of grass? Wait! Did you just say you're not killing the lawn? Well you're not killing the whole lawn, but you are killing parts of it. Where does 1 lawn 'entity' end and the next one begin? Is your back yard lawn a separate entity from your front yard lawn? Or is each blade of grass an entity? or...each cutting? After all, a single cutting can turn into a whole new lawn! Or...

I don't think the concept is as confusing as you're making it seem. Pointing out the idea that there are weeds on the lawn, then yes, it is slaughter. The dandelion was an individual dandelion, and you killed it...slaughtered it. Undoubtedly you killed some bugs...slaughter. The grass specific to the lawn has it's own mechanism for establishing roots and growing. If you were able to pull apart your grass in your back yard without tearing any roots, you'd find that grass grows in "tufts." If you kill a tuft, you kill a grass entity. If you chop off it's blades, it will regrow, and you didn't kill them. If you cut it down to the ground and it regrows, they're not new entities. It would be akin to cutting lettuce in a "cut and come again" style.

This definition is biased towards animals. We can take number 1 and extend it to 2D beings, so "killing or butchering of cattle, sheep, beets, carrots, potatoes, etc. especially for food."

It's the standard definition, generally accepted by society. People don't generally think of eating salad as slaughter.

I don't think it would be "generally accepted by society" that weeds contain consciousness. People don't always think of eating chicken nuggets as slaughter, does that mean its not? (I'm sure you know that many are oblivious to where their food comes from)

Personally, I wouldn't consider our hair individual entities like I would plants.

Then I invite you to expand your thinking to include the Earth...close your eyes for a minute and imagine what it might feel like to be Earth...what would be the equivalent of hair on a planetary being?

It's all a matter of perspective.

If I were Earth, my hair might be 2D beings...but I'm not :p. My single hairs are not instilled with 2D consciousness, plants are.

Actually, water changes very much. People think all water is the same, but it isn't. It varies wildly, with many constituents. (I am in the water business.) It may have a variety of minerals, chemicals, toxins, microorganisms, etc. as well have different properties regarding pH, oxidation reduction potential, structure, surface tension, etc.

Water doesn't stay the same. It's constantly interacting with its environment.

And rocks change too. It just takes them a lot longer, so to us it looks like they're staying the same.

But it's still water, right? Regardless of what's in it. Rocks too. They change form, shape, containment, but it's still water/rocks. A beet is no longer a beet after you eat it, but water is still water when it's part of your body (you could find the H2O molecules).

Again, let's extend the concept to this density as you are doing. More heinous to murder a less spiritually aware person?

No. That's a stretch. I have given a very precise demarcation. We might not always know whether the entity has reached that point, which is why I would err on the side of caution and never kill any animals, which are clearly higher 2D entities. Nor would I ever cut down an ancient tree (or any tree for that matter, if it can be helped).

Well, if you don't differentiate between different levels of 3D life as far as ending its life, why differentiate between levels of 2D life? This may go back to the individuation discussion.

So why not discern that we shouldn't kill entities very close to being very close to being human? (Yes I typed that right :p)

You seem to be implying that I am advocating some sort of elitism. Not at all. The demarcation is the qualifier that Ra gave us, for self-awareness. This is just my opinion of course, but again, until we are able to exist only on sunlight, it seems the most logical demarcation to me.

Not at all what I was implying. You'll see in the quote below that the demarcation Ra gave us for self-awareness was 3rd density. It's something our yellow ray body awards us.

20.3 Questioner: So more and more second-density entities are making it into third density. Can you give me an example of a second-density entity coming into the third density in the recent past?

Ra: I am Ra. Perhaps the most common occurrence of second-density graduation during third-density cycle is the so-called pet.

For the animal which is exposed to the individualizing influences of the bond between animal and third-density entity, this individuation causes a sharp rise in the potential of the second density entity so that upon the cessation of physical complex the mind/body complex does not return into the undifferentiated consciousness of that species, if you will.

A consciousness does not experience true self-awareness of individuation until it is harvested to 3rd density. I do not place a line between plant and animal the way you do not place a line between less spiritually aware person and more spiritually aware person. If I could, I'd place the line between 1D and 2D, but our Logos was a jerk. Maybe we should go on a hunger strike? Protest our Logos' choice of environment encouraging us to eat 2D entities.

---

I interpret what Ra says differently. 'Love' is an expression of the logos. It is what has been uniquely actualized from that template. If we've evolved past the emotional need, then we have the beginnings of compassion - not the longing-for-acceptance stage experienced from late 2D to early-mid 3D.

That 2D dog's 'love' is the expression of the logos of an entity striving to enter 3D experience of self. It's a reflection of 3D catalyst offer to the 2D mind - a type of patterning. There is no capability for willed action, psychological projection, hopes, dreams, etc. 2D green-ray use does go beyond the point required for 2D harvest. It's also not the eventual green-ray activation point in 3D evolutionary learning where incarnations cease to become automatic and self-determination (use of will) is made.

The next-door neighbor's 'love' is similarly limited, not by what the 2D-experience of mind can provide, but by 'polarity' of an enspirited entity. Comparing that 'love' to 4D 'love' is like comparing a line to a plane or circumstantial understanding to certain understanding. It diminishes the concept of love in both cases.

You have a way of describing these concepts very concisely. Thank you for this explanation.

[Monica]

I don't think any being was designed to be eaten, but rather it became that way as a matter of survival.

There had to have been some sort of design for sustenance.

Our difference of opinion might be based on presuppositions having to do with evolution. I don't subscribe to 'Darwinian' evolution.

But we know plants are living entities.

Here is the crux of our disagreement. What is your definition of entity? You just said in this post that you don't believe plants or animals are individuated until after they graduate to 3D (if I understood you correctly). How, then, could it be an entity, if it's not individuated?

My understanding of entity is a being who has an identity and an individual being. If you are using a different definition, then that would explain why we're not connecting on these points.

And there are carnivorous animals. Why wouldn't the Logos design another type of food for them?

The Logos designed vegetation as food, apparently, since most beings eat vegetation. Carnivorous animals get vegetation second-hand, by eating animals who consume vegetation.

I find this inefficient and unnecessarily cruel. I also find it incomprehensible that the Logos would be so cruel as to cover the entire Earth with vegetation, and have it live in constant torture, as it is eaten continuously. Not even animals suffer constantly like that.

Taking the logic of what we do in 2D is inherently what we should do in 3D can backfire on you pretty quickly.

Agreed. But, at the very least, we shouldn't go backwards. We should do better in 3D than in 2D. Going from vegetarian to meat-eater is going backwards. (in my opinion of course.)

Basing this argument on Ra, it's clear that an entity doesn't become "individualized" until it graduates to 3D.

I strongly disagree. Self-awareness is the prerequisite for graduation, not something entities attain after graduation.

No matter what, a 2D soul returns to the group consciousness after incarnation.

"No matter what"? Why are you so sure about that?

Have you never had a cat or dog? Surely you noticed that they have personalities? Surely your goats have personalities? How could this unique soul, this personality, be totally dissolved into the group soul?

I'm not buying your argument here, a plant is a 2D entity, and goat is a 2D entity, neither have reached individuation. If I have two plants of the same nature standing next to each other, and two similar goats, I can kill one plant and it's gone, the other remains. I can kill one goat and it's gone, the other remains.

Do you see no difference in the 2 goats?

Either way, the soul returns to group consciousness. So why is the pain of death worse on animal group consciousness and not plant group consciousness? We return to the argument of plants being "designed" for us to eat.

No, we're past that now, because you have introduced a new element. You have uncovered a core difference in our views. I am quite stunned, actually, to discover that you don't view animals as having individual souls. This is the crux of the disagreement.

The animals don't have to suffer!

Now that I understand that you don't see a difference between 2 goats, I can now see why you don't consider the killing of the goat to be significant, as long as suffering is removed. Whereas, I see the 2 goats as 2 unique entities, whose lives are being cut short.

Effort? I spend much, much (MUCH) more time in my garden trying to grow sustainable, responsible, organic vegetables to feed people. As I've stated before, I slaughter hundreds, THOUSANDS more 2D beings in my garden then from my herd.

We've already covered that ground.

What sort of effort does it take to responsibly raise and non-violently kill a goat? It's easier than being violent. And it takes much less effort than it does to take care of my garden!

You've missed the point. I wasn't referring to net time spent; I was referring to the educational process, the advertising, the marketing, etc. which, in my opinion, could be better spent educating people about alternatives to eating animals. Instead, their belief that they need to eat animals is being perpetuated.

The horrendous meat industry conditions were a result of corporate thinking. It's easier to get rich treating animals bad. It's also much easier to get rich growing crops irresponsibly. It's much easier to get rich doing ANYTHING irresponsibly.

I agree with you here!

Oooooh Monica, you KNOW I do what I do because of the factory farm animals. People are becoming educated and want responsibly, humanely raised meat. True story, in the past week I've had two vegetarians buy goat meat from me because they simply stopped eating animals because of inhumane animal treatment. Now they know how to find farms which treat their animals humanely, and are ready to start eating meat again. I'm happy people are getting educated about the state of the meat industry as well as the availability of humane meat.

I see that differently. I am sad to hear those former vegetarians went back to eating animals.

Incorrect, the inhumane meat industry is dying because of the efforts. Farmers' Markets are exploding, and almost every single customer that buys meat, eggs, or vegetables from me asks me plenty of questions about how it was raised and processed. We have visitors to the farm that want to know about where their food comes from. There's a movement to become more conscientious about where your food comes from, for vegetables AND meat.

As I've stated before, I commend you for your service and see it as part of the continuum. Please don't take any of my opinions personally. Then the discussion would devolve into defensiveness. I'm interested in discussing concepts, not in judging you or what you do.

Well, the goat's soul travels back to the mass consciousness immediately after death, how is it different for the goat?

I am curious as to what you are basing that belief on.

I don't think it's too far of a stretch to say that when you follow a plant to its roots, that is the entity. Who knows the metaphysical mechanics behind cloning plants, but I don't doubt individual plants are individuals.

I'm confused. Your statements seem contradictory to me. You just said that all plants and animals return to group consciousness, and don't attain individuation until after graduation to 3D. Now you're saying they are individuals? Those statements are contradictory.

We'll have to hammer out this "plants as entities" thing to continue this discussion. I'll put a relevant Ra quote at the end of this post.

Ok

Because it's not "individual?"

No. But I don't have time right now to repeat what what I explained in earlier posts, about my views on this.

An individual carrot is an individual carrot, and when it ceases to have a 2D body to inhabit, its soul goes back to the mass consciousness. Same as a goat.

What is the point of being an individual, if the self-awareness it has attained is lost?

To take the point a little further, let's use the example of the plant which responded to the thought of its leaf being burned. Do you think every plant of the same type all around the world responded in this way when it was threatened? Or was it just that single plant?

I think it was the group consciousness that responded, not the individual plant. We know that bees, ants, and bacteria all behave as a single entity. A species of bacteria has a body spanning the entire planet, all spread out. But it's a single entity. This has been backed by science. I cited examples to back this up earlier in this thread. I see plants the same way, just physically spread out.

Well, as we've discussed, plants don't have pain receptors. Luckily it's just as easy for a small farmer to painlessly kill animals. I could attempt to tortuously kill a plant and it wouldn't do much physical trauma. Definitely trauma of some sort, but no immediate physical suffering, like an animal would experience. But it takes no more effort to insure painless processing.

Aha! And why, do you suppose, plants have no pain receptors?

Can you provide the reference? I will provide the quote where Ra says 2D entities return to mass consciousness until harvested to 3D, if you could provide reference for plants existing in a separate state of 2D individuation than animals.

OK. It will be tomorrow though.

I don't think the concept is as confusing as you're making it seem. Pointing out the idea that there are weeds on the lawn, then yes, it is slaughter. The dandelion was an individual dandelion, and you killed it...slaughtered it. Undoubtedly you killed some bugs...slaughter. The grass specific to the lawn has it's own mechanism for establishing roots and growing. If you were able to pull apart your grass in your back yard without tearing any roots, you'd find that grass grows in "tufts." If you kill a tuft, you kill a grass entity. If you chop off it's blades, it will regrow, and you didn't kill them. If you cut it down to the ground and it regrows, they're not new entities. It would be akin to cutting lettuce in a "cut and come again" style.

Now it is you who is speculating.

I don't think it would be "generally accepted by society" that weeds contain consciousness. People don't always think of eating chicken nuggets as slaughter, does that mean its not? (I'm sure you know that many are oblivious to where their food comes from)

Of course. But I was referring to the standard dictionary definition of a word. We can't just change its meaning to suit us. We can use different words to describe what we mean, but that word is what it is.

If I were Earth, my hair might be 2D beings...but I'm not :p. My single hairs are not instilled with 2D consciousness, plants are.

How do you know that?

But it's still water, right? Regardless of what's in it. Rocks too. They change form, shape, containment, but it's still water/rocks. A beet is no longer a beet after you eat it, but water is still water when it's part of your body (you could find the H2O molecules).

This is a whole 'nother topic and I'm short on time right now.

Well, if you don't differentiate between different levels of 3D life as far as ending its life, why differentiate between levels of 2D life? This may go back to the individuation discussion.

I already answered that. Because sometime in 2D, a spark separates from the 2D group consciousness and becomes individuated, taking on its own karma and beginning its own journey.

20.3 Questioner: So more and more second-density entities are making it into third density. Can you give me an example of a second-density entity coming into the third density in the recent past?

Ra: I am Ra. Perhaps the most common occurrence of second-density graduation during third-density cycle is the so-called pet.

For the animal which is exposed to the individualizing influences of the bond between animal and third-density entity, this individuation causes a sharp rise in the potential of the second density entity so that upon the cessation of physical complex the mind/body complex does not return into the undifferentiated consciousness of that species, if you will.

A consciousness does not experience true self-awareness of individuation until it is harvested to 3rd density. I do not place a line between plant and animal the way you do not place a line between less spiritually aware person and more spiritually aware person.

Please re-read that quote. Individuation causes - this means individuation occurs before cessation of physical complex; ie. while the animal is alive as a 2D entity.