In regards to eating meat

[BrownEye]

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.

I think you mean tree and animal right? Ra did mention the difference between trees and "plants".

[βαθμιαίος]

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).

Quotes below are from http://www-bcf.usc.edu/~stanford/chimphunt.html

Chimpanzees are the most closely-related ape to us:

Modern people and chimpanzees share an estimated 98.5% of our DNA sequence, making us more closely related to each other than either is to any other animal species. Therefore, understanding chimpanzee hunting behavior and ecology may tell us a great deal about the behavior and ecology of those very earliest hominids.

Chimpanzees eat meat:

When Jane Goodall first observed wild chimpanzees hunting and eating meat nearly 40 years ago, skeptics suggested that their behavior was aberrant and that the amount of meat eaten was trivial. Today, we know that chimpanzees everywhere eat mainly fruit, but are also predators in their forest ecosystems. In some sites the quantity of meat eaten by a chimpanzee community may approach one ton annually.

In the early 1960's, when Dr. Jane Goodall began her now famous study of the chimpanzees of Gombe National Park, Tanzania, it was thought that chimpanzees were strictly vegetarian. In fact, when Goodall first reported this behavior, many people were skeptical and claimed that meat was not a natural part of the chimpanzee diet. Today, hunting by chimpanzees at Gombe has been well documented (Teleki 1973; Goodall 1986), and hunting has also been observed at most other sites in Africa where chimpanzees have been studied, including Mahale Mountains National Park (Uehara et al. 1992) (also in Tanzania) and Tai National Park in Ivory Coast in West Africa (Boesch and Boesch 1989). At Gombe, we now know that chimpanzees may kill and eat more than 150 small and medium sized animals such as monkeys, wild pigs and small antelopes each year.

Our hominid ancestors also ate meat:

One of the most important and intriguing questions in human evolution is when meat became an important part of the diet of our ancestors. Physical anthropologists and archaeologists have been using a number of techniques to try to answer this question. The presence of primitive stone tools in the fossil record tells us that 2.5 million years ago early hominids were using stone implements to cut the flesh off the bones of large animals that they had either hunted or whose carcasses they had scavenged.

---

Video of chimpanzees hunting a monkey (gruesome): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDFh5JdYh7I

[Tenet Nosce]

Live coverage: Police report 7 dead in Northeast Grand Rapids

This event is happening right now. A poll:

If you had the power to either A) stop this kind of event from ever occurring again, or B) stop the slaughter of animals from ever happening again, which would you choose and why?

In other news:

French vegan couple whose baby died of vitamin deficiency after being fed solely on breast milk face jail for child neglect

Vegan Couple Starved Toddler, Cops Say

Vegan couple cleared of starving baby, guilty of child neglect

Vegan Parents Guilty Of Starving Son

I acknowledge these stories are about vegans, and not vegetarians. Yet they are still good examples of what happens when absolutism and zealotry take hold of what would otherwise be a noble idea. How a human being could rationalize harming or killing their own child in order to save a cow is beyond my comprehension. And yes, I also know these are extreme cases not representative of vegans in general. Obviously.

[zenmaster]

Chimpanzees are the most closely-related ape to us

This is actually outdated info. The bonobo shares more 12.4% more DNA in common with humans than with chimps. So the bonobo is the most closely-related ape to us.

[Bring4th_Austin]

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.

Yeah, I'm saying that design was: find your sustenance.

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?

It is an entity in the same way a goat is. Obviously, it strives for life outside apart from other plants.

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.

Why don't you think an individual dandelion is and individual being? It is a single dandelion.

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.

We're all just getting energy second hand from killing something anyways.

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.

Like I said, I don't contend plants suffer like that.

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.

Ra clearly states that the orange ray body is without self-awareness. Any animal or plant is in an orange ray body. An animal cannot form a yellow ray body mid-incarnation. It meets the requirements for individualization before it is awarded self-awareness.

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

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

Poorly worded, I should have said "No matter what, a 2D soul comes from group consciousness before incarnation."

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?

It seems you are saying every mammal which we personify graduates to 3D? Do you think all of my goats graduate to 3D when they die? Every mammal you perceive to have personality, does it not return to group soul? Ra says differently.

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?

Do you see no difference in the 2 plants? I could look at one spiny thistle that is runty, crooked, and lacking strong branches, and name him "Runty." He doesn't reach as hard for the sun, but he has hope. Another big, beautiful thistle, is obviously different. They incarnated as individuals just as the goats incarnated as individuals.

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.

They are individual animals, but Ra clearly states that until they reach the point of individuation, they return to the group soul. Are you really saying you think every animal which we perceive to have personality graduates 2D? I cannot agree with this.

I think the crux of the disagreement rather lies in that you don't view an individual plant as "incarnated," never leaving the group soul. Two carrots are two carrots, with two souls similar to two goats. When any die, they return to the group soul. I'm saying that the carrot LEAVES the group soul, then RETURNS to the group soul, just like a goat.

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.

So you ARE saying all goats will graduate to 3d? I will again disagree. Not every animal we perceive as having personality will graduate. It takes more investment than us simply perceiving personality.

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.

So you mean you think it's better to educate people about your opinion rather than mine I don't know anyone who doesn't feel that way.

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.

I wasn't saying I was happy specifically about the vegetarians. I'm indifferent to them returning to eating meat. It's their choice. I'm happy that the education is reaching people.

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.

I didn't perceive you as judging me, I perceived you as being wrong . You're saying it is perpetuating the problem: it's not. The old rancher is being replaced by a new type of farmer.

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.

The fact that, until the animal reaches individuation, it returns to the group soul, as stated by Ra.

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.

They're individual entities like goats are individual entities. Both leave the group soul, and return to the group soul.

Ra:...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

A goat is not a 3D entity, right? Which means it CAME from the group consciousness...if it came from an individuated consciousness, it wouldn't be 2D, it would be 3D. Goats are 2D! Ra clearly states it won't ENTER an incarnation from an individuated soul until it GAINS individuation and graduates to 3D.

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?

Good question.

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.

If it was the group consciousness, wouldn't all plants have responded? How could it tell the INDIVIDUAL plant from all the other INDIVIDUAL plants? They are individual plants like a goat is an individual goat, the individual's souls coming from the species group consciousness.

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?

We experience physical pain through our nervous system, don't we?

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.

Could be a deal breaker for me when you do!

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.

I could find a definition which leaves out the qualifiers for people and animals. In fact dictionary.com has several definitions for slaughter which are simply "to kill (in some) manner," no mention of animals. I use it to describe the process of ending the life as you use it for the same reason.

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.

And after that incarnation, it becomes 3D. It does not reincarnate again as a 2D animal. Meaning, if I kill a goat, the same thing happens to it that happens to a carrot if I kill it. It returns to group consciousness, where it came from. If it had come from an individuated soul before incarnation, it would not be in a 2D incarnation.

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.

Right, and not before the incarnation, meaning it came FROM group consciousness. And, if it doesn't attain individuation in that incarnation, it returns TO group consciousness.

And when you end a plant's incarnation it inhibits it from doing 2D work, just like when you end a goat's incarnation. You stop it from striving for individuation.

[βαθμιαίος]

This is actually outdated info. The bonobo shares more 12.4% more DNA in common with humans than with chimps. So the bonobo is the most closely-related ape to us.

OK, thanks for the correction. Do you have a link? I'd be interested in reading more. But in any event, bonobos are closely related to chimpanzees and also eat meat.

Quotes below are from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo

The bonobo Pan paniscus, previously called the pygmy chimpanzee and less often, the dwarf or gracile chimpanzee, is a great ape and one of the two species making up the genus Pan. The other species in genus Pan is Pan troglodytes, or the common chimpanzee. Although the name "chimpanzee" is sometimes used to refer to both species together, it is usually understood as referring to the common chimpanzee, while Pan paniscus is usually referred to as the bonobo.

This primate is mainly frugivorous, but supplements its diet with leaves and meat from small vertebrates such as flying squirrels and duikers, and invertebrates. In some instances, bonobos have been shown to consume lower-order primates. Some claim that bonobos have also been known to practice cannibalism in captivity, a claim disputed by others. However there is at least one confirmed report of cannibalism in the wild as reported by researchers Gottfried Hohmann and Andrew Fowler.

[Monica]

Yet they are still good examples of what happens when absolutism and zealotry take hold of what would otherwise be a noble idea. How a human being could rationalize harming or killing their own child in order to save a cow is beyond my comprehension. And yes, I also know these are extreme cases not representative of vegans in general. Obviously.

So why are you even showing these? What is your point? I could find many more examples of meat eaters who kill their own children, abuse them, etc. Evil people exist whether veg or not. People can become zealots in anything - diet, religion, politics, whatever. So I don't understand what you're getting at here.

[Bring4th_Austin]

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.

I think you mean tree and animal right? Ra did mention the difference between trees and "plants".

Are plants not 2D beings? Some plants are different from other plants are different from trees are different from animals.

It's all 2D life.

[Monica]

Chimpanzees are the most closely-related ape to us:

Ra just said ape, which includes chimps and gorillas. Humans, chimps and gorillas are all closely related, with humans and chimps being closer. Gorillas are totally vegetarian except for bugs. Chimps are 90% veg. The point still remains.

[βαθμιαίος]

The point still remains.

The point of the article I quoted was 'When we ask the question "when did meat become an important part of the human diet ?," we must therefore look well before the evolutionary split between apes and humans in our own family tree.'

For me, Edgar Cayce's 80/20 rule works well: 80% alkaline-reacting (fruit, vegetables), 20% acid-reacting (meat, grains). I believe this is similar to chimpanzees' diets, the diets of our hominid ancestors, and the diets of some traditional hunter-gatherers.

[zenmaster]

This is actually outdated info. The bonobo shares more 12.4% more DNA in common with humans than with chimps. So the bonobo is the most closely-related ape to us.

OK, thanks for the correction. Do you have a link? I'd be interested in reading more. But in any event, bonobos are closely related to chimpanzees and also eat meat.

Quotes below are from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo

http://ericmjohnson.posterous.com/bonobo...umans-than

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/0...ul-humans/

For what it's worth, 'Bigfoot' are known to hunt deer.

Diet and Digestion

The sasquatch is an omnivore with a substantial carnivorous component to its diet. They have been observed directly to eat leaves, berries, fruits, roots, aquatic plants and other vegetable matter, catch fish, dig up clams or ground squirrels, and prey on poultry, deer, elk and bear. In addition, they eat other odd items, such as young evergreen shoots, crayfish, road kill, meat or fish from human storage sites, hunter-killed game animals (these sometimes snatched in front of the hunter), and occasional garbage. They take an occasional livestock animal, but not with sufficient frequency as to produce organized persecution.

They appear to kill large prey animals by a blow with the fist, rock or stick or by twisting their necks, sometimes to the point of decapitation. Liver and other internal organs are their first targets. The remaining meat is sometimes stored on the ground under a haphazard shelter of sticks or lifted into tree forks above ground. No compelling evidence exists that they store food in any substantial way beyond this; only rarely has a sasquatch been observed carrying a fish some distance from its origin, or a deer, presumably into hiding.

Caloric requirements per gram of living matter decrease as a function of total mass of the animal. Nonetheless, the nutritional needs of an average sasquatch can be calculated to amount to about 5,000 calories per day. This amount can only be fulfilled by rather constant searching for food and especially by intermittent predation. Sasquatches have been seen both with substantial girth as well as looking decidedly skinny.

Drinking has been observed by small animals dipping their faces into the water, while adults commonly drink out of a cupped hand, or resort to a cupped leaf or a dry, hollow stem of a weed.

Their feces are sausage-shaped, up to 4" inches in diameter and up to three feet long, forming a folded heap. They are replete with numerous intestinal parasites, including hook worms, as well as small bones, hair of prey and ample vegetal matter. A sasquatch has been observed to wipe itself with its hand and lick its fingers briefly, a decidedly simian gesture.

[Bring4th_Austin]

Further information on 2D entities not having "consciousness of spirit" until 3D:

13.21 Questioner: Then how does the second density progress to the third?
Ra: I am Ra. The second density strives towards the third density which is the density of self-consciousness or self-awareness. The striving takes place through the higher second-density forms who are invested by third-density beings with an identity to the extent that they become self-aware mind/body complexes, thus becoming mind/body/spirit complexes and entering third density, the first density of consciousness of spirit.

A goat and a carrot are both mind/body complexes.

[Tenet Nosce]

Yet they are still good examples of what happens when absolutism and zealotry take hold of what would otherwise be a noble idea. How a human being could rationalize harming or killing their own child in order to save a cow is beyond my comprehension. And yes, I also know these are extreme cases not representative of vegans in general. Obviously.

So why are you even showing these? What is your point? I could find many more examples of meat eaters who kill their own children, abuse them, etc. Evil people exist whether veg or not. People can become zealots in anything - diet, religion, politics, whatever. So I don't understand what you're getting at here.

Well, here is one reason:

http://www.markusrothkranz.com

This is my META breakdown of this clip:

[HOPE][CONFUSION][FEAR][UNIVERSAL TRUTH][FEAR][INSPIRATIONAL MESSAGE][GUILT][FEAR][HOPE][UNIVERSAL TRUTH][HALF-NAKED WOMAN]

Yup. Looks like a masterpiece of evangelical work to me. Say, when Jesus comes back is he going to send all the meat eaters to Hell too?

[Monica]

Yeah, I'm saying that design was: find your sustenance.

That doesn't seem logical to me. But, we are both speculating so it's a moot point.

It is an entity in the same way a goat is.

This statement lacks substance. Please clarify.

Obviously, it strives for life outside apart from other plants.

It's not obvious. Does the tuft of grass strive for life outside other tufts of grass? How did you decide that a tuft was the boundary between individual entities? Does an ivy cutting strive for life outside other ivy cuttings?

It's not obvious. It would be helpful in our communication, if you could define your understanding of entity.

Why don't you think an individual dandelion is and individual being? It is a single dandelion.

Ah, apparently you are basing your views on the physical vehicle. I am basing mine on consciousness.

As an example, bacteria are physically separated from one another, yet function as a single being. More obviously, bees and ants. Ask any beekeeper. I am researching beekeeping right now and just read in several beekeeping books the same advice: Aspiring beekeepers must understand that the hive is a single entity. Never mind that each bee has a separate body. The determining factor is consciousness, not the physical body.

Like I said, I don't contend plants suffer like that.

Then what is the point of our discussion? You seemed to be making the case for eating animals, by pointing out that plants were slaughtered (and, presumably, suffered) the same as animals. If you don't think plants suffer, and you don't believe them to be individual souls, but just return to the group consciousness anyway, then what does it matter if they are eaten or not?

Ra clearly states that the orange ray body is without self-awareness. Any animal or plant is in an orange ray body. An animal cannot form a yellow ray body mid-incarnation. It meets the requirements for individualization before it is awarded self-awareness.

I disagree. My understanding is that self-awareness is the requirement for individualization.

How could an entity be 'awarded' self-awareness? And, in your view, how does it meet the requirements for individualization, if not thru self-awareness?? And what exactly is the requirement for individualization, if not self-awareness?

Poorly worded, I should have said "No matter what, a 2D soul comes from group consciousness before incarnation."

Up until it individuates, yes. But once it becomes self-aware and begins its own soul journey, it no longer returns to the group consciousness. I've had cats return to me several times. They are still in 2D but I witnesses an evolution of their consciousness, and they reincarnated several times.

It seems you are saying every mammal which we personify graduates to 3D?

By we personify it sounds like you don't consider them to have their own personality - as though we are only projecting onto them.

I ask you again: Have you never noticed personality in your goats, dogs or cats?

Do you think all of my goats graduate to 3D when they die? Every mammal you perceive to have personality, does it not return to group soul? Ra says differently.

Ra says that once the entity is self-aware, it begins the journey and no longer merges back with the group. It's a journey. It may take multiple lifetimes before the goat is ready to graduate.

Why do you say, "perceive to have personality"? You don't seem to be acknowledging that they really do have their own personalities, irrespective of how you happen to perceive them. You seem to be employing a common psychological trick - depersonalizing an entity. Are your goats all the same to you?

Do you see no difference in the 2 plants? I could look at one spiny thistle that is runty, crooked, and lacking strong branches, and name him "Runty." He doesn't reach as hard for the sun, but he has hope. Another big, beautiful thistle, is obviously different. They incarnated as individuals just as the goats incarnated as individuals.

No, I'm not referring to physical appearance! I'm referring to personality! Do you not see any difference in personality, amongst your goats?

They are individual animals, but Ra clearly states that until they reach the point of individuation, they return to the group soul.

Yes! It no longer returns to the group soul! But that doesn't mean it graduates at the end of that lifetime! It might live several more lifetimes as a cat or goat, honing its newly awakened self-awareness, and then, eventually, graduates to 3D. That is my understanding.

Are you really saying you think every animal which we perceive to have personality graduates 2D?

It has nothing to do with our perception. It has to do with what is actually happening, with that entity.

So you ARE saying all goats will graduate to 3d?

I have no idea how you got that out of what I said.

I will again disagree. Not every animal we perceive as having personality will graduate. It takes more investment than us simply perceiving personality.

There's that perceiving again. That's the 3rd or 4th time you've used that term. Why are you concerned about what we perceive? Why is that even in the equation? Ra never gave any hint that our perception had anything to do with a 2D entity's evolution.

So you mean you think it's better to educate people about your opinion rather than mine I don't know anyone who doesn't feel that way.

Haha. No. I mean that more people becoming vegetarians will do more good for the planet, than people continuing to eat animals, 'humanely' raised or not. The statistics on the effects of the meat industry apply, whether 'humane' or not. It still takes more plants to feed the animals, it's still inefficient, etc.

I didn't perceive you as judging me, I perceived you as being wrong . You're saying it is perpetuating the problem: it's not. The old rancher is being replaced by a new type of farmer.

It's perpetuating the killing of animals; something that, in my opinion, has no place in 4D.

The fact that, until the animal reaches individuation, it returns to the group soul, as stated by Ra.

Yes, but individuation is something the goat achieves on its own, from its own evolution, though it may be aided by 3D humans. It isn't something that is 'awarded'! It's part of the evolutionary process. And it can happen anytime in late 2D.

They're individual entities like goats are individual entities.

This statement isn't saying anything. Please clarify.

Both leave the group soul, and return to the group soul.

That makes no sense. What is the point of having individual awareness, if it's all dissolved at the end of the lifetime anyway?

Ra:...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

A goat is not a 3D entity, right? Which means it CAME from the group consciousness...if it came from an individuated consciousness, it wouldn't be 2D, it would be 3D. Goats are 2D! Ra clearly states it won't ENTER an incarnation from an individuated soul until it GAINS individuation and graduates to 3D.

Ra didn't clearly say that. You are projecting your own interpretation. You seem to be equating 'group consciousness' with 2D.

If it was the group consciousness, wouldn't all plants have responded? How could it tell the INDIVIDUAL plant from all the other INDIVIDUAL plants?

Think of the cells on your body. They are all part of you, all spread out, but lacking individual awareness as entities. If you burn your finger, your body sends healing agents directly to the injured area. It knows not to send to every finger, just to the injured finger.

They are individual plants like a goat is an individual goat, the individual's souls coming from the species group consciousness.

I'm sorry, but repetition of this statement isn't helping. It seems contradictory. In what way is it an individual? Are you referring only to the physical?

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

We experience physical pain through our nervous system, don't we?[/quote]

You didn't answer the question. Why don't plants have pain receptors? If they are the same as goats, why do goats have pain receptors and plants don't?

Could be a deal breaker for me when you do!

? What do you mean by that?

And after that incarnation, it becomes 3D.

Not necessarily. Ra never stated that a single spark of self-awareness would result in instant graduation. My understanding is that it's a process.

It does not reincarnate again as a 2D animal. Meaning, if I kill a goat, the same thing happens to it that happens to a carrot if I kill it. It returns to group consciousness, where it came from. If it had come from an individuated soul before incarnation, it would not be in a 2D incarnation.

I disagree. I believe animals absolutely do reincarnate multiple times, as 2D entities, without returning to the group consciousness, once they've become self-aware (individuated). Ra even spoke of the process of karma of 2D entities being automatic.

Right, and not before the incarnation, meaning it came FROM group consciousness. And, if it doesn't attain individuation in that incarnation, it returns TO group consciousness.

And when you end a plant's incarnation it inhibits it from doing 2D work, just like when you end a goat's incarnation. You stop it from striving for individuation.

It may already be an individual. That goat has a personality. Tomorrow, when you tend your goats, make a point to look them in the eyes, and you will see it. Personality. It's been there all along. Notice their little quirks and unique behaviors. These are entities. They're not all the same. I invite you to get to know those goats, and then see how you feel about killing them.

---

The point of the article I quoted was 'When we ask the question "when did meat become an important part of the human diet ?," we must therefore look well before the evolutionary split between apes and humans in our own family tree.'

Why even ask that question? Why is it important what our ancestors did? I mentioned it in the context of our Logos' design when it chose the ape body, but aside from that, I don't see the relevance. Many diet 'experts' debate about what is the 'optimum' human diet, each one trying to prove what our ancestors ate, reasoning that if our ancestors ate it, then it must be optimal for us now. By that logic, then we should continue to fight wars, since our ancestors were barbarians.

For me, Edgar Cayce's 80/20 rule works well: 80% alkaline-reacting (fruit, vegetables), 20% acid-reacting (meat, grains). I believe this is similar to chimpanzees' diets, the diets of our hominid ancestors, and the diets of some traditional hunter-gatherers.

That's not taking into consideration our current evolution, and the fact that we dwell on the precipice of 4D. Even Cayce advised some people to "not lower their vibrations with animal foods" and that was 80 years ago. How much more so, would his advice be different, today.

---

Yup. Looks like a masterpiece of evangelical work to me. Say, when Jesus comes back is he going to send all the meat eaters to Hell too?

What is your point? That Markus is a zealot? Just because he's passionate about his views, in the same way you are passionate about your views on war?

Why wouldn't he be passionate? People are getting healed from the raw vegan diet, and Markus is just doing what he believes in, just as we all are, at this crucial nexus.

[Bring4th_Austin]

It is an entity in the same way a goat is.

This statement lacks substance. Please clarify.

Being a 2D being, it is a mind/body complex. Both are mind/body complexes. If it had achieved mind/body/spirit complex before incarnation, it would not be incarnating 2D.

Obviously, it strives for life outside apart from other plants.

It's not obvious. Does the tuft of grass strive for life outside other tufts of grass? How did you decide that a tuft was the boundary between individual entities? Does an ivy cutting strive for life outside other ivy cuttings?

Yes, a tuft of grass will strive for life outside of other tufts of grass. Plant it separate from any other tuft of grass and it will still strive for life.

It's weird to me that it isn't obvious to you that a carrot will strive for life outside of other carrots. Kill one carrot next to another carrot, the other carrot strives for life.

It's obvious to me? I don't know what else to say if you don't see how plants strive for life on their own.

It's not obvious. It would be helpful in our communication, if you could define your understanding of entity.

Entity being mind/body complex. This is what Ra describes the orange-ray body being. A physical body complex. That is an entity.

This too is obvious to me. I can't really grasp your concept that a carrot is not separate from another carrot. They're both different physical body complexes, not the same. You kill one, it has no effect on the other. Again, I don't know what to say if you don't perceive them as different body complexes.

Why don't you think an individual dandelion is and individual being? It is a single dandelion.

Ah, apparently you are basing your views on the physical vehicle. I am basing mine on consciousness.

As an example, bacteria are physically separated from one another, yet function as a single being. More obviously, bees and ants. Ask any beekeeper. I am researching beekeeping right now and just read in several beekeeping books the same advice: Aspiring beekeepers must understand that the hive is a single entity. Never mind that each bee has a separate body. The determining factor is consciousness, not the physical body.

I see where some of this miscommunication is coming from. I really need reference from Ra about this. Specifically, there's been extensive study about the physical communication between bees. If they were of one mind, why would they need physical communication?

I know you are of the opinion that the same consciousness that inhabits one carrot is inhabiting the other. I don't share this opinion.

Like I said, I don't contend plants suffer like that.

Then what is the point of our discussion? You seemed to be making the case for eating animals, by pointing out that plants were slaughtered (and, presumably, suffered) the same as animals. If you don't think plants suffer, and you don't believe them to be individual souls, but just return to the group consciousness anyway, then what does it matter if they are eaten or not?

Because I'm not saying we shouldn't eat plants, rather, you are saying we shouldn't eat meat. Obviously we must kill 2D beings to sustain, whether it's plant or animals. You're basing your assumptions on an opinion that even when humanely slaughtered (anxiety free, pain free, happy lives), they suffer. I am saying, if that is true, it is also true of plants.

Ra clearly states that the orange ray body is without self-awareness. Any animal or plant is in an orange ray body. An animal cannot form a yellow ray body mid-incarnation. It meets the requirements for individualization before it is awarded self-awareness.

I disagree. My understanding is that self-awareness is the requirement for individualization.

Well, Ra states the orange-ray body is without self-awareness, but I don't think it changes my point. A 2D entity does not become 3D in mid incarnation, it meets requirements for 3D in mid incarnation. A 2D entity is incarnated a 2D entity.

I think Zenmaster explained it best. 2D beings strive for self-awareness, and exude self-aware tendencies, but it is akin to us exuding 4D love tendencies. Like comparing a line to a plane, and it is not the same thing.

Poorly worded, I should have said "No matter what, a 2D soul comes from group consciousness before incarnation."

Up until it individuates, yes. But once it becomes self-aware and begins its own soul journey, it no longer returns to the group consciousness. I've had cats return to me several times. They are still in 2D but I witnesses an evolution of their consciousness, and they reincarnated several times.

Ra says that once they gain individuation, they will graduate to 3D....once it gains individuation mid-incarnation, it will not again incarnate 2D. In 2D it is just a mind/body complex, once it is inspirited it becomes mind/body/spirit, incarnating 3D.

If your interpretation of the two Ra quotes provided stating this is different, then again there's not much I can say.

It seems you are saying every mammal which we personify graduates to 3D?

By we personify it sounds like you don't consider them to have their own personality - as though we are only projecting onto them.

I ask you again: Have you never noticed personality in your goats, dogs or cats?

Of course they'll gain their quirks and psychological conditioning within the incarnation that will cause them to act a certain way. The goats' personalities can be very obviously linked to genetics...that is, if the father was mean and the mother was mean, you better believe it's going to be a mean goat. Does that mean the soul coming from the group spirit was mean?

I don't want to offend you by extending it to house animals, but I do think people tend to over-personify animals of all kinds, even more so their personal pets. I love my pets, I love my goats, but it doesn't change anything knowing they come from a species mass consciousness.

Genetics plays a huge role in the temperament of animals.

Also, I should point out, where do you think we get our personalities? Do you think that our personalities will continue to develop, or fall away as we progress through densities? The personality is often called by Carla and Q'uo a "personality shell," it is not something inherent in our soul, like biases or polarization. It is mainly something we gain or develop during an incarnation. You noticed how Ra had very little personality.

Do you think all of my goats graduate to 3D when they die? Every mammal you perceive to have personality, does it not return to group soul? Ra says differently.

Ra says that once the entity is self-aware, it begins the journey and no longer merges back with the group. It's a journey. It may take multiple lifetimes before the goat is ready to graduate.

Where does Ra say it begins a journey?

13.21 Questioner: Then how does the second density progress to the third?
Ra: I am Ra. The second density strives towards the third density which is the density of self-consciousness or self-awareness. The striving takes place through the higher second-density forms who are invested by third-density beings with an identity to the extent that they become self-aware mind/body complexes, thus becoming mind/body/spirit complexes and entering third density, the first density of consciousness of spirit.

That to me clearly says that once they become self-aware, they enter third density.

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.

The question was very specific. Ra doesn't say, "Then it will begin its journey to third density." If there were more to it, Ra would have said so, because it was the question which was asked.

Do you see no difference in the 2 plants? I could look at one spiny thistle that is runty, crooked, and lacking strong branches, and name him "Runty." He doesn't reach as hard for the sun, but he has hope. Another big, beautiful thistle, is obviously different. They incarnated as individuals just as the goats incarnated as individuals.

No, I'm not referring to physical appearance! I'm referring to personality! Do you not see any difference in personality, amongst your goats?

They do have personalities. The goats have a brain, thus they're able to develop psychological conditions as well as inherit personality traits from their parents. These two things combined are very clear when examining my goats' personalities.

I've always viewed the brain, and most psychological concepts, to be a filter for our souls. So what I see in humans is their individuated soul, which is an individual and has bias, filtered through the brain, "strengthening" the personality.

What I clearly see in goats is a goat soul, coming from goat mass consciousness, with all the normal goat behaviors, filtered through their brain which was derived from genetics and psychological conditioning. At their heart of it, every goat acts the same. They do have individual personalities, because none of them are going to inherit the exact same genetics and develop the exact same psychological conditions. But I don't take this to mean they're individuated souls.

They are individual animals, but Ra clearly states that until they reach the point of individuation, they return to the group soul.

Yes! It no longer returns to the group soul! But that doesn't mean it graduates at the end of that lifetime!

Why do you not think this? What is the point of 2D incarnation is self-realization has developed? Once we realize, as a soul, we're separate from all other things, 3D work can be begun. Again, I think Ra states this rather clearly.

Are you really saying you think every animal which we perceive to have personality graduates 2D?

It has nothing to do with our perception. It has to do with what is actually happening, with that entity.

Surely every mammal we watch can seem to have a personality because of the nature of mammal genetics and psychology. Do you think every single mammal on the planet has reached self-realization? What would make them different from 3D beings then?

I will again disagree. Not every animal we perceive as having personality will graduate. It takes more investment than us simply perceiving personality.

There's that perceiving again. That's the 3rd or 4th time you've used that term. Why are you concerned about what we perceive? Why is that even in the equation? Ra never gave any hint that our perception had anything to do with a 2D entity's evolution.

I use it because of the way you are relating personality with soul. Q'uo, as well as many other channels, talk a LOT about how our individual personalities melt away within our soul. This is touching on a whole different topic if you want to start this discussion, I can pull up many Q'uo quotes about the nature of personalities. It would make quite an interesting thread, and put a twist on how you are discussing personalities I believe.

I didn't perceive you as judging me, I perceived you as being wrong . You're saying it is perpetuating the problem: it's not. The old rancher is being replaced by a new type of farmer.

It's perpetuating the killing of animals; something that, in my opinion, has no place in 4D.

Killing plants has no place in 4D in my opinion.

The fact that, until the animal reaches individuation, it returns to the group soul, as stated by Ra.

Yes, but individuation is something the goat achieves on its own, from its own evolution, though it may be aided by 3D humans. It isn't something that is 'awarded'! It's part of the evolutionary process. And it can happen anytime in late 2D.

All 2D beings are pulled to 3D, plant or goat. Same as all 3D beings will be pulled to 4D, low 3D or high 3D.

And also, the goat species is no where CLOSE to where the human species was when it achieved 3D status naturally. If you look at the human time-line from before 75,000 years ago, they were very high functioning beings.

The goats act absolutely nothing like a house pet. Even our bottle-fed babies, there is really no love to be given from a goat. If you don't have food, it's not very interested. Even the moms struggle to muster care for their children.

I don't think goats are as high 2D as you think they are.

They're individual entities like goats are individual entities.

This statement isn't saying anything. Please clarify.

Again, until further proof can be given besides your already stated opinions about plant life not having individual souls (which spring FROM their group consciousness), this is going to have to be something that divides us.

Both leave the group soul, and return to the group soul.

That makes no sense. What is the point of having individual awareness, if it's all dissolved at the end of the lifetime anyway?

Like I said, good question.

Here's something to go on. Ra says that when the octave is over, it's common for our soul-streams to continue on to the next octave as the same soul. So we merge into Creator, basically group consciousness for everything, and we come out the same souls we went in.

But, given the Ra quotes, I have no reason to believe an individuated soul would continue on in 2D instead of go on to 3D. I don't see why they would need to "hone" their self-awareness...that's what 3D is for.

Ra:...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

A goat is not a 3D entity, right? Which means it CAME from the group consciousness...if it came from an individuated consciousness, it wouldn't be 2D, it would be 3D. Goats are 2D! Ra clearly states it won't ENTER an incarnation from an individuated soul until it GAINS individuation and graduates to 3D.

Ra didn't clearly say that. You are projecting your own interpretation. You seem to be equating 'group consciousness' with 2D.

The other quote states it much clearer. Once individuation is gained, 3D is started.

They are individual plants like a goat is an individual goat, the individual's souls coming from the species group consciousness.

I'm sorry, but repetition of this statement isn't helping. It seems contradictory. In what way is it an individual? Are you referring only to the physical?

I don't share the opinion with you that all animals we see to have personalities came separate from their group consciousness. If you can find Ra material to support the idea that they continue in 2D after they gain individuation, I would be inclined to agree with you.

They're individual entities having individual experiences, but they return to group once incarnation. If they happen to achieve individuation in 2D, they, as they realized they were an individual having an experience separate from the group, get to continue on in 3D.

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

We experience physical pain through our nervous system, don't we?

You didn't answer the question. Why don't plants have pain receptors? If they are the same as goats, why do goats have pain receptors and plants don't?

They are a different class of life that has different characteristics. I don't view these differing characteristics as an excuse to murder them. I just can't agree with "It seems like it was made to murder, so we should murder it instead."

Could be a deal breaker for me when you do!

? What do you mean by that?

I mean, if you show me a Ra quote that says: 1)Plant consciousness does not separate from group consciousness when it incarnates, or 2) 2D entities continue in 2D incarnations after individuation is gained, the argument changes and obviously my argument becomes moot.

And after that incarnation, it becomes 3D.

Not necessarily. Ra never stated that a single spark of self-awareness would result in instant graduation. My understanding is that it's a process.

We'll just disagree until we can dig up some more Ra material with more specific statements.

It does not reincarnate again as a 2D animal. Meaning, if I kill a goat, the same thing happens to it that happens to a carrot if I kill it. It returns to group consciousness, where it came from. If it had come from an individuated soul before incarnation, it would not be in a 2D incarnation.

I disagree. I believe animals absolutely do reincarnate multiple times, as 2D entities, without returning to the group consciousness, once they've become self-aware (individuated). Ra even spoke of the process of karma of 2D entities being automatic.

Philosophically, spiritually, metaphysically, what would be the point of a 2D animal incarnating into a 2D incarnation with self-awareness? How does it carry this into its orange ray body, which Ra says is without self-awareness?

Right, and not before the incarnation, meaning it came FROM group consciousness. And, if it doesn't attain individuation in that incarnation, it returns TO group consciousness.

And when you end a plant's incarnation it inhibits it from doing 2D work, just like when you end a goat's incarnation. You stop it from striving for individuation.

It may already be an individual. That goat has a personality. Tomorrow, when you tend your goats, make a point to look them in the eyes, and you will see it. Personality. It's been there all along. Notice their little quirks and unique behaviors. These are entities. They're not all the same. I invite you to get to know those goats, and then see how you feel about killing them.

It's silly to say I don't know my goats. You seem to miss the point of respecting the entities you kill to feed yourself.

You're right, they all have quirks and unique behaviors. And they're all traceable to genetics and psychology, which is very obvious once you see generations of goats grow up in certain atmospheres. Every single action one of my goats takes, I can pick out as being a behavior inherited or gained through interaction with the other goats. I'm betting, if you did the same with house animals, you could conclude the same thing. Personality traits may seem to reappear because you treat animals the same way, and they gain conditioning through interaction with you.

It doesn't mean we love them any less...



I think that we won't make any progress in this discussion based on our two main disagreements, being:
1) You do not believe plants leave their group consciousness when they incarnate, I do.
2) You believe that entities continue in 2D incarnation after they achieve individuation, I do not.


I also think we should start a new thread discussion the nature of personalities, because the way you view personalities and I view personalities are different. I believe our soul does not contain our personality. I believe our soul shines through our personality, but ultimately the personality is a construct of individual incarnations. I feel like I can provide adequate Q'uo transcripts to support my view of personalities and I think it would be a relevant and interesting discussion to have.

---

I found this quote in relation to number 2:

104.11 Questioner: What would that be?
Ra: I am Ra. Firstly, we would suggest that possibility/probability vortices include those in which the entity known as Gandalf has a lengthier incarnation. Secondly, we would suggest that this entity goes to a graduation if it desires. Otherwise, it may choose to reincarnate to be with those companions it has loved. Thirdly, the entity known to you as Betty has the means of making the entity more distorted towards comfort/discomfort.

It would seem that it is possible for an entity to reincarnate 2D if it desires, but this is by choice. It may also choose to graduate once it reaches individuation.

It seems that your pets which have reincarnated did so out of choice, not necessity, to be with the one's who gave it love.

I don't feel like this would be the case with any sort of animal besides pets, but it does open possibilities beyond what I was contending.

[Oceania]

i like the term tuft of grass. hehe.

the soul is different from the spirit. the soul is what carries many lives and thus many personalities.

[unity100]

Ah, yes, I did read that part, where you put forth the (obviously admittedly) radical idea of consuming sand and air for sustenance. It didn't register completely because I didn't see the mention of insects.

insects stand naturally higher in development ladder than 1d entities.
i think you are referring to the concept of having to kill insects with pesticides in order to protect your garden.

the ideal would be not to kill any insects or animals, but to persist through the products of the ecosystem. good example comes to mind, is fruit trees and the symbiont relationship that man can have with them.

if you can set up such an ecosystem, then it would work towards the ideal nicely. yet, you could still find the way the ecosystem works in some respects disturbing, like predation of ecosystem participants in between each other and whatnot.

however it may not be possible to accomplish any kind of proper balance, due to the quite hostile nature of the current ecosystem of the planet.

therefore, you may have to kill some types of insects. then again, if you have been assaulted by any other man, you would have the same dilemma too.

however, even outside this dilemma, having to kill aggressive insects does not allow justifying of killing higher developed entities.

the aim is to go pure as possible.

I agree with the principle you put forth, but what I guess I didn't see was any practical applications? Given the average as well as the varied extreme human metabolisms, are you aware of any way to sustain off of 1D material?

actually we are sustaining off of 1d material at any given time. you need fructose as base element to use in cells as fuel. then a multitude of various other, more complex 1d materials are used to maintain the body, vitamins and so on. there are also alternative fuel sources like fat and so on.

you can take these materials through any way possible. you can take it by drinking sugar water, or by eating fruit, in the end, you are taking it in to break it down to fructose or other complex sugars to burn. same goes for all items.

I think that we are basically in agreeance as far as slaughter of 2D beings goes, that is, a 2D being is a 2D being, whether it's a bug, carrot, tree, or chicken. Correct me if I'm wrong.

that's not correct. 2d is a veeery long density that spans 2 billion years. it is one of the longest densities if we dont consider the densities that go into timelessness. (6th and above)

and, ra says it is an octave of consciousness, complete with its polarities.

if you consider the fact that early 2d virus, and late 3d primates who were roaming the land just 100,000 years ago are in the same density we call 2d, you would see that the ramifications of such killing would be quite serious. or you can compare a 1d virus with a gorilla or chimpanzee that is showing recognizable humane compassion, towards, say, a cat.

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.

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!!"

and you are right. you shouldnt kill, or mutilate, or suck off etc the plants in your garden either.

there is an endless scale of purity. and what you speak of stands higher than what was spoken before.

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.

of course. however, the concern for this case, is at a purity level which stands higher than the earlier - the kill/mutilate situation.

in the standards of the ecosystem of this planet, it actually stands quite close to top, and is a good level to achieve. indeed, you need to plant the seed of the fruit tree at least every now and then, and provide care and raise it to be a new offspring.

actually, there are possibilities of standing even higher - there are trees which has evolved their fruits so that they are designed to be eaten by herbivores, with a digest-resistant seed, so that the herbivore will carry the seed over to new locations, and cast it off with its excrement, providing not only mobility, but also fertilizer for the seed in the end. such a specie of trees would be much more in agreement of the arrangement.

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

actually there is an exception to single harvest plant case.

there are plant species which live for only a season, and then die, naturally. they are designed as such, and you cannot sustain them even if you attempt to make them live past their period.

wheat for example.

basically, we are eating the seeds of dead corpses which had already passed through their incarnation on this planet. the ramifications of seed-fruit situation still apply. however, there is no brutality, slaughter, betrayal, exploitation in the end - at most, you classify as a corpse eater, but this even doesnt apply since you are eating seeds. in addition, you are indeed planting many seeds every season. the hardest argument that can be made would be that the grain specie consciousness would like that their seeds planted more each season, leading to more grain incarnations. this is, something we are already doing actually.

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.

more than that, it extends to everything.

everything is infinite intelligence. everything you interact, even the concepts you think, are therefore, intelligent. you are doing whatever you are doing to intelligent infinity.

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 you wouldnt be able to express a higher level of purity, and progress into finer qualities, by manifesting a higher understanding into your actions by not doing any 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!

your perception and insight into this is quite deep and apt. it is indeed something rather brutal. like a torture. the plant, came to this planet to grow, and i wants to grow.

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

and, i would. in the end, there are cells that are manifesting individuality as a member of the collective that is the cellular collective that is the human body.

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

more heinous to murder a more spiritually aware person, indeed. the laws that apply in regard to development and responsibility dont skip densities.

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

that would be due to the preferences, and particular plan of the logos. this logos would have chosen a much more vile ecosystem. (and in the past, there was). or much more a positive, harmonious ecosystem.

you would find different situations in the planets of different logoi.

That's dealing specifically with the "type of warfare we experience." We came out of 2D rather naturally violent

that is also quite perceptive. leave aside this planet's population, apparently even the populations of mars and maldek came out naturally violent out of 2d.

this, probably has to do with the situations logos created in 2d. 2d shaped these entities into being violent.

one of the reasons may be logos's attempt to make entities positive by making them weak compared to their ecosystem so they would have to depend on each other. if you are weak to survive, its inevitable that you adopt a warlike attitude against environment (including others) to survive.

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.

again, that would be incorrect.

just like how 3d entities do not wait, wait, wait at the same level and polarize instantly overnight at the end of 3d,

2d entities also do not stay in one development level and instantly become conscious at the end of 2d.

that is utterly wrong, and also dismisses a lot of important information from the Ra material :

each density has sub-octaves. so, there are different levels in each density in which consciousness is manifested. this includes 2d.

ra says 2d is an octave of consciousness, just like others. this is in line with the above, and its normal corollary.

you dont leap densities overnight. you have to slowly come closer to qualification and pass a resistance barrier. resistance barrier does not change everything - a newly 3d entity behaves very similar to a late 2d entity, just like how a newly 4d entity would have a lot of behavior that can be traced back to a late 3d entity.

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.

that is the current proposition. if you start flapping your arms, in a few million years you could evolve some batwings. there is not telling that the capacity to eat meat was evolved in the same manner, from a state that we were not able to eat meat.

however this information is totally irrelevant. just because you have a body that 'can', does not mean you 'should'.

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!

thats easy - to NOT kill the goat. dairy products can sustain you quite well, and the longer you dont kill your goats, the more goats and dairy products you will have. however, the practical implications of this cannot qualify before the moral one - killing is wrong.

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 dont think supporting the people to transition into a 'better' version of orange ray negativity of stealing the other entity's manifestation energy, is something you should be striving for.

in the end, what they should do actually should be to stop stealing as much as they can, so that their orange ray regression can diminish and stabilize. them snatching bodies of entities and using them for sustenance is not the desired result, but, not to do as such.

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

that consciousness is not a monolithic, leveled consciousness like you portray.

just like how there is an entire octave of consciousness here in 3d, there is an octave of consciousness in that group soul. some stand closer to top, floating lighter, some closer to bottom. all deceased group soul members would float to their own level. and eventually, float out of group soul towards the above consciousness.

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

actually, even scientifically, you are a collective of single cells. this has been recently accepted in science. we are much more developed collectives than the early 2d ones, yet, we apparently are still collectives of 2d entities.

singular cells coalescing to collectives as complex bodies, complex body entities coalescing to collectives as society complexes, society complexes coalescing into other collectives, them coalescing into the universes, all universes coalescing back into all the way back to the initial collective that was the central logos.

this seems to be the progression back towards the initial logos.

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.

there is nothing barring you from doing that. in fact, its your spiritual preference. there are endless logoi with endless environments and manifestations. if you dont like the situation here, you are entitled to voice your objection, and request placement to a better environment for your preferences.

It seems you are saying every mammal which we personify graduates to 3D? Do you think all of my goats graduate to 3D when they die? Every mammal you perceive to have personality, does it not return to group soul? Ra says differently.

actually, there may be already 3d qualified entities among your goats. i would like to reference gandalf again, the ll household cat that was identified as qualified for 3d, but came to 2d body to be with the ll entities.

Do you see no difference in the 2 plants? I could look at one spiny thistle that is runty, crooked, and lacking strong branches, and name him "Runty."

that is quite a proper thing to do. how nice would it be, if you did that, and not kill your goats or plants.

They are individual animals, but Ra clearly states that until they reach the point of individuation, they return to the group soul. Are you really saying you think every animal which we perceive to have personality graduates 2D? I cannot agree with this.

i dont know how you people could have dragged this group soul/2d consciousness always the same debate for this long.

2d is an octave of consciousness, like any other, ra said. all densities have sub octaves. no entity in different stages of a density, are in the same level of consciousness or development.

indeed, you just dont gain stuff after graduating from a density. you MUST qualify the end-game requirement for the density BEFORE you graduate, and this doesnt come overnight. you raise in vibration of your consciousness constantly until you qualify. this is no different for 2d.

it is illogical to propose that a virus is at a similar level of consciousness like a gorilla. they arent. and that doesnt even require quoting references. not that it wasnt referenced though.

So you ARE saying all goats will graduate to 3d? I will again disagree. Not every animal we perceive as having personality will graduate. It takes more investment than us simply perceiving personality.

any particular goat you have (unless the entity has not purposefully reincarnated into that body despite being of higher consciousness in 2d, or, even in 3d - like gandalf), would pass into a group soul with a higher vibration of consciousness than the goat group, when it qualifies, and this would probably go on until the entity is incarnated in a group that provides the most vibration before 3d, one last time before qualifying for 3d.

The fact that, until the animal reaches individuation, it returns to the group soul, as stated by Ra.

it is appalling to see that, you, who has been quite sharp and apt in a lot of observations and interpretations, have been so easily forgetting the 'sub octaves' concept, and 'an octave of consciousness' phrase Ra had expressed about 2d and all other densities.

maybe its because of your opinion in this particular matter effecting into a bias.

What happens when an aphid dies? Is it a catastrophic event? Not likely. 2D entities aren't individually aware yet, but they do retain awareness of being One with the Creator. This leads me to conclude that physical death isn't such a big deal to them.

2d entities are individualized from the logos of this solar system according to their development.

so basically, if a end 2d entity is individualized to the extent of being able to live in 3d (i would like to remind you that one of the cats (gandalf i remember) in ll household was already qualified as a 3d entity even during his incarnation), it means that from a late 2d entity to early 2d entity a whole 2 billion years' worth of individualization exists.

Rather, I am simply reporting back what these 'green witches' have claimed, and what I've accepted as likely true, because it makes sense to me: Lower 2D entities (most plants and insects) seem to have a consciousness that's an extension of Mother Earth, much like the hairs on our heads, rather than as individual entities.

i would like to remind that even the most advanced forms of channeling arent immune from biases of the entity. that would place any 'green witches' or anyone else's claims in that direction even less objective. i would just see it as a justification of the current societal mindset.

Does the aphid know that humans exist? On an individual level, not likely. So, when the human kills a colony of aphids to protect his tomato plants, those aphids aren't likely to take it personally. That human is, to the aphid, like an earthquake is to us: a force of Nature.

Impersonal.

The aphids roll with it. They move on. Death and rebirth are cyclical, to an entity who has not yet become self-aware. There is no attachment to physical life.

it doesnt depend on the aphid. nothing is lost in creation. this includes acts and events. law of responsibility will not care whether aphid cared about getting whacked or not - it will act according to the laws set at the beginning of existence, and will probably factor the aphid's development state, and the entity's development state into the equation, and the event.

That goat most surely is capable of feeling affection, even love. I know beyond any doubt that my dogs and cats love me. I've never had a pet goat, but I see no reason to think that a goat is any different from a cat or dog. Yet, most humans would cringe at the thought of raising their cats and dogs, hugging them and loving them, and then killing them. Such a thought would be viewed as reprehensible.

Why, then, is it any different with a farmer/rancher killing his goats?

extreme hypocrisy, and self-indulgent nature of orange ray society.

As unity100 has pointed out, to be killed by the human caretaker is incongruent. It is as if a mother murders her child. It seems reasonable to conclude that a child murdered by the person s/he loved and trusted, might be even more traumatized, than a child murdered by someone s/he knew was cruel.

This is a disturbing conclusion, I realize.

precisely. and it would as well alienate and distance the budding soul from the feelings of love, warmth, nurture, closeness.

Much as a child can be influenced by his/her parents...the perennial question of nature vs nurture...we surely do influence our younger 2D brethren. We may dramatically affect what sort of humans they will be someday...maybe even whether their 3D reality will be as barbaric as ours...or will it be something better.

or, with best results, lead to development as souls as hypocrite as the act itself - seemingly accepting one (in this case positive) set of values, but totally acting against them whenever self-interest requires.

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.

vegetarianism you see here is being deduced from the concept of vibration level of the entity, and law of responsibility. not the popular meaning of the word.

in case you havent noticed, we are diving down to treatment of 1d entities. this means, rocks, weather, water.

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

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

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 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.

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.

i am one of those people who decide on a 'whim' to become vegetarian, and subsisting on cheese, bread, water, tea or their variants etc for the last 14 years. leave aside iceberg lettuce salad with two slices of cucumber and a cherry tomato, im rarely eating vegetables or fruits.

not only i am as healthy as an ox, but i am much more healthier compared to pre 1997.

How can slaughter be nonviolent?

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

are you aware that, the above proposition of yours, totally invalidates views you expressed in one of the threads about military and killing of other entities ?

if slaughter can be nonviolent, killing of other people can also be made nonviolent with respect, gratitude, and a conscious effort to minimize or eliminate pain.

then you can just close down this site in your web browser, forget all you learned from Ra material, and just keep on living randomly. for, all is an illusion and nothing else matters.

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.

just as polarization does not happen overnight for a 3d entity, self-realization doesnt happen for 2d entities overnight. it is a 2 billion year process.

the evidence is evident - the higher intellect, capability understanding etc of the late 2d entities as opposed to a virus.

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.

that would be incorrect. 2d entities are capable of manifesting love. as an example, you can look at gandalf the cat, which you can read in book v. leave aside being qualified for 3d, this entity was able to manifest love, even if in 2d terms.

[Bring4th_Austin]

Thank you very much for the insights Unity. I will perhaps be able to respond in full later, but I wanted to point out one factor.

I am not dismissing the idea of sub-octaves within the 2D density. I view them as being relevant to the group consciousness of the species. For example, the goat group consciousness exists at a certain suboctave, and gains in octaves through the experiences the goats bring back to it. Same with a plant.

We can see evidence in this by which animals we keep as pets. The most popular would be cats and dogs, which I would consider basically in the end of the sub-octaves in 2D. This is why they are so easily inspirited, because they are already on the verge. We keep them as pets because it is so easy to apply personification to them, because they are closest to reaching self-awareness. Other pets people keep are not nearly as easy to apply a visage of self-awareness to, like certain rodents, birds, reptiles, etc.

We might also derive this from the fact that a particular species evolved self awareness rather than being invested by 3D beings. When a being is inspirited through investment, it does not travel back to the group consciousness. Otherwise, even at a high suboctave of 2D, the entity will travel back to the group consciousness, until that group consciousness is elevated past the last suboctave to 3D. Otherwise, how does a particular species evolve to 3D, rather than an individual?

I'm not necessarily saying that that the group consciousness does not contain individuals either. But these individuals are not self-aware, they don't realize that they are individuals, they exist as part of the group rather than individuals.

I don't quite follow your idea that some of may goats my be harvestable 3D. Gandalf had the possibility of reincarnating with L/L to be with the people he loved. My goats have never shown love in the level of a house-pet. Like I said, even our bottle-fed babies that we had to raise ourselves, spending more time with them as we would a house pet, don't exemplify the love shown by our house pets. Some animals like goats can be trained to be "house pets" through intense psychological conditioning, but there's a reason people, as a majority, keep the species of pets we do. They're already close to individuation as a species, not as individuals. If there were such a variety of levels of 2D consciousness within group consciousness, we'd be able to keep any sort of species as a house pet as long as we found one close enough to true individuation. And, we would not be able to keep cats and dogs as house pets as such a majority, because we couldn't guarantee that we could make them behave in a manner similar to us. There are exceptions as far as psychological conditioning and genetics goes, but I'm talking about the majority.

---

Also, I know you don't normally like to get too personal, so don't feel obligated to answer this, but I'm extremely curious as to what your particular diet is. How does someone like you with such conviction on these views sustain themselves?

[Tenet Nosce]

Yup. Looks like a masterpiece of evangelical work to me. Say, when Jesus comes back is he going to send all the meat eaters to Hell too?

What is your point? That Markus is a zealot? Just because he's passionate about his views, in the same way you are passionate about your views on war?

Why wouldn't he be passionate? People are getting healed from the raw vegan diet, and Markus is just doing what he believes in, just as we all are, at this crucial nexus.

Alright, now would be my turn to respectfully ask you to consider your own incongruence here.

Firstly, why is it OK to fear, guilt, and shame people into doing the "right" thing? Why does "passion" give somebody a free pass to be manipulative of others?

Secondly, I would offer that folks like Markus should seriously consider what the impact of their message is on people like those featured in the news stories who obviously don't have the common sense to know when to throw a philosophical principle out the window.

There is a connection here. We are all connected, remember? Group mind, right? Absolutism on the part of one charismatic leader results in ignorance and zealotry in their followers. And we all know where that leads. Please don't make me bust out a 5th grade history book to prove that one.

Thirdly, when people like Markus loudly proclaim health benefits that are not substantiated by scientific evidence, i.e. "Stop Aging + Heal Everything" all it does is create fodder for Big Pharma and their FDA cronies to launch attacks on legitimate practitioners of natural medicine. Thanks, but no thanks, Markus. We have enough difficulties already. But, you know, just to try it out maybe the next time a 250 lb patient with heart disease and diabetes walks into my office I will tell them that there is NO HOPE for them unless they commit to a 100% raw vegan diet. Just maybe, that is the best way to serve them after all.

My argument here, all along, which seems to have been largely IGNORED, is NOT at all that people should eat meat, or that vegetarianism ISN'T a good idea. Go back and look at the posts, because if you think that's what I have been saying, it is a total projection on your part.

What I have been saying is that trying to base vegetarianism on an absolutist philosophical doctrine of harmlessness does not hold water. As evidenced by this very thread! It just goes ON and ON and ON and the debate will obviously never be resolved. Why? Because there is no clear and concise answer. There is no hard line to draw in the sand. There is no way for a physical body to subsist in 3D without taking the life of another living being. There IS, however, a way for people to subsist in 3D without killing each other in acts of war.

I mean, I don't AT ALL like the heinous and disgusting practices found in the average American slaughterhouse. But seriously, how disrespectful to a human being who has fought tooth and nail over MILLIONS OF YEARS to achieve a human state of consciousness to equate them to an animal whose entire natural life would consist of eating grass, pooping, belching, and occasionally mating.

An animal life has nowhere NEAR the potential for choice, spiritual growth, and polarization that a human life does. This much should be obvious. Attempts to draw a parallel between the murder of a human being and the slaughter of an animal are REALLY stretching it. This might be the same thing in your mind, and you are entitled to your opinion, but clearly most people don't agree. Including many other thoughtful people here on this forum.

Why isn't it enough to simply promote a plant-based diet ala Dr. Joel Fuhrman? Why isn't it enough to point to the obvious advantages to the health of the human being, and the planet, to eat nutritionally-dense foods and to leave it at that? Can't we just trust that, as people incorporate more nutritious foods in their diet that they will eventually come to crave them instead of red meat?

No that's not enough for some. They will not rest until everybody's diet is 100% meat free. Why? Because they are basing their view on a flawed philosophical principle. AND because they are (again) filtering this philosophy of harmlessness down through an absolutist Judaeo-Christian-Muslim belief system which sees NO CONTRADICTION in using low-vibration tactics in an attempt to raise the vibration of others.

Do you know what it is called when people frame a loving message with fear? Emotional abuse. So let's emotionally abuse our human brothers and sisters in an attempt to stop the physical abuse of our animal friends. That kind of thinking can only make sense in the mind of one who, themselves, is being abused by somebody who supposedly loves them.

Sorry, but I'm calling bullshit.

I eat vegetarian at least two days a week. The rest of the time I mostly eat seafood or organic chicken. About once a week I will have some beef or lamb. I don't have one iota of concern whatsoever about the supposed spiritual repercussions of this behavior.

[unity100]

Otherwise, how does a particular species evolve to 3D, rather than an individual?

just like how gandalf the cat has passed over the threshold of 3d, before the group soul we know as 'felix domesticus' has passed into 3d as entirety.

you are treating group consciousness as if it was akin to society complexes which are harvest requirements in 4d and 6d. in these densities, entities cannot graduate before their society complex graduates. however, this is not as such in 5d, or 3d for example.

...............

however i got your question in broader sense. and, in that regard ; there is no mandatory requirement for a species to evolve into 3d. the evolution, is the evolution of the mind/spirit complexes, not the body complex.

so, there is no requirement that goes like 'cat group soul and bodies evolve into 3d' or 'ape group souls and bodies evolve into 3d'.

ra had mentioned that the choice of body type to use, elements used in their design, even to the extent of 3d body to use in the planet, is a moment's choice by the logos. logos may have chosen another body than the ape body for this planet.

therefore, just like how entities in and above 3d do with their spiritual evolution, an appropriate body and experiential circumstance may be chosen for the entity's development in 2d too. the general blueprint of progress wouldnt change per densities. its basically the practice of placing any soul/entity/consciousness/whatever, in the appropriate body in a desired experiential nexus, and then taking it off.

so basically, this planet could go on for 8 billion years, and felis domesticus body may not evolve into a 3d body, and at any given point there may be a lot of entities inhabiting the cat group soul, but, there may be billions of entities passing through that group soul into other group souls and eventually graduating into 3rd density.

in short - the group souls inhabiting a planet is akin to experiential nexi for 3d entities - the spirit-to be consciousness would become a member of, and then incarnate according to the experiential necessities and the level of advancement it has.

gandalf is a stellar example in this regard - despite already 3d, the entity could chose to come back as a cat.

I'm not necessarily saying that that the group consciousness does not contain individuals either. But these individuals are not self-aware, they don't realize that they are individuals, they exist as part of the group rather than individuals.

you are forgetting the implications of sub-densities. when you remember that Ra says there are infinite sub-octaves of consciousness in each density (a sub-octave of consciousness as opposed to an octave of consciousness which is this octave, which is AGAIN just a sub octave of consciousness compared to whatever greater octave it is part of), then the conclusion becomes straightforward :

there is infinite levels of advancement at any given octave, including subdensities.

therefore, for any given density, there is infinite levels of sub octaves which measure and place the entity at a standing in that octave in regard to development of the entity. leave aside meaning of that octave.

so, 1d is an infinite suboctave in which entities stand in different advancements in regard to not only development of consciousness, but also that density's meaning - the desire to move and transform without dispersing, 2d is an infinite suboctave in which entities stand in different advancements regarding the vibration of consciousness, AND the meaning of the octave - the existence of an individual 'self' within them, and 3d is an infinite suboctave of consciousness not only as to vibration of consciousnesses in it, but also the meaning of that density - the attitude of the entity in regard to others. and so it goes.

again, simply, the objective of an entire 2 billion year long density, cannot happen over a trivial amount of time. it is a progression.

I don't quite follow your idea that some of may goats my be harvestable 3D. Gandalf had the possibility of reincarnating with L/L to be with the people he loved. My goats have never shown love in the level of a house-pet.

the problem here is that, the behavior pattern and manners of each species are not the same. regardless of how much your tortoise could love you, it couldnt be able to show that love in any manner you could interpret through the logic of the current societal complex of 3d.

and in retrospect, as much as your bird may sing to you, that may not be a show of love and affection.

that could only be measured and gauged by the interaction/vibration felt while with the entity, but then for this, the entity (you) would need to be quite sharp in spiritual sensitivity and cleaned and cleared those senses.

If there were such a variety of levels of 2D consciousness within group consciousness, we'd be able to keep any sort of species as a house pet as long as we found one close enough to true individuation. And, we would not be able to keep cats and dogs as house pets as such a majority, because we couldn't guarantee that we could make them behave in a manner similar to us. There are exceptions as far as psychological conditioning and genetics goes, but I'm talking about the majority.

actually it is as such - cats, dogs, differ wildly in regard to their level. even though you can generally place them in a certain broad range, you would find that even the offspring of the same mother vary wildly in regard to their attitudes, sensitivity, awareness and consciousness. some may be wilder despite growing in the same house, some may be much more humane. not only that, they may also have born with various traits, behaviors and habits they brought from pre incarnation, quirky stuff that you cannot explain with conditioning or life experience.

Also, I know you don't normally like to get too personal, so don't feel obligated to answer this, but I'm extremely curious as to what your particular diet is. How does someone like you with such conviction on these views sustain themselves?

i told already in my post. i eat bread, cheese (various varieties) most of the time. its not because of conviction tho - im not opposed to eating fruits or vegetables. (preferably vegetables that involve no killing of individual plant). however i have an inclination towards cheese and bread. i occasionally take vitamins. and occasionally eat eggs.

---

Alright, now would be my turn to respectfully ask you to consider your own incongruence here.

Firstly, why is it OK to fear, guilt, and shame people into doing the "right" thing? Why does "passion" give somebody a free pass to be manipulative of others?

Secondly, I would offer that folks like Markus should seriously consider what the impact of their message is on people like those featured in the news stories who obviously don't have the common sense to know when to throw a philosophical principle out the window.

There is a connection here. We are all connected, remember? Group mind, right? Absolutism on the part of one charismatic leader results in ignorance and zealotry in their followers. And we all know where that leads. Please don't make me bust out a 5th grade history book to prove that one.

What I have been saying is that trying to base vegetarianism on an absolutist philosophical doctrine of harmlessness does not hold water. As evidenced by this very thread! It just goes ON and ON and ON and the debate will obviously never be resolved. Why? Because there is no clear and concise answer. There is no hard line to draw in the sand.

then i would say that you will find the progression along a spiritual path one have chosen is rather absolutist. you cant have 'anything goes' and then arrive at a certain point that is at the end of a straight line.

what does that mean ?

it means, you cant enslave people, and end up polarizing positively. or, you cant befriend people and help them, and end up harvesting negatively.

there endless amount of mechanics that were created at the beginning of existence to manifest the creation, and, the mechanics of polarization and any similar spiritual mechanic that governs progression of a soul, are among them.

yes, there is choice. yes, there is free will. there is choice and free will to CHOOSE your path among the ones provided. not ignore the existential mechanics, and then arrive at a totally irrelevant destination DESPITE the acts done contrary to that particular path. else, everything would just deteriorate into chaos, and it would be an environment in which no entity would be able to make any sense out of anything. actually, there wouldnt be concept of being an 'entity' in such a situation either.

An animal life has nowhere NEAR the potential for choice, spiritual growth, and polarization that a human life does. This much should be obvious. Attempts to draw a parallel between the murder of a human being and the slaughter of an animal are REALLY stretching it. This might be the same thing in your mind, and you are entitled to your opinion, but clearly most people don't agree. Including many other thoughtful people here on this forum.

i find it quite curious that you equate the human life with such richness. maybe it is that you are referring to the technology and societal distortions of this particular civilization, rather than array of emotions and and behaviors of entities in 3d towards others.

for, the former has more to do with what Ra expresses as the society having complex orange ray distortion complexes (notice how it stays in the orange ray), and the latter is universal properties of 3d.

there is the self, there are others. the feelings that are present in the self, do not descend from the skies at the start of 3d - they are present there in 2d, however the entity only increasingly realizes that there are OTHER entities than itself in this equation.

what was just impulsive, random, and uninterpretable before 3d, only becomes possible to START to interpret in 3d, as to the feelings, emotions and attitudes of others towards the self. you can easily see from our own society that, even mid 3d is not capable of making that interpretations of feelings of self towards self and others - people are unable to get ahold of their feelings, understand themselves, leave aside develop a consistent attitude towards others even at this nexus. (despite harvest is upon them).

so, allow me to tell you that you are rather exaggerating - feelings, choices, emotions do not come into being out of nowhere at the start of 3d - 2d is the very place in which they are developed. 3d, is a density of choice towards others. it is not something extremely complex, complicated or rich. it is whether you repress your emotions, or accept them.

Sorry, but I'm calling bullshit.

maybe before calling bullshit, you should establish consistency in your own propositions :

the proposition you have made just a little while ago that says slaughter can be made more humane (therefore acceptable) by collective effort, compassion and caring, could also apply to killing of other humans, therefore unrationalizing the rationalizations you have made about killing of other human beings in that other thread.

[Monica]

Being a 2D being, it is a mind/body complex. Both are mind/body complexes. If it had achieved mind/body/spirit complex before incarnation, it would not be incarnating 2D.

I believe you are mistaken here. That is like saying that if a human had achieved green ray activation (love/compassion) then it would not be incarnating 3D, but would instantly go straight to 4D.

That's not how it works. It's a process. There are sub-densities. Green ray activation and its corresponding features (love/compassion/forgiveness etc.) develop over many incarnations.

Likewise, a late 2D entity's self-awareness develops over many incarnations. Once the process has started, it no longer returns to the group soul, but begins its own individual path, so that it can further develop is self-awareness, until it has reached the threshold in which it is able to graduate to 3D.

The spiritual complex is developed, over time, not "awarded" instantly.

18.18 Questioner: Can you tell me Yahweh’s purpose in making the genetic sexual changes?
Ra: I am Ra. The purpose 75,000 years ago, as you measure time, was of one purpose only: that to express in the mind/body complex those characteristics which would lead to further and more speedy development of the spiritual complex

And now re-read the following quote, with the previous quote in mind:

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

Notice that Ra doesn't use the word entity to describe a being 2D, pre-exposure to 3D influence causing the rise in potential of 2D entity. The word animal is used instead. This seems to imply that the 2D animal becomes a 2D entity, upon that rise of potential (whether triggered by 3D influence or by normal evolution).

A single exposure to the individualizing influence won't instantly catapult a 2D entity into 3D. What is an influence? An influence just gets the process started. But it's still a process. The influence of the human on his pet causes a sharp rise in the potential of the 2D entity. What is potential? This means the 2D entity now has activated more potential, to gain more value out of continued 2D incarnations. But whether it happens in a single lifetime or many, doesn't matter. It's a process that was initiated by the influence of the 3D entity on his pet. It logically follows that the 3D entity will continue to influence the pet, possibly over multiple incarnations, just as 3D entities influence other 3D entities in the development of 4D qualities, until they are ready to graduate to 4D. A threshold must be crossed, which may take time (and experiences) to reach.

30.5 Questioner: I would like to know how the mind/body/spirit complexes originate, going as far back as necessary. How does the origination occur? Do they originate by spirit forming mind and mind forming body? Can you tell me this?
Ra: I am Ra. We ask you to consider that you are attempting to trace evolution. This evolution is as we have previously described, the consciousness being first, in first density, without movement, a random thing. Whether you may call this mind or body complex is a semantic problem. We call it mind/body complex recognizing always that in the simplest iota of this complex exists in its entirety the One Infinite Creator; this mind/body complex then in second density discovering the growing and turning towards the light, thus awakening what you may call the spirit complex, that which intensifies the upward spiraling towards the love and light of the Infinite Creator.

It's a process.

Yes, a tuft of grass will strive for life outside of other tufts of grass. Plant it separate from any other tuft of grass and it will still strive for life.

So will a single strand of grass, as long as it has a bit of root. A tuft might be composed of multiple strands. My point is that your separation of the grass into x number of entities is completely arbitrary.

It's weird to me that it isn't obvious to you that a carrot will strive for life outside of other carrots. Kill one carrot next to another carrot, the other carrot strives for life.

You are referring to only the physical body of the carrot. I am referring to its consciousness.

Entity being mind/body complex. This is what Ra describes the orange-ray body being. A physical body complex. That is an entity.

Ra never used the word entity along with mind-body complex.

This too is obvious to me. I can't really grasp your concept that a carrot is not separate from another carrot. They're both different physical body complexes, not the same. You kill one, it has no effect on the other. Again, I don't know what to say if you don't perceive them as different body complexes.

I never said they weren't different body complexes.

They obviously are. But that doesn't make them different entities. You are equating the body complex with entity.

As I said in my last post, bacteria and even bees and ants have separate bodies, but there is much evidence to suggest that they are actually a single organism. Ask any beekeeper or read some beekeeping books. Research the behavior of bacteria.

I see where some of this miscommunication is coming from. I really need reference from Ra about this.

The only info we have from Ra is whatever Don asked. Don didn't ask every question you and I might have. So we have to fill in the gaps by cross-referencing other sources. The Law of One provides the foundation but there are some missing pieces that need to be filled in. That's what we're all trying to do here.

Specifically, there's been extensive study about the physical communication between bees. If they were of one mind, why would they need physical communication?

The cells in your body are all part of you - a single organism - yet they still communicate physically as well. In 4D, when a social memory complex is formed, entities will still have bodies, from what I understand.

I know you are of the opinion that the same consciousness that inhabits one carrot is inhabiting the other. I don't share this opinion.

Yes, but your opinion is based on some points that I think you have misunderstood from Ra. I invite you to ponder the points I just gave, and re-read Ra's words to see if you still understand them the same. This is my opinion based on my own understanding, of course.

On the one hand, you say each tuft of grass is an entity, yet on the other, you say all goats (and cats and dogs?) are the same. You don't seem to be taking into consideration any evolution at all during 2D, which is a very long density.

Because I'm not saying we shouldn't eat plants, rather, you are saying we shouldn't eat meat. Obviously we must kill 2D beings to sustain, whether it's plant or animals. You're basing your assumptions on an opinion that even when humanely slaughtered (anxiety free, pain free, happy lives), they suffer. I am saying, if that is true, it is also true of plants.

Maybe the animal who is 'humanely' slaughtered doesn't feel physical pain, but what about its mind and developing spirit? We know from Ra that in 2D, the mind/body/spirit complex is developing. This includes what is termed in psychology as a subconscious mind.

Let's use an example of a 3D entity. Let's say a murderer kills a child while she is sleeping. By your logic, since the child didn't experience any physical pain, there was no trauma. (Please correct me if I am misunderstanding you.)

But don't you think that child experienced trauma on a deep psychological level? Do you think an entity can have its physical vehicle snuffed out and not even notice?

Obviously we must kill 2D beings to sustain, whether it's plant or animals.

Not true. It is possible to sustain ourselves by not killing any plants or animals, though it's not possible to avoid microorganisms. The ultimate karma-free diet is to eat only fruits, grains, nuts and seeds. Which is the diet I am advocating, except for vegetables. Only the vegetables are being killed, if you choose to disregard my opinion that, when consumed live, their consciousness merges with ours. So if you disagree with that theory, then simply don't eat vegetables. You can live on fruits, grains, nuts and seeds, and nothing was killed. You could even add some eggs and dairy products, provided the eggs are from free-roaming chickens and the milk from cows that graze, rather than from factory-farmed cows, who are treated just as cruelly as meat cows. You'd just be missing the veggies, so it's questionable how healthy the diet would be, but hey, most people don't have healthy diets anyway, so it might all balance out. But it would avoid killing. (If you can set aside the fact that cows eat plants in order to live, that is.)

In 2D it is just a mind/body complex, once it is inspirited it becomes mind/body/spirit, incarnating 3D.

As addressed earlier in this post, I believe you are drastically oversimplifying and leaving out major points made by Ra.

Of course they'll gain their quirks and psychological conditioning within the incarnation that will cause them to act a certain way. The goats' personalities can be very obviously linked to genetics...that is, if the father was mean and the mother was mean, you better believe it's going to be a mean goat. Does that mean the soul coming from the group spirit was mean?

I don't want to offend you by extending it to house animals, but I do think people tend to over-personify animals of all kinds, even more so their personal pets. I love my pets, I love my goats, but it doesn't change anything knowing they come from a species mass consciousness.

Then this explains why you are able to kill them. I don't intend this to be offensive or critical of you, so please don't take this personally. I am just responding to what you just said. You are clearly a person with a conscience. For a person with conscience to be able to kill something, it must first be dehumanized, or objectified as a thing, rather than as a person.

My dogs and cats are persons. I don't view their personalities as merely genetic machinations. They are entities, with thoughts and feelings, and free will. They are part of my family.

Genetics plays a huge role in the temperament of animals.

What do you think about substituting animals with humans?

Genetics plays a huge role in the temperament of humans.

What if a scientist, who didn't believe in the soul, told you that your thoughts, feelings and choices were all just a product of genetics?

Also, I should point out, where do you think we get our personalities? Do you think that our personalities will continue to develop, or fall away as we progress through densities? The personality is often called by Carla and Q'uo a "personality shell," it is not something inherent in our soul, like biases or polarization. It is mainly something we gain or develop during an incarnation. You noticed how Ra had very little personality.

That is a topic for another discussion and too deep to get into here. Please feel free to start a thread on that topic if you like. For now, I will just say that I think that we chose to incarnate into bodies with certain genetics, in order to accommodate whatever catalyst we needed. In other words, our genetics reflects our soul's development and choices for this incarnation, rather than our personalities being defined by random genetics. The higher we evolve, the less that random comes into play. 2D entities have a higher random factor, but other than that, the same is true.

Regarding Ra, we can't apply personality to a Social Memory Complex. Remember, Ra isn't a person; Ra is a civilization. Furthermore, Ra was attempting to minimize distortion, so the trappings of personality, or flavoring, was intentionally eliminated, in order to keep the data pure. This has nothing to do with any personality that an entire civilization might have.

Where does Ra say it begins a journey?

I provided the quote earlier in this post. (Ra didn't use the word journey, but the meaning is the same.)

13.21 Questioner: Then how does the second density progress to the third?
Ra: I am Ra. The second density strives towards the third density which is the density of self-consciousness or self-awareness. The striving takes place through the higher second-density forms who are invested by third-density beings with an identity to the extent that they become self-aware mind/body complexes, thus becoming mind/body/spirit complexes and entering third density, the first density of consciousness of spirit.

That to me clearly says that once they become self-aware, they enter third density.

Yes but not instantly. See the beginning of this post.

The question was very specific. Ra doesn't say, "Then it will begin its journey to third density." If there were more to it, Ra would have said so, because it was the question which was asked.

There was more to it, as I already explained.

What I clearly see in goats is a goat soul, coming from goat mass consciousness, with all the normal goat behaviors, filtered through their brain which was derived from genetics and psychological conditioning. At their heart of it, every goat acts the same. They do have individual personalities, because none of them are going to inherit the exact same genetics and develop the exact same psychological conditions. But I don't take this to mean they're individuated souls.

You could say the same about humans. They just have a wider range of behaviors. And in fact, many scientists and psychologists do say that about humans.

Why do you not think this? What is the point of 2D incarnation is self-realization has developed? Once we realize, as a soul, we're separate from all other things, 3D work can be begun. Again, I think Ra states this rather clearly.

Already addressed.

Surely every mammal we watch can seem to have a personality because of the nature of mammal genetics and psychology. Do you think every single mammal on the planet has reached self-realization? What would make them different from 3D beings then?

Not self-realization; self-awareness.

I have a lot of birds in my yard. I enjoy watching the mockingbirds. They like to tease my dogs. I remember watching mockingbirds tease my cats when I was a child. They pretty much all act the same. They're mockingbirds.

A couple of weeks ago, I found a baby mockingbird who had fallen out of the nest a bit too early. It was almost ready to fly but not quite. Had I done nothing, the dogs or cats would surely have gotten it. So I did the obvious thing and picked it up, intending to feed it for a few days until it could fly. Much to my dismay, I learned from wildlife rescue that baby birds won't eat when hand-fed from humans. They advised me to put it back outside so its parents could feed it and teach it. So I built a circular cage without a top, made of chicken wire, and put it in the garden. (The cage wouldn't keep cats out but would at least keep dogs out, and the dogs would keep the cats out of that area of the yard.)

I spent an evening and a morning with this little bird. It kept chirping incessantly, but every time I held it near my heart and consciously sent it love, it instantly quit chirping. Every time. It most definitely could feel the love.

I talked to this little bird. I looked it in the eye. My son's girlfriend gave it lots of love too, and even kissed its head.

The bird didn't make it, unfortunately. I felt very upset that I had failed to save it.

But, I can only wonder what effect our care might have had on that little bird's soul development.

I have a pact with wasps. I tell them where they're allowed to build their nests, and if they build a nest too close to the door, I ask them to move it. They always do, usually within a few days.

Whenever a bee or wasp gets into the house, I catch it and set it free. Yesterday, a wasp was in my son's room. He and his girlfriend aren't into catching wasps, so they asked me to catch it. The wasp kept flying into the light covering. We finally had to unscrew it and take it off, but by that time the wasp looked groggy and had probably gotten singed. So here I was, trying to heal a burnt wasp! I gave it love and finally set it free, along with a message to deliver to its family that had the nest too near the door.

That wasp had an interaction with 3D entities. I can only wonder what effect if might have had and whether the spark of self-awareness was born.

But to think that that bird or wasp are ready for 3D would be, well, preposterous. It was only a fleeting influence. But the seed for self-awareness was planted. Maybe the wasp will be a bird next time, and a goat after that, and a cat after that. Then, maybe after a few lifetimes (or a few hundred lifetimes? who knows?) will be ready to be a human.

I use it because of the way you are relating personality with soul. Q'uo, as well as many other channels, talk a LOT about how our individual personalities melt away within our soul. This is touching on a whole different topic if you want to start this discussion, I can pull up many Q'uo quotes about the nature of personalities. It would make quite an interesting thread, and put a twist on how you are discussing personalities I believe.

I know what you are referring to, but I don't see a conflict. There can't be a personality shell without the self-awareness to animate it.

Killing plants has no place in 4D in my opinion.

Agreed!!! That's why we have to start now, to get to that point. As I've stated multiple times in this thread, people won't go from eating hamburgers to only fruit, overnight! It's a progression! The first step is to quite eating the beings that are obviously self-aware or on the road to self-awareness! Let's start with the basics. There are so many reasons that the meat industry is damaging the planet and people's health. Whereas, everyone knows that salads are healthy. You aren't going to have any luck getting people to quit eating their veggies, when right now, at this point in time, they are being told that eating more veggies will improve their health! Which is true - it does! Veggies are medicinal. They cleanse the body of the toxins ingested when eating meat and junk foods. Veggies are serving a purpose right now. But this is just temporary! It's a phase, not a permanent diet! The ultimate goal is to get to fruits, grains, nuts and seeds only! But in the meantime, if you want to convince people to quit eating veggies, it won't work! So we have to start with what is obviously bad for one's health, and obviously cruel, and obviously bad for the environment: MEAT.

At any rate, as I've said before, if one doesn't feel comfortable, then there's a simple solution: simply don't eat plants! Eat only fruits, grains, nuts and seeds which have fallen from the plants. But using that as a justification for eating animals, doesn't work for me.

They are a different class of life that has different characteristics.

Why would they have different characteristics, if not to accommodate a developing consciousness as souls traverse various physical incarnations? 2D is a very long density. Surely bird souls don't stay birds the entire density.

I don't view these differing characteristics as an excuse to murder them. I just can't agree with "It seems like it was made to murder, so we should murder it instead."

You are drastically twisting my words.

Philosophically, spiritually, metaphysically, what would be the point of a 2D animal incarnating into a 2D incarnation with self-awareness? How does it carry this into its orange ray body, which Ra says is without self-awareness?

The same as a 3D human continuing to reincarnate as a human, to further develop green ray, working towards graduation to 4D.

Remember, all rays are in potentiation, in all densities.

[Tenet Nosce]

maybe before calling bullshit, you should establish consistency in your own propositions :

the proposition you have made just a little while ago that says slaughter can be made more humane (therefore acceptable) by collective effort, compassion and caring, could also apply to killing of other humans, therefore unrationalizing the rationalizations you have made about killing of other human beings in that other thread.

This is absurd, and you know it. Way to take my comment out of context and, once again, IGNORE the rest of the post. Unbelievable.

OK, you win. That sausage I ate last weekend is the reason why I can't graduate to 4D. I guess I will have a long time to consider the error of my ways while I spend my next life foraging for nuts and berries. I will do my best to remember not to hunt an animal though, even if my family and I are starving to death, because animals are people too. Aw, heck, plants are people too. Tell you what, I will try to subsist on rocks and sand. Will that satisfy you? Or are 1D elementals people too?

Actually, if I can manage to reach back through the veil, I will try to remember to reinvent the whisk broom before the wheel next time around, so that my fellow humans can avoid the negative karma accrued from squishing ants underfoot as they forage for food in the jungle. Maybe that will knock off a couple million years off the next cycle. Oh wait, that won't work because, in the manufacture of the whisk broom, I will be taking the life of a plant. Shoot. I guess I will just dash my body on the rocks so as not to harm any other lifeforms.

Nope nope, wait wait. With all the negative karma I've accrued over the years of eating meat, maybe I should come back AS the rock. Yes, that will teach me a lesson for sure.

NOTE TO SELF: Offering a rational counterargument to an irrational belief is pointless.

[Bring4th_Austin]

Otherwise, how does a particular species evolve to 3D, rather than an individual?

just like how gandalf the cat has passed over the threshold of 3d, before the group soul we know as 'felix domesticus' has passed into 3d as entirety.

No, Gandalf passed over the threshold because of investment from 3D entities. An entire species would not gain that investment in a single incarnation. Without investment, the process is obviously different.

you are treating group consciousness as if it was akin to society complexes which are harvest requirements in 4d and 6d. in these densities, entities cannot graduate before their society complex graduates. however, this is not as such in 5d, or 3d for example.

Again, you're right in regards to investment. We have no examples of a single entity graduating 3D without investment, we do have an example of species though.

however i got your question in broader sense. and, in that regard ; there is no mandatory requirement for a species to evolve into 3d. the evolution, is the evolution of the mind/spirit complexes, not the body complex.

3D is the first density of consciousness of spirit, there is no spirit in the complex of a 2D animal. The evolution is of the mind, which I'm assuming the body follows. The mind is without self-awareness, sparking from the group mind, until the group mind may gain enough experience to realize self, in which all of the minds within would realize self.

so, there is no requirement that goes like 'cat group soul and bodies evolve into 3d' or 'ape group souls and bodies evolve into 3d'.

When it is the species and not the individual which graduates, I would beg to differ.

ra had mentioned that the choice of body type to use, elements used in their design, even to the extent of 3d body to use in the planet, is a moment's choice by the logos. logos may have chosen another body than the ape body for this planet.

Ra says the "form" of the body, I don't personally equate this with species. Some may. I don't think there's a more specific reference from Ra to clarify.

therefore, just like how entities in and above 3d do with their spiritual evolution, an appropriate body and experiential circumstance may be chosen for the entity's development in 2d too. the general blueprint of progress wouldnt change per densities. its basically the practice of placing any soul/entity/consciousness/whatever, in the appropriate body in a desired experiential nexus, and then taking it off.

There is a major difference between entities in and above 3D and entities in 2D, that is self-awareness.

so basically, this planet could go on for 8 billion years, and felis domesticus body may not evolve into a 3d body, and at any given point there may be a lot of entities inhabiting the cat group soul, but, there may be billions of entities passing through that group soul into other group souls and eventually graduating into 3rd density.

I'm not so sure about this, is this based on Ra material? I'm not inclined to think a soul will leave its species group consciousness unless it is invested by a 3D entity and gains self-awareness. Otherwise, I find it logical to assume that if a species gains self-awareness, the species in the group soul gain self-awareness, and the species graduates to 3D.

gandalf is a stellar example in this regard - despite already 3d, the entity could chose to come back as a cat.

Again, because Gandalf was invested with love and gained self-awareness, it could make this choice. I don't see how a choice for self can be made without self-awareness. And I don't agree the mechanics for gaining self-awareness without investment are the same.

I'm not necessarily saying that that the group consciousness does not contain individuals either. But these individuals are not self-aware, they don't realize that they are individuals, they exist as part of the group rather than individuals.

you are forgetting the implications of sub-densities. when you remember that Ra says there are infinite sub-octaves of consciousness in each density (a sub-octave of consciousness as opposed to an octave of consciousness which is this octave, which is AGAIN just a sub octave of consciousness compared to whatever greater octave it is part of), then the conclusion becomes straightforward :

there is infinite levels of advancement at any given octave, including subdensities.

therefore, for any given density, there is infinite levels of sub octaves which measure and place the entity at a standing in that octave in regard to development of the entity. leave aside meaning of that octave.

so, 1d is an infinite suboctave in which entities stand in different advancements in regard to not only development of consciousness, but also that density's meaning - the desire to move and transform without dispersing, 2d is an infinite suboctave in which entities stand in different advancements regarding the vibration of consciousness, AND the meaning of the octave - the existence of an individual 'self' within them, and 3d is an infinite suboctave of consciousness not only as to vibration of consciousnesses in it, but also the meaning of that density - the attitude of the entity in regard to others. and so it goes.

again, simply, the objective of an entire 2 billion year long density, cannot happen over a trivial amount of time. it is a progression.

I don't see why all of this can't apply to a group consciousness gaining experiences from its individual mind/body complex incarnations. Otherwise, why would there even be a group consciousness? Why would the group consciousness exist if the entities didn't exist as a group? They'd just exist as individuals, maybe unaware of themselves, but not as a group.

I don't quite follow your idea that some of may goats my be harvestable 3D. Gandalf had the possibility of reincarnating with L/L to be with the people he loved. My goats have never shown love in the level of a house-pet.

the problem here is that, the behavior pattern and manners of each species are not the same. regardless of how much your tortoise could love you, it couldnt be able to show that love in any manner you could interpret through the logic of the current societal complex of 3d.

and in retrospect, as much as your bird may sing to you, that may not be a show of love and affection.

that could only be measured and gauged by the interaction/vibration felt while with the entity, but then for this, the entity (you) would need to be quite sharp in spiritual sensitivity and cleaned and cleared those senses.

When a goat which I have cared for its entire life roughly shoves me out of the way to get to some food, I think the vibration is rather clear: I care more about food than your well-being. I don't take it personally, and it doesn't make me love the goat less, but it does make me aware of how aware this goat is as far as individualism.

If there were such a variety of levels of 2D consciousness within group consciousness, we'd be able to keep any sort of species as a house pet as long as we found one close enough to true individuation. And, we would not be able to keep cats and dogs as house pets as such a majority, because we couldn't guarantee that we could make them behave in a manner similar to us. There are exceptions as far as psychological conditioning and genetics goes, but I'm talking about the majority.

actually it is as such - cats, dogs, differ wildly in regard to their level. even though you can generally place them in a certain broad range, you would find that even the offspring of the same mother vary wildly in regard to their attitudes, sensitivity, awareness and consciousness. some may be wilder despite growing in the same house, some may be much more humane. not only that, they may also have born with various traits, behaviors and habits they brought from pre incarnation, quirky stuff that you cannot explain with conditioning or life experience.

I wouldn't say they differ "wildly," otherwise they wouldn't be the most popular house pet. We would have an outrageous variety of house pets, because different group consciousnesses would have varying levels of awareness appropriate to be considered "part of the family."

These "individual quirks" could easily be explained by the fact that the closeness of their group soul to 3D. The goats have very little individual quirks. It's very noticeable that they're slaves to their environment and genes. They do gain personalities because every situation is different, but watching a goat grow up, it's very easy to see how it gains this personality.

The connectome of the brain (hugely vast map of neural connections) as well as genetics can't be downplayed in animal behavior. People who breed animals pick out specific traits in behavior and personality they wish to pass on to the offspring.

Also, I know you don't normally like to get too personal, so don't feel obligated to answer this, but I'm extremely curious as to what your particular diet is. How does someone like you with such conviction on these views sustain themselves?

i told already in my post.

I must have glanced over it, sorry.



I think what we have are different theories of how 2D group consciousness works. I'd be much more interested in find some reference in the Ra material or otherwise acceptable source than us explaining the logic behind our theories.

[Bring4th_Austin]

Being a 2D being, it is a mind/body complex. Both are mind/body complexes. If it had achieved mind/body/spirit complex before incarnation, it would not be incarnating 2D.

I believe you are mistaken here. That is like saying that if a human had achieved green ray activation (love/compassion) then it would not be incarnating 3D, but would instantly go straight to 4D.

If a human achieves harvestability, does it still incarnate?

That's not how it works. It's a process. There are sub-densities. Green ray activation and its corresponding features (love/compassion/forgiveness etc.) develop over many incarnations.

Likewise, a late 2D entity's self-awareness develops over many incarnations. Once the process has started, it no longer returns to the group soul, but begins its own individual path, so that it can further develop is self-awareness, until it has reached the threshold in which it is able to graduate to 3D.

Where is this threshold defined? The threshold to me seems like self-awareness.

18.18 Questioner: Can you tell me Yahweh’s purpose in making the genetic sexual changes?
Ra: I am Ra. The purpose 75,000 years ago, as you measure time, was of one purpose only: that to express in the mind/body complex those characteristics which would lead to further and more speedy development of the spiritual complex

And now re-read the following quote, with the previous quote in mind:

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

Notice that Ra doesn't use the word entity to describe 2D. The word animal is used instead.

But we know that animals aren't the only 2D beings striving to progress. Also, Ra is describing pets specifically, not every 2D being striving for 3D. Above that, Ra doesn't say the entity continues on before it reaches 3D. Ra might not go beyond answering questions, but it would be very unlike Ra to not completely answer a question. And so, if it had more 2D to experience after it separated from the undifferentiated consciousness of that species, I strongly feel they would have said so.

Also, you seem to be missing a key part of this statement. The pet, AFTER experiencing individuation as a result of investment, doesn't RETURN to the group consciousness. This means that BEFORE that incarnation, it came FROM the group consciousness. Otherwise, how could it return? Why would it return? If it had separated from group consciousness long before its current incarnation, why would Ra mention RETURNING to group consciousness? What happens if this pet doesn't achieve individuation? It RETURNS to group consciousness.


And I interpret the Yahweh quote as referring to the spirit complexes already in place, because Ra is talking about 3D humans.

A single exposure to the individualizing influence won't instantly catapult a 2D entity into 3D.

Says who? It spends 2D working towards individuation, once it achieves it...why stay in 2D?

What is an influence? An influence just gets the process started. But it's still a process. The influence of the human on his pet causes a sharp rise in the potential of the 2D entity. What is potential? This means the 2D entity now has activated more potential, to gain more value out of continued 2D incarnations. But whether it happens in a single lifetime or many, doesn't matter. It's a process that was initiated by the influence of the 3D entity on his pet. It logically follows that the 3D entity will continue to influence the pet, possibly over multiple incarnations, just as 3D entities influence other 3D entities in the development of 4D qualities, until they are ready to graduate to 4D. A threshold must be crossed, which may take time (and experiences) to reach.

That is your interpretation of Ra's usage of the word potential. It could mean many other things, including the potential to incarnate into 3D.

30.5 Questioner: I would like to know how the mind/body/spirit complexes originate, going as far back as necessary. How does the origination occur? Do they originate by spirit forming mind and mind forming body? Can you tell me this?
Ra: I am Ra. We ask you to consider that you are attempting to trace evolution. This evolution is as we have previously described, the consciousness being first, in first density, without movement, a random thing. Whether you may call this mind or body complex is a semantic problem. We call it mind/body complex recognizing always that in the simplest iota of this complex exists in its entirety the One Infinite Creator; this mind/body complex then in second density discovering the growing and turning towards the light, thus awakening what you may call the spirit complex, that which intensifies the upward spiraling towards the love and light of the Infinite Creator.

It's a process.

But once the process is achieved, why continue? And also, why don't you feel plants are also experiencing this process?

Yes, a tuft of grass will strive for life outside of other tufts of grass. Plant it separate from any other tuft of grass and it will still strive for life.

So will a single strand of grass, as long as it has a bit of root. A tuft might be composed of multiple strands. My point is that your separation of the grass into x number of entities is completely arbitrary.

This is a pointless topic, but if you read what I said at first, the tuft is connected. The roots and blades of grass all are connected, to a point. In your lawn, they may get tangled. You might pull out some blades of grass and some roots. But they all belonged to a specific tuft, lost in the tangle of your yard.

But beside the point, if you can't see the grass separation, let's talk about a plant you actually murder. A carrot is obviously separate from a carrot. It's not connected to other carrots in the physical.

It's weird to me that it isn't obvious to you that a carrot will strive for life outside of other carrots. Kill one carrot next to another carrot, the other carrot strives for life.

You are referring to only the physical body of the carrot. I am referring to its consciousness.

I still don't believe a carrot does not leave the group consciousness and then return upon death. That is your opinion.

This too is obvious to me. I can't really grasp your concept that a carrot is not separate from another carrot. They're both different physical body complexes, not the same. You kill one, it has no effect on the other. Again, I don't know what to say if you don't perceive them as different body complexes.

I never said they weren't different body complexes.

They obviously are. But that doesn't make them different entities. You are equating the body complex with entity.

As I said in my last post, bacteria and even bees and ants have separate bodies, but there is much evidence to suggest that they are actually a single organism. Ask any beekeeper or read some beekeeping books. Research the behavior of bacteria.

Humans also function with mass consciousness, yet we're entities. The whole universe is like this, with separate bodies, but containing entities, all derived from one consciousness. Your point may seem logical to you but it doesn't to me.

I see where some of this miscommunication is coming from. I really need reference from Ra about this.

The only info we have from Ra is whatever Don asked. Don didn't ask every question you and I might have. So we have to fill in the gaps by cross-referencing other sources. The Law of One provides the foundation but there are some missing pieces that need to be filled in. That's what we're all trying to do here.

What I'm saying is the argument you put forth does not sway me in your direction. The logic just isn't sufficient for me. It's a theory on how plant consciousness exists that supports your opinion, while mine is a theory which supports my opinion.

Specifically, there's been extensive study about the physical communication between bees. If they were of one mind, why would they need physical communication?

The cells in your body are all part of you - a single organism - yet they still communicate physically as well. In 4D, when a social memory complex is formed, entities will still have bodies, from what I understand.

This doesn't support your theory that the bees never leave group consciousness.

I know you are of the opinion that the same consciousness that inhabits one carrot is inhabiting the other. I don't share this opinion.

Yes, but your opinion is based on some points that I think you have misunderstood from Ra. I invite you to ponder the points I just gave, and re-read Ra's words to see if you still understand them the same. This is my opinion based on my own understanding, of course.

Nothing in Ra's words suggest that plants don't separate from group consciousness when they incarnate. This is an opinion I have because it seems logical that two separate body complexes have two different souls and not the same soul, and that incarnation is consistent across 2D species.

Let's return to the Ra quote about entities returning to group consciousness. Even taking your theory about group consciousness, why would a plant have to RETURN to group consciousness if it never left? And you're saying that animals didn't come FROM group consciousness. So who is leaving a group consciousness? How is it possible for them to RETURN to that group consciousness, if none ever came from it, and none ever left it?

On the one hand, you say each tuft of grass is an entity, yet on the other, you say all goats (and cats and dogs?) are the same. You don't seem to be taking into consideration any evolution at all during 2D, which is a very long density.

I'm saying a tuft of grass is an entity which incarnates and, when it dies, returns to its group consciousness. I'm saying a goat is an entity which incarnates and, when it dies, returns to its group consciousness. Like I stated, I'm not saying the group consciousness is made up of individuals, but the individuals do not have self-awareness.

Self-awareness can be scientifically studied.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-awareness

It has a specific definition, and animals such as goats, cats, and dogs do not fit into that definition. Your pets can exemplify examples of self-awareness like we can exemplify examples of 4D love, but like Zenmaster said, they're not the same, otherwise the density system is pointless.

Because I'm not saying we shouldn't eat plants, rather, you are saying we shouldn't eat meat. Obviously we must kill 2D beings to sustain, whether it's plant or animals. You're basing your assumptions on an opinion that even when humanely slaughtered (anxiety free, pain free, happy lives), they suffer. I am saying, if that is true, it is also true of plants.

Maybe the animal who is 'humanely' slaughtered doesn't feel physical pain, but what about its mind and developing spirit? We know from Ra that in 2D, the mind/body/spirit complex is developing. This includes what is termed in psychology as a subconscious mind.

What about the mind and developing spirit of a 2D plant? You completely ignore those and murder them without that consideration.

Let's use an example of a 3D entity. Let's say a murderer kills a child while she is sleeping. By your logic, since the child didn't experience any physical pain, there was no trauma. (Please correct me if I am misunderstanding you.)

Or let's say a plant murderer murders a plant, or a goat murderer murders a goat. If none suffer physical pain, why do only plants not experience trauma?

In 2D it is just a mind/body complex, once it is inspirited it becomes mind/body/spirit, incarnating 3D.

As addressed earlier in this post, I believe you are drastically oversimplifying and leaving out major points made by Ra.

The Ra quote itself is pretty simple:

13.21 Questioner: Then how does the second density progress to the third?
Ra: I am Ra. The second density strives towards the third density which is the density of self-consciousness or self-awareness. The striving takes place through the higher second-density forms who are invested by third-density beings with an identity to the extent that they become self-aware mind/body complexes, thus becoming mind/body/spirit complexes and entering third density, the first density of consciousness of spirit.

Ra doesn't say, "thus becoming mind/body/spirit complexes and continuing their journey in second density to a hone a little bit of this self-awareness, then enters third density." They are invested to the extend they become aware. Yes, becoming aware is a process, but once they become aware, they enter 3D. The process is fast with investment from 3D beings, and very very slow without it.

I don't see why it's logical to think that once the process is finished, it continues on in 2D for a little bit. The process is finished, self-awareness achieved.

Let's look one more time at the other quote about this:

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.

So, Ra is talking about PETS. We know this because they preface the statement by saying "the most common occurrence of second-density graduation during third-density cycle is the so-called pet."

Where do you think this pet soul came from? Was it already individuated, separate from the group consciousness? That does not make any sense based on this quote. If it did not come from group consciousness, it would not RETURN to that group consciousness after the incarnation, were no investment made. Based on this, I must dismiss the notion that as a general case, pets' consciousnesses don't originate from group consciousness. The would not be returning if they didn't. They'd stay individuated at the same level they entered. It's not like the incarnation would regress them to the point they'd return to the group consciousness.

Of course they'll gain their quirks and psychological conditioning within the incarnation that will cause them to act a certain way. The goats' personalities can be very obviously linked to genetics...that is, if the father was mean and the mother was mean, you better believe it's going to be a mean goat. Does that mean the soul coming from the group spirit was mean?

I don't want to offend you by extending it to house animals, but I do think people tend to over-personify animals of all kinds, even more so their personal pets. I love my pets, I love my goats, but it doesn't change anything knowing they come from a species mass consciousness.

Then this explains why you are able to kill them. I don't intend this to be offensive or critical of you, so please don't take this personally. I am just responding to what you just said. You are clearly a person with a conscience. For a person with conscience to be able to kill something, it must first be dehumanized, or objectified as a thing, rather than as a person.

As you do with plants. You kill plants as I kill animals. Again, I understand you don't view your plants as entities, but I do. A dandelion is a dandelion entity. A carrot is a carrot entity. They're striving to live, to reach for 3D, and you kill them.

I can basically turn the same logic you just used on my situation on yours. You think it's convenient for me to classify goat personality like I do, but it's convenient for you to classify plant consciousness like you do, so you are innocent of the murder of plants. In my eyes, you're not, and your beliefs are just as convenient to allow you to do this as you claim mine are.

Genetics plays a huge role in the temperament of animals.

What do you think about substituting animals with humans?

Humans souls are individuated, but you can't say that genetics doesn't play any role with humans. I hardly spent any time around my grandfather, and my mom is constantly telling me that we share mannerisms, inflections, reactions, etc. I obviously inherited some genetics from him.

What if a scientist, who didn't believe in the soul, told you that your thoughts, feelings and choices were all just a product of genetics?

A scientist who didn't believe in a soul would say that genetics play a part, as well as psychological conditioning. Obviously we, as 3D beings on the other side of the veil, realize our souls are individual, and we can carry this understanding into incarnation with us.

Are you saying genetics and psychological conditioning don't play any part in your thoughts, feelings, and choices? Do you think that you, Monica, are 100% your soul, and 0% ego?



(In the middle of me editing the post to fix quotation, they changed the posting software interface . The formatting is messed up and I can't figure out how to fix it)

Where does Ra say it begins a journey?

I provided the quote earlier in this post. (Ra didn't use the word journey, but the meaning is the same.)


Your logic that the process starts AFTER individuation is achieved does not make sense to me. The process is leading to individuation, that IS the process.

What I got from the quotes is that individuation is a process, of course. It takes all of 2D. Early 2D beings (like plants) are striving for individuation just like late 2D beings. It's not just late 2D beings going through the process of individuation. The process is called SECOND DENSITY.

Why do you not think this? What is the point of 2D incarnation is self-realization has developed? Once we realize, as a soul, we're separate from all other things, 3D work can be begun. Again, I think Ra states this rather clearly.

Already addressed.

Not really, you're not answering the real questions. 2D is for STRIVING for individuation. If that individuation is achieved, there's no point for 2D any more. Again, your logic that the process for individuation starts after individuation is achieved is very backwards to me. Also, how does an animal carry this self-awareness into the orange-ray body? Ra very clearly states the orange-ray body is without self-awareness.

I use it because of the way you are relating personality with soul. Q'uo, as well as many other channels, talk a LOT about how our individual personalities melt away within our soul. This is touching on a whole different topic if you want to start this discussion, I can pull up many Q'uo quotes about the nature of personalities. It would make quite an interesting thread, and put a twist on how you are discussing personalities I believe.

I know what you are referring to, but I don't see a conflict. There can't be a personality shell without the self-awareness to animate it.

Why does the soul which animates the body have to have self-awareness?

Killing plants has no place in 4D in my opinion.

Agreed!!! That's why we have to start now, to get to that point. As I've stated multiple times in this thread, people won't go from eating hamburgers to only fruit, overnight! It's a progression! The first step is to quite eating the beings that are obviously self-aware or on the road to self-awareness! Let's start with the basics. There are so many reasons that the meat industry is damaging the planet and people's health. Whereas, everyone knows that salads are healthy. You aren't going to have any luck getting people to quit eating their veggies, when right now, at this point in time, they are being told that eating more veggies will improve their health! Which is true - it does! Veggies are medicinal. They cleanse the body of the toxins ingested when eating meat and junk foods. Veggies are serving a purpose right now. But this is just temporary! It's a phase, not a permanent diet! The ultimate goal is to get to fruits, grains, nuts and seeds only! But in the meantime, if you want to convince people to quit eating veggies, it won't work! So we have to start with what is obviously bad for one's health, and obviously cruel, and obviously bad for the environment: MEAT.

That's your opinion, but the side comments I need to address.

"Obviously bad for one's health" - Processed food is bad for one's health, not just meat. Please find me a study which studies the health effects of grass-fed, responsibly raised, sustainable meat in moderation.
"Obviously cruel" - Humane farming is not cruel. Again, it's your opinion that murdering a plant is more moral than murdering an animal. Veggie gardening is very cruel.
"Obviously bad for the environment" - You obviously have not studied the effects of sustainable, responsible, grass-fed, mob grazing livestock ranching. What IS obviously bad for the environment is the mass produce industry, and you are perpetuating that by promoting vegetarianism. Responsibly raised meat is much better for the environment than irresponsibly grown crops. The state of both industries is very harmful right now, not just he meat industry.

I don't view these differing characteristics as an excuse to murder them. I just can't agree with "It seems like it was made to murder, so we should murder it instead."

You are drastically twisting my words.

Only because you don't view murdering plants as murder. Otherwise, it is exactly what you're saying. They can't feel it, so it was designed to be better to murder them than something that can.

Philosophically, spiritually, metaphysically, what would be the point of a 2D animal incarnating into a 2D incarnation with self-awareness? How does it carry this into its orange ray body, which Ra says is without self-awareness?

The same as a 3D human continuing to reincarnate as a human, to further develop green ray, working towards graduation to 4D.

Remember, all rays are in potentiation, in all densities.

I don't believe a harvestable 3D entity would continue to incarnate.
All rays are in potentiation, but that doesn't mean I can activate them in this incarnation. If it did, then I wouldn't have to die to graduate to 4D, I could just activate the 4D body.

[Tenet Nosce]

There is only one schema that is consistent with the doctrine of densities found in the Law of One.

1D - Atoms, molecules, minerals, rocks, mountains, planets, stars...
2D - Algae, bacteria, fungi, plants, insects, animals, chimps, bonobos, apes...
3D - Neanderthals, primitive humans, civilized humans...

Ra also referred to sub-densities, and sub-sub-densities, and supra-densities, etc. Essentially, that creation is fundamentally holographic in nature. And we can probably all see with the example above some concept of a general trend in which life progresses through the sub-densities.

However, I will assert that there is no discernible principle available from behind the veil to determine with 100% confidence which entities fall into which subdensities in each category.

The idea has been put forth that the principle might have something to do with the accumulation of some form of spiritual energy, or light-ness of being. While I like this idea, there still remains no way to apply it in the world, given the tools and faculties which are available to us in this moment.

Discussion about which entity falls into what category makes for some very genuinely interesting reading, it does not further a purpose of offering a practical approach to diet which is immediately available given the current state of civilization.

IF, the "cause to increase the harvest" is, indeed, that urgent,

[a supposition that is itself questionable and deeply rooted "end of the world" belief system demonstrably ABSENT from the Law of One]

THEN, instead of wasting our time arguing about philosophical drivel, why don't we instead use this opportunity to fashion a unified message about diet that will maximize service to others in the present moment, rather than to serve our own need to be absolutely right in what we believe? Law of Confusion indeed.

Now I hold a Bachelor's Degree in both Biology and Philosophy as well as a Naturopathic medical degree. I have also studied the Law of One for fifteen years. I have been in practice for nearly a decade, and have served in the improvement of hundreds of peoples lives, and through them to thousands more.

This is not to say that I am "better" than anybody else. So don't go there.

I contemplate how to better apply the Law of One to my medical practice on a near daily basis. When somebody asks me the question, "How should I eat?" I don't have the luxury to pontificate with them about subdensities and how to discern between them. Neither do I theorize about the ambrosia of the gods, and make false promises of a land with no disease. I need an answer that is demonstrably true, practical, and immediately applicable in somebody's every day life.

I can only imagine what would occur if I told everybody coming to me for help that the ONLY way to eat is a vegetarian diet. Do you know what would happen? Most people would remove the meat from their diet, while leaving in all the sugar, grains, and processed foods. This would clearly be a disservice to them. Do you know what also might happen? I would eventually have to defend myself against claims of quackery and fraud, or possibly face felony charges for practicing medicine without a license because the state I live in does not license naturopathic doctors. Or God forbid some idiot "goes vegan" in the wrong way on my watch.

So if I, by proxy, must adopt a philosophy that allows for the slaughter of animals and consumption of their flesh, so be it. If anybody would like to offer that my actions are having a net negative effect on the "harvestability" of myself, or my patients, then please stand up and show yourself.

That there are vegetarians out there curing disease in their bodies is absolutely wonderful, and a great example to hold out to others whose health is failing. That there are one or two yogis somewhere in India living off of sunlight alone is very, very intriguing.

These people are in incredible amounts of suffering and pain. Some of them are facing death in the foreseeable future. So here's an idea: why don't you go face these decisions an a day-to-day basis and see what you come up with, rather than squabbling over technicalities of an obscure text on the Internet?

I would like to promote vegetarianism. Wanna know why I don't? Because as soon as the word comes out of my mouth, I know that the vast majority of people are going to associate me with some sort of whacko nutjob living on a communist ranch somewhere in the hills. Whether said whacko exists does not matter.

If I do not quickly establish trust and credibility with my patients, they will be gone. Out the door. And then I will have no further opportunity to be of service to them.

So here is what I tell them: Choose foods that are more nutritious. That's it. I know that if they follow that one simple step, it will eventually lead them to a place where they will start to crave better choices all on their own. In my opinion, that is the BEST way to serve their health, because it does not require them to accept me as their SAVIOR or GURU (seriously what a "3D" notion :idea: ), but points to their own latent inner wisdom to know what is right to choose for themselves.

So again, if anybody wants to declare that I am doing a disservice to my patients, and preventing them from achieving the next step in human evolution, by "allowing" them to eat meat, please show yourself.

I want to know who the fools really are.

[BrownEye]

Live coverage: Police report 7 dead in Northeast Grand Rapids

This event is happening right now. A poll:

If you had the power to either A) stop this kind of event from ever occurring again, or B) stop the slaughter of animals from ever happening again, which would you choose and why?

In other news:

French vegan couple whose baby died of vitamin deficiency after being fed solely on breast milk face jail for child neglect

Vegan Couple Starved Toddler, Cops Say

Vegan couple cleared of starving baby, guilty of child neglect

Vegan Parents Guilty Of Starving Son

I acknowledge these stories are about vegans, and not vegetarians. Yet they are still good examples of what happens when absolutism and zealotry take hold of what would otherwise be a noble idea. How a human being could rationalize harming or killing their own child in order to save a cow is beyond my comprehension. And yes, I also know these are extreme cases not representative of vegans in general. Obviously.

I am a zealot. I fought the standard of care when my daughter was born at 23 weeks. At one point I gave in to the brow beating and allowed them to add powdered supplement to the breast milk. It darn near killed her. After that I found that the FDA had put out a bulletin years ago for NICUs to cease using powdered supplements on preemies. They actually tried to force me into continuing this supplement the instant she was brought back to stable condition. They ceased only after I brought in a copy of the FDA recommendation AND a print out of the warning from the supplement maker saying that what they manufacture is not safe for preemies.

They told me she would have a host of problems simply as a result of being born that early, soft bones, mental issues, lung issues, blindness, etc. What we have since found is that the standard of care does in fact cause all these issues and sets them up for cancer later in life. While we are so technologically advanced in this country we also have the highest rate of mortality with preemies, forcing those like us to go against what feels natural. My daughter is in perfect health and far ahead of her age with perfect vision, as a result of being breast fed by a life long vegan mother.

Keep in mind that you can live solely on FruitLoops and be called a vegan. The USA is full of folks that want to gain better health but do not have knowledge or understanding behind their decisions. Those are the folks that will end up in the news. On the same thought, this applies to religious that allow their children to die from reliance on prayer, the exact same lack of understanding. What you will not see is a lot of criticism about health issues from the propagandized standards. A 150lb 6 year old is no big deal. But if that kid had gotten that big in a family that was anti propaganda, then he would make the news.

Nobody can tell me that a vegan lifestyle is unhealthy since I am married to a lifelong healthy vegan. Plus the fact that I have gotten rid of arthritis, eye problems, foot pain, and 40 pounds of weight from a slow switch to veganism. I live in an area that is completely reliant on cows and beef. What I find interesting is how many people have told me their pain has gone away after they quit eating meat. They are not vegans or even vegetarians, they just subconsciously slowed down on their intake and later on connect the fact that they have no pain getting out of their cars with the fact that their diet is different.

When something as small as meat makes that kind of a difference, some people will take notice and look at other things they ingest as also causing problems, It is a chain of dissection that eventually gets many people to raw veganism. Many don't care, and follow a belief, and that is when you see some fat ass in a motorized cart telling people like me I don't know how to eat right.

Everyone is free to eat others, even their neighbors if they want, that is free will. I guess the thin line is the concept of infringement of free will. I wonder how a plant is designed with the free will to not be eaten? Wait, the concept of will does not exist in a plant, other than possibly trees. And if an animal is no different than a plant, well then it is not free will to live that they try to escape you, it is only that they love to run.

---

I would like to promote vegetarianism. Wanna know why I don't? Because as soon as the word comes out of my mouth, I know that the vast majority of people are going to associate me with some sort of whacko nutjob living on a communist ranch somewhere in the hills. Whether said whacko exists does not matter.

“It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.”

[Tenet Nosce]

I am a zealot.

That's too bad. I'm sure your story would reach the hearts of so many more people if you didn't frame it in zealotry.

[Monica]

Firstly, why is it OK to fear, guilt, and shame people into doing the "right" thing? Why does "passion" give somebody a free pass to be manipulative of others?

I'm not really interested in debating Markus' approach. I said at the beginning that it was a bit over-the-top, but I'm able to see past that to his message. Did you see nothing of value in what he had to say?

Thirdly, when people like Markus loudly proclaim health benefits that are not substantiated by scientific evidence, i.e. "Stop Aging + Heal Everything" all it does is create fodder for Big Pharma and their FDA cronies to launch attacks on legitimate practitioners of natural medicine. Thanks, but no thanks, Markus. We have enough difficulties already. But, you know, just to try it out maybe the next time a 250 lb patient with heart disease and diabetes walks into my office I will tell them that there is NO HOPE for them unless they commit to a 100% raw vegan diet. Just maybe, that is the best way to serve them after all.

You're a naturopathic doctor. Obviously, Markus' approach would not be appropriate for you.

My argument here, all along, which seems to have been largely IGNORED, is NOT at all that people should eat meat, or that vegetarianism ISN'T a good idea. Go back and look at the posts, because if you think that's what I have been saying, it is a total projection on your part.

I know you didn't say that. But you did say that it doesn't matter. This is a thread about the spiritual implications of eating animals, from a Law of One perspective.

What I have been saying is that trying to base vegetarianism on an absolutist philosophical doctrine of harmlessness does not hold water. As evidenced by this very thread! It just goes ON and ON and ON and the debate will obviously never be resolved. Why? Because there is no clear and concise answer. There is no hard line to draw in the sand.

If we wanted clear lines drawn in the sand, we'd belong to some religion.

There is no way for a physical body to subsist in 3D without taking the life of another living being.

True. That's already been established. The discussion is about whether eating plants = eating animals, and whether it's justifiable to eat animals.

There IS, however, a way for people to subsist in 3D without killing each other in acts of war.

I'm not sure why you are mentioning that, other than to defend your own particular chosen cause, with which you know I already agree with you. You said yourself, in the other thread, that you come on strong regarding the war issue. Can you understand that different people have different chosen causes? We all have a role to play. Some people feel as strongly about the meat issue as you do about the war issue. And some feel strongly about both issues. Why criticize the efforts of other Wanderers, such as Markus, who are just doing the same thing you're doing: trying to make a difference in any way they can.

I mean, I don't AT ALL like the heinous and disgusting practices found in the average American slaughterhouse. But seriously, how disrespectful to a human being who has fought tooth and nail over MILLIONS OF YEARS to achieve a human state of consciousness to equate them to an animal whose entire natural life would consist of eating grass, pooping, belching, and occasionally mating.

I have no idea what you're referring to here - was that something in Markus' video? Like I said, I saw value in his overall message. I don't have to agree 100% with his every word, or his chosen delivery method, to find some value in it.

An animal life has nowhere NEAR the potential for choice, spiritual growth, and polarization that a human life does. This much should be obvious. Attempts to draw a parallel between the murder of a human being and the slaughter of an animal are REALLY stretching it. This might be the same thing in your mind, and you are entitled to your opinion, but clearly most people don't agree. Including many other thoughtful people here on this forum.

Tenet, this is a very long thread. That has already been covered, in extensive depth. I hope you understand that I just don't have the time to repeat what I've already said. I invite you to read the whole thread, if you're interested in digging up that issue.

Why isn't it enough to simply promote a plant-based diet ala Dr. Joel Fuhrman? Why isn't it enough to point to the obvious advantages to the health of the human being, and the planet, to eat nutritionally-dense foods and to leave it at that? Can't we just trust that, as people incorporate more nutritious foods in their diet that they will eventually come to crave them instead of red meat?

If that is the approach you are using, then you are doing your part. Let others do their part too.

No that's not enough for some. They will not rest until everybody's diet is 100% meat free. Why?

For the same reason you will not rest until all wars have been eradicated.

Because they are basing their view on a flawed philosophical principle.

In your opinion. I however see no flaws philosophically in promoting an end to the slaughter of animals. It is only the question of eating plants that is more complex which we are trying to work out by discussing.

AND because they are (again) filtering this philosophy of harmlessness down through an absolutist Judaeo-Christian-Muslim belief system which sees NO CONTRADICTION in using low-vibration tactics in an attempt to raise the vibration of others.

Ha, yeah that video was very evangelical! But I found that aspect of it rather humorous. I even thought, "Cool! Maybe he will get some of the fundamentalist Christians to switch over to a new religion - one based on better principles than their warmongering, meat-eating religion!"

It's not the approach I would choose, but neither did it bother me as it clearly does you. His message will reach those who respond to that sort of message. However I really do like his wild foods video and his bodybuilding video. Great info! I'm glad I didn't let any aversion to his evangelism get in the way of ordering those dvds! If I had, I would have missed out on some very helpful info!

Do you know what it is called when people frame a loving message with fear? Emotional abuse. So let's emotionally abuse our human brothers and sisters in an attempt to stop the physical abuse of our animal friends. That kind of thinking can only make sense in the mind of one who, themselves, is being abused by somebody who supposedly loves them.

Sorry, but I'm calling bullshit.

What it is you're calling bullshit? Are you still talking about the video, or about this discussion, or what? Please clarify.

I eat vegetarian at least two days a week. The rest of the time I mostly eat seafood or organic chicken. About once a week I will have some beef or lamb. I don't have one iota of concern whatsoever about the supposed spiritual repercussions of this behavior.

Then why are you in this discussion?

[BrownEye]

I would love for someone to explain how it is natural from the standpoint of being dropped on a dirtball with nothing but weak fingernails. I mean how does anyone come up with the idea that they can run fast enough to catch anything, or even have the strength needed for rendering? Tools and weapons along with planned traps are a result of experience and evolution.

Will they say we are weaker than we used to be? If that is so, might want to look at what is different in the diet to make us weaker LoL!.

Here is another concept I will plug into this stupidity. The old testament was all about blood sacrifice and appeasing god with flesh. I recently found after a buddhist exorcism I took part in that the tibetan buddhists also had these practices. They would conjure up evil spirits and trade gifts of flesh or blood to gain favor of these entities.

Now, I have previously found that saying the word jehovah will conjure up negative spirits, while the correct pronunciation of YHVH does not. When I connect all of this flesh sacrifice with evil spirits you know what I start thinking? I don't want anything to do with negative beings! It even says in the bible that god was not pleased with cains offering of veggies, and most of us know that god in the OT was not a loving god. All sorts of descriptions of the evil god loving the smell of seasoned burning flesh.

Sorry guys, a million reasons for me not to eat meat, while the only reason most need to eat meat is "it tastes good".

[Monica]

just like how gandalf the cat has passed over the threshold of 3d, before the group soul we know as 'felix domesticus' has passed into 3d as entirety.

you are treating group consciousness as if it was akin to society complexes which are harvest requirements in 4d and 6d. in these densities, entities cannot graduate before their society complex graduates. however, this is not as such in 5d, or 3d for example.

...............

however i got your question in broader sense. and, in that regard ; there is no mandatory requirement for a species to evolve into 3d. the evolution, is the evolution of the mind/spirit complexes, not the body complex.

so, there is no requirement that goes like 'cat group soul and bodies evolve into 3d' or 'ape group souls and bodies evolve into 3d'.

ra had mentioned that the choice of body type to use, elements used in their design, even to the extent of 3d body to use in the planet, is a moment's choice by the logos. logos may have chosen another body than the ape body for this planet.

therefore, just like how entities in and above 3d do with their spiritual evolution, an appropriate body and experiential circumstance may be chosen for the entity's development in 2d too. the general blueprint of progress wouldnt change per densities. its basically the practice of placing any soul/entity/consciousness/whatever, in the appropriate body in a desired experiential nexus, and then taking it off.

so basically, this planet could go on for 8 billion years, and felis domesticus body may not evolve into a 3d body, and at any given point there may be a lot of entities inhabiting the cat group soul, but, there may be billions of entities passing through that group soul into other group souls and eventually graduating into 3rd density.

in short - the group souls inhabiting a planet is akin to experiential nexi for 3d entities - the spirit-to be consciousness would become a member of, and then incarnate according to the experiential necessities and the level of advancement it has.

gandalf is a stellar example in this regard - despite already 3d, the entity could chose to come back as a cat.

Very well explained!

---

maybe before calling bullshit, you should establish consistency in your own propositions :

the proposition you have made just a little while ago that says slaughter can be made more humane (therefore acceptable) by collective effort, compassion and caring, could also apply to killing of other humans, therefore unrationalizing the rationalizations you have made about killing of other human beings in that other thread.

This is absurd, and you know it. Way to take my comment out of context and, once again, IGNORE the rest of the post. Unbelievable.

OK, you win. That sausage I ate last weekend is the reason why I can't graduate to 4D. I guess I will have a long time to consider the error of my ways while I spend my next life foraging for nuts and berries. I will do my best to remember not to hunt an animal though, even if my family and I are starving to death, because animals are people too. Aw, heck, plants are people too. Tell you what, I will try to subsist on rocks and sand. Will that satisfy you? Or are 1D elementals people too?

Actually, if I can manage to reach back through the veil, I will try to remember to reinvent the whisk broom before the wheel next time around, so that my fellow humans can avoid the negative karma accrued from squishing ants underfoot as they forage for food in the jungle. Maybe that will knock off a couple million years off the next cycle. Oh wait, that won't work because, in the manufacture of the whisk broom, I will be taking the life of a plant. Shoot. I guess I will just dash my body on the rocks so as not to harm any other lifeforms.

Nope nope, wait wait. With all the negative karma I've accrued over the years of eating meat, maybe I should come back AS the rock. Yes, that will teach me a lesson for sure.

NOTE TO SELF: Offering a rational counterargument to an irrational belief is pointless.

Tenet, you seem upset. Your sarcastic comments are twisting what has been said. No one is judging you. Both unity100 and I mentioned your comments about war, in order to draw parallels on the meat issue. You expressed unconcern about the meat issue, and seemed annoyed with those who do feel strongly about the meat issue, and we were trying to convey why we feel the issue is just as important as your chosen cause (which we feel strongly about as well). In fact, I feel exactly the same way you did when you said, "This is a Law of One forum and I can't believe I'm having to explain why war is wrong" or something like that. Speaking for myself, I feel the exact same way about the killing of animals! I invite you to try to see this from another perspective, by realizing that, to us, the meat issue is the very same as the war issue. It's just another area in which division, separation, oppression, and violence are occurring.

But no one is pointing fingers at anyone else. We're not playing a game of "Who's the purest of us all?" here. For example, abridgetoofar is a farmer who is trying to improve the conditions of his farm animals, and though we disagree about whether it's ok to slaughter those animals at all, we've been able to have a courteous, respectful discussion. We're not adversaries. And neither are any of us adversaries with you. You are a naturopath. You are obviously trying to make a difference in people's lives. We are all trying to figure this out, and each perspective has value. We're discussing concepts and ideas, not individual lifestyles or dietary preferences.

---

Here is another concept I will plug into this stupidity. The old testament was all about blood sacrifice and appeasing god with flesh.

Yeah, that's what got me turned off of the Bible. What does blood sacrifice bring to mind?

I recently found after a buddhist exorcism I took part in that the tibetan buddhists also had these practices. They would conjure up evil spirits and trade gifts of flesh or blood to gain favor of these entities.

Creepy! I didn't know that!

Now, I have previously found that saying the word jehovah will conjure up negative spirits, while the correct pronunciation of YHVH does not. When I connect all of this flesh sacrifice with evil spirits you know what I start thinking? I don't want anything to do with negative beings! It even says in the bible that god was not pleased with cains offering of veggies, and most of us know that god in the OT was not a loving god. All sorts of descriptions of the evil god loving the smell of seasoned burning flesh.

Very significant!

Sorry guys, a million reasons for me not to eat meat, while the only reason most need to eat meat is "it tastes good".

Exactly! There really is no good reason. None.