In regards to eating meat

[Diana]

Ethically speaking, the abhorrent and abusive conditions to which humans subject animals raised for food is a reflection of the abhorrent and abusive conditions to which we subject ourselves. In a world rampant with such atrocious acts as ritual abuse, infant sex trafficking, genocide, hate crimes, terrorism, and financial enslavement, it is somewhat curious to me that one would choose to take up animal rights as their raison d'être. But it is simply a curiosity, and nothing more. To each their own.

My thinking: All life is valuable. All life is sacred. Everything is equal in that no life is more valuable than another. In my mind, humans have a collective consciousness and we bear a collective responsibility for the abhorrent conditions we have created. But the reason, I think, that some people choose animal rights is akin to choosing to protect children: innocence, and inability to do anything about the abuse.

[Raman]

Ethically speaking, the abhorrent and abusive conditions to which humans subject animals raised for food is a reflection of the abhorrent and abusive conditions to which we subject ourselves. In a world rampant with such atrocious acts as ritual abuse, infant sex trafficking, genocide, hate crimes, terrorism, and financial enslavement, it is somewhat curious to me that one would choose to take up animal rights as their raison d'être. But it is simply a curiosity, and nothing more. To each their own.

My thinking: All life is valuable. All life is sacred. Everything is equal in that no life is more valuable than another. In my mind, humans have a collective consciousness and we bear a collective responsibility for the abhorrent conditions we have created. But the reason, I think, that some people choose animal rights is akin to choosing to protect children: innocence, and inability to do anything about the abuse.

All life is sacred, very good point. I would like to add that 2d cannot destroy a planet but 3d can. Including 1d, 2d and 3d itself included. So animal rights becomes a crucial subject to be pursued as well. It is a service to others (animals) that directly reflects on the way we view human rights and environmental rights.

[3DMonkey]

Ethically speaking, the abhorrent and abusive conditions to which humans subject animals raised for food is a reflection of the abhorrent and abusive conditions to which we subject ourselves. In a world rampant with such atrocious acts as ritual abuse, infant sex trafficking, genocide, hate crimes, terrorism, and financial enslavement, it is somewhat curious to me that one would choose to take up animal rights as their raison d'être. But it is simply a curiosity, and nothing more. To each their own.

My thinking: All life is valuable. All life is sacred. Everything is equal in that no life is more valuable than another. In my mind, humans have a collective consciousness and we bear a collective responsibility for the abhorrent conditions we have created. But the reason, I think, that some people choose animal rights is akin to choosing to protect children: innocence, and inability to do anything about the abuse.

Just a personal observation, and this is my opinion, and I don't look down on a whole group of people,

it's my opinion that most of the animal lovers I encounter do not love humans as much. They tend to sight the innocence of the animal, and I know one who is extremely outspoken about his disgust with humans (children too).

This is my opinion and I do not understand that mentality.

[Ankh]

Just a personal observation, and this is my opinion, and I don't look down on a whole group of people,

it's my opinion that most of the animal lovers I encounter do not love humans as much. They tend to sight the innocence of the animal, and I know one who is extremely outspoken about his disgust with humans (children too).

This is my opinion and I do not understand that mentality.

Well, this is my opinion and I can not speak for everybody else. I agree with you, and that agreement is based upon personal experience. It has been time (and not so long ago) when I felt aversion towards both humans (children included) and animals. I regarded them as too violent and unpredictable. I loved the planet though, the 1D, the nature. I felt compassion for the planet itself, and supported (still do) organisations like Green Peace, because my thoughts were that it doesn't matter what happens to humans (as we are responsible for the negative outcome ourselves), but the planet may have the chance to bear 1D life even if we all die, if we choose to care about it. What that mentality was based upon? It is simple. I've been (sometimes brutaly) hurt by both humans and animals. Natural respons to that - mistrust and suspicion. Not hate, but aversion to 2D and 3D life. I hope it answered your question somehow =)

[_X7]

Back to meat entrees...


I've long wondered if such entree-preference must be a convenience-feature-- Utilized to more-simply (instantly, easily, cheaply or quickly) obtain a certain standard of flavor along with a belief of re-energizing self.


Perhaps our personalized notions are correct or misinformed. After al, LOO seems to indicate all such things are 'distortions'. The veil, or may we say the pre-incarnate-forgetting, requires that we live our present-lives through the available, worldly 'distortions'. If not the most centralized and traditional distortions, found close to home.


Yet a major 'distortion' of our global-culture is science. No? A growing tradition demands that science aid us directly in choosing our 'personal-distortions' more wisely. Wise choices should banish error and promote well-being, (according to science).


The advent of instant-food or instant-nirvana should not lead us astray, however. Could that mean that we should mold our life with more care and more discretion? In case our personal habits cause stress or duress-- Should we carefully observe such issues, with intent to improve conditions on our world?


Perhaps too many questions follow and to many questions remain unasked.... If we personally feel too busy or stressed to provide longer-lasting meal-times, are we sure life fulfills advantageously? If we are too impatient to personally scrutinize peer-review science, will we have good information? Does our science-expert prove his/her health or stamina and is that important? Will we achieve our life aim on better or worse nutrition? ... Are my personalized 'distortions' worthy?

[BrownEye]

Will we achieve our life aim on better or worse nutrition?

I would assume so. After arthritis popped up I realized the need to change my diet in order to continue working and living without pain. I made a decision that I did not want to end up in a wheelchair like my mother. I don't know what my mothers life aim is, but it can't be much being bound to that wheelchair. Quite possibly she is in limbo because what needs to be done may now be darn near impossible to finish.

[BrownEye]

pickle, you seem like you are progressing so fast and have so much control over your body. I feel kind of stagnant, do you have any tips to get the ball rolling so to speak? was diet very important? or certain meditation practices? You may pm me if you wish, I don't want to take away from the topic of the thread, but anything you can tell me would be very much appreciated.

Diet was important in my case to clean out old thoughts and beliefs. As for speeding up the process it is said quite clearly in the transcripts. Secondly,we would note that effect which we have learned to call the doubling effect. Those of like mind which together seek shall far more surely find.

[BrownEye]

I think I have posted this but can't find it. Last night I was boning up on the 4th density concepts to see what changes have already taken place. This sounds like the lifestyle of the folks I know that have left society and went to the rainforest areas.

43.18 Questioner: The mechanism of, shall we say, social catalyst due to a necessity for feeding the body then is active in fourth-density. Is this correct?

Ra: I am Ra. This is incorrect. The fourth-density being desires to serve and the preparation of foodstuffs is extremely simple due to increased communion between entity and living foodstuff. Therefore, this is not a significant catalyst but rather a simple precondition of the space/time experience. The catalyst involved is the necessity for the ingestion of foodstuffs. This is not considered to be of importance by fourth-density entities and it, therefore, aids in the teach/learning of patience.

Increased communion with plant life, and a lot of patience is needed for preparation, which is not easily possible in todays hustle bustle workforce.

[_X7]

Diet does seem to penetrate into other areas of life-- As an energizing mechanism....

Energizing what? I wonder if this includes the whole show... Ra has indicated terms like "the veil" and "the forgetting", favorite physics designations include: "the implicate order", the 'aether' even perhaps the "morphogenic field", Hollywood has proclaimed the 'matrix'.... David Wilcock has just released a new publication (book or mp3 formats) titled "The Source Field". David provides a comprehensive history of generally academic studies of just what is energized and how energizing happens, through "intelligent infinity".

[BrownEye]

Mind/body/spirit complex? I would assume each one directly affects the other two.

[Monica]

Mind/body/spirit complex? I would assume each one directly affects the other two.

That's what I think.

[3DMonkey]

Mind/body/spirit complex? I would assume each one directly affects the other two.

That's what I think.

How could it be otherwise? The two intangible ones are so difficult to pinpoint. The mind can create what it wants and attempt to communicate this through the body/spirit. The spirit is the misty air of deep space between bodies; it has real effect on mind/body, but it forever stays in the misty air and morphs for whatever energy is being applied to it. The body is motion, motion of energy (just start vibrating you head and you get the sense of what all this physical stuff is), and is at the mercy of mental trajectory and spiritual absence.

[Monica]

How could it be otherwise?

I agree, but many people have stated on this thread that they don't think diet matters spiritually. But if the body affects the mind/spirit then it does matter.

[zenmaster]

How could it be otherwise?

I agree, but many people have stated on this thread that they don't think diet matters spiritually. But if the body affects the mind/spirit then it does matter.

Of course diet matters spiritually. This has been known for eons. The body provides feedback to the mind which the mind must address, process and regulate. This includes all manner of sense impressions, as well as the balance this form provides for emotional well-being. If the mind must deal with imbalance of the body, i.e. due to starvation or lack of nutrition, then it can certainly not create a place for spirit to actualize. Food is information - in a large sense it tells the body's metabolism 'what to do'. This process works in conjunction with the brain and central nervous system, which are always attempting to adjust and balance to maintain health.

Diet has consequences to the homeostatic condition and well-being in general. Well-being is considered a spiritual property because it encourages our aspirations - allowing for insight, creativity, peace and harmony.

[Monica]

I just got David Wilcock's new book The Source Field Investigations, and after reading what he said about those plant experiments, I just had to resurrect this thread!

A strong argument has been made in this thread, and by David Wilcock himself, based on Dr. Cleve Backster's experiments which show a strong reaction from plants when someone harms them or even has the intention of harming them. In fact, I read on David Wilcock's site that this was one of the reasons he started eating meat again, after having been a vegan previously. At the time, I didn't agree with his conclusions, but wasn't quite sure why. (And for the record, I don't keep up with David Wilcock, so I have no idea what his current dietary preferences are.)

Now, DW's own book explains the flaw in this logic.

On page 18, he states that Dr. Backster did additional experiments in which plants in his care began to register strong reactions not just when they were being harmed, but also when Dr. Backster felt any sort of strong emotions. The plants even registered a strong reaction when Dr. Backster's wife threw him a surprise birthday party!

Dr. Backster's emotions were positive when his wife surprised him with the party. He wasn't even in any danger or in a negative state at all. Yet the plants registered the same type of reaction as when he threatened to burn their leaves!

This proves conclusively, in my mind, that plants are very sensitive to any sort of vibrations, both positive and negative, not just the thread of being harmed.

It doesn't prove that plants don't feel pain on some level. But it cannot be used as argument to prove that they do.

There's another flaw in the experiments as well. The plants registered a reaction when shrimp were boiled, but only when humans weren't present. If humans were present, the plants didn't seem to care. The reason for this is subject to speculation. But, what about the shrimp that were being boiled in the house next door? What about the mouse being killed by the cat across the street? What about the murder taking place in the alley down the street? The plants registered a reaction when Backster was across town, so proximity wasn't a factor. Why did the plants selectively register some events but not others?

The experiments are intriguing and warrant further investigation. But it's quite a stretch to form conclusions about what plants think and feel, based on these electrical responses.

Again, this doesn't prove that plants don't feel pain. (Never mind that they lack a nervous system and pain receptors.) But to use this as a justification for eating animals, who unquestionably do feel pain, is faulty logic.

There's no question that, as DW asserts in his book, plants are part of the fabric of life and connected to us. But I don't think these experiments make a good case for eating animals because "plants feel pain too." That just doesn't fly.

[unity100]

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

your approach is incorrect in that it assumes the activity measure on reactions from a plant can be traced to the nature of the reaction. moreover, the basis for what science uses to measure reactions, is based on human physique and physiology - even at that, it is way too young to interpret the nature of actual emotions.

the plant may be giving strong reactions, but they may be positive, or negative.

what it DOES prove is that, plants do have emotions.

[Monica]

your approach is incorrect in that it assumes the activity measure on reactions from a plant can be traced to the nature of the reaction.

No, not at all. In fact I am saying the opposite of what you thought I was saying: Because at the moment of the reaction any number of events have occurred (the researcher thinking some thought, a cat eating a mouse across the street, another researcher having a birthday party, not to mention the rest of the entities on the planet), there's no conclusive way to know exactly what triggered the reaction in the plant.

DW's book seems to have made the assumption you are attributing to me, and I am actually contesting it.

moreover, the basis for what science uses to measure reactions, is based on human physique and physiology - even at that, it is way too young to interpret the nature of actual emotions.

the plant may be giving strong reactions, but they may be positive, or negative.

That is exactly my point! The researcher was interpreting the plant's reactions according to human physiology and emotions.

what it DOES prove is that, plants do have emotions.

No, it doesn't even prove that. It proves that plants DO react to their environments, but it doesn't prove that it's an emotional reaction. It might be. But it might also be some sort of reflection of the emotions of 3D entities, perhaps in the same way that a piece of technology called a polygraph test can register the emotions of humans. Plants might be much better at it than technology, since they are alive and part of the cosmic web. But to even say it's an emotion, is doing the very thing you thought I was doing: attributing emotions as understood by humans, to a different lifeform.

I contend that the capacity to feel emotions is something that evolves during 2D and continues to evolve in 3D. Animals undoubtedly feel fear. That is a very basic, primal emotion. More highly evolved 2D animals demonstrate love. But even then, it's a very basic love. It hasn't yet evolved into all the nuances humans experience. I've observed sadness, disappointment, shame, and even grief, in my pets. But I've never observed anger in them. Even 2 cats fighting aren't angry, even though it might appear so at first glance. As soon as 1 of them asserts dominance over the other, it's over. No lasting, residual anger.

What plants are experiencing, might be the rudiments of emotion. Maybe. But the research that is often touted as irrefutable evidence for human-like emotion, isn't irrefutable at all. It's quite subject to interpretation and speculation.

The very fact that the same response was registered whether the trigger was negative (intention to harm the plant) or positive (surprise birthday party) completely negates any claims of conclusive 'proof' that plants were feeling fear or even any other emotion. It might be. But it's far from conclusive at this point. That a plant would react the same to grass getting cut by a lawn mower, as it would to a birthday party, neutralizes any conclusions. It shows only that plants react; it doesn't show why they react.

[unity100]

what it DOES prove is that, plants do have emotions.

No, it doesn't even prove that. It proves that plants DO react to their environments, but it doesn't prove that it's an emotional reaction. It might be. But it might also be some sort of reflection of the emotions of 3D entities, perhaps in the same way that a piece of technology called a polygraph test can register the emotions of humans. Plants might be much better at it than technology, since they are alive and part of the cosmic web. But to even say it's an emotion, is doing the very thing you thought I was doing: attributing emotions as understood by humans, to a different lifeform.

now you are forgetting what you learned from Ra material ..........

mind/body/spirit format is always the same, regardless of wherever you go, whatever the entity is, whatever universe you are in. ra says even the rock beingness has their bodies with their potential energy centers in potentiation (other than 1st center), including single cells, all the way up to a 7d entity. same format.

body is the manifester of the reactions of the mind/spirit. therefore if you are seeing ANY reaction in ANYthing, that means that reaction is coming from an entity's mind/spirit complex. moreover, the rays and their meanings, and even more, lessons of each density are the same for ALL entities in it.

you are exceptionalizing and excluding plants from basic formula of existence. that cannot apply.

[3DMonkey]

Life is life. Killing, however, is murder depending on who you ask.

[Monica]

now you are forgetting what you learned from Ra material

Having a different interpretation doesn't necessarily mean I have 'forgotten' what Ra said. It might just mean I see it differently than you do.

mind/body/spirit format is always the same, regardless of wherever you go, whatever the entity is, whatever universe you are in. Ra says even the rock beingness has their bodies with their potential energy centers in potentiation (other than 1st center), including single cells, all the way up to a 7d entity. same format.

In potentiation isn't the same as full expression. Undoubtedly 2D entities have the full range of emotions in potentiation, but that doesn't mean they have the ability to fully express them.

body is the manifester of the reactions of the mind/spirit. therefore if you are seeing ANY reaction in ANYthing, that means that reaction is coming from an entity's mind/spirit complex.

I'm not disputing that. However, that doesn't tell us why the mind/spirit initiated that reaction.

moreover, the rays and their meanings, and even more, lessons of each density are the same for ALL entities in it.

Again, that doesn't mean each entity has the same emotional reaction to the same stimulus as another entity. Not even 2 humans will have the same reaction. Many humans are totally cut off from their emotions, or very suppressed. Look at how psychopaths don't even feel remorse when they hurt others. There is a wide range of emotional expression even among humans. To assume that plants possess that same range, in full expression, is quite presumptuous.

you are exceptionalizing and excluding plants from basic formula of existence. that cannot apply.

No, not at all. Stating that they may be different in their ability to express emotions is not 'exceptionalizing and excluding them from basic formula of existence'.

[Conifer16]

The Ra material is not the be all end all of information. The only reason to hold it to such a high degree here is because this forum is for the Ra material. Otherwise to assume that someone has forgoten something is extreme folly as for now in this current experience we don't pay attention/differentiate to/between our own thoughts and everyone else's.
-Conifer16- Adonai Vasu Borragus
All this is my own opinion

[unity100]

now you are forgetting what you learned from Ra material

Having a different interpretation doesn't necessarily mean I have 'forgotten' what Ra said. It might just mean I see it differently than you do.

yes but it allows you to escape the inconvenient conclusion :

mind/body/spirit format is always the same, regardless of wherever you go, whatever the entity is, whatever universe you are in. Ra says even the rock beingness has their bodies with their potential energy centers in potentiation (other than 1st center), including single cells, all the way up to a 7d entity. same format.

In potentiation isn't the same as full expression. Undoubtedly 2D entities have the full range of emotions in potentiation, but that doesn't mean they have the ability to fully express them.

if by expression you mean that actual communication of that emotion to the outside sources, and you find solace in that, thats your choice.

if by expression you mean the actual manifestation of those emotions in the particular density they belong to, you are wrong.

nothing in a density is exempt from being able to manifest the density's properties and meanings. if there was any such exemption of body types in 2nd density, this would be mentioned and discussed. instead, we were told that blueprint for all life in the universe was same.

body is the manifester of the reactions of the mind/spirit. therefore if you are seeing ANY reaction in ANYthing, that means that reaction is coming from an entity's mind/spirit complex.

I'm not disputing that. However, that doesn't tell us why the mind/spirit initiated that reaction.

you just disputed that above.

moreover, the rays and their meanings, and even more, lessons of each density are the same for ALL entities in it.

Again, that doesn't mean each entity has the same emotional reaction to the same stimulus as another entity. Not even 2 humans will have the same reaction. Many humans are totally cut off from their emotions, or very suppressed. Look at how psychopaths don't even feel remorse when they hurt others. There is a wide range of emotional expression even among humans. To assume that plants possess that same range, in full expression, is quite presumptuous.

the aim of 2nd density is survival and progress. this was what was told to us in the material.

you are saying that some entities whose aim is to survive in their incarnation and progress, will, somehow, react to the destructive termination of their existence, with joy.

that is your own convenient interpretation.

if, you dont know that whether an entity may take joy in its incarnated presence getting destroyed, then to be on the safe side, you do NOT do it.

you dont go justifying doing it by saying 'maybe'.

you are exceptionalizing and excluding plants from basic formula of existence. that cannot apply.

No, not at all. Stating that they may be different in their ability to express emotions is not 'exceptionalizing and excluding them from basic formula of existence'.

blueprint of all life, and the lessons, emotions, hardships of all densities, are same throughout the universe. even if some densities are made to take longer in some locales, in the eventual end, the ratio of their hardships and good sides are always the same. this is what is told in Ra material.

everything regarding life in 2d, is same for animals and plants and whatever creature that inhabits 2d, or its time/space.

[Conifer16]

What is it the two of you are arguing about? I haven't read this thread for a while and have forgotten what it is that you are arguing on either side here.
-Conifer16- Adonai Vasu Borragus

[Monica]

yes but it allows you to escape the inconvenient conclusion :

No, not at all. You speak as though your interpretation of that quote is the only one. It isn't.

if by expression you mean that actual communication of that emotion to the outside sources, and you find solace in that, thats your choice.

No, that's not what I mean. Not just expression, but ability to feel emotion at all. Many humans aren't even in touch with their own emotions, to the point that they aren't even aware of suppressed anger, fear, etc. This is indisputable. If even humans have varying abilities to feel emotions, then that proves there is much variation. This is what I believe Ra meant by 'in potentiation.' As the entity learns to first feel, and then, later, express, those emotions, then the emotions are no longer in potentiation, but in full activation/expression.

if by expression you mean the actual manifestation of those emotions in the particular density they belong to, you are wrong.

nothing in a density is exempt from being able to manifest the density's properties and meanings. if there was any such exemption of body types in 2nd density, this would be mentioned and discussed. instead, we were told that blueprint for all life in the universe was same.

I don't think I'm wrong. I don't need Ra to tell me that many humans aren't aware of their own emotions. That is blatantly obvious.

you just disputed that above.

No I didn't. I didn't dispute that emotions come from mind/spirit. I disputed whether those emotions are manifest, or just in potentiation. If the latter, the entity isn't even consciously aware of them yet. This is common among humans; how much more so among 2D entities?

the aim of 2nd density is survival and progress. this was what was told to us in the material.

you are saying that some entities whose aim is to survive in their incarnation and progress, will, somehow, react to the destructive termination of their existence, with joy.

No, that's not what I said at all. I said a merging of consciousness isn't destructive termination.

I also said that we really don't know what plants feel, because the research isn't conclusive. I also said that plants may very well feel emotions. It just hasn't been proven that they do, and to assert that the current research proves such a thing, is erroneous.

if, you dont know that whether an entity may take joy in its incarnated presence getting destroyed, then to be on the safe side, you do NOT do it.

you dont go justifying doing it by saying 'maybe'.

I have used that very same argument, to point out that, since we KNOW animals DO feel pain and DO fight being killed, we should not kill them.

I also said that if you feel you should take that even further to include plants, since they MIGHT also feel pain and wish to not be harvested, then that's great - go for it!

My only argument here is that, while the former is based on rock-solid facts, the latter is based on speculation. It's simply erroneous to say that it's been 'proven' that plants feel emotions, because it hasn't.

That's not even getting into the inconvenient little detail that, unless one lives on fruits and nuts only, it's impossible to avoid killing plants. Eating dairy doesn't cut it because the cows ate plants. There's simply no way to be 100% pure in this, as long as we are in physical bodies on this planet.

Avoiding the eating of animals is the obvious first step. After that, it becomes a game of "who's the purest of us all" which I think is pointless, given that it's impossible to avoid plants entirely, unless one lives in a bubble. That's not even getting into bugs that splat on our windshields, or microbes we inhale.

All of that has already been discussed in this thread. My only point in resurrecting this thread was to point out the fallacy of basing one's decision about plants on that particular research. Maybe there is better research out there. But what was described in DW's book didn't prove anything. Rather, it actually seemed to disprove it, since the plants seemed to react equally to both positive and negative stimuli.

---

What is it the two of you are arguing about? I haven't read this thread for a while and have forgotten what it is that you are arguing on either side here.

We're actually both vegetarians, and the current 'argument' is about plant research. This thread had lain dormant for some months, until I resurrected it today with post # 825.

[Conifer16]

Ok
Thanks

[3DMonkey]

The Ra material is not the be all end all of information. The only reason to hold it to such a high degree here is because this forum is for the Ra material. Otherwise to assume that someone has forgoten something is extreme folly as for now in this current experience we don't pay attention/differentiate to/between our own thoughts and everyone else's.
-Conifer16- Adonai Vasu Borragus
All this is my own opinion

We I first came here I received a barrage of "that's just the way unity100 communicates". Maybe that was just to calm me down. I bought it though. Care to make a purchase?

[βαθμιαίος]

Dr. Backster's emotions were positive when his wife surprised him with the party. He wasn't even in any danger or in a negative state at all. Yet the plants registered the same type of reaction as when he threatened to burn their leaves!

Do we know for sure that he was happy about the surprise party? Not everyone likes them.

[3DMonkey]

LOL. I hate surprises. FYI.

[unity100]

No, that's not what I mean. Not just expression, but ability to feel emotion at all.

excuse me, but this is the point where discussing this with you becomes ridiculous.

you have just introduced a major, major differentiation into more than half of the bodies that the creatures on this planet inhabit.

there is no such exception was expressed in the material we are studying.

I have used that very same argument, to point out that, since we KNOW animals DO feel pain and DO fight being killed, we should not kill them.

I also said that if you feel you should take that even further to include plants, since they MIGHT also feel pain and wish to not be harvested, then that's great - go for it!

My only argument here is that, while the former is based on rock-solid facts, the latter is based on speculation. It's simply erroneous to say that it's been 'proven' that plants feel emotions, because it hasn't.

no, former is not based on 'rock solid facts'.

you see the animal and you interpret its reactions to be negative. the party you are opposing can easily argue that your interpretation is as good as their interpretation. it has also not been 'proven' that animals feel emotions too.

[Monica]

Do we know for sure that he was happy about the surprise party? Not everyone likes them.

That's a good point but if that were the case, then surely DW would have mentioned it in the book.

---

excuse me, but this is the point where discussing this with you becomes ridiculous.

?? Because I disagree with you? I have explained my points very clearly. Perhaps you don't understand my points? A discussion does not become ridiculous just because we disagree.

Anyway, you haven't addressed my points. It's easier to say discussion is 'ridiculous' than to address each point I have made.

you have just introduced a major, major differentiation into more than half of the bodies that the creatures on this planet inhabit.

To say that emotions are 'in potentiation' isn't any more of a differentiation than lack of sentience (self-awareness) is a differentiation.

Neither conflicts with what Ra has told us.

there is no such exception was expressed in the material we are studying.

You are seeing it as an exception. I don't see it that way at all. I see it as a natural progression as entities become more self-aware.

no, former is not based on 'rock solid facts'.

Yes, it is. It is a rock-solid FACT that animals feel pain. They have pain receptors. They have nervous systems. Plants have neither.

you see the animal and you interpret its reactions to be negative. the party you are opposing can easily argue that your interpretation is as good as their interpretation. it has also not been 'proven' that animals feel emotions too.

Are we living on the same planet? Ask anyone with a cat or dog whether their pet feels emotion. It's obvious.