In regards to eating meat

[Diana]

How do we know that physical suffering and death don't support the 2D entity in gaining self-awareness? What if longevity doesn't factor much into the equation of whether or not a 2D entity had a "successful" incarnation? What if certain 2D entities are actually seeking to be incorporated into 3D bodies? How do we know that it isn't considered a great honor and achievement for a 2D entity to be plucked out of the ground by a human, put in a vase, and appreciated for its beauty before meeting a premature death?

I don't have the answers for these, and am more than a bit incredulous when others claim that they do.

The above are good points. I don't buy or pick flowers, but it is a consideration worth exploring.

As far as animals gaining awareness through physical suffering, I will say this: do you want to be part of this way for animals to learn and evolve? I will present an analogy: Humans learn through suffering. Do you want to support human sex-trafficking, or wife-beating, or Apartheid, or child-abuse, because it helps humans learn and evolve? Suffering is not the ONLY way humans learn; it is one way. Perhaps it is a common way because humans seem to have a high resistance to change. So, I must conclude, that in considering suffering is a way for animals to evolve, it is not the only way, and I do not want to be a part of the suffering way.

However, to conclude that cows in a factory farm video are needlessly suffering seems fairly straightforward to me.

Thank you. This does seem obvious doesn't it? My hope is that here, at this site, there will be others who not only see this, but follow your example and buy meat from humane sources, so we can move forward in eliminating a market for such unnecessary abuse.

[Tenet Nosce]

As far as animals gaining awareness through physical suffering, I will say this: do you want to be part of this way for animals to learn and evolve?

I am a part of it, whether I like it or not. I understand this may seem overly obtuse or evasive to you, but to me, this is profoundly important and directly bears upon the issue of suffering. When I read things like...

Upon this highway you are neither old nor young, male or female, wealthy or impoverished. You are one who journeys as the prodigal son and daughter, having been flung far from your source of being. Now you move through illusion upon illusion in the twilight dream within a dream which is incarnational experience. As you sit here, each seeker has the sorrows of unfulfilled hopes, expectations and love. Each feels the pang of suffering. And yet, each is still attempting to find solutions to the suffering rather than finding space and time within to allow each portion of experience, including suffering, to have a hospitable room to dwell in while it visits you.

... I actually take these things to heart and attempt to apply them into my life. Some others might view these as "airy-fairy" or "empty platitudes" with little to no practical application in the everyday world. That is fine. Personally, I view this as central to my spiritual journey.

I will present an analogy: Humans learn through suffering. Do you want to support human sex-trafficking, or wife-beating, or Apartheid, or child-abuse, because it helps humans learn and evolve?

Acceptance and approval are two different things, in my opinion. I believe that which we place our attention on grows in our experience. Thus, a constant railing "against" all these perceived "wrongs" in society actually does support them.

Again, I am not trying to be evasive. None of these things are that which I would consciously choose. However, in my very strong opinion, the only way to bring an end to these is to transcend the dualistic mindset from which they are born. This cannot be done if we insist on carving the world up into two camps, drawing lines in the sand, and waging war against whatever we have judged to be "bad".

The world is what it is. I don't perceive the value in causing myself to suffer over the perceived suffering of others. That sounds to me like adding more suffering to the world, not taking away from it.

Suffering is not the ONLY way humans learn; it is one way. Perhaps it is a common way because humans seem to have a high resistance to change.

In my opinion, suffering is only employed after the more subtle and/or joyful methods of learning have failed. Repeatedly.

So, I must conclude, that in considering suffering is a way for animals to evolve, it is not the only way, and I do not want to be a part of the suffering way.

In my opinion- you are a part of it, whether you like it or not. In my opinion, drawing lines between "you" and "I" or "us" and "them", is actually at the root of all suffering. Thus, making those lines harder or even more well-defined cannot be the answer.

Thank you. This does seem obvious doesn't it?

Yes. It seems obvious to me. But in my opinion, whether or not others perceive it in the same way that I do falls squarely under the category of "none of my damn business". I didn't come here to "change the world", rather I came here to be myself in a world that is full of contrast and contradictions. In my opinion, "changing the world" is a very cunning distraction from the true work which is internal. However, I also acknowledge that distractions are part of the overall spiritual journey.

My hope is that here, at this site, there will be others who not only see this, but follow your example and buy meat from humane sources, so we can move forward in eliminating a market for such unnecessary abuse.

If that is your hope and desire, then I would highly recommend that you continue to direct your energy into whatever you are in support of, rather than whatever you are against.

Thanks for the discussion.

---

In my opinion, many vegans who have subscribed to the doctrine of harmlessness have submerged an archetype of aggression, and as such are constantly drawing to themselves experiences of "being attacked" by the meat-eaters. I also note that the experience of "being attacked" by meat-eaters can occur whether or not there was an intention to attack. Such is the strength of our projections.

In my further opinion, the doctrine of harmlessness, or ahimsa, is a cornerstone of a very cunning and crafty STS plot to keep people chained to the lower densities. By genetically engineering humans to have aggressive and bellicose natures, and then promulgating a "spiritual" doctrine of harmlessness, the STS controllers ensure that humanity is perpetually at odds with itself. The more that the "spiritual" people deny their own aggressiveness, the more that it becomes outwardly expressed as warlike behaviors in others.

A second cornerstone in the STS agenda is the doctrine of karman which says that the spirit can become "defiled" by food substances taken into the body. Both of these doctrines are heavily promoted in the Jainist philosophy and are often piggy-backed onto the practice of yoga and thus are Trojan-horsed into pop Western culture.

But getting back to the point- if one doesn't want to eat meat, then don't. But let's not fool ourselves into thinking that we can truly attain a state of complete "harmlessness" in relation to the outer world. Keeping oneself beholden to an unattainable ideal can only lead one to greater suffering, in my opinion. It is quite possible, and preferable, to navigate according to one's inner spiritual compass without having to constantly measure oneself up to unattainable ideals. It is entirely possible to declare I AM THIS, without having to simultaneously declare I AM NOT THAT.

If one is looking out into the world and seeing all this intolerable suffering going on in others... perhaps it is a projection of suffering which is going on within oneself. If we really and truly want to bring an end to suffering "in the world" then I would highly recommend that we start with our own selves. Then, when we have learned how to put an end to our own suffering, perhaps we will be more fully empowered to help end the suffering of others, including our animal-selves.

My suggestion- which is only a suggestion- is that our most pressing spiritual challenge at this nexus is to come to terms with the fact that all these ravenous meat-eaters, child-traffickers, racists, wife-beaters, etc. that we see in the world are actually projections of qualities which we have denied within ourselves. They are "other yous" waiting to be re-integrated into our consciousness, and when we accomplish this (and we will) then we will no longer find ourselves in an outer environment which is full of suffering and discontent, but rather one that is full of joy and contentment.

[3DMonkey]

Man. I do need to work on my skills. What Tenet just articulated was like poetry from my mind into words.

[Diana]

I am going to answer the following from my personal point of view, as it is easier than trying to word it impersonally.

In my opinion, many vegans who have subscribed to the doctrine of harmlessness have submerged this archetype of aggression, and as such are constantly drawing to themselves experiences of "being attacked" by the meat-eaters. I also note that the experience of "being attacked" by meat-eaters can occur whether or not there was an intention to attack. Such is the strength of our projections.

I'm not vegan. I am vegetarian. I did not say meat-eaters have attacked me. You say "many vegans"; are you referring to the people involved in this thread? And it goes the other way. As far as I can tell, it's the meat-eaters in this thread who have claimed repeatedly that the vegetarians are attacking them.

In my further opinion, the doctrine of harmlessness, or ahimsa, is a cornerstone of a very cunning and crafty STS plot to keep people chained to the lower densities. By genetically engineering humans to have aggressive and bellicose natures, and then promulgating a "spiritual" doctrine of harmlessness, the STS controllers ensure that humanity is perpetually at odds with itself. The more that the "spiritual" people deny their own aggressiveness, the more that it becomes outwardly expressed as warlike behaviors in others.

Embracing the shadow is a valid theory. I don't personally deny aggressiveness, nor do I see it as bad. Aggressiveness is needed in certain circumstances; birth for one thing. Moving forward and overcoming inertia for another.

I do not see this as the same as embracing the needless suffering of animals, or humans for that matter.

We may all be ONE, and humans may all have a collective consciousness, but is that a reason to just let all barbarism be? Do we not want to evolve? Is not awareness part of evolution? Is it not appropriate in this discussion thread to bring awareness of needless suffering?

But getting back to the point- if one doesn't want to eat meat, then don't. But let's not fool ourselves into thinking that we can truly attain a state of complete "harmlessness" in relation to the outer world. Keeping oneself beholden to an unattainable ideal can only lead one to greater suffering, in my opinion. It is quite possible, and preferable, to navigate according to one's inner spiritual compass without having to constantly measure oneself up to unattainable ideals. It is entirely possible to declare I AM THIS, without having to simultaneously declare I AM NOT THAT.

This reminds me of people who say (and as a naturopath you might have heard this), the air is polluted, the water is polluted, so why bother trying to eat right or quit smoking?

I am not trying to be perfect. I am working toward a higher consciousness, which would involve not causing harm. I have no idea if I can attain it. But I will not consciously cause needless harm where I know of it.

If one is looking out into the world and seeing all this intolerable suffering going on in others... perhaps it is a projection of suffering which is going on within oneself. If we really and truly want to bring an end to suffering "in the world" then I would highly recommend that we start with our own selves. Then, when we have learned how to put an end to our own suffering, perhaps we will be more fully empowered to help end the suffering of others, including our animal-selves.

I have several times on this forum suggested the same. But does that preclude any responsibilities for our choices until we become completely healed?

My suggestion- which is only a suggestion- is that our most pressing spiritual challenge at this nexus is to come to terms with the fact that all these ravenous meat-eaters, child-traffickers, racists, wife-beaters, etc. that we see in the world are actually projections of qualities which we have denied within ourselves. They are "other yous" waiting to be re-integrated into our consciousness, and when we accomplish this (and we will) then we will no longer find ourselves in an outer environment which is full of suffering and discontent, but rather one that is full of joy and contentment.

I understand shadow work, but I don't think it's as simple as you spell out. The basic premise may be sound, but then what are we doing here?

Why are wanderers here? Why did Ra give us information? Why didn't Ra just leave us be?

I am not trying to change anybody, and I do not look at the world and see suffering all of the time. I am trying to add my awareness to this venue of discussions.

[Tenet Nosce]

I am going to answer the following from my personal point of view, as it is easier than trying to word it impersonally.

I put that line in the post in order to differentiate between the first part, which was a direct response to you, and the second part, which is more along the lines of general thoughts and observations. I'm not quite clear if you were aware of that or not.

You say "many vegans"; are you referring to the people involved in this thread?

I am referring to vegans as a group, in the totality of my experience of them. Not limited to this thread. Also, I recognize that there are many vegans whose choice has little or nothing to do with those particular philosophical principles. But as a whole, yes I believe they go hand in hand.

We may all be ONE, and humans may all have a collective consciousness, but is that a reason to just let all barbarism be?

Clearly 5000+ years of trying to defeat barbarism hasn't worked. Perhaps the answer is found in being, rather than doing.

Do we not want to evolve? Is not awareness part of evolution? Is it not appropriate in this discussion thread to bring awareness of needless suffering?

Is it not appropriate to bring awareness that needlessly suffering over the needless suffering of others is counterproductive to evolving?

This reminds me of people who say (and as a naturopath you might have heard this), the air is polluted, the water is polluted, so why bother trying to eat right or quit smoking?

If that is one's view, who am I to try to convince them otherwise? As a naturopath, is it my duty to proselytize to the world about healthy eating and the dangers of smoking?

I am not trying to be perfect. I am working toward a higher consciousness, which would involve not causing harm. I have no idea if I can attain it. But I will not consciously cause needless harm where I know of it.

I'm not trying to talk you out of whatever you are doing.

I have several times on this forum suggested the same. But does that preclude any responsibilities for our choices until we become completely healed?

It doesn't preclude it... but it does augment it.

but then what are we doing here?

Shadow work.

Why are wanderers here? Why did Ra give us information? Why didn't Ra just leave us be?

Ra gave information because they were asked. Of the information they provided, as regard diet, they said:

We do not suggest any hard and fast rulings of diet although we may suggest the virtue of the liquids.

I am not trying to change anybody, and I do not look at the world and see suffering all of the time. I am trying to add my awareness to this venue of discussions.

Great! As I said, the second part of the post was not directed at you personally. Thanks for your contributions- I find them to be valuable.

[drifting pages]

In my world, higher consciousness does not happen through action or words(they are results) but trough intention and belief, that all is indeed well and that i am an ETERNAL being having a human experience and that free will IS and so Is suffering and that everything at every moment is perfect, even when i feel not so perfect .

Other then what i said, feels pointless and obtrusive to say, everything ticks and tocks and the world is reborn anew and it is nobodies business surprisingly.

I am my own island ready to sink in the sea.

Someone might see said island sinking and comment on how beautifully or how horribly it does so.
But sinking it does and to the seas it returns.

I wish you all the best and the worse, according to your own image and reflection. Dance and dance on the seas of creation.

I will not take from you, your own reflections, your minds and your worlds.

[Shemaya]

Great discussion!

My favorite part:
Q : "What are we doing here?"

A: " shadow work" :idea:

---

TN, why do you say that the doctrine of ahimsa and karman are cunning programs inserted into consciousness by the controllers? Hopefully I am interpreting what you said correctly, this may be a subtopic but it does seem relevant to this extensive discussion.

---

I have noticed that the controllers have slyly created problems, such as global warming, and then make it the responsibility of the masses to correct the problems through austerity measures, cap and trade , taxes and other schemes. They can then have us point fingers at each other, so that we spend our efforts blaming others for not doing their part to take responsibility, thereby avoiding the true internal work that will ultimately transform our society. By focusing our attention onto created problems rather than the root causes, we divert our energy from its most efficient use.

[Tenet Nosce]

TN, why do you say that the doctrine of ahimsa and karman are cunning programs inserted into consciousness by the controllers? Hopefully I am interpreting what you said correctly, this may be a subtopic but it does seem relevant to this extensive discussion.

Thanks for your question! The answer is: part research, part intuition, and part memory. So this would classify as mostly speculation.

As for the research portion, it is based on the timeline given in the Ra material for negative manipulation of humanity. One of the things which I saw in my research the promulgation of dietary law during these time periods. When I traced the philosophical underpinnings of dietary law back through the last 5000 years of recorded history, I found they were rooted in the concepts of ahimsa and karman as developed in the Vedic cultures.

There is a fairly abrupt and severe drop off in historical records before this time. Curiously enough, the time frame given by Ra for when they physically walked upon the earth and helped to build the pyramids ends right before where the historical record picks up. I speculate this is because the record was deliberately scrubbed.

Beyond this point in time I have even less evidence to go on. So this is about 99% intuition and memory... but it appears that in the time of Ra there was some time of special food substance that was being produced or manufactured. Knowledge of this has come down to us in stories of the mythical foods like soma, ambrosia, nectar of the gods, or the forbidden fruit.

In the smallest of nutshells, I suspect that ahimsa and karman were manipulated in order to control who had access to the "forbidden fruit" after the departure of our 6D friends.

I mean- who doesn't want to be harmless? Do any of us want to cause harm to others? As for me, I took an oath to First Do No Harm. But I take that oath seriously enough to consider what that really means. Is it even possible to do no harm? Or are we each to do what we feel is the minimum harm, based upon what we each individually determine based upon our awareness and experience?

Is there really some absolute standard by which we could measure harmlessness? If there were... would we really want to know what that was? If a "magical" food were available tomorrow, how would we decide who gets it, and who doesn't? Based on who is the most "harmless" or the most "pure"? These are the sorts of questions which come to my mind when I think of this.

[Monica]

UAs you sit here, each seeker has the sorrows of unfulfilled hopes, expectations and love. Each feels the pang of suffering. And yet, each is still attempting to find solutions to the suffering rather than finding space and time within to allow each portion of experience, including suffering, to have a hospitable room to dwell in while it visits you.

... I actually take these things to heart and attempt to apply them into my life.

Q'uo is referring to our own personal suffering, which is catalyst. Not to the suffering of others, that we are contributing to and thus have the power to reduce or alleviate by choosing compassion.

[drifting pages]

Instead of doing least harm what about doing most relief ?
Most care, most good, most appreciation, most love, most connecting, most understanding, most supporting...
I find it a most positive direction.

Also i don't like meritocracies anyway. Existence is a given and so is love, unconditional.

At least this is the spin i give.

[Tenet Nosce]

UAs you sit here, each seeker has the sorrows of unfulfilled hopes, expectations and love. Each feels the pang of suffering. And yet, each is still attempting to find solutions to the suffering rather than finding space and time within to allow each portion of experience, including suffering, to have a hospitable room to dwell in while it visits you.

... I actually take these things to heart and attempt to apply them into my life.

Q'uo is referring to our own personal suffering, which is catalyst. Not to the suffering of others, that we are contributing to and thus have the power to reduce or alleviate by choosing compassion.

I am speaking of our personal suffering about contributing to the suffering of others. Beyond that- yes compassion is a good and virtuous quality from which to make choices. However beyond compassion are also other qualities such as faith, love, and wisdom or joy. Honesty, forgiveness, mercy, patience, gratitude. There is a whole smorgasbord to choose from!

But even just considering compassion alone, everybody has their own idea about what that means, and even then their idea tends to change over time.

[Monica]

the only way to bring an end to these is to transcend the dualistic mindset from which they are born.

Choice precedes transcendence. Neglecting to choose, with faced with compassion vs non-compassion, isn't transcendence.

Having an "anything goes" attitude isn't transcendence.

I don't perceive the value in causing myself to suffer over the perceived suffering of others.

Who said anything about promoting personal suffering? Having compassion, and making the choice to no longer contribute to the suffering of others, doesn't require personal suffering.

In my opinion- you are a part of it, whether you like it or not. In my opinion, drawing lines between "you" and "I" or "us" and "them", is actually at the root of all suffering. Thus, making those lines harder or even more well-defined cannot be the answer.

The Law of Once includes Choice. We are in the density of choice.

I see a prevalent attitude here in this community, to attempt to apply Oneness, while leaving out Choice.

"changing the world" is a very cunning distraction from the true work which is internal.

They are the same.

By focusing on self only, while neglecting the outer-self, is separating self from the whole.

However, I also acknowledge that distractions are part of the overall spiritual journey.

Compassion is one of the keys to polarizing STO. How could that possible be a distraction?

In my further opinion, the doctrine of harmlessness, or ahimsa, is a cornerstone of a very cunning and crafty STS plot to keep people chained to the lower densities.

???

A second cornerstone in the STS agenda is the doctrine of karman which says that the spirit can become "defiled" by food substances taken into the body. Both of these doctrines are heavily promoted in the Jainist philosophy and are often piggy-backed onto the practice of yoga and thus are Trojan-horsed into pop Western culture.

So, if I'm understanding you correctly, you don't consider the support of brutally and killing torturing sentient creatures STS, but you consider the avoidance of eating said creatures out of a belief that it is defiling, to be STS?

If we really and truly want to bring an end to suffering "in the world" then I would highly recommend that we start with our own selves.

Taken to its extreme, ie. caring about our own comfort and not having compassion for others, that would be STS polarizing.

Then, when we have learned how to put an end to our own suffering, perhaps we will be more fully empowered to help end the suffering of others, including our animal-selves.

I think that's backwards. Ask anyone who has forgotten all about their own suffering by immersing themselves in helping others.

---

You say "many vegans"; are you referring to the people involved in this thread?

Do we even have any vegans in this thread? You, Pablisimo and I are all vegetarians. I'm an 'almost' vegan' but don't quite qualify. Maybe Pickle? Any others?

---

Ra gave information because they were asked. Of the information they provided, as regard diet, they said:

We do not suggest any hard and fast rulings of diet although we may suggest the virtue of the liquids.

They also listed plant foods, and "animal products to the extent necessary for the individual metabolism."

[abstrktion]

I just think it is the better thing to do to allow a being to keep the vehicle of its incarnation as long as possible so that it too may evolve, especially because today we have so many other choices in terms of food.

[Monica]

I am speaking of our personal suffering about contributing to the suffering of others.

I'd rather feel a pang of pain at seeing other-self body parts at the grocery store, than harden so much that I feel nothing.

Beyond that- yes compassion is a good and virtuous quality from which to make choices. However beyond compassion are also other qualities such as faith, love, and wisdom or joy. Honesty, forgiveness, mercy, patience, gratitude. There is a whole smorgasbord to choose from!

But even just considering compassion alone, everybody has their own idea about what that means, and even then their idea tends to change over time.

Goodness gracious, no one has suggested that we choose compassion at the exclusion of those others!

[Tenet Nosce]

Choice precedes transcendence. Neglecting to choose, with faced with compassion vs non-compassion, isn't transcendence.

We are always choosing. Only there is more than a single linear axis of compassion/non-compassion to choose from.

Having an "anything goes" attitude isn't transcendence.

I agree.

Who said anything about promoting personal suffering?

Promoting it? Nobody, I believe.

Having compassion, and making the choice to no longer contribute to the suffering of others, doesn't require personal suffering.

Suffering occurs. We are all a part of it. We each come to curtail our contributions in our own way, and in our own time.

The Law of Once includes Choice. We are in the density of choice.

I believe each of us is choosing all the time. So yes, I would agree.

I see a prevalent attitude here in this community, to attempt to apply Oneness, while leaving out Choice.

I don't believe I can accurately assess that statement one way or another.

They are the same.

Do you not believe that all possible timelines exist? We do not change the outer world, we only change our perception. Those "others" "out there" are the primary creators in their own personal dramas. Their creator-ship outweighs our own.

By focusing on self only, while neglecting the outer-self, is separating self from the whole.

And it would also make one quite smelly!

Compassion is one of the keys to polarizing STO. How could that possible be a distraction?

It is a distraction when what is considered compassionate is teaching others what compassion is without simultaneously learning what it is from them. It is a bi-directional exchange. If it is teach/learning than it wouldn't be a distraction.

???

It's a further opinion. I'm not that attached to it being true... not planning to write a book about it or anything.

So, if I'm understanding you correctly, you don't consider the support of brutally and killing torturing sentient creatures STS, but you consider the avoidance of eating said creatures out of a belief that it is defiling, to be STS?

You are not understanding me correctly.

Taken to its extreme, ie. caring about our own comfort and not having compassion for others, that would be STS polarizing.

Yes, I agree.

I think that's backwards.

OK.

Ask anyone who has forgotten all about their own suffering by immersing themselves in helping others.

What is it like? Tell us a story!

Do we even have any vegans in this thread?

I didn't realize that fact made it irrelevant to speak of veganism.

---

I'd rather feel a pang of pain at seeing other-self body parts at the grocery store, than harden so much that I feel nothing.

OK.

Goodness gracious, no one has suggested that we choose compassion at the exclusion of those others!

Neither have I suggested they are mutually exclusive!

[Monica]

We are always choosing. Only there is more than a single linear axis of compassion/non-compassion to choose from.

I don't think that applies in this case. It's very simple: Either we feel compassion for animals or we don't.

My observation from this thread is that very few meat-eaters have expressed compassion for the animals. The arguments have been mostly about self; whether eating animals would affect polarity, whether thinking positive thoughts would make the meat less harmful, etc. Very little about the animals, and even a resistance to thinking about the animals.

Having compassion, and making the choice to no longer contribute to the suffering of others, doesn't require personal suffering.

Suffering occurs. We are all a part of it. We each come to curtail our contributions in our own way, and in our own time.

Not necessarily. Some just don't get it. And others decide to curtail their contributions, because others have helped them raise their awareness.

I believe each of us is choosing all the time. So yes, I would agree.

I see a prevalent attitude here in this community, to attempt to apply Oneness, while leaving out Choice.

I don't believe I can accurately assess that statement one way or another.

You were talking about transcendence. My point is that denial isn't transcendence. Nor is it acceptance.

They are the same.

Do you not believe that all possible timelines exist? We do not change the outer world, we only change our perception.

You are still separating them.

It is a distraction when what is considered compassionate is teaching others what compassion is without simultaneously learning what it is from them.

If they don't have compassion in that particular instance, then they can't teach it to us. They will teach us something else, but not compassion.

It is a bi-directional exchange. If it is teach/learning than it wouldn't be a distraction.

You seem to be saying that if, for example, you learn compassion from me, then I must also learn compassion from you.

I strongly disagree. That's like saying that if you teach me Spanish, I must also teach you Spanish.

My understanding of teach/learn is that you might teach me Spanich, while I teach you German.

Ra didn't learn the same things from us that they taught us.

Person A might learn compassion from Person B, while Person B might learn, say, patience from Person A.

So, if I'm understanding you correctly, you don't consider the support of brutally and killing torturing sentient creatures STS, but you consider the avoidance of eating said creatures out of a belief that it is defiling, to be STS?

You are not understanding me correctly.

Please correct me then. Have you not stated that someone choosing to eat meat isn't STS? Then you said that the concept of ahimsa was STS. Hence, my summary above.

Taken to its extreme, ie. caring about our own comfort and not having compassion for others, that would be STS polarizing.

Yes, I agree.

Then would you also agree that focusing only on self, to the point that we don't do anything to help others, is STS?

That is what you seemed to be advocating.

Again, feel free to correct me if I'm misunderstanding you.

Ask anyone who has forgotten all about their own suffering by immersing themselves in helping others.

What is it like? Tell us a story!

Do I really need to provide examples? Hasn't everyone here experienced this multiple times?

[Shemaya]

Instead of doing least harm what about doing most relief ?
Most care, most good, most appreciation, most love, most connecting, most understanding, most supporting...
I find it a most positive direction.

Also i don't like meritocracies anyway. Existence is a given and so is love, unconditional.

At least this is the spin i give.

Makes total and complete sense from an STO point of view...it's a radiation of positive intentions, focus and actions that increase polarity. So focusing one's energy in each moment with the intention to create more love, more connecting, more support, more understanding will in turn add to one's polarity.

While on the other, hand guarding my own (and others) actions and choices to be sure that no harm is done turns my focus in the opposite direction. And thus there is a contraction of energy, as opposed to radiation.

So for someone who feels compassion for the suffering of the pig who became a ham dinner, that same person can be polarizing positively when serving said ham to extended family because it is creating more connection, and more love.

[BrownEye]

all these ravenous meat-eaters, child-traffickers, racists, wife-beaters, etc. that we see in the world are actually projections of qualities which we have denied within ourselves. They are "other yous" waiting to be re-integrated into our consciousness,

We must eat them!

[3DMonkey]

You seem to be saying that if, for example, you learn compassion from me, then I must also learn compassion from you.

I strongly disagree. That's like saying that if you teach me Spanish, I must also teach you Spanish.

My understanding of teach/learn is that you might teach me Spanich, while I teach you German.

Ra didn't learn the same things from us that they taught us.

Person A might learn compassion from Person B, while Person B might learn, say, patience from Person A.

This jumps out at me to reveal a major imbalance in communicating mutual understanding.

My understanding of teach/learn is completely different.

Teach/learn, to me and using your language example, is like if I teach someone Spanish, by teaching them I am learning a greater scope of the Spanish language itself by placing myself in a seat of co-creation with the student. Likewise, as the student learn/teaches they are learning Spanish at the same time they teach a broader perspective to the teacher by revealing a new perspective that the teacher had not experienced prior to teach/learning.

----
"to learn is the same as to teach unless you are not teaching what you are learning; in which case you have done you/they little or no good. This understanding should be pondered by your mind/body/spirit complex as it is a distortion which plays a part in your experiences"
----


I read this passage as, ' to learn Spanish is the same as to teach Spanish unless you are not speaking Spanish that you have learned; in which case nothing has come of the interaction'.

And we could plug anything into the example. For instance, 'to learn compassion is the same as to teach compassion unless you are not actively being compassionate as you have considered yourself to be learned in; in which case you have done you/they little or no good'.

[Ankh]

The arguments have been mostly about self;

the material for your understanding is the self: the mind/body/spirit complex.

[3DMonkey]

And as this pertains to my feelings haphazardly displayed in this thread-

I see it unfruitful to claim compassion for animals at the same time non compassion is displayed for the persons that slaughter animals as their choice. Or justified non compassion for plant life as plants are "justified" as "less than animals".

My emotions were based on this premise. What I see as the teaching of a movement away from animal killing is not a teaching of compassion but a teaching of justifications. This is because I am witnessing not the active practice of compassion but rather the active practice of justifying through perceived reasoning.

[Ankh]

Upon this highway you are neither old nor young, male or female, wealthy or impoverished. You are one who journeys as the prodigal son and daughter, having been flung far from your source of being. Now you move through illusion upon illusion in the twilight dream within a dream which is incarnational experience. As you sit here, each seeker has the sorrows of unfulfilled hopes, expectations and love. Each feels the pang of suffering. And yet, each is still attempting to find solutions to the suffering rather than finding space and time within to allow each portion of experience, including suffering, to have a hospitable room to dwell in while it visits you.

... I actually take these things to heart and attempt to apply them into my life. Some others might view these as "airy-fairy" or "empty platitudes" with little to no practical application in the everyday world. That is fine. Personally, I view this as central to my spiritual journey.

Tenet Nosce, your whole post was awesome. I needed to hear those things again, but especially the above. Thank you.

---

And as this pertains to my feelings haphazardly displayed in this thread-

I see it unfruitful to claim compassion for animals at the same time non compassion is displayed for the persons that slaughter animals as their choice. Or justified non compassion for plant life as plants are "justified" as "less than animals".

My emotions were based on this premise. What I see as the teaching of a movement away from animal killing is not a teaching of compassion but a teaching of justifications. This is because I am witnessing not the active practice of compassion but rather the active practice of justifying through perceived reasoning.

This is very interesting what you've said. The below quote has been of a fascination to me:

34.9 Questioner: Thank you. Can you give me the same type of information about the self in relation to the societal self?

Ra: I am Ra. The unmanifested self may find its lessons those which develop any of the energy influx centers of the mind/body/spirit complex. The societal and self interactions most often concentrate upon the second and third energy centers. Thus those most active in attempting to remake or alter the society are those working from feelings of being correct personally or of having answers which will put power in a more correct configuration. This may be seen to be of a full travel from negative to positive in orientation. Either will activate these energy ray centers.

There are some few whose desires to aid society are of a green ray nature or above. These entities, however, are few due to the understanding, may we say, of fourth ray that universal love freely given is more to be desired than principalities or even the rearrangement of peoples or political structures.

[3DMonkey]

Ankh,

If "the material of understanding is the self", and we apply that to the above quote, we get closer to the idea that it is an internal journey.

When I hold a sick child in my arms, that is compassion. When I use the toilet instead of pooping in my living room, I am taking responsibility for creating a clean environment for the members of the household- this is an act of responsibility, and NOT compassion.

As the quote indicates, we can choose our current internal vibrations to focus on Power structures (probably why this thread about meat industry power structure is reflecting a power struggle on bring4th), and this is a valid yellow ray vibration. As the quote indicates, it's even possible to think we are moving from negative to positive when we do this. But, as the quote continues, the truth is that we are capable of moving our internal perspective beyond the yellow ray and into the green ray where we loose the internal concentrations of constructing "proper" power alignments and decide to open the gate to Love freely and universally. (Pablisimo, I think has displayed the most examples of this, although I think we are still reflecting the yellow ray power alignments)

[Oldern]

Also, one might also note that you do not get to actually CHANGE anyone.*You do not change meat eaters to vegetarians by confronting them. If you love them unconditionally, however, you align yourself gradually with a reality where the meat eating is less and less present - and that is how the physics of this goes. If you want to change anyone, you will not be able to, no matter how hard you try. The only change you can make is the change within.

*Unless, of course, if one contractually wants you to help with him to give catalyst until they change. But it is still his/her decision!

[Monica]

the material for your understanding is the self: the mind/body/spirit complex.

I could easily counter with countless quotes about service to others. Serving others requires reaching out beyond just self.

In fact, it's so important to serve others, that it's even the criteria for graduation!

---

This jumps out at me to reveal a major imbalance in communicating mutual understanding.

Really now.

Teach/learn, to me and using your language example, is like if I teach someone Spanish, by teaching them I am learning a greater scope of the Spanish language itself by placing myself in a seat of co-creation with the student. Likewise, as the student learn/teaches they are learning Spanish at the same time they teach a broader perspective to the teacher by revealing a new perspective that the teacher had not experienced prior to teach/learning.

Yes, but the greater understanding about the scope of Spanish comes from the act of teaching, because the Spanish speaker must delve more deeply into their own knowledge in order to teach it to another person.

It doesn't come from the student of Spanish. Therefore, the student of Spanish cannot teach Spanish.

Therefore, they are learning/teaching different things to the other.

And we could plug anything into the example. For instance, 'to learn compassion is the same as to teach compassion unless you are not actively being compassionate as you have considered yourself to be learned in; in which case you have done you/they little or no good'.

Your implication is quite clear.

---

I see it unfruitful to claim compassion for animals at the same time non compassion is displayed for the persons that slaughter animals as their choice. Or justified non compassion for plant life as plants are "justified" as "less than animals".

groan

What I see as the teaching of a movement away from animal killing is not a teaching of compassion but a teaching of justifications. This is because I am witnessing not the active practice of compassion but rather the active practice of justifying through perceived reasoning.

LOL!!! This entire thread has been full of justifications from the meat-eaters about why it's "ok" for them to eat animals.

Justification is something that's done by someone who is defensive.

If someone feels totally good about their choice, there's no reason to be defensive.

To say that the vegetarians are the ones being defensive? LOL!

---

And yet, each is still attempting to find solutions to the suffering rather than finding space and time within to allow each portion of experience, including suffering, to have a hospitable room to dwell in while it visits you.

I needed to hear those things again, but especially the above.

An assumption seems to be made that vegetarians are trying to end suffering instead of going within. That may be true in some cases, but not in the case of the vegetarians participating in this thread. We work outwardly in addition to working inwardly. Both are important.

Secondly, my opinion is that this Q'uote has been misapplied. Context must be taken into consideration, to understand what Q'uo meant. Q'uo was speaking of one's own suffering, not serving others who are suffering.

STO = Service to Others. It's a minor little concept sprinkled liberally throughout the Law of One.

---

If you love them unconditionally, however, you align yourself gradually with a reality where the meat eating is less and less present

Absolutely! I agree totally.

Loving unconditionally does not, however, preclude being honest regarding our convictions. Especially in a discussion about this very topic.

I do find it ironic that it is the meat-eaters who are having trouble "loving unconditionally" the vegetarians. So much so that the conversation keeps shifting to a critique of the vegetarians, instead of the actual topic.

[Tenet Nosce]

It's very simple: Either we feel compassion for animals or we don't.

If a person feels compassion for cows, but not for sardines, on which side of your simple either/or equation would they fit?

My observation from this thread is that very few meat-eaters have expressed compassion for the animals. The arguments have been mostly about self; whether eating animals would affect polarity, whether thinking positive thoughts would make the meat less harmful, etc. Very little about the animals, and even a resistance to thinking about the animals.

OK.

Please correct me then.

I would rather not.

Do I really need to provide examples?

No, you don't need to.

Hasn't everyone here experienced this multiple times?

I don't know who "everyone here" is, or the contents of their experience.

[Monica]

If a person feels compassion for cows, but not for sardines, on which side of your simple either/or equation would they fit?

I prefer not to measure each person's compassion in a game of "who's the purest of us all."

The 'simple equation' isn't based on any sort of measurement of our compassion.

Rather, it's based on whether we are applying whatever amount of compassion we are capable of, which entails first making the choice to actually feel compassion, and then doing the best we can, to contribute to animals suffering only to the extent necessary for individual metabolism.

Either we're doing the best we can, or we aren't. Each of us may have a different 'best' and that's ok. What matters is that we each do our best.

[Oldern]

"Either we're doing the best we can, or we aren't. Each of us may have a different 'best' and that's ok. What matters is that we each do our best. "

And if we are not doing our best, we are doing it for a reason. And that is okay too.

"I do find it ironic that it is the meat-eaters who are having trouble "loving unconditionally" the vegetarians. So much so that the conversation keeps shifting to a critique of the vegetarians, instead of the actual topic."

I am sorry, I do not really see it happening. It might happen around page 40-56, or at page 69, but the last 10+ pages have NOT been going on about meat eaters criticising vegetarians.

[Monica]

And if we are not doing our best, we are doing it for a reason. And that is okay too.

That's for each of us to decide for ourselves.

I am sorry, I do not really see it happening. It might happen around page 40-56, or at page 69, but the last 10+ pages have NOT been going on about meat eaters criticising vegetarians.

There have been several comments made in recent posts which, in my perception, strongly implied, or even explicitly stated, that the vegetarians lack compassion, are trying to teach compassion while not being compassionate themselves, and aren't loving meat-eaters unconditionally.

[Tenet Nosce]

I prefer not to measure each person's compassion in a game of "who's the purest of us all."

Great!

The 'simple equation' isn't based on any sort of measurement of our compassion.

Either/or statements don't allow for shades of gray. Many people feel compassion for their own pets, but not for other animals. Some people feel compassion for cows, but not sardines. A few people feel compassion for both cows and sardines. Hardly anybody (that I know of) feels compassion for cockroaches.

it's based on whether we are applying whatever amount of compassion we are capable of

I believe we are capable of infinite compassion.

which entails first making the choice to actually feel compassion

As near as I can tell, feeling compassion comes quite naturally to most humans.

and then doing the best we can

I find no sooner do I attain a personal best, then a new one appears on the horizon. Thus, I am perpetually falling short of what I perceive to be best. Thus, rather than striving for an unattainable ideal of "best", I strive for "improving".

to contribute to animals suffering only to the extent necessary for individual metabolism.

Yes, I agree with this, and is why as a general rule I no longer purchase factory-farmed meat, and minimize my consumption of meat. Red meat in particular. I haven't yet found myself desiring to cut back on the sardines. But perhaps one day I will!

Either we're doing the best we can, or we aren't.

Yikes! Another one of those either/or statements. I will stick with "improving".