Did Entities Eat Meat Before The Veil ?

[Minyatur]

You keep calling it direct but I have already stated I do not think it is in another thread.

Look, there is a difference between the words direct and indirect. I'm Not making this up! It's simple definitions of words.

If a woman dumps her boyfriend and he flies into a rage and goes postal, she indirectly affected his emotional state, but she did Not directly cause him to go shoot people! No court of law would ever find her guilty of murder because she didn't directly kill anyone. Her involvement was only indirect, and even then, the final choice was up to the boyfriend. The boyfriend will be found guilty of murder in a court of law, Not his ex-girlfriend just for dumping him! That is an example of indirect.

Here is an example of direct:

A man pays an assassin to kill his ex-wife. If caught, both the assassin (the man who actually pulled the trigger) AND the man who paid him will be found guilty. BOTH of them. Why? Because they both directly caused the murder of the wife.

In industry, it's a simple matter of supply and demand. Each time we buy meat/dairy from the grocery store, we are directly supporting an industry that directly causes the rape, torture and killing of sentient beings. Whether we physically slit the cow's throat or not makes No difference; we are supporting the cow's rape/torture/slaughter just the same. It is direct, because we are directly supporting the industry. The industry continues to expand and rape/torture/slaughter more animals in direct response to demand; ie. how many people are buying the product. The only way to Not directly participate is to quit buying the product!

I do not think you are the judge of what is necessary or unecessary

I'm not. Medical researchers already decided that, Not me.

nor do we agree on what love is nor what the purpose and meaning of suffering is. 

Actually, we do agree on what the purpose and meaning of suffering is. I have never disagreed with you on that point. (Not sure about the love part though.)

The point I disagreed on was whether we should knowingly and directly contribute to said suffering. That is where we disagree. I contend that knowingly causing suffering is the task of the STS-oriented entity. Am I understanding you correctly that you think it's ok for STO-oriented entities to knowingly and directly cause suffering to sentient other-selves just to satisfy their own desires?

I already said I acknowledge and accept the current system, as such I have no strong desires to avoid being in contact with it nor desires to change it otherwise.

If you eat meat and/or dairy, then you are already in contact with it and supporting its continued existence.

...

I do not have strong desires for meat nor do I think it is necessary for my body. When I spoke of necessary/unecessary it is by speaking of experience.

I consider my means indirect whether they give small contributions to the industry or not, if this earth was different I would not make any effort to eat meat as I have no strong desire toward it. I see no value in myself being vegan as of now and do not think it'd create anything positive. I do not think it'd save the life of any animals either although with a small possibly. In my ways I have no feeling of infringing upon free will, so I'd hardly consider my ways as polarizing negatively.

Anything can be done by a STO-oriented entity as long as it perceives it in love. Polarity exists in intent and not action and evolution of awareness brings us to reunite both polarities into one. Ra calls it STO, but to move beyond it requires a STO that integrates into itself negative wisdom and that is able to see the beauty in it.

I do not believe the earth to be STS when an earthquake arrives or anything similar, I believe the earth provides what is needed whatever the color it comes in. So to answer your question, I do believe destruction can be offered in love, and I do believe it is one lesson that is to be learned by all.