Confederation and meat consumption

[Jade]

Thanks for bringing that Q'uo quote up. I don't know how you interpret that. I saw it as a suggestion to not take the stridency so personally, to see it as natural and healthy. Q'uo was informing us that we need to expect that the process of healing will be uncomfortable and involve momentary disruptions.  If we can expect these disruptions and disturbances, we can be more prepared to mindfully address them and not simply fall back into old patterns.

I did not interpret Q'uo to be prescribing any strategy of stridency and anger. Maybe you saw something in there that I'm neglecting?

It's a tough thing to discuss. On the one hand, think of those times when your mind was changed. Was it changed because you feared the other party? Because they shamed you? Because they defeated you? Or because, even if they did all those things, they brought out something true within yourself that you had ignored or hadn't noticed? Was it really they who changed your mind from the outside, or was it you who changed your mind based on what they showed you within yourself?

On the other hand, these energies are going to find expression, and at this point they are so ridiculously frustrated that there really isn't any very peaceful and sanguine outlet for them. It is absolutely correct that the fear and recoiling that those encountering these expressions experience is very much about their own issues. In dealing with these issues it may prompt that course correction of the cruise ship which takes so much time and effort, and therefore while it's not immediately satisfying, it still has to start at some time and place.

So to me Q'uo was simply sketching out the situation, and giving us the tools so that we can help without being cowed by the intensity of it all. Hopefully we can use those tools to make an argument into a conversation, an insult volley into a true sharing of self, a stodgy stubbornness into an opportunity for insight.

I don't think you're being shrill. My only recommendation would be to sympathize with the meat eaters more, because you'll be more effective in finding common ground that way, and we can't change the consensus until we find that common ground.

Maybe it takes the whole context of the Q'uo channeling. Maybe a bit more of the quote will give it more of the context that I have taken from it:

The path of evolution is a path of integration. Integration involves portions of selfhood that have grown, that have developed over the course of a pattern taking place in many lifetimes, in such a way that not all portions of the being grow and evolve at the same rate and in the same way. And that creates a situation in which it is possible for portions of the self to be cut off from the larger whole, and to be forced to exist a kind of satellite existence on the periphery, causing perturbations, if you will, in the main body of the developing complex. In order to reabsorb these elements, one must, first of all, discover that they have in fact been denied admittance into the center. And one must find, first of all, a way to grasp how it has come about that they have been thrust out from that center. And then secondly, they must be loved as that which has been thrust out, and as that which properly belongs in the center.

And so, if we would discover that a significant portion of the female principle has been thrust out from the center of the pattern of spiritual evolution taking place upon a cultural level, there is remedial work of a fairly significant nature that must be done. And so we would agree that in order to take up a relation to this displaced female energy, that it must be brought back into a place of honor, and that is work which will require a good deal of self-reflection, not only on the part of those males which have been party to its repression, but also upon the part of the females that have learned to live within the framework of that repression.

It is a natural expression of this attempt to heal upon a cultural level that those presently embodied in female form might reach out in anger and attempt to claim their rightful place in the center in a way that can seem strident. Sometimes a certain amount of stridency is necessary in order to capture the attention of one who is, shall we say, asleep to a problem, who is not aware of the nature of the problem, of the scope of the problem, of the reach of that problem.

And so, there will be friction that one might legitimately anticipate as the female principle—in the persons of incarnate female individuals—wishes to announce that it cannot continue to be pushed to the margins, and that a balanced configuration of the social complex requires a greater integration of its female portion.

I bolded the part that resonates with me the most in this context, and I'm not sure how I could reword it to be more clear on its meaning to me. The session is about integrating the male and female principles, recognizing that the female principle has been pushed to the wayside in favor of the male principle. I personally see a connection between our exploitation of animals and the refusal to bring it to the light to be congruent with these energies that Q'uo is speaking about.

I guess I will state it clearly and unequivocally: I have compassion for meat eaters. I am sorry I have not been good at showing it. I understand how difficult it is to even consider changing one's diet a little bit, due to society's pressures and habits. I was a meat eater for a long time, and am only operating on my previous experiences and transformation. I went vegan before I even knew of the Law of One so it's hard for me to integrate awareness about this issue with the desires of the service to others path.

I promise you this is the result of my sympathy. If I had no sympathy for people who ate meat, I would have thrown my hands into the air and walked away from attempting to integrate with ominvores' thinking a long time ago. It is a path wrought with rejection. Upsetting people and talking about things that are violent does not bring me personal pleasure. I see a lack of awareness and feel a calling to add light to the darkness, per the subject of a thread started by someone else. If I didn't care or feel compassion, I would ignore this calling.

I know plenty of spiritual people who eat meat that I respect fully, and even see as beyond me in many respects, and I never think things like, "if only this person was vegan, I would respect them more!" I also know MANY vegans who have no idea what it means to live in the open heart. I do not see this issue as so black and white that I feel negative judgement towards those who eat animal products, or perceive a lack of spirituality. I think maybe what is perceived is that my compassion for animals is so overwhelming, that it's easy to perceive it as having more weight than my compassion for humans. This is only true when I compare the relative ease of existence that is experienced by humans who buy their food in a grocery store compared to the factory farmed animals who fill those stores. When zoomed out, I recognize there are intricate subtleties to the human existence and the functioning of our mind complex that none of us will ever understand.

I don't think any magical arrangement of words is going to change anyone. What I've heard from feedback from others is that "maybe if you would be more compassionate..." then what? More people would stop eating meat? Is it really that easy? I don't think so, and I think that is an unfair carrot to dangle, when I am definitely doing my absolute best to imbue my words with compassion. I think people see a lack of a meeting in the middle from me, because when people concede that they eat "humane" meat, I am well aware that most labels as such, especially in the US, mean absolutely nothing, so in my estimation, people who believe they are paying more for animals who have been treated well because it is labeled "humane" or "free range", should want to know if those labels are lies, right? I definitely want to know when I am spending my money on a lie. What I would wholeheartedly support without rebuttal is someone saying, "I have cut back on eating meat/dairy", because this is what is required, of just about all omnivores. The planet is gonna die otherwise, y'all. Instead, I get a lot of justification about how "second density is different than third density because they don't have awareness", or, "the animals have chosen this existence through free will" - these things are at odds and contradict each other. I think this is where a lot of my frustration comes from - which is it? Is it that animals have chosen in free will this means of being, or is it that they are merely an unaware part of the Logos? I think it is more of the latter with touches of the former, but I don't think either is a reason to justify willing subjugation of another part of the Creation.