In regards to eating meat

[Monica]

Likewise. People on my side of the discussion who get emotional or frustrated probably have not done much contemplation about the spiritual implications of eating meat, or eating period.

Yeah.

I believe, rather than having food designed for us in that sense, the atmosphere was designed in which we, as living/evolving beings, were tasked with the objective of surviving. Some beings evolved to sustain off of provided 1D elements, some like us (unfortunately) evolved to sustain off of other 2D beings.

We didn't evolve here. Our souls were invested into ape bodies, which had already evolved to that point.

90.12 Questioner: Was there a reason for choosing the forms that have evolved on this planet and, if so, what was it?
Ra: I am Ra. We are not entirely sure why our Logos and several neighboring Logoi of approximately the same space/time of flowering chose the bipedal, erect form of the second-density apes to invest. It has been our supposition, which we share with you as long as you are aware that this is mere opinion, that our Logos was interested in, shall we say, further intensifying the veiling process by offering to the third-density form the near complete probability for the development of speech taking complete precedence over concept communication or telepathy. We also have the supposition that the so-called opposable thumb was looked upon as an excellent means of intensifying the veiling process so that rather than rediscovering the powers of the mind the third-density entity would, by the form of its physical manifestation, be drawn to the making, holding, and using of physical tools

Apes are primarily vegetarians, except for occasional insects. Their diet consists of mostly fruits and greens. So one can only wonder how and why early humans ever got the idea to eat animals (other than bugs stuck in the leaves).

Like I said, if the Logos had this sense of control, why would it not give us a design which allowed us to sustain on 1D?

Indeed. That is a very good question. My answer would be, why would it? If plants aren't entities, then there is no harm in eating plants.

The Logos chose the ape body to invest our souls in. Apes eat plants, fruits and occasional bugs. I think we can reasonably conclude that such a diet was deemed acceptable for 3D entities. Thus, no reason to create a new vehicle capable of living on 1D life.

The students enrolled in this school for juvenile delinquents had violent pasts. That might explain why they chose to mimic the carnivorous cats and wolves, and extended their violent nature to include the slaughter of animals for food.

The Logos didn't intend for Earth's new human population to become violent:

90.18 Questioner: There seems to have been created by this Logos, to me anyway, a large percentage of entities whose distortion was towards warfare. There have been the Maldek and Mars experiences and now Earth. It seems that Venus was the exception to what we could almost call the rule of warfare. Is this correct and was this envisioned and planned into the construction of the archetypical mind, possibly not with respect to warfare as we have experienced it but as to the extreme action of polarization in consciousness?
Ra: I am Ra. It is correct that the Logos designed Its experiment to attempt to achieve the greatest possible opportunities for polarization in third density. It is incorrect that warfare of the types specific to your experiences was planned by the Logos. This form of expression of hostility is an interesting result which is apparently concomitant with the tool-making ability. The choice of the Logos to use the life-form with the grasping thumb is the decision to which this type of warfare may be traced.

So, the Logos didn't intend for humans to use their thumbs to commit acts of violence against one another in the form of war. While they were using their thumbs to create weapons to kill one another, the humans apparently also used their thumbs to create weapons to kill animals as well. Those seem to go together. It logically follows, then, that the Logos probably didn't intend for humans to use their thumbs to kill animals either, just as they didn't intend for humans to use their thumbs to kill other humans.

In contrast, it was apparently planned that they eat plants, being that the ape body was already being nourished by plants. (And nourished quite well, I might add...gorillas are obviously quite strong!)

Also, to specifically answer the question of "Why not?", I personally don't feel it's appropriate to dub the easiest and most convenient things in life as designed to be that way. This could be applied to other situations which might not seem so spiritually sound.

As I just detailed, apes were already eating plants. Knowing this, the Logos invested our souls into the apes. This is a simple conclusion derived from what Ra has told us.

I believe it would be a speculation and opinion to say that it was, and it's my personal opinion that the situation is closer to what I described above.

I'd say it's more deductive reasoning, rather than mere speculation. I just provided the basis for my reasoning, from the material.

although I'm not sure "rebuttal" would be the right term, rather that share why I don't share that opinion.

Agreed!

1. Most plants are lower 2D, whereas animals are, presumably, higher 2D. Is this a justification for killing plants but not animals? No, not any more than it's a justification for killing animals instead of humans. Rather, I see it only as an argument to not kill animals, not an argument to kill plants. In fact, my entire premise all along hasn't been that it's 'ok' to kill plants! (which is what some people apparently perceive from me, much to my dismay.) Rather, my premise has been that, since we must eat something, it's more reasonable to eat plants (which we're not sure about) than animals (which we are sure about).

Let's bump this concept up a density. Would you consider the murder of a more spiritually aware human more of a crime than the murder of a less spiritually aware person? Now, of course, not an argument for killing lesser aware humans, but do you feel that knowingly killing someone who is spiritually aware carries more spiritual implication than killing someone who isn't?

No, of course not.

You seem to have misunderstood my premise. I don't think it's ok to kill plants because they are less evolved!

It's not about how evolved they are. It's about whether they are classified as entities.

I have explained this previously, in this thread. The entire debate hinges on whether or not plants are individual entities or not.

If they aren't, then consuming a single plant is akin to drinking a glass of water.

Once a 2D entity becomes self-aware, it no longer merges back into the group soul, but begins its own journey of evolution. (My understanding of this is based partially on the Edgar Cayce readings, which I find compatible with the Law of One.)

That starting point of individuation is what I am proposing as the demarcation between 'life force' and 'entity.'

My belief is that most plants aren't entities.

Ra seemed to support this, by saying that some trees might become sentient enough to be harvestable to 3D. If this were common among plants, then Ra wouldn't have stated it the way they did, as though an exception.

I have already built a sufficient case supporting this premise, and I'm dismayed that this point was missed. (It's ok to disagree with me of course; I'm just dismayed that what I thought was my central point, wasn't understood.)

2. Plant entities inhabit bodies which are inviting to humans. The smell, appearance, and taste of fresh, living plants are generally pleasant, whereas the smell, appearance and taste of freshly killed animals is repulsive to most humans. Is this conclusive? No. Does it prove anything? No. But surely one can see that it's reasonable to factor this obvious fact into the equation. (Since we are, after all, stranded here behind a veil and must use our wits to figure it all out.)

I think this is a personal opinion rather than a concept that can be applied to all humans. I have family in Texas that can't stand vegetables and would prefer to eat their steaks right off of the cow. I think what one considers pleasant and unpleasant is more based upon psychological conditioning than inherent design. I have no problem with the opinion that this might be designed, but I definitely don't share it.

But surely you will agree that the vast majority of humans (in the US at least) wouldn't want to bite into a freshly killed, bloody rabbit?

I think it can safely be stated that most humans don't find bloody carcasses appetizing. Hence, the popularity of reality shows, wherein contestants are grossed out by eating bugs etc. Americans don't like bloody carcasses. They prefer their animals neatly wrapped in plastic at the grocery store, or tucked between 2 buns. That's why they're fascinated by the reality shows.

3. Animals can fly, swim or run away from predators. Plants can't. Does this prove anything? No. But I contend that it would have been exceedingly cruel for the Logos to equip plants with fully functioning pain receptors and sentience, but no ability to be mobile. Our Logos has been accused of some cruel things (like fleas on wolves and the whole carnivorous animal design), but this would top the list. It's bad enough that a deer is killed by the lion, but at least the deer has a fighting chance to run away. Not so for the hapless plants. It would be beyond cruel, if plants felt as much fear and pain as the deer, but couldn't run away. If that lettuce plant feels intense torture every time a gorilla tears off a leaf and chews it. That would be so heinous, that it would lead me to believe we are existing in a totally STS world!

And what of the squirrel I watched get eaten alive by a hawk? It was a very gruesome sight and I guarantee you that squirrel suffered much, does it get no consideration from the Logos? Why would the Logos allow the evolution of carnivores if it were so sensitive to the suffering?

That's a whole 'nother subject; one which has been discussed in other threads. But you seem to have missed my point, which is that, it's bad enough that the animals are killing one another...that is distressing enough! And I plan to tell the Logos that I find it despicable! But now, on top of that atrocity, you're telling me that every time a cow chews on some grass, the grass is writhing in agony too?

If so, then it's far, far worse than I thought!

This is the concept behind "non-violent slaughter" which must be understood. When we process a chicken or a goat, the animal does not know it's going to be killed.

When a woman is murdered in her sleep, she doesn't know she is about to be murdered. But it's still murder, nonetheless.

Dr. Temple Grandin, advocate for animal rights as well as autism awareness, has put forth a lot of evidence behind the fear and anxiety felt by animals on their way to be slaughtered, and humane slaughter facilities work with her evidence to reduce anxiety, reduce fear, and promote humane treatment of animals. Animals suffer less being processed in a truly humane facility than they would being eaten in nature.

That's all very nice, but the point that is still being missed is: Why go to so much effort? Why not just quit eating animals? I mean, really, there is such a simple solution, which would actually benefit the whole planet as well. Why go to such great lengths? Why not just...quit...eating...them?

Do we know if a plant suffers when being killed? No...but we can also be sure that the animal does not suffer either.

Maybe that small minority of animals, sure. But all that effort that's going into 'humane' slaughter could be better spent educating people about the vegetarian diet, and thus reducing the slaughter of all those factory farm animals, who do indeed know they're about to be killed, and are indeed suffering.

It seems to me that, although the effort appears commendable on the surface, it is actually perpetuating the problems, by contributing to people's mindset that eating animals is acceptable. And, the 'humane' farmer can feel less guilt about his own small herd of meat, but that isn't helping the animals in the factory farm down the road.

Also, I don't personally contend that plants can feel physical pain, but I have no doubt they can feel spiritual and mental pain.

Definitely. But I contend that it's the group soul that feels the pain...the tomato oversoul, not each individual tomato plant.

When is it an individual plant? If a friend gives me a cutting from her ivy plant, and then I cut off a piece to give to another friend, how many plant entities do we have here? Did the 1 plant have babies? Will it keep making new souls every time I cut off a leaf? Is each blade of grass in your lawn an entity? Or is the entire lawn an entity?

It's simply unfathomable! Sure, it's a convenient argument, but I contend that it's an argument of justification, rather than standing on its own merit. Rather than face the cruelty of killing animals, it's more convenient to accuse vegetarians of being cruel to plants.

When there is no suffering either way, what's the difference? Slaughter is slaughter. We work to prevent suffering, both for plants and for animals.

As I've stated before, I do commend you for your efforts! But this discussion has gotten deeper. If they are all individual entities, there would be no difference. I contend, as I have all along but the point seems to have gotten missed, that most plants aren't entities. That is the crucial difference. All else is moot without understanding this point. (Even if you disagree, just understand.)

Like I said, I don't contend that plants feel physical pain. But I still see no difference in slaughtering a plant to sustain yourself. You're ending its life just as an animal's life is ended.

I've addressed this previously, multiple times. I don't believe the plant's life is being ended.

As I said before, cut and come again is good, but not all vegetables, especially not all vegetables necessary for a vegetarian to have a balanced diet, can be that way.

I hope you don't mind if I decline to answer points that I've already addressed elsewhere in this thread.

And what happens when the lettuce and spinach start bolting? How many gardeners do not uproot it?

Most surely uproot it. I let mine bolt.

And why would we be greedy enough to cut broccoli to begin with, the part we eat is supposed to turn to flowers and allow it to reproduce. We're interrupting its natural life cycle by greedily chopping off its head for our own consumption.

I don't think I'm succeeding in conveying my points. If you do decide to read Botany of Desire, please let me know! We could resume this part of the discussion then.

Not all plants are healthy either, some are poisonous and some can even kill you.

I don't follow the relevance here. Then simply don't eat those plants!

Of course violent slaughter of an animal is notably different from violently slaughter of a plant

How is it different? Can you elaborate?

I'm not sure if I agree with the idea that plants and animals exist in separate degrees of individuation. Maybe the book holds more for this discussion.

That's from Ra, not from the book.

It's funny you should mention that! Not necessarily, but ever since I was a small child I thought mowing the lawn was a very backwards thing to do. You plant all this seed, asking this grass to grow, and then you go and cut it down, stopping it from growing! I've always looked at yardwork as sort of a war...yard tools are the weapons, you prepare for battle and go out and wage war on nature by pulling weeds, killing bugs, and cutting off plants' limbs and appendages. I don't think its slaughter because you're not killing the grass, but I do consider pulling a weed slaughter. Why wouldn't you? You're killing a living being!

But unless you use lots of herbicides and have eradicated all your dandelions and thistles, every time you mow the lawn you are indeed killing weeds. And how do you know you're not killing individual blades of grass? Wait! Did you just say you're not killing the lawn? Well you're not killing the whole lawn, but you are killing parts of it. Where does 1 lawn 'entity' end and the next one begin? Is your back yard lawn a separate entity from your front yard lawn? Or is each blade of grass an entity? or...each cutting? After all, a single cutting can turn into a whole new lawn! Or...

This definition is biased towards animals. We can take number 1 and extend it to 2D beings, so "killing or butchering of cattle, sheep, beets, carrots, potatoes, etc. especially for food."

It's the standard definition, generally accepted by society. People don't generally think of eating salad as slaughter.

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

Then I invite you to expand your thinking to include the Earth...close your eyes for a minute and imagine what it might feel like to be Earth...what would be the equivalent of hair on a planetary being?

It's all a matter of perspective.

Possibly. I always thought the consumption of 1D wouldn't be such a dispute, because it persists through our consuming it, doesn't it?

Take water...we drink it, we process it, absorb it or pass it...it stays water no matter what.

Actually, water changes very much. People think all water is the same, but it isn't. It varies wildly, with many constituents. (I am in the water business.) It may have a variety of minerals, chemicals, toxins, microorganisms, etc. as well have different properties regarding pH, oxidation reduction potential, structure, surface tension, etc.

Water doesn't stay the same. It's constantly interacting with its environment.

And rocks change too. It just takes them a lot longer, so to us it looks like they're staying the same.

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

No. That's a stretch. I have given a very precise demarcation. We might not always know whether the entity has reached that point, which is why I would err on the side of caution and never kill any animals, which are clearly higher 2D entities. Nor would I ever cut down an ancient tree (or any tree for that matter, if it can be helped).

So why not discern that we shouldn't kill entities very close to being very close to being human? (Yes I typed that right :p)

You seem to be implying that I am advocating some sort of elitism. Not at all. The demarcation is the qualifier that Ra gave us, for self-awareness. This is just my opinion of course, but again, until we are able to exist only on sunlight, it seems the most logical demarcation to me.

Either way we're taking their life for our own survival.

We can discuss this point further after you read the book, if you wish.

This may be where we have to agree to disagree, to avoid spending the rest of our lives typing!

Agreed! But as long as new points are being made, it's a topic worthy of deep discussion.