(07-07-2011, 11:54 PM)abridgetoofar Wrote: Yeah, I'm saying that design was: find your sustenance.
That doesn't seem logical to me. But, we are both speculating so it's a moot point.
(07-07-2011, 11:54 PM)abridgetoofar Wrote: It is an entity in the same way a goat is.
This statement lacks substance. Please clarify.
(07-07-2011, 11:54 PM)abridgetoofar Wrote: Obviously, it strives for life outside apart from other plants.
It's not obvious. Does the tuft of grass strive for life outside other tufts of grass? How did you decide that a tuft was the boundary between individual entities? Does an ivy cutting strive for life outside other ivy cuttings?
It's not obvious. It would be helpful in our communication, if you could define your understanding of entity.
(07-07-2011, 11:54 PM)abridgetoofar Wrote: Why don't you think an individual dandelion is and individual being? It is a single dandelion.
Ah, apparently you are basing your views on the physical vehicle. I am basing mine on consciousness.
As an example, bacteria are physically separated from one another, yet function as a single being. More obviously, bees and ants. Ask any beekeeper. I am researching beekeeping right now and just read in several beekeeping books the same advice: Aspiring beekeepers must understand that the hive is a single entity. Never mind that each bee has a separate body. The determining factor is consciousness, not the physical body.
(07-07-2011, 11:54 PM)abridgetoofar Wrote: Like I said, I don't contend plants suffer like that.
Then what is the point of our discussion? You seemed to be making the case for eating animals, by pointing out that plants were slaughtered (and, presumably, suffered) the same as animals. If you don't think plants suffer, and you don't believe them to be individual souls, but just return to the group consciousness anyway, then what does it matter if they are eaten or not?
(07-07-2011, 11:54 PM)abridgetoofar Wrote: Ra clearly states that the orange ray body is without self-awareness. Any animal or plant is in an orange ray body. An animal cannot form a yellow ray body mid-incarnation. It meets the requirements for individualization before it is awarded self-awareness.
I disagree. My understanding is that self-awareness is the requirement for individualization.
How could an entity be 'awarded' self-awareness? And, in your view, how does it meet the requirements for individualization, if not thru self-awareness?? And what exactly is the requirement for individualization, if not self-awareness?
(07-07-2011, 11:54 PM)abridgetoofar Wrote: Poorly worded, I should have said "No matter what, a 2D soul comes from group consciousness before incarnation."
Up until it individuates, yes. But once it becomes self-aware and begins its own soul journey, it no longer returns to the group consciousness. I've had cats return to me several times. They are still in 2D but I witnesses an evolution of their consciousness, and they reincarnated several times.
(07-07-2011, 11:54 PM)abridgetoofar Wrote: It seems you are saying every mammal which we personify graduates to 3D?
By we personify it sounds like you don't consider them to have their own personality - as though we are only projecting onto them.
I ask you again: Have you never noticed personality in your goats, dogs or cats?
(07-07-2011, 11:54 PM)abridgetoofar Wrote: Do you think all of my goats graduate to 3D when they die? Every mammal you perceive to have personality, does it not return to group soul? Ra says differently.
Ra says that once the entity is self-aware, it begins the journey and no longer merges back with the group. It's a journey. It may take multiple lifetimes before the goat is ready to graduate.
Why do you say, "perceive to have personality"? You don't seem to be acknowledging that they really do have their own personalities, irrespective of how you happen to perceive them. You seem to be employing a common psychological trick - depersonalizing an entity. Are your goats all the same to you?
(07-07-2011, 11:54 PM)abridgetoofar Wrote: Do you see no difference in the 2 plants? I could look at one spiny thistle that is runty, crooked, and lacking strong branches, and name him "Runty." He doesn't reach as hard for the sun, but he has hope. Another big, beautiful thistle, is obviously different. They incarnated as individuals just as the goats incarnated as individuals.
No, I'm not referring to physical appearance! I'm referring to personality! Do you not see any difference in personality, amongst your goats?
(07-07-2011, 11:54 PM)abridgetoofar Wrote: They are individual animals, but Ra clearly states that until they reach the point of individuation, they return to the group soul.
Yes! It no longer returns to the group soul! But that doesn't mean it graduates at the end of that lifetime! It might live several more lifetimes as a cat or goat, honing its newly awakened self-awareness, and then, eventually, graduates to 3D. That is my understanding.
(07-07-2011, 11:54 PM)abridgetoofar Wrote: Are you really saying you think every animal which we perceive to have personality graduates 2D?
It has nothing to do with our perception. It has to do with what is actually happening, with that entity.
(07-07-2011, 11:54 PM)abridgetoofar Wrote: So you ARE saying all goats will graduate to 3d?
I have no idea how you got that out of what I said.
(07-07-2011, 11:54 PM)abridgetoofar Wrote: I will again disagree. Not every animal we perceive as having personality will graduate. It takes more investment than us simply perceiving personality.
There's that perceiving again. That's the 3rd or 4th time you've used that term. Why are you concerned about what we perceive? Why is that even in the equation? Ra never gave any hint that our perception had anything to do with a 2D entity's evolution.
(07-07-2011, 11:54 PM)abridgetoofar Wrote: So you mean you think it's better to educate people about your opinion rather than mine I don't know anyone who doesn't feel that way.
Haha. No. I mean that more people becoming vegetarians will do more good for the planet, than people continuing to eat animals, 'humanely' raised or not. The statistics on the effects of the meat industry apply, whether 'humane' or not. It still takes more plants to feed the animals, it's still inefficient, etc.
(07-07-2011, 11:54 PM)abridgetoofar Wrote: I didn't perceive you as judging me, I perceived you as being wrong . You're saying it is perpetuating the problem: it's not. The old rancher is being replaced by a new type of farmer.
It's perpetuating the killing of animals; something that, in my opinion, has no place in 4D.
(07-07-2011, 11:54 PM)abridgetoofar Wrote: The fact that, until the animal reaches individuation, it returns to the group soul, as stated by Ra.
Yes, but individuation is something the goat achieves on its own, from its own evolution, though it may be aided by 3D humans. It isn't something that is 'awarded'! It's part of the evolutionary process. And it can happen anytime in late 2D.
(07-07-2011, 11:54 PM)abridgetoofar Wrote: They're individual entities like goats are individual entities.
This statement isn't saying anything. Please clarify.
(07-07-2011, 11:54 PM)abridgetoofar Wrote: Both leave the group soul, and return to the group soul.
That makes no sense. What is the point of having individual awareness, if it's all dissolved at the end of the lifetime anyway?
(07-07-2011, 11:54 PM)abridgetoofar Wrote:Quote:Ra:...this individuation causes a sharp rise in the potential of the second density entity so that upon the cessation of physical complex the mind/body complex does not return into the undifferentiated consciousness of that species
A goat is not a 3D entity, right? Which means it CAME from the group consciousness...if it came from an individuated consciousness, it wouldn't be 2D, it would be 3D. Goats are 2D! Ra clearly states it won't ENTER an incarnation from an individuated soul until it GAINS individuation and graduates to 3D.
Ra didn't clearly say that. You are projecting your own interpretation. You seem to be equating 'group consciousness' with 2D.
(07-07-2011, 11:54 PM)abridgetoofar Wrote: If it was the group consciousness, wouldn't all plants have responded? How could it tell the INDIVIDUAL plant from all the other INDIVIDUAL plants?
Think of the cells on your body. They are all part of you, all spread out, but lacking individual awareness as entities. If you burn your finger, your body sends healing agents directly to the injured area. It knows not to send to every finger, just to the injured finger.
(07-07-2011, 11:54 PM)abridgetoofar Wrote: They are individual plants like a goat is an individual goat, the individual's souls coming from the species group consciousness.
I'm sorry, but repetition of this statement isn't helping. It seems contradictory. In what way is it an individual? Are you referring only to the physical?
(07-07-2011, 11:54 PM)abridgetoofar Wrote: Aha! And why, do you suppose, plants have no pain receptors?
We experience physical pain through our nervous system, don't we?[/quote]
You didn't answer the question. Why don't plants have pain receptors? If they are the same as goats, why do goats have pain receptors and plants don't?
(07-07-2011, 11:54 PM)abridgetoofar Wrote: Could be a deal breaker for me when you do!
? What do you mean by that?
(07-07-2011, 11:54 PM)abridgetoofar Wrote: And after that incarnation, it becomes 3D.
Not necessarily. Ra never stated that a single spark of self-awareness would result in instant graduation. My understanding is that it's a process.
(07-07-2011, 11:54 PM)abridgetoofar Wrote: It does not reincarnate again as a 2D animal. Meaning, if I kill a goat, the same thing happens to it that happens to a carrot if I kill it. It returns to group consciousness, where it came from. If it had come from an individuated soul before incarnation, it would not be in a 2D incarnation.
I disagree. I believe animals absolutely do reincarnate multiple times, as 2D entities, without returning to the group consciousness, once they've become self-aware (individuated). Ra even spoke of the process of karma of 2D entities being automatic.
(07-07-2011, 10:01 PM)abridgetoofar Wrote: Right, and not before the incarnation, meaning it came FROM group consciousness. And, if it doesn't attain individuation in that incarnation, it returns TO group consciousness.
And when you end a plant's incarnation it inhibits it from doing 2D work, just like when you end a goat's incarnation. You stop it from striving for individuation.
It may already be an individual. That goat has a personality. Tomorrow, when you tend your goats, make a point to look them in the eyes, and you will see it. Personality. It's been there all along. Notice their little quirks and unique behaviors. These are entities. They're not all the same. I invite you to get to know those goats, and then see how you feel about killing them.
(07-08-2011, 12:19 AM)βαθμιαίος Wrote: The point of the article I quoted was 'When we ask the question "when did meat become an important part of the human diet ?," we must therefore look well before the evolutionary split between apes and humans in our own family tree.'
Why even ask that question? Why is it important what our ancestors did? I mentioned it in the context of our Logos' design when it chose the ape body, but aside from that, I don't see the relevance. Many diet 'experts' debate about what is the 'optimum' human diet, each one trying to prove what our ancestors ate, reasoning that if our ancestors ate it, then it must be optimal for us now. By that logic, then we should continue to fight wars, since our ancestors were barbarians.
(07-07-2011, 11:54 PM)abridgetoofar Wrote: For me, Edgar Cayce's 80/20 rule works well: 80% alkaline-reacting (fruit, vegetables), 20% acid-reacting (meat, grains). I believe this is similar to chimpanzees' diets, the diets of our hominid ancestors, and the diets of some traditional hunter-gatherers.
That's not taking into consideration our current evolution, and the fact that we dwell on the precipice of 4D. Even Cayce advised some people to "not lower their vibrations with animal foods" and that was 80 years ago. How much more so, would his advice be different, today.
(07-08-2011, 12:32 AM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: Yup. Looks like a masterpiece of evangelical work to me. Say, when Jesus comes back is he going to send all the meat eaters to Hell too?
What is your point? That Markus is a zealot? Just because he's passionate about his views, in the same way you are passionate about your views on war?
Why wouldn't he be passionate? People are getting healed from the raw vegan diet, and Markus is just doing what he believes in, just as we all are, at this crucial nexus.