In regards to eating meat

[Tenet Nosce]

True. Which is precisely why it's safer to not kill any animals at all, if we can avoid it. We can't avoid inhaling microbes, but we can avoid killing cows, chickens and fish. We don't know exactly how far in its path that cow is, so why take a chance? Especially when it's not necessary?

And if one feels inclined to do the same with veggies, then go for it!

Well, of course! As I've said, I don't see anything wrong with vegetarianism. If a patient tells me they wanna go veg, I don't try to stop them. I support their choice and communicate to them, to the best of my knowledge, about the body's nutritional needs, and instruct them on how to go about doing that with plants alone. I'm not trying to talk anybody out of vegetarianism here.

My argument here is with those who say that everybody should be a vegetarian because because it is inherently wrong to harm any other life form through ingesting its body as food. Which, I acknowledge, isn't necessarily with -you- personally or with anybody else here personally. Yet there is this sort of sneak-attack ninja trend in some vegetarian circles (we will get to this below) where they secretly DO believe that eating a cow is inherently wrong, but yet eat plants, or squish an ant in their kitchen, or take an antibiotic to kill bacteria in their lungs, or continue to feed their cat animal products prepared by humans, etc. So they don't come right out and say it, but continue to argue out of that belief, and disguise it with all sort of sophistry to avoid getting back to their fundamental premise which they deep down know is kind of bunk.

You asked a few times why I am here in this thread. Well, it isn't just to have an argument with you folks. As sometimes fun, sometimes interesting, sometimes draining, that might be. I think about somebody who has found their way to this forum for the VERY FIRST TIME. Maybe they've just come across the Law of One and they are cruising the threads trying to get a feel for how to apply it in their life. I want them to know that they CAN progress spiritually while still eating meat. Perhaps, in fact, it DOES result in some sort of drag on the system, but it is by no means a deal-breaker. Now making one's living sitting in a War Room, plotting which buildings to blow up despite knowing that there will be some innocent human casualties... well... that is more than a little different. At least in my book.

I disagree. Awakening people to the reality of the slaughterhouse can awaken compassion them. Most people are clueless, or in denial about, the extreme cruelty affecting entities that may be nearing 3D.

Reducing or eliminating meat is a practical step that is very doable, that will reap many benefits to self, the animals, the environment, and even other humans in developing nations whose habitats are being destroyed to make room for more cattle. Not to mention lighten the vibrations on the planet! Watch a slaughterhouse video, and then think about how much dark, heavy energy all that suffering is contributing to the planet!

If ever there was a single thing that can affect the planet in a BIG way, it's reducing or eliminating meat from one's diet!

Again, if somebody chooses that path, then great for them! Yet when I look out into the smorgasbord of possibilities of things one can do to positively influence the planet, I don't see any reason why vegetarianism necessarily comes up at the top of the list. It is not vegetarianism or bust. It is but one option amongst an infinite sea of possibilities.

I believe there is a HUGE spiritual pitfall involved when, having chosen a path for oneself, one feels compelled to turn to the rest of humanity in an attempt to convert, or coerce, or force, everybody else to their own path. It's kind of like the myth of the bodhisattva who forgoes nirvana until every last soul on the planet attains enlightenment. Wow... they snagged you right back in to samsara there at the very last second didn't they? Uniformity of belief leads to the 4D/negative SMC, not the positive. 4D/positive is about convergence of belief, where despite having traversed wildly different paths, entities tend to arrive at the same conclusions about life.

Actually, Ra did say that many Wanderers are here for precisely that reason - to increase the harvest. And Ra's words about the shift to 4D, and cessation of 3D vehicles necessary for harvest, etc. could all be interpreted to signify some sort of 'end' to 3D reality.

Many, but not all. And both Ra and Q'uo consistently downplay the importance of increasing the harvest. Maybe, just maybe, there is a 6D Wanderer out there who purposely chose to eat meat, or smoke, or do other unhealthy things to the body, to help anchor their vibration down here in 3D. Maybe, given the fact that there is a lot of flesh-eating going on in the world, they wanted to help establish a path out of there by exploring, in their own vibratory complex, how to counteract the negative effects of eating meat. We just don't know, do we?

Good luck with that! Look at how many nutrition 'experts' all claim that this or that diet is the 'correct' one and they all disagree with one another! Add Law of One principles to the mix and it gets even more complicated! "I can't believe I'm having to argue against the killing of animals, in Law of One forum!"

Yes, exactly! My conjecture is that all these nutrition experts squabbling with each other over their pet nutrition theories is doing a MASSIVE disservice to people at this time. Do you know how many people won't take the first step to do anything different with their diet because when they seek nutritional guidance, the first people they encounter are those who are most loudly beating their drums of absolutism
in eternally irreconcileable ways? So what happens, they do NOTHING.

Do you know that, according to Chinese medicine, one should NEVER eat raw foods because it is damaging to their chi? Or that some people believe that humans should NEVER eat beans because of the phytates present in the skin? Or that one should NEVER eat soy because it contains phytoestrogens? Or that one should NEVER eat an egg yolk because it contains cholesterol? Or that one should NEVER eat corn syrup because it is a toxin?

The common thread here is NEVER. Absolutism. My way or the highway. This does not serve the greater good. It only serves peoples egos and their pocketbooks. Meanwhile, PFC JoeBob continues to eat McDonald's every day because he can't find one consistent nutritional message that he can really take to heart.

People have been programmed to automatically frame diet in terms of what NOT to eat. I say, this is a very effective control mechanism. It hinders our progress as a species, and it would appear that almost nobody is willing to admit this. I've pointed an alternative scheme, which does not require any foods to become taboo, and does not require making anybody "wrong", does not require fear/guilt/shame, and that IN FACT leads one quite naturally to a more plant-based diet AND a more sustainable planet.

Now, I didn't come up with the idea. It has been out there for quite some time. But it doesn't quite get the attention that it deserves because the nutritional zealots are shouting too loudly for most folks to notice anything else. Why do they persist? Because they are stuck in a dualistic mindset that compels them to classify everything in life, including food choices, into right and wrong.

I will further assert that this dualistic mentality is in direct contradiction to the Law of One.

Obviously, no one is suggesting that you just tell your patients to "just" cut out meat. That would be ludicrous. They need some education. But I disagree that you'd be labeled a quack if you offered some gentle recommendations to cut back meat and increase fruits and veggies. That is standard stuff now. It's no longer radical. Cutting-edge research (and research spanning the last several decades) clearly show that animals foods are high in the bad fats. Everyone knows that, just like everyone knows fried foods are bad, sodas are bad, and fruits and veggies are good. Just keep it simple. Offer them ways to increase their fruits and veggies while decreasing meat. Very simple.

If that is your view, then truly I have no idea what you and I are arguing about. Because that is exactly what I do. But I'm not sure that you can speak for everybody else here.

But just so I am crystal clear on your stance, consider this (somewhat absurd) scenario:

It is the very last moment before graduation. There are two people. One just took a bite out of a hamburger, the other just put a bullet in somebody's brain. Knowing nothing else about these two people's lives, is there anything you feel can be definitely said about either of their "harvestability"?

But, for those patients who are more open to change, or who answer 'yes' to his question about their spiritual interest, he has a lot more maneuverability. His stance is that anyone on a spiritual path has got no business eating dead animals, and he very clearly communicates that to the patient, once he has ascertained that they're open to such 'radical' ideas. Even then, the suggestion might be met with resistance, so he offers it as a suggestion, not a prescription.

My stance is that anyone on a spiritual path has got no business telling others what their spiritual path may entail. This is the sneak-up ninja attack where you lure somebody in pretending to believe one thing, and then once you gain their trust you reveal that you secretly believe another thing. Sounds cultish and manipulative to me. You know... cult leaders only offer the idea that little girls touch their genitals as a "suggestion" and leave it up to them to do it totally of their own free will.

Sooooo maybe finally I can encapsulate what I have been trying to say here all along. Why I wanted to draw attention to the philosophical origins of vegetarianism was to illustrate how it has become associated with a certain philosophical principle that "makes wrong" the very fabric of creation.

Harmlessness, or ahimsa, as an absolutist principle of ethical conduct, really only makes sense when applied to the interaction of human beings. The relativistic gray area wherein we find the rest of life is a field quite fertile with opportunity for each of us to explore, and hopefully come to know something about ourselves. But there is no "right answer" here for us to discern. And it does not serve anybody that, when one finds their own unique place within that field, they turn to everybody else and declare that they must follow them.

As a philosopher, and a physician, I would like to see the idea of vegetarianism divorced from the doctrine of harmlessness. The debate will never be resolved anywhere in the near future, and so is not going to offer much benefit to humanity, as a whole, between now and the end of next year. :idea:

What is more, vegetarianism is perfectly capable of standing on its own two feet based upon scientific evidence (much of which you have offered here) and sound logical reasoning. It does not require the invocation of an absolutist philosophy, and it does not require any sort of fear, guilt, shame, or ninja moves, in order to be successfully implemented on a wide scale.

To the contrary, I would assert that the zealots are actually getting in their own way. As they have done for the last 5000 years of human history. Which, you know, is kind of too bad because they otherwise seem like lovely people in many cases. I happen to believe that absolutist thinking is much more of a hindrance to spiritual growth than meat eating.

And as far as the Law of One goes- the only absolutist claim is that all things are one thing. That all is light/love, love/light, and the One Infinite Creator. That is the only thing anybody should be proclaiming from the rooftops. Everything else is secondary to that, and for each to come to in their own time, in their own way, when it is right for them.

I commend you for not putting yourself in the position of guru. The first alternative practitioner I went to, some 30 years ago, had a bad case of guruitis. I was young and it took a few years for me to extricate myself from her clutches. So seriously, I'm glad to hear that!

The problem is, most people don't know what 'nutritious' even means! They think pizza is nutritious!

Well then it seems like you understand exactly where I am coming from. In my mind, and according to my understanding, this savior/guru idea IS the #1, bar-none, idea which has a negative effect on spiritual growth. If meat-eating is even #2, respectfully, I don't think it is even a close second.

When a person first opens up to intelligent infinity they are in a very vulnerable state that is easily swayed by self-styled gurus and saviors with dangerous agendas. Do you know how many people are out there stuck in that state you described, hoodwinked by the guru? To me, this is a travesty of a whole different magnitude because it permeates every aspect of civilization. Dietary choices are just one little sliver of this poisonous pie.