In regards to eating meat

[Monica]

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.

Tenet, I'm still wondering how much of this thread you have read. I'm finding myself repeating the same responses to the very same comments, from different people.

This isn't about one person imposing on the free will of another. This isn't about Joe telling Bob how to pray or which religion to belong to. This is about Joe championing the rights of Flossie - and Flossie just happens to be a cow.

It's not about vegetarians oppressing others by telling them what to eat or not eat. It's about vegetarians trying to save the oppressed.

It's exactly the same as you trying to end war. People suffer in wars. Some humans oppress and slaughter other people. It's exactly the same with the meat industry. The only difference is that the victims are animals instead of humans. They are just younger entities. How does that make it ok?

It has already been stated, by me and by others, that it's worse to kill a human than to kill an animal. Some disagreed with that statement, but that is my personal view. I even gave the example of the hypothetical scenario "whom would you save first, the child or the dog?" to clearly put at rest the objection "vegetarians are fanatics because they care more about cows than they do about humans!" It's not about that.

It's about ending oppression and violence, whether it be of humans or animals...or trees.

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.

There's nothing secret about it: I absolutely believe eating a cow is wrong. I'm not trying to hide that and I don't know of any vegetarian who tries to hide it.

Neither do I claim to be perfectly exemplary of my highest ideals.

What is an ideal? It is something we aspire to.

Respectfully, I think you have missed the point of this discussion, maybe because you came in late and haven't gotten caught up on all the posts. This isn't a game of "who's the purest of us all". This isn't about judging one another and pointing the finger at others because they aren't 100% measuring up to the ideals they believe in! None among us can do that.

This is a philosophical discussion about whether the killing/eating of younger other-selves is congruent with the STO path, here at this nexus, on the precipice of 4D.

NOT a contest to see who among us is walking our talk and who is a hypocrite!

To say, "Your ideal of ending suffering to animals is BUNK because you still squish mosquitoes" is akin to saying "Your ideal of ending war is BUNK because you still spank your child."

If we can't define what the ideal is, then how can we aspire to it?

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.

Obviously, humans have been eating meat for millennia, and have progressed spiritually (or have they? This planet is very behind...hmmm...). But as Cayce said, "With ability comes responsibility" so now that we know we no longer need meat to survive, what is the justification for it? There is none.

One who doesn't know any better, obviously isn't responsible for actions done in ignorance. But there is no longer any excuse to be ignorant of the plight of the animals. Spiritual progress is measured by the sum total of all actions, choices, intentions, etc. What we do with the knowledge we have, whether it be about the oppression of humans or animals or whatever, we will be held accountable for.

You seem to indicate that you don't think there is any responsibility whatsoever, towards the animals. We don't all share that opinion. Hence, the new member can decide for themselves.

Perhaps, in fact, it DOES result in some sort of drag on the system, but it is by no means a deal-breaker.

Why do you speak only in terms of what meat does to the person eating it? What about what it (being slaughtered) does to the animal? Is that not important?

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 really don't understand why they are even being compared. Violence is violence. A lesser violence cannot be justified just because there are worse forms of violence. As I told those who insisted eating a carrot is just as violent as eating a cow: Fine. Then don't eat carrots. But it's ludicrous to say that violence to animals is ok, because it's also violent to eat carrots! Likewise, it's ludicrous to say that violence to animals is ok, because violence to humans is worse! What does it matter which is worse? Why not do what we can to end all violence? It might not be reasonable to expect everyone to quit eating carrots, but it is very reasonable to ask them to quit killing other humans...and animals. Those are the obvious ones. Maybe we won't quit killing plants for awhile yet. Maybe that's our next assignment. But why not start with the obvious? All creatures who bleed, feel pain and fear. Why not start with that?

Again, if somebody chooses that path, then great for them!

I could say to you, "If somebody chooses the path of working to end wars, then great for them!" And I do say that, and I am also one of them. Why in the world would I go to a peace activist and say, "That's fine for you, if you want to follow that path, but don't expect others to quit killing each other. People should have the right to kill other people if they want to."

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 see it as right up there with the war issue. I consider the war issue the biggest issue, with the meat issue #2. And, if anything, we can do more about the meat issue, because we CAN choose to quit contributing to the violence, whereas we aren't always in a position to do anything about the powers that be who drop the bombs.

Remember, Ra said that negative entities feed on fear. Think about how much fear is being generated at slaughterhouses, every single day, by billions of entities! The meat industry is FEEDING the very beings who are perpetuating the wars!

Let's starve them, and see if we don't have a more peaceful planet!

In other words, ending the meat industry can help contribute to peace amongst humans. Research has shown that inmates are less aggressive when fed a veg. diet. Imagine if the whole population was vegetarian! Do you really think we'd have so many wars?

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.

Of course. Except for when the other path is oppressing others. One person's freedom ends where another's begins.

No one is being coerced into following any path or religion. They're just being asked to quit oppressing others.

(Sigh. I'm repeating myself. Tenet, do you plan to read the thread?)

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.

Sure. But that has nothing to do with this discussion, which is about the spiritual implications of eating animals, from a Law of One perspective.

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?

Sure. I am well versed in all the many diets, each one touted by an 'expert' and all contradicting one another. They're all theories, and all work for some people but not for others. Nevertheless, across the board, after all other factors have been accounted for, statistically there is less risk of most major diseases among vegetarians, with an increased risk that rises as meat consumption rises.

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.

It serves the animals.

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.

No, I won't admit that anyone is being controlled here. We're just having a discussion on an internet forum, about the spiritual implications of killing animals. How is that controlling anyone? In fact, the discussion about how to quit controlling...animals.

Interestingly, animals keep getting left out of the responses. Why? Do they not matter?

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.

Too little too late. The planet cannot sustain this lifestyle much longer. And meanwhile, there is a massive amount of fear and suffering that is weighting down the planet, adding to the stress of transition.

How can anyone 'require' anyone else to feel guilt or shame? That is something that comes from within, to get our attention about something.

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

Ra gave guidelines for the 2 paths. That's not contradictory to the Law of One. Inflicting suffering on others contradictory to the STO path. Choosing to not engage in such behaviors isn't contradictory. In fact, Ra declined the offer of the STS entities, so has provided an example of declining activities deemed inappropriate for the STO path.

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.

I thought we were discussing, not arguing.

You seem to be confusing how you personally choose to apply these principles, with the principles themselves. I'm really not interested in how you choose to work with your patients. That is your business. I keep trying to keep this discussion focused on concepts, but inevitably some people keep taking it personally.

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"?

No, not at all, because we know from Ra that harvestability is determined by walking the Steps of Light, not by the action the entity did in his last moment of 3D life. So the question is, sorry, meaningless to me.

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.

I totally don't follow this at all. I have no clue what you're talking about here. ?

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.

Why? Because 2D animals kill other animals? By that logic, then a philosophy of peace also "makes wrong" the very fabric of creation, since 3D humans have been killing one another for millennia.

On this planet, anyway. Hardly the very fabric of creation!

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.

Yes, it certainly can. But again, this is a spiritual discussion.

(And I still don't get what you mean by "ninja moves.")

To the contrary, I would assert that the zealots are actually getting in their own way.

What is a zealot? Someone who believes strongly in something? Then, are you saying it's ok to be a zealot about ending war, but not ok to be a zealot about ending unnecessary oppression and suffering of animals? Why the double standard?

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.

Gosh, that's a toss-up!