In regards to eating meat

[Tenet Nosce]

You yourself said you didn't think anyone would eat animals in 4D.

I did!

Our planet is already getting 4D light. How does that reconcile with the 'separate but nested' densities?

Well, they also interpenetrate. As more 4D light/catalyst bleeds through it will enable more people to get a jumpstart on 4D lessons. But humanity would hardly be held responsible for mastering them!

I see this world as a spiritual kindergarten. Our main lessons seem to revolve around sharing our toys with others and playing nice together. Considering the current state of affairs, teaching a 3D entity to perceive 2D entities as self just seems over-the-bar for your average earth human. That sounds like a very advanced lesson.

From what I gather, earth's population from this point forward is largely comprised of those who elected to destroy their planet in a nuclear blast or who are remnants of similar disasters. They clearly have not yet learned to see each other as self... can we expect them to grasp these advanced ideas? Is that what we are really here to do?

Many psychics say they eat meat to 'stay grounded.'

Tobacco has a similar effect, but there are those who would outlaw that too!

I'm not conversant enough in what you're referring to.

The Book of Aquarius

Of course, my posting a link to this does not constitute an endorsement. But this book is chock-full of quotes from various alchemy writings. It is interesting to see what kind of picture they form when put together. It isn't light reading, but it is the best reference I know.

I will just say that I don't accept the idea that it would ever be necessary to knowingly inflict harm on another being, in order to advance spiritually. That flies in the face of what we know about the STO path.

Well, of course! Although my nitpicky analytical mind would note that probably "knowingly inflicting harm" is an experience which we all must pass through at some point in our journeys. I wonder if in a certain sense it is necessary.

Well that's kinda moot since it's impossible to completely avoid toxic substances. There are enough toxic substances in even organic produce, so I don't think it's a good idea to go looking for more!

LOL. No I am just offering that in response to the attitude which says "you should never put anything harmful into the body". As you pointed out, achieving this would be quite impossible. And yes, if one is aware, then one is doing it consciously.

Shall we say that people shouldn't take any actions which they consciously know might bring harm to their own bodies? Most people would say no a person has the right to do with their body as they please, even if they are causing harm to it. How would you weigh in on this?

(He's a really lit up guy, incidentally.)

I can see that!

Assuming that by 'animals' you are referring to the animals commonly used for meat (cows, chickens, fish etc.) why do you think some don't? (Or are you referring to microbes? We don't usually use the term 'animal' when referring to microbes.)

Well, no when I say "animals" I mean all of them! But no, microbes aren't animals.

All those animals have pain receptors. That isn't opinion; it's fact.

Any bird or mammal does, no doubt.

Even fish have pain receptors!

Yes, some do. Though I wonder if netting a fish causes it to feel much pain. Also, this is still an area of hot debate. Maybe as details unfold we will be able to better discern the biological nature of suffering.

Not to open this whole can of worms... but if plants were found to experience pain and suffering, would you advise not eating them as well?

It logically follows that, if a creature has an obvious physical mechanism for feeling pain, then it must be conscious enough to register that pain.

I don't see how it can be argued that any creature with pain receptors doesn't feel pain.

Well, we all have nociceptors... but the signals only become perceived as "pain" as a result of the way our brain is wired. Theoretically, one could rewire the brain to feel pleasure when those receptors are stimulated. Actually, some have done this, it is called sadomasochism.

Also, I don't know if I would go so far as to say that consciousness is sufficient to experience suffering. I think that requires self-consciousness. But I have no quotes to throw at that one!

Has a suitable nervous system and receptors
Physiological changes to noxious stimuli
Displays protective motor reactions that might include reduced use of an affected area such as limping, rubbing, holding or autotomy
Has opioid receptors and shows reduced responses to noxious stimuli when given analgesics and local anaesthetics
Shows trade-offs between stimulus avoidance and other motivational requirements
Shows avoidance learning
High cognitive ability and sentience

This is a pretty good list. I would say the last three are more indicative of suffering. It seems to me that suffering needs involve the ability to perceive the difference between what is happening and what is desired to be happening.

Like if a bird or mammal becomes separated from their young, they are clearly distressed. Does a fish even notice? I don't know but I don't think so.

Animal protection advocates have raised concerns about the possible suffering of fish caused by angling. In light of recent research, some countries, like Germany, have banned specific types of fishing, and the British RSPCA now formally prosecutes individuals who are cruel to fish.

Wow! See I just have a hard time grasping what drives a person to get up in the morning and dedicate their day to saving the fish. Then again I have a hard time grasping what drives anybody who is highly driven! LOL

But what about netting fish? Seriously we were considering getting a growing dome so we can grow food all year round. You can get them with fish tanks within and I thought it might be neat to raise some sardines and anchovies. Do you really think this wouldn't be acting in the "4D spirit" of things?

Main article: Pain in invertebrates

This is why I don't think having nociceptors is a sufficient criteria. Since fruit flies have them, should I allow them to invade my kitchen?! I don't think I could manage to escort them out of the house.

Some critics argue that, paradoxically, researchers raised in the era of increased awareness of animal welfare may be inclined to deny that animals are in pain simply because they do not want to see themselves as people who inflict it.[/b][38]

Probably so.

Here is that difference in focus again. I really don't understand this entire argument. It seems to be about defining the minimum requirements for graduation, from the perspective of how 'we' can benefit.

Yes, there are many heinous atrocities. And we can't all get involved in every cause. But no one is debating whether one 'should' help starving children if they are able to do so.

Why are we even debating whether we 'should' reduce animal suffering if we are able to do so?

I dunno... are we debating that? My main question is... why is this such a high priority item? It just makes sense to me that if we were to make a list or a pie chart of "suffering in the world" that the vast majority of it is perpetrated by humans to other humans. Why not start there?

For example, we watched a documentary on sealing. Watching those dudes beat baby seals to death was quite appalling! But in the back of my mind I was wondering... what really drove this guy filming the documentary to leave his family and head off in a boat to "save the seals". First off, he didn't actually save a single seal. Secondly... I just can't shake the feeling that these types of individuals have some serious unresolved yellow ray issues they are avoiding. Maybe I'm wrong.

That's easy. If they have pain receptors, then I'd consider them 'higher' 2D. It's an easy demarcation.

So a fruit fly is "higher" 2D, in your view?

We'll miss some trees with that definition, but it's a good place to start.

Sadly. Believe it or not I feel more for some trees than I do some animals. After a huge storm blew through our neighborhood knocking down trees, our neighbors across the street hired a company to take down this ginormous tree in their back yard. It had to be nearing 100 years old! The cats were apparently quite perturbed by this as well. (How did they know??)

On the other hand, if a squirrel runs toward my vehicle when driving down the street, I do try to avoid it. But if I hit it my reaction is something like, "Gee that's too bad... but what a dumbass squirrel!"

I propose that we get the obviously 'higher' ones handled first...then we can maybe move on to plants and microbes.

Good plan.

OK. Can we all agree that creatures with pain receptors probably feel pain?

Nope! This is going to sound nitpicky, but the technical term is nociceptor. Pain receptor is a laymans term... but this is significant because it isn't clear how the signals get translated into the experience of pain. Suffering is another level altogether.

But I think we are on the right track!

It depends on the sum total of our STO which includes compassion. Ra never broke it down into 'other human selves' and 'other animal selves.'

I didn't mean it quite that way. But getting back to what I wrote earlier, yes I think there is a vast gap of awareness between perceiving other humans as self, and perceiving other animals as self. One is a requirement for graduation, the other is not. No- Ra didn't explicitly state as such. This is something that would fall under "what TN thinks Ra meant."

That's why I gave the example of the dog by the side of the road. Who among us wouldn't feel compassion for that dog?

Probably none. But I think that says something... most humans would respond compassionately to the dog. While most wouldn't respond the same way to a sardine or a fruit fly.

It is the same with any animal.

Even a fruit fly?!

Compassion must actually be turned off, by not acknowledging the suffering the animal endured, in order to consciously eat it.

I kind of get what you are saying. But at the same time... isn't acknowledging the suffering necessary for compassion? Could there even be compassion without suffering??!

It may be working itself out. In the next decade, it may very well become mandatory for everyone on the planet to go veg or at least drastically cut meat consumption, for the planet to be able to continue to sustain our population.

I tend to agree with this. Which is why I would encourage some activists to take a chill pill! What you resist persists. Why not surrender to the process and trust that the end result will be that which is desired?

Yes, that too. And for the heaviness permeating our planet in general.

Are you feeling anxious or concerned that the earth may actually not make it, or something like that?

Well, I guess I rest my case then. I don't think there is any way to convey it to you.

I think it has more to do with different uses of the words killing and harm. I don't see these two terms as equivalent, though they often overlap.

If they did (and no research has ever shown that to be true, but IF they did) then they probably wouldn't do well with an abrupt, sudden shift to a vegan diet.

Well they haven't. But what research HAS shown is that different bodies have different nutritional needs, and that those needs change over time. I am just saying I am leery of any dietary position which advocates a one-size-fits-all solution.

Better to transition gradually, and consume superfoods.

Yes!

As Pickle as explained (and I agreed), the human body can mutate. So even if they started out that way, they aren't necessarily stuck with that limitation.

No, not necessarily.

Ra didn't give us any sort of moral imperative. That's why we're all struggling to figure this all out. That too is part of the process!

I know... but I think there are many who believe the moral imperative exists, but Ra left it for us to figure out. I am saying it doesn't exist at all. I am suggesting that a flourishing STO society doesn't navigate by morals or codes of behavior, whatsoever. In an STO society, people don't serve each other because it is the "right thing" to do. They serve each other because that is who they are.