In regards to eating meat

[Monica]

We are always choosing. Only there is more than a single linear axis of compassion/non-compassion to choose from.

I don't think that applies in this case. It's very simple: Either we feel compassion for animals or we don't.

My observation from this thread is that very few meat-eaters have expressed compassion for the animals. The arguments have been mostly about self; whether eating animals would affect polarity, whether thinking positive thoughts would make the meat less harmful, etc. Very little about the animals, and even a resistance to thinking about the animals.

Having compassion, and making the choice to no longer contribute to the suffering of others, doesn't require personal suffering.

Suffering occurs. We are all a part of it. We each come to curtail our contributions in our own way, and in our own time.

Not necessarily. Some just don't get it. And others decide to curtail their contributions, because others have helped them raise their awareness.

I believe each of us is choosing all the time. So yes, I would agree.

I see a prevalent attitude here in this community, to attempt to apply Oneness, while leaving out Choice.

I don't believe I can accurately assess that statement one way or another.

You were talking about transcendence. My point is that denial isn't transcendence. Nor is it acceptance.

They are the same.

Do you not believe that all possible timelines exist? We do not change the outer world, we only change our perception.

You are still separating them.

It is a distraction when what is considered compassionate is teaching others what compassion is without simultaneously learning what it is from them.

If they don't have compassion in that particular instance, then they can't teach it to us. They will teach us something else, but not compassion.

It is a bi-directional exchange. If it is teach/learning than it wouldn't be a distraction.

You seem to be saying that if, for example, you learn compassion from me, then I must also learn compassion from you.

I strongly disagree. That's like saying that if you teach me Spanish, I must also teach you Spanish.

My understanding of teach/learn is that you might teach me Spanich, while I teach you German.

Ra didn't learn the same things from us that they taught us.

Person A might learn compassion from Person B, while Person B might learn, say, patience from Person A.

So, if I'm understanding you correctly, you don't consider the support of brutally and killing torturing sentient creatures STS, but you consider the avoidance of eating said creatures out of a belief that it is defiling, to be STS?

You are not understanding me correctly.

Please correct me then. Have you not stated that someone choosing to eat meat isn't STS? Then you said that the concept of ahimsa was STS. Hence, my summary above.

Taken to its extreme, ie. caring about our own comfort and not having compassion for others, that would be STS polarizing.

Yes, I agree.

Then would you also agree that focusing only on self, to the point that we don't do anything to help others, is STS?

That is what you seemed to be advocating.

Again, feel free to correct me if I'm misunderstanding you.

Ask anyone who has forgotten all about their own suffering by immersing themselves in helping others.

What is it like? Tell us a story!

Do I really need to provide examples? Hasn't everyone here experienced this multiple times?