(06-19-2012, 03:29 PM)Bring4th_Admin Wrote: Those of vegetarian orientation have a conviction. Their conviction is, *in general*, that it is better not to consume or slaughter animal flesh, and not to contribute the self's personal energies to the system of that consumption..
Gary, you did say your accounting was "imperfect" but I must comment that I think attempting to summarize the point of view of another person, especially when the other person has a directly opposite point of view, is rarely successful, no matter how well-intentioned the effort is.
This above statement of yours, which clearly was intended to convey the vegetarian conviction, implies the exact opposite of what we have been trying to explain for 3 years: that in fact we do not consider our path "better" but actually don't have any sort of judgment on it as a path per se, and furthermore, don't even consider it to be about a "path" at all!
We have been trying to convey that it's not about a path...not about being superior or inferior...it's not even about US at all!!! We've been trying, unsuccessfully, to shift the focus away from "what is the best path for me" and "me me me" altogether, to a conversation about...the victims.
The above statement is still about what's the "best path" as in, what will promote the best polarization, etc. but to be thinking about the benefits to self in terms of polarization and the karmic repercussions of contributing to the meat industry, is still focusing on self.
(06-19-2012, 03:29 PM)Bring4th_Admin Wrote: Much in the way that most if not all of us feel that compassion is more evolved than hatred, humility more evolved than pride, spiritual seeking more evolved than dogmatic religious indoctrination, and iPods more evolved than 8-tracks, the vegetarians' is an unbending certainty that the path of vegetarianism is more evolved than the path of meat eating. The vegetarians' reasons rest principally on the compassion they feel for the suffering of second-density creatures, along with the benefits they feel that vegetarianism brings for the health of the planet’s biosphere and the health of individuals, among perhaps other reasons.
Respectfully, you seem to be trying to condense 3 years' and 148 pages' worth of discussion, into a couple of paragraphs. That doesn't work for me, because so much has been lost, over-simplified, and even misrepresented. The reasons behind our convictions have been reduced to a simple "my path vs your path" similar to "I am Buddhist you are Pagan which is more evolved?" when we don't even consider it to be a "path" at all but something that can be included in any path: compassion.
It's not "similar to compassion" but IS about compassion. That's it. Nothing else. Benefits to one's health, benefits to the planet, etc. are bonuses, but the driving force behind our view is compassion for other-selves, period. Not about US. Not about which "path" is move evolved, which is just ego talking. It's like, when someone is serving an other-self because they want to polarize STO, that's not really STO is it? Likewise, when one talks about being a vegetarian because it's a "more evolved path" then it's being done for self, and still misses the point: It's about compassion.
(06-19-2012, 03:29 PM)Bring4th_Admin Wrote: Those of vegetarian seeking wouldn’t be following this understanding and making it their way of life and communicating so passionately if they didn’t feel it was a higher path. When a conviction is felt and perceived so strongly that one dedicates ones life to its principles, then one feels it be the best choice for the self.
This statement is a gross misrepresentation of what we have tried so hard to communicate. So much so, that I don't even know where to begin! This is precisely why I don't like the idea of summarizing other people's points at all. There is simply no way for me to point out what's inaccurate about your statements, other than directing people to the original thread and inviting them to read it, if they wish to understand the nature of our convictions. But I will say here that you have missed it, despite your good intentions to be fair and represent our viewpoint. Once again it has become about self.
(06-19-2012, 03:29 PM)Bring4th_Admin Wrote: Obviously, not everyone agrees that vegetarianism is the “best” or highest or most evolved choice. And we the moderators think that the center of this tension between the positions isn’t the notion of what’s best for the self, per se, but rather the tension arises when that notion moves into the territory of what’s best for you, the other self.
If that is the center of the tension, then it's based on gross misunderstanding. You seem to be implying that the vegetarians have imposed our path onto others. First of all, it's not a path; it's an attribute. Compassion is an attribute that can fit into any path.
Secondly, to imply that the vegetarians have been trying to impose our "path" onto others, is just reinforcing the gross misunderstanding that has plagued the thread all this time. We've never tried to impose anything on anyone. We have only shared the reasons for our convictions, and have attempted to always redirect the conversation away from us and towards the animals. The animals. That's what it's about. NOT us. The animals.
Some of those who eat meat felt offended by the very fact that we have convictions at all. It's not about imposing a path on someone like imposing a religion; it's about the concept of compassion. Our focus has always been on the animals, whereas the focus of the meat-eaters has, for the most part, been on the self.
That is the difference. And it was displayed right here, with your post.
(06-19-2012, 03:29 PM)Bring4th_Admin Wrote: This is where the question moves deeper than “What should we eat?” and into “What is the role of activism and the activist in light of a philosophy which values free will above all else while embracing and accepting all with the love of the Creator?” And by activism we in general mean the individual or organized effort to create changes in culture and society through the advocacy of policies, ideas, and actions.
Again, respectfully, this is a misrepresentation. We have gone out of our way to reassure the meat-eaters that we aren't trying to change legislation. And even if we were, what would be the point of that? As if we had a snowball's chance in hell of winning? The idea of trying to legislate something like that is pointless, and to imply that this is what we were trying to do, is simply inaccurate. If anything, we have distanced ourselves from those who do use militant force such as breaking into medical labs etc. even though I personally can understand what drives them. No one ever complained about activists setting human slaves free or changing the slavery laws! What we have here is speciesism. So if someday it's illegal to kill an animal for food, sure, I'll rejoice! But I have no illusions that that day will arrive any time soon, so to imply that is how we operate, is simply a gross misrepresentation.
This is the crux of the matter:
(06-19-2012, 03:29 PM)Bring4th_Admin Wrote: • Whether respecting the free will of another means to not take action when the other is committing what one feels to be a grievous, free-will infringing crime
This is addressed here:
http://www.bring4th.org/forums/showthrea...8#pid84128
(06-19-2012, 03:29 PM)Bring4th_Admin Wrote: • How ones convictions, which desperately want other people to make changes, relate to the need to respect the free will of another upon the positive path
We don't "desperately want other people to make changes." Speaking for myself, that kind of thinking doesn't even enter my mind! I honestly never, ever think "Oh I wish Gary would become a vegetarian" much less desperately wish it. Nope, not at all.
I'd like to see the oppression of animals end, the same way I'd like to see starvation end, or wars end. The difference is that we have a lot more power to end oppression of animals than we do some of those other atrocities, and my biggest challenge is wrapping my brain around how otherwise spiritually-oriented people could miss something so obvious as this. But, that's my problem, not yours. I've never made it yours. I have no attachment to whether you or anyone else eats animals. My only task is to do what I can to provide information, in answer to the call of the animals. What others do with that information is up to them. I don't carry the burden of the whole world on my shoulders, and desperation doesn't enter into the equation at all. I do feel a sense of urgency, and marvel that others could be so oblivious to the call of the animals. That is what drives me. Not desperation, not attachment, not judgment. Just doing what I can to answer the call in any way I can. That's it.
I think it needs to be explicitly stated that expressing one's convictions is not disrespecting another person.
Example: Another member told me, via pm, that I had been disrespectful in the meat thread. I asked this person to point out what I had said that was disrespectful. The person replied with this quote of mine:
Eating meat contributes to the suffering and death of animals.
I was stunned. How, just how, is this statement judgmental and disrespectful? I really want to know!
This statement is akin to saying:
Driving a car contributes to pollution.
These are facts. How is stating a fact disrespectful?
It is a fact that eating meat contributes to the death of the animal. Were it not killed, it could not be eaten. And even so-called 'humanely raised' animals suffer, though not nearly as much as the factory-farmed animals. And I seriously doubt that most of the meat-eaters never ever ever eat in a restaurant, and if they do, they are getting factory-farmed meat.
Therefore, it is simply a fact to say that Eating meat contributes to the suffering and death of animals.
Driving a car contributes to pollution. This is fact. Yet, I still drive a car! Why? I justify it because I need to do xyz and there's no way to function in life without a car blah blah blah, but that doesn't change the fact that every time I get in my car, I am contributing to air pollution.
Does this make me less evolved? Less spiritual? That is irrelevant because I never ever said that anyone driving a car is less spiritual, just as I never ever said someone who eats meat is less spiritual. In fact, we did the opposite: Read the posts under the headings "Is vegetarianism a spiritual litmus test?" and "Is vegetarianism a ticket to 4D?" and you will see that we went out of our way to NOT judge anyone!
So to be told that stating a simple fact is disrespectful, is an indication of just how our statements are being perceived. If even such a simple statement of fact can be construed as disrespectful and judgmental, then I think a discussion about what respect IS, is in order.
(06-19-2012, 03:29 PM)Bring4th_Admin Wrote: • Whether we can accept/love another member in light of viewpoints which incense us
We already know the answer to that and it's a resounding NO. The answer should be YES but that's not what happened at all. Towards the end of the thread, I posted a heartfelt plea to the meat-eaters, asking them if any of them had developed more compassion towards the vegetarian, as a result of this discussion, and even almost begged for some compassion, even if they couldn't understand.
I got a whopping ONE response, and it was privately.
So no, unfortunately, it seems that the vegetarians asking for a bit of compassion, is asking too much. We learned that the only way we would ever be accepted was if we gave up our convictions.
All this talk about acceptance in the Law of One? Apparently it only applies to those who agree. That is what I observed.
(06-19-2012, 03:29 PM)Bring4th_Admin Wrote: • Whether we can take responsibility for our own emotional state[/list]
This is good. Right now, I take full responsibility for my present emotional state, which is incredulity and dismay at how this whole issue has unfolded. I also take full responsibility for my difficulty in accepting those who give lip service to acceptance but do not accept those with different viewpoints, and even see fit to complain about them.
I am working on accepting those who lack acceptance. It's a challenge, sort of like being tolerant of those who are intolerant.
(06-19-2012, 03:29 PM)Bring4th_Admin Wrote: We feel that it merges the individual with their chosen belief to say “vegetarian” or “meat-eater”, and limits the individual to a pigeonholed identity to the extent that one begins relating to the other as a vegetarian or as an eater of meat, rather than a soul with vegetarian convictions, or a soul with meat-eating tendencies.
As Pablisimo so eloquently pointed out, we are each far more than this single choice. However, for purposes of this particular discussion, the terms are serving only to differentiate between the viewpoints and aren't intended to pigeonhole anyone. I know that you, Gary, are far more than just "a person who eats meat" for example.