The act of eating is a service.

[3DMonkey]

I love it when people are authentically themselves at any given moment; even when it's not pretty! And especially when the view is not apparently beautiful by standard norms ...

Consciously heaping catalyst upon others is quite the game.

I think some forget why some return. They do not return simply to accept what is going on. This isn't the return of the freelovehippyfest era.

Darn! Are you sure, 3D? (*oops, I should have said Pickle.)

It takes two to tango

[Tenet Nosce]

As I recall, I got offended at the time not because I thought you were including me in that description, but because I perceived an implication that all activists=zealots.

Ah, yes. And I perceived an implication from you that all meat eaters=murderers. Or at the very least accomplices to murder.

But see, I was wrong in that perception, because you clarified later that you didn't mean that at all.

And it sounds like I was also wrong in my perception. Isn't it sometimes great to be wrong?

Although, you did seem to have strong opinions about activism in general...but even that, shouldn't have bothered me.

As I have attempted to clarify on numerous occasions, I don't have a problem with "activism" per se. I just question if some of the tactics employed by certain activists actually work to create the desired outcome.

In the case of meat-eating, you might be surprised to know that I actually support efforts to reduce the consumption of meat, for the sake of human health and the rest of the animals. It's just that, in my opinion, some of the more extreme tactics employed actually result in more meat-eating. For better or worse- when the average human feels like they are being judged they tend to respond by increasing the activity they are feeling judged about.

I may have grumbled, but I wouldn't dream of complaining to the mods, or, worse, asking them to shut down an entire discussion just because I got my panties in a bundle!

Gosh- I hope that wasn't an implied accusation that I asked the mods to shut down the thread, because I did no such thing!

[3DMonkey]

Being up one of our major disagreements and show how you and I can stand beside one another for a common goal at the same time. Our common is "we want compassion"

OK you're on! Hehe, this will be fun!

I think relieving the pain from guilt about what one eats is the primary step to balance imbalances revolved around eating.

(if you have an opposing perspective, and if you would, please state it simply. Thus we establish the disagreement. Afterwards we can point both our views toward our common goal- compassion)

[Monica]

Ah, yes. And I perceived an implication from you that all meat eaters=murderers. Or at the very least accomplices to murder.

Apparently you missed the post in which I explained, in detail, what I meant. It depends on perspective.

I caution all who read my next few sentences, to please refrain from jumping to conclusions, and please bear with me until you read through to the end and try to understand what I'm saying here.

From the animal's perspective, s/he is being murdered. Killed. His/her life is being cut short.

From the human's perspective, it's not murder, because the human doesn't even think the animal is a being who deserves life, and the human thinks killing animals is just normal, so how could it be murder? Murder is intentionally taking the life of another person. If the human doesn't think the animal is a person, then it's obviously not 'murder' in the same sense as a human ruthlessly killing another human.

The action is the same. It's an act of bloody violence, and stops a beating heart.

The intention, however, is quite different.

It all depends on perspective!

When vegetarians say "killing animals is murder" we are referring to the animal's perspective, in an effort to elicit compassion in humans who are ignoring the animal's perspective and thinking only about the taste of that burger.

Now, if anyone reading this is still offended and erroneously thinking I am calling them murderers, please hold off on the butthurtness until I can dig out my old post in which I explained this in more detail, ok??

And it sounds like I was also wrong in my perception. Isn't it sometimes great to be wrong?

Oh sure! Being wrong is cool. It's how we learn!

Let's see if you still feel that way after reading this post though, heh!

As I have attempted to clarify on numerous occasions, I don't have a problem with "activism" per se. I just question if some of the tactics employed by certain activists actually work to create the desired outcome.

Sure, and I agreed with that. A great example is people trying to save one single cow or one single lab rat. There are animal sanctuaries full of cows and rats! I understand their good intentions, and I'm well aware they would find holes in my logic on this point, but I find their methodology less than efficacious.

In the case of meat-eating, you might be surprised to know that I actually support efforts to reduce the consumption of meat, for the sake of human health and the rest of the animals.

I'm not surprised because you've stated that before. I just never responded to that particular statement of yours, because my policy is to avoid any personal assessment of anyone's lifestyle/dietary choices, when engaged in a philosophical or academic discussion.

Because, once we start assessing other people, the discussion is no longer academic but becomes personal, and then it's a freefall into butthurt territory!

It's just that, in my opinion, some of the more extreme tactics employed actually result in more meat-eating.

If by "extreme" you mean acts of vandalism, I agree.

If by "extreme" you mean billboards, or being tenacious in expressing one's opinion in an internet discussion forum, then I'd disagree.

For better or worse- when the average human feels like they are being judged they tend to respond by increasing the activity they are feeling judged about.

Here's where we might disagree. What I was trying to express in my previous reply to you, is that if Person A feels "judged" by Person B expressing their opinions about xyz, when Person B never even said anything directly about Person A personally, then it is Person A's responsibility for what they are feeling. It's NOT Person B's fault if Person A feel butthurt just based on disagreement of viewpoint.

Now if Person B says to Person A "you are stupid" then yes, of course Person B is responsible for their rude comment. But when Person B just says "I think xyz is wrong" and Person A engages in xyz, it's not Person B's fault if Person A feels guilty, butthurt, offended or whatever.

Gosh- I hope that wasn't an implied accusation that I asked the mods to shut down the thread, because I did no such thing!

Oh no!! Not you!! Others did. Sorry for the implication. I wasn't referring to you at all.

[Patrick]

In 3d, one sees what one wishes to see. That is how the Way of Confusion works its magic.

[BrownEye]

I think relieving the pain from guilt about what one eats is the primary step to balance imbalances revolved around eating.

(if you have an opposing perspective, and if you would, please state it simply. Thus we establish the disagreement. Afterwards we can point both our views toward our common goal- compassion)

I experience no guilt resulting from what I eat. This is because after my conscious awareness changed I made the conscious choice to not do what would cause guilt. No matter how "happily" you accept poison, it is still poison, and the choice was made.

This is what "enlighten" means. Light is information. As we take in information, we accept/integrate this information and make conscious changes to our path of choices.

The choice you make today creates the reality you experience tomorrow. If you don't approve of the reality that is coming tomorrow, make your changes today.

Most do not make conscious choices and later rely on allopathy. Sickness and disease is the result of choices.

[Monica]

I think relieving the pain from guilt about what one eats is the primary step to balance imbalances revolved around eating.

(if you have an opposing perspective, and if you would, please state it simply. Thus we establish the disagreement. Afterwards we can point both our views toward our common goal- compassion)

OK here goes:

I think feelings of guilt sometimes serve an important purpose. Only by reflecting on our feelings of guilt, can we determine if they are valid; ie. maybe there's something our Higher Self is trying to bring to our attention. The guilt might actually be telling us about something we can change, and the change is what brings balance.

Once the purpose of the guilt is acknowledged and accepted, then it can be forgiven and released.

(Whew! I hope that wasn't too long! It's short for me!)

[BrownEye]

I think feelings of guilt sometimes serve an important purpose.

Yes, it is a sign of conscience.

Is there any similarity between conscience and conscious?

[3DMonkey]

Ah, yes. And I perceived an implication from you that all meat eaters=murderers. Or at the very least accomplices to murder.

Apparently you missed the post in which I explained, in detail, what I meant. It depends on perspective.

I caution all who read my next few sentences, to please refrain from jumping to conclusions, and please bear with me until you read through to the end and try to understand what I'm saying here.

From the animal's perspective, s/he is being murdered. Killed. His/her life is being cut short.

From the human's perspective, it's not murder, because the human doesn't even think the animal is a being who deserves life, and the human thinks killing animals is just normal, so how could it be murder? Murder is intentionally taking the life of another person. If the human doesn't think the animal is a person, then it's obviously not 'murder' in the same sense as a human ruthlessly killing another human.

My response to this has always been to use the same perspective paradigm to apply to plants. My attempt is to relieve what may cause guilt by showing how we can make ourselves believe anything.

---

I think relieving the pain from guilt about what one eats is the primary step to balance imbalances revolved around eating.

(if you have an opposing perspective, and if you would, please state it simply. Thus we establish the disagreement. Afterwards we can point both our views toward our common goal- compassion)

OK here goes:

I think feelings of guilt sometimes serve an important purpose. Only by reflecting on our feelings of guilt, can we determine if they are valid; ie. maybe there's something our Higher Self is trying to bring to our attention. The guilt might actually be telling us about something we can change, and the change is what brings balance.

Once the purpose of the guilt is acknowledged and accepted, then it can be forgiven and released.

(Whew! I hope that wasn't too long! It's short for me!)

That is how guilt is a tool. This is a given. But what is coming from the higher self is not black and white, not obvious to anyone but the beautiful self.

Our disagreement is more about the directive to balancing our society. Would you state if you disagree with my primary directive?

[Patrick]

Every time I feel guilt, I use this catalyst to accept the self and forgive the self. It's a blessing really!

[BrownEye]

Our disagreement is more about the directive to balancing our society.

I am afraid that does not happen with "more of the same".

It takes change. Exactly what change is needed? As it is we are moving towards a self impelled extinction, with those that do not accept this having to go along for the ride. Majority rules you know? Consensus reality?

With this in mind, is balance simply accepting more of the same? Who needs to change? The majority? The minority?

My response to this has always been to use the same perspective paradigm to apply to plants.

How about the application of logic.

Let's say we have a row of plants that start from very small and simple organisms to larger longer lived more complex beings. This row is say............a block long. You can exist on the smaller short lived simple plants, or the older end of life plants, without any impulse whatsoever to eat the rest of the plants in this line.

A person that actually had compassion for these plants, yet had to eat plants to continue their own existence, will obviously eat only the simple short lived, or end of life plants, in order to allow the rest to thrive. The lesser evil.

The idea of having compassion, yet consciously avoiding making the choice of lesser evils, does not include the logic of the intellect.

This logic is what Monica has tried for ever to engage in, yet instead she has already been accused of cognitive distortion. (talk about reflections lol)

[Monica]

My response to this has always been to use the same perspective paradigm to apply to plants.

If I'm understanding you correctly, then we are essentially doing the same thing, but with different objectives:

You are attempting to draw a parallel between plants and animals.

I am attempting to draw a parallel between animals and humans.

My attempt is to relieve what may cause guilt by showing how we can make ourselves believe anything.

That is a valid perspective.

I have a different, but equally valid, perspective:

My attempt is to show that guilt can have a purpose, and there might be both similarities and genuine differences, between animals and humans, as well as between animals and plants.

That is how guilt is a tool. This is a given. But what is coming from the higher self is not black and white, not obvious to anyone but the beautiful self.

I agree with this, with the minor modification that guilt could be used as a tool, but that doesn't negate its potential value to the person feeling it.

Our disagreement is more about the directive to balancing our society. Would you state if you disagree with my primary directive?

I would need a more complete definition of your primary directive, please, in order to say whether I agree or disagree with it.

[Patrick]

The concept of change is interesting to contemplate. You guys are bringing so much to the surface. I won't have enough time to contemplate it all !

[Monica]

Every time I feel guilt, I use this catalyst to accept the self and forgive the self. It's a blessing really!

I do too. But I also reflect on the reason for the guilt. If I just 'forgive' myself without even knowing what the guilt is trying to tell me, then I haven't actually accepted it, and thus cannot transmute it. It just gets swept under the rug - suppressed - and will rise again and again until I acknowledge, accept and forgive it. Only then can it be transmuted/transformed/healed/balanced.

[3DMonkey]

Reset. Here it is.

Being up one of our major disagreements and show how you and I can stand beside one another for a common goal at the same time. Our common is "we want compassion"

OK you're on! Hehe, this will be fun!

I think relieving the pain from guilt about what one eats is the primary step to balance imbalances revolved around eating.

(if you have an opposing perspective, and if you would, please state it simply. Thus we establish the disagreement. Afterwards we can point both our views toward our common goal- compassion)

[Monica]

I think relieving the pain from guilt about what one eats is the primary step to balance imbalances revolved around eating.

OK. Yes, I see your point, but disagree.

I'd say the primary (as in first, not as in most important) step is to honestly, courageously and humbly reflect upon the guilt, to mine the gem of insight it is offering.

Then, there are other steps after that...

[BrownEye]

I used to have an imbalance resulting from "what" I ate, that involved no guilt whatsoever. I followed the pack, the societal programming. Only after there was enough physical catalyst did I notice the imbalance and take corrective measures to bring balance to my eating habits. This involves choice. Not guilt.

[3DMonkey]

I think relieving the pain from guilt about what one eats is the primary step to balance imbalances revolved around eating.

OK. Yes, I see your point, but disagree.

I'd say the primary (as in first, not as in most important) step is to honestly, courageously and humbly reflect upon the guilt, to mine the gem of insight it is offering.

Then, there are other steps after that...

I'm talking about steps toward balancing humankind's consumption.

[Patrick]

Every time I feel guilt, I use this catalyst to accept the self and forgive the self. It's a blessing really!

I do too. But I also reflect on the reason for the guilt. If I just 'forgive' myself without even knowing what the guilt is trying to tell me, then I haven't actually accepted it, and thus cannot transmute it. It just gets swept under the rug - suppressed - and will rise again and again until I acknowledge, accept and forgive it. Only then can it be transmuted/transformed/healed/balanced.

Yeah, I forgot to add the understanding part.

It should have read. Every time I feel guilt, I use this catalyst to understand the self, accept the self and forgive the self.

[BrownEye]

The act of eating is a service

Core thought here, who/what do you serve when you eat. This talk about balance while ignoring balance itself is just funny as all heck.

[3DMonkey]

Every time I feel guilt, I use this catalyst to accept the self and forgive the self. It's a blessing really!

I do too. But I also reflect on the reason for the guilt. If I just 'forgive' myself without even knowing what the guilt is trying to tell me, then I haven't actually accepted it, and thus cannot transmute it. It just gets swept under the rug - suppressed - and will rise again and again until I acknowledge, accept and forgive it. Only then can it be transmuted/transformed/healed/balanced.

Yeah, I forgot to add the understanding part.

It should have read. Every time I feel guilt, I use this catalyst to understand the self, accept the self and forgive the self.

And the guilt comes from anywhere. Say you sat down at the table and ate a meal. You feel funny. You recognize you feel guilty for eating. You ask why. Then you realize it's because you didn't wait for your spouse before sitting down. You accept your desire to make your spouse happy. You forgive and make restitution. ... Remember, this was guilt about eating.

[Tenet Nosce]

From the human's perspective, it's not murder, because the human doesn't even think the animal is a being who deserves life, and the human thinks killing animals is just normal, so how could it be murder? Murder is intentionally taking the life of another person. If the human doesn't think the animal is a person, then it's obviously not 'murder' in the same sense as a human ruthlessly killing another human.

I see what you are saying- although I think there is some gray area you missed. Personally, I wouldn't go so far as to say that everybody who eats meat thinks animals aren't deserving of life. Though I would imagine that some do.

As regards murder- yes this means intentionally taking the life of another person. Clearly, we could go round and round about what constitutes a "person" and probably wouldn't get anywhere! But at the least, I think we could agree that the term "animals" represents such a vast range of lifeforms that to make a blanket statement that "animals are people too" is quite a stretch. I mean- if I tried to make a case against the "murder" of shrimp wouldn't you consider that a little absurd? Are shrimp to be considered people?

The action is the same. It's an act of bloody violence, and stops a beating heart.

Is it really? I mean- do you really consider the slaughter of a pig in a factory farm as the same action as swatting a housefly? Flies not only have a beating heart, but nine of them!

When vegetarians say "killing animals is murder" we are referring to the animal's perspective, in an effort to elicit compassion in humans who are ignoring the animal's perspective and thinking only about the taste of that burger.

I get it- however I simply question whether or not that actually works to elicit more compassion or not. I will admit- I do not really know! But what I do know is that vegetarians could say "killing animals is unnecessary" and that would be a much less contentious point. I imagine it would result in a much greater percentage of a given audience being willing to open their hearts and listen to whatever else they have to say.

Surely, if a vegetarian is unable to establish a basic sense of compassion and rapport with a meat-eater, then the chances of being successful in their objective to increase the meat-eater's compassion toward animals is pretty small.

If by "extreme" you mean acts of vandalism, I agree.

If by "extreme" you mean billboards, or being tenacious in expressing one's opinion in an internet discussion forum, then I'd disagree.

Yes, I am referring to the vandalism and such. But I am also referring to the employment of extreme language. I seem to be having difficulty communicating this effectively.

Let's take a totally different example, and one which I know we are on the same page about. Look at the media reporting on the Ron Paul campaign this last week: "Ron Paul Drops Out", "Ron Paul Ends Presidential Campaign", "Ron Paul Admits He Will Not Be President" are a few examples. None of these are true! The language these articles are using is more extreme than what is actually the case. That is different from calling these reporters extremists.

Getting back to our example with animals- and in my opinion- murder is an extreme term. One could say: kill, slaughter, or slay and it would be more accurate. Again, in my opinion.

One could also say: murder, assassinate, or annhiliate. These are valid synonyms, but tend to connote something more extreme.

So- yeah- you could say that I murdered a fly last week. But what would be the point in doing so? Wouldn't that actually detract from the argument?

Yup, I murdered a fly last week. I also murdered some bacteria in my bathtub, and murdered a celery plant from my garden. Now what about those cows again? If all killing is murder, then why should I care about any of it? Being a murderer then becomes simply part of being a human- or any physical lifeform for that matter- and there is nothing I can do to change it. So why should I try?

Here's a different example from pop culture: AMAZING! Everything is frigging AMAZING nowadays. People say: wow that hummus was AMAZING! Really? Were you really AMAZED by that hummus? Was there something puzzling or inexplicable about the hummus? Or was it just tasty and delicious?

Here's where we might disagree. What I was trying to express in my previous reply to you, is that if Person A feels "judged" by Person B expressing their opinions about xyz, when Person B never even said anything directly about Person A personally, then it is Person A's responsibility for what they are feeling. It's NOT Person B's fault if Person A feel butthurt just based on disagreement of viewpoint.

Now if Person B says to Person A "you are stupid" then yes, of course Person B is responsible for their rude comment. But when Person B just says "I think xyz is wrong" and Person A engages in xyz, it's not Person B's fault if Person A feels guilty, butthurt, offended or whatever.

Oh no, I agree with you about all that! I just mean from a pragmatic standpoint of achieving the stated outcome of influencing people to eat less meat, or to stop eating it altogether.

What I am trying to say is: people are people. And for better or worse (I think worse) people seem to be more and more on edge and looking for any reason to get butthurt or offended. At the end of the day, if something we say results in butthurt or offense of our audience (whether or not we think it is an appropriate response) then all we have done is alienate them, and then they aren't going to listen to ANYTHING we have to say.

Thus, we are shooting ourselves in the foot. Why would we do that?

[Monica]

I'm talking about steps toward balancing humankind's consumption.

Oh, ok thanks for the clarification. In that case, here's my stance on that:

No one can singlehandedly change humankind. All we can do is be true to ourselves, and work on improving ourselves as we see fit.

Being true to ourselves includes expressing our opinions honestly yet lovingly, while also being receptive to learning from others. It also may include action or even activism, if we feel personally guided to do so.

The key is to be active, without any attachment to outcome, because we can only control our own actions/choices; we can't control how others respond to our actions/choices.

[Cyan]

Thus, we are shooting ourselves in the foot. Why would we do that?

Truly, good buddy, if I knew the answer to that i would not be up at 21:30 in the night wondering the same thing. But, that is why, I suppose, the layer I observe is the layer of the quiet contemplation and healing, for the time being

[BrownEye]

What I am trying to say is: people are people. And for better or worse (I think worse) people seem to be more and more on edge and looking for any reason to get butthurt or offended. At the end of the day, if something we say results in butthurt or offense of our audience (whether or not we think it is an appropriate response) then all we have done is alienate them, and then they aren't going to listen to ANYTHING we have to say.

Why do you suppose they are looking?

[3DMonkey]

I'm talking about steps toward balancing humankind's consumption.

Oh, ok thanks for the clarification. In that case, here's my stance on that:

No one can singlehandedly change humankind. All we can do is be true to ourselves, and work on improving ourselves as we see fit.

Being true to ourselves includes expressing our opinions honestly yet lovingly, while also being receptive to learning from others. It also may include action or even activism, if we feel personally guided to do so.

The key is to be active, without any attachment to outcome, because we can only control our own actions/choices; we can't control how others respond to our actions/choices.

Remember? We were going to establish a disagreement, and then demonstrate how different perspectives can turn to point at a common goal.

[Patrick]

The act of eating is a service

...who/what do you serve when you eat....

Right. That was the trust of the original query.

Can I serve my other-selves by not eating? Not taking inside of me their energy? Will this end my incarnation? Maybe ending my incarnation in this way is the ultimate service-to-others act. It could be seen as very compassionate to other-selves, but also not compassionate to self. If compassion to others is used to measure polarity, then this sacrifice would provide extreme positive polarity?

Then, can I actually serve my other-selves by eating? Is it a communion in between self and other-self. The lower density other-selves (plants) sacrificing their incarnation to sustain ours. That is an act of love right ? Did these plants chose this before their incarnation? etc...

That was the kind of discussion of was trying to start at the beginning.

---

...Every time I feel guilt, I use this catalyst to understand the self, accept the self and forgive the self.

And the guilt comes from anywhere. Say you sat down at the table and ate a meal. You feel funny. You recognize you feel guilty for eating. You ask why. Then you realize it's because you didn't wait for your spouse before sitting down. You accept your desire to make your spouse happy. You forgive and make restitution. ... Remember, this was guilt about eating.

Absolutely!

[Tenet Nosce]

Why do you suppose they are looking?

That's a great question! I don't really know the answer. If I had to guess it is because being butthurt and offended is a pretty effective way to keep one outward-focused and distracted from doing inner work. I also imagine it has something to do with the fact that our society tends to reward people for being victims, while downplaying the importance of taking responsibility for oneself. Finally, I would speculate it has something to do with simply being ungrounded while all this additional energy is pouring in from space.

[Monica]

Yeah, I forgot to add the understanding part.

It should have read. Every time I feel guilt, I use this catalyst to understand the self, accept the self and forgive the self.

Yes, but that's not all. In my understanding, choice must also be added to the equation.

Self-reflection leads to acceptance, which leads to forgiveness, + simultaneously combined with choice to correct the imbalance = efficient utilization of catalyst = polarization.

---

Say you sat down at the table and ate a meal. You feel funny. You recognize you feel guilty for eating. You ask why. Then you realize it's because you didn't wait for your spouse before sitting down. You accept your desire to make your spouse happy. You forgive and make restitution. ... Remember, this was guilt about eating.

That's a good example, though I'd say the guilt is more about consideration for the spouse, than about eating itself, though eating was part of the scenario.

Here's another example:

A member pm'ed me saying s/he had felt guilt after eating some meat. S/he said it had nothing to do with the meat thread. S/he felt this guilt on his/her own. But, right after feeling the guilt, s/he read something in the meat thread which had the effect of amplifying the guilt s/he already had.

---

Remember? We were going to establish a disagreement, and then demonstrate how different perspectives can turn to point at a common goal.

Right. I think we've established that we disagree about how to change consumption in society.

Do we even disagree about doing anything at all to change society?

[BrownEye]

Why do you suppose they are looking?

That's a great question! I don't really know the answer. If I had to guess it is because being butthurt and offended is a pretty effective way to keep one outward-focused and distracted from doing inner work. I also imagine it has something to do with the fact that our society tends to reward people for being victims, while downplaying the importance of taking responsibility for oneself. Finally, I would speculate it has something to do with simply being ungrounded while all this additional energy is pouring in from space.

Technically this results from Orion influence. I have found this an interesting concept.