Why I am not a vegan

[Monica]

Do they really cut the legs off cows while they're still alive?

Yes, they do. They slit their throats and let the blood drain out, and then start hacking off limbs, while they're still alive.

The video the meat industry doesn't want you to see

Meet Your Meat

And in the case of feathers and fur, animals are skinned while still alive.

[AnthroHeart]

Is it just to be cruel on purpose, or to save money that they skin animals alive?

[Unbound]

Honestly what disturbs me most about those videos isn't the death, it's the casualness of the people and the clearly empty-hearted nature with which they do their work. I can feel how they steel themselves and close their hearts against the pain of the animals, many of them do not probably even want to be doing what they are doing (although I am sure some are all too happy to let loose their sadistic side) but "rules are rules" and "I've gotta eat too".

---

My point is, I don't advocate the quickening of any form of death, nor do I advocate any form of torture, and the attempt to justify to myself any one thing I eat being "better" than any other seems like a way to just delude myself out of the sheer fact that I have to consume to survive.

[Monica]

All I can say is that yes, I have experienced the grass screaming and the plants lamenting at their lost limbs. It doesn't matter that they grow back, there is still grief. I no more wish to harm or torture a plant than I do an animal. I eat because my body requires it (at least until I figure out this whole sustaining oneself on pure light thing) and I work with the principles of transmutation, thus believing anything I ingest is naturally of the domain of death and rebirth and it is my duty and honour to respect and offer thanks to all that I eat, regardless of where or what it came from for this is unconditional love and respect for all and each, including myself.

Your astral "horrors" and dramatic displays of attempted woe-ing to compassion does little more than reveal your own deep-set fears of being like an animal in such conditions, of being caged and tortured. I agree that the killing of animals is, in and of itself, a horrific experience, and I believe that it is no less horrific to see the destruction of plants so I see neither carnivorous behaviour or herbivorous behaviour nor omnivorous behaviour as being any particularly better than any other.

Either way you are consuming life, you are eating of the plate of death.

Rather than reinvent the wheel, I will direct you to what has already been discussed:

Don't plants feel pain, too?
post: #188

Eggs, dairy, and the life-force of plants
post: #263

Science shows that plants feel pain too! Therefore it's ok to eat animals!
Post #224 Pablísimo
Post #825 Monica (and a heated debate ensues, which continues for several pages)
Post #2675 Monica (plants communicating psychically - what does that signify?)
Post #2680-2682 Monica (group consciousness)
Post #2684-2692 Pickle
Post #873 Monica
Post #912 Namaste
Post #957 Monica
Post #2642 Monica
Post #1327 Diana
Post #1398 Pickle & Monica

Trying to justify one's self regarding the consumption of meat, by using
plants as a counter argument, holds no valid ground. And...what kind of
entities will cows be when they graduate to 3D?
Post #1405 Namaste
Post #1497 Monica
Post #1149 Monica - on Ra's statements about trees developing sentience
Post #2786 Monica
Post #2650 Diana
Post #2657 Diana

When Ra said "living foods" in 4D, did they mean bloody animals?
Post #1401 Monica

---

My point is, I don't advocate the quickening of any form of death, nor do I advocate any form of torture, and the attempt to justify to myself any one thing I eat being "better" than any other seems like a way to just delude myself out of the sheer fact that I have to consume to survive.

If you truly see no difference between mowing your lawn and dismembering a cow, then I see no point in continuing this discussion.

[Unbound]

The inferences you are making about my character are little more than deluded by your own constructed sense of self-righteousness, but I digress.

I, do not, in fact, mow my lawn, nor dismember cows, so there is your answer to that.

[Monica]

The inferences you are making about my character are little more than deluded by your own constructed sense of self-righteousness, but I digress.

I, do not, in fact, mow my lawn, nor dismember cows, so there is your answer to that.

I infer nothing about your character. I asked you some questions, but said nothing about your answers to those questions, except that if you truly don't see a difference between mowing grass and dismembering a cow, then I have nothing more to say to you, simply because, apparently, you and I live on different planets.

However, anyone who eats cows, supports their torture, dismemberment and slaughter. There's really no way around that simple fact.

I am not discussing you at all. This isn't about you. I am speaking generally.

[Unbound]

/facepalm

[Monica]

/facepalm

Haha, have a good day, Unbound!

[Diana]

My point is, I don't advocate the quickening of any form of death, nor do I advocate any form of torture, and the attempt to justify to myself any one thing I eat being "better" than any other seems like a way to just delude myself out of the sheer fact that I have to consume to survive.

For my part, as a vegetarian, I am not deluding myself at all. On the contrary, I am being as responsible and aware as I can. For me, it's about causing the LEAST HARM.

I comprehend the concept—and adhere to it—that all life is sacred and all things are equal. But not all things in this universe are the same—though they are equal in value.

A plant by virtue of its life form and life cycle, is less harmed physically by its destruction, as witnessed by the way many can grow back from the roots. An animal cannot do that—ever. Does that not suggest that the suffering caused from eating a plant is less than the suffering caused from eating an animal? Plants WANT to be eaten by animals because that is one way—sometimes the only way—they propagate. (Animal eats plant, seeds are eliminated through animal along with their feces—natural fertilizer—plant "baby" grows.)

I'm not sure why I have been on B4 so long trying to explain the meat vs. vegetable thing, except that I hope with every fiber of my being to make the smallest bit of difference in the amount of suffering in this world. Especially when so much of it is so unnecessary.

[Unbound]

I would note that I wasn't trying to suggest or allude to vegans or vegetarians being deluded or anything of the sort, I, personally, have no qualms with them, I was instead referring to how for myself the very fact that I have to consume life to live is more troubling to me than the particulars of what I am consuming. It is all equally "unfair" to me. Perhaps that is black and white, but to me suffering is suffering is suffering. I can and have attempted to justify or sway myself in one direction or the other but so far all sorts of rationalization doesn't change the sheer fact to me that I have to consume to survive in this body and that means the harm or death of other life, regardless of "less" or "more".

[Monica]

I would note that I wasn't trying to suggest or allude to vegans or vegetarians being deluded or anything of the sort, I, personally, have no qualms with them, I was instead referring to how for myself the very fact that I have to consume life to live is more troubling to me than the particulars of what I am consuming. It is all equally "unfair" to me. Perhaps that is black and white, but to me suffering is suffering is suffering. I can and have attempted to justify or sway myself in one direction or the other but so far all sorts of rationalization doesn't change the sheer fact to me that I have to consume to survive in this body and that means the harm or death of other life, regardless of "less" or "more".

Thank you for explaining that! I have discussed this topic here, regarding my discontent with the design of this planet. I intend to complain about it to the designers, first chance I get!

In the meantime, I invite you to read post #263 in its entirety.

[Diana]

I would note that I wasn't trying to suggest or allude to vegans or vegetarians being deluded or anything of the sort, I, personally, have no qualms with them, I was instead referring to how for myself the very fact that I have to consume life to live is more troubling to me than the particulars of what I am consuming. It is all equally "unfair" to me. Perhaps that is black and white, but to me suffering is suffering is suffering. I can and have attempted to justify or sway myself in one direction or the other but so far all sorts of rationalization doesn't change the sheer fact to me that I have to consume to survive in this body and that means the harm or death of other life, regardless of "less" or "more".

I respect your point here. I must admit though, that I find this attitude somewhat lazy. Although I do understand your frustration of being in a place where survival means taking life. I do feel that a process must be gone through, a journey of growth and discovery, which does not include skipping over the difficult bits.

What I am talking about is not rationalization. It is a sincere desire to do the least harm. The thing is, how do things change or evolve? Not by surrendering to an idea that it's all unfair, I don't think. We make choices. Things change. Eventually, evolution is seen to have happened.

1. Humankind is primitive, living as animals in a predator/prey existence.

2. Humankind, because of a larger capacity for brain development, begins the process of learning what the effects are of free will and choice.

3. Humankind, after developing compassion because of the observance of effects from choice and free will, begins to make choices that align with compassion.

[Unbound]

Sure, I agree, but as I have stated I am not the one mowing lawns or dismembering cows. To be honest when I am eating I try to listen to my body and pay attention to what it needs. I go through cycles of different kinds of foods which I trust is my body's way of getting all that it needs. I attempt to positively make use of all energy I gain through either service or healing and use energy I receive from food to do good works in the world. It honestly, and I say this with all sincerity, does not appear to me that vegetarianism actually quells any amount of suffering in the world but rather it would have to come through the decisions of those directly responsible for the animals in question.

While I absolutely agree that awareness and decisions in a "supply and demand" kind of way would impact the desire and need for meat but at the same time that isn't necessarily true as potentially practices would simply become more humane until they were deemed "acceptable". At what point does killing or harm become acceptable, be it animal or plant? The increase in demand for vegetables would then amount to exponential loss of plant life, so I really don't see how that is any better than the current loss of life. Rather it seems that reduction of cruelty, torture and ignorance is the surest way to less suffering, rather than the totalitarian control of diet.

---

Note: If there was no meat I would not be bothered. I typically eat what is available or what is being eaten by others. I make food according to what people eat. For myself, I will do my best to transmute it all the same. I will not eat in hatred, I prefer to eat in love.

[Parsons]

Following the analogy of chopping the legs off a cow (yeesh!), the argument of plants regrowing becomes moot. What if you could chop off a cows leg for food and have it regrow? When you 'harvest' a plant for consumption, isn't it alive for hours, days, weeks and even months while waiting for consumption while a cow being killed only lives minutes or seconds?

I agree completely with Tanner. I more concerned in the extreme that I am having to consume other second density life over the issue of consuming a plant vs an animal. I think it is ignorant to make a distinction between plants an animals suffering, but that is only my opinion.

Also, the way you are coming off is a bit harsh. You may be saying 'in general' that the people who eat meat are supporting the cruelty of animals, but it doesn't really take away the insult to those who do not agree with you. You are basically insulting a group of people's choices vs just one person; its still an insult.

I will also explain my reasoning behind the insult: you are saying eating animals is cruel and plants are not. Some people are saying that both plants and animals suffer when being killed/harvested for eating so they are making no distinction. Both groups are entitled to their opinion. However, you keep saying over and over again whenever this topic is brought up that whoever is of the opinion that it's ok to eat meat, they are ostensibly willfully being cruel to animals. Then you rub their faces in cruelty videos and photo memes. It is a bit off-putting to say the least.

[Monica]

What if you could chop off a cows leg for food and have it regrow?

You can't. It won't. That is the whole point.

When you 'harvest' a plant for consumption, isn't it alive for hours, days, weeks and even months while waiting for consumption while a cow being killed only lives minutes or seconds?

That question has been answered in the links I posted above.

I agree completely with Tanner. I more concerned in the extreme that I am having to consume other second density life over the issue of consuming a plant vs an animal.

We can't do anything about the fact that we must eat something to survive on this planet. Therefore, as Diana pointed out, why unnecessarily eat beings that you know feel pain and fear?

I think it is ignorant to make a distinction between plants an animals suffering, but that is only my opinion.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion! But out of curiosity, have you ever tried the experiment I suggested? The whole point was to simply see for yourself. If there truly isn't any difference between killing a cow and harvesting lettuce leaves, then one should be able to do both and wouldn't notice any difference. I am suggesting to all those who say it is the same: Simply try it. Try harvesting some lettuce leaves, then kill a cow with your bare hands. Compare.

Also, the way you are coming off is a bit harsh.

It is a harsh topic. The reality of billions of animals being tortured on a daily basis, just to satisfy the lust for their flesh, is a harsh reality. There is no way to sugar-coat it.

You may be saying 'in general' that the people who eat meat are supporting the cruelty of animals, but it doesn't really take away the insult to those who do not agree with you. You are basically insulting a group of people's choices vs just one person; its still an insult.

You may perceive it as you wish. I was simply stating an obvious fact: Whether it is intentional or not, eating animals supports an extremely cruel and barbaric industry. It's impossible to disagree with that. One may be in denial about it, but it is a fact nonetheless. There is abundant video footage proving that it is fact.

We can disagree about whether it is justified or not. That is the debate: whether it is 'ok' to support this cruel and barbaric industry. There is room for debate about plants, but there is no debate about whether cows, chickens, pigs, turkeys, and fish feel pain and fear. They most certainly do. This is proven by science.

I will also explain my reasoning behind the insult: you are saying eating animals is cruel and plants are not. Some people are saying that both plants and animals suffer when being killed/harvested for eating so they are making no distinction. Both groups are entitled to their opinion.

Yes they are, and we are allowed to challenge that opinion. My suggestion to harvest some lettuce leaves and then kill a cow was to illustrate the reason I disagree. But of course, don't take my word for it! Simply try the experiment and see for yourself!

However, you keep saying over and over again whenever this topic is brought up that whoever is of the opinion that it's ok to eat meat, they are ostensibly willfully being cruel to animals.

I never used the word willfully. Most people do so out of ignorance.

Many others refuse to face the reality of what they are supporting.

Then you rub their faces in cruelty videos and photo memes. It is a bit off-putting to say the least.

Why is it off-putting? If killing a cow is no worse than harvesting lettuce, then what's the big deal?

Here is a question for you Parson:

Do you find this video graphic and off-putting?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4WOao_U1Sys

I'm just trying to understand what is off-putting and what isn't, so your answer would be appreciated!

[Unbound]

What about people who do not buy factory farmed meat or they buy small farm meat or what about first nations groups who hunt or eat meat or people who hunt for meat in general?

[xise]

Regardless of your dietary choices, there is a difference in sentience, consciousness, and self-awareness in the spectrum of 2D life. In general, plants are less sentient and less conscious than animals, barring a few exceptions. Whether that realization affects your dietary choices is your business, but I think you can't not acknowledge that truth.


There are exceptions, (old trees being one Ra mentions; and on the other end there are types of algae which are technically animals) but exceptions don't make the general rule untrue.


For example, 2D life is nearly almost always more sentient than 1D life - but Ra talks about how even a rock can possess an individuated soul. Still, it's hard to say with a straight face that 1D rocks and 2D life are generally the same in terms of overall sentience and self-awareness.

[Unbound]

I completely disagree, but c'est la vie.

---

I agree there is differentiation in awareness and self-consciousness but I have a hard time thinking of it in terms of "less" or "more".

[Jade]

I know this has gotten heated but I want to share my views as a vegan since I'm not sure they've been covered adequately:

Firstly, I definitely struggle with the plight of eating plants, as they are indeed sentient, I have trouble even weeding my garden. However, I take comfort in the fact that plants have evolved so that when I eat them, when I am through with processing the vegetables in my body, I expel the seeds, and if I lived a more natural life, they'd have a new life cycle with their own fertilizer! The circle of life! Harvesting a fruit is more akin to an orgasm, as it facilitates propagation, similar to a flower giving up its nectar to a bee. How do we know that the smells and screams are those of pain and not of ecstasy?

As it is, supporting the meat industry supports MASSIVE scale death, as much of the crops grown for food are actually grown to feed the Billions of livestock that we kill and eat each year. I just read the statistic yesterday that energy conversion from corn-to-livestock-to-human is about 3%. 3%! That's a gratuitous 97% of energy converted from the sun by hardworking plants being spent because beef is tasty. Can you imagine if the food production output in the US increased 97%?? Would anyone ever be hungry? Not to mention the amount of agricultural land being spent on grazing animals (2/3s) being more creatively utilized...

So when one says that the suffering is ubiquitous and not optional, it seems like a bit of cognitive dissonance. There could be a lot less suffering. I could go into more details about the utter gore and pure psychological torture involved in the meat industry, but for some reason that rarely moves people. I think society is gradually moving to a more enlightened view of where their food comes from, persuading them to make better choices (local, organic), but food is such a big part of what's going on right now. I totally get it if part of many entities' motivating factors to return to 3D was getting to eat sushi and pizza. I'm totally a cog in the food industry machine so maybe part of this post is reflective of my own guilt at taking part in it. Either way, I pray daily for all of Earth to have better.

Peace, friends.

[Rhayader]

We accept suffering and cruelty as important catalyst in our own lives in order to evolve and grow in understanding. Who are we to deny the privilege of pain and suffering to other creatures? We're all one right? Using the lettuce analogy, sure you can regrow plants from cuttings and perhaps it is the same soul, able to exist in different bodies. Isn't that what we all are? When a cow is murdered, i'm sure it's soul or conciousness will go where it needs too- whether another new body of a cow or perhaps now even 'graduated' to our density thanks to our help. At the end of the day, there will never be proof either way because the nature of conciousness itself can't allow it. We don't know what plants, animals, or even other humans really perceive.

[Parsons]

There is no reasoning with unreasonable people, so I see no need for further discussion on my part.

[Monica]

There is no reasoning with unreasonable people, so I see no need for further discussion on my part.

How convenient. Fling a direct insult and then walk away. I just asked you an honest question, and you respond by saying I'm unreasonable?? You can disagree all you want, but telling me I'm unreasonable is absurd. All of my points have been based on reason.

The honest question is this: Did you find that last video off-putting? I'm sincerely trying to understand you point.

Here it is again:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4WOao_U1Sys

(Note: It's not what you think. Please click on it.)

Can someone please explain to me whether this video is offensive or off-putting, and if so, why? Thank you.

---

We accept suffering and cruelty as important catalyst in our own lives in order to evolve and grow in understanding. Who are we to deny the privilege of pain and suffering to other creatures?

We are (prsumably) STO beings, that's who. Yes, suffering and cruelty do serve a purpose here, on this school for juvenile delinquents. This is one of the harsher planets, apparently. But it is in our job description to develop compassion and serve others. (That's why it's called STO!)

STS entities serve a purpose too. It is their task to inflict pain, suffering, fear and domination.

Using the lettuce analogy, sure you can regrow plants from cuttings and perhaps it is the same soul, able to exist in different bodies. Isn't that what we all are?

My understanding from the Law of One is that the consciousness of plants is not yet differentiated into individual souls, with the exception of some ancient trees who have developed sentience.

That is the crux of the argument. Plants are 2D and once they develop self-awareness, that is the criteria for graduation into 3D. 2D is a veeeeeeeerrrrrry long density! At the very end of 2D are the ancient trees and higher 2D entities - animals!

So in the case of plants, there isn't yet an individual soul to reincarnate. It's a group consciousness; ie. the entire lettuce kingdom is aware, but an individual lettuce isn't. Think of the hairs on your head.

So yes, of course tests show a consciousness. There is definitely a consciousness. But it isn't an individual consciousness.

Now, think about this: What kind of monster evil Logos would design a system in which each blade of grass could feel pain and fear, but could do nothing about it? That would mean the whole planet is in constant pain from all the humans and animals walking on the grass! That seems obscene to me.

It is reasonable to understand that if an individual consciousness had reached the point of sentience, then it would no longer incarnate into a plant which cannot move, but into a body suitable for its development: an animal body which can run, fly or swim away from danger, in order to preserve its individual self.

When a cow is murdered, i'm sure it's soul or conciousness will go where it needs too- whether another new body of a cow or perhaps now even 'graduated' to our density thanks to our help.

Sure. Does that mean we should help murder it?

At the end of the day, there will never be proof either way because the nature of conciousness itself can't allow it. We don't know what plants, animals, or even other humans really perceive.

But that's not true. We already have plenty of proof that animals feel pain, fear and other emotions, just like we do.

We don't yet know about plants, but we already know, most definitely, about animals.

That is the whole point of the vegan side of the debate. Why knowingly support the pain and killing of beings whom we know feel pain, just because plants might also feel pain?

That makes no sense whatsoever. It makes even less sense when one takes into consideration what Jade just said - there is a 97% increase in plant death by eating animals. That is the epitome of unreasonable!

---

I agree there is differentiation in awareness and self-consciousness but I have a hard time thinking of it in terms of "less" or "more".

No one is suggesting less or more. It's not about assigning a value. It's about whether there is individual sentience. This is important because it is a clue as to whether the entity was designed to nourish other entities, or was it designed as an individual who chooses to run, fly or swim away from other entities. I submit that the designers of this planet are smarter than we are and had a reason for designing the bodies as they did.

A simple, logical, reasonable design: Entities that are individually sentient incarnate into bodies that can run, fly or swim. It's quite reasonable if you think about it.

[xise]

The increase in plant death by eating meat is a good point for those that wish to decrease death.

On the other hand, I'm not sure it's effective to really guilt trip people into stopping eat meat. I mean at this point I think most of the regular members here are well aware of the arguments for and against in general.

Let's have understanding that
(1) not eating meat tends to reduce somewhat your dining out choices. meat eating is a central part of most cultures and there is difficulty in stopping eating meat from that perspective
(2) not eating meat takes effort. people have an innate tendency to only take action when they could take complete action - you hear this in many forms in that not eating meat won't change animal cruelty, or that means that they'd stop having to have leather or silk. There's resistance to incremental change. I know for myself I welcome incremental change: I don't eat meat for animal rights reasons, but I do eat diary and occasionally eggs and whole take some effort to buy humane and local produce I don't go out of my way to do so. I also try to avoid leather and silk, but I don't go out of my way too much if I can't find non leather dress shoes for example. Some may me a hypocrite, but I have compassion and understanding for myself and others that full change does not occur overnight. I'm 100% ok with incremental change myself.
(3) let's face it, meat does taste good.

It can seem psychologically very difficult to give up meat. A lot of the discussion on this board involves overintellectualization of philosophy and spiritual concepts. It's not until you've actually tried them out can ones perspective be more complete. The seemingly fact that many people who give their opinion on vegan/vegetarian issues have not even tried month long vegetarianism is proof of this phenomenon. Which is fine, but it's like trying to talk intelligently about meditation and about why it is or isn't for you after only trying to meditate a few times over several days. Experience just doesn't work that way.

P.s. I'm totally ok with people eating meat. I can get it's just a hard or undesirable thing to give up. I've been there myself when I had a gluten allergy - take our bread and I felt there were too few dietary options for me so I went back to eating meat. But I've now been veg for 2.5 years and it's been fun.

[Monica]

The increase in plant death by eating meat is a good point for those that wish to decrease death.

Definitely. The whole attempt to justify based on 'but plants might feel pain too' falls apart because more plants are killed to produce meat.

On the other hand, I'm not sure it's effective to really guilt trip people into stopping eat meat.

I don't think it's possible to cause someone to feel guilt just by providing information. If someone truly feels comfortable in their choices, they won't feel guilt, no matter what anyone else says.

Let's have understanding that
(3) let's face it, meat does taste good.

I used to think so too. But once I made the connection about what meat was, it no longer tasted good and became repulsive.

I would add to your list all the positive aspects of a plant-based diet:

(4) An opportunity to taste many new foods - new taste sensations!
(5) improved health and reduced risk of many diseases
(6) better skin
(7) more energy
(8) better libido
(10) better digestion and elimination
(11) fresher breath
(12) easier clean-up after cooking
(13) less risk of food poisoning
(14) less exposure to synthetic cancer-causing hormones
(15) less exposure to pesticides
(16) less exposure to antibiotics
(17) zero exposure to fear hormones (that the animal felt when s/he was dying)

it's like trying to talk intelligently about meditation and about why it is or isn't for you after only trying to meditate a few times over several days. Experience just doesn't work that way.

Very true! Why not just try it for a month?

[Unbound]

There is no reasoning with unreasonable people, so I see no need for further discussion on my part.

How convenient. Fling a direct insult and then walk away. I just asked you an honest question, and you respond by saying I'm unreasonable?? You can disagree all you want, but telling me I'm unreasonable is absurd. All of my points have been based on reason.

The honest question is this: Did you find that last video off-putting? I'm sincerely trying to understand you point.

Here it is again:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4WOao_U1Sys

(Note: It's not what you think. Please click on it.)

Can someone please explain to me whether this video is offensive or off-putting, and if so, why? Thank you.

---

We accept suffering and cruelty as important catalyst in our own lives in order to evolve and grow in understanding. Who are we to deny the privilege of pain and suffering to other creatures?

We are (prsumably) STO beings, that's who. Yes, suffering and cruelty do serve a purpose here, on this school for juvenile delinquents. This is one of the harsher planets, apparently. But it is in our job description to develop compassion and serve others. (That's why it's called STO!)

STS entities serve a purpose too. It is their task to inflict pain, suffering, fear and domination.

Using the lettuce analogy, sure you can regrow plants from cuttings and perhaps it is the same soul, able to exist in different bodies. Isn't that what we all are?

My understanding from the Law of One is that the consciousness of plants is not yet differentiated into individual souls, with the exception of some ancient trees who have developed sentience.

That is the crux of the argument. Plants are 2D and once they develop self-awareness, that is the criteria for graduation into 3D. 2D is a veeeeeeeerrrrrry long density! At the very end of 2D are the ancient trees and higher 2D entities - animals!

So in the case of plants, there isn't yet an individual soul to reincarnate. It's a group consciousness; ie. the entire lettuce kingdom is aware, but an individual lettuce isn't. Think of the hairs on your head.

So yes, of course tests show a consciousness. There is definitely a consciousness. But it isn't an individual consciousness.

Now, think about this: What kind of monster evil Logos would design a system in which each blade of grass could feel pain and fear, but could do nothing about it? That would mean the whole planet is in constant pain from all the humans and animals walking on the grass! That seems obscene to me.

It is reasonable to understand that if an individual consciousness had reached the point of sentience, then it would no longer incarnate into a plant which cannot move, but into a body suitable for its development: an animal body which can run, fly or swim away from danger, in order to preserve its individual self.

When a cow is murdered, i'm sure it's soul or conciousness will go where it needs too- whether another new body of a cow or perhaps now even 'graduated' to our density thanks to our help.

Sure. Does that mean we should help murder it?

At the end of the day, there will never be proof either way because the nature of conciousness itself can't allow it. We don't know what plants, animals, or even other humans really perceive.

But that's not true. We already have plenty of proof that animals feel pain, fear and other emotions, just like we do.

We don't yet know about plants, but we already know, most definitely, about animals.

That is the whole point of the vegan side of the debate. Why knowingly support the pain and killing of beings whom we know feel pain, just because plants might also feel pain?

That makes no sense whatsoever. It makes even less sense when one takes into consideration what Jade just said - there is a 97% increase in plant death by eating animals. That is the epitome of unreasonable!

---

I agree there is differentiation in awareness and self-consciousness but I have a hard time thinking of it in terms of "less" or "more".

No one is suggesting less or more. It's not about assigning a value. It's about whether there is individual sentience. This is important because it is a clue as to whether the entity was designed to nourish other entities, or was it designed as an individual who chooses to run, fly or swim away from other entities. I submit that the designers of this planet are smarter than we are and had a reason for designing the bodies as they did.

A simple, logical, reasonable design: Entities that are individually sentient incarnate into bodies that can run, fly or swim. It's quite reasonable if you think about it.

No, it is not reasonable except by your own form of reasoning. I believe trees can be individually sentient as well so that whole point falls apart for me.

Also, how about plankton? Clearly a creature designed as nourishment, but they can move.

[Diana]

The increase in plant death by eating meat is a good point for those that wish to decrease death.

On the other hand, I'm not sure it's effective to really guilt trip people into stopping eat meat. I mean at this point I think most of the regular members here are well aware of the arguments for and against in general.

Let's have understanding that
(1) not eating meat tends to reduce somewhat your dining out choices. meat eating is a central part of most cultures and there is difficulty in stopping eating meat from that perspective
(2) not eating meat takes effort. people have an innate tendency to only take action when they could take complete action - you hear this in many forms in that not eating meat won't change animal cruelty, or that means that they'd stop having to have leather or silk. There's resistance to incremental change. I know for myself I welcome incremental change: I don't eat meat for animal rights reasons, but I do eat diary and occasionally eggs and whole take some effort to buy humane and local produce I don't go out of my way to do so. I also try to avoid leather and silk, but I don't go out of my way too much if I can't find non leather dress shoes for example. Some may me a hypocrite, but I have compassion and understanding for myself and others that full change does not occur overnight. I'm 100% ok with incremental change myself.
(3) let's face it, meat does taste good.

It can seem psychologically very difficult to give up meat. A lot of the discussion on this board involves overintellectualization of philosophy and spiritual concepts. It's not until you've actually tried them out can ones perspective be more complete. The seemingly fact that many people who give their opinion on vegan/vegetarian issues have not even tried month long vegetarianism is proof of this phenomenon. Which is fine, but it's like trying to talk intelligently about meditation and about why it is or isn't for you after only trying to meditate a few times over several days. Experience just doesn't work that way.

P.s. I'm totally ok with people eating meat. I can get it's just a hard or undesirable thing to give up. I've been there myself when I had a gluten allergy - take our bread and I felt there were too few dietary options for me so I went back to eating meat. But I've now been veg for 2.5 years and it's been fun.

You make some very excellent points, Xise.

The only times I ever discuss being vegetarian is when I am asked about it, and then I (incrementally ) give my reasons according to whom I'm talking to and what they may be curious about. It is never my intention to provoke guilt at all, as I know very well that the guilt will cause defensiveness which will create a bigger block to listening to anything I have to say.

The exception has been here, at B4. Discussing this subject here seems appropriate. I respond to a thread question or statement, in this venue with members who presumably have at least some interest in evolving and/or exploring spirituality.

For my own part, I will admit to a degree of vehemence beyond what is called for in this venue. I think it's because 1) I hold so much at bay on the subject going through life, and 2) It's so hard to be in this world of suffering when one has reached the place of empathy and compassion for all life.

So I want to apologize to everyone here for whatever bad feelings my words have generated. But I will still reserve the right to express here and be authentic, knowing that my words are not always perfectly expressed.

The thing is, what would any of you B4 members do, if in your own country, on a daily and wide-spread basis, children or just people were being tortured and killed for unnecessary reasons? Could you accept this and not say anything because it is the free will and right of the 3D beings? At what point would any of you want to speak out in some way? That is my dilemma. I am very sensitive to feelings from all beings. I can tell you for sure that the animal kingdom is suffering because of humans. I do what I can in my own life. Much the same way you do, Xise. At some point it becomes impossible to be on top of everything and life goes out of balance if one is worried about breathing in microbes or stepping on tiny insect one can't even see are there.

I can go along in life keeping a lot of things at bay, which for me is a necessity being here. I'm not a buddha who can be here in unconditional acceptance of all. But when I do on occasion focus on one of the things I keep at bay, my heart breaks and I want to say something in defense of what I deem the innocents. Perhaps the animal kingdom did agree to be a party to human learning; and this makes sense from a larger perspective. If so, they are greater beings than we can even imagine, to sacrifice themselves in this way so we can become aware.

---

We accept suffering and cruelty as important catalyst in our own lives in order to evolve and grow in understanding. Who are we to deny the privilege of pain and suffering to other creatures?

We are (prsumably) STO beings, that's who. Yes, suffering and cruelty do serve a purpose here, on this school for juvenile delinquents. This is one of the harsher planets, apparently. But it is in our job description to develop compassion and serve others. (That's why it's called STO!)

STS entities serve a purpose too. It is their task to inflict pain, suffering, fear and domination.

Using the lettuce analogy, sure you can regrow plants from cuttings and perhaps it is the same soul, able to exist in different bodies. Isn't that what we all are?

My understanding from the Law of One is that the consciousness of plants is not yet differentiated into individual souls, with the exception of some ancient trees who have developed sentience.

That is the crux of the argument. Plants are 2D and once they develop self-awareness, that is the criteria for graduation into 3D. 2D is a veeeeeeeerrrrrry long density! At the very end of 2D are the ancient trees and higher 2D entities - animals!

So in the case of plants, there isn't yet an individual soul to reincarnate. It's a group consciousness; ie. the entire lettuce kingdom is aware, but an individual lettuce isn't. Think of the hairs on your head.

So yes, of course tests show a consciousness. There is definitely a consciousness. But it isn't an individual consciousness.

Now, think about this: What kind of monster evil Logos would design a system in which each blade of grass could feel pain and fear, but could do nothing about it? That would mean the whole planet is in constant pain from all the humans and animals walking on the grass! That seems obscene to me.

It is reasonable to understand that if an individual consciousness had reached the point of sentience, then it would no longer incarnate into a plant which cannot move, but into a body suitable for its development: an animal body which can run, fly or swim away from danger, in order to preserve its individual self.

When a cow is murdered, i'm sure it's soul or conciousness will go where it needs too- whether another new body of a cow or perhaps now even 'graduated' to our density thanks to our help.

Sure. Does that mean we should help murder it?

At the end of the day, there will never be proof either way because the nature of conciousness itself can't allow it. We don't know what plants, animals, or even other humans really perceive.

But that's not true. We already have plenty of proof that animals feel pain, fear and other emotions, just like we do.

We don't yet know about plants, but we already know, most definitely, about animals.

That is the whole point of the vegan side of the debate. Why knowingly support the pain and killing of beings whom we know feel pain, just because plants might also feel pain?

That makes no sense whatsoever. It makes even less sense when one takes into consideration what Jade just said - there is a 97% increase in plant death by eating animals. That is the epitome of unreasonable!

---

I agree there is differentiation in awareness and self-consciousness but I have a hard time thinking of it in terms of "less" or "more".

No one is suggesting less or more. It's not about assigning a value. It's about whether there is individual sentience. This is important because it is a clue as to whether the entity was designed to nourish other entities, or was it designed as an individual who chooses to run, fly or swim away from other entities. I submit that the designers of this planet are smarter than we are and had a reason for designing the bodies as they did.

A simple, logical, reasonable design: Entities that are individually sentient incarnate into bodies that can run, fly or swim. It's quite reasonable if you think about it.

Touche Monica. Very well put.

[Matt1]

I wonder when someone will be hardcore enough not to eat plants anymore and just eat sun light. That will be the next thing.

[Monica]

Also, how about plankton? Clearly a creature designed as nourishment, but they can move.

So glad you brought that up! Plankton and various types of algae are the most primal lifeforms. They have attributes of plant, animal and bacteria. Until recently, they were considered to exist in all 3 kingdoms, but now they have their own biological kingdom, because they are in a class of their own.

They don't have the capability to escape from predators. That's the type of 'movement' I was referring to. Plankton don't have that at all. They are more like the bacteria and viruses in the air that we breathe, which get ingested into 'larger life' as they merge their consciousness with ours.

Not the same as a deer running in terror from the hunter, or the cow bellowing in fear and pain while being prodded up the slaughter ramp. Whales ingest plankton much the same as we drink water or breathe air.

[Unbound]

I wonder when someone will be hardcore enough not to eat plants anymore and just eat sun light. That will be the next thing.

Working on it, buddy. I know how to absorb sunlight and stuff, but so far I am too concerned how my family and girlfriend would react to me not eating to try a full on experiment.

---

Also, how about plankton? Clearly a creature designed as nourishment, but they can move.

So glad you brought that up! Plankton and various types of algae are the most primal lifeforms. They have attributes of plant, animal and bacteria. Until recently, they were considered to exist in all 3 kingdoms, but now they have their own biological kingdom, because they are in a class of their own.

They don't have the capability to escape from predators. That's the type of 'movement' I was referring to. Plankton don't have that at all. They are more like the bacteria and viruses in the air that we breathe, which get ingested into 'larger life' as they merge their consciousness with ours.

Not the same as a deer running in terror from the hunter, or the cow bellowing in fear and pain while being prodded up the slaughter ramp. Whales ingest plankton much the same as we drink water or breathe air.

Poor Plankton.

[Monica]

I wonder when someone will be hardcore enough not to eat plants anymore and just eat sun light. That will be the next thing.

Some do. Or they claim to anyway. It's called Sungazing. I started a thread about it several years ago. Supposedly there are some who have been documented as authentic.

I don't think it's realistic to go from eating dead animals to sunflakes for breakfast.

---

Poor Plankton.

Ra has explained that there are different densities of consciousness...and different physical vehicles to accommodate those differing levels of consciousness.

What is death to a human but a birth into a higher life? It makes sense to me that bacteria, plankton, algae and other primitive lifeforms don't die, but simply merge their consciousness with ours. The human body has more bacteria than it does human cells! Each of us is a living eco-system!

And yet, each of us has an identity. We have self-preservation instinct.

So do animals. They are like us.

They are more like us than they are like plankton or bacteria. We cannot control the bacteria in the air we breathe. Until we learn to Sungaze, we must eat something to survive. Plants are concentrated Light energy. THe different colors contain Light energy corresponding to the chakras. It's no surprise that cancer-fighting antioxidant nutrients are found in the colorful fruits and veggies.

Arguing about whether plants want to be eaten or not is nothing but a distraction. It's entirely moot, because until we all become Breatharians, we must eat plants. We either eat them directly, or we eat them indirectly, by eating animals who eat them.

Look into the eyes of those cows and it will be crystal clear: They do NOT want to be killed!

Why not respect their free will and natural self-preservation instinct? The only way to eat an animal is to overpower their will to live. It is STS to overpower another entity. There's really no way around that.