Diet Guidance from Channelings?

[Nía]

Very interesting. I haven't read the rest of the comments yet, but quickly want to reply to this one:

Maybe that's not as unlikely as it might seem (her physiology having been different), as this suggestion doesn't seem to be suited too well for 'the rest of humanity':

Ra: I am Ra. The liquids not containing carbonation, the well-cooked vegetable which is most light and soft, the well-cooked grains, the non-fatted meat such as the fish. You may note that some recommended foodstuffs overlap allergies and sensitivities due to the juvenile rheumatoid arthritic distortions. Further, although sugar such as is in your sweetened desserts represents a potential, we may suggest that it be included at this period for aforementioned reasons.

Plus, there was much at stake if the contact could not continue due to health reasons on Carla's side.

Look,

Carla was great and all, and I respect the hell out of her, but I really think this is just wishful thinking. That is to say, it doesn't feel even remotely like an actual real world possibility to me. If it did, I would admit it, I assure you. I would be the first to sacrifice my sacred cows of dogma. To be honest, this sort of thinking just comes across to me as a more subdued version of religious hero worship. Give it a couple hundred years, and Carla will be transformed into the equivalent of the Virgin Mary for the "Church of Ra". Virtually all religious icons eventually get elevated in the minds of their followers to near super human status. It happened to Jesus with Christianity, it happened to Muhammad with Islam, it happened to Joseph Smith with Mormonism, it happened to L Ron Hubbard with the Church of Scientology, it happened to Siddhartha Gautama with Buddhism. Everybody wants the people who play a role in bringing forth what they perceive as great and awe inspiring philosophies to not be as human as the rest of us.

Anagogy, I'm one of the (few?) people that do not think too highly of Carla herself. I'm really sorry to have to say that, because I know it might offend some, as many really adore her a lot, and it might seem arrogant, but I have real difficulties with some of her biases and distortions (which, of course, is telling me a lot about myself). So, this is far from where I come from. What I meant was this, nothing more:

Ra: I am Ra. This group, as all positive channels and supporting groups, is a greatly high priority with the Orion group. This instrument’s bodily distortions are its most easily unbound or unloosed distortion dissolving the mind/body/spirit complex if the Orion group is successful; this particular group having learned to be without serious chinks, may we say, in mind and spirit complex vibratory patterns. In other channels other chinks may be more in evidence.

I'm talking about the Ra contact/Law of One books themselves, not about Carla as some kind of messiah or something. She was the instrument, and a very good one at this, otherwise they wouldn't have chosen her. Of course I highly respect her, as you do - but that's about it, that (for me) doesn't make her a saint!

So, your reaction (in this case) was completely unrelated to the situation/my thoughts/writings. And of course, I don't know about Jade and Diana, and can't speak for them, but my feeling is that they don't feel completely different in this regard (edit: Diana said a couple of words to that end already. I hadn't seen these yet when first posting this, sorry.).

-`ღ´-

P.S. Love your new avatar!

[Nía]

I'm not sure what, precisely, you were attempting to point out here with your bolded text and what not. Maybe you can be more clear what you saw in it. I think Carla's body was just like your average 3rd density vehicle with various distortions such as allergies and what not. It is true there is a degree of variation among people, but not to the extent you're implying. At least, that is my gut sense about the issue.

What I tried to point out was, that, in my view, there was a very specific situation of bodily (and also mental, emotional and spiritual) equilibrium that made the Ra contact possible in the first place, and there was a very delicate and fragile line to a state where the bodily distortions would have made the contact impossible (not even implying the imminent danger of the body becoming completely unviable). What I mean is that there was a different situation there indeed to generalised dietary advice they might have given 'the rest of humanity': The first contact after thousands of years, with much distortion created by Ra previously, accidentally, which they tried to balance where possible, and so the maintenance of the contact was of fairly high importance to them (as is clearly observable, especially from book 3 ongoing).

Thus, the advice given by Ra were obviously not meant as generalised dietary suggestions, but very specifically to the necessities to Carla's bodily complex. When not suggesting sugar in general, they suggested to her to consume some (and how, and when). Vegetables cooked to a state where they are "most light and soft" would also probably not be the most important/useful suggestion for the 'average 3rd density vehicle'. But again, that's not important, just thoughts/speculation on my part, and, I have to repeat that, I am not referring to eating "the animal protein which has been slaughtered and preservatives added", but to all dietary suggestions given.

-`ღ´-

P.S. English is not my mother tongue, so I'm struggling for words sometimes...

[Jade]

2-8% of a chimps diet is meat (depending on who you ask -- there is some dissenting opinion among experts). That is substantial in my opinion, even if most of their diet is not meat. But if your argument is: we shouldn't ever eat meat because we evolved from chimps and chimps don't eat that much meat you are essentially making the argument that the genetic apple doesn't fall far from the tree, so to speak. The thing is though, sometimes it does! So it really doesn't matter whether chimps eat meat or not because it doesn't have any bearing on what another group of bodies eats or does not eat, or craves or does not crave. All animals share a certain genetic heritage, and all animals have slightly different natures. There are always outliers in any group of normative characteristics.

All of the information posted was Ra and other entities encouraging people to eat less meat. If people ate 2-8% of their diets in meat, I'm sure that would be more balanced, and more what Ra was advocating as a healthy diet. Add in other animals products, and humans are way, way above that threshhold. There are people don't eat vegetables at all! All of us have room for improvement in all of our choices.

For statistics, humans share 96% of their DNA with chimps. That includes their herbivorous digestive systems.

I also don't think it is necessarily fair to Carla to say she didn't take much care with her diet. That fact that they posed these questions to Ra specifically in regards her diet, is pretty good evidence she DID take care with her diet. It seems like you are drawing that conclusion solely based on the fact that she partook of meat? Or maybe you have information about Carla I'm not privy too? I always got the impression she took her health pretty seriously.

Have you read Tilting at Windmills? Carla's favorite mantra is, from the Bible: "That which goes into a man is not that which defiles him, but what cometh out of him", or however it goes. You can find this phrase in many, many Q'uo channelings as an answer to diet. This is how Carla felt. She said during the Ra contact, she attempted dietary advice/changes, but she felt like none of it worked for her. After the Ra contact, I'm pretty sure she implies that she didn't attempt any strict regiment of diet. One of her favorite places to go out to eat was the Cheesecake Factory, and she would often have a cocktail while they were there (per Jim's blog). As Diana mentioned she also liked fast food.

All that was posted were quotes that said "eat less meat" NOT "give up meat entirely". How is "eat less meat" bad advice for anyone? Seriously, if people stayed in the 2-8% range, that seems perfectly reasonable to me. According to Forks Over Knives, science shows that it's at the 5% threshhold that we start to see negative effects from animal products (increased cancer growth, increased cholesterol levels, increased inflammation)

Plus, there was much at stake if the contact could not continue due to health reasons on Carla's side.

Look,

Carla was great and all, and I respect the hell out of her, but I really think this is just wishful thinking. That is to say, it doesn't feel even remotely like an actual real world possibility to me. If it did, I would admit it, I assure you. I would be the first to sacrifice my sacred cows of dogma. To be honest, this sort of thinking just comes across to me as a more subdued version of religious hero worship. Give it a couple hundred years, and Carla will be transformed into the equivalent of the Virgin Mary for the "Church of Ra". Virtually all religious icons eventually get elevated in the minds of their followers to near super human status. It happened to Jesus with Christianity, it happened to Muhammad with Islam, it happened to Joseph Smith with Mormonism, it happened to L Ron Hubbard with the Church of Scientology, it happened to Siddhartha Gautama with Buddhism. Everybody wants the people who play a role in bringing forth what they perceive as great and awe inspiring philosophies to not be as human as the rest of us.

My advice is: don't drink the kool aid. They're just like the rest of us, for the most part. More alike us than different, I assure you.

I'm not sure what, precisely, you were attempting to point out here with your bolded text and what not. Maybe you can be more clear what you saw in it. I think Carla's body was just like your average 3rd density vehicle with various distortions such as allergies and what not. It is true there is a degree of variation among people, but not to the extent you're implying. At least, that is my gut sense about the issue.

I don't think anyone is making Carla into a sacred cow or anything like that. The facts are: Carla was Ra's preferred instrument. Ra has not and likely won't find another like her. She was anomalous in many ways, that Ra points out: Her electrochemical make up, her complex addiction to sugars, her allergies (to meat!) - these are things that Ra had to share with Carla and the group, BECAUSE she was so dedicated to the Ra contact. She would have died, happily. What if her body quit back around session 43? Wouldn't that be a huge, objective loss? Ra had to balance her martyrdom, somehow, which is why they gave her some specific advice (specific enough as to what time of day she should eat a cookie or drink juice), and also advice that they said was applicable to the rest of us, generally. Part of that advice was to eat less meat, and more vegetables and grains. Not exactly groundbreaking health information really.

Carla is different than the other people you mentioned, for the sole fact that Carla has hundreds of thousands of her own words out there, telling her own story in blogs and books. Carla obviously was a human. I actually think it's funny, I see more "Don worship" than "Carla worship", really, but both were pretty flawed humans, once you get to know them. It was the power of the three of them together, and their love and dedication to serving, that made the contact possible, not their individual purity. A true lesson in service to others. 

I can tell you matter of factly, though I'm sure most don't want to believe or even hear this, that when you align yourself with intelligent infinity, you would be shocked at the things summoned into your diet for the optimal health of your body.

You say this as if people aren't speaking from their own experience of "aligning with intelligent infinity" and "summoning a diet for the optimal health of [their] body". I can tell you from my own experience, fast food would never be involved in caring for my body, but of course those are my biases. Maybe when my indigo is as crystallized as yours I'll be able to eat Big Macs again.  

[anagogy]

Maybe when my indigo is as crystallized as yours I'll be able to eat Big Macs again.  

I wish you the best of luck. Patronizing comments aside, I quite enjoy the occasional Big Mac.  

[Jade]

Well, I'm very glad for you. To me, McDonald's is a symbolic entity for the problem we have with treating our planet as a resource to be plundered. Factory farms were made to meet the demand of the convenient, cheap food that drive-thrus provide. We started to genetically engineer animals to be adult sized in a fraction of their lifespan - chickens reach harvest size at 35 days. Let them grow much more and they start to drop dead because they are mutants. I eschew things like that, when I become aware of them. I'd agree it's indicative of martyrdom but I really feel as if I've not lost anything at all by altering my diet.

As an aside, I have a friend who grew up with "hippie" parents in Columbia who only ate vegetarian. When he came to America at 18, one of the first things he did was have a Big Mac. He literally almost died. The doctor in the ER laughed at him and told him that he had to start slower than that! So he gradually built up a tolerance and now he too can enjoy the occasional Big Mac.

Anyway, I feel as if I've already had this conversation with Minyatur in the Courting the maiden thread. "Both the prostituted and the virginal deep mind invite and await the reaching". Intelligent infinity can ask us to do all sorts of stuff. We have a choice upon which of those impulses we choose to follow. I try to court my body as a maiden and feed it that which I know, empirically, nourishes it, and avoid that which I know, empirically, will make it ill. But I've said many times before that my experience is from being in a body that is very sensitive, and that reacted greatly, and positively, to a change in diet. Obviously most of what I say will fall on the deaf ears of the healthy body complex. Just as people who tell me there's something wrong with my diet will fall on deaf ears, because in my eyes, I'm basically as healthy of a person that I know!

[anagogy]

"Both the prostituted and the virginal deep mind invite and await the reaching". Intelligent infinity can ask us to do all sorts of stuff. We have a choice upon which of those impulses we choose to follow. I try to court my body as a maiden and feed it that which I know, empirically, nourishes it, and avoid that which I know, empirically, will make it ill. But I've said many times before that my experience is from being in a body that is very sensitive, and that reacted greatly, and positively, to a change in diet. Obviously most of what I say will fall on the deaf ears of the healthy body complex. Just as people who tell me there's something wrong with my diet will fall on deaf ears, because in my eyes, I'm basically as healthy of a person that I know!

Well, for what its worth, I don't think there is anything wrong with your diet. I merely think people respect their bodies in many different ways, and those ways may not look like the way another person respects their body, because while most human bodies are similar, they are not all exactly the same.

I think there is a great temptation for people to, as an analogy, look at Vultures and accuse them of being Wolves or blaming them for the actions of the Wolves and then possibly being mad at them for not being Rabbits. And I just think there is a lot of judgment and distortion in that line of thought, that people would be better off letting go of (not necessarily accusing anyone in this thread of that, just what I've noticed -- a lot of misattributed judgment and blame).

The vultures, wolves, and rabbits all serve different functions, and don't necessarily need to be told by each other how inappropriate their diets are from the others standpoint. But like you said, the words mostly fall on deaf ears. Words don't teach, life experience teaches, which is why conversations like these rarely convince anyone of anything they didn't already previously accept.

[flofrog]

I so love Jade's and Anagogy your comments.... it is so true that food is such a sensitive subject that for sure there is no way, not even thinking forcing free will, to change someone's concept of its own food views... lol

When I was in my twenties I became a vegetarian and thank god I was shy, or I would have tried to change everyone's view !!
Today I will eat occasionally some fish or chicken just to feel a bit more grounded at times, and I do thank the lovely animal who gave his life, though I am not sure I have the courage to visualize how he or she passed away..

About the Mac Donald symbol you were writing about Jade, there is an interesting action which was started about a year ago by a french philosopher, his name is Michel Onfray. He created some years ago in france a summer university which was first centered only on philosophy and was free. He became quite successful, he has a lot of humor and is very charismatic when he is interviewed. And he honestly makes philosophy meanderings pretty clear when he teaches. He is also an Epicurean so he loves food...
So he decided to create, with the help of a friend chef who was pretty well known and wanted to give back, a small non profit organization where they welcome newly freed criminals from jail. And they do that on the assumption that newly freed persons coming out of jail with a very tiny amount of money for reinsertion, will automatically buy very processed cheap food. So Onfray and his team gives them shelter temporarily, and teaches them to cook, how choose veggies, and steam carrots, taste their first steamed carrot with butter, and other veggies, so they have a real taste of real food. Some of them start training as a cook. It 's like a small tiny effort, a drop in the bucket, and yet it's real...

[Diana]

I think it's presumptuous to say Jade and Nia thought Ra wanted to tell Carla to be vegan, and rather insulting. My perception is that they are both more intelligent and open-mined than that.

You know, I find this rather interesting because what you've stated right here comes across as *FAR* more presumptuous, judgmental, and insulting than anything I said, or commented upon.

Without having any idea why they said what they said in the first place, you've essentially casually implied that if that was, in fact, what they thought, then they are unintelligent, and close minded for thinking that.

Even *I* would not have went so far as to imply that. I more took it as an innocent, albeit misguided perspective, which I was happy to point out the limitations of. And by the way, no alternative explanation for bringing up free will in regards to Carla's dietary instruction has been brought up, and as such, I still can't think of even a single alternate reasoning for that particular point.

I'm sure you probably will say you didn't mean to imply such a thing, but it is interesting how words can come across isn't it? Tricksy little hobbits aren't they?

You can be sure of anything you want. I wasn't implying anything—I made a very straight-forward comment, though it was based on a perception of mine about two individuals I have never met. How about we just let this one go? This sort of exchange could go back and forth forever.

Let's not forget that Carla was the channel. Carla had distortions as we all do. Ra was channeled through her paradigms/filters. Whatever information we got from Ra came through her.

I actually emphatically disagree with your assertion right here.

Do you want to know what separates a sixth density "narrow band" contact from your regular old hum drum channeling?

Well, I'm glad you asked, it is precisely the fact that it is *NOT* being filtered through the channeler's paradigms/filters. That is why it is a far more advanced feat to receive such a communication.
...
Anyway, point being that they weren't talking through Carla's mind during the Ra contact -- they were addressing a sixth density being manipulating the vocal chords of Carla's physical apparatus -- a distinction of some significance in my humble opinion.

For me, this assertion is a little too dogmatic and simplistic. Regardless of the method, Carla was still a channel. Things, in my view, can't be so cleanly separated. There could be magnetic attractions, consciousness aspects, genetic lines, beyond 3D connections and so on, that coalesce in bringing about such a happening. It is my working theory that Carla could not be separated from this exchange, no matter how unconscious she may have been, or how careful the set up was.

She ate fast-food burgers, and had "beliefs" about what foods were "good" for her. I won't judge that, but I see that as a paradigm.

I'm guessing that you brought up fast food burgers because you have assumed this is some kind of proof that she ate unhealthily (I apologize if I'm jumping to conclusions, I just can't think of any other reason why you would see the need to include this particular detail of her diet). This would be a presumptuous thing to assume. I can tell you matter of factly, though I'm sure most don't want to believe or even hear this, that when you align yourself with intelligent infinity, you would be shocked at the things summoned into your diet for the optimal health of your body. Simply put, you can't even summarily write off the food you might partake of at a fast food joint. Simply put, no part of the creation is complete waste to be sloughed off and never thought of again. The creation is enormously efficient in its application of the elements of experience.

You guessed wrong. I wasn't referring at all to what may or may not have been "healthy" for Carla to eat, or what was "optimal" for her physical body. By the way, Carla WAS unhealthy physically, though this is an aside, and it was her path.

I would appreciate you ceasing your own presumptions that "I won't want to hear this," and statements such as that. Though you are correct that I won't believe something because I believe nothing. I only have working theories, and I am open to all new information.

Have you aligned yourself with intelligent affinity? Is that how you know this? What strikes me about your above comments is that they seem to focus on health of the physical body and the individual. My considerations include all aspects of being, including the welfare of other-selves and the planet, etc.

Perhaps you are, and Carla was, a more advanced being than me, and above the entanglements of compassion where all things are understood to be okay. Where you can make choices that support suffering and destruction of the physical planet which is the case in consuming fast-food burgers. It is nonsensical to me to do so, but that does not mean I am "right" or that I will try to change someone's mind. I do respect everyone's free will and path. Though I do like to discuss the subject here.

No one can know what nutrients the indwelling creator needs to reform the pattern of illusions that comprise the mind, body, and spirit and thus perfect the body complex in this present moment.

The laws of god do not follow the intellectual edicts of 3rd density new age raw foodists, or dietetic experts/professors, or even your local green smoothie drinking health guru. Infinite intelligence will defy all such limitations, lest you reduce god to some kind of formula or rule. In the same way that you cannot judge the polarity of an act by its outward appearance, nothing can be written off dietary wise by its outer appearance. All has value in a certain context. And even the seemingly healthiest of the healthy food will be improperly absorbed and utilized if that alignment is not present..

You say you don't mean to be offensive, and yet if you would reread your above statements you may see that they are somewhat sarcastic. Why is a "raw-foodist" "new age" for instance?

I suppose I have a difficult time saying nothing matters. Because that is what this philosophy boils down to (for me) where all things are okay because the creator (and each part of creation) is experiencing all things. No matter how much interpretation or philosophy is applied, it just doesn't sit right (with me) that making conscious choices which include causing or supporting the suffering of others (even beings like the planet), promotes evolving. This is why I say this:

If we are here only to experience everything (infinitely), then how does this whole thing evolve? That seems to me to be like collecting data only. But when parts of the whole consciously choose to not just partake of what is, but forge new realities beyond the confines of reality, then there is expansion of the whole. I invite any clarification here. I am only conjecturing.

[Jade]

"Both the prostituted and the virginal deep mind invite and await the reaching". Intelligent infinity can ask us to do all sorts of stuff. We have a choice upon which of those impulses we choose to follow. I try to court my body as a maiden and feed it that which I know, empirically, nourishes it, and avoid that which I know, empirically, will make it ill. But I've said many times before that my experience is from being in a body that is very sensitive, and that reacted greatly, and positively, to a change in diet. Obviously most of what I say will fall on the deaf ears of the healthy body complex. Just as people who tell me there's something wrong with my diet will fall on deaf ears, because in my eyes, I'm basically as healthy of a person that I know!

Well, for what its worth, I don't think there is anything wrong with your diet. I merely think people respect their bodies in many different ways, and those ways may not look like the way another person respects their body, because while most human bodies are similar, they are not all exactly the same.

I think there is a great temptation for people to, as an analogy, look at Vultures and accuse them of being Wolves or blaming them for the actions of the Wolves and then possibly being mad at them for not being Rabbits. And I just think there is a lot of judgment and distortion in that line of thought, that people would be better off letting go of (not necessarily accusing anyone in this thread of that, just what I've noticed -- a lot of misattributed judgment and blame).

The vultures, wolves, and rabbits all serve different functions, and don't necessarily need to be told by each other how inappropriate their diets are from the others standpoint. But like you said, the words mostly fall on deaf ears. Words don't teach, life experience teaches, which is why conversations like these rarely convince anyone of anything they didn't already previously accept.

Humans are all one species... Are you advocating that there is an "ideal" diet (and also an inappropriate diet) based upon species? Because based upon your analogy, it seems that you may agree with me more than you realize.

[Spooner]

All animals and plants absorb the intelligent energy around them. The infinite intelligence of light is encoded into crystallized matter but carries with it an imprint of the experiences of the animals and plants. Plants are more simplistic creatures and absorb light with great simplicity yet also with the awareness of other beings around them. Animals are complex and encode many distortions, some helpful, others harmful. Consequently it is of great benefit to eat foodstuffs which have been grown in a positive environment. It is even more beneficial to eat plants from your own garden which you have tended and loved. This is a great act of magic, like giving affirmations to your meal a hundred fold. For food you cannot grow yourself, holding your meal in the light of your awareness with gratitude goes a long way.

[Spooner]

"Both the prostituted and the virginal deep mind invite and await the reaching". Intelligent infinity can ask us to do all sorts of stuff. We have a choice upon which of those impulses we choose to follow. I try to court my body as a maiden and feed it that which I know, empirically, nourishes it, and avoid that which I know, empirically, will make it ill. But I've said many times before that my experience is from being in a body that is very sensitive, and that reacted greatly, and positively, to a change in diet. Obviously most of what I say will fall on the deaf ears of the healthy body complex. Just as people who tell me there's something wrong with my diet will fall on deaf ears, because in my eyes, I'm basically as healthy of a person that I know!

Well, for what its worth, I don't think there is anything wrong with your diet. I merely think people respect their bodies in many different ways, and those ways may not look like the way another person respects their body, because while most human bodies are similar, they are not all exactly the same.

I think there is a great temptation for people to, as an analogy, look at Vultures and accuse them of being Wolves or blaming them for the actions of the Wolves and then possibly being mad at them for not being Rabbits. And I just think there is a lot of judgment and distortion in that line of thought, that people would be better off letting go of (not necessarily accusing anyone in this thread of that, just what I've noticed -- a lot of misattributed judgment and blame).

The vultures, wolves, and rabbits all serve different functions, and don't necessarily need to be told by each other how inappropriate their diets are from the others standpoint. But like you said, the words mostly fall on deaf ears. Words don't teach, life experience teaches, which is why conversations like these rarely convince anyone of anything they didn't already previously accept.

Humans are all one species... Are you advocating that there is an "ideal" diet (and also an inappropriate diet) based upon species? Because based upon your analogy, it seems that you may agree with me more than you realize.

Although humans are all one species there is significant differentiation between people. Since evolution is a constant process everyone is somewhere along the spectrum of specializing and diversifying. Consequently we have diverged quite a long way from one another. For example Europeans generally carry genes helping aid digestion of dairy and alchohol that asians often lack. Given another hundred thousand years it would not be inconceivable that the human race would become separate species as we're already fairly progressed along that track. So long as you truly don't hate people who are different from you and truly prize diversity then this process is natural and even very exciting.

[AnthroHeart]

I just started a vegetarian diet so that I can raise my vibration further. I want to experience the 4D energies more fully.

Sometimes I see through reality just a bit, with things like artwork looking a little more 3-dimensional, and a certain waviness to reality.

I'm just taking it naturally.

[Nía]

Q'uo session on 'metaphysically correct choice(s) of relating to the animal' aka the eating of meat:

October 16, 2010

Jim: The question this evening, Q’uo, [from G], is, “Few systems of thought confer as much responsibility on the individual entity as the Law of One does. In that philosophy, the individual is completely responsible for its own choices and its experience no matter how uninformed these choices and its viewpoint may be. It is in that vein that we wish to examine the concept of responsibility through both the general and focused lens. In general, to what extent is the positively-oriented entity responsible for indirectly participating in activities which result in pain and suffering for others? There are many specific ways to approach the basic underlying principle of responsibility, including purchasing gasoline, using products which harm the environment, supporting or not resisting governments which funnel the energy of their people into nefarious ends, etc.

We would like to select one particular instance of this principle for our focus. It is understood among many spiritual seekers that except in cases of humane slaughter our second-density friends are routinely mistreated and abused in the process of converting their physical bodies into our meat foodstuffs. Specifically then, to what extent is the positively-oriented entity responsible for the suffering of second-density creatures when purchasing and consuming the meat of these animals?

-`ღ´-

[Diana]

Q'uo session on 'metaphysically correct choice(s) of relating to the animal' aka the eating of meat:

October 16, 2010

Jim: The question this evening, Q’uo, [from G], is, “Few systems of thought confer as much responsibility on the individual entity as the Law of One does. In that philosophy, the individual is completely responsible for its own choices and its experience no matter how uninformed these choices and its viewpoint may be. It is in that vein that we wish to examine the concept of responsibility through both the general and focused lens. In general, to what extent is the positively-oriented entity responsible for indirectly participating in activities which result in pain and suffering for others? There are many specific ways to approach the basic underlying principle of responsibility, including purchasing gasoline, using products which harm the environment, supporting or not resisting governments which funnel the energy of their people into nefarious ends, etc.

We would like to select one particular instance of this principle for our focus. It is understood among many spiritual seekers that except in cases of humane slaughter our second-density friends are routinely mistreated and abused in the process of converting their physical bodies into our meat foodstuffs. Specifically then, to what extent is the positively-oriented entity responsible for the suffering of second-density creatures when purchasing and consuming the meat of these animals?

-`ღ´-

In response to this, I have pasted in part of a previous post. Unfortunately what Q'uo says about kosher meat is not true. I can't seem to grab the URL for this post from the original "in regards to eating meat " thread as it is closed. But here is the quote by Pablisimo:

Quo Wrote:
....One is to seek out a kosher store [2] which sells meat, knowing that the priests of that religion have treated animals well and have slaughtered them in a sacred ritual which is taken most seriously by those priests....."

This is simply not true. Jewish rabbis generally do not raise these animals and so one cannot say that they "have treated animals well", nor do they normally slaughter them directly so one also cannot say it is done in "a sacred ritual which is taken most seriously by those priests". Kosher rules refer to how an animal is slaughtered and how the flesh is handled afterwards. There is no guarantee that an animal was treated well during their LIFETIME, any more than an organic label necessarily means that an animal was treated well. There are many common misconceptions about this topic, but the slaughter does not have to be done by a rabbi, it can be (and usually is) done by an agent that they approve of. There is no sacred blessing that goes on during the ceremony. The ritual is basically that a sharp knife is used to cut the throat of the animal and it is allowed to bleed to death through the neck. The animal is not stunned beforehand.

So you can raise an animal in typical, terrible, agri-business factory farm conditions, and as long as an approved agent slashes their neck with a sharp knife and allows the animal to bleed to death, it's Kosher. Of course, there are also post-slaughter handling rules that are very strict involving inspection of the carcass and sanitation, but in no way does purchasing Kosher meat tell the seeker anything about how the animal was treated.

And in regards to the slaughter method, proponents of this approach maintain that it is a more humane way to kill the animal, that they lose consciousness within a few seconds. There is a fierce debate on this topic as opponents of the practice say that stunning the animal first would be more humane and that animals killed in the Kosher fashion often survive for several minutes in agony. It's far from settled, but you can read more about Kosher topics and watch graphic videos of this method of slaughter here:

http://www.peta.org/features/kosher-vegetarian.aspx
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HZnQmc3U9I

-----------

Of course Qu'o would know all of this about animal flesh killed in the Kosher fashion, and I'm sure Carla didn't make up the channeled message. What I'd like to offer for consideration is that perhaps because of her own personal bias that eating animal flesh is acceptable, and her own personal beliefs that Kosher or "biodynamic" animal flesh is more acceptable, that some de-tuning occurred in this contact. That's the only explanation I have for why something so factually inaccurate would have made it into a Qu'o transcript. It's also why I suspect the topic was not explored in any depth in the Ra material. Strong bias detunes contact.

That said, let's not judge the channel, nor anyone else as we debate this topic further, respectfully and with care. We all have our own biases, myself included, and we are all struggling to find balance and do what's right in the confusing phase of existence we find ourselves in. None of us has all the answers and should remember to be humble and kind to our other-selves as we discuss this issue. However, I think we owe it to ourselves to use our own discernment when evaluating channeled information, even when the source is well known and with established purity. Discernment.

Love to all

Here is the URL for the page—the thread was hard to locate:
http://www.bring4th.org/forums/showthrea...239&page=6

Scroll down to post 177