In regards to eating meat

[Monica]

It's in the material...Gandalf could have graduated or chosen to return to stay with the L/L crew. It was even Ra's suggestion to Gandalf that he graduate instead of reincarnate.

This speaks only to the current lifetime and says nothing about how many lifetimes Gandalf might have had before as a cat or dog or some other animal, with dawning self-awareness. This quite says only that he was at the point of graduation. It doesn't say when the spark of self-awareness was fanned or how long it took to fan it.

I find nothing in the material or any reason to think that once an entity gains awareness,

What do you mean by "once"? Can you define it? Is it a second, a minute, a day, a year, or many years?

it would have any reason to return to 2D except for the single example we are given, that is Gandalf's choice to either graduate or stay with the one's who loved him.

I have plenty of reasons...based on observations of my own cats and dogs.

Austin, if I remember correctly, awhile back you stated that you saw no personality in your goats, other than what could be explained by simple herd mentality. I remember being very surprised by this.

I am curious whether you've ever had cats or dogs. There is such a wide, wide range of personality among cats and dogs.

I believe the same is true, though to a lesser degree, among cows, goats, chickens, etc. My dad had chickens, ducks, geese and pigeons when I was growing up, and I observed distinct personalities among them.

It's logical to conclude that personality is the result of dawning self-awareness. But there's no question in my mind that my dogs and cats are more self-aware than those chickens. This leads me to conclude it is a process.

Furthermore, we know that 2D is a very long density. We also know the objective is to develop self-awareness. If it happened in an instant, then why is it so long?

For that matter, if it happened only when interacting with humans, then why are the vast majority of 2D entities developing without any interaction with humans at all? What is the point of that? Seems like a waste. Thousands upon thousands of years, with nothing accomplished.

Applied to 3D graduating to 4D, this would mean that as soon as any human reached the threshold of 51%, they could leave this density and graduate.

Again, graduation is different for every density. Ra says that 4D entities can be harvested as soon as they reach harvestability. 3D harvest cannot be used as a comparison for all harvest.

I wasn't comparing them, but drawing an analogy. There is a minimum threshold for the criteria of each density. That doesn't mean that no entities ever exceed that.

I strongly disagreed. Just by looking around I can plainly see that many, many humans exhibit strong qualities of love and compassion, here in 3D.

Because many many humans incarnated today were on the threshold of harvestability already, or are Wanderers, or already harvested beings from other planets.

I disagree. I see many people who don't seem to be Wanderers, but are learning love and compassion for the first time, and they appear to be way over the threshold. (in my subjective opinion of course.)

It is the same with 2D graduating to 3D. Simple observation tells me that some of my pets are more self-aware than others. But all are self-aware to some extent. It's unreasonable to me to think that a 2D entity would graduate to 3D after only a single lifetime of developing a spark of self-awareness.

What you observe to be self-aware is not what Ra considers to be self-aware. If we discovered a self-aware dog or cat based on Ra's definition and modern science's ability to discern which beings are self-aware, it would be huge HUGE news.

I totally don't understand what you're getting at here. It's not huge news because it's already a given. Are you suggesting that all those millions of dogs, cats, horses and even ferrets and parrots who are considered family members by their humans, aren't self-aware?

I think most of those families would disagree with you.

And I'm not sure what's so unreasonable to think that an entity obtaining the spark of awareness of self would then be qualified for 3D incarnation. That seems completely reasonable to me. They've spent their entire 2D existence striving for that point.

Let's look at compassion. Does a single spark of compassion make a 3D entity ready to graduate?

No, it must be chosen, again and again, and each time it is chosen, the power of that choice is squared.

An animal with zero self-awareness cannot function as a human in its next life, after just a single glimmer of self-awareness. It would fall back into herd mentality immediately. There isn't enough to hold it together.

It makes more sense to me that those millions of years are spent developing self-awareness, and when there is enough, it is ready to go to 3D, than to think that the millions of years were for nothing, and then it all happens in a single instant.

If that were true, then that is all the more reason to treat those cows and chickens with compassion. They are being cruelly treated and brutally slaughtered by the billions. Such trauma is surely triggering the spark of self-awareness, as any intense emotion can do. If those billions of cows and chickens are now ready to graduate to 3D, then I shudder to think of what kind of horrible, barbaric planet they will be inhabiting!

Who said they were ready to graduate? Ra clearly points out that being enspirited with love is the most common way for a 2D entity to reach awareness of self and mentions absolutely nothing about trauma doing the same thing. That would be an assumption.

Yes it is an assumption, but an assumption based on what me seems to be common sense. If the trauma does nothing to awaken self-awareness, then what is the purpose of the trauma? Why do wolves hunt deer? Why do animals feel pain? Is all of that for nothing?

Ra said the most common. This indicates it's not the only way. What other way is there? What else do these 2D entities experience?

Trauma.

Trauma intense enough to jolt them out of their complacency and into self-awareness.

What if that trauma of getting slaughtered does shake them up enough to be self-aware to the point of being harvestable?

What kind of humans will they be?

What if we are unintentionally populating a dark planet, right now, with all those billions of cow, pig and chicken souls, incarnating as humans on a barbaric world?

It's your own supposition that the chickens and cows are ready to graduate, and I'm not sure where it comes from.

Maybe yes maybe no. We really don't know. But I cannot believe that such trauma registers as a big fat zero on the scale of utilized catalyst.

It happened. It is catalyst. It counts for something. It's not a nothing. It's a something.

What we know about the process of karma would suggest that an entity who developed self-awareness via trauma as a chicken, might attract to itself several lifetimes as a feral dog, abused and beaten, until some human finally shows compassion on him and rehabilitates him with love.

Again, why are you assuming that trauma sparks self-awareness? Ra doesn't mention this at all and it doesn't make any sense to me.

We know that everything that happens is catalyst. What, then, is the purpose of trauma? How do all those billions of wild animals (who never interact with humans) ever become self-aware?

I disagree with your interpretation. As I mentioned before, if being drawn out by love were the only way to develop self-awareness, then what is the point of 2D life at all?

It's not the only way to reach self-awareness. Don and Ra talked about this:

14.2 Questioner: When this Earth was second-density, how did the second-density beings on it become so invested?
Ra: I am Ra. There was not this type of investment as spoken but the simple third-density investment which is the line of spiraling light calling distortion upward from density to density. The process takes longer when there is no investment made by incarnate third-density beings.

It is the nature of all beings to strive upwards. Even plants. Ra even uses plants as the prime example of this.

13.18. ..."This movement is the characteristic of second density, the striving towards light and growth."

Notice Ra didn't exclude any 2D beings. The characteristic of ALL of second density is the striving towards light and growth, including lettuce, carrots, beets, aphids, cows, chickens, and monkeys.

Yes, exactly. And what is 2D life but a series of eating and being eaten? This indicates that the very act of eating/being eaten is the main catalyst.

Aren't we a little above that? We now have other tools we can use, to evolve, beyond mere survival. We can extend love and compassion to those animals.

A relative term would be "lower." Lowest is a base-point. There's no other way to interpret "lowest" except for it doesn't get lower. That's the definition of lowest.

In that density. It says nothing about what led up to it in the previous density.

A newly harvested entity in 3D will have the lowest self-awareness in 3D, ie. compared to others in 3D. But it would have had the highest self-awareness while still in 2D.

Could you explain that? Why would this exclude plants except trees? Trees and other plants have the exact same faculties of awareness. And Ra never excluded all plants excepting trees. A lettuce plant has the same awareness as a tree. They have the same methods of survival, reproduction, and existence. Your logic is confusing.

Are you saying a lettuce, which lives a very short life and is but one of many hundreds of lettuce plants on a farm, has just as much awareness as a tree who has lived many hundreds or even thousands of years, and was focused on by many generations of families, including children who laughingly played in its branches? A tree who has become part of the landscape that family calls home, is included in family photos, and is actually loved by generations of 3D humans, each time investing more and more love?

Am I understanding you correctly that you see no difference between such a tree and a lettuce?

It's well established that animals can think. Yes, even cows and chickens. Some months back, I posted some links to studies showing that cows and chickens are far more intelligent than previously thought. Even cows have been known to think independently!

It's also well established that these animals do not think abstractly and do not have even the lowest form of self-awareness according to modern science which has the same definition of self-awareness as Ra. These things can be tested and proven. Observing an animal and relating to it psychologically does not mean that it is thinking abstractly or has any trait indicative of what Ra considers self-awareness.

I'm not sure what you are basing this on. The ability to think abstractly has nothing to do with self-awareness.

Many humans cannot think abstractly. A huge percentage of the population in the lower level of human intelligence cannot think abstractly.

Yet they are quite self-aware.

Self-awareness means exactly as it sounds: aware of self.

And to put these animals which show no signs of abstract thought above plants in terms of spiritual awareness would be folly. Again, just because we can relate to their faculties of awareness doesn't mean that plants do not exist vibrating in the same energy centers.

"Vibrating in the same energy centers" seems to me to be quite a stretch in assumption.

I've explained in great detail why I think animals have more self-awareness than plants. I realize you don't agree, but I respectfully don't understand how you consider it 'folly.' They seem like reasonable points, in my opinion. Why would it be 'folly' to develop compassion for animals?

Right now, most humans don't have compassion for plants or animals. Compassion is good, right? Important for the STO-oriented entity. Then how could it be folly to develop compassion for animals?

41.14 Questioner: Could you tell me the simplest and first entity to have both orange and yellow ray energy centers?
Ra: I am Ra. Upon your planetary sphere those having the first yellow ray experiences are those of animal and vegetable natures which find the necessity for reproduction by bisexual techniques or who find it necessary to depend in some way upon otherselves for survival and growth.

Both plants AND animals which rely on bisexual reproduction have activated yellow ray energy centers, placing them in the same category of spiritual awareness. Not being able to relate to the plant's awareness is not a reason to find them more suitable for consumption in my eyes.

Same category, but not necessarily in exactly the same stage of development.

If anything, this quote seems to support my premise that 2D is very long for a reason; it takes many millions of years to turn a spark of self-awareness to enough to graduate to 3D.

---

I see, I just assumed it was ignored because since following this thread almost every post that someone has disagreed with has had some justification.

No, I just get busy and don't always have time to respond to every post. I already respond to most of them.

Of course, it's not required of you to justify why you disagreed with that post, but if you won't then I guess it's essentially subjective and so there's no real basis for disagreeing with his meat-eating. His post was a response to your interpretations, as I saw it. You never replied with why you think your interpretation is correct. For instance, the 'relative term' bit is quite important as that really answers the question.

I just replied to it, just for you!

I say this because, really, what I see other than pros and cons and hypothetical situations, is the question of whether animals have subjective experience and so whether the suffering is 'real' or just a very sophisticated articulation of the programming of survival and growth/proliferation. Whether we consider them 'brothers and sisters' or not. And so on...

Exactly. I think an easy way to find out is to go kill a cow or chicken.

from http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles/geissal23.html

Making careful preparations will help you remain calm. After years and years of butchering I still feel a strong adrenaline rush when the animal is killed. Be prepared for that and use it to make sure the death is as painless as possible. A knowledgeable person can direct these strong feelings into doing the job right instead of letting their emotions get the best of them and botching the job.

Why is this seasoned butcher still feeling an "adrenaline rush" after "years and years" of butchering?

Why are there such strong feelings? Why must he suppress those natural emotions in order to do this job, if it's no big deal?

Why is this butcher, who obviously believes that what he's doing is ok, still feelings such emotions at all? What is the reason for those emotions?

Why does he feel such strong emotions when butchering an animal, but not when harvesting lettuce?

Here's another seasoned butcher:

I did not grow up learning to butcher poultry. I was a sissified suburban kid. It was not until I was 41 years old that I had my first chicken butchering experience, and it was stressful for me. I was, to be perfectly honest, grossed out by the whole thing.

That is the typical modern reaction. Most people these days have become so removed from the reality of food production.

Most people don't know how to pull a carrot out of the ground either. Oh wait, yes they do. It's very intuitive. You just pull it up. No one gets grossed out by pulling up a carrot. And they may feel some regret and compassion, but I doubt if they'll have an adrenaline rush, to the point of having to suppress their emotions.

Maybe these natural emotions are there for a reason?

Edit: links corrected

[BrownEye]

I think there is a sort of life force transfer when you kill a person or animal. Part of ritual sacrifice if anyone was to research it.

Might explain the adrenaline.

---

Not really saying its adrenalin though. Adrenaline is fight or flight.

[3DMonkey]

I've never experienced adrenaline when killing an animal.

I guess the adrenaline felt from killing a human comes from fear of repercussions from other humans. If war, fear of his allies. If domestic, fear of law enforcement.

[BrownEye]

People in my neck of the woods will almost aim at you if you get in the way of their hunting.

[Monica]

People in my neck of the woods will almost aim at you if you get in the way of their hunting.

Hunting with a gun is cheating, in a way. I wonder how many people would eat meat if they had to kill the animal themselves, with a knife instead of a gun.

[Diana]

The rush of emotion when killing something may be because it's simply contrary to universal "law." Life is sacred.

If so, going by the typical reactions to taking animal life and plant life for food, the indication would be that it is somehow "okay" to take plants for food, and not so for animals.

[βαθμιαίος]

This thread is affecting my food experiences. Last night my wife was making carrot salad. As she cut the tops off the carrots and put them in the compost, I was thinking, "Wait, Pickle wants those!" As she pushed the carrots into the food processor and grated them, I could hear the poor things scream.

[Namaste]

This thread is affecting my food experiences. Last night my wife was making carrot salad. As she cut the tops off the carrots and put them in the compost, I was thinking, "Wait, Pickle wants those!" As she pushed the carrots into the food processor and grated them, I could hear the poor things scream.

Send them gratitude :¬)

On the subject of 2D -> 3D (bit late to the party here), I believe that there are levels of self awareness throughout 2D just as there are levels of unconditional (ironically - conditional) love throughout 3D.

Cats, for example, show tremendous signs of varying personalities. When I interact with my two cats, I instinctively think of them as two clear individuals. There is nothing 'herd' about them in the slightest (a sign of 'newer' 2D entities).

As humans pull in 4D energy (acceptance, compassion, kindness, gratitude) while in 3D in order to evolve, one can logically deduce that 2D animals pull in 3D energy (self awareness). This explains why evolved 2D entities (pets gaining self awareness) are intrinsically linked with their 'owners'; they are learning.

Makes complete sense to me :¬)

[βαθμιαίος]

This thread seems like a good place to wish Happy Thanksgiving to all. Hope everyone enjoys their meals, whatever they may be.

And if you don't celebrate Thanksgiving, I hope you have a good day and enjoy your meals, too.

[Monica]

Well dang maybe carrots are close to becoming people after all!

[Diana]

This thread is affecting my food experiences. Last night my wife was making carrot salad. As she cut the tops off the carrots and put them in the compost, I was thinking, "Wait, Pickle wants those!" As she pushed the carrots into the food processor and grated them, I could hear the poor things scream.

Must have been telepathic screaming then .

It is good to be aware of where our food is coming from. Each bit of awareness gathers into a sum of light in our beings.

[Tenet Nosce]

Our mind/spirit complex incarnates into a body.

So does the cow's. The cow is not its' body, as neither are humans their bodies. Didn't the cow's mind/spirit complex know what it was getting itself into when it came to earth? Didn't it have a choice whether or not to be here/now? Didn't it have a choice whether to be a cow on a Texas ranch rather than any of the other trillions of animals that are not slaughtered for food? Is the cow here against their will?

We cannot avoid killing microbes, but that doesn't negate the value of avoiding the killing of those we can avoid.

Now why would the sub-Logos have created a world where we cannot avoid doing something "bad"?

But I'm not going to be the one to facilitate that croaking. I'll leave that task to an STS entity who, I'm sure, will be more than happy to oblige.

Eh? I have a friend who works a slaughterhouse. I am quite sure he makes the 51% grade.

Humans die in uninspiring ways too, like car crashes and brutal murders.

When the soul allows a human to die in a gory car crash, do we declare the soul to be "not compassionate"? According to your logic (it seems) if the soul did nothing to prevent the death of the body, then it is STS? Or...?

Again, we can't control the killing of bugs and microbes (unless we're spraying insecticides of course). But we can control the unnecessary suffering of animals.

Whomever said that positive change results from more control? Actually, hasn't history proven this methodology ineffective?

Would you apply that logic to humans who work for humanitarian causes?

Sure, why not? I will use the global warming/climate change debate. Environmentalists jump at any opportunity to point to evidence of climate change on earth. But what about the climate change occurring on most of the other planets and their moons? Why leave that part out? Because it doesn't support "The Cause"?

If you're praying for the cow, then sure. But in this discussion, people were talking mostly about sending love to the dead meat so it would be healthier for them.

For reals? Seriously, I had always assumed that the prayers and love were primarily intended toward the animal. People are absurd.

What if you found a dog on the side of the road, who had just been hit by a car, and was injured, bleeding and in pain? Would you feel compassion for the dog? Would you try to help relieve the pain and take the dog to the vet? Or would you leave it by the side of the road to die a slow, agonizing death?

You forgot the third option. Many humans would consider it a compassionate act to kill the dog. Just sayin- whomever said death is "not compassionate"?

If those billions of cows and chickens are now ready to graduate to 3D, then I shudder to think of what kind of horrible, barbaric planet they will be inhabiting![/b]

The same one with all of the humans who need to repeat 3D? They will need some animals over there too, right? What do you suppose would constitute a selection process? Forced? Volunteer?

What if we are unintentionally populating a dark planet, right now, with all those billions of cow, pig and chicken souls, incarnating as humans on a barbaric world?

Maybe we are living on that barbaric world right now? But seriously, I am not totally following your logic here. If a human is murdered, would they be sent back to a more barbaric world?

---

Well dang maybe carrots are close to becoming people after all!

[Whitefeather]

This is a clip from a documentary regarding the secret life of plants, from 1966, 1973 and 1979, and showing consciousness in plants. Polygraphs reveal that plants have emotions. They can feel the mutilation of another plant and can even die of fear. There is nothing new in this film yet some path may not have crossed with this awareness yet.

http://www.forbiddenknowledgetv.com/vide...ntary.html

It is an old ten minutes clip but I recommend watching until the end as last part is most interesting.

Edit: The whole movie in eleven parts can be watched at this link. http://www.videosurf.com/video/the-secre...-117502355

Enjoy

[apeiron]

...........

It is not about the cow anymore, or the incarnational situation and the play of logic, it is about you and me. because logic changes with archetypal changes. I suppose one can apply the great way or even the potentiator when one reconsiders the basic act of eating as sustainance for the body complex. Then when the spirit complex potentiators play their act what is your reaction AT THE SPIRIT LEVEL? Not only at the mind level with its play of potential logic? But what is the "logic" of the spirit?

Once the mind aware of the situation at he spirit level what is the way?

I have to say that I cannot eat meat or plants that are killed. So pretty much I am limited to cheese, eggs, some dairy products, some leaves, fruits, nuts, and plants that are not killed. If I want to be honest to myself that is the way I must follow otherwise I am being hypocritical with myself at the spiritual level.

[BrownEye]

That clip makes sense if you have read about plants as antennas. Can't remember where I came across it, but the forest system is supposed to be antenna grid, having a widescale effect like the whale and dolphin.

While looking, this is all I found.

[Monica]

So does the cow's. The cow is not its' body, as neither are humans their bodies. Didn't the cow's mind/spirit complex know what it was getting itself into when it came to earth? Didn't it have a choice whether or not to be here/now? Didn't it have a choice whether to be a cow on a Texas ranch rather than any of the other trillions of animals that are not slaughtered for food? Is the cow here against their will?

That question has been raised many times in this thread. Of course, on some level, yes it did, just as the human victim of violence also chose to be a victim. However I don't see anyone justifying participating in violence to humans just because the victim's Higher Self chose that experience.

Now why would the sub-Logos have created a world where we cannot avoid doing something "bad"?

Maybe because it's not bad. Not bad to kill microbes.

But we can avoid killing animals.

Eh? I have a friend who works a slaughterhouse. I am quite sure he makes the 51% grade.

You have taken my statement out of context. I never said all slaughterhouse workers were STS. If I remember correctly I was referring to an obviously STS entity inflicting violence on humans.

When the soul allows a human to die in a gory car crash, do we declare the soul to be "not compassionate"? According to your logic (it seems) if the soul did nothing to prevent the death of the body, then it is STS? Or...?

Tenet, that's quite a stretch from what I actually said!

I never said anything about the soul/Higher Self. I was referring only to us, here in 3D, and what we can choose to do or not do.

Again, we can't control the killing of bugs and microbes (unless we're spraying insecticides of course). But we can control the unnecessary suffering of animals.

Whomever said that positive change results from more control? Actually, hasn't history proven this methodology ineffective?

I wasn't referring to control as in the STS controlling and manipulating of others.

I was referring to simple free will choice.

We cannot totally avoid the killing of bugs and microbes, no matter what we choose. As Diana said, our intentions can reduce the killing, but we still breathe in microbes, so it's simply impossible to totally avoid it.

In contrast, we have the power to choose to avoid contributing to the cruelty to animals. We can do that. So why not do it?

We can't do everything. Why not do what we can?

For reals? Seriously, I had always assumed that the prayers and love were primarily intended toward the animal. People are absurd.

That's not the impression I got from many of the comments on this thread.

And even if some did intend the prayers to be for the animal, how does that work again? Hunt down an animal, ignore its cries of pain and the terror in its eyes, and then just say a prayer for it afterwards? When the killing wasn't necessary? A beautiful creature shot down for...what?

You forgot the third option. Many humans would consider it a compassionate act to kill the dog. Just sayin- whomever said death is "not compassionate"?

That would depend on the severity of its injuries. Sometimes it is indeed a compassionate act to end the animal's life because it is in extreme pain and there is no hope for healing.

But oftentimes, people put a bullet to its head or have it euthanized because it's easier.

At any rate, killing an animal out of mercy has no relevance to animals slaughtered for meat, because they are only miserable because humans made them miserable. Raising animals in the cruel conditions of factory farms, inflicting misery on them day after day after day, and then finally killing it...that's not an act of compassion.

The same one with all of the humans who need to repeat 3D? They will need some animals over there too, right? What do you suppose would constitute a selection process? Forced? Volunteer?

Humans have the capacity to reason. Animals don't. I surmise that animals who were catapulted into self-awareness by trauma may indeed reincarnate into a very dark, STS environment, for the simple reason that their state of extreme pain and terror might attract them to such a place.

Humans, on the other hand, might avoid such a fate because their capacity for free will is better developed.

I admit this is speculation on my part...but still... what if it's true? Very disconcerting to think about.

Maybe we are living on that barbaric world right now? But seriously, I am not totally following your logic here. If a human is murdered, would they be sent back to a more barbaric world?

Depends on how the human chooses to respond to catalyst. An newly awakened 3D entity may likely respond in a very primal way...with more violence fueled by fear.

---

By the way I'm surprised no one has commented on the anatomically correct carrot.

Wait! Just kidding. Please don't!

[apeiron]

Regarding bacteria, I suppose it is a question of self-defense when the body is under attack. Otherwise, role of bacteria can also be seen as a means to end incarnation in many cases.

[BrownEye]

Say my name Carrot!

Oooh Pickle oooh yes yes that's it keep going!

[Tenet Nosce]

Then when the spirit complex potentiators play their act what is your reaction AT THE SPIRIT LEVEL? Not only at the mind level with its play of potential logic? But what is the "logic" of the spirit?

Yes, this is exactly why certain arguments fail.

First of all, you can't really make a rational/verbal argument for what is going on at the spirit level because the spirit level is beyond words.

Secondly, what some people fail to realize is that- YES- there are others in this thread who ARE considering this from a spiritual perspective, but aren't arriving at the same conclusion as you.

So the reaction is either "shock and amazement" or condescension. It is like when people say... "Well you know ONE DAY [when you are as old and wise as me] you will come to believe as I do." It is a bit derogatory.

Let me restate- in case you or others have missed it- that I actually agree that people will naturally eat less meat as certain changes continue to occur. I also agree that it is healthier to eat less meat. What I don't agree is with the assertion that not eating meat "makes one more spiritual". I don't agree that it is "wrong" for humans to eat meat because that would make the Creator wrong for creating the world this way.

I am also not sure that I agree that killing an animal for food somehow causes damage to its soul, or that its soul would even care one way or another. Even if an untimely death might have robbed a particular animal of a chance at individuation, I wouldn't anticipate that much time is necessary between incarnations. And besides it would give the animal soul a chance to choose a form which is more conducive to having success the next time around.

That being said, I fully concur that the industry practices around meat-eating are quite abhorrent and unnecessary. I am fully in support of practices which show a respect and appreciation for life, and I fully acknowledge the validity of the viewpoint of a person who raises their own animals, or who makes a special effort to purchase animal products from other people, rather than corporate giants.

We are in a 3D world where creatures eat other creatures for food. It is not wrong. It is so. In other densities- this is not the case. Well at least not in the flesh-and-blood way we think about it. Actually, in other densities the body is not so solid so entities are able to pass through one another without losing the connection between consciousness and form.

So why don't we focus on wrapping things up in this density rather than crucifying ourselves upon the Wheel of Karma in trying to make 3D into something it is not?

3D earth is not transitioning into 4D earth. It is not going to become 4D earth by the efforts of humans. 4D earth already exists. I would guess that- over there- they do not slaughter animals for food.

With respect to that, what would be the purpose of a 4D Wanderer to be here in 3D earth at this time/space nexus? Simply to teach vegetarianism? Or is there a Higher Purpose?

The Higher Purpose of Wanderers is to assist with the harvest. To discern who is ready to go from here to there and to help create a bridge between worlds. Vegetarianism is not a prerequisite for transport. It simply isn't. I'm sorry I can't say this in a way which respects "my truth" and "your truth". I didn't write the script.

Once the mind aware of the situation at he spirit level what is the way?

Well, that is again kind of the point. If one were to take a survey of channeled sources, most of them (including Hatonn, Ra, and Q'uo) downplay the importance of abstaining from meat. So, I think it makes sense to assume that these attitudes are representative of how things are looked at from beyond the veil.

Secondary. A side issue. Not the point.

So for somebody to swoop in and declare "this is what the spirit says" then I say BS. I talk to my own spirit every day. This is what it has to say about food:

Continue to develop awareness of your cravings, and trust your body to communicate to you what it needs and when it needs it. That is all.

I mean no disrespect toward the spiritual paths of others, however to be frank- I would see those who conceptualize communication from spirit in terms of what is "right and wrong" or "allowed and disallowed" as being at a rather rudimentary stage. Spirit does not dictate rules by which everybody should live their life. That is the "old way" as represented by the false imposter Yahweh giving the Ten Commandments beginning with "Thou shalt not..."

Remember?

[apeiron]

I can only speak for myself.

[Tenet Nosce]

I can only speak for myself.

Certainly, I am not telling you to eat meat. Nor trying to change your mind in any way.

[Tenet Nosce]

That question has been raised many times in this thread. Of course, on some level, yes it did, just as the human victim of violence also chose to be a victim. However I don't see anyone justifying participating in violence to humans just because the victim's Higher Self chose that experience.

Yes, but violence is a term that primarily refers to behavior among humans. Yes- it can be applied to animals but this is obviously a gray area.

Also, as has been repeated multiple times, there is more than one way to skin a cat. Killing does not necessarily equate to violence. But obviously, the two are connected.

I can't even remember the last time I ate a cow, much less purchased some disgusting pre-ground burger concoction which could contain parts of as many as 100 cows, not to mention whatever feces is allowed to pass as "meat". But for those that are continuing to eat cows, that doesn't make them more violent than me. It just makes them more ignorant than me.

Maybe because it's not bad. Not bad to kill microbes.

Whyever not? I mean, if it weren't for microbes none of us would even exist. We depend on microbes to help us digest our food and to regulate our immune system. Mother earth relies on microbes to help offset the effects of oil spills and other human bunglings. If not for microbes in the soil, plants would neither be able to exist, nor provide oxygen for humans to breathe. If not for microbes in the sky, there would be little rain and the climate more severe.

This is way more than can be said for cows.

How about if I started accusing physicians of unprovoked assault on symbiotic gut bacteria every time they write a prescription for antibiotics? Or perhaps I should sue Clorox on behalf of the microbe world for the rampant germicide they perpetuate with their products? Or even shun the word "germ" as not being politically correct? Why not shut Pfizer down for distributing weapons of mass microbe destruction?

But we can avoid killing animals.

We can avoid killing microbes, too. Not only that, but we should. It is the senseless killing of microbes that has created some of the more virulent strains which are growing beyond our ability to control.

I never said anything about the soul/Higher Self. I was referring only to us, here in 3D, and what we can choose to do or not do.

OK. I must have been confusing your views with somebody else's.

In contrast, we have the power to choose to avoid contributing to the cruelty to animals. We can do that. So why not do it?

We don't have the power to do this because we can't discern a consistent principle from which to draw a model for behavior.

For example, imagine that we had some sort of "animal tribunal" or "animal court" through which one human could bring charges against another on behalf of an animal. Let's say that exists.

So next we need to appoint a judge. And then we are going to instruct the judge to rule on charges of "animal murder" based upon... what, exactly?

You have mentioned potential to individuate. And I agree this seems to be part of it. But there has to be something more than just... it is an animal therefore humans shouldn't kill them. This would obviously lead to some very absurd results, as you know.

We can't do everything. Why not do what we can?

Exactomundo! I see "doing what we can" as taking a good, hard look at priorities.

What if... there were less than 12 months... or even 12 years or 120 years... left before 3D earth winks out of active existence. Will it have mattered that PETA got their way? How long do you think the victory party is going to go on in 4D+ where nobody eats meat anyways?

And even if some did intend the prayers to be for the animal, how does that work again?

Same way any prayer works. According to my understanding, there are whole hosts of beings who are in contact with intelligent infinity whose role it is to administer to animal souls throughout the grand scheme of Creation. When I pray for the animal, I throw the weight of my intention along with these beings and trust that it will be appropriated in the most effective way.

Hunt down an animal, ignore its cries of pain and the terror in its eyes, and then just say a prayer for it afterwards?

I am not a hunter. But I believe the correct sequence would be to first say a prayer for the animal, and ask the Universe for a volunteer who is willing to sacrifice their flesh for the nourishment of human life. Then one waits. Often for a very long time. Sometimes not.

When the killing wasn't necessary?

But it is necessary. Something must die in order for something else to live. While in 3D.

A beautiful creature shot down for...what?

For many, a ridiculous head to put on one's wall. I have the same reaction as you toward this whoo-whee big buck huntin thang. But I don't feel the same way toward the organically raised lamb in my freezer, or the Moroccan sardines in my pantry. I just don't.

That would depend on the severity of its injuries. Sometimes it is indeed a compassionate act to end the animal's life because it is in extreme pain and there is no hope for healing.

To what ends of expense? If Gandalf needs $5000 surgery to maybe live another year, and I don't want to pay for it, do you have the right to force me to pay for it? Should I drop Gandalf off at a shelter or something? Will PETA pay for Gandalf's surgery? Or will that cut too deeply into their lobbying budget?

But oftentimes, people put a bullet to its head or have it euthanized because it's easier.

Sometimes it is. We had a family dog die back in '07. The last couple of days were really sad and the poor thing couldn't even move himself around to avoid defecating on himself.

Now, I don't even own a gun. But what I -did- do was go to him and cradle his head in my hands and pray for his quick and painless release from this body. He died a few hours later. Maybe most people don't realize they can do this? But besides that point, I was directly intending for him to die. Is it really so different, if I had expressed that intention with a bullet or an injection?

At any rate, killing an animal out of mercy has no relevance to animals slaughtered for meat, because they are only miserable because humans made them miserable. Raising animals in the cruel conditions of factory farms, inflicting misery on them day after day after day, and then finally killing it...that's not an act of compassion.

Like I keep saying, I think the factory farm thing is nasty in many respects, and I don't buy that crap.

Humans have the capacity to reason. Animals don't. I surmise that animals who were catapulted into self-awareness by trauma may indeed reincarnate into a very dark, STS environment, for the simple reason that their state of extreme pain and terror might attract them to such a place.

If it weren't for their interactions with humans, no animal would ever had any chance to escape the pain and terror of living as an animal in the 3D world, whatsoever. It is part of the program. That any animal could be "spared" such a fate is by the intervention of human beings, not the other way around.

Humans, on the other hand, might avoid such a fate because their capacity for free will is better developed.

There's an ass for every saddle, and I mean that for both humans and donkeys. Again, I did not set Creation up this way. I don't really know why 3D beings kill and eat each other. It appears to be necessary in a number of ways, but I don't fully understand it. There are many things about the physical world that I find bizarre but I don't judge the Creator for making it this way.

You are right in that humans can choose to "opt out" of meat-eating, however there is no denying that the human body was designed for consumption of animal protein. Perhaps we can modulate this with spirulina and other things as Dr. Gabriel describes, but this is actually not the "natural" state of things. This is a new possibility that was not available before.

Depends on how the human chooses to respond to catalyst. An newly awakened 3D entity may likely respond in a very primal way...with more violence fueled by fear.

I had always assumed that such animal souls are ministered and attended to similarly to those humans who may have departed in fear-based ways. It is all under intelligent guidance and direction.

[Monica]

First of all, you can't really make a rational/verbal argument for what is going on at the spirit level because the spirit level is beyond words.

Secondly, what some people fail to realize is that- YES- there are others in this thread who ARE considering this from a spiritual perspective, but aren't arriving at the same conclusion as you.

True. As in the old adage "intelligent people can disagree."

So the reaction is either "shock and amazement" or condescension.

I'm not following you on the 'shock and amazement' part. ?

It is like when people say... "Well you know ONE DAY [when you are as old and wise as me] you will come to believe as I do." It is a bit derogatory.

I can see how the opinions expressed by those who envision a future without animal slaughter can be perceived as condescending, even though I'm certain that was not the intention of any of us.

Interestingly, though, your later statement:

I would guess that- over there- they do not slaughter animals for food.

...is, essentially, saying just that: That ONE DAY (in 4D) we will all agree that animals not be slaughtered for food.

The difference in our views is that your statement:

3D earth is not transitioning into 4D earth. It is not going to become 4D earth by the efforts of humans. 4D earth already exists.

...you clearly state that, while you agree that in 4D we won't be eating animals, you disagree about how we will get there. You seem to be indicating that it's ok to eat animals now, but when we get to 4D we will no longer be interested in eating animals, or we will have lost our taste for animal flesh, or we simply won't want meat because the design of 4D is different than 3D.

Whereas, the view shared by myself and some of the other vegetarians, is more like Cayce's admonition "You don't go to heaven...you grow to heaven!" ie. we can't expect to just go poof into another reality...we must aspire to the qualities of 4D if we want to be in 4D.

It's the same debate I had with unity100, who, in my understanding, was saying that compassion is a 4D trait and doesn't exist in 3D; thus, we won't have it until we get to 4D. Whereas, I contend that the way to resonate with 4D is to start now aspiring to those qualities.

It's also the same debate regarding Harvest: will it be gradual or sudden? And the same debate raging in Christianity: will Jesus rapture everyone up suddenly to a perfect heaven?

Yes, intelligent people disagree. We can all read the same book, meditate on these questions with sincerity, and still disagree.

Let me restate- in case you or others have missed it- that I actually agree that people will naturally eat less meat as certain changes continue to occur.

Why do you suppose that happens?

I also agree that it is healthier to eat less meat.

Why do you suppose that is? I mean, one can't really eat too many vegetables, unless it's at the exclusion of something else. But lots of people drink several quarts of concentrated vegetable juice daily, and there are no ill effects. They just get healthier and healthier, to the point that there are many books written by people who claim to have healed their cancer with veggie juices.

What I don't agree is with the assertion that not eating meat "makes one more spiritual".

I agree with you on this. Being vegetarian is not a ticket to heaven!

Just like practicing yoga isn't either...though many on the spiritual path consider these things integral to their spirituality.

I don't agree that it is "wrong" for humans to eat meat because that would make the Creator wrong for creating the world this way.

I think it's an oversimplification to think in terms of 'right' and 'wrong.' We know from Ra that, ultimately, there is no such thing.

It's more about efficiency, and something called polarity comes into play.

Ra stated that there is no right and wrong. Yet, Ra also indicated certain intentions and actions that are appropriate for STS, while others are appropriate for STO. As in, helping to facilitate progress in polarizing on the chosen path.

Knowingly causing harm to an other-self helps facilitate polarizing STS, not STO. That is a given.

What it really boils down to is whether animals are 'other-selves' or not.

That is the crux of the debate, as I see it. We are all in agreement that it's proper, and even necessary, for an STO-aspiring person to develop compassion for other-selves, ie. human other-selves.

What's being debated is whether it's important to develop compassion for our younger other-selves...ie. animals.

I contend that the Creator has probably allowed 2D to be so bloody, as a mechanism by which 3D entities may learn to develop compassion.

If this contention is correct, then by ignoring the suffering of animals, we are wasting that catalyst...losing an opportunity to develop compassion.

I am also not sure that I agree that killing an animal for food somehow causes damage to its soul, or that its soul would even care one way or another.

It might not 'damage' its soul, but it surely leaves an imprint. Intense physical pain, and intense terror, surely leave an imprint on a semi-conscious entity. No doubt about it. It's setting something in motion...the question is: just what is it setting in motion?

It's also about whether I choose to take part in that act of violence.

Even if an untimely death might have robbed a particular animal of a chance at individuation, I wouldn't anticipate that much time is necessary between incarnations. And besides it would give the animal soul a chance to choose a form which is more conducive to having success the next time around.

I think the root of our difference in views is that I see spiritual evolution as a continuous process. I don't see an entity just magically erasing the effects of a trauma just experienced.

Perhaps the reason I see it that way is because I have past life memories of an extremely traumatic life, and another of a violent death. Those memories carried over into this life.

If that happened to me, then I feel certain it happens to cows too.

That being said, I fully concur that the industry practices around meat-eating are quite abhorrent and unnecessary. I am fully in support of practices which show a respect and appreciation for life, and I fully acknowledge the validity of the viewpoint of a person who raises their own animals, or who makes a special effort to purchase animal products from other people, rather than corporate giants.

Glad to see agreement on this.

We are in a 3D world where creatures eat other creatures for food. It is not wrong. It is so. In other densities- this is not the case.

We are in a 3D world in which humans kill other humans in bloody wars. It is not wrong. It is so. In other densities- this is not the case.

Is there any difference in these 2 statements?

Incidentally, not all creatures in 3D eat other creatures for food. Many do not. Curiously, the ones who eat plants tend to be peaceful animals. The ones who eat other creatures tend to be very violent. This includes humans. As a species, humans are violent.

So why don't we focus on wrapping things up in this density rather than crucifying ourselves upon the Wheel of Karma in trying to make 3D into something it is not?

Why wait for the next density? Why not try to make the world a better place in any small way we are able to? Why not help reduce suffering if it is within our power to do so?

3D earth is not transitioning into 4D earth.

That point is debatable, but is outside the scope of this discussion. That topic is discussed in the various threads in The Harvest sub-forum.

It is not going to become 4D earth by the efforts of humans.

Maybe not. I subscribe to the idea that multiple timelines exist. Surely, on some timelines, this planet won't change. It will continue to accommodate those who prefer to fight wars, etc. But, in my opinion, other timelines also exist in which the world is indeed changed, because the spark of awareness ignited and spread, until the population reached that 'moment of inspiration' that Ra said was not probable but ever possible.

With respect to that, what would be the purpose of a 4D Wanderer to be here in 3D earth at this time/space nexus? Simply to teach vegetarianism? Or is there a Higher Purpose?

To teach compassion.

Vegetarianism is not a prerequisite for transport. It simply isn't.

Very true. It's not.

But, compassion is.

Continue to develop awareness of your cravings, and trust your body to communicate to you what it needs and when it needs it. That is all.

This is doable once the body has been cleansed. But, most people's bodies are, quite frankly, too polluted with environmental toxins, pesticides, drugs, and, yes, animal foods to give a clear signal about what it needs.

Evidence of this is that most people crave ice cream, sodas and candy. Those aren't even foods at all so surely the body doesn't actually need them.

Tenet, what do you think of Pickle's observation that many people don't lose their craving for meat until they cleanse their bodies for awhile first?

And Pickle, can you tell us more about that?

---

Yes, but violence is a term that primarily refers to behavior among humans. Yes- it can be applied to animals but this is obviously a gray area.

Also, as has been repeated multiple times, there is more than one way to skin a cat. Killing does not necessarily equate to violence. But obviously, the two are connected.

I consider imposing harm or killing another being to be violence.

Try beating a cow or chicken to death. That's violence.

But for those that are continuing to eat cows, that doesn't make them more violent than me. It just makes them more ignorant than me.

Respectfully, friend, you are confusing the person eating the cow, with the act of killing the cow.

The act of killing a cow is violent.

That doesn't make every person who eats a hamburger a violent person!

Think of it in terms of English grammar. Remember subjects and objects?

The dog caught the ball.

Dog is subject, ball is object.

The act of being caught is the same, whether it's a ball or a stick. From the perspective of the ball or stick, it is the same: being caught.

But from the perspective of the dog, it can be different. The dog might catch a ball for fun, or it might catch a chicken to eat. The motivation can be different.

An animal getting slaughtered is, from the animal's perspective, just as violent as any human act of violence. The animal feels pain just the same...it bleeds just the same...it cries out just the same.

But the person doing the killing may be totally different, because his intentions are different. For most people, killing an animal isn't a mean, cruel or malicious act. They're just feeding their families or working at a job to make a living.

There is a big distinction between subject and object here.

When vegetarians speak of animal violence, they are referring to it from the point of view of the animals, not the humans. Meat-eaters often get offended, because they think they're being judged. But they're not. They are the subject. The animal is the object. We are talking only about the object's perspective when we describe its suffering or what the act feels like to him.

Whyever not? I mean, if it weren't for microbes none of us would even exist. We depend on microbes to help us digest our food and to regulate our immune system. Mother earth relies on microbes to help offset the effects of oil spills and other human bunglings. If not for microbes in the soil, plants would neither be able to exist, nor provide oxygen for humans to breathe. If not for microbes in the sky, there would be little rain and the climate more severe.

This is way more than can be said for cows.

You seem to be arguing in favor of my point...?

How about if I started accusing physicians of unprovoked assault on symbiotic gut bacteria every time they write a prescription for antibiotics? Or perhaps I should sue Clorox on behalf of the microbe world for the rampant germicide they perpetuate with their products? Or even shun the word "germ" as not being politically correct? Why not shut Pfizer down for distributing weapons of mass microbe destruction?

You could try, but you wouldn't get anywhere. You'd be laughed at.

But we can avoid killing animals.

We can avoid killing microbes, too. Not only that, but we should. It is the senseless killing of microbes that has created some of the more virulent strains which are growing beyond our ability to control.

If you advocate not killing microbes so that they don't become immune to antibiotics, then that is for the benefit of humans. It wouldn't be an act born out of compassion for microbes, as not killing cows would be.

OK. I must have been confusing your views with somebody else's.

Ok.

In contrast, we have the power to choose to avoid contributing to the cruelty to animals. We can do that. So why not do it?

We don't have the power to do this because we can't discern a consistent principle from which to draw a model for behavior.

Ah. Apparently, that is something that is important to you. Are you saying you must have a consistent principle proven to you, in order to see any benefit to not eating animals?

That is where we differ. I don't need anyone to explain it. I just look at the videos of cows getting slaughtered, I feel compassion for the cows, and that's that.

You have mentioned potential to individuate. And I agree this seems to be part of it. But there has to be something more than just... it is an animal therefore humans shouldn't kill them. This would obviously lead to some very absurd results, as you know.

I have gone to great lengths regarding individuation because this is a discussion based on the Law of One.

I don't think any of that is necessary. Just animals having pain receptors is enough for me.

We can't do everything. Why not do what we can?

Exactomundo! I see "doing what we can" as taking a good, hard look at priorities.

What if... there were less than 12 months... or even 12 years or 120 years... left before 3D earth winks out of active existence. Will it have mattered that PETA got their way? How long do you think the victory party is going to go on in 4D+ where nobody eats meat anyways?

It will matter to those humans who are the fence, and need a nudge towards that 51%...having their eyes opened to the cruelty of animal slaughter might just be the nudge they need to push them over the threshold.

It will matter to those animals, who might now be populating a dark planet, destined for eons of brutality.

It will matter to countless humans who are suffering right now, because of a shortage of food and water...in the coming decades in which the Earth's resources can no longer sustain the population when they have a meat-based diet.

If we can help humans wake up in time to reduce starvation and diseases caused by polluted water, then why not? If we know that a plant-based diet can more efficiently support the planet's 7 billion people, thus reducing malnutrition and starvation, then why not?

Yes, it matters. All our conscious choices matter.

Same way any prayer works. According to my understanding, there are whole hosts of beings who are in contact with intelligent infinity whose role it is to administer to animal souls throughout the grand scheme of Creation. When I pray for the animal, I throw the weight of my intention along with these beings and trust that it will be appropriated in the most effective way.

That makes no sense to me. If I decide to arbitrarily kill, say, a wild rabbit, when there is absolutely no reason to do so, but then I pray with all my heart and soul for that rabbit, how is that helping either me or the rabbit? When I didn't need to kill it in the first place?

Hunt down an animal, ignore its cries of pain and the terror in its eyes, and then just say a prayer for it afterwards?

I am not a hunter. But I believe the correct sequence would be to first say a prayer for the animal, and ask the Universe for a volunteer who is willing to sacrifice their flesh for the nourishment of human life. Then one waits. Often for a very long time. Sometimes not.

Oh, the way the Native Americans did it...Well they did it because they had to, to survive.

Nowadays, most people don't need to go hunt a deer to make shoes or shelter or to feed themselves. We no longer run around in loincloths and live in tents made from hides. People just go down to the grocery store and buy the meat, prepackaged and already quite dead. That wasn't a 'gift from the gods'.

So it's kinda moot.

When the killing wasn't necessary?

But it is necessary. Something must die in order for something else to live. While in 3D.

It is necessary to eat plants. Whether one eats animals or not, one must still eat plants too.

But for most of us, it's not necessary to eat animals.

Ra said to the extent necessary.

That would depend on the severity of its injuries. Sometimes it is indeed a compassionate act to end the animal's life because it is in extreme pain and there is no hope for healing.

To what ends of expense? If Gandalf needs $5000 surgery to maybe live another year, and I don't want to pay for it, do you have the right to force me to pay for it? Should I drop Gandalf off at a shelter or something? Will PETA pay for Gandalf's surgery? Or will that cut too deeply into their lobbying budget?

That's getting into a whole 'n/other issue...an issue that could stretch into the human situation as well as animals. That might be better for another thread.

Sometimes it is. We had a family dog die back in '07. The last couple of days were really sad and the poor thing couldn't even move himself around to avoid defecating on himself.

Now, I don't even own a gun. But what I -did- do was go to him and cradle his head in my hands and pray for his quick and painless release from this body. He died a few hours later. Maybe most people don't realize they can do this? But besides that point, I was directly intending for him to die. Is it really so different, if I had expressed that intention with a bullet or an injection?

No, in that case, it is an act of mercy.

At any rate, killing an animal out of mercy has no relevance to animals slaughtered for meat, because they are only miserable because humans made them miserable. Raising animals in the cruel conditions of factory farms, inflicting misery on them day after day after day, and then finally killing it...that's not an act of compassion.

Like I keep saying, I think the factory farm thing is nasty in many respects, and I don't buy that crap.

OK good to hear. Sorry if I don't always remember who buys meat from the store and who doesn't. I can't really keep track.

If it weren't for their interactions with humans, no animal would ever had any chance to escape the pain and terror of living as an animal in the 3D world, whatsoever. It is part of the program. That any animal could be "spared" such a fate is by the intervention of human beings, not the other way around.

I don't think I agree with that. I don't think the only way for a 2D entity to escape 2D is from contact with humans.

You are right in that humans can choose to "opt out" of meat-eating, however there is no denying that the human body was designed for consumption of animal protein. Perhaps we can modulate this with spirulina and other things as Dr. Gabriel describes, but this is actually not the "natural" state of things. This is a new possibility that was not available before.

We are evolving.

I had always assumed that such animal souls are ministered and attended to similarly to those humans who may have departed in fear-based ways. It is all under intelligent guidance and direction.

They probably are, but that doesn't completely erase the traumatic effects. Else, people wouldn't carry karmic stuff over from one lifetime to the next.

[BrownEye]

You are right in that humans can choose to "opt out" of meat-eating, however there is no denying that the human body was designed for consumption of animal protein. Perhaps we can modulate this with spirulina and other things as Dr. Gabriel describes, but this is actually not the "natural" state of things. This is a new possibility that was not available before.

Many of the spiritual possibilities are not "natural" according to consensus reality.

What is a Kundalini Yoga Diet?

Kundalini Yoga diet is a strict vegetarian diet with an emphasis on natural grown organic foods. Partaking of such a diet helps in the development of vital energy and spiritual consciousness. The use of raw foods such as cucumbers, radishes, tomatoes, sprouts and parsley is encouraged. You may even use spices such as ginger, cayenne, cinnamon and basil to liven up the taste. Whole grain foods also play a big role in a Kundalini Yoga diet as they help to promote strength and digestion. Kundalini Yoga exercises are designed to flush toxins out from the body. Hence it is also important to drink plenty of water when practicing Kundalini Yoga.

What foods should I include in my Kundalini Yoga Diet?

The foods that should be included in a Kundalini Yoga Diet include fresh fruit, whole grains such as rice and wheat, all vegetables with the exception of onion and garlic, beans and nuts, clarified butter as a cooking medium, natural sugars such as jaggery or honey, dairy products, sweet spices, herbal teas, plenty of water and fresh lime juices.

Foods that should be avoided include meat, fish and eggs, processed and junk foods, extremely spicy food containing garlic or onions, fried food, canned food, processed foods including refined sugar or flour, artificial sweeteners, alcohol, tobacco and other stimulants.

Although adopting a largely raw diet will tend to bring on a kundalini awakening, converting to such a diet while in the process of an awakening might cause digestive disruption if a lot of bulky fibrous material is eaten when the digestive system is not used to such cellulose intake. By use of raw juices, raw soups, wheat grass and careful use of high antioxidant fruits, we can avoid the problems that chowing through pounds of vegetables and unsoaked nuts and seeds will inevitably create. The fact that the digestive system is already compromised by the kundalini itself means that we have to be twice as mindful and intelligent about our diet.

Adopting a raw diet often brings on a kundalini awakening through derepression of vital energy. Whereas the cooked diet usually usurps most our energy in the digestion and detoxification processes, and so we have little energy and materials for repair, optimization and for building the spiritual-body. When we go raw this suppression is lifted and nature suddenly brings us up to the speed of our more Universal Self. Since we often use food as an escape mechanism to reduce the vividness of reality, returning suddenly to our full physical and spiritual senses can be extremely disorientating. It can take many years to integrate greater aliveness and to embody our full Presence and full senses. Because a kundalini awakening is already destabilizing I would not advise people to suddenly adopt a 100% raw diet during a full-on awakening...the adjustment would be too great for most people and negative coping mechanisms or digestive imbalances might result.


Raw food will cause the fastest evolution, however you may find winter to be a challenge on raw, especially for the first two years. Sensation really increases, and that includes the sensation of pain as we emerge from the numbness most of us live under. A good all round book is Living Food For Optimum Health by Brian Clement of the Hippocrates Institute.


Metamorphosis must indeed be the highest energy function in human experience. Because metamorphosis demands energy and enzymes and because the body's elimination channels must be free to enable a high degree of detoxification during the changes, it is advisable to not weigh the body down with a lot of heavy cooked food or substance addictions. A "quality" light, raw-sproutarian type diet with superfoods instead of "quantity" is advisable.

---

Yes, this is exactly why certain arguments fail.

First of all, you can't really make a rational/verbal argument for what is going on at the spirit level because the spirit level is beyond words.

The spirit can translate easily enough. I can communicate with both my Spirit and my Soul, among other things.

This is how I get to muck about in/with the unknown/unseen.

---

Tenet, what do you think of Pickle's observation that many people don't lose their craving for meat until they cleanse their bodies for awhile first?

And Pickle, can you tell us more about that?

It is just like junk food to me. The same addiction, the same "craving". I don't crave what I eat, I just enjoy how I feel afterwards.

When I mentioned how my digestive system will slow down bigtime, a farmer tells me I just need to get used to eating meat again. Get used to it. Says that I went too long without it.

If I think about this, how many of the foods that are proven good do I need to get used to? I can go 10 years without a banana and will have no problem eating one. Same with veggies.

Most folks will have the craps and runs trying to go from a meat diet to veggie. It will seriously mess them up. They have too much poison in hard storage, when it breaks loose look out. It has to be done slowly to not have negative short term effects.

[Monica]

Here is a thread about consciousness in plants and the science behind the research:

Science & Technology > The Secret Life of Plants

[BrownEye]

I saw that.

“plants have a sensory system similar to humans”.

This is a bit out there I think. A rock has a sensory system, what do we compare it to? In fact, the sensory system of everything physical I would think would rely on rocks. Mineral deficiency in a human causes a loss of electrical/sensory connectivity. Same with an animal. Same with a plant.



IF a plant had these senses, what are they for? It obviously does nothing for them if it in fact existed. If you put a plant near a fire it would grow out to where the leaf gets burnt off rather than the plant simply growing/moving away. The leaves on the near side would dry out, wither, die, just growing outward into danger.

The only time they show a preference of direction, the use of senses, is to seek out sunlight or other forms of beneficial energy. Light energy is the key to a plant thriving. The same is true for animals and humans. The quickest bang for the buck is the sources with the highest amount of assimilable light. There are people that live on sungazing, so obviously we can evolve if we wished to, or if we are ready to.

[Tenet Nosce]

I'm not following you on the 'shock and amazement' part. ?

Something to the effect of "Wow! I am so shocked and amazed that anybody who is aware of higher spiritual perspectives would continue to eat meat! It just seems so basic." Or something like that.

...is, essentially, saying just that: That ONE DAY (in 4D) we will all agree that animals not be slaughtered for food.

Yes. I imagine at first it will be kind of like staying in a stranger's house. A little different- "they just don't do certain things we are used to." After a while it will seem normal. And after a little more while people will forget about meat-eating altogether. That's my prediction.

...you clearly state that, while you agree that in 4D we won't be eating animals, you disagree about how we will get there. You seem to be indicating that it's ok to eat animals now, but when we get to 4D we will no longer be interested in eating animals, or we will have lost our taste for animal flesh, or we simply won't want meat because the design of 4D is different than 3D.

Of course it is 'OK'. That is my point. It will continue to be 'OK' in 4D, just nobody will really want to do it. And if they did, they wouldn't be able to do it while remaining ignorant of the process. It will all be obvious for everybody to see.

Whereas, the view shared by myself and some of the other vegetarians, is more like Cayce's admonition "You don't go to heaven...you grow to heaven!" ie. we can't expect to just go poof into another reality...we must aspire to the qualities of 4D if we want to be in 4D.

But we do "go to heaven". That is a nice quip by Cayce, but I don't think it is fully representative of the situation.

Secondly, vegetarianism is not a quality of 4D. (As you admit later below.) Actually, vegetarianism is not a quality, whatsoever. It is a behavior that could be based upon a number of different beliefs.

It appears that you choose to be vegetarian out of a sense of compassion for animals. Sweet. But some others choose to be vegetarian out of a sense of duty "not to harm". This is different. These are two totally different motivating factors for the same behavior. One is based in truth; the other a lie.

It's the same debate I had with unity100, who, in my understanding, was saying that compassion is a 4D trait and doesn't exist in 3D; thus, we won't have it until we get to 4D. Whereas, I contend that the way to resonate with 4D is to start now aspiring to those qualities.

Now, now. Don't be crossing your Tenet Nosce neurons with your unity100 neurons. That probably won't lead us anywhere we want to be!

It's also the same debate regarding Harvest: will it be gradual or sudden? And the same debate raging in Christianity: will Jesus rapture everyone up suddenly to a perfect heaven?

Right, exactly. Despite that Ra, Hatonn, and Q'uo (and other channeled sources) all say that 4D is a different sphere which we will go to upon Graduation, people still want to believe that it is this sphere. Dolores Cannon's work suggests a different sphere, as documented by hundreds of hypnosis subjects. There is an actual detailed description of Harvest in the Keys of Enoch which concurs that it is a different sphere. The Urantia Book. A Course in Miracles. Theosophical texts. Essene texts. Hermetic texts. Various indigenous prophecies from around the globe. Even the Bible itself says "in the twinkling of an eye".

These sources (and many more) differ on several important points. But they all concur that humanity will continue their evolution upon a different sphere than this one. So either they are all wrong, or there is a massive universal conspiracy to trick us.

Yes, intelligent people disagree. We can all read the same book, meditate on these questions with sincerity, and still disagree.

Yes. But there are different kinds of disagreement. One is where people interpret things a different way. Another is when people flat out deny what something says, in order to support their preconceived notions about reality. I admit it is sometimes difficult to discern between these.

If I may- it seems to me that you are confusing two worlds.

One world is Post-Graduation 3D earth, which will continue to exist for however many few generations. The purpose of this will be to allow for the experience of making reparations to 3D earth as a karmic balancing act. I imagine that many moving through this experience will at first be under the false impression that they are "saving earth". But this is not the case. The earth is already alive and well in 4D (and beyond). This will be more like "hospice care" for the dying 3D earth shell.

Another world is 4D earth. Which already exists, and is populated. It is a different sphere, entirely. This is what the various sources teach. This is not TN's "opinion" of what they teach.

If I had to guess, I would say part of your Wanderer mission will be to act as a guide to those moving through the reparation process. Yes, I imagine people will be eating less and less meat as it continues.

But it will end. At which point everybody will realize that it wasn't really about making reparations to the earth, but to the self.

Why do you suppose that happens?

Probably for a number of reasons. The point is that it is an effect, and not a cause. This makes all the difference in the world.

When the attitude is "You shouldn't eat meat! It is wrong and bad, and makes you a bad person," then what you are going to create is resistance, resentment, and revenge.

When the attitude is "Meat-eating? Don't worry too much about that right now. Just focus on your spiritual growth and the diet thing will sort itself out." then people aren't going to fight it. In the end, less meat will be eaten. Isn't that the goal? Or is the goal "to be right"?

Why do you suppose that is?

There are a number of reasons. It boils down to how much animal protein the body is designed to take in during a given time period. This is on the order of 6 to 12 ounces a day, not per meal.

I mean, one can't really eat too many vegetables, unless it's at the exclusion of something else.

Doubtful. Although one can certainly eat too many fruits. And I see this all the time. It is like pulling teeth for some people in order to cause them to understand that the situation is more complex than "fruit = good". See... it is the simplistic good/bad right/wrong mindset that I take issue with.

But lots of people drink several quarts of concentrated vegetable juice daily, and there are no ill effects. They just get healthier and healthier, to the point that there are many books written by people who claim to have healed their cancer with veggie juices.

I had a classmate who was a fruitarian. He only ate fruit. Despite a sallow complexion, brittle hair and nails, and sunken in eyes, he insisted that fruitarianism was the way to be. He got stomach cancer.

The reason that drinking several quarts of concentrated vegetable juice a day is good for the body is because it is nutrient dense. If meat were equally nutrient dense, it would be equally healthy.

Most of these people you describe had such a piss-poor diet to begin with, that any change would probably have been a vast improvement. Plus, you cannot discern which effects are due to not putting in something harmful, as compared to putting in something healthy. Also you must figure in the health effects that are simply due to an attitude change and/or the placebo effect.

Again, the most fundamental issue at play here is the dualistic mindset that says "vegetables=good and meat=bad". This faulty thought process is the problem itself. Therefore, any moral or ethical codes that are based upon a dualistic mindset are wrong. They are wrong because the fundamental nature of Creation is a trinity, and not a duality.

Somebody who decides to become vegan out of a dualistic mindset is placing themselves at some very high risks of malnutrition. Because they have adopted such a simpleton attitude, they are likely to overlook the fact that it isn't enough to simply eat plants.

You can drink all the vegetable juice in the world, but if you do not eat at least 2 ounces of nuts/seeds daily, you are in trouble. If you do not eat other sources of plant fat like avocado and coconut, you are in trouble. If you eat too much fruit, you are in trouble.

Do you see? There are multiple levels to look at here. On one level, food is "processed" or "GMO" or "animal-based" or "plant-based". On that level we have endless conflict. Umpteen million people with books and videos and talk shows. It is a circus that never ends.

An another level, we have the actual nutrient content of the food as it relates to the actual nutritional needs of the body. This is a fact-based approach. No circus. No arguments. No fighting. No taking up crosses.

Just the facts, ma'am. Now take a breath. See, don't you feel better already?

I agree with you on this. Being vegetarian is not a ticket to heaven!

Just like practicing yoga isn't either...though many on the spiritual path consider these things integral to their spirituality.

Right. Now do you know why yoga and vegetarianism tend to come as a package? And why would you suppose that package itself tends to come wrapped with denial and dualism?

Ra stated that there is no right and wrong. Yet, Ra also indicated certain intentions and actions that are appropriate for STS, while others are appropriate for STO. As in, helping to facilitate progress in polarizing on the chosen path.

Ra also indicated that, from a certain perspective, there is no difference between STS and STO.

Knowingly causing harm to an other-self helps facilitate polarizing STS, not STO. That is a given.

But what constitutes harm is not a given. It can't be killing, because we agree that death can be merciful.

What it really boils down to is whether animals are 'other-selves' or not.

If it boils down to this, then obviously yes, animals are other-selves. As are microbes.

That is the crux of the debate, as I see it. We are all in agreement that it's proper, and even necessary, for an STO-aspiring person to develop compassion for other-selves, ie. human other-selves.

Aha! See now as one who has had to practice quite a bit in the compassion department, I have found in my experience that when I approach life from the standpoint of "what should I do to be more compassionate?" that I come across as fake and cheesy to others.

The reason this happens is because, when one does not know compassion, it is absurd to try to engage in compassionate acts. How can one be compassionate, if one does not know what it is? It is kind of like when a psychopath tries to pass off "good manners" onto others. It is not at all genuine, and only a fool cannot tell the difference.

Instead, one should aspire to be present in the moment. Because that is where compassion resides:

  Virtue Grid.jpg (Size: 34.59 KB / Downloads: 5)

What's being debated is whether it's important to develop compassion for our younger other-selves...ie. animals.

As regards graduation from 3D, no. What is important is to develop compassion for other humans. As I have stated, I have a hard time understanding those who would choose to place animals before other humans on their priority list.

I contend that the Creator has probably allowed 2D to be so bloody, as a mechanism by which 3D entities may learn to develop compassion.

Interesting.

If this contention is correct, then by ignoring the suffering of animals, we are wasting that catalyst...losing an opportunity to develop compassion.

If we waste catalyst by ignoring the suffering of humans because we are so focused upon cows, what does that say for our compassion?

It might not 'damage' its soul, but it surely leaves an imprint.

What if this imprint was an essential part of the journey toward Creator-consciousness?

Intense physical pain, and intense terror, surely leave an imprint on a semi-conscious entity. No doubt about it.

An entity can die with neither intense physical pain nor terror. Besides, we don't actually know what goes on inside an animal's body when it is killed in the wild. It is quite possible that a massive release of DMT and endorphins makes the experience quite painless and free from fear.

It's setting something in motion...the question is: just what is it setting in motion?

It was already set in motion when the Creator created creation. We won't know the outcome until we pass the Omega point.

It's also about whether I choose to take part in that act of violence.

I get that, and this is why I don't normally purchase mass-produced meat. But since you are pressing the issue... if a given person in the Kangen factory were a murderer or a rapist, does that confer any responsibility to you for selling their products? Hardly.

I think the root of our difference in views is that I see spiritual evolution as a continuous process. I don't see an entity just magically erasing the effects of a trauma just experienced.

It isn't magic. It is a process, a skill, and an artform. Just like how Ra are experts on reintegration of souls following nuclear detonations. It is a cosmic vocation to assist souls in the death process.

Now I can see an entire 3D round going without detonation of nuclear weapons. But I can't see an entire 3D round going without killing of animals. Even if we could make humans out of a more vegetarian stock... the animals would still kill and eat each other. Are you saying it is possible to create a 3D world where animals do not devour one another in the wild?

Perhaps the reason I see it that way is because I have past life memories of an extremely traumatic life, and another of a violent death. Those memories carried over into this life.

Possibly! I have accessed similar memories myself.

If that happened to me, then I feel certain it happens to cows too.

I had an incredible healing experience one time where I saw myself shackled to a wall in a stone chamber. I appeared to myself as an angel and told myself that I had finished what I came to do and it was now time to depart. When my other-self died, I felt an immensely warm loving energy fill my body back here in this reality. I have never felt anything so pleasurable as that.

We are in a 3D world in which humans kill other humans in bloody wars. It is not wrong. It is so. In other densities- this is not the case.

Is there any difference in these 2 statements?

Yes, as described above. There can be 3D worlds without bloody war among humans. There are no 3D worlds without animals consuming one another's flesh for food.

Incidentally, not all creatures in 3D eat other creatures for food. Many do not. Curiously, the ones who eat plants tend to be peaceful animals.

Plants are creatures too. Plants are entities. There is consciousness incarnated within that form. And there are actual experiments which suggest that the sound of my Breville is actually responded to by plants with fear.

Secondly, an animal being "peaceful" toward other animals does not preclude it becoming a meal for a carnivore, such as a cat, or an omnivore, such as a human. Eating is not an act of war.

The ones who eat other creatures tend to be very violent. This includes humans. As a species, humans are violent.

Well that is conveniently true for one who believes that eating other creatures is violent. This is totally circular reasoning. I don't see my cats as being violent when they hunt birds.

Why wait for the next density? Why not try to make the world a better place in any small way we are able to? Why not help reduce suffering if it is within our power to do so?

Why not help reduce the suffering of abused children if it is within our power to do so?

That point is debatable, but is outside the scope of this discussion. That topic is discussed in the various threads in The Harvest sub-forum.

Well then, that explains why we cannot come to full agreement on this subject. There really is no point in continuing our discussion if you fail to acknowledge what Q'uo directly stated on this matter.

Moreover, I believe that Q'uo directly stated this in response to my query. :exclamation: :idea:

13 Feb 10

G: M writes, “I would like to ask Q’uo what is the fate of the veil on this planet beginning in 2013 and continuing in time thereafter? Will it gradually dissolve? If so, at approximately what rate? Please describe how this occurrence will affect the planet and the third-density entities upon it as much as you can without infringing on the Law of Confusion. Thank you.”

We are those of Q’uo, and we thank the one known as M for this query. When one is, as you are, possessed of physical senses which perceive a physical world, it is completely understandable that you would not necessarily grasp the concept that all apparently solid objects are actually fields of energy. As fields of energy, the closest that they come to matter is small fields of energy within the larger and encompassing field of energy which are called atoms. However, from your scientists you have received the information that even these points of matter, so called, are in fact energy fields, that matter has never been seen by your keenest telescope. Rather, it is the path of energy that is seen. And you know from your scientists that an atom consists almost entirely of space. We mention these scientific facts to you so that you may begin to wrap your mind around the concept of the nested densities of the creation.

Third-density Earth is nested within fourth-density Earth. It is not the same Earth as fourth-density Earth. Third-density Earth will not become fourth-density Earth, any more than first-density Earth became second-density Earth, or second-density Earth became third-density Earth. These densities are nested in such a way as to occupy the same area or influence within space/time and time/space, held lovingly by the overarching energy field of your sun.

Third-density Earth is an Earth whose light is waning. While it will remain third-density, it will no longer support third-density entities in their seeking of the truth. Thusly, third density is shortly to become inactive, we would say, within three or four hundred of your years beyond 2012. Thusly, 2013 upon your planet will look very much like 2012 upon your planet. However, you will find that your population of entities grows more and more interested and fascinated with the reparation of the Earth and the healing of what you call your Mother Earth or Gaia.

[NOTE: "reparation" means "making amends with" not "making repairs to"]

Those who incarnate at this time upon Planet Earth, that is, after 2012, will be those whose experiences in other incarnations have carried with them an element of adhering karma because of the destruction of their Earth whether it be this Earth and the destruction of Atlantis, or Maldek, or Mars, or several other Earths that created an uninhabitable third-density planet and thusly needed to finish third density upon Planet Earth. There are quite a few millions of those who feel that desire at this time to be part of the healing of the Mother. And there is great joy in contemplating that healing.

Fourth-density Earth is an entirely different sphere, within which third density is nested. And as fourth-density light becomes that which your sun is capable of offering, that fourth-density Earth shall more and more become populated by those from third-density Earth who have graduated in a positive sense and wish to move on. It will be a long time before entities who are inhabiting third density will be able to see entities of fourth density. However, they are as real and as physical, shall we say, to themselves and to fourth-density Earth as you are to your Earth.

We realize that this is one of the less comfortable or naturally obvious concepts having to do with the concept of densities. It is natural for a person to think that this same Earth upon which your feet make footsteps shall become fourth density and that on this same Earth, fourth density shall take place. However, we would suggest to you that it is much like wanting to take your physical body with you when you pass from physical life upon this planet and hoping to drag what this instrument would call this chemical distillery of a body into fourth density and attempt to lug it around when everyone else is dancing with a much lighter and electrically driven rather than chemically driven body.

If somebody wants to pull the "DOES NOT RESONATE" card on this information, it is their prerogative. But it doesn't make the information any less true. The information in this response is so direct and clear, that "DOES NOT RESONATE" pretty much amounts to calling Q'uo a liar.

[BrownEye]

The reason that drinking several quarts of concentrated vegetable juice a day is good for the body is because it is nutrient dense. If meat were equally nutrient dense, it would be equally healthy.

The difference will also be how many enzymes and life energy is diverted from "life" to focus on digestion. Same reasoning is behind the sperm harvesting done in the magic community. Keeping and building up life energy. If it takes more energy to digest what you eat than what you eat actually gives you, guess what? You are digging your own hole.

If we waste catalyst by ignoring the suffering of humans because we are so focused upon cows, what does that say for our compassion?

The difference here is dealing with a source. If the US as a whole are sick, which then translates into the sick mind that is not bothered with all the violence in society and TV, do you suppose that continuing to allow it to run on autopilot is ignoring catalyst?

I have compassion for humans, I have put my own health at risk many times to step in as a shield for their welfare. It is much easier for me to care about a helpless exploited animal than a human whose sole focus is the exploitation of those "beneath" his level as a method of self gratification.

This has always been a point of indoctrination. No matter how far back you go. So the question is, how many are aware of this programming?

All channeled sources will not say "do not", since they will allow free will. They only give hints and riddles to what matters or what will cause growth. What is given in specifics does not really matter, since it will not have an effect on polarization.

[Monica]

Something to the effect of "Wow! I am so shocked and amazed that anybody who is aware of higher spiritual perspectives would continue to eat meat! It just seems so basic." Or something like that.

Ah, ok. Well then I am guilty of that. What can I say? I truly don't understand it.

Yes. I imagine at first it will be kind of like staying in a stranger's house. A little different- "they just don't do certain things we are used to." After a while it will seem normal. And after a little more while people will forget about meat-eating altogether. That's my prediction.

Then this is the crux of our disagreement. I don't think we will just automatically change in a higher density. I think we have to embody the qualities of that density, in order to resonate with it and live in it.

...you clearly state that, while you agree that in 4D we won't be eating animals, you disagree about how we will get there. You seem to be indicating that it's ok to eat animals now, but when we get to 4D we will no longer be interested in eating animals, or we will have lost our taste for animal flesh, or we simply won't want meat because the design of 4D is different than 3D.

Of course it is 'OK'. That is my point. It will continue to be 'OK' in 4D, just nobody will really want to do it. And if they did, they wouldn't be able to do it while remaining ignorant of the process. It will all be obvious for everybody to see.

Shock and amazement!

Whereas, the view shared by myself and some of the other vegetarians, is more like Cayce's admonition "You don't go to heaven...you grow to heaven!" ie. we can't expect to just go poof into another reality...we must aspire to the qualities of 4D if we want to be in 4D.

But we do "go to heaven".

The Earth is vibrating 4D right now. I wouldn't quite call it heaven.

That is a nice quip by Cayce, but I don't think it is fully representative of the situation.

I do. I think it's quite profound, actually. But then, another reason we might not be agreeing on some of these concepts is that we might view consensual reality differently.

Secondly, vegetarianism is not a quality of 4D.

It's not about vegetarianism. That's a quality pertaining to us.

It's about compassion for others. That's a quality pertaining to the others, in this case, animals.

Compassion is a quality of 4D.

(As you admit later below.) Actually, vegetarianism is not a quality, whatsoever. It is a behavior that could be based upon a number of different beliefs.

That's true. Many people are vegetarians for health reasons and don't care at all about the animals. That's why I said it's about compassion, not whether one is a vegetarian or not.

A person could be actively working on reducing their meat consumption, eating only to the extent necessary for their individual metabolism, because they have compassion for the animals, and that person would be much more compassionate (in this area) than a person who is vegetarian strictly for personal health reasons.

It appears that you choose to be vegetarian out of a sense of compassion for animals. Sweet. But some others choose to be vegetarian out of a sense of duty "not to harm". This is different. These are two totally different motivating factors for the same behavior. One is based in truth; the other a lie.

I'm not sure I would call it a lie - that seems too strong a word for an issue that is so complex, getting into microbes and such - but I agree that it's a higher intention to do something out of compassion, rather than duty.

One can feel a sense of duty without being compassionate.

It's a case of the 'letter of the law vs the spirit of the law.' When humans evolve to the point where they no longer wish to kill other humans, there will no longer be a need for laws against murder. (for example)

Now, now. Don't be crossing your Tenet Nosce neurons with your unity100 neurons. That probably won't lead us anywhere we want to be!

It's also the same debate regarding Harvest: will it be gradual or sudden? And the same debate raging in Christianity: will Jesus rapture everyone up suddenly to a perfect heaven?

Right, exactly. Despite that Ra, Hatonn, and Q'uo (and other channeled sources) all say that 4D is a different sphere which we will go to upon Graduation, people still want to believe that it is this sphere. Dolores Cannon's work suggests a different sphere, as documented by hundreds of hypnosis subjects. There is an actual detailed description of Harvest in the Keys of Enoch which concurs that it is a different sphere. The Urantia Book. A Course in Miracles. Theosophical texts. Essene texts. Hermetic texts. Various indigenous prophecies from around the globe. Even the Bible itself says "in the twinkling of an eye".

These sources (and many more) differ on several important points. But they all concur that humanity will continue their evolution upon a different sphere than this one. So either they are all wrong, or there is a massive universal conspiracy to trick us.

But what is a sphere? It's illusion. And what about M Theory? The work of Nassim Haramein? If there is only 1 timeline, why is Ra unable to tell us exactly what the future holds, not because of violating our free will, but because they see many possible futures in the possibility/probability vortex?

Yes. But there are different kinds of disagreement. One is where people interpret things a different way. Another is when people flat out deny what something says, in order to support their preconceived notions about reality. I admit it is sometimes difficult to discern between these.

True.

If I may- it seems to me that you are confusing two worlds.

One world is Post-Graduation 3D earth, which will continue to exist for however many few generations. The purpose of this will be to allow for the experience of making reparations to 3D earth as a karmic balancing act. I imagine that many moving through this experience will at first be under the false impression that they are "saving earth". But this is not the case. The earth is already alive and well in 4D (and beyond). This will be more like "hospice care" for the dying 3D earth shell.

Another world is 4D earth. Which already exists, and is populated. It is a different sphere, entirely. This is what the various sources teach. This is not TN's "opinion" of what they teach.

If I had to guess, I would say part of your Wanderer mission will be to act as a guide to those moving through the reparation process. Yes, I imagine people will be eating less and less meat as it continues.

If that's the case, then I am doing what I'm supposed to be doing.

But it will end. At which point everybody will realize that it wasn't really about making reparations to the earth, but to the self.

They are the same thing of course. All is One.

Probably for a number of reasons. The point is that it is an effect, and not a cause. This makes all the difference in the world.

When the attitude is "You shouldn't eat meat! It is wrong and bad, and makes you a bad person," then what you are going to create is resistance, resentment, and revenge.

When the attitude is "Meat-eating? Don't worry too much about that right now. Just focus on your spiritual growth and the diet thing will sort itself out." then people aren't going to fight it. In the end, less meat will be eaten. Isn't that the goal? Or is the goal "to be right"?

As I've said, I never walk up to a person in my everyday life and tell them out of the blue to quit eating meat. In everyday life, I tune into people, always on the lookout for clues that they might be receptive to the idea that eating meat isn't necessary. Usually, in the course of conversation about their health, it comes up, and then I gently offer suggestions, taking into consideration where they're at in their process.

For example, a friend has known I'm a vegetarian, and has asked me why. So I told her. She didn't seem to flinch, even though she is an otherwise very compassionate person and even extends that compassion to animals like mice in her house, whom she won't kill. She just didn't seem to make the connection between the meat on her plate and animals. She even told me once that she could never kill an animal, but seemed to be ok with someone else doing it on her behalf.

I didn't point out the incongruency. The time wasn't right. If she couldn't see it, my pointing it out would have just been perceived as judgmental, not to mention pointless.

But guess what...recently she was diagnosed with cancer. Now, because she has a need for healing, she is suddenly asking me for vegetarian recipes, what kind of juicer to buy, etc.

All things in due course. As you and I have discussed previously, what you do and what I do in our everyday lives is actually pretty much the same. We both work with people where they're at.

This discussion, however, is specifically about the topic from a spiritual perspective. So I am saying things here I wouldn't say to my friend who has cancer, at least not at this point. Maybe someday when she and I have a philosophical discussion...

There are a number of reasons. It boils down to how much animal protein the body is designed to take in during a given time period. This is on the order of 6 to 12 ounces a day, not per meal.

I don't personally care about the 'design' of the human body because I believe our bodies are mutating, and that can happen very quickly. So what our ancestors ate doesn't really factor into the equation, in my view.

I mean, one can't really eat too many vegetables, unless it's at the exclusion of something else.

Doubtful. Although one can certainly eat too many fruits. And I see this all the time. It is like pulling teeth for some people in order to cause them to understand that the situation is more complex than "fruit = good". See... it is the simplistic good/bad right/wrong mindset that I take issue with.

The fruit issue is the topic of much debate, even in the raw vegan community.

But lots of people drink several quarts of concentrated vegetable juice daily, and there are no ill effects. They just get healthier and healthier, to the point that there are many books written by people who claim to have healed their cancer with veggie juices.

I had a classmate who was a fruitarian. He only ate fruit. Despite a sallow complexion, brittle hair and nails, and sunken in eyes, he insisted that fruitarianism was the way to be. He got stomach cancer.

Oh good heavens! Not even the 'high fruit' gurus like Frederic Patenaude advocate only fruit! I can't even imagine doing that, at least not at this point.

But see, your classmate apparently did it out of some ideal...more in the duty category.

The raw vegan movement has had its share of casualties. Another thing I love about Dr. Gabriel Cousens is that he acknowledges the raw vegans are all pioneers. And even Frederic Patenaude acknowledges that raising children on a raw vegan diet is taking a risk, simply because it hasn't been done before. I was very impressed when he recently stated that raw vegans shouldn't be purists when it comes to their children, but to use some common sense, and that might mean including some cooked vegan food in their diets, since the needs of children are different from the needs of adults.

We all know the stories about the radical fanatics who tried to raise their kids according to some ideal, and ignored the obvious signs of malnutrition. This is reprehensible!

When I raised my son 100% vegetarian, I had enough concrete proof that a vegetarian diet was more than adequate for children. I didn't, however, have enough confidence to raise him vegan, so I made the decision to go with middle-of-the-road lacto vegetarian. (I would have included eggs but he hates eggs.)

Knowing what I know now, if I had to do it over again, I would have raised him high raw...with moderate amounts of free-range eggs if he accepted it, and lots of raw, soaked nut milks. I would have offered raw goat's milk only when he was very little. I now have enough knowledge of a healthy high-raw, mostly vegan diet for children. But back then, I didn't.

Even though I was raising my son very middle-of-the-road veg, not even remotely radical, I kept a close watch on his development. As any parent should do anyway! If I had ever gotten any hint that he was deficient in anything, I would have quickly evaluated his diet.

But I can report that he is healthy, never had any of the childhood illnesses, and is actually much physically stronger than most of his friends who are bigger than he.

It's just common sense to pay attention to obvious signs of health/deficiency. Those fanatics who let their children get sick, obviously were putting ideals ahead of the reason for the ideals in the first place. The letter of the law above the spirit of the law.

The reason that drinking several quarts of concentrated vegetable juice a day is good for the body is because it is nutrient dense. If meat were equally nutrient dense, it would be equally healthy.

I respectfully disagree with that. Meat isn't as healthy. It has too many components that are harmful. Even if, as you suggest, it had a higher concentration of vitamins/nutrients, it would still have the negative properties as well, so it could never be 'as healthy.'

Proponents of meat often say that the reason people should eat meat is that it is nutrient dense. But the only nutrient it's dense in, is protein.

Most of these people you describe had such a piss-poor diet to begin with, that any change would probably have been a vast improvement. Plus, you cannot discern which effects are due to not putting in something harmful, as compared to putting in something healthy. Also you must figure in the health effects that are simply due to an attitude change and/or the placebo effect.

For people switching from SAD to a healthy diet, yes that's true. But there are also many people who've been vegetarians for many years, haven't had a soda in many years, etc. who then got into juicing, and still got positive benefits.

Again, the most fundamental issue at play here is the dualistic mindset that says "vegetables=good and meat=bad". This faulty thought process is the problem itself. Therefore, any moral or ethical codes that are based upon a dualistic mindset are wrong. They are wrong because the fundamental nature of Creation is a trinity, and not a duality.

I don't understand what you mean by trinity. I know you aren't referring to the Christian idea of trinity, so do you mean mind/body/spirit complex? is that what you mean by trinity?

If so, how does that translate into a thought process? How can thought be classified in terms of trinity?

(Please make your reply to this question a stand-alone, because I will probably end up splitting that post into another thread, as it can quickly veer off-topic.)

Somebody who decides to become vegan out of a dualistic mindset is placing themselves at some very high risks of malnutrition. Because they have adopted such a simpleton attitude, they are likely to overlook the fact that it isn't enough to simply eat plants.

You can drink all the vegetable juice in the world, but if you do not eat at least 2 ounces of nuts/seeds daily, you are in trouble. If you do not eat other sources of plant fat like avocado and coconut, you are in trouble. If you eat too much fruit, you are in trouble.

Yes, but avocados, coconuts, nuts and seeds all come from plants. So did you mean to say "not enough to simply eat vegetables"?

Do you see? There are multiple levels to look at here. On one level, food is "processed" or "GMO" or "animal-based" or "plant-based". On that level we have endless conflict. Umpteen million people with books and videos and talk shows. It is a circus that never ends.

An another level, we have the actual nutrient content of the food as it relates to the actual nutritional needs of the body. This is a fact-based approach. No circus. No arguments. No fighting. No taking up crosses.

Just the facts, ma'am. Now take a breath. See, don't you feel better already?

Haha, well I see your point, but even then, the 'experts' don't even agree. Even on this thread the 'facts' about a vegetarian diet being not only adequate but healthier, which has been quite irrefutably proven, has been questioned.

Right. Now do you know why yoga and vegetarianism tend to come as a package? And why would you suppose that package itself tends to come wrapped with denial and dualism?

I can see how that 'package' might come wrapped with denial and dualism, but not necessarily.

Ra also indicated that, from a certain perspective, there is no difference between STS and STO.

Right. But that's not the perspective we're at. Being Wanderers notwithstanding, we are in the density of Choice.

But what constitutes harm is not a given. It can't be killing, because we agree that death can be merciful.

Killing when it's not necessary is harm. Who would disagree with that?

If it boils down to this, then obviously yes, animals are other-selves. As are microbes.

Maybe. Maybe not. It's a moot point because it's impossible for us to totally avoid killing microbes, just as it's impossible for us to to totally avoid eating plants. We cannot be held responsible for that we cannot change.

But we can be held responsible for that which we can change, but choose not to.

That is the crux of the debate, as I see it. We are all in agreement that it's proper, and even necessary, for an STO-aspiring person to develop compassion for other-selves, ie. human other-selves.

Aha! See now as one who has had to practice quite a bit in the compassion department, I have found in my experience that when I approach life from the standpoint of "what should I do to be more compassionate?" that I come across as fake and cheesy to others.

The reason this happens is because, when one does not know compassion, it is absurd to try to engage in compassionate acts. How can one be compassionate, if one does not know what it is? It is kind of like when a psychopath tries to pass off "good manners" onto others. It is not at all genuine, and only a fool cannot tell the difference.

Instead, one should aspire to be present in the moment. Because that is where compassion resides:

The only way to develop compassion, or whatever it is one is aspiring to, is to first make the choice to aspire to it. Then, each time the choice is made, it is empowered. Eventually, it becomes natural.

What's being debated is whether it's important to develop compassion for our younger other-selves...ie. animals.

As regards graduation from 3D, no. What is important is to develop compassion for other humans. As I have stated, I have a hard time understanding those who would choose to place animals before other humans on their priority list.

Ra never specified that. It is an assumption that when Ra used the term 'other-selves' they were referring to only humans.

I contend that the Creator has probably allowed 2D to be so bloody, as a mechanism by which 3D entities may learn to develop compassion.

Interesting.

If this contention is correct, then by ignoring the suffering of animals, we are wasting that catalyst...losing an opportunity to develop compassion.

If we waste catalyst by ignoring the suffering of humans because we are so focused upon cows, what does that say for our compassion?

Now who's engaging in dualistic thinking?

(Just kidding! sorry, couldn't resist! )

Why must it be either/or? Yes, there are some fanatics who ignore the plight of humans in favor of helping animals...but I don't see it as either/or. To me, compassion is compassion, whether bestowed on humans or animals. Personally, I try to help both humans and animals, in any way I can. There is no either-or. One can do both.

And in fact, reducing animal cruelty has the added bonus of helping humans too!

Whereas, by ignoring animal cruelty, we're actually harming humans! By perpetuating the meat industry, our grandchildren will have to pay the price, with a planet raped and poisoned.

Not only that, but sometimes people are able to open their hearts to animals before opening them to other people, because they've been hurt by other people. It doesn't matter how the heart is opened. What matters is that it is opened.

It might not 'damage' its soul, but it surely leaves an imprint.

What if this imprint was an essential part of the journey toward Creator-consciousness?

Maybe having at least 1 lifetime as a victim/victimizer is essential too, but that doesn't mean I have to participate in it.

An entity can die with neither intense physical pain nor terror. Besides, we don't actually know what goes on inside an animal's body when it is killed in the wild. It is quite possible that a massive release of DMT and endorphins makes the experience quite painless and free from fear.

Well again, try substituting human for animal and see how that works.

It was already set in motion when the Creator created creation. We won't know the outcome until we pass the Omega point.

We can choose what role we want to play. We aren't pawns.

I get that, and this is why I don't normally purchase mass-produced meat. But since you are pressing the issue... if a given person in the Kangen factory were a murderer or a rapist, does that confer any responsibility to you for selling their products? Hardly.

That analogy doesn't work. In the case of meat, the product itself is a direct result of the violent action. Without violence, there can be no meat product.

I think the root of our difference in views is that I see spiritual evolution as a continuous process. I don't see an entity just magically erasing the effects of a trauma just experienced.

It isn't magic. It is a process, a skill, and an artform. Just like how Ra are experts on reintegration of souls following nuclear detonations. It is a cosmic vocation to assist souls in the death process.

Now I can see an entire 3D round going without detonation of nuclear weapons. But I can't see an entire 3D round going without killing of animals. Even if we could make humans out of a more vegetarian stock... the animals would still kill and eat each other. Are you saying it is possible to create a 3D world where animals do not devour one another in the wild?

Sure. I'm not exactly an expert, but I see no reason why not.

If that happened to me, then I feel certain it happens to cows too.

I had an incredible healing experience one time where I saw myself shackled to a wall in a stone chamber.

Aha! I knew I recognized you from someplace! I too was shackled to a wall in a dungeon! We were cellmates!

I appeared to myself as an angel and told myself that I had finished what I came to do and it was now time to depart. When my other-self died, I felt an immensely warm loving energy fill my body back here in this reality. I have never felt anything so pleasurable as that.

Cool! I have done some very similar healing.

Yes, as described above. There can be 3D worlds without bloody war among humans. There are no 3D worlds without animals consuming one another's flesh for food.

That is an assumption. We don't know that.

Incidentally, not all creatures in 3D eat other creatures for food. Many do not. Curiously, the ones who eat plants tend to be peaceful animals.

Plants are creatures too. Plants are entities. There is consciousness incarnated within that form. And there are actual experiments which suggest that the sound of my Breville is actually responded to by plants with fear.

Secondly, an animal being "peaceful" toward other animals does not preclude it becoming a meal for a carnivore, such as a cat, or an omnivore, such as a human. Eating is not an act of war.

The subject of plants being conscious has already been exhausted so I'm going to let you have the last word on that, rather than repeat myself.

The ones who eat other creatures tend to be very violent. This includes humans. As a species, humans are violent.

Well that is conveniently true for one who believes that eating other creatures is violent. This is totally circular reasoning. I don't see my cats as being violent when they hunt birds.

Really? You don't see an entity overpowering another entity, resulting in bloody death, as violence? Shock and amazement.

Why wait for the next density? Why not try to make the world a better place in any small way we are able to? Why not help reduce suffering if it is within our power to do so?

Why not help reduce the suffering of abused children if it is within our power to do so?

Of course!!! Do that too! No one is saying to neglect human suffering in favor of ending animal suffering. Do both!

---

That point is debatable, but is outside the scope of this discussion. That topic is discussed in the various threads in The Harvest sub-forum.

Well then, that explains why we cannot come to full agreement on this subject. There really is no point in continuing our discussion if you fail to acknowledge what Q'uo directly stated on this matter.

Moreover, I believe that Q'uo directly stated this in response to my query. :exclamation: :idea:

...

If somebody wants to pull the "DOES NOT RESONATE" card on this information, it is their prerogative. But it doesn't make the information any less true. The information in this response is so direct and clear, that "DOES NOT RESONATE" pretty much amounts to calling Q'uo a liar.

This just reminded me of past debates with Christians who told me I could never question anything in the Bible, because that would be "calling God a liar."

You seem to be saying that if we "don't resonate" with something Q'uo said, then we are heretics!

And yet, Q'uo has been diligent in reminding us to reject anything they say that doesn't resonate with us.

So even Q'uo encourages us to accept only that which resonates.

By your own logic, if Q'uo's words are infallible and anyone disputing Q'uo's words is calling Q'uo a liar, then it logically follows:

Q'uo encourages us to accept only that which resonates and reject that which doesn't...

...meaning it's ok to resonate, or NOT resonate, with something Q'uo says...

...meaning to say it's NOT ok to 'not' resonate with something Q'uo says, is to call Q'uo a liar!

gotcha!

Furthermore:

1. The Law of One isn't a religion. There are no rules. No authorities. Not even Ra. Carla has stated that she doesn't want the Law of One made into a religion/cult/dogma/doctrine.

2. The Q'uo sessions are all conscious channeled, in contrast to the Ra sessions, which were trance channeled.

3. Carla isn't always the person doing the channeling. In many cases, someone else is channeling Q'uo. Thus, to consider all Q'uo sessions as absolute, infallible and authoritative, is to be putting one's faith into multiple people who did the channeling, assuming that there was zero distortion.

4. Not even the Ra sessions are 100% free of distortion.

5. It's impossible to verify the Q'uo sessions as being 100% correct. On the contrary, some statements made in the Q'uo sessions are provably incorrect. See Pablisimo's example below. Does this mean the Q'uo sessions aren't, in general, trustworthy? No. I personally get tremendous value from the Q'uo channelings. But I don't consider them infallible.

6. Even if we were to agree on the purity of all the Q'uo sessions, there is still the issue of intelligent people reading the same words and interpreting them differently, as evidenced by the threads in the Harvest section, and in this entire forum for that matter.

Regarding the purity of the Q'uo contact(s) and Q'uo's views on eating animals in particular, I invite you to read this thought-provoking analysis by Pablisimo:

http://www.bring4th.org/forums/showthrea...1#pid23111

[BrownEye]

I think the microbe angle is hilarious. I can step on something microscopic and still not touch it. Are we damaging atoms too? We can only scale so far in either direction before we have no effect. So, to bring in the extremes that are beyond our control as a justification of what we do to what we can control is very amusing at best.