01-22-2016, 04:04 PM
(12-22-2015, 10:52 PM)Parsons Wrote:(12-22-2015, 09:27 PM)Nicholas Wrote: No it is not evangelistic thinking (at least I don't perceive it to be). More it was a logical assumption. Here we are consuming various forms of 2nd density manifestations in order to sustain our own personal manifestations. According to Ra, the concept of ingesting foodstuffs in the 5th density illusion is, "somewhat a central point".
Preceding the quote above is this...
Quote:43.20 Questioner: I’m guessing that it is not necessary to ingest food in fifth density. Is this correct?
Ra: I am Ra. This is incorrect. However, the vehicle needs food which may be prepared by thought.
43.21 Questioner: What type of food would this be?
Ra: I am Ra. You would call this type of food nectar, or ambrosia, or a light broth of golden white hue.
So is it logical to assume that in 5th density, all entities are preparing food, not using their 5th density limbs (whatever that may look like), but using thought? Yes. That is if we hold any stock in the info that Ra offers us.
And beyond the 5th density, Ra describe food in the 6th aspect of the grand illusion at 43.24. "the nature of this food is that of light and is impossible to describe to you in any meaningful way as regards the thrust of your query."
So it is my logical assumption that in-between where we are now and the 6th density run of things (according to Ra that is), veganism as a practise, rather than an identity would be collectively explored.
The most important distinction for me lies between the concepts of "foodstuff" (which is objective), and "harvest" (which is subjective).
Okay, this is finally a new argument that I have not seen before, so I will respond.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you are likening the "nectar/ambrosia/light broth" to eating a vegetable? If I'm off, ignore the following response.
All life from simple bacteria to plants to animals are 2nd density. This 'foodstuff' that Ra is describing is most definitely not 2nd density matter. So I don't agree with the assertion that we would collectively exploring veganism as a practice/identity. I would say we would collectively exploring eating this ambrosia that they attempt to approximate (which we do not have a word for in our language). So we would not be eating 2nd density life at all, which I would not define as vegan.
Sorry Parsons, but I had interpreted your post to mean "don't respond if I am wrong here". In actuality you were asking me to ignore your reasoning, not the accuracy of your interpretation to my post. I got the two mixed up
I only came back to this thread because Monica has an 'account closed' mark by her name (okay what I mean is that I only started scrolling up because of Monica's new status). In doing so I also realised that you deserve a response.
No I am not likening Ra quotes to eating a vegetable. The trend I was referring to is that at some point in our evolution we will be making our own foodstuff, rather than have it provided for us by creation itself.
Is that the 'central point' that Ra were eluding to? Perhaps, or perhaps not (I think so). My intention was to enlarge the debate, rather than have it confined to the 'helpless animal' narrative.
Back to my point though, at some point in time we will surely be creating our own 'foodstuff'. Does that journey include veganism? I believe so.
'Foodstuff' is a red ray issue in our reality and that is why, in my opinion, the comment made on the first page of this thread, that it is as personal as one's sex life, is a wise assertion to make