Quote:Dear ones, I was interested in learning your conceptions on diet but for a great part, I wanted to know the why for the discrepancy between sources of the same confederation. As part of the same group of understanding, both entities, Ra and Oashe, were expected to have equal sayings but that wasn't the case and that makes me question the validity of either source.

(05-04-2020, 09:18 PM)Sunclarity Wrote:

(05-04-2020, 09:03 PM)Louisabell Wrote:

(05-04-2020, 08:31 PM)Navaratna Wrote: Something I remember about the texts is that there is rarely any reference to objects that an individual can hold.

There's references to rubies and diamonds strung around chains, maybe you could say Tarot cards but those conversations are about the imagery.

It does back to how they didn't want to give humans a bias. You could say they talk about locations like the pyramids but you're not walking off with the pyramids any time soon.

This is probably why:

Quote:60.16. Ra: I am Ra ... it is our observation that due to the complexity of influences upon the unmanifested being at this space/time nexus among your planetary peoples it is best that the progress of the mind/body/spirit complex take place without, as you call them, training aids because when using a training aid an entity then takes upon itself the Law of Responsibility for the quickened or increased rate of learn/teaching. If this greater understanding, if we may use this misnomer, is not put into practice in the moment by moment experience of the entity, then the usefulness of the training aid becomes negative.

The wisdom teachings were lost when the libraries were burnt. The age of Essentialism is upon us.

I failed to grasp why the training aid becomes negative in such an usage.

(05-04-2020, 09:15 PM)Sunclarity Wrote: If I may ask, are you sure yours is an informed opinion? What gives you certainty that plants don't feel pain and they don't attach? In a level you can say they surely do as there is no separation in creation. It is illosory if perceived. You might say they don't in as conscious of a manner as we humans do, but that's still would be questionable due to the oneness of all. If you may, watch the following video and tell me how your view stands after.

https://youtu.be/mucAJW6qEvk

(05-04-2020, 09:18 PM)Sunclarity Wrote:

(05-04-2020, 09:03 PM)Louisabell Wrote:

(05-04-2020, 08:31 PM)Navaratna Wrote: Something I remember about the texts is that there is rarely any reference to objects that an individual can hold.

There's references to rubies and diamonds strung around chains, maybe you could say Tarot cards but those conversations are about the imagery.

It does back to how they didn't want to give humans a bias. You could say they talk about locations like the pyramids but you're not walking off with the pyramids any time soon.

This is probably why:

Quote:60.16. Ra: I am Ra ... it is our observation that due to the complexity of influences upon the unmanifested being at this space/time nexus among your planetary peoples it is best that the progress of the mind/body/spirit complex take place without, as you call them, training aids because when using a training aid an entity then takes upon itself the Law of Responsibility for the quickened or increased rate of learn/teaching. If this greater understanding, if we may use this misnomer, is not put into practice in the moment by moment experience of the entity, then the usefulness of the training aid becomes negative.

The wisdom teachings were lost when the libraries were burnt. The age of Essentialism is upon us.

I failed to grasp why the training aid becomes negative in such an usage.

(05-05-2020, 05:52 AM)Agua Wrote:

(05-04-2020, 09:24 PM)sillypumpkins Wrote: my understanding is that even these sources have their distortions, which might explain the discrepancies

I wouldnt see it that way.

If its from a channeling, the most obvious source of distortion is the channeler itself.
Especially in a non- trance channeling, all information has to come through the consciousness of the channeler. So its limited by the limitations of the channeler.

The second source of distortion are we ourselves.
We tend to believe we understand what we read.
Just take the Ra material for example and see if you can find an interpretation of a given statement and see if you find more than two people here who can agree on the same interpretation

So, everybody might read the same letters, but everybody reads a different text actually.

(05-05-2020, 05:51 AM)Jeremy Wrote: Ah the classic meaty vs veggie thread. A bonafide way to cause disharmony by way of espousing ones personal biases on such a divisive subject. These never end well so the best answer is to do whatever you personally feel is right according to your personal journey. No one can answer it for you because to do so, is only coming from a place of distortion.

(05-05-2020, 09:13 AM)Agua Wrote:

(05-05-2020, 06:40 AM)Navaratna Wrote:

(05-05-2020, 05:52 AM)Agua Wrote:

(05-04-2020, 09:24 PM)sillypumpkins Wrote: my understanding is that even these sources have their distortions, which might explain the discrepancies

I wouldnt see it that way.

If its from a channeling, the most obvious source of distortion is the channeler itself.
Especially in a non- trance channeling, all information has to come through the consciousness of the channeler. So its limited by the limitations of the channeler.

The second source of distortion are we ourselves.
We tend to believe we understand what we read.
Just take the Ra material for example and see if you can find an interpretation of a given statement and see if you find more than two people here who can agree on the same interpretation

So, everybody might read the same letters, but everybody reads a different text actually.

I think you are correct, I think I've run in to this problem trying to get opinions from people. People instantly assume that understanding the higher densities couldn't possibly be important to their experience when it actually is what programs it.

I have some difficulty understanding what you mean here, actually with most of what you wrote.

So, are you saying its important to understand higher densities to evolve?

Because I wouldnt agree the slightest bit. I think its a bit delusional to believe we could or even would understand higher densities.
I would even say the vast majority of us (if not all) do not even understand 3d. It is the work of 3d to „understand“ 3d. Once we do do, we are ready for harvest I would say.
Understanding higher densities is the work of those densities.

I believe a very basic lesson in 3d is to get to a point where con can clearly discern between the illusion one would understand something conceptionally as opposed to actually understanding it.

One of my favourite Ra quotes is: „It is of crucial importance for the entity to accept that it does not understand in order to become harvestable“ (not quoted literally)

But maybe I misread you, could you clarify?

Quote:You can eat plants without killing them, and in fact, it helps them. Fruits and vegetables contain seeds that, if processed naturally, end up back in the environment and that is how they propagate. Of course, modern plumbing is the bane then of fruits and vegetables, but truly, fruits and vegetables have evolved to be eaten by animals. I think we really need to get over the idea that just eating plants causes harm.

Quote:The way I think of it is that I make choices that do the least harm. Plants have evolved to need animals to eat parts of them to propagate, and they don't die just because the fruits, seeds, flowers (like broccoli) and leaves are harvested. Plants don't have the same systems as we and animals do, especially a nervous system. Though plants have a survival instinct like all other life here, that survival is not the same as animal life. There are many factors that suggest plants are more geared to being eaten as sustenance, whereas we absolutely know animals do not want to be slaughtered (nevermind the torture they may endure in factory farms especially). You could mow down a field of weeds, wildflowers, wild plants, grasses, and the root systems would survive and continue to produce. Compare this to cutting off a leg of a cow. There are so many pointers that lead one to see plants as the natural (and kinder) food of this existence—since food there must be. Of course commercial farming is not ideal and does not usually align with any sort of compassion.

Quote:

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

The self is an other-self. This is part of the equation in my opinion. Respect for other-selves must include self. It is not balanced, in my opinion, to sacrifice.

In 3D, someone who is practicing compassion for all other-selves (including self) in regards to eating, might look around and consider what to eat. There is no reason to kill the self's vehicle. One could eat fruit, for instance.

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

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

Plants offer parts of themselves to animals for food in order to propagate. This suggests a symbiotic, mutually beneficial relationship, rather than a sacrifice or offering of love on the part of the plants. I don't mean to say love is not involved. Just that it seems natural and beneficial for plant life to be food.

Quote:

Quote:3DMonkey Wrote:  Lol. I disagree completely. If you find yourself dropped in a jungle, meat is the ONLY way you will survive, and where there is a will there is a way.

I would love to see that. What I think you missed is the widely held belief that Man was created with fire in one hand and a spear in the other. Unless you want to believe that Man lived like jackals in the beginning, only eating flesh that was slow enough and sick enough to happen upon, I will stand by natural evolution and say it was impossible in the beginning. Even if it was not, then you have to accept that you are now at the bottom of the rung species wise, only having strength through reliance on technology and numbers, not brains or brawn.

I watched a nice show about a guy roughing it in the wild. He definitely had the will, but did not have the capability of the way. He was surrounded by flora and fauna, but believed he could only exist on animal matter. So even though he had a knife and emergency rations, he was pretty much starving from spending too much time hunting for porcupines which were the only thing slow enough for him to get close to. Instead of just eating what he had around him he wussed out and called for pickup in half the time that he advertised.

As I said earlier, it is a sick mind that ignores fruit hanging on a tree while salivating looking at an animal. If you see a cow eating flesh do you consider it normal? Or is it that it has not gone on long enough yet for society to believe it is completely normal? It is not natural or healthy, whether it applies to mind, body, or spirit. It is simply a result of programming by culture and society. The concept of programming the ego has been established since before the bible and Jesus brought it up himself in the most obvious text in the bible “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.”

I am not trying to convince you not to eat meat, You can eat your whole family and it would not bother me. What bothers me is when the wool is pulled over your eyes yet feeling the need to propagate that falsehood. Not you specifically of course, but any and all.

(05-05-2020, 12:16 PM)Agua Wrote: @navaratna

Hmm, did you even refer to what I was asking or writing?
I cannot see a connection to what I wrote, so I am actually more confused than before.

But maybe thats what its about?

(05-04-2020, 09:18 PM)Sunclarity Wrote:

(05-04-2020, 09:03 PM)Louisabell Wrote:

(05-04-2020, 08:31 PM)Navaratna Wrote: Something I remember about the texts is that there is rarely any reference to objects that an individual can hold.

There's references to rubies and diamonds strung around chains, maybe you could say Tarot cards but those conversations are about the imagery.

It does back to how they didn't want to give humans a bias. You could say they talk about locations like the pyramids but you're not walking off with the pyramids any time soon.

This is probably why:

Quote:60.16. Ra: I am Ra ... it is our observation that due to the complexity of influences upon the unmanifested being at this space/time nexus among your planetary peoples it is best that the progress of the mind/body/spirit complex take place without, as you call them, training aids because when using a training aid an entity then takes upon itself the Law of Responsibility for the quickened or increased rate of learn/teaching. If this greater understanding, if we may use this misnomer, is not put into practice in the moment by moment experience of the entity, then the usefulness of the training aid becomes negative.

The wisdom teachings were lost when the libraries were burnt. The age of Essentialism is upon us.

I failed to grasp why the training aid becomes negative in such an usage.

(05-05-2020, 05:51 AM)Jeremy Wrote: Ah the classic meaty vs veggie thread. A bonafide way to cause disharmony by way of espousing ones personal biases on such a divisive subject. These never end well so the best answer is to do whatever you personally feel is right according to your personal journey. No one can answer it for you because to do so, is only coming from a place of distortion.

(05-05-2020, 06:17 PM)Navaratna Wrote: I don't see any reasoning for promoting a mostly meat diet. Greens like spirulina don't have any comparison. There is no super nutritious meat and from what I remember if it isn't lamb none of the animal fat is healthy. Pork is something I'll never eat.

(05-05-2020, 07:27 PM)Asolsutsesvyl Wrote:

(05-05-2020, 06:17 PM)Navaratna Wrote: I don't see any reasoning for promoting a mostly meat diet. Greens like spirulina don't have any comparison. There is no super nutritious meat and from what I remember if it isn't lamb none of the animal fat is healthy. Pork is something I'll never eat.

The most nutrient-dense animal-based food is the type which people no longer eat as much. Bone broth, a soup cooked from marrow bones, was once a staple for the poor. Organ meats, like heart and kidney, contain the nutrients needed for the organs to function in the animal, and have way more micronutrients than muscle meat. Such types of food are needed in order for an all-animal diet to provide what the body needs.

As for reasons for extreme low-carbohydrate and high-fat diets, the most well-known may be as the old way to treat epilepsy. Prior to modern medication, strict adherence to such a diet was the way to prevent seizures. This still works, but the use of medication is now standard instead.

The more popular reasons are the arguments of the LCHF (low-carb, high-fat) crowd. Wolfgang Lutz (German doctor and LCHF popularizer) describes cases of people with hormone imbalances, who are either distinctly overweight or underweight while eating a healthy amount of food; he found that reducing carbs greatly and eating more fat instead corrects the imbalance and weight issue for them.

There's further arguments for LCHF, which you can find by searching for it, if interested. And, of course, there's also various counterarguments.

As for the big question of saturated fat (whether animal or plant, coconut oil being a vegan option), modern alternative paradigms cast doubt on the entire "fat scare". The fat scare began with Ancel Keys, who cherry-picked data from 7 countries out of over 20 to provide a statistical curve showing how dangerous fat is. Selecting a different set of 7 from the original data yields the opposite curve. LCHF authors usually summarize modern studies pointing to saturated fat not being bad; mainstream researchers like to point to the opposite type of statistics.