Humanity should respect animals.

[Shin'Ar]

Shin'Ar- Thanks you for the very thoughtful discussion! I have a much clearer picture of your cosmology now, and I think we are pretty much on the same page. As we have previously discussed, most of the confusion appears to stem from having to use words that have multiple meanings.

To sum up in a nutshell: We all emanate from the same Source, but we are not identical to that Source. Furthermore, if/when one of the rays attempts to identify itself as the Source, all manner of problems ensue.

In this, I believe we do agree.

However, the philosophy in the Ra Material provides that each emanation from the source actually has the capacity to travel back up the rays, progressively attaining greater levels of identity with the Source, until eventually presented with the option to re-merge completely with the Source in unity.

Much of what they are discussing is how this is accomplished. You are right- there is a sort of flip, superficial, egotistical way of looking at the Law of One and declaring oneself to literally be the Creator. But there is no way around this. For every teaching, there will be a bastardization by the masses: "You Create Your Own Reality" and all that crap.

But realize, not everybody who speaks or writes about these subjects has that particular bastardization in mind. You, Shin'Ar, are not the sole keeper and defender of the Ageless Wisdom. And that's a great thing!

Thanks again for the conversation.

Yes I also enjoy our discussions in this forum TN and always find you to be genuine and thorough.

The very fact that there is no sole keeper of truth and wisdom is the reason that it remains available at all.

The only place we really seem to disagree in our speculating is where you think that the Ra material teaches that the 'ray' can travel back to The Source and merge with it in unity.

This is often the thinking with regard to ascension and higher being. It continues to acknowledge identity, as you put it, attaining greater levels of identity with the Source, until finally one actually becomes that Source.

I am not sure whether you are stating that this is the Ra teaching and you do not agree with it, or that you do agree with it, because in your 'nutshell summation' you stated that we are not identical to The Source.

I am uncertain as to whether you are just restating the conversation as you interpret it, or whether you are stating what you conclude.

Wouldn't it be great to actually be able to sit together in a place where we could have a discussion like this face to face over a brew, so the confusions are avoided?

Never the less, it would probably be unwise to drag this out.

Let me finish up then by saying that it is my understanding that 'ascension into higher being' is NOT becoming a higher being, but that it is merely a process of Higher Being evolving as it exists. Ascension is simple evolution of consciousness, and the countless stages and experiences of that infinite process.

There is no need for the ray to return back to The Source to re-merge with it because we are already merged with it. We are The Source in action. We are The Source experiencing and evolving. BUT we are that process, not the entity.

We are the thought wave, not the source of it. Not the surfer, nor the surf board, nor the wave, nor the sea are the source of that process, but all are one in the process. The True Surfer is just hanging on for the ride, and we are the ride.

The ray of light having extended from the sun has no need to do anything except proceed to be. It does not return to assume the role of its source. It simply proceeds forth into The Mystery of Infinity and potentiality.

In short, it shines forth because that is the Design.

That it is endowed with consciousness and intelligence does not mean that it must therefore seek to become the Source of intelligence and consciousness.

That the proceeding thought shines forth from The Thinker does not mean that it must therefore at some point return to the Thinker and become It.

Do we suppose that any of our thoughts are on some ageless quest to return to us and become Shin'Ar or Tenet Nosce? Are these discussion we are having going to one day become the ones who are offering them into discussion?

Thought is not entity. Our thoughts are not endowed with that Sacred Fire. Our consciousness is. And that consciousness is no different than our own proceeding thought processes. Our field of consciousness proceeds from Its Source and this is what we are experiencing in that process.

As continuing thoughts of The One Consciousness we do not become entities like It, lower than It, or on the way to becoming It. It is the One Entity. Its thoughts are a process of It being. And we are that Process of being; not some entity rising into omnipotence.

Identity and self belongs to The One.

The rest is process of consciousness.

The Other is not another entity, and certainly not identical with its Source.

The Other is The One Consciousness thinking and sharing with itself in that process of thinking.

When one considers the Flower of Life, or Sacred Geometry if you associate better with that, it is this Fibonacci sequence found in the Platonic Solids that best illustrates what I am trying to profess here.

No one aspect of the process is separate from any other.

But the Golden Mean and the complex perfection of the functioning of the Design all dramatically cry out that there is a source of intelligence responsible for it. Such does not exist by chance accident.

The Source is the process continuing/proceeding the way it was designed.

The process is not its Source.

And at any point in that process/platonic solid, there is no aspect of it which is not The Source in action. Therefore there is no need or reason for any aspect of such process to attempt to return when it is already there at every level of that process.

But you are right in that it is exhausting to attempt to lay this out in words. And the effort is exaggerated more by the fact that consciousness must evolve in order to even begin to comprehend such things.

I often look back on my words and wonder how any sane mind could possibly make sense of them.

The best example I have ever been able to come up with follows, and I will let it ride there.

A man clones himself so that he can use it to experience an obstacle course that he had designed himself.

He puts that clone on a leash and uses it like a guide dog would be used by a sightless person, and begins to proceed through the course.

He knows the course because he is its designer, but the clone knows nothing and the venture through the course will be completely new to it.

The designer allows the clone to proceed freely while he closes his eyes only opening them once in awhile to see what the clone might be doing.

The clone proceeds and creates an experience for the designed that the designer is not controlling, but the close is restricted to the limitations of the design of the course set before it.

The clone is one with the designer and never disconnected, but the experience is its own process of being, within the established design.

The Designer experiences that which the clone experiences, and is the clone in the sense that it is made in his image. The designer is the clone in every aspect of that process of experience, because it experiences all that the clone does. No aspect of that process of clone and designer is separate from each other, EXCEPT that the clone can never be the Designer which created it.

The One and The Other are One in process, not in entity/identity.

There can only be One.

There are many processes/thoughts extending from it and wandering through the obstacle course.

The Obstacle Course/Flower of Life/Process of Being/Other, is always one with The All; never The Source of it.

Your ray of light is 'the leash'.

At one end of the leash is Mystery/The Other, because the process of being is infinitely continuing.

And at the opposite end of the leash is The Source/Designer.

Once again note the duality revealing polarity and opposite extreme.

Polarity toward The source one way, and polarity toward the Mystery at the opposite end.

Toward Mystery is the natural procession according to design.

So what do you suppose the opposite polarity, and unnatural defiance of Design would be?

Exactly! Assuming to become The Source.

Duality abhors it.
Design denies it.

Monism and duality are only contradictions when the process/duality/Other attempts to assume identity as The Processor.

When the clone backs to the end of its leash and declares, "hey, that's me back there", its reality as a process defies the truth of its existence and it becomes deluded.

And yet, as the clone glances around its course and experiences it via its form, when it concludes that it is an identity of its own, it has also become deluded, for it is nothing more than a process set in motion by The One and Only.

Identity is always the dilemma and the barrier.

Self is always the great wall to conquer.

Know thy self!

It is NOT what you think it is.

Self is 'process of being' One Consciousness proceeding into Mystery. Mystery because the process is not determined or final.

Design restrains and guides, but it does not control.

Process of Being cannot assume identity.

I wish that our thought process has been beneficial in some way.

Namaste to you, my friend.

[Tenet Nosce]

I am not sure whether you are stating that this is the Ra teaching and you do not agree with it, or that you do agree with it, because in your 'nutshell summation' you stated that we are not identical to The Source.

I am uncertain as to whether you are just restating the conversation as you interpret it, or whether you are stating what you conclude.

My take on the material is that Ra considers the spiraling up the densities as a progressively less distorted expression of the Logos by sub-logoi. They appear to believe that, upon graduation from 7th density, and attaining the next "octave", a sub-logos becomes a full-fledged Logos in its own right, having become invested with full creative ability. But they also suggest that there is no end to the chain of octaves- which stretch out to infinity in either direction.

Questioner: I may be backtracking a little today because I think that possibly we are at the most important part of what we are doing in trying to make it apparent how everything is one, how it comes from one intelligent infinity. This is difficult, so please bear with my errors in questioning.

The concept that I have right now of the process, using both what you have told me and some of Dewey Larson’s material having to do with the physics of the process, is that intelligent infinity expands outward from all locations everywhere. It expands outward uniformly like the surface of a bubble or a balloon expanding outward from every point everywhere. It expands outward at what is called unit velocity or the velocity of light. This is Larson’s idea of the progression of what he calls space/time. Is this concept correct?

Ra: I am Ra. This concept is incorrect as is any concept of the one intelligent infinity. This concept is correct in the context of one particular Logos, or Love, or focus of this Creator which has chosen Its, shall we say, natural laws and ways of expressing them mathematically and otherwise.

The one undifferentiated intelligent infinity, unpolarized, full and whole, is the macrocosm of the mystery-clad being. We are messengers of the Law of One. Unity, at this approximation of understanding, cannot be specified by any physics but only be activated or potentiated intelligent infinity due to the catalyst of free will. This may be difficult to accept. However, the understandings we have to share begin and end in mystery.

Questioner: Are you saying then that there are an infinite number of octaves of densities one through eight?

Ra: I am Ra. We wish to establish that we are truly humble messengers of the Law of One. We can speak to you of our experiences and our understandings and teach/learn in limited ways. However, we cannot speak in firm knowledge of all the creations. We know only that they are infinite. We assume an infinite number of octaves.

However, it has been impressed upon us by our own teachers that there is a mystery-clad unity of creation in which all consciousness periodically coalesces and again begins. Thus we can only say we assume an infinite progression though we understand it to be cyclical in nature and, as we have said, clad in mystery.

Wouldn't it be great to actually be able to sit together in a place where we could have a discussion like this face to face over a brew, so the confusions are avoided?

I wish there were more discussions like these going on in brewhouses across the globe...

Do we suppose that any of our thoughts are on some ageless quest to return to us and become Shin'Ar or Tenet Nosce? Are these discussion we are having going to one day become the ones who are offering them into discussion?

I don't know. But is there any sound reason to believe that isn't the case? My read is that we are able to make thought-form entities, but they are not endowed with the spark of the Creator. Therefore, technically we cannot call this creation, for the thought-form entities are not invested with free will.

But is this ability attainable for us, Tenet Nosce and Shin'Ar? I believe the Ra Material says yes, upon graduation from 7D. On the other hand, the notion of we as "Tenet Nosce" and "Shin'Ar" would be rather humorous, at best.

Actually, now that I think about it, you and I making the online "identities" of "Tenet Nosce" and "Shin'Ar" is a microcosm if the creative process itself.

As continuing thoughts of The One Consciousness we do not become entities like It, lower than It, or on the way to becoming It. It is the One Entity. Its thoughts are a process of It being. And we are that Process of being; not some entity rising into omnipotence.

Ra suggests:

The indigo ray is opened only through considerable discipline and practice largely having to do with acceptance of self, not only as the polarized and balanced self but as the Creator, as an entity of infinite worth.

I'm totally willing to discuss the possibility that they had the wrong idea. But there is no denying that this is, in fact, the idea.

When one considers the Flower of Life, or Sacred Geometry if you associate better with that, it is this Fibonacci sequence found in the Platonic Solids that best illustrates what I am trying to profess here.

So you are saying the Creator is akin to the Fibonnacci formula, and we are the spirals emanated from its application...?

Or perhaps, the Creator is as Φ and through our experience we progressively attain closer approximations thereof as determined by the Golden Ratio. So in theory, we can become infinitely close to Φ, but never actually make the leap to Φ itself...?

So what do you suppose the opposite polarity, and unnatural defiance of Design would be?

Exactly! Assuming to become The Source.

Yes. But at the same time the actual substance of the clone, or the seeming "Other" it experiences... is the Creator itself. Since there is only One, there is nothing else for it to create from. The Source must fashion the Other from its own Being, as there is nothing outside of the Source to create from. I acknowledge this is infinitely paradoxical and mysterious, and words will never do it justice.

But in the strictest sense of philosophical taxonomy, a dualist would say that mind and matter are two completely separate phenomena. While a monist would say that- by some mysterious process- mind actually becomes matter. That's what I was trying to get at.

Know thy self!

It is NOT what you think it is.

What do you think that I think it is?

Namaste to you, my friend.

Cheers!

[Shin'Ar]

Know thy self!

It is NOT what you think it is.

What do you think that I think it is?

Sorry I was speaking to the audience TN. I should have said it is not what most would think it is.

You seem to have a good understanding of it with minimal confusion.

---

So you are saying the Creator is akin to the Fibonnacci formula, and we are the spirals emanated from its application...?

No the formula is the process of being established by The Source.


[/quote]

[Shin'Ar]

So as not to hijack this thread I would like to show how the last few threads related to the respect for animals.

The question arose for Cyan to define exactly what he meant by respect, and also how he would draw the line with regard to what animal life should be considered.

After a lengthy post where I tried to point out that categorization and expectation of a common experience would be a mistake because of the fact that we are all experiencing on very different levels, Tenet and I brought the discussion into a much deeper consideration of that Process of Being, which I think is pertinent to the OP, and the ignorance of such process to be the reason why some seem to simplify a very complex situation.

I would like to elaborate on something that Tenet had said about the evolution process and if the field of consciousness evolves to a degree where it can also create.

My trying to define the relation between Other and The One, and monism and dualism as Tenet had put it, resulted in my stating clearly that the proceeding fragment cannot assume identity as The Source of The All because the proceeding fragment/field of consciousness/thought process is not an identity at all, but rather a process. A process does not have identity as self. The only self is The One Source.

However, that does not mean that in the Divine Design that this fragment as it evolves cannot evolve into an ability to create.
Actually it is the teaching of The Ancient Ones that far into the past seven archangels were dispersed into existence for that very purpose.

These are fields of consciousness just as we. They were not more gods or sources, but creations themselves. The one known as The Green Man, or Peacock Angel, in many cultures, was said to be one who created the flora and fauna of the earth. It is believed that the Sacred Eye imprinted into the design of each peacock feather is a symbolic message to mankind and considered sacred by many pagans.

Of course, in the bastardization of it, as Tenet Nosce clearly laid out, that sacred eye has become known as the 'evil eye' by many who follow perverted aspects of ancient wisdom out of ignorance of the true past history and teaching. Just as many other aspects of pagan teaching has been corrupted into black magic evil representations. Actually the Green Man, also known as Cernunnos by many pagans, has been the source of one of the greatest of bastardizations, turning him into the devil now represented in the Baphomet representation.

The point is that such perversion and corruption of Ancient Wisdom results in many mistaken and inaccurate teachings, where people come to believe they are God, or that one of the archangels is some evil demon, or that there is no reincarnation of life and that in death some identity either goes to an eternal hellfire or a heavenly place of bliss.

Given such a wreckless history of perversion and manipulation, is the wise and intelligent seeker of truth and light not obligated to apply the most intense of discernment to all that he gathers as information?

And should they not be wary of any personal bias with which they most certainly would already be afflicted with?

Shall we evolve into a state of being where we can actually create our own worlds and creatures?

Given that we are already heavily endowed with so many godly attributes at this stage of being, why would it seem unlikely that we should acquire even greater abilities? The Mystery is infinite, and in such an indefinite period of procession much time is available for great potential. Considering that evolution is a process of attaining higher state of being, then that direction and exponential ascent should certainly allow for such speculation.

The degree of advance between man and ape, or if you would rather, man and primitive man, compared to the exponential advance of man's tools of construction and communication, whether accelerated by alien interference or not, would suggest a continuance of such escalation/ascension.

However, I once again point to the element of life and creation that exists in every form, the Sacred Fire. Without that there is nothing. And in any evolved state of being or higher being, that element is not acquired by evolution. Rather it is the essential component of evolution. That is to say, that even as a field of consciousness reaches such a state of being/evolved degree that it is enabled to create, we must remember that it is 'endowed' according to Divine Design. It has always had that element within it throughout every stage of its evolution, from the time of its creation as thought, to its higher stage of being. The enabling is not a feat of its own quest. It has always been rooted in The Source from which it spawned. And according to Divine Design and Process, reaching particular stages of being and evolution/advancement/ascension that fire activates certain attributes relative to that state of being/vibration/distortion. But, its origin is not from the proceeding fragment, it is from the One Source that all originates from.

Just as we cannot attribute the origin of the ability to rationalize and theorize/intelligence to our state of being, we also will not attribute creative powers.

The Sacred Fire which dances in the form of every creation originates at The Source. And we, proceed from that Origin and Source. We are a process which contains that element/sacred fire, just as all processes do. And just as the amoeba shall not assume to be the origin of that sacred fire within it, neither shall the archangel or the evolved higher being.

The process does not become the Source as long as that process accelerates into an Infinite Mystery of the serpent chasing its tail and never catching it.

The Process of Being is The Source being and experiencing. In that truth all are one. But, the Process and potential being infinite and undetermined, insists that All is process, never The Source.

One Consciousness proceeding into Infinite Mystery.

Undetermined and infinitely potential Mystery does not become The Source of its procession. And we are that procession, that process of being.

The process is The Other proceeding from The Source; the field of consciousness; the thought wave; the sound/voice/word; vibration; materialization; the spiral; the vortex; the Serpent Goddess; the divine feminine. Duality.

To discover the divine feminine, the divinity within, is to discover the Divinely designed dual nature of existence, and the paradoxical Mystery of The singular manifestation of The One as The All.

Such discovery reveals that there is One Self, One Identity deliberately manifesting in a dual nature as a Process of Being.

And no aspect of that 'process' can claim identity as the Source when it is nothing more than the 'procession' of That One Being.

And as we consider this complexity and dilemma, how could any aspect of process categorize based upon its own arrogant understanding, or expect another aspect of that infinite and varying process to comply with its stage or state of being?

Again I ask, respect and compassion based upon what degree of evolved understanding?

All that we have to work with is state of being. And what we evolve into depends entirely on the interaction of The All. Our obligation should be to The All and that which we would like it to be as it evolves.

If we desire it to be a state of being filled with love and light rather than hatred and darkness, than we know what path we need to walk, what ingredients we need to add to our recipe, and what materials we need to place in our storehouse.

But having said that, we should always remember that each and every other also proceeds with the same choice and if we deny that choice, or judge it with condemnation based upon our own decisions and choices, then we invariably deny our own process of being.

Again I ask, respect and compassion based upon what degree of evolved understanding?

It is in ignorance of the divine 'process of being' that one expects anything of The Other; it is by Divine Design a Mystery free from expectation.

Seek love and Light if you will, but remember your freedom to do so and accord it to The All as well.

[Tenet Nosce]

Great summary, Shin'Ar!

Again I ask, respect and compassion based upon what degree of evolved understanding?

Yes, this is where we delved into our side conversation, and I have pretty much the same question.

There is a notion which says that it is wrong or somehow unfair to exalt humans over animals. Or that we should "respect" animals by extending to them the same rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" that we have (supposedly) given ourselves.

In my analysis of this proposition, I find myself saying OK. But then, why just the animals? Why stop there?

If it is wrong for humans to exalt ourselves over other lifeforms, then isn't it just as wrong to exalt the animal kingdom over the others? Who are we to say that the animals are more important than the bacteria, or the algae, or the fungi, or the plants?

[Shin'Ar]

Great summary, Shin'Ar!

Again I ask, respect and compassion based upon what degree of evolved understanding?

Yes, this is where we delved into our side conversation, and I have pretty much the same question.

There is a notion which says that it is wrong or somehow unfair to exalt humans over animals. Or that we should "respect" animals by extending to them the same rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" that we have (supposedly) given ourselves.

In my analysis of this proposition, I find myself saying OK. But then, why just the animals? Why stop there?

If it is wrong for humans to exalt ourselves over other lifeforms, then isn't it just as wrong to exalt the animal kingdom over the others? Who are we to say that the animals are more important than the bacteria, or the algae, or the fungi, or the plants?

Precisely, who/what are we? And that is where the posts above attempt to answer that question.

That question is the one burden that all who attempt to judge or place expectations of The Other must answer of The Other.

In every expectation, no matter how they attempt to contrive it, that question shall be asked.

And if one considers what I have proposed above for the answer, a process of being must concede to the process in all of its aspects.

That is not to say that each path does not have very critical consequences, or that we should not discern our own paths and possible consequences.

It just means that we simply cannot deny The Other its Mystery and freedom, or we deny it ourselves.

[Horuseus]

I apologize to all in advance for the polarization of the Poll (Hah).

Seems distortions have been made preventing unity consensus .

[Tenet Nosce]

It just means that we simply cannot deny The Other its Mystery and freedom, or we deny it ourselves.

And yet, while we persist as physical beings in a physical world we will invariably bump our heads up against this problem. There is no avoiding it.

What shall we do? Allow a swarm of locusts to devour our crops out of "respect"? Shall we allow a human being to die of pneumonia because the bacteria "have rights too"? If black mold is growing in our bathroom, shall we just "let it be"? If hawks come and attack our laying hens, shall we grant them their "liberty" to express themselves in this way?

I think most people would say no. To do these things would be ridiculous. And moreover, doing these things is not in any case necessary for our continued spiritual evolution as human beings. If anything, it is our continued evolution that will bring us to the point where we no longer require physical vehicles, and by then all these other questions will have become moot.

Finally- we should ask ourselves if "respect" is truly equated to preserving the physical form, at all costs.

[neutral333]

Humanity does respect animals. It is a small batch that takes out their own issues on animal angels.

[Shin'Ar]

I apologize to all in advance for the polarization of the Poll (Hah).

Seems distortions have been made preventing unity consensus .

What are you basing that conclusion on Horseus? There is niether aye nor nay chosen.

Oh, I see. In order to see the results of the poll you must vote.

[Horuseus]

Oh, I see. In order to see the results of the poll you must vote.

Glad you saw. There's also a 'Show Results' link there if you look carefully, if you'd rather not vote.

For the purposes of transparency I did vote 'nay', reasons being outlined earlier. In my opinion there's a much greater value in 'learning' that respect, rather than having been 'given' it or 'pre-programmed' with such.

That being said, 'Respect' in itself is also a human construct, or 'belief'.

[Shin'Ar]

Oh, I see. In order to see the results of the poll you must vote.

Glad you saw. There's also a 'Show Results' link there if you look carefully, if you'd rather not vote.

For the purposes of transparency I did vote 'nay', reasons being outlined earlier. In my opinion there's a much greater value in 'learning' that respect, rather than having been 'given' it or 'pre-programmed' with such.

That being said, 'Respect' in itself is also a human construct, or 'belief'.

I agree fully Horseus, although I voted Aye simply because semantics and categorization aside, if asked the question without addressing the complexities, my personal effort is to offer all respect and compassion as I would define it.

[Tenet Nosce]

This is the plan of the One Infinite Creator. The One Original Thought is the harvest of all previous, if you would use this term, experience of the Creator by the Creator. As It decides to know Itself It generates Itself into that plenum, full of the glory and the power of the One Infinite Creator which is manifested to your perceptions as space or outer space. Each generation of this knowing begets a knowing which has the capacity, through free will, to choose methods of knowing Itself. Therefore, gradually, step by step, the Creator becomes that which may know Itself, and the portions of the Creator partake less purely in the power of the original word or thought. This is for the purpose of refinement of the one original thought. The Creator does not properly create as much as It experiences Itself.

Yeah! What they said!

[Shin'Ar]

This is the plan of the One Infinite Creator. The One Original Thought is the harvest of all previous, if you would use this term, experience of the Creator by the Creator. As It decides to know Itself It generates Itself into that plenum, full of the glory and the power of the One Infinite Creator which is manifested to your perceptions as space or outer space. Each generation of this knowing begets a knowing which has the capacity, through free will, to choose methods of knowing Itself. Therefore, gradually, step by step, the Creator becomes that which may know Itself, and the portions of the Creator partake less purely in the power of the original word or thought. This is for the purpose of refinement of the one original thought. The Creator does not properly create as much as It experiences Itself.

Yeah! What they said!

I wonder if anyone can tell me if it is possible to read any more original translation of this particular quote?

I know that the group had someone appointed to write down what Carla was saying in her state,( I think it was Don), but is there a way to see what was first written,( original notes), to compare with what they decided to go with after scrutinizing it?

The above quote seems to suggest that space itself is the actual 'akashic record' storage of all thought and experience of The One, which Ra also designated as the plenum. This would suggest that plenum did not exist before original thought process and is rather a process of it, just as we are, which would also seem to support the new dark matter theories.

The above quote also makes the designation of the fragments as 'portions of the Creator', which partake less purely in full power. Also stating that The Creator does not create as much as it experiences, and that the portions are in a graduating process, less endowed, for the purpose of refining, which may/might enable The One to come to know Itself. Suggesting that The Creator does not yet know Itself, and also suggesting that the portions are in an even lesser state of being able to accomplish that as well. It states that each generation of the fragment/portion develops a capacity to know itself, but it is a gradual process that may/might enable The Creator to know itself at some further point of that process.

I would surely like to have a more elaborate explanation of that considering its meaning with regard to those who suggest that the Creator already knows itself and that creation is complete already and finished; that All is done in such a way that higher understanding can actually know the future because it is already completed. This quote seems to deny and contradict that sort of thinking.

Also is this a quote from the Ra complex or the Quo complex?

I know that this puts a burden on someone to sort through a great deal of material for my sake, but lately migraines have very much disabled my ability to read through alot of text, and I would greatly appreciate others' assistance here. Most of you know that I have offered much here myself.

Finally is it possible for anyone to point me to any information relating to these specifics in the 'Brown Notes'?

[Oldern]

82.10 implies 82 session of Law of One, so it is from Ra.

[Shin'Ar]

82.10 implies 82 session of Law of One, so it is from Ra.

Ah thank you Oldern my friend. Headed there now actually. Have to careful not to start a new migraine as I have to take my car to dealer for concerns and I become completely disabled if I get a bad enough headache.

[norral]

what an amazing thread and what amazing people. its because of stuff like this that i hang out here. humble thanks to all who have shared

norral

[βαθμιαίος]

I know that the group had someone appointed to write down what Carla was saying in her state,( I think it was Don), but is there a way to see what was first written,( original notes), to compare with what they decided to go with after scrutinizing it?

Jim was the scribe. Here are the differences between the originally published version and the actual audio: http://www.lawofone.info/show-diff.php?s=82&dv=o-r#10

[Tenet Nosce]

The above quote seems to suggest that space itself is the actual 'akashic record' storage of all thought and experience of The One, which Ra also designated as the plenum. This would suggest that plenum did not exist before original thought process and is rather a process of it, just as we are, which would also seem to support the new dark matter theories.

The above quote also makes the designation of the fragments as 'portions of the Creator', which partake less purely in full power. Also stating that The Creator does not create as much as it experiences, and that the portions are in a graduating process, less endowed, for the purpose of refining, which may/might enable The One to come to know Itself. Suggesting that The Creator does not yet know Itself, and also suggesting that the portions are in an even lesser state of being able to accomplish that as well. It states that each generation of the fragment/portion develops a capacity to know itself, but it is a gradual process that may/might enable The Creator to know itself at some further point of that process.

I would surely like to have a more elaborate explanation of that considering its meaning with regard to those who suggest that the Creator already knows itself and that creation is complete already and finished; that All is done in such a way that higher understanding can actually know the future because it is already completed. This quote seems to deny and contradict that sort of thinking.

I think the general gist is that there is an in- and out-breath to Creation. At the end of every cycle there is the calling back and distillation of experience, from which the Creator comes to know itself more fully. And then the cycle repeats.

I'm not sure where any are asserting that creation is already complete and finished. But if this argument is supposedly based in the Ra Material, I find little basis for it.

Finally is it possible for anyone to point me to any information relating to these specifics in the 'Brown Notes'?

The Origins of L/L Research

[reeay]

kind of like this?
http://www.lunarplanner.com/HCpages/DivineUnion.html

[Monica]

If it is wrong for humans to exalt ourselves over other lifeforms, then isn't it just as wrong to exalt the animal kingdom over the others? Who are we to say that the animals are more important than the bacteria, or the algae, or the fungi, or the plants?

I don't think it has anything to do with exalting one species over another, but with understanding the natural lifecycles of the different species.

Bacteria, for example, live inside all other living creatures. Our bodies have more bacteria than human cells. So the idea of 'saving' a bacterium is moot. It is part of bacteria's normal lifecycle to be breathed in and out of a greater organism, to live inside its body, to be pooped out, etc. To try to 'save' individual bacteria would be absurd, in light of its normal life process. Not to mention impossible!

Likewise, plants, at least the smaller ones commonly used for food, have similar lifecycles. Tear off a leaf of lettuce and it immediately replaces that leaf and in fact multiples even faster. Harvest a potato or carrot and it doesn't die but preserves its lifeforce for whichever animal eats it. Sure sounds like a merging of consciousness to me!

As previously discussed, it would be impossible to ascertain whether 1 single blade of grass has individuated consciousness. All evidence points to it not. The peaceful, vegetarian animals graze on grass and other plants. Humans can live without meat but we can't live without plants. So even if it could be proven that an individual plant doesn't want to be eaten, it's moot because we simply cannot survive without plants. At least not for long, with good health.

If we observe the cycle of plants feeding animals, there is an inherent beauty in the reciprocation. Birds eat fruit and scatter the seeds, humans are healthier if they eat more fruits and veggies, humans and animals cannot live without bacteria, etc.

Now, contrast that with the lifecycle of carnivorous animals. They cannot survive without violently killing other 2D entities...and they typically don't eat other carnivorous animals; they eat only the peaceful vegetarians. The exception to this is the scavengers, like buzzards, who will eat anything dead. (Take a look at their appearance; could there be some significance there?)

Here's something to ponder: Is it a coincidence that acts of violence against other humans, which humans consider 'bad' /STS actions, bear somewhat of a resemblance to carnivorous animals in the wild?

Is it a coincidence that domesticated dogs and cats, pampered indoors with packaged kibble, often lose their 'taste for blood' and forget how to hunt a mouse? Or if they do manage to kill a mouse, usually just play with it and don't even eat it? I've often gotten the gift of a dead mouse or bird on my doorstep, an offering from one of my cats, but rarely do they ever actually eat what they kill. They are losing their natural, instinctual taste for freshly killed animals. Is there any significance to this?

Is there any significance to the fact that a cow bellowing in pain when her calf is taken away sounds a lot like a human woman wailing the loss of her child?

Is there any significance to the fact that a pig's shriek of pain sounds not so very much unlike the squeal of a human in pain?

Is it a coincidence, or is it design, that when humans eat more fruits and vegetables, they tend to get healthier?

It is a coincidence, or is it design, that fruits, veggies, and edible flowers all have delightful colors, textures, tastes and fragrances, which appeal to the higher senses of aesthetics and beauty, and nearly all can be eaten with little or no preparation? Whereas, a slaughtered animal, with blood and entrails oozing out of its body, triggers disgust and repulsion in most humans, and in order for its meat to be appetizing it must first be cooked, seasoned and disguised?

Is it a coincidence, or is it design, and the fragrance of a fruit or flower elicits joy in humans, whereas the sight and smell of a slaughterhouse will make many people vomit?

It could be argued that a tiger killing a deer and ripping open her throat is beautiful. It could also be argued that buzzards circling a dead cat is beautiful, and maggots eating a rotting carcass is beautiful.

It just all depends on one's perception of beauty.

[Tenet Nosce]

I don't think it has anything to do with exalting one species over another, but with understanding the natural lifecycles of the different species.

I wouldn't really attempt to argue anything that you said, as it is a combination of irrefutable facts and some questions that we will probably never know the answer to while in third density.

But where you are looking at the lifecycles of the different species, I am drawing attention to the lifecycle on an ecosystem level. They're not incompatible points of view. But they are different.

The examples you offer feature, almost exclusively, mammals. With the exception of the buzzard. Which sort of illustrates my point. Why should the mammals be a bigger concern to humans than any other group of animals?

What about the fish? What about the amphibians? What about the reptiles? And those are just the vertebrates, which again, are most closely related to humans.

What about the sponges? Or the brachiopods? Or the starfish? Or parasitic worms? Don't they have a right to live too?

Or what about the corals? I could make a fair argument that corals are the most important animal in the ecosystem! Why don't all the animal activists join forces to save the corals, and then figure out what to do about the cows and chickens? Wouldn't that be an even greater service to the planet, and also help out the farm animals, too?

Your points about the suffering of farm animals are valid. And also scientifically proven facts. I wouldn't even bother trying to argue with somebody who would attempt to deny that.

But I think the "visible suffering" angle has some severe limitations. Just because a coral doesn't scream or writhe in pain when it is damaged, does that make its suffering any less important than that of a cow?

I would argue no, it doesn't. Placing more attention and concern on the suffering of those animals who express suffering in a fashion most closely resembling humans is just an extension of the very anthropocentric valuing system that we are questioning here in this thread!

What about the insects? Shall we stand by and do nothing while the locusts devour our crops out of "respect" for their right to life? What about mosquitoes and other vectors of disease which breed in areas that have been flooded out? Just leave them be?

And we have yet to touch on any of the other kingdoms of life. Algae and cyanobacteria are WAY more central to our ecosystem than the cows, or the chickens, or even the humans! And incidentally, if we were to pay more attention to the algae and the cyanobacteria we would probably end up eating a lot less meat.

What about the fungi? Do we let the black mold grow in the basement because we don't want to bring harm to it?

I think I might know your response to this, and it is: Well why not do what we can? Well yes, I happen to agree with that. But I'm not saying we shouldn't do what we can. I'm not saying we shouldn't respect animals. Not at all!

What I am discussing is the philosophical basis behind doing this. For example, I question the value of generalizing the principle of harmlessness as applied to human-human relationships so as to apply to the relationship of humanity to life in general. Life in general, is inclusive of farm animals, but a much wider consideration.

[Monica]

But- as we have previously discussed- the examples you offer feature, almost exclusively, mammals. With the exception of the buzzard. Which sort of illustrates my point. Why should the mammals be a bigger concern to humans than any other group of animals?

The animals I listed were all carnivores. I wasn't thinking about whether they were mammals or not.

What about the fish? What about the amphibians? What about the reptiles? And those are just the vertebrates, which again, are most closely related to humans.

What about the sponges? Or the brachiopods? Or the starfish? Or parasitic worms? Don't they have a right to live too?

Humans don't kill those much. It is mostly cows, pigs, chickens and turkeys that are farmed and slaughtered, and make up most of the meat part of humans' diet, at least in the US. (I can't speak for other countries.)

No one has started a campaign to free the lizards, because lizards aren't farmed.

And animal activists typically do include fish in activism, though a greater concern is shown to farm animals, because at least fish have a normal life before they're caught and killed. (Not counting farmed fish.)

Or what about the corals? I could make a fair argument that corals are the most important animal in the ecosystem! Why don't all the animal activists join forces to save the corals, and then figure out what to do about the cows and chickens?

There are movements to save the corals! Though it might be more for environmental reasons. Every person can't take on every cause. There are too many causes. Different activists are drawn to different causes. The cause to take on factory farming has a very clear-cut agenda: to awaken people to the effects of their dietary choices.

But I think the "visible suffering" angle has some severe limitations. Just because a coral doesn't scream or writhe in pain when it is damaged, does that make its suffering any less important than that of a cow?

No, it doesn't. But people don't eat coral. My musings all had to do with using basic observation to make decisions about what to eat. Environmental impact, such as becoming aware of how coral reefs are destroyed, is a whole 'nother issue.

What about the insects? We have brushed on this several times before, but you sort of sidestep the issue. Shall we stand by and do nothing while the locusts devour our crops out of "respect" for their right to life? What about mosquitoes and other vectors of disease which breed in areas that have been flooded out? Just leave them be?

I don't recall sidestepping the issue. I usually answer your posts point-by-point. Maybe I missed some posts...don't remember.

I've never advocated doing "nothing" about an infestation. But there are many measures that can be taken to coexist with insects, without letting them take over. I remember in a previous discussion, we talked about alternative, organic farming methods that allowed sections of the crops for the insects. I think Austin commented on that.

Strong plants don''t get decimated by insects nearly as easily as weak plants. A lot of the problem has to do with mono-farming. The problem is much deeper and the solution requires a complete overhaul of agricultural methods, which is happening, thanks to the growing organic agriculture industry and farmers like Austin.

And we have yet to touch on any of the other kingdoms of life. Algae and cyanobacteria are WAY more central to our ecosystem than the cows, or the chickens, or even the humans! What about the fungi? Do we let the black mold grow in the basement because we don't want to bring harm to it?

I'm all for protecting algae. I had a business for several years selling wild algae, and protecting its natural habitat was a very big deal to us. Its ecosystem was so efficient that if half the algae were removed from the 30-mile-long-lake in the morning, the lake would be full again by the end of the afternoon. It's the world's largest biomass producer. There's enough wild algae in that lake to feed every person on the planet a gram a day, enough to fill in the gaps nutritionally in many areas.

The oceans' algae population however, is rapidly dwindling. That is indeed a huge concern. If the oceans die, the whole planet dies. This is a very big deal that most people are oblivious to.

I'm not sure how this fits into the discussion, though, but maybe I missed something. I didn't read the whole thread.

As for black mold, I'd put that in the same category as bedbugs and cockroaches. It's an infestation, invading one's own home. Infestations don't usually invade for no reason, but because the home isn't kept clean, or maybe got flooded, etc. So prevention is the best solution to that.

That kind of thing doesn't happen on a daily basis. But people choose to kill animals for food on a daily basis.

I think I might know your response to this, and it is: Well why not do what we can? Well yes, I happen to agree with that. But I'm not saying we shouldn't do what we can. I'm not saying we shouldn't respect animals. Not at all!

What I am discussing is the philosophical basis behind doing this. For example, I question the value of generalizing the principle of harmlessness as applied to human-human relationships so as to apply to the relationship of humanity to life in general.

I agree. I think respect should be given to life in general. One can respect black mold without letting it take over their house and cause health problems.

I don't really see how one could respect a cow then kill it unnecessarily.

I think I understand your point, which is why have any sort of boundaries at all?

The reason is that we're stuck here in this physical reality and have to survive. We can't survive in a healthy way while allowing infestations of black mold. But we can survive, and even thrive, without eating animals.

Philosophically, it can reduced to some simple guidelines: When faced with a choice between compassion and cruelty, choose compassion. When faced with a choice between a violent way of solving a problem and a non-violent way, choose the non-violent way. Do what we can to prevent being in a situation where we have to destroy life in self-defense, but if we must do that, then do so consciously and realize that there might be some karma involved. Do what we can to minimize it and compensate if possible. We can't completely avoid harming other lifeforms, but we should do our part to minimize the harm.

[Tenet Nosce]

I don't really see how one could respect a cow then kill it unnecessarily.

Exactly. Which is why I would question if "respect" is the best principle to apply to the situation.

I think I understand your point, which is why have any sort of boundaries at all?

I am saying that there should be a boundary between ethics, and other philosophical considerations. Ethical philosophy is essentially about human-human relationships. We can attempt to apply ethical principles outside of these, but it is problematic. I'm not saying it is a totally wrong approach. I'm just saying it is problematic. And the evidence of this would be the fact that despite 6000 years of ethical arguments for various dietary practices, we still haven't arrived at a general consensus.

Philosophically, it can reduced to some simple guidelines: When faced with a choice between compassion and cruelty, choose compassion. When faced with a choice between a violent way of solving a problem and a non-violent way, choose the non-violent way. Do what we can to prevent being in a situation where we have to destroy life in self-defense, but if we must do that, then do so consciously and realize that there might be some karma involved. Do what we can to minimize it and compensate if possible. We can't completely avoid harming other lifeforms, but we should do our part to minimize the harm.

These guidelines are ethical guidelines that are based upon the concept of harm. And I wouldn't necessarily disagree with them. What I am discussing is whether ethics is the most appropriate branch of philosophy to apply to the situation.

[Goldenratio]

But you can respect a plant and then kill it?

[Monica]

But you can respect a plant and then kill it?

Rather than repeat myself, I'll refer you to some previous discussions on this topic:

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

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

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

The above index reposted from http://bring4th.org/forums/showthread.ph...2#pid89582

[BrownEye]

But you can respect a plant and then kill it?

Are you sure it is "killed"? I mean it isn't dead until it is wilted.

And no it does not "scream" when you eat it or there would be many clairvoyants that describe this.

Although, it is possible for a clairvoyant to pick up a "scream" if you broadcast to it the intent to make it suffer.

This is talking lower plants, not trees.

[Monica]

I am saying that there should be a boundary between ethics, and other philosophical considerations. Ethical philosophy is essentially about human-human relationships. We can attempt to apply ethical principles outside of these, but it is problematic. I'm not saying it is a totally wrong approach. I'm just saying it is problematic. And the evidence of this would be the fact that despite 6000 years of ethical arguments for various dietary practices, we still haven't arrived at a general consensus.

But we have to take into consideration that humans have (hopefully!) been evolving. Many are nearing harvestability and might even be mutating. DNA is changing. The world has changed. Until recently, humans had no choice but to use animals for food and clothing, in order to survive. The game has changed. It's no longer necessary. Thus, while ethics couldn't be applied before, maybe they can be applied now.

Which is why I propose general guidelines based on ethical principles, given our spiritual disposition, rather than rigid rules applying to everyone. Killing animals for food isn't going to become illegal anytime soon, and probably never will be on a 3D planet. That's where 3D entities are at. But aren't we discussing how to prepare for 4D and beyond?

These guidelines are ethical guidelines that are based upon the concept of harm. And I wouldn't necessarily disagree with them. What I am discussing is whether ethics is the most appropriate branch of philosophy to apply to the situation.

What other branch of philosophy would you suggest?

[Goldenratio]

I'll go through the posts, I'm at work right now, and I've got a big project to tackle.

Taking a break from my workload for a bit. It seems that basic argument revolves around the ability to feel pain or not, some about desire, and evolutionary advancement to the current state of existence.

And to begin with, commercial agriculture is deplorable, we can agree to that.

I'm not going to try to chew through a content argument right now. Is there some part of it that I'm missing?

[Tenet Nosce]

What other branch of philosophy would you suggest?

How about a teleological approach? This might begin by asking: What is the purpose of Life?

The purpose of Life is to express itself in physical form. This much is self-evident. Life probably has many other purposes- and some of them even ethical- but the one thing we have empirical evidence for- something we can stand upon as evidence- is that the purpose of life is to express itself in physical form.

What sets humanity apart from all other physical lifeforms is that it can contemplate the purpose of Life. This is a primary attribute of a 3D entity, with perhaps some overlap with late-2D entities.

Humans have a choice. We can either work with nature or work against it. Obviously, much of our known history has been about teach/learning what happens when we work against nature. Raising animals for food is but one aspect of this. Growing plants for food is another aspect. From this perspective, these are not two issues, but one and the same issue.

At some point in the future (hopefully very, very soon!) humanity will decide it is time to teach/learn the lessons of working with nature.

No doubt, the raising of animals for food will become much less prevalent, because it won't be as necessary. Although, biodynamic farms do require animals to function.

But the larger question is what relationship do we, as human beings, want to have in relation to the purpose of Life. And if the answer is that we want to support the purpose of Life then our course has been set for us.

We should do whatever is necessary to enable Life to maximally express itself in physical form.

The Law of One says that there is but one Life. One creative spirit, that is expressing itself in physical form.

Preservation of form (nurture/defense) is a function of life along with creation of form (reproduction) and destruction of form (death).

Therefore, a humanity in alignment with the purpose of Life would seek to act to create catalyst for these three functions of Life. And from this, we would conclude that it is not appropriate for humanity to elevate one of these functions- preservation of form- over the others. To do this would create an imbalance in the system. In many ways, it already has.

So when I envision a 4D society, what I also see is that humanity has accepted full responsibility as stewards for Life on Earth.

But a steward is more than a protector. A steward must also wield the power to destroy forms where it is found their perpetuation inhibits the maximal expression of Life.