Did Entities Eat Meat Before The Veil ?

[Diana]

I've got a really nice leather jacket, I wear it all the time. Not sure if that counts the same as a fur coat but it seems like it would. I think this whole idea of support and participation just comes across so much like the 'guilty by association' idea during the Cold War. I don't agree with the suggested chain of cause and effect that establishes these ideas of blame.

The problem for me is that things are all lumped together. Factory-farming is unnatural and twisted. Yet, then all hunting is classified as though it was factory farming which doesn't make sense to me.

I also don't believe that animals do anything to be of service, rather there are balances in nature. The catalyst provided is neutral in itself until it is made positive or negative by the individual. I think it can be easily argued the many challenges and hard to swallow things that go in to animals produces a more intense catalyst. However, I think the subjective nature of polarity is sometimes underestimated.

Is killing morally, ethically a 'bad thing'? Sure, if your philosophy says so. However, is it polarizing? That's a whole other can of worms I think. I also don't think it has anything to do with justification either but has to do with how one chooses to integrate with their experience.

It can't be polarizing in and of itself, or else I am sure every other hunter would be harvestable negatively.

I was talking with a friend last night who is a bow Hunter. They buy almost no meat from stores and instead hunt and fish. He only takes what he kills and he only kills what he needs to feed his family. He told me that one day after he had success and while he was starting to clean and process he was attacked by some young individuals who even threw rocks at him even though he was hunting legally, he had only made one kill, and every part of the animal was going to his family for food and other things.

I also have a lot of first Nations friends who have shared their cultural views that hunting is about respect, about honouring the animal and making use of every part so nothing is wasted. I've worked in a grocery store. I know how much food is wasted. This is seen as incredibly disrespectful to the animals who gave of their life because it is seen that we are not even making use of what we kill. That is one reason why I don't feel guilty if I do eat meat from the store, because it is ultimately intended to make use of the energy that was given and offer respect and gratitude to animals.

Going through the meat aisle and saying sorry to every steak doesn't seem quite as sincere as directly appreciating the energy exchange taking place.

The argument has been made again and again that somehow your decision to eat meat retroactively makes you responsible for its death. I think that is total nonsense and doesn't make any sense in terms of cause and effect, but even if that's true, I would be willing to take on this responsibility for a few reasons. One, because it is taking responsibility for myself as part of the planetary species. Two, because I am then acknowledging and accepting the life and death of the animal and acknowledges that I am now a link in the chain of its greater life totality. Three, because it allows me to accept the state of the energy of the animal as it came to me. Four, because then what started as a heartless process can end in love and light.

I will accept the responsibility of the killer rather than try to control the catalyst. (No, I would not have these things continue for the sake of my service, I do what I do to deal with and work with what is going on now, not in some potential future.)

I didn't mean to lump everything into one category. I am not a zealot or activist, and I am intelligent. I can have a reasonable conversation.

Of course it's not the same to hunt for food, be mindful of the life you take, use it all without waste, and to mindlessly and carelessly eat factory-farmed meat.

I also don't mean that because a person eats meat from the grocery store they are retroactively responsible for the death of the animal. This is getting a little absurd. But by participating in the industry by buying the product, you support its proliferation. This is a basic concept and there is no getting out of it.

When I talked of suffering, though I was misunderstood as lumping hunting in with buying factory-farmed meat, I meant unnecessary suffering in general. There is a lot of hunting for sport which is barbaric in my opinion. Even if one hunted a deer, and used it gratefully and mindfully as food, there is still suffering involved as in my example of a doe with a fawn, aside from killing the doe. I recall someone mentioning that factory-farmed vegetable crops cause the same sort of misery to mice etc. when the harvesting machines come through not to mention poisoning with pesticides, and in no way am I saying that that is okay either. However, there is the concept of what is actually necessary for survival. The friend bow-hunting animals could grow a vegetable garden and plant fruit and nut trees. Meat is not necessary. I understand we have a fundamental difference here, in that I feel eating plants is not as infringing and violent as eating animals.

Also, I am not trying to control anything. I am having a conversation with people who are exploring esoteric and mind-expanding concepts. I like the fact that you have focused work in these matters. For my own part, I deal with things in my way. Thank you all here for tolerating my thoughts on the subject because it is very hard being in a world one doesn't really fit in with very well. I'm no living master or adept. I am only a compassionate person trying to be the best I can, and fulfill whatever missions I may have here.

[upensmoke]

if someone kills cows to make leather jackets. the killer is only going to kill more cows if people buy his leather jackets. if the demand is high he will kill even more cows then what he intended too. I find it quite surprising that you would say the people who buy the leather jackets don't contribute too the killing of the cows. If no one bought leather jackets no one would find a need to kill cows for jackets. how can you deny that logic ? there is absolutely no morality in there its pure logic.

aion i also agree that it may or may not be polarizing for the individual but I do know that you could identify the action as STS or STO which is what im doing to clear that up for anyone.

Also I agree that some entities wanted to choose a path of suffering but I highly doubt EVERY entity who experiences suffering wanted too.

[Aion]

I believe that these discussions are fruitful if seen to be a boiling pot in to which all our opinions go and then come out a little bit mixed with all the others. I always try to center myself in the viewpoint that we are actually one unified being and that we are many viewpoints of one mind expressing itself to itself. We are a very, very complex mind deliberating very complex issues from multiple viewpoints at once and in that are coming to know ourselves better and better.

I know I often use words and language which may come across as sharp. I fought this in myself for a long time but I'm realizing that in trying to avoid certain forms of expression I was actually avoiding particular feelings within myself that ever yearned to come out. Don't feel like you are merely being tolerated because really we all have our own well of distortions we are swimming through.

As I was told by a Tibetan Monk, we have all drank the crazy water.

[Aion]

if someone kills cows to make leather jackets. the killer is only going to kill more cows if people buy his leather jackets. if the demand is high he will kill even more cows then what he intended too. I find it quite surprising that you would say the people who buy the leather jackets don't contribute too the killing of the cows. If no one bought leather jackets no one would find a need to kill cows for jackets. how can you deny that logic ? there is absolutely no morality in there its pure logic.

aion i also agree that it may or may not be polarizing for the individual but I do know that you could identify the action as STS or STO which is what im doing to clear that up for anyone.

Also I agree that some entities wanted to choose a path of suffering but I highly doubt EVERY entity who experiences suffering wanted too.

Well the person could give the jackets away, or make them for themselves, or do other things with the leather. However, is there no recognition then for the capacity of the leather jacket to create a lifetime of added warmth to an individual, is that not a service?

Again, the focus seem centralized on this fearful idea of killing. I'm not saying killing isn't a horrific thing, but I also have to question why it also appears to be so normal in nature. The question always seems to come back to evolution and often people relate it to spiritual evolution. However, this is a distinctly Eastern influence. There are some cases of vegetarianism in Western spirituality but in general blood has always been seen to be a powerful force.

Let me describe something. Every time an animal dies by the hands of a human it is a form of sacrificial blood magic. That energy would normally be picked up by the wise Magician but since those are scarce in society it is picked up by those adepts who are able to draw in and work with scattered energy or at least that would be true if not for the fact that there are groups of negative adepts on the planet which take and direct this energy in to many structures of mental control and impressioning through fear, panic and the like.

Factory farms are massive sacrificial grounds where raw life energy is harvested. Even better is that cognitive dissonance is created so that people feel guilty about it. Once people feel guilty they then will soak up all of that nasty energy like sponges and then started to exhude it themselves, providing a nice steady stream of fear, pain and discomfort to those waiting entities who feed on this energy.

It's a very tricky web of energy.

[upensmoke]

if someone kills cows to make leather jackets. the killer is only going to kill more cows if people buy his leather jackets. if the demand is high he will kill even more cows then what he intended too. I find it quite surprising that you would say the people who buy the leather jackets don't contribute too the killing of the cows. If no one bought leather jackets no one would find a need to kill cows for jackets. how can you deny that logic ? there is absolutely no morality in there its pure logic.

aion i also agree that it may or may not be polarizing for the individual but I do know that you could identify the action as STS or STO which is what im doing to clear that up for anyone.

Also I agree that some entities wanted to choose a path of suffering but I highly doubt EVERY entity who experiences suffering wanted too.

Well the person could give the jackets away, or make them for themselves, or do other things with the leather. However, is there no recognition then for the capacity of the leather jacket to create a lifetime of added warmth to an individual, is that not a service?

Again, the focus seem centralized on this fearful idea of killing. I'm not saying killing isn't a horrific thing, but I also have to question why it also appears to be so normal in nature. The question always seems to come back to evolution and often people relate it to spiritual evolution. However, this is a distinctly Eastern influence. There are some cases of vegetarianism in Western spirituality but in general blood has always been seen to be a powerful force.

Let me describe something. Every time an animal dies by the hands of a human it is a form of sacrificial blood magic. That energy would normally be picked up by the wise Magician but since those are scarce in society it is picked up by those adepts who are able to draw in and work with scattered energy or at least that would be true if not for the fact that there are groups of negative adepts on the planet which take and direct this energy in to many structures of mental control and impressioning through fear, panic and the like.

Factory farms are massive sacrificial grounds where raw life energy is harvested. Even better is that cognitive dissonance is created so that people feel guilty about it. Once people feel guilty they then will soak up all of that nasty energy like sponges and then started to exhude it themselves, providing a nice steady stream of fear, pain and discomfort to those waiting entities who feed on this energy.

It's a very tricky web of energy.

Aion I feel like you are making this tricky. Why is killing fearful ? why is killing horrific ? im not saying killing is wrong or scary or horrific please don't assume. "ALL" Im saying is that it falls under the identity STS Ra says the start of the STS path is using other self for the benefit of self. I can choose to kill cows and make jackets or i can use hemp and make jackets. The whole idea behind STS is using otherselfs to benefit you regardless of what happens to the enslaved or non elite. Any animal that chooses to be sacrficed can be considered STS they are will to do the bidding of entities who want to manipulate them for their own benefit no ? 

please dont misunderstand me when i write im not putting morals or right vs wrong into any of this. Im cleary looking at who is benefiting from the services being carried out and who is not benefiting from the service. Aion do you really believe that the benefit that the chicken im going to eat for dinner tonight is and has experienced the same benefit as I the one who will devour this chicken ? If you believe its the same than i totally understand you line of thinking, if you think the benefit isn't a 50/50 ratio I don't understand how you can see it as anything other than STS

STS to me is when you use otherselfs to benefit youself in an unfair ratio. meaning its not 50/50. what is STS to you Aion ?

Also to everyone who talks of sacrifice and blood magic and so on and so forth all of that is STS like really lolz other than pain what benefit does the one being sacrifice experience ?  .  Think about if i hunt an animal who benefits ? Im not saying its right or wrong but who benefits ? its all about how you treat otherselfs not how you think about otherselfs. ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS. Action carry more energy than thoughts alone. 

[Monica]

I've got a really nice leather jacket, I wear it all the time. Not sure if that counts the same as a fur coat but it seems like it would.

Yes, it is the same. The only difference is in how much fur the animal had. The animal was robbed of his/her skin and life just the same: unnecessarily.

I used to think that leather wasn't 'as bad' as fur because fur-bearing animals are killed primarily for their fur; whereas, I thought that leather was just a 'by-product' of the meat/dairy industry. But then I learned more about the economics of the industry and found that all the animal 'products' contribute in pretty much the same way. Leather is a really big money-maker.

I think this whole idea of support and participation just comes across so much like the 'guilty by association' idea during the Cold War. I don't agree with the suggested chain of cause and effect that establishes these ideas of blame.

The 'guilt by association' comes from the fact that industries operate on simple supply and demand. So any purchase adds to the demand; thus increasing the need for supply.

The problem for me is that things are all lumped together. Factory-farming is unnatural and twisted. Yet, then all hunting is classified as though it was factory farming which doesn't make sense to me.

If modern humans needed meat and animal skins for food and clothing, then there would be a difference.

But they don't. The human body doesn't need meat or dairy, and we now have plenty of other materials for clothing and shelter.

Therefore, hunting is unnecessary.

Ergo, it's sport.

So the only difference, really, is that modern factory farms also torture the animal before killing him/her, so in that sense yes, it's worse.

But in the context of whether eating meat/dairy is congruent with the STO path, it's all pretty much the same and varies only in degree.

I also don't believe that animals do anything to be of service,

They offer us an opportunity to feel compassion!!! That is a huge service!

rather there are balances in nature.

I think the whole 'balance in nature' idea is a myth. It views the situation from a numerical 2 only. Numerologically, there is a lot more to the universe than duality. (But I digress.)

Is killing morally, ethically a 'bad thing'? Sure, if your philosophy says so.

Very true. What is 'bad' to an STO entity is right on target for an STS entity.

However, is it polarizing?

All of our choices are polarizing, one way or the other.

I was talking with a friend last night who is a bow Hunter. They buy almost no meat from stores and instead hunt and fish. He only takes what he kills and he only kills what he needs to feed his family. He told me that one day after he had success and while he was starting to clean and process he was attacked by some young individuals who even threw rocks at him even though he was hunting legally, he had only made one kill, and every part of the animal was going to his family for food and other things.

I'm guessing that he is probably ignorant of the fact that he and his family don't need meat. At all.

I also have a lot of first Nations friends who have shared their cultural views that hunting is about respect, about honouring the animal and making use of every part so nothing is wasted.

That was a good way of life for their ancestors, who needed to hunt in order to survive.

We don't.

to the animals who gave of their life

But Aion, they didn't give of their life.

None of them did.

Their lives were TAKEN from them. Stolen. Against their will. Despite their intense struggling.

Stolen.

because I am then acknowledging and accepting the life and death of the animal and acknowledges that I am now a link in the chain of its greater life totality.

You certainly do have that choice, just as any other person who contributes to the demand for killing.

I will accept the responsibility of the killer rather than try to control the catalyst.

Do you mean that you are accepting your part of the responsibility for the killing? Is that what you're saying?

I am learning that sharing doesn't require me to give up my position simply because it is different.

Glad to hear that! But your position isn't different. You are in the majority! It appears that most of B4's members eat animals.

...

[Monica]

if someone kills cows to make leather jackets. the killer is only going to kill more cows if people buy his leather jackets. if the demand is high he will kill even more cows then what he intended too. I find it quite surprising that you would say the people who buy the leather jackets don't contribute too the killing of the cows. If no one bought leather jackets no one would find a need to kill cows for jackets. how can you deny that logic ? there is absolutely no morality in there its pure logic.

aion i also agree that it may or may not be polarizing for the individual but I do know that you could identify the action as STS or STO which is what im doing to clear that up for anyone.

Exactly!

Also I agree that some entities wanted to choose a path of suffering but I highly doubt EVERY entity who experiences suffering wanted too.

And even if they did, is it OUR task to provide that catalyst for them?

That was the task of the STS path! That is the whole point of the STS path. That is how they serve; by providing catalyst.

...

[Monica]

Well the person could give the jackets away, or make them for themselves, or do other things with the leather. However, is there no recognition then for the capacity of the leather jacket to create a lifetime of added warmth to an individual, is that not a service?

For old leather jackets, of course. I recently cleaned out my closet and donated several bags of clothing and old leather shoes. Those cows are long dead so someone might as well wear those shoes.

But I won't be buying any more leather items! The distinction lies in whether we continue to add to the demand for more killing of animals.

If we decide to buy new items to donate to needy people, it's just as easy (and probably cheaper anyway) to buy clothing from other materials, rather than animal body parts.

Again, the focus seem centralized on this fearful idea of killing. I'm not saying killing isn't a horrific thing, but I also have to question why it also appears to be so normal in nature.

Because this planet is a school for juvenile delinquents, remember? It's rather backwards, and quite, as Ra said, bellicose.

...with a strong potentiality to continue to be controlled by STS entities.

That's why.

Every time an animal dies by the hands of a human it is a form of sacrificial blood magic. That energy would normally be picked up by the wise Magician but since those are scarce in society it is picked up by those adepts who are able to draw in and work with scattered energy or at least that would be true if not for the fact that there are groups of negative adepts on the planet which take and direct this energy in to many structures of mental control and impressioning through fear, panic and the like.

Factory farms are massive sacrificial grounds where raw life energy is harvested. Even better is that cognitive dissonance is created so that people feel guilty about it. Once people feel guilty they then will soak up all of that nasty energy like sponges and then started to exhude it themselves, providing a nice steady stream of fear, pain and discomfort to those waiting entities who feed on this energy.

You just described it accurately, except that most of the negative energy is coming from the victims themselves, Not from the people who eat the meat, being that most people who eat those animals don't feel guilt. But yes, it's a massive blood sacrifice ritual!! Do you not see that this is exactly the description of 'black' magick? Ie. STS?

So here we have this massive STS ritual going on, every single day. How can anyone Not see that this is keeping our planet stuck in the muck?

...

[Aion]

To avoid repeating myself ad nauseum I will just say that I've again expressed all I am able to at this point, repeating myself again. My thoughts have been heavily convoluted so I will perhaps attempt clearer communication later. There likely isn't much point, the responses will be the same and my thoughts will be the same. I will just give you all the correctness you so desire and say 'You're right! Ignore me, I'm STS!'

[Diana]

I will just give you all the correctness you so desire and say 'You're right! Ignore me, I'm STS!'

That is a belittling remark, it seems. So anyone who has a different opinion and tries to make a point has to be "right"? 

I for one do not desire correctness, just as I do not have "beliefs." I would say that I desire truth (which evolves), and exploring concepts, and expanding my awareness, which are all counter to the idea of being "correct." I like the idea that when I discuss something I can make myself understood and that I'm heard. When it comes to eating animals, or suffering, as much as I feel compassion for suffering of any kind, I don't see myself as righteous or right or a "saver."

This is a discussion. If you have nothing more to say, perhaps you could hold a little less tightly to your ideas. I say that because that's what I do in these discussions—I recognized early on that I was rigid in my thinking and this is something I endeavor not to be. This dates back to 2011 when I first joined the "in regards to eating meat" thread. I saw that there were many interesting facets to consider from intelligent people. I have tried ever since then to open my mind and consider what others say. I also have reworded and rethought and stretched and restretched my own communication skills to reveal, even to myself, what I have within me to say. So you may be tired of repeating yourself, but from my point of view it can be a good thing to do so.

Some here are under the impression that this is an argument "to win." I don't see it that way. 

[Aion]

I was being facetious, sorry.

[Diana]

It is difficult to convey intent such as facetiousness online. And I hope I got across that I was encouraging you to keep trying. 

[Aion]

Yes, I do recognize your open heart and I do appreciate it. I think for myself I need to assess my purpose for sharing. I wanted to share elements of my alchemical practice in this regard but it is perhaps uninvited and I should wait for someone to inquire.

It is challenging for me to have such views (even being an omnivore I don't have the same philosophy as every other) while feeling that they are not acceptable without giving in to the demands to view it is 'STS'. Instead of arguing I'm just trying to share and listen. When it gets to the point where I feel I need to 'defend' myself, I will end the discussion, as it is no longer a two-way exchange at that point.

As I said, I will attempt to cohere my thoughts and perhaps convey them clearer in the future, but right now I feel the confusion is skewing my communication and I must meditate.

[Jade]

I was browsing session 82 and wanted to address this particular statement, in this thread, that has been given attention:

Keep in mind, without the veil, "The connection with the Creator is that of the umbilical cord. The security is total. Therefore, no love is terribly important; no pain terribly frightening; no effort, therefore, is made to serve for love or to benefit from fear."

Here is the whole quote:

82.22 Questioner: Then since the only possibility at this particular time, as I see it, was a polarization for service to others, I must assume from what you said that even though all were aware of this service-to-others necessity they were unable to achieve it. What was the configuration of mind of the mind/body/spirit complexes at that time? Were they aware of the necessity for the polarization or unaware of it? And if so, why did they have such a difficult time serving others to the extent necessary for graduation since this was the only polarity possible?

Ra: I am Ra. Consider, if you will, the tendency of those who are divinely happy, as you call this distortion, to have little urge to alter or better their condition. Such is the result of the mind/body/spirit which is not complex. There is the possibility of love of other-selves and service to other-selves, but there is the overwhelming awareness of the Creator in the self. The connection with the Creator is that of the umbilical cord. The security is total. Therefore, no love is terribly important; no pain terribly frightening; no effort, therefore, is made to serve for love or to benefit from fear.

Ra is speaking of 3D entities without the veil specifically. Awareness of the Creator is what 2D entities strive to achieve, not where they exist.

84.9 Questioner: Thank you. Going back to the previous session, it was stated that each sexual activity was a transfer before the veil. I am assuming from that that you mean that there was a transfer of energy for each sexual activity before the veil which indicates to me that a transfer doesn’t take place every time. Taking the case before the veil, would you trace the flow of energy that is transferred and tell me if that was the planned activity or a planned transfer by the designing Logos?

Ra: I am Ra. The path of energy transfer before the veiling during the sexual intercourse was that of the two entities possessed of green-ray capability. The awareness of all as Creator is that which opens the green energy center. Thusly there was no possibility of blockage due to the sure knowledge of each by each that each was the Creator. The transfers were weak due to the ease with which such transfers could take place between any two polarized entities during sexual intercourse.

So the question to speculate would be, if an entity achieves 3D awareness on planet Earth as a 2D entity, does a veil fall before their eyes as soon as the awareness is achieved, or do continue to exist without the veil? Does a cow aware of the Creator willingly lay down its life in martyrdom? My speculation would be that, as the veil is the plan of the Logos, that the veil exists upon 3D activation, so with awareness brings confusion. And it is entirely possible for any 2D to become 3D activated while incarnated, as many 3D beings become 4D activated.

[Monica]

Ra is speaking of 3D entities without the veil specifically. Awareness of the Creator is what 2D entities strive to achieve, not where they exist.

Did you mean to say 3D? (the bold one)

So the question to speculate would be, if an entity achieves 3D awareness on planet Earth as a 2D entity, does a veil fall before their eyes as soon as the awareness is achieved, or do continue to exist without the veil?

It makes sense that veiling would coincide with awareness.

Does a cow aware of the Creator willingly lay down its life in martyrdom?

We can see that they don't. They struggle and fight to the end. Thus, it logically follows that, as they have gained self-awareness, they have lost awareness of the Creator. They appear to have become veiled.

My speculation would be that, as the veil is the plan of the Logos, that the veil exists upon 3D activation, so with awareness brings confusion. And it is entirely possible for any 2D to become 3D activated while incarnated, as many 3D beings become 4D activated.

Agreed!

...

[anagogy]

Ra is speaking of 3D entities without the veil specifically. Awareness of the Creator is what 2D entities strive to achieve, not where they exist.

Did you forget the part where Ra says "3rd density is the only plane of forgetting".  Hence, the only plane with the veil?

"Ra: The incarnation pattern of the beginning third-density mind/body/spirit complex begins in darkness, for you may think or consider of your density as one of, as you may say, a sleep and a forgetting. This is the only plane of forgetting. It is necessary for the third-density entity to forget so that the mechanisms of confusion or free will may operate upon the newly individuated consciousness complex."

If we are to take Ra's words as true, it would imply that the animal mind is not complex, and thus its umbilical cord to the creator has not been cut yet.

Furthermore, if an animal does suddenly become yellow ray activated, it has finished its second density training, and is now ready for 3rd density. Guess what happens then? The conditions are summoned such that its incarnation is terminated so that it can reincarnate in a 3rd density physical body and continue its learning. Basically, something shows up to end its life, whether it be some kind of "accident", a predator, some type of bacterial or viral infection, or possibly even a hunter or slaughterhouse. Or an infinity of other ways of exiting incarnation.

[Jade]

   Ra is speaking of 3D entities without the veil specifically. Awareness of the Creator is what 2D entities strive to achieve, not where they exist.

Did you mean to say 3D? (the bold one)

No. When Ra talks about the energy centers, he implies that each activation opens the pathways to the next activation. So, a second density entity would be striving for the awareness of the Creator, and once its activated in third density, it would strive to love all as One. When fourth density is activated, IE open heart, that "catapults" one into being able to use the blue ray. Again, my bolded point, "Awareness of all as the Creator is that which opens the green ray center." So if all second density entities are supposedly aware of the Creator, why are not all second density entities green-ray activated?

Did you forget the part where Ra says "3rd density is the only plane of forgetting".  Hence, the only plane with the veil?

Lack of veil does not mean awareness of all of Creation.

Ra also uses the phrase "mind/body complex" for 2nd density entities.

30.5 Questioner: I would like to know how the mind/body/spirit complexes originate. How, going back as far as necessary, does the— Do they originate by spirit forming mind and mind forming body? Can you tell me this?

Ra: I am Ra. We ask you to consider that you are attempting to trace evolution. This evolution is as we have previously described, the consciousness being first, in first density, without movement, a random thing. Whether you may call this mind or body complex is a semantic problem. We call it mind/body complex recognizing always that in the simplest iota of this complex exists in its entirety the One Infinite Creator; this mind/body complex then in second density discovering the growing and turning towards the light, thus awakening what you may call the spirit complex, that which intensifies the upward spiraling towards the love and light of the Infinite Creator.

The addition of this spirit complex, though apparent rather than real, it having existed potentially from the beginning of space/time, perfects itself by graduation into third density. When the mind/body/spirit complex becomes aware of the possibility of service to self or other-self, then the mind/body/spirit complex is activated.

Furthermore, if an animal does suddenly become yellow ray activated, it has finished its second density training, and is now ready for 3rd density. Guess what happens then? The conditions are summoned such that its incarnation is terminated so that it can reincarnate in a 3rd density physical body and continue its learning. Basically, something shows up to end its life, whether it be some kind of "accident", a predator, some type of bacterial or viral infection, or possibly even a hunter or slaughterhouse. Or an infinity of other ways of exiting incarnation.

I disagree entirely. We don't immediately ascend when we hit 4th density, although it's possible it's very rare. Ra speaks several times of instances where 3rd density consciousness inhabits a second density vehicle.

Maldek:

After this experience of learn/teaching, the group decision was to place upon itself a type of what you may call karma alleviation. For this purpose they came into incarnation within your planetary sphere in what were not acceptable human forms. This then they have been experiencing until the distortions of destruction are replaced by distortions towards the desire for a less distorted vision of service to others. Since this was the conscious decision of the great majority of those beings in the Maldek experience, the transition to this planet began approximately five hundred thousand [500,000] of your years ago and the type of body complex available at that time was used.*.

10.2 Questioner: Was the body complex available at that time what we refer to as the ape type?

Ra: That is correct.

10.3 Questioner: And have any of the Maldek entities transformed now? Are they now still second-density or are they forming some third-density planet now?

Ra: The consciousness of these entities has always been third-density. The alleviation mechanism was designed by the placement of this consciousness in second-dimensional physical chemical complexes which are not able to be dextrous or manipulative to the extent which is appropriate to the workings of the third-density distortions of the mind complex.

Gandalf the cat:

98.6 Questioner: Thank you. The second question is: “Our oldest cat, Gandalf, has a growth near his spine. Is there any factor that makes the surgical removal of this growth less appropriate than the surgical removal of the growth that we had performed a year ago last April, and would the most appropriate actions on our part to aid his recovery be the visualization of light surrounding him during the surgery and the repeating of ritual phrases at periodical intervals while he is at the veterinarians?”

Ra: I am Ra. No. There is no greater cause for caution than previously and, yes, the phrases of which you speak shall aid the entity. Although this entity is in body complex old and, therefore, liable to danger from what you call your anesthetic, its mental, emotional, and spiritual distortions are such that it is strongly motivated to recover that it might once again rejoin the loved one. Keep in mind that this entity is harvestable third density.

104.10 Questioner: I feel very bad about the condition of the cat and really would like to help it. Can Ra suggest anything that we can do to help out Gandalf?

Ra: I am Ra. Yes.

104.11 Questioner: What would that be?

Ra: I am Ra. Firstly, we would suggest that possibility/probability vortices include those in which the entity known as Gandalf has a lengthier incarnation. Secondly, we would suggest that this entity goes to a graduation if it desires. Otherwise, it may choose to reincarnate to be with those companions it has loved. Thirdly, the entity known to you as Betty has the means of making the entity more distorted towards comfort/discomfort.

Here Ra says that Gandalf, a third density harvestable being, can choose again to incarnate as a pet cat to Jim, Carla, and Don if it so desires. So a cessation of a body complex when it becomes 3D viable is hardly automatic.

[anagogy]

Lack of veil does not mean awareness of all of Creation.

I never said that it did.  The veil just clouds memories and awareness of time/space.  Ra has said surface and instinctual behaviors remain largely the same even without the veil.

Here Ra says that Gandalf, a third density harvestable being, can choose again to incarnate as a pet cat to Jim, Carla, and Don if it so desires. So a cessation of a body complex when it becomes 3D viable is hardly automatic.

A pet is an entirely different situation.  A human who loves their pet, and invests that pet with some measure of self awareness, thus allowing it the capacity to reciprocate the devotion will cling to life even though its 2nd density learning is complete.  If there was no attachment as such, its incarnation would come to an end shortly thereafter.  That is my understanding, but I completely understand if you don't agree with it.  Each to our own.

We all have lessons we plan for in our lives, and when the learning is complete, we have an exit programmed into our incarnation to, so we can move onto different lessons.  

[Jade]

I never said that it did.  The veil just clouds memories and awareness of time/space.  Ra has said surface and instinctual behaviors remain largely the same even without the veil.

Well, the quote you referenced refers to third density entities who have no veil, ie those who are aware of the unity of Creation and therefore no love or pain too great, etc. Second density creatures are not all afforded this luxury.

A pet is an entirely different situation.  A human who loves their pet, and invests that pet with some measure of self awareness, thus allowing it the capacity to reciprocate the devotion will cling to life even though its 2nd density learning is complete.  If there was no attachment as such, its incarnation would come to an end shortly thereafter.  That is my understanding, but I completely understand if you don't agree with it.  Each to our own.

We all have lessons we plan for in our lives, and when the learning is complete, we have an exit programmed into our incarnation to, so we can move onto different lessons.  

I'm just curious if your understanding of the situation comes from the Ra material? Of course the material isn't sacrosanct, however it just seems to me a different interpretation than I've come across in my seeking: that a second density entity ceases its incarnation immediately or soon after reaching 3D awareness, and then immediately incarnates into a 3rd density vehicle. I do think that the reincarnation of a pet is a different thing - that cows wouldn't choose to reincarnate again into a slaughterhouse after reaching awareness I would tend to agree, unless they felt a certain kinship with those left behind (entirely likely). But, I personally don't believe that a cow would immediately end its incarnation and jump into a 3D vehicle, as there are plenty of lessons for an early 3rd density entity to continue learning in a second density vehicle.

I just get triggered by the block and justification that it's not likely for cows etc to reach higher states of awareness in a factory farm. Why not? The likelihood of a wild animal, who has no contact with humans but lives its life naturally according to its instincts - there is an animal unlikely to reach 3D awareness anytime soon. But an animal, bred and domesticated by humans for generations, handled every day by humans, investing in them all various different distortions of "love" - I believe these animals are extremely close to awareness. In fact, I think it's definitely why some of them incarnate in that situation - to reach that awareness. But there are many other ways we can afford our second density friends the offering of realization of the spirit, here in this time of harvest.

[Diana]

I interact a lot with wildlife. To minimize their suffering and pain, or resistance to death is wishful thinking. There may be a silent knowledge of, or an underlying connection to, the source of things. But that does not make them in this consciousness amenable to suffering or death. To think a deer who has been hunted and killed is okay with the situation, or a cow forced to live a suffering life so it can be meat for humans okay with its situation, is grasping at straws to justify the way we use animals in my opinion.

Perhaps after this incarnation, one might see that one's suffering contributed to soul evolution. (But let's remember that this is a working theory only, in spite of what one feels is true. We are under the veil, and as such, cannot understand fully what is going on.) Perhaps an animal may have a degree of that knowing after death. But while it is here in this life, its suffering and death, as far as I can tell, is no less traumatic than ours might be. We just may have more drama and attachments to cling to.

Would anyone here think a mentally retarded person's suffering less than yours? I have worked with the mentally retarded (sorry if this isn't the currently politically correct label, but I can't recall the most recent one, maybe mentally challenged but that implies psychological imbalances and I am talking about IQ). I have been around "profoundly" retarded individuals, who were much like wild animals in behavior, with less mental capacity that monkeys or apes or many animals. I worked in a type of institution (which no longer exist) in vocational rehabilitation decades ago, where there were hundreds of these individuals. I would be curious to hear others' opinions on how they compare to animals in the context of perceiving suffering and connection to source. 

[anagogy]

Well, the quote you referenced refers to third density entities who have no veil, ie those who are aware of the unity of Creation and therefore no love or pain too great, etc. Second density creatures are not all afforded this luxury.

I'm just curious if your understanding of the situation comes from the Ra material?

You saying that animals are not afforded this luxury is also not said in Ra material.  

All I know from the Ra material is that 3rd density is the only plane of forgetting.  The only plane with the veil.  So I concluded that animals had no veil.  Ra said the mind that is not complex is divinely happy.  Granted, they referred to "mind/body/spirit", but I don't think it too far a logical stretch to assume that a mind/body would also be divinely happy without the veil either.  The spirit complex adds individualization, self awareness, and will.  Normally, when an animal dies, they withdraw back into a collective consciousness of their species.  After yellow ray activation, that no longer occurs.  

[anagogy]

I interact a lot with wildlife. To minimize their suffering and pain, or resistance to death is wishful thinking. There may be a silent knowledge of, or an underlying connection to, the source of things. But that does not make them in this consciousness amenable to suffering or death. To think a deer who has been hunted and killed is okay with the situation, or a cow forced to live a suffering life so it can be meat for humans okay with its situation, is grasping at straws to justify the way we use animals in my opinion.

Do you not believe all consciousness creates its own reality?  It's fine if you don't, I was just curious.

I don't think a hunted animal is okay with the situation.  Obviously, they try to get away.  But that is the nature of prey and predator.  If they didn't want to play that game, I'm sure they wouldn't incarnate in the first place (or at least incarnate anywhere near humans).  I don't like to lose at monopoly, but I still play it.  Because it's fun to play when you win.  I'm sure you'll think I'm trivializing the death of living things.  And you would be right.  Death is a part of life.  And we only fear it because we don't understand it.

There will always be beings eating other beings.  Life feeds on life.  I wonder what you would say to a 3rd density race of purely carnivorous beings trying to polarize STO.  I'm sure there is probably one out there in the universe somewhere.

I really liked this channeling by Abraham about eating animals:

Perhaps after this incarnation, one might see that one's suffering contributed to soul evolution. (But let's remember that this is a working theory only, in spite of what one feels is true. We are under the veil, and as such, cannot understand fully what is going on.) Perhaps an animal may have a degree of that knowing after death. But while it is here in this life, its suffering and death, as far as I can tell, is no less traumatic than ours might be. We just may have more drama and attachments to cling to.

Would anyone here think a mentally retarded person's suffering less than yours? I have worked with the mentally retarded (sorry if this isn't the currently politically correct label, but I can't recall the most recent one, maybe mentally challenged but that implies psychological imbalances and I am talking about IQ). I have been around "profoundly" retarded individuals, who were much like wild animals in behavior, with less mental capacity that monkeys or apes or many animals. I worked in a type of institution (which no longer exist) in vocational rehabilitation decades ago, where there were hundreds of these individuals. I would be curious to hear others' opinions on how they compare to animals in the context of perceiving suffering and connection to source. 

A mentally retarded human is still 3rd density.  I think their suffering is just different.  I'm sure they still experience plenty of intense 3rd density catalyst.  The pain of wanting to express themselves properly but not having the ability to do so.  Then again, I think it is wholly possible that the profoundly retarded do not have as many filters to perceiving time/space.  So maybe a slight lessening of the veil, but not enough to feel the light of the creator.  

[Aion]

I interact a lot with wildlife. To minimize their suffering and pain, or resistance to death is wishful thinking. There may be a silent knowledge of, or an underlying connection to, the source of things. But that does not make them in this consciousness amenable to suffering or death. To think a deer who has been hunted and killed is okay with the situation, or a cow forced to live a suffering life so it can be meat for humans okay with its situation, is grasping at straws to justify the way we use animals in my opinion.

Perhaps after this incarnation, one might see that one's suffering contributed to soul evolution. (But let's remember that this is a working theory only, in spite of what one feels is true. We are under the veil, and as such, cannot understand fully what is going on.) Perhaps an animal may have a degree of that knowing after death. But while it is here in this life, its suffering and death, as far as I can tell, is no less traumatic than ours might be. We just may have more drama and attachments to cling to.

Would anyone here think a mentally retarded person's suffering less than yours? I have worked with the mentally retarded (sorry if this isn't the currently politically correct label, but I can't recall the most recent one, maybe mentally challenged but that implies psychological imbalances and I am talking about IQ). I have been around "profoundly" retarded individuals, who were much like wild animals in behavior, with less mental capacity that monkeys or apes or many animals. I worked in a type of institution (which no longer exist) in vocational rehabilitation decades ago, where there were hundreds of these individuals. I would be curious to hear others' opinions on how they compare to animals in the context of perceiving suffering and connection to source. 

Do you think a deer shot and killed by a hunter feels differently than a deer being torn apart by a wolf? I can tell you which death is likely quicker and cleaner. What about bow-hunting? Or is technology 'unnatural'? I am genuinely curious of your thoughts on the matter.

[Monica]

Did you forget the part where Ra says "3rd density is the only plane of forgetting".  Hence, the only plane with the veil?

"Ra: The incarnation pattern of the beginning third-density mind/body/spirit complex begins in darkness, for you may think or consider of your density as one of, as you may say, a sleep and a forgetting. This is the only plane of forgetting. It is necessary for the third-density entity to forget so that the mechanisms of confusion or free will may operate upon the newly individuated consciousness complex."

If we are to take Ra's words as true, it would imply that the animal mind is not complex, and thus its umbilical cord to the creator has not been cut yet.  

Furthermore, if an animal does suddenly become yellow ray activated, it has finished its second density training, and is now ready for 3rd density.  Guess what happens then?  The conditions are summoned such that its incarnation is terminated so that it can reincarnate in a 3rd density physical body and continue its learning.  Basically, something shows up to end its life, whether it be some kind of "accident", a predator, some type of bacterial or viral infection, or possibly even a hunter or slaughterhouse.  Or an infinity of other ways of exiting incarnation.

You seem to be referring to certain principles regarding the attributes of a given density found in the preceding density. Here is a related thread:

Bring4th Forums One > The Harvest  v > Green Ray Requirement for Harvest to 4D

I invite you to read this thread in its entirety, and then read it again, but the 2nd time you read it, substitute 2D for 3D, and 3D for 4D. In other words, apply the same concepts of 2D graduating to 3D, as those described for 3D graduating to 4D. The attributes are different, but it stands to reason that the same concepts would apply; ie. that the traits needed for graduation are actually developed in the preceding density, but need to reach a threshold to trigger harvestability.

...

[Diana]

Do you think a deer shot and killed by a hunter feels differently than a deer being torn apart by a wolf? I can tell you which death is likely quicker and cleaner. What about bow-hunting? Or is technology 'unnatural'? I am genuinely curious of your thoughts on the matter.

I know that in some cases predators can be brutal. But so can bow hunting or any hunting be. 

As far as technology, if you want to call bow hunting technology, no, I don't think it's unnatural given humanity's ability to create things. The Internet is not "unnatural" for instance in this context. 

The difference between the predator/prey world and humans hunting is that humans don't need to (as I said with the exception of rare instances such as the Inuit).

This is how I feel about it, though it is fiction:

[Aion]

Do you think a deer shot and killed by a hunter feels differently than a deer being torn apart by a wolf? I can tell you which death is likely quicker and cleaner. What about bow-hunting? Or is technology 'unnatural'? I am genuinely curious of your thoughts on the matter.

I know that in some cases predators can be brutal. But so can bow hunting or any hunting be. 

As far as technology, if you want to call bow hunting technology, no, I don't think it's unnatural given humanity's ability to create things. The Internet is not "unnatural" for instance in this context. 

The difference between the predator/prey world and humans hunting is that humans don't need to (as I said with the exception of rare instances such as the Inuit).

This is how I feel about it, though it is fiction:

Aren't predators brutal more often than not? How else do you kill something with crude weapons like teeth and claws?

So who exactly decides that need or necessity? My problem with most studies is that they make sweeping generalizations about the human body. I just don't believe there is a 'standard' and so any attempt to make a general statement of necessity will be short-sighted. I don't say this to refute the suggestions, just that this is my issue with the apparent science which supposedly 'proves' the lack of necessity.

You see, I am working hard to balance my compassion between humans and animals. I don't think it's as simple as avoidance of harm for myself because I see it that wherever I am avoiding harm in one way I am probably causing it in another. Some here have already decided for themselves which harm is more of a priority to prevent. I am still finding that balance.

The thing is that I feel like I'm supposed to want to avoid harm for the sake of 'evolution', but it doesn't make sense to me to do that unless it is actually something I genuinely feel directed towards of my own volition and the truth is, I don't. Maybe I am truly self-serving, but the fact is that I don't see it as being a genuine service unless it is from the heart and my current philosophy isn't shaped in a way that does that. This, if I was to change simple because I feel I'm 'supposed' to, I think I would lose polarity because I would neither be serving the other genuinely nor serving myself and so there will be no charge.

Maybe in the end I am just an exceptionally self-service individual. I guess it's not so bad being evil.

[Fastidious Emanations]

does not the vegatarian consume the meat of the vegetable?

[Monica]

does not the vegatarian consume the meat of the vegetable?

Plants don't have pain receptors, and No indication of individual self-awareness. They are early 2D. This has been discussed in-depth in several other meat threads.

...

[Aion]

So you think entities only care about the destruction of their bodies if they have pain-receptors? I actually don't believe physical pain in the manner of pain receptors is the only way entities feel pain, so that doesn't exactly conclude for me that it is not.

Fish don't have pain receptors, do they count as plants or animals? Lol

[Monica]

Aren't predators brutal more often than not? How else do you kill something with crude weapons like teeth and claws?

Yes they are. But they have No choice. They must hunt for survival. We do have choice, and we don't need to kill animals for survival.

So who exactly decides that need or necessity?

It's a simple matter of survival vs "liking the taste of bacon."

My problem with most studies is that they make sweeping generalizations about the human body. I just don't believe there is a 'standard' and so any attempt to make a general statement of necessity will be short-sighted. I don't say this to refute the suggestions, just that this is my issue with the apparent science which supposedly 'proves' the lack of necessity.

It's just simple chemistry. All foods have nutrients. It is a known fact which nutrients are required by the human body. All nutrients needed by the human body are found in plants, except B12, which is synthesized in the human gut by bacteria found in dirt. So vegans can either eat dirty vegetables OR wash them and take a cheap B12 supplement. No generalizations here at all. The human body doesn't need meat or dairy. This is irrefutably proven by science.

Some people might think they need meat and/or dairy, but biologically, they don't.

You see, I am working hard to balance my compassion between humans and animals. I don't think it's as simple as avoidance of harm for myself because I see it that wherever I am avoiding harm in one way I am probably causing it in another. Some here have already decided for themselves which harm is more of a priority to prevent. I am still finding that balance.

Going vegan doesn't just help animals. It helps the person because it's healthier. Statistically, vegans have a much lower risk of cancer, diabetes, heart disease, stroke, obesity, etc. So it definitely serves self to go vegan. Many people switch to a plant-based diet for selfish reasons: they want the health benefits.

Going vegan also helps the plants, because it takes an enormous amount of plant food to feed farm animals. So anyone who cares about plants can do less harm by going vegan.

Going vegan helps the planet, because the meat/dairy industry is the single largest contributor to destroying the planet through deforestation, greenhouse gases and other pollutants. Plus water shortage: For example, in California, during this drought, half of the water usage is in the meat/dairy industry.

Going vegan can also help end world hunger because all that food that was being fed to the farm animals can feed starving children instead.

So...going vegan helps self, animals, plants, people, and the planet.

That sounds like a win-win-win-win-win to me!

The thing is that I feel like I'm supposed to want to avoid harm for the sake of 'evolution', but it doesn't make sense to me to do that unless it is actually something I genuinely feel directed towards of my own volition and the truth is, I don't. Maybe I am truly self-serving, but the fact is that I don't see it as being a genuine service unless it is from the heart and my current philosophy isn't shaped in a way that does that. This, if I was to change simple because I feel I'm 'supposed' to, I think I would lose polarity because I would neither be serving the other genuinely nor serving myself and so there will be no charge.

Doing something just to polarize won't help one polarize and might even cause one to polarize in the opposite direction.

I understand your dilemma and don't have an answer for you, other than to suggest pondering this:

We are in the density of Choice. Each of us is the Event Horizon. When we make a Choice, the Universe will rearrange itself to accommodate our Choice.

Choice is the first step!

Maybe in the end I am just an exceptionally self-service individual. I guess it's not so bad being evil.

You're here, and seem to be struggling with this issue. If you were truly evil, I don't think you'd even be having this conversation.  

...