Why I am not a vegan

[Diana]

The increase in plant death by eating meat is a good point for those that wish to decrease death.

On the other hand, I'm not sure it's effective to really guilt trip people into stopping eat meat. I mean at this point I think most of the regular members here are well aware of the arguments for and against in general.

Let's have understanding that
(1) not eating meat tends to reduce somewhat your dining out choices. meat eating is a central part of most cultures and there is difficulty in stopping eating meat from that perspective
(2) not eating meat takes effort. people have an innate tendency to only take action when they could take complete action - you hear this in many forms in that not eating meat won't change animal cruelty, or that means that they'd stop having to have leather or silk. There's resistance to incremental change. I know for myself I welcome incremental change: I don't eat meat for animal rights reasons, but I do eat diary and occasionally eggs and whole take some effort to buy humane and local produce I don't go out of my way to do so. I also try to avoid leather and silk, but I don't go out of my way too much if I can't find non leather dress shoes for example. Some may me a hypocrite, but I have compassion and understanding for myself and others that full change does not occur overnight. I'm 100% ok with incremental change myself.
(3) let's face it, meat does taste good.

It can seem psychologically very difficult to give up meat. A lot of the discussion on this board involves overintellectualization of philosophy and spiritual concepts. It's not until you've actually tried them out can ones perspective be more complete. The seemingly fact that many people who give their opinion on vegan/vegetarian issues have not even tried month long vegetarianism is proof of this phenomenon. Which is fine, but it's like trying to talk intelligently about meditation and about why it is or isn't for you after only trying to meditate a few times over several days. Experience just doesn't work that way.

P.s. I'm totally ok with people eating meat. I can get it's just a hard or undesirable thing to give up. I've been there myself when I had a gluten allergy - take our bread and I felt there were too few dietary options for me so I went back to eating meat. But I've now been veg for 2.5 years and it's been fun.

You make some very excellent points, Xise.

The only times I ever discuss being vegetarian is when I am asked about it, and then I (incrementally ) give my reasons according to whom I'm talking to and what they may be curious about. It is never my intention to provoke guilt at all, as I know very well that the guilt will cause defensiveness which will create a bigger block to listening to anything I have to say.

The exception has been here, at B4. Discussing this subject here seems appropriate. I respond to a thread question or statement, in this venue with members who presumably have at least some interest in evolving and/or exploring spirituality.

For my own part, I will admit to a degree of vehemence beyond what is called for in this venue. I think it's because 1) I hold so much at bay on the subject going through life, and 2) It's so hard to be in this world of suffering when one has reached the place of empathy and compassion for all life.

So I want to apologize to everyone here for whatever bad feelings my words have generated. But I will still reserve the right to express here and be authentic, knowing that my words are not always perfectly expressed.

The thing is, what would any of you B4 members do, if in your own country, on a daily and wide-spread basis, children or just people were being tortured and killed for unnecessary reasons? Could you accept this and not say anything because it is the free will and right of the 3D beings? At what point would any of you want to speak out in some way? That is my dilemma. I am very sensitive to feelings from all beings. I can tell you for sure that the animal kingdom is suffering because of humans. I do what I can in my own life. Much the same way you do, Xise. At some point it becomes impossible to be on top of everything and life goes out of balance if one is worried about breathing in microbes or stepping on tiny insect one can't even see are there.

I can go along in life keeping a lot of things at bay, which for me is a necessity being here. I'm not a buddha who can be here in unconditional acceptance of all. But when I do on occasion focus on one of the things I keep at bay, my heart breaks and I want to say something in defense of what I deem the innocents. Perhaps the animal kingdom did agree to be a party to human learning; and this makes sense from a larger perspective. If so, they are greater beings than we can even imagine, to sacrifice themselves in this way so we can become aware.

---

We accept suffering and cruelty as important catalyst in our own lives in order to evolve and grow in understanding. Who are we to deny the privilege of pain and suffering to other creatures?

We are (prsumably) STO beings, that's who. Yes, suffering and cruelty do serve a purpose here, on this school for juvenile delinquents. This is one of the harsher planets, apparently. But it is in our job description to develop compassion and serve others. (That's why it's called STO!)

STS entities serve a purpose too. It is their task to inflict pain, suffering, fear and domination.

Using the lettuce analogy, sure you can regrow plants from cuttings and perhaps it is the same soul, able to exist in different bodies. Isn't that what we all are?

My understanding from the Law of One is that the consciousness of plants is not yet differentiated into individual souls, with the exception of some ancient trees who have developed sentience.

That is the crux of the argument. Plants are 2D and once they develop self-awareness, that is the criteria for graduation into 3D. 2D is a veeeeeeeerrrrrry long density! At the very end of 2D are the ancient trees and higher 2D entities - animals!

So in the case of plants, there isn't yet an individual soul to reincarnate. It's a group consciousness; ie. the entire lettuce kingdom is aware, but an individual lettuce isn't. Think of the hairs on your head.

So yes, of course tests show a consciousness. There is definitely a consciousness. But it isn't an individual consciousness.

Now, think about this: What kind of monster evil Logos would design a system in which each blade of grass could feel pain and fear, but could do nothing about it? That would mean the whole planet is in constant pain from all the humans and animals walking on the grass! That seems obscene to me.

It is reasonable to understand that if an individual consciousness had reached the point of sentience, then it would no longer incarnate into a plant which cannot move, but into a body suitable for its development: an animal body which can run, fly or swim away from danger, in order to preserve its individual self.

When a cow is murdered, i'm sure it's soul or conciousness will go where it needs too- whether another new body of a cow or perhaps now even 'graduated' to our density thanks to our help.

Sure. Does that mean we should help murder it?

At the end of the day, there will never be proof either way because the nature of conciousness itself can't allow it. We don't know what plants, animals, or even other humans really perceive.

But that's not true. We already have plenty of proof that animals feel pain, fear and other emotions, just like we do.

We don't yet know about plants, but we already know, most definitely, about animals.

That is the whole point of the vegan side of the debate. Why knowingly support the pain and killing of beings whom we know feel pain, just because plants might also feel pain?

That makes no sense whatsoever. It makes even less sense when one takes into consideration what Jade just said - there is a 97% increase in plant death by eating animals. That is the epitome of unreasonable!

---

I agree there is differentiation in awareness and self-consciousness but I have a hard time thinking of it in terms of "less" or "more".

No one is suggesting less or more. It's not about assigning a value. It's about whether there is individual sentience. This is important because it is a clue as to whether the entity was designed to nourish other entities, or was it designed as an individual who chooses to run, fly or swim away from other entities. I submit that the designers of this planet are smarter than we are and had a reason for designing the bodies as they did.

A simple, logical, reasonable design: Entities that are individually sentient incarnate into bodies that can run, fly or swim. It's quite reasonable if you think about it.

Touche Monica. Very well put.