The Upcoming Apocalypse - As Described in Law of One / Confederation Entities

[Diana]

I don't mean to take away from the notion that a plant-based diet entails, in general, less suffering, but I feel it's important to point out that plants are living, second density entities as well.

Yes, very true. However, there are countless posts (I will post one below) on these forums that point out the differences between plant and animal life, if it matters to anyone how much suffering is caused.

The way I see it, third density was very deliberately designed so that pain is unavoidable. This is so to a point where complex life doesn't seem to be able to exist without sustaining itself at the expense of other life forms. I believe the intention of this was to make both polarities look viable. Those who want to embrace the STS side have plenty of "objective proof" to believe in the notion of survival of the fittest, whereas those of the STO path have their own things to look at when pointing out the importance of compassion and love. Both paths have to seem viable to one who has not yet made the choice.

Making both polarities available is for 3rd density beings only. So why cause pain to other life forms? I think we have enough pain to go around for humans only to satisfy polarity concerns. This is what we know: animals have nervous systems like we do so we know they feel pain; plants do not have nervous systems like we do. More below.

I don't believe absolute compassion becomes automatic upon entering fourth density. I think that point is reached more towards the end of that density. Ra saying that early 4th density entities still believe in battling negative entities seems to imply a lack of compassion at least for those of the negative path; a compassion that is learned as the social memory complex further learns the intricacies of love. The eating habits of 4th density might be a reflection of the same thing. Whether they eat (as Ra says) with "increased communion between entity and living foodstuff", they are still existing at the expense of other lifeforms, it would seem. Moving towards the producing of the 5th density broth that Ra told us about, thus being able to sustain oneself completely, without doing so at the expense of other lifeforms (very much like those yogis which seem to sustain themselves exclusively from the energy they get meditating, if we believe in that), might just be the product of having fully learned the lessons of love, I'm thinking.

So are you okay with just waiting around through countless incarnations to get to the end of 4th density when you can finally be compassionate?

For my part, I care about not causing needless suffering. I care about other life forms. I must eat at this point, and it seems to me, from any angle you approach it, plant-based is better than animal-based when it comes to compassion, health, the environment, starvation, and so on.

Here is one of the first posts I made here in 2011, now relegated to a closed thread. There are many better posts made on the subject explaining all sorts of stats and details and knowledge about plants and animals. This one was easy for me to dig up:

Clordio Wrote:  
I am very conflicted on the issue of eating meat I would very much like to begin a dialogue as to why one should not or should be able to consume meat.

Diana Wrote:  
I would like to respond to your inquiries about eating meat, and your observation that plants have life which should be respected too.

I agree that all life should be respected. Then, the problem remains, as we exist in 3-D and must consume food until we evolve to something higher, what do we eat?

An animal has a strong instinct for survival, even when hunted in a natural environment. It experiences terror when chased by predators. This fear is only a fraction of what farm animals feel when taken to slaughter because they are trapped and cannot even run. Just considering the physical results of this fear and terror--release of hormones, adrenaline, fight-or-fight response--it is unwise to consume the meat as you will be ingesting these hormones too, which the animal's body has manufactured. Also, you cannot cut a leg off an animal without killing it.

You can, however, prune a plant and cut off leaves without killing it. You can harvest vegetables without killing the plant. Many plants "want" animals to eat them as it is their way of spreading seed and propagating. Fruit falls off trees, vines, and bushes to be eaten by animals so that the seeds can be spread. It seems obvious that it is less cruel to consume the life force from plants, rather than animals.

I agree with one of the posts here, that the Native American way of thanking the animal ceremonially is best if one has to consume meat. But does anyone HAVE to eat meat? Why not touch the world more lightly, more gently, and be healthier in the process?

You might think of the issue this way:

Imagine the most Utopian future world you can. What would it be like? Perhaps at that point consuming anything but air and sunlight would be all we need? Draw a straight line from where we are now to that future world. Now start taking steps along that line.

It can also be noted that plants are more akin to light, since photosynthesis is how they survive. So if one considers the ambrosia Ra speaks of, which to me is some kind of liquid light, then plants, rather than animals would be much closer to it, possibly rendering certain benefits to do with light. This, as opposed to eating dead animals or the dairy products obtained by suffering and torture (unless you are out in the backyard milking your own cow—but even then, her milk is for her offspring).