A Friendly Conversation: Exploring Omnivorous vs. Vegetarian Diet

[Diana]

With the opening of the Health and Diet forum, we also re-open the temporarily closed discussion titled, In Regards to Eating Meat.

However, the discussion will take place in the course of a new thread, titled, A Friendly Conversation: Exploring Omnivorous vs. Vegetarian Diet. The old thread, In Regards to Eating Meat will remain closed and archived for reference purposes.

Although I respect the B4 admin's point of view regarding this subject, I think this direction is a well-meant mistake. For any conflict to resolve itself, it must surface. To sugarcoat it only puts a frozen sheet of ice over the lake of conflict.

I feel it needs to be said that attempts to control in this manner not only violate free will (bearing in mind that guidelines be respected), but also undermine resolution.

-----REVIEW-----
Those of vegetarian orientation have a conviction. Their conviction is, *in general*, that it is better not to consume or slaughter animal flesh, and not to contribute the self's personal energies to the system of that consumption..

Much in the way that most if not all of us feel that compassion is more evolved than hatred, humility more evolved than pride, spiritual seeking more evolved than dogmatic religious indoctrination, and iPods more evolved than 8-tracks, the vegetarians' is an unbending certainty that the path of vegetarianism is more evolved than the path of meat eating. The vegetarians' reasons rest principally on the compassion they feel for the suffering of second-density creatures, along with the benefits they feel that vegetarianism brings for the health of the planet’s biosphere and the health of individuals, among perhaps other reasons.

Those of vegetarian seeking wouldn’t be following this understanding and making it their way of life and communicating so passionately if they didn’t feel it was a higher path. When a conviction is felt and perceived so strongly that one dedicates ones life to its principles, then one feels it be the best choice for the self.

For my part as a vegetarian, I would like to address this review as inaccurate in some ways.

The above language implies an activist stance. I am not an activist, nor have I dedicated my life to this. I simply have evolved past the animal predator/prey need/want for animal flesh. I have evolved to the point where respect of all life--not just human--has permeated my being and influenced every choice I make, not as a choice-by-choice consideration, rather, as a way of life. In saying I have evolved, the implication is that others have not, and in a sense, I suppose this is a real implication. But I do not intend it this way.

Also, I do not think it is the best choice for my "self." This is too focused on "self." The focus on self has created nearly all of humankind's problems (and the problems on this planet). The cessation of meat-eating and the industries which produce it is certainly better for the animal kingdom, it is better for the planet and its resources, it is better for the humans starving in the world, it is better for the evolution to higher consciousness (in my opinion) and on and on. I never made the decision to stop eating meat because it was better for me. I have benefitted from it, but it was never a motivation.

Rather than say it is the best choice for the "self," it would be more accurate to say it is the best choice for "other-selves." For example, if one watches a slaughterhouse video, what is one feeling and thinking? I can only imagine that one is thinking/feeling compassion for the other-self suffering and the results within self from that awareness.

This speaks to a fundamental difference of perspective which surfaced in the "meat thread." For some, free will is the overriding issue, and it can be argued that in 3D it is, regardless of how far self-indulgence takes it. For others, free will is only one channel of experience here, and in addition to this channel is the inclusion of the consideration of other life forms also here, not just the 3D humans (and other 3D creatures such as dolphins).

The use of the shorthand “vegetarians” and “meat-eaters” can save time, but the trap of this is that one loses the distinction between the label and the entity, the entity which is the Creator and perfect as he/she is.

Everything is debatable. All things may be questioned. Are we all perfect as is? Why assume this as fact? Because someone channeled it, or a book expounded it? I am not saying it isn't an ultimate universal truth; I only bring up the idea that everything is a working theory. Even so-called facts can change in an evolving universe.

All is well as is? A universe created around experiences of suffering may be questioned. I question it. Arguments can be made in favor of embracing the shadow; but what is the purpose of this? . . . to bring it into the light. This suggests that light is the evolutionary path. So why wallow in the darkness of self-propelling free will? Why not reach further along the evolutionary path?