Did Entities Eat Meat Before The Veil ?

[upensmoke]

To all those who believed that entities ate meat before the veil, could you explain to me how killing the animal didn't infringe upon their free will?. Considering there was no STS before the veil, their meat eating I assume, was done in a way that allowed them to not infringe on the free will of the animals. I can't see an act of killing were the entity resist that can result in free will not being violated. can someone provide an example please and thanks

[Aion]

Who says eating meat always came with killing? Entities do die for other reasons too.

Also, I've noticed that when asked, Ra said that nothing Carla ingested affected her abilities to channel except smoking marijuana. This tells me that eating some meat didn't affect her purity of service towards others and Ra even suggested she eat some to keep up her vital energy for the sessions.

I just don't see how Ra can make such statements if their actual philosophy is abstinence. Wouldn't they have mentioned if it negatively affected her polarization or the purity of the contact?

It just seems like some people are putting words in Ra's mouth. Also, technically neither polarity truly existed until the veil came in because a polarity is a duality so until both sides are apparent it's not a polarity.

[upensmoke]

Who says eating meat always came with killing? Entities do die for other reasons too.

Lol i have thought that they could have practice the act  of only eat animals that die of old age to preserve free will. Aside from that i can't think of any other way. I just assumed people would specify such info in their answer, if they believed the meat eating went down in such a specific manner that didn't include killing. Can someone give me examples 

Also, I've noticed that when asked, Ra said that nothing Carla ingested affected her abilities to channel except smoking marijuana. This tells me that eating some meat didn't affect her purity of service towards others and Ra even suggested she eat some to keep up her vital energy for the sessions.

Don't you feel you extrapolated a lot from one thing. eating meat doesn't effect her ability to channel.  why would a STO or STS act effect her channeling abilities. STS individuals can channel as well its not a STO thing. also i believe Ra wouldn't be biased and not answer a STS entity who had the ability to call him

I just don't see how Ra can make such statements if their actual philosophy is abstinence. Wouldn't they have mentioned if it negatively affected her polarization or the purity of the contact?

How does abstinence play into this thread?   
Also i believe that Ra wouldn't mention if it affected her polarity negatively unless she asked because of the law of confusion and to preserve free will. I remember Ra wouldn't suggest anything to them, he would just answer questions.

It just seems like some people are putting words in Ra's mouth. Also, technically neither polarity truly existed until the veil came in because a polarity is a duality so until both sides are apparent it's not a polarity.

I believe Ra said that STO polarization was possible when their was no veil so if it was possbile how can you say it didn't exist?

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.

 What i got from this qoute is that things were so awesome, people were so divinely happy as we call it that they rarely if ever decided to choose STO or STS in 3d. I'll look for the quote at some point, but i think i remember Ra saying the entities still progressed to 4d and so on when there was no veil. The problem was that it was incredible slow compared to when the veil is in place. Can someone correct me if im wrong.

[Aion]

Well, because Ra is narrow-band and had to blend their own distortions with Carla's. This suggests to me that Carla also had to be close enough to Ra's distortion for them to be able to accommodate the transfer. They mention numerous times that the unique efficiency of the channeling group was due to their intense dedication towards service to others, especially in regards to eachother and in their seeking of the Law of One. So I absolutely feel that the orientation and polarity of the individuals in the group would play a role in the ability to channel Ra.

Abstinence meaning refraining from a behaviour.

Both polarities were possible before the veil. The Logos had it in its plan from the start and the potential was always there. The veil just brought in to sharp awareness what was already latent. Maybe there were no harvestable entities of service to self, but that doesn't mean service to self polarity didn't exist at all. It may have just been so subtle as to be unnoticed until the amplifications of catalyst via the veil.

You're right, it wasn't accurate to say they didn't exist, more to say that it was 'monochrome' in the way Ra suggests with more primitive tribes.

[tamaryn]

In the literal historical Eden, they did not eat themselves. That would be so ....

[Monica]

Im just curious as to what the individuals on this forum think about the diet of our ancestors before the veil when there was no STS. 

Did they eat meat & why do you think so? Did they not eat meat & why do you think that?

Thanks you to any who reply.

Intriguing question. Ra was never explicitly asked that, so all we can do is speculate.

(By the way, I am just now reading this thread and answering before reading all the other posts. )

We do know that the ape body was used as the template for the human body. I wasn't able to locate the exact quote, but I remember something about Ra using the ape body and then just tweaking it a bit before depositing all those souls from other planets who had failed to graduate and needed to repeat 3D. So Ra used the ape body as the basic hardware, but upgraded it a bit to accommodate more advanced software, to put it simply.

That should tell us a great deal. Apes normally don't eat meat. They are primarily vegan - mostly greens and fruit - except for a few bugs that happen to be caught in the leaves and thus get eaten accidentally.

However, they have been known to catch small rodents and eat them, but only under duress. In other words, they are essentially vegan, except when they are in a desperate situation, and then resort to eating meat. Their normal diet is vegan except for some bugs.

The human body is physiologically most similar to the apes, for obvious reasons. So it makes sense to conclude that the designers of this 3D 'school for juvenile delinquents' may have assumed that the humans would continue to eat the same diet that their physical ancestors - the apes - did.

I remember a quote where Ra seemed to indicate that they hadn't planned for all the violence. This 1-room schoolhouse of students from many various planets was a grand experiment! So maybe they didn't plan for the humans to behave like wolves and hunt prey and eat bloody carcasses either.

But the humans discovered fire, and because of the opposing thumb, built tools as well as weapons. I think I remember Ra saying that this basically set the stage for violence, including wide-scale wars. Yet we know that Mars and Maldek were also violent, in fact extremely violent to the point that they destroyed themselves and even their planet! Did Ra ever talk about what kind of physical vehicle they had on Mars and Maldek? Was it bipedal with opposing thumbs also?

So the real question isn't whether our ancestors here on Earth ate meat, but whether our 'soul' ancestors on Mars and Maldek ate meat!

Ra, on Venus, had a very peaceful society. This leads me to believe there is No way they could have killed animals for food. That just doesn't jive with the idea of a peaceful society.

My conclusion is that the question of early humans on Earth eating meat or not really does deeper, back to before they were even on Earth.

And, you say 'before the veil' - well were there even humans here before the veil? Or did the veil start at the same time the humans were put here? Was there even a time when 3D entities were here before getting veiled? I know they were, on other planets, but were there unveiled humans here? (I don't have time right now to search for this in the Material, so I'm just going by memory and I don't remember.)

Folklore and myths speak of a 'Garden of Eden' ie. perfect existence, before the 'fall' which is the veil. The same myth can be found in many cultures, Not just the bible, so there must be something to that. The assumption seems to be that this planet had this beautiful, perfect, idyllic reality, but I wonder if maybe they were actually remembering a reality before they were brought to Earth and veiled?

...

[Monica]

Who says eating meat always came with killing? Entities do die for other reasons too.

Then the real question has to do with killing animals for meat, Not eating roadkill.

Also, I've noticed that when asked, Ra said that nothing Carla ingested affected her abilities to channel except smoking marijuana. This tells me that eating some meat didn't affect her purity of service towards others

Here's the quote:

19.22 Questioner: I just have two little questions here at the end. The instrument wanted me to ask if there was any other substances, foods, etc., that she should not eat or drink, or anything she should not do because she does not wish to have poor contact for any reason.
Ra: I am Ra. There is no activity which this instrument engages in which affects its abilities negatively. There is one activity which affects its abilities positively. This is the sexual activity, as you would call it. There are substances ingested which do not aid the individual in the service it has chosen, this being that which you would call the marijuana. This is due to the distortion towards chemical lapses within the mind complex causing lack of synaptic continuity. This is a chemical reaction of short duration. This instrument, however, has not used this particular substance at any time while performing this service. We believe we have covered the use of such chemical agents as LSD, this being positive to a certain extent due to the energizing or speeding up of the vital forces. However, it is not recommended for this instrument due to the toll it takes upon the vital energies once the substance wears off, this being true of any speeding-up chemical.

If you read it carefully, you will see that nowhere did Ra say anything about Carla's 'purity of service to others.' That's Not what the question was about. Don specifically asked if there was anything that would affect the CONTACT. Ra always answered questions directly and rarely offered extraneous information. Ra answered Don's question. Don never asked if anything in Carla's diet affected her polarity of her 'purity of service to others.'

and Ra even suggested she eat some to keep up her vital energy for the sessions.

This has been discussed ad nauseum. Ra worked with Carla where she was at. Even then, Ra put limits and said 'occasional' ingestion of meat. I don't think Ra meant bacon for breakfast, lunch at McDonald's, and chicken for dinner every day.

:idea: It just occurred to me that, if anything, Ra was trying to subtlely suggest to Carla that she reduce her meat intake. Back in the early 80s, it was common for most Americans to eat meat 2-3 times a day, so Carla likely did too. Rather than using this quote to try to prove that Ra somehow approved of Carla eating meat, why not try looking at it another way: Maybe Ra was actually trying to suggest to Carla that the limit her meat to only occasional? That would have been a major shift for someone who was accustomed to eating it every day, 2-3 times per day.

Carla had myriad health challenges. She already ate meat. I think Ra accepted her where she was at, and answered the question using what Carla was already doing - eating meat. Given her existing diet, occasional meat was enough to keep up her vital energy. There's No question that meat is very dense. Had Carla been drinking wheatgrass shots and green smoothies 3 times a day, and other nutrient-dense, intensely nutritious plant foods, that would have been more than sufficient to keep up her vital energy. Plant foods have much more vital energy than dead animal flesh! But Carla didn't have that sort of diet and Ra was very careful to only answer direct questions, never volunteering additional information nor making any suggestions that would have impeded their own individual process of unfolding. Ra didn't tell Carla what to do with her medical condition, either, did they? Surely there is much that Ra could have said, but they didn't. Why? Because they accepted Carla where she was at.

I just don't see how Ra can make such statements if their actual philosophy is abstinence. Wouldn't they have mentioned if it negatively affected her polarization or the purity of the contact?

Do you think that Don, Jim or Carla EVER lost their temper? Did they ever think a negative thought? Did they ever act in a way that was less than exemplary?

They were, surely, all 3 very beautiful souls, focused enough in their dedication to service to allow the Ra contact to come through. But they all still had their own issues and human failings, just like the rest of us. Did Ra point out to them every time they had an impure thought or fell short of their ideals? No, Ra never did that.

Ra's objective was to disseminate higher concepts - the Law of One. Ra never took on the task of analyzing those 3 individuals in terms of their daily actions and lifestyle choices. Wanderers or not, they were all living in 3D bodies, veiled, and Ra knew that.

It just seems like some people are putting words in Ra's mouth.

This is precisely why I quoted Ra, above, so that we can all see what Ra actually said. Ra never said anything about Carla's 'purity of service to others.' At least not in that exchange, in regards to her diet or lifestyle.

Also, technically neither polarity truly existed until the veil came in because a polarity is a duality so until both sides are apparent it's not a polarity.

Not sure how you got that. Only 3D is veiled, yet polarity exists until mid 6D. Polarity exists without the veil.

...

[Monica]

You also have to think about it in terms of: how far do you want to take this not having the veil thing?  What I mean is: say there is no veil, and humans were vegan, at what point does it become "against the instinctual nature of 3rd density" to eat a conscious life-form?  There are many 2nd density beings, and 1st density minerals.  Trees are late 2nd density beings, which may become enspirited and gain self aware characteristics.  At which point does a given point of consciousness attain a degree of consciousness sufficient that it would not be eaten by a self aware entity?  

I mean, what about bugs?  Is it okay to eat bugs?  Bacteria?  Fish?  Could a vegetable gain sentience?  Interesting questions.  

My opinion: 2nd density beings on the lower end of the spectrum were still ingested to an extent.    

Those are all very good questions!

My theory is that wild animals are, for the most part, developing sentience, and when one of them gets separated from the flock or herd and caught and killed by a predator, that jolts them info full-blown self-awareness, and never again are they operating solely on instinct. (Though some vestiges of instinct may remain.)

This brings us to a deeper question: These wild animals aren't veiled, and yet they still kill one another. They have No choice but do it for survival. A lion isn't being cruel when he kills a deer. He is behaving the way he was designed to. Why? Why was this reality designed this way in the first place?

I don't know the answer to that but sure would like to ask the Logos someday.

In the meantime, what we do know is that WE are evolved enough to at least somewhat understand this stuff. We aren't lions in the wild.

Getting back to the topic of this thread, the question is: What were our human ancestors like? Did they make conscious choices like we do? Or did they lose some of their ability for understanding higher concepts when they got veiled? Did they just continue on, with the same consciousness they had on Mars or Maldek or wherever they came from, or did they lost progress and backslide into cavemen, barely more evolved than apes?

Or, and now here's a wild idea: Did they actually backslide lower in consciousness than apes? I mean, think about it: Apes are mostly vegan. The Mars/Maldek/etc. souls just came from a very bloody planetary annihilation. They were accustomed to violence! So did they take the peaceful, vegan ape body and turn it into a hunter/predator?? :idea:

Evolutionists think in terms of only physical evolution. But we know that's Not how it works. We know that 3D souls, who had already experienced many lifetimes as beings similar to us, were stuck here on this planet, and just used the existing ape body. So we have this barbaric, violent group of juvenile delinquents basically bringing all their garbage with them to this planet! No wonder the planet is in such a mess now!

...

[Monica]

these seem to point towards the veil being a third density phenomenon.

I think it's more than that. I think it's an Earth phenomenon. Other 3D realities aren't veiled.

...

[The_Tired_Philosopher]

these seem to point towards the veil being a third density phenomenon.

I think it's more than that. I think it's an Earth phenomenon. Other 3D realities aren't veiled.

...

I think it's give-or-take, some are veiled, others aren't.  But this is a purely speculative assumption, I do not recall Ra ever mentioning such beyond the Sirius civilization which I don't recall if Ra said they were veiled or not, just that they operated at higher mental frequencies akin to meditation and already formulated Social Memory Complexes in 3D, to the point of being able to come together to build a space-ship with stasis-like capabilities (sleep chambers?) that allowed them to travel to Earth, float via EMF manipulation via thought and such.

[Monica]

Well, because Ra is narrow-band and had to blend their own distortions with Carla's.

I wish I could find that old thread, in which a B4 member, Tenet Nosce, proposed a radically different interpretation of what Ra meant by 'narrow-band contact.' Tenet completely blew my mind with the audaciousness of his interpretation! The idea had never occurred to me before! Which was that, rather than being very focused in its objective of channeling only the highest of concepts, as I had thought Ra meant by 'narrow-band', Tenet suggested that Carla's challenging of Ra in the name of Christ and her devotion to the bible, were actually limitations imposed on Ra, which actually may have distorted the contact.

I found this idea very radical, but worth considering.

I don't think the contact got distorted, but it may have been limited, which is an different thing entirely, but still affected the end result.

Both polarities were possible before the veil.

Polarity has nothing to do with the veil. Polarity existed before the veil and exists after the veil. The veil just affects our ability to polarize, not polarity itself.

...

[Aion]

Well, these are all interpretations and speculations anyways... I think I've offered all the thoughts I have available to the subject. I think that's an interesting thought, although now off-topic.

I had more, but I don't feel it's needed in this thread.

[anagogy]

To all those who believed that entities ate meat before the veil, could you explain to me how killing the animal didn't infringe upon their free will?. Considering there was no STS before the veil, their meat eating I assume, was done in a way that allowed them to not infringe on the free will of the animals. I can't see an act of killing were the entity resist that can result in free will not being violated. can someone provide an example please and thanks

At any point in time, there are a number of beings at the end of their life cycle. They are ready to return to spirit, and then reincarnate in a new body. They must leave their physical complexes in some way. This could happen in a variety of ways: bacterial infection, viral infection, old age, or they could be released by the actions on their physical vehicle by another physical vehicle (hunters, and other predators).

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."

[AnthroHeart]

It's easy to have total security even behind a veil when nothing really bad ever happens.

[Plenum]

17 Posts were split into a new thread:

[split] The Symbol of the Bible

[Diana]

To all those who believed that entities ate meat before the veil, could you explain to me how killing the animal didn't infringe upon their free will?. Considering there was no STS before the veil, their meat eating I assume, was done in a way that allowed them to not infringe on the free will of the animals. I can't see an act of killing were the entity resist that can result in free will not being violated. can someone provide an example please and thanks

At any point in time, there are a number of beings at the end of their life cycle.  They are ready to return to spirit, and then reincarnate in a new body.  They must leave their physical complexes in some way.  This could happen in a variety of ways: bacterial infection, viral infection, old age, or they could be released by the actions on their physical vehicle by another physical vehicle (hunters, and other predators).

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."

The natural predator/prey world is one thing. I don't like it, and I hope it evolves to something with less suffering (being eaten, vigilant, and hungry). But it is an ecosystem that balances itself.

Humankind does not fit into this ecosystem. Humankind unbalances it. (Not to mention destroys it.) I think the creation of this "experiment" here sucks. I wouldn't mind it as much if humans only hurt humans, as there is a collective desire/responsibility.

If there was meat eating "before the veil" then I would say the humans were as animals—late 2D—like chimpanzees. Otherwise, if humans were like us now with our capacity to think, perceive, and feel, then no, they did not eat meat. Unless they lived in places such as Alaska where there is no viable vegetation, they did not have to. The law of conservation of energy, and the principle of least action, which still drives us though we don't know it, would surely have driven humans then when they were more animal-like. It is so much easier to gather fruit and plants than to risk injury and use a lot of energy to capture an animal for food.

Regarding the bolded statement above: I think that is referring to 3D and above entities. I don't think that refers to animals. If that was the intention of posting it here, one only needs to watch an animal get tortured and slaughtered to know that isn't true. They are terrified and in pain. 

What is the purpose of the question: Did entities eat meat before the veil? Is it curiosity and speculation, or is it a way to justify eating it now? Of course, there is no justification in my opinion. Humans may have the mandate to use and learn from the use of free will. But that doesn't make the whole "experiment" a great thing. I don't have to agree with it because there is some Creator who (that) has created it, and that being is not to be questioned. That's really too much like Christianity to me. I do question it. I do understand embracing the shadow. I do understand embracing all that is. But to justify the atrocities that go on here in 3D because of free will and stand back and say, "Oh, this is okay. It's all ephemeral anyway. All those suffering beings will understand on some level," is not higher consciousness thinking, it's blocked compassion. As I do not consider myself a very advanced being, I freely admit that I have a difficult time accepting the way things are here. 

But, it's one thing to accept what is here, and another to indulge in it.

[Minyatur]

Humankind does not fit into this ecosystem. Humankind unbalances it. (Not to mention destroys it.) I think the creation of this "experiment" here sucks. I wouldn't mind it as much if humans only hurt humans, as there is a collective desire/responsibility.

Then why are you here? There is probably an infinite amount of planets where it wouldn't have "sucked" as you think it does here. In my view you're probably reaping benefits from this grand experiment as part of your personal evolution which makes it useful as it is to you, else you wouldn't have come here.

This is the humans' planet, they are learning what it means to be the Creator and 3D level "gods" in the environment that was set for them to grow. Consciousness that incarnates here, resonated with the place and everything that is happening is just plain love whether one can is able to perceive it or not. Distorted? Yeah surely, but distorting love is exactly how we learn more about what love truly is. If you want the Creator to stop knowing Himself then I guess turning back to nothingness is pretty much the only option available.

About the animals' sufferings, I already talked about that in another thread but it is their own experience. Humans are agent of chaos who somehow for very complicated reasons (cause and effect) come to provide the experience that is sought by the souls in this all perfectly entangled and simultaneous Creation. They won't come to understand it, they will come to not want it to be any other way as it will be a time/space block of their future selves. Knowing first hand suffering makes one grow in knowing love and it is a beautiful experience for self.

I'm pretty sure there is more entity that you can think picture that probably would want to tear your soul apart if you told them you'd want to erase every suffering that was along their path. That is pretty much like telling them to be otherwise than what they are and belittling their experiences as lesser than your own.

[Diana]

I'm pretty sure there is more entity that you can think picture that probably would want to tear your soul apart if you told them you'd want to erase every suffering that was along their path. That is pretty much like telling them to be otherwise than what they are and belittling their experiences as lesser than your own.

Well, thanks for the heads-up, but I don't want to erase every suffering.

As to the second above statement, you don't know or understand me at all. If you think I don't understand what you mean, I do.  

[anagogy]

Regarding the bolded statement above: I think that is referring to 3D and above entities. I don't think that refers to animals. If that was the intention of posting it here, one only needs to watch an animal get tortured and slaughtered to know that isn't true. They are terrified and in pain. 

I'm not saying this to justify eating animals, nor to condemn it, but what you think you observe isn't always how it is.  I once read a transcript from a past life regression of a woman that was burned at the stake for her pagan beliefs.  As her body burned, her consciousness left the body, yet the body still went through all the death throes you would expect from someone burning alive (much to her chagrin, as she didn't want her captors to get the satisfaction of thinking she suffered).  This same soul regressed into the soul state stated this option is available to all souls, and that furthermore, when the higher self sees little to no probability of survival, normally moves the spirit out of the body before violent bodily death occurs.

Do you believe that animal spirits are unaware of the nature of the world they are incarnating into?

I think humans have a lot of misconceptions about death.  We are culturally programmed to think it is this big scary horrible thing.  Of course we fear what we don't understand, but I think humanity at large would be surprised how "not a big deal" it is from the time/space perspective.  And even from the animal perspective.  Nothing ever really dies.  And the second the physical construct ceases functioning, life just keeps on going.

I completely understand that you find what you see disconcerting.  Most people can only see 1/7th of the reality of any action -- the physical portion.  And the other 6/7th of the reality makes the picture look a lot different.  Even these seemingly scary things in our world have the seeds of perfection in them.  I struggle to see it too at times.  It is a natural part of the human experience.  And it's perfectly okay to question that.  The question potentiates the answer.  And that is the most natural spiritual process of all.

[Jade]

For me, it's not the deaths I have a problem with, per se. It's the unconscious participation and the prolongation of torture and environmental destruction over an extended period of time.

[Monica]

For me, it's not the deaths I have a problem with, per se. It's the unconscious participation and the prolongation of torture and environmental destruction over an extended period of time.

I understand your point but that's a slippery slope. Is murder of humans ok to indulge in willy-nilly as long as they weren't tortured first?

For me, it's not even about whether they were tortured first or not. It's about this idea, so common in New Age communities, that it's somehow ok to actually participate in harming others. I get that these things happen, and on a soul level they chose it, etc. but the question to me is: Yes, I understand that a serial killer tortured, raped and killed 30 women, and I understand that, on a soul level, they're doing some kind of karmic dance, but is it in alignment with my spiritual path to participate in that?

...

[Jade]

I guess it depends. Is this say, a sniper who goes around assassinating people, and their lives end in a moment of shock in a way that was congruent with their life plan? This I have much less of a problem with, and there is less I can do about such agreements. That scenario seems more of a personal issue than a global consciousness issue.

[upensmoke]

To all those who believed that entities ate meat before the veil, could you explain to me how killing the animal didn't infringe upon their free will?. Considering there was no STS before the veil, their meat eating I assume, was done in a way that allowed them to not infringe on the free will of the animals. I can't see an act of killing were the entity resist that can result in free will not being violated. can someone provide an example please and thanks

At any point in time, there are a number of beings at the end of their life cycle.  They are ready to return to spirit, and then reincarnate in a new body.  They must leave their physical complexes in some way.  This could happen in a variety of ways: bacterial infection, viral infection, old age, or they could be released by the actions on their physical vehicle by another physical vehicle (hunters, and other predators).

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."

The natural predator/prey world is one thing. I don't like it, and I hope it evolves to something with less suffering (being eaten, vigilant, and hungry). But it is an ecosystem that balances itself.

Humankind does not fit into this ecosystem. Humankind unbalances it. (Not to mention destroys it.) I think the creation of this "experiment" here sucks. I wouldn't mind it as much if humans only hurt humans, as there is a collective desire/responsibility.

If there was meat eating "before the veil" then I would say the humans were as animals—late 2D—like chimpanzees. Otherwise, if humans were like us now with our capacity to think, perceive, and feel, then no, they did not eat meat. Unless they lived in places such as Alaska where there is no viable vegetation, they did not have to. The law of conservation of energy, and the principle of least action, which still drives us though we don't know it, would surely have driven humans then when they were more animal-like. It is so much easier to gather fruit and plants than to risk injury and use a lot of energy to capture an animal for food.

Regarding the bolded statement above: I think that is referring to 3D and above entities. I don't think that refers to animals. If that was the intention of posting it here, one only needs to watch an animal get tortured and slaughtered to know that isn't true. They are terrified and in pain. 

What is the purpose of the question: Did entities eat meat before the veil? Is it curiosity and speculation, or is it a way to justify eating it now? Of course, there is no justification in my opinion. Humans may have the mandate to use and learn from the use of free will. But that doesn't make the whole "experiment" a great thing. I don't have to agree with it because there is some Creator who (that) has created it, and that being is not to be questioned. That's really too much like Christianity to me. I do question it. I do understand embracing the shadow. I do understand embracing all that is. But to justify the atrocities that go on here in 3D because of free will and stand back and say, "Oh, this is okay. It's all ephemeral anyway. All those suffering beings will understand on some level," is not higher consciousness thinking, it's blocked compassion. As I do not consider myself a very advanced being, I freely admit that I have a difficult time accepting the way things are here. 

But, it's one thing to accept what is here, and another to indulge in it.

The purpose of this question is too see if an entity can show or explain to me a way in which an entity can eat meat without infringing on the free will of the animal. I personally believe it cannot be done because when you attempt to murder any entity that is mid to higher 2d they resist. The resistance is their will. So if i kill them i'm infringing on their will. therefore it should fall under the identity of STS the only way to obtain meat without violating a higher 2d animals will is if it dies of old age, sickness, other natural causes, or if the animals itself chooses to sacrifice itself so the other-self can eat it. But just because this is what i believe doesn't mean i'm not open minded to new ideas that may alter my understanding.

Before the veil there were no sts entities. So that means before the veil no one infringed the free will of others. if they ate meat, they done it in a manner that didn't infringe on free will. I personally cannot image such a way, so im asking others who can to explain and imagine such a way for me. I know their are quite a few who believe that eating meat doesn't fall under STS.

[anagogy]

Before the veil there were no sts entities. So that means before the veil no one infringed the free will of others. if they ate meat, they done it in a manner that didn't infringe on free will. I personally cannot image such a way, so im asking others who can to explain and imagine such a way for me. I know their are quite a few who believe that eating meat doesn't fall under STS.

It is conceivable that before the veil that entities were aware when a being was planning to depart its current body. I doubt the animal would have objected to a humanoid utilizing its remains after it departed its vessel, as it was no longer using it.

[Monica]

I doubt the animal would have objected to a humanoid utilizing its remains after it departed its vessel, as it was no longer using it.

Probably not.

S/he would surely have objected to a humanoid killing him/her though.

...

[Monica]

I guess it depends. Is this say, a sniper who goes around assassinating people, and their lives end in a moment of shock in a way that was congruent with their life plan? This I have much less of a problem with, and there is less I can do about such agreements. That scenario seems more of a personal issue than a global consciousness issue.

I've often said that the victims of mass shootings were likely in need of a convenient exit.

That doesn't make it congruent with one's life path to be a mass shooter though (unless they want to polarize STS).

...

[Monica]

I once read a transcript from a past life regression of a woman that was burned at the stake for her pagan beliefs.  As her body burned, her consciousness left the body, yet the body still went through all the death throes you would expect from someone burning alive (much to her chagrin, as she didn't want her captors to get the satisfaction of thinking she suffered).  This same soul regressed into the soul state stated this option is available to all souls, and that furthermore, when the higher self sees little to no probability of survival, normally moves the spirit out of the body before violent bodily death occurs.

Just because that particular person had that particular past life memory doesn't mean that this happens to everyone who dies in what seems to be a painful death.

Simple observation shows that many people (and animals) suffer horribly, yet survive it. For example, victims of torture who were later rescued, burn victims, people who suffered with chronic pain for many years, and myriad other examples. Many people (and animals) survived extreme anguish and physical pain. Their Higher Selves didn't yank them from their bodies to spare them the pain, did they? No they didn't. So why would we think that the Higher Self would do so at the moment of death?

Pain exists. People (and animals) suffer. It isn't accurate to assume that they are somehow spared that suffering, when countless people (and animals) have survived extreme suffering, and countless people have shared their stories about how horrible it was.

We can't get let off the hook by assuming that farm animals aren't suffering at the hands of humans. There is absolutely No basis for that.

Of course we fear what we don't understand, but I think humanity at large would be surprised how "not a big deal" it is from the time/space perspective.  

Death might not be a big deal.

But killing is very much a big deal.

...

[Diana]

I once read a transcript from a past life regression of a woman that was burned at the stake for her pagan beliefs.  As her body burned, her consciousness left the body, yet the body still went through all the death throes you would expect from someone burning alive (much to her chagrin, as she didn't want her captors to get the satisfaction of thinking she suffered).  This same soul regressed into the soul state stated this option is available to all souls, and that furthermore, when the higher self sees little to no probability of survival, normally moves the spirit out of the body before violent bodily death occurs.

Just because that particular person had that particular past life memory doesn't mean that this happens to everyone who dies in what seems to be a painful death.

Simple observation shows that many people (and animals) suffer horribly, yet survive it. For example, victims of torture who were later rescued, burn victims, people who suffered with chronic pain for many years, and myriad other examples. Many people (and animals) survived extreme anguish and physical pain. Their Higher Selves didn't yank them from their bodies to spare them the pain, did they? No they didn't. So why would we think that the Higher Self would do so at the moment of death?

Pain exists. People (and animals) suffer. It isn't accurate to assume that they are somehow spared that suffering, when countless people (and animals) have survived extreme suffering, and countless people have shared their stories about how horrible it was.

We can't get let off the hook by assuming that farm animals aren't suffering at the hands of humans. There is absolutely No basis for that.

Of course we fear what we don't understand, but I think humanity at large would be surprised how "not a big deal" it is from the time/space perspective.  

Death might not be a big deal.

But killing is very much a big deal.

...

Pain is pain. Suffering is suffering. When one talks about karma, it is often said that if a person kills another person in one life, they will balance the karma by suffering or being killed in a subsequent life. (This is simplistic and does not take into consideration the nature of time outside of 3D.) 

The suffering a person experiences in this life before death is not something anyone can deny. It may be true the person's soul desired it. But the suffering does exist. This speaks to people learning about free will after individuation.

So how does this work with un-indivuated animals? What I can't grasp is why a cow, pig, chicken, fish, etc. would choose the method of factory farming in which to serve and evolve. I get, in a very speculative and theoretical way, that any service is service, and it can be infinite in nature. But no matter how it's looked at, the service to humanity to spend a life of suffering, imprisonment, and unkind death just doesn't add up. Unless we are looking at a planet on a trajectory toward the negative. 

If we don't turn this around, assuming there is a dance in play here where factory-farmed (and other sufferings caused by humans such as hunting and killing a doe who is nursing a fawn) are in service to humanity, where are we headed?

And the bottom line is, why would anyone conscious of this want to contribute to it? If humans must exercise free will in a way that causes suffering, why would a wanderer from a higher density or anyone here who is consciously evolving on the path of oneness want to participate? For my part, I have a hard enough time letting humans do what they will. And of course, as has been said many times, one cannot be aware of everything. But I am talking about conscious awareness—making choices that directly contribute to suffering.

Is there anyone here who would buy a (real) fur coat? Is it not obvious that if you did you would be supporting the fur farm industry? Is it necessary to buy a mink coat? It is the same with meat.

[AnthroHeart]

A 2D animal might be sentient, but they probably don't understand consequence of choosing a farm life.

[Aion]

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.)

Also, I know that this approach is not suitable for many people, I was trying to refrain from getting involved anymore, but then I realized I thought this viewpoint should be fairly represented for those who may share it and feel they have a hard time accepting themselves as well as for fair consideration by others with differing viewpoints. I am learning that sharing doesn't require me to give up my position simply because it is different.