Did Entities Eat Meat Before The Veil ?

[AnthroHeart]

I think the invention of the food replicator will solve this problem. That is if you can still get all you vitamins. And I'm not sure if it's possible to have food with a life force in it such as raw vegetables in replicated food.

[Aion]

It statements like this 'This is irrefutably proven by science.' that I just can't get behind. Science does not and cannot irrefutably prove anything, that's not the point of science. Science is a method of analysis and observation based on hypothesis and experiment. Experiments are meant to refine the hypothesis by either supporting it with evidence or providing evidence which requires a new hypothesis. So the hypothesis evolves and changes.

What you have is a great theory and evidence (which I have not viewed, so that is another account for my skepticism because until I actually read and interpret the data myself I can't say I actually have viewed the evidence) but that doesn't establish law or truth, only a plausible possibility of explanation.

So, we turn to systems of logic in order to make the evidence become something useful and from there derive a description. Some do it the other way around and use the description to fit in the evidence.

However, what is evidence? What is proof? All you have shown, in my eyes, is a consistent system of logic. Does that prove it is applicable to all systems? I imagine it is probably potential because you yourself are a potential within the Creator within all things, so naturally a little piece of your philosophy is within.

I applaud your logics, but that, to me, is like complimentary to your talents, not that my own logic is necessarily built the same way. I have pondered over this many times, and it is hard to avoid always coming back to the idea that reality will distort itself according to the perception.

The reality we live in will accommodate and experience either one of our philosophies without a need to change in itself to do so. This suggests to me that the true nature of existence in some way transcends our individual viewpoints.

You speak of choice, but my choice of polarity is clear. I am service to self. What is my deepest desire? To polarize positively. Think about that. If I am serving myself, and I want to serve others, who am I serving?

[Monica]

So you think entities only care about the destruction of their bodies if they have pain-receptors?

First, please define what you mean by entity.

What is an entity? Is a single blade of grass an entity? Is your lawn writhing in agony when you mow it? When you have an ivy and cut part of it off and plant it, and it grows into another ivy plant, is it another entity? How about if you take 5 cuttings from the same ivy plant and grow 5 more ivies in pots? Do you now have 6 ivy plants?

Can you cut off a cow's leg and grow another cow?

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

Fish fulfill several criteria proposed as indicating that non-human animals may experience pain. These fulfilled criteria include a suitable nervous system and sensory receptors, opioid receptors and reduced responses to noxious stimuli when given analgesics and local anaesthetics, physiological changes to noxious stimuli, displaying protective motor reactions, exhibiting avoidance learning and making trade-offs between noxious stimulus avoidance and other motivational requirements.

from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pain_in_fish

...

[Aion]

So you think entities only care about the destruction of their bodies if they have pain-receptors?

First, please define what you mean by entity.

What is an entity? Is a single blade of grass an entity? Is your lawn writhing in agony when you mow it? When you have an ivy and cut part of it off and plant it, and it grows into another ivy plant, is it another entity? How about if you take 5 cuttings from the same ivy plant and grow 5 more ivies in pots? Do you now have 6 ivy plants?

Can you cut off a cow's leg and grow another cow?

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

Fish fulfill several criteria proposed as indicating that non-human animals may experience pain. These fulfilled criteria include a suitable nervous system and sensory receptors, opioid receptors and reduced responses to noxious stimuli when given analgesics and local anaesthetics, physiological changes to noxious stimuli, displaying protective motor reactions, exhibiting avoidance learning and making trade-offs between noxious stimulus avoidance and other motivational requirements.

from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pain_in_fish

...

That's a convoluted question but I get your point. An entity is a mind/body/spirit (complex). So, yes, every single individual plant, sub-plant and blade of grass is an individuated entity which will gradually make its way through the densities. Every entity that experiences destruction experiences grief, if not directly then by the higher self and spirits which tend to it. I actually do not 'have' a 'lawn' (human designated patch of earth) and when I did I didn't mow it and would not desire to in the future.

The attempt to compare an ability to replicate in one way to the mutilation of another creature is clever but doesn't quite match up in my eyes. Animals and plants have a different physiology, they function differently. Ergo, it doesn't make sense that they would be interacted with in the same way. It's like comparing a circle to a square.

However, I can say that both a circle and square are made by drawing lines. I think plants and animals are actually the same thing and to attempt to differentiate is more a matter of description and catalogue than truth. We refer to different creature types as different things, but it really appears to me that 'second-density beings are second-density beings' regardless of whether you divide them in to classified groups.

Animals and plants both live and die and they do so in many different ways even among themselves. Whatever you take from them and consume is a matter of death. The cells you remove die because they are no longer integrated with their parent body. They may continue living for awhile and we see this as 'better'. Eat food that's still alive! That's way less horrific than consuming dead entities...

So, I feel that either way I am working with suffering. However, it's not all doom and gloom, because I know that everything that dies lives again and everything that lives will die. I will die, you will die, we will all die and then we will experience life.

Until then, we can continue to discuss the nuances of devouring other life-forms I suppose.

[Aion]

Ultimately, I think your service is an honest and noble one. It is just not the only way of service to me.

[Monica]

It statements like this 'This is irrefutably proven by science.' that I just can't get behind. Science does not and cannot irrefutably prove anything, that's not the point of science. Science is a method of analysis and observation based on hypothesis and experiment. Experiments are meant to refine the hypothesis by either supporting it with evidence or providing evidence which requires a new hypothesis. So the hypothesis evolves and changes.

I actually agree with the gist of what you're saying here. Intelligent people often arrive at different conclusions based on the same science. Plus, scientific studies are often flawed and/or biased, and even if they're not, different studies often show different results, so analyzing all that data is an arduous process and highly subject to error and bias.

Examples include the safety/danger of vaccines, the theory of Evolution, whether chemotherapy is an effective treatment for cancer, and numerous other cases in which conclusions are far from irrefutable.

However, in the cases of simple chemistry, it is indeed possible to reach irrefutable conclusions. The controversy occurs when other factors are added to the mix.

As an example: In terms of simple chemistry, water is H2O. If we introduce other chemicals and minerals to the water, then that is where the controversy starts, as to what is the healthiest water to drink. But the chemistry of water being H2O is irrefutable.

Likewise, the human body is known to require certain nutrients, including protein, carbohydrates, vitamins, minerals, etc. It is irrefutable, simple chemistry that, biologically, there are certain requirements.

Where the controversy arises is the best way to obtain those nutrients. Add to that, the emotional component: Ie., if someone passionately believes they must get their protein from meat, they might manifest perceived evidence to back up their belief. Sort of like the Placebo Effect in reverse. For that person, the strength of their beliefs caused a physical manifestation, just as someone else might manifest pain or cancer, or spontaneous healing of an 'incurable' disease.

So yes, certainly there are myriad factors, due to the power of the human mind. We all know that.

But biologically, it is simple chemistry that all nutrients required by the human body are found in plants, with the exception of Vitamin B12, which is easily supplemented. Someone might think they need meat to get protein, and they might even manifest their own reality based on their belief, but the chemistry shows otherwise.

So I am speaking of chemistry here, which is simple to prove with science.

What you have is a great theory and evidence (which I have not viewed, so that is another account for my skepticism because until I actually read and interpret the data myself I can't say I actually have viewed the evidence) but that doesn't establish law or truth, only a plausible possibility of explanation.

There are plenty of vibrantly healthy vegans out there, who prove that, biologically, the human body can indeed thrive without meat or dairy. Even the mainstream medical establishment acknowledges that, despite their heavy bias favor of meat/dairy. Plus, even with other factors such as smoking, exercise, etc., statistically vegans still have drastically lower risks of all the major diseases.

When was the last time you heard of someone healing their cancer by eating more meat? That never happens. But stories abound of people who've healed xyz disease by going vegan, by juicing, etc. It's always the plants that heal, never the dead animal flesh. (That's a clue! )

You speak of choice, but my choice of polarity is clear. I am service to self. What is my deepest desire? To polarize positively. Think about that. If I am serving myself, and I want to serve others, who am I serving?

I read it 3 times and still don't understand it. Can you explain that in Law of One terminology? You are using Law of One terms but did you intend them in the way that Ra uses them? Service to Self and polarize positively are direct opposites.

...

[The_Tired_Philosopher]

Not really actually!

Service to others requires service to self to be of capability to lovingly be of service to others.,

Even negative polarity can desire to help others. They just choose to do so cause they desire to, nothing more, nothing less, their intent is clear, they are STO, by being STS, the utter absolute reconciliation of polarity into one perfect path of unity.

That was a beautiful statement Aion
It really brought to me a clear concise mental image of what I've tried to explain to myself all this time.

[Monica]

That's a convoluted question but I get your point. An entity is a mind/body/spirit (complex). So, yes, every single individual plant, sub-plant and blade of grass is an individuated entity which will gradually make its way through the densities.
...
Every entity that experiences destruction experiences grief, if not directly then by the higher self and spirits which tend to it
...I think plants and animals are actually the same thing and to attempt to differentiate is more a matter of description and catalogue than truth. We refer to different creature types as different things, but it really appears to me that 'second-density beings are second-density beings' regardless of whether you divide them in to classified groups.

You are free to believe that every blade of grass is individuated if you wish, but that doesn't match what Ra has told us at all about the nature of 2D and graduation to 3D.

Bring4th Forums One > Strictly Law of One Material v > Ra's Statements About 2D Entities

Animals and plants both live and die and they do so in many different ways even among themselves. Whatever you take from them and consume is a matter of death. The cells you remove die because they are no longer integrated with their parent body. They may continue living for awhile and we see this as 'better'. Eat food that's still alive! That's way less horrific than consuming dead entities...

So, I feel that either way I am working with suffering. However, it's not all doom and gloom, because I know that everything that dies lives again and everything that lives will die. I will die, you will die, we will all die and then we will experience life.

Until then, we can continue to discuss the nuances of devouring other life-forms I suppose.

Your view of plant life seems very bleak to me. How absolutely hideous, that this entire planet is constantly enduring agonizing pain and death! What a horrible, horrible design, to allow each blade of grass full consciousness of being stepped on, cut off, eaten, constantly!

I find your view to be overly simplistic and inherently flawed, and I have explained why numerous times in these threads. Rather than repeat myself yet again, may I suggest to you that, if you are open to another viewpoint, simply TRY going vegan for a couple of months. Better yet, try going raw vegan. Eat only living foods, and notice how your emotions, mental state, and spirit are uplifted.

Then come back and tell me that it's all the same...all death.

This is only a suggestion, and you are free to decline my invitation. But if you did try it, I predict that you would then KNOW that plant life is different from animal life, and consuming LIFE is different from consuming death. You will feel the lifeforce merging with your own, and you will KNOW. It won't matter what I tell you; you will know, based on your own experience.

But it must be for at least 2 months. The first month will be detox. It takes time to purge the body of stagnant, dead matter from years of accumulation.

...

[Aion]

You're still just trying to get me to go vegan... well I appreciate the thought and I will think on it. I have no more to say, really. I acknowledge and consider your given perspective.

[Monica]

Service to Self and polarize positively are direct opposites.

Clarification: I meant this in terms of the 2 paths, as given by Ra. The STO path includes service to self. One must serve self in addition to serving others, for all is One. But the STS path is the direct opposite of polarizing positively. The STS path polarizes negatively, while the STO path polarizes positively. So I was asking for clarification as to whether Aion was referring to the paths, or just to the actual action of service.

An STS entity can still serve others, but for selfish motivations, for example. So can an STO entity. The outer action isn't necessarily the same as the polarity orientation.

...

[Monica]

You're still just trying to get me to go vegan... well I appreciate the thought and I will think on it. I have no more to say, really. I acknowledge and consider your given perspective.

Aion, it's Not like I'm chasing you and nagging you to go vegan! You participate in these 'meat' discussions voluntarily, and you voluntarily share a lot about yourself. I perceive your words as expressing a lot of confusion. So I simply offered a suggestion, which could clear up the confusion.

...

[AnthroHeart]

Is heart disease (from meat) long and drawn out painful, or is it like a few minutes and you're dead?

[The_Tired_Philosopher]

Service to Self and polarize positively are direct opposites.

Clarification: I meant this in terms of the 2 paths, as given by Ra. The STO path includes service to self. One must serve self in addition to serving others, for all is One. But the STS path is the direct opposite of polarizing positively. The STS path polarizes negatively, while the STO path polarizes positively. So I was asking for clarification as to whether Aion was referring to the paths, or just to the actual action of service.

An STS entity can still serve others, but for selfish motivations, for example. So can an STO entity. The outer action isn't necessarily the same as the polarity orientation.

...

Monica, politely, that wasn't his point.  The way he means it is a bit transcendent of either path in terms of meaning or importance.  He's doing what the paths ultimately both lead to.  Service to self in the service to self path is still a service to others occurrence in ways in a mirrored way to what he just said as well.

May I also, politely, mention that his remarks on death and rebirth were not very bleak in my view.  May I suggest that you reconsider your perception of his post?  He speaks of life and death, and I do agree with him.  Animal life dies.  Plant life dies.  There is suffering regardless.  One is just more evolved suffering.

It's funny you say it takes a month to detox.  It took me two weeks being non-vegan drinking a gallon of lemon-lime infused water (not even with cucumber) a day with 4 heaping tablespoons of hemp seeds in the morning to fully detox.  Detoxing feels good actually, it can feel heavy and hard the first few days but then suddenly you're invigorated and full of energy like some kind of clog in your energy system has been removed.

But some take the suffering of that meat and transmute it with love given to those who suffered.  Eating meat is a service.

I have gone vegan, and raw vegan for a while in the past, I liked it, and may even return to it in the future if I feel a desire to.  But for right now, I am in effort of accepting myself and my habits, all of them including when I eat, meat or otherwise, and thank my food that has suffered once and possibly more than once to get to me, and now once more again, as I destroy it's more basic forms for my sustenance.

3D is a painful density for many.  You can't end all the suffering...Sadly.

Gemini, depends on the person, for many it's long and drawn out.  For some it's just sudden and you could potentially be dead within two hours (yay strokes D: ).

[Monica]

Is heart disease (from meat) long and drawn out painful, or is it like a few minutes and you're dead?

Could be either. Meat isn't the only factor though. Excessive stress, insufficient hydration, etc. are also factors.

[AnthroHeart]

Smoking may be worse than eating meat for your heart. I don't smoke, nor do I have excessive stress.

[Monica]

Monica, politely, that wasn't his point.  The way he means it is a bit transcendent of either path in terms of meaning or importance.  He's doing what the paths ultimately both lead to.  Service to self in the service to self path is still a service to others occurrence in ways in a mirrored way to what he just said as well.

It's easy to misinterpret typed words. Doubly easy when those words have multiple meanings. Service to Self can be a generic term, or it can refer to the name of a path...an orientation of polarity.

Maybe your interpretation of what he intended is correct...maybe not. I didn't want to assume that my interpretation was correct, so I asked him to clarify.

May I also, politely, mention that his remarks on death and rebirth were not very bleak in my view.  May I suggest that you reconsider your perception of his post?  He speaks of life and death, and I do agree with him.  Animal life dies.  Plant life dies.  There is suffering regardless.  One is just more evolved suffering.

Thank you for your polite request.  

OK, I reconsidered.

I still find them bleak, sorry. The idea of an entire planet blanketed with plant life, and ALL that plant life in constant agony, seems extremely bleak to me. It's bad enough that wildlife are all prey for other wildlife, but at least they have a good life before stepping in a hole, getting injured, and then being too slow to keep up with the herd so they become dinner for a pack of wolves. A good life ending in violence...that's bad enough. I already don't like the design of this planet in regards to animals killing other animals.

But now, you're asking me to consider that each individual blade of grass also suffers horribly, not just once, but throughout its entire life, being that grass gets stepped on repeatedly, then eaten but grows back repeatedly...

Not only is it bleak, it's morbid and sadistic!

Wolves killing the old, the weak, the injured of the herd makes sense. There's a certain mercy built into the system. The weak, the old, the injured...those are the ones most often killed by the predators. Perhaps the Logos decided that this was preferable to starvation. I can wrap my mind around that.

But the idea of every blade of grass and every lettuce leaf living in constant agony...that would indicate that our Logos is very sadistic indeed!

I don't buy it. Plants are physiologically very different. There is a reason they don't have an elaborate nervous system and pain receptors like higher 2D life (animals) and humans. There is a reason why they aren't mobile. They don't need to be. There's a reason they grow back after getting leaves torn off, whereas cows don't grow back legs.

Animals are more like humans than they are like carrots. That is simple observation.

It's funny you say it takes a month to detox.  It took me two weeks being non-vegan drinking a gallon of lemon-lime infused water (not even with cucumber) a day with 4 heaping tablespoons of hemp seeds in the morning to fully detox.  Detoxing feels good actually, it can feel heavy and hard the first few days but then suddenly you're invigorated and full of energy like some kind of clog in your energy system has been removed.

It really depends on the person and how much accumulation they have.

But some take the suffering of that meat and transmute it with love given to those who suffered.  Eating meat is a service.

That's like saying the rapist takes the suffering of his victim and transmutes it with love. Why even rape in the first place? Don't rape and then you won't have anything to transmute.

3D is a painful density for many.  You can't end all the suffering...Sadly.

No, we can't. But we can choose to quit participating in it.

...

[Monica]

Smoking may be worse than eating meat for your heart. I don't smoke, nor do I have excessive stress.

Probably true.

But eating meat is worse for the animals.

...

[The_Tired_Philosopher]

Monica, politely, that wasn't his point.  The way he means it is a bit transcendent of either path in terms of meaning or importance.  He's doing what the paths ultimately both lead to.  Service to self in the service to self path is still a service to others occurrence in ways in a mirrored way to what he just said as well.

It's easy to misinterpret typed words. Doubly easy when those words have multiple meanings. Service to Self can be a generic term, or it can refer to the name of a path...an orientation of polarity.

Maybe your interpretation of what he intended is correct...maybe not. I didn't want to assume that my interpretation was correct, so I asked him to clarify.

May I also, politely, mention that his remarks on death and rebirth were not very bleak in my view.  May I suggest that you reconsider your perception of his post?  He speaks of life and death, and I do agree with him.  Animal life dies.  Plant life dies.  There is suffering regardless.  One is just more evolved suffering.

Thank you for your polite request.  

OK, I reconsidered.

I still find them bleak, sorry. The idea of an entire planet blanketed with plant life, and ALL that plant life in constant agony, seems extremely bleak to me. It's bad enough that wildlife are all prey for other wildlife, but at least they have a good life before stepping in a hole, getting injured, and then being too slow to keep up with the herd so they become dinner for a pack of wolves. A good life ending in violence...that's bad enough. I already don't like the design of this planet in regards to animals killing other animals.

But now, you're asking me to consider that each individual blade of grass also suffers horribly, not just once, but throughout its entire life, being that grass gets stepped on repeatedly, then eaten but grows back repeatedly...

Not only is it bleak, it's morbid and sadistic!

Wolves killing the old, the weak, the injured of the herd makes sense. There's a certain mercy built into the system. The weak, the old, the injured...those are the ones most often killed by the predators. Perhaps the Logos decided that this was preferable to starvation. I can wrap my mind around that.

But the idea of every blade of grass and every lettuce leaf living in constant agony...that would indicate that our Logos is very sadistic indeed!

I don't buy it. Plants are physiologically very different. There is a reason they don't have an elaborate nervous system and pain receptors like higher 2D life (animals) and humans. There is a reason why they aren't mobile. They don't need to be. There's a reason they grow back after getting leaves torn off, whereas cows don't grow back legs.

Animals are more like humans than they are like carrots. That is simple observation.

It's funny you say it takes a month to detox.  It took me two weeks being non-vegan drinking a gallon of lemon-lime infused water (not even with cucumber) a day with 4 heaping tablespoons of hemp seeds in the morning to fully detox.  Detoxing feels good actually, it can feel heavy and hard the first few days but then suddenly you're invigorated and full of energy like some kind of clog in your energy system has been removed.

It really depends on the person and how much accumulation they have.

But some take the suffering of that meat and transmute it with love given to those who suffered.  Eating meat is a service.

That's like saying the rapist takes the suffering of his victim and transmutes it with love. Why even rape in the first place? Don't rape and then you won't have anything to transmute.

3D is a painful density for many.  You can't end all the suffering...Sadly.

No, we can't. But we can choose to quit participating in it.

...

In bold, now you can maybe see the depth of sorrow and sadness many feel towards this planet, perceiving it in a view that is wholly the definition of Horror.

In underline, there are plants that move about, they are not immobile.  The Source Field Studies by David Wilcock shows that Plant Life is aware and can not only feel pain, but feel and sense the pain of other living organisms.  Each blade of grass is in a sense connected to the whole, as a forest is one entity once it's roots of each tree connect with the rest.  If one part suffer, the entirety suffers.  But pain is a part of life, that does not mean pain causes agony.  To step on a rose, the scent of it on your foot is it's forgiveness.  They are aware differently, they perceive pain, but are not as nearly crippled by it, unless of course it's enough to kill.  Like say, shredding a tree...While it's still planted.

To take from the parent body spells imminent death if treatment is not administered, such as returning the separated plant body back to another parent body, like the ground or a pot of soil.  Sort of like an unborn human baby, except you can't disconnect those and keep them alive.  (As far as I know...)

So, honestly.  Thank you.  You have glimpsed my reality.  The truth is suffering is prevalent.  Why rape?  What if a soul desired the catalyst of rape?  It needs to happen somehow.  Another has to do it.  Suffering is one side of a multifaceted existence.  But it is present on Earth enough so to be...Very sad.  That is essentially the inherent unified good in the Service to Self Path offering catalyst to others, it is literally a Service to an-Other.

That is why often times I ignore the terminology so dogmatically distinguished, distilled, and used by many people to push their points in 'justifying' their behaviors.  It is sad to me.  Polarity too is an illusion so does Ra say.  There is only one thing, and polarity exists to teach us that one thing, as does all polar opposites and their infinite gradients all leading back to their source.

Service to Others.  Service to Self.  It is all the same.  There is no difference.  Those ratios, 51 to 95, are based on your intentions, in thought, word, and action.  Not how well you perform your specific concept of each path, that's why outright murder is so intently service to self, and outright sacrifice is so intently service to other.

With Love

Please be as you will.

[Monica]

In bold, now you can maybe see the depth of sorrow and sadness many feel towards this planet, perceiving it in a view that is wholly the definition of Horror.

In underline, there are plants that move about, they are not immobile.  The Source Field Studies by David Wilcock shows that Plant Life is aware and can not only feel pain, but feel and sense the pain of other living organisms.  Each blade of grass is in a sense connected to the whole, as a forest is one entity once it's roots of each tree connect with the rest.  If one part suffer, the entirety suffers.

I disagree. I also disagree with Wilcock's interpretation of the studies. Many 'spiritual' people use those plant studies to attempt to justify eating animals, and that's just absurd, because eating animals kills even MORE plants!

I don't think the whole planet is in agony. Well the planetary entity is surely suffering because of what humans have done, sucking out all her blood, poisoning her arteries, etc. but what I mean is, I don't think she is suffering simply by animals and humans walking on the grass or eating leaves. Mother Gaia feeds us, like suckling an infant, with her bounty: plants. This is the design. I don't believe this is any more painful for her than cutting our own hair or a fingernail is for us. Our hair is part of us, but Not individually sentient. Plant life is Mother Gaia's hair. Of course a signal is sent to her when humans wantonly destroy any life, including plants, but that is a group consciousness that is feeling the emotional pain and sorrow, Not an individual entity feeling physical pain like a cow feels getting her throat slit.

To take from the parent body spells imminent death if treatment is not administered, such as returning the separated plant body back to another parent body, like the ground or a pot of soil.  Sort of like an unborn human baby, except you can't disconnect those and keep them alive.  (As far as I know...)

Apparently you have never had a garden...? One can tear off leaves from lettuces every day and the lettuce just keeps making more leaves. I have observed that the more leaves I harvest, the more my herb plants proliferate. Plant a cutting and it grows another plant. Plant life is different from animal life. Plants are early 2D...Not yet individuated. Even Ra acknowledges this. Individuation is the criteria for graduation to 3D...developed in late 2D.

One can't have it both ways. They can't, on the one hand, argue that it's ok to kill animals because they're just like plants, since they're still 2D, and don't have individual consciousness, and then, on the other hand, argue that plants have individual consciousness!!!

So, honestly.  Thank you.  You have glimpsed my reality.  The truth is suffering is prevalent.

Not sure what you mean by 'glimpsing your reality.' No, I don't think the whole planet is constantly suffering.

Why rape?  What if a soul desired the catalyst of rape?  It needs to happen somehow.  Another has to do it.

That is the task of STS entities, to administer such catalyst.

What is your point here? You seem to be saying "Go ahead and rape...because that woman desires that catalyst." Surely you aren't suggesting that, are you? Then why suggest it in the case of animals? "Go ahead and pay someone to torture and kill that cow, because the cow must desire that catalyst."

Why is it so hard to understand the difference between accepting that these things happen to others, vs actually DOING it ourselves?

Suffering is one side of a multifaceted existence.  But it is present on Earth enough so to be...Very sad.  That is essentially the inherent unified good in the Service to Self Path offering catalyst to others, it is literally a Service to an-Other.

Yes, yes, yes, BUT do YOU want to BE that STS entity? THAT is the question!

See, my mistake, apparently, was in assuming that everyone here at B4 was aspiring to the STO path. This hasn't turned out to be true, apparently. These concepts are sooooo basic...IF one is STO oriented. I'm finding that I'm repeatedly being asked to explain the difference...to explain why it's Not cool to harm another entity.

WTF?

Service to Others.  Service to Self.  It is all the same.  There is no difference.

Right. No difference at all. So Ra just made all that stuff up...to entertain us?

Sorry, that was sarcastic. But seriously, how can you see they are the same, when Ra clearly differentiated them? WHY would Ra bother explaining about Choice and the paths if it didn't matter?

This is such a common misinterpretation of Ra's teachings: confusing late 6D 'beyond polarity' with 3D polarity.

Those ratios, 51 to 95, are based on your intentions, in thought, word, and action.  Not how well you perform your specific concept of each path, that's why outright murder is so intently service to self, and outright sacrifice is so intently service to other.

This seems to be a contradiction of what you just said about it all being the same. If it's all the same, then who cares? Go killing people and animals willy-nilly...it'll all come out in the wash.

...

[Minyatur]

Why rape?  What if a soul desired the catalyst of rape?  It needs to happen somehow.  Another has to do it.

That is the task of STS entities, to administer such catalyst.

What is your point here? You seem to be saying "Go ahead and rape...because that woman desires that catalyst." Surely you aren't suggesting that, are you? Then why suggest it in the case of animals? "Go ahead and pay someone to torture and kill that cow, because the cow must desire that catalyst."

Why is it so hard to understand the difference between accepting that these things happen to others, vs actually DOING it ourselves?

Don't you give money to your government so it can bomb itself and other countries? 

[Monica]

Don't you give money to your government so it can bomb itself and other countries? 

Not by choice! If you know of a way to legally avoid paying taxes, please do tell!

This is a major reason I am politically active, and supported Ron Paul, and now support Bernie Sanders. I want an end to compulsory participation in violence, oppression and genocide.

We don't get a choice in whether or not to pay taxes. We DO have a choice as to whether or not to support the torture and killing of animals.

...

[Minyatur]

Don't you give money to your government so it can bomb itself and other countries? 

Not by choice! If you know of a way to legally avoid paying taxes, please do tell!

This is a major reason I am politically active, and supported Ron Paul, and now support Bernie Sanders. I want an end to compulsory participation in violence, oppression and genocide.

We don't get a choice in whether or not to pay taxes. We DO have a choice as to whether or not to support the torture and killing of animals.

...

You may have had a choice in where you chose to incarnate. Choices are personal and the roots of them is buried very deep.

[Monica]

You may have had a choice in where you chose to incarnate. Choices are personal and the roots of them is buried very deep.

That's true for all of us. None of us can change that. All we can do is exercise our free will choice NOW, whenever possible.

Diet is an area in which most of us DO have a choice, unless one lives at the North Pole or is starving in a desert.

...

[Minyatur]

You may have had a choice in where you chose to incarnate. Choices are personal and the roots of them is buried very deep.

That's true for all of us. None of us can change that. All we can do is exercise our free will choice NOW, whenever possible.

Diet is an area in which most of us DO have a choice, unless one lives at the North Pole or is starving in a desert.

...

Surely, but choice is dependent upon the perception of it. From what we can see from the trend; not all share you perception of the implications of eating meat, nor it's cause and effect, nor the nature and purpose of suffering altogether. 

If you believe meat cannot be eaten with an open heart, then I do believe you are wrong.

[Monica]

Surely, but choice is dependent upon the perception of it. From what we can see from the trend; not all share you perception of the implications of eating meat, nor it's cause and effect, nor the nature and purpose of suffering altogether. 

Clearly

If you believe meat cannot be eaten with an open heart, then I do believe you are wrong.

I never said that. Obviously, people eat meat everyday, oblivious to the suffering that occurred in getting them their meat.

But, once the person becomes aware of how much the animals suffer, then the only way to continue supporting that is to harden their heart. In a court of law this is called 'callous disregard' - to continue to do something, while knowing that it causes harm to others.

If you think I'm wrong, then please explain how one could knowingly and directly support the torture and killing of a human child, just for pleasure, with an open heart. The principle is the same.

...

[Minyatur]

Surely, but choice is dependent upon the perception of it. From what we can see from the trend; not all share you perception of the implications of eating meat, nor it's cause and effect, nor the nature and purpose of suffering altogether. 

Clearly

If you believe meat cannot be eaten with an open heart, then I do believe you are wrong.

I never said that. Obviously, people eat meat everyday, oblivious to the suffering that occurred in getting them their meat.

But, once the person becomes aware of how much the animals suffer, then the only way to continue supporting that is to harden their heart. In a court of law this is called 'callous disregard' - to continue to do something, while knowing that it causes harm to others.

If you think I'm wrong, then please explain how one could knowingly and directly support the torture and killing of a human child, just for pleasure, with an open heart. The principle is the same.

...

Being part of the societies we exist within is pretty much directly supporting sufferings of every human life that has been shattered by it. That includes many children's death.

I do this by seeking to understand, accept and love this reality I exist within. Even in it's twisted ways I wouldn't have created myself.

[Diana]

So, honestly.  Thank you.  You have glimpsed my reality.  The truth is suffering is prevalent.  Why rape?  What if a soul desired the catalyst of rape?  It needs to happen somehow.  Another has to do it.  Suffering is one side of a multifaceted existence.  But it is present on Earth enough so to be...Very sad.  That is essentially the inherent unified good in the Service to Self Path offering catalyst to others, it is literally a Service to an-Other.

No one NEEDS to be raped. That is a choice as all things are. The individual who thinks they need rape could choose to forgive her- or himself. The soul may desire it for whatever reason (perhaps in lieu of forgiveness), but it is not something that HAS to happen. Likewise, no other HAS to do the raping. The would-be rapist may possess a desire to do this, but another choice could be made instead. 

There seems to be some idea here that "the Creator" must experience all things. And we humans in 3D are the pawns to do it. Screw that. I disagree. We experience what we choose, that's all. If there is a Creator who desires to experience itself, and sets it up so that all manner of vile things are done in order to satisfy this, then for my part I rebel. This is very close to the idea of the Christian God who is forceful, jealous and vindictive.

I do understand the idea of containing the all, and the shadow. We may have the potential for anything infinitum. But to say that someone must be the rapist is a stretch; someone may desire to be, or want to be of that service, but I do not think it is a mandatory or forced thing that somewhere in the universe someone MUST do everything. It's not possible anyway, because of the concept of infinity. It's impossible to experience all things in an infinite universe.

[Diana]

Being part of the societies we exist within is pretty much directly supporting sufferings of every human life that has been shattered by it. That includes many children's death.

I do this by seeking to understand, accept and love this reality I exist within. Even in it's twisted ways I wouldn't have created myself.

This is why I say we as humans have a collective responsibility as a species for what we do—sufferings that we cause from our choices, destruction, all unnecessary. It's unnecessary because we choose it all. We could make other choices.

What choice do animals have in this scenario? The argument can only go to the realms of speculation, where it is argued that animals choose to be of service to humans through their suffering and unnecessary deaths at the soul level. This is still just wild speculation.

[Diana]

You're still just trying to get me to go vegan... well I appreciate the thought and I will think on it. I have no more to say, really. I acknowledge and consider your given perspective.

No offense intended, but this is a typical accusation which runs through all threads on this subject. No one is trying to make you do anything. We are just discussing something. In a discussion participants talk about what they think, and try to make themselves understood, that's all. In the process, expansion of perspectives may happen.

[Diana]

Animals and plants both live and die and they do so in many different ways even among themselves. Whatever you take from them and consume is a matter of death. The cells you remove die because they are no longer integrated with their parent body. They may continue living for awhile and we see this as 'better'. Eat food that's still alive! That's way less horrific than consuming dead entities...

So, I feel that either way I am working with suffering. However, it's not all doom and gloom, because I know that everything that dies lives again and everything that lives will die. I will die, you will die, we will all die and then we will experience life.

In the human body 50 billion and more cells die every day. The human body is fine with this. If you take a leaf from a lettuce plant, the plant is fine. So it is debatable that the plant suffers by sharing itself for food. Plants have been "designed" that way anyway with seed propagation to be eaten. I will separate this idea from factory-farmed plants, where the pants may indeed suffer.

One may not cut the leg off a cow for food and not harm the cow. There IS a difference here. Or is this observation completely arbitrary?