Why I am not a vegan

[Nicholas]

diet really is as personal as one's sex life.

I found this to be the wisest quote on this thread from a metaphysical perspective.

Well, Ra never makes recommendations as it is. That's one of their consistent standpoints is that they won't offer  recommendations or 'best options'.

Although I can't be certain, I feel sure that their reply to a thread topic such as this one in light of their "consistent" attitude would be something like this.

Questioner: Is it ok to eat meat?

Ra: "I am Ra. This is completely your discernment/decision. As we have already mentioned in previous material, we learn from you, we cannot learn for you. However we may say on this subject that the, shall we say, yellow ray body complex feedback with regards to the ingestion of your food stuffs, a listening ear and an apothatic approach, if you will, may prove efficacious "

At least I got the "I am Ra" bit correct  

[Aion]

It would have been handy if they had questioned about that, but then maybe that's somewhat telling of how important or transient it was. That being said, maybe there were very important things that they never even thought to ask about. The Ra Material is an incomplete viewpoint which is why one should caution against extrapolating too many concrete opinions from it. Imo.

[Monica]

Sure, there are Ra wanderers around, but that's not the same as Ra speaking as a whole.

It's fashionable to assume that one is a Wanderer, and even more fashionable, and even prestigious, to proclaim that one is a Ra Wanderer!

It's more just a matter of respect in my mind. Like in every day life I think it's rude to speak for others. So far I haven't encountered anyone whom can genuinely and purely channel Ra on their own so I can only assume the words here are not specifically their own. So when people use Ra as an authority figure, I have to question it.

I agree. All any of us can do is interpret Ra's words, and even then, there is obviously a lot of disagreement on interpretation. I admit I have a pet peeve about taking a single quote and extrapolating from that an entire dogma, while leaving out the rest of the Material. It's bad enough when Christians do that with their bible, but the Ra Material is so much more deep, complex and profound, it's a disservice to reduce it to quick soundbites and rules, like they do with religions.

If anything I just wanted to bring the discussion more towards ourselves rather than always standing behind Ra.

I agree. In the context of this discussion, any other observations, information, compassion, and even common sense all go out the window, all because of 2 quotes by Ra, which were both directed to a particular person (Carla) in 2 particular situations (spasms and depleted vital energies after ingesting LSD), in response to a particular question (how to reduce spasms and restore vital energies). That's it. That's what those quotes were about. In NO way do those 2 quotes condone the eating of meat for everyone, or even for Carla on a daily basis! Furthermore, Ra was even specific about the kinds of meat she could eat (non-fatty fish), and Ra even gave a stipulation that it be occasional.

Even when asked about the diet for humans in general, Ra still gave a caution: to the extent necessary. And, Ra chose a different term: animal products instead of the term meat. Why? Ra, who is sooooo careful in their choice of words! Why didn't Ra just say meat if they wanted to give their blessing about eating animals?

No cautions are given for plant foods; only animal products.

Now, lest you accuse me of speaking for Ra    I will let Ra speak for themselves:

18.2 Questioner: Can you tell me what the chemical substance is that was ingested? Causes poor contact?
Ra: I am Ra. This is not a clear query. Could you please restate?

18.3 Questioner: You just stated that you had some problems with the instrument because of the ingestion by the instrument of some chemical substance. Can you tell me what the substance was?
Ra: I am Ra. The substance of which we speak is called vibratory sound complex, LSD. It does not give poor contact if it is used in conjunction with the contact. The difficulty of this particular substance is that there is, shall we say, a very dramatic drop-off of the effect of this substance. In each case this instrument began the session with the distortion towards extreme vital energy which this substance produces. However, this entity was, during the session, at the point where this substance no longer was in sufficient strength to amplify the entity’s abilities to express vital energy. Thus, first the phenomenon of, shall we say, a spotty contact and then, as the instrument relies again upon its own vibrational complexes of vital energy, the vital energy being in this case very low, it became necessary to abruptly cut off communication in order to preserve and nurture the instrument. This particular chemical substance is both helpful and unhelpful in these contacts for the causes given.

18.4 Questioner: Are there any foods that are helpful or harmful that the instrument might eat?
Ra: I am Ra. This instrument has body complex distortion towards ill health in the distortion direction corrected best by ingestion of the foodstuffs of your grains and your vegetables, as you call them. However, this is extremely unimportant when regarded as an aid with equality to other aids such as attitude which this instrument has in abundance. It, however, aids the vital energies of this instrument, with less distortion towards ill health, to ingest foodstuffs in the above manner with occasional ingestion of what you call your meats, due to the instrument’s need to lessen the distortion towards low vital energy.

Several observations may be made:

1. As we all know, Carla had poor health to begin with
2. Carla's vital energy got even more depleted after taking LSD
3. The question was how to help her regain her vital energy in this situation (NOT necessarily all the time! but in this situation of extremely low vital energy! This is an important distinction and falls under the category of to the extent necessary for individual metabolism.)
3. Ra answered by saying to ingest grains and vegetables. No cautions were given. Clearly, Carla could eat as much as she wanted of grains and veggies.
4. Along with grains and veggies, occasional meat would lessen her low vital energy; ie. raise her energy.

There is no question that meat is a concentrated source of nutrients. Some Asian practitioners consider meat to be medicinal only; never for everyday use. It is only given to extremely weak, extremely sick people to restore vitality fast. Again, this falls under the category of to the extent necessary for individual metabolism.

Am I speaking for Ra when I make some simple observations about their words? Can anyone disagree with my 4 points above?

Next meat reference:

102.16 Questioner: Would Ra please mention which foods are highly probable in not causing any spasming in the instrument’s digestive system?
Ra: I am Ra. The liquids not containing carbonation, the well-cooked vegetable which is most light and soft, the well-cooked grains, the non-fatted meat such as the fish. You may note that some recommended foodstuffs overlap allergies and sensitivities due to the juvenile rheumatoid arthritic distortions. Further, although sugar such as is in your sweetened desserts represents a potential, we may suggest that it be included at this period for aforementioned reasons.

Again I offer some obvious observations:

1. Again, this is a specific question about a particular person: Carla
2. It's a question about Carla's specific ailment: digestive spasms
3. The only meat mentioned was non-fatted fish.
4. Ra never said that all humans could enjoy as much meat as they wished. Ra never mentioned meat at all, in the context of anyone but Carla.

That's pretty much all we can say about this quote, sticking only to Ra's words. Those are the only 2 references to the word meat in the Material.

To take those 2 quotes and try to justify eating meat - all kinds of meat - on a daily basis, is quite a stretch! Never did Ra recommend meat for all humans. Ra only recommended occasional meat for Carla in these particular instances, and even then, was careful to caution that it only be occasional.

Now, my own interpretation of this is that Ra was working with Carla where she was at. Notice that Ra didn't reprimand Carla for taking LSD. Does that mean that Ra 'approves' or 'recommends' LSD for everyone, any time, every day? That would be a stretch!

At any rate, has the Law of One become such a religion that these 2 quotes completely override everything else Ra has told us about Service to Others and the evolution of 2D to 3D? Not to mention what is right here in front of our noses: The reality of the obscenity of the meat industry, in terms of what it is doing to the planet, to people's health, and, oh yeah, to our younger brethren - those same entities whose call Ra has answered.

So while Ra thinks that 2D entities are evolved enough and important enough to actually answer their call...not to mention aware enough to call in the first place!!! so-called Ra Wanderers are supporting the torture and killing of them...for what?? Because they're extremely sick like Carla? Even then, it would only be occasional fish, at best, if one wanted to follow what Ra told Carla. But no, in most cases, it isn't because they're sick...it's because they like the taste of bacon! and because they think 2D entities don't matter...they're only 2D...never mind that Ra answered the call of 2D entities! So Ra answers their call and we torture and kill the very beings Ra is answering???

Does anyone else see the contradiction here?

I contend that using these 2 quotes to try to justify meat-eating is nothing but a cop-out.

...

[Monica]

Although I can't be certain, I feel sure that their reply to a thread topic such as this one in light of their "consistent" attitude would be something like this.

Questioner: Is it ok to eat meat?

Ra: "I am Ra. This is completely your discernment/decision. As we have already mentioned in previous material, we learn from you, we cannot learn for you. However we may say on this subject that the, shall we say, yellow ray body complex feedback with regards to the ingestion of your food stuffs, a listening ear and an apothatic approach, if you will, may prove efficacious "

At least I got the "I am Ra" bit correct  

For the benefit of any new readers: The above isn't a real Ra quote. It's a Nicholas quote.

[Monica]

Oh and not to mention that, while Ra answers the call of 2D entities as well as 3D entities, these self-professed Wanderers prefer to ignore the call of the millions of 2D entities who are calling out right now, loudly, and instead just keep torturing and killing them, while using Ra's words to try to justify their involvement.

So not only are they not answering the call, but they're actually supporting the very reason the 2D entities are calling out in the first place!!!

...

[Aion]

Well, I agree generally, not entirely but I would only add that neither did Ra recommend not eating meat 'generally' nor did they actually commend eating purely vegetarian (especially considering in those quotes they are talking specifically about Carla). I can commend your logic and consideration.

This is actually my entire point though is that there is so little of detail on diet in the Ra Material that it really has so little context in this conversation. So I just wanted to point out that the disagreement in here has nothing to do with Ra or even the way their words are interpreted but because of fundamental differences in personal philosophy and so I feel there might be some progress possible in understanding eachother if we move away from using Ra as the backdrop for this discussion.

That being said, there are some very passionate personal opinions on the subject and I think that's where lines get crossed if they're going in different directions.

[Monica]

Well, I agree generally, not entirely but I would only add that neither did Ra recommend not eating meat 'generally'

True, but they also didn't say to never murder or rape humans either. So it means nothing.

nor did they actually commend eating purely vegetarian (especially considering in those quotes they are talking specifically about Carla).

Neither did they tell her to stay away from cannabis or LSD. So again, it means nothing.

We can't get any rules about anything from Ra. We can get only concepts. And regarding concepts, they gave us plenty!

I can commend your logic and consideration.

Thank you!

This is actually my entire point though is that there is so little of detail on diet in the Ra Material that it really has so little context in this conversation.

Exactly; which is why I think it's a mistake to try to justify eating meat on 2 quotes.

The converse is also true: Ra didn't explicitly state that we should all strive to be vegans either, although it could certainly be argued that they alluded to it:

40.14 Questioner: In dietary matters, what would be the foods that one would include and what would be the foods that one would exclude in a general way for the most or the greatest care of one’s bodily complex?
Ra: I am Ra. Firstly, we underline and emphasize that this information is not to be understood literally but as a link or psychological nudge for the body and the mind and spirit. Thus it is the care and respect for the self that is the true thing of importance. In this light we may iterate the basic information given for this instrument’s diet. The vegetables, the fruits, the grains, and to the extent necessary for the individual metabolism, the animal products. These are those substances showing respect for the self. In addition, though this has not been mentioned, for this instrument is not in need of purification, those entities in need of purging the self of a poison thought-form or emotion complex do well to take care in following a program of careful fasting until the destructive thought-form has been purged analogously with the by-products of ridding the physical vehicle of excess material. Again you see the value not to the body complex but used as a link for the mind and spirit. Thus self reveals self to self.

But, Ra did speak a great deal about 2D entities. And THAT, in my opinion, is VERY relevant!

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

[Aion]

Okay, but you're just doing the same thing again now.

Funny you responded to my commend with positivity but my other comments were dismissed with 'it means nothing'.

[Monica]

Okay, but you're just doing the same thing again now.

Then I misunderstood you. I thought you were referring to people saying "Ra said xyz" and paraphrasing, instead of actually quoting Ra. Paraphrasing is speaking FOR someone; whereas, quoting someone is letting them speak for themselves.

I quoted Ra. Are you saying you dislike anyone quoting Ra? If we can't quote Ra, then what is the point of this place? How can we study the Law of One without quoting Ra and offering our interpretations?

Funny you responded to my commend with positivity but my other comments were dismissed with 'it means nothing'.

Now it's your turn to misunderstand. I didn't mean that your comment meant nothing! I was actually agreeing with you!

I meant that we can't really draw any conclusions in regards to killing animals, based solely on the fact that Ra didn't explicitly say not to kill animals. I then gave the example that Ra didn't explicitly say not to kill humans either, see? So the fact that they didn't explicitly say not to kill animals means nothing.

Does that clarify?

...

[Aion]

I'm not saying I dislike anything. I was just pointing out that Ra quotes are the basis for many explanations or positions but I don't think there is actually enough detail in the Ra quotes to explain the actual stances that different people have. The issue isn't the quotes or interpretation, its difference in personal philosophy. I am not saying one way or the other is better. By all means, quote away. I'm just saying that the quotes are secondary to the actual discussion going on.

Also yes, I guess I misread your wording which seemed dismissive.

[Monica]

I'm not saying I dislike anything. I was just pointing out that Ra quotes are the basis for many explanations or positions but I don't think there is actually enough detail in the Ra quotes to explain the actual stances that different people have. The issue isn't the quotes or interpretation, its difference in personal philosophy. I am not saying one way or the other is better. By all means, quote away. I'm just saying that the quotes are secondary to the actual discussion going on.

I agree, but probably for a different reason. This is, presumably, supposed to be a Law of One study group, so it makes sense that people would quote Ra a lot. After all, we're supposedly studying the Material, so why not quote it, right?

But the reason I don't like the quoting isn't the quoting itself, but the way people are quoting the Material. Rather than taking all the relevant quotes about a particular topic together, and then combining them with additional quotes to flesh out the concept, people often just grab a single quote and use it to back up what they already believe.

I think the Material is too complex to do that.

On the other hand, though, sometimes there just isn't much to work with, as you say. Sometimes all we have is 1 or 2 quotes about a particular topic. That's when it's even more important to consider those quotes in the context of the whole of the Material.

A good example is the topic at hand: Meat. There are only 2 references to meat, so people often grab onto those 2 quotes and they're done. But meat isn't only about eating. Meat is also about killing, because without killing, there would be No meat!

Since killing is a necessary component of meat, then it begs the question: Who is being killed?

Which then leads to ==>> Animals!

And that topic - animals - actually gets quite a lot of coverage by Ra! Ra talks quite a lot about 2D entities. Hence, the topic of meat isn't a simple one, but a complex one, and what appears at first glance to be very sparse information (only 2 quotes) turns out to be quite a lot of information from Ra.

This is the difference between latching onto just the literal mention of a word, and actually researching the deeper concepts behind that particular topic.

So, whereas many people form their opinion (or justify an existing opinion) based on those 2 quotes only, I prefer to dig deeper into what Ra actually said about the source of meat: the animals.

And that's not even getting into what Ra said about Service to Others, of which they said a lot.

Also yes, I guess I misread your wording which seemed dismissive.

Sorry, that wasn't my intention!

...

[Diana]

diet really is as personal as one's sex life.

I found this to be the wisest quote on this thread from a metaphysical perspective.

Yes, it is a personal choice. But consider. Sex is a choice, but unless it is sex with one's self, it must include another being. So now there is more than one's self involved. It gets more complicated. Is the sex consensual? How do you know? For example, it has been common for women to just "go along" with what the man wants, especially in past centuries. Hopefully that is changing now, but it still exists (trophy wives come to mind). So even consensual is complicated if there is no honesty.

Diet is a personal choice. But eating involves others (2D entities). Is the eating consensual? In the case of using animals for food, upon observation—no. Perhaps as some suggest the animals have consented in some spiritual way, but this is conjecture (based possibly on wishful thinking, but though one may wish it does not mean it's not true). Is it consensual with plants? It's hard to say and also complicated (considering that plants are commercially farmed). But some plants need animals to eat them to spread seeds, to propagate—so in that sense it is consensual. You can trim a plant and it will continue to grow. You can't take part of an animal and have it thrive afterwards. What we DO KNOW is that animals do not want to be slaughtered. We do know that factory farming conditions are cruel and unnecessary (though necessary for farming profits).

To relegate diet to being a personal choice is both a simplification and an egocentric view, IF one is considering other beings. And we could say that the personal choice includes consideration of other beings, but it does not follow that this is inherent in the statement. Of course, one doesn't have to do anything in a free will zone. But if one is moving toward being one with all, it seems like a necessary step to include consideration of others in one's choices.

[Sabou]

diet really is as personal as one's sex life.

I found this to be the wisest quote on this thread from a metaphysical perspective.

Yes, it is a personal choice. But consider. Sex is a choice, but unless it is sex with one's self, it must include another being. So now there is more than one's self involved. It gets more complicated. Is the sex consensual? How do you know? For example, it has been common for women to just "go along" with what the man wants, especially in past centuries. Hopefully that is changing now, but it still exists (trophy wives come to mind). So even consensual is complicated if there is no honesty.

Diet is a personal choice. But eating involves others (2D entities). Is the eating consensual? In the case of using animals for food, upon observation—no. Perhaps as some suggest the animals have consented in some spiritual way, but this is conjecture (based possibly on wishful thinking, but though one may wish it does not mean it's not true). Is it consensual with plants? It's hard to say and also complicated (considering that plants are commercially farmed). But some plants need animals to eat them to spread seeds, to propagate—so in that sense it is consensual. You can trim a plant and it will continue to grow. You can't take part of an animal and have it thrive afterwards. What we DO KNOW is that animals do not want to be slaughtered. We do know that factory farming conditions are cruel and unnecessary (though necessary for farming profits).

To relegate diet to being a personal choice is both a simplification and an egocentric view, IF one is considering other beings. And we could say that the personal choice includes consideration of other beings, but it does not follow that this is inherent in the statement. Of course, one doesn't have to do anything in a free will zone. But if one is moving toward being one with all, it seems like a necessary step to include consideration of others in one's choices.

I think there may be a difference in what you are referring to as a personal choice and something that is personal/private. If I consider something to be personal or private, it implies that unless I personally choose to engage in discussion about the topic, there will be none and I would hope others would respect that. The choice in itself is personal/private and the implications belong to that person alone. 

Of course this doesn't mean that that person's private choice may be right and good, but that what is offered here in this density - the allowance to have that free will (like you said in your last sentence) to an extent. 

The last sentence you said "But if one is moving toward being one with all, it seems like a necessary step to include consideration of others in one's choices." is of course the point you are trying to make, but in response to Plenum's post I do not understand your response - he was just speaking of the allowance for that choice to be private, unless I misunderstood. 

[Diana]

I think there may be a difference in what you are referring to as a personal choice and something that is personal/private. If I consider something to be personal or private, it implies that unless I personally choose to engage in discussion about the topic, there will be none and I would hope others would respect that. The choice in itself is personal/private and the implications belong to that person alone. 

Of course this doesn't mean that that person's private choice may be right and good, but that what is offered here in this density - the allowance to have that free will (like you said in your last sentence) to an extent. 

The last sentence you said "But if one is moving toward being one with all, it seems like a necessary step to include consideration of others in one's choices." is of course the point you are trying to make, but in response to Plenum's post I do not understand your response - he was just speaking of the allowance for that choice to be private, unless I misunderstood. 

If I have misunderstood please correct me. 

I think you did misunderstand, but I will take responsibility for not being clear. I did say: And we could say that the personal choice includes consideration of other beings, but it does not follow that this is inherent in the statement.

I think all of our choices are private and personal in the sense that what we choose is our responsibility alone—we can't expect others to make our choices for us, or ignore our choices and let what will happen, if we want to be conscious.

But the statement that diet is a personal choice is too simple for me (especially within the context of this thread and others which concern the taking of sentient life for food), and implies that it doesn't concern anyone (or anything) else. This is what I was commenting on.

[Sabou]

I think you did misunderstand, but I will take responsibility for not being clear. I did say: And we could say that the personal choice includes consideration of other beings, but it does not follow that this is inherent in the statement.

I think all of our choices are private and personal in the sense that what we choose is our responsibility alone—we can't expect others to make our choices for us, or ignore our choices and let what will happen, if we want to be conscious.

But the statement that diet is a personal choice is too simple for me (especially within the context of this thread and others which concern the taking of sentient life for food), and implies that it doesn't concern anyone (or anything) else. This is what I was commenting on.

I guess it is this point I was alluding to (the first bold part) in regards to respecting someones privacy fully. I guess my distortion is that I feel I should respect another's decision enough to not be ignorant, but to allow that choice without having to dissuade, leave another to their own devices. Maybe because I feel that no one can be convinced to not eat meat by anyone other than themselves. I chose to follow a vegetarian lifestyle, not by anyone telling me to or explaining why, but by my own realizations based upon my own distortions. 

I am still not quite convinced of the last part i made bold. I believe I get what you are saying about diet in relation to personal choice. I agree that it does NOT only affect yourself but it affects the animal/life form that was killed for you to eat, etc. Saying it is personal implying that it concerns nothing else does seem ignorant. But, I still don't quite believe that is what was meant initially by the statement "diet is a personal choice". It seems you are assuming ignorance by that statement, but what I get from the statement  "diet is a personal choice" is - please respect my dietary choices, for it is something that is not black and white. There are sooo many factors that influence someones diet and it is not fair to cast judgment on these choices based upon the understanding of anyone BUT the person making that choice. 

I do look forward for your clarification, because I am just trying to understand this whole situation in general. I admire your passion for what you believe and see much strength and love in it. I see how much you care.
 

[Diana]

I guess it is this point I was alluding to (the first bold part) in regards to respecting someones privacy fully. I guess my distortion is that I feel I should respect another's decision enough to not be ignorant, but to allow that choice without having to dissuade, leave another to their own devices. Maybe because I feel that no one can be convinced to not eat meat by anyone other than themselves. I chose to follow a vegetarian lifestyle, not by anyone telling me to or explaining why, but by my own realizations based upon my own distortions. 

I am still not quite convinced of the last part i made bold. I believe I get what you are saying about diet in relation to personal choice. I agree that it does NOT only affect yourself but it affects the animal/life form that was killed for you to eat, etc. Saying it is personal implying that it concerns nothing else does seem ignorant. But, I still don't quite believe that is what was meant initially by the statement "diet is a personal choice". It seems you are assuming ignorance by that statement, but what I get from the statement  "diet is a personal choice" is - please respect my dietary choices, for it is something that is not black and white. There are sooo many factors that influence someones diet and it is not fair to cast judgment on these choices based upon the understanding of anyone BUT the person making that choice. 

I do look forward for your clarification, because I am just trying to understand this whole situation in general. I admire your passion for what you believe and see much strength and love in it. I see how much you care.
 

I think we understand each other. The misunderstanding I think is that we are here, at B4, to discuss. I have been vegetarian since 1993, and not once have I tried to convince anyone else that they should also be. I only respond to questions asked of me about it, in very nonjudgmental ways. I don't hide it either. Here, I discuss it openly, presumably with others who are endeavoring to evolve, grow, learn, develop deeper self-awareness and deeper awareness of and connectivity with others (not just human).

I feel I should be able to say what I feel and think here, with this group, on any topic brought up, done so within the forum guidelines (which because of the nature of this advanced material can get a little blurry). So, here, it does sometimes get mixed up especially in volatile threads when those in a discussion TAKE things personally, when we are just discussing. On the other hand, I have seen direct insults thrown around, which do not fall under honest discussion, but rather reactive (which might be honest but isn't balanced with discernment) behavior. We might just try to flow with catalyst more, and allow a little defensiveness and volatility when it comes to touchy subjects, which is, after all, part of evolving. And those who react might reflect a little more on their reactivity, in the sense that it might shed light.

[Sabou]

I guess it is this point I was alluding to (the first bold part) in regards to respecting someones privacy fully. I guess my distortion is that I feel I should respect another's decision enough to not be ignorant, but to allow that choice without having to dissuade, leave another to their own devices. Maybe because I feel that no one can be convinced to not eat meat by anyone other than themselves. I chose to follow a vegetarian lifestyle, not by anyone telling me to or explaining why, but by my own realizations based upon my own distortions. 

I am still not quite convinced of the last part i made bold. I believe I get what you are saying about diet in relation to personal choice. I agree that it does NOT only affect yourself but it affects the animal/life form that was killed for you to eat, etc. Saying it is personal implying that it concerns nothing else does seem ignorant. But, I still don't quite believe that is what was meant initially by the statement "diet is a personal choice". It seems you are assuming ignorance by that statement, but what I get from the statement  "diet is a personal choice" is - please respect my dietary choices, for it is something that is not black and white. There are sooo many factors that influence someones diet and it is not fair to cast judgment on these choices based upon the understanding of anyone BUT the person making that choice. 

I do look forward for your clarification, because I am just trying to understand this whole situation in general. I admire your passion for what you believe and see much strength and love in it. I see how much you care.
 

I think we understand each other. The misunderstanding I think is that we are here, at B4, to discuss. I have been vegetarian since 1993, and not once have I tried to convince anyone else that they should also be. I only respond to questions asked of me about it, in very nonjudgmental ways. I don't hide it either. Here, I discuss it openly, presumably with others who are endeavoring to evolve, grow, learn, develop deeper self-awareness and deeper awareness of and connectivity with others (not just human).

I feel I should be able to say what I feel and think here, with this group, on any topic brought up, done so within the forum guidelines (which because of the nature of this advanced material can get a little blurry). So, here, it does sometimes get mixed up especially in volatile threads when those in a discussion TAKE things personally, when we are just discussing. On the other hand, I have seen direct insults thrown around, which do not fall under honest discussion, but rather reactive (which might be honest but isn't balanced with discernment) behavior. We might just try to flow with catalyst more, and allow a little defensiveness and volatility when it comes to touchy subjects, which is, after all, part of evolving. And those who react might reflect a little more on their reactivity, in the sense that it might shed light.

Yep, I get you. I was definitely cherry picking one point in particular in order to help myself understand your viewpoint on that particular matter, because it is something that I am working on myself. I have nothing wrong with your form of expression here on B4 in any regard. 

[Minyatur]

I stumbled across this quote which I thought was interesting in this context :

17,30 Questioner: Well, if an entity wants to learn ways of it, wants to be of service to others rather than service to self while he is in this third density, are there best ways of being of service to others, or is any way just as good as any other way?

Ra: I am Ra. The best way to be of service to others has been explicitly covered in previous material. We will iterate briefly.

The best way of service to others is the constant attempt to seek to share the love of the Creator as it is known to the inner self. This involves self knowledge and the ability to open the self to the other-self without hesitation. This involves, shall we say, radiating that which is the essence or the heart of the mind/body/spirit complex.

Speaking to the intention of your question, the best way for each seeker in third density to be of service to others is unique to that mind/body/spirit complex. This means that the mind/body/spirit complex must then seek within itself the intelligence of its own discernment as to the way it may best serve other-selves. This will be different for each. There is no best.There is no generalization. Nothing is known.

In this light, even if one brings up Ra's own unique discernment as to his own polarity in regard to this question, this does not mean it becomes what being STO is. Polarity lies in intent and this quote explains this very concept in a good way. Nothing is known and each seek his own truth within himself, in regard to polarity there is no generalization to make.

This was dicussed using other quotes but this one does bring a different angle to it and speaks directly of the STO polarity.

[AnthroHeart]

I stumbled across this quote which I thought was interesting in this context :

17,30 Questioner: Well, if an entity wants to learn ways of it, wants to be of service to others rather than service to self while he is in this third density, are there best ways of being of service to others, or is any way just as good as any other way?

Ra: I am Ra. The best way to be of service to others has been explicitly covered in previous material. We will iterate briefly.

The best way of service to others is the constant attempt to seek to share the love of the Creator as it is known to the inner self. This involves self knowledge and the ability to open the self to the other-self without hesitation. This involves, shall we say, radiating that which is the essence or the heart of the mind/body/spirit complex.

Speaking to the intention of your question, the best way for each seeker in third density to be of service to others is unique to that mind/body/spirit complex. This means that the mind/body/spirit complex must then seek within itself the intelligence of its own discernment as to the way it may best serve other-selves. This will be different for each. There is no best.There is no generalization. Nothing is known.

This states that service to others is done by opening the heart.

[Minyatur]

I stumbled across this quote which I thought was interesting in this context :

17,30 Questioner: Well, if an entity wants to learn ways of it, wants to be of service to others rather than service to self while he is in this third density, are there best ways of being of service to others, or is any way just as good as any other way?

Ra: I am Ra. The best way to be of service to others has been explicitly covered in previous material. We will iterate briefly.

The best way of service to others is the constant attempt to seek to share the love of the Creator as it is known to the inner self. This involves self knowledge and the ability to open the self to the other-self without hesitation. This involves, shall we say, radiating that which is the essence or the heart of the mind/body/spirit complex.

Speaking to the intention of your question, the best way for each seeker in third density to be of service to others is unique to that mind/body/spirit complex. This means that the mind/body/spirit complex must then seek within itself the intelligence of its own discernment as to the way it may best serve other-selves. This will be different for each. There is no best.There is no generalization. Nothing is known.

This states that service to others is done by opening the heart.

Never stated otherwise, just pointing out the trend that seems to think the opening of the heart has the exact same implications for every being.

[Diana]

This states that service to others is done by opening the heart.

Yes, this seems pretty basic.

So if someone would respond I would appreciate it. I have a question.

First, I want to state that the only viable (in my opinion) reason for continuing to eat meat has come from Aion and his idea of serious transmutation to help heal, which is reminiscent of "sin-eaters" in indigenous cultures. I don't agree with it, but at least it makes some sense to me, and does not theoretically conflict with the following.

Could anyone please tell me, and I would appreciate honesty, how you could watch animals being tortured (living lives where they can hardly move in darkness, not being able to walk, feel the sun, the rain, the grass under their feet, not being able to care for their young, or have community with others of their kind, being fed unnatural food to fatten them, being shot up with antibiotics and steroids, and so on) and then go to be slaughtered (and hear their cries of terror and see them trying to get away and finally watching as their pitiable lives are ended in inhumane ways) and not feel almost unbearable sadness IF YOUR HEART IS OPEN?

This is where I can't go along with those who say they are okay with it because of the bigger picture. Could someone make me understand how this is possible? And you must make a good argument, and not some new age la-la stuff even if it comes from Ra (as what Ra has said is so often used to twist concepts, because of Ra's concern with free will and not wanting to unduly influence us), in order to have any affect on me—not because I am rigid or unswayable, but because I am intelligent and discerning and I think things out for myself.

[Minyatur]

This states that service to others is done by opening the heart.

Yes, this seems pretty basic.

So if someone would respond I would appreciate it. I have a question.

First, I want to state that the only viable (in my opinion) reason for continuing to eat meat has come from Aion and his idea of serious transmutation to help heal, which is reminiscent of "sin-eaters" in indigenous cultures. I don't agree with it, but at least it makes some sense to me, and does not theoretically conflict with the following.

Could anyone please tell me, and I would appreciate honesty, how you could watch animals being tortured (living lives where they can hardly move in darkness, not being able to walk, feel the sun, the rain, the grass under their feet, not being able to care for their young, or have community with others of their kind, being fed unnatural food to fatten them, being shot up with antibiotics and steroids, and so on) and then go to be slaughtered (and hear their cries of terror and see them trying to get away and finally watching as their pitiable lives are ended in inhumane ways) and not feel almost unbearable sadness IF YOUR HEART IS OPEN?

This is where I can't go along with those who say they are okay with it because of the bigger picture. Could someone make me understand how this is possible? And you must make a good argument, and not some new age la-la stuff even if it comes from Ra (as what Ra has said is so often used to twist concepts, because of Ra's concern with free will and not wanting to unduly influence us), in order to have any affect on me—not because I am rigid or unswayable, but because I am intelligent and discerning and I think things out for myself.

Well in my case I've stated many times over that this experience is a self sacrifice so that one may know pain along it's path. Meat farms obviously resonate the exact experience they do offer in time/space, and that service is taken by every animal that resonates with that experience. Just like anything else there is light and love to be distilled.

About the opening of the heart, you think it works in the exact same manner for everyone? Heart blockages vary greatly for everyone and as some have gotten a few blockages from their incarnations down here, others had their heart closed before even coming on these planes and have much to unveil and distill if they hope to change it otherwise. Even when the heart is open, the heart is still a distorted mess of experiences and as such what one feels is a reflection of his own path. There are things that self accept and others that self rejects and that is so for any of us just like for those of Ra. The whole world around us being a simple mirror to face our distortions, something of our very making.

A perfectly balanced and undistorted heart would only feel love toward each entity and every actions done in these planes. That is what our evolution progress towards and where the steps of light ever lead us. But you said yourself in another thread that you reject the Logos that is like this, while in my view it is the exact incarnation of unconditional love. A love that wants to change things is very conditional toward itself, both polarities ever are self serving as self is always only acting on how it feels.

[anagogy]

Could anyone please tell me, and I would appreciate honesty, how you could watch animals being tortured (living lives where they can hardly move in darkness, not being able to walk, feel the sun, the rain, the grass under their feet, not being able to care for their young, or have community with others of their kind, being fed unnatural food to fatten them, being shot up with antibiotics and steroids, and so on) and then go to be slaughtered (and hear their cries of terror and see them trying to get away and finally watching as their pitiable lives are ended in inhumane ways) and not feel almost unbearable sadness IF YOUR HEART IS OPEN?

This is where I can't go along with those who say they are okay with it because of the bigger picture. Could someone make me understand how this is possible? And you must make a good argument, and not some new age la-la stuff even if it comes from Ra (as what Ra has said is so often used to twist concepts, because of Ra's concern with free will and not wanting to unduly influence us), in order to have any affect on me—not because I am rigid or unswayable, but because I am intelligent and discerning and I think things out for myself.

I don't think very many people on this forum disagree that there are major problems with factory farming.  There is suffering there, obviously.  Ideally, an animal should get to roam free, and enjoy the pleasures of living in the physical form it has come to inhabit.  And no, I'm not against eating meat.  There will always be meat eating.  Even if you pass laws to stop all the humans, they will do it in secret.  And no one will ever stop animals from eating each other, because it is a natural part of life.   

Choosing to not eat meat from factory farms is not even making an iota of a dent in the problem, of factory farm suffering. Do you honestly think that being a vegetarian makes a significant impact in factory farming?  I assure you, it doesn't.  You know why?  Because most of the world doesn't care.   Their numbers completely overwhelm you! They don't have that open heart you're referring to.  So at the end of the day, the only way it is going to end is if the people doing the killing stop, and isn't realistic from my point of view.  A Lot of vegetarian/vegan folk want to think that eating meat is synonymous with the killing of the animals.  It's not from my perspective.  And not eating the meat is no better than eating the meat.  Not eating it is making their sacrifice truly meaningless, and is wasteful of their vessel.  And also, again, doesn't significantly affect the problem of factory farming suffering (maybe if you got the whole world to do it -- good luck).

I know you don't want metaphysical explanations, but sorry, that's part of the reality.  Every being is creating its own reality.  I know it has been said a hundred times before, and seems like the universal cop out, but it's absolutely true IMO.  It doesn't mean that all beings are getting what they want (I very much doubt any being *wants* to suffer), just what they tune to via the consistent nature of their conscious thoughts.  Victimizers will attract victims, and vice versa.  Fear will attract circumstances to fear, even if humans and their factory farms aren't around.  One is attracted into the conditions they focus upon, this is true of all consciousness.  So if a being is attuned to fear, they will attract circumstances to fear.  They can even attract torturous conditions for themselves (again, even if no humans are around).  Fear is a natural vibrational state for many in the animal kingdom, since they are often existing in red ray survival consciousness.

So does this mean we shouldn't do anything?  Not necessarily.  You can tune your thoughts to well being, and be a shining beacon of well being for others.  And if eating vegetarian/vegan causes you to feel more in alignment with well being than the alternative, I think that is great.  But accept the truth that there will *always* be beings suffering, somewhere, and the there will always be beings enjoying life immensely, somewhere.  It is all part and parcel of the infinite ingredients of our cosmos.  And without that duality, we couldn't experience anything but monochrome.  The creator is not all love and light.  It is darkness too.  And coming to terms with that isn't easy, but at some point you have to ask yourself, do I want to focus my consciousness into where all the misery is, or where all the well being is?  And then also accept that all beings will grow in understanding of how their experience comes into being in the course of time.  One who sees him or herself as a savior, will be delivered a *never-ending* stream of beings that need saving by the universe.  And if filling that role is what makes that person whole, more power to them.   

Karma is the force which inevitably elevates all beings back to the one original thought.  Again, I know you don't want woo woo explanations, but all suffering is healed in the course of time, with equally wonderful experiences to balance the horrible ones.  And of course, this is a grand illusion, and no beings are lost.  All is well in the end.  Sorry had to go to woo woo town.

[AnthroHeart]

I hear ya anagogy!

I eat meat, and don't feel bad for doing so.

I don't always bless the food, or remember to thank the animal.

But I'm also not a bad person.

I don't think we get karma for doing so, unless we go against our beliefs.

The intent will determine the karma.

I too was probably an animal that was slaughtered at one time or many, and I forgive my slayers.

[native]

and not feel almost unbearable sadness IF YOUR HEART IS OPEN?

Most do. It just gets repressed and we push it away. I think there is an addictive element, in that something that tastes good is hard to give up. But also, since the body is intelligent and stores information, I think the body inherently remembers that providing food for ourselves is extremely hard work, and that what we have now is a release from that. So giving that up is difficult, because someone is going to have to put in that effort. As an aspiring vegetarian, I've worked in fields and large gardens and it's not easy. We paint these ideal pictures but who is going to do the work? I know I hate the idea of it.

So I take the route of having my own opinion without expectation from others, and maybe it's as simple as that. Perhaps the attitude in itself will make way for advancements.

[Jade]

Choosing to not eat meat from factory farms is not even making an iota of a dent in the problem, of factory farm suffering. Do you honestly think that being a vegetarian makes a significant impact in factory farming?  I assure you, it doesn't.  You know why?  Because most of the world doesn't care.   Their numbers completely overwhelm you! They don't have that open heart you're referring to.  So at the end of the day, the only way it is going to end is if the people doing the killing stop, and isn't realistic from my point of view.  A Lot of vegetarian/vegan folk want to think that eating meat is synonymous with the killing of the animals.  It's not from my perspective.  And not eating the meat is no better than eating the meat.  Not eating it is making their sacrifice truly meaningless, and is wasteful of their vessel.  And also, again, doesn't significantly affect the problem of factory farming suffering (maybe if you got the whole world to do it -- good luck).

How can you say that nothing will change because no one cares, but that those who do care aren't making a dent in the problem? The more people who DO care, the more change will happen. Soon, the number of people who do care will overwhelm those who don't. That's 4D positive!

http://blogs.wsj.com/numbers/how-much-me...-now-1792/

As far as the work mentioned by Icaro - the STO path requires sacrifice of energy to do any work. We can sacrifice our own energy or the energy of others. Gardening is hard, but is it as hard as the idea of having to kill the animals yourself for food? (let alone the work gone into raising the animals...)

Also, I do not equate eating meat with killing, but I do think paying for meat contributes to the problem of factory farms. I think abstaining from paying for meat and using alternative, ethical food sources helps alleviate the problem of factory farms. You can insert any other example of contribution/alleviation into those sentences that you'd like. I refuse to be nihilistic and say no one cares, so the problem is insurmountable, and no dent can be made by a single person.

[Monica]

17,30 Questioner: Well, if an entity wants to learn ways of it, wants to be of service to others rather than service to self while he is in this third density, are there best ways of being of service to others, or is any way just as good as any other way?

Ra: I am Ra. The best way to be of service to others has been explicitly covered in previous material. We will iterate briefly.

The best way of service to others is the constant attempt to seek to share the love of the Creator as it is known to the inner self. This involves self knowledge and the ability to open the self to the other-self without hesitation. This involves, shall we say, radiating that which is the essence or the heart of the mind/body/spirit complex.

Speaking to the intention of your question, the best way for each seeker in third density to be of service to others is unique to that mind/body/spirit complex. This means that the mind/body/spirit complex must then seek within itself the intelligence of its own discernment as to the way it may best serve other-selves. This will be different for each. There is no best.There is no generalization. Nothing is known.

Your takeaway is valid, but the red part is also valid. This part seems to get left out. The conversation centers on taking from our younger other-selves, instead of opening ourselves to them without hesitation.

...

[Minyatur]

17,30 Questioner: Well, if an entity wants to learn ways of it, wants to be of service to others rather than service to self while he is in this third density, are there best ways of being of service to others, or is any way just as good as any other way?

Ra: I am Ra. The best way to be of service to others has been explicitly covered in previous material. We will iterate briefly.

The best way of service to others is the constant attempt to seek to share the love of the Creator as it is known to the inner self. This involves self knowledge and the ability to open the self to the other-self without hesitation. This involves, shall we say, radiating that which is the essence or the heart of the mind/body/spirit complex.

Speaking to the intention of your question, the best way for each seeker in third density to be of service to others is unique to that mind/body/spirit complex. This means that the mind/body/spirit complex must then seek within itself the intelligence of its own discernment as to the way it may best serve other-selves. This will be different for each. There is no best.There is no generalization. Nothing is known.

Your takeaway is valid, but the red part is also valid. This part seems to get left out. The conversation centers on taking from our younger other-selves, instead of opening ourselves to them without hesitation.

...

Because I didn't bold it, does not mean I was leaving it out.

[anagogy]

How can you say that nothing will change because no one cares, but that those who do care aren't making a dent in the problem? The more people who DO care, the more change will happen. Soon, the number of people who do care will overwhelm those who don't. That's 4D positive!

http://blogs.wsj.com/numbers/how-much-me...-now-1792/

As far as the work mentioned by Icaro - the STO path requires sacrifice of energy to do any work. We can sacrifice our own energy or the energy of others. Gardening is hard, but is it as hard as the idea of having to kill the animals yourself for food? (let alone the work gone into raising the animals...)

Also, I do not equate eating meat with killing, but I do think paying for meat contributes to the problem of factory farms. I think abstaining from paying for meat and using alternative, ethical food sources helps alleviate the problem of factory farms. You can insert any other example of contribution/alleviation into those sentences that you'd like. I refuse to be nihilistic and say no one cares, so the problem is insurmountable, and no dent can be made by a single person.

Even that article you posted admits that world demand for meat is on the rise.  It just says it's slowed down in the US (a little bit).  And that's probably not even because of compassion, but much more likely: economics.  It has gotten more expensive.

But anyway, when I say nothing will change, I mean if consciousness is attuned to suffering, it will find a way to suffer, regardless of whether people are eating meat or not.  Regardless of whether there are factory farms or not.  If it wasn't factory farms, it could just as well be some horrible plague that causes slow and painful death, or a dwindling ecosystem, or brutal predators.  If suffering is the issue, that is the harsh reality of the situation.  So from my perspective, eating meat or not eating meat doesn't really save a being from not suffering (that perspective involves a limited temporal point of view).  Maybe my opinion will change one day, but I doubt it.  It is a play in consciousness.  Eliminate factory farming, the beings exploring that side of the pendulum will incarnate and get their experiences elsewhere.  But they will still get them.  If this view offends anyone, it is just my honest perspective.  

Few people will want to accept that though.  As I said, we create our own realities.  Nobody creates it for you.  There is no assertion in an attraction based universe.  I'm not denying there is influence on other points of consciousness once their attention is captured.  If you lack focus (and for the most part, 2D lack a consciously directable focus), then it is easy for the proverbial vampire to control your reality via controlling your attention.  This is how STS create.  But your attention was never actually controlled, you just believed it was.  But until this planet is harvested positive for realsies, there will be STS here controlling people/animals.  And consciousness that is interested in that experience (for god knows what reasons) will incarnate on other planets that still have it, if they don't exist on here anymore.  The most you can do is try to be a positive influence, in and of yourself, and if you feel inspired to take some action as an extension of your alignment with that positivity, more power to you.  If not eating meat makes you feel better, more power to you.  But it doesn't put the brakes on suffering in my opinion, it just changes how it physically manifests.

And sorry if I give you a nihilistic vibe.  It is not that I don't care, but it is my personal spiritual understanding that if we want to have a positive influence, you model it by example in your personal life.  And others may align as you do.  But we can't control the world conditions, only ourselves.  We can influence, just not control.  Be a beacon of love and light.  It is enough to not join in the illusory separation.  Find the well being inside yourself, and others will seek it out, because people are attracted to it.  It is far more effective than "not doing this thing because I associate with (X)", in my opinion.  As positive beings, we enjoy providing relief for other beings.  We like to be the instrument of healing, of love, of compassion.  It is who we are.  If it wasn't who you were, you wouldn't feel good doing it.  And if a being comes into your personal experience that you can help, by all means help them/it.  If a being is there, in your personal reality, it is by virtue of the fact that it is a vibrational match to being assisted, and you got the honor of being the cooperative component the universe summoned to play that role.  Why do I say "role"?  Would another cooperative component have been summoned if you weren't around?  Surprisingly, yes.  All beings are creating their own realities.  

Ra: A portion, seemingly, of the Creator rejoices at your choice to question us regarding the evolution of spirit. A seemingly separate portion would wish for multitudinous answers to a great range of queries of a specific nature. Another seemingly separate group of your peoples would wish this correspondence through this instrument to cease, feeling it to be of a negative nature. Upon the many other planes of existence there are those whose every fiber rejoices at your service and those such as the entity of whom you have been speaking which wish only to terminate the life upon the third-density plane of this instrument. All are the Creator. There is one vast panoply of biases and distortions, colors and hues, in an unending pattern. In the case of those with whom you, as entities and as a group, are not in resonance, you wish them love, light, peace, joy, and bid them well. No more than this can you do for your portion of the Creator is as it is and your experience and offering of experience, to be valuable, needs be more and more a perfect representation of who you truly are. Could you, then, serve a negative entity by offering the instrument’s life? It is unlikely that you would find this a true service. Thus you may see in many cases the loving balance being achieved, the love being offered, light being sent, and the service of the service-to-self oriented entity gratefully acknowledged while being rejected as not being useful in your journey at this time. Thus you serve One Creator without paradox.

[Monica]

Even that article you posted admits that world demand for meat is on the rise.  It just says it's slowed down in the US (a little bit).  And that's probably not even because of compassion, but much more likely: economics.  It has gotten more expensive.

I'd say 12.2 % is more than 'a little bit'!

considering the fairly steady climb in meat consumption over the last half-century, you might say the numbers are plummeting. The department of agriculture projects that our meat and poultry consumption will fall again this year, to about 12.2 percent less in 2012 than it was in 2007. Beef consumption has been in decline for about 20 years; the drop in chicken is even more dramatic, over the last five years or so; pork also has been steadily slipping for about five years.

...

The flaw in the report is that it treats American consumers as passive actors who are victims of diminishing supplies, rising costs and government bias against the meat industry. Nowhere does it mention that we’re eating less meat because we want to eat less meat.

Yet conscious decisions are being made by consumers. Even buying less meat because prices are high and times are tough is a choice; other “sacrifices” could be made. We could cut back on junk food, or shirts or iPhones, which have a very high meat-equivalent, to coin a term. Yet even though excess supply kept chicken prices lower than the year before, demand dropped.

Some are choosing to eat less meat for all the right reasons. The Values Institute at DGWB Advertising and Communications just named the rise of “flexitarianism” — an eating style that reduces the amount of meat without “going vegetarian” — as one of its top five consumer health trends for 2012. In an Allrecipes.com survey of 1,400 members, more than one-third of home cooks said they ate less meat in 2011 than in 2010. Back in June, a survey found that 50 percent of American adults said they were aware of the Meatless Monday campaign, with 27 percent of those aware reporting that they were actively reducing their meat consumption.

I can add, anecdotally, that when I ask audiences I speak to, “How many of you are eating less meat than you were 10 years ago?” at least two-thirds raise their hands. A self-selecting group to be sure, but nevertheless one that exists.

In fact, let’s ask this: is anyone in this country eating more meat than they used to?

We still eat way more meat than is good for us or the environment, not to mention the animals. But a 12 percent reduction in just five years is significant, and if that decline were to continue for the next five years — well, that’s something few would have imagined five years ago. It’s something only the industry could get upset about. The rest of us should celebrate.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/201...-meat-why/

...