Why I am not a vegan

[anagogy]

I don't even know where to begin in response to this, but I am going to try.

Firstly, you seem to have gathered very little understanding of me and my posts at all. And yet you say I tell my story over and over again. You don't know the first thing about me and how I conduct my life. The above description of me tells me that you have not read my posts at all with any sort of comprehension.

Actually, I have reread your post and decided I am not going to respond further. It's insulting, ignorant (of me and who I am), and judgmental based on projection. Please refrain from any further assessments of my character.

It wasn't directed at you, Diana the person, personally (aside from being a response to your response). I probably could have made that more clear. To be honest, I know very little about you personally, except for small details (certainly nowhere near enough to do any kind of "assessment" of you). It was more a verbal depiction of a general type of person I come across. People who are so focused on what's wrong with the world that they see very little of the good.

Sorry if you took personal offense. It wasn't my intent to hurt your feelings.

[Diana]

Sorry if you took personal offense.  It wasn't my intent to hurt your feelings.

You didn't hurt my feelings. And I did not take offense. It did read as though you were addressing me, and I simply didn't want untruths here. 

You might take more care in the future in wording your posts.

But even if you were talking about vegans in general, your post was judgmental and ignorant of the them and their individual intentions and what they are or are not aware of. It still sounds like prejudice to me.

[anagogy]

But even if you were talking about vegans in general, your post was judgmental and ignorant of the them and their individual intentions and what they are or are not aware of. It still sounds like prejudice to me.

No more prejudiced than the ignorance and judgment that the vegans in these threads have thrown at me and those who eat meat. I simply mirror it back. The only difference is they seem to get way more offended.

[Diana]

But even if you were talking about vegans in general, your post was judgmental and ignorant of the them and their individual intentions and what they are or are not aware of. It still sounds like prejudice to me.

No more prejudiced than the ignorance and judgment that the vegans in these threads have thrown at me and those who eat meat.  I simply mirror it back.  The only difference is they seem to get way more offended.

Once again, I'm not sure you've actually read the posts, or actually comprehended them. 

[anagogy]

Once again, I'm not sure you've actually read the posts, or actually comprehended them. 

Probably couldn't comprehend them. You are too advanced for me.

[Diana]

Once again, I'm not sure you've actually read the posts, or actually comprehended them. 

Probably couldn't comprehend them.  You are too advanced for me.

I did not mean "comprehend them" in a derogatory sense. Sorry if that's the way it came off. I just meant that I know for a fact that the core vegan posters (at least the original ones, but more than just them) have made monumental efforts for years to precisely NOT point the finger and offend omnivores and speak in general terms and facts and stats, while being recipients here of ghastly jokes and cruel images posted. This is obvious (to me) if the whole of these threads has been read.

I'd rather not have this devolve into a power struggle. Obviously we have two very different ways of seeing the same thing. And that's fine.

[Minyatur]

Just out of curiosity Monica, if you had to lay down your understanding of the metaphysics of how someone "creates their own reality" how would you say it worked?  It seems like in one post you will agree with the metaphysics I lay down, and then in another, your perspective completely contradicts it.  It would really help me touch bases with you and understand your logic better.

In order to understand my views on that, you'd probably have to be familiar with Nassim Haramein's work. I embrace his work and believe that each of us is the Event Horizon, and each of us creates our own reality in the present moment, and each present moment is the result of choices made in previous present moments, within preprogrammed parameters, in conjunction with the collective, consensual reality, meaning that we do indeed affect one another and it's Not just a simple matter of being isolated and creating our own little universe all by ourselves; rather, we live in a holographic reality, with multiple timelines, multiple versions, and each time we make a choice, those multiple timelines shift around, in the possibility/probability vortex.

Then do you view other-selves as parallel "space/time-lines" to your own?

[Monica]

Then do you view other-selves as parallel "space/time-lines" to your own?

Yes. That's what it means by 'All is One.'

...

[Minyatur]

Ra has said that the lesson/goal of this illusion or density, is to see love in the moment. Which goes nicely along a Q'uo quote that says that we came not here to change this world but to love it. In my opinion loving this world fully in all of it's ways is the greatest way to increase this planet's vibration, else self can only filter the love and light that passes through itself.

That is the perspective I've been trying to share. That every moment whatever it's kind and however you feel about it, always does contains love, everything is literally made of out love. The exercise to see love in the moment, is to consciously seek that love in awareness and understanding distortions. That each attempt empowers the preceding one.. and after this Ra gives the next exercises of : to see the Creator in other-self, to see the Creator in self, to see the Creator in the world that surrounds self and other-selves. The next exercises also do go with what I have been trying to share, that victims are the Creator just as the oppressors are the Creator just as the bystanders, activists, those who don't care, the ground and buildings where it's happening, the tools that are used, the planet, the sun and any other star where other things are just happening.......... anything and everything really. There's the Creator and just the Creator, just that One single awareness that rather dream of all of this rather than just being a lonely emptiness and void. I've been perceived wrongly to consider the higher-selves of the entities before their lower-selves, but I consider them for what they are and that is the Creator. Not as something external to Intelligent Infinity which is a victim of it, but each as the Creator of it all. Each is the exact center of it all, each is the generator of the many-ness that surrounds itself. Ra has said that the response of the perfectly balanced entity is love, any other kind of feelings are a distortion of love. That applies equally to a rage that seeks to destroy, just as the despair that is experienced upon observing it.

If you disagree with what I have said then say which part is untrue or that you don't resonate with in your understanding.

[Monica]

People who are so focused on what's wrong with the world that they see very little of the good.

There are certainly people like that in everyday life, but it's impossible to ascertain whether someone is actually like that, based on what they post in an online discussion forum, and even less possible based on just a few topics, for the simple reason that it's a very limited exposure to that person lacking most of the physical clues such as tone of voice, facial expressions, body language, etc. not to mention lack of knowledge about who they really are and how they spend their time.

Making such an assumption about someone based on a single discussion on a topic like meat is even less likely to be accurate, for the simple reason is that there's absolutely nothing positive to be said about the meat industry at all. Likewise, if this were a topic about rape, murder, or war, and someone participated in that discussion lamenting how awful those things are, while raising awareness and trying to effect change towards a less violent planet, would you say that they are 'only focusing on negative things' based on that single discussion when the only positive thing that can ever be said about murder/rape/war is the progress towards ending them?

That peace activist might be a very sunny, cheerful person in real life, who enjoys music, movies, gardening, reading, hiking, swimming, dancing, etc. just like anyone else. That person who is pointing out the atrocities of war/murder/rape/meat and seems so negative to you might even by called 'Miss Sunshine' by her coworkers and you'd never know that, would you?

In other words, perhaps you might consider that it isn't the person who is negative, but the subject matter. :idea:

...

[Monica]

I did say in various thread that I've probably spent my entire existence in 4D and upper in STS densities. This was not known when I joinned b4th. The very thought of leaving what has always been my home and all those I've considered brothers and sisters does break my heart, so my perspective on polarity can only differ greatly from how it is perceived by someone who has experienced otherwise.

That surely could explain your perspectives and why basic STO concepts may seem foreign to you.

...

[Monica]

Ra has said that the lesson/goal of this illusion or density, is to see love in the moment. Which goes nicely along a Q'uo quote that says that we came not here to change this world but to love it. In my opinion loving this world fully in all of it's ways is the greatest way to increase this planet's vibration, else self can only filter the love and light that passes through itself.

That is the perspective I've been trying to share. That every moment whatever it's kind and however you feel about it, always does contains love, everything is literally made of out love. The exercise to see love in the moment, is to consciously seek that love in awareness and understanding distortions. That each attempt empowers the preceding one.. and after this Ra gives the next exercises of : to see the Creator in other-self, to see the Creator in self, to see the Creator in the world that surrounds self and other-selves. The next exercises also do go with what I have been trying to share, that victims are the Creator just as the oppressors are the Creator just as the bystanders, activists, those who don't care, the ground and buildings where it's happening, the tools that are used, the planet, the sun and any other star where other things are just happening.......... anything and everything really. There's the Creator and just the Creator, just that One single awareness that rather dream of all of this rather than just being a lonely emptiness and void. I've been perceived wrongly to consider the higher-selves of the entities before their lower-selves, but I consider them for what they are and that is the Creator. Not as something external to Intelligent Infinity which is a victim of it, but each as the Creator of it all. Each is the exact center of it all, each is the generator of the many-ness that surrounds itself. Ra has said that the response of the perfectly balanced entity is love, any other kind of feelings are a distortion of love. That applies equally to a rage that seeks to destroy, just as the despair that is experienced upon observing it.

If you disagree with what I have said then say which part is untrue or that you don't resonate with in your understanding.

OK, since you asked:

1. Increasing the planet's vibration is acceptable to you? But that IS changing it.
2. I agree with Jade that what Q'uo really meant was that the way to change the world is by loving it. Love transforms.
3. However action and choice are also important, to direct that love.
4. I don't exactly disagree with what you said, but you have it a bit skewed, in my opinion. You continue to leave out the power of choice.
5. The power is in the resolution of paradox. One can love the STS actions/entities and yet, simultaneously, decline their service and consciously choose to transform them.
6. You left out polarity. Yes, I know, you explained that you don't resonate with the concept of polarity. That's fine, but please understand that the concept of polarity is a VERY BIG part of Ra's teachings, so if you are going to exclude it, there's no way you will understand, no matter how much I explain it.
7. You speak of unity, but leaving out a major concept isn't unity.
8. You speak of acceptance, but apathy isn't acceptance.
9. You speak of being beyond polarity, but the sinkhole of indifference is before polarity, not beyond it.
10. You speak of 'loving the world fully' but that would, by necessity, include loving the victims too, and if you love the victims and they are calling out for help, then the appropriate response is to answer their call. Yet you continually say that there's No need to answer their call. This tells me that you don't really grasp what love is. It sounds cool to say "love everything/everyone" but without service, that isn't love; it's indifference.
11. And yes, loving everything includes loving the victimizers as well. However, loving them doesn't necessitate accepting their offer for STS service. Nor does it require being a victimizer yourself.
12. If one wishes to answer the call of the victimizer, the first obvious step is to quit victimizing them.
13. Talking about 'loving everyone and everything' falls flat when one is still engaged in conscious victimizing of others.
14. You seem to be implying that a 'perfectly balanced entity' wouldn't answer the call of others, yet Ra answered not only our call, but the call of higher 2D entities.

...

[Minyatur]

I did say in various thread that I've probably spent my entire existence in 4D and upper in STS densities. This was not known when I joinned b4th. The very thought of leaving what has always been my home and all those I've considered brothers and sisters does break my heart, so my perspective on polarity can only differ greatly from how it is perceived by someone who has experienced otherwise.

That surely could explain your perspectives and why basic STO concepts may seem foreign to you.

...

I understand a mindless love that simply feels, but expect more from people who would call themselves wanderers and conscious beings.

I see your expression of STO as dissonant with how it is presented by the Ra material just as it is dissonant with the conscious seeking of Unity and the Law of One as also presented by the Ra material, both being heavily linked. You proclaim to embody the STO polarity yet express separation and control in your words which are contrary to it's very nature to begin with.

[Monica]

I see your expression of STO as dissonant with how it is presented by the Ra material just as it is dissonant with the conscious seeking of Unity and the Law of One as also presented by the Ra material, both being heavily linked. You proclaim to embody the STO polarity yet express separation and control in your words which are contrary to it's very nature to begin with.

That's very amusing but I didn't ask for your opinion about my own expression of STO.

It does make sense, though, that someone who just said they were from STS 4D (or higher) would find the musings of an STO-oriented entity dissonant.   It also makes sense that an entity from STS 4D (or higher) would see separation and control where there is none, being that that is all they know.

Note that I am NOT saying you are STS! It is you who just said that...that you were from STS 4D or higher. IF that is indeed true, then it makes sense that 1. you would misperceive my words and 2. we wouldn't be able to find common ground. 

So, how about we quit trying, ok?

Not to mention, the absurdity of an entity claiming to be from STS 4D, speaking about unity, being that separation/lack of unity is the very definition of STS.

...

[Minyatur]

1. Increasing the planet's vibration is acceptable to you? But that IS changing it.

Everything is acceptable and everything is the byproduct of beingness, to reject something is to reject everything because everything also equally is that one thing you reject. That also is acceptable as else there would be no learning happening. Ultimately just as any paradox, this will be resolved in each awareness.

2. I agree with Jade that what Q'uo really meant was that the way to change the world is by loving it. Love transforms.

All things will heal in love. But increasing the planet's vibration will not erase everything that was there, most of it will simply move elsewhere. Change is inevitable in the clashing of beingness, it is the very purpose of many-ness.

3. However action and choice are also important, to direct that love.

I never denied constantly making choices everyday, I simply said that the choices of each is personal to each and what is applicable to one is not to another. We're all exploring being a unique blend of distortions, as such the expression of self can only differ from one to another.

4. I don't exactly disagree with what you said, but you have it a bit skewed, in my opinion. You continue to leave out the power of choice.

I never said you choices were bad, I simply stated that mine or any other are also not bad despite understanding how easily they often can be perceived as such. I do believe the root of all things to be love, the role of each being is to act upon how this undistorted universal love is filtered through itself.

5. The power is in the resolution of paradox. One can love the STS actions/entities and yet, simultaneously, decline their service and consciously choose to transform them.

Surely, but I belive one of the challenges of the STO is to do this without amplifying this very darkness they are trying to heal. Light does cast shadows.

6. You left out polarity. Yes, I know, you explained that you don't resonate with the concept of polarity. That's fine, but please understand that the concept of polarity is a VERY BIG part of Ra's teachings, so if you are going to exclude it, there's no way you will understand, no matter how much I explain it.

It is not that I do not resonate with the concept of polarity, I view everything as polarized. It is that I view all blendings of polarity to be rightful and that together they form something which is greater than the duality of polarity. I myself, am not exempt from my own polarity and need to work with it like any other being that exist temporarily within this Creation. I've put much emphasis on that upon the opening of the heart a different expression of universal love can be made and not that love must not be shared.

7. You speak of unity, but leaving out a major concept isn't unity.

I do not think I am leaving any concepts out. Like I said I do not see my view as being dissonant with the Ra material in it's whole.

8. You speak of acceptance, but apathy isn't acceptance.

I do agree with that, remains that the perfectly balanced entity will only feel love. To hold on to feelings which are "not" love is to hold on to distortions of this love. Undistorted love rejects not but can be rejected.

9. You speak of being beyond polarity, but the sinkhole of indifference is before polarity, not beyond it.

You state that I am indifferent, I may have considered it true in the past but I am only waking up more and more to awareness that the core of my being is everything but indifferent. Nothing is ever forgotten, no connection I have created with other-selves will ever be loss. I'm simply the kind of person that thinks about the possibility that the souls of the very animals we talk about or that I may have come to eat in one of their many 2D forms (or perhaps more them one over many lifetimes), may one day review our exchanges on this forum. Rather than indifferent, I'd say I am not very grounded more than anything.

10. You speak of 'loving the world fully' but that would, by necessity, include loving the victims too, and if you love the victims and they are calling out for help, then the appropriate response is to answer their call. Yet you continually say that there's No need to answer their call. This tells me that you don't really grasp what love is. It sounds cool to say "love everything/everyone" but without service, that isn't love; it's indifference.

There are infinite calls that are to be answered and infinite calls that are to be denied that service. I do believe souls attract the right entities to provide the right experiences.

11. And yes, loving everything includes loving the victimizers as well. However, loving them doesn't necessitate accepting their offer for STS service. Nor does it require being a victimizer yourself.

It effectively does not require any of that. I never intended to tell you that you should eat meat.

If I had to think a of a reason for which you could eat meat, that would be to try to perceive the meat as an entity of it's own and the Creator and to love it despite how it came to be. I do believe flesh wants to be flesh and not to rot away. This could be done in a way that would ensure that no animals suffered in the process, like something that would be thrown to rot if not eaten.

12. If one wishes to answer the call of the victimizer, the first obvious step is to quit victimizing them.

I believe that one can only perceive victims if it sees itself as a victim, your perception of others is but a mirror unto a perception of yourself. My perception of others is also a mirror of my perception of myself.

13. Talking about 'loving everyone and everything' falls flat when one is still engaged in conscious victimizing of others.

This works in an oppressor/victim mentality, when both are seen as one then this can only be perceived as a paradox. Like I said the doer and receiver are both one in themselves.

14. You seem to be implying that a 'perfectly balanced entity' wouldn't answer the call of others, yet Ra answered not only our call, but the call of higher 2D entities.

We all have our calls and I do answer calls. A call not being answered is an experience that was desired. While you are here on this planet, there are many other worlds where you could have helped other entities. It all boils down to a matter of resonance.

[Minyatur]

I see your expression of STO as dissonant with how it is presented by the Ra material just as it is dissonant with the conscious seeking of Unity and the Law of One as also presented by the Ra material, both being heavily linked. You proclaim to embody the STO polarity yet express separation and control in your words which are contrary to it's very nature to begin with.

That's very amusing but I didn't ask for your opinion about my own expression of STO.

It does make sense, though, that someone who just said they were from STS 4D (or higher) would find the musings of an STO-oriented entity dissonant.   It also makes sense that an entity from STS 4D (or higher) would see separation and control where there is none, being that that is all they know.

Note that I am NOT saying you are STS! It is you who just said that...that you were from STS 4D or higher. IF that is indeed true, then it makes sense that 1. you would misperceive my words and 2. we wouldn't be able to find common ground. 

So, how about we quit trying, ok?

Not to mention, the absurdity of an entity claiming to be from STS 4D, speaking about unity, being that separation/lack of unity is the very definition of STS.

...

I do not claim to be of 4D STS, I claimed my path of polarity to have begun there. What I claim to be outside of a 3D environment is of the density of Unity, which is the sixth one. For your information 4D STS is still the density of love, I do not see why you are belittling it or seeing as except of being part of the unity which binds all things. (you may say that you have not said this, but I tend to view things deeper than simply what is written, you also have expressed many times the inherent separation in your mind between you and sts entities) Any judgment or resentment you can feel can only emerge from misunderstandings, for in understanding there will always only be love to be found. Along the way there are near-infinite things that self resist understanding as part of it's experience. Polarity in my view really just is a mirror of duality to create experience.

In this life I have only once felt a negative emotion in regards to STO-oriented entities which had nothing to do with this planet. The emotion was a release that was followed by an intense feeling of love for the same entities. I may also have thought that the idea of a Universe that many along the STO path would wish for seems very dull from my perspective, and that the Universe is giving them what they truly desire over what they believe to desire in the now. It is a neat thing that free will transcends time, else there may have never been much happening. Free will is the very foundation of beingness and experience, it is the first distortion. The passing down of free will downward was a way to create more vivid experiences of the Creator of the Creator, as said by Ra.

[Minyatur]

I do commend your passion and compassion for our younger other-selves. But I also see belittling of what they truly are.

On a side note I do believe that eating meat creates a link with other-self, entanglement for short. It is well to note that the major part of anyone's experiences will not be within this reality as we know it nor in the roles we are currently playing.

[Monica]

Everything is acceptable and everything is the byproduct of beingness, to reject something is to reject everything because everything also equally is that one thing you reject.

With all due respect, Elros, I prefer to align with Ra's teachings than with yours. In my understanding, your views are dissonant with Ra's. What you just said, and in fact most of what you say, is NOT in alignment with Ra's teachings, nor in alignment with the STO path at all.

I'll go with Ra, thank you very much.

...

[Monica]

Elros, you are mistaken about light casting shadows. Light has No shadow. Only that which blocks the light has a shadow. This is a physical fact. Try it with a lighter and see for yourself. Or with a candle...only the smoke makes a shadow, not the light.

I'm withdrawing from conversation with you, Elros, because we've been round and round numerous times and additional discourse will likely yield nothing but a waste of time.

...

[Minyatur]

Elros, you are mistaken about light casting shadows. Light has No shadow. Only that which blocks the light has a shadow. This is a physical fact. Try it with a lighter and see for yourself. Or with a candle...only the smoke makes a shadow, not the light.

I'm withdrawing from conversation with you, Elros, because we've been round and round numerous times and additional discourse will likely yield nothing but a waste of time.

...

Yet what blocks light when not put into light has no shadow of itself.

I'm mainly trying to express the relativity of all things. Whatever you throw at me can be relativised in a different perception of it. I enjoy this as it is a good work of working opposite thoughts.

I am sorry if it is not welcomed to speak of the true nature of things instead of dwelling deeper into the illusions we are part of.

[Diana]

I do commend your passion and compassion for our younger other-selves. But I also see belittling of what they truly are.

The above proceeds from an assumption only, if I understand you correctly. That animals at the soul level wish to suffer at the hands of humans for the experience and learning they desire. Is this correct? And so, any humans wanting the system which perpetuates this suffering to end (because it is not necessary to us as humans to perpetuate it in terms of survival) would be belittling the desires of the animals desiring that suffering.

If I am correct in my understanding of what you mean, I have this to say about it: 

Your conjecture is assumed. There is no way to know the desires of animal souls. That does not mean you are incorrect, just that it is a working theory only. 

To be openminded, one might consider alternative views as all things are possible in an infinite system—that the animals are trying to evolve as everything is, and the system in place on Earth, which in Ra's words is an experiment, is currently dominated by humans and those humans enslave animals against their wills. 

On Earth, when animals incarnate here (and let's assume they choose to, but that is not a given in any sense—perhaps the experiment included engineering life forms and they were put here originally and those lower life forms just keep coming back here out of habit, even at the soul level), they are subject to the domineering species—humans. So they by default must move through the system of cruelty because that's what's here. This may be how they evolve as this is the situation here, but they could just as well evolve in a kinder environment. Evolution can happen in infinite ways, and to look at one's life is to confirm this—one can learn from joy, suffering, anger, success, anything. 

Another scenario might be that the animals, and especially certain ones such as dolphins who get caught in fishing nets not meant for them, whales who beach themselves, and all the meat animals, have agreed to suffer on our behalf so we will learn compassion. In this case, humans wanting the animal suffering to stop would be honoring their sacrifice to help us as we would have gotten the message.

The point I am trying to make, aside from the consideration of infinite possibilities in any theory, is this: To boil this whole issue down to the idea that this is what the animals want is a very limited view. And the bigger concept of the OIC (I use this term in deference to the material this site is based on) experiencing manyness and so everything is perfect, is not a well-thought-out idea within this context and sounds only like words to me. There is much to consider and we are extremely limited in understanding here, and as we evolve the spiral of understanding will grow. So to be so sure that we just go along happily doing everything and anything to experience manyness is the cop out to me. It isn't taking responsibility for one's own actions, because the actions are predicated upon someone(thing) else's mandate. Although we may all be one, that does not mean we are the one, or that we only do what the one wants. Why else would we have developed brains, emotions, and wisdom?

And even if you are correct that animals choose this suffering and desire it, how can it be belittling for an individual with an open heart to more than humans to desire a kinder existence for animals? If the situation was starvation in the world, wanting world hunger to end would not stop souls from experiencing starvation. 

It's fine that there are those who just want to "be" with what is. But it seems to me to be a judgment toward others who strive to consciously evolve, to say that in wanting a kinder more loving existence with all life forms, they are belittling the other life forms' existence or desires.

[Monica]

Yet what blocks light when not put into light has no shadow of itself.

I'm mainly trying to express the relativity of all things. Whatever you throw at me can be relativised in a different perception of it. I enjoy this as it is a good work of working opposite thoughts.

I am sorry if it is not welcomed to speak of the true nature of things instead of dwelling deeper into the illusions we are part of.

It would be welcome in a thread about the relativity of all things. Why don't you start such a thread and wax eloquent to your heart's content? It's not welcome in a discussion about eating animals. It just bogs down the discussion because it appears that your objective is, as you say, to express the relativity of all things, rather than to discuss the actual topic.

...

[Minyatur]

Yet what blocks light when not put into light has no shadow of itself.

I'm mainly trying to express the relativity of all things. Whatever you throw at me can be relativised in a different perception of it. I enjoy this as it is a good work of working opposite thoughts.

I am sorry if it is not welcomed to speak of the true nature of things instead of dwelling deeper into the illusions we are part of.

It would be welcome in a thread about the relativity of all things. Why don't you start such a thread and wax eloquent to your heart's content? It's not welcome in a discussion about eating animals. It just bogs down the discussion because it appears that your objective is, as you say, to express the relativity of all things, rather than to discuss the actual topic.

...

If the topic can not be related to the principles of Oneness and Unity as expressed in the Ra material, then perhaps the discussion should take place on a forum that speaks only of meat eating from a perspective that does not go beyond the illusions of this matrix.

[Monica]

If the topic can not be related to the principles of Oneness and Unity as expressed in the Ra material, then perhaps the discussion should take place on a forum that speaks only of meat eating from a perspective that does not go beyond the illusions of this matrix.

Maybe you didn't intend it that way, but that is very insulting. To say that just because I don't agree with your flavor of spirituality then I am not discussing the spiritual aspects of the topic...is laughable!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Try applying your comments to any thread, on any topic, and the result is the same: Nothing matters because it's all relative.

Maybe that's not what you intended, but that's how I perceive your views. I've tried very hard to understand you and find some common ground somewhere, and now I'm finally calling it quits.

Look, you can go ahead and say whatever you like. I'm just not responding anymore.

...

[Minyatur]

If the topic can not be related to the principles of Oneness and Unity as expressed in the Ra material, then perhaps the discussion should take place on a forum that speaks only of meat eating from a perspective that does not go beyond the illusions of this matrix.

Maybe you didn't intend it that way, but that is very insulting. To say that just because I don't agree with your flavor of spirituality then I am not discussing the spiritual aspects of the topic...is laughable!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Try applying your comments to any thread, on any topic, and the result is the same: Nothing matters because it's all relative.

Maybe that's not what you intended, but that's how I perceive your views. I've tried very hard to understand you and find some common ground somewhere, and now I'm finally calling it quits.

Look, you can go ahead and say whatever you like. I'm just not responding anymore.

...

I've done the same duality that I said I perceive in the Ra material, I have stated my views and how I feel personally in the moment but also stated the relativeness in regards to others' views. To support this I have quoted portions of the Ra material that states that the ways of being of service and the love found within is unique to each individual and as such that one cannot expect others to be an exact reflection of themselves. Other quotes have been used to reflect that a particular mirror of self is not better than any other mirror of other-selves.

The main difference between you and me, is that I don't ecpect you to feel how I feel. I have been calling to your wisdom to understand that the many-ness of distortions of self do not allow this.

[Monica]

The main difference between you and me, is that I don't ecpect you to feel how I feel.

If I expected you to feel how I feel, would I be walking away from this conversation?

I'm walking away. Best wishes to you.

...

[Minyatur]

I do commend your passion and compassion for our younger other-selves. But I also see belittling of what they truly are.

The above proceeds from an assumption only, if I understand you correctly. That animals at the soul level wish to suffer at the hands of humans for the experience and learning they desire. Is this correct? And so, any humans wanting the system which perpetuates this suffering to end (because it is not necessary to us as humans to perpetuate it in terms of survival) would be belittling the desires of the animals desiring that suffering.

What I called belittling is not viewing these animals as the Creator. To see all things as the Creator is an exercise given by Ra to accelerate growth toward the Law of One.

How you feel is well, you wish for others what you wish for yourself and that is to be well. Nothing wrong in that if done in a manner to offer this alternative where it is desired while not having expections. It being done otherwise also is well, everything is well.

If I am correct in my understanding of what you mean, I have this to say about it: 

Your conjecture is assumed. There is no way to know the desires of animal souls. That does not mean you are incorrect, just that it is a working theory only. 

I do believe everything can be known if it is desired.

To be openminded, one might consider alternative views as all things are possible in an infinite system—that the animals are trying to evolve as everything is, and the system in place on Earth, which in Ra's words is an experiment, is currently dominated by humans and those humans enslave animals against their wills. 

On Earth, when animals incarnate here (and let's assume they choose to, but that is not a given in any sense—perhaps the experiment included engineering life forms and they were put here originally and those lower life forms just keep coming back here out of habit, even at the soul level), they are subject to the domineering species—humans. So they by default must move through the system of cruelty because that's what's here. This may be how they evolve as this is the situation here, but they could just as well evolve in a kinder environment. Evolution can happen in infinite ways, and to look at one's life is to confirm this—one can learn from joy, suffering, anger, success, anything. 

That is true, my perspective is mainly based upon the idea that there is but one experiencer. As such one of the main desire of beingness is to be among other-selves in their infinite other-beingness. Ra called our experiences of free will being passed down as more vivid experiences of the Creator by the Creator. So whatever the blending there is One expeirencing Itself.

Another scenario might be that the animals, and especially certain ones such as dolphins who get caught in fishing nets not meant for them, whales who beach themselves, and all the meat animals, have agreed to suffer on our behalf so we will learn compassion. In this case, humans wanting the animal suffering to stop would be honoring their sacrifice to help us as we would have gotten the message.

I think the experience of each is foremost it's own experience. Then it also becomes a service to others (whatever the service), and ultimately the experience of self is the experience of all.

The point I am trying to make, aside from the consideration of infinite possibilities in any theory, is this: To boil this whole issue down to the idea that this is what the animals want is a very limited view. And the bigger concept of the OIC (I use this term in deference to the material this site is based on) experiencing manyness and so everything is perfect, is not a well-thought-out idea within this context and sounds only like words to me. There is much to consider and we are extremely limited in understanding here, and as we evolve the spiral of understanding will grow. So to be so sure that we just go along happily doing everything and anything to experience manyness is the cop out to me. It isn't taking responsibility for one's own actions, because the actions are predicated upon someone(thing) else's mandate. Although we may all be one, that does not mean we are the one, or that we only do what the one wants. Why else would we have developed brains, emotions, and wisdom?

In the idea of a OIC, it cannot take anything from outside itself, it can only create inwardly within itself with itself. This was expressed in the very first session of the Ra material as to why in a OIC there can only be unity although in a different manner.

And even if you are correct that animals choose this suffering and desire it, how can it be belittling for an individual with an open heart to more than humans to desire a kinder existence for animals? If the situation was starvation in the world, wanting world hunger to end would not stop souls from experiencing starvation.

What I considered as belittling was to not view them as the Creator. They are not just animals and they have a whole infinity to discover differently than how we discovered it. Their path does shine bright.

It's fine that there are those who just want to "be" with what is. But it seems to me to be a judgment toward others who strive to consciously evolve, to say that in wanting a kinder more loving existence with all life forms, they are belittling the other life forms' existence or desires.

As said above and at first in this post, this was not what I considered belittling.

Each can only work from their distortions, this applies also outside of 3D as identity is just distortions. Acting on how you feel is fine and well and even your role, I doubt anyone in this thread is exempt from this.

[Minyatur]

This has already been expressed in this thread but eating meat offers the potential for entanglement. Either consciously or unconsciously, self can take the distortions and traumas within the meat and harmonize the energy to release it back at a later time. Also it can simply create a link which offers the possibility of further work and services being offered at later times along the entity's path across dimensions as fates become interwined or entangled.

One can see meat as a product of lack of love (conscious love) but even then that doesn't mean it doesn't deserve or need to be worked with as what it already is.

[Diana]

This has already been expressed in this thread but eating meat offers the potential for entanglement. Either consciously or unconsciously, self can take the distortions and traumas within the meat and harmonize the energy to release it back at a later time. Also it can simply create a link which offers the possibility of further work and services being offered at later times along the entity's path across dimensions as fates become interwined or entangled.

One can see meat as a product of lack of love (conscious love) but even then that doesn't mean it doesn't deserve or need to be worked with as what it already is.

1) Entanglement is already there. We are all one already, according to the LOO. And in terms of physics, entanglement is apparent after a particle has been split, not created from 2 separate particles at some point.

2) If you want to work with meat/animals in this way, as Aion does, that's fine. But you must also know, and accept, and take responsibility for the fact that on some level—the 3D physical one at least—you are contributing to the suffering by being a part of the process of supply and demand for tortured animals. Without that honesty, how can you proceed in this endeavor with any effectiveness if it derives from a state of non-accountability? I can't respect this idea unless you actually stop asserting that your consumption doesn't put a dent in the market; it is self-dillusion to claim this.

[Minyatur]

This has already been expressed in this thread but eating meat offers the potential for entanglement. Either consciously or unconsciously, self can take the distortions and traumas within the meat and harmonize the energy to release it back at a later time. Also it can simply create a link which offers the possibility of further work and services being offered at later times along the entity's path across dimensions as fates become interwined or entangled.

One can see meat as a product of lack of love (conscious love) but even then that doesn't mean it doesn't deserve or need to be worked with as what it already is.

1) Entanglement is already there. We are all one already, according to the LOO. And in terms of physics, entanglement is apparent after a particle has been split, not created from 2 separate particles at some point.

2) If you want to work with meat/animals in this way, as Aion does, that's fine. But you must also know, and accept, and take responsibility for the fact that on some level—the 3D physical one at least—you are contributing to the suffering by being a part of the process of supply and demand for tortured animals. Without that honesty, how can you proceed in this endeavor with any effectiveness if it derives from a state of non-accountability? I can't respect this idea unless you actually stop asserting that your consumption doesn't put a dent in the market; it is self-dillusion to claim this.

I am aware of my role and responsabilities.

It does have an impact but not as great as it seems to be perceived. The occurences in which eating meat will contrubute to a market increase in the suffering it creates is more rare than it not being the case. The cases created of that occurence even though I am unlikely to directly consume it's by-product does create a special kind of entanglement.

Everything is entangled but we have closer encounters with some entitiies than others while exeperiencinng the illusion of many-ness as a given self. But yeah in the eternal spiral of consciousness we come to provide/receive services with near-infinite other-selves.