Confederation and meat consumption

[Coordinate_Apotheosis]

There are many "living masters" who mandate a vegetarian diet for their followers.

There are also many that ate meat, and never stopped.

Allow me to clarify, because perhaps it was my own lack of explaining clearly that led to this. I don't follow anyone or anything. So "living masters" was only a reference to certain people here who are presumably concentrating on spiritual evolution. In retrospect, I would have been smarter to leave any reference to them out of this conversation, as it is really ambiguous at best.

However, there are certain effects from consuming animal products (which are addressed by {some} spiritual leaders) which can be considered, some of which have been mentioned in this thread. Of course, this subject has been canvassed extensively on these forums. But it must be mentioned that there is a reason for this constant resurfacing. And the reason(s) need not be laid at one (or more) person's feet, in the form of attack, with accusations of an agenda. That is a pretty extreme way to view someone's (a conscientious member) opinions.

Instead, why not consider what is posted open-mindedly? You may say that you have, and this may be true. We are all in this world dealing with challenges on every front. And the more we become aware of, the more decisions must be made (or decisions not to decide) in light of that awareness.

You're going to find 'spiritual sources' whom are on both ends of the spectrum. It all comes down to what you idealize. You will affirm those 'masters' who reflect those teachings which you yourself support. It's called confirmation bias. That is how people navigate philosophically.

True. People will seek out validation for their beliefs and behaviors.

But I will add that not all people do that. Or perhaps it's more accurate to say that some people endeavor to seek expansion of consciousness without seeking validation. One great way to do that is to have working theories instead of beliefs. 

...In general, it seems their philosophy is "it's okay to eat meat as long as the animal wasn't killed specifically to be meat".

In what circumstances would this be?

I've actually been trying to figure this out myself. I think it implies that 'scavenging' is okay, but not 'hunting' if that makes sense. So, if an animal dies of natural causes and is healthy enough to be eaten that would be acceptable because the animal wasn't killed for the purpose of being meat. Another situation could be maybe an animal gets in an unrelated accident and is killed, it would probably be acceptable. In both of these situations the cause of death are 'by nature' and not occurring because a human is killing them for meat.

However, the Tibetan example is again an interesting one because it is a place where there is not a lot of vegetation and so there has long been some necessity of consuming animal products. I think we take our Western accessibility to food a little for granted at times. In many places of the world there are not nearly so many 'options'. Absolutely this is because of secular 'world management' and greed, but y'know.

What intrigues me in the Tibetan case is that despite having this sort of survival necessity on animal products they have taken very strongly to Buddhism and compassionate philosophies. In some ways, maybe it could be seen as a response to the harshness of their conditions and an internal way to 'soften the edge of reality' as it were. It is also true that the Dalai Lama and others still recommend vegetarianism and the Dalai Lama consumes meat at the behest of his doctor and for his health. So again, 'necessary for the individual metabolism'.

If I might remark, a common thing I've read in regards to wilderness survival is to respect the wildlife.  Essentially all that means is you only hunt them when your survival depends on it.  So don't kill a snake just because it scares you, don't step on scorpions you're just passing by.  Don't fish up fishies just for fun, basically try to respect the environment before you act with violence within it.

Survival is a life thing, in 3D it seems animals are different, but we're 3D animals, with many intricate interactions with 2D animals.  Just as nature say the lion or the bear kill for food, it also includes humans in that equation.  If that by nature isn't wrong but natural, then 'murder' to survive is an exception perhaps.

But the issue at hand of the entire thread is confusing, I'm not quite sure what exactly is being discussed.

If it's the ethics of killing, well that's a no brainer, it's like arguing if killing a dog for food is wrong, it is wrong in that it's murder, and further, if food wasn't direly needed, it's a needles death, further wrong.

But as far as nature cares, or at least creation, Ethics isn't a part of the animal kingdom in 3D.  There's an unspoken ethic in the wilderness that says it's okay to kill to survive.  It's instinct, so if it is wrong, nature's wrong.

And we know nature isn't wrong.  But if we apply human ethics, I don't think an animal given ample ability to harvest other animals for prolonged survival would be any different from humans if you factor in the widespread traits of ignorance and apathy in the populace.
However, for those populaces with a respect for life, they probably would treat their production process more compassionately.

Is it wrong to harvest animals en mass, totally.

Does anyone care?  Only some.

What's right and wrong don't matter all too much to humanity beyond what society demands.  Society still doesn't see the horror of present practices.

And even if it did, just like big oil suppresses new technologies for oil dependence, fast food might just offer an overwhelming resistance to going out of business, the same way the medical industry would rather you pop pills than eat healthier, or like how dentists never bring up the fact that the best way to stop cavities is to avoid certain foodstuffs.  Naw, just brush before and after a meal, the dissolved tooth enamel doesn't need to stay put or anything, the gums don't need proper...

-cough- ranting...
Y'all get the point.

[xise]

Whether you eat plants, or you eat animals, you are taking the lives of second density consciousness complexes (in fact, one animal can feed someone for many months, whereas with most plants, it takes many many many lives to generate the same amount of caloric fuel). Unless you are eating a strictly fruitarian diet, which is horrible for your teeth (a clue to the unnaturalness of such a diet -- when the food destroys an organisms teeth, it is not the natural diet to that species.

We've had this discussion before, anagogy. Plants don't have to die for their edible parts to be harvested. Many ARE harvested at the end of their lifecycle, but a tomato plant can live in my garden for many months and feed me every day without dying. You say that an animal "can" feed one person for many months, but this is NOT how 99.999% of humans eat. We take the choice cuts and grind the rest into dog food. So while in "theory" it might be "more ethical" to eat animals, in practice it is definitely not.

It takes 30 of those precious plant calories to convert into 1 animal flesh calorie. How again is there less death with the animal slaughter method?

This line of reasoning that you have to kill the same or a similar number of plants or animals regardless of what you consume has been shown to be misinformed (and has been discussed in other threads). 

More plants die for every meat calorie than die if you consumed plants straight as calories. 

This has been shown repeatedly in agriculture land use studies and has been studied extensively also in carbon footprint studies (animal calories take up significantly more carbon footprint because they take more resources to create than plant calories).

[isis]

Out of all the 2D complexes (or 2D complex shells?) that I've had the honor of eating and tasting
there's only one that clearly and consistently doesn't like me. and that is walnuts.
They make my nose so congested.

[Coordinate_Apotheosis]

What would soda fall under? Because soda always gunks up my throat and mouth from all that high fructose syrup.

[anagogy]

We've had this discussion before, anagogy. Plants don't have to die for their edible parts to be harvested. Many ARE harvested at the end of their lifecycle, but a tomato plant can live in my garden for many months and feed me every day without dying. You say that an animal "can" feed one person for many months, but this is NOT how 99.999% of humans eat. We take the choice cuts and grind the rest into dog food. So while in "theory" it might be "more ethical" to eat animals, in practice it is definitely not.

It takes 30 of those precious plant calories to convert into 1 animal flesh calorie. How again is there less death with the animal slaughter method?

Why take responsibility for the second density beings ingested by the animals? Let them eat what they need to eat, you eat what you need to eat. The heart of the matter is this misconception that death is this horrible thing to be avoided at all costs. Nothing could be further from the truth. Death is a part of life. Dogs gotta eat too. I'm not going to argue on behalf of agriculture. Obviously, there is room for improvement there. But many of those 2nd density entities wouldn't even evolve as fast as they do without those bodies to incarnate into giving them more experiences (even if you believe those experiences are not desirable), which agriculture is largely responsible for. The heart of this misconception is looking at beings that feed on other animals as some kind of "lesser being" in need of "evolvement". I think that is just plain wrong. It is just another of the myriad of ways of making yourself feel superior based on some outer judgment. It is just a case of metaphorically looking at caterpillars and being angry that they're not all butterflies.

I don't think either choice is "more ethical". I don't think you can wittle down the nuances of every particular manifestation to this one ideal solution.

But I also don't have hours to spend posting refutations of this theory based on research (and you wouldn't believe them even if I did, so it would be a waste of both of our time). You can find evidence for almost anything if you look for it, regardless of what is actually true (unless we talking about strictly controlled physics experiments).

I mostly came into this thread, to correct the distorted interpretation of Ra quotes, which were being warped to facilitate an agenda. But please, believe as you like. I have no attachment to changing anyone's perspective. I learned the folly of expecting conversations to change peoples mind a long time ago. It defies the metaphysics that generate that reality.

I guess I just sustain faith that this is how we bridge gaps, is that we communicate with each other, as openly and honestly as possible. I'm open to changing my mind. I'm not open to eating animals again, but I'm totally open to being offered a different understanding of the Ra material than the one that I am admittedly biased to.

I sincerely doubt that, but you can state whatever you want (everybody will say something like this in these kind of threads, but I rarely see any evidence of such). So if you mean it, great, but there is no need to state it. It means very little to me. Actions speak louder than words.

Thanks for the discussion, regardless.

[Diana]

The heart of the matter is this misconception that death is this horrible thing to be avoided at all costs. Nothing could be further from the truth. Death is a part of life.

It surprises me that this interpretation could have derived from these conversations.

Death isn't horrible in itself. Unnecessary death is not compassionate regarding those killed. Death by (unnecessary) horrific means is horrible. Suffering is the real issue—unnecessary suffering—in both life and death.

The heart of this misconception is looking at beings that feed on other animals as some kind of "lesser being" in need of "evolvement". I think that is just plain misconceived. 

 
I disagree. The heart of the matter is compassion for animals. It is actually incidental who still participates in perpetuating the suffering meat/dairy/egg animals are subjected to.

Ra mentioned coming across a starving person, and the correct response being to feed that person. It's not about who was responsible for the person's circumstances; it's simply about alleviating suffering.  

[Coordinate_Apotheosis]

Well, if I come across any farm animals at a slaughterhouse, I'll try to help them, but I think the Law might punish me for it.

I think the best way to help those animals is to hold the involved corporations farming them as morally responsible for inhumane slaughter practices and attempting to regulate them with an extreme amount of scrutiny and consequence.

I won't go into the whole graphic explanation of how or why that slaughter is inhumane (as such deeply is upsetting), but I can simply say current practices are NOT GOOD ENOUGH.  That they're WRONG, and that life deserves more even in a setting like a slaughterhouse.

The land is destroyed, life is ended in mass, and their byproducts are grossly misused and intended products further mistreated.

It's like letting a plastic bottle sit in the sun for days before selling it's contents.  Contamination is a serious concern due to the improper handling of animals both during life and afterwards.

One could wonder, if the workers in those places lose sleep over the sound of the cries of tortured murdered animals...

And if they can hold their appetite when dinner is served.

Or if they feel anything while pumping those products full of chemicals like preservatives and glue (many packaged meat products are several pieces of meat glued together to look more appetizing.).

The entire thing is grossly ridiculous.  And a huge problem is unawareness.

Though to be fair, if cigarettes and alcohol are still big sellers as literal chemicals that kill the self slowly, I am cynical of others caring about the death of others that they eat.

This is a truly confusing world.

[anagogy]

Death isn't horrible in itself. Unnecessary death is not compassionate regarding those killed. Death by (unnecessary) horrific means is horrible. Suffering is the real issue—unnecessary suffering—in both life and death.

For life to be, death is necessary. Life feeds on life.

Steps can be taken to make suffering less. These are improvements that can be made to agricultural industry, without the misconceived rule that no being shall ever partake of animal protein. If vegetables experience pain (and there is some evidence to suggest they do), they probably suffer far more than animals because they don't die for a long time after you cut them up, they die very very slowly. But then we don't know what any other being experiences either. We look at animals, and imagine ourselves in their shoes and from our relative frame of reference decide they feel the same as we would in their shoes. But that is wrong, from my perspective.

I disagree. The heart of the matter is compassion for animals. It is actually incidental who still participates in perpetuating the suffering meat/dairy/egg animals are subjected to.

Ra mentioned coming across a starving person, and the correct response being to feed that person. It's not about who was responsible for the person's circumstances; it's simply about alleviating suffering.  

Right, and they didn't say "stop eating animals, its bad mmkay!". So why can they say, "feed starving people", but not say "stop eating animals"? Oh that's right, you have to rationalize it and assume its because Carla loved eating meat too much, so they couldn't upset her free will like that. I don't buy it, but you're entitled to your belief.

Again, we look at animals and imagine that they feel about their circumstances the same way you would feel in their shoes, but that is incorrect, because they haven't had the experiences you've had. If they had, they wouldn't be 2nd density. They would be 3rd density, having 3rd density experiences. Their frame of reference is completely different. We look at them and imagine little humans, but they are different beings.

You can get a sense of this if we think back on our youth and most of us found conditions "livable" back then that we would not today. It is that way for 2nd density, times a thousand.

If you plucked a 2nd density being out of its early 2D cycle, and plopped it into a 3rd density human body, guess what? They would be your sociopaths, your murderers, your thieves, and god knows what else. It isn't because they are evil, its simply because they are 2nd density. It is nature. They are different than us in many ways. Similar in a lot of ways too, but not the same. We imagine little people out there. It is misconceived.

[xise]

Steps can be taken to make suffering less. These are improvements that can be made to agricultural industry, without the misconceived rule that no being shall ever partake of animal protein. If vegetables experience pain (and there is some evidence to suggest they do), they probably suffer far more than animals because they don't die for a long time after you cut them up, they die very very slowly.

If you believe plants feel pain or suffer in some way, you are arguing for a plant-only diet, because you cause more plants to die when you eat meat.

I can post the studies about agriculture land use or carbon footprint that shows this point if you're truly interested?

-----

Whether you eat plants, or you eat animals, you are taking the lives of second density consciousness complexes (in fact, one animal can feed someone for many months, whereas with most plants, it takes many many many lives to generate the same amount of caloric fuel). Unless you are eating a strictly fruitarian diet, which is horrible for your teeth (a clue to the unnaturalness of such a diet -- when the food destroys an organisms teeth, it is not the natural diet to that species.

We've had this discussion before, anagogy. Plants don't have to die for their edible parts to be harvested. Many ARE harvested at the end of their lifecycle, but a tomato plant can live in my garden for many months and feed me every day without dying. You say that an animal "can" feed one person for many months, but this is NOT how 99.999% of humans eat. We take the choice cuts and grind the rest into dog food. So while in "theory" it might be "more ethical" to eat animals, in practice it is definitely not. 

It takes 30 of those precious plant calories to convert into 1 animal flesh calorie. How again is there less death with the animal slaughter method? 

This line of reasoning that you have to kill the same or a similar number of plants or animals regardless of what you consume has been shown to be misinformed (and has been discussed in other threads). 

More plants die for every meat calorie than die if you consumed plants straight as calories. 

This has been shown repeatedly in agriculture land use studies and has been studied extensively also in carbon footprint studies (animal calories take up significantly more carbon footprint because they take more resources to create than plant calories).

[Minyatur]

If you plucked a 2nd density being out of its early 2D cycle, and plopped it into a 3rd density human body, guess what? They would be your sociopaths, your murderers, your thieves, and god knows what else. It isn't because they are evil, its simply because they are 2nd density. It is nature. They are different than us in many ways. Similar in a lot of ways too, but not the same. We imagine little people out there. It is misconceived.

If you mean to say that they would more selflessly reflect the design of the mind/body in how it is programmed to know to respond, then ya sure as they don't even have a sense of self yet which disallows them to make any conscious choices. Although 2D has a strong catalytic nature, 2D is not the root of it and it is instead a mean thought of from higher densities to diversify the paths toward reaching self-awareness and thus gain biases in the process to diversify the expression of consciousness.

I disagree that your scenario creates a higher potential of what you have stated and instead I think the human complex will near-equally mirror how the early 2D being would do these things, as humans are brought down to the lowest-rays in face of survival, but would also have higher distorted/confused reasons to do these things. The early-2D being would thief and kill plain out of basic built-in instincts relating to survival while the more advanced 3D being with a greater sense of self may find much more superficial reasons to do these acts. This is why often people can find they connect more deeply with a pet than other people, because unlike the more confused and distorted human complex their potential for emotion is much purer and simple, which remains true as they realize self-awareness. A good example of this is how humans by-passed parenting instincts and ate their own children in time of famine because of having a strong sense of self, while I think your scenario-entity would be unable to act this way and would resort more to kill others to preserve the children. Of course that's based on human instincts, for some reason hamster got strong instincts in eating their children that merely a foreign smell placed on them is a valid reason to, again they're just acting the design without conscious will of their own regarding this, they literally just don't realize the act.

Due to the veil and short-lived incarnation, humans barely grow into self-awareness of their own and play out their biases and conditions of mind/body more than not. Anyway, I think the grimness you spoke of relates little to 2D and more to the local-Logoic designs which was designed to expand both its experience and the 3D experience. Like I said in a thread a long time ago, the carnivorous nature of certain animals is pretty much just an Orion-design which was approved by the Council of Saturn, for the Orion-group it has its negative-rooted purpose and the Council has its unity-rooted purpose also in allowing it. Planets without these aspects are heavily biased toward the positive path, although this world still is more than not also.

Another contrast is that I think an animal that kills an animal is somewhat closer to being a rock that sits as a rock or water that runs alongside gravity than it is to be a human, while a human is also closer to an animal than it is to any knowledge of self-found love, and this self-found love is much more human-like than it is any-like having it in an actual ability to perceive and process it and love-act from there, and this greater ability to perceive is still nothing like being bound to truth in your awareness, and being bound to know the truth of both your and others' expression of this truth is still different than being the whole of this truth itself, and actually being the whole of this truth is still nothing like being each portion itself stuck in paradox and unaware, and yet among it all a rock is closer to being the truth of it all whole than all the higher knowing-ones. The spectrum of the Octave is from Source to Source where unity binds, so I think 2D relfects pure innocence more than anything, while humanity still reflects innocence but more confused and unwell as it is and is not so much, all like 2D here, in the image of the densities and what they are. The landscape does more of that in your interactions as a 3D being with it than the people, although I guess they give an idea still of what it is to be people but little look at humanity whole rather than a facet of it.

[Coordinate_Apotheosis]

I just imagine my cat in those violent situations and know she wouldn't want to be there as her catself.  Now her soul might be a different story, but I'm fairly strongly extremely certain my cat wouldn't want to be slaughtered the ways they do in slaughterhouses.

Its not much of a leap from there that pigs, cows, chickens, sheep, and turkeys would want that either.

Like my cat screeches when I barely step on her tail, I couldn't bear to imagine how she'd feel going through a slaughterhouse.

However I do find it inappropriate to use the Ra Material to defend one's opinion as it itself is merely Ra's opinion.  Rather it's a good look into a potential health concern to consider, but I imagine they'd refuse to comment on the state of many animals due to being unable to plumb the depths of our reality, but even more than that, because they've expressed a rhyme and reason for all things (experiencing self), and that for animals that comes by their design to seek the light of self awareness.  Whether that leads them into slaughterhouses or the wild seems to not matter so long as they experience there.

It's one of those incredibly hard things to consider, but just like there's millions of sex trafficked children, there's a billions of slaughtered animals.  There's a reason for that apparently, one that doesn't seem to shy or bend by ethics.

I don't think any confederation member would outright tell anyone to do something as much as suggest.

I mean they could tell us to free the animals and we can all go to jail but feel spiritually well, or they could just tell us to accept the creation around us with love, and to act with an informed manner as to what we desire, whether it be to stop eating animals or to start freeing them.

They aren't human, their opinions vastly differently from ours.  Trauma is acceptable for catalyst.  I like to think...  For every slaughtered life an animal has, it'll have two very long and happy lives.  Because that thought gives me some peace that theur suffering is alleviated, redeemed, and ultimately an important lesson in self treatment of others.  Knowing that pain, one might better come to decide whether or not they wish to hurt another once they become more aware of themselves.

That might sound like a defence for slaughterhouses but it's more my rationalization.

I don't actually know, for all I know, when we die, that's that, and if that were true, all of those lives ended is all the more tragic.  I barely handle it with the idea of reincarnation.

[Infinite]

I'd like make a statement: I'm not talking about "The Ra Material". I'm talking about specific channelings of L/L Research.

We know Carla ate meat. So, how then does Ra come through and say, don't eat meat, when the channeler eats meat?

That would be a violation of free will.

Well, as I said above, I'm not talking about Ra's informations. But, Ra always spoke which should harm Carla:

19.22 Questioner: I just have two little questions here at the end. The instrument wanted me to ask if there was any other substances, foods, etc., that she should not eat or drink, or anything she should not do because she does not wish to have poor contact for any reason.

Ra: I am Ra. There is no activity which this instrument engages in which affects its abilities negatively. There is one activity which affects its abilities positively. This is the sexual activity, as you would call it. There are substances ingested which do not aid the individual in the service it has chosen, this being that which you would call the marijuana. This is due to the distortion towards chemical lapses within the mind complex causing lack of synaptic continuity. This is a chemical reaction of short duration. This instrument, however, has not used this particular substance at any time while performing this service. We believe we have covered the use of such chemical agents as LSD, this being positive to a certain extent due to the energizing or speeding up of the vital forces. However, it is not recommended for this instrument due to the toll it takes upon the vital energies once the substance wears off, this being true of any speeding-up chemical.

25.1 Questioner: …asking first what cause or complex of causes has led to the instrument’s chest cold, as it is called?

Ra: I am Ra. This distortion towards illness was caused by the free will of the instrument in accepting a chemical substance which you call LSD. This was carefully planned by those entities which do not desire this instrument to remain viable. The substance has within it the facility of removing large stores of vital energy from the ingestor. The first hope of the Orion entity which arranged this opportunity was that this instrument would become less polarized towards what you call the positive. Due to conscious efforts upon the part of this instrument, using the substance as a programmer for service to others and for thankfulness, this instrument was spared this distortion and there was no result satisfactory to the Orion group.

So, Don didn't asked directly about the effects of meat.

**********************
I respect the freewill of everyone here. But I'd like express some points of this discussion:

- There is nothing "spiritual" in eat meat. On the contrary. The energies of a slaughterhouse are so lower that is like a hell.
- In the moment of the death the energice of scary and fear are so much that they pass to the meat. This become the meat very energetically heavy.
- I see contradiction in eat meat knowing about unity, because the suffer of animals is so much that hurts in myself. This is heavy, sad, demonic, separation, etc.
- It's not necessary eat meat. This is a addiction.
- The spiritual structure of the animals and plants is very difrret. The spirit of the plants don't stay inside the body, but out.
- It's not violation of freewill spoke about the effects of meat. As isn't to spoke about drugs, negative thoughts and emotions, alcohol, etc.

[Jim Kent +]

Greetings Infinite,

May I ask you some questions?

Firstly, why do 2nd Density hosts of The Creator such as animals slaughtered for food have more of a right to exist than 2nd density hosts of The Creator such as trees killed to make toilet-paper?

Toilet paper is as unnecessary as meat, and I believe that all life-forms have the capacity to suffer.

Do you realize that your personal biases in this regard have no relevance to any-one else's polarization and evolution even on the STO path? 

You can and many do, polarize sufficiently on the STO path incarnate as Human beings spending their entire lives eating meat.

So my last question is: what do you hope to achieve offering such judgement on this forum?

Off on a slightly different tangent - and not directed to you personally...

I personally find it a contradiction for any self-proclaimed Vegan to be pro-abortion ( in the case of it being used to kill a healthy embryo as an after-the-fact contraception. )

We all have our biases and I'm not criticizing you, but I think it's healthy that we always be aware of that and how they affect our behaviour and inter-actions with other-selves.

I applaud your concern for our 2nd Density brothers and sisters, your judgement less so.

L & L

Jim        

[unity100]

One of the Confederation's informations (from L/L Research) which I disagree is about meat consumption. They didn't make clear that eat meat is a STS act (I belive that in an universe of unity, eat a brother is a clearly STS act).

http://www.llresearch.org/transcripts/is..._1016.aspx

Now, how shall an entity whose consciousness is that of pure love feed its body? We notice that you focus upon meat and the eating of it as the arena of choice. And before we address that question we would note that not only the animals but the plants also are growing within the creation of the Father, blooming and dying at a rhythm of their own. In a very real way, it is as much of an offense, one may say, to pluck a bean or dig a potato from the ground as it is to slaughter an animal, for you have interrupted the cycle of its life and its dancing with the Creator as you do so. But to focus upon this is to digress from your query. And so we would focus upon the slaughter of animals and the responsibility that an entity has if he chooses to eat meat.

One valid choice that many of those who have awakened have made is not to eat meat and to find ways to furnish the body with the protein that meat offers by eating other substances, such as legumes, which contain protein. [1]

That looks pretty solid to me.

And its right. Plucking a bean is not much different than grabbing a small lizard and eating it.

Best would be to engage in non-destructive relationships - like eating fruits.

This does not necessarily need to be veganism of course. Just as eating a fruit is like eating the egg of a tree, eating the egg from a chicken is too, well, eating an egg.

Grain stuff seem to be pretty safe - grain dies at the end of normal life cycle, withering in the fields naturally, whereas what you eat in the end would be the eggs left from the grain.

Its fairly mutually beneficial too - in the end humans get food, grain is tended to, and provided massive areas to live to continue its cycles.

Of course one of the top notch relationships is the relationship in between the human and the fruit tree. So much that many trees evolved methods to leave edible and attractive parts outside their seeds as fruits, so that those who would eat those seeds and spread them would get attracted to them.

Surely the tree would like its seeds planted up to a certain fraction of the fruits eaten, thats a given.

Pinnacle of mutually beneficial relationships could be the relationship in between flowering plants and pollinators. It seems infinite intelligence makes all participants in this act beautiful and flashy to match the nature and importance of the act that is being undertaken in pollinating process.

[Diana]

Hello Jim, I hope you and Infinite don't mind me responding.

Firstly, why do 2nd Density hosts of The Creator such as animals slaughtered for food have more of a right to exist than 2nd density hosts of The Creator such as trees killed to make toilet-paper?

Toilet paper is as unnecessary as meat, and I believe that all life-forms have the capacity to suffer.

This is a good point regarding trees. However, one can buy recycled products, and they have been available for decades:

Recycled paper is on a roll, with an increasing number of new products appearing on store shelves. Consumers can now easily find various brands of recycled-content toilet paper, facial tissues, paper towels and napkins, as well as printing paper.

Making recycled paper consumes less water and energy and creates less air pollution and water pollution than making paper from timber. Many trees used for tissue products do grow on tree farms, and lumber by-products such as wood chips may be reclaimed for tissue. But some trees from old-growth forests still end up in a product we use for five seconds and then flush down the toilet.

Do you realize that your personal biases in this regard have no relevance to any-one else's polarization and evolution even on the STO path? 

You can and many do, polarize sufficiently on the STO path incarnate as Human beings spending their entire lives eating meat.

I will only speak for myself here. Polarization is an egocentric concern, in my opinion. Please allow me to explain. In my view there is a difference between doing something because it will give one "points" on the side of STO for example, rather than doing something because it flows spontaneously from the heart.

So my last question is: what do you hope to achieve offering such judgement on this forum?

Is this a fair question? It seems to be doing the very thing it is asking: judging. I think we are all here trying to sort things out, explore topics of interest and relevance to consciousness, discuss concerns difficult to canvass with most others in mainstream society. And the plight of 2nd density life forms is a huge concern for many, since humanity has been (wittingly or unwittingly) systematically destroying the planet and finding new and better ways to use and abuse animals and plants for over a century.

Off on a slightly different tangent - and not directed to you personally...

I personally find it a contradiction for any self-proclaimed Vegan to be pro-abortion ( in the case of it being used to kill a healthy embryo as an after-the-fact contraception. )

Let's not stereotype vegans. Vegans are individuals. I actually have no idea what other vegans think of abortion. But I, for one, don't kill anything, and I don't promote killing anything.

We all have our biases and I'm not criticizing you, but I think it's healthy that we always be aware of that and how they affect our behaviour and inter-actions with other-selves.  

You may not be intending to criticize, but commiserate with your above advice, it may be kinder to allow Infinite to express concerns and respond with opinions rather than judgments.

One issue regarding the subject matter of 2nd density life is this: It is not only humans and their feelings that matter (to me anyway). All of it matters. But if we are to discuss any subject at all, there will always be individuals who experience catalyst, and this is good. There is always freedom to not participate.

I'll speak for myself again here. As far as being concerned with the feelings of others, my feelings are ravaged on a daily basis on so many fronts. This is my current lot and I accept it. I see suffering everywhere and I cannot get away from it, from any trip to the grocery store and the meat department full of slabs of rotting animals, to miserable horses on dirt lots on properties around me, to the wild animals I make friends with (such as a mule deer herd) who are killed by local sport hunters, to eating with people on "turkey" day knowing the mass mass slaughter that occurs for Thanksgiving, and so on. Members on these forums have posted cruel jokes such as images of stuffed pigs and comments about bacon, and compared vegans to terrorists. The concern on these forums seems to skew toward the feelings of meat-eaters who become offended. And I accept that too.

But please don't feel badly for me. I don't need pity, or even understanding. Pity can be extended to the abused animals in factory farms, circuses, rodeos, dog and horse races, and a long list of ways in which humans have found to use animals for entertainment and mass raise and slaughter them for food.

[Jim Kent +]

Hi Diana, 

Constructive criticism happily accepted, this issue and some opinions surrounding it clearly niggle me and I couldn't hold my tongue, but that proves that I have my own personal issues that need attention.

And it's not that I don't respect any dietary ethics that strive for less suffering, but having a chip on my shoulder the size the moon about guilt-tripping people into conforming to some ethical ideal ( thanks to the Romans ) I don't react well to what I consider such manipulation.

Jim 

[Minyatur]

Do you realize that your personal biases in this regard have no relevance to any-one else's polarization and evolution even on the STO path? 

You can and many do, polarize sufficiently on the STO path incarnate as Human beings spending their entire lives eating meat.

I think that's a lot the crux of it.

Personally I'd add that it is a karma and that it is folly to challenge another veiled 3D being on their entanglement with a karma, when it requires to dive deeper within the self than it is natural to within this density, and expect something satisfying back. I haven't hid from it on these forums but I did see that to respond to the emotional challenge I had to open up a lot and see more deeply within myself all the whys and my state of entanglement, which has been a service in the end. People often ask words to define the wordless I think and they won't find satisfaction in that.

Still I find hard to blame one in pain in the sight of pain and think that when someone gets outraged on being challenged then it is mostly their own pain that speaks also of itself. The dance is complex.

- I see contradiction in eat meat knowing about unity, because the suffer of animals is so much that hurts in myself. This is heavy, sad, demonic, separation,

Unity is the significator of all pain and as such to know unity is to see and feel purpose and meaning both in the more pleasant experiences and the less pleasant experiences, seeing there's none greater in value truly and instead interconnected in their expression. I don't mean this strictly in term of potential either and instead actual manifestation. To separate events as undesirable and others as desirable is the opposite of seeing unity, it would be like thinking violet is any more white light than red.

Personally I think there is a strong contrast of souls that grew through it and those who didn't, where those who didn't struggle to find acceptance of internalizing these things as rooted in free will while those who grew through it somewhat had part of their path to know to be just that and move upward from there to gain understanding and acceptance of both one's own fate and it mirrored in others.

[Glow]

You all sure enjoying this catalyst.
Instead of fighting over this to infinity if you’d like to deal with this quicker on both sides perhaps look at how this catalyst is manifesting within you.

Are you trying to determine truth? Is there one truth?
Are you trying to assert your self hood? Are you imposing your truth of self on others?

What might be the true catalyst feelings? of being judged, the idea their is one truth, the want to sway another to your version of truth, the feeling you are protecting another, the feeling another is imposing their veiled distortions and judgement on you.

I do t think it’s just meat or cruelty, cruelty is everywhere.
Anyways ignore at will I just noticed the entire forums energy change when this thread got going so in my attempt to return things to more loving gentle seeking vibes (control) I’m dropping in with this note. To hope to hurry things along.

No real want to control so I will go now and check back in a bit to see if the vibe is better. Be well all.

[Coordinate_Apotheosis]

I think we can all agree, the practices for farmed animals are deeply wrong, and I think we can all agree that it's wrong because of the immense pain and suffering felt by animals because of our species' ignorance of the importance of life.

However, we should be careful to judge.  This is in some ways a gray area and in others clearly colored.  It's wrong to slaughter animals in the ways done, if you're unaware of those ways, I don't want to rain on a sunny beautiful day but things like being boiled alive, electrocuted into unconsciousness then drained of blood, assuming the animal doesn't dodge the conveyor belt's path by bending and turning.  The end result is the same, they're dropped in a boiling vat.

Pick your death.  No matter what it's going to hurt unbelievably.

I think we all agree, this practice is wrong.
I think we all agree on that without question.

What we don't seem to agree upon is if it's okay to eat the products of that process.

Some argue that makes the consumer responsible for funding and perpetuating the whole ordeal.  Some argue that sitting down to eat a meal you had no part in murdering is just as bad as murdering the animal.
Others argue it isn't the consumer but the businesses driving the demand for meat products, biggest responsible business: fast food.  McDonald's farms are probably places taken right out of hell if it exists in fiery grotesque form.  I think of one of Dante's Inferno's Rings of Hell, the one where people are mired in feces and being slaughtered endlessly.

So we can all agree, murder is one thing.

But is eating that product just as bad?

Is it really just as bad?

Let's discuss our viewpoints and try to come to some kind of consensus in this discussion.

• Is it bad to eat meat?  When is it okay to eat meat?
  
  
• Whom is or are responsible for the present state of the issues we are discussing? Is it consumers?  Producers?  Business or pleasure?
  
  
• What is acceptable to do in these situations?
  
  
• What if those things aren't viable, what other solutions exist?
  
  
• Is there a spiritual way to ensure that meat products can be consumed without further harm to the spirit the meat belonged to? Is prayer valid?
  
  
• What can be done to change the present state of things so that suffering is lessened? This can include more 'humane' practices of slaughter or business solutions to turning away from meat based products.
  

I think we've judged enough to know where we each stand somewhat on this topic.   Perhaps we can begin clarifying and brainstorming solutions?

Is that acceptable to everyone?

[Jade]

It's really hard to shed light on things that are kept in darkness. Hence why a lot of spiritual catalyst seems "dark" on the surface. There are so many misconceptions in this thread - like the idea that picking a bean is the same as eating a lizard. EXCEPT, that picking a bean doesn't kill the host plant, and plants have evolved to have "fruits" so that animal species, those who have legs and can move, can help them move their DNA to further places. It is a purely symbiotic relationship. There are really basic understandings of biology that seem to be lost on people, which is just another symptom of how far we have removed ourselves from participating in the natural order of things.

I'm also tired of whatever fallacy it is that says that because there are things we can't control (like toilet paper - btw I've been looking into reusable!), that we shouldn't care about things that are within our control. You're right, it's not likely I can go without buying toilet paper. I CAN go without buying eggs or lunch meat or other butchered parts of animals. We all have to do what we can! For now I buy only recycled toilet paper and I often go out of my way to do so. But to me, it's at least better than the alternative, which is buying toilet paper that has had a tree cut down to produce it.

Anyway, this study was published two days ago, which I find to be an astounding coincidence: Bacteria in milk and beef linked to rheumatoid arthritis

A team of UCF College of Medicine researchers has discovered a link between rheumatoid arthritis and Mycobacterium avium subspecies paratuberculosis, known as MAP, a bacteria found in about half the cows in the United States. The bacteria can be spread to humans through the consumption of infected milk, beef and produce fertilized by cow manure.

...

Naser had previously discovered a connection between MAP and Crohn's disease and is involved in the first ever phase III-FDA approved clinical trial to treat Crohn's patients with antibiotics. Crohn's and rheumatoid arthritis share the same genetic predispositions and both are often treated using the same types of immunosuppressive drugs. Those similarities led the team to investigate whether MAP could also be linked to rheumatoid arthritis.

"Here you have two inflammatory diseases, one affects the intestine and the other affects the joints, and both share the same genetic defect and treated with the same drugs. Do they have a common trigger? That was the question we raised and set out to investigate," Naser said.

For the study, Bég recruited 100 of her patients who volunteered clinical samples for testing. Seventy-eight percent of the patients with rheumatoid arthritis were found to have a mutation in the PTPN2/22 gene, the same genetic mutation found in Crohn's patients, and 40 percent of that number tested positive for MAP.

"We believe that individuals born with this genetic mutation and who are later exposed to MAP through consuming contaminated milk or meat from infected cattle are at a higher risk of developing rheumatoid arthritis," Naser said.

About 1.3 million adults in the U.S. have rheumatoid arthritis -- an autoimmune and inflammatory disease that causes the immune system to attack a person's joints, muscles, bones and organs. Patients suffer from pain and deformities mostly in the hands and feet. It can occur at any age but the most common onset is between 40 and 60 years old and is three times more prevalent in women.

So, it would appear that it's not necessarily the preservatives, but a bacteria produced by cows in their flesh/dairy excretions that caused Carla's allergies, which resulted in her rheumatism, which is discussed quite extensively in the Ra material. Or maybe it was the bacteria that caused it and the preservatives triggered it throughout her life? I don't know, like I said, just found it to be an amazing coincidence.

[Jim Kent +]

I think we've judged enough to know where we each stand somewhat on this topic.   Perhaps we can begin clarifying and brainstorming solutions?

Is that acceptable to everyone?

Hi C_A,

Ok then, superb, let's try and move on with some more positive directions...

Firstly, we have to stop factory-farming. I think that much ignorance of the horrors of factory-farming results in many of us meat-eaters being completely complacent to the totally needless suffering of factory-farmed animals. The difficulty of course comes in navigating the line between education and preaching. Our meat will become more expensive but we could balance this out by eating less meat.

I have relatively recently stopped buying factory-farmed meat due to ethical concerns, but i have fallen off the wagon when at family functions and is probably the reason I'm still over-sensitive about this issue. I've still have stuff to resolve on this issue, but being pushed in a direction I'm not ready for won't help.

There must be ways to stun every animal so that it's unconscious during the slaughter process, and if satisfactory ways do not yet exist, then we need to invent them. I didn't study biology or chemistry in school so I'm clueless as to how this could be achieved.

Now, ultimately, matter-replication will solve this problem, whether it by technological artificial means or by natural "Tele-Creation". And as far-off as this technology may seem, it wouldn't surprise me if we ( contemporary Humanity ) already have such technology or at least, are very near to it.  

        

[Diana]

You all sure enjoying this catalyst.
Instead of fighting over this to infinity if you’d like to deal with this quicker on both sides perhaps look at how this catalyst is manifesting within you.

Are you trying to determine truth? Is there one truth?
Are you trying to assert your self hood? Are you imposing your truth of self on others?

What might be the true catalyst feelings? of being judged, the idea their is one truth, the want to sway another to your version of truth,  the feeling you are protecting another, the feeling another is imposing their veiled distortions and judgement on you.

I do t think it’s just meat or cruelty, cruelty is everywhere.
Anyways ignore at will I just noticed the entire forums energy change when this thread got going so in my attempt to return things to more loving gentle seeking vibes (control) I’m dropping in with this note. To hope to hurry things along.

No real want to control so I will go now and check back in a bit to see if the vibe is better. Be well all.

You seem to miss a basic idea regarding cruelty being everywhere, and that is, whether or not one chooses to participate in it.

(edit: I removed a snarky comment. Apologies.)

[Diana]

I think we've judged enough to know where we each stand somewhat on this topic.   Perhaps we can begin clarifying and brainstorming solutions?

Is that acceptable to everyone?

Hi C_A,

Ok then, superb, let's try and move on with some more positive directions...

Firstly, we have to stop factory-farming. I think that much ignorance of the horrors of factory-farming results in many of us meat-eaters being completely complacent to the totally needless suffering of factory-farmed animals. The difficulty of course comes in navigating the line between education and preaching. Our meat will become more expensive but we could balance this out by eating less meat.

I have relatively recently stopped buying factory-farmed meat due to ethical concerns, but i have fallen off the wagon when at family functions and is probably the reason I'm still over-sensitive about this issue. I've still have stuff to resolve on this issue, but being pushed in a direction I'm not ready for won't help.

There must be ways to stun every animal so that it's unconscious during the slaughter process, and if satisfactory ways do not yet exist, then we need to invent them. I didn't study biology or chemistry in school so I'm clueless as to how this could be achieved.

Now, ultimately, matter-replication will solve this problem, whether it by technological artificial means or by natural "Tele-Creation". And as far-off as this technology may seem, it wouldn't surprise me if we ( contemporary Humanity ) already have such technology or at least, are very near to it.  

        

I applaud your willingness to move forward in a positive and compassionate direction.

I will suggest, as a contribution to coming up with ways to shift the current system, that the individual mindset might be addressed. A meal does not have to revolve around the meat choice. Just getting away from that thinking will help to loosen the idea that meat is always needed. 

[anagogy]

If you believe plants feel pain or suffer in some way, you are arguing for a plant-only diet, because you cause more plants to die when you eat meat.

I can post the studies about agriculture land use or carbon footprint that shows this point if you're truly interested?

Why deny those 2nd density beings more incarnational experience? If it wasn't for the multitude of bodies bred, they have less chances to level up. More experience is a good thing. I do believe plants feel something negative as the integrity of their life form comes to an end (this is true for most beings -- but after the cessation of the physical there is a counterbalance to that), but it is not for us to pick and choose among experiences for them. The creator has that part well under control.

So I'm not really concerned about that. The vegetable consciousness has a monopoly on physical bodies anyway. I leave that to the creator. Not our job to consciously regulate the amount of bodies available for incarnation for 2nd density experiences (in either kingdom). I'm not arguing for a plant based diet. I'm arguing for whatever diet one feels called to. Even Ra alluded to the individually different metabolism, necessitating different amounts of animal products. I'm arguing for us to stop judging beings as less spiritual for simply following the biological edicts of the body, calling for certain nutrients to maintain optimal health. I'm tired of the agenda and need to control morality stating there is only one correct way to live. It is simply not true.

Everybody is so worried about the carbon footprint. Another misguided notion in my opinion. The Earth has natural balancing mechanisms to deal with such things. Global warming isn't a bad thing, like everybody mistakenly believes. It is part of a natural cycle of the earth. There is a lot of fear propaganda out there.
-----

- There is nothing "spiritual" in eat meat. On the contrary. The energies of a slaughterhouse are so lower that is like a hell.
- In the moment of the death the energice of scary and fear are so much that they pass to the meat. This become the meat very energetically heavy.
- I see contradiction in eat meat knowing about unity, because the suffer of animals is so much that hurts in myself. This is heavy, sad, demonic, separation, etc.
- It's not necessary eat meat. This is a addiction.
- The spiritual structure of the animals and plants is very difrret. The spirit of the plants don't stay inside the body, but out.
- It's not violation of freewill spoke about the effects of meat. As isn't to spoke about drugs, negative thoughts and emotions, alcohol, etc.

-No one is arguing for slaughterhouses. Most are in agreement that is negative. But they are still going to continue to exist, until the planet becomes a celestialized edenic 4D STO planet.
-Most 2nd density organisms experience fear in death (most 3rd densities as well). I believe plants feel something negative as well when they die. This only disturbs the physically crystallized structure of animal body/plant body if the animal/plant lives its whole life in fear.
-We don't truly know what the animal experiences. You're imagining every death as horrible. We simply don't know that. We can intuit, but often our intuition is warped by our biases. Their deaths are usually quick in the agricultural industry, except in cases of illegal practices. Agricultural practices could improved to the point where suffering did not occur. There is so much pessimism about it. Let's be optimistic without needing to control the dietary ideological morality of others.
-Its not necessary to have furniture, and houses made out of late 2nd density/early 3rd density trees either. It is also not necessary to have any possessions beyond the bare necessities to keep your physical body alive. We can donate the rest to charity and live a life of pure giving. Are you gonna do it? There comes a point when you have to realize the absurdity of taking these zealotous ideologies to their extreme. I also believe this is a case of species-ism. Living life is not supposed to be so miserable and destitute. We are here to enjoy the fruits of the creators game. Contemplating the absurdity of the extremes of these ideologies feels far more heavy and negative than any of these negative speculations about what other consciousness complexes may or may not be experiencing. Remove all pleasures from life and we will all want to die anyway. We are overthinking this 3rd density thing. It wasn't meant to be so hard. The outer doesn't dictate the charge of polarity. Always remember that. When one assumes it does, we have stepped into the realm of judgment.
-Animals are similar in many ways. Most 2nd density do not have a solidified ruach (the second soul/ego), and they are part of a group field of consciousness (this is also why they aren't subject to the veil -- whereas pets usually are (even loved personal plants/trees in a garden), because they have been separated from the group mind over multiple incarnations usually). Beings that have not individuated also have a strong ability to telepathically communicate with other members of their species group.
-Correct, and Ra never mentioned it at all. We should pay more attention to that. This was an extremely pure channel. We imagine a lot about the animal kingdom's experiences. Not all of it is right.

I disagree that your scenario creates a higher potential of what you have stated and instead I think the human complex will near-equally mirror how the early 2D being would do these things, as humans are brought down to the lowest-rays in face of survival, but would also have higher distorted/confused reasons to do these things. The early-2D being would thief and kill plain out of basic built-in instincts relating to survival while the more advanced 3D being with a greater sense of self may find much more superficial reasons to do these acts.

The reason why is the early second density has not developed even a rudimentary 3rd soul yet (the neshamah), which gives them the spiritual capacity to empathize (and be consciously self willed in the afterlife). They would be in survival mode until their red ray was completely balanced. Pets could possibly be another story, as they are late 2nd density. But even early 3rd densities often end up in these roles, again, no 3rd soul developed. Or in Ra speak, they haven't begun to balance green ray. But there are unique experiences. I was speaking as to what would be generally true.

[Coordinate_Apotheosis]

I think looking at how we 'think' about 'food' will help here

Our meals should be decided by nutrition foremost and comfort secondly.  Eating is a passionate thing for humans, we've made complex social and cultural rituals around the dinner table.  Saying praters before meals, or merely thanking meals (ikadakimasu (not sure I spelled that right)), as well as complex gestures to others by the giving of food or making of food.

We all probably have favorite meals.  I'm not too shy about deep dish mushroom pizzas, or flavored shaved ice.  But a meal is typically categorized as a 'course', appetizer, entree, dessert.  This is most notably a dinner course, lunch may have an appetizer, but breakfast is most notable.

Eggs, ham, bacon, steak, no appetizer.

Our meals are structured even, breakfast, brunch, lunch, dunch, dinner.

We have a food pyramid and food groups.  They don't even bother mentioning the variety of concerns regards each group.
Vegetables will have pesticides and other cides on them as will fruits.  Grains are pretty bad for the Body long term.  Sugar is destructive.  And meats are heavily acidic, probably because they're decomposing flesh pumped full of preservatives.

I don't know if a plant suffers as much as a animal, I like to think not, but perhaps all manner of consumption is traumatic.  Death is well intertwined with life, we kill to live, whether by uprooting a carrot or hunting an animal.

With that said, a balance is necessary, ecologically especially.  Humanity is wiping out insects, mammals, amphibians.  Causing extinctions.  Destroying the land and sky and oceans.

Our desire for 'more' for 'bigger' for 'better' are driving us to consume excessively, and our poor management of that excessive foodstuffs (see: plants and animals) ends up being thrown out.  That chicken died and became KFC food, but didn't sell the day it was made, oh well throw it out.  Not like a human being is starving and would eat a day old piece of chicken or the animal killed for that food is dishonored.

Our food is treated with great disrespect.  All of it mostly, even plants.

And worst of all most of it is handled in such a way as to make it poisonous in small amounts.  Herbicide, pesticide, contaminated soil, poorly designed GMO's (an entire thread's worth of a discussion right there).

We should educate people to the importance of food, to respect our food instead of excessively produce it then trash a good amount of it.

There is enough food produced now to feed everyone on the planet, too bad places like America and Europe take much of that food and waste it.

Imagine that guys, an animal not only slaughtered to be food, but doesn't even get ingested, just thrown out.  Wasteful, and extremely dishonorable to the animal who made that sacrifice against its will.

I remember Diana pointed out a Native Indian relationship with the buffalo.

That relationship honored the life taken and the land the blood was shed upon.  Those animals in spirit knew they were helping humanity survive.

If we could educate people of that basic respect for life and land, maybe in generations to come factory farming may come to an end.

The UN encourages a plant based diet.

Plants undoubtedly are less harmed by being harvested and further are overall healthier.  Meat is consumed excessively, all those burger commercials with that hot chick eating the burger probably didn't help.  All those fast food commercials probably didn't help.

You cut into an onion it spurts its juices into the air and makes you cry.
You cut into an animal it juts blood and screams, and hopefully you cry.

There's not much argument who feels more suffering.

But instead of that, we argue about if a tomato and a cucumber are fruits or vegetables.

We need awareness of the reality that is occurring, I'm not saying take a school bus of kids on a field trip to the local slaughterhouse, just inform them of what their food went through to get onto their plate.

It starts with the upcoming generations, ours are too jaded, but if we can raise and educate the kiddos properly, they'll take care of the rest.

Sadly I do not think anything present day will be enough to stop the business sector of factory farming.  The laws side with them more than life itself.  A business operating with death as it's main producer should be extremely scrutinized.

What if aliens dropped down from the sky and saw our treatment of animals in those settings?  Would they start slaughtering us to show us what it feels like to be farmed by 'more intelligent' beings?  How would an alien culture perceive us?  If that answer isn't good, then things need to change.

It's as simple as that to me, if we can't show the universe we're ready to participate mutually with life, we'll be isolated until we kill ourselves off for food after ruining all the water and destroying all the crops, and genociding animals endlessly until we view them as food more than life.

When you look at a pig and see bacon, there's a problem, that life has not been respected.

I feel that's what it comes down to.

Education
Respect
Change

Awareness falls under education.
Respect should cause ample resistance to factory farming in future generations.
Hopefully that'll incite change.

We can't do much to legally save the animals now, but we can look to the future and make motions to make that future a healthier place.  For humans, animals, and plants, or basically, for Life.

[Jade]

Not our job to consciously regulate the amount of bodies available for incarnation for 2nd density experiences (in either kingdom).

I agree with this wholeheartedly. However, do you not think that paying for the artificial insemination of BILLIONS of animals every year constitutes as making it our "job to consciously regulate the amount of bodies available for 2nd density experience"?

Everybody is so worried about the carbon footprint. Another misguided notion in my opinion. The Earth has natural balancing mechanisms to deal with such things. Global warming isn't a bad thing, like everybody mistakenly believes. It is part of a natural cycle of the earth. There is a lot of fear propaganda out there.

I think it's about using the planet and its resources as a prostitute and not a maiden, personally. But I find it odd that you believe that eating too much fruit will make my teeth fall out, but producing too much garbage/poison waste won't affect the health of the planet? Do you think that it's perfectly fine to continue clear cutting old growth rainforests to meet the increasing demands for animal flesh?

-We don't truly know what the animal experiences. You're imagining every death as horrible. We simply don't know that. We can intuit, but often our intuition is warped by our biases. Their deaths are usually quick in the agricultural industry, except in cases of illegal practices. Agricultural practices could improved to the point where suffering did not occur. There is so much pessimism about it. Let's be optimistic without needing to control the dietary ideological morality of others.

Let me tell you that this is where you are wrong, and this is why I say anything. It's not just about "dietary ideology", it's about the mass enslavement and subjugation of a few select species. We do know what the VAST MAJORITY of animals experience. We all know how our dog would react to being in a situation like this. The animals' deaths are NOT quick. They slit their throats while they are alive so that their heart is still pumping, as this helps them bleed out and allows the processing of the body to be more efficient, not more humane. Sure, they COULD be improved, but even so - to take the life of something that does not want to die is to cause it suffering. Sure, death can be a natural process, but murder is not.



This pig is alive, this is how nearly all pigs and cows are killed in a slaughterhouse. You can tell that this is a spent sow from her bulging teets, meaning, she's had so many litters that her body has given out. She is very likely pregnant, as they never pause from impregnating them - most dairy cows and breeder sows are slaughtered pregnant. There are many common uses for fetal blood, tissue, and skin. You can see she is covered in feces (animals are not washed before slaughtered), and pressure wounds, as most female pigs are confined to "gestation crates" most of their lives. These animals are hung up by an ankle, and then their throat is slit, and they bleed out. They continue along the "disassembly line" hanging like this, which is indisputably inhumane for an animal this size. They usually flail somewhat during this process so they dislocate their hips, their ankles, their shoulders, etc. The gutting/harvesting more often than not begins before they are unconscious from blood loss even. The reason they "stun" them is not to "put them to sleep", it's to remove their capability of motor function, so that no humans on the line get hurt by flailing giant animals. The stunning is very often ineffective. They suffer a great deal, for a very long time. This is not every death, but greater than 99% of deaths. Even most small farmers send their animals to a slaughterhouse. There may be the absolute rare exception where the person who loved and cared for the being who is killed for their flesh has prayed over and slaughtered it. But unless you literally know the farmer you buy your meat from personally and have seen their kill room, I guarantee they send their animals to a slaughterhouse to be killed and processed, because that's not the part of the job that anyone wants to do.

Please, please, please, I encourage everyone to learn about the real things that every single animal goes through before it hits your plate. We have streamlined this process so efficiently and for such thin profit margins that there is literally no care given to the animals at most steps along the way. Most slaughterhouses use electrocution sticks to control the large beasts going through the chutes, because they often refuse because they know that their death is ahead of them. They behave exactly how humans would, if they were being lined up for slaughter - most of them fight back! This is why they require a shock stick, to demoralize them into complacency. If you think you know and it doesn't bother you, then do a bit more research to make sure. Watch some videos of what happens inside of a slaughterhouse. And then watch some videos of someone making a salad, and compare how the two make you feel.

So much of what exists in our brains that we think is what makes us "human" is actually carryovers from how second density brain functioning has developed. Love of family, hope, joy, pain, sorrow - these things are tangibly experienced in much of second density, even if they are still without third density awareness. These are the things that the Logos created in second density to give it the catalyst of awareness of self. I believe that the extreme sorrow and torture that most beings experience in slaughterhouses serves as great catalyst for awareness, and great catalyst offering the possibility of service to self vs. service to others. And this is what it's all about in second density. They aren't just automatons for us to use without any thought to their emotional well being. They are also beings who are seeking experiences of the Creator, and what we choose to do about it is directly contributing to their experiences, and the ways in which the Creator grows.

13.21 Questioner: Then how does the second density progress to the third?

Ra: I am Ra. The second density strives towards the third density which is the density of self-consciousness or self-awareness. The striving takes place through the higher second-density forms who are invested by third-density beings with an identity to the extent that they become self-aware mind/body complexes, thus becoming mind/body/spirit complexes and entering third density, the first density of consciousness of spirit.

I believe we have a duty as stewards of this second density creation, as in the whole planet, to "invest" thoughtfully into these higher second density forms. Right now we are investing some really heinous things into the Creator, per factory farms, slaughterhouses, old growth destruction, and the poisoning and killing of our oceans.

PS: Pigs are proven to be smarter and more aware than most breeds of dogs, and in fact most other animals. Why some here don't consider them "higher second density" is beyond me.

-Its not necessary to have furniture, and houses made out of late 2nd density/early 3rd density trees either. It is also not necessary to have any possessions beyond the bare necessities to keep your physical body alive. We can donate the rest to charity and live a life of pure giving. Are you gonna do it? There comes a point when you have to realize the absurdity of taking these zealotous ideologies to their extreme. I also believe this is a case of species-ism. Living life is not supposed to be so miserable and destitute. We are here to enjoy the fruits of the creators game. Contemplating the absurdity of the extremes of these ideologies feels far more heavy and negative than any of these negative speculations about what other consciousness complexes may or may not be experiencing. Remove all pleasures from life and we will all want to die anyway. We are overthinking this 3rd density thing. It wasn't meant to be so hard. The outer doesn't dictate the charge of polarity. Always remember that. When one assumes it does, we have stepped into the realm of judgment.

Third density wasn't meant to be hard? We have a different understanding of the Ra material then... I thought it was about sacrifice.

93.24 Questioner: I am assuming that you mean one full question, and I’ll make that question: I’d like to know the significance of the shape of the crux ansata, and if that’s too much of an answer I will just ask if there is anything we can do to make the instrument more comfortable or improve the contact?

Ra: I am Ra. There are mathematical ratios within this image which may yield informative insights to one fond of riddles. We shall not untangle the riddle. We may indicate that the crux ansata is a part of the concept complexes of the archetypical mind, the circle indicating the magic of the spirit, the cross indicating that nature of manifestation which may only be valued by the losing. Thus the crux ansata is intended to be seen as an image of the eternal in and through manifestation and beyond manifestation through the sacrifice and transformation of that which is manifest.

Is there any concept of "sacrifice" in the Tree of Life?

[Minyatur]

Third density wasn't meant to be hard? We have a different understanding of the Ra material then... I thought it was about sacrifice.

I'm pretty sure it described 3D in its foundation as monotone and extremely lengthy, but without misery and that this became seen as not offering a quality experience to the Creator and to offer something more vivid and of quality the thought of using the veiling process was used and is currently being expanded through experiments such as this one.

It'd be of interest to note your quote about the crux ansata does not speak of this density and instead is more along the lines of I think what Infinite Unity spoke of in his latest thread regarding the Original Thought. I think this concept of sacrifice is the principle of movement of spirit (steps of light) and is present in all densities as even the Octave itself is an expression of this principle.

I'm all with anagogy on this, 3D is nothing about misery unless misery is used as a tool to vivify the 3D experience and bonify it. In veilless 3D, I think those of Ra stated that you'd naturally be able to turn your sense of physical pain off in need to and emotional pain springs from confusion, so 3D of itself in its nature is not much centered upon misery. But your quote does speak of why misery is sought as an experience and signifies it.

[Jade]

Third density wasn't meant to be hard? We have a different understanding of the Ra material then... I thought it was about sacrifice.

I'm pretty sure it described 3D in its foundation as monotone and extremely lengthy, but without misery and that this became seen as not offering a quality experience to the Creator and to offer something more vivid and of quality the thought of using the veiling process was used and is currently being expanded through experiments such as this one.

It'd be of interest to note your quote about the crux ansata does not speak of this density and instead is more along the lines of I think what Infinite Unity spoke of in his latest thread regarding the Original Thought. I think this concept of sacrifice is the principle of movement of spirit (steps of light) and is present in all densities as even the Octave itself is an expression of this principle.

I'm all with anagogy on this, 3D is nothing about misery unless misery is used as a tool to vivify the 3D experience and bonify it. In veilless 3D, I think those of Ra stated that you'd naturally be able to turn your sense of physical pain off in need to and emotional pain springs from confusion, so 3D of itself in its nature is not much centered upon misery. But your quote does speak of why misery is sought as an experience and signifies it.

According to Ra, Wanderers (who many here purport to be, those who are afraid of vibrating off of this planet!) choose to incarnate in lower densities to experience the catalyst that is offered from being veiled. This inherently means confusion. While confusion does not have to equal misery, I am not the one who was claiming that it did - anagogy implied that it would make him miserable if he had to stop "enjoying the fruits of the Creator". I do not feel miserable because of sacrifices I have made, in fact quite the opposite, and I think this is where we get into some really good paradox.

The thing is, per the Catalyst of the Body, there are things that are objectively undesirable. You cannot argue that misery doesn't exist when so much of this planet exists in misery. If you stub your toe, for even a brief moment, you understand that misery. If you cannot achieve "sympathetic vibrations" with those who you wish to heal, you will not be able to truly heal them, so to heal misery we must understand it.

In the quote Ra references the archetypical mind of the Logos so I am presuming they are talking about third density experience, as the quote is from 93.24 and at that point in the sessions the only things discussed were the archetypical mind (within veiled third density) and how to care for Carla/the group. Also, there are multiple cards that contain the image of the crux, and multiple figures with crossed limbs which Ra implies also means sacrifice.

[loostudent]

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.

So if someone is healthy and has high vital enegy, the body doesn't need meat? And if body lacks energy and is prone to ill health, it needs meat (occasionally)?

[Coordinate_Apotheosis]

I think the idea behind that advice is meat offers an energy boost but more pure forms untainted with artificial stuff, chemicals, and abuse, offers a relative safe boost when factoring Carla's allergies in.

Implies meat offers an energy boost (which most consumers of meat might agree with), and is most simply put, a foodstuff our body's have adapted to utilizing.

If you're low on 'vital energy' which might be a combination of chemical and energetic processes, you need to get it up.

Ra merely described an efficient way to do this, probably because of Carla's serious state.

I do not believe they mentioned very much regards the artificial stuff in food beyond that it caused Carla issues due to her ever finer sensitive allergies to certain chemicals used in food.