Confederation and meat consumption

[anagogy]

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"?

That isn't the consciously regulating I was referring to. That's people trying to make more food. I'm talking about picking and choosing what lives are worth living and which are not. Which is what people like you are doing when you think we shouldn't breed more animal bodies. It isn't our place to choose. If the creator didn't want a being to have a given experience, it wouldn't use the experience (wouldn't incarnate).

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?

I already said I wasn't arguing on behalf of agriculture. There are ways of improving it without resorting to all the fear mongering. I brought up the teeth falling out to point out that isn't the correct diet for the human animal. Because a fruitarian diet is basically the only diet where you are going to get enough calories and not have to kill the plant. You'll have to eat a lot of it. It will be a full time job.

We all know how our dog would react to being in a situation like this.

Your dog is late 2nd density, and possibly 3rd density. I don't know why I'm even responding. You aren't listening to a word I'm saying anyway. Those animals in farms are not 2nd/3rd, except in rare circumstances. And no you don't know what they experience, you just jump to the worst possible conclusion based on what you see. You see whatever you believe. The inner subjective experience can be radically different from what you mistakenly conceive based on outward appearances. I used to mistakenly offer help to people who didn't ask for it. I can't count how many people were offended that I thought they needed or wanted help. Appearances can be deceiving.

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.

I'm not arguing for factory farms. What about a world where a large enough stock of animals is kept, and they are given plenty of free range, and that the only ones that are harvested are ones that die of old age, or illness. Would you be upset then? Is meat eating still wrong then?  

Plants don't want to die either. You are murdering them. You are murdering 2nd density organisms. You're a murderer. And no, you don't know what they experience.

Again, you are basically saying you don't think these animals deserve to have lived in the first place. Without agriculture, they wouldn't have lives in the first place. You want to kill them before they are even born. I want to give them the incarnation that the creator apparently still decided was worth living.

And of course, like every vegan acolyte, you will post pictures of dead animals, because nothing says I'M RIGHT like a big obnoxious picture of a strung up animal on your screen. Appeal to emotions. It works really good for gullible people.

They aren't just automatons for us to use without any thought to their emotional well being.

Nobody is advocating for that or saying that.

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.

And A.I. will prove to be far smarter than humans. It doesn't mean it will be enspirited. And no, most of them aren't higher 2nd density. But I can't prove that to you, so you can keep robotically offering your perspective, and I will keep robotically offering my alternate perspective. And you will keep eating plants, and I will keep eating animals, and nothing will change whatsoever. Be a boring place if we all agreed anyway.

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 didn't say that, you're misconstruing my words. I said it wasn't meant to be SO hard. All these mental loop de loops to make your diet the only good diet for humans and nature.

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

It is a map of the archetypal mind, so anything you see in astrology, or the tarot is represented there too in some way.

[rva_jeremy]

I just see a lot of lack of acceptance in this thread. The vegetarian crowd simply doesn't accept the carnivores because of how they interpret the Law of One, and the carnivores don't accept the vegetarians' interpretation of the Law of One.

I'd just like to offer that this doesn't have to be about the Law of One. It can be about what you feel is right -- in fact, it always is about that in the end (and, maybe sometimes, the secret fear that you might be wrong). And if it's just about what you truly feel is right, then we ought to assume a posture of sharing our perspectives and listening to others', rather than trying to find the holes that will always abound in each others' limited arguments. The Confederation says over and over that the best argument we can make is our example, not our words.

I see merits and faults in the interpretations of both sides. This is a confusing, baffling, heartbreaking illusion. We're all doing the best we can.

[Diana]

I just see a lot of lack of acceptance in this thread.  The vegetarian crowd simply doesn't accept the carnivores because of how they interpret the Law of One, and the carnivores don't accept the vegetarians' interpretation of the Law of One.

This may be true in part. But not always. Personally, I have no investment at all in any interpretation of the Law of One (regarding any subject). To me, it's a reference only.

I'd just like to offer that this doesn't have to be about the Law of One. It can be about what you feel is right -- in fact, it always is about that in the end (and, maybe sometimes, the secret fear that you might be wrong).  And if it's just about what you truly feel is right, then we ought to assume a posture of sharing our perspectives and listening to others', rather than trying to find the holes that will always abound in each others' limited arguments.  The Confederation says over and over that the best argument we can make is our example, not our words.

How then would you suggest we canvass the subject here? Words are all we have on an Internet forum.

It's nearly impossible to talk about this from the vegan (plant-based eating) standpoint without causing offense. Please share any suggestions as how to engage in this conversation from the standpoint of a vegan who cares about animal suffering. 

[Coordinate_Apotheosis]

"Hi there, I don't eat animals, but see you do, nice to meet you!  No pun intended, but seriously, hi."

"Oh yeah, I do wish you'd stop eating meat just to help alleviate suffering and for your longterm health but I accept your choices and hope you'll respect mine."

Just a thought that maybe something like the above coming from a carnivore or herbivore or omnivore would be more worthwhile than the herbivores calling the carnivores murderers and animal slaughterers and the carnivores calling the herbivores crazy for calling them murderers and animal slaughterers.

Just saying.  All sides could use less judgment towards each other.

[Nía]

"Hi there, I don't eat animals, but see you do, nice to meet you!  No pun intended, but seriously, hi."

"Oh yeah, I do wish you'd stop eating meat just to help alleviate suffering and for your longterm health but I accept your choices and hope you'll respect mine."

Just a thought that maybe something like the above coming from a carnivore or herbivore or omnivore would be more worthwhile than the herbivores calling the carnivores murderers and animal slaughterers and the carnivores calling the herbivores crazy for calling them murderers and animal slaughterers.

Just saying.  All sides could use less judgment towards each other.

But isn't that the exact paradoxical situation we're in, here at the forum - that both are true? What Diana pointed to, I believe, is that people who haven't made the choice to be vegan feel like they are being accused, being called 'murderers' and 'animal slaughterers' without anyone having ever called them that, just by the nature of a vegan being present, or pointing out that animals have to be slaughtered in order to be eaten, and how this usually is being done. And then, this is a thread where the topic of animal consumption was for discussion, and in this context again, graphic images or descriptions of animal suffering create the same effect, without the one posting them necessarily intending to accuse someone, or to make someone feel guilty, but rather providing information and laying out their own point of view. Of course, in animal advocacy, the effect of non-vegans being awakened to the reality and effects of animal consumption is intended, and naturally, they would feel first shocked, then guilty after the realization of their participation in that practice, but I don't think that's the case here. Everyone has to make the choice for themselves, but to be able to make an informed choice, it is also necessary to be aware of the facts (metaphysically, we have to figure them out ourselves as there's obviously a lot of room for interpretation, and misinterpretation) of what animal consumption means and and causes for animals, humans and the planet, and to look at it without any initial defensiveness. Otherwise, it would not be an informed choice, but a choice for convenience, or plainly ignorance. (The same is true for every choice we make at every moment, particularly in regards to consumption where the effects of such choices might be well hidden.)

There is a series of images that have been circulated far and wide this week in the media. They didn't appeal to me, but maybe they explain why we vegans tend to get emotional when someone is talking about meat or 'the fruits of the Creator', while what see, and, more importantly, feel, is suffering, terror, torture, desperate cries of pain, ignored pleas for help, and denied will to live and self-actualization. We don't equalize 2D and 3D. We just know that animals are equally sentient, and feel pain and suffer at least equally, if not more, because they lack the possibility of consciously explaining pain and suffering, of actively reaching for aid and relief, and of doing inner work aiming at reaching equanimity with whatever arises, even pain. Just as a thought experiment, if anyone's interested.

-`ღ´-

Edit: I've added the relevant quotes from Morris' past life regression into a 4D environment in my previous post in this thread, in case anyone wants to read them up.

[Diana]

But isn't that the exact paradoxical situation we're in, here at the forum - that both are true? What Diana pointed to, I believe, is that people who haven't made the choice to be vegan feel like they are being accused, being called 'murderers' and 'animal slaughterers' without anyone having ever called them that, just by the nature of a vegan being present, or pointing out that animals have to be slaughtered in order to be eaten, and how this usually is being done.

This is correct. I have tried for many years to explain this, in varying ways. 

To be fair and understanding, I do see how those consuming meat/dairy/eggs can interpret food animal advocacy personally. Being offended at it is another thing. But if I posted the ill effects of sleeping with a cell phone next to one's head, and a reader here always slept with a cell phone next to his or her head, I doubt there would be the same level of misinterpretation of posting such information.

This is an emotion-packed issue, which indicates to me that it is worth canvassing. There is obviously a lot of catalyst involved. And of course, we all have the choice to deal with catalyst or not, and to deal with it in any way we choose.

... We just know that animals are equally sentient, and feel pain and suffer at least equally, if not more, because they lack the possibility of consciously explaining pain and suffering, of actively reaching for aid and relief, and of doing inner work aiming at reaching equanimity with whatever arises, even pain.

I have tried to articulate this many times. Thank you for so eloquently describing a concept I have struggled to convey.

[Diana]

There is something I am going to attempt to articulate, though I'm not optimistic I will do this effectively, but here goes.

The idea that vegetarians, and especially vegans, think they are superior because they do the "more evolved" thing when it comes to food, is not true, at least for the members here who have attempted to be in the conversations. This is my observation.

I can only speak for myself. While I do think the vegan approach is more evolved and compassionate (my perception, regarding all the aspects of food production and consumption: health, ecosystem, politics, alleviating suffering etc.), I do not think I am more evolved or more compassionate than anyone else, or "right," or a better person. This is because I am flawed and distorted in many, many ways—ways in which someone else may be really balanced or more evolved. Every single day I observe myself doing, saying, and thinking things which DO NOT line up with who I think I am and who I want to be. I do a forehead slap all the time, cringing at the way I dealt with this or that. So the overall idea here is that as a vegan, I do not see myself as any better than a non-vegan because we are all working on refining our selves in different ways. This is why it is NOT personal, and why posting facts is not done (at least here) with the superior feeling that "I know better and you don't."

I imagine I may be allowed to think what I will, just as meat-eaters are allowed their free will. The word, "evolved," has connotations beyond the esoteric one. Would anyone claim that slavery is more evolved than freedom from slavery; or that female subjugation is more evolved than societal equality of gender? 

I hope I may have shed some light on a misconception regarding "vegan superiority" in these B4 conversations.

[Jim Kent +]

As a meat-eater I'd like to say the following:

People like Morrisey, the singer from "The Smiths" does the vegan cause no good with songs like "Meat Is Murder". I went to see him live a few years ago and the images projected on the large screen were extremely graphic. I'm just curious as the the public reaction if a pop artist plastered their gigs with anti-abortion propaganda. 
( Which I can assure you is equally upsetting! )

I personally have no issue accepting that animals have equal capacity to suffer than Humans. It would appear that some vegans have difficulty accepting the other side of this ethical standpoint, which is that plants that end up consumed and the rest discarded and therefore die and trees killed for toilet-paper also suffer.

Without wanting to sound rude, I don't care to enter in to a scoring match as which life-forms we consume suffer more, suffering is suffering.    

[rva_jeremy]

How then would you suggest we canvass the subject here? Words are all we have on an Internet forum.

It's nearly impossible to talk about this from the vegan (plant-based eating) standpoint without causing offense. Please share any suggestions as how to engage in this conversation from the standpoint of a vegan who cares about animal suffering. 

I don't really believe there's a lot of reasonable doubt about the respective positions of the participants in these (many) conversations at this point.

I definitely think it's possible to talk from just about any point of view and reasonably avoid giving offense. You just have to accept what you hear. If you say "I think killing animals is wrong" and you give lots of reasons, but the other person still doesn't buy it, you have to accept that even if it feels bad. Similarly, if that other person rejects your argument and you come back with "then I think you're bad", then they have to accept that even if it feels bad.

If there's one suggestion I'd make, it's to suggest that we spend more time getting to know each other, so we'll be less inclined to a militant approach and more inclined to an open, sharing approach. This subject is touchy and personal, and that's not always obvious to everybody going in. But we should recognize it now and maybe understand that any mind-changing we want to do has some prerequisites.

I'm ok if you guys want to continue; but I know it feels bad to a lot of the participants and I just wanted to reflect on why a little.

[xise]

I personally have no issue accepting that animals have equal capacity to suffer than Humans. It would appear that some vegans have difficulty accepting the other side of this ethical standpoint, which is that plants that end up consumed and the rest discarded and therefore die and trees killed for toilet-paper also suffer.

Without wanting to sound rude, I don't care to enter in to a scoring match as which life-forms we consume suffer more, suffering is suffering.    

Caring about all suffering, and especially caring about the number of beings suffering, - of plants and animals - is actually an argument for going vegan, because more plants are killed when you kill and eat an animal than when you kill and eat a plant.

It takes more agriculture and corps grown for animals to provide calories in meat; eating straight plants results in less land use, and less plant death.

Not trying to convince people at this point, just inform people that the whole 'well plants suffer too' you hear from people actually doesn't make sense as a reason to eat meat.

[ltr]Food[/ltr]

• In the U.S., 70% of the grain grown is fed to animals on feedlots (“Plants, Genes, and Agriculture” by  Jones and Bartlet)
  
  
• It takes up to 16 pounds of grain to produce just 1 pound of meat. (The Global Benefits of Eating Less Meat by Mark Gold and Jonathon Porritt). Fish on fish farms must be fed 5 pounds of wild-caught fish to produce one pound of farmed fish flesh (“The Food Revolution” by John Robbins)
  
  
• The world’s cattle alone consume a quantity of food equal to the caloric needs of 8.7 billion people—more than the entire human population on Earth (“The Global Benefits of Eating Less Meat” by Mark Gold and Jonathon Porritt)
  

[ltr]
Climate Change[/ltr]

• Animal agriculture is responsible for 18% of the total release of greenhouse gases world-wide (this is more than all the cars, trucks, planes, and ships in the world combined)  (Livestock’s Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options, a 2006 report published by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization)
  
  
• Livestock account for an estimated 9% of global CO2 (Carbon Dioxide) emissions, estimated 35-40% of global CH4 (Methane) emissions and 65% of NO2 (Nitrous Oxide) emissions (Livestock’s Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options, a 2006 report published by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization)
  
  
• By replacing your “regular car” with a Toyota Prius the average person can prevent the emission of about 1 tonne of CO2 into the atmosphere, By replacing an omnivorous diet with a vegan diet the average person can prevent the emission of about 1.5 tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere. That’s 50% more CO2 saved! (“It’s better to green your diet than your car”, The New Scientist, December 17, 2005.)
  

[Diana]

As a meat-eater I'd like to say the following:
I'm just curious as the the public reaction if a pop artist plastered their gigs with anti-abortion propaganda. 
( Which I can assure you is equally upsetting! )

I do believe Christian and Pro-Life orgs do that. Freedom of speech (and activism) is a constitutional right.

I personally have no issue accepting that animals have equal capacity to suffer than Humans. It would appear that some vegans have difficulty accepting the other side of this ethical standpoint, which is that plants that end up consumed and the rest discarded and therefore die and trees killed for toilet-paper also suffer.

Regarding trees, the vegans here (as far as I can tell) agree with you that trees suffer and that's why recycled toilet paper is the more compassionate choice.

Regarding plant suffering, we may have varying opinions on that issue due to the physical differences in plants and animals, and isn't that okay? That's really why we talk about anything at all, isn't it—to canvass a subject and all of its implications based on our own perceptions and hopefully widening those perceptions? 

Personally, I care greatly about plants and trees (and insects and all life). For example, I find the practice of Christmas trees appalling—cutting them down so they can be in a house for two weeks while they die then throwing them out for garbage pick-up. I feel so badly for the trees, but I don't hate the people who do it out of ignorance of trees as beings—though I do want the practice to stop.

Without wanting to sound rude, I don't care to enter in to a scoring match as which life-forms we consume suffer more, suffering is suffering.    

I disagree (and isn't that okay?). That blanket statement lacks discernment. Could you honestly say that someone at death's door from bone cancer isn't suffering with more pain than a person who stubbed their toe?

[Jim Kent +]

Not trying to convince people at this point, just inform people that the whole 'well plants suffer too' you hear from people actually doesn't make sense as a reason to eat meat.

 
But that's the point you seem to be missing, I don't need a reason to eat meat, it feels perfectly natural to me for Humans to eat meat...

But seeing as Humanity is not a totally natural species, who really know what our "natural" diet is?

Also, the ethics about my dietary choices are centered around my belief that every Soul ( aka "atom of the Creator" ) dwells within all life, not some other consideration. 

My diet is based on my ethics which are based on my own philosophy and I will defend my right and every-one else's to live how we choose, even if that meant choosing to "abort one's fetus".     

[xise]

Not trying to convince people at this point, just inform people that the whole 'well plants suffer too' you hear from people actually doesn't make sense as a reason to eat meat.

 
But that's the point you seem to be missing, I don't need a reason to eat meat, it feels perfectly natural to me for Humans to eat meat...

But seeing as Humanity is not a totally natural species, who really know what our "natural" diet is?

Also, the ethics about my dietary choices are centered around my belief that every Soul ( aka "atom of the Creator" ) dwells within all life, not some other consideration. 

My diet is based on my ethics which are based on my own philosophy and I will defend my right and every-one else's to live how we choose, even if that meant choosing to "abort one's fetus".     

I'm not attacking you or saying you need to eat a different diet. Do what works for you absolutely.  

You may not have used "well plants suffer too" as a reason to support meat eating, but a lot of people do, so that's why I brought it up.

[Jim Kent +]

As a meat-eater I'd like to say the following:
I'm just curious as the the public reaction if a pop artist plastered their gigs with anti-abortion propaganda. 
( Which I can assure you is equally upsetting! )

I do believe Christian and Pro-Life orgs do that. Freedom of speech (and activism) is a constitutional right.

I personally have no issue accepting that animals have equal capacity to suffer than Humans. It would appear that some vegans have difficulty accepting the other side of this ethical standpoint, which is that plants that end up consumed and the rest discarded and therefore die and trees killed for toilet-paper also suffer.

Regarding trees, the vegans here (as far as I can tell) agree with you that trees suffer and that's why recycled toilet paper is the more compassionate choice.

Regarding plant suffering, we may have varying opinions on that issue due to the physical differences in plants and animals, and isn't that okay? That's really why we talk about anything at all, isn't it—to canvass a subject and all of its implications based on our own perceptions and hopefully widening those perceptions? 

Personally, I care greatly about plants and trees (and insects and all life). For example, I find the practice of Christmas trees appalling—cutting them down so they can be in a house for two weeks while they die then throwing them out for garbage pick-up. I feel so badly for the trees, but I don't hate the people who do it out of ignorance of trees as beings—though I do want the practice to stop.

Without wanting to sound rude, I don't care to enter in to a scoring match as which life-forms we consume suffer more, suffering is suffering.    

I disagree (and isn't that okay?). That blanket statement lacks discernment. Could you honestly say that someone at death's door from bone cancer isn't suffering with more pain than a person who stubbed their toe?

About the abortion publicity thing, accepted, but i just can't see U2 or Justind Beiber's career doing well after such a choice. 

I don't live under the same constitution as you, in fact, thanks to the "English" invasion of my native land, I don't even have the luxury of living in a country, but a "principality" ( sorry - I'm going off on an relevant tangent! )   

Of course it's ok for us to air and discuss differing opinions! I enjoy a good debate, even if i sometimes slip into getting a bit shitty. 

I absolutely agree about the waste that is the practice of "Christmas Trees" - seriously what a bloody waste! I've thought this way for decades.

I don't know if I'd agree about lacking discernment, a bit simplistic maybe, but my ethics centre around my belief that we are all The Creator, so my ethical focus and emphasis differs from yours somewhat - but that's superb for me - having such monumental challenges to overcome makes life more interesting ( in my opinion ). 

[Jim Kent +]

Not trying to convince people at this point, just inform people that the whole 'well plants suffer too' you hear from people actually doesn't make sense as a reason to eat meat.

 
But that's the point you seem to be missing, I don't need a reason to eat meat, it feels perfectly natural to me for Humans to eat meat...

But seeing as Humanity is not a totally natural species, who really know what our "natural" diet is?

Also, the ethics about my dietary choices are centered around my belief that every Soul ( aka "atom of the Creator" ) dwells within all life, not some other consideration. 

My diet is based on my ethics which are based on my own philosophy and I will defend my right and every-one else's to live how we choose, even if that meant choosing to "abort one's fetus".     

I'm not attacking you or saying you need to eat a different diet. Do what works for you absolutely.  

You may not have used "well plants suffer too" as a reason to support meat eating, but a lot of people do, so that's why I brought it up.

No problem my friend, I am still a bit defensive about this issue and "well plant suffer too" was at least a part of the point I was making. 

[Diana]

I don't live under the same constitution as you, in fact, thanks to the "English" invasion of my native land, I don't even have the luxury of living in a country, but a "principality" ( sorry - I'm going off on an relevant tangent! )   

Ha  . Of course the United States is not the boss of the world! Although, our government would like to think so.

Of course it's ok for us to air and discuss differing opinions! I enjoy a good debate, even if i sometimes slip into getting a bit shitty.

I admire your willingness to jump in with your take on things, and your willingness to be honest with yourself (as you perceive it).

I absolutely agree about the waste that is the practice of "Christmas Trees" - seriously what a bloody waste! I've thought this way for decades.

Me too. I tried to hatch a plot to hang banners over the freeways in the middle of the night asking people to stop needlessly killing trees for Christmas decoration. But I never did get that plan worked out.

I don't know if I'd agree about lacking discernment, a bit simplistic maybe, but my ethics centre around my belief that we are all The Creator, so my ethical focus and emphasis differs from yours somewhat - but that's superb for me - having such monumental challenges to overcome makes life more interesting ( in my opinion ). 

[Jim Kent +]

Thank you all for these discussions...

I think I'm beginning to understand that the reason my green-ray sometimes gets blocked by reading some vegan perspectives here, is that a big part of me would ideally not kill anything to survive, but at least in principal, I could go vegetarian at least and probably be more healthy as aresult...

I'm just not there yet, and even though a part of me would like to get "there", I may not actually ever get there in this life-time.

 

[Coordinate_Apotheosis]

"Hi there, I don't eat animals, but see you do, nice to meet you!  No pun intended, but seriously, hi."

"Oh yeah, I do wish you'd stop eating meat just to help alleviate suffering and for your longterm health but I accept your choices and hope you'll respect mine."

Just a thought that maybe something like the above coming from a carnivore or herbivore or omnivore would be more worthwhile than the herbivores calling the carnivores murderers and animal slaughterers and the carnivores calling the herbivores crazy for calling them murderers and animal slaughterers.

Just saying.  All sides could use less judgment towards each other.

But isn't that the exact paradoxical situation we're in, here at the forum - that both are true? What Diana pointed to, I believe, is that people who haven't made the choice to be vegan feel like they are being accused, being called 'murderers' and 'animal slaughterers' without anyone having ever called them that, just by the nature of a vegan being present, or pointing out that animals have to be slaughtered in order to be eaten, and how this usually is being done. And then, this is a thread where the topic of animal consumption was for discussion, and in this context again, graphic images or descriptions of animal suffering create the same effect, without the one posting them necessarily intending to accuse someone, or to make someone feel guilty, but rather providing information and laying out their own point of view. Of course, in animal advocacy, the effect of non-vegans being awakened to the reality and effects of animal consumption is intended, and naturally, they would feel first shocked, then guilty after the realization of their participation in that practice, but I don't think that's the case here. Everyone has to make the choice for themselves, but to be able to make an informed choice, it is also necessary to be aware of the facts (metaphysically, we have to figure them out ourselves as there's obviously a lot of room for interpretation, and misinterpretation) of what animal consumption means and and causes for animals, humans and the planet, and to look at it without any initial defensiveness. Otherwise, it would not be an informed choice, but a choice for convenience, or plainly ignorance. (The same is true for every choice we make at every moment, particularly in regards to consumption where the effects of such choices might be well hidden.)

There is a series of images that have been circulated far and wide this week in the media. They didn't appeal to me, but maybe they explain why we vegans tend to get emotional when someone is talking about meat or 'the fruits of the Creator', while what see, and, more importantly, feel, is suffering, terror, torture, desperate cries of pain, ignored pleas for help, and denied will to live and self-actualization. We don't equalize 2D and 3D. We just know that animals are equally sentient, and feel pain and suffer at least equally, if not more, because they lack the possibility of consciously explaining pain and suffering, of actively reaching for aid and relief, and of doing inner work aiming at reaching equanimity with whatever arises, even pain. Just as a thought experiment, if anyone's interested.

-`ღ´-

Edit: I've added the relevant quotes from Morris' past life regression into a 4D environment in my previous post in this thread, in case anyone wants to read them up.

Ding Ding Ding

I recall right on this forum a particular person equating meat eaters to such things.

The very term 'meat eater' is a dehumanization tactic to provide the labeler peace of mind that the labeled are labeled such for a reason.

I can't say I know all the specifics or generals, I just know that I've seen and read enough stuff supposedly by aliens to realize that they aren't going to judge us for anything we do, and that using their words to fortify a personal opinion that basically says if you do this you are doing bad seems to be misusing their words.

I personally would ask you all, have you come to accept the presence and portion of creator that is being the pain and suffering of 2D lifeforms?

Have you accepted millions if not billions of plants are killed for their nutrients?  Or that millions if not billions of animals are killed for their nutrients?

What was it that Ra said about the nature of wanting to change something versus accepting and loving it for it's being?

Can any of you say you've come to deeply appreciate the death and suffering that comes with it that we Human's have perpetuated to a new level of mass genocide?

No, but really.  My point wasn't about superiority complexes or name calling, it was about how we act.  Do you see Love when you look at a slaughterhouse?  Do you feel love when someone judges you for the food you eat? Do you feel loving when you judge that on others?

We all have to accept the present manifestations if we're to have any true effect of change on them.  You can't fight society one on one, you have to be a bigger person (like Jesus), and speak the truth in a way that doesn't piss everyone the hell off.

Otherwise you're just shooting yourself in the foot, or setting up your own crucifixion.

I like vegans myself, I extremely appreciate their choice to do what little part they can to help, they're trying, but I don't judge 'meat eaters' as meat eaters because I realize that until I accept with some modicum of compassion and love that the Creator has a purpose and a plan for all of this suffering to have a reason, that slaughterhouses will forever taint my mood with despair, that sex trafficking rings will forever impair my ability to love clearly the Creator and creation.

They exist for a reason, and whom are we to judge that as we try to change it?  Shouldn't we be accepting it and providing better alternatives instead of just labeling others vegans and meat eaters?

Can anyone accept the deaths of these animals and find peace for your own sake to more clearly make motions of loving change, rather than critical change?

I have seen several people pretty much blast some absurb views of others for their simplest function of eating.

Where most of you seem greatly moved by slaughterhouses, I'm greatly moved my sex trafficking, maybe I draw a line between 2D and 3D and which is 'more important', but to me those animals are fueling a society, they have a purpose for being even if its horrific, but those kids aren't fueling anything but rich perverse pedophilic rapists' sexual desires to dominate innocence.

Yet they too have a reason for being supposedly.

So I am left with little left to say, to me this discussion is a dead horse being beaten, if you'll excuse that ironic figure of speech.  We all know these things are bad but we keep using various methods of escape to cling to these issues, when if we took a spiritual approach, we're supposed to find compassion and acceptance, and let go of their hold on us.

Like, Jade, do you actually enjoy researching and better realizing the levels of horror that occur in slaughterhouses? Have those images and videos done anything to help you find love for that portion of creation?  Haven't they hurt you?  Isn't there someway to find acceptance for these things so that at the very least, you don't need to feel the suffering too and at the most, you see things from a point of love, and hopefully that reveals an untapped potential to provide more love?

What if the souls of those animals (and trafficked kids) choose those circumstances for a reason?

Or Diana, haven't you ever wondered if it's more practical to be detached towards these sorts of things to provide better opportunities of love?

I think the answer has been in front of us and we've debated it instead of discussing it.  The Confederate and the Ra Material paint essentially the same answer in my mind.

When you see those things, feel love for the Creator.  Send those souls love.  Provide love.

We've taken all of that and twisted it into various things.  The entire message behind the alien messages is Love Is the Answer.

Debates require someone conquer the other to prove a point, Love requires simply that we conquer ourself to prove a point.

I do not wish to needlessly suffer, and looking at animals being slaughtered and reading about the horrors of sex trafficking rings do not help me to love anything.  I am deeply moved by those things but at the end of the day it is my own feelings of powerlessness to help them at all that hurts me the most.

I am conquered by many arguments here, I was conquered the moment I felt anger at how Monica's posts equated me to a murderer and torturer for eating my dinner.

I had to conquer myself to realize that I will always be angry at not only how animals and children are treated, but at the ludicrous accusations we sling at each other, our hurtful critical opinions of each other, and the insane judgments we make simply because we're unique and don't always see eye to eye.

I realized that the best course of action is the one with the least resistance.  Love is that action.

Conquer yourself before you conquer me.  I will continue to eat meat and peruse pornography, I am admittedly a bad person but I've come to accept that and am still seeking evermore the love to be found in such things to better myself.

I'm not the brightest star of love in the sky, but I give a mean twinkle.

[Nía]

A bit off topic, but beautiful, and as suffering has taken somewhat center stage here, I'll just drop it in:

It is a great privilege, greatly treasured by each before this incarnation, to be offered the opportunity to be able to carry not only a personal suffering, but also a deep, pure, sorrow that is the pain of the planetary sphere which you came to love and to serve.

When one has spiritually awakened, one becomes aware of a world suffering, an enormous cry of pain that is all about one, that not only exists within the self but is found whenever the entity reaches out here or there. Touch that place. Gaze into that interest and you will find that the human heart has suffered there too, and in this suffering all are one, just as all are one in the perfect joy and peace of love. And so each seeker dances amid distortions, choosing whenever possible to find the love that is there.

[Jim Kent +]

I don't live under the same constitution as you, in fact, thanks to the "English" invasion of my native land, I don't even have the luxury of living in a country, but a "principality" ( sorry - I'm going off on an relevant tangent! )   

Ha  . Of course the United States is not the boss of the world! Although, our government would like to think so.

... "boss of the world"... I thought that was us Brits...

I'm sorry, I seem to think it's 1922!?   ( which is when google quotes the height of the British Empire - so it MUST be true )

[Coordinate_Apotheosis]

Resistance is Futile, Jim.
The USA will assimilate you.

(or at least your accent lol.)

[Jim Kent +]

Just a suggestion of an idea about how compassionate omnivores and vegans ( could ) move forward together might be to agree on the principal of minimizing suffering...

Just to give an example of how I have, for ethical reasons, modified my food consumption with a view to minimizing suffering: ( of course this one of a near infinite number of ways in which we could realize the goal of minimizing suffering )

I still eat meat but have chosen to:

Only eat free-range eggs.
Only eat free-range organic chicken ( with a RSPCA certification - not perfect but better than nothing! )
Only eat out-door bred pork ( mostly though from a family member who has a small-holding - where I know for a fact they haven't been abused )
No longer eat meat at a restaurant or take-away as I cannot trust the source of the meat. ( I "fell off the wagon" at my cousin's wedding but had no other opportunity to eat that day )
Only eat meat once a day with at least 2 days a week just eating eggs or fish. ( I know that's technically an animal! )
I try not to waste food if possible, especially meat.

I assume that some may say that this is no where near good enough and i could easily do more - and I agree - but sometimes it's better to at least make some small change rather than none.

But apart from my own personal ethically motivated dietary modifications, I would also support things like the following:

A societal move towards only farming organic free-range animals, and put the well-being of the animals ( and therefore the quality of the meat ) above any financial considerations. 

Invention / discovery of the most humane and un-traumatic way to slaughter the animal.

Allow the animals to procreate naturally and let them live a naturally long life-time.

So what do you think? Do any of you like the idea that we can at least all agree to pursue the goal of reducing the suffering of the life-forms we eat?

( EDIT: just found these geezers, looks like some org has beaten me to it ( good! ) https://www.ciwf.org.uk/ )

 

[Nicholas]

 So the overall idea here is that as a vegan, I do not see myself as any better than a non-vegan because we are all working on refining our selves in different ways. 

That's the thing right there, that amidst this interaction, we momentarily confuse our ideals with who we actually are. Every single one of us can relate to that!

Blessed are the ones that care. 

[Nicholas]

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). So, I stayed disapoint with they opinion. Another question is about the effects of the meat on the energetic fields or aura. The meat densify our energies (Jasmuheen, theosophists and many other spiritualistic sources talks about this). They did ignored this point.

Here is a channeling session which they talked about this:

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


What you think?

I think that when you are meeting your need to sustain yourself, you may afford others to attempt to do so in their own chosen way. 

My interpretation of an STS version of eating meat involves a plumbers blow torch, and a living rabbit ( or maybe a baby piglet ). 

[Glow]

It’s really hard to illustrate the point that cruelty is everywhere, every choice takes from one part of creation to spare another.

The Christmas tree thing is the perfect example. I have a fake one because I hate mess but if you think of all those thousands of acres of Christmas tree farms, more likely millions, each tree growing an average of 10 years before harvest then really those Christmas trees all over the northern hemisphere are doing this planet a lot of good. They wouldn’t be there without purposely planting them.

Wildlife and humans alike benefit from the oxygen production and pollution filtering capacity of those Christmas trees. There is no way to call that a waste if anything it is a sto act of care they provide and we participate in that cycle that helps it continue. Well I don’t but I am glad others do.

You could see cruelty in the harvest of trees, in the judgement of those that use them, in the production of fake trees, in the judgement of those that buy fake, in the fossils fuel burning to get either to market it’s everywhere. Pick your poison or better yet live your conscience and let those of us doing quite well already live our own.

There is no one here without creations blood on their hands. Have kids your carbon footprint just became huge, eat take out, so much waste produced, live to travel... woah those jets are murder on the environment.... cruelty is everywhere if you are looking for it. Or you can see creation exploring some interesting and beautiful but imperfect parts. It will all wash away and be forgotten in a few thousand years. Do your best and trust others are doing there’s too.
I know you all are doing your best. I know I am too. Be well.

[loostudent]

I think I'm beginning to understand that the reason my green-ray sometimes gets blocked by reading some vegan perspectives here, is that a big part of me would ideally not kill anything to survive, but at least in principal, I could go vegetarian at least and probably be more healthy as aresult...

I'm just not there yet, and even though a part of me would like to get "there", I may not actually ever get there in this life-time.

Why is it so hard for us (me included) to give up meat? I mean not just doing an occasional fasting.

Is it some kind of natural urge because of the good taste, energy boost, body's needs ...? And then we rationalize about it?

[loostudent]

... cruelty is everywhere if you are looking for it.

It seems this catalyst is included in the program. I think those on STO path can gain in polarization in developing patience, forgiving, minimizing own causes of suffering and pollution ...

[Jim Kent +]

Or you can see creation exploring some interesting and beautiful but imperfect parts. It will all wash away and be forgotten in a few thousand years. Do your best and trust others are doing there’s too. I know you all are doing your best. I know I am too. Be well.

I like your optimism and positivity here, thank you.   

[Jim Kent +]

I think I'm beginning to understand that the reason my green-ray sometimes gets blocked by reading some vegan perspectives here, is that a big part of me would ideally not kill anything to survive, but at least in principal, I could go vegetarian at least and probably be more healthy as aresult...

I'm just not there yet, and even though a part of me would like to get "there", I may not actually ever get there in this life-time.

Why is it so hard for us (me included) to give up meat? I mean not just doing an occasional fasting.

Is it some kind of natural urge because of the good taste, energy boost, body's needs ...? And then we rationalize about it?

I have a few addictions, TV, tobacco and arguably, meat. 

I would certainly agree that my submission to these addictions is a weakness and / or flaw, but my selfish excuse would be that half the time I'm just about clinging on to the will to live and these addictions are not high on my priority a lot of the time. 

My frequent desire to escape the madness of this planet forgives the years if not decades of life ( this time around ) that I'm wiping out by not giving up smoking. 

This approach is close to a slow suicide and I' aware that I've issues to resolve, which is why my world does not resolve about whether or not I eat meat the majority of the time. 

However, this does not excuse for me the totally needless suffering of my 2nd density sisters and brothers, but to live, I've had to settle on some kind of compromise, however much many might consider this unacceptable.       

[rva_jeremy]

Why is it so hard for us (me included) to give up meat?

This may draw upon my personal experience to a distorting extent, but I think it's mostly because one's dietary practice tends to gravitate towards the path of least resistance, as do most behaviors in society. Most of us carnivores would not be going out to find meat if we lived in mostly vegetarian parts of the world. I really think it's that simple, and while it's not an insurmountable barrier to making different choices, it is important that we understand it has a social dimension beyond "what I think is right".

I think this is why you see a great deal of camaraderie on the vegetarian/vegan side but not a similar espirit de corps on the carnivore side: they understand the social cost borne by those who tread outside the lines. We carnivores don't like being reminded of the costs of our often unthinking choices as we blindly follow the social norm, and the vegetarians don't like being reminded of their marginal status relative to the way the machine of society operates.  It is almost completely balanced to everybody's dissatisfaction.

There's an energy involved with our vibration encountering the interference of the social complex's vibration. It is powerful because we often fail to appreciate how formed we are by it, how tentative our individual identities are, how much self-knowledge and true self-love it takes to accept everything around you while making your own choices. 

And here's the thing: I think that yellow ray energy is called upon just as purely by resistance to the complex as it is by submission to it. Even when you direct your will against the prevailing norm, you are still energizing it and still making yourself subject to it. None of us are particularly happy with the social complex right now, but because the complex provides no discrete target to attack or modify, no discrete mind that we can communicate with (yet), we find ourselves unable to do anything but attack individuals outside the consensus or defend ourselves within the consensus. The real substance of the problem is that the consensus needs to change, but the tools at our disposal to change the consensus seem so unequal to the task.

This is precisely why I keep chiming in with a meta-analysis of this frequent topic of conversation: to underline the degree to which third density problems cannot be resolved with third density thinking, and that these issues have their resolution in a different capacity of thought, wisdom, and empathy than any of us seem to be capable of really calling upon now.  We're not going to solve these problems that pinch us so, per se: we're going to love and accept our way towards a different consensus, and that's not going to be achieved by winning an argument with any single person or group of people.

So the best way to deal with these things, in my humble opinion, is not by doubling down on the losing game of third density consciousness and society, where all these arguments seem to congregate.  Instead, beginning to practice the thinking and behaviors of fourth density consciousness and society is what really puts something new into the mix and can fairly expect something new to arise out of it. We need to practice living fourth density lives in third density. To put it more simply, our greatest argument is our ability to set an example.

All just my opinion