In regards to eating meat

[Pablísimo]

You're most welcome. Not that I would expect you to go back and read all of my posts in this thread, but suffice it to say that my view has been quite consistent throughout.

There has been some emotion coming from all participants in older posts that makes it difficult for me to discern exactly who was saying what to eachother at the time. Besides, in my experience, our views evolve as well. I know mine sure have, over time.

For my take, first and foremost I'd note I find your posts interesting and worthwhile to read when the conversation is flowing well. I find myself agreeing with you on some points and disagreeing with you on others. This is a typical reaction I have to other people on the forum, and I suspect others may view me the same way.

It's good to work from common ground, under something that is unifying rather than focus on the areas where we disagree, in my view.

I not only agree, but would go so far as to suggest this is the only way things actually get accomplished.

Much more is certainly possible when we work together, for sure.

Perhaps this is a bit overly philosophical point, but your other-selves are right here/now choosing to kill other beings and eat them.

That's true, I see your point. I'm working on Acceptance that my other-selves are doing just that in the here/now. This is something that is not always easy for me.

And even now, I feel qualified only to make that decision for myself, and not judge others who perceive reality differently than me and make different choices.

This is probably why your posts have not attracted any sort of negative attention or criticism from others who may disagree with your personal view.

But I wonder what will happen if I relax a little, or tire? What if I forget to preface an opinion with what I hope everyone takes as a given now -- that I am not judging others. That I have a strong opinion but realize that it is subjective? Will I be assailed by criticism if I should forget? After all, I've only been posting heavily a few days. I'm not sure how centered and careful I would word everything if I'd been doing this for a long time.

I sincerely wonder about this. If I respect the rights of others to their own strong convictions and subjective views.... does that not also give me the right to believe that MY VIEWS are correct as well? I believe that it does, for me and for everyone else, but I am honestly not sure how many share this perspective with me. In a nutshell....so what if we all think we are right? What's wrong with that? Heck, I take that as a given for most people, in and out of the forum.

Are you surprised by all this agreement? Did you have a different perception of my view before this post? If so, why do you suppose that is?

Not surprised, because I've found you to be a rational thinker and fascinating poster long before now, but I am very pleased that there is so much common ground. I find it very helpful that there is a willingness to acknowledge the validity of even some of my animal rights concerns. I'm all for building on a solid foundation of mutual concern.

I obviously disagree with you on certain points, but also quite clearly not everything. This is just further evidence to me that any "sides" are in our minds only. It's just Us here.

Even though I find myself agreeing with you on some points and disagreeing with you on others, as I'm sure you do with mine, this is as it should be. We are exchanging views respectfully and discussing.

So then, when there are outbreaks of massive hordes of insects destroying crops intended for human consumption- would you support a non-interventionist stance? How do you feel about the use of pesticides, including natural pesticides?

Wow, Tenet, you sure can pack in some discussion points in a short space! To be honest, there are about 5 different multi-layered topics to go into. I guess to answer in the most direct general way, I'd say it would depend on the context and the specifics of that unique circumstance. I'd make the best judgement I could in that given moment, trying to take into account all relevant factors and act for the highest good of all, human, plant, and insect alike.

Your body's immune system kills microbes and cancer cells all the time. How do you feel about this?

That this is yet another example, like most of the animal kingdom, of beings that are not playing out a polarity evolutionary exercise with choice as a central point upon which it turns. One of the greatest gifts, and responsibilities, of being a 3D human is to make ethical choices rather than be bound by dictates of physiology. Mating and courtship, diet, peace or war, humans have unique choices to make. I have no conscious choice in what my immune system does to microbes, so I do not concern myself with this. But I DO have a conscious choice in whether or not to eat meat, and thus I make what I believe to be the best ethical decision for me. I concern myself with what I do have choice over and don't fret about what is beyond my ability to influence constructively.

Instead of arguing the more ambiguous points, I'd rather work together for things we all agree on.

I agree.

Thanks for your thoughtful reply.

And I sincerely thank you for yours!! I enjoyed this exchange. It feels constructive.

Namaste, Mr. Nosce

Love to All

---

Good point monkey and GV. Fear hormones were something I read about earlier in this thread. I took it literally.

Though I'm not sure how you could prove it definitively, when any animal, ourselves included, is in a fearful state, adrenaline is released. Therefore it is possible that ingestion of meat from animals who died with a spike adrenaline in their bodies might still contain that and have an effect on the person. Even further into the subjective is the potential that there are etheric analogues to this hormone. As I said though, I don't know if this can be proven conclusively either way, and thus you will have to discern for yourself how you feel about this possibility.

In any case, regardless of what you ate or didn't eat, for whatever reason, I believe you can uplift your current emotional, mental, and spiritual state to a more harmonious or positive one if you desire. You have great peace within you, brother.

I think I try too hard sometimes to do the "right" thing, whatever that is.

Well, I commend you for trying to do the right thing. It's all we can really do in this confusing world. But we have to be gentle and kind to ourselves, too.

What does one's food choice have to do with divine evolution or viewing others through a lens of unity and acceptance?

Key word, ACCEPTANCE.

I think we are all very much learning lessons of Acceptance, in addition to our other catalysts from this conversation. Thank you for offering these wise words to ponder.

Love to all

[Monica]

Then you have perceived incorrectly, for it wasn't my intention to 'attack' you in any way!! It was simply an honest question.

It was my subjective experience. It can never be incorrect.

One's subjective experiences can't be incorrect, true, but one's conclusions about another person's intention can indeed be incorrect.

For something to be classified as an attack, there must be the intention to attack.

I had no such intention. Therefore, your perception was simply wrong.

How do I know this? Because I know what my intention was. You do not.

If I say, "Ankh, I perceive you as thinking I am stupid" and you aren't really thinking that, then I am wrong in my perception.

Then how can you be so sure that you have detected disrespect in someone tone? since you have only their written words... Is it possible you were simply wrong in your perception of their tone?

Oh, I am sure that I have been wrong many times! My perception is fallible, and I am not even speaking of 3D and the veil in place.

However, I regard this thread to be probably one of the most disharmonious in this forum, and there has been disrespectful tone displayed here, many times. BOTH from one the so called side, and another one the so called side. This is what happens when there exists separation, in my understanding.

Since you agree that your perception of tone might be faulty, do you think it's possible that, sometimes, what may have seemed like disrespect, was just disagreement on the view itself? That maybe sometimes people got offended, not because the person was disrespectful, but because they simply didn't like the viewpoint expressed?

I would rather say that serving another self is more important that my own personal convictions

Then you have a personal conviction about serving other-selves.

What if, when you serve an other-self, it seems to make another other-self upset? How would you reconcile that?

If you wish to understand the convictions of vegetarians, it's necessary to understand that, to US, animals ARE other-selves also.

What was your important question?

Not a question, but an important point. But if you didn't perceive it when you read my post, then I can't explain it to you, sorry.

I believe that the relationship between a teacher and a student in the positive polarity is that of great love and respect for each other. I believe that there exists a desire from especially the teacher to learn from the student, i.e. an open mind. If the teacher is closed, I don't regard it as teaching anymore, but preaching. I am not saying that this is what you do, Monica, I just share my understanding. I also believe that if we would apply that more, we would learn/teach and teach/learn far more quickly.

I never claimed to be anyone's teacher. I was just sharing my own views, just as everyone else on this forum does. It just so happens that my views aren't popular.

You can disagree with my views all you want, but you made a direct assessment of me personally, not once but a few times. Not cool.

---

Monica, I am sorry if my actions/nonaction provoked these feelings in you, but I am not responsible for your feelings.

What a great line!!! May I borrow it?

Meat-eaters, I am sorry if my actions/nonaction/viewpoints/opinions evoked these feelings in you, but I am not responsible for your feelings.

---

Then, why did you respond to the post?

Stupidity.

[BrownEye]

The diet requirements are different for an ordinary person and a spiritual practitioner. Any spiritual practice, be it Qigong, Taiji, Yoga, etc, connects the practitioner with some spiritual energy. A common characteristic of all spiritual energies is that they all prefer clean and vegetarian food. If you practice Qigong one hour every day, then a meat-rich diet is far from consistent with your Qigong practice. It will diminish the power of your practice in the least, and may lead to serious problems. Another case worth mentioning is onion. For a regular person, onion may be good for its proven effect of killing germs. But for a Qigong practitioner, onion is too stimulating for hi or her Qi, and may disturb the harmony and smoothness of the Qi.

http://www.qinway.org/food.htm

Of course, eating high vibration food does encourage a high vibration. That doesn't mean that we can't set our own tone and have a high vibration while eating low vibration foods; it just means that it will take more conscious effort and energy to overcome the low vibrations we ingest. This is also true of all influences, of course: if we surround ourselves with spiritual people and peaceful circumstances, we will naturally grow more spiritual and peaceful. This doesn't mean we can't be spiritual and peaceful in chaotic, disharmonious situations, but doing so will take more conscious effort on our part.

This one is a good read. http://www.kajama.com/index.php?file=col...C04FA0788A

This one is interesting and different. http://www.squidoo.com/No-Meat

http://reallifespirituality.com/meat-eat...ns-vegans/

[yossarian]

I swear that sometimes I think I punish myself by eating meat. Today at an oriental restaurant I was about to order Tofu. But they didn't make it crispy like I like it, so I went for the meat. Knowing full well how it would make me feel and that I was ingesting all those fear hormones. I sometimes don't understand my psychology. I wasn't even craving it.

Okay, Mister , what in the world are fear hormones?

I think that is definitely in the head.

Cortisol and epinephrine

[Ankh]

No problem. And thanks to YOU for continuing the dialogue in a respectful and constructive fashion. I think it's more important to understand the other perspective than to agree with it. Agreement is not necessary for peace, but understanding sure helps! Thank you for helping get things back on track... constructively. With honor and respect for all.

This is the kind of issue where people may ultimately have to just agree to disagree. But if we can better understand the opposite perspective, I think our compassion and discernment will grow. That's enough for me.

My dear brother, I agree with you on all points. And thank *you* once again for this dialogue. It is such a pleasure!

Thank you, once again, for expanding my perspective from a more limited state!!

The expanding of limited view is mutual, my brother.

However I see now why it's hard for you to ignore this thread even though you aren't forced to read it. You must be sensing the discord and pain throbbing outward from this thread and it is in a place you love and involving a community you care about. How could I fault you for that?

It is not really what happened, but it has indeed been painful at times, but I am learning that when there is much friction, it is an invaluable fruit that you receive when you found yet another, new dimension to love.

I injected myself into a conversation about another topic that was not of great concern to me when I perceived massive tension and discord recently, so I can hardly throw stones given my pretty glass house

Ah, well, you know what they say about disharmonious places and Wanderers? Light and love go where they are sought and needed, and their direction is not planned aforetimes. =)

LOL @ glass house.

Personally, I consider this to be an important issue worthy of discussion, but I find that it's almost impossible to discuss it in a constructive way as long as there are so many hurt feelings. So of course, when you put it like that, I can absolutely understand why it is hard to ignore, even if you don't particularly want to discuss the topic. For me, though, what I'd like to do is for us all to heal the hurt and get the conversation back on track. Maybe if we can turn this back into a constructive conversation, there won't be all this hurt radiating outward and compelling people to jump in who are not interested. That would truly bring it back to a state of "OPT-IN", voluntary discussion of what is admittedly a volatile issue. There are some people who just the TOPIC upsets, all dynamics with people aside. For them, perhaps this thread is not the best place to spend their time. And yet there are other people, all across the dietary spectrum who very much would like to discuss it here. I honestly think it's better to confine the discussion to one place rather than interrupt other threads across the forum with a sub-conversation about meat eating and vegetarianism. I could be wrong about this -- this is just my subjective, biased opinion. But I feel everyone has the right on this thread to say "I believe my way is the right way". Do you disagree? Am I viewing this too simplistically, perhaps?

Well, how Creator chooses to express itself is up to each. Personally I prefer saying: "This is the best way for me, but each intelligence must seek its own way. What is right for me might be wrong for you. There is no best way."

This thread has been going on for three years though. And I am wondering why without pointing any fingers at any members or groups or sides.

I still believe it is possible for this to be a place to discuss, and even debate the meat / veg question in a mutually respectful fashion. I also believe it's possible for us to agree to disagree on the topic and still love eachother afterwards. Like I said earlier, if we can better understand eachother, our compassion and discernment will grow, and agreement is in no way necessary.

I totally agree with you. I would like to step by sometimes and say something, or ask something. In all other threads there are no problems with that, but it is in this one...

Harmony through differences.

Ah, yes! A building of social memory complex comes into my mind.

What's not perfectly clear to me yet is what is the appropriate approach to take? How can we discuss this topic and reach understanding unless we directly advocate our respective positions? -- no matter what dietary place we are coming from.

I wonder the same, my brother... How can we all express ourselves without so much disharmonious friction?

I really think this part is absolutely key to this whole mess. We all have a biased, subjective point of view about many things, that is a given. In a discussion forum, what is the problem with saying "I believe this way is better, and I believe that for XYZ reasons."? Honestly, is that inappropriate in an of itself? Or do we just have a problem with overall tone and delivery -- ie is the problem one of fundamental approach of advocating our belief in the correctness of our view, or just the tone and way it is phrased?

Maybe better to say that "I believe this way is better for me personally because xyz"? But that generally speaking - there is no best way?

Honestly, Creator should express itself as it deems right, but there will be friction I suppose, when that expression does not take other selves into consideration. What do you think?

For instance, imagine that I would say: "I believe that serving humans above animals is the right way for everybody". I believe that I would be scold for that statement, and it would be right, imho. For I believe that there is already a balance in the creation. When someone with an imbalance in one way claims something, there will be another one with an imbalance in the opposite way to balance that first one. And it will be rocking back and forth, til a mutual understanding of each other's differences and distortions has occured, and respect and love has been found. This is just an idea that I have, which is very difficult to put in words... But Ra said that there are apparent distortions and a total perfection at the same time that exists in each self, and I just took it a bit longer, and think that there are apparent distortions and a total perfection in the whole creation at the same time. It is not for nothing that infinity is said to be intelligent.

Here's my view...

When a person responds with an opposing viewpoint, I also think it's appropriate for an answer to be given. This is direct, and biased. Even if it is extremist -- which is a really subjective term, and can be perceived as hurtful -- is it inappropriate to advocate your perspective in a discussion forum on one thread? I would feel differently if there were 200 threads opened a day on the topic and dozens others hijacked, as we recently saw in something unrelated. But just one? That seems reasonable to me, so long as it is done in a mutually respectful fashion.

But brother, this thread has been disharmonious for three years. Why? I seriously don't want to point fingers at anyone, but to seek an understanding to that why.

I sense that some (not all) of the hurt feelings from meat eaters centers around the fact that some of us believe we are RIGHT. What I don't understand is why this topic of vegetarianism vs meat eating is different than any other topic where we believe our point of view to be correct?

I think that it is completely ok to believe that one is right. Hey, I believe it every time. And in all seriousness, we do believe ourselves to be right when communicating and acting. We don't say or do what is we believe is wrong, as that would be illogical.

I can't speak for all the so called "meat eaters", but from what I have read in this thread, they have been giving plenty hints about what bothers "them".

I mean, I honestly think that the Doors is the best rock band ever.

The Doors ROCK for several reasons!!

And those who do not agree with it, are not my friends!! j/k

As long as I do it respectfully, is it wrong for me to honestly, genuinely believe that anyone who doesn't see the Doors as the greatest rock band ever is wrong? Even though I KNOW that's just my biased, subjective opinion, it really is what I think! Is it wrong for me to say that? Does my belief in my inherent correctness on the Doors make me or you any less the Creator?

I believe that here lies the key, my brother, and you said it: *as long as it is respectful and made in an awareness that it is biased and subjective opinion. That the correctness is personal and no one is a less Creator.*

Do you believe that it has been the spirit in these discussions in this thread though?

I sincerely want to discuss this dietary issue peacefully, and with respect for all parties and viewpoints.

Me too, my brother.

But by definition, in order to argue my case I have to come from the perspective that I'm biased, yes, but I BELIEVE my vegetarian view to be the RIGHT one. Is this not appropriate forum behavior?

In all honesty - do you believe that this vegetarian view is the right one for me? And everybody?

Some of the hurt amongst the vegetarians is because our very right to believe as we do is constantly challenged. It has honestly seemed to me, at times, that some of the critics will not be satisfied unless the vegetarians say "We don't believe meat eating is wrong."

To me, expecting that kind of concession is just as unreasonable as to ask a meat eater to say "We believe being vegetarian is better."

I think it's reasonable here to agree to disagree, not for anyone to set aside their convictions. How do you see it?

I totally agree with you.

One question though: you said that some of the critics would want this, and I perhaps would say that some of the other critics would want that - should we discuss in these terms? I don't know... I would like to find a solution without saying that one side did this and that, and the other one did that and this, as I believe that this is a creation of the whole group. But on the other hand, if that is how it is perceived to the self, that one side actually did this or that, maybe we should discuss it then? What do you think?

Never entered my mind that you would trap me, my brother.

Ankh, thank you for that vote of confidence, as it implies a certain level of trust, that I also feel about you. We don't know eachother very well, but I view you as a person worthy of respect, consideration, and even admiration. I clearly don't agree with you on diet, but this fact is far outweighed by my overall view of you as the Creator and appreciation for your Beingness. I enjoy your warm energy and your thoughtful posts, and this colors my perception of you, but in a good way. I think it helps me to "hear" your side of the argument even though I disagree. You see, you gave me the benefit of the doubt -- and I think that part of the reason for that is that there is mutual respect and an overall harmonious forum relationship with me. Would this have been possible if there was tension between us? Maybe, maybe not, but I think an underpinning of respect goes along way towards more constructive conversations.

I wonder if there would have been less misunderstandings on this thread if there had been better relationships between participants?

I don't know, my brother. But thank you for all your kind and warm words. *It is mutual*. I feel unguarded and relaxed discussing with you. I don't know you either, but it is a harmonious discussion indeed about a volite topic between two individuals holding opposite opinions on the matter. How come it is so harmonious, while others are not?

I can't speak for others, but what I believe that I have observed here is the lack of the respect that has been missing many times in this thread. Do you agree with that observation?

Yes, I do, I have observed the same thing. Though I would make the distinction that I have seen it coming from both meat eaters AND vegetarians, not just one other the other. It pains me, especially because I really enjoy the energy and thought processes of a whole host of people that are divided on this issue. I don't want to judge anybody and reject viewing other people as simply a dietary position.

Totally agree with you.

I also believe that there exists pride many times when vegetarians convey their food choice, and I believe that taking no pride in any of the choices is the right path (for me).

I have seen this pride you speak of from some vegetarians as well. Each person is different, but all I can say is I do not consider myself in any way superior to people who do still eat meat. Seriously, we are total equals.

I am delighted to hear you say that.

However, I am proud of the fact that I made a choice that that I believe does good in this world, especially when that choice comes with some negative social consequences. Does that make me better in ANY way? Of course not! But can you see perhaps why a vegetarian might be proud of making a choice that they believe will truly help?

Absolutely!! And I am very proud of your choice too, my brother! And I even wish to say that a vegetarian who feels the pride of the "wrong" reasons, reasons that makes him to consider him/herself more consciously aware or spiritually more advanced, or more intelligent, or emotionally more evolved, or whatever other reasons - is still a Creator experiencing itself. So who am I to not let the Creator experience the feelings of pride for instance?

But sometimes it is perhaps done at the expense of another self. What to do then?

I'm still talking myself into going to Homecoming this year, but who knows.

Ah, it would be a true honor to meet you!! And I saw what you've said in regards to vegetarian foods, and I believe that there was a vegetarian alternative at the Homecoming last year, and that the restaurants where we went had these alternatives as well. But if you send Gary a PM or an email, he will perhaps give you a more accurate information. And *if* there will be a problem, I promise you here and now, that I will personally call a cab for us to take you to the supermarket where we can buy your veggie foodstuff. =)

Well thank you for educating us on this Swedish term!! It sounds better than both Organic and Biological if it really does come with the animal treatment regulations that you described. This is exactly why it is so helpful to have so many different voices.

Here is an excerpt from our National Food Agency regarding ecological foodstuff:

What makes ecological food different from conventionally produced?

... ... ...

It is also important that the animals live outdoors and have an outlet for their natural behavior.

... ... ...

Did you see it as an "in your face/throat" technique?

Yes, I did. I felt like it was the equivalent of an evangelist pounding on my door and shouting at me and my neighbors that they must follow the one true way and see the "folly" of their ways for any who disagreed. I also felt it to be ironic to hear someone claim advanced development while simultaneously demonstrating a lower level of development by that very "in your face" behavior. It did not seem respectful especially because the information was not requested.

But one major difference was this person was posting up on average a dozen threads per day about this topic and was interrupting other conversations. Here it is confined to one single thread.

To me, this thread is not like the PETA billboards where people are forced to constantly see the views of others and have it in your face.

Here in this thread, I don't really see the vegetarians using what I would call "in your face" tactics, and in fact is partly why I wanted to clarify with you earlier about the billboards. I do see a difference in the context -- the setting -- of where this conversation is taking place. One thread, clearly marked. It's just that the emotional discord has started overshadowing the actual topic and I think people are reacting more to subjective inner feelings than what is actually being said.

I also think that the information is requested by participation here. When we voluntarily join a discussion in a clearly marked topic with eachother that interests us, I believe the very fact that it is done in a discussion forum invites Other-selves to share their perspective.

Hmm... Maybe you are right...

If we put aside PETA billboards, and just compare this thread to what you said about "in your face" technique, which was: "I felt like it was the equivalent of an evangelist pounding on my door and shouting at me and my neighbors that they must follow the one true way and see the "folly" of their ways for any who disagreed. I also felt it to be ironic to hear someone claim advanced development while simultaneously demonstrating a lower level of development by that very "in your face" behavior. It did not seem respectful especially because the information was not requested" - then I don't know about that... I will think about it, and will see if there are such techniques used in the future. As for now and what has been, let's bury that in the past where it belongs then.

I want to thank you for taking the time to explain yourself and your perspective. In these last posts I have really appreciated your openness and willingness to find some common ground and mutual understanding.

It's moments like these that give me hope it is possible to disagree and yet still have harmony and mutual respect.

And thank you, my brother. It is an *honor*.

---

Then you have perceived incorrectly, for it wasn't my intention to 'attack' you in any way!! It was simply an honest question.

It was my subjective experience. It can never be incorrect.

One's subjective experiences can't be incorrect, true, but one's conclusions about another person's intention can indeed be incorrect.

For something to be classified as an attack, there must be the intention to attack.

I had no such intention. Therefore, your perception was simply wrong.

How do I know this? Because I know what my intention was. You do not.

If I say, "Ankh, I perceive you as thinking I am stupid" and you aren't really thinking that, then I am wrong in my perception.

I wasn't talking about your intention, but about my subjective experience. Thank you for clarification of your intention.

Then how can you be so sure that you have detected disrespect in someone tone? since you have only their written words... Is it possible you were simply wrong in your perception of their tone?

Oh, I am sure that I have been wrong many times! My perception is fallible, and I am not even speaking of 3D and the veil in place.

However, I regard this thread to be probably one of the most disharmonious in this forum, and there has been disrespectful tone displayed here, many times. BOTH from one the so called side, and another one the so called side. This is what happens when there exists separation, in my understanding.

Since you agree that your perception of tone might be faulty, do you think it's possible that, sometimes, what may have seemed like disrespect, was just disagreement on the view itself? That maybe sometimes people got offended, not because the person was disrespectful, but because they simply didn't like the viewpoint expressed?

Oh, surely! As I said, I probably made and make lots of mistakes. Just hopefully not all the time.

I would rather say that serving another self is more important that my own personal convictions

Then you have a personal conviction about serving other-selves.

I wouldn't phrase it so. But if you would, it is up to you.

What if, when you serve an other-self, it seems to make another other-self upset? How would you reconcile that?

It would depend on situation, circumstances, what has been done, what to do etc. It is impossible to say in general.

You can disagree with my views all you want, but you made a direct assessment of me personally, not once but a few times. Not cool.

Since you said that I made a direct assessment of you personally, a few times even, I would like to know where you see it in my posts. Thank you.

[Tenet Nosce]

But I wonder what will happen if I relax a little, or tire? What if I forget to preface an opinion with what I hope everyone takes as a given now -- that I am not judging others. That I have a strong opinion but realize that it is subjective? Will I be assailed by criticism if I should forget?

There's only one way to find out!

I sincerely wonder about this. If I respect the rights of others to their own strong convictions and subjective views.... does that not also give me the right to believe that MY VIEWS are correct as well?

In my opinion, respecting the rights of others to disagree with you is what gives you the "green light" so to speak. It means that you believe that your views are correct... for you.

Not that I think it matters to you (nor should it), but I fully support your choice to be vegan. What I wouldn't support is a zealous promotion that veganism is the "one true way" to eat, from either a physical or a spiritual perspective. In my opinion, that is where one steps over the line from a strong conviction and subjective views, to fanaticism and absolutist views. I would see that as a type of spiritual violence, which undermines the foremost need for each entity to connect with their own internal guidance system.

In a nutshell....so what if we all think we are right?

I think the difference has to do with how strongly one identifies with their beliefs. In my view- I am not my belief system. Thus- if you were to strongly criticize my beliefs- or my preferred methodology for promoting my beliefs- I wouldn't take that as a personal assault on my being-ness.

Moreover, I am secure enough in my beliefs that I am more than willing to have them directly assaulted, criticized, chopped up and dissected, and put through the wringer. Beyond this, were you able to handily dispatch one of my beliefs, or point out a glaring contradiction in them, rather than become angry and offended by this, I would actually be grateful and impressed!

What's wrong with that?

Ultimately, nothing is "wrong" with it. However, there are certain consequences of self-righteousness, or strong identification with one's belief system, that I would advise you to be aware of. For example, here in third density this self-righteousness is at the root of many warlike and divisive behaviors.

In higher densities, I can only speculate from this perspective under the veil. However, I would imagine in fourth density self-righteousness is one of the top deterrents to the formation of a social memory complex, while in fifth density it would be directly depolarizing, as the lessons of wisdom must needs involve detachment from belief systems of all kinds.

Being students of the Law of One, I feel it is our honor/responsibility to incorporate a multi-density understanding of our experience here. Thus, beyond the consideration of "fourth density values", we each bear some responsibility to bring fifth, sixth, and seventh density values to bear upon a discussion, to whatever degree is possible.

This is just further evidence to me that any "sides" are in our minds only. It's just Us here.

Yes, indeed. And I am delighted and refreshed to read these words. In my opinion, it is quite unfortunate and counterproductive to begin these types of conversations by drawing lines in the sand and deciding which "side" people are on.

Moreover, I find it mentally immature to automatically assume that there are only "two sides" to every issue... that sounds like 2D thinking to me. Here in 3D, there are at least as many "sides" as there are angles on an issue.

Wow, Tenet, you sure can pack in some discussion points in a short space!

Thanks! This is what I would call "pointed questions" which are designed to get more directly to the crux of an issue. Unfortunately, if one strongly self-identifies with their belief system, this can be easily construed as a personal attack. However, I can reassure you, there is no attack on your person.

To be honest, there are about 5 different multi-layered topics to go into.

You mean... it's not so simple as "black and white", "right and wrong", etc.?

I guess to answer in the most direct general way, I'd say it would depend on the context and the specifics of that unique circumstance. I'd make the best judgement I could in that given moment, trying to take into account all relevant factors and act for the highest good of all, human, plant, and insect alike.

So, it sounds to me like what you are saying is that we cannot really separate our ideals from the context of our experience, and therefore there is really no way to know- for sure- what is really for the highest good of all. Would that be a fair restatement of your opinion?

That this is yet another example, like most of the animal kingdom, of beings that are not playing out a polarity evolutionary exercise with choice as a central point upon which it turns.

This is a curious statement to me. If the animal kingdom is not playing out a polarity evolutionary exercise... then why would we humans draw the animals into our own polarity exercise? If 3D is where the polarity game is played, then what sense does it make to take the game to 2D entities? What then, would stop us there? Why not include 1D entities in the game as well?

One of the greatest gifts, and responsibilities, of being a 3D human is to make ethical choices rather than be bound by dictates of physiology.

Ah... but if you were to stray too far outside of those physiological boundaries, there would be no more "3D human" to make ethical choices.

I have no conscious choice in what my immune system does to microbes, so I do not concern myself with this.

But you do. There is a whole field about this called mind/body medicine. For example, if your lungs were infected with microbes which cause pneumonia you could mentally direct your immune system to eradicate the bacteria using various creative visualization methods.

It feels constructive.

Indeed.

---

One's subjective experiences can't be incorrect, true, but one's conclusions about another person's intention can indeed be incorrect.

For something to be classified as an attack, there must be the intention to attack.

I had no such intention. Therefore, your perception was simply wrong.

How do I know this? Because I know what my intention was. You do not.

I couldn't agree more.

[Diana]

This is one of the ways I am perceiving the arguments for, and against, eating meat:

1. Personal. There is "you," the self. The self had free will. The self chooses. The self feels that he/she needs certain foods, is free to choose, does not want to be told what to do, has his/her own path, interacts with the world as self and world.

2. Universal. There is the "all." When considering what to do about x, it involves considering all: the ecosystem, the planet, the universe, all the beings, evolution, and more.

While I care about, and take responsibility for, my "self," my health, my free will, and my path, my real reason for being in this discussion is the universal one. I thought coming into this discussion was a way to discuss the universal implications of meat-eating. It has turned into individuals defending their right to choose.

I agree with everybody's right to choose. And yet, if anyone wants to, I invite them to consider what is best for the all, not just the self. This does not mean that I think meat-eating is not good for the all. I would just like a conversation to that end.

[Tenet Nosce]

This is one of the ways I am perceiving the arguments for, and against, eating meat:

1. Personal. There is "you," the self. The self had free will. The self chooses. The self feels that he/she needs certain foods, is free to choose, does not want to be told what to do, has his/her own path, interacts with the world as self and world.


2. Universal. There is the "all." When considering what to do about x, it involves considering all: the ecosystem, the planet, the universe, all the beings, evolution, and more.

Interesting! To this I would add:

3. Trans-Personal. Within the illusory distinction between "self" and "all" exists an entire array of viewpoints which are somewhere in-between. As the "self" grows in awareness to become the "all", this array of viewpoints is what allows each personal self to trace a unique path back toward unity. Thus, when considering what to do and/or how to be, each consciousness is actually simultaneously choosing on all possible levels, whether or not it is consciously aware of this.

Thus, as each individuated "self" progressively expands its concept of identity to include "other-selves" it may do so in any order that it chooses. Some may choose to first incorporate animals into their concept of self, while others might choose stars, or trees, or rocks, or microbes. [As a matter of fact, 90% of the cells which constitute a "human being" are not human cells, but microbes.] What constitutes "spiritual growth" is the fact that one is expanding, not whether one is expanding in a "one-size-fits-all" predetermined pathway.

[Diana]

This is one of the ways I am perceiving the arguments for, and against, eating meat:

1. Personal. There is "you," the self. The self had free will. The self chooses. The self feels that he/she needs certain foods, is free to choose, does not want to be told what to do, has his/her own path, interacts with the world as self and world.


2. Universal. There is the "all." When considering what to do about x, it involves considering all: the ecosystem, the planet, the universe, all the beings, evolution, and more.

Interesting! To this I would add:

3. Trans-Personal. Within the illusory distinction between "self" and "all" exists an entire array of viewpoints which are somewhere in-between. As the "self" grows in awareness to become the "all", this array of viewpoints is what allows each personal self to trace a unique path back toward unity. Thus, when considering what to do and/or how to be, each consciousness is actually simultaneously choosing on all possible levels, whether or not it is consciously aware of this.

Thus, as each individuated "self" progressively expands its concept of identity to include "other-selves" it may do so in any order that it chooses. Some may choose to first incorporate animals into their concept of self, while others might choose stars, or trees, or rocks, or microbes. What constitutes "spiritual growth" is the fact that one is expanding, not whether one is expanding in a "one-size-fits-all" predetermined pathway.

Excellent point.

The transpersonal perspective is what this thread conversation is revealing. I would say that my distortion would be to strive toward the universal, and not devolve to the personal.

[Pablísimo]

This is one of the ways I am perceiving the arguments for, and against, eating meat:

1. Personal. There is "you," the self. The self had free will. The self chooses. The self feels that he/she needs certain foods, is free to choose, does not want to be told what to do, has his/her own path, interacts with the world as self and world.

2. Universal. There is the "all." When considering what to do about x, it involves considering all: the ecosystem, the planet, the universe, all the beings, evolution, and more.

I've also noticed these two broad categories, and find it an astute observation.

I think part of the challenge we've all had here is finding some way to honor each individual's personal right to choose while still advocating our OPINION of the universal implications of that choice, collectively.

In fairness, I think most of us tend to think we are acting for the highest universal good, but unfortunately we don't all see it the same way. So how can one share their point of view that "My way is the best way" while still not judging other people who disagree? I believe it is possible among spiritually mature and compassionate human beings, but takes some collective effort to remember to see the Creator in others who disagree with us about something we feel strongly about. Yet even though most of us, across the dietary spectrum, have sincerely been trying to discuss these concepts in a general sense, we somehow keep end up talking about it in a personal way and discussing our rights to choose. I don't know what to do about that, to be honest, if it is even possible to resolve. Maybe we need to talk about both simultaneously in order to have a balanced discussion?

While I care about, and take responsibility for, my "self," my health, my free will, and my path, my real reason for being in this discussion is the universal one. I thought coming into this discussion was a way to discuss the universal implications of meat-eating. It has turned into individuals defending their right to choose.

To speak further to your point, I think we all have an opinion on what is "Best" for the "all". I bet some people think if Humanity as a whole stopped producing Reality TV we'd have a better world. But I'm just as convinced some people think Reality TV is irrelevant, one issue among many, or even helpful as a spiritual mirror. Who knows who is right? What I don't understand still is why this topic of meat vs vegetarian lifestyle should be any different than any other topic in terms of strong opinions? I think we should be able to clearly state our opinions on what is best for the all, if done with compassion and honor for the Other-Self.

I agree with everybody's right to choose. And yet, if anyone wants to, I invite them to consider what is best for the all, not just the self. This does not mean that I think meat-eating is not good for the all. I would just like a conversation to that end.

When I consider the "all", when I honestly look at all of the data I have available to me , both subjective and objective, and try to decide what would be the most beneficial for all beings involved, I come to the conclusion that the vegetarian choice is best for the "all". That is, I honestly believe it is a more compassionate choice that benefits the maximum number of beings. My subjective, biased opinion is that if all humans would go vegetarian, that it would help make this a better, happier world. I honestly believe it would solve some of our most vexing problems, relieve suffering for many, many beings in great measure, improve both human and animal health, and help the state of the environment we all share. I find it to be an option that is more congruent with evolving down the STO path and, in my biased and subjective opinion, would be best for humanity to collectively choose.

I feel that my personal choice for me is also beneficial to the "all". This is my opinion, and I realize I don't have a perfect vision, but it's how I feel. And I absolutely respect and do not judge other people who feel differently. Agreement on my opinions is not required for me to love, honor, and respect other people.

Do you think it would be a helpful exercise for us all to lay out our opinion of what is best for the all, and why? Assuming we agree up-front that we are speaking in general terms and accept other viewpoints?

Is that the type of conversation you would find more constructive and helpful? Or did you have something else in mind?

3. Trans-Personal. Within the illusory distinction between "self" and "all" exists an entire array of viewpoints which are somewhere in-between. As the "self" grows in awareness to become the "all", this array of viewpoints is what allows each personal self to trace a unique path back toward unity. Thus, when considering what to do and/or how to be, each consciousness is actually simultaneously choosing on all possible levels, whether or not it is consciously aware of this.

LOL....how very true. I think that, in a way, this thread is providing a perfect example, when taken as a whole, of that transpersonal view.

Love to all

[Tenet Nosce]

I swear that sometimes I think I punish myself by eating meat. Today at an oriental restaurant I was about to order Tofu. But they didn't make it crispy like I like it, so I went for the meat. Knowing full well how it would make me feel and that I was ingesting all those fear hormones. I sometimes don't understand my psychology. I wasn't even craving it.

Okay, Mister , what in the world are fear hormones?

I think that is definitely in the head.

Cortisol and epinephrine

More accurately, these would be called stress hormones. Stress hormones perform many functions, some of which are critical to sustaining an incarnation.

Stress hormones are certainly produced in large amounts during fearful states, and in such cases are deleterious to the health and welfare of those entities incarnated in fearful bodies. However, prolonged exposure to stressful conditions eventually results in a reduction of stress hormone levels, through the process of biological adaptation.

---

I bet some people think if Humanity as a whole stopped producing Reality TV we'd have a better world.

*raises hand* Yes! And while we're at it let's do away with competitive sports as well.

[BrownEye]

[Ali Quadir]

Haha, way to lighten the mood Pickle

[Tenet Nosce]

Haha, way to lighten the mood Pickle

I'm offended!

[Pablísimo]

In my opinion, respecting the rights of others to disagree with you is what gives you the "green light" so to speak. It means that you believe that your views are correct... for you.

But what if I also have a general opinion about it? That, in general, xyz is a better choice for the "all"? Isn't it also OK to believe things and have opinions about what's good for all of us, overall? Knowing it's a subjective opinion and other people have their own views as to what's the better choice for people and we might even be wrong? Viewed from this angle, I don't see much difference whether the opinion is about me or about a group of people in general, it's all subjective, biased opinion.

I totally respect the right of EVERYONE to disagree with me, of course, but it's still just another opinion.

Not that I think it matters to you (nor should it), but I fully support your choice to be vegan. What I wouldn't support is a zealous promotion that veganism is the "one true way" to eat, from either a physical or a spiritual perspective. In my opinion, that is where one steps over the line from a strong conviction and subjective views, to fanaticism and absolutist views. I would see that as a type of spiritual violence, which undermines the foremost need for each entity to connect with their own internal guidance system.

I totally agree with you here, but I think the context matters. If we're out at a restaurant somewhere and I start critiquing your food choices and telling you all about the "one true way" to eat, then that would be disrespectful and over zealous. It would be an infringement.

However, if you straight up ask me what my opinion is, and I give it to you, I don't see any harm. If we both voluntarily attend a debate on the topic of meat eating in the spiritual context, then I think sharing my opinion is fair game. I bring this up because I think discussing the topic in a thread devoted to it is different than pushing your views on other people. I absolutely insist on the right for all of us to follow our own inner guidance on any topic. I don't react well when others force their opinions on me... but when they share an opposing view passionately in a discussion thread? Doesn't bother me one bit, in fact it helps me expand my perspective.

Do you see the distinction I am trying to make?

I think the difference has to do with how strongly one identifies with their beliefs. In my view- I am not my belief system. Thus- if you were to strongly criticize my beliefs- or my preferred methodology for promoting my beliefs- I wouldn't take that as a personal assault on my being-ness.

Moreover, I am secure enough in my beliefs that I am more than willing to have them directly assaulted, criticized, chopped up and dissected, and put through the wringer. Beyond this, were you able to handily dispatch one of my beliefs, or point out a glaring contradiction in them, rather than become angry and offended by this, I would actually be grateful and impressed!

I completely resonate with this attitude and every word of it, 100%.

Ultimately, nothing is "wrong" with it. However, there are certain consequences of self-righteousness, or strong identification with one's belief system, that I would advise you to be aware of. For example, here in third density this self-righteousness is at the root of many warlike and divisive behaviors.

This is true, of course... but is there any way to determine objectively what is self-righteousness and what is passionate conviction?

My perception is that certain analogies here have not been appreciated as helpful. So, I don't know the best way to put this, but what would the difference be, between, passionately feeling that kicking mickey mouse is wrong and self-righteously believing that all those who kick mickey mouse are a$$holes?

This is a genuine question.

Yes, indeed. And I am delighted and refreshed to read these words. In my opinion, it is quite unfortunate and counterproductive to begin these types of conversations by drawing lines in the sand and deciding which "side" people are on.

Moreover, I find it mentally immature to automatically assume that there are only "two sides" to every issue... that sounds like 2D thinking to me. Here in 3D, there are at least as many "sides" as there are angles on an issue.

Absolutely true. There are a myriad of perspectives and multiple layers to any given issue!!! It is refreshing to find someone that acknowledges that.

Thanks! This is what I would call "pointed questions" which are designed to get more directly to the crux of an issue. Unfortunately, if one strongly self-identifies with their belief system, this can be easily construed as a personal attack. However, I can reassure you, there is no attack on your person.

I don't perceive it as an attack. I sense an intellectual honesty with you and believe you are respectfully exploring your/my/our perspectives. And I thank you, as I also thank Ankh and several others here for doing your part to keep the conversation constructive and share in a respectful and considerate way.

My belief system is fair game for criticism or praise in a discussion forum, I just hope it can be done gently. Besides, I feel, like you, that I am much more than a belief system.

You mean... it's not so simple as "black and white", "right and wrong", etc.?

*Gasp*...

Shocking, I know. It took me a long time to come to terms with the fact that there are more shades of grey than black and white. Welcome to 3D!

I guess to answer in the most direct general way, I'd say it would depend on the context and the specifics of that unique circumstance. I'd make the best judgement I could in that given moment, trying to take into account all relevant factors and act for the highest good of all, human, plant, and insect alike.

So, it sounds to me like what you are saying is that we cannot really separate our ideals from the context of our experience, and therefore there is really no way to know- for sure- what is really for the highest good of all. Would that be a fair restatement of your opinion?

Yes, that's a fair restatement. I would only add that just because there is really no way to know- for sure- what is really for the highest good of all, doesn't mean we can't have an opinion on it. Biased and subjective it may be, but simply having an opinion is reasonable.

That this is yet another example, like most of the animal kingdom, of beings that are not playing out a polarity evolutionary exercise with choice as a central point upon which it turns.

This is a curious statement to me. If the animal kingdom is not playing out a polarity evolutionary exercise... then why would we humans draw the animals into our own polarity exercise? If 3D is where the polarity game is played, then what sense does it make to take the game to 2D entities? What then, would stop us there? Why not include 1D entities in the game as well?

What I meant by that is that 3D, as I understand it from the Ra Material, is a density whose goal, for lack of a better word, is one that centers on making a polarity choice. STS or STO, and that this polarity choice made in 3D is one that forms a foundation for further work in higher densities, at least to a point. 2D, in contrast, seems to be about self-awareness, not making a polarity choice. There is polarity in 2D, obviously, but it doesn't come with the component of choice that defines our own density.

Why this is relevant to me is that I believe the fact that we CAN make ethical choices is central to the experience of being a 3D human. If you are born a wolf, you're a predator. If you're born a deer, you'll be prey. There is no choice, there is no polarity in their acts. A deer could no easier subsist on a meat diet than a wolf an all vegetarian diet. Thus for them, diet is really not an ethical issue. Nor is mating -- some animals are monogamous, some breed with many, many partners. And these are just two examples.

However, for a human being, we DO have choice. We can live on a variety of different diets. We can mate in a variety of different ways. Everything seems to be designed for us in such a way as to facilitate making ethical choices. The way I treat other humans, the way I treat "lower" density beings, the activities I choose to fill my time with, the things I work for and towards, all of these provide me with endless opportunities to make choices.

I'd like to reiterate here t hat I feel we have many choices to make, and diet is just one -- I really don't think it's fair to claim that a dietary choice can define someone's overall polarity. We are not just one opinion, or a belief system, we are much, much more than that.

For me, I see everything and everyone I interact with as an opportunity for choices and ethical decisions. It seems like the very fabric of 3D is designed this way. It doesn't matter to me that 2D beings are not working on the same polarity issues as 3D beings, it's still one area among many where I have the opportunity to make an ethical choice that is in line with what I believe, subjectively, to be right.

I have no conscious choice in what my immune system does to microbes, so I do not concern myself with this.

But you do. There is a whole field about this called mind/body medicine. For example, if your lungs were infected with microbes which cause pneumonia you could mentally direct your immune system to eradicate the bacteria using various creative visualization methods.

I think this is fascinating, but subjective. It's debatable whether I really have conscious choice or whether the visualizations work. Maybe I do, maybe I don't. I think the immune system generally was designed to run automatically without conscious direction. Though I don't dispute the premise that we could control or influence this process intentionally. That could be.

But even then, I don't see it as the same type of question as when I am presented with two options that will sustain the body just fine, one of which I believe to be more ethical than the other option. Perhaps worth exploring on its own merit, but I see this differently to more obvious and clear choices we are presented with.

There are many branches to this mighty tree! (Now I wonder who many termites there might be in those branches)

Thanks again for a thought-provoking post!

Love to all

[Ankh]

But I wonder what will happen if I relax a little, or tire? What if I forget to preface an opinion with what I hope everyone takes as a given now -- that I am not judging others. That I have a strong opinion but realize that it is subjective? Will I be assailed by criticism if I should forget? After all, I've only been posting heavily a few days. I'm not sure how centered and careful I would word everything if I'd been doing this for a long time.

I believe that in this case you can use the light and tell them: "Who said it? Me?? Neeh! You've read it wrong!!!

And in all seriousness - so what if you relax a little and/or tire and forget to preface an opinion with that being your subjective thought/opinion/view/understanding? When/if someone comes forward and start asking/yelling about it, you just say that you forgot to add that it was your subjective opinion and not the Law of the One Infinite Creator, so we can all go on with our business. Or if someone gets offended, then an appology is in order. Maybe we take ourselves too seriously sometimes...?

[3DMonkey]

I never intend to slaughter an animal at the dinner table. I intend to enjoy a loving meal. This may clarify how my stance on the spiritual impact of meat eating as okay.

I do understand that vegetarians must use consumption practices to intend to better the harmony between them and animals.

[Tenet Nosce]

But what if I also have a general opinion about it? That, in general, xyz is a better choice for the "all"?

Then, that would be your opinion! You are entitled to it. However, I might point out that certain opinions of what is best for the "all" might lead one to unnecessary suffering if what they are observing in the outer world is perceived to be very different from what they believe is best for the "all".

In my opinion, the development of the quality of "faith" involves the attitude that whatever is happening in the moment is in fact, what is best for the "all". I don't fully understand or embody this attitude myself, but see it as a guiding principle along my personal path of spiritual growth.

Isn't it also OK to believe things and have opinions about what's good for all of us, overall? Knowing it's a subjective opinion and other people have their own views as to what's the better choice for people and we might even be wrong?

It's OK with me!

If we both voluntarily attend a debate on the topic of meat eating in the spiritual context, then I think sharing my opinion is fair game. I bring this up because I think discussing the topic in a thread devoted to it is different than pushing your views on other people.

This is most definitely a thread to discuss meat eating in the spiritual context, and anything is game as far as opinions are concerned.

I absolutely insist on the right for all of us to follow our own inner guidance on any topic.

Me too.

I don't react well when others force their opinions on me... but when they share an opposing view passionately in a discussion thread? Doesn't bother me one bit, in fact it helps me expand my perspective.

Doesn't bother me either.

Do you see the distinction I am trying to make?

Of course!

This is true, of course... but is there any way to determine objectively what is self-righteousness and what is passionate conviction?

I am not sure that it is possible to objectively determine anything. But I believe a general guideline would involve the willingness to abandon one's passionate convictions upon being handily dispatched, or if shown to be glaringly contradictory, or just plain wrong.

My perception is that certain analogies here have not been appreciated as helpful. So, I don't know the best way to put this, but what would the difference be, between, passionately feeling that kicking mickey mouse is wrong and self-righteously believing that all those who kick mickey mouse are a$$holes?

Not sure. I will take a stab and say the difference would involve whether one casts the a******* as the "perpetrators" and mickey mouse as the "victim" or whether they consider both mickey and the a******* to be co-creators in the experience of kicking/being kicked.

What I meant by that is that 3D, as I understand it from the Ra Material, is a density whose goal, for lack of a better word, is one that centers on making a polarity choice. STS or STO, and that this polarity choice made in 3D is one that forms a foundation for further work in higher densities, at least to a point.

Yes, I completely agree with the above statement. What I was attempting to question is whether or not it makes sense to consider actions taken toward unpolarized entities as polarizing, in and of themselves. I can see a valid argument for either case.

2D, in contrast, seems to be about self-awareness, not making a polarity choice. There is polarity in 2D, obviously, but it doesn't come with the component of choice that defines our own density.

How do we know that physical suffering and death don't support the 2D entity in gaining self-awareness? What if longevity doesn't factor much into the equation of whether or not a 2D entity had a "successful" incarnation? What if certain 2D entities are actually seeking to be incorporated into 3D bodies? How do we know that it isn't considered a great honor and achievement for a 2D entity to be plucked out of the ground by a human, put in a vase, and appreciated for its beauty before meeting a premature death?

I don't have the answers for these, and am more than a bit incredulous when others claim that they do. However, to conclude that cows in a factory farm video are needlessly suffering seems fairly straightforward to me.

I really don't think it's fair to claim that a dietary choice can define someone's overall polarity. We are not just one opinion, or a belief system, we are much, much more than that.

So then, would it be fair to say that you don't expect anybody standing at the "pearly gates" of fourth density with a list of meat-eaters to be refused entry?

Thanks again for a thought-provoking post!

You're most welcome, and thanks again to you!

[3DMonkey]

2D, in contrast, seems to be about self-awareness, not making a polarity choice. There is polarity in 2D, obviously, but it doesn't come with the component of choice that defines our own density.

How do we know that physical suffering and death don't support the 2D entity in gaining self-awareness? What if longevity doesn't factor much into the equation of whether or not a 2D entity had a "successful" incarnation? What if certain 2D entities are actually seeking to be incorporated into 3D bodies? How do we know that it isn't considered a great honor and achievement for a 2D entity to be plucked out of the ground by a human, put in a vase, and appreciated for its beauty before meeting a premature death?

Continuing with this pertinent densities perspective-

As a third density being myself, I can give third density qualities to a 2D entity no matter if there is space/time lifeblood in them. Meaning, I can create fourth density compassion for a dead animal and continue on with consuming what is left behind. By applying the thought of densities in this way, I do myself and the deceased a service.

We all consider time/space to be the everlasting for our m/b/s where progression continues forever. So why do we need to focus on the end of space/time for this animal, or anything else? Meaning, why fixate on an "end" if we don't believe in an "end".

---

(there could be a million 2D ghosts in time/space trying to console vegetarians with "it's okay, relax, we aren't that upset about it")

---

I would also like to say that I consider any argument about the meat industry found in a thread about spiritual implications of eating meat to be off topic, with a societal orientation. What Ra said about this type of focus:

34.9 Questioner: Thank you. Can you give me the same type of information about the self in relation to the societal self?
Ra: I am Ra. The unmanifested self may find its lessons those which develop any of the energy influx centers of the mind/body/spirit complex. The societal and self interactions most often concentrate upon the second and third energy centers. Thus those most active in attempting to remake or alter the society are those working from feelings of being correct personally or of having answers which will put power in a more correct configuration. This may be seen to be of a full travel from negative to positive in orientation. Either will activate these energy ray centers.

There are some few whose desires to aid society are of a green ray nature or above. These entities, however, are few due to the understanding, may we say, of fourth ray that universal love freely given is more to be desired than principalities or even the rearrangement of peoples or political structures

I never clearly stated this as my viewpoint . I made a mistake to think it was assumed.

[Tenet Nosce]

I would also like to say that I consider any argument about the meat industry found in a thread about spiritual implications of eating meat to be off topic, with a societal orientation.

Social drama can hurt health, monkeys show

"Our study supports the idea that low social status can be bad for the body. But it hints at the idea that if you improve your social situation, your health improves, too," says the study's lead author Jenny Tung.

Came across the article this morning... it was just too coincidental to not post!

[3DMonkey]

What a wise looking monkey

[Monica]

Breakfast.

[Pablísimo]

I believe that in this case you can use the light and tell them: "Who said it? Me?? Neeh! You've read it wrong!!!

And in all seriousness - so what if you relax a little and/or tire and forget to preface an opinion with that being your subjective thought/opinion/view/understanding? When/if someone comes forward and start asking/yelling about it, you just say that you forgot to add that it was your subjective opinion and not the Law of the One Infinite Creator, so we can all go on with our business. Or if someone gets offended, then an appology is in order. Maybe we take ourselves too seriously sometimes...?

Oh Ankh, you've done it again! This is solid, sensible advice imbued with love. Thank you... it seems so simple when you put it like that. I think you're also right to remind us that perhaps we do take ourselves too seriously sometimes.

I do think it behooves us all to show a little compassion and cut some slack to our friends in this thread, across the dietary spectrum, who have been participating for so long in this conversation, that they don't always write as nuanced as they really feel when they get caught up in the conversation, which can cause misunderstandings.

If I find myself in one these misunderstandings, henceforth, I shall return to this bit of advice you've given me here. Thank you for sharing your wisdom with me, I think I was perhaps guilty of over-thinking that aspect of the discussion, AND taking myself too seriously.

I am awed and humbled once again to be in the presence of such loving and wise beings. Thank you, sister, for your words.

Then, that would be your opinion! You are entitled to it. However, I might point out that certain opinions of what is best for the "all" might lead one to unnecessary suffering if what they are observing in the outer world is perceived to be very different from what they believe is best for the "all".

First of all, I'd like to thank you for acknowledging that I'm entitled to an opinion. I sincerely believe everyone else is entitled to their opinion, as well. From reading this long and winding thread, it honestly wasn't clear to me if that premise was accepted --- that we all have a right to our own biased, subjective opinions.

I think we can actually work on both at the same time. I can work on learning Acceptance of those things that I believe are not best for the "all", and those aspects of reality that I find uncomfortable or painful, while simultaneously taking actions and making ethical choices that I believe are congruent with my current, 3D life path. I honestly see no contradiction between these two things.

In my opinion, the development of the quality of "faith" involves the attitude that whatever is happening in the moment is in fact, what is best for the "all". I don't fully understand or embody this attitude myself, but see it as a guiding principle along my personal path of spiritual growth.

Continuing with this pertinent densities perspective-

As a third density being myself, I can give third density qualities to a 2D entity no matter if there is space/time lifeblood in them. Meaning, I can create fourth density compassion for a dead animal and continue on with consuming what is left behind. By applying the thought of densities in this way, I do myself and the deceased a service.

We all consider time/space to be the everlasting for our m/b/s where progression continues forever. So why do we need to focus on the end of space/time for this animal, or anything else? Meaning, why fixate on an "end" if we don't believe in an "end".

Monkey, I put your statement here with Tenet's as well because though you are mentioning two different but related concepts, I feel my response is pertinent to both yours and Tenet's true observations on higher understanding.

I think there is great wisdom and truth in these statements and others like them along these lines that you have eloquently argued. I honestly do find this perspective helpful and awareness of this 'higher' reality is one of the things that helps me with acceptance, compassion, and understanding about a great many topics.

At a certain level of abstraction, all is well, and there is no 'end' to anyone. Everything is acceptable and there is no right and wrong. Beyond the veil, beyond densities and discussion forums, underpinning the "all" there is only Oneness. There is only Creator.

From this Oneness, there are many distortions, including all of things that we subjectively label "good" or "bad", STS or STO, right or wrong. However, even though this is true it can also be used as a way to rationalize and justify apathy and indifference. This converts what I see as great truths into functionally meaningless "New Age Platitudes". Now, I am certainly NOT saying that is what YOU are doing right now, I want to make that very clear. I am speaking in a general way about the "All is well no matter what" concept that gets bandied about. In my own life, if I am honest with myself, I must admit that I've used it both as a way to e accept, honor, and integrate my experiences in a healthy spiritual fashion, but also as a way to escape from dealing with catalyst and complex situations. It is up to each of us to look within and decide how we are using this higher understanding.

For a wanderer in particular, I see this higher awareness of Oneness as a great boon, and yet also a great pitfall, depending upon how we apply that knowledge.

It can be very healing when intense catalyst happens to know, deep within, that it's all OK. When I see the suffering and misery of many other beings, the daily murders, the rapes, the terrorism and the torture, the natural disasters, the control and domination of vulnerable people by the stronger, the hijinks of the negative elite, and on and on, it is easy for me to become very unbalanced and experience the suffering that you spoke of in your first paragraph. By meditating upon these higher concepts, I am able to find healing, compassion, and understanding about many things and KNOW that all is well. This is positive use of the knowledge, in my view.

In contrast, when I instead choose to focus upon this understanding as a way to retreat inside myself and not process catalyst, conundrums, and ethical choices that I am faced with as a 3D being, then I think this is a negative use of the knowledge that cuts myself off from the experiences I am having in my current incarnation. Whatever ideas I have about what I might be in an ultimate sense, I am a 3D being right now with a limited understanding and limited information, with no real memory of past lives or other densities. As such, one of the things I feel I am doing in this 3D incarnation, is making a polarity choice. In my case, that is STO, which in and of itself carries with it inherent bias towards perceiving reality in a certain way. In order to pursue this STO path, I need to make ethical choices about the decisions, people, opportunities, and situations I find myself in. Otherwise, I am opting-out of the very fabric of subjective, biased, experience of third density and am not progressing down my chosen 3D path of Service to Others.

Though I think it's fine to self-identify as a Wanderer, I think it is also important to have an awareness that right now we are incarnated as 3D beings. We don't honestly know if we are Wanderers, but even if we are, by choosing to incarnate as 3D humans, we also agree to forget perfect understanding of Oneness and journey through these moments as a native 3D being learning, or perhaps RE-learning the lessons of this Density, which is essentially choosing a polarity and refining that choice through a series of ethical decisions about whatever catalyst that I am presented with, from the mundane to the magical.

Service to others is a biased point of view, and yet it is a view that I truly agree with, using my limited understanding and subjective experiences. Thus, I choose to engage with the density in which I exist and try to pursue a positive path of development even if, at a higher level of abstraction, I realize that all is well, or perhaps better said that all is One. I view the situations and options I find myself given as opportunities to make ethical choices to further refine my STO choice. If my neighbors need help with something, I help them rather than know that whatever they are struggling with is OK. I believe that, in my particular circumstances, that killing animals for food, especially when those same animals needlessly suffered, is not congruent with my STO ethics and goals, as I understand them.

Right now I am speaking only for me, and not for anyone else. I honestly do not find meat eating to be congruent with my chosen path of Service to Others Polarity. This view is against the backdrop of A) having other dietary options in plentiful supply and B) knowledge of the suffering and barbarity inherent in how the vast majority of the meat that is available to me is produced.

It could be that my logic is skewed, I am blinded by compassion, or I'm just distorted differently than other people. Given how much I don't know, I try very hard not to judge other people for their own choices. They are all doing exactly what I am -- the best they can in their unique situations with available data. Here I only explain my reasoning, I do not condemn others with a different reasoning/understanding.

To take this further, consider Ultimate Fighting shows. For those that don't know, this is basically an extreme form of "boxing" or maybe "gladiator combat" where people beat eachother to a bloody pulp while other people watch it as entertainment. From a certain higher perspective, there is nothing wrong with it at all. There is no right and wrong from a high enough level of abstraction, or Reality if you prefer. However, as an STO-dedicated being, I do not find it congruent with my path to watch those shows as entertainment. I also do not find it congruent with my Path to buy tickets to or support the production of these types of events. I don't think I should judge others who find it entertaining, or who don't see it as a negative thing, or who do not consider it to be worthy enough of an issue to even think about. I don't know with absolute certainty that my perspective is the "One true way", so I leave everyone to make up their own minds about what they think. It's not for me to judge those who help them in or even enjoy things that I find incongruent with my path. But here we are discussing our reasons and rationale, in a discussion thread, and I'm sharing my perspective. No more, but not less valid than anyone else's.

Pablísimo Wrote:Isn't it also OK to believe things and have opinions about what's good for all of us, overall? Knowing it's a subjective opinion and other people have their own views as to what's the better choice for people and we might even be wrong?

It's OK with me!

Pablísimo Wrote:If we both voluntarily attend a debate on the topic of meat eating in the spiritual context, then I think sharing my opinion is fair game. I bring this up because I think discussing the topic in a thread devoted to it is different than pushing your views on other people.

This is most definitely a thread to discuss meat eating in the spiritual context, and anything is game as far as opinions are concerned.

I am deeply appreciative of you taking this stance. I agree 100%. In this thread to discuss meat eating in the spiritual context, anything is fair game as far as opinions are concerned. Well, so long as it's done with respect, a knowledge that we are all the Creator, and that we are all biased.

Pablísimo Wrote: D o you see the distinction I am trying to make?

Of course!

Thank you!! It is really nice to be understood. Agreement isn't necessary, but understanding helps alot.

Pablísimo Wrote:This is true, of course... but is there any way to determine objectively what is self-righteousness and what is passionate conviction?

I am not sure that it is possible to objectively determine anything.

Hahahaha, how true!!!

I want to pause here for a moment to note the humor in this. One of the funniest things about existence I've ever encountered is the fact that we are living in a totally subjective universe and yet, even knowing this, I still struggle so darn hard to be objective!!! I've found this to be evidence of the appropriateness of the term "Divine Comedy"!"

But I believe a general guideline would involve the willingness to abandon one's passionate convictions upon being handily dispatched, or if shown to be glaringly contradictory, or just plain wrong.

I hate to sound like a broken record, but here again I do agree with you as well. I would just modify it slightly, though. In my own case, as I have experienced directly from this thread, I found that my overall views didn't change, I just ended up with a more moderate and expansive position. The convictions are still very much there, I just feel more balanced and non-judgemental now than when I first read this thread years ago. It has helped me grow and evolve massively. Contributions from sincere, thoughtful, spiritual and wise people who eat meat, such as yourself, and those who don't, such as Monica, have helped me grow in this space. It doesn't mean I don't have my convictions anymore, but I am without question much more centered, grounded, and non-judgemental about it all than I once was. (Not to say I've perfected the balance in this space yet... just that I can see some progress when I look within).

Quote:What I meant by that is that 3D, as I understand it from the Ra Material, is a density whose goal, for lack of a better word, is one that centers on making a polarity choice. STS or STO, and that this polarity choice made in 3D is one that forms a foundation for further work in higher densities, at least to a point.

Yes, I completely agree with the above statement. What I was attempting to question is whether or not it makes sense to consider actions taken toward unpolarized entities as polarizing, in and of themselves. I can see a valid argument for either case.

Ah ok, thanks for clarifying what you meant, I didn't catch that at first. Well, I can see a valid argument in either case as well. To me, though, subjectively, I think it does make sense to consider actions taken towards unpolarized entities as polarizing. If I put firecrackers in frog mouths and watch them blow up for amusement then I feel that is indeed a polarizing action. I also feel that, when I notice an insect walking across my desk and put it outside the house to continue its Journey instead of simply squashing it, then I feel that too is a polarizing action. I don't see it as any different were I to hurt or help a 3D being, I view it as a polarizing action for me, and the state of polarization of the other entity involved does not play a role in determining the polarity of my OWN action. This is all subjective, of course, and I realize that not only am I biased, but there are other ways to view these situations. I simply offer my understanding, nothing more.

How do we know that physical suffering and death don't support the 2D entity in gaining self-awareness? What if longevity doesn't factor much into the equation of whether or not a 2D entity had a "successful" incarnation? What if certain 2D entities are actually seeking to be incorporated into 3D bodies? How do we know that it isn't considered a great honor and achievement for a 2D entity to be plucked out of the ground by a human, put in a vase, and appreciated for its beauty before meeting a premature death?

These kinds of gems of wisdom are precisely the things I've learned from this meat thread that has helped me to take a more expansive, non-judgemental, and compassionate view of people who disagree with me on meat eating. This idea has come up before in this thread, and I find it a very compelling one. Thank you for reminding me of it.

I have noted that human suffering aids our evolution - it certainly has in my own case. So it would stand to reason that it could help 2D beings learn Self-Awareness, too. This is plausible to me... even probable as it would also fit in well with my higher understanding that everything, ultimately, is well. All things, even the negative, work together for the greater good.

and yet, even with this understanding... and possibility/probability that their violent experiences do help them on their journey of self-awareness, I don't think offering that catalyst to them, directly or indirectly, is congruent with my personal, particular, STO path. Just as I see the value in the Service that certain negatively polarized 3D beings and groups provide to other humans, but I don't think it would be appropriate for me to participate in the offering of that negative catalyst, given my own polarity choice. Subjective yes, but I never claimed to be unbiased.

I don't have the answers for these, and am more than a bit incredulous when others claim that they do. However, to conclude that cows in a factory farm video are needlessly suffering seems fairly straightforward to me.

I don't have answers for all of that either, to be honest and I'm more than a bit incredulous myself when I hear claims that people do. Whether that's what's actually been said by others on this thread is debatable, but in principle I think there has to be a recognition that we do NOT know these things with certainty. All we can do is make the best choices we possibly can with the information we have.... oh, and it doesn't hurt to cut eachother some slack at the same time.

So then, would it be fair to say that you don't expect anybody standing at the "pearly gates" of fourth density with a list of meat-eaters to be refused entry?

LOL!!!! Yes, absolutely fair to say. I don't know how many of us are going to graduate in this particular cycle, but I am pretty sure meat eaters will be well represented. In my view, eating meat, or any other one single aspect of a person does not prevent them from entering those 'pearly gates' of 4D. I have known so many wonderful, spiritual, kind, warm and compassionate meat eaters that are well beyond my subjective view of the "harvestability" mark, that there is no doubt in my mind such an entrance exam won't be taken. I confess to you that I didn't always see it that way, though. It took some growing and expansion through exchanges like this for me to stop using meat eating as a spiritual "litmus test". I don't do that anymore, sincerely, but I once did.

Though I view diet as an ethical choice, I certainly don't view it as the only ethical choice. We are far, far, far more than that.

I'll see you all on the other side where we can all have a good laugh about our disagreements in 3D

You're most welcome, and thanks again to you!

My pleasure. I have felt no judgement or anger in these exchanges. Just calm, intelligent, and thoughtful discussion.

Sincerely, I thank you, Brother, for taking the time to explain your perspective to me in such detail as it helps me grow and expand. I also thank you for doing your part to elevate this dialogue again so that we can all benefit. I am very grateful for your manner of communicating with me about this complex and emotive topic. Namaste, amigo!

Love to all

---

I would also like to say that I consider any argument about the meat industry found in a thread about spiritual implications of eating meat to be off topic, with a societal orientation.

Well, that's a fair perspective, and I absolutely honor your right to have it, even if I don't see it the same way.

We all have different areas we assign more subjective importance. For instance, I don't consider the immune systems' response to microbes particularly important or relevant to the discussion, but I think it's a fair branch of this mighty tree for those that do wish to explore it. Of course, I probably didn't spend as much time talking about it as some other areas that I find to be more relevant.

In the case of the meat industry, I personally, subjectively, do find it a relevant part of the discussion. You don't have to agree with me, and that's totally fine, I'm just sharing my own opinion. If you don't want to talk about that part of it or find it relevant, that's really OK, I accept you.

What Ra said about this type of focus:

Quote:34.9 Questioner: Thank you. Can you give me the same type of information about the self in relation to the societal self?
Ra: I am Ra. The unmanifested self may find its lessons those which develop any of the energy influx centers of the mind/body/spirit complex. The societal and self interactions most often concentrate upon the second and third energy centers. Thus those most active in attempting to remake or alter the society are those working from feelings of being correct personally or of having answers which will put power in a more correct configuration. This may be seen to be of a full travel from negative to positive in orientation. Either will activate these energy ray centers.

There are some few whose desires to aid society are of a green ray nature or above. These entities, however, are few due to the understanding, may we say, of fourth ray that universal love freely given is more to be desired than principalities or even the rearrangement of peoples or political structures

To me, advocating a change to society that we believe will relieve suffering and improve the lives of many, many beings, seems to be a great reason to consider this from a societal angle and work for change constructively..... but that is NOT mutually exclusive to the idea that universal love freely given is also important. Just something to consider -- maybe we are part of the "few" that Ra was referring to?

Maybe not, but food for thought. (No pun intended

This last part is the most relevant for me. I personally believe that universal love freely given IS more desired than principalities or the rearrangement of peoples and political structures. I honestly do believe this. And yet I also see it as appropriate and congruent with my Path for me to follow a vegetarian lifestyle and explain my position here, among my spiritual and intellectual equals. Among my great extended family of Other-Selves at Bring4th.

[quote='3DMonkey' pid='81278' dateline='1334123424']
I never clearly stated this as my viewpoint . I made a mistake to think it was assumed.

Thank you very much for clarifying your views for us. Honestly, I find it extremely helpful when people clarify, and re-clarify their stances on things so that we can more intelligently discuss things without assuming we know what the other means. Assumption leads to disharmony in my experience, thus clear communication is appreciated.

Thank you!



Love to all

[3DMonkey]

"From this Oneness, there are many distortions, including all of things that we subjectively label "good" or "bad", STS or STO, right or wrong. However, even though this is true it can also be used as a way to rationalize and justify apathy and indifference. This converts what I see as great truths into functionally meaningless "New Age Platitudes". Now, I am certainly NOT saying that is what YOU are doing right now, I want to make that very clear. I am speaking in a general way about the "All is well no matter what" concept that gets bandied about. In my own life, if I am honest with myself, I must admit that I've used it both as a way to e accept, honor, and integrate my experiences in a healthy spiritual fashion, but also as a way to escape from dealing with catalyst and complex situations. It is up to each of us to look within and decide how we are using this higher understanding.

For a wanderer in particular, I see this higher awareness of Oneness as a great boon, and yet also a great pitfall, depending upon how we apply that knowledge."


--
Yes. This is what Life is. This is what we do no matter what level of intelligence we have achieved. We cannot escape it. The choice is made within these parameters. We justify happiness, we justify sadness, we justify anger, we justify our choices. This is what thought is, it is what we do every day every moment.

[βαθμιαίος]

Breakfast.

Yummy! Are those from your garden?

[Monica]

Yummy! Are those from your garden?

Yeah

[βαθμιαίος]

Wow, you have blackberries already.

[Monica]

Wow, you have blackberries already.

No, these are mulberries. The blackberries are flowering and have little babies, but none ripe yet.

I've got some ripe blueberries and strawberries though.

[βαθμιαίος]

No, these are mulberries. The blackberries are flowering and have little babies, but none ripe yet.

I've got some ripe blueberries and strawberries though.

Ah, makes sense. Do you eat the roses?

[Monica]

Ah, makes sense. Do you eat the roses?

Yes.