In regards to eating meat

[BrownEye]

I see a system that works very similar to nerve impulses. That would be very logical when understanding the collective consciousness behind it.

Animals are a step above that. New to 3D are still very much like an animal. While i can imagine a person possibly making the move up from certain trees, i cannot imagine a person having just been a "pea".

I guess i feel more related to those with two eyes that have a nervous system much like ours.

[Monica]

Article from the NY Times about the ethical implications of eating peas, given that they can communicate with each other:

It was discovered that bacteria communicate all the way across the world, some 20 years ago. And around that time, it was discovered that plants send distress signals when they're about to get cut down.

"With each other" is an interpretation, presupposing that each one is an individual. If that is the case, then peas, plants and microbes are much more evolved than humans, since most humans are unable to communicate psychically like that.

In my opinion, such studies support my belief that most plants and microbes are all part of a single entity, with its consciousness spread out in its physical form, all over the world. Ie, all peas on the planet share a single consciousness, so the communication between a pea plant and other plants is more akin to a person's body sending a signal to his brain when he stubs his toe, than to me talking to you.

Observe a hive of bees, or an ant colony. These are striking examples of single entities, occupying multiple 'bodies.' But in those cases, in my opinion, each colony is an individual. Whereas with plants and microbes, they are spread out by species.

Just speculation of course, but it makes perfect sense to me.

So, rather than such research 'proving' that plants are sentient like animals and feel pain like animals, it actually does the opposite, in my opinion. This research supports the idea of all pea plants belonging to the same consciousness, rather than individual pea plants having the ability to reason, think logically, and communicate psychically.

To say that plants feel pain is already a stretch. To say that plants intellectually decide which other plants to communicate with, and then do so psychically, something not even most humans can do, is beyond a stretch - it isn't plausible, in my opinion.

Much more plausible is that the single pea consciousness is spread out over all the pea plants in the world, so communication is automatic, much like nerve impulses being sent from our toes to our brain.

To entertain such an idea, requires stretching the thinking beyond the idea of an entity possessing a single physical body. Entities are not mere bodies. Consider the possibility that a 2D entity, let's say grass, isn't defined by each blade of grass, but by its consciousness overall, and it utilizes a physical vehicle quite unlike higher 2D and 3D vehicles.

[3DMonkey]

I see a system that works very similar to nerve impulses. That would be very logical when understanding the collective consciousness behind it.

Animals are a step above that. New to 3D are still very much like an animal. While i can imagine a person possibly making the move up from certain trees, i cannot imagine a person having just been a "pea".

I guess i feel more related to those with two eyes that have a nervous system much like ours.

I think this really sums it up. It's attachment to self based on similarities. 'I feel for this because I am like this.'

To me, this is free to the will of every individual, and therefore spiritually relevant only to the extent of such will. If it bothers you, so be it. If it doesn't bother you, so be it.

[Monica]

I think this really sums it up. It's attachment to self based on similarities. 'I feel for this because I am like this.'

Or, one could look at it another way: It's feeling compassion for entities who are similar FIRST, before being able to feel compassion for entities who are dissimilar.

To me, this is free to the will of every individual, and therefore spiritually relevant only to the extent of such will. If it bothers you, so be it. If it doesn't bother you, so be it.

I wonder how others might feel if I decide I'd like to eat their dog. Would it bother them? If so, what does that mean?

[3DMonkey]

I think this really sums it up. It's attachment to self based on similarities. 'I feel for this because I am like this.'

Or, one could look at it another way: It's feeling compassion for entities who are similar FIRST, before being able to feel compassion for entities who are dissimilar.

To me, this is free to the will of every individual, and therefore spiritually relevant only to the extent of such will. If it bothers you, so be it. If it doesn't bother you, so be it.

I wonder how others might feel if I decide I'd like to eat their dog. Would it bother them? If so, what does that mean?

That has nothing to do with eating, because the "bother" is the same as if you wanted to take my car and drive it into a lake.

[Ankh]

To me, this is free to the will of every individual, and therefore spiritually relevant only to the extent of such will. If it bothers you, so be it. If it doesn't bother you, so be it.

I like what you have said here. It reminded me of this quote:

In your illusion all experience springs from the Law of Free Will or the Way of Confusion. In another sense, which we are learning, *the experiences are this distortion*.

[βαθμιαίος]

Re: the study I posted -- it is true that second-density consciousness is species-based, but that's true for both animals and plants, and the lesson/goal for both is individuation.

Or, one could look at it another way: It's feeling compassion for entities who are similar FIRST, before being able to feel compassion for entities who are dissimilar.

It's possible to feel compassion for something and still eat it. I feel compassion for the lettuce that we pulled out of the garden this week. Similarly, I feel compassion for the steer that we are going to butcher this fall.

Re: eating someone's dog: what about if you were to eat someone's treasured house plant? Wouldn't that be similar?

[Patrick]

...If that is the case, then peas, plants and microbes are much more evolved than humans, since most humans are unable to communicate psychically like that...

Not more evolved, simply not veiled. 2d beings are not veiled and so can communicate psychically.

---

This is mostly unavoidable when loosing a lot of weight. But you are right that doing it more slowly helps in making this effect less perverse.

With 'normal' diets yes, but with a raw vegan diet, counting calories becomes a thing of the past.

I was eating bean salads using canned beans. Are these cooked?

Yes. Beans aren't edible raw, so they must be either cooked or sprouted, and not all beans are edible sprouted.

Nothing wrong with cooked beans per se. They're just not raw.

It seems, that at the time, I did not go to a proper source of information to prepare for it.

So what would you consider a good source of information on eating raw vegan, on the web ?

Thanks !

[BrownEye]

I think this really sums it up. It's attachment to self based on similarities. 'I feel for this because I am like this.'

The basis of this reality. The instinct of self perpetuation. There is a natural higher instinct to not eat your own.

Of course, in some areas of the planet the instinct for self preservation is stronger, and they will see "others" as food and eat their own.

---

Mental Wellness

In a five-step plan, tailored to meet the custom needs of each unique physiology, this approach yields a revolutionary 90% success rate - which is far safer and superior in outcome to a drug-based approach. Including the biological component of mental wellness in a context that fosters one’s spiritual evolution, this program is truly revolutionary and one-of-a kind.

Reversing Diabetes Naturally

Based on 35 years of experience of treating diabetes naturally, this program is masterfully designed for the comprehensive healing of this chronic, degenerative syndrome in which high blood sugar is just a symptom. Presently 70% of NIDDM and 45% of IDDM Type-2 Diabetes are healed within 21 days. In Type-1 Diabetes, insulin levels are reduced by an average of 70%
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1...aw-food-20

100% Cure Rate in Terminal Pancreatic Cancer. Provided patients follow this protocol to the letter, William D. Kelley DDS has developed a cancer healing protocol which claims a 100% cure rate for supposedly incurable Pancreatic cancer... and 97% for other types of cancer. Involves an almost 100% raw diet for at least 6 months.
http://www.drkelley.info/articles/archive.php?artid=283



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

I just don't know what to think. Where are all the meat/dairy treatment centers? There are many treatment facilities that teach you how to eat your veggies, but where are the treatment facilities that get rid of ailments with a meat/dairy program?

Is this some sort of conspiracy?

[Diana]

Article from the NY Times about the ethical implications of eating peas, given that they can communicate with each other:

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/201...t-them/?hp

If Peas Can Talk, Should We Eat Them?

Imagine a being capable of processing, remembering and sharing information — a being with potentialities proper to it and inhabiting a world of its own. Given this brief description, most of us will think of a human person, some will associate it with an animal, and virtually no one’s imagination will conjure up a plant.

Since Nov. 2, however, one possible answer to the riddle is Pisumsativum, a species colloquially known as the common pea. On that day, a team of scientists from the Blaustein Institute for Desert Research at Ben-Gurion University in Israel published the results of its peer-reviewed research, revealing that a pea plant subjected to drought conditions communicated its stress to other such plants, with which it shared its soil. In other words, through the roots, it relayed to its neighbors the biochemical message about the onset of drought, prompting them to react as though they, too, were in a similar predicament.

Curiously, having received the signal, plants not directly affected by this particular environmental stress factor were better able to withstand adverse conditions when they actually occurred. This means that the recipients of biochemical communication could draw on their “memories” — information stored at the cellular level — to activate appropriate defenses and adaptive responses when the need arose.

<snip>

Should their swift response to stress leave us coldly indifferent, while animal suffering provokes intense feelings of pity and compassion?

<snip>

(Rest at link.)

It makes sense that all physical beings have some instinct or reaction to the environment for survival. Water, sun, and soil are essential to plants. This communication between the plants, whether it be analysis or reaction, of a drought would make sense.

However, it has nothing to do with eating the fruit of the plant, which is meant to be spread:

Fruit Production
Depending on the variety, tall climbing peas will begin to produce flowers at 3 to 4 feet tall. Once the flower has been pollinated and died back, a small pea pod will be visible. Pod maturing times vary widely depending on weather and pea variety. Pods that are ready to be picked (if growing regular garden peas, not flat varieties) will swell and have a dark green, glossy pod. For eating, the pods should be picked before the peas inside swell enough to make the pod overly full and hard, as the peas become bitter and hard. Another indication that peas are getting too old is that the pod starts to turn pale, and if left longer, the pod wrinkles as it begins drying out. These wrinkled pods can be left on the plant to dry out. Once the pods are completely dry, remove them from the plant. Shell the semi-dried peas and leave to air dry. Use these peas as seed next season.

http://www.gardenguides.com/125530-life-...plant.html

The pea pods are are meant to be spread from the plant in order to grow again. The pods will dry up and open or fall off the plant so the seeds reach the soil. This is typical of plants: the fruit or seeds of the plant benefit from picked or eaten, in order to spread the seeds. And incidentally, when eaten and excreted, the seeds then are left with fertilizer as well.

By taking the pea pods, one does not kill the plant. The drought would have killed the plant.

This article sensationalizes for dramatic effect, rather than explores a real possibility.

[Patrick]

So then Fruitarianism would be the only compassionate way of eating ?

[βαθμιαίος]

The pea pods are are meant to be spread from the plant in order to grow again. The pods will dry up and open or fall off the plant so the seeds reach the soil. This is typical of plants: the fruit or seeds of the plant benefit from picked or eaten, in order to spread the seeds. And incidentally, when eaten and excreted, the seeds then are left with fertilizer as well.

By taking the pea pods, one does not kill the plant. The drought would have killed the plant.

Peas are annuals. The plant dies, the seeds remain to grow again the following year unless they are eaten.

[Diana]

Re: the study I posted -- it is true that second-density consciousness is species-based, but that's true for both animals and plants, and the lesson/goal for both is individuation.

Or, one could look at it another way: It's feeling compassion for entities who are similar FIRST, before being able to feel compassion for entities who are dissimilar.

It's possible to feel compassion for something and still eat it. I feel compassion for the lettuce that we pulled out of the garden this week. Similarly, I feel compassion for the steer that we are going to butcher this fall.

Re: eating someone's dog: what about if you were to eat someone's treasured house plant? Wouldn't that be similar?

I don't find that anyone has really addressed the pet dog issue. The point is that one feels love for a pet, hence, the compassion is there not to take its life for food, or let someone else take its life for food (not to mention torture it first).

If anyone here is going to defend the idea that taking the life of a plant (which incidentally does not have to be killed to use it for food) is the same as taking the life of an animal or beloved pet, I need to hear more compelling arguments.

[Patrick]

Here is what I believe.

The plants and the animals that we eat have agreed to this service out of love for us even before incarnating, maybe not individually but their collective consciousness did. How we treat food while it is still "alive" should indeed matter.

[Diana]

The pea pods are are meant to be spread from the plant in order to grow again. The pods will dry up and open or fall off the plant so the seeds reach the soil. This is typical of plants: the fruit or seeds of the plant benefit from picked or eaten, in order to spread the seeds. And incidentally, when eaten and excreted, the seeds then are left with fertilizer as well.

By taking the pea pods, one does not kill the plant. The drought would have killed the plant.

Peas are annuals. The plant dies, the seeds remain to grow again the following year unless they are eaten.

Okay, I am not a great gardener with specific knowledge of each plant, so I was generalizing.

It's still true that you can pluck the pods and the plant won't die.

Can you tell me why a pea plant would "be afraid" if someone picked the pods? Do you think the plant would be in terror?

[βαθμιαίος]

Many plants are killed in order to be eaten. Killing and eating a plant that is grown for food seems analogous to killing and eating an animal that is grown for food. Killing and eating a beloved house plant seems analogous to killing and eating a beloved pet.

---

It's still true that you can pluck the pods and the plant won't die.

Can you tell me why a pea plant would "be afraid" if someone picked the pods? Do you think the plant would be in terror?

I don't know about terror or fear, but the fact is that you are killing and eating its babies and as a result it will have no offspring.

I agree with Valtor that both plants and animals have agreed to this service. I'm not trying to say that eating both is equally bad. I'm trying to say that it's equally good and appropriate, if done humanely.

[Diana]

So then Fruitarianism would be the only compassionate way of eating ?

No. Vegetable plants produce "fruit" as well. If you take an ear of corn off the plant, the plant doesn't die. When you take a zucchini off the plant, the plant doesn't die. The plants eventually die, but not as a result of removing the "fruit."

The extrapolation here, is that plants don't have the same fear of being eaten as an animal does. You cannot prune the leg of a cow and have the cow survive. Not to mention the pain and suffering cutting off the leg would cause. I can only imagine that the corn plant does not have pain and suffering when an ear is removed, or if it does, it is of a different nature.

Eventually, humans may evolve to more of a "light" body and not have to consume anything but light for sustenance. Eating a plant-based diet is a step toward less "animal" behavior (predator/prey). It is step toward less cruelty--enslaving, torturing, and slaughtering animals for food. In the case of humane animal farmers, the animals live some degree of a natural life, but are still slaughtered.

---

Here is what I believe.

The plants and the animals that we eat have agreed to this service out of love for us even before incarnating, maybe not individually but their collective consciousness did. How we treat food while it is still "alive" should indeed matter.

This is a nice comfort for those eating meat. I do not know if this is true.

I can equally posit that the animals have agreed to help us learn compassion by allowing humans to treat them abominably. Does this mean we should continue treating them abominably?

Humans do not need to eat meat. So what then does a possible agreement to service mean from the animal kingdom to be food for us? That they are willing to do this service so we can eat things that taste good?

Does that make any sense?

[Patrick]

So then Fruitarianism would be the only compassionate way of eating ?

No. Vegetable plants produce "fruit" as well. If you take an ear of corn off the plant, the plant doesn't die. When you take a zucchini off the plant, the plant doesn't die. The plants eventually die, but not as a result of removing the "fruit."...

There are many definitions of Fruitarianism. I included all those produce as being fruits. A zucchini is a fruit and so is a cucumber.

Here is what I believe.

The plants and the animals that we eat have agreed to this service out of love for us even before incarnating, maybe not individually but their collective consciousness did. How we treat food while it is still "alive" should indeed matter.

This is a nice comfort for those eating meat...

It is yes. And I truly believe it. It's all a question of intent.

...I can equally posit that the animals have agreed to help us learn compassion by allowing humans to treat them abominably. Does this mean we should continue treating them abominably?

It's a catalyst like everything else. Like wanderers coming here out of love for us knowing how they'll be treated by the Elites and the rest of our insanity.

Humans do not need to eat meat. So what then does a possible agreement to service mean from the animal kingdom to be food for us? That they are willing to do this service so we can eat things that taste good?

Does that make any sense?

We may not need to eat meat, but our modern society is not currently able to provide us with all the nutrients that our body needs without meat.

[Monica]

That has nothing to do with eating, because the "bother" is the same as if you wanted to take my car and drive it into a lake.

This is getting to the crux of the matter.

A person would be bothered if someone wrecked their car or drove it into the lake, because it's their possession, not because the car experiences pain, because cars don't experience pain. It's a thing, not a person.

A person would be bothered if someone tortured their dog, because the dog is a family member. There is another element here: distress at a loved one suffering.

That distress would not be there for the car.

Do you see the difference?

It's inconvenient to have one's car driven into a lake. Any feelings the person has, are of self; SELF is upset because SELF is inconvenienced.

But feelings for one's dog getting tortured are focused on OTHER-self; distress that a loved one is being tortured.

[BrownEye]

...I can equally posit that the animals have agreed to help us learn compassion by allowing humans to treat them abominably. Does this mean we should continue treating them abominably?

It's a catalyst like everything else. Like wanderers coming here out of love for us knowing how they'll be treated by the Elites and the rest of our insanity.

It would be good to keep in mind there are negative and STS guides that work this sphere. This allows for suffering. But this also shows us an image of what we then choose to be a part of. Or not. The learning of bias. It gives us the choice to move away from the creation of suffering, or be a part of it.

We may not need to eat meat, but our modern society is not currently able to provide us with all the nutrients that our body needs without meat.

I find modern society to be unnatural.

[3DMonkey]

That has nothing to do with eating, because the "bother" is the same as if you wanted to take my car and drive it into a lake.

This is getting to the crux of the matter.

A person would be bothered if someone wrecked their car or drove it into the lake, because it's their possession, not because the car experiences pain, because cars don't experience pain. It's a thing, not a person.

A person would be bothered if someone tortured their dog, because the dog is a family member. There is another element here: distress at a loved one suffering.

That distress would not be there for the car.

Do you see the difference?

It's inconvenient to have one's car driven into a lake. Any feelings the person has, are of self; SELF is upset because SELF is inconvenienced.

But feelings for one's dog getting tortured are focused on OTHER-self; distress that a loved one is being tortured.

What I said was that your "eating someone's dog" scenario is only a problem because it is personal property, in the same way a car is. As is a person's will, so that there is no spiritual damage when a person takes a bite of steak at the dinner table if they person is detached from remorse.

---

*that

---

If you would like to eat my dog, there is a $2500 charge. Then, there is no problem.

---

That is a Monica Only Offer

[Patrick]

Question for readers not eating meat.

Does your feeling or perception of a forum member changes once you become aware that said member is a meat eater ?

[Ashim]

Question for readers not eating meat.

Does your feeling or perception of a forum member changes once you become aware that said member is a meat eater ?

Yes.

[BrownEye]

Question for readers not eating meat.

Does your feeling or perception of a forum member changes once you become aware that said member is a meat eater ?

It can change my perception of a members ability to see beyond the boundaries of their personal sphere of self. From my perspective. My perspective also tends to refuse consensus reality chosen by society. My perspective comes from communication with both animals and types of plants, along with the guides behind them.

[Shin'Ar]

Its simply a matter of choice. All of the consequences in between one chose or another should be catalyst for whether or not a choice is once again made the same way or requires change. if you perceive that your choice is adversely affecting another life, and that matters to you than you know what your next choice should be. If it does not matter to you the choice is still open.

[Patrick]

I would say that this thread is a potent catalyst for all.

---

Question for readers not eating meat.

Does your feeling or perception of a forum member changes once you become aware that said member is a meat eater ?

It can change my perception of a members ability to see beyond the boundaries of their personal sphere of self. From my perspective. My perspective also tends to refuse consensus reality chosen by society. My perspective comes from communication with both animals and types of plants, along with the guides behind them.

Meaning that a meat eater is generally more selfish ?

[Monica]

Re: the study I posted -- it is true that second-density consciousness is species-based, but that's true for both animals and plants, and the lesson/goal for both is individuation.

Yes, but animals are much further along in the process of individuation. Why do I think that? I have offered extensive explanations throughout this thread.

It's possible to feel compassion for something and still eat it. I feel compassion for the lettuce that we pulled out of the garden this week. Similarly, I feel compassion for the steer that we are going to butcher this fall.

I can't comprehend that. I cannot comprehend looking into the eyes of a sentient creature, and then killing it.

Re: eating someone's dog: what about if you were to eat someone's treasured house plant? Wouldn't that be similar?

I really don't think so. Let's examine that. If a house is on fire, whom will the homeowner save first? Her dog or her houseplant?

If her houseplant dies in the fire, would she feel as much grief as she would if her dog died in the fire?

---

What I said was that your "eating someone's dog" scenario is only a problem because it is personal property, in the same way a car is. As is a person's will, so that there is no spiritual damage when a person takes a bite of steak at the dinner table if they person is detached from remorse.

---

*that

---

If you would like to eat my dog, there is a $2500 charge. Then, there is no problem.

---

That is a Monica Only Offer

Well you are unusual, Monkey. Most people consider their dogs to be family members.

True, some don't. To some people, a dog is just a thing, a possession.

Let's take a poll: How many people would readily sell their dog if they knew the dog would be killed an eaten?

[βαθμιαίος]

Yes, but animals are much further along in the process of individuation. Why do I think that? I have offered extensive explanations throughout this thread.

I'm not sure it really matters which is further along in the process. But I agree, let's let it go.

I can't comprehend that. I cannot comprehend looking into the eyes of a sentient creature, and then killing it.

Fair enough. Can you accept that it's possible to do it with compassion?

Do you feel compassion for the carrots you harvest from your garden?

I really don't think so. Let's examine that. If a house is on fire, whom will the homeowner save first? Her dog or her houseplant?

If her houseplant dies in the fire, would she feel as much grief as she would if her dog died in the fire?

It depends on the homeowner, doesn't it?

[Patrick]

...I can't comprehend that. I cannot comprehend looking into the eyes of a sentient creature, and then killing it...

Imagine you are an American Indian or an Inuit 600 years ago. You kill the animal and thank said animal for sacrificing its incarnation just so you can continue yours. It is indeed a selfish act.

---

Question for readers not eating meat.

Does your feeling or perception of a forum member changes once you become aware that said member is a meat eater ?

Yes.

I updated my profile to help prevent this sort of unpleasant surprise in the future.

[Monica]

Question for readers not eating meat.

Does your feeling or perception of a forum member changes once you become aware that said member is a meat eater ?

No, not at all. I fully expect that most people do eat meat.

My perception does change, however, when I observe how they respond to information about the suffering of animals.