The act of eating is a service.

[Monica]

Clothing, petroleum, electricity, dry goods, everything we use. You can focus on food only, or have more awareness and think about your entire modern life.

Sure. But focusing on other aspects of modern life doesn't negate the repercussions of one aspect of modern life.

Valtor's OP is exploring the act of eating.....this seems to be a sub-topic. Tangentially related, but the original question was not really addressed.

But to say..."violation of guidelines!" that's quite a stretch. And inflammatory.

---

"...and I'm hovering like a fly...waiting for the windshield on the freeway"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YM993UrH3ww

[Shemaya]

Valtor's OP is exploring the act of eating.....this seems to be a sub-topic. Tangentially related, but the original question was not really addressed.

But to say..."violation of guidelines!" that's quite a stretch. And inflammatory.

---

"...and I'm hovering like a fly...waiting for the windshield on the freeway"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YM993UrH3ww

I didn't say that in reference to diana's new question. If you go back to the conversation prior, then it might possibly make sense to you. ( when you and Tenet were rehashing the ' other' thread, seemed off- topic to me ).

It makes it difficult to discuss something when one is frequently misquoted, and accused of being inflammatory, when I was not doing so. Emulating pickle' s comments and trolling style would be more inflammatory if you ask me.

[3DMonkey]

If your compassion reaches one it reaches all.

Shootin for that .001% polarization are you?

Your math is off. To reach one is to reach all.

.01=1.00
1%=100%

[BrownEye]

Some people use their entire intellect to create barriers blocking any further understanding. The more we push such people from their “comfort zone”, the more “blocked” they become.

Letting people experience the consequences of their own point of view is essential for them to learn anything.

You will avoid a lot of frustration if you refrain from trying to explain something to people who are not yet ready to understand.

Making other people THINK is far more difficult than developing the understanding yourself.
Chalko

[3DMonkey]

Some people use their entire intellect to create barriers blocking any further understanding. The more we push such people from their “comfort zone”, the more “blocked” they become.

Letting people experience the consequences of their own point of view is essential for them to learn anything.

You will avoid a lot of frustration if you refrain from trying to explain something to people who are not yet ready to understand.

Making other people THINK is far more difficult than developing the understanding yourself.
Chalko

You're welcome

[Patrick]

The act of eating is a service. Is eating a selfish act (STS) or a communal act (STO) ? I choose communion.

PS: I just had to get this out of my system. You can nuke this thread now if you want. I promise I will understand if it's deleted and won't bring this up ever again.

Hi Valtor,

Not sure if this is the right thread to talk about this at this point.

To me the answer is obvious...of course sharing with others and caring and nourishing our bodies are heart-ful acts. We need to eat to live. If we stop eating, unless something miraculous happens, we will shortly die of malnourishment. If we don't feed our children, we are neglecting them. If we go on a hunger strike, we'll die if we take it to the extreme outcome.

Our bodies are a Temple, we are responsible to care for it, I believe.

Our bodies are a part of a natural cycle and rhythm, we are born, we live and we eventually die. All beings the planet take part in this normal natural cycle of birth , life, and death. In order to live, we must eat. It's really a sacred action, because it is life-giving. And other 2-d beings (plants and animals) that nourish us, are giving us life. They die, so we may live for a while. And then we die, and our organic substance returns to earth to be re-formed.

There are so many overlays of negative-influenced thought regarding the simple sacred act of eating. So I think we can get confused and lose the simplicity, and wholesomeness of the ritual of eating.

Thank you Shemaya, that is indeed the direction I was trying to push the discussion in.

---

That is how food becomes catalyst and choice.

Everything is, in 3d.

[BrownEye]

Your math is off. To reach one is to reach all.

.01=1.00
1%=100%

Wow you are so right. I just realized that everyone is 100% polarized to the positive. Everybodies work is done. (wait, why are you all here? oh yeah, you are all the actual illusion, you aren't really here)

LoL!

[Tango]

The act of eating is a service. Is eating a selfish act (STS) or a communal act (STO) ? I choose communion.

PS: I just had to get this out of my system. You can nuke this thread now if you want. I promise I will understand if it's deleted and won't bring this up ever again.

If one is 51% STO, for example, then what accounts for the other 49% of that person orientation? Perhaps it includes the innate need to survive.

If so, then I think the act of eating is either healthy/wholesome or full of disease STS , depending on the nature of one's relationship with their food at any given time.

I am often aware of the sacred nature of the binding relationship that I have with food .... and do consider this to be a communion of sorts but I do not see this at all to be STO.

Rather I see it as a healthy STS ... other times I am so hungry, pissed off, frustrated, tired, fearful, hurried,... I eat because I'm hungry, it's there, it's quick, it's handy, it's inciting me .... and can definitely see this as STS ... but a harmful service that brings me disease.

The quality of food, GMO's, its environmental relationships, my relationship and such are most important to me but another issue perhaps.

[Patrick]

Shemaya's above sentiment regarding the wholesomeness and simplicity of eating is nice, but the reality is that eating involves more than that today. The question is: how aware does a person want to be, and how responsible, with the choices made for food.

I don't think that was Valtor's question, the OP question was "Is eating a selfish act or communal act?" And he stated that he views it as communion, a unifying (STO) act. And I agree with him.

There are negative, separating, thought-forms in the ethers that would have us believe otherwise. But Christ said, "It's not what goes into the mouth that defiles you, but the words that come out of the mouth that defile you." Mt. 15:11 This statement also resonates with me, I believe Christ actually made this statement.

Regardless of where others-selves draw the line of responsibility in choices in acquiring food, it's not relevant to the original question. Food choice is a personal and individual choice based on numerous factors, of which we cannot possibly know completely.

So beautifully said ! I feel very much understood.

[BrownEye]

If one is 51% STO, for example, then what accounts for the other 49% of that person orientation? Perhaps it includes the innate need to survive.

If so, then I think the act of eating is either healthy/wholesome or full of disease STS , depending on the nature of one's relationship with their food at any given time.

This is the case. It is STS that is not exactly polarizing until conscious thought comes into play.

Spending your life as a compassionate volunteer trying to feed everyone is STO polarizing. Spending your life making sure you are always satiated is not STO polarizing. Polarization is then effected when awareness of the hows and whys of acquiring food is learned and you do not make choices accordingly.

Food is definitely a choice. Conscious choices polarize.

[Patrick]

Now we're talking! That's indeed the kind of discussion I was trying to have.

[3DMonkey]

Your math is off. To reach one is to reach all.

.01=1.00
1%=100%

Wow you are so right. I just realized that everyone is 100% polarized to the positive. Everybodies work is done. (wait, why are you all here? oh yeah, you are all the actual illusion, you aren't really here)

LoL!

Do you realize you were saying that polarization has to do with the quantity of whom you reach?

[Patrick]

Your math is off. To reach one is to reach all.

.01=1.00
1%=100%

Wow you are so right. I just realized that everyone is 100% polarized to the positive. Everybodies work is done. (wait, why are you all here? oh yeah, you are all the actual illusion, you aren't really here)

LoL!

Do you realize you were saying that polarization has to do with the quantity of whom you reach?

I think this has been implied in this thread by many people so far.

[BrownEye]

Your math is off. To reach one is to reach all.

.01=1.00
1%=100%

Wow you are so right. I just realized that everyone is 100% polarized to the positive. Everybodies work is done. (wait, why are you all here? oh yeah, you are all the actual illusion, you aren't really here)

LoL!

Do you realize you were saying that polarization has to do with the quantity of whom you reach?

Effort is the right word. You must have missed the implication of apathy in the original statement. Then again, polarization is definitely affected by quantity. Why does it matter to you when you have no interest in polarization to begin with?

---

I think this has been implied in this thread by many people so far.

Yes, you can quantify effort.

---

You can quantify effort, polarization, compassion, apathy, service, pretty much anything in 3D.

[Monica]

I didn't say that in reference to diana's new question.

I didn't say you did. I just missed your post, then replied to it later when I saw it, and my reply to you happened to fall right after my reply to Diana.

Amazing how we can jump to conclusions such as "she is deliberately misquoting me and taking my words out of context" when that wasn't the intention at all!

If you go back to the conversation prior, then it might possibly make sense to you. ( when you and Tenet were rehashing the ' other' thread, seemed off- topic to me ).

Oh, me and Tenet? But your comments were directed only to me. I wonder why?

It makes it difficult to discuss something when one is frequently misquoted, and accused of being inflammatory, when I was not doing so.

Noticing 2 people engaging in something one thinks is off-topic, but then choosing to single out only one of them, is inflammatory.

Emulating pickle' s comments and trolling style would be more inflammatory if you ask me.

Good heavens!!! I was trying to make light of your inflammatory comments about my supposedly inflammatory comments, instead of doing what we're doing now, which is arguing about it! So even when I try to make light, you apparently don't approve!!!

So, let me see if I can get this straight. My "point by point" discussion style isn't acceptable. And Pickle's "make light of it and diffuse the situation with humor" isn't acceptable either.

What, then, would you have us do? Must we change our convictions altogether, in order to be accepted around here? Or is Bring4th doomed to perpetual discord as long as vegetarians are allowed to run around freely expressing their opinions in....ONE single thread? (Only one before, and only one now, since the others are gone.)

No sarcasm intended. I'm just genuinely perplexed about why there is so much butthurt whenever the vegetarians do what everyone else does all the time: express our viewpoints.

Why is this particular viewpoint so UNaccepted? Why are WE so UNaccepted? All this talk about love and acceptance...and yet a few fellow seekers are being considered the source of discord, just for having different opinions. It's not how we say anything or whether it's off-topic or any of that...it's our viewpoint itself that is UNaccepted.

[Observer]

Cant we just love each other and stop arguing?

[Patrick]

Cant we just love each other and stop arguing?

We can love each other even while we argue.

At one point, one realizes that discussing the speaker instead of what is spoken is the part that may be less loving. But arguing per se can certainly be done lovingly.

[Monica]

We can love each other even while we argue.

At one point, one realizes that discussing the speaker instead of what is spoken is the part that may be less loving. But arguing per se can certainly be done lovingly.

YES!!! That's it exactly!!!

If we 'love' only those who agree with us, then that's not love.

[BrownEye]

ACCEPTANCE
an agreeing either expressly or by conduct to the act or offer of another so that a contract is concluded and the parties become legally bound.

POLARIZE
to vibrate in a particular direction or path.
Synonyms: unify, unite

Acceptance and tolerance are not synonyms.

E. Tolle (Power of Now, etc.) defines acceptance as a "this is it" response to anything occurring in any moment of life. There, strength, peace and serenity are available when one stops struggling to resist, or hang on tightly to what is so in any given moment. What do I have right now? Now what I am I experiencing? The point is, can one be sad when one is sad, afraid when afraid, silly when silly, happy when happy, judgmental when judgmental, overthinking when overthinking, serene when serene, etc.

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

I want to ask what some of you are doing here.

I am sitting here thinking about how big of a problem some have with written text that they do not agree with. Not only that, they personalize it and create an imagined adversary to focus their discontent towards. It's like some do not get enough out of real life and try to make up for it on a forum LoL!

I would like everyone that has a strong urge to join in a conversation that pushes their buttons, to look inside at their own thought processes, and figure out exactly why you join the conversation.

Is it really "you" that is pushing to join the fray? Is it something deep down that you can't determine the source?

I seriously think some of you are being dragged through an experience because you are looking for something. What is it that you are looking for? Is some sort of proof of stance going to shift anything? Even if there was proof, would it make any difference in anyones stance? Of course not.

I think all of the energy buildup is really just irritation at being forced to jump in this mud pit over and over again. The only thing that will get your higher self to lay off is if you figure out why you keep getting pushed into this.

[Tango]

Cant we just love each other and stop arguing?

We can love each other even while we argue.

At one point, one realizes that discussing the speaker instead of what is spoken is the part that may be less loving. But arguing per se can certainly be done lovingly.

I love it when people are authentically themselves at any given moment; even when it's not pretty! And especially when the view is not apparently beautiful by standard norms ... I find beauty! ... because it gives me an intimate view inside of myself that is otherwise not so easily available.

[3DMonkey]

Your math is off. To reach one is to reach all.

.01=1.00
1%=100%

Wow you are so right. I just realized that everyone is 100% polarized to the positive. Everybodies work is done. (wait, why are you all here? oh yeah, you are all the actual illusion, you aren't really here)

LoL!

Do you realize you were saying that polarization has to do with the quantity of whom you reach?

Effort is the right word. You must have missed the implication of apathy in the original statement. Then again, polarization is definitely affected by quantity. Why does it matter to you when you have no interest in polarization to begin with?

---

I think this has been implied in this thread by many people so far.

Yes, you can quantify effort.

---

You can quantify effort, polarization, compassion, apathy, service, pretty much anything in 3D.

It's interesting to see myself thru your eyes. You were lame lenses.

---

*wear

[Patrick]

ACCEPTANCE
an agreeing either expressly or by conduct to the act or offer of another so that a contract is concluded and the parties become legally bound.
...

This definition does not work for me. I prefer how I understood acceptance from the Law of One.

[3DMonkey]

We can love each other even while we argue.

At one point, one realizes that discussing the speaker instead of what is spoken is the part that may be less loving. But arguing per se can certainly be done lovingly.

YES!!! That's it exactly!!!

If we 'love' only those who agree with us, then that's not love.

You and I can reveal how if we choose to actively demonstrate. Let's see if we can right now.

---

To do so requires a more personal communication

[BrownEye]

ACCEPTANCE
an agreeing either expressly or by conduct to the act or offer of another so that a contract is concluded and the parties become legally bound.
...

This definition does not work for me. I prefer how I understood acceptance from the Law of One.

Of course. It is good to look closely at the definition of the words used. Specifically words have been chosen to hide meaning to a certain amount. Ra does not give advice. Nor infringe upon free will. A direct answer would eliminate personal choice and its results.

For me the words chosen to aid in the Law of Confusion will not use the "common" meaning, somewhat resulting in deeper meaning much like what happened with holy scripture.

---

If you would take all uncommon terms, those that turn many away from the transcripts themselves, look at the definitions of those terms, you may find a pattern or combination where a specific definition is linked to all other definitions creating a logical framework with no contradictions or holes.

Nobody does this, which allows for Law of Confusion to create this great mud pit catalyst that I so enjoy jumping in the middle of.

[Monica]

You and I can reveal how if we choose to actively demonstrate.

Yes!!! We sure could!

Let's see if we can right now.

OK!!!

To do so requires a more personal communication

What are you suggesting?

[BrownEye]

I love it when people are authentically themselves at any given moment; even when it's not pretty! And especially when the view is not apparently beautiful by standard norms ...

Consciously heaping catalyst upon others is quite the game.

I think some forget why some return. They do not return simply to accept what is going on. This isn't the return of the freelovehippyfest era.

[3DMonkey]

You and I can reveal how if we choose to actively demonstrate.

Yes!!! We sure could!

Let's see if we can right now.

OK!!!

To do so requires a more personal communication

What are you suggesting?

Being up one of our major disagreements and show how you and I can stand beside one another for a common goal at the same time. Our common is "we want compassion"

[Monica]

Being up one of our major disagreements and show how you and I can stand beside one another for a common goal at the same time. Our common is "we want compassion"

OK you're on! Hehe, this will be fun!

[Shin'Ar]

Just my opinion and friendly advice, but many unfriendly situations can easily be avoided by allowing others to gracefully avoid your confrontation when they try to without continuing to seek such confrontation. In other words let it drop when they try to drop it.

And there is a big difference between playful sarcasm and insulting sarcasm so lets try to avoid being insulting even if it is done in sarcasm.

There are many opinion and viewpoints here that are going to clash as the minds behind them express themselves. It is not the expression nor the desire to express that should be stifled, but the unfriendly ways that these are offered. If we speak in respect of each other and use caution in our debates just as we would do if we were doing so in a scholarly professional place, we can avoid much of this defensive standing that is being taken.

if all we have to defend is our thoughts, emotions should not come into the discussion at all. Think before you type. if you realize that you mean to insult or than don't type it.

But I really don't think its necessary to stifle adult intellects in debating their opinions.

[Tango]

I love it when people are authentically themselves at any given moment; even when it's not pretty! And especially when the view is not apparently beautiful by standard norms ...

Consciously heaping catalyst upon others is quite the game.

I think some forget why some return. They do not return simply to accept what is going on. This isn't the return of the freelovehippyfest era.

Darn! Are you sure, 3D? (*oops, I should have said Pickle.)