+- Bring4th (https://www.bring4th.org/forums)
+-- Forum: Bring4th Studies (https://www.bring4th.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: Healing (https://www.bring4th.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=45)
+---- Forum: Health & Diet (https://www.bring4th.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=22)
+---- Thread: In regards to eating meat (/showthread.php?tid=239)
RE: In regards to eating meat - Monica - 03-27-2010
This guy is so cool. No rules. No judgment. Just sharing what has worked for him and why he does it. I invite everyone to just watch this video in its entirety, just for fun:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEH_GGVl3pE&feature=PlayList&p=294E79E2B833180B&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=7
It's less than 10 minutes. He says some really good stuff all the way thru, and at the end he says something really amazing.
RE: In regards to eating meat - thefool - 03-27-2010
Monica- thanks for the kind words...
Please search the word vested and you will see Ra's quote-
Quote:Questioner: After going over this morning’s work, I thought it might be helpful to fill in a few things. You said that the second density strives towards the third density which is the density of self-consciousness, or self-awareness. The striving takes place through higher second-density forms being invested by third-density beings. Could you explain what you mean by this?
Ra: I am Ra. Much as you would put on a vestment, so do your third-density beings invest or clothe some second-density beings with self-awareness. This is often done through the opportunity of what you call pets. It has also been done by various other means of investiture. These include many so-called religious practice complexes which personify and send love to various natural second-density beings in their group form.
I think this communication has reached an impasse. Many of the points are now recycling. I have already stated my position on this topic and I don't see that shifting. You have also expressed your views very clearly. I just don't wish to go round and round again with another round of back and forth. As this is not going to accomplish anything more in my opinion. You obviously feel very strongly about it and please feel free to continue...
RE: In regards to eating meat - Monica - 03-27-2010
(03-27-2010, 05:23 PM)thefool Wrote:Quote:It has also been done by various other means of investiture. These include many so-called religious practice complexes which personify and send love to various natural second-density beings in their group form.
Ah, I remembered the concept but not the word. Thanks for the quote!
Yes, this is exactly what I was getting at. Many indigenous peoples personify animals, such as the Native Americans with their totems, etc. My understanding of Ra's words is that by this means, wild animals such as wolves, deer and eagles could become invested as do pets. And there could be other means as well that we might not even know about.
Thanks again for your participation! I have enjoyed the dialog. I would like to point out, though, that I had no goal of 'winning' a debate or anyone necessarily changing their point of view. My intention was simply to discuss this volatile issue in light of Law of One principles, and for all of us to possibly offer some food for thought.
RE: In regards to eating meat - Monica - 03-29-2010
Here is a quote from Ra that shows the hardware must be able to accommodate the software:
18.21 Questioner: Why did they want larger and stronger organisms?
Ra: I am Ra. The ones of Yahweh were attempting to create an understanding of the Law of One by creating mind/body complexes capable of grasping the Law of One. The experiment was a decided failure from the view of the desired distortions due to the fact that rather than assimilating the Law of One, it was a great temptation to consider the so-called social complex or subcomplex elite or different and better than other-selves, this one of the techniques of service to self.
Can we extrapolate from this that mind/body complexes having certain characteristics (such as, for example, pain receptors, nervous system, etc.) would be more likely to accommodate an entity ready to experience sentience?
RE: In regards to eating meat - Steppingfeet - 03-30-2010
Hi Monica,
Firstly, thank you for tactfully exploring this highly charged issue so close to your heart with grace and respect for all. While in many ways I do not see eye to eye with you on this particular issue, I feel that you have honored both the spirit and the letter of the first guideline of this forum in exemplary fashion. Thank you for taking us all to task, compelling us to examine some deeply held and perhaps unrecognized beliefs. And thank you to everyone else who has contributed mightily to this issue!
Quote:Monica wrote:
Why is killing raping a child perverted and sadistic, but contributing to the torture and killing of an animal NOT perverted and sadistic? Why is it a given that they are not the same? THAT is my point! I would like to explore why they are different.
It seems that much of your perspective is predicated on your emotional conviction in the equivalency of murder/rape/torture and animal slaughter. I understand the deep compassion and empathy wherefrom this arises – and do not fault you for it – but, after considering whether I should adopt a similar emotional perspective, I find that I cannot.
Before I dive into the reasons for not agreeing, I must begin by differentiating between humane slaughter on one hand and unnecessarily brutal, sadistic, and barbarous slaughter on the other. I make no case or apology for inhumane slaughter. I attempt only to contrast humane slaughter (which I believe both possible and feasible) against the crimes you list above.
The difference as I see it follows thusly:
- (1) It is necessary to eat food. You naturally would contend that it is not “necessary” to eat meat, but I’m sure we would both agree on the larger point that it is a necessity of biological life that life feeds off of life. For some strange reason the Logos did not arrange for inert matter, like a rock, to nourish us, or for that matter, neither did it design water to be our sole source of sustenance. We must eat that which was once living (and in the case of yogurt, is still living).
There is nothing, absolutely nothing necessary about raping. There is no biological imperative that demands we rape or torture another for the physical continuation of the individual or the species.
(2)Quote:Book II, Session #42: RA: …the balanced entity will see in the seeming attack of an other-self the causes of this action which are, in most cases, of a more complex nature than the cause of the attack of the second-density bull as was your example. Thus this balanced entity would be open to many more opportunities for service to a third-density other-self.
The situation of love vs. control between two third-density entities is hopelessly complex, much more so than the situation of the third-density entity in relation to the second-density entity, as with the bull.
I am sure that the animal feels a basic emotional set of responses centered around fear and the animal joy of being itself and fulfilling its purpose. However the animal, I believe, is not going to experience a crisis of self-worth in response to humane slaughter. Is not going to be overcome with shame as might the victim of rape. Is not going to turn the situation into a complex moral dilemma as might the subject of torture. Humane slaughter, I believe it safe to presume, is not going to cause detriment to the conscious identity of the creature.
(3) Fueled by the desire to survive, to serve others the product of the foodstuff, and to express gratitude to the animal for the giving of its life, a human can slaughter humanely without sinister motive. Contrast that to the rapist who cannot have pure intention. While I am sure that rape can be undertaken with more or less compassion for the victim, malevolence must be present in the heart of the perpetrator on some level.
(4) Rape and torture by definition are a violation of free will. I think it impossible to argue that either activity is other than a violation of free will. (If either rape or torture are desired by the receiving party, then it becomes something other than rape and torture.)
One creature eating an other, be it plant or animal matter, is not so clearly a “violation” of the plant or animal’s free will. On the contrary, as I mentioned above, to eat once living material is a biological necessity of life. If this act of life eating life (with an eye towards the sacred transaction taking place) is a “violation” of the life being eaten, then it seems this physical experience was designed to violate.
I believe that it becomes closer to the depraved act of rape and torture when the animal is treated inhumanely – when it is deprived of being its most chicken or cow or pig-self – through means such as force feeding the animal unnatural food, loading it up with antibiotics, cramming it into severely overcrowded shetlers with other animals, depriving it of the environment it desires, beating the animal, treating the creature as a commodity with no care for its suffering, and inflicting unnecessary pain in the act of slaughter.
None of that is necessary, however. Monica, have you heard of an autistic lady named Temple Grandin? I heard her being interviewed on NPR once. You should check her work out: http://www.grandin.com/. Displaying an incredible, near telepathic degree of empathy towards animals, she has long sought to decrease their suffering. Her knowledge of slaughter houses is as intimate, detailed, and comprehensive as one can come by and in her educated, empathic opinion, animals can indeed be slaughtered without pain and without fear of impending death.
Quote:Monica wrote:
If this were a human child, or a black slave a century ago, or a Jewish Holocaust victim, would those who are working to free them from the abuse and oppression be told that they are merely having an 'emotional reaction'?
I personally am not diminishing your well informed and well examined point of view to the dust bin of “mere emotional reaction”. Emotions bring their own intelligence, wisdom, and insight to bear upon a situation. I think that in coming to your own conclusion on this matter, you rightfully turn to your emotional intelligence and ask your audience to consider the emotional impact of being party to rape or torture. There is nothing “less than” about that, but when discussing this issue, it is helpful to recognize the influential role of emotion in the equation.
Quote:Monica wrote:
The only explanation I can find is that people just don't consider animals to have value as beings. This too I don't understand. Women and minority ethnicities were once considered 'things' instead of beings. How is this any different? How is speciesism any different from racism?
This is at the core of your argument. Do animals have intrinsic value and if so, how should we relate to them? I think that most all on these forums would agree that animals certainly do have value, both as equal representations of the Creator and as their outer forms of cow, turkey, or chicken. But most begin to diverge when it comes to questions of ethical treatment, because once what was formerly insentient property is elevated to a status of sentience and worth, capable of feeling and suffering, it becomes incumbent upon us to make ethical choices regarding right relationship to that creature -- and there's a whole lot of room for disagreement in ethical considerations.
Interestingly, I believe a similar issue created a wedge between the ancient Atlanteans. According to the Cayce readings, the polarities began to develop between STS and STO regarding how the population should relate to creatures they had created which Cayce was calling “automatons”. What precisely that was, I don’t know, but the heart-centered camp wanted to treat these things with compassion and care whereas the self-serving camp decried this as preposterous, seeing these “automatons” as mere property to be used for the benefit of the self without regard for the needs of the automatons.
Quote:Monica wrote:
Aside from the Law of One, it isn't difficult to figure out. Here is a clue: I have observed that cows and chickens, and even fish, struggle like hell to get away, whereas a carrot does not, and fruit fall peacefully from the tree. Yeah, I know that tired old argument that the carrot would run away if it could, but I do not believe that - I believe that spirits inhabit the bodies they need in this lifetime, and if a spirit is advanced enough to want to run away from danger, it is NOT going to choose a carrot's body!!!
I would respectfully disagree here. Plants, too, evolve elaborate defense mechanisms to ward off potential predators (is that the right word?) and preserve their life, what they generally cannot do, however, is move.
Everything from second density on up, from the single-celled organism to the human being, does what it can to avoid being extinguished and/or consumed, the flu virus included.
One final note I would like to make. I read an excellent book recently titled “The Omnivore’s Dilemma” by Michael Pollan. In it, he describes corn’s central role in our food system, and he approaches corn’s success from a very unique (and Law of One-compatible) viewpoint, that is, from corn’s perspective. He writes as if corn had some sort of species-wide intelligence or decision-making capacity. From corn’s point of view, the best thing it could do to secure its own survival and propagation was to make itself appealing to humans. In so doing, it got itself spread literally across the globe. Humans clear fields for it, provide it the nutrients it needs, protect it from insect and disease and competing plants. From an evolutionary standpoint, securing the sponsorship of humans was a fantastic move on corn’s part. (I wish I had the book to quote directly.)
The same can be said of certain animals. In partnership with humans, they are ensured the continuation of their species in exchange for offering their bodies for food. Of course, we systematically abuse this sacred contract through the abject mistreatment of animals, but underneath is the possibility of harmoniously giving and taking from animals in the cycle of life here on planet Earth.
Love/Light,
Gary
PS: Eating the flesh of what was once a mobile, feeling creature is something which, if I ponder too deeply, disturbs me. The entire process of slaughtering and processing and buying and cooking and putting into mouth and chewing and swallowing and digesting and excreting is so damned weird... and is probably especially bizarre to the wanderer who has likely spent millions of years eating non-flesh based energy. But such are the demands of incarnation in the chemical vehicle.
RE: In regards to eating meat - Monica - 03-30-2010
(03-30-2010, 01:35 AM)Bring4th_GLB Wrote:
- (1) It is necessary to eat food. You naturally would contend that it is not “necessary” to eat meat, but I’m sure we would both agree on the larger point that it is a necessity of biological life that life feeds off of life. For some strange reason the Logos did not arrange for inert matter, like a rock, to nourish us, or for that matter, neither did it design water to be our sole source of sustenance. We must eat that which was once living (and in the case of yogurt, is still living).
There is nothing, absolutely nothing necessary about raping. There is no biological imperative that demands we rape or torture another for the physical continuation of the individual or the species.
Agreed.
However, except for perhaps some rare exceptions, there is nothing, absolutely nothing necessary about eating animals. There is no biological imperative that demands we kill an animal for the physical continuation of the individual or the species.
And that is the crux of the matter. The only difference is that it's not yet common knowledge that it's not necessary to eat animals. However, the scientific evidence proving this point is quite abundant. Is it understandable that those of us who have knowledge of this evidence wish to share it with others?
(03-30-2010, 01:35 AM)Bring4th_GLB Wrote: (2)Quote:Book II, Session #42: RA: …the balanced entity will see in the seeming attack of an other-self the causes of this action which are, in most cases, of a more complex nature than the cause of the attack of the second-density bull as was your example. Thus this balanced entity would be open to many more opportunities for service to a third-density other-self.
The situation of love vs. control between two third-density entities is hopelessly complex, much more so than the situation of the third-density entity in relation to the second-density entity, as with the bull.
I am sure that the animal feels a basic emotional set of responses centered around fear and the animal joy of being itself and fulfilling its purpose. However the animal, I believe, is not going to experience a crisis of self-worth in response to humane slaughter. Is not going to be overcome with shame as might the victim of rape. Is not going to turn the situation into a complex moral dilemma as might the subject of torture. Humane slaughter, I believe it safe to presume, is not going to cause detriment to the conscious identity of the creature.
OK. I will concede that point. What you have just demonstrated is that a 3D entity will have a more conscious involvement in the abusive event, and therefore the potential for more emotional damage (or, possibly, more polarization if making good use of the catalyst).
This is logical, in light of the evolution of entities.
I now counter this with a question:
Why does this justify it the unnecessary cruelty to 2D entities?
Why does the fact that cruelty to a 2D entity might not be as severe as cruelty to a 3D entity justify said cruelty?
Here is another analogy:
We all know of STS alien abductions. These aliens might be 4D or 5D. Perhaps they see humans as humans see cattle.
Do the benevolent STO entities of higher densities abduct humans?
No, they do not.
Whom do we wish to emulate?
(03-30-2010, 01:35 AM)Bring4th_GLB Wrote: (3) Fueled by the desire to survive, to serve others the product of the foodstuff, and to express gratitude to the animal for the giving of its life, a human can slaughter humanely without sinister motive. Contrast that to the rapist who cannot have pure intention. While I am sure that rape can be undertaken with more or less compassion for the victim, malevolence must be present in the heart of the perpetrator on some level.
You are going to great lengths to contrast rape of a 3D entity with slaughter of a 2D entity (who may, possibly, be nearing 3D, as we cannot know for certain). Respectfully, the fact that there are contrasts is not the point. I concede that there are differences. But the reason I offered the example of the rapist was to illustrate a point that seems to be lost here:
Why is it acceptable and even noble to champion the human victims of oppression, but considered 'pushy' or 'self-righteous' to champion the non-human victims of oppression?
I should clarify here that I never intended to equate animals with humans. I readily admit that, if I were in a situation to save a child or a dog, I would save the child first! That is a given. There is no need to draw distinctions because the importance of the child over the dog is not being disputed.
Rather than continue to point out the obvious differences, I invite you to consider the similarities, which are the relevant points here.
Put simply, a 3D entity and a 2D entity are being oppressed. Why is it ok to oppress non-human entities?
Why is the fact that they aren't AS conscious, AS sentient, as 3D entities, even an issue at all?
As though that somehow makes it ok to oppress them...?
(03-30-2010, 01:35 AM)Bring4th_GLB Wrote: (4) Rape and torture by definition are a violation of free will. I think it impossible to argue that either activity is other than a violation of free will. (If either rape or torture are desired by the receiving party, then it becomes something other than rape and torture.)
One creature eating an other, be it plant or animal matter, is not so clearly a “violation” of the plant or animal’s free will.
You have lumped animals and plants together here and I respectfully think that is incorrect. In the case of plants, it is quite questionable. However, in the case of animals, I vehemently disagree on this point. Have you ever hunted? Have you even held the legs of a chicken so the butcher could cut off its head? The animal wishes to live. To kill it is a violation of its free will just as surely as the rapist violate the free will of his victim.
(03-30-2010, 01:35 AM)Bring4th_GLB Wrote: On the contrary, as I mentioned above, to eat once living material is a biological necessity of life. If this act of life eating life (with an eye towards the sacred transaction taking place) is a “violation” of the life being eaten, then it seems this physical experience was designed to violate.
True, but it's not a biological necessity to take the life of a 2D entity capable of free will and the choice to run away from the hunter. That is the crux of the issue.
Respectfully, your arguments seem to imply that it's necessary to eat animals. But the data overwhelmingly proves this to be false. Across the board, with all other factors already accounted for, vegetarians are healthier, live longer, and have dramatically lower risks of nearly every major disease. This is proof that we do not need to kill animals to survive. This isn't opinion. This is verifiable, documented fact.
Therefore, why do it? Why impose suffering unnecessarily?
(03-30-2010, 01:35 AM)Bring4th_GLB Wrote: I believe that it becomes closer to the depraved act of rape and torture when the animal is treated inhumanely – when it is deprived of being its most chicken or cow or pig-self – through means such as force feeding the animal unnatural food, loading it up with antibiotics, cramming it into severely overcrowded shetlers with other animals, depriving it of the environment it desires, beating the animal, treating the creature as a commodity with no care for its suffering, and inflicting unnecessary pain in the act of slaughter.
OK, so to put this in context, I think we can safely say that we agree that a person who sadistically tortures his victim before he kills her is more perverted than a person who murders his victim swiftly.
(03-30-2010, 01:35 AM)Bring4th_GLB Wrote: None of that is necessary, however. Monica, have you heard of an autistic lady named Temple Grandin? I heard her being interviewed on NPR once. You should check her work out: http://www.grandin.com/. Displaying an incredible, near telepathic degree of empathy towards animals, she has long sought to decrease their suffering. Her knowledge of slaughter houses is as intimate, detailed, and comprehensive as one can come by and in her educated, empathic opinion, animals can indeed be slaughtered without pain and without fear of impending death.
No, I hadn't heard of her. But what that says to me is that a human can be murdered by surprise...such as a man walking down the street with absolutely no fear, then being suddenly shot and killed. He was slaughtered without pain and without fear of impending death.
(03-30-2010, 01:35 AM)Bring4th_GLB Wrote:Quote:Monica wrote:
If this were a human child, or a black slave a century ago, or a Jewish Holocaust victim, would those who are working to free them from the abuse and oppression be told that they are merely having an 'emotional reaction'?
I personally am not diminishing your well informed and well examined point of view to the dust bin of “mere emotional reaction”. Emotions bring their own intelligence, wisdom, and insight to bear upon a situation. I think that in coming to your own conclusion on this matter, you rightfully turn to your emotional intelligence and ask your audience to consider the emotional impact of being party to rape or torture. There is nothing “less than” about that, but when discussing this issue, it is helpful to recognize the influential role of emotion in the equation.
I'm not sure what your point is here. Why wouldn't there be emotion when working to end the suffering of others? That seems like a natural response to me. If we were speaking of human suffering, and I displayed no emotion, I would be considered cold and heartless. But when speaking of animal suffering, emotion seems to be viewed as something getting in the way of cold, rational thought.
(03-30-2010, 01:35 AM)Bring4th_GLB Wrote:Quote:Monica wrote:
The only explanation I can find is that people just don't consider animals to have value as beings. This too I don't understand. Women and minority ethnicities were once considered 'things' instead of beings. How is this any different? How is speciesism any different from racism?
This is at the core of your argument. Do animals have intrinsic value and if so, how should we relate to them? I think that most all on these forums would agree that animals certainly do have value, both as equal representations of the Creator and as their outer forms of cow, turkey, or chicken. But most begin to diverge when it comes to questions of ethical treatment, because once what was formerly insentient property is elevated to a status of sentience and worth, capable of feeling and suffering, it becomes incumbent upon us to make ethical choices regarding right relationship to that creature -- and there's a whole lot of room for disagreement in ethical considerations.
OK, but isn't that what spiritual evolution is all about? Especially now, in this special transition time, and knowing that in the higher densities animals are no longer slaughtered for food, doesn't it seem logical to examine this issue? And be open to changing our view on it?
(03-30-2010, 01:35 AM)Bring4th_GLB Wrote: Interestingly, I believe a similar issue created a wedge between the ancient Atlanteans. According to the Cayce readings, the polarities began to develop between STS and STO regarding how the population should relate to creatures they had created which Cayce was calling “automatons”. What precisely that was, I don’t know, but the heart-centered camp wanted to treat these things with compassion and care whereas the self-serving camp decried this as preposterous, seeing these “automatons” as mere property to be used for the benefit of the self without regard for the needs of the automatons.
What an obvious parallel!
Do you remember that the Cayce readings also stated that many Atlanteans were incarnate in the US today? In order to be given an opportunity to correct the mistakes they made in Atlantis?
(03-30-2010, 01:35 AM)Bring4th_GLB Wrote:Quote:Monica wrote:
Aside from the Law of One, it isn't difficult to figure out. Here is a clue: I have observed that cows and chickens, and even fish, struggle like hell to get away, whereas a carrot does not, and fruit fall peacefully from the tree. Yeah, I know that tired old argument that the carrot would run away if it could, but I do not believe that - I believe that spirits inhabit the bodies they need in this lifetime, and if a spirit is advanced enough to want to run away from danger, it is NOT going to choose a carrot's body!!!
I would respectfully disagree here. Plants, too, evolve elaborate defense mechanisms to ward off potential predators (is that the right word?) and preserve their life, what they generally cannot do, however, is move.
Like what? What does a lettuce leaf do to preserve itself from being harvested and eaten?
You mention their lack of mobility as thought it were inconsequential. I contend that the physical vehicle will have the ability to move IF it is necessary for the soul to be able to express itself with movement. Thus, the higher 2D entities have evolved to the point where movement is essential to express their free will. The fact that a lettuce cannot move is indicative of its lack of necessity to move. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that escape is not nearly as crucial to the lettuce as it is to the deer.
(03-30-2010, 01:35 AM)Bring4th_GLB Wrote: Everything from second density on up, from the single-celled organism to the human being, does what it can to avoid being extinguished and/or consumed, the flu virus included.
Viruses and bacteria can be inhaled or otherwise merged into the physical vehicle of a 2D or 3D entity. Does the virus' life end when it goes from the air into someone's body? No, it does not. It actually proliferates once inside a host body. (Perhaps this can be likened to a 3D entity dying and entering larger life?)
Did you happen to read my account of living plants' consciousness merging with ours when we joyfully and appreciatively consume them? (Might have been in the other thread.) As contrasted with the animal whose soul has long departed by the time you bring it home from the grocery store and eat it. There is no comparison.
(03-30-2010, 01:35 AM)Bring4th_GLB Wrote: The same can be said of certain animals. In partnership with humans, they are ensured the continuation of their species in exchange for offering their bodies for food.
I see a contradiction here. Earlier, you argued that the animal lacks the consciousness of a human and could not experience pain and suffering in the same way, in regards to its spiritual evolution. But now, in this book, the argument is being made that the cow as a species is benefiting from the arrangement. How does this benefit the individual cow?
We know that our soul incarnates into different bodies. Is a cow always a cow? or might that cow incarnate as a cat in its next life?
If so, what benefit is there to the cow if cattle as a species continue to be taken care of [sic] by humans?
I find the premise of this book to be very weak. That is like saying Africans voluntarily agreed to be slaves to ensure continuation of their race.
(03-30-2010, 01:35 AM)Bring4th_GLB Wrote: Of course, we systematically abuse this sacred contract through the abject mistreatment of animals, but underneath is the possibility of harmoniously giving and taking from animals in the cycle of life here on planet Earth.
The harmonious giving and taking of animals in the cycle of live was demonstrated by the Native Americans and other indigenous peoples. But back then, it was necessary. it is no longer necessary.
(03-30-2010, 01:35 AM)Bring4th_GLB Wrote: PS: Eating the flesh of what was once a mobile, feeling creature is something which, if I ponder too deeply, disturbs me. The entire process of slaughtering and processing and buying and cooking and putting into mouth and chewing and swallowing and digesting and excreting is so damned weird... and is probably especially bizarre to the wanderer who has likely spent millions of years eating non-flesh based energy. But such are the demands of incarnation in the chemical vehicle.
And therein lies my point: Why does it disturb you?
Does the thought of biting into a juicy, succulent peach disturb you in the same way?
And is it really a 'demand of incarnation' or just unquestioned habit and programming?
Thank you for the respectful and intellectual exchange of ideas, Gary.
RE: In regards to eating meat - Monica - 04-02-2010
Today, I shared these threads with my mostly-vegetarian-who-eats-meat-once-a-week-and-who-is-an-aspiring-yogi husband. I asked him his opinions.
Here are his words:
Quote:Can you imagine if I was all snooty and holier-than-thou like you?
(This is an inside joke.)
Quote:Every once in awhile I just have to do something bad. But hey man, don't kid yourself! Of course eating meat and drinking beer can't be spiritual. In this affluent society? There's no reason to eat meat! Meat is tamasic.
...and he directed me to the Vedas (Yogic scriptures):
http://www.yogaindailylife.org.au/Articles/Vegetarianism/Food-and-the-Three-Gunas.html
A Sattvic diet is pure vegetarian nourishment and includes fresh fruit and vegetables, fruit and vegetable juices, wholemeal bread, pulses, grains and sprouts, nuts, seeds, honey, herbs, milk and dairy products which are free of animal rennet. These foods will raise our consciousness, inspire us to positive action, deeper meditation and unleash our hidden potential and creativity. Sattvic food is cooked with love and eaten with full awareness and gratitude.
A Rajasic diet is one which is overly spicy or hot, includes food with onion and garlic, coffee, fizzy soft drinks, tea, sugary foods and too much chocolate. These foods may give us a lift in energy but ultimately we experience a low or increased stress. A Rajasic person will eat on the run, rush food and experience poor digestion and health as a result.
A Tamasic diet consists of dead food such as meat, fish, poultry, eggs, stale food, processed food full of chemical additives, take away fast foods, reheated food, alcohol, cigarettes and drugs of addiction. A sattvic food can become tamasic when processed, old or fried.
These foods and substances do nothing to lift our energy and consciousness, if fact they pull us downward into laziness and inertia. Living on tamasic food and substances will lead to complaints such as obesity, diabetes, heart and liver disease. We will feel unmotivated, be careless, unaware of ourselves and others.
Yogis are vegetarian for several reasons. Apart from the health aspect, the main reason being the principle that “all living beings are my Self” therefore all creatures need to be treated with respect and love.
I then said, "But isn't eating sattvic still killing plants? Don't they feel pain like animals?"
and he then replied:
Quote:Why do animals have faces? What does a face mean? A face indicates individuality. Plants aren't individuated. The Vedas are very clear about this. For spiritual growth it is necessary to follow the Sattvic diet. Sattva is a rising energy...expanding. Tamasic energy is descending, contracting, dead. How can you draw nearer to the Light if you're going in the wrong direction...down instead of up?
I then said, "Then how do you justify eating meat occasionally?"
and he said:
Quote:Who said I'm justifying it? I don't justify it! Of course I aspire to be sattvic. I realize I'm not there yet. I have no illusions about me and my weakness.
I just thought he said some cool stuff so I thought I'd share it with you.
“Nothing will benefit human health and increase the chances for survival on Earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet.”
- Albert Einstein
RE: In regards to eating meat - thefool - 04-03-2010
(04-02-2010, 10:44 PM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote:Quote:Can you imagine if I was all snooty and holier-than-thou like you?
(This is an inside joke.)
It is an open secret now
You holier than thou ? Who knew...:-/
(04-02-2010, 10:44 PM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote: ...and he directed me to the Vedas (Yogic scriptures):
http://www.yogaindailylife.org.au/Articles/Vegetarianism/Food-and-the-Three-Gunas.html
A Sattvic diet is pure vegetarian nourishment and includes fresh fruit and vegetables, fruit and vegetable juices, wholemeal bread, pulses, grains and sprouts, nuts, seeds, honey, herbs, milk and dairy products which are free of animal rennet. These foods will raise our consciousness, inspire us to positive action, deeper meditation and unleash our hidden potential and creativity. Sattvic food is cooked with love and eaten with full awareness and gratitude.
A Rajasic diet is one which is overly spicy or hot, includes food with onion and garlic, coffee, fizzy soft drinks, tea, sugary foods and too much chocolate. These foods may give us a lift in energy but ultimately we experience a low or increased stress. A Rajasic person will eat on the run, rush food and experience poor digestion and health as a result.
A Tamasic diet consists of dead food such as meat, fish, poultry, eggs, stale food, processed food full of chemical additives, take away fast foods, reheated food, alcohol, cigarettes and drugs of addiction. A sattvic food can become tamasic when processed, old or fried.
These foods and substances do nothing to lift our energy and consciousness, if fact they pull us downward into laziness and inertia. Living on tamasic food and substances will lead to complaints such as obesity, diabetes, heart and liver disease. We will feel unmotivated, be careless, unaware of ourselves and others.
Yogis are vegetarian for several reasons. Apart from the health aspect, the main reason being the principle that “all living beings are my Self” therefore all creatures need to be treated with respect and love.
You will always find information that you are looking for. If you are looking to support your vegetarian life style then there are sites that promote that. But then there is always this balancing view, like here on the Ayurvedic food concepts and Meat:
http://altmedicine.about.com/cs/2/a/ayurveda.htm
Quote:The first step towards eating for your Ayurvedic constitution is to find out what your constitutional type or dosha is. If you haven't done so already, please take this quiz.
Once you know what your Ayurvedic dosha is, you can balance it by learning what foods support you and what foods can further aggravate your dosha.
The following general guidelines can help you get started. An Ayurvedic physician can help you further tailor your diet towards your individual constitutional type.
VATA
Balancing Foods
Fruit - Apricots, Avocado, Bananas, Berries, Dates, Fresh Figs, Grapefruit, Grapes, Kiwi, Lemons, Mango, Melon, Oranges, Papaya, Peaches, Pineapple, Plums, Strawberries. Sweet fruits are balancing. No dried fruits.
Vegetables - Artichoke, Asparagus, Beets, Carrots, Cucumber, Green Beans, Leeks, Mustard Greens, Okra, Olives, Onion, Parsnip, Potato, Squash, Watercress, Zucchini. Cooked vegetables are most balancing. Avoid raw vegetables.
Grains - Amaranth, Oats, Rice, Wheat, Wild Rice
Legumes and Nuts - Adzuki beans, Almonds, Black lentils, Brazil Nuts, Cashews, Flax, Hazelnuts, Mung beans, Peanuts, Pecans, Pine Nuts, Pistachios, Pumpkin, Red lentils, Sesame, Soy cheese, Soy milk, Sunflower, Tofu, Walnuts
Meat - Beef (occasionally), Chicken or Turkey (white meat), Duck, Eggs, Freshwater Fish, Seafood, Shrimp
Herbs, Spices, Condiments - Brown Rice Syrup, Honey, Maple Syrup, Molasses, other sweeteners than White Sugar, Allspice, Almond Extract, Anise, Basil, Bay Leaf, Black Pepper, Caraway, Cardamom, Cayenne, Chamomile, Cinnamon, Cloves, Coriander, Coconut, Cottage Cheese, Cumin, Dill, Fennel, Garlic, Ghee, Ginger, Mustard, Nutmeg, Onion, Oregano, Parsley, Peppermint, Poppy Seeds, Rosemary, Sage, Spearmint, Spirulina, Tamarind, Tarragon, Thyme, Pickles, Salt, Seaweed, Soy Sauce, Turmeric, Vanilla
Dairy - Buttermilk, Cow's Milk, Cheese, Goat's Milk, Goat Cheese, Yogurt. All is moderation.
PITTA
Balancing Foods
Fruit - Apples, Avocado, Berries, Dates, Figs, Grapes, Mango, Melons, Pears, Pineapples, Plums, Pomegranate, Prunes, Raisins, Watermelon. Sweet fruits are balancing. Sour fruits are aggravating.
Vegetables - Artichoke, asparagus, bell pepper, broccoli, brussels sprouts, cauliflower, cucumber, celery, green beans, leafy greens, mushrooms, okra, parsley, parsnip, peas, potatoes, squash, sprouts, zucchini. Sweet and bitter vegetables are balancing.
Grains - Barley, Cooked Oats, Basmati Rice, White Rice, Wheat, Wheat Bran, Wheat Granola are balancing. Amaranth, Buckwheat, Millet, Oat granola, Quinoa, Brown Rice and Rye are aggravating. Legumes and Nuts - All beans except black and red lentils are balancing, such as adzuki beans, chickpeas, kidney beans, soy beans, split peas and tofu. Coconut, psyllium, pumpkin and sunflower are balancing. Almonds, Brazil Nuts, Cashews, Chia, Filberts, Flax, Macadamia Nuts, Peanuts, Pecans, Pine Nuts, Pistachios and Sesame are aggravating.
Meat - Chicken white meat, turkey white meat, egg white, freshwater fish, shrimp (in moderation) are balancing. Beef, egg yolk, duck, lamb, pork, venison and seafood other than shrimp are imbalancing.
Herbs, Spices and Condiments - Maple Syrup, Fruit Juice Concentrate, Barley Syrup, Brown Rice Syrup, and other sweeteners except for honey and molasses, Coconut, Coriander, Cumin, Dill Fennel, Ghee, Mint, Orange Peel, Peppermint, Saffron, Seaweed, Spearmint, Sprouts, Turmeric, Wintergreen are balancing. Chili peppers, Garlic, Ginger, Horseradish, Ketchup, Mustard, Lemon, Mayonnaise, Onions, Pickles, Salt, Sesame Seeds, Soy Sauce and Tamari are aggravating.
Dairy - Butter (unsalted), Cottage Cheese, Mild Soft Cheeses, Ghee, Cow's Milk, Goats Milk are balancing. Salted butter, Buttermilk, Hard Cheese, Feta Cheese, Sour Cream and Yogurt are aggravating.
and more.......
this is even better. Here is some more on Ayurvedic diet, meat and ancient texts----
http://www.dharmaayurveda.com/article/2306.html
Quote:All vegetarian diets are not Ayurvedic and all Ayurvedic diets are not vegetarian
Against the popular belief and as preached by the new age gurus, an Ayurvedic diet neednot essentially be vegetarian. Ayurveda doesn�t preach vegetarianism. There are several Ayurvedic formulations in classical literatures - internal and external medications - which are not vegetarian. There are numerous conditions where non vegetarian food is suggested for healing purpose. At the same time there are a wide range of conditions were non vegetarian is contraindicated. The classical texts of Ayurveda explain the qualities of various meat including including fish, chicken, duck, lamb etc. just like that of herbs and trees.
RE: In regards to eating meat - Monica - 04-03-2010
(04-03-2010, 10:01 AM)thefool Wrote: It is an open secret now
You holier than thou ? Who knew...:-/
Hey!
(04-03-2010, 10:01 AM)thefool Wrote: You will always find information that you are looking for.
I agree with this 100%. Isn't our holographic UniVerse wonderful?
(04-03-2010, 10:01 AM)thefool Wrote:Quote:All vegetarian diets are not Ayurvedic and all Ayurvedic diets are not vegetarian
Against the popular belief and as preached by the new age gurus, an Ayurvedic diet neednot essentially be vegetarian.
Since neither of our references were of the original scriptures, but were quotes written by humans in recent years, both are essentially just opinions of people who have interpreted the Ayurvedic principles.
Just as there are thousands of Christian churches all claiming to follow the Bible, so too are there multiple interpretations of ancient Vedic scriptures.
Although the link I cited did reference Ayurveda, Ayurveda is a (relatively recent) sub-system whose roots can be traced to the Vedic scriptures, but whose principles are based on aspects of Buddhism and Hinduism. Some sources claim that Ayurveda represented an attempt to accommodate the different constitutions of people, not only physically but spiritually as well. It has enjoyed a revival of popularity in recent times, along with myriad other popular diets. My husband's path is that of the yogi, not specifically Ayurveda.
I don't consider any religious text, much less a human interpretation of an ancient text, to be an authority.
So what we've both done is just offer an opinion.
By the way, I offered my husband's comments not to strengthen my own case, as that is not my objective, but because I admire his humility. I admire how he aspires to an ideal, yet doesn't judge himself, get defensive about his choices, or make excuses for himself when he fails to reach that ideal. Nor does he care in the least what others think about his choices. (And, for the record, he doesn't actually think I'm 'holier than thou' though others may think that, much to my dismay. That really is an inside joke that goes back 27 years, but I see I set myself up by mentioning it.
) And, he never feels judged by my very presence. He is able to respect and appreciate my views without feeling intimidated or threatened, and he accepts me for who I am. I share this only to express my appreciation for him - someone who eats fish once a week and yet is my spiritual teacher in many ways.
RE: In regards to eating meat - thefool - 04-03-2010
(04-03-2010, 11:23 AM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote: So what we've both done is just offer an opinion.
Yea! And I offered a counter opinion just to show you what you were doing
(04-03-2010, 11:23 AM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote: By the way, I offered my husband's comments not to strengthen my own case, as that is not my objective, but because I admire his humility.
I tend to become very cautious when someone claims to not doing something. I think to myself why would they even think of this point and mention it if they are not doing it. But you know the best on what you are doing...
RE: In regards to eating meat - Monica - 04-03-2010
(04-03-2010, 07:27 PM)thefool Wrote: Yea! And I offered a counter opinion just to show you what you were doing
Was there ever any question that we are ALL just offering our opinions?
(04-03-2010, 07:27 PM)thefool Wrote: I tend to become very cautious when someone claims to not doing something. I think to myself why would they even think of this point and mention it if they are not doing it. But you know the best on what you are doing...
Well, I thought of this point because you just implied I was holier than thou, of course!!!
If I wanted to strengthen the vegetarian case, I would have quoted a vegetarian. I already established my reasons for being a vegetarian. Everyone is free to accept or reject, as they wish.His comments strengthening the case for vegetarianism was secondary to the larger point I was trying to make, which seems to be have been lost.
RE: In regards to eating meat - thefool - 04-03-2010
(04-03-2010, 11:23 AM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote: I admire how he aspires to an ideal, yet doesn't judge himself, get defensive about his choices, or make excuses for himself when he fails to reach that ideal. Nor does he care in the least what others think about his choices. (And, for the record, he doesn't actually think I'm 'holier than thou' though others may think that, much to my dismay. That really is an inside joke that goes back 27 years, but I see I set myself up by mentioning it.
Well, good for you. Looks like you appreciate him as much as well
I can speak for myself, being a complete 100% vegetarian is not my ideal. I had a 100% vegetarian life style and no more and I feel better for it. I don't feel threatened or intimidated by your views. My food choices are what they are, and I am happy with it. I have very little time and I would rather spend my time on other more spiritually oriented threads. Food does not interest me that much. My objective to interject my opinions in this thread are purely to balance any extremism towards vegetarianism. So the others have all sides of the discussion and don't feel guilt and pressure of any kind to chose one over another...
RE: In regards to eating meat - Monica - 04-03-2010
(04-03-2010, 07:46 PM)thefool Wrote: My objective to interject my opinions in this thread are purely to balance any extremism towards vegetarianism.
OK...Just wondering: Why are such inflammatory terms like extremism used to describe vegetarianism?
RE: In regards to eating meat - thefool - 04-03-2010
(04-03-2010, 07:50 PM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote: OK...Just wondering: Why are such inflammatory terms like extremism used to describe vegetarianism?
Well, when an opinion is offered an as absolute, it is extreme in my opinion. Vegetarianism is fine in my opinion, it can even be very good for some people. But when it is presented as the only choice for all people then it is extreme...It is more like my religion is better than yours and that is the only religion that would get you to god. and you are damned if you don't follow my path. and the people who follow my path are superior to others...
RE: In regards to eating meat - Monica - 04-03-2010
(04-03-2010, 09:23 PM)thefool Wrote: Well, when an opinion is offered an as absolute, it is extreme in my opinion. Vegetarianism is fine in my opinion, it can even be very good for some people. But when it is presented as the only choice for all people then it is extreme...It is more like my religion is better than yours and that is the only religion that would get you to god. and you are damned if you don't follow my path. and the people who follow my path are superior to others...
I didn't notice anyone doing that on this forum. ???
RE: In regards to eating meat - thefool - 04-03-2010
(04-03-2010, 09:58 PM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote:(04-03-2010, 09:23 PM)thefool Wrote: Well, when an opinion is offered an as absolute, it is extreme in my opinion. Vegetarianism is fine in my opinion, it can even be very good for some people. But when it is presented as the only choice for all people then it is extreme...It is more like my religion is better than yours and that is the only religion that would get you to god. and you are damned if you don't follow my path. and the people who follow my path are superior to others...
I didn't notice anyone doing that on this forum. ???
I have plenty of specific examples with post #. Here is just a small summary- where meat eating was compared to disgusting crimes like rape (of a child) several times, meat eating being presented as soul killer, meat industry compared to slavery, meat industry as an illegal crime in future, meat eating as repulsive as eating human flesh.
RE: In regards to eating meat - Monica - 04-04-2010
(04-03-2010, 11:05 PM)thefool Wrote: I have plenty of specific examples with post #. Here is just a small summary- where meat eating was compared to disgusting crimes like rape (of a child) several times, meat eating being presented as soul killer, meat industry compared to slavery, meat industry as an illegal crime in future, meat eating as repulsive as eating human flesh.
Those are opinions. Are you saying that differing opinions are not valid? Are you saying that someone expressing their opinions is the same as trying to impose a religion on others? when did anyone ever say that anyone must be a vegetarian? As I recall, we did the opposite: several of us went out of our way to say that vegetarianism isn't a prerequisite for STO harvest. We also went out of our way to acknowledge that many spiritual people aren't vegetarian. Can you cite an example of when anyone claimed that the vegetarian lifestyle was the only valid path...or that meat-eaters weren't as evolved or as spiritual?
I am confused. Are you saying that those who have different opinions should not share their opinions? Isn't that imposing a rule, a dogma? Why would those who eat meat be allowed to express their opinions, but not those who think the unnecessary killing of animals is cruel?
I don't understand how sharing our reasons for being vegetarian is being interpreted as imposing a religion on others.
You have clearly found my opinions (and those of the other vegetarians) offensive. I feel saddened by this. I invite you to reach out with your heart and try to understand what it must feel like for us, who find the unnecessary suffering of our younger other-selves offensive.
We offered those examples because we seek to be understood, as well as to understand. These opinions have been offered, and these questions asked, in the context of the Law of One. No one has yet answered the question as to why the unnecessary suffering of younger other-selves is acceptable, from a Law of One perspective. I am confused as to why asking these questions, in a discussion about this very topic, is considered imposing and offensive.
Can we all reach out in love and compassion, and try to understand the other point of view?
peace
RE: In regards to eating meat - Monica - 04-04-2010
(04-03-2010, 07:46 PM)thefool Wrote: My food choices are what they are, and I am happy with it. I have very little time and I would rather spend my time on other more spiritually oriented threads. Food does not interest me that much.
You have just stated that the subject of food does not interest you. Respectfully, the people who started this discussion are interested in food as it relates to spirituality. For some of us, our choice of food is part of our spirituality, and exploring these deep issues connected to the slaughter of our younger other-selves is important. I don't think any of the vegetarians intended to offend anyone personally. Our comments aren't directed at anyone personally, but to concepts. Are you suggesting that we must censor ourselves, for fear of possibly offending someone who wandered into a discussion they aren't even very interested in?
peace
RE: In regards to eating meat - thefool - 04-04-2010
(04-04-2010, 12:04 AM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote:(04-03-2010, 11:05 PM)thefool Wrote: I have plenty of specific examples with post #. Here is just a small summary- where meat eating was compared to disgusting crimes like rape (of a child) several times, meat eating being presented as soul killer, meat industry compared to slavery, meat industry as an illegal crime in future, meat eating as repulsive as eating human flesh.
Those are opinions. Are you saying that differing opinions are not valid?
....
Are you suggesting that we must censor ourselves, for fear of possibly offending someone who wandered into a discussion they aren't even very interested in?
And so is calling these extreme opinions as extreme. an opinion. It is an opinion about the opinion
. So yea the differing opinions are valid and I have mine...Feel free to have yours and do what you feel like with it, it is obvious from the examples above that there is no holding back. And I will continue to have mine and keep the option open to provide balance...Quote:As I recall, we did the opposite: several of us went out of our way to say that vegetarianism isn't a prerequisite for STO harvest.
_________________________________________________________
I am sincerely just trying to understand how the killing of animals can be reconciled with the STO path.
03-23-2010, 01:18 AM (This post was last modified: 03-23-2010 02:09 AM by Bring4th_Monica.)
Post: #50
________________________________________________________
Actually the subject of food does not interest me too much but the extremism does interest me a lot. In my opinion, extremism of any kind leads to elitism and elitism leads to STS tendencies...There are a lot of great causes in the world but you take it too far and you fall in the STS trap...Our history is full of these examples and we will repeat them it we don't learn from them. Crusaders thought they were doing great things, so did Marxists and Communists in Russia and China...But they only ended up doing great harm to both humanity and their causes...
RE: In regards to eating meat - Monica - 04-04-2010
(04-04-2010, 08:20 AM)thefool Wrote: it is obvious from the examples above that there is no holding back. And I will continue to have mine and keep the option open to provide balance...
Yes you are indeed entitled to your opinion. Thank you for expressing it!
If you are still open to more discussion, I am curious how you determine where the 'balance' point is. Why must 'balance' include the slaughter of our younger other-selves and why is championing non-violence considered extremism?
If you care to elaborate, again, I am seeking to understand you.
(04-04-2010, 08:20 AM)thefool Wrote:Quote:As I recall, we did the opposite: several of us went out of our way to say that vegetarianism isn't a prerequisite for STO harvest.
_________________________________________________________
I am sincerely just trying to understand how the killing of animals can be reconciled with the STO path.
03-23-2010, 01:18 AM (This post was last modified: 03-23-2010 02:09 AM by Bring4th_Monica.)
Post: #50
You can feel free to cite any of my posts if you like. I do not regret voicing my opinions. I only regret that my opinions have unintentionally resulted in your feeling offended. Would you be willing to work with me to seek reconciliation? We might not ever agree, but can we at least work together to disagree respectfully and peacefully?
Am I understanding correctly that you see my above 2 statements as contradictory?
I will offer an explanation, if you are interested:
My statement was:
vegetarianism isn't a prerequisite for STO harvest.
We all know what the prerequisite for STO harvest is: 51% STO. That means that each of us might have up to 49% STS tendencies and still be harvestable. I don't think any of us intentionally seek out STS activities thinking we can get away with it, since we don't know how we measure up until we walk the Steps of Light. Hence, is it safe to assume that we all seek to maximize our STO polarity?
I also said: I am sincerely just trying to understand how the killing of animals can be reconciled with the STO path.
Both of these statements are true. I don't see them as contradictory. In the interest of resolving paradox, please allow me to clarify:
I am sincerely just trying to understand how the conscious killing of animals can be reconciled with the conscious pursuing of the STO path.
I don't understand it. I am trying to understand it.
None of us really know exactly how polarizing or depolarizing any action might be. It really depends on the person and his/her unique circumstances. Remember how Ra stated that participation in war might be depolarizing to an STO entity if they enjoyed the violence, but polarizing if their motives were to champion their country or their comrades? Same situation, different result in terms of polarizing. Killing is a violent act. Yet the motive for the killing can alter whether it's polarizing or depolarizing, whether it's STO or STS.
I would surmise that it's the same here. Is the Native American who kills the deer to feed his family polarizing to STS? Can I safely say that we'd all agree he isn't? He is doing what he has to do, and he is doing it with gratitude and appreciation to the deer.
Are any of us truly in the same situation as that Native American? Do we look into the eyes of our dying, younger other-self and take full responsibility for his death? Or do we buy pieces of its carcass wrapped in plastic, without giving it any thought? And, more importantly, is it necessary to kill that animal? Our lifestyles and food choices are vastly different than that of the Native American.
Most people eat meat unconsciously. They don't give it a 2nd thought. So how could that be STS? I don't think it is.
But, largely due to the efforts of the animal activists, who seek to raise awareness about animal cruelty, it is becoming increasingly difficult to remain ignorant. Videos documenting atrocities are readily available on youtube. Billboards paint the roadsides decrying the cruelty. Medical information websites clearly state that a properly planned vegetarian diet is not only adequate, but healthy. A quick search on disease statistics prove beyond any doubt that, after other factors have been accounted for, vegetarians enjoy drastically reduced risks of nearly every major disease. Another quick search yields clear correlations between the meat industry and environmental pollution. All of this info is readily available. Are people still ignorant? Or are they choosing to bury their heads in the sand?
Yes, there are theories that some people do better with animal protein in their diets. Those are theories, not proven facts. Even if they are true, eggs and dairy have animal protein. I have never understood why some people who didn't do well on vegan diet went back to eating meat, when just adding eggs and dairy might have sufficed. Furthermore, there is new data suggesting that abundant greens and superfoods can easily fill in the gap for those who think they need animal protein. It isn't fair to say that a person cannot thrive on a vegetarian diet when the produce they are consuming is a mere shadow of its former self, due to chemical farming. The addition of superfoods (concentrated nutrients to compensate for poor-quality produce), greens (rich in protein), and non-violent animal protein (organically produced eggs and dairy) requires a bit more effort than just grabbing a hamburger, but it can be done.
So, my question is:
I am sincerely just trying to understand how the conscious killing of animals can be reconciled with the conscious pursuing of the STO path.
I am confessing that I don't understand something. I don't understand how someone who knows what goes on in factory farms, who knows the statistics proving that vegetarians as a group are healthier, who knows that non-meat alternatives exist for nearly everyone (with very few medical exceptions) with a bit of education and planning, who knows the devastating impact the meat industry is having on the environment, who has seen videos of horrible cruelty, who has heard the wailing of the animals in pain, who has seen them frantically trying to escape the hunter's gun...If this person is actively, consciously seeking the STO path, then yes, I am having a difficult time understanding how this unnecessary suffering can be ignored and even defended.
(04-04-2010, 08:20 AM)thefool Wrote: extremism of any kind leads to elitism and elitism leads to STS tendencies...There are a lot of great causes in the world but you take it too far and you fall in the STS trap...Our history is full of these examples and we will repeat them it we don't learn from them. Crusaders thought they were doing great things, so did Marxists and Communists in Russia and China...But they only ended up doing great harm to both humanity and their causes...
I invite you to avoid the direct judging of any person in particular. Neither I nor anyone else has directly judged any person who eats meat. This is obviously a very volatile subject, and buttons are being pushed. Can we separate the action of eating animals (as a concept) from personal judgments directed at anyone on either side of the debate? Can we all work together to keep the discussion intellectual, about general concepts, rather than getting personal and directly judging the actions of any individual?
I shall attempt to break down the core issues, as I understand them, for the sake of anyone who might still be following this discussion:
Many vegetarians, myself included, see the unnecessary slaughter of what others consider 'lesser' beings as akin to the slaughter of what others thought were lesser beings (Blacks, Jews, etc.) but were later realized to not be lesser at all and thus that slaughter is now considered heinous.
If I am understanding you correctly, you don't consider the slaughter of animals heinous because you consider them 'lesser' beings. Just as our ancestors considered race/color/ethnicity to be the dividing line that determined an entity's worth, most people now consider the dividing line to be species. And, apparently, many Law of One students now consider the dividing line to be density. (Please correct me if I am misunderstanding you...I am trying to recap what I am comprehending from you so far.)
Thus, discrimination based on race is now frowned upon by most of us, but discrimination, and even the wholesale slaughter, based on species or density is ok. Am I correct so far? That is what I'm understanding from you.
So, what I'm hearing you say is that someone who disagrees with you, someone who feels that our younger other-selves (those of late 2nd density who may be nearing 3D) should not be unnecessarily slaughtered, and champions that cause, is now being compared to those who slaughtered 3D humans in the name of religion.
(Most of us aren't asking for equal rights for animals...we realize that's not reasonable...we're just asking for an end to the violence. Killing animals for food is simply no longer necessary, at least not on the wide scale that it is being done.)
Someone advocating the path of nonviolence, and championing the victims, is being equated with someone who used violence to force their views on others.
Am I understanding you correctly? If so, I do not comprehend the comparison. How can you compare championing nonviolence with the using of violence? Did you mean to say that anyone who has a view different from the mainstream is an extremist?
RE: In regards to eating meat - Pablísimo - 04-04-2010
I think all this talk of extremism is a little unfair in the context of what has actually been written. It's pretty unjust to accuse someone of being an extremist for simply choosing to never eat meat. If she were an extremist, she would be burning down meat packing plants or assassinating cattle ranchers, not engaging in a respectful dialogue to both explain her own position and try to better understand the positions of others. Several people, including yourself, have implied that eating meat somehow is a more balanced way to live, which is fairly judgemental in my view.
This is not a choice between being "balanced" (omnivore) and being "extreme" (vegetarian). You can be a balanced individual on the STO path and choose either option. However, that does not necessarily mean that both options are equal from an ethical standpoint.
One thing that seems to have been missed repeatedly is that Monica has been trying to understand the other perspective.
Bring4th_Monica Wrote:"As I recall, we did the opposite: several of us went out of our way to say that vegetarianism isn't a prerequisite for STO harvest."
"I am sincerely just trying to understand how the killing of animals can be reconciled with the STO path."
These two quotes are distinct and not contradictory. You only have to be 51% STO to graduate. Which, to me, means you do not have to be perfectly STO to graduate. Thank goodness there is room for error and still be harvestable. Otherwise, I surely wouldn't make it! I see meat eating as incompatible with STO intent, but there is a wider range of considerations beyond diet in judging overall harvestability. This is the point I think Monica was making.
The second quote gets to the heart of what seems to have been missed consistently in this thread. She is trying to UNDERSTAND how you reconcile meat eating with the STO path itself, because from her perspective (and mine) they seem mutually contradictory.
Personally, I have reached a certain amount of peace with this topic. I've decided that while meat eating in this modern era is inherently wrong, that I should not focus on it in other people. For me it's a conscious decision to be non-judgemental about a topic that I do see as rather black and white. It's really intense catalyst and I only found peace by basically making a choice to try to make my own light shine as brightly as I can without worrying about the darkness in others. Raise yourself up and you raise the whole. I also keep a sense of humility about me because while I do have strong opinions on the topic, I am always aware of my own ultimate ignorance while encased in a 3rd density body. What I'm saying to myself is "This path is right for Pablisimo, and seems like it is right for everyone else, but who I am I to say? I don't have all the answers".
Despite this sense of peace that this position has given me, I still to this day truly do not understand how one can be deeply spiritual and yet continue to eat meat. I had hoped that these threads would provide some insight. I strive to be non-judgemental, but I have to admit it is much easier for me in regards to the average person on the street who may not have given the topic much thought. This is a discussion forum, however, filled with people who have pondered the deeper complexities of existence and are consciously striving towards the light. Therefore, it is harder for me to to understand the meat eating position in this context. I really had hoped to read some insightful, thoughtful comments about a meat-eating perspective that might help me increase my own compassion and understanding. While this was briefly touched on, for the most part it has been sidestepped.
So, in short, no I don't think you have to be vegetarian to graduate STO. However I, too, would like to understand how a deeply spiritual, STO-dedicated person reconciles meat eating with the STO path. Not because I think they MUST be vegetarian in order to graduate or be spiritual or whatever, but because I truly don't understand how you can reconcile the two. I do not expect to ever AGREE with a meat-eating stance, but I do believe I have the capacity to UNDERSTAND it, and that understanding would undoubtedly help me to be more non-judgemental and compassionate. Given this is a discussion forum filled with wonderfully loving beings, this place is my best chance for getting that understanding. It sure would be nice if some of the meat eating members would explain that perspective instead of just being defensive or attacking vegetarianism.
thefool Wrote:I have plenty of specific examples with post #. Here is just a small summary- where meat eating was compared to disgusting crimes like rape (of a child) several times, meat eating being presented as soul killer, meat industry compared to slavery, meat industry as an illegal crime in future, meat eating as repulsive as eating human flesh.
I'd like to hopefully clear up a major misconception. When you sincerely ask other-selves who disagree with you on a subject to explain their perspective, you have a duty to reciprocate. That is, you can't fairly ask for greater understanding about the meat-eating perspective if you are not willing to also explain the ethically-motivated (as opposed to health-motivated or some other kind of ) vegetarian perspective.
The comments you refer to above were said in a sincere attempt to illustrate how an ethically motivated vegetarian sees the issue. It was not intended to actually equate a person who eats meat with a child rapist. It was instead meant to explain that we really do see the treatment and slaughter of animals as a moral crime. Some were hypothetical: "OK, so you guys don't see the keeping of animals in these conditions and then their later slaughter as inherently wrong. Alright, so just as an exercise to better understand how WE see it, just imagine they were human kids instead of animals. Then how would you feel about it?" You see, it is an attempt to explain our perspective and nothing more. You don't have to AGREE, but the point was to try to get you guys to understand how we see it. In the same way that I'd like to see a thoughtful presentation of an omnivore's perspective that I probably won't AGREE with, but can understand at least.
I don't know how you guys feel about gay rights in the US, but a common tactic when discussing them with African Americans is to compare it the struggle for black civil rights, just as with women's civil rights. It seems like a logical comparison (though of course with some differences). However, that approach DOES NOT WORK. The *general* reaction to a comparison of gay rights and civil rights in the African American community is extremely negative, and there are good cultural and logical reasons for this. The Prop 8 people would have been much more effective with their outreach if they had understood this simple fact.
I see using analogies to torture and killing of animals in the same way. To a vegetarian the connection seems obvious. How often when people talk about the holocaust do you hear "They treated us like animals, slaughtered us like cattle, etc etc". It just seems like such a clear and simple analogy. However, it causes very strong negative reactions in meat eaters when you use these kinds of analogies. Perhaps they are inherently inflammatory, perhaps they just make no sense to someone who does not see animals as having inherent value as our spiritual younger brothers and sisters. I apologize for any of these illustrations I used. I know now, from reading this thread, that despite how relevant the analogies seem to me, that it hurts the discussion to use them. So, for the record, please know that the intention when comparing meat eating to rape, torture, slavery, and human murder, was to explain our perspective...to explain how we see the production of meat-based food, not to actually charge that you are killing and raping children.
You mentioned food is not particularly important to you to discuss, which I respect. However, let's keep in mind this is a discussion forum and a thread about meat eating vs vegetarianism. Participation in that thread implies an interest in hearing other perspectives and sharing our own. You are clearly a very thoughtful person, and I would greatly welcome more of your insight into the issue in the spirit of mutual understanding and respectful compassion.
I sort of "opted out" of the other thread because it was getting too contentious and I wasn't actually getting any useful information. I felt that I'd already gone over my perspective and despite my genuine desire to hear the other side, all I really saw in return was defensiveness and unfair accusations. However, I've continued to read this thread and it really struck a nerve for me when I saw all the posts about being an extremist. Monica has been reasonable, loving, humble and kind in her responses, often ignoring personal slights and going out of her way to be considerate. I admire her courage to stand up for what she believes in and try to engage in loving discourse about a difficult issue. You may not agree with her, but calling her position extreme is terribly unfair.
RE: In regards to eating meat - thefool - 04-04-2010
(04-04-2010, 12:10 PM)Pablísimo Wrote: Monica has been reasonable, loving, humble and kind in her responses, often ignoring personal slights and going out of her way to be considerate. I admire her courage to stand up for what she believes in and try to engage in loving discourse about a difficult issue.There is no doubt that Monica has been really loving and very courageous. It is not about her or you Pablisimo personally. I have great respect for both of you for believing in something and standing up for it. Very few people can do that.
You guys need to chill and not take it personally when I call your opinions extreme. You can be very loving, compassionate and still have extreme views about a topic. We all can find something extreme in our lives. Someone is extreme fitness enthusiast, someone is extreme workaholic. In my book extreme just indicate out of the norm. I did not take any of the Rape, Slavery, Illegal Crime, Human Flesh eating comparison personally. I don't see myself as one of those things. So why does calling those thoughts extreme strike a nerve.
(04-04-2010, 12:10 PM)Pablísimo Wrote: You don't have to AGREE, but the point was to try to get you guys to understand how we see it. In the same way that I'd like to see a thoughtful presentation of an omnivore's perspective that I probably won't AGREE with, but can understand at least.
I think there have been numerous presentations of those ideas in this thread by many many people. I don't think any of the post was inconsequential. I learned a lot about no so vegetarian and completely vegetarian perspectives a lot. I think they were all very thoughtful.
RE: In regards to eating meat - Monica - 04-04-2010
(04-04-2010, 02:24 PM)thefool Wrote: You guys need to chill and not take it personally when I call your opinions extreme.
The difference between offering intellectual commentary about opinions, vs. judging someone personally, is that little word you.
(04-04-2010, 08:20 AM)thefool Wrote: extremism of any kind leads to elitism and elitism leads to STS tendencies...There are a lot of great causes in the world but you take it too far and you fall in the STS trap
(04-04-2010, 02:24 PM)thefool Wrote: We all can find something extreme in our lives. Someone is extreme fitness enthusiast, someone is extreme workaholic. In my book extreme just indicate out of the norm.
The term extreme is subjective. Extreme fitness has a connotation of dedication, adventurousness, and hard work. Extremist is more commonly used to refer to those who use violence to achieve their ends. Thank you for clarifying you view of the term extreme. I hope you can see how that came across, when Marxists, Communists, and Crusaders were used in the next sentence to illustrate the point, rather than cycling and mountain climbing.
(04-04-2010, 02:24 PM)thefool Wrote: I think there have been numerous presentations of those ideas in this thread by many many people.
None that addressed the questions we've been asking.
peace
RE: In regards to eating meat - Wander-Man - 04-04-2010
If you were to pick a strawberry and eat it, isn't that like committing strawberry-plant abortion? Even worse, you're eating the strawberry fetus!
I think as long as the animals are treated with respect, it's not a big deal. They don't know or care that they're going to be slaughtered, and they're performing a service for mankind. Is animal slavery so cruel when they don't care? We enslave vegetables in our gardens, they don't care. I've committed genocide on the plant population, which is kind of funny, because it's true, because they're like people. And I've eaten them.
I guess I've done the same to cows and other animals. Is that evil?
RE: In regards to eating meat - Monica - 04-04-2010
(04-04-2010, 03:55 PM)Wander-Man Wrote: I think as long as the animals are treated with respect, it's not a big deal. They don't know or care that they're going to be slaughtered,
Hi Wander-Man! Have you read all the posts in this thread yet? There is a lot of discussion you might find interesting.
Are you so sure that they don't know or care? I invite you to do a youtube search for animal cruelty, watch some video footage of animals being slaughtered, and then decide.
RE: In regards to eating meat - thefool - 04-04-2010
(04-04-2010, 03:30 PM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote:(04-04-2010, 02:24 PM)thefool Wrote: You guys need to chill and not take it personally when I call your opinions extreme.
The difference between offering intellectual commentary about opinions, vs. judging someone personally, is that little word you.
(04-04-2010, 08:20 AM)thefool Wrote: extremism of any kind leads to elitism and elitism leads to STS tendencies...There are a lot of great causes in the world but you take it too far and you fall in the STS trap
That you is not directed at you or any one single person. That is just my writing style and I might have done it hundreds of times in other places as well... You are reading too much on a personal level in that general statement. But the statement still stands when we take something too far, it leads to these things...
(04-04-2010, 03:30 PM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote: The term extreme is subjective. Extreme fitness has a connotation of dedication, adventurousness, and hard work. Extremist is more commonly used to refer to those who use violence to achieve their ends. Thank you for clarifying you view of the term extreme. I hope you can see how that came across, when Marxists, Communists, and Crusaders were used in the next sentence to illustrate the point, rather than cycling and mountain climbing.
Extreme is a very subjective term. What cyclists and mountain climbers do on a personal level the crusaders do on a social level. So it depends upon how the extreme tendencies are applied. If you apply it to yourself (corrected to ourselves) you become perfectionist and if you (corrected to we) apply it to others it becomes a control thing...
RE: In regards to eating meat - Monica - 04-04-2010
(04-04-2010, 05:27 PM)thefool Wrote: That you is not directed at you or any one single person. That is just my writing style and I might have done it hundreds of times in other places as well... You are reading too much on a personal level in that general statement. But the statement still stands when we take something too far, it leads to these things...
OK thank you for that clarification!
I agree that taking things too far can lead to 'these things.' Where we disagree is what is 'too far' and in what direction it goes in. In my view, it is taking the acceptance of violence 'too far' to try to justify unnecessary violence to beings who feel pain.
My point being that it's not a given as to what is 'too far' or what is 'extreme.' To you, championing oppressed animals is 'extreme' whereas to me, NOT championing them is extreme. I find it curious that your choice of examples (Crusaders, Communists, Marxists) were all oppressors, with the implication that animal activists are 'too extreme' and could end up like those oppressors. In my view, your examples have more in common with those who oppress animals, than with those who seek to free animals.
Discussion of these tough questions can be beneficial by inviting everyone to try on the other point of view, and explore what it looks like from the other side of the debate, rather than assuming that all sides agree as to what is 'extreme' or acceptable.
Thanks for your participation.
(04-04-2010, 05:27 PM)thefool Wrote: Extreme is a very subjective term. What cyclists and mountain climbers do on a personal level the crusaders do on a social level. So it depends upon how the extreme tendencies are applied. If you apply it to yourself (corrected to ourselves) you become perfectionist and if you (corrected to we) apply it to others it becomes a control thing...
So, by your definition, do you consider those who championed civil rights and ending slavery (or any other oppression) to be extremists and controlling? Do you consider their actions STS?
RE: In regards to eating meat - Pablísimo - 04-04-2010
(04-04-2010, 02:24 PM)thefool Wrote: You guys need to chill and not take it personally when I call your opinions extreme. You can be very loving, compassionate and still have extreme views about a topic.
Passionate views, yes I would accept, but I take exception to calling the vegetarian choice an extreme position. For me, these words at worst imply negativity and at best indicate a judgemental view.
I don't like the taste of mushrooms. Not Shitake, not Portabello, none of them. Therefore, I will not eat them. I ask them to be left off anything I order, I do not buy them, and I do not like them, Sam I am. Is that an extreme position because the majority of my species, including other vegetarians, like mushrooms?
(04-04-2010, 02:24 PM)thefool Wrote: We all can find something extreme in our lives. Someone is extreme fitness enthusiast, someone is extreme workaholic. In my book extreme just indicate out of the norm.
I see. Hmm, well perhaps then we just have a difference of opinion on the definition of extreme. If what you mean is just something out of the norm, then by the same logic, trying to guide your life by the Law of One as opposed to a mainstream religion is also extreme. If the only misunderstanding we have is one of semantics, then we are doing better than I thought.
(04-04-2010, 02:24 PM)thefool Wrote: I did not take any of the Rape, Slavery, Illegal Crime, Human Flesh eating comparison personally. I don't see myself as one of those things. So why does calling those thoughts extreme strike a nerve.
Those are extreme examples, which, as I tried to explain earlier, were ultimately poor choices to use to explain the vegetarian perspective. I did the best I could to illustrate why the examples seem relevant and reasonable from our side of the fence, but admit that I now realize they are almost universally offensive to meat eaters. I will try my best not to use such comparisons in the light of how they have been received, but I do not fundamentally deny their applicability, from my perspective.
But there is a fundamental difference between an extreme analogy and an extreme overall position. If I asked you to imagine that for me, mushrooms tasted like human excrement, you could rightly call that an extreme example. However, simply choosing not to eat mushrooms is not an extreme position to take.
(04-04-2010, 02:24 PM)thefool Wrote: I think there have been numerous presentations of those ideas in this thread by many many people.
Perhaps I missed them. You know, this is a long thread, and it would probably be a good idea for me to go back and re-read everything. I will try to see if I can find this perspective, written by non-vegetarians, that I missed on how meat eating can be at least intellectually reconciled with the STO path. The very definition of STS is using other beings for your own benefit without regard to their rights, lives, or well-being and that is where the mystery lies. I"m interested not in the idea that it is not necessary for STO graduation or an attack on vegetarianism or defense of meat eating, but a thoughtful explanation of how, in your heart of hearts, you reconcile the two. If I could understand that better, even if I don't agree, I believe it would help me grow in compassion and acceptance.
(04-04-2010, 02:24 PM)thefool Wrote: There is no doubt that Monica has been really loving and very courageous. It is not about her or you Pablisimo personally. I have great respect for both of you for believing in something and standing up for it. Very few people can do that.
Thank you for the kind words. For the record, I do recognize that the overall tone of all of your posts has been loving. It's true that there have been a few bits that I felt were a bit harsh and unfair, but I can tell that you are clearly trying to disagree harmoniously. I want you to know that I recognize that loving effort and do value your insight on a challenging topic. It just seemed to me that calling Monica extreme or her position an extreme one was terribly unfair, considering the nuanced and respectful way she'd been trying to have this discussion.
A similar thing happened to me on a thread started by Kristy about the meaning of Oneness. In that case, she asked EXACTLY what I wanted to hear discussed. Her soul gave a call for understanding that my own echoed loudly. That call was answered and there were many enthusiastic posts exploring the topic. I was filled with knowledge as I mined the treasure trove of other-selves' understanding
In this topic, I heard yet another call for understanding that resonated with my own soul. But this time...the answer did not come.
Love to all.
RE: In regards to eating meat - thefool - 04-04-2010
Pablisimo-
I guess you have some problem with the word extreme, past experience maybe. I have already explained how it was used. I have also said that vegetarian choice is a good choice for some people. But for not ALL the people. So being a vegetarian is not extreme. Presenting it as the only option is extreme. What is your beef (oops mushroom) with the word extreme. I used a word extreme and you want to make this discussion about extreme. While for a long time you have given extreme examples (in your own words) comparing meat eating to rape of a child, slavery, soul killer, human flesh eating. How does that sound compare to the word extreme...It is easy to jump on others about their word usage... You don't find your own examples harsh and have decided that the usage of the word extreme indicates negativity and judgmental view (is this how the respectful compassion you were talking about, looks like?)... If this is negative then your examples are what? think about it...
RE: In regards to eating meat - Monica - 04-04-2010
(04-04-2010, 08:40 PM)thefool Wrote: What is your beef (oops mushroom) with the word extreme. I used a word extreme and you want to make this discussion about extreme.
Respectfully, you weren't talking about extreme sports. The word used wasn't extreme but extremist, which is commonly used to describe those who promote acts of violence. (And you cited your own examples of those who were violent, in your comparison to vegetarians.) To apply a word used to describe violent people, to someone who's trying to stop violence, made no sense to me, so it was interpreted as a judgment rather than an attempt to foster understanding.
(04-04-2010, 08:40 PM)thefool Wrote: If this is negative then your examples are what?
The examples that both Pablisimo and I gave were intended to be negative. How else could we make our point? The examples portrayed a very negative, offensive thing (the using of other beings to satisfy one's own desires) in an effort to communicate something positive (understanding of why vegetarians consider the slaughter of animals to be violence and therefore offensive).
Of course extreme words were used to describe extreme events (rape, murder, oppression, abuse, etc.).
But, the way I interpreted your words, when you compared those seeking to stop the slaughter of animals as extremists, you were using the word extremist to describe those who are trying to stop the extreme behavior.
I invite you to read and reread what I just said.
(Are there any other meat-eaters out there lurking? Does no one understand what Pablisimo and I were attempting to convey with our analogies?
)(04-04-2010, 08:40 PM)thefool Wrote: So being a vegetarian is not extreme. Presenting it as the only option is extreme.
Please be fair. Neither Pablisimo nor I, nor any of the other vegetarians, ever stated that everyone needed to instantly become vegetarians by tomorrow.
We tried to explain that we see it as a logical spiritual progression, an ideal to aspire to. This is backed up by the Law of One, in which Ra states that in 4D a living food is eaten. (I don't think Ra meant eating cows alive and drinking their blood!)
If we're all heading for 4D, then the meat's gonna have to go at some point.
Has anyone ever considered the weight of all those MILLIONS of animals suffering each and every day...the impact of that on our planet and our evolution as a whole?
thefool, it seems that our views have struck a nerve. Could I offer a suggestion? How about everyone reading this thread all spend a few minutes tonight sending LOVE and LIGHT to everyone else who's been participating on this thread, and affirm the intention to actually FEEL the other point of view.
I'm disappointed that so many of our questions have gone unanswered. We've both tried to re-word the questions, hoping for some response, but to no avail. Words haven't been working too well. How about we try another approach? How about we all, right now, make a decision to forgive one another...and earnestly choose to at least understand, if not agree with, the point of view of our other-selves. It may appear to be in opposition, but remember, in unity all paradoxes are resolved.
