In regards to eating meat

[Monica]

Either/or statements don't allow for shades of gray. Many people feel compassion for their own pets, but not for other animals. Some people feel compassion for cows, but not sardines. A few people feel compassion for both cows and sardines. Hardly anybody (that I know of) feels compassion for cockroaches.

That's right. So I hope my explanation clarified what I was trying to say.

I believe we are capable of infinite compassion.

Just like we're "capable" of being aware of our Oneness at all times?

If it were so simple, we'd be having a lot bigger harvest.

As near as I can tell, feeling compassion comes quite naturally to most humans.

Are we living on the same planet?

Even if you're referring only to compassion for other humans, I'd say it comes easily only if the other person isn't too 'different.'

Much more challenging if the person has a different ethnicity, religion, ideology, etc. Hence all the wars.

Do you think, for example, compassion for a Muslim comes "quite naturally" to an evangelical Christian? Does compassion towards a "bleeding hear liberal" come "quite naturally" to a diehard Republican conservative? Does compassion to a woman about to abort her baby come "quite naturally" to a pro-life activist? How about compassion towards a "vegan zealot" from a meat-eater? Or, conversely, to a butcher, from a vegetarian animal rights activist?

Even here, on this thread, in a supposedly spiritually oriented community, how many of the meat-eaters answered my question about whether they had increased their compassion towards vegetarians?

And that's just talking about other humans.

I have seen very little compassion towards animals expressed by the meat-eaters, here on this thread. Not even towards other humans with different views!!! Much less so to the animals.

So I'd say I emphatically disagree with you that compassion "comes quite naturally."

If that were so, we wouldn't have so many wars, we wouldn't have had so much discord on this thread, and we'd have a lot bigger harvest.

and then doing the best we can

I find no sooner do I attain a personal best, then a new one appears on the horizon. Thus, I am perpetually falling short of what I perceive to be best. Thus, rather than striving for an unattainable ideal of "best", I strive for "improving".

OK. We're saying the same thing here. I would define 'personal best' as doing the best we can in that moment; ie., improving.

Yikes! Another one of those either/or statements. I will stick with "improving".

Either we're improving, or we aren't. It's a binary choice.

[Oldern]

I am sure that a lot of meat-eaters will make it in the harvest, btw Some will definitely be surprised, let us just say that

Also... Monica, I will stop now. I do not have a bone to pick with you, I never did. I just feel like that the whole thread goes nowhere. At this point, definitely.

[Tenet Nosce]

That's right. So I hope my explanation clarified what I was trying to say.

Yes, thank you.

Just like we're "capable" of being aware of our Oneness at all times?

If it were so simple, we'd be having a lot bigger harvest.

Oh gosh, no it isn't simple at all! I think we are using the word "capable" in two different connotations. For example, I am capable of being a virtuoso pianist. However to achieve this would require more effort than I am willing to put forth.

So I'd say I emphatically disagree with you that compassion "comes quite naturally."

What I observe is that compassion comes naturally to babies and little children. I believe those beliefs and behaviors you referred to are put upon them by external authority figures.

OK. We're saying the same thing here. I would define 'personal best' as doing the best we can in that moment; ie., improving.

Ah. So it seems our apparent disagreement was mostly about different terminology. Words really do seem to get in the way of communication and understanding...

[Ankh]

the material for your understanding is the self: the mind/body/spirit complex.

I could easily counter with countless quotes about service to others. Serving others requires reaching out beyond just self.

In fact, it's so important to serve others, that it's even the criteria for graduation!

Monica, what you said is that the arguments in this thread have mostly been about the self, so I was tryng to share my personal view of why it is, with a quote instead of using too many words. This quote is taken from the session 15:14, where Don asks Ra about what they've meant when they said that the harvest is now and that Ra encourage to seek the heart of the self. So Ra said that the material of our understanding is the self. And then: "The understanding, experiencing, accepting, and merging of self with self and other-self, and finally with the Creator, is the path to the heart of self."

Yes, but the greater understanding about the scope of Spanish comes from the act of teaching, because the Spanish speaker must delve more deeply into their own knowledge in order to teach it to another person.

It doesn't come from the student of Spanish. Therefore, the student of Spanish cannot teach Spanish.

Therefore, they are learning/teaching different things to the other.

As I see it, no one speaks more "Spanish" on this board than the other one. Comparing it to Ra, a sixth density entity, is also irrelevant, as all of us here are third density human beings. Therefore, in this situation specifically, on this board, we all teach/learn and learn/teach equally much about compassion.

This entire thread has been full of justifications from the meat-eaters about why it's "ok" for them to eat animals.

Justification is something that's done by someone who is defensive.

If someone feels totally good about their choice, there's no reason to be defensive.

To say that the vegetarians are the ones being defensive? LOL!

I don't quite see it like that. I see that this thread has been full of people struggling with their own lessons, and trying to learn/teach and teach/learn. This is a group dynamic and no one is more defensive/attacking than the other one. Because if "meat-eater side" has been defensive, then the "non-meat-eater side" must have been attacking, right? *This is a group dynamic*. And seeing that one side did this and the other one did that, is just, in my eyes, creating more separation.

And yet, each is still attempting to find solutions to the suffering rather than finding space and time within to allow each portion of experience, including suffering, to have a hospitable room to dwell in while it visits you.

I needed to hear those things again, but especially the above.

An assumption seems to be made that vegetarians are trying to end suffering instead of going within. That may be true in some cases, but not in the case of the vegetarians participating in this thread. We work outwardly in addition to working inwardly. Both are important.

Secondly, my opinion is that this Q'uote has been misapplied. Context must be taken into consideration, to understand what Q'uo meant. Q'uo was speaking of one's own suffering, not serving others who are suffering.

STO = Service to Others. It's a minor little concept sprinkled liberally throughout the Law of One.

Yes, Monica. Tenet Nosce made a beautiful post, and I needed to hear those things again. And especially the part that I quoted. In regards to suffering, he said another thing, among many others, in his post which I found beautiful, and that is:

I don't perceive the value in causing myself to suffer over the perceived suffering of others. That sounds to me like adding more suffering to the world, not taking away from it.

I totally agree with this view. Instead of feeling this suffering, and therefore add more suffering to the world, why not seek that suffering within the self, and heal it? And then open up to love/light of our One Infinite Creator, and radiate it? Suffering blocks that radiating, in my opinion, and so are feelings of being personally right. And in regards to the personal rightness, the quote of Ra which I provided to the post of 3DMonkey is quite applicable to this thread in my view:

34.9 Questioner: Thank you. Can you give me the same type of information about the self in relation to the societal self?

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

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

I interpret this quote as: to attempting to remake or alter the society from the feelings of being personally correct or having answers, will activate orange and/or yellow centers. And few they are who are of fourth universal love ray, who desire to aid society by sharing freely given universal love instead of having principalities or rearrangements of people or political structures.

I do find it ironic that it is the meat-eaters who are having trouble "loving unconditionally" the vegetarians. So much so that the conversation keeps shifting to a critique of the vegetarians, instead of the actual topic.

I believe that both so called "sides" struggle with lessons of unconditional, universal love. Those who have learned these lessons do not participate in this thread, as they see only love, and hence have nothing to say.

[Monica]

Monica, what you said is that the arguments in this thread have mostly been about the self,

We are referring to 'self' in 2 different ways.

I was referring to 'self' as memememe, ie. "I like meat" in contrast to considering the feelings of others, in this case, the animals.

As I see it, no one speaks more "Spanish" on this board than the other one.

In my analogy, Spanish = compassion for animals.

Surely you aren't claiming that the vegetarians and meat-eaters have an equal amount of compassion for animals, are you?

Comparing it to Ra, a sixth density entity, is also irrelevant, as all of us here are third density human beings.

You misunderstood. I wasn't comparing us to Ra.

I was utilizing Ra's use of the term teach/learn as an example of someone knowing more about a particular subject than others.

Ra clearly has more information than we do, yet they still learned from the experience of teaching us.

But they didn't learn the exact same information from us as they were teaching us. For example, they didn't learn about the pyramids from us, because they already know more about that subject than we do.

Therefore, in this situation specifically, on this board, we all teach/learn and learn/teach equally much about compassion.

I disagree. I think it's obvious we don't all have an equal amount of compassion for animals.

If we all had equal compassion, then do we also all have equal forgiveness? love? wisdom? Then we would all be exactly alike, which we clearly aren't.

This is a group dynamic and no one is more defensive/attacking than the other one.

!!!

Because if "meat-eater side" has been defensive, then the "non-meat-eater side" must have been attacking, right?

No, not necessarily. People often feel defensive because of their own guilt.

Conversely, someone can get attacked and not feel defensive, or have the need to make justifications, at all.

This is a group dynamic*. And seeing that one side did this and the other one did that, is just, in my eyes, creating more separation.

Well I agree, which is why I find all those comments about how vegetarians "lack compassion" to be just contributing to more separation.

I totally agree with this view. Instead of feeling this suffering, and therefore add more suffering to the world, why not seek that suffering within the self, and heal it?

This has already been addressed, multiple times. Of course do that too.

But why not also physically quit contributing to the suffering?

I invite you to re-read Pablisimo's post about putting a firecracker in a frog's mouth and blowing it up, then trying to "radiate light" to the frog.

Sure, radiate light to the frog. But why blow it up in the first place?

I interpret this quote as: to attempting to remake or alter the society from the feelings of being personally correct or having answers, will activate orange and/or yellow centers.

If you think vegetarians are motivated by the need to be correct, then you don't understand us at all.

I believe that both so called "sides" struggle with lessons of unconditional, universal love. Those who have learned these lessons do not participate in this thread, as they see only love, and hence have nothing to say.

So do you think someone who is operating from a place of love would never try to champion the oppressed?

By that logic, then some of the world's most highly revered 'saints' like Mother Theresa, Gandhi, Martin Luther King, and even Jesus, must have lacked love, but were only trying to 'change society out of their own need to be control or be correct.'

For the record: I am NOT, I repeat, NOT comparing myself, Diana, Pab, Pickle or any of the other vegetarians to these great leaders. We are NOT their equals. They are our mentors.

I am using them as an example of those who clearly DID take ACTION.

Were they loving, or were they controlling?

[BrownEye]

I see it unfruitful to claim compassion for animals at the same time What I see as the teaching of a movement away from animal killing is not a teaching of compassion but a teaching of justifications. This is because I am witnessing not the active practice of compassion but rather the active practice of justifying through perceived reasoning.

Is it perceived reasoning, or justification, that keeps you from eating your dog? After all, it is only meat. I do not really see much difference other than you name it and keep it in your house. It is still kept under boundaries and control, fed with ground up "other animals", possibly even past "pets".

[Diana]

Either/or statements don't allow for shades of gray. Many people feel compassion for their own pets, but not for other animals. Some people feel compassion for cows, but not sardines. A few people feel compassion for both cows and sardines. Hardly anybody (that I know of) feels compassion for cockroaches.

I do.

It is the underlying principle.

Compassion is like love: it can be conditional or unconditional.

Conditional compassion, like conditional love, is a step toward unconditional compassion (or love), and the awareness that all life is equal and sacred, that everything has life and is part of intelligent infinity.

(And before someone jumps in with this: of course, meat-eaters are part of intelligent infinity and are loved unconditionally, and I have compassion for meat-eaters. I did think that all here on this site were big girls and boys, and could discuss something potentially vital to growth, without defaulting continually to saying the vegetarians are trying to change them.)

How does one separate feeling compassion for one being and not another? Separation! In the mind of one who thinks/feels this way, all are not one. Is this not a goal worthy of trying to attain . . . the recognition that all is one? Not that all humans are one; that everything is one.

[3DMonkey]

"Surely you aren't claiming that the vegetarians and meat-eaters have an equal amount of compassion for animals, are you?"

I would say my perspective is that this separation has no relevance to the spiritual implications of eating anything.

[Ankh]

Monica, what you said is that the arguments in this thread have mostly been about the self,

We are referring to 'self' in 2 different ways.

I was referring to 'self' as memememe, ie. "I like meat" in contrast to considering the feelings of others, in this case, the animals.

I didn't understand that there are different selves within one mind/body/spirit complex. That "mememememe" as you've put it, is the material for understanding.

As I see it, no one speaks more "Spanish" on this board than the other one.

In my analogy, Spanish = compassion for animals.

Surely you aren't claiming that the vegetarians and meat-eaters have an equal amount of compassion for animals, are you?

That would be akin to claiming that one has more compassion for another self than another self.

In my analogy, "Spanish" = compassion. Just one compassion, without division of it.

Comparing it to Ra, a sixth density entity, is also irrelevant, as all of us here are third density human beings.

You misunderstood. I wasn't comparing us to Ra.

I was utilizing Ra's use of the term teach/learn as an example of someone knowing more about a particular subject than others.

Ra clearly has more information than we do, yet they still learned from the experience of teaching us.

But they didn't learn the exact same information from us as they were teaching us. For example, they didn't learn about the pyramids from us, because they already know more about that subject than we do.

Again, Ra in sixth density. We are third density. Here, you have maybe more knowledge about this, but less about that, and we are also veiled, so here, in the third density, we both teach/learn and learn/teach on equal ground.

We do not consider that a separation exists between the consciousness-raising efforts of the distortion which you project as a personality and the distortion which you project as an other personality. Thus, to learn is the same as to teach unless you are not teaching what you are learning; in which case you have done you/they little or no good. This understanding should be pondered by your mind/body/spirit complex as it is a distortion which plays a part in your experiences at this nexus.

Therefore, in this situation specifically, on this board, we all teach/learn and learn/teach equally much about compassion.

I disagree. I think it's obvious we don't all have an equal amount of compassion for animals.

If we all had equal compassion, then do we also all have equal forgiveness? love? wisdom? Then we would all be exactly alike, which we clearly aren't.

I see it more in colors of: when you know more of something there is less of knowledge/understanding about something else. If you are interested in learning, you are at the same time teaching, and vice versa. There is of course no teach/learning, or learn/teaching, when it is not desired by the self.

Because if "meat-eater side" has been defensive, then the "non-meat-eater side" must have been attacking, right?

No, not necessarily. People often feel defensive because of their own guilt.

Conversely, someone can get attacked and not feel defensive, or have the need to make justifications, at all.

Why attack at all?

This is a group dynamic*. And seeing that one side did this and the other one did that, is just, in my eyes, creating more separation.

Well I agree, which is why I find all those comments about how vegetarians "lack compassion" to be just contributing to more separation.

You just agreed and then said that one side did this/that?

I totally agree with this view. Instead of feeling this suffering, and therefore add more suffering to the world, why not seek that suffering within the self, and heal it?

This has already been addressed, multiple times. Of course do that too.

But why not also physically quit contributing to the suffering?

I am. I am hopefully doing a dang good job as a mom to a five year old, and as a nurse at a hospice, physically alleviating sufferings of other selves. I am hopefully also doing alright when sharing love/light to others around me, and recycling, and saving the power, the water and the paper, not owning any car, but taking walks and public transportations instead, and more. But there are probably others who do more, and who do less. We do what we can.

I invite you to re-read Pablisimo's post about putting a firecracker in a frog's mouth and blowing it up, then trying to "radiate light" to the frog.

Sure, radiate light to the frog. But why blow it up in the first place?

Not sure how that fits into this discussion here.

I interpret this quote as: to attempting to remake or alter the society from the feelings of being personally correct or having answers, will activate orange and/or yellow centers.

If you think vegetarians are motivated by the need to be correct, then you don't understand us at all.

Couple of times I've read that if everybody would go veg there would be a much better world. Do you agree with what I've just said? If so, is that not a desire based on the feelings to alter and/or remake our current society?

I believe that both so called "sides" struggle with lessons of unconditional, universal love. Those who have learned these lessons do not participate in this thread, as they see only love, and hence have nothing to say.

So do you think someone who is operating from a place of love would never try to champion the oppressed?

By that logic, then some of the world's most highly revered 'saints' like Mother Theresa, Gandhi, Martin Luther King, and even Jesus, must have lacked love, but were only trying to 'change society out of their own need to be control or be correct.'

For the record: I am NOT, I repeat, NOT comparing myself, Diana, Pab, Pickle or any of the other vegetarians to these great leaders. We are NOT their equals. They are our mentors.

I am using them as an example of those who clearly DID take ACTION.

Were they loving, or were they controlling?

I am sure that whether meat-eater or non-meat-eater, each being is doing the best s/he can, as it is known to the self. In regards to the names you've mentioned, these people were fighting for different causes, and except for Gandhi (who I believe was born into a brahmanian family who are vegetarians by religion), I am not sure that these entities were vegetarians? Do you know that they were vegetarians?

[Diana]

I believe that both so called "sides" struggle with lessons of unconditional, universal love. Those who have learned these lessons do not participate in this thread, as they see only love, and hence have nothing to say.

So do you think someone who is operating from a place of love would never try to champion the oppressed?

By that logic, then some of the world's most highly revered 'saints' like Mother Theresa, Gandhi, Martin Luther King, and even Jesus, must have lacked love, but were only trying to 'change society out of their own need to be control or be correct.'

For the record: I am NOT, I repeat, NOT comparing myself, Diana, Pab, Pickle or any of the other vegetarians to these great leaders. We are NOT their equals. They are our mentors.

I am using them as an example of those who clearly DID take ACTION.

Were they loving, or were they controlling?

I am sure that whether meat-eater or non-meat-eater, each being is doing the best s/he can, as it is known to the self. In regards to the names you've mentioned, these people were fighting for different causes, and except for Gandhi (who I believe was born into a brahmanian family who are vegetarians by religion), I am not sure that these entities were vegetarians? Do you know that they were vegetarians?

That is not the point, whether these individuals were vegetarian. The supposition is that they were speaking up, taking action, out of love, not a need to control.

Ra spoke to us out of love, as an answer to a call. The same can be said of vegetarians on this thread: we are speaking out of love, in answer to a call. If you think humans are the only beings worthy of being answered, then you will not see it the way I do. And that's fine.

---

I interpret this quote as: to attempting to remake or alter the society from the feelings of being personally correct or having answers, will activate orange and/or yellow centers.

If you think vegetarians are motivated by the need to be correct, then you don't understand us at all.

Couple of times I've read that if everybody would go veg there would be a much better world. Do you agree with what I've just said? If so, is that not a desire based on the feelings to alter and/or remake our current society?

I don't recall those exact words, but saying it would be a better world is an opinion, and it does not include having to be correct.

Do you want a better world for your daughter? Would you like war to end, for instance. Would you thinking or saying this mean you wanted to be correct?

[BrownEye]

I keep seeing "spiritual implications of eating".

If there were no implications, then no health effects would manifest at all. Where do the health effects come from?

[Diana]

I invite you to re-read Pablisimo's post about putting a firecracker in a frog's mouth and blowing it up, then trying to "radiate light" to the frog.

Sure, radiate light to the frog. But why blow it up in the first place?

Not sure how that fits into this discussion here.

It fits this way: Serve meat at dinner: factory farmed cow who has suffered in a feed lot and slaughtered while terrified; or veal, a baby cow forced to stay in a tiny space unable to move to fatten it up and then it's slaughtered while terrified; or many other examples of cruelty. Then radiate love to the dead animal, or to your family at dinner.

I am not saying there is anything wrong with the love anyone feels for their family, or that there is anything wrong with sending love to the animal who gave its life to be food. I am not saying that ANYTHING is wrong.

I am saying we can make better choices, on so many levels, for so many reasons. But I do also respect free will. I can hope can't I, no matter how unevolved that is, that we as a race, humans, could live in this world in more harmony with all beings including the Earth itself?

[Monica]

I didn't understand that there are different selves within one mind/body/spirit complex.

?? I didn't say that.

That "mememememe" as you've put it, is the material for understanding.

What I meant by "memememe" is focusing on self and self's desires. "Me!"

In my analogy, "Spanish" = compassion. Just one compassion, without division of it.

The vegetarians keep saying, "compassion is compassion, whether for human or animal" but the meater-eaters keep talking about compassion to humans, while making excuses for not feeling compassion for animals. So where is the division?

Again, Ra in sixth density. We are third density. Here, you have maybe more knowledge about this, but less about that, and we are also veiled, so here, in the third density, we both teach/learn and learn/teach on equal ground.

Ankh, if we are all teaching and learning the exact same things, then we wouldn't need each other.

If you and I both have exactly the same lessons to learn, then we wouldn't be learning from each other.

Yes, we are equal - one is not better or more evolved than the other, as Pab and I have both said many times - but the type of things we are learning, vs the type of things we are teaching, are different.

Maybe I have more compassion towards animals, but maybe you have more patience, or wisdom, or whatever. I can learn from you just as much as you can learn from me.

But it won't be exactly the same thing. That cannot be, because you and I are different.

I see it more in colors of: when you know more of something there is less of knowledge/understanding about something else. If you are interested in learning, you are at the same time teaching, and vice versa. There is of course no teach/learning, or learn/teaching, when it is not desired by the self.

Agreed. Then you have just said what I was saying: We have different degrees of understanding of different things. Maybe I have more of something, and you have more of something else. Together, we can balance.

But we don't have exactly the same of everything. Then we wouldn't learn from each other.

Compassion towards animals is one of those things.

Why attack at all?

That's a good question. One that I have been asking for 3 years now, and I'm getting weary of asking it.

You just agreed and then said that one side did this/that?

Because it's still happening.

I am. I am hopefully doing a dang good job as a mom to a five year old, and as a nurse at a hospice, physically alleviating sufferings of other selves. I am hopefully also doing alright when sharing love/light to others around me, and recycling, and saving the power, the water and the paper, not owning any car, but taking walks and public transportations instead, and more. But there are probably others who do more, and who do less. We do what we can.

The vegetarians cannot approve or disapprove the actions of another person. That is for each person to decide for themselves. I'm sure we all do many good deeds. I don't think it's relevant to our choice about whether to support the torture and killing of animals. That is simply a choice we make.

Not sure how that fits into this discussion here.

In Pablisimo's analogy, choosing to eat meat, knowing that the animal was tortured and brutally killed, and then "radiating love" to the animal...

is akin to:

Blowing a frog up with a firecracker and then radiating love to the frog.

Yes, radiating love can bring healing. But why blow it up in the first place? Wouldn't it be more efficient to just not blow up the frog at all?

Couple of times I've read that if everybody would go veg there would be a much better world. Do you agree with what I've just said? If so, is that not a desire based on the feelings to alter and/or remake our current society?

The result may be the same, but the motivation is different.

The motivation is driven by compassion for the oppressed, NOT the desire to control others.

That is the difference.

I am sure that whether meat-eater or non-meat-eater, each being is doing the best s/he can, as it is known to the self. In regards to the names you've mentioned, these people were fighting for different causes, and except for Gandhi (who I believe was born into a brahmanian family who are vegetarians by religion), I am not sure that these entities were vegetarians? Do you know that they were vegetarians?

I seem to be failing to convey my point.

It doesn't matter whether they were vegetarians or not. We were talking about taking action, as opposed to just working on 'self.'

I listed those people, as examples of highly-regarded spiritual leaders who were also activists. They didn't just focus on self. They took action.

[norral]

diana

i have a question for you. if we hunted animals and ate like the american indians did would u have a problem with that. honestly i have a problem with the way we mass produce meat . if we saw it if it was telecast to us on a regular basis every day so that we saw what really goes on in the meat industry it would affect a lot of people i would think. i think the consumption of meat would go way way down. just to be clear i am not a vegan and i dont care what anyone eats it is their business. but i do agree we are not showing these animals compassion and we have turned the whole food industry into a pleasure dome. we eat to derive pleasure just as much as we eat to survive. not saying we shouldnt enjoy what we eat but if u look at the obesity in this country something is way out of whack that is for sure. and one thing i can say for a fact about cows they are very very gentle creatures. from the time i have spent with them they are very trusting and gentle.

[Diana]

diana

i have a question for you. if we hunted animals and ate like the american indians did would u have a problem with that. honestly i have a problem with the way we mass produce meat . if we saw it if it was telecast to us on a regular basis every day so that we saw what really goes on in the meat industry it would affect a lot of people i would think. i think the consumption of meat would go way way down. just to be clear i am not a vegan and i dont care what anyone eats it is their business. but i do agree we are not showing these animals compassion and we have turned the whole food industry into a pleasure dome. we eat to derive pleasure just as much as we eat to survive. not saying we shouldnt enjoy what we eat but if u look at the obesity in this country something is way out of whack that is for sure. and one thing i can say for a fact about cows they are very very gentle creatures. from the time i have spent with them they are very trusting and gentle.

I absolutely do think that would be a step in the right direction, just as humane animal farming is a step in the right direction. These are actually very large steps, considering how much of a difference they would make.

Ultimately, I would like to see humans rise above the animal food chain. We are smart beings-- I just know we can find a way to survive without this cruelty, just as I feel we can get past wanting kill each other in wars.

[3DMonkey]

Norral,

Trusting and gentle? I've never met a single animal that falls in this category.

[abstrktion]

Norral,

Trusting and gentle? I've never met a single animal that falls in this category.

My dog fits this. I've never seen anything like it. He is even better than other dogs (who seem to be pretty good at love and loyalty, etc) and radiates kindness and love. He gives "hugs"--presses himself against you and "loves" at you. It is amazing. He's a better "person" than I am!

[norral]

most of the animals i am in contact with are trusting and gentle. the dogs the birds i am in contact with are trusting and gentle. that is my personal experience 3d . the dogs i interact with are big mushes, our birdie is very trusting of us. the cows i have been in contact with were trusting and gentle.

[3DMonkey]

diana

i have a question for you. if we hunted animals and ate like the american indians did would u have a problem with that. honestly i have a problem with the way we mass produce meat . if we saw it if it was telecast to us on a regular basis every day so that we saw what really goes on in the meat industry it would affect a lot of people i would think. i think the consumption of meat would go way way down. just to be clear i am not a vegan and i dont care what anyone eats it is their business. but i do agree we are not showing these animals compassion and we have turned the whole food industry into a pleasure dome. we eat to derive pleasure just as much as we eat to survive. not saying we shouldnt enjoy what we eat but if u look at the obesity in this country something is way out of whack that is for sure. and one thing i can say for a fact about cows they are very very gentle creatures. from the time i have spent with them they are very trusting and gentle.

I absolutely do think that would be a step in the right direction, just as humane animal farming is a step in the right direction. These are actually very large steps, considering how much of a difference they would make.

Ultimately, I would like to see humans rise above the animal food chain. We are smart beings-- I just know we can find a way to survive without this cruelty, just as I feel we can get past wanting kill each other in wars.

You'd think we were smart enough. I imagine everyday living in a subsistence environment. My mind takes it to the extreme. Why can't we figure out the precise climate to grow the perfect vegetables in our home? Why can't we use the second density group dynamic to manipulate a flock of animals to give up a "sacrifice" for us? The perfect greenhouse with the perfect chemistry with the perfect recyclability* with perfect efficiency and zero waste. I wonder why we haven't created this. I mean, where is the scientific information on growing the perfect tomato to be found? Where is the scientific information on the perfect diet? The perfect food in season that is to be consumed when a person is receiving X amount of sun's rays daily with an orbital distance of Y and a seasonal Earth angle of Z at a local mean temperature of B? Find me the instructional manual and I will use it. I want to write the instructional manual. I want to discover all this. But I can't have my cake and eat it too.

[Diana]

diana

i have a question for you. if we hunted animals and ate like the american indians did would u have a problem with that. honestly i have a problem with the way we mass produce meat . if we saw it if it was telecast to us on a regular basis every day so that we saw what really goes on in the meat industry it would affect a lot of people i would think. i think the consumption of meat would go way way down. just to be clear i am not a vegan and i dont care what anyone eats it is their business. but i do agree we are not showing these animals compassion and we have turned the whole food industry into a pleasure dome. we eat to derive pleasure just as much as we eat to survive. not saying we shouldnt enjoy what we eat but if u look at the obesity in this country something is way out of whack that is for sure. and one thing i can say for a fact about cows they are very very gentle creatures. from the time i have spent with them they are very trusting and gentle.

I absolutely do think that would be a step in the right direction, just as humane animal farming is a step in the right direction. These are actually very large steps, considering how much of a difference they would make.

Ultimately, I would like to see humans rise above the animal food chain. We are smart beings-- I just know we can find a way to survive without this cruelty, just as I feel we can get past wanting kill each other in wars.

You'd think we were smart enough. I imagine everyday living in a subsistence environment. My mind takes it to the extreme. Why can't we figure out the precise climate to grow the perfect vegetables in our home? Why can't we use the second density group dynamic to manipulate a flock of animals to give up a "sacrifice" for us? The perfect greenhouse with the perfect chemistry with the perfect recyclability* with perfect efficiency and zero waste. I wonder why we haven't created this. I mean, where is the scientific information on growing the perfect tomato to be found? Where is the scientific information on the perfect diet? The perfect food in season that is to be consumed when a person is receiving X amount of sun's rays daily with an orbital distance of Y and a seasonal Earth angle of Z at a local mean temperature of B? Find me the instructional manual and I will use it. I want to write the instructional manual. I want to discover all this. But I can't have my cake and eat it too.

Write it! You don't have to have all the answers--just some that will help.

[3DMonkey]

Norral,

Trusting and gentle? I've never met a single animal that falls in this category.

My dog fits this. I've never seen anything like it. He is even better than other dogs (who seem to be pretty good at love and loyalty, etc) and radiates kindness and love. He gives "hugs"--presses himself against you and "loves" at you. It is amazing. He's a better "person" than I am!

I guess I just see them as reactive chemistry to their environment. We say "love", but, in my mind, it's just subjective perception that has created the concept that fits our bias as "he's so loving". To me, I just see a stimulation based on the way the dogs puzzle pieces were put in order. ... I see humans the same way, really.

---

Trusting and gentle are two words that I've never seen in an animal.

[Monica]

I guess I just see them as reactive chemistry to their environment. We say "love", but, in my mind, it's just subjective perception that has created the concept that fits our bias as "he's so loving". To me, I just see a stimulation based on the way the dogs puzzle pieces were put in order. ... I see humans the same way, really.

So all that 'choice' and 'free will' stuff from Ra is...?

[BrownEye]

Dogs are a very good reflection of the personality of the owner.

[norral]

our daughter just adopted a female bulldog. she is the sweetest thing and so so funny. everyone just absolutely loves her. and surprisingly very very active. i didnt know bulldogs are that active but she most definitely is. think i'll go pay her a visit later today.

[3DMonkey]

I guess I just see them as reactive chemistry to their environment. We say "love", but, in my mind, it's just subjective perception that has created the concept that fits our bias as "he's so loving". To me, I just see a stimulation based on the way the dogs puzzle pieces were put in order. ... I see humans the same way, really.

So all that 'choice' and 'free will' stuff from Ra is...?

A reflection of its owner.

[Monica]

I guess I just see them as reactive chemistry to their environment. We say "love", but, in my mind, it's just subjective perception that has created the concept that fits our bias as "he's so loving". To me, I just see a stimulation based on the way the dogs puzzle pieces were put in order. ... I see humans the same way, really.

So all that 'choice' and 'free will' stuff from Ra is...?

A reflection of its owner.

What I'm asking is: If our personality is just a result of chemistry, then how could we have free will? And what would be the purpose of choice, if we are just computers programmed by our chemistry?

[3DMonkey]

I guess I just see them as reactive chemistry to their environment. We say "love", but, in my mind, it's just subjective perception that has created the concept that fits our bias as "he's so loving". To me, I just see a stimulation based on the way the dogs puzzle pieces were put in order. ... I see humans the same way, really.

So all that 'choice' and 'free will' stuff from Ra is...?

A reflection of its owner.

What I'm asking is: If our personality is just a result of chemistry, then how could we have free will? And what would be the purpose of choice, if we are just computers programmed by our chemistry?

Have free will by thinking about what free will is and that it is ours. The purpose of choice is another thought we create. Choice? Purpose? Will? Think a out it. We are dancing thoughts.

[Monica]

Have free will by thinking about what free will is and that it is ours. The purpose of choice is another thought we create. Choice? Purpose? Will? Think a out it. We are dancing thoughts.

What is thought, if it's just chemistry?

[3DMonkey]

Have free will by thinking about what free will is and that it is ours. The purpose of choice is another thought we create. Choice? Purpose? Will? Think a out it. We are dancing thoughts.

What is thought, if it's just chemistry?

Sincerely, what is chemistry, if not a thought?

[Shemaya]

Everyone...thanks for all the thoughtful discussion.

To summarize what I gleaned from the discussion:

We are pretty much in agreement that the current meat industry is abhorrent, and inhumane.

The choice of diet is a personal one , and many factors influence our choices of what to eat, in particular, orange and yellow- ray interactions, which are our personal and societal relationships. In particular, religions have used dietary restrictions, and laws as a way to influence and control the behavior of followers.

The vegetarians who have spoken are motivated by a deep compassion and perspective that animals are other- selves, and a desire to reduce the suffering of animals.

There are many ways in which we can draw our own individual line in sand (or not) as to how we choose what to eat. There is a plethora of advice and information and scientific studies which substantiate and support many many different perspectives.

Ra and Q'uo gave limited advice on what to eat, and by no means gave any rules or regulations on diet.

A discussion on this topic, because it is so fundamental to the orange and yellow chakras, is bound to trigger and catalyze any blockages either personally or in a group dynamic, so it it excellent Fodder for inner spiritual/ and shadow work. And interestingly, the discussion becomes just as much about those issues as the actual manifestation of the food industry that we currently have.

I just ate some sardines because I recently realized that I was eating not enough protein, doing too much yoga and eating too little protein as I abstained from eating more than was needed and accidentally ate less than was needed, and my muscles and hemoglobin have suffered.

Gaia wants everyone to eat some chocolate!!![/i]