In regards to eating meat

[Monica]

• (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?

(2)

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?

(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...?

(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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.