In regards to eating meat

[Monica]

as far as what we know, 2d entities are not able to choose their incarnative experiences. actually, most of 3d entities are not able to choose either - it is chosen by them, until they are mature enough.

I remember reading this in the Law of One.

however, it doesnt matter whether the 2d entity, its group consciousness, or any other principle decided that the entity should incarnate, cultivate a physical vehicle to maturity, and then forfeit it for the sustenance of another - the entity receiving such a 'sacrifice' would still be performing the act of taking another entity's physical vehicle, for sustenance, and extinguishing 2d light where it exists.

This example could be extended to include a human who chose to be a victim of violence. Does that make it ok for the perpetrator of the violence to knowingly commit the violent act?

On some level, there may have been an agreement. But I don't see anyone justifying human violence just because of the karma involved. We still try to prevent violence against humans whenever possible and champion the human victims, even though they were much more likely to have chosen their circumstances than 2D animals, who haven't yet evolved to the degree of conscious choice.

By this logic, it would seem more reasonable to champion the innocent victims at least as much as the conscious or semi-conscious victims.

if you look at it that way, in ultimate end, even going sts and slaughtering millions and enslaving them is a service in ultimate end, because it gives the needed catalyst for those millions of entities to spiritually evolve.

however, in our non-timeless continuum, it is dubbed as sts, an evil act, self serving act, etc, whatever name you give it. so, it becomes a choice in between what path one wants to take - go sts and provide catalyst for others, or go sto and follow that path.

until every timeline, parallel universe converges somewhere in between 7d-8d, these are going to be separate choices.

My response exactly! Isn't that why there are 2 paths? Isn't the 'duty' (if it could be labeled as such) of carrying out the 'dirty work' of administering violence the very hallmark of the STS path?

i doubt that a sacred pre birth agreement exists in between the chicken and its predator. if you take into account that even the higher selves of junior 3d entities send random catalyst to the incarnated entities until some kind of bias makes itself apparent (thats what Ra says anyway), then it is less likely to have an agreement of that kind exist in between the predator and the victim.

Good point. Perhaps we can locate that quote...

no such prerequisite or general practice exists as far as i know. the prerequisite for 3d incarnation is being aware of the self being an entity. it is even possible for places and things to directly pass to 3d from 1d.

http://lawofone.info/results.php?session_id=19&ss=1#2

Ah, thanks!

I do understand why you would argue your points, and I thank you for your post, but I feel you are not giving enough credit to the concepts of "catalyst" and "pre-incarnational" considerations.

you can look at it this way ; it is kind of a blockage/clogging of the 1-2d energy centers, in whatever combination and weight. it is not unnatural to exist, however, in ultimate sense it is self-damaging (just like how any clogging of any energy center eventually starts to harm the entity), and entity eventually needs to remove that blockage and open that energy center. it is a matter of time, not a matter of choice.

Very interesting about the planet's chakras. I have believed for some time now, that our planet cannot fully be healed as long as billions of 2D animals are needlessly suffering on a daily basis. It is like a massive cancer in the body of the Earth that very few humans are paying attention to.

I find it interesting that cancer in humans is so rampant, and cancer rates among vegetarians are much, much lower than in meat-eaters. Could this be significant?

---

I do understand why you would argue your points, and I thank you for your post, but I feel you are not giving enough credit to the concepts of "catalyst" and "pre-incarnational" considerations.

Respectfully, Steve, isn't this ascribing 3D characteristics to 2D in matters of choice of catalyst?

---

I find it interesting that the Vegetarian and Soy way are destroying the very Earth they purport to be trying to "save." The farming of the Earth is domesticating the Land. Forests are removed to make way for fields to plant mono-crops. In this process the balance of nature is upset and many species are displaced. The very species that you think you are saving by eating only vegetarian or vegan foods.

Fairy, can you elaborate on why you feel vegetarians are contributing more to the raping of the Earth than meat-eaters? I am stunned by your statements, in light of well documented statistics:

According to a 2006 United Nations initiative, the livestock industry is one of the largest contributors to environmental degradation worldwide, and modern practices of raising animals for food contributes on a "massive scale" to air and water pollution, land degradation, climate change, and loss of biodiversity. The initiative concluded that "the livestock sector emerges as one of the top two or three most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global."[154]
In July 2009 Nike and Timberland stopped buying leather from deforested Amazon Rainforest [155] a few weeks after Greenpeace report demonstrated the destruction caused by Amazon cattle ranchers. According to Arnold Newman every hamburger sold results in destruction of 6.25m2 of rain forest.[156]
In addition, animal agriculture is a large source of greenhouse gases and is responsible for 18 percent of the world's greenhouse gas emissions as measured in CO2 equivalents. By comparison, all of the world's transportation (including all cars, trucks, buses, trains, ships, and planes) emits 13.5 percent of the CO2. Animal farming produces 65 percent of human-related nitrous oxide and 37 percent of all human-induced methane. Methane has about 21 times more Global Warming Potential (GWP) than carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide has 296 times the GWP of CO2.[157]
Animals fed on grain, and those that rely on grazing, need far more water than grain crops.[158] According to the USDA, growing the crops necessary to feed farmed animals requires nearly half of the United States' water supply and 80 percent of its agricultural land. Additionally, animals raised for food in the U.S. consume 90 percent of the soy crop, 80 percent of the corn crop, and a total of 70 percent of its grain.[159]
When tracking food animal production from the feed trough to consumption, the inefficiencies of meat, milk and egg production range from 4:1 up to 54:1 energy input to protein output ratio. This firstly because the feed first needs to be grown before it is eaten by the cattle, and secondly because warm-blooded vertebrates need to use a lot of calories just to stay warm (unlike plants or insects)....Ecology professor David Pimentel has claimed, "If all the grain currently fed to livestock in the United States were consumed directly by people, the number of people who could be fed would be nearly 800 million."...According to the theory of trophic dynamics, it requires 10 times as many crops to feed animals being bred for meat production as it would to feed the same number of people on a vegetarian diet. Currently, 70 percent of all the wheat, corn, and other grain produced is fed to farmed animals.[163] This has led many proponents of vegetarianism to believe that it is ecologically irresponsible to consume meat.[164]

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarianism

That's not even counting the huge increase in medical costs, and, consequently, drugs ending up in municipal water supplies, due to rampant degenerative diseases which could have been prevented, in many cases, by a vegetarian diet.