04-23-2011, 11:26 PM
I think you misinterpret me a little bit, I understand your position but I will argue that it is entirely relative to your own personal empathetic feelings towards pain and suffering. Also, an animal is no more alone than any of us are at any point, there are always helping and guiding entities to assist whenever necessary. Also the ever present One. As you said, our 3D reality is an illusion, which means that the experiential stimili are also illusory in nature, they are only effects of much "higher" causes.
You imagine yourself as the animal and decide that that sort of condition would be undesirable for you based on the experience of pain. However, that is largely due to your own distortion towards the idea that pain is negative in nature. Pain and pleasure are just effects, just stimuli that are neither negative or positive in themselves, impulses. Consider that it is not the death that is important but the use of the energy. If the meat from an animal is consumed by a human then ultimately would not the polarization depend on what the human used that obtained energy for? Also, animals die to feed regardless of whether or not it is by natural aging, disease or otherwise. They still go to feed bacteria, fungus, flies and all the myriads of decompositional creatures that inhabit our world. There are still predators in the wild, and humans distinctly possess canines and incisors as well as flat teeth, which I think is strong evidence for omnivorous nature.
You speak of the Law of One as though it is separate from experience, yet you are arguing something that is nothing more than a perspective, can you deny my experience under the Law of One? Loyalty to the Confederation's teachings should not be confused with the scope of the One. It is intention that creates polarization, not just actions, actions are just the effects of intentions. Perhaps those whom slaughter receive negative polarization, but if I eat meat bought at a store with the intention to positively utilize its energy and proteins will that not be something of gratitude and appreciation for the sacrifice, volunteery or not, of the animal?
Also, to my understanding service to others and service to self all still serve the self. Both are mutual, just a difference in focus, internal vs external. You help others to help the self, and those who help themselves help others, this is a point I believe Ra has been specific on. Of course, what exactly is the purpose of choosing either an STO or STS path? Where is the distinction truly drawn? Does it matter what you do, how you feel, what you intend or what you think? The images of each path must also be separated, service to self implies enslavement and self worship, yet we have all accepted the distortion of the bodily's complex need to eat and be nourished, and also that our systems can digest both plant and animal matter. Also, what about eggs? Is fruit not the eggs of the plants? It seems to me that there is an overidentification with the concept of pain and suffering being solely of negative polarization.
Consider, service to self, service to others, one to command and one to serve, one to direct and one to be directed. The Confederation pushes the idea of service-to-others, the words of masters making willing slaves? Difficult to say.
You imagine yourself as the animal and decide that that sort of condition would be undesirable for you based on the experience of pain. However, that is largely due to your own distortion towards the idea that pain is negative in nature. Pain and pleasure are just effects, just stimuli that are neither negative or positive in themselves, impulses. Consider that it is not the death that is important but the use of the energy. If the meat from an animal is consumed by a human then ultimately would not the polarization depend on what the human used that obtained energy for? Also, animals die to feed regardless of whether or not it is by natural aging, disease or otherwise. They still go to feed bacteria, fungus, flies and all the myriads of decompositional creatures that inhabit our world. There are still predators in the wild, and humans distinctly possess canines and incisors as well as flat teeth, which I think is strong evidence for omnivorous nature.
You speak of the Law of One as though it is separate from experience, yet you are arguing something that is nothing more than a perspective, can you deny my experience under the Law of One? Loyalty to the Confederation's teachings should not be confused with the scope of the One. It is intention that creates polarization, not just actions, actions are just the effects of intentions. Perhaps those whom slaughter receive negative polarization, but if I eat meat bought at a store with the intention to positively utilize its energy and proteins will that not be something of gratitude and appreciation for the sacrifice, volunteery or not, of the animal?
Also, to my understanding service to others and service to self all still serve the self. Both are mutual, just a difference in focus, internal vs external. You help others to help the self, and those who help themselves help others, this is a point I believe Ra has been specific on. Of course, what exactly is the purpose of choosing either an STO or STS path? Where is the distinction truly drawn? Does it matter what you do, how you feel, what you intend or what you think? The images of each path must also be separated, service to self implies enslavement and self worship, yet we have all accepted the distortion of the bodily's complex need to eat and be nourished, and also that our systems can digest both plant and animal matter. Also, what about eggs? Is fruit not the eggs of the plants? It seems to me that there is an overidentification with the concept of pain and suffering being solely of negative polarization.
Consider, service to self, service to others, one to command and one to serve, one to direct and one to be directed. The Confederation pushes the idea of service-to-others, the words of masters making willing slaves? Difficult to say.