In regards to eating meat

[unity100]

Otherwise, how does a particular species evolve to 3D, rather than an individual?

just like how gandalf the cat has passed over the threshold of 3d, before the group soul we know as 'felix domesticus' has passed into 3d as entirety.

you are treating group consciousness as if it was akin to society complexes which are harvest requirements in 4d and 6d. in these densities, entities cannot graduate before their society complex graduates. however, this is not as such in 5d, or 3d for example.

...............

however i got your question in broader sense. and, in that regard ; there is no mandatory requirement for a species to evolve into 3d. the evolution, is the evolution of the mind/spirit complexes, not the body complex.

so, there is no requirement that goes like 'cat group soul and bodies evolve into 3d' or 'ape group souls and bodies evolve into 3d'.

ra had mentioned that the choice of body type to use, elements used in their design, even to the extent of 3d body to use in the planet, is a moment's choice by the logos. logos may have chosen another body than the ape body for this planet.

therefore, just like how entities in and above 3d do with their spiritual evolution, an appropriate body and experiential circumstance may be chosen for the entity's development in 2d too. the general blueprint of progress wouldnt change per densities. its basically the practice of placing any soul/entity/consciousness/whatever, in the appropriate body in a desired experiential nexus, and then taking it off.

so basically, this planet could go on for 8 billion years, and felis domesticus body may not evolve into a 3d body, and at any given point there may be a lot of entities inhabiting the cat group soul, but, there may be billions of entities passing through that group soul into other group souls and eventually graduating into 3rd density.

in short - the group souls inhabiting a planet is akin to experiential nexi for 3d entities - the spirit-to be consciousness would become a member of, and then incarnate according to the experiential necessities and the level of advancement it has.

gandalf is a stellar example in this regard - despite already 3d, the entity could chose to come back as a cat.

I'm not necessarily saying that that the group consciousness does not contain individuals either. But these individuals are not self-aware, they don't realize that they are individuals, they exist as part of the group rather than individuals.

you are forgetting the implications of sub-densities. when you remember that Ra says there are infinite sub-octaves of consciousness in each density (a sub-octave of consciousness as opposed to an octave of consciousness which is this octave, which is AGAIN just a sub octave of consciousness compared to whatever greater octave it is part of), then the conclusion becomes straightforward :

there is infinite levels of advancement at any given octave, including subdensities.

therefore, for any given density, there is infinite levels of sub octaves which measure and place the entity at a standing in that octave in regard to development of the entity. leave aside meaning of that octave.

so, 1d is an infinite suboctave in which entities stand in different advancements in regard to not only development of consciousness, but also that density's meaning - the desire to move and transform without dispersing, 2d is an infinite suboctave in which entities stand in different advancements regarding the vibration of consciousness, AND the meaning of the octave - the existence of an individual 'self' within them, and 3d is an infinite suboctave of consciousness not only as to vibration of consciousnesses in it, but also the meaning of that density - the attitude of the entity in regard to others. and so it goes.

again, simply, the objective of an entire 2 billion year long density, cannot happen over a trivial amount of time. it is a progression.

I don't quite follow your idea that some of may goats my be harvestable 3D. Gandalf had the possibility of reincarnating with L/L to be with the people he loved. My goats have never shown love in the level of a house-pet.

the problem here is that, the behavior pattern and manners of each species are not the same. regardless of how much your tortoise could love you, it couldnt be able to show that love in any manner you could interpret through the logic of the current societal complex of 3d.

and in retrospect, as much as your bird may sing to you, that may not be a show of love and affection.

that could only be measured and gauged by the interaction/vibration felt while with the entity, but then for this, the entity (you) would need to be quite sharp in spiritual sensitivity and cleaned and cleared those senses.

If there were such a variety of levels of 2D consciousness within group consciousness, we'd be able to keep any sort of species as a house pet as long as we found one close enough to true individuation. And, we would not be able to keep cats and dogs as house pets as such a majority, because we couldn't guarantee that we could make them behave in a manner similar to us. There are exceptions as far as psychological conditioning and genetics goes, but I'm talking about the majority.

actually it is as such - cats, dogs, differ wildly in regard to their level. even though you can generally place them in a certain broad range, you would find that even the offspring of the same mother vary wildly in regard to their attitudes, sensitivity, awareness and consciousness. some may be wilder despite growing in the same house, some may be much more humane. not only that, they may also have born with various traits, behaviors and habits they brought from pre incarnation, quirky stuff that you cannot explain with conditioning or life experience.

Also, I know you don't normally like to get too personal, so don't feel obligated to answer this, but I'm extremely curious as to what your particular diet is. How does someone like you with such conviction on these views sustain themselves?

i told already in my post. i eat bread, cheese (various varieties) most of the time. its not because of conviction tho - im not opposed to eating fruits or vegetables. (preferably vegetables that involve no killing of individual plant). however i have an inclination towards cheese and bread. i occasionally take vitamins. and occasionally eat eggs.

---

Alright, now would be my turn to respectfully ask you to consider your own incongruence here.

Firstly, why is it OK to fear, guilt, and shame people into doing the "right" thing? Why does "passion" give somebody a free pass to be manipulative of others?

Secondly, I would offer that folks like Markus should seriously consider what the impact of their message is on people like those featured in the news stories who obviously don't have the common sense to know when to throw a philosophical principle out the window.

There is a connection here. We are all connected, remember? Group mind, right? Absolutism on the part of one charismatic leader results in ignorance and zealotry in their followers. And we all know where that leads. Please don't make me bust out a 5th grade history book to prove that one.

What I have been saying is that trying to base vegetarianism on an absolutist philosophical doctrine of harmlessness does not hold water. As evidenced by this very thread! It just goes ON and ON and ON and the debate will obviously never be resolved. Why? Because there is no clear and concise answer. There is no hard line to draw in the sand.

then i would say that you will find the progression along a spiritual path one have chosen is rather absolutist. you cant have 'anything goes' and then arrive at a certain point that is at the end of a straight line.

what does that mean ?

it means, you cant enslave people, and end up polarizing positively. or, you cant befriend people and help them, and end up harvesting negatively.

there endless amount of mechanics that were created at the beginning of existence to manifest the creation, and, the mechanics of polarization and any similar spiritual mechanic that governs progression of a soul, are among them.

yes, there is choice. yes, there is free will. there is choice and free will to CHOOSE your path among the ones provided. not ignore the existential mechanics, and then arrive at a totally irrelevant destination DESPITE the acts done contrary to that particular path. else, everything would just deteriorate into chaos, and it would be an environment in which no entity would be able to make any sense out of anything. actually, there wouldnt be concept of being an 'entity' in such a situation either.

An animal life has nowhere NEAR the potential for choice, spiritual growth, and polarization that a human life does. This much should be obvious. Attempts to draw a parallel between the murder of a human being and the slaughter of an animal are REALLY stretching it. This might be the same thing in your mind, and you are entitled to your opinion, but clearly most people don't agree. Including many other thoughtful people here on this forum.

i find it quite curious that you equate the human life with such richness. maybe it is that you are referring to the technology and societal distortions of this particular civilization, rather than array of emotions and and behaviors of entities in 3d towards others.

for, the former has more to do with what Ra expresses as the society having complex orange ray distortion complexes (notice how it stays in the orange ray), and the latter is universal properties of 3d.

there is the self, there are others. the feelings that are present in the self, do not descend from the skies at the start of 3d - they are present there in 2d, however the entity only increasingly realizes that there are OTHER entities than itself in this equation.

what was just impulsive, random, and uninterpretable before 3d, only becomes possible to START to interpret in 3d, as to the feelings, emotions and attitudes of others towards the self. you can easily see from our own society that, even mid 3d is not capable of making that interpretations of feelings of self towards self and others - people are unable to get ahold of their feelings, understand themselves, leave aside develop a consistent attitude towards others even at this nexus. (despite harvest is upon them).

so, allow me to tell you that you are rather exaggerating - feelings, choices, emotions do not come into being out of nowhere at the start of 3d - 2d is the very place in which they are developed. 3d, is a density of choice towards others. it is not something extremely complex, complicated or rich. it is whether you repress your emotions, or accept them.

Sorry, but I'm calling bullshit.

maybe before calling bullshit, you should establish consistency in your own propositions :

the proposition you have made just a little while ago that says slaughter can be made more humane (therefore acceptable) by collective effort, compassion and caring, could also apply to killing of other humans, therefore unrationalizing the rationalizations you have made about killing of other human beings in that other thread.