In regards to eating meat

[Monica]

My opinion is that if an entity is evolved enough to be individuated, it won't incarnate into the body of a plant, who cannot run away from a hunter.

I don't think that's right, based on this quote:

19.2 Questioner: Let’s take the point at which an individualized entity of second density is ready for transition to third. Is this second-density being what we would call animal?

Ra: I am Ra. There are three types of second-density entities which become, shall we say, enspirited. The first is the animal. This is the most predominant. The second is the vegetable, most especially that which you call, sound vibration complex, “tree.” These entities are capable of giving and receiving enough love to become individualized. The third is mineral. Occasionally a certain location/place, as you may call it, becomes energized to individuality through the love it receives and gives in relationship to a third-density entity which is in relationship to it. This is the least common transition.

I didn't make my point clear. I will clarify:

I wasn't referring to trees. But trees don't get eaten or hunted, except for their wood by humans, and by forest fires. Trees also live very long lives, allowing them plenty of time to become individuated.

I have felt consciousness from trees, but not from all trees. I have felt the old, gnarly 'grandfather trees' like 1000-year-oaks, and the tall, stately trees in Washington forests. Undoubtedly the giant trees in Callifornia are quite individuated. Think about how a huge oak tree in a family's yard is loved by all, as generations of children play in its branches.

Such a tree isn't at risk for being eaten. It has been quite stable, actually, for hundreds of years, until humans came along and cut it down.

Humans kill other humans, yet, obviously, these are individuated beings, incarnating into bodies that are susceptible to harm from other beings. So too are trees susceptible.

But a carrot? Its very being screams out an invitation to be eaten. Its color, taste, etc. Add to that, smell of many plants is enticing to humans and other animals as well.

It seems incongruent that plants would have so many appealing qualities, + add to that they promote healing (whereas animal foods promote disease) + add to that, that vegetables have short lifespans, and when you look around, all animals exist on plants.

It would be a cruel design indeed, if each blade of grass writhes in agony every time an animal walks on it.

The design of wild animals killing other animals is cruel too. I intend to talk to the Sub-Logos about that as soon as I can. But at least I can see a purpose in it, the same as the purpose in 3D reality to begin with: to provide a catalyst for developing compassion.

If we turn our backs on having compassion for animals, then eons of animals killing other animals, will be for naught.

Which raises a question: what's your position on using lumber for houses, etc? Can sawmills be equated to slaughterhouses?

That's a very good question! The main glaring difference is that trees have a normal life before they are cut down. Whereas, animals are treated cruelly the entire time.

Still, should we ever cut down a tree at all, knowing that it might be individuated?

If I ever build a house, I'd probably opt for rocks rather than wood. But then I will probably be told that the rocks are beings too.

What to do? We didn't design this planet. As long as we're here, we have to make the best of it. That's why I contend that we have to start someplace. We have to eat something. We have to build houses. If we are still eating animals, then we've really got no business talking about saving carrots, or even trees. Look at how much trouble PETA runs into, even when they're trying to save fluffy bunnies! Can you imagine if they started telling people to be fruitarians and live in rock houses and buy only plastic furniture?

We have to be pragmatic. Let's start with the animals!