In regards to eating meat

[Monica]

First of all, you can't really make a rational/verbal argument for what is going on at the spirit level because the spirit level is beyond words.

Secondly, what some people fail to realize is that- YES- there are others in this thread who ARE considering this from a spiritual perspective, but aren't arriving at the same conclusion as you.

True. As in the old adage "intelligent people can disagree."

So the reaction is either "shock and amazement" or condescension.

I'm not following you on the 'shock and amazement' part. ?

It is like when people say... "Well you know ONE DAY [when you are as old and wise as me] you will come to believe as I do." It is a bit derogatory.

I can see how the opinions expressed by those who envision a future without animal slaughter can be perceived as condescending, even though I'm certain that was not the intention of any of us.

Interestingly, though, your later statement:

I would guess that- over there- they do not slaughter animals for food.

...is, essentially, saying just that: That ONE DAY (in 4D) we will all agree that animals not be slaughtered for food.

The difference in our views is that your statement:

3D earth is not transitioning into 4D earth. It is not going to become 4D earth by the efforts of humans. 4D earth already exists.

...you clearly state that, while you agree that in 4D we won't be eating animals, you disagree about how we will get there. You seem to be indicating that it's ok to eat animals now, but when we get to 4D we will no longer be interested in eating animals, or we will have lost our taste for animal flesh, or we simply won't want meat because the design of 4D is different than 3D.

Whereas, the view shared by myself and some of the other vegetarians, is more like Cayce's admonition "You don't go to heaven...you grow to heaven!" ie. we can't expect to just go poof into another reality...we must aspire to the qualities of 4D if we want to be in 4D.

It's the same debate I had with unity100, who, in my understanding, was saying that compassion is a 4D trait and doesn't exist in 3D; thus, we won't have it until we get to 4D. Whereas, I contend that the way to resonate with 4D is to start now aspiring to those qualities.

It's also the same debate regarding Harvest: will it be gradual or sudden? And the same debate raging in Christianity: will Jesus rapture everyone up suddenly to a perfect heaven?

Yes, intelligent people disagree. We can all read the same book, meditate on these questions with sincerity, and still disagree.

Let me restate- in case you or others have missed it- that I actually agree that people will naturally eat less meat as certain changes continue to occur.

Why do you suppose that happens?

I also agree that it is healthier to eat less meat.

Why do you suppose that is? I mean, one can't really eat too many vegetables, unless it's at the exclusion of something else. But lots of people drink several quarts of concentrated vegetable juice daily, and there are no ill effects. They just get healthier and healthier, to the point that there are many books written by people who claim to have healed their cancer with veggie juices.

What I don't agree is with the assertion that not eating meat "makes one more spiritual".

I agree with you on this. Being vegetarian is not a ticket to heaven!

Just like practicing yoga isn't either...though many on the spiritual path consider these things integral to their spirituality.

I don't agree that it is "wrong" for humans to eat meat because that would make the Creator wrong for creating the world this way.

I think it's an oversimplification to think in terms of 'right' and 'wrong.' We know from Ra that, ultimately, there is no such thing.

It's more about efficiency, and something called polarity comes into play.

Ra stated that there is no right and wrong. Yet, Ra also indicated certain intentions and actions that are appropriate for STS, while others are appropriate for STO. As in, helping to facilitate progress in polarizing on the chosen path.

Knowingly causing harm to an other-self helps facilitate polarizing STS, not STO. That is a given.

What it really boils down to is whether animals are 'other-selves' or not.

That is the crux of the debate, as I see it. We are all in agreement that it's proper, and even necessary, for an STO-aspiring person to develop compassion for other-selves, ie. human other-selves.

What's being debated is whether it's important to develop compassion for our younger other-selves...ie. animals.

I contend that the Creator has probably allowed 2D to be so bloody, as a mechanism by which 3D entities may learn to develop compassion.

If this contention is correct, then by ignoring the suffering of animals, we are wasting that catalyst...losing an opportunity to develop compassion.

I am also not sure that I agree that killing an animal for food somehow causes damage to its soul, or that its soul would even care one way or another.

It might not 'damage' its soul, but it surely leaves an imprint. Intense physical pain, and intense terror, surely leave an imprint on a semi-conscious entity. No doubt about it. It's setting something in motion...the question is: just what is it setting in motion?

It's also about whether I choose to take part in that act of violence.

Even if an untimely death might have robbed a particular animal of a chance at individuation, I wouldn't anticipate that much time is necessary between incarnations. And besides it would give the animal soul a chance to choose a form which is more conducive to having success the next time around.

I think the root of our difference in views is that I see spiritual evolution as a continuous process. I don't see an entity just magically erasing the effects of a trauma just experienced.

Perhaps the reason I see it that way is because I have past life memories of an extremely traumatic life, and another of a violent death. Those memories carried over into this life.

If that happened to me, then I feel certain it happens to cows too.

That being said, I fully concur that the industry practices around meat-eating are quite abhorrent and unnecessary. I am fully in support of practices which show a respect and appreciation for life, and I fully acknowledge the validity of the viewpoint of a person who raises their own animals, or who makes a special effort to purchase animal products from other people, rather than corporate giants.

Glad to see agreement on this.

We are in a 3D world where creatures eat other creatures for food. It is not wrong. It is so. In other densities- this is not the case.

We are in a 3D world in which humans kill other humans in bloody wars. It is not wrong. It is so. In other densities- this is not the case.

Is there any difference in these 2 statements?

Incidentally, not all creatures in 3D eat other creatures for food. Many do not. Curiously, the ones who eat plants tend to be peaceful animals. The ones who eat other creatures tend to be very violent. This includes humans. As a species, humans are violent.

So why don't we focus on wrapping things up in this density rather than crucifying ourselves upon the Wheel of Karma in trying to make 3D into something it is not?

Why wait for the next density? Why not try to make the world a better place in any small way we are able to? Why not help reduce suffering if it is within our power to do so?

3D earth is not transitioning into 4D earth.

That point is debatable, but is outside the scope of this discussion. That topic is discussed in the various threads in The Harvest sub-forum.

It is not going to become 4D earth by the efforts of humans.

Maybe not. I subscribe to the idea that multiple timelines exist. Surely, on some timelines, this planet won't change. It will continue to accommodate those who prefer to fight wars, etc. But, in my opinion, other timelines also exist in which the world is indeed changed, because the spark of awareness ignited and spread, until the population reached that 'moment of inspiration' that Ra said was not probable but ever possible.

With respect to that, what would be the purpose of a 4D Wanderer to be here in 3D earth at this time/space nexus? Simply to teach vegetarianism? Or is there a Higher Purpose?

To teach compassion.

Vegetarianism is not a prerequisite for transport. It simply isn't.

Very true. It's not.

But, compassion is.

Continue to develop awareness of your cravings, and trust your body to communicate to you what it needs and when it needs it. That is all.

This is doable once the body has been cleansed. But, most people's bodies are, quite frankly, too polluted with environmental toxins, pesticides, drugs, and, yes, animal foods to give a clear signal about what it needs.

Evidence of this is that most people crave ice cream, sodas and candy. Those aren't even foods at all so surely the body doesn't actually need them.

Tenet, what do you think of Pickle's observation that many people don't lose their craving for meat until they cleanse their bodies for awhile first?

And Pickle, can you tell us more about that?

---

Yes, but violence is a term that primarily refers to behavior among humans. Yes- it can be applied to animals but this is obviously a gray area.

Also, as has been repeated multiple times, there is more than one way to skin a cat. Killing does not necessarily equate to violence. But obviously, the two are connected.

I consider imposing harm or killing another being to be violence.

Try beating a cow or chicken to death. That's violence.

But for those that are continuing to eat cows, that doesn't make them more violent than me. It just makes them more ignorant than me.

Respectfully, friend, you are confusing the person eating the cow, with the act of killing the cow.

The act of killing a cow is violent.

That doesn't make every person who eats a hamburger a violent person!

Think of it in terms of English grammar. Remember subjects and objects?

The dog caught the ball.

Dog is subject, ball is object.

The act of being caught is the same, whether it's a ball or a stick. From the perspective of the ball or stick, it is the same: being caught.

But from the perspective of the dog, it can be different. The dog might catch a ball for fun, or it might catch a chicken to eat. The motivation can be different.

An animal getting slaughtered is, from the animal's perspective, just as violent as any human act of violence. The animal feels pain just the same...it bleeds just the same...it cries out just the same.

But the person doing the killing may be totally different, because his intentions are different. For most people, killing an animal isn't a mean, cruel or malicious act. They're just feeding their families or working at a job to make a living.

There is a big distinction between subject and object here.

When vegetarians speak of animal violence, they are referring to it from the point of view of the animals, not the humans. Meat-eaters often get offended, because they think they're being judged. But they're not. They are the subject. The animal is the object. We are talking only about the object's perspective when we describe its suffering or what the act feels like to him.

Whyever not? I mean, if it weren't for microbes none of us would even exist. We depend on microbes to help us digest our food and to regulate our immune system. Mother earth relies on microbes to help offset the effects of oil spills and other human bunglings. If not for microbes in the soil, plants would neither be able to exist, nor provide oxygen for humans to breathe. If not for microbes in the sky, there would be little rain and the climate more severe.

This is way more than can be said for cows.

You seem to be arguing in favor of my point...?

How about if I started accusing physicians of unprovoked assault on symbiotic gut bacteria every time they write a prescription for antibiotics? Or perhaps I should sue Clorox on behalf of the microbe world for the rampant germicide they perpetuate with their products? Or even shun the word "germ" as not being politically correct? Why not shut Pfizer down for distributing weapons of mass microbe destruction?

You could try, but you wouldn't get anywhere. You'd be laughed at.

But we can avoid killing animals.

We can avoid killing microbes, too. Not only that, but we should. It is the senseless killing of microbes that has created some of the more virulent strains which are growing beyond our ability to control.

If you advocate not killing microbes so that they don't become immune to antibiotics, then that is for the benefit of humans. It wouldn't be an act born out of compassion for microbes, as not killing cows would be.

OK. I must have been confusing your views with somebody else's.

Ok.

In contrast, we have the power to choose to avoid contributing to the cruelty to animals. We can do that. So why not do it?

We don't have the power to do this because we can't discern a consistent principle from which to draw a model for behavior.

Ah. Apparently, that is something that is important to you. Are you saying you must have a consistent principle proven to you, in order to see any benefit to not eating animals?

That is where we differ. I don't need anyone to explain it. I just look at the videos of cows getting slaughtered, I feel compassion for the cows, and that's that.

You have mentioned potential to individuate. And I agree this seems to be part of it. But there has to be something more than just... it is an animal therefore humans shouldn't kill them. This would obviously lead to some very absurd results, as you know.

I have gone to great lengths regarding individuation because this is a discussion based on the Law of One.

I don't think any of that is necessary. Just animals having pain receptors is enough for me.

We can't do everything. Why not do what we can?

Exactomundo! I see "doing what we can" as taking a good, hard look at priorities.

What if... there were less than 12 months... or even 12 years or 120 years... left before 3D earth winks out of active existence. Will it have mattered that PETA got their way? How long do you think the victory party is going to go on in 4D+ where nobody eats meat anyways?

It will matter to those humans who are the fence, and need a nudge towards that 51%...having their eyes opened to the cruelty of animal slaughter might just be the nudge they need to push them over the threshold.

It will matter to those animals, who might now be populating a dark planet, destined for eons of brutality.

It will matter to countless humans who are suffering right now, because of a shortage of food and water...in the coming decades in which the Earth's resources can no longer sustain the population when they have a meat-based diet.

If we can help humans wake up in time to reduce starvation and diseases caused by polluted water, then why not? If we know that a plant-based diet can more efficiently support the planet's 7 billion people, thus reducing malnutrition and starvation, then why not?

Yes, it matters. All our conscious choices matter.

Same way any prayer works. According to my understanding, there are whole hosts of beings who are in contact with intelligent infinity whose role it is to administer to animal souls throughout the grand scheme of Creation. When I pray for the animal, I throw the weight of my intention along with these beings and trust that it will be appropriated in the most effective way.

That makes no sense to me. If I decide to arbitrarily kill, say, a wild rabbit, when there is absolutely no reason to do so, but then I pray with all my heart and soul for that rabbit, how is that helping either me or the rabbit? When I didn't need to kill it in the first place?

Hunt down an animal, ignore its cries of pain and the terror in its eyes, and then just say a prayer for it afterwards?

I am not a hunter. But I believe the correct sequence would be to first say a prayer for the animal, and ask the Universe for a volunteer who is willing to sacrifice their flesh for the nourishment of human life. Then one waits. Often for a very long time. Sometimes not.

Oh, the way the Native Americans did it...Well they did it because they had to, to survive.

Nowadays, most people don't need to go hunt a deer to make shoes or shelter or to feed themselves. We no longer run around in loincloths and live in tents made from hides. People just go down to the grocery store and buy the meat, prepackaged and already quite dead. That wasn't a 'gift from the gods'.

So it's kinda moot.

When the killing wasn't necessary?

But it is necessary. Something must die in order for something else to live. While in 3D.

It is necessary to eat plants. Whether one eats animals or not, one must still eat plants too.

But for most of us, it's not necessary to eat animals.

Ra said to the extent necessary.

That would depend on the severity of its injuries. Sometimes it is indeed a compassionate act to end the animal's life because it is in extreme pain and there is no hope for healing.

To what ends of expense? If Gandalf needs $5000 surgery to maybe live another year, and I don't want to pay for it, do you have the right to force me to pay for it? Should I drop Gandalf off at a shelter or something? Will PETA pay for Gandalf's surgery? Or will that cut too deeply into their lobbying budget?

That's getting into a whole 'n/other issue...an issue that could stretch into the human situation as well as animals. That might be better for another thread.

Sometimes it is. We had a family dog die back in '07. The last couple of days were really sad and the poor thing couldn't even move himself around to avoid defecating on himself.

Now, I don't even own a gun. But what I -did- do was go to him and cradle his head in my hands and pray for his quick and painless release from this body. He died a few hours later. Maybe most people don't realize they can do this? But besides that point, I was directly intending for him to die. Is it really so different, if I had expressed that intention with a bullet or an injection?

No, in that case, it is an act of mercy.

At any rate, killing an animal out of mercy has no relevance to animals slaughtered for meat, because they are only miserable because humans made them miserable. Raising animals in the cruel conditions of factory farms, inflicting misery on them day after day after day, and then finally killing it...that's not an act of compassion.

Like I keep saying, I think the factory farm thing is nasty in many respects, and I don't buy that crap.

OK good to hear. Sorry if I don't always remember who buys meat from the store and who doesn't. I can't really keep track.

If it weren't for their interactions with humans, no animal would ever had any chance to escape the pain and terror of living as an animal in the 3D world, whatsoever. It is part of the program. That any animal could be "spared" such a fate is by the intervention of human beings, not the other way around.

I don't think I agree with that. I don't think the only way for a 2D entity to escape 2D is from contact with humans.

You are right in that humans can choose to "opt out" of meat-eating, however there is no denying that the human body was designed for consumption of animal protein. Perhaps we can modulate this with spirulina and other things as Dr. Gabriel describes, but this is actually not the "natural" state of things. This is a new possibility that was not available before.

We are evolving.

I had always assumed that such animal souls are ministered and attended to similarly to those humans who may have departed in fear-based ways. It is all under intelligent guidance and direction.

They probably are, but that doesn't completely erase the traumatic effects. Else, people wouldn't carry karmic stuff over from one lifetime to the next.