In regards to eating meat

[Tenet Nosce]

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

Something to the effect of "Wow! I am so shocked and amazed that anybody who is aware of higher spiritual perspectives would continue to eat meat! It just seems so basic." Or something like that.

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

Yes. I imagine at first it will be kind of like staying in a stranger's house. A little different- "they just don't do certain things we are used to." After a while it will seem normal. And after a little more while people will forget about meat-eating altogether. That's my prediction.

...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.

Of course it is 'OK'. That is my point. It will continue to be 'OK' in 4D, just nobody will really want to do it. And if they did, they wouldn't be able to do it while remaining ignorant of the process. It will all be obvious for everybody to see.

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.

But we do "go to heaven". That is a nice quip by Cayce, but I don't think it is fully representative of the situation.

Secondly, vegetarianism is not a quality of 4D. (As you admit later below.) Actually, vegetarianism is not a quality, whatsoever. It is a behavior that could be based upon a number of different beliefs.

It appears that you choose to be vegetarian out of a sense of compassion for animals. Sweet. But some others choose to be vegetarian out of a sense of duty "not to harm". This is different. These are two totally different motivating factors for the same behavior. One is based in truth; the other a lie.

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.

Now, now. Don't be crossing your Tenet Nosce neurons with your unity100 neurons. That probably won't lead us anywhere we want to be!

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?

Right, exactly. Despite that Ra, Hatonn, and Q'uo (and other channeled sources) all say that 4D is a different sphere which we will go to upon Graduation, people still want to believe that it is this sphere. Dolores Cannon's work suggests a different sphere, as documented by hundreds of hypnosis subjects. There is an actual detailed description of Harvest in the Keys of Enoch which concurs that it is a different sphere. The Urantia Book. A Course in Miracles. Theosophical texts. Essene texts. Hermetic texts. Various indigenous prophecies from around the globe. Even the Bible itself says "in the twinkling of an eye".

These sources (and many more) differ on several important points. But they all concur that humanity will continue their evolution upon a different sphere than this one. So either they are all wrong, or there is a massive universal conspiracy to trick us.

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

Yes. But there are different kinds of disagreement. One is where people interpret things a different way. Another is when people flat out deny what something says, in order to support their preconceived notions about reality. I admit it is sometimes difficult to discern between these.

If I may- it seems to me that you are confusing two worlds.

One world is Post-Graduation 3D earth, which will continue to exist for however many few generations. The purpose of this will be to allow for the experience of making reparations to 3D earth as a karmic balancing act. I imagine that many moving through this experience will at first be under the false impression that they are "saving earth". But this is not the case. The earth is already alive and well in 4D (and beyond). This will be more like "hospice care" for the dying 3D earth shell.

Another world is 4D earth. Which already exists, and is populated. It is a different sphere, entirely. This is what the various sources teach. This is not TN's "opinion" of what they teach.

If I had to guess, I would say part of your Wanderer mission will be to act as a guide to those moving through the reparation process. Yes, I imagine people will be eating less and less meat as it continues.

But it will end. At which point everybody will realize that it wasn't really about making reparations to the earth, but to the self.

Why do you suppose that happens?

Probably for a number of reasons. The point is that it is an effect, and not a cause. This makes all the difference in the world.

When the attitude is "You shouldn't eat meat! It is wrong and bad, and makes you a bad person," then what you are going to create is resistance, resentment, and revenge.

When the attitude is "Meat-eating? Don't worry too much about that right now. Just focus on your spiritual growth and the diet thing will sort itself out." then people aren't going to fight it. In the end, less meat will be eaten. Isn't that the goal? Or is the goal "to be right"?

Why do you suppose that is?

There are a number of reasons. It boils down to how much animal protein the body is designed to take in during a given time period. This is on the order of 6 to 12 ounces a day, not per meal.

I mean, one can't really eat too many vegetables, unless it's at the exclusion of something else.

Doubtful. Although one can certainly eat too many fruits. And I see this all the time. It is like pulling teeth for some people in order to cause them to understand that the situation is more complex than "fruit = good". See... it is the simplistic good/bad right/wrong mindset that I take issue with.

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.

I had a classmate who was a fruitarian. He only ate fruit. Despite a sallow complexion, brittle hair and nails, and sunken in eyes, he insisted that fruitarianism was the way to be. He got stomach cancer.

The reason that drinking several quarts of concentrated vegetable juice a day is good for the body is because it is nutrient dense. If meat were equally nutrient dense, it would be equally healthy.

Most of these people you describe had such a piss-poor diet to begin with, that any change would probably have been a vast improvement. Plus, you cannot discern which effects are due to not putting in something harmful, as compared to putting in something healthy. Also you must figure in the health effects that are simply due to an attitude change and/or the placebo effect.

Again, the most fundamental issue at play here is the dualistic mindset that says "vegetables=good and meat=bad". This faulty thought process is the problem itself. Therefore, any moral or ethical codes that are based upon a dualistic mindset are wrong. They are wrong because the fundamental nature of Creation is a trinity, and not a duality.

Somebody who decides to become vegan out of a dualistic mindset is placing themselves at some very high risks of malnutrition. Because they have adopted such a simpleton attitude, they are likely to overlook the fact that it isn't enough to simply eat plants.

You can drink all the vegetable juice in the world, but if you do not eat at least 2 ounces of nuts/seeds daily, you are in trouble. If you do not eat other sources of plant fat like avocado and coconut, you are in trouble. If you eat too much fruit, you are in trouble.

Do you see? There are multiple levels to look at here. On one level, food is "processed" or "GMO" or "animal-based" or "plant-based". On that level we have endless conflict. Umpteen million people with books and videos and talk shows. It is a circus that never ends.

An another level, we have the actual nutrient content of the food as it relates to the actual nutritional needs of the body. This is a fact-based approach. No circus. No arguments. No fighting. No taking up crosses.

Just the facts, ma'am. Now take a breath. See, don't you feel better already?

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.

Right. Now do you know why yoga and vegetarianism tend to come as a package? And why would you suppose that package itself tends to come wrapped with denial and dualism?

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.

Ra also indicated that, from a certain perspective, there is no difference between STS and STO.

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

But what constitutes harm is not a given. It can't be killing, because we agree that death can be merciful.

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

If it boils down to this, then obviously yes, animals are other-selves. As are microbes.

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.

Aha! See now as one who has had to practice quite a bit in the compassion department, I have found in my experience that when I approach life from the standpoint of "what should I do to be more compassionate?" that I come across as fake and cheesy to others.

The reason this happens is because, when one does not know compassion, it is absurd to try to engage in compassionate acts. How can one be compassionate, if one does not know what it is? It is kind of like when a psychopath tries to pass off "good manners" onto others. It is not at all genuine, and only a fool cannot tell the difference.

Instead, one should aspire to be present in the moment. Because that is where compassion resides:

  Virtue Grid.jpg (Size: 34.59 KB / Downloads: 5)

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

As regards graduation from 3D, no. What is important is to develop compassion for other humans. As I have stated, I have a hard time understanding those who would choose to place animals before other humans on their priority list.

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.

Interesting.

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

If we waste catalyst by ignoring the suffering of humans because we are so focused upon cows, what does that say for our compassion?

It might not 'damage' its soul, but it surely leaves an imprint.

What if this imprint was an essential part of the journey toward Creator-consciousness?

Intense physical pain, and intense terror, surely leave an imprint on a semi-conscious entity. No doubt about it.

An entity can die with neither intense physical pain nor terror. Besides, we don't actually know what goes on inside an animal's body when it is killed in the wild. It is quite possible that a massive release of DMT and endorphins makes the experience quite painless and free from fear.

It's setting something in motion...the question is: just what is it setting in motion?

It was already set in motion when the Creator created creation. We won't know the outcome until we pass the Omega point.

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

I get that, and this is why I don't normally purchase mass-produced meat. But since you are pressing the issue... if a given person in the Kangen factory were a murderer or a rapist, does that confer any responsibility to you for selling their products? Hardly.

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.

It isn't magic. It is a process, a skill, and an artform. Just like how Ra are experts on reintegration of souls following nuclear detonations. It is a cosmic vocation to assist souls in the death process.

Now I can see an entire 3D round going without detonation of nuclear weapons. But I can't see an entire 3D round going without killing of animals. Even if we could make humans out of a more vegetarian stock... the animals would still kill and eat each other. Are you saying it is possible to create a 3D world where animals do not devour one another in the wild?

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.

Possibly! I have accessed similar memories myself.

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

I had an incredible healing experience one time where I saw myself shackled to a wall in a stone chamber. I appeared to myself as an angel and told myself that I had finished what I came to do and it was now time to depart. When my other-self died, I felt an immensely warm loving energy fill my body back here in this reality. I have never felt anything so pleasurable as that.

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?

Yes, as described above. There can be 3D worlds without bloody war among humans. There are no 3D worlds without animals consuming one another's flesh for food.

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.

Plants are creatures too. Plants are entities. There is consciousness incarnated within that form. And there are actual experiments which suggest that the sound of my Breville is actually responded to by plants with fear.

Secondly, an animal being "peaceful" toward other animals does not preclude it becoming a meal for a carnivore, such as a cat, or an omnivore, such as a human. Eating is not an act of war.

The ones who eat other creatures tend to be very violent. This includes humans. As a species, humans are violent.

Well that is conveniently true for one who believes that eating other creatures is violent. This is totally circular reasoning. I don't see my cats as being violent when they hunt birds.

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?

Why not help reduce the suffering of abused children if it is within our power to do so?

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.

Well then, that explains why we cannot come to full agreement on this subject. There really is no point in continuing our discussion if you fail to acknowledge what Q'uo directly stated on this matter.

Moreover, I believe that Q'uo directly stated this in response to my query. :exclamation: :idea:

13 Feb 10

G: M writes, “I would like to ask Q’uo what is the fate of the veil on this planet beginning in 2013 and continuing in time thereafter? Will it gradually dissolve? If so, at approximately what rate? Please describe how this occurrence will affect the planet and the third-density entities upon it as much as you can without infringing on the Law of Confusion. Thank you.”

We are those of Q’uo, and we thank the one known as M for this query. When one is, as you are, possessed of physical senses which perceive a physical world, it is completely understandable that you would not necessarily grasp the concept that all apparently solid objects are actually fields of energy. As fields of energy, the closest that they come to matter is small fields of energy within the larger and encompassing field of energy which are called atoms. However, from your scientists you have received the information that even these points of matter, so called, are in fact energy fields, that matter has never been seen by your keenest telescope. Rather, it is the path of energy that is seen. And you know from your scientists that an atom consists almost entirely of space. We mention these scientific facts to you so that you may begin to wrap your mind around the concept of the nested densities of the creation.

Third-density Earth is nested within fourth-density Earth. It is not the same Earth as fourth-density Earth. Third-density Earth will not become fourth-density Earth, any more than first-density Earth became second-density Earth, or second-density Earth became third-density Earth. These densities are nested in such a way as to occupy the same area or influence within space/time and time/space, held lovingly by the overarching energy field of your sun.

Third-density Earth is an Earth whose light is waning. While it will remain third-density, it will no longer support third-density entities in their seeking of the truth. Thusly, third density is shortly to become inactive, we would say, within three or four hundred of your years beyond 2012. Thusly, 2013 upon your planet will look very much like 2012 upon your planet. However, you will find that your population of entities grows more and more interested and fascinated with the reparation of the Earth and the healing of what you call your Mother Earth or Gaia.

[NOTE: "reparation" means "making amends with" not "making repairs to"]

Those who incarnate at this time upon Planet Earth, that is, after 2012, will be those whose experiences in other incarnations have carried with them an element of adhering karma because of the destruction of their Earth whether it be this Earth and the destruction of Atlantis, or Maldek, or Mars, or several other Earths that created an uninhabitable third-density planet and thusly needed to finish third density upon Planet Earth. There are quite a few millions of those who feel that desire at this time to be part of the healing of the Mother. And there is great joy in contemplating that healing.

Fourth-density Earth is an entirely different sphere, within which third density is nested. And as fourth-density light becomes that which your sun is capable of offering, that fourth-density Earth shall more and more become populated by those from third-density Earth who have graduated in a positive sense and wish to move on. It will be a long time before entities who are inhabiting third density will be able to see entities of fourth density. However, they are as real and as physical, shall we say, to themselves and to fourth-density Earth as you are to your Earth.

We realize that this is one of the less comfortable or naturally obvious concepts having to do with the concept of densities. It is natural for a person to think that this same Earth upon which your feet make footsteps shall become fourth density and that on this same Earth, fourth density shall take place. However, we would suggest to you that it is much like wanting to take your physical body with you when you pass from physical life upon this planet and hoping to drag what this instrument would call this chemical distillery of a body into fourth density and attempt to lug it around when everyone else is dancing with a much lighter and electrically driven rather than chemically driven body.

If somebody wants to pull the "DOES NOT RESONATE" card on this information, it is their prerogative. But it doesn't make the information any less true. The information in this response is so direct and clear, that "DOES NOT RESONATE" pretty much amounts to calling Q'uo a liar.