In regards to eating meat

[Monica]

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.

Ah, ok. Well then I am guilty of that. What can I say? I truly don't understand it.

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.

Then this is the crux of our disagreement. I don't think we will just automatically change in a higher density. I think we have to embody the qualities of that density, in order to resonate with it and live in it.

...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.

Shock and amazement!

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".

The Earth is vibrating 4D right now. I wouldn't quite call it heaven.

That is a nice quip by Cayce, but I don't think it is fully representative of the situation.

I do. I think it's quite profound, actually. But then, another reason we might not be agreeing on some of these concepts is that we might view consensual reality differently.

Secondly, vegetarianism is not a quality of 4D.

It's not about vegetarianism. That's a quality pertaining to us.

It's about compassion for others. That's a quality pertaining to the others, in this case, animals.

Compassion is 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.

That's true. Many people are vegetarians for health reasons and don't care at all about the animals. That's why I said it's about compassion, not whether one is a vegetarian or not.

A person could be actively working on reducing their meat consumption, eating only to the extent necessary for their individual metabolism, because they have compassion for the animals, and that person would be much more compassionate (in this area) than a person who is vegetarian strictly for personal health reasons.

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.

I'm not sure I would call it a lie - that seems too strong a word for an issue that is so complex, getting into microbes and such - but I agree that it's a higher intention to do something out of compassion, rather than duty.

One can feel a sense of duty without being compassionate.

It's a case of the 'letter of the law vs the spirit of the law.' When humans evolve to the point where they no longer wish to kill other humans, there will no longer be a need for laws against murder. (for example)

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.

But what is a sphere? It's illusion. And what about M Theory? The work of Nassim Haramein? If there is only 1 timeline, why is Ra unable to tell us exactly what the future holds, not because of violating our free will, but because they see many possible futures in the possibility/probability vortex?

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.

True.

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.

If that's the case, then I am doing what I'm supposed to be doing.

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.

They are the same thing of course. All is One.

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"?

As I've said, I never walk up to a person in my everyday life and tell them out of the blue to quit eating meat. In everyday life, I tune into people, always on the lookout for clues that they might be receptive to the idea that eating meat isn't necessary. Usually, in the course of conversation about their health, it comes up, and then I gently offer suggestions, taking into consideration where they're at in their process.

For example, a friend has known I'm a vegetarian, and has asked me why. So I told her. She didn't seem to flinch, even though she is an otherwise very compassionate person and even extends that compassion to animals like mice in her house, whom she won't kill. She just didn't seem to make the connection between the meat on her plate and animals. She even told me once that she could never kill an animal, but seemed to be ok with someone else doing it on her behalf.

I didn't point out the incongruency. The time wasn't right. If she couldn't see it, my pointing it out would have just been perceived as judgmental, not to mention pointless.

But guess what...recently she was diagnosed with cancer. Now, because she has a need for healing, she is suddenly asking me for vegetarian recipes, what kind of juicer to buy, etc.

All things in due course. As you and I have discussed previously, what you do and what I do in our everyday lives is actually pretty much the same. We both work with people where they're at.

This discussion, however, is specifically about the topic from a spiritual perspective. So I am saying things here I wouldn't say to my friend who has cancer, at least not at this point. Maybe someday when she and I have a philosophical discussion...

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 don't personally care about the 'design' of the human body because I believe our bodies are mutating, and that can happen very quickly. So what our ancestors ate doesn't really factor into the equation, in my view.

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.

The fruit issue is the topic of much debate, even in the raw vegan community.

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.

Oh good heavens! Not even the 'high fruit' gurus like Frederic Patenaude advocate only fruit! I can't even imagine doing that, at least not at this point.

But see, your classmate apparently did it out of some ideal...more in the duty category.

The raw vegan movement has had its share of casualties. Another thing I love about Dr. Gabriel Cousens is that he acknowledges the raw vegans are all pioneers. And even Frederic Patenaude acknowledges that raising children on a raw vegan diet is taking a risk, simply because it hasn't been done before. I was very impressed when he recently stated that raw vegans shouldn't be purists when it comes to their children, but to use some common sense, and that might mean including some cooked vegan food in their diets, since the needs of children are different from the needs of adults.

We all know the stories about the radical fanatics who tried to raise their kids according to some ideal, and ignored the obvious signs of malnutrition. This is reprehensible!

When I raised my son 100% vegetarian, I had enough concrete proof that a vegetarian diet was more than adequate for children. I didn't, however, have enough confidence to raise him vegan, so I made the decision to go with middle-of-the-road lacto vegetarian. (I would have included eggs but he hates eggs.)

Knowing what I know now, if I had to do it over again, I would have raised him high raw...with moderate amounts of free-range eggs if he accepted it, and lots of raw, soaked nut milks. I would have offered raw goat's milk only when he was very little. I now have enough knowledge of a healthy high-raw, mostly vegan diet for children. But back then, I didn't.

Even though I was raising my son very middle-of-the-road veg, not even remotely radical, I kept a close watch on his development. As any parent should do anyway! If I had ever gotten any hint that he was deficient in anything, I would have quickly evaluated his diet.

But I can report that he is healthy, never had any of the childhood illnesses, and is actually much physically stronger than most of his friends who are bigger than he.

It's just common sense to pay attention to obvious signs of health/deficiency. Those fanatics who let their children get sick, obviously were putting ideals ahead of the reason for the ideals in the first place. The letter of the law above the spirit of the law.

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.

I respectfully disagree with that. Meat isn't as healthy. It has too many components that are harmful. Even if, as you suggest, it had a higher concentration of vitamins/nutrients, it would still have the negative properties as well, so it could never be 'as healthy.'

Proponents of meat often say that the reason people should eat meat is that it is nutrient dense. But the only nutrient it's dense in, is protein.

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.

For people switching from SAD to a healthy diet, yes that's true. But there are also many people who've been vegetarians for many years, haven't had a soda in many years, etc. who then got into juicing, and still got positive benefits.

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.

I don't understand what you mean by trinity. I know you aren't referring to the Christian idea of trinity, so do you mean mind/body/spirit complex? is that what you mean by trinity?

If so, how does that translate into a thought process? How can thought be classified in terms of trinity?

(Please make your reply to this question a stand-alone, because I will probably end up splitting that post into another thread, as it can quickly veer off-topic.)

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.

Yes, but avocados, coconuts, nuts and seeds all come from plants. So did you mean to say "not enough to simply eat vegetables"?

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?

Haha, well I see your point, but even then, the 'experts' don't even agree. Even on this thread the 'facts' about a vegetarian diet being not only adequate but healthier, which has been quite irrefutably proven, has been questioned.

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?

I can see how that 'package' might come wrapped with denial and dualism, but not necessarily.

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

Right. But that's not the perspective we're at. Being Wanderers notwithstanding, we are in the density of Choice.

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

Killing when it's not necessary is harm. Who would disagree with that?

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

Maybe. Maybe not. It's a moot point because it's impossible for us to totally avoid killing microbes, just as it's impossible for us to to totally avoid eating plants. We cannot be held responsible for that we cannot change.

But we can be held responsible for that which we can change, but choose not to.

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:

The only way to develop compassion, or whatever it is one is aspiring to, is to first make the choice to aspire to it. Then, each time the choice is made, it is empowered. Eventually, it becomes natural.

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.

Ra never specified that. It is an assumption that when Ra used the term 'other-selves' they were referring to only humans.

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?

Now who's engaging in dualistic thinking?

(Just kidding! sorry, couldn't resist! )

Why must it be either/or? Yes, there are some fanatics who ignore the plight of humans in favor of helping animals...but I don't see it as either/or. To me, compassion is compassion, whether bestowed on humans or animals. Personally, I try to help both humans and animals, in any way I can. There is no either-or. One can do both.

And in fact, reducing animal cruelty has the added bonus of helping humans too!

Whereas, by ignoring animal cruelty, we're actually harming humans! By perpetuating the meat industry, our grandchildren will have to pay the price, with a planet raped and poisoned.

Not only that, but sometimes people are able to open their hearts to animals before opening them to other people, because they've been hurt by other people. It doesn't matter how the heart is opened. What matters is that it is opened.

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?

Maybe having at least 1 lifetime as a victim/victimizer is essential too, but that doesn't mean I have to participate in 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.

Well again, try substituting human for animal and see how that works.

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

We can choose what role we want to play. We aren't pawns.

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.

That analogy doesn't work. In the case of meat, the product itself is a direct result of the violent action. Without violence, there can be no meat product.

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?

Sure. I'm not exactly an expert, but I see no reason why not.

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.

Aha! I knew I recognized you from someplace! I too was shackled to a wall in a dungeon! We were cellmates!

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.

Cool! I have done some very similar healing.

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.

That is an assumption. We don't know that.

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 subject of plants being conscious has already been exhausted so I'm going to let you have the last word on that, rather than repeat myself.

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.

Really? You don't see an entity overpowering another entity, resulting in bloody death, as violence? Shock and amazement.

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?

Of course!!! Do that too! No one is saying to neglect human suffering in favor of ending animal suffering. Do both!

---

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:

...

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.

This just reminded me of past debates with Christians who told me I could never question anything in the Bible, because that would be "calling God a liar."

You seem to be saying that if we "don't resonate" with something Q'uo said, then we are heretics!

And yet, Q'uo has been diligent in reminding us to reject anything they say that doesn't resonate with us.

So even Q'uo encourages us to accept only that which resonates.

By your own logic, if Q'uo's words are infallible and anyone disputing Q'uo's words is calling Q'uo a liar, then it logically follows:

Q'uo encourages us to accept only that which resonates and reject that which doesn't...

...meaning it's ok to resonate, or NOT resonate, with something Q'uo says...

...meaning to say it's NOT ok to 'not' resonate with something Q'uo says, is to call Q'uo a liar!

gotcha!

Furthermore:

1. The Law of One isn't a religion. There are no rules. No authorities. Not even Ra. Carla has stated that she doesn't want the Law of One made into a religion/cult/dogma/doctrine.

2. The Q'uo sessions are all conscious channeled, in contrast to the Ra sessions, which were trance channeled.

3. Carla isn't always the person doing the channeling. In many cases, someone else is channeling Q'uo. Thus, to consider all Q'uo sessions as absolute, infallible and authoritative, is to be putting one's faith into multiple people who did the channeling, assuming that there was zero distortion.

4. Not even the Ra sessions are 100% free of distortion.

5. It's impossible to verify the Q'uo sessions as being 100% correct. On the contrary, some statements made in the Q'uo sessions are provably incorrect. See Pablisimo's example below. Does this mean the Q'uo sessions aren't, in general, trustworthy? No. I personally get tremendous value from the Q'uo channelings. But I don't consider them infallible.

6. Even if we were to agree on the purity of all the Q'uo sessions, there is still the issue of intelligent people reading the same words and interpreting them differently, as evidenced by the threads in the Harvest section, and in this entire forum for that matter.

Regarding the purity of the Q'uo contact(s) and Q'uo's views on eating animals in particular, I invite you to read this thought-provoking analysis by Pablisimo:

http://www.bring4th.org/forums/showthrea...1#pid23111