In regards to eating meat

[Monica]

So are you saying that one must stop eating meat in order to become a 4D entity? I don't think you are, but just asking for the sake of clarity.

I have no idea. Ra was very clear as to the requirements for graduation to 4D.

You yourself said you didn't think anyone would eat animals in 4D.

Our planet is already getting 4D light. How does that reconcile with the 'separate but nested' densities?

When I speak of making the 'quantum jump' from 3D to 4D, I am speaking of our bodies, not the reality we live in.

Then I would tend to agree... yes probably meat-eating creates a dampening effect on this process.

Many psychics say they eat meat to 'stay grounded.'

But it is one of many factors.

Agreed.

I think what you are getting at here is actually the inner process of alchemy. But if so, recall that it involves an alternation of distillation (raising vibration) and condensation (lowering vibration) to create the desired outcome. Not saying meat-eating is necessary for this, but just relative to the overall concept of consuming things which "lower our vibration". They have a purpose, too.

I'm not conversant enough in what you're referring to. I will just say that I don't accept the idea that it would ever be necessary to knowingly inflict harm on another being, in order to advance spiritually. That flies in the face of what we know about the STO path.

I don't agree with the mindset which says we "should never" put anything unhealthy in our bodies. There is actually a very interesting concept called hormesis which postulates that small, regular doses of toxic substances actually benefits health. Again, not saying this justifies gorging ourselves on McDonald's hamburgers, but you are getting at some more subtle points here.

Well that's kinda moot since it's impossible to completely avoid toxic substances. There are enough toxic substances in even organic produce, so I don't think it's a good idea to go looking for more!

Do you happen to know if Nassim is a vegetarian?

I never even gave it any thought before. I just did a search and look what I found on Nassim's website:

The Resonance Project works with each venue to create healthy, creative vegetarian menus for shared mealtimes to complete the experience.

If his organization is making a point to offer vegetarian meals at their events, then that's a pretty strong indication that he is a vegetarian.

(He's a really lit up guy, incidentally.)

But more to the point... on the other side of the "event horizon" is a consensus reality already in progress. It is already populated by countless beings from the far reaches of the galaxy and beyond. We are not "creating" it from a tabula rasa.

This is a huge topic...outside the scope of this thread.

Yes, this was part of my lost reply so I am glad you brought it up. I think the ability to feel pain and suffering bears some weight here. I just don't think all animals have this capacity.

Assuming that by 'animals' you are referring to the animals commonly used for meat (cows, chickens, fish etc.) why do you think some don't? (Or are you referring to microbes? We don't usually use the term 'animal' when referring to microbes.)

All those animals have pain receptors. That isn't opinion; it's fact.

Even fish have pain receptors!

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pain_in_animals

Pain is a sensory and emotional experience often caused by intense or damaging stimuli. The International Association for the Study of Pain says pain is a conscious experience involving unpleasantness, i.e. suffering. For a creature to experience pain, by that definition, it must be capable of consciousness and suffering.

It logically follows that, if a creature has an obvious physical mechanism for feeling pain, then it must be conscious enough to register that pain.

I don't see how it can be argued that any creature with pain receptors doesn't feel pain.

The ability to experience pain in an animal, or another human for that matter, cannot be determined directly but it may be inferred through physiological and behavioral reactions.[7]
Some criteria that may indicate the potential to feel pain include:[8]
Has a suitable nervous system and receptors
Physiological changes to noxious stimuli
Displays protective motor reactions that might include reduced use of an affected area such as limping, rubbing, holding or autotomy
Has opioid receptors and shows reduced responses to noxious stimuli when given analgesics and local anaesthetics
Shows trade-offs between stimulus avoidance and other motivational requirements
Shows avoidance learning
High cognitive ability and sentience
...
Vertebrates

[edit]Fish
Main article: Pain in fish
Animal protection advocates have raised concerns about the possible suffering of fish caused by angling. In light of recent research, some countries, like Germany, have banned specific types of fishing, and the British RSPCA now formally prosecutes individuals who are cruel to fish.[9]
[edit]Invertebrates

Main article: Pain in invertebrates
Though it has been argued that most invertebrates do not feel pain,[10][11][12] there is some evidence that invertebrates, especially the decapod crustaceans (e.g. crabs and lobsters) and cephalopods (e.g. octopuses), exhibit behavioural and physiological reactions indicating they may have the capacity for this experience.[13][14][15] Nociceptors have been found in nematodes, annelids and molluscs.[16] Most insects do not possess nociceptors,[17][18][19] one known exception being the fruit fly.[20] In vertebrates, endogenous opioids are neurochemicals that moderate pain by interacting with opiate receptors. Opioid peptides and opiate receptors occur naturally in nematodes,[21][22] molluscs,[23][24] insects[25][26] and crustaceans.[27][28] The presence of opioids in crustaceans has been interpreted as an indication that lobsters may be able to experience pain,[29][30] although it has been claimed "at present no certain conclusion can be drawn".[29]
One suggested reason for rejecting a pain experience in invertebrates is that invertebrate brains are too small. However, brain size does not necessarily equate to complexity of function.[31] Moreover, weight for body-weight, the cephalopod brain is in the same size bracket as the vertebrate brain, smaller than that of birds and mammals, but as big or bigger than most fish brains.[32][33]
[edit]Crustaceans
Main article: Pain in crustaceans
The question of whether or not crustaceans can experience pain is unresolved. One paper holds that lobsters' opioids may "mediate pain in the same way" as in vertebrates.[30]

I found this especially interesting:

Animals are kept in laboratories for a wide range of reasons, some of which may involve pain, suffering or distress, whilst others (e.g. many of those involved in breeding) will not. The extent to which animal testing causes pain and suffering in laboratory animals is the subject of much debate.[35] Marian Stamp Dawkins defines "suffering" in laboratory animals as the experience of one of "a wide range of extremely unpleasant subjective (mental) states."[36] The United States Department of Agriculture defines a "painful procedure" in an animal study as one that would "reasonably be expected to cause more than slight or momentary pain or distress in a human being to which that procedure was applied."[37] Some critics argue that, paradoxically, researchers raised in the era of increased awareness of animal welfare may be inclined to deny that animals are in pain simply because they do not want to see themselves as people who inflict it.[38]

Regardless of what happens in 4D, in the here and now, animals are being tortured by the millions each and every day. We all share in the responsibility of that.

Well, sure. Along with a whole host of other heinous atrocities. But none of this is enough to keep us from choosing our way out of here.

Here is that difference in focus again. I really don't understand this entire argument. It seems to be about defining the minimum requirements for graduation, from the perspective of how 'we' can benefit.

Yes, there are many heinous atrocities. And we can't all get involved in every cause. But no one is debating whether one 'should' help starving children if they are able to do so.

Why are we even debating whether we 'should' reduce animal suffering if we are able to do so?

I am totally interested in discussing what constitutes "higher" and I know it has been discussed at various points along this thread. This is what I am talking about with discerning a principle by which to make these sort of choices which don't rely upon ethics. Ethics is too messy and ultimately divisive.

That's easy. If they have pain receptors, then I'd consider them 'higher' 2D. It's an easy demarcation.

We'll miss some trees with that definition, but it's a good place to start.

I propose that we get the obviously 'higher' ones handled first...then we can maybe move on to plants and microbes.

With the part that will remain in this thread, I would be interested to see what happens if we all start with what we can agree upon, and then attempt to build a mental framework upon this. I wonder what might turn up?

OK. Can we all agree that creatures with pain receptors probably feel pain?

Yes, they are two different angles. Yet connected. For example, if "harvestability" depends on "polarity" which depends upon our attitude toward other-animal-selves...

It depends on the sum total of our STO which includes compassion. Ra never broke it down into 'other human selves' and 'other animal selves.'

That's why I gave the example of the dog by the side of the road. Who among us wouldn't feel compassion for that dog?

It is the same with any animal. Compassion must actually be turned off, by not acknowledging the suffering the animal endured, in order to consciously eat it.

Now before the sparks start flying, I'm not saying anyone who eats meat lacks compassion! Obviously, most people eat meat, and most have compassion. But in that moment of eating that animal, I contend that the person's normal inclination towards compassion must be temporarily turned off, in order to eat the animal. It can be turned off by justifying ("I need to eat this to be healthy" or "this cow was raised humanely") but it is turned off, nonetheless.

to what degree does a vegetarian lifestyle support harvestability? I am not really sure but it certainly seems that a meat-eater can be harvestable.

Of course meat-eaters are harvestable. Good heavens look at Carla! and you and nearly everyone else on this forum! and nearly everyone else we meet.

So now if I back up and look the the broader context of 3D earth post-2012 I believe that all entities incarnated after this time have already qualified themselves as "harvestable". Certainly, we are not going to become a global meatless society before then.

Well we're still working on it.

Kidding! Of course you are right about that.

So in the meantime, if the primary mission of Wanderers is to increase the harvest, then what relative weight should we, as a group, be giving to various causes as we move into 2012? Of course, everybody has their own little niche. But is there maybe an overarching message we can deliver that might indeed have the effect of drastically reducing meat consumption, while not being dependent upon convincing others of the "wrongness" of it?

It may be working itself out. In the next decade, it may very well become mandatory for everyone on the planet to go veg or at least drastically cut meat consumption, for the planet to be able to continue to sustain our population.

In the meantime, people are generally more receptive to the idea of cutting back on meat for health reasons, than they are for the sake of the animals.

As for the plight of the animals... are you concerned for their own harvestability into 3D?

Yes, that too. And for the heaviness permeating our planet in general.

I guess I just assume there are others out there whose cosmic role it is to oversee that part of the process. Maybe you are one of them!

Haha maybe!

I guess I just don't see the inherent harm in killing an animal.

Well, I guess I rest my case then. I don't think there is any way to convey it to you.

What if some humans contained variants in their genes that made their digestive enzyme profile more similar to a cat's? What might suddenly adopting a vegan diet do to their health?

If they did (and no research has ever shown that to be true, but IF they did) then they probably wouldn't do well with an abrupt, sudden shift to a vegan diet.

Better to transition gradually, and consume superfoods.

As Pickle as explained (and I agreed), the human body can mutate. So even if they started out that way, they aren't necessarily stuck with that limitation.

What if humanity's genes were manipulated so as to make a certain portion of us carnivorous??! What then? It is not so simple as everybody just deciding en masse to stop eating meat. There could be negative health consequences... as well as ways to offset those consequences which have also been discussed. But should we make vegetarianism part of "policy" or the "4D curriculum"? I don't know about that.

That's all moot because it's impossible for any of us to make such a 'policy' even if we could agree on it.

I really don't think it will be "frowned upon" on the other side that I didn't convert my cats to vegetarianism,

My cats aren't vegetarian either. I'm working on my dogs first...

It is up to each of us individually to decide where we stand on these issues.

Yup

I don't acknowledge a moral imperative coming from higher densities. I see moral imperative as a third density concept. But again, for all I know, maybe it is a 4D concept and I am confusing my perspectives again by applying a 5D or 6D viewpoint to the situation.

Ra didn't give us any sort of moral imperative. That's why we're all struggling to figure this all out. That too is part of the process!