In regards to eating meat

[Monica]

The way I've explained it to groups is that every food craving presents a choice. Most people have been trained to see only two outcomes: affirm or deny. Surrender to the desire or resist the desire. Most people oscillate between the two, getting quite frustrated in the process.

But there is another choice available. The third choice is: ask why. When a craving is perceived- ask why? Why am I craving this food? When people do this, many of them realize that they don't have the answer. They don't know why they crave a certain food, and have to actually go within in order to retrieve the information.

Going within is good. Often times people will realize that their craving originates in the emotional body or in the mental body. These are then dealt with on the level at which they were created, or above.

That's an excellent idea! I like it. The food may be a comfort food, or have an emotional association, or whatever.

Then one is left with the physical cravings. Affirm, deny, ask why?

At that point, they may still uncover a physical addiction.

I really like your approach. But there are still genuine physical addictions. In addition to the obvious ones like alcohol, cigarettes and caffeine, sugar is also quite addictive. Even cooked food, in general, is addictive, though that might be on an emotional level.

This process will lead to genuine changes in eating patterns. Moreover, it will allow the body to communicate its needs directly, rather than relying upon experts and gurus to tell us what to do. Experts and gurus have been arguing incessantly for as long as we have recorded history, and I don't get the sense this is going to end anytime soon.

I agree that the so-called 'experts' totally contradict one another and it's a confusing mess, trying to sort that all out. And I really like your approach for dealing with emotional/mental associations with food.

But, that still doesn't address the physical addictions. I contend that if someone decides to just 'listen to his body' while physically addicted, the body is of course going to tell him that he needs that cigarette, that drink, or that candy bar.

That could be very dangerous for someone who is trying to get off some addiction. What if we told the heroin or meth addict to 'listen to their body'? Would that work?

I guess my challenge to you would be- why not trust the body?

Once the body is free of addictions and chemical poisonings, sure. But while still in the midst of those things, there is a 3rd person in the middle - the 'spirit' of the addiction so to speak. Ask anyone with a drug habit. An addictive drug is like a demanding mistress. Food addictions are no different.

Let's say you are totally right and meat is not good for any body. I propose- if that were true- then following the above process would result in meatless diets 100% of the time. Would you agree?

No, I don't agree, for the reasons I just stated. I don't believe people would be getting good advice if they just listened to their bodies, while still toxic and addicted. No way.

I like the idea of asking why. At that point, the answer may be that they are simply addicted. But they still need to exert will power, or take other measures, to clear the addiction.

I know people who were addicted to sodas, not only because of the sugar, but because of the caffeine. When they made the decision to quit, they had withdrawal headaches, as intense as a migraine, for a whole week. The body was telling them to drink soda! Upon the first attempt, they gave in and drank a soda. Like magic, the headache went away. The addiction demon got its fix!

They tried it again a few months later, but this time rode it out. Intense headaches for a week. Then the little nasty was starved so it moved out of the house. With the addiction gone, they were able to stay free of it. I know several people who have done this. One of them hasn't had a soda in nearly 30 years, after evicting the addiction.

The other point about this is the beta-carbolines. There is very good reason to believe that the benefits of regular intake of beta-carbolines far outweigh the perceived risks, such as the fat in the cacao bean, or the caffeine in the coffee bean, or the nicotine in the tobacco.

Yes, it is common knowledge that cacao beans have health benefits. But it has been determined that this applies only if it's raw and organic. There is such a huge difference between raw, organic cacao and the chocolate in a Snickers bar that the alternative health community has adopted a new name for it: cacao to distinguish it from cocoa.

It's the same with coffee. There are several new MLM companies touting 'healthy antioxidant' coffee. But most of them rely on adding other ingredients, like medicinal mushrooms, or the coffee fruit. Edgar Cayce referred to coffee as a food, provided it didn't have cream added, at which time it turned into a leathery curd, impossible to digest.

So I think it's an oversimplification to say that coffee and chocolate have health properties which override their negative properties, because there are many factors at play here. For starters, they both still have caffeine. And people will use this shaky data to justify indulging in excessive amounts of candy, which has all sorts of additives. The chocolate in that Snickers bar is nothing like organic, raw cacao.

Now tobacco. Can you please clarify? The way you worded it, you seem to be implying that the nicotine in cigarettes outweighs the risks. But I know you know that isn't true, because if ever there were conclusive findings about risk to health, it's cigarettes!

The list of 599 additives approved by the US Government for use in the manufacture of cigarettes is something every smoker should see. Submitted by the five major American cigarette companies to the Dept. of Health and Human Services in April of 1994, this list of ingredients had long been kept a secret....
While these ingredients are approved as additives for foods, they were not tested by burning them, and it is the burning of many of these substances which changes their properties, often for the worse. Over 4000 chemical compounds are created by burning a cigarette, many of which are toxic and/or carcinogenic. Carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, hydrogen cyanide and ammonia are all present in cigarette smoke. Forty-three known carcinogens are in mainstream smoke, sidestream smoke, or both.

It's chilling to think about not only how smokers poison themselves, but what others are exposed to by breathing in the secondhand smoke. The next time you're missing your old buddy, the cigarette, take a good long look at this list and see them for what they are: a delivery system for toxic chemicals and carcinogens.

Cigarettes offer people only a multitude of smoking-related diseases and ultimately death.

from http://quitsmoking.about.com/cs/nicotine...dients.htm

I'm not saying everybody go smoke, but what I am saying is that if you do... ask why?

Well again, I think that's a good idea to uncover any emotiona/mental attachments. But in the case of cigarettes, what is left after that is often something very simple: The person started smoking at age 13 when he thought it was cool, and has been addicted ever since.

Ultimately, yes, everything is catalyst. So I agree to deal with it on that level first, and then it'll be easier to let go of the addiction. But some substances are simply physically addictive. That must be taken into consideration too.

Someone who relies on smoking pot not just for relaxation, but as a substitute for dealing with emotional issues, might have an emotional addiction to the weed. But it's not going to be the same as being addicted to heroin or meth, no matter how you slice it, because those have physically addictive nature, in addiction to the emotional component.

But I sure don't think Ra meant blood from a freshly killed animal.

No, I don't think that's what Ra was referring to. However, I also don't believe that when Ra physically walked among humans, that they demanded everybody stop eating meat lest some horrible fate befall them.

We all know that Ra didn't demand anything. But I don't think that can be used as a justification, as in, "Ra didn't tell the Egyptians to quite eating animals, so it must be ok." Did Ra tell them to quit fighting too? There are myriad things Ra might or might not have told them. I don't see this as relevant.

But you raise a very interesting question about the blood, which we have touched upon before. You mentioned the lifeforce in the juice. Would you see this as essentially equivalent to the lifeforce in the blood?

While it's still in the animal, yes.

Is the lifeforce "tainted" because of the killing of the animal?

Yes, absolutely.

Or is that just a taboo put upon us to cover something up? If so, what? What really was all this animal sacrifice to the "gods" about, in the first place? I wonder about that...

It's a taboo because it's rooted in STS. STS magickal ceremonies have often relied on blood sacrifice, because they get power by dominating (to the point of death) the victim. AND, because the dead body still has trillions upon trillions of various microbes, available for the taking. The STS 'black magician' can now feast on these lower 2D entities, and get them to do their bidding.

A 3D physical vehicle is much more complex than a plant. It's not just a single entity, but houses an entire population of microbes. So killing an animal isn't just about the animal's individual soul, which has been dominated. It's also about the huge population of microbes now in need of a new master.

This is, of course, in addition to the fact that the soul of the animal has already exited, so it's no longer alive, in the sense that the animal has gone. The only life there is the microbe population, which is busily at work taking the body to a state of decay.

---

My spirit tells me to listen to the body, and trust what it says. Even if it is saying to give it some meat. Which tends to be why I am skeptical of those who proclaim that meat eating is spiritually "wrong". If that were the case, then my spirit must be out to trick me, or something.

Well, only you can decide anything about your own guidance. I can only share my own experiences.

When I was pregnant, I was certain that my spirit was telling me to have a home birth. I ended up in the hospital with an emergency C-section.

Looking back, I don't think I was actually guided in the way I thought I was at the time. I realize now that I had a lot of preconceived ideas and rigid 'rules' at the time, which clouded my perception of said guidance. I realize now that, those biases created a cloud of distortion.

In other words, there can be a 'middleman' so to speak. It can be in the form of biases, mental rigidity, or physical addiction. That middleman is like having another person between me and my guidance. I didn't have a clear transmission. It was like you telling me to deliver a message to, say, Diana. Your words would be filtered through me, and they may or may not arrive at their destination intact. They may get distorted along the way.

This can happen in ourselves too. Strong biases and physical addictions cloud and distort the message we're receiving.

To be clear: I'm NOT in any way assessing YOUR guidance. I'm simply sharing what I have concluded about my own guidance.


Note: Post has been edited.