In regards to eating meat

[Pablísimo]

In my opinion, respecting the rights of others to disagree with you is what gives you the "green light" so to speak. It means that you believe that your views are correct... for you.

But what if I also have a general opinion about it? That, in general, xyz is a better choice for the "all"? Isn't it also OK to believe things and have opinions about what's good for all of us, overall? Knowing it's a subjective opinion and other people have their own views as to what's the better choice for people and we might even be wrong? Viewed from this angle, I don't see much difference whether the opinion is about me or about a group of people in general, it's all subjective, biased opinion.

I totally respect the right of EVERYONE to disagree with me, of course, but it's still just another opinion.

Not that I think it matters to you (nor should it), but I fully support your choice to be vegan. What I wouldn't support is a zealous promotion that veganism is the "one true way" to eat, from either a physical or a spiritual perspective. In my opinion, that is where one steps over the line from a strong conviction and subjective views, to fanaticism and absolutist views. I would see that as a type of spiritual violence, which undermines the foremost need for each entity to connect with their own internal guidance system.

I totally agree with you here, but I think the context matters. If we're out at a restaurant somewhere and I start critiquing your food choices and telling you all about the "one true way" to eat, then that would be disrespectful and over zealous. It would be an infringement.

However, if you straight up ask me what my opinion is, and I give it to you, I don't see any harm. If we both voluntarily attend a debate on the topic of meat eating in the spiritual context, then I think sharing my opinion is fair game. I bring this up because I think discussing the topic in a thread devoted to it is different than pushing your views on other people. I absolutely insist on the right for all of us to follow our own inner guidance on any topic. I don't react well when others force their opinions on me... but when they share an opposing view passionately in a discussion thread? Doesn't bother me one bit, in fact it helps me expand my perspective.

Do you see the distinction I am trying to make?

I think the difference has to do with how strongly one identifies with their beliefs. In my view- I am not my belief system. Thus- if you were to strongly criticize my beliefs- or my preferred methodology for promoting my beliefs- I wouldn't take that as a personal assault on my being-ness.

Moreover, I am secure enough in my beliefs that I am more than willing to have them directly assaulted, criticized, chopped up and dissected, and put through the wringer. Beyond this, were you able to handily dispatch one of my beliefs, or point out a glaring contradiction in them, rather than become angry and offended by this, I would actually be grateful and impressed!

I completely resonate with this attitude and every word of it, 100%.

Ultimately, nothing is "wrong" with it. However, there are certain consequences of self-righteousness, or strong identification with one's belief system, that I would advise you to be aware of. For example, here in third density this self-righteousness is at the root of many warlike and divisive behaviors.

This is true, of course... but is there any way to determine objectively what is self-righteousness and what is passionate conviction?

My perception is that certain analogies here have not been appreciated as helpful. So, I don't know the best way to put this, but what would the difference be, between, passionately feeling that kicking mickey mouse is wrong and self-righteously believing that all those who kick mickey mouse are a$$holes?

This is a genuine question.

Yes, indeed. And I am delighted and refreshed to read these words. In my opinion, it is quite unfortunate and counterproductive to begin these types of conversations by drawing lines in the sand and deciding which "side" people are on.

Moreover, I find it mentally immature to automatically assume that there are only "two sides" to every issue... that sounds like 2D thinking to me. Here in 3D, there are at least as many "sides" as there are angles on an issue.

Absolutely true. There are a myriad of perspectives and multiple layers to any given issue!!! It is refreshing to find someone that acknowledges that.

Thanks! This is what I would call "pointed questions" which are designed to get more directly to the crux of an issue. Unfortunately, if one strongly self-identifies with their belief system, this can be easily construed as a personal attack. However, I can reassure you, there is no attack on your person.

I don't perceive it as an attack. I sense an intellectual honesty with you and believe you are respectfully exploring your/my/our perspectives. And I thank you, as I also thank Ankh and several others here for doing your part to keep the conversation constructive and share in a respectful and considerate way.

My belief system is fair game for criticism or praise in a discussion forum, I just hope it can be done gently. Besides, I feel, like you, that I am much more than a belief system.

You mean... it's not so simple as "black and white", "right and wrong", etc.?

*Gasp*...

Shocking, I know. It took me a long time to come to terms with the fact that there are more shades of grey than black and white. Welcome to 3D!

I guess to answer in the most direct general way, I'd say it would depend on the context and the specifics of that unique circumstance. I'd make the best judgement I could in that given moment, trying to take into account all relevant factors and act for the highest good of all, human, plant, and insect alike.

So, it sounds to me like what you are saying is that we cannot really separate our ideals from the context of our experience, and therefore there is really no way to know- for sure- what is really for the highest good of all. Would that be a fair restatement of your opinion?

Yes, that's a fair restatement. I would only add that just because there is really no way to know- for sure- what is really for the highest good of all, doesn't mean we can't have an opinion on it. Biased and subjective it may be, but simply having an opinion is reasonable.

That this is yet another example, like most of the animal kingdom, of beings that are not playing out a polarity evolutionary exercise with choice as a central point upon which it turns.

This is a curious statement to me. If the animal kingdom is not playing out a polarity evolutionary exercise... then why would we humans draw the animals into our own polarity exercise? If 3D is where the polarity game is played, then what sense does it make to take the game to 2D entities? What then, would stop us there? Why not include 1D entities in the game as well?

What I meant by that is that 3D, as I understand it from the Ra Material, is a density whose goal, for lack of a better word, is one that centers on making a polarity choice. STS or STO, and that this polarity choice made in 3D is one that forms a foundation for further work in higher densities, at least to a point. 2D, in contrast, seems to be about self-awareness, not making a polarity choice. There is polarity in 2D, obviously, but it doesn't come with the component of choice that defines our own density.

Why this is relevant to me is that I believe the fact that we CAN make ethical choices is central to the experience of being a 3D human. If you are born a wolf, you're a predator. If you're born a deer, you'll be prey. There is no choice, there is no polarity in their acts. A deer could no easier subsist on a meat diet than a wolf an all vegetarian diet. Thus for them, diet is really not an ethical issue. Nor is mating -- some animals are monogamous, some breed with many, many partners. And these are just two examples.

However, for a human being, we DO have choice. We can live on a variety of different diets. We can mate in a variety of different ways. Everything seems to be designed for us in such a way as to facilitate making ethical choices. The way I treat other humans, the way I treat "lower" density beings, the activities I choose to fill my time with, the things I work for and towards, all of these provide me with endless opportunities to make choices.

I'd like to reiterate here t hat I feel we have many choices to make, and diet is just one -- I really don't think it's fair to claim that a dietary choice can define someone's overall polarity. We are not just one opinion, or a belief system, we are much, much more than that.

For me, I see everything and everyone I interact with as an opportunity for choices and ethical decisions. It seems like the very fabric of 3D is designed this way. It doesn't matter to me that 2D beings are not working on the same polarity issues as 3D beings, it's still one area among many where I have the opportunity to make an ethical choice that is in line with what I believe, subjectively, to be right.

I have no conscious choice in what my immune system does to microbes, so I do not concern myself with this.

But you do. There is a whole field about this called mind/body medicine. For example, if your lungs were infected with microbes which cause pneumonia you could mentally direct your immune system to eradicate the bacteria using various creative visualization methods.

I think this is fascinating, but subjective. It's debatable whether I really have conscious choice or whether the visualizations work. Maybe I do, maybe I don't. I think the immune system generally was designed to run automatically without conscious direction. Though I don't dispute the premise that we could control or influence this process intentionally. That could be.

But even then, I don't see it as the same type of question as when I am presented with two options that will sustain the body just fine, one of which I believe to be more ethical than the other option. Perhaps worth exploring on its own merit, but I see this differently to more obvious and clear choices we are presented with.

There are many branches to this mighty tree! (Now I wonder who many termites there might be in those branches)

Thanks again for a thought-provoking post!

Love to all