In regards to eating meat

[Tenet Nosce]

But what if I also have a general opinion about it? That, in general, xyz is a better choice for the "all"?

Then, that would be your opinion! You are entitled to it. However, I might point out that certain opinions of what is best for the "all" might lead one to unnecessary suffering if what they are observing in the outer world is perceived to be very different from what they believe is best for the "all".

In my opinion, the development of the quality of "faith" involves the attitude that whatever is happening in the moment is in fact, what is best for the "all". I don't fully understand or embody this attitude myself, but see it as a guiding principle along my personal path of spiritual growth.

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?

It's OK with me!

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.

This is most definitely a thread to discuss meat eating in the spiritual context, and anything is game as far as opinions are concerned.

I absolutely insist on the right for all of us to follow our own inner guidance on any topic.

Me too.

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.

Doesn't bother me either.

Do you see the distinction I am trying to make?

Of course!

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

I am not sure that it is possible to objectively determine anything. But I believe a general guideline would involve the willingness to abandon one's passionate convictions upon being handily dispatched, or if shown to be glaringly contradictory, or just plain wrong.

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?

Not sure. I will take a stab and say the difference would involve whether one casts the a******* as the "perpetrators" and mickey mouse as the "victim" or whether they consider both mickey and the a******* to be co-creators in the experience of kicking/being kicked.

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.

Yes, I completely agree with the above statement. What I was attempting to question is whether or not it makes sense to consider actions taken toward unpolarized entities as polarizing, in and of themselves. I can see a valid argument for either case.

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.

How do we know that physical suffering and death don't support the 2D entity in gaining self-awareness? What if longevity doesn't factor much into the equation of whether or not a 2D entity had a "successful" incarnation? What if certain 2D entities are actually seeking to be incorporated into 3D bodies? How do we know that it isn't considered a great honor and achievement for a 2D entity to be plucked out of the ground by a human, put in a vase, and appreciated for its beauty before meeting a premature death?

I don't have the answers for these, and am more than a bit incredulous when others claim that they do. However, to conclude that cows in a factory farm video are needlessly suffering seems fairly straightforward to me.

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.

So then, would it be fair to say that you don't expect anybody standing at the "pearly gates" of fourth density with a list of meat-eaters to be refused entry?

Thanks again for a thought-provoking post!

You're most welcome, and thanks again to you!