In regards to eating meat

[Monica]

Monica, what you said is that the arguments in this thread have mostly been about the self,

We are referring to 'self' in 2 different ways.

I was referring to 'self' as memememe, ie. "I like meat" in contrast to considering the feelings of others, in this case, the animals.

As I see it, no one speaks more "Spanish" on this board than the other one.

In my analogy, Spanish = compassion for animals.

Surely you aren't claiming that the vegetarians and meat-eaters have an equal amount of compassion for animals, are you?

Comparing it to Ra, a sixth density entity, is also irrelevant, as all of us here are third density human beings.

You misunderstood. I wasn't comparing us to Ra.

I was utilizing Ra's use of the term teach/learn as an example of someone knowing more about a particular subject than others.

Ra clearly has more information than we do, yet they still learned from the experience of teaching us.

But they didn't learn the exact same information from us as they were teaching us. For example, they didn't learn about the pyramids from us, because they already know more about that subject than we do.

Therefore, in this situation specifically, on this board, we all teach/learn and learn/teach equally much about compassion.

I disagree. I think it's obvious we don't all have an equal amount of compassion for animals.

If we all had equal compassion, then do we also all have equal forgiveness? love? wisdom? Then we would all be exactly alike, which we clearly aren't.

This is a group dynamic and no one is more defensive/attacking than the other one.

!!!

Because if "meat-eater side" has been defensive, then the "non-meat-eater side" must have been attacking, right?

No, not necessarily. People often feel defensive because of their own guilt.

Conversely, someone can get attacked and not feel defensive, or have the need to make justifications, at all.

This is a group dynamic*. And seeing that one side did this and the other one did that, is just, in my eyes, creating more separation.

Well I agree, which is why I find all those comments about how vegetarians "lack compassion" to be just contributing to more separation.

I totally agree with this view. Instead of feeling this suffering, and therefore add more suffering to the world, why not seek that suffering within the self, and heal it?

This has already been addressed, multiple times. Of course do that too.

But why not also physically quit contributing to the suffering?

I invite you to re-read Pablisimo's post about putting a firecracker in a frog's mouth and blowing it up, then trying to "radiate light" to the frog.

Sure, radiate light to the frog. But why blow it up in the first place?

I interpret this quote as: to attempting to remake or alter the society from the feelings of being personally correct or having answers, will activate orange and/or yellow centers.

If you think vegetarians are motivated by the need to be correct, then you don't understand us at all.

I believe that both so called "sides" struggle with lessons of unconditional, universal love. Those who have learned these lessons do not participate in this thread, as they see only love, and hence have nothing to say.

So do you think someone who is operating from a place of love would never try to champion the oppressed?

By that logic, then some of the world's most highly revered 'saints' like Mother Theresa, Gandhi, Martin Luther King, and even Jesus, must have lacked love, but were only trying to 'change society out of their own need to be control or be correct.'

For the record: I am NOT, I repeat, NOT comparing myself, Diana, Pab, Pickle or any of the other vegetarians to these great leaders. We are NOT their equals. They are our mentors.

I am using them as an example of those who clearly DID take ACTION.

Were they loving, or were they controlling?