04-17-2012, 07:01 PM
(This post was last modified: 04-17-2012, 07:02 PM by godwide_void.)
Animals have consciousness. Plants have consciousness. Ingestion of either still results in a particular being which has awareness being eaten, and its consciousness transmitted to yours. Those who choose to ingest meat are not the same as those who actively participated in the termination of the life experience of the animal which provided the meat. Whereas one has resulted in an act of negligence and violence, the other is ensuring that this being is still serving a purpose and aiding even after it is no longer in incarnation. Per the definition and examples of density and the various inhabitants of densities as given to us, flora and fauna comprise the same density. Thus why is it that devouring one sentient being is dismissed, yet ingestion of another is vehemently approved of? I feel this to be hypocrisy of sorts. Also, one must remember that nothing holds true physical form given what modern-day physics tells us. We are not "humans" eating "meat". Thinking with this sort of paradigm indicates that one still allows the the illusion of matter to color one's thoughts. We are merely light absorbing light, be it in the form of a chicken leg or a carrot. The Creator is an omnivore, not strictly a herbivore nor a carnivore, though it is within the rights, the free will, of any individual to adhere to either method of food ingestion if they so please. While it is true that plant life and raw foods do indeed have the propensity to heighten/raise one's vibrational frequency and increase one's energy, ingestion of meat does not necessarily result in one being "detuned" or suffer a loss in polarization. The only one who would have to worry about a diminished level of polarity would be the being who directly resulted in the death of the animal.