07-27-2017, 12:21 PM
Why the effort to minimize or mitigate the obvious suffering of second density?
There are basic needs that should be met for life, including second density. When we as humans intervene and deny them these basic rights as beings, we are indeed causing suffering.
We've been domesticating cows for as long as we've been domesticating dogs. The affects of humans on individuating the species is hardly different. It's my belief that as soon as we begin to interfere with the "normal" life of a second density being and start to control what it eats, tell it who to breed with, take their babies for food, etc, that at that moment we begin projecting a story upon that being, and at that point we have a responsibility to that story.
I don't often disagree with Q'uo but it seems very contradictory to me that if a being was not suffering, why would it be escaping to sleep to dream of better times? That sounds like an extremely human thing to me, actually. Also, how can animals who have spent their whole life tortured in a cage dream of better times?
I also think it's inaccurate to draw such a strict line and make blanket statements like "Animals don't possess I AM awareness". The Creator exists in All. Ra says that a tree or a rock can become fourth density, yet we trap second density animals in a tiny box that we limit by the capabilities of their physical brain. Ra also specifically discusses a second density being that is having third density experiences/catalyst (Gandalf) - who in fact, could choose to "wander" back to second density for another incarnation! (presumably continuing with their third density lessons...)
I feel that it's ironic that when a vegan conversation comes up, everyone talks about the suffering of plants. However, this side of the discussion has not made it there yet. What about all the plants that we torture so that we can feed the billions of farm animals? The destroyed rainforests? The acidifying oceans? Did you know that current numbers put us at fishless oceans in 2050? The main cause being industrial farming pollution...
Anyway, yes, I agree, that there is a lot more to the conversation. Jim said it is important to bear witness to their suffering, and I agree with that as well.
I apologize if the post is emotional. I am just highly triggered by the perpetuation of the idea that second density beings don't suffer. It seems to be a slippery slope that shouldn't even be a slope in the first place - for instance, what about a human with a brain injury? Someone who becomes what we call a "vegetable"? Do they suffer? What if empirically they are not suffering by any estimation? What do we do then? Eat them? Or do we agree that suffering is suffering, and that when we see what our beings perceive as suffering, we will acknowledge it, instead of ignoring the being that is suffering. Otherwise, we are repressing the catalyst, and according to Ra, that is not ideal and can cause a lot of problems down the line.
I honestly think this is one of the most misunderstood concepts of in the Law of One. David Wilcock even grossly misinterprets this concept in an article on his page. We often believe that if we feel bad, that we are doing bad spiritually, or being punished spiritually. We believe that if we are doing well, we will experience bliss and no pain. But in reality, the more we progress spiritually, the more empathy we develop towards the other selves that we share this experience with - and therefore, the more likely we are to feel pain. This whole planet is in pain. Yes, we are not supposed to dwell in pain, but we are supposed to experience pain and then learn to elevate it. By avoiding pain we are not learning to elevate it. By ignoring suffering we are making a choice to separate us from another being instead of making the choice to unite in empathy, in sympathetic vibrations. As soon as you unify with their vibrations, then it's easier to pull them up to the higher ones that you can achieve.
Yes, Ra says that a being completely undistorted will experience no emotional reaction. However, Ra also says that the "ideal configuration" in third density is not that which is free of blockages, but that which has its own blockages, preincarnatively programmed, so that we can learn lessons to apply to our being totality.
There are basic needs that should be met for life, including second density. When we as humans intervene and deny them these basic rights as beings, we are indeed causing suffering.
We've been domesticating cows for as long as we've been domesticating dogs. The affects of humans on individuating the species is hardly different. It's my belief that as soon as we begin to interfere with the "normal" life of a second density being and start to control what it eats, tell it who to breed with, take their babies for food, etc, that at that moment we begin projecting a story upon that being, and at that point we have a responsibility to that story.
I don't often disagree with Q'uo but it seems very contradictory to me that if a being was not suffering, why would it be escaping to sleep to dream of better times? That sounds like an extremely human thing to me, actually. Also, how can animals who have spent their whole life tortured in a cage dream of better times?
I also think it's inaccurate to draw such a strict line and make blanket statements like "Animals don't possess I AM awareness". The Creator exists in All. Ra says that a tree or a rock can become fourth density, yet we trap second density animals in a tiny box that we limit by the capabilities of their physical brain. Ra also specifically discusses a second density being that is having third density experiences/catalyst (Gandalf) - who in fact, could choose to "wander" back to second density for another incarnation! (presumably continuing with their third density lessons...)
I feel that it's ironic that when a vegan conversation comes up, everyone talks about the suffering of plants. However, this side of the discussion has not made it there yet. What about all the plants that we torture so that we can feed the billions of farm animals? The destroyed rainforests? The acidifying oceans? Did you know that current numbers put us at fishless oceans in 2050? The main cause being industrial farming pollution...
Anyway, yes, I agree, that there is a lot more to the conversation. Jim said it is important to bear witness to their suffering, and I agree with that as well.
I apologize if the post is emotional. I am just highly triggered by the perpetuation of the idea that second density beings don't suffer. It seems to be a slippery slope that shouldn't even be a slope in the first place - for instance, what about a human with a brain injury? Someone who becomes what we call a "vegetable"? Do they suffer? What if empirically they are not suffering by any estimation? What do we do then? Eat them? Or do we agree that suffering is suffering, and that when we see what our beings perceive as suffering, we will acknowledge it, instead of ignoring the being that is suffering. Otherwise, we are repressing the catalyst, and according to Ra, that is not ideal and can cause a lot of problems down the line.
Quote:We now speak of that genie, or elemental, or mythic figure, culturally determined, which sends the arrow to the left-hand transformation. This arrow is not the arrow which kills but rather that which, in its own way, protects. Those who choose separation, that being the quality most indicative of the left-hand path, are protected from other-selves by a strength and sharpness equivalent to the degree of transformation which the mind has experienced in the negative sense. Those upon the right-hand path have no such protection against other-selves for upon that path the doughty seeker shall find many mirrors for reflection in each other-self it encounters.
I honestly think this is one of the most misunderstood concepts of in the Law of One. David Wilcock even grossly misinterprets this concept in an article on his page. We often believe that if we feel bad, that we are doing bad spiritually, or being punished spiritually. We believe that if we are doing well, we will experience bliss and no pain. But in reality, the more we progress spiritually, the more empathy we develop towards the other selves that we share this experience with - and therefore, the more likely we are to feel pain. This whole planet is in pain. Yes, we are not supposed to dwell in pain, but we are supposed to experience pain and then learn to elevate it. By avoiding pain we are not learning to elevate it. By ignoring suffering we are making a choice to separate us from another being instead of making the choice to unite in empathy, in sympathetic vibrations. As soon as you unify with their vibrations, then it's easier to pull them up to the higher ones that you can achieve.
Yes, Ra says that a being completely undistorted will experience no emotional reaction. However, Ra also says that the "ideal configuration" in third density is not that which is free of blockages, but that which has its own blockages, preincarnatively programmed, so that we can learn lessons to apply to our being totality.
Quote:This distortion is not in any case necessary. It is chosen by each of you as an alternative to understanding the complete unity of thought which binds all things. You are not speaking of similar or somewhat like entities or things. You are every thing, every being, every emotion, every event, every situation. You are unity. You are infinity. You are love/light, light/love. You are. This is the Law of One.