Humanity should respect animals.

[Monica]

How about a teleological approach? This might begin by asking: What is the purpose of Life?

The purpose of Life is to express itself in physical form. This much is self-evident. Life probably has many other purposes- and some of them even ethical- but the one thing we have empirical evidence for- something we can stand upon as evidence- is that the purpose of life is to express itself in physical form.

I'd have to disagree with your premise.

I'd say the function of life is to express itself in physical form, but that isn't its purpose. Its purpose is to evolve spiritually.

Although, biodynamic farms do require animals to function.

I found a book about people succeeding in farming without animals. They claim to be successful. Their project has spanned 10 years so far, if I remember correctly. I haven't read it yet though. It was kinda over my head, since I'm just a backyard gardener.

We should do whatever is necessary to enable Life to maximally express itself in physical form.

I disagree again. Physical form isn't the end-all. I'd say we should do whatever is necessary to most fully express our highest spiritual principles.

Preservation of form (nurture/defense) is a function of life along with creation of form (reproduction) and destruction of form (death).

Therefore, a humanity in alignment with the purpose of Life would seek to act to create catalyst for these three functions of Life.

I strongly disagree. It is the function of STS to create catalyst. Not our function.

And from this, we would conclude that it is not appropriate for humanity to elevate one of these functions- preservation of form- over the others. To do this would create an imbalance in the system. In many ways, it already has.

By that logic, then why ever try to save anyone's life? Why not just look the other way if we witness an impending murder?

So when I envision a 4D society, what I also see is that humanity has accepted full responsibility as stewards for Life on Earth.

But a steward is more than a protector. A steward must also wield the power to destroy forms where it is found their perpetuation inhibits the maximal expression of Life.

You seem to be saying, on the one hand, that one species shouldn't be elevated over another, but on the other, saying that humans should have stewardship over all other lifeforms. Or did you mean that it's ok for humans to elevate themselves over other lifeforms, but shouldn't ever elevate any animals over other animals or plants?

Why would it be ok for humans to elevate themselves, but not ok to elevate say, a dog, over a lizard? Maybe I'm totally misunderstanding you, but your logic doesn't seem consistent to me.

I don't have any ideas for a philosophy that works in all instances, other than the general philosophy of compassion, since that is, after all, what we're supposed to be learning here in 3D, and, in my understanding, the actual purpose of 3D to begin with.

[Tenet Nosce]

I'd say the function of life is to express itself in physical form, but that isn't its purpose. Its purpose is to evolve spiritually.

I said Life likely has multiple purposes. Expressing itself in physical form is an act of will. Life doesn't have to do that; It chooses to.

I found a book about people succeeding in farming without animals. They claim to be successful. Their project has spanned 10 years so far, if I remember correctly. I haven't read it yet though. It was kinda over my head, since I'm just a backyard gardener.

Really? Without any animals? What about worms or bees? Or did you just mean without farm animals?

It is the function of STS to create catalyst.

Where did you get that from?

By that logic, then why ever try to save anyone's life? Why not just look the other way if we witness an impending murder?

Because when human-human interactions are involved, ethical principles come into play. Swatting a mosquito is not murder.

You seem to be saying, on the one hand, that one species shouldn't be elevated over another, but on the other, saying that humans should have stewardship over all other lifeforms.

What I meant is that if the argument is made that humans shouldn't elevate themselves over farm animals, then it follows that we shouldn't elevate farm animals over other animals, or for than matter animals over the other kingdoms of lifeforms. I wasn't making that argument myself.

The point is to show why ethical principles are problematic when extended outside of human-human relationships.

I am not totally discrediting your approach! Farm animals are a special case because they have been domesticated by humans, and in that domestication process we have reduced their ability to survive in nature without our assistance. Thus we bear some special responsibility to them, and I think it is fair to extend ethical principles to domesticated animals. It is fair, but problematic.

Or did you mean that it's ok for humans to elevate themselves over other lifeforms, but shouldn't ever elevate any animals over other animals or plants?

Should some humans elevate themselves over other humans?

Maybe I'm totally misunderstanding you, but your logic doesn't seem consistent to me.

Yes, I think you are misunderstanding me. For example, we are not in agreement over the difference between a purpose and a function. So therefore anything downstream from that will be confusing.

I don't have any ideas for a philosophy that works in all instances,

The Law of One is a philosophy that works in all instances.

other than the general philosophy of compassion, since that is, after all, what we're supposed to be learning here in 3D, and, in my understanding, the actual purpose of 3D to begin with.

Oh gosh, no! Compassion is a function of 4D. If humanity were here to teach/learn compassion, this whole experience would have been a miserable failure, don't you think? The spiritual functions of humanity in 3D are faith and love.

To my estimation (which could be entirely wrong!) you are a 4D wanderer. Which is why you display an abundance of compassion relative to the population. But as with all wanderers, there is a propensity to project the functions of one's home density into the current situation. Unfortunately- and I have been teach/learning this the hard way- this is not the purpose of wanderers.

[BrownEye]

Oh gosh, no! Compassion is a function of 4D. If humanity were here to teach/learn compassion, this whole experience would have been a miserable failure, don't you think? The spiritual functions of humanity in 3D are faith and love.

21.9 During the first portion of third-density cycles, incarnations are automatic and occur rapidly upon the cessation of energy complex of the physical vehicle. There is small need to review or to heal the experiences of the incarnation. As, what you would call, the energy centers begin to be activated to a higher extent, more of the content of experience during incarnation deals with the lessons of love.

Thus the time, as you may understand it, between incarnations is lengthened to give appropriate attention to the review and the healing of experiences of the previous incarnation. At some point in third density, the green-ray energy center becomes activated and at that point incarnation ceases to be automatic.

What I see is that compassion is directly related to green ray activation, and a result of lessons learned in 3D. Many have transitioned to 4D while still incarnated as 3D physical. There is a population of 4D physical that is watching what we now do.

[Monica]

I'd say the function of life is to express itself in physical form, but that isn't its purpose. Its purpose is to evolve spiritually.

I said Life likely has multiple purposes. Expressing itself in physical form is an act of will. Life doesn't have to do that; It chooses to.

Assuming you are referring to physical, 3D life when you say 'life' (as opposed to the existence of the spirit) then I still contend that the very purpose of 3D reality at all, is so that entities can evolve. 3D reality is just a stage, an illusion set up for the express purpose of providing a school for 3D entities, to learn the lessons needed for graduation to 4D. Everything else is secondary.

That's my understanding.

Really? Without any animals? What about worms or bees? Or did you just mean without farm animals?

I meant just farm animals kept in captivity, raised for food. Bees, worms, dogs and cats don't count.

It is the function of STS to create catalyst.

Where did you get that from?

The Law of One, of course.

To clarify: The very structure of 3D is rife with catalyst. Just living here on this planet and interacting with the environment generates catalyst. Interacting with other-selves, whether STS or STO, also generates catalyst. So I didn't intend to imply that anyone who triggers catalyst is STS!

But, STS entities provide the spice, the fire that forges the blade, the impetus that spurs STOs into evolution. Ra stated that the duality design was to accelerate evolution. Think about it: If all STS entities were suddenly eliminated from the planet, a big chunk of our catalyst (horrors of war, many of the violent acts, etc.) would be eliminated. Our world would be all peace love and puffies, and growth would slow down, because there'd be less catalyst.

Ra stated that STS entities serve the Creator. My understanding is that that is precisely how they serve: by providing more catalyst than we'd get with environmental factors alone. Someone's gotta do the dirty work!

And they do so willingly. Advanced STS entities do so consciously and knowingly. Take for example the famous (or infamous, depending on your perception) the self-proclaimed STS entity Hidden Hand. He claims to be serving the rest of us. And indeed he is.

But what is acceptable and even advisable for an STS entity, isn't necessarily acceptable or appropriate for an STO. An STS will gain polarity when s/he harms or controls another; whereas, an STO would lose polarity when making that same choice.

By that logic, then why ever try to save anyone's life? Why not just look the other way if we witness an impending murder?

Because when human-human interactions are involved, ethical principles come into play. Swatting a mosquito is not murder.

That's just a cultural moré. Swatting a mosquito isn't considered murder because society decided it wasn't murder. That has no bearing on spiritual considerations.

What you seem to be saying is that we should try to save a human victim because, well, society says it's murder. But swatting a mosquito doesn't matter because, well, it's just a bug.

Or are you saying the opposite? Sometimes we dig so deep, Tenet, that I forget what we were talking about! :-/

What I meant is that if the argument is made that humans shouldn't elevate themselves over farm animals, then it follows that we shouldn't elevate farm animals over other animals, or for than matter animals over the other kingdoms of lifeforms. I wasn't making that argument myself.

The point is to show why ethical principles are problematic when extended outside of human-human relationships.

OK, I can agree with that! But I don't think in terms of anyone elevating themselves over anyone else, whether plant or animal or human. It's not about elevating. That doesn't even enter into the conversation, in my mind.

I am not totally discrediting your approach!

OK, good to know.

Farm animals are a special case because they have been domesticated by humans, and in that domestication process we have reduced their ability to survive in nature without our assistance. Thus we bear some special responsibility to them, and I think it is fair to extend ethical principles to domesticated animals. It is fair, but problematic.

I agree that the entire situation is problematic, just as are other volatile, highly charged subjects, like war, abortion, etc. (Again I marvel that we haven't had any ongoing abortion debates in this community! Amazing!)

But are you saying that we should extend ethical principles to farm animals only because we are responsible for them (since we domesticated them) or do you think we should do so anyway?

Should some humans elevate themselves over other humans?

Of course not.

Yes, I think you are misunderstanding me. For example, we are not in agreement over the difference between a purpose and a function. So therefore anything downstream from that will be confusing.

Uh oh. Maybe we should just quit here then...?

The Law of One is a philosophy that works in all instances.

Agreed! But, the problem is in applying the Law of One. We can't all agree on interpretation, much less application.

other than the general philosophy of compassion, since that is, after all, what we're supposed to be learning here in 3D, and, in my understanding, the actual purpose of 3D to begin with.

Oh gosh, no! Compassion is a function of 4D. If humanity were here to teach/learn compassion, this whole experience would have been a miserable failure, don't you think? The spiritual functions of humanity in 3D are faith and love.

A function of 4D, yes, but we must demonstrate it in 3D to get into 4D. We go to the density that matches our vibration, then hone the love there. I already had that conversation with another member:

Bring4th Forums One > The Harvest > Green Ray Requirement for Harvest to 4D

I don't think compassion can be separated from love. Compassion often leads to love, and vice versa.

Faith is referenced by Ra along with will in most cases. I didn't see a single instance in which faith was referenced along with love.

Compassion, however, was referenced along with love many times.

To my estimation (which could be entirely wrong!) you are a 4D wanderer. Which is why you display an abundance of compassion relative to the population.

Oh, so I am 'only' a 4D Wanderer? Oh man, no wonder I'm out of my league here! Most B4 members believe themselves to be 6D! There was even a poll conducted, and the overwhelming majority believed themselves to be from 6D. Those few 4D'ers are quite the minority! One person even told me s/he felt intimidated, being 'only' from 4D, and was afraid to participate for fear of being outsmarted. (I encouraged them to express themselves and not worry about others analyzing which density they were from.) Another person, claiming to be from 6D (of course!) said s/he knew what density everyone was from, and what their lessons were. :exclamation:

LOL! Several B4 members have told me which density they think I'm from. Some said 4D (for the same reason you just listed), others said 5D (and made an equally good case for 5D), and others said 6D (and made an equally good case for 6D).

So whom do I believe? Gosh, it's a toss-up. They all made good arguments for thinking I was from x density.

I find it very amusing, actually, to think that any of us could know what density we are from ourselves, much less someone else! I know there are many techniques people use to determine such info...and many don't use any technique at all, but just arrive at that conclusion somehow. To that I say: Whatever floats your boat! I don't take any of those opinions or techniques as authoritative. They might be interesting to explore, but to put all one's faith into them is to set oneself up for disappointment or delusion at some point down the road. (NOT saying you intended it that way! I just found humor in it since you're not the first person to tell me which density I'm from...probably at least 9-10 people have done so...with opinions pretty much evenly divided into 4, 5, and 6...definitely not a consensus!)

I'm not offended...just amused. I do, however, feel compassion for those poor 4D schmucks who are feeling so intimidated. Apparently, here at B4 all the cool folks are from 6D!

But as with all wanderers, there is a propensity to project the functions of one's home density into the current situation. Unfortunately- and I have been teach/learning this the hard way- this is not the purpose of wanderers.

That topic has been discussed in other threads, though I don't remember which ones. There was much debate about the purpose of Wanderers.

I will say only that there can be multiple purposes.

Also, I refute this idea that if a Wanderer is displaying traits of x density, then that means they are from that density. We cannot know that from simple observation. There are myriad other explanations, like maybe they're brushing up on x density lessons, refining some areas that needed refining, or maybe even took on a particular mission and chose to focus on certain aspects, in order to accomplish that mission. A 6D Wanderer, for example, might display what appears to be 4D traits, to accomplish his/her mission. S/he hasn't lost those qualities just because s/he moved on to other qualities as well. A balanced entity would be able to pull out whichever qualities are appropriate to the mission, as needed.

I'm not saying you're wrong in your assessment of me. To be honest, I have no idea which density I'm from and I really don't care. I do, however, find it fruitless to guess as to the density of others, and I think any such conversation has inherent risks.

Even Ra declined to answer Don's question about which of the 3 was 'merely' a 5D Wanderer, for this very reason.

[Tenet Nosce]

Assuming you are referring to physical, 3D life when you say 'life' (as opposed to the existence of the spirit)

No, I am referring to spirit. That's why I was attempting to distinguish between Life and form. Words sure are a pain, aren't they?!

I meant just farm animals kept in captivity, raised for food. Bees, worms, dogs and cats don't count.

Got it.

The Law of One, of course.

I think we agree that STS entities offer catalyst, but I wouldn't say that is their purpose. When I say purpose I am referring to a conscious intent.

But in any case, when I was talking about humanity giving catalyst to life, I meant that in the physical sense... in the chemical sense. Literally manufacturing physical catalyst for chemical reactions in the planetary cycles. In other words- helping Life along. Making it easier for physical forms to exist- and yes to evolve.

That's just a cultural moré. Swatting a mosquito isn't considered murder because society decided it wasn't murder. That has no bearing on spiritual considerations.

What you seem to be saying is that we should try to save a human victim because, well, society says it's murder. But swatting a mosquito doesn't matter because, well, it's just a bug.

Or are you saying the opposite? Sometimes we dig so deep, Tenet, that I forget what we were talking about! :-/

LOL- points within points within points! No, what I am saying is that the term murder is an ethical term which primarily applies to human-human relationships. Ethical philosophy is what separates an act of murder from just plain killing.

Ethics is what makes killing "wrong." And yes- as you said it is ultimately arbitrary. That's why I think it is not the best branch of philosophy to apply to the situation.

But are you saying that we should extend ethical principles to farm animals only because we are responsible for them (since we domesticated them) or do you think we should do so anyway?

I am saying that I understand why people extend ethical principles to farm animals. But since ethical principles are ultimately arbitrary, this process will never lead to consensus. Therefore, an ethical discussion about the raising of farm animals for food- while engaging- is not likely to reach resolution any time in the near future, in this density or the next.

What I DO think will change is the level awareness of who we are, and what is our purpose. And when that happens, the notion of large-scale raising animals for food will be rather quickly abandoned. This is because it will be obvious that it is not in any case necessary, and moreover is a waste of resources.

Uh oh. Maybe we should just quit here then...?

I dunno. There might still be hope.

We can't all agree on interpretation, much less application.

What is there to interpret? What do you think is controversial about it? I think it is a pretty straightforward and concise statement. Like all universal laws.

I don't think compassion can be separated from love. Compassion often leads to love, and vice versa.

Your statement contradicts itself. If compassion leads to love, then it is is possible to have compassion without love. Thus compassion can be experienced separately from love.

Basically, what you said was there is compassion alone, there is love alone, and then there is compassion and love together. Yes, I would agree. Can each form a foundation for the other? Sure, why not? But that isn't to say they must always come together.

Oh, so I am 'only' a 4D Wanderer? Oh man, no wonder I'm out of my league here! Most B4 members believe themselves to be 6D!

LOL! That's pretty absurd that people would use density of origin as some kind of yardstick to compare one another against! Seeing as how a primary characteristic of a Wanderer is a desire for remediation and recapitulation of lessons. Oh yeah, Wanderers are a real classy bunch!

I used to think I was a 6D Wanderer. But lately I have been considering if it is 6th subdensity of 4D. It can be an interesting thing to ponder, but ultimately fruitless, in terms of a definitive answer. That's why I said I could be completely wrong.

I meant no offense! What I was thinking in my mind is that you clearly have an abundance of compassion relative to the population. So take that however you will!

I'm not offended...just amused.

At your service... *bow*

[Monica]

Words sure are a pain, aren't they?!

Yup. Yet we keep coming back for more!

I think we agree that STS entities offer catalyst, but I wouldn't say that is their purpose. When I say purpose I am referring to a conscious intent.

OK how about: One of the tasks of STS entities is to offer catalyst, and they tend to do it gladly.

But in any case, when I was talking about humanity giving catalyst to life, I meant that in the physical sense... in the chemical sense. Literally manufacturing physical catalyst for chemical reactions in the planetary cycles. In other words- helping Life along. Making it easier for physical forms to exist- and yes to evolve.

OK. I think of this reality as a manifestation of patterns in the higher planes, so I don't really think of the physical as being separate, in that sense. It's all just energy, ultimately.

LOL- points within points within points! No, what I am saying is that the term murder is an ethical term which primarily applies to human-human relationships. Ethical philosophy is what separates an act of murder from just plain killing.

Yes, there is a certain connotation to the term.

Ethics is what makes killing "wrong." And yes- as you said it is ultimately arbitrary. That's why I think it is not the best branch of philosophy to apply to the situation.

We're splitting hairs here, but I'd disagree that ethics is what makes killing 'wrong.' We know that, ultimately, there is no right or wrong, but in relative terms, there is indeed right and wrong, with 'wrong' being defined as something that is in opposition to one's intended path.

Ie. it would be 'wrong' for an STO to knowingly harm another entity, but not wrong for an STS to do that. It's wrong because it impairs polarization, not because society says it's wrong or unethical.

In terms of society's rules, there is no distinction between the same action by and STS and by an STO. Yet, from a Law of One perspective, there's a world of difference.

The very concept of ethics only applies to the STO path. It has no relevance to the STS path.

I am saying that I understand why people extend ethical principles to farm animals. But since ethical principles are ultimately arbitrary, this process will never lead to consensus. Therefore, an ethical discussion about the raising of farm animals for food- while engaging- is not likely to reach resolution any time in the near future, in this density or the next.

Got it. I agree it won't reach any resolution, but maybe not for the same reason. I think that as long as this planet is a 1-room schoolhouse, there won't be consensus. Maybe after the repeaters and STS graduates have been moved to their new planet, we might have consensus. Maybe. Or maybe it won't happen until late 4D. Maybe a good bit of 4D will be spent getting into consensus as the new baby 4D'ers learn to be an SMC.

What I DO think will change is the level awareness of who we are, and what is our purpose. And when that happens, the notion of large-scale raising animals for food will be rather quickly abandoned. This is because it will be obvious that it is not in any case necessary, and moreover is a waste of resources.

Yes. Or, it might be required for the population to survive on this planet. They might not have a choice!

What is there to interpret? What do you think is controversial about it? I think it is a pretty straightforward and concise statement. Like all universal laws.

Which statement are you referring to? The entire Ra Material is subject to interpretation! This entire forum is made up of tons of discussions, that go back and forth and round and round, debating various interpretations!

I don't think compassion can be separated from love. Compassion often leads to love, and vice versa.

Your statement contradicts itself. If compassion leads to love, then it is is possible to have compassion without love. Thus compassion can be experienced separately from love.

Does it? Hmmm...let me think about that. Well I guess it depends on one's definition of love.

If I see a picture of a starving child, I immediately feel compassion. But, I don't 'love' that child in the same way I love my husband, son or best friend. That's what I meant by compassion without love.

But after compassion has been triggered in me, my usual response is to intentionally send love to that child. Still not the same kind of love as the familial love, but it love nonetheless!

I feel compassion for family members when the situation warrants it...but I'm not feeling compassion for them at all times. Yet, I do love them at all times. So, that is love without compassion, at any given moment. Other moments contain love with compassion.

So, you're right: One can exist without the other. BUT, not for long! Only momentarily! In order for my compassion for that starving child to do any good, it kinda has to progress into love, dontcha think? That seems to be the natural progression for how my mind works, anyway. For me, love just naturally follows compassion.

Basically, what you said was there is compassion alone, there is love alone, and then there is compassion and love together. Yes, I would agree. Can each form a foundation for the other? Sure, why not? But that isn't to say they must always come together.

As my examples just illustrated, you're right. But, I think they do flow into each other, and don't stay separate for long, so in that respect we're both right.

Love can naturally flow from compassion, but it doesn't always happen that way. When an entity is first learning love, they may need to consciously choose one or the other, and then the other will naturally flow from that, hopefully.

LOL! That's pretty absurd that people would use density of origin as some kind of yardstick to compare one another against! Seeing as how a primary characteristic of a Wanderer is a desire for remediation and recapitulation of lessons. Oh yeah, Wanderers are a real classy bunch!

Yeah!

I used to think I was a 6D Wanderer. But lately I have been considering if it is 6th subdensity of 4D. It can be an interesting thing to ponder, but ultimately fruitless, in terms of a definitive answer. That's why I said I could be completely wrong.

I meant no offense! What I was thinking in my mind is that you clearly have an abundance of compassion relative to the population. So take that however you will!

OK. It is what it is. I just find it funny when some say that to me in a condescending way, as though I am really behind the times since I haven't yet learned to "turn off" the compassion.

You didn't do that, so we're cool.

But doesn't it strike you as a bit funny that some people seem to think being more spiritually advanced is based on having less love and compassion? That to measure up, one must stifle love's natural flow.

Which of course begs the question: Are those people really 'beyond' such compassion, or are they in denial about their own blockages?

(NOT referring to anyone in particular, and certainly not to you, Tenet...just a general musing.)

I'm not offended...just amused.

At your service... *bow*

I certainly wouldn't want you to get butthurt over me getting butthurt, now would I?

Well now that we've reached a pretty good level of understanding, very soon I'm going to have to exit this discussion for awhile. It's gotten a bit too time consuming!

Carry on!

[Tenet Nosce]

Which statement are you referring to?

I meant just the Law of One itself. Not the Ra Material as a whole.

But doesn't it strike you as a bit funny that some people seem to think being more spiritually advanced is based on having less love and compassion? That to measure up, one must stifle love's natural flow.

I think the main idea is balance. For example, often times in an emotionally tense situation my kneejerk reaction is to offer wisdom. But that very rarely ever works out. This is because my lesson is typically to teach/learn love.

Wisdom flows naturally for me. Love requires more conscious effort. Therefore it is a pattern of being of being "overbalanced" toward wisdom. That doesn't mean I should become any less wise; It means that I have a tendency to overvalue wisdom with respect to encountered catalyst.

I would surmise an analogous situation in one for which compassion flows most freely. There would be a tendency to assume that compassion was the most appropriate response to catalyst, when perhaps it might be faith.

But I can only speak for myself. I wouldn't be so foolish as to hold myself out as being able to determine which lessons others are working on, or where in the spirals they might be.

[Monica]

I think the main idea is balance.

Ah, but balance is relative. What is being balanced with what? It depends on how closely you zero into the situation, and how much time has elapsed.

For example, when viewed from a time perspective of 1 hour, and something takes up 59 minutes, there is no balance. But when viewed from the perspective of 2 hours, that entire 2nd hour might be opposite, so in the end, balance is achieved.

When viewing the situation prematurely, thinking it's all over, one can think there is no balance, when it's just too soon.

I think it's overly simplistic to expect balance in every moment. A Wanderer might be attempting to balance some aspect that needed brushing up on. We don't know the big picture. That Wanderer might balance his/her overall vibration by zooming in on some aspect - be it compassion, wisdom or whatever - and to an observer it might look like it's out of balance, but in the big picture, that is exactly what was needed for balance.

Furthermore, balance implies duality, as in, yin/yang. But that's only viewing the situation from a numerological 2. The next number, 3, has a different sort of balance. And still different when the energy reaches 4, and so on. The concept of balance becomes meaningless when continued progression is taken into account.

For example, often times in an emotionally tense situation my kneejerk reaction is to offer wisdom. But that very rarely ever works out. This is because my lesson is typically to teach/learn love.

Now why might that be? If, as you seem to imply, you are a 5D Wanderer, then why are you learning lessons of love? To refine it?

Wisdom flows naturally for me. Love requires more conscious effort. Therefore it is a pattern of being of being "overbalanced" toward wisdom. That doesn't mean I should become any less wise; It means that I have a tendency to overvalue wisdom with respect to encountered catalyst.

If a Wanderer is, say, 6D, then wouldn't both love and wisdom flow? Since they successfully graduated from both densities?

We cannot know what mission the Wanderer took on. They might have veiled certain strengths, in order to accomplish their mission. Just as a Wanderer might incarnate into a religion - that doesn't mean they haven't yet evolved past religious dogma. It might just be that they have chosen to be veiled, in order to do their work in that particular sub-culture. I know a high Wanderer who is a total bible-believer. But there is no doubt in my mind that he's a high Wanderer. His love and wisdom both flow abundantly. I believe him to be a 6D Wanderer, and here he is, in a religion! He just veiled his higher knowledge, in order to complete his mission. He might just as easily have veiled some aspect of 5D wisdom, or even 4D love, in order to accomplish his mission. We just really can't tell.

I would surmise an analogous situation in one for which compassion flows most freely. There would be a tendency to assume that compassion was the most appropriate response to catalyst, when perhaps it might be faith.

Can you give an example of when faith might be more appropriate than compassion? Those see to be 2 different qualities, with differing applications. I can see the need for faith with compassion, but I can't think of an instance when compassion should be intentionally blocked or turned off.

But I can only speak for myself. I wouldn't be so foolish as to hold myself out as being able to determine which lessons others are working on, or where in the spirals they might be.

Whew! That's a relief! haha

[Tenet Nosce]

Furthermore, balance implies duality, as in, yin/yang. But that's only viewing the situation from a numerological 2. The next number, 3, has a different sort of balance. And still different when the energy reaches 4, and so on. The concept of balance becomes meaningless when continued progression is taken into account.

Well no, balance doesn't necessarily imply duality. You just gave some examples of non-dualistic balance!

I think you might be making my point more complex than it is.

Now why might that be? If, as you seem to imply, you are a 5D Wanderer, then why are you learning lessons of love? To refine it?

Well, knowing myself what probably happened was I breezed through a whole bunch of lessons doing only the minimum necessary to get to the "advanced lessons" only to realize that I had overlooked something important back at a very foundational level.

If a Wanderer is, say, 6D, then wouldn't both love and wisdom flow? Since they successfully graduated from both densities?

To some degree, yes. Wisdom could flow from a 3D native. But to your deeper question, you answered it yourself!

We cannot know what mission the Wanderer took on. They might have veiled certain strengths, in order to accomplish their mission.

Exactly. For example, they might have decided to veil compassion in order to be able to maneuver themselves into a situation that they would otherwise find overwhelmingly abhorrent.

He might just as easily have veiled some aspect of 5D wisdom, or even 4D love, in order to accomplish his mission. We just really can't tell.

Yes, that's true.

Can you give an example of when faith might be more appropriate than compassion?

Some examples would be when inexplicable tragedies and great injustices occur. Compassion is easy in those types of circumstances. That's not to say at all that compassion is "inappropriate" not by any means. Just saying in those types of circumstances the toughest lessons are about faith, not compassion. At least for me. Maybe for somebody else it is difficult to express compassion in those types of circumstances.

but I can't think of an instance when compassion should be intentionally blocked or turned off.

Well naturally, you wouldn't! Who knows- there could be all kinds of crazy missions! Pick any situation where somebody wants to play the role of "whistleblower." I would imagine they might shut down compassion in order to maneuver themselves into whatever dark operation they are wishing to expose.

Highly compassionate people really wouldn't stand much of a chance rising to the top on Wall Street, for example.

[Monica]

Well no, balance doesn't necessarily imply duality. You just gave some examples of non-dualistic balance!

We can't really even know what balance is, from our current perspective, because we're not seeing the big picture.

I think you might be making my point more complex than it is.

Apparently you and I mirror each other! We both tend to dig deep and split hairs.

Exactly. For example, they might have decided to veil compassion in order to be able to maneuver themselves into a situation that they would otherwise find overwhelmingly abhorrent.

Exactly! Or they might have decided to veil wisdom, in order to shine compassion, as an example to 3D entities who need to see it modeled. There are any number of possibilities. Point being, that we really can't assume anything based on observations. Too much is hidden.

Some examples would be when inexplicable tragedies and great injustices occur. Compassion is easy in those types of circumstances. That's not to say at all that compassion is "inappropriate" not by any means. Just saying in those types of circumstances the toughest lessons are about faith, not compassion. At least for me. Maybe for somebody else it is difficult to express compassion in those types of circumstances.

OK I can go along with that!

Well naturally, you wouldn't! Who knows- there could be all kinds of crazy missions! Pick any situation where somebody wants to play the role of "whistleblower." I would imagine they might shut down compassion in order to maneuver themselves into whatever dark operation they are wishing to expose.

Highly compassionate people really wouldn't stand much of a chance rising to the top on Wall Street, for example.

Well we're on the same page then. Good time to call it quits for now! I need to tend to other things. Thanks for the stimulating discussion (as always).

[Pablísimo]

other than the general philosophy of compassion, since that is, after all, what we're supposed to be learning here in 3D, and, in my understanding, the actual purpose of 3D to begin with.

Oh gosh, no! Compassion is a function of 4D. If humanity were here to teach/learn compassion, this whole experience would have been a miserable failure, don't you think? The spiritual functions of humanity in 3D are faith and love.

http://www.lawofone.info/results.php?s=42#6

42.6 Questioner: In the last session you made the statement that “We, that is Ra, spent much time/space in the fifth-density balancing the intense compassion that we had gained in the fourth-density.” Could you expand on this concept with respect to the material you just discussed?

Ra: I am Ra. The fourth density, as we have said, abounds in compassion. This compassion is folly when seen through the eyes of wisdom. It (compassion) is the salvation of third density but creates a mismatch in the ultimate balance of the entity

My take on that is that Compassion is pretty darn important in 3D (where we ARE now), especially at the end of the cycle. Ra didn't mince words.

That, and it is interesting that this extremely vital bit of information about our current incarnated density is in session #42. Session 42 of our very own Wanderer's Guide to the Galaxy.

Love to all

[Monica]

http://www.lawofone.info/results.php?s=42#6

42.6 Questioner: In the last session you made the statement that “We, that is Ra, spent much time/space in the fifth-density balancing the intense compassion that we had gained in the fourth-density.” Could you expand on this concept with respect to the material you just discussed?

Ra: I am Ra. The fourth density, as we have said, abounds in compassion. This compassion is folly when seen through the eyes of wisdom. It (compassion) is the salvation of third density but creates a mismatch in the ultimate balance of the entity

My take on that is that Compassion is pretty darn important in 3D (where we ARE now), especially at the end of the cycle. Ra didn't mince words.

That, and it is interesting that this extremely vital bit of information about our current incarnated density is in session #42. Session 42 of our very own Wanderer's Guide to the Galaxy.

Love to all

Good find! (And nice to see you, dear friend!)

Here's more of that session:

42.6 Questioner: In the last session you made the statement that “We, that is Ra, spent much time/space in the fifth-density balancing the intense compassion that we had gained in the fourth-density.” Could you expand on this concept with respect to the material you just discussed?
Ra: I am Ra. The fourth density, as we have said, abounds in compassion. This compassion is folly when seen through the eyes of wisdom. It is the salvation of third density but creates a mismatch in the ultimate balance of the entity.

I get the impression that many Law of One students stop reading right here.

(NOTE: The following comments aren't directed to anyone in particular, but are based on observations about many people's comments here at B4.)

Thus we, as a social memory complex of fourth density, had the tendency towards compassion even to martyrdom in aid of other-selves. When the fifth-density harvest was achieved we found that in this vibratory level flaws could be seen in the efficacy of such unrelieved compassion. We spent much time/space in contemplation of those ways of the Creator which imbue love with wisdom.

Many Law of One students seem to confuse "imbuing love with wisdom" with "blocking/turning off compassion."

It isn't wisdom to neglect compassion, in the density where compassion/love/service to others is the ticket to the next...the salvation of 3D in Ra's words.

42.7 Questioner: I would like to try to make an analogy for third-density of this concept. Many entities here feel great compassion for relieving the physical problems of third-density other-selves by administering to them in many ways, with food if there is hunger as there is now in the African nations, by bringing them medicine if they feel that there is a need to minister to them medically, and being selfless in all of these services to a very great extent.

This is creating a vibration that is in harmony with green-ray or fourth-density but it is not balanced with the understanding of fifth-density that these entities are experiencing catalysts and a more balanced administration to their needs would be to provide them with the learning necessary to reach the state of awareness of fourth-density than it would be to minister to their physical needs at this time. Is this correct?
Ra: I am Ra. This is incorrect. To a mind/body/spirit complex which is starving, the appropriate response is the feeding of the body. You may extrapolate from this.

Aha! There it is right there. Is this not crystal clear?

We observe the needs and suffering of others, whether it be pain, starvation, or whatever. The appropriate response is to offer service.

Not refrain from service out of some misplaced idea that in so doing we might throw ourselves out of balance. To be more concerned about getting out of balance ourselves with "too much compassion" than we are about serving others, would actually be serving self, which is the opposite of what's needed in 3D.

On the other hand, however, you are correct in your assumption that the green ray response is not as refined as that which has been imbued with wisdom. This wisdom enables the entity to appreciate its contributions to the planetary consciousness by the quality of its being without regard to activity or behavior which expects results upon visible planes.

"Green ray response is not as refined" means there should still be a green ray response! Not turn off green in favor of the loftier, higher ray responses. Furthermore, it isn't wisdom to turn off green at all!

The green ray response is what's most important here in 3D. So important that Ra said it's the salvation of 3D!

If possible, if we have the ability, then sure, let's imbue that response with 5D wisdom, absolutely! But let's not delude ourselves in thinking that we even have that wisdom at all, when in fact we might not and it might even be a trap to tempt us into blocking green, out of some sort of ego delusion that we are somehow 'above' green...'beyond such lower responses.'

Indeed, I've observed a number of people who seem to berate any show of compassion, as though it's just so...so...distasteful. As though anyone who shows compassion is clearly out of balance, clearly behind the times, clearly not very advanced. While they, of course, operate at a much higher level.

Let's suppose for just a moment that they're correct in that they are from 5D or 6D and the person they're talking to is a "mere" 4D. Is it really wisdom to tell an entity whose primary objective is to polarize, that they are somehow lacking because they don't yet have wisdom? Is it really wisdom tempered with love (or love tempered with wisdom) to elevate themselves above another with the idea that they are millions of years more advanced? They can think that all they want, but is it wise to tell that to a younger sibling?

Once again, to be clear, I'm not directing these comments at anyone in particular. I'm thinking more about the many posts I've seen, from various people, along these lines. There seemed to be a prevailing attitude that only those from 6D were in the 'in' crowd here at B4.

I question whether those people are from 6D at all. I didn't perceive their comments to be wise at all.

42.8 Questioner: Then why do we have the extreme starvation problem in, generally, the area of Africa at this time? Is there any metaphysical reason for this, or is it purely random?
Ra: I am Ra. Your previous assumption was correct as to the catalytic action of this starvation and ill health. However, it is within the free will of an entity to respond to this plight of otherselves, and the offering of the needed foodstuffs and substances is an appropriate response within the framework of your learn/teachings at this time which involve the growing sense of love for and service to other-selves.

Aha! So the situation is catalytic! It is catalyst; ie., an opportunity for other-selves to polarize by responding in love and service!

There it is right there. Sounds pretty crystal-clear to me!

42.9 Questioner: What is the difference in terms of energy center activation between a person who represses emotional responses to emotionally charged situations and the person who is balanced and, therefore, truly unswayed by emotionally charged situations?
Ra: I am Ra. This query contains an incorrect assumption. To the truly balanced entity no situation would be emotionally charged. With this understood, we may say the following: The repression of emotions depolarizes the entity in so far as it then chooses not to use the catalytic action of the space/time present in a spontaneous manner, thus dimming the energy centers. There is, however, some polarization towards positive if the cause of this repression is consideration for other-selves. The entity which has worked long enough with the catalyst to be able to feel the catalyst but not find it necessary to express reactions is not yet balanced but suffers no depolarization due to the transparency of its experiential continuum. Thus the gradual increase in the ability to observe one’s reactions and to know the self will bring the self ever closer to a true balance. Patience is requested and suggested, for the catalyst is intense upon your plane and its use must be appreciated over a period of consistent learn/teaching.

I think sometimes people have blockages and thus don't have full, spontaneous expression of green ray, and mistakenly think they're fully balanced and beyond emotion.

These same people often interpret passion and conviction in others as excessive, unbalanced emotion lacking wisdom. Which it may be in some cases, but an observer won't know the difference.

Why? Because the expression of love/compassion might be the same. Even the emotional response might be the same. The difference is in whether the person has any attachment to outcome.

John and Jane might both show an equally passionate response to starving children. Both are activists. At first glance, it might appear that they are same, in regards to their polarity and balance of love and wisdom.

However, John might be wise enough to know that there is no point to being attached to his desired outcome, whereas Jane (being 'merely' from 4D) might not have learned that yet, and thus gets very upset when her actions don't get the desired results.

The observer might not know that Jane gets upset, so John and Jane might look exactly the same. Both take action. Both show compassion. Both are passionate and have strong convictions. Both might even seem "extremist" to those who don't share their convictions. But, the observer doesn't know that Jane is attached to outcome, and John isn't.

The observer doesn't know that Jane is doing exactly what she should be doing, which is letting her green ray have full expression, now so close to Harvest. The observer doesn't know that John, too, is doing exactly what he should be doing: exactly the same thing as Jane, but with peace of mind and less attachment to outcome, because he has the wisdom to know that all will be well in the end. He just doesn't let that wisdom and knowing stop him from doing what is appropriate in the here and now. He has the wisdom to know that blocking his natural responses to catalyst, while in 3D, isn't wisdom at all.

42.10 Questioner: How can a person know when he is unswayed by an emotionally charged situation or if he is repressing the flow of emotions, or if he is in balance and truly unswayed?
Ra: I am Ra. We have spoken to this point. Therefore, we shall briefly iterate that to the balanced entity no situation has an emotional charge but is simply a situation like any other in which the entity may or may not observe an opportunity to be of service. The closer an entity comes to this attitude the closer an entity is to balance. You may note that it is not our recommendation that reactions to catalyst be repressed or suppressed unless such reactions would be a stumbling block not consonant with the Law of One to an other-self. It is far, far better to allow the experience to express itself in order that the entity may then make fuller use of this catalyst.

[DirndlDude]

Could you define animal respect?

It feels open ended. I would say yes because I feel like respect is keeping my distance and admiring their lives from afar. A mouse, an elephant, and I respect each other accordingly.

[Tenet Nosce]

other than the general philosophy of compassion, since that is, after all, what we're supposed to be learning here in 3D, and, in my understanding, the actual purpose of 3D to begin with.

Oh gosh, no! Compassion is a function of 4D. If humanity were here to teach/learn compassion, this whole experience would have been a miserable failure, don't you think? The spiritual functions of humanity in 3D are faith and love.

http://www.lawofone.info/results.php?s=42#6

42.6 Questioner: In the last session you made the statement that “We, that is Ra, spent much time/space in the fifth-density balancing the intense compassion that we had gained in the fourth-density.” Could you expand on this concept with respect to the material you just discussed?

Ra: I am Ra. The fourth density, as we have said, abounds in compassion. This compassion is folly when seen through the eyes of wisdom. It (compassion) is the salvation of third density but creates a mismatch in the ultimate balance of the entity

My take on that is that Compassion is pretty darn important in 3D (where we ARE now), especially at the end of the cycle. Ra didn't mince words.

That, and it is interesting that this extremely vital bit of information about our current incarnated density is in session #42. Session 42 of our very own Wanderer's Guide to the Galaxy.

Love to all

Hi Pablísimo,

Always great to have you in a thread!

But you might have misunderstood my comment when I said compassion is a function of 4D. That doesn't in any way imply that compassion isn't important in 3D. It's just not the main focus of the lessons.

You may have missed the sub-context- which admittedly could be hard to follow because Monica and I were "drilling down" quite a bit. We were talking about the remediation of lessons for wanderers.

Wanderers have a reciprocal relationship to the 3D experience. While it might be part of our service to aid in the balancing of the group mind through the offering of compassion and wisdom, we in turn are served by the opportunity to balance our own personal consciousness with the lessons of love and faith.

So in getting back to the sidebar with Monica about how compassion applies to eating animals- yes it does apply. But extending compassion- and the ethical principles derived thereof- outside of human-human relationships is- according to my estimation- a very advanced lesson for a 3D entity to be teach/learning.

I don't believe for one minute that mastery of this lesson is in any case necessary for graduation to 4D.

For a wanderer who is beyond mastery of compassion to even adepthood, the concept of raising animals for food presents a particular challenge. On the one hand- it can certainly be a part of their mission to push the boundaries of compassion within humanity to extend beyond humans to 2D entities, or the planetary entity.

On the other hand, the lessons to be recapitulated by said wanderer are likely to be quite different.

In the case of a wanderer who is adept at compassion, there is no need for recapitulation of lessons about compassion. They have- obviously- gone beyond mastery of this function.

And yet, here they are. So that being said, whatever lessons they were wanting to remediate, chances are those lessons are primarily about faith and love. If it is further seen that love flows freely from the wanderer, then we are left to speculate about faith alone.

Finally, it is unlikely that any wanderer came here to remediate wisdom, whether they have previously attained mastery of it, or not.

At this juncture, let me be clear that I am making a generalization about what those lessons might be for a theoretical wanderer and NOT implying I know what is the lesson for any specific person in any specific situation.

So therefore, I will leave it to the reader to speculate about what sorts of lessons about faith and/or love might be relevant to a wanderer whose mission might involve this practice of raising animals for food.

But getting back to that quote, I certainly agree that it is very relevant to the discussion, and I wouldn't argue with your analysis. However, I might point out that it is "cherry-picked" in the sense that you appear to have decided to deliberately leave out another part of the quote which is also highly relevant:

Thus we, as a social memory complex of fourth density, had the tendency towards compassion even to martyrdom in aid of other-selves. When the fifth-density harvest was achieved we found that in this vibratory level flaws could be seen in the efficacy of such unrelieved compassion. We spent much time/space in contemplation of those ways of the Creator which imbue love with wisdom.

Interestingly, this part of the quote directly responds to the previous discussion about unbalanced compassion. Forgive me for a direct question, but why did you decide to leave out this part of the quote?

But besides that, I think you hit the nail on the head by drawing our attention to Session 42 as the entire session most definitely speaks to this very issue. Great work!

I also find it a point of interest that this is the only session in which the word "salvation" appears. So, it might be wise to tread lightly with this particular word, as it is typically a very charged concept that means wildly different things to different people.

---

EDITORIAL NOTE: I had not read Monica's previous post before replying to Pablísimo.

[Pablísimo]

Love to all

[Monica]

I agree 100%, Pablisimo!

I was thinking, too, what do we really know about 5D wisdom? Can we be sure that what we think is wisdom, really is 5D wisdom?

[Tenet Nosce]

Can we be sure that what we think is wisdom, really is 5D wisdom?

A great point! For that matter, can we be sure that what we think is compassion, really is 4D compassion?

[Monica]

Can we be sure that what we think is wisdom, really is 5D wisdom?

A great point! For that matter, can we be sure that what we think is compassion, really is 4D compassion?

Yes we can, because we know what compassion looks like. Compassion exists here in 3D. Wisdom does too, but do we have any guidelines for identifying it?

[Goldenratio]

As I understand it, many people find that being a vegan is efficacious to their spiritual growth. Kinship to all life, "spreading the love", etc. That this endevor promotes growth is great. I dont think that the same path is for everyone though. What works for me, isnt for everyone, likewise, what is for you, isnt for everyone.

For me, I feel it possible to be a steward to life on this planet and eat meat. What we have now, it is not a responsible system.

I tend to feel the evangelical nature of vegans to grating. Being told whats good for me I find insulting with shades of tyranny. Though to someone who feels intensely a connection to all life, a desire for others to tread gently with life is completely understandable however. The idea of inflicting pain under this mindset is hard to fathom. But I find that pain is fleeting, and an animal can be harvested with a minimal amount of pain. Prolonged, it can become terror, which is a horse of a different color.

The argument that plants have evolved to gain benefit from being eaten (carrying seeds far and wide for example) to me is an example of how life adapts. Not that as plants desire to be eaten.

Any argument based on the supposed density of a person just seems like self engrandizement. If you just made it to 3D for this life, or are thousand octaves above the rest, all the same your here now, for whatever reason. A person who is attuned to their spiritual side will resonate with what works, or doesnt work for them. And while yes people should explore all things to find out first hand what is their cuppa tea so to speak, there comes a time when espousing your beliefs turns into more than proselytizing.

[Monica]

As I understand it, many people find that being a vegan is efficacious to their spiritual growth. Kinship to all life, "spreading the love", etc. That this endevor promotes growth is great. I dont think that the same path is for everyone though. What works for me, isnt for everyone, likewise, what is for you, isnt for everyone.

For me, I feel it possible to be a steward to life on this planet and eat meat. What we have now, it is not a responsible system.

I tend to feel the evangelical nature of vegans to grating. Being told whats good for me I find insulting with shades of tyranny. Though to someone who feels intensely a connection to all life, a desire for others to tread gently with life is completely understandable however. The idea of inflicting pain under this mindset is hard to fathom. But I find that pain is fleeting, and an animal can be harvested with a minimal amount of pain. Prolonged, it can become terror, which is a horse of a different color.

The argument that plants have evolved to gain benefit from being eaten (carrying seeds far and wide for example) to me is an example of how life adapts. Not that as plants desire to be eaten.

Any argument based on the supposed density of a person just seems like self engrandizement. If you just made it to 3D for this life, or are thousand octaves above the rest, all the same your here now, for whatever reason. A person who is attuned to their spiritual side will resonate with what works, or doesnt work for them. And while yes people should explore all things to find out first hand what is their cuppa tea so to speak, there comes a time when espousing your beliefs turns into more than proselytizing.

I can't speak for all vegetarians, but the vegetarians who've been posting about this topic on this forum (myself included) feel it isn't about self at all.

It's about the animals.

It isn't about what's best for us.

It's about what's best for the animals.

[Goldenratio]

Kind of an obtuse statement, best for the animals. Could you elaborate on what that means to you, and specifically how my being a hunter (and therefore a conservationist) is acting against whats best for the animals.

[Monica]

Kind of an obtuse statement, best for the animals.

What I mean is that we're not vegetarians because we think it's better for our polarizing; we're vegetarians because we have compassion for the animals.

Could you elaborate on what that means to you, and specifically how my being a hunter (and therefore a conservationist) is acting against whats best for the animals.

Do the animals try to run away from you?

[BrownEye]

But I find that pain is fleeting, and an animal can be harvested with a minimal amount of pain.

As with most, your perspective would quickly change if you were on the other end, and someone said these same words to you. In fact this is portrayed in horror movies on a regular basis. Desensitization.

LoL! This thinking comes from the divine right of kings. As if a child naturally moves to killing animals. It is a learned habit/belief. Children learn to stomp on bugs from other children, or parents, who fear insects. It is the same with treatment/disdain of animals.

Something to think about. Look at how we treat bacteria, trying to kill it, eventually forcing the mutation of superbugs. Look at how we do the same thing with cancer treatment, with the same results.

Most likely the ignoring of what we participate in will bring about an authentic strain of virus to put an end to our mass slaughter.

[Goldenratio]

It interesting that your comparing animal life to cancer. Because human existence on this planet in the crisscross spreading over the countryside manner that it is, is inimical to predators. Prey species, deer and elk for example, however dont have these issues and breed and breed and breed, much like a cancer. Deer have evolved to breed soo much, because of the predators. You remove them from the food chain, and the deer populations swell so large that there isnt enough food around for them all. Underweight and small bones becomes the norm, diseases spread like wildfire because the population densities can soar to four or five times what is considered ideal, etc. Participating in wildlife management is beneficial for the herds, to borrow your phrase, it could be compassion for animals.

So you say, what if something considered me prey? I consider animals food because I don't feel that they are sentient. Nothing to do with theological justification for tyranny. Now I suppose one mans stewardship is another mans tyranny.

If im doing my job, the animals dont run away when im hunting. But I understand the point your making, but to my mind its a defense, all forms of life have defenses, some trees poison the earth so no other flora can grow on it but them.

[Cyan]

It interesting that your comparing animal life to cancer. Because human existence on this planet in the crisscross spreading over the countryside manner that it is, is inimical to predators. Prey species, deer and elk for example, however dont have these issues and breed and breed and breed, much like a cancer. Deer have evolved to breed soo much, because of the predators. You remove them from the food chain, and the deer populations swell so large that there isnt enough food around for them all. Underweight and small bones becomes the norm, diseases spread like wildfire because the population densities can soar to four or five times what is considered ideal, etc. Participating in wildlife management is beneficial for the herds, to borrow your phrase, it could be compassion for animals.

So you say, what if something considered me prey? I consider animals food because I don't feel that they are sentient. Nothing to do with theological justification for tyranny. Now I suppose one mans stewardship is another mans tyranny.

If im doing my job, the animals dont run away when im hunting. But I understand the point your making, but to my mind its a defense, all forms of life have defenses, some trees poison the earth so no other flora can grow on it but them.

Honey, in an infinite universe, you can bet a great many spirits consider you their prey. And its good that way. since an equally great number of spirits consider the form of prey you are to be the one that is interesting to watch for its entire life, its interesting to prolong its life indefinently and give it everything it wants so it tastes better when it dies of ripe old age and moves on. If you are lucky, trillions of these small things already live inside you You are their prey, just you try what happens when you stop producing stomach lining acid solvents. You'll end up as "prey" for your stomach acid rather quickly.

[Shin'Ar]

There is no denying that, if one desires to express compassion to another form or being, regardless of the definitions, or the designations of what is aware or not, there is a difference between an act of compassion and an act of cruelty.

To take a pillow and tear it to pieces is not an act of compassion, regardless of the lack of awareness of a pillow.

And I think this is what Monica has always been trying to say.

She has a difficult time understanding why, if a human has the choice to act in a way more compassionate and considerate through a choice of options, they would continue to act in ways that continue to promote cruelty.

And there is no denying that those opportunities exist.

But the fact of the matter is that humans are not all compassionate in nature. In fact, the system in which we most of us participate, is designed and maintained by a very few elitists who have no regard for such things as compassion and self sacrifice.

And this what I have been struggling to help her understand. She has often stated a clear concern and frustration with people who seem to ignore what she believes to be clear and simple choices, promoting horrendous suffering when it is not even necessary.

But, in so doing, she is denying/forgetting the dual nature of creation, and the fact that choice is the very substance of creation. Not only will there be many who do not walk in light, love and compassion, but there will also be many who deliberately war against it.

And unfortunately, if we make our choices in ignorance of that, not wanting to understand that truth, and not wanting to discern the dynamics of that reality, than the choices we make, and any possible real benefit from them, becomes also limited by the degree of ignorance and denial with which we enter into them.

This is the definition of religion.

And such thinking and reaction becomes one's religion

Believing that there is only one way, one path and one understanding establishes a religious belief pattern, which will progressively nurture the denial and ignorance, rather then the truth of duality and choices. And this plays right into the hands of those which would deny you the mercy and compassion you expect from them.

To act on one's beliefs, in denial of the system of duality and the reality in which we also participate, regardless of how strongly one believes, or how one defines their belief, is still just an act of denial.

The spray paint on the fur coat only makes you feel better about what you believe in. It has not made the person wearing the coat feel better, nor did it have any actual affect on the millions of others who choose to wear fur or eat meat. All it did was deny the other the right to believe in what they choose.

Is the message beneficial? Yes.

Is the world better for having been made aware of the message and the choice? Yes.

My point is that there are more effective ways to address these issues than telling others that they should live their lives the way you would live yours, when the reality is that you are probably contributing to the system and its horrors in far more ways than you are supporting the one small potion you claim as your cause.

For example, simply by being an activist you promote activism, which has its extreme proportions, which can create wars.

Again, this is simply religion under another name.

When we can understand this, begin to actually consider the dynamics of the whole, we can more beneficially devise ways to address our concerns which may actually have far more potential and result.

Satisfying our own conscience only accomplishes further self satisfaction, which is no different than the self satisfaction of the ones which you are trying to tell are being selfish themselves.

Fighting fire with fire begets more fire.

Adding a fuel source to the fire makes the fire burn hotter.

Understanding the dynamics of fire, and how to interact with it, creates opportunities far greater than simply pointing at it and crying, 'That fire should not be there.'

[reeay]

Compassion/love is unconditional. Compassion for animals, for those who do not agree with our views, for those who perpetrate cruelty, for those who are sympathetic to certain belief that matches our own... compassionate discourse involves a sincere attempt to understand what the other self is trying to say... When someone else's bias, beliefs, or assumptions cannot be accepted, it's a compassionate act perhaps to attempt to understand the others' understanding of the world, or to accept that that is the others' distortion.

Being a change agent is different from being an activist or being 'religious' in that there is no desire to change others, but to assist other self in making desired changes they become aware of. There is respect and trust. There is not 'I know something so let me change your mind' or instilling of guilt/shame/resentment/anger etc. How would this conversation assist others (like me) to be ready to make another step towards a healthier and more enlightened society/way of being?

[BrownEye]

I consider animals food because I don't feel that they are sentient.

Pretty much the point right there. You kill out of belief.

Quite a few childrens stories utilizing a human turned into an animal as a lesson. I wonder why we take it as entertainment only?

Deer have evolved to breed soo much, because of the predators.

Uh yeah, because of the chain of predators we killed off. Out of fear and belief.

Sorry bud, all I see is a rampant use of belief or fear to destroy natural ecosystems, then taking the stance that you are "helping" by doing so.

So, we kill off the natural predators out of anger or fear, then we step in thinking that we can be the predator. We make quite the predator, but we suck at fitting in to a natural system. Because we have belief. We blunder about without a thought to how we affect the planet for our children. Our life revolves around money or addictions, then we try to make sure our children have enough money and teach them the same addictions.

---

It (compassion) is the salvation of third density but creates a mismatch in the ultimate balance of the entity

[/quote]

So do you think mismatch is synonymous with polarizing? In large part it is the activation of the green ray.

[norral]

personally i think we are affected most as humans when people respect us and are not preachy. when someone gives me room to be who i am i am much more comfortable. i used to work with a guy who knew the bible backwards and forwards. he was the most miserable person because he was the most judgemental person i knew. when i see someone act compassionately it draws my attention. i might not say anything but i file it away and it serves as an inspiration for me to act compassionately. and let us be clear, we all could be more compassionate, each and every one of us. its a goal we can all strive for. life with lead us to the lessons we need to learn. when i find people get preachy or get into debates i have to drop out. i dont have any point to prove. to me the point to life is to be yourself and give others room to be themselves. that is compassion and wisdom in action at least as i see it. so tolerance of others is the order of the day at least for me personally. i trust that life itself is wise enuf to bring others the experiences that they need to grow. and if i can act in a gentle way sometimes to give a fellow pilgrim a word of encouragement then i pray that i have enuf love and compassion to do just that.

norral

[Monica]

It interesting that your comparing animal life to cancer.

He wasn't comparing animal life to cancer. He was comparing humans' approach to nature with humans' approach to cancer: Kill it!

Because human existence on this planet in the crisscross spreading over the countryside manner that it is, is inimical to predators. Prey species, deer and elk for example, however dont have these issues and breed and breed and breed, much like a cancer.

The only reason they're overbreeding is because humans have destroyed their natural habitat and predators.

It is the fault of humans that the natural balance has been disrupted.

Deer have evolved to breed soo much, because of the predators. You remove them from the food chain, and the deer populations swell so large that there isnt enough food around for them all. Underweight and small bones becomes the norm, diseases spread like wildfire because the population densities can soar to four or five times what is considered ideal, etc. Participating in wildlife management is beneficial for the herds, to borrow your phrase, it could be compassion for animals.

Humans have created this mess, then their only solution is to regress to filling the role of the 2D carnivorous animals they have displaced?

I consider animals food because I don't feel that they are sentient.

Do you think dogs and cats are sentient?

If im doing my job, the animals dont run away when im hunting.

Because you've managed to escape their detection. That's not what I meant. I meant, if the deer realizes s/he is about to be killed, does s/he willing offer him/herself up to be 'harvested'? Or does s/he attempt to escape?