In regards to eating meat

[Tenet Nosce]

I don't understand what you mean by trinity. I know you aren't referring to the Christian idea of trinity, so do you mean mind/body/spirit complex? is that what you mean by trinity?

Sure ya do! MBSC would be an example, as well as Father/Son/Spirit. Or Maiden/Mother/Crone. Or Yin/Yang/Dao. Id/Ego/Superego. Proton/Neutron/Electron. Love/Light/Consciousness. Take your pick.

If so, how does that translate into a thought process? How can thought be classified in terms of trinity?

Session One of the Law of One

In truth there is no right or wrong. There is no polarity for all will be, as you would say, reconciled at some point in your dance through the mind/body/spirit complex which you amuse yourself by distorting in various ways at this time. 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.

But in all seriousness- there is polarity (or duality) and then the third point of unity which "binds all things". As Ra says, the distortion is not in any case necessary.

[Tenet Nosce]

Then this is the crux of our disagreement. I don't think we will just automatically change in a higher density. I think we have to embody the qualities of that density, in order to resonate with it and live in it.

Take an average human and put them in almost any environment and watch with amazement as they adapt with rapidity.

But then, another reason we might not be agreeing on some of these concepts is that we might view consensual reality differently.

I think so. I wonder what the consensus reality between our concepts of consensus reality would be?

Compassion is a quality of 4D.

Right. And compassion does not result from abstaining from meat. I submit that an entity inhabiting a fully 4D body would not view it as "abstention" at all as they will quite naturally not desire it.

I'm not sure I would call it a lie - that seems too strong a word for an issue that is so complex, getting into microbes and such - but I agree that it's a higher intention to do something out of compassion, rather than duty.

But it is a lie. Spirit does not impose duties of any sort upon entities. To me, it is "shock and amazement" that another would get offended at calling a spade a spade. (Not saying you were offended. Just saying.)

One can feel a sense of duty without being compassionate.

"Sense of duty" is a control mechanism. It is not necessary for a fully flourishing STO community to impose "sense of duty" in order to regulate behaviors.

It's a case of the 'letter of the law vs the spirit of the law.' When humans evolve to the point where they no longer wish to kill other humans, there will no longer be a need for laws against murder. (for example)

Are you suggesting there should be laws against eating meat? Because you keep equating this to murder.

But what is a sphere? It's illusion. And what about M Theory? The work of Nassim Haramein? If there is only 1 timeline, why is Ra unable to tell us exactly what the future holds, not because of violating our free will, but because they see many possible futures in the possibility/probability vortex?

A "sphere" means an area of activity bound by a given set of parameters. I never said there is only one timeline (are you slipping into unity100-land anyway?). A "sphere" is capable of supporting infinite timelines.

I think your response is starting to get off the mark here. My comment is about the consensus view among those who are not limited by the veil.

If that's the case, then I am doing what I'm supposed to be doing.

No doubt.

They are the same thing of course. All is One.

Unity does not equate to sameness. It is one thing to heal a relationship to another, it is something different to try to "fix" the other. I submit that Mother Earth is not in danger. It is humans that are in danger of missing yet another opportunity for graduation. Everything else remains in perfect order.

As I've said, I never walk up to a person in my everyday life and tell them out of the blue to quit eating meat. In everyday life, I tune into people, always on the lookout for clues that they might be receptive to the idea that eating meat isn't necessary. Usually, in the course of conversation about their health, it comes up, and then I gently offer suggestions, taking into consideration where they're at in their process.

This is certainly why you are more effective than others at navigating this topic. Remember... part of your responses here are to comments I made to somebody else.

But guess what...recently she was diagnosed with cancer. Now, because she has a need for healing, she is suddenly asking me for vegetarian recipes, what kind of juicer to buy, etc.

OK. But then in all seriousness... how much do you suppose that meat-eating contributed to the development of cancer? 5%? 95%? I hope you're not saying that meat-eating "causes" cancer.

I don't personally care about the 'design' of the human body because I believe our bodies are mutating, and that can happen very quickly. So what our ancestors ate doesn't really factor into the equation, in my view.

When our bodies are done "mutating" we will be able to manifest them in the 4D sphere, where meat-eating doesn't factor into the equation, in my view.

But see, your classmate apparently did it out of some ideal...more in the duty category.

Yup.

If I had ever gotten any hint that he was deficient in anything, I would have quickly evaluated his diet.

Your level of social awareness is significantly more developed than most.

It has too many components that are harmful.

Such as?

Proponents of meat often say that the reason people should eat meat is that it is nutrient dense. But the only nutrient it's dense in, is protein.

Actually, meat is nutrient dense in other things. Particularly B12 and zinc. But no, it is not necessary to eat meat to get these things. But you aren't going to get them from most vegetables, either.

Yes, but avocados, coconuts, nuts and seeds all come from plants. So did you mean to say "not enough to simply eat vegetables"?

Yes.

Haha, well I see your point, but even then, the 'experts' don't even agree. Even on this thread the 'facts' about a vegetarian diet being not only adequate but healthier, which has been quite irrefutably proven, has been questioned.

Some people just like to flap their jaws. As for those "experts" I dunno your guess is as good as mine...

I can see how that 'package' might come wrapped with denial and dualism, but not necessarily.

Right. Which is why I said tends.

Right. But that's not the perspective we're at. Being Wanderers notwithstanding, we are in the density of Choice.

Yes. And the Choice is about service to others. One can be well into the range of "service to others" and still eat meat. Even nasty mass-produced hamburger patties.

Killing when it's not necessary is harm. Who would disagree with that?

Clorox?

Maybe. Maybe not. It's a moot point because it's impossible for us to totally avoid killing microbes, just as it's impossible for us to to totally avoid eating plants. We cannot be held responsible for that we cannot change.

But we can be held responsible for that which we can change, but choose not to.

We can choose not to use bleach wipes and antibacterial soaps... this is the point in the debate where one calls me absurd but the point is that true spiritual principles don't lead one to absurd conclusions.

That is the crux of the debate, as I see it. We are all in agreement that it's proper, and even necessary, for an STO-aspiring person to develop compassion for other-selves, ie. human other-selves.

The only way to develop compassion, or whatever it is one is aspiring to, is to first make the choice to aspire to it. Then, each time the choice is made, it is empowered. Eventually, it becomes natural.

The choice is a question or an opening. It says to the universe: What is compassion? Show me.

Ra never specified that. It is an assumption that when Ra used the term 'other-selves' they were referring to only humans.

I'm not making that assumption. I am saying that Ra specified 51% STO which can certainly be achieved by a meat eater.

Why must it be either/or? Yes, there are some fanatics who ignore the plight of humans in favor of helping animals...but I don't see it as either/or. To me, compassion is compassion, whether bestowed on humans or animals. Personally, I try to help both humans and animals, in any way I can. There is no either-or. One can do both.

Well, it doesn't have to be either/or. But in a practical sense, there are only 24 hours in a day.

And in fact, reducing animal cruelty has the added bonus of helping humans too!

I would imagine that reducing human cruelty also helps the animals!

Whereas, by ignoring animal cruelty, we're actually harming humans! By perpetuating the meat industry, our grandchildren will have to pay the price, with a planet raped and poisoned.

Eating meat does not equate to ignoring animal cruelty. There is plenty that a meat-eater can do to be more cognizant of what kinds of practices they support. As you pointed out.

Not only that, but sometimes people are able to open their hearts to animals before opening them to other people, because they've been hurt by other people. It doesn't matter how the heart is opened. What matters is that it is opened.

What matters is that, once opened, that the heart be extended to other humans. Otherwise the result is a highly unbalanced entity. Old maid librarian cat-lady types. So it is a double-edged sword but of course animals play an important role in the healing process of many humans.

Now... do you suppose they knew what these animal companions were getting themselves into ahead of time? Or was it a totally random luck-of-the-draw type thing?

Maybe having at least 1 lifetime as a victim/victimizer is essential too, but that doesn't mean I have to participate in it.

No, but maybe that cow did. You have to admit in the end, we just don't really know what the cow had in mind.

Well again, try substituting human for animal and see how that works.

Humans are individuated. Animals are not. (Mostly.)

We can choose what role we want to play. We aren't pawns.

Neither are we in charge.

That analogy doesn't work. In the case of meat, the product itself is a direct result of the violent action. Without violence, there can be no meat product.

Again, if you conveniently equate killing with violence, then your argument is circular.

Sure. I'm not exactly an expert, but I see no reason why not.

How might that work? A physical world with no carnivores? If you feel so strongly it is possible, then maybe you are an expert!

Aha! I knew I recognized you from someplace! I too was shackled to a wall in a dungeon! We were cellmates!

... or have chosen the same memory imprints from the Akashic Records on our way in... in any case it explains part of my distaste for the Church... but that is another topic entirely...

That is an assumption. We don't know that.

Maybe it is just a limit of my imagination. I just can't seem to conceive of how it would work.

Really? You don't see an entity overpowering another entity, resulting in bloody death, as violence? Shock and amazement.

Yes, really! Why would I see my cat as violent? It is genetically programmed to behave a certain way. That is not violence. Violence is a learned behavior that really only applies to humans.

In some cases, animals held in captivity have demonstrated violent behavior. This is probably why most humans demonstrate violent behavior. Only some don't even realize they are in captivity. They think they are "free".

This just reminded me of past debates with Christians who told me I could never question anything in the Bible, because that would be "calling God a liar."

I can understand how you would be reminded of that, but I think you know that is not what I mean.

You seem to be saying that if we "don't resonate" with something Q'uo said, then we are heretics!

No. What I am saying is: taken in the context of the whole body of L/L Research transcripts, other various channeled materials, and sacred texts from around the globe, what Q'uo said in the above excerpt is entirely consistent and corroborated by many other sources.

So even Q'uo encourages us to accept only that which resonates.

What you are rejecting as "not resonating with" is not a statement of opinion. It is a statement of how the universe is actually constructed.

By your own logic, if Q'uo's words are infallible and anyone disputing Q'uo's words is calling Q'uo a liar, then it logically follows:

No. I think you are putting unity100's words in my mouth. I never said Q'uo is infallible. I am speaking to the specific excerpt which I offered in the point.

Perhaps you would like to draw specific attention to the parts of the message that "don't resonate" with you, and we could discuss them separately in a "Sessions in Focus" thread.

But otherwise, you are mischaracterizing what I have been saying. One can find rails of posts I have authored about why Ra is not infallible. You have even responded to many of them.

gotcha!

You got unity100, not me.

1. The Law of One isn't a religion. There are no rules. No authorities. Not even Ra. Carla has stated that she doesn't want the Law of One made into a religion/cult/dogma/doctrine.

The doctrine of nested spheres of influence is neither a statement of rules nor religion. It is a statement of fact, and is demonstrably true at every level of Creation. Moreover, it is entirely consistent with the Ra material.

2. The Q'uo sessions are all conscious channeled, in contrast to the Ra sessions, which were trance channeled.

... and so that makes Q'uo a liar? Because I didn't notice any signs of personality distortion coming from Carla in that particular reply. I have written of these in other places as well.

3. Carla isn't always the person doing the channeling. In many cases, someone else is channeling Q'uo. Thus, to consider all Q'uo sessions as absolute, infallible and authoritative, is to be putting one's faith into multiple people who did the channeling, assuming that there was zero distortion.

Seriously, are you including this for my benefit? Or... ?

4. Not even the Ra sessions are 100% free of distortion.

You are kind of repeating yourself. *shock and amazement* that you are telling me this. Remember The Detuning of Session 17 and Ra's True Intentions Regarding 2011 - Part II?

5. It's impossible to verify the Q'uo sessions as being 100% correct. On the contrary, some statements made in the Q'uo sessions are provably incorrect. See Pablisimo's example below. Does this mean the Q'uo sessions aren't, in general, trustworthy? No. I personally get tremendous value from the Q'uo channelings. But I don't consider them infallible.

...

You appear to have totally missed the thrust of my post in assuming that my comments about that particular Q'uote applies to the whole of the material.

Let me rephrase: for a person to state that they "don't resonate" with what Q'uo says about 4D earth being distinct from 3D earth, means that they are, in essence, calling Q'uo a liar.

Q'uo very clearly and distinctly states three times- in no uncertain terms- that 3D earth does not become 4D earth.

Not only did Q'uo clearly state this three times, but the statements made by Q'uo are 100% consistent with everything else Q'uo ever said, everything Ra ever said, and everything that any other reliably channeled entity has ever said.

[Monica]

Sure ya do! MBSC would be an example, as well as Father/Son/Spirit. Or Maiden/Mother/Crone. Or Yin/Yang/Dao. Id/Ego/Superego. Proton/Neutron/Electron. Love/Light/Consciousness. Take your pick.

Ah, yes I am familiar with all of those (though I wouldn't consider Yin/Yang/Tao to be a trinity).

We see many things in 2's and 3's because that is the numerology we are the most familiar with, dwelling in 3D. But I think of the Universe as infinite, with an infinite number of distortions. So for every category of 3's, there are also 4's, 5's, and so on.

But in all seriousness- there is polarity (or duality) and then the third point of unity which "binds all things". As Ra says, the distortion is not in any case necessary.

Why stop at 2 or 3? I don't see unity as the 3rd point. Unity is beyond any distortion whatsoever.

I'm out of time, Tenet. This isn't a cop-out. I'd like to respond to the rest of your points, but won't be able to for awhile. I've got a very busy week ahead of me.

For now, I will just say that yes, of course I remember that you questioned the infallibility of the Ra sessions. I'm simply pointing out that any statement, whether from Ra or Q'uo, is subject to both distortion and interpretation. Thus, a statement that might seem 'clear' to Person A might not be so to Person B.

More later...Thanks for the stimulating and respectful discussion!

---

Are you suggesting there should be laws against eating meat? Because you keep equating this to murder.

Yikes!!! I need to reply to this. I have never equated eating animals to the murder of humans. Never.

In fact, I have gone to great lengths to draw a clear distinction.

To hear you say that I "keep equating it to murder" is very disturbing, being that I have stated the opposite so many times.

In this particular case, we weren't even talking about eating meat. We were talking about the need for laws. So I gave an example about how laws are still needed, because people still engage in that activity. Once people no longer engage in that activity, there is no longer a need for a law prohibiting it. The conversation at this point had nothing whatever to do with eating meat!

Maybe I need to put a disclaimer in my sig...

[Diana]

3D earth is not transitioning into 4D earth. It is not going to become 4D earth by the efforts of humans. 4D earth already exists. I would guess that- over there- they do not slaughter animals for food.

With respect to that, what would be the purpose of a 4D Wanderer to be here in 3D earth at this time/space nexus? Simply to teach vegetarianism? Or is there a Higher Purpose?

The Higher Purpose of Wanderers is to assist with the harvest. To discern who is ready to go from here to there and to help create a bridge between worlds. Vegetarianism is not a prerequisite for transport. It simply isn't. I'm sorry I can't say this in a way which respects "my truth" and "your truth". I didn't write the script.

I disagree. Does it make sense that ANYTHING in this universe is static? All things evolve, including whatever one might perceive as a prime creator, or "all that is." 3D is not going to stay the same forever; it will evolve too.

Do all wanderers have the exact same reasons for being here? I do not think so.

And you seem to have gotten some things twisted from the original intent. Firstly, no one said that being vegetarian is more "spiritual." No one thinks they are "better." There is no "old and wise" because there is only the journey, no destination.

---

What is important is to develop compassion for other humans. As I have stated, I have a hard time understanding those who would choose to place animals before other humans on their priority list.

Have you considered that humans have a collective responsibility to the harm caused in this existence to the planet and everything on it? Animals do not. Perhaps it's not so much that certain people might put animals higher on the priority list, but that they feel the animals, being innocent, deserve some protection from the destructive human race.

[Monica]

Take an average human and put them in almost any environment and watch with amazement as they adapt with rapidity.

Take an average human and put them in a crowd and watch with amazement as they do things they would never do alone, but go along with the herd mentality. Watch with amazement how they regress to unethical and even violent, animalistic behavior.

It can work both ways.

Right. And compassion does not result from abstaining from meat.

Actually, it might. If Pickle's observations are consistently proven to be true, compassion might indeed result from abstaining from meat.

In any case, abstaining from meat most assuredly can result from compassion.

I submit that an entity inhabiting a fully 4D body would not view it as "abstention" at all as they will quite naturally not desire it.

If there is 'nothing wrong' with eating animals, then why not keep doing it in 4D? And, why would an entity suddenly lose their desire for it? Desires can carry over across lifetimes.

But it is a lie. Spirit does not impose duties of any sort upon entities. To me, it is "shock and amazement" that another would get offended at calling a spade a spade. (Not saying you were offended. Just saying.)

I'm not even sure anymore what you're referring to that is a 'lie.' But whatever it is, it's still just your opinion based on your interpretation.

But what is a sphere? It's illusion. And what about M Theory? The work of Nassim Haramein? If there is only 1 timeline, why is Ra unable to tell us exactly what the future holds, not because of violating our free will, but because they see many possible futures in the possibility/probability vortex?

A "sphere" means an area of activity bound by a given set of parameters. I never said there is only one timeline (are you slipping into unity100-land anyway?). A "sphere" is capable of supporting infinite timelines.

I think your response is starting to get off the mark here. My comment is about the consensus view among those who are not limited by the veil.

My point is that, regardless of the structure of 4D (nested etc.) that says nothing about how an entity can traverse from 1 timeline to another.

OK. But then in all seriousness... how much do you suppose that meat-eating contributed to the development of cancer? 5%? 95%? I hope you're not saying that meat-eating "causes" cancer.

We know from Ra that unresolved anger can be the root cause of cancer. That doesn't mean there aren't other causes as well. In any case, any time there is a karmic/emotional/spiritual cause for something, there can also be physical causes, which carry out the blueprint into manifestation. In other words, they aren't the root cause, but are contributing factors on a physical level.

The amount of meat consumed has a direct correlation to cancer risk. The more meat that is eaten, the greater the risk. This, after all other factors have been accounted for.

This was proven quite irrefutably in a landmark study called The China Study, in addition to other, earlier studies.

Such as?

In addition to the obvious, well-known harmful component of saturated fat, there is an unknown component that has been shown to be cancer-causing. It hasn't been identified yet, but since it's been proven that there's a direct correlation between meat consumption and cancer, then it's concluded that there is some other component accounting for this.

I contend that they will probably never identify said component, because it's an intangible. It's a spiritual component.

Yes. And the Choice is about service to others. One can be well into the range of "service to others" and still eat meat. Even nasty mass-produced hamburger patties.

Of course. But I would surmise that one who eats nasty mass-produced hamburgers would probably have a pretty high level of compassion in other areas, to compensate.

We can choose not to use bleach wipes and antibacterial soaps... this is the point in the debate where one calls me absurd but the point is that true spiritual principles don't lead one to absurd conclusions.

But you are trying to turn a principle - compassion - into a doctrine.

The choice is a question or an opening. It says to the universe: What is compassion? Show me.

Yes. Exactly! And the Universe responds: See that starving child? Help her. See that homeless man? Help him. See those cows bellowing in fear and pain? Do something! Quit contributing to it!

Ra never specified that. It is an assumption that when Ra used the term 'other-selves' they were referring to only humans.

I'm not making that assumption. I am saying that Ra specified 51% STO which can certainly be achieved by a meat eater.

Of course it can. That wasn't the point. The point was in the definition of STO. Ra didn't specify that the STO was reserved for only humans, or that other-selves meant only humans. That is an assumption.

Well, it doesn't have to be either/or. But in a practical sense, there are only 24 hours in a day.

Right. And I'm beginning to wonder how many of those hours we're spending endlessly debating this issue, could be better spent out there helping others. :-/

I would imagine that reducing human cruelty also helps the animals!

I can't think of an example in which that would be true...except maybe abused kids no longer abuse their dogs. But I can't think of an application pertaining to meat animals.

Maybe having at least 1 lifetime as a victim/victimizer is essential too, but that doesn't mean I have to participate in it.

No, but maybe that cow did. You have to admit in the end, we just don't really know what the cow had in mind.

That's irrelevant to the point about whether I choose to participate in it.

[Diana]

Let me rephrase: for a person to state that they "don't resonate" with what Q'uo says about 4D earth being distinct from 3D earth, means that they are, in essence, calling Q'uo a liar.

Q'uo is not the law, or perfect, or the ultimate answer to everything. We all have perceptions. If you want to just follow blindly, that is your choice. But just because a person's perceptions or working theories don't coincide with Q'uo, does not mean they are calling Q'uo a liar. They just differ.

---

I think the microbe angle is hilarious. I can step on something microscopic and still not touch it. Are we damaging atoms too? We can only scale so far in either direction before we have no effect. So, to bring in the extremes that are beyond our control as a justification of what we do to what we can control is very amusing at best.

However, as the double-slit experiment proves: we do have an effect on the subatomic world. So, what I said about intention, and intending no harm to any life, might very well have that effect on microbes or atoms or things too small to avoid hurting in the physical realm.

[BrownEye]

I feel left out in the wall-o-text field of vision, so here is my contribution to the blur LoL.

Let me rephrase: for a person to state that they "don't resonate" with what Q'uo says about 4D earth being distinct from 3D earth, means that they are, in essence, calling Q'uo a liar.

Q'uo very clearly and distinctly states three times- in no uncertain terms- that 3D earth does not become 4D earth.

Not only did Q'uo clearly state this three times, but the statements made by Q'uo are 100% consistent with everything else Q'uo ever said, everything Ra ever said, and everything that any other reliably channeled entity has ever said.

Ra didn't specify that the STO was reserved for only humans, or that other-selves meant only humans. That is an assumption.

Ra: You must see the Earth, as you call it, as being seven Earths. There is red, orange, yellow, and there will soon be a completed green color vibratory locus for fourth-density entities which they will call Earth. During the fourth-density experience, due to the lack of development of fourth-density entities, the third-density planetary sphere is not useful for habitation since the early fourth-density entity will not know precisely how to maintain the illusion that fourth-density cannot be seen or determined from any instrumentation available to any third-density.

Meanwhile there is another sphere, congruent to a great extent with yellow ray, forming. This fourth-density sphere coexists with first, second, and third. It is of a denser nature due to the rotational core atomic aspects of its material. We have discussed this subject with you.

The fourth-density entities which incarnate at this space/time are fourth-density in the view of experience but are incarnating in less dense vehicles due to desire to experience and aid in the birth of fourth-density upon this plane.

You may note that fourth-density entities have a great abundance of compassion.

Questioner: You stated previously that fifth-density entities bear a resemblance to those of us in third density on planet Earth but fourth density does not. Could you describe the fourth-density entities and tell me why they do not resemble us?

Ra: I am Ra. The description must be bated under the Law of Confusion. The cause for a variety of so-called physical vehicles is the remaining variety of heritages from second-density physical vehicular forms. The process of what you call physical evolution continues to hold sway into fourth density. Only when the ways of wisdom have begun to refine the power of what you may loosely call thought is the form of the physical complex manifestation more nearly under the direction of the consciousness.

Questioner: After this period of thirty years I am assuming that this will be a fourth-density planet. Is this correct?

Ra: I am Ra. This is so.

Questioner: Is an entity in the fourth density normally invisible to us?

Ra: I am Ra. The use of the word “normal” is one which befuddles the meaning of the question. Let us rephrase for clarity. The fourth density is, by choice, not visible to third density. It is possible for fourth density to be visible. However, it is not the choice of the fourth-density entity to be visible due to the necessity for concentration upon a rather difficult vibrational complex which is the third density you experience.

Questioner: When this Earth was second-density, how did the second-density beings on it become so invested?

Ra: I am Ra. There was not this type of investment as spoken but the simple third-density investment which is the line of spiraling light calling distortion upward from density to density. The process takes longer when there is no investment made by incarnate third-density beings.

Questioner: Then as we enter the fourth density there will be a split, shall we say, and part of the individuals who go into the fourth density will go into planets or places where there is service to others and part will go into places where there is service to self.

Is this correct?

Ra: I am Ra. This is correct.

Questioner: Thank you. Is it possible for you to give a short description of the conditions in the fourth density?

Ra: I am Ra. We ask you to consider as we speak that there are not words for positively describing fourth density. We can only explain what is not and approximate what is. Beyond fourth density our ability grows more limited until we become without words.

That which fourth density is not: it is not of words, unless chosen. It is not of heavy chemical vehicles for body complex activities. It is not of disharmony within self. It is not of disharmony within peoples. It is not within limits of possibility to cause disharmony in any way.

Approximations of positive statements: it is a plane of type of bipedal vehicle which is much denser and more full of life; it is a plane wherein one is aware of the thought of other-selves; it is a plane wherein one is aware of vibrations of other-selves; it is a plane of compassion and understanding of the sorrows of third density; it is a plane striving towards wisdom or light; it is a plane wherein individual differences are pronounced although automatically harmonized by group consensus.

Ra: I am Ra. This is incorrect. The second-density concept of serving self includes the serving of those associated with tribe or pack. This is not seen in second density as separation of self and other-self. All is seen as self since in some forms of second-density entities, if the tribe or pack becomes weakened, so does the entity within the tribe or pack.

The new or initial third density has this innocent, shall we say, bias or distortion towards viewing those in the family, the society, as you would call, perhaps, country, as self. Thus though a distortion not helpful for progress in third density, it is without polarity.

The break becomes apparent when the entity perceives otherselves as other-selves and consciously determines to manipulate other-selves for the benefit of the self. This is the beginning of the road of which you speak.

Ra: I am Ra. The fourth density is the only density besides your own which, lacking the wisdom to refrain from battle, sees the necessity of the battle.

Questioner: Then when our planet is fully into fourth density, will there be a greater gravity?

Ra: I am Ra. There will be a greater spiritual gravity thus causing a denser illusion.

Questioner: In the next density, the fourth density, is the catalyst of physical pain used as a mechanism for experiential balancing?

Ra: I am Ra. The use of physical pain is minimal, having only to do with the end of the fourth-density incarnation. This physical pain would not be considered severe enough to treat, shall we say, in third density. The catalysts of mental and spiritual pain are used in fourth density.

The fourth-density being desires to serve and the preparation of foodstuffs is extremely simple due to increased communion between entity and living foodstuff. Therefore, this is not a significant catalyst but rather a simple precondition of the space/time experience. The catalyst involved is the necessity for the ingestion of foodstuffs. This is not considered to be of importance by fourth-density entities and it, therefore, aids in the teach/learning of patience.

I think this has been glossed over.

Questioner: In dietary matters, what would be the foods that one would include and what would be the foods that one would exclude in a general way for the greatest care of one’s bodily complex?

Ra: I am Ra. Firstly, we underline and emphasize that this information is not to be understood literally but as a link or psychological nudge for the body and the mind and spirit. Thus it is the care and respect for the self that is the true thing of importance. In this light we may iterate the basic information given for this instrument’s diet. The vegetables, the fruits, the grains, and to the extent necessary for the individual metabolism, the animal products. These are those substances showing respect for the self. In addition, though this has not been mentioned for this instrument is not in need of purification, those entities in need of purging the self of a poison thought-form or emotion complex do well to take care in following a program of careful fasting until the destructive thought-form has been purged analogously with the by-products of ridding the physical vehicle of excess material. Again you see the value not to the body complex but used as a link for the mind and spirit. Thus self reveals self to self.

Questioner: Could you expand a little bit on how that aids in the teach/learning of patience?

Ra: I am Ra. To stop the functioning of service-to-others long enough to ingest foodstuffs is to invoke patience.

Questioner: I’m guessing that it is not necessary to ingest foodstuffs in fifth-density. Is this correct?

Ra: I am Ra. This is incorrect. However, the vehicle needs food which may be prepared by thought.

Questioner: What type of food would this be?

Ra: I am Ra. You would call this type of food, nectar or ambrosia, or a light broth of golden white hue.

Questioner: What is the purpose of ingesting food in fifth density?

Ra: I am Ra. This is a somewhat central point. The purpose of space/time is the increase in catalytic action appropriate to the density. One of the preconditions for space/time existence is some form of body complex. Such a body complex must be fueled in some way.

Questioner: I am simply trying to trace the evolution of this catalyst that then, as you say, changes in fifth density. I might as well complete this and ask if there is any ingestion of food in sixth density?

Ra: I am Ra. This is correct. However, the nature of this food is that of light and is impossible to describe to you in any meaningful way as regards the thrust of your query.

Questioner: Are there any foods that are helpful or harmful that the instrument might eat?

Ra: I am Ra. This instrument has body complex distortion towards ill health in the distortion direction corrected best by ingestion of the foodstuffs of your grains and your vegetables, as you call them. However, this is extremely unimportant when regarded as an aid with equality to other aids such as attitude which this instrument has in abundance. It, however, aids the vital energies of this instrument, with less distortion towards ill health, to ingest foodstuffs in the above manner with the occasional ingestion of what you call your meats, due to the instrument’s need to lessen the distortion towards low vital energy.

The diet is of central import. We can go no further in observing the system of the entity as a full discussion of those distortions towards various weakness/strengths which contribute to the present difficulty begin with the lips and end with the anus. We may note that the instrument has remained centered upon the Creator at a percentage exceeding ninety. This is the key. Continue in thanksgiving and gratitude for all things.

Questioner: The second question that the instrument requested is: How may I best revitalize myself not only now but in the future?

Ra: I am Ra. This instrument is aware of the basic needs of its constitution, those being meditation, acceptance of limitations, experiences of joy through association with others, and with the beauty as of the singing, and the exercising with great contact, whenever possible, with the life forces of second density, especially those of trees; this entity also needing to be aware of the moderate but steady intake of foodstuffs, exercise being suggested at a fairly early portion of the day and at a later portion of the day before the resting.

Questioner: Could Ra please state which foods are highly probable to not cause the spasming?

Ra: I am Ra. The liquids not containing carbonation, the well-cooked vegetable which is most light and soft, the well-cooked grains, the non-fatted meat such as the fish. You may note that some recommended foodstuffs overlap allergies and sensitivities due to the juvenile rheumatoid arthritic distortions. Further, although sugar such as is in your sweetened desserts represents a potential, we may suggest that it be included at this period for aforementioned reasons.

Ra: I am Ra. The greatest aid is already being given to the fullest. The encouragement of the instrument to refrain from the oil-fried nature of foodstuffs in its intake is helpful. Cheerful harmony is helpful. The spasms must subside as a function of the entity’s indigo-ray work and, to some extent, the recommendations made in response to a previous query. The definitive refraining from over-stepping the already swollen boundaries of physical limitation is recommended. The infection remains and the symptoms are now far less medicable, the entity having chosen the catalyst.

Diet advice was on the boundary of free will it would seem.

---

However, as the double-slit experiment proves: we do have an effect on the subatomic world. So, what I said about intention, and intending no harm to any life, might very well have that effect on microbes or atoms or things too small to avoid hurting in the physical realm.

I fully understand "intent", it was just past arguments that attempted to combine walking and breathing with destroying, used as justification on a larger scale. While I can jump up and down on a microbe and never touch it, my intent can harm it instantly.

Much different than having life on our own scale ended and trying to explain that we had good intent so no harm was done.

[Diana]

I fully understand "intent", it was just past arguments that attempted to combine walking and breathing with destroying, used as justification on a larger scale. While I can jump up and down on a microbe and never touch it, my intent can harm it instantly.

Much different than having life on our own scale ended and trying to explain that we had good intent so no harm was done.

I agree. Equating microbes with cows is giving me the swirlies.

[Tenet Nosce]

OK... so the only person who is really wrong in this thread is me for getting sucked back into it.

Bring4th_Monica- Thanks for the discussion. I found some of your points very thought-provoking and others "shocking and amazing" I think we agree a lot more in practice than we do in principle. This is actually a good thing.

A couple quick responses:

Apparently, that is something that is important to you. Are you saying you must have a consistent principle proven to you, in order to see any benefit to not eating animals?

Animals, yes. Cows, no. We are back in sardine territory again. My problem is that the word "animals" connotates too wide a swath for my tastes. (Get it? Tastes? )

If you can prove to me why I shouldn't eat a sardine, I will convert to vegetarianism and make my own YouTube video series on it. How is that for a challenge?

Secondly, this is where you confuse me:

I consider imposing harm or killing another being to be violence.

No, in that case, it is an act of mercy.

So killing is violence... except when it is not. Forgiveness, compassion, and mercy are all expressions of Love. I offer that you go back and look at that diagram you scrolled past. Take a look at which qualities you excel at and which you struggle with. I personally found this to be a very illuminating exercise.

Pickle- I'm never sure how to respond to your posts in this thread. I can't discern to what degree we agree. At any rate, thanks especially for that list of quotes from Ra that 100% supports what Q'uo said about 3D earth not becoming 4D earth. I hope you know that my "Microbe Postulate" was not intended to be taken as valid. It was intended to demonstrate how living in the 3D physical world under a spiritual mandate of "harmlessness" tends to lead one to absurd and unnecessary conclusions.

We can "all get along" just fine without moral absolutism. With the added benefit that nobody need become a hypocrite in the process.

Diana- I am surprised that you don't see the irony in accusing others of "blindly following" anything after some of your posts here in this thread seeing as you have offered no logical arguments other than "Spirit told me so". I am happy that you have found "your truth" that meat-eating is "wrong". Good luck converting the rest of the world to your belief system with that attitude.

---

As a departing offer... I would encourage anybody who is so easily willing to simply toss out the knowledge and wisdom offered through the L/L Research Transcripts so that they can be "right" about how others are "wrong" to reconsider their motives. If you think the material is that unreliable... why are you here in this forum discussing it?

Seriously. Consider it.

[BrownEye]

From what I have read there are dual bodies among us. A dual body will obviously have issues fitting into the normal modes of society. A 3D body will be perfectly fine with the current state of being, while 4D and above will obviously attempt to return to its natural state from within the 3D confines. I will assume polarizing would be to take a stance as you all have.

Then we will have those of 3D moving on to 4D, having had their fill of 3D type experience. I will assume that having their fill would be a bit like waking up. Waking up to what is wrong and why they no longer fit in to the current system.

I could be wrong though. It could be all automatic as if you are all on a conveyor belt through densities, fully autonomous bodies, lacking free will.

[Diana]

Diana- I am surprised that you don't see the irony in accusing others of "blindly following" anything after some of your posts here in this thread seeing as you have offered no logical arguments other than "Spirit told me so". I am happy that you have found "your truth" that meat-eating is "wrong". Good luck converting the rest of the world to your belief system with that attitude.

---

As a departing offer... I would encourage anybody who is so easily willing to simply toss out the knowledge and wisdom offered through the L/L Research Transcripts so that they can be "right" about how others are "wrong" to reconsider their motives. If you think the material is that unreliable... why are you here in this forum discussing it?

Seriously. Consider it.

Wow. Okay. I never said Spirit told me anything. I have never used such language in my life. I make up my own mind about things and always keep my mind open to new information coming in. I have "working theories" only. Either you have not read my posts, or you grossly misunderstand them.

I have posited many logical reasons for not killing animals for food. And I haven't even said anything about the health problems associated.

I read the Ra material and found a lot of it very compelling. However, I will not take it as the final word. I do however, consider it. I don't appreciate your accusation regarding me throwing out the L/L Research so I can be right, or that I have an "attitude," or that I am trying to convert the rest of the world.

As I have stated before, I am here in this forum discussing because:

1. I appreciate an intelligent, open discussion about things that interest me.

2. I assume that the individuals here, since they are presumably seeking evolution (or higher consciousness, or however you want to word it), are willing to discuss this issue openly.

Would you contend that in order to be here on this site that I be a "follower" of Ra? If that is the case, then please, Monica, or some other moderator, ask me to leave and I will do so willingly and with gratitude for my time here.

[Monica]

OK... so the only person who is really wrong in this thread is me for getting sucked back into it.

Haha, well if you're wrong for doing that, then I am too!

Bring4th_Monica- Thanks for the discussion. I found some of your points very thought-provoking and others "shocking and amazing" I think we agree a lot more in practice than we do in principle. This is actually a good thing.

Agreed!

A couple quick responses:

Apparently, that is something that is important to you. Are you saying you must have a consistent principle proven to you, in order to see any benefit to not eating animals?

Animals, yes. Cows, no. We are back in sardine territory again. My problem is that the word "animals" connotates too wide a swath for my tastes. (Get it? Tastes? )

Ah, so we are in agreement about cows? Good to know.

In the context of a discussion about eating meat, whenever I use the word animals I am referring to animals commonly used for meat: cows, chickens, turkeys, pigs, deer, and fish. I'm not referring to microbes. And I'm not really giving any thought to insects, since most people in our culture don't normally eat insects. (I realize people in other cultures might, but that's just not part of the conversation I am having personally.)

If you can prove to me why I shouldn't eat a sardine, I will convert to vegetarianism and make my own YouTube video series on it. How is that for a challenge?

Well gosh, if only I could! But ethical decisions can't usually be proven. We have the laws we do because a majority (presumably) of the people in a given society agree that certain behaviors (like stealing, murdering, etc.) aren't acceptable. Can any of those prohibited human behaviors be proven to be wrong?

Requiring any sort of proof sort of goes against the approach Ra and Q'uo used when offering information to us. Ra never offered any proof that they built the pyramids or that they were from Venus. Why? Out of respect to free will.

Their approach has always been to offer information in answer to a call, and then allow us to decide whether it resonates with us or not.

The closest thing to proof that sardines shouldn't be eaten (with the obligatory disclaimer unless absolutely necessary for individual metabolism) is that they will fight for their lives when caught.

That's the best I can do. The rest is up to you!

Secondly, this is where you confuse me:

I consider imposing harm or killing another being to be violence.

No, in that case, it is an act of mercy.

So killing is violence... except when it is not. Forgiveness, compassion, and mercy are all expressions of Love.

These are ethical questions which don't have clear-cut answers.

I would say that any action that harms another being, for the purpose of personal gain, control or power, is an act of violence. This would include the obvious things like war, murder, rape, attacking or beating another person, a parent abusing his children, child molestation, etc. and would also include beings (whether animals or humans) killing other beings (usually animals) for food, since they are 'taking' by force something the other being (the animal) doesn't want to give up (its life) for personal gain (to enjoy the hamburger, or, in the case of the wolf killing the deer, simply to survive).

Animals in the wild cannot be blamed for this, because this is how they're designed and they're operating on instinct. And, they have no choice to take from other animals in order to survive. So they are blameless. But it is an act of violence nonetheless.

Harming another being (whether human, as in a murderer or rapist, or animal, as a bear attacking a human), who is attempting harm on oneself or another, is self-defense and therefore the only acceptable use of violence, in my opinion. It's acceptable because the person defending oneself or family didn't initiate the violence; the attacker did. We all have the right to defend ourselves on a personal level, in my opinion. To not defend ourselves would be, essentially, assisting the attacker in their initiation of violence.

I don't consider wars to be self-defense, in most cases, because in most cases the decision to go to war is a political one rather than self-defense, at least in modern times. But that gets into a whole 'nother topic. So when I say self-defense I am referring to the level of protecting oneself on a personal level, as well as any others one might be responsible for, or any innocent victims one is protecting (like defending a woman in a dark alley from an attacker). Self-defense wouldn't be considered violence, because the intention is to stop violence.

My husband teaches martial arts. There is a code of ethics, which includes such adages as

There is no reason to ever have to fight...but there is every reason to know how.

Better to not fight at all than to harm...better to harm than to maim...better to maim than to kill.

"Master the divine techniques of the Art of Peace and no enemy will dare to challenge you." - Ueshiba

"For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill." - Sun Tzu

"Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting." - Sun Tzu


These are adages passed on from master to student, which instill a sense of honor to never do more than the minimum required to neutralize the situation. To kill an attacker who wasn't really much of a threat, would be an act of violence because it wasn't necessary to stop the aggressor. Better to just avoid the situation. But to kill an attacker who really is about to kill someone, is self-defense.

The Native Americans had to kill animals for survival. At their best, they sought the weakest in the herd, and gave thanks to the animal as they shed its blood. They did it with reverence, respect and gratitude. I wouldn't consider this violence, because it was for survival, they had no choice, and they did it in the best way they could.

That's not to say they were all perfect! Surely some of them were violent at times. I am speaking about their highest ideals that the most evolved among them aspired to.

Contrast that with killing an animal, or contributing to the death of animal, when it's not necessary. It's the not necessary part that turns an act of survival, into an act of violence.

Regarding mercy killing: Having a beloved pet euthanized because it is in severe pain, isn't violence. It's mercy. Because the person isn't killing the dog out of personal gain; he's killing the dog out of love and mercy.

That's how I see it, anyway.

I offer that you go back and look at that diagram you scrolled past. Take a look at which qualities you excel at and which you struggle with. I personally found this to be a very illuminating exercise.

OK will do!

As a departing offer... I would encourage anybody who is so easily willing to simply toss out the knowledge and wisdom offered through the L/L Research Transcripts so that they can be "right" about how others are "wrong" to reconsider their motives. If you think the material is that unreliable... why are you here in this forum discussing it?

Seriously. Consider it.

I'm confused by your words here. Who is "tossing out" the transcripts? Not me!

I was simply doing the same thing you yourself did with the Ra sessions...questioning whether there might have been some distortion or even a hidden, deeper meaning.

And actually, I never even said I disagreed with what Q'uo said about nesting. I just interpret that differently.

I have found only a handful of Q'uo sessions that I didn't resonate with. I consider most of them to be very trustworthy. But not infallible.

What I took issue with, was being told that if I interpreted Q'uo's words differently than you did, or if I thought maybe some of those words might have some distortion, than I am accusing Q'uo of lying.

If there is indeed some distortion, then it's not a matter of lying...it's a matter of distortion. Just like it wouldn't be accurate to say Ra was 'lying' in that session you were questioning.

---

Would you contend that in order to be here on this site that I be a "follower" of Ra? If that is the case, then please, Monica, or some other moderator, ask me to leave and I will do so willingly and with gratitude for my time here.

No, not at all. The Law of One isn't a religion and Ra isn't a guru. While it's reasonable to expect that our members will at least be familiar with the material we are studying, we have no criteria established for accepting it as absolute truth. Our members have varying degrees of trust in the material. Some take it as absolute while, to others, it is just one of many interesting sources of information.

In fairness to Tenet, I think he was referring to me who was 'tossing it out'. Tenet, in fairness to Diana, she is a new member who is just now reading the books. Neither she nor any or our members can be expected to accept all the material in its entirety.

Peace everyone!

[_X7]

Perhaps this is late or is it better that way? hmmmm

AlterNet / By Martha Rosenberg 69 COMMENTS
What Drugs Was Your Thanksgiving Turkey On?
http://www.alternet.org/story/153149/wha..._turkey_on

It also reports:
"In June, Pfizer announced it was ending arsenic-containing chicken feed which no one realized they were eating anyway, but its arsenic-containing Histostat, fed to turkeys, continues. "

[Monica]

AlterNet / By Martha Rosenberg 69 COMMENTS
What Drugs Was Your Thanksgiving Turkey On?
http://www.alternet.org/story/153149/wha..._turkey_on

an article in Clinical Infectious Diseases reported that half of U.S. meat from major grocery chains--turkey, beef, chicken and pork--harbors antibiotic resistant staph germs commonly called MRSA. Turkey had twice and even three times the MRSA of all other meats, in another study.

[BrownEye]

"In June, Pfizer announced it was ending arsenic-containing chicken feed which no one realized they were eating anyway, but its arsenic-containing Histostat, fed to turkeys, continues. "

Funny as all heck, but at the same time so sad.

[_X7]

heh-heh...i wonder, but this guy educated me with lots of laughs, except only recently has his massive multimedia-info been available for free, thanks to the web.

http://www.garynull.com/home/2010/3/31/m...s-use.html
MRSA superbugs actually caused by widespread antibiotics use in the 1960s
MARCH 31, 2010

[Diana]

No, not at all. The Law of One isn't a religion and Ra isn't a guru. While it's reasonable to expect that our members will at least be familiar with the material we are studying, we have no criteria established for accepting it as absolute truth. Our members have varying degrees of trust in the material. Some take it as absolute while, to others, it is just one of many interesting sources of information.

In fairness to Tenet, I think he was referring to me who was 'tossing it out'. Tenet, in fairness to Diana, she is a new member who is just now reading the books. Neither she nor any or our members can be expected to accept all the material in its entirety.

Peace everyone!

Thank you Monica. I appreciate the clarification.

---

Perhaps this is late or is it better that way? hmmmm

AlterNet / By Martha Rosenberg 69 COMMENTS
What Drugs Was Your Thanksgiving Turkey On?
http://www.alternet.org/story/153149/wha..._turkey_on

It also reports:
"In June, Pfizer announced it was ending arsenic-containing chicken feed which no one realized they were eating anyway, but its arsenic-containing Histostat, fed to turkeys, continues. "

This is one of the unhealthy aspects of meat-eating. Of course, plants are sprayed with pesticides, which is unhealthy as well. But the animals eat the plants sprayed with pesticides; so in eating the animal, you get growth hormones, antibiotics, and various drugs as this articles talks about, plus the pesticides.

Organic farming mitigates the unhealthy results of eating meat; however, the human body still treats certain foods as "poisons." Our digestive tracts are too long for meat and dairy products, and other things such as some beans. These things require shorter digestive tracts. Hence, the meat rots inside our bodies before it can be processed and eliminated, causing toxins.

[BrownEye]

Organic farming mitigates the unhealthy results of eating meat; however, the human body still treats certain foods as "poisons." Our digestive tracts are too long for meat and dairy products, and other things such as some beans. These things require shorter digestive tracts. Hence, the meat rots inside our bodies before it can be processed and eliminated, causing toxins.

I am down to just leafy greens, fruit, and nuts/seeds. My body has recently informed me that beans should not be relied on LoL.

[Liet]

eating non-meat wherever i can but not a vegitarian by a longshot...
i'd like to say that anyone who would be capable of having killed what they are eating is allowed to eat it.

its a solar plexus thing.. it turns you into a predator, whilst making you believe its only fair.

eat a plant: make its energies a part of you.
eat an animal: make its energies a part of you.

so.... stop eating entierly? no, but do try to make the best of what was eaten

[Oceania]

i can't tolerate beans.

[Diana]

I am down to just leafy greens, fruit, and nuts/seeds. My body has recently informed me that beans should not be relied on LoL.

I would like to hear how you manage this in daily life. Is there another thread where you talk about it?

[BrownEye]

I am down to just leafy greens, fruit, and nuts/seeds. My body has recently informed me that beans should not be relied on LoL.

I would like to hear how you manage this in daily life. Is there another thread where you talk about it?

I will pm.

[Sagittarius]

Never been a fan of being a vegan/vegetarian, I just don't like fruit/veggies enough.

Nothing tastier then a juicy steak melting in your mouth. I don't think eating meat is bad, we where meant to, without our history of eating meat our brain wouldn't have developed to the level it is at now.

It's all about the intention. If your intention when eating meat is simply to refuel your body there is no hate involved.

I hardly eat anymore these days anyway, maybe once or twice a day, a medium sized meal of some sort of meat and vegetables.

If being a veggie is a catalyst for you and it is your will at this time then by all means follow it, just don't preach it as a necessity for spiritual matters as that would be extremely hypocritical of the spiritual journey itself.

[BrownEye]

You should go through the thread LoL.

Catalyst can be as simple as the person reaching their hand out to help you up the steps.

In fact, on the unseen side of things that is exactly what happens. An offer, which we either acknowledge, or ignore.

[BrownEye]

i can't tolerate beans.

Yeah I ran out of my seed bars so I took beans to work, man I am still feeling the side effects. I also can't eat rice anymore.

I have read that the photon has changed the rate of decay, and that our digestion is affected from this. I have also read somewhere that we need to eat less dense foods, or lighter foods. That could have a few different meanings actually.

[Oceania]

dude really? i wish i didn't have to eat. it's a constant struggle with my issues. does the blender help you digest vegetables and lettuce?

[_X7]

I was intrigued to find competitive discussions around diet here. I came to this forum to glean a little more about the LOO... I completely missed Ra in the 1970s-80s when my 'research' was restricted to small town bookstores, or the bigger libraries, far away. Besides cultural life seemed far more physical, in those days. Men eagerly displayed their rifles in pickup-truck rear-windows and judged other men by the size of their deer antlers. I finally got around to hunting myself, managing to sneak up on a deer at 30ft range, highly tuned to the thick woods here. I aimed and fired. The deer had vanished in the rifle's flash. This path was not really in the scope of my fiery heart. Nor did butchering and chopping heads really appeal. By age 36, my spiritual adventures convinced me whole heartedly to go 'vegetarian'. To grow against the ruthless tide. The Urantia Book was my thickest book of study back then. It re-wrote the "Garden" story in an appealing fashion, where the Adam-tribe subsisted on fruits and light energies.... While some native earthling tribes , subsisted on herding and hunting, (delving into the story of Cain and Able, the land of Nod, the fallen angles, etc...)

The fact is that nutritional science barely existed in the 1900s. Small groups and movements were ridiculed exceptions to the norm. Fast-foods and disease by medicine became weirdly glorified. The popular nutrition books were either boring or borderline at best. The authors were not healthy and were too materialistically manipulated. Stellar nutritionists of today were not to be found, way out in the back woods, back then. Conversely, today there is an overload of info and paths to take, leading every which way. One must choose by their heart. Confusion has ruled all along through thick or thin. I've been there, done that and watch-on as yet further tumult arrives, any time soon.

To wit: It appears that cherry and walnut distributors (major brands) already have been gag-ordered by 'authorities' to stop siting scientific studies which assert disease prevention by nutritional remedies. So weird it is that health through commerce is increasingly outlawed! Doublespeak becomes the law of the land, replacing the Constitution, Magna Carta, etc... To thoroughly confuse and manipulate the many. To promote very weird 'Orion' style agendas, somewhat explained in the LOO.

The web itself provides an omni-directional approach to food subjects-- Instead of linear fixations of belief.... May one choose rightly for their type. Each web site purportedly enjoys freedom of focus, but for how long? I suspect the next big shift is already in progress. Where the suppression of free speech ratchets-off free flows of information. While open web access persists, may seekers drink a full cup. After the web is clamped down or blown out, we may all be shut off and left only with the paradigm we have diligently acquired. We may reap what we sow for the Harvest.

[Namaste]

As a departing offer... I would encourage anybody who is so easily willing to simply toss out the knowledge and wisdom offered through the L/L Research Transcripts so that they can be "right" about how others are "wrong" to reconsider their motives. If you think the material is that unreliable... why are you here in this forum discussing it?

Seriously. Consider it.

The same reason yourself and Zen have had lengthily discussions :¬)

The same reason anyone, anywhere has a discussion. Offering different viewpoints.

In an emotionally charged subject such as animals and their killing, things are likely to get, well, emotionally charged. If you're incarnate here, you're human. That means you're most likely not perfectly balanced and polarised, with biases and distortions to iron out.

It's far more beneficial to be open to one's distortions, express them and balance them, rather than avoid getting involved for the sake of not facing/balancing potential distortions within yourself.

I know a lot of 'spiritual' people who consider themselves highly centered and balanced. The catch is they do this purely by avoiding anything they don't agree with. That's not balance. In fact is a clear indicator of imbalance. One must engage and integrate if they wish to progress.

[Ankh]

The same reason yourself and Zen have had lengthily discussions :¬)

I think that TN meant why having discussions in this forum if one finds the material offered by L/L Research unreliable? This indicates that he does find it reliable.

The same reason anyone, anywhere has a discussion. Offering different viewpoints.

Ah, but sometimes people have discussions in order to convince other selves about the "wrongness" in other's thoughs, and "rightness" in their own. No? =)

I would like to add to what TN wrote, and that is to use the material in order to convince other people of wrongness in other's thoughts/opinions and rightness in their own, by quoting Ra/Q'uo. I am not talking about the facts, but interpretations/understandings/opinions. And I am not talking about attempts of understanding where an assistence is asked, but of a clear, already made up, and firm opinion/s, which in some cases are underlined with quote/s that are digged out from archives in order to establish the "rightness" in their own thought/s.

[Namaste]

The same reason yourself and Zen have had lengthily discussions :¬)

I think that TN meant why having discussions in this forum if one finds the material offered by L/L Research unreliable? This indicates that he does find it reliable.

Thanks for the alternative perspective.

The same reason anyone, anywhere has a discussion. Offering different viewpoints.

Ah, but sometimes people have discussions in order to convince other selves about the "wrongness" in other's thoughs, and "rightness" in their own. No? =)

I would like to add to what TN wrote, and that is to use the material in order to convince other people of wrongness in other's thoughts/opinions and rightness in their own, by quoting Ra/Q'uo. I am not talking about the facts, but interpretations/understandings/opinions. And I am not talking about attempts of understanding where an assistence is asked, but of a clear, already made up, and firm opinion/s, which in some cases are underlined with quote/s that are digged out from archives in order to establish the "rightness" in their own thought/s.

Yes indeed :¬)

One can take that further (with regards to balancing), as many discussions, at their root, are created compulsively by one in which to re-enforce the ego, the definition of self. Other people talk for the sake of not being comfortable in silence -the moment- or with themselves.

To clarify, I'm not labelling any of this is bad, rather, sharing some perspectives regarding the catalyst behind many discussions.