Humanity should respect animals.

[Tenet Nosce]

I find that compassion and wisdom are similar in that they are both exceedingly difficult to communicate with words. I do not find that there is any such convenient "yardstick" by which to measure either of them.

For example, we might be inclined to define compassion in terms of "ethics or activity", but this is problematic. There are certainly times when inaction is the compassionate response. Compassion and wisdom are nonphysical; Actions are physical.

Try as we might, to tell somebody that to do X would be compassionate or to do Y would be wise- more often than not- fails to result in any appreciable change in behavior. This isn't to say that we shouldn't try. But it is to say that we should remain nonattached to the apparent results.

It is in nonattachment that we find the faith to trust that All is Well in this topsy-turvy environment that we find ourselves in, and where we find the ability to have love for the world- despite its gross injustices and inequalities.

Wherein we find ourselves proverbially "banging our head against the wall" in our fallible attempts to communicate wisdom and compassion, this is the point where the line between the mission and the lesson becomes blurred.

Do we charge forward and push the issue? Do we pull back to distill our experience and regroup? There are no clear-cut answers here on this side of the veil. And that is exactly the way we intended it to be.

Ethical dilemmas are supposed to be dilemmas. They are catalyst for us to polarize and thereby build identity through the attraction of the "light of harvestable quality." There will never be a final answer to ethical dilemmas because, in truth, there is no right or wrong.

The "rightness" or "wrongness" of our actions have no yardstick other than our own ethical standards. When a 3D incarnation comes up for review, the question is not so much, "Did we arrive at the correct ethical principles?" but, "To what degree did we live up to our ethical principles?"

With specific respect to polarization,

It is unlikely that there is a more pithy or eloquent description of the polarities of third density than service to others and service to self due to the nature of the mind/body/spirit complexes’ distortions towards perceiving concepts relating to philosophy in terms of ethics or activity. However, we might consider the polarities using slightly variant terms. In this way a possible enrichment of insight might be achieved for some.

One might consider the polarities with the literal nature enjoyed by the physical polarity of the magnet. The negative and positive, with their electrical characteristics, may be seen to be just as in the physical sense. It is to be noted in this context that it is quite impossible to judge the polarity of an act or an entity, just as it is impossible to judge the relative goodness of the negative and positive poles of the magnet.

Another method of viewing polarities might involve the concept of radiation/absorption. That which is positive is radiant; that which is negative is absorbent.

111 Thread Redirect ---> Polarization and Polarity

The rules of "ethics or activity" are many; The Law is One.

[BrownEye]

personally i think we are affected most as humans when people respect us and are not preachy.

Glory in the strength of your polarization and allow others of opposite polarity to similarly do so, seeing the great humor of this polarity and its complications in view of the unification in sixth density of these two paths.

[reeay]

I'm not sure I could intellectualize or articulate the specific criteria for what would constitute 'compassion' or 'wisdom' but I do experience it as a state of just being. Of course it could be defined/understood and has been done, more philosophically and less experientially. I am not sure what it is to 'act with compassion' unless it's acting out one's distortion (what one thinks is 'compassionate')... that requires much contemplation/examination of one's distortions.

[Tenet Nosce]

To refocus my response:

If majority Aye! then "our view" humanity agrees to respect animals and we can refer to it in future conversations as de jure "my humanity".

I believe that "my humanity" is inclusive of all of humanity. This specifically extends to those who have not developed green-ray compassion to the point where it becomes obvious that animals are deserving of respect.

Compassion is the primary lesson of fourth density- which spans millions of years according to our estimation of time. To expect "my humanity" which is a 3D culture, to have achieved mastery of fourth-density lessons before they have even begun them would be absurd. Ironically- I can neither conceive of how such a notion could be considered compassionate.

Thus fourth-density experience may be begun with the added attraction to an entity oriented towards service to others of dwelling in a troubled third-density environment and offering its love and compassion.

Those in need of compassion can hardly be expected to have developed it within themselves. For if they had developed it, they would not be in seeming need of it.

Furthermore, to attempt to foist "my view" onto humanity- beyond simply discussing as we are doing here- would neither be wise nor compassionate. Nor would it be faithful or loving. So I'm not sure what the purpose of doing so would be, other than an inappropriate demonstration of power.

[Cyan]

To refocus my response:

If majority Aye! then "our view" humanity agrees to respect animals and we can refer to it in future conversations as de jure "my humanity".

I believe that "my humanity" is inclusive of all of humanity. This specifically extends to those who have not developed green-ray compassion to the point where it becomes obvious that animals are deserving of respect.

Compassion is the primary lesson of fourth density- which spans millions of years according to our estimation of time. To expect "my humanity" which is a 3D culture, to have achieved mastery of fourth-density lessons before they have even begun them would be absurd. Ironically- I can neither conceive of how such a notion could be considered compassionate.

Thus fourth-density experience may be begun with the added attraction to an entity oriented towards service to others of dwelling in a troubled third-density environment and offering its love and compassion.

Those in need of compassion can hardly be expected to have developed it within themselves. For if they had developed it, they would not be in seeming need of it.

Furthermore, to attempt to foist "my view" onto humanity- beyond simply discussing as we are doing here- would neither be wise nor compassionate. Nor would it be faithful or loving. So I'm not sure what the purpose of doing so would be, other than an inappropriate demonstration of power.

Specifically. Withotu going into anything else in the topic.

Yes your view is all humanity, but our view is not all humanity.

[Tenet Nosce]

Yes your view is all humanity, but our view is not all humanity.

What is the difference between "your" and "our" in this sentence?

[BrownEye]

Animals have reached 3D green ray activation, which is what humans are formed to work towards. At the same time "new" humans still function as animal. To me there is a blurred line for what some want to define as separation.

The fallback to "we have done this for thousands of years" works very well with thousands of years of "not harvestable quality" LMAO.

[Monica]

Compassion is the primary lesson of fourth density- which spans millions of years according to our estimation of time.

I disagree. My understanding is that compassion is indeed the lesson of 3D.

It is the very reason 3D is rife with so much suffering, which provide opportunity after opportunity to learn compassion.

It starts with karmic repercussions. A person who has suffered in a certain way - for example the loss of a loved one - will be more likely to experience compassion when confronted with another person who had the same type of loss. But that same person might find it difficult to feel compassion for another person suffering with a different type of loss.

It is their first experience of identifying with an other-self, by relating the other-self's suffering with their own, similar suffering.

Later, as their capacity for compassion develops, they might eventually be able to feel compassion for other-selves whose suffering bears no resemblance to their own.

This is why it's so difficult for humans to feel compassion for their younger 2D brethren. Unless they've experienced watching a being - any being, whether human, dog, cat, whatever - being tortured, it's all very alien to them.

This is also why soldiers are able to maime and kill other humans, including children, that they have no connection with. What they are doing often doesn't even register.

The ones that do register compassion, have a hard time with it. That's why Iraqi veterans are committing suicide at the rate of 18 per day!

Our entire 3D reality is designed for the express purpose of triggering compassion!

It is honed and refined in 4D.

To expect "my humanity" which is a 3D culture, to have achieved mastery of fourth-density lessons before they have even begun them would be absurd. Ironically- I can neither conceive of how such a notion could be considered compassionate.

There is no such requirement or expectation. "Mastery" would be what Jesus displayed. His polarity approached 100%. We aren't required or expected to reach his level of mastery in 3D. Just 51%. We have quite a lot of wiggle-room, and all of 4D to get the rest.

But to say that compassion isn't a requirement at all (if that is what you're saying) is, in my humble opinion, a misinterpretation of the material.

This thread explores this topic in depth, with strong arguments on both sides:

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

I highly recommend reading that thread!

Those in need of compassion can hardly be expected to have developed it within themselves. For if they had developed it, they would not be in seeming need of it.

Not necessarily. I know from experience that some of us have a lot easier time having compassion for others than having compassion for ourselves.

It can go either way.

[Tenet Nosce]

I disagree. My understanding is that compassion is indeed the lesson of 3D.

Questioner: I have a question here from (name). It states: “As we see compassion developing in ourselves is it more appropriate to balance this compassion with wisdom or to allow the compassion to develop as much as possible without being balanced”?

Ra: I am Ra. This query borders upon that type of question to which answers are unavailable due to the free-will prohibitions upon information from teach/learners.

To the student of the balancing process we may suggest that the most stringent honesty be applied. As compassion is perceived it is suggested that, in balancing, this perception be analyzed. It may take many, many essays into compassion before true universal love is the product of the attempted opening and crystallization of this all-important springboard energy center. Thus the student may discover many other components to what may seem to be all-embracing love. Each of these components may be balanced and accepted as part of the self and as transitional material as the entity’s seat of learn/teaching moves ever more fairly into the green ray.

When it is perceived that universal love has been achieved the next balancing may or may not be wisdom. If the adept is balancing manifestations it is indeed appropriate to balance universal love and wisdom. If the balancing is of mind or spirit there are many subtleties to which the adept may give careful consideration. Love and wisdom, like love and light, are not black and white, shall we say, but faces of the same coin, if you will. Therefore, it is not, in all cases, that balancing consists of a movement from compassion to wisdom.

We may suggest at all times the constant remembrance of the density from which each adept desires to move. This density learns the lessons of love. In the case of Wanderers there are half-forgotten overlays of other lessons and other densities. We shall leave these considerations with the questioner and invite observations which we shall then be most happy to respond to in what may seem to be a more effectual manner.

So, take that as you will. But we have here a query that directly asks about the balance between wisdom and compassion, and Ra replies that this density learns the lessons of love. Otherwise, the remainder of the quote looks to support what you have been saying, and which I haven't disagreed with.

This is why it's so difficult for humans to feel compassion for their younger 2D brethren.

It is difficult because feeling compassion for 2D entities is an advanced lesson in compassion.

But to say that compassion isn't a requirement at all (if that is what you're saying) is, in my humble opinion, a misinterpretation of the material.

No, that's not what I am saying. I find it unlikely that 3D graduates would have no green-ray activation. But is it impossible? Probably not.

[Monica]

So, take that as you will. But we have here a query that directly asks about the balance between wisdom and compassion, and Ra replies that this density learns the lessons of love. Otherwise, the remainder of the quote looks to support what you have been saying, and which I haven't disagreed with.

Yes, I'm not disagreeing with you either, on that point.

But, did you miss this?

It may take many, many essays into compassion before true universal love is the product of the attempted opening and crystallization of this all-important springboard energy center.

Love is the springboard, and it may take "many, many essays into compassion" to get to that love; thus compassion seems to be the springboard into the springboard!

This is why it's so difficult for humans to feel compassion for their younger 2D brethren.

It is difficult because feeling compassion for 2D entities is an advanced lesson in compassion.

Maybe, maybe not. I agree that it's far easier for 3D entities to feel compassion for other humans, than for 2D entities, especially if they were taught that 2D entities don't matter or are just things for us to use and consume.

But, as Pickle has repeatedly pointed out, much of that is programmed behavior. Many children naturally feel compassion for animals. We've all heard stories of children suddenly refusing to eat meat after learning it's a dead animal, but what happens then? The parents force them to eat it anyway, and after awhile, the child's natural repulsion is suppressed.

In light of this, I'm not sure it's really so hard. It's more likely just that humans are programmed to suppress the compassion that comes naturally.

But let's say, for a moment, that you're right, and it is an "advanced" lesson for a 3D entity to learn compassion for 2D entities.

If so, then I could understand why it might be difficult for most humans to 'get it.'

But that doesn't explain why it's so difficult for Wanderers.

[Tenet Nosce]

Love is the springboard, and it may take "many, many essays into compassion" to get to that love; thus compassion seems to be the springboard into the springboard!

Yes, it would seem like that... to you!

The fact that- to your perception- love and compassion appear to be so inextricably intertwined is evidence that you are working on advanced lessons in relation to these! For those of us who are working on earlier lessons, this is not so perceived. Love and compassion seem to be separated.

Maybe, maybe not. I agree that it's far easier for 3D entities to feel compassion for other humans, than for 2D entities, especially if they were taught that 2D entities don't matter or are just things for us to use and consume.

I suppose we could mince words, but this is essentially the same statement I made! It is "easier" for humans to feel compassion toward one another precisely because that is an earlier lesson.

But, as Pickle has repeatedly pointed out, much of that is programmed behavior.

Pickle is right about that. It is programmed behavior. People working on those lessons program their incarnations for earlier lessons, and these programs are then delivered by their parents and other "societal" conditioning in precise accordance with the free will of the pre-incarnative entity.

Many children naturally feel compassion for animals.

Many children are working on advanced lessons of compassion.

But that doesn't explain why it's so difficult for Wanderers.

To the contrary, it explains exactly why! It is a late 4D lesson, therefore it is very possible to have graduated to higher densities without having teach/learned it.

[Monica]

Love is the springboard, and it may take "many, many essays into compassion" to get to that love; thus compassion seems to be the springboard into the springboard!

Yes, it would seem like that... to you!

The fact that- to your perception- love and compassion appear to be so inextricably intertwined is evidence that you are working on advanced lessons in relation to these! For those of us who are working on earlier lessons, this is not so perceived. Love and compassion seem to be separated.

Huh? But wait, I thought you said I was only a lowly 4D Wanderer??

And since most B4 members believe themselves to be 6D, then I am waaaaaay behind most...so how could I be working on advanced lessons?

Maybe, maybe not. I agree that it's far easier for 3D entities to feel compassion for other humans, than for 2D entities, especially if they were taught that 2D entities don't matter or are just things for us to use and consume.

I suppose we could mince words, but this is essentially the same statement I made! It is "easier" for humans to feel compassion toward one another precisely because that is an earlier lesson.

Uh huh. Which is why I said I agreed on that point.

But, as Pickle has repeatedly pointed out, much of that is programmed behavior.

Pickle is right about that. It is programmed behavior. People working on those lessons program their incarnations for earlier lessons, and these programs are then delivered by their parents and other "societal" conditioning in precise accordance with the free will of the pre-incarnative entity.

Wait! Not so fast! You might be right, but that is an assumption. Correlation doesn't necessarily equal causation.

Many children naturally feel compassion for animals.

Many children are working on advanced lessons of compassion.

Since the vast majority of humans eat meat, it would seem that most of those same children grow up to have the very same difficulty of feeling compassion towards 'meat' animals, regardless of whether they felt natural compassion towards animals as children.

I've heard mothers of young 4-H'ers laughing about how their child refused to eat meat at age 6...but now hunts with his dad! It's indoctrination!

But that doesn't explain why it's so difficult for Wanderers.

To the contrary, it explains exactly why! It is a late 4D lesson, therefore it is very possible to have graduated to higher densities without having teach/learned it.

That's an interesting theory, but do you have anything to back it up from the material? Did Ra ever draw a distinction between compassion for 3D entities and compassion for 2D entities?

[Tenet Nosce]

Huh? But wait, I thought you said I was only a lowly 4D Wanderer??

Right. So let's leave "you" out of the equation for now.

Imagine the seven densities. Each with seven sub-densities. And each sub-density with seven sub-sub densities. Going on ad infinitum, as a hologram. Now imagine these all spiraling into each other.

It is possible to move in a spiral from lesson to lesson, or even density to density, with having a considerable amount of work left to yet on the previous track. However, in order to progress beyond a certain level of completion in any one track, a progressively higher degree of development is necessary in all the others.

In other words, we can envision two theoretical wanderers.

Wanderer A is working on very late 4D lessons of compassion. This of necessity would involve a high level of previous work done with wisdom, love, and faith. When Wanderer A graduates to 5D, and on to 6D, they are likely to have a great ease of experience, because they wisely anticipated the work of the next two densities.

Wanderer B is working on very early 6D lessons of blending, having done the minimum amount of work on previous lessons to graduate from 4D and 5D. This wanderer foolishly arrives at 6D to be flung into an impenetrable wall of light. It then realizes that it cannot pass even the most basic lessons of 6D without going back and completing the rest of their lessons on compassion.

Who is the "higher" of the two wanderers? The answer is: Dumb question. It isn't a linear progression.

The only difference between Wanderers A and B is in their particular strategy for awakening. One isn't better than the other; they're just two different paths. Two "Bozos on the Bus."

I'll ask you this- if an early 4D civilization made contact with humanity... would you say we should just blindly trust everything they tell us about "ethics and activity" as the end-all-be-all truth simply because they have attained 4D?

Wait! Not so fast! You might be right, but that is an assumption. Correlation doesn't necessarily equal causation.

All I have assumed is free will. If you believe that children are being given programming by their parents that they didn't previously agree to pre-incarnatively, that would require its own consideration.

That doesn't sound right to me.

The alternative would be to conclude that most of us who think we are wanderers are actually 3D natives, and are deluding ourselves about our "high and mighty" wanderer status. If feeling compassion for animals to the point of not eating them were an early 4D lesson- if it were so basic- then all wanderers from all densities would have already been done working on it. Therefore, we might be led to conclude that anybody who eats meat could not possibly be a wanderer.

[Monica]

Right. So let's leave "you" out of the equation for now.

Phew! OK.

Imagine the seven densities. Each with seven sub-densities. And each sub-density with seven sub-sub densities. Going on ad infinitum, as a hologram. Now imagine these all spiraling into each other.

It is possible to move in a spiral from lesson to lesson, or even density to density, with having a considerable amount of work left to yet on the previous track. However, in order to progress beyond a certain level of completion in any one track, a progressively higher degree of development is necessary in all the others.

I don't disagree with any of that. The part I'm having issues with is identifying certain lessons as being covered in certain sub-densities. Maybe I missed it, but did Ra explicitly state that compassion for 2D entities was a late 4D lesson?

In other words, we can envision two theoretical wanderers.

Wanderer A is working on very late 4D lessons of compassion. This of necessity would involve a high level of previous work done with wisdom, love, and faith. When Wanderer A graduates to 5D, and on to 6D, they are likely to have a great ease of experience, because they wisely anticipated the work of the next two densities.

Wanderer B is working on very early 6D lessons of blending, having done the minimum amount of work on previous lessons to graduate from 4D and 5D. This wanderer foolishly arrives at 6D to be flung into an impenetrable wall of light. It then realizes that it cannot pass even the most basic lessons of 6D without going back and completing the rest of their lessons on compassion.

Who is the "higher" of the two wanderers? The answer is: Dumb question. It isn't a linear progression.

I agree it's a dumb question. About as dumb as trying to figure out which density we're from in the first place. (haha, sorry, couldn't resist the good-natured jab! Just teasing! You know I love you Tenet! )

I'll ask you this- if an early 4D civilization made contact with humanity... would you say we should just blindly trust everything they tell us about "ethics and activity" as the end-all-be-all truth simply because they have attained 4D?

Of course not. We don't even do that with Ra. (Do we? Well maybe some do!)

Wait! Not so fast! You might be right, but that is an assumption. Correlation doesn't necessarily equal causation.

All I have assumed is free will. If you believe that children are being given programming by their parents that they didn't previously agree to pre-incarnatively, that would require its own consideration.

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I agree with the part about pre-incarnational programming. The part I was disputing is this:

People working on those lessons program their incarnations for earlier lessons

What I meant was, that unless Ra explicitly stated where compassion for animals fits in, to say it is a late 4D lesson is an assumption. To label anything as an 'early' lesson or a 'late' lesson seems to be making some assumptions.

The alternative would be to conclude that most of us who think we are wanderers are actually 3D natives, and are deluding ourselves about our "high and mighty" wanderer status. If feeling compassion for animals to the point of not eating them were an early 4D lesson- if it were so basic- then all wanderers from all densities would have already been done working on it. Therefore, we might be led to conclude that anybody who eats meat could not possibly be a wanderer.

That can be swiftly ruled out because we know for a fact that 5- and 6-D Wanderers have been labeled as such by Ra, and they ate meat.

Thus, that can't be it.

What other possibility is there then? Well, I can think of one:

We all took on great risk when we volunteered to come to this planet. Risk of what? Risk of taking on karma, getting stuck in the muck, even losing our polarity! The most common thing that happens of course is that they simply forget their mission and never awaken. And we know of 2 Wanderers who even woke up 'disconcerted' to learn they'd graduated STS! Yikes!!

If Wanderers can lose their way enough to actually switch polarities, then it isn't much of a stretch to surmise that they might get stuck in the muck enough to forget some of the lessons previously learned.

Especially with so much STS influence on this planet, so much drugging, to the point of our pineal glands getting hardened because of the fluoride, vaccinations, etc., not to mention the eating of animals being just a 'normal' part of everyday life...gosh, I can see how it could easily become a blind spot in an otherwise very highly polarized Wanderer!

[Tenet Nosce]

I don't disagree with any of that. The part I'm having issues with is identifying certain lessons as being covered in certain sub-densities. Maybe I missed it, but did Ra explicitly state that compassion for 2D entities was a late 4D lesson?

No, I don't believe they spoke of the sub-densities in that detail. What we do know- as you have pointed out- is that it is easier for humans to have compassion for other humans than it is toward 2D entities. That much is self-evident.

Beyond this, I think it's safe to assume that any lessons which involve the blending of energies come later on in a given density. This is because a certain amount of foundational work in each energy is necessary in order to begin the work of blending them.

What I meant was, that unless Ra explicitly stated where compassion for animals fits in, to say it is a late 4D lesson is an assumption. To label anything as an 'early' lesson or a 'late' lesson seems to be making some assumptions.

You were referring to Pickle's point about children being programmed by their parents to eat meat. I was simply saying wherein this programming has occurred, is was selected pre-incarnatively.

We all took on great risk when we volunteered to come to this planet. Risk of what? Risk of taking on karma, getting stuck in the muck, even losing our polarity!

Magnetic polarization, such as occurs in the mind, once acquired, is not easily lost. Though you are right, it is possible.

Ionic polarization, such as occurs in a crystal such as water, is easily lost.

The most common thing that happens of course is that they simply forget their mission and never awaken. And we know of 2 Wanderers who even woke up 'disconcerted' to learn they'd graduated STS! Yikes!!

Well, that's true. But let's look at that quote in full:

Questioner: What techniques did the two negatively harvested entities use for negative polarization upon such a positively polarized planet?

Ra: I am Ra. The technique of control over others and domination unto the physical death was used in both cases. Upon a planetary influence much unused to slaughter these entities were able to polarize by this means. Upon your third-density environment at the time of your experiencing such entities would merely be considered, shall we say, ruthless despots which waged the holy war.

Do you suppose that Ra was referring to the domination and slaughter of animals here?

If Wanderers can lose their way enough to actually switch polarities, then it isn't much of a stretch to surmise that they might get stuck in the muck enough to forget some of the lessons previously learned.

We could surmise that- or perhaps certain lessons were deliberately veiled as we previously discussed. There's no way to really know. But I don't think this lends any evidence to believe that compassion for 2D entities is an early lesson in compassion.

I think we may both be pushing the limits of any actual evidence from the material one way or another. Beyond this, all we have to go on is our personal experience.

What I can say from my personal experience is that my first feelings of compassion for animals were in relationships with household pets. It didn't occur to me until much later that I could feel compassion for farm animals, like cows or chickens. And to this day, the notion of feeling compassion for sardines or locusts or sponges seems like a stretch. On the other hand, feeling compassion for other humans came quite naturally to me as a child. Though I do still have much foreseeable work to do as yet where compassion for humans is concerned. I might take a blind stab and say my lessons on compassion are 50 - 65% complete.

And yet, here I am, on the precipice of "full 4D instreaming." Do you think I should be concerned about having to go for another round of 3D?

After our discussion, I do feel less sure of the birds-eye view of lessons that I had previously speculated upon. However, I still think it is fair to assume that easy lessons come before hard ones, and that lessons involving the blending of energies are likely to be advanced ones.

[Monica]

No, I don't believe they spoke of the sub-densities in that detail. What we do know- as you have pointed out- is that it is easier for humans to have compassion for other humans than it is toward 2D entities. That much is self-evident.

That's probably true for most humans, but certainly not all humans. There are plenty of people who feel compassion for animals quite readily, but not for humans. They usually say that animals are easier to feel compassion for, because they're innocent; whereas, humans can be so cruel.

This one of the reasons I don't think in terms of 'compassion for animals' being 'more advanced' than 'compassion for humans.'

Compassion is compassion is compassion. Some people feel it for humans first, other for animals first. It varies. One might be more common than the other, but that doesn't mean anything regarding which is more advanced.

You were referring to Pickle's point about children being programmed by their parents to eat meat. I was simply saying wherein this programming has occurred, is was selected pre-incarnatively.

That was secondary to my point, which was specifically about your use of the term 'early lessons.' It was the idea that compassion for humans vs animals could be so neatly categorized, that I was questioning.

Do you suppose that Ra was referring to the domination and slaughter of animals here?

Gosh, that thought never entered my mind! But now that you mention it, sure, it could just as easily have been animals! Maybe those 2 entities introduced factory farming...?

Taken in context, Ra probably meant they dominated humans, in their attempt to force them into spiritual growth. But the slaughter part might have referred to animals, possibly.

We could surmise that- or perhaps certain lessons were deliberately veiled as we previously discussed. There's no way to really know. But I don't think this lends any evidence to believe that compassion for 2D entities is an early lesson in compassion.

Neither does it indicate it's a late lesson.

I think we may both be pushing the limits of any actual evidence from the material one way or another. Beyond this, all we have to go on is our personal experience.

Agreed!

What I can say from my personal experience is that my first feelings of compassion for animals were in relationships with household pets. It didn't occur to me until much later that I could feel compassion for farm animals, like cows or chickens. And to this day, the notion of feeling compassion for sardines or locusts or sponges seems like a stretch. On the other hand, feeling compassion for other humans came quite naturally to me as a child. Though I do still have much foreseeable work to do as yet where compassion for humans is concerned. I might take a blind stab and say my lessons on compassion are 50 - 65% complete.

I still struggle with cockroaches and ants.

Although, my hubby and I did stop using roach motels about 25 years ago, after observing a roach eating off its leg to escape.

And yet, here I am, on the precipice of "full 4D instreaming." Do you think I should be concerned about having to go for another round of 3D?

Sorry, but I'm not in the business of analyzing people's polarity! You might find others in this community who would be happy to oblige!

After our discussion, I do feel less sure of the birds-eye view of lessons that I had previously speculated upon. However, I still think it is fair to assume that easy lessons come before hard ones, and that lessons involving the blending of energies are likely to be advanced ones.

Ah, but as you said, different entities traverse the sub-densities by different routes! So what is difficult for one, might be easy for another, and vice versa.

[Tenet Nosce]

There are plenty of people who feel compassion for animals quite readily, but not for humans.

Yes, that is true.

They usually say that animals are easier to feel compassion for, because they're innocent; whereas, humans can be so cruel.

Who is "they"?

Compassion is compassion is compassion. Some people feel it for humans first, other for animals first. It varies. One might be more common than the other, but that doesn't mean anything regarding which is more advanced.

You could be right about that. But in which case, it is no longer that perplexing why some wanderers might not feel compassion for animals as deeply as others. They might just be uncommon examples.

Taken in context, Ra probably meant they dominated humans, in their attempt to force them into spiritual growth. But the slaughter part might have referred to animals, possibly.

Yes, that was my read as well. But to think those two wanderers could have fooled themselves into thinking imposing their beliefs onto others could be good for their spiritual growth... you are right that sounds like some pretty heavy forgetting! Luckily, it sounds like that sort of thing isn't too common.

I still struggle with cockroaches and ants.

Really? See that is funny, because those are two insects that I feel compassion for. Roaches get a bad rap! Recently, while we were in Costa Rica, a big momma roach got accidentally caught in our fridge... she barely survived the ordeal! I figured she had a rough enough time already, so I flung her out into the grass and wished her well.

Ants are tougher to handle because it can be near impossible to get them out of the house without killing them. Especially the tiny ones!

Although, my hubby and I did stop using roach motels about 25 years ago, after observing a roach eating off its leg to escape.

How do you handle the roaches now?

Sorry, but I'm not in the business of analyzing people's polarity! You might find others in this community who would be happy to oblige!

Now there's an interesting conundrum. If somebody had a business built around analyzing other people's polarity, would they bear some risk of depolarizing themselves in the process? What if they started offering to do "readings" for third-parties who wanted to know the polarization level of others?! Yeesh- sounds like some icky spiritual considerations there!

Ah, but as you said, different entities traverse the sub-densities by different routes! So what is difficult for one, might be easy for another, and vice versa.

Yes, that is true. Still, in any body of teach/learning that I am personally aware of, a certain degree of mastery over the basic elements is required before one can begin the lessons about blending the elements together.

[Monica]

They usually say that animals are easier to feel compassion for, because they're innocent; whereas, humans can be so cruel.

Who is "they"?

The people who love animals but hate other people...or have compassion for animals but are unable to feel compassion for other people. You know: the ones commonly referred to as zealots!

Which brings up a curious point: Why are they considered zealots? Precisely because they are able to feel compassion for animals but not other humans, and humans find that unacceptable! Because the majority of humans consider humans to be more important than animals, and cannot conceive of someone caring more about animals than other humans!

You could be right about that. But in which case, it is no longer that perplexing why some wanderers might not feel compassion for animals as deeply as others. They might just be uncommon examples.

It's not as perplexing to me as it used to be. Still perplexing, just not as perplexing.

Yes, that was my read as well. But to think those two wanderers could have fooled themselves into thinking imposing their beliefs onto others could be good for their spiritual growth... you are right that sounds like some pretty heavy forgetting! Luckily, it sounds like that sort of thing isn't too common.

Yeah let's hope not! shudder I feel compassionate for those poor schmucks!

Really? See that is funny, because those are two insects that I feel compassion for. Roaches get a bad rap! Recently, while we were in Costa Rica, a big momma roach got accidentally caught in our fridge... she barely survived the ordeal! I figured she had a rough enough time already, so I flung her out into the grass and wished her well.

Ants are tougher to handle because it can be near impossible to get them out of the house without killing them. Especially the tiny ones!

Yeah, and not only that, but the little fuckers are so aggressive! I'll be out in my garden minding my own business and they just start biting for no reason! A few days ago I suddenly realized I had ants all up my legs and about 20 bites! How rude!

How do you handle the roaches now?

Bring4th Forums One > Olio > Killing Cockroaches and Other Creepy Crawlies

Now there's an interesting conundrum. If somebody had a business built around analyzing other people's polarity, would they bear some risk of depolarizing themselves in the process? What if they started offering to do "readings" for third-parties who wanted to know the polarization level of others?! Yeesh- sounds like some icky spiritual considerations there!

I sure wouldn't want that responsibility, even if I knew how (which I don't)!

[Tenet Nosce]

The people who love animals but hate other people...or have compassion for animals but are unable to feel compassion for other people.

Oh, I see what you mean. Sounds like those people have quite a bit of work to do with compassion. So yes- I suppose the order of the lessons is not so cut and dry as I was making it out to be.

You know: the ones commonly referred to as zealots!

LOL! The "Z" Word! *gasp* But I don't know why somebody would categorically refer to those folks as zealots. Though no doubt, some of them are. Zealots come from all walks of life.

Which brings up a curious point: Why are they considered zealots?

Beats me. According to my understanding of the term zealotry has more to do with seeking to impose one's own ethical system upon to others.

It's not as perplexing to me as it used to be. Still perplexing, just not as perplexing.

Just think- whenever we finally do figure it out, we will probably wonder how it seemed so perplexing for all this time!

I feel compassionate for those poor schmucks!

Well we should, for in a way, we are those two poor schmucks! (Do you think that's a basic or an advanced lesson in compassion?)

Yeah, and not only that, but the little fuckers are so aggressive! I'll be out in my garden minding my own business and they just start biting for no reason! A few days ago I suddenly realized I had ants all up my legs and about 20 bites! How rude!

Yes, those little fuckers are a b****! They always get lost in my leg hair! But they're also high in protein. Maybe you should bite them back!

I also remember learning in a desert survival class that fire ants are a great source of vitamin C. If one just so happens to find themselves wandering lost in a desert of course. It seems that nature always finds a way to provide...

So then, I suppose the crux of the question becomes: Can humanity eat fire ants for dessert in the desert, and still have respect for them in the morning?

[Monica]

Oh, I see what you mean. Sounds like those people have quite a bit of work to do with compassion. So yes- I suppose the order of the lessons is not so cut and dry as I was making it out to be.

Exactly! But do they really have "quite a bit of work to do?" I mean, any more than people who feel compassion for other humans but not animals?

We've just ascertained that it can happen in either order...so is one order inherently better than the other?

I actually felt compassion for animals before I did humans. My earliest memories of compassion were for the kittens my dad killed...then for the chickens, pigeons and ducks my dad killed...he made me help. I'll never forget those headless chickens flopping around...nor their eyes still blinking in shock and awareness that they'd just been beheaded.

I remember asking my dad why the bodies kept moving after they were dead...that must mean they weren't really dead yet, right? And he said "They're dead but they don't know they're dead."

What didn't know it was dead?

I remember finding a baby bird and wanting to save it...what child doesn't have that memory? That was compassion.

I wanted to save the birds my cats killed...but felt conflicted because my cats had to eat, and my parents didn't believe in buying cat food. My cats got only kitchen scraps and the occasional chicken or pigeon heads.

One time one of my cats disemboweled a lizard and I felt horrified at how much the lizard must be suffering, so I decided to put it out of its misery - a mercy killing. I must have been about 8 or 9. I got a sharp rock and proceeded to chop off the lizard's head. That lizard would...not...die!!!

I couldn't believe how fiercely that mutilated, dying creature fought for its last breath! Even though I was committing an act of mercy, it apparently didn't know that, and fought hard to live. It had to have been about a minute but seemed like many minutes before I finally succeeded in snuffing out its life. Then its lifeless eyes stared back at me, stricken, and, I imagined, betrayed.

I had no compassion for bugs. I hated them because they made my life miserable. But I had plenty of opportunities to feel compassion for animals...don't all children? Other than helping my dad butcher chickens, were my interactions with animals any different from those of other children?

Feeling compassion for animals came naturally to me. Humans, however, were a different story. Humans mistreated me. I don't remember the first time I felt compassion for a human. Probably around age 13 or so, when friends discovered I was a good listener and started telling me their problems.

By the time I fully awakened at age 21, compassion flowed readily. I saw, and still don't see, any distinction between animal and human, when it comes to compassion. It just is.

But I can understand why some people might have an easier time feeling compassion for animals than for humans. They've been hurt by humans, and haven't yet learned that not all humans hurt others.

LOL! The "Z" Word! *gasp* But I don't know why somebody would categorically refer to those folks as zealots. Though no doubt, some of them are. Zealots come from all walks of life.

That probably was a poor choice of words. Maybe...extremist? Fanatic? Crazy? Not saying they are any of those things...just saying that society tends to label them as such, because their views are considered backwards.

They always get lost in my leg hair!

Ah so men do have it worse in some ways then!

But they're also high in protein. Maybe you should bite them back!

Then I wouldn't be a very good vegetarian now would I?

Yes ants are actually a Chinese medicinal remedy, but then you already knew that.

I also remember learning in a desert survival class that fire ants are a great source of vitamin C. If one just so happens to find themselves wandering lost in a desert of course. It seems that nature always finds a way to provide...

Now that might be a very good example of to the extent necessary.

So then, I suppose the crux of the question becomes: Can humanity eat fire ants for dessert in the desert, and still have respect for them in the morning?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iu7vySQbgXI

[Tenet Nosce]

Exactly! But do they really have "quite a bit of work to do?" I mean, any more than people who feel compassion for other humans but not animals?

Yes, I would still say they do have "quite a bit of work to do" but not necessarily any more than anybody else in particular. Making comparisons of that sort is fruitless.

But I would assume- generally speaking- that those who are close to completion of lessons on compassion would feel compassion for just about everything... other humans, animals, plants, rocks, the Creator, and of course, the self.

We've just ascertained that it can happen in either order...so is one order inherently better than the other?

No. For the same reason that a 6D wanderer isn't better than a 4D wanderer. They're just different paths, and ultimately all paths must be walked.

I actually felt compassion for animals before I did humans. My earliest memories of compassion were for the kittens my dad killed...then for the chickens, pigeons and ducks my dad killed...he made me help.

So as a child, it felt like your dad was forcing you to do it. But we know that you probably programmed this experience pre-incarnatively, and your father was just carrying out your wishes at the time. Or do you have a different view of this?

Also, if you were feeling compassion for those animals at that age, then I think it's safe to say that was -not- your lesson. Perhaps the experience was meant to help you remember your mission? But as far as lessons go, I would assume there was some remediation of love or faith intended.

Very often the catalyst for emotional pain, whether it be the death of the physical complex of one other-self which is loved or some other seeming loss, will simply result in the opposite, in a bitterness, an impatience, a souring. This is catalyst which has gone awry. In these cases, then, there will be additional catalyst provided to offer the unmanifested self further opportunities for discovering the self as all-sufficient Creator containing all that there is and full of joy.

Even the most unhappy of experiences, shall we say, which seem to occur in the Catalyst of the adept, seen from the viewpoint of the spirit, may, with the discrimination possible in shadow, be worked with until light equaling the light of brightest noon descends upon the adept and positive or service-to-others illumination has occurred. The service-to-self adept will satisfy itself with the shadows and, grasping the light of day, will toss back the head in grim laughter, preferring the darkness.

But beyond these generalities, I of course wouldn't be able to discern any details. What is your insight on these experiences?

I'll never forget those headless chickens flopping around...nor their eyes still blinking in shock and awareness that they'd just been beheaded.

Do you really think those chickens were aware they had been beheaded?!
As in... they consciously contemplated their own beheaded state?

And he said "They're dead but they don't know they're dead."

What didn't know it was dead?

Gosh! What a confusing response to hear from your dad! My understanding has always been that the Life (spirit) that inhabits the form (body) is eternal. Therefore, the experience of "death" is the separation of the life from the form. Ultimately, nothing is lost.

It is to be kept in the forefront of the faculties of intelligence that there is one creation in which there is no loss.

All is well. Nothing is lost. Go forth rejoicing in the love and the light, the peace and the power of the One Infinite Creator.

I remember finding a baby bird and wanting to save it...what child doesn't have that memory? That was compassion.

Ah, but we all have a propensity to project our own experience onto others. I don't think it is fair to generalize to all children. If we all popped out of the womb fully compassionate beings... then there would be no teach/learning of compassion necessary. We would already know!

That being said- it wouldn't surprise me at all if many children nowadays felt that level of compassion for baby birds, since we are approaching the end of the cycle. You were probably a bit ahead of the times.

Even though I was committing an act of mercy, it apparently didn't know that, and fought hard to live. It had to have been about a minute but seemed like many minutes before I finally succeeded in snuffing out its life. Then its lifeless eyes stared back at me, stricken, and, I imagined, betrayed.

I dunno if we can say for sure. All forms seek to preserve their own existence.. that is true. But self-preservation is a function of the form. The Life inhabiting the form has a different view... it understands that in order to evolve, it must periodically leave its form and seek a new one.

The intelligent energy that was inhabiting the lizard-body probably understood that its form had become irreparable. I'm sure it forgave you almost immediately! But have you forgiven yourself?

It's a mystery, no doubt. I couldn't even imagine beginning to penetrate it to any significant degree. That sounds like 7D lessons to me.

I had no compassion for bugs. I hated them because they made my life miserable. But I had plenty of opportunities to feel compassion for animals...don't all children? Other than helping my dad butcher chickens, were my interactions with animals any different from those of other children?

Oh, yes. It could be very different. For example, I have a friend who is an American living in Peru with a Peruvian wife from the rainforest. They have a daughter together, who lives in the city, but occasionally goes back with her mom to visit family in the rainforest.

Apparently, my friend's daughter- at the age of 3- while visiting her family in the rainforest, decided she was hungry and so she went out back, grabbed a chicken, and killed it by snapping its neck. Then she casually walked back into the kitchen with it and offered it to her relatives to cook! Needless to say, everybody was shocked by her behavior.

Feeling compassion for animals came naturally to me. Humans, however, were a different story. Humans mistreated me. I don't remember the first time I felt compassion for a human. Probably around age 13 or so, when friends discovered I was a good listener and started telling me their problems.

Sorry to hear you were so mistreated. I mistreated others as a kid... nothing terribly cruel, mostly unkind words and things like that. Much later on, I finally realized why I did this.

I was never prone to be cruel to animals as many children are. Although one time I trapped a daddy longlegs underneath a clear plastic cup, and watched as it got baked by the sun. I felt bad about that for a really long time afterwards.

By the time I fully awakened at age 21, compassion flowed readily. I saw, and still don't see, any distinction between animal and human, when it comes to compassion. It just is.

Well "they" say that our level of development around age 21 is a match to whatever we have previously attained in previous incarnations. But gosh- you were "fully awakened" at age 21? As in... you have not awakened further since then?

But I can understand why some people might have an easier time feeling compassion for animals than for humans. They've been hurt by humans, and haven't yet learned that not all humans hurt others.

That's true. Conversely, a person raised around many housepets and farm animals might not fully understand that not all animals are kind to each other, or to humans.

That probably was a poor choice of words. Maybe...extremist? Fanatic? Crazy? Not saying they are any of those things...just saying that society tends to label them as such, because their views are considered backwards.

Hmm. Again, I don't know. These days, society tends to use words in a willy-nilly fashion- assigning whatever definition they like to them, and even changing the definition of words mid-argument when it suits their purpose! When people use words in this fashion- it's a wonder that anything useful gets communicated at all!

According to my understanding, the terms zealot, fanatic, and extremist are closely related. But not exactly the same. They sort of build upon one another.

A zealot is one who believes that their belief system is the "One True Way" and who never questions the basic premises of their own thinking.

A fanatic is one who seeks to impose that belief system onto others. Often times, this is connected to the idea of "salvation" in the sense that there is something "evil" lurking out in the world that others need to be saved from... therefore the fanatic sees themselves as a "savior" of others even as they seek to restrict their free will.

An extremist is typically one who would use hateful and violent methods to impose their belief system onto others. Like suicide bombers. But in a more subtle sense, it could refer to those who use devious political tactics to impose their belief system onto others using laws, regulations, and other restrictions of liberty.

Then I wouldn't be a very good vegetarian now would I?

Depends on what your personal goals might be. Occasionally it is good to push one's boundaries and do something very "unusual" for oneself, just for the sake of the experience.

Now that might be a very good example of to the extent necessary.

I'm kind of surprised that topic doesn't have its own thread already! As you know, my take is that part of the genetic tinkering that went on in our past artificially increased the extent to which meat-eating was necessary for certain subpopulations.

[Monica]

So as a child, it felt like your dad was forcing you to do it. But we know that you probably programmed this experience pre-incarnatively, and your father was just carrying out your wishes at the time. Or do you have a different view of this?

No

Also, if you were feeling compassion for those animals at that age, then I think it's safe to say that was -not- your lesson. Perhaps the experience was meant to help you remember your mission?

Quite likely

But as far as lessons go, I would assume there was some remediation of love or faith intended.

Most certainly

Very often the catalyst for emotional pain, whether it be the death of the physical complex of one other-self which is loved or some other seeming loss, will simply result in the opposite, in a bitterness, an impatience, a souring. This is catalyst which has gone awry. In these cases, then, there will be additional catalyst provided to offer the unmanifested self further opportunities for discovering the self as all-sufficient Creator containing all that there is and full of joy.

Even the most unhappy of experiences, shall we say, which seem to occur in the Catalyst of the adept, seen from the viewpoint of the spirit, may, with the discrimination possible in shadow, be worked with until light equaling the light of brightest noon descends upon the adept and positive or service-to-others illumination has occurred. The service-to-self adept will satisfy itself with the shadows and, grasping the light of day, will toss back the head in grim laughter, preferring the darkness.

Good quotes!

But beyond these generalities, I of course wouldn't be able to discern any details. What is your insight on these experiences?

Well there are plenty of insights regarding my childhood in general, that I'd rather not share. But regarding the topic, the only reason I mentioned it was to illustrate my contention that many children naturally feel compassion for animals, before adults suppress it. The only difference with me is that I was one of those who didn't get it suppressed.

Do you really think those chickens were aware they had been beheaded?!
As in... they consciously contemplated their own beheaded state?

Absolutely. I was quite certain of it then, because I witnessed their deaths and looked into their eyes.

Gosh! What a confusing response to hear from your dad!

Well my father wasn't exactly the warm, reassuring type. Gems of wisdom from his lips didn't fall.

My understanding has always been that the Life (spirit) that inhabits the form (body) is eternal. Therefore, the experience of "death" is the separation of the life from the form. Ultimately, nothing is lost.

Ultimately, yes.

But that doesn't negate the reality of the moment, and the imprint it leaves on the psyche, which then carries over into future incarnations.

I remember finding a baby bird and wanting to save it...what child doesn't have that memory? That was compassion.

Ah, but we all have a propensity to project our own experience onto others. I don't think it is fair to generalize to all children. If we all popped out of the womb fully compassionate beings... then there would be no teach/learning of compassion necessary. We would already know!

True. But I thought finding a baby bird was a very common childhood experience.

I dunno if we can say for sure. All forms seek to preserve their own existence.. that is true. But self-preservation is a function of the form. The Life inhabiting the form has a different view... it understands that in order to evolve, it must periodically leave its form and seek a new one.

The Life realized that afterwards, but when it's still in the midst of physical death, it still wants to stay in the physical. (Excepting people, such as the elderly, who've made peace with death and are consciously ready to leave.)

The intelligent energy that was inhabiting the lizard-body probably understood that its form had become irreparable. I'm sure it forgave you almost immediately! But have you forgiven yourself?

There was never anything to forgive. I knew at the time that I was doing the right thing. The lizard was quite oozing with blood and guts, you see. So I never had any guilt whatsoever.

The reason I told that little story was just to share my perception of the consciousness of a lizard. I was stunned at how strong its spirit and its will to live were.

I've killed a few bugs in my life that also put up quite a fight.

Oh, yes. It could be very different. For example, I have a friend who is an American living in Peru with a Peruvian wife from the rainforest. They have a daughter together, who lives in the city, but occasionally goes back with her mom to visit family in the rainforest.

Apparently, my friend's daughter- at the age of 3- while visiting her family in the rainforest, decided she was hungry and so she went out back, grabbed a chicken, and killed it by snapping its neck. Then she casually walked back into the kitchen with it and offered it to her relatives to cook! Needless to say, everybody was shocked by her behavior.

That may have been cultural conditioning. She'd probably seen adults do it.

Sorry to hear you were so mistreated.

Yeah, my childhood really sucked. But that's ok; I'm over it now. Thanks!

I mistreated others as a kid... nothing terribly cruel, mostly unkind words and things like that. Much later on, I finally realized why I did this.

We've all done that. I did it too, to the only girl who got picked on more than me. s*** rolls downhill!

I was never prone to be cruel to animals as many children are.

Glad to hear that!

Although one time I trapped a daddy longlegs underneath a clear plastic cup, and watched as it got baked by the sun. I felt bad about that for a really long time afterwards.

Awww! Have you forgiven yourself?

Well "they" say that our level of development around age 21 is a match to whatever we have previously attained in previous incarnations.

I've never heard that. Who's 'they'?

But gosh- you were "fully awakened" at age 21? As in... you have not awakened further since then?

Oh goodness gracious no!!! I meant, I just woke up...you know...realized I was in the Matrix.

LOL! That would be pretty sad if I hadn't evolved any since then!

According to my understanding, the terms zealot, fanatic, and extremist are closely related. But not exactly the same. They sort of build upon one another.

Yes. I am guilty of a poor choice of words!

Then I wouldn't be a very good vegetarian now would I?

Depends on what your personal goals might be. Occasionally it is good to push one's boundaries and do something very "unusual" for oneself, just for the sake of the experience.

Been there done that! Remember I told you I actually went back to eating meat for a couple of years? Back when I was sick...that's how desperate I was. (It didn't help, by the way.) It was very humbling!

Now that might be a very good example of to the extent necessary.

I'm kind of surprised that topic doesn't have its own thread already! As you know, my take is that part of the genetic tinkering that went on in our past artificially increased the extent to which meat-eating was necessary for certain subpopulations.

Could be!

[Tenet Nosce]

kind of like this?
http://www.lunarplanner.com/HCpages/DivineUnion.html

Essentially, yes. We might quibble over the exact labels in this diagram. Also I might be tempted to use an infinity symbol, rather than a circle.

[Shin'Ar]

As a child I was not naturally inclined to show compassion to animals.

I liked dogs that were friendly, and hated the ones that weren't.

I certainly wasn't stupid enough to get into the field with the bull just to express compassion for its confinement.

Being a boy, I know that most boys I knew were inclined to catch frogs and do horrible things to them believing that frogs don't know the difference. Same with snakes.

Birds were of a different realm and deserved a little more respect than frogs, but that certainly didn't stem our attempts at nailing them with a rock or a slingshot.

Now cats and dogs were thought to be in a higher category still because of their obvious relationship with our human family.

This does not mean that there weren't some boys who would do horrible things to all of those animals, or that there were not some who did not have the desire to harm any of them.

I don't know what type of children Monica grew up with that gives her the impression that most children show compassion toward animals of all kinds, but she certainly did not know any of the kids I grew up with.

Compassion seems to be both, very individual, as well as something that one increases upon as they mature, if they mature into a more compassionate individual. certainly not all mature into a compassionate nature however much we wish they would.

But to make compassion sound as though it is a natural process of being, is to both, deny the very special and glorious quality of those who choose compassion over abuse, and deny the true nature of the duality of existence and the choice all are afforded on that path of evolving into higher being and understanding.

I was a hunter all of my life, and taught the respects and courtesies of becoming one with nature.

I knew the role of predator but appreciated that by design there was a prey for the predator and a natural cycle to maintain it.

As I matured I knew that my childhood tormenting of frogs was not something to be proud of, and I knew that much suffering was being imposed upon innocent animals for no reason.

About 12 years ago I had an experience while out duck hunting which gave me reason to never again hunt when it was not necessary. But I also realize that the marketing of certain animals is what allows me the luxury of not having to hunt for my own food.

My compassionate nature is something that I personally explore with great sincerity, but I am in no way living in any delusion that I am afforded to enjoy such exploration where many others may not be able, or may not choose to.

And I, in my understanding of how we are all living such very different experiences, and tastes, and desires, I cannot decree any particular way of life as being the one way that any person of compassion should follow.

And I would certainly not want to attempt to define compassion for another's experience or way of life by comparing theirs to mine.

In my mind the slaughter of animals for mass marketing is not compassion when there are other ways to feed ourselves and other ways to farm.

But what is in my mind is my experience and understanding alone. Based solely upon my evolution and my state of being.

How can I possibly apply that tiny aspect of The All as a blanket to cover every other aspect and fragment of The All.

Am I to assume that my fragmented experience alone is the mold by which all other experience should be formed?

Should I think this way, and then acknowledge that every other fragment can also declare the same, I propose war, and the effort for one of many to be the one which wins over all others.

And it is exactly this type of ignorance and thinking which participates in that system of selfishness, and exaggerates the continuation of further abuse, whether to animal or man.

[Tenet Nosce]

But that doesn't negate the reality of the moment, and the imprint it leaves on the psyche, which then carries over into future incarnations.

Are you referring to the violent component to the act of killing? If so, I see what you mean. Though that causes me to wonder about when people (or animals) die violently from totally natural means... does that imprint differently?

But I thought finding a baby bird was a very common childhood experience.

The "wanting to save it" is what I think might be overgeneralized. Some might want to kill it. Others might just be afraid of it. Some just feel sad for it, but don't try to save it. Others totally uninterested.... and so on.

The Life realized that afterwards, but when it's still in the midst of physical death, it still wants to stay in the physical.

But it's not all in the physical... the nonphysical portion doesn't experience the forgetting that the physical portion experiences.

Awww! Have you forgiven yourself?

For the most part. The spider-spirits and I now have an agreement- they don't crawl on my body and I will make a best-effort to spare their lives if when they decide to set up shop inside the house, or outside near the entryways. It's worked out pretty well so far!

I've never heard that. Who's 'they'?

If I knew exactly who, I wouldn't have said "they." But I know I've heard that idea more than once, and it seemed to resonate.

[Monica]

Interestingly, I've been hearing of more and more spiritually-aware people suddenly choosing to become vegetarians lately!

I have a friend who was a vegetarian during the late 70s and early 80s, but who is now in a nursing home. I actually encouraged her to let go of being a vegetarian, since it was difficult for her to get vegetarian meals in the nursing home. So for the past 3 years, she's been eating chicken and fish, though refusing the beef.

Suddenly, this week, she decided she could no longer stomach any meat of any kind, and requested no more chicken or fish! Keep in mind, that she doesn't even know about 2012...has no awareness of what's going on in the outside world at all! But for some reason, she suddenly decided to go vegetarian!

Hmmm....

---

Are you referring to the violent component to the act of killing?

If so, I see what you mean. Though that causes me to wonder about when people (or animals) die violently from totally natural means... does that imprint differently?

I don't consider natural means to be violent, though it might be traumatic and sudden. When I say violent I am referring to one entity snuffing out the life of another.

The "wanting to save it" is what I think might be overgeneralized. Some might want to kill it. Others might just be afraid of it. Some just feel sad for it, but don't try to save it. Others totally uninterested.... and so on.

Hmmm...you could be right. It never entered my mind that some children might want to kill it...or ignore it.

[Shin'Ar]

Hmmm...you could be right. It never entered my mind that some children might want to kill it...or ignore it.

And that has been precisely my point all along dear Monica.

That one must consider all of the dynamics involved, the All, so that a beneficial understanding and balancing of it can lead to much more positive consequences of our individually chosen reactions.

Of course, this being stated for the benefit of those reading this thread, and not in expectation of response by any that may choose to deliberately ignore particular posts.

[Tenet Nosce]

Interestingly, I've been hearing of more and more spiritually-aware people suddenly choosing to become vegetarians lately!

I remember something even last year about meat consumption falling in the U.S... I'm not surprised to hear that at all.

I don't consider natural means to be violent, though it might be traumatic and sudden. When I say violent I am referring to one entity snuffing out the life of another.

Isn't Gaia an entity?

Hmmm...you could be right. It never entered my mind that some children might want to kill it...or ignore it.

Yes- that's all I have been trying to say on that angle. It would never occur to somebody like you because the idea is totally foreign to your inner nature and biases.

[Cyan]

Interestingly, I've been hearing of more and more spiritually-aware people suddenly choosing to become vegetarians lately!

I remember something even last year about meat consumption falling in the U.S... I'm not surprised to hear that at all.

Not surprising, and in general, good news.

I don't consider natural means to be violent, though it might be traumatic and sudden. When I say violent I am referring to one entity snuffing out the life of another.

Isn't Gaia an entity?

All entities are eventually snuffed out by anotehr entity, thats called evolution. You are snuffed out by your 4th density self, in a way.

Also, everything is an entity... in its own way. ITs just a matter of how complex an entity it is.

Hmmm...you could be right. It never entered my mind that some children might want to kill it...or ignore it.

Yes- that's all I have been trying to say on that angle. It would never occur to somebody like you because the idea is totally foreign to your inner nature and biases.

I know quite a lot of people would be naturally hostile or harmful to animals going as far as slow and painful deaths by torture. Most people are usually blisfully unaware of this and call it consumerism.

Some people are intentionally evil to animals, both as a child and as a adult, these people are called, in general, psychopaths. Thought not always so, but childhood and adult cruelty to animals is one of the surest indicators of the belief that one is better than others and thus that one is entitled to be cruel because the other is too different to associate with. (Dont believe fishes feel pain is an example of such a widely held belief. Its based entirely on them having a different brain (lacking much of the compelxity of humanoid or mammal brains)