In regards to eating meat

[Nabil Naser]

It is not the eating act alone that matters.
There are many things to consider.
Who is doing the eating?
What is being eaten?

Life will evolve whether we act purposefully or not.

Sometimes we assume too much, often because we know very little.

We feel all kinds of physical and emotional pain, and sometimes we project these feelings to other life forms, such as plants and animals.

Evolutionary cycles differ.

[Namaste]

Great post Pab.

There is only one thing I'd like to point out, it has been measured and documented that plants 'stress' when the intention is held to damage them (or other life).

In summary, Dr Cleve Baxter, a CIA polygraph expert, one day he decided to connect the system to a plant. He noticed an output of a shifting wave pattern (he was expecting it to be continuous/steady), and investigated further. He discovered the plants were responding to the thoughts of people and animals nearby. He proved, quite conclusively, that holding an intention of burning one of the leaves caused the plants recoded output to spike and stress out on a large scale.

He even set up a mechanical (non human mind influenced) setup using a timer that dropped a bowl of shrimp into boiling water (poor things!). The timer was randomised. Each time, the plant registered distress as the shrimp were killed.

For further reading, read The Field and the Intention Experiment. Both books by Lynn McTaggart, both excellent.

Edit: found this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9dP9F5nK...re=related

This is why you should sing (send positive intention/love) to your plants :¬)

[Monica]

There is only one thing I'd like to point out, it has been measured and documented that plants 'stress' when the intention is held to damage them (or other life).

In summary, Dr Cleve Baxter, a CIA polygraph expert, one day he decided to connect the system to a plant. He noticed an output of a shifting wave pattern (he was expecting it to be continuous/steady), and investigated further. He discovered the plants were responding to the thoughts of people and animals nearby. He proved, quite conclusively, that holding an intention of burning one of the leaves caused the plants recoded output to spike and stress out on a large scale.

Burning a leaf is obviously an act of violence to the plant.

The real question is: Would a plant register the same sort of distress when lovingly tended by a gardener, then harvested and eaten by that gardener?

Just doing the test by having a human eat a plant won't suffice, because the intention would still be to just study the plant. The only true test would be if the person conducting the test truly were eating the plant for sustenance. I doubt if such a test has been done, and I question whether it even could be done.

At any rate, the argument that plants feel pain too, does not support the argument of eating animals. Quite the opposite: that's all the more reason to not eat animals, since many more plants are killed, for the purpose of feeding animals. It is far more efficient to eat the plants than to eat animals who ate plants. Far fewer plants are harmed, by humans adopting a plant-based diet. The meat industry kills vast numbers of plants, to support the animals.

[unity100]

Burning a leaf is obviously an act of violence to the plant.

The real question is: Would a plant register the same sort of distress when lovingly tended by a gardener, then harvested and eaten by that gardener?

same goes for an animal.

Just doing the test by having a human eat a plant won't suffice, because the intention would still be to just study the plant. The only true test would be if the person conducting the test truly were eating the plant for sustenance. I doubt if such a test has been done, and I question whether it even could be done.

you are saying that if someone ate the plant for its own self interest, it would make plant less stressed. and if for knowledge, service, science, more stressed.

with that approach, one could justify a lot of things that are in self-interest of the entity, if done 'lovingly'.

[Namaste]

At any rate, the argument that plants feel pain too, does not support the argument of eating animals.

For the record, I didn't post that as an argument, it was purely for the sharing of information in response to Pab's mentioning of plants not 'feeling pain'.

I am not convinced that plants feel pain simply based on what my own 5 senses have observed.

Note that I mentioned stress, and not pain. These are two entirely different concepts.

Pain, as many of us define it, is a sensory product of the central nervous system. We feel pain thanks to our nerves. Our hair and nails do not have nerves and hence we do not feel pain when they are cut or damaged.

However, hair and nail cells do 'sense', as they have been tested in similar ways as the plants by the same man. They respond to emotional spikes of the 'donor'.

Sensing and feeling are entirely different experiences. I have no doubt plants do not feel pain in the same vein as animals do. Different densities; different aspects of consciousness and sensory experience.

L&L

[Monica]

For the record, I didn't post that as an argument, it was purely for the sharing of information in response to Pab's mentioning of plants not 'feeling pain'.

Thank you for that clarification!

Note that I mentioned stress, and not pain. These are two entirely different concepts.

And thank you for that as well...exactly what I was trying to convey.

Pain, as many of us define it, is a sensory product of the central nervous system. We feel pain thanks to our nerves. Our hair and nails do not have nerves and hence we do not feel pain when they are cut or damaged.

Excellent point.

However, hair and nail cells do 'sense', as they have been tested in similar ways as the plants by the same man. They respond to emotional spikes of the 'donor'.

Very fascinating! I wasn't aware of this. I find this highly significant.

Sensing and feeling are entirely different experiences. I have no doubt plants do not feel pain in the same vein as animals do. Different densities; different aspects of consciousness and sensory experience.

Agreed!

---

same goes for an animal.

I disagree, because the animal never wants to be eaten. Animals always fight for their last breath. They make their choice clear.

It's debatable whether plants have offered themselves to be consumed by humans. I contend that they have. You say that haven't. We can disagree on that point, but we cannot disagree that animals want to be eaten, because animals make it very clear that they don't.

you are saying that if someone ate the plant for its own self interest, it would make plant less stressed. and if for knowledge, service, science, more stressed.

Correct, with the modification that I would replace 'self interest' with 'sustenance.'

with that approach, one could justify a lot of things that are in self-interest of the entity, if done 'lovingly'.

That's true. In most of those cases, I think it would be a gross denial of what's really happening and used as an excuse. The only way to pull this off would be to be completely honest with oneself.

And that is easier said than done, by any of us.

But the fact that something can be abused and distorted, does not necessarily negate its applicability in certain situations.

The fact that this line of reasoning can be used to justify something that is obviously cruelty, does not negate its application in situations that might not be cruel.

Ie., just because it can be proven conclusively (with simple observation) that animals don't want to be eaten, doesn't necessarily prove that plants likewise never want to be eaten.

One does not prove or disprove the other.

Just because we know that animals are self-aware enough to fight us when we try to kill and eat them, doesn't mean that we might not have an agreement with plants, in a symbiotic, mutually beneficial relationship.

If this is true, it is a corruption to use that argument to justify killing animals, whom we know do not want to be tortured or killed. They have let us know that, conclusively.

You may be right that plants are the same as animals. If you do turn out to be right, then we have even more of a challenge.

Most humans have a hard enough time just thinking about eliminating meat. To ask them to also eliminate plants, would be setting ourselves up for sure failure, because humans have to eat something.

Even Yogis who advocate a sattvic diet acknowledge that eating even plants incurs some karma. They say the only true karma-free diet is a diet of fruits only.

I wholeheartedly agree with this! I consider fruitarianism to be the ultimate goal, as long as we still exist in 3D and need to sustain our physical bodies.

Eventually, that will give way to the nectar spoken of by Ra.

In the meantime, I would rather see people quit contributing to the obvious torture of animals. Asking them to quit consuming plants would be useless, at this point.

Later, after most humans understand the suffering of animals, maybe we can talk about the suffering of plants.

But right now, I think that is counterproductive. Most people will not make such drastic changes overnight. It is useless to ask someone to go from eating hamburgers to eating fruit only!

Look at how, even here in a spiritual community, so many people are still denying the suffering of animals; late 2D entities with faces, facial expressions, and obvious communication of pain.

If we tell those people, oh by the way, quit eating everything except fruit, we might as well just give it up. Ain't gonna happen.

I know a lot of otherwise spiritual people who think I am an 'extremist' for not eating animals. Fruitarian? Ha, they'd have a field day with that one.

For the record, unity100, I agree with you that fruitarianism is the ultimate goal and the truly only karma-free diet.

Where I disagree is that I don't think plants=animals. I think we must work in stages, and gravitate towards our ultimate goal. We have to start someplace, and eliminating the obvious suffering is a good place to start. Once we accomplish that, we can then work on the next step.

We must make changes, in ways that are reasonable and feasible.

[unity100]

I disagree, because the animal never wants to be eaten. Animals always fight for their last breath. They make their choice clear.

It's debatable whether plants have offered themselves to be consumed by humans. I contend that they have. You say that haven't. We can disagree on that point, but we cannot disagree that animals want to be eaten, because animals make it very clear that they don't.

i disagree, because there is no pointer that can formulate an agreement that goes 'plants have offered themselves to be consumed by humans'.

the fact that plant is an immobile creature, and does not talk or scream or yell the way an animal does, is not a validation for 'offering itself for consumption'. there are a lot of non plant creatures which cannot scream or yell. that doesnt make them 'free for consumption'.

correct, with the modification that I would replace 'self interest' with 'sustenance.'

the reason for ending the bodily manifestation of any entity does not matter. what matters is, the bodily manifestation of an entity ends. since the reason for 2d existence is trying to progress, develop without getting disseminated, and also move at will, with direction. both animals and plants (and heaven knows what kind of other creature types that exist in the existence) do it in their own style.

one thing common is, once their bodily incarnation ends, they cannot progress and move their self. they need another incarnation.

If we tell those people, oh by the way, quit eating everything except fruit, we might as well just give it up. Ain't gonna happen.

this is about us, ourselves, than other people. other people have their own spirits, their own path, own route. they may not even be able to come to the same point in a hundred million years, or they may come to it in a flash of lightning. they will follow their own spirit's path.

its about us. our choices and understandings at any given point, will shape our future experience and where these experiences will be, with whom, and their nature.

[Monica]

i disagree, because there is no pointer that can formulate an agreement that goes 'plants have offered themselves to be consumed by humans'.

You're right that it cannot be proven that such an agreement exists. I am basing this on my own experience with herbs and with my garden, as well as reading of others' experiences with plant devas, such as the beautifully written Findhorn Garden. I have also visited Findhorn and have seen this relationship in action. It is something beautiful; not grisly like a slaughterhouse.

However, I am well aware that some people claiming to be shamans or psychics, claim to have communicated with animals, and they claim to have the same relationship with animals. I don't see how this could be possible, being that animals have clearly, indisputably, communicated their pain and distress to us. I think those psychics are simply justifying their desire for meat, because their opinion directly conflicts with simple observation (by going to a slaughterhouse).

My opinion is subjective. When it comes to plants, it cannot be proven one way or the other.

Therefore, I respect your opinion that plants feel pain as much as animals do, though I am not yet convinced of that.

In the case of animals, it is an entirely different matter, in the sense that we KNOW they don't want to be killed.

In the case of plants, it is still a subject for much debate and discussion.

My objective is to start with that which we KNOW.

the fact that plant is an immobile creature, and does not talk or scream or yell the way an animal does, is not a validation for 'offering itself for consumption'. there are a lot of non plant creatures which cannot scream or yell. that doesnt make them 'free for consumption'.

That's true. Your logic is sound. Which is why I offer these ideas as speculative only, and do not claim them to be fact.

the reason for ending the bodily manifestation of any entity does not matter.

I disagree here. I think it does matter. Different beings have different life cycles and different agendas for physical incarnation. Being that plants provide food for all higher lifeforms on this planet, it is reasonable to surmise that being consumed by higher lifeforms might be part of their normal life cycle.

Not provable, but reasonable as a possibility.

what matters is, the bodily manifestation of an entity ends. since the reason for 2d existence is trying to progress, develop without getting disseminated, and also move at will, with direction. both animals and plants (and heaven knows what kind of other creature types that exist in the existence) do it in their own style.

Yes. Key word here being in their own style. Which is precisely the point I made in my last comment. We don't really know the objective of plants. We can only speculate. It would be just as inaccurate to say we know they desire to be eaten, as it would be to say we know they don't. Either one is a viable possibility.

Whereas, with animals, we can safely say that one of those possibilities has been eliminated.

one thing common is, once their bodily incarnation ends, they cannot progress and move their self. they need another incarnation.

It is less tangible as to when their incarnation ends. Does a lettuce incarnation end when some leaves are harvested? Is a new soul born when a strand of ivy is cut from the plant and planted on its own, growing into a new plant?

Is the plant even an entity at all, if it's not yet self-aware?

This is the crux of the issue. As I asked previously in this thread, at what point does elemental life become an entity?

Is a rock an entity? If I crush a rock, is each little shard an entity?

this is about us, ourselves, than other people. other people have their own spirits, their own path, own route. they may not even be able to come to the same point in a hundred million years, or they may come to it in a flash of lightning. they will follow their own spirit's path.

its about us. our choices and understandings at any given point, will shape our future experience and where these experiences will be, with whom, and their nature.

It's true that we can't control what others do. I agree we have to start with ourselves.

However, part of our own spiritual growth is in recognizing that we do affect others. We have to take responsibility for that. Especially now, when many of us incarnated with the express purpose of lightening the vibration on this planet.

[unity100]

You're right that it cannot be proven that such an agreement exists. I am basing this on my own experience with herbs and with my garden, as well as reading of others' experiences with plant devas, such as the beautifully written Findhorn Garden. I have also visited Findhorn and have seen this relationship in action. It is something beautiful; not grisly like a slaughterhouse.

However, I am well aware that some people claiming to be shamans or psychics, claim to have communicated with animals, and they claim to have the same relationship with animals. I don't see how this could be possible, being that animals have clearly, indisputably, communicated their pain and distress to us. I think those psychics are simply justifying their desire for meat, because their opinion directly conflicts with simple observation (by going to a slaughterhouse).

My opinion is subjective. When it comes to plants, it cannot be proven one way or the other.

both channelings and information, can be considered subjective.

I disagree here. I think it does matter. Different beings have different life cycles and different agendas for physical incarnation. Being that plants provide food for all higher lifeforms on this planet, it is reasonable to surmise that being consumed by higher lifeforms might be part of their normal life cycle.

Not provable, but reasonable as a possibility.

it is stated in Ra material that the purpose of 1d is learning to move, progress without dissemination. 2d is development of self.

ending bodily incarnation of an entity, which stops both the development of incarnated self, and also ends any possibility of that manifesting self from moving/developing without dissemination (red ray activity), in the end means ending the incarnation purpose of that entity into 2d experience.

the only thing that can be argued, is, by ending the other entity's self-experience in physical realm, the other entity is providing a catalyst. but that goes both ways.

Yes. Key word here being in their own style. Which is precisely the point I made in my last comment. We don't really know the objective of plants. We can only speculate. It would be just as inaccurate to say we know they desire to be eaten, as it would be to say we know they don't. Either one is a viable possibility.

Whereas, with animals, we can safely say that one of those possibilities has been eliminated.

as based on the meaning of 2d, orange ray, we can easily say that ANY kind of incarnation, would not like being killed. because, it ends the purpose of orange ray activity.

its not something complicated. orange ray is the ray of self, self progress, needs, desires, enjoyment, pains and so on. once the body is killed, there is no more orange ray activity manifested.

based on the information we are given, this is valid for any existence in this creation. orange ray experience, does not differentiate in between any kind of lifeform.

lifeforms we know here, lifeforms we dont know elsewhere, use and develop with orange ray, because it is the same orange ray everywhere.

It is less tangible as to when their incarnation ends. Does a lettuce incarnation end when some leaves are harvested? Is a new soul born when a strand of ivy is cut from the plant and planted on its own, growing into a new plant?

Is the plant even an entity at all, if it's not yet self-aware?

This is the crux of the issue. As I asked previously in this thread, at what point does elemental life become an entity?

Is a rock an entity? If I crush a rock, is each little shard an entity?

any given entity in 2d, stands on whatever level they are at orange ray. that is, they are as aware as their level. after all, ra tells us they are an octave of consciousness, in 2d. there is no distinction named at any point, even impliedly, for any possibility of being any kind of relevance in between bodily incarnation forms, and self awareness level.

so, whatever level in orange ray a living entity is, its at that level.

at what point elemental life becomes an entity ? firstly, we need to remember that the term 'entity' is used for a lot of things, even for thought-form bigfoots, in Ra material. i will suppose that you have meant 'self aware entity'.

self awareness is something that builds up towards 2d. and at the end of 2d, the entity is so aware of its own desires, needs that, it is now able to cross the threshold of 3d, and realize that, it is an independent entity with its own will. up till this point, the self awareness of entity is still there, building up. it has needs, desires, pleasures, dislikes and so on. it develops and progresses. as said before, 2d is an octave of consciousness. there is no 0 at the start of the density, and a sudden 1 at the end. it comes from 0, to 1.

and even more, apparently places, leave aside rocks, stones, 1 d material etc, can pass the threshold into 3d, by being aware that they exists as an independent, self-willed entity, in the Ra material. even if rare, it is possible. a place, not even a rock, or a collection of rocks, a certain place can become self aware as an independent entity. where is its body ? where is its mind ? but it can become self aware as an independent entity.

that means, in the duration that it reaches that independent self awareness, it will be moving towards 2d, and becoming increasingly aware of its own self, its desires, needs and so on. a very very provoking piece of information.

[Eddie]

Insightful comments by George Kavassilas here:

George Kavassilas discusses vegetarianism and carnivory

I agree with him.

[kycahi]

The 3D life is filled with conundra. For example, it forces us to eat to survive, so we end up "killing" plants and animals. We evolve to not liking that necessity, and might feel guilt, yet I happen to believe that shame is okay but guilt is self-destructive.

Recall that many animals eat plants and the rest eat animals. Yuck, unless it's okay, and I think it is. We are One, so when we eat food we eat an aspect of ourselves. Yes, all things have consciousness and, IMHO, all things want that and accept the consequences.

Thinking that way, does anything go? Yes and no, IMHO. 2D experience is participation in that density for purposes expounded elsewhere. 3D experience, of any kind, is valid too, but we might as well gain from it. Respecting things before and after "killing" them and before and after eating them certainly can't hurt our goal of living the LOO. Might result in weight loss, too.

Eat vegetarian / vegan if that aligns you toward the One; I think it will. OTOH, be not harsh toward those who follow another way. I remember something channeled by the L/L group (don't remember offhand whether from Ra) that said you do more harm to the earth by being judgmental toward people who pollute it than their pollution does. I thought that was stretching it, but now I see the truth of it. First because polluting is experience. Second, when I am judgmental I separate myself from the "offender" by considering myself better.

[BlatzAdict]

Eat vegetarian / vegan if that aligns you toward the One; I think it will. OTOH, be not harsh toward those who follow another way. I remember something channeled by the L/L group (don't remember offhand whether from Ra) that said you do more harm to the earth by being judgmental toward people who pollute it than their pollution does. I thought that was stretching it, but now I see the truth of it. First because polluting is experience. Second, when I am judgmental I separate myself from the "offender" by considering myself better.

and that is exactly why anyone who follows any altruistic path can fall into the ego trap soo soo sooo easily.

[Monica]

This is not another doom and gloom piece about how eating meat is destroying the planet, I promise.

But Ecorazzi senior editor Michael Parrish DuDell's recent blog about environmentalists partying with beef tartar got me thinking: If people know about the massive global damage caused by meat production, why is making a change so difficult? Is it because people don't care? Is it because it's too difficult to give up meat? I'd argue it's neither. It's simply because we all think: it's just me and my burger, what's the difference?

Well, instead of more stark statistics and guilt, I thought I'd try something different: inspirational facts on the difference you could be making. The source for the following list is Marianne Thieme's amazing documentary, Meat the Truth, a quirky, unauthorized sequel of sorts to the more famed An Inconvenient Truth. You can watch an abbreviated version of the film here.

from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mikko-alan...99187.html

“More than 20 million people and 12 million head of livestock are short of drinking water… The choice of whether to use water for people or farming is becoming more difficult.” – From CCTV (China’s national television station)

Video: http://bit.ly/ceDmgz

“...it takes 4,000 liters of water to produce one steak, while it only takes 1,100 liters to grow a vegan enough food for a whole day. Read more here: http://bit.ly/cHxEqT

Video: http://bit.ly/9sk4N5

10 WTF Statistics on Meat and Global Warming

1. If every American (300 million) gave up meat for 1 day a week, this would have the same positive effect on reducing greenhouse gases as saving 90 million plane tickets from New York to Los Angeles!
2. If every American gave up meat for 2 days of the week, this would have the same effect as replacing all household appliances like fridges, freezers, microwave ovens, dishwashers, washing machines, tumble dryers and so on and so forth, by energy efficient ones.
3. If all Americans gave up meat for 3 days a week, they would save almost 300 megatons of greenhouse gas emissions. This would have a greater impact on reducing global warming than if all cars in the US were replaced with Toyota Priuses.
4. If everyone in the US did not eat meat for 4 days a week, they would save 398 megatons of greenhouse gas emissions. This would be the carbon savings equivalent of cutting the use of all electricity, gas, oil, petroleum, and kerosene in the United States in half.
5. If all Americans abstained from eating meat for 5 days a week, they would save 498 megatons of greenhouse gas emissions. This would result in the carbon savings equivalent of planting 13 billion trees and letting them grow for ten years.
6. If all Americans did not eat meat for 6 days a week, they would save nearly 600 megatons of greenhouse gas emissions. This would be the equivalent of eliminating the total electricity use of all households in the United States.
7. And finally: If everyone in the United States ate a vegetarian diet for 7 days, they would save around 700 megatons of greenhouse gas emissions. That would be the same as removing all the cars off the roads in the US.

* The calculations used in the documentary “Meat the Truth” derive from and have been validated by many sources including the Food and Agricultural Organisation of the UN FAO and the World Watch Institute. It was produced under the consultation of many scientific institutions, which can be viewed on its website: http://www.meatthetruth.nl/en/about-the-...h-sources/

[BlatzAdict]

i'm waiting for genetically modified plants to grow meat.. so we can have vegan friendly meat. then i'll be the first one to eat it..

but then since plants have 2D souls too... ppl will be all fighting for plant rights.... right?

[Crown]

I want to say that i was finally convinced that eating meat is wrong. I took the decision to stop and it brought a tear to my eye. I had a flashback of some sort and i saw all the animals that i participated in eating and killing them... I was sitting on the computer alone at night and i started crying.


I have been eating meat for 20 years and now, i have gone 2 full days without eating any type of eat. Thats it! no more meat for me!


I always knew and understood the reaons but what convinced me was something said in a video i watched. It said, that when you eat an animal you eat all of its life, memories, stress and experience. This whole act lowers our vibrational rate.


What Unity and Monica were discussing is truly interesting but i wanted to add something. It is possible to eat plants without ending their proccess of growth and evolution. If you pick a fruit off a tree for an example, the tree continues to grow. Now, ofcourse our thoughts and intentions must be aligned with the plant to some extent. Things like thanking the plant and giving it love are one of the right things to do. Also, i wanted to note how some plants require to be eaten s othey can spread their seeds. This is not relevant for human beings but it could be. If you eat a plant, you can take a s*** in nature, and the seeds can possibly grow into a tree


Anyway i am happy that i no longer support the meat industry.



Edit: oh and @Namaste: Yes! i remember this. Thank you for reminding me and posting that link up.

[unity100]

What Unity and Monica were discussing is truly interesting but i wanted to add something. It is possible to eat plants without ending their proccess of growth and evolution. If you pick a fruit off a tree for an example, the tree continues to grow.

in that example, you are eating a fruit. not the plant. if, you actually plant that fruit and take care of it, interaction in between you and the tree and the future sapling would be close to complete.

the tree actually coats the seed with fruit material for the seed to be able to use that material to grow. so, eating a fruit is like stealing a sapling's insurance in most cases. however if you tend and feed the seed, supplying it with fertilizer, there would have happened an exchange.

with that, there are trees that use animals to disperse their seeds, with fruits specially designed for that.

[Bring4th_Austin]

I will withhold my opinion for now, but I do have something to add to the discussion between Monica and Unity.

Monica argues that an animal never wants to be eaten, and we can't prove the same for plants because plants can't scream or run in fear.

Most chickens are completely docile at night (the darker, the more docile). You can catch them, hang them up, and slaughter them without any struggle or even a peep out of them.

Does this mean it's okay to eat chickens, as long as it killed at at night? It's as easy and peaceful as uprooting a carrot.

[Monica]

Does this mean it's okay to eat chickens, as long as it killed at at night? It's as easy and peaceful as uprooting a carrot.

By that logic, then it would be 'ok' to kill a comatose person, or a sleeping person. That's just taking advantage of vulnerability. I think you missed the point I was trying to make.

Chickens are vulnerable at night. Humans are vulnerable when asleep, when sick, or when they are children. It's not about vulnerability. It's about whether the entity would choose to be eaten, when faced with the choice. A sleeping human cannot choose to be killed or raped. A chicken at night cannot choose to run away. But an awake, able-bodied human can choose to fight, just as an awake chicken can choose to run away.

Carrots have no capability to run away. It's not a vulnerability but an inherent design. I contend that an entity conscious enough to not want to be eaten, would not choose to incarnate into the body of a carrot. Just as a human soul who doesn't want to be vulnerable due to some handicap, would not choose to incarnate into a body that is handicapped. We've also chosen various catalyst. My Higher Self clearly didn't have fashion model on the agenda for me, since I am too short to be a model. But I sleep, like all other humans. When we are awake, we are able to choose: No thanks, no violence for me today.

Likewise, when animals are awake, they too choose to run away from being killed. Not so with plants. But it's not because of vulnerability at certain times of day, or because of programmed catalyst (like a handicap or short stature). It's inherent design. NO carrots can run. NO lettuces can run. This says to me that, across the board, carrots and lettuces don't seem to mind being nibbled by higher creatures, and maybe they even have chosen this as their service. The fact that plants bring forth life and healing, is a clue. Animal 'foods' bring forth death and disease. Plants, in contrast, provide health-giving foods and medicine. This is significant!

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe plants do feel pain. But even if that's true, then that is all the MORE reason to not eat animals! Many many more plants are killed, in order to clear forests to graze cattle, and many more plants are killed to feed those animals.

No matter how you slice it, it's still much more efficient, and causes much less suffering, to eat plants directly.

[Bring4th_Austin]

Does this mean it's okay to eat chickens, as long as it killed at at night? It's as easy and peaceful as uprooting a carrot.

Chickens are vulnerable at night. Humans are vulnerable when asleep, when sick, or when they are children. It's not about vulnerability. It's about whether the entity would choose to be eaten, when faced with the choice. A sleeping human cannot choose to be killed or raped. A chicken at night cannot choose to run away. But an awake, able-bodied human can choose to fight, just as an awake chicken can choose to run away.

Just to clarify, the chicken is awake the entire time, just completely docile. Even in the face of complete danger, such as a fox or possum sneaking into the chicken house, the chickens make no noise or movement. This is one reason it is so important to have a protective housing for chickens at nighttime.

Carrots have no capability to run away. It's not a vulnerability but an inherent design. I contend that an entity conscious enough to not want to be eaten, would not choose to incarnate into the body of a carrot. Just as a human soul who doesn't want to be vulnerable due to some handicap, would not choose to incarnate into a body that is handicapped.

Just as an entity who would not want to be vulnerable to being eaten at night would not incarnate as a chicken, no?

Likewise, when animals are awake, they too choose to run away from being killed. Not so with plants. But it's not because of vulnerability at certain times of day, or because of programmed catalyst (like a handicap or short stature). It's inherent design.

Isn't the chicken's docile state during the night an inherent design? Like I said, these chickens are awake. I don't know what sort of programming causes them to be so docile at night, but it exists, and has existed long before any of the chickens alive today "decided" to incarnate as chickens. If a carrot is a carrot because it plans on being eaten, why would a chicken choose to be a chicken knowing it would become docile and vulnerable at night, even in a waking state? Even further, why would any meat animal choose to incarnate as a meat animal, knowing its fate were to be eaten, if it did not desire this experience?

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe plants do feel pain. But even if that's true, then that is all the MORE reason to not eat animals! Many many more plants are killed, in order to clear forests to graze cattle, and many more plants are killed to feed those animals.

No matter how you slice it, it's still much more efficient, and causes much less suffering, to eat plants directly.

The chickens on our farm are completely self-sustained, eating leftover veggies we have, and all the bugs and worms they can. So by your logic, isn't it just as efficient and suffer-less to humanely (supposedly painlessly) to consume chickens, killed at night, raised on a sustainable farm?

I'm much more playing devil's advocate than actually arguing my own opinion...I feel there is much to contemplate in this debate. I believe becoming vegetarian and then fruitarian will be a natural evolution for humanity. I thought I could offer an unique perspective working on a sustainable farm which produces veggies as well as meat.

[unity100]

Isn't the chicken's docile state during the night an inherent design? Like I said, these chickens are awake. I don't know what sort of programming causes them to be so docile at night, but it exists, and has existed long before any of the chickens alive today "decided" to incarnate as chickens. If a carrot is a carrot because it plans on being eaten, why would a chicken choose to be a chicken knowing it would become docile and vulnerable at night, even in a waking state? Even further, why would any meat animal choose to incarnate as a meat animal, knowing its fate were to be eaten, if it did not desire this experience?

that's quite a sharp and clear perception of the question.

[Monica]

Just to clarify, the chicken is awake the entire time, just completely docile. Even in the face of complete danger, such as a fox or possum sneaking into the chicken house, the chickens make no noise or movement. This is one reason it is so important to have a protective housing for chickens at nighttime.

OK now I will play devil's advocate back.

If this docility is being used to argue that the chicken wants to be eaten by the fox, then why would you want to intrude on that arrangement by protecting the chicken from the fox?

At any rate, unless some farmers add the label "killed at night while in their docile state" to their packaging, it's moot, because most farm animals aren't slaughtered in their docile state.

By that logic, a rapist would get a more lenient sentence if he raped only drunk women, who are awake by less likely to say no. Yet, rapists who rape drunk women are considered even more heinous, because they are taking advantage of the woman's vulnerability.

Just as an entity who would not want to be vulnerable to being eaten at night would not incarnate as a chicken, no?

I see where you're going with this.

Apparently, on some level, we have all chosen to incarnate in positions of vulnerability, suffering, being victimized, etc. Human victims of murder, rape, war, etc. have all chosen those experiences as catalyst.

But no one here will say that it's ok to murder or rape another human.

Isn't the chicken's docile state during the night an inherent design? Like I said, these chickens are awake. I don't know what sort of programming causes them to be so docile at night, but it exists, and has existed long before any of the chickens alive today "decided" to incarnate as chickens. If a carrot is a carrot because it plans on being eaten, why would a chicken choose to be a chicken knowing it would become docile and vulnerable at night, even in a waking state? Even further, why would any meat animal choose to incarnate as a meat animal, knowing its fate were to be eaten, if it did not desire this experience?

The same reason a human would choose to be born in poverty, or in a war-torn country, or to an abusive father, or as a murder victim. Catalyst.

That doesn't mean we have to participate. That's what the STS path is for: their job is to provide catalyst. Someone's gotta do the dirty work.

Just because there is a purpose to catalyst, doesn't make it ok for STO entities to knowingly provide catalyst.

The chickens on our farm are completely self-sustained, eating leftover veggies we have, and all the bugs and worms they can. So by your logic, isn't it just as efficient and suffer-less to humanely (supposedly painlessly) to consume chickens, killed at night, raised on a sustainable farm?

How is slaughter ever humane?

I'm much more playing devil's advocate than actually arguing my own opinion...I feel there is much to contemplate in this debate. I believe becoming vegetarian and then fruitarian will be a natural evolution for humanity.

I too see it as an evolution. I see the sustainable farm as you describe, to be a step in that evolutionary process. There is no question that such a farm incurs less suffering than factory farms, so I commend your efforts to give the animals a good life!

Contrary to the opinions of vegans, who refuse to use any animal products at all, I consider the use of eggs produced by chickens so raised, to be a power-packed and humanely produced food. I have no issues with the use of eggs from free-ranging hens. What a wonderful protein food! Perfect for filling in the nutritional blanks for those who might feel they require animal protein, but no animal suffered.

Where I disagree is in the act of slaughter itself. I consider the term humane slaughter an oxymoron.

I thought I could offer an unique perspective working on a sustainable farm which produces veggies as well as meat.

Thank you for sharing your perspective.

[Bring4th_Austin]

At any rate, unless some farmers add the label "killed at night while in their docile state" to their packaging, it's moot, because most farm animals aren't slaughtered in their docile state.

No doubt, and I completely agree with you that the mainly corporate animal food industry today is horrible and heartless. I do not support it at all!

By that logic, a rapist would get a more lenient sentence if he raped only drunk women, who are awake by less likely to say no. Yet, rapists who rape drunk women are considered even more heinous, because they are taking advantage of the woman's vulnerability.

Good point! Leading to...

I see where you're going with this.

Apparently, on some level, we have all chosen to incarnate in positions of vulnerability, suffering, being victimized, etc. Human victims of murder, rape, war, etc. have all chosen those experiences as catalyst.

But no one here will say that it's ok to murder or rape another human.

"There's no such thing as a victim, only a willing participant." I totally subscribe to that theory in the same sense as you. I feel I've bridged a gap that probably shouldn't be bridged...of course the soul of the food animal understands what it is incarnating into, but it doesn't mean the physical animal will feel at peace being put into that situation.

Contrary to the opinions of vegans, who refuse to use any animal products at all, I consider the use of eggs produced by chickens so raised, to be a power-packed and humanely produced food. I have no issues with the use of eggs from free-ranging hens. What a wonderful protein food! Perfect for filling in the nutritional blanks for those who might feel they require animal protein, but no animal suffered.

Eggs are incredible! Strange note, too...if the chickens see a cracked egg they will devour it immediately! They'll even knock over the basket of eggs to break them and go to town on the buffet. Kind of weird, but I feel it supports your point in a way...eggs from happy chickens are perfectly okay to eat for people who abstain from eating meat due to treatment of animals (since they indulge in them themselves!).

Where I disagree is in the act of slaughter itself. I consider the term humane slaughter an oxymoron.

The devil's advocate in me wants to point out that you could consider uprooting a carrot slaughter...you are effectively ending that entities dance with its reality. Chickens are 2D entities much more similar to us than carrots, but just because there is no blood doesn't mean you aren't causing that entity's physical vehicle to become inviable. This is where I was trying to draw similarities between killing a chicken at night and uprooting a carrot; they're both seemingly peaceful, but do we know what's going on beyond our perception? Since the debated topic is whether this carrot is okay with being uprooted, I'm guessing you would not consider this slaughter, while an opposing viewpoint would. I suppose that fact will remain to be decided by personal opinion.

[Monica]

No doubt, and I completely agree with you that the mainly corporate animal food industry today is horrible and heartless. I do not support it at all!

I'm glad we agree on that!

"There's no such thing as a victim, only a willing participant." I totally subscribe to that theory in the same sense as you. I feel I've bridged a gap that probably shouldn't be bridged...of course the soul of the food animal understands what it is incarnating into, but it doesn't mean the physical animal will feel at peace being put into that situation.

Right. Nor does it mean, in my opinion, that it's 'ok' for STO-oriented entities to participate, any more than it's 'ok' for STO entities to assist in providing catalyst to the person who wants to be a murder victim, even though a human murder victim has programmed that catalyst as well.

Eggs are incredible! Strange note, too...if the chickens see a cracked egg they will devour it immediately! They'll even knock over the basket of eggs to break them and go to town on the buffet. Kind of weird, but I feel it supports your point in a way.

I didn't know that! That is interesting. Animals are sometimes cannibalistic.

...eggs from happy chickens are perfectly okay to eat for people who abstain from eating meat due to treatment of animals (since they indulge in them themselves!).

I agree that free-range eggs are ok to eat, for those who abstain from animal foods for ethical reasons. I don't think I would agree that chickens indulging in them, themselves, is a reason though, since other animals sometimes eat their 'defective' or dying young, so I wouldn't use that as a justification.

I think eggs are a perfect protein source that are cruelty-free, provided they are free-range. But commercially-produced eggs are laced with hormones, and the chickens are kept in horrible conditions.

I do think some vegans miss the point sometimes. Some common sense is in order here. Getting fresh, raw goat's milk from a farmer who treats his goats well isn't harming the goats. Nor is eating eggs from hens who are allowed to roam freely, since they lay eggs anyway.

However, there is a lot of deception in labeling. Cheese labeled 'organic' just means it didn't have hormones or antibiotics added injected into the cow. It doesn't mean the cow was treated well. Cows are tortured in commercial dairy farms just as much as the cows being raised for meat. Commercially produced milk products support that cruelty and is therefore the same as meat, in that regard.

But if I can be certain that the eggs were from free-range hens, I wouldn't have any issues with eating those eggs. Same with dairy products, but it's even trickier with dairy products.

Also, I do appreciate what the vegans are trying to accomplish. By avoiding all dairy and eggs, they avoid the entire dilemma. When one regularly consumes cheese, it's too easy to just go ahead and eat that pizza, even though the cheese on that pizza was almost certainly from a cow that was treated horribly. And I respect that vegans avoid all baked goods containing eggs, since, in most cases, the eggs were commercially produced under torturous conditions.

The devil's advocate in me wants to point out that you could consider uprooting a carrot slaughter...you are effectively ending that entities dance with its reality.

This argument is commonly presented, so I've heard it many times before. Bring it on!

Uprooting a carrot doesn't kill it. Put that carrot in your kitchen cupboard and a few weeks later it will have grown sprouts. Same with potatoes, onions, etc.

It's still alive.

NOTE: What I'm about to say is graphic so might be offensive to some. Please skip this post if you find discussion of eating plants offensive.

There is a huge raw vegan movement. I find it significant that plant foods promote healing, whereas animal foods are known contributors to disease. Many people are experiencing dramatic healing by becoming vegetarians, with even more rapid healing if they go all the way to raw vegan.

Why would this be?

My theory is that the life-force is still present in raw vegan foods, and this life-force is imparted to the person; whereas, the life-force of the animal is long gone by the time its carcass is purchased from the meat department at the store.

Packaged, denatured foods don't have any life-force left either.

But living plants still have life-force. We've all seen office ivy plants spreading, and a co-worker asks for a cutting, and that little strip of plant becomes a new plant, without harming the original plant. A piece of potato can be planted and will sprout into a new plant, making more potatoes.

To me, these attributes of plants support my belief that they haven't yet developed an individual consciousness. I think they are lower 2D entities, and are more like appendages of the planet, much as our hair and fingernails are to us. I see plants as Earth providing for us, much as a mother suckles her baby.

We know from Ra that trees, and as unity100 has pointed out, even places, can develop an individual consciousness. We also know from Ra that this happens more readily with cats and dogs, since they are interacting with humans. I've had cats reincarnate back into our family before. I just don't think a lettuce has had enough invested in it to become individuated. Its lifespan is too short, and the likelihood of a human actually spending that much time and energy drawing out the consciousness of a lettuce is exceedingly rare (though probably possible).

Thus, in my view, plants generally have group consciousness, not individual. (I'm referring to garden plants here...we know that many ancient trees have individual consciousness.) This is also supported by work with plant devas, such as what they did at Findhorn. In light of what we know about the power of live plants to heal the human body, it seems logical to theorize that, at this nexus anyway, Earth's plants have chosen this type of service.

When a live carrot is eaten, has its dance with reality been ended? Or could its consciousness be merging with ours? In which case, being eaten by a human might be to the carrot, like merging into blissful larger life might be to us.

This theoretical on my part, but to me it makes sense. The Earth is extremely polluted. One out of 3 people get cancer. Children have already received their lifetime's allotment of pesticides by age 2. There are now reports of teenagers having heart attacks and babies being born with cancer.

A plant-based diet, especially a raw vegan diet, imparts strength to the person, and the ability to prevent and even heal these modern plagues. Whereas, animal foods make them worse. This has to be significant!

Ultimately, only a totally fruitarian diet is totally karma-free. And even that could be argued, if we don't complete the cycle of planting fruit seeds. As long as we exist in 3D, we have to eat something. I look forward to consuming nectar only. Adopting a vegetarian diet isn't perfect. But it's an easily accomplished first step on the continuum towards nectar or even breatharianism.

A human isn't likely to go from eating animals to eating fruit only. Plants are needed to heal the body from decades of eating dead animals and denatured foods. It's easy to be healthy without meat (provided they get educated). Not so easy to be healthy without plants.

We know from Ra that the UniVerse is hierarchial. I contend that the karma incurred from eating is also hierarchial. I think most of us would agree that a human's life has more value to us than a dog's life. (Though some might disagree, with their own pet vs. a murderer, for example.) Fortunately, we aren't usually in a position to make such a judgement, other than theoretically in psychology class.

But we do make such choices with our diets. I find the argument "plants feel pain too...you are slaughtering plants too" weak. (I realize you aren't arguing that point, abridgetoofar, but were playing devil's advocate, so this isn't directed at you personally.)

Whether plants feel pain or have individuated consciousness, is speculative. But it's not speculative regarding animals. We know they do.

Since the debated topic is whether this carrot is okay with being uprooted, I'm guessing you would not consider this slaughter, while an opposing viewpoint would. I suppose that fact will remain to be decided by personal opinion.

The bottom line is that we don't really know the other entity's level of consciousness, or intended agenda for its incarnation. And, we cannot completely avoid harming other creatures, as long as we're in 3D. We absorb into our bodies microbes, bacteria, etc. each time we take a breath. Are we slaughtering microbes?

It's the design of this planet. However, we can minimize that which is obvious suffering by obviously sentient beings.

[unity100]

This argument is commonly presented, so I've heard it many times before. Bring it on!

Uprooting a carrot doesn't kill it. Put that carrot in your kitchen cupboard and a few weeks later it will have grown sprouts. Same with potatoes, onions, etc.

It's still alive.

yes. it stores it in a cold, dark refrigerator in order to eat/kill them later.

[3DMonkey]

yes. it stores it in a cold, dark refrigerator in order to eat/kill them later.

LOL.....

Put a fish on the dock and it will breath for a awhile....

I eat meat....

I don't hear insects enter the argument much. What is the consensus about eating insects? Is this slaughter?

[Monica]

Good article about not feeling deprived as one changes one's diet gradually.

http://rogerhaeske.com/?p=1432&awt_l=ELL...AQsNkk7cj9

For raw fruits and vegetables are LOVE that you ingest. And you start to feel this raw love radiating in every cell of your body. And it makes you very happy just to be alive.

---

I don't hear insects enter the argument much. What is the consensus about eating insects? Is this slaughter?

I doubt that there is a consensus. I dunno. I've never eaten an insect...at least not knowingly! It's really a non-issue since most people (Americans anyway) are likely to be squeamish about eating insects.

I sure am friends with bees and earthworms...I wouldn't dream of eating them. I was horrified to find recipes for eating worms in a book about worm composting. (I have a worm composter...I raise a colony of earthworms and consider them pets! Though not cuddly like the dogs and cats in my family, haha.)

[3DMonkey]

If we get right down to it, I could live on bisquick and milk.

Since I don't have to, meat is on my table.

[Monica]

If we get right down to it, I could live on bisquick and milk.

Since I don't have to, meat is on my table.

Glad to see you here, 3D! I invite you to check out the whole thread!

[3DMonkey]

If we get right down to it, I could live on bisquick and milk.

Since I don't have to, meat is on my table.

Glad to see you here, 3D! I invite you to check out the whole thread!

Monica . That is for YOU! I'm sticking my tongue out because as the current week has passed, my spirit is telling me to not eat meat. You win, and the fact that my ego finds it hard to tell you is a good indicator that my spirit is being heard.

I didn't read the thread because I basically know what I'm going to find. If I were to rationalize, I would contend that a plant is just as much aware as an animal, and that I find an emotional love for a tree or a home grown carrot as much as I do for my dog. I am serious about this too. In some instances, my plants get more attention than my dog. And I do believe plants feel. I need to eat though, and I've killed animal and plant to consume.

So anyway, my instincts are all up in my face telling me not to eat meat. There is no rationalization, or thread, or guilt, contributing to this. There you have it. You win ;-). (j/k about the win stuff)
Something happens when I watch the outer space videos and such. My thoughts indicate that my cellular bodies in my complex need to be a bit "purer", whatever that may mean.

[Monica]

Monica . That is for YOU! I'm sticking my tongue out because as the current week has passed, my spirit is telling me to not eat meat. You win, and the fact that my ego finds it hard to tell you is a good indicator that my spirit is being heard.