In regards to eating meat

[Unbound]

Personally, I find the material to be rather self-evident, while the information it provides is useful the context within my life that the teachings fall are cause for my approach in this manner. Everything is in its own time and after reading a certain amount I have deemed it workable to begin interactive inquiry. I'm aware the personal interpretation is essential, and so why the material must be read, but I see a lot of quotes and seeing what people think of the teachings in their own way very much gives me a broader perspective when approaching the material itself. Thank you for the recommendation though, blessings, adonai.

[unity100]

this is not simply an intellectual matter. there are metaphysical, spiritual and parapsychological concerns to reading the material, and what you may unlock in your own subconscious while reading it without any influence from outside, or others. it doesnt depend on any kind of self-evidence - while reading the same self evident thing for the 3rd time, you may suddenly make a connection that wasnt there before.

if you just squander what triggers you have at hand by gobbling the information with piecemeal wanderings in an open forum, this may not happen.

[Unbound]

I find you are overcomplicating the matter, it is, truly, whatever I want to make of it. I am simply referring to the fact that I am in no way doubting the 'truth' of the material, but that I do think it is still only a particular account of the truth and contains distortions due to our limited capacities for communication. By all means, I do not disagree, and for myself I believe I know my way of learning best and so I explore in a manner that is natural to me. This does not have to be subject to any standards but my own since it is my personal experience and growth I am working with. Your mention of concerns suggests that you feel you have penetrated the teachings to a degree which you might consider as giving you deeper insight, although not to lose your obvious achievements of insight, than others when really you simply have a particular perception which functions in harmony with your natural vibrations and desires. Of course, these are just words from an observer and can only be taken as an account, indeed, is that not what Logos means? Even Ra may only offer their witness, it is the only necessary tool for teaching, in my humble opinion. Blessings, adonai.

[unity100]

let me simplify it for you :

the material you are trusting the truth of, has been brought by an extraterrestrial (currently in 5d time/space though) society complex of entities in 6d, through 'incarnative' channeling. it is, magically, a connection those entities, because it is their direct words, and therefore leave aside being charged with their own energy (hence providing a connection), it also is a connection to them through their memories.

reading through this material in an undisturbed place, alone, would bolster that connectivity.

this is no different for any other channeled material.

[Unbound]

I understand this, but why must I subscribe to only one teacher? Of course I will/do examine the materials in my own space and solitude, but that does not mean I should quell my patterns of seeking, everything is valuable.

[3DMonkey]

This will clarify my stance a bit on plant killing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt3smrXkVpE

I actually read the opening interview in a book ( I don't remember the name) about 15 years ago. I work with plants, and I believe they are conscious. From the standpoint of killing alone, I see no difference between Animalia and Plantae.

[Monica]

From the standpoint of killing alone, I see no difference between Animalia and Plantae.

If there truly were no difference, then it should be just as easy to slaughter a rabbit, deer, or dog, as it is to pull a carrot out of the ground.

Hey, that would be a great experiment! Pick a random animal - any dog, chicken, whatever, and try killing it. Then pick lettuce leaves or pull a carrot, and compare.

[3DMonkey]

I have done it. And when I say it hurts me to uproot a healthy plant and yoss it in the garbage just as much as it hurts me to pull the hide off a deer with my bare hands, I mean it.

[Monica]

I have done it. And when I say it hurts me to uproot a healthy plant and yoss it in the garbage just as much as it hurts me to pull the hide off a deer with my bare hands, I mean it.

I'm not referring to pulling the hide off. That's after the fact. The deer is already dead.

I'm talking about the act of killing itself.

Deer are usually killed with a gun, from a distance.

My suggested experiment (for anyone who wants to try it) is to kill a deer, dog or cat with your hands, up close and personal. Using a knife is fine, or you could strangle the animal.

Just pick a stray cat or dog, and try it. Or, if you're squeamish about killing someone's lost pet, then ask a local farmer to let you do the deed next time he's ready to slaughter a cow or pig. Look the animal in the eyes and kill it.

Compare that to pulling a carrot out of the ground.

Oh, and since this is an experiment, we want to remove any random variables. So be sure to pick an animal that will be eaten, vs a carrot that will be eaten, rather than something that will get thrown away (to eliminate feelings of sadness at the wasted life).

PS. Healthy plants that were killed for some reason, could be composted, rather than thrown in the garbage.

[Ankh]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQ4a_Gu49...re=related

I would specially pay attention from 2:50.

[3DMonkey]

Are you suggesting that I couldn't possibly feel for a plant the way you feel for an animal? Or that it would be ridiculous for someone to sympathetic toward vegitation?

((((((shaking my head))))))

would you like me to send you a video? (sarcasm)

if you want to believe killing plants is pain free, it is your prerogative.

We compartmentalize many things to proceed with certain activities. I could do the deed, no problem. I think there are many people that have a hard time understanding my viewpoint because animals have biology similar to their own and their own biases can only equate similar likenesses.

If someone looks out at the world and sees killing or eating animals is wrong, then they see a world that is wrong. It does not need to be seen so.

My children had oppurtunity over the wknd to feed a deer by hand. The deer was raised as a baby, is 5 years old, lives in the wild, and returns every night to eat. The homeowners love this deer. These are the same people that stock my freezer with venison every year. People have been loving animals and slaughtering them since this earth began. So why isn't this earth going to be a 4D Negative planet if it is so 'full of slaughter'?

The plant has feelings just as much as an animal. Just because it's biology doesn't represent these feelings in a way we can relate to, doesn't mean they don't exist. Each of us does what we feel needs to be done to survive.

Yes, I do feel the same towards a plant as I do an animal. This is me. I am real. I am. I kill both and I eat both, and afterwards, my duty is to forgive myself. If I can't forgive myself..... I can't forgive anyone.

---

Another important question I have for you, Monica.

Do you equate my association between killing animal and plant with the idea that my feelings for animals are lessened to your feelings for vegetation, or that my feelings for vegetation are hightened to you feelings for animals?

[Monica]

Are you suggesting that I couldn't possibly feel for a plant the way you feel for an animal? Or that it would be ridiculous for someone to sympathetic toward vegitation?

((((((shaking my head))))))

would you like me to send you a video? (sarcasm)

I'm not suggesting anything about you personally, 3DM. No need for sarcasm, and no need to take anything personally.

My experiment suggestion wasn't even directed at you, but at anyone and everyone who might be interested in trying it.

We can intellectualize but it's very telling when we actually do it. I think the experiment could be valuable.

As I've stated from the beginning of this thread, I'm not interested in what you or anyone else eats. I'm not interested in anyone's justifications for their dietary choices. I'm not interested in judging anyone, so if anyone takes my opinions personally, they bear the responsibility for that, not me.

I'm interested only in exploring how the slaughter of 2D entities fits in with Law of One principles.

I'm also interested in exploring when it becomes 'not ok' to kill an entity, ie. when does a 2D lifeform become an 'entity', as I expressed in earlier posts, but those questions have never been tackled by anyone on this forum as yet.

[3DMonkey]

Everthing is acceptable under the Law of One. Killing serves the creator.

[Monica]

if you want to believe killing plants is pain free, it is your prerogative.

Please don't twist my words. I never said killing plants was pain free.

If someone looks out at the world and sees killing or eating animals is wrong, then they see a world that is wrong. It does not need to be seen so.

Yes, I do see a world that is wrong. I see the needless suffering of billions of sentient 2D entities wrong. I see war as wrong. I see raping the environment as wrong. There are a lot of things wrong with this planet.

We can't fix everything.

But we have the power to fix some things. Not participating in acts of violence is one of them. Slaughtering animals is an act of violence.

Harvesting plants may also be considered violence by some people. Fine. Then don't eat plants either. Eat only fruit, if you feel that way. But to justify inflicting pain on animals because plants also feel pain, is illogical.

If it's true that plants and animals feel pain equally (which I don't believe, but let's just say, for the sake of discussion, that it is true), then that is an argument to eat fruit only, NOT an argument to continue killing both plants AND animals!

So why isn't this earth going to be a 4D Negative planet if it is so 'full of slaughter'?

That is answered in the books. We know from Ra that our planet has been very behind, with a very small harvest, and much more violence than on other planets. Not enough to be harvested 4D negative, but enough to interfere with being harvested 4D positive.

The plant has feelings just as much as an animal.

That is your opinion. My idea for the killing experiment, was to test that hypothesis, for anyone interested in doing so.

Another important question I have for you, Monica.

Do you equate my association between killing animal and plant with the idea that my feelings for animals are lessened to your feelings for vegetation, or that my feelings for vegetation are hightened to you feelings for animals?

Again, I'm not interested in analyzing you personally. It's not my place to do so, and I don't understand why you would even ask me to do that.

---

Everthing is acceptable under the Law of One. Killing serves the creator.

By that logic, one could justify wars, murder, rape, whatever, and never do anything to help make the world a better place. Why bother to work for peace? Why bother to take murderers and rapists off the street? Why bother to do our part to end suffering?

What is your point here? Are you saying that it makes no difference what we do at all? Maybe it doesn't matter to the Creator, but it DOES matter to US. Whether we are harvested STS or STO, DOES matter...it matters from our perspective and how we experience the next few million years.

[AnthroHeart]

I've tried to become vegetarian a few times but end up getting dizzy from it. For some reason my body seems to need meat. Although I can go vegetarian in phases. But I always come back to eating meat. Maybe in 4D I won't have to. Man I wish I were in 4D (or higher) now.

[Monica]

I've tried to become vegetarian a few times but end up getting dizzy from it. For some reason my body seems to need meat. Although I can go vegetarian in phases. But I always come back to eating meat. Maybe in 4D I won't have to. Man I wish I were in 4D (or higher) now.

If you're interested in exploring why, you might do a youtube search for Gabriel Cousens. He's an MD who has assisted many thousands of people in making the transition to a plant-based diet. He offers specific remedies in the way of 'superfoods' for those who crave meat or feel they need meat.

There are solutions.

[3DMonkey]

Monica, I can't talk to you. You have a shield for anything I want to say.

Are your words to me reflecting anything back to yourself?

[Unbound]

So we see the war between the light and the darkness in action... yet it seems the light is more rigid. I often wonder about this, it seems those with strong humanistic/holistic views often become incredibly guarded of them, they replace their veil of darkness for an equally blinding veil of light. This often makes them so focused on their fear of being without the light that they defend it as though in a corner, but the One has no such bias. I am beginning to fear that the teachings are once again being distorted.

---

Not to insinuate anything, just an observation...

[Ankh]

I am beginning to fear that the teachings are once again being distorted.

I think Ra were very aware of that. Nevertheless, I find it sad. As for your other opinions, yes, I totally understand what you mean, but I think there are more complicated issues than just darkness vs light. This is 3D, not 4D where thoughts of darkness vs light are being fought, but your point still makes some sense.

[Unbound]

Well certainly, it was an allegory. Yet are we not partway in to 4D now? It has been permeating 3D for some time now if I recall, 40 years since the sessions on the main LOO website.

[Monica]

So we see the war between the light and the darkness in action... yet it seems the light is more rigid. I often wonder about this, it seems those with strong humanistic/holistic views often become incredibly guarded of them, they replace their veil of darkness for an equally blinding veil of light. This often makes them so focused on their fear of being without the light that they defend it as though in a corner, but the One has no such bias. I am beginning to fear that the teachings are once again being distorted.

---

Not to insinuate anything, just an observation...

Not sure which party you see as 'dark' and which as 'light.'

I see no war going on. I see 2 people with different opinions about a particular topic. I see buttons being pushed when people feel judged, even though the other person had no intention of judging them whatsoever. I see people taking academic discussions personally.

To call that a 'war between light and dark' is quite an exaggeration.

This is a discussion about how eating animals fits in with Law of One principles.

If you wish to start another discussion about "holistic" or "humanistic" oriented people, please feel free to do so!

For now, I will put my moderator hat back on and remind everyone to please stay on topic.

---

Monica, I can't talk to you. You have a shield for anything I want to say.

Very strange thing to say, being that I have responded to nearly ALL your posts. I have no trouble listening to what you have to say. If I did, would I be replying to every single point you make?

When someone replies to what you say, that means they have listened and considered it, and taken the time to reply.

Are your words to me reflecting anything back to yourself?

Why do you continue to insist on making this personal?

I'm interested in discussing the topic. If anyone else is interested in discussing the subject of eating animals, please feel free to post.

[3DMonkey]

This will clarify my stance a bit on plant killing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt3smrXkVpE

I actually read the opening interview in a book ( I don't remember the name) about 15 years ago. I work with plants, and I believe they are conscious. From the standpoint of killing alone, I see no difference between Animalia and Plantae.

[Unbound]

Not really a reference to either party, only an examination of the movement of harmonically dissonant perspectives in relation to eachother. Forgive me, I have visualistic words in my mind often. Although I do think that to defend any one particular position is misleading and rather preference should be the focus. Is it really possible to account for the intentions of those whom have never even experienced these teachings? Is it right to label any action of anyone as STO or STS based on our own perspective? It seems to me like a single person has a mix of both traits, like a point at the center of two lines moving between either end. Or perhaps more like a circle with a single point of balance, ultimately the two unite. With that in mind, I think perhaps it would be most fruitful to examine the consumation of animals on the principles of energy transfer, experience and in context of the time and lessons most prominent at the moment. Of course, this has been done much in this thread, but I would simply iterate the awareness of reactions, that all you experience stems from your own perceptions. It was not the difference in opinions that I was referencing but the nature of the discussion as a surface level conflict, one which is distortion to both parties, since I am quite sure there are no ill intentions, only miscommunication.

One thing I'll mention is that there is service to self and service to other-selves, does that make animals other-selves? If this is true wouldn't it be of service to the animals to allow them to be of service to us? Will all animals eventually be ensouled and will this pre-3D experience be useful? What is it the animals are learning in their density? I'm sure there are answers in the material for this, but I am curious as to how this may relate from a perspective. Also, the second density is composed of the first, the third is composed of the first and second, so the fourth must be composed of the first, second and third, and so on. If that is true it would seem that each level is responsible not only for themselves but for those they have "surpassed". If the fates of animals are "automatic", I think that really alludes to the fact that WE are the Guardians, just as the shepherd is. This means we are also responsible for the caretaking of the planet, being composed of the first density. In this light, it would seem the consumation of our charge would indeed be poor guardianship, especially since as mentioned there are forms of food which do not require a violation or intentional harming of life. Animals are more useful to help GROW food rather than to be food. Also, many animals are still primitivistic because they are /treated in the manner of beasts/. The reason we do not regularly telepathically communicate with animals and plants is because we have given them the identification of being incapable of communication with us, we reject them regardless of how they yearn and reach out. Our image of them has both them and us in isolation from eachother, our exaltation of ourselves has produced such pride as we feel we are the masters of life, yet are we not all subject to similar Guardianship above us? Are we not within life, as cells within a body, and are we not at the moment attacking that body with neglection and rejection? All it takes to hurt an entity is to accept it or reject it, and humans have become so self-hating in so many ways, even those with common values will not allow themselves to perceive another perspective in an unbiased manner, there is so much bias. We are here to establish our position, in 4D I believe is where we must determine its intensity. We are already on the way in to 4D, having been permeated by it for half a century at least, and we draw ever further over the gradiant.

Of course, to note is that we are all faced with the acceptance or rejection of our chosen path. Will we be Guardians of the Earth in Harmony with the Planet, or will we be the Guardians of the Earth in Harmony with Ourselves? We all know the implications, the choice is right in front of us, all there is now, in this world, is action.

[3DMonkey]

Bravo Azrael. Definitely some dual activation at work in you.

[Monica]

One thing I'll mention is that there is service to self and service to other-selves, does that make animals other-selves?

That is a very good question; one that I asked myself previously on this thread, but has not been answered.

If this is true wouldn't it be of service to the animals to allow them to be of service to us?

An ox can be of service by pulling a plow, in the same way that a human can be of service by doing physical labor.

However, the ox probably isn't aware of it as service, because it is still in 2D. The action is the same - physical labor - but the ox isn't given a choice, so is it service?

Furthermore, the task of 2D is to become self-aware. Service becomes relevant in 3D.

If the fates of animals are "automatic", I think that really alludes to the fact that WE are the Guardians, just as the shepherd is. This means we are also responsible for the caretaking of the planet, being composed of the first density. In this light, it would seem the consumation of our charge would indeed be poor guardianship, especially since as mentioned there are forms of food which do not require a violation or intentional harming of life.

Well said!

Animals are more useful to help GROW food rather than to be food.

Agreed! It's very inefficient to use animals for food. And very, very bad for the planet overall.

Also, many animals are still primitivistic because they are /treated in the manner of beasts/. The reason we do not regularly telepathically communicate with animals and plants is because we have given them the identification of being incapable of communication with us, we reject them regardless of how they yearn and reach out.

Good point! Which is all the more reason eating animals is adding to the problem. As long as animals are viewed as 'things' to be consumed, they aren't being recognized as brethren.

I deliberately offered the suggestion of killing a cat or dog, to make the point that most humans would cringe at the idea of killing a cat or dog. They would also cringe at killing a cow, but would cringe more at killing a cat or dog. Not because the cat or dog feels pain any more than the cow, but because humans have been conditioned to think of cows as 'food' whereas cats and dogs are 'family pets.'

our exaltation of ourselves has produced such pride as we feel we are the masters of life, yet are we not all subject to similar Guardianship above us? Are we not within life, as cells within a body, and are we not at the moment attacking that body with neglection and rejection?

Yes. People are much more cut off from the fabric of life, due to our technological society, as well as religious influences which teach that "man is supposed to take dominion over the Earth" which I find very destructive.

Will we be Guardians of the Earth in Harmony with the Planet, or will we be the Guardians of the Earth in Harmony with Ourselves? We all know the implications, the choice is right in front of us, all there is now, in this world, is action.

Agreed! I would add that 'guardian' is different from 'dominion'; the latter indicating control and subjugation, whereas the form indicates gentle guidance.

[Unbound]

Does service have to be a conscious decision? If animals are in 2D learning to be self-aware, and in 3D we learn to that we have choice. As I think it was mentioned by Ra animals have a sort of "hive" mind, right? So the graduation from 2D to 3D must be discovery of the "self". (Noted that cetaceans are also ensouled (which to me means has discovered the self), which to me means that any animal in the right conditions is capable of becoming 3D. In fact, I have often seen anomalies where an animal or plant will have progressed to a higher cognitive dimension but uses a 3D form. This is evidenced in many mythological suggestions. Which to me suggests a group memory complex is prior to 3D, that of the animals, and those whom are anomalous have realized the self. Now, since all time exists simultaneously ultimately that means that means the "past" of humans is animals and minerals, and the "future" of humans is the higher densities. Of course, we're entering 4D now, so humans are soon to become past. Now what is the purpose of these concepts? If the future is light, we are in the realm of matter and we reflect from the past, then ultimately this zone of balance is in fact the Source. In that, the moment of your experience is THE moment connected to every other moment. With that in mind, are not animals a potentiation of ourselves? We must not only consider them as they are now, but what they may evolve to be, what they WILL evolve to be, and also remember that we come from the same origins. So, with that in mind, of course animals must be other-selves, whether or not they themselves are aware of themselves as selves.

Although, the idea that each density begins with individuality, grows to plurality and then eventually concludes once again in great individuality I think is revealing. Perhaps. Blessings, adonai.

[hogey11]

An ox can be of service by pulling a plow, in the same way that a human can be of service by doing physical labor.

However, the ox probably isn't aware of it as service, because it is still in 2D. The action is the same - physical labor - but the ox isn't given a choice, so is it service?

Furthermore, the task of 2D is to become self-aware. Service becomes relevant in 3D.

If the fates of animals are "automatic", I think that really alludes to the fact that WE are the Guardians, just as the shepherd is. This means we are also responsible for the caretaking of the planet, being composed of the first density. In this light, it would seem the consumation of our charge would indeed be poor guardianship, especially since as mentioned there are forms of food which do not require a violation or intentional harming of life.

If a working animal was gifted 2D/3D by a 3D entity, could then the animal perform service?

My analogy would be an old Ox worked and raised from birth. The example is that it is harvest with much to do and the animal gets very tired. A "pure 2D" Ox would probably stop to rest, in order to preserve it's life and livelihood, regardless of the farmer's pleas (think goats/cows on the highway here). However, a 2D/3D Ox could be goaded by its owner to work harder until it is nearing physical exhaustion, based on the bond of self-awareness between the animal and human. I am not saying this is a massive effect, but I would guess that animals that are bonded to a person would push harder/faster/stronger if they were directed compared to wild, purely 2D animals... Then it comes into whether or not animals can provide service by being foodstuffs i guess....


Where I'm from, the native (first nations) culture is somewhat celebrated. There is much taught about the rituals the native american people would go through when they took an animal's life for food. There is immense respect shown, and the animal's spirit is asked to give its life before it is killed by the hunter. Every part of the animal is used, and is considered sacred.

Would the above situation be considered with the same frame of reference as what else has been discussed?

[Monica]

Does service have to be a conscious decision? If animals are in 2D learning to be self-aware, and in 3D we learn to that we have choice. As I think it was mentioned by Ra animals have a sort of "hive" mind, right?

I think the hive mind can indeed choose to be of service, and this is what plants do. Plant devas are often delighted to interact with humans and encourage them to plant gardens, use the plants for healing, etc.

Some excellent books on this topic are:

The Psychic Garden by Mellie Uyldert

The Findhorn Garden by The Findhorn Community

Plant Spirit Healing: A Guide to Working with Plant Consciousness by Pam Montgomery

Ask Mother Nature: A Conscious Gardener's Guide by Ellen Vande Visse

Perelandra Garden Workbook: A Complete Guide to Gardening with Nature Intelligences by Machaelle Small Wright

But, in my understanding of what Ra has told us (which agrees with and expands what the Edgar Cayce readings say, by the way), when a spark of that hive mind becomes self-aware, then that is when it becomes an individuated entity.

The first step for an entity is to develop that budding self-awareness. Just observe your dog or cat. They are becoming more and more self-aware, and you can assist them in that process by treating them like members of the family, instead of just things to be owned and tossed in the back yard.

During this precious time of self-discovery, the animal is fixated on self. This is as it should be! It is a phase for them, and is healthy.

While focused on developing awareness of self, these 2D entities aren't likely to be conscious of others enough yet to have the capacity to choose to be of service. They have plenty of time to learn that in 3D - in fact that is what 3D is for!

Each density has different lessons to offer.

It is possible that some animals might reach a high enough state of consciousness to be able to grasp service to others. Examples are the many stories of dogs saving their humans from danger. Even then, it's questionable whether they are doing it out of service, or out of pack instinct.

In the wild, a wolf will protect his pack. Is that service? Probably not.

Thus, I find it unlikely that an individual cow would choose to be of service by allowing itself to be cruelly abused and brutally slaughtered, especially since factory farmed animals aren't appreciated in the least by most people who eat them. They are just turned into packages bought at the grocery store with nary a thought given.

So the graduation from 2D to 3D must be discovery of the "self".

Yes

(Noted that cetaceans are also ensouled (which to me means has discovered the self), which to me means that any animal in the right conditions is capable of becoming 3D.

I agree, but not for the reason you cite. Any animal, and even some plants (particularly ancient trees), and even some locations, can develop self-awareness, if that awareness is drawn out (usually over time, which automatically precludes most garden vegetables). But cetaceans are in a different category altogether; they are 3D entities who chose that form rather than the human form, to do their 3D work.

I think it's much more likely that a locale, such as a backyard garden lovingly tended, could develop self-awareness, than the individual carrots grown in it.

In fact, I have often seen anomalies where an animal or plant will have progressed to a higher cognitive dimension but uses a 3D form.

I suppose anything is possible. I'm not sure how that fits in with what Ra has taught us. Wanderers are from higher densities but in 3D forms, but subject to the veil. So, the end result is that they are essentially 3D entities, while on Earth.

With that in mind, are not animals a potentiation of ourselves? We must not only consider them as they are now, but what they may evolve to be, what they WILL evolve to be,

Exactly!!! Which begs the question: What kind of human will that cow be? That cow that was killed so cruelly, in a state of terror and loneliness? Will that be setting the stage for a violent 3D experience, such as we've had on Earth all this time?

and also remember that we come from the same origins. So, with that in mind, of course animals must be other-selves, whether or not they themselves are aware of themselves as selves.

Agreed. Though I would say, that the very definition of being a 'self' (ie. an entity) is self-awareness.

---

a 2D/3D Ox could be goaded by its owner to work harder until it is nearing physical exhaustion, based on the bond of self-awareness between the animal and human. I am not saying this is a massive effect, but I would guess that animals that are bonded to a person would push harder/faster/stronger if they were directed compared to wild, purely 2D animals...

Good point. Just as my dog allows the veterinarian to give him a shot, when I hold him and comfort him, even though his natural inclination is to bolt or bite, to escape the momentary sting of the needle. He trusts me so he is still.

Self-awareness and bonding with 3D's is a process for them.

Where I'm from, the native (first nations) culture is somewhat celebrated. There is much taught about the rituals the native american people would go through when they took an animal's life for food. There is immense respect shown, and the animal's spirit is asked to give its life before it is killed by the hunter. Every part of the animal is used, and is considered sacred.

I am familiar with this and find it very beautiful, the way they did it. Beautiful in the sense that they did it so consciously. Being that they had no choice but to rely on animals for food, they did it in the most respectful, reverent, and appreciative way possible.

Would the above situation be considered with the same frame of reference as what else has been discussed?

Their situation was entirely different. They needed the animals for food and clothing.

In our society, we don't.

[Unbound]

Well I will take a particular example from the book Seth Speaks, where the entity Seth claimed to have a dog in incarnation. I always try to remember that our higher entities have many other fragments stemming from them across numerous different times, so you never really can tell what's what sometimes. Although as anti-thesis a violent experience as an animal could perhaps be grounds for a very compassionate person who feels the needs and pains of animals, having experienced it for themselves. I suppose every experience is only an experience until it is reflected upon, it is only a lesson if it is examined for learning.

Also, can't self-awareness exist in potentiation in the same manner of an energy channel needing to be unblocked? It is not the form but the centers which affect the evolution of the consciousness.

[3DMonkey]

Everthing is acceptable under the Law of One. Killing serves the creator.

By that logic, one could justify wars, murder, rape, whatever, and never do anything to help make the world a better place. Why bother to work for peace? Why bother to take murderers and rapists off the street? Why bother to do our part to end suffering?

What is your point here? Are you saying that it makes no difference what we do at all? Maybe it doesn't matter to the Creator, but it DOES matter to US. Whether we are harvested STS or STO, DOES matter...it matters from our perspective and how we experience the next few million years.

Yes, I am saying that it makes no difference according to the LOO principle that all is one.
And if you want to use logic of justification, it can tie into another discussion we have had- I can justify your list above if I THINK I am doing it out of love.

---

As I've stated from the beginning of this thread, I'm not interested in what you or anyone else eats. I'm not interested in anyone's justifications for their dietary choices. I'm not interested in judging anyone, so if anyone takes my opinions personally, they bear the responsibility for that, not me.

I'm interested only in exploring how the slaughter of 2D entities fits in with Law of One principles.

I'm also interested in exploring when it becomes 'not ok' to kill an entity, ie. when does a 2D lifeform become an 'entity', as I expressed in earlier posts, but those questions have never been tackled by anyone on this forum as yet.

I believe it becomes 'not okay' when an individual 3D entity determines via their own distortions that it is not okay.
I believe a 1D life form IS an entity. I believe the entity that I am experienced myself and creator as a hydrogen atom (or something) fusing together to create helium.