In regards to eating meat

[Tenet Nosce]

The cancer cells are not "aware." Humans are. We make the choice to harm. Cancer cells don't make a choice to harm; they are in survival mode only; they have a mandate to survive and proliferate according to the environmental conditions.

So then, you are not making an assessment on "what is alive" but rather "what is aware".

I am totally against that. For many reasons. I buy organic. Now if you are going to split hairs, there is harm in any commercial operation, even organic.

OK. But my point was rather that PETA should call themselves "People for the Ethical Treatment of Mammals" because they don't seem to care much about the plight of insects or other non-cute-and-furry animals.

And yes, it does come down to splitting hairs IF one is insisting on a doctrine of "harmlessless". What does that even mean? What seems obvious to you, is not obvious to others. Humans have been arguing about this for at least 6000 years.

I am in the process of creating a greenhouse on my property so that I can provide my own food.

Sweet! Have you ever heard about these Growing Domes?

---

I am very healthy, so I don't have a lot of the microbes, parasites, or "bugs" that unhealthy people have. Have you ever read that because of healthy soil, organic vegetables don't get the "pests" that unhealthy one do?

Sorry, but are you kidding me? You have expressed a completely false understanding of how your body works.

You have lots of microbes, parasites, and "bugs". In fact, 90% of the cells that are found in and on your body are not human cells. They are bacterial cells. Without these microbes, you could not live. Your life is directly dependent upon them.

Moreover, your continued existence on this physical plane is directly dependent upon the killing of microbes. By each other, and by your immune system. If it were not for death, you would not be "alive".

Similarly, if it were not for microbes in the soil, plants would not grow. "Healthy" soil is not sterile. Quite to the contrary. The reason that these plants do not get pests is because other living organisms are there secreting chemicals that are poisonous to those pests.

Furthermore, plants themselves secrete chemicals which kill insects. Plants even secrete chemicals that kill other plants or even kill humans.

All of this is by design. The Creator created the physical world this way. In the physical world, death is all around us, and it is an integral part of what makes "sustainability" sustainable.

To equate death with harm, means to equate life with harm.

[Diana]

And yes, it does come down to splitting hairs IF one is insisting on a doctrine of "harmlessless". What does that even mean? What seems obvious to you, is not obvious to others. Humans have been arguing about this for at least 6000 years.

Thank you for the link to the domes. I will check it out.

As I said many times, I am doing the best I can. Imagine an evolved society, an enlightened society. Now draw a line from where you are now to that society. Start taking steps toward it.

Just because I am not able to EVERYTHING to stop causing harm, does not mean that I shouldn't do SOMETHING, or whatever I can.

And, honestly, all these arguments about microbes seems a stretch. What can I do about microbes other than what I am doing: cleaning up my body, my life, and my environment, and having the intention not to harm.

On the other hand, I can do a whole lot for the suffering of animals, which is very obvious because the animals themselves are screaming at us to show us what we are doing. That is not to say that I impose anthropomorphic qualities on them. I just think the message is there and obvious. I'm sorry if this message is not obvious to you or others. Why do you think whales beach themselves?

---

Sorry, but are you kidding me? You have expressed a completely false understanding of how your body works.

You have lots of microbes, parasites, and "bugs". In fact, 90% of the cells that are found in and on your body are not human cells. They are bacterial cells. Without these microbes, you could not live. Your life is directly dependent upon them.

I'm actually very educated on the subject of nutrition, health, and physiology.

But to answer your point. I seem to be having a problem expressing myself, and I am not being careful to choose words wisely. I was answering your post about "bugs" in the hair. But beyond that, and the physical 3D world of physiology (and yes, symbiosis is there with microbes, bacteria), there is thought, intention, and action. In this way we evolve. If I live my life without intentionally killing, do you not see that this will have results? Those results will be added to the sum of light in the world, helping the species, the planet, and the universe evolve. This seems like hyperbole but it really isn't. Everything effects everything else.

[Tenet Nosce]

Just because I am not able to EVERYTHING to stop causing harm, does not mean that I shouldn't do SOMETHING, or whatever I can.

I just think in some ways it is an impossible goal. At least within the bounds of physicality. It sounds like the world you are envisioning is what is referred to in the Ra material as fifth density.

I am not saying there is anything wrong about striving for this, or with demonstrating to others what is possible. I am just saying that I don't agree that "harmlessness" is the best platform from which to create standards for physical living.

And, honestly, all these arguments about microbes seems a stretch. What can I do about microbes other than what I am doing: cleaning up my body, my life, and my environment, and having the intention not to harm.

You could formulate a positive intention to support life, rather than a negative intention to "not harm" it. The mind has a hard time with double negatives. Plus it is easier to discern life by where it is rather than where it is not.

which is very obvious because the animals themselves are screaming at us to show us what we are doing.

That is a totally subjective statement. Though I acknowledge it may actually be true on some level. What I am trying to get at is that it sounds to me like you are setting yourself up for frustration coming at the issue from this particular angle. But you are free to do as you like.

That is not to say that I impose anthropomorphic qualities on them. I just think the message is there and obvious. I'm sorry if this message is not obvious to you or others.

I don't look to the animals for messages about life and reality. I look to the Source within myself. This Source informs me that harmlessness is not the principle by which humanity will agree to stop eating meat. Would you expect me to trust your characterization of animal messages over my own inner connection to Source?

Why do you think whales beach themselves?

I wouldn't know. But certainly the whales are not consciously aware of the experiments being conducted on lab rats. So I am not sure what you are getting at.

I'm actually very educated on the subject of nutrition, health, and physiology.

Then, sorry to mischaracterize your understanding.

I live my life without intentionally killing, do you not see that this will have results?

Yes, I see that this will have the results of attempting to live one's life based upon negative action (NOT doing something) rather than positive action. Such results tend to be restricting to those experiencing them.

In the end, focusing attention upon what is "not wanted" only results in the creation of more that is "not wanted".

[BrownEye]

Do you wash your hair? Because there are all sorts of tiny bugs that like to live in human hair.

http://www.bring4th.org/forums/showthread.php?tid=3580

---

In the end, focusing attention upon what is "not wanted" only results in the creation of more that is "not wanted".

Not fully accurate. I put a lot of focus into what I may accidentally breathe, a lot into what I do not want to ingest, along with other things I do not want to effect me, radio, TV, media, etc.

Considering all the senses, even internally, are for a result of "recording", which then tends to build upon what we create as the vehicle, it all matters.

Another way to look at it is to go gung ho without a worry, like cranking up the voltage to a light bulb, it can burn out too soon.


Might also look into "implants" and how certain forms are simply as a result of recording something into your subconscious that your waking self was not aware of. (positive results of negating sources that affect the senses?)

[Diana]

Just because I am not able to EVERYTHING to stop causing harm, does not mean that I shouldn't do SOMETHING, or whatever I can.

I just think in some ways it is an impossible goal. At least within the bounds of physicality. It sounds like the world you are envisioning is what is referred to in the Ra material as fifth density.

I am not saying there is anything wrong about striving for this, or with demonstrating to others what is possible. I am just saying that I don't agree that "harmlessness" is the best platform from which to create standards for physical living.

And, honestly, all these arguments about microbes seems a stretch. What can I do about microbes other than what I am doing: cleaning up my body, my life, and my environment, and having the intention not to harm.

You could formulate a positive intention to support life, rather than a negative intention to "not harm" it. The mind has a hard time with double negatives. Plus it is easier to discern life by where it is rather than where it is not.

which is very obvious because the animals themselves are screaming at us to show us what we are doing.

That is a totally subjective statement. Though I acknowledge it may actually be true on some level. What I am trying to get at is that it sounds to me like you are setting yourself up for frustration coming at the issue from this particular angle. But you are free to do as you like.

That is not to say that I impose anthropomorphic qualities on them. I just think the message is there and obvious. I'm sorry if this message is not obvious to you or others.

I don't look to the animals for messages about life and reality. I look to the Source within myself. This Source informs me that harmlessness is not the principle by which humanity will agree to stop eating meat. Would you expect me to trust your characterization of animal messages over my own inner connection to Source?

Why do you think whales beach themselves?

I wouldn't know. But certainly the whales are not consciously aware of the experiments being conducted on lab rats. So I am not sure what you are getting at.

I'm actually very educated on the subject of nutrition, health, and physiology.

Then, sorry to mischaracterize your understanding.

I live my life without intentionally killing, do you not see that this will have results?

Yes, I see that this will have the results of attempting to live one's life based upon negative action (NOT doing something) rather than positive action. Such results tend to be restricting to those experiencing them.

In the end, focusing attention upon what is "not wanted" only results in the creation of more that is "not wanted".

I'm not focusing on what's not wanted. I do focus on supporting life. I am focusing on respect for all life. I feel that all of my views and words are being misunderstood, or held up to a standard of scrutiny that does not include trying to understand me.

I base my life on what I do. I make a choice when a spider is in the house: kill it, take it outside. I take it outside.

I choose plant life instead of animal life for sustenance. In this thread, in an effort to shed light upon the subject, it may seem as though I am focusing on not what to do.

I apologize and will try to more clear.

---

I would like to add that in regards to eating meat I have a personal path, and an objective path:

1) PERSONAL: I will most likely not devolve (my view) to eating meat because of anything said in this thread.

2) OBJECTIVE: I am interested in exploring the best good for 3rd and 4th Density. Because of my personal path, I have had a narrow view of the objective good. I have thanked the participants in this thread before, all views, because it expands my awareness of what is most in harmony for the best good in general in this 3D existence. So I welcome all views.

[3DMonkey]

I'm not focusing on what's not wanted. I do focus on supporting life. I am focusing on respect for all life. I feel that all of my views and words are being misunderstood, or held up to a standard of scrutiny that does not include trying to understand me.

We should join hands, you and I, because I have felt the same way in this thread.

We disagree, and yet agree. Profound, no? Perhaps a private discussion?

[Namaste]

I certainly did not mean to offend you 3DM, rather to make a clear (personal) point. Much love to you :¬)

Here's a serious question for all to ponder, related to one's subjective take on the equality of plants and animals.

What do you feel instinctively 'easier' to do; trim a hedge or cut the leg off an animal?

[3DMonkey]

I certainly did not mean to offend you 3DM, rather to make a clear (personal) point. Much love to you :¬)

Here's a serious question for all to ponder, related to one's subjective take on the equality of plants and animals.

What do you feel instinctively 'easier' to do; trim a hedge or cut the leg off an animal?

*hugs*

Easier is not a plain question. Honestly, both require an amount of compartmentalization in order to cut. The things I compartmentalize are different things, and those different things come from acquired biases. So, at the end of all that, they both become equally "easy".

Someone without the ability to compartmentalize a specific thing for their own unique reasons will find it difficult to understand someone who has that particular ability.
Here is a similar one that I can't compartmentalize, and I can't believe that any person can. That would be an OB GYN. I find it extremely difficult to believe that a dude could do that with pure, professional attitudes (compartmentalizes the sexual aspect). I must come to accept that it is possible because I have been told it is many times.

[Namaste]

What's an OB GYN? :¬)

The question is based off Peter Russel's talk with regard to consciousness. He mentions how in the current paradigms of science consciousness is considered a product of the brain. His test is to which one would find instinctively easier, pulling the plug from a PC or throwing a jellyfish (which has no brain) on the fire.

While I value all life, and indeed all things, I would unequivocally choose the former (in both case) :¬)

[3DMonkey]

A doctor for female parts.

---

What's an OB GYN? :¬)

The question is based off Peter Russel's talk with regard to consciousness. He mentions how in the current paradigms of science consciousness is considered a product of the brain. His test is to which one would find instinctively easier, pulling the plug from a PC or throwing a jellyfish (which has no brain) on the fire.

While I value all life, and indeed all things, I would unequivocally choose the former (in both case) :¬)

How does he test it? If it was like a lie detector, I would probably register high on anxiety for pulling the plug, unless its a laptop with charged battery.

[Monica]

If grass is individuated, then how many entities are in a lawn? Does it writhe in pain when you mow your lawn? If so, isn't that a very cruel design? A wild deer has a good life until the wolf kills it. But what sort of Creator would design a planet in which the entire plant kingdom, which is being torn apart by higher beings on a daily basis, lives in constant pain?

As matter, there is somewhat of a being "behind" each blade of grass.

Is each blade of grass itself an individual being? no.

A tree is a good representation of an individual entity. It has quite a long time to develop a form of awareness.

Exactly.

In the animal world we can see a difference in awareness depending on the normal lifespan of the animal. This seems somewhat applicable to the plant world also.

Apparently so.

---

Your body makes those kinds of decisions all the time. What would you say of a body killing microbes- is that a lack of compassion?

That would be attributing a function of mind (compassion) to the physical vehicle. The body isn't capable of compassion. That's a mind function.

Anyway, the body isn't doing it intentionally. It's how the body was designed. And we didn't design it.

I have wondered if maybe microbes are entities in some other octave. I bounded it off unity100 one time and he said no. But since I believe in overlapping realities, I still wonder...

When we wash our hands, or our bodies, or our kitchens, or anything else, we know full well that we are killing microbes. Also, I don't see any advocates for "cancer cells' rights". Don't cancer cells have a right to live too?

This is getting rather absurd, dontcha think?

Sidebar item... but you've mentioned prions a few times. I suspect those individuals have suffered some sort of breakdown in the blood-brain barrier. Otherwise, I wouldn't expect prions to pass.

Sidebar quick reply: Many things are known to cross the blood-brain barrier. Some good, some bad.

---

I'm curious why no one has commented on the data I posted in #1449 and 1451.

---

I'm sure this has been mentioned before, but with the 2D entity, there is literally "no one home" - there is no subjective experience when there is no reflective subject. The subject and object are one in the same - the pattern that the 2D mind holds is oriented towards fulfilling a program of growth and reproduction. I think a lot of these anthropomorphic attributions with regards to how such plants and animals process sensation are grossly misplaced. I guess it is unfathomable that life could exist which is not self-aware, but all of 2D falls into this category.

What you just said is completely counter to what Ra has told us.

According to Ra, the criteria for graduating to 3D is self-awareness, and Ra even mentioned Carla's cat as being nearly ready for graduation to 3D. This disproves the idea that there is 'no one home.'

And, anyone who's ever had a dog, cat, horse, or even cow or pig, knows full well that there is 'someone home.'

What you described applies to early 2D (plants, presumably), but not to later 2D. (I thought that's what you meant, until I read your words "all of 2D") The question we're all trying to figure out is, at what point does self-awareness occur. It's that middle point that is elusive.

Also, killing off the higher, more socially capable, 2D life forms such as apes (due to deforestation and mining) or dolphins (fishing/pollution) and increasing the pet experience instead is likely the cause of a lot of newcomer 3D confusion here.

Dolphines are 3D, not 2.

---

It would not seem logical that a microbe would be individuated, as so many are killed constantly just by normal and natural means.

Substitute 'carrot' or any other plant (except maybe tree) and see how that fits:

It would not seem logical that a carrot/lettuce/grass would be individuated, as so many are killed constantly just by normal and natural means.

[βαθμιαίος]

At any rate, surely you aren't suggesting that the cows on factory farms are healthy, or that living in slavery while being tortured on a daily basis, then brutally slaughtered in a state of pain and terror, is some sort of optimal goal for a species?

Again, I'm not defending factory farms.

I am suggesting, though, that each species has its own mind and makes its own decisions about what's optimal for it. The cattle species, like the plant species discussed in Botany of Desire, has hitched its wagon to humans. For contrast, consider white-tailed deer, which cannot be domesticated.

I honestly and sincerely was explaining why I had been insensitive by not realizing that you might not have the same background as I do, when you said the research on plant-based diets wasn't obvious to you.

I didn't say research on plant-based diets wasn't obvious to me. I said it wasn't obvious to me that eating animals is bad while eating plants is good.

If plants were just as individuated as animals, then why didn't Ra put any restrictions on our consumption of plants?

My belief is that animals that we eat for food are not individuated in the sense that they have not attained third-density consciousness and, when they die, they return to the undifferentiated consciousness of their species. Another possibility would be that Ra didn't consider it bad to eat an individuating entity.

I've asked this question several times, and I'd be interested in your answer:

If grass is individuated, then how many entities are in a lawn?

Just a guess, but I suspect that turf grass that's all connected to each other is probably one entity, while bunch grass that grows in separate clumps is probably separate entities. However, we've been using the term "individuated" to mean attaining third-density consciousness, and in that sense no, I don't think grass is typically individuated, although I do think it would be possible for a human to work with a specific grass plant and start to kindle an individual awareness in it.

Are you suggesting that the normal, everyday events in a plant's life are akin to the torture endured by a cow on a factory farm?

Again with the torture and the factory farm! No, I'm not.

[Monica]

I am suggesting, though, that each species has its own mind and makes its own decisions about what's optimal for it. The cattle species, like the plant species discussed in Botany of Desire, has hitched its wagon to humans. For contrast, consider white-tailed deer, which cannot be domesticated.

In the same way that a human victim of violence has chosen those experiences. But that doesn't mean it's ok for an STO entity to participate in that.

I didn't say research on plant-based diets wasn't obvious to me. I said it wasn't obvious to me that eating animals is bad while eating plants is good.

Then I can't help but wonder what you've been researching.

If plants were just as individuated as animals, then why didn't Ra put any restrictions on our consumption of plants?

My belief is that animals that we eat for food are not individuated in the sense that they have not attained third-density consciousness and, when they die, they return to the undifferentiated consciousness of their species. Another possibility would be that Ra didn't consider it bad to eat an individuating entity.

I understand that you believe that, but you seem to arguing the point as though Ra hadn't put any restrictions on animal products. But Ra did put restrictions on animal products, so apparently there is something 'bad' about it, at least if eaten in excess.

Since you seemed to be building a case for justifying the consumption of meat based on the idea that it was the same to eat plants, then my question was: If plants were just as individuated as animals, then why didn't Ra put any restrictions on our consumption of plants?

I will reword it: If there is no difference between eating plants and eating animals, then why did Ra put restrictions on our consumption of 'animal products' but not on plants?

Just a guess, but I suspect that turf grass that's all connected to each other is probably one entity, while bunch grass that grows in separate clumps is probably separate entities.

That's pure speculation. There is absolutely no basis for determining that any plant (other than trees) is a self-aware entity, much less how much of a widely spread plant is x number of entities.

What about my strawberry question? For those who are arguing that plants are just as much entities as animals, then would anyone care to explain that?

However, we've been using the term "individuated" to mean attaining third-density consciousness, and in that sense no, I don't think grass is typically individuated, although I do think it would be possible for a human to work with a specific grass plant and start to kindle an individual awareness in it.

I agree. I don't think grass is individuated either. I don't think carrots are either. Or lettuces.

Why, then, are we even talking about plants?

Are you suggesting that the normal, everyday events in a plant's life are akin to the torture endured by a cow on a factory farm?

Again with the torture and the factory farm! No, I'm not.

Why, then, are we even talking about plants?

---

Right. But then the value of physical life is relative to how well it relates to the overall ecosystem. So the argument that "All life is precious" therefore "Harm no living thing" gets tossed out the window when some other living thing is causing harm to our physical bodies, or the overall ecosystem.

This is true. A lot of it is based on judgment, no doubt about it.

We know from Ra that higher-density STS entities routinely use lower 2D critters to do their bidding. So although I do consider 'all life precious' and that includes respecting STS entities, because they have their place too, that doesn't mean I'm going to invite them into my home. I'm cool, they're cool, but just leave me alone, ya know?

What that translates to is that I will do my best to avoid ever killing any critters unnecessarily. I always capture the bee or wasp that occasionally flies into my house, and set it free outside. Do I always do that for cockroaches? No. I confess I don't. Why? Because they are an infestation? Because they carry germs? Because some STS entities may have sent that cockroach? Yes, all of the above. But mostly, because cockroaches are hard to catch, and they just come right back in, whereas that bee just wandered in by accident. Am I putting a judgment on cockroaches? Yes. I admit it. Would I catch the cockroach and gently take it outside if I could? No, because it's invasive and isn't just a single cockroach, but an infestation.

So what do I do? I try to get the root of why my home might have attracted that cockroach. I try to keep it clean, and don't leave food crumbs around that might attract cockroaches.

Then, I talk to the oversoul of the cockroaches. Not an individual roach, because I don't think it can think. But the oversoul can. I offer it a pact. I won't kill them outside or in the garage, if they don't come into my house or get into my washing machine.

It's working rather well, actually.

I referred to this example before: I lived through a beetle outbreak where it seemed the beetles were poised to take over the whole area. I didn't see anybody too concerned about killing those beetles. I didn't see any beetles rights activists, and so on.

It's strictly pragmatism, nothing more. If PETA activists can't even get people to care about furry baby seals (who are killed only for a luxury item, not even for meat), then what hope is there for beetles?

You seem to be implying that animal rights activists are hypocrites. No, it's not that. It's strictly pragmatism.

This sort of thing makes me wonder when PETA folks get all uppity about killing animals. Wait. You mean just the furry, cute ones? What's that? Oh killing insects is fine? But aren't they animals too? What about a sardine? Oh you don't really care about that? So...

That's not fair. Many PETA people try too hard to save animals that are beyond saving. Personally, I see no point in trying to rescue a single lab rat. Better to spend my efforts trying to educate people about new technologies that make the old lab rat methods obsolete.

PETA people care about a lot of critters that aren't cute and furry. Salamanders, toads, and all sorts of things. It's not fair to say they have a double standard. If anything, they are so overwhelmed because they take on too much, not too little.

I find that when most people speak of "killing animals" they are actually speaking of mammals. I see people who call themselves "vegetarian"... but they eat fish? These people apparently don't know the definition of the word "animal", or worse, don't care.

You're mixing apples and oranges here. I assure you, the people who call themselves 'vegetarian' while eating fish or chicken are NOT PETA people. PETA people all know that the definition of vegetarian is someone who doesn't eat anything that ever had a face. And most real vegetarians get very annoyed when fish-eaters and even chicken-eaters steal our term vegetarian. I know people who think 'meat' means only beef, and as long as they don't eat beef, they're vegetarian. I have politely corrected many, many people on that point over the years. It's a pet peeve among vegetarians.

Please don't lump in the 'no beef' people with the PETA people, who are mostly vegan.

It is a selective application of principles. I believe that it is a sign of a faulty principle if all manner of exceptions need to be made it order to sustain it. Better to look for a new principle that creates the effect one desires, without having to be hypocritical.

Try this: Would it be hypocritical for a meat-eater to try to end violence to humans? Would it be hypocritical for a meat-eater to try to end war? or champion unborn babies, or human torture victims?

If intention matters, then it matters in all cases across the board. So you have allowed for those who believe that praying over or giving thanks for their meat to use their INTENTION to clear out any negative effects. I happen to agree with this.

Intention will help raise the vibration of the meat so that it's less harmful for the person eating it. It's inefficient - more efficient to eat something healthier and more vibrant to begin with - but it can be done.

However, it does nothing for the cow.

I don't think anybody is claiming that microbes have individuated. But then again, neither have cows.

How can you be sure about that? Many kids raising calves for 4H grew attached to them as pets, and marveled at how much personality they had. Even more so with pigs.

If an animal soul's INTENTION was to individuate, I would imagine it would incarnate as a housepet, or a dolphin, or something like that.

Or a cow...to trigger some compassion in humans.

Dolphins are 3D.

I dunno. I am inclined to believe the planet will be just fine in any case. BUT. What if all the bloodshed had something to do with the ability of a neg to break quarantine and/or stay in operation once here?

Exactly! And, in addition to that, the bloodshed kept the overall consciousness of humans down, stuck in orange/yellow, and reduced the harvest?

This might suggest that it's something more than the act of violence itself (which of course is already a negative act) but something inherently to do with the blood itself.

I think so. It would make sense from a control/manipulation standpoint. Whenever I see "two sides" that just can't seem to come to a consensus, investigation tends to yield that there is a "third side" benefiting from the conflict.

I have found from experience that the structure of the manipulation can be discerned by paying special attention to what neither side is talking about.

What are you talking about?

[zenmaster]

I'm sure this has been mentioned before, but with the 2D entity, there is literally "no one home" - there is no subjective experience when there is no reflective subject. The subject and object are one in the same - the pattern that the 2D mind holds is oriented towards fulfilling a program of growth and reproduction. I think a lot of these anthropomorphic attributions with regards to how such plants and animals process sensation are grossly misplaced. I guess it is unfathomable that life could exist which is not self-aware, but all of 2D falls into this category.

What you just said is completely counter to what Ra has told us.

According to Ra, the criteria for graduating to 3D is self-awareness, and Ra even mentioned Carla's cat as being nearly ready for graduation to 3D. This disproves the idea that there is 'no one home.'

And, anyone who's ever had a dog, cat, horse, or even cow or pig, knows full well that there is 'someone home.'

What you described applies to early 2D (plants, presumably), but not to later 2D. (I thought that's what you meant, until I read your words "all of 2D") The question we're all trying to figure out is, at what point does self-awareness occur. It's that middle point that is elusive.

3D entities are self-aware. 2D aren't. Fairly simple, and of course not "counter to what Ra told us".

Also, killing off the higher, more socially capable, 2D life forms such as apes (due to deforestation and mining) or dolphins (fishing/pollution) and increasing the pet experience instead is likely the cause of a lot of newcomer 3D confusion here.

Dolphines are 3D, not 2.

Dolphins being 2D would be counter to what Ra told us.

[Monica]

3D entities are self-aware. 2D aren't. Fairly simple, and of course not "counter to what Ra told us".

Self-awareness doesn't happen in an instant. It's a process, that develops over time. We know from Ra that the criteria for a 2D entity to be harvested to 3D is self-awareness.

That means the awareness has to happen in 2d.

I am astonished that you have stated all 2D isn't self-aware. I'm wondering how you could consider a dog or cat not self-aware?

Also, killing off the higher, more socially capable, 2D life forms such as apes (due to deforestation and mining) or dolphins (fishing/pollution) and increasing the pet experience instead is likely the cause of a lot of newcomer 3D confusion here.

Dolphines are 3D, not 2.

Dolphins being 2D would be counter to what Ra told us.

Your previous statement killing off the higher, more socially capable, 2D life forms such as apes... or dolphins seemed to indicate that you thought dolphins were 2D.

[zenmaster]

3D entities are self-aware. 2D aren't. Fairly simple, and of course not "counter to what Ra told us".

Self-awareness doesn't happen in an instant. It's a process, that develops over time. We know from Ra that the criteria for a 2D entity to be harvested to 3D is self-awareness.

That means the awareness has to happen in 2d.

I am astonished that you have stated all 2D isn't self-aware. I'm wondering how you could consider a dog or cat not self-aware?

Self-awareness comes from the spirit complex which needs a mind/body complex capable with suitable capabilities. Ra said something like a few months after a human body is formed there could be such an investment.

Also, killing off the higher, more socially capable, 2D life forms such as apes (due to deforestation and mining) or dolphins (fishing/pollution) and increasing the pet experience instead is likely the cause of a lot of newcomer 3D confusion here.

Dolphines are 3D, not 2.

Dolphins being 2D would be counter to what Ra told us.

Your previous statement killing off the higher, more socially capable, 2D life forms such as apes... or dolphins seemed to indicate that you thought dolphins were 2D.

Dolphins are 2D entities, yes.

"20.4 Questioner: Then can you give me an example of an entity in third density that was just previously a second-density entity? What type of entity do they become here?

Ra: I am Ra. As a second-density entity returns as third-density for the beginning of this process of learning, the entity is equipped with the lowest, if you will so call these vibrational distortions, forms of third-density consciousness; that is, equipped with self-consciousness."

"20.5 Questioner: This would be a human in our form then who would be beginning the understandings of third density. Is this correct?

Ra: I am Ra. This is correct."

I believe the above unequivocally addresses both questions.

[Bring4th_Austin]

To reiterate from a conversation from long ago, I also see the Ra material as obviously saying that an entity graduates 2D once the spark of self-awareness is obtained. The yellow-ray body is what makes this self-awareness possible.

Animals may have different faculties of awareness and psychology that we can relate to, since we were once (or still are) animals. I believe it's this relation which causes a psychological turn from the killing of animals in a person. We can't relate to plants the way we can relate to animals. I whole-heartedly feel that this psychological association does not mean that it is more right, moral, or spiritually aware to kill a plant over an animal.

[Monica]

Self-awareness comes from the spirit complex which needs a mind/body complex capable with suitable capabilities. Ra said something like a few months after a human body is formed there could be such an investment.

I'm not sure which quote you're referring to, but from what you just said, that's referring to the spirit complex inhabiting the body, not the entity developing self-awareness for the very first time.

If Ra had meant that, then that would mean an entity starts over with each incarnation.

I'm referring to the entity developing self-awareness, as an individuated entity, not an already individuated entity inhabiting a physical vehicle.

Dolphins are 2D entities, yes.

"20.4 Questioner: Then can you give me an example of an entity in third density that was just previously a second-density entity? What type of entity do they become here?

Ra: I am Ra. As a second-density entity returns as third-density for the beginning of this process of learning, the entity is equipped with the lowest, if you will so call these vibrational distortions, forms of third-density consciousness; that is, equipped with self-consciousness."

"20.5 Questioner: This would be a human in our form then who would be beginning the understandings of third density. Is this correct?

Ra: I am Ra. This is correct."

I believe the above unequivocally addresses both questions.

Not for me, not at all. That quote doesn't even mention dolphins at all. If you mean because Don asked "this would be a human" yes that is correct, but that doesn't mean dolphins aren't also 3D.

a=b doesn't necessarily mean a not = c.

In addition, Q'uo has stated dolphins are 3D.

And I have met dolphins. Based on my experience with them, I'd say they are at least 3D, if not higher. They're more advanced than we are. Swimming with wild dolphins was like being in the presence of a master. It took a month to process the experience.

---

To reiterate from a conversation from long ago, I also see the Ra material as obviously saying that an entity graduates 2D once the spark of self-awareness is obtained. The yellow-ray body is what makes this self-awareness possible.

By "once" do you mean in an instant? Then why are my dogs and cats still with me? They've been self-aware for many years.

Humans have a criteria for graduating to 4D: 51% STO as a minimum. Yet, many humans are well over that threshold, and are still here, shining their light. They didn't graduate instantly once the minimum threshold was reached.

Animals may have different faculties of awareness and psychology that we can relate to, since we were once (or still are) animals. I believe it's this relation which causes a psychological turn from the killing of animals in a person. We can't relate to plants the way we can relate to animals. I whole-heartedly feel that this psychological association does not mean that it is more right, moral, or spiritually aware to kill a plant over an animal.

I would be interested in your answers to the many questions I've asked over the past weeks, if you care to address them.

[Tenet Nosce]

That would be attributing a function of mind (compassion) to the physical vehicle. The body isn't capable of compassion. That's a mind function.

So then we are not our bodies? Is that what you are saying? What does that say for the cow?

Anyway, the body isn't doing it intentionally. It's how the body was designed. And we didn't design it.

Exactly. Now, did we design ourselves? If not, who?

I have wondered if maybe microbes are entities in some other octave. I bounded it off unity100 one time and he said no. But since I believe in overlapping realities, I still wonder...

Charles Wallace would say it was your farandolae.

This is getting rather absurd, dontcha think?

Right. That is the point... it is an argument ad absurdum. More solid principles for vegetarianism- of which there are many- don't result in such absurd scenarios when taken to the extreme.

[Monica]

So then we are not our bodies? Is that what you are saying? What does that say for the cow?

We are more than our bodies. Our mind/spirit complex incarnates into a body. Once an entity is self-aware, it begins its individual evolution, incurring karma.

I think higher 2D entities begin to have a spark of self-awareness, and then live many lifetimes as higher 3D entities. The cow is somewhere in that process. Some cows might be more self-aware than others, as with dogs, cats, or even humans.

Exactly. Now, did we design ourselves? If not, who?

The Sub-Logos, presumably.

Charles Wallace would say it was your farandolae.

That's digging deep in the recesses of memory! I had to look it up...then thought, oh yeah, I remember that.

Right. That is the point... it is an argument ad absurdum. More solid principles for vegetarianism- of which there are many- don't result in such absurd scenarios when taken to the extreme.

I don't think such extreme scenarios negate the vegetarian premise of avoiding cruelty. We cannot avoid killing microbes, but that doesn't negate the value of avoiding the killing of those we can avoid.

I cannot control the microbes I breathe in. But I can control what I eat. To shirk that responsibility just because I might also kill some microbes, makes no sense to me.

I wouldn't avoid helping a human victim if I could...so why would I avoid helping a cow? I see the cow. I hear its wails of pain and terror. I see it frantically trying to escape. I feel compassion. Seems pretty simple to me.

That I am unaware of the suffering of a microbe, does not absolve me of my responsibility to help the cow, whose suffering I am aware of.

The ad absurdum argument is the one perpetuated by the meat-eaters who refuse to do what is right in front of their noses, preferring instead to argue absurdities.

Fussing over microbes, which we cannot control, is absurd. Saving a cow isn't absurd.

[Tenet Nosce]

This is true. A lot of it is based on judgment, no doubt about it.

Some would appear incredulous that others would judge the situation differently. Yet any time judgment enters into the equation there will be multiple sides.

We know from Ra that higher-density STS entities routinely use lower 2D critters to do their bidding. So although I do consider 'all life precious' and that includes respecting STS entities, because they have their place too, that doesn't mean I'm going to invite them into my home. I'm cool, they're cool, but just leave me alone, ya know?

All I am pointing to is overemphasis on the form. When the soul decides it is time for the body to croak, it croaks. Often times in very uninspiring ways. Is the soul compassionate? Would it be more compassionate to allow a form to go on so long past when the consciousness has ceased to evolve?

Then, I talk to the oversoul of the cockroaches. Not an individual roach, because I don't think it can think. But the oversoul can. I offer it a pact. I won't kill them outside or in the garage, if they don't come into my house or get into my washing machine.

I have a similar agreement with spiders.

It's strictly pragmatism, nothing more. If PETA activists can't even get people to care about furry baby seals (who are killed only for a luxury item, not even for meat), then what hope is there for beetles?

You seem to be implying that animal rights activists are hypocrites. No, it's not that. It's strictly pragmatism.

This is kind of bizarre because I think that I am being more pragmatic than you! LOL. I am trying to say forget about what doesn't work, and focus on what does work. Which you are doing by linking to those videos... I haven't made the time to watch them yet but I already think I agree.

If humans truly don't need to eat meat, and moreover are healthier when they do not eat meat, then such things are demonstrable facts. There is no need to argue from a moral standpoint, because the impact on public health will stand for itself.

The minute anybody tries to apply human moral systems to animals, there is going to be a ruckus. That's just the way it is. I don't see anybody agreeing on the moral question anytime soon. (Maybe in mid-6D )

That's not fair. Many PETA people try too hard to save animals that are beyond saving. Personally, I see no point in trying to rescue a single lab rat. Better to spend my efforts trying to educate people about new technologies that make the old lab rat methods obsolete.

Of course it is fair! Actually, I would like to see some numbers. Because if we are just talking about numbers of entities then insect massacre surely would eclipse lab rat slayings by at least an order of magnitude. We could compare biomass? I dunno the little buggers might still come out on top..

Love Me!!!

What would be "fair" is to present all the facts, and for an organization about animals to fairly represent all animals. Or just simply let the "animals" thing go. If ethics apply to animals, then what is the principle by which we discern what is ethical?

What about the bees, for example? I've gotta say this is a much more dire situation than the cows.

If anything, they are so overwhelmed because they take on too much, not too little.

Take on too much = taking an hard ethical stance. I will say it again. It is a battle which need not be fought. Wasted energy. I point this out, not as an attack, but meant as support.

Why fight a battle that you are never going to win? Where does that energy come from? Sounds STS to me.

I know people who think 'meat' means only beef, and as long as they don't eat beef, they're vegetarian. I have politely corrected many, many people on that point over the years. It's a pet peeve among vegetarians.

Sadly, if somebody tells me they are "vegetarian" I have to ask specifically about fish, seafood, poultry, even lamb. So the term has become kind of empty.

Try this: Would it be hypocritical for a meat-eater to try to end violence to humans? Would it be hypocritical for a meat-eater to try to end war? or champion unborn babies, or human torture victims?

Why hold to a principle that makes one hypocritical, if another one serves the same purpose without making the same compromise? What is the value in this?

However, it does nothing for the cow.

No? So when I prayed for my grandmother's soul after her death, this also did nothing for her? Because she was separated from her body? Or?? I don't follow you.

How can you be sure about that?

I don't know. How can we?

Or a cow...to trigger some compassion in humans.

I suppose. I still wonder why a soul with such potential for individuation would choose to be a cow out in the middle of some Texas ranch. What purpose would that serve?

There is a certain percentage of the human population that likes being controlled and manipulated. They prefer it to true freedom and responsibility. Perhaps their attitudes are reflected in the cattle of the world. How would we know?

If I were going to individuate, I might choose to be an eagle. Or maybe a polar bear. Even a spider. Something which has a high degree of individuality. A cow just wouldn't be on my list really. But everybody is free to individuate as they prefer.

Exactly! And, in addition to that, the bloodshed kept the overall consciousness of humans down, stuck in orange/yellow, and reduced the harvest?

Could be. Despite some of the more philosophical banter, I have really felt more strongly moved away from buying any sort of meat in the store.

Actually, it has been an interesting experience. We just got a lamb. It was raised organically on a nearby farm, just for us. So basically, the farmer raises the lamb for us, then takes it to get slaughtered and packaged, and right to the freezer.

So I figured how long this lamb will last us, and if we consume it at a rate of a pound a week, it will be six months. And it is only one life "lost", rather than however many hundreds of cows might be in a McDonald's hamburger.

We also eat about one organically raised chicken per week- about three pounds. And then a couple pounds of seafood.. half canned, half frozen.

So the total meat consumption comes out to six pounds a week for two people. That's over 300 pounds a year! See things like that are much more impactful to me...

Now when I start thinking of cost, that comes out to around $2000 per per year, which would be about 40% of our total food costs. Probably another 10% is animal products... eggs, cheese and yogurt.

What are you talking about?

What I mean to say is... if it really is true that there are some freak-nasties out there feasting off of spilled blood, then most of the other points become moot. So it would make sense that the freak-nasties would attempt to get everybody arguing over side-issues.

[Monica]

Some would appear incredulous that others would judge the situation differently. Yet any time judgment enters into the equation there will be multiple sides.

True. And it's pointless to pretend that some degree of judgment doesn't enter into the equation. Yes, it's true that it's easier to feel compassion for cute, furry animals than for ugly insects.

But not impossible. I remember when my husband and I first moved into our house, nearly 30 years ago, and discovered cockroaches. Horrors! We promptly bought some 'roach motels...where they check in but never check out.'

We thought nothing of it.

Then, the next day, we decided to peek into that roach motel. And were horrified to witness a roach chewing off its own leg!

We felt sickened. We despised roaches, we really did. But we wouldn't wish such pain on even a nasty creature like a roach.

We never bought roach motels again.

Did we ever kill roaches after that? Yes. But not in such a cruel way that they would be forced to chew off their own legs! That was just too, too horrible!

We had compassion for roaches.

All I am pointing to is overemphasis on the form. When the soul decides it is time for the body to croak, it croaks.

Right. But I'm not going to be the one to facilitate that croaking. I'll leave that task to an STS entity who, I'm sure, will be more than happy to oblige.

Often times in very uninspiring ways.

Humans die in uninspiring ways too, like car crashes and brutal murders. But I'm not going to knowingly participate in their demise via intentional car crashes or brutal murders!

Is the soul compassionate? Would it be more compassionate to allow a form to go on so long past when the consciousness has ceased to evolve?

That gets into a whole 'nother topic, which is the reason for suffering in the first place. We already have a thread for that topic.

I have a similar agreement with spiders.

Cool! yes, spiders, and snakes, and ants, etc. It works! Just takes some practice and dedication.

This is kind of bizarre because I think that I am being more pragmatic than you! LOL. I am trying to say forget about what doesn't work, and focus on what does work.

Well actually I am doing exactly what you propose. I tried telling people to not eat animals because they suffered...it didn't work. So now I mostly tell them to not eat animals because it's better for their health. No question that this approach is waaaaaay more effective! Why? Simple selfishness. People won't make changes for the animals, but they will for themselves. And oftentimes, not even then. They don't make changes at all until they're desperately trying to heal from cancer or whatever...then suddenly they make those changes!

But this is a Law of One forum...so I would think we can be a little freer in our discussion. So yes, I am being more open about the 'real' reasons for not eating animals, than I am in everyday life.

For the record, I'm not involved with PETA (though I left them something in my will.) I don't always agree with their tactics. But I do understand their motivation. In my everyday life, I am much more low-key. I only mention the issue when it is very obvious.

Which you are doing by linking to those videos... I haven't made the time to watch them yet but I already think I agree.

Cool! I'm glad to hear someone is getting some value from them! I was beginning to wonder...

If humans truly don't need to eat meat, and moreover are healthier when they do not eat meat, then such things are demonstrable facts. There is no need to argue from a moral standpoint, because the impact on public health will stand for itself.

Agreed. Which is why, most of the time, I tell others about the health benefits and don't even mention the animals. It's sad, but that's the way it is.

The minute anybody tries to apply human moral systems to animals, there is going to be a ruckus. That's just the way it is. I don't see anybody agreeing on the moral question anytime soon. (Maybe in mid-6D )

Yup. Agreed! Look at how people can't even agree on baby humans!

Of course it is fair! Actually, I would like to see some numbers. Because if we are just talking about numbers of entities then insect massacre surely would eclipse lab rat slayings by at least an order of magnitude. We could compare biomass? I dunno the little buggers might still come out on top..

I don't think it's about numbers. I think it's about consciousness. Again, we can't control the killing of bugs and microbes (unless we're spraying insecticides of course). But we can control the unnecessary suffering of animals.

What would be "fair" is to present all the facts, and for an organization about animals to fairly represent all animals. Or just simply let the "animals" thing go. If ethics apply to animals, then what is the principle by which we discern what is ethical?

Would you apply that logic to humans who work for humanitarian causes?

What about the bees, for example? I've gotta say this is a much more dire situation than the cows.

Only in terms of how it affects humans.

Take on too much = taking an hard ethical stance. I will say it again. It is a battle which need not be fought. Wasted energy. I point this out, not as an attack, but meant as support.

Why fight a battle that you are never going to win? Where does that energy come from? Sounds STS to me.

I cannot speak for all PETA members. But I don't see how compassion for animals could ever be STS.

Sadly, if somebody tells me they are "vegetarian" I have to ask specifically about fish, seafood, poultry, even lamb. So the term has become kind of empty.

Yeah, that is sad.

Why hold to a principle that makes one hypocritical, if another one serves the same purpose without making the same compromise? What is the value in this?

I don't see it as hypocritical. But I agree it's not very efficient or effective. In practice, I do as you suggest.

No? So when I prayed for my grandmother's soul after her death, this also did nothing for her? Because she was separated from her body? Or?? I don't follow you.

If you're praying for the cow, then sure. But in this discussion, people were talking mostly about sending love to the dead meat so it would be healthier for them.

I suppose. I still wonder why a soul with such potential for individuation would choose to be a cow out in the middle of some Texas ranch. What purpose would that serve?

Oh, maybe to serve...by awakening humans to compassion?

There is a certain percentage of the human population that likes being controlled and manipulated. They prefer it to true freedom and responsibility. Perhaps their attitudes are reflected in the cattle of the world. How would we know?

Very possible! Still, I don't want to participate in that, any more than I would want to participate in a murder.

If I were going to individuate, I might choose to be an eagle. Or maybe a polar bear. Even a spider. Something which has a high degree of individuality. A cow just wouldn't be on my list really. But everybody is free to individuate as they prefer.

The process of individuation may involve more than we realize. Like, what is the purpose of animals killing one another in the first place? I admit I greatly dislike the design of this planet.

Could be. Despite some of the more philosophical banter, I have really felt more strongly moved away from buying any sort of meat in the store.

Cool! You aren't the first person to tell me that. So this thread isn't for naught...

What I mean to say is... if it really is true that there are some freak-nasties out there feasting off of spilled blood, then most of the other points become moot. So it would make sense that the freak-nasties would attempt to get everybody arguing over side-issues.

Maybe. Or just do what they can to keep them in denial, so they'll keep spilling blood...

---

Love Me!!!

Ugh! Now that is a dirty tactic! You should join PETA!

[Bring4th_Austin]

To reiterate from a conversation from long ago, I also see the Ra material as obviously saying that an entity graduates 2D once the spark of self-awareness is obtained. The yellow-ray body is what makes this self-awareness possible.

By "once" do you mean in an instant? Then why are my dogs and cats still with me? They've been self-aware for many years.

After the incarnation in which they have reached that point.

We have a single example of an entity having the possibility of returning to 2D incarnation after the point had been reached, and that is to be with the persons who it shared love with. This can't be extended to animals who have not already been enspirited by love being shared.

As a second-density entity returns as third-density for the beginning of this process of learning, the entity is equipped with the lowest, if you will so call these vibrational distortions, forms of third-density consciousness; that is, equipped with self-consciousness.

The lowest form of self-awareness is held by a new 3rd density entity. Were there lower forms of self-awareness to be held by 2D entities, Ra would not call this the lowest. Ra also very clearly equates "third-density consciousness" with "self-consciousness."

Ra also describes what is required for self-awareness in 19.10:

In order to be capable of such, this chemical complex of body must be capable of abstract thought. Thus, the fundamental necessity is the combination of rational and intuitive thinking. This was transitory in the second-density forms operating largely upon intuition which proved through practice to yield results.

This particular definition can be related to modern science's "secondary consciousness." There have been experiments developed to figure out whether or not a being has this sort of consciousness, such as awareness of self or the use of abstract though. The list of animals showing signs of either of these is short, though it does include dolphins.

Humans have a criteria for graduating to 4D: 51% STO as a minimum. Yet, many humans are well over that threshold, and are still here, shining their light. They didn't graduate instantly once the minimum threshold was reached.

We know that the harvests across different densities have different mechanics. It isn't appropriate to compare 2D harvest to 3D harvest, nor 3D harvest to 4D harvest. We know from the Gandalf escapade that once an animal leaves the incarnation in which it is enspirited, it graduates, unless it chooses to reincarnate to be with the ones by whom it was enspirited. I can't see how this situation would extend beyond pets.

In 19.3, Ra clearly equates "enspirited" with self-awareness, and transition from 2D to 3D with the "realization of self."

Animals may have different faculties of awareness and psychology that we can relate to, since we were once (or still are) animals. I believe it's this relation which causes a psychological turn from the killing of animals in a person. We can't relate to plants the way we can relate to animals. I whole-heartedly feel that this psychological association does not mean that it is more right, moral, or spiritually aware to kill a plant over an animal.

I would be interested in your answers to the many questions I've asked over the past weeks, if you care to address them.

Which questions in particular?

[Namaste]

The question is based off Peter Russel's talk with regard to consciousness. He mentions how in the current paradigms of science consciousness is considered a product of the brain. His test is to which one would find instinctively easier, pulling the plug from a PC or throwing a jellyfish (which has no brain) on the fire.

While I value all life, and indeed all things, I would unequivocally choose the former (in both case) :¬)

How does he test it? If it was like a lie detector, I would probably register high on anxiety for pulling the plug, unless its a laptop with charged battery.

It's not a physical test, it's just a quick mental/emotional exercise :¬)

[βαθμιαίος]

I will reword it: If there is no difference between eating plants and eating animals, then why did Ra put restrictions on our consumption of 'animal products' but not on plants?

It's not that there's no difference, it's that the differences don't have to do with individuation.

What about my strawberry question? For those who are arguing that plants are just as much entities as animals, then would anyone care to explain that?

Plants reproduce by division sometimes.

Why, then, are we even talking about plants?

We were trying to understand how individuation applies to plants and to animals.

[Diana]

That's not fair. Many PETA people try too hard to save animals that are beyond saving. Personally, I see no point in trying to rescue a single lab rat. Better to spend my efforts trying to educate people about new technologies that make the old lab rat methods obsolete.

Of course it is fair! Actually, I would like to see some numbers. Because if we are just talking about numbers of entities then insect massacre surely would eclipse lab rat slayings by at least an order of magnitude. We could compare biomass? I dunno the little buggers might still come out on top..

Love Me!!!

What would be "fair" is to present all the facts, and for an organization about animals to fairly represent all animals. Or just simply let the "animals" thing go. If ethics apply to animals, then what is the principle by which we discern what is ethical?

What about the bees, for example? I've gotta say this is a much more dire situation than the cows.

How can you be so judgmental about PETA? Okay, blame their ad agency for the word "animal" in their name. But why? They have the directive to inform about, and stop, unethical treatment of animals. They are doing what they can and picking their battles. They can't do everything. Do you?

As for cockroaches, I do love them as I love all life (not in a personal, conditional way like a person would love their child or mate, but in an impersonal objective way). One time I was in my house barefoot. I was standing at the sink. I felt something tickling under my toes. A cockroach had hidden there and I felt the antennae. I got this rush of gentleness, that it was out there trying to survive. I don't care about "germs," I handle that by keeping my environment clean, not by killing entities attracted to my garbage.

---

What's wrong with trying to save one lab rat? One life is important. Have you thought about the suffering? Pouring horrible chemicals in their eyes, on their skin, injecting them with stuff many times that of the concentration needed. Can you imagine what sort of life this is? For what? So humans can take medications and use chemical products that harm them too, and the planet? Humans should test on humans, if they want to test at all. There is no reason to test, as computer modeling would suffice.

Sometimes when I let even a fly outside, I think, wow, that fly has a short life. It can now fly free in the beautiful desert, instead of desperately walking the window pane to get out there.

---

I suppose. I still wonder why a soul with such potential for individuation would choose to be a cow out in the middle of some Texas ranch. What purpose would that serve?

If I were going to individuate, I might choose to be an eagle. Or maybe a polar bear. Even a spider. Something which has a high degree of individuality. A cow just wouldn't be on my list really. But everybody is free to individuate as they prefer.

Perhaps the cow, in choosing to be a cow, has in part made an agreement to show humans what they are doing that is out of balance with the whole? I surmise that's why whales beach themselves--to tell us that we are polluting the oceans.

It is your ego that wants to be an eagle. Your spirit may choose otherwise, as it may have different considerations which include something beyond yourself.

[Monica]

It's not that there's no difference, it's that the differences don't have to do with individuation.

I disagree. Individuation seems to be the only logical reason why animals would have pain receptors and plants don't.

Can you offer an alternative explanation?

What about my strawberry question? For those who are arguing that plants are just as much entities as animals, then would anyone care to explain that?

Plants reproduce by division sometimes.

So at what point does that appendage of an entity become a separate entity?

We were trying to understand how individuation applies to plants and to animals.

What I meant was, for those of us in agreement that it's ok to eat plants (and that includes Ra, by the way), there is no point in discussing whether plants suffer when we eat them. We must eat them to survive here in 3D. It's a completely moot point.

It seems to me that this focus on plants is evading the real issue. (Not referring to you personally but to all the points brought up about plants.)

---

By "once" do you mean in an instant? Then why are my dogs and cats still with me? They've been self-aware for many years.

After the incarnation in which they have reached that point.[/quote]

Then you and I have a very, very different understanding about the process of graduation to higher densities.

Unity100 and I had a conversation about this. His view was similar to yours, in that a single spark of the required aspect had to be reached, and then the entity immediately graduated.

Applied to 3D graduating to 4D, this would mean that as soon as any human reached the threshold of 51%, they could leave this density and graduate. He felt that compassion didn't exist in 3D, since it is a trait of 4D.

I strongly disagreed. Just by looking around I can plainly see that many, many humans exhibit strong qualities of love and compassion, here in 3D.

It seems to me that a human graduating with only 51% would be a 'D' student, ie. reaching the bare minimum. But most people are C or B students, and some are A students.

It seems to me that entities graduating to 4D with only 51% would be rather weak, and might even slip backwards, meaning that 4D would be rather unstable.

But aside from what seems to me to be a reasonable expectation that there would be more than just D students graduating, the main reason I believe that is simple observation.

It is the same with 2D graduating to 3D. Simple observation tells me that some of my pets are more self-aware than others. But all are self-aware to some extent. It's unreasonable to me to think that a 2D entity would graduate to 3D after only a single lifetime of developing a spark of self-awareness.

If that were true, then that is all the more reason to treat those cows and chickens with compassion. They are being cruelly treated and brutally slaughtered by the billions. Such trauma is surely triggering the spark of self-awareness, as any intense emotion can do. If those billions of cows and chickens are now ready to graduate to 3D, then I shudder to think of what kind of horrible, barbaric planet they will be inhabiting!

It makes much more sense to me that they would have more lifetimes after the traumatic one, in which to have an opportunity to develop that blossoming self-awareness in a loving environment, such as being a dog in a loving family.

What we know about the process of karma would suggest that an entity who developed self-awareness via trauma as a chicken, might attract to itself several lifetimes as a feral dog, abused and beaten, until some human finally shows compassion on him and rehabilitates him with love.

We have a single example of an entity having the possibility of returning to 2D incarnation after the point had been reached, and that is to be with the persons who it shared love with. This can't be extended to animals who have not already been enspirited by love being shared.

I disagree with your interpretation. As I mentioned before, if being drawn out by love were the only way to develop self-awareness, then what is the point of 2D life at all?

And by the way, Ra stated that all life is already enspirited. That's different from the process of developing self-awareness.

As a second-density entity returns as third-density for the beginning of this process of learning, the entity is equipped with the lowest, if you will so call these vibrational distortions, forms of third-density consciousness; that is, equipped with self-consciousness.

The lowest form of self-awareness is held by a new 3rd density entity. Were there lower forms of self-awareness to be held by 2D entities, Ra would not call this the lowest. Ra also very clearly equates "third-density consciousness" with "self-consciousness."

This is a relative term. It could be said that 51% green is the lowest form of love.

I read that as referring to the experience of a newly awakened 3D entity.

Ra also describes what is required for self-awareness in 19.10:

In order to be capable of such, this chemical complex of body must be capable of abstract thought. Thus, the fundamental necessity is the combination of rational and intuitive thinking. This was transitory in the second-density forms operating largely upon intuition which proved through practice to yield results.

Thank you for that quote! This seems to support my view that animals are able to develop self-awareness, but plants generally aren't (again, excepting trees).

It's well established that animals can think. Yes, even cows and chickens. Some months back, I posted some links to studies showing that cows and chickens are far more intelligent than previously thought. Even cows have been known to think independently!

[Bring4th_Austin]

By "once" do you mean in an instant? Then why are my dogs and cats still with me? They've been self-aware for many years.

After the incarnation in which they have reached that point.

Then you and I have a very, very different understanding about the process of graduation to higher densities.

Unity100 and I had a conversation about this. His view was similar to yours, in that a single spark of the required aspect had to be reached, and then the entity immediately graduated.

It's in the material...Gandalf could have graduated or chosen to return to stay with the L/L crew. It was even Ra's suggestion to Gandalf that he graduate instead of reincarnate.

I find nothing in the material or any reason to think that once an entity gains awareness, it would have any reason to return to 2D except for the single example we are given, that is Gandalf's choice to either graduate or stay with the one's who loved him.

Applied to 3D graduating to 4D, this would mean that as soon as any human reached the threshold of 51%, they could leave this density and graduate.

Again, graduation is different for every density. Ra says that 4D entities can be harvested as soon as they reach harvestability. 3D harvest cannot be used as a comparison for all harvest.

I strongly disagreed. Just by looking around I can plainly see that many, many humans exhibit strong qualities of love and compassion, here in 3D.

Because many many humans incarnated today were on the threshold of harvestability already, or are Wanderers, or already harvested beings from other planets.

It is the same with 2D graduating to 3D. Simple observation tells me that some of my pets are more self-aware than others. But all are self-aware to some extent. It's unreasonable to me to think that a 2D entity would graduate to 3D after only a single lifetime of developing a spark of self-awareness.

What you observe to be self-aware is not what Ra considers to be self-aware. If we discovered a self-aware dog or cat based on Ra's definition and modern science's ability to discern which beings are self-aware, it would be huge HUGE news.

And I'm not sure what's so unreasonable to think that an entity obtaining the spark of awareness of self would then be qualified for 3D incarnation. That seems completely reasonable to me. They've spent their entire 2D existence striving for that point.

If that were true, then that is all the more reason to treat those cows and chickens with compassion. They are being cruelly treated and brutally slaughtered by the billions. Such trauma is surely triggering the spark of self-awareness, as any intense emotion can do. If those billions of cows and chickens are now ready to graduate to 3D, then I shudder to think of what kind of horrible, barbaric planet they will be inhabiting!

Who said they were ready to graduate? Ra clearly points out that being enspirited with love is the most common way for a 2D entity to reach awareness of self and mentions absolutely nothing about trauma doing the same thing. That would be an assumption.

It's your own supposition that the chickens and cows are ready to graduate, and I'm not sure where it comes from.

What we know about the process of karma would suggest that an entity who developed self-awareness via trauma as a chicken, might attract to itself several lifetimes as a feral dog, abused and beaten, until some human finally shows compassion on him and rehabilitates him with love.

Again, why are you assuming that trauma sparks self-awareness? Ra doesn't mention this at all and it doesn't make any sense to me.

We have a single example of an entity having the possibility of returning to 2D incarnation after the point had been reached, and that is to be with the persons who it shared love with. This can't be extended to animals who have not already been enspirited by love being shared.

I disagree with your interpretation. As I mentioned before, if being drawn out by love were the only way to develop self-awareness, then what is the point of 2D life at all?

It's not the only way to reach self-awareness. Don and Ra talked about this:

14.2 Questioner: When this Earth was second-density, how did the second-density beings on it become so invested?
Ra: I am Ra. There was not this type of investment as spoken but the simple third-density investment which is the line of spiraling light calling distortion upward from density to density. The process takes longer when there is no investment made by incarnate third-density beings.

It is the nature of all beings to strive upwards. Even plants. Ra even uses plants as the prime example of this.

13.18. ..."This movement is the characteristic of second density, the striving towards light and growth."

Notice Ra didn't exclude any 2D beings. The characteristic of ALL of second density is the striving towards light and growth, including lettuce, carrots, beets, aphids, cows, chickens, and monkeys.

As a second-density entity returns as third-density for the beginning of this process of learning, the entity is equipped with the lowest, if you will so call these vibrational distortions, forms of third-density consciousness; that is, equipped with self-consciousness.

The lowest form of self-awareness is held by a new 3rd density entity. Were there lower forms of self-awareness to be held by 2D entities, Ra would not call this the lowest. Ra also very clearly equates "third-density consciousness" with "self-consciousness."

This is a relative term. It could be said that 51% green is the lowest form of love.

A relative term would be "lower." Lowest is a base-point. There's no other way to interpret "lowest" except for it doesn't get lower. That's the definition of lowest.

I read that as referring to the experience of a newly awakened 3D entity.

"As a second-density entity returns as third-density for the beginning of this process of learning"

Ra also describes what is required for self-awareness in 19.10:

In order to be capable of such, this chemical complex of body must be capable of abstract thought. Thus, the fundamental necessity is the combination of rational and intuitive thinking. This was transitory in the second-density forms operating largely upon intuition which proved through practice to yield results.

Thank you for that quote! This seems to support my view that animals are able to develop self-awareness, but plants generally aren't (again, excepting trees).

Could you explain that? Why would this exclude plants except trees? Trees and other plants have the exact same faculties of awareness. And Ra never excluded all plants excepting trees. A lettuce plant has the same awareness as a tree. They have the same methods of survival, reproduction, and existence. Your logic is confusing.

It's well established that animals can think. Yes, even cows and chickens. Some months back, I posted some links to studies showing that cows and chickens are far more intelligent than previously thought. Even cows have been known to think independently!

It's also well established that these animals do not think abstractly and do not have even the lowest form of self-awareness according to modern science which has the same definition of self-awareness as Ra. These things can be tested and proven. Observing an animal and relating to it psychologically does not mean that it is thinking abstractly or has any trait indicative of what Ra considers self-awareness.

And to put these animals which show no signs of abstract thought above plants in terms of spiritual awareness would be folly. Again, just because we can relate to their faculties of awareness doesn't mean that plants do not exist vibrating in the same energy centers.

41.14 Questioner: Could you tell me the simplest and first entity to have both orange and yellow ray energy centers?
Ra: I am Ra. Upon your planetary sphere those having the first yellow ray experiences are those of animal and vegetable natures which find the necessity for reproduction by bisexual techniques or who find it necessary to depend in some way upon otherselves for survival and growth.

Both plants AND animals which rely on bisexual reproduction have activated yellow ray energy centers, placing them in the same category of spiritual awareness. Not being able to relate to the plant's awareness is not a reason to find them more suitable for consumption in my eyes.

[BrownEye]

Which animals are bisexual?

[βαθμιαίος]

I disagree. Individuation seems to be the only logical reason why animals would have pain receptors and plants don't.

Can you offer an alternative explanation?

Survival.

So at what point does that appendage of an entity become a separate entity?

When it is able to support itself, I guess.

It seems to me that this focus on plants is evading the real issue.

In a thread that's in large part about vegetarianism and veganism, it's only natural to put some focus on plants. The argument has been put forward that livestock animals are individuated but plants grown as produce are not. In order to explore that argument, paying attention to how second-density entities, including plants, become individuated is to be expected.

---

Both plants AND animals which rely on bisexual reproduction have activated yellow ray energy centers, placing them in the same category of spiritual awareness. Not being able to relate to the plant's awareness is not a reason to find them more suitable for consumption in my eyes.

Nicely put.