In regards to eating meat

[BrownEye]

Meaning that a meat eater is generally more selfish ?

Can be, but I find it normally just a result of programming.

I guess you could find a line between programmed for belief, and making a conscious choice to ignore what you have become aware of.

Let's take a poll: How many people would readily sell their dog if they knew the dog would be killed an eaten?

This would be normal in certain countries, simply because they have been programmed from birth to accept this.

[Monica]

Imagine you are an American Indian or an Inuit 600 years ago. You kill the animal and thank said animal for sacrificing its incarnation just so you can continue yours. It is indeed a selfish act.

The difference is that, in that case, killing it was necessary for survival.

That's no longer the case.

Which is probably why Ra stated to the extent necessary for the individual metabolism.

[Patrick]

Imagine you are an American Indian or an Inuit 600 years ago. You kill the animal and thank said animal for sacrificing its incarnation just so you can continue yours. It is indeed a selfish act.

The difference is that, in that case, killing it was necessary for survival.

That's no longer the case.

As far as I know, this is true because of technology.

Which is probably why Ra stated to the extent necessary for the individual metabolism.

I take it to mean that some people really do need to eat meat. And from the research I have done, this seems to indeed be the case.

[norral]

if people want to eat meat it is their right. the objection i have is the scale we are doing it on. it is on such a huge huge scale that it has become a huge huge industry supplying the fast food places and restaurants. my wife grew up in the phillipines and they ate meat perhaps once a week if that. it was mostly fish. do we really need the large amounts of meat we are consuming. if i have sausages in the morning for breakfast and a chicken sandwich for lunch do i need pork chops at night. i personally dont if i eat meat i eat it once a day and find that is quite sufficient. the profit motive is driving the meat industry and we are encouraged to eat it beyond any levels that we require for survival

norral

[Monica]

Not more evolved, simply not veiled. 2d beings are not veiled and so can communicate psychically.

Ah, but then why don't dogs, cats and cows communicate psychically?

I think we're close to resolving this. Stay with me here, please.

What do we know?

1. Plants communicate psychically with one another.
2. Higher 2D entities (cows, chickens, dogs, cats, etc.) don't.

Why might that be?

If, as some of the meat-eaters say, all 2D entities are basically the same, then if they can communicate psychically because they're not veiled, then it would logically follow that all unveiled 2D entities would have that ability.

But they don't. If they did - if animals had that same ability - then cows would in a constant frenzy, sensing all the death around them.

But they aren't. Cows are, as they say, 'contented' until they walk up the plank to the executioner, and smell the stench of death around them. Only then do they get worked up and become terrified.

The evidence showing that plants warn other plants of impending danger is being used to support the argument that plants are just as sentient as animals. But I think it actually supports the opposite argument: that they are able to send psychic signals because they are all part of a single organism, a single group consciousness.

Whereas, the very fact that animals don't do that, is indicative of them being individuated.

In addition, 2D is a very long density. It's unreasonable to assume that entities don't progress at all, during that whole time, but are all the same. In my view, it's much more reasonable to think that entities do indeed progress, and choose physical vehicles according to their level of consciousness. An entity whose consciousness is beginning to become individuated, would be more likely to incarnate into a body capable of movement.

There is some intelligence to the design of physical vehicles. Plants don't need motility because they aren't individuated. And the evidence of them communicating with one another strongly supports my assertion that they have a group consciousness, rather than being individually sentient.

It seems, that at the time, I did not go to a proper source of information to prepare for it.

So what would you consider a good source of information on eating raw vegan, on the web ?

Thanks !

I'll gather some websites and resources for you!

[Patrick]

There is no denying that we eat way too much meat for our needs.

[βαθμιαίος]

2. Higher 2D entities (cows, chickens, dogs, cats, etc.) don't.

I don't think this is accurate. Herds of grazers, flocks of birds, hunting lions -- all exhibit spontaneous changes of direction where the entire group acts as one.

[Monica]

Yes, but animals are much further along in the process of individuation. Why do I think that? I have offered extensive explanations throughout this thread.

I'm not sure it really matters which is further along in the process. But I agree, let's let it go.

I wasn't suggesting that we let it go, but of course you can if you wish.

I feel it does matter, and matters greatly.

Just as the difference between a dog and child matters, the difference between a cow and a plant matters.

Fair enough. Can you accept that it's possible to do it with compassion?

Yes. BUT, I would only consider it compassion if the act was truly necessary.

Do you feel compassion for the carrots you harvest from your garden?

Love, yes. Gratitude, yes. Joy, yes.

Compassion, no.

Why? Because they aren't suffering. Compassion is something we extend to an entity who is suffering.

It depends on the homeowner, doesn't it?

Yes indeed, as Monkey so clearly pointed out.

I realize now I was making an assumption: That most people who have dogs actually care about them. I see I was wrong.

So my example only works if the person cares more for his dog than for his, say, bed or couch...ie. the dog is more than just a possession, but is actually loved.

Now, for those people - the ones who consider their dogs to be part of their family - Let's say they love plants too. I challenge anyone to find me a person (other than Monkey) who would save the plant before saving the dog.

[Patrick]

Not more evolved, simply not veiled. 2d beings are not veiled and so can communicate psychically.

Ah, but then why don't dogs, cats and cows communicate psychically?

I think we're close to resolving this. Stay with me here, please.

What do we know?

1. Plants communicate psychically with one another.
2. Higher 2D entities (cows, chickens, dogs, cats, etc.) don't.

Why might that be?

If, as some of the meat-eaters say, all 2D entities are basically the same, then if they can communicate psychically because they're not veiled, then it would logically follow that all unveiled 2D entities would have that ability.

But they don't. If they did - if animals had that same ability - then cows would in a constant frenzy, sensing all the death around them.

But they aren't. Cows are, as they say, 'contented' until they walk up the plank to the executioner, and smell the stench of death around them. Only then do they get worked up and become terrified.

The evidence showing that plants warn other plants of impending danger is being used to support the argument that plants are just as sentient as animals. But I think it actually supports the opposite argument: that they are able to send psychic signals because they are all part of a single organism, a single group consciousness.

Whereas, the very fact that animals don't do that, is indicative of them being individuated.

In addition, 2D is a very long density. It's unreasonable to assume that entities don't progress at all, during that whole time, but are all the same. In my view, it's much more reasonable to think that entities do indeed progress, and choose physical vehicles according to their level of consciousness. An entity whose consciousness is beginning to become individuated, would be more likely to incarnate into a body capable of movement.

There is some intelligence to the design of physical vehicles. Plants don't need motility because they aren't individuated. And the evidence of them communicating with one another strongly supports my assertion that they have a group consciousness, rather than being individually sentient.

But I do believe that animals communicate in the same way plants do. Sounds for them is just adding to this, like body language is for us.

Animals do not worry about being killed in the future, simply because they live in the NOW.

Humans are also much better off when living in the now. Worrying about the future is part of our "insanity".

[Monica]

2. Higher 2D entities (cows, chickens, dogs, cats, etc.) don't.

I don't think this is accurate. Herds of grazers, flocks of birds, hunting lions -- all exhibit spontaneous changes of direction where the entire group acts as one.

That's right! I was expecting this, and quite agree. This too supports my point. Wild animals who have not yet been individuated, still have this ability, and we call it instinct.

Whereas, domesticated animals have lost it. Why might this be so?

Furthermore, if you take a baby away from the flock or herd, and raise it as a pet, it will begin to develop its own personality, ie. sentience. Ask anyone who has ever raised a wild lion cub, fawn, or baby raccoon.

What happens when that animal is released back into the wild?

Oftentimes, it has a difficult time surviving. Why? Because it has lost its instinctual connection to the herd.

But try that with a plant. Take a wild plant and plant it in a pot inside. It will still show a connection to other plants. In fact, that is precisely what was done in those experiments; they were using houseplants in many cases, not wild dandelions.

The logical conclusion is that plants retain their group consciousness, even when in 'captivity' so to speak, ie. in a potted container. But animals taken from the wild seem to lose their instinctual connection, to a large degree.

I contend this is because the process of individuation has begun.

It's not the only way for individuation to occur. I contend that violent death also triggers it.

In which case, what sort of awareness is being birthed?

[βαθμιαίος]

I raise both cattle and chickens, and my honest belief is that they are not individuated except in rare cases where they have a lot of interaction with a human.

Why? Because they aren't suffering. Compassion is something we extend to an entity who is suffering.

Really? You don't think that carrots suffer when we pull them out of the ground and they slowly die in our refrigerators until we eat them? I do.

Now, for those people - the ones who consider their dogs to be part of their family - Let's say they love plants too. I challenge anyone to find me a person (other than Monkey) who would save the plant before saving the dog.

I have known people who have plants that have been handed down in their families for generations. I can imagine them running to save their plant before their dog.

[Monica]

But I do believe that animals communicate in the same way plants do.

Look at my example of the cows in the factory farm. They aren't warning the other cows, as plants do.

Animals do not worry about being killed in the future, simply because they live in the NOW.

I disagree. As soon as the cow in the slaughterhouse smells the blood and fear of the cow ahead of her, she starts freaking out. That is apprehension of the future, not living in the now.

[βαθμιαίος]

That's right! I was expecting this, and quite agree. This too supports my point. Wild animals who have not yet been individuated, still have this ability, and we call it instinct.

Whereas, domesticated animals have lost it. Why might this be so?

I don't agree that domesticated animals have lost it. Cattle certainly think as a herd.

[BrownEye]

2. Higher 2D entities (cows, chickens, dogs, cats, etc.) don't.

I don't think this is accurate. Herds of grazers, flocks of birds, hunting lions -- all exhibit spontaneous changes of direction where the entire group acts as one.

Yes, this is true. This is how a flock of birds will never bump into each other during flight.

Recently I picked up on some sort of message/signal sent by a flock formation. While I consciously noticed that it caught my undivided attention somewhat abnormally, it had the same effect on my wife and children as well. It was like watching the random whimsical flow of consciousness in its flight of fancy. Not just birds in flight.

There is the individual not aware of itself as an "individual". Fairly easy to change this in an animal, very hard to do the same with a plant.

I had brought this up before, a tree is described as being in a permanent state of meditation. I am sure you are aware of those that can separate from extreme sensations, like pain, while in a meditative state.

While keeping this line of thought, do you suppose a tree suddenly comes out of its meditative state fully when changes take place? This is where I find an obvious difference in "suffering" between a plant and an animal. While a lower animal may not suffer as much as a more developed animal, I would say that the sense of suffering is there to allow the directive of self perpetuation and self preservation.

---

As soon as the cow in the slaughterhouse smells the blood and fear of the cow ahead of her, she starts freaking out. That is apprehension of the future, not living in the now.

This is true as well.

[Patrick]

Ra stated that some trees can be harvested directly to 3d. They don't need to become animals first.

[Monica]

I raise both cattle and chickens, and my honest belief is that they are not individuated except in rare cases where they have a lot of interaction with a human.

Then you are supporting my assertion that they have the capability for individuation.

I have 3 points to make regarding this:

1. If they do indeed have the capacity to become individuated, as you just acknowledged, then how can we be so sure they haven't already started the process?

2. If they do indeed have that capacity, then why does their value (or lack thereof) get determined by whether humans decide to draw them out or not? ie. if I decide to single out 1 chicken as a pet, and draw out its consciousness, but kill the others, then that would mean I get to determine its worth and value. Do I really want that responsibility?

3. You're acknowledged individuation in animals. Does a carrot live long enough for that to happen? Have you ever had a pet carrot? Maybe it's possible, but how likely is it? Sure, some people might draw out consciousness in a houseplant. That houseplant might actually develop sentience, just like the chicken. But they don't then kill and eat the houseplant.

Really? You don't think that carrots suffer when we pull them out of the ground and they slowly die in our refrigerators until we eat them? I do.

No, I don't. If that were true, then the very grass beneath our feet lives in constant agony.

I have known people who have plants that have been handed down in their families for generations. I can imagine them running to save their plant before their dog.

That's a stretch.

But ok, fine, even in those rare cases, do they then kill and eat the plant?

---

I don't agree that domesticated animals have lost it. Cattle certainly think as a herd.

But not like plants.

Why, then, don't cows warn other cows of their impending doom? Why don't they sense the impending slaughter of the other cows, and warn them like plants do? why do they not react until it's their own turn to be slaughtered?

[βαθμιαίος]

Re: individuation -- here's my take: Both plants and animals have the potential to be individuated. Plants and animals grown for food tend not to be individuated.

Your argument seems to be that if an entity has begun the process of individuation, then it is morally wrong to kill and eat that entity. Correct?

Re: suffering -- it's a long ways from being stepped on to being killed and eaten.

Re: house plants -- no, of course they don't kill and eat the houseplant, just like they don't kill and eat the pet. That was my point.

[Monica]

Ra stated that some trees can be harvested directly to 3d. They don't need to become animals first.

That's true. But my understanding of that is those ancient 'grandfather' trees who have lived for centuries, and have had rich experiences, oftentimes loved by generations of humans.

That's not the same as a carrot who lives, what, a couple of months, and is but one of many, many carrots in the garden.

[BrownEye]

Ra stated that some trees can be harvested directly to 3d. They don't need to become animals first.

That's true. But my understanding of that is those ancient 'grandfather' trees who have lived for centuries, and have had rich experiences, oftentimes loved by generations of humans.

This is what people miss.............the interaction with Humans. Dog was mentioned as a hint to our effect on evolution and helping others up. Tree was mentioned, but the same connection was omitted.

[Patrick]

But I do believe that animals communicate in the same way plants do.

Look at my example of the cows in the factory farm. They aren't warning the other cows, as plants do.

Animals do not worry about being killed in the future, simply because they live in the NOW.

I disagree. As soon as the cow in the slaughterhouse smells the blood and fear of the cow ahead of her, she starts freaking out. That is apprehension of the future, not living in the now.

Of course she is living in the now, being in that slaughterhouse at the end of the incarnation is the now for that "aspect of cowness".

---

Ra stated that some trees can be harvested directly to 3d. They don't need to become animals first.

That's true. But my understanding of that is those ancient 'grandfather' trees who have lived for centuries, and have had rich experiences, oftentimes loved by generations of humans.

That's not the same as a carrot who lives, what, a couple of months, and is but one of many, many carrots in the garden.

I could use the same analogy with cattle.

---

Ra stated that some trees can be harvested directly to 3d. They don't need to become animals first.

That's true. But my understanding of that is those ancient 'grandfather' trees who have lived for centuries, and have had rich experiences, oftentimes loved by generations of humans.

This is what people miss.............the interaction with Humans. Dog was mentioned as a hint to our effect on evolution and helping others up. Tree was mentioned, but the same connection was omitted.

I was implying this connection. I should have made myself clearer.

[BrownEye]

Another thing I should mention, Ra did not offer "polarizing" information since that would infringe free will. Information was given to cause a seeking of meaning to what was said. Finding that meaning, choosing to evolve with what was learned, may cause polarization.

How many of us are the same as we were 5 years ago? Have health issues (mental or physical) increased or decreased?

I am not the same physically, mentally, or even at the level of Soul.

In reality my program was not to polarize in this incarnation.

---

I was implying this connection. I should have made myself clearer.

LoL! Don't worry about feelings in this thread. In this thread only plants have feelings ha ha ha

[Monica]

Re: individuation -- here's my take: Both plants and animals have the potential to be individuated. Plants and animals grown for food tend not to be individuated.

My point is that animals, even farm animals, have a much greater capacity to individuate than plants. Also, strong experiences can trigger individuation too. What sort of awareness is being sparked when a cow is tortured?

What sort of 3D worlds are being inhabited by animals who became aware in a moment of fear and pain?

If we are really 6D entities, then we have a huge responsibility here. We could be affecting future worlds and entire populations.

Those cow souls don't just go poof and disappear.

Your argument seems to be that if an entity has begun the process of individuation, then it is morally wrong to kill and eat that entity. Correct?

Not quite. I think any killing is morally wrong, unless it is absolutely necessary. I think it's morally wrong to wantonly pull up a weed in my yard for no reason other than it's "just a weed." I think it's morally wrong to step on a bug just because it's a lowly bug. I think it's morally wrong to disrespect life in general. But if there is a very good reason to pull up that weed or kill that bug, then that is all weighed out karmically. In other words, I don't feel guilt for cutting my grass, because it has to be done. But I'm not going to just go around pulling up plants for no reason.

It's the same with animals. Primitive people had no choice. They had to kill, in order to survive. But that's no longer true.

The reason I talk so much about individuation is to try to show the difference between plants and animals, in response to all the arguments saying they're the same. What is obvious to me, apparently isn't obvious to others.

Re: suffering -- it's a long ways from being stepped on to being killed and eaten.

Others in this thread have offered the argument that each time the lawn is mowed, the grass writhes in agony, and each time a leaf is torn from the lettuce plant, it's the same as tearing a leg off an animal.

What do you think? Do you think a lettuce plant is being tortured each time a leaf is torn off?

Re: house plants -- no, of course they don't kill and eat the houseplant, just like they don't kill and eat the pet. That was my point.

And my point was that most people would save the dog first, before worrying about house plants. Regardless of whether it's their own dog. The firefighters would save the dog first too, after saving the child of course.

[3DMonkey]

Re: the study I posted -- it is true that second-density consciousness is species-based, but that's true for both animals and plants, and the lesson/goal for both is individuation.

Yes, but animals are much further along in the process of individuation. Why do I think that? I have offered extensive explanations throughout this thread.

[quote='3DMonkey' pid='83633' dateline='1335802036']
What I said was that your "eating someone's dog" scenario is only a problem because it is personal property, in the same way a car is. As is a person's will, so that there is no spiritual damage when a person takes a bite of steak at the dinner table if they person is detached from remorse.

---

*that

---

If you would like to eat my dog, there is a $2500 charge. Then, there is no problem.

---

That is a Monica Only Offer

Well you are unusual, Monkey. Most people consider their dogs to be family members.

True, some don't. To some people, a dog is just a thing, a possession.

Let's take a poll: How many people would readily sell their dog if they knew the dog would be killed an eaten?

I'm concerned the transaction would be against the law. The scenario is quite silly to me. You created the hypothetical scenario to try to explain how we must already know compassion towards animals by using a pet as the example. This example has no bearing on eating meat because it only shows that people take issue with an other telling them what to do with their property.

This has nothing to do with my relationship with my pet, and nothing in this conversation reveals my relationship with my pet.

[Patrick]

Ra mentioned a planet where 3d entities were treelike beings. If we landed there, we would never know that they are self aware.

Beings should not have to be like us in order for us to show compassion. Animals are more like us than plants. But that does not equate to them being higher in 2d. I have the same compassion for plants that I do for animals and humans. All are my other selves. Yet my current form requires eating other 2d beings to stay in physicality.

Maybe plants are a more ethical life-form than animal-like life-forms (like us). They can live in physicality directly from 1d beings and the light/love of our sub-logos.

Maybe they would have a debate about how ethical it is to use higher forms of 1d being, like mineral crystals, instead of lower forms like simple dirt.

[βαθμιαίος]

I don't think a lettuce plant is being tortured, but I do think it is hurt when a leaf is removed. I don't think cows that are humanely slaughtered are tortured, either.

In other words, I don't feel guilt for cutting my grass, because it has to be done. But I'm not going to just go around pulling up plants for no reason.

I feel similarly about killing and eating animals. In moderation, and done with care and respect, it is appropriate for some people.

What is obvious to me, apparently isn't obvious to others.

I know the feeling.

[Monica]

In this thread only plants have feelings ha ha ha

Haha yeah that is exactly right.

[Diana]

I'm concerned the transaction would be against the law. The scenario is quite silly to me. You created the hypothetical scenario to try to explain how we must already know compassion towards animals by using a pet as the example. This example has no bearing on eating meat because it only shows that people take issue with an other telling them what to do with their property.

This has nothing to do with my relationship with my pet, and nothing in this conversation reveals my relationship with my pet.

What is revealed to me is that you see your pet as your property.

This is the very egocentric human behavior that has nearly wrecked this planet: that all things (and life other than human) are for our (human) use, our "property," our chattel (as men once thought of women, and still do in some cultures).

[Monica]

I don't think cows that are humanely slaughtered are tortured, either.

Animals in factory farms are routinely tortured, on a daily basis. And even those who say they buy only 'humanely' slaughtered meat, still eat in restaurants, most likely.

I think the term 'humanely slaughtered' is an oxymoron. Why? Try applying it to a human and it falls apart.

I feel similarly about killing and eating animals. In moderation, and done with care and respect, it is appropriate for some people.

Yes, to the extent necessary for the individual metabolism.

I know the feeling.

My questions remain unanswered, even though I've asked them several times:

1. Is it as easy to butcher a cow as it to pull a carrot from the ground? What is the significance of this?

2. And, even IF plants did feel pain, how can that justify killing animals? (Especially when eating meat causes more death to plants, since plants must first be fed to the animals.)

3. The whole argument about plants seems to be skirting the issue, when we cannot survive without eating plants. But most of us, with a little education, can survive quite well without eating animals. Eating plants is necessary. How is eating animals ever justified, when it's not necessary?

---

I'm concerned the transaction would be against the law. The scenario is quite silly to me. You created the hypothetical scenario to try to explain how we must already know compassion towards animals by using a pet as the example. This example has no bearing on eating meat because it only shows that people take issue with an other telling them what to do with their property.

This has nothing to do with my relationship with my pet, and nothing in this conversation reveals my relationship with my pet.

It reveals a great deal, actually. Your words reveal that you view your dog as a mere object, a thing, a possession. Your concern is the same as with any other piece of property. YOUR words, not mine.

I had hoped to elicit some feeling of compassion towards an animal that one already loves, rather than broaching the taboo subject of the obvious love we all (presumably) have for other humans.

I had hoped that an analogy of a beloved dog might trigger a sense of compassion that others could relate too, because I (mistakenly) assumed that we all have love for our dogs, not just as mere property, but as members of our family.

The point was to show that we naturally have more love for an animal, than for a plant. (Just as most of us naturally have more love for our human family members than for our animal family members, though that isn't always true, especially in cases of lonely people whose only family might be their dog or cat.)

Unfortunately, my analogy didn't work. Perhaps the point wasn't lost on everyone, hopefully.

[βαθμιαίος]

I'll take a stab at your questions.

1. Is it as easy to butcher a cow as it to pull a carrot from the ground? What is the significance of this?

"Butcher" means cut up for food. That is a big job with a cow. Are you asking if it is as easy to shoot a cow as it is to pull up a carrot?

2. And, even IF plants did feel pain, how can that justify killing animals? (Especially when eating meat causes more death to plants, since plants must first be fed to the animals.)

I'm not trying to justify killing animals. I think it's a shame that we have to kill anything in order to eat, but we do. I just don't see a fundamental distinction between killing plants and killing animals.

3. The whole argument about plants seems to be skirting the issue, when we cannot survive without eating plants. But most of us, with a little education, can survive quite well without eating animals. Eating plants is necessary. How is eating animals ever justified, when it's not necessary?

I think it comes down to what we value and how we want to live. You have put not eating animals very high on your list of priorities, and I think we all respect you for it.

My priorities are different: I value self-sufficiency and local foods. For me, eating local meat is part of that, along with having a big garden, laying hens, and a milk cow. I have also found that my health and that of my family are more vibrant when we eat meat.

[Monica]

"Butcher" means cut up for food.

Butcher can also mean any sort of brutal killing of another.

Are you asking if it is as easy to shoot a cow as it is to pull up a carrot?

No, I'm asking if it's as easy to kill a cow with one's hands or with a simple weapon like a knife, as it is to pull up a carrot with one's hands. Guns make it too easy.