[split] "Some people eat animals, some don't."
08-21-2015, 09:13 PM, (This post was last modified: 08-21-2015, 09:17 PM by Monica.)
RE: [split] "Some people eat animals, some don't."
(08-21-2015, 08:48 PM)Nicholas Wrote:  In essence, I believe I have not misunderstood.

Your words indicated that you misunderstood my analogy, in regards to who was being compared to whom. That's what I was referring to.

(08-21-2015, 08:48 PM)Nicholas Wrote:  I love your passion Monica but animals simply cannot relate to 3rd density suffering. From our human perspective, this is a golden era of expression. 

Are you sure? Watch this and then tell me that. Look into their eyes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCPNRsYij3o  <<== shows their faces, their eyes...their fear, their soul

There are many types of suffering. Of course they can't relate to the types of emotional and psychological suffering such as the anguish of watching a loved one battle cancer, or the pain of being dumped by a lover, or teenage angst, or the spiritual angst of the troubled soul, or myriad other types of suffering humans endure.

But I never said they did. What I said was that they DO feel pain and fear every bit as much as humans do. They have nervous systems and pain receptors. They have complex emotions and most definitely feel fear, even terror. They feel anxiety and grief, just like humans. They also form social bonds, close-knit friendships, and some have even demonstrated compassion. Yes, compassion for others! Something that some humans haven't even accomplished yet.

So what if they don't yet understand the anguish of divorce or financial ruin or cancer? How is that relevant to the question of: Do they suffer?

They do indeed suffer, and that is all that matters. It matters because it is humans who are the direct cause of their suffering.

...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
The following 1 user Likes Monica's post:
Nicholas
08-21-2015, 09:17 PM,
RE: [split] "Some people eat animals, some don't."
(08-21-2015, 08:48 PM)Nicholas Wrote:  
(08-21-2015, 07:51 PM)Monica Wrote:  No, you have misunderstood.

...

In essence, I believe I have not misunderstood. I love your passion Monica but animals simply cannot relate to 3rd density suffering. From our human perspective, this is a golden era of expression. 


ANTHROPOCENTRIC

1
:  considering human beings as the most significant entity of the universe 

2
:  interpreting or regarding the world in terms of human values and experiences
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-21-2015, 09:21 PM, (This post was last modified: 08-21-2015, 09:21 PM by Monica.)
RE: [split] "Some people eat animals, some don't."
Whites once thought that about blacks, eh.

...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-21-2015, 11:53 PM,
RE: [split] "Some people eat animals, some don't."
(08-21-2015, 08:48 PM)Nicholas Wrote:  In essence, I believe I have not misunderstood. I love your passion Monica but animals simply cannot relate to 3rd density suffering. From our human perspective, this is a golden era of expression.

Speaking from personal experience, you are wrong.  Animals can suffer just like a human being.  Go throw a dog in a dark cabinet and bang on it, open it up and look at it shivering in utter terror.  Is that not 3D suffering in some distorted sense?

A.

B.

Monica, you have a real problem.  Yes, I am going after you at this moment, I've watched this thread, you compare death to rape of a child, you compare death to beating a woman, you compare actions of survival to actions of polarizing, yes they can be intertwined, let's not argue that.

Let's argue how you rape and murder plants and torture them.  Rip them from the roots and kill them, disconnect them from their mother, destroy their being similar to how people do to animals.
YOU, are NOT better for your choices, I WILL come after you in defense of others in HOW you handle these matters.  You are a crusader so full of power and wealth in your 'choices', that you condemn.

You are nothing worse than a meat eater in how you handle things, who best to call hypocrisy than a hypocrite, I am a hypocrite, calling you out now.  Even Diana handles these matters gently.

Let's talk about comparing rape to eating meat, on one hand you have person in control harming someone not in control, same difference right?

WRONG.  Rape does not kill.  It is not nearly as bad as death in the simple sense of there is suffering.  I don't know if Carla ever spoke to you about the Aaron/Q'uo dialogues but Suffering is pain you resist against, death is transformation.

Plants die.  Animals die.  People die.  It's ALL disgusting.  Earth, can die.

Stop with your mad-run, I will meet you with your own energy 3 fold, go look at my posts towards Jade, if you desire that I'll meet you in kind, 3 fold.  Defend your opinions, but condemn at your own dismay, you are condemning your self only.  No one gives a f*** once you go off the way you do and personally attack people for living their choices their own way.

I can't fix humanity or save the Earth, I can't even fix a forum.
You can't stop the death of animals by attacking people.
I can't stop you from murdering plants hypocritically then turning around shouting murder, torture, rape at someone for eating meat.

Here's a question, would you rather be in captivity unable to move alone and isolated forever watching everyone around you die inevitably knowing you will come next, then be released unable to cope at all?  If possible? Oh wait, no, it won't happen, it can't in America, we're broken in ethics.  You can't release an animals who from birth was put into a cage and force-fed to force-grow to be slaughtered.

Is it right?  f*** no, is it proper?  No, it's disgusting beyond words.

But you have internalized that disgust, and you are vomiting it upon everyone who even mentions they ignore the sacredness of animal life.
You all ignore the sacredness of plant life, but no one is giving you an issue because socially it's acceptable.

What the hell is wrong with you?  How do you talk to people the way you do and not see that you are no better?

Disturbing.  I see the images of animal slaughter houses in my mind reading your posts.  You're slaughtering others in your own crusade.

You're nothing better, stop acting like you are.

This is what it feels like to be talked to in this way, you can be empowered but you're on Bring4th forums, do I need to remind an ex-moderator the GUIDELINES?

DO I?

HERE, take your analogies of child rape and torture and compare them to death, those people welcome death.  Get a clue and stop attacking people, I'm only doing so towards you because SOMEONE has to point out the RAMPANT HYPOCRISY.

Attack me, I welcome it in a PM, I do not argue eating meat is STS oriented but you dogmatize it out of context, polarity isn't objective it's subjective, listen to reason and step down from your high horse, then buy it so it can't get slaughtered.

But stop attacking people.  You ever smoke weed or drink alcohol?  Why aren't you against that stuff, it's bad for you and encourages people to eat animals too, the drunchies, the munchies.  Your logic is all over the place, you're everywhere and I, Am. TIRED.

Approach this stuff with kindness, attack at your own dismay, you should know better than any of us.

We're all one.  How would you want to be treated if you were them?

I doubt you care thought from what I see, here's a practice for you.

TREAT HUMANS WHO EAT ANIMALS LIKE YOU TREAT ANIMALS.

Welcome to the great f***** up world called Earth, you have a lot to learn too.  Will you continue attacking people?

Why don't mods moderate your behavior?

Here's the Guideline that you blatantly disregard as I have in this post towards you, this is called looking in the mirror, and you may find it is not always pretty.

1) Respect. Compassion. Loving-kindness. Empathy. Trust. Goodwill. Desire to serve. Embracing each other. Opening our heart. Participants are asked to keep the thought in the forefront of their minds at all times that each on this forum IS the Creator. Please keep communication respectful at all times and in all ways. The participant may disagree to the bone with an idea without personally attacking the author of the idea. Please remember that we are all here to expand our knowledge, deepen our understanding, and support one another by reflecting our divinity to each other. We are One being -- we are not here to forget the real.

Don't know how no one on here can't call each other out for crossing these lines, but I'll personally do it, 'be the change'.

Here's the change, I'm gonna start crusading the guidelines if you can get away with crusading your opinions.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
The following 1 user Likes The_Tired_Philosopher's post:
Aion
08-22-2015, 12:13 AM,
RE: [split] "Some people eat animals, some don't."
I think you've said bluntly what I've spent a long time trying to say 'nicely', thank you for that.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-22-2015, 05:52 AM,
RE: [split] "Some people eat animals, some don't."
And I
AM
SORRY

My mother taught me yelling at someone gets through their stubbornness.  I am yelling now.  I will do so because I love you as a person, you're hurting yerself too by feeling so much...

Horror.

Those words apply to me too, all of my words.  I am a just as bad.  As I attempt to reconcile myself I will point out that I need to be the change.

You are welcome to attack in retaliation.  But please at least understand why I have spoken as I have.  You're an incredible contributor, but on this subject you attack.  I do not hold your level of care but i empathize.  I apologize and thank all I consume, even my sheesha, even my lettuce.

So.

Lettuce try to tell others it is wrong in our opinion to consume meat, but not to the point we condemn them.

Freelee the Banana girl offers a valuable lesson in converting people.

Happiness is the result.

You do not appear happy, I wouldn't convert if you attacked me, I'd feel sorrow at you.

I do now, so I said something in bluntness, in frustration of your pain, in sadness of the entire situation.

I apologize for my cruelty, but wish you'd find a more tame way to tell people your opinion.

I'll even offer to work in the same way and tone down my attitude for my sake and others.

Can we work together on this proposed attempt to not be so horrified in pain?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-22-2015, 08:46 AM, (This post was last modified: 08-22-2015, 10:17 AM by Monica.)
RE: [split] "Some people eat animals, some don't."
(08-21-2015, 11:53 PM)The_Tired_Philosopher Wrote:  Speaking from personal experience, you are wrong.  Animals can suffer just like a human being.  Go throw a dog in a dark cabinet and bang on it, open it up and look at it shivering in utter terror.  Is that not 3D suffering in some distorted sense?

A.

B.

Monica, you have a real problem.  Yes, I am going after you at this moment, I've watched this thread, you compare death to rape of a child, you compare death to beating a woman, you compare actions of survival to actions of polarizing, yes they can be intertwined, let's not argue that.

Let's argue how you rape and murder plants and torture them.  Rip them from the roots and kill them, disconnect them from their mother, destroy their being similar to how people do to animals.
YOU, are NOT better for your choices, I WILL come after you in defense of others in HOW you handle these matters.  You are a crusader so full of power and wealth in your 'choices', that you condemn.

You are nothing worse than a meat eater in how you handle things, who best to call hypocrisy than a hypocrite, I am a hypocrite, calling you out now.  Even Diana handles these matters gently.

Let's talk about comparing rape to eating meat, on one hand you have person in control harming someone not in control, same difference right?

WRONG.  Rape does not kill.  It is not nearly as bad as death in the simple sense of there is suffering.  I don't know if Carla ever spoke to you about the Aaron/Q'uo dialogues but Suffering is pain you resist against, death is transformation.

Plants die.  Animals die.  People die.  It's ALL disgusting.  Earth, can die.

Stop with your mad-run, I will meet you with your own energy 3 fold, go look at my posts towards Jade, if you desire that I'll meet you in kind, 3 fold.  Defend your opinions, but condemn at your own dismay, you are condemning your self only.  No one gives a f*** once you go off the way you do and personally attack people for living their choices their own way.

I can't fix humanity or save the Earth, I can't even fix a forum.
You can't stop the death of animals by attacking people.
I can't stop you from murdering plants hypocritically then turning around shouting murder, torture, rape at someone for eating meat.

Here's a question, would you rather be in captivity unable to move alone and isolated forever watching everyone around you die inevitably knowing you will come next, then be released unable to cope at all?  If possible? Oh wait, no, it won't happen, it can't in America, we're broken in ethics.  You can't release an animals who from birth was put into a cage and force-fed to force-grow to be slaughtered.

Is it right?  f*** no, is it proper?  No, it's disgusting beyond words.

But you have internalized that disgust, and you are vomiting it upon everyone who even mentions they ignore the sacredness of animal life.
You all ignore the sacredness of plant life, but no one is giving you an issue because socially it's acceptable.

What the hell is wrong with you?  How do you talk to people the way you do and not see that you are no better?

Disturbing.  I see the images of animal slaughter houses in my mind reading your posts.  You're slaughtering others in your own crusade.

You're nothing better, stop acting like you are.

This is what it feels like to be talked to in this way, you can be empowered but you're on Bring4th forums, do I need to remind an ex-moderator the GUIDELINES?

DO I?

HERE, take your analogies of child rape and torture and compare them to death, those people welcome death.  Get a clue and stop attacking people, I'm only doing so towards you because SOMEONE has to point out the RAMPANT HYPOCRISY.

Attack me, I welcome it in a PM, I do not argue eating meat is STS oriented but you dogmatize it out of context, polarity isn't objective it's subjective, listen to reason and step down from your high horse, then buy it so it can't get slaughtered.

But stop attacking people.  You ever smoke weed or drink alcohol?  Why aren't you against that stuff, it's bad for you and encourages people to eat animals too, the drunchies, the munchies.  Your logic is all over the place, you're everywhere and I, Am. TIRED.

Approach this stuff with kindness, attack at your own dismay, you should know better than any of us.

We're all one.  How would you want to be treated if you were them?

I doubt you care thought from what I see, here's a practice for you.

TREAT HUMANS WHO EAT ANIMALS LIKE YOU TREAT ANIMALS.

Welcome to the great f***** up world called Earth, you have a lot to learn too.  Will you continue attacking people?

Why don't mods moderate your behavior?

Here's the Guideline that you blatantly disregard as I have in this post towards you, this is called looking in the mirror, and you may find it is not always pretty.

1) Respect. Compassion. Loving-kindness. Empathy. Trust. Goodwill. Desire to serve. Embracing each other. Opening our heart. Participants are asked to keep the thought in the forefront of their minds at all times that each on this forum IS the Creator. Please keep communication respectful at all times and in all ways. The participant may disagree to the bone with an idea without personally attacking the author of the idea. Please remember that we are all here to expand our knowledge, deepen our understanding, and support one another by reflecting our divinity to each other. We are One being -- we are not here to forget the real.

Don't know how no one on here can't call each other out for crossing these lines, but I'll personally do it, 'be the change'.

Here's the change, I'm gonna start crusading the guidelines if you can get away with crusading your opinions.

1. The topic of plants' supposedly being = to animals has been explored ad nauseum in these discussions. Apparently you missed the early discussions, which lasted for several years, that explored the topic of plants quite extensively (and, incidentally, in which the vegetarians were tiptoeing around, while some meat-eaters flung their insults). Please see those old threads (see Meat Index for topics) and this one if you wish to explore the 'eating plants' issue. The short answer is quite simple: Plants don't have pain receptors nor any indication of individual sentience. Simple observation shows that they are early 2D, whereas animals are late 2D, nearing graduation point to 3D. A common misinterpretation of the Ra Material is that all 2D entities are to be lumped in together, with no regard for what Ra said about how long 2D is, and how late 2D entities can call, and Ra has answered that call. Ra never said anything about answering the call of grass or lettuces. However, if you disagree, and think that your lawn writhes in agony every time you step on it, then of course you are free to think that. If that is true, then our Logos would be sadistic for designing the planet that way. Regardless of one's interpretation of Ra's words, simple observation shows that a cow is much closer to a human in both biology and consciousness, than a cow is to a carrot.

2. I am amused at your indignation that I have dared to compare the enslavement, suffering and killing of animals to the enslavement, suffering, and killing of humans. This common reaction is a classic display of Speciesism.

3. Indeed, I am a former mod and don't have to be reminded of the guidelines. You, Sir, however, do need this reminder. But alas, it's not my place to do so, so I will leave that up to the mods. In short, I haven't violated any guidelines because I discuss the topic only and haven't attacked anyone personally. You can disagree with my views "to the bone" if you wish, but attacking someone personally is indeed a violation. Having an unpopular opinion isn't a violation of any guidelines.

...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
The following 2 users Like Monica's post:
Diana, Regulus
08-22-2015, 09:14 AM, (This post was last modified: 08-22-2015, 09:17 AM by Monica.)
RE: [split] "Some people eat animals, some don't."
(08-22-2015, 05:52 AM)The_Tired_Philosopher Wrote:  And I
AM
SORRY

My mother taught me yelling at someone gets through their stubbornness.  I am yelling now.  I will do so because I love you as a person, you're hurting yerself too by feeling so much...

Horror.

Those words apply to me too, all of my words.  I am a just as bad.  As I attempt to reconcile myself I will point out that I need to be the change.

You are welcome to attack in retaliation.  But please at least understand why I have spoken as I have.  You're an incredible contributor, but on this subject you attack.  I do not hold your level of care but i empathize.  I apologize and thank all I consume, even my sheesha, even my lettuce.

So.

Lettuce try to tell others it is wrong in our opinion to consume meat, but not to the point we condemn them.

Freelee the Banana girl offers a valuable lesson in converting people.

Happiness is the result.

You do not appear happy, I wouldn't convert if you attacked me, I'd feel sorrow at you.

I do now, so I said something in bluntness, in frustration of your pain, in sadness of the entire situation.

I apologize for my cruelty, but wish you'd find a more tame way to tell people your opinion.

I'll even offer to work in the same way and tone down my attitude for my sake and others.

Can we work together on this proposed attempt to not be so horrified in pain?

Thank you for your apology. Accepted. I know you're just expressing what you're feeling.

Freelee 'converts' people because she is slim and beautiful.

Plus, she utilizes videos. Whereas, this is a discussion forum, where we communicate primarily with words. In addition, this discussion forum is (presumably) based on the study of the Law of One, so it's reasonable to engage in deeper discussion here than elsewhere. I'm a fan of Freelee also (glad to hear you are too!) but I don't recall her ever discussing the differences between early 2D and late 2D, for example.

Assessing someone's level of happiness based on a single topic in an internet discussion forum is fruitless. The fact is that you know nothing about that person or how happy they are. All you can deduce about that person is how they feel about that particular topic, which is only a very tiny part of their entire life. And even then, misperceptions are rampant in internet discussions.

This is a very volatile topic. Those who knowingly contribute to the torture and slaughter of animals are typically upset when vegans point it out to them. They almost always react the same way: They attack the messenger. They think the messenger is attacking them when really it's their own conscience. It's much easier to just stay in denial and attack the messenger, than to listen to their own conscience.

I used the term rape in analogies but it's also literal. Cows are literally raped, repeatedly, to keep milk production going. Actually, bulls are too. They are routinely electrocuted anally to stimulate semen production.

rape
noun
1. unlawful sexual intercourse or any other sexual penetration of the vagina, anus, or mouth of another person, with or without force, by a sex organ, other body part, or foreign object, without the consent of the victim.
2. statutory rape.
3. an act of plunder, violent seizure, or abuse; despoliation; violation:
the rape of the countryside.
4. Archaic. the act of seizing and carrying off by force.


Attached Files Thumbnail(s)
           
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
The following 2 users Like Monica's post:
Diana, Regulus
08-22-2015, 09:28 AM,
RE: [split] "Some people eat animals, some don't."
One more clarification, Tired Philosopher: I never compared the generic topic of death itself to rape. You seem to be implying that when animals are killed, it's just a simple, swift death, not to be compared to elongated torture or suffering in general.

Death can happen for myriad reasons. Death is simply the transformation from this reality into the next. Death is an entirely different issue.

It is a specific type of death that is relevant here: the forced death, by an abuser onto the victim. Killing another entity is the ultimate act of controlling them, and thus inherently has an STS attribute.

Whether the victim is a cow or a human, the actions are pretty much the same. The response is also the same: Struggling to escape the torturer/executioner, crying out and trembling from fear, and then when the strike comes, extreme pain.

Oh and the blood. Let's not forget that.

...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
The following 2 users Like Monica's post:
Diana, Regulus
08-22-2015, 11:39 AM,
RE: [split] "Some people eat animals, some don't."
No one has responded yet to my question regarding the metaphysics of energy transfer which are supposedly involved in this 'inherently STS' action.

Also, TTP, I think you got a big 'Nope.'
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-22-2015, 11:54 AM, (This post was last modified: 08-22-2015, 12:06 PM by Monica.)
RE: [split] "Some people eat animals, some don't."
(08-22-2015, 11:39 AM)Aion Wrote:  No one has responded yet to my question regarding the metaphysics of energy transfer which are supposedly involved in this 'inherently STS' action.

I did. I responded with an analogy. Is there any question that there is likely an STS polarizing going on when a human knowingly and callously enslaves,violates and kills another human? What is the 'metaphysics of energy transfer' in that case?


(08-22-2015, 11:39 AM)Aion Wrote:  Also, TTP, I think you got a big 'Nope.'

Nope to what?

Edit: Oh, you mean his question about 'working together in a tame way'? Aha. Well you see, we've been trying to do that for several years now, but they are never satisfied unless we pat them on the back and say "Oh it's ok for you to continue to pay someone to enslave, torture and kill our younger other-selves because you like the taste of bacon...it's your choice and I respect your choice."

Anything less that that, and they think we're 'attacking' them.

See, even the title of this thread: Some people pay others to enslave, torture and kill younger other-selves, and some don't. It's all designed to gloss over what's really happening and make people feel better, pretending it's just another 'personal choice' that doesn't concern anyone else, like what kind of music you like or whether your favorite color is blue or purple.


Attached Files Thumbnail(s)
   
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
The following 1 user Likes Monica's post:
Diana
08-22-2015, 12:06 PM,
RE: [split] "Some people eat animals, some don't."
I asked you to explain the metaphysics behind it and you gave me poetry.

'Knowing and callously' are very specific modifiers and ones which are pretty hard to spot from the outside. Sure, intentionally, unloving, then yes, that seems likely to polarize negatively, but it seems like you immediately project those modifiers on to anyone who does what you believe is negative, which I do not agree with.

You basically just tried to get me to answer my own question for you, which is very clever and sneaky. That's a kind of manipulative approach, don't you think? If you just don't understand or know the processes of energy transfer which take place you could just say that.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-22-2015, 12:19 PM, (This post was last modified: 08-22-2015, 12:24 PM by Monica.)
RE: [split] "Some people eat animals, some don't."
(08-22-2015, 12:06 PM)Aion Wrote:  I asked you to explain the metaphysics behind it and you gave me poetry.

'Knowing and callously' are very specific modifiers and ones which are pretty hard to spot from the outside. Sure, intentionally, unloving, then yes, that seems likely to polarize negatively, but it seems like you immediately project those modifiers on to anyone who does what you believe is negative, which I do not agree with.

You basically just tried to get me to answer my own question for you, which is very clever and sneaky. That's a kind of manipulative approach, don't you think? If you just don't understand or know the processes of energy transfer which take place you could just say that.

No, I don't think it's manipulative or sneaky. It's a commonly used tool to explain something, and I taught children so it's in my repertoire. It's simply a technique to get a point across, nothing more.

The reason I used that analogy is that the principle is the same, whether the victim is human or animal. If we were discussing the intentional, unnecessary, conscious enslavement/rape/torture/killing of humans, would you be asking whether it was inherently STS for the perpetrators to be doing those things? I think not. Would you be asking why it's inherently STS for someone to do those things? I think not. We all understand that, when someone does those things to a human, it's considered heinous and, in Law of One terminology, inherently STS. That's a given.

We might wax eloquent about how we can't really know exactly to what degree it's negatively polarizing, or that the victim chose to be a victim on some level, blah blah blah, but at the end of the day, no one here is going to disagree that the perpetrator of heinous acts against humans is more likely to be polarizing in the STS direction than in the STO direction.

So, I was simply pointing out that the mechanism is exactly the same. Whether the victim is late 2D, early 3D, late 3D, or a Wanderer, makes no difference. What matters is that the person committing the actions had an opportunity to choose compassion for a sentient entity who feels pain and fear, but chose to continue supporting the enslavement/rape/torture/killing rather than making the compassionate choice to stop.

It's really quite simple: When presented with an opportunity to open one's heart and choose compassion, the person chooses Not to do so, then the heart remains blocked in that area. That is the very definition of STS!

Does this mean that the person is STS-oriented to the point of being harvested STS? No, of course not. It's been said many times that harvestability is the result of the sum total of one's polarity and cannot be ascertained or measured by a single action or choice, nor even by a continuous stream of daily actions/choices.

But we can deduce enough from what Ra taught us about polarity to know when a choice is likely to be polarizing in one direction or another.

If you doubt this, then try it with the exact same scenario, except substitute human for animal. Then it will be quite clear. The mechanism of the heart is exactly the same. The only difference is mental conditioning, due to societal speciesism.

...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-22-2015, 12:36 PM,
RE: [split] "Some people eat animals, some don't."
The problem I have with your whole argument is it both assumes intent, and it assumes a black and white choice where it isn't necessarily so.

Also, I would also ask about the energy transfers regarding human interactions as I don't think 'horrible, heinous' is so clearly defined in reality as it is for you, but I'm sure I would get the same explanation.

Plus, I just don't agree with some of your 'facts', and the way you line things up. You associate things together in a way that I do not.

No, I don't agree that Ra has given us enough to be able to identify the polarity of a choice from the outside because we miss all of the internal factors at play which are certainly involved in choices. It appears to me you are basing polarity strongly in behaviour which isn't something I really agree with. Certainly to an extent, but I think that polarization isn't just a matter of behaviour but intent as well.

The major disagreement it seems I have is that you seem to assume that all meat-eating and everything leading to it is purely and intentionally callous, uncaring and uncompassionate and that most people are conscious of these things. I don't think this is at all the case and that eating meat doesn't automatically assume that someone has a closed heart and lacks compassion. That seems to me to be a character you have created as the 'archetype' of meateaters.

(Funny how it's so black and white, either you're vegetarian or a meat-eater, both emotionally charged ideas, whereas omnivores are simply lumped with the latter.)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
The following 2 users Like Aion's post:
Rhayader, sunnysideup
08-22-2015, 12:54 PM,
RE: [split] "Some people eat animals, some don't."
I feed my dog some from my own plate. He won't eat veggies. I like to share the meat with him.

There is an anthro somewhere who needs me and I need them.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-22-2015, 01:03 PM, (This post was last modified: 08-22-2015, 02:29 PM by Monica.)
RE: [split] "Some people eat animals, some don't."
(08-22-2015, 12:36 PM)Aion Wrote:  The problem I have with your whole argument is it both assumes intent, and it assumes a black and white choice where it isn't necessarily so.

Did you miss the qualifiers? I specifically said intentional, unnecessary, conscious for that very reason.

(08-22-2015, 12:36 PM)Aion Wrote:  Also, I would also ask about the energy transfers regarding human interactions as I don't think 'horrible, heinous' is so clearly defined in reality as it is for you, but I'm sure I would get the same explanation.

Plus, I just don't agree with some of your 'facts', and the way you line things up. You associate things together in a way that I do not.

Clearly, meat/dairy-eaters don't associate the enslavement/torture/rape/killing of animals with the enslavement/torture/rape/killing of humans. They draw a line in their minds separating the 2. Maybe you are an exception, but most people agree that enslavement/torture/rape/killing of humans is inherently wrong (in mainstream terms) or inherently STS (in Law of One terms).

But not only do they refuse to say the same about the enslavement/torture/rape/killing of animals, but they even get indignant or even offended when we dare to associate the enslavement/torture/rape/killing of animals with the enslavement/torture/rape/killing of humans.

Why?

Because of societal conditioning: Speciesism. It's cognitive dissonance. They literally cannot make the connection in their minds because their brains lack the neuropathways. This isn't a judgment but simple physiological fact.

I do make the association, and some do eventually 'get it' and new neuropathways get connected.

(08-22-2015, 12:36 PM)Aion Wrote:  No, I don't agree that Ra has given us enough to be able to identify the polarity of a choice from the outside because we miss all of the internal factors at play which are certainly involved in choices. It appears to me you are basing polarity strongly in behaviour which isn't something I really agree with. Certainly to an extent, but I think that polarization isn't just a matter of behaviour but intent as well.

If that's what you thought I was saying, then I didn't make myself clear or you misunderstood. I never said that an action could be assessed from the outside, with No regard to internal factors such as intention. In fact, I have repeatedly stated the opposite: No single action can be assessed from the outside.

It seems that maybe you are confusing inherently with an absolute.

Generally speaking, knowingly participating in the enslavement/rape/torture/killing of others tends to be an attribute of the STS polarity, just as, generally speaking, being loving and compassionate tends to be an attribute of the STO polarity.

If you disagree that Ra has made this clear, then the chasm between our understanding is larger than we thought.

Notice that I said "generally speaking" and "tends to be". Of course intention plays a role! Notice that even Hitler - largely considered to be one of the most cruel people on the planet - failed to reach harvestability. He was, according to Ra, a negatively polarized entity, no question about that. He certainly wasn't STO! But because of his confusion and his 'good intentions' even those heinous acts on a large scale failed to get him to the point of harvestability. So yes, of course intentions play a role!

...which is precisely why I've made the distinction between someone who eats meat/dairy without ever questioning it, and someone whose eyes have been opened to the reality of where that meat and dairy came from, yet chooses to continue eating it, even while knowing that it's unnecessary.

There's a big difference. One is unconscious and the other is conscious.

Even then, I don't make a black-and-white assessment of the sum total of that person's polarity! I have never done that and won't ever do that, so please quit implying that I do. (I say that to others also, who tend to keep saying that despite it being untrue and ludicrous.)

But I can say that conscious disregard for the suffering of others, to the point that the person knowingly continues to needlessly contribute to the suffering of others, requires a certain amount of blocking the heart, and that, dear friends, is the very definition of STS.

(08-22-2015, 12:36 PM)Aion Wrote:  The major disagreement it seems I have is that you seem to assume that all meat-eating and everything leading to it is purely and intentionally callous, uncaring and uncompassionate and that most people are conscious of these things.

Had you read all my comments from the beginning, you'd know that wasn't true. Even just with recent comments, I've repeatedly made the distinction between knowingly and unknowingly.

On the contrary, 'most' people are still unconscious about the reality of how their meat and dairy are produced. They vaguely know that chicken is from a bird with feathers, and that hamburger is from a cow, but they dissociate living chickens and cows from the substance wrapped in plastic in the grocery store or the stuff served on their plate at the restaurant. Societal conditioning has erected a wall in their minds, a literal blocking of neuropathways in the brain. Eating meat and dairy is just so 'normal' and established in society, that they do it without even questioning it.

That is rapidly changing, though, due to the internet and the efforts of vegan activists. It's getting increasingly difficult to feign ignorance.

(08-22-2015, 12:36 PM)Aion Wrote:  I don't think this is at all the case and that eating meat doesn't automatically assume that someone has a closed heart and lacks compassion.

As I just said, their heart might be open in other areas, and they might be very compassionate towards other humans, but if they have been presented with an opportunity to express compassion and declined it, then that indicates a blockage. Selective compassion = blockages.

...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-22-2015, 02:15 PM,
RE: [split] "Some people eat animals, some don't."
@ Tired Philosopher: Your post blasting Monica was so out of line, in so many ways. It's crazy to me since I first joined here, how the "meat" threads can produce such distortion. This subject just can't seem to survive discussion—even moderation (witness the original closed "in regards to eating meat"). 

Didn't you complain in other threads about there not being enough posts and participation here? Why don't you start with yourself and the way you express yourself and interpret others' posts? If you ask, "Can we work together on this proposed attempt to not be so horrified in pain?" then why not follow this idea yourself? Is it okay for you to attack someone directly and personally because you are "tired," but not okay for Monica to make general statements about a subject, regardless of whether you agree or not?


@ Aion: So what if we don't agree on the facts? This is a discussion. No one is making blanket statements about the population in general, aside from the horrible situation itself. We are in a discussion talking about a subject and trying to understand it, shed light on it, and no one is trying to convert anybody. Rather, the idea is to SHED LIGHT. I feel that you are wanting agreement. We all to some degree probably feel that way for differing reasons.


When I have a clearer head and I am not so appalled at the skewed perceptions here in this thread (and the others that went before it on this matter), I will address some of the points in a more logical way. At the moment, I am trying to sort out how it's so one-sided. Those that eat meat are asking for compassion, and to not have their sensibilities hurt, in a discussion on the subject. How can we canvass this subject AND not discuss the areas of concern? 
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
The following 1 user Likes Diana's post:
Billy
08-22-2015, 09:38 PM, (This post was last modified: 08-22-2015, 11:47 PM by Aion.)
RE: [split] "Some people eat animals, some don't."
I don't care about agreement, I am just being honest with my disagreement. If anything I am just trying to not give in to the fear of expressing myself honestly because of how I may be perceived. I know already that my own possible understanding is not shared and I am aware of the levels of difference in perception. Since this is a discussion and not one with intention to 'convert' as you insist, I am simply expressing what is in my experience. I can only teach what I have learned. The discrepancy seems to be that we have learned different things.

In the end, all I seek is co-existence.

To Monica, I think we may disagree on exactly how the mechanics of the heart chakra works and I feel that may be closer to the root of our misunderstanding. You likely will not agree, but I see us as having very similar desires but we have chosen very different ways to approach the matter.

The thing is, the approach I am taking has been studied and explored considerably less than the approach you are taking, or so it appears to me and for that reason I can not 'toe to toe' with you because my experience has informed me in such a dramatically differing way it is mind blowing.

However, you have often asked about walking on the lawn and the response of the grass. My answer is that it depends what I am listening for. If I listen for agony, I find and hear agony. If I listen for bliss, I find and hear bliss. Thus, in my understanding plants don't seem to precisely experience emotions in the same way we do but rather seem to experience all emotions simultaneously at once which can be 'picked out' by a perceiving consciousness. Thus, if you are looking for bliss, you will find bliss. This is in regards to plants.

So, really, I think plants both suffer incredibly and experience the most profound bliss without any paradox because they still dwell largely within the unity of the Creator. Thus, they are all things. What we see in them is the reflection of ourselves.

The same is true for animals and humans as well, the difference is that as you come in to third-density you gain veiled conditions. Second-density doesn't have the veil, every plant and animal is aware of itself as the Creator, it is only when it crosses into third that it obscures this awareness.

For example, 'lower' second-density creatures such as insects, worms and other such invertebrates are just as well aware of themselves as the Creator as a pig, sheep or dog. The veil isn't put on until the beginning of a third density incarnation so a second density being will always end its second density experience in full awareness of itself as the Creator and as its group and then it will begin to realize self-awareness and individuate.

Creatures, as they move through second density, gain all the understandings of tribal self as they see themselves as one with the family or species. When they individuate they start again except rather than being focused on species as self, the self is individual and the ladder is climbed again.

However, the best way for second density to get to third is by investment by third or above. This is the real problem for second density when the investment is one of suppression. Rather, these second density entities will be very, very slow in moving towards third density because they will perpetually be stuck in the lower sub-densities of second, due to no social interaction or self-reflection to build from orange to yellow.

However, since the species shares a mind and experience it is questionable what happens to the souls of these creatures. I get the sense that there is a balancing mechanism so that an animal soul that experiences trauma will then incarnate to heal that trauma through a more peaceful life. This then alternates back and forth between difficult lives and easy lives so a full spectrum of individual content can be experienced to the point that there is enough dynamic in the consciousness to spark the sudden moment of self-awareness. In other words, second density builds the beginnings of the personality.

Now, this is where my theory will probably be infuriating to some. I believe that the animal souls that experience such trauma actually become more likely to be compassionate and more likely to choose the positive polarity in third density on a species level because they will already be empathetic and acquainted with both suffering and victims, but that balanced with easier lives gives light unto the conditions of third density and the needs of choice. Remember, both paths are equally offered to those in third density.

On top of that, I think that most souls which go through those experiences only do so at most a few times but I think typically only once. After the experience the soul moves on and a new soul fills in the experience for itself to have the experience. This is the Creator experiencing every part of itself with every part of itself.

Honestly, I've glanced at your past lives a couple times, Monica and it appears that you had multiple animals lives with suffering but the reason it is so vivid for you is because you were actually a higher density being incarnating as an animal to see what it's experience actually was like. Needless to say you were rather affected by the experience. I think there are certain species which are connected to your own consciousness and they are ones you experienced bodies as.

I spent a good deal of time as a tree, so that maybe explains why I feel more defensive of plants. Honestly I think I just find it unfair that the animals get a crusade but the plants don't. I'm horrified by large-scale, hydroponic growing of plants for food. It's the exact same as a meat factory in my mind, never getting to be free or experience ecosystem and the diversity of nature only to be consumed, often without thanks. It's tough for second density all around it seems.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
The following 2 users Like Aion's post:
Spaced, sunnysideup
08-23-2015, 02:58 AM,
RE: [split] "Some people eat animals, some don't."
And yet.

Nothing.  Happens...

Thank you for your responses.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-23-2015, 03:16 AM,
RE: [split] "Some people eat animals, some don't."
Aion:
Red Ray wise it gets the first response, if you're conscious of animals on Earth it will factor in if the act is STS.
If not, it may still be so in a much smaller case of intensity.  Like how you don't depolarize eating beans unless you're wasteful against Earth, which if not consciously made is still minimal Red Ray wise.
Orange Ray wise its a blockage if you just go on the bandwagon, as a meat-eater or a vegan, and not do so of your own serious choice.
Yellow Ray wise if its insulting to peers it might cause a blockage.  Otherwise its not depolarizing this way typically unless you associate yourself as partially animal in any personal sense.  Sort of like eating another human.
Green ray wise its dependent on if you're Conscious of causing their suffering and if you can forgive yourself that you might get blockages there and maybe depolarize if you react badly to it.
Blue Ray wise you block yourself by lying. Bandwagon comes into play.
Indigo Ray depends on your personal opinion, if you dislike eating meat but do so anyways it could be a blockage issue.
Violet Ray accepts as is the tune of the rest of the energetic body.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-23-2015, 03:33 AM,
RE: [split] "Some people eat animals, some don't."
The green ray is one which has been discussed extensively I think. Could you give your own thoughts on that chain of cause and effect and how say choosing to eat meat or plants from a factory farm/uncompassionate environment as opposed from more 'humane' sources?

Specifically the idea of being the one to cause the sufferings. Where does that causal chain start and how does it become linked to polarity?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-23-2015, 08:39 AM,
RE: [split] "Some people eat animals, some don't."
Aion Would you as an individual based off of your own knowledge, awareness and intentions. Put your illusionary action of eating plants and meats under the illusionary distortion of STO or under the illusionary distortion STS? Could you explain to me why ? if your a vegetarian you can exclude the meat option. if you answered this question already then sorry for the repeat question.

also in your long post are you trying to say that eating meat is no different then eating plants?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-23-2015, 08:54 AM,
RE: [split] "Some people eat animals, some don't."
Its honestly only linked if you link it yourself.

Unconsciously or otherwise, all rays interact with each other, nothing is typically just a single ray response.  Polarity also isn't related to how well the rays are, they just offer the mold that we seek, and that mold changes often.

A vegan 'betraying' their belief set isn't depolarizing, unless it effects them enough to do something against themself (mentally, emotionally, physically).  Just how lions dont depolarize eating a gazell as that's their way, if eating meat is not your way and you still do and feel terrible, you probably depolarized a bit.

The rays just offer a map, they dont depict what is and is not STS or STO oriented, the Entity itself does.  Red Ray wise it is an act of depolarizing if you hurt Earth in your mind in the process.  I gave up most meat except beef for a while because i felt disgust, but i couldn't give up beef, or cheese, but I tried and found its not for me for the time being.  I'll be trying again in the future.  I do dislike aiding the culture of slaughter but I'm only one person, my stopping is nothing in America...

Its why I thank my food, and try to tell meat its sacrifice was not in vain, and hope its spirit is in a better place happier now.

But honestly, its not the same level of depolarizing than if you personally killed the animal for fun then took its meat.  If its for survival, thats red ray fulfilled, neutral at best.

Its subjective.  Dunno how no one gets that, theres a social scale thanks to yellow ray, but thats not superimposed on YOUR personal scale, its just a part.  If meat eating doesn't bother you, more power to ya.

If it does, follow your desire, more power to ya..

I guess I'm saying the causal chain of depolarizing starts with you personally.  The actual mechanics are based on you.  If you know about and help perpetuate something you disagree with, you can depolarize in an act of STO by disregarding your own self or otherself.

The chain is more a loop.  

In regards to plants, if you feel bad eating plants youll depolarize if you make it a big deal.  Your personal choices are not all tied to polarity, the only judge is yourself.  Otherwise every person our there eating are STS entities by some logic offered in this thread.  Chances are. If you eat meat, you'll still be able to graduate harvest.

You only have 49% of STS leeway available...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-23-2015, 12:33 PM,
RE: [split] "Some people eat animals, some don't."
(08-22-2015, 09:38 PM)Aion Wrote:  However, you have often asked about walking on the lawn and the response of the grass. My answer is that it depends what I am listening for. If I listen for agony, I find and hear agony. If I listen for bliss, I find and hear bliss. Thus, in my understanding plants don't seem to precisely experience emotions in the same way we do but rather seem to experience all emotions simultaneously at once which can be 'picked out' by a perceiving consciousness. Thus, if you are looking for bliss, you will find bliss. This is in regards to plants.

So, really, I think plants both suffer incredibly and experience the most profound bliss without any paradox because they still dwell largely within the unity of the Creator. Thus, they are all things. What we see in them is the reflection of ourselves.

The same is true for animals and humans as well, the difference is that as you come in to third-density you gain veiled conditions. Second-density doesn't have the veil, every plant and animal is aware of itself as the Creator, it is only when it crosses into third that it obscures this awareness.

For example, 'lower' second-density creatures such as insects, worms and other such invertebrates are just as well aware of themselves as the Creator as a pig, sheep or dog. The veil isn't put on until the beginning of a third density incarnation so a second density being will always end its second density experience in full awareness of itself as the Creator and as its group and then it will begin to realize self-awareness and individuate.

Creatures, as they move through second density, gain all the understandings of tribal self as they see themselves as one with the family or species. When they individuate they start again except rather than being focused on species as self, the self is individual and the ladder is climbed again.

However, the best way for second density to get to third is by investment by third or above. This is the real problem for second density when the investment is one of suppression. Rather, these second density entities will be very, very slow in moving towards third density because they will perpetually be stuck in the lower sub-densities of second, due to no social interaction or self-reflection to build from orange to yellow.

However, since the species shares a mind and experience it is questionable what happens to the souls of these creatures. I get the sense that there is a balancing mechanism so that an animal soul that experiences trauma will then incarnate to heal that trauma through a more peaceful life. This then alternates back and forth between difficult lives and easy lives so a full spectrum of individual content can be experienced to the point that there is enough dynamic in the consciousness to spark the sudden moment of self-awareness. In other words, second density builds the beginnings of the personality.

Now, this is where my theory will probably be infuriating to some. I believe that the animal souls that experience such trauma actually become more likely to be compassionate and more likely to choose the positive polarity in third density on a species level because they will already be empathetic and acquainted with both suffering and victims, but that balanced with easier lives gives light unto the conditions of third density and the needs of choice. Remember, both paths are equally offered to those in third density.

On top of that, I think that most souls which go through those experiences only do so at most a few times but I think typically only once. After the experience the soul moves on and a new soul fills in the experience for itself to have the experience. This is the Creator experiencing every part of itself with every part of itself.

You have very interesting perspectives on things. I feel that you are very honest and deeply feeling and thinking.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-23-2015, 12:49 PM,
RE: [split] "Some people eat animals, some don't."
i want to apologize to anyone here, especially in these "meat" threads, who have been hurt by my words. There is just so much sorrow and suffering in this world. Sometimes it is overwhelming. In regards to animals and the way humans treat them in general, I find it extremely challenging to deal with.

As Aion pointed out, there is also a level of consciousness in plant life. I have never disagreed with that and I have also always had a connection to plants. For me, the choice to consume plants rather than animals to survive here makes more sense for many reasons. But I wish that I would harm nothing here at all. I don't want to walk on grass even. When I read about (doesn't matter if it's true or not) that ET race who uses telekinesis to walk so they don't harm grass etc. on the ground, I wanted to be THERE.

As one with a "warrior spirit" ( I say that with humility) I am fully aware that wanting to be elsewhere is counterproductive and irresponsible. And yet... 

Much love and good wishes and healing to everyone here.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
The following 6 users Like Diana's post:
Aion, Billy, Nicholas, outerheaven, Spaced, sunnysideup
08-23-2015, 05:11 PM,
RE: [split] "Some people eat animals, some don't."
I don't mean to contradict any further discussion that has been had but I would like to add what I feel is my take on one of the metaphysical sides of the energy transfers of consuming factory farmed food.

Firstly, these beings live in fear. Plants and animals alike. I can basically make that as a blanket statement. When we consume that fear/abused consciousness, it does not do our spirit well. It is obviously best to raise food with love and nourishment and consume that.

I think where it gets worse with animals is that as they are closer to 3D awareness, that suffering is sharper and more sympathetic to ours. Animals born into our meat system are removed from their mother (their protector, who therefore is truly tortured because her one job, to procreate and rear her young successfully, has been destroyed), and then either killed or force fed on a concoction that makes them grow as fast as possible so that they can be slaughtered to be eaten. Plants do indeed have it rough too, they are sprayed with poison and planted in monocultures, etc. But when we can truly empathize with the animal it is more distinct and painful. It's hard to feel empathy for a seed ripped from its mother plant, as that is the natural way of things anyway, and what the plant desires. Anyway -

We can look at it through the Catalyst of the Body. Many, many people are "lactose-intolerant" (more than even admit it; about 75% of humans are considered lactose-intolerant.) Many people are also becoming gluten-intolerant (due to the intensive farming practices we use for wheat w/Round-up to shorten ripening time; also commercial wheat products often use animal by-products as dough conditioners). These people have unconscious or conscious bodily reactions to the food they eat, for whatever myriad of metaphysical reasons that may act upon their energy systems. This is just one example.

My experience is that, in the over 3 years that I have now been vegan, I have not been sick, once. No colds, no flus, no sore throats, barely a stuffy nose. I heal extremely fast. I have much less anxiety. I get migraines once every other month, as opposed to several times a month. Before I was vegan, I was very, very sickly, especially after mealtimes. I had an ulcer at the age of 22. All of this went away and the common link, to me, was my dietary change. It was extreme, and I received extreme results. It was a sacrifice I made, the crux ansata. I have continued to listen to my body as it tells me what not to consume (and that includes the myriad of cleaning/hygiene chemicals we use daily) and my sensitivity continues to go up, which is a trial. The other day I smelled someone smoking a cigarette inside a car 2 blocks away.

People experience the Catalyst of the Body in other ways, too. A few days ago, a pig escaped a freight truck bound for slaughter on the highway through town. It was dragged for a few miles underneath the semi before the semi stopped and the pig, alive, struggled to hide beneath the rig. Animal Control came and the headlines of the newspaper read, "Pig safely rescued on 1-25", and the comments applauded the heroic efforts of the rescuers. The pig, who was deemed well despite road rash, was then returned to its "owner", who sent it back on its way to slaughter. Many who felt elation at the "rescue" of the "poor pig" continued on to their dinner that evening to eat pork chops or bacon. To me, this is a total rejection of catalyst. Those who look their pets in the eyes and experience true love and recognition of the light of a soul within them but then believe things like cows aren't able to achieve that sort of sentience, in my opinion, are also rejecting catalyst. Or birds! Birds are arguably more aware than most mammals, even. But we chop off their beaks, stuff them in pens, and force them to produce, produce, produce.

[Image: tarot10.jpg]

Both of the entities ascending and descending the wheel are attached at their bellies (and throats). The Set has a parasitic serpent which is helping attribute to its downfall. The ascending entity's attachment is part of the wheel, and attributing to its ascent. I think this can be seen as an image alluding to what we eat/consume offering us bodily catalyst. The sphinx holding the spear's limbs form the crux. All three beings are also part animal (and also, not part plant).

I know the Wheel of Fortune/Catalyst of the Body can be more-or-less in the control of a strong adept who is good at transmutation, but sadly, this is not the case for the great majority of the population at whole, including these forums (no offense, anyone). The metaphysical concept of the archetypes per Ra is the study of an incarnation, it's not meant to be mastered quickly.
There is no magic greater than honest distortion toward love.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
The following 2 users Like Bring4th_Jade's post:
Billy, Diana
08-23-2015, 05:16 PM,
RE: [split] "Some people eat animals, some don't."
(08-21-2015, 11:53 PM)The_Tired_Philosopher Wrote:  Speaking from personal experience, you are wrong.  Animals can suffer just like a human being.  Go throw a dog in a dark cabinet and bang on it, open it up and look at it shivering in utter terror.  Is that not 3D suffering in some distorted sense?

I was coming from a metaphysical perspective and failed to find the relevant Ra quote to point out how it has influenced my perception. It goes something like mind/body complexes go through little or no healing in their time/space experience. Also, the details of how second density consumes itself during its several billion year cycle though is pretty eye watering too imo. It was a low input post if I am honest and totally understandable that Diana perceived it as Anthropocentric.

Its an intense period of light and dark expression going on at this time of harvest and this thread is a hugely challenging arena for me and many who have contributed. Are we increasing the vibration of light collectively speaking? I need to remind myself of refraining from contributing to it if I cant take the time to be clear and unambiguous. It's not intentional.

Other than that, Ra spoke about the seemingly negative atmosphere on earth of which the abuse and torture of animals is a notable factor...

Quote:Can you tell me why the Earth will be fourth-density positive instead of fourth-density negative after the cycle is complete since it seems that there is a greater negative population?

Ra: I am Ra. The Earth seems to be negative. That is due to the quiet, shall we say, horror which is the common distortion which those good or positively oriented entities have towards the occurrences which are of your space/time present. However, those oriented and harvestable in the ways of service to others greatly outnumber those whose orientation towards service to self has become that of harvestable quality.

http://www.lawofone.info/results.php?q=quiet+horror

Generally speaking though I think we are falling short of the "common distortion" that Ra are pointing out in that quote. I myself have to admit to disturbing the peace at times with my own distortions and lack of humility.  

Sad
...the highest wisdom is to suffer all men to have full liberty to think on all subjects in their own way. - OAHSPE  
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-23-2015, 05:22 PM,
RE: [split] "Some people eat animals, some don't."
Re: polarization... again that depends on the receiving entity. If you truly, deeply, honestly believe you are offering the best service possible in the moment by choosing to consume animals, then you are polarization STO. If you have twinges of guilt, they are there for a reason. "I try to tell the animals their suffering was not in vain" is hardly a staunch stand that what you are doing is the right thing. The pleasure we receive from eating food is so fleeting, and the suffering of the animal is often long-standing. We truly could live off of beans and water, but we continue to justify consuming certain things for the pleasure we receive. I don't think consuming, say, heroin is necessary STS - unless you weep for the poor poppy seeds - but eating a meal that caused the death of another for the pleasure you receive is IMO where the distinction in polarizing choices is made. If you really believe you need that meal, and the death is truly justified, then I say all the power to you. But, in my opinion, this is where the line of polarity can be drawn, albeit of course arbitrarily. Was the consumption for the pleasure centers that were activated in your mouth and brain? Or was the consumption done as a service to others/all? It is not black and white. But I don't think it's often justifiable as an STO action.

Of course, the gray area is suppression of the catalyst. We don't have to be actively polarizing all the time, but we do (very) slowly polarize passively regardless. To each is own.
There is no magic greater than honest distortion toward love.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
The following 2 users Like Bring4th_Jade's post:
Billy, Monica
08-23-2015, 05:33 PM,
RE: [split] "Some people eat animals, some don't."
Hmm, to the point of 'consuming the trauma', I am a practicing internal alchemist and I believe that such energy can be transmuted in to higher frequencies.

The way I see it that trauma can either go in to the Earth and take its time slowly returning to a higher energy state, or I can take it and transmute it many times faster than would happen in the natural process of nature so I see it that through transmutation I am raising the vibration of suffering. Without this transmutation then yes I would agree that you are simply consuming this energy and it is processed at a low energy level.

There is an old saying of the alchemist, 'Nature unaided fails.' This means that evolution must be taken to a conscious level for nature to grow beyond its base levels and functions.

Thus, what happens to the energy in the body is of prime importance, perhaps moreso than the state of the energy coming in. Even good, positive energy can be made negative once it is inside your system. Receiving 'good' energy doesn't necessarily mean it will stay as good energy, just as 'bad' energy won't necessarily stay as bad energy.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-23-2015, 06:24 PM,
RE: [split] "Some people eat animals, some don't."
Objective-subjective nature of reality can make an interesting twist on the functions of polarizing.

Not so much energetically, but polarity wise.

Try not to mix them up, there is a subtle difference.

You're not wrong if you desire pure or 'clean' energy to avoid eating meat, ESPECIALLY slaughtered animals..   same goes for plants poorly cared for, crudely handled, and artificial foods.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
The following 2 users Like The_Tired_Philosopher's post:
Aion, Elros




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)