I want to apologize for my role in upsetting anyone. I know these topics are emotional and I recognize that I especially get emotional. I must admit that it becomes even more personal when you have a chicken who lives in your home. It also increases my fervency having spent many hours of my life at a slaughterhouse sharing breath with baby animals who were moments from slaughter. I agreed to take on this honor/duty/responsibility, and I have made mistakes in my output.
I'm glad there has been some recognition of the fact that there are no vegans here who are trying to force anyone to do anything, or infringe on free will, or anything of that nature, at least that I can perceive. I guess I just get confused. At what point is it a free will violation for someone to speak of these things? When an open conversation has been started, I feel a very strong call to share in the space given the (extensive) things I know about animal agriculture. I do not feel this call to share when the space has not been created.
I know everyone is at different points in their path, and I know that there are complex emotional/social layers that go into eating animals. I recognize that it is a long and difficult process to give up something that you love and has served you, in the face of realizing that which serves you actually is harming "someone else". While it is nigh impossible to entirely do no harm, I think the whole point of attempting to polarize STO is to attempt to do as little harm as possible. When we find out atrocities that are committed against other-selves in this incarnation, because of our choices, the way we WANT to use the catalyst is to do better, to open our hearts more fully in compassion to others. At what point does the line cross between sharing information with intent to illuminate and militancy? Sure, there is a frustration that comes when people intentionally turn away from the cruel horrors that occur to billions of gentle, sweet animals in our farming system, but will show an extreme displeasure to the idea of cutting down a tree or squashing a bug. I feel like one point of this whole mirror system we have going on is so that we can reflect the incongruencies in each others' thinking back to each other, so we can learn. I'm just not sure when to take the "allow others to sleep" road of catalyst when people are actively engaging me in this discussion on a spiritual forum. It's a whole load of mixed signals that I have not been able to properly configure.
I also understand that I am fully on the abolitionist side of this issue, which makes it hard for me to meet in the middle. To me, I can't help but draw the parallels to slavery. The Creator obviously wants people to experience slavery, so why did we stop breeding slaves? Was this not a disservice to the Creator? Obviously there are plenty of places where they do still have slavery, should we celebrate this? Should we all go out and get our own slave, to glorify the Creator? I don't think so. Aspects like slavery are a distortion of the true unity of the Creator. Yes, these experiences help the Creator grow, but are we the ones who want to provide this catalyst of slavery and imprisonment of others? When do we realize that imprisoning and enslaving parts of creation just continues to enslave and imprison parts of ourselves?
I honestly don't care if the animals we are talking about are second or third density. I only engage in discussions along this corridor to help others flush out their own thoughts more. I hear very often that it's okay to treat second density different than third density, with various excuses that often contradict each other. I disagree. Whenever I see a pig in a farrowing crate, I see a dirty, bruised human being reared for her babies in a tiny cage. Whenever I see a mother cow crying for her infant that is being taken away from her, I see a human mother grieving in just the same way, desperate to feel the lips of her offspring suckling upon her nipples. When I see someone posing with the carcass of a lion, I can't help but think about what type of person would pose with a body of a human they have killed and take a picture grinning ear to ear. Chances are that many of these animals have reached third density awareness, because they meet many of the criteria for "pets": Domesticated for thousands of years, humans choose what they eat and who they mate with. We even control where these animals defecate. There is almost nothing natural about a factory farm compared to the natural existence that a cow/sheep/goat/pig/chicken could be living. To me, this seems like third density catalyst: The dark night, the hell, the eternal lack of light. Even if they haven't, and it's such an assault to consider doing any of these things to humans/third density, why take the risk? How would we know out of 12,000 pigs killed in a single slaughterhouse in a day if any of them were third density? Is it even worth the risk of having one third density entity killed in this way, to eat them, when we clearly have other options?
While I do also experience empathy for plants and have a hard time even weeding my garden, the types of visceral, complete empathy that are possible with animals are not as easily forthcoming. Animals have eyes, hearts, brains, skin, hair, bodies - visible tears, visible love, visible, tangible heartbreak. Once I started focusing on the things that make us alike, it became impossible to see us as different. I cannot help but feel exactly the same when I see an animal about to be slaughtered, as I would if it were a terrified human being strung up by their ankle and a knife shoved into their throat. Plants are objectively different because their experience of reality is vastly different than ours. This second density body we inhabit IS AN ANIMAL - it is this nebulous aspect of "awareness" that makes us blessed third density, giving us superiority over others, alongside the genetic changes that Yahweh put upon the ape complex to create the strange being we now know as "human". Our brains, our hair, our hearts, our bodies - these are second density. How we treat the other second density bodies of this creation redounds back to the self.
Quote:18.20 Questioner: When did Yahweh act to perform the genetic changes that Yahweh performed?
Ra: I am Ra. The Yahweh group worked with those of the planet you call Mars seven five, seventy-five thousand [75,000] years ago in what you would call the cloning process. There are differences, but they lie in the future of your time/space continuum and we cannot break the free will Law of Confusion.
The two six oh oh [2,600], approximately, time was the second time— we correct ourselves— three six oh oh [3,600], approximately, the time of attempts by those of the Orion group during this cultural complex; this was a series of encounters in which the ones called Anak were impregnated with the new genetic coding by your physical complex means so that the organisms would be larger and stronger.
18.21 Questioner: Why did they want larger and stronger organisms?
Ra: The ones of Yahweh were attempting to create an understanding of the Law of One by creating mind/body complexes capable of grasping the Law of One. The experiment was a decided failure from the view of the desired distortions due to the fact that rather than assimilating the Law of One, it was a great temptation to consider the so-called social complex or subcomplex as elite or different and better than other-selves, this one of the techniques of service to self.
Quote:14.3 Questioner: Then what was the second-density form— what did it look like— that became Earth-man in the third density? What did he look like in the second density?
Ra: I am Ra. The difference between second- and third-density bodily forms would in many cases have been more like one to the other. In the case of your planetary sphere the process was interrupted by those who incarnated here from the planetary sphere you call Mars. They were adjusted by genetic changing and, therefore, there was some difference which was of a very noticeable variety rather than the gradual raising of the bipedal forms upon your second-density level to third-density level. This has nothing to do with the so-called placement of the soul. This has only to do with the circumstances of the influx of those from that culture.
It's really interesting to me, because alongside this thread we have the thread about abstaining from marijuana usage. The majority of posters in that thread are people who say abstaining from marijuana/other substances increases their spirituality and their ability to connect with Creation. There is a lot of support for each other, tips for quitting, encouragement to abstain. Why is it so different when people say the same things about meat? I smoke marijuana, and didn't take what was said in that thread as a personal assault on my lack of spirituality because I consume it. I realize entirely that it is just the path that people embark on, and leaving things that once served us behind is a HUGE part of the service to others path (sacrifice). I know you cannot force that upon others, nor would I ever want to, but I am operating from my personal experience and the experiences of others that say they wish they would have realized and quit eating animals a long time ago. So, I am offering the awareness that I have, not with any expectation other than the hope that there will be ears to hear. If someone opens a thread titled "Confederation and meat consumption", I believe they are making their own free will choice to engage in this catalyst. I'm just genuinely trying to figure out what lines I may have crossed and where, and what meaning they hold to me in interpreting this philosophy. I hope it's obvious that I have no desire to control or manipulate anyone here. I have long ago accepted that a vegan world may not even be born within my lifetime. The catalyst is personal and about transformation within. I'm just another pilgrim on this path sharing what has worked for me, as we all are. It was never my intention to make anyone feel rejected or lesser than for eating meat. It was just offering another alternative to this mode of being, one that isn't offered very often, compared to how many suggestions one receives every single day to consume meat. I feel it's a service to offer, maybe once in a while, the suggestion that maybe we could make choices that refrain from consuming so much mass produced animal proteins?