Monica’s courageous attempt at voicing concern over the plight of animal and plant life that is used for the human food source has prompted me to write this in response. I know that thread was closed in consideration of the time span it had lasted and the fact that most of our opinions on the matter were already spoken over and over to the point where all that was left was already said.
I hope the moderators are gracious enough to allow me to post my thoughts on the subject given that I was under moderation at the time and could not respond. This should not be considered a reopening of the discussion, except to address specifically the points I have made. I am certain, and I do mean ‘certain’, that if the mods feel that this is enabling a furthering of the prior argument they will bring it to a sudden close.
Much has been said about whether or not the human has an obligation to feel compassion for other beings. And much has been said about individual rights.
And as we speak about concerns for animals and plants we must consider the priority of our own human fellow beings over and above all the rest. Is it any more or less abhorrent to see a human abused than an animal? Why aren’t we as concerned about our brothers and sisters as we are the animals that feed us? These are all questions that surround these considerations.
I think what we are really discussing here is not whether or not there is abuse taking place, or if certain forms of life have any right to consideration. Instead what we are discussing is choice and privilege.
It is not a matter of right and wrong, for those must be defined by appointed authority. This is not about what authority should be granted that right. This is about the choices that we make as individual life forms and how our choices affect us as a society and a species. And how we as a species affect other species around us.
So just to bring this entire discussion into context, let me use an example that will certainly leave the theme of the ‘meat thread’, but will serve to make my point about what I think is the true problem behind the debate.
Society is torn between the inalienable rights of a woman to do what she chooses with her own body, and the complete lack of rights of the unborn to be protected by a righteous and just society into which they would hope to be born.
And much debate takes place around this argument while both the unborn and their mothers are suffering greatly.
But I think the reason the issue is so unsolvable is because we are not asking the right questions or dealing with the roots of the problems. We are trimming the shoots of the pesky vine only to encourage its growth. Until the root is killed the pest will grow.
Is this really about the right of the woman to use their bodies as they choose, or is it actually about why women choose to use their bodies in ways that create this problem in the first place?
This may not be so much an obligation of society to protect the unborn, as it is a woman's obligation to acknowledge that she has the divine power to bring life into the world, and therefore has an obligation to be in control of such natural ability in a way that it is not abused without consideration of consequence.
If this divine power was that a woman could become pregnant and give birth to monstrous creatures that would viciously devour any human they could catch, you can be sure that the world would hold all women obligated to be very cautious about getting pregnant. There would be no question about her so-called ‘right’ to do what she chooses with her body, when other human life would be at risk.
Wait a minute! Human life is at risk.
I think what we are talking about here is not so much the woman’s right to do with her body what she chooses, but instead what her obligations are to her humanity as a being capable of bearing future life into this planet. Should a woman be casually careless and apathetic about such a divine ability? It’s not about right or wrong. It’s about a person choosing to do the right thing for the sake of humanity. In just the same way that the woman would say that the human male has the same obligation with regard to his choices around controlling the female of the species. In many countries around the world the woman is still seen as property and is abused and controlled simply because they do not have the power to defend themselves.
Is this not the same argument that the unborn fetus would use if it had a voice? Or even the plant or animal?
When we begin to talk about these issues according to rights and privileges, we begin to run into situations where the very defense we would use to defend our own stance, is the same one that another would use against us for the same abuse we cause to another. How can any woman cry out against the man demanding to be treated equally, and then deliberately go out and carelessly partake in promiscuous sex life becoming pregnant and casting aside life as though it was not deserving of the same equality?
When we look at it from this point of view we begin to see that the issue is not an individual one but a social one. When we consider these issues from this point of view, we do not need to argue about abortions only when raped, or in the case of gross deformity, or trying to define various circumstances and categories to the same problem. All other issues become secondary to the root cause of obligation to our humanity as a whole. Because the main concern lies where it should in the first place; with the individual woman. In the case of forced impregnation there is no choice for the woman, but society should have extremely severe penalties for men who cause this. The way that justice deals with this today is a joke. And if society teaches its women to be more considerate of their bodies and the creative power that they have within them, we would have less cases of unwanted pregnancies to deal with.
Unfortunately, in a world where everyone wants to be able to do whatever they choose to do, without having to face any consequences or be judged for their decisions, society ends up with a world of selfish individuals who care only for pleasing themselves and fulfilling their lusts. They could care less about the grass they walk over, the life they kill in their wake, nor their own fellow humans, as long as nobody taps them on the shoulder and asks if they realize what they have done.
Ignorance is bliss my friends. We do not want anybody shining light on our selfishness. And when they do they will cry out in defiance. And when we hear about it taking place in far away places we pretend that we would never do that here. And the only time we will stand up in reaction is when something gets in our own way of what we want for ourselves.
It is sad, but this is the way that most of us are. And those who aren’t are shunned by that majority.
Should we be eating meat?
Probably not when you consider what has to be done to make that happen.
Should we be killing plants?
Should we be killing fetuses?
Should we be killing insects?
Should we be killing each other?
The real question is not “should we be…”, but rather why are we even asking this question in the first place?
The real question is why don’t we know the answer to this question naturally?
When you finally realize this, you will understand what I have been telling you all about the state of humanity being ‘unnatural’. Something is wrong, and it is not just that we cannot figure out why we are killing everything in our path.
It is more about why we are so desensitized to it.
Quote:"Not to hurt our humble brethren (the animals) is our first duty to them, but to stop there is not enough. We have a higher mission - to be of service to them whenever they require it. If you have men who will exclude any of God's creatures from the shelter of compassion and pity, you will have men who will deal likewise with their fellow men."
Saint Francis of Assisi
Weird, I thought I had posted
this on the forum somewhere a long time ago, but not finding it.
I did post this one a while back on another thread but the story is very relevant.
According to the Fioretti, the city of Gubbio was besieged by the Wolf of Gubbio which devoured both livestock and men. Francis of Assisi, who was living in Gubbio at the time took pity on the townsfolk, and went up into the hills to find the wolf. Soon fear of the animal had caused all his companions to flee, but the saint pressed on and when he found the wolf he made the sign of the cross and commanded the wolf to come to him and hurt no one. Miraculously the wolf closed his jaws and lay down at the feet of St. Francis. “Brother Wolf, you do much harm in these parts and you have done great evil…” said Francis. “All these people accuse you and curse you… But brother wolf, I would like to make peace between you and the people.” Then Francis led the wolf into the town, and surrounded by startled citizens he made a pact between them and the wolf. Because the wolf had “done evil out of hunger” the townsfolk were to feed the wolf regularly, and in return, the wolf would no longer prey upon them or their flocks. In this manner Gubbio was freed from the menace of the predator. Francis, ever the lover of animals, even made a pact on behalf of the town dogs, that they would not bother the wolf again.
(05-15-2012, 06:58 AM)Ashim Wrote: [ -> ]I did post this one a while back on another thread but the story is very relevant.
According to the Fioretti, the city of Gubbio was besieged by the Wolf of Gubbio which devoured both livestock and men. Francis of Assisi, who was living in Gubbio at the time took pity on the townsfolk, and went up into the hills to find the wolf. Soon fear of the animal had caused all his companions to flee, but the saint pressed on and when he found the wolf he made the sign of the cross and commanded the wolf to come to him and hurt no one. Miraculously the wolf closed his jaws and lay down at the feet of St. Francis. “Brother Wolf, you do much harm in these parts and you have done great evil…” said Francis. “All these people accuse you and curse you… But brother wolf, I would like to make peace between you and the people.” Then Francis led the wolf into the town, and surrounded by startled citizens he made a pact between them and the wolf. Because the wolf had “done evil out of hunger” the townsfolk were to feed the wolf regularly, and in return, the wolf would no longer prey upon them or their flocks. In this manner Gubbio was freed from the menace of the predator. Francis, ever the lover of animals, even made a pact on behalf of the town dogs, that they would not bother the wolf again.
But what did the townsfolk feed to the wolf? Did they become wolves themselves to some other form of life in order to protect themselves?
The question still remains, why is it necessary to feed ourselves at the expense of other forms of life? There is something in that natural design of the human being that contains the answer to the dilemma.
(05-15-2012, 12:29 AM)Pickle Wrote: [ -> ]Quote:"Not to hurt our humble brethren (the animals) is our first duty to them, but to stop there is not enough. We have a higher mission - to be of service to them whenever they require it. If you have men who will exclude any of God's creatures from the shelter of compassion and pity, you will have men who will deal likewise with their fellow men."
Saint Francis of Assisi
Weird, I thought I had posted this on the forum somewhere a long time ago, but not finding it.
And so the question remains, "why is the human so desensitized to killing other forms of life? Why does it seem so natural? And why is our very existence so intertwined in the death of other life?"
(05-15-2012, 12:20 AM)ShinAr Wrote: [ -> ]Should we be eating meat?
Probably not when you consider what has to be done to make that happen.
Should we be killing plants?
Should we be killing fetuses?
Should we be killing insects?
Should we be killing each other?
The real question is not “should we be…”, but rather why are we even asking this question in the first place?
The real question is why don’t we know the answer to this question naturally?
When you finally realize this, you will understand what I have been telling you all about the state of humanity being ‘unnatural’. Something is wrong, and it is not just that we cannot figure out why we are killing everything in our path.
It is more about why we are so desensitized to it.
I agree, the human spirit seems to be flagging with no one really sure why. We all seem to agree that at somepoint somewhere something went wrong and this isnt how humanity is supposed to be but no one seems to have any idea what to do about it other than "lets just enjoy the ride and see what we do when it reboots" and that, to me, hurts. It doesnt feel like what i want to do. The kind of apathy at looking at it all is just poisonous.
[I've rethought the wisdom of offering my opinions in this thread]
Let me know when you have the solution, instead of yet another restatement of the problem.
(05-15-2012, 09:43 AM)plenum Wrote: [ -> ]Inedia
Do you think that is possible Plenum? or are you just pointing out the dilemma?
(05-15-2012, 09:30 AM)Tenet Nosce Wrote: [ -> ][I've rethought the wisdom of offering my opinions in this thread]
Let me know when you have the solution, instead of yet another restatement of the problem.
What you say is valid Tenet. Without solution all the argument is for naught.
but at the same time without discussion of the possible avenues of and paths how can we ever find the one that leads to a solution?
Exploration is the means to completing the map.
(05-15-2012, 08:53 AM)Cyan Wrote: [ -> ] (05-15-2012, 12:20 AM)ShinAr Wrote: [ -> ]Should we be eating meat?
Probably not when you consider what has to be done to make that happen.
Should we be killing plants?
Should we be killing fetuses?
Should we be killing insects?
Should we be killing each other?
The real question is not “should we be…”, but rather why are we even asking this question in the first place?
The real question is why don’t we know the answer to this question naturally?
When you finally realize this, you will understand what I have been telling you all about the state of humanity being ‘unnatural’. Something is wrong, and it is not just that we cannot figure out why we are killing everything in our path.
It is more about why we are so desensitized to it.
I agree, the human spirit seems to be flagging with no one really sure why. We all seem to agree that at somepoint somewhere something went wrong and this isnt how humanity is supposed to be but no one seems to have any idea what to do about it other than "lets just enjoy the ride and see what we do when it reboots" and that, to me, hurts. It doesnt feel like what i want to do. The kind of apathy at looking at it all is just poisonous.
Well said Cyan. That is exactly how I would have liked to say it.
(05-15-2012, 09:53 AM)ShinAr Wrote: [ -> ] (05-15-2012, 09:43 AM)plenum Wrote: [ -> ]Inedia
Do you think that is possible Plenum? or are you just pointing out the dilemma?
no, I honestly believe such things are possible. There have been stories of Indian 'saints' doing such things. I believe Yogananda writes about it in his Autobiography.
although, I don't know of anyone in my personal circle who is capable of such things.
(05-15-2012, 10:01 AM)plenum Wrote: [ -> ] (05-15-2012, 09:53 AM)ShinAr Wrote: [ -> ] (05-15-2012, 09:43 AM)plenum Wrote: [ -> ]Inedia
Do you think that is possible Plenum? or are you just pointing out the dilemma?
no, I honestly believe such things are possible. There have been stories of Indian 'saints' doing such things. I believe Yogananda writes about it in his Autobiography.
although, I don't know of anyone in my personal circle who is capable of such things.
Well in my way of thinking, it is certainly plausible in states of being that would not be considered physical, as in light being, or higher being. Right?
So it seems that it has more to do with our physical design than our actual choice to eat or not to eat.
There is something about this physical form that involves both need, necessity to nurture the body, and a certain bond to the life and death cycle that necessitates death to continue life. There is some key there that I cannot quite put my finger on.
(05-15-2012, 12:20 AM)ShinAr Wrote: [ -> ]...It is not a matter of right and wrong, for those must be defined by appointed authority. This is not about what authority should be granted that right...
Then how would this not be about the subject of which authority should have the power to decide what is right and what is wrong?
(05-15-2012, 10:27 AM)Valtor Wrote: [ -> ] (05-15-2012, 12:20 AM)ShinAr Wrote: [ -> ]...It is not a matter of right and wrong, for those must be defined by appointed authority. This is not about what authority should be granted that right...
Then how would this not be about the subject of which authority should have the power to decide what is right and what is wrong?
Because authority comes and goes according to power and circumstance, but the root cause of human desensitization remains regardless of the authority at any given time.
Human nature seems to remain the same regardless of who is in charge and making the rules.
(05-15-2012, 12:20 AM)ShinAr Wrote: [ -> ]...Unfortunately, in a world where everyone wants to be able to do whatever they choose to do, without having to face any consequences or be judged for their decisions, society ends up with a world of selfish individuals who care only for pleasing themselves and fulfilling their lusts...
Actually, it is my understanding that in a world where everyone would be able to do whatever they choose to do, there would be no judgments.
It is our current world full of judgments that results in a world of selfish individuals...
(05-15-2012, 08:11 AM)ShinAr Wrote: [ -> ]...And so the question remains, "why is the human so desensitized to killing other forms of life? Why does it seem so natural? And why is our very existence so intertwined in the death of other life?"
I've said it before. All entities in physicality must end the incarnation of another to sustain their own incarnation. Unless you can actually sustain yourself on prana, like
real breatharians.
The real question is: "What learn/teaching is there in this?"
(05-15-2012, 10:31 AM)ShinAr Wrote: [ -> ] (05-15-2012, 10:27 AM)Valtor Wrote: [ -> ] (05-15-2012, 12:20 AM)ShinAr Wrote: [ -> ]...It is not a matter of right and wrong, for those must be defined by appointed authority. This is not about what authority should be granted that right...
Then how would this not be about the subject of which authority should have the power to decide what is right and what is wrong?
Because authority comes and goes according to power and circumstance, but the root cause of human desensitization remains regardless of the authority at any given time.
Human nature seems to remain the same regardless of who is in charge and making the rules.
Then why do you believe someone
else should decide what is right and what is wrong ?
(05-15-2012, 10:34 AM)Valtor Wrote: [ -> ] (05-15-2012, 12:20 AM)ShinAr Wrote: [ -> ]...Unfortunately, in a world where everyone wants to be able to do whatever they choose to do, without having to face any consequences or be judged for their decisions, society ends up with a world of selfish individuals who care only for pleasing themselves and fulfilling their lusts...
Actually, it is my understanding that in a world where everyone would be able to do whatever they choose to do, there would be no judgments.
It is our current world full of judgments that results in a world of selfish individuals...
(05-15-2012, 08:11 AM)ShinAr Wrote: [ -> ]...And so the question remains, "why is the human so desensitized to killing other forms of life? Why does it seem so natural? And why is our very existence so intertwined in the death of other life?"
I've said it before. All entities in physicality must end the incarnation of another to sustain their own incarnation. Unless you can actually sustain yourself on prana, like real breatharians.
The real question is: "What learn/teaching is there in this?"
(05-15-2012, 10:31 AM)ShinAr Wrote: [ -> ] (05-15-2012, 10:27 AM)Valtor Wrote: [ -> ] (05-15-2012, 12:20 AM)ShinAr Wrote: [ -> ]...It is not a matter of right and wrong, for those must be defined by appointed authority. This is not about what authority should be granted that right...
Then how would this not be about the subject of which authority should have the power to decide what is right and what is wrong?
Because authority comes and goes according to power and circumstance, but the root cause of human desensitization remains regardless of the authority at any given time.
Human nature seems to remain the same regardless of who is in charge and making the rules.
Then why do you believe someone else should decide what is right and what is wrong ?
I do not believe that someone else should appoint authority in the sense that you mean it. That is just the way it is with human relations unfortunately.
but if you truly believe that for the betterment of your incarnation you need to end the incarnation of another, than that would be the reason why the human relationship is in need of authority and governing.
What would be the opportunity for you to share and evolve if, by your belief system, you became the last of your kind? Because if we all thought this way, and death to others was our motto for life, and it was followed to the limit, at some point we would eliminate all others.
I choose to believe that was not what you meant. but your wording seemed to lead in that direction. Instead of speculating on what you meany it is probably best for you to further elucidate.
You say that you have stated the same before so it sounds like you know what you are stating.
You said, "All entities in physicality must end the incarnation of another to sustain their own incarnation."UNQUOTE
Can you go into a little more detail here Valtor?
(05-15-2012, 12:29 AM)Pickle Wrote: [ -> ]Quote:"Not to hurt our humble brethren (the animals) is our first duty to them, but to stop there is not enough. We have a higher mission - to be of service to them whenever they require it. If you have men who will exclude any of God's creatures from the shelter of compassion and pity, you will have men who will deal likewise with their fellow men."
Saint Francis of Assisi
Ashim and Pickle, thank you for the enlightened reminders from St. Francis of Assisi.
[quote='Pickle' pid='85362' dateline='1337056198']Weird, I thought I had posted this on the forum somewhere a long time ago, but not finding it.
Very interesting about the number of times 40, 49 days shows up. One must wonder whether this really is an energetic gateway point for the soul to enter.
Nice website Pickle.
Divine Right of Kings
This is the support base for what Shin asks about. This established system is the base of belief that allows us to be desensitized to killing others.
I found
this to be humorous as well.
(05-15-2012, 11:19 AM)ShinAr Wrote: [ -> ]I do not believe that someone else should appoint authority in the sense that you mean it. That is just the way it is with human relations unfortunately.
but if you truly believe that for the betterment of your incarnation you need to end the incarnation of another, than that would be the reason why the human relationship is in need of authority and governing.
What would be the opportunity for you to share and evolve if, by your belief system, you became the last of your kind? Because if we all thought this way, and death to others was our motto for life, and it was followed to the limit, at some point we would eliminate all others.
I choose to believe that was not what you meant. but your wording seemed to lead in that direction. Instead of speculating on what you meany it is probably best for you to further elucidate.
You say that you have stated the same before so it sounds like you know what you are stating.
You said, "All entities in physicality must end the incarnation of another to sustain their own incarnation."UNQUOTE
Can you go into a little more detail here Valtor?
Not for the betterment, but simply for your incarnation to continue, you must end the incarnation of another entity. Plants are incarnated beings, as are the bacteria and the simple cells within the milk and the eggs. You cannot live in physicality without taking the life of another entity. Unless you can live on prana alone.
(05-15-2012, 12:12 PM)Valtor Wrote: [ -> ]Plants are incarnated beings, as are the bacteria and the simple cells within the milk and the eggs. You cannot live in physicality without taking the life of another entity. Unless you can live on prana alone.
Monkey has made this point before. Plants are entities too. 2nd density ... just like animals, as Ra says.
(05-15-2012, 12:20 AM)ShinAr Wrote: [ -> ]Ignorance is bliss my friends. We do not want anybody shining light on our selfishness. And when they do they will cry out in defiance. And when we hear about it taking place in far away places we pretend that we would never do that here. And the only time we will stand up in reaction is when something gets in our own way of what we want for ourselves.
It is sad, but this is the way that most of us are.
This is true for the most part in humans. It is why we have brought the planet to the brink of disaster, destroying the ecosystems. I heard a Native American elder talk about about the community of one tree: the flowers, plant life, insects, birds, and animals all belonging to the community of tree, and what happens when the tree is cut down? Herein lies a conflict for me: free will vs. protecting the innocent. Humans just take without consideration of all life, with the exception (generally) of indigenous peoples.
(05-15-2012, 12:20 AM)ShinAr Wrote: [ -> ]It is more about why we are so desensitized to it.
A few things come to mind: ignorance (being the chief reason I think), anesthetization from the media and other controlling factors, the fact that we have effectively separated our lives from nature by living the way we do.
eating plants: do you believe it is any less an act of killing just because you do not hear it scream?
I will offer one additional thought here merely as a suggestion. Rather than starting with one's opinion about how things "should" or "shouldn't" be and working backwards from a pre-judged conclusion, how about starting with the seeking of greater understanding of how things actually ARE, and how they came to be this way?
In this particular context, I would recommend picking up a basic biology textbook. They can be found quite cheaply in a used bookstore, or online.
Some online textbooks are even free. Then, study up on the most basic of physical lifeforms- such as bacteria, algae, and protozoa.
Seek to understand how these different kinds of organisms function on a biochemical basis. Specifically- investigate how it is / how it came to be that certain molecules which support life in one organism are toxic or lethal to another organism.
Then ask oneself the question- would it be possible for physical lifeforms to exist such that the natural biological functions of each only served to support the biological function of the others?
TN out.
(05-15-2012, 12:20 PM)plenum Wrote: [ -> ]eating plants: do you believe it is any less an act of killing just because you do not hear it scream?
Rather than going down that road again, how about asking a deeper question:
Why were plants designed without the ability to move or scream? Why were animals designed to flee and scream?
(05-15-2012, 12:29 PM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote: [ -> ] (05-15-2012, 12:20 PM)plenum Wrote: [ -> ]eating plants: do you believe it is any less an act of killing just because you do not hear it scream?
Rather than going down that road again, how about asking a deeper question:
Why were plants designed without the ability to move or scream? Why were animals designed to flee and scream?
there is a book called the Secret Life of Plants.
plants scream, we are just not equipped with the sense to hear it.
one part of creation is not to be valued over another. It is all sacred.
(05-15-2012, 12:34 PM)plenum Wrote: [ -> ]there is a book called the Secret Life of Plants.
plants scream, we are just not equipped with the sense to hear it.
one part of creation is not to be valued over another. It is all sacred.
I have the book and the video. It is not fully accurate or fully understanding.
“it can no longer be maintained by anyone but a religious fanatic that man is the special darling of the universe, or that animals were created to provide us with food, or that we have divine authority over them, and divine permission to kill them.”
(05-15-2012, 12:36 PM)Pickle Wrote: [ -> ] (05-15-2012, 12:34 PM)plenum Wrote: [ -> ]there is a book called the Secret Life of Plants.
plants scream, we are just not equipped with the sense to hear it.
one part of creation is not to be valued over another. It is all sacred.
I have the book and the video. It is not fully accurate or fully understanding.
“it can no longer be maintained by anyone but a religious fanatic that man is the special darling of the universe, or that animals were created to provide us with food, or that we have divine authority over them, and divine permission to kill them.”
I'm glad that you are familiar with it.
plants are second density entities
animals are second density entities
any ecosystem you care to mention has a cycle of energy. Entities form a dance. There is no judgement in this. Until one decides to bring one in.
(05-15-2012, 12:34 PM)plenum Wrote: [ -> ]there is a book called the Secret Life of Plants.
plants scream, we are just not equipped with the sense to hear it.
one part of creation is not to be valued over another. It is all sacred.
This was discussed quite extensively in the meat thread.
(05-15-2012, 12:44 PM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote: [ -> ]This was discussed quite extensively in the meat thread.
I guess we're going around in circles then
(05-15-2012, 12:58 PM)plenum Wrote: [ -> ]I guess we're going around in circles then
Well yes, we would if we go down that road again. But I think Shin'Ar is asking some deeper questions, to probe beneath the surface issues. If we focus on the deeper questions, we can avoid that neverending treadmill.
(05-15-2012, 12:42 PM)plenum Wrote: [ -> ] (05-15-2012, 12:36 PM)Pickle Wrote: [ -> ] (05-15-2012, 12:34 PM)plenum Wrote: [ -> ]there is a book called the Secret Life of Plants.
plants scream, we are just not equipped with the sense to hear it.
one part of creation is not to be valued over another. It is all sacred.
I have the book and the video. It is not fully accurate or fully understanding.
“it can no longer be maintained by anyone but a religious fanatic that man is the special darling of the universe, or that animals were created to provide us with food, or that we have divine authority over them, and divine permission to kill them.”
I'm glad that you are familiar with it.
plants are second density entities
animals are second density entities
any ecosystem you care to mention has a cycle of energy. Entities form a dance. There is no judgement in this. Until one decides to bring one in.
Killing is a part of living. If you subscribe to an external Logos that created me, the same Logos did so with the full intention to kill me.
"Ra: I am Ra. Catalyst being processed by the body is catalyst for the body. Catalyst being processed by the mind is catalyst for the mind. Catalyst being processed by the spirit is catalyst for the spirit. An individual mind/body/spirit complex may use any catalyst which comes before its notice, be it through the body and its senses or through mentation or through any other more highly developed source, and use this catalyst in its unique way to form an experience unique to it, with its biases."
The bottom line is that if you think you are moving higher in consciousness, then you are enjoying a progressive vibration. And if your personal vantage point sees a society that is underachieving, then you are enjoying a destructive vibration.
(05-15-2012, 12:34 PM)plenum Wrote: [ -> ]there is a book called the Secret Life of Plants.
plants scream, we are just not equipped with the sense to hear it.
one part of creation is not to be valued over another. It is all sacred.
Certainly all life is sacred. Anyone who is spiritually awakening, I would hope, understands that, or is coming to understand it.
If one decides to live in awareness and respect for all life, and looks about at the natural world with an eye to perceiving life in its many manifestations, one might perceive a difference in the plant and the animal kingdom.
Animals are predator/prey oriented. The prey run from predators and spend their lives avoiding being eaten.
The fruit of a plant "wants" to be eaten (seeds/fertilizer), or have parts of them taken (pollen), in order to continue as a species.
This suggests to me that the purpose or life plan of each is different, and that plant life serves to provide sustenance in symbiosis with the service provided by animals--the spreading of seed and pollen.
To anthropomorphize plants with a device that measures "screaming," seems sensationalizing to me. A more balanced view, with consideration of the whole picture, might serve in this instance.
If, for instance, the device measured response when a destructive insect was on the plant, the internal "screaming" could be communication with other like plants to warn them to secrete a substance to keep the insects away.