(11-14-2011, 12:38 AM)Oceania Wrote: gross is besides the point. it's hypocritical to eat animals you couldn't kill yourself. that's why i quit meat, i still eat fish because if it came to it, i could kill a fish. especially to feed my kitty.

(11-14-2011, 01:27 AM)Oceania Wrote: hey why don't plants have faces?

(11-13-2011, 10:45 PM)3DMonkey Wrote:

(11-13-2011, 10:13 PM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote: Ergo, someone seeking a spiritual path, who continues to inflict suffering on other beings, must be in denial.

The only other explanation is that they don't care.

I don't think they don't care. I know these people do care. Thus, the only possible explanation left is denial.

It's simple logic. Either they don't care, or they're in denial. What other option is there?

(11-13-2011, 06:10 AM)3DMonkey Wrote: But, I suppose the one who is actually in denial is the one who is blinded.

Well, that's what being in denial means. Blinded.

You have accurately described a vegetarian who does not consider their own practice to "hurt" plants.

I do care, but I am not in denial. I will murder animal and plant to survive. We all do it. I think it best to accept that.

(11-14-2011, 07:40 AM)yossarian Wrote: Isn't that like eating the sun ? The sun has feelings too!

(11-14-2011, 01:52 AM)Diana Wrote:

(11-13-2011, 10:45 PM)3DMonkey Wrote:

(11-13-2011, 10:13 PM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote: Ergo, someone seeking a spiritual path, who continues to inflict suffering on other beings, must be in denial.

The only other explanation is that they don't care.

I don't think they don't care. I know these people do care. Thus, the only possible explanation left is denial.

It's simple logic. Either they don't care, or they're in denial. What other option is there?

(11-13-2011, 06:10 AM)3DMonkey Wrote: But, I suppose the one who is actually in denial is the one who is blinded.

Well, that's what being in denial means. Blinded.

You have accurately described a vegetarian who does not consider their own practice to "hurt" plants.

I do care, but I am not in denial. I will murder animal and plant to survive. We all do it. I think it best to accept that.

I do consider that I harm plants to eat and survive. I just feel it generates less fear and harm than taking the lives of animals. Logically, because plants survive even when you take parts of them, and animals don't, wouldn't the fear be greater for animals? Wouldn't the pain and terror be greater?

I hope that in the future--my imagined evolved future--we will not require the consuming of matter to survive. Perhaps we will be more plant-like and derive sustenance from light.

(11-14-2011, 11:10 AM)Meerie Wrote: I think the sun is a carnivore, it once ate my skin.

Quote:I have heard others talk about not getting sunburned eating raw. We eat about 70-95% raw on any given week. So, if the benefits are limited to just 100% raw folks, our testimonies won't help.


Anyway, I would agree there are some advantages there. I suppose I would hypothosize that it is likely more do to the vegan lifestyle than raw. What do we fry food in a pan with? Grease right. What do we fill our systems with if we eat animal products freely? I have to imagine that some of that gets into our skin and literally we may be baking our skin from the inside out when the sun is applied in strong doses.

(11-14-2011, 01:31 AM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote: My opinion is that if an entity is evolved enough to be individuated, it won't incarnate into the body of a plant, who cannot run away from a hunter.

Quote:19.2 Questioner: Let’s take the point at which an individualized entity of second density is ready for transition to third. Is this second-density being what we would call animal?

Ra: I am Ra. There are three types of second-density entities which become, shall we say, enspirited. The first is the animal. This is the most predominant. The second is the vegetable, most especially that which you call, sound vibration complex, “tree.” These entities are capable of giving and receiving enough love to become individualized. The third is mineral. Occasionally a certain location/place, as you may call it, becomes energized to individuality through the love it receives and gives in relationship to a third-density entity which is in relationship to it. This is the least common transition.

(11-14-2011, 07:40 AM)yossarian Wrote: Isn't that like eating the sun ? The sun has feelings too!

(11-14-2011, 12:33 PM)Pickle Wrote:

(11-14-2011, 11:10 AM)Meerie Wrote: I think the sun is a carnivore, it once ate my skin.

Maybe the sun eats carnivores ha ha ha.

My family no longer burn from the sun which confused me, until I found others with the same experience.

I found this one humorous.

Quote:I have heard others talk about not getting sunburned eating raw. We eat about 70-95% raw on any given week. So, if the benefits are limited to just 100% raw folks, our testimonies won't help.


Anyway, I would agree there are some advantages there. I suppose I would hypothosize that it is likely more do to the vegan lifestyle than raw. What do we fry food in a pan with? Grease right. What do we fill our systems with if we eat animal products freely? I have to imagine that some of that gets into our skin and literally we may be baking our skin from the inside out when the sun is applied in strong doses.

(11-14-2011, 01:27 AM)Oceania Wrote: hey why don't plants have faces?

(11-13-2011, 02:26 AM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote:

(11-13-2011, 01:35 AM)abridgetoofar Wrote: I think saying that meat eaters are in denial is an ignorant and ironic statement.

Not you, Austin. You aren't in denial at all. Diana and I were speaking in general terms. Most meat-eaters seem to be trying to justify their actions.

Not you. You are clearly very aware.

(11-14-2011, 01:27 PM)βαθμιαίος Wrote: Which raises a question: what's your position on using lumber for houses, etc? Can sawmills be equated to slaughterhouses?

(11-14-2011, 02:02 PM)abridgetoofar Wrote:

(11-13-2011, 02:26 AM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote:

(11-13-2011, 01:35 AM)abridgetoofar Wrote: I think saying that meat eaters are in denial is an ignorant and ironic statement.

Not you, Austin. You aren't in denial at all. Diana and I were speaking in general terms. Most meat-eaters seem to be trying to justify their actions.

Not you. You are clearly very aware.

I had thought about it, and you are more right than I would initially accept. But I think there are far more "aware" meat eaters than might be given credit for. There are many many people, like my customer base, who go to great lengths to learn about the process of meat production and what it means for themselves and the animal, practically and spiritually. As I said a while ago in this thread, I have a few (the number has increased) customers who used to be vegetarian because of the state of the meat industry, and now eat meat because they realize there are way to be involved with your food to a point where you can visit the farm that it comes from and ensure that you agree with the practices used raising the animals. This demographic is growing rather rapidly and as people learn about the state of the meat industry they are discovering that it doesn't have to be that way. Inhumane treatment of animals doesn't have to be the only option for meat.

However, there are some meat eaters in strong denial. For example, at my market, I have pictures of chickens on the front of my tent to show people how free and natural they are allowed to behave (our chickens are uncontained and can do absolutely whatever they want). A man passed by with his wife and said "Do you want to get some chicken?" She looked horrified and said "God no! I can't buy a chicken when I see it alive! That's horrible!"

This woman represents a very large demographic as well. People are in denial that the meat they eat was once a living being. What's even worse is the idea that she didn't want to know where her food came from...meaning she will most likely buy her meat from a big industry meat producer, where chickens are stuffed in a cage or a room, never see the sun or touch grass or anything natural at all.

To go even further, I might even say people that eat meat and aren't willing to kill the animal themselves are in denial. When vegetarians say "if everyone had to kill their own meat, there would be many more vegetarians," this is a true statement. There are different layers of denial for meat consumers. But I would ask, please don't ignore the consumers who aren't behind that veil of denial. They are fully aware of what they are doing and have much love and appreciation for what their food is and where it comes from, and try their hardest to be involved in the process.

That all being said, I would also say there are a number of vegetarians either grossly uninformed or in denial about the process that their food goes through as well. Is buying conventionally grown vegetables from the grocery store any more humane for animals or the environment than buying meat? The state of industrial food production, not just meat, is appalling. Some people think buying "organic" helps alleviate this problem, but it hardly does. If you buy organic produce from the grocery store, this act is supporting businesses which care little about the environment and do great harm to ecosystems, which would include all types of animals. There might be a very small percentage of food in a grocery store which is sustainably grown, but if you don't know exactly the source of your food, how can you know?

Also, while I know many vegetarians are aware of the state of the soy industry and the harm it does to the environment and agriculture in general, there are a great many who don't. GMO soy alone, which is nearly 99% of all soy production, is horrendous. These soy fields are carpeted with herbicide and pesticide which completely eliminate any traces of an ecosystem (including the thousands of being above ground as well as the trillions, yes TRILLIONS of beings bellow ground). There is also a horrendous amount of deforestation going on in South America to help meet a demand for soy. I would say that as many suffer and die because of these practices as do in the big meat industry.

Leaving aside soy, Big Produce in general treats the plants that they grow as separate from nature. They eliminate ecosystems and either carpet fields with chemicals, synthetic (convention) or not (organic). Many times, the produce you buy at the grocery store comes from all over the world. Think of the environmental damage that is done transporting food here? Much of it even comes from countries which are on the verge of famine and have food strikes. How awful is that? The laborers are often treated close to slave labor.

I feel that eliminating meat from one's diet is not enough to ensure the elimination of suffering of animals (and the Earth). Buying food local and making sure the producer is sustainable is the only way to be involved with your food intimately enough to know that it is responsibly produced with no suffering. This means giving up much of what we have become accustomed to. Learning to cook seasonally and giving up things which don't grow locally can be hard. No fruit in the winter, no tomatoes in the off-season...it requires much flexibility, but if you are buying conventionally grown (whether organic or not) produce from around the world, just think of the damage being done to ecosystems (which include animals) and the Earth in general.

(11-14-2011, 02:12 PM)3DMonkey Wrote: These points are about industrial practices. They don't really contribute to the spiritual significance of eating meat, IMO.

Quote:If you want to say that people would choose not to kill their own meat, that is fine but it is nothing more than a theory.

(11-14-2011, 10:58 AM)yossarian Wrote: What does the sun eat? Sunchips? Or maybe Starbursts?

(11-14-2011, 02:12 PM)3DMonkey Wrote: These points are about industrial practices. They don't really contribute to the spiritual significance of eating meat, IMO.

If you want to say that people would choose not to kill their own meat, that is fine but it is nothing more than a theory. It is like saying, if people had to grow their own food, they would starve. I say, if people had to grow their own food, and given the opportunity to kill a chicken a week later, I bet 99.9% would kill the chicken.

(11-14-2011, 12:33 PM)Pickle Wrote: My family no longer burn from the sun which confused me, until I found others with the same experience.

I found this one humorous.

Quote:I have heard others talk about not getting sunburned eating raw. We eat about 70-95% raw on any given week. So, if the benefits are limited to just 100% raw folks, our testimonies won't help.


Anyway, I would agree there are some advantages there. I suppose I would hypothosize that it is likely more do to the vegan lifestyle than raw. What do we fry food in a pan with? Grease right. What do we fill our systems with if we eat animal products freely? I have to imagine that some of that gets into our skin and literally we may be baking our skin from the inside out when the sun is applied in strong doses.

(11-14-2011, 02:23 PM)3DMonkey Wrote: Austin, I absolutely do not buy into the theory that if I buy a product in a store then I am contributing to an all encompassing practicalities of its origination. I don't even want to discuss the topic, because I KNOW it will be a heated one. It's not right to do in this thread, at the least.

I have been told many times that this thread is specifically about the spiritual implications of personally choosing to eat meat. I hope we aren't going to the degree of implicating a person for simply purchasing ground beef without ever consuming it.

(11-14-2011, 02:02 PM)abridgetoofar Wrote: But I think there are far more "aware" meat eaters than might be given credit for.

(11-14-2011, 01:27 PM)βαθμιαίος Wrote: 19.2 Questioner: Let’s take the point at which an individualized entity of second density is ready for transition to third. Is this second-density being what we would call animal?

Ra: I am Ra. There are three types of second-density entities which become, shall we say, enspirited. The first is the animal. This is the most predominant. The second is the vegetable, most especially that which you call, sound vibration complex, “tree.” These entities are capable of giving and receiving enough love to become individualized. The third is mineral. Occasionally a certain location/place, as you may call it, becomes energized to individuality through the love it receives and gives in relationship to a third-density entity which is in relationship to it. This is the least common transition.

(11-14-2011, 02:23 PM)3DMonkey Wrote: Austin, I absolutely do not buy into the theory that if I buy a product in a store then I am contributing to an all encompassing practicalities of its origination. I don't even want to discuss the topic, because I KNOW it will be a heated one. It's not right to do in this thread, at the least.

(11-14-2011, 02:32 PM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote:

(11-14-2011, 10:58 AM)yossarian Wrote: What does the sun eat? Sunchips? Or maybe Starbursts?

Sunflakes!

Oh wait, sunflakes come from the Sun and fill the air.

Grantchester Meadows

(11-14-2011, 02:43 PM)abridgetoofar Wrote:

(11-14-2011, 02:23 PM)3DMonkey Wrote: Austin, I absolutely do not buy into the theory that if I buy a product in a store then I am contributing to an all encompassing practicalities of its origination. I don't even want to discuss the topic, because I KNOW it will be a heated one. It's not right to do in this thread, at the least.

If you don't wish to discuss it, it is fine, but it escapes me that you cannot see how supporting a system perpetuates its continuation.

(11-14-2011, 01:27 PM)βαθμιαίος Wrote:

(11-14-2011, 01:31 AM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote: My opinion is that if an entity is evolved enough to be individuated, it won't incarnate into the body of a plant, who cannot run away from a hunter.

I don't think that's right, based on this quote:

Quote:19.2 Questioner: Let’s take the point at which an individualized entity of second density is ready for transition to third. Is this second-density being what we would call animal?

Ra: I am Ra. There are three types of second-density entities which become, shall we say, enspirited. The first is the animal. This is the most predominant. The second is the vegetable, most especially that which you call, sound vibration complex, “tree.” These entities are capable of giving and receiving enough love to become individualized. The third is mineral. Occasionally a certain location/place, as you may call it, becomes energized to individuality through the love it receives and gives in relationship to a third-density entity which is in relationship to it. This is the least common transition.

(11-14-2011, 01:27 PM)βαθμιαίος Wrote: Which raises a question: what's your position on using lumber for houses, etc? Can sawmills be equated to slaughterhouses?

(11-14-2011, 02:50 PM)Bring4th_Monica Wrote: If I ever build a house, I'd probably opt for rocks rather than wood. But then I will probably be told that the rocks are beings too.