In regards to eating meat

[BrownEye]

(4) If aliens invade Earth who are more advanced than us I take it that the meat eaters will be happy to be used for food?

I LoL'd

[Monica]

However, I will assert that there is no discernible principle available from behind the veil to determine with 100% confidence which entities fall into which subdensities in each category.

True. Which is precisely why it's safer to not kill any animals at all, if we can avoid it. We can't avoid inhaling microbes, but we can avoid killing cows, chickens and fish. We don't know exactly how far in its path that cow is, so why take a chance? Especially when it's not necessary?

And if one feels inclined to do the same with veggies, then go for it!

Discussion about which entity falls into what category makes for some very genuinely interesting reading, it does not further a purpose of offering a practical approach to diet which is immediately available given the current state of civilization.

I disagree. Awakening people to the reality of the slaughterhouse can awaken compassion them. Most people are clueless, or in denial about, the extreme cruelty affecting entities that may be nearing 3D.

Reducing or eliminating meat is a practical step that is very doable, that will reap many benefits to self, the animals, the environment, and even other humans in developing nations whose habitats are being destroyed to make room for more cattle. Not to mention lighten the vibrations on the planet! Watch a slaughterhouse video, and then think about how much dark, heavy energy all that suffering is contributing to the planet!

If ever there was a single thing that can affect the planet in a BIG way, it's reducing or eliminating meat from one's diet!

IF, the "cause to increase the harvest" is, indeed, that urgent,

[a supposition that is itself questionable and deeply rooted "end of the world" belief system demonstrably ABSENT from the Law of One]

Actually, Ra did say that many Wanderers are here for precisely that reason - to increase the harvest. And Ra's words about the shift to 4D, and cessation of 3D vehicles necessary for harvest, etc. could all be interpreted to signify some sort of 'end' to 3D reality.

THEN, instead of wasting our time arguing about philosophical drivel, why don't we instead use this opportunity to fashion a unified message about diet that will maximize service to others in the present moment,

Good luck with that! Look at how many nutrition 'experts' all claim that this or that diet is the 'correct' one and they all disagree with one another! Add Law of One principles to the mix and it gets even more complicated! "I can't believe I'm having to argue against the killing of animals, in Law of One forum!"

rather than to serve our own need to be absolutely right in what we believe? Law of Confusion indeed.

I don't think anyone here is trying to just 'be right.' We're all earnestly trying to apply Law of One principles to this issue.

Now I hold a Bachelor's Degree in both Biology and Philosophy as well as a Naturopathic medical degree. I have also studied the Law of One for fifteen years. I have been in practice for nearly a decade, and have served in the improvement of hundreds of peoples lives, and through them to thousands more.

Cool

I contemplate how to better apply the Law of One to my medical practice on a near daily basis. When somebody asks me the question, "How should I eat?" I don't have the luxury to pontificate with them about subdensities and how to discern between them. Neither do I theorize about the ambrosia of the gods, and make false promises of a land with no disease. I need an answer that is demonstrably true, practical, and immediately applicable in somebody's every day life.

I can only imagine what would occur if I told everybody coming to me for help that the ONLY way to eat is a vegetarian diet. Do you know what would happen? Most people would remove the meat from their diet, while leaving in all the sugar, grains, and processed foods. This would clearly be a disservice to them. Do you know what also might happen? I would eventually have to defend myself against claims of quackery and fraud, or possibly face felony charges for practicing medicine without a license because the state I live in does not license naturopathic doctors. Or God forbid some idiot "goes vegan" in the wrong way on my watch.

Obviously, no one is suggesting that you just tell your patients to "just" cut out meat. That would be ludicrous. They need some education. But I disagree that you'd be labeled a quack if you offered some gentle recommendations to cut back meat and increase fruits and veggies. That is standard stuff now. It's no longer radical. Cutting-edge research (and research spanning the last several decades) clearly show that animals foods are high in the bad fats. Everyone knows that, just like everyone knows fried foods are bad, sodas are bad, and fruits and veggies are good. Just keep it simple. Offer them ways to increase their fruits and veggies while decreasing meat. Very simple.

May I suggest The Enzyme Factor by Dr. Hiromi Shinya MD - might give you some suggestions. Dr. Shinya has been very successful in getting people to change their diets. He's the inventor of the colonoscopic snare procedure, by the way.)

So if I, by proxy, must adopt a philosophy that allows for the slaughter of animals and consumption of their flesh, so be it. If anybody would like to offer that my actions are having a net negative effect on the "harvestability" of myself, or my patients, then please stand up and show yourself.

(raises hand)

Haha, just kidding! Well, sort of! Let me qualify that:

Even Dr. Cousens, a leading proponent of the raw vegan liveit, doesn't automatically tell everyone to go raw vegan, or even vegetarian! He accepts his patients where they're at, tunes into them and asks questions to ascertain what their objective is, and then makes recommendations according to their objective.

If the person has no spiritual inclinations but just wants to be healthier, then Dr. Cousens readily admits that that's possible while still retaining moderate amounts of meat in the diet. However, if they have spiritual aspirations, or seem otherwise open to going veg, then he makes recommendations accordingly.

He discusses this in the interview I posted a few pages back in this thread.

Now, Dr. Cousens isn't reducing his own harvestability by not insisting that everyone go veg. How could he do that, when it is their own choice to eat meat and they have clearly stated they have no interest in changing that? The best he could do in such situations is to gently suggest reducing the meat, or just increasing fruits and veggies, and hope that the patient might be open to that at least. He can cite some of the scientific research (such as The China Study) which clearly shows how more plant foods and less animal foods in the diet can increase health. He can offer education, but then it's up to the patient to make their own choices.

That is entirely appropriate for that particular patient.

But, for those patients who are more open to change, or who answer 'yes' to his question about their spiritual interest, he has a lot more maneuverability. His stance is that anyone on a spiritual path has got no business eating dead animals, and he very clearly communicates that to the patient, once he has ascertained that they're open to such 'radical' ideas. Even then, the suggestion might be met with resistance, so he offers it as a suggestion, not a prescription.

Were he to not offer such advice, when a spiritually-oriented patient seeks his advice, then that would be a disservice.

It's not my place to tell you or anyone else what will increase or decrease your harvestability. But, as Ra pointed out in the case of Patton, there is a Law of Responsibility. If we have an opportunity to illuminate the path just a bit for other-selves, and actually tread that path ourselves, and we don't, then we are likely shirking what is a viable responsibility. It's up to each of us to determine what we are personally responsible for.

These people are in incredible amounts of suffering and pain. Some of them are facing death in the foreseeable future. So here's an idea: why don't you go face these decisions an a day-to-day basis and see what you come up with,

I face these people on a daily basis too. I'm not a doctor, but my business is selling medical-grade water ionizer machines, and this business attracts a lot of people with life-threatening illnesses. I have to be careful what I say, since I cannot give medical advice, but I do deal with them, probably every bit as much as you do. And I've seen most of them get phenomenal, almost miraculous results, by the way. But not every person is open to the same info. We have to work with people where they're at.

rather than squabbling over technicalities of an obscure text on the Internet?

Squabbling? Who's squabbling?

This is a discussion forum dedicated to the study of the Law of One. This discussion has great value. The topic is important.

I would like to promote vegetarianism. Wanna know why I don't? Because as soon as the word comes out of my mouth, I know that the vast majority of people are going to associate me with some sort of whacko nutjob living on a communist ranch somewhere in the hills. Whether said whacko exists does not matter.

Aw, I really don't think the word vegetarian has nearly the same charge as it did a few decades ago! But if you don't feel comfortable with the word, then simply don't say it. :idea:

Avoid the 'V' word at all costs! You already have to avoid the 2 big 'C' words, so that shouldn't be a problem!

If I do not quickly establish trust and credibility with my patients, they will be gone. Out the door. And then I will have no further opportunity to be of service to them.

Of course. Which is why you have to start with mainstream data, like The China Study, talk about antioxidants, etc. No one is going to think you're weird if you talk about more fruits and veggies and less meat. As I've stated several times in this thread, obviously most people aren't going to switch from hamburgers and sodas, to raw vegan overnight!

So here is what I tell them: Choose foods that are more nutritious. That's it. I know that if they follow that one simple step, it will eventually lead them to a place where they will start to crave better choices all on their own. In my opinion, that is the BEST way to serve their health, because it does not require them to accept me as their SAVIOR or GURU (seriously what a "3D" notion :idea: ), but points to their own latent inner wisdom to know what is right to choose for themselves.

I commend you for not putting yourself in the position of guru. The first alternative practitioner I went to, some 30 years ago, had a bad case of guruitis. I was young and it took a few years for me to extricate myself from her clutches. So seriously, I'm glad to hear that!

The problem is, most people don't know what 'nutritious' even means! They think pizza is nutritious!

I have several ND's in my group, and they all offer nutritional guidance, a bit more specific than that. People go to MD's for quick fixes in the way of drugs. They go to ND's for education.

[BrownEye]

OMG another LoL.

We stuff ourselves with pork (by the way this is a cross between a human and a wild bore) and all sorts of meat juiced up with sodium nitrate, adrenalin, steroids and hormones and expect our bodies to function properly.

Still haven't found what I am looking for at the moment.

[Monica]

OMG another LoL.

We stuff ourselves with pork (by the way this is a cross between a human and a wild bore) and all sorts of meat juiced up with sodium nitrate, adrenalin, steroids and hormones and expect our bodies to function properly.

Still haven't found what I am looking for at the moment.

Where are you getting those quotes?

[BrownEye]

OMG another LoL.

We stuff ourselves with pork (by the way this is a cross between a human and a wild bore) and all sorts of meat juiced up with sodium nitrate, adrenalin, steroids and hormones and expect our bodies to function properly.

Still haven't found what I am looking for at the moment.

Where are you getting those quotes?

Ha ha, hey I get around LoL, here is something from Bashar that is very good for reflection.

“When you leave this world, the world you left behind WAS YOU. You now exist, you think in a physical universe. Your fourth density transformation is where you begin to realize you are the creator of your reality. What that means is that physical reality is your expression, is your projection, is your creation; that it’s actually made of you. It means you are actually it, that physical reality is you. When you really grasp this, you then see yourselves literally as the dimension of experience of which you previously thought you were only a component. ”

Is it possible...................that we go through death simply as a result of going through killing? We get what we put out?

I have heard of the extended life spans of the ancients, and possibly some of the current lives on this planet in more remote indiginous cultures............but life was not always factory churned out death chunks that turn into a staple diet.

I know the scientists have admitted that calory restriction along with a very carefull diet is the secret to life/DNA extension/rebuilding, but does this current mode of thought really have more effect than we are aware of?

[unity100]

This is absurd, and you know it. Way to take my comment out of context and, once again, IGNORE the rest of the post. Unbelievable.

i dont 'know' anything, and i havent taken anything 'out of context'.

you have basically proposed that, an act which was not congruent with the positive path, could be made congruent with collective effort, passion, and caring.

that is a broad statement. if it applies in somewhere, there is no rule that says it cannot apply elsewhere. universe does not have exceptions. if a spiritual principle has to pass valid, it passes valid, it doesnt become circumstantial.

OK, you win. That sausage I ate last weekend is the reason why I can't graduate to 4D. I guess I will have a long time to consider the error of my ways while I spend my next life foraging for nuts and berries. I will do my best to remember not to hunt an animal though, even if my family and I are starving to death, because animals are people too. Aw, heck, plants are people too. Tell you what, I will try to subsist on rocks and sand. Will that satisfy you?

despite all the sarcasm you have exerted, law of responsibility will still keep factoring in the last sausage you ate last weekend, from the deep, subtle mental implementations of you not taking into account that an entity was brutally slaughtered to obtain it, to that meant reducing your effective manifested vibrations due to all the vibrational baggage it carries.

even if i am satisfied, or not satisfied with any choice you make or dont make, law of responsibility will still keep acting indiscriminately.

..........

your graduation to 4d (assuming you are a harvest nearing 3d entity) will come at the end of all aspects of your existence, (including not only that, but also those of unmanifested being's thoughts echoing in time space) factoring into the equation. one aspect of your of existence will not just go away, because you or your societal complex currently find it irrelevant.

Or are 1D elementals people too?

in fact, there is no such thing as 'people'. in the material we are looking into, there is the concept of 'entity'. and, entities are comprised of mind/body/spirit complexes. moreover, we are told that all entities ranging from the first cell, to the central sun of this galaxy shining at the center to the 7d mind/body spirit complex totality leaving this existence have the same blueprint. (of 7 chakra containing energetic system).

and, actually, with that definition, yes, 1d entities are 'people' too.

http://lawofone.info/results.php?session...c=1&ss=1#8

3.8 Questioner: How were the blocks moved?

Ra: I am Ra. You must picture the activity within all that is created. The energy is, though finite, quite large compared to the understanding/distortion of your peoples. This is an obvious point well known to your peoples, but little considered.

This energy is intelligent. It is hierarchical. Much as your mind/body/spirit complex dwells within an hierarchy of vehicles and retains, therefore, the shell, or shape, or field, and the intelligence of each ascendingly intelligent or balanced body, so does each atom of such a material as rock. When one can speak to that intelligence, the finite energy of the physical, or chemical, rock/body is put into contact with that infinite power which is resident in the more well-tuned bodies, be they human or rock.

With this connection made, a request may be given. The intelligence of infinite rock-ness communicates to its physical vehicle and that splitting and moving which is desired is then carried out through the displacement of the energy field of rockness from finity to a dimension which we may conveniently call, simply, infinity.

In this way, that which is required is accomplished due to a cooperation of the infinite understanding of the Creator indwelling in the living rock. This is, of course, the mechanism by which many things are accomplished which are not subject to your present means of physical analysis of action at a distance.

NOTE TO SELF: Offering a rational counterargument to an irrational belief is pointless.

before extending extreme efforts on sarcasm, and dropping on a note to yourself in that direction, you should have dropped a note to yourself in regard to the possibility that you may be talking on a material on which you havent extensively thought about, as evidenced above.

it is apparent that, you are missing a lot of information from the material, like still having a 'people' concept in your mind, in addition to 1d being something so out of your world, and you standing way apart, as if you were an entity which was subject to totally different spiritual rules and mechanics despite living in the same universe which was created on the same laws. the concept that 1d material has a 'body' and it is subject to same mechanics spiritually from 1th chakra to 7th chakra like what you call a human, seems to have escaped you.

Otherwise, how does a particular species evolve to 3D, rather than an individual?

just like how gandalf the cat has passed over the threshold of 3d, before the group soul we know as 'felix domesticus' has passed into 3d as entirety.

No, Gandalf passed over the threshold because of investment from 3D entities. An entire species would not gain that investment in a single incarnation. Without investment, the process is obviously different.

..............


Again, because Gandalf was invested with love and gained self-awareness, it could make this choice. I don't see how a choice for self can be made without self-awareness. And I don't agree the mechanics for gaining self-awareness without investment are the same.

if you read the relevant quotes from lawofone.info, you will easily see that gandalf was mentioned as harvestable, whereas another cat entity was mentioned as harvestable through investment. this implies clear difference in the way they were qualified for harvest at that point in time.

moreover, gandalf was more advanced in mind complex compared to the other cat entity, and this was the reason he was susceptible to psychic attacks, whereas the other cat entity wasnt.

Again, you're right in regards to investment. We have no examples of a single entity graduating 3D without investment, we do have an example of species though.

which was the example of that species which graduated as a collective into 3d ? i must have missed it.

no conditions were given for harvest from 2d, except the condition of becoming aware of existence of self as a separate entity. in any case in which the harvest required a condition, it was given - like 4d harvest being a collective harvest, 6d same.

it is straightforward to assume there is no such mandatory collectivity requirement.

3D is the first density of consciousness of spirit, there is no spirit in the complex of a 2D animal.

that would be incorrect.

http://lawofone.info/results.php?session...c=1&ss=1#3

19.3 Questioner: When this transition from second to third density takes place, how does the entity, whether it be animal, [vegetable] tree, or mineral, become enspirited?

Ra: I am Ra. Entities do not become enspirited. They become aware of the intelligent energy within each portion, cell, or atom, as you may call it, of its beingness.

the spirit is there, increasingly becoming apparent and entity increasingly growing aware of it, all throughout the 4.6 billion years of 2d.

yes - i had misremembered, its not 2 billion years, it seems 2d spans an entire 4.6 billion years.

The evolution is of the mind, which I'm assuming the body follows.

the evolution of body is not so relevant in regard to this. mind/spirit complexes can be attached to any body that can function in the proper vibration the mind/spirit requires.

but more importantly :

The mind is without self-awareness, sparking from the group mind, until the group mind may gain enough experience to realize self, in which all of the minds within would realize self.

the mind complex, where all the entities experience everything, apparently INCLUDING feelings like love. therefore, any kind of progression of the entity would be kept with the mind/spirit complex, including any entity ranging from 1d, to 6d. this would mean that, even in 1d there are different levels of progression, as well as 6d. 2d would be no exception.

however this level of depth wouldnt be needed, since we were not given for any requirement for 2d harvest other than becoming aware of self.

When it is the species and not the individual which graduates, I would beg to differ.

could it be that you are confusing the lines that pass in the talk of 2d about the evolution of the 3d body from the 2d bodies, with the evolution of entities from 2d to 3d ?

http://lawofone.info/results.php?categor...&sc=1&ss=1

because, they are not the same. evolution of the body, as you may notice, is rather separate from evolution of the mind/spirit complexes of entities, and rather subject to the whim of the logos in 2d.

There is a major difference between entities in and above 3D and entities in 2D, that is self-awareness.

same kind of major difference could be put forward in between entities of any density actually. self awareness as a qualifier is not so different than contacting intelligent infinity from heart chakra as a qualifier, or that is not so different than the 5d harvestable entity being ready to handle light as a qualifier. neither any of these are too different than the qualifier of 1d to 2d harvest, the desire to develop and move without dispersion.

these are all qualifiers for densities. no density stands apart from others, they are all sub octaves created to manifest a certain meaning of existence.

you seem to be rather exaggerating the qualifier for 3d in importance, in order to use it as a justifier for various things. the same justification mechanic can be employed by an entity in 4d, to do things to entities in 3d.

I'm not so sure about this, is this based on Ra material? I'm not inclined to think a soul will leave its species group consciousness unless it is invested by a 3D entity and gains self-awareness. Otherwise, I find it logical to assume that if a species gains self-awareness, the species in the group soul gain self-awareness, and the species graduates to 3D.

yes, this is based on the material. the material says all octaves are an octave of consciousness, and no talk of collective harvest passes.

however, i think this will put your question on this matter to rest - i was looking for this quote since a while :

http://lawofone.info/results.php?session...c=1&ss=1#5

19.5 Questioner: When the first second-density entities became third-density on this planet, was this with the help of the transfer of beings from Mars, or were there second-density beings who transferred into third density with no outside influence?

Ra: I am Ra. There were some second-density entities which made the graduation into third density with no outside stimulus but only the efficient use of experience.

Others of your planetary second density joined the third-density cycle due to harvesting efforts by the same sort of sending of vibratory aid as those of the Confederation send you now. This communication was, however, telepathic rather than telepathic/vocal or telepathic/written due to the nature of second-density beings.

notice no mention of species, or group consciousness or collective.

I don't see why all of this can't apply to a group consciousness gaining experiences from its individual mind/body complex incarnations. Otherwise, why would there even be a group consciousness? Why would the group consciousness exist if the entities didn't exist as a group? They'd just exist as individuals, maybe unaware of themselves, but not as a group.

entire creation (at least in this octave) is comprised of collectives. it is not something particular to 2d, or even any particular specie, but rather everything. separate, discrete small units come together to form more complex concepts. these complex collectives may or may not be persistent. like, how the societal complex of 3d is not at all persistent, despite the societal memory complex of 4d is.

the question you pose has deeper implications if one analyzes at length, and we would end up with infinite intelligence and the finites if we did.

in addition to the other things i explained above, like no harvest requirement for 2 to 3d, the above quote i linked should alleviate the question in this level though.

When a goat which I have cared for its entire life roughly shoves me out of the way to get to some food, I think the vibration is rather clear: I care more about food than your well-being. I don't take it personally, and it doesn't make me love the goat less, but it does make me aware of how aware this goat is as far as individualism.

you will find that people on many parts of the globe will shove you out of their way if you are standing in their way in between them and much more trivial things, and this is not even considered anything, leave aside rude. however even touching is considered rude in western culture. as said, these are more cultural biases than any kind of real indicator.

goats are evolved to toss. in a species that tosses for fun, 'roughly shove' is not something that should be noticed.

I wouldn't say they differ "wildly," otherwise they wouldn't be the most popular house pet. We would have an outrageous variety of house pets, because different group consciousnesses would have varying levels of awareness appropriate to be considered "part of the family."

as entities close towards 3d, the quirks and differences in between the group souls become more evident as their spiritual characteristics sharpen. not so different than 3d entities varying even more wildly among each other.

but, then again there is also the curious proposition that, the homo sapiens sapiens 'group soul', naturally prefers to interact with species with which it can have interactions understandable according to its own physiology and mental biases, as opposed to being able to enjoy the spiritual accompaniment of entities.

for what you can name as a reliable, true kind of energetic/spiritual proximity to be possible, the entities will need to be able to manifest 4d characteristics at length, so they will be able to enjoy accompaniment of entities that are not so compatible with the physiology and societal biases of the homo sapiens sapiens monkey body.

These "individual quirks" could easily be explained by the fact that the closeness of their group soul to 3D. The goats have very little individual quirks. It's very noticeable that they're slaves to their environment and genes. They do gain personalities because every situation is different, but watching a goat grow up, it's very easy to see how it gains this personality.

then again, trees are quite 3d capable bodies, and they also graduate. however, as someone in a homo sapiens sapiens monkey body, you are unable to discern characteristic differences in between trees which qualify for harvest at that point in time, despite they have to show the character variedness of entities closing in on 3d harvest.

again, all depends on the societal biases of the given 3d society, and the abilities of 3d vehicle. leave aside capabilities of the entity that inhabits that body as a mind/spirit complex.

I think what we have are different theories of how 2D group consciousness works. I'd be much more interested in find some reference in the Ra material or otherwise acceptable source than us explaining the logic behind our theories.

i think i have just provided it.

had 3d graduation had a collective requirement, there would be no possibility of entities graduating through investment either. all densities, in case you havent noticed, have only one requirement for their harvests, and they provide no exceptions in any of those cases.

things like '4d harvest is a collective harvest, but if you blah blah, you can get harvested in this or that .....' -> 4d harvest has a social memory complex harvest requirement, and it happens only as such.

similarly, 'you have to harvest as a group soul, but if you are invested ...' would constitute an exception.

that would make places/1d entities qualifying for 3d harvest through investment, even more impossible.

[3DMonkey]

Wow, this conversation is swerving all over the place.

What is the point again?

Is it the relevant effects experienced by the sub density inhabiter of a 2D vehicle at time of death/murder/slaughter?

Is it the karma acquired by the person killing the 2D vehicle?

Is it the karma acquired by the person eating what remains of a 2D vehicle, with the clarification of which 2D compounds sources demand which karmic obligations, e.g. banana, ribs?



I've been in a heated discussion in this thread before. The result is that a person who decides for themselves to eat "A" and not "B" will not concede their justification to kill "A".
Likewise, a person who decides for themselves to eat "B" will not concede their justification to kill "B".


It is my stance to try to show that the justifications are the SAME from both sides.

...
Monica has said to me before that if this is my conclusion then it is not a reason to eat meat but rather a reason to not eat plants.

I disagree with you, Monica. I think if I look out into the world, and, from my perception, see people using the same arguments against one another, I conclude that both are right- that each one is valid for the simple fact that they both look like the same humanoid person to me. I conclude that I can choose with either one and still be exactly like both of them, and it is all the same.

---

Here is one to think about.

I don't kill the animal. I buy the 2D remains of the animal. The only thing still alive is the bacteria growing on it, right?

I don't cut the banana off the tree, but it's makeup suggests that something about it is still alive when I grab it off the shelf, right?

Eaten dead, or eaten alive? hmmmm.....

[Monica]

What is the point again?

Primarily, whether supporting the slaughter of animals is congruent with the STO path.

I've been in a heated discussion in this thread before. The result is that a person who decides for themselves to eat "A" and not "B" will not concede their justification to kill "A".
Likewise, a person who decides for themselves to eat "B" will not concede their justification to kill "B".

This isn't a debate. No one is trying to 'win' or 'be right.' We are all learning from one another. This is a very deep topic, and emotionally charged, because it involves something most people do every day without giving much thought. It's not important that anyone concede or justify anything. What's important is that people be willing to consider other points of view, and stretch their thinking.

I think if I look out into the world, and, from my perception, see people using the same arguments against one another, I conclude that both are right- that each one is valid for the simple fact that they both look like the same humanoid person to me. I conclude that I can choose with either one and still be exactly like both of them, and it is all the same.

By that logic, then you could look at a murderer/rapist and a healer/philanthropist and conclude that both are right and them emulate both of them? I am curious why you would base your decision on what to do yourself, on what others do. Why would "being the same" as them make it ok for you? So does it really not matter at all what we do?

That's ok. We've covered this ground before, so no need to answer.

I don't kill the animal. I buy the 2D remains of the animal.

If people didn't buy the dead animals, there would be no market for them and the abominable industry would stop and the animals wouldn't be tortured and killed. By buying the dead animals, one is supporting the industry and just as responsible as those who do the actual killing.

I don't cut the banana off the tree, but it's makeup suggests that something about it is still alive when I grab it off the shelf, right?

Eaten dead, or eaten alive? hmmmm.....

Fruits aren't entities.

[βαθμιαίος]

Why even ask that question? Why is it important what our ancestors did? I mentioned it in the context of our Logos' design when it chose the ape body, but aside from that, I don't see the relevance.

I was just picking up on a musing you posted earlier. ("Apes are primarily vegetarians, except for occasional insects. Their diet consists of mostly fruits and greens. So one can only wonder how and why early humans ever got the idea to eat animals (other than bugs stuck in the leaves).") The point being that early humans almost certainly inherited that idea from their forebears.

That's not taking into consideration our current evolution, and the fact that we dwell on the precipice of 4D. Even Cayce advised some people to "not lower their vibrations with animal foods" and that was 80 years ago. How much more so, would his advice be different, today.

Can you provide a reference for the Cayce quote? (I once thought of trying to build a searchable database for the Cayce readings similar to lawofone.info but gave up the idea when I realized that the A.R.E. was likely to frown upon it.)

Do you think that people have evolved since Cayce lived and that a different diet is appropriate now than it was in the 30's, say? That is contradicted to some extent by Ra's recommendation in 1981 that the diet include, to the extent necessary for the individual metabolism, the animal products. Or do you think that we've evolved since 1981, too?

[Monica]

I was just picking up on a musing you posted earlier. ("Apes are primarily vegetarians, except for occasional insects. Their diet consists of mostly fruits and greens. So one can only wonder how and why early humans ever got the idea to eat animals (other than bugs stuck in the leaves).") The point being that early humans almost certainly inherited that idea from their forebears.

OK. I was referring to gorillas, who, according to the sources I read, are vegetarians except for occasional insects. I knew chimps were more aggressive than gorillas, and interestingly, eat some meat, but even so, their diet is still 90% vegetarian, which is a lot closer to veg than most humans.

Source: http://anthro.palomar.edu/primate/prim_7.htm

The other reason I mentioned the gorillas was to show that the common justification for eating meat ("I need the protein to build muscle") is obviously false, since gorillas have physiology similar to ours, and look at how strong they obviously are!

(Whether chimps may be even closer to our physiology, is a moot point here. Both are similar, so that's splitting hairs.)

Can you provide a reference for the Cayce quote?

It was nearly 30 years ago, but I remember exactly where I read that, and I'm sure I still have the book. But as to where it is, now that's another issue. I'll see if I can dig it out, but our house has literally 1000's of books, so no guarantee!

I remember marveling at how he told some people to drink beef broth, and others to be vegetarians, because animal 'foods' would lower their vibrations. And he would say, "for this body."

(I once thought of trying to build a searchable database for the Cayce readings similar to lawofone.info but gave up the idea when I realized that the A.R.E. was likely to frown upon it.)

Wow, you're kidding! The ARE still doesn't have a searchable database?? Wow, that's amazing! What a shame! But why are you so sure they'd frown on it?

Do you think that people have evolved since Cayce lived and that a different diet is appropriate now than it was in the 30's, say?

Yes, definitely! Not all people, but many people.

That is contradicted to some extent by Ra's recommendation in 1981 that the diet include, to the extent necessary for the individual metabolism, the animal products.

I've addressed that particular quote, and the other one about Carla specifically, several times in this thread. Not finding it right now, sorry. I hope you find it because any response I give now probably won't be as good as the one I gave before.

I will add to that response, though, that animal products doesn't necessarily mean meat. It could mean eggs or dairy. I believe Ra was being intentionally ambiguous, to preserve our own ability and responsibility to discern for ourselves.

Or do you think that we've evolved since 1981, too?

Yes, definitely. Not everyone, but many people have. Just look at how vegetarianism was considered radical back in the 70s, a part of the counterculture. Now most restaurants have a veggie option. It's much more mainstream. And raw vegan was very radical, even 10 years ago. But now there are successful, upscale restaurants serving only raw vegan food! I mean, the idea of a totally vegetarian restaurant used to be radical! And a totally vegan restaurant even more radical! And now we have totally raw vegan restaurants! That's incredible!

I realize this doesn't necessarily say anything about humans' evolution but I do think it reflects it. If more people weren't being attracted to the veg diet then this wouldn't be happening. And why are so many people being attracted to it? Because it's appropriate during this crucial time.

[BrownEye]

The use of almonds as a source of fats was most commonly found in low or no meat
diets recommended as a cancer preventative or part of a cancer cure.

He was strong on diet, banning large quantities of meat in half the cases and pork in virtually every
case.

"If meat at all is to be taken, it would be
principally fish, fowl, mutton or the like. Never fried meats "

“Karma depends upon what the soul has done about what it has become aware of.”

What seems to be key is consciousness. Lack of awareness allows an individual to continue with what they are currently doing. Which for me is the path of least resistance.

DIET: The Basic Cayce Diet is intended to improve assimilation and elimination. The diet focuses heavily on keeping a proper alkaline/acid balance while avoiding foods which produce toxicity and drain the system. Essentially, the diet consists mainly of fruits and vegetables while avoiding fried foods and refined carbohydrates ("junk food"). Certain food combinations are emphasized.

[Monica]

Can you provide a reference for the Cayce quote?

I wasn't successful in finding the exact quote online, but I did find a reference to it:

Some people temporarily needed animal foods because they were very deficient,
while others he told 'do not lower the vibration with animal foods'.

http://divinecosmos.com/forums/archive/i...-5326.html

That is as I remember it, verbatim.

[Ankh]

I will add to that response, though, that animal products doesn't necessarily mean meat. It could mean eggs or dairy. I believe Ra was being intentionally ambiguous, to preserve our own ability and responsibility to discern for ourselves.

18.4 Questioner: Are there any foods that are helpful or harmful that the instrument might eat?

Ra: I am Ra. This instrument has body complex distortion towards ill health in the distortion direction corrected best by ingestion of the foodstuffs of your grains and your vegetables, as you call them. However, this is extremely unimportant when regarded as an aid with equality to other aids such as attitude which this instrument has in abundance. It, however, aids the vital energies of this instrument, with less distortion towards ill health, to ingest foodstuffs in the above manner with the occasional ingestion of what you call your meats, due to the instrument’s need to lessen the distortion towards low vital energy.

[3DMonkey]

What is the point again?

Primarily, whether supporting the slaughter of animals is congruent with the STO path.

OH! I know the answer. Yes, it is.



side note: I think it would be easier to prove support as congruent with STO, than it would be to prove that buying a package of hot dogs classifies as "support" of something someone else has chosen to do.

[βαθμιαίος]

Wow, you're kidding! The ARE still doesn't have a searchable database?? Wow, that's amazing! What a shame! But why are you so sure they'd frown on it?

They have one now, but they offer it for members only. Their copyright guidelines are extensive and somewhat restrictive.

[Monica]

with the occasional ingestion of what you call your meats, due to the instrument’s need to lessen the distortion towards low vital energy.

Ankh, we were discussing a different quote that was for humans in general and used the term animal products. The quote you cited was regarding Carla only, and has already been discussed in this thread. I invite you to read the whole thread; a lot has been covered.

---

They have one now, but they offer it for members only. Their copyright guidelines are extensive and somewhat restrictive.

That's sad. It's such a wealth and should be freely available.

[Ankh]

Did you mean this one perhaps?

40.14 Questioner: In dietary matters, what would be the foods that one would include and what would be the foods that one would exclude in a general way for the greatest care of one’s bodily complex?

Ra: I am Ra. Firstly, we underline and emphasize that this information is not to be understood literally but as a link or psychological nudge for the body and the mind and spirit. Thus it is the care and respect for the self that is the true thing of importance. In this light we may iterate the basic information given for this instrument’s diet. The vegetables, the fruits, the grains, and to the extent necessary for the individual metabolism, the animal products. These are those substances showing respect for the self. In addition, though this has not been mentioned for this instrument is not in need of purification, those entities in need of purging the self of a poison thought-form or emotion complex do well to take care in following a program of careful fasting until the destructive thought-form has been purged analogously with the by-products of ridding the physical vehicle of excess material. Again you see the value not to the body complex but used as a link for the mind and spirit. Thus self reveals self to self.

[Monica]

Did you mean this one perhaps?

Yes.

[Raman]

It seems to me tendency to eat animal products starts in 2d. then 3d (in earth's 3d) kinda follows through (did not have to but it did).

Now this refers to a rather VERY problematic Earth.

Many ideas here are based on 4D situations which I find very encouraging. No, a lion killing eating a zebra cannot coexist in 4d positive vibrations.

[Monica]

It seems to me tendency to eat animal products starts in 2d. then 3d (in earth's 3d) kinda follows through (did not have to but it did).

Now this refers to a rather VERY problematic Earth.

Many ideas here are based on 4D situations which I find very encouraging. No, a lion killing eating a zebra cannot coexist in 4d positive vibrations.

Agreed! What I'm wondering is: How can we expect the lion to not kill the zebra, when we are still killing the cows and chickens?

And, what kind of 3D entities will those cows and chickens be? These younger other-selves are forming their spirit complexes right now, and are being influenced by us. It seems to me that, by continuing to kill and eat them, we are setting them up to be killers too when they get to 3D. We are setting up a pattern of violence in their 3D reality.

Someone has to stop the pattern! It has to start with us! We are more evolved than they are. It makes no sense to justify our killing by saying, "Oh but our younger other-selves (animals) kill too, and we killed thousands of years ago (when we were incarnated as our own ancestors) so that makes it ok to do it now." It makes much more sense to realize that we are the elders here! We are the elder brethren of these fledgling mind-body-spirit complexes we know as cows and chickens. We are to them, as Ra is to us! If we want them to inherit a better 3D reality - one that isn't plagued with wars and unnecessary suffering as ours is - then we have be the example! And we have to do it now!

[βαθμιαίος]

No, a lion killing eating a zebra cannot coexist in 4d positive vibrations.

Are you sure? That's pretty basic second-density behavior, and Ra says that second density coexists with fourth.

[Raman]

I think it is not compatible with compassion.

Yes indeed 2d coexists...but not the current 2d entities. I think that current 2d (many parts of it to say the least) is incompatible with a earth's transition to 4d pos.

It might be that this influence for 3d entities to graduate is not that big as in a planet where 2d does not rely to killing others 2d's (or 3d's) or 3d's killing 2d's...for food. However, it could be a polarizing issue for some.

Nonetheless, it seems that not eating meat increase 4d pos vibrations since (once aware) it is based on compassion.

[Monica]

That's pretty basic second-density behavior, and Ra says that second density coexists with fourth.

Basic on this planet anyway. Is it standard on other planets?

[Raman]

Killing a tree same effect.
At this close to harvest time it is normal to deal with these things as it approaches 4d understandings (especially compassion)...

The killing of an animal for food or seeing a lion killing a zebra brings compassion to the table (or a shark killing a human?) more than uprooting a carrot and eating it...you see the eyes of the entity being killed...the cow screaming in fear, etc...

It is easier to bring compassion to the table in these situation and with a carrot..well, more difficult.

I t does not seem that even eating vegetables would be appropriate in 4D pos since it is a ray of manifestation as well and food could easily be created. Also, the bodies are different.

[Monica]

Killing a tree same effect.
At this close to harvest time it is normal to deal with these things as it approaches 4d understandings (especially compassion)...

The killing of an animal for food or seeing a lion killing a zebra brings compassion to the table (or a shark killing a human?) more than uprooting a carrot and eating it...you see the eyes of the entity being killed...the cow screaming in fear, etc...

It is easier to bring compassion to the table in these situation and with a carrot..well, more difficult.

I t does not seem that even eating vegetables would be appropriate in 4D pos since it is a ray of manifestation as well and food could easily be created. Also, the bodies are different.

All very good points!

Unfortunately, the opportunity for compassion is mostly lost, because most people won't look into the eyes of the cow as it's being slaughtered. They avoid slaughterhouse videos because they're "too graphic" and make them uncomfortable. So they miss that opportunity for compassion.

This is another reason I think it's pointless to talk about whether we should eat carrots. If we can't even get people to acknowledge the suffering of cows, who shriek in pain, what hope do we have of them feeling compassion for carrots?

[Tenet Nosce]

True. Which is precisely why it's safer to not kill any animals at all, if we can avoid it. We can't avoid inhaling microbes, but we can avoid killing cows, chickens and fish. We don't know exactly how far in its path that cow is, so why take a chance? Especially when it's not necessary?

And if one feels inclined to do the same with veggies, then go for it!

Well, of course! As I've said, I don't see anything wrong with vegetarianism. If a patient tells me they wanna go veg, I don't try to stop them. I support their choice and communicate to them, to the best of my knowledge, about the body's nutritional needs, and instruct them on how to go about doing that with plants alone. I'm not trying to talk anybody out of vegetarianism here.

My argument here is with those who say that everybody should be a vegetarian because because it is inherently wrong to harm any other life form through ingesting its body as food. Which, I acknowledge, isn't necessarily with -you- personally or with anybody else here personally. Yet there is this sort of sneak-attack ninja trend in some vegetarian circles (we will get to this below) where they secretly DO believe that eating a cow is inherently wrong, but yet eat plants, or squish an ant in their kitchen, or take an antibiotic to kill bacteria in their lungs, or continue to feed their cat animal products prepared by humans, etc. So they don't come right out and say it, but continue to argue out of that belief, and disguise it with all sort of sophistry to avoid getting back to their fundamental premise which they deep down know is kind of bunk.

You asked a few times why I am here in this thread. Well, it isn't just to have an argument with you folks. As sometimes fun, sometimes interesting, sometimes draining, that might be. I think about somebody who has found their way to this forum for the VERY FIRST TIME. Maybe they've just come across the Law of One and they are cruising the threads trying to get a feel for how to apply it in their life. I want them to know that they CAN progress spiritually while still eating meat. Perhaps, in fact, it DOES result in some sort of drag on the system, but it is by no means a deal-breaker. Now making one's living sitting in a War Room, plotting which buildings to blow up despite knowing that there will be some innocent human casualties... well... that is more than a little different. At least in my book.

I disagree. Awakening people to the reality of the slaughterhouse can awaken compassion them. Most people are clueless, or in denial about, the extreme cruelty affecting entities that may be nearing 3D.

Reducing or eliminating meat is a practical step that is very doable, that will reap many benefits to self, the animals, the environment, and even other humans in developing nations whose habitats are being destroyed to make room for more cattle. Not to mention lighten the vibrations on the planet! Watch a slaughterhouse video, and then think about how much dark, heavy energy all that suffering is contributing to the planet!

If ever there was a single thing that can affect the planet in a BIG way, it's reducing or eliminating meat from one's diet!

Again, if somebody chooses that path, then great for them! Yet when I look out into the smorgasbord of possibilities of things one can do to positively influence the planet, I don't see any reason why vegetarianism necessarily comes up at the top of the list. It is not vegetarianism or bust. It is but one option amongst an infinite sea of possibilities.

I believe there is a HUGE spiritual pitfall involved when, having chosen a path for oneself, one feels compelled to turn to the rest of humanity in an attempt to convert, or coerce, or force, everybody else to their own path. It's kind of like the myth of the bodhisattva who forgoes nirvana until every last soul on the planet attains enlightenment. Wow... they snagged you right back in to samsara there at the very last second didn't they? Uniformity of belief leads to the 4D/negative SMC, not the positive. 4D/positive is about convergence of belief, where despite having traversed wildly different paths, entities tend to arrive at the same conclusions about life.

Actually, Ra did say that many Wanderers are here for precisely that reason - to increase the harvest. And Ra's words about the shift to 4D, and cessation of 3D vehicles necessary for harvest, etc. could all be interpreted to signify some sort of 'end' to 3D reality.

Many, but not all. And both Ra and Q'uo consistently downplay the importance of increasing the harvest. Maybe, just maybe, there is a 6D Wanderer out there who purposely chose to eat meat, or smoke, or do other unhealthy things to the body, to help anchor their vibration down here in 3D. Maybe, given the fact that there is a lot of flesh-eating going on in the world, they wanted to help establish a path out of there by exploring, in their own vibratory complex, how to counteract the negative effects of eating meat. We just don't know, do we?

Good luck with that! Look at how many nutrition 'experts' all claim that this or that diet is the 'correct' one and they all disagree with one another! Add Law of One principles to the mix and it gets even more complicated! "I can't believe I'm having to argue against the killing of animals, in Law of One forum!"

Yes, exactly! My conjecture is that all these nutrition experts squabbling with each other over their pet nutrition theories is doing a MASSIVE disservice to people at this time. Do you know how many people won't take the first step to do anything different with their diet because when they seek nutritional guidance, the first people they encounter are those who are most loudly beating their drums of absolutism
in eternally irreconcileable ways? So what happens, they do NOTHING.

Do you know that, according to Chinese medicine, one should NEVER eat raw foods because it is damaging to their chi? Or that some people believe that humans should NEVER eat beans because of the phytates present in the skin? Or that one should NEVER eat soy because it contains phytoestrogens? Or that one should NEVER eat an egg yolk because it contains cholesterol? Or that one should NEVER eat corn syrup because it is a toxin?

The common thread here is NEVER. Absolutism. My way or the highway. This does not serve the greater good. It only serves peoples egos and their pocketbooks. Meanwhile, PFC JoeBob continues to eat McDonald's every day because he can't find one consistent nutritional message that he can really take to heart.

People have been programmed to automatically frame diet in terms of what NOT to eat. I say, this is a very effective control mechanism. It hinders our progress as a species, and it would appear that almost nobody is willing to admit this. I've pointed an alternative scheme, which does not require any foods to become taboo, and does not require making anybody "wrong", does not require fear/guilt/shame, and that IN FACT leads one quite naturally to a more plant-based diet AND a more sustainable planet.

Now, I didn't come up with the idea. It has been out there for quite some time. But it doesn't quite get the attention that it deserves because the nutritional zealots are shouting too loudly for most folks to notice anything else. Why do they persist? Because they are stuck in a dualistic mindset that compels them to classify everything in life, including food choices, into right and wrong.

I will further assert that this dualistic mentality is in direct contradiction to the Law of One.

Obviously, no one is suggesting that you just tell your patients to "just" cut out meat. That would be ludicrous. They need some education. But I disagree that you'd be labeled a quack if you offered some gentle recommendations to cut back meat and increase fruits and veggies. That is standard stuff now. It's no longer radical. Cutting-edge research (and research spanning the last several decades) clearly show that animals foods are high in the bad fats. Everyone knows that, just like everyone knows fried foods are bad, sodas are bad, and fruits and veggies are good. Just keep it simple. Offer them ways to increase their fruits and veggies while decreasing meat. Very simple.

If that is your view, then truly I have no idea what you and I are arguing about. Because that is exactly what I do. But I'm not sure that you can speak for everybody else here.

But just so I am crystal clear on your stance, consider this (somewhat absurd) scenario:

It is the very last moment before graduation. There are two people. One just took a bite out of a hamburger, the other just put a bullet in somebody's brain. Knowing nothing else about these two people's lives, is there anything you feel can be definitely said about either of their "harvestability"?

But, for those patients who are more open to change, or who answer 'yes' to his question about their spiritual interest, he has a lot more maneuverability. His stance is that anyone on a spiritual path has got no business eating dead animals, and he very clearly communicates that to the patient, once he has ascertained that they're open to such 'radical' ideas. Even then, the suggestion might be met with resistance, so he offers it as a suggestion, not a prescription.

My stance is that anyone on a spiritual path has got no business telling others what their spiritual path may entail. This is the sneak-up ninja attack where you lure somebody in pretending to believe one thing, and then once you gain their trust you reveal that you secretly believe another thing. Sounds cultish and manipulative to me. You know... cult leaders only offer the idea that little girls touch their genitals as a "suggestion" and leave it up to them to do it totally of their own free will.

Sooooo maybe finally I can encapsulate what I have been trying to say here all along. Why I wanted to draw attention to the philosophical origins of vegetarianism was to illustrate how it has become associated with a certain philosophical principle that "makes wrong" the very fabric of creation.

Harmlessness, or ahimsa, as an absolutist principle of ethical conduct, really only makes sense when applied to the interaction of human beings. The relativistic gray area wherein we find the rest of life is a field quite fertile with opportunity for each of us to explore, and hopefully come to know something about ourselves. But there is no "right answer" here for us to discern. And it does not serve anybody that, when one finds their own unique place within that field, they turn to everybody else and declare that they must follow them.

As a philosopher, and a physician, I would like to see the idea of vegetarianism divorced from the doctrine of harmlessness. The debate will never be resolved anywhere in the near future, and so is not going to offer much benefit to humanity, as a whole, between now and the end of next year. :idea:

What is more, vegetarianism is perfectly capable of standing on its own two feet based upon scientific evidence (much of which you have offered here) and sound logical reasoning. It does not require the invocation of an absolutist philosophy, and it does not require any sort of fear, guilt, shame, or ninja moves, in order to be successfully implemented on a wide scale.

To the contrary, I would assert that the zealots are actually getting in their own way. As they have done for the last 5000 years of human history. Which, you know, is kind of too bad because they otherwise seem like lovely people in many cases. I happen to believe that absolutist thinking is much more of a hindrance to spiritual growth than meat eating.

And as far as the Law of One goes- the only absolutist claim is that all things are one thing. That all is light/love, love/light, and the One Infinite Creator. That is the only thing anybody should be proclaiming from the rooftops. Everything else is secondary to that, and for each to come to in their own time, in their own way, when it is right for them.

I commend you for not putting yourself in the position of guru. The first alternative practitioner I went to, some 30 years ago, had a bad case of guruitis. I was young and it took a few years for me to extricate myself from her clutches. So seriously, I'm glad to hear that!

The problem is, most people don't know what 'nutritious' even means! They think pizza is nutritious!

Well then it seems like you understand exactly where I am coming from. In my mind, and according to my understanding, this savior/guru idea IS the #1, bar-none, idea which has a negative effect on spiritual growth. If meat-eating is even #2, respectfully, I don't think it is even a close second.

When a person first opens up to intelligent infinity they are in a very vulnerable state that is easily swayed by self-styled gurus and saviors with dangerous agendas. Do you know how many people are out there stuck in that state you described, hoodwinked by the guru? To me, this is a travesty of a whole different magnitude because it permeates every aspect of civilization. Dietary choices are just one little sliver of this poisonous pie.

[BrownEye]

Anybody have info on warlike vegetarian societies?

[Monica]

My argument here is with those who say that everybody should be a vegetarian because because it is inherently wrong to harm any other life form through ingesting its body as food.

Tenet, I'm still wondering how much of this thread you have read. I'm finding myself repeating the same responses to the very same comments, from different people.

This isn't about one person imposing on the free will of another. This isn't about Joe telling Bob how to pray or which religion to belong to. This is about Joe championing the rights of Flossie - and Flossie just happens to be a cow.

It's not about vegetarians oppressing others by telling them what to eat or not eat. It's about vegetarians trying to save the oppressed.

It's exactly the same as you trying to end war. People suffer in wars. Some humans oppress and slaughter other people. It's exactly the same with the meat industry. The only difference is that the victims are animals instead of humans. They are just younger entities. How does that make it ok?

It has already been stated, by me and by others, that it's worse to kill a human than to kill an animal. Some disagreed with that statement, but that is my personal view. I even gave the example of the hypothetical scenario "whom would you save first, the child or the dog?" to clearly put at rest the objection "vegetarians are fanatics because they care more about cows than they do about humans!" It's not about that.

It's about ending oppression and violence, whether it be of humans or animals...or trees.

there is this sort of sneak-attack ninja trend in some vegetarian circles (we will get to this below) where they secretly DO believe that eating a cow is inherently wrong, but yet eat plants, or squish an ant in their kitchen, or take an antibiotic to kill bacteria in their lungs, or continue to feed their cat animal products prepared by humans, etc. So they don't come right out and say it, but continue to argue out of that belief, and disguise it with all sort of sophistry to avoid getting back to their fundamental premise which they deep down know is kind of bunk.

There's nothing secret about it: I absolutely believe eating a cow is wrong. I'm not trying to hide that and I don't know of any vegetarian who tries to hide it.

Neither do I claim to be perfectly exemplary of my highest ideals.

What is an ideal? It is something we aspire to.

Respectfully, I think you have missed the point of this discussion, maybe because you came in late and haven't gotten caught up on all the posts. This isn't a game of "who's the purest of us all". This isn't about judging one another and pointing the finger at others because they aren't 100% measuring up to the ideals they believe in! None among us can do that.

This is a philosophical discussion about whether the killing/eating of younger other-selves is congruent with the STO path, here at this nexus, on the precipice of 4D.

NOT a contest to see who among us is walking our talk and who is a hypocrite!

To say, "Your ideal of ending suffering to animals is BUNK because you still squish mosquitoes" is akin to saying "Your ideal of ending war is BUNK because you still spank your child."

If we can't define what the ideal is, then how can we aspire to it?

You asked a few times why I am here in this thread. Well, it isn't just to have an argument with you folks. As sometimes fun, sometimes interesting, sometimes draining, that might be. I think about somebody who has found their way to this forum for the VERY FIRST TIME. Maybe they've just come across the Law of One and they are cruising the threads trying to get a feel for how to apply it in their life. I want them to know that they CAN progress spiritually while still eating meat.

Obviously, humans have been eating meat for millennia, and have progressed spiritually (or have they? This planet is very behind...hmmm...). But as Cayce said, "With ability comes responsibility" so now that we know we no longer need meat to survive, what is the justification for it? There is none.

One who doesn't know any better, obviously isn't responsible for actions done in ignorance. But there is no longer any excuse to be ignorant of the plight of the animals. Spiritual progress is measured by the sum total of all actions, choices, intentions, etc. What we do with the knowledge we have, whether it be about the oppression of humans or animals or whatever, we will be held accountable for.

You seem to indicate that you don't think there is any responsibility whatsoever, towards the animals. We don't all share that opinion. Hence, the new member can decide for themselves.

Perhaps, in fact, it DOES result in some sort of drag on the system, but it is by no means a deal-breaker.

Why do you speak only in terms of what meat does to the person eating it? What about what it (being slaughtered) does to the animal? Is that not important?

Now making one's living sitting in a War Room, plotting which buildings to blow up despite knowing that there will be some innocent human casualties... well... that is more than a little different. At least in my book.

I really don't understand why they are even being compared. Violence is violence. A lesser violence cannot be justified just because there are worse forms of violence. As I told those who insisted eating a carrot is just as violent as eating a cow: Fine. Then don't eat carrots. But it's ludicrous to say that violence to animals is ok, because it's also violent to eat carrots! Likewise, it's ludicrous to say that violence to animals is ok, because violence to humans is worse! What does it matter which is worse? Why not do what we can to end all violence? It might not be reasonable to expect everyone to quit eating carrots, but it is very reasonable to ask them to quit killing other humans...and animals. Those are the obvious ones. Maybe we won't quit killing plants for awhile yet. Maybe that's our next assignment. But why not start with the obvious? All creatures who bleed, feel pain and fear. Why not start with that?

Again, if somebody chooses that path, then great for them!

I could say to you, "If somebody chooses the path of working to end wars, then great for them!" And I do say that, and I am also one of them. Why in the world would I go to a peace activist and say, "That's fine for you, if you want to follow that path, but don't expect others to quit killing each other. People should have the right to kill other people if they want to."

Yet when I look out into the smorgasbord of possibilities of things one can do to positively influence the planet, I don't see any reason why vegetarianism necessarily comes up at the top of the list. It is not vegetarianism or bust. It is but one option amongst an infinite sea of possibilities.

I see it as right up there with the war issue. I consider the war issue the biggest issue, with the meat issue #2. And, if anything, we can do more about the meat issue, because we CAN choose to quit contributing to the violence, whereas we aren't always in a position to do anything about the powers that be who drop the bombs.

Remember, Ra said that negative entities feed on fear. Think about how much fear is being generated at slaughterhouses, every single day, by billions of entities! The meat industry is FEEDING the very beings who are perpetuating the wars!

Let's starve them, and see if we don't have a more peaceful planet!

In other words, ending the meat industry can help contribute to peace amongst humans. Research has shown that inmates are less aggressive when fed a veg. diet. Imagine if the whole population was vegetarian! Do you really think we'd have so many wars?

I believe there is a HUGE spiritual pitfall involved when, having chosen a path for oneself, one feels compelled to turn to the rest of humanity in an attempt to convert, or coerce, or force, everybody else to their own path.

Of course. Except for when the other path is oppressing others. One person's freedom ends where another's begins.

No one is being coerced into following any path or religion. They're just being asked to quit oppressing others.

(Sigh. I'm repeating myself. Tenet, do you plan to read the thread?)

Yes, exactly! My conjecture is that all these nutrition experts squabbling with each other over their pet nutrition theories is doing a MASSIVE disservice to people at this time.

Sure. But that has nothing to do with this discussion, which is about the spiritual implications of eating animals, from a Law of One perspective.

Do you know that, according to Chinese medicine, one should NEVER eat raw foods because it is damaging to their chi? Or that some people believe that humans should NEVER eat beans because of the phytates present in the skin? Or that one should NEVER eat soy because it contains phytoestrogens? Or that one should NEVER eat an egg yolk because it contains cholesterol? Or that one should NEVER eat corn syrup because it is a toxin?

Sure. I am well versed in all the many diets, each one touted by an 'expert' and all contradicting one another. They're all theories, and all work for some people but not for others. Nevertheless, across the board, after all other factors have been accounted for, statistically there is less risk of most major diseases among vegetarians, with an increased risk that rises as meat consumption rises.

The common thread here is NEVER. Absolutism. My way or the highway. This does not serve the greater good. It only serves peoples egos and their pocketbooks. Meanwhile, PFC JoeBob continues to eat McDonald's every day because he can't find one consistent nutritional message that he can really take to heart.

It serves the animals.

People have been programmed to automatically frame diet in terms of what NOT to eat. I say, this is a very effective control mechanism. It hinders our progress as a species, and it would appear that almost nobody is willing to admit this.

No, I won't admit that anyone is being controlled here. We're just having a discussion on an internet forum, about the spiritual implications of killing animals. How is that controlling anyone? In fact, the discussion about how to quit controlling...animals.

Interestingly, animals keep getting left out of the responses. Why? Do they not matter?

I've pointed an alternative scheme, which does not require any foods to become taboo, and does not require making anybody "wrong", does not require fear/guilt/shame, and that IN FACT leads one quite naturally to a more plant-based diet AND a more sustainable planet.

Too little too late. The planet cannot sustain this lifestyle much longer. And meanwhile, there is a massive amount of fear and suffering that is weighting down the planet, adding to the stress of transition.

How can anyone 'require' anyone else to feel guilt or shame? That is something that comes from within, to get our attention about something.

I will further assert that this dualistic mentality is in direct contradiction to the Law of One.

Ra gave guidelines for the 2 paths. That's not contradictory to the Law of One. Inflicting suffering on others contradictory to the STO path. Choosing to not engage in such behaviors isn't contradictory. In fact, Ra declined the offer of the STS entities, so has provided an example of declining activities deemed inappropriate for the STO path.

If that is your view, then truly I have no idea what you and I are arguing about. Because that is exactly what I do. But I'm not sure that you can speak for everybody else here.

I thought we were discussing, not arguing.

You seem to be confusing how you personally choose to apply these principles, with the principles themselves. I'm really not interested in how you choose to work with your patients. That is your business. I keep trying to keep this discussion focused on concepts, but inevitably some people keep taking it personally.

But just so I am crystal clear on your stance, consider this (somewhat absurd) scenario:

It is the very last moment before graduation. There are two people. One just took a bite out of a hamburger, the other just put a bullet in somebody's brain. Knowing nothing else about these two people's lives, is there anything you feel can be definitely said about either of their "harvestability"?

No, not at all, because we know from Ra that harvestability is determined by walking the Steps of Light, not by the action the entity did in his last moment of 3D life. So the question is, sorry, meaningless to me.

My stance is that anyone on a spiritual path has got no business telling others what their spiritual path may entail. This is the sneak-up ninja attack where you lure somebody in pretending to believe one thing, and then once you gain their trust you reveal that you secretly believe another thing. Sounds cultish and manipulative to me. You know... cult leaders only offer the idea that little girls touch their genitals as a "suggestion" and leave it up to them to do it totally of their own free will.

I totally don't follow this at all. I have no clue what you're talking about here. ?

Sooooo maybe finally I can encapsulate what I have been trying to say here all along. Why I wanted to draw attention to the philosophical origins of vegetarianism was to illustrate how it has become associated with a certain philosophical principle that "makes wrong" the very fabric of creation.

Why? Because 2D animals kill other animals? By that logic, then a philosophy of peace also "makes wrong" the very fabric of creation, since 3D humans have been killing one another for millennia.

On this planet, anyway. Hardly the very fabric of creation!

What is more, vegetarianism is perfectly capable of standing on its own two feet based upon scientific evidence (much of which you have offered here) and sound logical reasoning. It does not require the invocation of an absolutist philosophy, and it does not require any sort of fear, guilt, shame, or ninja moves, in order to be successfully implemented on a wide scale.

Yes, it certainly can. But again, this is a spiritual discussion.

(And I still don't get what you mean by "ninja moves.")

To the contrary, I would assert that the zealots are actually getting in their own way.

What is a zealot? Someone who believes strongly in something? Then, are you saying it's ok to be a zealot about ending war, but not ok to be a zealot about ending unnecessary oppression and suffering of animals? Why the double standard?

Well then it seems like you understand exactly where I am coming from. In my mind, and according to my understanding, this savior/guru idea IS the #1, bar-none, idea which has a negative effect on spiritual growth. If meat-eating is even #2, respectfully, I don't think it is even a close second.

Gosh, that's a toss-up!

[BrownEye]

There is a surplus of healthy food that is ignored and tossed since it is not bought because of "taste".
It takes a huge amount of veggies to fatten up an animal for slaughter.
Not only do the folks not like bland dead flesh, they have to season it to make it palatable.
So while what is needed for actual long term health goes ignored, what causes osteoporosis and clogged arteries is promoted and believed in.

The glaring truth is want vs need. All the death is from want, not need. Want is a result of ego.
Now I wonder if someone will give me the govt indoctrinated info about osteoporosis.

[unity100]

No, a lion killing eating a zebra cannot coexist in 4d positive vibrations.

Are you sure? That's pretty basic second-density behavior, and Ra says that second density coexists with fourth.

pretty basic second density behavior, based on what ? observations from THIS planet's ecosystem ? bad sample.

2nd density was told to be an octave of consciousness with its own polarities. this means, whatever this ecosystem is manifesting, is at a certain point in overall polarity balance. and from what it seems, it seems to be rather on the negative. this is not so different in 3d either, the traits of the 2d in planet seems to be carrying over to 3d.

this concludes that, there are other planets belonging to other logoi that are on the positive side of the spectrum, in other locations.

moreover, this planet's nature was changed before. there were dinosaurs, and the ecosystem was much more vile and rabid. now, it seems quite tame compared to that period. and that change happened quite fast. there is nothing barring that from happening again.