Why I am not a vegan

[Monica]

There is a Buddhist idea I have always found to express how I feel about this.

The situation is the idea of a monk whom is offered a meal as a gift of appreciation. However the meal being served consists of pork. The Buddha would say that it is better to be grateful and appreciative of the meal, gracious towards those who have offered the gift, as that is more beneficial and of service than to "sit on one's principles". Thus to eat the meal is to accept the love offered.

That is a parable, intended to convey a certain concept. Yogananda relays a similar parable about the monk who instructed his students to be vegetarians, but then when they were traveling and offered a place to stay for the night, he accepted the meat offered and ate it, much to the shock of his students.

The next day, when the students asked the master about his seeming hypocrisy, he answered them by eating some red-hot nails. Without saying a word, he made his point that when they were evolved enough to eat molten steel, they could transmute anything.

Did that parable give the monks free license to eat meat on a daily basis? No. The parable must be taken in context, along with the monks' daily teachings, which were of compassion.

The monk taught his students to be vegetarians, to aspire to ahimsa. This was to be the foundation of their daily lives, and this means living with compassion. This is in alignment with Law of One teachings about STO and opening the heart chakra. Compassion is the key by which the heart is opened.

After 4D love, comes 5D wisdom. The monk's parable was a 5D lesson of wisdom, which is to respond to each situation (catalyst) according to what is for the highest good in that present moment, rather than blindly following a set of rules (religious dogma).

In no way should 5D wisdom replace 4D love! No, they work together!

In no way did those monks intend for those parables to be used as a justification to eat dead animals on a daily basis!

Context must also be taken into consideration. Those incidents occurred thousands of years ago, in a different culture, in a different situation. In modern times, at least here in the US, virtually everyone is familiar with people being on special diets for ethical or health reasons. When faced with the offering of meat, it might be appropriate to plant a seed about animal cruelty, or it might not. It depends on the situation, the people, the culture, whether they are receptive or not, and one's own personal guidance in that moment. If I am having dinner with friends, of course I will tell them the truth about why I don't eat animals, if they ask. But if an elderly grandmother in her 90s made lunch for me and served meat, I would instead say that I was on a special diet and leave it at that. The elderly woman can understand 'special diet' and accept it, no problem. But there is really no point in explaining to Grandma about animal cruelty! She wouldn't understand, so I don't. But there is simply no reason at all to eat the offered meat. Even 90-yo Grandma can understand 'special diet.'

Those living in 3rd world countries would surely find such situations much more challenging, due to differences in culture. I cannot speak for them.

Even in Yogananda's time (which was in the earlier part of the last century), or even thousands of years ago, those parables were never intended to give free license to daily consumption of animals.

Isn't it also self-serving to be so attached to one's principles that the good intentions of others are ignored for the sake of one's own comfort?

Perhaps, in some cases.

Some pedophiles, in their twisted minds, truly think they are 'loving' that beautiful child. Do we let them harm the child, just because they have 'good intentions'?

Even Hitler had 'good intentions.' Ra stated that he failed to polarize STS - Hitler! - because of his 'good intentions.'

Does that mean we let him slaughter people, just because he has 'good intentions'?

It depends on the situation. My mother had 'good intentions' when she was concerned about whether my child would be healthy without meat. I appreciated her 'good intentions' but my responsibility was to my child. I never let her give him meat. I explained to her that he was getting plenty of protein, blah blah blah, but she still didn't get it. She was too old school. I did my best to soother her concerns, but at the end of the day, I did what was best for my child.

At any rate, vegans don't eschew meat out of their own comfort. We do it for the comfort of the animals. (Not even comfort...just relief from torture!) And, some of us do it for our health as well. It isn't STS to choose a healthy lifestyle and take care of one's bodily vehicle. It isn't STS to say 'No thank you' when offered poison.

The good intentions of others should always be appreciated. But in my 33 years of being a vegetarian, I have never encountered a single instance in which I had to 'ignore the good intentions of others.' There was always a way to express appreciation while adhering to my convictions.

Also, I could have sworn service to others is about acceptance, not about whether or not one is by definition compassionate.

To focus on acceptance only, while leaving out STO choice, is to miss the point of Ra's teachings. All of the teachings must be taken into consideration, not just little snippets.

This thread explores these concepts and how to reconcile them:

Acceptance and Will

---

Don't you polarize STS by keeping your heart closed? That is the "technical" difference between STS and STO, the exclusion of the heart and sometimes the aspect that is the throat.

That's a whole other topic. I'm sure there are several threads devoted to how STS entities polarize.

Here is one about how STO entities polarize:

Green Ray Requirement for Harvest to 4D