(10-01-2014, 02:16 AM)Unbound Wrote: So everyone who eats meat knowing suffering occurs has self-serving intentions, and you know this for sure? (Since you seem to blanket everyone with the same assumptions, even though you also stated you can't know the intentions and motivations of another.)
You seem to be confusing blanketing people's intentions with an action being inherently STS.
What do you think? Do you think that knowingly, unnecessarily supporting cruelty is STS, STO, or neutral?
(10-01-2014, 02:39 AM)isis Wrote: Where I live, if you were tell someone that eating the meat from the farms that do the cruel standard practice means supporting the cruelty you'd get your booty kicked or worse
Everyone who drives a car supports the oil industry (unless it's a 100% electric car).
(10-01-2014, 05:23 AM)Parsons Wrote: I am not sure what you mean by "Ra's explanation of acceptance."
I have said all I can say about acceptance in that other thread.
(10-01-2014, 05:23 AM)Parsons Wrote: By the way, I would normally agree that the vast majority of the material can not be reduced to little snippets. More often than not, it is very important to understand the context of surrounding questions and sometimes the entire session. But my most recent Ra quote used is one of the best 'in a nutshell' descriptions of a concept in the entire material, especially because it specifies ALL catalyst and gives you the core concept of the Choice.
I think that's a direct answer to a specific question, like all Ra responses, and not any more of a summary than any other statement. I don't think the concepts of Choice, 3D/4D, Acceptance etc. can be summarized by any single Ra quote.