Why I am not a vegan

[Jade]

I disagree for a myriad of reasons. One being Maldek choosing imprisonment in 2D bodies with their post 3D harvestable consciousness. Do you think it's a chakra thing - like animals don't have the higher chakras in potentiation? How come when Ra says that when one activates each new level of awareness, it is a "springboard" to the next? Do you think animals just "stall out" at the threshhold between 2D and 3D until they incarnate in human form? Why would entities like Gandalf choose to come back into bodies where they can effectively learn no lessons? Is that really possible?

I think there is a tipping point in the orientation of the energy and it is leaning more towards one ray than the other, and that constitutes harvestability.  And I don't understand your question about the cat Gandalf.  The cat incarnates until it has tipped to the point of being individuated enough that it doesn't return to the group consciousness after death, and then reincarnates in a 3rd density body with a brain complex enough for yellow ray work to be done.

Ra says Gandalf was individualized in previous incarnations, but continued to incarnate as a cat. This makes him rare of his species, but rare is again relative.

30.13 Questioner: I was wondering if the male cat, Gandalf, has benefited by that mechanism in some way or by other mechanisms in increasing spiritual potential or understanding.

Ra: I am Ra. We examine this information and find it harmless. The second-density entity, sound vibration Gandalf, is a rare sample of its species due first to previous individualization, secondly due to a great amount of investment in this particular life experience. This is the greatest catalyst in this entity’s progress. It is very unusual, as we have said. However, the experiences of bisexual reproduction which were of the nature of the entity Gandalf were to a small extent of spiritual benefit due to an unusual relationship with another entity, this also what you call a cat. This entity also being of an unusually third-density orientation or investment from previous life experiences. Thus the formation of what could be seen to be recognizably love did exist in this relationship.

So, why would Gandalf (and, another cat that Ra is speaking of - I don't think it's Fairchild, however, because Ra later says Fairchild is not yet harvestable) continue to incarnate as cats if they couldn't continue their third density lessons with great investment in this lifetime as a previously harvested individual?

And this quote says that, because Gandalf and the other cat are 3D, Don, Carla, and Jim could recognize love between them. Wouldn't that say, if we can recognize love being exhibited by a 2D being, that it is of 3D orientation?

What makes a dolphin animal body so much closer to a human's but different than a fish? What makes a elephant so much different than a rat? These are arguably "advanced consciousness" species that coexist on our earth with us... evolving in consciousness and awareness even in animal form.

I don't think any of those creatures you mention are 3rd density.  That is my opinion.  I think that certain animals have brains that are calibrated to different tasks, some involving different degrees of complexity.  And I think they are highly aware in 2nd density ways.  Scientists think they are measuring self awareness with experiments involving mirrors and what not, but honestly, I thing they are just viewing more and more complex behaviors.  The type of self awareness Ra was talking about in my opinion is of the ego variety.  Certainly many animals have self referential behavioral thoughts (in the context of instinctual needs of its bodily complex).  But in my opinion, that is much different than what humans have.

That's fair enough if you don't believe that the aforementioned animals are 3rd density. But, how do you feel the apes that are inhabited by Maldek souls?

Ever seen an animal like a chicken stay in touch with its family its whole life? 

Absolutely!

The offspring reach a certain age and then it suddenly treats them like strangers.

Absolutely not! This is not the case at all. Many animals herd or flock, and they continue to do so with their family units throughout their whole lives. They may "separate" for breeding and offspring-rearing, but there are many, many species which will always recognize their family, and many that -never- separate.

It's not human like at all. Same goes for the rest of them except in rare circumstances.  They are instinctively programmed to all of the behavior.  But 2nd density isn't "thinking" about any of it, it isn't "considering" any of it, its just doing it, because it has a biological instinctual programming.

What you call mourning, I call instinctual attachment.  They have a biological imperative to preserve their genes.  Nobody actually knows its mental state.  People see behavior and then decide its this or that.  But nobody is getting inside these animals heads and riding around.  So quoting a bunch scientific studies that have come some given conclusion is no better.  It's all from the outside in.  Science was never designed to study internal consciousness states.  It is beyond its scope, but plenty of people don't want to believe that.

Could we not say the same thing for humans? Instinctual attachment to our children and whatnot? The addictive flood of dopamine and oxytocin to the brain when a child is born that causes extreme attachment to the parents who are present? A lack of consideration for doing anything outside of its "programming"? My only argument is that we are not so different after all...