Diet Guidance from Channelings?

[Jade]

I've heard this idea espoused by members before, but to be honest, it doesn't really hold up to logical scrutiny for Ra to supposedly respect free will in such a bizarre way. After-all, consider the time when Don asked if the starving individuals in Africa should be allowed to keep starving since, you know, to his perceptions, a blue ray understanding hypothetically implied that at some level they chose that. Ra immediately corrected him, and said the proper course of action is that they should be fed. Ra didn't 'respect his free will chosen idea' and refuse to give him alternate information since he already had ideas about it, rather, they immediately gave the opposite answer Don expected and asked about.

If you think about it, that would be kind of an absurd stipulation if they weren't allowed to correct the distorted ideas of the channeling participants. In fact, the channeling would be immediately rendered null, void, and pointless by such an edict before it even began because if anybody had an prior opinion about anything, Ra wouldn't be able to speak about it.

There were also a few examples in the Ra material, where free will abridging information was offered by Ra with a concession towards some loss of polarity, because apparently they felt the information was more important than respecting the law of confusion (law of free will). So frankly, this idea that Ra secretly wanted to advocate a vegan diet, but didn't want to alter the groups, (or if you like, specifically Carla's) free will decision to eat meat, seems highly improbable to me.

So when you actually take all these logical factors into account, you are left with only a few plausible explanations: Either: 
1) Carla's physiology was soooooo different from us "normie" humans that meat was good for her but not the rest of humanity, 
2) meat eating isn't as much against the cosmos as vegans have convinced themselves of, or 
3) it is against the unity of the cosmos, but Ra didn't think it important enough to correct them on it.

It seems like to come to these conclusions, that you ignored all the quotes that were posted before.

We offer the following, not to infringe upon your free will, but because this instrument has specifically requested information as to its maintenance and the support group does so at this querying. We may suggest that the instrument has two areas of potential distortion

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 most or 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.

C: Is this chemical that you speak of the ingestion of sugars?

I am Latwii. You are correct, my brother. We could not say this without your finding for yourself of this truth.

http://www.lawofone.info/results.php?q=i...0&l=30&o=s

I mean, I'm not making up this "cannot infringe upon free will" thing. Obviously Ra has limits to what they can and cannot say. Feeding the starving children didn't abridge anyone's free will, because no one gave up what they were doing in the Ra channeling to go feed hungry orphans. Telling people what they should and shouldn't eat eliminates a HUGE swath of catalyst/choice available for people. And for that example, it was still a direct response to a question of Don's, not something Ra offered freely.

Here's a mundane instance where Don asks Ra about a crystal skull, and Ra says they cannot comment because it will affect their actions in the future.

76.22 Questioner: I had one that is totally, possibly, [of] no value. You don’t have to expand on it, but there is a crystal skull in the possession of a woman near Toronto that may be of some value in investigating these communications with Ra since I think possibly this had some origin from Ra. Can you tell me anything about that? And then, finally, is there anything that we could do to improve the contact or to make the instrument more comfortable?

Ra: I am Ra. Although your query is one which uncovers interesting material we can not answer due to the potential an answer may have for affecting your actions. The appurtenances are carefully placed and requisite care taken. We are appreciative. All is well.

And Ra doesn't advocate a vegan diet. Ra advocates eating only the amount of animals proteins that one truly needs for their body complex. The reason people get upset about this is because there is a huge discrepancy between how much meat people eat and how much meat we actually need. It's cultural.

I'm not just saying this to be contrarian, I'm genuinely curious how you people reconcile that, because I don't think you can really escape these conclusions if you think about this critically: 

option 1) I've never bought -- it always seemed more of a rationalization that people whose dietary ideology reviles and forbade any mention of animal products in the Ra material, and served as a means by which to lawyer themselves out of any offhanded mention of such protein being conceivably related to such a profane notion that it constituted any part in the 'proper care of the body complex'. 
option 3) doesn't make sense either considering the other times they just went ahead and supplied information contrary to the groups currently held (and already free will chosen ideas -- of which correction of false ideas is a natural part of the student/teacher relationship), and so of course I'm a proponent of 
option 2) because it seems frankly apparent to me from my time on this planet, that all life feeds on life, and always has, and I think it is very very natural to the earth (but that isn't to say it can't and hasn't become disproportionately parasitical -- e.g. factory farming). I'm not saying that veganism isn't 'higher vibrational' by the way -- perhaps it is for all I know.  (though I think there is a lot of species-ism that goes on (i.e. "plants don't cry when you kill them therefore it is better to eat them than the organisms that have evolved mobility" -- but then again, different, and lacking vocal cords and muscles, doesn't mean it has less consciousness). My concern is more centered around inclinations toward thinking one particular behavior/diet is the 'right one' and all others should be shunned because they are somehow 'wrong' -- whatever that means. I just think that concept is extremely distorted, and anytime I see any intimation of it (which I am sensing in this thread), I feel called to address it.

I'm sorry, the specieism that vegans exhibit (most vegans advocate to stop animal farming BECAUSE plants have feelings, too! and most farmed plants go to feeding livestock) is extremely moot. Meat eaters define specieism, because there's only about 5 species that humans eat regularly for meat. We breed and kill millions of homeless dogs and cats a year, and just burn their carcasses. Logically, we should recycle their bodily complexes if people want to eat meat, right? I'll eat all vegetables, and advocate for their rights to not be farmed in monocultures and fed to fatten up animals that wouldn't be eating them in their natural state, anyway.

And you are the one who has previously told me that they reason it's okay to eat animals and not humans is because they are lesser than humans by being trapped in a second density body. So, I don't believe I'm the one drawing lines in the sand about what physical features are okay to consume and which aren't. I just try to eat things that I don't kill when I eat them (you can eat a tomato without killing the plant), and things that have evolved specifically to be eaten by humans (I eat a tomato, in theory, I poop out tomato seeds. I eat a lamb, there's no recycling of that body complex as such), or things that don't exhibit trauma that my brain has evolved to recognize while being harvested. It is obvious to me that a cow in a slaughterhouse is in distress. The plants in my garden seem okay with me harvesting from them while they continue growing.

If we piece apart the Ra material and examine it "logically and critically", then we can dismantle basically everything Ra has said. Of course the material encourages cherry-picking, but either Ra was lying about abridging free will or they weren't? Or I'm not exactly even sure what point about free will, and/or logic, you are trying to make. Obviously there are things Ra can and cannot say. Why have they never described what an indigo ray experience is like?

Anyway, if you feel there is a sense of a "right diet" being promulgated in this thread, I think you're taking issues with what the channelings say, not how they are being presented.

Also, when you think about "pre-veil" conditions, I have an extremely hard time imagining or believing that all the animal kingdom was not eating each other, even then. Again, I think it is entirely natural for animals to eat other animals -- and that includes the human animal. I mean do you think that wolves weren't eating flesh in those times? That bugs weren't eating other bugs? That all beings were partaking of plants? Did you know there are planets where there are mobile plant beings (beings such as this have been sighted in certain ET contact accounts)?  I'm sorry, but I don't believe life works that way (the way that says plants are the only morally correct food, and anything else is negatively polarizing). Eating flesh is part of the circle of life. Flesh comes in many forms -- plant and otherwise.

Okay, but we evolved from chimps. Chimps very rarely eat anything other than fruit. If we evolved more closely alongside wolves, this would be a better argument, but I would still advocate that part of the shift from third to fourth density would involve a more conscious awareness of how and what we eat. The thing about animals is that the veil doesn't distort their communion with each other, even in the eating of each other. Humans have severely distorted meat and the consumption of meat. That's really the biggest problem. Ra even makes the comment about "animal protein which has been slaughtered and preservatives added in order to maintain the acceptability to your peoples of this non-living, physical material. It is well to attempt to find those items which are fresh and of the best quality possible". This is obviously a judgement by Ra that what we are eating is not optimal for our bodily complexes - at least, the way we harvest it is wrong. And again, my point was that almost all of our meat is handled this way. Most carnivores or omnivores eat meat while it's still alive. Carrion eaters, which we more closely resemble, have digestive systems meant to handle the types of pathogens that old meat creates. We have to substitute this with antibiotics, chemicals, cooking, etc.

I only bring all this up because the rationalizations don't personally make sense to me, and never have, though I think if someone easily thrives on a vegan diet and are happy with themselves I think that is great (just as I think someone who is happy on a ketogenic diet is just fine as well). I would just be careful of falling into the trap of thinking that is what everyone is 'supposed' to do (that sort of thinking is always dangerous and inevitably leads to judgment in my opinion, despite good intentions otherwise). 

As an aside, I also have a hard time taking any Q'uo channelings as anything more than 'interesting ideas to consider' because of the sheer number of times those particular channelings have contradicted themselves. I don't care enough to dredge up all of them (one could do a search on these forums for it, there have been a few scintillating discussions about it), but there are ALOT (I chalk that up to it being 'conscious channeling' rather than any kind of deliberate obfuscation -- one of the reasons I generally steer clear of such conscious channeling -- too much distortion) That's not to say Ra never contradicted themselves either. But this is just me personally, I know many others here hold Q'uo on the same level as the Ra channelings, which I've never really understood, but each to their own.

As conscious channeling, from someone who ate meat and didn't take too much care with their diet (Carla), don't you think the "distortion" would go a different way? Also, I posted the quotes in the context of the OP's request. I know you don't read Q'uo. I don't know anyone who considers Q'uo "on the same level as Ra". I see Q'uo as a companion to Ra, and the quotes perfectly acceptable and ontopic to the discussion. I understand that you disagree with them, although the quotes posted really just echo what Ra has said, too.

Anyway, I've seen no one in this thread advocating "one true diet". Did anyone even mention veganism in the context of channeled quotes before you went on a tirade against it? This is what I personally distilled as the core advice from what Ra says:

1. Respect for your body (and subsequently, the bodies of other selves)
2. Have a positive attitude towards food
3. Listen to the body, honestly, and stop ingesting that which does it harm

Do you believe these are contradicted in the Ra material? Do you believe this is advocating "one true diet"? I'm the first person to cheer people on when they go gluten free, because of this quote:

40.13 Questioner: Then you are saying that cancer is quite easily healed mentally and is a good teaching tool because it is quite easily healed mentally and once the entity forgives the other-self at whom he is angry cancer will disappear. Is this correct?

Ra: I am Ra. This is partially correct. The other portion of healing has to do with forgiveness of self and a greatly heightened respect for the self. This may conveniently be expressed by taking care in dietary matters. This is quite frequently a part of the healing and forgiving process. Your basic premise is correct.

It is obvious to me that Ra advocates a conscious awareness while eating food, and that healing can be affected by a change in diet. This is why I feel compelled to speak out when people appear to advocate that the Ra material promises freedom for entities to consume whatever they please without any ill effects. If you have any other quotes that support this, or whatever point you're trying to make (if I'm missing it), I'd certainly be happy to hear them.

If it appears I was advocating one true diet, that is my personal bias, and I apologize. My true intentions were to highlight that there can be a spiritual link to what one eats - no, not that there "can be", but that there "is", especially for those of us who are already aware that we are balancing our mind/body/spirit complexes. And that if you begin to hone that link, and use the transformation of the mind, that these things take care of themselves.

I'll end this post the same way I did my first post, which was a request by Ra to not overthink these things critically or logically.

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.