Why I am not a vegan

[Minyatur]

I do not in any way disagree with what you said other than when you are trying to do this for others in their stead.

No one is doing that here.

...

Of course not.

[Diana]

I think all things are sacred, but still disagree with the state of genocide against 2D.  As a human, with an ego, I try to unify everything as sacred for myself, obviously the ego tilts and skews the game board but hey, its sacred too.

Mankind is a specie that is at war with itself, it would make litttle to no sense for it to treat lesser beings otherwise than it does.

Perhaps for 3D humankind. Though I think every being, once it has individuated, is subject to an innate desire to evolve (in some way). It would be analogous to the instinct of survival in physicality.

But what about consciously evolving and seeking individuals, such as those here at B4? And those who consider themselves wanderers from higher densities? Does it make sense that they would participate in "the war" (taking into consideration awareness and "waking up")?

I can imagine that a service of simply mirroring would be efficacious here. But I would conjecture that the service of being a mirror for whatever is here by participating in everything or anything would require a lack of, or a strong protection from, empathy and compassion. I realize we are all mirrors and we are mirrored to. But participating in "the war" here with the service of mirroring is what I refer to. 

I resonate more with discovering, and being, my true self unaffected by this place. In that endeavor, becoming vegetarian, and vegan, have been a part of that. Whether it's because I am an artist with vision, or I am from a higher density, or simply because my heart has opened to more than the species I am part of, not participating in the suffering caused to the planet, the animals, and all life here is something I align with—while at the same time not judging and sinking into despair over that suffering, which is the harder part.

[Minyatur]

I think all things are sacred, but still disagree with the state of genocide against 2D.  As a human, with an ego, I try to unify everything as sacred for myself, obviously the ego tilts and skews the game board but hey, its sacred too.

Mankind is a specie that is at war with itself, it would make litttle to no sense for it to treat lesser beings otherwise than it does.

Perhaps for 3D humankind. Though I think every being, once it has individuated, is subject to an innate desire to evolve (in some way). It would be analogous to the instinct of survival in physicality.

But what about consciously evolving and seeking individuals, such as those here at B4? And those who consider themselves wanderers from higher densities? Does it make sense that they would participate in "the war" (taking into consideration awareness and "waking up")?

I guess it can make sense for as many reasons are there are individuals.

Eating meat is not dissonant my true self, although it is not that much consonant either. I will surely come to regret it in my life at some point because of my veil, that and various other habits I have to prevent myself from becoming polarized. But I do believe this will ultimately lead to greater changes within myself and create a greater desire to create within this Creation (create "good" things) My true essence mainly seems to find beauty in everything, as such I have very little to no desire to change the course of things or the ways of this planet. As for meat eating if I am able to see love and light in this experience, that I am able to see it as ultimately perfect and desired by all parties and that I have a very strong faith that all the entities that can be perceived as victims will come to love their own fate and experience as part of their own path and will not wish for it to be any other way, then I have very little reasons to not be eating meat.

I can imagine that a service of simply mirroring would be efficacious here. But I would conjecture that the service of being a mirror for whatever is here by participating in everything or anything would require a lack of, or a strong protection from, empathy and compassion. I realize we are all mirrors and we are mirrored to. But participating in "the war" here with the service of mirroring is what I refer to. 

I don't participate in everything or anything, but I do agree my primary focus is being a mirror. Well.. it mainly wasn't in my conscious awareness until I came to realize that it is pretty much all I've been doing since I've been born in this life. I do believe I've been participating in this "war" in greater ways than I currently am. My heart seems to care and love much more for a kind of entities that most do not love, or.. simply hurt with their love for the ones who do actually love them without a proper understanding of them (like Ra).

I resonate more with discovering, and being, my true self unaffected by this place. In that endeavor, becoming vegetarian, and vegan, have been a part of that. Whether it's because I am an artist with vision, or I am from a higher density, or simply because my heart has opened to more than the species I am part of, not participating in the suffering caused to the planet, the animals, and all life here is something I align with—while at the same time not judging and sinking into despair over that suffering, which is the harder part.

I do love animals but weirdly I've felt more empathy toward trees. A few times I've stopped in the middle of the woods to channel light into a dying tree because I could feel it's sorrow from afar.

Rediscovering yourself is a beautiful thing.

[indolering]

...
I guess it can make sense for as many reasons are there are individuals.

Eating meat is not dissonant my true self, although it is not that much consonant either. I will surely come to regret it in my life at some point because of my veil, that and various other habits I have to prevent myself from becoming polarized. But I do believe this will ultimately lead to greater changes within myself and create a greater desire to create within this Creation (create "good" things) My true essence mainly seems to find beauty in everything, as such I have very little to no desire to change the course of things or the ways of this planet. As for meat eating if I am able to see love and light in this experience, that I am able to see it as ultimately perfect and desired by all parties and that I have a very strong faith that all the entities that can be perceived as victims will come to love their own fate and experience as part of their own path and will not wish for it to be any other way, then I have very little reasons to not be eating meat.

...


Your last sentence is preposterous.  Can you really rationalize and believe that animals wish to be hunted down and eaten?  Or that they wish it to be so?  No sentient being wishes to be tortured.  You are seriously deluded.  Hey, it's your life and you make your choice and you reap your harvest.  

[Minyatur]

...
I guess it can make sense for as many reasons are there are individuals.

Eating meat is not dissonant my true self, although it is not that much consonant either. I will surely come to regret it in my life at some point because of my veil, that and various other habits I have to prevent myself from becoming polarized. But I do believe this will ultimately lead to greater changes within myself and create a greater desire to create within this Creation (create "good" things) My true essence mainly seems to find beauty in everything, as such I have very little to no desire to change the course of things or the ways of this planet. As for meat eating if I am able to see love and light in this experience, that I am able to see it as ultimately perfect and desired by all parties and that I have a very strong faith that all the entities that can be perceived as victims will come to love their own fate and experience as part of their own path and will not wish for it to be any other way, then I have very little reasons to not be eating meat.

...

Your last sentence is preposterous.  Can you really rationalize and believe that animals wish to be hunted down and eaten?  Or that they wish it to be so?  No sentient being wishes to be tortured.  You are seriously deluded.  Hey, it's your life and you make your choice and you reap your harvest.  

Yeah the Creator did not wish to experience suffering or know itself, you are definitely right.

I do not think of entities in the same manner that you think of them. If your question is.. Does the 2D entity wishes for it while it is happening? surely not... Does the higher self of that entity which exist in a simultaneousl parallel manner to it's lower self wish for it? Yes, it does.

[indolering]

...
I guess it can make sense for as many reasons are there are individuals.

Eating meat is not dissonant my true self, although it is not that much consonant either. I will surely come to regret it in my life at some point because of my veil, that and various other habits I have to prevent myself from becoming polarized. But I do believe this will ultimately lead to greater changes within myself and create a greater desire to create within this Creation (create "good" things) My true essence mainly seems to find beauty in everything, as such I have very little to no desire to change the course of things or the ways of this planet. As for meat eating if I am able to see love and light in this experience, that I am able to see it as ultimately perfect and desired by all parties and that I have a very strong faith that all the entities that can be perceived as victims will come to love their own fate and experience as part of their own path and will not wish for it to be any other way, then I have very little reasons to not be eating meat.

...

Your last sentence is preposterous.  Can you really rationalize and believe that animals wish to be hunted down and eaten?  Or that they wish it to be so?  No sentient being wishes to be tortured.  You are seriously deluded.  Hey, it's your life and you make your choice and you reap your harvest.  

Yeah the Creator did not wish to experience suffering or know itself, you are definitely right.

I do not think of entities in the same manner that you think of them. If your question is.. Does the 2D entity wishes for it while it is happening? surely not... Does the higher self of that entity which exist in a simultaneousl parallel manner to it's lower self wish for it? Yes, it does.

You're quite sure of this, are you?  Believe what you wish, I find it all highly speculative and a convoluted rationalization.  I suppose, then that animal factories are fine with you also....  All those self-sacrificing animals, laying down their lives for your consumption...that's really heartwarming.

[Monica]

Yeah the Creator did not wish to experience suffering or know itself, you are definitely right.

This is such a common 'New Age' misinterpretation. Shirley MacClaine caused quite a stir in the Christian communities when she proclaimed in a film "I AM GOD" which of course sounded like she was saying she was ALL of God, The One UNdifferentiated, UNdistorted Creator, which of course she wasn't.

All of us are God, in a holographic sense. But NONE of us are The UNdistorted Creator.

Ra explains this concept very well, in terms of distortion. You are completely leaving out distortion.

So yeah, sure, the Creator wants women to be raped and children to be slaughtered and children to be raped and ongoing wars and all the other myriad atrocities going on in this messed-up world. Apparently the Creator either wants all that or... :idea: doesn't care because the UNdistorted Creator is beyond all that. Who knows? Not even Ra knows, so we're deluding ourselves if we think we can speak for the UNdistorted One Infinite Creator.

So it's a moot point.

What we DO know is that, regardless of what their Higher Self programmed as part of their life curriculum, NO human and NO animal chooses to be tortured or killed. End of story.

If their conscious free-will choice wasn't important, then why did Ra go to such great lengths to explain the concepts of free will and what it means to impose on the free will of other sentient beings? Even going so far as to call this density the Density of Choice.

Choice matters here, at this nexus. What the UNdistorted Creator may or may not want is completely unknown, and therefore completely irrelevant.

I do not think of entities in the same manner that you think of them. If your question is.. Does the 2D entity wishes for it while it is happening? surely not... Does the higher self of that entity which exist in a simultaneousl parallel manner to it's lower self wish for it? Yes, it does.

This has been addressed ad nauseam. If the woman walking down a dark alley has been programmed by her Higher Self to experience the catalyst of being raped, is that a justification for YOU or I to be the one to do the dirty deed?

How many times have I asked that same question? At least a dozen times in recent threads. To use the point that the woman's Higher Self or the animal's Higher Self has chosen that catalyst as a justification for harming them and imposing on their conscious free will, is to demonstrate that one either a.) doesn't understand the basic concepts of STS and STO...OR b.) does understand but doesn't care...in which case the implications are clear.

...

[Monica]

I have a very strong faith that all the entities that can be perceived as victims will come to love their own fate and experience as part of their own path and will not wish for it to be any other way

Sorry but that's just sick. That sounds just like when the pedophiles say "OH I am LOVING that child...the child WANTS me to do these things." In a civilized society, the idea that a victim wants to be victimized is considered twisted and perverse...an unholy attempt to justify atrocities.

Again, whether the victim's Higher Self has programmed that catalyst is irrelevant. We don't know that. We are veiled for a reason: So that we can choose which path we wish to polarize to. And the way we do that lies in how we respond to opportunities for love and compassion.

When an STS-oriented entity encounters an opportunity to victimize someone (whether that be human or animal, doesn't matter), the appropriate response for them is to victimize the person. They gain polarity by doing so.

When an STO-oriented entity encounters an opportunity to victimize someone (whether that be human or animal, doesn't matter), the appropriate response for them is to NOT victimize the person, but to instead show love and compassion. That is how they polarize.

That's really it in a nutshell. Basic Polarity 101.

What the prospective victim's Higher Self programmed as potential catalyst doesn't even enter into the equation, from the perspective of the person making the choice as to how to respond. Not at all. Why? Because a.) we are veiled and don't know what the Higher Self programmed so it's moot anyway and b.) Our Higher Selves always program catalyst within parameters that allow for multiple experiences and multiple outcomes, depending on the choices we make AND the choices others make which we allow to affect us. Ie., the victim's future path will be affected by whether the potential victimizer chooses to victimize or show compassion. It might even be the event that determines the direction the victim chooses to polarize in. Our choices DO affect others!

...

[The_Tired_Philosopher]

Monica, I think indolering just meant they'll reach a place of acceptance, then forgiveness, then eventually gratitude despite the severe dislike for the experience is all.

It is sick from a moral standpoint in a way. That's unity for you.

From the perspective of the animal.

Totally f***** up. I don't want to forgive, I want it remembered, so it'll never happen again. That's my idea. I do Think some 'higher moral' manner of reasoning might pertain to cases of higher self conspiring rape vs an entity clearly violating another. But REGARDLESS of that, I still think its cruel to the Finite Being experiencing it.

[Minyatur]

Yeah the Creator did not wish to experience suffering or know itself, you are definitely right.

This is such a common 'New Age' misinterpretation. Shirley MacClaine caused quite a stir in the Christian communities when she proclaimed in a film "I AM GOD" which of course sounded like she was saying she was ALL of God, The One UNdifferentiated, UNdistorted Creator, which of course she wasn't.

All of us are God, in a holographic sense. But NONE of us are The UNdistorted Creator.

Ra explains this concept very well, in terms of distortion. You are completely leaving out distortion.

So yeah, sure, the Creator wants women to be raped and children to be slaughtered and children to be raped and ongoing wars and all the other myriad atrocities going on in this messed-up world. Apparently the Creator either wants all that or... :idea:  doesn't care because the UNdistorted Creator is beyond all that. Who knows? Not even Ra knows, so we're deluding ourselves if we think we can speak for the UNdistorted One Infinite Creator.

So it's a moot point.

The Creator wants to know Itself, your rejection of others is nothing than not wanting to know yourself. None of you here has put any effort in understanding how another could balance within itself love and wisdom in regard to meat eating and still eat meat. All I've seen is constant rejection of what is unlike yourself, I mainly participated in these discussions because you expressed a desire to understand what was unlike yourself to most times realize it was not so. You do not in any way wish to understand the inner truth of others if it is in conflict with your own.

What we DO know is that, regardless of what their Higher Self programmed as part of their life curriculum, NO human and NO animal chooses to be tortured or killed. End of story.

If their conscious free-will choice wasn't important, then why did Ra go to such great lengths to explain the concepts of free will and what it means to impose on the free will of other sentient beings? Even going so far as to call this density the Density of Choice.

Yet I have never felt I have infriged upon free will by eating meat. As I said multiple times I eat meat (which is not a 2D entity anymore and has it's own set of experience and desire) and threat it as what it is at the moment. I would not want to create this system nor do I want to reject what already is.

Choice matters here, at this nexus. What the UNdistorted Creator may or may not want is completely unknown, and therefore completely irrelevant.

Then all I know is the inner truth I found within myself. Where most of you found despair I found love and light.

In my view you are very delusionned (just as you think I am), you've stated wanting to share your way of thinking with our Logos, which somehow implies It would not be already aware of your every thought and emotion, and that It would even be less aware than you are of the on-going suffering which It probably feels altogether unlike you. Also seems to imply you would be more loving than our Logos, which I find laughable.

I do not think of entities in the same manner that you think of them. If your question is.. Does the 2D entity wishes for it while it is happening? surely not... Does the higher self of that entity which exist in a simultaneousl parallel manner to it's lower self wish for it? Yes, it does.

This has been addressed ad nauseam. If the woman walking down a dark alley has been programmed by her Higher Self to experience the catalyst of being raped, is that a justification for YOU or I to be the one to do the dirty deed?

How many times have I asked that same question? At least a dozen times in recent threads. To use the point that the woman's Higher Self or the animal's Higher Self has chosen that catalyst as a justification for harming them and imposing on their conscious free will, is to demonstrate that one either a.) doesn't understand the basic concepts of STS and STO...OR b.) does understand but doesn't care...in which case the implications are clear.

...

For your example I would need to have a desire to rape which then would attract the right person to share the experience. Everything that happens is nothing more than resonance.

I also have stated that my ways of eating meat only give a little support to these indrustries and does not have much impact on my own polarity. So no I am not anymore causing harm than you could consider yourself causing harm when your taxes money and such can be used to support the meat industry.

[Minyatur]

I have a very strong faith that all the entities that can be perceived as victims will come to love their own fate and experience as part of their own path and will not wish for it to be any other way

Sorry but that's just sick. That sounds just like when the pedophiles say "OH I am LOVING that child...the child WANTS me to do these things." In a civilized society, the idea that a victim wants to be victimized is considered twisted and perverse...an unholy attempt to justify atrocities.

Again, whether the victim's Higher Self has programmed that catalyst is irrelevant. We don't know that. We are veiled for a reason: So that we can choose which path we wish to polarize to. And the way we do that lies in how we respond to opportunities for love and compassion.

When an STS-oriented entity encounters an opportunity to victimize someone (whether that be human or animal, doesn't matter), the appropriate response for them is to victimize the person. They gain polarity by doing so.

When an STO-oriented entity encounters an opportunity to victimize someone (whether that be human or animal, doesn't matter), the appropriate response for them is to NOT victimize the person, but to instead show love and compassion. That is how they polarize.

That's really it in a nutshell. Basic Polarity 101.

What the prospective victim's Higher Self programmed as potential catalyst doesn't even enter into the equation, from the perspective of the person making the choice as to how to respond. Not at all. Why? Because a.) we are veiled and don't know what the Higher Self programmed so it's moot anyway and b.) Our Higher Selves always program catalyst within parameters that allow for multiple experiences and multiple outcomes, depending on the choices we make AND the choices others make which we allow to affect us. Ie., the victim's future path will be affected by whether the potential victimizer chooses to victimize or show compassion. It might even be the event that determines the direction the victim chooses to polarize in. Our choices DO affect others!

...

Actually no, I have faith in our Logos and the greater plan of which we are part of which you expressed at different times to not be the case for yourself.

[Monica]

Monica, I think indolering just meant they'll reach a place of acceptance, then forgiveness, then eventually gratitude despite the severe dislike for the experience is all.

It wasn't indolering who said that. I misquoted. It was Elros who said that. (I corrected my quotes.)

Yes, eventually...but that isn't a justification for victimizing them now.

It is sick from a moral standpoint in a way.  That's unity for you.

Thank you. It's so fashionable here at B4 to say that 'anything goes' and 'no action is ever needed' which, in my opinion, ignores a great deal of what Ra said, and twists other things Ra said. So it's refreshing to hear someone actually say yeah, it's sick, morally speaking.

From the perspective of the animal.

Totally f***** up.  I don't want to forgive, I want it remembered, so it'll never happen again.  That's my idea.  I do Think some 'higher moral' manner of reasoning might pertain to cases of higher self conspiring rape vs an entity clearly violating another.  But REGARDLESS of that, I still think its cruel to the Finite Being experiencing it.

We can forgive without forgetting. The old adage 'forgive and forget' doesn't always apply. We can also forgive while simultaneously doing our part to end the abuse. Forgiving doesn't mean being apathetic.

...

[Minyatur]

Nothing is ever forgotten other than using a veil, since it is one of it's purpose.

I also do think many distort the core message of Ra which is the Law of One and not the positive polarity.

Ra: I am Ra. We communicate now. We, too, have our place. We are not those of the Love or of the Light. We are those who are of the Law of One. In our vibration the polarities are harmonized, the complexities are simplified, and the paradoxes have their solution. We are one. That is our nature and our purpose.

[Monica]

The Creator wants to know Itself, your rejection of others is nothing than not wanting to know yourself.

You seem to be confusing rejection of others with declining their service while loving them (as given in the example by Ra).

None of you here has put any effort in understanding how another could balance within itself love and wisdom in regard to meat eating and still eat meat.

Not true. The effort has been made.

Perhaps it's just not the conclusion you may have liked.

All I've seen is constant rejection of what is unlike yourself,

Seriously??? You're still saying that? As though we hadn't already covered that numerous times?

Why do you repeat the same obvious twisting and corruption of what has already been clearly expressed? We have made it abundantly clear that we are answering the call of the oppressed and it has nothing to do with 'rejecting those who are different'. So why do you say that?

I mainly participated in these discussions because you expressed a desire to understand what was unlike yourself to most times realize it was not so. You do not in any way wish to understand the inner truth of others if it is in conflict with your own.

So now you presume to know the motivation of another person, eh?

Yet I have never felt I have infriged upon free will by eating meat. As I said multiple times I eat meat (which is not a 2D entity anymore and has it's own set of experience and desire) and threat it as what it is at the moment. I would not want to create this system nor do I want to reject what already is.

How convenient. You are leaving out the minor little detail that someone had to kill the animal before you could get that meat, and just because you didn't kill the animal yourself, doesn't mean it didn't happen. By buying that meat, the consumer is tangibly, directly supporting the industry that tortures and slaughters billions of sentient beings every year. Billions.

My understanding of your words is that these facts don't bother you.

Why, then, are you still participating in this conversation?

Then all I know is the inner truth I found within myself. Where most of you found despair I found love and light.

Well that's very nice but it's still self-oriented.

In my view you are very delusionned (just as you think I am), you've stated wanting to share your way of thinking with our Logos, which somehow implies It would not be already aware of your every thought and emotion, and that It would even be less aware than you are of the on-going suffering which It probably feels altogether unlike you. Also seems to imply you would be more loving than our Logos, which I find laughable.

Think (and laugh) all you want. I happen to believe that each of us is important, and we came here with a mission to accomplish. We aren't separate from the Logos and our experiences are important.

To say on the one hand "We are all One...we are the Creator...the Creator is experiencing these things through us in order to understand itself better" then turn around and say "Who are you to think you could possibly tell the Logos anything?? The Logos already knows everything!" makes No sense.

Either the Logos (or Creator) already knows everything and doesn't need us, or it is experiencing through us and welcomes our feedback. Pick one. But to say both is a contradiction.

For your example I would need to have a desire to rape which then would attract the right person to share the experience. Everything that happens is nothing more than resonance.

You have missed the point of the analogy, which was that saying it's ok to eat meat just because the animals chose it on some level, is akin to saying it's ok to rape someone just because their Higher Self chose it. It doesn't hold up.

Anyway, since you've told us that you do eat meat, then apparently you do have a desire to eat meat, and have attracted the right circumstances to share that experience.

Yet you still continue to miss the obvious point that you can't have meat without participating in or supporting the imposing on the animal's free will wish to survive, and ending that animal's life against his/her will.

That is inescapable, no matter how you slice it. You can try to justify it all you want, but those are inescapable facts.

I also have stated that my ways of eating meat only give a little support to these indrustries

Only a little? How many animals per year is that? and how is it justifiable to kill even 1 sentient being unnecessarily?

We don't have a choice about whether or not to pay taxes, short of going to prison, which would obviously be counterproductive. We DO have a choice about what we eat.

...

[Monica]

Actually no, I have faith in our Logos and the greater plan of which we are part of which you expressed at different times to not be the case for yourself.

Again you have misunderstood me. (??? Why do you misunderstand me so much? Do you read what I write or do you just skim it? It really does seem like you're just skimming and jumping to conclusions....you seem to miss so much of what I say. I can't really do anything about that on my end because I already write as clearly as I can, and some even complain that I write too much, so it can't be said that I don't explain myself. So I can only wonder if you are either skimming my words/jumping to conclusions or just simply have your mind made up about my intentions. Because surely you aren't intentionally misrepresenting my words...are you?)

Having faith in our Logos does Not preclude recognizing my own role to play. Those aren't mutually exclusive.

I reject the religious notion that 'God' does everything and we have zero impact on anything. We are part of that 'plan.' Each of us has a role to play.

Does that mean I think the Logos' plan is perfect? No. Even Ra admitted that the whole idea of the veiled planet was an experiment.

An experiment.

:exclamation:

83.16 Questioner: What techniques and methods of penetration of the veil were planned and are there any others that have occurred other than those planned?
Ra: I am Ra. There were none planned by the first great experiment. As all experiments, this rested upon the nakedness of hypothesis. The outcome was unknown. It was discovered, experientially and empirically, that there were as many ways to penetrate the veil as the imagination of mind/body/spirit complexes could provide. The desire of mind/body/spirit complexes to know that which was unknown drew to them the dreaming and the gradual opening to the seeker of all of the balancing mechanisms leading to adepthood and communication with teach/learners which could pierce this veil.

The various unmanifested activities of the self were found to be productive in some degree of penetration of the veil. In general, we may say that by far the most vivid and even extravagant opportunities for the piercing of the veil are a result of the interaction of polarized entities.

83.20 Questioner: Would you give me an example of a complex activity of the body that we have now and how it was not complex prior to the veil?
Ra: I am Ra. Prior to the great experiment a mind/body/spirit was capable of controlling the pressure of blood in the vein, the beating of the organ you call the heart, the intensity of the sensation known to you as pain, and all the functions now understood to be involuntary or unconscious.

I happen to think that some of us agreed to incarnate, specifically to give feedback about the progress of this experiment.

You disagree? Fine. Doesn't matter. It's still irrelevant to the greater point that eating meat requires supporting the killing of a sentient being against their will.

Last I checked, that is the very definition of an action that is inherently STS.

Again, if that doesn't matter to you, then fine. If you're looking for approval from me, sorry, you won't get it. If you feel so comfortable with your choices, then you shouldn't need to justify them to anyone.

...

[Monica]

I also do think many distort the core message of Ra which  is the Law of One and not the positive polarity.

You are certainly free to think that if you like. Each person can get what they wish from the Material, and arrive at their own conclusions according to their own tendencies and inclinations.

...

[Diana]

At this point, can we forego wasting Internet space on this ridiculous idea that if you eat meat, the animal is already dead so you aren't making any impact on the industry? No offense ETM, but this argument is ludicrous. We are intelligent people here, and this is so basic it's simply not worth spending anymore energy on in my opinion.

If you consume factory-farmed meats, dairy, and eggs you are supporting the industry. This is a no-brainer. I would ask anyone here who is still an omnivore to be honest enough to admit this. No judgments intended. This is not about judgment. I am not pointing the finger at what is "not right." I am simply asking that we converse with humility and honesty. Self-honesty being the primary desire. 

This idea that the OIC desires to experience itself is a good theory in my opinion. It makes sense to me. But I am here, veiled, with extremely limited understanding of reality. This is a theory only. So let's not use this theory as an irrefutable fact to justify participating in cruelty. If someone wants to participate in cruelty, it is their choice, no matter what the recipient of that cruelly wants on whatever level of reality.

Perhaps there are beings in the universe who just go around doing nothing but experiencing whatever there is to experience on whatever planet or existence, in service to the OIC. This sounds very much like Christians to me. They do what someone else wants (God). They don't think for themselves or discover their own purpose, they only serve the supposed purpose of some(thing)else. Which, someone here may make into a purpose. But what kind of purpose is that? It's one-sided, and STS if you think about it. It's using others for what you want.

It's interesting to me that the Ra Material was so intellectual and sophisticated in content. I see in our conversations here the actual motion of paradoxes being revealed and us trying to resolve them. Certainly because the material is so complex, we find ourselves in complex conversations.

I don't mean to disparage anyone's opinions, especially you ETM in this post, as I enjoy your perspectives and everyone's here. I like diversity. But I feel sometimes we get bogged down with minutiae or addictions to opinions. In the meantime, countless animals are suffering as we type. 

[Aion]

This is an entertaining fencing match. It's much easier for me to see the dynamic going on not being involved. I really see how each is doing their best to convey themselves accurately and it is both amusing and somewhat disheartening to realize that there is no true chance for understanding because the fundamental philosophy of each is so different that they are sheerly incompatible. Yet, each carries on and yet also seems to care about the philosophy of the other but with a different kind of conceptual concern.

It makes me wonder what the function of this dynamic is, with each offering catalyst and each rejecting some and accepting some. Would be cool to see the 'polarization dynamics' of this conversation. I bet it wouldn't match what any individual thought but be a combined spectrum of everyone's expectations.

[Aion]

Also, I've noticed a number of times it being said that no human or animal wants to be tortured or killed. I suppose that assumption can be made for animals, but humans I'm not so sure. There are definitely humans I have met with death fantasies and masochistic tendencies. Some humans simply don't care what happens to them and happily engage in their own suffering. Some even see it as some kind of mark of honour or strength.

In more ancient times it was common for young men to go through intentional suffering to pass to adulthood in the eyes of the community. Even now you can see it in drug and drinking culture where people will abuse themselves for the entertainment.

I really don't think humans are so complete wholesome as some are trying to suggest they are capable of. Capable? Maybe, but the general choice is certainly not that way.

That's the hardest part for me in this whole thing is that everyone seems to be talking from ideals. Get out, meet people, there is a lot more diversity than you might think and I don't think humans can be blanketed in any common identity besides the fact that we're all here and living. The 'spiritual world' I see expressed by philosophical folk seems to be getting smaller and more exclusive by the day.

[Monica]

Also, I've noticed a number of times it being said that no human or animal wants to be tortured or killed. I suppose that assumption can be made for animals, but humans I'm not so sure. There are definitely humans I have met with death fantasies and masochistic tendencies. Some humans simply don't care what happens to them and happily engage in their own suffering. Some even see it as some kind of mark of honour or strength.

In more ancient times it was common for young men to go through intentional suffering to pass to adulthood in the eyes of the community. Even now you can see it in drug and drinking culture where people will abuse themselves for the entertainment.

I really don't think humans are so complete wholesome as some are trying to suggest they are capable of. Capable? Maybe, but the general choice is certainly not that way.

Good point. I concede that some humans do indeed consciously want to be victimized or tortured. But, those humans are seeking out suffering, or, as you say, don't care what happens to them. So it's their choice.

The animals don't have that choice. They are making it very clear, by their struggling to be free, their wailing, etc. that they don't want that. So imposing it on them anyway is a violation of their free will.

That is the difference.

...

[Aion]

I'm not yet sure if free will means that an entity is able to have its desires met or that free will means that an entity is able to choose how to respond to experience. Perhaps some combination of the two. Does free will automatically mean an entity should have its desires met, whether these are instinctual or of higher intellect? Or is free will more a matter of the ability for an entity to choose from the moment it's actions, feelings and thoughts? What is that ability to choose, exactly? To have preference?

I realized in assessing the many approaches in this conversation that it often comes back to the idea of free will, however I am not sure there is actually a consensus on what free will is or what the idea of it implies.

I am looking for the connection between free will, choice and impulse. Is free will only a conscious activity or is it also unconscious activity? At what point does the free will of one entity 'cross' that of another? What exactly is the manifestation of this apparent reality or is it just a philosophical idea of 'freedom' that has been shaped from a particular ideology? I wonder where the idea of free will first came from, perhaps the topic of the angel and the 'fall'? Will have to do more research before I draw any conclusions.

Note, I am not polarizing this thought either way in the discussion in terms of what is right or wrong or STS or STO, just pondering on the mechanics and nature of free will itself.

[anagogy]

Good point. I concede that some humans do indeed consciously want to be victimized or tortured. But, those humans are seeking out suffering, or, as you say, don't care what happens to them. So it's their choice.

The animals don't have that choice. They are making it very clear, by their struggling to be free, their wailing, etc. that they don't want that. So imposing it on them anyway is a violation of their free will.

That is the difference.

You can "not want" something and still be "choosing that reality" with your thoughts/beliefs out of ignorance of the creative process.  Attention ultimately creates reality, and "desire" is supposed to be the "director of attention" but if attention is more on what is feared, than what is wanted, *that* is what is chosen, even though it is not desired.

You could debate whether that was a "free will" decision or not. Probably a semantical distinction. You choose when you have the awareness to choose. So awareness determines free will. For example, matter does not make many choices because it not aware enough to.

People create unwanted circumstances all the time.  Animals do it too, but people have a hard time accepting that.  They are evolving beings too.  We choose our experiences but we don't choose theirs because we don't offer vibration for them.  

Their soul minds know precisely the conditions of their incarnation (albeit in a group consciousness format).

Experiencing the "not wanted" causes beings to automatically "ask" source for improved conditions (through desire), which source immediately offers, but then you have to become a vibrational match to that which is where most beings get hung up because they are too focused on what is not wanted to allow what is wanted into their experience.  If that doesn't happen in life, it happens immediately after death.  So the next incarnation won't have the same circumstances (karma is the natural asking and answering of source).

[Minyatur]

The Creator wants to know Itself, your rejection of others is nothing than not wanting to know yourself.

You seem to be confusing rejection of others with declining their service while loving them (as given in the example by Ra).

From what I had understood, you want others to be declining a service. Acceptance while declining is something that can only be done by self. In that view, I am not trying to convince anyone to change any of their ways, I am only expressing the self that I am and nothing more.

None of you here has put any effort in understanding how another could balance within itself love and wisdom in regard to meat eating and still eat meat.

Not true. The effort has been made.

Perhaps it's just not the conclusion you may have liked.

In a seeking of understanding, the response to another would have focus on understanding the hidden cause and effect being what the other-self currently is, knowing that a rejection of it simply unveils a lack of understanding of the deeper mechanisms. Self as such is not seen in other-self when other-self also is self. I do not view separation between self and other-self and as such how one acts in regards to other-self simply is a mirror on the state of it's own soul. Hurting others is a way to hurt self for example.

I do not expect conclusions to be reached as that would require much more unveiling of one's past than it is available to most in this 3D. Perhaps a common understanding will be reached, but surely not in this density. What we do is more akin to planting seeds for further work and creating entanglement.

All I've seen is constant rejection of what is unlike yourself,

Seriously??? You're still saying that? As though we hadn't already covered that numerous times?

Why do you repeat the same obvious twisting and corruption of what has already been clearly expressed? We have made it abundantly clear that we are answering the call of the oppressed and it has nothing to do with 'rejecting those who are different'. So why do you say that?

Then understand that we are all channel unto different things. I repeat this because it is a feeling I got multiple times I guess.

I mainly participated in these discussions because you expressed a desire to understand what was unlike yourself to most times realize it was not so. You do not in any way wish to understand the inner truth of others if it is in conflict with your own.

So now you presume to know the motivation of another person, eh?

Well this is a common mistake in 3D, you do have my apologies.

Yet I have never felt I have infriged upon free will by eating meat. As I said multiple times I eat meat (which is not a 2D entity anymore and has it's own set of experience and desire) and threat it as what it is at the moment. I would not want to create this system nor do I want to reject what already is.

How convenient. You are leaving out the minor little detail that someone had to kill the animal before you could get that meat, and just because you didn't kill the animal yourself, doesn't mean it didn't happen. By buying that meat, the consumer is tangibly, directly supporting the industry that tortures and slaughters billions of sentient beings every year. Billions.

My understanding of your words is that these facts don't bother you.

Why, then, are you still participating in this conversation?

In my view I am not a direct actor in it, the employees that do the killing are and I do believe this is as harsh a catalyst for them as for the animal. So I do find it ultimately sad for all parties involved.

Perhaps I am participating because you believe that the sole purpose of this catalyst is to ultimately be disgusted by it, I do believe otherwise. I do believe that one purpose of this catalyst is to love it in it's happening, whether that is done while eating meat or not. I do believe it was Q'uo that said "You are here to love this world, not change it". I also do believe one of the purpose in wandering is to face a mirror that self rejects and accepts not, to better distill and perceiving the love/light behind it all.

Then all I know is the inner truth I found within myself. Where most of you found despair I found love and light.

Well that's very nice but it's still self-oriented.

Yet you are doing the exact same, as it is the only thing one can do. Ra stated that STO is the conscious the radiating of Love as it is known to the inner-self, as such there would be no point in myself radiating love as it is understood to your inner-self.

In my view you are very delusionned (just as you think I am), you've stated wanting to share your way of thinking with our Logos, which somehow implies It would not be already aware of your every thought and emotion, and that It would even be less aware than you are of the on-going suffering which It probably feels altogether unlike you. Also seems to imply you would be more loving than our Logos, which I find laughable.

Think (and laugh) all you want. I happen to believe that each of us is important, and we came here with a mission to accomplish. We aren't separate from the Logos and our experiences are important.

To say on the one hand "We are all One...we are the Creator...the Creator is experiencing these things through us in order to understand itself better" then turn around and say "Who are you to think you could possibly tell the Logos anything?? The Logos already knows everything!" makes No sense.

Either the Logos (or Creator) already knows everything and doesn't need us, or it is experiencing through us and welcomes our feedback. Pick one. But to say both is a contradiction.

What I meant to say is that your whole experience already is a feed back for the Logos. I never meant to say that your experience is unimportant, just that the Logos already is aware of everything that you feel and think while you are residing within it. Which also is true for any joy or sorrow occurring within it.

For your example I would need to have a desire to rape which then would attract the right person to share the experience. Everything that happens is nothing more than resonance.

You have missed the point of the analogy, which was that saying it's ok to eat meat just because the animals chose it on some level, is akin to saying it's ok to rape someone just because their Higher Self chose it. It doesn't hold up.

Anyway, since you've told us that you do eat meat, then apparently you do have a desire to eat meat, and have attracted the right circumstances to share that experience.

Yet you still continue to miss the obvious point that you can't have meat without participating in or supporting the imposing on the animal's free will wish to survive, and ending that animal's life against his/her will.

That is inescapable, no matter how you slice it. You can try to justify it all you want, but those are inescapable facts.

Well I do believe this earth and it's ways are a good experience ultimately, so yeah I have no problem in supporting it since I have no self-desire for it to be otherwise.

Your rapist analogy resonate very little since I have no desire for rape, nor did I ever let myself think badly of rapists and such. If I were to contemplate a rapist, I'd probably feel sad for the entity rather than feeling repulsed by it like you seem to be.

I also have stated that my ways of eating meat only give a little support to these indrustries

Only a little? How many animals per year is that? and how is it justifiable to kill even 1 sentient being unnecessarily?

We don't have a choice about whether or not to pay taxes, short of going to prison, which would obviously be counterproductive. We DO have a choice about what we eat.

...

You surely did not have any choice in incarnating in this place, nor do you have the ability to move elsewhere than where you originally incarnated.

In my view nothing dies, there is transformation. If you had your ways none of these sentient beings would even have been alive and would not have been given any chance to be the entity that they've been.

[Minyatur]

I also do think many distort the core message of Ra which  is the Law of One and not the positive polarity.

You are certainly free to think that if you like. Each person can get what they wish from the Material, and arrive at their own conclusions according to their own tendencies and inclinations.

...

Well I am free to think that Ra was truthful in their words when they said : "We are not those of the Love or of the Light. We are those who are of the Law of One. ". The rest of the quote also was interesting as we are arguing upon paradoxes in which I see a desire to not see them being resolved. Unity is ever present and constant, it is self that is unable to perceive this perfect unity and harmony.

I obviously will not deny their inherent STO bias which comes from the background of their experiences. Just like I have my own inherent bias in my wisdom which is apparent when expressing the Law of One. This was more meant to say that I believe the ways of love of those of Ra are much greater than any interpretation of them I've seen here. Ra words were also foremost meant for the channeling group, so different persons asking the very same questions could give off different answers.

[Monica]

I'm not yet sure if free will means that an entity is able to have its desires met or that free will means that an entity is able to choose how to respond to experience.

I think it's the latter.

The simplest definition of free will (in a Law of One context) is the ability to choose.

I don't think it even has to be a conscious choice. A human child might not think consciously whether s/he wants an apple or a cookie, but if you offer both, s/he will choose one or the other, none, or both. That is choice. Is a 2-year-old toddler consciously choosing the cookie? Maybe not. But s/he is choosing nonetheless.

The degree of consciousness associated with the choice seems to be commensurate with the degree of sentience, but not necessarily with spiritual awareness, so it seems to have nothing to do with spiritual awareness. Even fully sentient beings (like adult humans) don't always consciously think about their choices. Yet they do choose, nonetheless.

Does free will automatically mean an entity should have its desires met,

In most cases, no. Ask anyone what they want in life and most will say some variation of the same theme: a happy family, a nice house, financial prosperity, good health, etc. Every one of those people has made choices (within preprogrammed parameters) which got them to the point they're at now. But how many of them have achieved their desires? Not too many.

I don't think choice has much to do with getting desires met. Only by learning from life, do we begin to make choices that are more in alignment with our deepest desires.

In the meantime, what happens is that choices simply get added in to the karmic mix.

As Mick Jagger said: You can't always get what you want...But if you try sometimes you might find...You get what you need.

whether these are instinctual or of higher intellect? Or is free will more a matter of the ability for an entity to choose from the moment it's actions, feelings and thoughts? What is that ability to choose, exactly? To have preference?

In the context of this discussion, I'm anticipating that some may argue that an animal's choice is based on instinct rather than intellect.

I would counter that by pointing out that human toddlers, even babies, make choices, and their intellectual ability hasn't developed much yet. (In fact, as a side note, studies have shown that dogs and pigs figure out puzzles faster than human toddlers!) So unless one is going to say that human toddlers are also acting purely on instinct, then that whole argument falls apart.

Even adult humans, who may be intellectually advanced but not necessarily spiritually aware, often make choices that aren't very conscious. So I really don't think it matters where the choice is based, or if they can even prove that at this point. We do, however, know that human babies and animals all make choices.

I realized in assessing the many approaches in this conversation that it often comes back to the idea of free will, however I am not sure there is actually a consensus on what free will is or what the idea of it implies.

Good idea to clarify this!

I am looking for the connection between free will, choice and impulse.

When that toddler gets an impulse to grab a toy, it's still a choice.

Is free will only a conscious activity or is it also unconscious activity?

Could be either. We participate more in the programming of catalyst when we start making conscious choices, instead of it being done automatically for us based on our unconscious choices. But it's all still choice.

At what point does the free will of one entity 'cross' that of another? What exactly is the manifestation of this apparent reality or is it just a philosophical idea of 'freedom' that has been shaped from a particular ideology?

I think it's summed up well by the adage: One person's freedom ends where another's begins.

Profound concepts such as this predate religious ideologies.

...

[Monica]

You can "not want" something and still be "choosing that reality" with your thoughts/beliefs out of ignorance of the creative process.  Attention ultimately creates reality, and "desire" is supposed to be the "director of attention" but if attention is more on what is feared, than what is wanted, *that* is what is chosen, even though it is not desired.

Yes, absolutely!

You choose when you have the awareness to choose.  So awareness determines free will.

I don't think so, as I just explained in my previous post. I think only a rudimentary awareness is necessary for choice.

People create unwanted circumstances all the time.  Animals do it too, but people have a hard time accepting that.  They are evolving beings too.  We choose our experiences but we don't choose theirs because we don't offer vibration for them.  

Their soul minds know precisely the conditions of their incarnation (albeit in a group consciousness format)..

I don't disagree with that. But again, it's irrelevant in regards to attempts at justifying harming them. Whether they chose it on some level or not is completely irrelevant, just as whether the rape victim's subconscious reasons for attracting rape don't provide justification for an STO-oriented entity to rape her.

...

[Monica]

Well I am free to think that Ra was truthful in their words when they said : "We are not those of the Love or of the Light. We are those who are of the Law of One. ".

I agree. I would take it further and say that Ra was truthful in all their words, not just those.

The rest of the quote also was interesting as we are arguing upon paradoxes in which I see a desire to not see them being resolved.

How curious. In my perception, it seems that there is a high tendency to cherry-pick certain Ra quotes at the exclusion of others, which creates unresolved paradox. In my view, the only way to resolve the paradox is to integrate ALL of Ra's words, as a whole.

I don't see any conflict or unresolved paradox in the Material. But I see a lot of that in various interpretations which focus on only certain quotes.

Even focusing on a single quote about unity isn't unity!!! If that were the case, then there would have been No need for Ra to ever say anything else. Unity is taking ALL of the Material, and integrating all of it together. Even that's not total unity because surely much went unsaid, but at least we have a large body of Material to work with.

...

[Minyatur]

At this point, can we forego wasting Internet space on this ridiculous idea that if you eat meat, the animal is already dead so you aren't making any impact on the industry? No offense ETM, but this argument is ludicrous. We are intelligent people here, and this is so basic it's simply not worth spending anymore energy on in my opinion.

If you consume factory-farmed meats, dairy, and eggs you are supporting the industry. This is a no-brainer. I would ask anyone here who is still an omnivore to be honest enough to admit this. No judgments intended. This is not about judgment. I am not pointing the finger at what is "not right." I am simply asking that we converse with humility and honesty. Self-honesty being the primary desire. 

This idea that the OIC desires to experience itself is a good theory in my opinion. It makes sense to me. But I am here, veiled, with extremely limited understanding of reality. This is a theory only. So let's not use this theory as an irrefutable fact to justify participating in cruelty. If someone wants to participate in cruelty, it is their choice, no matter what the recipient of that cruelly wants on whatever level of reality.

I do accept the causes and effects of my acts.

Perhaps there are beings in the universe who just go around doing nothing but experiencing whatever there is to experience on whatever planet or existence, in service to the OIC. This sounds very much like Christians to me. They do what someone else wants (God). They don't think for themselves or discover their own purpose, they only serve the supposed purpose of some(thing)else. Which, someone here may make into a purpose. But what kind of purpose is that? It's one-sided, and STS if you think about it. It's using others for what you want.

Well of course it seems STS, but it is good to note that we each are the exploration of ourselves, which is in a way why polarity ultimately becomes harmonized in awareness. You having no great desire to polarize negatively and that you would find no pleasure in what STS entities find pleasure in, is the result of your past. Through many other paths of experiences you also became all of these one-sided entities.

It's interesting to me that the Ra Material was so intellectual and sophisticated in content. I see in our conversations here the actual motion of paradoxes being revealed and us trying to resolve them. Certainly because the material is so complex, we find ourselves in complex conversations.

I don't mean to disparage anyone's opinions, especially you ETM in this post, as I enjoy your perspectives and everyone's here. I like diversity. But I feel sometimes we get bogged down with minutiae or addictions to opinions. In the meantime, countless animals are suffering as we type. 

I cannot change the way I feel, or perhaps my participation in these threads is a way to open myself to allow a change to take place.

It is not like I disagree with your ways either, I do find that all of you people are beautiful beings in your compassion.

[Monica]

From what I had understood, you want others to be declining a service.

Then you have misunderstood.

As I've explained many times in these ongoing discussions, my motivation (along with the other vegetarians/vegans) is to answer the call of the oppressed. It has nothing to do with wanting anyone to do anything.

Acceptance while declining is something that can only be done by self. In that view, I am not trying to convince anyone to change any of their ways, I am only expressing the self that I am and nothing more.

Exactly!

Then understand that we are all channel unto different things. I repeat this because it is a feeling I got multiple times I guess.

Then it's based on misperception.

Well this is a common mistake in 3D, you do have my apologies.

OK thanks.

Your rapist analogy resonate very little since I have no desire for rape, nor did I ever let myself think badly of rapists and such. If I were to contemplate a rapist, I'd probably feel sad for the entity rather than feeling repulsed by it like you seem to be.

You don't have to have a desire for rape to understand an intellectual analogy. And, it's possible to simultaneously feel compassion and love for the rapist, while still feeling repulsion for an act that isn't in resonance with one's polarity. Those aren't mutually exclusive.

...

[Minyatur]

The rest of the quote also was interesting as we are arguing upon paradoxes in which I see a desire to not see them being resolved.

How curious. In my perception, it seems that there is a high tendency to cherry-pick certain Ra quotes at the exclusion of others, which creates unresolved paradox. In my view, the only way to resolve the paradox is to integrate ALL of Ra's words, as a whole.

I don't see any conflict or unresolved paradox in the Material. But I see a lot of that in various interpretations which focus on only certain quotes.

Even focusing on a single quote about unity isn't unity!!! If that were the case, then there would have been No need for Ra to ever say anything else. Unity is taking ALL of the Material, and integrating all of it together. Even that's not total unity because surely much went unsaid, but at least we have a large body of Material to work with.

...

I believe the Ra material presents the Law of One through an undistorted description of it which is the end goal of all entities, but also presents it through the scope of their own distortions which is their own ever changing process of embodying further the Law of One in an undistorted manner. As Ra said, just like any of us they are still walking the steps of light.

I believe what is hard in 6D is to let go of what self always has been, which is true in both the case of a STO and STS background. The identity is let go off, further and further. 3D allows one to do this process much faster in the confusion of self having forgotten what it always had been so far.

Ultimately, me or Ra or you, we are all the exact same thing.