Why I am not a vegan

[Monica]

What do you think happens to the souls of all the animals who are slaughtered? Are they just hoarded somewhere, traumatized and in need of healing?

I know that question was directed at Diana and you won't be responding to me anymore, but I'm going to offer my own idea anyway:

I think that some of those souls might be evolving rapidly, but many of them are populating a very dark, STS planet, worse than Earth. They have graduated to 3D and are becoming sociopathic humans on some planet somewhere. (It has been proven that severely abused children are more likely to be sociopaths...and what is a sociopath but one whose heart is blocked...ie STS?) Humans' 'taste' for meat is creating STS populations. I shudder at the thought.

[Diana]

You still have not answered why exactly it is not conducive to spiritual seeking? (Also, I would state here that I don't know what the extent of your knowledge is on magical and spiritual-cultural traditions, but I can assure you that there are numerous paths that do not in any way insist on vegetarianism or include that meat is negative to eat.)

I was taught through Gnostic alchemy that the red meats feed the vital energies of the bodies and yes are most certainly to be eaten in moderation. There is a process of transmutation that ALL energy entering the body goes through regardless of where it comes from. Food, of course, is the least effective for directly feeding the consciousness, with breathing and raw impressions being the most direct.

I would highly suggest taking a look at more Western esoteric views as honestly in my experience the huge focus on vegetarianism comes mostly from Eastern schools such as Hinduism, Buddhism and the like. (And even then, most of them include in their tantras the art of transmutation.)

Fair enough.

There are many paths. I really don't care about any of them at all. I follow my own path. I have, however, read a lot. I'm familiar with just about all of it. (I am very curious and like to be open to everything.)

I understand what you are saying. But it starts at point B (taking the substance into the body). Point A is: where and what was the substance and its purpose or life or destiny—before that.

I care about that part. I don't just care about me and what I am doing with all the items in the world as pertains to how I can use them for my own purposes. I think that might be a key difference between STO and STS.

As to eating meat not being conducive to spiritual seeking, let me put this another way. It depends on what you are seeking to evolve toward. Love, peace, beauty for all (STO), stop participating in cruelty to achieve it. The STS way, which is valid up to a point of evolution, feel free to use other-selves as you will.

[Monica]

Once again, your insinuations as to my character with hints of "Well if you don't feel that way, and you don't care about the feelings, it's not my fault you're STS, blah blah blah" is obtuse and completely ridiculous.

I can only respond to what you say. You continually champion the 'well both paths are equally fine' mentality, and based on your own words, seem to not understand that causing suffering isn't cool. What am I supposed to think?

I never said you were STS. I actually don't even think you're STS. I have, however, observed a popular trend here at B4 towards the 'both paths are cool so don't bother choosing STO' mentality. Many people here at B4 seem to think that way. I'm not judging them; just stating my observation.

To me, it is a given that STO is the preferred path. I never said you were STS, but if you don't share my bias towards STO, then I have no judgment towards you, but it does explain why we aren't connecting on these concepts.

---

But people haven't made the choice it seems. It seems that this experiment has failed and all we have to show for it is an immense amount of suffering. The logos just seems like a big jerk from my limited perspective. What about all the other 3d planets in the universe? Do they have such a heavy veil? Eh whatever's

Agreed! I'm starting a campaign to petition the Logos to cancel the experiment.

---

What for? Experience? It seems that experience is valued over the well being of the inhabitants of the planet. Doesn't seem particularly loving to me. What kind of a parent does that.

Exactly. Sure, from the perspective of the Logos, it's all good, but from down here in the trenches, it sucketh.

I think the Logos needs a reminder of what it feels like down here. I'm hoping that if enough of us wake up, we can do something about it.

[Unbound]

Quite a nightmare you have built for yourself.

Also, I would like to mention here that at no point whatsoever does Ra state that eating meat is STS and even at times suggests it.

102.16 ↥ Questioner: Would Ra please mention which foods are highly probable in not causing any spasming in the instrument’s digestive system?

Ra: I am Ra. The liquids not containing carbonation, the well-cooked vegetable which is most light and soft, the well-cooked grains, the non-fatted meat such as the fish. You may note that some recommended foodstuffs overlap allergies and sensitivities due to the juvenile rheumatoid arthritic distortions. Further, although sugar such as is in your sweetened desserts represents a potential, we may suggest that it be included at this period for aforementioned reasons.

Here Ra suggests eating fish and also doesn't make any mention of other meats being problematic.

18.4 ↥ Questioner: Are there any foods that are helpful or harmful that the instrument might eat?

Ra: I am Ra. This instrument has body complex distortion towards ill health in the distortion direction corrected best by ingestion of the foodstuffs of your grains and your vegetables, as you call them. However, this is extremely unimportant when regarded as an aid with equality to other aids such as attitude which this instrument has in abundance. It, however, aids the vital energies of this instrument, with less distortion towards ill health, to ingest foodstuffs in the above manner with occasional ingestion of what you call your meats, due to the instrument’s need to lessen the distortion towards low vital energy.

Here Ra suggests the eating of meats to assist with low vital energy which is along the lines of what I have said.

84.2 ↥ Questioner: In the last session you mentioned least distorted complex protein in that the body complex of the instrument was capable of greatly increased distortion. Would you define the protein of which you spoke and we would like to know, increased distortion in which direction, towards health or ill-health?

Ra: I am Ra. We were, in the cautionary statement about complex protein, referring to the distortions of the 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 in order to avoid increasing this particular entity’s distortions which may be loosely termed allergic.

Here they talk about watching out for preservatives and trying to get the most fresh and "clean" meat, but once again, makes no suggestion that it is STS to eat meat or that it negatively impacts the animals.

40.14 ↥ 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. The vegetables, the fruits, the grains, and to the extent necessary for the individual metabolism, the animal products. These are those substances showing respect for the self. In addition, though this has not been mentioned, for this instrument is not in need of purification, those entities in need of purging the self of a poison thought-form or emotion complex do well to take care in following a program of careful fasting until the destructive thought-form has been purged analogously with the by-products of ridding the physical vehicle of excess material. Again you see the value not to the body complex but used as a link for the mind and spirit. Thus self reveals self to self.

Here it pretty clearly states that some individuals for their metabolism do require animal products so again, no word from Ra that ingesting things from animals is inherently negative.

My point here is to make it clear to everyone who might read that your suggestion that meat-eating is inevitably STS has absolutely nothing to do with the philosophy of the Ra Material is completely your own interpretation/fabrication. Just to make it clear that Ra does not condemn the eating of meat.

[Diana]

What do you think happens to the souls of all the animals who are slaughtered? Are they just hoarded somewhere, traumatized and in need of healing?

I have no certain idea. I just don't want to contribute to suffering for so many reasons.

I would speculate that their souls will follow a path derived from the accumulated experience. This experience will now include torture, fear, pain, suffering, victimization . . .

[Unbound]

You still have not answered why exactly it is not conducive to spiritual seeking? (Also, I would state here that I don't know what the extent of your knowledge is on magical and spiritual-cultural traditions, but I can assure you that there are numerous paths that do not in any way insist on vegetarianism or include that meat is negative to eat.)

I was taught through Gnostic alchemy that the red meats feed the vital energies of the bodies and yes are most certainly to be eaten in moderation. There is a process of transmutation that ALL energy entering the body goes through regardless of where it comes from. Food, of course, is the least effective for directly feeding the consciousness, with breathing and raw impressions being the most direct.

I would highly suggest taking a look at more Western esoteric views as honestly in my experience the huge focus on vegetarianism comes mostly from Eastern schools such as Hinduism, Buddhism and the like. (And even then, most of them include in their tantras the art of transmutation.)

Fair enough.

There are many paths. I really don't care about any of them at all. I follow my own path. I have, however, read a lot. I'm familiar with just about all of it. (I am very curious and like to be open to everything.)

I understand what you are saying. But it starts at point B (taking the substance into the body). Point A is: where and what was the substance and its purpose or life or destiny—before that.

I care about that part. I don't just care about me and what I am doing with all the items in the world as pertains to how I can use them for my own purposes. I think that might be a key difference between STO and STS.

As to eating meat not being conducive to spiritual seeking, let me put this another way. It depends on what you are seeking to evolve toward. Love, peace, beauty for all (STO), stop participating in cruelty to achieve it. The STS way, which is valid up to a point of evolution, feel free to use other-selves as you will.

I believe that in the pursuit of STO it requires the acceptance of all things, and so I accept the realities and the entities whom do not wish for love, peace, beauty for all things.

What is my path? To suggest my entire path of service to others is "negated" by meat-eating is ridiculous. To suggest that because I eat meat that I am not focused on STO is purely putting words in my mouth.

What bothers me the most about your perspective is that it is all based on a particular philosophy and this philosophy is treated like it is more or less fact.

Also, a great article here on vegetarianism and Buddhism.

http://engageddharma.com/practice/buddhists-eat-meat/

---

What do you think happens to the souls of all the animals who are slaughtered? Are they just hoarded somewhere, traumatized and in need of healing?

I have no certain idea. I just don't want to contribute to suffering for so many reasons.

I would speculate that their souls will follow a path derived from the accumulated experience. This experience will now include torture, fear, pain, suffering, victimization . . .

What soul doesn't include that in their experience, especially as they move in to greater awareness of themselves as all things?

I agree, and I don't want to contribute to suffering either, but where we disagree on isn't on the principle, but on method.

---

Once again, your insinuations as to my character with hints of "Well if you don't feel that way, and you don't care about the feelings, it's not my fault you're STS, blah blah blah" is obtuse and completely ridiculous.

I can only respond to what you say. You continually champion the 'well both paths are equally fine' mentality, and based on your own words, seem to not understand that causing suffering isn't cool. What am I supposed to think?

I never said you were STS. I actually don't even think you're STS. I have, however, observed a popular trend here at B4 towards the 'both paths are cool so don't bother choosing STO' mentality. Many people here at B4 seem to think that way. I'm not judging them; just stating my observation.

To me, it is a given that STO is the preferred path. I never said you were STS, but if you don't share my bias towards STO, then I have no judgment towards you, but it does explain why we aren't connecting on these concepts.

---

But people haven't made the choice it seems. It seems that this experiment has failed and all we have to show for it is an immense amount of suffering. The logos just seems like a big jerk from my limited perspective. What about all the other 3d planets in the universe? Do they have such a heavy veil? Eh whatever's

Agreed! I'm starting a campaign to petition the Logos to cancel the experiment.

---

What for? Experience? It seems that experience is valued over the well being of the inhabitants of the planet. Doesn't seem particularly loving to me. What kind of a parent does that.

Exactly. Sure, from the perspective of the Logos, it's all good, but from down here in the trenches, it sucketh.

I think the Logos needs a reminder of what it feels like down here. I'm hoping that if enough of us wake up, we can do something about it.

Actually, no, I am not championing the "both paths are valid" but I am thoroughly disagreeing with your assessment and interpretation as to the principles and structure of the STO path. You seemed convinced that your understanding is "right".

[Monica]

I would like to mention here that at no point whatsoever does Ra state that eating meat is STS and even at times suggests it....

My point here is to make it clear to everyone who might read that your suggestion that meat-eating is inevitably STS has absolutely nothing to do with the philosophy of the Ra Material is completely your own interpretation/fabrication. Just to make it clear that Ra does not condemn the eating of meat.

But...but...Ra told Carla to eat meat!!! That means Ra favors the eating of meat, right?
Post #740
Post #1442
Post #2915

[Unbound]

Cool, another slew of your own opinions.

I never said Ra favors the eating of meat, I said they do not condemn it as STS.

[Monica]

Cool, another slew of your own opinions.

Whose opinions am I supposed to have?

I never said Ra favors the eating of meat,

Maybe 'approves' would have been a better choice of word, rather than 'favors.'

That was copied and pasted from the old thread. No point in repeating what has already been said! Those posts include comments from others also, not just me.

If my comments seem 'blunt' to you, you might feel differently if you read those early discussions. I was a lot more careful to dance around back then. I hope you can find a bit of compassion for us vegetarians who've been at this for a few years now...It has been wearying.

I said they do not condemn it as STS.

That specific point was addressed in the posts I just linked.

[Diana]

I believe that in the pursuit of STO it requires the acceptance of all things, and so I accept the realities and the entities whom do not wish for love, peace, beauty for all things.

That's fine. I accept it too. I just personally don't want to contribute to an evolutionary trajectory that includes pain, suffering, torture, etc.

What is my path? To suggest my entire path of service to others is "negated" by meat-eating is ridiculous. To suggest that because I eat meat that I am not focused on STO is purely putting words in my mouth.

I didn't say that. Please don't twist my words.

Whatever your path is and how you choose to traverse it is your business. I was just pointing out that using other-selves for one's own purposes seems to align with the STS agenda. Does it not?

What bothers me the most about your perspective is that it is all based on a particular philosophy and this philosophy is treated like it is more or less fact.

I disagree.

I am always pointing out the aspects of my posts I treat as my own working theories. Certain things ARE facts, such as how plants propagate.

Please elaborate if you still think I am trying to present my theories as fact.

Also, a great article here on vegetarianism and Buddhism.

http://engageddharma.com/practice/buddhists-eat-meat/

---

I doubt I will read it. I don't care about Buddhism or any other dogma. But if you have a point, please post it.

What do you think happens to the souls of all the animals who are slaughtered? Are they just hoarded somewhere, traumatized and in need of healing?

I have no certain idea. I just don't want to contribute to suffering for so many reasons.

I would speculate that their souls will follow a path derived from the accumulated experience. This experience will now include torture, fear, pain, suffering, victimization . . .

What soul doesn't include that in their experience, especially as they move in to greater awareness of themselves as all things?

I agree, and I don't want to contribute to suffering either, but where we disagree on isn't on the principle, but on method.

That's fine. I like discussion, it satisfies my restless intellect.

[Unbound]

I will just answer to the point that I am just stimulating ideas. I don't really have a point, I just try to break rigidity wherever I see it.

---

At the end of the day, I will do what I do, you will do what you do, and when we face death we will only have ourselves to judge us.

[Diana]

Cool, another slew of your own opinions.

No need to be so sarcastic. What's wrong with opinions here?

I never said Ra favors the eating of meat, I said they do not condemn it as STS.

Does Ra, or any other being, have to tell us every single detail of what or what not to do? Sounds like dogma to me.

Whatever Ra, or Q'uo, or any other channeled entity says, I will do my own thinking.

Witness the first bolded words below:

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. The vegetables, the fruits, the grains, and to the extent necessary for the individual metabolism, the animal products. These are those substances showing respect for the self.

And this:

Thus it is the care and respect for the self that is the true thing of importance.

I would add that when considering this statement, we don't know from where it is derived. Perhaps Carla's health was so bad she needed to focus only on her physical being. From this perspective, only one person's physical health was the issue, and not the more inclusive issue of what is good for the ALL (aside from the idea that what is good for one adds to the good of all; but there are more inclusive ways to participate in the good of the ALL rather than just helping one's self), and the complex considerations thereof.

I also don't agree that anyone needs animal products. But I am not as rigid as you say. In fact, I'm not rigid at all. I am open and not closed. However, if I have opinions, I don't just waver like a blade of grass in the wind. My opinions are based on extensive consideration and research, yet I don't make a dogma of any of it.

I have no "beliefs." But I do use so-called facts in my considerations. These facts are based on observation and are empirical, such as how plants propagate.

---

One more thing, Unbound. You seem to be an adept at certain things, or at least very learned. Bear with me here as I try to articulate my question.

The idea of transmutation is intriguing. I like it as it coincides with what I conjecture an artist's potential is: someone who has powers of visualization, who can do the visualizing for those without such gifts. So, in the case of an artist, why just paint what is, or write about what is? Why not gift the world with what could be, to help others see potentials? To assist in the transmutation of energies toward the evolution you envision.

Within this context, how does it work in the context of animal suffering? Wouldn't that be infringing on the will of others to transmute their experience? For instance, a cow suffers and is slaughtered, you eat the cow, you transmute the energy of the suffering and the cruelty that created it, and lift it to that of love. Isn't that controlling that energy consciously?

It seems a better approach to create this transmutation from the standpoint of letting it evolve naturally by not participating in it at all, and sending the energy of love out to all as a matter of course. It seems to me it would also require so much less energy to accomplish. And it wouldn't be infringing upon any free will—even the free will to create fear and suffering as an STS being is said to do.

What are your thoughts on this? I'm very interested in getting another perspective. That is, if I have made myself clear at all, which is dubious considering the subject matter.

[Monica]

I will just answer to the point that I am just stimulating ideas. I don't really have a point, I just try to break rigidity wherever I see it.

Interestingly, I often do that too...I think rigidity is generally something to be avoided.

But there is a difference between having convictions/aspirations/ideals and being dogmatic/narrow-minded/rigid. Do you also try to break down people's convictions or tear down their ideals? Do you think convictions/ideals are ever good?

I do. I think aspiring to ideals is a good thing. I don't consider that rigid, as in dogmatic.

Tearing down ideals just for the sake of it serves no purpose, other than to entertain.

Thank you for acknowledging that you 'have no point.' I am interested in serious discussion of this topic, not to entertain.

[Monica]

From this weeks L/Lresearch newsletter (originally channeled on October 16, 2010 http://www.llresearch.org/transcripts/is..._1016.aspx ):

Now, how shall an entity whose consciousness is that of pure love feed its body? We notice that you focus upon meat and the eating of it as the arena of choice. And before we address that question we would note that not only the animals but the plants also are growing within the creation of the Father, blooming and dying at a rhythm of their own. In a very real way, it is as much of an offense, one may say, to pluck a bean or dig a potato from the ground as it is to slaughter an animal, for you have interrupted the cycle of its life and its dancing with the Creator as you do so. But to focus upon this is to digress from your query. And so we would focus upon the slaughter of animals and the responsibility that an entity has if he chooses to eat meat.

One valid choice that many of those who have awakened have made is not to eat meat and to find ways to furnish the body with the protein that meat offers by eating other substances, such as legumes, which contain protein. [1]

Another choice that an awakened entity has, as the questioner said, is to move to the purchase only of meats that have been humanely slaughtered. There are two sources of such meats that are generally available to entities within a reasonable amount of distance from where they live. One is to seek out a kosher store [2] which sells meat, knowing that the priests of that religion have treated animals well and have slaughtered them in a sacred ritual which is taken most seriously by those priests.

The other is to find a biodynamic source where the same feeling of sacredness surrounds the appreciation of mammals while they live and the humane slaughter of them when it is time for them to feed their humans.

And as the one known as J said, barring those choices, there is always the metaphysically correct choice of relating to the animal in that timeless condition which is called “metaphysical time” wherein all things occur simultaneously, so that you are able to contact any animal, before you eat it, no matter how abused or how slaughtered. And as you contact this animal, you express your love of this animal and your appreciation for all that the animal has gone through in order to give you its energy, its consciousness, such as it is, and its love, which is very real. So, in praise, prayer and thanksgiving you heal the division between you and the meat and the animal from which that meat came.

And as you do this to your meat, dancing with the meat, becoming one with the meat, you are in effect lifting that energy to the infinite Creator, blessing it and healing all that has gone before, for the animal and for you.

Indeed, we would note that it is not only the eating of meat, but every single action undertaken by you, no matter how humble or small, that has the capability and potentiality of becoming sacred, so that you at all times are giving thanks, offering praise, and opening to the experiences that have been given to you to walk in.

How timely!

I have chosen the Law of One as my spiritual foundation because it resonates deeply, and I have found almost nothing in the Ra Material that didn't resonate. Carla, Jim and Don did a fabulous service in allowing this material to be channeled virtually UNdistorted.

However, I don't feel the same way about the Q'uo material, though it surely has many gems! For starters, it was consciously channeled by Carla, and although she has done her utmost to be as clear a channel as possible, any conscious channeling is going to have some degree of distortion.

Just as the Edgar Cayce material had a 'Christian' flavor because Cayce was a Christian, so too does the Q'uo material have Carla's own flavoring, due to her biases and distortions. (We all have biases and distortions.)

This doesn't take away from my love and appreciation for Carla! But I wouldn't take everything in the Q'uo sessions as absolute authoritative. Anyway, Q'uo has always encouraged us to use discernment. This is definitely one of those times when discernment is important! It's an easy one because it is easily verifiable: a mainstream, popular myth is attributed to Q'uo, when surely Q'uo would have known the truth about kosher.

Pablisimo said it best:

I think we need to keep in mind the potential for distortion in consciously channeled messages. Unlike in the Ra contact, Qu'o is channeled with full waking consciousness and thus, in my view, there is far more potential for distortion due to bias of the group.

We may never settle the veg vs animal flesh issue in the context of the spiritual life on this thread. It is not a simple matter. However, what I believe is undeniable is that this topic arouses fierce passions in people. Discussing the consumption of animal flesh, especially in a spiritual context, causes intense reactions in many of us, on both sides of the issue. There is an ardor, a passion, an almost uncontrollable urge to speak one's mind and perspective on the issue that the topic provokes. It's all too easy to dismiss a vegetarian stating their cause as deluded and self-righteous...the same as one could dismiss one who chooses to eat animals as just guilty and deluded. I hope we can be more mature than that, but with this post I'm not stating a position. What I AM trying to establish most of all is that this topic is one that is hard to have an ambiguous view on -- the vast majority of us tend to have a strong bias one way or the other.

So it would seem to me that any area where passions are this strong would be a prime candidate for distortion in conscious channeling. How could the channel and the group NOT have a strong opinion on something like this? This de-tuning due to bias would degrade the quality of the channeled information. Let's examine the next part of that quote in this context:

Quo Wrote:
....One is to seek out a kosher store [2] which sells meat, knowing that the priests of that religion have treated animals well and have slaughtered them in a sacred ritual which is taken most seriously by those priests....."

This is simply not true. Jewish rabbis generally do not raise these animals and so one cannot say that they "have treated animals well", nor do they normally slaughter them directly so one also cannot say it is done in "a sacred ritual which is taken most seriously by those priests". Kosher rules refer to how an animal is slaughtered and how the flesh is handled afterwards. There is no guarantee that an animal was treated well during their LIFETIME, any more than an organic label necessarily means that an animal was treated well. There are many common misconceptions about this topic, but the slaughter does not have to be done by a rabbi, it can be (and usually is) done by an agent that they approve of. There is no sacred blessing that goes on during the ceremony. The ritual is basically that a sharp knife is used to cut the throat of the animal and it is allowed to bleed to death through the neck. The animal is not stunned beforehand.

So you can raise an animal in typical, terrible, agri-business factory farm conditions, and as long as an approved agent slashes their neck with a sharp knife and allows the animal to bleed to death, it's Kosher. Of course, there are also post-slaughter handling rules that are very strict involving inspection of the carcass and sanitation, but in no way does purchasing Kosher meat tell the seeker anything about how the animal was treated.

And in regards to the slaughter method, proponents of this approach maintain that it is a more humane way to kill the animal, that they lose consciousness within a few seconds. There is a fierce debate on this topic as opponents of the practice say that stunning the animal first would be more humane and that animals killed in the Kosher fashion often survive for several minutes in agony. It's far from settled, but you can read more about Kosher topics and watch graphic videos of this method of slaughter here:

http://www.peta.org/features/kosher-vegetarian.aspx
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HZnQmc3U9I

-----------

Of course Qu'o would know all of this about animal flesh killed in the Kosher fashion, and I'm sure Carla didn't make up the channeled message. What I'd like to offer for consideration is that perhaps because of her own personal bias that eating animal flesh is acceptable, and her own personal beliefs that Kosher or "biodynamic" animal flesh is more acceptable, that some de-tuning occurred in this contact. That's the only explanation I have for why something so factually inaccurate would have made it into a Qu'o transcript. It's also why I suspect the topic was not explored in any depth in the Ra material. Strong bias detunes contact.

That said, let's not judge the channel, nor anyone else as we debate this topic further, respectfully and with care. We all have our own biases, myself included, and we are all struggling to find balance and do what's right in the confusing phase of existence we find ourselves in. None of us has all the answers and should remember to be humble and kind to our other-selves as we discuss this issue. However, I think we owe it to ourselves to use our own discernment when evaluating channeled information, even when the source is well known and with established purity. Discernment.

Pablisimo said it well. I would take it a step further and suggest that this particular channeling session got more than just detuned, but even infiltrated.

And as you do this to your meat, dancing with the meat, becoming one with the meat, you are in effect lifting that energy to the infinite Creator, blessing it and healing all that has gone before, for the animal and for you.

Dancing with a younger other-self's violated, dead body? How would we perceive this Q'uote if it said:

And as you do this to your murdered human victim, dancing with her dead body, becoming one with the corpse, you are in effect lifting that energy to the infinite Creator, blessing it and healing all that has gone before, for your human victim and for you.

How does that work?

---

As you said, people haven't made the choice, and that is why there is such an immense amount of suffering.

Precisely!!! Are you acknowledging that our choices can help alleviate suffering?

Why, then, would we not want to do that, if we can? This is what baffles me. How can we expect the world to suddenly go poof and be 4D, when we aren't even making nonviolent, compassionate choices ourselves?

In my mind, suffering is part of a polarity, a duality. What might the opposite of suffering be?

Peace, happiness, joy, bliss...cool stuff like that.

[Diana]

The above quote from Pablisimo that Monica reposted is awesome. He was so kind, intelligent, and fair-minded. I wish he was still here on B4. :/

[Unbound]

Cool, another slew of your own opinions.

No need to be so sarcastic. What's wrong with opinions here?

I never said Ra favors the eating of meat, I said they do not condemn it as STS.

Does Ra, or any other being, have to tell us every single detail of what or what not to do? Sounds like dogma to me.

Whatever Ra, or Q'uo, or any other channeled entity says, I will do my own thinking.

Witness the first bolded words below:

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. The vegetables, the fruits, the grains, and to the extent necessary for the individual metabolism, the animal products. These are those substances showing respect for the self.

And this:

Thus it is the care and respect for the self that is the true thing of importance.

I would add that when considering this statement, we don't know from where it is derived. Perhaps Carla's health was so bad she needed to focus only on her physical being. From this perspective, only one person's physical health was the issue, and not the more inclusive issue of what is good for the ALL (aside from the idea that what is good for one adds to the good of all; but there are more inclusive ways to participate in the good of the ALL rather than just helping one's self), and the complex considerations thereof.

I also don't agree that anyone needs animal products. But I am not as rigid as you say. In fact, I'm not rigid at all. I am open and not closed. However, if I have opinions, I don't just waver like a blade of grass in the wind. My opinions are based on extensive consideration and research, yet I don't make a dogma of any of it.

I have no "beliefs." But I do use so-called facts in my considerations. These facts are based on observation and are empirical, such as how plants propagate.

---

One more thing, Unbound. You seem to be an adept at certain things, or at least very learned. Bear with me here as I try to articulate my question.

The idea of transmutation is intriguing. I like it as it coincides with what I conjecture an artist's potential is: someone who has powers of visualization, who can do the visualizing for those without such gifts. So, in the case of an artist, why just paint what is, or write about what is? Why not gift the world with what could be, to help others see potentials? To assist in the transmutation of energies toward the evolution you envision.

Within this context, how does it work in the context of animal suffering? Wouldn't that be infringing on the will of others to transmute their experience? For instance, a cow suffers and is slaughtered, you eat the cow, you transmute the energy of the suffering and the cruelty that created it, and lift it to that of love. Isn't that controlling that energy consciously?

It seems a better approach to create this transmutation from the standpoint of letting it evolve naturally by not participating in it at all, and sending the energy of love out to all as a matter of course. It seems to me it would also require so much less energy to accomplish. And it wouldn't be infringing upon any free will—even the free will to create fear and suffering as an STS being is said to do.

What are your thoughts on this? I'm very interested in getting another perspective. That is, if I have made myself clear at all, which is dubious considering the subject matter.

I appreciate your question and I understand what you are asking. The confusion in particular lies in the fact that it hasn't been clearly expressed what the proposed "technique" of transmutation is (since until now, no one has asked.)

From the perspective of the creature, once it dies its body is cast aside as a shell. This shell contains the "memory" of the life of its body. The mind and spirit move on to work with a new body. In my understanding, what is left behind is no longer the animal, it is residue or remnants of a memory of what the animal once was. It is an imprint left behind as an artifact in the world of motion and change.

What normally happens to this body? Generally it decomposes, it is eaten by earthen creatures of various forms from bacteria to birds and is thus consumed again by the earth itself.

So then we talk about energy and how the body of the animal has the energy or at least the signature of the experiences of the animal as it lived in life, locked inside its cells and its materials. We say if the animal experienced pain and suffering then that is left behind in the body of the creature, just the same as if it experience joy. However, we must always remember that what is left behind is a memory, as once the creature leaves it shell behind it is moving on to a new body, new experience and new field of growth.

Thus, in fact, I see it that I have no influence over the soul of the animal once it dies, it has already transitioned on to a new path. Should it need healing, it will immediately be guided to do so by its higher density attendants.

Now, that being said, what then is the significance of eating the body of the creature? Well it can be looked at from numerous perspectives but the one I want to bring attention to is one of communion.

There is the idea that we, by eating the body of the creature, then "take on" or take in to ourselves all that the creature experiences and whatever memory is left attached to its body. We therefore do not take responsibility for the soul or continuous development of the being, they are doing that on their own, but rather we take on the essence of the life that was lived.

Now, don't get me wrong, I do agree with you that individuals who eat much of this without any knowledge or effort of transmutation will indeed simply "absorb" those energies and since they will not know how or be unable to transmute them (which means to raise their vibration, or to refine the energies so they can work in higher and higher centers). This can most certainly make one sick and even depressed over time (unless they are the type of being who enjoys eating those kinds of emotions).

Then, to the topic of transmutation there are techniques. The first is to treat the matter as it is, as raw material, unattached to any mind (other than the ALL of course). Thus, it is organized and brought in to order through blessing. (I believe that the effects Emoto has discovered regarding water is actually universal for all matter, just that water is a sensitive medium for receiving thought.) Then the experiences brought in to the self are faced and embraced. Thus, it would then entail putting oneself in the position of the animal, experiencing that, and accepting the essence of the experience. Once this has been done many times it becomes pretty quick to do.

Now, this is the fulcrum of the point and what I have been trying to express. You can't "save" an animal after it is dead, nor can you alleviate its suffering, it has already experienced those things. Also, since the actual entity has moved on, there isn't really any "healing" you can do for it per se, short of, of course, sending love, light and healing to the entity itself, but this is not the same as dealing with the body. This is why when I talk about these things I put the emphasis on the humans, because once the animal is dead and its shell is left behind, the question comes to how it influences the on-going life around it.

We mostly understand that there is a planetary mind that is the collective of all minds on the planet as well as maybe being a thing in itself. Thus, we understand that the memory of every body also is part of the collective mind. The Earth "cleanses" and purifies energy by returning it to a "neutral" state. Now while this is effective for emotional energy and such that results from trauma, it doesn't actually change the existence of the thoughts of pain in the mind of the planet.

The act of eating is a ritual act. The act of eating is a ritual which brings one in to "oneness" with whatever is being ingested. Therefore, eating meat is a ritual act which puts one in contact with the animal element of the collective mind, just as eating plants puts on in contact with the plant element of the collective mind.

One who is not aware of this will most likely just exchange with that mind the aspects of the animal which are locked within the body, however, by transmuting the energies which are locked in the body, it enables you to evoke a more advanced portion of that animal element of the collective mind. Thus, through consumption, transmutation and contact one is able to call forth the beings that tend to the animal kingdom, also known as devas. Through this, one is then able to heal the memory locked in the collective mind by "releasing" it from its lower vibrational pattern, remembering that our own minds are also part of the collective mind and thus it is directly relevant to both ourselves and the animals to do this kind of healing.

Thus, therefore, although the Earth is easily able to transmute the raw energies, physical and emotional, it is through mental transmutation that the ideas associated with the animals themselves are evolved.

Thus, in effect, the work of transmutation in this context is intended towards multiple effects:

1. Healing of the planetary mind through the transmutation of memories
2. Empowerment of the animal kingdom by contacting higher levels of animal consciousness which are the evoked in to the world and thus "fed back" to all other animals, thus where one suffered, many may benefit through the increased chance for self-awareness
3. The modification of the human element of the planetary mind by induction, or rather, by transmuting ideas it becomes more available to the average human, and thus with this I project out the essence of honour, sacredness, respect and love
4. The opportunity for higher animal consciousness to have its expression through a conduit
5. The overall raising of consciousness of the planet by self-aware acts and processes intended for communion
6. The opportunity to seed forgiveness in to the planetary mind, and find forgiveness in the self

So you see, I don't do it "for myself" because the benefit it has for me personally is barely relevant, but neither do I do it "for the animal" because it doesn't really directly affect the animal either, what I do it for is the planetary mind. The work of transmutation is bigger than me or the animal, it is about all of us.

Now, you might ask, why does it require the act of eating in order to do this transmutation? The answer is because eating itself is a gateway, it is a ritualistic act, it causes a change in consciousness. I do it consciously so that it may become more available as a possibility in the collective mind for there to be consciousness while eating.

You asked, why not just leave it the way it is, isn't it controlling to try and "transmute" the lives of others?

Consider the fact that I do the exact same things and the same processes for all plants that I eat. Therefore, it is really not anyone else I am influencing, only myself, directly. Thus, to change the self is to change the world around you. Maybe one day, once humans have become more conscious of their activities it will be easy and obvious to say that we shouldn't kill animals for food, but I also don't expect that to happen over night. Rather, instead, there are still many people who eat meat, and the vast majority do it unconsciously and without appreciation.

The ideal is that there should be respect and compassion. Perhaps in time we don't need such methods of gaining sustenance, but at the moment, as it stands, there are many whom still are ingrained in those modes. From my perspective, it isn't realistic at this point in time to expect that the entire world is suddenly just going to go vegan, regardless of whatever evidence there may be for its benefits. This is because there is an idea locked in the collective mind that still lacks respect and appreciation for that which is given by other creatures.

Thus, my work is to try and transmute this idea, to call to a higher awareness and bring it in to the collective consciousness. I do this through eating meat as a form of sympathetic magic in that I believe that by eating with love, appreciation, compassion and transmutation, I am essentially providing a catalyst, sending a signal out in to the world, for others to do the same.

So while sure, we all want a world without suffering, I believe there are actually steps to that process and it's not going to happen "cold-turkey". At this point in time, it appears to me to be more effective and conducive to the overall mentality of the planet to address the lack of love and appreciation for what is given by offering out an idea to the collective mind that may be more and more grasped by any whom may be willing to perceive it.

I honestly do not believe that eating vegetarian will make others be nicer to animals, however, I do believe that by holding in my mind and my heart a more respectful, appreciative and compassionate attitude towards consumption the idea of a world in which there is less suffering becomes a more real possibility as it becomes a more prominent idea in the collective mind of humans.

In a nutshell, I see myself as an extension of the planet, thus, I am just fulfilling a function that the planet itself has. The Earth transmutes things back in to their natural materials, raw energies, through its purpose as an earthen body. We are a refinement of this purpose, as we are able to not only transmute things back to their natural state, we are actually capable of evolving them.

Thus, transmutation is not for my benefit or the benefit of the animal directly, but rather is meant to be directly beneficial to the mind of the planet itself by "resolving" conflict and chaos held within its memory. It is memory that is healed through this method, not the suffering that has occurred or the entity that the animal truly is nor even myself, but indirectly all are positively affected by the resolution and healing of dissonance in the planetary mind.

---

Also, protip: Violence isn't STS or STO and a "world without violence" would be all but empty and stagnant. To ignore the reality of violence is to severely cripple the red-ray. Violence plays a very important role in the balancing of the eco-system, so if some behaviour is to be vilified it should be a little more specific than "violence".

[Rhayader]

I refuse to believe that kosher/halal is in anyway a proper ritual or transmutation of any energy, it is the most horrific way to slaughter an animal.

[Diana]

I appreciate your question and I understand what you are asking. The confusion in particular lies in the fact that it hasn't been clearly expressed what the proposed "technique" of transmutation is (since until now, no one has asked.)

From the perspective of the creature, once it dies its body is cast aside as a shell. This shell contains the "memory" of the life of its body. The mind and spirit move on to work with a new body. In my understanding, what is left behind is no longer the animal, it is residue or remnants of a memory of what the animal once was. It is an imprint left behind as an artifact in the world of motion and change.

What normally happens to this body? Generally it decomposes, it is eaten by earthen creatures of various forms from bacteria to birds and is thus consumed again by the earth itself.

So then we talk about energy and how the body of the animal has the energy or at least the signature of the experiences of the animal as it lived in life, locked inside its cells and its materials. We say if the animal experienced pain and suffering then that is left behind in the body of the creature, just the same as if it experience joy. However, we must always remember that what is left behind is a memory, as once the creature leaves it shell behind it is moving on to a new body, new experience and new field of growth.

Thus, in fact, I see it that I have no influence over the soul of the animal once it dies, it has already transitioned on to a new path. Should it need healing, it will immediately be guided to do so by its higher density attendants.

Now, that being said, what then is the significance of eating the body of the creature? Well it can be looked at from numerous perspectives but the one I want to bring attention to is one of communion.

There is the idea that we, by eating the body of the creature, then "take on" or take in to ourselves all that the creature experiences and whatever memory is left attached to its body. We therefore do not take responsibility for the soul or continuous development of the being, they are doing that on their own, but rather we take on the essence of the life that was lived.

Now, don't get me wrong, I do agree with you that individuals who eat much of this without any knowledge or effort of transmutation will indeed simply "absorb" those energies and since they will not know how or be unable to transmute them (which means to raise their vibration, or to refine the energies so they can work in higher and higher centers). This can most certainly make one sick and even depressed over time (unless they are the type of being who enjoys eating those kinds of emotions).

Then, to the topic of transmutation there are techniques. The first is to treat the matter as it is, as raw material, unattached to any mind (other than the ALL of course). Thus, it is organized and brought in to order through blessing. (I believe that the effects Emoto has discovered regarding water is actually universal for all matter, just that water is a sensitive medium for receiving thought.) Then the experiences brought in to the self are faced and embraced. Thus, it would then entail putting oneself in the position of the animal, experiencing that, and accepting the essence of the experience. Once this has been done many times it becomes pretty quick to do.

Now, this is the fulcrum of the point and what I have been trying to express. You can't "save" an animal after it is dead, nor can you alleviate its suffering, it has already experienced those things. Also, since the actual entity has moved on, there isn't really any "healing" you can do for it per se, short of, of course, sending love, light and healing to the entity itself, but this is not the same as dealing with the body. This is why when I talk about these things I put the emphasis on the humans, because once the animal is dead and its shell is left behind, the question comes to how it influences the on-going life around it.

We mostly understand that there is a planetary mind that is the collective of all minds on the planet as well as maybe being a thing in itself. Thus, we understand that the memory of every body also is part of the collective mind. The Earth "cleanses" and purifies energy by returning it to a "neutral" state. Now while this is effective for emotional energy and such that results from trauma, it doesn't actually change the existence of the thoughts of pain in the mind of the planet.

The act of eating is a ritual act. The act of eating is a ritual which brings one in to "oneness" with whatever is being ingested. Therefore, eating meat is a ritual act which puts one in contact with the animal element of the collective mind, just as eating plants puts on in contact with the plant element of the collective mind.

One who is not aware of this will most likely just exchange with that mind the aspects of the animal which are locked within the body, however, by transmuting the energies which are locked in the body, it enables you to evoke a more advanced portion of that animal element of the collective mind. Thus, through consumption, transmutation and contact one is able to call forth the beings that tend to the animal kingdom, also known as devas. Through this, one is then able to heal the memory locked in the collective mind by "releasing" it from its lower vibrational pattern, remembering that our own minds are also part of the collective mind and thus it is directly relevant to both ourselves and the animals to do this kind of healing.

Thus, therefore, although the Earth is easily able to transmute the raw energies, physical and emotional, it is through mental transmutation that the ideas associated with the animals themselves are evolved.

Thus, in effect, the work of transmutation in this context is intended towards multiple effects:

1. Healing of the planetary mind through the transmutation of memories
2. Empowerment of the animal kingdom by contacting higher levels of animal consciousness which are the evoked in to the world and thus "fed back" to all other animals, thus where one suffered, many may benefit through the increased chance for self-awareness
3. The modification of the human element of the planetary mind by induction, or rather, by transmuting ideas it becomes more available to the average human, and thus with this I project out the essence of honour, sacredness, respect and love
4. The opportunity for higher animal consciousness to have its expression through a conduit
5. The overall raising of consciousness of the planet by self-aware acts and processes intended for communion
6. The opportunity to seed forgiveness in to the planetary mind, and find forgiveness in the self

So you see, I don't do it "for myself" because the benefit it has for me personally is barely relevant, but neither do I do it "for the animal" because it doesn't really directly affect the animal either, what I do it for is the planetary mind. The work of transmutation is bigger than me or the animal, it is about all of us.

Now, you might ask, why does it require the act of eating in order to do this transmutation? The answer is because eating itself is a gateway, it is a ritualistic act, it causes a change in consciousness. I do it consciously so that it may become more available as a possibility in the collective mind for there to be consciousness while eating.

You asked, why not just leave it the way it is, isn't it controlling to try and "transmute" the lives of others?

Consider the fact that I do the exact same things and the same processes for all plants that I eat. Therefore, it is really not anyone else I am influencing, only myself, directly. Thus, to change the self is to change the world around you. Maybe one day, once humans have become more conscious of their activities it will be easy and obvious to say that we shouldn't kill animals for food, but I also don't expect that to happen over night. Rather, instead, there are still many people who eat meat, and the vast majority do it unconsciously and without appreciation.

The ideal is that there should be respect and compassion. Perhaps in time we don't need such methods of gaining sustenance, but at the moment, as it stands, there are many whom still are ingrained in those modes. From my perspective, it isn't realistic at this point in time to expect that the entire world is suddenly just going to go vegan, regardless of whatever evidence there may be for its benefits. This is because there is an idea locked in the collective mind that still lacks respect and appreciation for that which is given by other creatures.

Thus, my work is to try and transmute this idea, to call to a higher awareness and bring it in to the collective consciousness. I do this through eating meat as a form of sympathetic magic in that I believe that by eating with love, appreciation, compassion and transmutation, I am essentially providing a catalyst, sending a signal out in to the world, for others to do the same.

So while sure, we all want a world without suffering, I believe there are actually steps to that process and it's not going to happen "cold-turkey". At this point in time, it appears to me to be more effective and conducive to the overall mentality of the planet to address the lack of love and appreciation for what is given by offering out an idea to the collective mind that may be more and more grasped by any whom may be willing to perceive it.

I honestly do not believe that eating vegetarian will make others be nicer to animals, however, I do believe that by holding in my mind and my heart a more respectful, appreciative and compassionate attitude towards consumption the idea of a world in which there is less suffering becomes a more real possibility as it becomes a more prominent idea in the collective mind of humans.

In a nutshell, I see myself as an extension of the planet, thus, I am just fulfilling a function that the planet itself has. The Earth transmutes things back in to their natural materials, raw energies, through its purpose as an earthen body. We are a refinement of this purpose, as we are able to not only transmute things back to their natural state, we are actually capable of evolving them.

Thus, transmutation is not for my benefit or the benefit of the animal directly, but rather is meant to be directly beneficial to the mind of the planet itself by "resolving" conflict and chaos held within its memory. It is memory that is healed through this method, not the suffering that has occurred or the entity that the animal truly is nor even myself, but indirectly all are positively affected by the resolution and healing of dissonance in the planetary mind.

---

Also, protip: Violence isn't STS or STO and a "world without violence" would be all but empty and stagnant. To ignore the reality of violence is to severely cripple the red-ray. Violence plays a very important role in the balancing of the eco-system, so if some behaviour is to be vilified it should be a little more specific than "violence".

I am very impressed with what you have described here as your purpose in the matter of transmuting energies and why you do it. It makes sense to me. Much more sense than the insipid: "I'll send love and say prayers to the animal as I consume its flesh." I just could never perceive any real intent coming from most who say that. But you obviously have direction and understanding.

I appreciate you describing this in the detail you have. I respect what you are doing. And it gives me food for thought (ha, no pun intended). This practice seems to be powerful and could have many applications, in other ways.

For my part, I could not eat animal flesh. I guess, in this, I am rigid. I couldn't buy it, because that would be supporting the system of cruelty. I couldn't raise animals for food, because I could never kill an animal (I don't even kill scorpions).

I honor the work you are doing from your end. And I will continue to do the work I am doing from my end.

[Unbound]

We are not all here to do the same work, we do not all play the same role. If we did, the world would probably fall apart. I play my role due to my capacity and capability for fulfilling the role. I would not recommend this to everyone, or even most people, but I know what is within my own scope of self and I honour and work with that as best as I am able. It has taken many years of deep study and intense meditation to reach the point where I am at, it has taken a LOT of effort, so I would never disillusion anyone in to thinking that transmutation is merely a matter of "having happy thoughts" while you eat or do anything, there is much more of a science to it.

---

Also, I would note that no, I do not HAVE to do this, but I do it because I genuinely believe in its effectiveness and worth.

[Matt1]

[Monica]

From the perspective of the creature, once it dies its body is cast aside as a shell. This shell contains the "memory" of the life of its body. The mind and spirit move on to work with a new body. In my understanding, what is left behind is no longer the animal, it is residue or remnants of a memory of what the animal once was. It is an imprint left behind as an artifact in the world of motion and change.

What normally happens to this body? Generally it decomposes, it is eaten by earthen creatures of various forms from bacteria to birds and is thus consumed again by the earth itself.

So then we talk about energy and how the body of the animal has the energy or at least the signature of the experiences of the animal as it lived in life, locked inside its cells and its materials. We say if the animal experienced pain and suffering then that is left behind in the body of the creature, just the same as if it experience joy. However, we must always remember that what is left behind is a memory, as once the creature leaves it shell behind it is moving on to a new body, new experience and new field of growth.

Thus, in fact, I see it that I have no influence over the soul of the animal once it dies,

Why not? The physical body is just clothing, cast aside. We are all ONE. Why not connect with the souls of the animals?

it has already transitioned on to a new path. Should it need healing, it will immediately be guided to do so by its higher density attendants.

Now, that being said, what then is the significance of eating the body of the creature? Well it can be looked at from numerous perspectives but the one I want to bring attention to is one of communion.

It isn't necessary to eat the discarded flesh in order to commune with the spirit.

There is the idea that we, by eating the body of the creature, then "take on" or take in to ourselves all that the creature experiences and whatever memory is left attached to its body. We therefore do not take responsibility for the soul or continuous development of the being, they are doing that on their own, but rather we take on the essence of the life that was lived.

Now, don't get me wrong, I do agree with you that individuals who eat much of this without any knowledge or effort of transmutation will indeed simply "absorb" those energies and since they will not know how or be unable to transmute them (which means to raise their vibration, or to refine the energies so they can work in higher and higher centers). This can most certainly make one sick and even depressed over time (unless they are the type of being who enjoys eating those kinds of emotions).

Then, to the topic of transmutation there are techniques. The first is to treat the matter as it is, as raw material, unattached to any mind (other than the ALL of course). Thus, it is organized and brought in to order through blessing. (I believe that the effects Emoto has discovered regarding water is actually universal for all matter, just that water is a sensitive medium for receiving thought.) Then the experiences brought in to the self are faced and embraced. Thus, it would then entail putting oneself in the position of the animal, experiencing that, and accepting the essence of the experience. Once this has been done many times it becomes pretty quick to do.

Now, this is the fulcrum of the point and what I have been trying to express. You can't "save" an animal after it is dead, nor can you alleviate its suffering, it has already experienced those things.

No, but why wait until after it's dead? We CAN alleviate its suffering by not participating in the cause of the suffering, and raising awareness of others to do the same.

Also, since the actual entity has moved on, there isn't really any "healing" you can do for it per se, short of, of course, sending love, light and healing to the entity itself, but this is not the same as dealing with the body. This is why when I talk about these things I put the emphasis on the humans, because once the animal is dead and its shell is left behind, the question comes to how it influences the on-going life around it.

We mostly understand that there is a planetary mind that is the collective of all minds on the planet as well as maybe being a thing in itself. Thus, we understand that the memory of every body also is part of the collective mind. The Earth "cleanses" and purifies energy by returning it to a "neutral" state. Now while this is effective for emotional energy and such that results from trauma, it doesn't actually change the existence of the thoughts of pain in the mind of the planet.

The act of eating is a ritual act. The act of eating is a ritual which brings one in to "oneness" with whatever is being ingested. Therefore, eating meat is a ritual act which puts one in contact with the animal element of the collective mind, just as eating plants puts on in contact with the plant element of the collective mind.

One who is not aware of this will most likely just exchange with that mind the aspects of the animal which are locked within the body, however, by transmuting the energies which are locked in the body, it enables you to evoke a more advanced portion of that animal element of the collective mind. Thus, through consumption, transmutation and contact one is able to call forth the beings that tend to the animal kingdom, also known as devas. Through this, one is then able to heal the memory locked in the collective mind by "releasing" it from its lower vibrational pattern, remembering that our own minds are also part of the collective mind and thus it is directly relevant to both ourselves and the animals to do this kind of healing.

Thus, therefore, although the Earth is easily able to transmute the raw energies, physical and emotional, it is through mental transmutation that the ideas associated with the animals themselves are evolved.

Thus, in effect, the work of transmutation in this context is intended towards multiple effects:

1. Healing of the planetary mind through the transmutation of memories
2. Empowerment of the animal kingdom by contacting higher levels of animal consciousness which are the evoked in to the world and thus "fed back" to all other animals, thus where one suffered, many may benefit through the increased chance for self-awareness
3. The modification of the human element of the planetary mind by induction, or rather, by transmuting ideas it becomes more available to the average human, and thus with this I project out the essence of honour, sacredness, respect and love
4. The opportunity for higher animal consciousness to have its expression through a conduit
5. The overall raising of consciousness of the planet by self-aware acts and processes intended for communion
6. The opportunity to seed forgiveness in to the planetary mind, and find forgiveness in the self

So you see, I don't do it "for myself" because the benefit it has for me personally is barely relevant, but neither do I do it "for the animal" because it doesn't really directly affect the animal either, what I do it for is the planetary mind. The work of transmutation is bigger than me or the animal, it is about all of us.

Now, you might ask, why does it require the act of eating in order to do this transmutation? The answer is because eating itself is a gateway, it is a ritualistic act, it causes a change in consciousness. I do it consciously so that it may become more available as a possibility in the collective mind for there to be consciousness while eating.

You asked, why not just leave it the way it is, isn't it controlling to try and "transmute" the lives of others?

Consider the fact that I do the exact same things and the same processes for all plants that I eat. Therefore, it is really not anyone else I am influencing, only myself, directly. Thus, to change the self is to change the world around you. Maybe one day, once humans have become more conscious of their activities it will be easy and obvious to say that we shouldn't kill animals for food, but I also don't expect that to happen over night. Rather, instead, there are still many people who eat meat, and the vast majority do it unconsciously and without appreciation.

The ideal is that there should be respect and compassion. Perhaps in time we don't need such methods of gaining sustenance, but at the moment, as it stands, there are many whom still are ingrained in those modes. From my perspective, it isn't realistic at this point in time to expect that the entire world is suddenly just going to go vegan, regardless of whatever evidence there may be for its benefits. This is because there is an idea locked in the collective mind that still lacks respect and appreciation for that which is given by other creatures.

Thus, my work is to try and transmute this idea, to call to a higher awareness and bring it in to the collective consciousness. I do this through eating meat as a form of sympathetic magic in that I believe that by eating with love, appreciation, compassion and transmutation, I am essentially providing a catalyst, sending a signal out in to the world, for others to do the same.

So while sure, we all want a world without suffering, I believe there are actually steps to that process and it's not going to happen "cold-turkey". At this point in time, it appears to me to be more effective and conducive to the overall mentality of the planet to address the lack of love and appreciation for what is given by offering out an idea to the collective mind that may be more and more grasped by any whom may be willing to perceive it.

I honestly do not believe that eating vegetarian will make others be nicer to animals, however, I do believe that by holding in my mind and my heart a more respectful, appreciative and compassionate attitude towards consumption the idea of a world in which there is less suffering becomes a more real possibility as it becomes a more prominent idea in the collective mind of humans.

In a nutshell, I see myself as an extension of the planet, thus, I am just fulfilling a function that the planet itself has. The Earth transmutes things back in to their natural materials, raw energies, through its purpose as an earthen body. We are a refinement of this purpose, as we are able to not only transmute things back to their natural state, we are actually capable of evolving them.

Thus, transmutation is not for my benefit or the benefit of the animal directly, but rather is meant to be directly beneficial to the mind of the planet itself by "resolving" conflict and chaos held within its memory. It is memory that is healed through this method, not the suffering that has occurred or the entity that the animal truly is nor even myself, but indirectly all are positively affected by the resolution and healing of dissonance in the planetary mind.

That seems like an awful lot of trouble to go though, to justify eating the animal's flesh. It seems much more efficient to me to simply not contribute to the suffering in the first place.

Also, protip: Violence isn't STS or STO and a "world without violence" would be all but empty and stagnant. To ignore the reality of violence is to severely cripple the red-ray. Violence plays a very important role in the balancing of the eco-system, so if some behaviour is to be vilified it should be a little more specific than "violence".

You seem to be confusing red-ray power/energy with STS controlling/harming other entities. It isn't necessary to be violent, to have vibrant red-ray energy.

---

I refuse to believe that kosher/halal is in anyway a proper ritual or transmutation of any energy, it is the most horrific way to slaughter an animal.

I agree, except as an STS ritual. It is a black magick ritual, continuing the STS 'Yahweh' influence.

---

I don't know who that guy is, but he clearly doesn't know the meaning of the word vegan. It's an excellent example of why I don't follow any 'guru'. This guy is still inhabiting a human body, and clearly still has his own biases, distortions, blind spots, and justifications just like everyone else.

[Diana]

OMG. How did that man (yogi) even get an audience? Humans are idiots sometimes.

---

Now, this is the fulcrum of the point and what I have been trying to express. You can't "save" an animal after it is dead, nor can you alleviate its suffering, it has already experienced those things.

No, but why wait until after it's dead? We CAN alleviate its suffering by not participating in the cause of the suffering, and raising awareness of others to do the same.

I can understand what is meant by transmutation now, but I still see it as point B. Point A is the way the animals are treated while alive (including the slaughtering).

If Unbound can make a difference through transmutation, that is good. I will set the example of doing the least amount of harm.

I personally don't expect to stop anything (however much I would love to end suffering), but I don't have to add to animal cruelty or support the market by buying meat. I can also just be the energy of not being a predator (in the sense that I don't eat animals; that's what predators do in the animal kingdom).

A good example is the way the deer and javelinas—who come to my house for the water (which I supply to the desert animals because humans have destroyed their local watering sources) and snacks of apples and carrots—react to people. They seem to be able to smell or sense that a person eats meat, and they are more frightened and on alert when they are there. I have observed this many times over 4 or 5 years. There are times when I am feeding a deer and our noses are a couple of inches apart. They stare right into my eyes. They have huge brown eyes and long black eyelashes. They are so beautiful.

[Monica]

Now, that being said, what then is the significance of eating the body of the creature?

What, then. is the significance of killing the body of the creature?

---

I personally don't expect to stop anything (however much I would love to end suffering), but I don't have to add to animal cruelty or support the market by buying meat.

Be the change you wish to see in the world

[Diana]

Be the change you wish to see in the world

Yes . . . that is what I endeavor to do, and be.

It can be very difficult at times, but I don't see a better use of my energy here.

[Unbound]

The questions I am being asked are a twisted convolution of my thoughts and I will not be answering so as to not have my intentions further sullied by ridiculous thinking.

[Unbound]

Although, I will say the significance of any killing is a matter of what the circumstances are, although it is, by nature, destructive. Everything must die on this plane, it is only a matter of the way in which one goes that will change the significance of death.

[Ashim]

What, then. is the significance of killing the body of the creature?

An earlier thread of mine looked at this.


http://www.bring4th.org/forums/showthrea...light=eden

[Monica]

The questions I am being asked are a twisted convolution of my thoughts and I will not be answering so as to not have my intentions further sullied by ridiculous thinking.

It is your choice whether to participate or not, but I do find this rather 'convenient.' It is a commonly employed tactic to insult the other person rather than engage in honest, respectful discourse. I asked you some honest questions, in an effort to understand your points. Such as: Inviting you to consider the effect of killing the animal, rather than only eating the animal. That is NOT ridiculous! That is an intelligent and thoughtful question, in response to your elaborate explanation of how you 'transmute' animal suffering by eating their flesh ritualistically. To focus only on the eating part is to miss most of the equation here. It isn't only about eating. It's about killing. That meat on your plate was a sentient being's body that had to be killed before you could eat it. That cannot be ignored. Yet you seek to ignore it by conveniently saying my thinking is 'ridiculous.'

If you don't want to answer it, that's fine. But saying my thinking is 'ridiculous' and 'sullying your intentions' is quite insulting and only illustrates my point that those who attempt to justify cruelty to animals tend to have cognitive dissonance. It is easier to just lash out at vegans, rather than actually considering another perspective.

---

Although, I will say the significance of any killing is a matter of what the circumstances are, although it is, by nature, destructive. Everything must die on this plane, it is only a matter of the way in which one goes that will change the significance of death.

All humans must eventually die too. But we don't go around saying that it's ok to kill humans just because they're going to die anyway.

---

I eat and enjoy meat.
There are arguments that say I should stop doing this.
I decide to continue.

This is the discussion.
In a hat.

Try and stop me.

  PeskyVegans.jpg (Size: 57.32 KB / Downloads: 343)

[isis]

bacon

[Monica]

bacon

Is this just funny to you?

To all the people who 'enjoy the taste of meat' is this really and truly irrelevant to you? You seriously just think it's all about the taste?


  PigsBoiledAlive.jpg (Size: 103.57 KB / Downloads: 14)