Why I am not a vegan

[Diana]

You will find, however, that while there may not be agreement on the particular point of actual ingestion, it is pretty unanimous that torture, cruelty, factory farming and the like are not positive. We do unite in compassion on that point, even if different people take it to different extents.

Also, technically, if you really include everyone on the forum, people here are just as staunch about defending vegetarianism.

It's not unanimous here that cruelty, torture, factory farming and the like are not positive. There have been several posts recently that suppose these things are positive because animals signed up for it, and the humans who eat them are just honoring their incarnational choices.

As far as defending vegetarianism, that's not strictly accurate. I would just like humans to grow out of animal abuse (but of course humans have free will and I am not here to change anyone, rather, I am here to talk about it openly in a discussion). This seemed like a good place to discuss the subject, as it was already being canvassed when I first came here. It's true that a plant-based diet (vegetarian) would be a means to that end (discontinuing the abuses of animals being raised for food), and in my opinion a big step forward toward a more compassionate existence. 

If I could, I'd rather skip ahead to drinking light nectar. In the meantime, I am grateful to the gift plants offer of light-based foods (photosynthesis). 

[Monica]

Then I'm going to assume you are intentionally being obtuse because you can't answer the question directly. "Eating meat is STS" is the cornerstone of logic that ties your personal views to the Ra Material, which falls apart if you can't judge the polarity of another 3D entity's act.

I did answer your question, very thoroughly, in post #784.

You didn't accept my answer. Not only that, but no one here has been willing to apply the same logic to humans.

I ask you again: Is knowingly, consciously, needlessly raping/torturing/killing a human congruent with the STO path?

If you cannot answer yes, then why not? Because it's inherently STS. No one seems to have a problem with that statement, yet they do when the same logic is applied to younger other-selves. That shows that it's not because of what Ra said, but about something else. What is that something else? Speciesism? Societal conditioning?

Ra didn't mean that we can't use discernment at all!! If so, then would be the point of knowing about the attributes of the polarities?

52.7 Questioner: Am I correct, then, in assuming that discipline of the personality, knowledge of self, and control in strengthening of the will would be what any fifth-density entity would see as those things of importance?

Ra: I am Ra. In actuality these things are of importance in third through early seventh densities. The only correction in nuance that we would make is your use of the word, control. It is paramount that it be understood that it is not desirable or helpful to the growth of the understanding, may we say, of an entity by itself to control thought processes or impulses except where they may result in actions not consonant with the Law of One. Control may seem to be a short-cut to discipline, peace, and illumination. However, this very control potentiates and necessitates the further incarnative experience in order to balance this control or repression of that self which is perfect.

Instead, we appreciate and recommend the use of your second verb in regard to the use of the will. Acceptance of self, forgiveness of self, and the direction of the will; this is the path towards the disciplined personality. Your faculty of will is that which is powerful within you as co-Creator. You cannot ascribe to this faculty too much importance. Thus it must be carefully used and directed in service-to-others for those upon the positively oriented path.

There is great danger in the use of the will as the personality becomes stronger, for it may be used even subconsciously in ways reducing the polarity of the entity.

There are 2 areas of significance to this:


1. If Ra is telling us that it's very important to use our faculty of will wisely, even to the point of cautioning us to potential danger, and saying that it cannot be ascribed 'too much importance' then obviously this means our free will is VERY important! Our choices are VERY important! And what did Ra advise us to do? To use our will carefully and direct it in the service to others.


There it is, right there, Parsons. There is your answer. When I said that knowingly, needlessly, consciously contributing to the suffering of others isn't STO, I wasn't referring to a numerical value of how much it polarizes, as everyone seemed to think. That quote by Ra saying it was impossible to gauge the polarity was talking about that. Rather, I was referring to what Ra says in the above quote: The essence of serving others or serving self. Why did Ra call the 2 paths thusly? Because they have attributes. Do the names of the paths mean nothing? 


I ask you this: HOW is [font=Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]knowingly, needlessly, consciously contributing to the suffering of others possibly serving them?[/font]

Quite simply, it isn't. That's why it's NOT STO.


Not serving others = NOT STO. Simple.


People got their panties in a bundle when I dared to use an analogy about raping/murdering humans. Why? Because those actions are obviously not congruent with the STO path. Why? Duh, because raping/murdering someone isn't serving them! Unless they are STS, that is, in which case it is, because that is their task.


Raping/murdering our younger other-selves isn't serving them either! So obviously, it isn't STO! I don't know how to say this any more clearly. It is simply impossible to spin this bloody abomination into anything positive.  And there is NO counterargument to it! That's why the discussion always degenerates! The ONLY counterargument is that animals don't matter because they're 2D...which shows disregard and lack of compassion for beings who respond to compassion.


We are told by Ra to serve others. Why? And whom do we serve? Does it not make sense that any being capable of responding to our compassion is worthy of being served? If our compassion can serve a cow or chicken, who is sentient and calling out for help, then how is that any less STO than serving a human? Open-hearted service to others is the same, whether it'd directed to 3D other-selves, or higher 2D other-selves.


Conversely, harming others who can feel suffering, is the same, whether it's done to a higher 2D entity (who can feel pain and suffering) or a 3D entity (who can feel pain and suffering). The criteria should be whether they can suffer, NOT whether they are 2D or 3D!


The idea that higher 2D other-selves don't need to be served, don't need compassion, don't need love, and it's ok to cause suffering to them, violate their free will, and kill them, all to serve our lust for the taste of their flesh, flies in the face of reason.


2. The bold part seems to imply some responsibility, even with subconscious choices. I'd put eating meat in that category...to continue to do it, when knowing of the suffering it causes...out of habit or taste? Does that not affect one's polarity? Is there no responsibility for one's choices? Ra seems to indicate that there is, or at least that seems pretty obvious to me, reading that.

The reason we keep going round and round on the meat topic has nothing to do with some vague aversion to discerning something as STS or STO, because people don't mind doing that when the victim is human. No, the reason we keep going round and round is quite simple: Because they don't consider higher 2D entities to be other-selves.


Never mind that they have individual minds, in contrast to the blades of grass in your lawn. Never mind that they think and feel emotions, just like you do. Never mind that they have free will, and struggle to get away from impending death. Never mind that Ra even answers their call.


It's ok to use them as we wish, even kill them - the ultimate domination - WHY?? Because they aren't human. 


That's it. That is the only reason ever given. It all boils down to that.


And what is that but a form of bigotry? It is Speciesism, quite simply. No different from what was done to black 'slaves' and other human miniorities.


It isn't seen that way, because of societal conditioning. Society once said human slavery was ok too.


I have nothing more to say. I leave all of you with this. I wash my hands of it. I am completely disgusted by the calloused disregard for the BILLIONS of sentient beings who are suffering and calling out, right now, and holding this planet back. The idea that our planet could suddenly go poof into 4D STO while still knowingly, consciously, needlessly contributing to cruelty would be laughable, if it weren't so sad.


Meanwhile, more and more average people - who've never heard of the Law of One - are opening their minds and their hearts, and choosing to reduce their contribution to cruelty by eliminating meat and dairy. It's impossible to eliminate all contribution, unfortunately, because it's insidious in daily life. But they are doing what they can...and that is the whole point.


These people have never heard of the Law of One and don't claim to be some sort of high being, a 6D Wanderer. What a joke! That makes about as much sense as the Christians who think they have their ticket. 


No, they are just average people who have opened their hearts...who have heard the cry of the oppressed and are answering the call...while the self-professed '6D Wanderers' continue to support the oppressing.


How ironic.


...

[Lighthead]

With that, I would be the first to say that I do not talk about my path in recommendation of it but only in acknowledgement of it. I neither advise for or against my particular approach, as it is something which has developed for me personally through much trial and error and inner exploration.

However, this actually comes back to my point in all of this is that the thoughts regarding these things will not change until there has been an appropriate grasp of perspective. No matter how much you try and tell someone that something is ethically wrong, or that it's unnatural, or that it's horrible, they won't really know or understand until they have touched upon that kind of emotion within themselves. This means going within oneself and seeing one's bias', preferences, etc. Until you accept that you have a certain bias, preference or trait you are powerless to grasp it or change its influence. That's why I don't approach this issue from an external perspective, but rather try to address the internal structures involved.

In my mind, trying to convince people to change through shock, reason or emotion is only going to cause them to withdraw more. Rather, it is through the inner silence and balancing of one's own distortions that compassion is awakened. I see no longer needing to eat meat as an end result, but the work is upon your inner self. Thus, I believe if the focus is upon the internal complexes that drive humans in their actions we will come to quicker change than trying to change things from the outside.

I, like I said, am omnivorous and would be perfectly content with pretty much any kind of diet. That wasn't easy to accept about myself and it has taken years to become comfortable with that fact about myself.

I also feel that change happens slowly. But I feel that humans are ready for that change to start happening now.

I'm going to use my out-loud voice: but I just don't understand why a quasi-New Age group is so staunch in its defense of eating meat. I would expect it from a libertarian board like the one I used to frequent (Above Top Secret). I seriously don't get it.

I think because the fundamental philosophy of the Law of One and service to others is acceptance (according to Ra). This has created very polarized views as to what exactly 'acceptance' entails and so there are many disagreements on this point. I imagine many are not actually arguing "for meat-eating" but rather arguing in defense of the right for people to make a choice, afterall Free Will is paramount.

I, personally, am not arguing either for or against as with all actions I see the potential for both negative and positive polarization. I think the assumption that you are automatically being more positive by being vegetarian is silly, just like I think someone automatically being negative because they eat meat as silly. It just doesn't add up in my mind.

You will find, however, that while there may not be agreement on the particular point of actual ingestion, it is pretty unanimous that torture, cruelty, factory farming and the like are not positive. We do unite in compassion on that point, even if different people take it to different extents.

Also, technically, if you really include everyone on the forum, people here are just as staunch about defending vegetarianism.

To be really, really honest, I've seen very few people who support vegetarianism, or veganism on this board. Not that I'm counting likes, but if you compare the likes for something that is pro-vegan or vegetarian, the likes for the pro-meat stance far outnumber the pro-vegetarian or vegan stance. If you don't believe me, take a look! The main ones who are liking the pro-vegan and vegetarian posts are mostly only me, Diana and Monica. By far. And then there is the odd person that likes something that is pro-vegan or pro-vegetarian every once in a great while. Trust me. That's the way it is.

And if your argument is that they're scared to like a pro-vegan or vegetarian post, well then that's a whole 'nother story.

Edit: And not to put Folk-love on the spot, but Folk-love could be another one.

[Billy]

[Lighthead]

Sorry I didn't mention you at first Folk-love, but you've also been liking our posts. It slipped my mind.

[Diana]

And here is a scene from Powder, where he shows hunters what the deer feels.

[Billy]

Sorry I didn't mention you at first Folk-love, but you've also been liking our posts. It slipped my mind.

Haha I love you man! 

Also, for those who haven't seen Starman, I highly recommend it.  Brought tears to my eyes that movie. 

[Parsons]

You think that you are addressing that quote but in my opinion you really aren't logically addressing what they (Ra) said at all.

Our understandings of the Ra Material are wildly different (especially the concepts of STS/STO and the concept of will). I have attempted to explain my viewpoint and point out the numerous logical holes in your argument, but to fill in those holes, you either greatly twist Ra's words or simply insert your own viewpoint which has no logical basis in the material.

I don't see any reason to continue this conversation because of a complete lack of common ground

[isis]

And here is a scene from Powder, where he shows hunters what the deer feels.

I think I'd rather get shot by a hunter than eaten alive by wolves or what have you, though...

[Monica]

You think that you are addressing that quote but in my opinion you really aren't logically addressing what they (Ra) said at all.

Our understandings of the Ra Material are wildly different (especially the concepts of STS/STO and the concept of will). I have attempted to explain my viewpoint and point out the numerous logical holes in your argument, but to fill in those holes, you either greatly twist Ra's words or simply insert your own viewpoint which has no logical basis in the material.

I don't see any reason to continue this conversation because of a complete lack of common ground

I would say those exact words back to you. 

Edit: No, actually, I retract my above statement. I can't say your logic is flawed or that you are twisting Ra's words, because you actually haven't even said enough for me to assess your logic or views.

A discussion is an exchange of ideas. If you disagree with my ideas, then why not offer some of your own? But you have done very little of that. You have said very little to counter my ideas, and you haven't bothered to point out any 'flaws' in my logic.

It's easy to tell someone "You are twisting Ra's words" without bothering to specify what exactly is being twisted, and without offering an alternative interpretation.

It's easy to tell someone "Your logic is flawed" without bothering to provide, point-by-point, a logical assessment and offering a superior illustration of logic. You haven't provided a detailed analysis; you've only made a few comments here and there saying that my view is wrong, but have said very little to explain why it's wrong. In fact, you haven't even demonstrated any logic skills at all, so quite frankly, I have no reason to think that you're even qualified to assess my logic! 

If my logic is flawed, then show me where it is flawed. You haven't done that at all. 

Actually, no one has.

You can disagree with me all you want, but if you're going to make accusations like "your logic is flawed" and "you're twisting Ra's words" without backing them up, then you aren't really contributing to the discussion.

It's fine to disagree on interpretation. But in a discussion, if you think someone's logic is flawed, and you have superior logic skills, then SHOW US WHY by providing a point-by-point, logical discourse. If you can't do that, fine, but then don't expect them to take your comments seriously, if you can't even back them up.

You haven't backed up your accusations.

Therefore, your comments don't appear to be an effort to communicate; they appear to be just empty insults.

[Monica]

Both of those movie clips were powerful!

[Monica]

I think I'd rather get shot by a hunter than eaten alive by wolves or what have you, though...

Maybe so, but... Do you want to be the hunter? Do you want to be the wolf?

[Doctor Makuta]

Perhaps rather than this somewhat negative debate we could change the subject. I would have prefered it if the posts I donated to this didn't result in this spiralling into an argument. I can tell you're passionate in your beliefs but perhaps speaking on the subject like Ra, which always had a neutral way about it would be better.

Anyways, how would someone who is fairly active find switching to a vegan/vegetarian diet go?

[Lighthead]

Perhaps rather than this somewhat negative debate we could change the subject. I would have prefered it if the posts I donated to this didn't result in this spiralling into an argument. I can tell you're passionate in your beliefs but perhaps speaking on the subject like Ra, which always had a neutral way about it would be better.

Anyways, how would someone who is fairly active find switching to a vegan/vegetarian diet go?

What do you mean by active; as in physical exercise?

[Diana]

Perhaps rather than this somewhat negative debate we could change the subject. I would have prefered it if the posts I donated to this didn't result in this spiralling into an argument. I can tell you're passionate in your beliefs but perhaps speaking on the subject like Ra, which always had a neutral way about it would be better.

Anyways, how would someone who is fairly active find switching to a vegan/vegetarian diet go?

Don't feel your posts have caused any "spiraling into an argument." Eating meat has been a volatile subject on B4 for years.

I am an active person (most of the time—I get into inactive periods once in a while). I used to do a lot of hiking and backpacking. I've backpacked into the Grand Canyon carrying a 45# pack, and that's almost half my weight. I found that after I became vegetarian, my endurance was much greater while hiking. I have 2 advanced black belts and was vegetarian throughout my training.

I had a friend that used to be a professional wrestler (WWF). He was huge. When I met him he had been a raw-fooder (raw vegetarian) for 10 years. He was by far the strongest person at the gym whenever we were there together, and everyone would stop and watch when he pressed certain weights.

There is no problem with being vegetarian or even vegan if you are active. It's the opposite—you have MORE energy and you feel lighter.

No matter whether you are vegetarian or omnivore, it's important to eat well and not subsist on junk of course.

[AngelofDeath]

With that, I would be the first to say that I do not talk about my path in recommendation of it but only in acknowledgement of it. I neither advise for or against my particular approach, as it is something which has developed for me personally through much trial and error and inner exploration.

However, this actually comes back to my point in all of this is that the thoughts regarding these things will not change until there has been an appropriate grasp of perspective. No matter how much you try and tell someone that something is ethically wrong, or that it's unnatural, or that it's horrible, they won't really know or understand until they have touched upon that kind of emotion within themselves. This means going within oneself and seeing one's bias', preferences, etc. Until you accept that you have a certain bias, preference or trait you are powerless to grasp it or change its influence. That's why I don't approach this issue from an external perspective, but rather try to address the internal structures involved.

In my mind, trying to convince people to change through shock, reason or emotion is only going to cause them to withdraw more. Rather, it is through the inner silence and balancing of one's own distortions that compassion is awakened. I see no longer needing to eat meat as an end result, but the work is upon your inner self. Thus, I believe if the focus is upon the internal complexes that drive humans in their actions we will come to quicker change than trying to change things from the outside.

I, like I said, am omnivorous and would be perfectly content with pretty much any kind of diet. That wasn't easy to accept about myself and it has taken years to become comfortable with that fact about myself.

I also feel that change happens slowly. But I feel that humans are ready for that change to start happening now.

I'm going to use my out-loud voice: but I just don't understand why a quasi-New Age group is so staunch in its defense of eating meat. I would expect it from a libertarian board like the one I used to frequent (Above Top Secret). I seriously don't get it.

I think because the fundamental philosophy of the Law of One and service to others is acceptance (according to Ra). This has created very polarized views as to what exactly 'acceptance' entails and so there are many disagreements on this point. I imagine many are not actually arguing "for meat-eating" but rather arguing in defense of the right for people to make a choice, afterall Free Will is paramount.

I, personally, am not arguing either for or against as with all actions I see the potential for both negative and positive polarization. I think the assumption that you are automatically being more positive by being vegetarian is silly, just like I think someone automatically being negative because they eat meat as silly. It just doesn't add up in my mind.

You will find, however, that while there may not be agreement on the particular point of actual ingestion, it is pretty unanimous that torture, cruelty, factory farming and the like are not positive. We do unite in compassion on that point, even if different people take it to different extents.

Also, technically, if you really include everyone on the forum, people here are just as staunch about defending vegetarianism.

To be really, really honest, I've seen very few people who support vegetarianism, or veganism on this board. Not that I'm counting likes, but if you compare the likes for something that is pro-vegan or vegetarian, the likes for the pro-meat stance far outnumber the pro-vegetarian or vegan stance. If you don't believe me, take a look! The main ones who are liking the pro-vegan and vegetarian posts are mostly only me, Diana and Monica. By far. And then there is the odd person that likes something that is pro-vegan or pro-vegetarian every once in a great while. Trust me. That's the way it is.

And if your argument is that they're scared to like a pro-vegan or vegetarian post, well then that's a whole 'nother story.

Edit: And not to put Folk-love on the spot, but Folk-love could be another one.

Well, to be fair, the likes for those posts could have nothing to do with the pro-meat or pro-vegan viewpoints within them. People could be liking them for completely different reasons.

I guess my point is that it appears this argument has been in a deadlock for years with both sides fairly firm in their convictions.

Also, if it counts for anything, I totally support your choices and the choices of those who feel drawn to vegetarianism. Let me be clear that I am in no way "anti-vegetarian", just like I'm not actually "pro-meat eaters". Of course, I've made it pretty clear the basis for my own particular choice and I can certainly agree that there are lots of omnivores and individuals who eat meat who have not at all considered or worked with it consciously in the way I have.

I would even go so far to say that it would be a safer approach for most people to go the route of renunciation. I went through a period of heavy renunciation and it has been a process of many years to be where I am now and at peace with the person I am.

[AngelofDeath]

This isn't quite exactly on the topic, but it raises a question that I think parallels what we have been discussing.

http://higherperspectives.com/kinessa-johnson/

This woman, an army veteran, protects animals by killing humans (well, they operate without the intent to kill, but that doesn't mean it won't happen). Any thoughts as to what might be happening metaphysically there? I always find it interesting when things turn the other way and animal life is valued more than human life. I think all life should be held equal and sacred, for it is all the One, Shiva.

[Bluebell]

i would protect my pet w lethal force. a pet is a family member.

[Monica]

i would protect my pet w lethal force. a pet is a family member.

I can see that you love your pet very much.  This brings up a good question: Why are some animals family members?

...

[Monica]

This isn't quite exactly on the topic, but it raises a question that I think parallels what we have been discussing.

http://higherperspectives.com/kinessa-johnson/

This woman, an army veteran, protects animals by killing humans (well, they operate without the intent to kill, but that doesn't mean it won't happen). Any thoughts as to what might be happening metaphysically there? I always find it interesting when things turn the other way and animal life is valued more than human life. I think all life should be held equal and sacred, for it is all the One, Shiva.

I read the article. It said she hasn't killed any humans. It sounded to me like they are using threat of force to enforce the protection of endangered animals.

It's an interesting topic to explore, to be sure.

...

[Bluebell]

i would protect my pet w lethal force. a pet is a family member.

I can see that you love your pet very much.  This brings up a good question: Why are some animals family members?

...

because they incarnated so. to me it makes no difference if ur 1-2-3D. if ur my family ur my family as a soul regardless of density. animal souls r unveiled so i connect w them easily. pets r 2D but they're 3D in training. they're like small children. obviously i would protect the most vulnerable family member w my life, w force. there's no question.

yes i buy meat to supplement myself. i have bought meat to feed my pet when i didn't eat meat because i couldn't bare him to feel deprived. i buy it to stay healthy now myself after becoming ill. but if i friended a cow i might protect her similarly. it's a grey issue for me. there's no morality, only survival.

i just don't think guilting people is the way. i think u take others' learning path away by muddying it w urs. how can people find truth for themselves if ur in the way? let it go.

[Monica]

Anyways, how would someone who is fairly active find switching to a vegan/vegetarian diet go?

There is an abundance of support for vegan athletes, including many books, interviews and videos. Here are a few, for inspiration and information:

Pro Vegan Athletes

More vegan athletes

News report/interviews with vegan athletes...addressing the 'protein' issue.

Getting a RIPPED Six Pack on a Vegan Diet | Interview with Frank Medrano discusses his diet in detail...does include some 'Sun Warrior' Protein which is vegan.

Dr. Ellsworth Wareham - 98 years old vegan practicing surgeon til age 95, vegan half his life, still lucid and active

Raw Food Vegan Bodybuilder cab driver eats no meat

Making changes: How To Reach the Peak of Health, 80/10/10 Diet

There are TONS more...just do a search for 'vegan athlete' on youtube and you'll find lots. Also more videos on each of the channels listed.

[Monica]

because they incarnated so. to me it makes no difference if ur 1-2-3D. if ur my family ur my family as a soul regardless of density. animal souls r unveiled so i connect w them easily. pets r 2D but they're 3D in training. they're like small children. obviously i would protect the most vulnerable family member w my life, w force. there's no question.

yes i buy meat to supplement myself. i have bought meat to feed my pet when i didn't eat meat because i couldn't bare him to feel deprived. i buy it to stay healthy now myself after becoming ill. but if i friended a cow i might protect her similarly. it's a grey issue for me. there's no morality, only survival.

So does an animal not have any value of their own? Do they only have value if some human decided to love them?

Here are some pet cows and pet pigs. Their humans love them as much as you love your pet, most likely.

Who let the cow into the house? adorable!

Bull saved from bullfight becomes a docile pet

Pigs Are Awesome: Compilation <<== Gosh I wonder what happened to these pigs? Did they accidentally incarnate into pig bodies when they meant to be dogs?

OR...are pigs more like dogs than we think?

i just don't think guilting people is the way.

I don't guilt-trip anyone. I proved this by telling people that eating tomatoes was STS. No one cared.

Please quit trying to guilt-trip me about guilt-tripping!!! It's NOT my fault if anyone feels guilty! I'm really tired of people telling me that. But guess what? I don't feel guilty! Annoyed, yes, SAD, yes, but NOT guilty. Guilt comes from within.

I cannot make anyone feel guilty about anything. If anyone feels guilty, please quit vomiting your guilt all over me. It's NOT my fault. I express my views, and I back them up, but everyone is free to disagree, and offer counterpoints if they wish. That's what a discussion is.

If eating animals is no big deal, then my posting videos of what happens to those animals, in order to turn them into meat, should be no big deal.

Those videos are REAL. If anyone has issues with them, that is NOT my fault. Maybe instead of blaming me for their guilt, people might want to take a look at what is causing them to feel guilty. Or ignore it. Their choice.

i think u take others' learning path away by muddying it w urs. how can people find truth for themselves if ur in the way? let it go.

Gosh, I certainly don't want to do that! Maybe you're right: I should never again contribute to this discussion (or any other). When other people choose to click on this thread, somehow it is MY fault and I am getting in the way of them finding their own truth.

OK got it. Thank you for setting me straight on that.

Carry on then...

[Diana]

This isn't quite exactly on the topic, but it raises a question that I think parallels what we have been discussing.

http://higherperspectives.com/kinessa-johnson/

This woman, an army veteran, protects animals by killing humans (well, they operate without the intent to kill, but that doesn't mean it won't happen). Any thoughts as to what might be happening metaphysically there? I always find it interesting when things turn the other way and animal life is valued more than human life. I think all life should be held equal and sacred, for it is all the One, Shiva.

I totally agree that all life is equal and sacred.

Are you saying that an issue here in this discussion is valuing animals over humans? Or are you saying, as I have, that many humans value their lives over all other life? 

My take on the article (I didn't watch the video): I don't think violence is ever the answer. I don't know what the answer is. But if the world actually cared about suffering, whether human or animal, we could deal with poaching (it's a horrible trade) another way—we have a lot of technology. Regarding the woman and her team: I think they see themselves as fighting crime, rather than that they value animal life over human life. Cops who pursue perpetrators of violent crimes are (hopefully) just trying to stop more violence, rather than valuing the lives of victims over criminals.

I don't agree even with handling violent criminals this way. If I could change our justice system, I would invent phasers like the ones on Star Trek which had only the stun function, and I would transform prisons into places of healing where the imprisoned could learn they are worthy of love.

The poaching business is very cruel. They cut off parts of these animals even if they aren't dead and there is a market for things such as tables made of elephant legs, and ashtrays made of gorilla hands, and sex elixirs made from rhino horns, and on and on (I did a book a few years back on endangered species and had to do the research). That they are endangered species doesn't bother me as much as the suffering caused to each animal.

Metaphysically, violence is being perpetuated. The hamster wheel keeps turning. Not to be negative, but I don't see that things are so much better and we are in 4D. But I don't get out much and I don't watch TV or news, so perhaps I'm wrong. 

What are your thoughts on this and how it applies here?

[Diana]

 i think u take others' learning path away by muddying it w urs. how can people find truth for themselves if ur in the way? let it go.

No one can take your path away. That is your decision and responsibility. And it's not your decision what Monica does or doesn't do.

[Diana]

i just don't think guilting people is the way.

I don't guilt-trip anyone. I proved this by telling people that eating tomatoes was STS. No one cared.

Please quit trying to guilt-trip me about guilt-tripping!!! It's NOT my fault if anyone feels guilty! I'm really tired of people telling me that. But guess what? I don't feel guilty! Annoyed, yes, SAD, yes, but NOT guilty. Guilt comes from within.

I cannot make anyone feel guilty about anything. If anyone feels guilty, please quit vomiting your guilt all over me. It's NOT my fault. I express my views, and I back them up, but everyone is free to disagree, and offer counterpoints if they wish. That's what a discussion is.

If eating animals is no big deal, then my posting videos of what happens to those animals, in order to turn them into meat, should be no big deal.

Those videos are REAL. If anyone has issues with them, that is NOT my fault. Maybe instead of blaming me for their guilt, people might want to take a look at what is causing them to feel guilty. Or ignore it. Their choice.

I have to officially agree with Monica here. The guilt anyone feels is their own. Monica has only tried to inform.

[Monica]

  Pigsintruck.jpg (Size: 16.04 KB / Downloads: 7)
  Holocaust.jpg (Size: 59.18 KB / Downloads: 6)

Alex Hershaft, Warsaw Ghetto survivor

...

[Lighthead]

Then I'm going to assume you are intentionally being obtuse because you can't answer the question directly. "Eating meat is STS" is the cornerstone of logic that ties your personal views to the Ra Material, which falls apart if you can't judge the polarity of another 3D entity's act.

I did answer your question, very thoroughly, in post #784.

You didn't accept my answer. Not only that, but no one here has been willing to apply the same logic to humans.

I ask you again: Is knowingly, consciously, needlessly raping/torturing/killing a human congruent with the STO path?

If you cannot answer yes, then why not? Because it's inherently STS. No one seems to have a problem with that statement, yet they do when the same logic is applied to younger other-selves. That shows that it's not because of what Ra said, but about something else. What is that something else? Speciesism? Societal conditioning?

Ra didn't mean that we can't use discernment at all!! If so, then would be the point of knowing about the attributes of the polarities?

52.7 Questioner: Am I correct, then, in assuming that discipline of the personality, knowledge of self, and control in strengthening of the will would be what any fifth-density entity would see as those things of importance?

Ra: I am Ra. In actuality these things are of importance in third through early seventh densities. The only correction in nuance that we would make is your use of the word, control. It is paramount that it be understood that it is not desirable or helpful to the growth of the understanding, may we say, of an entity by itself to control thought processes or impulses except where they may result in actions not consonant with the Law of One. Control may seem to be a short-cut to discipline, peace, and illumination. However, this very control potentiates and necessitates the further incarnative experience in order to balance this control or repression of that self which is perfect.

Instead, we appreciate and recommend the use of your second verb in regard to the use of the will. Acceptance of self, forgiveness of self, and the direction of the will; this is the path towards the disciplined personality. Your faculty of will is that which is powerful within you as co-Creator. You cannot ascribe to this faculty too much importance. Thus it must be carefully used and directed in service-to-others for those upon the positively oriented path.

There is great danger in the use of the will as the personality becomes stronger, for it may be used even subconsciously in ways reducing the polarity of the entity.

There are 2 areas of significance to this:


1. If Ra is telling us that it's very important to use our faculty of will wisely, even to the point of cautioning us to potential danger, and saying that it cannot be ascribed 'too much importance' then obviously this means our free will is VERY important! Our choices are VERY important! And what did Ra advise us to do? To use our will carefully and direct it in the service to others.


There it is, right there, Parsons. There is your answer. When I said that knowingly, needlessly, consciously contributing to the suffering of others isn't STO, I wasn't referring to a numerical value of how much it polarizes, as everyone seemed to think. That quote by Ra saying it was impossible to gauge the polarity was talking about that. Rather, I was referring to what Ra says in the above quote: The essence of serving others or serving self. Why did Ra call the 2 paths thusly? Because they have attributes. Do the names of the paths mean nothing? 


I ask you this: HOW is [font=Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]knowingly, needlessly, consciously contributing to the suffering of others possibly serving them?[/font]

Quite simply, it isn't. That's why it's NOT STO.


Not serving others = NOT STO. Simple.


People got their panties in a bundle when I dared to use an analogy about raping/murdering humans. Why? Because those actions are obviously not congruent with the STO path. Why? Duh, because raping/murdering someone isn't serving them! Unless they are STS, that is, in which case it is, because that is their task.


Raping/murdering our younger other-selves isn't serving them either! So obviously, it isn't STO! I don't know how to say this any more clearly. It is simply impossible to spin this bloody abomination into anything positive.  And there is NO counterargument to it! That's why the discussion always degenerates! The ONLY counterargument is that animals don't matter because they're 2D...which shows disregard and lack of compassion for beings who respond to compassion.


We are told by Ra to serve others. Why? And whom do we serve? Does it not make sense that any being capable of responding to our compassion is worthy of being served? If our compassion can serve a cow or chicken, who is sentient and calling out for help, then how is that any less STO than serving a human? Open-hearted service to others is the same, whether it'd directed to 3D other-selves, or higher 2D other-selves.


Conversely, harming others who can feel suffering, is the same, whether it's done to a higher 2D entity (who can feel pain and suffering) or a 3D entity (who can feel pain and suffering). The criteria should be whether they can suffer, NOT whether they are 2D or 3D!


The idea that higher 2D other-selves don't need to be served, don't need compassion, don't need love, and it's ok to cause suffering to them, violate their free will, and kill them, all to serve our lust for the taste of their flesh, flies in the face of reason.


2. The bold part seems to imply some responsibility, even with subconscious choices. I'd put eating meat in that category...to continue to do it, when knowing of the suffering it causes...out of habit or taste? Does that not affect one's polarity? Is there no responsibility for one's choices? Ra seems to indicate that there is, or at least that seems pretty obvious to me, reading that.

The reason we keep going round and round on the meat topic has nothing to do with some vague aversion to discerning something as STS or STO, because people don't mind doing that when the victim is human. No, the reason we keep going round and round is quite simple: Because they don't consider higher 2D entities to be other-selves.


Never mind that they have individual minds, in contrast to the blades of grass in your lawn. Never mind that they think and feel emotions, just like you do. Never mind that they have free will, and struggle to get away from impending death. Never mind that Ra even answers their call.


It's ok to use them as we wish, even kill them - the ultimate domination - WHY?? Because they aren't human. 


That's it. That is the only reason ever given. It all boils down to that.


And what is that but a form of bigotry? It is Speciesism, quite simply. No different from what was done to black 'slaves' and other human miniorities.


It isn't seen that way, because of societal conditioning. Society once said human slavery was ok too.


I have nothing more to say. I leave all of you with this. I wash my hands of it. I am completely disgusted by the calloused disregard for the BILLIONS of sentient beings who are suffering and calling out, right now, and holding this planet back. The idea that our planet could suddenly go poof into 4D STO while still knowingly, consciously, needlessly contributing to cruelty would be laughable, if it weren't so sad.


Meanwhile, more and more average people - who've never heard of the Law of One - are opening their minds and their hearts, and choosing to reduce their contribution to cruelty by eliminating meat and dairy. It's impossible to eliminate all contribution, unfortunately, because it's insidious in daily life. But they are doing what they can...and that is the whole point.


These people have never heard of the Law of One and don't claim to be some sort of high being, a 6D Wanderer. What a joke! That makes about as much sense as the Christians who think they have their ticket. 


No, they are just average people who have opened their hearts...who have heard the cry of the oppressed and are answering the call...while the self-professed '6D Wanderers' continue to support the oppressing.


How ironic.


...

I highly recommend that everyone read this reply by Monica. There's a lot of good information there. If you don't get it with that, then you're never going to get it (at least not in this lifetime).

[anagogy]

Everybody in this thread has expressed their perspectives in different ways, and I definitely felt there was some good perspectives offered, whether you think meat eating is wrong, or whether you think it can be perfectly STO.

Anyways, I found an interesting Q'uo channeling that offered some interesting perspectives.  

It is always enlightening to get a picture of how higher density beings view the whole issue, so I just thought I would just share this for whomever would like to read it:

---

L/L Research Transcripts
October 16, 2010
Copyright © 2010 L/L Research

ABOUT THE CONTENTS OF THIS TRANSCRIPT: This telepathic channeling has been taken from transcriptions of the weekly study and meditation meetings of the Rock Creek Research & Development Laboratories and L/L Research. It is offered in the hope that it may be useful to you. As the Confederation entities always make a point of saying, please use your discrimination and judgment in assessing this material. If something rings true to you, fine. If something does not resonate, please leave it behind, for neither we nor those of the Confederation would wish to be a stumbling block for any.

Saturday Meditation

October 16, 2010

Jim: The question this evening, Q’uo, [from G], is, “Few systems of thought confer as much responsibility on the individual entity as the Law of One does. In that philosophy, the individual is completely responsible for its own choices and its experience no matter how uninformed these choices and its viewpoint may be. It is in that vein that we wish to examine the concept of responsibility through both the general and focused lens. In general, to what extent is the positively-oriented entity responsible for indirectly participating in activities which result in pain and suffering for others? There are many specific ways to approach the basic underlying principle of responsibility, including purchasing gasoline, using products which harm the environment, supporting or not resisting governments which funnel the energy of their people into nefarious ends, etc.

We would like to select one particular instance of this principle for our focus. It is understood among many spiritual seekers that except in cases of humane slaughter our second-density friends are routinely mistreated and abused in the process of converting their physical bodies into our meat foodstuffs. Specifically then, to what extent is the positively-oriented entity responsible for the suffering of second-density creatures when purchasing and consuming the meat of these animals?

(Carla channeling)

We are those of the principle of Q’uo. Greetings in the love and in the light of the one infinite Creator, in whose service we come to you this evening. It is a pleasure and a privilege to be called to this group and to be a part of this circle of seeking. We are delighted to speak with you about responsibility.

But first, as always, we would ask each of you who listens to or reads these words a favor. Please use your powers of discrimination and discernment as you listen to our thoughts. When a thought resonates to you, by all means work with it. If it does not resonate, but leaves you feeling flat and uninterested, then let it go. Your following this request will allow us to speak freely, without being concerned that we will infringe upon your free will in any way or interrupt the process of your spiritual evolution. We thank you for this favor.

We would agree with the questioner that the Confederation philosophy of The Law of One places more responsibility on the individual seeker than most of your world religions. Most of your world religions posit a spiritual leader or guru whose likeness, essence or energy you follow, so that it is as though you were riding on that entity’s coattails into your own open heart.

Most world religions suggest that you follow or believe in that spiritual leader, whether it be Jesus or Yahweh or Allah. Indeed, the spiritual leaders who are placed in the position of being that entity which opens the heart for you are many.

The Law of One suggests not that you follow the Creator or its prophet or representative, but that you become aware that you are the Creator. Therefore, it suggests that you take responsibility for your life, your choices, and the way you live, day by day and hour by hour. It is not a philosophy that places urgency upon this quest for the truth. It is a philosophy that says that you have all the time that you need to make your choices and to follow your evolutionary path to complete the circle that you have begun, from the Creator, moving through densities and densities of experience into the heart of the one Creator once again, so that your source and your ending are the same and so that you never end.

You are a citizen of eternity. You are an infinite soul-stream. What you do not learn in this lifetime, you shall once again take up, and study that which you have not yet completed once again, and if necessary, once again, until in the fullness of time you move through the densities of Choice, Love, Light and Unity, and finally that density of Foreverness that is a mystery even to us.

And in each density, each experience, each day and each hour, you are responsible for yourself, for your choices, for your intentions and for your desires.

It is expected of you and built into the nature that is called “human nature” that you shall desire things. And you are given not simply permission but encouragement to experience those things which you desire, as long as they do not infringe upon the free will of another. For it is in experiencing those things which you desire that you become aware of what you truly desire; what you desire at a level that is deeper than the level of impulse, fad and fashion.

The great challenge in following your desires is to come to know yourself in such a way that you are able to open to yourself deeper levels of the self, levels that are hidden from society, from your culture, from your training, from all that you have learned about how the world wags, gradually unfettering yourself from those chains of learned behavior in order that you may meet a deeper level of consciousness within yourself.

For you are not only that which is on the surface of your personality. You are also that which is in common with the one infinite Creator. You are a part of the Creator. And as a creature of third density, the density of Choice, you have within you that consciousness that is the consciousness of the Creator, the Logos, the one original Thought of unconditional love. You are love. You are capable of offering love through yourself—not your love, but the love of the one Creator that flows through you in an unending stream.

And since you are a Creator, although a very young and largely untrained one, you have the power to create your own universe.

Now, you have been given a physical vehicle. It is a physical vehicle with parameters of function. For each body to function there are unique parameters to be met, what the nutritionist would call “food values” to fulfill. There are various chemicals that your body needs to function. There are various enzymes, proteins, fats, carbohydrates: the stuff of your food.

You asked specifically about the responsibility that you have for what you eat. For those who have not yet conceived of the possibility of choices in this area, their responsibility is minimal. One cannot make choices if one is ignorant of the choices. Therefore, the question that you asked is on behalf of those who have awakened to the fact that all is one. You are one with the clouds and the rain, the fire that warms the hearth, the water within your body and in all of the bodies of water within the planet.

You are one with the birds, the animals, flowers, plants, rocks, each other and the Creator.

There is only one thing in the universe and that is love.

Indeed, you are seeking at this time to reduce the level of distortion in your thinking so that you may become more and more aware of that consciousness that lies closer to you than breathing, nearer than your hands and feet: the consciousness of unconditional love that is your true nature.

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.

The one known as L stated, during her portion of the talk around the circle before this meditation, that there were times when she wondered if she were capable of sustaining the level of awareness that she has from time to time found very easy to sustain for short periods. We find this to be a very appropriate thought, for each entity will find itself varying from day to day or from hour to hour or year to year. Entities do not stay the same. They cannot stay the same. Evolution is part of you. It is inevitable. There is that energy which must evolve within you.

And this density that you call Planet Earth, the third density, the third grade, shall we say, in this school of souls, is one in which you can attempt to linger forever, but you shall not succeed. For you shall learn, no matter how slowly, no matter against what resistance. Your choices are involved in whether or not you wish to accelerate the pace of your evolution in mind, body and spirit, and you are fully capable of this work.

No matter how many times you disappoint yourself, you must remember that you are your own worst critic and that others around you may well find that attempt which you consider feeble to be heroic. It takes courage to be responsible for your thoughts, your words, and your actions. It takes real stamina to sustain this level of awareness of your environment as a spiritual environment, far more than a physical or emotional or mental environment, day after day after day.

And we grasp the fact that the illusion of the valley of the shadow of death, as this instrument often calls physical life, uses every wile and every whim to distract you and challenge you. It is a kindly distraction and a kindly energy that operates in this way, for it is only within third density that you do not remember who you are, that you do not experience dancing with all of the universe, and that you do not know at first hand that all things are one.

It is only within third density that you are seemingly locked within your status as a monad, a unit. When one considers oneself to be a unit moving alone, in the crowd but not of the crowd, bouncing off of other entities but not joining with them or even harmonizing with them, the world becomes meaningless, as the existentialists have so beautifully pointed out in so many works of art. [3]

And if you assume that the world has meaning and that you are worthy to be a part of Creation, to be a part of love itself, then everything has meaning. Everything fills your heart and gives you food for thought, catalyst for growth.

So the question becomes, my friends, how to sustain a consciousness that is capable of approaching every meal with the awareness that perhaps the asparagus screamed as it was broken off of its mother. Perhaps the green beans cried to be taken from the vine. Perhaps the steer did not wish to leave its pasture, no matter how pitiful. So you approach each meal thanking the substance that feeds you, that you need, that you must have to live this physical life, in such a way that it and you become part of a ritual that is sacred in nature and that blesses both you and the substance which you are eating.

The answer my friends, is simple yet very difficult for those who live in the density of Choice. You must make friends with the silence. You have heard of the still, small voice of the Creator. It is still. We cannot say it is small.

There are many ways to be silent before the Creator. Some of the most common you immediately think of as being the whole of the way to be silent before the infinite One—to go to church or the synagogue or the ashram, to pray, to meditate silently. These are all powerful, effective ways to answer the silence and to tabernacle with the one infinite Creator, but there are other ways to invoke the Creator in silence.

Certainly the one known as G could speak very highly of communing with nature in nature, where there are no traffic lights and horns to honk and people to brush across one without realizing that he or she has brushed against the Creator.

You can find silence within yourself in the noisiest place when you know how to get there. It is a matter of practice, my friends. It is a matter of making new habits, as the one known as L noted. It is not always that easy to break the old habit or to create a new habit that is truly satisfying, but it is worth the effort that it takes to gain the habit of habitual inner silence.

When you have silence within yourself it does not matter how noisy the environment or how chaotic the minds of the people around you. No matter how sensitive you are to others, when you find yourself and are able to live in your open heart, you have the Balm of Gilead waiting for you as close as your next thought.

There are even ways to tabernacle with the infinite One that do not seem to be silent. This instrument, for instance, often sings hymns that place her in a certain frame of mind and move her into worship and devotion. These offer the same benefit as the silence. Again, it is a matter of the repetition of your practice. That which works for you, we encourage you to repeat. Repeat it again and again and continue through the chances and changes of everyday life, the good times and the difficult ones, until that habit is so much a part of your experience that, lacking it, you hunger and thirst for it and must seek it once again.

Realize too that each of you has a different personality. Some of you are going to relate to the responsibilities that you have as a creature capable of making its own choices from the standpoint of beauty, others from the standpoint of truth, others from the standpoint of a life in faith. These are alternate but equally powerful and effective avenues through which to seek the truth.

And whatever your personality, we encourage you to believe in yourself, to know that you are loved beyond all understanding by the infinite Creator, and to know that you are capable of offering through yourself and out into the world with your blessing that same creative energy, not from your own self, never from that seemingly limited personality where you shall soon run out of love and simply be exhausted, but allow the energy of the one Creator to flow through you and out your eyes, out your mouth, out your hands, so that you see with eyes of love, you speak with words of love, and your hands contain love as they move.

What shall you choose, service to self or service to others? What shall you desire? How shall you set your intention this day? For you have the ability to set your intention each and every day. These are questions you may ponder.

And as you approach your next meal, allow yourself fully to imagine what you might actually do to square with yourself this increasing awareness that you have of the sacredness of all life. There are options. There are viable choices that you may make in response to your own feelings of responsibility. Insofar as it blesses you to follow through with these thoughts, by all means do so, and they, too, shall become a vehicle to you for advancing your awareness of who you are, Whose you are and Whom you serve.

---

So according to Q'uo, it is not wrong to eat meat that is humanely slaughtered, and of course, if you like to eat vegan, nothing wrong with that either.  

Both paths are acceptable for an STO being, given the right conditions.

[Lighthead]

Questioner: A true vegetarian wouldn’t eat anything that had to be killed.

Zalhem: No, but the majority of the people that don’t eat meat just don’t eat mammals. So this, as I say, is a debatable question, and consideration is given a great deal depending on the evolvement of the civilization on the planet at that time. Eventually man will evolve to the point where he will not eat meat. In your own Bible it tells you that it is alright to eat it and then it says you shall not kill, and it says that you should eat only certain kinds of meat.

Clyde Trepanier Transcripts: July 2nd, 1984 (L/L Research Library)