Why I am not a vegan

[Minyatur]

Anyway if you argument will always be that these kind of experiences need to stop, then we have reached a point where this won't evolve further.

Where you see ugliness, I see beauty.
Where you see a loss, I see a gain.

I do believe these experiences are valuable for the animals first hand, any extended-catalyst toward humans is more of a side-effect of it.

[Minyatur]

I said I am not karmically involved, which means I have no strong emotional response to this (whether in a STO or STS way). 

I eat meat in acklowledgment of how it was made and unlike you I do not see it as wrong. It is the experience of the animal and not mine and unlike you I have no intent to deny it or to try to keep them from happening. I have a very very very strong belief that everything happens for a reason, even if I were to eventually become vegan there is very close to no chance that I'd regret my past actions.

As to why I partake in these threads, why not? is it not a good catalyst? I'm a gemini that believes we can only be mirror unto one another, I'd worry if I did not partake in these threads.

Why are you here, just to take up space? 

No one said eating meat is "wrong" by the way.

Out of curiosity, how do you know you are not karmically involved?

Because I feel no need to change the way things are. I do not want to stop it nor do I want it to grow, it simply does not bring me much catalyst nor change within myself. 

It's not like I can't love animals, I love animals and trees and humans  and rocks and pretty much anything. I would not say I am the most loving person, because my love is what my heart lets out. I've said in this thread I can't even fish because I feel repulsed at holding something against it's will. Well with a net it's fun because you don't use hooks and don't hold them outside the water against their will.

Haven't tried hunting and have no intention of trying.

I'm here because geminis like to talk I guess.

[The_Tired_Philosopher]

Whew.  Those numbers give me a sense of why we're in the 6th major extinction...

I'm just glad the arguments have not become cruel.

For the foreseeable future I don't imagine meat eating will cease until maybe a few generations pass and it becomes seen as a wasteful cruel act.  Until then, early awareness doesn't hurt but you can't force people, even through their own emotions.  They just won't get it, or see it, or care about it to change.

Sad.  But welcome to indifference and apathy.  As we as a species evolve we'll pull away from it I think.  We already are it seems, albeit slowly, but surely.

I don't actually buy meat much anymore at all (still a cheese addict though) but when its cooked and placed before me its a manner of respect.  This meat suffered to get to me.  I must make its journey to become one with me not in vain.  Chicken, beef, lamb (not much else, I put off pork completely) or what not.  A cow was murdered for me impersonally.  A chicken was cruelly killed for me.  They made it to a meal I find myself before.

I'll eat it, if that means depolarization, so be it, its to make the journey they took in suffering meaningful.  I cannot stop the murder.  But I can try to bless the aftermath with love and light.

All things are sacred...even the mass slaughter of life...  I hope its not all in vain...

[Minyatur]

All things are sacred...even the mass slaughter of life...  I hope its not all in vain...

Well faith that nothing is ever in vain is a good thing.

Good and bad experiences are corner stones of self that shape the soul into growing more and more in love. The outcome always will be something infinitely beautiful that can only grow into something even more and more beautiful.

[Monica]

Those are just pretty numbers

Pretty numbers?? Wow. Just wow.

if you think that if one of those americans by dying at the beginning of the year would have caused 198 less deaths then that is very naive, the average would simply be slightly bigger. 

That's not how statistics works. The numbers have already accounted for human deaths.

...

[Monica]

welcome to indifference and apathy.

Indeed.

...

[Minyatur]

if you think that if one of those americans by dying at the beginning of the year would have caused 198 less deaths then that is very naive, the average would simply be slightly bigger. 

That's not how statistics works. The numbers have already accounted for human deaths.

...

I meant that one less consumer would not necessarily impact the total number. I am very well aware how statistic works.

[Diana]

Why are you here, just to take up space? 

I'm here because geminis like to talk I guess.

I meant, why are you here on this planet? 

[Diana]

Because I feel no need to change the way things are. I do not want to stop it nor do I want it to grow, it simply does not bring me much catalyst nor change within myself. 

This does not prove you are not karmically involved. It could indicate a vast number of different things. 

[Diana]

I meant that one less consumer would not necessarily impact the total number. I am very well aware how statistic works.

For someone who likes to see the bigger picture and higher meanings of things, this is an ignorant statement (not meant in the derogatory sense; meant in the literal sense).

Everything matters. Even the smallest thing. If you are going to continue along this line that eating meat is what you choose for whatever reasons (or because you have no reasons), then it would behoove you to stop trying to justify it in this manner, among intelligent people. What you do does impact the whole. 

Perhaps you could comment on my post about linear time. 

[Minyatur]

Why are you here, just to take up space? 

I'm here because geminis like to talk I guess.

I meant, why are you here on this planet? 

I have various theories. Most likely one is to bring changes in myself, help with the opening of my heart and to let go of some things I have a hard time letting go of.

[Nicholas]

diet really is as personal as one's sex life.

Bump!

[Minyatur]

I meant that one less consumer would not necessarily impact the total number. I am very well aware how statistic works.

For someone who likes to see the bigger picture and higher meanings of things, this is an ignorant statement (not meant in the derogatory sense; meant in the literal sense).

Everything matters. Even the smallest thing. If you are going to continue along this line that eating meat is what you choose for whatever reasons (or because you have no reasons), then it would behoove you to stop trying to justify it in this manner, among intelligent people. What you do does impact the whole. 

Perhaps you could comment on my post about linear time. 

I do not so much try to justify myself, I feel called to do what I do and put words upon what has no words.

I can't either equate that if you for example would eat meat, that it'd increase the suffering of others. There is a possibily that it can create this cause and effect but does not necessarily mean it does. I do agree with your conception of time and do not have much to comment on it.

I went over subjects such as this one with a friend of mine quite a lot of times and one realization he had about me is that I tend to pour love in what was created without love. He was often trying to be a mirror for myself and it wasn't really working, after that realization he stopped. In my case I do not think that eating meat is a deep rooted desire within me which is why I said I do not feel karmically involved, I believe what I do to be under the guidance of fate, whether it paints white or black. I'll probably spend a part of my life eating meat just as I'll spend another part of it not eating meat, each of them having their own purposes toward myself and other-selves.


I do not necessarily want to deny that I can have an impact, but even if I do I won't consider it a waste. I still do believe with my state of mind and soul, there is little possibility that my actions create a time/space cause and effect that will cause further sufferings. This is only what my intuition tells me, not something I can share proof of.

[Monica]

diet really is as personal as one's sex life.

Bump!

One's sex life is nobody else's business, provided it's between consenting adults. It's a personal choice, because there are No victims.

UNLESS one fancies dominating another person (rape) or victimizing children.

Eating meat dominates other entities. Eating meat has victims.

...

[isis]

diet really is as personal as one's sex life.

Bump!

http://www.bring4th.org/forums/showthrea...#pid161874

bump!

[Nicholas]

diet really is as personal as one's sex life.

Bump!

One's sex life is nobody else's business, provided it's between consenting adults. It's a personal choice, because there are No victims.



...

If the one who consents to putting meat in their mouth bites down hard, their surely is a victim! 

[anagogy]

How can you say that when I just showed evidence that people's choices to eat less meat DO affect others? To the tune of millions of others each year?

I guess you ignored the part of my post where I told you that you aren't creating their reality for them, so they simply suffer in other ways.  You don't choose whether they suffer, or not.  Their consciousness makes that choice, at varying levels of spiritual awareness.

Your view seems to be very separatist to me. Your view seems to suggest that each of us is separate from the rest of the Universe, each of us alone.

If we didn't affect one another, then what would be the point of serving others? If we are all ONE, then how could we not affect one another?

I clearly said in my post that you can influence, you just don't create their reality for them.  But you can only influence those in vibrational proximity to you.  If there are no complimentary vibrations, you might as well be trying to help someone in a parallel reality.  You'll have about the same impact.

In anycase, if my view comes across as separatist to you, you have misinterpreted me in the extreme.  I just don't confuse the reflection, reflector, and reflectee for one another.

Even if action on the physical plane pales to "work in consciousness", the planet desperately needs those with strong 4D compassion energies, even if it brings them to the point of martyrdom. Not to mention, that one can spend a lifetime "working in consciousness" but still never open their heart chakra. I just want to say, I don't disagree that working in consciousness is paramount, I just wholeheartedly disagree with the idea that those who change their behaviors do nothing to change the way the outer world reflects that being back to them, which appears to me to be the argument here against veganism: That one person's actions do not affect change.

The mass consensus reality is an amalgamation of personal realities.  You can influence others in vibrational proximity to your reality, because there is overlap, and thus, meaningful communication.  But no one controls anyone else.  But it's almost like some people are looking at the ingredients of the cosmos, and are saying, "I don't like this ingredient.  We need to eradicate it from our reality.  This ingredient is bad."  I'm just saying, you can't delete the ingredients of the cosmos.  You don't have to put that ingredient in your personal dinner, but you can't throw it out of the cosmic pantry, so to speak.  That's all I'm saying.

Isn't that a rather short-sighted statement that there will always be meat eating? Why? It's perfectly plausible for humanity to evolve to a plant-based diet. As Einstein said, "Nothing will benefit human health and increase the chances for survival of life on earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet." As far as animals and predator/prey, my imagination can grasp the idea that evolution will include all species. Everything evolves; it's not just linear. So the Creator, or the Source, also evolves. It follows that even processes can evolve. Perhaps somewhere someday even animals will be at peace with each other because there is a less cruel way to obtain sustenance. Even the bible says the lion shall lay with the lamb in Revelations.

It will always exist for one simple basic reason: not everyone wants what you want.  And the caterpillar is not wrong for not being a butterfly.  All the ingredients of the cosmic pantry have their time and place.  And the background of all pleasure, is pain. That is duality, and the pendulum swings both ways till it comes to rest in the middle and duality is no more.  Also, I disagree with you that creator evolves.  The creator is not evolving towards anything.  Evolution is an experience, not a means to an end.  Only in that sense does the creator evolve.  It is not becoming "better", or "new and improved".

Yes, each entity will journey on its own path.

But that is not the point. The point is, what do YOU choose to do?

I choose to feel happy and at peace, knowing that whatever happens, all is well.  I'm not terribly concerned with what happens.  Let's say the darkness took hold and this planet harvests 4th density negative (I know, unlikely, but roll with it).  What then?  Is it the end of the world?  Are we doomed to hell for eternity?  Will everything be okay in the end?  

All is one.  The end result is well.  Why worry?

Here you don't know me at all, but that is understandable because we are both words on a screen to each other.

I tune my thoughts to well-being every day. I don't set out to be a shining beacon, I simply am that in the sense that I am what I am. Being vegetarian is not that simple. It is not just for me. After so many threads and posts I am not sure I have the energy to explain. Suffice it to say that I am "in this world but not of it."

Sorry if I made it sound like you aren't doing those things.  I think everybody is doing great.  It is impossible for the creator's intent to not be realized, so everything is proceeding perfectly, even if somebody thinks otherwise.  That is to say, we didn't come to fix a broken world.  I think that is what I would most like to communicate to people in this thread.  

Of course I want to focus on the well-being. Every single time, since Icaro, Aion, and I came up with the visualization, I mentally create the tree, grass, and a foal for every miserable horse on a piece of desert dirt I pass as I drive.  This is a discussion however with presumably evolved and conscious thinking individuals, who presumably WANT to talk about it in some capacity and choose it—I am not forcing anyone. That is why I discuss here. Out in the world it is different. There, I live and let live, though as you say, it isn't easy.

But let me ask you: do you want to focus your consciousness on denial, or in blindness? I go back to my original question: how could you watch the pitiable lives of meat animals and their eventual inhumane slaughter with an open heart and not be utterly saddened? And if you are saddened, why on earth would you choose to add to the machine? Saying you are not a component of that machine if you continue to buy its products is simply denial, however you twist words into justifications.

Maybe it will seem horrific to you, and perhaps I will seem disconnected from what you feel is absolute rock hard reality, but I know in my heart of hearts, without a shadow of a doubt, that all is an illusion.  A play in consciousness.  In the same way that when I watch a dramatic movie I can get myself emotionally frantic, and upset, by identifying with the hurts and pains and dramas of the characters in the movie, or I can choose to remain detached by understanding that they are simply actors playing roles, and the unfolding drama was just an impression, on the mind, deliberately concocted to elicit an emotional reaction.  If it still does, there is no wrong in it, it just means you are still using the catalyst.

I'm sure you will probably interpret this to mean my heart is closed, but I don't really see it that way.  I prefer to think of it as not confusing the forest for the trees, a state of distilled love, and looking at things from a broader perspective.  I'm a character in the movie too, playing a role.  I have just stopped forgetting that is precisely what I am doing.

Ra: The catalyst of experience works in order for the learn/teachings of this density to occur. However, if there is seen in the being a response, even if it is simply observed, the entity is still using the catalyst for learn/teaching. The end result is that the catalyst is no longer needed. Thus this density is no longer needed. This is not indifference or objectivity but a finely tuned compassion and love which sees all things as love. This seeing elicits no response due to catalytic reactions. Thus the entity is now able to become co-Creator of experiential occurrences. This is the truer balance.

[Monica]

I guess you ignored the part of my post where I told you that you aren't creating their reality for them, so they simply suffer in other ways.  You don't choose whether they suffer, or not.  Their consciousness makes that choice, at varying levels of spiritual awareness.

That's been addressed before numerous times, so I didn't see any point in repeating myself yet again.

I clearly said in my post that you can influence, you just don't create their reality for them.  But you can only influence those in vibrational proximity to you.  If there are no complimentary vibrations, you might as well be trying to help someone in a parallel reality.  You'll have about the same impact.

In anycase, if my view comes across as separatist to you, you have misinterpreted me in the extreme.  I just don't confuse the reflection, reflector, and reflectee for one another.

Victim and victimizer are in vibrational proximity.

But it's almost like some people are looking at the ingredients of the cosmos, and are saying, "I don't like this ingredient. We need to eradicate it from our reality.  This ingredient is bad."  I'm just saying, you can't delete the ingredients of the cosmos.  You don't have to put that ingredient in your personal dinner, but you can't throw it out of the cosmic pantry, so to speak.  That's all I'm saying.

And again, no one has suggested that we do that, even if we could, which we can't.

It's about whether we wish to participate in it and support it.

I choose to feel happy and at peace, knowing that whatever happens, all is well.  I'm not terribly concerned with what happens.  Let's say the darkness took hold and this planet harvests 4th density negative (I know, unlikely, but roll with it).  What then?  Is it the end of the world?  Are we doomed to hell for eternity?  Will everything be okay in the end?  

All is one.  The end result is well.  Why worry?

That's easy for you to say. Not so easy for the victims.

Maybe it will seem horrific to you, and perhaps I will seem disconnected from what you feel is absolute rock hard reality, but I know in my heart of hearts, without a shadow of a doubt, that all is an illusion.  A play in consciousness.  In the same way that when I watch a dramatic movie I can get myself emotionally frantic, and upset, by identifying with the hurts and pains and dramas of the characters in the movie, or I can choose to remain detached by understanding that they are simply actors playing roles, and the unfolding drama was just an impression, on the mind, deliberately concocted to elicit an emotional reaction.  If it still does, there is no wrong in it, it just means you are still using the catalyst.

I'm sure you will probably interpret this to mean my heart is closed, but I don't really see it that way.  I prefer to think of it as not confusing the forest for the trees, a state of distilled love, and looking at things from a broader perspective.  I'm a character in the movie too, playing a role.  I have just stopped forgetting that is precisely what I am doing.

And yet...here you are. Here we all are. There is a purpose to the illusion. Just because it's an illusion doesn't mean we are supposed to ignore it all and stay stuck in the sinkhole of indifference.

...

[anagogy]

That's been addressed before numerous times, so I didn't see any point in repeating myself yet again.

Interesting that out of ALL the points you constantly recycle in these vegi-vaur debates, this just happens to be the one you refuse to recycle.  Perhaps, you know, because it is an argument you can't win?  I find it funny that people will profess to subscribe to the LoA/YCYOR concept right up until the point that there is a negative circumstance they might have to take responsibility for, or a negative implication they might have to accept, and then there is a whole bunch of excuses like "well it wasn't working then, obviously".  People are oh so willing to take credit, and accept the positive circumstances, and implications, but never for the negative.

Victim and victimizer are in vibrational proximity.

You say that like it is some sort of retort to my point, but victims being in vibrational proximity to victimizers isn't exactly breaking news.  That's a pretty basic implication and tenet of the law of attraction.

And again, no one has suggested that we do that, even if we could, which we can't.

It's about whether we wish to participate in it and support it.

See, you say that but don't seem to understand that your very attention to the subject is increasing the momentum of it (.i.e. you are participating and supporting it by your mere attention to it).  Anything you push against becomes stronger.  You activate it in your vibrational field, and then focus on getting others involved, and all the while thinking you're beating this demon down, and the exact opposite is happening.  It's a lot like the old aphorism: "hate of war won't bring peace, only love of peace will bring peace."  

That's easy for you to say. Not so easy for the victims.

We've all been victims and victimizers.  In your judgment of the wrongness of meat eaters, I wouldn't be at all surprised if you become the biggest carnivore of all in your next life.

And yet...here you are. Here we all are. There is a purpose to the illusion. Just because it's an illusion doesn't mean we are supposed to ignore it all and stay stuck in the sinkhole of indifference.

As the Ra quote you so conveniently completely ignored implied: people often mistake a finely tuned compassion that sees all things as love for indifference.  Monica, perhaps you are not here to "fix" the problem by controlling conditions to the point where things are agreeable to you.  As I've said repeatedly, we didn't come to fix a broken world. Perhaps you are here to accept things as they are.  I see a lot of people trying to reject things as they are (which necessitates the control -- "Yee haw, gotta stop them evil meat-eaters--whoo doggy!").

[Monica]

Interesting that out of ALL the points you constantly recycle in these vegi-vaur debates, this just happens to be the one you refuse to recycle.  Perhaps, you know, because it is an argument you can't win?

No, not at all. No one can ever win an argument with a vegan. Not possible. Nothing to do with me personally; could be any vegan...this is just a general statement. There simply isn't any justification for knowingly, unnecessarily supporting suffering. All of the arguments are in favor of self: self's desire for taste, etc. You can philosophize all day long about why you think animals 'should' suffer, but there is never any justification for participating in that suffering.

To directly address your statement is beyond the scope of this discussion. If you want to start another thread about whether we can affect others, how much we influence them, whether suffering will always exist, and whether a certain % of beings choose to suffer just for the sake of suffering, and reducing suffering is all pointless because they'll all just reincarnate somewhere else anyway, then go for it.

The short answer is that I disagree with you. I think those are all attempts at justification for causing suffering, and don't have any substance whatsoever, especially in light of what we know about the holographic nature of the universe, and in light of how science and mathematics have shown that each of us is the Event Horizon.

No, I don't see them as separate entities who are going to choose suffering anyway.  They are other-selves.

When you start your new thread, perhaps you might wish to explore what Oneness really means.

I find it funny that people will profess to subscribe to the LoA/YCYOR concept right up until the point that there is a negative circumstance they might have to take responsibility for, or a negative implication they might have to accept, and then there is a whole bunch of excuses like "well it wasn't working then, obviously".  People are oh so willing to take credit, and accept the positive circumstances, and implications, but never for the negative.

I have no idea what you're talking about, in regards to this discussion.

You say that like it is some sort of retort to my point, but victims being in vibrational proximity to victimizers isn't exactly breaking news.  That's a pretty basic implication and tenet of the law of attraction.

You said we didn't influence animals, or something to that effect, then said we can only influence those with whom we are in 'vibrational proximity.' Well if both of your statements are true, then you were proving my point, because obviously the victimizer is in 'vibrational proximity' to the victim, so obviously the victimizer affects the victim.

See, you say that but don't seem to understand that your very attention to the subject is increasing the momentum of it

Not as much as the people eating meat.

(.i.e. you are participating and supporting it by your mere attention to it).  Anything you push against becomes stronger.  You activate it in your vibrational field, and then focus on getting others involved, and all the while thinking you're beating this demon down, and the exact opposite is happening.  It's a lot like the old aphorism: "hate of war won't bring peace, only love of peace will bring peace."

Except...that's Not what's happening. Vegan activism is paying off. Meat consumption is down 12.2% in the US. Awareness must be raised. The activists succeeded in making slavery illegal, did they not? 

We've all been victims and victimizers.  In your judgment of the wrongness of meat eaters, I wouldn't be at all surprised if you become the biggest carnivore of all in your next life.

Ah, more of the "But you're JUDGING" BS. As though having a conviction about something being wrong is the worst possible offense! Never mind that I've never personally judged anyone here, ever, but have only held my ground about the inherently STS nature of their actions. If anyone feels judged, that is their own guilt, coming from within.

But regardless of whether it's judging or not, No matter how you slice it, judging someone for causing suffering is never as bad as actually causing the suffering.

As the Ra quote you so conveniently completely ignored implied: people often mistake a finely tuned compassion that sees all things as love for indifference.

I'd say it's the opposite. Someone with a 'finely tuned compassion' wouldn't be knowingly contributing to suffering. No way.

Seeing all things as love doesn't mean engaging in STS actions with zero regard for the consequences of those actions.  

Monica, perhaps you are not here to "fix" the problem by controlling conditions to the point where things are agreeable to you.  As I've said repeatedly, we didn't come to fix a broken world. Perhaps you are here to accept things as they are.  I see a lot of people trying to reject things as they are (which necessitates the control -- "Yee haw, gotta stop them evil meat-eaters--whoo doggy!").

I won't be participating in that so don't even go there. This isn't about me. It's about the victims...the sentient beings who suffered so that all the meat-eaters here can have their bacon and hamburgers.

They didn't sacrifice themselves. They didn't do it willingly. They were forced. You can dance around it all day and into the next century, but the fact remains that eating meat contributes to unnecessary suffering. Apparently most of the people here don't care that they may be contributing to keeping this planet stuck in 3D.

Such strong attachment to...a temporary sensation in their mouth, gone in a few minutes. It's mind-blowing, really.

...

[anagogy]

No, not at all. No one can ever win an argument with a vegan. Not possible. Nothing to do with me personally; could be any vegan...this is just a general statement. There simply isn't any justification for knowingly, unnecessarily supporting suffering. All of the arguments are in favor of self: self's desire for taste, etc. You can philosophize all day long about why you think animals 'should' suffer, but there is never any justification for participating in that suffering.

Completely ignored the question.  And just admitted to being completely close minded to any other perspectives because, afterall, "no one can win an argument with a vegan".

I find it funny that people will profess to subscribe to the LoA/YCYOR concept right up until the point that there is a negative circumstance they might have to take responsibility for, or a negative implication they might have to accept, and then there is a whole bunch of excuses like "well it wasn't working then, obviously".  People are oh so willing to take credit, and accept the positive circumstances, and implications, but never for the negative.

I have no idea what you're talking about, in regards to this discussion.

Sure you do.  But I'll break it down for you, anyway.  I said that you don't create animals reality for them.  You bypassed the discussion entirely saying it's been discussed before because you don't want to accept they do infact create their own circumstances.  You've said in the past you believed and subscribed to the "you create your own reality concept".  

Clearly, you don't really (which is okay, but not consistent, and also confusing when trying to find a common logical ground to debate upon).

And I'm not really interested in starting a new thread (discussing metaphysics), because I feel it is perfectly relevant to this one.  If you don't want to discuss it here, that is your loss, but it is fundamental to how I see the world, so there's no ground for further discussion if you don't want to address it.

You said we didn't influence animals, or something to that effect, then said we can only influence those with whom we are in 'vibrational proximity.' Well if both of your statements are true, then you were proving my point, because obviously the victimizer is in 'vibrational proximity' to the victim, so obviously the victimizer affects the victim.

Correct.  But if you were no longer a victimizer, the law of attraction would not draw you into situations where you be around victims.  The victims would attract a different victimizer.  You would be drawn to different circumstances and events.  Not sure what the significance of your influence is supposed to mean.  I'm guessing you were thinking if you get to the victimizers and convince them not to victimize, it would fix what you perceive to be the problem.  Nope, the victim will just attract another cooperative component to their victimness.  As I've said before, you don't choose whether they suffer or not.  Their consciousness decides that.

See, you say that but don't seem to understand that your very attention to the subject is increasing the momentum of it

Not as much as the people eating meat.

You might be surprised.

(.i.e. you are participating and supporting it by your mere attention to it).  Anything you push against becomes stronger.  You activate it in your vibrational field, and then focus on getting others involved, and all the while thinking you're beating this demon down, and the exact opposite is happening.  It's a lot like the old aphorism: "hate of war won't bring peace, only love of peace will bring peace."

Except...that's Not what's happening. Vegan activism is paying off. Meat consumption is down 12.2% in the US. Awareness must be raised. The activists succeeded in making slavery illegal, did they not? 

So what is the issue, meat eating, or animal suffering?  Of course, you think they're concomitant.  I've already told you repeatedly you don't create anyone's reality for them.  You don't want to hear that.  So you'll ignore it.  Also, statistics are very misleading when you understand how reality gets focused into being.  They are based on the false concept that you can separate yourself from the observed.  So meat consumption is down in the U.S.  It probably went up even more somewhere else to compensate (and in fact, it is increasing elsewhere...interesting how that works out).  Also, how exactly are they tallying that information?  You think all of it is getting reported?  That every single person is obtaining their meat from the same verifiable place?  You can't actually know, but you'll find evidence of whatever you sincerely believe.  But if it makes you feel better, more power to you.  It is clear you are no longer debating any logical/metaphysical points I raise, so I'm probably gonna bow out of this lost cause of a discussion.

Ah, more of the "But you're JUDGING" BS. As though having a conviction about something being wrong is the worst possible offense! Never mind that I've never personally judged anyone here, ever, but have only held my ground about the STS nature of their actions. If anyone feels judged, that is their own guilt, coming from within.

But regardless of whether it's judging or not, No matter how you slice it, judging someone for causing suffering is never as bad as actually causing the suffering.

Cause and effect aren't nearly so easy to pin down as you would like to believe.  But it sure is psychologically comfortable when you are firmly convinced you know which monster to chase down with your pitchfork.  You call my philosophy separatist, but it is yours that denies we are all one, and are thus all responsible for the darkness of this world (if you perceive it as such).

I won't be participating in that. This isn't about me. It's about the victims...the sentient beings who suffered so that all the meat-eaters here can have their bacon and hamburgers.

Who said it was about you?  Because I mentioned your name?  Why do you have to make it about you?  That's a better question.  And then, again, deflect the point being discussed?

I was talking about acceptance versus control.  I didn't make it personal, you did.  

[Diana]

Maybe it will seem horrific to you, and perhaps I will seem disconnected from what you feel is absolute rock hard reality, but I know in my heart of hearts, without a shadow of a doubt, that all is an illusion.  A play in consciousness.  In the same way that when I watch a dramatic movie I can get myself emotionally frantic, and upset, by identifying with the hurts and pains and dramas of the characters in the movie, or I can choose to remain detached by understanding that they are simply actors playing roles, and the unfolding drama was just an impression, on the mind, deliberately concocted to elicit an emotional reaction.  If it still does, there is no wrong in it, it just means you are still using the catalyst.

I'm sure you will probably interpret this to mean my heart is closed, but I don't really see it that way.  I prefer to think of it as not confusing the forest for the trees, a state of distilled love, and looking at things from a broader perspective.  I'm a character in the movie too, playing a role.  I have just stopped forgetting that is precisely what I am doing.

I'm not sure why there are those who dismiss this world as nothing but illusion. But if that's all this is, then it would follow that everything is an illusion, and a case could be made for that. But illusion, no illusion, reality, unreal...what does it matter? It is something, and we are here. 

May I ask if you have seen anyone close to you suffer and die?

[anagogy]

I'm not sure why there are those who dismiss this world as nothing but illusion. But if that's all this is, then it would follow that everything is an illusion, and a case could be made for that. But illusion, no illusion, reality, unreal...what does it matter? It is something, and we are here. 

I don't "dismiss" the world.  I just know that physical world is a small portion of the reality.  Illusion doesn't mean something doesn't exist, that it isn't real, it just means it doesn't exist how you necessarily thought it existed.

I don't sit in a void, where I do nothing don't care who or what I do it to, because whatever, its not real right?  I serve in all sorts of ways, because it is who I am, and brings me joy to bring others joy in that fashion.  Perhaps I don't serve in the same way that you serve, but I serve nonetheless.  I just don't have a particular investment in the outcome.  So in that sense, perhaps I am detached. What I do, I do as a function of it being as pure an expression as I can muster of me. The world has/is/will be fine regardless of what I do, or do not do however.

May I ask if you have seen anyone close to you suffer and die?

Many.  Death is a part of life.  So i'm guessing you're wondering if personal attachment makes it harder to see illusion as illusion?

Naturally, of course it does.  I'm not completely disidentified with this world.  But I know death isn't the end, and that with it, you reemerge into pure positive energy, and reenter this world from a new vantage point, karmically determined to some extent.  So I haven't fallen prey to the misapprehension that death is a bad thing.  Nothing really dies.  And those who suffer are healed.  And getting emotionally worked up rarely lends itself to more pristinely rational thought.  And irrational thought is no help to anyone.  

"It is to be kept in the forefront of the faculties of intelligence that there is one creation in which there is no loss."    

[The_Tired_Philosopher]

welcome to indifference and apathy.

Indeed.

...

Just please understand this applies to you as well as I.

[indolering]

...

Carnism: The Psychology of Eating Meat

Carnism is a term coined by psychologist Melanie Joy to describe the ideology that supports the use of animals for food, clothing or other consumer products. The argument holds that carnism is a dominant belief system supported by a variety of defence mechanisms and mostly unchallenged assumptions. Joy coined the term in 2001 and developed the idea in her book Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows (2009).

Central to the ideology, according to this view, is the acceptance of meat-eating as “natural, normal, necessary, and nice.”An important feature of carnism is the classification of only particular species of animal as food, and the acceptance of practices toward those animals that would be rejected as unacceptable cruelty if applied to other species. This classification is culturally relative, so that, for example, dogs are eaten in China but may be family members in the West, while cows are eaten in the West but protected in much of India.
Another aspect is known as the meat paradox, namely that most people care about animals but embrace diets that involve harming them. Psychologists suggest that this conflict between beliefs and behavior leads to cognitive dissonance, which they say meat-eaters relieve by avoiding consideration of the provenance of animal products, and by ascribing reduced sentience, cognitive ability and moral standing to animals they regard as food. [wiki]





http://www.zengardner.com/carnism-psycho...ting-meat/

[The_Tired_Philosopher]

Nice, I can see how that works out.

Is there a special coined label for meat eaters who understand the act they partake in but apply little guilt to it regardless? Who don't hide behind anything and accept that others view them as monsters?

Just curious.

[Monica]

Completely ignored the question.  And just admitted to being completely close minded to any other perspectives because, afterall, "no one can win an argument with a vegan".

Is someone closed-minded for thinking slavery, rape, torture and murder are all wrong?

Sure you do.

You're treading on the brink of hostility. I said I didn't and I didn't.

But I'll break it down for you, anyway.  I said that you don't create animals reality for them.  You bypassed the discussion entirely saying it's been discussed before because you don't want to accept they do infact create their own circumstances.  You've said in the past you believed and subscribed to the "you create your own reality concept".

You are wrong. Either you haven't read all my posts or have forgotten. ALL entities create their own reality, on some level, though it becomes more conscious in the higher densities. Ra spoke of this. 2D entities start out with random catalyst, and it starts to be more conscious as they evolve.

That has nothing to do with the issue as to whether it's appropriate to provide the STS service of negative catalyst to them.

I have stated this numerous times, and even gave the example of a human who obviously DOES create their own catalyst to some degree. Remember my many examples of the human rape victim? I agreed that she is choosing that catalyst; however that does NOT justify us being the one to actually rape her!

So whether the animal chooses his/her reality is irrelevant to the point of whether we should rape/torture/kill them (or pay someone else to do those things so that we can enjoy the taste of his/her flesh).

Why you keep insisting that it's ok to eat meat just because the animal may have 'chosen' that reality makes No sense whatsoever, because that would be like saying it's ok to rape a woman because she chose to be raped.  

Correct.  But if you were no longer a victimizer, the law of attraction would not draw you into situations where you be around victims. The victims would attract a different victimizer.  You would be drawn to different circumstances and events.  Not sure what the significance of your influence is supposed to mean.  I'm guessing you were thinking if you get to the victimizers and convince them not to victimize, it would fix what you perceive to be the problem.  Nope, the victim will just attract another cooperative component to their victimness.  As I've said before, you don't choose whether they suffer or not.  Their consciousness decides that.

That is true, though oversimplified and leaving out the very important component of the holographic universe.

But to keep it simple (since you don't want to start another thread about that), you are still missing the point that meat-eaters ARE victimizers!

So by choosing to continue to eat meat, they continue to attract victims, see? It works both ways.

See, you say that but don't seem to understand that your very attention to the subject is increasing the momentum of it

Not as much as the people eating meat.

You might be surprised.

No, I don't think so. The abolitionists did a good thing in working to end legal slavery. To equate them with the actual slave 'owners' is absurd.

So what is the issue, meat eating, or animal suffering?

Animal suffering of course.

so I'm probably gonna bow out of this lost cause of a discussion.

That would be delightful. Blessings to you!

But it sure is psychologically comfortable when you are firmly convinced you know which monster to chase down with your pitchfork.

My my.

Who said it was about you?  Because I mentioned your name?  Why do you have to make it about you?  That's a better question.  And then, again, deflect the point being discussed?

I was talking about acceptance versus control.  I didn't make it personal, you did.  

LOL!!! Haha whatever.

I won't be responding to you henceforth.

...

[Diana]

May I ask if you have seen anyone close to you suffer and die?

Many.  Death is a part of life.  So i'm guessing you're wondering if personal attachment makes it harder to see illusion as illusion?

Naturally, of course it does.  I'm not completely disidentified with this world.  But I know death isn't the end, and that with it, you reemerge into pure positive energy, and reenter this world from a new vantage point, karmically determined to some extent.  So I haven't fallen prey to the misapprehension that death is a bad thing.  Nothing really dies.  And those who suffer are healed.  And getting emotionally worked up rarely lends itself to more pristinely rational thought.  And irrational thought is no help to anyone.  

"It is to be kept in the forefront of the faculties of intelligence that there is one creation in which there is no loss."    

I asked because I wondered if you would have wanted to cause the suffering or contribute to the suffering of a loved who suffered and died. The thing is, your words of detachment are easy to write in my opinion from my perspective, but I find it harder to put these things into practice.

I find that you tend to exaggerate. I don't get emotionally worked up generally. And people such as Monica doing the grass roots work helping to stop animal suffering don't generally get worked up either. This is a derogatory and blanket statement applied to those being judged as zealots or extremists, which is ubiquitous/insidious here toward vegan/vegetarian posters. I am logical and detached compared to almost everyone I know. But when someone close dies in a horrible way, for instance, my brother at 29 years old, my heart breaks. No amount of rationalization or beliefs in what happens next can take away the heartbreak. The heart break is for him, and the challenges he had, not for me and now I have to go on without him (though that is there as well). It's just sad. And I am quite aware of karma and all the bigger picture stuff, and that even under the microscope things change and do not disappear. Perhaps it has more to do with empathy, to feel the pain of others. 

So I asked that question to see if there was even a person in your life whose pain—physical, emotional—you were able to feel. And if that was true, I was going to say that I feel that way about everything—trees, animals, insects, people, plants, worms. No matter how much I know that nothing really dies, and I have consciously known this from inner speculation since I was about 5 years old, this does not matter when it comes to suffering. It's not about death, though I think there are many who would say they wouldn't infringe upon the life of another human but apparently it's okay to infringe upon the life of an animal, it is about cruelty and suffering. It is about compassion.

So I was hoping to make a connection in an area where you might feel something in your heart with a loved one. I'm sure you would not want to have consciously caused a loved one pain that contributed to their suffering and death. I don't mean to say that would have been wrong, only that it made you feel compassion. This is what I am talking about when I say I don't understand how anyone here can want to contribute to the suffering of animals, which we know is evident. They suffer under human enslavement to be food for us. They may have chosen it, 3D humans may never stop eating meat, but why would anyone HERE, at B4, in this conversation, and presumably a wanderer from realms where I seriously doubt factory farms exist for obvious reasons, want to be part of that cruel, cruel system?

If none of it matters (because it's all just experience) then why does Ra talk about the positive and negative paths? Don't get me wrong here, I do not follow any dogma, even Ra. But I feel our choices matter, even in the overall idea that we are creating our reality. So what do you want to create, if anything? Some here seem to feel they are just passengers in life and all is perfect. This is a misleading concept in my mind, as it excuses laziness to even participate consciously with clarity. All may be perfect from a certain point of view, but that doesn't mean then that you just indulge away in anything because who cares anyway. I can understand the idea that one can inject love into anything. But WHY would you want to actually consciously create something that now needed that love? It is like a bulimic, who self-indulges then vomits to get rid of it. To say the least it is counterproductive.

For those seeking to evolve consciously I just don't understand the needless adherence to a cruel system for any reason just because it all works out—presumably—in the end.

[Minyatur]

Completely ignored the question.  And just admitted to being completely close minded to any other perspectives because, afterall, "no one can win an argument with a vegan".

Is someone closed-minded for thinking slavery, rape, torture and murder are all wrong?

It is belittling others' paths, rejecting the victims in what they are just as rejecting the victimizers in what they are. Whether it is close-minded or not is up to you to ask yourself if rejecting portions of yourself is being close-minded or not.

----

You said you did agree that these experiences are meant to be on some level but that it is the role of STS entities to be the agents of fate. So that means you'll always let others dirty their hands in the manner which you do not want to dirty yours (a side of yourself you are possibly scared of exploring) and use the catalysts that are offered from the services of others to work on yourself and evolve while keeping your self-righteous thoughts that you are not involved? 

I think something me and anagogy have said is true, that you are indeed involved in all of this. That comes from the fact that out of b4th you seem the be the one beneficing most from these animals sufferings on a soul level. If you can't perceive your own need for these meat farms to exist, you are not trying very hard when the focus of your awareness is very centred upon it. Out of anyone I've ever met, you are the one who is using this particular mirror the most and as such, you are also the one who needs this mirror the most.

You've created all of your reality, and that includes every pain that you witness. You can perceive it as external to you but that is a delusion which lasts only for a time.

[caycegal]

Vitamin B12...nuff said

Edgar Cayce...nuff said