Episode #60

[Bring4th_Austin]

Episode #60



In this episode, we discuss:
- What is the spiritual purpose and reasoning for pain in the second density?

---

A transcript for this episode will be posted once it is available.

Feel free to discuss this episode in this thread!

[MangusKhan]

This one is really interesting. I'd always assumed the suffering in 2D was just manifestation of the logos' plan to experience "dynamic tension". Other channeled sources seem to confirm that the hugely varied (and stunningly beautiful), chaotic and suffering-filled ecosystems of the planet are unique in creation. Do non-veiled planets not evolve lifeforms through tension and competition, but rather through a premeditated plan set forth by the logos?

[Jade]

I think I resonated well with Jim's answer that second density suffering exists to increase the opportunities for compassion for third density. I think where it missed the mark is that while there is discussion of horses, elephants, squirrels, whales, baboons, cats, dogs - but there is no mention of a single species of farm animal. We have about 3,000 captive whales and dolphins on this planet, there are less than half a million elephants left - meanwhile, 25,000,000 chickens died today, a horrible, brutal death after a short, torturous life - and that doesn't include the roosters that are born in the egg industry that are ground up alive immediately upon being born.

I also thought that maybe the conversation would have felt more cohesive if instead of discussing "How second density animals suffer and how it is different than us", to maybe discussing how we might experience suffering in similar ways.

[AnthroHeart]

This one is really interesting. I'd always assumed the suffering in 2D was just manifestation of the logos' plan to experience "dynamic tension". Other channeled sources seem to confirm that the hugely varied (and stunningly beautiful), chaotic and suffering-filled ecosystems of the planet are unique in creation. Do non-veiled planets not evolve through tension and competition, but rather through a premeditated plan set forth by the logos?

Only 3D is veiled, and I think the veil is throughout our entire galaxy, if not the Universe.

[Jeremy]

I haven't been able to listen yet but did you guys touch upon this Q'uote?

Because the rock has no self-consciousness, it does not suffer. It experiences. It is not that rock accepts the erosion which eventually dissolves it. It is that its nature is as it is and that which occurs is that which occurs.
For the animal, the life is that which is, for, again, there is no self-consciousness except that which is implanted within it by its human caretakers. If it has the cut or the lame paw it simply has this. It endures it without suffering. It experiences the pain, the discomfort, but it does not suffer, for it does not reflect within itself but rather seeks the sleep which frees it to dream of days when it was chasing game and being that which it is as a young one.

http://www.llresearch.org/transcripts/is..._0212.aspx


Edit so I listened to most of it and I'll preface this by stating that I'm purely going off the the materials definition of 2nd and 3rd density. I'm not sure I fully believe it or not so I'm not taking one side or the other.

Going off of the quote above and how 2nd density life is explained within the material, they do not possess awareness. This awareness is what we term as I AM. This I AM is the result of being self aware thus an entity cannot suffer if IT does not know what IT is due to this lack of awareness. It cannot say I am suffering. It may say ouch this hurts then learn the ability to attempt to avoid such a behaviour but this is purely instinctual learned behaviour just like Pavlov's bell.

Of course, we all have compassion and feel horrible as to how 2nd density entities are treated here. I'm definitely not excusing the atrocities that occur on a daily basis. But I feel at times that we anthropromorphize 2nd density entities by assuming they suffer as we suffer

Oh I forgot to mention that I really dug austins or was it Gary's response regarding the lack of awareness and lack of storytelling that 2nd density enrities posses

[Jade]

Why the effort to minimize or mitigate the obvious suffering of second density?

There are basic needs that should be met for life, including second density. When we as humans intervene and deny them these basic rights as beings, we are indeed causing suffering.

We've been domesticating cows for as long as we've been domesticating dogs. The affects of humans on individuating the species is hardly different. It's my belief that as soon as we begin to interfere with the "normal" life of a second density being and start to control what it eats, tell it who to breed with, take their babies for food, etc, that at that moment we begin projecting a story upon that being, and at that point we have a responsibility to that story.

I don't often disagree with Q'uo but it seems very contradictory to me that if a being was not suffering, why would it be escaping to sleep to dream of better times? That sounds like an extremely human thing to me, actually. Also, how can animals who have spent their whole life tortured in a cage dream of better times?

I also think it's inaccurate to draw such a strict line and make blanket statements like "Animals don't possess I AM awareness". The Creator exists in All. Ra says that a tree or a rock can become fourth density, yet we trap second density animals in a tiny box that we limit by the capabilities of their physical brain. Ra also specifically discusses a second density being that is having third density experiences/catalyst (Gandalf) - who in fact, could choose to "wander" back to second density for another incarnation! (presumably continuing with their third density lessons...)

I feel that it's ironic that when a vegan conversation comes up, everyone talks about the suffering of plants. However, this side of the discussion has not made it there yet. What about all the plants that we torture so that we can feed the billions of farm animals? The destroyed rainforests? The acidifying oceans? Did you know that current numbers put us at fishless oceans in 2050? The main cause being industrial farming pollution...

Anyway, yes, I agree, that there is a lot more to the conversation. Jim said it is important to bear witness to their suffering, and I agree with that as well.

I apologize if the post is emotional. I am just highly triggered by the perpetuation of the idea that second density beings don't suffer. It seems to be a slippery slope that shouldn't even be a slope in the first place - for instance, what about a human with a brain injury? Someone who becomes what we call a "vegetable"? Do they suffer? What if empirically they are not suffering by any estimation? What do we do then? Eat them? Or do we agree that suffering is suffering, and that when we see what our beings perceive as suffering, we will acknowledge it, instead of ignoring the being that is suffering. Otherwise, we are repressing the catalyst, and according to Ra, that is not ideal and can cause a lot of problems down the line.

We now speak of that genie, or elemental, or mythic figure, culturally determined, which sends the arrow to the left-hand transformation. This arrow is not the arrow which kills but rather that which, in its own way, protects. Those who choose separation, that being the quality most indicative of the left-hand path, are protected from other-selves by a strength and sharpness equivalent to the degree of transformation which the mind has experienced in the negative sense. Those upon the right-hand path have no such protection against other-selves for upon that path the doughty seeker shall find many mirrors for reflection in each other-self it encounters.

I honestly think this is one of the most misunderstood concepts of in the Law of One. David Wilcock even grossly misinterprets this concept in an article on his page. We often believe that if we feel bad, that we are doing bad spiritually, or being punished spiritually. We believe that if we are doing well, we will experience bliss and no pain. But in reality, the more we progress spiritually, the more empathy we develop towards the other selves that we share this experience with - and therefore, the more likely we are to feel pain. This whole planet is in pain. Yes, we are not supposed to dwell in pain, but we are supposed to experience pain and then learn to elevate it. By avoiding pain we are not learning to elevate it. By ignoring suffering we are making a choice to separate us from another being instead of making the choice to unite in empathy, in sympathetic vibrations. As soon as you unify with their vibrations, then it's easier to pull them up to the higher ones that you can achieve.

Yes, Ra says that a being completely undistorted will experience no emotional reaction. However, Ra also says that the "ideal configuration" in third density is not that which is free of blockages, but that which has its own blockages, preincarnatively programmed, so that we can learn lessons to apply to our being totality.

This distortion is not in any case necessary. It is chosen by each of you as an alternative to understanding the complete unity of thought which binds all things. You are not speaking of similar or somewhat like entities or things. You are every thing, every being, every emotion, every event, every situation. You are unity. You are infinity. You are love/light, light/love. You are. This is the Law of One.

[Jeremy]

You are referring to higher 2nd density creatures that have been given partial self consciousness by 3rd density entities. Not every other animal on the planet.

Regardless of that, I find it interesting how this philosophy is so great and enlightening until it challenges ones personal bias towards a particular subject.

I am impartial to either side and look at it from an objective point of view and what i view from Q'uo is precisely what they stated. Animals lack awareness of what they are and who they are. Does that mean they aren't worthy of compassion? Of course not. Does it mean that what is done to animals is any less cruel? Nope. It just means that one can still feel compassion for something that lacks the awareness to suffer. Same as deforestation. I see no difference between either. Destruction for human gain.

The difference is that I can observe these atrocities yet not apply an emotional charge to it.

I've always felt that many here stand by their own subjective biases regardless of what the material may state and this is one of the most prevalent issues. This is both a blessing and a curse. One gets to apply what resonates with them into their life and allow the rest to fall away. The flipside is what one person may see as enlightening, another sees as unimportant with their personal myth.

To me, animals are animals who posses a basic understanding of consciousness yet are bound by their primitive instincts based upon evolution and survival.

Neither is right nor wrong

[Bring4th_Austin]

(Jade, I moved your post from the question submission thread to this one, just a heads up.)

I think I resonated well with Jim's answer that second density suffering exists to increase the opportunities for compassion for third density. I think where it missed the mark is that while there is discussion of horses, elephants, squirrels, whales, baboons, cats, dogs - but there is no mention of a single species of farm animal. We have about 3,000 captive whales and dolphins on this planet, there are less than half a million elephants left - meanwhile, 25,000,000 chickens died today, a horrible, brutal death after a short, torturous life - and that doesn't include the roosters that are born in the egg industry that are ground up alive immediately upon being born.

I also thought that maybe the conversation would have felt more cohesive if instead of discussing "How second density animals suffer and how it is different than us", to maybe discussing how we might experience suffering in similar ways.

There was certainly a huge gap in our discussion. We discussed suffering of animals in a very abstract sense, especially approaching the question of why they have the ability to suffer when they don't have the capacity to use that suffering as catalyst, like humans do. There was no accounting in our discussion about the suffering of animals inflicted by humans in our society (or even inflicted by other animals, and nature.)

I would view the addition of human-inflicted suffering into the equation as a subsequent discussion. Like, the question we discussed was an initial, "First, why is it even possible for animals to suffer in the first place, when they can't use it as catalyst?"

The subsequent discussion is far beyond what we discussed, and if taking what we discussed as a direct application to vegan activism, is quite inadequate and insensitive. At least for me personally, if we were talking about human-inflicted animal suffering, I would have approached things from a different angle.

For instance, the question of pointless suffering of livestock animals is inseparable from the pointless suffering of humans to me. Humans inflict great trauma upon other humans, creating conditions of non-viable catalyst either way. Sure, humans innately have a higher consciousness with the ability to process catalyst differently, but I do think there is a threshold here. A modicum of reflection and comfort must be available before it can be expected that a person even has the ability to process the suffering as catalyst for growth.

It's a topic that I honestly don't feel like the Law of One addresses adequately. Perhaps we can say that the plans of our sub-Logos went a bit awry in creating conditions for catalyst and there is a unintended depth of suffering created by humans.

Though, even then, I have a hard time coming to terms with the fact that even without humans, animals can suffer deeply. I imagine a prey animal that was maimed by a predator in a horrific way, but didn't die, suffering from permanent pain for the rest of its life. Even without a predator, imagine an animal that simply tripped and broke its leg, then the leg heals in the wrong way, causing permanent pain.

This is pain and suffering inflicted by the sub-Logos. It is inflicted by the Creator. The free will of humans cannot be blamed for the presence and ability of such pointless animal suffering (but can be blamed for making it worse on a grand scale).

It might be interpreted that this thinking is all a way to excuse humans inflicting pain and suffering on animals. If the Creator can do it, if other animals can do it, if it exists in nature already, it can't be a sin, can it? I am certainly not saying that. I will admit that this thinking has affected my view of human livestock production, but I do not in any way feel like it is an excuse.

I apologize if the post is emotional. I am just highly triggered by the perpetuation of the idea that second density beings don't suffer. It seems to be a slippery slope that shouldn't even be a slope in the first place - for instance, what about a human with a brain injury? Someone who becomes what we call a "vegetable"? Do they suffer? What if empirically they are not suffering by any estimation? What do we do then? Eat them? Or do we agree that suffering is suffering, and that when we see what our beings perceive as suffering, we will acknowledge it, instead of ignoring the being that is suffering. Otherwise, we are repressing the catalyst, and according to Ra, that is not ideal and can cause a lot of problems down the line.

I think your question of "What do we do then?" is the key to organizing this discussion. What we talked about in this podcast, to me, did not approach that question, but addressed the abstract way in which animals suffer and why it's possible for them to suffer in the first place. "What do we do then?" was a lacking component of the discussion.

I think that is why the discussion was approached from the differences perspective, rather than similarities. In order to discuss why the Creator and sub-Logos would create a creation in which animals can suffer at all, when suffering is useful as catalyst once we can consciously process catalyst, it's necessary to address why second-density beings would not have the ability to process suffering as catalyst. That was at the forefront of my thoughts in this podcast.

[Jeremy]

Please keep in mind I'm not saying anyone is wrong. I'm just delving into the specifics of the material. I respect everyones opinion on this.

They wouldn't have the ability to process sufferring as catalysts because they lack awareness of what suffering is, according to the material

It's the inherent hiccup in that line of thinking is the assumption that they have an awareness of what suffering is yet I've yet to see where 2nd density entities are capable of such awareness within the material.

So is this purely a subjective thing? An opinion based upon emotional feelings towards these entities?

What if the reason they possibly lack awareness of self is because the logos has seen what 3rd density entities do to 2nd density entities? Maybe it's a fail safe due to 3rd density's veiled experience and apparent separation from 2nd density entities?

[Jeremy]

Also please keep in mind that I'm just trying to understand the material better. So when I read conflicting information pertaining to parts of the material, I like to delve a bit deeper and understand where the discrepancy lies and where the middle ground is. When I discern something within the material, I try to look at the subject with an objective mind, free from my own personal beliefs. I am fully capable and and actually hopeful when I am proven wrong about a subject within the material. It gives me motivation to continue seeking and rereading different aspects of it.

That being said, I'm at an impasse as to how to alleviate such a deviation from the material. I fully understand that the law of confusion exists and that we cannot delve into the realms of dogma when it comes to the material. What concerns me is that if such direct quotes by Ra and Q'uo can be immediately discredited, why can't the rest of the material? What makes these quotes immediately not worthy of being entertained as truth when so much of the other material can be? The only possibility I can come up with is emotion. Certain quotes within the material strike such an emotional charge, one cannot entertain such a possibility due to ones personal feelings against it. Those of the confederation strive hard to explain that all one need do, is take a step back before responding to a situation so that one can properly process the catalyst at hand. If such were to occur, can we not at least entertain the possibility that 2nd density entities do not possess awareness as the material states? It's a valid question if one separates ones self from their emotional bond with it no?

I think it's great that many other selves focus upon the 2nd density entities. It shows you have a big heart. Maybe too big which isn't a negative thing in the least. If you feel that they are suffering and it compels you to act and live a certain way that you deem appropriate to your personal myth, I love ya for it as most natives lack any drive towards anything other than themselves. For me personally, I've chosen to hone in on 3rd density natives and their separation from, well, everything. I'd rather challenge and attempt to bring light that will potentially light their path to remembering or at the least, brighten their day. Some choose 2nd density creatures, some choose 3rd for their mission. The best part about it is that we as wanderers are coming at them from all angles

[xise]

Awareness isn't a black/white, just like 3d self-awareness isn't a binary thing. There are human beings that are more self-aware, and those that are less self-aware, in the sense of self-awareness ties to one's understanding of one's self.

I think 3D humans suffer more than a 2D animal when mistreated, but I also feel that 2D animals such as pigs, cows, dogs, cats and chicken suffer more than a 2D plant food crop such as wheat, corn, or barley, due to the gradient of awareness in 2D.

[Jade]

Hi guys, thank you for your thoughtful responses to my post.

You are referring to higher 2nd density creatures that have been given partial self consciousness by 3rd density entities. Not every other animal on the planet.

Firstly, farm animals are entities that have been given partial self consciousness by 3rd density entities. This is what I am talking about.

We breed and kill 70 billion farm animals each year for food. Every single one of these comes in contact with humans every single day.

Otherwise, what is the difference between a cat and a cow? Is it something physical, metaphysical? Where do we draw the line between "higher 2nd density" and not? I thought I articulated where I thought that line was drawn, and it makes sense to me.

They wouldn't have the ability to process sufferring as catalysts because they lack awareness of what suffering is, according to the material

Do you have any quotes from Ra that say this?

It's the inherent hiccup in that line of thinking is the assumption that they have an awareness of what suffering is yet I've yet to see where 2nd density entities are capable of such awareness within the material.

http://www.lawofone.info/results.php?q=gandalf

46.2 Questioner: In that case, we’d better ask you only one question, unless you deem it all right to ask any more questions than that, but the one question that is bothering us, which I got in meditation, may be an inappropriate question, but I feel it my duty to ask it because it is central to the instrument’s mental condition and ours. [It has] to do with the two cats which we were going to take to have worked upon today for teeth cleaning and the small growth removed from Gandalf’s leg. I got the impression that there might be a[n] inroad there for the Orion group, and I was primarily concerned about anything that we could do for protection for these two cats. I may be out of line in asking this, but I feel it my duty to ask it. Would you please give me information, all the information you can on that subject?

Ra: I am Ra. The entity, mind/body/spirit complex, Gandalf, being harvestable third density, is open to the same type of psychic attack to which you yourselves are vulnerable. Therefore, through the mechanism of images and dreams, it is potentially possible for negative concepts to be offered to this mind/body/spirit complex, thus having possible deleterious results. The entity, Fairchild, though harvestable through investment, does not have the vulnerability to attack in as great an amount due to a lack of the mind complex activity in the distortion of conscious devotion.

For protection of these entities we might indicate two possibilities. Firstly, the meditation putting on the armor of light. Secondly, the repetition of short ritual sentences known to this instrument from the establishment which distorts spiritual oneness for this instrument. This instrument’s knowledge will suffice. This will aid due to the alerting of many discarnate entities also aware of these ritual sentences. The meditation is appropriate at the time of the activity on behalf of these entities. The ritual may be repeated with efficacy from this time until the safe return, at convenient intervals.

Also, I think whether or not an animal is aware it is suffering is totally moot. Again, I go back to the brain-dead human. It isn't aware of its suffering, how do we deal with it?

What if the reason they possibly lack awareness of self is because the logos has seen what 3rd density entities do to 2nd density entities? Maybe it's a fail safe due to 3rd density's veiled experience and apparent separation from 2nd density entities?

That is an extremely grim and sad thought. Where do we go from here?

For instance, the question of pointless suffering of livestock animals is inseparable from the pointless suffering of humans to me.

I think this would have been a good point to branch out from. However, at this point in our continuum, I would argue that the suffering of farmed animals is far greater than that of humans, because we intentionally birth, torture, and kill 10x as many humans that exist on this planet every single year gratuitously for food.

This is pain and suffering inflicted by the sub-Logos. It is inflicted by the Creator. The free will of humans cannot be blamed for the presence and ability of such pointless animal suffering (but can be blamed for making it worse on a grand scale).

It might be interpreted that this thinking is all a way to excuse humans inflicting pain and suffering on animals. If the Creator can do it, if other animals can do it, if it exists in nature already, it can't be a sin, can it? I am certainly not saying that. I will admit that this thinking has affected my view of human livestock production, but I do not in any way feel like it is an excuse.

I guess it seems to me that it IS ENTIRELY the free will of humans that has done this to livestock. If there wasn't a third density being incarnate on this planet, would animals be rounding themselves up for slaughter? It is entirely through the choices of third density entities that livestock suffers. This is definitely a distortion that is not in any way necessary.

Ra mentions that a diet with very little animal products and especially not meat that has been slaughtered is ideal. I'm not 100% sure what Ra's meaning specifically for "slaughtered" was, but I would assume things that are killed for food but aren't slaughtered would be hunted animals or fish. I would guess most people have only eaten mean that hasn't been slaughtered a handful of times in their life or less.

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

Ra: I am Ra. We were, in the cautionary statement about complex protein, referring to the distortions of the animal protein which has been slaughtered and preservatives added in order to maintain the acceptability to your peoples of this non-living, physical material. It is well to attempt to find those items which are fresh and of the best quality possible in order to avoid increasing this particular entity’s distortions which may be loosely termed allergic.

[Jeremy]

This states that there are no 2nd density consciousness complexes. To be without consciousness, how could there be awareness?

9.18 Questioner: Is there any particular race of people on our planet now who were incarnated here from second density?

Ra: I am Ra. There are no second-density consciousness complexes here on your sphere at this time. However, there are two races which use the second-density form. One is the entities of the planetary sphere you call Maldek. These entities are working their understanding complexes through a series of what you would call karmic restitutions. They dwell within your deeper underground passageways and are known to you as “Bigfoot.”


Here's an interesting one where such possible suffering if true could actually give rise to their evolutionary spiraling towards 3rd density due to the catalysts involved


19.3 Questioner: When this transition from second to third density takes place, how does the entity, whether it be animal, tree, or mineral, become enspirited?

Ra: I am Ra. Entities do not become enspirited. They become aware of the intelligent energy within each portion, cell, or atom, as you may call it, of its beingness.

This awareness is that which is awareness of that already given. From the infinite come all densities. The self-awareness comes from within given the catalyst of certain experiences understanding, as we may call this particular energy, the upward spiraling of the cell or atom or consciousness.

You may then see that there is an inevitable pull towards the, what you may call, eventual realization of self.


This shows that 2nd density is devoid of both self awareness and self consciousness as that's precisely what the 2nd density entity is striving towards

13.21 Questioner: Then how does the second densityprogress to the third?

Ra: I am Ra. The second density strives towards the third density which is the density of self-consciousness or self-awareness. The striving takes place through the higher second-density forms who are invested by third-density beings with an identity to the extent that they become self-aware mind/body complexes, thus becoming mind/body/spirit complexes and entering third density, the first density of consciousness of spirit.


As far as Gandalf, they stated that he was a rare exception. I'm not saying it's impossible just not probable for most other 2nd density animals who reside outside of human interaction.

As horrible as it sounds, maybe such atrocities are the logoi sick way of promoting more 3rd density graduates? I dunno it seems harsh but as they say, all is well 

[Jade]

Also please keep in mind that I'm just trying to understand the material better. So when I read conflicting information pertaining to parts of the material, I like to delve a bit deeper and understand where the discrepancy lies and where the middle ground is. When I discern something within the material, I try to look at the subject with an objective mind, free from my own personal beliefs. I am fully capable and and actually hopeful when I am proven wrong about a subject within the material. It gives me motivation to continue seeking and rereading different aspects of it.

That being said, I'm at an impasse as to how to alleviate such a deviation from the material. I fully understand that the law of confusion exists and that we cannot delve into the realms of dogma when it comes to the material. What concerns me is that if such direct quotes by Ra and Q'uo can be immediately discredited, why can't the rest of the material? What makes these quotes immediately not worthy of being entertained as truth when so much of the other material can be? The only possibility I can come up with is emotion. Certain quotes within the material strike such an emotional charge, one cannot entertain such a possibility due to ones personal feelings against it. Those of the confederation strive hard to explain that all one need do, is take a step back before responding to a situation so that one can properly process the catalyst at hand. If such were to occur, can we not at least entertain the possibility that 2nd density entities do not possess awareness as the material states? It's a valid question if one separates ones self from their emotional bond with it no?

I think it's great that many other selves focus upon the 2nd density entities. It shows you have a big heart. Maybe too big which isn't a negative thing in the least. If you feel that they are suffering and it compels you to act and live a certain way that you deem appropriate to your personal myth, I love ya for it as most natives lack any drive towards anything other than themselves. For me personally, I've chosen to hone in on 3rd density natives and their separation from, well, everything. I'd rather challenge and attempt to bring light that will potentially light their path to remembering or at the least, brighten their day. Some choose 2nd density creatures, some choose 3rd for their mission. The best part about it is that we as wanderers are coming at them from all angles

Well, I appreciate your thoughts, but the patronizing tone could be tempered.

You have presented one Q'uo quote that I find is being misapplied to this situation. If you have other quotes that support this one, I'd love to see them. Otherwise, I think it's distorted and it lacks logic to say that an animal that has literally been tortured every moment of its existence will merely sleep to dream of better times, and therefore its suffering doesn't exist. Now if we are talking about a wild lion with an injured paw, sure, Q'uo rings true.

Otherwise, the difference between Q'uo and Ra is quite great, because Q'uo is being conscious channeled by various people (not always even Carla) and personal biases will affect what comes out. If every person in the channeling circle is eating meat, Q'uo isn't going to be the one who barges in on their free will/sleep to interrupt their third density experiences. That's my job.

I find it really interesting that, because of this one quote, you have decided that animals don't experience suffering, period. My personal experience is very different from the quote and your conclusion. My dog can clearly communicate to me when he is suffering. He has experienced depression, where he would stare at the wall all day long and refuse to eat. These actions reflect a self-awareness, and a story to his life, and I don't think he's any more capable than a cow or a chicken.

[Jeremy]

I'm sorry jade that you took it patronizing. That's truly not my intention. I was just trying to bring a bit of clarity into my lines of thinking. I think in a very linear fashion so I generally spell out my intentions from a to z in that fashion. Theres no mal intention involved and I apologize if that's how it came across

[Jade]

I just felt your exposé into how emotions make us disagree with the material was accusatory, and telling me how much you love my big heart just seemed like lip service, since you added the caveat that you focused on third density beings, which seemed to me to be insinuated was a higher calling, and also implying that my only service is towards second density.

I would still like to hear what you think of farmed animals, who fit the description you offer of higher second density beings as those beings that have come in contact with humans. Humans feed, impregnate, milk, and kill all of these animals, and all of this happens every day. Something has to be being invested in them.

[Jeremy]

Oh my, no not in the least. I was truly being sincere. We all have our specific missions. Neither one is better nor worse just specific.

As far as the farm animals, like I said in my previous post, as difficult as it may be to comprehend, what if the possibility of this use and abuse of farm animals was the catalyst that these animals needed to achieve 3rd density? I mean it sounds sick to think about it but humor me for a minute.

Ra states that the most common occurrence of graduation from 2nd density to 3rd density is the interaction with humans. Now what if humans were all vegetarians and these animals were all wild, grazing animals of the prairie?
Where would this interaction with 3rd density come from? Where would the motivation to become aware arise if they lived solitary lives?

What if the only way to increase the graduation from 2nd density to 3rd was this mechanized industrial processing of said animals? Trust me I'm not saying it's right but given the exponential growth of humanity, maybe this was just another way for the logos to repopulate a new 3rd density sphere?

Regardless of the reasons, I'm not justifying any of it. I'm just trying to convey a possible reason for it all. There has to be a reason about even there isn't, one can still reside with the knowing that all is well regardless of how brutal it may be

[xise]

I think this sub-logoi is pretty exceptional; perhaps it is attracted to more painful experiences:

Mixed harvests on Venus (though nearly all positive except for two individuals; EDIT: Ra terms what occurs on Venus not a mixed harvest because the two negative harvests were wanderers) and Earth. Mars' 3D civilization destroy themselves and render the planet unviable for life (think this was Ra, but might be someone else). Maldeck's 3D civilization destroy themselves and destroy the entire planet. I'd be surprised if this sort of situation was par for the course in terms of solar systems.

[Jeremy]

I think this sub-logoi is pretty exceptional; perhaps it is attracted to more painful experiences:

Mixed harvests on Venus and Earth. Mars' 3D civilization destroy themselves and render the planet unviable for life (think this was Ra, but might be someone else). Maldeck's 3D civilization destroy themselves and destroy the entire planet. I'd be surprised if this sort of situation was par for the course in terms of solar systems.

That's actually a great bit of insight. As unfortunate as it is, maybe 3rd density evolution is dependent upon suffering in one shape or another. Whether that's 3rd density suffering or 2nd density suffering or both. 

It harkens back to that scene in the matrix with agent Smith and morpheus. They created a utopian society and it was an utter failure yet once suffering and all the so called human traits were reintroduced, the matrix perfomed as needed 

[Jade]

Oh my, no not in the least. I was truly being sincere. We all have our specific missions. Neither one is better nor worse just specific.

As far as the farm animals, like I said in my previous post, as difficult as it may be to comprehend, what if the possibility of this use and abuse of farm animals was the catalyst that these animals needed to achieve 3rd density? I mean it sounds sick to think about it but humor me for a minute.

Ra states that the most common occurrence of graduation from 2nd density to 3rd density is the interaction with humans. Now what if humans were all vegetarians and these animals were all wild, grazing animals of the prairie?
Where would this interaction with 3rd density come from? Where would the motivation to become aware arise if they lived solitary lives?

What if the only way to increase the graduation from 2nd density to 3rd was this mechanized industrial processing of said animals? Trust me I'm not saying it's right but given the exponential growth of humanity, maybe this was just another way for the logos to repopulate a new 3rd density sphere?

Regardless of the reasons, I'm not justifying any of it. I'm just trying to convey a possible reason for it all. There has to be a reason about even there isn't, one can still reside with the knowing that all is well regardless of how brutal it may be

I agree with your theory that this is to give them an incarnation at harvest. I disagree with your supposition that the only way to harvest animals is to process them. And, the idea that any of these animals would even be alive if everyone was VEGAN (vegetarian hardly alleviates animal slavery and still perpetuates the death of billions - their bodies would have to go somewhere) is wrong - all of these animals go away, and the wild ones that we've ousted from their habitat would come back.

So, in theory, we have 70 billion+ souls in potentiation, to be harvested into third density. It's true that if we weren't eating them, that they wouldn't have an incarnation in the bodies that they are. Does this justify continuing to participate in this system of torture? To me, it seems that, per Ra's statements on the transformation of the mind, and the plundering of resources, that factory farms are the EPITOME of abusing the resources of our planet for the tiniest benefit to the self. Our rainforests are going away (the lungs of the earth), our oceans are dying and being overfished at obscene rates, and the practices that occur on every single farm on this planet would turn your stomach if you saw any of it happening to a dog. As a society, I believe that it is imperative that we decide to respect the planet and make better choices for what we consume, and to be better stewards for the beings who have chosen to incarnate alongside us. Electric cars don't save the planet. Solar power doesn't save the planet. Over 70% of green house gases come from agriculture, primarily methane from animal waste. This is the revolution that really needs to occur.

[Cainite]

IMO, suffering or not, the experience of pain is terrible enough anyway.
They seem to be aware of their surroundings and what they feel.

[Diana]

I am in agreement with everything Jade said in both her posts above. The following bears repeating:

Why the effort to minimize or mitigate the obvious suffering of second density?

I feel that it's ironic that when a vegan conversation comes up, everyone talks about the suffering of plants. However, this side of the discussion has not made it there yet. What about all the plants that we torture so that we can feed the billions of farm animals? The destroyed rainforests? The acidifying oceans? Did you know that current numbers put us at fishless oceans in 2050? The main cause being industrial farming pollution…

We often believe that if we feel bad, that we are doing bad spiritually, or being punished spiritually. We believe that if we are doing well, we will experience bliss and no pain. But in reality, the more we progress spiritually, the more empathy we develop towards the other selves that we share this experience with - and therefore, the more likely we are to feel pain. This whole planet is in pain. Yes, we are not supposed to dwell in pain, but we are supposed to experience pain and then learn to elevate it. By avoiding pain we are not learning to elevate it. By ignoring suffering we are making a choice to separate us from another being instead of making the choice to unite in empathy, in sympathetic vibrations. As soon as you unify with their vibrations, then it's easier to pull them up to the higher ones that you can achieve.

This last about pain is extremely insightful. 

I feel I don't really understand the continued denial of this issue, especially here. It continues to baffle me. 

[Jade]

Thanks Diana.

I think the conversation is that everyone really wants to have is not whether second density animals suffer, but what their suffering means to us as incarnated third density beings, as stewards for this planet. And I believe that was really the question that rva_jeremy originally was grasping for. Sure, so ultimately maybe they are incarnate because of this great experience to be had on planet earth. However, we could make the same argument for slaves - back in the 1800s, we were breeding slaves so that they could experience this wonderful plane of existence. Now, this service is no longer being offered. Should we reconsider?

At the present space/time the condition of well-meant and unintentional slavery are so numerous that it beggars our ability to enumerate them.

I really do think Jim's answer, about his dying/recently deceased cat giving him the opportunity to develop more compassion, was spot on. As humans, we can not only give context to their suffering, but work with our free will to alleviate it, whenever we can. And if we avoid feeling compassion, we avoid the impetus to want to do anything to change the situation for those who are suffering.

[Jeremy]

Oh my, no not in the least. I was truly being sincere. We all have our specific missions. Neither one is better nor worse just specific.

As far as the farm animals, like I said in my previous post, as difficult as it may be to comprehend, what if the possibility of this use and abuse of farm animals was the catalyst that these animals needed to achieve 3rd density? I mean it sounds sick to think about it but humor me for a minute.

Ra states that the most common occurrence of graduation from 2nd density to 3rd density is the interaction with humans. Now what if humans were all vegetarians and these animals were all wild, grazing animals of the prairie?
Where would this interaction with 3rd density come from? Where would the motivation to become aware arise if they lived solitary lives?

What if the only way to increase the graduation from 2nd density to 3rd was this mechanized industrial processing of said animals? Trust me I'm not saying it's right but given the exponential growth of humanity, maybe this was just another way for the logos to repopulate a new 3rd density sphere?

Regardless of the reasons, I'm not justifying any of it. I'm just trying to convey a possible reason for it all. There has to be a reason about even there isn't, one can still reside with the knowing that all is well regardless of how brutal it may be

I agree with your theory that this is to give them an incarnation at harvest. I disagree with your supposition that the only way to harvest animals is to process them. And, the idea that any of these animals would even be alive if everyone was VEGAN (vegetarian hardly alleviates animal slavery and still perpetuates the death of billions - their bodies would have to go somewhere) is wrong - all of these animals go away, and the wild ones that we've ousted from their habitat would come back.

So, in theory, we have 70 billion+ souls in potentiation, to be harvested into third density. It's true that if we weren't eating them, that they wouldn't have an incarnation in the bodies that they are. Does this justify continuing to participate in this system of torture? To me, it seems that, per Ra's statements on the transformation of the mind, and the plundering of resources, that factory farms are the EPITOME of abusing the resources of our planet for the tiniest benefit to the self. Our rainforests are going away (the lungs of the earth), our oceans are dying and being overfished at obscene rates, and the practices that occur on every single farm on this planet would turn your stomach if you saw any of it happening to a dog. As a society, I believe that it is imperative that we decide to respect the planet and make better choices for what we consume, and to be better stewards for the beings who have chosen to incarnate alongside us. Electric cars don't save the planet. Solar power doesn't save the planet. Over 70% of green house gases come from agriculture, primarily methane from animal waste. This is the revolution that really needs to occur.

I while heartedly agree with you. If you read my very first reply to this thread, I stated that I was purely going off of the material and stated that I didn't know whether I believed it or not. All I'm doing is throwing out hypotheticals based upon the material. The only opinion I threw out was my belief that animals were driven purely by instinct and evolution and had a basic concept of consciousness. I never stated that I believed they didn't posses the possibility of having awareness only that the material contradicted that belief.

I'm not sure what I believe to be honest when it comes to the issue. If I apply my 3rd density mind to a 2nd density animal, I could see the suffering that must be felt. I would abhor the enslavement of myself being used soley for food rather than love. 

But I'm left wondering if that's where the disconnect is. We are attempting to apply a 3rd density consciousness to a 2nd density lack of consciousness according to the material. 

I'm  will y'all who love animals and respect them. Not as decidedly as going vegan but I wholly agree and respect your willingness to do what you do 

[Diana]

It's a topic that I honestly don't feel like the Law of One addresses adequately. Perhaps we can say that the plans of our sub-Logos went a bit awry in creating conditions for catalyst and there is a unintended depth of suffering created by humans.

But at this point in history, with exponentially increased media and awareness of what is happening in the world, the idea of the suffering of farm animals, especially commercially farmed, cannot be thought of as unintentional anymore. Even the UN has issued a statement that we must be a vegan (free of dairy and meat) planet in order to survive.

The concept of service to others addresses this problem beautifully. Animals are others, it isn't only humans who are others. They are obviously suffering at the hands of humans—no theorizing or guesswork involved. If justification is needed from the LOO or Ra etc., Ra said to extrapolate from the idea that if you come upon a starving person, the correct response is to feed him. If we know animals are (needlessly) suffering, what is the compassionate and enlightened response? To ignore it and buy the products resulting from that suffering?

Though, even then, I have a hard time coming to terms with the fact that even without humans, animals can suffer deeply. I imagine a prey animal that was maimed by a predator in a horrific way, but didn't die, suffering from permanent pain for the rest of its life. Even without a predator, imagine an animal that simply tripped and broke its leg, then the leg heals in the wrong way, causing permanent pain.

This is pain and suffering inflicted by the sub-Logos. It is inflicted by the Creator. The free will of humans cannot be blamed for the presence and ability of such pointless animal suffering (but can be blamed for making it worse on a grand scale).

What is the point of the above? It sounds like justification to me. It also sounds like blame, and not taking responsibility. What if a man breaks his leg and he gets no medical attention? He suffers the rest of this life. What does this have to do with humanity inflicting needless suffering on the same man, by keeping him penned up for life, tortured, and cruelly slaughtered?

[Diana]

As far as the farm animals, like I said in my previous post, as difficult as it may be to comprehend, what if the possibility of this use and abuse of farm animals was the catalyst that these animals needed to achieve 3rd density? I mean it sounds sick to think about it but humor me for a minute.

This idea has been discussed here extensively over a number of years.

In a nutshell, if this were true, how would that change your participation in the suffering of animals? If you eat the products derived from that suffering, my guess would be that it sounds like justification. Whatever theories are canvassed regarding this subject, the bottom line is: who are you?

For my part, I would rather love them.

[rva_jeremy]

I think the conversation is that everyone really wants to have is not whether second density animals suffer, but what their suffering means to us as incarnated third density beings, as stewards for this planet. And I believe that was really the question that rva_jeremy originally was grasping for. 

For what it's worth, that wasn't really what I was after, but I guess the question was unclear.  I was trying to ask about the purpose suffering serves for the second density entities themselves on their path towards third density.  The Confederation has been pretty clear about the purpose it serves for third density entities: it is a form of catalyst to help us make the choice, sometimes a way to get our attention about something.  But since second density entities don't have a choice to make, what is the spiritual, evolutionary nature of the suffering they incur?  In other words, if suffering helps us evolve in the long run, how does suffering help them evolve in the long run?

I actually haven't listened to the episode yet, so I can't say whether this question was answered or not, but I appreciate all the discussion!

Edit: Austin got the sense in which I asked the question right, e.g. "why is it even possible for animals to suffer in the first place, when they can't use it as catalyst?"

[Jade]

Well, I think we have a pretty good paradox here. We say that either animals don't suffer and therefore their catalyst is only meaningful from a third density point of view, or that animals do suffer and they use it as awareness for growth towards third density and maybe even the early lessons of third density.

I think it probably is more of a gradient - in line with xise's posts - that an animal of higher order is more likely to truly conceptualize and use its suffering for catalyst than a plant. I also think in general that it is less likely for a plant to experience objective "suffering" in a wild environment, as opposed to an animal - but again, a gradient. The more wild the environment, the less that what happens to a plant/animal would be considered suffering. An injured paw in the course of a hunt for a lion is just part of being a lion, and I think we all agree that that is okay. But do we all agree that being impregnated, your baby taken from you and killed, and kept hooked to a machine to drain your mammary tissue for most of the day for a luxury item should be a part of any being's existence? That being born just to be ground up alive should be the legacy we leave for the rooster?

I think my ultimate point in bantering about this is then moving whatever we deem the conclusion to, towards what do we do with all of this suffering?

[rva_jeremy]

So now that I've listened to the episode, I have some thoughts.

When we talk about human suffering, we do so with the assumption that our capacity for experience and other people's is roughly the same.  When we pity, or identify with another's suffering, it is because we recognize the condition of suffering that we would experience were we in that situation, how miserable and helpless it makes us feel.  Of course everybody is not alike; suffering is not the same for everybody, and some people may wrongly attribute a condition of suffering to another.  But it seems like almost part of the social fabric that we have a common concept of the undesirable.

As Gary and Austin discussed, it is very possible that animals don't have the character of experience that we do, even in similar situations.  What stood out to me so much about the session Jeremy posted (great find, by the way!) was the statement that the animal experiences pain but it does not suffer.  I found this hard to accept because it seems so clear that animals do suffer with pain; we've all seen this behavior.  If anything, animal suffering bothers me more because of their greater helplessness and the inability to comfort them with the words that I would use with another person.

However, it is possible that what we identify as suffering in animals is an anthropomorphization of third density experience.  We see behaviors like whining and trembling and simply assume the animal is having an experience that we would have in that scenario.  But we can't really know what it's like.  The phenomenology of animals is a very mysterious topic.  What is it "like" to be an animal?  We can't usefully know this.  However, Q'uo seems to provide a clue:

For the animal, the life is that which is, for, again, there is no self-consciousness except that which is implanted within it by its human caretakers. If it has the cut or the lame paw it simply has this. It endures it without suffering. It experiences the pain, the discomfort, but it does not suffer, for it does not reflect within itself but rather seeks the sleep which frees it to dream of days when it was chasing game and being that which it is as a young one.

There is something about "reflecting within itself" that transforms pain from a simple state of the body into misery, if I'm reading this session right.  One theory I've been thinking about is that this reflection may have to do with acceptance.  Self-consciousness affords us the ability to reject parts of our experience and self.  The Stoics and Buddhists have taught for centuries that the key to ending suffering and achieving balance is acceptance, of not fighting against our experience and thereby making ourselves more miserable.

Perhaps this is a portion of the second density experience: pain is just another condition, accepted fully due to not having any other choice.  It is a bump in the road that will return the animal to innocence (this is how I interpret the "seeking the sleep" passage, at least for now).  Suffering can only enter the mix, I'm arguing, if you have some inkling that it should be otherwise.  There is no "should" in second density.

Nothing I'm saying above implies it is justified to cause an animal pain.  I think this is where Jim's point about our third density role enters.  Since we have this ability to self-reflect and identify with another as a matter of volition, the crimes we knowingly commit against second density are really crimes against ourselves.  Just because we don't know the exact character of the experience of an animal in distress doesn't mean we can't open our hearts just the same.  We can treat animals with respect and dignity, not because we see them as actual little persons exactly like us, but because we use it as a way to practice relating with love to the entire Creation. We extend compassion because we want compassion, because compassion is the ideal state to achieve in spite of how the fruits of compassion manifest on the recipient.

I do think that we often lump our experience and judgments onto animals without carefully considering whether this identification is accurate, setting aside the spiritual concerns.  But this may be one of the ways that investiture operates: treating animals like people and getting them used to the rhythm of third density.  Although it seems like a bittersweet gift to give a pure animal the capacity for suffering!

On a final note, perhaps there is something to learn from animals about how we approach suffering, especially with regard to the countless crimes committed against our fellow beings every day on this planet.  Where does acceptance on our part enter?  When is it appropriate to disrupt these crimes?  These are questions I still ponder, and I'm grateful to have you all with which to consider them.

Thanks especially to Jade for insisting that we not dismiss the heart from this matter.

[Jeremy]

Totally agree brother. I was never justifying the practices of our meat industry. Heck, I'd love for everyone to have their own garden, share amongst neighbors, have a farm but only for the purpose as pets, etc. All living harmoniously. I would never go against something so awesome.

I know my words always come across a bit accusatory or patronizing, or authoritarian. I'm not sure why. I will type something then retype it knowing it doesn't sound loving yet I can seem to find a better way to get my point across. Just please know that I'm not purposely attempting to upset anyone.

I'm not trying to cause disharmony, believe me I'm not. I'm just trying to debate the nuances of the material from an objective viewpoint.

Like I said before, I have the utmost respect for those willing to tackle this enormous challenge but as I also said, it's not my mission. As Ra states, each entities service is so personal no one way can be considered the best except the honest seeking of the Creator. Everything else is based upon the entities personal myth.