Confederation and meat consumption

[Coordinate_Apotheosis]

third density problems cannot be resolved with third density thinking, and that these issues have their resolution in a different capacity of thought, wisdom, and empathy than any of us seem to be capable of really calling upon now.

This eloquently sums up what I've been trying to say <-<

[loostudent]

This may draw upon my personal experience to a distorting extent, but I think it's mostly because one's dietary practice tends to gravitate towards the path of least resistance, as do most behaviors in society. Most of us carnivores would not be going out to find meat if we lived in mostly vegetarian parts of the world. I really think it's that simple, and while it's not an insurmountable barrier to making different choices, it is important that we understand it has a social dimension beyond "what I think is right".

I agree that social dimension is a very strong factor. However I'm still thinking if there is any deeper principle behind this - the evolutional plan of our Logos. I think if something is meant by the Logos it has to be natural and healthful (or at least not against nature and health). After researching it looks like diet with some meat would meet this assumptions (under some conditions). Diet without meat has some major deficiencies for health. Are we realy designed to survive with suplementation products or some dietarry acrobatics? Compassion surely speaks in favour of plant based diet. What about trusting in Logos what's best for us?

[xise]

Diet without meat has some major deficiencies for health. Are we realy designed to survive with suplementation products or some dietarry acrobatics? Compassion surely speaks in favour of plant based diet. What about trusting in Logos what's best for us?

Another very common myth is that vegetarian diets need supplementation or that they aren't isn't healthy for most people. The opposite is true - vegetarian diets are healthier than omnivorous diets for the vast majority of people. Vegans need B12 which you get from bacteria in the dirt, so they can take supplements or just eat vegetables and skins that aren't perfectly washed like strict Jains used to do accidentally for thousands of years, see below. There is plenty of supporting documentation and articles available on the internet via google research regarding the lack of supplementation for vegetarian diets, and minimal B12 supplementation for vegan diets, and the overall better health over meat-eating diets.


You may have heard of Jains or Brahmins, who for thousands of years have lived a vegetarian life perfectly healthy (neither are vegan, Jain eat dairy and Brahmins eat diary & eggs). No deficiencies whatsoever. They numbered in the tens of thousands for more than one millennia, probably hundreds of thousands for centuries. So it's not super small population. Some Jains are actually strict vegans, and they didn't need supplements till modern grocery eating, because they need to get B12 from bacteria in the soil and factory washed grocery vegetables lacked the soil traces that gave them their B12. Of course, if your body, if healthy and full of B12, can go for 3 years on average before it begins to have B12 deficiencies. So it's not like something you need to eat every day. 


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jain_vegetarianism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Brahmin_diet

I think this is more about deeply ingrained cultural beliefs and free will to examine them or not examine them, and the resistance our egoic mind gives us whenever we try to deprogram from ingrained beliefs, rather than some logoi plan. Incidentally, I think the lessons learned in deprogramming ourselves from any cultural belief - whether diet related or otherwise - yields immense benefits in evolving past societal and familial beliefs that we were raised with, and enable us to truly become powerful free-willed beings who follow love and wisdom without distortion, not just whatever has been deeply ingrained by habit and upbringing into our minds. I feel that deprogramming myself from all cultural, societal, and familial beliefs has and is a key part of my personal journey, at all levels.

------

That being said, I would say a choice of diet is one of the most deeply ingrained beliefs. We have so many associations with food - comfort, familial love, fond memories of childhood, enjoyment of social activities with friends and family. I think that changing one's beliefs about diet are very difficult, and I think everyone moves or not moves at their own pace, and either is good. I think most of us are trying to serve in the best way we know possible.

[Diana]

It’s really hard to illustrate the point that cruelty is everywhere, every choice takes from one part of creation to spare another.

The Christmas tree thing is the perfect example. I have a fake one because I hate mess but if you think of all those thousands of acres of Christmas tree farms, more likely millions, each tree growing an average of 10 years before harvest then really those Christmas trees all over the northern hemisphere are doing this planet a lot of good. They wouldn’t be there without purposely planting them.

Wildlife and humans alike benefit from the oxygen production and pollution filtering capacity of those Christmas trees. There is no way to call that a waste if anything it is a sto act of care they provide and we participate in that cycle that helps it continue. Well I don’t but I am glad others do.

You could see cruelty in the harvest of trees, in the judgement of those that use them, in the production of fake trees, in the judgement of those that buy fake, in the fossils fuel burning to get either to market it’s everywhere. Pick your poison or better yet live your conscience and let those of us doing quite well already live our own.

My intention in responding to posts such as this always derives from the responsibility I feel in providing information from my perspective, to whomever happens to read or browse here, and to the truth as much as I am able to apprehend it.

It is nice to look at the bright side of things. It's important to produce positive energy. But not at the expense of denial of the facts, in my opinion.

Regarding Christmas trees: Cut down rainforests (see stats below), and clearcut old growth trees depleting the planet of oxygen (and destroying more life forms than just the trees). (All in the name of profit.) Then, after we (and while we continue to) deplete the tree population that grows naturally, plant trees, let them live for ten years, chop them down (for profit) so people can decorate them, and toss them after a few weeks. 

It's not so much that it's a waste. It's self-defeating, human-centric, cruel, unnecessary, mercenary…I can't think of enough words to describe how insane I think this is. One (out-of-the-box) choice is to not have a tree at all at Christmastime. You don't have to choose a fake tree as opposed to a real tree, that creates a carbon footprint or uses fossil fuels to make.

So the idea that it's a good thing that the Christmas trees are planted is undeniable from a human standpoint. Since we destroy the naturally growing trees at an alarming rate, it behooves us (even if the oxygen is not the motivation), to plant some trees to compensate for the destruction we cause. 

I wonder if someone here will propose that the Christmas trees would not otherwise have the opportunity for a life. Within the context of the below statistics, I don't see how that would be a viable theory. 

I think it's really a nice thing to appreciate the oxygen the short-lived Christmas trees are providing for us. But it cannot, in my opinion, be a justification for senseless destruction.

All we have to do is substitute humans in any scenario for trees, animals, or any life forms, and the bright optimism breaks down, and reveals, if one is willing to look at it, the human-centric state most of modern-day society is in.

Rainforests once covered 14% of the earth's land surface; now they cover a mere 6% and experts estimate that the last remaining rainforests could be consumed in less than 40 years.

One and one-half acres of rainforest are lost every second with tragic consequences for both developing and industrial countries.

Rainforests are being destroyed because the value of rainforest land is perceived as only the value of its timber by short-sighted governments, multi-national logging companies, and land owners.

Nearly half of the world's species of plants, animals and microorganisms will be destroyed or severely threatened over the next quarter century due to rainforest deforestation.

Experts estimates that we are losing 137 plant, animal and insect species every single day due to rainforest deforestation. That equates to 50,000 species a year.

Most rainforests are cleared by chainsaws, bulldozers and fires for its timber value and then are followed by farming and ranching operations, even by world giants like Mitsubishi Corporation, Georgia Pacific, Texaco and Unocal.
…

Rainforest Facts

There is no one here without creations blood on their hands. Have kids your carbon footprint just became huge, eat take out, so much waste produced, live to travel... woah those jets are murder on the environment.... cruelty is everywhere if you are looking for it. Or you can see creation exploring some interesting and beautiful but imperfect parts. It will all wash away and be forgotten in a few thousand years. Do your best and trust others are doing there’s too.

I personally do not "look for cruelty" (and I am aware the statement may not have been directed at me or anyone in particular)—my eyes are just open, and I don't deny its existence. The element I think missing in the above black&white scenario is responsibility and accountability.

I don't pretend people aren't starving in the world, but I don't focus on it either. And when it is in my power to help, without being a martyr about it, I just help. When I choose toilet paper, I get recycled and if there is a choice in less or eco-friendly packaging I choose that.

I totally agree that reactions, attitudes, and the way we see things is important. Choosing to see things from the perspective of acceptance and nonjudgment is certainly my goal. But neither am I going to sugar-coat or deny facts so I can happily go about participating in suffering, cruelty, and destruction, as far as I am able. I am aware that I am NOT aware of all the ways in which I contribute to noncompassionate practices on this planet. But I remain open to learning and becoming aware, so that I can can continue to make the most compassionate choices.

[Coordinate_Apotheosis]

That's pretty depressing...  only 6% left.

Earth had millions of years to get to that 14% and we set her back in two centuries over half of that percentage.

At that rate, we'll probably deforest the whole planet by the 23rd century if we don't do something to change our society's consumption rate.

That's kinda freaky.

[Glow]

Diana- Let’s not pretend rainforests provide Christmas trees. Those are two completely separate issues. And no they don’t deforest rainforests to plant Christmas trees either. Completely separate issues.

Either way my point wasn’t to tell you something you think is bad is good but to maybe help you guys see you cannot assume just because you see things one way that everyone else is lacking moral judgement for focusing in different areas.

Gandhi focused his spiritual growth in certain areas but had a nonfocus in other areas. All spiritual people are like that. I guess it really doesn’t matter and it’s my issue I want people to be less willing to impose their moral judgement on others.
It’s been happening for centuries might as well accept it.

So I will.

[Diana]

Diana- Let’s not pretend rainforests provide Christmas trees. Those are two completely separate issues. And no they don’t deforest rainforests to plant Christmas trees either. Completely separate issues.

In no way did I mean to say Christmas trees are planted because of, or derived from, rainforests.

I thought my post was clear, but since I have created some confusion, I will further explain.

What I meant to convey, in part, was that on the one hand we are deforesting and destroying trees (and other life forms), and on the other hand we are planting trees (for commercial use). Your perspective that the Christmas trees provide oxygen for us is the central connection. We wouldn't need to do that if we weren't destroying forests and rainforests to begin with. I'm sorry if you don't see the irony in this. 

[Nía]

... and the Christmas tree solution is to buy a live tree, planted and grown locally in a sustainable way (without chemicals and without clear-cutting to make room for Christmas tree plantations), and plant it out after Christmas. That's what I'm doing. You can never plant too many trees!

[Coordinate_Apotheosis]

So I think we can all actually agree here.  Trees, keep them around.

I also like the idea of not judging people for not sharing the same morals, cultures would never come together were that the case.

I like how this discussion morphed from animal consumption to environmental consumption.

I think the underlying subject here is Human Excessive Consumption.  The destroyer of human civilizations is this overconsumption.

We clearly are in a time of need for progressive new ways of looking at how and why and what we consume.  Some say we're a parasite or virus consuming it's host, Earth.

But we're much more than that, and we can be so much more when a majority realizes that profit won't bring the Earth back, and that your four walls won't protect you from a dying planet.

Not everyone need apply to help change society into a better place, and those that don't shouldn't be judged. It only takes a handful of people to plant a new forest, to make new technology, to expand the Human mind beyond itself, to move a mountain, to make more efficient use of resources, to educate others to a better lifestyle.

We should have faith that those people are already here working hard to insure we still have a home centuries from now.

[rva_jeremy]

I really appreciate the conversation Glow started about the awareness of cruelty's ubiquity.  Here's a Hatonn session that came to mind reading through the conversation:

You are in the midst of that which is cruel. Cruelty is a part of change. Pain is the price of growth. When the one known to you as Jesus was lifted gently from that tree, he was dead—and yet it is this holiday that you now celebrate on which he blossomed into that which was, not transient, but alive, conscious and loving.

Hatonn, April 15, 1979

The more I reflect on this topic, the more I see the vegetarians demanding not so much lifestyle changes as an opening of the heart to the reality of the system, to fully feel the cruelty at work. They are confident that, were we to open ourselves to it, we might change our lifestyle of our own accord. They may be right about that.

But there's a militancy that attends any attempt to force somebody to look at something from which they've averted their eyes. We can't make people feel.  While feelings are the path to the open heart, they are also the cause of trauma. We certainly can understand the deadness of emotions, not simply as callousness, but as a defense mechanism against the helplessness of our modern age.

Perhaps none of us really want to change each other so much as we want to call out the potential we see in the other.  If that's the case, we must allow the potential to manifest as it will, and simply plant seed in a gentle manner.  We can't demand another undergo the pain of change, but we can help them prepare to open their hearts of their own accord.

[Nía]

Only last night, the significance (in this context) of the following quote occurred to me:

42.7 Questioner: I would like to try to make an analogy for this in third density. Many entities here feel great compassion toward relieving the physical problems of third-density other-selves by administering to them in many ways, bringing them food if there is hunger as there is in the African nations now, bringing them medicine if they believe they require administering to them medically, and being selfless in all of these services to a very great extent.

This is creating a polarization or a vibration that is in harmony with green ray or fourth density. However, it is not balanced with the understanding of fifth density that these entities are experiencing catalyst and a more balanced administration to their needs would be to provide them with the learning necessary to reach the state of awareness of fourth density than it would be to administer to their physical needs at this time. Is this correct?

Ra: I am Ra. This is incorrect. To a mind/body/spirit complex which is starving, the appropriate response is the feeding of the body. You may extrapolate from this.

In this incarnation, we are all 3D, getting ready for 4D, and nowhere near 5D or 6D.

-`ღ´-

[unity100]

third density problems cannot be resolved with third density thinking

That would be incorrect.

Third density problems pertain to 3rd density, and their solutions also must pertain to third density.

Because all of these, together, define the experience that is called 3rd density.

In this particular topic regarding how it being difficult to give up meat due to the nature of 3rd density social complexes' social, psychological and spiritual pressure, the solution is right there in 3rd density as the problem, and it is the entity who decided to give up meat manifesting enough willpower to follow its decision against all pressure.

Its not mystical, magical, otherworldly or other-dimensional - just uncomfortable and difficult.

.......

All energies must manifest in their proper vibration. 3rd density activities and thoughts must be manifested in 3rd, 3-4d transitional ones in 3-4d transitional environments, and 4d ones in 4d.

Doing otherwise would not only make the activity more difficult, but also cause conflict due to the environment not only facilitating, but also rejecting the manifested vibrations.

[unity100]

Only last night, the significance (in this context) of the following quote occurred to me:

42.7 Questioner: I would like to try to make an analogy for this in third density. Many entities here feel great compassion toward relieving the physical problems of third-density other-selves by administering to them in many ways, bringing them food if there is hunger as there is in the African nations now, bringing them medicine if they believe they require administering to them medically, and being selfless in all of these services to a very great extent.

This is creating a polarization or a vibration that is in harmony with green ray or fourth density. However, it is not balanced with the understanding of fifth density that these entities are experiencing catalyst and a more balanced administration to their needs would be to provide them with the learning necessary to reach the state of awareness of fourth density than it would be to administer to their physical needs at this time. Is this correct?

Ra: I am Ra. This is incorrect. To a mind/body/spirit complex which is starving, the appropriate response is the feeding of the body. You may extrapolate from this.

In this incarnation, we are all 3D, getting ready for 4D, and nowhere near 5D or 6D.

-`ღ´-

That is indeed one of the most concise quotes which can clear any confusion regarding such subjects.

If someone is hungry, you feed him. If someone falls, you help him get up. If someone is crying, you give him a shoulder.

Its not complicated or mystical.

[Patrick]

Qu'o:

...Please use your powers of discrimination and discernment as you listen to our thoughts...

@Infinite: There is no need to be disappointed with the information.  Just ignore the parts you do not like and all will be well.

---

Personally, I like much of what Qu'o says on any subjects, including this subject.

Qu'o:

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


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

Since I became a vegetarian, I have always used this method of thanksgiving when I am given meat by another self.  I no longer buy meat for myself, but neither do I reject it when given to me.


Qu'o:

...You asked specifically about the responsibility that you have for what you eat. For those who have not yet conceived of the possibility of choices in this area, their responsibility is minimal. One cannot make choices if one is ignorant of the choices...

There is some karma incurred, responsibility is not nil, but it is slight.

IMHO: In any case, forgiveness heals all and removes all karma.  Forgiveness can always be effected at any time, it works in a timeless fashion.  It is THE answer to ANY perceived wrongness.
 
 

[Jade]

I want to apologize for my role in upsetting anyone. I know these topics are emotional and I recognize that I especially get emotional. I must admit that it becomes even more personal when you have a chicken who lives in your home. It also increases my fervency having spent many hours of my life at a slaughterhouse sharing breath with baby animals who were moments from slaughter. I agreed to take on this honor/duty/responsibility, and I have made mistakes in my output.

I'm glad there has been some recognition of the fact that there are no vegans here who are trying to force anyone to do anything, or infringe on free will, or anything of that nature, at least that I can perceive. I guess I just get confused. At what point is it a free will violation for someone to speak of these things? When an open conversation has been started, I feel a very strong call to share in the space given the (extensive) things I know about animal agriculture. I do not feel this call to share when the space has not been created.

I know everyone is at different points in their path, and I know that there are complex emotional/social layers that go into eating animals. I recognize that it is a long and difficult process to give up something that you love and has served you, in the face of realizing that which serves you actually is harming "someone else". While it is nigh impossible to entirely do no harm, I think the whole point of attempting to polarize STO is to attempt to do as little harm as possible. When we find out atrocities that are committed against other-selves in this incarnation, because of our choices, the way we WANT to use the catalyst is to do better, to open our hearts more fully in compassion to others. At what point does the line cross between sharing information with intent to illuminate and militancy? Sure, there is a frustration that comes when people intentionally turn away from the cruel horrors that occur to billions of gentle, sweet animals in our farming system, but will show an extreme displeasure to the idea of cutting down a tree or squashing a bug. I feel like one point of this whole mirror system we have going on is so that we can reflect the incongruencies in each others' thinking back to each other, so we can learn. I'm just not sure when to take the "allow others to sleep" road of catalyst when people are actively engaging me in this discussion on a spiritual forum. It's a whole load of mixed signals that I have not been able to properly configure.

I also understand that I am fully on the abolitionist side of this issue, which makes it hard for me to meet in the middle. To me, I can't help but draw the parallels to slavery. The Creator obviously wants people to experience slavery, so why did we stop breeding slaves? Was this not a disservice to the Creator? Obviously there are plenty of places where they do still have slavery, should we celebrate this? Should we all go out and get our own slave, to glorify the Creator? I don't think so. Aspects like slavery are a distortion of the true unity of the Creator. Yes, these experiences help the Creator grow, but are we the ones who want to provide this catalyst of slavery and imprisonment of others? When do we realize that imprisoning and enslaving parts of creation just continues to enslave and imprison parts of ourselves?

I honestly don't care if the animals we are talking about are second or third density. I only engage in discussions along this corridor to help others flush out their own thoughts more. I hear very often that it's okay to treat second density different than third density, with various excuses that often contradict each other. I disagree. Whenever I see a pig in a farrowing crate, I see a dirty, bruised human being reared for her babies in a tiny cage. Whenever I see a mother cow crying for her infant that is being taken away from her, I see a human mother grieving in just the same way, desperate to feel the lips of her offspring suckling upon her nipples. When I see someone posing with the carcass of a lion, I can't help but think about what type of person would pose with a body of a human they have killed and take a picture grinning ear to ear. Chances are that many of these animals have reached third density awareness, because they meet many of the criteria for "pets": Domesticated for thousands of years, humans choose what they eat and who they mate with. We even control where these animals defecate. There is almost nothing natural about a factory farm compared to the natural existence that a cow/sheep/goat/pig/chicken could be living. To me, this seems like third density catalyst: The dark night, the hell, the eternal lack of light. Even if they haven't, and it's such an assault to consider doing any of these things to humans/third density, why take the risk? How would we know out of 12,000 pigs killed in a single slaughterhouse in a day if any of them were third density? Is it even worth the risk of having one third density entity killed in this way, to eat them, when we clearly have other options?

While I do also experience empathy for plants and have a hard time even weeding my garden, the types of visceral, complete empathy that are possible with animals are not as easily forthcoming. Animals have eyes, hearts, brains, skin, hair, bodies - visible tears, visible love, visible, tangible heartbreak. Once I started focusing on the things that make us alike, it became impossible to see us as different. I cannot help but feel exactly the same when I see an animal about to be slaughtered, as I would if it were a terrified human being strung up by their ankle and a knife shoved into their throat. Plants are objectively different because their experience of reality is vastly different than ours. This second density body we inhabit IS AN ANIMAL - it is this nebulous aspect of "awareness" that makes us blessed third density, giving us superiority over others, alongside the genetic changes that Yahweh put upon the ape complex to create the strange being we now know as "human". Our brains, our hair, our hearts, our bodies - these are second density. How we treat the other second density bodies of this creation redounds back to the self.

18.20 Questioner: When did Yahweh act to perform the genetic changes that Yahweh performed?

Ra: I am Ra. The Yahweh group worked with those of the planet you call Mars seven five, seventy-five thousand [75,000] years ago in what you would call the cloning process. There are differences, but they lie in the future of your time/space continuum and we cannot break the free will Law of Confusion.

The two six oh oh [2,600], approximately, time was the second time— we correct ourselves— three six oh oh [3,600], approximately, the time of attempts by those of the Orion group during this cultural complex; this was a series of encounters in which the ones called Anak were impregnated with the new genetic coding by your physical complex means so that the organisms would be larger and stronger.

18.21 Questioner: Why did they want larger and stronger organisms?

Ra: The ones of Yahweh were attempting to create an understanding of the Law of One by creating mind/body complexes capable of grasping the Law of One. The experiment was a decided failure from the view of the desired distortions due to the fact that rather than assimilating the Law of One, it was a great temptation to consider the so-called social complex or subcomplex as elite or different and better than other-selves, this one of the techniques of service to self.

14.3 Questioner: Then what was the second-density form— what did it look like— that became Earth-man in the third density? What did he look like in the second density?

Ra: I am Ra. The difference between second- and third-density bodily forms would in many cases have been more like one to the other. In the case of your planetary sphere the process was interrupted by those who incarnated here from the planetary sphere you call Mars. They were adjusted by genetic changing and, therefore, there was some difference which was of a very noticeable variety rather than the gradual raising of the bipedal forms upon your second-density level to third-density level. This has nothing to do with the so-called placement of the soul. This has only to do with the circumstances of the influx of those from that culture.

It's really interesting to me, because alongside this thread we have the thread about abstaining from marijuana usage. The majority of posters in that thread are people who say abstaining from marijuana/other substances increases their spirituality and their ability to connect with Creation. There is a lot of support for each other, tips for quitting, encouragement to abstain. Why is it so different when people say the same things about meat? I smoke marijuana, and didn't take what was said in that thread as a personal assault on my lack of spirituality because I consume it. I realize entirely that it is just the path that people embark on, and leaving things that once served us behind is a HUGE part of the service to others path (sacrifice). I know you cannot force that upon others, nor would I ever want to, but I am operating from my personal experience and the experiences of others that say they wish they would have realized and quit eating animals a long time ago. So, I am offering the awareness that I have, not with any expectation other than the hope that there will be ears to hear. If someone opens a thread titled "Confederation and meat consumption", I believe they are making their own free will choice to engage in this catalyst. I'm just genuinely trying to figure out what lines I may have crossed and where, and what meaning they hold to me in interpreting this philosophy. I hope it's obvious that I have no desire to control or manipulate anyone here. I have long ago accepted that a vegan world may not even be born within my lifetime. The catalyst is personal and about transformation within. I'm just another pilgrim on this path sharing what has worked for me, as we all are. It was never my intention to make anyone feel rejected or lesser than for eating meat. It was just offering another alternative to this mode of being, one that isn't offered very often, compared to how many suggestions one receives every single day to consume meat. I feel it's a service to offer, maybe once in a while, the suggestion that maybe we could make choices that refrain from consuming so much mass produced animal proteins?

[xise]

To me, I can't help but draw the parallels to slavery. The Creator obviously wants people to experience slavery, so why did we stop breeding slaves? Was this not a disservice to the Creator? Obviously there are plenty of places where they do still have slavery, should we celebrate this? Should we all go out and get our own slave, to glorify the Creator? I don't think so. Aspects like slavery are a distortion of the true unity of the Creator. Yes, these experiences help the Creator grow, but are we the ones who want to provide this catalyst of slavery and imprisonment of others? When do we realize that imprisoning and enslaving parts of creation just continues to enslave and imprison parts of ourselves?

I would also say the slavery example brings up parallels that are similar to the discussion about Ra's relative lack of discussion of meat-free diets. 

In terms spiritual teachers on earth (Buddha, Jesus, Mohammed), unless I missed something, all the great spiritual teachers focused on broad STO concepts, and did not significantly dwell on or speak out at length against human slavery. Yet no one seriously questions whether the STO concepts that Jesus and Mohammed talked about are consistent with human slavery - it's understood that the STO concepts are incompatible. Interestingly, this realization clearly took some time as Christian and other religious societies infused with STO philosophies had human slavery for thousands of years.

Interestingly, some are using the same reasoning today - well Ra or other channels didn't harp on meat eating as a bad thing - so, therefore, it must be compatible with the STO concepts they were espousing. This would be an absurd argument to apply to Jesus and Mohammed, and I think it's just as absurd to apply to confederation channelings (not saying meat eating is a bad thing, just saying the argument that it's all good cause the confederation didn't speak out against it isn't convincing). Ra and the Confederation - like Jesus and other great spiritual teachers before us - are here to share general principles of philosophy and not to give specific advice on whether X, Y, or Z is more or less loving - that's for ourselves to figure out. We're meant to apply the principles and philosophy and learn for ourselves.

Why? Because of free will.

12.25 Questioner: What I’m saying is would I be polarizing more toward self-service or toward service for others when I did this act of locking up the thought-form or construct?

Ra: I am Ra. You may consider that question for yourself. We interpret the Law of One, but not to the extent of advice.

[Diana]

I guess I just get confused. At what point is it a free will violation for someone to speak of these things? When an open conversation has been started, I feel a very strong call to share in the space given the (extensive) things I know about animal agriculture. I do not feel this call to share when the space has not been created.

This is simple logic—if a thread is created, and questions asked about eating meat or animal welfare (or any subject at all), then it is absolutely "okay" to participate, whatever an individual's opinion may be. The forum guidelines are the only parameters. 

It only becomes confusing (relating to the above quote) because of the extreme emotional reactions of those who take offense. Then, and I know I have done this, a vegan or vegetarian trying to be in the conversation has to go to agonizing lengths to say anything at all that won't offend someone. It's nearly impossible.

The bottom line as I see it, is that this is just a burden to bear if I want to be in these conversations. And I do want to, not just because I care about animals, but I too expand my thinking and ideas and perceptions in engaging here on these subjects. My ideas of where to draw the line between human free will and animal fee will can be explored. How I deal with suffering versus human folly and what I really accept and what I have difficulty accepting become clearer.

Volatile as this subject is, it's absolutely important. 

[isis]

http://www.all-creatures.org/anex/pig.html

http://www.beefmagazine.com/outlook/meat...-rise-2018

[Nía]

Yes, but still the mind/body/spirit complex which is starving needs feeding. Where there is suffering, we on the STO path in 3D must,or rather, want to strive to alleviate it. Positive feelings emanate from service to others, and, among many other sources, seeing the suffering of other-selves alleviated. This is not a but, but and and. Deep joy is a result of facing up to reality and understanding the mechanisms (as much as understanding is possible in 3D), while actively doing whatever is possible to alleviate suffering, to improve the likelihood of peace, healing, freedom and joy for others.

And: How 'Death Anxiety' Is Sparking the Shift in Consciousness We Need to Deal With the Global Climate Threat

The whole area of Sacred or Spiritual Activism (Charles Eisenstein, Andrew Harvey etc., see for example https://www.northatlanticbooks.com/sacredactivism) operate from the principle that opening our eyes to and having our hearts cracked open by the reality of other sentient being's suffering (including the planet) is and must be the basis for Love in Action, activism on the basis of a deep metaphysical understanding and constant spiritual practice.

And: Thank you from the bottom of my heart Jade and Diana, for sticking out your necks all the time, while I am keeping a rather low profile, due to the fact I don't have the emotional resources and energies to engage more in confrontational conversations. Its is very much appreciated! -`ღ´-

[Jim Kent +]

Just for the record, I personally do not feel offended by any one's views and opinions here,

There could not be a more important subject as to how Humanity interacts and treats other Earthling species, which let's face it, is absolutely appalling and I agree things MUST change before it really is too late.

I just don't think total abolition is realistic at the moment and that's not even considering the karmic ramifications of forcing people to live a certain way. 

Having said that i would personally accept and do support the total abolition of factory-farms, but that in itself is another ethical contradiction...

Such is the fun of trying to make sense of a planet, supposedly dominated by a bunch of genetically tweaked psychotic apes who have been manipulated by corrupt religion and politics for millennia. 

I'm not excusing the wholesale abuse of animals by Humanity, I'm just saying that "Vegans" must be very careful how "they" approach their mission with "us  meat-eaters" and always be careful not to slip into guilt-trip manipulations. And I'm sorry Jade, but in my opinion, posing the images you did comes very close to this.

I wonder what sort of reaction I'd get on this forum if I posted the anti-abortion images that have haunted me for 40 years to this site???

As I stated in an earlier post, certain words in this thread caused a temporary Green-ray blockage, but I certainly don't resent anyone for taking me there, it's great to shine a light on my own issues and i'm grateful for that.

Let's keep moving forward and perhaps at least find some common ground. 

[rva_jeremy]

It's really interesting to me, because alongside this thread we have the thread about abstaining from marijuana usage. The majority of posters in that thread are people who say abstaining from marijuana/other substances increases their spirituality and their ability to connect with Creation. There is a lot of support for each other, tips for quitting, encouragement to abstain. Why is it so different when people say the same things about meat? I smoke marijuana, and didn't take what was said in that thread as a personal assault on my lack of spirituality because I consume it.

It's different because the vegetarian side is asserting a moral crime is being committed. That is a serious accusation that, while it may be true, cannot help but charge the conversation. I'm not saying you're in error to bring it up. I for one am glad you did. All I'm saying is that it has a consequence.

What a struggle it is to employ the light touch. We will fail again and again at it. I'm not trying to criticize you at all, because everybody does this. But I do really like the idea of using these kinds of episodes as studies in the kinds of catalyst we'll face outside in the real world. Thanks for sharing your reflections, I really, really enjoy seeing people open up like that.

[rva_jeremy]

third density problems cannot be resolved with third density thinking

That would be incorrect.

Third density problems pertain to 3rd density, and their solutions also must pertain to third density.

Because all of these, together, define the experience that is called 3rd density.

In this particular topic regarding how it being difficult to give up meat due to the nature of 3rd density social complexes' social, psychological and spiritual pressure, the solution is right there in 3rd density as the problem, and it is the entity who decided to give up meat manifesting enough willpower to follow its decision against all pressure.

Its not mystical, magical, otherworldly or other-dimensional - just uncomfortable and difficult.

That's an interesting perspective. I guess it depends on how you conceive of the purpose of third density experience, what's central to it vs peripheral. 

To me, a lot of the conflicts of third density society aren't meant to be "resolved". They can be resolved, and they are not intractable. The issue is what their purpose is: to provide catalyst for our development and not simply to exist for their own sake. And the end goal of that development in our particular sector is to move into fourth density social memory.

It is true that I'm drawing a line between evolved third density consciousness and fourth density consciousness that is dubious at best. That may be a mislabelling. Whether the new thinking that solves these problems arises from third density or fourth density consciousness, it is still a different quality of consciousness. I'm certainly not going to go to the mat to defend a characterization of that consciousness that insists it must be of some exact vibration. Thanks for pointing that out!


What I hear you saying, Unity100, is that they are problems that are meant to be solved in third density in order to progress on to fourth density. Do I have that right? I agree with you that it is "uncomfortable and difficult" to change the world, but isn't this how our social complex works--by exerting this uncomfortable pressure on everybody, and through all that aggregated individual pressure, it is made difficult for a new consensus to emerge? Isn't that right there one of the quandaries of third density? Just interested in your perspective here.

[Jade]

I'm not excusing the wholesale abuse of animals by Humanity, I'm just saying that "Vegans" must be very careful how "they" approach their mission with "us  meat-eaters" and always be careful not to slip into guilt-trip manipulations. And I'm sorry Jade, but in my opinion, posing the images you did comes very close to this.

I posted the image of a live pig who is about to be slaughtered. No blood, no gore - though a picture with much more graphic imagery is very easily obtainable. This is how over 100 million pigs die every year. Ignoring it doesn't make it go away, and I refuse to ignore it for my own peace of mind. I'm accused of exhibiting a lack of acceptance, yet I would say the vast majority of people who eat animals actually refuse to accept the conditions that it requires to get their food to their plates, if they have a problem with me posting images of standard practices. I honestly do not believe I did anything wrong or intentionally guilt inducing by posting a picture of something that happens ~220x every minute. ~220 pigs were shackled like this and a knife driven into their throats while you read this post. If the truth is guilt inducing, one must find their own way to deal with that. It should be. It's horrible. This is why I'm showing it.

This thread is literally about the ethics of meat consumption, within the philosophy that we all choose to study, and everyone who opens this thread knows that. To discuss ethics we need to understand, very clearly, what types of ramifications our actions have. If the pig being shackled upsets you, that's normal! It isn't my intent, directly, to upset. My intent is to inform. I have accepted that informing people about this is a volatile endeavor, but I still feel it is necessary, due to all of the misunderstandings that exist about how our food gets to our plates, and for those who suffer without a voice.

[Jade]

It's really interesting to me, because alongside this thread we have the thread about abstaining from marijuana usage. The majority of posters in that thread are people who say abstaining from marijuana/other substances increases their spirituality and their ability to connect with Creation. There is a lot of support for each other, tips for quitting, encouragement to abstain. Why is it so different when people say the same things about meat? I smoke marijuana, and didn't take what was said in that thread as a personal assault on my lack of spirituality because I consume it.

It's different because the vegetarian side is asserting a moral crime is being committed. That is a serious accusation that, while it may be true, cannot help but charge the conversation.  I'm not saying you're in error to bring it up. I for one am glad you did. All I'm saying is that it has a consequence.

What a struggle it is to employ the light touch. We will fail again and again at it. I'm not trying to criticize you at all, because everybody does this. But I do really like the idea of using these kinds of episodes as studies in the kinds of catalyst we'll face outside in the real world. Thanks for sharing your reflections, I really, really enjoy seeing people open up like that.

Thanks for your feedback, Jeremy. I agree about the point about the light touch. Though, there was a recent Q'uo channeling with this little tidbit, which I admit, I have clung to as an excuse to be a shrill harpy!

It is a natural expression of this attempt to heal upon a cultural level that those presently embodied in female form might reach out in anger and attempt to claim their rightful place in the center in a way that can seem strident. Sometimes a certain amount of stridency is necessary in order to capture the attention of one who is, shall we say, asleep to a problem, who is not aware of the nature of the problem, of the scope of the problem, of the reach of that problem.

And so, there will be friction that one might legitimately anticipate as the female principle—in the persons of incarnate female individuals—wishes to announce that it cannot continue to be pushed to the margins, and that a balanced configuration of the social complex requires a greater integration of its female portion.

http://www.llresearch.org/transcripts/is..._0204.aspx

[rva_jeremy]

Thanks for bringing that Q'uo quote up. I don't know how you interpret that. I saw it as a suggestion to not take the stridency so personally, to see it as natural and healthy. Q'uo was informing us that we need to expect that the process of healing will be uncomfortable and involve momentary disruptions. If we can expect these disruptions and disturbances, we can be more prepared to mindfully address them and not simply fall back into old patterns.

I did not interpret Q'uo to be prescribing any strategy of stridency and anger. Maybe you saw something in there that I'm neglecting?

It's a tough thing to discuss. On the one hand, think of those times when your mind was changed. Was it changed because you feared the other party? Because they shamed you? Because they defeated you? Or because, even if they did all those things, they brought out something true within yourself that you had ignored or hadn't noticed? Was it really they who changed your mind from the outside, or was it you who changed your mind based on what they showed you within yourself?

On the other hand, these energies are going to find expression, and at this point they are so ridiculously frustrated that there really isn't any very peaceful and sanguine outlet for them. It is absolutely correct that the fear and recoiling that those encountering these expressions experience is very much about their own issues. In dealing with these issues it may prompt that course correction of the cruise ship which takes so much time and effort, and therefore while it's not immediately satisfying, it still has to start at some time and place.

So to me Q'uo was simply sketching out the situation, and giving us the tools so that we can help without being cowed by the intensity of it all. Hopefully we can use those tools to make an argument into a conversation, an insult volley into a true sharing of self, a stodgy stubbornness into an opportunity for insight.

I don't think you're being shrill. My only recommendation would be to sympathize with the meat eaters more, because you'll be more effective in finding common ground that way, and we can't change the consensus until we find that common ground.

[Diana]

third density problems cannot be resolved with third density thinking

That would be incorrect.

Third density problems pertain to 3rd density, and their solutions also must pertain to third density.

Because all of these, together, define the experience that is called 3rd density.

In this particular topic regarding how it being difficult to give up meat due to the nature of 3rd density social complexes' social, psychological and spiritual pressure, the solution is right there in 3rd density as the problem, and it is the entity who decided to give up meat manifesting enough willpower to follow its decision against all pressure.

Its not mystical, magical, otherworldly or other-dimensional - just uncomfortable and difficult.

I think unity100 has boiled it down to common sense. We are here, now. This subject matter and all else must be dealt with while we are here, amidst all this 3rd density beauty and chaos.

The thing is, even if you are using so-called 4th-density thinking, you are still in 3rd density, so your thinking is actually 3rd-density thinking (for you). Sounds silly, but it's not. That's why I have said many times that what we do flows from who we are. If we experience conflicts between how we act in the world and who we see ourselves as or who we want to be, a lack of balance and calm will become evident—and we all experience that.

It's a tough thing to discuss. On the one hand, think of those times when your mind was changed. Was it changed because you feared the other party? Because they shamed you? Because they defeated you? Or because, even if they did all those things, they brought out something true within yourself that you had ignored or hadn't noticed? Was it really they who changed your mind from the outside, or was it you who changed your mind based on what they showed you within yourself?

I'm going to speak for myself only. It is often cited here that vegan posts are trying to change minds. I keep saying this—I am not trying to change anyone's mind at all. I can see how it's interpreted this way. The whole subject is muddy with real or imagined complexities. But what I am really doing is:

1. Trying to bring a different perspective to the table, for the sake of expanded awareness.

2. When I do bring up points, I am not trying to win. But I do try to make myself understood, and I think this is where some of the conflict comes in. For example, trying to get across the simple idea of supply and demand of meat. When this is countered with a post such as, "the animal is already dead so I'm not responsible for its death, and the meat would be wasted so it makes sense to eat it," I then try to make the concept of supply and demand understood. It's easy, I think, for the poster to take this personally given the exchange, but I am not intending that—only to explain the premise of supply and demand within this particular context which is complicated with a lot of emotions.

We don't have to change one another's minds. It simply is not about that at all. We are just having a conversation and we all presumably want our words to be understood. We all have perspectives and aren't we all interested in evolving in one way or another? This requires a bigger and bigger apprehension of the world, all in it, and existence itself. For me personally, I am trying to add a dimension of awareness to these conversations about life forms other than human. If you look back at my posts I have advocated for the lives of insects and "pests" in houses—from the perpsective of bringing my particular awareness of other life forms to the table. Jade has direct knowledge of factory farms, slaughter houses, and the animal abuses therein. Would anyone here really want to nix either Jade's or my contribution? I see no way to bring up the actual cruel, typical slaughter of a pig with a light touch, but to leave it out is remiss. 

Jim Kent mentioned photos of abortions. If a thread were started about killing fetuses and the spiritual implications, would it be okay to ignore what really happens physically—to skirt around the facts and pretend it's something other than what it is (physically)? There is much philosophy to explore, but isn't it best to proceed from fact? How can a subject be canvassed if part of it is ignored because of sensitive feelings or the fear of giving offense? Isn't it a user's choice here whether or not to participate in a thread? We have guidelines in place for managing content. (Caveat: I am making no statements about abortion either way in this example.)

Yeah, I would love it if the planet became vegan and our brothers and sisters in the animal kingdom could live their natural lives without human dominance and abuse. But I'm perfectly capable of apprehending that I can't make that happen. In the meantime, I talk about it here where the subject matter has been opened for discussion.

[Jade]

Thanks for bringing that Q'uo quote up. I don't know how you interpret that. I saw it as a suggestion to not take the stridency so personally, to see it as natural and healthy. Q'uo was informing us that we need to expect that the process of healing will be uncomfortable and involve momentary disruptions.  If we can expect these disruptions and disturbances, we can be more prepared to mindfully address them and not simply fall back into old patterns.

I did not interpret Q'uo to be prescribing any strategy of stridency and anger. Maybe you saw something in there that I'm neglecting?

It's a tough thing to discuss. On the one hand, think of those times when your mind was changed. Was it changed because you feared the other party? Because they shamed you? Because they defeated you? Or because, even if they did all those things, they brought out something true within yourself that you had ignored or hadn't noticed? Was it really they who changed your mind from the outside, or was it you who changed your mind based on what they showed you within yourself?

On the other hand, these energies are going to find expression, and at this point they are so ridiculously frustrated that there really isn't any very peaceful and sanguine outlet for them. It is absolutely correct that the fear and recoiling that those encountering these expressions experience is very much about their own issues. In dealing with these issues it may prompt that course correction of the cruise ship which takes so much time and effort, and therefore while it's not immediately satisfying, it still has to start at some time and place.

So to me Q'uo was simply sketching out the situation, and giving us the tools so that we can help without being cowed by the intensity of it all. Hopefully we can use those tools to make an argument into a conversation, an insult volley into a true sharing of self, a stodgy stubbornness into an opportunity for insight.

I don't think you're being shrill. My only recommendation would be to sympathize with the meat eaters more, because you'll be more effective in finding common ground that way, and we can't change the consensus until we find that common ground.

Maybe it takes the whole context of the Q'uo channeling. Maybe a bit more of the quote will give it more of the context that I have taken from it:

The path of evolution is a path of integration. Integration involves portions of selfhood that have grown, that have developed over the course of a pattern taking place in many lifetimes, in such a way that not all portions of the being grow and evolve at the same rate and in the same way. And that creates a situation in which it is possible for portions of the self to be cut off from the larger whole, and to be forced to exist a kind of satellite existence on the periphery, causing perturbations, if you will, in the main body of the developing complex. In order to reabsorb these elements, one must, first of all, discover that they have in fact been denied admittance into the center. And one must find, first of all, a way to grasp how it has come about that they have been thrust out from that center. And then secondly, they must be loved as that which has been thrust out, and as that which properly belongs in the center.

And so, if we would discover that a significant portion of the female principle has been thrust out from the center of the pattern of spiritual evolution taking place upon a cultural level, there is remedial work of a fairly significant nature that must be done. And so we would agree that in order to take up a relation to this displaced female energy, that it must be brought back into a place of honor, and that is work which will require a good deal of self-reflection, not only on the part of those males which have been party to its repression, but also upon the part of the females that have learned to live within the framework of that repression.

It is a natural expression of this attempt to heal upon a cultural level that those presently embodied in female form might reach out in anger and attempt to claim their rightful place in the center in a way that can seem strident. Sometimes a certain amount of stridency is necessary in order to capture the attention of one who is, shall we say, asleep to a problem, who is not aware of the nature of the problem, of the scope of the problem, of the reach of that problem.

And so, there will be friction that one might legitimately anticipate as the female principle—in the persons of incarnate female individuals—wishes to announce that it cannot continue to be pushed to the margins, and that a balanced configuration of the social complex requires a greater integration of its female portion.

I bolded the part that resonates with me the most in this context, and I'm not sure how I could reword it to be more clear on its meaning to me. The session is about integrating the male and female principles, recognizing that the female principle has been pushed to the wayside in favor of the male principle. I personally see a connection between our exploitation of animals and the refusal to bring it to the light to be congruent with these energies that Q'uo is speaking about.

I guess I will state it clearly and unequivocally: I have compassion for meat eaters. I am sorry I have not been good at showing it. I understand how difficult it is to even consider changing one's diet a little bit, due to society's pressures and habits. I was a meat eater for a long time, and am only operating on my previous experiences and transformation. I went vegan before I even knew of the Law of One so it's hard for me to integrate awareness about this issue with the desires of the service to others path.

I promise you this is the result of my sympathy. If I had no sympathy for people who ate meat, I would have thrown my hands into the air and walked away from attempting to integrate with ominvores' thinking a long time ago. It is a path wrought with rejection. Upsetting people and talking about things that are violent does not bring me personal pleasure. I see a lack of awareness and feel a calling to add light to the darkness, per the subject of a thread started by someone else. If I didn't care or feel compassion, I would ignore this calling.

I know plenty of spiritual people who eat meat that I respect fully, and even see as beyond me in many respects, and I never think things like, "if only this person was vegan, I would respect them more!" I also know MANY vegans who have no idea what it means to live in the open heart. I do not see this issue as so black and white that I feel negative judgement towards those who eat animal products, or perceive a lack of spirituality. I think maybe what is perceived is that my compassion for animals is so overwhelming, that it's easy to perceive it as having more weight than my compassion for humans. This is only true when I compare the relative ease of existence that is experienced by humans who buy their food in a grocery store compared to the factory farmed animals who fill those stores. When zoomed out, I recognize there are intricate subtleties to the human existence and the functioning of our mind complex that none of us will ever understand.

I don't think any magical arrangement of words is going to change anyone. What I've heard from feedback from others is that "maybe if you would be more compassionate..." then what? More people would stop eating meat? Is it really that easy? I don't think so, and I think that is an unfair carrot to dangle, when I am definitely doing my absolute best to imbue my words with compassion. I think people see a lack of a meeting in the middle from me, because when people concede that they eat "humane" meat, I am well aware that most labels as such, especially in the US, mean absolutely nothing, so in my estimation, people who believe they are paying more for animals who have been treated well because it is labeled "humane" or "free range", should want to know if those labels are lies, right? I definitely want to know when I am spending my money on a lie. What I would wholeheartedly support without rebuttal is someone saying, "I have cut back on eating meat/dairy", because this is what is required, of just about all omnivores. The planet is gonna die otherwise, y'all. Instead, I get a lot of justification about how "second density is different than third density because they don't have awareness", or, "the animals have chosen this existence through free will" - these things are at odds and contradict each other. I think this is where a lot of my frustration comes from - which is it? Is it that animals have chosen in free will this means of being, or is it that they are merely an unaware part of the Logos? I think it is more of the latter with touches of the former, but I don't think either is a reason to justify willing subjugation of another part of the Creation.

[Jim Kent +]

Jim Kent mentioned photos of abortions. If a thread were started about killing fetuses and the spiritual implications, would it be okay to ignore what really happens physically—to skirt around the facts and pretend it's something other than what it is (physically)? There is much philosophy to explore, but isn't it best to proceed from fact? How can a subject be canvassed if part of it is ignored because of sensitive feelings or the fear of giving offense? Isn't it a user's choice here whether or not to participate in a thread? We have guidelines in place for managing content. (Caveat: I am making no statements about abortion either way in this example.)

I get the point you're making and I agree.

But I will never react well or even positively to anyone using words or pictures in a deliberate attempt to elicit an emotional response to reach a desired outcome. 

This is because of the natural negative reaction I've had to the Roman bullshit a billion of us were tainted with.   

You want to deal in facts, fair enough, the only fact I consider I know in this life-time is that I exist...

I can't call it a fact, but I consider it highly likely that there are hundreds of millions of ex-Catholics that will never react positively to such moral manipulations, and this is why I'm arguing that much of the "Vegan" approach, here and elsewhere is fundamentally flawed. 

I would happily become vegan if I could trust a proper scientifically formulated diet that worked for all genetic types and life-styles, but with so many clear and binary agendas, I would find giving this trust to anyone, very difficult.

I've tried to meet somewhere in the middle, but this doesn't seem to resonate with anyone, enough to comment anyway.

Without wanting to sound rude to any participant of this forum or this thread in particular, I getting tired of this, these discussions are getting us nowhere in my opinion and we're all just going round in circles - so I'm out

  

[rva_jeremy]

Thanks for expanding on your thinking, Jade. I agree that this is about integrating male and female energies, and I also think you are a good advocate for those female energies (my recommendation wasn't intended to imply you didn't have sympathy for carnivores; only that sympathy is generally helpful to communication). I was not trying to argue that folks fighting for justice should not be strident, only that Q'uo's position seemed to be more "yeah, this is going to happen" and less "you must be strident in your advocacy". It seemed more recognition than approval, in other words.

I also think what Q'uo said about living in the framework of repression is interesting. It's very similar to what I said a few posts back about the energetic dynamic of the society, how opposing something can express a similar energy as advocating something. I think this comes from the way that societies, especially our media-rich society, tends to develop narratives that silo news into "issues" that have these pro/con tensions. They appear designed to make news easier to report, but it ignores how all of these "issues" touch each other and make simple pro/con, "both sides"-style reporting quite shallow. I think we need to find ways to transcend these dichotomies, to pull out the social supports that make them so focused on a particular narrow narrative, and that real healing happens not when one side wins but instead when the both sides understand the match isn't serving them.

I really am sorry that when I talk about this issue it's taken as an attack or criticism. I really, truly don't mean it that way. To me this conversation is interesting because as an intensely political person in an intensely political time, I look to how people are interacting on seemingly intractable issues like this and try to understand the social dynamic that's going on, the unstated things that get taken for granted, etc. So it's really not about criticizing your approach at all, Jade; it's about getting into the misunderstandings and seeing how they get formed, how we can use what we know about the Law of One to cut through these rhetorical, emotional, and conceptual dead-ends. But there's baggage on this topic and I should know better.

It's really interesting, something I just thought about is that when my wife and I discuss issues like this, for example the pay gap between men and women, I think she has the same experience: that the way I engage it shows that I don't support her or agree with her, even though I often do or I am at least very open to it. But because I sort of want to see it from a meta-angle and not simply "get on her side", it's taken as a criticism or as me evincing skepticism. I just feel like so many of our third density conflicts are unnnecessarily oversimplified because it's more important to "make a dent" in somebody's psyche, make an impression or win an argument, than it is to understand that person.

Anyway, I appreciate your generosity and heart, Jade. I will always cheer your stridency on!

[xise]

Yeah, I think a big part of this is understanding where one another is coming from. Prior to being vegan, I was vegetarian for 10 years. Or rather to be specific, it was like 15 years with a few years of breaks where I ate meat. Perhaps because I've always been spiritual leaning and I was a philosophy major who particularly liked ethics, I always enjoyed discussing the ethics of meat eating, both when I ate meat (after being vegetarian for many years) and during my vegetarian years.


During these discussions, I would always concede the point that eating meat was unnecessary and increased suffering, but that I just wasn't able to manage vegetarianism right then with all my stresses in life. I don't think I ever felt defensive about my meat eating because, for me, the ethical standpoint was simply true to me - the logic for the ethics of meat eating was infallible to me from a philosophical perspective - but I simply accepted that I wasn't perfect nor felt particularly loving, and moved on with my life.


Now clearly perhaps for others don't see it in the same way philosophically - but the reason I bring this up is that because I was so easily able to concede that meat eating was increasing suffering in these discussions of 5-10 years ago when I was eating meat myself - I think I don't respect or as easily understand other people's defensiveness. And I think I could definitely become more loving and understanding by better understanding this defensiveness - or better yet by understanding what meat-eating people feel and think about all of this stuff because clearly my own thoughts, when I was a meat eater, seem pretty unique - so I really appreciate the overall conversation.