In regards to eating meat

[Monica]

gross is besides the point. it's hypocritical to eat animals you couldn't kill yourself. that's why i quit meat, i still eat fish because if it came to it, i could kill a fish. especially to feed my kitty.

Excellent point, Oceania!

I think if everyone had to kill the animals themselves, more people would be vegetarians.

If someone truly thinks killing animals is ok, then it should be no big deal to kill their own animals for their meat, right?

So, go visit a slaughterhouse...and then take those freshly killed animal parts home and cook them for dinner.

I look my carrots in the eyes before I eat them! (oh wait, carrots don't have eyes! awwwwww....)

[Oceania]

hey why don't plants have faces?

[Monica]

hey why don't plants have faces?

Great question! And, why aren't they mobile? Why are they unable to run/fly/swim away from hunters?

My opinion is that if an entity is evolved enough to be individuated, it won't incarnate into the body of a plant, who cannot run away from a hunter.

An entity who is sentient, who is individuated, evolved enough to be an individual being, won't incarnate into the body of a plant...it will incarnate into the body of an animal, who has a face, who has the pain receptors and nervous system to feel pain, who has the brain to think and feel, and who can run/fly/swim away from predators.

[BrownEye]

What about meat eating plants?

[Diana]

Ergo, someone seeking a spiritual path, who continues to inflict suffering on other beings, must be in denial.

The only other explanation is that they don't care.

I don't think they don't care. I know these people do care. Thus, the only possible explanation left is denial.

It's simple logic. Either they don't care, or they're in denial. What other option is there?

But, I suppose the one who is actually in denial is the one who is blinded.

Well, that's what being in denial means. Blinded.

You have accurately described a vegetarian who does not consider their own practice to "hurt" plants.

I do care, but I am not in denial. I will murder animal and plant to survive. We all do it. I think it best to accept that.

I do consider that I harm plants to eat and survive. I just feel it generates less fear and harm than taking the lives of animals. Logically, because plants survive even when you take parts of them, and animals don't, wouldn't the fear be greater for animals? Wouldn't the pain and terror be greater?

I hope that in the future--my imagined evolved future--we will not require the consuming of matter to survive. Perhaps we will be more plant-like and derive sustenance from light.

[Oceania]

i think meat eating plants are fair game.

---

not really

---

sun gazing is the future. obviously you can get pure nutrition from the sun.

[yossarian]

Isn't that like eating the sun ? The sun has feelings too!

[3DMonkey]

Isn't that like eating the sun ? The sun has feelings too!

Absolutely! That's a Good Point! I Agree!


(honestly, we can't live without taking something from something, just like the sun, it's all the same in light of Oneness)

---

Ergo, someone seeking a spiritual path, who continues to inflict suffering on other beings, must be in denial.

The only other explanation is that they don't care.

I don't think they don't care. I know these people do care. Thus, the only possible explanation left is denial.

It's simple logic. Either they don't care, or they're in denial. What other option is there?

But, I suppose the one who is actually in denial is the one who is blinded.

Well, that's what being in denial means. Blinded.

You have accurately described a vegetarian who does not consider their own practice to "hurt" plants.

I do care, but I am not in denial. I will murder animal and plant to survive. We all do it. I think it best to accept that.

I do consider that I harm plants to eat and survive. I just feel it generates less fear and harm than taking the lives of animals. Logically, because plants survive even when you take parts of them, and animals don't, wouldn't the fear be greater for animals? Wouldn't the pain and terror be greater?

I hope that in the future--my imagined evolved future--we will not require the consuming of matter to survive. Perhaps we will be more plant-like and derive sustenance from light.

I do consider that I harm animals by eating them. I'm not afraid of any repercussions to my soul for doing so. Fear works that way too.

[Oceania]

the sun is the ultimate life force. food is just a way of getting sunlight. so no it's not the same thing.

[yossarian]

What does the sun eat? Sunchips? Or maybe Starbursts?

[Meerie]

I think the sun is a carnivore, it once ate my skin.

[BrownEye]

I think the sun is a carnivore, it once ate my skin.

Maybe the sun eats carnivores ha ha ha.

My family no longer burn from the sun which confused me, until I found others with the same experience.

I found this one humorous.

I have heard others talk about not getting sunburned eating raw. We eat about 70-95% raw on any given week. So, if the benefits are limited to just 100% raw folks, our testimonies won't help.


Anyway, I would agree there are some advantages there. I suppose I would hypothosize that it is likely more do to the vegan lifestyle than raw. What do we fry food in a pan with? Grease right. What do we fill our systems with if we eat animal products freely? I have to imagine that some of that gets into our skin and literally we may be baking our skin from the inside out when the sun is applied in strong doses.

[βαθμιαίος]

My opinion is that if an entity is evolved enough to be individuated, it won't incarnate into the body of a plant, who cannot run away from a hunter.

I don't think that's right, based on this quote:

19.2 Questioner: Let’s take the point at which an individualized entity of second density is ready for transition to third. Is this second-density being what we would call animal?

Ra: I am Ra. There are three types of second-density entities which become, shall we say, enspirited. The first is the animal. This is the most predominant. The second is the vegetable, most especially that which you call, sound vibration complex, “tree.” These entities are capable of giving and receiving enough love to become individualized. The third is mineral. Occasionally a certain location/place, as you may call it, becomes energized to individuality through the love it receives and gives in relationship to a third-density entity which is in relationship to it. This is the least common transition.

Which raises a question: what's your position on using lumber for houses, etc? Can sawmills be equated to slaughterhouses?

[Diana]

Isn't that like eating the sun ? The sun has feelings too!

The sun radiates, or "gives off," light as a result of fusion. You would not be taking anything from it.

---

I think the sun is a carnivore, it once ate my skin.

Maybe the sun eats carnivores ha ha ha.

My family no longer burn from the sun which confused me, until I found others with the same experience.

I found this one humorous.

I have heard others talk about not getting sunburned eating raw. We eat about 70-95% raw on any given week. So, if the benefits are limited to just 100% raw folks, our testimonies won't help.


Anyway, I would agree there are some advantages there. I suppose I would hypothosize that it is likely more do to the vegan lifestyle than raw. What do we fry food in a pan with? Grease right. What do we fill our systems with if we eat animal products freely? I have to imagine that some of that gets into our skin and literally we may be baking our skin from the inside out when the sun is applied in strong doses.

Interesting. I never heard that theory. It has some merit logically .

---

hey why don't plants have faces?

My speculations: plants don't have to move around so don't have to see; they don't have to watch for predators (since they survive as long as the roots aren't taken); they derive sustenance from the roots so no mouth. And that reminds me that they give off oxygen which is another gift from plants besides food. Thank you plant life.

[Bring4th_Austin]

I think saying that meat eaters are in denial is an ignorant and ironic statement.

Not you, Austin. You aren't in denial at all. Diana and I were speaking in general terms. Most meat-eaters seem to be trying to justify their actions.

Not you. You are clearly very aware.

I had thought about it, and you are more right than I would initially accept. But I think there are far more "aware" meat eaters than might be given credit for. There are many many people, like my customer base, who go to great lengths to learn about the process of meat production and what it means for themselves and the animal, practically and spiritually. As I said a while ago in this thread, I have a few (the number has increased) customers who used to be vegetarian because of the state of the meat industry, and now eat meat because they realize there are way to be involved with your food to a point where you can visit the farm that it comes from and ensure that you agree with the practices used raising the animals. This demographic is growing rather rapidly and as people learn about the state of the meat industry they are discovering that it doesn't have to be that way. Inhumane treatment of animals doesn't have to be the only option for meat.

However, there are some meat eaters in strong denial. For example, at my market, I have pictures of chickens on the front of my tent to show people how free and natural they are allowed to behave (our chickens are uncontained and can do absolutely whatever they want). A man passed by with his wife and said "Do you want to get some chicken?" She looked horrified and said "God no! I can't buy a chicken when I see it alive! That's horrible!"

This woman represents a very large demographic as well. People are in denial that the meat they eat was once a living being. What's even worse is the idea that she didn't want to know where her food came from...meaning she will most likely buy her meat from a big industry meat producer, where chickens are stuffed in a cage or a room, never see the sun or touch grass or anything natural at all.

To go even further, I might even say people that eat meat and aren't willing to kill the animal themselves are in denial. When vegetarians say "if everyone had to kill their own meat, there would be many more vegetarians," this is a true statement. There are different layers of denial for meat consumers. But I would ask, please don't ignore the consumers who aren't behind that veil of denial. They are fully aware of what they are doing and have much love and appreciation for what their food is and where it comes from, and try their hardest to be involved in the process.

That all being said, I would also say there are a number of vegetarians either grossly uninformed or in denial about the process that their food goes through as well. Is buying conventionally grown vegetables from the grocery store any more humane for animals or the environment than buying meat? The state of industrial food production, not just meat, is appalling. Some people think buying "organic" helps alleviate this problem, but it hardly does. If you buy organic produce from the grocery store, this act is supporting businesses which care little about the environment and do great harm to ecosystems, which would include all types of animals. There might be a very small percentage of food in a grocery store which is sustainably grown, but if you don't know exactly the source of your food, how can you know?

Also, while I know many vegetarians are aware of the state of the soy industry and the harm it does to the environment and agriculture in general, there are a great many who don't. GMO soy alone, which is nearly 99% of all soy production, is horrendous. These soy fields are carpeted with herbicide and pesticide which completely eliminate any traces of an ecosystem (including the thousands of being above ground as well as the trillions, yes TRILLIONS of beings bellow ground). There is also a horrendous amount of deforestation going on in South America to help meet a demand for soy. I would say that as many suffer and die because of these practices as do in the big meat industry.

Leaving aside soy, Big Produce in general treats the plants that they grow as separate from nature. They eliminate ecosystems and either carpet fields with chemicals, synthetic (convention) or not (organic). Many times, the produce you buy at the grocery store comes from all over the world. Think of the environmental damage that is done transporting food here? Much of it even comes from countries which are on the verge of famine and have food strikes. How awful is that? The laborers are often treated close to slave labor.

I feel that eliminating meat from one's diet is not enough to ensure the elimination of suffering of animals (and the Earth). Buying food local and making sure the producer is sustainable is the only way to be involved with your food intimately enough to know that it is responsibly produced with no suffering. This means giving up much of what we have become accustomed to. Learning to cook seasonally and giving up things which don't grow locally can be hard. No fruit in the winter, no tomatoes in the off-season...it requires much flexibility, but if you are buying conventionally grown (whether organic or not) produce from around the world, just think of the damage being done to ecosystems (which include animals) and the Earth in general.

[Diana]

Which raises a question: what's your position on using lumber for houses, etc? Can sawmills be equated to slaughterhouses?

Good question. I think the two are comparable. It's easy to choose not to eat meat. It's harder to avoid lumber, depending on how wealthy you are. My house is somewhat "green," and when I build another it will be more so. There is so much in this current world that is based on unconsciousness (wasting resources, destroying resources: cutting the rain forests down to graze cattle, exploiting 3rd-world countries for profit, and on and on). We are all culpable if we consume the products made from these resources by being part of the market for them.

What I do in my life is simply do the best I can in every area I can, and endeavor to be as conscious as possible. Which brings me back to eating meat. If a person consumes meat, and is a carnivore, the traits of a carnivore are part of that person (aggression, predatory nature, attacking violence, etc). From the meat eaten, the carnivore consumes fear and enslavement (if commercially farmed). I can extrapolate from this that the carnivorous aggression/fear/violence has something to do with the fear/aggression/violence that predominates in our world. A quote by Albert Einstein:

"Nothing will benefit human health and increase the chances for survival of life on earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet." —Albert Einstein

[3DMonkey]

These points are about industrial practices. They don't really contribute to the spiritual significance of eating meat, IMO.

If you want to say that people would choose not to kill their own meat, that is fine but it is nothing more than a theory. It is like saying, if people had to grow their own food, they would starve. I say, if people had to grow their own food, and given the opportunity to kill a chicken a week later, I bet 99.9% would kill the chicken.

[Diana]

I think saying that meat eaters are in denial is an ignorant and ironic statement.

Not you, Austin. You aren't in denial at all. Diana and I were speaking in general terms. Most meat-eaters seem to be trying to justify their actions.

Not you. You are clearly very aware.

I had thought about it, and you are more right than I would initially accept. But I think there are far more "aware" meat eaters than might be given credit for. There are many many people, like my customer base, who go to great lengths to learn about the process of meat production and what it means for themselves and the animal, practically and spiritually. As I said a while ago in this thread, I have a few (the number has increased) customers who used to be vegetarian because of the state of the meat industry, and now eat meat because they realize there are way to be involved with your food to a point where you can visit the farm that it comes from and ensure that you agree with the practices used raising the animals. This demographic is growing rather rapidly and as people learn about the state of the meat industry they are discovering that it doesn't have to be that way. Inhumane treatment of animals doesn't have to be the only option for meat.

However, there are some meat eaters in strong denial. For example, at my market, I have pictures of chickens on the front of my tent to show people how free and natural they are allowed to behave (our chickens are uncontained and can do absolutely whatever they want). A man passed by with his wife and said "Do you want to get some chicken?" She looked horrified and said "God no! I can't buy a chicken when I see it alive! That's horrible!"

This woman represents a very large demographic as well. People are in denial that the meat they eat was once a living being. What's even worse is the idea that she didn't want to know where her food came from...meaning she will most likely buy her meat from a big industry meat producer, where chickens are stuffed in a cage or a room, never see the sun or touch grass or anything natural at all.

To go even further, I might even say people that eat meat and aren't willing to kill the animal themselves are in denial. When vegetarians say "if everyone had to kill their own meat, there would be many more vegetarians," this is a true statement. There are different layers of denial for meat consumers. But I would ask, please don't ignore the consumers who aren't behind that veil of denial. They are fully aware of what they are doing and have much love and appreciation for what their food is and where it comes from, and try their hardest to be involved in the process.

That all being said, I would also say there are a number of vegetarians either grossly uninformed or in denial about the process that their food goes through as well. Is buying conventionally grown vegetables from the grocery store any more humane for animals or the environment than buying meat? The state of industrial food production, not just meat, is appalling. Some people think buying "organic" helps alleviate this problem, but it hardly does. If you buy organic produce from the grocery store, this act is supporting businesses which care little about the environment and do great harm to ecosystems, which would include all types of animals. There might be a very small percentage of food in a grocery store which is sustainably grown, but if you don't know exactly the source of your food, how can you know?

Also, while I know many vegetarians are aware of the state of the soy industry and the harm it does to the environment and agriculture in general, there are a great many who don't. GMO soy alone, which is nearly 99% of all soy production, is horrendous. These soy fields are carpeted with herbicide and pesticide which completely eliminate any traces of an ecosystem (including the thousands of being above ground as well as the trillions, yes TRILLIONS of beings bellow ground). There is also a horrendous amount of deforestation going on in South America to help meet a demand for soy. I would say that as many suffer and die because of these practices as do in the big meat industry.

Leaving aside soy, Big Produce in general treats the plants that they grow as separate from nature. They eliminate ecosystems and either carpet fields with chemicals, synthetic (convention) or not (organic). Many times, the produce you buy at the grocery store comes from all over the world. Think of the environmental damage that is done transporting food here? Much of it even comes from countries which are on the verge of famine and have food strikes. How awful is that? The laborers are often treated close to slave labor.

I feel that eliminating meat from one's diet is not enough to ensure the elimination of suffering of animals (and the Earth). Buying food local and making sure the producer is sustainable is the only way to be involved with your food intimately enough to know that it is responsibly produced with no suffering. This means giving up much of what we have become accustomed to. Learning to cook seasonally and giving up things which don't grow locally can be hard. No fruit in the winter, no tomatoes in the off-season...it requires much flexibility, but if you are buying conventionally grown (whether organic or not) produce from around the world, just think of the damage being done to ecosystems (which include animals) and the Earth in general.

All excellently said, and I agree, although I do think there is less fear in commercial harvest than commercial slaughter. Thank you for this. Awareness of the whole is key. And then, doing something about it .

[Bring4th_Austin]

These points are about industrial practices. They don't really contribute to the spiritual significance of eating meat, IMO.

When the basis for not eating meat is because of the suffering and death of animals, and the industrial practices of veggie production lead to that, then I feel it is relevant.

If you want to say that people would choose not to kill their own meat, that is fine but it is nothing more than a theory.

Less than that, it is just an opinion. Also, I wasn't saying that people wouldn't, I was talking about people WHO wouldn't.

[3DMonkey]

Austin, I absolutely do not buy into the theory that if I buy a product in a store then I am contributing to an all encompassing practicalities of its origination. I don't even want to discuss the topic, because I KNOW it will be a heated one. It's not right to do in this thread, at the least.

I have been told many times that this thread is specifically about the spiritual implications of personally choosing to eat meat. I hope we aren't going to the degree of implicating a person for simply purchasing ground beef without ever consuming it.

[Monica]

What does the sun eat? Sunchips? Or maybe Starbursts?

Sunflakes!

Oh wait, sunflakes come from the Sun and fill the air.

Grantchester Meadows

[Diana]

These points are about industrial practices. They don't really contribute to the spiritual significance of eating meat, IMO.

If you want to say that people would choose not to kill their own meat, that is fine but it is nothing more than a theory. It is like saying, if people had to grow their own food, they would starve. I say, if people had to grow their own food, and given the opportunity to kill a chicken a week later, I bet 99.9% would kill the chicken.

In my opinion, everything has to do with spiritual significance. How do you compartmentalize your life and say: this is significant but that isn't in regards to my spirit and whole being (which is most likely much greater that we can even imagine)? If you consume the products from an industry producing harm, you are party to it.

Regarding killing the animal one has raised: this is a step in the right direction by raising the animal and allowing it to have a decent existence, then killing humanely (a symbiotic relationship). Same for plants. The plants, however, depending upon the plant, don't necessarily die, as in the case Pickle cited of the kale in his backyard, and certainly fruits and seeds "need" to be eaten to propagate; so the point remains that the results of eating plants and animals are different.

[Monica]

My family no longer burn from the sun which confused me, until I found others with the same experience.

I found this one humorous.

I have heard others talk about not getting sunburned eating raw. We eat about 70-95% raw on any given week. So, if the benefits are limited to just 100% raw folks, our testimonies won't help.


Anyway, I would agree there are some advantages there. I suppose I would hypothosize that it is likely more do to the vegan lifestyle than raw. What do we fry food in a pan with? Grease right. What do we fill our systems with if we eat animal products freely? I have to imagine that some of that gets into our skin and literally we may be baking our skin from the inside out when the sun is applied in strong doses.

I think it's more likely from all the chlorophyll in the plants. Think about it: what is chlorophyll but liquid sunlight? Plants are adjusted to the Sun's energies and they impart that ability to us.

[Diana]

Austin, I absolutely do not buy into the theory that if I buy a product in a store then I am contributing to an all encompassing practicalities of its origination. I don't even want to discuss the topic, because I KNOW it will be a heated one. It's not right to do in this thread, at the least.

I have been told many times that this thread is specifically about the spiritual implications of personally choosing to eat meat. I hope we aren't going to the degree of implicating a person for simply purchasing ground beef without ever consuming it.

I do not mean to offend, but this is denial to me. All things are related. If you were to discuss the topic of raising your child, would you exclude something related such as the temperament or ethics of the preschool teacher? If that analogy doesn't work, I will think of another .

[BrownEye]

But I think there are far more "aware" meat eaters than might be given credit for.

This is due to genetics like mine that allow for more damage to the body before health issues manifest. My awareness really grew after changes. The changes can encompass everything from diet to thoughts and conscious control over emotions.

19.2 Questioner: Let’s take the point at which an individualized entity of second density is ready for transition to third. Is this second-density being what we would call animal?

Ra: I am Ra. There are three types of second-density entities which become, shall we say, enspirited. The first is the animal. This is the most predominant. The second is the vegetable, most especially that which you call, sound vibration complex, “tree.” These entities are capable of giving and receiving enough love to become individualized. The third is mineral. Occasionally a certain location/place, as you may call it, becomes energized to individuality through the love it receives and gives in relationship to a third-density entity which is in relationship to it. This is the least common transition.

That is far removed from kale or spinach.

[Bring4th_Austin]

Austin, I absolutely do not buy into the theory that if I buy a product in a store then I am contributing to an all encompassing practicalities of its origination. I don't even want to discuss the topic, because I KNOW it will be a heated one. It's not right to do in this thread, at the least.

If you don't wish to discuss it, it is fine, but it escapes me that you cannot see how supporting a system perpetuates its continuation.

[BrownEye]

What does the sun eat? Sunchips? Or maybe Starbursts?

Sunflakes!

Oh wait, sunflakes come from the Sun and fill the air.

Grantchester Meadows

Carnivore flakes from peeling skin. LoL!

---

Austin, I absolutely do not buy into the theory that if I buy a product in a store then I am contributing to an all encompassing practicalities of its origination. I don't even want to discuss the topic, because I KNOW it will be a heated one. It's not right to do in this thread, at the least.

If you don't wish to discuss it, it is fine, but it escapes me that you cannot see how supporting a system perpetuates its continuation.

It is how we got flooded by chinese crap goods (bads).

[Monica]

My opinion is that if an entity is evolved enough to be individuated, it won't incarnate into the body of a plant, who cannot run away from a hunter.

I don't think that's right, based on this quote:

19.2 Questioner: Let’s take the point at which an individualized entity of second density is ready for transition to third. Is this second-density being what we would call animal?

Ra: I am Ra. There are three types of second-density entities which become, shall we say, enspirited. The first is the animal. This is the most predominant. The second is the vegetable, most especially that which you call, sound vibration complex, “tree.” These entities are capable of giving and receiving enough love to become individualized. The third is mineral. Occasionally a certain location/place, as you may call it, becomes energized to individuality through the love it receives and gives in relationship to a third-density entity which is in relationship to it. This is the least common transition.

I didn't make my point clear. I will clarify:

I wasn't referring to trees. But trees don't get eaten or hunted, except for their wood by humans, and by forest fires. Trees also live very long lives, allowing them plenty of time to become individuated.

I have felt consciousness from trees, but not from all trees. I have felt the old, gnarly 'grandfather trees' like 1000-year-oaks, and the tall, stately trees in Washington forests. Undoubtedly the giant trees in Callifornia are quite individuated. Think about how a huge oak tree in a family's yard is loved by all, as generations of children play in its branches.

Such a tree isn't at risk for being eaten. It has been quite stable, actually, for hundreds of years, until humans came along and cut it down.

Humans kill other humans, yet, obviously, these are individuated beings, incarnating into bodies that are susceptible to harm from other beings. So too are trees susceptible.

But a carrot? Its very being screams out an invitation to be eaten. Its color, taste, etc. Add to that, smell of many plants is enticing to humans and other animals as well.

It seems incongruent that plants would have so many appealing qualities, + add to that they promote healing (whereas animal foods promote disease) + add to that, that vegetables have short lifespans, and when you look around, all animals exist on plants.

It would be a cruel design indeed, if each blade of grass writhes in agony every time an animal walks on it.

The design of wild animals killing other animals is cruel too. I intend to talk to the Sub-Logos about that as soon as I can. But at least I can see a purpose in it, the same as the purpose in 3D reality to begin with: to provide a catalyst for developing compassion.

If we turn our backs on having compassion for animals, then eons of animals killing other animals, will be for naught.

Which raises a question: what's your position on using lumber for houses, etc? Can sawmills be equated to slaughterhouses?

That's a very good question! The main glaring difference is that trees have a normal life before they are cut down. Whereas, animals are treated cruelly the entire time.

Still, should we ever cut down a tree at all, knowing that it might be individuated?

If I ever build a house, I'd probably opt for rocks rather than wood. But then I will probably be told that the rocks are beings too.

What to do? We didn't design this planet. As long as we're here, we have to make the best of it. That's why I contend that we have to start someplace. We have to eat something. We have to build houses. If we are still eating animals, then we've really got no business talking about saving carrots, or even trees. Look at how much trouble PETA runs into, even when they're trying to save fluffy bunnies! Can you imagine if they started telling people to be fruitarians and live in rock houses and buy only plastic furniture?

We have to be pragmatic. Let's start with the animals!

[BrownEye]

I felt the push to move away from wooden houses a couple years ago. Now I am fully interested in using earth and stone for building. I really do not like the idea of mass harvesting of wood either.

---

If I ever build a house, I'd probably opt for rocks rather than wood. But then I will probably be told that the rocks are beings too.

I think you need to change the vibrations of the rock to affect it. Heating and melting, encasing in cement, that kind of thing.

Crushing it tends to change it in the same sort of way you grow cuttings.

[βαθμιαίος]

The point about trees was that, according to Ra, members of the vegetable kingdom can become enspirited (not just trees). You had said that they couldn't.

You look at the eating of meat from a specific point of view. In particular, you equate eating meat with slaughterhouses and industrial agriculture. Austin and I and others have tried to point out that there are other models out there.

In my experience, raising and eating animal products, including meat, can be a deeply healing activity for the individual, the community, the environment, and the planet.

And eating industrial vegetables, as Austin also pointed out, is not necessarily good for the vegetables, the humans, or the environment.

I think it's indicative of a flaw, to some extent, in your thought process that you think you know better than our Logos how second-density should be structured. As I've pointed out, each offers itself to each. That can be a deeply spiritual realization, if you will let it. Consider the Native Americans, who Ra said were spiritually advanced. They ate meat (and still do), but they did so with honor and reverence for the sacrifice the animal was making.

In my opinion, it's about consciousness, not about picking and choosing the correct set of actions. Yes, we should know how our food is raised and how it is harvested. Yes, we should do as much of it ourselves as we can. Those are areas where we can easily agree, and I think it might make more sense to focus on agreements rather than disagreements.

But the idea that eating blue-green algae out of a can is more evolved than eating a cow, chicken, goat, or pig one has raised oneself, or a deer one has shot oneself, is not a very compelling claim, in my opinion.