In regards to eating meat

[Tenet Nosce]

Abridgetoofar said "It is possible to love someone but disagree with their actions."

I agree. What I am saying is that I do not accept a person if I do not accept their actions.

---

To disagree is to say "yeah, that's not for me".

Acceptance, agreement, and approval, are words which have distinct meanings, but are often used interchangeably.

[Namaste]

Regarding evolution/change and diet, I went through rapid changes in tastes of music, art, ideas, entertainment and beliefs. At the same time I found myself automatically moving away from meat.

Violent films, games, TV programs, combative sports all drifted away and suddenly became absurd to me, after 25+ years of enjoying them.

I think the link between diet and state of being is (quite obviously) intrinsically linked. This is from my own experience, and the experience of many friends who also went through such changes.

It's also clear in the animal kingdom that aggression and eating meat are linked. Animals that do not eat meat are far less, if at all aggressive.

On another note, many sources mention that eating meat lowers one's vibration, especially of that which has been inhumanely treated. There is also scientific evidence of this; chemicals and hormones produced when the animal is in fear of it's life effectively poisons the meat. Consumption of this causes chemical imbalances in one's own body.

It is also often reported that eating organic, raw, fresh fruit and vegetables increases one's vibration. Again, a source I trust, Bashar, talks of this. Along with many others of course. From personal experience, I can honestly say that I feel lighter and have more energy when not eating meat.

It makes complete sense to me that one's own state of being - vibration - will determine which foods (each carrying a specific vibration) you're attracted to. Bashar talks of this, as does Abraham.

Ever wonder why fruit and vegetables look and taste delicious? It's because nature is offering it's best gifts in which to attract consumption. Hence, when you eat a piece of fresh fruit, like an apple, you're tasting natural perfection :¬)

Scientifically, there is proof of this; raw foods contain enzymes which help break down the food in your stomach (rather than meat, which takes 3 days to break down), and rather importantly, many (all?) fruits actually depend on being consumed. It is the act of consumption, digestion and excretion that disperse the seeds.

Animals, on the other hand, do not depend on being eaten to reproduce.

Animals have brains, emotions (conscious fear) and a nervous system (pain), while plants to do not. Add to the fact that many plants depend on consumption in which to survive, and do not register any reaction to being consumed when given love and gratitude beforehand (Baxter), to me personally, the comparison becomes a moot point.

I do not judge meat eaters, at all, by the way. These are my personal beliefs gained through my own experience :¬)

P.S. On a side note relating to diet (outside of the meat debate) Ra offers the notion that evolution includes the body. Many people neglect the body and yet expect to achieve the flowering of consciousness. They will, but in limited doses. Treat your body badly and you will not evolve, consciously, as much as another who treats it with respect. Yogis also offer this advice, as do other cultures who aim to attain enlightenment. I tend to trust cultures that over centuries repeatedly spawn individuals holding high levels of consciousness (with highly adept abilities - i.e. controlling one's internal organs/heart rate/metabolism), all offering the same advice :¬)

[3DMonkey]

Abridgetoofar said "It is possible to love someone but disagree with their actions."

I agree. What I am saying is that I do not accept a person if I do not accept their actions.

---

To disagree is to say "yeah, that's not for me".

Acceptance, agreement, and approval, are words which have distinct meanings, but are often used interchangeably.

I know. And the we throw "love" in with them... It's getting too jumbled. I'd like to stick with "accept".

[Tenet Nosce]

Yogis also offer this advice, as do other cultures who aim to attain enlightenment.

There have always been offered three paths to enlightenment. The life of the ascetic, as practiced by Mahavira and the Jains is but one path.

In the Greece of antiquity, these were represented by the three mystery schools: Bacchic, Orphic, and Eleusinian. A further development on this emerged in the Fourth Way philosophy, as espoused by Gurdjieff, Ouspenky, Collin, and others.

So I appreciate yogis, but as with the other paths there are those who believe it is the "one true way". Vegetarianism was just as hotly debated in Vedic culture as it is in ours. There are really no new arguments that have been forwarded that I am aware of.

Just another manifestation of duality, with both sides digging their heels in rather than seeking for a common objective.

[Namaste]

Yogis also offer this advice, as do other cultures who aim to attain enlightenment.

There have always been offered three paths to enlightenment. The life of the ascetic, as practiced by Mahavira and the Jains is but one path.

In the Greece of antiquity, these were represented by the three mystery schools: Bacchic, Orphic, and Eleusinian. A further development on this emerged in the Fourth Way philosophy, as espoused by Gurdjieff, Ouspenky, Collin, and others.

So I appreciate yogis, but as with the other paths there are those who believe it is the "one true way". Vegetarianism was just as hotly debated in Vedic culture as it is in ours. There are really no new arguments that have been forwarded that I am aware of.

Just another manifestation of duality, with both sides digging their heels in rather than seeking for a common objective.

I will look into some of the schools you mentioned - interesting.

Just to note - I specifically mentioned taking care of the body in relation to enlightenment, a side note from the vegan/vegetarian/meat eating discussion. I am sure there are enlightened peoples who have eaten meat, although I would assume there was ethical treatment and love in the process.

[Tenet Nosce]

Ladies and Gentlemen (and ETs too) may I introduce...

Sardine-Man

Destroyer of Veganism!

Cue the latest Disney teen celebrity: In 3... 2... 1...

"Sardines? OMG! Are you serious? Ew. Grow-asss! You couldn't PAY me to eat that stinky fesh!"

**audience laughs, while munching on KFC Buckets For the Cure**

[Namaste]

I can't remember if I posted this before, always makes me laugh...





If anyone played games a kid, the artistic direction/effects in this film is fantastic :¬)

[βαθμιαίος]

Well I already acknowledged that was poor judgment on my part.

OK. Peace. (I'd put a heart icon here but I don't know the code and I don't seem to have a selection of smilies to choose from anymore.

OMG! quite literal LOL

---

great timing

---

Regarding accepting/loving the torturer, it seems like this might be a variation of the finite/infinite discussion, or to put it another way, doing vs. being. To say, "I love the torturer but not his actions" would seem to be to affirm the infinite perfection of his being while to say, "I reject him because I reject his actions" hearkens back to unity100's argument that finites are real and that you can't just wish your way back to infinity. Personally, I come down on the infinite side of the debate.

[Monica]

They said "the vegetable, most especially the tree." This could include carrots.

I don't think so, because:

1. Ra was clearly using the word vegetable in the context of plant, because trees were included. (Vegetables we buy in the grocery store don't include trees.) Ra was referring to plants, not vegetables as in carrots and broccoli.

2. I try to apply some reasoning to Ra's words rather than just taking them as gospel. In light of the rest of the quote below, it doesn't seem likely to me that an individual carrot would have sufficient catalyst, or time in which to utilize that catalyst, required for self-individuation. Carrots have very short lifespans. And, when humans interact with carrots, it' usually with carrots, plural, a garden full of carrots. They don't develop a relationship over a long period of time with an individual carrot. They might appreciate every single carrot, but c'mon, 1 carrot isn't very different from the next. I just don't see sufficient catalyst there.

3. Notice the bold part below. Animals developing self-awareness is the most predominant. Plants are more abundant than animals. If carrots, ivies, and blades of grass were as conscious as animals, then they would be the most predominant, for the simple reason that they outnumber animals. This proves that plants aren't as conscious as animals, in my view. It doesn't really leave much room for any other explanation.

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.

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

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

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

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

All life is already enspirited. But not all are aware.

You mentioned everyone except the animal!

The individual animal may or may not feel ready to die. However, from the point of view of the species it is absolutely a good thing.

I invite you to substitute humans for animals in the above statements, and see how that reads.

It could be argued that it's a good thing for the human species to drastically reduce the human population. Then there would be more resources to go around, etc.

But I sure wouldn't want to be the one to decide who dies and when, even if it were 'good for the species.'

How many cows or chickens do you think there would be now

A lot fewer. Modern factory farming artificially increases their population. Also, humans have removed their natural predators.

if they weren't in a symbiotic relationship with humans?

Symbiotic?? I don't think it's symbiotic at all. It's an atrocity.

White-tailed deer in the eastern US are not as healthy as they will be when the mountain lion returns.

Mountain lions kill the weakest in the herd, not the buck with the biggest antlers. Human hunters are weakening the herd by going after trophies to satisfy their egos.

You keep saying, "let's start by eliminating eating meat."

Yes. If people can't even wrap their minds around the idea of animals suffering, do you really think they will be able to feel compassion for carrots?

The Native Americans had to kill animals to survive.

Actually, they didn't. They produced sufficient corn, beans, squash, etc, that they could have foregone meat. They chose not to.

They needed the hides for clothing and warmth.

At any rate, I don't consider the Native Americans to be role models for my future evolution. But I have a lot more respect for how they did it, than for people not even making the connection between an animal and the stuff wrapped in plastic at the store.

[βαθμιαίος]

I think it would be possible to work with an individual carrot and start the process of individuation, especially if you let it flower and didn't harvest it. That would give you two years to work with it, which might be enough to start the process. The point is, plants can be individuated, just as animals can. However, most chickens and cows aren't individuated any more than most garden plants -- it's pets that get individuated, according to Ra. That's why more animals get individuated than plants. There's no reason that people couldn't start to name and talk to their house plants and individuate them, too.

Regarding the symbiotic nature of the relationship between livestock and humans, I would invite you to visit some farms or families that keep, love, and respect animals. We have a family milk cow as well as laying hens, and I feel confident that the relationships are mutually beneficial.

Regarding slaughtering humans as akin to slaughtering animals, you continue to equate animals with humans while relegating plants to a seemingly secondary status of "OK to eat." I just don't agree with you that that distinction holds water.

Regarding the culling of weaker animals -- actually, many hunters do resist the urge to take the biggest buck and instead take does, thereby reducing overpopulation, and smaller males. Similarly, farmers and ranchers manager their herds for health by culling weaker animals.

Regarding the importance of making the connection between what you buy at the store and where it came from and how it got there, I completely agree with you. That was my point about the blue-green algae.

Regarding compassion for plants and animals -- I don't see why we can't have both.

[3DMonkey]

Well I already acknowledged that was poor judgment on my part.

OK. Peace. (I'd put a heart icon here but I don't know the code and I don't seem to have a selection of smilies to choose from anymore.

OMG! quite literal LOL

---

great timing

---

Regarding accepting/loving the torturer, it seems like this might be a variation of the finite/infinite discussion, or to put it another way, doing vs. being. To say, "I love the torturer but not his actions" would seem to be to affirm the infinite perfection of his being while to say, "I reject him because I reject his actions" hearkens back to unity100's argument that finites are real and that you can't just wish your way back to infinity. Personally, I come down on the infinite side of the debate.

I'm not familiar with the discussion. It looks to me like accepting the actions is the infinite angle.

---

Also. You seem to understand unity100 so much better than me. You could have been useful. Of course, unity100 never desired to explain himself, so somebody else had to.

[βαθμιαίος]

I'm not familiar with the discussion. It looks to me like accepting the actions is the infinite angle.

Could be. It's just that saying "I love you, just not your actions" reminds me of the idea that we are each the infinite creator, whole and perfect, even if our expression of that completeness is distorted, while saying "you are what you do" seems to be saying that this finite reality that we experience is real and matters.

Also. You seem to understand unity100 so much better than me. You could have been useful. Of course, unity100 never desired to explain himself, so somebody else had to.

I had some intense discussions with him at various points. But then, didn't most of us?

[3DMonkey]

I can't say I follow entirely. Seems to me that "I love you and accept anything you do" is more of an "infinite creator" perspective. Although, the infinite/finite distinction is difficult for me right now.

[βαθμιαίος]

I can't say I follow entirely. Seems to me that "I love you and accept anything you do" is more of an "infinite creator" perspective. Although, the infinite/finite distinction is difficult for me right now.

Oh, is that the argument you were making? I thought you were saying "I don't love you because I can't accept your actions."

[Monica]

I see a difference in that I see harvesting an animal that has been humanely raised near to you or lived in the wild nearby is preferable to buying a product that comes in a plastic container and is shipped from thousands of miles away.

I see a difference too. I elaborated on this at length months ago in this thread, in an exchange with abridgetoofar, in which I expressed appreciation for his role in helping to facilitate what I see as a necessary transition.

---

It should read "if I declare eating meat is unacceptable to me, I do not love them".

Monkey, we went round and round on this before. Maybe you feel that way - you can't love someone who disagrees with you on anything - but good heavens, then that would mean you can't ever truly love anyone! Because every person on this planet will sometimes disagree with you or do something you don't like. Do you quit loving your wife or children every time they do something you don't like?

---

Lol. Did you just say "disagree" = "not love"? I said "hate" because that is my equivalent to "not love".

Perhaps your definition of hate is not as extreme as others'. Hate, to most, is a seething emotion.

So, I'm "not loving" you right now? Because I do disagree.

I guess if that's how you work. If you don't love me because you disagree then that's your choice. It's not how I work, and it isn't due to dishonesty.

I think if you feel that someone shouldn't be allowed to do something then you don't love them. They are the doer of what you disapprove of.

You seem to think it is persecution of a person and not protection of another person. It has nothing to do with persecuting a person. If someone could torture without another person being tortured, then go for it. I could care less. Indulge yourself in torture. But the fact that someone else has to be tortured means that I feel that action shouldn't be allowed. It has nothing to do with the fact that one person wants to do it, but rather that another person is being forced to participate in a situation they do no wish to be in.

I would not choose to torture. If I saw someone being tortured, I would defend them. In all this doing, I do not love the torturer. That sounds ridiculous. I hate the bastard with my whole being (ask Norral about this ).

I see. If we are to look at this with a backdrop of the Ra material, this is a blockage of green ray. Universal love is universal. It does not stop at the torturer. If you don't subscribe to that idea, it's fine, but to me, this is green ray blockage. This is described in depth by Ra and Q'uo.

However, it is not because of these channeled messages that I feel love. It is something I understood before discovering Ra. I never felt like it was appropriate to hate a person because they chose to act a certain way. We all have to potential to do the most horrendous things. We all exist as a torturer in potentiation.

For the record, I love and accept Norral's expressions on these forums, but I do not choose to express myself nor feel the way Norral does. This does not mean that I hate Norral.

Now, taking it back to topic. If I put a mandate on meat eaters that I do not like the choices they make, I do not love them. No, I expect them to change and get on board MY ship before I love them. Because they eat animals....

Again, just because this is the way that YOU work doesn't mean it's the way EVERYONE works. You are projecting your own distortions on others. Just because others disagree with your choices does not mean they don't love you. You're not the one who gets to decide whether they love you or not. You can decide whether to accept that love, but the love is there.

Just because you personally cannot accept a person because you cannot accept their ways doesn't mean it is impossible for others. Monica loves you but does not love your choice to eat meat (nor mine for that matter). I love you but I do not love your choice to participate in systems which harm the Earth and its beings.

Just because you don't believe that it is love doesn't mean it isn't so. So, feel free to not feel the love, but it is there and always will be. That is the nature of universal love.



See? There's a heart. Undeniable proof that I love you!

I sure love reading abridgetoofar's posts.

---

Again, you can't say you accept me without accepting what I do. What I do is who I am.

I can say that and I do say that. And it's true.

You might not accept it, but I know it's true because I'm the one doing it, not you.

So there.

---

It is persecution of the torturer. I see no way around that

Not being allowed to persecute someone isn't persecution. It's restraint, but it isn't persecution.

So there is a simple way around that: Stopping persecution trumps stopping restraint.

[3DMonkey]

Monica, you simply do not listen.

[Monica]

I run into trouble accepting that animals are in a mutual torturer/tortured agreement, although there are theories that this is true. And if the animals are 2D, would it be possible for them to be in this agreement?

Ra has indicated that, on some level, there is always agreement. Even among humans victimizing one another, there is agreement to provide catalyst for one another.

However, to interpret that as having permission to support the harming of another, is to miss the point of what catalyst is. (NOT saying you are doing that! I'm speaking in generalities here.)

It doesn't matter whether the victim had an agreement or not on some higher level. Our task, as STO polarizing entities, is to serve others, rather than harming them. It then follows that if we witness an entity being harmed by another, our first responsibility is to try to help the victim, if possible, while simultaneously loving and accepting the victimizer. It is this seemingly paradoxical intention/action that may help free both victim and victimizer.

There is no conflict between the 2.

To misinterpret love/acceptance as not helping the victim, is to miss the point of the catalyst.

I admit to a weakness of wanting to assist the natural process of evolution along . Living here is difficult, or at least it is for me.

Me too! But I'm not sure it's a weakness. It's our nature. So we're probably supposed to do it. We have our roles to play too!

---

Monica, you simply do not listen.

Wow. That's 2 ouches in 1 day.

Ya know, Monkey, that was a very hurtful thing to say.

[3DMonkey]

I can't say I follow entirely. Seems to me that "I love you and accept anything you do" is more of an "infinite creator" perspective. Although, the infinite/finite distinction is difficult for me right now.

Oh, is that the argument you were making? I thought you were saying "I don't love you because I can't accept your actions."

I'm saying if you accept me then you accept everything that comes with me, including such things as eating meat, or wearing furry dog suits. It is who I am. If I am a torturer, and you think you accept me, then, if you honestly accept me, you accept me torturing someone else. I think it's cut and dried.

Now, this is a purely hypothetical topic about my perspective on what acceptance is.

As for claiming I don't love anybody , I do because I do accept the choices of others. (I'm a relatively young parent) Parenting is only going to get more difficult as they get older because I am going to have to accept what they do.

---

Perhaps the reason this is brought up in this thread is because some equate "acceptance" with "partaking". Then, perhaps, they take it a step further to consider a grocery store purchase to be partaking in another's catalyst 200 miles away.

I don't think either would be correct. Especially as it relates to personal spiritual implications.

[Bring4th_Austin]

I can't say I follow entirely. Seems to me that "I love you and accept anything you do" is more of an "infinite creator" perspective. Although, the infinite/finite distinction is difficult for me right now.

Oh, is that the argument you were making? I thought you were saying "I don't love you because I can't accept your actions."

I'm saying if you accept me then you accept everything that comes with me, including such things as eating meat, or wearing furry dog suits. It is who I am. If I am a torturer, and you think you accept me, then, if you honestly accept me, you accept me torturing someone else. I think it's cut and dried.

We can accept you torturing someone else but not accept someone else being tortured. If stopping that person from being tortured stops you from torturing, then it is so. The action is not done with the intent to stop you from torturing.

Perhaps the reason this is brought up in this thread is because some equate "acceptance" with "partaking". Then, perhaps, they take it a step further to consider a grocery store purchase to be partaking in another's catalyst 200 miles away.

As far as spiritual implications are concerned I agree that buying a product is not the same as being the person offering the product.

But your purchasing of a product is directly related to supporting the way that product was produced. This is undeniable.

Anyone who raises animals for meat has the option to treat them humanely or inhumanely. If people made a point to not patronize inhumane operations, they would either go away or change their practices. If people continue to buy meat which is raised inhumanely, the system will continue. It is inexorably connected. Having both choices available to you, your choice is a vote for what you consider acceptable. You actively participate in the system.

[3DMonkey]

I just do not believe my store purchase will do anything to transform the mind of a slaughter house employee. I don't.

[Bring4th_Austin]

I just do not believe my store purchase will do anything to transform the mind of a slaughter house employee. I don't.

It's not about the slaughter house employee, it's about the animal they're slaughtering.

Same way it's not about the torturer, but the one being tortured.

[3DMonkey]

People will do what they want to do. I can not change an Other. I can't. If I want peace, I must be peace.

The irony of my statement is not lost on me. I obviously want to be heard for some reason. It stems from a desire for freedom of choice.

---

I just do not believe my store purchase will do anything to transform the mind of a slaughter house employee. I don't.

It's not about the slaughter house employee, it's about the animal they're slaughtering.

Same way it's not about the torturer, but the one being tortured.

But again, that is between the slaughterer and the animal or the torturer and the tortured. The moment I put myself into the picture, the only thing that matters is my being-ness as I interact with others.

[Bring4th_Austin]

It's REALLY not about changing the other, Monkey. It's not about trying to change the mind of the one's raising animals inhumanely.

It's about ensuring the animal is not treated under horrendous conditions. You actively participate in the system. As a consumer, you are the final participant. You can choose to buy from humane producers or inhumane producers. The choice is there. You choose inhumane. You perpetuate the cruel treatment of animals by supporting those companies.

If no one bought the inhumane meat, would there still be inhumane producers? Who would they sell to? How would they make money to continue their operation?

[3DMonkey]

If I shove the torturer aside, that is not acceptance. It just isn't. And I'm not saying what the proper course of action is. I am saying it is not acceptance.

[Monica]

I think it would be possible to work with an individual carrot and start the process of individuation, especially if you let it flower and didn't harvest it. That would give you two years to work with it, which might be enough to start the process. The point is, plants can be individuated, just as animals can.

Sure. Of course it's possible! Anything can be individuated. Even a locale. And after having worked with the old mainframe computers, I see no reason why awareness couldn't develop in the circuitry of a computer.

But realistically, how likely is it that someone will cherish a single carrot, among all the other carrots in his garden, to the point of raising its awareness to individuation?

I could see houseplants and office ivies developing self-awareness before carrots.

Sure, if you wanted to invest all that into a carrot, then it would be just as wrong (in my view) to kill it/eat it as it would to kill/eat a cow.

But that doesn't hold water in the present debate, because it's extremely remote that any single carrot on the grocery store shelf had been treated like that.

However, most chickens and cows aren't individuated any more than most garden plants

I strongly, emphatically disagree.

The catalyst itself - the cruel living conditions - are what triggers the self-awareness in cows and chickens.

But what an awful way to wake up.

Compare the loving, gentle awakening of a beloved dog or cat, to the horrible, cruel awakening of a cow at a factory farm. Then, once newly aware, the cow is brutally slaughtered.

Have you ever wondered what kind of humans those cows are going to be someday?

it's pets that get individuated, according to Ra.

Ra said especially pets. Ra didn't say only pets.

To miss the potential of extreme suffering to awaken sentience, is to miss the point of catalyst, rendering the suffering even more abhorrent because it's without any purpose at all.

That's why more animals get individuated than plants. There's no reason that people couldn't start to name and talk to their house plants and individuate them, too.

That's right. No reason. Except they don't. People might name and talk to their houseplants, or to trees, or to their entire garden, but they generally don't raise carrots as pets.

So unless/until pet carrots become popular as pet rocks once were, it's a moot point.

Regarding the symbiotic nature of the relationship between livestock and humans, I would invite you to visit some farms or families that keep, love, and respect animals. We have a family milk cow as well as laying hens, and I feel confident that the relationships are mutually beneficial.

I'm not one of those vegans who thinks we can never use anything from an animal. I have no issues whatsoever between keeping cows or goats for milk, or hens for eggs. What you describe is indeed symbiotic.

I was referring to factory farms. No way is that symbiotic.

Regarding slaughtering humans as akin to slaughtering animals, you continue to equate animals with humans while relegating plants to a seemingly secondary status of "OK to eat." I just don't agree with you that that distinction holds water.

Then maybe you aren't reading all my posts...? Because I have repeatedly stated that eventually, we wouldn't be eating plants either, but that we have to start someplace. I don't believe we're just gonna go poof into a reality where we consume only nectar.

I have elaborated on this numerous times in this thread. It's a very long thread.

Regarding the culling of weaker animals -- actually, many hunters do resist the urge to take the biggest buck and instead take does, thereby reducing overpopulation, and smaller males.

I live in Texas. All of the hunters I've met brag about their big trophies. Sure, they get the does too, but they still choose the buck with the big rack, over the buck with the small rack. Every time.

Nice to hear you've met hunters who don't do that. But I've never met any.

Similarly, farmers and ranchers manager their herds for health by culling weaker animals.

I would surmise that's for pragmatic reasons.

Regarding the importance of making the connection between what you buy at the store and where it came from and how it got there, I completely agree with you. That was my point about the blue-green algae.

I still don't get what the algae has to do with your point. Sorry, I guess I still don't get your point! Wild bluegreen algae from Klamath Lake is the single most sustainable food on the planet. Bar none. There just isn't any comparison.

Regarding compassion for plants and animals -- I don't see why we can't have both.

Of course! Why does it seem you think I think otherwise?

[Bring4th_Austin]

If I shove the torturer aside, that is not acceptance. It just isn't. And I'm not saying what the proper course of action is. I am saying it is not acceptance.

If you shove the torturer aside because you don't accept the fact they're a torturer, you're right. If you shove the torturer aside because you wish to stop the suffering of the victim, it has nothing to do with the torturer, acceptance or not.

[3DMonkey]

It's REALLY not about changing the other, Monkey. It's not about trying to change the mind of the one's raising animals inhumanely.

It's about ensuring the animal is not treated under horrendous conditions. You actively participate in the system. As a consumer, you are the final participant. You can choose to buy from humane producers or inhumane producers. The choice is there. You choose inhumane. You perpetuate the cruel treatment of animals by supporting those companies.

If no one bought the inhumane meat, would there still be inhumane producers? Who would they sell to? How would they make money to continue their operation?

This is about whether or not eating animals is non conducive to polarization.

To your point, you want me to make them poor? You want to take away their right?

And then, you want to humanely raise the animals so they can be closer to 3D before killing them?
Wouldn't it be better to suppress them down closer to the plant level, the sarcastically speaking, lower race of 2D beings?

Honestly, if it isn't about changing the mind of the "inhumane" employee then is it about eliminated the employee? Again, that is a move to control, not a move to accept. Just like in the other, simpler, hypotheticals.

---

By all means, you have your own authority to change things that way. But it isn't positive polarization. It just isn't. And that's what I'm talking about. Individual mind/body/spirit implications of this topic.

I love the idea of cutting your own path. And I think it can happen without ever turned your head to the side to see what the other guy is doing.

---

If I shove the torturer aside, that is not acceptance. It just isn't. And I'm not saying what the proper course of action is. I am saying it is not acceptance.

If you shove the torturer aside because you don't accept the fact they're a torturer, you're right. If you shove the torturer aside because you wish to stop the suffering of the victim, it has nothing to do with the torturer, acceptance or not.

Life doesn't work that way. We can't pretend the torturer doesn't exist.

---

Especially if we directly alter his path.

---

My "eds" are supposed to be "ings"

---

To make a change, you play your game. Let the game come to you. You take the lead by doing it your way, and at the end of the day you can hold your head high. You don't chop block. You don't hit the guy below the belt. You don't take em out at the knees. You just be you and let him be him and let the best man win.

---

.... Wait a minute. Has this whole thing been about creating a consumer base? Creating a consumer that doesn't exist?

[Diana]

I just do not believe my store purchase will do anything to transform the mind of a slaughter house employee. I don't.

Your purchase supports the slaughter house, and the employees that work there. (Supply and demand--a very simple concept. If you buy the product, you contribute to the demand.) No one is trying to change the mind of the slaughter house employee--the idea is to make a better choice of how to supply meat, if meat must be produced: the life of the animal respected, and the life taken humanely.

---

Honestly, if it isn't about changing the mind of the "inhumane" employee then is it about eliminated the employee? Again, that is a move to control, not a move to accept. Just like in the other, simpler, hypotheticals.

---

What does a slaughterhouse employee have to do with it? The employee is doing a job--we don't know whether he/she is appalled by it or not. The business owner is the person who creates the slaughterhouse for profit, along with the ranchers who require it and pay them, so they can sell the meat to consumers. Without the consumers, it all goes away.

---

Regarding slaughtering humans as akin to slaughtering animals, you continue to equate animals with humans while relegating plants to a seemingly secondary status of "OK to eat." I just don't agree with you that that distinction holds water.

At the risk of repeating myself, there is a marked difference between eating animals and eating plants. For the sake of simplicity, let's assume that the treatment and slaughter/harvest of the animals and plants is sustainable and humane. Even so, you cannot cut the leg off a cow or chicken and expect it to survive (not to mention the pain and suffering of such an act), but you can take part of a plant and it will survive. Fruit IS MADE to be eaten. All plants want their seeds spread.

The salient point here is that animals are afraid of being eaten and plants less so (if at all--I don't know). Is it not, then, logical to assume the damage inflicted by killing and eating animals is greater than of eating plants? This is to say nothing of the fear ingested from eating the animals (in the form of energy and hormones released).

[BrownEye]

Sure. Of course it's possible! Anything can be individuated. Even a locale. And after having worked with the old mainframe computers, I see no reason why awareness couldn't develop in the circuitry of a computer.

Thought forms use our electronics, such as the egregore that is created by this thread. These are what causes us to continue the addiction of the debate, even though you already know it makes no difference, that neither party will change. It feeds into your emotions and you can even get angry for no logical reason. Given enough energy they can keep you from submitting new posts that disarm the aura of anger. I was part of a large group experiencing an intelligent/aware thought form in action, and it happened to be my first experience with magic to banish it.

I have not seen anything reside in a single circuit, more like anything "connected" is a conduit. AC, web, phone, etc.

But realistically, how likely is it that someone will cherish a single carrot, among all the other carrots in his garden, to the point of raising its awareness to individuation?

I could see houseplants and office ivies developing self-awareness before carrots.

Sure, if you wanted to invest all that into a carrot, then it would be just as wrong (in my view) to kill it/eat it as it would to kill/eat a cow.

For some reason "time" has an effect on this. Long term energy investment, whether by one person or many. For a very short lived animal it might be more comparable to a plant.

---

Supply and demand--a very simple concept. If you buy the product, you contribute to the demand

I assume there is a utopia in "potentiation"

It does not support factory farming or capitalism.

[3DMonkey]

Without the consumers, it all goes away.

What goes away? "animal cruelty"? No. STS nature of third density energy? No. Human desires to be unkind? No.

On top of that, how are you going to create a large enough consumer base to effect supply and demand of an industry if YOU ARE NOT TRYING TO CHANGE THE MIND OF THE CONSUMER??? You want control and you don't even see it in you. And that's my "beef"- eating meat doesn't polarize an individual, but desiring control does polarize an individual.

---

Sure. Of course it's possible! Anything can be individuated. Even a locale. And after having worked with the old mainframe computers, I see no reason why awareness couldn't develop in the circuitry of a computer.

Thought forms use our electronics, such as the egregore that is created by this thread. These are what causes us to continue the addiction of the debate, even though you already know it makes no difference, that neither party will change. It feeds into your emotions and you can even get angry for no logical reason. Given enough energy they can keep you from submitting new posts that disarm the aura of anger. I was part of a large group experiencing an intelligent/aware thought form in action, and it happened to be my first experience with magic to banish it.

I have not seen anything reside in a single circuit, more like anything "connected" is a conduit. AC, web, phone, etc.

Good stuff.