In regards to eating meat

[Monica]

Surely, it's not the result of breathing oxygen.

What's not?

[BrownEye]

One of my previous links is a Native American woman explaining that the reason we cannot see the beings of other realms is a result of eating meat. I thought it interesting coming from that ethnic background.

I must have missed that. If you remember where it is, can you direct me to your previous link, or repost?

That is interesting indeed. How, then, did they see other realms when they historically did eat meat? Or does she mean now, in our present circumstances?

http://www.squidoo.com/No-Meat

As far as historical meat eating, i get the idea that the seers did not have have the same diets as the commoners.

Maybe the hunters were vegans and all meat went to the shamans in order to gain better spiritual insight? Yeah yeah, fruitarians make good hunters. They can sneak right up on animals since the smell of fear and death is not in their sweat. Plus if you pay attention you can see that fruitarians can display more aggression.

[Shemaya]

Question to Shemaya: Why are you asking Monica the above bolded question? Is it a personal question or general? I think it needs clarification as we are trying to not be personal, especially in this thread.

Diana, this is the second time you have asked me to explain why I asked a question. Of course it is a personal question, I used the word "you".

I have been asked dozens of questions from Monica, and I responded as well as I could. I am sure if she doesn't want to answer, she will either reply herself or ignore it. It's OK to not answer a question.

I am asking these questions because I am exploring the distortions that are prevalent in this topic. For me, personally, it has more to do with distortions within myself and interactions with others, orange and yellow ray distortions primarily. Because I relate more intuitively, as opposed to intellectual...it is these distortions of self-and otherself interactions that interest me. That is why I asked the question.

This forum is for those who want to grow spiritually and that is done by exploring and understanding our distortions. The distortions that I recognize are not purely intellectual.

If personal questions are off limits, then I am sure the moderators will let me know.

[Diana]

One of my favorite quotes, by Aldous Huxley:


Personification in politics is an error which we make because it is to our advantage as egotists to be able to feel violently proud of our country and of ourselves as belonging to it, and to believe that all the misfortunes due to our own mistakes are really the work of the Foreigner. It is easier to feel violently toward a person than toward an abstraction; hence our habit of making political personifications. In some cases military personifications are merely special instances of political personifications. A particular collectivity, the army or the warring nation, is given the name and, along with the name, the attributes of a single person, in order that we may be able to love or hate it more intensely than we could do if we thought of it as what it really is: a number of diverse individuals. In other cases personification is used for the purpose of concealing the fundamental absurdity and monstrosity of war. What is absurd and monstrous about war is that men who have no personal quarrel should be trained to murder one another in cold blood. By personifying opposing armies or countries, we are able to think of war as a conflict between individuals. The same result is obtained by writing about war as though it were carried on exclusively by the generals in command and not by the private soldiers in their armies. (“Rennenkampf had pressed back von Schubert.”) The implication in both cases is that war is indistinguishable from a bout of fisticuffs in a bar room. Whereas in reality it is profoundly different. A scrap between two individuals is forgivable; mass murder, deliberately organized, is a monstrous iniquity. We still choose war as an instrument of policy; and to comprehend the full wickedness and absurdity of war would therefore be inconvenient. For, once we understood, we should have to make some effort to get rid of the abominable thing.

Complete quote: http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2011/07/...ty-of-war/

Are you saying eating meat is akin to mass murder and war ? Is a farmer who has humanely raised his livestock for food guilty of murder and war against animals?

I think Monica's "Huxley" post was in response to Monkey's comment.

However, let me analyze this Huxley quote in the context of meat-eating.

Humans justify their acts by telling themselves certain things and agreeing on them collectively. The collective agreement becomes very powerful. Collective agreements from history:

1) Blacks are an inferior species of human with less intellect, therefore it is right to enslave them.

2) Women are inferior to men, therefore they are chattel and cannot be allowed rights.

3) Non-catholics are evil, and must be tortured until they repent and convert (Spanish Inquisition).

And currently:

1) Muslims hate Americans, therefore we must kill them.

2) It's okay for humans, their children, and babies to ingest a certain amount of poison (hydrogenated oils, pesticides, food additives and preservatives, GMOs, etc) because the FDA says so.

3) Animals eat each other, so it's okay for us to not only eat them, but cause them to live in torturous conditions and kill them mercilessly.

4) Animals don't have feelings like we do, so we should not consider their feelings when deciding how to feed the human population. They are things for us to use, because we are more important than all other beings here on Earth.

5) Humans must eat meat, because we always have, and because the government makes a neat little food chart that says so.

As far as I can tell, humans do not need to eat meat (there may be medical exceptions, and this has been previously discussed). We eat meat out of habit, tradition, social agreement, taste, an addictive response to continuing aggression and fear (also previously discussed--the meat carries these energies), and we justify killing animals for food collectively in the same way that Huxley posits that proponents of war justify war with absurd collective agreements.

These collective agreements must be seen for what they are in order for societies and the world in general to move forward. For instance, if we had not changed our collective agreement that black Africans are an inferior race, where would we be now?

[Monica]

Question to Shemaya: Why are you asking Monica the above bolded question? Is it a personal question or general? I think it needs clarification as we are trying to not be personal, especially in this thread.

Diana, this is the second time you have asked me to explain why I asked a question. Of course it is a personal question, I used the word "you".

I too was wondering, as Diana was wondering.

I have been asked dozens of questions from Monica

Not questions of this sort.

I am asking these questions because I am exploring the distortions that are prevalent in this topic.

Perceptions can be wrong (in terms of what the person actually intended). My perception of your question:

Do you believe you have attracted 4d to yourself because of your higher vibration?

...is that you are implying I am claiming to have a 'higher vibration' and therefore somehow superior or more advanced, because I don't eat animals. I also perceived a hint of sarcasm, which might not have been intended by you.

Maybe I'm reading an implication that you didn't intend, but apparently Diana and I both took it that way. I hope you can understand why such an implication (if indeed it's there) would rub us the wrong way, being that we've repeatedly stated we don't consider ourselves 'more evolved.'

If our perceptions were correct (and I readily admit they might be totally wrong), then such a question is different from asking a philosophical or academic question. We've asked many questions about personal opinions, but have tried to avoid any questions or comments that seem to imply something about a person's worth, spiritual advancement or in any way analyzes that person.

Does this clarify?

From what I understand, 4d will come in it's right time to planet Earth, like the striking of a clock at midnight. Are you talking about Ra's teaching on Harvest and Q' uo's description of the steps of light?

My understanding is that Earth becoming a 4D planet, and 3D entities being harvested to 4D, are 2 different things. But this is discussed extensively in multiple threads in the Harvest section.

The relevant point in the context I intended, is that, in my belief, we attract our own personal perception of reality, and maybe even reality itself (whatever that is! haha) according to our choices. I think it's unreasonable to assume that we can continue engaging in actions that lack compassion, and then expect to instantaneously be transported to a place where everyone is compassionate. That reminds me of the Christian 'rapture' doctrine and just doesn't work for me.

I subscribe to Edgar Cayce's adage "You don't go to heaven; you grow to heaven!"

If 'heaven' is a 4D reality in which living foodstuffs are the norm, I have trouble comprehending how someone who is awake and aware of animal suffering, can justify continuing to support it, while saying "It doesn't matter because soon I'll be in 4D."

This is the prevailing attitude I've perceived from many of the participants in this thread.

That, to me, is very similar to the Christians saying "It doesn't matter what I do because I've accepted Jesus and therefore I'm saved and Jesus will take me to heaven soon, where all will be blissful."

For me, personally, it has more to do with distortions within myself and interactions with others, orange and yellow ray distortions primarily. Because I relate more intuitively, as opposed to intellectual...it is these distortions of self-and otherself interactions that interest me. That is why I asked the question.

This forum is for those who want to grow spiritually and that is done by exploring and understanding our distortions. The distortions that I recognize are not purely intellectual.

We're all getting out of it what we choose to get out of it. Apparently, this forum serves different purposes for different people.

If personal questions are off limits, then I am sure the moderators will let me know.

Your questions didn't violate any forum guidelines. I see it as more of a group effort by all of us, to keep this discussion impersonal, because of its volatile topic. If, for example, I had responded to the numerous times someone asked me to critique their dietary choices, can you imagine the outcry?

We have refrained from doing that. We respectfully request that the meat-eaters grant us that same courtesy.

We don't want to judge anyone personally. We just want to discuss the topic.

---

Are you saying eating meat is akin to mass murder and war ?

I'm saying the meat industry is an abomination, in the same way war is an abomination.

Is a farmer who has humanely raised his livestock for food guilty of murder and war against animals?

If I answer this question, my words will be misconstrued. 100% guaranteed. How do I know this? Because it has already happened, in this thread.

So rather than repeat myself, I will suggest that, if you wish to know my opinion about this, you read the entire thread.

Clue: Notice my exchanges with Austin.

---

I think Monica's "Huxley" post was in response to Monkey's comment.

Actually, it wasn't. I just happened to post it right after my response to Monkey. I just added a line break to that post.

[Oldern]

"I'm saying the meat industry is an abomination, in the same way war is an abomination."

And meat eating is NOT an abomination.
If you perceive it that way, I can totally understand why you are not eating meat. That would be insane.

*Imho, obviously, but maybe it needs to be written down as a reminder*

[BrownEye]

I think it's unreasonable to assume that we can continue engaging in actions that lack compassion, and then expect to instantaneously be transported to a place where everyone is compassionate.

I see this as well. Although i do not expect to "move up", it may be more automatic than my monkey mind wants. I am very much attached to the planet and nature. I call this place home. I also recognize that the average person not yet aware will only be a consumer, pillaging what the planet has to offer. Not that that would be specifically connected to eating meat.

I guess something we forget about the world is that all range of evolution is coexisting side by side. While some find a more efficient path and feel the need to pass on that benefit to others, another side to efficiency is to not expend energy on those not ready for travel. It would be much more efficient to work on an individual basis with those actively attempting change.

[Monica]

And meat eating is NOT an abomination.

? Are you saying you think it isn't, or are you saying you think I think it isn't?

If you perceive it that way, I can totally understand why you are not eating meat. That would be insane.

Well yeah, but that doesn't mean I think people who eat meat are abominable people, which is what they often think I think, if I tell them my opinion about meat-eating.

---

Also, in regards to the Huxley quote, society accepts the meat industry in the same way it accepts war, and with the same psychological ploys to make it acceptable. I see a lot of parallel between what Huxley said about war, and what could be applied to the meat industry.

[BrownEye]

Huxley is one of my ancestors.

[Monica]

Huxley is one of my ancestors.

Cool!

I would add to Diana's excellent analysis of the Huxley quote, that another reason for the obvious parallels, is the great lengths people to to, to gloss over what is actually being done. Using different terms and psychological tricks, just as with war. (The whole article is well worth reading, by the way.) It's dissociation.

[3DMonkey]

One of my favorite quotes, by Aldous Huxley:


Personification in politics is an error which we make because it is to our advantage as egotists to be able to feel violently proud of our country and of ourselves as belonging to it, and to believe that all the misfortunes due to our own mistakes are really the work of the Foreigner. It is easier to feel violently toward a person than toward an abstraction; hence our habit of making political personifications. In some cases military personifications are merely special instances of political personifications. A particular collectivity, the army or the warring nation, is given the name and, along with the name, the attributes of a single person, in order that we may be able to love or hate it more intensely than we could do if we thought of it as what it really is: a number of diverse individuals. In other cases personification is used for the purpose of concealing the fundamental absurdity and monstrosity of war. What is absurd and monstrous about war is that men who have no personal quarrel should be trained to murder one another in cold blood. By personifying opposing armies or countries, we are able to think of war as a conflict between individuals. The same result is obtained by writing about war as though it were carried on exclusively by the generals in command and not by the private soldiers in their armies. (“Rennenkampf had pressed back von Schubert.”) The implication in both cases is that war is indistinguishable from a bout of fisticuffs in a bar room. Whereas in reality it is profoundly different. A scrap between two individuals is forgivable; mass murder, deliberately organized, is a monstrous iniquity. We still choose war as an instrument of policy; and to comprehend the full wickedness and absurdity of war would therefore be inconvenient. For, once we understood, we should have to make some effort to get rid of the abominable thing.

Complete quote: http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2011/07/...ty-of-war/

Are you saying eating meat is akin to mass murder and war ? Is a farmer who has humanely raised his livestock for food guilty of murder and war against animals?

I think Monica's "Huxley" post was in response to Monkey's comment.

However, let me analyze this Huxley quote in the context of meat-eating.

Humans justify their acts by telling themselves certain things and agreeing on them collectively. The collective agreement becomes very powerful. Collective agreements from history:

1) Blacks are an inferior species of human with less intellect, therefore it is right to enslave them.

2) Women are inferior to men, therefore they are chattel and cannot be allowed rights.

3) Non-catholics are evil, and must be tortured until they repent and convert (Spanish Inquisition).

And currently:

1) Muslims hate Americans, therefore we must kill them.

2) It's okay for humans, their children, and babies to ingest a certain amount of poison (hydrogenated oils, pesticides, food additives and preservatives, GMOs, etc) because the FDA says so.

3) Animals eat each other, so it's okay for us to not only eat them, but cause them to live in torturous conditions and kill them mercilessly.

4) Animals don't have feelings like we do, so we should not consider their feelings when deciding how to feed the human population. They are things for us to use, because we are more important than all other beings here on Earth.

5) Humans must eat meat, because we always have, and because the government makes a neat little food chart that says so.

As far as I can tell, humans do not need to eat meat (there may be medical exceptions, and this has been previously discussed). We eat meat out of habit, tradition, social agreement, taste, an addictive response to continuing aggression and fear (also previously discussed--the meat carries these energies), and we justify killing animals for food collectively in the same way that Huxley posits that proponents of war justify war with absurd collective agreements.

These collective agreements must be seen for what they are in order for societies and the world in general to move forward. For instance, if we had not changed our collective agreement that black Africans are an inferior race, where would we be now?

You left out

. Plants don't have feelings, so it's okay to eat them alive.

---

And meat eating is NOT an abomination.

? Are you saying you think it isn't, or are you saying you think I think it isn't?

If you perceive it that way, I can totally understand why you are not eating meat. That would be insane.

Well yeah, but that doesn't mean I think people who eat meat are abominable people, which is what they often think I think, if I tell them my opinion about meat-eating.

So, you think I am committing an abomination but I am not abominable? How is this not a contradiction?

---

Huxley is one of my ancestors.

Cool!

I would add to Diana's excellent analysis of the Huxley quote, that another reason for the obvious parallels, is the great lengths people to to, to gloss over what is actually being done. Using different terms and psychological tricks, just as with war. (The whole article is well worth reading, by the way.) It's dissociation.

And the same logic applies to eating vegetation. The dissociation is either a flaw or an asset. It can't be both.

[Monica]

You left out

. Plants don't have feelings, so it's okay to eat them alive.

Right. Maybe they do; maybe they don't. But we know animals do.

So, you think I am committing an abomination but I am not abominable?

I'm saying that the meat industry is an abomination. I'm not going to assess any person's involvement in it.

How is this not a contradiction?

Because each of us is defined by more than a single choice.

And the same logic applies to eating vegetation.

I disagree, for a multitude of reasons already discussed.

The dissociation is either a flaw or an asset. It can't be both.

How can refusing to feel compassion, when given the opportunity to do so, ever be an asset?

[3DMonkey]

Your view of plants is your choice to dissociate. My view of animals is my choice to dissociate.

It is the exact same thing. No amount of details can change this root fact.

[Monica]

Your view of plants is your choice to dissociate.

I disagree. I'm not justifying or defending my consumption of plants, so there's no dissociation.

My view of animals is my choice to dissociate.

It seems to me that consciously choosing to dissociate would mean it's no longer disassociation, but something else entirely.

It is the exact same thing. No amount of details can change this root fact.

That's your opinion, Monkey, not a fact. Facts can be objectively proven. Such as: animals have pain receptors.

[3DMonkey]

You justify your right to eat plants.

And you make it impossible to argue the opposite opinion, that plants do, indeed, feel pain.

[BrownEye]

A tree maybe. Otherwise it would be nice if you could provide a source of this experience. The only experience i have been able to dig up is that they are affected by intent. Not the same thing.

[3DMonkey]

A tree maybe. Otherwise it would be nice if you could provide a source of this experience. The only experience i have been able to dig up is that they are affected by intent. Not the same thing.

I asked the plants. They told me.

---

Pickle, you can't be mister factoid when you are predominantly mister paranormal

[Monica]

You justify your right to eat plants.

No, I don't need to justify my consumption of plants, because I feel totally fine with it. I don't consider it a 'right' though.

People tend to try to justify their actions, when they feel conflicted. If they don't feel conflicted, then there's no need to justify anything to anyone.

And you make it impossible to argue the opposite opinion, that plants do, indeed, feel pain.

LOL! If I made it 'impossible' to argue opposite opinions, then how has this thread continued for over 3 years?

[BrownEye]

. Plants don't have feelings, so it's okay to eat them alive.

Let's see, 4D is live food, i suppose you must think that you will be eating live animals?

The description sounds awful vegan, which i would guess is anathema to some LoL!

There is no mention of dead food. Live food is integration of life rather than killing something in order to ingest it. Integration of life may be a missing concept in this conversation.

What does it mean to attempt integrating death i wonder?

---

I just realized that 4D is communism.

[Monica]

I asked the plants. They told me.

I hope you're not too offended if I don't trust your plant channeling as absolutely accurate and authoritative.

[3DMonkey]

If you are suggesting that I feel guilty or that I have tried to justify my choice in diet, then you are completely wrong. I find your suggestion to be passive aggressive accusation.

---

There is no justification a meat eater could make that a vegetarian hasn't already made regarding what they eat.

[Monica]

If you are suggesting that I feel guilty or that I have tried to justify my choice in diet, then you are completely wrong.

No, actually, I wasn't suggesting that at all. I said it's very common for people to do that, and I didn't mention anyone personally.

Actually, I haven't even seen you doing any justification. You're very upfront about your lack of concern about meat eating.

Like I said, it's people who feel some inner conflict, who usually start justifying. Not those who don't feel conflicted.

I find your suggestion to be passive aggressive accusation.

I'm not surprised. shrug

---

There is no justification a meat eater could make that a vegetarian hasn't already made regarding what they eat.

LOL again! This thread is full of them.

[3DMonkey]

It's full of them, and none are different than the vegetarian justifications

[Shemaya]

If you are suggesting that I feel guilty or that I have tried to justify my choice in diet, then you are completely wrong. I find your suggestion to be passive aggressive accusation.

---

There is no justification a meat eater could make that a vegetarian hasn't already made regarding what they eat.

Yes Monkey, it is really interesting to read all the various arguments through the thread, very interesting dynamic here.

The basic message I am hearing from vegetarians through the perusing of this thread is that eating meat is incongruent with an STO path. Just now writing it out in simple terms without pages and pages of words, it reveals to me the crux of what was so compelling to me in this thread.

I have such a basic and strong disagreement with this opinion even though I agree that the factory farm industry is horrible, I agree that eating mostly fruits and vegetables and whole foods is healthy for my body-temple. I agree that there is a vibratory effect on the physical body when eliminating animal foods from the diet. I agree with intentional practice, vegetarianism is a good thing to do. There is much I can agree with that has been written in the thread.

I have eaten meat my entire life and have been on an STO path my entire life and past lives as well, I have eaten meat and have been vegetarian in past lives. I have "abstained" from eating meat in this life. So I simply disagree with that message, and I would take it so far as saying that I really strongly disagree with that message.

It would just take away the truth of who I am, if I were believe that eating meat is incongruent with the STO path.

[3DMonkey]

If you are suggesting that I feel guilty or that I have tried to justify my choice in diet, then you are completely wrong. I find your suggestion to be passive aggressive accusation.

---

There is no justification a meat eater could make that a vegetarian hasn't already made regarding what they eat.

Yes Monkey, it is really interesting to read all the various arguments through the thread, very interesting dynamic here.

The basic message I am hearing from vegetarians through the perusing of this thread is that eating meat is incongruent with an STO path. Just now writing it out in simple terms without pages and pages of words, it reveals to me the crux of what was so compelling to me in this thread.

I have such a basic and strong disagreement with this opinion even though I agree that the factory farm industry is horrible, I agree that eating mostly fruits and vegetables and whole foods is healthy for my body-temple. I agree that there is a vibratory effect on the physical body when eliminating animal foods from the diet. I agree with intentional practice, vegetarianism is a good thing to do. There is much I can agree with that has been written in the thread.

I have eaten meat my entire life and have been on an STO path my entire life and past lives as well, I have eaten meat and have been vegetarian in past lives. I have "abstained" from eating meat in this life. So I simply disagree with that message, and I would take it so far as saying that I really strongly disagree with that message.

It would just take away the truth of who I am, if I were believe that eating meat is incongruent with the STO path.

That is my view as well.


I would add separately, that I think that taking time to think that others actions are abominations, or that others actions are incongruent with STO, is in and of itself not the example of an STO thought.

[Shemaya]

Yes Monkey I would agree with you . If someone is judging another's choices in diet , it is not an STO thought.

And I am not saying that anyone personally thinks that, I usually cannot read otherselves minds.

[Monica]

So I simply disagree with that message, and I would take it so far as saying that I really strongly disagree with that message.

It would just take away the truth of who I am, if I were believe that eating meat is incongruent with the STO path.

You seem to be saying that it's incongruent, simply because you've done it. Or is there another reason you think it's incongruent?

I've done things that were incongruent with the STO path. Like yelling at my kid. We've all done things that were incongruent with the STO path.

That doesn't make us "not STO" since there is an allowable percentage of STS. Although, if we consciously capitalize on that allowable %, then wouldn't that be depolarizing?

Questions for you, if you care to explain:

Do predominately positive entities sometimes do negative things? Provided their overall polarity is still 51+%, then aren't they still STO?

Why is the 49% STS allowed? And what sort of things comprise that 49%? And should we be satisfied with 51%, or should we seek to polarize more if we are consciously able to do so?

How is declining an opportunity to feel compassion, congruent with the STO path? In other words, if we are given an opportunity to feel compassion, and we turn our backs on it, then how is that STO?

---

I would add separately, that I think that taking time to think that others actions are abominations, or that others actions are incongruent with STO, is in and of itself not the example of an STO thought.

So is nothing an abomination? Is war an abomination?

---

It would just take away the truth of who I am, if I were believe that eating meat is incongruent with the STO path.

I think yelling at my child, when it wasn't even his fault, is incongruent with the STO path. Yet I have done this. I don't think it takes away the 'truth of what I am' because I am not defined by a single action. That single action of yelling at my child cannot negate all the positive actions I have had throughout my life. I just put the 'yelling at child' in the STS column.

Who among us can claim to be 100% STO?

The only person who came close to that, that I know of, was Jesus.

So why does it "take away the truth of who we are" to acknowledge that we're not 100% STO?

---

Yes Monkey I would agree with you . If someone is judging another's choices in diet , it is not an STO thought.

By that logic, then if you judge the actions of a violent criminal, it's an STS thought.

Or does your logic only apply to diet? And if so, why?

And I am not saying that anyone personally thinks that, I usually cannot read otherselves minds.

There's no need to dance around it. We've made it very clear, that we aren't interested in judging the choices of others, because we have no idea if they are, for example, eating animal products only to the extent necessary for individual metabolism.

But do you not see a distinction between 'judging' an action and judging a person?

For example, Monkey said I could eat his dog if I wanted to. But, there was a teeny tiny little detail left out: That I would need to kill his dog, before I could eat him.

This is exactly what Huxley was talking about: The dissociation by use of words. Have you noticed that the meat-eaters tend to focus on the act of eating meat, whereas the vegetarians tend to focus on how the meat was produced?

One cannot eat meat without someone first killing the animal.

That's the dissociation. The meat-eaters tend to gloss over the killing part, and say the vegetarians are "judging their choice of diet" but that's not it at all. The vegetarians aren't judging their diet! It's the torture and killing that's being judged.

[3DMonkey]

"So is nothing an abomination? Is war an abomination?"

What does the answer to this question satisfy?

[Shemaya]

The reason that eating meat is congruent with an STO path is because when I eat something that nourishes my body, and sustains it, keeps it running optimally, provides the nutrition I require in order to create new cells everyday that replace the dying cells it is a loving and compassionate act to myself, and to my loved ones in my circle of family and friends. If I eat to keep myself healthy, I am sustaining myself so that I can continue to serve others.

I think all the questions about polarity have been answered elsewhere, so I'll refrain from addressing those questions.

People on an STO path decline opportunities to feel compassion all the time. It's a matter of where we choose to focus our compassionate energy.

Not everyone chooses to focus their energy on their diets.

[Monica]

"So is nothing an abomination? Is war an abomination?"

What does the answer to this question satisfy?

You said that if someone says something is an abomination, then that is an STS thought.

So I'm asking you: Is it EVER ok to call something an abomination? If I call war, or murder, or pedophilia an abomination, am I being STS just for saying that?

---

The reason that eating meat is congruent with an STO path is because when I eat something that nourishes my body, and sustains it, keeps it running optimally, provides the nutrition I require in order to create new cells everyday that replace the dying cells it is a loving and compassionate act to myself, and to my loved ones in my circle of family and friends. If I eat to keep myself healthy, I am sustaining myself so that I can continue to serve others.

I think all the questions about polarity have been answered elsewhere, so I'll refrain from addressing those questions.

People on an STO path decline opportunities to feel compassion all the time. It's a matter of where we choose to focus our compassionate energy.

Not everyone chooses to focus their energy on their diets.

Disassociation again. You've spoken only of your diet and what it does for you, while ignoring the effect your choice has on other beings...ignoring the torture and slaughter, that must take place in order for you to do that.

Not to mention, that for most people, there are other ways to nourish one's body, without torturing and killing animals.