The act of eating is a service.

[Tenet Nosce]

That's a great question! I don't really know the answer. If I had to guess it is because being butthurt and offended is a pretty effective way to keep one outward-focused and distracted from doing inner work. I also imagine it has something to do with the fact that our society tends to reward people for being victims, while downplaying the importance of taking responsibility for oneself. Finally, I would speculate it has something to do with simply being ungrounded while all this additional energy is pouring in from space.

Technically this results from Orion influence. I have found this an interesting concept.

Go on...

[Diana]

Can I serve my other-selves by not eating? Not taking inside of me their energy? Will this end my incarnation? Maybe ending my incarnation in this way is the ultimate service-to-others act. It could be seen as very compassionate to other-selves, but also not compassionate to self. If compassion to others is used to measure polarity, then this sacrifice would provide extreme positive polarity?

The self is an other-self. This is part of the equation in my opinion. Respect for other-selves must include self. It is not balanced, in my opinion, to sacrifice.

In 3D, someone who is practicing compassion for all other-selves (including self) in regards to eating, might look around and consider what to eat. There is no reason to kill the self's vehicle. One could eat fruit, for instance.

Then, can I actually serve my other-selves by eating? Is it a communion in between self and other-self. The lower density other-selves (plants) sacrificing their incarnation to sustain ours. That is an act of love right ? Did these plants chose this before their incarnation? etc...

That was the kind of discussion of was trying to start at the beginning.

Plants offer parts of themselves to animals for food in order to propagate. This suggests a symbiotic, mutually beneficial relationship, rather than a sacrifice or offering of love on the part of the plants. I don't mean to say love is not involved. Just that it seems natural and beneficial for plant life to be food.

[Patrick]

Why do you suppose they are looking?

That's a great question! I don't really know the answer. If I had to guess it is because being butthurt and offended is a pretty effective way to keep one outward-focused and distracted from doing inner work. I also imagine it has something to do with the fact that our society tends to reward people for being victims, while downplaying the importance of taking responsibility for oneself. Finally, I would speculate it has something to do with simply being ungrounded while all this additional energy is pouring in from space.

Technically this results from Orion influence. I have found this an interesting concept.

We should not forget that we chose to come here because of this. Because of the fertile ground full of catalysts for a wanderer. Catalysts provided by all the negativity humans have accepted from Orion.

[Monica]

I see what you are saying- although I think there is some gray area you missed. Personally, I wouldn't go so far as to say that everybody who eats meat thinks animals aren't deserving of life. Though I would imagine that some do.

I would say that everyone who eats meat, considers the animal's life less important than their desire for meat. (That is, if they have given it any thought at all.)

As regards murder- yes this means intentionally taking the life of another person. Clearly, we could go round and round about what constitutes a "person" and probably wouldn't get anywhere!

I think it's a very valid question. Ra referred to "other-selves" and there seems to be an assumption that they were referring to humans only. I question that assumption.

But at the least, I think we could agree that the term "animals" represents such a vast range of lifeforms that to make a blanket statement that "animals are people too" is quite a stretch.

I didn't actually say "animals are people too" except maybe in an analogy. I've actually stated that animals aren't people, when I explained that I'd save the child before saving the dog.

I do, however, think animals are "other-selves" and this is where much of the disagreement lies.

I mean- if I tried to make a case against the "murder" of shrimp wouldn't you consider that a little absurd? Are shrimp to be considered people?

What I'd find absurd about that, is the same thing I'd find absurd about trying to get people to recognize the supposed suffering of plants. If animal rights activists can't even succeed in getting people to recognize the suffering of a cow, what hope is there for a shrimp, cockroach or tomato plant?

Is it really? I mean- do you really consider the slaughter of a pig in a factory farm as the same action as swatting a housefly? Flies not only have a beating heart, but nine of them!

Why must it be "all or nothing"?

You are right that there is no clear demarcation. But that's irrelevant since, as you and I both agreed, it's impossible to 100% avoid all killing of all lifeforms, as long as we are here in 3D.

But that isn't a logical argument to not even bother trying to avoid those which we can avoid.

I get it- however I simply question whether or not that actually works to elicit more compassion or not. I will admit- I do not really know! But what I do know is that vegetarians could say "killing animals is unnecessary" and that would be a much less contentious point. I imagine it would result in a much greater percentage of a given audience being willing to open their hearts and listen to whatever else they have to say.

I agree, which is why I avoid the dreaded M word when talking about meat-eating and abortion.

Surely, if a vegetarian is unable to establish a basic sense of compassion and rapport with a meat-eater, then the chances of being successful in their objective to increase the meat-eater's compassion toward animals is pretty small.

Meh. It's already small anyway. Unless the meat-eater just got diagnosed with cancer and is exploring alternative healing options, the chances of them suddenly having compassion for animals is almost nil. As our infamous meat thread showed, this is true even among 'spiritually-oriented' Law of One students.

So I wouldn't say compassion and rapport increases our chances of getting our point across. We should still have compassion and we should still cultivate rapport, because that is the proper thing to do, but not because we'll get better results, because we aren't likely to get any results anyway.

Yes, I am referring to the vandalism and such. But I am also referring to the employment of extreme language. I seem to be having difficulty communicating this effectively.

Let's take a totally different example, and one which I know we are on the same page about. Look at the media reporting on the Ron Paul campaign this last week: "Ron Paul Drops Out", "Ron Paul Ends Presidential Campaign", "Ron Paul Admits He Will Not Be President" are a few examples. None of these are true! The language these articles are using is more extreme than what is actually the case. That is different from calling these reporters extremists.

Getting back to our example with animals- and in my opinion- murder is an extreme term. One could say: kill, slaughter, or slay and it would be more accurate. Again, in my opinion.

One could also say: murder, assassinate, or annhiliate. These are valid synonyms, but tend to connote something more extreme.

So- yeah- you could say that I murdered a fly last week. But what would be the point in doing so? Wouldn't that actually detract from the argument?

I agree. If you look back at all my old posts, you won't find much use of the M word, if at all.

there is nothing I can do to change it. So why should I try?

Um...because you feel compassion for the cow? There IS something we can do to change it! We can't change all of it, but we CAN change some of it!

Here's a different example from pop culture: AMAZING! Everything is frigging AMAZING nowadays. People say: wow that hummus was AMAZING! Really? Were you really AMAZED by that hummus? Was there something puzzling or inexplicable about the hummus? Or was it just tasty and delicious?

Oh and let's not forget AWESOME! But those are just reflections on the illiteracy of society. They just don't have many options regarding word choice.

Oh no, I agree with you about all that! I just mean from a pragmatic standpoint of achieving the stated outcome of influencing people to eat less meat, or to stop eating it altogether.

Glad to hear we agree on something!

However I disagree with your 2nd statement. I disagree in having a stated outcome at all. That doesn't work. That is attachment. It's not my job to influence people, and it's not my burden of responsibility as to whether they quit eating meat or not. My only task is to answer the call, in whatever way I am able to.

What I am trying to say is: people are people. And for better or worse (I think worse) people seem to be more and more on edge and looking for any reason to get butthurt or offended.

If that's the case, then why? I contend that anyone looking for an excuse to get butthurt, has an imbalance and they are hoping that other-selves might offer some catalyst.

In which case, retracting the 'offending' viewpoint to avoid their butthurt, isn't serving them. It's actually a disservice.

To clarify: I would never intentionally cause butthurt in someone. (To do so intentionally would be STS.) But if I just speak my truth, and my intentions are loving, and they get butthurt anyway, that is their catalyst, not mine. If I withdraw my energy, or retract my statement or water it down, then that is a disservice.

At the end of the day, if something we say results in butthurt or offense of our audience (whether or not we think it is an appropriate response) then all we have done is alienate them, and then they aren't going to listen to ANYTHING we have to say.

That is their choice isn't it?

Thus, we are shooting ourselves in the foot. Why would we do that?

We're shooting ourselves in the foot only if we do it intentionally. If our efforts are genuine, then good will prevail, eventually. It just might take awhile, and the road might get a little rocky along the way.

[Patrick]

Yeah, I forgot to add the understanding part.

It should have read. Every time I feel guilt, I use this catalyst to understand the self, accept the self and forgive the self.

Yes, but that's not all. In my understanding, choice must also be added to the equation.

Self-reflection leads to acceptance, which leads to forgiveness, + simultaneously combined with choice to correct the imbalance = efficient utilization of catalyst = polarization.

Normally, at the point of guilt, the choice has already been made. With understanding, you may decide to make another choice the next time you encounter the catalyst. That is probably the choice you speak of?

[Monica]

Normally, at the point of guilt, the choice has already been made. With understanding, you may decide to make another choice the next time you encounter the catalyst. That is probably the choice you speak of?

Yes, I'm referring to the 2nd choice - the choice to do something different next time. If guilt is ignored, then the person might never get to the point of making that different choice; thus, the catalyst was wasted.

The purpose of guilt, if utilized, is to bring to one's attention that they may wish to make a different choice next time.

[Patrick]

Post length overload! I'll have to try and read that when I get home.

[Monica]

Post length overload! I'll have to try and read that when I get home.

Here, I split it up...just for you!

Can I serve my other-selves by not eating?

If you mean not eating at all, then no.

If you mean not eating animals, then yes, you would be serving the animals who prefer to not be killed.

Not taking inside of me their energy? Will this end my incarnation?

Not eating at all, yes that could end an incarnation.

Not eating animals won't end an incarnation.

Maybe ending my incarnation in this way is the ultimate service-to-others act. It could be seen as very compassionate to other-selves, but also not compassionate to self. If compassion to others is used to measure polarity, then this sacrifice would provide extreme positive polarity?

I'd say sacrifice for no good reason isn't STO at all, because it implies lack of love for self, and Ra did say we must also love ourselves.

If there is a specific purpose to the self-sacrifice, as in the case of Jesus, then yes, that would likely be polarizing STO. It really depends on the situation and what the entity was trying to accomplish from that particular catalyst.

Then, can I actually serve my other-selves by eating? Is it a communion in between self and other-self. The lower density other-selves (plants) sacrificing their incarnation to sustain ours. That is an act of love right ? Did these plants chose this before their incarnation? etc...

My belief is that plants chose to be of service by offering themselves to be eaten. There are many, many reasons why I think that, which I detailed in that 'other' thread and won't go into here.

I don't think the same is true of farm animals. In fact, I think it's quite obvious that they do NOT want to be killed or eaten. I think their purpose is to provide an opportunity for humans to learn compassion. That is what they agreed to.

And, it's isn't a sacrifice if they didn't agree to it. It's only a sacrifice if the person offers themselves willingly.

The animals make it very clear they aren't willing. They are fighting every step of the way.

[Patrick]

Because of this thread and for no other reason. Just kidding Monkey!

I decided to try raw vegan once again. This is the supper I am currently eating.

[Monica]

I decided to try raw vegan once again. This is the supper I am currently eating.

Cool! Suggestion: You might want to try some creamy cashew dip or avacado, to dip those veggies in. And some nuts and/or avocado would add some calories and help you feel full longer, too.

Satisfying Yummy Raw Bread

[Patrick]

I figured I needed a low-fat/low-protein fast for clearing, for a little while. The main motivation behind this being clearing and weight loss.

[Monica]

I figured I needed a low-fat/low-protein fast for clearing, for a little while. The main motivation behind this being clearing and weight loss.

Oh ok then that looks great!

[Patrick]

As an added bonus, maybe with a clearer head, I'll be able to understand your point of view better.

[Monica]

As an added bonus, maybe with a clearer head, I'll be able to understand your point of view better.

LOL!

[Diana]

A commentary on eating from Star Trek, The Next Generation
[/quote]

[BrownEye]

My act of eating is fully sts. My chewing and swallowing has no benefit or interaction to any other outside of my body.

The way i go about claiming the food i eat is an interaction outside of my body, which then translates to service interactions.

[Shin'Ar]

My act of eating is fully sts. My chewing and swallowing has no benefit or interaction to any other outside of my body.

The way i go about claiming the food i eat is an interaction outside of my body, which then translates to service interactions.

Pickle, when you inhale a Big Mac, there is NO chewing or swallowing involved. lol Just saying.

I am really not sure where to draw a line in this issue, but I do see a definite line that we all cross with regard to how sensitive or insensitive we are about it. There is no doubt that much of what the human does in the run of a day is so routine that much of our actions are rarely considered.

[3DMonkey]

What catalyst does eating provide for transformation?

Shouldn't we all be eating adepts at this point?

---

lol, Eating Adepts. Adept at eating.

[Shemaya]

Why is this particular viewpoint so UNaccepted? Why are WE so UNaccepted? All this talk about love and acceptance...and yet a few fellow seekers are being considered the source of discord, just for having different opinions. It's not how we say anything or whether it's off-topic or any of that...it's our viewpoint itself that is UNaccepted.

I can't possibly respond to the rest of your post in a helpful way, but I would like speak for myself and say I completely accept the viewpoint you are espousing. It's completely valid and much of your viewpoint is true.

It's admirable to have that much intensity and passion for something. . We need all the help we can get to create a peaceful loving society.

There are particular energies that I am averse to that trigger my reactions regarding these discussions, it's not the subject itself. And it has been discussed already more or less, so at this point more discussion would likely be unhelpful.

Please accept my apologies, everyone, for my part in the discord.[/quote]

---

[
So beautifully said ! I feel very much understood.

So glad Valtor! Good luck with your experiential eating make sure you eat some chocolate, one of the most important food groups!!

---

What catalyst does eating provide for transformation?

Shouldn't we all be eating adepts at this point?

---

lol, Eating Adepts. Adept at eating.

Well, I am A depp at eating. German for something, Meerie ?

[drifting pages]

I think the eating topic causes all this fuss because some view certain types of food as not beneficial or even immoral.
This is not exclusive of food, this also belongs to the subject of sexuality, to the subject of culture and ways of life, to the concept of govenance and laws.

Seriously any time someone comes and says your way of being,living and doing things is wrong or unacceptable, this happens.

Which is why i think in the end this sort of topics can only cause some level of discord within groups.

The answer to me is to gauge information available and follow my understanding and chosen belief systems.

I think this type of debate is good only in small quantities, otherwise you will find discord outside and inside very rapidly. You actually make it happen within yourself by riding the thought-forms.

And to answer the topic i think eating is neutral and your focus on it will make it a positive or negative experience.

I don't believe in separating the world in sts or sto. Nor do i like the word service used to describe polarity in the Ra material.

Edit: Now that i think about it i don't like polarity or duality either,i use it but do not define it in neat categories.

[Unbound]

Your last two sentences are increasingly on my mind as I browse this forum...

[Shemaya]

I think the eating topic causes all this fuss because some view certain types of food as not beneficial or even immoral.
This is not exclusive of food, this also belongs to the subject of sexuality, to the subject of culture and ways of life, to the concept of govenance and laws.

Seriously any time someone comes and says your way of being,living and doing things is wrong or unacceptable, this happens.

Which is why i think in the end this sort of topics can only cause some level of discord within groups.

The answer to me is to gauge information available and follow my understanding and chosen belief systems.

I think this type of debate is good only in small quantities, otherwise you will find discord outside and inside very rapidly. You actually make it happen within yourself by riding the thought-forms.

And to answer the topic i think eating is neutral and your focus on it will make it a positive or negative experience.

I don't believe in separating the world in sts or sto. Nor do i like the word service used to describe polarity in the Ra material.

Edit: Now that i think about it i don't like polarity or duality either,i use it but do not define it in neat categories.

Good points drifting pages, I think it can be positive or negative also...I tend to focus on the positive, but no doubt it could be negative.

Though, I do think that nourishment is always positive, and if one is eating to nourish, then it is positive. It's possible to have negative intention and thought forms though, and that would probably depolarize. But these are overlays of the basic, natural reason...we eat so we can live. Eating is life- sustaining.

[3DMonkey]

I eat because I get cranky and my body starts to fade. Eating makes me feel better.

[Meerie]

What catalyst does eating provide for transformation?

Shouldn't we all be eating adepts at this point?

---

lol, Eating Adepts. Adept at eating.

Well, I am A depp at eating. German for something, Meerie ?

"A Depp" is German, or better South German, for idiot.
That is right, Johnny Depp is Johnny Idiot in German

[Monica]

I think the eating topic causes all this fuss because some view certain types of food as not beneficial or even immoral.
This is not exclusive of food, this also belongs to the subject of sexuality, to the subject of culture and ways of life, to the concept of govenance and laws.

Seriously any time someone comes and says your way of being,living and doing things is wrong or unacceptable, this happens.
...
And to answer the topic i think eating is neutral and your focus on it will make it a positive or negative experience.

Gosh, judging by the number of 'likes' of your post, it appears that I have been wrong all this time.

Applying your logic, then, human slavery, murder, rape and all other forms of violence aren't wrong or immoral. They are in the same category as premarital sex - they aren't inherently wrong, but just thinking they are wrong, makes them wrong in our minds.

And yes, culture does come into play here. Just as in some cultures it's perfectly acceptable for men to oppress women, to cheat on them or even beat them, and the women just have to take it. It's culturally acceptable, so no one should ever tell them they are wrong. That would be offensive and intolerant of cultural diversity!

Same with the oppression of gays. In some cultures, executing gays is just normal. Who are we to say they're wrong? After all, that is their culture!

And no one should ever, ever declare anything wrong. After all, who am I to say that Hitler was wrong? There is no right or wrong. No morality. No polarity. Ra was wrong. Anything goes!

Thank you so much! I feel so liberated! I'm finally free of all that heavy baggage I'd been carrying for so long.

Man, I feel like an idiot. I know so many of you have been trying to tell me this for so long, but I just now finally saw the light! :idea: I'm just going to focus on myself from now on. It will be so much easier, and I will have more friends too because they won't be getting mad at me for my fanatical beliefs anymore!!! (sigh of relief)

[Diana]

i think eating is neutral and your focus on it will make it a positive or negative experience.

Eating itself may be neutral (mastication of food), and how one actually eats may be positive or negative depending upon how one views it.

There is more to sustaining one's self with food than just eating. There is obtaining the food. One cannot eat without obtaining food. Obtaining food involves choices.

The choices are not neutral. One must decide which life to take as food. Will it be algae? Will it be fruit? Will it be vegetables? Will it be fish? Will it be meat?

Is there a difference between taking the life of a fruit (apple) and the life of a calf (veal)?

[BrownEye]

I don't believe in separating the world in sts or sto. Nor do i like the word service used to describe polarity in the Ra material.

Edit: Now that i think about it i don't like polarity or duality either,i use it but do not define it in neat categories.

Uh huh?

I want to ask what some of you are doing here.

What is it you are looking for that brings you here?

I eat because I get cranky and my body starts to fade. Eating makes me feel better.

LoL addiction symptoms. I had the same experiences with the American diet. Negative experience like that kind of sloughs off when you clean up.

---

I think the eating topic causes all this fuss because some view certain types of food as not beneficial or even immoral.

Knowing that your food has been modified to mutate your DNA and make you sterile, you would ignore this because you believe it does nothing to you as long as you think positive thoughts while eating it?

[3DMonkey]

We are back to the begnning.

I can NOT find any love coming from the above three posts. I hear a desire to divide, judge, and condescend. That is it.

[Shin'Ar]

Perception is key here.

Human perception based upon stimuli. Tradition, religion, emotion, popularity, etc.

Look at it this way,

many people would not be bothered by the killing of a flesh eating tiger, but if you showed them a cute little tiger cub being killed they would be emotionally disturbed. The Bambi syndrome.

The more we become either sensitized or desensitized to a matter the more or less it becomes an issue.

the point Monica is making is that it should be the sensitization that rules the decision.

It should be the consideration of the actual consequences. Emotion creates atmosphere and environment. But when we make decisions based upon emotion alone, the consequences remain the same whether we like them or not.

if you burn down a house because you didn't like the way it ruined the look of your neighborhood, and someone died in that fire, whether or not you agreed with the decision doesn't change the fact that someone died because of that choice.

It is the substance of our buildings that matter and how they affect our neighbors, more than the glamor of the architecture.

[Patrick]

...Applying your logic, then, human slavery, murder, rape and all other forms of violence aren't wrong or immoral. They are in the same category as premarital sex - they aren't inherently wrong, but just thinking they are wrong, makes them wrong in our minds...

You know, that's pretty much what I believe actually. The only thing that is missing is this. Is the thinking that something is "right" or "wrong" applies to the self only or once you made that decision you must also apply it to your other selves in order to maintain positive polarity?

I.e.: A person believes that raping is right. But said person also is aware that the one being raped believes this to be wrong. So the raper polarizes in the negative by doing it. IF the raper truthfully believes that the one being raped think this is "right". Do we have negative polarization here ?

This may seem like an extreme example, but in reality it's not. It's a real example. This can happen with mental patients.

------------

I seriously don't know if the ending of your post was sarcastic or real ?