Meat

[Dr. Woody Woodpecker]

Good Afternoon:

I have read Mr. Wilcock's diet suggestions, and I believe, most of the
diet related posts - I easily could have missed some since 'search ALL
messages' does not seem to be an option. Of course I have read other
sources, on the topic, besides these pages.

I am curious, why are fish acceptable to consume? Are the benefits
described by Mr. Wilcock not attainable with other foods - possibly in
different quantity or quality? Do these potential benefits outweigh the
harm done to the animal?

Thanks for your time,

Woody

[Graeme]

One could ask "what about the harm done to plants?". I'm sure I'm not
alone on this forum in viewing plants as conscious and sensitive
beings. I think David eats fish (preferably raw, I gather) because a
fully vegan predominantly raw diet doesn't seem to give him
everything he needs. This could vary from person to person. For
instance, I seem to do best on an all-raw, all-vegan, mostly-fruit diet.

There is another moral issue surrounding the consumption of flesh as
opposed to plants, though - the environmental issue. Since plants are
further down the food chain, consuming them has 10 or 20 less impact
than consuming animals in terms of land use. This of course implies
water use, pesticide use, energy use and so forth.

So, eat all plants/fruits if you can, but if you need a little fish or
egg here and there, I won't berate you for it!

Love and Light,

Graeme

--- In asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postID=UpzA0In84Vz6nk3p3FNToTrdk1VIyihOIGgTGW Kf3z91k_CYpvZh7Pwb8gQAARfoLVObYpruJDpywmA), "Dr. Woody Woodpecker"
<proveitjackass@y...> wrote:

> I am curious, why are fish acceptable to consume? Are the benefits
> described by Mr. Wilcock not attainable with other foods - possibly in
> different quantity or quality? Do these potential benefits outweigh the
> harm done to the animal?

[Dr. Woody Woodpecker]

--- In asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postID=u8B7S8lKK0skdiv5Idc-qT_YlE_R1kkCyaG52nL6eheS0lLf112pP09306kN5UK27xLSpY kcwU2y_6D0Wg), "Graeme" <kimonokraken@y...> wrote:
>
>
> One could ask "what about the harm done to plants?".


Yes, of course.

> I'm sure I'm not
> alone on this forum in viewing plants as conscious and sensitive
> beings.


I think I read somewhere on the Ascension site that Ra indicated one
of the 3D planets is populated with beings that were ascended from
2D "trees."



I think David eats fish (preferably raw, I gather) because a
> fully vegan predominantly raw diet doesn't seem to give him
> everything he needs. This could vary from person to person. For
> instance, I seem to do best on an all-raw, all-vegan, mostly-fruit
diet.
>
> There is another moral issue surrounding the consumption of flesh as
> opposed to plants, though - the environmental issue. Since plants
are
> further down the food chain, consuming them has 10 or 20 less impact
> than consuming animals in terms of land use. This of course implies
> water use, pesticide use, energy use and so forth.
>
> So, eat all plants/fruits if you can, but if you need a little fish
or
> egg here and there, I won't berate you for it!


In the many posts regarding hunting/killing I gather this is
considered somewhat of a personal decision or agreement with the
Creator. How can this be if Ra suggests veganism?

Maybe this is heading off the topic of this group, but does anyone
have a source for the reason humans began consuming meat... or
conitinued to do so? Were not some of the historic peoples more
enlightened than we?


>
> Love and Light,
>
> Graeme
>
> --- In asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postID=u8B7S8lKK0skdiv5Idc-qT_YlE_R1kkCyaG52nL6eheS0lLf112pP09306kN5UK27xLSpY kcwU2y_6D0Wg), "Dr. Woody Woodpecker"
> <proveitjackass@y...> wrote:
>
> > I am curious, why are fish acceptable to consume? Are the
benefits
> > described by Mr. Wilcock not attainable with other foods -
possibly in
> > different quantity or quality? Do these potential benefits
outweigh the
> > harm done to the animal?

[pugg1979]

--- In asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postID=PSVz-D5OjYgfQDwut-uWhyQaJWuetB_0cyRUPm1HznZCZ8cMgXgCqmlaIxRJej1WWOq9 9ZXW6A5ziG2MyQ), "Graeme" <kimonokraken@y...> wrote:
>
>
> One could ask "what about the harm done to plants?". I'm sure I'm
not
> alone on this forum in viewing plants as conscious and sensitive
> beings.

The way I see it killing animals causes physical pain (the result of a
nervous system), and "soul" pain. Killing plants causes "soul" pain.
Also, Ra implies that the only upper octave 2D "plants"
(apes/dolphins/etc are upper-8va animals, I believe) are trees.
Simple plant life/vegies etc. do not have as indivuated a
consciousness as animals. It seems to me that killing plants is the
lesser of two evils.

Harrison

[lealdragon]

I posted on this topic a few months ago, so I won't repeat myself
here. But for now I will just say, I don't think we can compare our
present society to primitive cultures. Until recently, humans needed
to hunt animals to survive. Now, it is simply not necessary.

It would seem logical to me that an entity that is individualized
enough to not wish to be hunted, killed and eaten would not incarnate
into the body of a 'defenseless' plant. Plants cannot run away, and
often stay alive after being plucked from the ground (like potatoes
and carrots sprouting in your kitchen). So I think of them more as
sharing their life force with us when we eat them.

Animals, on the other hand, flee in terror when hunted. They put up a
fight to avoid being killed. To me, that is an obvious clue.

Yes, animals kill each other in the wild, but that does not mean we
must pattern our behavior after 2d entities.

As for fish, I have witnessed many vegans who had once become vegan -
they took it very seriously, like a sacred vow, only to eat fish
later. I could not understand this until it happened to me.

Now, I am once again a vegetarian, but more middle-of-the-road rather
than raw-foods vegan. I eat organically raised eggs and raw goat's milk.

Most of the arguements against eating meat have to do with avoiding
cruelty, as well as the spiritual ramifications of killing another being.

However, most of the arguements in favor of veganism have more to do
with the inhumane ways the animals are raised; for example, the
factory farms where the egg-laying chickens are de-beaked and kept in
tiny cages. Free-roaming hens producing healthy eggs, I have no
problem with personally. No sentient being died - I don't think the
egg has a consciousness yet, so it does not bother me to eat it,
provided it was from free-roaming hens.

So, I see a difference between eating animals and eating foods that
came from animals.

Healthwise, lacto-ovo vegetarians usually do quite well. Veganism and
even raw foods diet can be adequate and even optimal as well, but they
require a bit more diligence. Many people claim to enjoy robust
vitality on a raw-foods diet.

The mistake I made, and alot of people have made, was to just quit
eating meat and cooked foods, and live on fruits and salads. So when
people find a raw foods diet not supplying their needs, it is usually
because they did not eat a very balanced raw foods diet.

Lifestyle must be taken into account also. A raw foods diet might work
wonderfully for a monk who is able to meditate on a mountaintop all
day, but someone who must drive thru rush hour traffic to get to work
in an office, then work out at the gym afterwards, might do better
with more nuts, seeds, and maybe even some eggs!

Ultimately, each person has to do what they are comfortable with. It
really bothered me to eat even fish, so I prefer not to. But I did
temporarily to help balance myself out after I did the raw foods diet
the wrong way (I did not include enough nuts, nut milks, avocadoes,
etc.) Personally I would like to try the raw foods diet again, and
this time do it properly. In the meantime, lacto-ovo veg works for me.

As for vitality, it seems to me that it must be a myth that only flesh
foods can build strong muscles. Just look at cows, horses, elephants!

Just curious: Has Ra recommended a vegan diet for anyone else in their
readings?





> --- In asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postID=TSuhgpRdTWmDrwanhnD9ZfVbz4AHx5-fO4SNcSnRd-bqMguBI6EXiyKM4lMF9RJrpBxzgU4xOK9ZLHckmlY), "Graeme" <kimonokraken@y...> wrote:
> >
> >
> > One could ask "what about the harm done to plants?".
>

[meynardlevinson]

--- In asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postID=ZkqzsqZao7eZqZAi8OOzzGn9JgWT8c-Z1CBOL3xGy6MMGl4COVc2mMjlP2FLAm3Bt1qrCRXAhtFSX8ZfF sU4), "lealdragon" <lealdragon@g...> wrote:

> [SNIP]

> It would seem logical to me that an entity that is individualized
> enough to not wish to be hunted, killed and eaten would not
incarnate
> into the body of a 'defenseless' plant. Plants cannot run away, and
> often stay alive after being plucked from the ground (like potatoes
> and carrots sprouting in your kitchen). So I think of them more as
> sharing their life force with us when we eat them.
>
> Animals, on the other hand, flee in terror when hunted. They put up
a
> fight to avoid being killed. To me, that is an obvious clue.

> [SNIP]

These are interesting reflections and I think we can agree that the
more information we can discover, the more full informed and more
sane our decisions will be.

Here are some more reflections that may or may not be true regarding
eating:

1. Eating is murder.

This appears an inescapable basic of biological life at least on this
planet at this time. I once heard there was a line somewhere in the
Vedas to this effect: And man got so bad off he began to eat.
Assuming there's any truth to that could lead one into examining the
claims of breatharians and other routes of discovery.

2. Murder is bad. Or at least killing.

This is a matter of opinion, morals and/or ethics. It is not true
beyond being a held opinion based on a system of values. Is it
possible to have a benevolent, compassionate set of values that would
include killing? Both food and one's peers? The current
political/social climate might incline you to think so.

3. Animals don't want to be eaten.

I wish I had time to go into all of these items more deeply but I
don't. At least for now.

But I want to say I've been very impressed with some of the comments
the animal communicator, Penelope Smith has had to say about animals'
attitude to death and being eaten. Interested people can look her up.
She seems to be a gifted telepath and her stories have a strong note
of authenticity about them. I remember one story where she conversed
with a rabbit that was being fattened up for a dinner somewhere in
Europe. The rabbit was very happy, didn't even miss sex because the
challenges of living in the wild were - for him at least - far
outweighed by the prospect of regular food and a warm home.

Penelope has very interesting things to say arising from her direct
experience about how animals can utterly surrender to death once it's
seen as inescapable in a way that ego-determined humans can't. It
seemed to me this coincided with memories of nature shows on TV where
I could actually see the surrender in the eyes of the trapped doe in
the mouth of a carnivore - it was a very powerful impression and
comparable in my experience to certain kinds of surrender in sex.

These impressions along with many others here unstated lead me to be
very suspicious of the worthwhileness of invoking logic,
anthropomorphic logic, to resolve or throw light on these problems.

I've also heard cases of indigenous peoples who actually had quid pro
quo contracts with animal poplulations such as deer where they would
tend to their habitat in return for the lame or aged for food. There
was something in the bargain for both groups. Obviously in the
horrible conditions of most factory farming there is nothing in it
for the animals and I reject that entire enterprise based on that
alone.

Meynard

[Dr. Woody Woodpecker]

--- In asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postID=1sAcAcbqfqCk3PGapPl0PjQWoJ_VrybgMvOG9c vkkBinaehXarTgoygFv7Hgw7-1RPVPrd1HAtblZyBU29Q), "meynardlevinson" <mlevinson@m...> wrote:
>
>
> the animal communicator, Penelope Smith has had to say about
animals'
> attitude to death and being eaten. Interested people can look her
up.
> Meynard

Thanks, I never heard of her... I'll be looking her up.

[Charlie]

This is brilliant and useful.

http://www.themeatrix.com/

Educate.

[Steve Veeneman]

Another insight along this line for me was the testimony of Cleve
Backster, the polygraph expert who hooked his equipment to eggs and
yogurt.

What he said was that if you pray with or bless an egg first, it sort
of goes to sleep and doesn't register the shock of breaking as
compared to an egg that was not treated that way.

Ever since then I have been praying with my eggs and yogurt before I
eat them, and this practice bears a strong relationship to that of
some Navajo people we visited once, who prayed with the sheep that we
butchered shortly after. I held it in my arms as it died, which was
profoundly moving.

Steve


On 4/12/05, Charlie <charlie@... (/group/asc2k/post?postID=egmo_Ql0GkkFnBu98E9ZrME1gpX9Td7DgxKV8_ BDb6K7_4VEFJBrOwGWNHdz2ozGbBEDzyjNBAEswvEz)> wrote:
> This is brilliant and useful.
>
> http://www.themeatrix.com/
>
> Educate.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/asc2k/
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> asc2k-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postID=1PwFf9gawaaH45Iu-E_GisAfqtsoOrrQB_z6S_HsFzFaUrvdgYuV4YP8dJ7qR9AXbK7 q0Xd-7_q7kHsvj0R6gwVEaA3qtqk6)
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>

[bitsmart]

--- "Dr. Woody Woodpecker" <proveitjackass@... (/group/asc2k/post?postID=qqNEvFBtKk4oTHyTjIVfAvwpT827qTFlTqsgsY FDnWwdDjKmkA0ZO_5JHIBZaiODNUjGFUYCCdmu7NJwn2O7Gsk)>
> In the many posts regarding hunting/killing I gather
> this is
> considered somewhat of a personal decision or
> agreement with the
> Creator. How can this be if Ra suggests veganism?
>
> Maybe this is heading off the topic of this group,
> but does anyone
> have a source for the reason humans began consuming
> meat... or
> conitinued to do so? Were not some of the historic
> peoples more
> enlightened than we?

This is something I have wondered about for awhile
now. It seems to me that our physical bodies are
designed by default to be service-to-self, to a
degree. We -must- feed on other life to survive, it
seems that is a large part of what physicality is.

Plants are second-density beings just as much as
animals, so there is no "lesser evil" in consuming
other life. And as I understand it, a vegetarian or
vegan must eat a greater amount of non-animal food to
make up for the nutrients not recieved by eating meat
and dairy. So it almost seems to me that having to eat
more to make up for it may be consuming more life than
a regular balanced diet of the four basic food groups.

Of course, I may have some of my facts wrong, and as
Dr. Woody said, diet is most likely "considered
somewhat of a personal decision or agreement with the
Creator." There is no right or wrong way, and
everybody is different. These are just some of my
thoughts on this very confusing issue.

Love and Light,

-Drew

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

[lealdragon]

I would respectfully disagree with this. There are sub-octaves within
each density, so it would not be accurate to say that all 2nd-density
beings are at the same level.

Ra has said that many pets (mostly cats and dogs) are nearing
harvestability to 3rd. Such an entity at the upper octave of 2nd would
not be at the same level as a carrot, which, I would guess, would be
probably at the lower octave.

Perhaps our bodies were originally designed for survival in a
3rd-density environment. But aren't we reaching for 4th right now?

So why justify our actions based on the lower octave of 3rd?

When you look at the spiritual evolution from 3rd to 4th, it makes
sense to me that the early humans were meat eaters, and that many
humans nearing harvestability to 4th would begin to find the idea of
eating meat distasteful.

(Note: I am NOT saying that vegetarianism is a pre-requisite for
harvestability. Obviously it is not.)

Case in point: Present raw meat to any dog or cat and s/he will
salivate eagerly. They relish tearing into a freshly killed animal.

Humans, on the other hand, must cook, flavor, and otherwise disguise
the dead animal to make it palatable.

Even self-affirmed meat-eating humans normally cringe at the idea of
sinking their teeth into a bloody carcass.

But, most people find a cooked steak succulent and delicious.

Vegetarians, on the other hand (depending on their reasons for being
vegetarian), often find even a cooked steak just as disgusting as a
freshly-killed bloody animal.

Please note that I am NOT implying that vegetarians are more
spiritually advanced than meat-eaters. I have met many beautiful,
highly spiritual people who eat meat, and, likewise, many vegetarians
who were, well, a little on the self-righteous side. (I've been guilty
of that myself!)

But, just as no one of us has it all down yet, and we can all learn
from one another in different ways, I consider vegetarianism to be an
ideal, just like many other ideals of kindness, consideration,
tolerance, etc. It is a worthy aspiration, I think.



> ...It seems to me that our physical bodies are
> designed by default to be service-to-self, to a
> degree. We -must- feed on other life to survive, it
> seems that is a large part of what physicality is...
>
> Plants are second-density beings just as much as
> animals, so there is no "lesser evil" in consuming
> other life...
> -Drew
>

[infinitelybanta]

lealdragon wrote:

"There are sub-octaves within
each density, so it would not be accurate to say that all 2nd-density
beings are at the same level."

I sometimes think that the very nature of "octave thinking", although
important in helping us to understand the whole process of
soul "evolution" can lead to creating a heirarchy of entities. Are we
further along in the process than a 2D entity? However, does that
make us "better"? I wouldn't think so. Would killing a lower sub-
octave third density be alright simply because they're lower down on
the scale? I don't think so.

Given oneness, I don't think that feeding on a higher sub-octave 2d
entity or a lower sub-octave 2nd entity would make any difference in
polarization. Regardless of what you're doing, a part (different, but
equal since all things have to logically be equal) of the creator is
being changed. I think the important part is no matter what you eat,
is that you're respectful of what you're doing, in whatever way that
means to you.

This might be the first time I've posted here. I've been reading this
forum for a few months now and haven't really been urged to post,
although I've greatly appreciated much of the content. I don't know
why I picked this topic to chime in on, but in any case, I send my
regards to everyone here. Perhaps I will have more to add in the
future.

~Banta

[lealdragon]

Welcome, Banta! You have made some interesting points. I agree that
the whole concept of levels can easily lead to elitist thinking.

>
> Given oneness, I don't think that feeding on a higher sub-octave 2d
> entity or a lower sub-octave 2nd entity would make any difference in
> polarization.

Maybe not. As I said in my last post, I definitely do not think it has
anything to do with harvestability. But, it can certainly make a
difference to how we feel while we are in this body. Many people feel
'lighter' when they eat vegetarian, and statistics prove that
vegetarian diets are generally healthier. (I say generally, because
there are always exceptions, and many factors to consider.)

And, it does make a difference to some people who choose to be
vegetarian because they find the idea of killing an animal
distasteful. Maybe it is all part of the illusion, but I would still
rescue a human b4 rescuing a dog. Likewise, the idea of eating tofu is
far more appealing to me than eating what used to be part of an animal.

You say whatever we eat, it is still a part of the Creator that is
being changed. But does a carrot or a soybean feel pain and fear the
way that a deer, cow or chicken does?

Ultimately, it's just up to the individual as what s/he is comfortable
with.

[lealdragon]

To clarify my last post: I was trying to point out that, even tho
from God's perspective all is One and no being is greater or lesser
than another, from OUR perspective, in our current illusion, we
still have to eat (unless we become breatharian), we still incur
karma, and we still place values on different species. Rightly or
wrongly, there are few among us who would not step on a roach to
save a child.

To step on a roach unnecessarily, for example stepping on a bug
outdoors just because it is a bug, is something many people do, but
when people start becoming more conscious they often realize that
that bug has a reason to live, and we have no right to kill it just
because it is a 'lowly' bug.

But, even someone who is 'awakened' would, I suspect, favor a
human's life more than the bug's, in a real-life situation (not just
theory).

The truth is that there is NO WAY to COMPLETELY avoid killing 2d
creatures. The air is full of bacteria, and tiny microorganisms
poplulate our homes and even our bodies.

This is why I don't really think of breathing the air as killing
anything - any creature tiny enough to reach my body thru the
process of breathing probably has that included in its normal life
process.

Likewise, fruit ripens on the tree and then falls to the earth,
luscious and ready to begin a new phase, as part of its life cycle.
So I do not consider eating fruit to be killing - its life force is
joining with mine. If I did not eat that fruit, its life force would
merge with the earth and the bugs who would eat it if I didn't.

One could argue that ANY eating generates SOME karma because it
kills SOMETHING, but fruitarianism in its purest form kills nothing,
since it advocates eating ripe fruit as it falls from the tree.

However, unfortunately, that is not practical for most of us - few
of us live on tropical islands with no stress; an idyllic lifestyle
to which fruitarianism lends itself beautifully.

So, for most of us, we must do the best we can.

There is no 'merging of life' with meat wrapped in plastic from the
grocery store. That cow or chicken is long gone, and it most likely
died in a state of fear and pain. What's left, along with some
protein, is the residue of that fear and pain: stress hormones -
which, btw, are absorbed into our own bodies when we eat that meat.

Getting back to the example of the bug vs the human, I make no
apologies when I say I would not swerve my car to avoid hitting a
butterfly, or even a dog, if that action would endanger a human.

That's where I (and probably most humans) am at, and I don't think
that's a bad thing.

But, if I can safely avoid hitting that dog, or even that bird or
butterfly, then I do. Why kill unnecessarily? It's bad enough that
countless hapless bugs go splat on my windshield on a daily basis -
I'm not going to cause a wreck to save a bug, but if there is no
traffic and I'm not going very fast and a dog darts out, or even a
bird flies too low, then why not do what I can?

Likewise, if I can be healthier and avoid killing animals at the
same time, then....why not?? Why must we try to justify eating meat
when it is clearly not necessary for most people?

Again, I acknowledge there are exceptions - some people have
physical conditions for which meat protein may be necessary, but the
vast majority of humans do better on vegetarian diets - this has
been proven.

The point is just that, while killing animals to survive was
necessary in the caveman days, nowadays, for most of us, it simply
isn't.

[Steve Veeneman]

On 4/17/05, lealdragon <lealdragon@... (/group/asc2k/post?postID=nN1WrsVoMJehjIasXecjNO6QN74mFkbqg3qsxu S23aoB8ecILyDUNA3c1lf37pNkt818KYBGX4yvWUg)> wrote:

> Case in point: Present raw meat to any dog or cat and s/he will
> salivate eagerly. They relish tearing into a freshly killed animal.
>
> Humans, on the other hand, must cook, flavor, and otherwise disguise
> the dead animal to make it palatable.

It's worth considering that our treatment of meat/slaves is itself not
without conditioning and contradiction.

My own observation is that cooking destroys the enzymes of meat, and
that we'd all be a lot healthier if we ate it raw, which I do on
occasion. Our choice of the muscle meats is also a little unbalanced,
since the other organs can be considered much more nutritious. A
northern tribe I read of would give the muscle meats to their dogs
first while the tribe went after all the better parts.

Given the Law of Confusion though, it shouldn't be a surprise that
most of our cultural norms might be a little misguided.

In this situation my perspective is to offer my body as much
compassion and understanding that I can muster, which themselves each
take effort to come by.

Just my two cents worth...

Cheers!

Steve

[Dr. Woody Woodpecker]

--- In asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postID=fHhTheEkqDwJf4gTVB4Ft7AbkcHMYLXFWIP35s UP2wClQVZwvImCJPkTxTB1iteq4fWM0b6KgnrBPU5r2RQ), "lealdragon" <lealdragon@g...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Again, I acknowledge there are exceptions - some people have
> physical conditions for which meat protein may be necessary, but the
> vast majority of humans do better on vegetarian diets - this has
> been proven.
>

Really? I have read a bit, and there seems to be a fair amount of data
supporting all sides of the carnivore/herbivore/omnivore position.

Does Ra convey dietary information about the 2D Maldek entities, or the
former martian entities as 3D incarnations?

[lealdragon]

I am referring to the statistical data that, across the board, with
other factors already taken into consideration, vegetarians have lower
risks of numerous degenerative conditions: various forms of heart
disease, numerous forms of cancer, osteoporosis, stroke, digestive
ailments, etc.

You are right that compelling arguments are made by the 'experts' for
virtually all the different diets! In fact at one time I developed
health problems by taking literally a particular diet which turned out
to be not appropriate for me at all! It can get very confusing.

I know someone who is really thriving on the 'caveman' diet -
everything raw, including meat. The idea of that is totally repulsive
to me, but I do not deny that it is working really well for her. It
may very well be that our place of origin may have some bearing on
what works well for our bodies. Hence, the exceptions I mentioned.

However, the significance here is that, even with the exceptions and
the other causative factors (exercise, attitude, lifestyle, etc.)
factored in, vegetarians OVERALL still have lower risk for disease.
That is the part that is proven - it is based on actual statistics,
not some "expert's" opinion.

Of course, we all know that 'absolute' facts are slippery - so
ultimately we are back where we started - each person must decide for
themselves. It is useless to know that MOST people do well on a
particular diet if that diet does not work well FOR YOU.

So, I do not mention those statistics as 'proof' that
everyone 'should' be vegetarian, or to make myself feel better as
being 'right', only to point out that if someone feels drawn to a
vegetarian diet, they can generally feel assured that it is not only
adequate but healthier for many, if not most, people.

That is a good question about Ra's dietary advice. I don't remember
anything on diet in the LoO books - only the advice given to David.
Anyone?



> > vast majority of humans do better on vegetarian diets - this has
> > been proven.
> >
>
> Really? I have read a bit, and there seems to be a fair amount of
data
> supporting all sides of the carnivore/herbivore/omnivore position.
>
> Does Ra convey dietary information about the 2D Maldek entities, or
the
> former martian entities as 3D incarnations?

[Mark Stringfellow]

I am reminded by a passage of scripture by Paul,

"All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient:
all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the
power of any.

Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats: but God shall destroy
both it and them. . ." I Cor. 6:12-13.

It's not what goes into a man that defiles him, but what comes out.
I have no judgement on meat eating. Having raised and bred beef
cattle, I'm more appalled at the manner in which it is done
commercially. I respect more those who hunt or raise range cattle
than what we see consumed at our local grocery store.

What I find equally of interest is how many people who seek the
spiritual/enlightened path usually begin with what they eat(as if
by the act of eating they are somehow more enlightened). Paul makes
a good point above. What does it really matter in the grand scheme of
things? We are in 3D to experience our desire nature. Experience it.
If that is being vegetarian, be vegetarian. If you like a good steak,
cut into that bad boy. However, I would suggest, it is more important
to take note of what spiritual food we are partaking of.

It's the physically-minded man that seeks God through matter. Matter
is but the manifestation of creative thought, not the thought itself.

[Steve Veeneman]

Generalized research findings are fine as long as one applies them
generally I suppose. It was in the discovery that eating meat was
actually better for me that I had to grapple with the implications.

In my case it came down to how I wanted to relate to my body, the
collection of cellular consciousnesses that make up this physical
shell. Was I curious enough, did I love enough, to really care how
they felt about things? Would I notice what made me healthy or what
made me less so?

Sure, I proved over and over that I could pull the mind over matter
trick, bludgeoning my body into harmony with whatever idealistic diet
happened to be my fancy. But did I care, did I actually care to ask
my body, would I seek its counsel?

In my case the truth became obvious enough with a little
experimentation. Wheat, coffee, sugar are all nearly poison to me,
whereas I can go a week or more eating nothing but meat and feel
healthier than I had ever experienced under any circumstances. The
moral quandary it raises is a real one, but I don't think I am
shrinking from dealing with it.

In my case it simply boils down to love, and how I wish to harmonize
with my world. I believe Ra stated something similar, something about
diet being essentially an issue of harmonizing with our environment.

The question of what is best for anyone, in my opinion, rests first
with truly learning about one's body, and then taking those findings
into account and acting on them.

Heh, just my two bits...

[bitsmart]

--- Mark Stringfellow <open2itonce@... (/group/asc2k/post?postID=UHGLVzNsNdOH8LiiWAZTtE85Uun8AgSoLFcYaA YD6pgpkHJzsTGqJi2atBPWtQsOKzowG9cNsJ62YUHzGCg)> wrote:
> We are in 3D to experience our desire
> nature. Experience it.

> However, I would suggest, it is more important
> to take note of what spiritual food we are partaking
> of.

> It's the physically-minded man that seeks God
> through matter. Matter
> is but the manifestation of creative thought, not
> the thought itself.

Well said Mark. These are very good points, and I
shall reflect on them when thinking about physical issues.