"As above, so below" - and manifestations of the Wave

[SasaM]

The following is a session excerpt provided by thorbiorn:

A: Okay, stop, whoa! A review session follows: Who is 1st density?

Q: (L) Rocks and minerals, right?

A: And?

Q: (L) Plants?

A: Yes. Now, what awareness do you suppose they have of you?

(...)

The confusion lies with the Ra material (Law of One) which states that plants are of second density:

Sessión 13

January 29 1981

INTERROGATOR: Can you say something about this first density of planetary entities?

RA: I am Ra. Every step recapitulates infinite intelligence in its discovery of consciousness. In a planetary environment, everything begins in what you would call chaos, undirected and random energy in its infinity. Slowly, according to your terms of understanding, a focus of self-awareness forms. This is how the Logos works. Light arrives to form darkness, following the patterns and vibratory rhythms of the Co-creator and building a certain kind of experience. This begins with the first density, which is the density of consciousness, the mineral and aquatic life on the planet that learns from fire and wind the consciousness of being. That is the first density.

INTERROGATOR: How does this first density progress to a higher degree of consciousness?

RA: I am Ra. The spiraling energy, which is the characteristic of what you call "light," advances in a straight spiral line, thus giving the spirals an inevitable upward vector, toward a more comprehensive existence in relation to intelligent infinity. Thus, first-dimensional existence tends toward the second-density lessons of a type of awareness that includes growth rather than dissolution or random change.

QUESTIONER: Could you define what you mean by growth?

RA: I am Ra. Imagine the difference between the mineral or aquatic life of the first vibration, and the lower second-density beings that begin to move in the near and higher planes. This movement is the characteristic of the second density, the inclination toward light and growth.

QUESTIONER: What do you mean by the inclination toward light?

RA: I am Ra. A very simplistic example of second-density growth toward light is that of a leaf turning toward the light source.

Thank you.
Misunderstood the density categorization by placing all living beings on second level, while only inorganic beings like rocks and minerals on the first density.

In the excerpt above, Ra said that "aquatic life" is also first density. Does that include only water plants and plankton forms of life, or also fish and other lifeforms living in the seas and oceans, like octopus, calamari and various seashells and crabs?

If understand correctly now, all living organisms below and including plants, belong to first density, which also means virii and bacterias, and also the living cells as such of animals and perhaps even humans. Would that be right?

 

[Wandering Star]

Thank you.
Misunderstood the density categorization by placing all living beings on second level, while only inorganic beings like rocks and minerals on the first density.

In the excerpt above, Ra said that "aquatic life" is also first density. Does that include only water plants and plankton forms of life, or also fish and other lifeforms living in the seas and oceans, like octopus, calamari and various seashells and crabs?

If understand correctly now, all living organisms below and including plants, belong to first density, which also means virii and bacterias, and also the living cells as such of animals and perhaps even humans. Would that be right?

Yes, sometimes the material of Ra and that of C's have this problem, although there is a lot of similarity.

So, I guess everyone will have to choose what seems right to them.

What Ra says makes more sense to me.

The first density is the basic material and where there is complexity (obvious intelligent design) such as reproduction and growth it is already the second density.

So for me, plants would be second density.

 

[Wandering Star]

And once again, I happened to be reading the following from a session:

Approaching Infinity) If the first cell more or less appeared in sea water, there's still the question of how that cell came about because it is irreducibly complex in the sense that the cell needs the insides of the cell, like the genome and the proteins, in order to create the cell through self-replication. And then within the cell, it's the same thing with DNA: the DNA needs proteins and enzymes to replicate and do all the stuff it does. But the proteins and enzymes need DNA in order to produce themselves. So, it seems like all of things needed to come about at the same time.

(Joe) The chicken and the egg.

(Approaching Infinity) Yeah.

(Pierre) There is a solution to solve this paradox, but maybe it's wrong. My hypothesis is that there's a density shift from first to second density when you get a critical mass of 2nd density organisms (molecules for example) and then you reach a critical mass of information, so they're ripe for graduation into 3d. Is this hypothesis right?

(L) You haven't read enough yet. It's impossible without the first step, manifestation of basic cellular life.

(Approaching Infinity) So how does the first cell manifest?

A: Partly correct, pair.

Q: (L) Well, what is the other part of it?

A: Genome manufactured in 4th density and sent through realm curtain in a manner similar to how virii are transmitted.

Q: (L) So the elements were developing, were present, and jostling around together in the primordial soup or whatever... But then the genome was manufactured.

(Pierre) It goes both ways: downside up, molecules reaching critical mass, and from top down - from 4th density down to 3rd.

(L) So in a sense, that's the basic thing about intelligent design. There is a lot of parts to it that rely on the nature of the physical world itself and how all the different elements - which themselves come into being via information - accumulate or gather or interact. And then a direct intervention is added. That's what it amounts to.

A: Yes indeed!!!

Q: (Joe) Who sends it through the realm curtain from 4th density?

A: Transient passengers. Perhaps the term will have more meaning now?

Q: (Approaching Infinity) It's almost like in the Bell Witch case when there were direct manifestations of things. I would imagine that if there's this information being sent through the realm curtain into 3rd density, if you were an observer watching in the sea water with a microscope, it might appear as if the cell just manifests. It just takes form and looks like it came out of nowhere.

A: Very close indeed!

Q: (L) Has this sort of direct intervention happened more than once? Like when major changes of DNA have occurred, or when there were major changes in the so-called evolutionary record?

A: Yes

Q: (L) So basically we are indeed surrounded by an intelligence that is more than we can even comprehend.

A: Yes. We have been saying that!

 

[thorbiorn]

The first density is the basic material and where there is complexity (obvious intelligent design) such as reproduction and growth it is already the second density.

So for me, plants would be second density.

And once again, I happened to be reading the following from a session:

This leads to thinking about how life forms are divided and how they developed, which then, together with more excerpts, can bring additional background for considering what kind of awareness plants might have compared to animals.


The Wiki for domain (biology) has this illustration:

From the above it follows that animals are in their own subdivision, and plants in another, though in the same domain.

Below are descriptions of the three main domains:

Bacteria

Bacteria are ubiquitous, mostly free-living organisms often consisting of one biological cell. They constitute a large domain of prokaryotic microorganisms. Typically a few micrometres in length, bacteria were among the first life forms to appear on Earth, and are present in most of its habitats. Bacteria inhabit the air, soil, water, acidic hot springs, radioactive waste, and the deep biosphere of Earth's crust. Bacteria play a vital role in many stages of the nutrient cycle by recycling nutrients and the fixation of nitrogen from the atmosphere. The nutrient cycle includes the decomposition of dead bodies; bacteria are responsible for the putrefaction stage in this process. In the biological communities surrounding hydrothermal vents and cold seeps, extremophile bacteria provide the nutrients needed to sustain life by converting dissolved compounds, such as hydrogen sulphide and methane, to energy. Bacteria also live in mutualistic, commensal and parasitic relationships with plants and animals. Most bacteria have not been characterised and there are many species that cannot be grown in the laboratory. The study of bacteria is known as bacteriology, a branch of microbiology.

Like all animals, humans carry vast numbers (approximately 10^13 to 10^14) of bacteria. Most are in the gut, though there are many on the skin. Most of the bacteria in and on the body are harmless or rendered so by the protective effects of the immune system, and many are beneficial, particularly the ones in the gut.

What awareness might a bacteria have?

The next group like the previous used to be both termed prokaryotes, and are also simple yet different in some ways from bacteria.
Archaea

Archaea (/ɑːrˈkiːə/ ⓘ ar-KEE-ə) is a domain of organisms. Traditionally, Archaea included only its prokaryotic members, but has since been found to be paraphyletic, as eukaryotes are known to have evolved from archaea. Even though the domain Archaea cladistically includes eukaryotes, the term archaea (sing. archaeon /ɑːrˈkiːɒn/ ar-KEE-on; from Ancient Greek ἀρχαῖον arkhaîon 'ancient') in English still generally refers specifically to prokaryotic members of Archaea. Archaea were initially classified as bacteria, receiving the name archaebacteria (/ˌɑːrkibækˈtɪəriə/, in the Archaebacteria kingdom), but this term has fallen out of use.[5] Archaeal cells have unique properties separating them from Bacteria and Eukaryota, including: cell membranes made of ether-linked lipids; metabolisms such as methanogenesis; and a unique motility structure known as an archaellum.[6] Archaea are further divided into multiple recognized phyla. Classification is difficult because most have not been isolated in a laboratory and have been detected only by their gene sequences in environmental samples. It is unknown if they can produce endospores.

Archaea are often similar to bacteria in size and shape, although a few have very different shapes, such as the flat, square cells of Haloquadratum walsbyi.[7] Despite this, archaea possess genes and several metabolic pathways that are more closely related to those of eukaryotes, notably for the enzymes involved in transcription and translation. Other aspects of archaeal biochemistry are unique, such as their reliance on ether lipids in their cell membranes,[8] including archaeols. Archaea use more diverse energy sources than eukaryotes, ranging from organic compounds such as sugars, to ammonia, metal ions or even hydrogen gas. The salt-tolerant Halobacteria use sunlight as an energy source, and other species of archaea fix carbon (autotrophy), but unlike cyanobacteria, no known species of archaea does both. Archaea reproduce asexually by binary fission, fragmentation, or budding; unlike bacteria, no known species of Archaea form endospores. The first observed archaea were extremophiles, living in extreme environments such as hot springs and salt lakes with no other organisms. Improved molecular detection tools led to the discovery of archaea in almost every habitat, including soil,[9] oceans, and marshlands. Archaea are particularly numerous in the oceans, and the archaea in plankton may be one of the most abundant groups of organisms on the planet.

Archaea are a major part of Earth's life. They are part of the microbiota of all organisms. In the human microbiome, they are important in the gut, mouth, and on the skin.[10] Their morphological, metabolic, and geographical diversity permits them to play multiple ecological roles: carbon fixation; nitrogen cycling; organic compound turnover; and maintaining microbial symbiotic and syntrophic communities, for example.[9][11] Since 2024, only one species of non-eukaryotic archaea has been found to be parasitic[12]; many are mutualists or commensals, such as the methanogens (methane-producers) that inhabit the gastrointestinal tract in humans and ruminants, where their vast numbers facilitate digestion. Methanogens are used in biogas production and sewage treatment, while biotechnology exploits enzymes from extremophile archaea that can endure high temperatures and organic solvents.

Finally, we get to the group to which both animals and plants belong:

Eukaryote

The eukaryotes (/juːˈkærioʊts, -əts/) are the domain of Eukaryota or Eukarya, organisms whose cells have a membrane-bound nucleus. All animals, plants, fungi, seaweeds, and many unicellular organisms are eukaryotes. They constitute a major group of life forms alongside the two groups of prokaryotes: the Bacteria and the Archaea. Eukaryotes represent a small minority of the number of organisms, but given their generally much larger size, their collective global biomass is much larger than that of prokaryotes.

The eukaryotes emerged within the archaeal phylum Promethearchaeota. Ignoring mitochondrial DNA (which is bacterial rather than archaeal), this would imply only two domains of life, Bacteria and Archaea, with eukaryotes incorporated among the Archaea. Eukaryotes first emerged during the Paleoproterozoic, likely as flagellated cells. The leading evolutionary theory is they were created by symbiogenesis between an anaerobic Promethearchaeota archaeon and an aerobic proteobacterium, which formed the mitochondria. A second episode of symbiogenesis with a cyanobacterium created the plants, with chloroplasts.

Eukaryotic cells contain membrane-bound organelles such as the nucleus, the endoplasmic reticulum, and the Golgi apparatus. Eukaryotes may be either unicellular or multicellular. In comparison, prokaryotes are typically unicellular. Unicellular eukaryotes are sometimes called protists. Eukaryotes can reproduce both asexually through mitosis and sexually through meiosis and gamete fusion (fertilization).

Among the eukaryotes, below are details for two of the groups, animals and plants:

Animals

Animals are multicellular, eukaryotic organisms comprising the biological kingdom Animalia (/ˌænɪˈmeɪliə/[4]). With few exceptions, animals consume organic material, breathe oxygen, have myocytes and are able to move, can reproduce sexually, and grow from a hollow sphere of cells, the blastula, during embryonic development. Animals form a clade, meaning that they arose from a single common ancestor. Over 1.5 million living animal species have been described, of which around 1.05 million are insects, over 85,000 are molluscs, and around 65,000 are vertebrates. It has been estimated there are as many as 7.77 million animal species on Earth. Animal body lengths range from 8.5 μm (0.00033 in) to 33.6 m (110 ft). They have complex ecologies and interactions with each other and their environments, forming intricate food webs. The scientific study of animals is known as zoology, and the study of animal behaviour is known as ethology.

The animal kingdom is divided into five major clades, namely Porifera, Ctenophora, Placozoa, Cnidaria and Bilateria. Most living animal species belong to the clade Bilateria, a highly proliferative clade whose members have a bilaterally symmetric and significantly cephalised body plan, and the vast majority of bilaterians belong to two large clades: the protostomes, which includes organisms such as arthropods, molluscs, flatworms, annelids and nematodes; and the deuterostomes, which include echinoderms, hemichordates and chordates, the latter of which contains the vertebrates. The much smaller basal phylum Xenacoelomorpha have an uncertain position within Bilateria.

Animals first appeared in the fossil record in the late Cryogenian period and diversified in the subsequent Ediacaran period in what is known as the Avalon explosion. Nearly all modern animal phyla first appeared in the fossil record as marine species during the Cambrian explosion, which began around 539 million years ago (Mya), and most classes during the Ordovician radiation 485.4 Mya. Common to all living animals, 6,331 groups of genes have been identified that may have arisen from a single common ancestor that lived about 650 Mya during the Cryogenian period.

Compare the description of animals, to what is said about:
Plants:

Plants are the eukaryotes that comprise the kingdom Plantae; they are predominantly photosynthetic. This means that they obtain their energy from sunlight, using chloroplasts derived from endosymbiosis with cyanobacteria to produce sugars from carbon dioxide and water, using the green pigment chlorophyll. Exceptions are parasitic plants that have lost the genes for chlorophyll and photosynthesis, and obtain their energy from other plants or fungi. Most plants are multicellular, except for some green algae.

Historically, as in Aristotle's biology, the plant kingdom encompassed all living things that were not animals, and included algae and fungi. Definitions have narrowed since then; current definitions exclude fungi and some of the algae. By the definition used in this article, plants form the clade Viridiplantae (green plants), which consists of the green algae and the embryophytes or land plants (hornworts, liverworts, mosses, lycophytes, ferns, conifers and other gymnosperms, and flowering plants). A definition based on genomes includes the Viridiplantae, along with the red algae and the glaucophytes, in the clade Archaeplastida.
[...]
All living things were traditionally placed into one of two groups, plants and animals. This classification dates from Aristotle (384–322 BC), who distinguished different levels of beings in his biology,[5] based on whether living things had a "sensitive soul" or like plants only a "vegetative soul".[6] Theophrastus, Aristotle's student, continued his work in plant taxonomy and classification.[7] Much later, Linnaeus (1707–1778) created the basis of the modern system of scientific classification, but retained the animal and plant kingdoms, naming the plant kingdom the Vegetabilia.[7]

As a note to the above, both plant and animals have in their cells organelles that originated with, or were inserted from bacteria.
The Wiki on endosymbiont has:

Endosymbiosis played key roles in the development of eukaryotes and plants. Roughly 2.3 billion years ago an archaeon (likely within the Asgard superphylum) absorbed an alphaproteobacterium[4] through phagocytosis, that eventually became the mitochondria that provide energy to almost all living eukaryotic cells.[5] Approximately 1 billion years ago, some of those cells absorbed cyanobacteria that eventually became chloroplasts, organelles that produce energy from sunlight.[6] Approximately 100 million years ago, a lineage of amoeba in the genus Paulinella independently engulfed a cyanobacterium that evolved to be functionally synonymous with traditional chloroplasts, called chromatophores.[7]

According to the excerpt from the Wiki about plants, the way that the ancients thought of the difference between animal and plants was related to the quality of the soul. In modern microbiology it is all matter and biochemistry, but maybe the old distinction was closer to the one used in the excerpt from Session 7 January 1995 quoted in the post from Nov 24, 2025, where there were these questions: Now, what awareness do you suppose they [plants] have of you?
And: Now, think carefully, what level of awareness, and more importantly, understanding, do they [Animals. (T) Insects, lower life forms] have of you?

The answers to the questions relate to the following discussions in a parallel fashion, since 1st and 2nd density are more basic level than 4th.

Remember, density and dimensional concepts intersect. Density level relates more to conscious awareness, but dimensions house consciousness and all other.
Session 1 August 1998

Q: (L) Okay, back to the previous remark. You say that stars are portals. What, specifically, are they portals for, of, from or to?

A: How about other dimension. Remember, density and dimensional concepts intersect. Density level relates more to conscious awareness, but dimensions house consciousness and all other.

Q: (L) So, you can have many 'houses' along a row at one level and many at another level, in a vague sort of way?

A: Close.

Q: (A) Is the concept of density related to what Sakharov was doing?

A: Close. Think of hyperspace as 4th dimension.

And:
This was the first time that you related dimension to density. Is there really a relation? - Yes, because 4th density is experienced in 4th dimensional reality.
Session 14 November 1998

Q: (A) I have another question. In a session from April, you made the following comment: 'four dimensional, fourth density, see?' So you related four dimensions to fourth density. I don't know a mathematical representation of density. I know how to represent four dimensions. This was the first time that you related dimension to density. Is there really a relation?

A: Yes, because 4th density is experienced in 4th dimensional reality.

Q: (A) Speaking now about 4 dimensional reality, is it four dimensional reality of the Kaluza-Klein type?

A: Visual spectrum.

Q: (A) Does that mean that the fourth dimension is NOT related to the fifth dimension of the Kaluza-Klein theory?

A: Yes.

Q: (A) Yes it is related?

A: No, yes it is not. There is a flaw in these theories, relating to prism. What does this tell you?

Q: (A) To prism?! Visual spectrum? I don't know what it tells me. I never came across any relation to prism. But, what is this 4th dimension? Is it an extra dimension beyond the three space dimensions, or is it a time dimension?

A: Not "time," re: Einstein. It is an added spatial reference. The term "dimension" is used simply to access the popular reference, relating to three dimensions. The added "dimension" allows one to visualize outwardly and inwardly simultaneously.

I included the details about what characterises fourth density, since it may give an idea of how difficult it actually might be for lower density beings to get an understanding of what is higher densities for them.

Among humans, some have difficulties with the consequences of living in three dimensions, among them Flat-Earth adherents discussed in the next excerpt. This could lead to questions like: Are there also 2nd density lifeforms that carry over ideas from 1st density? Are there 1st density beings that are closer to getting a 2nd density experience? The excerpt does not answer this, but we can ask ourselves.

So, the intuition was that there is some analogy between density and dimensions. In 2nd density, things like horses and dogs can only see in 2 dimensions. In 3rd density, we human beings can perceive 3 dimensions. Organic portals recently graduated into 3rd density from 2nd density are only used to these 2d worlds, and they have difficulties to perceive or live with 3 dimensions. So the Flat Earth idea appeals to them.
Session 29 August 2015

(Pierre) I had a question about the genesis of this Flat Earth movement was due to one guy pretty much. It has some stigmas of a deliberate, coordinated psyop. So, does this Flat Earth theory come from one mind, or is it a deliberate concerted enterprise?

A: Recall your intuition, Pierre!

Q: (Pierre) My intuition that it had all the stigmas, all the marks, of a deliberate and coordinated...

A: No! 2nd density perception.

Q: (Perceval) They were not talking about your intuition that it was a psyop, but your intuition about 2nd density perception.

(Pierre) Ah, okay.

(Perceval) Laura, you were talking about it being like a 2d...

(L) It was Pierre's idea. I just brought it up on the forum.

(Pierre) So, the intuition was that there is some analogy between density and dimensions. In 2nd density, things like horses and dogs can only see in 2 dimensions. In 3rd density, we human beings can perceive 3 dimensions. Organic portals recently graduated into 3rd density from 2nd density are only used to these 2d worlds, and they have difficulties to perceive or live with 3 dimensions. So the Flat Earth idea appeals to them.

(Perceval) Maybe it's not so much that they have "problems with 3d", but that there's a harking back to 2d.

(L) Well, that would mean they would have problems with this reality.

(Perceval) Yeah, but not in a strict sense like in terms of being able to navigate in 3 dimensions like a dog can. They have no problem walking around doors or whatever.

(Chu) But in a deeper, more abstract way...

(Perceval) Yeah. Maybe they're thinking would tend towards 2d.

(Chu) But why only OPs and not young souls?

A: Who said there was any such thing?

Q: (L) I think they once said that all souls were created at the same time, so there's no such thing as young souls.

(Chu) But they mentioned something before about old souls, no?

(L) Who says anything about old souls?

(Galatea) Can't someone grow a soul?

(L) Well, growing a soul is different from young vs. old soul.

(Galatea) Well, when you grow a soul, your soul is young.

(L) Well...

(Chu) No, I mean a soul that has been around and had many, many lives in 3d. But maybe it doesn't exist.

(L) Not in that context, I don't think....

A: No

Q: (L) I think people when they talk about young souls, they're probably really talking about OPs.

A: Yes

Q: (Ark) Maybe this Flat Earth theory is created to distract from the Hollow Earth theory?

(Pierre) It can be flat and hollow. [laughter]

A: No there is more "truth" to the "Hollow Earth" theory!

Q: (L) As in underground bases and 4th density planes of existence under the Earth?

A: Yes

Next is a long discussion about vegetarianism. Plants as a sole food source are more suitable for some types of animals than for humans. Carla of the Ra group is mentioned as an example of a vegetarian that suffered on that account.

The genetic body tends toward the animal nature. Note that we said "tends". In those of the "fanatical" vegetarian nature, this tendency is very strong. In fact, you could even say that there is strong identification with the genetic body and all it is connected to energetically.
Session 11 June 2011

Q: (L) [...]
So, after this long preamble and introduction, my question is: Is it possible that there is a genetic profile of a vegetarian who actually does do well on a vegetable diet, a vegetarian diet? That is, being a human being which is supposed according to all standards to be carnivore?

A: Somewhat on the right track but the question is not as precise as it could be.

Q: (L) Okay, let me try again. You said, "...aural profile and karmic reference merges with physical structure." (Galaxia) Oh, maybe because they are slavish, vegetables are good for them? (L) Well, that's not where I want to go yet. So, the soul must match itself to the genetics, even if only in potential. Oh boy... How to ask this... I once asked if vegetarian was the way that one should eat, and you said that no, not generally, as that was concentrating on the physical. What did you mean exactly by that? Let's see if I can come at this in a sideways direction.

A: Most vegetarians are such, believing that it is more "spiritual". This is a belief that eating a certain way will change the nature or destiny or tendencies of the soul. This is as effective as confessing one's sins to a priest and doing penance and then sinning again. Besides, as you have noted, the vegetarians you have encountered have been singularly "unspiritual".

Q: (L) Okay, let me try to ask it this way: Is the fact that we eat meat detrimental to us spiritually?

A: Absolutely not.

Q: (L) But I would say that just the eating of meat is not a spiritual issue at all. (Perceval) Eating food is a thing of the body. (L) Yeah, I mean we just try to eat in an optimal way to give our bodies the right fuel so that we can do our other work. That's our whole thing is to give the body optimal fuel.

A: There is the difference, see? You eat for optimal fuel, they eat to support an illusion.

Q: (L) Well, they don't all eat to support an illusion. A lot of them think that vegetables are an optimal fuel illusion. (Perceval) But they couldn't think that if they really objectively read all the details.

A: They lack objective knowledge.

Q: (L) Okay then. (Perceval) I was saying that in the scheme of things, plants eat rocks, animals eat plants, and some eat other animals. But from a physical point of view in the hierarchy that humans would eat... (Burma Jones) If only seems that way if you understand densities, but in terms of what they think, physically we're just animals to them. (Perceval) But I wasn't talking about them, I was talking about in respect of our understanding...

A: Yes, you just hit upon an important point: The genetic body tends toward the animal nature. Note that we said "tends". In those of the "fanatical" vegetarian nature, this tendency is very strong. In fact, you could even say that there is strong identification with the genetic body and all it is connected to energetically.

Q: (L) So what do you mean, "strong identification with the genetic body and all it is connected to energetically"? Is that what I was thinking, that these fanatical vegetarians do not want to eat meat because for them, it's like eating their own kind? For them, eating a cow is like cannibalism because they identify with the animal kingdom so strongly that...?

A: Yes.

Q: (L) So, that would lead to the next part of what I was thinking last night, which is that some - and I'm not saying ALL - really fanatical vegetarians of the slavish authoritarian follower type personality could be, can you say the word for me there, Belibaste? (Belibaste) OP's. (L) Organic portals?

A: Yes.

Q: (L) Okay. (Galaxia) So basically they're people with the essence of an animal?

A: Yes.

Q: (L) They identify with the energetic... (Galaxia) They look like people, but they're not.

A: Yes.

Q: (Galaxia) They don't eat cows because they have the essence of a cow!

A: Yes.

Q: (Ark) They care more about the cows than about other human beings.

A: Yes.

Q: (L) That means they have empathy for animals - that is, their own spiritual kind - and not for humans.

A: Yes.

Q: (Burma Jones) Is that also why psychopaths can be so kind towards animals while they treat humans with such indifference?

A: Yes. Though psychopaths often are brutal toward all that cannot contribute to their aims.

Q: (L) So they would be kind to animals only if it suits them. (Ark) But I understand that our hero Gandhi was vegetarian and yet he cared about human beings. (Perceval) Was Gandhi an organic portal?

A: Gandhi "cared" about the human cattle like himself.

Q: (L) Well, what about the fact that for example the Cathars were supposed to be vegetarian? Cathars were the ones that were the Perfecti. They were vegetarian and they didn't eat meat.

A: They didn't succeed in surviving either!

Q: (Galaxia) Can I ask a question? Does all this mean that vegetarians are more inclined towards cannibalism?

A: No.

Q: (L) No, what I was saying that they would perceive... (Galaxia) I know, but I was saying that since they have such disregard for people... (L) Oh, I see what you're saying. Would they have less feeling for people and be inclined to eat them under certain circumstances? (Galaxia) Yes. (Perceval) Given the choice, would they eat a person or a cow? (Galaxia) If they were starving?

A: In some cases, perhaps, but not generally.

Q: (Ailen) Now, among vegetarians, you could say there are two groups. There's the group that says they feel better, they don't want to kill animals, they feel more sorry for animals than for veggies. They kind of stop there - they don't have spiritual ideas. On the other hand, there are those vegetarians who say that humans eat meat and therefore they are attached to physical reality. So by eating veggies and then fasting or sungazing for example, they're going to become illumined beings. So those are two different groups. So what is the intrinsic difference between them?

A: Two variations on the same theme!

Q: (L) The kind that just don't want to be cruel to animals identify with the animals more strongly. They just don't have anything else. And then those that think it's spiritual, they're just kind of like New Age fundies. (Ailen) Yeah, but I was thinking that there might be some kind of difference in their essence or genes in the sense that some of them make a choice...

A: Not really. The only evidence for "soul potential" is the realization that the body is just a machine and needs optimal fuel.

Q: (L) Okay, there's something else I'm thinking about. Getting back to this genetic construct marrying with the physical potential... It seems that higher soul potential has been historically associated with physical problems. It's like the soul, being a strong energy, expresses itself through the body, and if the soul is unhappy, or if the soul is ill at ease, or if it's in distress, or for some reason not at peace as it is very easy to be in this day and time when there is so much cruelty and insanity rampant on the Earth, that these people with higher soul potentials tend to have more physical problems and disabilities. Is that going in a proper direction?

A: Yes.

Q: (L) So, individuals with the soul potential whose soul afflicts the body with its issues need to really understand the body, give it optimal fuel, and learn how to deal with the soul issues themselves separately or in a soul-based way.

A: Yes.

Q: (L) I mean it's like the whole Ra thing was about Wanderers. Wanderers according to the traditional definition are people who tend to have... (Psyche) They're more sensitive. (L) They're more sensitive, and they have to be more efficiently nourished and have better fuel and they have to really be careful with detoxification. And those people it seems to me would be susceptible to the belief that being a vegetarian would help them - only it wouldn't!

A: Yes. Carla is an example!

Q: (L) Yeah, Carla of the Ra group. She is just practically crippled with arthritis. I don't know what she eats, but the Paleo diet might do her some good. (Ailen) But then you have psychopaths who are very sick, too. (L) Yeah. I think that sometimes it's just a roll of the genetic dice. But in some cases, there's this connection. (Psyche) And we're exposed to too much toxicity these days. (L) Okay, have we done this subject? (Ark) Yes, I have a question. From a higher point of view - not just ethics and such things - but from the higher philosophical point of view, what's really wrong with cannibalism? (L) What's really wrong with cannibalism? (Perceval) We may or may not publish this answer. [laughter]

A: In some instances, nothing. But in general one does not eat one's own kind for energetic reasons. Carnivores do not eat other carnivores because it is not optimal energy source.

Q: (L) In other words, we get optimal energy from eating creatures that eat vegetables. That way, we get our vegetables. But another carnivore processes all of that so that what we would get from eating another carnivore would not be optimal nutrition?

A: Yes.

Q: (Andromeda) But then we could eat vegetarians. [laughter]

A: Don't laugh! That has been the case for some groups at certain times and places. In fact, that is still the case in some dark circles extant on Earth today. As we once pointed out, higher density beings derive nourishment from some humans and human body products. Preferred are fat children and nonsmoking vegetarians.

Q: (Psyche) There are some religions that say that you have to be vegetarians. (Burma Jones) They're basically just farms for 4D STS looking for a good lunch. (Belibaste) Good food. And it's organic vegetarians usually! (PoB) Does it mean that the meat from meat-eating predators is not good for us? (L) That's what they said, yes. (Burma Jones) So then India is just one big cattle ranch. (L) And with so many people that they have there, nobody would even notice when people go missing. People go missing there all the time. (Burma Jones) And they have the worst poverty in the world. (Belibaste) Remember in the sessions they were talking about the missing children, and there was a lot from India - vegetarian children. (L) The loss of children of India is just stupendous. Unbelievable.

More on diet in a discussion that begins with comments on the frequency of schizophrenia in different populations, and then shifts to more general considerations, including:

The Earth is the Great Mother who gives her body, literally, in the form of creatures with a certain level of consciousness for the sustenance of her children of the cosmos.
Session 20 August 2011

Q: (L) Okay. What's the next question? (Psyche) We were checking some statistics and we realized that full siblings of schizophrenics are nine times more likely than the general population to have schizophrenia, and four times more likely to have bipolar disorder. Is {name redacted} affected by this genetic tendency?

A: Oh indeed! However this requires explanation. First of all, the genetics that are associated with schizophrenia can be either a doorway or a barrier. Second, the manifestation of schizophrenia can take non-ordinary pathways. That is to say that diet can activate the pathway without the concomitant benefits.

Q: (Burma) I think that they're saying that schizophrenia could essentially be a way to be open to seeing other aspects of reality but diet can make it so it basically just makes you crazy without actually seeing anything.

A: Primitive societies that eat according to the normal diet for human beings do not have "schizophrenics", but they do have shamans who can "see".

Q: (Perceval) So a schizophrenic on animal fat is a shaman. (L) Well, wait a minute. There's something real subtle here. What I think you're saying is that when these genetic pathways are activated through wrong diet, it screws up the shamanic capacity?

A: Yes.

Q: (L) So, schizophrenia as we understand it or have witnessed it is a screw-up of something that could or might manifest in a completely different way on a different diet? Is that it?

A: Yes

Q: (L) And that's what you meant by not only a doorway, but also a barrier because the person who is on the wrong diet and has schizophrenia is barred from being able to be a bridge between the worlds. They kind of get lost. They're barred from having a normal life, and they're also barred from coming back from their delusions or whatever they're seeing even if they're not delusions. Maybe they’re seeing, but they're unable to help or do anything.

Okay. Now, you made a remark about the diet that is normal for the human being. And I know {name redacted} and a lot of people - not just {name redacted}, but a lot of people - have a problem with a diet that requires you to consume the flesh of other creatures. And I know that we've read what Lierre Keith has written about it, and it's a very moving statement about life and earth and so on and so forth. But I'd like to know if there's something a little more esoteric that we could understand about this? I mean, I don't understand why and how a person can achieve spiritual growth, which is what you seem to be implying throughout all of this stuff that we've been learning, from eating meat. How many other groups have taken a vegetarian pathway and said that this is... I mean, aside from the fact that we now know that agriculture and vegetables and the owning of the land is pure STS destruction... What about fruit? Well of course they didn't have fruit then. Like everybody, I'm having a little problem with this. So can you help me out here?

A: You know the saying: Only through the shedding of blood is there remission of sins?

Q: (L) Yes.

A: And what about: Take eat, this is my body?

Q: (L) Yes.

A: And: Take, drink, this is my blood?

Q: (L) Yes. (Burma) So it sounds like they're saying that there's a hidden thing in the whole resurrection or salvation by the blood thing. That agriculture is evil and we could return by going on an animal-based diet?

A: No not exactly. When humankind "fell" into gross matter, a way was needed to return. This way simply is a manifestation of the natural laws. Consciousness must "eat" also. This is a natural function of the life giving nature of the environment in balance. The Earth is the Great Mother who gives her body, literally, in the form of creatures with a certain level of consciousness for the sustenance of her children of the cosmos. This is the original meaning of those sayings.

Q: (L) So, eating flesh also means eating consciousness which accumulates, I'm assuming is what is being implied here, or what feeds our consciousness so that it grows in step with our bodies? Is that close?

A: Close enough.

Q: (Ailen) And when you eat veggies you're basically eating a much lower level of consciousness. (L) Not only that, but in a sense you're rejecting the gift and you're not feeding consciousness. And that means that all eating of meat should be a sacrament.

A: Yes

Q: (Burma) With agriculture, you're not only rejecting the gift, you're turning around and beating up the Mother. (L) Well that sure puts a whole different light on the whole Cain and Abel thing! {Interesting that the original “vegetarian” was the first murderer, too.}

A: Yes.

It would seem then that "creatures with a certain level of consciousness for the sustenance of her children of the cosmos" is for most humans not exclusively plants. In the next, excerpt, different options are compared and it turns out:

Weighing and measuring constituents of a substance can be indicative if the potentials of information are taken into account. This is why pork is better for advanced humans than beef or many other meats. The information of the pig is more in line with the direction of the human. The meat of the pig is composed of proteins with similar receivership capacity.
Session 18 May 2024

(Persej) What is the substance that Weston Price named ‘activator X’? And here's a description of the activator X: ‘He determined that neither total hours of sunshine nor temperature was the chief controlling factor' in how much activator X was present in the milk. Rather, 'the factor most potent was found to be the pasture fodder of the dairy animals. Rapidly growing grass, green or rapidly dried, was most efficient'.’ So what is this activator X?

A: Information! Note the fact that grass of a certain nature provided this. Apply that principle to foods. Studies are most often of little value because subjects are self-selecting. A truly random group is almost never seen. Weighing and measuring constituents of a substance can be indicative if the potentials of information are taken into account. This is why pork is better for advanced humans than beef or many other meats. The information of the pig is more in line with the direction of the human. The meat of the pig is composed of proteins with similar receivership capacity.

Q: (Scottie) So, eat bacon!

(Andromeda) Iberico!

(Niall) Pork is better for us than beef?

(L) Keyhole, do you have any other questions? Did you get all that?

(Keyhole) One quick question about pork. Would you be able to ask about the fatty acid composition of pork fat? Because they just said that pork is in general better than beef, but the composition of pork fat, the ratio of fatty acids has been associated with lots of chronic health issues in the research. So, could you ask them about whether consuming pork that's not been pasture fed - so, for instance, pork from the supermarket - is that still healthy for humans, given the fact that their feed changes the composition of the fatty acid, and that's thought to be a real problem, as per the research anyway?

(L) Can we break this down into simple questions? Is pork from the supermarket okay?

A: No

Q: (L) So, it needs to be pasture fed pork, basically?

A: Yes

Q: (L) So, you're basically talking about things that would be ideal conditions?

A: Yes

Q: (L) And what about the fatty acid composition?

A: If the diet is varied, that issue does not arise.

Q: (Keyhole) Sorry, a quick question. Pasture raised pork is extremely difficult to find, so what's better: beef or supermarket pork?

(L) Grass fed beef or supermarket pork. Well now you're adding another parameter to it.

A: Grass fed is better on both counts. But in absence, pork is better.

Q: (L) And just remember what they said about studies and how the subjects of studies are self-selected.

(Andromeda) Can we ask about why eggs are bad for so many of us?

(L) That's a good question. Why are eggs so bad for so many of us?

A: They are the potential young of another species with linkages to reptiles.

Q: (L) So, it's the information again?

A: Yes

Q: (L) And it's concentrated in the egg?

A: Yes

Q: (L) Just like the information about cows is concentrated in the milk?

A: Yes

Q: (Joe) Is there much information of any consequence in non-meat foods like grains and stuff like that? Is that something that should be considered from an information point of view?

A: Considered, yes.

Q: (L) Well, we know that seeds are the potential young of plants.

(Andromeda) And plants can be going one way or the other.

(L) And grains have been shown to be, you know, pretty detrimental...

(Chu) But from some veggies you get vitamins that you don't get from meat.

(L) Yeah. But veggies are different from grains. I mean there's a lot of root vegetables, leafy vegetables or fruits, all those kinds of things that do not entail eating the seeds or the potential young. So, maybe there's... Is there some kind of cosmic law about consuming the young of other creatures?

A: Close

Q: (Chu) Okay, so sprouts for example would be worse than a head of lettuce?

(L) Yeah.

(Chu) 'Cause it's a bunch of babies.

(Andromeda) It's a bunch of babies in one bite. [laughter]

(Chu) What about the cooking alterations when you fry with lard or tallow? Which one is better?

A: A mix would be ideal.

Q: (Joe) 50/50?

A: Yes

Q: (Chu) And reusing the fats is bad?

A: Yes

Q: (Andromeda) Even bacon fat?

A: No

Q: (Andromeda) I knew it!

(L) That's because it's freshly rendered.

A: Yes

Q: (Andromeda) And it's smoky. [laughter]

A: Yes

Q: (L) Okay.

(Temperance) May I piggyback on the pork feed questions? So, from what I've understood based on what I've learned about pork diets or pig diets, they're not able to survive on pasture alone. Is this true?

A: Close. Omnivores like humans.

Q: (Temperance) Okay. What is the optimal supplementation with grain to balance out their diet?

A: Avoid grain. Feed veggies etc.

Q: (Joe) And acorns.

(L) Acorns are seeds of oak trees.

(Temperance) Are they able to digest milk better than humans?

A: Yes

Q: (Temperance) Okay. I remember hearing something about people having dairy cows, then using the excess milk or excess whey to then fatten up pigs. So, I suppose that's one way to do it and I'll look to avoid grains. Thank you very much.

(Joe) Are acorn-fed pigs that we get, are they bad because they've been eating baby oak trees?

A: No.

Q: (Joe) That law doesn't apply to pigs.

A: Yes

Q: (Niall) The tree drops them freely. They're not taken from it.

When the Cs said about eggs: "They are the potential young of another species with linkages to reptiles." what about plants, they are much further removed in the domain trees:

Here is a different representation of the model at the beginning of post from the Wiki of the domains in biology:

From the model it appears as if animals and fungi are like siblings while the slime moulds are their cousins, and algae and plants their first cousins once removed. What is the consciousness and awareness of fungi and moulds compared to what qualifies as 1st and 2nd density?

The following from the American Society for Microbiology does not spell it out that way, but argues that fungi are not plants and that they are closer to animals than to plants.

Three Reasons Fungi Are Not Plants Brian Lovett, Ph.D.
Published: Jan. 6, 2021
[...]
Why Were Fungi Ever Considered Plants?
Today, we know that fungi are not plants, but the botanical history of fungi provides an interesting perspective on our scientific biases, on how we classify organisms and how these impact our collective knowledge.
[...]

Reason 1: Fungi Lack Chloroplasts
[...]
Reason 2: Fungi Have a Unique Mode of Acquiring Nutrients
[...]

Reason 3: Molecular Evidence Demonstrates Fungi Are More Closely Related to Animals Than to Plants
The proposed separation of fungi and plants is indisputably supported by molecular evidence. Computational phylogenetics comparing eukaryotes revealed that fungi are more closely related to us than to plants. Fungi and animals form a clade called opisthokonta, which is named after a single, posterior flagellum present in their last common ancestor. Today, this posterior flagellum propels primitive fungal spores and animal sperm alike.

This is our final reason fungi are not plants: the best available molecular evidence demonstrates fungi are more closely related to animals than plants. These computational and molecular approaches are convincing because they provide robust evolutionary histories that indicate organismal relationships and estimate when they diverged from common ancestors. A molecular understanding of life has uncovered 3 possible major domains of life: Bacteria, Archaea and Eukarya (nested within Archaea). These are distinguished by cellular components (e.g., membrane-bound organelles) and the composition of the cell membrane.
[...]

For an article about slime moulds:

Slime mould can think and react like an animal David Hawke Aug 2, 2021 8:00 AM
[...]
Even though a slime mould looks like a fungus, a closer look (a really, really closer look) will reveal that they have no chitin in their cell walls. Chitin is the tough covering of cells that helps give shape and form to a plant or mushroom. Slime moulds don’t have it and therefore are just a blob, laying there, supposedly without shape or form.

But slime moulds know better, as they can indeed form shapes, and even travel! So this brings us to that universal question, “Just what the heck is a slime mould?”

Well, it’s not a plant nor a fungus (remember, no chitin), and it can move in search of food, even climbing up branches and tree trunks and, now get this, knows how to turn to avoid inhospitable areas. So it can ‘think’ and ‘react’ like an animal while not having a brain. Cue the eerie music.

Turns out that that blob of mould is actually millions of individual cells that can join together to create multicellular reproductive structures, or not, depending on their mood. When not looking for food (decaying wood fibre) they are looking for, you know, a partner. Air borne chemicals tell the slime molds where to go and what to do when they get there and the colony is capable of moving en masse about one meter a night.

[...]

While the individual slime mould cells are ‘always out there’ it seems that when food is scare they form these mega-colonies and share information as to who is smelling what and from which direction. That’s when we see these ‘structures’ perched on the logs.

Heat, moisture and humidity all play a part in enticing slime moulds to rise up and be noticed. As soon as the sun hits them or a cool breeze blows by, the structure either ‘dissolves’ itself or the bulk of the individuals die and create a black crust.

They are not harmful to humans nor our precious foods. In fact, they are needed to break down wood fibre into digestible bits that bacteria and true fungi can then take on. Within Nature there is a reason and purpose for everything.
[...]

It is a bit creepy to think of slime mould or fungi similar to other small animal creatures, but who knows?

In Session 7 January 1995, plants were placed along with 1st density. Having located plants in relation to animals within the three main domains of biology, and considering other discussions about plants in the sessions from the perspective of them being food for other beings, I think 1st density is still a better fit for plants than 2nd density. Bacteria, archaea and some of the groups within the eukaryote domain would also be 1st density, or mostly so. Still, all questions about what organisms fall into 1st, and which into 2nd density might not be easy to answer. People may have different perspectives and come to different conclusion.

What this little dive into the distinctions found among living organisms, beginning with plant and animals, might show, is that there is a huge variety. If one thinks of "As above, so below", then there ought to be an immense amount of intelligence, creativity and ingenuity in 4th density and higher. This consideration leads to revisiting:
Work on 4th, 5th and 6th. - Strive always to rise
Session 7 January 1995

Q: (L) So, in other words, we should be able to perceive on 1st and 2nd as well as 3rd while working on 4th level understanding?

A: No. Work on 4th, 5th and 6th.

Q: (L) Is it not also beneficial to understand the 1st and 2nd density levels as well, just simply for the exercise in understanding that which is below us?

A: Strive always to rise.