Vegetarianism?

[monkee]

During my years as buddhist in the past I was never taught about shutting down the world. I think the Buddha said in the Sayings of the Buddha:
My monk disciples. Do not accept my lessons because you respect me. You should use practice to personally test Essential Universal Truths that I teach, just like using fire to test real gold. You can learn to recognize the Essential Universal Truths from the fruits of their manifestations. Truths cannot be acquired from words out of other people's mouth. Before truths can be internalized, they must come from one's own realizations and practices. Through a lifetime of personal practice, human beings are capable of revealing all of the secrets of the cosmic essence. You are your own best judge.

Only truths that can be tested are real.
There is no better virtue than heart of grand compassion; there is no sweeter joy than a mind of quiet serenity. There is no purer truth than the existence of impermanence; there is no higher religion than the development of moral wisdom. There is no greater philosophy than the teaching of truth that can be tested by all of us right here and now. Truth is subject to practice and testing. If it's proper truth, we definitly should be able to acquire sweet fruits through practice right away. If it only abstractly promises a reward in the next life, this may be an irresponsible trick to delude ignorant.

 

[Russ]

As for Buddhists, I don't have a lot of use for them because their whole shtick is about shutting out, overcoming, and forgetting creation - dissolving into Nirvana or nothingness.

When Buddha was asked, "What have you gained?", he said, "Nothing, but would you like me to tell you about what I've lost - fear of death, greed, anger, etc."

I don't think its always about "shutting out" or forgetting creation etc. Maybe some see it that way, and to be clear, I don't know much about Buddhist philosophy. But one person who I find interesting at the moment is Douglas Harding, who seems to have "westernised" some of that philosophy. As you might see if you read the following, it doesn't necessarily "shut out" reality, but allows you to see that all is not always as it seems - that we easily live "from" ideas which aren't necessarily true. At first glance what is written about in the below text might seem trivial, but I think it is an important thing to realise, because its appears to be an objective, permanent part of reality.

-----------------
(from www.headless.org)

The Headless Way by Douglas Harding


Over the past thirty years a truly contemporary and Western way of 'seeing into one's Nature' or 'Enlightenment' has been developing. Though in essence the same as Zen, Sufism, and other spiritual disciplines, this way proceeds in an unusually down-to-earth fashion. It claims that modern man is more likely to see Who he really is in a minute of active experimentation than in years of reading, lecture-attending, thinking, ritual observances, and passive meditation of the traditional sort. Instead of these, it uses a variety of simple, non-verbal, fact-finding tests, all of them asking: how do I look to myself? They direct my attention to my blind spot - to the space I occupy, to what's given right here at the Centre of my universe, to what it's like being 1st-person singular, present tense.
Five stages of development are distinguished:

1. Like any animal, the new-born infant is for himself no-thing, faceless and at large, unseparate from his world, 1st-person without knowing it.

2. The young child, becoming briefly and intermittently aware of himself-as-he-is-for-himself, may ask his mother why she has a head and he hasn't, or may protest that he isn't a boy (he's not like that at all!), or may even announce that he's nothing, not there, invisible. Yet he's also becoming increasingly aware of himself-as-he-is-for-others - a very human and special 3rd person complete with head and face. Both views of himself are valid and needful.

3. But as the child grows up his acquired view of himself-from-outside come to overshadow, and in the end to obliterate, his native view of himself-from-inside. In fact, he grows down. At first, he contained his world; now, it contains him - what there is of him. Victim of the adults' universal confidence trick, he is 1st-person no longer. Shrunk from being the Whole into being this contemptible part, he grows greedy, hating, fearful, and deluded. Greedy, as he tries to regain at whatever cost a little of his lost empire; hating, as he revenges himself upon a society that has cruelly cut him down to size; fearful, as he sees himself a mere thing up against all other things; deluded, as he imagines (contrary to all the evidence) that he is at 0 feet what he looks like at 6 feet - a solid, opaque, coloured, outlined lump of stuff.

4. His cure is to take a fresh look at himself-as-he-is-for-himself and discover Who he really is. Of the many recommended pointers to this Self-realisation (some of which use other senses than vision) the following are typical. (Warning: it's no good just reading about them: you have actually to carry out these simple experiments, for yourself.)

a) Pointing here. Point to your friend's feet, then yours; to his legs, then yours; to his torso, then yours; to his head, then… What, on present evidence, is your finger now pointing at?

b) Single eye. In your own experience at this moment, are you peering through two little holes in a kind of meat-ball? If so, what's it like in there - dark, stuffy, congested, small? Slowly put on a pair of spectacles and notice how those two little 'windows' become one vast 'window' - spotlessly clean and with nobody looking out of it.

c) Putting on a no-face. Cut a head-sized hole in a card. Hold the card out at arm's length, noting the hole's boundaries. See how they vanish into your boundlessness as you bring the card forward and put it right on - to your face?

d) Paper bag. Get an ordinary bag (preferably white) about 12" square, and cut the bottom off. Fit your face into one end while your friend fits his into the other. How many faces are given in the bag? Dropping memory and imagination, are you face-to-face or face-to-no-face?

e) In the body? By stroking and pinching and pummelling, try to build up here on your shoulders the sort of thing you see over there on your friend's shoulders. Now try to get inside it, and describe its contents. Aren't you still out-of-doors, as much at large as ever? Look at your hand. Are you in it, or is it in you?

f) Mirror. Notice where you keep your face - over there in your mirror, and where your friend is in receipt of it (and can accordingly tell you all about it), and where he holds his camera (which can accordingly register it in full detail).

g) Onion peeling. Get your friend to check your faceless emptiness (at 0 feet) by coming right up to you with his camera (a viewfinder-hole in a sheet of paper will do). He starts at a place (say 6 feet away) where he finds you to be a man, then comes to where (at, say, 3 feet) he finds a torso, then a head, then an eye, then a mere blur. If he has efficient instruments, the blur reads as an eyelash, then as cells, then as particles of descending order, and in the end as practically empty space - featureless, transparent, colourless. The closer he gets to you the closer he gets to your own view of yourself as No-thing whatever.

5. You have actually seen, by carrying out such exercises in basic attention, what it is to be 1st-person singular - the No-thing that is nevertheless keenly aware of Itself as the Container or Ground of the whole display. This seeing is believing. Altogether unmystical (in the popular sense), it is a precise, total, all-or-nothing experience admitting of no degrees - so long as it lasts. Now your task is to go on seeing your Absence/Presence in all situations, till the seeing becomes quite natural and continuous. This is neither to lose yourself in your Emptiness nor in what fills it, but simultaneously to view the thing you are looking at and the No-thing you are looking out of. There will be found no times when this two-way attention is out of place or can safely be dispensed with.
The initial seeing into your Nature is simplicity itself: once noticed, Nothing is so obvious! But it is operative only in so far as it is practised. The results - freedom from greed and hate and fear and delusion - are assured only while the One they belong to isn't overlooked.

 

[Renaissance]

I think this is it folks. Here I think I demonstate without a doubt that not only are the RonCo slicers (that Blue Resonant Human was talking about) being used but that a certain someone in the White House is involved in producing them!!!

I have it on good authority from someone I know who is definately a reliable source that these following images are from the underground base in Dulce where the slicing IS done with the RonCo's Abductee Slicer!!!

The implications of the following photos are far reaching, likely up to the Vice President himself!

This first photo is from an underground lab in Dulce where its thought the slicing occurs. The projections coming out from the bottom seem likely to be the lasers that cut and cauterize the blood vessels. Notice the circular devices on the sides? Those are the EM Elf generators.


Now notice in this photo it is a RonCo machine! But if you look carefully you can see the red dot on the right hand side.


I've digitally enhanced the red dot and found ITS HALLIBURTION'S LOGO!!!!


I knew Cheney would be involved!

 

[sinimat]

I have been a vegetarian for about 4-5 years now, and will not go back to eating animal products. However, I understand that everyone is on a different path and I respect that.

IMHO, a vegetarian diet is highly benefical in numerous ways. Basically, vegetables and fruits have more of the life force in them. Therefore, you will absorb more of the life force than you would if you ate animal products, which gives secondary amount of the life force. For example, if someone eats some beef, that cow ingested a more direct form of the life force (assuming it ate vegetables, like they are supposed to). Therefore, you eat a secondary form of the life force which was absorbed into the animal. It's basically the idea that life brings life and is common sense, if you think about it.

However, I beleive it is even more important to eat an alkaline diet. Basically, this consists of eating about 75% alkalizing foods (namely vegetables and fruits). There is much research and information available on the internet about such a diet (a good starting point: http://www.naturalhealthschool.com/acid-alkaline.html). If you're interested, find a table that lists which foods are alkaline. However, a little common sense goes a long way (remember: life brings life).

I switched to an alkaline diet about a month ago and have noticed significant improvements in my health and energy levels. Like I said, I was a vegetarian for about 4-5 years, but that mainly consisted of eating starchy foods (i.e. pasta, bread, etc.).

Namaste

 

[ScioAgapeOmnis]

Basically, vegetables and fruits have more of the life force in them. Therefore, you will absorb more of the life force than you would if you ate animal products, which gives secondary amount of the life force. For example, if someone eats some beef, that cow ingested a more direct form of the life force (assuming it ate vegetables, like they are supposed to). Therefore, you eat a secondary form of the life force which was absorbed into the animal. It's basically the idea that life brings life and is common sense, if you think about it.

Yeah but vegetables also eat, so by your logic, whatever vegetables eat has even more life force and therefore if we eat that, we'll be even better off? Can we eat whatever grass eats and survive? Who says fruits have more life force anyway? That seems to be an assumption on your part, do you have any evidence for this, and can you define life force? What if it works the other way around, whatever is at the bottom of the food chain has the least life force, and therefore it is at the bottom and cannot by itself sustain humans who require much more for survival than just minerals, water, and sun. But the beings that can live on that stuff generate other stuff that IS useful to us, so maybe they have enough life force to sustain us? And maybe lizzies cannot eat grass and other stuff because it's not enough to sustain their massive requirement for life force, so they need to eat humans who have the most life force for them? That might explain why the food chain exists - why all beings do not simply eat the lowest possible lifeform but mostly eat the stuff right below them since the stuff before that usually is not enough to sustain them entirely. Does that view, which is contradictory to yours, not seem logical as well? So which view is closer to objective reality? I don't know, is there any evidence that supports either idea?

The point I'm trying to make is that what you call common sense may not necessarily be so common, and may not even make much sense either. Of course that may be true about what I say as well, but it does seem to make sense to me, and in a different way, so does what you say! But what seems to make sense is not always true.

However, I beleive it is even more important to eat an alkaline diet. Basically, this consists of eating about 75% alkalizing foods (namely vegetables and fruits). There is much research and information available on the internet about such a diet (a good starting point: http://www.naturalhealthschool.com/acid-alkaline.html). If you're interested, find a table that lists which foods are alkaline. However, a little common sense goes a long way (remember: life brings life).

Is there any life that eats something that is not alive? For example, if plants convert sunlight into energy and use that energy for living, does that then not disprove your theory that life brings life? It seems that some life does not feed on other life - and yet it lives! So then where does it get its "life force" from? And why would it have the most of it if it doesn't even eat life? What if because it feeds on non-living things, it in fact has the least life force, and therefore is unable to sustain beings higher up on the food chain who need food with more life force to survive? What if there's no such thing as life force?

 

[sinimat]

Scio,

I understand your points as well. You really got me thinking about the physicality of life, especially the food chain.

So, by your theory, is a Lizzie eating a human, and me eating a carrot the same thing? By your theory, a Lizzie is a higher being than a human, which is higher than a carrot. That doesn't make sense to me, but it does make sense that this is the way life is here in this dimension.

There probably is evidence out there that can be used to prove or disprove both of these theories. One example to prove my point is the movie Super Size me, in which someone ate only McDonalds for 30 days. His body significantly became toxic and deterioated quickly. I believe this is because the food he ate was primarily dead and highly processed.

Vegetables have more of the life force in them because they are alive. By life force, I mean energy from the sun. Basically, the sun keeps all of the physical matter alive. Plants absorb this, convert it into energy, which mammals then ingest. By ingesting meat, we don't absorb the converted solar energy in the plants directly, we absorb it through the meat, which first absorbed it for itself. Therefore, by eating meat, we absorb the left over, so to speak.

However, for me, the most direct evidence is what I have experimentally observed in my own body. I feel more energetic by eating a mainly raw, alkaline diet consisting of fruits and vegetables. This also correlates with the observations in Super Size Me, as he became very fatigued and depressed.

Finally, eating a vegetarian diet creates less suffering and fear. I have seen videos of animals getting slaughtered and directly seen animals being shipped for slaughter and the fear in their eyes was clearly evident. The cruelty that is involved is not something that I want to be a part of, or ingest into my body. I believe that you energetically absorb that fear and suffering into your being. However, I understand the point that the plants suffer too. But, eating a vegetable or fruit does not necessarily kill the entire plant. The apple tree is still alive after you pick the apple.

This brings us back to the idea of the food chain, and the larger picture of the way things are. Again, I think we are all different and should truly find what is best for you.

Namaste

 

[Ben]

Scio,

There probably is evidence out there that can be used to prove or disprove both of these theories. One example to prove my point is the movie Super Size me, in which someone ate only McDonalds for 30 days. His body significantly became toxic and deterioated quickly. I believe this is because the food he ate was primarily dead and highly processed.

Namaste

Probably the most detrimental quality of this diet was the large amounts of fat, cholesterol etc. and the lack of balance. Perhaps the 'life force' you attribute to less processed food comes in the form of things like food enzymes present in raw vegetables, or the loss of important nutrients during the processing/cooking. My point is that we CAN attribute these results to purely physical variables, who knows for sure?

It is a tricky issue because most meat does come from animals reared and slaughtered in unnecessarily traumatic ways, and most meat consumers in the west are getting too much of the components provided by meat anyway. I for one LOVE eating meat, and I am an STS being at this point, I'm afraid. Consumption of ANY life form is STS, as I understand.

 

[sinimat]

Ben,

Yes, there are many benefits of food enzymes and nutrients. That is the underlying rationale behind the raw food movement. Raw foods contain the exact amounts of enzymes that are needed by the body to break that food down into energy.

It is a tricky issue and balance is the key. That is why the alkaline diet seems more reasonable, as you can still eat meat, but mainly rely upon alkalizing foods such as vegetables and fruits. Meat is highly acidic to the body, and an acidic body is a host for all kinds of diseases and sicknesses, including cancer.

I enjoy maintaining an alkaline diet, so I am still an STS being as well, as I need and want to eat. However, for me, I think that maintaining a healthy body through proper nutrition is important in raising your energy level and thus becoming more STO oriented. Having a healthy body will allow one to detach from it more, as one is not so much worried about sickness and disease.

Interesting discussion.

Namaste

 

[Ben]

I enjoy maintaining an alkaline diet, so I am still an STS being as well, as I need and want to eat. However, for me, I think that maintaining a healthy body through proper nutrition is important in raising your energy level and thus becoming more STO oriented. Having a healthy body will allow one to detach from it more, as one is not so much worried about sickness and disease.

Namaste

Well I agree with this and I very much practice it in my own life. However, I eat meat as part of a balanced diet. It's a good source of protein and iron for me, my sister couldn't remain a vegetarian because she felt very low on energy all the time. I understand that there are alternative sources of iron and protein, I can't justify my carnivorous nature in anything other than purely selfish terms.

 

[ScioAgapeOmnis]

So, by your theory, is a Lizzie eating a human, and me eating a carrot the same thing?
By your theory, a Lizzie is a higher being than a human, which is higher than a carrot. That doesn't make sense to me, but it does make sense that this is the way life is here in this dimension.

I'm confused - didn't you just contradict yourself? You said it doesn't make sense to you, then you said it does.

There probably is evidence out there that can be used to prove or disprove both of these theories. One example to prove my point is the movie Super Size me, in which someone ate only McDonalds for 30 days. His body significantly became toxic and deterioated quickly. I believe this is because the food he ate was primarily dead and highly processed.

I don't see how that proves your theory. Many people eat meat every day and are just fine. So it's not the fact that what he ate was dead, but the fact that it was already toxic due to how it was prepared, stored, etc. This is specific to mcdonalds, not to the ingredients themselves. So I personally do not see how the toxicity of mcdonalds' food has anything to do with your theory about life force. If you consume poison, you get sick and die. Not because it's low in life force, but because your body is not designed for it. Some animals eat things that are poisonous to humans because their bodies are designed for it. In fact, most animals can eat what humans cannot. Try eating stuff off the floor or off the ground outside for a few days, and you'd prolly not feel so well very quickly. Birds, dogs, cats, etc.. they do it all their lives.

Vegetables have more of the life force in them because they are alive.
By life force, I mean energy from the sun. Basically, the sun keeps all of the physical matter alive.

Another false assumption on your part!

Quote from http://www.mos.org/oceans/life/index.html

From the seashore to the deepest depths, oceans are home to some of the most diverse life on Earth. There are big animals and little ones; long and short ones, multicolored and drab ones, and those that just sit while others that never stop swimming. There are even some organisms that light up.

Oceanographers divide the ocean into five broad zones according to how far down sunlight penetrates:

* the epipelagic, or sunlit, zone: the top layer of the ocean where enough sunlight penetrates for plants to carry on photosynthesis.
* the mesopelagic, or twilight, zone: a dim zone where some light penetrates, but not enough for plants to grow.
* the bathypelagic, or midnight, zone: the deep ocean layer where no light penetrates.
* the abyssal zone: the pitch-black bottom layer of the ocean; the water here is almost freezing and its pressure is immense.
* the hadal zone: the waters found in the ocean's deepest trenches.

Plants are found only in the sunlit zone where there is enough light for photosynthesis, however, animals are found at all depths of the oceans though their numbers are greater near the surface where food is plentiful. Still, over 90 percent of all species dwell on the ocean bottom where a single rock can be home to over ten major groups such as corals, mollusks and sponges.

It seems that 90% of all species can get along just fine without the sun!

Plants absorb this, convert it into energy, which mammals then ingest. By ingesting meat, we don't absorb the converted solar energy in the plants directly, we absorb it through the meat, which first absorbed it for itself. Therefore, by eating meat, we absorb the left over, so to speak.

Here is some info you may be interested in:

Food supplies energy for all human activity - without it we could not live. The quantity of energy stored in food is of great interest to humans because the energy needed for all activity such as walking, talking, and thinking comes from food. Not all foods contain the same amount of energy, nor are all foods equally nutritious.
Food energy is commonly measured in calories. A calorie (spelled with a small "c") is the amount of energy needed to raise the temperature of 1 gram of water, 1 degrees Celcius.

Here are some approximate Calorie amounts for different foods:

Big Mac - 461 Calories
Pork Chop - 340 Calories
Lamb Chop - 368 Calories
Apple - 47 Calories
Carrot - 5 Calories
Celery - 3 Calories

Ok it seems that actually meat has more energy than veggies. You'd have to eat a LOT of celery or carrots to equal a few pork chops in Calories. But Calories is not all that we need of course, but since you brought up energy, I just wanted to point out that meat is very full of energy, and "alive vegetables" are not as much. However, Calories, aka the energy in food, is not all that we need of course. Various nutrients are very very important because our body actually uses nutrients in a biochemical process to create energy as well. And in terms of essentials like nutrients, vitamins, minerals, fruits and vegies have far more than meat. But McDonalds is not bad because it has meat, but because of its synthetic and toxic materials - however, meat itself also contains many things that are potentially very important to our bodies.

However, for me, the most direct evidence is what I have experimentally observed in my own body. I feel more energetic by eating a mainly raw, alkaline diet consisting of fruits and vegetables. This also correlates with the observations in Super Size Me, as he became very fatigued and depressed.

Ok but I wouldn't use McDonalds as an example of why certain types of food is bad or good. McDonalds uses many synthetic additives, chemical processes, and other unnatural means to poison its own food. It also uses very unhealthy and brutal methods to grow that food, and also uses many chemicals and growth hormones to try to stimulate the quickest growth to assure the biggest profit margin. I think that everyone's body is different.

Having said that, I also think that meat contains many elements that are very helpful to our bodies, just as fruits and vegetables and bread and pasta and all other food does. However, for some people, some of those things are more helpful than others. Some people may be better off eating mostly meat, others may eat mostly pasta, others may be better off eating mostly fruits, etc. But it doesn't mean that one food is "worse" than another - each specific food has its own benefits and its own detriments - and what's best for you depends on your own body. Meat contains nutrients including protein, iron, zinc and B vitamins. Some amount of those is probably essential to everyone. But just how much of those you need as opposed to other things probably depends on your own body's needs.

Finally, eating a vegetarian diet creates less suffering and fear.

What if eating a meat diet creates less suffering and fear? We have to kill many vegetables to equal one animal like a cow. So for example while one cow may feed 10 people, it may take 100 vegetables to do the same! So in fact, the less meat you eat, the more living things you have to kill! Therefore, vegetarians are responsible for more suffering and fear than those who also eat meat! Even worse, a vegetable cannot scream or run - it is helpless to defend itself, it has to simply endure the fear, pain, and suffering because it has no choice at all!

I have seen videos of animals getting slaughtered and directly seen animals being shipped for slaughter and the fear in their eyes was clearly evident.

I have seen videos of farmers collecting hundreds of thousands of plants! Can you imagine their terror, and the terror of those around them that have not yet been taken? That's a lot more living beings than a few hundred cows in a herd, since in the same amount of space you can have thousands of plants.

The cruelty that is involved is not something that I want to be a part of, or ingest into my body.

Yet you're just fine ingesting the cruelty of killing so many plants that also wanted to live as much as any cow or chicken does. You're just being involved in the cruelty of bringing terror and suffering to millions of plants! And imagine how many insects die in the process of chemically spraying plants to avoid them being eaten by insects? Billions!! You're part of the slaughter of billions of living things, and you're ingesting a result of that slaughter.

I believe that you energetically absorb that fear and suffering into your being.

That may be true, but what choice do we have? Anything we eat experiences fear and suffering in its own way.

However, I understand the point that the plants suffer too. But, eating a vegetable or fruit does not necessarily kill the entire plant. The apple tree is still alive after you pick the apple.

But the apple is dead, yet it was once alive! That's like taking a family, killing a few kids, and saying well at least the mother is still alive! And we're not just talking about apples. What about grain for bread? That has no tree! What about carrots and most other vegetables that grow independently? No tree there either, but millions slaughtered constantly!

This brings us back to the idea of the food chain, and the larger picture of the way things are. Again, I think we are all different and should truly find what is best for you.
Namaste

I agree, but I also don't think we whould pretend that by eating only plants, that we're doing anybody any favors or relieving any suffering. They're just transferring the suffering to some other living beings.

I found it interesting when the C's said that even plants themselves cause suffering and pain to the minerals they ingest. Here's a transcript you may be interested in. And by the way, I do not want to debate you or argue, I Just wanted to present opposite points of view, some of which you probably know already. The question is, as always, what is the truth, what is the objective reality though? Am right, are you right, are we both right in part, are we both wrong? It's important to have no assumptions and consider all possibilities, osit. Anyway, here's the transcript where the C's remind us of this and also it I think relates very much to this conversation as well:

Q: (L) Let me ask this: I am kind of drifting into another subject, but we are talking about being in space. We talked at one point, I believe, of the matrices of the various planets and our perceptions of the planets in our solar system, and these matrices being almost like a doorway to another density, and that if we were in the proper dimensional mode that we would see the other planets of our own solar system quite differently from how we see them in our third density mode, and that we would, in fact, be able to look upon Venus, which manifests in 3rd density as a pretty hellish place, with temperatures 900 degrees or thereabouts, and we would find it to be something else altogether with beings inhabiting it, is this correct.
A: Yes. Beings live absolutely everywhere in one realm or another.
Q: (L) Are the beings who live on the planet Venus aware of us on the planet Earth?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) Are there beings also living on Mars?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) Are they aware of us?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) Are the beings on all the other planets in our solar system aware of us here, on planet Earth?
A: Yes, because they are all of higher density.
Q: (L) Why is it that the Earth seems to be the lower density planet and we seem to be kind of left out in the cold, so to speak. They know of us, but we can't perceive them. Why is this? Why are we singled out for this? (D) Was earth created after all the others?
A: NO, no, no.
Q: (T) Are they interacting with us?
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?
Q: (L) What awareness do rocks and plants have of US?! Oh, dear God! (V) That's an interesting way to put it. An
excellent example. (T) When we ask why higher beings have awareness of us but we are not aware of them, we need to ask what awareness beings lower than us have of us. (J) Obviously no more than we have of 4th density. (T) But when you play music to a plant, it has some awareness because it makes it grow better. (L) But music is not a being. (T) It's an energy wave. (J) Wait a minute... what they are saying is: they have no more awareness of us than we, as 3rd density beings, have of 4th density beings. (T) Does this mean that they interact with us the way we interact with plants?
A: Who is "on" 2nd level?
Q: (L) Animals. (T) Insects, lower life forms.
A: Now, think carefully, what level of awareness, and more importantly, understanding, do they have of you?
Q: (L) Well, I guess they are aware of us in some way, but they don't understand us... (T) Some do at some point... (T) They understand us to a certain extent... (F) But their understanding is entirely different from our understanding of them. In other words, they see these big hulking beings, but they don't know what's going on. (L) Was Ouspensky's explanation of how animals perceive humans very close to the truth?
A: Close. Now, what about 1st level understanding and perception of 2nd level?

Read http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/wave6.htm for Ouspensky's explanation, which I found fascinating and very thought provoking personally. Anyway, continuing on...

Q: (L) Okay, 1st density, minerals and plants... now rocks and minerals combine with plants through growing actions, water dissolution, erosion, and so on, they have a real limited existence. And what happens is that mostly animals come along and eat them. (F) Bees pollinate flowers. (L) Different kinds of animals live in trees. (T) Some animals live in the ground and in caves. (T) So, rocks and minerals and plants have a really limited understanding of the animals above them which interact with them in various ways.
A: Yes, and you have a limited understanding of the densities above you.
Q: (L) Well, that is still begging the question, my question was... (T) As an example, today we all experienced something we call thunder, but we were all aware that it was something more. Something happened in 4th density that we experienced in a certain way, and it was a limited understanding of that level.
A: Laura, unblock, do rocks and plants "see" you?
Q: (J) Probably not. (D) We don't really know. (T) We see the 3rd density manifestations of 1st density objects. We don't see the 1st density perception of itself. So, how do we see the 4th density manifestations, they see us on a 4th density level... not necessarily as we perceive ourselves.
A: T***, you are making rapid progress. Laura better watch her Butt! [laughter]
Q: (V) So, I am curious... what do rocks look like to each other? (L) Let's ask. What do rocks see when they look at each other?
A: They sense each other.
Q: (L) What example of our sensory apparatus would be close to an example of what a rock senses when it is aware of another rock?
A: That is a cross conceptualization and will not work.
Q: (L) So there is no way we can interpret what a rock senses. Well, another 1st density example is plants. We know that plants can react positively to certain persons and negatively to others. They have experimented with hooking them up to polygraph machines and measured these responses. (J) They also react to music... (T) Third density reactions...
A: Yes.
Q: (L) If plants interact with each other, do they feel, say, fondness for one another?
A: Something akin to that.
Q: (L) Does it hurt a plant when we eat it?
A: Does it hurt you when a "Lizzie" eats you?
Q: (T) Yes, you see, on 4th density... we are on 3rd density and we eat 1st and 2nd density, the 4th density eats us. (D) If we hurt plants by eating them like the Lizzies hurt us when they eat us, how are we to survive without eating?
A: When you no longer crave physicality, you no longer need to "eat."
Q: (L) So part of the "fall" into the physical existence and part of the Edenic story of the whole business, "you shall eat by the sweat of your brow," has to do with being physical and needing to eat?
A: Lucifer, "The fallen Angel." This is you.
Q: (L) So, "falling" means going into physical existence wherein you must feed on other life, other beings, is that it?
A: Yes.
Q: (T) When plants feed on 1st level beings such as rocks and water and so forth, do the 1st density beings feel pain?
A: That is redundant. We have already covered this.
Q: (T) So when a plant absorbs nutrients.... (L) Well, a plant is the same density as minerals, so it is almost like... (T) Like two separate entities becoming one? (V) Like Jeffrey Dahmer... [laughter] (L) My bologne has a first name... (LM) Minerals dissolve in water and are then absorbed by the plant, what pain could there be in this?
A: Subjective, L. M..
Q: (L) Maybe the dissolution of, say, phosphate in water, is a "death" to it...
A: Close. You limit when you perceive on 3rd level only and think that your perception is all there is.
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.

Anyway, it continues on to other issues. It's transcript #95-01-07 if you wish to read it in full. I hope you found it helpful, I sure did :)

 

[sinimat]

Scio,

Again, I appreciate your thoughts on this issue, as they seem to be similar to mine, but from a different perspective.

It seems that everything in this dimension is dependent upon some form of food, and maybe it all just gets recycled. I guess that we, were (or are) a rock, a tree, a vegetable, an insect, a bird, a cow, now a human. At each stage, we always ate something. It is interesting though, that before the fall, this dimension was sustained on a vegetarian diet.

So, where does that leave us then? I guess it is up to the individual to make choices in their life. If one is compelled to eat a certain way, so be it. I don't judge others for what they eat, but I am trying to just rationalize what is the best way to eat. For me, I prefer a more organic diet. I could eat meat and fish if I killed the animals myself, much like the lifestyle of the native americans years ago. However, that has all changed, as we pretty much buy our food. If I was involved in the process it would be different, rather than being completely disconnected from the reality of where your food comes from. Personally, I think a vegetarian diet is more energetically evolved than a meat-based diet. That is just my feelings, and I respect yours, even if they differ.

I guess it really doesn't matter, as long as one doesn't focus on the desire for food too much, right?

Namaste

 

[ScioAgapeOmnis]

It seems that everything in this dimension is dependent upon some form of food, and maybe it all just gets recycled. I guess that we, were (or are) a rock, a tree, a vegetable, an insect, a bird, a cow, now a human. At each stage, we always ate something. It is interesting though, that before the fall, this dimension was sustained on a vegetarian diet.

I don't know about rocks though - if they're on 1st density, there may not be anything lower than that to eat. And I agree that is interesting, and I remember the RA channeling speaking about 4th density STO and that they too eat but very little. If I remember correctly, I think it was something like a specialized "pill" type of thing. Perhaps as long as there is any physicality, there is always a need for food? The C's said that when we no longer crave physicality, we no longer need to eat. However, 4th density has partial physicality, so that suggests the likelyhood of some sort of sustenance, even if very minimal, to make that physical body functional. RA channeling talked about the struggle that a 4th density STO being goes through in the process - that they have to actually become STS for that one instant to allow themselves to eat, and that this apparently can be difficult sometimes for them to do. Whether true or not, who knows.

You keep saying "this dimension" - what do you mean by dimension? I don't think the C's said that "this dimension" was sustained on a vegetarian diet. They were talking about the beings that we supposedly were before the fall. And then the lizzies supposedly came and tempted us into becoming STS, and we fell for it due to our own wishful thinking. However, the C"s also said that humanity was bioengineered in a lab in Orion somewhere and brought to Earth. At another point they said that humanity was created by STO (I think).

Here are the transcripts:

Q: (L) How long after mankind was engineered by the Cassiopaeans did they live on the earth in a harmonious, Edenic, condition before the zapping by the Lizards?
A: Mankind was not engineered by us.
Q: (L) Well, were we created by you?
A: No.
Q: (L) Well, then how did mankind come to be here?
A: Combination of factors. Numerous souls desired physical existence then was altered by three forces including principally Lizards through Grays, Nephalim and Orion union.
Q: (L) Tell us again who are the Nephilim?
A: Enforcers. Slaves of Orion. From Planet 3C, or 3rd star, 3rd planet.
Q: (L) You said the other night that the Nephalim came from some area around the constellation Scorpio, is that correct?
A: Originally seeded there but you were too.
Q: (L) We were originally seeded somewhere else? Where? Orion? What is the name of that planet?
A: D'Ankhiar. Ankh is ancient symbolism of this planet. Is female symbol. Stands for mother planet.
Q: (L) Is this other planet our original home?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) What is it like back Home?
A: Spent. Cindered. Burned up.
Q: (L) So it's true, you can't go home?
A: Yes.

[...]

Q: (L) Let's go back to the three forces. You said numerous souls desired physical existence. When the numerous souls did this, how did physical existence
come to be?
A: First was apelike.
Q: (L) And then what happened? Did these apelike being just pop into the air? What did the souls do with these apelike beings?
A: Souls altered them by transfer.
Q: (L) Transfer of what?
A: Souls into seeded bodies. Orion Union was first into Neanderthal.
Q: (L) The Orion souls came into Neanderthal bodies?
A: No. Put humans there for incubation process.
Q: (L) Were altered ape embryos put back into ape females for gestation?
A: No. Souls only.
Q: (L) They put the souls into the ape bodies?
A: Close.
Q: (L) Did the soul's presence in the ape body cause its genetics and DNA to change?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) So, you are saying that the original creators or genetic engineers were Orions?
A: Close. The original engineers but not inhabitants.
Q: (L) Where did the souls come from that entered into the bodies on the planet earth? Were they in bodies on other planets before they came here?
A: Not this group.
Q: (L) Were they just floating around in the universe somewhere?
A: In union with the One. Have you heard the Super ancient legend of Lucifer, the Fallen Angel?
Q: (L) Who is Lucifer?
A: You. The human race.
Q: (L) Are the souls of individual humans the parts of a larger soul?
A: Yes. Close. The One. All who have fallen must learn "the hard way."
Q: (L) Are you saying that the act of wanting to experience physical reality is the act of falling?
A: You are members of a fragmented soul unit.
Q: (L) What is it about wanting to be physical is a "fall"?
A: Pleasure for the self.
Q: (L) How many people on the planet know what you are teaching us?
A: A few.
Q: (L) Are we "special" in some way to receive this?
A: All are special.
Q: (L) How many know?
A: 8 so far.
Q: (L) Will we be able to teach others?
A: Up to you.
Q: (L) Who are the others?
A: No contact right now.
Q: (L) Did, at any time, the human race live for a long time in an Edenic state, where they were able to use bodies and still have a spiritual connection?
A: Yes. But not long. No addiction takes long to close the circle.
Q: (L) So, mankind was addicted to pleasuring the self?
A: Became quickly.
Q: (L) How long from the time of the moving of souls into bodies did the "Fall" in Eden occur?
A: Not measurable. Remember Laura, there is no time when this event occurred. Time passage illusion did not exist at that point as well as many other falsehoods.
Q: (L) So you are saying that the Fall in Eden was also the beginning of time?
A: Yes.

[...]

Q: (L) Is a vegetarian style of eating good for one?
A: Not usually.
Q: (L) What did human beings eat before the Fall?
A: Vegetarian.
Q: (L) So, until we go through the transition we are not really designed to be vegetarian?
A: Correct.

Notice they said "Not usually". So it's not a yes or a no, and it seems that the C's agree that *somtimes* it can be good for you, the devil being in the details. Continuing on though, in a different section they're talking about humans as being planted on this planet, which does not seem to go along with the idea that we were already here, and they simply arrived and tempted us.

A: Each time a new flock was "planted," it was engineered to be best suited to the environment where it was planted. Aryans are the only exception, as they had to be moved to earth in an emergency.
Q: (L) If races are engineered on earth to be "best suited," what factors are being drawn from or considered regarding the Semitic race?
A: They are not engineered on earth, but in Orion lab as all others. They were "Planted" in the Middle East.

However, the comment about time not existing before the fall is important I think, and may explain how there could be such contradictory accounts of where the human race came from. In fact, I personally think that the true nature of reality, which implies also non existance of time and infinite possibilities, is where the answer most probably lies. Here's another transcript that gives clues:

Q: (L) Was all the land on the planet earth formed into one vast continent at some point in earth's history?
A: Multiple history reality possibilities.
Q: (L) In this reality that we experience, was all the land joined into one vast continent?
A: Incorrect conceptualization.
Q: (L) Well, I don't know how to ask it. (J) Move on. (L) What is the source of energy generated by stars?
A: Transfer points cause friction thus producing energy.
Q: (L) Transfer points of what; from what to what?
A: Dimensions.
Q: (L) Now, this is going to be a strange question, but if you can help us out, relate this to something it would be very helpful. There are a lot of theories going around about the age of the universe. Some of the latest says that it is anywhere from 8 to 25 billion years old. I know that you have said that time is an illusion, but, in view of the fact that scientists are struggling with this one... [Much laughter] which of the figures that they have pulled out of the air, in terms of the time illusion itself, is the most correct?
A: None.
Q: (F) Does that answer the question satisfactorily? That's like saying: "Oh, that's an interesting store, what's in there?" (L) Well, if none of the figures science has come up with is correct, what is the correct definition of the age of the universe?
A: Quasi-quantum possibilities.
Q: (L) What does that mean? [Laughter.] (J) Anybody's guess?! (L) Well, I think they are going to tell us something here.
A: Discover.

So here they say that our planet has many different pasts, all of which could've ended up in the current present. So not only is the future open, the past is too! They say this actually on number of occasions. So my thought here is that maybe in one reality, humanity was already here on this planet as a STO race between 3rd and 4th density. On another reality, humanity was bioengineered in a lab. And one possibility here is that when the human race "fell" from STO to STS, and at the same "time" when the human race was brought here and planted, those 2 different pasts could've joined into a single "present" of current state of human affairs. So we may literally have many pasts that were all true and entirely different from one another.

Anyway, that's just some thoughts that might potentially explain the inconsistencies. However, the situation is probably far more complicated than just that, because reality is probably far more complicated. So the above is an oversimplified idea that I think may be on the right track.

Another interesting thing the C's said is when they were asked if they ever had physical bodies, they said no. This means never!! But how could they never have had bodies if everything has to go up densities, did they not at some point go up from 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, and then to 6th? And I think this is another clue to suggest different pasts and non-existance of time. So you could for example go from 5th to 6th density, but when you're on 6th, then there's a reality where you never "arrived at 6th" but ALWAYS were at 6th, which also means you never had a physical body.

They say that they are us in the future, but this is only from our point of reference. From their point of reference, we are on 6th density, on 5th, on 4th, and every other density - and always have been - possibly. I mean, if we're now only on 3rd then we cannot NOW be on 6th as well (which also means communicate with ourselves from the future), unless the future is also part of NOW somehow. I can't find it now but the C's mentioned that Laura, and probably that means everyone too, is also on 5th density now as well. So you could, in potential, channel yourself in every other density as well if you knew how to make the connection, and if other factors that may exist and potentially interfere (including your own free will in the other density) allow for this.

So it's interesting that people that have their own talk shows and claim to talk to the dead are thinking in only linear time terms. But why don't they try speaking to a person's essence that may in fact also be "on 5th density" (or heaven as they call it) even while the person is still alive on 3rd? Of course that is a silly concept if your perspective is mired in linear time and you think that's how the universe works, but if what the C's have said is true (about who they are and about reality in general), and if other references and clues and concepts that suggest the same thing are true, then it may be just as possible to talk to yourself in all densities, you don't have to wait till you "get there" because you already did, your current awareness just didn't catch up to that reality yet.

But going back to the idea of multiple pasts, if reality is indeed formed by consciousness and by our focusing on a specific reality out of infinite possibilities, then that particular aspect of reality will depend on the observer's experience, or the group of observers who may have agreed to interact in the same general experience to learn. So when the C's were asked about things that happened on the planet when nobody was around (like maybe when it was still forming or something), then I could see how they may have difficulty answering because all possibilities in fact happened, and so since our race wasn't around at the time, they cannot use OUR perceived common reality as a reference point. But when we ask about our own past of our race, then they have a reference point of an observer (our race) to work with, even if we are in fact many different races, and so they give us different stories about different pasts.

I wonder if I'm on the right track here? Just some thoughts!

I don't judge others for what they eat, but I am trying to just rationalize what is the best way to eat.

Of course that's assuming that there is a "best way". But there doesn't appear to be one as far as I know, not a universal one.

Thanks for your thoughts! Sorry if I went off on a tangent, I am simply fascinated with these ideas, and I wonder if changing our future will also change our past in the process, if time really is just an illusion..

 

[sinimat]

Scio,

Again, I appreciate your thoughts on these subjects, as they are indeed informative.

By dimension, I meant to say density - I'm new to these terms :)

I think what you are talking about here can be explained in terms of quantum physics, which states that an infinite number of possibilities and realities exist simultaneously.

Regarding the statement that the C's never had physical bodies may be explained by the fact that physical bodies are just an illusion, so how can they actually have ever had them if they don't really exist? I think that is one of our lessons here to learn, as they state this on many occassions. Interesting indeed.

Again, thanks for sharing your food for thought :)

Namaste

 

[ScioAgapeOmnis]

Regarding the statement that the C's never had physical bodies may be explained by the fact that physical bodies are just an illusion, so how can they actually have ever had them if they don't really exist?

Well they do acknowlege existance of physicality many times, and refer to it often. One of many examples is their advice for what we should eat. However, they also said time doesn't exist, yet at other times they give dates of historical events, etc. So I think the key issue here is level of awareness. Everything is an illusion from one level of awareness, but from another that illusion is reality. And you may be right, though I don't know if it's because "physical bodies don't exist", but maybe because their awareness may allow for a reality where space, time, and physicality are not part of their experience except when they specifically interact with beings that are still on that level. And so while they are timeless and spaceless, we're not (at least not from our point of view). And when working with us, in order for anything to make sense, they must understand that and use the reality that we perceive, simply out of consideration for us. Of course it doesn't mean they cannot introduce us to concepts that exist at higher levels, but they cannot ignore our level and pretend it's not there at all, because it is.

However, one clue to maybe understand better how they could never have had physical bodies, is the fact that they're talking to us now. This means that from *our* level of awareness, they're us in the future - we will become them LATER. But from theirs, obviously they exist simultaneously with their past selves (us), because they can communicate with them directly! So if their 6th density existance is concurrent with their 3rd density existance, it paints a different picture, a very nonlinear one. So although they did have to get to 6th density by going through all the densities before it, once they're there (and maybe even much before that), they become suddenly aware of their existance on that density at all "time", and so at some level, they were always there, they just didn't realise it when they were on lower densities!

So the only thing that "changed" is their awareness of what level they're at, but their existance on each level is infinite and simultaneous at the same time. In that sense, they did have physical bodies, do, and will - but at the same time, they never ever did, do not, and never will.

Man that's a mind twister o_O

 

[domi]

So, by your theory, is a Lizzie eating a human, and me eating a carrot the same thing? By your theory, a Lizzie is a higher being than a human, which is higher than a carrot. That doesn't make sense to me, but it does make sense that this is the way life is here in this dimension.

It is not about being a higher being, but having more awareness. "higher" is very subjective. OSIT

Once we start having abduction accounts involving carrots then you know we're in trouble