Vegetarianism?

Scio,

Regarding what you said here:
It's not STO to try to get others to be STO or anything for that matter! But I think maybe he's not so much trying to get'em to change, but maybe explicating the nature of STO and STS in kinda religious language so that someone reads it, learns, and then he can choose STO once he has a better idea of what it truly is?

I think you are right on the mark with this, as this was his intention in all of his teachings.

Also, I indentify with what you said regarding objectivity and mindfulness. Being mindful of one's thoughts and actions will lead to a more objective point of view, allowing one to see the polarity of things, as well as the fact that everything is one.

Finally, regarding extending love to others - I would question whether or not one would do this in order to selfish reasons. It makes one feel good to do so, so I question if the motiviation is ego driven. Just a thought.

Namaste
 
About the issue of helping others, particularly the example of homeless, or people asking for money on the street - I agree with Scio that by helping them, you can potentially be supporting STS. This was the original point I was trying to make and I think Scio was able to articulate it for me - thanks :)
 
sinimat said:
Finally, regarding extending love to others - I would question whether or not one would do this in order to selfish reasons. It makes one feel good to do so, so I question if the motiviation is ego driven.
Don't ego driven things feel good? Besides, if you're doing it because it makes you feel good, that's STS!
 
ScioAgapeOmnis said:
Don't ego driven things feel good? Besides, if you're doing it because it makes you feel good, that's STS!
Yes, that is my point. So, depending upon your consciousness when you do something, then your actions could be either STS or STO?
 
sinimat said:
ScioAgapeOmnis said:
Don't ego driven things feel good? Besides, if you're doing it because it makes you feel good, that's STS!
Yes, that is my point. So, depending upon your consciousness when you do something, then your actions could be either STS or STO?
I think so. There's the "law of 3" which basically means that there's "good" (STO) and there's "bad" (STS), and there's the specific situation (context) that determines which is which. I think intention is definitely part of the context.
 
ScioAgapeOmis said:
That's assuming that is what you will do! What if you use the help to get some beer and a hooker, and then go back to beg for more?
This and the next quote relate, IMO, to the same issue: constructive empathic action. The difference between religions and esoteric paths is that religions tell you how to act. They define situations and define what we must do, like the Vedas telling us what to eat and how.

The Vedas, however, are written in ancient Sanskrit, and can be translated and understood in different ways. Like Christianity, there is a surface version and a deeper version. A version for OP's and a version for those who are moved toware individuation.

The OP level of teaching tries to set up parameters of right action for every conceivable situation, or simply to dictate generalized proper behaviour. Esoteric development does not teach us how to act, but how to understand. And when we know how to understand, we can assess and act according to the unique complexity of each and every situation.

In the beginning we may need to test this, but a basic key is empathy, and another is obervation. Through learning to apply understanding we know when it is truly empathic (as opposed to self-righteous) to assist another. And minfulness puts us in a frame of awareness, where we are receptive to understanding.

This is regardless if the person we assist materially, for example, goes to see a hooker or feeds their children. The point is that when we sense that it is time to act, then the end result is constructive because the understanding attained is that a certain energy of awareness can be transmitted through the interaction that will lead to a useful lesson for the individual, and this may take many forms, including an encounter with a hooker that may lead to any number of other events.

Trying to predict the outcome of every situation does not work, IMO. Striving to attain the right frame of mind that is receptive to understandings of when it is right to act is the goal here, and often to do this we need to practice. On the other wand, we need to understand our own empathy and distinguish it from self-importance, which will usually lead to results that are not really helpful to the person.

We don't have to be "masters" to apply empathy, but we do need to be honest and understand our motives and be able to sense the asking within the event itself, which is usually reflected in a sense of rightness regarding the intended action.

What I do not believe is that we should take a predetermined stance on whether to act or not to act regardless of the situation. We are only following a menu in that case, when real development involves seeing the unseen in every event and happenstance.

ScioAgapeOmnis said:
It can be, but what sort of help would you be looking for? Do you want a handout to get you back on your feet, or do you want handouts to be your feet? Some people are the latter from my experience. Not all who ask for help and look like they need help, really are asking and really do need it, osit. Psychopaths are just one example. But many don't have to be psychopaths to use their apparent financial desperation to get free lunch - even if all they really want is free lunch, and don't ever wish to learn to cook at all. But then, how can you tell with someone you don't know? And if you don't know, what do you do? Do you unknowingly throw money at them, or do you withhold it just as unknowingly? I don't know. All thoughts welcome.
Actually, the understanding I discussed above is not calculating, so it does not consider the issue of someone getting a free lunch or not. Nothing is really free, ever. There is always an exchange, and we need to learn to see what it is in all our interactions, even when we think we are giving without return.

The "return" in STO giving is a greater opportunity for the whole, a widening of the probabilities of redemption from entropy. Since you put forth the issue, I just want to express the belief that seeing the unseen allows us to assess situations regardless of their complexity, even at a glance.

We can, of course, elaborate upon that glance for a more rational analysis if we ponder it, but the glance allows for spontaneous behaviour that permits STO action through empathic feedback (the sense of rightness when we are moved to act through feeling for another). And again, this is not sentimentality or alleviation of guilt or righteousness, but a sense that helping is helping. Similarly we may get a sense that "helping" can only make matters worse for the person, and block their lessons.

My reaction to sinimat was from the standpoint of watching someone stand "above" me with an attitude of a "rightness" that results from following a prescribed menu of behaviour, giving me platitudes that only makes matters worse. To speak or even silently hold an attitude of spiritual idealism in the face of others' suffering is to lack emphathy. Compassion, after all, means participating in the state of "passion" of the other.

If you cannot assist you walk away, and it is a valuable lesson because we should never completely forget the presence of suffering in this world, as a tangible reality. This is not as depressing as it sounds, because by sharing empathically, we may feel down for a while, but we also give an energy that counters entropy in another.

And in doing so, we are witnessing that suffering is not necessarily an eternal, but a variable that can decrease as we grow and learn to constructively give. We are not individuating to make ourselves feel better, but to give opportunity to the whole (where we are as well). In that we do not deny ourselves, its just that we are far better off when the whole is better off.

As I said, nothing is for free. So when we do participate in the "passion" of the other, they also participate in our more balanced state (if it is such), and that is being helpful. Seeing the unseen will allow us to know if our help can also manifest as action.
 
sinimat said:
About the issue of helping others, particularly the example of homeless, or people asking for money on the street - I agree with Scio that by helping them, you can potentially be supporting STS. This was the original point I was trying to make and I think Scio was able to articulate it for me - thanks :)
This issue is really interesting to me because of the time I've spent working with homeless people and also with drug addicts. I saw so many tragic and sad situations that since then, I've always given what I can whenever I'm asked, regardless of what they will do with the money. I just wanted to help, and it didn't occur to me that I may be supporting STS. I guess that each case has to be taken individually, but I find it really hard to walk away from a homeless person who is asking for help. This thread has raised some good points that I'm going to have to ponder.
 
EsoQuest said:
As I said, nothing is for free. So when we do participate in the "passion" of the other, they also participate in our more balanced state (if it is such), and that is being helpful. Seeing the unseen will allow us to know if our help can also manifest as action.
I think STO would try to alleviate suffering but retain the lessons inherent in it for the one who is suffering. However, the C's said and I agree - the same lesson can be learned in different ways. So by trying to alleviate suffering in an STO way you're not depriving someone of lessons, you're providing opportunity to learn them in a different way if they choose, a way without having to suffer. So the point would be to help as best as you can, but not so much as to interfere with the lessons (sometimes that means you cannot help at all, the devil being in the details). But maybe the key issue is opportunity - help in such a way as to create an opportunity for someone to come out of the suffering. But it still is upto them to use the opportunity and put in the effort - but the bottom line is that you make it possible or easier than it was before. Kinda like what SOTT does - just shine the light on the door, and although all this info that Laura and the group has uncovered has always existed, it was hard as hell to find and figure out - so by putting it together and making sense of it all, they're creating a better opportunity for others to learn it. They don't make it POSSIBLE because it was possible just extremely difficult, they just make it easier. But everyone still has to put in the effort to learn it on their own, Laura's work just helps and makes the process much less painful (although some pain/suffering IS still present as a natural aspect of the nature of the work involved, but that's universal).

So when you say that keeping a spiritual idealism of sorts when seeing someone suffer, it does strike of lack of empathy, I agree. I mean, if that spiritual idealism thing was true, what's the use of STO at all? If everything is just lessons, why are the C's even communicating with anyone, why not just leave everyone alone to learn their lessons without the C's ever getting involved? Aren't we capable of ever advancing without their help?

And why would SOTT even exist, can't the team just research this stuff for themselves and let everyone else do the same for themselves if they chose? So I think this is the way STO really fights STS - STS tries to control and keep people ignorant by shutting doors, but STO constantly opens new doors and shines a light on them. So it doesn't directly do anything to STS per se, it just gives people who are under almost total domination a crack in the foundation to look at - they shine the light on the truth and do their best to provide access to it by those who wish to find it.

This is probably also the reason for the crop circles, and I think the C's even said it themselves.

Q: (L) Is it true that crop circles are a kind of grand Reiki being given to the planet?
A: But also messages and lessons.
Q: (L) Who or what group is responsible for crop circles?
A: Us. You bet.
Q: (L) What is the purpose of the crop circles?
A: Messages to world. All.
Q: (L) Do these crop circles mean an idea, an energy, a concept; how do they transmit messages?
A: Translate; it can be done.
Q: (L) Why crop circles?
A: The answers to all the questions are, or will be there.
Q: (L) You said that crop circles represented thoughts from 6th density. What does this mean?
A: We are compiling an almanac as well as a manual for the entire terran population there. The reason we are doing this, is that there are millions who want to know the answers on the eve of the Grand Cycle Transformation. However, there are precious few that have chosen to try this form of communication, thus opening up a conduit.
Q: (L) Well, how many people are going to be able to understand?
A: But it would not be in form with Prime Level 7 Directive to limit entirely the availability of supreme knowledge!!!
Q: (L) So you are trying to put the entire story out there for all the world to see?
A: Not "trying," we are, my dear.
So the way I see it, suffering teaches lessons sure, but there may be other ways to learn the same lesson (depending on lesson anyway), and so to have this idealistic approach of "well he's suffering so it must be his karma/lessons so I cannot and will not help" is to make the assumption that part of his lesson cannot be to receive assistance, etc. And also it means that u assume that the lesson cannot be learned differently also. Because if this was true, what's the use of empathy? If we're not allowed to assist anyone in any way for any reason because all such assistance is interfering with suffering that is "required" for the lesson, then why even have empathy at all?

Besides you could then use this pseudo-logic and say that people should never work together on anything, cannot make groups or teams, because being in a team is easier than working on the same thing by yourself, and so you're depriving yourself of the essential lessons you need while suffering as you try to accomplish a huge task all by yourself. You can apply such pathocratic pseudo-logic to anything! In fact, the above would make nerworking terrible and evil because it eases the suffering of everyone involved tremendously! So the "spiritual idealism" is definitely pathocratically-inspired and promoted whenever possible.

Or it's like someone's life is in danger and u can save it, but u choose not to because u ask urself, "What if he's the next Hitler? For all I know by saving him I'm dooming the world!". That may be true, but you have no way of knowing it, and besides, maybe the only way Hitler or someone like that can ever "Doom" anything is if the world is stupid/naive/ignorant/complacent enough to put him into power in the first place. In which case the world would HAVE to suffer to learn that lesson, until everyone stops being so naive/ignorant/complacent, osit. On the other hand, what if the person is the next Jesus and you're dooming the world by not saving him and the knowledge he will end up gaining and teaching others? That would be the pseudo-counter-argument to the pseudo-argument using the pseudo-logic in the.. er wait.. now I've done and confused myself.

Anyways, I agree with you EQ, and I guess one last thing to add is "Be wise as serpents but gentle as doves". That can apply to helping others too.
 
Scio,

Again, I appreciate your logic. It makes sense to help each other out, because we are one collective conscious. However, things happen as they do and as they are supposed to. Saving someone from dying, I think is an extreme example. Let me explain my thoughts on this. I woudl try to help someone, however, the question arises: is the person supposed to die? By saving them, you do interfere with their path. However, maybe their path involves you saving them. It's difficult to tell. Also, by saving someone, we put less emphasis on the eternal being that they are and focus only on the physical. Oh no, this person is going to die and leave the physical plane, what a horrible thing. That is what people think. They are caught up in the physical. My thoughts are that this person is going to leave the physical, but they are going on to other things. They don't truly die.

Namaste
 
ScioAgapeOmnis said:
Anyways, I agree with you EQ, and I guess one last thing to add is "Be wise as serpents but gentle as doves". That can apply to helping others too.
That pretty much sums it up, IMO.
 
sinimat said:
Scio,

Again, I appreciate your logic. It makes sense to help each other out, because we are one collective conscious. However, things happen as they do and as they are supposed to. Saving someone from dying, I think is an extreme example. Let me explain my thoughts on this. I woudl try to help someone, however, the question arises: is the person supposed to die? By saving them, you do interfere with their path. However, maybe their path involves you saving them. It's difficult to tell. Also, by saving someone, we put less emphasis on the eternal being that they are and focus only on the physical. Oh no, this person is going to die and leave the physical plane, what a horrible thing. That is what people think. They are caught up in the physical. My thoughts are that this person is going to leave the physical, but they are going on to other things. They don't truly die.

Namaste
Perhaps so, but if Laura, Ark, QFG, and SOTT were to suddenly leave the physical plane, it might be really bad for the rest of us unless someone somehow manages to take up the torch, which would be rather difficult to say the least and dare I say pretty unlikely? So what I mean is, sometimes saving a life is not just focusing on the physical, the devil is in the details. Yes you're at that moment saving something physical, but in the end you can also be saving something much greater, much more profound and spiritual than the body.

I think in that sense, the law of 3 is still applied. While you ARE saving the physical, your intention and the specific situation and the result etc.. can make the action much more than it appears at a glance. So while sometimes you save the body because you're focusing on the physical, at other times you can actually save a body because you're focusing on the spiritual?

Just some thoughts.
 
I don't think it is right to stand by and watch someone die when you can do something about it. Imagine drowning and asking for help while someone on land or on a boat looks on and tells you physical life doesn't matter. I hope it's not this scenario that's being debated. I shudder to think that there is anyone on this forum who can just sit back and watch someone die with a smile on their face.

That said, the issue I think is rather if and when to intervene and alleviate physical suffering at any and every opportunity. Again, I think what should be avoided is making rules and generalizations here. The whole point of knowledge is to know when and how to act, often through split second gut-level decisions assessing situations at a glance. This refers to the application of knowledge grounded in one's whole being, instinctive, emotive and mental so all three elements work as one and we don't waste time debating with ourselves.

On the other hand, doing the work involves dealing with the causes of suffering, which affect the physical plane, but are not necessarily its inherent or only nature. In fact, learning about the deeper nature of the physical and why it is a realm of suffering is part of the learning. The cause of suffering is actually the Matrix infecting the physical plane, and unless that is addressed, we cannot tell the difference between it and any possible benign qualities of the physical plane. We might be throwing out the baby with the bathwater, and miss something in our haste to get beyond what we believe is a plane of suffering, rather than a plane infected by suffering.

More directly, it is Pathocrats and psychopaths and their ways that cause most material and psychological anguish in this world. So understanding and dealing with them is probably the shortest and most effective path in helping anyone. And they know this, or they would not be so gung ho to attack anyone who tries to get at the heart of the issue.
 
EsoQuest said:
More directly, it is Pathocrats and psychopaths and their ways that cause most material and psychological anguish in this world. So understanding and dealing with them is probably the shortest and most effective path in helping anyone. And they know this, or they would not be so gung ho to attack anyone who tries to get at the heart of the issue.
Which actually reminds me of the war on terrorism. It seems the whole point is to go for "those responsible". Ok, but although the patsies are always directly responsible, they're practically never truly responsible - that's why they're the patsies! So while we hunt down the puppets, the puppet masters get new puppets. However, of course this is the only way this can be done, because we ARE (US government, Israel government, UK, etc) the puppet masters (not ultimately, but to some degree yes)! So of course investigating the issue and tracing the money and who's giving the orders to whom and why suddenly brings us back to our own doorstep, so this cannot be allowed. How to avoid it? Focus on the little guy, focus on boogie men like Bin Laden and declare that they are in "charge" - even if they TOO can easily be working for someone else. The point though isn't that they ARE working per se, it's that no one asks that question in the first place! Of course SOMETIMES there may be an independent group, but historically, most often there's a lot more involved, there's practically never an independent fringe group - there's almost always evidence that points to their involvement with other more shadowy guys. So the fact that no one in the political arena even proposes the possibility that Bin Laden and his terrorists could be receiving funding or training or orders from someone else, can only mean one of 2 things. Either our governments are criminally negligent and unable to use simple investigative logic that every investigator always considers for every case they have to solve, or they are the criminals which would also explain the silence.

Of course, even if Bush, Blair, and others are tossed out and the evidence is finally looked at that points to their involvement, although they are higher in the hierarchy than say Bin Laden or your average "Mr Plane Hijacker", they're patsies as well. So it seems the system of control works in such a way as to convince people that the lowest possible guy at the lowest end must be the end of the chain - he must be responsible and there IS no one above him. There is almost always evidence that there is, but it is ignored/covered up etc until some freak accident that it becomes public. If so, the next higher guy is allowed to be removed as the one *TRULY* responsible. If more evidence leaks, more guys can be removed in the same manner. But with each removal, the chances that evidence will get out again usually decrease for 2 reasons. One, the public itself is usually satisfied by then, because they are manipulated heavily into being satisfied and so they do not try to uncover further evidence for higher involvement. Second, because the system works double-time to eliminate/cover up/distort any and all remaining evidence. And as is always the case, if the population is not content with tossing out the fall guy at the bottom, the guy a few ranks up who was also involved almost certainly will satisfy us. This seems to be a psychological thing, due to programming/conditioning. The higher we go the scarier it is to go there too - before you know it you'll have to be tossing out practically EVERYONE involved in business or politics, and the higher you go, the more corruption. The whole system would have to be turned on its head and absolutely redone from scratch. No one dares go that far, that's "unthinkable"...

It's like a tree losing a relatively small branch - while all the other branches and the tree itself remain intact, and it grows that branch back anyway. Sacrifice something less important to preserve/protect/gain something more important. Same tactic of course was used on 911 - Sacrifice a few buildings, a few thousand people, a few companies to gain something much more important to the PTB. Same tactic as used by highschool bullies - hurt themselves and say "Jimmy did it!" and of course no one can fathom that the bully would just hurt himself in order to get Jimmy in trouble. Who would do that? It's unthinkable because the perspective is that the Bully values his own personal comfort more than getting Jimmy in trouble! But because it's hard to conceive that someone may want to hurt someone else so much that they can sacrifice a lot of other things just to get that satisfaction, most people dare not even consider this - it's... there's that word again, "unthinkable!"...

Ironically, on a smaller scale, almost everyone does something very similar to this psychopathic tactic on a daily basis. The infamous "pity me" routine where we try to get the sympathy of others for whatever reason we want - be it to get attention, their pity energy, help, "love", some money, whatever. This is nothing but a manipulation to control someone using their own pity/emotions. Often we're not satisfied with just what we "get" for our pitiful state, we often also create fall guys (actually we almost always do) - someone or something to blame for our misery. Whether it is our friend, our boss, our husband, our wife, our job, our kids, our neighbor, etc. Whoever or whatever we want - and then we get others "on our side" - not due to critical thinking or logic, but simply due to their pity of us. So the governments use that same very common social tactic to set us against whoever they want, the only thing different is that because they are the government and represent a nation, it then amounts to the only thing that reflects a conflict between nations - war or something close to it. In our own personal social dramas we wage war too, we just don't call it that. But it is still the same dynamic and uses the same lies and the same sorts of tactics, osit. And because it works so easily on many people in a micro-social scale, it works just as well on a macro-national level. As above so below.

Although sometimes our misery really can be attributed to a psychopath in our lives, but self-pity and complaining and getting pity-energy from others and setting them against the person is not going to make it go away, since the psychopath can play that game right back at ya, and he'll be better at it! In fact, he'll convince you that it is IS your own fault even if it's really not. So curiously, we blame others when it is our fault, and when it's not, we can end up blaming ourselves. So in a sad sort of irony, we end up being wrong almost all the time! And when we do happen to be right, we tend to be unable to deal with it because the steps we take to deal with it were ALSO pathocratically inspired and so are ineffective and escalate the problem while pretending to solve it. Sometimes it does mask it on the surface giving us the impression that we solved it, but it always comes back.

Like when our government blames the patsies for our national problems (like 911) we blame the innocent. Then our governments try to convince the 3rd world nations and everyone else that is poor in our nation as well, that it's their own fault, and many buy that one too. So again, we just end up blaming ourselves for what is NOT our fault, and blaming others for what is not their fault - and so we end up with a chaotic and confused world ruled by a few pathocrats who understand the nature of the game.

And again I agree EQ, best not to create templates and generalizations about what we would do, but judge each situation in its own context because the devil is in the details. Besides, almost anything we do while alive is concentrating on the physical at least in part! We eat, we go to work, we brush our teeth, we take showers, etc. So we could say "well we should stop doing all of this, it's concentrating on the physical" - but that would be pretty silly because we ARE physical (maybe not entirely, but our body is part of us for the time being so it's fair to say that we're physical at least in part), we're here now and we can't learn anything here unless we, at least to a reasonable extent, concentrate on the physical and take care of our body long enough to stick around and learn what we came here for. Paying attention to global events is also concentrating on the physical, etc. But they are crucial to our learning and development not just as physical beings, but as spiritual beings. As above so below.

So while I agree that "concentrating on the physical" or "worshipping physicality" is not helpful to moving on because by doing this you're making the choice to stick around - but taking care of our physical existance and being careful and avoid losing it is probably important since we need to stick around to learn what lessons may be here to learn. The difference is, for some people taking care of their physical existance IS the goal. For others, it is temporarily part of a process to a higher goal. And of course just to what degree we concentrate on the physical but still aim and work towards a higher goal is probably something that is impossible to generalize or put into a template of any sort, and must be creatively and consciously worked out by each one of us as we go along.

Anyways, just something to consider.

P.S. - although the pathocrats are responsible for global psychological and material misery, we're responsible for carrying it out for them. They're just manipulating us using our own ignorance and mechanicalness/wishful thinking etc. So maybe the way to "deal with them" is simply by dealing with ourselves and our perception - to gain knowledge and make it objective and stop allowing ourselves to be manipulated and fooled into hurting each other. When psychopaths can no longer manipulate others, their power is cut off at the source. We cannot engange in a direct confrontation with them as a way to fix the problem - the whole world will be against us, we will be branded as psychopaths ourselves, and we'll lose.

The only defense and weapon is knowledge, osit. And our ignorance is their only defense and weapon.
 
I'm a little confused by the whole vegetarian debate, and when searching came across this thread.

My take on eating meat was that you are enforcing your will upon the will of another living thing. Of course, all plants are living things too, but then the argument is, plants offer many fruits, and to eat a fruit does not require the killing of the tree. But then you have vegetables which aren't on trees...on and on...

I aint going to take up smoking just because lizzies don't like flesh marinated with it, because cigarettes taste like crap. But I am wondering, are there more vegetarians than meat eaters, and are there more non-smokers than smokers? Seems a long stretch when time is so short to be trying to change the world from meat eating smokers to vegetarian non-smokers now. Does anyone else find themselves wondering this too?

Wow this is confusing!!!
 
Below is another recent article on vegetarianism which adds to this discussion. Check it out. :)

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/203114-Vegetarians-Have-Smaller-Brains
 
Back
Top Bottom