WaveInTheOcean

I just read this again and stumbled over the ignorance of what I just read. The food industry will never see the "light" as long as the consumers (you and me) continue to buy what they currently offer. This is just so extremely obvious that even a 5-year old should be able to understand it. NTO, instead of all your wall of texst of mostly nonsense in this thread, why can't you just write: "I couldn't care less that animals get slaughtered on farms every day. I couldn't care less that I support the killing of conscious animals so that my tongue can enjoy the tasty taste of meat. I don't care because I weigh the convenience and taste of eating meat over concious animals getting treated properly."

"But meat cannot be allowed, that is just ugly. Just to think that you are killing an animal to eat, just the very idea, is unaesthetic. I am not against it because the animal is killed… because that which is essential in the animal will live, it cannot be killed, and that which is nonessential, whether you kill it or not, is going to die. So that is irrelevant, that is not a point for me to consider. The question is not that you have killed the animal and killing is not good, no. The question is that you have killed the animal — you. Just to eat? While beautiful vegetarian food is available? If vegetarian food is not available, that’s one thing. But the food IS available. Then why? Then why destroy a body? And if you can kill an animal, then why not be a cannibal? What is wrong with killing a man? The meat derived from a human body will be more in tune with you. Why not start eating human beings? That too is a question of aesthetics. And the animals are brothers and sisters, because man has come from them. They are our family. To kill a man is only to kill an evolved animal, or to kill an animal is just to kill somebody who is not yet evolved but is on the way. It is the same. Whether you kill the child when he is in the first grade or whether you kill the young man when he has come to his last grade in the university, it does not make much difference. The animals are moving towards human beings, and human beings had once been animals. It is only a question of aesthetics. Why not kill your wife and eat her? She is so beautiful and so sweet…. A friend came to a cannibal and the food was prepared and the friend had never tasted anything like it. He had never even dreamed that food could be so tasty, so delicious. When he was leaving he said to the cannibal, “I loved the food. I have never loved food so much. When I come next, prepare the same dishes.” And the cannibal said, “That is difficult, because I only had one mother.” Why can’t you eat your mother? Why can’t you eat your husband or your child? — so delicious. The question is not religious, I would like to remind you again, it is a question of aesthetics." -Osho , http://www.oshomandakini.com/you-can-eat-meat-and-you-can-love/ This resonated pretty well with me.

"Besides, I thought mindfulness was about eating without thinking, so which is it " Sure it is. Forget about eating. I'm talking about buying. You also think mindfulness is about buying stuff without thinking? :-) To me, it's rather the opposite. It's being asleep. Now, there's inherently nothing wrong with being asleep though. Buying stuff always supports the seller/producer of that stuff - that's obvious. If the seller/producer does something that's very much against your values, and you still buy the produced -- while being aware of all this -- then... then what?

I won't even bother comment on this. Great reply here mate. Why do you send me this? He talks about killing isn't wrong, and that non-killing hasn't anything to do with 'spirituality'. Sure, I fully agree. His example about how we might kill rats if they raid our house and bite our children is pointless here. Of course I suppose most people, including me, would do anything to get rid of rats if they invaded your house. Including killing them. Nothing wrong with killing them at all. Phase? Observing genuinally how the society and such functions has nothing to do with phases lol. In fact I don't care much about how society functions, although I am pretty interested in studying it, as it fascinates me. It has nothing to do with phases. And no, I haven't been at any Neill-phase or anything. In fact, I've never been a vegetarian/vegan. I'm just discussing the matter of consciously supporting the livestock industry vs unconsciously supporting it vs unconsciously not supporting it. Yes, it's all egoic matters and it doesn't matter ultimately. But from an egoic point, I argue that it matters, although I still continue to eat it, at least for now. I'm not trying to win any argument here, really... I'm just discussing whether or not it matters to the ego if you eat meat consciously knowing you're indirectly contributing to the harm of conscious animals. Of course you can just live in unconscious bliss. That's what most people do. Of course not, I have never claimed otherwise. Sure, you can become enlightened while still eating meat. Never claimed otherwise. The ego can bargain with itself. In fact it does that often, consciously or unconciously. "and that the only way forward is to stop valuing its take on the dream" This is just pure nonsense :-) What/who is it that has to stop valuing the ego's take on the dream? What is even valuing the dream in the first place? Ego, ego, ego. Of course ego can be bargained with. What the fuck are you actually talking about. What cannot be bargained with is Being/Truth/God - but the very thing that can be bargained with is naturally the ego for christ sake :-) In fact the ego bargains with itself almost all the time. Just to clarify why your sentences here are complete nonsense: "The only choice you have now is to consider that ego can't be bargained with," You're so obviously contradicting yourself here. You say that an ego (me) has to 'consider' that it can't bargain with itself. Well if it is able to consider stuff, then of course it can bargain with itself. C'mon :-)

The opposite statement: 'Everything I experience in both the internal and external world is a manifestation of what I am. It is what I am. I absolutely asked for all of it. Nothing in life was given to me. I took it all' Is just as true as yours. In fact from a Being/Truth/divine perspective it's more true, and your statement (that I'm not responsible for the live given to me) is pure egoic lies you tell yourself. Yes, from an ego-perspective you were born into this world, and you had absolutely nothing to do with it! Here the ego sees itself either as a mechanical fluke (atheists) or as a prisoner on probation (religion, the big Father in heaven is watching you!). Either perspective you take, you don't really feel you belong in this world. If you instead can allow yourself to see beyond yourself, and see that your true nature is Divine/God/infinite consciousness/Nothingness -- or to put in other words: that your true deep-down-within 'Self' is the same process that gave birth to who you think you are (the ego) -- then you can actually start to feel that your own existence is absolutely fundamental. You begin to feel that you belong here. You know what? There are thousands of vegan imitations of meat that has the same texture and tastes somewhat like meat. Just look for it. Yeah, 100% agree, in fact that's all we can be mindful of. All we can be mindful of is what we individually experience. Which leads me to: Again, there is nothing wrong with the death of one's illusionary self/ego/person/body/human/animal. It's so natural, yes. Also, there is nothing wrong with suffering either. Ultimately there's nothing wrong. Everything just is. Things can only be wrong from an ego-perspective. However, we must also realize that we do in fact live from an ego-perspective, and we have to cope with that. From an ego-perspective, suffering/pain will always be "not-wanted". No matter how enlightened you are, if I stick a knife into your chest, you will scream of pain. The screaming comes from ego/biological mechanisms, and it's disliked by the person. Since you, from your perspective don't want suffering for yourself - ask yourself - do you want to unnecessarily cause suffering upon other ego's than your own ego? If the answer is no, which I suppose it will be for most people with an atleast average type of awareness/consciousness, then that implies that you, your own ego, will naturally feel pain each time you see suffering in another being. Yes, when you eat your beef from the supermarket, you don't directly see any pain, but if you're just minimally interested in truth, you must be aware that because you bought that beef, you are actually directly contributing to the misery of other beings. And why inflict that pain upon yourself? Why are you doing it? Because it tastes well ... ? Be mindful of your own experience. Yes. If what you do externally doesn't align with how you feel internally, then that can only lead to some sort of pain, which will show in one way or another. If what you feel internally, is that you don't want to cause unnecessary suffering onto other ego's/conscious animals/humans, but you externally still buy the meat and eat it everyday -- and you deep within know, that you just supported an industry that causes pain to conscious animals -- then there is an obvious misalignment, and I can't see how that cannot lead to some sort of unhappiness. It's all about being mindful and aware, ultimately. If you're totally blind to how the meat/livestock-industry functions, either because: - you couldn't care less about where the food you eat comes from - you have mental problems/are mentally retarded, then fine, go eat your meat, it won't impact you in any conscious or unconscious way. Just look at young children. Give them meat, and they'll eat it. It tastes yummy. Show a young 3-5-year-old where the meat comes from, how the male-pigs gets castrated without pain-relief when they're born, how they're treated, how they have no space to live, how they're slaughtered, how they're suffering, how a female cow's calve is taken away from her within a few days etc. and I'm sure the kid will start to cry. It just comes from deep within us, that we dislike suffering. If you're aware of all these things, then how can you keep supporting what's going on? How? Why are you inflicting this pain upon yourself? But yeah, most people are brainwashed to infinity by the culture, society, capitalistic industries. The livestock industry does all it can to fabricate this image of happy animals living in peace on the farms. When you buy milk, surely there's a smiling cow on the bottle. And etc etc etc. Ultimately, I don't care if you - or anyone for that matter - eat meat or don't. I'm just a dude who likes to discuss human behaviour/consciousness on an internet-forum. I dislike many vegans' total attachment to their vegan-lifestyle, and how they furiously want to enforce it upon others. I care about myself only, just like - ultimately - everyone else does, even if they pretend/think they do not. Exactly :-) Find out.

There is naturally nothing wrong with eating meat in itself. If you stumble upon a death bird, hare, squirrel, deer in the woods, by all means, take it home and cook it if it seems fresh and you're hungry. If you go at a cold night look in a supermarket's container and find some beef that ran out today, and you still think it's fresh, sure take it home and eat some beef. Also hunting in the woods alone in search of animals to eat, because you're, say living in the woods and desperately need food, sure go and kill an animal and eat something so you can survive. But if you go down to the supermarket and buy pig, cow, chicken or whatever meat for dinner, then you're directly supporting the livestock industry and thus directly supporting the suffering/killing of more animals. Only because you like the taste. Because the more meat the supermarket sells translates, again, directly to the supermarket buying more meat from the slaughterhouses, which then translates to the slaughterhouses buying more cows w/e from the farms, which then translates to the farmer seeing opportunity to get an even larger farm of cow/pigs/chicken whatever, and thus more conscious beings born into slavery with their death already planned.

When asked why he was a vegetarian, philosopher Alan Watts famously quipped, “because cows scream louder than carrots.” All eating involves killing, but it pays to be mindful of it, and Watts knew it.

Hey dude, I'm pretty skeptical with new age as well, for the same reasons as you. I've never heard of Matt Khan. Can you specify/Do you remember which Matt Kahn-video blew your mind? EDIT: I checked some of his videos and they seem good. However, stuff like this: http://www.truedivinenature.com/blog/energy-update-march-2015-demystifying-ascension-part-1 (which he has wrote) about him recieving a date from the Universe (27th Sep 2015) where 1/3rd of the Earth's population will transform from 3D to 5D consciousness ... well that's seems like some conceptualized crap.

ANyway a microbe - for the dear love of god - has no feelings, obviously. It has no nervous system. Can we please all agree on the fact, that the only materialistic thing in this Universe, that we know of, that is capable of 'trapping' the infinite mind into a finite-egoic-mind is a nerual system (also called a brain). And that complex of neurons probably has to have some complexity before there is actually 'created' a seperation between the infinite and the finite. For there to be a 'finite' mind (ego) there has to be SOME sort of an illusion of awareness of a self. Mammals obviously are self-aware, not as much as humans are, but they are aware, they have feelings. A microbe is not aware. It is not an ego. It has no feelings. Can we pls all agree on that.

Survival agenda? Sure, all living organism have that. We have to separate between 'living' organisms and organisms that are capable of feeling. "But that it feels is pretty clear" You just said this about a microbe or about a flower. That, is in my eyes, a very radical statement. You assume a lot here. What do you base it on? That a microbe has survival mechanicsms? lol. Survival mechanisms has nothing to do with feelings. Again, death in it self is also not something that causes suffering. All suffering comes fro ego. That much we can agree on hopefully. High consciousness humans don't want to inflict unnecessary suffering onto other egos. I say, that a microbe has no ego. A flower has no ego. I am an ego. A puppy is an ego. A cow is an ego. "That humans tend to feel sorry for polar bears and cuddly puppies is totally arbitrary. " Well, within 'mammals', yes sure, it's arbritary. Compared to organisms not capable of feeling pain (have no ego's) like flowers and microbes, it is not arbritary. If I pour hydrochloric acid over 1 billion microbes so they all die - due to the low pH levels making their vital enzymes not function properly - I hear no screams. I see no signs of emotional pain that I as another ego can relate to. If I stick a knife into a tree I see see no signs of pain. If I stick a knife into a cow it moans and twist. THAT I can relate to. That makes me aware, that it has feelings. That's why I don't do it.

For an "organism" to suffer, it has to posses some neural system that makes it possible to create a sort of awareness of one self. Self / mind = the only mechanism of suffering in this Universe. Suffering doesn't exist outside ego/mind/self. Is a microbe a fucking ego? No. Is a flower or a tree or an apple an ego? No fucking way. Is an mosquito an ego? I don't think so. Is a worm an ego? Nah. Is a living dog an ego? Yes. Is a living pig an ego? Yes. Is a living cow an ego? Yes. It's actually pretty easy to contemplate why pigs, dogs, cows posses egos/minds/self's, and thus can suffer. We know as human being that we are capable of feeling pain/suffering. When we see signs of our own suffering in other beings, eg. a cow/dog/pig making painful noises that relate to when we scream, that must mean that those beings also have a self. In other words, when we in the external world see something that is similar/resembles our own reaction to suffer/pain, that must mean that that external 'phenomenon' which we observed must be capable of feeling pain/suffering/is a self. I don't see suffer/ego-phenomenon in: microbes flowers trees I don't know with insects. I mean I have seen a bee die where it makes some movements that looks like it's in pain... however, we know that unconscious humans can also make movements when they're unconscious.

Great report as always. Can you specify what kind of meditation music you listened to?

"but I can't accept that my ambition and my pending execution of it, has no importance in the bigger scale of things!" Your doings in life has both zero importance and infinite importance. No importance and infinite importance are two sides of the same coin. For there to be a 'meaning' of anything, there absolutely have to be no-meaning of everything. And virce versa. For there to be no meaning of life - to even discuss this matter/say these words - there has to be a meaning of life from the individual's perspective.

I would argue that only ego's are able to suffer in this world. Then I would further argue that microbes and plants don't have any ego. They experience absolutely zero personal suffering, because they are not personlalized. They have no persona. They have no ego. They are NOT individual separated begins. They just are. The flower doesn't care if you burn it, eat it, stamp on it or w/e you do with it. Same with the microbe. Now to me at least, obviously a cow, a pig, a dog, a chicken are, on the other hand, very much able to suffer. They ARE individual separated beings. They DO care. They are personalized. They do have ego's. Why? Well, first of all because they have nervous systems (brains) that are constructed in the general same way as my brain, as a human being. Secondly, just by observing them, you can see they do have feelings. Now, insects and worms - I don't actually know. Hard to say. But I find it utterly absurd to put plants & microbes on the same footing as animals.

Oh yeah, my mistake I guess for labeling the topic ethics. The point of this thread was actually to discuss if it is possible for a person with very high 'consciousness' (say a person like Leo, who claim to have that) to each day go down the store and support the livestock industry by exchanging $$$ for some nice yummy delicious-tasting bacon, beef, chicken, you name it. (My mouth is watering, brb, going to fridge!) Back: And thus contributing to more baby-pigs and calves getting born out of nothingness into existence with only one purpose: the taste of their bodies' meat tastes good, the enjoyment of eating bacon, a nice burger, mhmhm. Basically getting born into slavery. Is it possible for a high-consciousness-being to support the livestock industry? Well. Are animals conscious beings? Yes. Is it in alignment with a pig's/cow's nature to stand compressed together in a stable their whole life?

"light" food vs gross food "deep" meditation vs light meditation "weightless" body vs weighted body "nautral' body vs unnatural body "flowing" body vs unflowing body "loaded body vs unloaded body" All based on whether you eat meat or not. Concepts, concepts, concepts, concepts, and then some more concepts. Beliefs, beliefs, beliefs on top of more beliefs. To me, it's extremely obvious that you are just making up these beliefs/concepts, because they fit nicely with your vegan/vegetarian lifestyle, you have chosen. Let's stick to reality, please

"What the vegan/vegetarian argument tends to ignore is that just as many animals are killed in the production of plant-based foods on a calorie per calorie basis" What a claim to make without any references/evidence/links. :-) Sure, some animals are killed in production of plant-based foods. Like when creating new fields for soy and grain production, sure some animals lose their land and die. And sure when the combines go crazy , sure some rabbits etc get killed, although I suspect some must be able to hear the gigantic machines and run away. WHen the combines go crazy, at least the rabbits etc die a clean, quick death. Being a pig/cow in a farm is like being a slave. There is nothing wrong with death in itself. Anyway, even though some animals are killed by the production of plant-based foods, your argument is extremely weak due to 2 points: 1. it's 100% less than the 50+ billion land animals getting slaugthered each year globally on a farm for the enjoy of meat-eaters. 2. a very large percentage (like 30-50%) of all grain produced worldwide is fed to livestock. Which also means that meat-eaters require many times more land than vegans.

Well, not quite spot on, as many people who have meditated for years / done 5-MeO / have had awakenings like Azrael, Leo, Tolle etc still eat meat.

Right now, you are 100% seeing all the Truth that could ever be. You think you are not seeing it, but it's impossible to avoid. You are fully enlightened, and you could never be otherwise. The simple ordinary awareness that you have of anything that arises either in the 'world' or in 'your mind' is the Truth. There is nothing more to enlightenment than realizing directly that what is appearing in awareness -- before you take claim of it -- is the Truth. The ultimate reality is that there is not nor has there ever been a 'you' to take claim of any object/thought of awareness. --- The mistake some people make is that they believe: "We are in the matrix. We are trapped and this (reality) is all one big illusion". No, this is not an illusion. This is the reality. The illusion is that anybody exists that could percieve it. That is the illusion. Everything that you see here - the universe, you, that hat, that hair, that house, that tree, that man walking over there with his dog - that's the reality, that has always been the reality. That's the only reality that has ever been. The delusion is that anybody is experiencing it. --- All I just wrote here is just a transcription of some parts of Norquist's speech found here: I don't know why I wanted to write it on paper and share it here but I did.

Neo, Leo was once very much against psychedelics. I remember him replying on youtube comments: "no, psychedelics cannot help you become enlightened" . Due to Leo's greater than average open-mindedness he has done his research on the topic and experienced for himself, that psychedelics, in fact, can be a helpful tool. You seem to lack some of that open-mindedness currently.

One of his most profound speeches is imo this one (very long though):

You claim not to be enlightened, but still postulate that enlightenment = hell. You're on the transition. Sure the transition may be hell.

"Think about the idea of systematically destroying everything you hold to be true." Then think about, after that, actually experiencing absolute Truth. Not believing anything conceptually or intellectually, but directly seeing Truth. Become one with Truth. I'm not talking about "knowing truth", but about direct experience. You haven't experienced Truth. You have only conceptually/intellectually grasped it. You post reflect that you, sure, have gotten some insights that are relatively more true than most ordinary people have - like your soundbyte analogy etc. But you haven't experienced absolute Truth. "I realized that to be "ego-less" i.e. "enlightened" ... " Go investigate who the "I" is that has be "ego-less" in order to become enlightened. Enlightenment is not an ego-less state. It's just a self-realization/Truth state (of the ego itself) Look. Life is dualistic. On and off. Reality seems dualistic: on: Being seeing itself as ego. off: Ego seeing itself as Being. In both states ego remains. It's just what perspective ego has. Enlightened people are just people who have experienced both the 'on' and the 'off'-state. 99,999% people have only experienced the 'on'-state. Enlightened people have naturally not only experienced the 'on'-state but also seen the 'off'-state, and thus, by having directly experienced both states, one can see that both states are arbitrary and equally relatively true/non-true and that the on-state can't exist without the off-state. So thus by seeing this, one can directly see how the absolute Truth is a merging of the 'on' and 'off', a collapse of the illusionary reality/life into God/Absolute Truth/Non-Dualism. Enlightened people have directly experienced this. It's not something you can intellectualy, conceptually or logically grasp. Because intellect, concepts and logic all depend on that we believe dualism is the TRUTH (dualism = feeling of being a seperated self). My explanation here is just an analogy. You can only become it. EDIT: Beliefs, pain, memory, time, dimensions only exist in the 'on'-state. In the off-state these are gone, because Being is absolutely infinite and can't be constrained to relative, finite concepts such as time, dimensions, pain, memories, beliefs. Therefore, yes, you need to have a "will" to shake your beliefs in order to go from the on to the off-state. A "will" to be completely 'open'/empty. A will to empty your cup(=mind). An accept of not-knowing. Total surrender of all you hold dear, including the belief of being a seperated self/body-mind. Or just take psychedelics - 5-MeO should do the trick. Note: In the transition from the "on" to "off"-state you might experience complete terror/hell, no matter if you make the transition with or without 5-MeO.