If a lion can become a vegan, so can humans.

[Matt8800]

53 minutes ago, Mikael89 said:

Adyashanti:

"It is much more painful to act in a way that we know is not true once we've seen that it is not true. Before we may have acted in ways that were based in untruth, but we didn't know it - we were totally in the dream state. As Jesus said, "Forgive them, for they know not what they do." 

When we are in the dream state, we do not know what we are doing. We are simply acting out of deep programming. But once we have seen the true nature of things - once spirit has opened its eyes within us - we suddenly know what we're doing. There's a much more accurate sense of whether we're moving or speaking or even thinking from truth or not. 

When we act from a place of untruth anyway, in spite of our knowing, it's much more painful than when we didn't know our actions were untrue. When we say something to someone that we know is untrue, it causes an inner division that is vastly more painful than when we said the same thing and thought it was true.

So with awakening, the stakes go up. The more awake we get, the higher the stakes get. I remember when I was staying at a Buddhist monastery for a while. The abbess there, a wonderful woman, talked about this process of awakening as climbing a ladder. With each step you go, you have less tendency to look down. You have less tendency to to act in ways you know aren't true or to speak in ways you know aren't true or do things you know aren't coming from truth. You start to realize that the consequences have become greater; the more awake we get, the greater the consequences are. Finally, the consequences of acting outside of truth becomes immense; the slightest action or behavior that's not in accordance with the truth can be unbearable to us.

This type of responsibility is not something we count on when we imagine awakening. We think that awakening will be a get-out-of-jail-free card. Initially we have a relationship with the spiritual freedom of awakening that is infantile. We think that freedom is a personal thing; that it is about feeling extraordinarily good and free. But freedom is much more nuanced than that. It is not a personal thing; it is not an acquisition for us.

As we become more conscious, we begin to see that there are consequences. There are consequences to everything, and they get bigger and bigger the more we behave in ways that are not in harmony with what we know is true. This is actually a wonderful thing. It is what I call fierce grace. It is not a soft grace; it is not the kind of grace that is beautiful and uplifting. But it is a grace nonetheless. We know that when we act from what is not true, we will only be causing ourselves pain. That knowledge is grace.

Reality is always true to itself. When you're in harmony with it, you experience bliss. As soon as you are not in harmony with it, you experience pain. This is the law of the universe; it is the way things are. Nobody gets out of this law. To me, this knowledge is a grace. Reality is consistent. Argue with it, go against it, and it will hurt - every single time. It will hurt you, it will hurt others, and it will contribute to the general conflict of all beings.

But this fierceness is also beautiful. It helps orient us deeper and deeper into our true nature. We realize that to behave from any place other than our true nature is destructive to ourselves, and, just as important, to the world and others around us. The more we understand this, the more often we are able to right ourselves when we get off course."

- Adyashanti

@Mikael89 Ive studies near death experiences quite extensively. It is common for people to have NDEs and come back to say things like love is the most important thing, death doesnt matter, treat others well, etc, etc. One thing they never do say is that their guides told them humans should not eat meat. In regards to what people learn from the spirits that guide them on the NDEs, its a non-issue.

I am receptive to my spirit guides and they have told me a lot of things I didnt want to hear at the time. If they want me to stop eating meat, they will tell me.

Avoid meat if you want but the beings on the other side dont seem to really care.

[Scholar]

16 minutes ago, Matt8800 said:

@Scholar I love animals so I can see your perspective more than it may appear. I even try to avoid killing insects.

I also try to stick with chicken and fish to avoid more complex animals. With that said, I have accepted that a chicken might see a few less sunsets so its body can provide nourishment. I like the Native American attitude where they show gratitude for what the animal is providing for them.

If it is a matter of just consciousness, I am an animist so I believe everything is conscious, including plants. Consciousness is on a spectrum of complexity.

The very act of living and surviving takes from the environment. It displaces animals from their homes, destroys insects, diverts water, etc, etc, etc. There is always a give and take and cannot be avoided, though we differ in opinions as to go about that giving and taking.

I dont agree that people are just as healthy without meat. There might be some people whose bodies adjust just fine but many people dont do as well. I have known people that went vegan but switched back for health reasons. If veganism was more healthy, athletes would be vegans simply so they could win more often.

In Yoga, the ascetics, who didnt eat meat, drink alcohol or have sex sat on the right of the guru. The tantrikas sat on the left of the guru. In Tantra, they might eat meat, drink alcohol, take mind altering drugs and have sex. This is how we got the terms, "right hand path" and "left hand path". I am on the Tantric left hand path.

Disagree with the behavior and actions of others if you like but aversion to the "other" is just more duality. There are different paths.

Why do you think it is fine to kill chicken and fish when we can eat things like mussels if we truly did need that kind of nourishment? The oceans are radically overfished, so much so that entire eco-systems are already in the process of collapsing. How can you continue doing that when you have an alternative which is less sentient?

Whether you believe in animism or not does not really change the difference is sentience. When you are in deep sleep, you are still consciousness, yet you are not sentient. Only in sentience there can exist things like value and suffering, so I do not see why animism would change anything about the moral consideration of creatures which are not merely consciousness, but also contain sentience. Again, to call everything sentience would not make any sense as even in deep sleep, a human being with a fully active brain, will lose sentience.

 

Mussels as far as we know are not sentient, and if they are, they are far less so than a chicken or a fish. More importantly, I do not think there is and can be a large scale chicken industry which will not necessarily contain a horrendous amount of suffering, which you would have to justify. The same is true for fishing in the oceans. How can you justify that when you have options that will not cause suffering, and far less environmental destruction, like mussels?

More importantly, aside from justifications, why would you not choose to do the more compassionate thing, if your goal is to be compassionate? Let's say veganism was a little less healthy, how would that justify killing hundreds and hundreds of animals? How much suffering and death is the minor improvement of your life really worth? And if it is worth it, then are we not required to take those lifes which have the least capacity for suffering and sentience, namely mussels and similar beings?

 

To me I only see appeals to futility and spiritualism, it is very easy to relativise morality when it is not you who is being killed or treated like property. People did the same with slaves of different races. The excuses you can come up with are infinite when you are protecting your own way of life.

Edited September 15, 2019 by Scholar

[Scholar]

8 minutes ago, Matt8800 said:

@Mikael89 Ive studies near death experiences quite extensively. It is common for people to have NDEs and come back to say things like love is the most important thing, death doesnt matter, treat others well, etc, etc. One thing they never do say is that their guides told them humans should not eat meat. In regards to what people learn from the spirits that guide them on the NDEs, its a non-issue.

I am receptive to my spirit guides and they have told me a lot of things I didnt want to hear at the time. If they want me to stop eating meat, they will tell me.

Avoid meat if you want but the beings on the other side dont seem to really care.

And if your spirits told you it was fine to enslave black people, you would listen to them? If you were enslaving black people and your spirits did not tell you it was wrong or that you should stop, it would be fine to continue doing so?

[Matt8800]

34 minutes ago, Scholar said:

And if your spirits told you it was fine to enslave black people, you would listen to them? If you were enslaving black people and your spirits did not tell you it was wrong or that you should stop, it would be fine to continue doing so?

@Scholar That is a what-if statement that I consider irrelevant since I subjectively consider it a false equivalency. 

Are you stating your opinions simply as detached discussion or are you internally attached to other people seeing this issue the same way as you do?

Edited September 15, 2019 by Matt8800

[Scholar]

9 minutes ago, Matt8800 said:

@Scholar That is a what-if statement that I consider irrelevant since I subjectively consider it a false equivalency. 

Are you stating your opinions simply as detached discussion or are you internally attached to other people seeing this issue the same way as you do?

I am attached to the beings who suffer and die because of your actions. I view it as a moral imperative to attempt to convince you of an action which will reduce that suffering. I know the limitations of moral relativism, and this kind of excess moral relativism is in my opinion a big problem in a lot of the spiritual community. It leads to lazy justifications for acts which will cause horrendous suffering.

[Matt8800]

11 minutes ago, Scholar said:

I am attached to the beings who suffer and die because of your actions. I view it as a moral imperative to attempt to convince you of an action which will reduce that suffering. I know the limitations of moral relativism, and this kind of excess moral relativism is in my opinion a big problem in a lot of the spiritual community. It leads to lazy justifications for acts which will cause horrendous suffering.

@Scholar I understand the argument you are making but that is not how I see it. It is just a subjective opinion and your opinion is merely subjective also.

I suspect you also have other areas where you are averse to the way reality is. Is it possible that this is an area you should investigate? I am not advocating non-action and silence on what you subjectively feel is important- I am advocating non-attachment and complete acceptance.

Edited September 15, 2019 by Matt8800

[Scholar]

28 minutes ago, Matt8800 said:

@Scholar I understand the argument you are making but that is not how I see it. It is just a subjective opinion and your opinion is merely subjective also.

I suspect you also have other areas where you are averse to the way reality is. Is it possible that this is an area you should investigate? I am not advocating non-action and silence on what you subjectively feel is important- I am advocating non-attachment and complete acceptance.

Sure, but I don't see how my personal development is related to this topic of morality. Again, you are trapped in moral relativism. Morality is not truly relative, atleast not in the relative world. Morality is bound the the rules of the relative world just like math and logic is, and they are aspects of consciousness which cannot be denied. Suffering is suffering.

There is no subjectivity, there is only what is. And the isness of suffering in you and in others is equivalent, it is not relative. The same is true for value. There is an absolute thing that is value, atleast from within the relativistic world. This is why certain moral positions lead to positions which will contradict themselves, leading to the collapse of the moral framework itself.

Your reasoning is bound by the laws of nature, and revealing the full extend of your reasoning, or in other words becoming conscious of the consquences of your reasoning, will reveal that it collapses under it's own weight. I urge you to truly inspect value, goodness and badness, and suffering. You will be surprised how little relativity and subjectivity you will find.

 

Complete non-attachment will mean that I will embrace and fully accept my moral struggles. I will accept my desire to change your mind, and follow that desire to the fullest. Full detachment means being detached from non-attachment.

[Forestluv]

26 minutes ago, Scholar said:

There is no subjectivity, there is only what is. And the isness of suffering in you and in others is equivalent, it is not relative.

Notice how you state there “is only what is” and then you defined what “is” is as if it was objectively true. 

The isness of suffering is the isness of suffering.

[Scholar]

7 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

Notice how you state there “is only what is” and then you defined what “is” is as if it was objectively true. 

The isness of suffering is the isness of suffering.

Exactly! The limitation of language, which is why moral relativism can even exist. It is founded upon a delusional notion of morality which fails to observe realness for what it is.

Edited September 15, 2019 by Scholar

[Forestluv]

6 minutes ago, Scholar said:

which fails to observe realness for what it is.

That’s a contraction. There is a deeper level.

[Scholar]

Just now, Serotoninluv said:

That’s a contraction. There is a deeper level.

A deeper level to what? What do you think I see?

[GreenWoods]

2 hours ago, Matt8800 said:

The very act of living and surviving takes from the environment. It displaces animals from their homes, destroys insects, diverts water, etc, etc, etc. There is always a give and take and cannot be avoided

Exactly, and we have to decide:

2 hours ago, Matt8800 said:

as to go about that giving and taking.

So we have the choice whether we eat our neighbours or plants (or animals which are somewehre in the middle of the spectrum).

[Forestluv]

Just now, Scholar said:

A deeper level to what? What do you think I see?

It is not that which is seen. It is that which is unseen.

Pointing at something and stating “that fails to observe realness for what it is” can see something, yet is unaware of underlying Nothing. It is being somewhere and unaware of nowhere. This is a higher level of post-rational, post-logical. One cannot intellectualize their way through it.

[Scholar]

9 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

It is not that which is seen. It is that which is unseen.

Pointing at something and stating “that fails to observe realness for what it is” can see something, yet is unaware of underlying Nothing. It is being somewhere and unaware of nowhere. This is a higher level of post-rational, post-logical. One cannot intellectualize their way through it.

Yes but what does that have to do with morality? At the Absolute level all notions of morality and relativism falls apart anyways, what we are discussing here are the absolute (not Absolute) nature of the relative world, namely the Laws of Maya. Moral and anti-moral arguments can only be done in the realm of Maya.

The notion of subjectivity and relativity within Maya is delusional, that is what I am referring to. It builds on lack of observation. Abandoning the notion of relativity and subjectivity must come before the complete cessation of illusion. Delusion is not the same as illusion.

[Forestluv]

10 minutes ago, Scholar said:

At the Absolute level all notions of morality and relativism falls apart

All notions of morality and relativism are within Absolute

10 minutes ago, Scholar said:

what we are discussing here are the absolute (not Absolute) nature of the relative world, namely the Laws of Maya. 

That construct is an absolutist/objectivist framework/perspective. Adding in the parts about Absolute and relative is a veil - at it’s core absolutism/objectivism is stage Orange. It does not incorporate yellow level understanding of relativism or Turquoise level embodiment of Absolute.

[Scholar]

21 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

All notions of morality and relativism are within Absolute

That construct is an absolutist/objectivist framework/perspective. Adding in the parts about Absolute and relative is a veil - at it’s core absolutism/objectivism is stage Orange. It does not incorporate yellow level understanding of relativism or Turquoise level embodiment of Absolute.

Absolutism/objectivism is stage blue, stage orange morality is multiplistic. Stage green is relativism, an excessive relativism as we can observe in this thread is exactly what yellow will criticize.

 

Blue: Morality are cognitive statements which exist in the objective world.

Orange: Every culture has it's own morality, moral statements are cultural.

Green: Moral statements are entirely constructed, they are grounded in nothing at all and completely arbitrary. Moral validity does not exist.

Yellow: Inspection of the workings of morality itself, how is morality constructed. Morality being bound to logical statements, without morality there could be no action, there could be no consciousness. Logic itself would fall apart. We realize how exactly it is that we construct morality. Morality being bound to suffering and well-being. (Moral Realism)

Turquoise: A recognition that morality is not cognition, but it's own aspect of consciousness. Goodness and Badness are like Redness and Blueness. The subject does not exist, all there is is raw Isness. However, Badness is always Badness, Goodness is always Goodness. Morality is a dimension of consciousness instead of an accumilation of statements based on the reality of the mind-structure. It is a recognition of then substance of suffering.

Dissolving of the substance of realness into Non-duality.

Reintegration of Non-duality with duality, going full circle. Embracing of the rawness of realness. (God reimmersing into the substance of Creation, Consciousness and Unconsciousness are the same, the Full embracing of the Ego. Ego = No-Self.)

And then we are basically back at zero and the whole dance starts anew.

 

Where people are stuck at in this dimension is at Green, despite non-dual and spiritual experiences. Morality is still viewed as cognitive statements, which is fundamentally delusional. It is not turquoise, it is not even Yellow. It is green confusing itself to be two stages further than it is.

 

 

Objectivism

Multiplism

Relativism <- Stuck here!

Realism

Existentialism (not to be confused with the common usages of the word, here meaning existentialism in terms of referring to Existence itself)

Edited September 15, 2019 by Scholar

[ajasatya]

Truly carnivorous animals have very short intestines, varying from 3 to 5 times the length of their thorax. It is so because they need to expel meat very quickly, before it putrefies.

Vegetarian animals, along with human beings, have very long intestines, varying from 8 to 12 times the length of their thorax. It is to because it takes longer for vegetarian food to be broken and absorbed by the organism.

The only way a carnivorous animal could eat vegetarian food is by eating almost 24/7, just like pandas. Pandas are almost always eating bamboo.

[Forestluv]

48 minutes ago, Scholar said:

Absolutism/objectivism is stage blue, stage orange morality is multiplistic. Stage green is relativism, an excessive relativism as we can observe in this thread is exactly what yellow will criticize.

Absolutism/objectivism is hardcore orange. It is the strongest grounding of Orange and, imo, the hardest thing for an Orange intellectual to surrender. It is the the number one way an intellectual can control a narrative - both in internal dialog and inter-personal dialog.

Blue is binary thinking. Absolutism is also very prominent at Blue. Orange develops beyond binary thinking - for example into spectral thinking. Yet Orange does not transcend absolutism. It is veiled with intellectual constructs, yet once we deconstruct - absolutism is prevalent. In particular, Orange absolutism is highly related to objectivism. So much so, that I think it is splitting hairs, which is why I combined them as absolutism/objective. For example, the statement “which fails to observe realness for what it is” is based on an absolutist/objectivist/universal foundation. . . We can add in lots of sophisticated concepts and logic that may obfuscate this, yet if we deconstruct down to the fundamental, an absolutist/objectivist/universal foundation is revealed.

Stage green begins to understand moral relativism. Relativism is not until Yellow. It is not yellow due to the cognitive demands of understanding of relativism. Orange can intellectually understand relativism. The key component is transcendence of the personality construct as one enters Tier2. Without that embodiment, one will not be able to fully understand relativism. They will be anchored within Orange level constructs of relativism with a foundation of subconscious objectivism. It is common for intellectuals to believe they are at Yellow and be unaware of their Orange level attachment to absolutism/objectivism (and unwillingness to surrender it). . . 

For example, the statement “. . . which fails to observe realness for what it is” is based on an assumption that “what is” is objective and universal. It is saying we can determine that one view fails to see “what is” and another view succeeds in seeing “what is”. There is a subconscious immersion into this construct and a belief it is true. There is nothing wrong with that. Yet it is an Orange level contraction. Yellow transcends this dynamic. 

 Orange level intellectual philosophers and psychologists spend their lives conceptualizing within this realm. It’s not necessarily Yellow. A key component of Tier2 is transcending the intellect. There is a difference between theorizing about Yellow and actually being Yellow. 

48 minutes ago, Scholar said:

Yellow: Inspection of the workings of morality itself, how is morality constructed. Morality being bound to logical statements, without morality there could be no action, there could be no consciousness. Logic itself would fall apart. We realize how exactly it is that we construct morality. Morality being bound to suffering and well-being. (Moral Realism)

[Scholar]

30 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

Absolutism/objectivism is hardcore orange. It is the strongest grounding of Orange and, imo, the hardest thing for an Orange intellectual to surrender. It is the the number one way an intellectual can control a narrative - both in internal dialog and inter-personal dialog.

Blue is binary thinking. Absolutism is also very prominent at Blue. Orange develops beyond binary thinking - for example into spectral thinking. Yet Orange does not transcend absolutism. It is veiled with intellectual constructs, yet once we deconstruct - absolutism is prevalent. In particular, Orange absolutism is highly related to objectivism. So much so, that I think it is splitting hairs, which is why I combined them as absolutism/objective. For example, the statement “which fails to observe realness for what it is” is based on an absolutist/objectivist/universal foundation. . . We can add in lots of sophisticated concepts and logic that may obfuscate this, yet if we deconstruct down to the fundamental, an absolutist/objectivist/universal foundation is revealed.

Stage green begins to understand moral relativism. Relativism is not until Yellow. It is not yellow due to the cognitive demands of understanding of relativism. Orange can intellectually understand relativism. The key component is transcendence of the personality construct as one enters Tier2. Without that embodiment, one will not be able to fully understand relativism. They will be anchored within Orange level constructs of relativism with a foundation of subconscious objectivism. It is common for intellectuals to believe they are at Yellow and be unaware of their Orange level attachment to absolutism/objectivism (and unwillingness to surrender it). . . 

For example, the statement “. . . which fails to observe realness for what it is” is based on an assumption that “what is” is objective and universal. It is saying we can determine that one view fails to see “what is” and another view succeeds in seeing “what is”. There is a subconscious immersion into this construct and a belief it is true. There is nothing wrong with that. Yet it is an Orange level contraction. Yellow transcends this dynamic. 

  

I think you are mixing a few things up. The objectivism of orange will not manifest as moral objectivism, it will manifest as moral relativism. Just go on the street and ask around, you will not find a single non-religious person who says morality is objective. They will all give you answers that imply morality is subjective and that everyone has their own morality.

That is the objective view, ironally. The objective view, to the rationalist, is the observation that morality is not consistent, that it is not objective, that all cultures view morality differently. That is the scientific view.

Sure there are some attempt to ground morality in reason, but that is different from absolutistic frameworks of morality.

 

I know you fail to recognize what I am trying to communicate because you view what I am describing as if it was an objective system. What I am describing is not "What objectively is", sure I might use language in a way to imply it is Truth, but it's not an objective framework. To believe in the Objective you have to believe in Subjectivity. You have to believe in a relationship between Subject and Experience, you have to believe in the dualism of matter and mind.

The deep confusion here is again that you have a completely delusional view of morality, you have not adopted one which goes beyond Objectivity and Subjectivity, and of course also Relativity. You operate within that framework because you have not yet inspected that framework.

Subjects do not exist, This has nothing to do with universality, which is again why I know you have not yet recognized what I am talking about. It's completely beyond that, it is so ironic. because you are stuck in this framework and call me out for using your framework. You cannot even see that there could possibly be another framework, you are so stuck in it.

You still view morality as statements, you also view truth as statements (which is by the way why you get so hung up on the statements I make, because I don't bother to make them sound transcendental). This is the entire problem. There is no moral truth or objectivity, because Goodness had nothing to do with truth. Goodness is Truth (Truth not truth!).

 

There is no objectivity here, there is no unversality here. There is no statement which is "true" here. There is only Goodness and Badness, as the substance of being itself. They are not connected to any cognitive statement whatsoever, doing so is the entire delusion I am trying to point out here. You are stuck there, you are stuck conflating one aspect of reality with another. You are stuck saying 1=2, 1=2, 1=2! No, 1 is exactly what it is. There is nothing else that is 1.

 

Oneness is Oneness, not Twoness. This has nothing to do with belief.

 

To say morality is relative, objective or subjective to me is as delusional as saying Redness is relative, objective or subjective. Redness just IS. There is nothing Redness is other than itself. This is where my framework is grounded, it completely let's go of these mind-games.

Edited September 15, 2019 by Scholar

[remember]

wowowo what`s going on in this thread, is as if the lion would eat up a lot of spiritual ego`s. what exactly is the self bias of a meat eater? what exactly is the selfbias of a pedophil? there are a lot of topics mixed together, fact is it`s not sufficient to compare meat eating "spirituals" to "unspiritual" non meat eating "predators". in the end you could ask who is more spiritual a conciously talking human or an unconciously non acting predator? of course the lion is extremely self biased...it doesn`t know about the concept of love or peacful living, or does it? what has spirituality to do with that? conciousness probably. spirituality is something that happens in conciousness.