| |
Some of you reading this will undoubtedly have read my recent condemnations of the meat producing industry and meat eating in general. I make no secret of my repugnance for the way in which harmless animals are brutally treated and abused for reasons which have their origin in our eating habits and convenience, rather than necessity. As you may well imagine, the strength of my views is by no means acceptable to all and I have lost long term (of more that 30 years) friends as a result of the discomfort caused by my postings on Facebook regarding the issue! I am not the least bit concerned by this and do not apologise. To me, it's an important enough issue to stand up and be counted for, and people's reactions speak volumes for their true nature, as well as being a reasonably clear indicator of where they stand in their progression on the ascension pathway.
Of course people are not easily dislodged from the habits of a lifetime, and In response to my less than subtle exhortations to 'go vegetarian' I am met with a range of responses, which although occasionally positive and curious, more usually stem from guilt and fear, and range from hostility and anger through to scorn and justification. As a consequence, I am well used to countering the numerous and faintly ridiculous arguments I get from those who would seek to justify their carnivore tendencies. I am vaguely surprised that so far, I have only received hints that maybe the fact that we feed our dogs meat makes us hypocrites. It's certainly something that has occurred to us, and a question I had to take to the etheric to clear up. And their answer? Well actually, "No, it doesn't", and here's why.
Unlike humans, dogs are omnivores and actually meant to eat meat, along with a whole host of other things. It is a natural thing for them to do, and they are designed and equipped to chase, catch, kill and eat their prey, as well as scavenge and make do with what's around. (I'm sure you don't need me to point out the physical attributes of a dog that make this self evident.) Humans are not. But what is even more important to understand is the difference between us in ascension terms. We do not play the same 'game' as any species of animal, even though we are playing on the same playing field. What we need to understand, learn, act upon and grow as a result of, has precious little to do with their criteria, despite there being some overlaps. In many respects, our treatment of dogs, cats and any other creature as pets is 'unnatural' in the scheme of things. In doing so we are effectively forcing the juxtapositioning of two alternate experiences of reality. The fact that we do in itself explores a parameter of the possible with regard to relationships that is both interesting and beneficial, and certainly extends the boundaries of consciousness. However, if we try to impose one reality on to the other in a way that alters the essential nature of its being, there exists the potential to damage it; which in ascension terms means negating the value of existence for one or more lifetimes. One aspect of reality for all incarnate beings relates to what we are intended to eat and how we are supposed to feed ourselves. So whilst there may certainly be some value (for all) in experiencing alternative foodstuffs, it would be every bit as much potentially damaging for dogs to be vegetarian as it is for us to eat that which we are not intended to i.e. meat.
Of course, domesticated dogs have very little choice in the matter. Their diet is, by and large, forced upon them. However, the all encompassing nature of their omnivore physicality means that effectively, this is not too much of a problem. They do not experience the same level of freewill as humans, either from a spiritual perspective (the ability of their higher selves to intervene in their lives is discussed in Some Dogs are Angels) or from a practical, incarnate one. Humans on the other hand experience an abundance of choice and what we eat is a matter of availability. Unless we live in geographical areas that suffer from food production issues (which are in themselves necessary and fully intended) eating is a matter of conscious decision making based on the incredibly extensive menu of items for consumption that present themselves. The problem for humans is that they tend not to make conscious decisions and instead rely upon the habits that were enforced upon them as children to inform their choices.
So basically what I'm saying is that it's OK for dogs to eat meat, but not humans. When we feed our pack the meat that they eat, I don't feel good about it. But don't feel bad about it either because I am aware that their diet is actually more in accordance with the way things should be; certainly more so than that experienced by the countless numbers who have no choice but to eat abominable kibble, a total travesty upon foodstuffs if ever there was one.
But then perhaps we should be open to the accusation that our feeding them meat is supporting the very meat industry that I decry. There is some truth in this and I can't pretend to be comfortable with it, but my use of products that come from a cruel and savage institution is more by force of circumstance than choice. It has been suggested to me that I seek out meat from farms that kill their livestock using 'humane' methods, and I do agree that this would be preferable. But let's be real about this. Such places don't really exist. Killing is awful and brutal however it happens. It's just an issue of the degree of the horror that animals are put through. No being wants to loose it's life for the sake of ending up as fodder for another. It's a precious thing to one and all. And were I to accept that livestock could meet less dreadful ends, how do you find a place that deals death kindly? And will they have enough quantity of meat to meet our needs? And do they have the facility to grind and bag the meat? And a dozen other questions... I too buy out of convenience. Mea culpa.
Overall, it is neither a comfortable nor a happy thing for me to dwell upon. If the meat production industry did not exist, I would gladly feed the dogs only vegetables. Their omnivore physiology would permit this (despite the fact that they, like humans, have become habitualised in their intake expectations) although they would struggle to come to terms with it because of the deficits that such a diet would present to their systems, to say nothing of their 'intended' intake. In the meantime, I believe that feeding the dogs the meat that the slaughterhouse sells to our suppliers is a way of honouring the creatures that have unwillingly given their lives. I take comfort in the knowledge that were the 'natural' order of things to prevail, there is a far higher likelihood of one of these poor creatures falling victim to a pack of hungry dogs than there is of them finding their way to a human table. The unfortunate and rather unpleasant truth is that meat belongs in their mouths and not ours. I know this because an Archangel told me.
Of course people are not easily dislodged from the habits of a lifetime, and In response to my less than subtle exhortations to 'go vegetarian' I am met with a range of responses, which although occasionally positive and curious, more usually stem from guilt and fear, and range from hostility and anger through to scorn and justification. As a consequence, I am well used to countering the numerous and faintly ridiculous arguments I get from those who would seek to justify their carnivore tendencies. I am vaguely surprised that so far, I have only received hints that maybe the fact that we feed our dogs meat makes us hypocrites. It's certainly something that has occurred to us, and a question I had to take to the etheric to clear up. And their answer? Well actually, "No, it doesn't", and here's why.
Unlike humans, dogs are omnivores and actually meant to eat meat, along with a whole host of other things. It is a natural thing for them to do, and they are designed and equipped to chase, catch, kill and eat their prey, as well as scavenge and make do with what's around. (I'm sure you don't need me to point out the physical attributes of a dog that make this self evident.) Humans are not. But what is even more important to understand is the difference between us in ascension terms. We do not play the same 'game' as any species of animal, even though we are playing on the same playing field. What we need to understand, learn, act upon and grow as a result of, has precious little to do with their criteria, despite there being some overlaps. In many respects, our treatment of dogs, cats and any other creature as pets is 'unnatural' in the scheme of things. In doing so we are effectively forcing the juxtapositioning of two alternate experiences of reality. The fact that we do in itself explores a parameter of the possible with regard to relationships that is both interesting and beneficial, and certainly extends the boundaries of consciousness. However, if we try to impose one reality on to the other in a way that alters the essential nature of its being, there exists the potential to damage it; which in ascension terms means negating the value of existence for one or more lifetimes. One aspect of reality for all incarnate beings relates to what we are intended to eat and how we are supposed to feed ourselves. So whilst there may certainly be some value (for all) in experiencing alternative foodstuffs, it would be every bit as much potentially damaging for dogs to be vegetarian as it is for us to eat that which we are not intended to i.e. meat.
Of course, domesticated dogs have very little choice in the matter. Their diet is, by and large, forced upon them. However, the all encompassing nature of their omnivore physicality means that effectively, this is not too much of a problem. They do not experience the same level of freewill as humans, either from a spiritual perspective (the ability of their higher selves to intervene in their lives is discussed in Some Dogs are Angels) or from a practical, incarnate one. Humans on the other hand experience an abundance of choice and what we eat is a matter of availability. Unless we live in geographical areas that suffer from food production issues (which are in themselves necessary and fully intended) eating is a matter of conscious decision making based on the incredibly extensive menu of items for consumption that present themselves. The problem for humans is that they tend not to make conscious decisions and instead rely upon the habits that were enforced upon them as children to inform their choices.
So basically what I'm saying is that it's OK for dogs to eat meat, but not humans. When we feed our pack the meat that they eat, I don't feel good about it. But don't feel bad about it either because I am aware that their diet is actually more in accordance with the way things should be; certainly more so than that experienced by the countless numbers who have no choice but to eat abominable kibble, a total travesty upon foodstuffs if ever there was one.
But then perhaps we should be open to the accusation that our feeding them meat is supporting the very meat industry that I decry. There is some truth in this and I can't pretend to be comfortable with it, but my use of products that come from a cruel and savage institution is more by force of circumstance than choice. It has been suggested to me that I seek out meat from farms that kill their livestock using 'humane' methods, and I do agree that this would be preferable. But let's be real about this. Such places don't really exist. Killing is awful and brutal however it happens. It's just an issue of the degree of the horror that animals are put through. No being wants to loose it's life for the sake of ending up as fodder for another. It's a precious thing to one and all. And were I to accept that livestock could meet less dreadful ends, how do you find a place that deals death kindly? And will they have enough quantity of meat to meet our needs? And do they have the facility to grind and bag the meat? And a dozen other questions... I too buy out of convenience. Mea culpa.
Overall, it is neither a comfortable nor a happy thing for me to dwell upon. If the meat production industry did not exist, I would gladly feed the dogs only vegetables. Their omnivore physiology would permit this (despite the fact that they, like humans, have become habitualised in their intake expectations) although they would struggle to come to terms with it because of the deficits that such a diet would present to their systems, to say nothing of their 'intended' intake. In the meantime, I believe that feeding the dogs the meat that the slaughterhouse sells to our suppliers is a way of honouring the creatures that have unwillingly given their lives. I take comfort in the knowledge that were the 'natural' order of things to prevail, there is a far higher likelihood of one of these poor creatures falling victim to a pack of hungry dogs than there is of them finding their way to a human table. The unfortunate and rather unpleasant truth is that meat belongs in their mouths and not ours. I know this because an Archangel told me.