Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Kasia

OMW - Jun 15, 2012 - Tending To your 7 Basic Rights

 

Troy Tolley, Channel

 

[MEntity]
What we are asked to discuss today is rather vital to the health and well-being of a lifetime of incarnation, and is fairly directly hooked into the capacity for Personality to Manifest Essence for any extended period of time.

 

For the sake of clarity, we will state here that while Chakras and Centers have resonance that can draw meaningful and relevant correlations, they are not the same system.

 

Chakras are inherent energy management systems of varying complexities that are formed by bodies as a means to sustain form of some kind, whereas "Centering," in our teachings, while referencing Chakras, describes one's "center of gravity," or how one navigates the physical plane while in the body.

 

Primary Centering is how one takes in the world around the body, while the Part is how one tends to emit themselves back out into the world.

 

So while one may have Emotional Centering as a form of navigation, this would not necessarily mean that one has a strong or emphasized Heart Chakra, for instance.

 

Nor would it mean one has an underused or de-emphasized Heart Chakra.

 

We point the difference out here because there are Correlations and then there are Resonances between the systems, and they are not consistent with each other.

 

We will not get into those differences here, but it will be important not to draw tight parallels between the two while exploring both systems, as they are, indeed, different systems.

 

For today, we discuss the Chakras, and if we draw parallels to the Centers, it would be relevant in that context, but not necessarily in another context.

 

The Chakras, then, are the connecting portals between Essence and Personality, or the Essence and Bodies.

 

We speak in plural of the bodies, as there are various layers of the body that vary in density and function, and these bodies are the parts that bring the whole to "life," but each body, or density, could function on its own.

 

Each body has a different experience of time and space and dimension, and each has a different emphasis of management for what and how to share with Essence, and each may have a different agenda, different wounding, different version of history, etc.

 

And each body is in charge of fulfilling its own "right."

 

We are speaking of these bodies as delineated, only for the sake of convenience and comprehension, but they function seamlessly and as a whole. It will not be helpful to think of these as separate, except insofar as it helps you to first grasp this particular topic.

 

In other words, in much the same way that we could speak to you about how your fingers function as very specific tools as compared to your arms, they do not function without each other, and to focus on one over the other would be pointless.

 

In order for Essence to experience the various Planes of Existence, there must be bodies.

 

Essence, alone, has no bodies, no form, no location.

 

As Essence is FIRST Cast from Tao, its most amorphous "form" is actually something more like a recording device: the Instinctive Center, or what would become the Root Chakra in a Physical Body.

 

This is because Essence is actually "formed" from the Akashic Plane, which, in itself, is the only "plane" that is not a Plane. There is no incarnation or processing through that "plane," as it is only a memory bank and probability generator.

 

This Instinctive Center is inherent in ALL that is Cast from Tao, which means that if it is "not" Tao, then it has an Instinctive Center, and if it is on the Physical Plane, no matter what it is, there is a Root Chakra, at the very least.

 

In terms of Rights, then, this would be the very basic Right To Exist.

 

Once a portion of energy is Cast from Tao, it is "forever" its own thing.

 

We know of nothing that has lost that Right, regardless of form, return and exit from Tao, etc.

 

It would be important, here, to define what we mean by "Rights." We mean the term in much the same way that it is already understood. These Rights are those qualities and states of Being, Having, and Doing that are fully guaranteed, inherent, and due.

 

Once one is Cast from Tao, these Rights are permanent.

 

For example, there will never be a "when" that you do not Exist.

 

It is permanently your Right as Essence.

 

In much the same way this works for Essence, this Right is inherent in its own creations, as well.

 

So the Personality is always "born" from the memory bank and probability generating Instinctive Center of Essence, and cast with the very basic Right To Exist.

 

This means that "you," as you know you, will "never" go away, even when "you" die.

 

The form may change, the identity may evolve, and the attachments will wane, but the "you" that is you, cannot be undone.

 

This is why we use the term "fragments" as both a reference to your Essence as a part of its higher contexts, but also in reference to the Personalities that exist as parts of an Essence.

 

Essence is a microcosmic Tao.

 

This Right to Exist translates into the individual Personality as its Right to its memories and its capacity for generating probabilities. In short, its Right to Choose.

 

The capacity for choice exists in every known form, even if the contexts for choice are relative. The parameters of choice for an atom, a rock, or a chicken are very different from the choices of a Personality.

 

The parameter of Choice of a Personality is very different from that of Essence, as well.

 

This does not undermine the capacity for choice, though.

 

One way of understanding this is to consider the choices necessary for a fighter pilot to make versus those of a housewife, or the difference in parameters of choice for a child in kindergarten versus those of the college graduate. These are not limitations imposed, but simply contextual.

 

Your Essence must make Choices that a Personality will never have to face.

 

And Personality must make choices that Essence would never have been able to make on its own.

 

Grand Cycle after Grand Cycle, lifetime after lifetime, the Instinctive, or Root Chakra, is the only element carried forth, over and over and over.

 

It becomes multilayered, as each Grand Cycle "stacks" a layer upon a layer so that there is no bleedthrough, and so that there is a fresh layer for recording, but those layers are always accessible by Essence.

 

All other Chakras are new and relative to the Grand Cycle.

 

That is because these other Chakras become the means by which the recording of experiences are funneled to the Instinctive.

 

And those Chakras must be relative to the systems in place for that "universe."

 

As no universe or Essence can be in existence without inherently owning an Instinctive Center, or Root Chakra, this is the only one that is at the root, if you will, of any existence.

 

It is a misnomer to describe Essence as "owning" this, as Essence is, essentially, the same thing, but the same could be said of a Personality in relation to Essence; we delineate for purposes of understanding the parts that are the whole.

 

In the same way that the developing Chakras relative to a Grand Cycle become the funnels for recording experiences to the Instinctive Center, so are Personalities within a specific Sentience funneling experiences to Essence.

 

The first Chakra, then, that is developed, is that which allows for location.

 

That would be the Second Chakra, or the Sacral Chakra.

 

This Chakra is the first form of differentiation within a universe. This is not the same thing as separation. It is the capacity for form within form.

 

Thus, it is also the Chakra of Creation.

 

Because this is a Chakra that allows for location and form and creation, it is also the first body that "feels."

 

Form within Form allows for intimacy, unison, oneness.

 

We describe the Highest Plane, which inherently has these qualities, as the Buddhic Plane.

 

This Right is vital for the use of Existence.

 

It is the capacity for Existence to have location, and to create form.

 

Everything "feels," then. Everything.

 

However, what is often thought of as "feelings" are not the same thing here.

 

Having the capacity for form within form means being aware of the self in relation to something else.

 

All matter has that capacity to some degree. We refer to it as Consciousness.

 

A rock, flea, and chicken have a consciousness just as your Essence does, and "you" do.

 

The capacity for choice determines the capacity for Consciousness.

 

A rock has a very different parameter of Choice from a chicken or a Sentient Human, so there are varying degree of Consciousness involved in each.

 

However, for an Essence to ever move into a Sentient Species, it must evolve though all of those parameters of choice, or degrees of Consciousness, before considering Sentient exploration.

 

Before doing so, the first "form within form" or creation of Essence is its formation of Entity, Cadre, and Energy Ring, etc.

 

This is its first experience of location.

 

And this is done through "feeling."

 

Every Essence, then, could be said to "feel" its way through the universe to find its Entity Mates, old friends from other Grand Cycles, and the formation of what is the actual "Casting" begins.

 

"Feeling" here, then, is the inclination toward the organizing of patterns, or the creation of harmony and resonance.

 

When this is carried into a Physical Lifetime, or a Personality, this Right to Feel translates into your Right to Intimacy, to Creativity, to Pleasure.

 

The next Chakra that is developed, then, is the 6th Chakra, or the Brow Chakra.

 

This is first time that "Time" begins to be experienced.

 

It is often said that "time is an illusion," but that is another misleading cliche.

 

"Time" is simply a term that describes the organizing of experiences.

 

Time for Essence is very different than Time for Personality, because they organize experiences very differently.

 

Time for a gnat is very different from Time for a rock for the same reasons.

 

This organizational capacity must be in place early on, if you will, so that experience can be funneled into Essence in a way that can be comprehended, for that is the "entire point" of Existence.

 

In terms of Personality, this Right is quite similar, in that it is your Right to see beyond any circumstances, beyond the self, beyond the moment, to dream, to imagine, to be visionary, etc.

 

The next Chakra that is developed, then, is the 7th Chakra, or the Crown Chakra, as this is the means through which Essence will comprehend its experiences of existence. It is the Right to Evolve.

 

This is inherent in all matter, as well.

 

The Rights to Exist, Feel, Dream, and Evolve, then, are inherent in all matter or energy. There are better words that may be considered, but this is a fair enough reference here.

 

Yes, even Rocks have these Rights, at least in terms of the energy and matter that is the Rock.

 

However, something very different begins to happen for those forms of Consciousness who choose to aim for exploration in Sentience (and not all forms of consciousness aim for that).

 

The Chakras, or Rights, that we have described so far are the Rights that come from the very nature of energy as representative of Tao, and this gives all a vast range of exploration in form throughout that universe, since all matter would inherently have these Rights, or portals/chakras.

 

Entire Entities and Energy Rings can then exist as mountain ranges, weather systems, herds of animals, insects, birds, amoeba, fish, water systems, etc. or whatever other terms might be used to describe the planet of interest that may house a candidate species for sentience.

 

All of the Rights inherent in Essence are carried through those forms and implemented in ways that evolve the planet and its species and life forms.

 

Nothing in existence was formed in matter without some consciousness involved in its coming into that existence of form.

 

Nothing in existence of form is evolved without the consciousness that is experiencing that form and its parameters of choice.

 

But what makes Sentience so unique is that it learns to use the inherent Chakras of the denser bodies, and turns those into an extension of Essence Rights.

 

In the exploration through the Physical Plane, there comes a time when the aim for Sentience includes having the Rights of Essence represented through the bodies of that Plane.

 

The first of these to be established is the 3rd Chakra, or the Right to Move, to Change, to Be Free.

 

This tends to prompt the evolutionary chain of events that lead to the candidates for Sentience much later.

 

This is because the Third Chakra is the Second Chakra, made Ordinal. Or, in our terms, the Moving Center begins being used for manifesting the Higher Moving Center.

 

This 3rd Chakra, then, is developed in anything that can move or grow in form, and that Right will exist for anything that can move and grow within the Physical Plane after that Chakra has been developed for that form.

 

Again, at least in terms of the consciousness exploring that form.

 

In a Sentient Species, this Right continues as a similar Right.

 

It is the Right of the Personality to make its own choices, choose its own actions, choose its own directions, grow in its own way, be free on its own terms, etc.

 

The 4th Chakra is developed among species whose wiring has evolved to a point where it can become aware of itself beyond itself. This is not the same thing as self-awareness or Sentience, but a kind of empathy, and an awareness of Time, and a capacity for learning.

 

In non-sentient Species this would be the Right to Nurture, to Care, to Empathize.

 

In a Sentient Species, this becomes the Right to Love.

 

And then the 5th Chakra is developed and explored through species who have gained the capacity for language.

 

This becomes the Right to Communicate in non-sentient species, and becomes the Right to The Truth in a Sentient Species.

 

By "language," we do not mean speaking English, but some form of complex symbols in sound, body, or other form that allows for the transfer of ideas.

 

This 5th Chakra becomes the practice portal for the use of the 7th Chakra of Essence.

 

As an aside: We will not go into detail about the Kingdoms that were developed and then explored on this planet by Essences aiming for Sentience, but we can say that, while this planet was explored by our Design of Sentience before choosing a different planet, and because our bodies were "moved here," many fragments within our Design are wholly unfamiliar with the the Kingdoms here, and therefore have evolved over time with a gross lack of concern for the Rights of the creatures who evolved here.

 

What we have shared with you so far has been an overall picture of these Rights, why they are called Rights, and how they came about.

 

When a species shifts from non-sentient to sentient, it tends to be because of the capacity for that species to not merely be experienced by Essence, but to represent Essence.

 

[GeraldineB] Is this the basic reason that taking a sentient life requires karma to expiate it? The right to life?

 

[MEntity]

To some extent, yes. And that is because it is very different to experience a Physical Plane through a form, versus AS a form.

 

We will point out here that before there is an incarnation as a Sentient Species, there is no 3rd, 4th, or 5th Chakra.

 

But once locked into an incarnational cycle as a Sentient Species, that Essence is then locked into a path back to Tao that will require the full exploration of those Chakras AS ESSENCE, which means a process through not only the Physical Plane, as represented by the 3rd Chakra, but the Astral Plane, as represented by the 4th, and the Causal Plane, as represented by the 5th.

 

It is important to understand the greater context for these Rights and the Chakras, but for the point of this workshop, we will now point you toward the ways in which you can use this information on a daily basis so that it is meaningful to "you" "now."

 

[Janet] Do you mean before there is a plan to experience sentience there is no 3rd, 4th or 5th chakra? Earlier you said it was necessary to experience nurturing as non-sentient.

 

[MEntity]
Janet, those Chakras are developed as inherent in the species being explored, but only upon Sentience do they then become a part of Essence.

 

That is because, when exploring the Chakras through non-sentience, they are stationary, if you will, in that species, but once Essence is exploring Sentience, those Chakras rise out of the Instinctive Center that is "inserted" into every body of each life.

 

This is the difference between being a fragment that is Sentient, and being a part of a Hive Soul.

 

Those stationary chakras act as portals for the exploring consciousness of that species.

 

That species becomes like a hive of portals, or Chakras, through which various Essences, Entities, or even Energy Rings explore, diving in and out, etc.

 

In Sentience, however, the bodies die without the consciousness that holds them together.

 

To continue:

 

In exploring your Rights as a Personality that is representative of Essence, and having all of the Rights that are inherent in both Essence and Personality, it will help you to understand one simple question for assessing what Right you are either blocking, ignoring, or undermining:

 

What makes you Angry?

 

Anger is the means through which bodies develop the capacity for alerting itself to the violation of Rights.

 

We are using the term "anger" here because it is the most obvious, but anger is another term for helpless, and is the underlying factor in sadness or depression, as well.

 

[Bobby] no offense taken ;-)

 

[MEntity]
If it helps, then, one can ask, what makes me sad? what makes me depressed? what makes me feel helpless?

 

Most of what makes one helpless, sad, depressed, or angry is relative to one's capacity for fulfilling one's own Rights.

 

None of the reasons or causes are relevant for anything other than your own process of awareness, as there are often limitations in what one can do to change the what, or the who, or the when of anger.

 

[Maureen] How does the “Right to Life” or the “Right to Exist” play into being a Carnivore vs a Vegetarian? Do Humans have more “rights” than Animals? Do Animals have more “rights” than Plants? Is there a pecking order? (no chicken jokes here ;) )

 

[MEntity]
The point would be in helping you to understand how you can bring more fulfillment and flow to your Chakras, or Rights, to help you to Exist, Feel, Grow, Love, Communicate, Dream, and Know.

 

No one species has more Rights than another, but eventually, Sentience begins to acknowledge the spectrum of Rights inherent in all form, and makes choices relative to how those are honored.

 

A Sentient Species is the only species with the capacity to grasp the concept of Rights while in form.

 

A factory animal may know anger, sadness, depression, helplessness because it is aware that its Right to Be Free has been violated, but it does not know that it has that Right.

 

On their own terms, the creatures would exemplify their Right to Be Free, to Nurture, and to Communicate, as these are inherent in the species, but they would not know to defend these until they are violated. This is why many species can be enslaved and farmed, as they know only the instinctive defense of the Rights, but not the Rights.

 

[Janet] Michael, my primary source of anger relates to limitation of choice -- in the form of people seeking to impose their beliefs on others via rules or laws and also in the form of individuals mindlessly accepting whatever their church or peer group say is best. I cannot see how this ties to a specific Right or chakra. It seems to affect all of them. Although, given your last statement, perhaps it most affects my right to be Free -- similar to the animals you have described.

 

[MEntity]
Janet, when you cannot seem to clearly identify what Right is in violation, what you might want to do is look at or feel where the anger is felt in the body when noting this violation.

 

Where it is felt in the body is often a sign as to what Chakra is being violated.

 

If you feel this in your stomach, or your gut, it may be that it is the Right to Be Free.

 

[Janet] Well, that is helpful. I do feel it in my gut.

 

[MEntity]
Keep in mind, however, that while the "cause" may be consistent, the Right is not always the same one being violated.

 

For instance, another time you may find that it is a violation of truth, or the right to the truth, and all of the variations on the truth.

 

This may be felt in your body by wishing you would say something when you end up not speaking up.

 

And so on.

 

[Maureen] Do Plants "suffer" the same distinction then?

 

[MEntity] As for Plants, they only suffer in terms of their Right to Grow. They do not experience suffering in other ways, for the most part, as they do not have the 4th and 5th Chakras developed.

 

[Maureen] Michael -- Then Headaches may represent that your "Right to Dream" is being curtailed? .. and so on?

 

[MEntity]
Maureen, that would be correct, though one must be careful to explore the spectrum of interpretation that can be attributed to a Chakra and Right, so as not to become too literal in correlation. For instance, a headache might also speak to the refusal to see beyond one's circumstances, to explore imaginative solutions, etc.

 

When one feels that his or her Rights are obstructed in some way, there is only one solution: YOU.

 

[Maureen] Do Creatures have developed 4th and 5th Chakras then?

 

[MEntity]
Not all creatures have developed 4th and 5th Chakras. Creatures that have developed the capacity for Nurturing have developed the 4th, and Creatures that have developed the 5th have created a means of sharing ideas and concepts.

 

In some way, somehow, you must acknowledge that your Right is actually still intact, or find a means through which you can acknowledge that it is implemented.

 

When one feels that his Rights are violated, by the self or by others or by circumstances, there will ALWAYS be a way that those Rights can be fulfilled, or that are already being fulfilled.

 

This is not the same thing as the Rights that are fought for within societies and communities, though these do represent internal battles within various groups.

 

We are speaking to your Rights as Sentience, the combination of Essence and Personality, and these are always intact.

 

We have gone rather long in our exploration of this topic, and we think that we could do well to follow up with more discussion in your Forum where this will be archived. As you explore the concept of these Rights over the next weeks, we can respond through Troy for further discussion about your questions and experiences.


We must conclude here for today. It has been a long journey to Sentience, and these Rights are yours. They will be intact with or without your acknowledgment, but to acknowledge them, and occasionally manage your way back into that acknowledgment, can have profound effects upon your capacity to choose, and to be conscious.

  • LIKE/LOVE 12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Uma
On 5/29/2016 at 10:47 PM, Kasia said:

[MEntity] It is often said that "time is an illusion," but that is another misleading cliche.

 

[MEntity] "Time" is simply a term that describes the organizing of experiences.

 

[MEntity] Time for Essence is very different than Time for Personality, because they organize experiences very differently.

 

[MEntity] Time for a gnat is very different from Time for a rock for the same reasons.

 

[MEntity] This organizational capacity must be in place early on, if you will, so that experience can be funneled into Essence in a way that can be comprehended, for that is the "entire point" of Existence.

 

This whole session is so enlightening, especially what I put in bold. Those kinds of statements stop me in my tracks and put me into an expanded state. That and the love I feel here for @Troy, Michael and everyone  in this community. Overwhelming (in a good way).

  • LIKE/LOVE 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Uma

 

On 5/29/2016 at 10:47 PM, Kasia said:

Once one is Cast from Tao, these Rights are permanent.

 

For example, there will never be a "when" that you do not Exist.

 

It is permanently your Right as Essence.

 

In much the same way this works for Essence, this Right is inherent in its own creations, as well.

 

So the Personality is always "born" from the memory bank and probability generating Instinctive Center of Essence, and cast with the very basic Right To Exist.

 

This means that "you," as you know you, will "never" go away, even when "you" die.

 

The form may change, the identity may evolve, and the attachments will wane, but the "you" that is you, cannot be undone.

 

This is why we use the term "fragments" as both a reference to your Essence as a part of its higher contexts, but also in reference to the Personalities that exist as parts of an Essence.

 

Essence is a microcosmic Tao.

 

 

I love this.

  • LIKE/LOVE 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stickyflames

Beautiful. Been obsessed with rights since watching the Anna Breteynbach interview where she said she stopped being vegan when she spoke to plants and saw they had rights too.

I resonate the the idea that plants have rights. I know a lot of vegans roll their eyes when people say “ plants have feelings too” but I secretly agreed with that argument.

I would love to further explore how we can best support, nurture and relate to our food sources in a realistic way that includes the fact that there are more than 8 billion humans to consider and billions upon billions of animal and plant life.

Steering away from animal products still makes sense to me even if I consider the rights of all life, even if some animals are not developed in their emotional or communicative chakras.

In terms of sustainability and carbon emissions it is vital to reduce animal sources of food. Plus, my body just strongly has a diversion to even seeing animal products.

I am starting to think I have been far too righteous though in determining what is right and what is wrong. If someone did hunt their own deer and lived off that meat for months how can I say that is less moral than me relying on multiple farms and labourers to sustain a diet I deem to be nutritious? Other than the fact that that can not possibly translate to reflect the needs of 8 billion humans going forward....is it “ bad”? Could I do it? No, it really turns me off and I feel like I prefer taking advantage and paying those many farm labourers for my food.

I think I am shifting a bit on my staunch perspective and noticing how the vegan community needs to shift away from veganism as an identity ( scolding anyone who slips, eats a bi valve or an egg and declaring them fake vegan etc. ) and more towards veganism as a choice to further include the rights of multiple forms of life. A step away from perfection and more towards intention.

Yeah , I want to further investigate the rights of life more, love love.

  • LIKE/LOVE 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Troy
49 minutes ago, Stickyflames said:

I am starting to think I have been far too righteous though in determining what is right and what is wrong.

 

I write this with a lot of love for you and trusting that you know where I'm coming from, but based on your recent wave of posts, it seems that the subjects of animal rights and veganism have become extremely convoluted and diluted for you and these inner dialogs aren't about animal rights or veganism anymore at all.

 

I think you can explore all of these more complex areas of choice and rights and individuals and speculative theories and still uphold the position that we do not and should not exploit animals. I don't think it needs to be complicated.

 

What do the rights of plants have to do with this? What does someone hunting down an animal to live off of for a month have to do with this? What do farm labour practices have to do with this? Nothing. Those are completely separate questions and subjects and circumstances that can be discussed on their own, but have nothing to do with the position of discouraging animal cruelty and exploitation. Right?

 

If someone takes a strong stance against slavery, and then this draws out all of the slave owners and they invited that person to dinner and he hears them out and now he can see how beneficial slavery can be for some people because these slave owners made a good argument and they are nice people and he realizes they are just human, too and they have rights, too, and besides, who is he to question slavery and condemn slave owners when he isn't either of these things, and what about the fact that he adopted a dog, isn't that a kind of slavery, too, and is it the slaves who really suffer or should he be just as concerned about the plants that the slaves are cutting down in the fields... etc, etc...

 

It just sounds like a lot of messy, messy, extremely messy, philosophizing that just leaves a person down a rabbit hole of distractions and the original and valid issue is completely lost.

 

You are strawmanning yourself, lol.

 

I think we should talk.

  • LIKE/LOVE 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nadine
46 minutes ago, Stickyflames said:

Beautiful. Been obsessed with rights since watching the Anna Breteynbach interview where she said she stopped being vegan when she spoke to plants and saw they had rights too.

I resonate the the idea that plants have rights. I know a lot of vegans roll their eyes when people say “ plants have feelings too” but I secretly agreed with that argument.

 

That is an argument I hear a lot. To me, my way of living, which includes veganism, isn't about guaranteeing my actions don't cause any harm at all, but about trying to diminish the negative impact of my choices and actions as much as I can. Let's suppose plants DO have feelings. And let's suppose we need to eat something to survive and live a healthy life. To produce a pound of meat or any other animal product, there is a lot more water and plants needed than to produce a pound of plants. So, if plants have feelings, wouldn't it make even more sense to stick to a vegan diet then?

  • LIKE/LOVE 10
  • THANK YOU! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Troy
1 minute ago, Nadine said:

That is an argument I hear a lot. To me, my way of living, which includes veganism, isn't about guaranteeing my actions don't cause any harm at all, but about trying to diminish the negative impact of my choices and actions as much as I can.

 

This is exactly what veganism is. It's not about the purity of imperfection. This purity of imperfection thing is a defensive tactic of distraction used to diminish the very important efforts to reduce harm. The aim of veganism is to reduce all unnecessary harm and to be aware of choices that may unintentionally harm.

 

Besides all that, consciousness isn't the same thing as biological and psychological feelings that can produce suffering.  If we find out plants can suffer, then we can take on that subject, but to use this fantastical speculation as a way to excuse or diminish our efforts to protect animals doesn't fly.

  • LIKE/LOVE 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
KurtisM

@Stickyflames

While I agree with you that plants have rights and that caring about and tending to those rights is important, when non-vegans/carnists bring up the argument "but plants have feelings too" it's not actually meant as a valid argument a large majority of the time.

(Those who do use this argument with validity, are those who are in tune with the life of plants and mother nature and legitimately see how we mistreat plants through deforestation, trampling, urbanization etc. However in that case it's not really about their feelings, it's about their rights.)

Those who bring up this argument often just use it as a cop out and excuse that indirectly claims the vegan talking about animal rights must be a hypocrite.

It's also an argument about purity and how if you don't eliminate all suffering you're not effective in eliminating any and your actions are pointless.

 

A little bit of elaboration with the right questions/statements will reveal whether or not the non-vegan/carnist actually cares about the rights of plants or animals.

Or if they're just trying to undermine your intentions with logical fallacies.

 

I often respond with these statements:

"There is no scientific evidence that plants have feelings because they don't have a central nervous system which allows us to feel pain (and pleasure).

Whereas we know animals can feel pain (and pleasure) because they have a central nervous system. We know this from science and basic human experience living with animals."

"Caring about plants and animals is not mutually exclusive. You can care about how we treat all living beings equally because any effort to reduce suffering point blank reduces suffering."

 

The usual response to this is a "you're wrong, they do feel pain" and the non-vegan will talk about how the plants scream in horror when we cut or eat them.

They don't tackle the core argument of animal rights, they make it obsolete.

I ask them what they do to support their supposed claim of plant rights and their answer is either nothing or a declaration that we need to eat and eating both plants & animals is part of a healthy balanced diet.

Again this doesn't answer my question or support their stance or respond to my original argument because they're doing nothing to reduce suffering in any way for anyone (relevant to the discussion).

The core reasoning  behind their argument is that "suffering is a part of life so there's no point to reducing it, let's just eat as we always have".

 

The only response I give credit to is when the non-vegan/carnist talks about eating grass fed and organic meat, which I commend them for at least caring. However this cannot be a long-term solution for our species, as it doesn't help mitigate the environmental degradation our diet causes.

And often times, these organic and grass-fed, free range labels are marketing lies to earn profit at the expense of the animals. The animals arent actually treated better.

If this claim is brought up I switch to the environment and/or health detriments of eating meat.

 

 

Besides all of this, being alive and having an existence is not the same as feeling pain and pleasure. Everything in the physical aims for survival but that doesn't mean it feels pain.

As far as we know, plants only suffer in terms of their ability to grow but they don't feel in the same condensed way we do.

And even if they did feel pain, we still cause far less suffering to ourselves, the animals and plants and the whole fucking Earth eating plant-based and vegan than carnist.

The context of the 21st Century is capable of providing nutrient-dense plant-based food sources for everyone.

Edited by KurtisM
  • LIKE/LOVE 5
  • THANK YOU! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stickyflames

Thanks beauties. 

I talked to Troy about this this morning.

I have been pretty confused for the last couple of months, lost in the tornado of other peoples perspectives. Doing my best to stabilize a voice in the midst of it that sounds like my own.

If my ideas are coming across messy and all over the place it is because I am feeling messy and all over the place. Not eating animals is so common sense to me that it is hard sometimes to trust the simplicity of that truth when 99 percent of the world are indifferent to those rights.

I am not questioning my own veganism but I am questioning my approach to the cause of it.

I think the big wave of high profile ex vegans turn carnivore has a lot to do with the truth that there isn’t a lot of support or places to bounce the nuances of how our food choices  ( if one person eats fish once, the online vegan community will tell them to kill themselves for example. It’s kind of like the Bernie Sanders movement where I stood behind a lot of what he said but was embarrassed being around his loud supporters) effect the world while also honouring the idea that animal rights should not be up for debate. I could of not used these forums to voice my confusion regarding my approach, but I was desperate for clarity and lacking reliable voices to bounce things off ( except the brilliant of Diane). 

But yeah, even if plants do suffer, it in no way changes the fact that raising animals for food is legitimately a major cause for human suffering going forward. Even if they do suffer ( which i suspect they are aware more than we collectively know) , it in no way negates the reality that killing a pig is entirely different than eating beans from a bean plant that does not die if said beans are picked. Completely separate issues.

Thanks for voicing your voices while I attempt to stabilize my own.

  • LIKE/LOVE 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...