On the subject of diet…

ElmerDirtly

The Force is Strong With This One
I’ve gotten wrapped up in reading a lot of the dietary conversations on the forum. Myself, I gave up meat consumption late teens. Was vegan for a while before it was cachet. Think Viktor Kulvinskis, Ann Wigmore, Michio Kushi (macrobiotics). Moved to the Pacific Northwest and developed an inordinate love of fresh ocean salmon and oysters. Currently alternate egg days with small ocean fish days. Bit of high quality cheese. Small amount of legumes. 95% certified organic everything. And that works for me. Never been overweight. Can still move a 200 pound stone from left to right, although I do so carefully (I like to build walls). Live alone and comfortable, as of the moment, in doing so (human beings can be so savage and uncivilized)….. And my questions revolve around these concepts… it’s been stated that it’s “better” to consume mammal flesh, in part because their “higher consciousness“ (as opposed to plant) somehow contributes to our evolution of consciousness. Thereby implying, perhaps, that vegetarians are less likely, or slower, to achieve STO candidacy, as it were(?). It’s also been stated more than once (and I paraphrase) “it’s the soul, not the body” that counts in the end. So, to put two abstract thoughts together, does the focus on consuming meat over a vegetarian diet, actually provide a deeper wider growth experience for the soul once one is granted the opportunity to hang out in 5D for a bit? Or, does, perhaps this suggested consumption refer to mental capacity and acuity whilst in a 3D body? Am I conveying my inquiry succinctly? What are others’ senses saying here?



Thanks fer reading

-Michael
 
Hi Elmer, I think the crux of that matter is that a vegetarian diet does not provide enough nutrition and comes often with antinutrients and poisons and hormone disrupters and inflammatory compounds. All of that interferes with our brain function and our antennas to the information field, making assimilation of knowledge and growth of awareness harder.
 
As I understand it, we live in this 3D world and our bodies are the vehicles for our soul. And that we can perceive the world better (seeing signs, reading the environment and so on) a stable diet is needed. Because our bodies/ and brains need to work as good as possible to get through everyday drama. And with that meat, or maybe just natural proteins, are needed. And it can also be seen, from an evolutionary standpoint, that we humans (human brains) became humans because of meat.

What you need to test for yourself, which diet is the best for you? Because not everyone tolerates a strict meat or keto diet.

Have you read, for example, the book The vegetarian myth by Lierre Keith? And there is also a topic on this forum (link before) and also lots of information about being vegetarian.
 
Maybe you can take a look at Gabys summary of the research at SOTT.net here :


A very loose summary I think would be :

An animals defence to being eaten is to run. Plants defence to being eaten is to produce toxic chemicals.

Animals bodies are designed to process plants & vegetables and process the defensive chemicals that plants produce. All of the nutrients animals obtain from plants are stored in their fat and muscle.

The humans that emerged from the last ice age were those who were able to adapt to eating animals - not vegetables and their defensive chemicals. Too much of these can kill a human.

So, in short, we should be eating more meat and animal fat than vegetables, which are just carbs, water and toxins.

Also our mitochondria are designed to run on animal fats (they work 30% better)

I hope this may shed some light on the topic for you @ElmerDirtly :-)
 
Hi Elmer, I think the crux of that matter is that a vegetarian diet does not provide enough nutrition and comes often with antinutrients and poisons and hormone disrupters and inflammatory compounds. All of that interferes with our brain function and our antennas to the information field, making assimilation of knowledge and growth of awareness harder.

I think a hint that a vegan diet is not conducive to a healthy body is the fact, that being strict vegan you’ll die from Bitamin B12 deficiency, unless you supplement it - it is only found in meat.
 
Thank you for the replies.
Btw, I wasn’t speaking of a vegan diet, which I know is extremely detrimental. And in terms of veggies I speak of cooked, not raw. It seems that it goes somewhat like this: nutrient dense, inflammation “free” foodstuffs with the intent to support brain function/synapsis at its highest levels, which is the repository for the mind/conciousness which not only analyzes life around us in 3D (including amped up awareness of vampirism/manipulation/psychopathic intent) but also receives “hyperdimensional” and “Christ self” (soul level) impulses/information. Also this increased awareness ought assist in self-analysis in terms of observing belief systems and attendant thoughts (actually, thinking of the Seth material in which it was emphasized that thoughts thunk over and over become beliefs, it’s the reverse).

So, it’s all about the highest level of fuel (as it works for one’s own dna/constitution) feeding physical existence which supports rapport with one’s Greater Existence. Why run on kerosene when jet fuel is available…

Love
 
If you use the search terms 'meat' and 'vegetarian', you'll get plenty of hits in the C's sessions transcript web search thing.


Here's a lengthy session discussing the topic:
Q: (L) Well I have to say that I did much, much better today. I had been in that horrible state for a couple of weeks, and I did much better today with my cortisone and that little bit of DLPA. I don't know if I'll take any more tomorrow. It really helped. I would suggest that anybody else who feels like they’re falling into the pit, try it too. But you don't want to take it more than two or three days. (Belibaste) So the diet and supplements made us less sensitive to this beaming?

A: Yes.

Q: (L) Speaking of diet, that leads me to my question. Hold on here, let me get my page. Since our awakening in respect of vegetarianism versus meat eating, and that awakening quite by chance, by experience, by experiment, by learning things, by ya know, hard lessons, we've been publishing a lot of material that we've been finding because of course coming to some realizations has propelled us or induced us to search for the material, the research, that explains what we experienced in the vegetarian vs. meat eating experiments. So, we have been publishing these things, and as we've been publishing things along that line, things about gluten, about the evils of dairy, about lectins and plant foods, about the necessity for eating more meat, and eating much more fat, and basically just that the Paleo diet is best suited for the human being, we've attracted a whole lot of what I can only describe as "vegetarian trolls". I mean, they're like fanatics.

So last night, I was thinking about this. And while the authoritarian personality as defined and described by Bob Altemeyer can easily explain some of these behaviors, what we really come down to again is another split. I mean, you have the split between people who know that consciousness exists outside of the body, or that consciousness exists prior to the body. And then you have the Darwinists where consciousness is a byproduct of material evolution. And of course, the Darwinists are the Big Bang type people too, which is really kind of a really bizarre creation theory.

So, you get this subdivision. You have the people who are Darwinists and Big Bangers, and then you have people who are fundamentalists who basically, in a funny sort of way, are like the Darwinists because they too believe in a miraculous creation. So even though they may seem, or may appear to be, on exactly opposite sides of the fence, in a certain sense they're both authoritarian-type personalities. Which kind of highlights what Altmeyer said about authoritarians. They follow the beliefs, dictates, or ideas of the constituted authorities according to what they're brought up with.

An authoritarian personality in Moscow would believe that communism - maybe not today, but at some time - that communism is the best way of life. Do or die, communism is what's real and good and proper. And the same individual, the same personality type on the other side of the ocean in the United States believes that capitalism is the best option. In other words, people are brought up with certain authorities in their lives that espouse certain ideas about things, and they're acclimated or enculturated to these ideas. Their personalities make them follow it slavishly - that being the key word: slavishly.

It seems to be that this same divide - even though the divide is not defined by an ideology, because any ideology serves this slavish following - what is different is the slavishness of the follower versus the person who actually cares about the facts and is able to emerge from their enculturated conditioning and consider other ideas. So, hang on, I'm going somewhere here!

So, the thing is Altemeyer wrote another book about "amazing conversions" where he gathered data and analyzed people who had been born in a strongly religious family and background, and experienced a lot of this programming as they were growing up. But then, they grew up and emerged from it. They didn't necessarily turn against it, but they stopped believing, they changed their minds, they became something else. And then there were also people who were brought up in completely non-religious environments. Some of them were even anti-religious, who then, when they grew up, converted to religion or fundamentalism. Usually it's fundamentalism when they do these conversions. Most people don't convert to Catholicism or Methodism, they convert to fundamentalism. So, the key thing that he noticed about the people who grew up in non-religious households and then converted to religion was that most of them had very serious psychological issues. They were abused, damaged in some way, and just basically there was not something inside them that helped them to come to terms with themselves, or life, or the world. So they had to seek, basically, a savior on the outside or something that would give them the answers. Because once again, they were individuals who needed someone or something to follow slavishly.

And then about the people who converted out of religion, they were quite different all the way around. They were more independent. There was such a variety of them because they could think and do and be somewhat differently. Some of them became atheists, some of them became spiritual - but not religious. They followed all different paths. They were very individualistic. But the main thing was that they had a strong inner belief in what was right. In a funny sort of way, their religious background actually really worked on them. It led them to search for the truth even if they came to the idea that they could not find the truth or that it certainly was not to be found in their religion. It was ingrained in them that religion was about truth, and they themselves were more intelligent than their peers. They were people who made good grades, were successful in intellectual endeavors. And then they came to the idea that using their minds to find the truth was a useful way to get through or understand life. So, they used their minds to search for truth, which was inculcated in them as the highest value, and that search was turned on their religion which didn’t stand up very well to scrutiny.

So, you have these two different kinds of people. Once again, there is this divide between people who want or need to be slaves, and people who individuate, who are able to do this against all odds – certainly against their family, social and cultural programming. I mean most of these people who become free of religions because they wanted the truth, simply discovered that their religions were not - they didn't consider them to be adequate explanations of anything. They weren't believable. So these people, they wanted the truth and they were individualistic and they were completely different from the slavish followers who, even if they were brought up in anti-religious households, needed to “find religion” because they NEEDED to be slaves! Just as some individuals “find” Darwinism and become slaves of it. Or any other idea that is followed slavishly..

I guess what I'm getting to is that I'm seeing this again in the issue about vegetarianism. Now, all things being equal, we gave the strong vegetarian approach a really good try. During that period of time, all of us had issues and we kept referring it to detox. You're detoxing, you've got detox symptoms. And that's what nearly everybody who was on these detox diets talks about. "Oh, you're having detox symptoms." And of course we believe that there is a certain amount of detoxing that is needed and can be done, but to go on forever having detox symptoms every time you turn around and that everything is written off to detox symptoms is kind of - you wonder when is it going to end? When is your body going to start working on detoxing on a regular cyclical basis in a 24-hour period so that you don't have to go through some horrible ordeal every three or four days. And of course there was the experience that Atriedes had that led to a few little clues that in fact, vegetables may not be as good as they're cracked up to be.

So now we have all of these vegetarians. And they're fanaticism is amazing. However, I thought about this last night. I starting thinking: Ya know, there are people who are like cockroaches: they can survive on anything. Some of these people say, "Oh, I'm very, very healthy. I've never had any problems. I've never lost any weight. I didn't lose any strength." Ya know, if somebody tells you that, maybe it's true. I don't know the person personally, but I'm going to accept the fact that maybe they're telling the truth. On the other hand, I've known a lot of vegetarians who are not healthy. They may feel alright for awhile, and it may be kind of a relative thing: they don't know how good they could feel, so they think they feel relatively well. But then they develop some kind of sickness and they die and people wonder about it because their diet was so “healthy”.

And then they go after the people who eat meat and say, "Oh, you're meat eaters, you're always sick!" Well, the problem is that those people who are ordinary meat eaters that are being accused of always being sick are not really eating a Paleo diet. They are eating meat along with all kinds of corrupt and polluted and toxic foods. Drinking sodas, eating lots of carbs, etc. Because if you're eating a Paleo diet, you're minimizing carbs and not eating dairy and all that stuff.

So, anyhow, what I'm getting to is that while I was thinking about all of this, I was thinking about this divide once again between the slavish following of something, and being able to have the courage to say, "I was doing that, I tried it, there were problems, I began to explore, and I learned this and this and this and tried something different." There's this divide, this split. I started wondering about people who are fanatical vegetarians. I'm not talking about people who can be a vegetarian and maybe if they really receive some information that suggests that being a vegetarian is not such a good, they could then change. Which is kind of what happened to a lot of people we know and a lot of people in our group... We can name a dozen or so people who were strict vegetarians for 20 years, and they've stopped being vegetarians and their health improved!

So then, I remembered something that was said in a session on October 7, 1995 when we were discussing another topic entirely, but what come out what was this exchange:
Q: (L) But isn't the nature of a person determined by their soul and not the physical body?

A: Partially, remember, aural profile and karmic reference merges with physical structure.

Q: (L) So you are saying that particular genetic conditions are a physical reflection of a spiritual orientation? That the soul must match itself to the genetics, even if only in potential?

A: Yes, precisely.

Q: (L) So a person's potential for spiritual advancement or unfoldment is, to a great extent, dependent on their genes?

A: Natural process marries with systematic construct when present.
So, after this long preamble and introduction, my question is: Is it possible that there is a genetic profile of a vegetarian who actually does do well on a vegetable diet, a vegetarian diet? That is, being a human being which is supposed according to all standards to be carnivore?

A: Somewhat on the right track but the question is not as precise as it could be.

Q: (L) Okay, let me try again. You said, "...aural profile and karmic reference merges with physical structure." (Galaxia) Oh, maybe because they are slavish, vegetables are good for them? (L) Well, that's not where I want to go yet. So, the soul must match itself to the genetics, even if only in potential. Oh boy... How to ask this... I once asked if vegetarian was the way that one should eat, and you said that no, not generally, as that was concentrating on the physical. What did you mean exactly by that? Let's see if I can come at this in a sideways direction.

A: Most vegetarians are such, believing that it is more "spiritual". This is a belief that eating a certain way will change the nature or destiny or tendencies of the soul. This is as effective as confessing one's sins to a priest and doing penance and then sinning again. Besides, as you have noted, the vegetarians you have encountered have been singularly "unspiritual".

Q: (L) Okay, let me try to ask it this way: Is the fact that we eat meat detrimental to us spiritually?

A: Absolutely not.

Q: (L) But I would say that just the eating of meat is not a spiritual issue at all. (Perceval) Eating food is a thing of the body. (L) Yeah, I mean we just try to eat in an optimal way to give our bodies the right fuel so that we can do our other work. That's our whole thing is to give the body optimal fuel.

A: There is the difference, see? You eat for optimal fuel, they eat to support an illusion.

Q: (L) Well, they don't all eat to support an illusion. A lot of them think that vegetables are an optimal fuel illusion. (Perceval) But they couldn't think that if they really objectively read all the details.

A: They lack objective knowledge.

Q: (L) Okay then. (Perceval) I was saying that in the scheme of things, plants eat rocks, animals eat plants, and some eat other animals. But from a physical point of view in the hierarchy that humans would eat... (Burma Jones) If only seems that way if you understand densities, but in terms of what they think, physically we're just animals to them. (Perceval) But I wasn't talking about them, I was talking about in respect of our understanding...

A: Yes, you just hit upon an important point: The genetic body tends toward the animal nature. Note that we said "tends". In those of the "fanatical" vegetarian nature, this tendency is very strong. In fact, you could even say that there is strong identification with the genetic body and all it is connected to energetically.

Q: (L) So what do you mean, "strong identification with the genetic body and all it is connected to energetically"? Is that what I was thinking, that these fanatical vegetarians do not want to eat meat because for them, it's like eating their own kind? For them, eating a cow is like cannibalism because they identify with the animal kingdom so strongly that...?

A: Yes.

Q: (L) So, that would lead to the next part of what I was thinking last night, which is that some - and I'm not saying ALL - really fanatical vegetarians of the slavish authoritarian follower type personality could be, can you say the word for me there, Belibaste? (Belibaste) OP's. (L) Organic portals?

A: Yes.

Q: (L) Okay. (Galaxia) So basically they're people with the essence of an animal?

A: Yes.

Q: (L) They identify with the energetic... (Galaxia) They look like people, but they're not.

A: Yes.

Q: (Galaxia) They don't eat cows because they have the essence of a cow!

A: Yes.

Q: (Ark) They care more about the cows than about other human beings.

A: Yes.

Q: (L) That means they have empathy for animals - that is, their own spiritual kind - and not for humans.

A: Yes.

Q: (Burma Jones) Is that also why psychopaths can be so kind towards animals while they treat humans with such indifference?

A: Yes. Though psychopaths often are brutal toward all that cannot contribute to their aims.

Q: (L) So they would be kind to animals only if it suits them. (Ark) But I understand that our hero Gandhi was vegetarian and yet he cared about human beings. (Perceval) Was Gandhi an organic portal?

A: Gandhi "cared" about the human cattle like himself.

Q: (L) Well, what about the fact that for example the Cathars were supposed to be vegetarian? Cathars were the ones that were the Perfecti. They were vegetarian and they didn't eat meat.

A: They didn't succeed in surviving either!

Q: (Galaxia) Can I ask a question? Does all this mean that vegetarians are more inclined towards cannibalism?

A: No.

Q: (L) No, what I was saying that they would perceive... (Galaxia) I know, but I was saying that since they have such disregard for people... (L) Oh, I see what you're saying. Would they have less feeling for people and be inclined to eat them under certain circumstances? (Galaxia) Yes. (Perceval) Given the choice, would they eat a person or a cow? (Galaxia) If they were starving?

A: In some cases, perhaps, but not generally.

Q: (Ailen) Now, among vegetarians, you could say there are two groups. There's the group that says they feel better, they don't want to kill animals, they feel more sorry for animals than for veggies. They kind of stop there - they don't have spiritual ideas. On the other hand, there are those vegetarians who say that humans eat meat and therefore they are attached to physical reality. So by eating veggies and then fasting or sungazing for example, they're going to become illumined beings. So those are two different groups. So what is the intrinsic difference between them?

A: Two variations on the same theme!

Q: (L) The kind that just don't want to be cruel to animals identify with the animals more strongly. They just don't have anything else. And then those that think it's spiritual, they're just kind of like New Age fundies. (Ailen) Yeah, but I was thinking that there might be some kind of difference in their essence or genes in the sense that some of them make a choice...

A: Not really. The only evidence for "soul potential" is the realization that the body is just a machine and needs optimal fuel.

And the optimal fuel for humans is basically high fat/high protein and low carb/low vegetables, as others have said.

Edit: there are also specific cases, tho, and there's a lot of fine tuning to be done with diet.
 
If you use the search terms 'meat' and 'vegetarian', you'll get plenty of hits in the C's sessions transcript web search thing.


Here's a lengthy session discussing the topic:




And the optimal fuel for humans is basically high fat/high protein and low carb/low vegetables, as others have said.

Edit: there are also specific cases, tho, and there's a lot of fine tuning to be done with diet.
Yes. Thank you. I’ve read much of those references. And I think the clarifications offered lead me back to my initial inquiry emphasizing that this consumption is feeding one’s current body and existence and awareness, and less emphasis on one’s Greater Existence and “soul”. If that makes sense. Again, thank you.
 
We could consider the physical body as the material part of the soul, maybe that is why some beliefs emphasize the respect of the body as a temple, the distinctions of the bodies (biological, energetic, mental,...) help to comprehend how the biochemical interrelationships between them operate. The Cass. have said that the soul is in the DNA and we also know that it is the library where our family descendants are housed and it is also where you have to do the work of “opening the file” to perform the unblocking (which causes changes in the DNA and throughout your system). This is also why oxygenation in the organism is important. You can look for these implications in the sessions.
A balanced diet helps you to have autonomy and what we call judicial administration which is the sovereignty of thought-creation and free will.
So to be more concise in the answer is that “everything comes in the package” and even validates the phrase: You are what you eat.
 
We could consider the physical body as the material part of the soul, maybe that is why some beliefs emphasize the respect of the body as a temple, the distinctions of the bodies (biological, energetic, mental,...) help to comprehend how the biochemical interrelationships between them operate. The Cass. have said that the soul is in the DNA and we also know that it is the library where our family descendants are housed and it is also where you have to do the work of “opening the file” to perform the unblocking (which causes changes in the DNA and throughout your system). This is also why oxygenation in the organism is important. You can look for these implications in the sessions.
A balanced diet helps you to have autonomy and what we call judicial administration which is the sovereignty of thought-creation and free will.
So to be more concise in the answer is that “everything comes in the package” and even validates the phrase: You are what you eat.
Thank you
 
Back
Top Bottom