Veganism is an extremely pressing concern.

[Ramasta9]

On 12/1/2025 at 10:53 AM, Jowblob said:

When you become enlightened you can eat everything, but when you're not enlightened you have to do everything to purify yourself and that includes eating sattvic vegan foods (alive foods, that don't distort the mind) and dropping all dead/processed foods. The three gunas are real when you're not enlightened rajas/tamas/sattva, it has been designed this way to keep the vibration low so you can be fully indulged in the meterial world when you were born.

*Just the vegan diet that includes foods in rajas/tamas cetegory and processed foods is the same as the normal meat diet and doesn't do anything for your consciousness or vibration increase.

There is truth to what you say, but there is a lack of grounding and stability in your awakenings and realizations, which come through your words, which is why they don't land too well, especially online where the people cannot feel and read each other energetically. And what is what enlightenment is my friend, when we can truly ground and stabilize the current ~

I would argue tho, when we say "when you become enlightened you can eat anything", is true in terms of alchemical transmutation, yet at the same time you would naturally chose the more conscious and wise choice, on all levels of life, not just personal needs or desires.

As you become more purified and refined, you will naturally drop any food or direct contribution to any form of suffering or harm, because you would directly feel and experience it as yourself, you would see and feel the ripple effect in real time, so it becomes impossible.

The more conscious you become, the more conscious your choices become.

[Carl-Richard]

On 30.11.2025 at 0:49 PM, Ramasta9 said:

The broad path is easy and many walk it; the narrow path is hard and few are brave enough to stand alone.

Interestingly vegans are 3x more likely to be single than meat-eaters: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12740075/
 

Here is an interesting thought: it's plausible that if you eat meat from ruminants that graze on fully non-arable land that does not replace wild habitat, you will kill less animals than if you eat fruit from plantations that replace wild habitat (and that tend to involve deforestation, pesticides, pollution), e.g. some avocado and banana plantations. But I think the intention to kill animals is generally worse than doing killing them indirectly through ignorance.

Edited yesterday at 02:25 AM by Carl-Richard

[Ramasta9]

There are levels to being human. Not in the sense of superiority, but in the sense of how much light your body can actually hold.

When you eat animal flesh, you take in the frequency of survival, fear, density, and the lower vibrations the animal carries and represents. That energy fuses with your tissues, your nerves, your subtle body. It pulls your awareness downward into the old human, the survival human, the animal.

But when you release animal foods, something profound happens.

Your body becomes lighter, cleaner, clearer.
Your consciousness rises.
Your intuition opens.
Your emotional body stabilizes.
Your aura brightens.
Your frequency sharpens.

You begin to move from the survival human to the fully awakened human - the Christ-consciousness, Buddha-consciousness, rainbow or golden light-body human that the old masters spoke about. This is what they were trying to remind humanity of, that there is a higher version of the human being.

Not a moral upgrade, a vibrational one.

Animal foods were meant for survival.They served us in the past. But we are no longer meant to live in survival mode.

The "missing link" that most people never see is that your diet isn't just fuel - it's consciousness material. What you eat becomes what you are able to feel, perceive, hold, and embody. When you remove the heaviness of animal energy, your body becomes a cleaner vessel for the higher frequencies to move through.

And when that happens, everything transforms.

This is the doorway into the next version of the human being - the light body, the ascended body, the awakened human.

Most people never crack this part. But once you do, the whole picture snaps into place.

 

 

[Elliott]

56 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Here is an interesting thought: it's plausible that if you eat meat from ruminants that graze on fully non-arable land that does not replace wild habitat, you will kill less animals than if you eat fruit from plantations that replace wild habitat (and that tend to involve deforestation, pesticides, pollution), e.g. some avocado and banana plantations. But I think the intention to kill animals is generally worse than doing killing them indirectly through ignorance.

🤨

You create a plantation once. You kill livestock until the end of time.

Edited yesterday at 03:14 AM by Elliott

[carterfelder]

14 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

Interestingly vegans are 3x more likely to be single than meat-eaters: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12740075/
 

Here is an interesting thought: it's plausible that if you eat meat from ruminants that graze on fully non-arable land that does not replace wild habitat, you will kill less animals than if you eat fruit from plantations that replace wild habitat (and that tend to involve deforestation, pesticides, pollution), e.g. some avocado and banana plantations. But I think the intention to kill animals is generally worse than doing killing them indirectly through ignorance.

"Vegans are single tho" is the ad hominem fallacy ("to the person" in Latin). But putting that aside, of course many vegans are probably single—they prefer to date other vegans. Vegans are an extreme minority. As a vegan myself, the last vegan I dated ended up not being compatible with me for a long-term relationship. Veganism is about doing what is ethically right, not what is comfortable, convenient, habitual, traditional, or enjoyable.

[Carl-Richard]

17 hours ago, Elliott said:

🤨

You create a plantation once. You kill livestock until the end of time.

Pollution and pesticides are still ongoing sources of harm, especially for marine life in the vicinity.

Even so, you have to think about it in abstract quantitative consumer terms. Without sales, the plantation cannot exist. So you're funding plantations when buying the banana. Your contribution might be in the millionth or billionth percent overall, but so is your contribution to the meat industry by buying a steak (and a steak is not a whole animal either, let's say 0.06% of the meat you get from a whole cow [430kg] you get for a 250g steak).

So how many animals (or maybe "animal biomass" is a better quantifier if we care about "lesser" lifeforms as well) does your pack of bananas cost, all factors considered? Is it less than 250 grams?

Edited 21 hours ago by Carl-Richard

[Carl-Richard]

4 hours ago, carterfelder said:

"Vegans are single tho" is the ad hominem fallacy ("to the person" in Latin). But putting that aside, of course many vegans are probably single—they prefer to date other vegans. Vegans are an extreme minority. As a vegan myself, the last vegan I dated ended up not being compatible with me for a long-term relationship. Veganism is about doing what is ethically right, not what is comfortable, convenient, habitual, traditional, or enjoyable.

It was not an argument against veganism, unless you care about comfort, convenience, being 3x less single.

[Elliott]

1 hour ago, Carl-Richard said:

Pollution and pesticides are still ongoing sources of harm, especially for marine life in the vicinity.

Even so, you have to think about it in abstract quantitative consumer terms. Without sales, the plantation cannot exist. So you're funding plantations when buying the banana. Your contribution might be in the millionth or billionth percent overall, but so is your contribution to the meat industry by buying a steak (and a steak is not a whole animal either, let's say 0.06% of the meat you get from a whole cow [430kg] you get for a 250g steak).

So how many animals (or maybe "animal biomass" is a better quantifier if we care about "lesser" lifeforms as well) does your pack of bananas cost, all factors considered? Is it less than 250 grams?

@Carl-Richard sure

Overlooking organic farming, to your non-arable grazing scheme; non-arable does not mean lifeless. This is quite a visible problem in the southwest u.s. in recreational and grazing areas: being the most delicate type of habitat, grazing(or hiking) has endangered entire ecosystems. Grazing, aside from stripping an already otherwise barron ecosystem, also compacts the soil, further reducing water absorption to an already deprived area, and making it harder for new plants to grow, plants necessary for the ecosystem.

In the southwest u.s. in the recreation areas we see signage all over for staying on trail, " restoration area", just from people walking over gravelly sandy ground.

Fishing may be the best argument to veganism, but even in a world of limited fish diets, the oceans populations are waning.

 

Bananas are a weed

Edited 20 hours ago by Elliott

[Carl-Richard]

@Elliott

I think "animal biomass" can be a sort of vegan index for weighing morality because it is sensitive to both large animals with higher forms of sentience (high individual body weight) and it's sensitive to larger masses of smaller animals at the root of eco systems (e.g. earthworms, insects). So you get a number that strongly represents both sentience arguments and ecological arguments. The middle of the distribution like chickens, fish, frogs, are more "we like them because they are unique lifeforms, not as much for what they do".

[Elliott]

1 hour ago, Carl-Richard said:

@Elliott

I think "animal biomass" can be a sort of vegan index for weighing morality because it is sensitive to both large animals with higher forms of sentience (high individual body weight) and it's sensitive to larger masses of smaller animals at the root of eco systems (e.g. earthworms, insects). So you get a number that strongly represents both sentience arguments and ecological arguments. The middle of the distribution like chickens, fish, frogs, are more "we like them because they are unique lifeforms, not as much for what they do".

Ya.

In true sustainable farming, soil needs the smaller animals. It's actually a serious problem right now with non-organic grain farming used for livestock feed: they use nitrogen fertilizer(ammonia) but it kills the worms and things like that, which 'kills' the soil, which means - MORE FERTILIZER!!.....

 

Edited 18 hours ago by Elliott

[Elliott]

Another point to add, there's probably not enough non-arable land to produce enough meat. Most meat is grown on feedlots(97% in the wide open u.s.....), fed from grain grown on unsustainable farms, requiring 1 acre for 300lbs of beef, 500lbs required annually for a carnivore diet

2 acres of grain for a carnivore diet, while a vegan diet requires only 1/6th an acre of vegetables, the size of a small yard.

4 acres a year of poor grazing land per meat eater. For cattle, goats are probably more efficient.

37B acres of land on earth

8B people 2 acres would be 16B of 37B acres needed for grain for a carnivore world.

1.3B acres needed for vegans

And then the cow farts CO2 would turn earth into venus.

 

Essentially, we gotta grow cows on the mooooooon.

 

 

Edited 17 hours ago by Elliott