Universal Rule of Conduct

— Fourth Rule —

Feed Only From What The Land Produces:

Today’s lecture is one of the toughest ones to follow when it comes to applying the previous rule ‘not to kill’ to your daily life.

Many of us would not harm an innocent creature. And by “harming,” I mean the consciously and premeditated act of killing. The righteous would rather step aside and not interfere with that soul’s evolutionary path just as the one we trailed while evolving into human form.

Look around and take good notice of your surroundings, knowing that you are one of many animal species evolving in this physical plane. Our physical structure is comprised of living microorganisms. From unicellular to multi-cellular, every part of our bodies is made of the same molecular structure we all share. It’s a bit more complex than that but let’s keep it simple for now.

What distinguishes ‘us’ from ‘them’ is that we have called ourselves the ‘supreme’ or superior race. But how does that take us to believe we own them?

Before you begin to ponder, let me remind you that the slave trade from our most recent history tells us that slaves were considered ‘soulless animals’ by those in charge of the laws. And now that we have been found to be wrong, we still continue the same conduct as transgressors of innocent victims in the hands of those who still believe that other creatures (as once believed of slaves) are soulless animals as well. How wrong are we—again!

And what hurts me the most is knowing how many are as absent to the truth of our existence as we were back then. And still think we own the rights over those from the animal kingdom.

It is claimed that what difference ‘us’ from ‘them’ is our superior intellect. Well, do I have news for you! Many in the animal kingdom, which you are part of, are less evolved than us, but there are others much more advanced than us.

If you measure things by earthly conduct, the human race has gained the properties of complex communication skills. But many in the animal world communicate far more efficiently than us. Yet, many of us are clueless of this fact, including me up to one day:

It was a late afternoon when I was visiting my son. He lived in a second story building in an apartment complex where I had a balcony view of the main avenue and a beautiful landscape where squirrels and birds shared the space in harmony.

While enjoying that late afternoon experience with my son, a mother squirrel with her offspring caught my attention. I tapped my son on his shoulder, and we both saw what I would not believe if I heard it from someone else: The mother squirrel was crossing the path to reach to the next palm tree, but the novice squirrel fell behind as it froze in fear of crossing. When the mother squirrel took a glimpse to see how close her offspring was, she stopped, and within seconds it went back to comfort him.

I noticed how somehow there was some kind of communication as she squeaked to her youngster in its ear, gave it like a “let’s try again” command and once the mother took off, the youngster followed her flawlessly as they both crossed the path and began climbing the palm tree. I immediately felt how the novice squirrel gained confidence from that communication, and although a bit clumsy, it managed to follow suit and learned its lesson.

Animals do communicate in ways very similar to us, like for instance using visual, auditory, or sound-based signals; chemicals, such as pheromones or by touch or cues such as the one the mother squirrel gave her youngster before making the leap of faith by mimicking and following every step its mother did.

The verbal communication between animals may seem to have a limited vocabulary. Still, the intent is felt in ways no other type of communication can ever bring or is ever needed.

I know this from firsthand experience as one day, I received one particular message from The Collective Forces of Knowledge and Wisdom when preparing me to lecture on what later became this specific Rule of Conduct.

During this particular day, a new message from The Collective Forces of Knowledge and Wisdom came through: “If you must kill a life for a life, kill from the lesser.” It came to me as in many occasions when, while doing any particular task, I receive and perceive their original intent. I knew exactly what they meant, although the words may seem like an incomplete sentence or a vague message that could be interpreted in many ways. Yet, I knew the full extent of those words. Let me explain:

The moment those words crossed my mind, I understood that it was making reference to killing a life to feed on it. I immediately knew how killing a life for a life is the act of taking away the life of a soul so you could continue your journey in this physical world. As paradoxical as it may seem, it made and will make perfect sense to you once you grasp at a deeper level the true nature of our existence.

I could see the paradox facing the unenlightened as it would mean to them that to be enlightened, you then would need to abstain from eating, and as a result, you would die a senseless death with no purpose. But to the enlightened, it is a reassurance to feed on the plant world. Nevertheless, even to the enlightened, the question remains on the table: Does eating from the plant world is also ‘killing’? Let me explain:

There is an argument that plants do feel pain. But no study has ever shown that plants can feel pain because they lack the nervous system and brain necessary for this to happen. They do respond, however, to stimulus as every living thing does.

When you feed on the plant world, you do not kill but give life. When you eat on fruits, you don’t kill but give life when you properly plant their seeds for them to strive and grow to a new life. When you eat on the root of a plant, you don’t kill but give life by planting its root back to the soil you took it from. When you eat on legumes, you don’t kill but spread some of them back into the ground to grow new plants.

It is like when you prune a flowering plant: Rather than killing it, you remove dead or diseased portions to stimulate new growth. We are in effect, causing injury, but the injury we are causing is not detrimental but valuable to them, much like the injury we cause to our body as we exercise. Did you know that after a long day of hard work, your body ache is a signal from the injuries you sustained as your micro-fissured muscles heal, strengthen, and grow to make you stronger?

However, when you feed on the animal kingdom, you are not only causing injury, but you also take away the life of that soul as you once lived at those evolving stages of your development.

Not only did you kill a life, but you also caused injury and possible death to its now orphan offspring or emotional distress to its lifetime partner or family members who await fruitlessly for its return. And not to mention the cruelty involved by the industrialization and profit-making practices of gross physical and emotional injury those animals sustain while alive.

Now, here is the question many have asked me: Do plants have a soul? Let me answer this question by clarifying the misconception between a spirit and a soul.

Many of us have been taught that spirit and soul are interchangeable words when they are not. The spirit is the individuality of the original intent as it moves and evolves to later become a densified soul as it evolves into flesh.

It is like having a newborn who has not evolved its conscious awareness. As a newborn, it may feel pain but would not associate it with the suffering of the conscious mind. Many endure complex surgeries from birth defects but do not recall ever having suffered from it. As the brain develops, the toddler now recognizes the difference between pleasure and pain, and as a child, becomes fully aware of their physical and emotional pain. Now, as an adult, the suffering is more pronounced as conscious awareness is fully developed, and the accumulation of suffering builds. I hope this analogy makes sense to you as it relates to being a spirit (newborn) and having evolved as a soul (adult).

The spirit is the intent in motion, while the soul is the densification of the spirit now becoming an individual soul. Let me put it in common words many of us use to interpret or distinguish one from the other. The spirit is, let say, the ‘energy field,’ while the soul is the energy ‘densified’ in flesh.

An insect, for instance, is moved by the spirit, which is the intent in motion as it evolves from very early stages. But the spirit, as it manifests in a fish, has more consciousness than you think. And as the spirit keeps evolving as a cold or warm-blooded creature, the suffering is more significant.

Now let’s go back to ‘kill from the lesser:’

I also knew how this sentence ended as I understood that ‘kill from the lesser‘ was not an incomplete sentence. I spontaneously knew and stopped the communication process between the intent and the though for not needing any further translation (from intent to thought to words.) It was like when someone tells you something and doesn’t need to finish the sentence when you already know what that person implies.

If I were to finish the sentence as I explain to you the original intent,’ Kill from the lesser‘ wound be a complete sentence when I add the words “in evolutive conscious awareness.” Therefore, if you must kill a life for your life, kill from the lesser in evolutive conscious awareness. This implies and most certainly makes reference not to kill but to feed on the plant world.

Trust me, I get it if you struggle with this one, because at first, I did too. But as much as I tried to justify my actions, the basic act of having lived firsthand the pain and suffering we inflict to others by killing a life for a life was no match to a lifetime of meat-eating. That is when I surrendered, and today I live free from transgressing against others by the act of not having to kill a life for another day as I keep incarnated in this physical body of mine.

And as I know how much you may be struggling with applying this rule to your daily life, I am going to clarify all your doubts as I’ll try to undo the misinformation you have probably received throughout your lifetime as I will explain this from the physical, moral and spiritual perspective and forge them into one common understanding:

The animal kingdom is divided into two: The herbivore and the carnivore. The herbivore has a plant-based diet while the carnivore eats on flesh. Then you have the Omnivores and Detrivores; omnivores are those who eat both plant and animal, and Detrivores are those who contribute to decomposition (those who eat on dead flesh.)

Herbivores have been found to have a digestive system much different than the carnivore, making them more able to absorb the nutrients derived from plants. Bulls, for instance, are 100% herbivorous, yet pound for pound, they have more muscle mass than many other animals. How could it be possible that a herbivorous animal, such as the bull, could have such a dense muscle mass? Because its source of protein comes from a plant-based diet.

The greatest misconception we all have been conditioned to believe is that our protein source must come from animal protein because of the way our digestive system is designed. However, if you take a closer look at our closest relative, the gorilla, the genetic material of apes is identical to that of us humans. But they are many times stronger than us, and their muscle mass is denser than ours— yet gorillas are 100 % herbivorous. So, where does the gorilla gets its protein?

All plants have proteins. Proteins are amino acids (polypeptide bonds.) These bonds are made up of carbon. Carbon is the basic building block for life, and we all are carbon-based organisms—from the first particle to the last cell.
So, where does the difference lies? One of the most evident effects of diet on the digestive system is the composition of gut bacteria (gut microbiome). Many different species of bacteria can live in the intestines, and diet strongly influences what species thrive and which are suppressed.

Unfortunately, we have compromised our digestive system in order to digest meat. The animal-based diet increases the abundance of bile-tolerant microorganisms that produce many harmful by-products and decreased the levels of good bacteria that feed on plant starches and fiber. On the other hand, the gut microbiome of a herbivore (vegan) has the highest proportions of health beneficial and protective bacteria allowing the full absorption of nutrients from the plant-based diet.

Just to give you an insight, when I shifted from carnivore to herbivore I learned in the process that I had to transition one step at a time in order to shift the composition of my gut bacteria, otherwise, I would have become ill for lack of nutrient absorption in my body. This is the primary misconception and reason why some meat-eaters transitioning into veganism feel weak while transitioning and suddenly switch over to meat consumption believing they are becoming ill.

If you look at the (long) list of the herbivorous family (Wikipedia), you will realize how, from the biggest mammal to the smallest invertebrate, they all share one common practice: They all are non-predators.

Predators, on the other hand, are aggressive or deceptive killers. Some kill their prey by aggression, while others use deception to capture their prey. Irrespectively of their practice, they both disregard leaving behind the victim’s offsprings, parners or group by bringing more suffering to others by their actions.

So, let me ask you at this point: Do you consider yourself to be a herbivore or a predator?

Most of us, especially those from this new generation, don’t even care to know where their fried chicken, meat burger, or hot dog comes from, other than the grocery store or restaurant. The industrialization of food has made us all believe that a steak, sirloin, rib-eye, tender ribs, or ground beef, among many other “cuts” are simply variances of a tasty meal.

In essence, they are none other than the animal’s muscle mass advertised as meat—the same muscle mass you have in your body. Their juices come from the same fat surrounding your muscles, and the bitterness comes from the same blood that circulates in your body. Actually, your butcher is dissecting and you are consuming body parts. Pretty graphic, right? Not really, it’s simply the truth!

Over ten years ago, while I was still living in Puerto Rico, I witnessed how the pork industry came up with a marketing campaign promoting pork as the new chicken. Since pork meat, when fully cooked, turns kind of amber or more like the white’ ish color of cooked chicken, they chose to promote them as the new chicken.

Did it work? Sure it did! I remember my mother selling me the concept that pork was the new healthy meat simply because she was drawn into it by the TV ads, newspapers, radio commercials, and billboards. Yet, pork meat has been proven to be much harder to digest and must be fully cooked to avoid the food-borne illness named trichinosis.

If you eat meat, you became a predator through consumerism. While you consume meat, those who feed us make the killing for us. As we all grow in numbers indulging our palate with all the food choices available to us, we promote the rampant genocide against those victims of our indulgences.

A few years ago, while being introduced to this Higher Truth by The Collective Forces of Knowledge and Wisdom, and while under a deep sleep, I was taken to a meat processing factory. There I was figuring out what was I doing there when suddenly I saw a young pig limping from one of its back legs.

As the pig got closer to me, I noticed that it was limping from missing a big chunk of flesh from its leg. I could see the bare bone and the freshly open wound from what it seemed as if someone would have taken a thick chunk off its rear leg. I was horrified and looked around in despair to get an answer from someone when I saw a man whom I immediately asked why was the pig missing flesh from one of its legs. He replied without any concern: “Oh! We do this to keep the meat as fresh as possible.”

I couldn’t bear the pain that was empathically transferred to me as the pig put pressure in its wounded leg, forcing it to limp. I couldn’t believe the answer I had just heard and wanted to understand a more logical explanation. I ran from one corridor to another and saw more pigs in similar conditions. And the answer was still the same.

I wanted out, but paradoxically I couldn’t leave unless I could find an end to that barbaric practice. Next thing I remember, I was back in my bedroom, but the memory of the lived experience hunted me for days, even weeks, months, and still today I can vividly recall the lived experience.

So, if you felt I was too graphic when I mentioned the simple truth behind the word “meat,” it was nothing compared to the lessons I had to learn before acquiring Higher Truth such as this one.

For those who are carnivores and till believe they are not predators, all I ask from them is to burn their wallet (or credit card) and see how would you obtain your next meal if not by having to capture and kill your next victim—or have someone do the dirty deed for you.

Also, keep in mind that at the end of the predator’s life, the law of cause and effect will take them to no longer be able to hunt and kill their prey. Their death will become a long and painful one when they can no longer catch their prey and eventually starve to death. On the other hand, all herbivorous live a peaceful life (except having to fear the predator.) They all have plenty of resources to eat, and the searching for food needs no deceiving or preying.

Let’s now transition from facts to a more spiritual, moral, and ethical perspective. Let’s start with great thinkers who understand this principle:

Pythagoras: The Greek scholar was known for his math theorem who lived 2,500 years ago, ate a fleshless diet, called the Pythagorean diet until the word “vegetarian” became popular in the 1800s, and I quote from what I gathered he once said: 
”As long as Man continues to be the ruthless destroyer of lower living beings, he will never know health or peace. For as long as men massacre animals, they will kill each other. Indeed, he who sows the seed of murder and pain cannot reap joy and love.”

Leo Tolstoy: He was one of the world’s pre-eminent writers becoming famous through his epic novel “War and Peace.” And I quote: “A man can live and be healthy without killing animals for food; therefore, if he eats meat, he participates in taking animal life merely for the sake of his appetite. And to act so is immoral.

Leonardo Da Vinci—Born in 1452, this Renaissance man was famous for his study of mathematics, anatomy, engineering, art, sculpture, and aerospace. His vegetarianism has been credited to reading about the life of Pythagoras. He said, and I quote: “My body will not be a tomb for other creatures.” He also said: “I have from an early age abjured the use of meat, and the time will come when men such as I will look upon the murder of animals as they now look upon the murder of men.

Mahatma Gandhi—Gandhi wrote: “I do not regard flesh food as necessary for us at any stage and under any clime in which it is possible for human beings ordinarily to live. I hold flesh food to be unsuited to our species. To my mind, the life of a lamb is no less precious than that of a human being. I should be unwilling to take the life of a lamb for the sake of the human body.”

Albert Einstein: It was his belief that man was not born to be a carnivore and he said forcefully, and I quote: “Nothing will benefit human health and increase chances of survival for life on earth as much as the evolution of a vegetarian diet. Our task must be to free ourselves by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature and its beauty.”

Plutarch: He was a Greek historian, who later became a Roman citizen, a biographer, and essayist born 46 -120 CE, and I quote: 
”I rather wonder both by what accident and in what state of soul or mind the first man touched his mouth to gore and brought his lips to the flesh of a dead creature, he who set forth tables of dead, stale bodies and ventured to call food and nourishment the parts that had a little before bellowed and cried, moved and lived. How could his eyes endure the slaughter when throats were slit and hide flayed and limbs torn from limb? How could his nose endure the stench?”

Benjamin Franklyn: Diplomat, political activist, and inventor who discovered electricity and invented the Franklin stove. He has often been referred to as ‘America’s renaissance man’ and was symbolic of the fledgling American nation. Franklin wrote in his autobiography that he became a vegetarian when he was 16 years old.

Nikola Tesla: The inventor of AC Current once wrote: “It is certainly preferable to raise vegetables, and I think, therefore, that vegetarianism is a commendable departure from the established barbarous habit. Every effort should be made to stop the wanton and cruel slaughter of animals.”

These are only a few out of an ever greater list of those many who understood the nature and relation of us humans with the animal kingdom and the spiritual ways.

Let’s now move on to the religious aspect, without theological ties, this time around. But having known that Christianity accounts for over 33% of the worldwide population and roughly 75% in America alone, I have no choice but to talk to them (or you) on a more direct basis:

Genesis 1, verses 29-30:
29 And God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food. 30 And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.

The Ten Commandments: Specifically, the sixth commandment reads as follows: ‘Thou Shalt Not Kill.’

Many times the Bible mentions the word ‘meat, which, in fact, the original word was ‘trophe,’ which means ‘nourishment.’ Keep in mind that the Bible is a collection of writings that were originally created in an ancient Aramaic language. Its translation goes from the Codex Sinaiticus, the Codex Alexandrinus, to the Codex Vaticanus, all with tens, if not hundreds of lost pages.

The translation came from Hebrew to Greek. Translation to Latin took place around 400 AD, and for more than a thousand years, it became the standard Bible for the Catholic church until an English version took form in 1320 AD.

For instance, in Luke 8:55 (old manuscripts), the word ‘phago’ is translated as meat (KJV 1769), when the Book should read, “and Jesus commanded to give her food” (not meat.) Moreover, as I searched for other versions, (ASV 1901, NASB 1995, WEB 1833, DBY 1898, EBR1902, YLY 1898, DR 1750, AV 1611, NT 1849 and NT1852) none of them mention the word “meat.”

Under Luke 21:34, Evangelion Da-Mepharreshe — (Old Syriac-Aramaic Manuscript of the New Testament Gospels) Jesus said: “Be on guard, so that your hearts do not become heavy with the eating of flesh and with the intoxication of wine and with the anxiety of the world, and that day come upon you suddenly; for as a snare it will come upon all who dwell upon the surface of the earth.”

However, when I confronted said passage with a New International Version (NIV) it turns out that the word “eating of flesh” was substituted by the word “carousing,” which translates to alcohol consumption and noisy behavior. Which, by the way, is conflicting in itself for redundancy following the next word, which is “drunkenness.”

Here is the passage from the bible:
 Luke 21:34 (NIV) 34 “Be careful, or your hearts will be weighed down with carousing, drunkenness and the anxieties of life, and that day will close on you suddenly like a trap.”

The feeding of Jesus to the multitude has been extensively used to argue or justify the meat-eating behavior of many. Let’s study this passage in-depth:
The original version of the “Feeding of the Multitude” story only refers to bread, not bread and fish. “Fish” apparently was added to some gospel verses later on. If you look at other accounts of the same incident, from what I’ve gathered, for example, Irenaeus, Eusebius, and Arnobius mention the feeding of the five thousand. In every case, they discuss the bread, but they don’t mention anything about fish. Therefore, fish is a later addition to the scriptures.

In fact, in the New Testament, when Jesus is talking about the feeding of the five thousand, he says, ‘Don’t you remember when I fed the multitudes and all the bread that we took up?‘ He indeed never mentioned the fish.

Let’s take a look:
Matthew 16:9Do you not yet perceive? Do you not remember the five loaves for the five thousand, and how many baskets you gathered?” No fish included with the loaves there.

Mark 8:16–21:16 They discussed this with one another and said, “It is because we have no bread.” 17 Aware of their discussion, Jesus asked them: “Why are you talking about having no bread? Do you still not see or understand? Are your hearts hardened? 18 Do you have eyes but fail to see, and ears but fail to hear? And don’t you remember? 19 When I broke the five loaves for the five thousand, how many basketfuls of pieces did you pick up? “Twelve,” they replied. 20 “And when I broke the seven loaves for the four thousand, how many basketfuls of pieces did you pick up?” They answered, “Seven.” 21 He said to them, “Do you still not understand?

Others have taken Bible verses out of context. For instance, I’ve heard in many instances when people make reference to Jesus as he once said that what goes into someone’s mouth does not defile them, but what comes out of their mouth, that is what defiles them.

Here they are making reference to Mathew 15:11. However, when you read Mathew 15 from verse one, Jesus was scolding the Pharisees, who accused him of having his Apostles not washing their hands before eating. Clearly, this passage has nothing to do with food choices.

Again, translations by men have made these and many other interpretations vague, confusing, and unreliable. But then I ask: How could it be possible that someone like Buddha or Jesus could allow the killing of a life? Does it make sense to you? Not to me nor to those many whom I have made reference above.

I can go deeper into other religions and religious practices, but I feel I have given you enough evidence to prove my point not before I give you one more mention from one ancestor who seems to have known this principle very well; Saint Francis of Assisi. He once wrote: “If you have men who will exclude any of God’s creatures from the shelter of compassion and pity, you will have men who deal likewise with their fellow men.”

Unfortunately, food consumption has become one of the greatest pleasures as humanity has been conditioned to indulge themselves through one of our physical senses: the sense of taste, also known as the palate.

Since I became a herbivore, every time I talk about food choices, I get so much resistance from those who consume meat that it baffles my mind. Taking away the spiritual aspect, resistance is most commonly found in its roots; lack of willpower—a simple case of lack of willpower and the unwillingness to let go of the pleasures from what most people love to indulge over and over again.

Here I must add that becoming a herbivore does not limit oneself to lettuce and tomato. The food choices are far more abundant than people think. The list goes from legumes to roots and from a wide variety of leaves to fruits. And the list of recipes is far more extensive than those you may have known.

The Transcripts calls for us all to detach from what’s holding us back. Attachments bring suffering, and suffering comes from not wanting to let go. If, after you read this article you keep having doubts about your practices of eating meat, then it is no longer ignorance but open resistance to keep indulging from your appetite.

Final words: I have known of children who have cried once they find out that the drumstick they are eating comes from a chicken. Furthermore, I have seen how their parents convince them that there is nothing wrong with eating the chicken, and seen the child blindly believing this to be true.

Later in life you see the child becoming an adult deluded in the idea once sold and reinforced by society’s behavior pattern, advertising and ultimately consumerism. That child, once becoming an adult and after having children, will teach them the same thing he once was wrongly taught, believing there is nothing wrong with killing an animal for food.

This repetitive behavior will not change if you, as an adult, do not teach your children or the children of your children the truth behind meat consumption.

As I conclude with this rule of conduct, I would like to end with a message I once was told by one from The Collective Forces of Knowledge and Wisdom as an end-statement for this and future Transcripts I have yet to publish:

“Now that you know the truth…what are you going to do about it?”—Transcript

Looking forward to next week’s lesson 8 I have in store for you.


Next week you will learn

The Universal Rule of Conduct

—Care, Consider and Protect all Living Things—