Some animals have worked with humanity for thousands and thousands of years, making us wonder if they have compacts with humanity, and if so, whether that has always been the case?
I need to ask you, first, what do you mean by “work with humanity,” because being in the presence of humanity is not necessarily working with it; working with doesn’t always have to mean being a service dog. Second, when you say “some” animals, that doesn’t necessarily fit with the last part of the question about animals having a compact or not. For instance, domesticated dogs have a different compact than domesticated cattle, which have a different compact than zebras.
Every being, animal, plant or mineral, has a compact, not with humanity but with its function within the Plan. So the question that you want to ask is, What animals are specifically here to work with humanity as a means of completing their compact within the greater Plan?
And if we were to ask that, what would you say?
I’m going to use the terms “level one” and “level two domestication,” level one being a direct and personal contact with humans, as opposed to level two, which is being around humans, working with them but not individually—the difference between a dog or a cat at level one and a dairy cow at level two. Domesticated creatures at level one have a very specific compact, but usually that compact is soul to soul, with an individual. The group soul of Royke [David’s German shepherd of years ago] still comes through for you because there is a compact there.
In America dogs and cats are usually pets; reptiles, fish, birds and certain rodents are sometimes, but not as much. Some creatures have come far enough on the evolutionary ladder, energetically speaking, to have an opportunity to individuate, such as dogs and cats, but lizards, for instance, even as pets, are very “group soul” and pretty far from individuation. Parrots are not so group soul and are very capable of individuation. Creatures like lizards won’t have a compact, whereas the ones that can individuate do. Keep in mind that when I say “can individuate,” I’m not saying they necessarily will.
Until the working that was done in India for creatures and the plant kingdom, that individuation wasn’t even possible. Being two steps below is not the same as being equal to, but two steps below is a whole lot better than ten steps, if that makes sense.
Would it be different for a parrot that lives in the jungle in Brazil in a group of parrots than for a parrot that lives in someone’s home?
No, although it is by far likelier that the creature’s frequency is going to be much higher from being around humans, particularly if it’s a Guardian. But it’s like Guardian trees, certain creatures have a higher function than others.
Just as there are geniuses among the Bushmen, but they don’t get opportunities to develop that genius.
That might be a good way to say it.
I’ve always thought that a group soul as a whole sort of fractured into individuals at individuation, but now I’m seeing that a single entity within the group soul steps outside of the group soul. Or is it that individuation actually separates it from the group soul?
Individuation separates it from the group soul, yes.
What’s the spiritual purpose of the animal kingdom?
One of the greatest lessons that humanity has is about compassion to one another. It’s all a part of living love. And probably the biggest purpose of the animal kingdom is to provide an opportunity for humanity to learn to express compassion. Being able to feel compassion and, even more important, love for the lions in Africa or the dogs on your street is huge—huge!—because human intolerance tends to want to make anything outside of itself less than, especially something that has fur instead of skin and four legs instead of two, and is so totally different. And “different than” plus “less than” equals “can be abused,” which is not love.
Paula, you might have noticed it with your work with the Humane Society and maybe readers have noticed it too, that now there are many more horrifying instances of animal abuse at one extreme and a growing awareness about it at the other extreme. Change is happening within the kingdom itself, and that’s causing the typical human to have to make a decision as to how they want to see the creatures. Well, if they’re low-functioning humans then they’re going to see the creature as less than and its life as not worthy of respect, and they’re going to be more prone to abuse it, by neglect or in other more obvious ways.
Compassion requires a recognition of a certain amount of equality, and that’s why it’s so huge for humanity.
What do you think is easier, to have compassion for another person or compassion for a creature?
Compassion for a creature.
It’s a toss-up, but easy? I’d have to agree.
It’s a trick question because it depends on the individual. I would say theoretically it should be easier to have compassion for another human, but realistically it’s easier to have compassion for something that you consider is already “below you,” and that’s not the kind of compassion you need.
So it brings up all kinds of serious spiritual issues. How somebody takes care of the creatures is absolutely a signal of where they are spiritually.
That was an interesting question. What came to my mind was that what interferes with compassion in humans is often that judgment of “they should be doing this,” or “why aren’t they taking care of it themselves?” whereas with the creatures, it’s easier to be paternalistic.
The times I feel most compassion for a suffering human being is when I get in touch with the fact that much of their experience and difficulty is voluntary. I mean much of it is part of what they have accepted as their life lesson. Rather than feeling pity for somebody in a wheelchair, I feel compassion mixed with respect for the challenge they’ve taken on and the lesson they have set out to learn.
That’s a pretty unusual attitude though. It’s a great attitude for a Guardian, but it’s an unusual attitude, because most people deal with that “anything outside of myself is less than,” and that judgment that you’re referring to. Are you saying creatures don’t have that same choice to take on challenges?
It’s true, they don’t.
And often their plights are the result of our actions.
How does compassion relate to euthanasia in order to control population of a species as encountered in an animal shelter, or hunting as a way of controlling a wildlife population, even to killing elephants where they’ve overpopulated? Could you speak to the ethics of that?
There are a lot better ways to control a population. Low-cost or free voluntary spaying and neutering for domesticated animals; relocation for wild animals. But think for a moment—there are so many deer because humans are taking up their space. Maybe it’s the humans who need some population checks!
I think that there are options that are not being looked at, or not being taken into account, that could be. I do not advocate, by any means, a population becoming so dominant that there aren’t resources for them, but what hunters say is their reason for killing is not necessarily the truth. I’m not much for encouraging predatory instincts in already violent humans.
Brief aside: in the past you have said that human overpopulation is not a problem.
No, I’ve said that the earth is capable of providing the resources for a greater population, but the fact of it is you’re not making use of those resources in good ways. You’re greatly abusing the way the land is used and its productivity.
What is the effect of things like factory farming and the use of growth hormones on the animal kingdom?
On the animal kingdom itself, not much except where it involves changing genetics. Wild turkeys still look like turkeys, but domestic turkeys often cannot walk because they have been genetically changed into these huge meat machines with breasts that are so heavy the birds cannot hold them up. There is more damage being done to farm animals in the United States than anywhere else in the world. That’s the bad news, and it’s horrible news. Fortunately, it’s one of the few American things that hasn’t spread out to Europe and become adopted as the norm for the West, at least not at the level it is here.
Is there karma involved for humans that use animals that way?
It goes back to the compassion issue again. They’re being treated as objects, like pieces of wood.
But there’s karma in your treatment of wood—the plant kingdom—too. I can cut up this tree so I can have a place to live, and not ever look at alternative materials, and just keep doing what I want because I need it and I feel I have a right to do that. But that doesn’t mean that I’m not going to get the karma for it.
What do you think the karma is for buying into “it’s okay to abuse creatures”? And you can pick any number of ways it can be done; let’s say killing cattle for meat to eat. The karma is in relationships.
Let’s see if I can make this make sense without scaring people too much. I wonder if Guardians who have moved to a vegan diet have noticed that their relationships with each other as a whole are changing—hopefully for the better. That is because, as your bodies are finally becoming rid of even the cellular taint of the deaths of these creatures that are eaten, your ability to relate to others changes. And your ability to communicate with the creatures—be they wild or domesticated—absolutely changes, too, when you’re no longer eating animal products.
But what about vegetarians, who are still getting eggs and dairy products like cheese? Creatures smell that on you, and it creates a conflict. But the greatest issues are conflicts in those interpersonal relationships going on during that time. I hope that this is making sense because it’s so important. With a vegan, conflict isn’t the issue; it is an issue of respect, your respect for each other as opposed to fighting about something. It becomes more about your treatment of one another on a day-to-day basis, the respect that you show. How you treat the creatures is how you treat each other.
And you’re not just talking about Guardians.
No, I’m talking about humanity.
The animal kingdom is neck-and-neck with the human kingdom. That’s why you shouldn’t be eating animals; they are too close to your own system; it causes too much difficulty within your own system. It’s too much like eating each other.
It seems that companion animals, like cats and dogs, have a healing effect on their humans. For example, people who keep pets live longer. What is the nature of that healing process?
Well, of course, that would be a part of the compact wouldn’t it? You know that there are creatures nowadays with the ability to sense—literally smell it or see it—disease or the change in your smell that disease creates. They’re being trained to act on that. I love that.
I just did an article on that. There is a dog from our Humane Society that is owned by a diabetic and is able to actually be more accurate than her Glucometer in telling her when her sugar is off.
And this is an example of the compact with humans—to serve and help. Mind you, the compact humans have with creatures is to serve and help, too. Ideally it goes both ways.
The unconditional love that a dog gives is a different kind of healing than the love a cat will give. Remember I have said that a dog teaches you to accept unconditional love, and a cat teaches you to give that love unconditionally. What do you think the difference is? The answer is that the cat’s healing ability comes with the opportunity it gives the human to serve and give and fulfill its commitment to the creature.
So many people hold stress and illness in their body because they’re not doing what they’re here to do. I don’t mean that the only thing you’re here to do is help the creatures, but that’s a part of it. When you have a cat, that cat might be really loving and friendly, but it’s pretty much always on its terms, isn’t it? To give to that cat what it needs, and to love it and give it a place in your home and your heart, even though it’s going to be on its terms, changes you. I’m going to make a very wild statement here: people who have cats can be changed for the better faster than people who have dogs.
Changed meaning healthier?
They can become healthier, happier, more complete faster.
Because it takes them outside of themselves more?
Takes them outside of themselves more, yes, because it’s a part of that giving. Giving opens you up to receiving more than just trying to receive does.
So along with creatures actually being trained to let you know there is something going on with you, sensing low sugar levels or cancer or oncoming seizures—things they are capable of doing naturally but can be being trained to do so as to make it really useful—simply their presence in your life and in your heart creates changes in you that lead toward that greater health in a big picture. That can help you with your diabetes and help you with the rest of your life.
What about the feeling a person can have that an animal has found them? This woman whom I interviewed went to the Humane Society shelter and felt that she was found by the dog she eventually adopted. Is there something that attracts an animal to a particular human, or are we fooling ourselves when we think we’ve been “chosen”?
A high-frequency creature can have a compact with a particular human. It’s what I mentioned earlier when I spoke about your connection with Royke. That connection is there for you, and shows up in whatever creature you have when you have that need.
To move it into a broader picture, just as with humans, where there can be a chemical connection or a repulsion, so it is with creatures. But with high-frequency creatures, even more than the chemical connection which says, “We would get along well; we would make a good connection; choose me,” there is the spiritual connection, the energy connection: “Our frequencies work together well.” Not at the same level, but the complementary aspect of it. So, on both of those levels, absolutely, you can be chosen.
And then there is the third, odd little connection, and that is when there is a familiar. There you have absolutely been chosen, but for a particular purpose and for a particular amount of time.
What’s the nature and the origin of the consciousness that a familiar acquires by becoming a familiar? When does an animal become a familiar, and why does a particular animal become that familiar?
The first thing you need to remember is that the process you’re talking about is energy channeling through a creature. It’s energy that has a specific purpose for a specific person. It might be, for instance—just to get people thinking—one of a Group of Twelve that has a specific work to do and comes to help in that way. Now, that’s a really unlikely situation, but the idea is that it’s an energy presence there to serve. So don’t think of it as “a really elevated cat comes into my cat.” It’s also not a human coming into your cat. It’s a force of energy with a specific function to benefit that human.
Is this awareness an aspect of the animal group soul, or does it stem from some other source or level?
It’s from a different source and a different level altogether. Familiars aren’t typical. It’s a rare thing. Interestingly, it tends to be Guardians that are able to draw an energy that is capable of channeling through a creature. The question you’ve not asked—and maybe you’re going to—that I think is by far more interesting, is, Why can energy forget what it is and get trapped in a body? How does that happen? Why does it happen?
And is it harmful for the animal or the group soul?
I only help the Form; she is the channel of my energy, and any energy force working through a creature will only help that creature. The danger is in the energy’s being in that body so long that it gets incorporated into the systems of that body. I use the Form; I am the pilot in the cockpit; I am able to see what she cannot because I can activate the brain in ways that the body itself cannot do. But if I were here all the time, the body would begin to wear down—any form would begin to wear down, burn out—and as that happened the body would then stop fighting it and start incorporating it, for survival.
So I would be better able to use the form; the form would be less able to resist me. But if that were to happen it would damage the form. So rather than allow that damage to happen, the body starts incorporating it.
So you’ve got a cat. And you’ve got this energy that has a particular function that is there to do a specific job. It’s there twenty-four hours a day, not just occasionally going in and out, as I do. And although the cat’s body starts out being stronger because of it, it will start slowly getting weaker. If that energy’s job isn’t done, it’s going to stay there, and eventually the body incorporates it. When the body incorporates it, it’s very much like what happens when you come into this earth: you’ve forgotten what you are, and you think you’re human, and you function and think and act like a human and even die like a human. When that incorporation happens, the spirit energy becomes bound into that form until that form dies. Then it’s released.
Is there harm in that process occurring?
Yes and no. It’s very harmful to the energy, because it’s stuck, eventually to the point that it’s stuck without a function. When it no longer has a function, it starts becoming just a cat. And it’s harmful to the cat—or the dog, or the horse, or the pig, or whatever—until the body incorporates it, because the body is using energy fighting this invader. Now, your body is fighting invaders all the time, and you don’t really notice. Most creatures would not really notice any kind of change, but the energy itself does.
Like I said, familiars are rare things, but may not seem so rare because Guardians tend to draw familiar energy. Any harm is temporary and the energy is eventually released, but until then the process of dealing with a constant extra energy creates problems.
Speaking about relations between an individual animal and a human makes me wonder what can lead to a sudden reversal in that relationship, or even the relationship between two animals. Our dog Rosie suddenly turned on one of our other dogs, Winston. What’s going on there?
You’re dealing with primal mind versus soul. Herd instinct. Pack instinct. Rosie was being a dog. Winnie is old and doesn’t accept a challenge, and Rosie was saying “I can beat you.” It was a dog thing.
What do you mean doesn’t accept challenge?
Winnie sees himself as the respected elder, and feels he should not be challenged.
Right, even though he can barely walk anymore.
And he lost the challenge.
But the other example is dog on human, where just out of the blue, the dog goes crazy and attacks. That has to do with an associative response to abuse which could be a food issue or a health issue. Let me explain what I mean there. Your dog’s domesticated survival depends upon you feeding it what it needs to live. It doesn’t go out and hunt often.
The typical dog gets fed some kind of processed food that, when it’s low quality, is often made up of animals scraps that can include dog or cat.
Well, the better ones don’t, and the good news is that humans in this society are getting more aware and paying attention to what’s in the food and to what’s going on behind the scenes. But still, the cheaper foods are made from—there’s probably an official word for it—the leftovers, the things that humans won’t eat.
When a creature relies on you to keep it alive and what you are feeding it is not doing that, it’s going to go into survival mode, and for some that can mean that the pack alpha—the human—is the threat. So it thinks, If I get rid of you, or this ten-year-old who isn’t giving me the nourishment I need, then I will be free to get what I need on my own.
When an animal gets food that has meat of its own kind in it, that creates a brain problem, the same reason that cannibalism among humans isn’t a long-term thing.
Do you mean in the physical brain?
Yes. You’re not designed to eat yourself, and when you do it breaks down the brain. And if you have a very protective species anyway—Standard Poodle, German Shepherd or Doberman Pinscher, or any of those—Chihuahua—and it starts losing brain function, it gets psychotic just like a human does, and when it gets psychotic, everyone is in danger. People don’t realize that feeding bad food can be a dangerous abuse, like beating on them.
What happens when an animal, especially a highly intelligent animal like a whale or a dolphin is in close proximity to humans? Researchers found that a whale was mimicking human speech, and they even determined how it was doing it, by controlling the airflow. Is it intentional? Is the whale actually trying to figure out a way to communicate with humans, or is it just mimicking sound like a parrot might?
All of the above. But remember, developing any kind of language is about giving the proper response and then getting feedback. Any kind of training is about that. So, you have these dolphins in the ocean that are hearing all of the noise created by—gosh, there are so many things in the ocean now creating horrible noise, but let’s say radar or sonar, and the dolphins start making that same noise. They’re not getting any feedback from it, so it just becomes one of the noises they can make. But you’ve got this whale that is in a research facility and has very regular human contact, humans constantly talking to it, and the whale is clever enough to recognize that it’s a kind of communication. It’s not its version of communication, but it gives it back a little bit and gets encouragement: “Oh, sounds like it’s talking.” And it gets encouragement to the point that it creates the recognition in the brain that says, “Ah, language. This sound has this meaning.”
Why would anybody think that a sea mammal would be less intelligent than a land mammal? If you can teach a monkey to communicate, why can’t you teach a dolphin or a whale to talk? Well, the main reason is that they’re not built to create your language, just like speaking Croatian would be very hard for you because a whole lot of what’s being said requires tongue and palate and throat sounds that you’re not used to making. But with practice you can. The creature has more limitations. But it’s all about motivation with any training, anytime. So, if that creature is motivated enough and it gets the feedback of what’s going on, it can create at least what sounds enough like language to be able to get some basic communications across. By far, it’s better to communicate psychically than vocally.
There are some species that are in decline because of things over which we seem to have no control, such as bats with white nose syndrome or colony collapse disorder in honeybees. What, if any, is the common factor underlying these various issues?
Humans. You’re taking over their natural territories, their natural food supplies, the cycle of life that they live in and if they cannot adapt they’re going to die off.
Honeybees, hive collapse, has more to do with the pesticides that your factory farms are putting out in such clouds, and the plants that are being sprayed being so changed that the vibratory rhythm of the bees is disturbed.
Yes, plants so genetically different from what they originally were like that the bees’ rhythm is affected. Bees are all about rhythm.
But even something like the fungus that causes white nose syndrome has its roots in human activities?
The creatures are weakened, and something like a fungus that has always been around affects masses instead of a select few, because they are so stressed from the changes going on in their world. You’ll still have that same thing out in the New Mexico desert, in a canyon, in a cave hundreds of miles from any human, because the change that humans have made has a far-reaching effect.
Is it right to say the humans have a greater right to be here because they are the higher creature? There is something to be said for that, but right now there’s too many humans, and they are unthinking and unaware of the damage their presence is doing. They are not using resources wisely, and they are not taking into account the rest of the world: animals, plants, minerals, and humans. And all suffer because of it.
I just read that there’s discussion in China about lifting the ban on [more than] one child. What would be, the environmental implications of that? They have a stronger, more stable middle class now, but that middle class is soon going to be using more resources, and that stress will be put on the environment.
China has a lot to account for—a lot. You should take note that their Golden Age was back when there was, by far, fewer people and by far more land.
Do you expect food production to be affected by these declines, or other pressures to arise?
It already is. You’re going to find the results of it in every part of your life, because you can’t throw a rock in the water and not have waves. You cannot create havoc in one part of the flow of life and not have other parts affected. The decline of bees alone is having a massive effect on farming, but also on the products that come out of sharing a life with beehives. It’s tentacles. And they go far and they go deep.
Given that there are many endangered and almost extinct species, should we be striving to save them, or should we accept this as a natural evolutionary process, even though it’s being caused largely by humans?
Both. There are some that are too far gone to help. What is done to try to protect a few isn’t going to make a difference. For a body that’s gone into total organ failure, there is a point of no return. Well, this is kind of like complete organ failure within a particular group. There is a point of no return. It’s not going to work. The energy behind that blueprint is gone.
However, not looking at the ideal, which would have been correcting the problem a couple of hundred years ago, rather than now, I would say that if what humans did before they jump in to save a creature, a species, is to know that there is habitat capable of maintaining them—if that’s the case, then by all means, save them, even if it’s going to make it harder on the humans.
If habitat is not going to be available in the real world, then there are going to be consequences in the larger picture, for instance, the insect is food for the bird that is food for the . . . and on and on and on it goes. When you take a piece of that out, what’s directly below it is going to expand into the vacuum. So you let this bird go, and you might end up overrun by mice or cockroaches or whatever because of that. There will be consequences. If you’re willing to deal with the consequences and there simply is not space, then what can you do in this real world?
Do I like that answer? No. Is there an alternative? Of course. But is the alternative realistic, considering where humans are now?
What happens to the group soul when a species goes extinct?
One of two things: it continues or it stops. [smiling] Remember that energy never ends and that you’re dealing with a group soul you’re not dealing with individuation. The energy of a group soul will move to its closest frequency.
I don’t see any instances where domestic creatures are being allowed to go extinct.