Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Wednesday, February 6, 2002

Expand Messages
  • Jerry Katz
    ED ARRONS DO ANIMALS HAVE COMPASSION? http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22animals+have+compassion%22&btnG=Google+Search JAN BARENDRECHT Thanks for the
    Message 1 of 1 , Feb 7, 2002
    • 0 Attachment




      Thanks for the link... The question is, whether the
      potential for compassion can unfold or not. For my late
      brother's pets, that potential was developed to the full
      and the cat could see from a distance if someone was
      depressed. He would immediately start petting the
      distressed one and even when rejected, wouldn't give up but
      continue with the effort until the down mood was forgotten.
      The dog didn't have such strong visual clues but relied on
      the emotional voice content. When hearing someone getting
      defensive, she would come to aid in defense by barking
      loudly and growling to the supposed offender.

      On the island here, the other side of the coin can be
      observed: animals, not taken care of, develop a rather
      opportunistic behavior. When having one owner that shows as
      almost slave-like obedience which is misinterpreted as
      gratitude. Both the company-dog and -cat have at least 4
      human caretakers (read touch operated food machines) and
      the behavior is one of permanent alertness on the best
      offer, whether food or entertainment. Observing that has
      been both amusing and insightful as it shows what has been
      known for quite a time: all mammals share the same



      can enlightenment be lost?
      so, it is not enlightenment,
      because enlightenment is permanent.
      but nothing is permanent.
      or everything is unchanging,
      so there can be no achieving of any state.

      love the particular,
      but don't surrender to it.
      unless you want to be a clown.
      then BE A CLOWN!
      don't worry if it's right or wrong,
      or utterly conventional.
      worship only nothingness
      worship everything

      take a lover
      be a student
      but don't mistake your teacher
      don't mistake your lover
      for god
      * witness beautiful, powerful teachings
      that degenerated into "us" and "them",
      persecution complexes and the guru talking only about himself.



      Any mentality can always be used in the service of
      bolstering egos. A "non-dualistic" mentality is no
      exception. It is up to you to decide for yourself whether a
      particular person claiming enlightenment has the goods
      and/or may actually be of service to you on your path to
      nowhere. The basis of your decision will always be
      subjective, and therefore limited by your preconceptions.

      However preconceptions are not necessarily all bad. They
      need only be looked at. Some of them may actually be of
      tremendous service in steering you in the appropriate
      direction, eg if you are looking for a master these
      preconceptions -- which may change! -- can help guide you
      to the one you need right now. This may also change.

      It may not be applicable, either to your situation or to
      this discussion, but perhaps... When i first went to my
      master Osho he wasted no time i divesting me of the reason
      i thought i had gone to him, ie to "get" a method of
      meditation, suitable to my personal configuration. Within
      days he was talking about how methods do not work, bringing
      up so much conflict in me i had to ask him about it. In
      answer, he reassured me that methods do not work and
      explained the process he was going to put me through. He
      would give me this method and that method, and this and
      that process -- none of which would "work"! -- but just
      being around him and going through these hoops i would come
      to trust him.

      This in fact has happened. I feel trust is more valuable
      than any method. I trusted him enough at the beginning to
      give him permission to "work on me" and thereby the trust

      And if you don't trust your "particular lady," stay away.
      No problem. She doesn't want you in her forum? No problem.
      Your needs and desires are not in conflict with hers.

      I actually have an opinion similar to yours about the
      particular lady but so what? There are no objective
      criteria that can be applied. I also agree with Jan's
      implied preconceptions -- he phrased them as questions --
      but my understanding is that in applying them as criteria
      the best we can achieve is statistical success, ie we can
      say that if someone exhibits such characteristics, they are
      probably not enlightened. But even Jerry Falwell, who
      knows? With his first name, he is halfway there.

      Love, Sarlo



      Life has beginning and end
      Strange insn't it?
      Everthing within life is that way.
      But how can there be a beginning?
      What comes before, and from where?
      And what comes after the end?
      This is what seems to preocupy us most.
      How long have I waited to "become"?
      How long will I wait when... I die?
      But it is not possible to quantify,
      this time before and after.
      Like looking at infinity.
      Can't be, but it IS.
      The shrowd of "time"
      Sheds a misty wall
      of blackness.
      Back there is where it starts,
      and there, well don't go there.
      So I must eat to stay alive.
      I must work to feed and shelter.
      There is much to worry about
      Why must it be so?
      It was so easy before!
      Right, of course I had no
      way to know anything.
      No point of reference.
      And after, well,
      I think I'm looking at it,
      Just ain't all too clear
      just yet.
      Love and Light,


      Yeah, that brain-belief is a tempting one. The pull of
      scientific realism, to believe that experience is in the
      brain, when all the evidence points in the other direction!
      The brain stands to experience just as for Nisargadatta
      consciousness stands to awareness. --Greg

      HIGH DEE:
      I'm confused. Please clarify. You say that the "evidence"
      points "in the other direction!"

      Here's my question to you: Two weeks ago, you drove your
      car, let's say, to the store for some smokes, and the clerk
      scowled at your fumbling for the cash, and you got short
      with his disrespectfulness. Ok? Got the setup?

      Where is that memory? Just the memory, of how you told him
      "What are YOU looking at? I'm getting the money for you,
      keep your shirt on!"

      If you say the memory is NOT in your brain, then how can
      you say that? If you suffer any kind of brain injury where
      the memory is stored, I don't care how 'conscious' you
      think you are, you've lost the memory. This has been quite
      effectively proven.

      There are lots of ways to look at this. Great question!

      OK, let's examine the two claims realists' claim (R), and a
      possible nondualist's type claim (N):

      (R) All experience is in the brain.

      (N) There is no evidence for any brain outside of

      I'll be pointing out the difficulties with (R) and the
      plausibility of (N).

      First, (R) All experience is in the brain.

      The burden of proof is on the claimant, but I'll show you
      how hard their job will be. Their proof is a story line
      linking certain kinds of physical observations of other
      people with their reports. That is, remove their brain, and
      they will no longer report anything!

      To prove (R) however, that gruesome demonstration is not
      enough. The claimant must actually establish the existence
      of the brain outside the realm of all experience. To do
      this, there must be access to the brain outside of
      experience. And this is not possible.

      No experience can be "in" the brain. Think of what you had
      for dinner yesterday. The present appearance of this event
      is a memory. The memory (or any thought, feeling,
      sensation) is nothing other than an arising. As an
      appearance, an arising, it has no color, no shape, and no
      location. You might say the brain has location, but you
      cannot locate a memory in space. That is to say, the memory
      has no physical characteristics. Experience illustrates
      this, anyone can check it. So the memory, not being
      physical, cannot possibly have a physical or spatial
      relationship with something like a brain.

      So (R) looks impossible to prove. It makes more sense to
      simply stop believing in and looking for objects outside of

      Now let's reverse it and look at (N): There is no evidence
      for any brain outside of experience.

      Taking the burden of proof here....

      Think of the brain, your own or anyone else's. Or think of
      the body or any other physical object. Even a coffee cup
      will do. All the evidence you have about the cup is based
      on sensations of touch, sight, sound - in short, any
      evidence is based on experience. This even includes hearing
      and reading about the cup. There is no cup independent of a
      cup-touch, a cup-sight, a cup-feeling, a cup-sound, or
      cup-thought. And the same for the brain as for the cup. No
      object of any kind outside of experience.

      You might say that certain experiences point to an object
      which exists outside experience, but which occasionally
      sends data into the world of experience. I think this is
      the common-sense, unexamined view. But any evidence for an
      unexperienced object depends on some kind of experience
      referring to that very object. The very suspicion that X
      exists unexperienced actually provides experience of it. In
      other words, any demonstration of the existence of
      unexperienced objects is self-defeating. There is
      absolutely no evidence for such objects. This is what I
      meant by all evidence pointing the other way.


      Jordan Gruber of enlightenment.com has produced a 2-CD
      audio interview with Ken Wilber entitled Speaking of
      Everything. Jordan says, "This is the first time Ken has
      agreed to have an interview released to the public. For the
      first time people have an opportunity to hear his voice and
      learn about what he has to say through a channel other than
      his books. Ken himself has said that we did a terrific job
      with the interview, and many others have been delighted by
      this lively and entertaining interview in which Ken speaks
      about personal matters, theoretical matters, and at times
      is very spiritually provocative. You can see more about the
      interview, and even listen to sound clips at
      <http://www.enlightenment.com/shop/wilber_more.html> The
      feedback we are getting tells us that people are learning,
      enjoying and becoming more invigorated by it."

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.