|
Post by enigma on Dec 14, 2010 14:31:29 GMT -5
We live in a relative existence that maintains it's own balance of suffering and non-suffering because they define each other. Another way to experience more non-suffering is to create more suffering. (Anybody want to donate to my 'kill the cats' foundation?) It's all very dramatic but doesn't actually change anything. Say what you think, I love this guy, and anyone who helps animals!
Especially since so much of their suffering is due to humans.
"One person asked me once, Ed, why do you put so much importance on animals when you realize that the world is not real? My answer is, do you stop going to movies even though you realize they are not real? Your apparent body is going to live another 30-40 years or so, so what do you do? Nothing? Stop eating and allow yourself to starve to death, or do you participate? Ramana and Robert mostly chose to withdraw, but to withdraw or participate is up to you. In the same vein, the more you are aware of your inner sense of presence, the happier you become, and the more compassionate you become, which frees energy and confidence, which allow you to actually to do something in the world. Combine that with the growing sense of justice that Nisargadatta talked about, and many who are realized feel an obligation to engage in the world. The unreal world exists totally within that sense of presence, and that sense of presence is itself filled with love and is love. It is almost automatic that a person immersed in that sense of presence acts compassionately and with love in all actions. We can all regard ourselves as part of a movement of conscience within consciousness that has always been there, and whose focus has been to reduce suffering everywhere. In fact, ending suffering was the single goal of classical Buddhism. One of four vows says, "Sentient beings are numberless, I vow to save them all.” The act of saving is an act of supreme happiness. You are saving your beloved, and in that saving you find more love. You are my spiritual family, and I wish you all very well. I love you all, and hope you find some peace and well-being in your life through spiritual practices. Then, when you feel ready, look inside your heart to find out who you are, and then look outside to find how that movement of conscience and compassion within the greater envelope of consciousness as a whole, is directing you to serve as a shepherd for all sentient beings." I wonder enigma, what if it were your cat? Your cat suffering? Would you say to your cat, "We live in a relative existence that maintains it's own balance of suffering and non-suffering because they define each other."
Would that help your cat?
Beautiful conceptual truths need a Heart to go with them. Adn sometimes ya just got to throw the words and beliefs away and let there be Love.
It's a strawman argument that comes from your struggle. I've said repeatedly that helping is great and the person will do what he does. It only becomes an issue because of the judgment implied, which points to a misunderstanding. Sometimes the human "heart" is judgmental and self righteous in it's compassion. What does the heart of Being have to say about the tragedies of the world? What does that heart have to say about where Love is not? Where did everything go horribly wrong?
|
|
lexi
Junior Member
Posts: 79
|
Post by lexi on Dec 15, 2010 12:21:54 GMT -5
There I bow my head at the feet of every creature.
This constant submission and homage, of kissing god all over, someday every lover will do. only there I prostrate myself- against the beauty of each form
for when I bring my heart close to any object I always hear the Friend say,
“I am here”
Hafiz
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 15, 2010 20:12:47 GMT -5
There I bow my head at the feet of every creature.
This constant submission and homage, of kissing god all over, someday every lover will do. only there I prostrate myself- against the beauty of each form
for when I bring my heart close to any object I always hear the Friend say,
“I am here”
Hafiz "And I must save the poor helpless creatures from the durn politicians and stupid neighbors." Hafiz (Before he actually 'got it'.)
|
|
lexi
Junior Member
Posts: 79
|
Post by lexi on Dec 16, 2010 13:14:33 GMT -5
"Not to hurt the creatures brethren is our first duty to them,
but to stop there is not enough. We have a higher mission -
to be of service to them wherever they require it."
Saint Francis
My fight is for animals, not against enigma. I am passionate about it, if you had walked in my shoes, you would understand.
That said, being a pal of yours, I wish you could stretch yourself and understand anyway.
For a greater Truth can be found in this, than in the adherence of thought- even masterful thought.
I have given in to you many times. And this is not my nature. I cannot say the same for you, even once.
If you can't give----- then the talk is just talk.
Even here I am giving in.
Peace.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Dec 16, 2010 19:36:08 GMT -5
Lexi: E. has been extremely patient and grandmotherly in this matter. There is nothing wrong with loving animals or taking care of them; what is being pointed to is the attachment issue as a stumbling block. To go deeper, you will have to let go of everything--even the animals. Otherwise, you will always be here and the animals will always be there. To understand where E. is coming from, both "Lexi" and "the animals" will have to go.
|
|
|
Post by michaelsees on Dec 16, 2010 20:16:39 GMT -5
This is a true story though told Osho style Michael
This is what Osho had to say about Bhagavan and Lakshmi:
Perhaps once in a while a rare animal uses the window. In Shri Raman Maharshi’s ashram… and he was one of the most significant people of this century. He was not a master; that’s why people don’t know him as they know George Gurdjieff or J. Krishnamurti. They don’t know him even as they know Sri Aurobindo or P.D. Ouspensky who were only teachers — profound teachers, but not mystics.
Raman Maharshi was a silent pool of energy. Every morning he used to sit for a silent satsang, communion. He never talked much, unless asked something. Then too his answer was very short — having profundity, but you had to look for it. There was no explanation in it. His literature is confined to two, three small booklets.
His teaching was mostly to be in silent communion with the disciples. Naturally, very few people were benefited by him. But every morning he was sitting, people were sitting, and a cow would come and stand outside, putting her neck through the window, and she would remain standing there while the satsang lasted. It must have continued for years. People came and went, new people came, but the cow remained constant… and at the exact time, never late. And as the satsang would disperse she would move away.
One day she did not appear, and Shri Raman said, “Today satsang cannot be held, because my real audience is absent. I am afraid either the cow is very sick or she has died, and I have to go and look for her.” He lived on a mountain in the south of India, Arunachal. The cow belonged to a poor woodcutter who lived near the ashram. Raman left the temple where they used to meet, went to the woodcutter and asked, “What happened? The cow has not come today for satsang.”
The woodcutter said, “She is very sick and I am afraid she is dying, but she goes on looking out of the door, as if she is waiting for someone. Perhaps she is waiting for you, to see you for the last time. Perhaps that is why she is hanging around a little longer.”
Raman went in and there were tears in the eyes of the cow. And she died happily, putting her head in the lap of Raman Maharshi. This happened just in this century, and Raman declared her enlightened, and told his people that a beautiful memorial should be made for her.
It is very rare for human beings to be enlightened; it is almost impossibly rare for animals to become enlightened, but the cow attained. She will not be born again. From the body of a cow she has bypassed the whole world of humanity, and she has jumped ahead and joined with the buddhas. So once in a while — there are a few instances only — it has happened. But that cannot be called the rule; it is just the exception.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 16, 2010 20:41:39 GMT -5
"Not to hurt the creatures brethren is our first duty to them, but to stop there is not enough. We have a higher mission - to be of service to them wherever they require it." Saint Francis My fight is for animals, not against enigma. I am passionate about it, if you had walked in my shoes, you would understand.
That said, being a pal of yours, I wish you could stretch yourself and understand anyway.
For a greater Truth can be found in this, than in the adherence of thought- even masterful thought.
I have given in to you many times. And this is not my nature. I cannot say the same for you, even once.
If you can't give----- then the talk is just talk.
Even here I am giving in.
Peace.Quoting saints doesn't have so much of an influence on me really. Hehe. Even quoting the mystics such as Hafiz or Rumi to prove some point or approach is misguided. The 'heart' of these mystics is not sentimentality. I understand what your 'fight' is with and it's the fight that I've been addressing. (Not compassion for animals) I've not walked in your conditioned shoes, though I have walked in my own conditioned shoes and I've seen through that fight. The notion that if one doesn't "give in" then it's just talk, implies that there is also a fight going on here, which is really the only way I can tell. You also imply that losing the 'fight' is an indicator of the truth being told. Never have I suggested or hoped that you would agree or give in, though many times I've asked you to look and see without your conditioned shoes on.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 16, 2010 20:56:41 GMT -5
Lexi: E. has been extremely patient and grandmotherly in this matter. There is nothing wrong with loving animals or taking care of them; what is being pointed to is the attachment issue as a stumbling block. To go deeper, you will have to let go of everything--even the animals. Otherwise, you will always be here and the animals will always be there. To understand where E. is coming from, both "Lexi" and "the animals" will have to go. Grandma Enigma thanks you for that clarity. Yes, the attachment, which often looks different when framed by an ennobled feeling sense.
|
|
|
Post by frankshank on Dec 16, 2010 22:03:40 GMT -5
Im a vegetarian and an animal lover (I know, I know) but it makes perfect sense that if there is no personal doer then everything is perfect including the perceived mistreatment of animals. P.s. If I'd known enigma was a grandma I'd have shown more respect!
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 16, 2010 22:26:25 GMT -5
The irony is that the struggle to prevent the mistreatment of animals is the dualistic polarity that continues the mistreatment of animals. They are, as they say, two sides of the same coin and one cannot continue without the other to define it. This is why I say there are two ways to increase dualistic love in the world; be more loving or be more hateful. Lawlessness could not continue in the absence of laws and law enforcement since it would have no meaning, at least as presently defined. Of course, one will be whatever one is being, but the point is that all experiences are self defining as they all originate in Consciousness.
This is why the likes of Mother Theresa and Gandhi have said 'I am not against war but in favor of peace'. This approach removes most of the struggle that sustains the creative dualistic tension of war/peace.
|
|
|
Post by frankshank on Dec 16, 2010 22:48:55 GMT -5
So what would the world be like if it was full of awake 'people'?
|
|
|
Post by michaelsees on Dec 16, 2010 22:55:46 GMT -5
What world? But to your question I feel it would be much different not better or worse but different because actions and reactions would differ quite a bit. However you would never knows this to be unless it could be compared to some other world so in truth it be the same.
Michael
|
|
|
Post by howtalk on Dec 17, 2010 1:55:00 GMT -5
and there is also a big diffreence of what awake really is, compared to what people think or hope awake is. Most people who claim to be awake, are far from it- still fooling themselves in some-or many ways.
Thus instead of asking what the world would be like if everyone was awake, instead ask what would you be like if no one was awake?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 17, 2010 2:30:33 GMT -5
The funny thing is that relating happens only in ignorance. Ignorance being the grasping of false knowledge....nothing cynical or judgmental about it. In the absence of ignorance, there literally isn't anything very interesting to talk about. The woo woo enlightened guru can easily relate to the 'unenlightened' because there is ignorance present, but one 'enlightened' dude has nothing at all to say to another 'enlightened' dude, which is why you rarely see them together. They see precisely the same 'thing' and comparing notes on how to conceptualize it isn't useful unless there is somebody listening to that conceptualization and potentially making use of it.
There cannot be a world full of Awakened beings. It won't function. Ignorance is what makes the world go round. Hehe.
|
|
|
Post by frankshank on Dec 17, 2010 6:49:22 GMT -5
And there was me thinking I wasn't contributing anything to society. Next time someone says I'm a lazy waste of space I'm gonna come back with "yeah but I'm very ignorant". I may even stick my tongue out!
|
|