Guest guest Posted January 3, 2004 Report Share Posted January 3, 2004 Hi. Here is something I wrote to Pete on another list, in response to a simplistic message on animal meditation. Judi, you have something to learn, as your discrimination is not developed to the degree which is your birthright as a human being.. I know you are trying to help by posting your little set piece by Whitman out here (once again), and you actually are helping, which I appreciate, but maybe, for once, it would be best to sit on the side and listen. In any case, whatever you say or do, I suggest you try to approach each situation in a way that is both specific and original. in that you consciously use any thing I or others say or do for your own purpose, which I hope is not only for the benefit of yourself, but also of others, as I am surely going to do the same with you. In this way we can be blood sisters, along with Jess.. Pete, it is questionable that you are in any way enlightened, as it is obvious that I have gotten your goat , though I did not even intend to. You are easily triggered into reactive states, and over come by afflictive emotions. You talk about bliss, but how blissful can this be? Sincerely, Wry - seesaw1us Monday, November 17, 2003 6:55 PM Animal Meditation snip...... Wry: Animals are not like people. It is very easy for them to " meditate, " as their memory function is not complex and they cannot remember what happened to them yesterday and stew over it. In my opinion, it is not only unrealistic to compare animals to people in this respect, but serves no useful purpose that I can think of. ------------------ >Like an animal, a beast, a bird, a bug perched on a rock, just seeing, hearing, sensing, just being there without a notion in the brain, apperceiving what is, being the eye of God that's the animal >way, the natural way, the highest illumination. ------------- Wry: Perhaps it is, but since animals do not need to solve the problem of psycholoigical thought by in some way incorporating something or other back into the body in such a way that there is a transcendence, this is not the untimate illumination. Case in points: animals are jealous. One cat is jealous of the other, when I am petting him. He can learn to share, little by little, to a degree, because I am teaching him, and it is wonderful to see, but the reaction will probably always be there. Also, cats cannot generate the greater boddhichitta, but a human being can. The greater boddhichitta greatly affects an animal or any creature around it, whereas I cannot honestly say that the kindness of a cat functions to this degree, to it is wonderful to see a cat being kind, participating in this way. For a human being to be fully alert, for there to be free attention without resistance, would be the highest state of illumination, the buddha. I believe this is possible, but first a person would need to work through the obscurations and cleanse the mind of it stains. -------------- >Most people have this notion that the spiritual way is akin to progress, an evolution into a superior being, or ubermensch. And that this evolution, requires discipline, the acquisition of knowledge, >and the practice of virtue. ------------ Wry: I have this idea. ------------ >In reality, what is required is pure animal sensitivity, sensuality, (in the sense of a lack of intellectual, spiritual, or moral connotation) a total immersion, an >indwelling of the body. ---------------- Wry: People can say anything and even believe it when they are saying it. --------------- To explain reality, to understand it, to strive for a theory of everything is a game that has no end, and leads nowhere. Ontologically nothing can be said. What is, is. There is no method to illumination, it is just being a lizard on a sunny rock lost in contemplation. ------------ Wry: Unfortunetely, this does not solve the problem of human beings destroying the earth and each other, does it? There is horrible, unbelievable suffering going on, both for people and animals.and the solution to this IS ontological, not in the sense of an act of thought (about being), but as an act of incorporation and transcendence. What you say above, about being a lizard on a rock, is an innapropriate correlation to a human being with his complex memory function and complex relationships. You will not help anyone from suffering by saying these words, and personally, I suspect that you, too, are suffering and do not even know it, but even if you are not, even if you are what is called a " solitary realizer. " which I doubt, this is of no real value to anyone. You spend your days writings poems about pointing your " dick at the moon. " Even a lizard on a rock knows better than this. He is being a lizard, but what you are doing, in my opinion, is not being fully human. -------------- Of course, there is no need to eradicate personality or intellect, and it can't be done unless a lobotomy is performed. It suffices to see through these tools, not to wear them welded to the forehead like antlers getting entangled in the conceptual brush. To label, to identify a self, no matter how nebulous or lofty, is to fall from that blessed state of pure and simple animality. ---------------------- Wry: If animals had a more complex memory function, they too, would have the concept of self. The reason they do not make this error is because they cannot, but humans can. This is the problem which you so neatly sidestep. No matter how much you expound on this theme about human beings and amimals, I do not believe it will help anyone to suffer less, though it would be great if it did. Personally, I think what you write does not take into acount CONSCIENCE. It has taken a lot of time to answer your email, but I have done this because you are drawing false assumptions from making innappropriate correlations, and it is important to present the other side. In the real world, in daily life, you are walking around everyday with this false idea in your head about animals and people. I wonder how this is affecting the world. Sincerely, Wry Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 3, 2004 Report Share Posted January 3, 2004 What a riot. > Wry: People can say anything and even believe it when they are saying it. I love this. > To explain reality, to understand it, to strive for a theory of > everything is a game that has no end, and leads nowhere. > Ontologically nothing can be said. What is, is. There is no method > to illumination, it is just being a lizard on a sunny rock lost in > contemplation. Errr...Uhhh...yes... : ) BTW... what about being not-lost in non-contemplation. That counts too I presume. << Wry: Unfortunetely, this does not solve the problem of human beings destroying the earth and each other, does it? >> This is so funny. Reminds me of " Church Lady " on SN Live. Who needs SN Live when we have this list? And don't let me interrupt this avid discussion. Do carry on. Just had to get these few chuckles in. Bill - " wry " <wry1111 <Nisargadatta > Saturday, January 03, 2004 12:46 AM Re: [JK] Re: Animals-Judi and Pete > Hi. Here is something I wrote to Pete on another list, in response to a simplistic message on animal meditation. Judi, you have something to learn, as your discrimination is not developed to the degree which is your birthright as a human being.. I know you are trying to help by posting your little set piece by Whitman out here (once again), and you actually are helping, which I appreciate, but maybe, for once, it would be best to sit on the side and listen. In any case, whatever you say or do, I suggest you try to approach each situation in a way that is both specific and original. in that you consciously use any thing I or others say or do for your own purpose, which I hope is not only for the benefit of yourself, but also of others, as I am surely going to do the same with you. In this way we can be blood sisters, along with Jess.. Pete, it is questionable that you are in any way enlightened, as it is obvious that I have gotten your goat , though I did not even intend to. You are easily triggered into reactive states, and over come by afflictive emotions. You talk about bliss, but how blissful can this be? Sincerely, Wry > - > seesaw1us > > Monday, November 17, 2003 6:55 PM > Animal Meditation > > > > snip...... > > Wry: Animals are not like people. It is very easy for them to " meditate, " as their memory function is not complex and they cannot remember what happened to them yesterday and stew over it. In my opinion, it is not only unrealistic to compare animals to people in this respect, but serves no useful purpose that I can think of. > ------------------ > > >Like an animal, a beast, a bird, a bug perched on a rock, just > seeing, hearing, sensing, just being there without a notion in the > brain, apperceiving what is, being the eye of God that's the animal > >way, the natural way, the highest illumination. > ------------- > Wry: Perhaps it is, but since animals do not need to solve the problem of psycholoigical thought by in some way incorporating something or other back into the body in such a way that there is a transcendence, this is not the untimate illumination. Case in points: animals are jealous. One cat is jealous of the other, when I am petting him. He can learn to share, little by little, to a degree, because I am teaching him, and it is wonderful to see, but the reaction will probably always be there. Also, cats cannot generate the greater boddhichitta, but a human being can. The greater boddhichitta greatly affects an animal or any creature around it, whereas I cannot honestly say that the kindness of a cat functions to this degree, to it is wonderful to see a cat being kind, participating in this way. For a human being to be fully alert, for there to be free attention without resistance, would be the highest state of illumination, the buddha. I believe this is possible, but first a person would need to work through the obscurations and cleanse the mind of it stains. > -------------- > >Most people have this notion that the spiritual way is akin to > progress, an evolution into a superior being, or ubermensch. And that > this evolution, requires discipline, the acquisition of knowledge, > >and the practice of virtue. > ------------ > Wry: I have this idea. > ------------ > >In reality, what is required is pure > animal sensitivity, sensuality, (in the sense of a lack of > intellectual, spiritual, or moral connotation) a total immersion, an > >indwelling of the body. > ---------------- > Wry: People can say anything and even believe it when they are saying it. > --------------- > To explain reality, to understand it, to strive for a theory of > everything is a game that has no end, and leads nowhere. > Ontologically nothing can be said. What is, is. There is no method > to illumination, it is just being a lizard on a sunny rock lost in > contemplation. > ------------ > Wry: Unfortunetely, this does not solve the problem of human beings destroying the earth and each other, does it? There is horrible, unbelievable suffering going on, both for people and animals.and the solution to this IS ontological, not in the sense of an act of thought (about being), but as an act of incorporation and transcendence. What you say above, about being a lizard on a rock, is an innapropriate correlation to a human being with his complex memory function and complex relationships. You will not help anyone from suffering by saying these words, and personally, I suspect that you, too, are suffering and do not even know it, but even if you are not, even if you are what is called a " solitary realizer. " which I doubt, this is of no real value to anyone. You spend your days writings poems about pointing your " dick at the moon. " Even a lizard on a rock knows better than this. He is being a lizard, but what you are doing, in my opinion, is not being fully human. > -------------- > Of course, there is no need to eradicate personality or intellect, > and it can't be done unless a lobotomy is performed. It suffices to > see through these tools, not to wear them welded to the forehead like > antlers getting entangled in the conceptual brush. To label, to > identify a self, no matter how nebulous or lofty, is to fall from > that blessed state of pure and simple animality. > ---------------------- > Wry: If animals had a more complex memory function, they too, would have the concept of self. The reason they do not make this error is because they cannot, but humans can. This is the problem which you so neatly sidestep. No matter how much you expound on this theme about human beings and amimals, I do not believe it will help anyone to suffer less, though it would be great if it did. Personally, I think what you write does not take into acount CONSCIENCE. It has taken a lot of time to answer your email, but I have done this because you are drawing false assumptions from making innappropriate correlations, and it is important to present the other side. In the real world, in daily life, you are walking around everyday with this false idea in your head about animals and people. I wonder how this is affecting the world. Sincerely, Wry > > Pete > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.