Ahimsa,Awareness.

[Guest guest]

Namaste All,

 

The trouble with mind is that it is convoluting,

errant, self-deceptive, and its very nature is to

doubt and yet grab. Like a baby not reacting to a

lollipop, for it is in doubt, but when you move it

away it reaches out and grabs.

 

I feel this problem is caused by the fact that for

nearly all people the consciousness is in the lower or

manomayakosa, even the so-called brilliant

intellectuals. They are really not intellectuals for

they are not in the sheath of awareness, the

vijnanamayakosa. This is why it is futile to argue

vegetarianism, for example, from a point of view of

Ahimsa alone. For all you will get are excuses and

rationalisations for behaviour not legitimate

argument. Plants do not have advanced nervous systems

like animals. Therefore it is a step in the right

direction, it is the intent that is important. It is

trying to do the impossible in a plane where

everything is really food of one sort or another. But

try we must or stay in the intellectualising of the

manomayakosa, where it all seems so logical,

legitimate and right. Right in illusion!

 

Compassion is the essence, not material spirituality.

Compassion and Ahimsa cannot be learned intellectually

for they are above even the most brilliant of minds

and go to the very centre of our being. Awareness has

to be brought down into this world so to speak, then

the penny drops. Otherwise it is just the ego the

thief in the palace that talks and rationalises. I

am convinced that one can be spiritual and a

meat-eater for example but I don't really feel one can

be a meat-eater and achieve Moksha or Liberation, no

matter the level of intellectual understanding. For

Compassion and Ahimsa are the nature of the Self and

cannot be learned only become.

 

Love Tony.

 

 

=====

http://members.xoom.com/aoclery/ (glossary incl?)

 

Keep on truckin-Chant the Gayatri! Breathe So----Ham!

 

"God is formless. In order to merge in the formless God,

you have to give up identification with the body."

"There is only one 'Soul' and 'That' is God." Sai Baba.

 

 

Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products. All in one place.

Shopping:

[Guest guest]

Tony O'Clery wrote:

> it is futile to argue vegetarianism, for example, from a point of view of

> Ahimsa alone. For all you will get are excuses and

> rationalisations for behaviour not legitimate argument.

 

Ok.

> Plants do not have advanced nervous systems like animals.

 

Rationalization noted.

 

David

(irrational)

[Guest guest]

On 11/25/99 at 6:56 PM David Bozzi wrote:

>Tony O'Clery wrote:

>

>> it is futile to argue vegetarianism, for example, from a point of view

of

>> Ahimsa alone. For all you will get are excuses and

>> rationalisations for behaviour not legitimate argument.

>

>Ok.

>

>> Plants do not have advanced nervous systems like animals.

>

>Rationalization noted.

>

>David

>(irrational)

 

One could add "if rationalize, use latest findings" and in the case of

plants, it has been confirmed they do have the equivalent of a nervous

system and are aware of many things, among others, the neighbors and they

will interact with them

 

Jan

(observer)

[Guest guest]

On 11/25/99 at 2:34 PM Tony O'Clery wrote:

 

[...]

I

>am convinced that one can be spiritual and a

>meat-eater for example but I don't really feel one can

>be a meat-eater and achieve Moksha or Liberation, no

>matter the level of intellectual understanding. For

>Compassion and Ahimsa are the nature of the Self and

>cannot be learned only become.

>

>Love Tony.

>From a theoretical perspective food wouldn't matter, unless it causes

disease or death in which case it is obvious that "yet another round" will

follow. From a practical perspective things are different. A different name

for Moksha or liberation could be "factual nonduality" because the "I"

thought with everything that is linked to it has disappeared. But without

"I" thought there is nothing to liberate from so from this perspective both

bondage and liberation do no longer apply, are irrelevant. One might ask

"what can show up as connected to the "I" thought" and here Ahimsa will

show up, as for instance one's sensitivity/empathy can increase manifold,

effectively preventing consumption of food one could label as "canned

suffering". So if the health/fitness/ethics argument remains ineffective,

have compassion with those for whom this increased sensitivity/empathy

doesn't show up during this lifetime; in the course of events they will

discover things experientially which always is best

 

Jan

[Guest guest]

Dear Tony:

 

One should always seek the mirror of one's own counsel and strive for

compassion. The nature of compassion is greater than you may allow in your

description which seems to be fundamentalist in its approach toward Ahimsa,

with the view of achieving liberation or moksha. Any striving toward

liberation is a futile denial of the nature of the self-object dualistic

nature as it presupposes that one can vanquish the ego by striving toward

liberation by virtuous acts...a delusion at best.

 

One should cultivate compassion as a virtue that is universal in its own

right, just as kindness and generosity are...but not because they bring honor

to the one who practices them. It is all about attitude.

 

Furthermore, it seems that you must never have lived in the world itself.

Have you ever had pets, known wild animals on a personal basis? Aside from

the universal observation that all is food, and the blindly superior view

that "because plants do not have highly developed nervous systems" (as

neither do single celled organisms, but they are often animals, not plants,

and do show every sign of "survival behavior") we suffer less karmic rebound

when we consume a plant (mindlessly or without compassion or reverence) as

opposed to lovingly dispatching and valuing the life and being of an ox or

steer or goat (as the Tibetan Buddhists do).

 

Also, when would you choose to "put an animal out of it's suffering?" or

choose to remove life supports from an animal or a human being? Does not

compassion, in fact, dictate that we should limit life in some circumstances

to remove pain and suffering?

 

I think my main concern, Tony, is that although I agree with your basic

premise of Compassion needing to be something we know from experience and

from our heart, I worry that you sometimes believe that everything can be

aligned in simple rules and formulas and that these can be manipulated for

your (or someone else's) spiritual enhancement or progress.

 

That is the super big giant illusion. We are all on a journey toward

spiritual reconciliation. There is no fast track. We are all on the same

ship, so to speak, and individuals running rapidly around the deck deceive

themselves if they believe they will arrive at their destination sooner.

First humans create boundaries and separation by custom, habit, appearance

and then they call themselves superior for choosing this over that. Next,

they suffer from hubris then they go to war over these totally artificial and

meaningless symbolic rules.

 

It is sadly inapropos to debate diet restrictions (how American and European)

when much of the world starves and a large portion suffers abuse of women,

children and the ravages of disease and war.

 

My compassion is such that I will not fret away my hours in self induced

angst over my dietary choices whilst the humans suffer. Our compassion

should be for all living things, but since you make the hearty distinction

that plants "do not have nervous systems as highly developed as animals,"

then I will see your perspective and raise you one reality tunnel higher,

that, since humans have nervous systems several magnitudes of order more

complex than any other living animal that we know of, we are just as far

removed from common animals as animals are from plants. So I choose to be

concerned for the plight of humans, foremost, the animals I have contact

with, second, and the nature of diet, least of all. I think my priorities

are realistic and serve the greater good...from your point of view they are

not spiritually self serving...but that was never my concern. Once I fall

into the trap of doing only what I believe is in my own spiritual self

interests, I fear I will be a doomed, trapped, and desperate creature,

reacting to every nuance and pithy religious tract, diatribe and assertion

that catches my fretting attention!

 

Blessings

Love,

 

Zenbob

[Guest guest]

Hi Zenbob. Sobering post.

 

 

 

ZEN2WRK wrote:

> I worry that you sometimes believe that everything can be

> aligned in simple rules and formulas and that these can be manipulated for

> your (or someone else's) spiritual enhancement or progress.

>

> That is the super big giant illusion.