Unutterably Silly So what are you doing RIGHT NOW?

[badgoodDeb]

Originally Posted by nekokami

..... anyone "out" of the group is somehow less than human, and fair game for anything the group wants to do. .....

The guy nailed to the tree wanted us to do that differently -- anyone in OR out of the group is shown only love. Unfortunately, due to humanity's basic embedded flaw (ME-ism) we're none of us very good at doing that.

[RickyMaveety]

Originally Posted by badgoodDeb

The guy nailed to the tree wanted us to do that differently -- anyone in OR out of the group is shown only love. Unfortunately, due to humanity's basic embedded flaw (ME-ism) we're none of us very good at doing that.

That's why I believe that critical thinking is so important. It tends to negate "me-ism". A really good critical thinker understands that "me" is just a speck in the whole of the universe .... an not worth any more (or any less) to the whole than any other speck.

[Greg Anos]

But that's just liable to "scale up" the me-ism. That's where you get "the cause is more important that the individual" thinking...

[RickyMaveety]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

But that's just liable to "scale up" the me-ism. That's where you get "the cause is more important that the individual" thinking...

Well, no .... because even "the cause" is just a speck in the whole. The planet is just a speck in the whole. And the "whole" is probably just a speck in some other whole.

And, "the cause" is probably headed up by some complete psychotic that the rest of the specks have decided should have power. Typical speck thinking, I suppose, but still ....

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by badgoodDeb

The guy nailed to the tree wanted us to do that differently -- anyone in OR out of the group is shown only love.

Not sure the Gaderene swine would agree - that was one of the reasons I went off him.

[badgoodDeb]

I don't think he counted animals as equals to humans. Sorry.

[RickyMaveety]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

Not sure the Gaderene swine would agree - that was one of the reasons I went off him.

I hear you. That whole episode was not particularly fair to the poor piggies. That's one of the reasons I became a Buddhist ... we are at the very least supposed to try to treat all the specks (human or not) as well as possible.

Of course, it is important to remember that particular story in its complete context. Pigs were (and are) considered to be "unclean animals" in the Jewish mythos. Since Jesus was a Jew, as were all of his earliest followers, the unclean animals would have been the proper place to cast demonic spirits. Although, honestly, why he couldn't have used a passing swarm of flies or gnats will always remain a mystery to me.

[ShortNCuddlyAm]

Originally Posted by desertgrandma

correct me if I'm wrong,, but aren't billions already sent, by every country capable, to third world places? Food, doctors, money, etc.

The problem seems to be in making sure the help gets where its needed, not into pockets of corrupt officials. Until this issue is addressed, nothing will change.

The real tragedy is that, if it were not for the corrupt officials, some of those places wouldn't need help in the ifrst place. I'm thinking especially of Zimbabwe, but that's just the most prominent example at the moment.

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by badgoodDeb

I don't think he counted animals as equals to humans. Sorry.

Apparently not:

"Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? And not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father. But even the hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear not, therefore; you are of more value than many sparrows."
—Matthew 10:29-31

Cheek!

I don't think non-human means sub-human.
I'm with Ricky on this one - the Buddha's philosophy is more compassionate.

[zelda_pinwheel]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

Apparently not:

"Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? And not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father. But even the hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear not, therefore; you are of more value than many sparrows."
—Matthew 10:29-31

Cheek!

I don't think non-human means sub-human.
I'm with Ricky on this one - the Buddha's philosophy is more compassionate.

i also believe that non-human doesn't mean sub-human, and i am really dismayed by the arrogant disregard that many humans have for other species and their welfare. it makes me really happy to see people like sparrow expressing their respect and compassion ; if everyone began to think this way i think we'd see a lot less atrocities committed against everyone, animals *and* humans (humans are animals too, anyway).

[RickyMaveety]

Originally Posted by zelda_pinwheel

i also believe that non-human doesn't mean sub-human, and i am really dismayed by the arrogant disregard that many humans have for other species and their welfare. it makes me really happy to see people like sparrow expressing their respect and compassion ; if everyone began to think this way i think we'd see a lot less atrocities committed against everyone, animals *and* humans (humans are animals too, anyway).

Well, it all comes around to the Judeo-Christian idea of "dominion" over the animals (including blood sacrifice to their God, as first expressed in the Cain/Abel myth), versus the idea of compassion (which really means no more than the ability to feel what another is feeling) for all living things which was the cornerstone of the Buddhist philosophy.

They are two very different ways of looking at the animal kingdom. In one view we are "us" and they are "them." We supposedly have souls and they supposedly do not. Under the other view, to the extent that any living thing has a soul, then all living things have souls. We are all one, and those things we call souls slip in and out of all forms depending on the lessons we must learn in any life. In one view the soul has one life on earth and then returns to the god. In the other the soul returns again and again until it passes to Nirvana ... which is nothingness ... a merging with the whole.

Of course, since no one knows with any real certainty which is the "right" view ... all we can do is go with what makes us feel comfortable. That is the right view for each person.

I think the people who make me a little crazy are the ones who try to force another person to conform to a view that makes them uncomfortable (mentally, physically ... you name it). And, I feel horribly sorry for people who are trapped in a particular world view that brings pain and harm to themselves and others ... and who don't realize that there is a way out.

[nekokami]

Originally Posted by RickyMaveety

They are two very different ways of looking at the animal kingdom. In one view we are "us" and they are "them." We supposedly have souls and they supposedly do not.

Erm. I think that's rather to what I suggested a few posts back about why humans don't get along... but I probably should have made it clear that I actually cast my "in group" wider than just humanity.

I got a picture of the snapped utility pole today. I'll try to post it tomorrow. Must go back to stupid term paper now.

(Which isn't all that stupid, and is about critical thinking. Thank you SO MUCH Ricky for reminding me of what I'm trying to avoid right now.... )

[RickyMaveety]

Originally Posted by nekokami

I'm a bit more optimistic than that, both about religion and about humanity. But I agree we've got a long way to go toward learning to live with one another and the rest of life on the planet in any kind of equilibrium.

To me, strong identification with any small group (by which I mean "smaller than the sum of humanity," really) is where we get the problems. Anyone "in" the group is ok, and their flaws are overlooked (or they get thrown out of the group), and anyone "out" of the group is somehow less than human, and fair game for anything the group wants to do. This is by no means confined to religion. Political parties, economic ideologies, geography, and accidents of birth (i.e. "class") all have the same effect.

I have a working theory that if we tried to make the world a bit more "fair," with more equitable distribution of resources and opportunities (at least at birth and for children), much of the motivation for this kind of nastiness would go away, but oddly enough, I'm having trouble finding a way to test this theory....

Originally Posted by nekokami

Erm. I think that's rather to what I suggested a few posts back about why humans don't get along... but I probably should have made it clear that I actually cast my "in group" wider than just humanity.

I got a picture of the snapped utility pole today. I'll try to post it tomorrow. Must go back to stupid term paper now.

(Which isn't all that stupid, and is about critical thinking. Thank you SO MUCH Ricky for reminding me of what I'm trying to avoid right now.... )

Is that the post you were talking about Nekokami?? If so, then, yes, I think we were more or less saying the same thing. I don't know exactly how I missed reading that post ... but I did.

Anytime I can remind you about what you are supposed to be doing, then glad to help. The Dalai Lama has said a number of wonderful things about the importance of critical thinking. Especially as it relates to the science of the spiritual (and if that sounds a bit contradictory ... you'd have to read some of his writings, I'm not about to try to explain what I understand of it in a single forum post).

But ... in a word or three .... he's a big fan.

[nekokami]

And I'm a big fan of his, so it's all good!

I finished my draft and sent it to my reviewers! 12 more hours until the hard-copy gets handed in, including reviewer comments on the draft!

Ack, I need some sleep.

[nekokami]

Originally Posted by badgoodDeb

The guy nailed to the tree wanted us to do that differently -- anyone in OR out of the group is shown only love. Unfortunately, due to humanity's basic embedded flaw (ME-ism) we're none of us very good at doing that.

I'm with the tree guy on this one. I can overlook the bit with the swine. Nobody's perfect.