Theos-Talk Archives (February 2008 Message tt00083)

Dear Adelaisie

Thank you for your follow-up comments.

You write, "I am not really suggesting that individual 
animals have self-consciousness or make the kinds of 
decisions that humans make.
Animals, and indeed all of nature except humans, appear to 
behave according to the law that governs them without 
question."

Yes, this certainly appears to be the case. In our scheme, 
only with developing self-consciousness can we actually 
choose, and thereby act harmoniously or disharmoniously. 
Prior to that, un-self-conscious expressions of nature, are 
motivated solely by spiritual law it would seem.
In saying this, there are some humanly trained animals, in 
particular chimpanzees, which appear to have demonstrated 
characteristics of self-consciousness. The mirror experiment 
seems to demonstrate recognition of self, although a thorough 
scientific investigation of the inductive methods used and 
results gained would need to be peer reviewed and conducted 
by a number of disinterested researchers for final satisfaction 
as to its truth. Whilst I am concerned about the ethics of this 
kind of experimentation we perhaps shouldn't ignore the 
findings for the sake of the chimps alone.

You write, "But perhaps what I am suggesting is that that law, 
the Law of Nature, is predicated on Love. I am speaking here 
of a higher form of love, not the sentimental infatuation that 
we term love, but the Love that seeks to serve, to give without 
thought of receiving in return, unconditionally and without 
thought of self. This is the Love that humans are striving to 
develop in a self-conscious way, the Love that is Life, in its 
most inclusive definition. Perhaps we could say that pure 
instinct is predicated on unconscious acceptance of Love as a
primary guiding principle."

Yes, this now represents more closely what I understand 
Theosophy to be saying as well as what seems "intuitively" 
to be correct.
In this passage you have used such Beautiful phraseology 
and your expression "unconscious acceptance of Love" 
is as pleasing a portrayal as I have heard.

Thank you again Adelaisie for sharing your open heart/mind 
with us.
It is so very much appreciated.

Kind regards
Nigel 


--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "adelasie" <adelasie@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Nigel,
> 
> Your comments are very well-considered and I respect your point of 
> view. I am not really suggesting that individual animals have self-
> consciousness or make the kinds of decisions that humans make. 
> Animals, and indeed all of nature except humans, appear to behave 
> according to the law that governs them without question. But 
perhaps 
> what I am suggesting is that that law, the Law of Nature, is 
> predicated on Love. I am speaking here of a higher form of love, 
not 
> the sentimental infatuation that we term love, but the Love that 
> seeks to serve, to give without thought of receiving in return, 
> unconditionally and without thought of self. This is the Love that 
> humans are striving to develop in a self-conscious way, the Love 
that 
> is Life, in its most inclusive definition. Perhaps we could say 
that 
> pure instinct is predicated on unconscious acceptance of Love as a 
> primary guiding principle. 
> 
> People say that whales, for instance, have intellingence. When we 
say 
> that we immediately think of a quality that humans recognize, a 
sort 
> of cognitive process that determines behavior. But perhaps the 
> intelligence we perceive in whales comes from another aspect of 
> being, that which accepts unquestioningly the requirements of life 
> and behaves according to their demands. It is difficult for humans 
to 
> avoid anthropomorphizing, especially with pets. When we read of a 
> tiger escaping from its zoo cage and killing a person, we interpret 
> that behavior as aggressive or somehow out of control. However, we 
> could also realize that the nature of the tiger is to protect its 
> territory from intruders, and people could be seen as threatening 
in 
> that context. 
> 
> Certainly we could look forward to a time when humans no longer 
feel 
> the need to kill animals for food. The very idea seems contrary to 
a 
> doctrine of compassion. However, it is also possible that we could 
> look forward to a time when we would not find it necessary to kill 
> other humans for any reason whatsoever. In fact, if we really start 
> investigating the basic inhumanity of the human race, we can find a 
> lot of behaviors that are pretty commonly accepted as normal that 
are 
> definitely not in accord with any Law of Compassion and Love. We 
have 
> a long way to go, but at least we know it, can discuss it and try 
in 
> our individual lives to make better choices.
> 
> Adelasie
> 
> On 11 Feb 2008 at 6:53, nhcareyta wrote:
> 
> > Dear Adelaisie
> > 
> > Thank you for your most elegant and considerate reply 
> > as usual. 
> > Thank you too for your heartfelt "blog" comments in our 
> > local Australian newspaper which has bravely raised the 
> > issue of the cruelty of whale slaughter and maintained 
> > it despite the obvious diplomatic and trade penalties 
> > which may follow. 
> > http://blogs.thewest.com.au/news/news-blog-should-we-intervene-to-
> > stop-this-slaughter/
> > 
> > 
> > In your recent posting here you write, "...the animal 
> > kingdom willingly sacrifices itself that humans may be 
> > nourished. It is a noble sacrifice, after all, putting the 
> > welfare of others ahead of one's own welfare. Animals 
> > show unconditional love, as many pet owners have
> > testified."
> > 
> > 
> > Once again this presupposes that animals, or animal 
> > consciousness, has the self conscious ability to altruistically 
> > choose to sacrifice their life that humans might live instead 
> > of them.
> > 
> > 
> > This would seem to be at variance to most evolutionary 
> > theories where instinctual survival of individual or species 
> > reigns supreme.  
> > 
> >
>