Only man is suffering. Suffering exists nowhere else than in the heart of man. The whole of nature is joyous; the whole of nature is always celebrating without any fear, without any anxiety. Existence goes on existing, but man is a problem.~ When the Shoe Fits: Commentaries on the Stories of the Taoist Mystic Chuang Tzu ~
This perspective is held by many. It may well be accurate; then again, it may not.
We humans have enough trouble trying to make heads or tails of our own species and ourselves. We really know very little about what makes other life forms tick. We can describe and quantify them in human terms, but what if our terms don't encapsulate their existence?
We know that other life forms communicate, but our understanding is based solely on what we can perceive. What if they communicate in a different dimension or in some manner that we can't fathom?
This idea that only humans -- and maybe, apes -- possess self-conscious is based on what? Our theories are molded by our frame of reference. What if other life forms live in a different frame of reference? Their consciousness, fear or anxiety could be staring us in the face, but we don't know it.
Why do we think that the human creature is so special? Because we look at ourselves through our own vantage point! Maybe all other creatures do the same from their own vantage points...or maybe not.
All we know is that we really don't know diddly squat.
We humans have enough trouble trying to make heads or tails of our own species and ourselves. We really know very little about what makes other life forms tick. We can describe and quantify them in human terms, but what if our terms don't encapsulate their existence?
We know that other life forms communicate, but our understanding is based solely on what we can perceive. What if they communicate in a different dimension or in some manner that we can't fathom?
This idea that only humans -- and maybe, apes -- possess self-conscious is based on what? Our theories are molded by our frame of reference. What if other life forms live in a different frame of reference? Their consciousness, fear or anxiety could be staring us in the face, but we don't know it.
Why do we think that the human creature is so special? Because we look at ourselves through our own vantage point! Maybe all other creatures do the same from their own vantage points...or maybe not.
All we know is that we really don't know diddly squat.
Man's downfall is his ability to think, and in so doing, remove himself from the process, to stand apart from it.
ReplyDeleteAll things but man have one thing in common: being.
Man, alone, moves aside from being, and regards himself as separate.
We think this, but we don't know this.
ReplyDeleteWell... So far my empathy is ON. With five dogs is almost inevitable :D
ReplyDeletePerhaps nature accept (present) its changes and existence as it is, that's why the 'joyous' part, is a completely different kind of consciousness. We don't, we 'think' we're 'better', we 'think' everything is 'knowing'.
We just 'know (past/future)' delusions. We're full of others ideas (delusions) and believe they're the real thing, when nobody experienced the real thing at all.
And man definitely IS a problem. Especially when he/she doesn't realise his/her stupidity.
Anyhow... Life is Dukkha.(dukkha in the original whole meaning)
i disagree with this verse. nature does not seem joyous or celebratory. it does during certain seasons and situations but at other times suffering and confusion exist on levels almost incomprehensible. the redeeming part of suffering, though, is that one animal's suffering, one natural disaster, or one plant's death brings benefit to the whole. not every life can live in happiness, that's something no human wants to accept.
ReplyDeleteQ,
ReplyDelete5 dogs? What kinds do you have?
I like what you said about a different kind of consciousness.
Iktomi,
First off, this isn't a verse from the Chuang Tzu; it's a quote from the mystic Osho.
Secondly, I think you and Osho are looking at different aspects of the same thing. You are looking at the individual level and, on a life-by-life basis, I would agree with your assessment.
Osho, on the other hand, is looking at the entirety of nature as a whole. It is joyous because it is forever balanced in a perpetual cycle of yin and yang.
a lhasa apso and the rest are stray... were stray :D
ReplyDeletebtw, I like Osho, is so direct and simple to comprehend... like Jiddu K and Lao Tse. Simple, simple, simple... definitely I love the simple minds and etc. :D
Have you ever read Rupert Sheldrake?... he 'sort of' has a 'theory' (morphic fields & morphic resonance) about this. Is interesting.
ReplyDeleteIf you're curious here is the link http://www.sheldrake.org/homepage.html