Fresh, I think we are blessed/cursed with consciousness so we think about these things when they really don't matter

.

fresh asked: is it only life forms that can thrive without killing others that can be labeled as compassionate or not compassionate?
= as a long time advocate and activist for the liberation of ALL life, i have contemplated these same questions from a variety of perspctives. my feeling is that compassion is inherent in the innate sense knowing/being that non-humyn animals live/are.

freah asked: is it only life forms that can ponder these questions that can be labeled as comp or not comp?
= the non-humyn beings that live in wild nature, just BE, just ARE, as nature designed, therefore they transcend labeling. however, due to our mental delusions, the humyn species has deviated from nature's design in virtually every imaginable way. therefore, due to this delusional tendency, we humyns have to consider whether to make compassionate choices or not...

fresh asked: are beings that are designed to eat other beings exempt from discussions about compassion?
= again, when non-humyn beings live in a wild habitat, free from humyn interference, then they tend to act as designed by nature, and therefore, transcend discussions of compassion or otherwise...they just ARE, being a tiger or lion, and tigers and lions are designed by nature to consume flesh!

is compassion only a human imperative?
= as stated above i think.

iow, are tigers not compassionate?
= again, non-humyn beings living in a wild habitat, just are, ie. as nature designed.

fresh asked: if compassion is not universal, does it not dilute its imperative nature?
= again, i thnk i stated how i feel nature designed the plan for every being on earth to accept who they are, but perhaps you would wish to pose a follow-up to this one?

i appreciate the measured questions "fresh".

[is compassion only a human imperative? ]

No. My large dogs would tiptoe around baby chicks. But not all dogs will do this.

A lot of non-human animals have empathy.

liberation Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> my
> feeling is that compassion is inherent in the
> innate sense knowing/being that non-humyn animals
> live/are.

to an extent i would concur, as i have seen fascinating videos of animals showing compassion that would normally eat each other, but of course there is no compassion when one is hungry and following innate drives.


>
> freah asked: is it only life forms that can ponder
> these questions that can be labeled as comp or not
> comp?
> = the non-humyn beings that live in wild nature,
> just BE, just ARE, as nature designed, therefore
> they transcend labeling. however, due to our
> mental delusions, the humyn species has deviated
> from nature's design in virtually every imaginable
> way. therefore, due to this delusional tendency,
> we humyns have to consider whether to make
> compassionate choices or not...
>


so you're just saying that it's simply that if we can, we should (practice compassion), i suppose. no argument there.

seems to be a contradiction in that wild humans do not practice food source compassion, yet you say we are deluded by being outside of nature.

hmmm that is very interesting. Animals take care of each other. Yes, I agree, animals have empathy.

yes. I do too, and I eat seaweed. I would rather not but I do. I like Laver. Somtimes there are little shells. I figure they are already dead. So its not like I am killing them.

baltochef! I agree with you on most of your points, but my feeling is that:

a.) just because a civilization is old doesn't mean its tenets are inherently noble and thus respectable.

and

b.) I can make a logical distinction between a sentient animal that suffers horrible psychic agonies upon its death and the bloodless act of eating a broccoli floret. That plant is important to the ecosystem, but I am not committing de facto murder when I "harvest" it. The mind is naturally repulsed by this, which is why the Pork Processing Association started in the 1970s to issue indoctrination training pamphlets describing a hog as a collection of parts that require dismantling, nothing more. Unless convinced otherwise, a carnivore's brain evidently naturally makes the distinction, too.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/01/2009 10:53PM by Tamukha.

I agree with B Tamhuka . People can convince themselves of anything, even killing people, as good for their country or something..

baltochef Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It is my opinion that a plant screams when we
> humans harvest it..It does so silently, on a level
> that humans cannot hear..I make no distinction
> between taking the life of a carrot, and taking
> the life of an animal..To me they are both
> sacred..I cannot, and will not, place a higher
> value on the life of a carrot than I do on the
> life of a towering redwood tree, than I do on the
> life of a mosquito, than I do on the life of a
> steer, than I do on the life of a blue whale, than
> I do on the life of a protozoan that I kill when I
> walk on the soil in my garden to harvest that very
> carrot that feeds me..

Therefore you do not place any higher value on the life of a fellow human then on the life of a carrot. If you view all life as equal and just as equal and indistinguished in taking it's life, what would stop you from feeding your hypothetical cat, a human baby vs. a can of tuna or fresh cut wheat grass? The cat being a carnivore would love it, and you having ZERO distinction on the different life forms, would logically have ZERO registration of it being any different of a choice. If you had those 3 choices in front of you, what process would go through your head to draw a conclusion and choice on? If ANY bias or repulsion comes up about the baby choice, then you are just straight LYING about this "belief" of yours that you hold zero difference in the value of each life and choice.




Liberation, I believe
> that you owe me an apology..To suggest that my
> postings are deserving of being eaten by other
> humans is very repugnant to me..I do not care if
> it was meant in jest..

According to your own claims, it shouldn't be anymore repugnant then the last salad you ate! Were you lying about the equality?




>
> Sixth, the purpose of both of my previous posts on
> this thread was to suggest that there is something
> fundamentally wrong with having a hierarchy
> established by humans, read vegans, that grades
> the value of every living organism's life
> according to some set of arbitrary rules..With
> warm-blooded mammals at the top of that list
> directly below humans, and all other forms of life
> in some form of descending order..

Well, then there is something fundamentally wrong with grading the value of humans and eating other humans above any of those. There are plenty of animals that eat their own kind you know, so you don't try to claim it's "unnatural" as an excuse. Love how you apply this value equality to ALL life EXCEPT for humans! So, there is no difference in killing your neighbor vs. killing a single bacteria?




>
> Lastly, I will state again that I personally try
> to hold ALL forms of life on this planet in the
> EXACT same regard..Regardless of what form those
> lives take..I also understand that it is
> impossible to feed myself as a raw vegan,
> regardless of where the produce comes from,
> without other forms of plant and animal life being
> disturbed and killed by that process..As humans
> nothing we do to exist can be accomplished without
> disturbing, and or, killing other forms of
> life..The absolute best that we can hope to
> accomplish is to proceed through life making as
> little of an impact to our planet and its life
> forms as possible..

How do you make less impact, with the belief that ALL impact is EXACTLY the same?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/03/2009 02:25AM by nik.

. I personally try
> to hold ALL forms of life on this planet in the
> EXACT same regard

Each successive trophic level in the food chain is approximately an order of magnitude less efficient than the one below it. So if you really held ALL forms of life on this planet in the EXACT same regard you would be compelled to eat as low on the food chain as possible, because this is the most efficient use of resources and does the least amount of damage to ALL life forms on this planet.

[en.wikipedia.org]

Eat only producers, not consumers.

The Vedas teach us something correlative to this, Arugula, that as we move up the food chain there is more karmic implication. There is more awareness as we move up that chain. To some extent, until the human form is reached, the being in question is just burning off karma (not exercising free "conscious" will, to use the term conscious loosely). That being said, there is still karma in taking the life of plants. This can only be abated by making an offering of the plant to the Lord, before enjoying or utilizing it in any way.

In chapter nine of the Bhagavad-gita, we find this passage:

patram puspam phalam toyam
yo me bhaktya prayachati
tad aham bhakty upahrtam
asnami prayatatmanah

"If one offers Me with love and devotion a leaf, a flower, fruit or water, I will accept it."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/03/2009 05:12AM by SatCitAnanda.

It is easy to think of oneself as righteous and knowing-it-all. Alas, it is an impossibility. Too many questions without answers, ever.


RawGosia channel
RawGosia streams