12-02-2012, 05:41 PM
As a child I was not naturally inclined to show compassion to animals.
I liked dogs that were friendly, and hated the ones that weren't.
I certainly wasn't stupid enough to get into the field with the bull just to express compassion for its confinement.
Being a boy, I know that most boys I knew were inclined to catch frogs and do horrible things to them believing that frogs don't know the difference. Same with snakes.
Birds were of a different realm and deserved a little more respect than frogs, but that certainly didn't stem our attempts at nailing them with a rock or a slingshot.
Now cats and dogs were thought to be in a higher category still because of their obvious relationship with our human family.
This does not mean that there weren't some boys who would do horrible things to all of those animals, or that there were not some who did not have the desire to harm any of them.
I don't know what type of children Monica grew up with that gives her the impression that most children show compassion toward animals of all kinds, but she certainly did not know any of the kids I grew up with.
Compassion seems to be both, very individual, as well as something that one increases upon as they mature, if they mature into a more compassionate individual. certainly not all mature into a compassionate nature however much we wish they would.
But to make compassion sound as though it is a natural process of being, is to both, deny the very special and glorious quality of those who choose compassion over abuse, and deny the true nature of the duality of existence and the choice all are afforded on that path of evolving into higher being and understanding.
I was a hunter all of my life, and taught the respects and courtesies of becoming one with nature.
I knew the role of predator but appreciated that by design there was a prey for the predator and a natural cycle to maintain it.
As I matured I knew that my childhood tormenting of frogs was not something to be proud of, and I knew that much suffering was being imposed upon innocent animals for no reason.
About 12 years ago I had an experience while out duck hunting which gave me reason to never again hunt when it was not necessary. But I also realize that the marketing of certain animals is what allows me the luxury of not having to hunt for my own food.
My compassionate nature is something that I personally explore with great sincerity, but I am in no way living in any delusion that I am afforded to enjoy such exploration where many others may not be able, or may not choose to.
And I, in my understanding of how we are all living such very different experiences, and tastes, and desires, I cannot decree any particular way of life as being the one way that any person of compassion should follow.
And I would certainly not want to attempt to define compassion for another's experience or way of life by comparing theirs to mine.
In my mind the slaughter of animals for mass marketing is not compassion when there are other ways to feed ourselves and other ways to farm.
But what is in my mind is my experience and understanding alone. Based solely upon my evolution and my state of being.
How can I possibly apply that tiny aspect of The All as a blanket to cover every other aspect and fragment of The All.
Am I to assume that my fragmented experience alone is the mold by which all other experience should be formed?
Should I think this way, and then acknowledge that every other fragment can also declare the same, I propose war, and the effort for one of many to be the one which wins over all others.
And it is exactly this type of ignorance and thinking which participates in that system of selfishness, and exaggerates the continuation of further abuse, whether to animal or man.
I liked dogs that were friendly, and hated the ones that weren't.
I certainly wasn't stupid enough to get into the field with the bull just to express compassion for its confinement.
Being a boy, I know that most boys I knew were inclined to catch frogs and do horrible things to them believing that frogs don't know the difference. Same with snakes.
Birds were of a different realm and deserved a little more respect than frogs, but that certainly didn't stem our attempts at nailing them with a rock or a slingshot.
Now cats and dogs were thought to be in a higher category still because of their obvious relationship with our human family.
This does not mean that there weren't some boys who would do horrible things to all of those animals, or that there were not some who did not have the desire to harm any of them.
I don't know what type of children Monica grew up with that gives her the impression that most children show compassion toward animals of all kinds, but she certainly did not know any of the kids I grew up with.
Compassion seems to be both, very individual, as well as something that one increases upon as they mature, if they mature into a more compassionate individual. certainly not all mature into a compassionate nature however much we wish they would.
But to make compassion sound as though it is a natural process of being, is to both, deny the very special and glorious quality of those who choose compassion over abuse, and deny the true nature of the duality of existence and the choice all are afforded on that path of evolving into higher being and understanding.
I was a hunter all of my life, and taught the respects and courtesies of becoming one with nature.
I knew the role of predator but appreciated that by design there was a prey for the predator and a natural cycle to maintain it.
As I matured I knew that my childhood tormenting of frogs was not something to be proud of, and I knew that much suffering was being imposed upon innocent animals for no reason.
About 12 years ago I had an experience while out duck hunting which gave me reason to never again hunt when it was not necessary. But I also realize that the marketing of certain animals is what allows me the luxury of not having to hunt for my own food.
My compassionate nature is something that I personally explore with great sincerity, but I am in no way living in any delusion that I am afforded to enjoy such exploration where many others may not be able, or may not choose to.
And I, in my understanding of how we are all living such very different experiences, and tastes, and desires, I cannot decree any particular way of life as being the one way that any person of compassion should follow.
And I would certainly not want to attempt to define compassion for another's experience or way of life by comparing theirs to mine.
In my mind the slaughter of animals for mass marketing is not compassion when there are other ways to feed ourselves and other ways to farm.
But what is in my mind is my experience and understanding alone. Based solely upon my evolution and my state of being.
How can I possibly apply that tiny aspect of The All as a blanket to cover every other aspect and fragment of The All.
Am I to assume that my fragmented experience alone is the mold by which all other experience should be formed?
Should I think this way, and then acknowledge that every other fragment can also declare the same, I propose war, and the effort for one of many to be the one which wins over all others.
And it is exactly this type of ignorance and thinking which participates in that system of selfishness, and exaggerates the continuation of further abuse, whether to animal or man.