Animals and nirvana

[guest_of_logic]

Just wanted to drop in a brief word in support of Kunga as antidote to jupiviv and John's callous attitudes - *of course* animals suffer, and *of course* we should care about that suffering - and in support of Pam for bringing up this very relevant subject in the first place. Pam, I don't know whether transmigration between human and animal souls is real, but it certainly seems like a strong possibility to me. Regardless, though, we ought to care about animal suffering simply because of the extension of objectivity (that all life other than ourselves has the same moral basis as ourselves) to our own self-respect (that from our own perspectives we ought not personally to be morally transgressed) - in other words, because of the Golden Rule extended to life other than human.

[jupiviv]

He believed in the relationship of marriage as a reflection of the relationship of God to man, yet he recognised the unrealistic poetry of that belief, when he saw that the necessary candour and understanding between both parties could not exist between himself and Regina.

He realised that marriage and love can never take one *consciously* nearer to God, which is the nearness that wise people want. However, he was quite obviously plagued by thoughts of the happiness and fulfillment he *could* have had, had he married Regina. He even said so himself.

You say : she was beautiful. Oh what do you know about it; I know it, for her beauty cost me tears I myself bought flowers with which to adorn her, I would have hung all the adornments of the world upon her, though only as they served to bring out all the hidden beauty within and as she stood there in all her array I had to go as her joyful look, so full of life, met mine I had to go and I went out and wept bitterly.

How great is womanly devotion.-*-But the curse which rests upon me is never to be allowed to let anyone deeply and inwardly join themselves to me. God in heaven knows how often I have suffered when with childish glee I thought out a plan which I thought would really please her, and then had to make it a principle never to carry out anything in the joy of the moment, but wait until understanding and shrewdness had forbidden it, for fear of drawing her nearer to me. My relation to her may, I truly believe, be called unhappy love I love her I own her her only wish is to remain with me her family implore me it is my greatest wish and I have to say no. In order to make it easier for her I will, if possible, make her believe that I simply deceived her, that I am a frivolous man, so as if possible to make her hate me; for I believe that it would always be more difficult for her if she suspected that the cause was melancholy how like are melancholy and frivolity.

I agree there were many other, material, psychological and philosophical causes of his "melancholy", but those are burdens that anyone who wants to be wise must carry. The added burden of his unconsummated love for Regina was unnecessary, and was his own fault. Of course, this is not to say he wasn't a blindingly great man.

I think Kierkegaard was a very emotional, loving and passionate person with a great imagination and talent for writing, as is evidenced by the above quote. It must have been very frustrating for someone with so much potential to succeed in a more conventional sense to spend his time becoming wise, especially in a progressive, baby-boomer society that valued the former kind of success *far* more than the latter. Perhaps if he were less gifted, he would have gone even further than he had.

[Dennis Mahar]

The 'object of desire'.
An x pulled out of all that is not-x.

Aw shucks.

To 'have' the object shakes down to a desire to 'be' that object, uncannily.
Gestalted as incompleteness, deficiency.
wanting, wanting, lack, lack.

and the punchline is

[Kelly Jones]

My relation to her may, I truly believe, be called unhappy love I love her I own her her only wish is to remain with me her family implore me it is my greatest wish and I have to say no.

I think Kierkegaard was a very emotional, loving and passionate person with a great imagination and talent for writing, as is evidenced by the above quote.

Where did you copy it from? It's strongly atypical of Kierkegaard. He was pedantic about punctuation, whereas the above quote is a typical stream-of-consciousness female mind blubbering.

I don't think that text, if it is authentic, conveys a mood or mentality typical of Kierkegaard. He was very upset by the experience with Regina, and cried for days at that time. It's understandable, as he was leaving the world behind, and it is necessarily a painful experience. I don't think you can use it as a "this is what Kierkegaard is like" quote.

I agree there were many other, material, psychological and philosophical causes of his "melancholy", but those are burdens that anyone who wants to be wise must carry. The added burden of his unconsummated love for Regina was unnecessary, and was his own fault.

I don't think you've studied Kierkegaard as deeply as would warrant that conclusion. It's not a light claim: Kierkegaard was an extremely complex and amazingly deep thinker. There are many occasions where his meanings aren't clear: evidently he himself knew what he was talking about, but no one else would have a clue. So I think it's unlikely that he would ever have fallen for any long period of time into a wholehearted and mindless emotional passion. It was simply not what he did, because his reason was overpowering.

I believe his attraction and need for Regina was but an inevitable outcome from his strict protestant upbringing, coupled with his penchant for making intellectual-poetical transformation of everyday things into metaphors to enrich his journey. It's much like Weininger did, who turned his entire world-experience into a cosmos of self-made meanings, for the purpose of understanding himself better. Hence, his assertion that a swamp is an evil river, or that the stars are vain, or that nothing with reflected light is truthful. Kierkegaard was doing the same thing with Regina: she was merely a machine to carry forward a network of meanings, to help him unravel ideas about being human yet under God. When he speaks of her, it is not her objectively, the biological organism with a personal history "out there in the world", etc., but rather what she means for him, as a psychological phenomenon used in his meditations. He was no more in love with her than with the tool of writing creatively.


.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Where did you copy it from? It's strongly atypical of Kierkegaard. He was pedantic about punctuation, whereas the above quote is a typical stream-of-consciousness female mind blubbering.

The punctutation seems to have fallen wayside during his copy-paste action but it's from Alexander Dru's translation of the Journals Of Kierkegaard.

It reminded me of another quote:

In a certain sense a woman is a terrifying being. There is a form of devotion that dismays me because it is so contrary to my nature: it is femininely-ruthless womanly devotion, terrifying because the womanliness in one sense is so powerfully bound by regard for custom. But if it is disrupted — and the other party is a dialectician with a morbid imagination and a heavy religious burden: truly it is terrifying.

-- Søren Kierkegaard's Journals & Papers, X 5 A 149 (27)

[jupiviv]

I don't think you can use it as a "this is what Kierkegaard is like" quote.

I'm not trying to paint his entire character with his love for Regina. It's one of quite a few contributing causes of his depression/melancholy that he himself admitted to having.

I agree there were many other, material, psychological and philosophical causes of his "melancholy", but those are burdens that anyone who wants to be wise must carry. The added burden of his unconsummated love for Regina was unnecessary, and was his own fault.

So I think it's unlikely that he would ever have fallen for any long period of time into a wholehearted and mindless emotional passion. It was simply not what he did, because his reason was overpowering.

Evolution has ensured that humans feel a deep urge to copulate. It's impossible, in my opinion, to get rid of that urge in a single human lifetime, at least not with the technology we currently possess(much less that Kierkegaard's time possessed.) Besides, I don't think what Kierkegaard felt for Regina was just mindless love. It obviously had an intellectual element in it.

When he speaks of her, it is not her objectively, the biological organism with a personal history "out there in the world", etc., but rather what she means for him, as a psychological phenomenon used in his meditations.

Why did a young, fertile woman mean that to him as opposed to, say, a road apple? Obviously there was a biological reason for his loving her.

[Tomas]

it is necessary to accept the doctrine of animal-human soul/mind transmigration. From wiki:

I would be very interested to hear the thoughts of others on the above.

I find birds to be the most interesting of all the the creatures who inhabit this Earth with the common man.

The robin will land in the back yard looking for food, turn its head cockwise and stare at a patch of ground then "whack" it plunges to some hole in the ground and comes out with a worm in its beak! Now, that's nifty!

That same bird will come and land within some 10-15 feet of me and wait for me to toss some bread, piece of steak, or whatever. It will hop a couple feet to the food source and peck at it finally accepting or rejecting the bounty. It's partner, the male, will come and harass her and off they go to the sky and the unknown area of flight I cannot also go to as I'm grounded to terra firma.

The crow is another interesting visitor to my back yard as is the common sparrow, bluejay, grackle and the occasional mourning dove.

What a life!

Enjoy the ride. ;-)

[Pam Seeback]

Just wanted to drop in a brief word in support of Kunga as antidote to jupiviv and John's callous attitudes - *of course* animals suffer, and *of course* we should care about that suffering - and in support of Pam for bringing up this very relevant subject in the first place. Pam, I don't know whether transmigration between human and animal souls is real, but it certainly seems like a strong possibility to me. Regardless, though, we ought to care about animal suffering simply because of the extension of objectivity (that all life other than ourselves has the same moral basis as ourselves) to our own self-respect (that from our own perspectives we ought not personally to be morally transgressed) - in other words, because of the Golden Rule extended to life other than human.

Thanks Laird for your support, and since my last post in this thread, I have given much thought to the logical truth of dependent origination. The conclusion that has come to me is that since dependent origination includes all of conditioned existence that every being in every realm is causally connected to one another, from the most heavenly to the most hellish. Where "human being" comes in is that it is only in the human realm where one has the possibility of attaining wisdom of conditioned existence and of the way to "blow it out" not only for their sake, but for the sake of all of existence. Such a human being goes by names such as The Christ or The Tathagata, first revealed to "human being" via Jesus and Gautama.

From the Parinibbana Sutta on Total Unbinding: Source: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

When the Blessed One was totally Unbound, simultaneously with the total Unbinding, Sahampati Brahma uttered this verse:

All beings — all — in the world,
will cast off the bodily heap
in the world
where a Teacher like this
without peer in the world
the Tathagata, with strength attained,
the Rightly Self-Awakened One,
has been totally
Unbound.

When the Blessed One was totally Unbound, simultaneously with the total Unbinding, Sakka, ruler of the gods, uttered this verse:

How inconstant are compounded things!
Their nature: to arise & pass away.
They disband as they are arising.
Their total stilling is bliss.

When the Blessed One was totally Unbound, simultaneously with the total Unbinding, Ven. Anuruddha uttered this verse:

He had no in-&-out breathing,
the one who was Such, the firm-minded one,
imperturbable
& bent on peace:
the sage completing his span.

With heart unbowed
he endured the pain.
Like a flame's unbinding
was the liberation
of awareness.

So, yes, animals do indeed suffer the binding of "the bodily heap" of awareness (as do devas and gods) and it is the task of the Tathagata or The Christ, upon his final Unbinding of Existence (his final bodily death) to endure the pain of this conscious act of compassionate wisdom.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

No, only humans suffer in the way suffering here is understood. They rise and waste away with it. Homo Dukkha.

But through compassion we can extent our awareness and include all living things in our self. Only then we could say "animals" (in us) are suffering with us and move upwards.

[Pam Seeback]

it is necessary to accept the doctrine of animal-human soul/mind transmigration. From wiki:

I would be very interested to hear the thoughts of others on the above.

I find birds to be the most interesting of all the the creatures who inhabit this Earth with the common man.

The robin will land in the back yard looking for food, turn its head cockwise and stare at a patch of ground then "whack" it plunges to some hole in the ground and comes out with a worm in its beak! Now, that's nifty!

That same bird will come and land within some 10-15 feet of me and wait for me to toss some bread, piece of steak, or whatever. It will hop a couple feet to the food source and peck at it finally accepting or rejecting the bounty. It's partner, the male, will come and harass her and off they go to the sky and the unknown area of flight I cannot also go to as I'm grounded to terra firma.

The crow is another interesting visitor to my back yard as is the common sparrow, bluejay, grackle and the occasional mourning dove.

What a life!

Enjoy the ride. ;-)

Tomas, the crow is a highly socialized, intelligent animal which supports the idea that there is a wide spectrum of animal awareness, from the most instinctual such as snakes and crocs to the tool-making crow:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TtmLVP0HvDg

[Pam Seeback]

No, only humans suffer in the way suffering here is understood. They rise and waste away with it. Homo Dukkha.

But through compassion we can extent our awareness and include all living things in our self. Only then we could say "animals" (in us) are suffering with us and move upwards.

It seems to me as if we are alluding to the same thing. Where do you see us parting ways?

A rewrite: It is only in the human realm that one is conscious of rebirth and of how to end the cycles of rebirth (consciousness of the cause of suffering), a consciousness that allows the enlightened human being to, as you say, extend his awareness to include all living beings so as to lift them upward.

I spoke of the Total Unbinding as it takes place when the cycles of rebirth into awareness are ending to arise no more, which means the ability to extend one's awareness to include all living things also is ending to arise no more.

[guest_of_logic]

No, only humans suffer in the way suffering here is understood.

Then either your understanding of animals is warped, or the way suffering is understood here is warped, or, most likely, both.

Pam, I don't know how much to believe of Buddhist scriptures with respect to the potential for (human) enlightenment, but whatever causes compassion for animals (including the human animal) is good in my book. :-)

[Diebert van Rhijn]

No, only humans suffer in the way suffering here is understood. They rise and waste away with it. Homo Dukkha.

Then either your understanding of animals is warped, or the way suffering is understood here is warped, or, most likely, both.

Show me the suffering and I'll show you the human. Of course "warped" is a neat description of suffering too.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

No, only humans suffer in the way suffering here is understood. They rise and waste away with it. Homo Dukkha.

But through compassion we can extent our awareness and include all living things in our self. Only then we could say "animals" (in us) are suffering with us and move upwards.

It seems to me as if we are alluding to the same thing. Where do you see us parting ways?

It was with: "Yes, animals do indeed suffer the binding of the bodily heap of awareness". You might have written: "Although animals have body and pain awareness...". When you write that it's in the human realm when one "has the possibility of attaining wisdom of conditioned existence", I'm saying that it's also only in the human realm dukkha is experienced. As this is the only way wisdom of conditioned existence can form.

[guest_of_logic]

No, only humans suffer in the way suffering here is understood. They rise and waste away with it. Homo Dukkha.

Then either your understanding of animals is warped, or the way suffering is understood here is warped, or, most likely, both.

Show me the suffering and I'll show you the human.

But that's an irrelevancy, Diebert; it's beside the point. No one (least of all me) is arguing that humans don't suffer, or even that there is a single human in whom suffering is not present (perhaps there is, or perhaps there isn't, I really don't know). The point is that animals suffer too, and that only a warped view of either animals or suffering denies that. But of course you are smart enough to know that this is the point, so the question becomes: why the distraction and derailing, my good man?

Of course "warped" is a neat description of suffering too.

Well, sure, it's no secret that you, too, suffer. You hide it very well, but then there are a lot of things that you hide, or, perhaps, more kindly, "prefer not to discuss" - as, of course, is your right, but then, on a forum dedicated to the ruthless pursuit of truth regardless of the cost to ego, one might question your choice.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Show me the suffering and I'll show you the human.

But that's an irrelevancy, Diebert; it's beside the point. No one (least of all me) is arguing that humans don't suffer, or even that there is a single human in whom suffering is not present (perhaps there is, or perhaps there isn't, I really don't know). The point is that animals suffer too, and that only a warped view of either animals or suffering denies that. But of course you are smart enough to know that this is the point, so the question becomes: why the distraction and derailing, my good man?

No, I mean that with each and every instance of suffering you are able to show me, I'll show you the human, the homo dukkha involved. He's defined by his suffering. And of course I'm not talking about pain as such. This is about philosophy, not medicine.

Well, sure, it's no secret that you, too, suffer. You hide it very well, but then there are a lot of things that you hide, or, perhaps, more kindly, "prefer not to discuss" - as, of course, is your right, but then, on a forum dedicated to the ruthless pursuit of truth regardless of the cost to ego, one might question your choice.

Did I deny being human somewhere? The moment you're not understanding something, your brain seems to fill in the blanks with nonsense which you then believe has been said to you somewhere, somehow. Actually I've been surprisingly transparant really.

[guest_of_logic]

Show me the suffering and I'll show you the human.

But that's an irrelevancy, Diebert; it's beside the point. No one (least of all me) is arguing that humans don't suffer, or even that there is a single human in whom suffering is not present (perhaps there is, or perhaps there isn't, I really don't know). The point is that animals suffer too, and that only a warped view of either animals or suffering denies that. But of course you are smart enough to know that this is the point, so the question becomes: why the distraction and derailing, my good man?

No, I mean that with each and every instance of suffering you are able to show me, I'll show you the human, the homo dukkha involved. He's defined by his suffering. And of course I'm not talking about pain as such. This is about philosophy, not medicine.

Oh dear. So, when animals suffer, they are human? Yep, that's about as warped as it gets, dude.

Well, sure, it's no secret that you, too, suffer. You hide it very well, but then there are a lot of things that you hide, or, perhaps, more kindly, "prefer not to discuss" - as, of course, is your right, but then, on a forum dedicated to the ruthless pursuit of truth regardless of the cost to ego, one might question your choice.

Did I deny being human somewhere?

Nope, and I haven't claimed that you did, only that you "keep yourself to yourself" in certain respects on this forum.

Actually I've been surprisingly transparant really.

Not really. There's a lot that you don't reveal. I know that this is your policy, and it's totally within your rights, only a little out of sync with the forum ethos (which you, unlike myself, seem to support wholeheartedly).

[SeekerOfWisdom]

but whatever causes compassion for animals is good in my book. :-)

How about, whenever you mention compassion for animals, I will step on an ant. (That's a promise) How does that make you feel Laird? Or are we talking only about the suffering of larger or more intelligent beings?... I could shoot down some rabbits.

[guest_of_logic]

John, how about I point out your self-centred intellectual vacuity? Pye has you pegged: you would be a totally different animal without the privileges afforded to you by the Australian government: an effectively free education and free income support. And you don't even recognise your hypocrisy: that you quite happily accept the compassion extended to you by the state, yet seek to deny compassion to others - animals in particular, but humans too, I am sure, given your self-obsessive nature. So, if you are to say to me that you will deliberately harm an innocent insect to spite me, and go so far as to make it a promise, then I will simply point out that your so-called "enlightenment" is an utter charade, a sham, a fraud, bullshit, and that in actual fact you evidence traits of both narcissism and psychopathy. On what basis have you decided that it is OK to harm other creatures, when *you yourself* seek to avoid harm? You know that this is true, that there is no way that you would put yourself in harm's way, or accept it if someone else put you in harm's way for no good reason, yet you will inflict this fate on others. Truly, you are a warped and selfish individual. I have no respect for you.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

No, I mean that with each and every instance of suffering you are able to show me, I'll show you the human, the homo dukkha involved. He's defined by his suffering. And of course I'm not talking about pain as such. This is about philosophy, not medicine.

Oh dear. So, when animals suffer, they are human? Yep, that's about as warped as it gets, dude.

No I clearly said animals do not experience dukkha. Feeling pain or sadness is not the same as suffering unless you really want to define it like that (and turn it into discussing medicine). For example being the victim of cruelty is a human perception. Then that's where the suffering occurs and needs to be addressed.

Not really. There's a lot that you don't reveal. I know that this is your policy, and it's totally within your rights, only a little out of sync with the forum ethos (which you, unlike myself, seem to support wholeheartedly).

Says the one hiding behind nicknames. The only thing I protect is the basic privacy of myself and others, out of courtesy. And I make judgment calls on what is relevant to share. Anything I told you in private by the way is also on the forum in some fashion so I'm not sure where your information is coming from. Sounds extremely gossipy! You should email what you mean in case there's confusion over who wrote what to whom again.

[guest_of_logic]

No, I mean that with each and every instance of suffering you are able to show me, I'll show you the human, the homo dukkha involved. He's defined by his suffering. And of course I'm not talking about pain as such. This is about philosophy, not medicine.

Oh dear. So, when animals suffer, they are human? Yep, that's about as warped as it gets, dude.

No I clearly said animals do not experience dukkha. Feeling pain or sadness is not the same as suffering unless you really want to define it like that (and turn it into discussing medicine). For example being the victim of cruelty is a human perception. Then that's where the suffering occurs and needs to be addressed.

Then I can only repeat what I wrote initially: "either your understanding of animals is warped, or the way suffering is understood here is warped, or, most likely, both".

Not really. There's a lot that you don't reveal. I know that this is your policy, and it's totally within your rights, only a little out of sync with the forum ethos (which you, unlike myself, seem to support wholeheartedly).

Says the one hiding behind nicknames.

Oh, please. Do you really think that's fair? You know my history, you know that when I first started posting here, I posted under my (real) given name, and even went so far as to reveal my location (as Kevin's neighbour) in my very first post. It was only when I was unfairly excluded from this place that I began using a pseudonym, but I have never tried to hide my true identity since it was revealed. Every regular here knows my real name and my relationship to Kevin.

The only thing I protect is the basic privacy of myself and others, out of courtesy. And I make judgment calls on what is relevant to share. Anything I told you in private by the way is also on the forum in some fashion so I'm not sure where your information is coming from. Sounds extremely gossipy!

Gossip, blah. The point is this: this forum is supposedly about obliterating ego through dedication to truth. What better way to obliterate ego than to have *everything* about yourself revealed and held up to scrutiny? Every decision that you make, every particular of your life. Or is that too scary? See, it's easy for me to answer that: I don't trust the judgement of many people here, and wouldn't be willing to put myself in that position. But what's your answer? You are one of the main supporters of this forum, I don't see how you can deny that complete dedication to the goals of the forum would entail that level of self-revelation, honesty and transparency.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Then I can only repeat what I wrote initially: "either your understanding of animals is warped, or the way suffering is understood here is warped, or, most likely, both".

Feel free to supply any reason as why you feel it's warped. In the context of this thread and the Buddhist traditions it discusses you seem to be the one using warped self-serving ideas, not me. I'm pretty mainstream with this actually.

Oh, please. Do you really think that's fair? You know my history, you know that when I first started posting here, I posted under my (real) given name, and even went so far as to reveal my location (as Kevin's neighbour) in my very first post. It was only when I was unfairly excluded from this place that I began using a pseudonym, but I have never tried to hide my true identity since it was revealed. Every regular here knows my real name and my relationship to Kevin.

You assume too much here, one assumption after the other. And why did you sign up as someone else then? The point is that right now the connection is not obvious and that's a big difference in the age were people, frauds or trolls are mining information through the web. At least to me it makes a difference but some days I do not care that much.

What better way to obliterate ego than to have *everything* about yourself revealed and held up to scrutiny? Every decision that you make, every particular of your life.

Wow how boring that would be! How exhibitionist that proposal sounds as if the ego wouldn't love that attention and confirmation even when it would be negative! But nobody is communicating the minutes of their lives on this forum. Absolutely nobody! And I still think you're dishonest to imply you "know" something important about me that I haven't shared here already. If you do think you know something you have been listening to the wrong whispers or someone impersonating me. There are no big decisions, no big issues to reveal. Sorry.

[guest_of_logic]

Then I can only repeat what I wrote initially: "either your understanding of animals is warped, or the way suffering is understood here is warped, or, most likely, both".

Feel free to supply any reason as why you feel it's warped. In the context of this thread and the Buddhist traditions it discusses you seem to be the one using warped self-serving ideas, not me. I'm pretty mainstream with this actually.

Buddhism concerns itself with compassion for all life, including animal life - why be compassionate for something that cannot suffer? It makes no sense. No, sorry, you're not mainstream at all. As for why it's warped, you only have to observe animals fairly to recognise that they are capable of suffering in the same way that humans are. If you haven't made that observation yet, then perhaps you simply haven't spent enough time with animals.

You assume too much here, one assumption after the other.

Oh. What is it that I'm assuming?

And why did you sign up as someone else then?

Surely that's obvious? Anonymity was the only way to avoid being banned again.

What better way to obliterate ego than to have *everything* about yourself revealed and held up to scrutiny? Every decision that you make, every particular of your life.

Wow how boring that would be! How exhibitionist that proposal sounds!

Or perhaps you're just afraid for people to know who you really are, to take ego destruction to the next level.

Nobody is communicating the minutes of their lives on this forum. Absolutely nobody!

Not every detail, sure, but some reveal more than others. For example, we know that Pye lectures philosophy at an American university. We know that Dennis owns a puppy, and once had a girlfriend with whom he negotiated intercourse by putting out objects in a shared space. We know that Tomas has native Indian heritage, is devoted to his partner, and has several grandchildren. We know that Pam has a partner and children. What, along these lines, do we know about you? Nothing that I can think of, other than that you are Dutch - hardly a revelation, given your name.

And I still think you're dishonest to imply you "know" something important about me that I haven't shared here already. If you do think you know something you have been listening to the wrong whispers or someone impersonating me. There are no big decisions, no big issues to reveal. Sorry.

You misunderstand me. I wasn't implying that I know any more about you than anybody else, simply that you don't reveal details about yourself along the lines of those I listed above. You don't reveal the real you inasmuch as the life choices a person makes are real; you keep everybody at a distance in that sense. Is it a certain sense of fear or insecurity? As Leyla remarked in another thread, you seem to want to be right all the time - that points, perhaps, to certain issues. A man who is afraid of being wrong, or who is insecure about it, will be afraid to reveal aspects of himself that might be judged as wrong. As I said, it's your choice and your right, which doesn't mean that I won't analyse it. But perhaps I have gone a little too far in this, and this ought to have been a PM. Apologies if I have overstepped a boundary.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

John, how about I point out your self-centred intellectual vacuity? Pye has you pegged: you would be a totally different animal without the privileges afforded to you by the Australian government: an effectively free education and free income support. And you don't even recognise your hypocrisy: that you quite happily accept the compassion extended to you by the state, yet seek to deny compassion to others - animals in particular, but humans too, I am sure, given your self-obsessive nature. So, if you are to say to me that you will deliberately harm an innocent insect to spite me, and go so far as to make it a promise, then I will simply point out that your so-called "enlightenment" is an utter charade, a sham, a fraud, bullshit, and that in actual fact you evidence traits of both narcissism and psychopathy. On what basis have you decided that it is OK to harm other creatures, when *you yourself* seek to avoid harm? You know that this is true, that there is no way that you would put yourself in harm's way, or accept it if someone else put you in harm's way for no good reason, yet you will inflict this fate on others. Truly, you are a warped and selfish individual. I have no respect for you.

Lol, even I didn't expect such an extreme reaction to the threat of hurting an "innocent" ant. You've got serious issues Laird! Get some help, your emotions are running rampant, clearly.

First you don't know what enlightenment is, then it doesn't exist (even though you don't know what it is your saying doesn't exist), and now people that hurt innocent insects don't 'have' this thing that doesn't exist!

Not to mention making up stories about the state's income support, wtf? who ever said anything about money from the government? (Did you misread something in the past or are you just hell-bent on accusing people you don't know of things you have fantasized?)

Excuse the sloppyness, I've been missing a few things, I'm a bit tired from all my ant-hunting.

[guest_of_logic]

John, you're quite simply callous: the issues are entirely yours. You fancy yourself enlightened yet you clearly care nothing for the suffering of any creature other than yourself. That's not enlightenment. Emotion is appropriate in the face of gratuitous cruelty. I'm sure you too would feel emotion were the cruelty to be inflicted upon yourself.

If you are not on government welfare then I must be misremembering. Feel free to divulge your actual source of income. I seem to recall that you do not work for a living - is that at least correct?