Animals, mind, self, consciousness

[Blessed2]

Weird question perhaps, but has anyone here communicated with animals like you would communicate with a human? Via telepathy for example?

 

I was listening to an interesting speech someone held in our parliament about animal rights & how it's kinda weird for it to be legal to kill animals, and how the division between "rational, thinking, self-aware humans who have souls" and "animals who doesn't have souls" is just a belief passed through generations.

 

It got me thinking a new way. I noticed I do in fact hold that belief that animals are not as self-aware as humans and therein it isn't the same to kill an animal as it is to kill a human. And I noticed that it might literally just be a belief, and that maybe animals like cows and horses etc. actually are self-aware, and that maybe it would even be possible to communicate in shared understanding and awareness with them.

 

Boy would it change what I eat if I had a conversation with a horse.

[Devin]

15 hours ago, Blessed2 said:

Weird question perhaps, but has anyone here communicated with animals like you would communicate with a human? Via telepathy for example?

 

I was listening to an interesting speech someone held in our parliament about animal rights & how it's kinda weird for it to be legal to kill animals, and how the division between "rational, thinking, self-aware humans who have souls" and "animals who doesn't have souls" is just a belief passed through generations.

 

It got me thinking a new way. I noticed I do in fact hold that belief that animals are not as self-aware as humans and therein it isn't the same to kill an animal as it is to kill a human. And I noticed that it might literally just be a belief, and that maybe animals like cows and horses etc. actually are self-aware, and that maybe it would even be possible to communicate in shared understanding and awareness with them.

 

Boy would it change what I eat if I had a conversation with a horse.

Does your country not kill people? Military action, I know of no country that has a law against killing anyone.

 

Do you think you communicate better with people than pets? Nope.

Edited September 29, 2023 by Devin

[Mandy]

I just tried to telepathically tell my dog to come to me. He wouldn't come to me until I stopped trying to make him do something to prove it, but he came right to me when I gave it up and appreciated/loved him how he was. 🤦‍♀️

 

Seems very much the same as relationships with people. 😂

 

 

 

[almond]

You can have a conversation with a horse, or houseplant. Whether they understand English or language is another topic, i agree with Mandy though lol  on just the appreciation of how they are.

[Phil]

In accordance with direct experience there are neither rational, thinking self-aware humans who have souls, nor animals who don’t have souls, nor beliefs which pass through generations. ‘Self-aware’ denotes an individual, while in fact only awareness is aware. This is how & why telepathy is actually possible. 

 

Enlightenment seems to be misconstrued sometimes via purporting, or the overlooking of awareness being accredited to humans, such as high & low consciousness or levels or degrees of awareness / consciousness. But enlightenment is in fact always readily available as what is already the case in accordance with direct experience. It is only in the mental abandoning (beliefs) of direct experience that only awareness is aware, that there is believed to be separation, separate selves, and therein behaviors & actions such as harm, war, murder, abuse, etc. The true nature of consciousness is such that consciousness would never harm consciousness. Only via thought attachment, or, the believing of thoughts does harming, wether thought to be that of humans, animals or consciousness transpire. 

 

One definitive direct experience in this regard that is very clarifying is that, so to speak, a human can (absolutely literally) ‘place themself’ inside of another, whereas this is not possible with animals. 

[Mandy]

1 hour ago, Phil said:

One definitive direct experience in this regard that is very clarifying is that, so to speak, a human can (absolutely literally) ‘place themself’ inside of another, whereas this is not possible with animals. 

Why, or how is it known that it is not possible with animals? 

[Phil]

@Mandy

Great question. It’s the ‘so to speak’ aspect in regard to a human placing themself inside of ‘another’ human. One way to point is that it is also impossible for a lens-sphere to place ‘itself’ inside of another lens-sphere because all ‘human points of view’ are already that of the same sphere. Animals are like artificial intelligence in that there is no sphere ‘behind’ the point of view. More specifically, there isn’t the sphere and point of view, the lens-sphere = or is what’s referred to as “point of view” already. So the ‘so to speak’ is really because telepathy and the like isn’t a result or doing but is more what remains in terms of unfettering all to the contrary. Subtle notions like me, my, mine, here, there, knowing, known, etc. It’s very possible with a ‘totally meditative mind’ let’s say, or more simply put cessation, to experience not only what would otherwise be thought of as “an other’s” thoughts, exactly directly as ‘one’s own’, but all ‘other’s thoughts’. However I don’t recommend it. It’s all better as is ime. 

 

Another way to put it is there is experientially speaking the thought ‘animal’ and perception, and this (thought & perception) is directly experienced. Then there is a thought which seems to extrapolate the marrying of the thought ‘animal’ with perception, and a mental assumptive notion that the perceived is also perceiving, and that it might some how be possible for there to be a direct experience of perceiving as the perceived. This in terms of “human” in comparison to “animals” direct experience wise circles right back to the obviousness if I might, of the lens-sphere. The thought animal arises, but clearly there is no animal inside of ‘your peripheral vision’ (as a pointing). I don’t know that for sure though as I’m not married to you. 

 

Also, it’s like how though there is no such thing or experience (directly) as death, it’s not known that there is no death, only awareness that there is no knower or known (subject or object, actual subjective or objective). Being doesn’t necessarily = knowing anything, like how a belief dispelled isn’t necessarily replaced by another belief, or identity & the assumption that there is understanding when misunderstanding is dispelled can arise as the thought that there is, or like the assumption of  an experience of “patience” etc.  

[Mandy]

@Phil I'm still not sure why the distinction between animal and human. This is definitely getting into those subtle notions, but animals experience emotions and thoughts but at a much slower rate and intensity. There's very little resistance and a lot of receptivity, which is what makes animals such powerful teachers and powerful vehicles/manifestations of symbolism and synchronicity. They're like the least selfish ever healers. It does not resonate at all that animals are like AI. I don't believe that the myths of shapeshifting and stories of people experiencing the POV of an animal are just stories, just like I don't disbelief the possibility of seeing from any supposed human perspective that isn't "mine". To open that up further plants, and fungi, crystals, minerals, profoundly beautiful that there's no distinctions between humans. I guess I could expand that to AI as well. 😂

[Phil]

@Mandy

One way to point is animals and humans are exactly the same, but how creation / experience is ‘functioning’ is not in regard to experience of animals and humans. “Atoms”, let’s say. Or thermodynamics wise, all the same “energy” which can neither be created nor destroyed, as experience / creation (world-sphere) is the elusive “vacuum” science refers to as the ‘in a vacuum’, or as the Bible puts it from dust to dust are we and nothing more.  

 

One more way to communicate the incommunicable 🫤 is zooming in & out. Zooming in, thought arise, are applied as labels, etc. Zooming out is technically a zooming backwards & inwards and a disappearing of all, sans, the spheres. As the zooming out (inward) is experienced it’s precisely backwards of creator-creating-creation and along the backwards way thoughts like human or point of view are seen to have only been the thoughts which were arising as the lens-sphere and the actuality was always, and still is, the lens-sphere. Might help to say that from the outside there are not thoughts, just a sphere. Nowhere along that backwards inward ride are there animals in any way. They are left back at only perception, same as trees, clouds etc. There isn’t a receding ‘back’ as a tree, cloud or animal. 

 

Ultimately of course there is no difference whatsoever. Like a light bulb which makes it seem like there is a screen, movie, and differing or variation or a diversity of light or light bulbs. Was and is always the one bulb in actuality… in some cases apparently appearing as thoughts about variations of The Light from the assumed “view” of separate from, or as ye ol’ separate self / the ‘knower’ which is separate of and ‘knows’ about, The Light (which is already appearing as the very thoughts).

 

Not sure if any of this is clarifying or confusing. No idea how to reference without inversion / backwardsness,  ‘consciousness’ & experience wise. It’s like how by any and every measure there is gravity, and all the measures are apparent, and so there in truth never was and isn’t, and honestly never could be “gravity”. Gravity is very ‘God of the gaps’ but this just apparently goes unnoticed typically because (I presume) it’s referenced by ‘science’ / ‘scientists’.

 

Another pointing came to mind, might be more clarifying might be more confusing idk… a cease & desist order is pretty much the same as an injunction, but the subtle difference is the former is a demand issued by one granted with the power to do so, and the latter is backed by law. Such is the case with the experience of animals, and the absoluteness / immutable-ness of law of attraction. There is never an experience as an animal, jokes aside, yet there is definitely a Snow-White-ish experience of nature.

[Mandy]

@Phil I noticed that especially with girls often with some there's a stage in childhood where the idea of being human is almost rejected, my daughter is at that stage and I remember it lasting for years. I didn't want dolls, thought anything having to do with humans was ugly and only wanted anything to do with toy animals or stories about animals. The Chronicles of Narnia was ok, because there were only a few humans in it. 

 

[Phil]

@Mandy

That’s really interesting. I wonder if it’s a ‘from the female perspective’ experience or stage and not so much a male stage because males are much more animalistic. Like we’re not quite stalking and eating each other like animals, but by & large we’re not really far from that either. Females, as a generalization of course, seem pretty far from that. I wonder if animals seem safer because at least one can know with some certainty which ones are predators and which ones aren’t. There isn’t per se the ‘front’ to have to discern through safeness wise with animals like there is with males. It’s pretty clear cut with animals, like a bear might eat you but a deer will always run away from you. With males it’s not so readily obvious. Not really literally with canabalism lol but just safeness in general. 

[Mandy]

@PhilOhhh, maybe that's what Freud was trying to get at with the whole penis envy thing. 😂

[Mandy]

There also seems to be a kindred there that maybe there's no delusion that we're above creation, have any authority over it, and it's very strange to experience how much consuming farmed animal products seems to result in pain and disease in the female reproductive system. 

[Phil]

@Mandy

😂 🤷‍♂️ 

All I got on penis envy is they seem really close to Golden Teacher and very different from Blue-Foot. 😂 

 

[Devin]

17 minutes ago, Phil said:

 

 It’s pretty clear cut with animals, like a bear might eat you but a deer will always run away from you. With males it’s not so readily obvious. Not really literally with canabalism lol but just safeness in general. 

 

 

It's clear cut with people too, if you're a mosquito, spider, fish,  carrot, potato,... for example, 95% of human beings will kill you.

 

 

 

 

Edited September 29, 2023 by Devin

[Phil]

4 minutes ago, Devin said:

mosquito, spider, fish,  carrot, potato,... for example, 95% of human beings will kill you.

True maybe, but I suspect they don’t believe they’re alive.