Hutch said:
I think it is safe to assume that the whole rebirth thing never happened to King Bharata. For starters, deers can't talk, so how could he relay his story of being born as a deer to any humans so that they can tell his story?
Who said he relayed his story?
Hutch said:
Ah, my terminology was wrong there. I meant that yes, we are indeed smarter than animals. So what?
Ok. My point is simply that we should utilize our intelligence and not waste it polishing the animal propensities. A dog sleeps on the ground and man thinks he is advanced because he sleeps on a soft bed. The sleeping business is the same. The tiger defends itself with teeth and claws and the man thinks he is advanced because he has bombs and missiles. The defending business is the same. So these are not advancements. We should utilize our intelligence for understanding what is self, what is Absolute, and the relationship between the two. That capacity is what makes the human species unique. We shouldn't waste it.
Hutch said:
I've thought about that paragraph, and it appears as though we have ourselves a little contradiction here. You're not better than a monkey or blade of grass yet you are a 'knower of the field of activities' and they are not. It seems as though you think you are better than both monkey and blade of grass!
Incorrect. The field of activities and the knower of the field of activities simply refers to the body and the soul, respectively. All living beings are spiritual souls. My point in that paragraph is that although on the material platform one living organism is more developed in consciousness and intelligence than another, all living entities are constitutionally equal. In other words, each soul is of the same calibur. We understand that there is no difference between a man, an elephant, an ant, a tree, etc.
Bhagavad-Gita As It Is 5.18
VERSE
The humble sage, by virtue of true knowledge, sees with equal vision a learned and gentle brahmana, a cow, an elephant, a dog and a dog-eater [outcaste].
PURPORT
A Krsna conscious person does not make any distinction between species or castes. The brahmana and the outcaste may be different from the social point of view, or a dog, a cow, or an elephant may be different from the point of view of species, but these differences of body are meaningless from the viewpoint of a learned transcendentalist. This is due to their relationship to the Supreme, for the Supreme Lord, by His plenary portion as Paramatma, is present in everyone's heart. Such an understanding of the Supreme is real knowledge. As far as the bodies are concerned in different castes or different species of life, the Lord is equally kind to everyone because He treats every living being as a friend yet maintains Himself as Paramatma regardless of the circumstances of the living entities. The Lord as Paramatma is present both in the outcaste and in the brahmana, although the body of a brahmana and that of an outcaste are not the same. The bodies are material productions of different modes of material nature, but the soul and the Supersoul within the body are of the same spiritual quality. The similarity in the quality of the soul and the Supersoul, however, does not make them equal in quantity, for the individual soul is present only in that particular body whereas the Paramatma is present in each and every body. A Krsna conscious person has full knowledge of this, and therefore he is truly learned and has equal vision. The similar characteristics of the soul and Supersoul are that they are both conscious, eternal and blissful. But the difference is that the individual soul is conscious within the limited jurisdiction of the body, whereas the Supersoul is conscious of all bodies. The Supersoul is present in all bodies without distinction.
http://www.asitis.com/5/18.html
Hutch said:
It is anthropocentric, and it does make a difference. If you had to choose between saving the life of a human or that of five gorillas, I'm sure you'd choose the human. Why? Because you believe humans to be more 'important', 'better' if you prefer, than gorillas.
By "saving the life" do you mean saving one's physical body from certain death (which will inevitably come anyway) or do you mean in the sense of transmitting knowledge of God? Who I save physically,
IF I decide to save any of them, is not so much important. On the other hand, the human is better qualified to understand God and be saved spiritually. But in your case, I would save the gorillas. I don't want you thinking that you're more 'important' or 'better' than them. I can probably even train the gorillas in devotional service. They are a rather capable species.
Hutch said:
If we were all equal and humans were not better than gorillas, then you'd have to consider the fact that there are over 6 billion humans alive on this Earth whilst there are only a few hundred gorillas. Add that on top of the 5:1 ratio of gorilla to human deaths and you'd have to be a retard to kill the gorillas over the human. What makes us better? Because we can understand God? Bull Shit.
We already agree that humans are more intelligent than other species. This is what constitutes them being "better". But like I said, these considerations are all material. The soul in the human body simply has a better facility than the soul in a gorilla body. That's all. You lament over death of the body as though this isn't a natural thing. So what if one saves 1 human over 5
hundred gorillas? Why lament?
Bhagavad-Gita As It Is 2.11
VERSE
The Blessed Lord said: While speaking learned words, you are mourning for what is not worthy of grief. Those who are wise lament neither for the living nor the dead.
PURPORT
The Lord at once took the position of the teacher and chastised the student, calling him, indirectly, a fool. The Lord said, "You are talking like a learned man, but you do not know that one who is learned--one who knows what is body and what is soul--does not lament for any stage of the body, neither in the living nor in the dead condition." As it will be explained in later chapters, it will be clear that knowledge means to know matter and spirit and the controller of both. Arjuna argued that religious principles should be given more importance than politics or sociology, but he did not know that knowledge of matter, soul and the Supreme is even more important than religious formularies. And, because he was lacking in that knowledge, he should not have posed himself as a very learned man. As he did not happen to be a very learned man, he was consequently lamenting for something which was unworthy of lamentation. The body is born and is destined to be vanquished today or tomorrow; therefore the body is not as important as the soul. One who knows this is actually learned, and for him there is no cause for lamentation, regardless of the condition of the material body.
http://www.asitis.com/2/11.html
Hutch said:
I am confident that animals are not intelligent enough to devise their own Gods and religious sytems and subsequently understand its spiritual nature. I believe that animals, due to their lower intelligence than humans, are happy living a physical life and don't need to rely on the concept of there being something 'more' in order for their life to be fulfilling.
If you truly believe that animals are happy then perhaps you will get a chance to enjoy that happiness. Otherwise, I say that animals are also suffering. Material happiness is nothing other than a counteraction to distress. We are being held under water and every once in a while, we are pulled out for a quick breath. That is the nature of our so-called happiness in this world.
