P-Exactly. What do you think, not the victim of an animal slaughtered, the choice not to eat animals?
R-Well, first there are a thousand different types of slaughter. Leaving a dog in the street after he has lived all his life with humans is to let the slaughter, For example, phagocytosis by a society of 'disposable'.
To be more specific in your question, in fact, every choice dictated by the love and good hearts of people is a choice to be admired. If you humans can live happily without meat, so how can we, dogs, and you can choose not to eat meat, because eating them then? I personally still do not understand the difference between animal "edible" and not part of a cultural heritage, different in every society, but if anyone wants to see something in this then drop in absolute error, classification, form hierarchies, falls in anthropocentric model of which we talked about before, that man at the center and everything else that revolves around: we naturally gravitate to the dogs that orbit very close, so-called beasts of slaughter a bit 'more distant, more distant insects ..
By this I understand a human being who hunt to survive, who hunt to feed himself and his family, but your society is so complex that such simple models no longer exist. It 's time that we understand the equality of all animals, equality between us animals and the animal man, between man and every single thing on earth. I think this may be changing.
I'm hungry, among other things, and I think that after this interview an automatic right to me at least a biscuit ..
-P That's for sure. But I ask you be patient. Touch the last big argument: do you believe in God?
R-waiting for something. With all due respect to you men, I do not understand what you mean by the word God but threw out a few assumptions.
is not enough perhaps this wonderful world, but also the small things every day, and the loving, and simple with this term I mean truly appreciate every detail of the world, rejoice and be happy? Perhaps none of this would be a good God? Be careful not to be the work of a good God, but actually be something that can call itself God?
I think the idea of \u200b\u200bGod as something higher than man himself is a child and all of the model that I have criticized before, and I take again for the umpteenth time: the man at the center, everything else around him, in strict hierarchy. But the man soon realizes that it is not omnipotent, that has as many resources can not everything, and then used to classify, precisely to prioritize, create something on him, but something that has no limits, something to adore and to fear. Instead of trying to make everything equal, urging the importance of creating stairs and ladders. Not only
. The man creates everything, you create a complex world around him, a world with more and more things. It's not just him, man, but also because it has a name, a job, a social position, a nice house, a car power. We dogs have nothing, nothing but ourselves, or we can not just have the love of those around us, and we give without expecting anything in return. But in reality what you really own men, what have you that you can not ever lose yourself if you do not?
What I mean is that the more things you have, the more I would like to carry with you after death. And I do not speak only of material goods. Act in a certain way, even socially constructive, for many men is a duty to acquire a privileged position even after his death, not simply the best way to act to ensure that the highest possible number of beings can experience a happy life already here, already in the present.
The act providing for a lifetime, acting to achieve something in this life leads us to believe that this is the attitude with regard to the death of one who stands above even death itself, which gives its name Such conduct of God is just a typical expression of greed, a typically human.
P-Greed, yes, another big issue to talk about. R-
This problem typically human, of course, we eat when hungry, eager for food, how nice to eat! But once I'm done I'm happy, I want nothing. But ye loaded, loaded with things around you, with what results then? Fear, hatred, frustration ..
P-So you think you are saying you do not believe in a creator? Or something after death?
R-No, I would say that the need to even look for a creator is typically human.
Why should I make the difference between creation and creator? Why? Can not be the same? All this can not simply just exist? It is already so wonderful? That whatever may happen after death. At the bottom everything has a beginning and an end, and the man does not seem to accept. You just see the difference in accepting the pain of a man and a dog. A dog is suffering silently in a corner, accepts suffering as a natural condition, inevitable, and also accepts the order without raising his voice.
P-this is very interesting idea. One last thing about the speech religion: many of your ideas are close to some Buddhist ideas, I emphasize to the person who loves to study and groped to practice Buddhism. As you may not know some Buddhist schools maintain the possibility of reincarnation after death, and also the transition between species, is reincarnated as a dog man and vice versa. Do you like how your mind?
R (wagging) - Well, now a bit 'hunger and reflect on these complex subjects I know a little' difficult. I also think, wondering why now? Maybe yes, something we will be preserved after death, and comes back to life .. Maybe just something .. The fact is that if I were reincarnated man I'd like to keep some of the dog that are ..
The fact is that the basis of this idea there is always a concept of absolute time: we are born, we die, we reincarnate, re-die, and while the weather continues to go from a beginning to an end. As I mentioned this incredible need of a beginning and an end and the fear associated with the same end, it is typically human. And if the idea dying trascendessimo time? If there were more than a before and an after, a beginning and an end?
I leave you with this question.
P-Have you been too patient and kind, now is the time to snack.
R-Whew!
(and gallops to his bowl)
paulo
