I have read a few books that seem to imply that dogs are devolving creatures (as in, they were at one point incarnated as humans but are now in the process of devolution) and in other places it is written that is not particularly the case. Could you please clarify? Thank you!
Accepted Answer
First, one must not confuse the developmental arc of physical bodies with the development of souls. Physical bodies evolve or devolve according to karma and other influences. The consciousness that inhabits those bodies is different; it enters into different bodies through its development. Therefore, physically, the bodies of dogs have been changing for thousands of years. Through that time, many different sorts of beings have lived in those bodies. One thing is the suit of flesh, and another is the consciousness inside of it. There is no "dog consciousness." There is a dog body, but the consciousness inside of it is different.
Understanding that, one can then understand that at this time, some of those "dog suits" house conscious sparks of the animal kingdom. We call them dogs by their appearance, but the souls in those bodies have been many other animals, too, so they are not really "dogs." RIght now they are, but they are beings like any other: working at their level, on their way to other forms. Other "dog suits" (probably many more) house the egos of the intellectual animals, as a way for those egos to be managed by karma. Oftentimes, a dog is merely a suit being worn by one of it's owner's egos. This is why they are so close, and have such interesting relationships (and can even look the same, because they are from the same person). So, considering that the entity in that dog suit is an ego, that entity in the suit is definitely devolving. This happens with many types of animals, not just dogs.
Are dog bodies devolving? Clearly, since human beings have fully corrupted the natural development of many of the dog bodies through selective breeding, they are growing weaker, sicker, and less suited to survive without our help. That sounds like devolution to me: a descent into decrepitude. Naturally, this not true of every dog on the planet, just as not every humanoid on the planet is devolving. Some are evolving.
Understanding that, one can then understand that at this time, some of those "dog suits" house conscious sparks of the animal kingdom. We call them dogs by their appearance, but the souls in those bodies have been many other animals, too, so they are not really "dogs." RIght now they are, but they are beings like any other: working at their level, on their way to other forms. Other "dog suits" (probably many more) house the egos of the intellectual animals, as a way for those egos to be managed by karma. Oftentimes, a dog is merely a suit being worn by one of it's owner's egos. This is why they are so close, and have such interesting relationships (and can even look the same, because they are from the same person). So, considering that the entity in that dog suit is an ego, that entity in the suit is definitely devolving. This happens with many types of animals, not just dogs.
Are dog bodies devolving? Clearly, since human beings have fully corrupted the natural development of many of the dog bodies through selective breeding, they are growing weaker, sicker, and less suited to survive without our help. That sounds like devolution to me: a descent into decrepitude. Naturally, this not true of every dog on the planet, just as not every humanoid on the planet is devolving. Some are evolving.
"Do not worry; cultivate the habit of being happy." - Samael Aun Weor
Accepted Answer
First, one must not confuse the developmental arc of physical bodies with the development of souls. Physical bodies evolve or devolve according to karma and other influences. The consciousness that inhabits those bodies is different; it enters into different bodies through its development. Therefore, physically, the bodies of dogs have been changing for thousands of years. Through that time, many different sorts of beings have lived in those bodies. One thing is the suit of flesh, and another is the consciousness inside of it. There is no "dog consciousness." There is a dog body, but the consciousness inside of it is different.
Understanding that, one can then understand that at this time, some of those "dog suits" house conscious sparks of the animal kingdom. We call them dogs by their appearance, but the souls in those bodies have been many other animals, too, so they are not really "dogs." RIght now they are, but they are beings like any other: working at their level, on their way to other forms. Other "dog suits" (probably many more) house the egos of the intellectual animals, as a way for those egos to be managed by karma. Oftentimes, a dog is merely a suit being worn by one of it's owner's egos. This is why they are so close, and have such interesting relationships (and can even look the same, because they are from the same person). So, considering that the entity in that dog suit is an ego, that entity in the suit is definitely devolving. This happens with many types of animals, not just dogs.
Are dog bodies devolving? Clearly, since human beings have fully corrupted the natural development of many of the dog bodies through selective breeding, they are growing weaker, sicker, and less suited to survive without our help. That sounds like devolution to me: a descent into decrepitude. Naturally, this not true of every dog on the planet, just as not every humanoid on the planet is devolving. Some are evolving.
Understanding that, one can then understand that at this time, some of those "dog suits" house conscious sparks of the animal kingdom. We call them dogs by their appearance, but the souls in those bodies have been many other animals, too, so they are not really "dogs." RIght now they are, but they are beings like any other: working at their level, on their way to other forms. Other "dog suits" (probably many more) house the egos of the intellectual animals, as a way for those egos to be managed by karma. Oftentimes, a dog is merely a suit being worn by one of it's owner's egos. This is why they are so close, and have such interesting relationships (and can even look the same, because they are from the same person). So, considering that the entity in that dog suit is an ego, that entity in the suit is definitely devolving. This happens with many types of animals, not just dogs.
Are dog bodies devolving? Clearly, since human beings have fully corrupted the natural development of many of the dog bodies through selective breeding, they are growing weaker, sicker, and less suited to survive without our help. That sounds like devolution to me: a descent into decrepitude. Naturally, this not true of every dog on the planet, just as not every humanoid on the planet is devolving. Some are evolving.
"Do not worry; cultivate the habit of being happy." - Samael Aun Weor
Thanks for this most interesting reply Alexis.
Is service to the canine kingdom therefore as effective as rendering service to humanity in as far as our own development is concerned ???
Is service to the canine kingdom therefore as effective as rendering service to humanity in as far as our own development is concerned ???
How does an owner's ego get into one of their pets?
Does the owner still possess the ego? If so, how is that ego present in two different beings at once?
If the ego is solely passed on and does not exist it two beings at once, it seems unfair to me that the being who inherited the ego has to deal with the karma that ego generates, and the being that passed on the ego..just gets to..I don't know..Have less karma be generated because they possess one less ego?
My confusion about this extends to the egos that one passes on to their descendants, about which I would ask the same question.
Does the owner still possess the ego? If so, how is that ego present in two different beings at once?
If the ego is solely passed on and does not exist it two beings at once, it seems unfair to me that the being who inherited the ego has to deal with the karma that ego generates, and the being that passed on the ego..just gets to..I don't know..Have less karma be generated because they possess one less ego?
My confusion about this extends to the egos that one passes on to their descendants, about which I would ask the same question.
Thanks for this most interesting reply Alexis.
Is service to the canine kingdom therefore as effective as rendering service to humanity in as far as our own development is concerned ???
No form of sacrifice is nearly as important or rewarding as helping the humanoid kingdom.
"Do not worry; cultivate the habit of being happy." - Samael Aun Weor
How does an owner's ego get into one of their pets?
Does the owner still possess the ego? If so, how is that ego present in two different beings at once?
If the ego is solely passed on and does not exist it two beings at once, it seems unfair to me that the being who inherited the ego has to deal with the karma that ego generates, and the being that passed on the ego..just gets to..I don't know..Have less karma be generated because they possess one less ego?
We are not individuals. We are a psychological multiplicity. The consciousness is not integrated as one, but is divided into innumerable defects, which are dispersed, drifting, chaotic. Thus, we are not "one being," but are divided up into many conflicting desires, interests, impulses, etc. They are in our "body" (and potential field of awareness) only when they are fighting to control it or are drawn in by recurrence or conditions that attract them. Otherwise they are in psychological space, and can therefore incarnate in other bodies (like animals). Each ego is a product of your actions and traps your consciousness within it. Thus, no matter where your ego is or what it is doing, it remains your responsibility. This has nothing to do with "fairness," but is simply how nature works.
"Do not worry; cultivate the habit of being happy." - Samael Aun Weor
I never thought of our various egos as being part of the collective psychological space. (If I am understanding you correctly.)
If a portion of our consciousness is trapped in a psychological aggregate however, and that aggregate is incarnated into another entity, does that not mean that a portion of our consciousness is also then trapped within that entity?
Wouldn't that mean that the consciousness, essence, or soul, is collective on some level as well?
Please know that I am not trying to be obtuse or challenge your answer, I am just trying to understand.
If a portion of our consciousness is trapped in a psychological aggregate however, and that aggregate is incarnated into another entity, does that not mean that a portion of our consciousness is also then trapped within that entity?
Wouldn't that mean that the consciousness, essence, or soul, is collective on some level as well?
Please know that I am not trying to be obtuse or challenge your answer, I am just trying to understand.
The humanoid, in regards to his internal state, is a psychological multiplicity, a sum of “I’s.”... Indeed, the humanoid does not have a permanent “I,” but instead he has a multitude of different infra-human and absurd “I’s.” The wretched intellectual animal mistakenly called a human being is similar to a house in disorder where instead of one lord, there are many servants who always want to command and to perform their own whims..
Indeed, we are not individuals. Our idea of "individual identity" is illusory. To become a genuine individual is a great spiritual accomplishment. The quoted book explains.
"Do not worry; cultivate the habit of being happy." - Samael Aun Weor
- Page :
- 1
There are no replies made for this post yet.
Books
-
Books for Prisons