【赛斯如是说】谈动物意识

看到你们的咪子滑稽的动作，给了我一个借口开始今晚的话题：动物意识。

首先，我只想让你们质疑一些被视为理所当然的观念。

把人类永远看作是大自然的掠夺者，看作大自然家庭中具有破坏性的一员，甚或认为人是与大自然分离的，大自然只是赐予人类的生活场所——这多少是一种时髦的看法。

把人视为一种将自己的窝弄脏的生物，这多少是时髦的。在这一点上，我并不姑息人类的诸多行为。然而，这里面存在着其它问题，而且是很少被人提及的问题。你们忽略了这样一个事实：动物的整体意识有自己的目的和意图。诚然，动物在最残酷的情况下被屠宰以供人食用——因为那时候它们只被当作食物来对待。

野牛不再像从前那样四处漫步。可是，自有文明以来，有成千上万的农场动物活了一段时间，被好好照顾了一段时间——这些动物若非人类对肉食“贪婪”的胃口，通常是不会存在的。人们往往以那种方式思考问题，却很少想到某些种类的动物意识是出于自愿进入物质形体的，某些物种是被人类珍视并受到保护的；也很少想到这些动物的意识与这样一种整体安排有什么关系。

你不能说这些动物在这项交易里占了便宜，但你可以说，人类和某些动物种类共同促成了一种安排……那的确对双方都有利。人类比他所认识到的更是大自然的一部分，而在更大的活动领域里，如果自然界其他成员由于自身原因不同意人类采取某些行动，人类也无能为力。

请记住我给过的其它资料，诸如细胞的沟通，以及联结所有物种的巨大互通网络。动物当然能与人类沟通。而人类当然也能与其它物种——与所有物种沟通。这种沟通一直在进行。在这一点上，如果对这种沟通变得觉察的话，人会承受不起，只因为你们的整个文化是基于动物处于“天然”附属地位的观念。屠宰动物的人无法承受将那些动物视为活生生意识的拥有者。

在这一切背后，有一种重要的一体化，一种交融感，因为地球生命意识的一部分死去了，为了确保整个自然界生命的延续。然而，当这礼物被如此地误解，而捐献者被如此恶劣地对待时，这大自然的圣餐之礼就完全变质了。

基本上，许多农夫自己很喜欢动物，喜欢它们本来的样子——但“喜欢动物”这事本身并不怎么有男子气概。因此，在你们的社会里，如果你喜欢动物，你必须找一个喜欢的理由，而不是纯粹喜欢它们本身。如果你想跟动物在一块儿，那么你必须成为农夫、兽医、牧牛人或别的什么……

许多动物享受工作和目标。它们喜欢跟人一起工作。马喜欢它们对人类世界的贡献。马对骑手的了解远远超过骑手对马的了解。许多狗喜欢做家庭的保护者。人类与许多动物种类之间有深厚的情感纽带，有情绪反应。举例说，海豚对人类世界有情感上的反应；农场里的动物对农夫的生活以及他每个家庭成员生活的整体心理内容，都有情感上的觉察……

意识充满了丰富的内容——任何一种意识都是。以某种方式，农夫的动物们明白他是个接生员，对它们的生育负有一些责任；明白食物出自他手。动物们自己明白，任何物质的生命都会死亡——而物质的资产必须回归它们所来自的大地……

动物不会因为任何事责怪人类。如果作为一个物种，你们真的发现自己在与动物交流的话，那么你们将会有一种全然不同的文化，这种文化的确会带来一种最深刻的意识变革。

你们随随便便地忘记了自己从所有动物身上学到了多少，正如我在以往的课程里提过的。你们从观察动物的行为中认识了很多药：你们学会了要避免什么植物，种植什么植物；你们学会了浸入水中来除掉虱子；你们通过观察动物学会了社交行为。你们一度能与动物产生共鸣，甚至达到了惊人的程度，而它们也一样。动物曾是你们的老师，虽然它们并没有选择你们的路。显然，如果没有动物，你们这个物种不可能变成现在的样子。

被饲养的动物选择这样一种状态有它们自己的理由。举例说，你们认为你们的猫理想上应该在旷野奔跑，因为那是在野外的猫族会做的事——这种想法是很常见的。

从时间的角度说，野生的猫那时是在探索一种自然。在那种自然里，在环境中自然孕育的种群数量将会比现有的少得多，而你们的猫也不会存在。那么当一只家猫更喜欢精制的猫粮罐头，而不是老鼠或蚱蜢时，为什么那看起来是反自然的，甚至有一点变态？家猫是在探索一种不同的自然，在这种自然中，它与人类意识有着某种关系，这种关系改变了猫这种意识的实相。

你们的猫在屋子里，在各个方面就与在外面一样的生气勃勃。它们了解自己与你们人类实相的关系。它们喜欢对你们的生活有所贡献，就像任何野生动物喜欢作为群体的一部分一样。它们的意识偏向一个新的方向，去摸索概念的边缘，去感受一种不同的意识开口，去形成与任何其它意识联盟同样自然的意识联盟。

——摘译自赛斯《梦、进化与价值完成》

Observing the antics of your Mitzi gives me an excuse to begin the topic of the evening: animal consciousness.

I want to begin simply by having you question some concepts taken quite for granted—to question much.

It is somewhat fashionable to see man as always nature's despoiler, as the destructive member of nature's family, or even to consider him apart from nature, who was given nature as his living grounds.

It is somewhat fashionable to see man as . . . the creature who dirties his own nest, and I am not condoning much of man's behavior in that regard.However, there are other issues, and questions seldom asked. You ignore the fact that overall the consciousness of animals has its own purposes and intents. It is true that animals are slaughtered under the most cruel of circumstances for human consumption—for then they are treated simply as foodstuff.

Buffaloes do not roam as they did before. There are thousands of farm-bred animals, however, all throughout civilization, alive for a time, well-cared-for for a time —animals who in usual terms would not exist except for man's "gluttonous" appetite for meat. That is the way the issue is often considered. It seldom occurs to anyone that certain forms of animal consciousness came in physical form by choice, that certain species are prized by man and protected, or that the consciousnesses of such animals had anything at all to do with such an overall arrangement.

You cannot say that such animals came out ahead of the bargain, but you can say that the species of man and certain species of animals together formed an arrangement. . . that did have benefits for both. Man is more a part of nature than he realizes, and in the greater realm of activity he cannot take any actions with which the rest of nature does not agree for its own reasons.

Remember here other material given about cellular communication, for example, and the vast web of intercommunication that unites all species. Of course animals can communicate with man, and of course man can communicate with other species— with all species. Such communication has always gone on. Man cannot afford to become aware of such communication at this point, simply because your entire culture is based upon the idea of the animals' "natural" subordinate position. The men who slaughter animals cannot afford to treat those animals as possessors of living consciousnesses.

There is, beneath it all, an important unity, a sense of communion, as one portion of earth's living consciousness dies to insure the continued life of all nature. That natural sacrament, however, turns into something else entirely when the gift is so misunderstood, and when the donor is treated so poorly. . . .

Basically many farmers love animals for themselves, and delight in their ways—but by itself "delighting in animals" is not considered particularly virile enough. In your society, if you like animals you must not like them for themselves, but for other reasons. If you want to be with animals then you must become a farmer, or a veterinarian, or a cattleman, or whatever. . . .

Many animals enjoy work and purpose. They enjoy working with man. Horses enjoyed the contributions they made to man's world. They understood their riders far more than their riders understood them. Many dogs enjoy being family protectors. There are deep emotional bonds between men and many species of animals. There is emotional response. Dolphins, for example, respond emotionally to man's world. The animals on a farm are emotionally aware of the overall psychological content of the farmer's life and that of each member of his family. . . .

Consciousness is filled with content—any kind of consciousness. The farmer's animals understand that in a certain fashion he is a midwife, responsible for some of their births. Food comes from his hands. The animals understand, on their own, that life on any terms that are physical ends with death—that the physical properties must be returned to the earth from which they came. . . .

Animals do not blame human beings for anything. If as a species you really found yourselves communicating with the animals, you would have an entirely different culture, a culture that would indeed bring about an alteration of consciousness of the most profound nature.

You have forgotten, conveniently, how much you learned from all of the animals, as I have mentioned in past sessions. You learned a good deal of medicine from watching animal behavior: You learned what plants to avoid, and which to cultivate. You learned how to rid yourself of lice by going into the water. You learned social behavior by watching the animals. At one time you could identify with animals, and they with you to a remarkable degree. They have been your teachers, though they did not choose your path. Obviously, you could not have gone your way as a species had it not been for the animals.

Domesticated animals have their own reasons for choosing such a state. It is, for example, usual enough to think that your cats should ideally run outside in the open, because in the wild that is what cats would do.

Cats in the wild were, in those terms of time, exploring one kind of nature. In that kind of nature, with a natural population taken care of in the environment, there would be far fewer cats than there are now. Your cats would not exist. Why does it seem antinatural, even slightly perverse, for a household cat to, say, prefer fine cat food from a can, when it seems that he should be eating mice, perhaps, or dining upon grasshoppers? The household cat is exploring a different kind of nature, in which he has a certain relationship to human consciousness, a relationship that changes the reality of his particular kind of consciousness.

Your cats are as alive in all ways inside of the house as out.They understand their relationship with your human reality. They enjoy contributing in your life as much as any wild animal enjoys being a part of its group. Their consciousnesses lean in a new direction, feel about the edges of concepts，sense openings of awareness of a different kind, and form alliances of consciousness quite as natural as any other.

编译： /          美编：

---------------------------------------------------------------------------