You'd think a few intimate moments connecting with nature would pop the illusion of heaven and hell; clearly there is no 'good' or 'evil' in nature. Thus, aren't these persistent notions of ours simply a symptom of some unique human characteristic – perhaps a result of how we tend to see life as 'black or white'? Certainly, white & black; heaven & hell; beautiful & ugly; good & bad;; on & off; etc., all correlate. We seem to be emotionally driven to these polar perceptions, with our thoughts tagging along for the ride. Why?

Is it not because emotions themselves are an 'on' or 'off' (Yang or Yin) biochemical phenomenon. The 'firing' neurons, through which our thoughts arise, are also either 'on' or 'off'. No wonder life can feel so 'yin yangee'. Simply put, our perception of difference, like 'heaven' (pleasure) and 'hell' (pain), is biological. It follows that sameness is mysterious only because 'it' points to a truth we have great difficulty feeling emotionally. Oh well, such is life... and death.

Lynn Cornish:

I remember wondering as a little girl why I was "alive" but a rock was not. I still don't know what makes something be alive. Do you?

What a marvelous(*) question! Let's consider it,... "why you are alive and the rock is not?". First, why do we assume a rock is not alive? Because we think our definition of 'alive' is true. This is essentially no different, for example, than when people believe their arbitrary definitions of human vs. subhuman (or animal). The whites did this vis-a-vis the slaves, Chinese vis-a-vis Europeans (red devils), 'the religious' vis-a-vis us heathens, etc. Moreover, many assume, through this same self serving point of view, that humans are conscious while the other animals are not. Why? Perhaps because animals do not speak? They are dumb.

You got it just right: "Perceiving difference has to do with survival". The more threatened we feel, the more insecure (fear) a person feels, the more narrowly he will draw the line between what is alive and not, or beautiful and not, or good and not, or justice and not, or well, ( you name it ). The definition is in the 'eye of the beholder'.

In the eye of this beholder everything, and nothing, is alive - depending on my mood of course! To paraphrase one of my favorite Tao Te Ching tid bits: The whole world recognizes alive as alive, yet this is only dead. By letting go of what we recognize as true opens our eyes to seeing how these two are the same, but diverge in name as they issue forth. I'm afraid words are insidiously misleading, except mine of course!

(*) I take your question to refer to issues beyond the scope of science, and biology in particular. Biology has its own criteria for what is alive. The actual life process is fairly easy to understand what with all the factual understanding we have today of DNA and cellular processes. Naturally, there is something dimly visible behind these, and all of Nature. I suppose that is the realm I'm toying with here.

Lynn Cornish:

A living cell is just a bunch of molecules, and so is a rock, but one is classified as alive (it moves, it reproduces). So what's the spark that makes it live?

The same spark that makes the rock live! Seriously. The "classification" is a reflection of our 'life centric' bias, and as with all bias, misleads. We draw a personal emotional distinction between what is 'alive' and what is not. The distinctions we draw reflect our needs and fears, not any 'reality out there'.

Hint: let go of your 'self' and become a rock. Seriously! Try first painting a particually 'cool' rock you see around there. Then, go on from there, and enjoy the journey...

How's that? Any better? Of course many folks would think I'm nuts...

Topher:

1) I actually would tend to agree with you but I would never say it aloud.

2) I think cruel people are spiritually sick but that is only a view point. I've got no proof.

3) I care how much suffering I inflict on animals I hunt.

4) he raised the hatchet and buried it in the toad and thought it was funny.

1)

2) When we're healthy (physically and emotionally) we feel happy. When we're "sick" we feel pained; when we're in pain we feel "sick". Inner pain manifests itself in various behaviors, one of which is "cruelty". Drug abuse would be another. "Cruelty" is just a symptom of pain.

I reckon Christ was driving at this with, "Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit... ...for the tree is known by his fruit."

3) Because in your mind, you are the animal. When it suffers, you suffer. A smaller brained animal can't 'become you' in its mind, so it will not 'feel' it when you suffer. Now, the question is, do you suffer when you swat the fly, or kill the ant? A mind that can 'become the fly' will. I guess it really has less to do with the size of the brain, than what that brain's mind feels connected to.

4) My brother would burn grasshoppers. Other kids would shoot birds for 'fun'. These actions are symptoms, re: #2 and #3 above.

But what causes the disconnection and the pain? I think our big brain's capacity for thought has much to do with our sense of disconnection. Genesis puts it about right: "....then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked;

Of course you have to read this between the line, from a non-religious point of view. When we began seeing creation as a battleground of opposite (50,000 years ago perhaps), it left us feeling fundamentally disconnected - out of the loop, 'Eden lost'. Religions are humankind's attempt to get us re-connected. Personally, I find if very helpful to see how my mind behaves. That helps me take its thoughts less seriously, and that allows me to return to being a babe more easily.

Lynn Cornish:

It seems to me that the life force is sacred. (To me "sacred means anything I can't understand.)

This brings up a profound question - what does "understand" mean? Does "understand" mean to think that one knows, [or] to think that one does not know? It can be very helpful to review what we think we know. Upon close inspection it all becomes extremely tentative [and] murky. Hallelujah! By your definition, everything becomes "sacred".

Our 'problem' is not that we can't understand, it is that we think we understand. When we cut the uncarved block, we move those pieces from the "sacred" side of consciousness to the 'secular', and the words keep them there. There's nothing wrong with that; I'm mean look at me! Blah blah blah. Although, just knowing we do this helps us return to being the uncarved block.

And this allow us to become the rock I was talking about before. Naturally, it is our mind that allows us to become a rock. It is also our mind that prevents us from remaining a rock. And, of course, it is our mind that prevent us from becoming a rock in the first place. As Buddha said, "mind only".

Finally, there is a practical bonus tied to becoming a rock, if only for a few moments at a time. Death loses much of its punch! The time we spend being a rock helps us avoid setting to much store by life.