Humans have a propensity to squabble and fight. We look to the animal world as an example of how to live peaceably together, thinking that predators hunt purely to eat and that other creatures fight only during mating season or in defense of territory. Perhaps that's not quite true. Being a lover of all things avian I spend alot of time watching wild birds. I've seen a gang of mickey birds attack a blue-faced honeyeater for no apparent reason. They piled on top of the bird, like players in a rugby scrum, until the honeyeater was on his back on the ground, screeching in anger and fear. Another time grey crowned babblers attacked a crested pigeon, poking out his eyes and pulling blood feathers. That was an awful moment. I tried to catch the pigeon to put him out of his misery but he flew blindly off into thick bush. I hope he was lucky enough to be stumbled upon by a goanna or a fox. Those same babblers attacked a flightless cockatoo we had and bloodied her as well. If I hadn't heard her screaming and driven them off who knows what may have happened? Perhaps they attacked as they thought she was injured and would draw the attention of a hawk. I don't know. But that explanation doesn't work for the mickey birds and blue-faced honeyeaters. When I watch them repeatedly gang up on a blue-faced and drive them away it reminds me of racism. Honeyeaters don't compete with mickeys. Mickeys will drink nectar from flowers, they are mostly insect eaters. The mickeys tolerate Little Honeyeaters, galahs, pigeons, figbirds, pee wees and babblers but not the blue-faced. Is it that that their faces are blue? Is it a colour thing? To mickey birds is blue the black (yellow, red or brown) of the bird world?
All internecine squabbles are forgotten when a true predator arrives. Mickeys, especially mickeys, but willie wagtails, pee wees, magpies and blue-faced will fly screaming to mob a kookaburra or hawk. When the predator is driven off, the birds will resume their feuding.
Perhaps the human race needs an alien invasion to find peace. When I was in school I saw how easily kids could be divided or united depending upon who was named the common enemy. Homerooms competed against homerooms, classes against classes, males against females, even competitions whose teams were formed depending upon the first letter of your surname. Then of course we would be united when competing against another school in sports. There always has to be an Other to hate as common cause. Bananabenders (Queensland) against cockroaches (New South Wales), the Maroons against the Blues. But we are all Australians when it comes to cricket. Or white-skinned Europeans when it comes to Asians or Aborigines.
Yet when the floods of last year wrought such death and destruction, total strangers appeared at victims houses armed with shovels and buckets and brooms. Not just for a day but for weeks. Thousands of them. An army of volunteers. Our Premier, who was a rather lacklustre leader prior to the flood, absolutely shone. She was inspired and inspirational. We had common cause. The Other was the enemy, something we could all agree upon and work to eradicate.
The Other is an interesting concept for it suggests the opposite of the person naming it. The opposite in race, creed, locale, religion, age or sex. The opposite in contrast. Which brings up the nature of good and evil. Something I've never understood. I wonder sometimes if evil exists only because there is good and vice versa. The more good exists, the more evil MUST exist to keep the balance. There is either light or the absence of light. The light may be very dim. It might be difficult to make out shapes but if you can see anything there is still light. Then, finally, there comes a point when there is no light and true dark reigns. Does absolute darkness imply absolute light? Because we have access to global news, Evil is as close as our home technology. And there is so much evil. Homo sapiens is a clever creative creature and when we turn that cleverness to cruelty we are very creative.
Yet we are also very clever and creative in our goodness. As one flourishes, so does the other. Would heaven be boring because contrast doesn't exist? No salty or sweet, no heat or cold, no dry or wet? Is contrast, ie, duality, the admission price we pay to be born, to enter into the richly textured, painful, joyous, confusing and crystalline tapestry of Life?
When I meditate in a vain and failed attempt to know the Absolute, what would I find should I succeed? The Absolute implies One. Non-duality. I am me yet I am also dimly aware of the Watcher who watches me thinking. The duality of existence. The suffering of duality. Yet also the Joy of Being in this frail, confused, rather dim creature that I Am.
No comments:
Post a Comment