By Francois Ausar Rigaud

I have given this some thought. I pondered how can I explain this image as I understand it without allowing my understanding to reduce the intuitive knowledge I have of this image. Through spirituality and religion the lower nature of humankind has often been labeled as the animal nature and the beastly attributes of an individual. But in my opinion, an opinion absence of ego, this is not an accurate classification of the lower nature of humankind. I say my opinion in the absence of ego for a reason. This reason being that only ego would lead a man to think that his lower nature is comparable to that of an animal simply because he is a human.

We say that animals act off of pure instinct and not rational decisions. Yet if one has truly observed animals with what I would call a clear vision, their behavior on many occasions have defied this theory of the absence of rationality in their actions. For instance, one may say that it is natural for a lion to protect her cub. We say that this is instinct. But if she protects a baby of another animal species it would be safe to say this is beyond instinct and has now entered the realm of decision making and conscious compassion. Is this lion, then in its nature, not ranked above a man who would kill a child?

Could we say then that this man has succumbed to his animal nature? Let’s talk about the wolf. As we all know wolves are known for their packs and unity. They are organized and operate as a unit as best as they could regardless of circumstance. If prey was before them and the prey was only enough to feed one of the wolves, do you think the wolves would then kill one another over whose prey it will be? Would their pack cease to exist in such a dilemma? This is not likely to happen which demonstrates once again not only a show of compassion but now discipline as well.

Yet we have human beings who would kill even one of their own bloodline for a piece of paper. Could such a person be said to have succumbed to the nature of these wolves? Between lower nature and higher nature who would be ranked above, the disciplined pack of wolves with a sense of unity or the person who would harm their family for a piece of paper? What I am alluding to is this. The lower self or lower nature of a human being is not that of an animal. The difference between the nature of the beast and the nature of the man is not the absence and presence of rational decision making but rather the scale to which it is demonstrated. An intelligent being, such as the human who is void of compassion, discipline, and a sense of connection, such a person’s nature cannot be classified as the animal within him. It would illogical to continue implying so. The lower nature is a chaotic seed planted in all. A seed’s growth which cannot be impeded nor suppressed by intelligence alone like many would like to believe. But if not intelligence then what impedes this seed’s growth in creation? What suppresses it? Why are there instances where a “wild” animal can express more compassion and discipline than a “civilized” human being and vice versa. This opposing force that transcends intelligence and causes any kind of creature to act in a way that defies reason and ascend to the rank of the exulted in consciousness even if just for a mere moment, I believe it is love, not the temporary connections that we have labeled love. This is an absolute and divine love. It is that which keeps the seed of chaos in restraints simply because the seed is incapable of outgrowing its indiscriminate occupation of all creation.

To read more of my brother Francois’ thoughts, you can follow him on Instagram or Facebook.

Namaste,

T.O.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Inspired? Share my Love but please credit my work! ❤

All works by Trina Otero is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.