On Jun 7, 11:07*am, "Nelly Wensdow" wrote:
Just discovered them while trying to put in some big Coleus. What on earth
made them think it was a good place for a nest up off the ground, and what,
if anything, should I do? I don't want them in there. Will the mother move
them for me? Abandon them? What if I do (or don't) cover them back up? I'm
not sure if I hit one with my hand spade or not.

They're so widdle, I don't really want to kill them...at least not until
they start eating up all my plants, as they always do. We've already got a
ton of 'em around here, living underneath a shed out back. (And we're not
allowed to shoot them. In fact, it's illegal to even throw a snowball in
this town. Literally.)

Any suggestions?

It may be too late,...but when I was a kid my father raised
domesticated rabbits. I could pick up the hairless blind widdle ones
and it didn't bother mommy. I suspect that if you left them as close
as possible to how you found them, mommy would follow her instincts
and do what she could to save the brood. If not,...mother nature is
not always kind.

We had about a dozen does and one buck. He had black fur except for a
white zigzag on his forehead. There were two reasons we called him
"Lightning." lol

On Jun 10, 5:40 pm, Jangchub wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 10:34:51 -0700 (PDT), Chris

wrote:
I'm a little curious about something now. You mentioned in another
post that you weed your garden. I understand you have to kill plants
to eat and survive, but how does weeding fit in? This is simple
curiosity, since I weed without compunction. You mentioned you won't
use a herbicide, so I wondered if there's a difference- there
certainly isn't any difference in that the plant is dead. (Not saying
anything against that either, since while I am not organic, I also
don't use any pesticides or herbicides on my property).

Chris

We all kill things all day long. We walk on insects, microbes, digest
and kill bacteria. Sentient beings. Plants are not sentient beings.
At least they aren't sentient in my belief system. His Holiness the
Dalai Lama says plants are not sentient beings and I agree. There are
the studies of plants reacting to different stimuli, but by pulling a
weed, I am not committing murder, nor am I creating non-virtuous karma
by pulling weeds.

Like I said, I am certainly not condemning you for any of your
practices. But I have to ask something to be sure- do you really
consider bacteria and other microorganisms to be sentient?

Chris


I kill all day. There isn't an atom of space where a sentient being
doesn't exist (according to Buddhist teachings). I am very mindful of
that so when I walk I look down and intentionally try not to step on
things I can see with my eyes. Etc.

In article
,
Chris wrote:

On Jun 10, 5:40 pm, Jangchub wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 10:34:51 -0700 (PDT), Chris

wrote:
I'm a little curious about something now. You mentioned in another
post that you weed your garden. I understand you have to kill plants
to eat and survive, but how does weeding fit in? This is simple
curiosity, since I weed without compunction. You mentioned you won't
use a herbicide, so I wondered if there's a difference- there
certainly isn't any difference in that the plant is dead. (Not saying
anything against that either, since while I am not organic, I also
don't use any pesticides or herbicides on my property).

Chris

We all kill things all day long. We walk on insects, microbes, digest
and kill bacteria. Sentient beings. Plants are not sentient beings.
At least they aren't sentient in my belief system. His Holiness the
Dalai Lama says plants are not sentient beings and I agree. There are
the studies of plants reacting to different stimuli, but by pulling a
weed, I am not committing murder, nor am I creating non-virtuous karma
by pulling weeds.

Like I said, I am certainly not condemning you for any of your
practices. But I have to ask something to be sure- do you really
consider bacteria and other microorganisms to be sentient?

Chris

Caught in Cartesian dualism are ye? Good luck. You gave the rocks a good
chuckle though, good on you ;o)


I kill all day. There isn't an atom of space where a sentient being
doesn't exist (according to Buddhist teachings). I am very mindful of
that so when I walk I look down and intentionally try not to step on
things I can see with my eyes. Etc.
--

Billy
Bush and Pelosi Behind Bars
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KVTf...ef=patrick.net
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0aEo...eature=related

On Jun 12, 8:12 am, Jangchub wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 23:27:09 -0700, Billy
wrote:



Caught in Cartesian dualism are ye? Good luck. You gave the rocks a good
chuckle though, good on you ;o)

What does this mean?

From:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism...osophy_of_mind)

"The central claim of what is often called Cartesian dualism, in honor
of Descartes, is that the immaterial mind and the material body, while
being ontologically distinct substances, causally interact. This is an
idea which continues to feature prominently in many non-European
philosophies. Mental events cause physical events, and vice-versa. But
this leads to a substantial problem for Cartesian dualism: How can an
immaterial mind cause anything in a material body, and vice-versa?
This has often been called the "problem of interactionism".

Descartes himself struggled to come up with a feasible answer to this
problem. In his letter to Elisabeth of Bohemia, Princess Palatine, he
suggested that animal spirits interacted with the body through the
pineal gland, a small gland in the centre of the brain, between the
two hemispheres. The term "Cartesian dualism" is also often associated
with this more specific notion of causal interaction through the
pineal gland. However, this explanation was not satisfactory: how can
an immaterial mind interact with the physical pineal gland? Because
Descartes's was such a difficult theory to defend, some of his
disciples, such as Arnold Geulincx and Nicholas Malebranche, proposed
a different explanation: That all mind-body interactions required the
direct intervention of God. According to these philosophers, the
appropriate states of mind and body were only the occasions for such
intervention, not real causes. These occasionalists maintained the
strong thesis that all causation was directly dependent on God,
instead of holding that all causation was natural except for that
between mind and body."

Chris

In article ,
Jangchub wrote:

On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 05:46:07 -0700 (PDT), Chris
wrote:


From:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism...osophy_of_mind)

"The central claim of what is often called Cartesian dualism, in honor
of Descartes, is that the immaterial mind and the material body, while
being ontologically distinct substances, causally interact. This is an
idea which continues to feature prominently in many non-European
philosophies. Mental events cause physical events, and vice-versa. But
this leads to a substantial problem for Cartesian dualism: How can an
immaterial mind cause anything in a material body, and vice-versa?
This has often been called the "problem of interactionism".

Descartes himself struggled to come up with a feasible answer to this
problem. In his letter to Elisabeth of Bohemia, Princess Palatine, he
suggested that animal spirits interacted with the body through the
pineal gland, a small gland in the centre of the brain, between the
two hemispheres. The term "Cartesian dualism" is also often associated
with this more specific notion of causal interaction through the
pineal gland. However, this explanation was not satisfactory: how can
an immaterial mind interact with the physical pineal gland? Because
Descartes's was such a difficult theory to defend, some of his
disciples, such as Arnold Geulincx and Nicholas Malebranche, proposed
a different explanation: That all mind-body interactions required the
direct intervention of God. According to these philosophers, the
appropriate states of mind and body were only the occasions for such
intervention, not real causes. These occasionalists maintained the
strong thesis that all causation was directly dependent on God,
instead of holding that all causation was natural except for that
between mind and body."

Chris

It was the statement, "Caught in Cartesian dualism are ye? Good luck.
You gave the rocks a good chuckle though, good on you ;o)" which I was
questioning. Cartesian dualism was nothing new to eastern philosophy,
as it shows in the definition. The historical Buddha of the Shakya
tribe figured dualism out long before Descartes did.

The cup has tea in it. If you break the cup, it will no longer be a
cup. It will be a pile of shards or whatever you choose to call it,
but the tea is still the tea. So the body is a vessel for the mind.
It is not part of the brain. The brain functions as a local
powerhouse to charge the physical body to operate, but it has nothing
to do with the mind.

Emptiness, as Buddhism discusses, is the complete lack of dualistic
properties...and everything is inter dependant, tied together by cause
and effect. Karma is a very complex discussion and far too many
people are not willing, nor are they interested in the least about its
workings. Certainly not here in rec.gardens.


http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/history/bstatt10.htm

I find it interesting that Buddha is not going over well in India.

http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-priori...e.do?id=104102
4&n1=3&n2=30

Bill

--
Garden in shade zone 5 S Jersey USA
Neat place .. http://www.petersvalley.org/

In article
,
Bill wrote:

In article ,
Jangchub wrote:

On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 05:46:07 -0700 (PDT), Chris
wrote:


From:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism...osophy_of_mind)

"The central claim of what is often called Cartesian dualism, in honor
of Descartes, is that the immaterial mind and the material body, while
being ontologically distinct substances, causally interact. This is an
idea which continues to feature prominently in many non-European
philosophies. Mental events cause physical events, and vice-versa. But
this leads to a substantial problem for Cartesian dualism: How can an
immaterial mind cause anything in a material body, and vice-versa?
This has often been called the "problem of interactionism".

Descartes himself struggled to come up with a feasible answer to this
problem. In his letter to Elisabeth of Bohemia, Princess Palatine, he
suggested that animal spirits interacted with the body through the
pineal gland, a small gland in the centre of the brain, between the
two hemispheres. The term "Cartesian dualism" is also often associated
with this more specific notion of causal interaction through the
pineal gland. However, this explanation was not satisfactory: how can
an immaterial mind interact with the physical pineal gland? Because
Descartes's was such a difficult theory to defend, some of his
disciples, such as Arnold Geulincx and Nicholas Malebranche, proposed
a different explanation: That all mind-body interactions required the
direct intervention of God. According to these philosophers, the
appropriate states of mind and body were only the occasions for such
intervention, not real causes. These occasionalists maintained the
strong thesis that all causation was directly dependent on God,
instead of holding that all causation was natural except for that
between mind and body."

Chris

It was the statement, "Caught in Cartesian dualism are ye? Good luck.
You gave the rocks a good chuckle though, good on you ;o)" which I was
questioning. Cartesian dualism was nothing new to eastern philosophy,
as it shows in the definition. The historical Buddha of the Shakya
tribe figured dualism out long before Descartes did.

The cup has tea in it. If you break the cup, it will no longer be a
cup. It will be a pile of shards or whatever you choose to call it,
but the tea is still the tea. So the body is a vessel for the mind.
It is not part of the brain. The brain functions as a local
powerhouse to charge the physical body to operate, but it has nothing
to do with the mind.

Emptiness, as Buddhism discusses, is the complete lack of dualistic
properties...and everything is inter dependant, tied together by cause
and effect. Karma is a very complex discussion and far too many
people are not willing, nor are they interested in the least about its
workings. Certainly not here in rec.gardens.


http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/history/bstatt10.htm

I find it interesting that Buddha is not going over well in India.

http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-priori...e.do?id=104102
4&n1=3&n2=30

Bill

What do you expect when you are the new kid on the block?
--

Billy
Bush and Pelosi Behind Bars
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KVTf...ef=patrick.net
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0aEo...eature=related

In article ,
Jangchub wrote:

On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 23:27:09 -0700, Billy
wrote:


Caught in Cartesian dualism are ye? Good luck. You gave the rocks a good
chuckle though, good on you ;o)

What does this mean?

this |?is|
pronoun ( pl. these |??z|)
1 used to identify a specific person or thing close at hand or being
indicated or experienced : is this your bag? | he soon knew that this
was not the place for him.
? used to introduce someone or something : this is the captain speaking
| listen to this.
? referring to the nearer of two things close to the speaker (the other,
if specified, being identified by "that") : this is different from that.
2 referring to a specific thing or situation just mentioned : the
company was transformed, and Ward had played a vital role in bringing
this about.
adjective ( pl. these )
1 used to identify a specific person or thing close at hand or being
indicated or experienced : don't listen to this guy | these croissants
are delicious.
? referring to the nearer of two things close to the speaker (the other,
if specified, being identified by "that") : this one or that one?
2 referring to a specific thing or situation just mentioned : there was
a court case resulting from this incident.
3 used with periods of time related to the present : I thought you were
busy all this week | how are you this morning?
? referring to a period of time that has just passed : I haven't left my
bed these three days.
4 informal used (chiefly in narrative) to refer to a person or thing
previously unspecified : I turned around, and there was this big mummy
standing next to us! | I've got this problem and I need help.
adverb [as submodifier ]
to the degree or extent indicated : they can't handle a job this big |
he's not used to this much attention.
PHRASES
this and that (or this, that, and the other) informal various
unspecified things : they stayed up chatting about this and that.
this here informal used to draw attention emphatically to someone or
something : I've slept in this here bed for forty years.
ORIGIN Old English , neuter of thes; related to that and the.

Or maybe the sound of one hand clapping?

Or maybe the arrogance of this or that?

Or maybe the frivolity of asking a member of the phyla Annelida
about the meaning of Life, the Universe and Everything. What
silliness would your ancestor of 10,000 years ago say? What may you
descendant 10,000 years from now say?

What do the shadows on the cave walls say to you? And who cares?

Euclid said that a dot has no dimensions. Connect two dots with a line
and you have one dimension. Move at a right angle to that line and you
have a plane in two dimensions. Move at a right angle to that plane
and you have a volume in three dimensions. Move at a right angle to tat
solid and you have a ? in four dimensions. Move at a right angle
to the ? and you have a ?? in five dimensions, ad infinitum.

Or as Alan Watts used to say when holding out a round metal trash
can,"What is this"? Then he would turn it over and drum on it and
ask,"What is this"? Then he would sit on it and ask "What is this"?

From the rocks and me, thanks for the giggle;o)
--

Billy
Bush and Pelosi Behind Bars
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KVTf...ef=patrick.net
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0aEo...eature=related

In article ,
Jangchub wrote:

On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 22:52:08 -0700, Billy
wrote:

In article ,
Jangchub wrote:

On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 23:27:09 -0700, Billy
wrote:


Caught in Cartesian dualism are ye? Good luck. You gave the rocks a good
chuckle though, good on you ;o)

What does this mean?

this |?is|
pronoun ( pl. these |??z|)
1 used to identify a specific person or thing close at hand or being
indicated or experienced : is this your bag? | he soon knew that this
was not the place for him.
? used to introduce someone or something : this is the captain speaking
| listen to this.
? referring to the nearer of two things close to the speaker (the other,
if specified, being identified by "that") : this is different from that.
2 referring to a specific thing or situation just mentioned : the
company was transformed, and Ward had played a vital role in bringing
this about.
adjective ( pl. these )
1 used to identify a specific person or thing close at hand or being
indicated or experienced : don't listen to this guy | these croissants
are delicious.
? referring to the nearer of two things close to the speaker (the other,
if specified, being identified by "that") : this one or that one?
2 referring to a specific thing or situation just mentioned : there was
a court case resulting from this incident.
3 used with periods of time related to the present : I thought you were
busy all this week | how are you this morning?
? referring to a period of time that has just passed : I haven't left my
bed these three days.
4 informal used (chiefly in narrative) to refer to a person or thing
previously unspecified : I turned around, and there was this big mummy
standing next to us! | I've got this problem and I need help.
adverb [as submodifier ]
to the degree or extent indicated : they can't handle a job this big |
he's not used to this much attention.
PHRASES
this and that (or this, that, and the other) informal various
unspecified things : they stayed up chatting about this and that.
this here informal used to draw attention emphatically to someone or
something : I've slept in this here bed for forty years.
ORIGIN Old English , neuter of thes; related to that and the.

Or maybe the sound of one hand clapping?

Or maybe the arrogance of this or that?

Or maybe the frivolity of asking a member of the phyla Annelida
about the meaning of Life, the Universe and Everything. What
silliness would your ancestor of 10,000 years ago say? What may you
descendant 10,000 years from now say?

What do the shadows on the cave walls say to you? And who cares?

Euclid said that a dot has no dimensions. Connect two dots with a line
and you have one dimension. Move at a right angle to that line and you
have a plane in two dimensions. Move at a right angle to that plane
and you have a volume in three dimensions. Move at a right angle to tat
solid and you have a ? in four dimensions. Move at a right angle
to the ? and you have a ?? in five dimensions, ad infinitum.

Or as Alan Watts used to say when holding out a round metal trash
can,"What is this"? Then he would turn it over and drum on it and
ask,"What is this"? Then he would sit on it and ask "What is this"?

From the rocks and me, thanks for the giggle;o)

For the life of me I'll never understand why people have this thing
where they spend far more time wasted on useless shit than time spent
on making some useful addition of human value.

I don't know how to spend time taliking in circles, which it seems
you've mastered.

What a loving example of compassion gone awry.

Bill

--
Garden in shade zone 5 S Jersey USA
Book "Our Media Not Theirs" Many Stars

In article ,
Jangchub wrote:

On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 11:24:23 -0400, Bill
wrote:

\
http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/history/bstatt10.htm

I find it interesting that Buddha is not going over well in India.

http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-priori...e.do?id=104102
4&n1=3&n2=30

Bill

The reason wouldn't be because there are more Hindi's than Buddhists?
I mean, Buddha was a Hindi before he came up with his treatise.

IIRC part of his instruction came from listening to a stream. If
streams can instruct, certainly rocks can chuckle;-)

However, if you did a little more research you'd find that when His
Holiness does a teaching in Dharamsala, India (where Tibet and its
goverment live in exhile for the last 50 years) there are hundreds of
thousands who show up from all over India and surrounding regions.

I never mentioned India, so why this is relevant is a puzzle.
--

Billy
Bush and Pelosi Behind Bars
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KVTf...ef=patrick.net
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0aEo...eature=related

In article ,
Jangchub wrote:

On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 22:52:08 -0700, Billy
wrote:

In article ,
Jangchub wrote:

On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 23:27:09 -0700, Billy
wrote:


Caught in Cartesian dualism are ye? Good luck. You gave the rocks a good
chuckle though, good on you ;o)

What does this mean?

this |?is|
pronoun ( pl. these |??z|)
1 used to identify a specific person or thing close at hand or being
indicated or experienced : is this your bag? | he soon knew that this
was not the place for him.
? used to introduce someone or something : this is the captain speaking
| listen to this.
? referring to the nearer of two things close to the speaker (the other,
if specified, being identified by "that") : this is different from that.
2 referring to a specific thing or situation just mentioned : the
company was transformed, and Ward had played a vital role in bringing
this about.
adjective ( pl. these )
1 used to identify a specific person or thing close at hand or being
indicated or experienced : don't listen to this guy | these croissants
are delicious.
? referring to the nearer of two things close to the speaker (the other,
if specified, being identified by "that") : this one or that one?
2 referring to a specific thing or situation just mentioned : there was
a court case resulting from this incident.
3 used with periods of time related to the present : I thought you were
busy all this week | how are you this morning?
? referring to a period of time that has just passed : I haven't left my
bed these three days.
4 informal used (chiefly in narrative) to refer to a person or thing
previously unspecified : I turned around, and there was this big mummy
standing next to us! | I've got this problem and I need help.
adverb [as submodifier ]
to the degree or extent indicated : they can't handle a job this big |
he's not used to this much attention.
PHRASES
this and that (or this, that, and the other) informal various
unspecified things : they stayed up chatting about this and that.
this here informal used to draw attention emphatically to someone or
something : I've slept in this here bed for forty years.
ORIGIN Old English , neuter of thes; related to that and the.

Or maybe the sound of one hand clapping?

Or maybe the arrogance of this or that?

Or maybe the frivolity of asking a member of the phyla Annelida
about the meaning of Life, the Universe and Everything. What
silliness would your ancestor of 10,000 years ago say? What may you
descendant 10,000 years from now say?

What do the shadows on the cave walls say to you? And who cares?

Euclid said that a dot has no dimensions. Connect two dots with a line
and you have one dimension. Move at a right angle to that line and you
have a plane in two dimensions. Move at a right angle to that plane
and you have a volume in three dimensions. Move at a right angle to tat
solid and you have a ? in four dimensions. Move at a right angle
to the ? and you have a ?? in five dimensions, ad infinitum.

Or as Alan Watts used to say when holding out a round metal trash
can,"What is this"? Then he would turn it over and drum on it and
ask,"What is this"? Then he would sit on it and ask "What is this"?

From the rocks and me, thanks for the giggle;o)

For the life of me I'll never understand why people have this thing
where they spend far more time wasted on useless shit than time spent
on making some useful addition of human value.

I don't know how to spend time taliking in circles, which it seems
you've mastered.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ks-LmHAGouQ
--

Billy
Bush and Pelosi Behind Bars
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KVTf...ef=patrick.net
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0aEo...eature=related

In article
,
Billy wrote:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ks-LmHAGouQ

Got me thunkin.

Seems a story like this was in my past.

A young man and his daughter on horseback were going down the road in
Central America. Nothing eventful till a jeep ran by and backfired
which spooked the horse which threw them in to the air. The Jeep driver
stopped to help and it was a bit of confusion.

The horse driver dusting himself and child said a spirited horse no?

Bill

--
Garden in shade zone 5 S Jersey USA
Book "Our Media Not Theirs" Many Stars

In article ,
Jangchub wrote:

On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 10:20:34 -0700, Billy
wrote:

IIRC part of his instruction came from listening to a stream. If
streams can instruct, certainly rocks can chuckle;-)

How silly you are. Whatever you are recalling, it is incorrect. A
stream didn't instruct Buddha Shakyamuni. He realized the middle way
through six years of dedicated concentration. A consentration as
stable as it would ever get for most people on the planet.

Apparently, the six years was a dry hole (in Texan parlance) and
it wasn't until young Siddhartha sat for a short while under a
Bodhi-tree next to a stream that he became enlightened.

Why are you abusive?
--

Billy
Bush and Pelosi Behind Bars
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KVTf...ef=patrick.net
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0aEo...eature=related

In article ,
Jangchub wrote:

On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 13:16:13 -0400, Bill
wrote:

For the life of me I'll never understand why people have this thing
where they spend far more time wasted on useless shit than time spent
on making some useful addition of human value.



I don't know how to spend time taliking in circles, which it seems
you've mastered.

What a loving example of compassion gone awry.

Bill

Compassion comes in many colors. If you ever met my Lama you'd run
out of the room like a cat from a wolf. Human kindness isn't always
in the form you would expect.

As St. Molly would say,"When you find yourself in a hole, stop
digging." Scaring people away isn't a sign of enlightenment to me.
I know some mouth breathers that scare the willies out of me and I
don't think of them as enlightened. If your lama is truly so
fearsome s/he could be of some use in Tibet.

I'm going back to gardening.
--

Billy
Bush and Pelosi Behind Bars
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KVTf...ef=patrick.net
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0aEo...eature=related

replying to Nelly Wensdow, Dragonlady wrote:
To keep rabbits out of plants, sprinkle blood meal. They hate the smell. Rain
dilutes it so sprinkle a handful after each rain.

--
for full context, visit https://www.homeownershub.com/garden...ter-80022-.htm