08 Taiwan Ghost Research Chapter 7 Ghost Spirit and Animal Self-Cognition 鬼學 第七

赫生童子

	Taiwan Ghost Research Chapter 7 Ghost Spirit and Animal Self-Cognition Author :Chang Kai-Chi      張開基 translation:北展昭 (You are welcomed to share or reprint. But please indicate the source and author) An important topic just occurred to my mind: There are so many kinds of creatures on earth, why only human will become "ghosts" after death? Or why is there only person "ghost"? Is it related to IQ? So why are there no foxes, octopus or monkey ghosts? Even the oversized elephants and whales –never heard of ghosts after their death. Is it related to the ability of "self-cognition"? So it is now known that besides humans; dolphins, orangutans, beluga whales and elephants have the ability to "self-cognize". Why there is no dolphin, orangutan, beluga, or elephant ghost? Do these animals have to return to their homes after they die? Do they have a home? Will they reincarnate after death? Why don't they become ghosts to ask their descendants or their peers to "support"? Or if any other creature dies, it will disappear without a trace, except human beings? What is the reason why people become "ghosts" after death? Is it related to "evolution"? Is it related to "spiritual civilization" and thinking? Can these make human beings different from other creatures? Can they persist in the way of "ghosts" after death? Does the ghost have a long life? Think about it ------ I don’t want just to sell the idea even I have been busy and tired but still bring forward thesw questions first for further discussion. To Simply answer these two questions: 1. Is there a "guardian spirit"? Answer: Some are, some are not; "No" is the norm, "Yes" is a special case; the general macro view is "No"; Think about it: if everyone has the so-called "guardian angel" then why are people all over the world going to suffer disasters at any time and die? In addition to suicide or adventure such as airplane crashes, car accidents, shipwrecks, fires, gas explosions and even sitting in the tour bus were suddenly killed by cranes and hangers--------How did there be no "guardian angel" warning beforehand? ? Without the ability to predict nor effectively protect it from the incident--what kind of "guardian angel"? So obviously there is none! Generally there is none! But why there is exception? Usually their deceased relatives, especially their parents, tried to extend their care for their children's safety and happiness after their death. Secondly, they have received great graces during their lifetime and they insist on repaying after death (you can retrieve the "grass ring rewards" from the Chinese idiom) is also a kind of religious belief that is similar to spending money to protect under all circumstance (but only some ghosts with the nature of "working"via the bribing.  If the rewarding relationship disappears such as not providing food or burning money on time, then these spirits will disappear without saying good bye.  On Southeast Asia and Hong Kong "Kumantong" also belong to this category but there is always no good ending and do not rashly try it) As for saying that to have "Deity" to guardian, it is impossible. Do not believe in the nonsense of a warlock or a psychic or a Taoist shaman. Think about overall everyone is ordinary people and why they are so superior could make this happen? Think again, for living being, is there any guardian spirit for other creatures? If so, how can it be caught and slaughtered at any time and become a gourmet food for human? Even it led the extinct or endangered species? We are all creatures from mother of nature, why it only benefits a human being and everyone is appointed with a guardian spirit? Therefore, the answer is no, human beings are still asking for more happiness and better pursue hard working by ourselves! ----------------- 2. Good and evil? Answer: I mean that there is no difference between good and evil in nature. "Good and evil" is a game rule that has long been formed in human society. I don't want you or anyone to ignore good or evil. Don't misunderstand it. . Ants and bees are social cluster and human beings are the same. Therefore, ants and bees also have rules for group coexistence but individual is harmful to the overall interests or wellness will be exiled or disposed (such as diseases may be transmitted to the whole colony). Similarly, under the automatic elimination by natural selection, the more the game rules are suitable for the whole colony such as ants or bees-- it would own more survival advantage. Same principle applies on human beings. In the long-term evolution, we were originally weak individuals and too weak to survive on the earth surrounded by snakes and beasts. However, when we instinctively unite and make a great leap in intelligence: human created tools (fire and primary stone weapons) to defend or even attack  but also "collaboration" is a good game rule that is suitable for coexistence and common prosperity, so it is good for the group would  be “good deed” and unfavorable would be "evil". However, good and evil are not absolute. There are later developed universal standards of "good and evil" but were vague. And sometimes there are double or multiple standards about "good and evil". For example, stealing the belongings of their own ethnic neighbors and companions is "evil". To rape women in their own ethnic groups were "evil".  But to sneakily attack on the animals and property of other people from different fares or deprive women from other tribes would be praised as heroes. Since the modern global village gradually emerges, the universal "good and evil" standards will become more and more certain. As we live in such a world, it is necessary to abide by such "good and evil" standards. Otherwise, minor is the morality corrupted and the worst might violate the law. Social ethics and law are all rules of the game that define the standard of good and evil. However, not to commit the evil is good enough? Except behave ourselves, should we do good? Not necessarily, especially the "good deeds" advertised by various religions are often mostly questionable. "Doing good" is not as good as "good deeds" "Doing good " means deliberately taking the initiative to have good deeds.   If it related to the "giving dedication" encouraged by religion (the money is usually used by private individuals or by a dominant person to decide the purpose) or "released captured animal" (collect via purchasing) It is really another kind of "bad deeds" to destroy the ecology and deliberately make it. If it is done for the sake of its own merits, it is even more ridiculous for self-greed purpose. "Good deeds" are completely different. They refer to concepts that are correct, including outlook on life, cosmology, and values. A normal lifestyle includes a natural diet and work routine, normal foraging, courtship, and ancestral memorial. True and decent behavior:  gregarious and not blindly, and good for people rather than bad compassion. If everyone understands and practices "good deeds", it will reduce the number of people who need to deliberately "do good deeds". Simply "doing good " is like sending money to the  lazy or bad people. And "good deeds" require everyone to be self-sufficiency.