Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
When examining literary or philosophical works, looking at the author's character or circumstances can sometimes provide insight into that person's ideas. In other words, ad hominem considerations can show motives and can sometimes provide explanation. However, these considerations do not demonstrate the truth or falsity of the ideas.
Sheesh, @how. I came across this explanation (multiple causes) from a teacher in a chatroom prior to my lama. Remember we cannot read others minds thus ideally we let them speak for themselves rather than call into question their motivations.
I stuck to the issue of explaining multiple causes whereas you called into question my attachment to my lama. This is a logical fallacy because I could still be correct in my analysis irrespective to the motivation you questioned.
Ad hominem
@Jeffrey Your right, not being able to read minds makes it hard to know that the content of your post was really someone elses. And I was asking you if this defence of an animal release ritual that actually kills those animals was more based on a cultural devotion than empathy. A simple, No, I'd accept on face value but was it not an valid question to ask?.
Of course I have certainly run around defending Zen here, which in hindsight I've questioned because although it was true of an ideal, the actual, might of been more representative of reality.
I spend a fair amount of time on another site which addresses the poor behaviour of a number of linage's and I think that the constant to and fro of the polarities between accusers and defenders might have me seeing Bogey men where there are none..
I have to wonder if this is really about your need to defend Tibetan monks because of your teacher.
This is what I was I responded to. It sounded like you thought I was motivated to protect TB to the sense that I was irrational. That's where I say that you can't possibly know this without reading my mind. And it is ad hominem because even if I was bias to protect the Tibetan monk still my expression and evaluation of the fish problem could be dharma. I would even claim it was Buddhist on the basis of the idea of multiple causes being consistent with dependent origination. The support of that belief comes from a recollection of an aol chatroom (topic buddhism, not social).
defence of an animal release ritual that actually kills those animals was more based on a cultural devotion than empathy.
I think it is based on multiple causes like I said. I think it would feel good to buy fish and release them. That is a cause for joy and I don't have any evidence suggesting these monks do not act out of empathy. I don't find it far fetched to say a Buddhist monk exhibits compassion :rolleyes:
Why would you or I feel joy if we knew our actions of releasing an animal were really killing it. Could you fool yourself into believing that because it was being performed by monks, it was mystically OK?
At least when people buy fish and eat them, other animals are not needing to be procured to feed those fish eaters. But here they are just hurting them under Buddhist flags for an ideal that they are not actualizing.
In the absence of a better explanation than "multiple causes", it remains a ritualized lack of empathy for other suffering beings that brings some shame to this Buddhist.
karasti, you are entitled to your opinion. but the buddha's position is if you choose the animal to be killed for your consumption, then yes you incur negative karma.
if you buy meat off the shelf, then you are off the hook. pardon the pun.
in buddhism, vegetarianism is considered praiseworthy too. but here we are talking about the 1st precept ie not killing. so when you are buying meat off the shelf, you are not breaking the 1st precept.
otherwise, monks will not be able the meat you bought for them.
if you go to a farm choose a live chicken, and cook the chicken for a monk, they will not eat it.
i dont know whether i have made things clearer or more confusing. well, at least i tried to explain.
@invincible_summer That is not true, about hunting. Hunting remains sustainable because it is controlled now. There is (not in the western world anyhow) no more hunting to the point of affecting the health of the population. Hunting goals are adjusted every year after investigation of the population, how the climate is affecting the population and so on. My state just closed it's moose hunting entirely because our population has inexplicably declined over the past 10 years, to the point we have lost 70% of what we had a just a decade ago. Even though hunting is not the cause (there were few licenses issued even when hunting was allowed) they needed to preserve every animal while they figure out what is going on.
If every single person wanted to hunt, we'd have a problem, because there would not be enough licenses to go around. But I don't see that happening. My state is one of the highest hunting and fishing states there is in the US and even then less than 20% of residents hunt.
@jll I guess it comes down to how one interprets the "do not harm living beings" statement then. A person who shops in a store might not be harming the animal on their own, but where they put their dollar is supporting people/companies that do, so *to me* it is equally as bad. I've asked various teachers about it and the responses have varied, but not a single one said that people who buy meat are off the hook because they did not kill the animal themselves. They still have a karmic liability. To what degree, obviously none of us knows.
Ritualised 'compassion' is as ignorant as ritualised hunting, in some ways worse. Hunt and fish and eat or keep your mouth shut until the kelp arrives . . . Too harsh?
Mulla Nasrudin is walking past a cave when he sees a yogi, deep in meditation, and he asks the yogi what he is searching for.
The yogi says: ‘I study the animals and have learned many lessons from them that can transform a man’s life.’
‘A fish once saved my life,’ Nasrudin replies. ‘If you teach me everything you know, I will tell you how it happened.’
The Yogi is astonished; only a holy man could be saved by a fish. And he decides to teach Nasrudin everything he knows.
When he has finished, he says to Nasrudin:
‘Now that I have taught you everything, I would be proud to know how a fish saved your life.’
‘Very simple,’ says Nasrudin, ‘I was almost dying of hunger when I caught it and, thanks to that fish, I had enough food for three days.’
If every single person wanted to hunt, we'd have a problem, because there would not be enough licenses to go around. But I don't see that happening. My state is one of the highest hunting and fishing states there is in the US and even then less than 20% of residents hunt.
@karasti - I realize that hunting is regulated, however what I quoted above is sort of what I'm getting at. The people who romanticize hunting as the way to obtain sustainable meat tend to see it as a solution to our society's ills with regards to meat production. The thing is, it will never be possible for it to happen on a large scale.
That's not to say they should stop hunting. I do see the benefits of hunting vs only eating factory farmed meat. However, those that champion the cause (I know a few people who do this) and encourage "everyone" to do it are a bit short-sighted IMO.
@Invincible_summer gotcha, that makes more sense now. I agree, people who think the world can subsist on hunting aren't fully thinking their position, I think. It might be an ideal compared to what we have, but it doesn't work with the population we have.
@jll it isn't solely my opinion. It is an opinion I hold, currently. But much of the reason I hold it is because that is the answer I have gotten from multiple teachers and it makes sense to me and goes along with what I interpreted. In today's world, causing harm goes a lot farther than simply what we do with our own hands.
@how, surely you don't think they have the same view as you? They think they are doing a good thing or they wouldn't be doing it. Plus some of the fish survive I bet. I live by Lake Michigan and there is dead fish all the time, but it doesn't mean all of the fish are dead.
So surely it is a ritual, but I believe in their view they are doing a good thing.
I don't think it is mindless because they have the intention to help the fish. Some of the fish may survive and at least the fish have freedom from captivity. If they stopped the ritual and there were still dead fish then what would you think? In any case there is a condition of caring about fish. If they can become more mindful as you say maybe they can do something more helpful. But they have the right intention and I would and do celebrate their good hearts.
When I was a little girl, I used to walk a few blocks to the bus stop. In the spring when it would rain, the worms of course would come out onto the road. I did not want the worms to get run over by cars, or die in the sun later in the day (since I often saw their dehyrdated corpses on the road too) I would pick them up off the road, and put them in my pocket. Of course, this did not end well for the worms (or for the pants my mom later had to wash) but I did it many times. I was probably 6 or 7 years old. I wanted so badly to save them all. Not long after, I realized that I was not helping the worms at all, but killing them. Broke my heart. Similarly when I was about 10 I saw an injured bird. I wanted to help it, and I tried to catch it, but instead I caught it on the head with the fishing net and it died.
Always had a desire to save. I've learned over the years that some things work better. I thought I had nailed it when I was a teenager and was rescuing the egg laying turtles. We have sandy roadsides so they come out of the river and cross the highway to lay eggs. When I was an older adult, I learned that too was wrong, because if you don't do it right, they just have to do all the work all over again to get to the same spot. I learned from a turtle rescue how to properly help them across the road. So that is what I do now. I learned about wildlife rehab and volunteer when I can so that I'm not thinking I am saving them but really doing them more harm.
Just sharing, since it was related to the story in a way. We all do the best we know how.
I think right intention is a warm heart in some respects and aside from that I don't see what feudalism has to do with the case of the fish..
Multiple conditions. A warm heart IS one condition and no I can't read their minds so maybe it is all ritual and dead hand of Mara has killed the heart. Another condition like you say is wisdom to do something that helps the fish. If I were a fish I'd want to go free even if I die. The monks don't have power over life and death they just can do what is in their power. Maybe some people will be inspired to have regards for animal life.
@jll The precepts should be considered as a sort of minimum standard of behaviour that one should observe. That means we cannot say that it is ok to do a certain act simply because such action does not transgress the precepts. For example, punching someone in the face out of anger is not, strictly speaking, breaking the first precept, but clearly it is not ok to do that and you will be acquiring negative karma through such acts.
The most important thing about karma is intention. So if the basis of your action is anger, greed or any other unwholesome mental state then you will acquire negative karma, regardless of whether a precept is being broken or not.
As Buddhists, before we perform a certain act, we should consider whether that act is skillful or not. This means that we should carefully consider the consequences of our actions before doing them. If we believe that an action will cause harm then we should abandon it.
So on the question of whether it's ok the buy meat off the shelf (or whether it's ok to put millions of fish into a lake) that essentially will depend on the mental state of the person when he/she is performing the act. If the person who is buying meat at the supermarket (or releasing the fishes into the lake) has carefully considered about the consequences of his/her act and if he/she genuinely believes that he/she would not be causing any harm and proceeds to perform that act with a wholesome state of mind then that is fine and the person would be blameless IMO.
What could be the subject of debate, however, is how closely related must the act someone performs be with the results to say that such result was actually caused by the act. I think different people would have different standards on this question of causation but does anyone know whether this was discussed in the scriptures?
I don't think it is mindless because they have the intention to help the fish. Some of the fish may survive and at least the fish have freedom from captivity. If they stopped the ritual and there were still dead fish then what would you think? In any case there is a condition of caring about fish. If they can become more mindful as you say maybe they can do something more helpful. But they have the right intention and I would and do celebrate their good hearts.
I don't agree. When I have pointed out to Thais that the little birds just fly back to the owner, who puts them in a cage, and then he "sells" the right to release the birds to the next person who comes along, they agree and just laugh and tell me "it's a tradition".
Right intention always needs to be coupled with wisdom before it becomes right action.
When I was a little girl, I used to walk a few blocks to the bus stop. In the spring when it would rain, the worms of course would come out onto the road. I did not want the worms to get run over by cars, or die in the sun later in the day (since I often saw their dehyrdated corpses on the road too) I would pick them up off the road, and put them in my pocket. Of course, this did not end well for the worms (or for the pants my mom later had to wash) but I did it many times. I was probably 6 or 7 years old. I wanted so badly to save them all. Not long after, I realized that I was not helping the worms at all, but killing them. Broke my heart. Similarly when I was about 10 I saw an injured bird. I wanted to help it, and I tried to catch it, but instead I caught it on the head with the fishing net and it died.
Always had a desire to save. I've learned over the years that some things work better. I thought I had nailed it when I was a teenager and was rescuing the egg laying turtles. We have sandy roadsides so they come out of the river and cross the highway to lay eggs. When I was an older adult, I learned that too was wrong, because if you don't do it right, they just have to do all the work all over again to get to the same spot. I learned from a turtle rescue how to properly help them across the road. So that is what I do now. I learned about wildlife rehab and volunteer when I can so that I'm not thinking I am saving them but really doing them more harm.
Just sharing, since it was related to the story in a way. We all do the best we know how.
Exactly. Early on your right intention was not translating to right action. But you learned and coupled right intention with knowledge (wisdom) and developed right action. Congratulations on really helping the turtles!
@jll The precepts should be considered as a sort of minimum standard of behaviour that one should observe. That means we cannot say that it is ok to do a certain act simply because such action does not transgress the precepts. For example, punching someone in the face out of anger is not, strictly speaking, breaking the first precept, but clearly it is not ok to do that and you will be acquiring negative karma through such acts.
The most important thing about karma is intention. So if the basis of your action is anger, greed or any other unwholesome mental state then you will acquire negative karma, regardless of whether a precept is being broken or not.
As Buddhists, before we perform a certain act, we should consider whether that act is skillful or not. This means that we should carefully consider the consequences of our actions before doing them. If we believe that an action will cause harm then we should abandon it.
So on the question of whether it's ok the buy meat off the shelf (or whether it's ok to put millions of fish into a lake) that essentially will depend on the mental state of the person when he/she is performing the act. If the person who is buying meat at the supermarket (or releasing the fishes into the lake) has carefully considered about the consequences of his/her act and if he/she genuinely believes that he/she would not be causing any harm and proceeds to perform that act with a wholesome state of mind then that is fine and the person would be blameless IMO.
What could be the subject of debate, however, is how closely related must the act someone performs be with the results to say that such result was actually caused by the act. I think different people would have different standards on this question of causation but does anyone know whether this was discussed in the scriptures?
I don't think it is mindless because they have the intention to help the fish. Some of the fish may survive and at least the fish have freedom from captivity. If they stopped the ritual and there were still dead fish then what would you think? In any case there is a condition of caring about fish. If they can become more mindful as you say maybe they can do something more helpful. But they have the right intention and I would and do celebrate their good hearts.
I don't agree. When I have pointed out to Thais that the little birds just fly back to the owner, who puts them in a cage, and then he "sells" the right to release the birds to the next person who comes along, they agree and just laugh and tell me "it's a tradition".
Right intention always needs to be coupled with wisdom before it becomes right action.
I didn't disagree that wisdom was needed. However there are multiple causes. The bird is like Santa Claus. It's not truthful but it is a tradition people enact.
Compassion is the enactment of wisdom. True wisdom is compasssionate and true compassion is wise. The cittas of freeing the fish are worth it. It's like metta meditation. Is it foolish because the person on the 'other end' cannot feel your metta meditaiton?
Good for the fish a last chance at freedom. Good for the monk to cultivate good will.
When I was younger I used to strap on a pair of goggles take a net and dive in lakes and catch them in the net.
Obviously the fish are still fearful cause they run away but this seems to me alot less worse then hooking them in the lip with a hook that may be made of lead which could potentially cause mercury or whatever poisoning.
Usually it's the sinker that is made of lead. They tend to actually be more harmful to the birds than the fish. I wish they would stop selling lead ones. You can buy non-lead but they are quite a bit more expensive (we use them, the nonlead). It poisons the loons and the bald eagles when they eat fish who have swallowed sinkers I'm not sure why it doesn't seem to hurt the fish, perhaps they are not prone to lead poisoning or maybe most of them don't have a long enough life span or something. The fish actually carry mercury from pollution in the water. It's the lead that is the danger to them. The mercury of course the danger to whatever eats the fish. Even here, where our waters tend to be cleaner than a lot of areas, a lot of the lakes have a 2 fish limit for eating per week due to mercury content.
Rather than worm, fish, bird, lobster or human slavery release as a way of feeling good, we can effect our impact to change the often cruel and senseless rituals we indulge in. Can we save higher animals by not eating them? We can engage in change movements rather than minimal concern. Which are priorities?
Is being kind an activity more than just a passive attitude?
Well, we already 'save' many of the "higher animals" by not eating them.... dolphin, whale, manatees, apes and gorillas- primates in general, etc. These are not traditionally used/hunted or raised as food animals unless they are the only animal food available in remote regions (think Arctic or rain forest areas). Humans may kill them for other reasons, and yes, THAT should be stopped, but food generally isn't one of the reasons.
@blu3ree it must be a different kind we buy, we don't have lead warnings on ours, just looked.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
To add to @Cinorjer's post I'm sure most of those small fish that are released are also caught and sold only because the merchants know the ceremony to release them is coming soon. So if there were no such ceremony to release them those fish would likely never be caught in the first place.
I would never fish or hunt. But I do not judge people for doing it, there can be many reasons for it. I think it is more sickening that people would work in the meat-industry with slaying animals like they are just products. On the other hand I am just as bad for keeping the system alive by buying meat. I am cutting down my meat-consumption a lot these days. I wish I could be a vegetarian, but I don't think that will happen. All I can do is try not to feel guilty and be aware of how I can decrease my meat-consumption.
In Burma a hugely popular monk named Wirathu who is the head of a large temple sits in his saffron robes and shaved head, openly calls for the murder of Muslims and preaches religious hatred. This monk has personally instigated several riots where monks attacked innocent Muslims who were even killed and homes burned to the ground or looted. He laughs and calls himself the"Buddhist Ben Laden" when challenged.
The biggest official Buddhist condemnation I can find is one Abbott saying "He sides a little towards hate."
And here we are, pondering the morals of catching a fish.
I love you folks. You give me hope. You keep the Dharma alive in my heart.
I now return you to the regularly scheduled debate.
@blu3ree if you (or someone you know) needs non-lead lures/gear, there is a huge list of them here. Bass Pro Shops does carry them, but you may have to request certain stores to stock them. We have no problems finding them here, but because we live in an area where up to 50% of the loons (which are iconic animals here) die of lead poisoning, people demand them a lot.
"Do not kill" is such a basic moral stand that even a grumpy Zennist like me feels hesitant to preach against it. Yet, a prohibition against killing at all can result in watching pests have their way with your house while you try to figure out how get rid of mice and termites and even misquitos without killing them.
I think this is a good point, and reminds me of something I once read in a dharma book: that while killing is never fully justified, we also have a right to live without insects in our home. I think the Dalai Lama made a similiar point about killing mosquitoes.
In regard to what was said regarding releasing millions of fish in Tibetan lakes, while we don't have these kind of problems on the same scale, you can see a similiar scenario play out in many of the ponds and lakes here due to people not catching and eating the fish. Certain populations will become overpopulated and as a result will experience stunted growth and constant hunger due to a lack of food and overcrowding.
On the other hand, certain other species of fish would be quickly wiped out if Wildlife and Fisheries did not impose strict limits on catch. This is in line with what karasti was saying about hunting and brings up other issues such as the overcrowding and lack of food for animals such as deer if there are too many in an area and not enough (regulated) hunting.
Just some food for thought, I'm still not sure where I stand on this issue. Thanks again to everyone who replied to my post. I was away from the internet for awhile.
We all have choices on how we choose to live this life. As we move further along on our paths we will eventually see how our thoughts and actions have an impact on all that surrounds us. I used to be a fisherman, both for sport and food. Being on this path I no longer fish, for I no longer wish to inflict pain and suffering on another being for my own pleasure and or nourishment. I am also making the choice of moving to a more vegetarian diet. These are my choices and with that my responsibility.
To the OP, we are all individuals that need to make our own choices in life and with those choices comes a great responsibility. My only questions to you would be: What do you receive out of the action of fishing? What do you perceive the fish receives from your actions while fishing?
I like to use these three questions before making my own personal choice of action: Is it True? Is it Kind? Is it Necessary?
I have been to a few monastery where they do not kill, literally. yet they are not buried under swarms of pest. so, what we think is impractical is actually being practised.
Cinorjer said:
"Do not kill" is such a basic moral stand that even a grumpy Zennist like me feels hesitant to preach against it. Yet, a prohibition against killing at all can result in watching pests have their way with your house while you try to figure out how get rid of mice and termites and even misquitos without killing them.
@jll True, but those are monasteries--carefully controlled environments. In the same way it's a lot easier to not kill anything at all in your life if you're a monk living in such a controlled environment and you don't drive a car for instance.
Also, the monks aren't being called upon to do something about all the rats and cockroaches that have infested some old buildings where people without money are trying to live. And in a lot of the world, the common misquito carries terrible disease and parasites. People simply struggling to feed themselves can't invest a bunch of time and energy trying out non-killing methods that might sort-of work. I'm just saying declaring all killing to be wrong is not practical or realistic. It's probably this nod to reality that causes some schools of Buddhism to say only monks are capable of living a life free enough from bad karma to be enlightened.
i have not found the need to intentionally kill an insect or rodent for several years now. i live in a condo, not a monastery. sure, it is more time consuming to catch n release than to just spray them with pesticide. but trust me, it is do-able.
@jll True, but those are monasteries--carefully controlled environments. In the same way it's a lot easier to not kill anything at all in your life if you're a monk living in such a controlled environment and you don't drive a car for instance.
Also, the monks aren't being called upon to do something about all the rats and cockroaches that have infested some old buildings where people without money are trying to live. And in a lot of the world, the common misquito carries terrible disease and parasites. People simply struggling to feed themselves can't invest a bunch of time and energy trying out non-killing methods that might sort-of work. I'm just saying declaring all killing to be wrong is not practical or realistic. It's probably this nod to reality that causes some schools of Buddhism to say only monks are capable of living a life free enough from bad karma to be enlightened.
it has always puzzled me why we consider it ok to eat certain animals n not others. eg, eating dogs is a no-no in america. but in china n korea, it is considered very nutitious meat.
I personally don't see any distinction between purchasing meat or hunting/fishing for it yourself. The outcome is the same.
this view is opposed to buddha's teaching.
buddha's position is clear, he opposed killing, not eating meat. while you may argue that it is the same, i will argue that it is not.
This is traditional Theravada view. Traditional Mahayana view is very different in that the prohibition is not just in the killing but just the eating also. This is why millions of Mahayana monks are required by precepts to be vegetarian.
I would like to know how many of the posters on this forum have changed their actual behavior in regard to eating meat over the past 6 months of posts about eating versus not eating meat.
And why do these animal lovers keep beating that dead horse?
I eat less meat, but that decision has been based almost entirely on health, because upon adding a lot of veggies to my diet I no longer have room for meat as much. Either way, if I decide to stop eating meat (for any reason) at some point in my life, it will not in any way be because someone else told me I should.
And I now have one meatless day a week (with pasta and mushrooms), but it is more a health issue than anything. Of course, it doesn't hurt that 2 less chickens are succumbing a month for my benefit...but it's incidental.
And I now have one meatless day a week (with pasta and mushrooms), but it is more a health issue than anything. Of course, it doesn't hurt that 2 less chickens are succumbing a month for my benefit...but it's incidental.
I have killed grouse for meat. I clean them myself. Same with fish and in the past, deer. I have not hunted in the past couple years mostly due to weather and time constraints but my son still does. If it incurs me karma, then I accept that fully. It still causes less harm overall than supporting factory farms. Most of what we eat we buy still, but we buy local farm raised meat so that we are not supporting the factory farms and the extensive harm and damage they cause.
Comments
So I am interested to respond to my ideas rather than just say (this)one who has a guru is being defensive.
Your right, not being able to read minds makes it hard to know that the content of your post was really someone elses. And I was asking you if this defence of an animal release ritual that actually kills those animals was more based on a cultural devotion than empathy. A simple, No, I'd accept on face value but was it not an valid question to ask?.
Of course I have certainly run around defending Zen here, which in hindsight I've questioned because although it was true of an ideal, the actual, might of been more representative of reality.
I spend a fair amount of time on another site which addresses the poor behaviour of a number of linage's and I think that the constant to and fro of the polarities between accusers and defenders might have me seeing Bogey men where there are none..
My apologies if my post was ill founded.
respectfully
H
I think it is based on multiple causes like I said. I think it would feel good to buy fish and release them. That is a cause for joy and I don't have any evidence suggesting these monks do not act out of empathy. I don't find it far fetched to say a Buddhist monk exhibits compassion :rolleyes:
At least when people buy fish and eat them, other animals are not needing to be procured to feed those fish eaters. But here they are just hurting them under Buddhist flags for an ideal that they are not actualizing.
In the absence of a better explanation than "multiple causes", it remains a ritualized lack of empathy for other suffering beings that brings some shame to this Buddhist.
but the buddha's position is if you choose the animal
to be killed for your consumption, then yes you incur
negative karma.
if you buy meat off the shelf, then you are off the hook.
pardon the pun.
in buddhism, vegetarianism is considered praiseworthy too.
but here we are talking about the 1st precept ie not killing.
so when you are buying meat off the shelf, you are not breaking
the 1st precept.
otherwise, monks will not be able the meat you bought for them.
if you go to a farm choose a live chicken, and cook the chicken
for a monk, they will not eat it.
i dont know whether i have made things clearer or more
confusing.
well, at least i tried to explain.
Some Lobsters are now being released . . .
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/11/lobsters-back-to-sea_n_924229.html
Ritualised 'compassion' is as ignorant as ritualised hunting, in some ways worse.
Hunt and fish and eat or keep your mouth shut until the kelp arrives . . .
Too harsh?
Mulla Nasrudin is walking past a cave when he sees a yogi, deep in meditation, and he asks the yogi what he is searching for.
The yogi says: ‘I study the animals and have learned many lessons from them that can transform a man’s life.’
‘A fish once saved my life,’ Nasrudin replies. ‘If you teach me everything you know, I will tell you how it happened.’
The Yogi is astonished; only a holy man could be saved by a fish. And he decides to teach Nasrudin everything he knows.
When he has finished, he says to Nasrudin:
‘Now that I have taught you everything, I would be proud to know how a fish saved your life.’
‘Very simple,’ says Nasrudin, ‘I was almost dying of hunger when I caught it and, thanks to that fish, I had enough food for three days.’
That's not to say they should stop hunting. I do see the benefits of hunting vs only eating factory farmed meat. However, those that champion the cause (I know a few people who do this) and encourage "everyone" to do it are a bit short-sighted IMO.
@jll it isn't solely my opinion. It is an opinion I hold, currently. But much of the reason I hold it is because that is the answer I have gotten from multiple teachers and it makes sense to me and goes along with what I interpreted. In today's world, causing harm goes a lot farther than simply what we do with our own hands.
So surely it is a ritual, but I believe in their view they are doing a good thing.
Always had a desire to save. I've learned over the years that some things work better. I thought I had nailed it when I was a teenager and was rescuing the egg laying turtles. We have sandy roadsides so they come out of the river and cross the highway to lay eggs. When I was an older adult, I learned that too was wrong, because if you don't do it right, they just have to do all the work all over again to get to the same spot. I learned from a turtle rescue how to properly help them across the road. So that is what I do now. I learned about wildlife rehab and volunteer when I can so that I'm not thinking I am saving them but really doing them more harm.
Just sharing, since it was related to the story in a way. We all do the best we know how.
ceasing from evil, doing only good and purifying your heart,
or
feeling good because monks smile at your support of a feudalistic ritual of harm because for some reason, they can't really see what they are doing..
Multiple conditions. A warm heart IS one condition and no I can't read their minds so maybe it is all ritual and dead hand of Mara has killed the heart. Another condition like you say is wisdom to do something that helps the fish. If I were a fish I'd want to go free even if I die. The monks don't have power over life and death they just can do what is in their power. Maybe some people will be inspired to have regards for animal life.
The most important thing about karma is intention. So if the basis of your action is anger, greed or any other unwholesome mental state then you will acquire negative karma, regardless of whether a precept is being broken or not.
As Buddhists, before we perform a certain act, we should consider whether that act is skillful or not. This means that we should carefully consider the consequences of our actions before doing them. If we believe that an action will cause harm then we should abandon it.
So on the question of whether it's ok the buy meat off the shelf (or whether it's ok to put millions of fish into a lake) that essentially will depend on the mental state of the person when he/she is performing the act. If the person who is buying meat at the supermarket (or releasing the fishes into the lake) has carefully considered about the consequences of his/her act and if he/she genuinely believes that he/she would not be causing any harm and proceeds to perform that act with a wholesome state of mind then that is fine and the person would be blameless IMO.
What could be the subject of debate, however, is how closely related must the act someone performs be with the results to say that such result was actually caused by the act. I think different people would have different standards on this question of causation but does anyone know whether this was discussed in the scriptures?
Right intention always needs to be coupled with wisdom before it becomes right action.
how many people can live up to it?
as for punching someone in the face. i dont need the buddha or
5 precepts to tell me that it is wrong and foolish.
Compassion is the enactment of wisdom. True wisdom is compasssionate and true compassion is wise. The cittas of freeing the fish are worth it. It's like metta meditation. Is it foolish because the person on the 'other end' cannot feel your metta meditaiton?
Good for the fish a last chance at freedom. Good for the monk to cultivate good will.
Obviously the fish are still fearful cause they run away but this seems to me alot less worse then hooking them in the lip with a hook that may be made of lead which could potentially cause mercury or whatever poisoning.
Quite sad how we dont have to ensure products are Eco friendly.
Is being kind an activity more than just a passive attitude?
Humans may kill them for other reasons, and yes, THAT should be stopped, but food generally isn't one of the reasons.
The variable is the suffering that we create or minimize in this process.
The 4NT to the rescue again.
In Burma a hugely popular monk named Wirathu who is the head of a large temple sits in his saffron robes and shaved head, openly calls for the murder of Muslims and preaches religious hatred. This monk has personally instigated several riots where monks attacked innocent Muslims who were even killed and homes burned to the ground or looted. He laughs and calls himself the"Buddhist Ben Laden" when challenged.
The biggest official Buddhist condemnation I can find is one Abbott saying "He sides a little towards hate."
And here we are, pondering the morals of catching a fish.
I love you folks. You give me hope. You keep the Dharma alive in my heart.
I now return you to the regularly scheduled debate.
Would help if I added the link
http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/living-green/living-green-citizen/household-hazardous-waste/get-the-lead-out/get-the-lead-out-manufacturers-and-retailers.html
In regard to what was said regarding releasing millions of fish in Tibetan lakes, while we don't have these kind of problems on the same scale, you can see a similiar scenario play out in many of the ponds and lakes here due to people not catching and eating the fish. Certain populations will become overpopulated and as a result will experience stunted growth and constant hunger due to a lack of food and overcrowding.
On the other hand, certain other species of fish would be quickly wiped out if Wildlife and Fisheries did not impose strict limits on catch. This is in line with what karasti was saying about hunting and brings up other issues such as the overcrowding and lack of food for animals such as deer if there are too many in an area and not enough (regulated) hunting.
Just some food for thought, I'm still not sure where I stand on this issue. Thanks again to everyone who replied to my post. I was away from the internet for awhile.
To the OP, we are all individuals that need to make our own choices in life and with those choices comes a great responsibility. My only questions to you would be: What do you receive out of the action of fishing? What do you perceive the fish receives from your actions while fishing?
I like to use these three questions before making my own personal choice of action: Is it True? Is it Kind? Is it Necessary?
I have been to a few monastery where they do not kill, literally.
yet they are not buried under swarms of pest.
so, what we think is impractical is actually being practised.
Cinorjer said:
"Do not kill" is such a basic moral stand that even a grumpy Zennist like me feels hesitant to preach against it. Yet, a prohibition against killing at all can result in watching pests have their way with your house while you try to figure out how get rid of mice and termites and even misquitos without killing them.
Also, the monks aren't being called upon to do something about all the rats and cockroaches that have infested some old buildings where people without money are trying to live. And in a lot of the world, the common misquito carries terrible disease and parasites. People simply struggling to feed themselves can't invest a bunch of time and energy trying out non-killing methods that might sort-of work. I'm just saying declaring all killing to be wrong is not practical or realistic. It's probably this nod to reality that causes some schools of Buddhism to say only monks are capable of living a life free enough from bad karma to be enlightened.
years now. i live in a condo, not a monastery.
sure, it is more time consuming to catch n release than to just
spray them with pesticide.
but trust me, it is do-able.
animals n not others.
eg, eating dogs is a no-no in america.
but in china n korea, it is considered very nutitious meat.
And why do these animal lovers keep beating that dead horse?