Soi Dog animal flood relief

prettyhowtown

Soi Dog foundation are heavily involved in the rescue of the flood animal relief in Thailand. If you are able to donate, please do. We can't forget our animal friends.


http://www.soidog.org

zidangus

Thanks for highlighting this @prettyhowtown

Hanzze

There are less who care about the people and children, but yes everybody needs to search for a market gap.

Did you ever thought about the reaction of poor people when they have nothing and then nice beautiful people arrive in cars to help a dog out. Actually it a nice idea, but one needs to know jealousy of simply people.
You also need to know that dogs are food in south east Asia. Especial when there is less food, simply people would feed on it.

:wave:

prettyhowtown

There are less who care about the people and children, but yes everybody needs to search for a market gap.

Did you ever thought about the reaction of poor people when they have nothing and then nice beautiful people arrive in cars to help a dog out. Actually it a nice idea, but one needs to know jealousy of simply people.
You also need to know that dogs are food in south east Asia. Especial when there is less food, simply people would feed on it.

:wave:

Can I ask you, what is your actual intention in making this post? If you watched the video you could see that the rescuers are typical folk, and the Soi Dog foundation is run by people who don't have much of their own money-- they are operating on donations. They are also assisting animals in areas that have already been evacuated, including to re-unite dogs with owners who have evacuated. So no, they are not helping dogs to the exclusion of human beings. They're going in areas where there are no human beings left to help, and they are rescuing dogs and cats.

Hanzze

The intention was to explain a little that people on other places often have other problem as we our self and that they could be quite confused and angry if seeing people helping dogs while their children starve.

I wounder who would take care of the snakes and rats, but for sure they would give less intention to make a good foundracing.

Not that it is wrong to help the animals, but you can be sure that you kill more animals on the way some try to safe the "worthy". Or do they walk?

When ever we like to help, its good to do it our self and there where we are. We could reduce our greed and hatred for example, so that there is less destruction of forest and less flood and we could teach others as well to take precepts and train there mind.

Just an Idea, never mind.

Children, Bullets

A gun shoots its children — its bullets — outward. We shoot ours inward, into our heart. When they're good, we're shot in the heart. When they're bad, we're shot in the heart. They're an affair of kamma, our children. There are good ones, there are bad ones, but both the good and bad are our children all the same.

When they're born, look at us: The worse off they are, the more we love them. If one of them comes down with polio and gets crippled, that's the one we love the most. When we leave the house we tell the older ones, "Look after your little sister. Look after this one" — because we love her. When we're about to die we tell them, "Look after her. Look after my child." She's not strong, so you love her even more.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/thai/chah/insimpleterms.html

prettyhowtown

I think it is more realistic to try and save the dogs instead of the snakes and the rats-- although if it were possible, I would support that as well.

Hanzze

You can support them all the time and you would even not need money to do it, strictly speaking doing the opposite. That's what I wanted to tell.

If we look at our virtue we help the whole world. And what we have to much we can share, where ever we are.

prettyhowtown

I understand, and in my heart I'm supporting all the victims and all the relief workers.

Hanzze

Yes, you wish them to understand as well, so that there would be really a change. Think if all those touched by suffering animals would abstain from destroying nature in there name. What a happening!

But actually we seek just for a reason why we continue to do not reduce our own greed. We do it for the good! We do it to help! When I have money I will help!

Just be good, no need to be a good person. We need to focus on virtue fist.

If we are good, we also can start to teach.

zidangus

@Hanzze there is nothing wrong in highlighting the plight of non humans, Indeed why can't help be given to all that need it regardless of species ? I am sure the amount of help going to humans is ten fold that to dogs or other animals, therefore for me its nice to see that some people have also not forgotten the non humans that are in suffering and in need of help; and its to the credit of those who help, to see that their compassion touches not only their own species but also others.

Hanzze

I would not think about who is more worthy to help, put we should think about how much we harm in our thought (attachment to specific beloved) of help.

Just image how many dogs and cats they have safe (they mostly would survive any way, they are not really westernized jet) and image the death animals out of driving, buying transferring, business... in the back round. Not thinking about the 150 flies on your car window when driving to the bank.

Buddha taught an more efficient way, with no need to discriminate. Its not only good for others, for one self as well. *smile*

We need to think about it and therefore its very good to have people who try there best. Compassion without wisdom is mostly worse that no Compassion at all.
Its great that people think about animal, and other think on children, and the next think on old people... but actually its a "helping fight" a big industry with all its victims in the pack.

Buddha taught us a better way.

Cinorjer

Help all beings.

If the rescuers were ignoring stranded and starving people to pick up the pets, it would be something to point out. Somehow I don't think the people are being ignored or the animals have top priority.

We can always say, "Well, why are we doing X when Y also needs to be done?" That's not the right way to look at a suffering world, because you divide the suffering beings into those that deserve help and those that don't. In the end, the dividing becomes, "Why should I help those people over there, when I have people here who still suffer." It doesn't work.

It's help all beings for a reason. Because help some beings never works. This is Buddhism.

Hanzze

And in which way? Taking here and giving there? *smile* What about just reduce taking?

prettyhowtown

What you're saying, it seems, is that we are more helpful in doing nothing... I heartily disagree.

Hanzze

Actually yes, reducing the actions helps, as well as sharing what we already have taken to much. *smile*

So there is much to do to come to such a point. Not a little place for laziness and ignorance if we really like to help.

federica

I have no idea what you're talking about. This is non-sense, if ever I saw it..... :scratch:

prettyhowtown

*nods*

zidangus

*agreeing smile*

Hanzze

Thought to refresh it a little with a story one week ago *smile*

The rain is going on and today the kids living at our house recognized one rat (we have a big family behind our house, and the kids know them since they have been child's by them self - usually rats are enemies in the city and food in the country side) carry there babies one by one out of there home because the water had entered their hole.

The mother here self sick, with a swollen bloody eye would never give up. Now the babies are waiting for here success, she is searching for a new home, safed here babies but needed to leave them alone.

zidangus

@Hanzze I think the Buddha was quite outspoken in his view of animal welfare and cruelty, for instance he criticized the Brahmin and Vedic priests for performing cruel animal sacrifices. I dont think he had the attitude of just ignoring it. From this I could postulate that the Buddha would speak out and do something when he saw animals in need of help, just as people speak out and do something when they see animals in need of help in Thailand.

The article below highlights this.

http://www.buddhistchannel.tv/index.php?id=8,665,0,0,1,0

Hanzze

No, he was so much liberal, that he also taught for the good of ugly animals unloved and unseen beings, even to protect plants.

That is why it is more useful to follow his practice: reducing suffering and harming step by step as to take side for one group.

*smile* Its a wrong believe if we think that we can help one group without hurting the others.

prettyhowtown

No, he was so much liberal, that he also taught for the good of ugly animals unloved and unseen beings, even to protect plants.

That is why it is more useful to follow his practice: reducing suffering and harming step by step as to take side for one group.

*smile* Its a wrong believe if we think that we can help one group without hurting the others.

This is the way of existence. If I eat fruit from a tree, I may be depriving some other animal of food. Should I then starve myself? That is not a compassionate or skillful action, either.

Telly03

It is important to have compassion for all living creatures, but right or wrong, it seems easier to reach out first to those creatures who also shown the capability to show compassion... and in the case of a dog, their ability to show compassion is often more evident than in many humans

prettyhowtown

It is important to have compassion for all living creatures, but right or wrong, it seems easier to reach out first to those creatures who also shown the capability to show compassion... and in the case of a dog, their ability to show compassion is often more evident than in many humans

True. Though many of the animals that are rescued/treated by Soi Dog are reluctant to receive help. Soi Dog do a lot of catcher/neuter/release operations for animals who are not adoptable (well-adapted to street life) and in danger of cruelty at their current location.

MindGate

Maybe I'm speciest (lol), but I believe that the money donated to the Soi Dog Foundation could be better put to use helping humans, rather than rescuing dogs or other animals. I'm not saying my opinion is right, but this is just how I see it. I'd rather help a being with sapience, self-awareness, emotion, etc etc, rather than an animal that does not have this.

prettyhowtown

Maybe I'm speciest (lol), but I believe that the money donated to the Soi Dog Foundation could be better put to use helping humans, rather than rescuing dogs or other animals. I'm not saying my opinion is right, but this is just how I see it. I'd rather help a being with sapience, self-awareness, emotion, etc etc, rather than an animal that does not have this.

That's understandable, but many of the dogs that are assisted by Soi Dog are victims of human cruelty and circumstances created by humans. There are more than enough people in the world who would agree with you, and fewer people in the world who agree with me. I'm sure the number of human relief workers vastly outnumbers those trying to assist animals-- who are just as deserving.

It's also impossible to say with certainty that a dog does not have sapience, self-awareness, emotion, etc. In fact, I believe it's been proven that dogs, elephants, apes, dolphins, and other higher mammals have some degree of those things you mentioned. I'm not here to argue with anyone, though.

I believe, in Buddhism, it doesn't matter either way. They're all deserving of compassion.

zidangus

I agree with you @prettyhowtown, all sentient beings are worthy of compassion and kindness, not just humans, and Buddha thought and taught this also @Mindgate.

Hanzze

No, he was so much liberal, that he also taught for the good of ugly animals unloved and unseen beings, even to protect plants.

That is why it is more useful to follow his practice: reducing suffering and harming step by step as to take side for one group.

*smile* Its a wrong believe if we think that we can help one group without hurting the others.

This is the way of existence. If I eat fruit from a tree, I may be depriving some other animal of food. Should I then starve myself? That is not a compassionate or skillful action, either.

Quite a big thought jump *smile*. I guess you need food for your self more then a reason why to take more as needed.

Hanzze

Maybe I'm speciest (lol), but I believe that the money donated to the Soi Dog Foundation could be better put to use helping humans, rather than rescuing dogs or other animals. I'm not saying my opinion is right, but this is just how I see it. I'd rather help a being with sapience, self-awareness, emotion, etc etc, rather than an animal that does not have this.

In teaching others Dhamma/awareness one would do the most effective help. *smile* But we are not so much into prevention, effect - hysteria seems to be more attractive. So we can actually do something and people would see what we do. *smile*

prettyhowtown

Bump.

MindGate

I agree with you @prettyhowtown, all sentient beings are worthy of compassion and kindness, not just humans, and Buddha thought and taught this also @Mindgate.

Right, but don't you think that beings which are capable of grasping the idea of their own death are more "worthy" for saving, rather than a being which cannot do this? Maybe my little mind cannot grasp why someone would save a dog over a human, but you know, *shrug*.

prettyhowtown

I agree with you @prettyhowtown, all sentient beings are worthy of compassion and kindness, not just humans, and Buddha thought and taught this also @Mindgate.

Right, but don't you think that beings which are capable of grasping the idea of their own death are more "worthy" for saving, rather than a being which cannot do this? Maybe my little mind cannot grasp why someone would save a dog over a human, but you know, *shrug*.

What makes you think a dog is incapable of grasping the idea of its own death? Did you know that many animals go through an observable grieving process? At the very least, they are cognizant of the death of their companions.

It is also widely known that children under the age of about six do not have any comprehension that they will one day die. By your criteria, we shouldn't do anything to save young children, either.

MindGate

I'm tired of you people putting damn words in my mouth.

Tell me where I said you shouldn't save dogs because they can't understand their deaths. Tell me exactly where I said there.

You can't, because I didn't say that. I said, "Save humans OVER dogs." Humans first, dogs or whatever the hell else you want second.


God, you people sometimes. Seriously.

prettyhowtown

I'm tired of you people putting damn words in my mouth.

Tell me where I said you shouldn't save dogs because they can't understand their deaths. Tell me exactly where I said there.

You can't, because I didn't say that. I said, "Save humans OVER dogs." Humans first, dogs or whatever the hell else you want second.


God, you people sometimes. Seriously.

Right, but don't you think that beings which are capable of grasping the idea of their own death are more "worthy" for saving, rather than a being which cannot do this?

You don't have to say something outright to imply it. Why don't you say what you actually mean? Why do you offer your opinion on something if you don't want to see any opposition to it? I'm trying to have discourse with you, but you're taking your frustration with the general feel of this forum out on me-- and I don't appreciate it. Further, Soi Dog are rescuing animals in areas that have already been evacuated by humans-- READ: there are no humans left to assist in these areas.

MindGate

Humans can comprehend their deaths and are aware of their own existence. They are sapient and can use complex logical reasoning. Human minds are much more complex than most (if not all) animals' out there. Humans have complex emotions, such as empathy, that many other animals do not have. We understand that we may one day die; dogs don't understand this, to my knowledge.

This is why I think you should save humans over dogs. Yet, you say, "there are no humans left to assist in these areas." I know this, but that 5 dollars you donate to save a dog could be going to help people out in OTHER areas, or feed a family that may be starving due to this, or something like that. Once all of the humans are taken care of, then it'd be time to help the other species. Just my thoughts.

prettyhowtown

Although you're understanding of the canine brain is flat-out wrong, I'll agree to disagree.

MindGate

Although you're understanding of the canine brain is flat-out wrong, I'll agree to disagree.

Dogs understand that they will one day die and are aware of their very own existence?

prettyhowtown

Although you're understanding of the canine brain is flat-out wrong, I'll agree to disagree.

Dogs understand that they will one day die and are aware of their very own existence?

Not in the strictest sense, no. But dogs have empathy/understanding of emotions, emotional responses, social structure, etc. In my mind, it doesn't matter anyway.



You see this as a black and white issue-- it's not. I'm sorry if my tendency to jump back and forth on topics is irritating. The fact is, whether you think dogs should be saved or not, Soi Dog foundation are spaying/neutering and releasing animals in an attempt to at least reduce the suffering where it begins; with homeless puppies.

zidangus

I agree with you @prettyhowtown, all sentient beings are worthy of compassion and kindness, not just humans, and Buddha thought and taught this also @Mindgate.

Right, but don't you think that beings which are capable of grasping the idea of their own death are more "worthy" for saving, rather than a being which cannot do this? Maybe my little mind cannot grasp why someone would save a dog over a human, but you know, *shrug*.

A nice Buddhist story for you @Mindgate

The Starving Tigress

A Tale of Compassion, Selflessness, and Generosity.

Born into a family of Brahmans renowned for their purity of conduct and great spiritual devotion, the bodhisattva became a great scholar and teacher. With no desire for wealth and gain, he entered a forest retreat and began a life as an ascetic. It was in this forest where he encountered a tigress who was starving and emaciated from giving birth and was about to resort to eating her own new born cubs for survival. With no food in sight, the bodhisattva, out of infinite compassion, offered his body as food to the tigress, selflessly forfeiting his own life.




http://www.himalayanart.org/image.cfm/50191.html

zidangus

@Mindgate, why do you think that you or any human is more worthy than any other sentient being ?

Could this be our attachment to ego which leads us to believe this :scratch:

I am not criticizing you for having this view, I am just wondering where this view arises from, its cause. Ask yourself why you believe that you or any other human is worth more, than a dog or any other animal.

Buddhism does not teach us that one species is worth saving more than another, I think you will find this view common among religions such as Islam and Christianity but not Buddhism I'm afraid.

With Metta

MindGate

I feel as though, personally, and with the knowledge of the human mind that I have, that humans are able to ""feel"" more so than other animals, that they are more aware of everything. Like I said, humans can comprehend their deaths and are aware of their own existence. They are sapient and can use complex logical reasoning. Human minds are much more complex than most (if not all) animals' out there. Humans have complex emotions, such as empathy, that many other animals do not have. We understand that we may one day die.

I'm not sure if other animals can do this, but from what I know - no, not all can do all of this. I feel as though that a human, being aware of its death and such, would suffer more than another animal.

zidangus

Fair enough, but you should know that a lot of Buddhists (me included) believe that all sentient beings have the potential to become Buddhas, there are no sentient beings more or less deserving of compassion, kindness and love. Buddhists believe that human beings do not have a special place above the rest of life. The world was not created specifically for human beings. And the highest ideal of Buddhism is to work for a permanent end to the suffering of ALL living beings, not just humans.

MindGate

Right, but what I'm saying is: if you could save a human or another animal, which would you choose? I think you should choose the human. Simple as that.

Save dog or human? Human.
Cat or human? Human.
Fly or human? Human.
Germ or human? Human

You can save whatever you want though. This is just what I think should be done.

This doesn't mean dogs and whatnot don't deserve saving, but I think if you had to choose inbetween some, you should choose human. But do whatever you want.

Brian

Only the Newbuddhist community can take someone's well-intentioned discussion about saving dogs and turn it into a bitchy bash-fest. Jeez.

Thread closed.