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.
Fishing Ethics
I used to go fishing for fun. I'd catch fish and release them. What would Buddhist philosophy have to say about that? I understand that a precept is to not harm any living being - but to my knowledge, fish to not have a fully developed nervous system and can't really feel pain.
0
Comments
My brother proved that when he would catch fish then poke them with a stick.
trust me - they feel pain.
and the hook rips their mouths....
I used to fish too. Growing up in Indiana, its just a part of life. Once I grew up and started thinking about wether or not animals felt pain, I never felt right about putting a hook into another creatures mouth. I dont know what Buddhist Philosophy says, but I try not to harm any creatures, whether thats through pain or using them for my own pleasures.
I agree with @federica too, there is always a chance of swallowing the hook too, that cant be good for them.
Dhammapada Verse 270
Balisika Vatthu
Na tena ariyo hoti
yena panani himsati
ahimsa sabbapapnam
"ariyo" ti pavuccati.
Verse 270: He who harms living beings is, for that reason, not an ariya (a Noble One); he who does not harm any living being is called an ariya.
1. ariya: one who has realized one of the four maggas.
The Story of a Fisherman Named Ariya
While residing at the Jetavana monastery, the Buddha uttered Verse (270) of this book, with reference to a fisherman named Ariya.
Once, there was a fisherman who lived near the north gate of Savatthi. One day through his supernormal power, the Buddha found that time was ripe for the fisherman to attain Sotapatti Fruition. So on his return from the alms-round, the Buddha, followed by the bhikkhus, stopped near the place where Ariya was fishing. When the fisherman saw the Buddha, he threw away his fishing gear and came and stood near the Buddha. The Buddha then proceeded to ask the names of his bhikkhus in the presence of the fisherman, and finally, he asked the name of the fisherman. When the fisher man replied that his name was Ariya, the Buddha said that the Noble Ones (ariyas) do not harm any living being, but since the fisherman was taking the lives of fish he was not worthy of his name.
Then the Buddha spoke in verse as follows:
Verse 270: He who harms living beings is, for that reason, not an ariya (a Noble One); he who does not harm any living being is called an ariya.
At the end of the discourse the fisherman attained Sotapatti Fruition.
Although he mentions the fish being killed, I don't think one needs to kill the fish in order to cause it harm.
?...
Although if you're saying they don't cognitively experience pain the same way we humans do... I think you'll have to ask the fish. Because that's what hooks do?
The Buddha ate meat, including fish, and knew very well someone has to kill the animal before it landed in his bowl. Also, if people living hand to mouth were not allowed to gather what protein is available, people will starve. There is no moral difference at all between eating a fish sandwitch someone else caught and catching the fish yourself. I recognize the moral rightness of the vegetarian argument, even if I continue to eat meat.
My grandson loves to fish. The fish he wants to eat, he kills quickly and takes home and eats. The ones he doesn't want to eat, he releases. I go with him and enjoy watching him fish, the way my grandfather spent time with me. I've talked him into using nonbarbed hooks if he's not interested in cleaning fish that day, so he doesn't tear up the fish's mouth too much. The real professionals do it that way, he knows.
I don't fish anymore, but that's a personal decision on my part. My grandson knows why and thinks it's just one of GrandPa's funny ways. So my best advice is, if it bothers you to the point you don't enjoy it anymore, then don't do it. Nothing huge or mystical about it.
Yet... I killed a badly mutilated Squirrel...
...and if my child was starving and there was a fish to hook. I would fish for it....
....and be a "bad" Buddhist.
There are precepts that we strive to keep.. yet we can never say never.... Moral absolutism isn't practice.
It is a compilation and there are three or four versions that differ in some important ways, although the Pali version has become most popular. Literary analysis suggests there is an earlier, common version now lost that the existing versions all draw from. In other words, just like the Bible, people sometimes put words in their founder's mouth for a greater good and to make a point. If you read in the Bible that Jesus performed a miracle, do you have a problem thinking someone stretched the truth to make a point, or that rumor and stories grew over time and came to be written down as fact? The sutras are no different.
But I'm not saying Buddhist monks are allowed to go fishing, then or now. If being a Noble One means not fishing, fine. Did the man have a family that depended on his fishing? It doesn't say and the person who wrote the story didn't care. People didn't fish for sport back then, you know. It was how they put food on the table. When I read the story, I see the eternal conflict of what it means to be a Buddha, that's all.
Buddhists should learn not to delight in another being's suffering. That's true. Sport fishing isn't taking delight in another being's suffering. If you tell a fisherman that, you're insulting them and they won't listen to another word you say, because you don't understand. It's the thrill of the stalk and chase and catch. The fisherman respects and admires the fish. It's an instinctive drive for people that's been played out for a hundred thousand years. So is it Buddhist? It's not for me. If you're a Buddhist that fishes, that's for you to deal with.
It is of particular interest to me as a fisherman.
It seems that the Buddha must have walked past many people to find this fisherman who stood out as an individual whose realization and karma had prepared him for stream entry.
This mans path to his encounter with the Buddha had been through killing fish for a living.
Nothing in his lifestyle had prevented him from purifying himself to the point that he attracted the attention of the Buddha.
Does this seem like a tale about the negative karma suffered by someone who takes life to provide for his family?
It take this this as a tale about hope for the multitudes of people like me whose karma has been to kill creatures for others to eat.
Also, in any catch and release fishery there are mortalities. A tired fish has a much higher chance of dying from stress and exhaustion or being picked off by a predator.
That's why most modern commercial fisheries are managed to avoid discards. Unfortunately, sport fishing is not generally held to the same standard.
My point being, it maybe fun for us, with the thrill of the hunt and all. But no matter what way its spun, it still sucks for the fish. Wether its catch and release or not. The OP never talked of starving children. It talked of sport fishing. Our goal as Buddhist is to cause as little harm as possible. Putting hooks into other living beings is causing harm. Just my .02
I know Bhikkhus today who eat meat that is offered. They are not vegetarians.. but they can't even engage in gardening, lest they kill a worm.
Monks just ate what were the leftovers, whatever they could get out of begging. At least, that's how it started. But nowadays monks still aren't allowed to eat meat that was especially killed for them, to not support any killing of animals by anyone.
As a response to the first post: I've personally see the precepts not as rules, but as guidelines. They can be blurry at times, depend on the person, and they will develop with the practice.
But to me, fishing is seen as unskillful. I don't know about the nervous system of a fish, but even if the hook itself doesn't hurt, you still harm the fish by getting it out of the water and all. Also you can damage the fish so it can't properly eat or swim anymore. So as a result they are still hurt. Sometimes fish even swallow the entire hook.
With metta,
Sabre
But... you should ask someone with a good knowledge of Vinaya in Theravadin Buddhism.
It is pierced on a hook and drowned and eaten by a fish for nothing but our entertainment in torturing the fish. We torture and kill the worm, but no, that’s not the fun part. It’s just what we do to get to the joy of torturing the fish.
But seriously. As a kid I went fishing with my uncle. I secretly took the bait (which was bread) from my hook and just enjoyed sitting there.
I used to fish as well, and I even ate my catch. But I don't do either any longer. Harm is harm, even if it's not killing. You're causing suffering to the fish by enticing it to bite a very sharp hook, thrashing it around in the water, and (probably most of all) taking it out of the water. Imagine if the fish did the same to you, pulling you under water with a big hook in your mouth, then leisurely prying the hook out while holding you under water, then suddenly tossing you back up onto the beach, gasping for air.
Something to think about. Been thinking about it for many years. If I ever achieve the impossible and find the answer, I'll let you know.
Tashi Tsering, who wrote an autobiography of his life in the old Tibet, his education in the US, and his return to Tibet, said that as a boy he and his friends would catch fish with their bare hands. They didn't put them back in the water. They played with them. He said they didn't have much of anything else to play with.