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.
@federica said:
A man's gotta do, what a man's gotta do. Sometimes, it isn't a case of what is 'right' or 'wrong' but of choosing the lesser of two evils....
On a lighter note...When I turn up to do a job, the normal response is one of surprise 'why would a woman' be doing such a job !!!' but then I point out that when I belonged to the Entomological Society of NZ, over half the entomologists there were female and nowadays there are quite a number of urban pestologists who are female...
So you're right.... a woman's gotta do, what a woman's gotta do ! Plus I add a gentle touch, class and glamour to the job... -
I've recently come to believe my "pescatarian" diet (only eating seafood animals, not land ones) is hypocritical: a tuna is as magnificent a creature and probably suffers as much as a cow, and fishing/fish-farming is causing environmental damage on par with intensive land-based agriculture.
I now believe that, rather than vegetarian vs meat-eating, or seafood vs land-animals, the most important moral question about your food is whether it was harvested sustainably? That means organically, humanely in terms of animal treatment, and under fair worker conditions. Preferably also locally and seasonably.
The future of our planet may depend on how we, as a species, answer that question.
I grew up on a family dairy farm and can attest to the fact that animals can be treated with love and kindness far beyond being considered humane. Twice a day when the cows were milked every one of my fathers "girls" got her coat brushed and he would talk to each one of them. Our family's livelyhood depended on the girls being happy. Even the animals that were for human consumption were treated well even though they typically weren't named. A vegetarian diet is not free of death. A lot of wild animals are "collateral damage" in mechanized planting and harvesting of grains and vegetables. It's not something a lot of folks consider when shopping at the super market. Sourcing your food locally from smaller family farms is always preferable. Earthninja, if you want to hang up your fishing gear, go for it. I personally only practice catch and keep. I think it shows more respect for the fish than treating it like an amusement.
@Shak said:
A vegetarian diet is not free of death. A lot of wild animals are "collateral damage" in mechanized planting and harvesting of grains and vegetables. It's not something a lot of folks consider when shopping at the super market.
True there is some death with vegetarianism (death is part of life) - although there is always MORE death with meat eating. For example, those grains will also be fed to animals, who are then killed ...
Even though as a vegetarian, I still wouldn't be tempted to eat it, but I'm all for the growing of meat in the lab where no sentient being is breed then killed for consumption...
Born in South Africa I've been a hunter and fisherman my whole life.
Since going down this path I've changed some opinions about how I should live my life, I didn't want to kill another creature. At least directly anyway.
Well I've been practicing catch and release fishing since. Much to the annoyance of my fiancé. Anyway I caught a fish yesterday however it had swallowed all the hooks, he would of died as a result. I killed as quickly as I could and now he is dinner...
I feel a little guilty over this, I'm pondering over hanging up my rods and quit fishing.
Does the guilt stem because I broke my resolution or is it compassion forged that wasn't there before?
Born in South Africa I've been a hunter and fisherman my whole life.
Since going down this path I've changed some opinions about how I should live my life, I didn't want to kill another creature. At least directly anyway.
Well I've been practicing catch and release fishing since. Much to the annoyance of my fiancé. Anyway I caught a fish yesterday however it had swallowed all the hooks, he would of died as a result. I killed as quickly as I could and now he is dinner...
I feel a little guilty over this, I'm pondering over hanging up my rods and quit fishing.
Does the guilt stem because I broke my resolution or is it compassion forged that wasn't there before?
It's that old scale of harm verses harmlessness.
Selfishness on one end and selflessness on the other.
It takes some willingness to investigate the ways and means by which your food arrives on your table.
It takes some courage to be objective about that information when it threatens what we "like".
It requires some decisions on how much harm one is willing to support to satisfy one's likes when there are other options available for minimizing that harm.
I find this ethical dilemma interesting and have come across it many times...
As a ethical vegetarian and sub paying Buddhist( I sent Jason a cheque last months-I can't help it if it's still in the post) I'm also a part time urban pestologist ( long story so I won't go into detail here-let's just say "The more you learn the less you fear!" and in the past I had a major phobia involving creepy crawlies) my work involves integrated pest management...Inspecting food premises one day a month, on average...
I have no anger nor hatred towards the insects and rodents that I'm employed to 'control', for example in restaurants and other food outlets (possibly in the shops and restaurants that you eat in and buy your food from)...And fortunately(call it "karma") for the most part my work mainly involves inspections and writing reports...On the odd occasion I still have to eliminate the problem, so at times some reluctant killing (as humane as possible) is involved (even for cockroaches) ...
For this to happen that must happen and for that to happen this must happen...
So, you pay for a meal in a restaurant or buy food from a shop, a % of the meal/food money goes towards pest control which by the law of the land "must" be carried out- 'health & safety' requirements...Sadly because of us humans and our unwholesome waste management practices, rodents and insects pick up bacteria from the waste and 'recycle' it back to us, causing a number of different illnesses-some life threatening ..If the premises owner does not abide by this law they can be closed down, which could mean the staff and their families are out of work ie, "suffering"...
Now one might think, but why don't you find another job where you don't have to kill other sentient beings...If I just stop providing a service because "I" don't want to accumulate unwholesome karma from having to kill, I am just leaving the door open for another less fortunate 'ignorant' person to 'suffer' by accumulate the unwholesome karma "I" don't want... BTW I also do 'non killing' volunteer work which involves working with the less fortunate in my local community ...
Ones "Intention" based upon compassion and not wanting others to suffer seems to be the key when faced with such dilemmas...
2 simple truths that I'd screen your job worries through, although it applies just as well to anyones food choices.
Life is just a conversion of energy, supported solely through the death of other life.
For a practicing Buddhist, the question is less about the inevitable death that our life causes and is more about whether with all the endless options before us, are our actions supporting sufferings cause or it's cessation.
Born in South Africa I've been a hunter and fisherman my whole life.
Since going down this path I've changed some opinions about how I should live my life, I didn't want to kill another creature. At least directly anyway.
Well I've been practicing catch and release fishing since. Much to the annoyance of my fiancé. Anyway I caught a fish yesterday however it had swallowed all the hooks, he would of died as a result. I killed as quickly as I could and now he is dinner...
I feel a little guilty over this, I'm pondering over hanging up my rods and quit fishing.
Does the guilt stem because I broke my resolution or is it compassion forged that wasn't there before?
How do you guys live?
You acted compassionately. You saw the fish was suffering, and gave it a quick death.
However, I've been told that "catch and release" fishing still causes the fish suffering. idk. You might want to find a different pastime.
And btw, lots of Tibetan families, including the Dalai Lama's, are ranchers/herders, and live off the livestock they raise. So...whatever.
It's a tough life for fish everyday. Everyone is eating everyone else down there.
So it really comes down to whether you can mindfully watch waves of excitement and happiness wash over you while there is a creature fighting for its life on the end of your line, or not.
Is that how you want to get your thrills?
And I'm not judging. In my world everyone kills fish for food, for money and for fun.
Right now, meat grown in labs grows via stem cells using "growth promoting chemicals" and I'm not so keen on my food having unidentified chemicals in it. I try to keep my food as natural as I can. (we buy little meat from the store, and when we do it is grass fed). Also, simply producing more food (that costs plenty of money to produce to begin with) isn't necessarily the answer. Using what we have better and supporting more locally grown/farmed foods is ideal. Of course, that doesn't mean it's world-wide sustainable. But food grown in labs will still need to be packaged and shipped.
Every person just has to be honest with where their food comes from...all of it...and make the best choices available to them for their circumstances. While I've never been there, I assume South Africa is at least somewhat different than major western cities where you can drive down to the grocery store and get fake chicken and veggie burgers.
Even though we still eat meat, we also grow a garden that we can freeze and can from and it lasts long into the winter (and longer, depending). For our family right now, it works out pretty well. I also make my own tea and we are growing coffee trees, lol. I wish we lived in a warmer climate zone for gardening though so we could have some fruit and nut trees. Apples are about the only thing we can grow here, and small plums, and even then, only very particular varieties. We do grow raspberries though and we can wild pick June/Serviceberries and blueberries.
I guess it all boils down(excuse the cooking pun) to how one chooses to define "sentient being"
And this is why I'm a vege nut erian...
"A plant is just that-which Mother Nature planted-nowhere else to go-
except to be pulled up or picked and eaten-which is its natural flow...
They are not designed to run from danger-that's why they are meant to stay-
and when ripe and ready they must be eaten or they'll just rot away...
Unlike a plant, a sentient being is not rooted in the ground-
they are designed to flee from danger to a place more safe and sound...
So if it swims in the sea, runs on land or with wings takes to the air-
to me it's not a food source, for it knows fear and so I care...
For sentient beings once full of life I feel this must be said-
to feast upon their body parts, one becomes a graveyard for their dead...
Well we are what we eat some say-well at least I'm not a gluts-
along with a little fruit and vegetables....I'm quite happy being "nuts"! "
And I really do mean this... I'm as nutty as a fruit and nut cake...
Naturally one does not have to agree with my somewhat light hearted play on what for me is a sentient being ...
I feel (another pun I guess) anything that feels pain and reacts in a fearful manner ie, tries to escape from danger- is sentient enough for me not to want it as a food source...But I stress thats just "me" and I'm not perfect......far from it....
actually, while they do not flee from fear, that we know of, there is increasing evidence that plants communicate danger to each other. It's also why plants have thorns and put out various liquids and other protective measures. I'm not saying they are sentient, but we learn more about them every day. Not long ago, we didn't believe any animals to be sentient. There is still disagreement with whether fish and bugs and similar organisms are sentient as well.
I know animals I eat are sentient. I take on the responsibility for that and make my choices accordingly. IF one is going to eat meat, I personally believe it is kinder for the animal (though perhaps not your karma) to hunt and fish the animals rather than get them from large farming locations, or, be able to get them from small farms where you know how the animals are raised and cared for. It's not always possible though, so I don't judge anyone for how they choose to eat. We all do the best we can and it's not terribly skillful to judge anyone (I'm not saying anyone is doing that) when you don't walk in their shoes and understand the reasons for their choices.
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
what about them? They are moral indicators, not hard-and-fast regulations. They are to be taken and administered as the person sees fit, to the best of their ability...
So in conclusion, I think you can see from the original question, that Buddhists handle the killing of animals in various ways and with different levels of tolerance. Find what's right for you, and realize even that might change over time.
4
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
Be Rigid enough to stand up for your principles, but flexible enough to learn there may be other ways that work better.....
The 1st precept says we should not kill. it is unskillful.
This applies to all creatures including fish.
When you cause suffering to a fish, you are actually harming yourself,
it is bad karma.
Not only should we not kill, we should show kindness to ALL animals.
Why would you harm an animal when you yourself know what pain and fear
is?
Let no one kill nor cause another to kill. Dhammapada 129 ...
@hermitwin I understand that, it's hard to do this if you think about it. If you drive a car how many creatures do you hit or run over? Insects for instance on the windscreen.
Products that have been made with animals, any dairy, any leather products. Any grain you buy is indirectly funding the slaughter of animals.
Even monks accept food with meat if offered in alms.
As for fishing, hey I can give that up easy. But driving a car or eating grains is a hard one!
Buddha taught about right livelihood and wrong livelihood.
Those people who choose to earn their living by killing animals
are engaging in wrong livelihood.
This is definitely against Buddha's teaching.
@Earthninja said:
hermitwin I understand that, it's hard to do this if you think about it. If you drive a car how many creatures do you hit or run over? Insects for instance on the windscreen.
Products that have been made with animals, any dairy, any leather products. Any grain you buy is indirectly funding the slaughter of animals.
Even monks accept food with meat if offered in alms.
As for fishing, hey I can give that up easy. But driving a car or eating grains is a hard one!
How do you do it?
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
@hermitwin said:
Buddha taught about right livelihood and wrong livelihood.
Those people who choose to earn their living by killing animals
are engaging in wrong livelihood.
@hermitwin, it's not possible to live without causing the deaths of others. We can only minimize it as much as is possible for our current living situation. While it might be easy for one person to go vegetarian or vegan, it may not be so easy for everyone for a variety of reasons. Everyone just has to do the best they can, and be honest with their understanding of the teachings and their role in causing the deaths of other beings, intentional or indirectly.
The questions can be endless, like the one posed about killing many insects while driving. Do you wear leather? Is all your furniture, your cell phone, your tablet, your computer all sourced from places that don't take advantage of their workers? If your home were infested by roaches, would you not call someone to clean it out for you? What about ticks and lice?
Obviously, some situations start to go down the ridiculous road, but all are worth considering since all involve supposedly sentient beings, at least on some level.
Also, don't forget that intention always plays a part in breaking precepts (which like I said above, mine are different than the main ones others have taken). I think a person can be a fisherman with really good intentions such as wanting to feed his family healthy food that he couldn't afford to buy, being willing to take on the karma of killing a fish so as to avoid causing the suffering of many more animals by supporting factory farms, for example.
Today when I was mowing, I slapped and probably killed a few mosquitoes. We have different kinds here, some bite and I notice and can shoo them off. Some bite and it's an immediate "OMG OUCH!!!" reaction and a slap. There is no intention behind of it "stupid freaking bugs, I'm going to slap you so you die for biting me!" it's just an instinctual reaction. I work on it, but it's hard to get over. But I also picked up a struggling butterfly and put it on my lilacs to rest, and I spend half the summer helping dozens of turtles cross the roads. I do the best I can, and right now in our lives it includes eating meat (and sometimes fishing for it because fish is incredibly expensive here).
@Earthninja said:
hermitwin I understand that, it's hard to do this if you think about it. If you drive a car how many creatures do you hit or run over? Insects for instance on the windscreen.
Products that have been made with animals, any dairy, any leather products. Any grain you buy is indirectly funding the slaughter of animals.
Even monks accept food with meat if offered in alms.
As for fishing, hey I can give that up easy. But driving a car or eating grains is a hard one!
How do you do it?
That's the million dollar question.
This is where the 8FNP comes in. "Right" here doesn't mean right as opposed to wrong. Actually it's a far broader term. Derived from the Sanskrit samma, right means complete, coherant, perfect, ideal, wholesome and skillfull.
It's one of those things you have to kinda figure out as you go. It helps if you accept the consequences.
Let's say you encounter a young deer, that's had both hind legs broken clean off by a car. What do you do about that? For a Buddhist, this presents a "moral" dilemma. I had that exact thing happen to me. What did I do? I put the animal out of it's misery, right then and there. A bullet in the brain. It may not be the "right" thing to do, but that's what I did. Plus, if I ever found myself in a similar situation again, I do the exact same thing again. To me, my karma doesn't matter. The suffering of a sentient being does. If, because of that action, I take birth as an intestinal parasite, so be it. That's my karma. I'm ok with that.
We can belabor the point of dilemma all we want, but where the rubber meets the road, so to speak, every moment we spend fretting over morality, a sentient being may be enduring unspeakable suffering.
The path really isn't about doing something right rather than wrong. It's about wisdom and skill. That's not an intellectual process. You get it wrong sometimes. You get it right, develop skill, by practicing. By practice I don't mean navel-gazing, I mean practicing being a genuine human being.
7
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
The 'Right' and 'Wrong' factor is a detail worth remembering, and repeating, often.
@federica said:
what about them? They are moral indicators, not hard-and-fast regulations. They are to be taken and administered as the person sees fit, to the best of their ability...
I wish all "rules" were like that. We could have more fun here on this forum if we weren't held to any rules. It makes life so easy.
A man told a monk about his experience.
He saw an injured squirrel on the side of the road. Out of compassion, he took a big stick and hit it hard on the head to put it out of its misery.
To his surprise, the squirrel got up and ran away.
He wondered whether he did the right thing.
The monk answered. What is the moral of the story? Be careful of compassionate people with a big stick in their hands.
Are you suffering? Maybe someone can help to put you out of your misery.
This is a true story. It happened during a QnA session with Thanissaro Bikkhu.
The path really isn't about doing something right rather than wrong. It's about wisdom and skill. That's not an intellectual process. You get it wrong sometimes. You get it right, develop skill, by practicing. By practice I don't mean navel-gazing, I mean practicing being a genuine human being.
I think there is a bit of a difference in that scenario and one in which you know the animal, without a doubt, will not survive. Most people don't see fit to let their pets suffer for lengthy periods of time when they know nothing can be done to ease their pain. That is why we put our pets down when there is no hope of recovery. Of course, there are people who opt to do that for misguided reasons, or reasons others may not approve of, but for the most part, it comes out of compassion for the animal. Is it more or less compassionate to let an animal suffer greatly for weeks?
@karasti said:
I think there is a bit of a difference in that scenario and one in which you know the animal, without a doubt, will not survive. Most people don't see fit to let their pets suffer for lengthy periods of time when they know nothing can be done to ease their pain. That is why we put our pets down when there is no hope of recovery. Of course, there are people who opt to do that for misguided reasons, or reasons others may not approve of, but for the most part, it comes out of compassion for the animal. Is it more or less compassionate to let an animal suffer greatly for weeks?
While I think what you say is generally true, there are MANY who put down their sick pets rather than pay for procedures that could save the animal.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
@vinlyn said: I wish all "rules" were like that. We could have more fun here on this forum if we weren't held to any rules. It makes life so easy.
That's an unfair thing to say.
I think, actually, on this forum you DO get it pretty easy...
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
edited June 2014
@vinlyn said:While I think what you say is generally true, there are MANY who put down their sick pets rather than pay for procedures that could save the animal.
Yes but I don't believe even then, that it's purely a question of choosing to not pay. When you realise how high vet's fees are, and what is NOT covered by insurance, it's sometimes a tragic decision to have to make.
Anyone who takes their pet to the vet, has their welfare in mind. it's the mindless, moronic idiot who will stand aside and permit their pet to suffer, wilfully, and deliberately neglect to care for it, simply because they don't want to pay the fee...
Sincerely, not everyone can afford such fees. They can be truly prohibitive. And no matter how much a person loves their pet, never was the phrase "sometimes, Love isn't enough" more true....
Yes, there are people who put down pets for convenience. But saying those who put down their pets rather than pay for procedures are doing so is a bit harsh. No doubt they exist, but I don't think they represent a majority by any means. Unless someone get pet insurance, the bills can be astronomical. Pet MRIs, for example, can run as much as a human MRI, or more. Surgery can run in the thousands. Even if they wanted to, some people flat out can't afford it.
In any case I think you know @vinlyn that I wasn't talking about the outliers. Just a general "most people, when presented with a pet who was suffering and could not be healed, would choose a release from their suffering."
If one is not willing to pay the cost of reasonable, but foreseeable, vet care, then I don't think they should get the pet to begin with.
Let me give an example:
Several friends knew of a hip issue with a certain breed of dog, still bought the dog, and then were willing to pay the cost of surgery to repair the problem. Good pet owner.
I know of another person who knew of a hip issue with the same breed of dog, still bought the dog, and then was unwilling to pay the cost of surgery to repair the problem. Bad pet owner. (Fortunately, some responsible people stepped in, found a new owner who took care of the dog).
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
Well the recommendation of any (responsible, emphasis!) breeder of dogs, or any rescue centre, is to strongly advocate Pet Insurance, and in the UK, it's virtually mandatory.
There are many companies which deal exclusively with pet insurance, but most of the Supermarket chains also provide it (but as intermediary brokers). The premiums available are variable, obviously, and you can purchase different insurance packages, each one detailing precisely what each package offers.
Sadly, all too often, a vet will provide or recommend treatment that is either not covered by the insurance package, or if it is, there is a figure ceiling; so for example, chemotherapy for a dog suffering from cancer, will be covered up to £6,000.
And the vet will advise you the cost will be £10,000.....
One can shop around; but there isn't a veterinary clinic on every corner, so shopping around may mean changing area completely, and if you have known a vet for the duration of the animal's life, and you suddenly find you could 'shop around', it makes the situation difficult.
There are charitable veterinary organisations, but they tend to deal with emergency cases....
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
@vinlyn said: I rather like the way the forum is run.
I'm trying to make a point, however.
Understandable. Acceptable even.
But using something to make a point when in fact the point isn't relevant or accurate, is an odd way to go about it.... :scratch: .
We kill to live whether omnivore or vegetarian. We think less of killing plants since they aren't deemed as evolved , sentient. They don't have faces, brains or nerve cells... They can't feel pain..? Then again plants do have perception from sensory input- some far more sophisticated than previously thought. They react and recoil from danger/attack but more slowly than we can perceive usually. They want to live and evolved many different defense mechanisms to thwart attack. So I don't know -we kill to live. Bob
1
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
Everything that exists is probably 'more sophisticated than we previously thought'.
With the possible exception of the human being.
You'd think with our advanced intelligence and increased knowledge in everything cultural (be it artistic, literal, technological, scientific or spiritual) we'd pretty well have the total hang of it right now, and be consciously able to find resources, alternatives and viable options....
As it is, research is streets behind where it should be by now.
By now, we should KNOW how to feed starving people manageably, water, feed and clothe the poor of this world sustainably and distribute wealth so that nobody goes without, and everyone gets a fair share.
Pet insurance in the US is largely still considered an "extra" and very few people carry it. @vinlyn overall, yes, I agree with you. It's not an easy place for a pet owner to be in, though, and sometimes life throws you unexpected curve balls, both with pets and other things. We committed (and still are) to the health of our pets, but when we got them, we didn't have a diabetic child, either. I just don't think it's fair to villainize everyone who puts down a dog. It's easy to say "They should know better, they should save etc." But you don't know what circumstances brought them to that place, and most of the time, deciding to put down a pet is heart breaking. Prolonging their suffering is in no one's best interest. Here, we are lucky to have a very involved vet, he makes house calls, he will take animals 24/7 even if he has to get out of bed at 2am, and he will set up a payment plan so you can afford things. We're quite thankful for him! Hopefully, our dog doesn't meet the same fate as her father, who died of lymphoma. It's fairly common with boxers, and paying thousands for chemo just wouldn't be in the cards. We'd love to do it, but that doesn't put the money in our savings account. But we'd do everything that was reasonable to do that we could remotely manage.
@karasti said:
Pet insurance in the US is largely still considered an "extra" and very few people carry it.
vinlyn overall, yes, I agree with you. It's not an easy place for a pet owner to be in, though, and sometimes life throws you unexpected curve balls, both with pets and other things. We committed (and still are) to the health of our pets, but when we got them, we didn't have a diabetic child, either. I just don't think it's fair to villainize everyone who puts down a dog. It's easy to say "They should know better, they should save etc." But you don't know what circumstances brought them to that place, and most of the time, deciding to put down a pet is heart breaking. Prolonging their suffering is in no one's best interest. Here, we are lucky to have a very involved vet, he makes house calls, he will take animals 24/7 even if he has to get out of bed at 2am, and he will set up a payment plan so you can afford things. We're quite thankful for him! Hopefully, our dog doesn't meet the same fate as her father, who died of lymphoma. It's fairly common with boxers, and paying thousands for chemo just wouldn't be in the cards. We'd love to do it, but that doesn't put the money in our savings account. But we'd do everything that was reasonable to do that we could remotely manage.
But the first half of that last sentence is what makes your position reasonable -- the very word reasonable.
If a vet said treatment x has a 30% chance of saving your dog, then I'd say that's not good enough odds. If a vet said treatment x is likely to save your dog, I'd say go for it. Of course, where one draws that line will differ from person to person.
On the other hand, if we're talking about a human, I'd want that human to have any reasonable chance of being saved. Again, where that line of "reasonable" is, varies from one person to another (not to mention the extent of the treatment).
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
@vinlyn said: Okay, let me restate with a provocative statement to make the point:
>
How would the average person feel if someone said, "Buddhism is lawlessness"?
>
I think that's a factual statement IF the precepts are not rules.
Comments
Kia Ora @federica,
True......
On a lighter note...When I turn up to do a job, the normal response is one of surprise 'why would a woman' be doing such a job !!!' but then I point out that when I belonged to the Entomological Society of NZ, over half the entomologists there were female and nowadays there are quite a number of urban pestologists who are female...
So you're right.... a woman's gotta do, what a woman's gotta do ! Plus I add a gentle touch, class and glamour to the job... -
Metta Shoshin
:
I've recently come to believe my "pescatarian" diet (only eating seafood animals, not land ones) is hypocritical: a tuna is as magnificent a creature and probably suffers as much as a cow, and fishing/fish-farming is causing environmental damage on par with intensive land-based agriculture.
I now believe that, rather than vegetarian vs meat-eating, or seafood vs land-animals, the most important moral question about your food is whether it was harvested sustainably? That means organically, humanely in terms of animal treatment, and under fair worker conditions. Preferably also locally and seasonably.
The future of our planet may depend on how we, as a species, answer that question.
I grew up on a family dairy farm and can attest to the fact that animals can be treated with love and kindness far beyond being considered humane. Twice a day when the cows were milked every one of my fathers "girls" got her coat brushed and he would talk to each one of them. Our family's livelyhood depended on the girls being happy. Even the animals that were for human consumption were treated well even though they typically weren't named. A vegetarian diet is not free of death. A lot of wild animals are "collateral damage" in mechanized planting and harvesting of grains and vegetables. It's not something a lot of folks consider when shopping at the super market. Sourcing your food locally from smaller family farms is always preferable. Earthninja, if you want to hang up your fishing gear, go for it. I personally only practice catch and keep. I think it shows more respect for the fish than treating it like an amusement.
True there is some death with vegetarianism (death is part of life) - although there is always MORE death with meat eating. For example, those grains will also be fed to animals, who are then killed ...
My point wasn't to knock vegetarianism, but rather to promote buying from smaller scale local farms to reduce the impact. You are correct though...
100% agree with you there. Local sustainable farming nourishes our communities & our planet. Unlike "Big-Agra" who destroy both ...
Kia Ora,
Even though as a vegetarian, I still wouldn't be tempted to eat it, but I'm all for the growing of meat in the lab where no sentient being is breed then killed for consumption...
"Meals without squeals"
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-23576143
Metta Shoshin
@Shoshin yes I will be going over to grown muscle as soon as available. Looking forward to it.
dont go fishing, you are torturing the fish for
your own enjoyment.
not good karma.
@Earthninja
It's that old scale of harm verses harmlessness.
Selfishness on one end and selflessness on the other.
It takes some willingness to investigate the ways and means by which your food arrives on your table.
It takes some courage to be objective about that information when it threatens what we "like".
It requires some decisions on how much harm one is willing to support to satisfy one's likes when there are other options available for minimizing that harm.
@Shoshin
2 simple truths that I'd screen your job worries through, although it applies just as well to anyones food choices.
Life is just a conversion of energy, supported solely through the death of other life.
For a practicing Buddhist, the question is less about the inevitable death that our life causes and is more about whether with all the endless options before us, are our actions supporting sufferings cause or it's cessation.
Who is really making a statement here - EGO OR HID
You acted compassionately. You saw the fish was suffering, and gave it a quick death.
However, I've been told that "catch and release" fishing still causes the fish suffering. idk. You might want to find a different pastime.
And btw, lots of Tibetan families, including the Dalai Lama's, are ranchers/herders, and live off the livestock they raise. So...whatever.
It's a tough life for fish everyday. Everyone is eating everyone else down there.
So it really comes down to whether you can mindfully watch waves of excitement and happiness wash over you while there is a creature fighting for its life on the end of your line, or not.
Is that how you want to get your thrills?
And I'm not judging. In my world everyone kills fish for food, for money and for fun.
Right now, meat grown in labs grows via stem cells using "growth promoting chemicals" and I'm not so keen on my food having unidentified chemicals in it. I try to keep my food as natural as I can. (we buy little meat from the store, and when we do it is grass fed). Also, simply producing more food (that costs plenty of money to produce to begin with) isn't necessarily the answer. Using what we have better and supporting more locally grown/farmed foods is ideal. Of course, that doesn't mean it's world-wide sustainable. But food grown in labs will still need to be packaged and shipped.
Every person just has to be honest with where their food comes from...all of it...and make the best choices available to them for their circumstances. While I've never been there, I assume South Africa is at least somewhat different than major western cities where you can drive down to the grocery store and get fake chicken and veggie burgers.
Even though we still eat meat, we also grow a garden that we can freeze and can from and it lasts long into the winter (and longer, depending). For our family right now, it works out pretty well. I also make my own tea and we are growing coffee trees, lol. I wish we lived in a warmer climate zone for gardening though so we could have some fruit and nut trees. Apples are about the only thing we can grow here, and small plums, and even then, only very particular varieties. We do grow raspberries though and we can wild pick June/Serviceberries and blueberries.
Kia Ora,
I guess it all boils down(excuse the cooking pun) to how one chooses to define "sentient being"
And this is why I'm a vege nut erian...
"A plant is just that-which Mother Nature planted-nowhere else to go-
except to be pulled up or picked and eaten-which is its natural flow...
They are not designed to run from danger-that's why they are meant to stay-
and when ripe and ready they must be eaten or they'll just rot away...
Unlike a plant, a sentient being is not rooted in the ground-
they are designed to flee from danger to a place more safe and sound...
So if it swims in the sea, runs on land or with wings takes to the air-
to me it's not a food source, for it knows fear and so I care...
For sentient beings once full of life I feel this must be said-
to feast upon their body parts, one becomes a graveyard for their dead...
Well we are what we eat some say-well at least I'm not a gluts-
along with a little fruit and vegetables....I'm quite happy being "nuts"! "
And I really do mean this... I'm as nutty as a fruit and nut cake...
Naturally one does not have to agree with my somewhat light hearted play on what for me is a sentient being ...
I feel (another pun I guess) anything that feels pain and reacts in a fearful manner ie, tries to escape from danger- is sentient enough for me not to want it as a food source...But I stress thats just "me" and I'm not perfect......far from it....
Metta Shoshin
actually, while they do not flee from fear, that we know of, there is increasing evidence that plants communicate danger to each other. It's also why plants have thorns and put out various liquids and other protective measures. I'm not saying they are sentient, but we learn more about them every day. Not long ago, we didn't believe any animals to be sentient. There is still disagreement with whether fish and bugs and similar organisms are sentient as well.
I know animals I eat are sentient. I take on the responsibility for that and make my choices accordingly. IF one is going to eat meat, I personally believe it is kinder for the animal (though perhaps not your karma) to hunt and fish the animals rather than get them from large farming locations, or, be able to get them from small farms where you know how the animals are raised and cared for. It's not always possible though, so I don't judge anyone for how they choose to eat. We all do the best we can and it's not terribly skillful to judge anyone (I'm not saying anyone is doing that) when you don't walk in their shoes and understand the reasons for their choices.
What about the 5 precepts?
what about them? They are moral indicators, not hard-and-fast regulations. They are to be taken and administered as the person sees fit, to the best of their ability...
What about them? I've never actually taken the 5 precepts, my teacher offers 4 (different) precepts when we take refuge.
So in conclusion, I think you can see from the original question, that Buddhists handle the killing of animals in various ways and with different levels of tolerance. Find what's right for you, and realize even that might change over time.
Be Rigid enough to stand up for your principles, but flexible enough to learn there may be other ways that work better.....
@Daozen , well said.
Thanks guys, really great and meaningful replies. It has helped me greatly!
The 1st precept says we should not kill. it is unskillful.
This applies to all creatures including fish.
When you cause suffering to a fish, you are actually harming yourself,
it is bad karma.
Not only should we not kill, we should show kindness to ALL animals.
Why would you harm an animal when you yourself know what pain and fear
is?
Let no one kill nor cause another to kill. Dhammapada 129 ...
@hermitwin I understand that, it's hard to do this if you think about it. If you drive a car how many creatures do you hit or run over? Insects for instance on the windscreen.
Products that have been made with animals, any dairy, any leather products. Any grain you buy is indirectly funding the slaughter of animals.
Even monks accept food with meat if offered in alms.
As for fishing, hey I can give that up easy. But driving a car or eating grains is a hard one!
How do you do it?
Kia Ora,
Do
Nothe least possible Harm !Metta Shoshin
Buddha taught about right livelihood and wrong livelihood.
Those people who choose to earn their living by killing animals
are engaging in wrong livelihood.
This is definitely against Buddha's teaching.
@hermitwin, That doesn't answer @Earthninja's last question.
@hermitwin, it's not possible to live without causing the deaths of others. We can only minimize it as much as is possible for our current living situation. While it might be easy for one person to go vegetarian or vegan, it may not be so easy for everyone for a variety of reasons. Everyone just has to do the best they can, and be honest with their understanding of the teachings and their role in causing the deaths of other beings, intentional or indirectly.
The questions can be endless, like the one posed about killing many insects while driving. Do you wear leather? Is all your furniture, your cell phone, your tablet, your computer all sourced from places that don't take advantage of their workers? If your home were infested by roaches, would you not call someone to clean it out for you? What about ticks and lice?
Obviously, some situations start to go down the ridiculous road, but all are worth considering since all involve supposedly sentient beings, at least on some level.
Also, don't forget that intention always plays a part in breaking precepts (which like I said above, mine are different than the main ones others have taken). I think a person can be a fisherman with really good intentions such as wanting to feed his family healthy food that he couldn't afford to buy, being willing to take on the karma of killing a fish so as to avoid causing the suffering of many more animals by supporting factory farms, for example.
Today when I was mowing, I slapped and probably killed a few mosquitoes. We have different kinds here, some bite and I notice and can shoo them off. Some bite and it's an immediate "OMG OUCH!!!" reaction and a slap. There is no intention behind of it "stupid freaking bugs, I'm going to slap you so you die for biting me!" it's just an instinctual reaction. I work on it, but it's hard to get over. But I also picked up a struggling butterfly and put it on my lilacs to rest, and I spend half the summer helping dozens of turtles cross the roads. I do the best I can, and right now in our lives it includes eating meat (and sometimes fishing for it because fish is incredibly expensive here).
That's the million dollar question.
This is where the 8FNP comes in. "Right" here doesn't mean right as opposed to wrong. Actually it's a far broader term. Derived from the Sanskrit samma, right means complete, coherant, perfect, ideal, wholesome and skillfull.
It's one of those things you have to kinda figure out as you go. It helps if you accept the consequences.
Let's say you encounter a young deer, that's had both hind legs broken clean off by a car. What do you do about that? For a Buddhist, this presents a "moral" dilemma. I had that exact thing happen to me. What did I do? I put the animal out of it's misery, right then and there. A bullet in the brain. It may not be the "right" thing to do, but that's what I did. Plus, if I ever found myself in a similar situation again, I do the exact same thing again. To me, my karma doesn't matter. The suffering of a sentient being does. If, because of that action, I take birth as an intestinal parasite, so be it. That's my karma. I'm ok with that.
We can belabor the point of dilemma all we want, but where the rubber meets the road, so to speak, every moment we spend fretting over morality, a sentient being may be enduring unspeakable suffering.
The path really isn't about doing something right rather than wrong. It's about wisdom and skill. That's not an intellectual process. You get it wrong sometimes. You get it right, develop skill, by practicing. By practice I don't mean navel-gazing, I mean practicing being a genuine human being.
The 'Right' and 'Wrong' factor is a detail worth remembering, and repeating, often.
@Chaz, well said. Your last paragraph sums it up nicely.
I wish all "rules" were like that. We could have more fun here on this forum if we weren't held to any rules. It makes life so easy.
A man told a monk about his experience.
He saw an injured squirrel on the side of the road. Out of compassion, he took a big stick and hit it hard on the head to put it out of its misery.
To his surprise, the squirrel got up and ran away.
He wondered whether he did the right thing.
The monk answered. What is the moral of the story? Be careful of compassionate people with a big stick in their hands.
Are you suffering? Maybe someone can help to put you out of your misery.
This is a true story. It happened during a QnA session with Thanissaro Bikkhu.
I think there is a bit of a difference in that scenario and one in which you know the animal, without a doubt, will not survive. Most people don't see fit to let their pets suffer for lengthy periods of time when they know nothing can be done to ease their pain. That is why we put our pets down when there is no hope of recovery. Of course, there are people who opt to do that for misguided reasons, or reasons others may not approve of, but for the most part, it comes out of compassion for the animal. Is it more or less compassionate to let an animal suffer greatly for weeks?
While I think what you say is generally true, there are MANY who put down their sick pets rather than pay for procedures that could save the animal.
That's an unfair thing to say.
I think, actually, on this forum you DO get it pretty easy...
Yes but I don't believe even then, that it's purely a question of choosing to not pay. When you realise how high vet's fees are, and what is NOT covered by insurance, it's sometimes a tragic decision to have to make.
Anyone who takes their pet to the vet, has their welfare in mind. it's the mindless, moronic idiot who will stand aside and permit their pet to suffer, wilfully, and deliberately neglect to care for it, simply because they don't want to pay the fee...
Sincerely, not everyone can afford such fees. They can be truly prohibitive. And no matter how much a person loves their pet, never was the phrase "sometimes, Love isn't enough" more true....
Yes, there are people who put down pets for convenience. But saying those who put down their pets rather than pay for procedures are doing so is a bit harsh. No doubt they exist, but I don't think they represent a majority by any means. Unless someone get pet insurance, the bills can be astronomical. Pet MRIs, for example, can run as much as a human MRI, or more. Surgery can run in the thousands. Even if they wanted to, some people flat out can't afford it.
In any case I think you know @vinlyn that I wasn't talking about the outliers. Just a general "most people, when presented with a pet who was suffering and could not be healed, would choose a release from their suffering."
I think, actually, on this forum you DO get it pretty easy...
I rather like the way the forum is run.
I'm trying to make a point, however.
If one is not willing to pay the cost of reasonable, but foreseeable, vet care, then I don't think they should get the pet to begin with.
Let me give an example:
Several friends knew of a hip issue with a certain breed of dog, still bought the dog, and then were willing to pay the cost of surgery to repair the problem. Good pet owner.
I know of another person who knew of a hip issue with the same breed of dog, still bought the dog, and then was unwilling to pay the cost of surgery to repair the problem. Bad pet owner. (Fortunately, some responsible people stepped in, found a new owner who took care of the dog).
Well the recommendation of any (responsible, emphasis!) breeder of dogs, or any rescue centre, is to strongly advocate Pet Insurance, and in the UK, it's virtually mandatory.
There are many companies which deal exclusively with pet insurance, but most of the Supermarket chains also provide it (but as intermediary brokers). The premiums available are variable, obviously, and you can purchase different insurance packages, each one detailing precisely what each package offers.
Sadly, all too often, a vet will provide or recommend treatment that is either not covered by the insurance package, or if it is, there is a figure ceiling; so for example, chemotherapy for a dog suffering from cancer, will be covered up to £6,000.
And the vet will advise you the cost will be £10,000.....
One can shop around; but there isn't a veterinary clinic on every corner, so shopping around may mean changing area completely, and if you have known a vet for the duration of the animal's life, and you suddenly find you could 'shop around', it makes the situation difficult.
There are charitable veterinary organisations, but they tend to deal with emergency cases....
I'm trying to make a point, however.
Understandable. Acceptable even.
But using something to make a point when in fact the point isn't relevant or accurate, is an odd way to go about it.... :scratch: .
We kill to live whether omnivore or vegetarian. We think less of killing plants since they aren't deemed as evolved , sentient. They don't have faces, brains or nerve cells... They can't feel pain..? Then again plants do have perception from sensory input- some far more sophisticated than previously thought. They react and recoil from danger/attack but more slowly than we can perceive usually. They want to live and evolved many different defense mechanisms to thwart attack. So I don't know -we kill to live. Bob
Everything that exists is probably 'more sophisticated than we previously thought'.
With the possible exception of the human being.
You'd think with our advanced intelligence and increased knowledge in everything cultural (be it artistic, literal, technological, scientific or spiritual) we'd pretty well have the total hang of it right now, and be consciously able to find resources, alternatives and viable options....
As it is, research is streets behind where it should be by now.
By now, we should KNOW how to feed starving people manageably, water, feed and clothe the poor of this world sustainably and distribute wealth so that nobody goes without, and everyone gets a fair share.
Yes, sophistication is a moveable feast.....
Pet insurance in the US is largely still considered an "extra" and very few people carry it.
@vinlyn overall, yes, I agree with you. It's not an easy place for a pet owner to be in, though, and sometimes life throws you unexpected curve balls, both with pets and other things. We committed (and still are) to the health of our pets, but when we got them, we didn't have a diabetic child, either. I just don't think it's fair to villainize everyone who puts down a dog. It's easy to say "They should know better, they should save etc." But you don't know what circumstances brought them to that place, and most of the time, deciding to put down a pet is heart breaking. Prolonging their suffering is in no one's best interest. Here, we are lucky to have a very involved vet, he makes house calls, he will take animals 24/7 even if he has to get out of bed at 2am, and he will set up a payment plan so you can afford things. We're quite thankful for him! Hopefully, our dog doesn't meet the same fate as her father, who died of lymphoma. It's fairly common with boxers, and paying thousands for chemo just wouldn't be in the cards. We'd love to do it, but that doesn't put the money in our savings account. But we'd do everything that was reasonable to do that we could remotely manage.
Okay, let me restate with a provocative statement to make the point:
How would the average person feel if someone said, "Buddhism is lawlessness"?
I think that's a factual statement IF the precepts are not rules.
But the first half of that last sentence is what makes your position reasonable -- the very word reasonable.
If a vet said treatment x has a 30% chance of saving your dog, then I'd say that's not good enough odds. If a vet said treatment x is likely to save your dog, I'd say go for it. Of course, where one draws that line will differ from person to person.
On the other hand, if we're talking about a human, I'd want that human to have any reasonable chance of being saved. Again, where that line of "reasonable" is, varies from one person to another (not to mention the extent of the treatment).
>
How would the average person feel if someone said, "Buddhism is lawlessness"?
>
I think that's a factual statement IF the precepts are not rules.
Define 'lawlessness'....?
I'm talking about the word -- law less. No laws.
And you know, I think you will find that the "no rules" concept in Buddhism is far more a Western construct, than you will find in the land of Buddha.