How to View Animals
Spekter
NY New
Namaste, all,
Thank you for allowing me to join your sangha. Although I am a new Buddhist (aren't we all, truly?) I have noticed the changes it has made in my life, and it makes me feel so much better. I grew up Christian, but I feel more at peace, more compassionate, and more ALIVE than when I was a Christian. I truly have no regrets following the Dharma, Buddha, and Sangha.
That said, one can never know everything about The Way, and I have found myself pondering the idea of souls in the animal realm. It is Buddhist practice to respect and revere the natural world, and everything in it. I am a nature lover and an animal lover and strive to never kill or cause undue suffering (although I do fish. I hope that as I get farther along The Path, I will feel less of a need to do things like fishing, since I don't need it to survive). Either way, as I sit here on a vacation in nature, I wonder about the animals surrounding me. Based on the idea of the different Realms, is every animal, from the crab skittering along the beach to the flies that bother the wild horses, a soul that has or can be a human in a future life? That is, can any animal follow the same path to Enlightenment and become a human or a Buddha in a future life, or perhaps have been one in a past life? I know it is a weird question, but I wish to know if animals and humans are connected by that; if my pet dog could have been a human in the past, or I have been a fish? Sorry about the randomness, but I feel that understanding how to view the natural world around me will help me to better follow the Eightfold Path.
Sarwa Maitri,
Spekter
Comments
The general understanding of rebirth from the Buddhist POV is that all sentient beings have the potential to be born again in various states of existence. One of those is as a human being. Another is in the animal realm. So yes, the potential is there for us to have been an animal or insect at some point, just as the animals and insects we see have possibly been a person on more than one occasion. That said, I think the most important way to view this teaching is to see that all sentient beings are in the same boat. They all live and die and experience suffering; and in our quest to relieve our own suffering, we should also endeavor to relieve/reduce the suffering we cause to others because there's a cause and effect relationship between our actions and how they're experienced.
"Be kind to your mom. She loves a pat on the head".
As long as we are loving, decent, kind, generous and compassionate, and inflict no DELIBERATE or VOLITIONAL harm, we should practise, and enjoy.
I have heard - from dubious sources - that animals can even become enlightened in their current lives, although it is said to be very rare
So I certainly wouldn't rule it out.
It is possible but unlikely I was a bad fish in a past incarceration, hence my being a wer-lobster. In dharma such metaphysical imponderables are known as bullshit mind gibbering Acinteyya or something or other ...
It is of course quite natural to want to know if one used to be a wasp, elephant or rock. However we may have other priorities, for example our own animal sufferings. What to do about them?
My suggestion is to make offerings to fish, hooks are only of interest to punk fish. I fish mostly with a camera ...
I reckon koalas are enlightened. They seem very chilled.....or (as someone claimed) euculyptus leaves get them really stoned!!!
Surely you met one of these @lobster... Who knows, he might come visiting
One benefit of being kind to animals is that they are less likely to attack you....
Makes me wonder about plants and minerals.
I would hope time is meaningless for a rock.
The Zen approach is to say animals are already enlightened. Fish are perfect in their fishness. Birds are perfect in their birdness. They are all realizing their true nature. It's people who insist on making life complicated.
Yes, some sutras even teach the below:
So not only are you connected to them, at one time they were actually your mother!
You calling my momma a fish?
Exactly so.
We do have a kinship to life, the universe and everything. The idea of separation, independence and materialist nihilism belongs to ... who ever wants it.
Not me.
In other words all fish are my momma. So I really need to be kinder to fish [I haz to eat seaweed only?]
The tradition says that animals, down to the smallest insect are sentient beings. They didn't know about things like nematodes or other microscopic animals though that cover many surfaces making the unintentional killing of them unavoidable.
Also, when you break down certain animal behavior there seems to be very little role for choice of any kind making the distinction between them and plants almost disappear.
So my opinion is that there is probably some dividing line there between sentient animals with conscious experience and those without. Maybe a central nervous system, I don't know?
Depending on the species.... from a safe distance .........And whatever you do.....
I'll go with the as some claimed ,,,The koala and the sloth are the koolest animals always chilled out, living in the moment...
And on a more serious note...Thus have I heard, one of the Buddha's abilities was 'Omniscience:' and when discussing the topic of enlightenment and 'other' animals (with this in mind) I guess one needs to remember, we are looking at enlightenment from a 'human' perspective (not having the ability to see things from an enlighten being's perspective)...
And....how animals see their world and how we humans see ours, no doubt is quite different....
Your plaice will be with Cod.
Thank you. As I know, it was truly an unusual question and therefore warranted some silliness. All of this aside, I really appreciate this, because I feel that I understand it better now. Many thanks, from one who is trying to learn the Buddhist way and live wholesomely and deliberately, to another.
What's the buddhist position on meat eating? If it's frowned upon, is there any specific reason?
Meat is currently made from animals. Animals are our friends.
Your choice mate. You deal with the consequences of that choice, though. In moral, financial, ethical, nutritive, addictive senses - you deal with them.
I thought Tescos made it.
No, that's Ice cream.
Buddha meat is not yet available in supermarkets.
However, elsewhere....
If it is "cultured" then it must have been invented by an English gentleman.
Many on here seem to view "living creatures" that require complete respect and kindness as needing a central nervous system. Where does this put "bugs?" Should I feel remorse for feeding my venus flytrap?
Some are vegetarians, some eat meat as long as it's not specially killed by or for them, and some enjoy a good cheeseburger while supporting free range and non-factory farming. Take your pick. Some temples, when they hold retreats, actually have to cook special vegetarian meals for their guests because the monks eat meat.
As to why, it depends how strictly and broadly you observe the "avoid killing sentient beings" precept.
That's not an absolute rule, is it? Even bugs are sentient, but we do kill them.
1) Pānātipātā veramanī sikkhāpadam samadiyami
I undertake the precept to refrain from killing.
As I said, how you put the precepts into practice depends on your particular tradition and how much your practice revolves around them. As guidelines or training tools, they are invaluable. They are not commandments that Buddha will punish you for breaking. But they cannot be ignored either. As for the bugs, can you say it's wrong to kill millions of mosquitos that carry malaria or this zika virus? According to the precept, it is. There is no distinction between good life and bad life. But Buddha did not know insects carried disease. Florida is trying to eradicate huge snakes that are infesting the swamps, escaped from imported pets. Is it wrong to trap an kill the snakes? So, we have a difference of opinion as to how we balance a precept with common sense.
See, the problem is there is no authority that can update the rules laid down in Buddha's time for a modern world and what we know now. So we do the best we can.
...Hence why the omniscient Buddha had already made arrangements to accommodate such .........It's called the Middle Way
That's precisely my point. Self-preservation trumps ethics. Wouldn't that apply to meat-eating as well?
Fair point. I guess the first precept is there to make us pause, to consider the motivation behind our actions.
Would you consider meat-eating mandatory for self preservation?
Evidently not. Some people thrive perfectly well with no meat in their diet at all.
I think there are two questions then: Is meat-eating mandatory? Does Techie consider meat-eating mandatory? I was asking the second one. We've of course discussed the first question many many times here. I was just curious where Techie stood on the matter.
Oh sorry. Yeah, I getcha.
To maintain a healthy, strong body, yes. Eskimos can't be vegetarian, so environment also plays a role. But my point is something else. Are we reading too much into the first precept just so we could sneak in vegetarianism? Is it possible that the first precept is just a general instruction about not harming/killing people?
Not if you take the Pali texts into account, no.
I don't think we are. Of course the first precept is in the first instance about not killing other people, but if we acknowledge that animals have a kind of consciousness - that perhaps they were human in past lives or are on the path to be human - then surely it makes sense not to kill them either.
The Buddha held that if an animal had been killed especially for giving the meat to monks, then it shouldn't be accepted. Nowadays things are more complex... What you buy in the shops has not been killed specifically for you, but by paying for it you are accepting some responsibility for what is done in your name.
..."done in your name"... as a consumer.
The more people demand, the more the market exists, the more the supply will continue.
Yes, exactly. In the meat industry very few individuals actually do the killing directly, but the whole industry collectively kills the animals. The largest part, the single necessary element for the whole operation to exist, is the consumer.
During his life time the Buddha pointedly refused to bar meat eating for his followers. If you really look into it all the food that we eat is/was alive. So there is no special merit in vegetarianism.
The intention of which seems to have been discouraging lay people to slaughter additional animals for food to give to the monks. So we are back to the first precept again. You could also look at this in terms of developing harmlessness ( Right Intention ).
I think we do have a responsibility, also because by buying meat we are expecting others to do the butchery on our behalf, and butchery is traditionally one of the wrong livelihoods.
And buying meat effectively means we are expecting somebody to break the first precept on our behalf. Personally I couldn't kill a cow or a pig, and I wouldn't expect somebody else to do it on my behalf, certainly not when other options are available.
Another perspective from TNHs Mindfulness Trainings, see the first one here, "Reverence for life."
http://plumvillage.org/mindfulness-practice/the-5-mindfulness-trainings/
So there you have it. It's always a fascinating discussion with no right or wrong answers. Buddhism avoids moral absolutes, and that both makes it unique among world religions and frustrating to pin down the rules. It's not as if rules do any good, anyway. How many people have went to war in the name of a religion that says "Thou shalt not kill." You'd think there wasn't a lot of wiggle room there. And Buddhists have had their share of problems, too.
Taking any life should be done only after considering the motivation and alternatives, whether it be an insect or human being. The Sutras cannot tell you what decision to make in every moment of your life. The Precepts are training wheels and something we all desperately need as we're learning. The 8-Fold Path requires you to eventually develop the wisdom to know when to break the rules. Obeying the Precepts does not make you a Buddha. That would be too easy. You must struggle with what they mean to you, along with everyone else.
Animals iz people too.
Sounds as if this little girl has it all sorted, then...
Indeed.
[lobster tries not to make comment about the correct oven temperature for baking vegan cutie pies]
Seaweed? Yuk! What if the fish has died of natural causes? For example an instinctual claw action as they swim past?
Indeed she does. Impressive.