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.
ZenBadger I don't think you started babbling at all. how is the necessity of a CAT'S food any different than a SNAKE's food?? I am not in control of their diet, and if I was, then I would have made everyone capable of living off of vegetables and plants. But this is NOT the case. The case is, simply, that we've domesticated creatures so far that we cannot go back. He needs his food. This is all there is in his limited diet...hence the dilemma, really. is it any better for HIS karma to be eating those creatures in the wild? WHAt are his other options??
*namaste*
Priyajiivana, I don't think that the cat's food is any different, just that there is a practical reason to have a cat in my case. The alternative is to set traps which kill rather than deter mice, a dead mouse doesn't learn a lesson or pass on the danger to it's fellows. My personal opinion is that it is best not to keep snakes and other purely decorative pets but if you already have it then you have a duty to keep it healthy and minimise the harm to other creatures. Can you feed the snake on the meat from some larger creature, such as beef? At least that would minimise the number of lives taken. No one can live without taking life from others, even if it is only the average two and a half spiders we accidentally eat every year in our sleep, but at least we can try to minimise the total number. I hope you find a way that works for you.
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
Priyajiivana, I don't think that the cat's food is any different, just that there is a practical reason to have a cat in my case. The alternative is to set traps which kill rather than deter mice, a dead mouse doesn't learn a lesson or pass on the danger to it's fellows.
Humane traps are available. I have used them, and caught mice painlessly (giving them a nice piece of chocolate or peanut butter into the bargain!) but you must release the mice at least 2 miles from where you live, because that is their territorial range.
so no, it's not true that mice must be killed in traps. Or by cats, that oftrn play with them for a while, first......
My personal opinion is that it is best not to keep snakes and other purely decorative pets but if you already have it then you have a duty to keep it healthy and minimise the harm to other creatures. Can you feed the snake on the meat from some larger creature, such as beef?
No. Snakes are completely carnivorous and require a whole animal, (bones, and all organs) for a comprehensive diet. Wolves and wild animals also consume all of the animal they catch, because the animal provides an all-round complete diet. The only thing a snake passes in its faeces, is the fur and waste products naturally created in the digestion of any living creature.
One of the snakes I rescued was being kept in an unheated mouse cage and the owners were trying to feed it bits of cheese, ham and tomato.
It wasn't doing very well, at that point....
At least that would minimise the number of lives taken. No one can live without taking life from others, even if it is only the average two and a half spiders we accidentally eat every year in our sleep, but at least we can try to minimise the total number. I hope you find a way that works for you.
Did you know that depending on the type of snake, eventually a fully grown snake only needs to eat three, maybe four times a year? Some even less than that. (A friend I knew in France, had a giant albino reticulated Python. It ate every year. Once.
A whole goat, admittedly, but one meal was sufficient.)
They take anything up to a month to digest, and will not feed when they are sloughing their skin, which they probably, as an adult, do about 6 times a year.
Contrast that with a dog or cat, that needs feeding often twice a day, and now tell me what you think?
No. Snakes are completely carnivorous and require a whole animal, (bones, and all organs) for a comprehensive diet.
...
Did you know that depending on the type of snake, eventually a fully grown snake only needs to eat three, maybe four times a year? Some even less than that. ... Contrast that with a dog or cat, that needs feeding often twice a day, and now tell me what you think?
Fair enough, I though that snakes were like crocodiles which my former landlord used to keep, they did need frequent feeds of live food. Dogs can be vegetarian, it isn't terribly healthy for them but it won't necessarily kill them. Cats can be responsible for their own karma, they very rarely starve to death unless shut in. Humane traps didn't work for me in a rural situation, they were fine in town but out here with fields and barns you just can't entice the little chaps in, not even with Green & Blacks finest chocolate. If I could just persuade the mice to take a 10% cut of the grain and keep out of my outbuildings I would be happy to let them stay but they drive a hard bargain.
Well, if a whole darn goat is the main course, its best not to fill up on starch.
Yeah, a carb kicker is really not a good thing....
Incidentally, most carnivores prey on herbivores.
Most carnivores will eat the animal completely, including their stomach contents, because here is roughage, fibre and other vegetative nutrients.
so even wild animals eat their veg.
Somehow!
bones provide calcium, too.
And keep teeth clean and healthy.
I'm talking mammals here, although the calcium is obviously extremely important to snakes.
let's face it... they're virtually 100% ribcage....!!
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
Fair enough, I though that snakes were like crocodiles which my former landlord used to keep, they did need frequent feeds of live food.
Crocs don't need live food. if you watch old runs of Steve Austin programmes, all his crocs ate pre-prepared meat. I happen to know that because they don't chew their food, he would add vitamin and calcium supplements, because eating prepared food is not akin to a wild diet. They never knew they were being fed health foods!
Dogs can be vegetarian, it isn't terribly healthy for them but it won't necessarily kill them.
And this, I do think, is a step too far. Dogs are natural carnivores. To alter their diet because of our own fastidiousness is both unnecessary and frankly inappropriate. Why we should impose a vegetarian diet upon an animal actually built to eat meat, is completely beyond me. vegetable content in a meat diet, is understandable. substituting a meat/mixed diet for an entirely vegetarian one, is just kooked, IMO.
Cats can be responsible for their own karma, they very rarely starve to death unless shut in.
How can cats be responsible for their own karma?
Could you clarify that....?
Crocs don't need live food. if you watch old runs of Steve Austin programmes, all his crocs ate pre-prepared meat.
...
How can cats be responsible for their own karma?
Could you clarify that....?
Blimey Federica, I wasn't trying to start an argument about feeding animals!
Anyway, I was told by my landlord who was an exotic animals vet that the small crocs (gavials or something) that can be kept as pets need to eat whole live, or very recently killed, food occasionally which is probably why they cannot be kept as pets in the UK anymore. I don't know why but then again I don't know why anyone would want to keep one.
As for cats, if you don't feed a cat it can easily go feral, there are a couple of feral cats live in the woods nearby, probably abandoned when their owners had their houses reposessed. I think if you hunt your own food and rely upon nobody else to kill for you then you could be said to be responsible for your own karma.
Blimey Federica, I wasn't trying to start an argument about feeding animals!
No, I was certainly not implying you were, at all....
Anyway, I was told by my landlord who was an exotic animals vet that the small crocs (gavials or something) that can be kept as pets need to eat whole live, or very recently killed, food occasionally which is probably why they cannot be kept as pets in the UK anymore.
(Yes, Gavial, more commonly the Gharial crocodile. They're from India. Almost certainly caught from the wild). He's absolutely right. if they have been taken from the wild, converting their intake to dead food is almost impossible.
But captivity-bred animals, usually start off by being fed already killed food, so it's much easier.
Feeding reptiles here, live food, contravenes the laws governing animal cruelty.
Such laws do not exist in the USA, and I really think it's about time they did.
Spinning off slightly:
Electronic dog collars are illegal in Wales, and such legislation will in all probability pass into the remainder of the UK.
Prong collars for dogs are also illegal, and tail docking and ear clipping are also classified as unnecessary and cruel, and are also illegal.
For an advanced nation with heavy influence from a christian religious angle, folks sure is flippant when it comes to Man's best friend.
(I watch Animal Cops you know.... NY, Miami, Houston....)
As for cats, if you don't feed a cat it can easily go feral, there are a couple of feral cats live in the woods nearby, probably abandoned when their owners had their houses reposessed. I think if you hunt your own food and rely upon nobody else to kill for you then you could be said to be responsible for your own karma
I find it extremely challenging and difficult to consider that cats (and other hunting animals) accumulate as much bad Kamma for catching, killing and eating their own prey, as we do for wanton cruelty and animal abuse.
(Leave alone what we do to each other.....!)
I am of the opinion that with little or no choice, a cat - or any wild animal - compelled to catch its own food is not subject to as stringently restrictive Kamma as we are.
federica + ZenBadger:. yes federica is right, i can't feed him anything other than live, whole healthy mice. otherwise there would be no 'moral dilemma', eh? thank you for your advice. and yes i have heard that it's much easier to overfeed a snake than it is to underfeed one. pretty amazing things nature does!
thank you all again... i know this one is tricky.
*namaste*
...............................I find it extremely challenging and difficult to consider that cats (and other hunting animals) accumulate as much bad Kamma for catching, killing and eating their own prey, as we do for wanton cruelty and animal abuse.
(Leave alone what we do to each other.....!)
I am of the opinion that with little or no choice, a cat - or any wild animal - compelled to catch its own food is not subject to as stringently restrictive Kamma as we are.
Can anyone explain this to me? I mean the idea that non-human animals can "accumulate ... bad Kamma"? Or "merit" for that matter?
I have come across stories in Tibetan mythology about a bird (I think), flying round a particular building in a specific direction and acquiring merit which enables someone, many lifetimes later, to achieve something good. And I have met people who believe it as historical fact and that, as a result, believe that non-human animals acquire Kamma.
Sorry, dear friends, I really cannot believe it. The story can, surely, be read as a parable that we, here and now, may act in ways which have results that we just cannot imagine. I can understand a sort of mish-mash superstitious sort of mythology but only as a story.
The more we understand our relationship with non-humans, or, possibly, rediscover it, in work such as that done by our darling Fede, the less we are able to assert what sets us apart. Rabelais suggested that it was laughter at jokes. Personally, I think it is the ability to choose the non-instinctive - to some extent at least.
Perhaps some 'scholar' with nothing better to do, no weeds to pull out of the garden, no sandals to mend, has sat down to work out levels of ability to accumulate Kamma. Can a dog accumulate more than an earthworm?
The OP enquired (I think) about the impact of their actions. As we respond, are we trying to calm our own awareness that, willy nilly, we are going to collude where we would rather avoid? For myself, my practice of awareness enables me, in glimpses, to understand how petty is our normal grasp of the ramifications, les tenants et aboutissants, of interconnectedness.
As I finish writing this, I realise that my belief in animal innocence can only be maintained if I assert, too, that human animals, too, are innocent. Oy gevalt!
I watch Animal Cops too Fede! Molly, a dog I live with, has her tail docked. I wish she had a nice long tail but nobody can be 100% perfect Once she had fox mange on her little stub of a tail and it was covered in blood with a huge chunk out of it! Now all the fur around her tail is bristly, so she isn't very lucky tale-wise, but she's still a cutie
I just figured that some of the nicest animals I can think of are tropical fish. I have a tank of them and I just thought; 'There are different species, that live continents apart yet do they fight with others of there species in whole shoals? Do they destroy other species in the tank for no reason? Do they cut down the plants? Enslave other fish? No. I know I have selected species that will make a peaceful community, but still, there is no racism or prejudiced, fish, most animals in fact, DO NOT judge!
I knew some people who had a healthy snake which lived for years on thawed hen chicks which they bought frozen from a pet shop to avoid having to feed it live food.
.
question...are thawed hen chicks not killed to make them frozen? what is the difference between feeding live mice or pre-killed chicks to the snake? i don't see a difference.
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 April 2010
It's a question of "de-personalising" the situation.
Permit me to clarify.
The majority of dead chicks bought for reptile feeding are male. That's because females are more productive egg-layers, on the whole.;)
The Buddha told us that to kill something for our own consumption, ourselves, is unskillful.
To have somebody do it for us personally and on our behalf, is unskillful.
but if something is consumed as part of a general thing, then we cannot be held directly responsible for the death of that animal.
it would have been killed whether we had been there or not.
Now, we can discuss the nitty-gritty split-hair factors of this argument.
Until we're green in the face.
That goes on a lot in 'Vegetarianism' threads.
However.
A snake cannot ever be a vegetarian.
Therefore, the argument on the morals of the above, is completely academic.
Buying its food in this state is the most skilful thing a herpetologist could do.
I personally, if I had to feed my own snakes live food, or freshly kill it, would prefer to slit my own throat first.
I simply cannot ever bring myself personally, to do that.
But some herpetologists have to, and do. (Not in the UK, obviously.)
What some snake-keepers, in such a situation, (where such a moral dilemma exists) would be better doing, is questioning whether the entire premise of snake-ownership is in line with their own principles.
And for a Buddhist in such a position, that is even more important.
But the decision would be his/hers, and I would never presume to either influence, or criticise.
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
I watch Animal Cops too Fede! Molly, a dog I live with, has her tail docked. I wish she had a nice long tail but nobody can be 100% perfect Once she had fox mange on her little stub of a tail and it was covered in blood with a huge chunk out of it! Now all the fur around her tail is bristly, so she isn't very lucky tale-wise, but she's still a cutie
Tail-docking only became illegal in this country in 2009, I believe, so many domesticated dogs whose tails have been docked had them done before then.
However, some breeds do need their tails docked as a medical intervention or necessity.
A friend of mine had a great dane whose tail was constantly being knocked, broken, damaged or injured, because it wagged it like a whip.
Boy, let me tell you, if that thing caught you againt the thigh - you felt it! It was like a horse-whip, and I had a bruise for weeks! but such enthusiastic wagging can hurt the tail.
SO occasionally, a vet will dock a tail out of necessity.
I just figured that some of the nicest animals I can think of are tropical fish. I have a tank of them and I just thought; 'There are different species, that live continents apart yet do they fight with others of there species in whole shoals? Do they destroy other species in the tank for no reason? Do they cut down the plants? Enslave other fish? No. I know I have selected species that will make a peaceful community, but still, there is no racism or prejudiced, fish, most animals in fact, DO NOT judge!
All the best,
Jellybean
it is said by many that cats and dogs are capable of unconditional love.
I wouldn't quite take it that far, because animals do not feel love or affection in quite the same manner as we do. I mean, really... when was the last time you got a birthday/Valentine card from your dog or cat (that hadn't actually been signed on their behalf by mum/dad/SO.....? Huh....?
But they do feel affection of a sort, and empathy and loyalty, of course.
Plus I don't think my dog has the raw ability to write a valentines card LOL!
Now, this is incredibly off topic, but I'm watching a movie on sky moves called 'He's Just Not That Into You' and at the beginning it said a girl never forgets the first boy she likes. Is this at all true?
It's a question of "de-personalising" the situation.
That goes on a lot in 'Vegetarianism' threads.
First I am not a vegetarian, nor am I trying to offend anyone. I just find it highly hypocritical to allow killing "as long as we don't do it". We should oppose suffering and do good. That being said, in this "reality" we live in, creatures exist that eat meat, and meat is derived from living sentient beings (animals, etc). To deny a carnivore food is to deny them life. I think the bigger point is that we should do as little harm as possible. To not feed the animal is doing harm, but to eat to survive is its natural In a perfect situation, we should allow nature to take its course but not add to the suffering or death of living entities directly or indirectly.
In this situation, no matter how you slice it, living things will die. I think it is hypocritical (at least from my standpoint) if we endorse others in killing for our benefit and then call it "OK". (allow a feed supplier to kill chicks and endorse it by purchasing the dead chicks).
Plus I don't think my dog has the raw ability to write a valentines card LOL!
Now, this is incredibly off topic, but I'm watching a movie on sky moves called 'He's Just Not That Into You' and at the beginning it said a girl never forgets the first boy she likes. Is this at all true?
First I am not a vegetarian, nor am I trying to offend anyone.
I'm certain you weren't. I was merely trying to address your points, as valid.
did I express myself badly? Sorry if I did.....
I just find it highly hypocritical to allow killing "as long as we don't do it".
No, Please look at the following link:
Killing is unacceptable. Killing "as long as we don't do it" is also unacceptable. Teachings. (Scroll down to Right Action, KIlling).
Chiefly though, these directions were laid down for Monks, but the first precept applies to all, without exception.
We should oppose suffering and do good. That being said, in this "reality" we live in, creatures exist that eat meat, and meat is derived from living sentient beings (animals, etc). To deny a carnivore food is to deny them life. I think the bigger point is that we should do as little harm as possible.
I totally agree.
To not feed the animal is doing harm, but to eat to survive is natural. In a perfect situation, we should allow nature to take its course but not add to the suffering or death of living entities directly or indirectly.
In a perfect situation we'd all be eating vegetables and meat substitutes all generated, created and produced in a laboratory.
Although that is a current reality, it's insufficiently viable or economical to make it a quotidian commonplace one.
In this situation, no matter how you slice it, living things will die. I think it is hypocritical (at least from my standpoint) if we endorse others in killing for our benefit and then call it "OK". (allow a feed supplier to kill chicks and endorse it by purchasing the dead chicks).
I don't endorse anything of that kind.
But by buying mass-produced eggs, be they free range or from battery hens, we endorse the killing of the male chicks.
If you eat eggs, you are indirectly contributing to the elimination of male chicks.
They don't make the money, the hens do.
Poultry farmers don't want male chicks, but by permitting some eggs to develop into chicks and hatch, in order to perpetuate the population of laying hens, some male chicks have to be born. You can't sex an egg....
And I don't understand your comment (in bold above), if you're now going to a BBQ..... Are you not endorsing the death of the meat you eat?
or are you freely admitting your stance....?
Just trying to clarify.....
How long have you been a vegan, Drop?
Did you once eat meat, or has your family raised you as one...?
question...are thawed hen chicks not killed to make them frozen? what is the difference between feeding live mice or pre-killed chicks to the snake? i don't see a difference.
A frozen...anything just won'tmove. have you ever seen a snake eat? they have to kill it first. it's a huge project. thawing them is very time consuming, and for Lucifer, is't just not appealing. He won't eat it. Period.
Karmatically...*so to speak* No there's no difference. They still are being killed.
I agree. Karmatically they are electrically the same. Dead = dead. I know how snakes work because I have had friends who owned them. I am a bit too squeamish to feed little mice to a snake! I have never owned one! I always feel bad for the little critters! :P
First I am not a vegetarian, nor am I trying to offend anyone. I just find it highly hypocritical to allow killing "as long as we don't do it". We should oppose suffering and do good. That being said, in this "reality" we live in, creatures exist that eat meat, and meat is derived from living sentient beings (animals, etc). To deny a carnivore food is to deny them life. I think the bigger point is that we should do as little harm as possible. To not feed the animal is doing harm, but to eat to survive is its natural In a perfect situation, we should allow nature to take its course but not add to the suffering or death of living entities directly or indirectly.
In this situation, no matter how you slice it, living things will die. I think it is hypocritical (at least from my standpoint) if we endorse others in killing for our benefit and then call it "OK". (allow a feed supplier to kill chicks and endorse it by purchasing the dead chicks).
Humans have a choice in what they eat. As mentioned above, we can go above and beyond instinct, for the most part, and learn ways to find diets and other sources of the nutrients we need to survive. Animals, on the other hand, fish, predators, everyone...is just on an instinctual level, and they don't really have the intelligence to find nutrients elsewhere. I personally feel stuck because I feel there are very limited options, even with the knowledge on nutrition where it stands....
And I don't understand your comment (in bold above), if you're now going to a BBQ..... Are you not endorsing the death of the meat you eat?
or are you freely admitting your stance....?
Just trying to clarify.....
You didn't express yourself badly, I think I did. I was just trying to clarify that I do eat meat.
The whole point I was trying to make with my final statement is that I do support eating meat for myself at this time in my life. I think someday that may change but for me, I'm trying to find the middle ground in all things.
I tend to be very literalistic in how I understand things, until I think about them a while. I will look at the teachings link you posted to get more information.
My whole point was that killing is killing is killing. If we say we are against it then we should oppose it in all of our conduct and beliefs. To say "processed" death is ok (frozen chickens) and personally directed death (feeding a snake) is not, just doesn't ring true to me. I just don't see the difference. Maybe after I do a little more reading, I will see it from a different perspective, but to me at this time death is death, and partaking in that death on any level "endorses" the means of death...much like me eating a hamburger or bratwurst tonight at my BBQ. I did not kill the cow or pig and make it food, I bought it from a store. If I buy it from the store, the "killer" will kill again because there is profit in it. I am responsible to some extent for continued death, affecting my Karma.
In daily life, we will influence other living creatures either consciously or unconsciously through our actions...there is just no getting around it. I just choose to understand in my own life I am responsible.
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 April 2010
I getcha, thank you.
And I completely see where you are coming from.
And I guess as every teaching of the Buddha ultimately tells us:
Make up your own mind on *this* but accept whatever consequences may befall you.
LOL! Sorry, just wondering, because I'm the first boyfriend my girlfriend's ever had and so I'm more inspired now to stop being a crappy unconfident boyfriend...
Interesting stuff being said I became a pescitarian because I wanted to be a vegetarian but it was too difficult to take that whole leap. I'm faring well and I became a pescitarian to stop eating some species of animals like ducks, chickens, turkeys, sheep, pigs and cows. I now just eat cod, salmon, tuna, haddock and mackeral. Mostly responcibly sourced salmon though. However I now look at this differently. From a health point of view. Because eating meat is natural. From fish I get oil and omega 3 and I eat quorn instead of meat, qourn is lower in fat and higher in fibre and protein. I do it for my health now really...
Aww thanks a bunch Pally! And I do hope the the birds are OK like Fede said. Did the flying pigs and cookie trees fair OK?
Love & Peace
Jellybean
Yes, the birds survived the winter just fine. We managed to keep them warm and toasty. Unfortunately the heavy snows caved in their outdoor cage so we can't take them out to sun themselves until we get that fixed. As for the flying pigs, they migrate, you know, and the cookie trees are just coming into blossom.
My whole point was that killing is killing is killing. If we say we are against it then we should oppose it in all of our conduct and beliefs. To say "processed" death is ok (frozen chickens) and personally directed death (feeding a snake) is not, just doesn't ring true to me. I just don't see the difference. Maybe after I do a little more reading, I will see it from a different perspective, but to me at this time death is death, and partaking in that death on any level "endorses" the means of death...much like me eating a hamburger or bratwurst tonight at my BBQ. I did not kill the cow or pig and make it food, I bought it from a store. If I buy it from the store, the "killer" will kill again because there is profit in it. I am responsible to some extent for continued death, affecting my Karma.
In daily life, we will influence other living creatures either consciously or unconsciously through our actions...there is just no getting around it. I just choose to understand in my own life I am responsible.
I tend to agree with you, patomin. Killing is killing. This is the nature of life in samsara. You can't get around it. Vegetarians are just as guilty of killing as any meat eater. Just because you can't actually see the victims doesn't mean nothing died! (not to mention the plants, which some at least would consider to be sentient) However, there are ways of transforming this negativity into a positive. One of the ways we do it is to make a little prayer when we eat meat that through the eating of it we may make a connection to this being that sacrificed its life (albeit unwillingly) so that others might live and that this connection would bear fruit in the future such that I would be able to guide this being to enlightenment.
Well, it just so happens I do have a prayer. It's not something you would be likely to find online anyway as I got it from a Nepalese lama who runs an animal rescue organization there. Here it is:
After reciting 100 times (one mala) and blowing on the bones say;
May this animal not experience the suffering of the three common realms and be without hardship.
May it achieve a body more extraordinary than the gods
And thereafter swiftly attain Buddhahood.
Thus make aspiration.
If there's no bones to blow on, don't worry about it! Just blow on the hamburger or whatever.
My whole point was that killing is killing is killing. If we say we are against it then we should oppose it in all of our conduct and beliefs. To say "processed" death is ok (frozen chickens) and personally directed death (feeding a snake) is not, just doesn't ring true to me. I just don't see the difference. Maybe after I do a little more reading, I will see it from a different perspective, but to me at this time death is death, and partaking in that death on any level "endorses" the means of death...much like me eating a hamburger or bratwurst tonight at my BBQ. I did not kill the cow or pig and make it food, I bought it from a store. If I buy it from the store, the "killer" will kill again because there is profit in it. I am responsible to some extent for continued death, affecting my Karma.
I don't think you're taking this lesson too literally, but I don't think you understand my point....carnivorous animals eat. do they accumulate bad karma for that?? I dlon't think that's logical, it's instinct, not choice.
We as humans do have this choice, but as a third party, do I? I am caring for him and HE doesn't have the choice of meals. hmm.
I don't think you're taking this lesson too literally, but I don't think you understand my point....carnivorous animals eat. do they accumulate bad karma for that?? I dlon't think that's logical, it's instinct, not choice.
We as humans do have this choice, but as a third party, do I? I am caring for him and HE doesn't have the choice of meals. hmm.
As I said earlier you may accumulate some bad karma for feeding him live animals, but to let him die you are responsible for his death. I was simply addressing another poster who suggested using frozen dead chicks. In my opinion, using those is the same as using live food, but according to some Buddhist teachings, you didn't KILL the frozen food so you are not held karmically responsible for the death of the chick.
I understand your point. I think you are in a hard situation. I guess my solution would be to not have that type of pet, but that is a moot point for you!
Well, it just so happens I do have a prayer. It's not something you would be likely to find online anyway as I got it from a Nepalese lama who runs an animal rescue organization there. Here it is:
After reciting 100 times (one mala) and blowing on the bones say;
May this animal not experience the suffering of the three common realms and be without hardship.
May it achieve a body more extraordinary than the gods
And thereafter swiftly attain Buddhahood.
Thus make aspiration.
If there's no bones to blow on, don't worry about it! Just blow on the hamburger or whatever.
I don't think you're taking this lesson too literally, but I don't think you understand my point....carnivorous animals eat. do they accumulate bad karma for that?? I dlon't think that's logical, it's instinct, not choice.
We as humans do have this choice, but as a third party, do I? I am caring for him and HE doesn't have the choice of meals. hmm.
I think you have to back up a few spaces, priya. Try asking yourself, what is the karma that this being created for itself that brought it back as a meat-eating predator? Think about that for a while. Causes have effects, and those effects create new causes which also have effects and so on ad infinitum.
:om:I am very very strongly against what people are saying about aquiring bad karma for being NATURAL. It doesn't make sence.
I've started saying prears when I eat, like the other night when I had salmon and vegetables I said, 'Thank you Salmon for dieing so I may eat and thank you Mother Earth for producing these vegetables. And if rebirth exists may you all get a good one.' I just said a prayer now thanking the cow for producing my cheese and Mother Earth for producing the ingrediants for my bagel and herbs and onion for me special cheese.' :om:
I add, after the sort of thanks you mention, gratitude, when with friends, for friendship and, when alone, for solitude. As to who or what I am grateful to is quite another matter.
Comments
*namaste*
so no, it's not true that mice must be killed in traps. Or by cats, that oftrn play with them for a while, first......
No. Snakes are completely carnivorous and require a whole animal, (bones, and all organs) for a comprehensive diet. Wolves and wild animals also consume all of the animal they catch, because the animal provides an all-round complete diet. The only thing a snake passes in its faeces, is the fur and waste products naturally created in the digestion of any living creature.
One of the snakes I rescued was being kept in an unheated mouse cage and the owners were trying to feed it bits of cheese, ham and tomato.
It wasn't doing very well, at that point.... Did you know that depending on the type of snake, eventually a fully grown snake only needs to eat three, maybe four times a year? Some even less than that.
(A friend I knew in France, had a giant albino reticulated Python. It ate every year. Once.
A whole goat, admittedly, but one meal was sufficient.)
They take anything up to a month to digest, and will not feed when they are sloughing their skin, which they probably, as an adult, do about 6 times a year.
Contrast that with a dog or cat, that needs feeding often twice a day, and now tell me what you think?
LOL. Is that all?
Fair enough, I though that snakes were like crocodiles which my former landlord used to keep, they did need frequent feeds of live food. Dogs can be vegetarian, it isn't terribly healthy for them but it won't necessarily kill them. Cats can be responsible for their own karma, they very rarely starve to death unless shut in. Humane traps didn't work for me in a rural situation, they were fine in town but out here with fields and barns you just can't entice the little chaps in, not even with Green & Blacks finest chocolate. If I could just persuade the mice to take a 10% cut of the grain and keep out of my outbuildings I would be happy to let them stay but they drive a hard bargain.
Love & Peace
Jellybean
Incidentally, most carnivores prey on herbivores.
Most carnivores will eat the animal completely, including their stomach contents, because here is roughage, fibre and other vegetative nutrients.
so even wild animals eat their veg.
Somehow!
bones provide calcium, too.
And keep teeth clean and healthy.
I'm talking mammals here, although the calcium is obviously extremely important to snakes.
let's face it... they're virtually 100% ribcage....!!
And this, I do think, is a step too far. Dogs are natural carnivores. To alter their diet because of our own fastidiousness is both unnecessary and frankly inappropriate. Why we should impose a vegetarian diet upon an animal actually built to eat meat, is completely beyond me. vegetable content in a meat diet, is understandable. substituting a meat/mixed diet for an entirely vegetarian one, is just kooked, IMO.
How can cats be responsible for their own karma?
Could you clarify that....?
I think if I were a snake I'd eat a lot of pepto-bismol!
Palzang
Palzang
A snake's only option is to regurgitate.
It hurls.....
trust me....On the whole I think I'd prefer if it took the pepto-Bismol!!
Oh, that'd be easy, just get the goat to fill up on it... then the snake will get it with all the roughage.
I had intended to post something additional about regurgitation....
but I thought better of it.
I was making myself green....!:zombie:
casualties?
Not too many (if any) I hope....
Blimey Federica, I wasn't trying to start an argument about feeding animals!
Anyway, I was told by my landlord who was an exotic animals vet that the small crocs (gavials or something) that can be kept as pets need to eat whole live, or very recently killed, food occasionally which is probably why they cannot be kept as pets in the UK anymore. I don't know why but then again I don't know why anyone would want to keep one.
As for cats, if you don't feed a cat it can easily go feral, there are a couple of feral cats live in the woods nearby, probably abandoned when their owners had their houses reposessed. I think if you hunt your own food and rely upon nobody else to kill for you then you could be said to be responsible for your own karma.
Love & Peace
Jellybean
(Yes, Gavial, more commonly the Gharial crocodile. They're from India. Almost certainly caught from the wild). He's absolutely right. if they have been taken from the wild, converting their intake to dead food is almost impossible.
But captivity-bred animals, usually start off by being fed already killed food, so it's much easier.
Feeding reptiles here, live food, contravenes the laws governing animal cruelty.
Such laws do not exist in the USA, and I really think it's about time they did.
Spinning off slightly:
Electronic dog collars are illegal in Wales, and such legislation will in all probability pass into the remainder of the UK.
Prong collars for dogs are also illegal, and tail docking and ear clipping are also classified as unnecessary and cruel, and are also illegal.
For an advanced nation with heavy influence from a christian religious angle, folks sure is flippant when it comes to Man's best friend.
(I watch Animal Cops you know.... NY, Miami, Houston....)
I find it extremely challenging and difficult to consider that cats (and other hunting animals) accumulate as much bad Kamma for catching, killing and eating their own prey, as we do for wanton cruelty and animal abuse.
(Leave alone what we do to each other.....!)
I am of the opinion that with little or no choice, a cat - or any wild animal - compelled to catch its own food is not subject to as stringently restrictive Kamma as we are.
thank you all again... i know this one is tricky.
*namaste*
Can anyone explain this to me? I mean the idea that non-human animals can "accumulate ... bad Kamma"? Or "merit" for that matter?
I have come across stories in Tibetan mythology about a bird (I think), flying round a particular building in a specific direction and acquiring merit which enables someone, many lifetimes later, to achieve something good. And I have met people who believe it as historical fact and that, as a result, believe that non-human animals acquire Kamma.
Sorry, dear friends, I really cannot believe it. The story can, surely, be read as a parable that we, here and now, may act in ways which have results that we just cannot imagine. I can understand a sort of mish-mash superstitious sort of mythology but only as a story.
The more we understand our relationship with non-humans, or, possibly, rediscover it, in work such as that done by our darling Fede, the less we are able to assert what sets us apart. Rabelais suggested that it was laughter at jokes. Personally, I think it is the ability to choose the non-instinctive - to some extent at least.
Perhaps some 'scholar' with nothing better to do, no weeds to pull out of the garden, no sandals to mend, has sat down to work out levels of ability to accumulate Kamma. Can a dog accumulate more than an earthworm?
The OP enquired (I think) about the impact of their actions. As we respond, are we trying to calm our own awareness that, willy nilly, we are going to collude where we would rather avoid? For myself, my practice of awareness enables me, in glimpses, to understand how petty is our normal grasp of the ramifications, les tenants et aboutissants, of interconnectedness.
As I finish writing this, I realise that my belief in animal innocence can only be maintained if I assert, too, that human animals, too, are innocent. Oy gevalt!
I just figured that some of the nicest animals I can think of are tropical fish. I have a tank of them and I just thought; 'There are different species, that live continents apart yet do they fight with others of there species in whole shoals? Do they destroy other species in the tank for no reason? Do they cut down the plants? Enslave other fish? No. I know I have selected species that will make a peaceful community, but still, there is no racism or prejudiced, fish, most animals in fact, DO NOT judge!
All the best,
Jellybean
question...are thawed hen chicks not killed to make them frozen? what is the difference between feeding live mice or pre-killed chicks to the snake? i don't see a difference.
Permit me to clarify.
The majority of dead chicks bought for reptile feeding are male. That's because females are more productive egg-layers, on the whole.;)
The Buddha told us that to kill something for our own consumption, ourselves, is unskillful.
To have somebody do it for us personally and on our behalf, is unskillful.
but if something is consumed as part of a general thing, then we cannot be held directly responsible for the death of that animal.
it would have been killed whether we had been there or not.
Now, we can discuss the nitty-gritty split-hair factors of this argument.
Until we're green in the face.
That goes on a lot in 'Vegetarianism' threads.
However.
A snake cannot ever be a vegetarian.
Therefore, the argument on the morals of the above, is completely academic.
Buying its food in this state is the most skilful thing a herpetologist could do.
I personally, if I had to feed my own snakes live food, or freshly kill it, would prefer to slit my own throat first.
I simply cannot ever bring myself personally, to do that.
But some herpetologists have to, and do. (Not in the UK, obviously.)
What some snake-keepers, in such a situation, (where such a moral dilemma exists) would be better doing, is questioning whether the entire premise of snake-ownership is in line with their own principles.
And for a Buddhist in such a position, that is even more important.
But the decision would be his/hers, and I would never presume to either influence, or criticise.
However, some breeds do need their tails docked as a medical intervention or necessity.
A friend of mine had a great dane whose tail was constantly being knocked, broken, damaged or injured, because it wagged it like a whip.
Boy, let me tell you, if that thing caught you againt the thigh - you felt it! It was like a horse-whip, and I had a bruise for weeks! but such enthusiastic wagging can hurt the tail.
SO occasionally, a vet will dock a tail out of necessity.
it is said by many that cats and dogs are capable of unconditional love.
I wouldn't quite take it that far, because animals do not feel love or affection in quite the same manner as we do. I mean, really... when was the last time you got a birthday/Valentine card from your dog or cat (that hadn't actually been signed on their behalf by mum/dad/SO.....? Huh....?
But they do feel affection of a sort, and empathy and loyalty, of course.
Now, this is incredibly off topic, but I'm watching a movie on sky moves called 'He's Just Not That Into You' and at the beginning it said a girl never forgets the first boy she likes. Is this at all true?
All the best,
Jellybean
First I am not a vegetarian, nor am I trying to offend anyone. I just find it highly hypocritical to allow killing "as long as we don't do it". We should oppose suffering and do good. That being said, in this "reality" we live in, creatures exist that eat meat, and meat is derived from living sentient beings (animals, etc). To deny a carnivore food is to deny them life. I think the bigger point is that we should do as little harm as possible. To not feed the animal is doing harm, but to eat to survive is its natural In a perfect situation, we should allow nature to take its course but not add to the suffering or death of living entities directly or indirectly.
In this situation, no matter how you slice it, living things will die. I think it is hypocritical (at least from my standpoint) if we endorse others in killing for our benefit and then call it "OK". (allow a feed supplier to kill chicks and endorse it by purchasing the dead chicks).
Just my opinion.
I'm off to be a hypocrite tonight at a BBQ!
The death is already done.
Killing more, will not undo the dying.
Yes.
Now get back on topic.
bad Jellybean, bad!
Obviously the animal was not killed in the capture. That statement is illogical, but I understand your deeper meaning.
In a practical sense though, allowing it to eat is the responsibility of the captor, I would suppose.
To let the carnivore die is as bad as feeding it in a sense. This sounds a bit Zen to me....hmmm.....:crazy:
did I express myself badly? Sorry if I did.....
No, Please look at the following link:
Killing is unacceptable. Killing "as long as we don't do it" is also unacceptable.
Teachings. (Scroll down to Right Action, KIlling).
Chiefly though, these directions were laid down for Monks, but the first precept applies to all, without exception.
I totally agree.
In a perfect situation we'd all be eating vegetables and meat substitutes all generated, created and produced in a laboratory.
Although that is a current reality, it's insufficiently viable or economical to make it a quotidian commonplace one.
I don't endorse anything of that kind.
But by buying mass-produced eggs, be they free range or from battery hens, we endorse the killing of the male chicks.
If you eat eggs, you are indirectly contributing to the elimination of male chicks.
They don't make the money, the hens do.
Poultry farmers don't want male chicks, but by permitting some eggs to develop into chicks and hatch, in order to perpetuate the population of laying hens, some male chicks have to be born. You can't sex an egg....
And I don't understand your comment (in bold above), if you're now going to a BBQ..... Are you not endorsing the death of the meat you eat?
or are you freely admitting your stance....?
Just trying to clarify.....
How long have you been a vegan, Drop?
Did you once eat meat, or has your family raised you as one...?
Karmatically...*so to speak* No there's no difference. They still are being killed.
Humans have a choice in what they eat. As mentioned above, we can go above and beyond instinct, for the most part, and learn ways to find diets and other sources of the nutrients we need to survive. Animals, on the other hand, fish, predators, everyone...is just on an instinctual level, and they don't really have the intelligence to find nutrients elsewhere. I personally feel stuck because I feel there are very limited options, even with the knowledge on nutrition where it stands....
You didn't express yourself badly, I think I did. I was just trying to clarify that I do eat meat.
The whole point I was trying to make with my final statement is that I do support eating meat for myself at this time in my life. I think someday that may change but for me, I'm trying to find the middle ground in all things.
I tend to be very literalistic in how I understand things, until I think about them a while. I will look at the teachings link you posted to get more information.
My whole point was that killing is killing is killing. If we say we are against it then we should oppose it in all of our conduct and beliefs. To say "processed" death is ok (frozen chickens) and personally directed death (feeding a snake) is not, just doesn't ring true to me. I just don't see the difference. Maybe after I do a little more reading, I will see it from a different perspective, but to me at this time death is death, and partaking in that death on any level "endorses" the means of death...much like me eating a hamburger or bratwurst tonight at my BBQ. I did not kill the cow or pig and make it food, I bought it from a store. If I buy it from the store, the "killer" will kill again because there is profit in it. I am responsible to some extent for continued death, affecting my Karma.
In daily life, we will influence other living creatures either consciously or unconsciously through our actions...there is just no getting around it. I just choose to understand in my own life I am responsible.
And I completely see where you are coming from.
And I guess as every teaching of the Buddha ultimately tells us:
Make up your own mind on *this* but accept whatever consequences may befall you.
Thank you for your patience! Peace!
LOL! Sorry, just wondering, because I'm the first boyfriend my girlfriend's ever had and so I'm more inspired now to stop being a crappy unconfident boyfriend...
All the best,
Jellybean
Yes, the birds survived the winter just fine. We managed to keep them warm and toasty. Unfortunately the heavy snows caved in their outdoor cage so we can't take them out to sun themselves until we get that fixed. As for the flying pigs, they migrate, you know, and the cookie trees are just coming into blossom.
Palzang
I tend to agree with you, patomin. Killing is killing. This is the nature of life in samsara. You can't get around it. Vegetarians are just as guilty of killing as any meat eater. Just because you can't actually see the victims doesn't mean nothing died! (not to mention the plants, which some at least would consider to be sentient) However, there are ways of transforming this negativity into a positive. One of the ways we do it is to make a little prayer when we eat meat that through the eating of it we may make a connection to this being that sacrificed its life (albeit unwillingly) so that others might live and that this connection would bear fruit in the future such that I would be able to guide this being to enlightenment.
Palzang
<link rel="File-List" href="file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5COwner%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml"><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:PunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w:DontGrowAutofit/> <w:UseFELayout/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><style> <!-- /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:Calibri; panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:swiss; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:-1610611985 1073750139 0 0 159 0;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin-top:0in; margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:10.0pt; margin-left:0in; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:Calibri; mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language:EN-US;} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> </style><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]--> To dispel the harmful effects of eating meat<o></o>
OM AH BHIRA HUNG KHETSARA MAM<o></o>
After reciting 100 times (one mala) and blowing on the bones say;
May this animal not experience the suffering of the three common realms and be without hardship.
May it achieve a body more extraordinary than the gods
And thereafter swiftly attain Buddhahood.
Thus make aspiration.
If there's no bones to blow on, don't worry about it! Just blow on the hamburger or whatever.
Palzang
We as humans do have this choice, but as a third party, do I? I am caring for him and HE doesn't have the choice of meals. hmm.
As I said earlier you may accumulate some bad karma for feeding him live animals, but to let him die you are responsible for his death. I was simply addressing another poster who suggested using frozen dead chicks. In my opinion, using those is the same as using live food, but according to some Buddhist teachings, you didn't KILL the frozen food so you are not held karmically responsible for the death of the chick.
I understand your point. I think you are in a hard situation. I guess my solution would be to not have that type of pet, but that is a moot point for you!
Cool thanks!
I think you have to back up a few spaces, priya. Try asking yourself, what is the karma that this being created for itself that brought it back as a meat-eating predator? Think about that for a while. Causes have effects, and those effects create new causes which also have effects and so on ad infinitum.
Palzang
I've started saying prears when I eat, like the other night when I had salmon and vegetables I said, 'Thank you Salmon for dieing so I may eat and thank you Mother Earth for producing these vegetables. And if rebirth exists may you all get a good one.' I just said a prayer now thanking the cow for producing my cheese and Mother Earth for producing the ingrediants for my bagel and herbs and onion for me special cheese.' :om:
All the best,
Jellybean
Palzang
I add, after the sort of thanks you mention, gratitude, when with friends, for friendship and, when alone, for solitude. As to who or what I am grateful to is quite another matter.