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.
Buddhism and pets...
What are the views of the Buddhist community on pets which require live food or mice etc...? It seems that something like this would be wrong for a Buddhist person to go along with.
0
Comments
In this same sense, in my opinion..if you have a python for instance, that eats mice or whatever...what can you do? This is its natural state, for an animal. Do you get bad karma from being the means in which the animal eats? Well you are the caretaker of this animal, and as its caretaker (since it is in a cage etc) you must provide for its food. It is a double edged sword...which makes me wonder if it is right to have pets as well. Maybe thats silly.
I think it would only really apply to monks and nuns, as they take strict vows not to harm other creatures. So maybe their outlook would be different.
Anyway the reasoning came down to the same as yours, they cannot change their food the same as a human can change theirs. But the question was still there, 'Would it be right of a Buddhist person to keep them?' Something im unsure of, half of me says no, half of me wants to ignore the other half.
I didn't even think of fleas, I use flea treatments on my Pug.
As for keeping pets that require live food, I have two thoughts. Personally, I wouldn't keep them (although I have in the past). I don't believe it's the most skillful way to behave with pets. But if I did, I would only feed them live food such as living insects, mice, or whatever. That way (if you want to get technical), it's not *me* that's doing any of the killing. The lizard or snake is killing the prey for its food, which is the way of the universe. That animal was born in that form for a reason (its past karma), and so doesn't know any differently nor have any choice in the matter. Perhaps next time that lizard or snake will be reborn as the cricket or the mouse, or perhaps that's what it was last time. But if *you* aren't killing the prey for the animal, then I don't see how it is a karmic hit against you other than indirectly by keeping the animal in the first place. I think it's a matter of degrees.
Just my (clueless) thoughts on the matter. Your mileage may vary. See dealer for full details.
Mtns
I dont know what to think honestly..i guess its because i am too new to the idea. But it seems like everything living is one way or another in the karma. I am confused.
in the karma soup so to speak
is that a "im worried about you" face?
I feed my snakes defrosted frozen mice, so I do not do the killing, but just because it didn't kill the mice, doesn't mean I can be ignorant to the fact they have died so I can feed them to my pets. Same as the locusts and crickets, Im not killing them, but it putting them in the vivarium with then geckos to be eaten.
I wonder how many of the forum are vegetarians.
The people I know who keep snakes feed them de-frosted frozen dead mice and chicks from the pet shop.
What's the difference from meat eaters buying dead animal meat?
If you don't like the idea of feeding snakes dead animals, don't buy one!
If you don't like eating meat yourself be a vegetarian.
What others do is their own business, its not an illegal activity.:)
.
I had my snakes long before I became aware of Buddhism, so its not a case of 'If you don't like, it don't buy snakes'.
As said in previous post, I do feed them defrosted mice, but I dont see much of a difference, it was still a life, just because I didn't kill it doesn't justify me feeding them to my snakes. Which is one reason why im a veggy, most people will eat meat, but would never think of raising and killing their own, as long as they didn't kill the animal its ok, as long as they dont see how that animal suffered during its life when its never even seen daylight on a battery farm then it never happened, and I see that as disrespectful to that animal.
I guess its something im going to need to think about a lot before I decide what to do about my pets.
Oh no, don't open this one again
Secondly, Ajahn brahm spoke on several occasions that he and monks in thailand had to eat frogs and other meat products. No fruit, no vegetables, they just had one meal some times that was rice and boiled frogs...
Thirdly, in the movie spring summer autumn winter a Tibetan monk has numerous pets including a cat, a hen and some other pet which I forget. he even used the cats tail to construct calligraphy, dipping it's tail in ink and this cat was white lol..
This is a touchy subject?
I dont care/mind if other people eat meat, I cook it for my family, as they are their own and can make their own choices.
what is most impressive to me is when people take the time to witness and respect the animal and it's sacrifice. i'm not big on prayer before a meal, but i feel that if it involves an animal, there should be some sort of acknowledgment of this.
about the frozen mice, i wonder how they kill them. does anyone know? i suppose, if it is more humane than throwing a frightened mouse into a small cage from which it has no hope of escape... i would go with the frozen. i definitely don't think that it would be appropriate for you to not feed your snake. like it or not, you are it's keeper and you must fulfill your duty as such. if i were you, i would just do my best to try to remember that each little meal was at one point a living breathing animal and try to respect that. it may be difficult indeed, but it is just the circle of life. you could think about giving your snake away, but that would just mean that someone else would feed it in the same manner. the phrase, "out of sight, out of mind" comes to mind. i think, better to be aware and try to remain compassionate.
I feel the same way in reguards to animals and eating their flesh.
The mice are culled via a Co2 chamber.
I would not starve my animals, I was saying I feel like im at a cross roads, keep my snakes and carry on as always, or rehome my animals. Its going to be a tough call.
IMO it would be better to keep them, since they have been with you all this time.
i agree with this. i don't know much about snakes, do they become attached to people? if so, you must think about what would cause the least amount of suffering by all. you can't change the fact that a snake requires other animals for it's diet.
i have cats whom i feed meat to sometimes, as it is healthy for their diet. it wouldn't be right for me to suddenly find another home for them just because i didn't want to have a part in it. i like to think they are quite attached to me
Thanks for all the advice everyone.
That's not silly at all, I feel it's the heart of the question. It's much more important to examine your own intention and motivation in taking a pet to begin with, and the correctness of it, rather than what and how to feed it.
Some people will discover wholesome intentions and others will not.
You have no problem cooking meat for your fmily who CHOOSE to eat meat but are "considering what to do with your pets" whom you chose to care for when you bought them because they HAVE to eat meat? :S
The topic is Buddhism and pets......
The Original post, reads:
Thanks.
I once was told that they "gas" them with carbondioxide. Which as far as I have learned should cause the mice to experience euphoria before they just fall asleep and die.
It is of course hard to say if a mouse experience euphoria, but it is said that people who tried to commit suicide with carbondioxide, had a feeling of euphoria before they got sleepy.
Sadly I haven't been able to find any sources about this, so this is just third party information, and therefore not really valid.
Much love
Allan
Yes well I can very well rehome my family now can I?....No one would have them lol.
The way I see it, I took on the responsibility of caring for this animal and I care for her well, it would be wrong for me to re-home her, possibly with a person who won't look after her as well as I do, just because I've changed my worldview. However, when she dies I will not be getting any more animals that eat live foods.
I also care for the crickets and mealworms well, giving them tasty food and large enclosures with stuff to climb on. So I'm pretty happy with the situation.
peace.
I have two children and I love them with all my heart, and of corse im attached to them. But I am respectful and realise they are their own individuals, I am here to guide them and try my best to mould them into good, honest and caring people. However when they are older their choices will be their own, and they will have to live with the choices they make, but I will advise them as best as I can.
I think the Buddhists who see children as a byproduct need to really look into themselves and see how wrong that is. It doesn't matter who they are, a beginner or a master, they are still a human being and need to come down of that high horse.
I am not a monk, nor a master. I live in the regular, day to day world. I don't think it is, nor should it be, one size fits all. If no Buddhist ever had kids, there would probably be no more Buddhists (I've heard this argument many times). If the dharma dies, what's the point? Pets bring joy to my life. Am I attached? You bet. I'm attached to a lot of things. Could I live without them? Sure. Would I be as happy? Not a chance. Am I likely to try it? No time soon, that's for sure. Maybe next time around I'll be much more enlightened and less attached, but not this time, at least not where dogs and cats and fish are concerned.
Bully for anyone who can live totally free of attachment to other living beings. I'm just not one of them in this life.
Mtns
When the master says 'avoid pets' , it is like saying 'avoid cigarettes'. Some people can, come people can't. They don't make any judgements. Just avoid any further attachments if possible which makes sense. No one is on any high horse.
Peace.
Cultivate love for animals and children, feed them wisely and care for them properly. Recognize that they are impermanent, just as everything in the world is, and when they go, let them go. This can be a great, compassionate practice, and cultivate great happiness.
With warmth,
Matt
My own analogy, is that if you are trying to catch a train (to nirvana, perhaps?), you might have better luck carrying a backpack instead of lugging a louis vuitton travel trunk with no wheels. But take heart, if you miss the train, another will be along (in your next life, maybe?). I kind of apply the lesson this way. Avoid attachments means less baggage. It is what it is, whether one says it or not.
Even the surgeon general cautions that cigarette smoking is bad for your health. But people do it anyways. I don't consider the surgeon general unskilful either.
Peace.
p.s. I have two kids and a dog, + plus fish. I take good care of them everyday. (don't lock them up in the basement unless we have visitors of course
As laypeople, there is very little that we do day to day that doesn't carry some kammic consequences. Compromises are all around us: if you drive a car, you are killing insects and polluting the atmosphere (which ultimately kills other beings) etc etc etc. Having a pet is one of those compromises.
That's why when it comes to killing, intentionality matters. The precept against killing was clarified by Buddha in the following way:
* There must be a being
* You must know that there is a being
* You must intend to kill
* You must plan to use a method to kill the being
* You must kill the being, using only the planned method
Here is what Bhante Gunaratana has to say about related topic of eating meat:
"Looking at the bigger picture, I see that even vegetarians contribute indirectly to killing. Suppose there is a village where a thousand vegetarians live, and in the next village, there is a farmer who cultivates vegetables, fruit, and grain to feed the thousand villagers. When he tills the land or controls the insects that might damage the vegetables, the farmer kills many small beings. Many other animals and insects are killed by his farm machinery as he harvests the crop. The vegetarians in the next village feel very comfortable. Even though creatures did die, the vegetarians have a clear conscience when eating, because they lack the intent to kill. You can see from this example that eating vegetables and killing beings in the process of growing vegetables are two separate things. The same logic applies to eating meat. Eating meat and killing beings for their meat are two separate things. The Buddha himself sometimes ate meat that was offered to him. Those who are merely eating meat also lack the intent to kill. (emphasis mine)
Going back to keeping a pet - what if you saved that pet from a shelter that had horrible conditions and by doing that eliminated a certain amount of that animal's suffering? Is that worth all of the dead mice that you'll have to feed it?
I know, I'd KILL for some enlightenment right now!
If this were the proper examination of the analogy, I wonder why it would not be said "examine the way having pets impacts you" or "treat your pets skillfully." The reason I consider the head in the sand a better examination, is because the attachments we have are present, even if the phenomena that we falsely attribute to the attachment are not obviously presently manifest. For instance, the pets are not the source of the attachment.
The reason I would consider the "avoid pets" and "avoid smoking" as unskillful is not because I consider smoking healthy. It is simply more helpful to act as the surgeon general who says smoking is not healthy. She does not say "avoid smoking"... but why?
I mean no insult to your teacher, only look to examine phenomena in the here and now. When I examine that particular direction, I can see many reasons why it is less helpful and prone to misunderstanding. One of my teachers told me once that "Adults do not like to be told what to do, and doing so invites dissonance. So, it is better to help them see, than tell them how to be." Paraphrasing, not a direct quote.
With warmth,
Matt
this makes a lot of sense to me. i have mulled over what the karmic consequences of eating meat are, and this seems to imply that it is not so much the consequence of eating as it is of killing. or rather, the intent to kill. but i'm still not entirely sure if this applies to people who never kill their own food but need meat as a large part of every meal. their choices fuel the meat industry. i would take this to mean that choosing meat, desiring meat, is unskillful, but it is okay to eat meat that is being given.
but using this logic in regards to the OP, it seems to say that it is okay because Phantom lacks the intent to kill, just the intent to feed his pets. killing sometimes happens as unfortunate byproduct. i agree with this.
My master would of course encourage that pets and children be cared for with much love, caring and respect. But you are right, people don't like being told what to do, yet for the master, people always go to them because sometimes, they want to be told what to do. People can be so fickle
While i was contemplating this whole issue, it dawned on me that the Buddha himself, left all his worldly possessions, including his family in pursuit of enlightenment. Of course, he attained enlightenment and became a revered teacher and religious figure. But, had he not, it can be easily construed that he abandoned his family and is a deadbeat dad, his family wealth notwithstanding. Strange how that works.
Peace.
In a related issue, while keeping on subject:
We recently bought some guppies for our kids' fish tank. They died several days later and we couldn't figure out why. (only the guppies were dying). We brought it back to the pet store and also had the water tested. The answer: Guppies are over bred. The (honest) store clerk told us that the guppies are retarded and weak and die easily due to overbreeding. In my gut, I think that our need to buy and keep guppies as pets has led to this sorry state of affairs and why? because guppies are pretty with their colourful tails. So, I am not buying guppies anymore, I am getting zebrafish or neon tetras instead. Hopefully, their plight is better. It is not a perfect solution.
I am also reminded of stories in the newspaper that 'uncovered' the story of how many of the pet store dogs are 'puppy mill' dogs which are bred in terrible conditions. We got our dog from a private breeder. But from this experience it is clear to see that while we don't have any intent for these conditions (puppy mill, over breeding, etc.), it is clear that our actions (desire to have pets) also lead to these type of conditions. I can easily see how the master views eating meat as something that should be avoided to reduce the killing.
Peace.
Someone told me this parable-type story which I've never forgotten;
There was a man who went to market and while exploring the stalls he came to a butcher, the butcher was standing behind the stall where there was also a wooden shed and a cow standing around chewing cud. The butcher's stall had been busy that day and was almost empty. The man asked the butcher for a piece of rump stake, to which the butcher replied that he had none left. The man was disappointed and about to leave when the butcher said to come back that afternoon when he'd have fresh stock. So the man returned later that afternoon to find the butcher's stall still there, and the shed, and the stall was filled with delicious cuts of meat of all sizes. The cow chewing the cud was nowhere to be seen.
It's a fairly silly and obvious story, but the act of imagining helped me to link directly the meat I see packaged in supermarkets with the animal that was killed to produce it. That my demand is a direct cause of the need to supply, and thus the death of living beings. However, I will always eat meat that, for example, is served to me when I go to someone's house for dinner as I believe that it is 1000 times worse to waste meat that has been purchased than it is to purchase it in the first place.
With my gecko's live foods I get to experience this link between death and food on a pretty intimate level, and I've never really gotten used to watching her feed. But like I said before, I've made a commitment to care for her and so must deal with the necessary consequences.
It is my understanding that while the Buddha did say 'Abstain from killing', he also defined what he meant by killing. According to my understanding killing has to involve the intent to kill.
A hunter has the intent to kill and must delude himself into thinking the being he kills does not suffer or that the suffering is somehow not of any real consequence. A murderer has the intent to kill. The cruel person who intentionally pushes a bug into water and upon seeing it crawl out pushes it down into the water again has the intent to kill and does great damage to himself.
I end the life of living things every day. I drive my car and a bug splatters on the windshield. I feel badly for the bug, but I had no intent to kill therefore it's death is not killing.
Vegetarians and Vegans are just as responsible for the death of sentient beings as meat eaters. The typical meat eater goes through the drive through at McDonald's and orders a BigMac. They didn't kill the cow and they had no intent to kill. They may have very warm feelings toward cows and would never kill one themselves.
The vegan/vegetarian eats the produce grown by a farmer. The farmer plowed the field before sowing seeds and in doing so slaughtered millions of living organisms living on and in the soil. After the crop starts to grow he sprays it with deadly poisons and all the insects which would like a bite to eat die in the attempt. The vegetarian and vegan did not have the intent to kill these beings. It's just a fact of our existence that suffering and death exist. If we do not have the intent to cause this suffering and death then we are not 'killing'.
Now, with regard to pets that must kill sentient beings in order to live, that is one of those tricky dilemma's. Do you have such a pet because you enjoy watching it's food suffer and die? If so you are causing great harm to yourself by taking pleasure in the suffering of a being. On the other hand if you provide this pet with the food it requires to remain alive and avoid suffering and take no pleasure in the suffering and death of it's 'food', then you are not killing and you are not harming yourself.
The question reminds me of a biblical story where the disciples of Jesus were debating amongst themselves whether it was sinful to eat meat that had been sacrificed to an idol. In Christianity idolatry is a very big sin so some felt that it was necessary to avoid anything having anything at all to do with idols. When the disciples questioned Jesus on the matter his answer boiled down to 'it is a matter of conscience'. That is a paraphrase rather than a quote. If your conscience convicts you that eating meat sacrificed to an idol is sin, then it is. If your conscience doesn't convict you that it is sin, then it isn't. I believe Jesus also tossed in something to the effect of not judging those who didn't have the same view.
If *you* believe that keeping a pet that requires live food is wrong, then for you it is. For you to keep such a pet and meet it's dietary needs would require you to regularly assault your conscience.
Seriously, don't go there.