Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In Register
Examples: Monday, today, last week, Mar 26, 3/26/04
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.

how to treat a dog?

dr_arpiedr_arpie
edited January 2011 in Buddhism Basics
i see it, my dog suffers because she is only interested in food and things that taste good. there's nothing i can think to do to change this and i let it go because of this.... is it worse or better to feed her more food which she so desperately craves every moment of her life?

any thoughts?

Comments

  • chariramacharirama Veteran
    Interesting thought.

    I think that, in the case of your dog, the craving does not lead to suffering because I believe that dogs find it very easy to live in the moment. I also think they are very forgiving creatures who do not dwell on the past.

    I believe their anticipation of the future is limited so any disappointment would be limited too. That disappointment quickly becomes part of the past and is just as quickly forgiven.

    On the positive side, the craving for food is what sustains the physical body of your dog. If you feed her in moderation it is neither worse or better.
  • TheJourneyTheJourney
    Well do you think it is up to you to decide what is best for another sentient being? I'm not saying you should turn your dog into a glutton, but don't deprive him of food because you think it's best for him. It's not up to you.
  • Love-N-PeaceLove-N-Peace Veteran
    Dogs are designed to eat as much food as they can- because as far as their unconscious mind sees the dog doesn't know when it will eat again or how well. To give them as much food as they wish would be wasteful and cruel on the dog. Feed them in moderation; there are usually guidelines on the packet :)
  • GlowGlow Veteran
    It's not so much craving as instinct: dogs, like many other animals, are evolutionarily designed to eat whenever they have access to food. In the wild, food is scarce, or liable to be eaten by someone else if you didn't gobble it up right away. It's a survival mechanism.
  • DaltheJigsawDaltheJigsaw Mountain View Veteran
    I have a dog and I usually allow my dog to eat 2 or 3 times a day.
    My dog is a Maltese, so he does not eat a lot.
  • MountainsMountains Veteran
    Former veterinary technician speaking here: A dog's job is to make you think he's starving to death. That's his only job (other than loving you unconditionally). Dogs evolved from wolves. Wolves are hunters, but they're also scavengers. A scavenger will eat any and everything he can find when he finds it, since he doesn't necessarily know from whence his next meal may come, if it comes at all. So the dog, possessing all those same genes and programming, does the same thing. Many dogs inhale their food and are immediately ready for more.

    You *will* be doing your dog more harm than good by overfeeding him. Just like with a human, excess calories will make him fat, and possibly eventually diabetic. If it's your hand that's doing the feeding, you're acting unskillfully as a Buddhist by increasing his suffering in that way. He is not "suffering" if he's getting adequate nutrition. Remember, it's his job to make you *think* he's suffering by being hungry. If you're feeding him a good quality food in adequate amounts (ie: he's not losing weight), then you're not causing him to suffer.

    Don't fall into the trap of anthropomorphizing your dog. He's not a person, he's a dog. He's acting like a dog. Just feed him (just enough, not too much), love him, play ball with him, and let him be a dog.

  • CinorjerCinorjer Veteran
    Former veterinary technician speaking here: A dog's job is to make you think he's starving to death. That's his only job (other than loving you unconditionally). Dogs evolved from wolves. Wolves are hunters, but they're also scavengers. A scavenger will eat any and everything he can find when he finds it, since he doesn't necessarily know from whence his next meal may come, if it comes at all. So the dog, possessing all those same genes and programming, does the same thing. Many dogs inhale their food and are immediately ready for more.

    You *will* be doing your dog more harm than good by overfeeding him. Just like with a human, excess calories will make him fat, and possibly eventually diabetic. If it's your hand that's doing the feeding, you're acting unskillfully as a Buddhist by increasing his suffering in that way. He is not "suffering" if he's getting adequate nutrition. Remember, it's his job to make you *think* he's suffering by being hungry. If you're feeding him a good quality food in adequate amounts (ie: he's not losing weight), then you're not causing him to suffer.

    Don't fall into the trap of anthropomorphizing your dog. He's not a person, he's a dog. He's acting like a dog. Just feed him (just enough, not too much), love him, play ball with him, and let him be a dog.

    Absolutely true. I keep a big bag of duck jerky strips in what my dogs must consider the Magical Treat Drawer. There's only a tiny bit of dried protein in each strip, only a few calories, but it satisfies their instinctive tendency to beg until alpha (me) comes across with a share of the hunt.
  • SpockSpock
    Ha.... seriously?

    It's like asking if a crocodile craves my leg all the time, should I feed it my leg to relieve its suffering? Wait a minute...if I act with loving kindness... I will suffer.

    Has your dog got a worm?

    :)
  • Ada_BAda_B
    My dog's a Labrador and is permanently starving to death... oops, I temporarily got into his mind for a second there... no, he is permanently greedy.

    It's a battle to keep him slim, I can tell you. He would literally eat himself to death if he could - twice now I've had to taken him to the vets because he got in the food bin. One time he ate 7kgs of dry food (I was cleaning up the garden for a week).

    Every Christmas it's a nightmare because he tries to eat the children's chocolate, fruit cake, Christmas Pudding and all manner of foods that are poisonous to dogs.

    However, I do find his greed is marginally better if he gets plenty of exercise and mental stimulation (I make him work for his treats).

    If I fed my dog what he wanted, as some people do with their pets, he would be very fat and not live beyond 10 years old. A healthy Labrador can be expected to live until 15. My dog's grandma was 20 when she died (she was a skinny, working Labrador). Also, whilst he adores his food, if I showed you a photo of him on the couch, sleeping with his belly upwards, his legs akimbo and his head to one side, you would not have the impression of a dog suffering terribly.

    My dog is happiest down the meadow, bouncing through the grass and imagining he's going to catch something (it would have to be very deaf and very slow for that to happen - unlikely as he loves birds). He loves catching balls, swimming in the river and rolling in fox poo. None of this involves food. I tell my kids, if you want to make the dog happy, don't feed him, take him out!

    With pets, you need to beware of idiot compassion: giving them what they ask for (with doe-eyes and waggy tails) rather than what they actually need. And they need boundaries if they are to be happy. Also a fat dog is not a happy dog.
  • Mintyfresh0Mintyfresh0 Veteran
    Is this thread serious?

    Dogs are the most enlightened beings on the face of the earth. They have all of the attributes that we as humans wish we had. Unconditional love, trust, loyalty. They don't question what they are, they simply exist. They don't need to go through the self-destruction process to realize their true nature. They need very little to be happy. Walks, water, food, a chew toy maybe. Don't you wish you were content with that little?

    If anything your dog should pity you, not the other way around.

    Your dog wants to see if you'll keep giving her food when she asks, thats all. She isn't gluttonous or probably even hungry. It's her job to ask you for food, and it's your job to determine the right amount. Thats all.
  • federicafederica Seeker of the clear blue sky... Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubt Moderator
    I am a professional dog behaviourist, and I could help, if this is what you want.
    However, dogs are opportunists. They eat when they can, because it's there.

    But this is ridiculous....
    Former veterinary technician speaking here: A dog's job is to make you think he's starving to death. That's his only job (other than loving you unconditionally).
    I have to take issue here. A dog's job is to be an efficient and proactive member of the pack. if you don't lead effectively - it will. Dogs do not 'love unconditionally'. This is an anthropomorphic opinion. Dogs are loyal to a pack, whether they are leading it, or following within it, but dogs do not 'love unconditionally'. They are most content when the going is good, but this dog is not content, because over-eating is also not a trait of wolves.
    Dogs evolved from wolves. Wolves are hunters, but they're also scavengers. A scavenger will eat any and everything he can find when he finds it, since he doesn't necessarily know from whence his next meal may come, if it comes at all.
    This is true, to a certain extent. But once it has gorged, a wolf will not eat again for several days, as it needs time to digest and process its food. Carnivores have a slower metabolism than herbivores. Herbivores need to constantly graze and eat pretty much the whole day to eat sufficient nutrients to keep them going. they have tough digestive systems that break down plant cellulose.
    Carnivores have a thorough and powerful digestive system (for bones and any other animal matter) but it's therefore slower.
    So the dog, possessing all those same genes and programming, does the same thing. Many dogs inhale their food and are immediately ready for more.
    At one point, if it eats too much, it will vomit, because it's literally sick with too much food to take....
    You *will* be doing your dog more harm than good by overfeeding him. Just like with a human, excess calories will make him fat, and possibly eventually diabetic. If it's your hand that's doing the feeding, you're acting unskilfully as a Buddhist by increasing his suffering in that way.
    never mind acting unskilfully as a Buddhist, it's very unskilful as a dog owner!
    He is not "suffering" if he's getting adequate nutrition. Remember, it's his job to make you *think* he's suffering by being hungry. If you're feeding him a good quality food in adequate amounts (ie: he's not losing weight), then you're not causing him to suffer.
    The dog has no idea or intention of making you 'think' anything. But if you do not show adequate and proper leadership qualities, it will make demands on you and behave in a way that compels you to appease it, in any way you see fit, or that works.
    Don't fall into the trap of anthropomorphizing your dog. He's not a person, he's a dog. He's acting like a dog. Just feed him (just enough, not too much), love him, play ball with him, and let him be a dog.
    The way to really 'love' a dog, is to treat it exactly as a dog should be treated.
    "Love and affection" to a dog, is not cuddling, petting and overfeeding. Love, to a dog, is leadership, protection, shelter & warmth, and food. That's all the 'love' it needs.
    Physical affection from us, is the icing on the cake.
    But he needs the cake, first.



  • mugzymugzy Veteran
    edited January 2011
    Mintyfresh0, I thought you might have been sarcastic when you said dogs are the most enlightened beings on earth. Being born into the animal realm may sound romantic, but if you think about the reality it doesn't really seem so great. Being born in the animal realm is seen as being the ripening of negative karma. Wild animals are in near-constant fear for their lives, many eat other animals in order to survive, and they live without shelter or anyone to care for them. While domesticated dogs in loving households seem to have everything we idealize, they lack many of the abilities that we take for granted - freedom, logical reasoning, etc. No matter how cute, smart, loyal, or funny we think they are, they are still animals and can quickly revert to a fierce or destructive state.

    Most importantly - from a Buddhist point of view - is that being born as an animal prevents them from practicing the dharma. The best they could do is to see holy objects, hear dharma talks, prayers, mantras, etc, and hope that their next incarnation either leads them directly to the pure state of enlightenment (best case scenario), or in a realm where they are able to hear the holy dharma, train their minds, purify negative karma, and generate positive karma).

    I love my cat and I play dharma talks, mantra recitations, and have holy images in my apartment in order to benefit him (and any insects, beings, or whatever that happen to be in the area). Since I have received a precious human birth I would like to benefit all beings as much as possible, especially our furry friends :-)
  • Mintyfresh0Mintyfresh0 Veteran
    edited January 2011
    Do you really believe that being human is a higher state of existence than an animal? ...or that animals must hear dharma talks and look at holy images to try to become a human and strive for enlightenment?

    I respect your thoughts, but from my point of view that sounds a little ridiculous.

    Animals can be seen as more advanced than us (not that we aren't animals too) in more ways than one. No form of life is superior to another. Our gift of intelligence and logical reasoning is as much a curse as it is a gift.


  • mugzymugzy Veteran
    edited January 2011
    It seems strange that you would come to a Buddhist forum and call Buddhist beliefs ridiculous.
  • Mintyfresh0Mintyfresh0 Veteran
    It seems strange that you would come to a Buddhist forum and call Buddhist beliefs ridiculous.
    There are parts of Buddhism that are true and easily verified when one's inner space is explored, but other parts I am unable to understand how they came to be incorporated. I think all things should be questioned.

    I'm not saying you're wrong, but its hard for me to understand how one form of life can be viewed as superior to another... or how hearing language or seeing images beyond the animal's ability to comprehend will benefit them. In fact, I would welcome you to try and convince me. I enjoy learning.

    ...so dogs are pretty great huh? Sorry for the veering from the topic of the thread


  • federicafederica Seeker of the clear blue sky... Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubt Moderator
    I'm of the opinion that the different realms are in point of fact psychological states of mind, not actual, factual physical places we are consigned to. Every realm corresponds to a Mental state, and the Human Realm is the highest, or most desirable, because it is the one in which we can actually, in a normal, cognisant, rational, reasoned state, see things as they really are. Mental disturbances, stress, distractions and other conditions, are apt to skew us off our path and tamper with our concentration (consigning us to other 'realms')....It is these realms we need to calm and dissipate, in order to be in our Right Minds - the Human ones.
  • Mintyfresh0Mintyfresh0 Veteran
    edited January 2011
    I'm of the opinion that the different realms are in point of fact psychological states of mind, not actual, factual physical places we are consigned to. Every realm corresponds to a Mental state, and the Human Realm is the highest, or most desirable, because it is the one in which we can actually, in a normal, cognisant, rational, reasoned state, see things as they really are. Mental disturbances, stress, distractions and other conditions, are apt to skew us off our path and tamper with our concentration (consigning us to other 'realms')....It is these realms we need to calm and dissipate, in order to be in our Right Minds - the Human ones.
    I will admit, that is the best interpretation I've ever seen of the different levels of being that Buddhism explains. In the past I always rolled my eyes and thought, yeah right I'll be reincarnated into a hungry ghost haha, but viewing them as psychological states makes much more sense to me.

    Also I suppose that means the notion of rebirth and reincarnation is supposed to be more metaphorical than physical? ...because it seems to me that reincarnation is impossible due to the fact that what makes me who i am is brain content, and brain content doesn't survive after the death of the body.

  • federicafederica Seeker of the clear blue sky... Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubt Moderator
    Remember that strictly speaking, (and semantically so, maybe!) only Tibetan Buddhism holds the concept of REINCARNATION as a viable process. Most Buddhists consider the "phenomenon" to be re-birth, and not reincarnation. The terms are often interechanged, but if we want to scrutinise the process accurately, with regard to buddhism, we're looking at rebirth, not reincarnation. Reincarnation is for Tibetan Bodhisattvas, and mere mortals are subject to rebirth only.
  • Ada_BAda_B
    IMHO dogs are 100% pure ego. This is one reason why we love them - they make no secret about the nature of their relationship with us. We feed them, give them security, affection, exercise and in return, they treat us like we're gods ;) There is no hidden agenda with dogs.

    However, being 100% ego, a dog is not able to reflect on its own experience, or develop any kind of awareness. And although our dogs are cared for and lavished with attention, the majority of dogs in the world are not. I have a neighbour who keeps his dog in an outdoor kennel, on its own, and rarely spends time with it. Dogs are social animals - more social than humans, and hearing its constant barking and howling distresses me. It's in solitary confinement. But of course you cannot accuse him of cruelty because in UK, as long as an animal's physical needs are met, that is considered adequate.

    As Buddhist pet owners, we should always endeavour to relieve suffering where we can (dogs cannot help but suffer since unlike humans, they can have no Awareness that relieves it). So we should give our pets all that they need. Which in the case of dogs includes company, plenty of exercise, mental stimulation, a suitable diet etc.

    We might feel a little envious of our beloved pet dogs (or even our working dogs) because they seem to have a pretty easy life. And if less beloved dogs could understand, they'd be envious too. But the fact is, being human is an amazing opportunity to escape samsara, and it is the only opportunity.
  • Ada_BAda_B
    Remember that strictly speaking, (and semantically so, maybe!) only Tibetan Buddhism holds the concept of REINCARNATION as a viable process. Most Buddhists consider the "phenomenon" to be re-birth, and not reincarnation. The terms are often interechanged, but if we want to scrutinise the process accurately, with regard to buddhism, we're looking at rebirth, not reincarnation. Reincarnation is for Tibetan Bodhisattvas, and mere mortals are subject to rebirth only.
    Not all Tibetans believe in literal reincarnation. Actually, having talked to lamas (Karma Kagyu), I become less and less certain that the word "reincarnation" is an accurate translation. They certainly don't believe human beings have a soul that can transmigrate.

    I asked if, by saying that a lama is "the reincarnation of..." a particular lama, they believe he is the same person.

    "Oh no," I was told, with a grin.

    So I tried to ascertain what they did mean by "reincarnation of..." but the answers made me even more confused.

    Whereas some Tibetan Buddhists have an almost Hindu view of reincarnation (or so it appears to this Westerner), the only thing I am sure about is that the majority opinion is nowhere near as clear-cut as that.

    At which point I start to agree with the Zen guys, who say that words can never describe Reality.
  • SupertrampSupertramp
    Is this thread serious?

    Dogs are the most enlightened beings on the face of the earth. They have all of the attributes that we as humans wish we had. Unconditional love, trust, loyalty. They don't question what they are, they simply exist. They don't need to go through the self-destruction process to realize their true nature. They need very little to be happy. Walks, water, food, a chew toy maybe. Don't you wish you were content with that little?

    If anything your dog should pity you, not the other way around.

    Your dog wants to see if you'll keep giving her food when she asks, thats all. She isn't gluttonous or probably even hungry. It's her job to ask you for food, and it's your job to determine the right amount. Thats all.
    Saying a dog is the most enlightened being on the face of the earth is like saying lobotomy is the path to enlightenment.
    I also think they are very forgiving creatures who do not dwell on the past.
    I don't believe this is the case, I used to have a dog when I lived with my parents and it was a very gentle kind loving animal. However, everytime he saw the neighbour, be it in our home or walking down the street or in his yard, the dog got very nasty and if we hadn't stopped him he would have attacked that neighbour. We think it's because the neighbour did something to it in the past, it's the only explanation we could come up with. That or the neighbour was secretly a demon.
  • federicafederica Seeker of the clear blue sky... Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubt Moderator
    edited January 2011
    Not all Tibetans believe in literal reincarnation. Actually, having talked to lamas (Karma Kagyu), I become less and less certain that the word "reincarnation" is an accurate translation. They certainly don't believe human beings have a soul that can transmigrate.
    No, and that's not what I mean, either. The more accurate description is the transmigration of the Higher consciousness from one being to a new one....
    I asked if, by saying that a lama is "the reincarnation of..." a particular lama, they believe he is the same person.

    "Oh no," I was told, with a grin.
    accepted and understood...
    So I tried to ascertain what they did mean by "reincarnation of..." but the answers made me even more confused.
    It's not a carbon-copy, but it's a recognition of the essential qualities and caharcteristics of the deceased Lama, without infringing on the Tulku's own characteristics.

  • karmadorjekarmadorje
    Federica, can you please point me to the Tibetan term you are referring to as "reincarnation"? I am only familiar with the term "tulku", which is typically translated as emanation.
  • DazzleDazzle
    The term "reincarnation" is used here on a Kagyu website to describe the third Kalu Rinpoche..

    "Even then, some faithful patrons of his previous incarnation felt unusually joyful, both physically and mentally, upon simply seeing the child's face. From that moment, persons near and far spread the news: "The Supreme reincarnation of our spiritual master has been born!""

    http://www.kagyu.org/kagyulineage/teachers/tea12.php

    .
  • federicafederica Seeker of the clear blue sky... Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubt Moderator
    edited January 2011
    I have found many sites discussing the process of a Deceased lama dying and returning as a manifestation in a Tulku, referring to this same process as "Reincarnation".

    http://www.tibet-tour.com/tibet/reincarnation.html

    http://www.voanews.com/tibetan-english/news/The-First-Karmapa-and-900-Years-of-Tibetan-Reincarnation-System-111917529.html

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulku

    http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/unmistaken-child/film.html

    http://www.articlesbase.com/religion-articles/tibetan-buddhist-tulku-or-rinpoche-are-there-different-kinds-3145819.html

    I'm only going by what I have therefore learnt.
Sign In or Register to comment.