saving lives practice?

TooEasy

Hey All,
I can't remember the name of the practice that spares the lives of creatures proactively. I have heard it done with folks buying live bait fish and returning them to the water. I have done this with earth worms in the past but most worms you can buy are not native to my home area. The pet store crickets are also very different than what is native around here...
As well, does anyone know of any sanghas or groups that do this practice so that I can send $'s to participate?
Thanks!

compassionate_warrior

Buying all those critters in order to save them only increases demand, so the bait shop or pet store buys more from their source, which in turn has to procure more. The best way to save the critters is to boycott sale of them, and perhaps persuade others to do so as well. Demand will decrease, resulting in more happy critters left in the wild.

laurajean

Buying all those critters in order to save them only increases demand, so the bait shop or pet store buys more from their source, which in turn has to procure more. The best way to save the critters is to boycott sale of them, and perhaps persuade others to do so as well. Demand will decrease, resulting in more happy critters left in the wild.

I agree with CW. A couple of years ago I fulfilled a life long dream of mine. I went into a nice restaurant, and bought EVERY SINGLE lobster they had, "to go". They were stunned and it cost me several hundred dollars (this was back when I had money, ha ha) and I walked out and rushed to Plymouth Harbor, by the Mayflower II Ship in Massachusetts, where I freed them one by one (knowing it was a 'no lobster trapping zone'), cutting the elastics off their claws, and gently setting them into the water, where I watched them swim to freedom. I had to pick up all the bags and run, because security was alerted, and as I ran large groups of tourists cheered me on. It was one of the best days of my life.

Having said that, CW is right. As good as it feels to buy creatures to free, we are actually supporting the demand, thus contributing to the problem. I don't regret what I did, it was a truly joyful moment for me, but I won't do it again, based on the fact that I would be supporting the demand by buying them.

TooEasy

Hmm, O.K. I get the supply and demand logic. I do believe that this is a traditional practice, however, that respected teachers and practitioners engage in. Maybe that's not a interest of yours. No worries, really.

One aspect of the bodhisattva path, as I have been told, is to take care of the beings of the now, rather than the projected future. I walk on a pier and see a bucket of fish and I have the bucks...

As far as "persuading others" to boycott fishing bait- fishermen that aren't asking for my teachings, seems a bit Preachy- no?

Thank you for your thoughts!

shanyin

I've set free hundreds of minos never thinking of the supply and demand logic. Dang.

dorje

Real life scenario:

I live in a place which is a block away from a restaurant where they display the fish in tanks before netting them and cooking them up. Many times I see the fish and I feel disappointed that I cannot buy them alive and release them into the sea to their freedom as much as I want to, due to the lack of funds.

Hypothetical question:
Is it okay for me to steal them when the shop is closed? Maybe break the tanks since they are part of the window display? And then release them into the sea, which for me is like a 10 minute drive away? I can fill up barrels with sea water before taking them out of the tanks, and I have sufficient time for carrying and transporting them to the sea.

Vilhjalmr

Is it okay for me to steal them when the shop is closed? Maybe break the tanks since they are part of the window display? And then release them into the sea, which for me is like a 10 minute drive away? I can fill up barrels with sea water before taking them out of the tanks, and I have sufficient time for carrying and transporting them to the sea.

I feel this is not morally objectionable; however, you must also consider that the store will just buy more, and you may get in trouble for this action. While the lives of the fish are more important than the money the store will lose, the people who own it are not doing anything illegal and the eating of animals is not something widely opposed as of yet, so that's also something to think about.

I wouldn't do it, but I think it shows a goodness of spirit that you would consider it.

robot

In my experience the fish in those tanks were doomed the moment they bit the hook. The stress of capture and transport as well as the conditions in the tank will cause them to die even if they were released. It would be more kind to by one and eat it to reduce its suffering than to release it to suffer more. This may not be true for lobsters I can't say.

compassionate_warrior

Hmm, O.K. I get the supply and demand logic. I do believe that this is a traditional practice, however, that respected teachers and practitioners engage in.
One aspect of the bodhisattva path, as I have been told, is to take care of the beings of the now, rather than the projected future.

This is an excellent example of when "being in the now" doesn't work. One must discern between situations where that is appropriate, and situations where bringing analytical skills to bear and anticipating the future would be more skillful. In this scenario, reacting impulsively to "what is" actually works to create more suffering in the longer run, and therefore is unskillful. A life focussed entirely in the present is not a balanced life, this is not a middle way. As this example illustrates, there is clearly a place for thinking of the future. Remember what the Buddha said; just because your teachers tell you something, doesn't mean you should accept it without question. Test, then decide.

Dakini

Robina Courtin, on the film on another thread, said something that I liked and is applicable here. "Put your logic caps on, and analyze, rather than act out of trust" (or something close to that). When the welfare of other sentient beings is in our hands, we owe it to those beings to choose the wisest course. The first precept gives us a tremendous responsibility; lives depend on our making the right decision. If we place too much trust in a teaching or a tradition without applying our own logic, lives may be lost needlessly. That's a tremendous burden to bear.

I'm not sure where this "be in the now" teaching came from, anyway. Maybe it was intended to apply to meditation, but somehow came to be applied more broadly...? I've never received this teaching--is it something peculiar to certain schools, sects or teachers? Most monastics can afford to put on blinders to the future and dwell eternally in the present, because their needs are taken care of; food and shelter are provided them, bills get paid, the next week's groceries get ordered by invisible hands. Lay practitioners don't have the luxury of living a childlike life; they have to plan for the future. This is perhaps a good example of how lay life is at an advantage in providing opportunities to deepen practice by requiring a deeper analysis prior to choosing a course of action.

aMatt

I think that the observation of how the pattern "free others from their situation" leads to greater demand is a great one. I wonder if that relates to the notion that if you try to "fix" another's karma, it leads to more painful experiences for both of you.

Better (in my opinion) to simply remain compassionate for the worms and the seller. Then, what to do in the moment is clear without fetters.