Another problem of inability to analyse objectively.. Education must stress on this defective trg.
Not all the animals which were released were dead immediately. May be billions of animals had been released but only millions had died. Even so, those which were dead had a chance to take the 3 refuges and be born in better realms. It is better to be dead in nature than under the knives.
However, I agree that being a vegetarian is still the best way to save these animals but releasing animals should still be encouraged as it cultivates compassion.
Originally posted by Dawnfirstlight:Not all the animals which were released were dead immediately. May be billions of animals had been released but only millions had died. Even so, those which were dead had a chance to take the 3 refuges and be born in better realms. It is better to be dead in nature than under the knives.
However, I agree that being a vegetarian is still the best way to save these animals but releasing animals should still be encouraged as it cultivates compassion.
In order to be released, they have to be caught.
In order to be caught, there will be dukha.
Ban release, no getting caught, no suffering.
Originally posted by StriveOn:In order to be released, they have to be caught.
In order to be caught, there will be dukha.
Ban release, no getting caught, no suffering.
The temples bought the fishes on the day when we were to release the fishes, meaning they did not inform the sellers before hand. These fishes were meant to be sent to the restaurants on other days if the temples did not purchase them for releasing. Meaning there will be lesser supplies to the restaurants. This is my understanding. The temples also know that if the fishes were reared for releasing, it is just defeating the purpose of releasing and saving these fishes from the dinning tables.
The people from the temples also know what types of fishes to be release into the deep sea. It is legal to release into deep sea. This is my understanding.
Originally posted by Dawnfirstlight:Not all the animals which were released were dead immediately. May be billions of animals had been released but only millions had died. Even so, those which were dead had a chance to take the 3 refuges and be born in better realms. It is better to be dead in nature than under the knives.
However, I agree that being a vegetarian is still the best way to save these animals but releasing animals should still be encouraged as it cultivates compassion.
Originally posted by dragg:
so its ok to kill millions to save billions? you kill one to save 2 is still killing. there are many ways to do good. you can go help out at old folks homes or donate money to charities.
This is not the main point. Most importantly, these animals have a chance to take the 3 refuges and be reborn in better realms.
This discussion looks familiar... Anyway turning vegetarian does lower demand.
Originally posted by Aneslayer:This discussion looks familiar... Anyway turning vegetarian does lower demand.
I was wondering about the vegetarian buddhist, aren't they not fullfilling thier role in releasing another's suffering by not eating the animals and having them reborn ?
Originally posted by BadzMaro:I was wondering about the vegetarian buddhist, aren't they not fullfilling thier role in releasing another's suffering by not eating the animals and having them reborn ?
I know you are a Christian and this is a common misconception that Christians have because you guys do not understand Buddha's teachings. Eating animals or killing a person is definitely not relieving them from sufferings. By doing so, we are just creating bad affinity and bad karma. Actually, Buddha's teachings is all about not to go against nature. All living things are supposed to die naturally. Buddha's teachings is mainly about law of nature (karma) and not to go against law of nature. To kill animals for consumption is definitely going against law of nature.
All living things are supposed to die naturally. Buddha's teachings is mainly about law of nature (karma) and not to go against law of nature.I am interested to know whether when one animal (other than human)eats another(food chain) is also according to law of nature.
Analytically, I find religions teach believers to do good to earn 'reward' (ie heaven or karma) not robustically moral. I think we must do good to one another because we have common destiny and hence this is our responsibility. Years ago, I brought my Mom to attend a house religious meeting. That religion teaches its believers that they have to be polite to each attendee and offer them towels to earn 'karma'. However, anger ensued when both parties insisted the other take that towel.
Originally posted by Gohhock:All living things are supposed to die naturally. Buddha's teachings is mainly about law of nature (karma) and not to go against law of nature.I am interested to know whether when one animal (other than human)eats another(food chain) is also according to law of nature.
Analytically, I find religions teach believers to do good to earn 'reward' (ie heaven or karma) not robustically moral. I think we must do good to one another because we have common destiny and hence this is our responsibility. Years ago, I brought my Mom to attend a house religious meeting. That religion teaches its believers that they have to be polite to each attendee and offer them towels to earn 'karma'. However, anger ensued when both parties insisted the other take that towel.
My understanding is it is their karma to be born in the animals realm and it is their karma to be part of the food chain. It is considered law of nature. I remember a monk said that tigers do not kill for nothing, they kill only when they are hungry. We humans are of higher intelligence and can live without eating animals. Thus, if we kill for food, our karma is definitely heavier.
According to Buddha's teachings, it is the intention of doing good or bad deeds that is important. If you do good deeds for selfish reason, that's not considered good deeds. Some may appear doing bad deeds but may not be so because they have good intentions for doing so. Anyway, karma (law of nature) which is a "no man operation", will not be deceived and will not go wrong.
Originally posted by Dawnfirstlight:I know you are a Christian and this is a common misconception that Christians have because you guys do not understand Buddha's teachings. Eating animals or killing a person is definitely not relieving them from sufferings. By doing so, we are just creating bad affinity and bad karma. Actually, Buddha's teachings is all about not to go against nature. All living things are supposed to die naturally. Buddha's teachings is mainly about law of nature (karma) and not to go against law of nature. To kill animals for consumption is definitely going against law of nature.
I know that as long as the monk did not see, hear or suspect the animal killed for his purpose, the person can eat the meat. That means you CAN eat meat. But if you don't, and you had the choice to eat the meat but you didnt, can it then be said that you are not participating in this natural order of things by choosing not to eat it? Or does eating meat suddenly become an indulgence.
Cause I got a few Buddhist friends who don't eat beef.. but eat everything else.
I think it is very important to offer mantras and dharma to sentient beings to plant the seed of liberation. We can also do that by sprinkling blessed water into lakes, rivers, going to market and reciting mantras in the hearing of or spraying blessed water on the captive animals etc. Feeding animals with blessed food etc.
If we release lives, we should ensure that they can survive and into the suitable habitat. For eg in india/ tibet, they release cows from slaughter by keeping them on certain farms and rearing them for the rest of their lives. We should reconsider whether we should release lives just for the sake of collecting merits or in the hope of recovery for someone who is sick while ignoring the well-being of the animal.
Originally posted by BadzMaro:I know that as long as the monk did not see, hear or suspect the animal killed for his purpose, the person can eat the meat. That means you CAN eat meat. But if you don't, and you had the choice to eat the meat but you didnt, can it then be said that you are not participating in this natural order of things by choosing not to eat it? Or does eating meat suddenly become an indulgence.
Cause I got a few Buddhist friends who don't eat beef.. but eat everything else.
Buddha did not put a rule that you can't eat meat. However, Buddha did teach about cause-and-effect. When you eat meat, you create killing karma. This is going to ripen someway through illnesses, accidents etc. Things that affect you physically and even mentally in a negative way. Because you gave harm and pain to others, therefore harm and pain arises for you later.
It has never been a issue about rules and regulations of what Buddhists can or cannot do. You just have to bear the responsibility for what you do. Everyone has their own choice and freedom.
Buddha's teachings are about wisdom. Which means he teaches you to see and understand both long-term and short-term consequences. As regular people, we are short-sighted and see only immediate benefits or at most in terms of a few decades. But Buddha see much further than that. Therefore he educated us based on his omniscient vision and understanding.
If you understand consequences, then you will not be so anxious to accumulate the causes now even if they seem enjoyable. Just like you will not swallow a delicious poison that will kill you later. Then by changing your choices now, you can change your future. Some people say they don't care, therefore they will create a suffering future. At that time, even if they decide to care, it will be very limited to do anything to save the situation.
Some people say they don't care, therefore they will create a suffering future. At that time, even if they decide to care, it will be very limited to do anything to save the situation.
I have seen such examples in my own life.
Hi, thanks for trying to help me to understand. Why buddists still want to strive to improve their karma when food chain is karma and natural death is not considered suffering? Does the apex shape of the organisation from demi-gods to the lowest animal forms keep out disorderly improvement of karma advancement. How does nature ensure justice in rewarding karma?
Also, as you have said man is an intelligient being, he will choose the easiest way to earn karma. Hence buying animals to release but with so many doing that nature imbalance is caused. Is upsetting of nature consider anti-karma?
Intentions cannot be the only deciding factor whether karma or not also because good intentions could lead to bad outcome and bad intentions could lead to good outcome. Many of today's sufferings are caused by people who wilfully or ignorantly refuse to know what they do not know and keep dishing out their solutions and opinions which are either wrong or partailly wrong. Is this also karma?
I think it is very important to offer mantras and dharma to
sentient beings to plant the seed of liberation. We can also
do that by sprinkling blessed water into lakes, rivers, going to
market and reciting mantras in the hearing of or spraying blessed
water on the captive animals etc. Feeding animals with
blessed food etc.What blessed food? non-animal food because man is intelligient to choose what food to feed the animals under their care?
Originally posted by Gohhock:Hi, thanks for trying to help me to understand. Why buddists still want to strive to improve their karma when food chain is karma and natural death is not considered suffering? Does the apex shape of the organisation from demi-gods to the lowest animal forms keep out disorderly improvement of karma advancement. How does nature ensure justice in rewarding karma?
I don't quite understand your questions. Buddhists did not interrupt the animals' food chain. Humans should not be in the animals' food chain. We can survive by being a vegetarian. Natural death is considered suffering in Buddhism 生è€�ç—…æ»è‹¦. Killing them is more suffering than natural death but natural death is also suffering.
Karma is not 1 + 1=2, it is not so straight forward and only the enlighten ones or Buddhas are able to discern karma.
Doing good deeds is only part of Buddhism, Buddhism emphasize more on wisdom. Thus, do good deeds with wisdom. Don't do things which you think are good deeds but have bad outcomes. If animals liberation will cause imbalance to the nature, that means we are doing it without wisdom but I think that is only minority. Majority of the Buddhists release fishes into the deep sea which is their habitat.
Originally posted by BadzMaro:I know that as long as the monk did not see, hear or suspect the animal killed for his purpose, the person can eat the meat. That means you CAN eat meat. But if you don't, and you had the choice to eat the meat but you didnt, can it then be said that you are not participating in this natural order of things by choosing not to eat it? Or does eating meat suddenly become an indulgence.
Cause I got a few Buddhist friends who don't eat beef.. but eat everything else.
Originally posted by Gohhock:Hi, thanks for trying to help me to understand. Why buddists still want to strive to improve their karma when food chain is karma and natural death is not considered suffering? Does the apex shape of the organisation from demi-gods to the lowest animal forms keep out disorderly improvement of karma advancement. How does nature ensure justice in rewarding karma?
Originally posted by Gohhock:Also, as you have said man is an intelligient being, he will choose the easiest way to earn karma. Hence buying animals to release but with so many doing that nature imbalance is caused. Is upsetting of nature consider anti-karma?
Intentions cannot be the only deciding factor whether karma or not also because good intentions could lead to bad outcome and bad intentions could lead to good outcome. Many of today's sufferings are caused by people who wilfully or ignorantly refuse to know what they do not know and keep dishing out their solutions and opinions which are either wrong or partailly wrong. Is this also karma?
Originally posted by Gohhock:I think it is very important to offer mantras and dharma to sentient beings to plant the seed of liberation. We can also do that by sprinkling blessed water into lakes, rivers, going to market and reciting mantras in the hearing of or spraying blessed water on the captive animals etc. Feeding animals with blessed food etc.What blessed food? non-animal food because man is intelligient to choose what food to feed the animals under their care?