[Buddha-l] Re: on eating meat and pets

[Laura Castell]

>Hola Hugo
>
>On 10/23/05, Laura Castell <laura.castell at jcu.edu.au> wrote:
> > The issue of pets is a very interesting one.  We can't blame the animals
> > for their actions, they are being their true selves when they go out and
> > hunt.
>
>How is it different from Humans? Aren't humans being their true selves 
>when they go out and hunt?

>I see it as a difference between the actions of non-human animals and 
>humans that we can think and control our insticts a bit more, ideally for 
>the good. Can a killer whale feel sad after having enjoyed a cruel play 
>with a prey? we are not sure but most likely not. Do we feel good after 
>being cruel? I would dare say that most of us don't. When we go out 
>hunting because we are catching our food, it is ok, but I don't agree with 
>hunting for the pleasure of it. Are we being our true selves in the second 
>case? may be yes but is that a good thing? I guess my attitude is that we 
>can excuse 'animals' in their behaviour more easily than we can excuse 
>ourselves. It is possible that at the end all behaviours could be 
>considered ''true' behaviours, so I can see why saying 'we can't blame 
>them because they are being themselves' is not correct.
>
> > Even the sometimes apparent cruelty of their behaviour I believe is
> > natural (something about nature I struggle to understand ).
>
>Aren't the cruel acts of humans also natural?

>Yes, most of them are, we want to survive and leave our genes behind so 
>basically on that basis we humans are inherently selfish. I don't judge 
>that, in fact I don't mean to judge anything as being good or bad, I am 
>just trying to understand.   When I was a teenager I went on a trip to a 
>very isolated place and met indians that were not often in contact with 
>'white fellows from the city'. I found greed and selfishness and at that 
>time it made me very sad because I had naively thought it was the 
>opposite, we are basically good and turn ugly as we grow. I see it 
>differently now, we have the basic instincts to be the ones who win the 
>best piece of food and provide the best for our family, etc etc.  This is 
>making me think that what I think of the 'Buddha Nature' is completely the 
>opposite of our 'true self' as 'animals' . So is that the quest, to 
>develop our Buddha nature and consequently 'extinguish' the other? I know 
>this is an extremely simplified view, but it is complex enough for me!
>
>
> > are you serious? (I am really not sure! so I may be silly in my reply to
> > this but I'll have a go anyway). If the cat was a wild animal and catching
> > birds to survive, then I think one can feel compassion for both, the cat
> > and the birds, but when we talk about cats that receive lots of love and
> > attention and food, I think the only recipients of our compassion should be
> > the poor birds!
>
>What about the case when you see somebody angry, screaming and yelling
>to another person.  Should we feel compassion only for the one being
>screamed at?
>
>Why is the angry person screaming and yelling?  Because he is
>suffering, otherwise he wouldn't do it.
>
>If he is suffering, then, shouldn't we feel compassion for him too?


Yes, of course I think the unhappy, angry person deserves compassion. What 
I am trying to understand is why a happy cat that just had a nice meal 
needs compassion. I don't see the cat as a nasty creature, I see the cat as 
an animal that is being an animal (please don't think I am using 'animal' 
as derogative...), and in this moment the cat is having a good experience, 
and that's ok. I would feel compassion for the cat if it goes hungry or if 
the owners don't treat him well or if it has a fight. Otherwise we would 
need to learn to feel compassion for everything good as well as for 
everything bad. Is that the aim?

Best,
Laura