Animals and morality

Upvote:0

The Buddha says little about the animal path. For example, we have:

AN1.365-367:1.1: “… the sentient beings who die as animals and are reborn as humans are few, while those who die as animals and are reborn in hell, or the animal realm, or the ghost realm are many.”

Interestingly, we ALSO have:

AN1.368-370:1.1: “… the sentient beings who die as animals and are reborn as gods are few, while those who die as animals and are reborn in hell, or the animal realm, or the ghost realm are many.”

The opportunity to practice the Noble Eightfold Path as a human is quite rare. Perhaps thinking too much about animals--one might die and end up as one. When I speak the Dhamma to my cat, she ignores me. But humans can hear and practice the Dhamma.

AN2.126:1.1: “There are two conditions for the arising of right view. What two? The words of another and proper attention.

OyaMist 9274

Upvote:0

(This is a strictly opinion based answer. You have been warned.)

The concept of rebirth has multiple meanings depending on person and context. It's very much prone to bring confusion.

I personally believe that rebirth only makes sense as a figure of expression regarding the process of how our intentions and actions adds to our perception of a self during a lifetime.

Therefore, i also believe that notions of animals/human realms or social status are metaphorical, and will only make sense once we see them as metaphors for the fruits of buddhist practice (or lack thereof), and not literal ontological claims.

I'll leave explanations based on the literal meaning of physical rebirth to those who believe that it's a existing phenomenon. The burden of evidence is on those who makes those claims.

Therefore, morality, or the five precepts can be understood as an affair that only concerns human beings. It should be obvious if one looks at what the precepts say.

I suppose the concept of karma for animals holds true to the extent that their actions bears consequences just like anything else in this conditioned world. However, claiming that animals has moral intent in the same vein as human beings becomes quite the stretch of imagination.

user11699 0

Upvote:0

Animals are quite cruel.

An animal of this or that kind is of the same elements as another animal of kind.

As one is cruel to another there is then also a tendency for cruelty for oneself because it is a not understanding the very same elements comprising both beings thats promts cruelty element.

It is the path of development of cruelty towards themselves and towards another that led them to be born in that bad place in the first place.

Their killing is unwholesome and further begets bad results. They can however do good things as well.

If they do good things then the good will eventually mature and they will attain a better state.

user8527 0

Upvote:0

Biological animals are not subject to the laws of kamma, as follows:

The human world is the world of intentional action. Human beings have very sophisticated levels of intention, which, in conjunction with their thought processes, allow them to achieve things which would be impossible for other animals. Although the lower animals, too, possess intention, it is limited to a nominal degree, being largely on the instinctual level.

Bhikkhu P.A. Payutto

In Buddhism, the word "animal' refers to a state of mind of people. For example, Angulimala was a 'animal' before the Buddha reformed him (see video). For example, the suttas say:

Bhikkhus, a god, a human or any other good state would not be evident from actions born of greed, hate and delusion. Yet, bhikkhus, from actions born of greed, hate and delusion a hellish being, an animal birth a ghostly birth or some other bad state would be evident. AN 6.39

Sooner, I say, would that blind turtle, coming to the surface once every hundred years, insert its neck into that yoke with a single hole than the fool who has gone once to the nether world would regain the human state. For what reason? Because here, bhikkhus, there is no conduct guided by the Dhamma, no righteous conduct, no wholesome activity, no meritorious activity. Here there prevails mutual devouring, the devouring of the weak. SN 56.47

Now on that occasion the wanderers of other persuasions had come together in a gathering and were sitting, discussing many kinds of bestial (animal) topics, making a great noise and racket. AN 10.93

Bhikkhus, these two bright principles protect the world. What are the two? Shame and fear of wrongdoing. If, bhikkhus, these two bright principles did not protect the world, there would not be discerned respect for mother or maternal aunt or maternal uncle’s wife or a teacher’s wife or the wives of other honored persons, and the world would have fallen into promiscuity, as with goats, sheep, chickens, pigs, dogs, and jackals. But as these two bright principles protect the world, there is discerned respect for mother… and the wives of other honored persons. AN 2.9

Thus the suttas also say people that behave like animals can stop doing so and realise the Four Noble Truths:

SN 56.120-123: Then the Buddha, picking up a little bit of dirt under his fingernail, addressed the monks: “What do you think, monks? Which is more: the little bit of dirt under my fingernail, or this great earth?”

“Venerable Sir, the great earth is certainly more. The little bit of dirt under your fingernail is tiny. Compared to the great earth, it cannot be reckoned or compared, it’s not even a fraction.”

“In the same way,

SN 56.120: “… the beings who fall away (cutā) from the animal state (tiracchānayoniyā) and are re-categorized (paccājāyanti) as humans are few...”

SN 56.123: “… the beings who fall away from the animal state and are re-categorized as gods are few...”

SN 56.131: "...Why is that? Because... [those former animals have]... seen the Four Noble Truths..."