Budhism And 'mercy Killing' Of Animals

[bina]

what is the thai buddhist belief about 'mercy killing' of animals;euthanization etc:

many many times at work i;ve had animals that needed to be 'put down'; and the thai worker with me refused to do the deed even though he can slaughter a chicken cow pig or whatever no problem if its for food...i've seen him pluck birds that were slingshotted down, even as the bird was still mostly alive.

he usually puts the ill animal in a 'quarantine cage' with water and food even if to me its obvious the animal's on its last legs. (talking about rabbits and such ,not large or exotic animals where a vet would be called to do the deed with a syringe). i had to convince him to let me call the vet to 'put down' our beautiful buck goat as i realized that the poor animal was suffering in spite of medication and TLC from both of us. The same with an unwanted litter of dog pups (drown the first day or give to the county to put down by a not much better method) and leave one with the mother)... he said: son san. (humane society people dont start with me we've since spayed the bitch and that was also something my worker couldnt understand.) He said, raise the pups and then throw them out to fend on their own .

In thailand i noticed maimed and injured animals all over that would have been better off (in my way of thinking) to be put out of their misery. even here the thai workers think i'm nuts to waste money on intensive care treatment for large sick or wounded animals ) although this is probably from their economic view point.

Dont want flame threads, just what is the thai buddhist philosophy about this. For instance, judaism says: 'tzar baali haim' --compassion for animals: all 'work' animals must get food, water, shelter, cows are milked even on the sabbath, draft animals must rest on sabbath, etc....and they must be slaughtered humanely (please lets not argue about the general subject of eating or not eating animals etc. i eat everything including what i raise)

and to extend the subject to humans (people who request to be taken off machines etc-- an emotional issue among american christians, orthodox jews, etc.

I'm curious to know , not looking for pro/cons of the thing unto itself please.

[andyinkat]

Firstly it is important to have some background understanding of the nature of ethical rules in Buddhism. Judaism, Islam and Roman Catholicism all have clear-cut rules covering many aspects of life for all followers of those religions. Whether you believe that they were handed down by the divine or grew out of communities, the common dimension is that they all originated as religions within society - i.e. they had long-term social interests at heart.

Note that Jesus did not lay down prescripive rules as his message was not primarily social - he believed that the end of the world was imminent and his ethics (leave your father, mother, wife; give all your possessions away) reflect such short-term expectations.

Lord Buddha's agenda was different again. He was a renunciate. There was an established social system in his world - the Caste system and there were very tightly regulated rules for everyone depending on their caste. By inviting people to join his Sangha, the Buddha was effectively inviting individuals to abandon their society altogether - to renounce family, possessions, status, everything.

Now here lies a key difference between Buddhism and the other religions I mentioned; the latter are egalitarian - everyone can follow the same rules, the same path and achieve the same goal in this lifetime. Not so Buddhism. Lord Buddha and the vast majority of Buddhist paths that have evolved since his time clearly acknowledged that only a select few can make a full commitment. the majority would or could not - in any single lifetime.

But the Buddha brought in quite a remarkable policy here - rather than develop a system whereby his movement would keep themselves separate from the masses he deliberately devised a system that made his Sangha dependent on the majority. The Sangha is dependent on the lay community for physical needs - food, clothes, shelter.

Thus the Buddha instituted a system of rules fo rhis Sangha - the monks (and nuns when they existed) which were not intended to be universal laws. Thus monks are not allowed to harm any living creature; they are not allowed to garden or plough or till the land as they would kill insects. Obviously this rule cannot be universalzed - the monks are dependent on the laity to produce the food, thereby killing life.

While he prescribed 227 Vinaya rules for his sangha, Buddha did not give rules as such to the laity; rather like Jesus he offered general ethical guidelines which needed to be interpreted within the context of the mainstream social mores and, to an extent, within the context of one's individual conscience and level of commitment.

What all this speel amounts to in a nutshell is that there is no Buddhist rule on animal rights, abortion, euthanasia or any single ethical issue.

However I can go a little further; Tibetan Buddhism and Thai Theravadan Buddhism in practice seem to take opposite positions on the killing of animals, yet they both follow Buddhist logic. Only this week His Holiness the Dalai Lama appears to have persuaded KFC not to open a brach in Lhasa, capital of Tibet. Now the geography and climate of Tibet are such that it is impractical for the society as a whole to be vegetarian so the main line of reasoning is to minimise suffering by killing as few animals as possible. Thus they will kill a yak because one beast will feed many people (and they use all parts of the carcass for other things) but they don't like to kill chickens or fish because many have to die to feed one stomach.

In Thailand the logic works differently. They accept a scale of consciousness whereby a highly developed mammal is higher up the cycle of rebirths than a fish or bird thus they justify killing 'lower' animals more easily than 'higher' ones.

In all cases however, intention is central as it is intention and not the outcome that determines the karma of the act. Enjoying killing causes bad karma; killing reluctantly and out of percieved necessity is karmically less serious - but kill karmically bad, and a butcher can expect a very low rebirth. This logic can lead to the (in my mind) ethically dubious consequence that a person is more concerned with their own karmic consequences than the interests of the other - be it suffering animal or human, but I see this as a failure to understand the spirit of the Buddhadharma.

I am also aware that in many SE Asian 'Buddhist' societies there is a history of what to western sensibilities (and mine) would be seen as staggering animal cruelty but however widespread it might be it is not condoned in any Buddhist teaching as far as I know.

It also tends to be the case that Mahayana Buddhism is less 'eschatological' - the goal is to become a bodhisattva (buddha-to-be) and continue to be reborn within the world rather than 'escape' it, so it has developed more 'this worldly' interests including an interest in the spiritual development of the laity. Thus there are Mahayana sutras which advocate vegetarianism and compassion towards animals for all followers rather than focus on the monastic sangha.

Hope this helps.

[bankei]

Euthanasia is to reduce the euthaniser's suffering. They cannot bear to see someting 'suffer' so they kill it, or maybe it is incovenient to keep it around. This is a very selfish act. Just think if it was a human loved one, would that person be killed? I think every being should be allowed to live as long as possible and then die naturally.

[padma]

Euthanasia is to reduce the euthaniser's suffering. They cannot bear to see someting 'suffer' so they kill it, or maybe it is incovenient to keep it around. This is a very selfish act. Just think if it was a human loved one, would that person be killed? I think every being should be allowed to live as long as possible and then die naturally.

Perhaps you have never had any personal experience with a loved one suffering?

My grandmother suffered several years before she died. She was bed ridden for 5years, blind, deaf and in severe physical pain. She prayed every evening that it would be her last. I remember as a child it was difficult to visit her knowing that every breath she took was painful. But she was keep alive on meds and medical care. I believe my grandmother should have been "put to sleep" that would have been the most humane thing to do. Noone deserves to live in excruciating pain for several years.

Natural? We are so removed from living in any natural way in this world we humans have created. From the food we eat to pretentive medicines we take.

If you truly believe in the natural process of living and dying, don't go to the doctor the next time you are sick. As you are prolonging your existence on this earthplane which is also considered as suffering.

[bankei]

Padma

I am really sorry to hear about your Grandmother.

However, there is not a person alive that has not experienced suffering, a loved one dying.

I am not suggesting that people be kept alive artificially longer than necessary using medical care which is about proloning life, not curing sickness (but then again how do you determine necessary?).

It would be a really difficult decision to decide when to put someone 'to sleep.' How and who would determine when? And who would adminsiter it? What about the karmic consequences? Killing can only be carried out in anger. If a vet, for example, had to adminsiter a lethal injection to a sick dog, at the moment of injection anger would arise (and other negative states?). This would then have consequences.

This is (one) Buddhist theory anyway.

[Vendue2]

Here is my take on it.

Buddhism teaches us not to harm other beings. What does this mean since he also taught the theory of anatman (there is no such thing as self)? If there is no self, what is harmed? The ego could be harmed, I guess, but that is only a temporary illusion that the spiritual path seeks to annihilate anyway. The body could be harmed, but this is relative: If a doctor cuts a patient to help him, harm is not taking place, but if an angry person cuts a man in the same way physically, there is harm. What determines harm in one case and not the other? I see two differences.

1. The intent of the cutter…The doctor had good intensions of easing suffering in the patient in the long-run. The angry person had intentions of causing suffering. So, basically, good karma for the doctor and bad karma for the angry man.

2. The suffering caused. The doctor reduced the suffering of the patient in the long-term (even though the cut caused suffering in the short-term.) The angry man caused suffering in the cut man (in the form of physical pain and mental fear), and no suffering was relieved.

These two differences basically boil down to one thing: suffering. “Bad” karma for the angry man will give rise to future suffering. The “good” karma for the doctor will reduce suffering. Thus, when the Buddha taught us not to harm other beings, it had nothing to do with cutting or preserving a body. That is just material. He was teaching us to reduce (and eventually eliminate) suffering, which is what Buddhism is about and why it was created.

Buddhism teaches that the “self” is contrived, but suffering is real. (Not “real” in the Madyamika sense of the term. Suffering is impermanent and exists because of conditions, but it nevertheless exists. The self, however, is a contrived term applied to a group of skandhas. The skandhas exist, but the “self” does not exist in any sense of the word.)

Anyway…Putting someone out of his misery, (in cases where the being does not want to live due to intense pain from which he will not recover), is not creating suffering. The “killer” has only good intensions, so good karma is planted here. The sufferer dies, dissolving the skandhas and all the suffering that was tied to them. Therefore, this is a case where, in all aspects, suffering is decreased and not increased.

Ok, a few more comments concerning the killing of a suffering human. Karma, (“good” or “bad”), is wrapped-up in samsara, and thus is a form of suffering itself. The only way to escape samsara is to reach Nirvana (follow the spiritual path). Good karma can lead to situations that are more conducive to following the spiritual path, so that is why it is important. Because of (perhaps) eons of good karma, we are human beings, which is the perfect position to be in to reach enlightenment. Animals are not smart enough to override the instincts that keep them from following the dharma, but we are. Gods do not experience enough suffering to make them care about leaving samsara, but we do. Being human is a wonderful predicament, so it seems like killing a person would be to do that person a grave disservice. But a person in extreme suffering will not have a clear-enough mind to follow the spiritual path, so I see no disservice here.

Death is as natural as any part of life – it is not worse or better. There is no self that is destroyed in (or continues through) death, but death does lead to birth.

Conclusion: The compassionate killing of a being, who is experiencing extreme suffering and for whom there is no hope, can only lead to positive outcomes.

[chuchok]

Ok here is an example.

I told a Thai friend of mine, that when I was a younster on the farm, if a dog started killing lambs/sheep etc, I would shoot the dog. The Thai was shocked to say the least, untill I said 'what would you do if you couldn't give the dog away and it was costing you THB1000 a day. All of a sudden a deep understanding of the problem was comprehended....money!

[BambinA]

what is the thai buddhist belief about 'mercy killing' of animals;euthanization etc: 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

about " put to sleep" vs Buddhist , its sort of delicate topic , as you know we believe in Sin and Karma ..so we dont do it much (maybe its the one of many reasons that you can see many street dogs and cats in TH) AKA soi. dog lol

anyhow IMHO , i dont stcik much in karma , but for my thought i just think Im not God , i have no right to judge other life that they'd alive or die...BUT all of these depend on Situation too .. If some animal seem it 's hard for them to alive, and the owner agree with they'd better stay in heaven , so i will do

all of my work's life..i did some "put to sleep" but i was not happy to did it..i cried everytime after i did ..i feel sympathy for both or them and the owner

but we have no choice ..That's Life

Bambi

[chuchok]

what is the thai buddhist belief about 'mercy killing' of animals;euthanization etc: 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

about " put to sleep" vs Buddhist , its sort of delicate topic , as you know we believe in Sin and Karma ..so we dont do it much (maybe its the one of many reasons that you can see many street dogs and cats in TH) AKA soi. dog lol

anyhow IMHO , i dont stcik much in karma , but for my thought i just think Im not God , i have no right to judge other life that they'd alive or die...BUT all of these depend on Situation too .. If some animal seem it 's hard for them to alive, and the owner agree with they'd better stay in heaven , so i will do

all of my work's life..i did some "put to sleep" but i was not happy to did it..i cried everytime after i did ..i feel sympathy for both or them and the owner

but we have no choice ..That's Life

Bambi

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Here is another example Bambi.In the house we live in now, the Thai family(A Doctor) that had the house before us left their female cat behind.Rather than let it starve, we fed her.A few months later she gave birth to three kittens.The kittens looked sick, so the missus took them to the Vet.The vet told them that they had feline AIDS and they would die very shortly.I told the wife that I would knock them on the head to put them out of their pain etc.The responce I got was ..NO WAY.They died one by one over a two week period.Poor little buggers were thinner than my thumb when they died.What should you do??

[BambinA]

Here is another example Bambi.In the house we live in now, the Thai family(A Doctor) that had the house before us left their female cat behind.Rather than let it starve, we fed her.A few months later she gave birth to three kittens.The kittens looked sick, so the missus took them to the Vet.The vet told them that they had feline AIDS and they would die very shortly.I told the wife that I would knock them on the head to put them out of their pain etc.The responce I got was ..NO WAY.They died one by one over a two week period.Poor little buggers were thinner than my thumb when they died.What should you do??

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

for me,IMO, talk as a vet ,

i wont put them to sleep (they still have 50-50 chance for live), actaully FIV is not much diff from HIV in human (same group of Virus) but maybe some cats have a chance to survive , some cats who infected FIV can live for long , if we take care them well (as HIV in human) but unfortunately , for young cat ..they cant tolerance with 2nd infection ..low immune system ,

Bambi

Edited August 7, 2005 by BambinA

[bina]

geez, a resurrected thread started by me...........

well, vendue2 i liked your theories, not sure if thai buddhists would agree or not:

still have these arguements about sick rabbits all the time; now, i let them die, of course giving food and water etc...

larger animals we put down (euthenize) if the situation gets hopeless (they are a higher order of animal ? maybe: it doesnt help that one of my vets is religous jewish and doesnt believe in euthenasia really either....