Animals and nirvana

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
User avatar
guest_of_logic
Posts: 1063
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2008 10:51 pm

Re: Animals and nirvana

Post by guest_of_logic »

I extend the same challenge to you, Russell, that I extended to Diebert: find me a reputable Buddhist source that asserts that *only* humans are sentient. I bet you can't. But I also bet that in the search, you will come across dozens of sources that include animals and insects as sentient, that you will (if I guess your prejudices correctly), suppress.
Last edited by guest_of_logic on Mon Oct 07, 2013 1:38 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
guest_of_logic
Posts: 1063
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2008 10:51 pm

Re: Animals and nirvana

Post by guest_of_logic »

As for why there is "desire to equate humans with the rest of the animal kingdom", I can only speak personally: I see animals suffering in much the same way as humans suffer, and avoidably, due to human cruelty, and I desire to eliminate that avoidable suffering. Does that make sense to you?
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: Animals and nirvana

Post by Russell Parr »

guest_of_logic wrote:So then why doesn't it say exactly that, Russell? "Sentience is reserved for the human species". But it doesn't.
I don't know, Laird, to keep people like you guessing?
guest_of_logic wrote:I extend the same challenge to you, Russell, that I extended to Diebert: find me a reputable Buddhist source that asserts that *only* humans are sentient. I bet you can't.
Nor do I care to. The third sentence from the wiki page reads:
While distinctions in usage and potential subdivisions or classes of sentient beings vary from one school, teacher, or thinker to another—and there is debate within some Buddhist schools as to what exactly constitutes sentience and how it is to be recognized—it principally refers to beings in contrast with buddhahood.
So we could go back and forth all day with links and quotes if we wanted to. What's the point? You choose the interpretation that fits well with you.

If you want to equate your sentience with kunga's foot warmer, that's up to you ;)
guest_of_logic wrote:As for why there is "desire to equate humans with the rest of the animal kingdom", I can only speak personally: I see animals suffering in much the same way as humans suffer, and avoidably, due to human cruelty, and I desire to eliminate that avoidable suffering. Does that make sense to you?
That's fine, but for me that doesn't have anything to do with buddhahood, if buddhahood is enlightenment. The fourth sentence from the same wiki reads:
That is, sentient beings are characteristically not enlightened, and are thus confined to the death, rebirth, and suffering characteristic of Saṃsāra.
I don't regard animals as capable of enlightenment, so buddhahood has nothing to do with them, except perhaps in a round about way, in which an enlightened person would no longer be cruel to animals, if he were that way in the past.
User avatar
guest_of_logic
Posts: 1063
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2008 10:51 pm

Re: Animals and nirvana

Post by guest_of_logic »

Russell wrote:
guest_of_logic wrote:So then why doesn't it say exactly that, Russell? "Sentience is reserved for the human species". But it doesn't.
I don't know, Laird, to keep people like you guessing?
I ain't guessin', dude, I know that in mainstream Buddhism, animals are regarded to be sentient. You can deny this if you want, but you obviously can't back it up, as proved in your response immediately below. Refer to the Wikipedia article I referenced earlier, Animals in Buddhism, if you're in any doubt, and I quote a second time: "Animals have always been regarded in Buddhist thought as sentient beings, different in their intellectual ability than humans but no less capable of feeling suffering". As opposed to your wishy-washy skandha article, this is as definitive as it gets.
Russell wrote:
guest_of_logic wrote:I extend the same challenge to you, Russell, that I extended to Diebert: find me a reputable Buddhist source that asserts that *only* humans are sentient. I bet you can't.
Nor do I care to.
(The proof of your inability to back up your case referred to above)
Russell wrote:The third sentence from the wiki page reads:
While distinctions in usage and potential subdivisions or classes of sentient beings vary from one school, teacher, or thinker to another—and there is debate within some Buddhist schools as to what exactly constitutes sentience and how it is to be recognized—it principally refers to beings in contrast with buddhahood.
So we could go back and forth all day with links and quotes if we wanted to. What's the point? You choose the interpretation that fits well with you.
Right, but the debate is not so much around animals (including insects) as around plants and micro-organisms. The fact of animal (and insect) sentience is well recognised in Buddhism. Personally, I am of the view that plants are sentient, and I tend towards the view that micro-organisms are too, but I don't (and won't) confuse my own views with the views (and debate) within Buddhism.
Russell wrote:If you want to equate your sentience with kunga's foot warmer, that's up to you ;)
Only an ignoramus would fail to recognise the sentience of a cat. Seriously. It wouldn't even raise a question to a mainstream Buddhist.
Russell wrote:
guest_of_logic wrote:As for why there is "desire to equate humans with the rest of the animal kingdom", I can only speak personally: I see animals suffering in much the same way as humans suffer, and avoidably, due to human cruelty, and I desire to eliminate that avoidable suffering. Does that make sense to you?
That's fine, but for me that doesn't have anything to do with buddhahood, if buddhahood is enlightenment. The fourth sentence from the same wiki reads:
That is, sentient beings are characteristically not enlightened, and are thus confined to the death, rebirth, and suffering characteristic of Saṃsāra.
I don't regard animals as capable of enlightenment, so buddhahood has nothing to do with them, except perhaps in a round about way, in which an enlightened person would no longer be cruel to animals, if he were that way in the past.
If you do not regard animals as capable of enlightenment, then you are simply out of step with mainstream Buddhism. Refer to the next sentence from the Animals in Buddhism article that I referenced above and in a previous post: "Furthermore, animals possess Buddha nature (according to the Mahāyāna school) and therefore potential for future enlightenment". That's one school covered, and now read the next sentence: "Moreover, the doctrine of rebirth held that any human could be reborn as an animal, and any animal could be reborn as a human". That's all schools covered, in that if it cannot become enlightened as an animal, it can be reborn as a human, who can then become enlightened. You are simply out of sync with mainstream Buddhism. Case closed.
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: Animals and nirvana

Post by Russell Parr »

Thanks for the link, but I would have to say that that appears to be a bunch of nonsense. As I stated , we can provide each other with links containing conflicting ideas in regards to Buddhism. If mainstream Buddhism is a proponent in literal reincarnation then I don't want anything to do with it, much like mainstream Christianity which is a compilation of rubbish for self serving egotists.

Jesus and Buddha may have been wise fellows themselves, but it is a trademark of the masses to get a hold of something wise and turn it into complete debauchery, like pigs at a gourmet dinner.

It's interesting to note that you prefer to confine yourself to the opinion of the mainstream. It must be right if everyone's doing it!
User avatar
guest_of_logic
Posts: 1063
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2008 10:51 pm

Re: Animals and nirvana

Post by guest_of_logic »

Oh, but I am neither Christian nor Buddhist, Russell, and (as follows from that) my opinion is not mainstream to either of those religions. I have my own understanding. It was Diebert who first raised in this thread the word "mainstream". I am only following up on that reference.
Last edited by guest_of_logic on Mon Oct 07, 2013 2:38 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
guest_of_logic
Posts: 1063
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2008 10:51 pm

Re: Animals and nirvana

Post by guest_of_logic »

Something else for you and Diebert to consider, Russell, from the root Buddhism article on Wikipedia, under the heading, "The Three Marks of Existence" - the following quote:

"By analyzing the constantly changing physical and mental constituents (skandhas) of a person or object, the practitioner comes to the conclusion that neither the respective parts nor the person as a whole comprise a self".

Notice that? A skanda can apply not just to a person, but to an *object*, too. Now recall what I wrote in my earlier post to Diebert, and compare: "You will notice also, if you research enough, that at times the five skandhas are said to apply not merely to human experience, and not merely to animal experience, but to *experience itself*. In other words, the skandas are fundamental to *everything*. I wonder whether you will be willing to recognise this Buddhist perspective".
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: Animals and nirvana

Post by Russell Parr »

Seems rather odd that that wiki entry refers to 'objects' as having "constantly changing physical and mental constituents". Looks like sloppy editing to me.

Also, note that your quote refers to a practitioner, who analyzes the nature of the skandhas, and who reaches the conclusion (ideas).

Perhaps you've got a practicing pet dog or bird that has to say regarding whether or not skandhas apply to it? Let's hear from it.
User avatar
guest_of_logic
Posts: 1063
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2008 10:51 pm

Re: Animals and nirvana

Post by guest_of_logic »

It would seem odd to me too if I hadn't seen similar statements elsewhere in my research on skandhas, hence my reprisal of my earlier comments to Diebert. I don't need to hear from a pet whether skandhas apply to it - they self-evidently do, as I described in my previous post to Diebert. Go ahead yourself and look down the list of the five skandhas and try to find one that doesn't apply to animals.
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: Animals and nirvana

Post by Russell Parr »

Sure, I guess you could apply the skandhas to animals in whatever mundane way you see fit, but the point is, I don't see any animals practicing Buddhism, that is, discerning the difference between delusion and enlightenment for themselves.

I'm pretty sure every cat I've run into has absolutely zero concern or concept of skandhas, buddhahood, or delusion.

From the 'sentient being' wiki:
"Those who greatly enlighten illusion are Buddhas; those who are greatly deluded about enlightenment are sentient beings."
—Dōgen
User avatar
guest_of_logic
Posts: 1063
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2008 10:51 pm

Re: Animals and nirvana

Post by guest_of_logic »

Well, the original point which is now becoming lost is not whether animals are capable of practising Buddhism, but whether (in general and according to Buddhism) they suffer, or, in other words, are subject to dukkha. Diebert introduced sentience and the skandhas for some reason that isn't precisely clear to me, but presumably because only sentient beings can suffer, and thus he was attempting to demonstrate through the notion of skandhas (as solely human) that animals are not, according to Buddhism, sentient, and thus cannot suffer - an argument that I hope you will agree I have adequately responded to, both indirectly by overriding it with direct quotes that according to Buddhism, animals *are* sentient, and more directly by pointing out that, in fact, skandhas are *not* solely human phenomena, but apply to animals too, and, indeed, by some accounts, to anything subject to experience, including, by an account that we both agree is curious, to objects.
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: Animals and nirvana

Post by Russell Parr »

Fair enough. My point coming in is that we humans have the tendency to project way too much of our likeness onto animals, not for the sake of compassion, but to feel good about ourselves. The same goes for Buddhist concepts. It's obvious that the practice of Buddhism has nothing to do with animals, so what point is there in applying the concepts to them?
User avatar
Kunga
Posts: 2333
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:04 am
Contact:

Re: Animals and nirvana

Post by Kunga »

Enlightenment is The Primordial State. It's not really something anyone becomes...because it is already present [Buddha Nature].
Everything is already in Enlightenment. There is nothing for anything to attain....it already is.



"... our fundamental nature of mind is a luminous expanse of awareness that is beyond all conceptual fabrication and completely free from the movement of thoughts. It is the union of emptiness and clarity, of space and radiant awareness that is endowed with supreme and immeasurable qualities. From this basic nature of emptiness everything is expressed; from this everything arises and manifests."

Another way of putting this is to say that Buddha Nature is "something" -- perhaps not the right word, but I don't think there is a right word -- that you are, together with all beings. And this "something" is already enlightened. Because beings cling to a false idea of a finite self, set apart from everything else, they do not experience themselves as Buddhas. But when beings clarify the nature of their existence they experience the Buddha Nature that was always there.

http://buddhism.about.com/od/mahayanabu ... Nature.htm



Also if you want to use logic...nothing inherently exists by itself....meaning, everything is dependent on everything else for it's existence....we are all connected.....think BIG BANG !

BOOM !


We ARE the animals and ALL life forms !
Last edited by Kunga on Mon Oct 07, 2013 4:05 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
guest_of_logic
Posts: 1063
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2008 10:51 pm

Re: Animals and nirvana

Post by guest_of_logic »

Russell, can you elaborate on why/how we project our likeness onto animals "to feel good about ourselves"? I'm not trying to be antagonistic, I'm genuinely uncertain as to what you mean.

As for the practice of Buddhism having nothing to do with animals, I think you are referring to the quest to attain enlightenment through meditation, introspection, etc. Sure, I would agree that that practice is unrelated to animals - it is a personal one - but, when one interacts with the world (and who can avoid that, even when one is a hermit?) as a Buddhist, one is obligated to view animals, as sentient beings who can suffer, with compassion. Buddhism is in its purest form a vegetarian philosophy, isn't it? The only way in which meat is permitted to a Buddhist, strictly speaking, is when it is offered to a monk for his/her begging bowl, and when the meat is from an animal not specifically killed for that monk. There are also in Buddhism traditions of releasing captive animals, which you might have heard of.
User avatar
Kunga
Posts: 2333
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:04 am
Contact:

Re: Animals and nirvana

Post by Kunga »

That's correct Laird...Buddha & Monks ate whatever was offered in their begging bowls , but it was more out of compassion as not to be offensive to the kind givers....he also did not want to offend the person who cooked his last meal...even though he knew it was tainted and was the cause of his "death" .

http://www.dhammawiki.com/index.php?tit ... d_Buddhism
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Animals and nirvana

Post by Pam Seeback »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
movingalways wrote:It is true, desire for the non-existence of things is a more complex version of pain and discomfort, but it is the intensity of this desire that opens you up experientially to this truth.
The experience of being stands to pain, pleasure, comfort and discomfort like an airplane stands to rubber and metal.

It's not the desire for non-existence but the desire for existence (pain, joy, being etc) -- that is the crux of the topic. Only occasionally a state of desire to escape existence is encountered as some kind of reversal. For example the suicidal and severe depressions. But the desire for non-existence as you seem to use it here is more like some variation on escaping "this" while embracing "that". It's always two and then the confusion on all the interactions.
I see now that all realms, including the human realm, contain the desire for existence, but that it is only in the human realm that this desire can be extinguished by way of reverse desire, that of desire for for non-existence or the end of existence, the reverse desire that can include severe depression or suicidal thoughts. I'm not sure how you read into my understanding of the desire for non-existence is a variation on escaping "this" while embracing "that", but no matter, it was not my intent.

One of the suttas that explains clearly and completely the two orders of dependent arising (desire for existence led by the causal conditoin of ignorance and desire for the end of existence lead by the causal condition of faith) is the Upanisa Sutta. A helpful snippet, source: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... el277.html
The Upanisa Sutta gives three expositions of "transcendental dependent arising." The first expounds the sequence in reverse order, beginning with the last link in the series, the knowledge of the destruction of the cankers (asavakkhaye ñana), and tracing the chain backwards to the first link in the liberative sequence, namely, faith. At this point it crosses over to the mundane order, explaining faith as arising through suffering, suffering as conditioned by birth, birth as conditioned by existence, and so on back through the familiar links to ignorance as the first member of the chain. After completing the reverse exposition, the Buddha then expounds the same series in forward order, beginning with ignorance and following through to the knowledge of destruction. This he does twice, in exactly the same way, once before and once after the striking simile comparing the sequential origination of the factors to the gradual descent of rainfall from a mountain, through the graded ponds, lakes, streams, and rivers to the great ocean at the mountain's base. Thus the series of conditions presented in the sutta can be mapped out in the abstract as follows:

Mundane Order

Ignorance (avijja)
Kamma formations (sankhara)
Consciousness (viññana)
Mentality-materiality (namarupa)
Sixfold sense base (salayatana)
Contact (phassa)
Feeling (vedana)
Craving (tanha)
Clinging (upadana)
Existence (bhava)
Birth (jati)
Suffering (dukkha)

Transcendental Order

Faith (saddha)
Joy (pamojja)
Rapture (piti)
Tranquillity (passaddhi)
Happiness (sukha)
Concentration (samadhi)
Knowledge and vision of things as they are (yathabhutañanadassana)
Disenchantment (nibbida)
Dispassion (viraga)
Emancipation (vimutti)
Knowledge of destruction of the cankers (asavakkhaye ñana)
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: Animals and nirvana

Post by Russell Parr »

guest_of_logic wrote:Russell, can you elaborate on why/how we project our likeness onto animals "to feel good about ourselves"?
It's a combination of emotional self-affirmation and herd mentality. You can see it here in this thread. It's easy to believe oneself to be 'good' due to shared fondness between people and their pets. But please point it out, what does this have to do with ridding oneself of delusion? It is nothing but an indulgence.
Buddhism is in its purest form a vegetarian philosophy, isn't it?
Didn't you say earlier that plants too are sentient? How then is Buddhism a vegetarian philosophy?

As far as the different sects of Buddhism, here's how I look at it: The Buddha became wise and put together a way for others to discover and make the wisdom their own. But as nature has it, the vast, vast majority of people will never acquire such wisdom. Therefore, most of the modern, widespread, mainstream concepts of Buddhism, and Christianity for that matter, were conjured by mostly delusional people, and accepted by the delusional masses.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Animals and nirvana

Post by Pam Seeback »

Russell wrote:Fair enough. My point coming in is that we humans have the tendency to project way too much of our likeness onto animals, not for the sake of compassion, but to feel good about ourselves. The same goes for Buddhist concepts. It's obvious that the practice of Buddhism has nothing to do with animals, so what point is there in applying the concepts to them?
Not so. From the Maha-parinibbana Sutta, the Pali Canaon, non-mainstream Buddhism, words attributed directly to the Buddha:

"But truly, Ananda, it is nothing strange that human beings should die. But if each time it happens you should come to the Tathagata and ask about them in this manner, indeed it would be troublesome to him. Therefore, Ananda, I will give you the teaching called the Mirror of the Dhamma, possessing which the noble disciple, should he so desire, can declare of himself: 'There is no more rebirth for me in hell, nor as an animal or ghost, nor in any realm of woe. A stream-enterer am I, safe from falling into the states of misery, assured am I and bound for Enlightenment.'"

What this tells me is once upon a time the Buddha was reborn as an animal. As the originator of this thread, for me, "case closed". :-)
User avatar
Kunga
Posts: 2333
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:04 am
Contact:

Re: Animals and nirvana

Post by Kunga »

Russell wrote:It's a combination of emotional self-affirmation and herd mentality. You can see it here in this thread. It's easy to believe oneself to be 'good' due to shared fondness between people and their pets. But please point it out, what does this have to do with ridding oneself of delusion? It is nothing but an indulgence.
Oy Vey !

And how about the "herd mentality", of those on this form, that subscribe to the "House Philosophy", of QRS !?!
Those here that ridicule compassion and try to twist it into a "self-indulgence" , indulge in their own form of self-righteous ego-based intellectual masturbation.

You have never experienced true compassion....selfless compassion....or you would understand it.
It's not an indulgence for those that truly have it.
It's something that comes natural.....from the heart.
But if you are heartless....of course you wont experience it.
There ARE those that do indulge and are selfish, but not everyone is like that.
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: Animals and nirvana

Post by Russell Parr »

Pam, there is also the non-literal interpretation of rebirth, which describes the moods or "states of misery" as quoted, that one can be reborn into. Your quote makes more sense to me in this context.
There is no more rebirth for me in hell, nor as an animal or ghost, nor in any realm of woe. A stream-enterer am I, safe from falling into the states of misery, assured am I and bound for Enlightenment.
I take it you believe in a literal hell and ghosts too?
User avatar
guest_of_logic
Posts: 1063
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2008 10:51 pm

Re: Animals and nirvana

Post by guest_of_logic »

Russell wrote:
guest_of_logic wrote:Russell, can you elaborate on why/how we project our likeness onto animals "to feel good about ourselves"?
It's a combination of emotional self-affirmation and herd mentality. You can see it here in this thread. It's easy to believe oneself to be 'good' due to shared fondness between people and their pets. But please point it out, what does this have to do with ridding oneself of delusion? It is nothing but an indulgence.
I don't have any pets, so either you're mistaken or you're referring to people in this thread other than me. In any case, my cause is not companion animals and the bond we might have with them, but animal rights: the right for all animals to be free from human slaughter, captivity, bondage, slavery, mistreatment and interference. What this has to do with ridding oneself of delusion is only incidental, in that there are those such as John who are under the delusion that animal suffering is utterly intractable, so that coming to support and advocate for animal rights might involve shedding delusions such as that.
Russell wrote:
Buddhism is in its purest form a vegetarian philosophy, isn't it?
Didn't you say earlier that plants too are sentient?
Yes, but I also made it clear that that is my personal belief, independent of Buddhism. To the best of my understanding, Buddhists believe the exact opposite to me in this respect: they believe that plants are *not* sentient. I am more closely aligned with Jainism than Buddhism in this area, although, as far as I know, even Jains believe that eating plants is unavoidable (I do not share this belief).
Russell wrote:As far as the different sects of Buddhism, here's how I look at it: The Buddha became wise and put together a way for others to discover and make the wisdom their own. But as nature has it, the vast, vast majority of people will never acquire such wisdom. Therefore, most of the modern, widespread, mainstream concepts of Buddhism, and Christianity for that matter, were conjured by mostly delusional people, and accepted by the delusional masses.
But you are not one of the vast, vast majority, you are one of the elite, one who has rediscovered the original wisdom of the Buddha, and shed all delusion.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Animals and nirvana

Post by Pam Seeback »

Russell wrote:Pam, there is also the non-literal interpretation of rebirth, which describes the moods or "states of misery" as quoted, that one can be reborn into. Your quote makes more sense to me in this context.
There is no more rebirth for me in hell, nor as an animal or ghost, nor in any realm of woe. A stream-enterer am I, safe from falling into the states of misery, assured am I and bound for Enlightenment.
I take it you believe in a literal hell and ghosts too?
Russell, I see what you are saying, but for me, there is a need to reconcile the appearance of the animal realm to sense consciousness, dogs, cats, zebras, etc., an appearance that does not apply to either the hell realm or the ghost realm, at least not for me. Where I cannot see or touch or hear or smell or taste the hell or ghost realm, I can see and touch and hear and smell and taste the animal realm, whose causes of stress, those of hunger, thirst, lust and exposure to the elements I also share. It is my sense experience of "animal" that prompted me to start this thread. As an aside, I do have trusted friends and loved ones who say they have seen and heard apparitions from the ghost realm; of course, this is not proof of their existence to me or anyone else, but their conviction of declaration does keep my mind open to the possibility of the actuality of such a realm. As for the hell realm, why can it not be an actual realm of awareness that is experienced at the dissolution of the body? As I pointed out in another post, there is a huge difference between the Christian version of a "place" called hell and the Buddhist version of the hell realm; the former casts the individual into hell for eternity, no way out, whereas the latter states, like all other realms, hell is impermanent.

Ultimately, for me, it doesn't matter whether the realms of existence are metaphorical or actual, what matters to me is to discover the way to bring them to an end. From the Vatthupama Sutta, the Pali Canon:

"Just as cloth that is stained and dirty becomes clean and bright with the help of pure water, or just as gold becomes clean and bright with the help of a furnace, so too, if a monk of such virtue, such concentration and such wisdom eats almsfood consisting of choice hill-rice together with various sauces and curries, even that will be no obstacle for him.

12. "He abides, having suffused with a mind of loving-kindness one direction of the world, likewise the second, likewise the third, likewise the fourth, and so above, below, around and everywhere, and to all as to himself; he abides suffusing the entire universe with loving-kindness, with a mind grown great, lofty, boundless and free from enmity and ill will.

"He abides, having suffused with a mind of compassion... of sympathetic joy... of equanimity one direction of the world, likewise the second, likewise the third, likewise the fourth, and so above, below, around and everywhere, and to all as to himself; he abides suffusing the entire universe with equanimity, with a mind grown great, lofty, boundless and free from enmity and ill will.

13. "He understands what exists, what is low, what is excellent, and what escape there is from this [whole] field of perception.

14. "When he knows and sees in this way, his mind becomes liberated from the canker of sensual desire, liberated from the canker of becoming, liberated from the canker of ignorance. When liberated, there is knowledge: 'It is liberated'; and he knows: 'Birth is exhausted, the life of purity has been lived, the task is done, there is no more of this to come.' Such a monk is called 'one bathed with the inner bathing."
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: Animals and nirvana

Post by Russell Parr »

guest_of_logic wrote:I don't have any pets, so either you're mistaken or you're referring to people in this thread other than me. In any case, my cause is not companion animals and the bond we might have with them, but animal rights: the right for all animals to be free from human slaughter, captivity, bondage, slavery, mistreatment and interference.
I wasn't trying to imply you had a pet, just using it as an example.
Yes, but I also made it clear that that is my personal belief, independent of Buddhism. To the best of my understanding, Buddhists believe the exact opposite to me in this respect: they believe that plants are *not* sentient. I am more closely aligned with Jainism than Buddhism in this area, although, as far as I know, even Jains believe that eating plants is unavoidable (I do not share this belief).
Ah, fruitarianism, right? How's that going for you?
But you are not one of the vast, vast majority, you are one of the elite, one who has rediscovered the original wisdom of the Buddha, and shed all delusion.
Elitists desire to remain in their elite status. To be enlightened is to be indifferent towards one's status in society. While I'd say I've got a good grip on identifying delusion, I haven't yet completely shed them from my life.
User avatar
guest_of_logic
Posts: 1063
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2008 10:51 pm

Re: Animals and nirvana

Post by guest_of_logic »

Russell wrote:Ah, fruitarianism, right? How's that going for you?
I've had to modify it. Originally, and for a while there, I was eating only raw fruit, seeds and nuts. When I went travelling, though, I found myself tempted back into cooked food - I just couldn't seem to sustain myself on a raw diet. So now, I have begun again eating cooked beans and fruit-like vegetables: capsicum, pumpkin, zucchini, corn, etc - anything that naturally separates from the plant and thus doesn't require death or damage to the plant. Perhaps in time, now that I have returned home, I will be able to revert to a raw fruitarian diet.
Russell wrote:Elitists desire to remain in their elite status. To be enlightened is to be indifferent towards one's status in society. While I'd say I've got a good grip on identifying delusion, I haven't yet completely shed them from my life.
Which delusions remain?
Last edited by guest_of_logic on Mon Oct 07, 2013 7:20 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Animals and nirvana

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

guest_of_logic wrote:One other question for your consideration, Diebert: if *only* humans are sentient, then why would Buddhism even have a term "sentient beings"? Wouldn't that term simply reduce to "humans"? What would be the point of the term, "sentient beings", if really, all it meant was, "humans"?
It would help it you had a broader understanding of historical Buddhism when it comes to the various "realms" and "beings". And of course there's the idea as propagated in some schools about reincarnation and transmigration of "souls" would need some level of consciousness in any "vessel' carrying these "souls". But when we strip away all medieval elements, it becomes clear that sentient beings are humans, seemingly exclusively. But I never closed the door on other possibilities although in all cases their "liberation" would seem a form of being liberated from the delusion of the humans they are in relation to. It's not an absolute point for me Laird but if somehow there would be an animal qualifying I'd just call it "human" and some other humans I'd call "animal". Which might be closer to the Buddhist view anyhow.
Locked