Ants Test Non Violence of Buddhist Monks

The Have a Heart, Capture and Release traps are cruel.

How would you like to be dumped in a strange neighborhood--further than a one-day walk from home (if you knew where home was) without any money, any plastic or any information on the local inhabitants and predators?

0 Replies

snood wrote:

Years ago I, and many other hapless people doing 'PT' in the grass at Ft Leonard Wood MO got painful, swollen bites from some of the fireants there. Does it make me a thoughtless person or something, that I would have killed any fireant I saw?

I have thought about this whole thing about what I'd be more willing to kill. Things I could personify with any human-like personality traits, I would have a harder time killing. Like any mammals or other beings that have a face and can express pain in a way I can understand. I can swat a thousand moths, but can't just stomp on a gecko.

I know what you mean, but isn't that all just superficial?

0 Replies

Can you flesh out that reply a bit? What "that" are you referring to, when you say "Isn't that all..."

0 Replies

I would not put up with being bitten by a tiger or a dog or a mouse--or an ant.

0 Replies

snood wrote:

Can you flesh out that reply a bit? What "that" are you referring to, when you say "Isn't that all..."

Sorry. I was referring to the reasons that make it easier to kill certain animals but not others.

Noddy24 wrote:

I would not put up with being bitten by a tiger or a dog or a mouse--or an ant.

Could you kill a dog as easily as you could kill an ant?

0 Replies

Ants are industrious warriors. They receive their due respect from me, but I admit I fear the little toughies and so have been prone to killing them.

I would not allow them to kick me out of my own house. That is for sure.

0 Replies

Quote:

Noddy24 wrote:
I would not put up with being bitten by a tiger or a dog or a mouse--or an ant.
Could you kill a dog as easily as you could kill an ant?

Killing a dog would certainly require more effort than killing an ant, but if the dog's teeth were in my flesh, I'd certainly make the effort. Perhaps I'd call Animal Control rather than using my own lily white hands, but I'd take responsibility for the death.

0 Replies

Noddy24 wrote:

Quote:
Noddy24 wrote:
I would not put up with being bitten by a tiger or a dog or a mouse--or an ant.
Could you kill a dog as easily as you could kill an ant?

Killing a dog would certainly require more effort than killing an ant, but if the dog's teeth were in my flesh, I'd certainly make the effort. Perhaps I'd call Animal Control rather than using my own lily white hands, but I'd take responsibility for the death.

Speaking of killing dogs, a woman was killed by the family pit bull in Houston this morning. The police had no qualms of conscience when they shot the dog.

0 Replies

Noddy wrote: "How would you like to be dumped in a strange neighborhood--further than a one-day walk from home (if you knew where home was) without any money, any plastic or any information on the local inhabitants and predators?"

Sounds like an adventure, if you ask me.

Edgar, wouldn't you prefer to simply breed pitbulls out of existence rather than kill them? We should sterilize them rather than shoot or poison them. They can't help being what they are any more than a scorpion can resist stinging us. But the pit bulls could not care lesss if they were extinguished as a breed.

0 Replies

I agree, jl. In the instance I cited, the dog was in the yard, lunging at a cop. Not exactly wanton slaughter.

0 Replies

echi wrote:

snood wrote:
Can you flesh out that reply a bit? What "that" are you referring to, when you say "Isn't that all..."
Sorry. I was referring to the reasons that make it easier to kill certain animals but not others.

Noddy24 wrote:
I would not put up with being bitten by a tiger or a dog or a mouse--or an ant.
Could you kill a dog as easily as you could kill an ant?

Weird. You call that reasoning "superficial", then ask a question which would require someone to incorporate the selfsame reasoning.

0 Replies

No, I simply asked a question.

0 Replies

Echi, Snood, I actually think this is a really interesting question and this seemed very honest:

snood wrote:

...Things I could personify with any human-like personality traits...

I guess after all the personal classifications and sub-divisions have been made, killing an ant compared with a dog comes down to indifference. I'm not sure I can force myself to feel worse for killing an ant compared with a dog. I try, at all times, to see life as just that, life, no matter the circumstance. So while I might get over killing an ant fairly quickly in truth, I impose my own morals on respecting that ant at it's most base classification, life. What I perceive as life probably has something to do with perceived animation or a certain level of complex randomness. The universe knows no such ethical dilemma of course so this is just my own stipulation.

Maybe it's theoretical rather than practical in a sense given my lack of feeling with regards to insects compared to mammals, I'm not so much acting out of direct stimulation (i.e. seeing a dog whimper or the idea of a dog whimpering) but through a thought process that seems more critical than emotional (Of course we still react to insects I guess, just not on the same level). I just think, rather than elevating the ant or demoting the human, you're really just leveling everything out, seeing the connections amongst all things that Buddhists do. I often wonder if, in the future, we'll see more moral shifts with regards to plants etc.

0 Replies

Nice post, Ashers. I'm probably stating the obvious, but I think an animal's size also has a lot to do with how much we respect its life.

snood... I must admit that I have not engaged in much intellectual debate since I stopped posting regularly, a few months ago. Some of my recent comments have been kind of dim, I guess. I should read more and post less... but I can't help it, I like to participate.

0 Replies

I agree, I guess perception of an animals size is important through the possible threat in can cause us, it's reasonable to assume the 700 lb cat in the jungle is more significant than the miniscule ant we've just trodden on. I remember when I was younger being told about the idea of people being divided into 2 parts, that instinctive, animalistic element...and our soul, the part that rises above the animals to make ethical judgements etc. I'm not saying I agree with this on a fundamental level, this division of a person, but it is helpful in thinking about responsiblity I guess.

0 Replies

snood wrote:

echi wrote:

Noddy24 wrote:
I would not put up with being bitten by a tiger or a dog or a mouse--or an ant.
Could you kill a dog as easily as you could kill an ant?

Weird. You call that reasoning "superficial", then ask a question which would require someone to incorporate the selfsame reasoning.

snood... Help me out, here. I'm still having trouble understanding what you mean. (Perhaps I am still a little slow.)

0 Replies

Ashers, I think that much of my behavior and thinking reflects unconscious processes, involving drives that are expressions of my evolutionary past. But we manage to sublimate such drives and in so doing mask our animalic nature, and take the further step of pointing to the results as (reified) "soul."

0 Replies

Yes. One of the interesting points I picked up on when watching those 'Beyond Belief' lectures (I don't know if you saw a link posted a while back?) was a point regarding agendas and how they invade discussion and channel investigation etc. I never felt like it was given enough thought after the guy mentioned this but to me, in the sense of imbuing this sublimation with the tag of "soul", it really depends on what you want to do. For instance, if you want to wonder about questions of self and reality, it might make sense to call such an idea into question. If on the other hand you purely want to imbue responsibility on yourself, you might talk, quite reasonably of a soul, even if in just an abstract sense. I know someone who is well read on many of the topics I love here but who takes issue with the ideas of non-self, or at least, grasps to an eternal something which evolves morally, something that they attach splendour to. I guess they're just not interested in taking that idea of a soul away from their own personal idea of the world because the gain, might not be enough for them personally. That seems OK to me.

P.S Sorry, needlessly long reply there, I couldn't help myself...

0 Replies

echi wrote:

snood wrote:
echi wrote:

Noddy24 wrote:
I would not put up with being bitten by a tiger or a dog or a mouse--or an ant.
Could you kill a dog as easily as you could kill an ant?

Weird. You call that reasoning "superficial", then ask a question which would require someone to incorporate the selfsame reasoning.

snood... Help me out, here. I'm still having trouble understanding what you mean. (Perhaps I am still a little slow.)

Wake up, mr. snood!

0 Replies

Ashers, and, of course, the concept of the soul serves to immortalize the ego.
Nietzsche had the notion of a mortal soul--I suspect it was not too different from the African-American's "soul."
I like the latter notion, just as I like the notion of "spirit" as psychospiritual energy. To lack spirit is to be dispirited or down.

0 Replies

Ants Test Non Violence of Buddhist Monks

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know