Post reply

Name:
Email:
Subject:
Tags:

Seperate each tag by a comma
Message icon:

Attach:
(Clear Attachment)
(more attachments)
Allowed file types: apk, doc, docx, gif, jpg, mpg, pdf, png, txt, zip, xls, 3gpp, mp2, mp3, wav, odt, ods, html, mp4, amr, apk, m4a, jpeg
Restrictions: 50 per post, maximum total size 150000KB, maximum individual size 150000KB
Note that any files attached will not be displayed until approved by a moderator.
Anti-spam: complete the task

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview


Topic Summary

Posted by: Johann
« on: January 29, 2019, 11:42:45 AM »

The "sad" reality of not grasping the Dhamma and not even respecting Vinaya... the animal heritage: how pleasant... this touching and calling it Brahmacariya



Suidide Monk worshipping, and "The man and the mountains "-romantic...

http://www.hillsidehermitage.org/

It's known told that animals at monasteries are used to have been monks and nuns, not so really observing the Vinaya and engaged in lower sense pleasure.

Namo tassa bhagavato arahato sammā-sambuddhassa

This was said by the Blessed One, said by the Arahant, so I have heard: "It is in accordance with their properties that beings come together & associate with one another. Beings of low dispositions come together & associate with beings of low dispositions. Beings of admirable dispositions come together & associate with beings of admirable dispositions. In the past, it was in accordance with their properties that beings came together & associated with one another... In the future, it will be in accordance with their properties that beings will come together & associate with one another... And now at present, it is in accordance with their properties that beings come together & associate with one another. Beings of low dispositions come together & associate with beings of low dispositions. Beings of admirable dispositions come together & associate with beings of admirable dispositions."


The underbrush born
of association
is cut away
by non-association.
Just as one riding
a small wooden plank
   would sink
in the great sea,
so does even one of right living
   sink,
associating with the lazy.

So avoid the lazy,
those with low persistence.
Live with the noble ones —
secluded, resolute, absorbed in jhana,
their persistence constantly aroused
         : the wise.

Posted by: Johann
« on: May 26, 2018, 01:07:52 PM »

If seeking for other western Ajahn Chah monks devoted to pets-duty practice, of cause you match them in relation of Brahm in the sugar-mountain (zuckerberg) realms:

What a nonsens and leading people to gain pets rebirth...
http://sangham.net/index.php/topic,8467.0.html

How poor must one be in heart to be of such corruption and low politic for poor becoming... of cause Brahm would neither check nor see his tail. That is why the Buddha didn't left it to your own judgment in regard of defilements but to seek for admirable friend, not pets or pets keeper. Seeking after right livelihood and holly live rather to make a living in pets entertaining and sharing crackers...

It's possible time to finish this "emergency" visit of the realms of pets and hungry ghost like existence and put left fuel into worthy
Posted by: Johann
« on: April 07, 2018, 10:19:05 PM »

Why does one sacrifices downward? Does it make one feel better with actually less real sacrifices? Isn't it not all but food for conceit?
Posted by: Johann
« on: April 07, 2018, 09:51:14 PM »

* Johann : Since this matter is actually a serious, and as it is actually astry the topic here, a cut was made, hopefully at a line that leaves both important topics in modern times alive to keep on investigation aside of common usual ways. Both are very "political incorrect" approaches in a very wired modern world, and of cource not easy to bear, or better penetrate. It's good to try to find the reasons and release here and there, totally against the grain.

Aramika   *

Ein oder mehrer Beiträge wurden hier im Thema abgeschnitten und damit in neues Thema "Sterilization - Castration, a matter of compassion or just unskilfull? " eröffnet, dem angehäng.
One or more posts have been cut out of this topic here. A new topic, based on it, has been created as "Sterilization - Castration, a matter of compassion or just unskilfull? " or attached there.
Posted by: Johann
« on: April 04, 2018, 06:32:51 AM »

Whould modern person generally call house pet a sad and poor existence?

I've never found a person, in contemporary world, who seriously thinks that life as a animal would be really a good thing. Some may see as a good thing a life without responsabilities (a aspect of a pet's life), but overall, usually nobody would say that to be a animal is more advantageous than to be a human for obvious reasons. There is a gap between these two things.
[/quote]
It seems to be clear that Nyom does not know much obout the world and lifes of beings but is merely informed by new media. So it's good to travel much, get known beings and their lifes.

Quote
If associating with being without virtue, lazy, without gratitude, without idea of ownership, with being just eating and sleeping, no idea of
making merits, selfish and only when a stranger enters, making "roof, roof, roof", sniffing the back... e.g. approving the pets duty, more
and more... it's clear that one will land there.

Knowing this, even seeing this, one should be clear, that pets, living in near association, in dependency of one, have strong Upanissaya to one,
are dear old relatives, and so should tread them dutyfull and nice like a family member, but in no way approve a pets behaviour or even, like
may, play with the thought "ohh, what a comfortable live". It's like if my person sees the "owner and pets"-family of Sutta central. Brahmas
and their Devas, trade, consume and wasting off possibilities, owner and slaves.

Apply the same strict value judgment to animals as it is applied to humans doesn't seems reasonable to me. After all, animals are... ...animals!
People tend to be more complacent towards animal's behavior simply because we all know that they are not endowed with the same intellect and discerniment as humans are. So I don't see the point of apply the same criterias of judgment to them as if they are humans. What would be a approvement of pet's behavior? Is plain complacency (taking their unfortunate condition in consideration) a approvement?
Mind and body are two things. While it is difficult to change body kammas effects, on mind ones existence can be changed. If finding that barking is not proper, it would be possible to abound dog-like behaviour.

Quote
if behavior like a pet, an existence like a pet can be expected, if associate with pets in inproper way, it's a matter of nature to addopt
their ways. If wishing, thinking "pets-life is desireable", there are all ways to gain it.

Why/how a sane person would behave like his pet?
There are less not really sane people behaviour like dogs or other animals, starting greed.
Quote
Pets do not make merits, and it's because someone gives them food easy avaliable, they will stay there and waste their time off...

Ok, but what else are they suppose to do other than this? and how? As mentioned before, they are deprived of intellect and discernment falcuties, how domestic animals would not rely on humans?
Even if in a human state (body), many are (had deprived them) deprived of intellect and discernment, and as domestic beings relay on humans... or socialism... iat places where pets-like being is dominant.
Quote
It's of course possible to gain even the highest path and fruits, if still living near and in certain association with pets (defilements), like if bound to parents,
childs, master... but at the highest fruit, life from association with such, is impossible.

There is a contradiction here. Is it possible or not?
highest fruit is nibbana?
No "it is possible that one may obtain...". Yes Nibbana is the highest fruit.

Nyom Danilo , you may think as you like. My person sees no usefull point here and aside of doubt and search for excuses is not found. It is merely a useless debate. But as told, maybe to less patient by my person, sure you even do not know malaria. You wouldn't understand anything at the right place for now. But there is less not possible with proper faith and urged effort.
Posted by: Johann
« on: April 04, 2018, 06:23:29 AM »

Bhante, all,


Since I've been repeatedly asked to say something about this --

I'm speaking here as someone helping to take care of eight cats.
To begin with, this is how we came to have eight cats: At first we had only one. Before we adopted her, she was a stray cat that was wandering around the neighborhood, and we took her in out of mercy. The other seven are a mother and her six children (two litters, each of three). The mother of six was a stray cat who had kittens in our shed. At first, we wanted to give them to an animal shelter, but shelters here are full, they don't accept new animals. We also tried to find them a new home in some other way, but nobody wanted them. We also considered that even if an animal shelter were to accept them, they would most likely not be adopted by anyone, because they are too shy and not used to living indoors only. The animal shelter kills the cats that nobody adopts within one to three months. We didn't want this to happen. So we later adopted them. We sterilized all the females (five), and we plan to sterilize the males as well, so as to not produce more unwanted cats.
We live in the countryside, with a big garden, so it's not so crowded despite so many cats. Also, in my family, we've always had cats; it's always been normal to have cats.

Here in the countryside, there would normally be no stray cats, because all the cats would live on farms, and the farmers would kill the cats they don't want. The main reason why there are stray cats here is because people from the city abandon them. When they don't want to have a cat anymore, they take it to the countryside, throw it out of the car, and then we who live in the countryside have to take care of them. Also, one of the cats is black. Many people here have prejudice against black cats and don't want them and treat them very badly, and that was another reason we took her in.

A monk living in Thailand said that in Thailand, when people have cats they don't want, they bring them to the monastery, while in many other countries, people kill unwanted cats. So this is how there are sometimes many cats living in a monastery. A monk is appointed to look after them.

I think there are many reasons why people have cats, or pets in general. In the countryside, on farms, cats are usually kept to catch mice. Beyond that, I think that for many people, having a pet is the closest to experiencing unconditional love. For many people, having a pet is the main or the only source of gentleness and kindness in their lives. Some people feel that the animal is the only being for whom they can safely have affection.

Then there are dysfunctional families where the pet is a kind of psychological safe haven for the people, and a safe topic to talk about with other family members. In such families, even though the people don't care much about eachother, or are afraid of eachother, or distant to one another, they can still all care for the animal. Caring for the animal together like that can make life in such a family more bearable.

In my opinion, the people who have purebred cats and dogs as pets often see them as status symbols. They don't really care about the animal itself, they care just about the social status that having a particular breed of a purebred cat or dog implies. (The business with purebreds is brutal. Many kittens and puppies of purebred parents are killed; either because of some minor "flaw" or to artificially keep the price of the breed high.)

As for individual monks who keep animals as pets: I wonder about that too. Like I said above, some monks living in monasteries are assigned the duty to look after the monastery cats. Some monks seem to have deliberately adopted a pet. Of course, it's also possible that the animal sought out the monk, in the hope to be adopted by him. Perhaps the monk, out of mercy, gave the animal some food, and that was enough for the animal to want to stay with him.

Personally, one of the main reasons why I'm still interested in Buddhism despite all the difficulties, are the cats. I do care about them, and I feel responsible for them, not just in the ordinary worldly sense, but in religious terms as well. I have already outlived several cats, I have seen them die. I was there when they were tiny kittens, and then when they grew up, and eventually grew old and died from old age. This has been a sobering experience.  I don't know if there is rebirth. But if there is, I feel it is my responsibility that I do everything in my power to make sure that those beings that are currently our cats, get a good rebirth. I don't know how all this works, or how to come to know the truth about it, but mainly because of the cats, I feel responsible to learn and realize these things.

Nyom Binocular,
as the origin of this topic, it is clear seen, that "love" binds to either the cats at home or "pets" DW. Nevertheless, the message here stands. What ever tend and devoted to, to that one falls.

And, if not done yet, don't ever sterilize, approve or order. Let being be there way. Wish to control and "love" is for all the reason for even harder pain at least.

And monks are neither appointable to do so, nor allowed to take on such task. They just fear, if not seeking socialization direct with animals, favor and livelihood. Fools.

May Nyom reflect this topic and by it really deep into Dhamma. Sozial disfunction, gender problems, no children, pets behavior, all modern issues... they have causes in a pets world.

Don't sacrifice downward. Duties are good if fulfilled, but nothing more.
Posted by: Danilo
« on: April 04, 2018, 01:55:50 AM »

Whould modern person generally call house pet a sad and poor existence?

I've never found a person, in contemporary world, who seriously thinks that life as a animal would be really a good thing. Some may see as a good thing a life without responsabilities (a aspect of a pet's life), but overall, usually nobody would say that to be a animal is more advantageous than to be a human for obvious reasons. There is a gap between these two things.

If associating with being without virtue, lazy, without gratitude, without idea of ownership, with being just eating and sleeping, no idea of
making merits, selfish and only when a stranger enters, making "roof, roof, roof", sniffing the back... e.g. approving the pets duty, more
and more... it's clear that one will land there.

Knowing this, even seeing this, one should be clear, that pets, living in near association, in dependency of one, have strong Upanissaya to one,
are dear old relatives, and so should tread them dutyfull and nice like a family member, but in no way approve a pets behaviour or even, like
may, play with the thought "ohh, what a comfortable live". It's like if my person sees the "owner and pets"-family of Sutta central. Brahmas
and their Devas, trade, consume and wasting off possibilities, owner and slaves.

Apply the same strict value judgment to animals as it is applied to humans doesn't seems reasonable to me. After all, animals are... ...animals!
People tend to be more complacent towards animal's behavior simply because we all know that they are not endowed with the same intellect and discerniment as humans are. So I don't see the point of apply the same criterias of judgment to them as if they are humans. What would be a approvement of pet's behavior? Is plain complacency (taking their unfortunate condition in consideration) a approvement?


if behavior like a pet, an existence like a pet can be expected, if associate with pets in inproper way, it's a matter of nature to addopt
their ways. If wishing, thinking "pets-life is desireable", there are all ways to gain it.

Why/how a sane person would behave like his pet?


Pets do not make merits, and it's because someone gives them food easy avaliable, they will stay there and waste their time off...

Ok, but what else are they suppose to do other than this? and how? As mentioned before, they are deprived of intellect and discernment falcuties, how domestic animals would not rely on humans?

It's of course possible to gain even the highest path and fruits, if still living near and in certain association with pets (defilements), like if bound to parents,
childs, master... but at the highest fruit, life from association with such, is impossible.

There is a contradiction here. Is it possible or not?
highest fruit is nibbana?
Posted by: Visitor
« on: April 04, 2018, 12:03:40 AM »

Bhante, all,


Since I've been repeatedly asked to say something about this --

I'm speaking here as someone helping to take care of eight cats.
To begin with, this is how we came to have eight cats: At first we had only one. Before we adopted her, she was a stray cat that was wandering around the neighborhood, and we took her in out of mercy. The other seven are a mother and her six children (two litters, each of three). The mother of six was a stray cat who had kittens in our shed. At first, we wanted to give them to an animal shelter, but shelters here are full, they don't accept new animals. We also tried to find them a new home in some other way, but nobody wanted them. We also considered that even if an animal shelter were to accept them, they would most likely not be adopted by anyone, because they are too shy and not used to living indoors only. The animal shelter kills the cats that nobody adopts within one to three months. We didn't want this to happen. So we later adopted them. We sterilized all the females (five), and we plan to sterilize the males as well, so as to not produce more unwanted cats.
We live in the countryside, with a big garden, so it's not so crowded despite so many cats. Also, in my family, we've always had cats; it's always been normal to have cats.

Here in the countryside, there would normally be no stray cats, because all the cats would live on farms, and the farmers would kill the cats they don't want. The main reason why there are stray cats here is because people from the city abandon them. When they don't want to have a cat anymore, they take it to the countryside, throw it out of the car, and then we who live in the countryside have to take care of them. Also, one of the cats is black. Many people here have prejudice against black cats and don't want them and treat them very badly, and that was another reason we took her in.

A monk living in Thailand said that in Thailand, when people have cats they don't want, they bring them to the monastery, while in many other countries, people kill unwanted cats. So this is how there are sometimes many cats living in a monastery. A monk is appointed to look after them.

I think there are many reasons why people have cats, or pets in general. In the countryside, on farms, cats are usually kept to catch mice. Beyond that, I think that for many people, having a pet is the closest to experiencing unconditional love. For many people, having a pet is the main or the only source of gentleness and kindness in their lives. Some people feel that the animal is the only being for whom they can safely have affection.

Then there are dysfunctional families where the pet is a kind of psychological safe haven for the people, and a safe topic to talk about with other family members. In such families, even though the people don't care much about eachother, or are afraid of eachother, or distant to one another, they can still all care for the animal. Caring for the animal together like that can make life in such a family more bearable.

In my opinion, the people who have purebred cats and dogs as pets often see them as status symbols. They don't really care about the animal itself, they care just about the social status that having a particular breed of a purebred cat or dog implies. (The business with purebreds is brutal. Many kittens and puppies of purebred parents are killed; either because of some minor "flaw" or to artificially keep the price of the breed high.)

As for individual monks who keep animals as pets: I wonder about that too. Like I said above, some monks living in monasteries are assigned the duty to look after the monastery cats. Some monks seem to have deliberately adopted a pet. Of course, it's also possible that the animal sought out the monk, in the hope to be adopted by him. Perhaps the monk, out of mercy, gave the animal some food, and that was enough for the animal to want to stay with him.

Personally, one of the main reasons why I'm still interested in Buddhism despite all the difficulties, are the cats. I do care about them, and I feel responsible for them, not just in the ordinary worldly sense, but in religious terms as well. I have already outlived several cats, I have seen them die. I was there when they were tiny kittens, and then when they grew up, and eventually grew old and died from old age. This has been a sobering experience.  I don't know if there is rebirth. But if there is, I feel it is my responsibility that I do everything in my power to make sure that those beings that are currently our cats, get a good rebirth. I don't know how all this works, or how to come to know the truth about it, but mainly because of the cats, I feel responsible to learn and realize these things.
Posted by: Johann
« on: April 03, 2018, 06:11:07 PM »


My person really ask you, near or far, associate and seek for people of integrity, who leave you opening for doubt. Don't waste time in much enjoying this or that when work should and can be done, here or there. Don't watch pets unwisily or even play with them around but try to increase samvega, that it is even not common to gain a pets existence. No, or not easy, merits can be made in this state.

MN 75 has actually less openings to speculate with nice "endings" anyway.

For one, having firm and strong faith, that eye and it's objects, ear and it's objects... intellect and it's objects, are not real, not lasting, suffering and no refuge, even if not seeing for himself as it is, for now, such person tends away from delight in sensuality, doing so, till he reaches the path, is no more able to fall down.

The more one who investigated intellectual, and one who has seen as it is, is a person having entered the stream, has a immeasurable mass of suffering behind, no more destinated for an animal womb and lower realms, heeded toward final awakening.

Namo tassa bhagavato arahato sammā-sambuddhassa

"In the same way, Magandiya, if I were to teach you the Dhamma — 'This is that freedom from Disease; this is that Unbinding' — and you on your part were to know that freedom from Disease and see that Unbinding, then together with the arising of your eyesight you would abandon whatever passion & delight you felt with regard for the five clinging-aggregates. And it would occur to you, 'My gosh, how long have I been fooled, cheated, & deceived by this mind! For in clinging, it was just form that I was clinging to... it was just feeling... just perception... just fabrications... just consciousness that I was clinging to. With my clinging as a requisite condition, there arises becoming... birth... aging & death... sorrow, lamentation, pains, distresses, & despairs. And thus is the origin of this entire mass of stress.'"

"I'm convinced, master Gotama, that you can teach me the Dhamma in such a way that I might rise up from this seat cured of my blindness."

"In that case, Magandiya, associate with men of integrity. When you associate with men of integrity, you will hear the true Dhamma. When you hear the true Dhamma, you will practice the Dhamma in accordance with the Dhamma. When you practice the Dhamma in accordance with the Dhamma, you will know & see for yourself: 'These things are diseases, cancers, arrows. And here is where diseases, cancers, & arrows cease without trace. With the cessation of my clinging comes the cessation of becoming. With the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth. With the cessation of birth then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair all cease. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of suffering & stress."

So, for now my person will step a little away here and pardons for often stressing with a tune of urgency and hard words not easy to take, it's already malaria and many disease time here and the own ways are good urged when dukkha is near and truth approaches more sense-able.
Posted by: Johann
« on: April 03, 2018, 07:35:34 AM »

Nyom Danilo , is it so far clear now, that it:

* it does not require to break Silas to fall into a state of animals (yet not common). If for example, one believing in kamma, and addopts the behaviour of lower one.

* even if not breaking Silas, dependent on the grad of wrong view, and one inclination, such can lead even to fall into the state of common animals.

* if behavior like a pet, an existence like a pet can be expected, if associate with pets in inproper way, it's a matter of nature to addopt their ways. If wishing, thinking "pets-life is desireable", there are all ways to gain it.

Either is speaking about the danger of falling into lower realms, nor to make clear that especially broad modern behavior of a consumer world beloved or even "political correct", e.g. would not bring any favor exept wise people. And since the topic is such, the Buddha did not want to answer at first, as it can give a lot of disappointment, having often ap-pointed one focus on that.

Danilo, others then those in Europe or in other countries in the north, can, could, easily obsere the different states of dog lifes, and the different states of human conditions, yet still living next each other, "owner"/"lords" and their "pets".

So for the sake of gaining right view and possible path and fruit, the sooner one accepts this matter, and sees modern broad missconcepts, the better.

My person does not it is easy, but knows that time is running, as well as too many lure everywhere, makes it difficult and seldom to receive straight words.

"We", at least my person, is not here to fondle defilments, or keep pets, for the sake of winning a favor for any wordly gain.

How ever, since my words are often not pleasant, and one could say "oh he keeps no pets, he does not like them", maybe Nyom Binocular, as living in probably near association with many pets, likes to risks to analyze the topic and if not already knowing, after that, help with more pleasant approaches to make the importand meaning, behind just this or that stand, more visible.

Since people seldom understand that there could be those who had worn all kinds of shoes and those have been abound, and it's not a matter that not wearing shoes means not knowing them.

So sometimes a smoker, seeing the danger, but not yet able to abound, can give motivation to seek for those who know how to get ride. What do you think, Nyom Binoclar, in association and bound to pets, here and there? In favor of certain pets? Maybe cats? The look so smart and independent and have a fondling behaviour.  :)

Quote from: Danilo
I've brought here the suttas in which my view was based for the purpose of, if wishing so, Bhante could address to it in order to make his point more clear.

It should be clear, that one who cares about his duties, cares about those bound to one, is not something bad, but praiseworthy to this regard. Not to speak of rightly abound merely common duties and take on higher. How ever, the problem of getting bound has it's reason as well to get ride of it. Given, that from the Buddhas point of view, leaving behind beloved, and seek, if possible, the way for liberation as homeless, abounding not only beloved sensuality but also those provinding for it, it would be not proper to praise such general. It's of course possible to gain even the highest path and fruits, if still living near and in certain association with pets (defilements), like if bound to parents, childs, master... but at the highest fruit, life from association with such, is impossible.

It's not proper to compare abounding of partner, children or even parents with abounding pet, now looking at this, seeing a monk keeping pets and care for them, what would you think? Or keeping behind ones children and care later about other young men, seek favor and association, yet not tend to seek for higher, but common, just for approval of their ways and views?

That is something worthy to think of, of what is the different of goodness and goodness and general hierarchy in regard of duties. If not taking care of ones parents but for pets, for example, or leaving behind good to serve worse and unvirtuose... such, even common, would be not really honest, or?

It may happen, that having abound all, certain beings, out of nissaya, upanissaya, may live near one, in what ever intent they might have and seek for. If they don't get of what they are up to, they would not stay long.

Beings with similar tendency gather together and seldom is it that "families" are changed, even to the ancestor ship of the Noble one.

Maybe also worthy to point out, that at Buddhas time, like today still in country areas, there have been not such strange broad association with pets as they clearly had only the purpose to gain from them, today not so clear, and therefore, normal undesirable becomes even desirable at large.
Posted by: Danilo
« on: April 03, 2018, 01:26:29 AM »

Althought it seems that there is actually not much interest to listen and read but merely the wish to gain the favor of an audience, my person will answer nevertheless, Nyom Danilo.

I've brought here the suttas in which my view was based for the purpose of, if wishing so, Bhante could address to it in order to make his point more clear. It happens that the range and possible application of right view is relatively broad and your line of reason in this matter comes from a unfamiliar interpretation, oriented to a very specific situation and it was presented in a diluted and disperse way in the previous posts amongst much additional information, but this last post was succint and straightfoward. It made things more clear.
Posted by: Johann
« on: April 01, 2018, 06:42:53 AM »

Althought it seems that there is actually not much interest to listen and read but merely the wish to gain the favor of an audience, my person will answer nevertheless, Nyom Danilo.

Again, Nyom Danilo , the Dog-duty Sutta shows clear, that there is a different between "common" animal and here "dog" and "ox". And if observing, there is a clear different between animals, wild and pet.

Whould modern person generally call house pet a sad and poor existence?

And again, where ever the mind tends to, where ever it gives into, with what ever it seeks identification, what ever behaviour it approves, there it lands.

If associating with being without virtue, lazy, without gratitude, without idea of ownership, with being just eating and sleeping, no idea of making merits, selfish and only when a stranger enters, making "roof, roof, roof", sniffing the back... e.g. approving the pets duty, more and more... it's clear that one will land there.

Pets do not make merits, and it's because someone gives them food easy avaliable, they will stay there and waste their time off...

Common to modern people, or? Can such be seen, if honest, in one self?



And people are not aware, that for the most, after the break off of the body, after a human life, most will fall into lower realm.

Knowing this, even seeing this, one should be clear, that pets, living in near association, in deoendency of one, have strong Upanissaya to one, are dear old relatives, and so should tread them dutyfull and nice like a family member, but in no way approve a pets behaviour or even, like may, play with the thought "ohh, what a comfortable live".

It's like if my person sees the "owner and pets"-family of Sutta central. Brahmas and their Devas, trade, consume and wasting off possibilities, owner and slaves.

The Buddha him self, in his previous lifes, has been many, many times at pet, off course never a common animal.

Observe open and honest, it does not make sense, it leads to suffering, if intensify your self with this and that, seeing good, bad, friends and enemies.

- Namo tassa bhagavato arahato sammā-sambuddhassa -

"Here, Seniya, someone develops the ox (pets) duty fully and unstintingly, he develops the ox habit fully and unstintingly, he develops the ox mind fully and unstintingly, he develops the ox behavior fully and unstintingly. (E.g. approves of the behaviour, by mind, signs and body)

Having done that, on the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappears in the company of oxen.

But if his view is such as this: 'By this virtue or duty or asceticism or religious like I shall become a (great) god or some (lesser) god,' that is wrong view in his case. (E.g. defends it as favoreable, sees high as low, does not recognize that intention and not merely outward appearing, leads to effects)

 Now there are two destinations for one with wrong view, I say: hell or the animal womb. So, Seniya, if his ox duty is perfected, it will lead him to the company of oxen; if it is not, it will lead him to hell."

Look at SC for example, and you will find a lot of "Oxen" (slaves) working on other fields for their benefit, and a lot of "dogs" (consumer) feeding on that, which the "Brahmas" (traders) left over, abound, sacrified for binding the pets.

So again, are humans like pets traceable? Mindstates and character, tendencies and "roof, roof" behavior?

For deeper into this underlying view, see DN 1, section Partial Eternalism

Namo tassa bhagavato arahato sammā-sambuddhassa

5. “There ultimately comes a time when, with the passing of a long stretch of time, this cosmos devolves. When the cosmos is devolving, beings for the most part head toward the Radiant (brahmās). There they stay: mind-made, feeding on rapture, self-luminous, coursing through the air, established in beauty for a long stretch of time. Then there ultimately comes a time when, with the passing of a long stretch of time, this cosmos evolves. When the cosmos is evolving, an empty Brahmā palace appears. Then a certain being—from the exhaustion of his life span or the exhaustion of his merit8—falls from the company of the Radiant and re-arises in the empty Brahmā palace. And there he still stays mind-made, feeding on rapture, self-luminous, coursing through the air, established in beauty for a long stretch of time.

“After dwelling there alone for a long time, he experiences displeasure & agitation: ‘O, if only other beings would come to this world!’

“Then other beings, through the ending of their life span or the ending of their merit, fall from the company of the Radiant and reappear in the Brahmā palace, in the company of that being. And there they still stay mind-made, feeding on rapture, self-luminous, coursing through the air, established in beauty for a long stretch of time.

“Then the thought occurs to the being who reappeared first: ‘I am Brahmā, the Great Brahmā, the Conqueror, the Unconquered, the All-Seeing, All-Powerful, the Sovereign Lord, the Maker, Creator, Chief, Appointer & Ruler, Father of All That Have Been & Shall Be.9 These beings were created by me. Why is that? First the thought occurred to me, “O, if only other beings would come to this world!” And thus my direction of will brought these beings to this world.’ As for the beings who reappeared later, this thought occurs to them: ‘This is Brahmā… Father of All That Have Been & Shall Be. We were created by this Brahmā. Why is that? We saw that he appeared here before, while we appeared after.’ The being who reappeared first is of longer life span, more beautiful, & more influential, while the beings who reappeared later are of shorter life span, less beautiful, & less influential.

“Now, there is the possibility, monks, that a certain being, having fallen from that company, comes to this world. Having come to this world, he goes forth from the home life into homelessness. Having gone forth from the home life into homelessness, he—through ardency, through exertion, through commitment, through heedfulness, through right attention—touches an awareness- concentration such that in his concentrated mind he recollects that former life, but nothing prior to that. He says, ‘We were created by Brahmā, the Great Brahmā, the Conqueror, the Unconquered, the All-Seeing, All-Powerful, the Sovereign Lord, the Maker, Creator, Chief, Appointer and Ruler, Father of All That Have Been and Shall Be. He is constant, permanent, eternal, not subject to change, and will remain just like that for eternity. But we who have been created by him—inconstant, impermanent, short-lived, subject to falling—have come to this world.’

“This is the first basis—with reference to which, coming from which—some contemplatives & brahmans are partially eternalists and partially non-eternalists who proclaim a partially eternal and partially non-eternal self & cosmos.

6. “As for the second: With reference to what, coming from what, are contemplatives & brahmans partially eternalists and partially non-eternalists who proclaim a partially eternal and partially non-eternal self & cosmos?

“There are, monks, devas called Corrupted by Play.10 They spend an excessive amount of time indulging in the delights of laughter & play. Because they spend an excessive amount of time indulging in the delights of laughter & play, their mindfulness becomes muddled. Because of muddled mindfulness, they fall from that company of devas.

“Now, there is the possibility, monks, that a certain being, having fallen from that company, comes to this world. Having come to this world, he goes forth from the home life into homelessness. Having gone forth from the home life into homelessness, he—through ardency, through exertion, through commitment, through heedfulness, through right attention—touches an awareness- concentration such that in his concentrated mind he recollects that former life, but nothing prior to that. He says, ‘Those honorable devas who are not corrupted by play don’t spend an excessive amount of time indulging in the delights of laughter & play. Because they don’t spend an excessive amount of time indulging in the delights of laughter & play, their mindfulness doesn’t become muddled. Because of unmuddled mindfulness, they don’t fall from that company. They are constant, permanent, eternal, not subject to change, and will remain just like that for eternity. But those of us who were corrupted by play spent an excessive amount of time indulging in the delights of laughter & play. Because we spent an excessive amount of time indulging in the delights of laughter & play, our mindfulness became muddled. Because of muddled mindfulness, we fell from that company and—inconstant, impermanent, short-lived, subject to falling—have come to this world.’

“This is the second basis—with reference to which, coming from which—some contemplatives & brahmans are partially eternalists and partially non-eternalists who proclaim a partially eternal and partially non-eternal self & cosmos.

7. “As for the third: With reference to what, coming from what, are contemplatives & brahmans partially eternalists and partially non-eternalists who proclaim a partially eternal and partially non-eternal self & cosmos?

“There are, monks, devas called Corrupted by Mind. They spend an excessive amount of time staring at one another.11 Because they spend an excessive amount of time staring at one another, their minds become corrupted toward one another. Because they are corrupted in mind toward one another, they grow exhausted in body & exhausted in mind. They fall from that company of devas.

“Now, there is the possibility, monks, that a certain being, having fallen from that company, comes to this world. Having come to this world, he goes forth from the home life into homelessness. Having gone forth from the home life into homelessness, he—through ardency, through exertion, through commitment, through heedfulness, through right attention—touches an awareness- concentration such that in his concentrated mind he recollects that former life, but nothing prior to that. He says, ‘Those honorable devas who are not corrupted in mind don’t spend an excessive amount of time staring at one another. Because they don’t spend an excessive amount of time staring at one another, their minds don’t become corrupted toward one another. Because they are uncorrupted in mind toward one another, they don’t grow exhausted in body or exhausted in mind. They don’t fall from that company. They are constant, permanent, eternal, not subject to change, and will remain just like that for eternity. But those of us who were corrupted in mind spent an excessive amount of time staring at one another. Because we spent an excessive amount of time staring at one another, our minds became corrupted toward one another. Because we were corrupted in mind toward one another, we grew exhausted in body & exhausted in mind. We fell from that company and—inconstant, impermanent, short-lived, subject to falling—have come to this world.’

“This is the third basis—with reference to which, coming from which—some contemplatives & brahmans are partially eternalists and partially non-eternalists who proclaim a partially eternal and partially non-eternal self & cosmos.

For the dog, the owner is Brahma, and that is why he would "roof, roof, roof"

Again, if virtue is not based on right view, it might lead here and there, the action performed, but does not count on the eightfold path, will not lead to right path and liberation, but simply either maintain or increase old bound.

Therefore it's important not to seek to press ones habits into the frame of Dhamma, to stay with it and feel well, but change ones ways, so long long time gone after, again and again.

Don't seek for natural practice... dog duty

Quote from: Ajahn Chah, Stll forest pool
What Is Natural?

Claiming they want their practice to be "natural," some people complain that this way of life does not fit their nature.

Nature is the tree in the forest. But if you build a house, it is no longer natural, is it? Yet if you learn to use the tree, making wood and building a house, it has more value to you. Or perhaps the dog is natural, running here and there, following its nose. Throw food to dogs and they rush to it, fighting each other. Is that what you want to be like?

The true meaning of natural can be discovered with our discipline and practice. This natural is beyond our habits, our conditioning, our fears. If the human mind is left to so-called natural impulses, untrained, it is full of greed, hatred, and delusion and suffers accordingly. Yet through practice we can allow our wisdom and love to grow naturally until it blossoms in any surroundings.

And if one gives nicer food, food, the pets run over.

Only a person, starting with this, who has firm faith in the Juwels, and that eye and it's associated objects, ear... ideas, and it's associated object, are not real, inconstant, stressfull no refuge,... such a person, can not fall off till reaching the stream.

What binds the dog to his owner? The owner to his pet?

And it happens even to unvirtuose beings, to appear in good destinies, or are bad people enjoying a heaven-like life not seen?

There is nothing bad, even wrong, to help relatives, be even generous toward those more worse, but to like association, just because of this, does not lead to a better, and the is a german language (austrian) proverb "Wie der Herr so's G'scher", "like the owner, so the slaves", and vici versa, which fits well of what the Buddha taught:

Do we want to associate with foolish people or with wise people? Is it of no use to apply ourselves to mental development it we do not scrutinize ourselves first with regard to this question. We do not inclined to associate with people who have the same ideas and the same likes and dislikes as ourselves. Our inclinations are like elements; they arise by conditions. The same elements attract each other. We read in the 'Niddana-vagga' (Saṁyutta Nikāya, Kindred Saying on Elements, Chapter XIV, par 14):

"Through an element it is, monks, that beings flow together, meet together. Beings of low tastes flow together, meet together with them of low tastes. They of virtuous tastes flow together, meet together with them of virtuous tastes. So have they done in the past. So will they do in the future. So do they now in the present."


When we are together with someone for a long time we cannot help being influenced by him. If we have foolish friends, who do not know the value of kusalā, who act and speak in an unwholesome way, it is to our detriment. We may not notice that we are under their influence, but gradually we may find ourselves following their ways. If we have friends who know the value of kusalā, who are generous, perform good deeds and speak in a wholesome way, it encourages us to more wholesomeness. The Buddha often pointed out the dangers of evil friendship and the benefit of righteous friendship.

A personal gift from Upasika Nina Van Gorkom, toward here ancestors.
Posted by: Danilo
« on: April 01, 2018, 04:43:58 AM »

Well, the posts made by bhante here only reassure that animal state is not conductive to make merits and gain liberation. I appreciate the effort and the posts has its own value, but I don't see how this can answers the question at the begginig of the topic.

In any case, in suttas like DN 31, MN 60, and AN 3.65, when the Buddha talked with lay people, it seems that with abstention from doing evil and conduct rooted in goodwill would be enough to lead beings to good destination after "the break-up of the body".

Suppose, Māgandiya, a householder or a householder’s son was rich, with great wealth and property, and being provided and endowed with the five cords of sensual pleasure, he might enjoy himself with forms cognizable by the eye…with sounds cognizable by the ear…with odours cognizable by the nose…with flavours cognizable by the tongue…with tangibles cognizable by the body that are wished for, desired, agreeable, and likeable, connected with sensual desire and provocative of lust. Having conducted himself well in body, speech, and mind, on the dissolution of the body, after death, he might reappear in a happy destination.

Here the Buddha talks about a case in which someone reappears in a happy destination through good conduct (abstaning from doing evil, I assume) even so the person lives indulging in sensuality (which is the reason underlying a human-pet or human-human relation)
Posted by: Johann
« on: March 27, 2018, 05:45:37 PM »

Nyom Moritz ,

In short, what ever virtue, what ever "compassion", does not originate from right view, right intention, is always just a selfish (either inwardly or outwardly), simply trained, for gain, ritual and it is not wrong to say it's at that stage more or lesser always just hypothetical, a convention for gain.

It's because certain sensual pleasure and self-indentifications with pets and animals, that ordinary people would speak in praise of certain pets, and it's because of certain sensual pain and lack of self-identification with pets and animals, that ordinary people would speak in critic of certain pets.

And it's because of knowing and seeing for themselves, how things come to be, decay, that the Tathagate and his Noble Disciple speak in dispraise of any animal state, since no grow in Dhamma can be expected at all.

It's a matter of ones kamma of how one experiances deeds and appearance of others, and it's also a matter of the fourth kind of kamma, to see clearly through the lense.

The Buddha and his Noble disciples, discern in regard of this:

Namo tassa bhagavato arahato sammā-sambuddhassa

“With regard to this, the Tathāgata discerns that ‘These standpoints, thus seized, thus grasped at, lead to such & such a destination, to such & such a state in the world beyond.’ That the Tathāgata discerns. And he discerns what is higher than that. And yet, discerning that, he does not grasp at it. And as he is not grasping at it, unbinding [nibbuti] is experienced right within. Knowing, as they have come to be, the origination, ending, allure, & drawbacks of feelings, along with the escape from feelings, the Tathāgata, monks—through lack of clinging/sustenance—is released.

“These, monks, are the dhammas—deep, hard to see, hard to realize, tranquil, refined, beyond the scope of conjecture, subtle, to-be-experienced by the wise—that the Tathāgata proclaims, having directly known & realized them for himself, and that those who, rightly speaking in praise of the Tathāgata in line with what is factual, would speak.

How ever, even for the Tathagata and his Noble Disciples, it's reason for appreciation, if someone takes on to win faitj, takes on the practice to go beyound either a dog or a oxen-like training, mind or behaviour, practices, or has gone beyound one in training

Katz und Mausspiel um das Training in Besinnung auf das Unschöne

Mudita
Posted by: Moritz
« on: March 27, 2018, 05:18:14 PM »

So the association with pets, dependent of what is probably owed or what is necessary exchange for exchange, if one like to use them vor sensual enjoyment, dependent on whether they have fallen to one or came at first place on their own, or are simply accumulated, should be not different like in regard of human, but proper to their kind and with certain distance.

This reminds me of Borat .

Yesterday night I was at my home after longer time (after the "being kicked out" has been rescinded and things somehow "reconciled" more or less), to get some mail and paperwork.
One of the cats had used my bed as a toilet in my absence.

I do think animals can have some rudimentary sense of virtue, i.e. some behaviour guided by consideration and courtesy at least, towards those with whom they have some sort of social relationship.

I don't know how much compassion animals can actually have. Cats and other predatory animals apparently not so much, at least towards their prey. But towards each other or "their" humans, or whatever other animal that they might have grown up with?

Like a "well-behaved" house cat who has learnt not to urinate and defecate where others around, at least those maybe perceived as higher in the hieararchy of power, would be displeased with it. Or a dog who knows that he should not bite the neighbours' dog when walking across him.

What is virtue after all, other than consideration for the effects of our behaviour on others? I think humans are only able to arrive at more abstract and universal rules about it, and to develop some sort of respect and veneration for high ideals regarding virtue, seeing virtue as a higher good.

And at least I think animals can have gratitude. "Our" cats for example kill for us, I think out of gratitude (Or maybe they rather kill for fun, but maybe they present us the "fruits" out of gratitude for being fed with more pleasent food everyday.) Probably not the best kind of gratitude. Dogs show gratitude and even save their owner's (or even strangers') life, so that is compassion. Is not virtue just some idealistic and more "pure" and ideal-driven kind of compassion and gratitude?

I have not read all of this topic and not much time now to go deeper into it. But just some thoughts and idle chatter here from me.

_/\_