According to the Buddha's teaching, is it more wholesome to feed a domesticated cat meat or let a cat catch it's own food? Is it wholesome to feed a cat at all or possess a cat? How should one who lives by the Buddha's teaching approach cats?

I read this wikipage and it seems like 'reacting to stimuli' is being called perception (saññā). Is 'reacting to stimuli' perception, or is perception itself stimuli? To me, the article implies perception is the condition for expression, i.e. a reaction. Do you agree that for a plant the stimulus-response is a single unitary movement (no karmaphala) and there is no intermission (of perception)? Is it more likely a projection of human knowledge - the personification of a plant? A perception has a result (Karmaphala). The results are perception are explained as such: > "And what is the result of perception? Perception has communication by > speech as its result, I tell you. However a person per ceives > something, that is how he expresses it: 'I have this sort of > perception.' This is called the result of perception. Here is a quote for BSE: > "In the scriptures we have the word sañña. Sañña means distinguishing, > putting a label, telling difference, making distinction, > discriminating." Is labeling perception or the result of perception?

I'm facing a dilemma. There are 2 cats that often come nearby my house. One is the mother (who happened to come to my house even before I fed it) and the other a kitten that was born also nearby my house. I think the mother might have been abandoned by previous owner because she was comfy with humans. At first the mother was skinny and had infection. I helped her by feeding whenever she comes and buy medications from vets to treat her skin and cough. Now she's healthy. The kitten is also well fed because I helped it since it was a little. However because of my actions, both have a dependency towards me. Sometimes they ask for attention, which I give from time to time. On top of it, the mother cat keeps getting pregnant, which led to my neighbor who don't want their kids to play with kittens, throwing away the kittens. I think some of the kittens might have been dead too without me knowing it. I have very little control about this because the cats are always outside and anyone can do whatever they want. I don't bring them in or keeping them as a pet, because I don't think a Buddhist should keep pets. Which brings me to these questions: 1. Am I wrong for feeding these cats? my heart tells me to feed hungry animals if possible but of course not everyone sees strays as animals that need help. By feeding I also invite them to stay around my house (being more dependent on me and causing annoyance for the neighbor) 2. Am I wrong for thinking Buddhist aren't allowed to keep pets? 3. Since stray cats usually breed a lot. Should I neuter the mother cat? my hope is so that there will be no more kittens thrown away from their mother not long after birth, or to experience suffering. Is it wrong to neuter animals? Answers to these questions will help me decide on what to do next. Thank you. Namo Buddhaya.

I saw many monks sit in the nets, what is the point of meditating in the forest if one cant handle the forest? Might as well just stay indoors imo. Did the ancient monks use nets? what do you think? I think it is kind of silly and is an attempt to have a pleasant experience.

In the **Kammapatha sutta** **AN 3.164(A i 297)** a note concerning the meaning of a passage (written by the author of the page dedicated to the sutta it seems) makes me question, the sutta and note are stated as follows : > Endowed with these three things, bhikkhus, as if one was carried off > and put down there, one is in hell. Which three? One destroys life > oneself, one incites others to destroy life, and one approves of > destroying life.**{1}** Endowed with these three things, bhikkhus, as if > one was carried off and put down there, one is in hell. > Note > > > 1. one approves of destroying life: purchasing dead animals' flesh, in a context where other reasonable harmless choices are available, > cannot be carried out without approving their killing. https://www.buddha-vacana.org/sutta/anguttara/03/an03-164.html It appears the author of the page establishes a link between approving the killing of an animal with the purchase of meat. I would appreciate understanding more about this link being established. (As a personal background I had been a vegetarian for around 5 years but due to digestive issues decided to revert to the consumption (and therefore purchase) of meat which seem to be helping a lot). With mettā.

Hi may I know what is the karma of killing a dog please? My neighbours dog starts barking from 5am daily and I don't get enough sleep. I am so tired at work and cannot focus. I've tried soundproofing my walls and using ear plugs but they don't work I can still hear the barking. I've spoken to the neighbour but he tells me that he is a human and he can't ask ask his dog to keep quiet (whatever that means). I am at my wits end, I am so tired, I never get enough rest. Can I kill the dog? May I know what is the karma for killing a dog?

Killing of stray animals like dogs and cats violates the first precept. However, is spaying or neutering of stray animals for population control acceptable from Buddhism's perspective? Does it violate any precept or teaching?

For example, peacocks are often associated with Amitabha. They were said to be his mounts, and images of Amitabha often feature peacock symbolism. What about the other Buddhas? Do they each have an associated animal symbol, and what could the animal represent?

I am not a buddhist but I have a friend who is. He dislikes dogs and I have questioned him as to whether he is a true Buddhist. I believe that the Buddha is peaceful and nature loving, and so would love dogs.

Recently I’ve been come to realize that over the course of my life, I’ve probably taken the lives of so many insects unintentionally or even intentionally. It’s come to the point that I feel guilty going for a walk, going for a run or even for a drive, because it’s inevitable that a tiny creature will die because of me. It’s causing me some distress and I don’t know how to rationalise these thoughts. Is there any way I can stop feeling guilty? Has anyone else felt the same?

I know that killing virtuous beings is a grave bad karma. But when it comes animals, virtue is irrelevant. I have heard from monks that bigger the animal greater the sin it is to kill it. How is that so? Why does physicality matter at all? Isn't it just a matter of your intention when it comes to karma?

My two pet cats recently died in my rental house. Long story short, we sold our old home but we have no where to move yet so we rented a property while our new house is being built. Before I ask my questions I want to thank you guys for taking your time to reading this post 😊. **How can I ensure that my cat spirits go to heaven?** or **How can I bring their spirits to my new home?** I am scared that they will be alone since the current rental price isn't cheap and I am scared that they will wait for me in this house. I just want them to reach heaven. **Can animal spirits go to buddhist heaven?** I am a Theravada buddhist. Also , I am scared that there might be other spirits inside this house, I rarely don't believe in spirits but the rental house is kind of mystery itself. I am scared that those spirits might take my cat, I wish to buddha everyday that their spirits be safe and including hindu gods. **How can I make merits to my cats spirit?** **How can I know if they got the merit?** **How can I transfer the merit to them so they may reach heaven? Are animal spirits allowed to enter heaven?**

I always hear of Buddhists encouraging people to chant mantras, dedicate merits, pray etc. for animals & pets so that they may be exposed to the dharma and take a better rebirth. Also, chanting for dead animals; the insect you unintentionally killed, the carcass on the dinner table, pets who have passed on etc. How do we know that? Do animals have the capacity to comprehend dharma?

I came across this section by chance, and read another question by a person with misanthropic feelings. I read all the answers because I feel the same as her. I've always been spiritual with an interest in Buddhism and Taoism, but it seems to slip away. I too suffered a lot because of others, but what really got me into this misanthropic state is the suffering of so many animals at the hands of humans. It saddens me so much and I begin hating people because of it. Not all people, just a lot. It also saddens me a lot to see children suffering but because they turn possibly into cruel people themselves. The plight of animals gets me more. I find them more special and innocent than people yet they have to suffer so much. A lot anyway. Now, the responses to that other persons question helped me realize some things, but I'm still struggling with the suffering of animals. Why can't they be spared if suffering is a tool to evolve? Studying psychology, biology, anthropology and neuroscience I can't help thinking that humans are acting based on chemical, biological or psychological reactions of the brain. There is no enlightenment, just another religious promise - like heaven, enlightenment or the 11 virgins - depending on the belief. I feel like I have no more answers, only confusion and questions, and i also feel like I've reached a point where I'm so fed up with the suffering of animals, children or good people. I'm so tired of it all. Not in a sense that i want to hurt those cruel people, but in a sense of wanting to leave it all behind. But if i did, then I wouldn't be around anymore to help loved ones or some of the animals. Emotionally I suffer because I can't make even a dent and physically because I work hard to help out as many as I can.

At work, a tiny little flying insect landed on my desk. At first I thought he was dead because he wasn’t moving, so I gently pushed him to see if he reacted, and he moved so I left him alone. Some time later, when I picked up a call, I shoved my electronic cigarette and it unfortunately crushed him. So I thought I killed him unwittingly, I felt guilty. I took a closer look, and I could see that although crushed his antenna was still moving, probably in agony. I felt bad, now right away a being was suffering and was going to die because of me, was perhaps afraid? I decided to crush him for good, voluntarily this time, to alleviate his suffering. What do you think of this story? Was I wrong the first time? The second? If so, how can I mitigate this bad kamma? And finally, how can we help him have a better rebirth, if at all possible?

It happened to me during dinner, yesterday: I wanted to move a mosquito that was in my plate and accidentally killed it :( What's the appropriate thing to do in such cases? Is there any mantra to recite in order to have some benefit for the insect? I'm asking this because I read about a mantra to be recited "in front of your shoes" so that, in case of walking on top of an animal, then it would be "less bad". But probably I'm totally wrong :) In any case, I don't think my question is a duplicate of the guy who killed a mosquito on purpose because it was suffering. I killed it because my intention was to move it from my plate, but I didn't pay much attention and did it wrongly.

Life is inherently full of suffering. I wonder if the concept of dukkha applies to non-human animals.

I'm thinking a lot about the animal issue right now, and a question came to me. Are the five precepts universal? If so, are animals required to respect them? If not, what morals must animals follow? There is obviously a form of morality involved because, if I understand correctly, an animal can generate bad kamma and be reborn in an inferior realm . Even if, according to this site , animals cannot generate good kamma? > (...) Animal behavior is also run by instinct, which means that animals cannot generate good karma, they are simply working off the bad. (...) On Wikipedia , I read that : > (...) The Buddha expounded that sentient beings currently living in the animal realm have been our mothers, brothers, sisters, fathers, children, friends in past rebirths. One could not, therefore, make a hard distinction between moral rules applicable to animals and those applicable to humans; ultimately humans and animals were part of a single family. They are all interconnected. (...) So, how to understand the first precept? Does an animal like a lion, which kills another animal for food, generate bad kamma? I don't think so, because his intention is not bad. Does that mean that the first precept would only concern torture? For example, a dolphin that tortures his prey before eating it would generate bad kamma? But isn't it in the instinct of animals to do such things? A cat almost always tortures his prey before killing it. In short, many questions, but I wondered if there were any Buddhist texts or philosophers who had spoken about the question of morality in other realms of existence, the animal realm in particular. I read in "*An Introduction to Buddhist Ethics *" of Peter Harvey , chap. *Attitude to and treatment of the natural world*, that : > (...) Buddhist Jataka stories often attribute noble actions to such animals as monkeys and elephants, and there is also a reference to some animals keeping the five precepts (Vin. II.162). (...) Would this mean that being a herbivore is a better rebirth, because it is easier to keep the precepts, where a carnivore is almost doomed to produce bad kamma and be reborn in an inferior realm? > (...) in one Jataka story, (...) the Buddha in a past life is said to have been a crane who only ate fish when he found them already dead (J. I.206–8). (...)

In [MN.98](https://suttacentral.net/mn98/en/sujato) , the Buddha seems to deny the ethnic/racial/genetic differences between humans. He seems to indicate that differences in physical traits between individuals are not determined by birth as in the rest of the animal world. This seems totally contrary to genetics: I. Humans are genetically part of the animal world and follow the same [laws of heritability](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability) . II. Whether we speak of race or ethnicity, there are many [identifiable genetic clusters within humanity](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a9/9_Cluster_Tree.png) . III. Even without going that far it is obvious that between two individuals there will be physical differences according to their genetics (height, eye colors, features, hair, etc). The Buddha seems to deny this completely. He says for example that the differences in eyes/nose/shoulders, etc., between two individuals are not defined by birth but by convention... this is totally false: children inherit the traits of their parents and two parents with the Asian phenotype do not give birth to an African child by pure chance or convention. I thought it was because he wanted to say that all these genetic differences were conventional and I would have agreed, but it can't be that since he's only saying that for humans and recognizes the validity of these differences for animals and plants... I don't understand this sutta? > While the differences between these species are defined by their birth, the differences between humans are not defined by their birth. Not by hair nor by head, not by ear nor by eye, not by mouth nor by nose, not by lips nor by eyebrow, not by shoulder nor by neck, not by belly nor by back, not by buttocks nor by breast, not by genitals nor by groin, not by hands nor by feet, not by fingers nor by nails, not by knees nor by thighs, not by color nor by voice: none of these are defined by birth as it is for other species. In individual human bodies you can’t find such distinctions. The distinctions among humans are spoken of by convention. > > - The Buddha

I know there have been discussions about vegetarianism, but my question is not exactly that. I know that: * The Buddha allowed eating meat for monks, if it is clear that the animal was not killed on purpose ([Majjhima Nikaya 55.5](https://suttacentral.net/mn55/en/sujato)) , especially to provide the meal. The main premise behind the three-fold rule is to graciously accept what one receives in your bowl when going for alms round. This rule was meant and spoken to monks and nuns, not to lay people. “Beggars can’t be choosers” in modern terms. The Buddha's diet was more likely a vegetarian diet who ate meat "out of pity" on rare occasions. * On various occasions, the Buddha denounced the professions of fisherman and fish merchant as well as butcher. These professions are not part of a just livelihood (fifth of the eight stages of the Eightfold Path), nor is the trade in arms, intoxicants (alcohol) and the trafficking of living beings, human or animal. The [ahimsa](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahi%E1%B9%83s%C4%81) therefore covers for the laics the idea of not killing animals as well. * The Buddha banned the religious sacrifice of animals. Knowing this, I don't understand why he didn't ban meat from the laics, or at least recommend a reduction in consumption? We can clearly see that the Buddha considers meat consumption to be at least an indirect violation of the first precept of not killing, since he forbids monks to eat meat killed for them. Why does he allow meat that has not been directly killed for the monk? I have the impression that the Buddha considers that if the relationship of evil is not directly causal then it is less serious (that is why he allows the monk to eat meat that has not been directly killed for him). This can be understood: kamma is the intention and the one who eats meat doesn't intend to hurt an animal even if that's what he causes more or less directly by supporting the butcher's market. But then, why not at least say to limit your meat intake? [When we see the horrors of the meat and dairy industry](https://youtu.be/LQRAfJyEsko) , I don't understand why the Buddha was silent on this subject. Even more if we consider that he was omniscient, so he saw all the suffering that this industry has inflicted, is inflicting, and will inflict in the future. I understand all the less this silence precisely because, contrary to the Abrahamic religions, there is a form of equality between man and animal in Buddhism in the sense that each man can be reborn as an animal within samsara, and that each animal is surely a human being in the making. Animals are beings in their own right, not resources that man can dispose of as he pleases ([Genesis 9:2-3](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+9%3A2-3&version=NIV)) . I understand the logical reasoning that the Buddha must have had: * kamma is intention. * the one who eats meat has no intention of hurting a sentient being. * eating meat is still indirectly causing the death of the animal, so he forbids consumption in the first degree (if the animal was killed directly for us). I understand that every action creates suffering, that you have to put an arbitrary limit somewhere so that you don't end up wondering how not to hurt the bacteria? But even if we eat meat that hasn't been killed directly for us, we are supporting a gigantic industry of suffering by doing so; in his compassion, wisdom, and possibly omniscience, I really don't understand his silence, he could have at least asked us to reduce our consumption, I don't know. I find it a bit easy to clear oneself because the animal was not slaughtered for us personally. So: [Is the ethics of the dhamma incomplete?](https://sujato.wordpress.com/2012/01/28/why-buddhists-should-be-vegetarian-with-extra-cute/)