Association with pets - Associated rebith?

[Danilo]

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.

[Johann]

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. 

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.

[Johann]

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."

Quote from: http://zugangzureinsicht.org/html/tipitaka/mn/mn.075x.than_en.html

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.

[Visitor]

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.

[Danilo]

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?

[Johann]

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.

[Johann]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Johann]

* 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.

[Johann]

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?

[Johann]

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://forum.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

[Johann]

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.

Quote from: http://zugangzureinsicht.org/html/tipitaka/kn/iti/iti.3.050-099.than_en.html

[Johann]

People at large don't understand that identification with animal binds, leads to related birth. In pseudo-liberal societies who like the view that all are equal, every moral shame decays.

Animal are not capable to restrain in regard of sensual misconduct. As nice as they may come about, they do not only steal but also kill.

Animal (like) are incapable to grow in Dhamma and so some very sensible and authority areas aren't given to them to avoid dangers for many. Not able to distinguish the different between skilful and desire, a society that has started to focus and sacrifice downwardly is on the road of decay and every righteous person loses all inspiration to give into a society heading towardcanimal states.

Years ago my person asked of what LBGT freaks will approve next, as stilling sensual desires and degeneration knows no end: marriage with and under children? Sex between animals and human. Marriage between animals and human.

It's normal that animals do their joy on village roads, and no good society would feel aversive and punish them, except if a bad neighbors dog jumps on beloves own beauty dog...

While one in "free world" might be able to sue a dog-owner for having let his dog make his dog pregnant, it's to assume that many have nomore chances to get their beloved protected from degenerating tendencies, give up encouragement for efforts to try to work to gain footing in a peaceful and "ordained" society with it's peace also with co-existing border sociaties an different realms.

Stealing, no shame of misconduct and try to copy of what's not at all given, that are outcomes of pseudo-liberal leaders attracting the weak with making "incapacity to a virtue". What one approves, nourishes, grows for one, will be one's chosen slayer.

Metta leaves them on their own, isn't an approve or attachment, love, toward tendencies leading toward bonds and upward. Metta might tell about ways one decides to take, but let them leave the sphere of one's share of food for such. "may yor find the way to happiness by right decisions by yourself". With metta one can leave them behind.

If one wishes to force, to take on control, it would just turn into harming. At least yourself, like a man sitting on a river wishing it flowing upwardly, as he desired to reach higher land with pleasing common support.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10523529/Bidens-pick-nuclear-waste-job-Southern-Baptists-son-turned-drag-queen-Sister-Ray-Dee-OActive.html

Just because people think that giving into pride on low, and equality for the sake of consume, isn't a fatal destructive root.

Growth to more sublime, to liberation, isn't something in common sphere, isn't in the sphere of unrestrained and very strict discrimination between right and wrong, bond strongly to real right way, not a corrupt right or left.

If wishing the favor of bind people, people with animal-equanimity, than you might stay bond right with them and their habits, pleasures and onturning suffering and pain.

Don't one think that those deluded could dwell peacefully with countless and dangerous being in the forests, or unprotected areas with no rights at all, resist only on goodness, or even not.

Immoral defending is an endless, ever ongoing dog and ox-duty practice.