Association with pets - Associated rebith?

[Danilo]

Aramika  

Dieses neue Thema (bzw. diese/r Beitrag/e) wurde  aus abgetrennten Beiträgen, ursprünglich in [DD][Forum] Dhammawheel.com - Discussions on Theravada , hinzugefügt. Für ev. ergänzende Informationen zur sehen Sie bitte das Ursprugsthema ein. Anumodana!

The new topic (or post/s) here are originaly from [DD][Forum] Dhammawheel.com - Discussions on Theravada . For eventual additionally information: please visit also the Topic of origin. Anumodana!

[Original post:]

It's had to take, but my person can not abstain to make clear if someone gives into pets, such existence can be expected. Like monasteries here, one time a monk being served by devoted woman, one time a woman devoted to serve monks (out improper of attachments), onetime the "relaxed" dog, waiting for his share, or cat. That's the whell of certain upanissaya. Not that such pets have a real bad live, even living on alms, but it's hard for them to find possibilities to mak merits to gain better circumstances.

Bhante, when you wrote "such existence can be expected" you mean a literal rebirth as a animal? if it is the case, I have never read or heard anything about this. Is there a sutta where the Buddha declare such a think? As far as I know whenever the Buddha point out the causes for rebirth in lower realms, it was usually only a matter of ethical transgression. Except in a situation in which someone was imitanting a dog and he said to that person that he could be reborn as a dog (or something like that, I don't remember the sutta). But this situation is totally different from have a pet.

[Johann]

Sadhu for pointing on matter, possible unclear, Nyom Danilo .

My person has to say that he never researched in detail to quickly answer this topic without counting lot of indicators.

The Sutta Danilo remembers, is found in MN, where the Buddha explained about his done kinds of practices, speaking with two wanderer, used to train dog-ascetic and ox-asctetic.

The Dog-duty Ascetic

Before going deeper, it's probable good to investigate why such association with animals is seeked, often prefered, the kind of way and virtues of pets and the meaning of lower realm and common animal, given that not many animals gain a "wonderful" live as pet.

The life as pet and common males, not sure if knowing, is very different.

What does one inclined to prefer give into pets, aside of often very close relation (Upanissaya to each other)?

What are the virtues of a pet, or how to they seem to be?

How far is a pets life great and how far miserable?

How would a human life and way be similar to a pets life?


The en-gendered working animal of fiedls of others:

Namo tassa bhagavato arahato sammā-sambuddhassa

"Here, Seniya, someone develops the ox 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. 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. 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."

Quote from: http://zugangzureinsicht.org/html/tipitaka/mn/mn.057.nymo_en.html

The often also en-gendered enjoyer of pleasure and giver of pleasure without much work to do:

Namo tassa bhagavato arahato sammā-sambuddhassa

"Here, Punna, someone develops the dog duty fully and unstintingly, he develops the dog-habit fully and unstintingly, he develops the dog mind fully and unstintingly, he develops dog behavior fully and unstintingly. Having done that, on the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappears in the company of dogs. But if his view is such as this: 'By this virtue or duty or asceticism or religious life I shall become a (great) god or some (lesser) god,' that is wrong view in his case. Now there are two destinations for one with wrong view, I say: hell or the animal womb. So, Punna, if his dog duty is perfected, it will lead him to the company of dogs; if it is not, it will lead him to hell."

Quote from: http://zugangzureinsicht.org/html/tipitaka/mn/mn.057.nymo_en.html

Pets life together with human in villages, seek each other, are bound to each other, and there are animals used for gross and for fine enjoyments, enjoying gross and fine benefits in rrward or advanced, not easy to be separated, leave each other, even if beaten every day. Bound to their owner they live, bound to their beneficer they invest.

"When imitating ways, when inclined to certain ways of lifelihood, he reapears in the union of pets... but if even have wrong view... he reapears in an animal womb..."

So it seems here as if animal and ox or dog, in distinction, is something different. As put into before. In how far?

Let's look also again on the aspects of wrong view:

Namo tassa bhagavato arahato sammā-sambuddhassa

He has wrong view, is warped in the way he sees things: 'There is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed. There is no fruit or result of good or bad actions. There is no this world, no next world, no mother, no father, no spontaneously reborn beings; no brahmans or contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.'

Quote from: http://zugangzureinsicht.org/html/tipitaka/an/an10/an10.176.than_en.html

And to understand the simile in regard of consuming or giving Dhamma in a pets relation on many places, maybe a citation of Ajahn Fuang:

Namo tassa bhagavato arahato sammā-sambuddhassa

"Monks [lay people] who eat the food that other people donate [consume Dhamma], but then don't practice, can expect to be reborn as water buffaloes [monastery/Buddhism-slaves] next time around, to till the fields and work off their debts."

Quote from: http://www.zugangzureinsicht.org/html/lib/thai/fuang/itself_en.html

(Maybe worthy to quote in the "twofould escape from Dhamma-trade " and gratitude topic on DW, Nyom Binocular and to think also about the many kulchose, especially on internet, Nyom Danilo)

[Johann]

Aslo good to consider, are the "lit." reasons of birth as animal

· Ten unwholesome actions (MN 41)

· Lack of virtue, holding to wrong views. If one is generous to monks and nuns, however, one may be reborn as an "ornamented" animal (i.e., a bird with bright plumage; a horse with attractive markings, etc.; AN 10.177).

· Behaving like an animal (MN 57)

In regard of giving into "may my ancestor, my kind, benefit from it" sacrifices:

Namo tassa bhagavato arahato sammā-sambuddhassa

Then Janussonin the brahman went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there, he said to the Blessed One, "Master Gotama, you know that we brahmans give gifts, make offerings, [saying,] 'May this gift accrue to our dead relatives. May our dead relatives partake of this gift.' Now, Master Gotama, does that gift accrue to our dead relatives? Do our dead relatives partake of that gift?"

"In possible places, brahman, it accrues to them, but not in impossible places."

"And which, Master Gotama, are the possible places? Which are the impossible places?"

"Then there is the case where a certain person takes life, takes what is not given, engages in sensual misconduct, engages in false speech, engages in divisive speech, engages in abusive speech, engages in idle chatter, is covetous, bears ill will, and has wrong views. With the break-up of the body, after death, he reappears in the animal womb. He lives there, he remains there, by means of whatever is the food of common animals. This, too, is an impossible place for that gift to accrue to one staying there.

Quote from: http://zugangzureinsicht.org/html/tipitaka/an/an10/an10.177.than_en.html

"... and has right view/wrong view" (seems to be) the main distinction: e.g. believe in those with goodness, ther are giver and gifts, kamma, rebirth, devas: e.g. gratitude and a way out of the circle.

* Johann : may it be not a matter to let off of the topic, because not very comprehensive made clean for now, but just thought-provoking. My person will now walk down for alms, walking between oxen, buffalos, cows, dogs, pigs and chicken... to approach their owner, possible before the left over has been given for shorter benefits, lacking on other possibilities. It's surely not so easy to see life as it really is, in modern worlds or if having gained a pets-like existence with less possibilities to make merits. "Giving the gift of release" is different to give into holder and pet relation, nurishing dependency. Being meet and seek for equal, associate for normal with that, seldom give into higher, used to it, feel kind of secure, since a long, long time. There is a nice khmer folk tale about the origin of dogs and also one in regard of their behavior. Maybe my person can retell them later. May the gifts of donors toward their beloved relatives, meet them at places where they are capable to receive.

There is a "nice" story meanwhile, given by Bhante Hasapanno , someone with simile Upanissaya, and challenges.

The Special Blessings of Dogs

It's especially to recognize certain dangers, either in putting the Buddha or a dog on the highest place, in regard of what is worthy for veneration on which level.

There are many monks today who, like run-a-mill-people , would just speak in praise of certain "virtues", lifelihood of either the Buddha or dogs, not able to really distince, goodness from goodness. And it's attractive for those seeking pets and holder relations, seek for big following or "security", lack of challenge.

[Johann]

Short in between, audio attached:

[Johann]

Because it's not so easy for those living lives like a luck pet to know others life outside the palace, it "necessary to try to reconstruct certain circumstances by stories.

Here the list of virtues "run-a-mill-people" would count in favor for dogs, incl. some statements, my person will the try to retell the stories of the "ex-novice" told in German already here in the past:

• dogs can run fast; people can’t keep up with them

Flies can even fly

• dogs can walk in the middle of the night without a flashlight

Nakes and other animals are even more advanced

• dogs go into the forest and don’t get thorns in their feet

My person can across more dogs got that, but seldom forestdweller in robes

• dogs have ‘celestial nose’ (‘clairsmellent’?!)

They are famous to be bound to their nose, yes

• dogs eat without being choosy

That's a very poor observation

• when they urinate they raise their leg in salutation to Mother Earth

My person will retell a folktale about this behaviour

• dogs do three circumambulations before they lie down

Humans usually turn even more often around till they sleep or rest

• when they have sex, they aren’t self-conscious

Holly... maybe the story of the miserable tiny young dog with a over large sexual-organ and his sexual relation with a young pig, as well of the old ugly lady dog, which used to appear only at rutting time on the street between the young dogs fighting, having been served, retreaded again from public, are useful here.

• dogs know their owner well

They are well bound to their owner, yes

• if a stranger comes, dogs bark

Yes

• dogs delivering puppies don’t need a doctor or a midwife

? forest people as well, though of Australian, African natives

• dogs eat and never get a fishbone stuck in their throat

again, a very poor observation. Dogs, especially in homes, are known to even easy die if getting fish not used to handle it.

• dogs never wear clothes

My person would not say that

• when they sleep, dogs don’t need a pillow

Forestdweller either

• dogs don’t have to spread out a mattress to sleep

...

• dogs can eat and don’t need a drink

Again, a very poor observation

• dogs don’t worry about good and evil

That's probably why they bark, bite, turn around three times before lay down?

• dogs can lay out in the sun for up to 3 hours

Some (many of certain kind) humans for even 14 days

• if it isn’t mating season, dogs don’t have sex

Like all beings according to their habits

• a dog who falls in the water doesn’t die; they can swim faster than people

Again, a poor observation


The origin of why humans and dogs became best friends

In earlier time dogs used to live alone in the forest, far away from humans.
One day a dog had the thought to walk out to seek for a friend. While walking he met a rabbit. The rabbit in fear, asked him: "what are you lokking for here?" Approaching him he said: "I am on the search of a friend, do you accept me as your friend? Can I live with your." The rabbit agreed. Shared some food the rabbit had together, they went to sleep. As it was night, the dog waked up and started to howl. Quick the rabbit came out: "Don't do that! The fox will hear that, come, and kill and eat us." The dog thought: "How fearfull this rabbit. I will go to the fox."

He met the fox... [similar] "How fearfull this fox. I will go to the bear."

He met the bear... [similar] "How fearfull this bear. I will go to the humans."

He met the human... As it was night, the dog waked up and started to howl. The man went out, taking some food with him and gave it the dog. The dog thought: "The man does not fear and even gives food at night."

Since this time dogs became best friends with humans.

("sorry", my person is not very skilled in pleasant retelling of stories and entertaining)

Why dogs smell each others backside

In earlier times dogs used to live in near relation ships with monks, served them and keeped the Uposatha.
 
On one Uposatha the dogs had assambled around the abbot who gavd teachings on Dhamma. It happened that one of the dogs farted and a bad smell filled the holly ceremony.
The abbot, annoyed, asked the group "Who of you farted here respectless?" Non of them gave an answer. The abbot chased all dogs out of the monastery "You can come back when you know who farted!"
Since this time, when ever dogs meet, they would smell each others backside.

On why dogs lift one feet

One time there was a poor old couple, not much to eat they thought it would be good to make merits. So they killed their dog and went to the monastery. Their, in hope of luck, gave the meal to the monks. The abbot, knowing their minds and deeds, did not eat the food and ordered the monks and novices to do likewise. Just one monk ate. As he was a powerful person, full of compassion, he re-jointed the dogs parts and made him alive again, but one leg was missing.
In devotion and remembering this occation, the dogs, till today, use to lift their foot in veneration.


The normal Asian relation to pets generally might be a little reflected here. It's common in rual areas till today, (people often say that it was reinvented at communist times by Chinese and Vietnamese influence amoung the villages in forest areas), to keep dogs like pigs and it's a beloved "barbeque" under hunters, to sacrifice a no more perfect co-worker. Call somebody a dog is like calling someone a pig in the west, while pigs are not really seen as bad as in the west, since they bring more profit then dogs.
If asking childs in villages of what animals eat, on the topic dog, they whould say cow dung. And they are not wrong in as far they observed them in their area.

Likewise with cats. In my persons "first" monastery, till there have been serial discussions in relation of keeping, feeding dogs, keep them dear, arosen, since my person did not consciously prepared the left over and called for meeting to feed, arosen, incl. many lessons. The villagers, knowing the times when the monks there rested or assembled, use to hunt and steal the pets of the monks and also go certain lections from someone who did not rest.

Some stories might be found here or here

[Johann]

Some about the ex-novice in Gernan and pic. here and some "poor entertainmet" in audio attached.


http://accesstoinsight.eu/_media/user/johann/audio/dhammatalk/dogstories_exnovice1.mp3

[Johann]

...
http://accesstoinsight.eu/_media/user/johann/audio/dhammatalk/dogstories_exnovice2.mp3

[Johann]

...

http://accesstoinsight.eu/_media/user/johann/audio/dhammatalk/dogstories_exnovice3.mp3

[Johann]

Namo tassa bhagavato arahato sammā-sambuddhassa

"Venerable sir, this naked dog-duty ascetic Seniya [soldier] does what is hard to do: he eats his food when it is thrown on the ground. That dog duty has long been taken up and practiced by him. What will be his destination? What will be his future course?"

Venerable sir, there is this Punna [merit], a son of the Koliyans and an ox duty ascetic: that ox duty has long been taken up and practiced by him. What will be his destination? What will be his future course?"

Quote from: http://zugangzureinsicht.org/html/tipitaka/mn/mn.057.nymo_en.html

What's the ox/dog-duty? What's the ox/dog mind? What's the ox/dog habit?

What is right and wrong view?

Here it is easyer to see dogs and oxen around, and their owner, but with some emphatic one might trace ox- or dog-asceticism, life of oxen and dogs, even around and very near.

The ox is a sample of enduring hopeless pain and hard labor. The dog is a sample for going after the nose. The two extremes might be seen, of the sample, of which the Buddha avoids.

Why was it that the Buddha was always certain alarmed if hearing householder-equanimity is taught, grows modern?

Don't the samples remind on certain existences in Dhamma-centers? The living on left over... the enduring in work without aim... and the equanimity build around? Subtle thinking that simply enduring leads to good existence, the burning off all kamma idea?

And then thinking again on those even hold wrong view:

- Namo tassa bhagavato arahato sammā-sambuddhassa -

'There is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed. There is no fruit or result of good or bad actions. There is no this world, no next world, no mother, no father, no spontaneously reborn beings; no brahmans or contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.'

And what is being resolved on right view?

Namo tassa bhagavato arahato sammā-sambuddhassa

"Cunda, the purification rites declared by the brahmans of the Western lands... are one thing; the purification in the discipline of the noble ones is something else entirely."

"But how is there purification in the discipline of the noble ones, lord? It would be good if the Blessed One would teach me how there is purification in the discipline of the noble ones."

"Then in that case, Cunda, listen & pay close attention. I will speak. "

Quote from: http://zugangzureinsicht.org/html/tipitaka/an/an10/an10.176.than_en.html

[Johann]

Many pet, especially in monasteries, near people practicing people, virtuous people, do not only enjoy a nice life as animal, but oft behave not common.

In SEAsia, if villager gain a not normal pet, what ever kind, they often bring it to the monastery. Somehow like when they have a child, for no use to work in normal ways, people would try to integrate into monastic life, in what ever way.

What ever being we might met, live together, feel certain bound, attached, it's not out of reason, not out off cause. And it's worthy to be aware that only ver less beings gain a human life or higher, after human birth.

It's often said, that animals in monasteries have been monks, nuns, novices, who broke their precepts, mostly in very animal way.

Althought it might be broad believed that animals have silas, it should be not seen like that, it's "just" that they, out of reason, are tend to rituals, ways of life. And it should be not thought that they could be on a level of holly.

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.

Also here, the wise way, to not increase or feed not that conductive bondage, is to follow the advices of the seasonal gifts and yes, if they have become family members, and depend on one, it's proper to care as if relatives and it's in every wise to think about, if it is really that smart to wish for certain relations, about the backwards of simply sensual pleasure to be gained from it.

It should be also clear, that one delight in relation with pet, delight in gaining such relations, is not to be seen as a person on the stream of Dhamma already.

As for a monk or someone living on alms of the land, since it is not the way of Noble Ones, it total improper to associate with animals, keep and tread, even raise them, and if such consciously delight is traced, it should be seen as "warning". As for living and improper association with pets, many rules are actually broken, for those not able to see through defilement.

How ever, this all counts for humans like pets.

Althought it's for animals not possible to grow in the Dhamma, it's nevertheless good for them to seek association with people of integrity and try to keep the Uposatha, possible do service in exchange of food and place of dwelling, for good tendency might be good and supportive in later existences.

The wester common ideas here are merely of romanticism, but have really nothing to do with Sila, Samadhi, Panna or even liberation.

The escape from other humans, and seek for relations which are thought to run out not harmful, like the "man of the mountain"-romantic, is really far from the track of the Eightfold Path, and wrapped around forest-tradition such affecting ways should be seen as simply fake ideals and very destructive and corrupt when even get promoted, if not ashamed of ones low attachments, desire, love toward a Noble assembly.

Giving into, devote ones live in relation with pets is not conuctive to gain higher levels of existences, even fruit and path, but step by step, if not yet, one easy becomes one with pets-duty, pets-mind and pets-behaviour, and if even with wrong view: 'By this virtue or duty or asceticism or religious like I shall become a (great) god or some (lesser) god,', like many using the tripple Gems a lable for their doctrines do, even leads to the realms of common animals, hungry ghosts and hell.

It's good, if caught in a pets-like life, whether like a dog, cat, or an ox, to invest into better future conditions where ever possible and not building equanimity around.

Because if it would not be possible, the Buddha would not have taught: right Effort!

(And as this was said "pain and suffering comes from what is dear", many for this time returned to the pets. Why? Because they either can not understand for now, or have been gravely corrupted by monks)

[Johann]

A Heart of Gratitude

Luang Pu Suwan Suciṇṇo was a first-generation disciple of Luang Pu Mun Bhūridatto and Luang Pu Sao Kantasīlo. He was born in Khaw village, Phiboon Mungsahaan district, Ubon Ratchathani province, sometime before the turn of the 20th century. His mother died when he was only six months old. This caused a great problem as there were no other women in the village who were in a position to become his wet-nurse. As a last resort, he was suckled for quite some time at the teats of the village dogs. As he grew up, this earned him his nickname – 'Dog'.

Luang Pu Suwan Sucinno Having ordained in the Mahā-Nikāya, he had the incredible good fortune of encountering Luang Pu Sao and Luang Pu Mun. He first spent a rains' retreat with both of them in 1917 in the province of Sakorn Nakhorn, with another early disciple, Luang Pu Singh Khantayāgamo.

For the next several years, Luang Pu Suwan followed both Luang Pu Sao and Luang Pu Mun on tudong throughout the north of Isaan. One rains' retreat in Khaw village, Udon Thani province, another disciple with the monastic name 'Suciṇṇo' joined them for the first time – Luang Pu Waen Suciṇṇo. Throughout this time, Luang Pu Suwan was able to receive Dhamma teachings and advice from both great teachers, and made quick progress in his practise.

The general standard for forest monasteries in the line of Luang Pu Sao and Luang Pu Mun at that time consisted in fairly rough bamboo kuṭis that were really only temporary shelters, lasting for 2 or three seasons at the most. Luang Pu Suwan was unusual for a disciple at that time in that he liked to build monasteries – more permanent dwellings and buildings. The rest of the wilderness tradition soon followed along as massive deforestation began in Thailand and a forest monastery changed from being a small clearing in a vast forest to being a small forest in a vast clearing. In many areas today, the permanent forest monasteries are the only places where forest can be found – the only place where the forests have been conserved.

Luang Pu Suwan built many monasteries all over Udon Thani and Nong Khai provinces, setting them up as good practise monasteries, in the Mahā-Nikāya ordination lineage, that still exist to this day. His monasteries are easy to recognise. Whenever he built a Sālā or a 'Bote' (an Uposatha Hall), he would always have a large statue erected in front. The statue would not be of a Buddha, or a deva or nāga (traditional 'guardian' images), but of a dog. Dogs are held in the lowest esteem in Thailand, so to have a statue of a dog memorialised in front of a monastery would be quite shocking for some people. And although having the nickname 'Dog', and having suckled dogs as a baby would have been felt as shameful for many people, Luang Pu Suwan was adamant in proclaiming his gratitude to them. They had given him life, and not only would he not forget it, he wanted everyone to know the goodness he had received from them. The lowly dog was the symbol and talisman for all his monasteries. Rather than feeling lowered by the status of dogs, he raised them up, through the power of a true heart of gratitude.

Late in life, Luang Pu Suwan returned to his home village in Ubon Ratchathani, and passed away in 1958 or 1959.

Althought gratitude is very important, one does good to actually finds out of what is really goodness, so that you do not fail and at least worship dogs...

That's important, not only for you, but also and most for the "modern forest monks" today around, and also for Ven Hasapanno , to lead not toward the wrong track.

Ohne Dankbarkeit kein Erfolg - Without gratidute no success

As more as more you investigate wise, you may probably see that the dog here is what you estimated to be real goodness, and the hands the Buddha, Dhamma Sangha of the Noble ones.



Again: Guṇa

[Moritz]

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.

[Johann]

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.

Quote from: https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/DN/DN01.html

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

[Danilo]

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)

[Johann]

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.

Quote from: https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/DN/DN01.html

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

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.