What is unique in human compare to animal?

Theravāda in the 21st century - modern applications of ancient wisdom

Re: What is unique in human compare to animal?

Postby chownah » Sat Jan 04, 2014 1:31 pm

If you can tell the difference between humans and animals then the way you tell the difference is what you see as being unique to humans and what you see as being unique to animals.
chownah
chownah
 
Posts: 2576
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: What is unique in human compare to animal?

Postby waterchan » Sun Jan 05, 2014 11:42 pm

When was the last time a chimpanzee made a post on Dhamma Wheel?
quidquid Latine dictum sit altum videtur
(Anything in Latin sounds profound.)
User avatar
waterchan
 
Posts: 445
Joined: Fri May 07, 2010 7:17 pm
Location: Sereitei

Re: What is unique in human compare to animal?

Postby Ben » Sun Jan 05, 2014 11:58 pm

waterchan wrote:When was the last time a chimpanzee made a post on Dhamma Wheel?


image.jpg
image.jpg (115.17 KiB) Viewed 89 times
"One cannot step twice into the same river, nor can one grasp any mortal substance in a stable condition, but it scatters and again gathers; it forms and dissolves, and approaches and departs."

- Hereclitus


Compassionate Hands Foundation (Buddhist aid in Myanmar) • Buddhist Global ReliefUNHCR
Buddhist Life Stories of Australia

e: ben.dhammawheel@gmail.com
User avatar
Ben
Site Admin
 
Posts: 15967
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:49 am
Location: Land of the sleeping gods

On what basis does Buddhism separate humans from animals?

Postby curiosity » Mon Jan 06, 2014 7:35 am

.
Last edited by curiosity on Fri Jan 17, 2014 8:26 am, edited 1 time in total.
curiosity
 
Posts: 34
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2014 7:10 am

Re: What is unique in human compare to animal?

Postby Mkoll » Mon Jan 06, 2014 8:06 am

"Get your stinkin' paws off me you damn, dirty ape!"

Image

EDIT:

Can someone let me know via PM or a post here if my picture of Charlton Heston's snarling face is showing up on your screen below the quote and above this edit?
Last edited by Mkoll on Mon Jan 06, 2014 3:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Peace,
James
User avatar
Mkoll
 
Posts: 2422
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:55 pm
Location: California, USA

Re: On what basis does Buddhism separate humans from animals

Postby SarathW » Mon Jan 06, 2014 8:32 am

Hi Curiosity
This is a good question. Only thing I can find is that there are different plane of existence. (See the link below) Human realm is one of them and it separates from animal realm. Animal are considered ignorant, they act on instinct and can’t teach them ethics.

It is possible that a human may have a rebirth as an animal due to his grave ignorance. The only assurance we have as a human is to attain Sotapanna state so one will never borne to woeful state.

See P341
http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/buddh ... gsurw6.pdf
:)
SarathW
 
Posts: 1803
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: On what basis does Buddhism separate humans from animals

Postby Thule » Mon Jan 06, 2014 9:13 am

There's some classification of animals in the case of killing:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... html#prec2

Acts of taking life are differentiated by way of their degree of moral gravity. Not all cases of killing are equally blameworthy. All are unwholesome, a breach of the precept, but the Buddhist texts make a distinction in the moral weight attached to different kinds of killing.

The first distinction given is that between killing beings with moral qualities (guna) and killing beings without moral qualities. For all practical purposes the former are human beings, the latter animals, and it is held that to kill a fellow human being is a more serious matter ethically than to kill an animal. Then within each category further distinctions are drawn. In the case of animals the degree of moral gravity is said to be proportional to the animal, to kill a larger animal being more blameworthy than to kill a smaller one. Other factors relevant to determining moral weight are whether the animal has an owner or is ownerless, whether it is domestic or wild, and whether it has a gentle or a vicious temperament. The moral gravity would be greater in the former three alternatives, less in the latter three. In the killing of human beings the degree of moral blame depends on the personal qualities of the victim, to kill a person of superior spiritual stature or one's personal benefactors being more blameworthy than to kill a less developed person or one unrelated to oneself. The three cases of killing selected as the most culpable are matricide, parricide, and the murder of an arahant, a fully purified saint.
Thule
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Sun Dec 08, 2013 6:27 pm

Previous

Return to Theravāda for the modern world

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests