Karma, Rebirth and Animals

[Micheal Kush]

Hello everybody,

Recently I stumbled upon a series of suggestions pertaining to the karmic effects of animals and their rebirth. We are all taught that karma operates by an ethical component that according to your actions whether they be skillfull or unskillful, can drive towards a destinations which is rendered either blessed and great(which is the result of skillful actions: non harming etc.) and dangerous and horrible(hell or animal: unskillful actions control this). So given by the breif description of outcomes, the Buddha advocate ethical purity in that it propels ones basis as a foundation for the eihhtfold path and if not Nibbana, one goes to the deva realm.

However, given the status of animals in which they operate according to murderous instinct(lions,tigers,wolves) does this mean animals such as those above are given no hope and therefore on the verge of declination due to the natural, innate essentials they are bound to?
Wouldnt this spell an end or atleast a declining cycle for this set of aggregates?

It justs seems a bit unfair animals are given a lack of hope for redemption and surely I can see some animal activists( tho this isnt the concern here) protesting a thought like this.

With metta, mike

[ALot]

Perhaps most animals just act like animals and will be reborn at the same level again and again? Because that's the level closest to their 'minds' during their livetimes?

Does Buddhist theory allow for animal being born into the body of a man?

Yes, that’s quite possible. Especially if the animal has experience of human beings, either as having been human in the past or through having had very close contact with human beings over a long period of time. In that case, there may be the possibility for that animal to be reborn as a human being. For an animal that has no contact with human being and no past experience as a human being, it’s very difficult to gain a human birth. By virtue of their kamma, animals are much more restricted in their potential. Animals have their natural instincts. The natural instinct of a tiger is to kill for food. It’s not the natural instinct of human beings to kill for food. The natural instinct of an elephant is to eat vegetation, not meat. It’s just their nature, their natural way. The natural state that an animal lives in is likely to promote its rebirth in that same level.

If a man and an animal are closely related to each other, is it possible for the man to be born as an animal?

Not unless the animal had the power over the man. In other words, if the man makes his citta like the animal, yes. If the man lacks all moral virtue and behaves in very bad ways, yes it’s possible.

So by imitating man, the animal will take on his tendencies?

Yes. Dogs trained by human beings can be extremely clever. One would suppose that they have good chance of human birth in the future. But for a wolf living out in the wild, what chance is there? Its nature is wild, it’s not a human nature at all. When the wolf is reborn it will most probably be as a wolf, because that’s what it knows. There is no certainty in that, but the probability is that it will experience the same kind of birth.

Ajaan Pannavaddho, "The Basics of Buddhist Practice"

[Micheal Kush]

Perhaps most animals just act like animals and will be reborn at the same level again and again? Because that's the level closest to their 'minds' during their livetimes?

Does Buddhist theory allow for animal being born into the body of a man?

Yes, that’s quite possible. Especially if the animal has experience of human beings, either as having been human in the past or through having had very close contact with human beings over a long period of time. In that case, there may be the possibility for that animal to be reborn as a human being. For an animal that has no contact with human being and no past experience as a human being, it’s very difficult to gain a human birth. By virtue of their kamma, animals are much more restricted in their potential. Animals have their natural instincts. The natural instinct of a tiger is to kill for food. It’s not the natural instinct of human beings to kill for food. The natural instinct of an elephant is to eat vegetation, not meat. It’s just their nature, their natural way. The natural state that an animal lives in is likely to promote its rebirth in that same level.

If a man and an animal are closely related to each other, is it possible for the man to be born as an animal?

Not unless the animal had the power over the man. In other words, if the man makes his citta like the animal, yes. If the man lacks all moral virtue and behaves in very bad ways, yes it’s possible.

So by imitating man, the animal will take on his tendencies?

Yes. Dogs trained by human beings can be extremely clever. One would suppose that they have good chance of human birth in the future. But for a wolf living out in the wild, what chance is there? Its nature is wild, it’s not a human nature at all. When the wolf is reborn it will most probably be as a wolf, because that’s what it knows. There is no certainty in that, but the probability is that it will experience the same kind of birth.

Ajaan Pannavaddho, "The Basics of Buddhist Practice"

So, in short: there is no hope for the killer animals unless they reach a state in hell?

This seems to be a bit pessimistic. Thanks thought

With metta, mike

[polarbuddha101]

"Monks, suppose that this great earth were totally covered with water, and a man were to toss a yoke with a single hole there. A wind from the east would push it west, a wind from the west would push it east. A wind from the north would push it south, a wind from the south would push it north. And suppose a blind sea-turtle were there. It would come to the surface once every one hundred years. Now what do you think: would that blind sea-turtle, coming to the surface once every one hundred years, stick his neck into the yoke with a single hole?"

"It would be a sheer coincidence, lord, that the blind sea-turtle, coming to the surface once every one hundred years, would stick his neck into the yoke with a single hole."

"It's likewise a sheer coincidence that one obtains the human state. It's likewise a sheer coincidence that a Tathagata, worthy & rightly self-awakened, arises in the world. It's likewise a sheer coincidence that a doctrine & discipline expounded by a Tathagata appears in the world. Now, this human state has been obtained. A Tathagata, worthy & rightly self-awakened, has arisen in the world. A doctrine & discipline expounded by a Tathagata appears in the world.

"Therefore your duty is the contemplation: 'This is stress...This is the origination of stress...This is the cessation of stress...This is the path of practice leading to the cessation of stress.'"

— SN 56.48

[barcsimalsi]

From the physical eye, animals seem to suffer much more compare to humans but i actually doubt that. Animals don't have mind like us so no matter how much they suffer, they don't get extremely depressed like human. In other sense, they don't think much and their mind are not restless.

Also, there are animals that are so fortunate.

Lucky to be humans?


Karma is crazy!
The one thing i really agree with Buddhism is Samsara and we need to get out of it as soon as possible.

[Yana]

It justs seems a bit unfair animals are given a lack of hope for redemption

Hi Michael,

Human Beings are the the only beings capable of practicing the Dhamma fully..i am not saying that animals or devas cannot experience "redemption" or the Dhamma.. only that they are limited or distracted with either too much pleasure,suffering or ignorance.As humans we posses the ability to practice the Dhamma completely..we also have all sides of the spectrum included..we can choose to makes kamma NOW,that can lead us to have the mental mind set of an animal,a deva or a hell being..resulting in a possibility of our future rebirths to be affected by it.

I don't think being reborn as an animal is hopeless, some animals have a better life than most humans..my dog for instance is well loved and behaves very human like, almost mother like, to me..in my past life he could have been my mother..whose to say..some humans behave like animals..completely ruthless and vicious and ignorant..so who is more of the animal and who is more of the human..??

When you see an animal it's not that they don't have any rights to practice the Dhamma..nobody is making or taking these rights..it is a natural law of cause and effect..they made their own choices in the past..which resulted in them being born as an animal...and they'll have to make their own choices now....When i sit and pat my dog i always share something about the Dhamma to him..because he always has a peculiar look on his face..the usual fearful,anxious ridden eyes is replaced with a glint of focus..or the thinking mind..even if it's just for apassing moment he looked like he just remembered something lol....i even do it when i see small insects while i send them metta..or plants even..i pick them up and gently talk to them..doing little things like that not only help other sentient beings have a little peace but also gives You a lot of peace!

[DAWN]

Hello everybody,

Recently I stumbled upon a series of suggestions pertaining to the karmic effects of animals and their rebirth. We are all taught that karma operates by an ethical component that according to your actions whether they be skillfull or unskillful, can drive towards a destinations which is rendered either blessed and great(which is the result of skillful actions: non harming etc.) and dangerous and horrible(hell or animal: unskillful actions control this). So given by the breif description of outcomes, the Buddha advocate ethical purity in that it propels ones basis as a foundation for the eihhtfold path and if not Nibbana, one goes to the deva realm.

Hello Mike,

Look at this chain.

Animals eat other animals (action(kamma) that brings suffering)
Peoples see that, and imitate that. They tell to them selves, we are animals, it's nature, so we will make like our ancestry.
So they take animals, put them in prison, and kill them (hell)

So what is conclusion?

Conclusion is that killing others brings a bad fruit.
If microbes have never begun to kill their friends to get some energy, animals have never been predators, and so peoples were continue to eat banana and other tree fruit, percive other animals not like food but friend, and perharps have never imitate predators, and have never created hells.
So it's a bad kamma fruit.

So, by analogy, our kamma lead us to some situation, when some aliens or other hight-intelect living beings will say to them selves. "Look at this peoples my friend, they put themselves in hell, stupid microbes..." so what they will do with us? They will put us in hell to get some energy, like we do with animals. So human hell will apear, and to get out from this kind of slavery will be hard, and very very long, until this hight civilisation will die... like animals will rebirth out of hell when human civilisation will disapear. It's long. They rebirth and rebirth and rebirth in hell many times, many many generations, until get free from hell...

It's foolishness.

[Micheal Kush]

Thank you for the wonderful and insightful answers.

I really think the resonating aspect of this topic that really struck me was that Karma is crazy and detachment from Samsara is is really the ultimate freedom. Rebirth sounds worse than death.

Thanks for the responses

With metta, mike

[seeker242]

Hello everybody,

Recently I stumbled upon a series of suggestions pertaining to the karmic effects of animals and their rebirth. We are all taught that karma operates by an ethical component that according to your actions whether they be skillfull or unskillful, can drive towards a destinations which is rendered either blessed and great(which is the result of skillful actions: non harming etc.) and dangerous and horrible(hell or animal: unskillful actions control this). So given by the breif description of outcomes, the Buddha advocate ethical purity in that it propels ones basis as a foundation for the eihhtfold path and if not Nibbana, one goes to the deva realm.

However, given the status of animals in which they operate according to murderous instinct(lions,tigers,wolves) does this mean animals such as those above are given no hope and therefore on the verge of declination due to the natural, innate essentials they are bound to?
Wouldnt this spell an end or atleast a declining cycle for this set of aggregates?

It justs seems a bit unfair animals are given a lack of hope for redemption and surely I can see some animal activists( tho this isnt the concern here) protesting a thought like this.

With metta, mike

I don't think any animal activists, who understand and follow the Buddha's teachings on kamma, would protest something like this. The Buddha never said it was impossible for animals to be reborn as humans. Who knows such intricate workings of kamma besides the Buddha himself? Perhaps the tiger will be reborn as a house cat whose owners keep it inside and don't allow it to kill anything. And from there it takes a human rebirth? Not out of the realm of possibility IMO.

[Micheal Kush]

Hello everybody,

Recently I stumbled upon a series of suggestions pertaining to the karmic effects of animals and their rebirth. We are all taught that karma operates by an ethical component that according to your actions whether they be skillfull or unskillful, can drive towards a destinations which is rendered either blessed and great(which is the result of skillful actions: non harming etc.) and dangerous and horrible(hell or animal: unskillful actions control this). So given by the breif description of outcomes, the Buddha advocate ethical purity in that it propels ones basis as a foundation for the eihhtfold path and if not Nibbana, one goes to the deva realm.

However, given the status of animals in which they operate according to murderous instinct(lions,tigers,wolves) does this mean animals such as those above are given no hope and therefore on the verge of declination due to the natural, innate essentials they are bound to?
Wouldnt this spell an end or atleast a declining cycle for this set of aggregates?

It justs seems a bit unfair animals are given a lack of hope for redemption and surely I can see some animal activists( tho this isnt the concern here) protesting a thought like this.

With metta, mike

I don't think any animal activists, who understand and follow the Buddha's teachings on kamma, would protest something like this. The Buddha never said it was impossible for animals to be reborn as humans. Who knows such intricate workings of kamma besides the Buddha himself? Perhaps the tiger will be reborn as a house cat whose owners keep it inside and don't allow it to kill anything. And from there it takes a human rebirth? Not out of the realm of possibility IMO.

I completely agree with you. However, my issue with this chain of dependant origination adhering to the rebirth of animals is that say, lions will keep killing, bringing them to possibly an endless cycle of rebirth amongst animal realms due to their violent instincts. However, a sutta comes to mind(forgot which, not good with sutta recollection) that the Buddha stated there are some people who live life unskillfully yet are reborn in radiant blessed realms and this applies vice versa. I guess this can shed some light of the issue. Provided by much explanation above, my doubts and questions have been further clarified.

Personally, I just find it more horrifying to engage in a thought of living a life as say, a disabled person or totally deprived being, who is ignorant of their past life and who lives another life of birth, decay, death. And yet people say rebirth was conjured up to escape the fear of eternal death. Yea rite .

Thank you for the illuminating explanations.

With metta, mike

[santa100]

It's a matter of probability. Even within our own human realm, some of us will do something terrible and be reborn into states of woes while some will do something wholesome and be reborn into better states. Let's say the odds for humans to be reborn into good/bad states are 50/50, then the odds of beings in hell, animal, or hungry shades would skew more toward the bad end more often than the good because of the reason in the OP. However, if Kamma was a mathematical equation, then it'd be safe to say there're enough variables in the equation to allow room for animals to be reborn into better states, however small the odds may be. A lioness might sacrifice her own life protecting her cubs from the poachers or other lions' attack; some tigers in Thailand become "vegetarians" by living with the Buddhist monks; many others might get captured by circus folks to perform circus tricks and no longer have to kill to feed themselves, etc.. Bottom line is that Samsara is a nasty place so we'd better take advantage of our time here as humans to cultivate the Dhamma. Retrogressing into the lower realms would make it many many many times harder to get out..

[Micheal Kush]

It's a matter of probability. Even within our own human realm, some of us will do something terrible and be reborn into states of woes while some will do something wholesome and be reborn into better states. Let's say the odds for humans to be reborn into good/bad states are 50/50, then the odds of beings in hell, animal, or hungry shades would skew more toward the bad end more often than the good because of the reason in the OP. However, if Kamma was a mathematical equation, then it'd be safe to say there're enough variables in the equation to allow room for animals to be reborn into better states, however small the odds may be. A lioness might sacrifice her own life protecting her cubs from the poachers or other lions' attack; some tigers in Thailand become "vegetarians" by living with the Buddhist monks; many others might get captured by circus folks to perform circus tricks and no longer have to kill to feed themselves, etc.. Bottom line is that Samsara is a nasty place so we'd better take advantage of our time here as humans to cultivate the Dhamma. Retrogressing into the lower realms would make it many many many times harder to get out..

I couldnt agree more.

[Kamran]

Interesting post. When you consider animals the logic of rebirth seems to break down. Its like asking if animals go to heaven

[DAWN]

SN 22.100 The Leash (2)

Monks, I can imagine no one group of beings more variegated than that of common animals. Common animals are created by mind. And the mind is even more variegated than common animals. Thus one should reflect on one's mind with every moment: 'For a long time has this mind been defiled by passion, aversion, & delusion.' From the defilement of the mind are beings defiled. From the purification of the mind are beings purified.

[waimengwan]

I like what Santa100 has said. Yes it is so dangerous for us to descend into the lower realms. The chances of rising to a better seems almost non existent. Our last thought in a human form can create the that very throwing karma, through one altruistic act to a better rebirth. How long we can stay in that better rebirth is another story altogether.

There are stories of ants on a leaf circumambulating a stupa hence getting a better rebirth, a hog was pursued by hunter till exhaustion and the last thing it saw was a stupa and gained a better rebirth. Which is probably why many lamas they like to make stupas everywhere to bless the environment and bring benefit to humans and animals in that area.

The chances to get back to better states is there but it is not easy especially if you are born a carnivore.

[beeblebrox]

Personally, I just find it more horrifying to engage in a thought of living a life as say, a disabled person or totally deprived being, who is ignorant of their past life and who lives another life of birth, decay, death. And yet people say rebirth was conjured up to escape the fear of eternal death. Yea rite .

If a person was that concerned about being reborn as a disabled person (and not having a chance to do his practice as well), then maybe he should focus on making things better for the disabled, that are actually living right now... then I think that way when he is reborn, things won't be so bad, because of the work that he's already done.

I've found the attitudes of some Buddhists to be generally poor, at the very least, towards deaf people. A deaf guy told me few years ago that when he tried to register for a 10-day vipassana retreat, he was denied because someone said that auditory feedback was an "integral component" of the practice. I thought that this was wrong.

It's not inconceivable to me that the person who said that will find himself reborn as a deaf person sometimes in one of his future lives... and then regret it when there isn't any much opportunity for him to encounter or practice Dhamma. In fact, I'm pretty sure that this is what happened to me. (I'm deaf.)

Sometimes, I'm a little mystified about why I seem to be able to pick up this practice so easily, from so little... compared to the people who can hear, and have a free, unobstructed access to the bhikkhus' advice in real life. Reading from the books (or internet forums) just isn't the same... when you are in the presence of actual practitioners, it makes all the difference in the world.

It seems unfair to deny that to deaf people... just because it's inconvenient. I don't think that many deaf people actually have the ability to extract so much from so little, such as learning the Dhamma from just a mustard seed. I could try to help them to do that... but I'm just one person, still practicing... and due to some vinaya rule, unable to ordain as a bhikkhu to do that full-time.

When I walked out of my friend's house one time, a Tibetan monk walked by. I bowed to him, and he bowed back. He started to have a conversation with me... and then when he found out that I was deaf, he just walked away (really). He didn't even say good-bye. Do you think that this is right? What do you think that his future life is going to be like?

In this life, the ones who I've found to be most helpful to my practice have been bhikshunis (Mahayana nuns). They've been extremely willing to learn how to sign, and very generous in how they shared their practice experiences with me. So, if you're ever going to be born deaf in the next life... make sure that you're born a woman, also (and maybe less picky about where you get your Dhamma from, if you're Theravadin). There are some limits to what kind of time that I can spend with the bhikshunis, because of the precepts that they follow.

Other than that I think that the nuns have been wonderful with the way that they share their time with me. They're truly some of the most sincere people I've ever met... by far, compared to other monastics.

If you're concerned about being reborn disabled, then do something about that right now... rather than to wait for it, or for someone else to make it better for you. You'll also get to do something nice for a lot of people.

If all of that seems too hard to do, or bothersome, then I think there's really no hope for Nibbana.

[Micheal Kush]

Personally, I just find it more horrifying to engage in a thought of living a life as say, a disabled person or totally deprived being, who is ignorant of their past life and who lives another life of birth, decay, death. And yet people say rebirth was conjured up to escape the fear of eternal death. Yea rite .

If a person was that concerned about being reborn as a disabled person (and not having a chance to do his practice as well), then maybe he should focus on making things better for the disabled, that are actually living right now... then I think that way when he is reborn, things won't be so bad, because of the work that he's already done.

I've found the attitudes of some Buddhists to be generally poor, at the very least, towards deaf people. A deaf guy told me few years ago that when he tried to register for a 10-day vipassana retreat, he was denied because someone said that auditory feedback was an "integral component" of the practice. I thought that this was wrong.

It's not inconceivable to me that the person who said that will find himself reborn as a deaf person sometimes in one of his future lives... and then regret it when there isn't any much opportunity for him to encounter or practice Dhamma. In fact, I'm pretty sure that this is what happened to me. (I'm deaf.)

Sometimes, I'm a little mystified about why I seem to be able to pick up this practice so easily, from so little... compared to the people who can hear, and have a free, unobstructed access to the bhikkhus' advice in real life. Reading from the books (or internet forums) just isn't the same... when you are in the presence of actual practitioners, it makes all the difference in the world.

It seems unfair to deny that to deaf people... just because it's inconvenient. I don't think that many deaf people actually have the ability to extract so much from so little, such as learning the Dhamma from just a mustard seed. I could try to help them to do that... but I'm just one person, still practicing... and due to some vinaya rule, unable to ordain as a bhikkhu to do that full-time.

When I walked out of my friend's house one time, a Tibetan monk walked by. I bowed to him, and he bowed back. He started to have a conversation with me... and then when he found out that I was deaf, he just walked away (really). He didn't even say good-bye. Do you think that this is right? What do you think that his future life is going to be like?

In this life, the ones who I've found to be most helpful to my practice have been bhikshunis (Mahayana nuns). They've been extremely willing to learn how to sign, and very generous in how they shared their practice experiences with me. So, if you're ever going to be born deaf in the next life... make sure that you're born a woman, also (and maybe less picky about where you get your Dhamma from, if you're Theravadin). There are some limits to what kind of time that I can spend with the bhikshunis, because of the precepts that they follow.

Other than that I think that the nuns have been wonderful with the way that they share their time with me. They're truly some of the most sincere people I've ever met... by far, compared to other monastics.

If you're concerned about being reborn disabled, then do something about that right now... rather than to wait for it, or for someone else to make it better for you. You'll also get to do something nice for a lot of people.

If all of that seems too hard to do, or bothersome, then I think there's really no hope for Nibbana.



(A side note: should people on here view this as a just mere Mahayana rhetoric... or as a sincere attempt to encourage the people, including monks, to live their own lives in a way that is more decent towards others? You decide.)

Thank you for the response and as a fellow practitioner who can resonate with your story, I don't dispute the fact that monks or otherwise should dismiss disabled(or otherwise) people from practicing the Dhamma. However, maybe it was my vagueness or some other element failing to express my message but it's not the fact of me being afraid to be reborn as a disabled person, I believe even in general that if one were reborn in this world it is still really difficult to process life again due to the components that constitute(lack of memory of dhamma etc.) it.

I don't think one should practice generosity in order to avoid being reborn as disabled person, it should be genuine and for the develop of that persons' wellbeing. And I'm sorry to hear what happened. The problem with any type of people who adhere to a specific system of thought is if they get too fixated on their doctrinal pursuits it can obscure the real practice they need to advocate. This could be a reason why religion gets many critics is because their doctrines demand a sense of purity through moral action, others expect them to be perfect. But remember, not all Buddhists are like that and this is a mistake they need to correct in order induce generosity.

And to Kamran: " Interesting post. When you consider animals the logic of rebirth seems to break down. Its like asking if animals go to heaven. "

I don't see how this undermines the logic of rebirth. Just because it unfavorably displays that animals can spend endless cycles delving in their own ignorance doesn't mean its wrong. Reality doesn't have to accommodate to our senses of rights and wrongs. It's like saying the logic of impermanence is broken down because people(and animals) can die instantly and that doesn't seem fair.

But all in all, Thank you for the responses and the contribution.

With metta, Mike

[beeblebrox]

Thank you for the response and as a fellow practitioner who can resonate with your story, I don't dispute the fact that monks or otherwise should dismiss disabled(or otherwise) people from practicing the Dhamma. However, maybe it was my vagueness or some other element failing to express my message but it's not the fact of me being afraid to be reborn as a disabled person, I believe even in general that if one were reborn in this world it is still really difficult to process life again due to the components that constitute(lack of memory of dhamma etc.) it.

I don't think one should practice generosity in order to avoid being reborn as disabled person, it should be genuine and for the develop of that persons' wellbeing. And I'm sorry to hear what happened. The problem with any type of people who adhere to a specific system of thought is if they get too fixated on their doctrinal pursuits it can obscure the real practice they need to advocate. This could be a reason why religion gets many critics is because their doctrines demand a sense of purity through moral action, others expect them to be perfect. But remember, not all Buddhists are like that and this is a mistake they need to correct in order induce generosity.

Hi Michael, thanks for the reply. I think the idea of rebirth (at least in a Dhammic practice) is meant to be used as a tool... so you're right in that the fear of being reborn as a disabled person doesn't really have anything to do with it, per se... but if it's viewed in a certain way, it could give you some insight about the state of your practice. There'll be some clues of what to do with it, sometimes in a quite significant way.

For example, if you're horrified at the idea of living as a disabled person (or to be reborn as one, to make it seem more scary), it just means that you're seeing something which makes you horrified. I think it could be useful for your practice to study why it seems so horrifying.

Study where that horror actually arise from (probably easier said than done), and then study what might bring it to its cessation. (Many of the practitioners on here seem to think that it just comes to cessation by itself... not true.) It's a good awareness practice... not only of the world that is around you, but also the mind that is apprehending it.

If a person was horrified at the idea of living as a disabled person... I think that might be just a reflection of his own outlook of life, not the actual quality of a disabled person's life. I know this from experience. Many people think that it's terrible to be deaf, but also for many of the deaf people (along with the people who have been exposed to them), it's not so bad.

Also, if it really was the actual quality of the disabled person's life, then why doesn't the person viewing that do something about it? It's also just a reflection of his state of mind... is he too lazy; too preoccupied (with forums); not confident enough; uncaring; too self-centered; etc? That person will be "reborn" as one of these things.

Just abruptly walking away from a person who we aren't familiar how to deal with, like the Tibetan monk did, what does that really say about the practice? I hope that the monk had enough awareness to contemplate these sort of thing, so that he might adjust his own behavior. People who are horrified about living as a disabled person... are they aware enough to study this, or will they just continue to be reborn as horrified people?

I'm sorry to bring some Mahayana views into this... but they say that Nirvana is not different from Samsara. Of course, samsara is not nirvana... that's why it's called samsara. But nibbana is still something that happens within samsara. When a person experiences that, I think something wonderful happens. There's no more aversion to any kind of situation, along with no more delusion about what they entail. I think that the world becomes a better place for it.

Instead of seeing deaf people as some people who can't hear the language that the person speaks... instead of trying to bring them into that person's world of suffering, he would start to see them as people using a language that is different from his... even transcending the sound. He would start to see them having their own lives that are outside of his own little world. These people's lives never had anything to do it... or his delusions of how things are.

I think that some Theravadin practitioners seem to have a bit of escapist tendency... they seem to want run away from the world, or things that they think are suffering... but it's not these things that cause suffering. It's their views. So, they keep on getting reborn into that...

[Jaidyn]

Is the intention of a human of the same type and with the same qualities as the intention of an animal - a lion for example?

[Micheal Kush]

Thank you for the response and as a fellow practitioner who can resonate with your story, I don't dispute the fact that monks or otherwise should dismiss disabled(or otherwise) people from practicing the Dhamma. However, maybe it was my vagueness or some other element failing to express my message but it's not the fact of me being afraid to be reborn as a disabled person, I believe even in general that if one were reborn in this world it is still really difficult to process life again due to the components that constitute(lack of memory of dhamma etc.) it.

I don't think one should practice generosity in order to avoid being reborn as disabled person, it should be genuine and for the develop of that persons' wellbeing. And I'm sorry to hear what happened. The problem with any type of people who adhere to a specific system of thought is if they get too fixated on their doctrinal pursuits it can obscure the real practice they need to advocate. This could be a reason why religion gets many critics is because their doctrines demand a sense of purity through moral action, others expect them to be perfect. But remember, not all Buddhists are like that and this is a mistake they need to correct in order induce generosity.

Hi Michael, thanks for the reply. I think the idea of rebirth (at least in a Dhammic practice) is meant to be used as a tool... so you're right in that the fear of being reborn as a disabled person doesn't really have anything to do with it, per se... but if it's viewed in a certain way, it could give you some insight about the state of your practice. There'll be some clues of what to do with it, sometimes in a quite significant way.

For example, if you're horrified at the idea of living as a disabled person (or to be reborn as one, to make it seem more scary), it just means that you're seeing something which makes you horrified. I think it could be useful for your practice to study why it seems so horrifying.

Study where that horror actually arise from (probably easier said than done), and then study what might bring it to its cessation. (Many of the practitioners on here seem to think that it just comes to cessation by itself... not true.) It's a good awareness practice... not only of the world that is around you, but also the mind that is apprehending it.

If a person was horrified at the idea of living as a disabled person... I think that might be just a reflection of his own outlook of life, not the actual quality of a disabled person's life. I know this from experience. Many people think that it's terrible to be deaf, but also for many of the deaf people (along with the people who have been exposed to them), it's not so bad.

Also, if it really was the actual quality of the disabled person's life, then why doesn't the person viewing that do something about it? It's also just a reflection of his state of mind... is he too lazy; too preoccupied (with forums); not confident enough; uncaring; too self-centered; etc? That person will be "reborn" as one of these things.

Just abruptly walking away from a person who we aren't familiar how to deal with, like the Tibetan monk did, what does that really say about the practice? I hope that the monk had enough awareness to contemplate these sort of thing, so that he might adjust his own behavior. People who are horrified about living as a disabled person... are they aware enough to study this, or will they just continue to be reborn as horrified people?

I'm sorry to bring some Mahayana views into this... but they say that Nirvana is not different from Samsara. Of course, samsara is not nirvana... that's why it's called samsara. But nibbana is still something that happens within samsara. When a person experiences that, I think something wonderful happens. There's no more aversion to any kind of situation, along with no more delusion about what they entail. I think that the world becomes a better place for it.

Instead of seeing deaf people as some people who can't hear the language that the person speaks... instead of trying to bring them into that person's world of suffering, he would start to see them as people using a language that is different from his... even transcending the sound. He would start to see them having their own lives that are outside of his own little world. These people's lives never had anything to do it... or his delusions of how things are.

I think that some Theravadin practitioners seem to have a bit of escapist tendency... they seem to want run away from the world, or things that they think are suffering... but it's not these things that cause suffering. It's their views. So, they keep on getting reborn into that...n

Thank you for the elaborated response, good to hear from you. I see the scenario of viewing rebirth in fear of being reborn as a disabled person having striking similarities to the death meditation I currently practice. When one instrospectively reflects both on a personal and global level that death can grasp ones life away in an instant, it really helps us add awareness to that reality and demands us to utilize our practice or life in a more meaningful way.

The problem I see pertaining to how monks or people in general see say disabled people, can be due to their past expierences with them. Its a fact that we see certian people like that unusually different and act much distinctly towards them. To practice generosity, its best to contribute socially to the community in a way that enhances our ability to communicate and eliminate our self centeredness. My memory may be wrong but I believeI read somewhere that Bhikkhu Bodhi set out to help children with malnutrition. When we carefully investigate the impermenance of the world, we can see how realities like rebirth or death can rapidly progress our practice forward when we confront it from an objective eye.

I appreciate your post even if it seems Mahayana. Their highest level of attainment consummates the ideals of boundless compassion and infinite love. And for the monk who shunned you, this is something even myself have been a victim of. This is something I need to learn also, that no matter who they are, what distinction we have from them, endless respect is monumentally better than subtle scolding. But as fellow friend, It is more important for you to look back at the incident with the monk and radiate loving kindness and hopes he finds his peace.

May we all be liberated from samsara, Mike