i was being killed.....

[Individual]

Retro, thanks for correcting. Perhaps what I'd misremembered had to do with sharing in the kamma of killing the animal by choosing its time of death?

To share in the kamma of the animal's death, I think you'd have to be either the fisherman or the cook. Both hunting and butchery are regarded as wrong livelihood. If we regard lobsters as animals (in the sense of tiracchanna, not the sense of "animal" in english or biology, which aren't necessarily the same thing), then catching lobsters and killing them would be wrong livelihood, but ordering any kind of seafood at a restaurant is not explicitly named as unwholesome anywhere in the Buddha's words, to my knowledge.

[clw_uk]

The buddha said that one cannot eat meat if

You have seen it being killed

Heard it being killed

It has been killed for you

I cant remember if this was just for monks or for lay as well though.

[Individual]

Also, in case it's not already ridiculously and abundantly obviously clear: A lobster's faculties would not be the same as a human's faculties. They would have lobster senses including lobster mind, which does not necessarily have vedana. They might be able to see, to feel heat, pressure, texture, etc., but not necessarily the sensation of "pain" from "too much" heat, pressure, being stabbed, etc..

Some studies say lobsters feel pain:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... d=16349115

According to this site, most research suggests lobsters (along with most invertebrates, including insects) do not feel pain:
http://ask.yahoo.com/20070516.html

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Craig,

I cant remember if this was just for monks or for lay as well though.

Just monks.

Should lay adherents hold themselves to such standards, that is entirely at their discretion.

Metta,
Retro.

[jcsuperstar]

a lobster is a bug....

i never understood all the save lobsters talk yet the same people arent out to save the roaches

i bet far more of them are being killed...

and not even for food.

[Prasadachitta]

Just monks.

Should lay adherents hold themselves to such standards, that is entirely at their discretion.

May practicing Buddhists everywhere allow their discretion to enhance ethical behavior beyond the simple following of rules. May we look to the spirit of precepts for guidance in this.

Gabriel

[termite]

Also, in case it's not already ridiculously and abundantly obviously clear: A lobster's faculties would not be the same as a human's faculties. They would have lobster senses including lobster mind, which does not necessarily have vedana. They might be able to see, to feel heat, pressure, texture, etc., but not necessarily the sensation of "pain" from "too much" heat, pressure, being stabbed, etc..

Do they try to run away, or not?

Lobsters have nervous systems, and their ability to sense heat, pressure, etc., are affected by the application of anesthesia. The ability to feel pain is an evolutionary advantage, and it's highly unlikely that an animal would possess a nervous system, while not possessing the ability to make use of that system!

From your second link: "Additionally, an independent study funded by the Norwegian government found that the nervous systems of lobsters are too simple to process pain. " A fine example of an independent and unbiased source...

It seems to me that those who "find" that lobsters don't feel pain are those who are interested in believing that to be the case.

[Annapurna]

Yes, termite, they run away and become upset when you touch their feelers,.... what a telling word, I just thought....feelers.

It seems to me that those who "find" that lobsters don't feel pain are those who are interested in believing that to be the case.

To have a good excuse to breed them sell them and eat them without people becoming as upset about it as about furcoats, causing the fur industry to decrease?

It was show in a documenatary , how foxes get killed:

A thing is being stuck up their anus, and another one around their mouth.

Then through both ends electricity is shot.

The foxes face turns into a tortured grimace, whilst the small body arches up in a spasm.

It takes several minutes.

After a few minutes or so they let go of it, to see if it''s still alive.

If it is, more electricity is shot up their anus and mouth.

This procedure is chosen, so the precious fur will not show a wound.

Quite like the lobster must be served without his chest or head battered, so humans don't feel too much shock from that view.

After all, most humans are sentient enough to feel sorry then.

[nathan]

Actually I read a masterpiece of contemporary literature, where a interesting process was described.

A journalist suddenly found himself in the body of a cow, at the slaughterhouse....

...The rest of the story was eerie and chilling. He got slaughtered.

Oh, the poor cow, trapped for the rest of life in the body of a journalist, how awful! No less so as it's likely no one has since been able to tell the difference.

[Annapurna]

Actually I read a masterpiece of contemporary literature, where a interesting process was described.

A journalist suddenly found himself in the body of a cow, at the slaughterhouse....

...The rest of the story was eerie and chilling. He got slaughtered.

Oh, the poor cow, trapped for the rest of life in the body of a journalist, how awful! No less so as it's likely no one has since been able to tell the difference.

[Individual]

Also, in case it's not already ridiculously and abundantly obviously clear: A lobster's faculties would not be the same as a human's faculties. They would have lobster senses including lobster mind, which does not necessarily have vedana. They might be able to see, to feel heat, pressure, texture, etc., but not necessarily the sensation of "pain" from "too much" heat, pressure, being stabbed, etc..

Do they try to run away, or not?

Lobsters have nervous systems, and their ability to sense heat, pressure, etc., are affected by the application of anesthesia. The ability to feel pain is an evolutionary advantage, and it's highly unlikely that an animal would possess a nervous system, while not possessing the ability to make use of that system!

From your second link: "Additionally, an independent study funded by the Norwegian government found that the nervous systems of lobsters are too simple to process pain. " A fine example of an independent and unbiased source...

It seems to me that those who "find" that lobsters don't feel pain are those who are interested in believing that to be the case.

Running away or not is not relevant, because it might merely be an instinctual, automatic response, not something done "consciously" out of a reaction to pain.

More importantly we should ask: Do they have a well-developed nervous system capable of actually sensing injury as a feeling of pain, rather than merely reacting instinctually when certain potential threats are detected? And if they are capable of sensing injurry, is their nervous system well-developed enough that they have a capacity for "suffering" (the emotional anguish associated with pain)?

This can be demonstrated by examining their neurology and by experimenting on them, by seeing if there is any difference between the response to painful stimuli (i.e. acid poured on them, having a limb sliced off, being boiled in hot water) and merely agitating stimuli (i.e. pouring a non-acidic control solution on them, pinning them down, shooting jets of water at them). With human beings, if you pour a nasty smelling but harmless substance on them, there would be a difference than if you dumped sulphuric acid on them... If you merely pin them down, there'd be a difference there than if you sliced a limb off. And, again, if you boiled a human in hot water, there'd be a different response than if you merely shot jets of water at them or put them in a lukewarm jacuzzi.

But, on the other hand, if you take most insects, for instance, there seems to be no distinction in their responses to different kinds of agitating stimuli, because they don't apparently have the psychological capacity for what we call "pain". If the same holds true for lobsters, being invertebrates, then they do not feel pain either.

[termite]

This can be demonstrated by examining their neurology and by experimenting on them, by seeing if there is any difference between the response to painful stimuli (i.e. acid poured on them, having a limb sliced off, being boiled in hot water) and merely agitating stimuli (i.e. pouring a non-acidic control solution on them, pinning them down, shooting jets of water at them). With human beings, if you pour a nasty smelling but harmless substance on them, there would be a difference than if you dumped sulphuric acid on them... If you merely pin them down, there'd be a difference there than if you sliced a limb off. And, again, if you boiled a human in hot water, there'd be a different response than if you merely shot jets of water at them or put them in a lukewarm jacuzzi.

Are you volunteering to be the human subject in this comparative study?

But, on the other hand, if you take most insects, for instance, there seems to be no distinction in their responses to different kinds of agitating stimuli, because they don't apparently have the psychological capacity for what we call "pain". If the same holds true for lobsters, being invertebrates, then they do not feel pain either.

Or maybe they don't possess sufficient communication ability to convince humans.

[Jechbi]

Oh, the poor cow, trapped for the rest of life in the body of a journalist, how awful! No less so as it's likely no one has since been able to tell the difference.

Excuse the brief interruption and change of topic but (ahem)

Most journalists I personally know are decent, civic-minded human beings motivated by a desire to educate the public and shine a light on truth. At this moment, print journalists across the U.S. are losing their jobs amid an unprecented economic period that has laid waste to advertising revenues. Newsrooms are becoming ghost towns. Those journalists who are still left are looking for other options. Careers are being killed, livelihoods uprooted. The public doesn't appear to be particularly alarmed about this demise of the Fourth Estate. But there ought to be widespread outrage. Good watchdog journalism is a crucial public service.

End of rant. We can go back to talking about the hardships faced by shellfish.

[Individual]

Or maybe they don't possess sufficient communication ability to convince humans.

That is possible, but in my opinion, it seems most probable to regard everything as more simple and more subtle. Everything, as it seems to me, is an emergent system, due to cause & effect. Everything emerges to be more complex and with greater variety than simpler components. On a biological level, we call this "evolution". In this sense, everything a human has, a lobster has in more subtle forms. But with this same analogy going... everything a lobster has, a pile of dirt has as well. Out of practicality, at some point you have to draw the line, and the Buddha apparently drew the line where he did. Although maybe not. If the Mahayana Vinaya is older than the Theravadin Vinaya, and Mahayana Vinaya forbids monks from accepting meat at all, then perhaps that's how monks should live. But at the very least, the Theravadin perspective on meat with regards to laypeople seems reasonable to me and justified. Opposition to the permissibility of meat seems to be rooted in the Jain-like radical ascetism, which if taken to a further extreme would suggest we should all starve ourselves, because even eating plants is taking life. Even when it comes to insects, as people have pointed out, the cultivation of fruits and vegetables generally involves the killing of insects to create suitable farmland.

[Annapurna]

Also, in case it's not already ridiculously and abundantly obviously clear: A lobster's faculties would not be the same as a human's faculties. They would have lobster senses including lobster mind, which does not necessarily have vedana. They might be able to see, to feel heat, pressure, texture, etc., but not necessarily the sensation of "pain" from "too much" heat, pressure, being stabbed, etc..

Do they try to run away, or not?

Lobsters have nervous systems, and their ability to sense heat, pressure, etc., are affected by the application of anesthesia. The ability to feel pain is an evolutionary advantage, and it's highly unlikely that an animal would possess a nervous system, while not possessing the ability to make use of that system!

From your second link: "Additionally, an independent study funded by the Norwegian government found that the nervous systems of lobsters are too simple to process pain. " A fine example of an independent and unbiased source...

It seems to me that those who "find" that lobsters don't feel pain are those who are interested in believing that to be the case.

Running away or not is not relevant, because it might merely be an instinctual, automatic response, not something done "consciously" out of a reaction to pain.

More importantly we should ask: Do they have a well-developed nervous system capable of actually sensing injury as a feeling of pain, rather than merely reacting instinctually when certain potential threats are detected? And if they are capable of sensing injurry, is their nervous system well-developed enough that they have a capacity for "suffering" (the emotional anguish associated with pain)?

This can be demonstrated by examining their neurology and by experimenting on them, by seeing if there is any difference between the response to painful stimuli (i.e. acid poured on them, having a limb sliced off, being boiled in hot water) and merely agitating stimuli (i.e. pouring a non-acidic control solution on them, pinning them down, shooting jets of water at them). With human beings, if you pour a nasty smelling but harmless substance on them, there would be a difference than if you dumped sulphuric acid on them... If you merely pin them down, there'd be a difference there than if you sliced a limb off. And, again, if you boiled a human in hot water, there'd be a different response than if you merely shot jets of water at them or put them in a lukewarm jacuzzi.

But, on the other hand, if you take most insects, for instance, there seems to be no distinction in their responses to different kinds of agitating stimuli, because they don't apparently have the psychological capacity for what we call "pain". If the same holds true for lobsters, being invertebrates, then they do not feel pain either.

Hello, Individual, why would it be important to you to believe that lobsters feel no pain?

Do you like to eat them and would feel less guilty about their death in boiling water?

So, if they can't feel pain it would be a good excuse?

Just wondering.

But, on the other hand, if you take most insects, for instance, there seems to be no distinction in their responses to different kinds of agitating stimuli, because they don't apparently have the psychological capacity for what we call "pain".

No, sorry. If a spider loses a leg they writhe and curl up and stiffen in pain, and hide to recover from some overwhelming shock. I see it every time I happen to unintentionally hurt one, sweeping the kitchen.

To be honest with you, it never occurred to me that they wouldn't feel.

To muse if it's more or less for some, is unethical imo, and suffering still remains suffering, so for a Buddhist it is a No Go, no matter which studies scientists bring up, possibly paid by the lobster industry.

Especially when this suffering leads to the death of an animal.

Death is always suffering.

Pali and Chinese canon text

1. The Nature of Suffering (Dukkha):
"This is the noble truth of suffering: birth is suffering, aging is suffering, illness is suffering, death is suffering; sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair are suffering; union with what is displeasing is suffering;[boiling water] separation from what is pleasing is suffering; not to get what one wants is suffering; in brief, the five aggregates subject to clinging are suffering."[9][10]
2. Suffering's Origin (Samudaya):
"This is the noble truth of the origin of suffering: it is this craving which leads to renewed existence, accompanied by delight and lust, seeking delight here and there, that is, craving for sensual pleasures, craving for existence, craving for extermination.

So, as the Buddha explains, a lobster, trying to run away from "union with what is displeasing" =boiling water=, is suffering.

Not having liberty in the ocean's cool water is suffering: "not to get what one wants is suffering".

Fearing death and *craving existence*,( by trying to crawl out of boiling water) is suffering .

This said, scientists may claim that the standard of pain and thus suffering is not fulfilled, while Buddha says it is fulfilled.

So, whose judgment do you trust more?

The speculations of guessing, unenlightened scientists?

Or a Supreme Buddha?

Please tell me. Thank you.

[Annapurna]

Or maybe they don't possess sufficient communication ability to convince humans.

That is possible, but in my opinion, it seems most probable to regard everything as more simple and more subtle. Everything, as it seems to me, is an emergent system, due to cause & effect. Everything emerges to be more complex and with greater variety than simpler components. On a biological level, we call this "evolution". In this sense, everything a human has, a lobster has in more subtle forms. But with this same analogy going... everything a lobster has, a pile of dirt has as well. Out of practicality, at some point you have to draw the line, and the Buddha apparently drew the line where he did. Although maybe not. If the Mahayana Vinaya is older than the Theravadin Vinaya, and Mahayana Vinaya forbids monks from accepting meat at all, then perhaps that's how monks should live. But at the very least, the Theravadin perspective on meat with regards to laypeople seems reasonable to me and justified. Opposition to the permissibility of meat seems to be rooted in the Jain-like radical ascetism, which if taken to a further extreme would suggest we should all starve ourselves, because even eating plants is taking life. Even when it comes to insects, as people have pointed out, the cultivation of fruits and vegetables generally involves the killing of insects to create suitable farmland.

Opposition to the permissibility of meat seems to be rooted in the Jain-like radical ascetism, which if taken to a further extreme would suggest we should all starve ourselves, because even eating plants is taking life. Even when it comes to insects, as people have pointed out, the cultivation of fruits and vegetables generally involves the killing of insects to create suitable farmland.

Individual,

there were quite a few very educative threads in e sangha which dealt with this.

1. the unintentional killing of insects while mowing the lawn, or plowing the earth, is not breaking the first precept, because you have no intention to kill.

2. plants are not sentient beings, so we can eat them.

3. extreme views are not middle path and constructs of the mind.

[nathan]

Oh, the poor cow, trapped for the rest of life in the body of a journalist, how awful! No less so as it's likely no one has since been able to tell the difference.

Excuse the brief interruption and change of topic but (ahem)

Most journalists I personally know are decent, civic-minded human beings motivated by a desire to educate the public and shine a light on truth. At this moment, print journalists across the U.S. are losing their jobs amid an unprecented economic period that has laid waste to advertising revenues. Newsrooms are becoming ghost towns. Those journalists who are still left are looking for other options. Careers are being killed, livelihoods uprooted. The public doesn't appear to be particularly alarmed about this demise of the Fourth Estate. But there ought to be widespread outrage. Good watchdog journalism is a crucial public service.

End of rant. We can go back to talking about the hardships faced by shellfish.

I publicly apologize to all journalists, and I know there are many, who could not be easily replaced by a cow or even some other person. This does not modify my observation or the resulting implicit suggestion that many more very well could have already been 'somehow replaced by cows'. I have also known many journalists personally, some very well, and that does not incline me to view this differently. The closing comment had nothing to do with anything more than the quality of journalism overall and has no relationship to their persons. I hope that clears up most of what anyone might imagine was implied by my small reflection. I do not think any competent journalist would be shocked to hear something like this expressed. Sorry if I hurt your feelings. Under the circumstances, the journalist being already dead, my focus was on the poor cow. You may well be right that she might more likely be one of those who will be able to keep her job.

[Annapurna]

ABC has this interesting article: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009 ... ion=justin

NY restaurant takes pity on 140yo lobster

A Japanese restaurant in New York has taken pity on a 140-year-old lobster, announcing that it would not end its days boiled in a pot but instead swim free in the Atlantic Ocean.

Craig has been exhibited to customers in an aquarium but its owners at Halu Japanese Restaurant and Grill in Brooklyn announced they would have the ancient 20-pound crustacean shipped to Maine, where it is to be released into the sea this weekend.

Local law there forbids taking lobsters above a certain size.

"Kudos to Halu for allowing Craig to live out the rest of his days in his native habitat," Ingrid Newkirk, president of the animals rights group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), said in a statement.

PETA has organised a campaign to liberate restaurant lobsters and stop them from being thrown alive in a pot of boiling water.

According to invertebrate zoologist Jaren Horsley, lobsters have a "sophisticated nervous system" and feel "a great deal of pain" when cut or cooked alive.

- AFP

[Jechbi]

I hope that clears up most of what anyone might imagine was implied by my small reflection. I do not think any competent journalist would be shocked to hear something like this expressed. Sorry if I hurt your feelings.

Indeed it does, no they shouldn't, and don't worry, you didn't.