Humans and animals

[Bundokji]

Venerables & Friends,

Is there any explanation in the Buddha's teaching as to why only animals are visible to human senses?

Creationists, while believing in other beings that are invisible to the ordinary human senses, explain this phenomena through god's creation. I wonder if Buddhism has explanations of its own.

I am also interested in the idea of a realm in Buddhist cosmology and how it should be understood. It is somehow intuitive to assume that what separates realms should be the sense media (absence enabling technology). Our senses makes planet earth appears to be a unifying theme or provide spatial unity that could be interpreted as sharing the same realm with them, or somehow, belonging to the same origin (God or whatever that is).

What is the Buddhist basis for classifying animals as a separate realm from humans?

[DNS]

What is the Buddhist basis for classifying animals as a separate realm from humans?

I assume it's because we have much higher levels of intelligence than other animals. Other animals don't have the cognitive ability to understand and practice Dhamma, other than some altruistic behaviors that have been observed, but that's still a long way from cognitively understanding DO.

Yes, it's interesting that we can see other animals, so we know they are real, there shouldn't be any debate about them in the buddhist cosmology or samsara, for that matter.

And as such, an interesting idea among some modern buddhists is that the other heavenly and hellish realms correspond to various human or animal rebirths. For example, an elephant could represent a type of lower deva existence. A human monarch could be a higher deva existence, etc.

[Sam Vara]

Venerables & Friends,

Is there any explanation in the Buddha's teaching as to why only animals are visible to human senses?

Creationists, while believing in other beings that are invisible to the ordinary human senses, explain this phenomena through god's creation. I wonder if Buddhism has explanations of its own.

I am also interested in the idea of a realm in Buddhist cosmology and how it should be understood. It is somehow intuitive to assume that what separates realms should be the sense media (absence enabling technology). Our senses makes planet earth appears to be a unifying theme or provide spatial unity that could be interpreted as sharing the same realm with them, or somehow, belonging to the same origin (God or whatever that is).

What is the Buddhist basis for classifying animals as a separate realm from humans?

My guess would be that we are human because we are beings who have made kamma in such a way as to end up here on earth with the senses that we do have. Those senses that we gain as the vipaka cannot perceive higher beings, except in rare cases of exceptionally advanced humans or under very infrequent circumstances. We can perceive animals which have some senses in common with us, but we can also perceive that they lack much of what makes us "human": free will, rationality, the potential to make significant spiritual progress, etc. As I say, just a guess.

[robertk]

Birth as a human is due to kusala kamma of varying degrees.
Birth as an animal is due to akusala kamma of varying degrees.

[Johann]

Venerables & Friends,

Is there any explanation in the Buddha's teaching as to why only animals are visible to human senses?

Creationists, while believing in other beings that are invisible to the ordinary human senses, explain this phenomena through god's creation. I wonder if Buddhism has explanations of its own.

I am also interested in the idea of a realm in Buddhist cosmology and how it should be understood. It is somehow intuitive to assume that what separates realms should be the sense media (absence enabling technology). Our senses makes planet earth appears to be a unifying theme or provide spatial unity that could be interpreted as sharing the same realm with them, or somehow, belonging to the same origin (God or whatever that is).

What is the Buddhist basis for classifying animals as a separate realm from humans?

It's not so, good householder that what ever being around is always visibly for others. Many get a lot of animals never seen, at least not live.

It's not so different when people talk about Devas. For example many coming up into the forest, even if often, never meet monkeys, hornbills, deers, ... countless beings. Often right next around.

Same as well with special humans and common folk. Although around, people are blind in regard of what's outside their perceptions (remembering, interest).



And aside a special animals humans are far out of the animals sphere. So if observing, for example ants, good householder is like a God right next to them.

[Bundokji]

Thank you for the answers

I think both theistic and Buddhism cosmologies can teach us something about what does it mean to be human through the visibility of what is perceived as lower (animals). For example, morality has to do with being conscious in terms of being watched. Without a sense of being watched, morality and spirituality would make no sense. In Buddhism and in theistic religions, we are encouraged to develop a sense of shame by potentially being watched by higher beings (devas or people with psychic power). Also the potential of being watched shapes human's knowledge of their own mortality and the associated guilt and shame with sexual behavior. In theism, Adam and Eve sought fig leaves to cover their genitalia after descending to earth. When we compare ourselves to animals, we shed most of our bodily hair except on the head and pubic hair. It is unclear from evolutionary perspective why would we maintain pubic hair, and why it coincides with reaching puberty except through the ability to breed while being mortal - a sin that can only be redeemed through returning to heaven somehow.

Also the visibility of animals to human senses can be linked to the human ability to imagine or understand universals, and their relation to the concept of free will. Humans can act like birds through singing, swim like a fish, and dive and fly through using technology while remaining humans. This implies that humans can be a part of a larger herd through choice of departing from the herd, hence religions deem humans accountable regardless of how others surrounding them behaved.

Modern secularism saw this moral sense through being watched not as blissful as the religious mindset encourages us to believe. A return to a guilt-free naturalism, where we should not shy away from being sexual, is how modern psychology presents the solution. It is no wonder that nudism is often linked to naturalism, an attempt to return to nature of which traditional religions and their supernatural interpretations separated us from.

The neurosis caused by being watched is a double edged sword, and Buddhism used it in both ways. While it reminds us that being watched by devas should be a driver for a moral conduct, it places Mara at the top of the sensuous realm, sitting there and watching while enjoying the creations of others. The ability to watch others while remain hidden is not only a cause of anxiety and obsession among humans, but also have to do with how we understand hierarchy and power projections. To be able to watch others while hidden is advantageous in the game of existence, implying who is ahead in the game. In MN49, the Buddha engaged in a hide and seek game with Baka to show who is superior. Such portrayal mimics our concerns with intelligence community, who have relatively advanced abilities to spy on people, as if they were above the law. Even calling them "intelligence" while operating mainly in the shadow reflects on how we perceive cognitive abilities and their relationship to power.

[SarathW]

What is the Buddhist basis for classifying animals as a separate realm from humans?

I assume it's because we have much higher levels of intelligence than other animals. Other animals don't have the cognitive ability to understand and practice Dhamma, other than some altruistic behaviors that have been observed, but that's still a long way from cognitively understanding DO.

Yes, it's interesting that we can see other animals, so we know they are real, there shouldn't be any debate about them in the buddhist cosmology or samsara, for that matter.

And as such, an interesting idea among some modern buddhists is that the other heavenly and hellish realms correspond to various human or animal rebirths. For example, an elephant could represent a type of lower deva existence. A human monarch could be a higher deva existence, etc.

Agree with the first point. Even the animal closest to a man chimpanzee can be taught about 12 activities.
Disagree with the second point as per the comment of the venerable Dhammanado some time back.

[Bundokji]

So God created Man in his own image. Genesis 1.27

In theism, the reflexivity of the human mind, which is responsible for his/her sense of moral shame is god's creation, which differentiates humans from other animals. It is no wonder that the mirror test was designed to reintegrate the human with nature, and to measure which species are closest to human in intelligence. The idea of "realization" is integrated into the mirror test as the final stage or the ultimate outcome of the test:

Animals that are considered to be able to recognize themselves in a mirror typically progress through four stages of behavior when facing a mirror:

social responses
physical inspection (e.g. looking behind the mirror)
repetitive mirror-testing behavior
realization of seeing themselves

The reflexivity of the mirror is not free from contradictions/paradoxes in Buddhism. On the one hand, monks are to avoid using a mirror - as with avoiding signs that are integral to the mirror test. On the other hand, perfect reflections are utilized to signify insight, be it the reflection of the moon on a lake, of intensifying practices during the full moon day.

[Bundokji]

There is a channel on Youtube run by a Muslim scholar who links the new age movement, liberalism, gender equality, postmodernism, spiritual healing, yoga, and the decay of the west and traditional values to the rise of oriental teachings especially Buddhism. I would have shared some of his videos had it been in English. Nevertheless, the video he released today is linking all these phenomena to vegetarianism, which seems to be part of the wider conspiracy he is trying to protect his listeners against. I have not listened to the video yet, but only read the title.

It seems demographically evident that adherent of dhammic religions are more likely to be vegetarians. The argument about compassion, kamma are often convincing and can suffice in reducing suffering to animals caused by humans. However, i tried to use this thread in an attempt to investigate doctrinal different that can go deeper that what meets the eye, which can include different cosmological models.

In MN117, the first component of mundane right view is the following:

'There is what is given, what is offered, what is sacrificed.

Sacrificing animals in Abrahamic traditions is linked to a biblical stories. We have an indirect implication in the story of Noah and his ark, where blameless animals were sacrificed along with bad humans. We also have another story from genesis where Abraham was asked to sacrifice Isaac to test his faith, then asked to sacrifice a ram instead. The story of Abraham became a basis for animal sacrifice in Muslim until today.

The relationship between sacrifice and impact is quite interesting. The higher a being in a cosmological hierarchy, the higher the sacrifice, and the higher the impact. This brings us to another component of mundane right view: there is a mother and father: killing them or sacrificing them is the worst kamma ever, that is, Ānantarika Kamma.

So, from a Buddhist cosmological point of view, sacrificing a plant is preferable in the sense that they are lower in the hierarchy of beings. A monotheist that this is a lower sacrifice hence having a less impact, whereas the overall impact of sacrificing an animal is higher. In modern scientific terms, this could turn into a debate about nutritious values vs impact between an a typical environmentalist and a conservative.

The above brings us to another symbolic story in genesis, that is of Cain and Abel. God favored Abel's sacrifice (who was a shepherd) instead of Cain's (who was a farmer). Cain then murdered Abel, whereupon God punished Cain by condemning him to a life of wandering. The first murder in human history seems to have been done by a farmer rather than a shepherd according to biblical account, which fits nicely with the account of Abraham sparing his son through sacrificing a ram. A Buddhist monk, on that account, is not strictly vegetarian, but still accepts meet, as long as the sacrifice was not done for him.

[DNS]

There is a channel on Youtube run by a Muslim scholar who links the new age movement, liberalism, gender equality, postmodernism, spiritual healing, yoga, and the decay of the west and traditional values to the rise of oriental teachings especially Buddhism. I would have shared some of his videos had it been in English. Nevertheless, the video he released today is linking all these phenomena to vegetarianism, which seems to be part of the wider conspiracy he is trying to protect his listeners against. I have not listened to the video yet, but only read the title.

That might be a modern myth about Dharmic religions. Among Western converts to Hinduism and Buddhism, the vegetarian rate is probably fairly high; approximately 50% to 60% but for Asian-born buddhists, I'd guess it might only be about 10%.

Jains are almost all vegetarian, but there's only about 4 to 8 million Jains in the world. Contrary to modern assumptions, not all Hindus are vegetarian. Approximately 33% are vegetarian or vegan, another 33% refrain from eating beef but eat other animals and the remaining 33% are omnivores.

Yes, there is a big tradition of sacrifice in Abrahamic religions; from Abraham almost sacrificing his son and then having it changed to the ram, which greatly influenced Judaism and Islam. And then in Christianity with the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

In one sutta where a brahmin was about to do a large animal sacrifice, the Buddha gave a teaching that called for a bloodless sacrifice instead.

Found it:

The Buddha explains to him that a bloodless sacrifice is much better, such as
giving gifts of generosity and practicing the precepts. He explains about a king who practices
sacrifices of generosity for his people and how "in this sacrifice, Brahmin, no bulls were slain,
no goats, or sheep, no cocks and pigs, nor were various living beings subject to slaughter."
Digha Nikaya 5.18

"These great sacrifices, fraught with violence, do not bring great fruit. The great seers of right
conduct do not attend that sacrifice where goats, sheep, and cattle of various kinds are slain."
Samyutta Nikaya 3.393-394

[Bundokji]

That might be a modern myth about Dharmic religions. Among Western converts to Hinduism and Buddhism, the vegetarian rate is probably fairly high; approximately 50% to 60% but for Asian-born buddhists, I'd guess it might only be about 10%.

Jains are almost all vegetarian, but there's only about 4 to 8 million Jains in the world. Contrary to modern assumptions, not all Hindus are vegetarian. Approximately 33% are vegetarian or vegan, another 33% refrain from eating beef but eat other animals and the remaining 33% are omnivores.

Yes, there is a big tradition of sacrifice in Abrahamic religions; from Abraham almost sacrificing his son and then having it changed to the ram, which greatly influenced Judaism and Islam. And then in Christianity with the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

In one sutta where a brahmin was about to do a large animal sacrifice, the Buddha gave a teaching that called for a bloodless sacrifice instead.

Found it:

The Buddha explains to him that a bloodless sacrifice is much better, such as
giving gifts of generosity and practicing the precepts. He explains about a king who practices
sacrifices of generosity for his people and how "in this sacrifice, Brahmin, no bulls were slain,
no goats, or sheep, no cocks and pigs, nor were various living beings subject to slaughter."
Digha Nikaya 5.18

"These great sacrifices, fraught with violence, do not bring great fruit. The great seers of right
conduct do not attend that sacrifice where goats, sheep, and cattle of various kinds are slain."
Samyutta Nikaya 3.393-394

I agree. Dhammic religions can be easily judged by converts through certain type of exposure. I noticed that the main criterion that is being used is the anti-hierarchical structure of modern western movements and the "going against the grain" of dhamma, conflating the two.

Modern historians would present an evolutionary perspective of human civilization from hunter-gatherers, to farmers, to domesticating animals. The bias of civilization possibly associates that sequence with progress in value in the evolution of our consciousness. During the barter system, animals and plants were main units of exchange before inventing money. Also these units were used to solve tribal disputes when there is an act of killing a human. A human life is often determined with its equivalent of many animals in tribal culture, not with plants. If animals to be spared due to their higher value among vegetarians, then modernism is nothing but a sham, still rooted in the same hierarchy that it is trying to escape. Cain's punishment is quite symbolic in that regard, where in the Islamic version of the story, the sacrifices offered by the two brothers were aimed at copulating with the more attractive sister, hence Cain's killing of his brother and his punishment to a life of wandering. Cain envied his brother for the better gift.

[Bundokji]

A new story about animal sacrifice probably to please devas:

Passover: Israeli settlers call for animal sacrifice at Al-Aqsa Mosque

A letter signed by 15 rabbis renews demand to perform religious rituals on site where non-Muslim worship is forbidden, despite potential for Palestinian backlash.

Israeli settlers have renewed their calls to be allowed to conduct ritual animal slaughter at al-Aqsa Mosque in occupied East Jerusalem to mark Passover, which is set to start on 5 April.

Al-Aqsa Mosque is the third-holiest site in Islam and an area where non-Muslim prayers and rituals are forbidden according to decades-long international agreements.

In a letter addressed to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and far-right National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir on Thursday, 15 rabbis said that it was in the "national interest" of Israel to be allowed to carry out the ritual.

"We want to offer the Passover sacrifice in its rightful place and at its rightful time despite all the difficulties,” they said.

"We ask to open the temple site to allow the messengers of the people of Israel to renew the sacrifice."

Right-wing Israeli groups regularly call for animal sacrifice to be allowed during Passover on the al-Aqsa site, which is known to Jews as the Temple Mount. This year Passover coincides with Ramadan.

Religious Jews believe that al-Aqsa was the location of two historical Jewish temples. All that remains of these is the Western Wall, which is regarded as the holiest site in Judaism.

Although the Chief Rabbinate of Jerusalem has long forbidden Jewish worship on the Temple Mount, some religious groups have called for Jews to be allowed to pray on the site.

https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/aqsa ... -sacrifice

Are not monotheists suppose to worship the same god? so what the fuss is all about?

Also, if they have their roots in the old Brahmanism, how did their schism came about? and which devas in Buddhist cosmology become pleased with animal sacrifice?

[Gwi II]

Animals don't have realm, they exist in human realm.
So it is called in Pāḷi "tiracchāna-yoni" (I translate it
"animal zone" [common translation: animal realm]).

* realm = lokå

It's the same as in human body there are worms,
and so on. Animals can be seen by humans coz
the bodies of animals are rough, human-like.

Hell creatures, hungry ghosts, asuras,
and devas = subtle bodies (cannot be
seen with the naked eye), they are in
another dimension.

Some hell exists on earth, the heaven
of "Tāvatiṃsā" exists on earth, hungry
ghosts roam the earth, BUT THEY ARE
IN ANOTHER DIMENSION.

[Bundokji]

Animals don't have realm, they exist in human realm.
So it is called in Pāḷi "tiracchāna-yoni" (I translate it
"animal zone" [common translation: animal realm]).

* realm = lokå

It's the same as in human body there are worms,
and so on. Animals can be seen by humans coz
the bodies of animals are rough, human-like.

Hell creatures, hungry ghosts, asuras,
and devas = subtle bodies (cannot be
seen with the naked eye), they are in
another dimension.

Some hell exists on earth, the heaven
of "Tāvatiṃsā" exists on earth, hungry
ghosts roam the earth, BUT THEY ARE
IN ANOTHER DIMENSION.

Thank you highlighting the difference.

How about bacteria, do they belong to another dimension? Before inventing the tools necessary for seeing them, many illnesses caused by bacteria were linked to evil spirits.

Also earth might not necessarily refer to "planet earth", but to kamma as "khettaṃ" as per AN3.77:

kammaṃ khettaṃ, viññāṇaṃ bījaṃ, taṇhā sneho

kamma is the field, consciousness the seed, and craving the moisture

I think to avoid confusion, reference to different niyamas might lead to different understandings of the 31 realms of existence. Maybe your input about dimension makes perfect sense in light of citta-niyāma. How the five niyamas interact to create the world is quite complicated and i do not personally understand it.

[Gwi II]

Animals don't have realm, they exist in human realm.
So it is called in Pāḷi "tiracchāna-yoni" (I translate it
"animal zone" [common translation: animal realm]).

* realm = lokå

It's the same as in human body there are worms,
and so on. Animals can be seen by humans coz
the bodies of animals are rough, human-like.

Hell creatures, hungry ghosts, asuras,
and devas = subtle bodies (cannot be
seen with the naked eye), they are in
another dimension.

Some hell exists on earth, the heaven
of "Tāvatiṃsā" exists on earth, hungry
ghosts roam the earth, BUT THEY ARE
IN ANOTHER DIMENSION.

Thank you highlighting the difference.

How about bacteria, do they belong to another dimension? Before inventing the tools necessary for seeing them, many illnesses caused by bacteria were linked to evil spirits.

Also earth might not necessarily refer to "planet earth", but to kamma as "khettaṃ" as per AN3.77:

kammaṃ khettaṃ, viññāṇaṃ bījaṃ, taṇhā sneho

kamma is the field, consciousness the seed, and craving the moisture

I think to avoid confusion, reference to different niyamas might lead to different understandings of the 31 realms of existence. Maybe your input about dimension makes perfect sense in light of citta-niyāma. How the five niyamas interact to create the world is quite complicated and i do not personally understand it.

Bacteria are categorized as "animals/beasts".
Similarly high level asuras are categorized as
“devas”, middle level “abode of hungry ghosts”,
and low level “hell”.

In essence, according to the
MN 12, there are five realms
(destination of rebirth):
1. Hell (nirayå),
2. Animal zone (tiracchānayoni),
3. Abode of hungry ghosts (pettivisayå),
4. Human (manussā), and
5. Devā.