Buddhism and Animals in an Interconnected World

A Unitarian Universalist Sermon

In our interconnected world, Buddhism has a history of honoring and respecting the animal world.

And in this interconnected world, animals have lived with humans for millennia. And over that time period, different philosophies have evolved in how we connect to animals. For example, are they seen as property, or fellow sentient beings?

And what is a sentient being? By many definitions--A sentient being can perceive sensations through sight, hearing, touch, taste, or smell.

Traditionally Buddhism, places a lot of importance on the senses, as it is connected to our analytical minds and how we process data, whether human, dog, rat, or cow. But not every philosophical view has put equal weight with humans and animals on this type of equal footing, based on the senses.

18th century philosopher Immanuel Kant believed that animals lacked having moral status, yet humans had ethical duties to themselves that extended to how they treated animals.

A contemporary of Kant’s. German Philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer, was influenced by Buddhism, as he believed that animals were subject to suffering and craving,

Although historians put Schopenhauer in the similar thought of Kant in many ways, Schopenhauer maintains in his writings that humans create the violent state of nature. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy says that “His view is that the individuation we impose upon things, is imposed upon an ignorant striving energy that, once it becomes individuated and objectified, turns against itself, consumes itself, and does violence to itself.”

We can extend this idea, not to just the tendency for humans to have self-destructive behaviors, but in an inter-connected world, where might we have tendencies in our lives to self-destruct by hurting “others”.

I won’t be going into Western philosophical debates for too much longer, but the cultural mindsets that we inherit or adopt in any society, is influenced by its leaders of the past and thinkers who influence that culture. And in our pluralistic life, there is never one “right” cultural response, albeit some cultures have a history of doing harm to others, above and beyond other societies.

Kantian ethics might say that humans are in a hierarchy of species, and have a responsibility to not torture animals, because of what that might suggest to a human’s psyche, but he did not see animals as equal sentient beings to humans, as he was typically in line with the view that they were “property” or “material”—which doesn’t preclude a human from not treating material or property with respect. We can take care of homes, fine art, and other materials with respect—respect for the creative process that enables something to be created.

And again, Kant wasn’t talking about sentient beings with animals, but as property. Kant argues that animals are worthy of a humans’ admiration, love, sympathy and gratitude, despite not being “ends in themselves,” as humans are believed to be ends in themselves. Because one of the things that Kant says sets humans apart from animals is that humans have souls, and animals do not.

But this is where Buddha, would arguably take a different stance, because animals have breath (and the five senses), that can produce an intellect—that allows them to intentionally to work in surviving in this world, to connect emotionally with each other and humans, and to analyze a situation. Anyone who has a dog can typically attest to how they might try to outsmart a human, whether intensifying their begging techniques, or finding ways to use puzzles—dog stores sell puzzles that encourage a dog to find treats, just as an adult human or young child might use a puzzle.

And lab rats and mice consistently show an intellect in these kinds of exercises as well.

There is so much creation of life in this world to be in awe of!

From a Christian perspective, God created a garden of Eden—humans and animals and oceans and trees, with humans as the caretakers.

So, what does it mean to be a caretaker of another sentient being?

Going back to Buddhist thought on animals--interconnected existence and the concept of a “sentient being” are just but a couple approaches to animals:

Buddhist philosophy, based on the words of the Buddha, states there are six realms—the human realm, the ghost realm, the hell realm, the demi-gods realm, the God realm, and the animal realm. They are broken into “higher” and “lower” realms, and it has perplexed me from the beginning (of almost 20 years of study) why animals were categorized in the “lower” realm.

It wasn’t until recently, while reading a book by Buddhist teacher Pema Chodron, that I finally understood. It is believed in Buddhist thought that albeit animals are sentient beings, as they live (at least in the time of Buddha) often in the wild, they must be alert in always to survive from predators—coyotes protecting themselves from lions, baby elephants protecting themselves from hyenas, beavers protecting themselves crocodiles, field mice protecting themselves from falcons—and wild bison and deer from humans, and now factory cows and chickens from humans.

In Buddhist thought, it isn’t that they are necessarily “inferior” in a different realm, but that they are often “looking behind their backs” for safety as an instinctual act unless habituated to being in safe conditions. They can’t typically let their guard down to thrive in safer conditions. And in a domesticated life, they are dependent on humans to live or die—sometimes these are safe conditions, and sometimes not.

When animals become domesticated (not just cats and dogs, but in modern farming methods chickens, cows, and pigs are now domesticated), humans have the ability to see more intimately the emotions of animals.

Can you think of an animal where you have observed their emotions?

And can you think of an emotional animal that maybe you haven’t had much opportunity to observe those emotions?

And how does that impact you in the thinking and decisions you make about them?

……………..

In the admiration of the beauty and majesty they offer to Earth-- Is it just for human consumption of this awe? Or of something greater?

What makes Buddhism (and some other Eastern faiths) unique in their philosophies is that animals have always been regarded as sentient beings.

At the intersection of Buddhist thought and views of animals is the karmic concept and belief in rebirth, where any human can be reborn as an animal, and any animal can be reborn as a human, as life in the six realms can be fluid in rebirth.

This concept can go on for infinite to where an animal might be a reborn dead relative, and if you look far enough back in time, through the endless opportunity to be found in life, every animal could be a distant relative—and all of life part of a single family, whether you want to think of this as metaphorically or literally.

This is one way, among others, that Buddhist philosophy states we are all interconnected.

We all have the ability to experience suffering in this life, where we ideally work to alleviate as much as possible suffering in human life, and non-human life.

Buddhist teachings state that there are many sufferings associated within the animal world; even where human beings are not present, because they are attacked and eaten by other animals or live in fear of it, and they can endure extreme changes in weather and surroundings throughout the year.

I sometimes wonder if humans were more instinctual, would the world be at such a vulnerable state if existence

And it has been written that the animal vs. human world is not separated by space, but by state of mind.

I think of this summary and the idea that we are separated by state of mind (not by space), and can’t help see correlations in how some humans are treated on this earth, as there can be states of hell in the human world—starvation, war, human trafficking, early painful deaths--conditions that prevent the flourishing of a soul.

So in a way, animals can be subjected to hellish states on Earth, or also be given the conditions for their souls to thrive, with a safe bird nest in a protected forest, a happy domesticated dog, a cow that roams happily for much of its natural lifespan in green pastures at an ethical dairy farm (but most corporate dairy doesn’t come from these conditions).

So, in modern times, we need to think about the conditions of how animals with souls are being treated, cared for, or killed (assuming you agree with Buddhist thought that animals have souls).

I should add here that Buddhist monastics are asked to take a vow of not eating meat, but most lay Buddhists across the world do eat meat, but these philosophies are there to consider.

Maybe you think of yourself have compatible views of this kind of Buddhist philosophy, or maybe you agree with the Kantian philosophy earlier mentioned, or maybe somewhere in-between agreeing with Schopenhauer in Western philosophical thought (influenced by Buddhist thought).

Personally, I am a pescetarian, which means I eat fish with a vegetarian diet, trying to find seafood that comes from “sustainable fisheries.” But it is a fluid experiment.

As fellow sentient beings with souls, according to Buddhist teachings, how do we care and protect each other?

There are many birth-related Buddhist stories (known as Jataka stories), which often include animals as main characters. It is not uncommon in these folk tales for a Bodhisattva (a living being who dedicates their lives to alleviate suffering of others) to appear as an animal as well. The stories sometimes involve only animals, and sometimes involve conflicts between humans and animals. In the latter cases, the animals often exhibit traits of kindness and generosity that are absent in the humans.

So, although animals may according to Buddhist thought live in a different realm, this is clearly not an inferior state of existence, when another sentient being teaches humans about kindness and generosity.

In the diversity of life that humans have inherited through the mysteries of this world, we cannot exist without the animal kingdom—there has been a flow of equilibrium with the animal world that humans have been in relationship with for millennia, but is increasingly in a precarious balance.

In an interfaith, or Chrisitan perspective, God provided humans the animal kingdom “not to destroy,” as Schopenhauer warns humans, in their tendencies that can occur in our interconnected societies.

Instead, may we be called not to self-destruct in our interconnected world, in honoring the beauty, diversity, and brilliance in this world, as Buddha pointed his followers to in his teachings, so many centuries ago.

From an interfaith perspective words attributed to St. Francis of Assisi, patron saint to the animals (also adapted to a hymn in the UU Hymnal), state: “All Creature of Earth and Sky, come, kindred, lift your voices high—Alleluia, Alleluia!”

May it be so, and Amen.

Gary Kowalski "Animals, like us, are living souls. They are not things. They are not objects. Neither are they human. Yet they mourn. They love. They dance. They suffer. They know the peaks and chasms of being".