I spent 7 days in silent meditation retreat at a lovely old ranch-cum-retreat center that had happy, well cared-for animals including horses, chickens, one pig and two goats.
The two goats have distinct personalities. The one who looks and behaves kind of like a teenager is uninterested unless you have food, but the other is very affectionate and connective when you engage him. He will come close to the fence and even sidle up to it so you can scratch through his fur down to the skin, whereupon he squints like a contented puppy.
It is obvious to anyone with a heart that these two friends love each other. They delight in playing together, gleefully butting heads in that almost ritualized dance they do and playing with a manzanita branch, often holding it up together with their horns and wrestling it around in unison, sometimes using it like extended horns to whack each other. When they rest, they always lie together, fur-to-fur. Sometimes one lays its head across the other's rotund belly. It is touching to see how happy they are together.
During the Question & Response period one evening, someone asked about eating meat, and our teacher deftly answered that it is a complex issue: people may have economic and health reasons for eating animals (which he explained he did not fully understand the basis for).
Not fully satisfied with his relatively brief response, I asked him to say more about the "ethical integrity" he had been recommending as essential for doing this practice. Specifically with regard to our intention of dedicating all the merits of our practice by praying that all beings may be happy and free of suffering, I questioned -- in light of our understanding of the immense, unimaginable suffering involved in animal flesh coming to our plate -- how the action of directly supporting that suffering by purchasing and eating animals could result in ethical coherence?
The passionate intensity of my phrasing caused a bit of a stir. The teacher explained that he himself has strong opinions about this, and he does not share those opinions, because he does not want to "dictate" any particular behavior or code of ethics to his students. I thought he handled the question skillfully: while I do not know what his opinions were, I could roughly guess when he emphasized that it's good that we have access to videos about animal suffering and that we ought to be informed about the issues if we decide to eat animals.
He added that this is something best discussed within local sanghas, and that all voices should be included.
I asked about the animals, who have no voice at the table: Are they part of our sangha or our community, or are their concerns to be excluded? The teacher said that he appreciated my advocacy for animals' interests to be included in conversations, and that it is important to do so.
Evidently flustered and in order to counter my question, a young woman sangha member immediately stood up and interjected to the group that "hunting has been proven to be beneficial in some ecosystems," then she asked another question, as if to change the topic, or maybe to divert attention from herself, having just spoken in favor of killing to a group of peace-loving practitioners.
After the Q & R, when we returned from our walking meditation period, I discovered that she had left a note of "apology" for me, saying that she hoped to talk later (after the end of our silent period); when she'd like to try to convince me that hunting is good. I found this, her overtly promoting killing while we had every day taken the 5 Precepts (the first of which is to kill no being), simply heartbreaking.
That night, saddened that even a practitioner who takes vows to do no harm to other beings and prays that all beings will be well and happy would advocate violence against them, I couldn't help but think about her point of view, which I could sense was shared in some degree or another by some others in the group.
And, I thought about my own. I planned to offer no response, but I imagined what I might say about my feelings to folks at this retreat, if given a chance.
My heart went to the goats. My mind constructed a thought experiment.
I'd like to ask how many folks have noticed as we walk to and from the dining hall how sweetly the two goats play together? OK. So, what if, before our evening meal, I grabbed one of the goats by his horns and dragged him away from his companion, slit his throat and carried him up to the kitchen for the cook? Would that be ok with anyone? My hope and my sense is that no one would condone that.
So then, what if there are some goats just over the hill there beyond our view? Would it be ok to go and get one of those, kill it and bring it back here to eat for dinner?
And, how about if, before the retreat I had ordered some prime cuts of veal to be delivered to my home for my return, such that sometime during our retreat, some poor little calf is dragged away from its mother, brutally killed, sectioned and then sent to me via UPS. Would that be OK? If so, why?
If we befriend an animal, it would not feel ok to kill and eat it. But somehow, the animal across the way (who may be loved by someone else, or its own mother) is ok to kill and eat?
If we love one animal, we should at least respect all animals, even if our hearts are not yet fully awakened to compassionate loving kindness toward all beings.
May all beings be happy and well, free of suffering and the causes of suffering.
ReplyDeleteMay all beings be happy and well, free of suffering and the causes of suffering.
You, too!
ReplyDeleteShivadam Thank you SO MUCH for sharing this moving, insightful, and truthful post. I am grateful to you for asking these hard and valid questions in the context of the retreat. You description of the goats and their loving relationship is beautiful and communicates very vividly what everyone knows deep-down on some level: that other animals are just like us in EVERY way that matters morally!
ReplyDeleteAs for the discussions you bravely initiated about animal ethics at the retreat, my view is that the facilitator should have been more direct in responding; his answers sound really evasive from what you've shared above.
For instance, imagine if your questions had instead been about unnecessary violence against human beings. Would he still have said it is "too complicated" to discuss, that some people may have valid reasons for perpetrating such violence, and that he does not want to "dictate" morality to the sangha by expressing an opinion on the matter? It is important for us to be aware that as soon as we start talking about non-human animals, people who otherwise have clear moral principles start engaging in a confused and inconsistent discourse of moral relativism.
The woman's statements about hunting "helping ecosystems" is evidence that she has been convinced by propaganda disseminated by the hunting industry (yes, it is a very profitable *industry*, from the firearms and amo sold to blow the heads off of deer, rabbits, and other gentle, sociable and highly sensitive beings with families, to the revenues that state governments receive from hunting licenses, etc.). The hunting industry has had to confront a public-image problem the past few decades due to growing disapproval among the general public of their gratuitous violence, so they worked to construct narratives about "harvesting" (rather than killing/shooting/murdering) animals as beneficial to "the environment" and even to the animals themselves! That people believe this is a testament to the persuasive power of the animal-industrial complex, of which the hunting industry is a part. It is sad that someone who is apparently dedicated to a practice of compassion would accept these distortions--it can only be explained by deep, ingrained speciesism.
Thanks again for sharing this beautiful and thought-provoking post.