Recently, on the global internet system, an article appeared, “The Crime of Releasing Animals,” by a certain author in the country, and was forwarded by many people, causing Buddhists to waver, and outsiders to use that as an excuse to say that Buddhism encourages “crimes” (*) through the custom of releasing animals, but Buddhism is not good at all.
However, while a good custom that has existed for over a thousand years among the Vietnamese people is being attacked, less than a month ago, 500 Americans in Massachusetts – of course, all rich and knowledgeable Americans – released 500 lobsters into the ocean. Looking at the picture of these 500 people, including many children, we see that they are experiencing moments of extreme happiness because they think that they have saved the lives of 500 lobsters, also living beings like us, to a life of freedom. If they do not do so, then in a little while, or at the latest that evening, these 500 lobsters will be delivered to luxury restaurants. And under the skillful cooking of chefs, they will be transformed into fatty, fragrant grilled lobsters to serve people. Of course, when buying lobsters like that, they also have to leave them there for a few days to wait for a release ceremony, which can weaken the lobsters or make them sick.
But can we, for that reason, accuse them of “animal torture” and then pull up a banner saying “Releasing Animals Is a Crime” (*) to protest against them? Or should we translate the article “The Crime of Releasing Animals” (*) into English and hand it to them to warn them that they are committing a “heinous crime” without knowing it? If we do that, I'm sure they will look at us as strange, weird creatures and may suggest that we go to a mental hospital for treatment.
Of course, the vicious cycle is: Because they sold 500 lobsters at once to release them, not to eat them, the lobster farm owner, instead of being moved to quit his job, sees that business is doing well, so he tries to catch more lobsters or order more lobsters from fishermen! So, hundreds of other lobsters may be "wrongfully caught" just because the increased demand increases the supply. Then, to easily catch these lobsters again, the farm owner can give them drugs to make them lethargic, so even if they are released, they won't be able to swim far and sooner or later, they will crawl back into the basket. The people in Massachusetts who committed the "crime of releasing" will come back to buy them. The lobster farm owner will make more money. That's the intelligence but also the evil, barbarism of humans. The karma of living beings is also there.
Looking at the captured birds being kept in cages waiting for people to buy them to release them. Seeing their wings broken and weak because the inhuman bird hunter had given them medicine (the author did not specify what medicine) to weaken them, making them unable to fly far and then being captured again, the author of the article felt sorry, sympathetic, and dissatisfied. “I stood there, tears welling up, and insulted myself for not daring to speak up.” (*) From that indignation but powerlessness, instead of condemning the bird hunter for a living, the author was indignant at the woman who was performing the ceremony to release the birds. “The birds were held high by the woman before the Buddha, prayed and opened the lid, the birds stood still, not wanting to fly out. The woman who released the birds reached out her chubby hand, caught each bird and released them, they flew lazily and landed on a nearby tree branch.” (*) However, instead of advising the person who releases the bird to release it immediately after buying it - no need to bring it to the temple for a ceremony - the blessings will be the same, and the bird will suffer less, the author makes a heavy judgment "The tradition of releasing birds is now a cruel act that needs to be eliminated" (*)
Here I do not intend to debate Right-Wrong or attack the article of a certain author in the country - who through the writing style I guess may be a woman - knowledgeable, has a love for animals but is too emotional. Therefore, I will present the issue from a comprehensive perspective instead of just looking at one side.
Suppose on a certain holiday, the author of the article and a female friend from the US just returned, traveled to the mountainous region, Hoa Binh Province for example. Just entering a roadside restaurant, next to the edge of the forest, the two people realized a young deer was tied up and lying on the ground. His skin was smooth and golden, his four legs were as pretty as a child's, and his eyes were wide open like doves. But those eyes were now wet, pleading, begging because he was lying there waiting for the snack makers in the lowlands to buy it and butcher it to supply to men who like wild meat dishes like deer, grilled deer, butter-fried deer, etc. The author of the article calmly ate cake and drank water, not paying attention to anything, but his girlfriend kept looking at the young deer with tears in her eyes. She was thinking of the happy deer in the Deer Park where Buddha often preached in the past, the National Parks in the United States, where all animals are cared for and protected. Finally, she asked the shop owner:
-Is this deer yours?
The shop owner said harshly:
-Why do you ask?
-I want to buy this deer.
The shop owner softened his voice a bit:
-I already promised to sell it to someone.
-But I want to buy it. Can you keep it for me?
The shop owner was surprised and asked:
-What do you want to buy it for?
-That's my personal business. Do you want to sell it?
After a minute of thinking, the shop owner replied:
-I promised to leave 1 million for someone. If you pay 2 million, I will sell it to you.
Without any hesitation, the girlfriend took out 100 dollars from her wallet and gave it to the shop owner. Then, with his help, the girlfriend carried the deer to the edge of the forest and untied it herself. Even though it was untied, it took a few minutes for the deer to stand up. Then the deer limped, walking and looking back at the woman, the benefactor who had saved him. Then a few minutes later, the deer disappeared into the woods... returning to freedom, to nature and to the herd of deer. From this fictional story arises a question that people may still ask for thousands of years to come:
- Is hunting wild animals for food a crime? In my opinion, it is not necessarily so because - if it does not violate the laws of the government or the state, hunting wild animals, even in the United States, in addition to killing for food, is also a popular "sport". Moreover, the restaurant owner only does this job to make a living, just like the livestock farms that supply millions of pigs, cows, chickens, sheep... to slaughterhouses, and then to markets and supermarkets to make food for billions of people on this planet, including us, who leisurely eat them every day.
- Is the indifference of the author of the above article insensitive or cruel? No! She is certainly not guilty of anything and she has no responsibility in catching and killing wild animals today. Perhaps her silence comes from the point of view that if you feel sorry, spend money to buy and return the deer to nature (release), it is encouraging hunting. It is better to ignore it, leave it alone, let it die. When no one buys it anymore, the hunters and the restaurants will be unemployed and go out of business. At that time, the deer and birds will fly and run around in front of your eyes, but no one will touch them. That is the best solution.
- Is the action of the girlfriend who came back from America a crime? Honestly, I did not see, did not find any evidence, any evil thought when the girlfriend was in tears looking at the deer tied up on the ground, then she took out a 100 dollar bill to buy it and release it back into the forest. In that moment, in this heart-touching moment full of humanity, she acted according to the reaction of a compassionate person. Just like when we see a pretty little girl begging on a street corner, we are moved to give her money or feed her. Surely that is not a crime or an encouragement of crime that needs to be abolished just because the inhuman father sees that many people giving her money will continue to torment her, forcing her to beg to live on her sweat, tears and life. The one who deserves to be condemned here is the evil father, not the almsgiver. What do we think when ecologists release dozens of wolves back into Yellow Stone National Park so they can eat the bison, the long-haired wild cattle that live here? Without wolves, the bison will thrive uncontrollably, putting them at risk of extinction because they will no longer have food (grass) to eat. Until now, I have not seen any reaction or condemnation from American public opinion about this behavior of scientists to balance the ecosystem.
The Buddha, like us, was born into a world full of suffering. Of course, the Buddha did not want to suffer, so he left the golden palace to seek the Truth of the End of Suffering. Because of enlightenment, because of the blossoming of the mind, because of his extraordinary sensitivity, the Buddha saw the source of suffering in his own mind, completely different from all contemporary teachings - suffering and happiness are created by God. Because of his enlightenment, the Buddha did not complain about Heaven and Earth, did not hate others, did not blame this person or that person, but "directly pointed to the human heart" to perfect humanity. That is why, during his 45 years of practicing Buddhism, the Buddha never condemned anyone. The Buddha was not a judge to judge and did not consider himself to have the power to send this person to Heaven or push that person to Hell. Even for those who committed terrible crimes, the Buddha did not condemn, hate or insult them, but only talked about the Law of Cause and Effect and pointed out the good path to follow. Therefore, if we are Buddhists or are imbued with Buddhist thought, we should never condemn anyone but should look with sympathy and tolerance. Sympathy and tolerance are two pillars of morality that humanity admires and strives for. If we look with this eye, we will feel pity even for those who specialize in trapping and catching birds and then weakening them to sell on the day of animal release or the 15th day of the 7th lunar month. Is it because they were not born into a wealthy family? Were they not educated from childhood to love animals and nature, and lived in a borderland where the light of civilization and worldly conveniences rarely shine, so they have to make a living by such a profession? Suppose we were as lucky as we are, would we still do such a profession? Seeing ourselves warm, we feel sorry for those who are cold. Seeing ourselves full, we feel sorry for those who are hungry. Seeing ourselves educated, we feel sorry for those who are not enlightened... Seeing people in fish bowls and birds in cages, we find ways to save them... that is Buddha nature... conscience... the ultimate wisdom of human beings.
As for the woman (?) who wrote the article condemning those who were releasing animals as committing crimes, she actually had no ill intentions, but only felt sorry for animals and wanted to resolve the matter once and for all. However, she only saw the scene of birds being tired in cages when the female donor performed the releasing ceremony, but did not see the whole world. Currently, the trend of releasing animals, releasing captured animals back into nature, is gradually permeating American society. The release of 500 lobsters in Massachusetts is the first step and there will be many such releases in the future. Then gradually it can become a custom.
Suppose tomorrow all of us Buddhists as well as those who are familiar with the nation's long-standing culture stop the practice of releasing animals as called for and condemned by the author of the article, the question is: Will no one hunt birds for sale from now on? Will the scene of fish in bowls and birds in cages end forever in this world? In my opinion, the answer is absolutely NO! Because even if all of us do that, there will still be people hunting birds to sell to people to raise as pets or to eat. Then, there are people who are moved by compassion. What right do we have to prevent them from feeling sorry for animals in fish in bowls and birds in cages and then buying them to release them or bringing them to the temple for a release ceremony? Then the traders, for a living, gathered together to catch as many birds as possible to sell. Karma is like the wheel of reincarnation, continuing to revolve exactly as before, forever and ever until this world of Jambudvipa is destroyed. If you try to go to the United States, besides bars and restaurants - almost every wedding has roasted quail dishes, Pet Shops sell countless fish and birds of all kinds caught from all over the world. So the "criminal industry" of catching birds for food or raising as pets, keeping birds in cages, keeping fish in bowls, did it come from the custom of releasing animals?
Originally, it was only because of the sight of caged birds and fish in bowls that the custom of releasing animals came into existence. When we see animals being held captive waiting to be killed or sold - even if we have not yet released them - if we do not feel compassion, do not have the thought of releasing them, we are killing Compassion in our hearts. Releasing animals is an expression of the spirit of love for Freedom, Virtue of Loving Life and Compassion. Over thousands of years, it has become a custom because the Vietnamese people believe that on occasions of filial piety to their parents, releasing animals will increase the longevity and blessings of their living parents and the rebirth of their deceased. It is also because of hell that there is the vow "Hell is empty" of Bodhisattva Ksitigarbha. If we are too indignant and think that “Releasing Animals Is a Crime”, we are afraid that we will hurt the feelings of a large number of people, and this custom is spreading all over the world, typically in the United States through the release of 500 lobsters mentioned above.
Taking care of the people first and then strengthening the education of children (Phú nhi giáo chi) about loving animals and plants in nature from the beginning of their lives is the most solid way to change karma. When no one has the idea of catching birds to eat or sell, the custom of releasing animals will also end. When prisons no longer exist, amnesty associations will also close. When all sentient beings have become Buddhas, what use is the scriptures? According to the Avatamsaka teachings of Buddhism, all things depend on each other to exist. If this exists, that exists. If this ceases, that also ceases. Everything seems real, but nothing is real. Therefore, if we use Prajna wisdom to contemplate, there is nothing right and nothing wrong. Everything is due to the transformation of sentient beings' consciousness. Lowering down a level for this Saha World, we can accept some things if they do not cause suffering or take away the lives of others. That is Compassion. But looking for the absolute truth of Right-Wrong is falling into Extremism and Ignorance and causing suffering to oneself and others. After all, the Buddhist custom of releasing animals - even if it weakens the birds that are about to be slaughtered while waiting to be released (according to the author of the article) - is still many times more humane than using virgin girls (in the past) and killing hundreds of cows, goats, and sheep (present) to offer to the religious leaders in the religions of worshiping Gods.
Footnote: The (*) is an excerpt from the article "The Crime of Releasing Animals"
Mạng sống quý giá này có thể chấm dứt bất kỳ lúc nào, nhưng điều kỳ lạ là hầu hết chúng ta đều không thường xuyên nhớ đến điều đó!Tủ sách Rộng Mở Tâm Hồn
Xem Mục lục 
Viên Hiếu Thành 
Ý nghĩa ngày Thành Đạo
Học Phật Trong Mùa Đại Dịch - Phần 2
2. Thân người quý báu
THẬP GIỚI CỦA SA-DI-NI
Hòa Hoãn
Chương 2
Nguyệt san Chánh Pháp số 9
Khi Einstein Chia Buồn
Trang chủ
