this post was submitted on
356 points (88% like it)
411 up votes 55 down votes
shortlink:

Buddhism

unsubscribe31,276 readers

~38 users here now

A reddit for all kinds of Buddhist teachings!

New to Buddhism? Working your way through this sidebar and using search is a great way to get started :)

We do not have a strict policy, but we encourage you to make relevant and thought-provoking submissions. Irrelevant content and most memes will be removed at mod discretion.

Basics

"I'm an Atheist/Christian interested in learning more about Buddhism…"

Beyond Basics

Podcasts

Related Subreddits

a community for
to anything interesting: news article, blog entry, video, picture...
message the moderators

MODERATORS

reddit is a source for what's new and popular online. vote on links that you like or dislike and help decide what's popular, or submit your own! learn more ›

355
356

From the Tiger Temple in Kanchanaburi, Thailand (i.imgur.com)

submitted ago by itheabstractunsure

all 44 comments
sorted by:
best
best
top
new
hot
controversial
old

[–][deleted] 31 points32 points ago

The Tiger Temple is bad for Buddhism, I'm sad that the Thai Sangha support this money making scheme.

[–]tora22 16 points17 points ago

I agree, from what I've heard it's basically a money-making zoo where the tigers are poorly treated. Not good.

[–]itheabstractunsure[S] 25 points26 points ago

Is it really? I was unaware, thanks for bringing that to my attention.

[–]lvl_5_laser_lotusmadhyamaka 26 points27 points ago

I've read that they tranquilize the tigers to keep them docile; I'm curious as to how they rationalize this as not breaking the precept to avoid dealing in and encouraging the use of drugs, etc.

There are probably a ton of other vinaya rules that would cover this tiger breeding too.

Tiger Temple

I should add:

I (now) know that freeing animals is "a widespread practice throughout Buddhist Asia":

It seems to have been popular with monks: a Vinaya rule states that a monk who out of compassion frees animals caught in a hunter's trap is not guilty of an offence. There also exists the common concept of Mahayana Buddhist literature of abhayadana, the 'gift of fearlessness'. Here protection is granted to the poor, weak and helpless. The liberation of animals in later times interpreted as a very effective form of giving the gift of fearlessness.

And I hope that is what the monks are doing. I don't mean to impugn them further with speculation, really. I can see how granting them protection outside-of-the-animal-jungle could be this abhayadana, gift of fearlessness.

[–]FearTheCron 5 points6 points ago

When I was in Thailand I heard both sides of this argument. I don't know which one is right so I am just going to put the other side out there to be heard.

They will argue that tigers are nocturnal and that through running them in the morning hard then feeding them well it induces the docile state that makes them (relatively) safe to be near. Also they will say that they can only let tourists be in the cages with them at a certain age, when they get too old they are too aggressive at which point they only let you see them with a good strong fence between you and them.

I did not go to the tiger temple, I went to one in northern Thailand that people claimed was more humane. But who knows if they were actually better or not. I do know that as a tourist you can volunteer to help them with their day to day operations. Perhaps I should have done that to see for myself.

[–]lvl_5_laser_lotusmadhyamaka 5 points6 points ago

I guess I just can't understand how animal breeding or rearing would be acceptable for monks.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points ago

well tigers aren't nocturnal, and as tigers can cover tens of miles in a day I doubt a runabout in a zoo for a couple of hours will tire them out so much that they lie still all day, what really shows that they are hiding something is that they won't allow independent vets in to check and test the tigers.

[–]XodiacK 1 point2 points ago

Oh wow. I was about to ask how I can live at this wonderful place too... ):

[–]Qbert-forever 8 points9 points ago

I went there in July. The tigers seem mistreated and drugged and the whole place seems like a trick to make money on tourists. The tigers were chained to the ground except for a baby one I saw getting walked. To get a picture with one of them was like 1000 baht (~30 usd) and everyone was doing it. There was also a pen of moon bears that were covered in their own filth and probably hadn't been exercised ever.

[–]Wolf97 1 point2 points ago

That is a damn shame! It had potential to be something good.

[–]jpollard87 1 point2 points ago

So would the Buddha kindly ask them to stop or would he let them be?

[–]Chipocabrathai forest 2 points3 points ago

He'd tell them to stop pretending to be monks or his followers.

[–]toxilium 1 point2 points ago

Agreed. I've been to this very "temple" and it's simply a tourist attraction raking in the money and the animals are treated poorly or left to fend for themselves.

[–]itheabstractunsure[S] 5 points6 points ago

Photo belongs to Wojtek Kalka

[–]Mayortomatillotaoism 3 points4 points ago

Good on you, OP, giving credit where it is due.

[–]ImAdderable 6 points7 points ago

What does Buddhism think about tattoos?

[–]nooby_dooby_doo 5 points6 points ago

Out of the five Buddhists I have met, four have had tattoos.

[–]jpollard87 5 points6 points ago

I have Love & Compassion tattooed to my inner forearms. Someone on /r/Buddhism warned me that it would create more attachment to my body, but I like looking down throughout the day and be reminded what the formula for happiness is.

[–]lvl_5_laser_lotusmadhyamaka 2 points3 points ago

Maybe not while you are a monk:

The Commentary interprets red arsenic as covering any coloring agent. The face and body are also not to be painted or dyed (e.g., with cosmetics, henna, or greasepaint). This rule would prohibit a bhikkhu from having his body tattooed as well, although any tattoos done before his ordination would not have to be removed (see Chapter 14).

[–]clutterbang 2 points3 points ago

My friend went to Thailand and claims he got tattooed in a temple under moonbeams coming through the ceiling by a group of monks. It's an interesting story. The only reason I tend to believe him is because his girlfriend, who's my best friend is really good at spotting a liar. She apparently wrung every detail out of him and seems to believe him, and he is kind of a doofus compared to her.

[–]Mayortomatillotaoism 2 points3 points ago

I'd like to carry around someone who can spot liars like that. I'm not too bad at it, but only with people I know or obvious lies. I want to know what it is like for someone who knows every little thing. Just imagine: no, I know you did not have cereal for breakfast. You didn't even have breakfast today, did you?

I dunno, this is just my intense curiosity.

[–]groupbturbo 2 points3 points ago

I have heard a little bit about this temple from my half Thai girlfriend who visited. She was under the impression and told me that the tigers are free to come and go as they please, and some form bonds with the monks. She got up close and personal with one of the tigers, ruffling its fur and chuffing together with it in its face.

These reports that its a money making scheme and the tigers are mistreated are disconcerting. I would still love to visit.

[–]mugwumpjissom 1 point2 points ago

As a cat owner and meditator this is essentially the fantastic version of what my 'me days' feel like

[–]snapetom 2 points3 points ago

Here's some more info about the abuse.

[–][deleted] ago

[deleted]

[–]XodiacK 18 points19 points ago

...because meat is a food that tigers unquestionably need to survive?

[–]Denommuspragmatic dharma 14 points15 points ago

What would be the problem? Since when are Buddhists also vegetarian?

[–]flanl 10 points11 points ago

And for that matter, since when are tigers vegetarian?

[–]kaminixunsure 0 points1 point ago

Well, I think it's a bit confusing (because it seems indeed that most buddhists are not vegetarian) but this is part of the Eightfold path according to Wikipedia.

Business in meat: "meat" refers to the bodies of beings after they are killed. This includes breeding animals for slaughter.

Part of the Right Livelihood-thing not to do business in meat.

[–]Denommuspragmatic dharma 1 point2 points ago

Yes, you're right. Part of the Right Livelihood is don't get involved in jobs that require you to do bad things to other living beings. But this not mean that Buddhists can't eat meat. Even monks can, if it's offered to them (but only if the meat wasn't killed only because of them).

[–]kaminixunsure 0 points1 point ago

This is what us in vegetarian circles call a (kind of) flexitarian. (lay people often call them vegetarians)

Aren't monks just very serious buddhists? Doesn't the eightfold path apply to lay buddhists? If you're buying meat, aren't you conducting business in meat?

[–]Denommuspragmatic dharma 0 points1 point ago

No, monks are not just very serious Buddhists. They have way more rules to follow that the common Buddhist doesn't need to.

And that's a tricky question. Most of Buddhists would answer with a "no". To conduct business in meat would be to work with meat. If you only buy, you are not working with it.

Finally, the Eightfold Path is not a set of rules and are passive to adaptation to your lifestyle (otherwise, everybody should be a monk, which is not really true). Only Right Speech and Right Action are really meant to be rules in the strict sense (that would be 5 rules to the layman Buddhist.

Remember that the Eightfold Path is the focus of Theravada Buddhism, which is focused on the lifestyle of monks.

[–]itheabstractunsure[S] 5 points6 points ago

Feeding meat to a tiger causes suffering. Not feeding meat to a tiger also causes suffering.

[–]ohforgodssake 2 points3 points ago

Entirely correct. But one is direct, and one is indirect. What I'm wondering about is, in what ethical sphere is feeding a tiger its natural diet acceptable in any buddhist moral system? If causing death is wrong, how does it suddenly become right to kill to feed a carnivore (P.S. I'm not a vegetarian myself)

[–]KwesiStyle 0 points1 point ago

Think of it this way. Humans shouldn't eat meat, and considering they don't have too in many cases, it's often no biggie. Tigers must eat meat to survive. So it's a distinction between a necessity and a pure craving. In the other hand, in the Pali cannon the Buddha told his monks in a specific sutra (i forget which but you can look it up) that they could eat meat...but ONLY if it wasn't killed for them or with them in mind. So it was deemed ok to eat meat when it's death had nothing to do with them. So it seems as if contributing to death and suffering was a source of demerit, but simply eating the flesh of another creature wasn't...at least not in the Theravada. Also, this rule was apparently only set in stone for monastics until the Mahayana..

[–]phenomena777 1 point2 points ago

Perhaps it would be more helpful to think it terms of "skillful" vs. "unskillful" rather than "moral" vs. "immoral"?

[–]michael_dorfmanacademic 1 point2 points ago

In Pali, the word for "skillful" also means "good", and the word for "unskillful" also means "bad, evil."

The distinction you are trying to make can't really be supported by the texts. Buddhism is very concerned with morals and ethics.

[–]DespreTinedharma curious 3 points4 points ago

"We taught this lion to eat tofu!"

[–]Wingsuit 0 points1 point ago

tiger :)

[–]hefa 0 points1 point ago

liger, meet him/her half way ;)

[–]hefa 2 points3 points ago

the Dali Lama eats meat. buddhism != vegetarian. you certainly shouldn't try and feed a carnivore a vegetarian diet, that would be unethical.

[–]Shitfuck2 0 points1 point ago

Do you think it is wrong to feed meat to a tiger? I mean this question completely separately from anything the above people may or may not have done. Would you?

[–]CircleSteveMartin 0 points1 point ago

If the tiger did not eat meat, it would kill or die. At this place, I've heard they feed the tigers cooked meat so they do not gain a taste for raw flesh. If they are receiving their meat from a butcher who would have killed the animal anyway, I don't see a problem with it. Our personal preferences have no bearing on what a tiger needs to survive.

[–]kaminixunsure 0 points1 point ago

f they are receiving their meat from a butcher who would have killed the animal anyway

Butchers don't spend all day butchering just hoping for someone to want their products. It's a question of supply and demand.

[–][deleted] ago

[deleted]

[–]_angelgnostic 2 points3 points ago

complaining aboutcomplaining aboutcomplaining aboutcomplaining about

Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy. © 2012 reddit inc. All rights reserved.

REDDIT and the ALIEN Logo are registered trademarks of reddit inc.

π Rendered by PID 21909 on app-20 running cf97ab9.