Introduction

For the pure each day is sacred, an uposatha,

a day of observance to those who do good.

So bathe in this wisdom, brahman: make peace among all beings,

Harming naught that draws breath, telling no lies,

Taking nothing not given, having faith, being generous.

Buddha (Majjhima Nikāya).

Throughout history, philosophy and religions have approached the issue of animal suffering from different perspectives. Buddhism is a relevant view that should not be left behind, as it includes an ethical consideration of all living beings, along with several tools that can help us to think and act in a less harmful way, for the benefit of all beings. Some authors have analysed the issue in the context of the ethical precepts (Shih, 2019; Valle-Lira, 2023; Waldau, 2000), but other formulations, like the Four Noble Truths and the Noble Eightfold Path have yet remained to be explored. This approach provides a more practical exploration of our relationship with other animals that, hopefully, might support the transformation of reason through experience (Davis, 2007, p. 109).

Buddhism, as a philosophical and religious ideology, has changed throughout history. In this paper, when we mention Buddhism, we are referring to the perspective that emerges from conditionality (Pratītyasamutpāda) and the formulation of the Four Noble Truths. Considering that Buddhism has evolved over thousands of years in several countries and cultures, it is impossible to obtain a single conceptualization and attitude towards non-human animals (which will be referred to as animals from here on). This study will not be limited to a canonical or traditional form of Buddhism, nor to a modernist view focused on rationality, but instead it will be centred on the fundamental teachings and principles regarding animals, which are applicable to present day life. This type of approach has been described as post-modern, ecumenical or globalised Buddhism and which has given birth to Western Buddhist orders, such as Arya Maitreya Mandala and TriratnaFootnote 1 (Baumann, 1996).Footnote 2 These new traditions strive for an ecumenical, integrative (intellectual and devotional) and practical interpretation of the principles. Within this framework, a short and general review of how animals have been present throughout the Buddhist tradition is possible.

Animals have been discussed in contexts such as those illustrating the difference between humans and other animals, or those denoting their similarities, or as a literary resource (Ohnuma, 2017). Some traditions and teachers do not give much importance to the consideration of other animals or have criticised contemplating them through an ethical lens (Ambros, 2014; Jena, 2019; Waldau, 2000).Footnote 3 However, the path to enlightenment, especially as understood from Mahāyāna Buddhism, consists of compassion and care for all beings. Several traditions and teachers consider animals as important beneficiaries of Buddhist thought (Barstow, 2019; Ohnuma, 2016).

From early Buddhism, the Karaṇīyamettā Sutta urges us to care for all lifeforms (Sangharakshita, 2004):

Whatever living beings there be: feeble or strong, tall,

stout or medium, short, small or large, without

exception; seen or unseen, those dwelling far or near,

those who are born or those who are to be born, may

all beings be happy! (…)

Just as a mother would protect her only child at the risk

of her own life, even so, let him cultivate a boundless

heart towards all beings.

Later on, the Bodhisattva ideal emerged emphasising compassion and active engagement with the world. Śāntideva’s Bodhicaryāvatāra, one of the main texts of the Mahāyāna tradition, repeatedly mentions our closeness to other lifeforms and the importance of alleviating all suffering (Shantideva, 2007):

8. Meditative Concentration

95. Since I and other beings both,

In wanting happiness, are equal and alike,

What difference is there to distinguish us,

That I should strive to have my bliss alone?

96. Since I and other beings both,

In fleeing suffering, are equal and alike,

What difference is there to distinguish us,

That I should save myself and not the others?

102. Suffering has no “possessor,”

Therefore no distinctions can be made in it.

Since pain is pain, it is to be dispelled.

What use is there in drawing boundaries?

122. Wishing to relieve our bodies’ ills,

Our hungry mouths, the dryness of our throats,

We steal the lives of fishes, birds, and deer

And lie in wait along the road.

Chinese Buddhism integrated animal protection into its scope using arguments such as the human duty to protect all life (particularly sentient beings) and transmigration (which implies the same ontological status between humans and other animals which also have a Buddha-natureFootnote 4). It is argued that the negative karma created by killing animals and consuming their meat destroys the roots of compassion (Schumann, 2021). The Net Sutra, a Chinese Buddhist text from the fifth century, states (Muller, 2012, p. 260):

“Bodhisattvas should give rise to an enduring attitude of compassion, an attitude of reverence and obedience, devising skillful means to save and protect all sentient beings”

Furthermore, even though several vinayas (monastic codes of conduct) considered it important to not harm animals, Chinese Buddhists emphasised respecting and protecting their lives, including invertebrates (Heirman, 2020).

Finally, as an example of animal consideration in Tibetan Buddhism, verses 1 and 4 in the Eight Verses for Training the Mind include a compassionate attitude towards all living beings (Dalai-Lama, 2004):

1 With determination to achieve the highest aim

For the benefit of all sentient beings

Who surpass even the wish-fulfilling gem

May I hold them dear at all times.

4 When I see beings of unpleasant character,

Oppressed by strong negativity and suffering,

May I hold them dear, for they are rare to find,

As if I have discovered a jewel treasure!

Is not an easy task to delimit which beings are covered by these declarations considering the existence of microscopic organisms. However, given that animals (both vertebrate and invertebrate) are living, sentient and conscious in most cases, we can deduce they all should be included within these considerations. This perspective is enriched with the scientific findings on animal sentience and cognition, which reaffirm not only these shared capacities, but also our biological and evolutionary kinship or interconnection (Beauchamp & Wobber, 2014; Heirman, 2020; Rose et al., 2014; Sneddon et al., 2014; Stelling, 2014).

In light of this, we believe that a general Buddhist approach that is focused on animals and human’s shared capacity to experience pain and suffering is possible and useful nowadays since there is a global environmental crisis. The need to reconnect with other life forms is an important step in caring for others and the environment.

Unlike previous studies, this paper explores animal suffering within the Four Noble Truths framework, followed by a short reflection on how we can understand and apply the Noble Eightfold Path to cease or alleviate animal suffering. Throughout this approach, it is possible to understand our role in causing and easing animal suffering, not only theoretically, but through a more practical approach. That is, the way in which actions, speech and mental states are relevant when contemplating the wellbeing of other animals. The complete analysis of such a topic would require further studies; however, we present this text as a first general exploration of the issue.

The Four Noble Truths

Buddhism emerged more than 2500 years ago, when Siddharta Gautama achieved what is called “enlightenment”. There is not a single way to describe what enlightenment is. Some refer to a direct experience of reality without the sociocultural biases that we create and get attached to (Edelglass & Garfield, 2009, p. 241). This allows us to get a direct and more truthful grasp of what reality truly is. In this sense, enlightenment is a specific kind of wisdom, an understanding of how our minds and reality work and therefore, an appropriate way to relate to the world (Boyle, 2017, p. 156; Goodman, 2014; Sangharakshita, 2001, pp. 3, 9; Sarao, 2017). Siddharta, who was later called the Buddha, observed and understood reality as a complex flux of phenomena that arise and cease depending on causes and conditions. He named this pratītyasamutpāda, which can be translated as the law of conditionality, dependent origination, dependent arising, interdependent co-arising or conditioned arising (Sangharakshita, 2001, p. 51,111):

Imasmiṁ sati, idaṁhoti; imass’ uppādā, idaṁ uppajjati; imasmiṁ asati, idaṁ na hoti; imassa nirodhā, idaṁ nirujjhati. (This being, that becomes; from the arising of this, that arises; this not being, that does not become; from the ceasing of this, that ceases.)

or.

No phenomenon arises without a cause, there is no phenomenon that exists in isolation, but rather connected to every other phenomenon in the universe, so that each one influences and acts on everyone and everyone influences and acts on each one.

Wisdom might be attained by realising the interdependence and interconnection of the arising and cessation of all phenomena. It is important to mention that these relationships do not refer only to causal interdependence but have several dimensions, of which causality would be only one. Forming these relationships also requires a temporal synchronicity between all the parts involved, a mereological dependence, as well as a conceptual designation, a convention that collects all the parts into a single entity and assigns a reference to it by naming it. This process is exactly the same for inanimate objects as for living beings, making it clear that the origin process is the same for all phenomena, including human beings (Edelglass & Garfield, 2009, p. 5; Garfield, 2014, pp. 26–27).

Conditionality establishes impermanence within the phenomenological world and at the same time indicates that everything can be explained. Since no event or entity exists independently of other events and entities for its existence, we are potentially able to understand the causes and conditions that support them. This type of processual metaphysics eliminates the ontological duality between humans and other living beings. Human beings are considered intimately related to the world around them, especially to other life forms (Sangharakshita, 2001, 56; Garfield, 2014, 30; Shih, 2019, 319). This conditioned idea of reality serves as a starting point to understand specific phenomena and, since Buddhism is particularly concerned with suffering, this is a relevant topic.

When the Buddha set out on the path to enlightenment, he intended to face the problem of suffering. After years of study and meditation, he finally managed to understand the conditionality of the phenomenal world and applied this knowledge to suffering. The explanation of human suffering through the law of conditionality is summarised in the formulation of the Four Noble Truths (Garfield, 2014; Sangharakshita, 2001, pp. 144–161):

  1. 1.

    There is suffering. There is physical and mental suffering (dissatisfaction, restlessness, stress, anxiety). Even though there are several unpleasant experiences, the primary concerns are the existential and mental suffering that human beings endure.

  2. 2.

    It is possible to know the causes of suffering. Suffering arises from greed, the attachment to pleasure and the craving of certain sensations. However, the connection between craving and suffering comes from a primordial confusion about the fundamental nature of reality. If our hopes and desires differ from reality, we will not be able to fulfil them and that will cause us suffering.

  3. 3.

    By knowing its causes, the cessation of suffering is possible. If greed and attachment cease, suffering ceases. For this to happen, a reorientation in accordance with the conditioned nature of reality is required. Our hopes and desires must be in line with reality, not against it.

  4. 4.

    There is a path to the cessation of suffering called the “Noble Eightfold Path” which comprises the following components: (1) Right understanding or view; (2) Right intention or aspiration; (3) Right speech; (4) Right action; (5) Right livelihood; (6) Right effort; (7) Right attention (mindfulness); and (8) Right concentration.

This formulation aims to balance attention, cognition and affection, but also to weaken the roots of suffering: craving and attachment, aversion and hatred and confusion and ignorance. It also encompasses the three pillars of Buddhism: wisdom (right understanding and intention), ethics (right action, speech, livelihood and effort) and meditation (right mindfulness and concentration). The steps of the path are not separate, as each one influences the others (Huxter, 2015, p. 34): right view is the understanding that actions have consequences and that unhelpful actions often lead to things not working out for the best. Right view leads to making skillful decisions and commitments to act in ways that are harmless, kind, and liberating (right intention). When one acts in a manner that is wise (right speech, action, and livelihood), there is a level of mental composure that is conducive to motivation and focused attention. Looking at oneself honestly (mindfulness) often requires courageous effort. The combination of effort, remembering to be attentive, and seeing deeply with focused attention gives rise to understanding. When understanding arises, this leads to right intentions, then right actions and the path of liberation continues. In essence, this eight-factored pathway describes a process for changing or releasing unhelpful habits and behaviours and developing, instead, what is helpful to reach desired goals that are beneficial for self and others.

The Four Noble Truths emerge from a human experience of suffering. However, it is also possible to analyse animal suffering from the perspective of conditionality, following the same steps, but focusing on how human actions affect animal suffering and what we can do about it.

The Four Noble Truths of Animal Suffering

  1. 1.

    There is physical pain and mental suffering in animals.Footnote 5 The Buddha recognized this in the Majjhima Nikāya: “I could speak on in many a way about the realm of the animals, and yet not be able to express in words how dreadful the sufferings there (in the animal realm) are” (Bruce, 2018, p. 9). This has already been extensively tested and proven in vertebrates (Mendl & Paul, 2004; Plotnik et al., 2006; Rose et al., 2014; Sneddon et al., 2014; Špinka, 2012) and even in some invertebrates (Corning and Lahue, 2019; Stelling, 2014). Such research found anatomical, neurophysiological and ethological similarities with human beings, as well as a similar pharmacological response to analgesic drugs, but it also detected variable and unique types of sensitivities. Since the existence of pain sensations and pain-avoiding behaviours in animals strongly suggests mental suffering and many Buddhist teachings aim not only to alleviate and cease suffering, but also to achieve wisdom and compassion, it would be contradictory to disregard pain and suffering just because it is not experienced by a human being. Furthermore, as the interconnection concept states, humans are not separate from other living beings; if Buddhism aims to tackle suffering, limiting its concern to the human experience would be negligent.

  2. 2.

    It is possible to know the causes of animal suffering and cease or alleviate it. Although there are many ways to approach this point from medical and biological perspectives, this is an ethical analysis, so we will differentiate between the suffering that occurs without anthropogenic causes, and suffering that involves anthropogenic causes (non-anthropogenic and anthropogenic for short, respectively). In this sense, non-anthropogenic suffering arises from the physical, biological, psychological and social conditions that impact animals without human intervention: diseases, periods of deprivation, predation, isolation, ageing and death. On the other hand, there is suffering that humans cause directly or indirectly to animals (anthropogenic). Direct causes include actions such as instrumentalizing them (i.e. livestock) or acts of cruelty. Indirect causes comprise the destruction and contamination of their habitats, and the environmental crisis.

  3. 3.

    By knowing its causes, the cessation or alleviation of animal suffering is possible. Regarding non-anthropogenic suffering, there will be situations in which we can prevent or eliminate their suffering, for example, through medical care when they undergo a disease process. Ceasing anthropogenic suffering might seem like a simple thing to do. If it is possible for us to know which of our actions cause suffering directly or indirectly to other animals, then we can act or stop acting accordingly to alleviate or cease the harm. However, the humans who perform these actions should have the capacity, possibility and will to stop these behaviours, which is not so easy sometimes, especially when basic human needs and interests are involved.

  4. 4.

    There is a path to the end of animal suffering. It is not possible to completely eliminate non-anthropogenic suffering in animals; it is part of the condition of their physical and biological existence.Footnote 6 However, many animals are conscious and intelligent beings and capable of intentional actions, and therefore are able to alleviate their own suffering to an extent.Footnote 7 Human intervention is possible in certain cases, especially within domestic and captive animals. On the other hand, stopping anthropogenic suffering requires a considerable change, not only in our lifestyle and attitudes, but also in psychological and socio-cultural factors, since actions such as the instrumentalization, use and abuse of animals are strongly embedded in many human societies and cultures.

Animals are related to humans in many ways. Mereologically, both are biological beings that share several anatomical and neurophysiological traits. Furthermore, when Mahāyāna Buddhism incorporated the concept of Buddha nature, it was granted to all sentient beings (D. Jones, 2007). Metaphysically, conditionality is the origination process for all phenomena, including living beings. The final question here would be if animals are capable of attaining enlightenment in their current lifetimes, which is a difficult topic and beyond the scope of this paper. For now, let us keep in mind that these similarities include the experience of pain and suffering.

Addressing animal suffering is an important part of several Buddhist ethical perspectives, particularly in reference to the first preceptFootnote 8: refrain from the destruction (killing) of life (Shih, 2019, p. 313). This precept corresponds to the concept of ahiṃsā or not harming. Intentionally killing or harming any living being should be avoided. It literally refers to beings that breathe, so it can be inferred that it includes animals (Harvey, 2000, p. 67). This is also mentioned in other texts:

Laying aside violence toward all living creatures, both the firm & unfirm in the world, one should not kill

a living being, nor have it killed, nor condone killing by others. Sutta Nipāta (Bhikkhu, 2016, p. 122).

Abandoning onslaught on breathing beings, he abstains from this; without stick or sword, scrupulous,

compassionate, trembling for the welfare of all living beings. Majjhima Nikāya (Harvey, 2000, p. 69).

Traditionally, killing an animal is not usually considered real harm in Western culture, as long as it is done for “acceptable” reasons and in a “humane” manner (arguing that they have no life plan that is affected by the termination of their existence) (Bekoff & Pierce, 2017, pp. 52–53; Waldau, 2000, p. 7). However, in the discourse on unconditional love, the Karaṇīyamettā Sutta (Ryan, 1998, pp. 34–35), as well as in the Dhammapada (Sangharakshita, 2008, p. 44), it is stated that animals fear death and desire the continuation of their existence, and this must be taken into account. This constitutes an ethical standard, and the development of benevolent emotions and empathy is fundamental to satisfy it. Being able to think about the mental states of others allows us to consider the suffering and welfare of other species and not just our own. Furthermore, our interconnectedness with the rest of the world means that our welfare and happiness are not separated from those of other living beings, and therefore neither is suffering (Sangharakshita, 2004; Shih, 2019, p. 319).

Based on statements like these, it could be speculated that harming any living being would have the same ethical weight. However, other texts explain that the seriousness of hurting another being varies. Buddhagosha (a fifth century Indian master) says:

Harming breathing beings is an action of lesser guilt when they are small, greater guilt when they have a large physical frame. Why? Due to the greater effort involved. But when the size or good qualities are equal, the failure of the action is less due to the (relative) softness of the attack and mental impurities, and greater due to its intensity. There are five factors involved: a living being, the actual perception of a living being, a thought of murder, the attack, and death and suffering as a result (Harvey, 2000, p. 52).

However, another interpretation by Daoxuan, a Chinese Buddhist master (596–667), states that killing an insect with malicious intent is worse than killing a human being out of compassion. This is because in the first case, if the unwholesome mental states are not perceived, the harmful acts will continue and also bad karma will be produced (Heirman, 2020). As a general rule, a constant effort must be made to not harm any type of living being, regardless of their characteristics. Hence there are practices such as filtering the water to avoid drinking them, giving food to ant colonies, or examples of monks who respect the life of generally despised beings, such as lice or poisonous animals. We can deduce from this that harm should only be done to other beings when there is no way to avoid it, such as in self-defence or for survival (Shih, 2019, p. 314,322). Living beings should be regarded with kindness, as expressed in the Karaṇīyamettā Sutta.

In this regard, the concept of love or kindness (mettā) implies specific characteristics. It goes beyond mere goodwill, since it includes compassion, empathic joy and equanimity qualities that avoid falling into sentimentality, excessive rationality or favouritism (Goodman, 2014, p. 59; Harvey, 2000, p. 105). Mettā is a love that is enough for everyone, all living beings (Ryan, 1998, p. 31). This ability to emotionally consider other species is not unique to the Buddhist tradition, as other cultures, religions and philosophies have also reached similar conclusions, which is important to note, since it shows that it is a general human capacity, and not an isolated phenomenon (Castillo-Huitrón et al., 2020; Martín-Dabezies, 2022).

Within this context, it is necessary to reflect more deeply about our responsibility towards other animal species. Early Buddhist metaphysics explains the composition of sentient and conscious beings through the five aggregates or skandhas: (1) form and body (rūpa); (2) feelings and sensations (vedanā); (3) perception and memory (saññā); (4) mental states (samskāras); (5) consciousness (viññāna). All the components are equally necessary and important, since they have a codependent emergence (Ryan, 1998, pp. 40, 73–74; Sangharakshita, 2001, p. 123). Moreover, in Mahāyāna Buddhism, the focus is on the relational existence of the being as a dynamic presence, avoiding the error of interpreting the aggregates as fixed or essential components (Pynn, 2007, p. 140). If human beings and other animals have similar physical, biological and psychological characteristics, what is the difference between us? There are thousands of different answers to this question; however, the Aggañña Sutta provides an intriguing one: humans are distinguished by virtue of their ethical responsibility.Footnote 9 Human beings are widely considered as being capable of self-regulating their behaviour according to ethical principles. The term khattiya, which means “the lord of the fields”, is a concept that originally represented the warrior caste, but which is redefined in this text by modifying the human relationship with others and the environment. This relationship is not based on possessing, but on caring for, so that khattiya should be understood primarily as “protector”. The warrior is the protector of the people regardless of their social status, but with special attention for the poor; the warrior is also the protector of animals and all living things. In this text, the message of non-violence and non-destruction is repeated over and over again. The khattiya is a human being who has the power and moves it away from dominion and towards protection; as the transgressor of the first precept (refraining from the destruction of life), they become its devoted defender (Ryan, 1998, pp. 90–93; Shih, 2019, p. 326).

The first ethical precept states that we should not destroy life. This here is where the Noble Eightfold Path offers us a framework for reflection and a practical guide to minimise the damage inflicted on other animals. It allows us to focus on areas of concern that benefit or damage our own life, as well as those of others. It represents a way of moving cognitively, behaviourally and affectively from a state in which we are the cause of suffering to one in which we are immune to suffering and in which our thoughts, speech and actions tend to alleviate it in others (Garfield, 2014, p. 283).

The Noble Eightfold Path to Alleviate and Cease Animal Suffering

The following is a brief reflection on each point of the Noble Eightfold Path regarding how it relates to the human relationship with other animals and their suffering. It is important to remember that this is not a list of hierarchical steps, since each point is equally important.

I. Right understanding or view. Right understanding is usually listed as the first item of the path. It arises from the goal of achieving enlightenment by developing wisdom and compassion. Wisdom provides us with the ability to have a right understanding of reality (as a transient, compound group of phenomena) and avoid wrong views, which emerge from ignorance, greed and hatred. Moreover, by observing reality it is possible to understand it as numerous conditioned and interconnected processes (because of the law of conditionality). From this, the Buddha inferred what is known as the three marks of existence, which are characteristics shared by all phenomena (Huxter, 2015, p. 36; Sangharakshita, 2001, p. 197):

  1. 1.

    Impermanence (aniccā) — Because phenomena are conditioned, the conditions necessary for their emergence and maintenance eventually cease. The principle of creation is the same as the principle of cessation.

  2. 2.

    Unsatisfactoriness (dukkhā) — All objects of our enjoyment disintegrate sooner or later. It is not possible to own or control anything at all, and there are no eternal satisfiers. Our desires must be in harmony with reality and accept the transitoriness of all phenomena.

  3. 3.

    Insubstantiality or emptiness (anattā) — As a consequence of conditionality, phenomena do not have their own substance or essence because they do not arise from autopoiesis. No phenomenon originates exclusively from itself, rather, each depends on external causes and conditions. This results in a relational ontology of interdependence and the lack of intrinsic nature of all phenomena, including all living beings.

A right view of reality should be according to the law of conditionality. A right understanding of ourselves should comprehend our impermanence as well as our interconnectivity with the rest of the world. Furthermore, regarding our actions, we must acknowledge that they are expressions of our thoughts, feelings and emotions and that actions have consequences not just for ourselves, but also for many other sentient beings. When we fail to understand our deep connections with the rest of the world, we also fail to see how we affect others (Huxter, 2015, p. 35). This approach does not contradict the theory of evolution, since we are not a different kind of living being; we share a common ancestry and a common physical-biological functionality. All lifeforms are interconnected, meaning that other beings suffer similarly and therefore there is no reason not to take their suffering as seriously as ours.

Wisdom should inform and modify our thoughts and emotions and enable us to create the conditions for the emergence of different actions. A wise and clear mind would be able to see the world without the sociocultural biases that separate us from other animals. The same distortions of reality that cause human suffering are also behind the actions that hurt other animals (greed, hatred and ignorance) (Pynn, 2007, p. 140). If we see ourselves as insubstantial beings that exist in interdependence with the rest of the world, and if we realised that the happiness and suffering of all sentient beings are similar and connected by conditional causes that allow for their arising and cessation and that human beings have a huge role in the creation and cessation of those conditions, the rational attitude that we can adopt towards others is compassion (Garfield, 2010, pp. 341–342). Compassion arises at the point of identifying without alienating, and is the direct manifestation of wisdom, the understanding that there is no separation between self and other. It arises out of intimacy, not out of pity. When we identify ourselves with other animals and notice their suffering, compassion emerges (Pynn, 2007, p. 154).

Buddhist philosophy offers an ontological and epistemological reorientation that entails an ethical redirection based on empathy, benevolence and care as well as a commitment to act for the benefit of others. From the epistemological point of view, the idea is that, if suffering is caused by a misconception of reality, then it can be alleviated by the cessation of these delusions, including the hierarchy of the suffering experienced between humans and animals.

A right understanding based on conditionality is to see ourselves as part of the animal kingdom, as part of nature, to see that we all (animals) suffer and that all suffering should be equally considered. Even though human beings have certain characteristics that facilitate achievements such as enlightenment, we still have a physical-biological body similar to all other animals, and these characteristics are the basis for pleasure and pain, wellbeing and suffering. This should not be confused with some utilitarian perspectives, since it goes beyond the sentience consideration, given that intention and character are also important for Buddhist ethics, as well as care and compassion. Buddhist ethical contemplation of other animals (as it is proposed here) arises from a metaphysical and ontological perspective, from a deep shift in how we understand ourselves and the rest of the world as conditioned and interconnected phenomena. All of this is possible to realise through practice, study and meditation.

An important part of the mental training necessary to achieve the right view is to prevent the interference of symbolic processing systems, such as language. Our minds materialise ideas and behaviour patterns through symbol processing. We use two lines of symbolisms, one that derives from the perception of the world (descriptive) and another that is related to how things should be (prescriptive), that is, what should be done, desired or feared. This discriminatory consciousness has been described as both a blessing and a curse to humanity, since it entails our alienation from each other and nature. These shared ideas are socially important because they give homogeneity to the group and increase commitment and conformity. They form narratives that are not only fed by perceptual experience, but are also associated with memories and emotional attachments that impose a very heavy cognitive load on the brain. This topic is also approached later in the paper regarding the right concentration (Boyle, 2017; Davis, 2007, p. 107).

Buddhist practice is concerned with the perception of reality since it has very important repercussions on our behaviour and therefore on ethical deliberation. Mahāyāna ethics do not primarily seek to question our duties, or which actions are good or recommendable, or even what would make us individually happy. Mahāyāna Buddhism begins with a problem that must be solved: the ubiquity of suffering, whose origin is attachment and aversion, whose roots stem from a basic ontological confusion based on the previously described cognitive and sociocultural biases. To solve the problem, it is necessary to analyse our experience and thus our place in the world. The solution to the problem is not found in the transformation of the world or our behaviour, but in the transformation of our experience (Garfield, 2010, p. 356).

All these reflections arise from the fact that there is a great source of animal suffering that originates from human actions such as the exploitation, consumption, confinement of animals, the destruction and contamination of their habitats, as well as direct aggression. If we ask about the origin of this inflicted damage, according to this logic, we can answer that it is a problem that emerges from our perceptions. There is an underlying dualistic and hierarchical discourse in which humanity is separated from and superior to the rest of the natural world; therefore other animals are conceived as less valuable or not valuable at all. Animals are seen as foreign and distant beings due to the emphasis on arbitrary parameters that favour human beings (such as human ways of thinking and communication), which generates mental states of rejection and aversion that are materialised into actions that constitute abuse towards other life forms.

Through a change of perception, based on conditionality, interconnection and scientific findings, it is possible to change the position we have towards animals and accept that we are not only part of the animal kingdom, but also belong to the global group of living beings. As Śāntideva affirms, pain and suffering are equally important for all beings, there is no basis for ranking one above another, therefore all suffering must be alleviated, regardless of who suffers it (Shantideva, 2007).

The human-animal duality is one of the main barriers to modifying our attitudes towards them. Acknowledging that all animals have the same ontological status would be a first and fundamental step to modifying our perception of them and, with this, our way of impacting them. They are not alien to us; we are part of the same life process that began millions of years ago. Therefore, their suffering is not worth less than ours, and differential treatment of other animals should be considered improper, unfair and unjustified.

Although it could be argued that this biological continuity between human beings and other animals has been known about for a long time thanks to evolutionary and biological studies, this knowledge continues to be frequently suppressed by Cartesian dualism.Footnote 10 We are related in theory, but not in the reality created by our biassed minds. This shows us that information is not always enough for a change of perspective and much less of ethical consideration. Deeper reflection and meditation are needed to explore and dismantle the mental barriers that alienate us from the rest of the living beings.

II. Right intention or aspiration. Right intention or aspiration is the volitional counterpart of right understanding. Right or skillful intentions and aspirations are based on wisdom, non-attachment, and goodwill; they lead to happiness for ourselves and other beings. Wrong or unskillful intentions and aspirations emerge from craving, ill will, and ignorance, leading to acting in a manner that may complicate our lives or harm ourselves or others.

There are several types of right intentions, such as renunciation (to craving, attachment or wrong views), loving kindness or mettā (unconditional love and goodwill towards ourselves and other beings) and compassion or karuṇā, the intention to alleviate suffering, regardless of who endures it (Huxter, 2015, p. 37; Sangharakshita, 2001, p. 160). The intention to alleviate non-human suffering is not easy to achieve. Animal instrumentalisation is so normalised in many societies, that it is not usually seen or questioned. It is “normal, necessary and natural” (Aguilera, 2019). Speciesism argues for human superiority above all other animals and for our right to use them, creating feelings of contempt that are sometimes so subtle they become invisible. Most people do not experience actual hate towards animals but allow them to be exploited and killed. Human beings get to decide who lives and who dies. Nonetheless, from another perspective, if human beings’ superiority arises from spiritual wisdom or prajñā as conceived in Buddhism, it implies compassion, transcendence of egocentrism and acting to alleviate suffering in others (Ohnuma, 2017; J. J. Stewart, 2010; Waldau, 2002).Footnote 11 Although it is considered meritorious to care for an animal, this action loses its virtues if it is carried out with the intention of obtaining something in return, that is, caring for an animal is not a justification for its instrumentalisation, an egoic action motivated by self-interest or greed (Granoff, 2019).

The perspective that right intention must be based on wisdom and compassion poses a problem for the food and biomedical industries, which might make an effort to give animals a better life, yet the ultimate motivation is not animal welfare but rather the benefit of human beings at the expense of animals. For a selfless act and kind generosity to manifest, it must come from a non-anthropocentric perspective where due attention is given to others and action is preceded by observation and consideration of their needs in an effort to understand their subjectivities.

Keeping in mind the perspective on animal suffering and the ethical response presented here, right aspiration is an appeal to uphold and fulfil our ethical capacity and honour our duties to other beings. Our actions would be much less hurtful for ourselves and other living beings if we had our collective well-being as a purpose. Buddhism provides us with the hermeneutical and epistemic tools to help us understand our thoughts and experiences in a different manner, making them the foundation for a distinct way of acting. Hermeneutically, it helps us to reconceive our place within nature and our duties to other sentient beings as we no longer perceive them as separate from ourselves. Further reflection and meditation about the constitutive similarities between humans and other animals might help us realise that we are not so different or disconnected from them.

III. Right speech. For Dogen, words are a double-edged sword: they can either be a sublime expression of the truth and connect us with the world, or lead us astray and alienate us. Discursive reasoning divides the world; classification might lead to separation and objectification if we get trapped in words and accept them as a reality. However, words are useful as a provisional step towards truth (Davis, 2007, p. 119; Pynn, 2007, p. 142), and this is why it is important to reflect on the use of language. Wrong or unskillful speech is also an expression of greed, ignorance or hatred; it inflicts harm on ourselves and others. On the other hand, when we speak from a place of generosity, wisdom, and kindness, speech is a source of gentleness, usefulness, honesty and harmony (Huxter, 2015, p. 38).

Speech is relevant because it is an expression, materialisation and reinforcement of our mental conceptions. It is therefore related to the treatment and level of ethical consideration we think we owe to others (Sidnell, 2010). Unskillful speech causes mental confusion and suffering in oneself and others. Unskillful speech is considered any type of lying, cheating, misrepresenting, slandering or exaggeration, including non-verbal communication (Sangharakshita, 2001, p. 177). Discriminatory discourse of any kind (i.e. racism, sexism, speciesism) uses wrongful speech as propaganda to create a world of hierarchies and privilege for some and oppression for others (Faria, 2017; Holborn, 1964).

Everyday language reinforces interpretations of reality and ourselves. There is speech that emphasises the hierarchies between humans and other animals by using a different lexicon for each group or even using animal names as insults. For example, speaking about animals as things or properties using “it” as a pronoun eliminates the existence of an intrinsic value. Furthermore, the use of euphemisms instead of precise words to disguise and distort reality is often applied to situations where animals are harmed (Ricard, 2016, pp. 48–51). Animals are not killed, but rather “put to sleep” or “sacrificed”; they are not sentient living beings used and hurt, but rather “biological research tools”; wild animals are not captive but “under human (professional) care”. Speech is often deceptive and even dishonest, perhaps as a means for not losing our so-called humanity and still allowing ourselves to benefit from their misfortune (Harvey, 2000, pp. 74–75). Ironically, the term humane is frequently used as a way to sanitise particular actions, That is, if an animal is killed, but it is done humanely, it is therefore a good action, regardless of the motivation, results or even methods (Bekoff & Pierce, 2017, pp. 50–52). Speaking about animals as if they were inert things is a mental and cognitive misrepresentation that leads to an incorrect perception and a lack of consideration and empathy. Humans are typically upgraded to owners and animals downgraded to possessions (Wagner et al., 2019).

The Buddhist ethical precepts related to the use of language support the avoidance of lying, misdirection, promoting ill will and disharmony. Speech that expresses contempt towards sentient beings expresses a form of hatred. Referring to other animals as inert things is a misrepresentation. The use of words that disguise the consequences of a damaging action is a type of lie. This is not a right speech that leads to wisdom and compassion. In order to reevaluate our relationship with other animals and nature in general, it is necessary to also analyse our speech and not be afraid to change the words we use. Let us remember what Buddhism has said for centuries; words are not reality, only fingers pointing to those realities. Words are tools that should be used wisely (Garfield, 2014, p. 273, Valle-Lira, 2023).

Communication in general, not just spoken language, is an important component of the human experience. The words we use when we talk about animals are powerful, but it is also important to remember that direct communication with other animals is possible, not only with pets, but in any human-animal interaction. They might not be aware of the exact meaning or grammatical structure of our language, but they can learn to recognise intonation, gestures and some words, including their own names (de Waal, 2003; Kulick, 2017; Pika et al., 2018; Rendall & Owren, 2002). Even though language and naming can be a source of violence, as authors like Jacques Derrida have argued (McNamara, 2010), a practice that might be encouraged is the use of names to designate animals as a way of giving them an identity and facilitating the connection with human beings (Bertenshaw & Rowlinson, 2009). Naming them reduces anonymity and commodification. It is a reminder that they are someone, not something. Examples of animals with names and personalities in the Buddhist tradition are Kanthaka, the Buddha’s horse, and Nāḷāgiri, an enraged elephant that is appeased by the Buddha (Ohnuma, 2017, p. 96, 97).

Furthermore, we must open our senses to the messages animals express through vocalisations, gestures, touch, sights and other forms of non-verbal communication (de Waal, 2003; Kulick, 2017; Pika et al., 2018; Rendall & Owren, 2002). This requires attention, but it also means being careful not to incorporate our interests into these interpretations. It is not possible to know and understand them without paying attention to them, and this is necessary in order to properly help them to alleviate their suffering.Footnote 12 Although, to our knowledge, this is not explicitly tackled in Buddhist literature, the authors propose it as an important aspect to be included, since animals are a ubiquitous presence in human lives, and therefore the communication about and to them should be regarded ethically. This is different from the listening of nature that is preached, for example, in the Zen tradition (Davis, 2007) as a one-sided contemplation and not a two-sided communication exercise.

IV. Right action. For our actions to be correct, they should abide by the Buddhist ethical precepts, particularly the first one: abstaining from damaging life by acting with kindness and compassion. Although there is a consideration of degrees (already mentioned), this is only useful when there is no alternative or when the facts are subsequently evaluated, especially within monastic contexts in order to make a decision based on the seriousness of the damage and to be able to establish a form of atonement (Harvey, 2000, pp. 52, 156, 167, 172). However, outside of these particular situations and in daily life, a constant effort must be made to not harm any type of living being regardless of their characteristics. In order to achieve this, selfless decisions must be made along with understanding that if actions are not entirely skilful, it is possible to humbly admit that these might be the best decisions at this time to cause minimal damage. This kind of humble attitude, even if it cannot guarantee the absolute correctness of the decision, can reduce the possibility of stubbornly repeating mistakes. From this, harm will only be done to other beings when there is no way to avoid it, for example in self-defence or survival situations (Shih, 2019, p. 314,322).

It has been mentioned above that killing an animal contradicts certain teachings and should be considered a harmful act, however, this position can be enriched by Jakob von Uexküll’s theories about the subjective lives of animals. Uexküll stated that all animals have a particular and unique way of feeling, understanding and relating to the world around them (Domínguez, 2012). Killing them is destroying that special life, that individual and unique way of being. Furthermore, an emotional sensibility towards the suffering of a sentient being is part of Buddhist ethics, especially through certain meditation techniques. The Sanskrit word mettā does not imply a mere feeling of affection but has various components that complement each other and are cultivated through a series of meditations called the sublime abodes or brahmavihārās, which are the following: love and kindness (mettā); compassion and care (karuṇā); empathic joy (muditā); and equanimity (upekṣā) (Garfield, 2014; Harvey, 2000; Sangharakshita, 2001). As a whole, mettā is about generating an emotion of love and kindness, which includes compassion for the suffering of others, not as pity, but as motivation to help and care for them, and the same time that joy is shared through empathy, all within a context of equanimity and impartiality (Goodman, 2014, p. 59; Harvey, 2000, p. 105). Mettā is a type of kindness that does not seek to be tinged with sentimentality or possessiveness but strives to understand others in all their complexity and uniqueness, to love them beyond a desire for well-being, acting for their benefit. Affection towards animals should not be based on attributing them human qualities or on idealising their animality, but on an active and passive appreciation of them, letting them be who they are, observing them, learning how their life expresses itself: “the dog barks.. just like a dog” (Davis, 2007, p. 124). Life and the universe are not rational, it is the anthropocentric thought that expects that the voices of other beings should conform to human ways of knowing, communicating and expressing. Humans should engage with the otherness of animals, their faces, which for Dogen are not merely the front of the head, but their interdependent phenomenalities. Emmanuel Levinas said: “To see a face is already to hear: you shall not kill” (Pynn, 2007, pp. 145–147; Schroeder, 2007).

In the context of animal suffering, the right actions should take care of the well-being of other animals directly and indirectly. This includes taking proper care of those who depend on humans to survive (domestic and wild animals in captivity) and causing no indirect harm to other sentient beings by damaging the environment. Right actions should arise from right intentions, the aspiration to ease suffering (i.e. by renouncing superfluous desires that make us exploit them), but also by cultivating loving kindness towards them that emerges from positive feelings and wisdom (right understanding), generating an ethic of compassion where alleviating all kinds of suffering is a priority.

It has been observed that the areas surrounding monasteries in Thailand function as nature reserves. There are programs to train monks in nature conservation, which is appreciated for many reasons: in addition to containing numerous living beings, nature is also a source of tranquillity and provides a means to understand reality, since it is considered its purest manifestation (Harvey, 2000, p. 180).

Generosity or dana is another form of right action and complement of the second ethical precept, to refrain from taking what is not given. We frequently take from animals what is not given to us freely. We force them to produce for us, to live with us, to risk their lives for us and to die for us. Taking their lives by force is in itself an act of violence that violates their agency and interests and could only be justified as a subrogated decision that seeks their best interest (i.e. euthanasia for those ongoing painful terminal diseases such as cancer) or perhaps as a last act of survival.

In Buddhism, generosity is understood beyond a material standpoint, since giving immaterial things such as time, company and support is also valued. In fact, one of the greatest forms of generosity is the following of the precepts per se, because it frees others from the threat and ill will that are avoided by following these conduct guidelines (Harvey, 2000, page 66). We should begin by liberating animals from the threat of our wrong actions, a great gift. If humanity could, through the precepts, benefit animals in various ways, not exploiting or killing them, not affecting their habitats, not depriving them of their freedom, providing them with lodging when they need it or not making them live by and die for human beings, we could speak of great generosity.

We can also be generous by giving them freedom, autonomy, capacity for agency, respect, and non-interference in the affairs of wild animals, except in cases of special need. We should only interfere in their lives if it is for their well-being and in particular situations in which their suffering is such that there is a fundamental imperative for altruistic aid.

In addition to giving animals care and resources, there are other ways of being generous with them. Even though animals are considered to lack the cognitive capabilities to fully practise the Dharma, they might benefit from it. There are several texts and tales about animals being in touch with Buddhism, particularly by listening to it and obtaining merits, including a better rebirth such as a human being or a deva (Ambros, 2014; J. Stewart, 2017). Animals also gain merit by receiving kindness from humans. This highlights the importance of making an effort towards improving our relationship with them.

V. Right livelihood. It is traditionally advised to not engage in trading animals, either dead or alive (Sangharakshita, 2001, p. 160; J. J. Stewart, 2010, p. 5). However, given the industrial and technological revolutions and the actual environmental crisis, the ways in which our jobs and lifestyles harm other animals have greatly increased. Nowadays several professions deal directly with animals. Some are related to science, like biomedical research and veterinary medicine, or non-scientific activities, such as animal breeders, farming, show business or the military use of animals, among others. Moreover, even though many people might not be directly involved in harming animals, they support it economically or by social acceptance of these practices. Our society is largely based on the labour and suffering of animals that are exploited to be consumed, used as labour force, experimental subjects, companions, a means of transportation and for entertainment. We risk their lives to save ours in rescue missions, as police or military tools, or in animal-based therapy.

Every day, millions of animals are killed all around the world, causing them suffering but also harming the humans nearby, along with many other environmental and public health problems (Pluhar, 2010; Porcher, 2011; Rubio et al., 2020). Even though the issue of meat consumption is quite controversial and various teachers and traditions have been quite open to the idea, it is evident that it is not ethically innocuous. Early Buddhism outlined restrictions to meat consumption, both for monks and lay people, as well as special purification rituals after killing an animal (Harvey, 2000; J. J. Stewart, 2010, 2015). Later emphasis on compassion and the benefit of all beings leaned in favour of avoiding it (Chophel et al., 2012; Shantideva, 2007).

There is no easy answer to the question of which ones of all these activities should be abolished, modified or continued. WelfarismFootnote 13 is not necessarily satisfactory. Regardless of the improvement in treatment and care, animal exploitation and use is still a form of harm. On the other hand, Buddhism is not a prohibitive philosophy. Since wrongful actions come from ignorance and confusion, changing these conditions would also change the outcome actions. Enforcing a prohibition would not create the right understanding. So, instead of an abolitionist position, a pedagogical one is possible by encouraging the necessary studying and reflection so that people would cease these activities not because of an imposition but because they understand their unwholesomeness (Sangharakshita, 2001, p. 168). An example of this is the kingdom of Bhutan, where animal consumption is not strictly prohibited, but discouraged and considered incompatible with some Buddhist celebrations (Chophel et al., 2012).

There are also many human activities that harm other living beings indirectly, like polluting the earth, deforestation, and causing the current climate crisis. Several industries cause serious environmental pollution, like oil, textile, mining, maritime, etc. The construction of infrastructure such as motorways, railways and dams also damages living beings by changing and fragmenting their habitats. So it is not only our professional activity that should be analysed, but our whole lifestyle and the activities needed to support it. What and how much we consume, where it comes from, where our waste goes and how we are a part of it all. It can be overwhelming to think about this, since renouncing the comforts of our modern lifestyle is not always easy. However, Buddhist ethics are not an imposition, nor an immediate demand. The ethical precepts are training guidelines that point towards a better life for all. Achieving ethical conduct is a training process, a path, just as the Noble Eightfold Path indicates. As understanding and compassion grow, behaviour will modify according to the goal to benefit all beings. Furthermore, right livelihood is not meant to be a life of deprivation and misery; it is meant to be a life of contentment, serenity and happiness, a peace of mind that emerges from the conviction of doing what is right, a delightful life that takes pleasure in the many aspects of our experience that are skillful (friendship, art, nature, etc.), a joyful life filled with the knowledge that many other beings are benefiting from our actions.

We might ask if there should be a public policy involved in order to take this to a larger scale and beyond personal decisions. Buddhist commitment to non-violence as a public policy is evidenced in the edicts of King Ashoka (304–232 BC), emperor of Mauria who converted to Buddhism. Animal protection laws were established, and although the consumption of animals was not strictly prohibited, policies were put in place for its gradual reduction, with the intention of ending in the future (Harvey, 2000; Ryan, 1998). The Emperor Wu of the Liang (r. 502–549) of China also implemented animal protection policies, such as abstention from meat consumption (Schumann, 2021). Other texts like the Dīgha Nikāya condemn the killing of animals by considering them relatives and collaborators in various tasks (Ryan, 1998, p. 50). All these writings make it clear that just as there is no discrimination by species, neither should there be discrimination based on their relationship with human beings, so domestic animals must be respected in the same way as wild animals.

A contemporary example of the application of Buddhist philosophy is the aforementioned kingdom of Bhutan, a country that has followed this tradition for more than a thousand years. The government of this nation seeks the happiness and welfare of the population and the environment, while preserving culture and spiritual values. This policy has been materialised in laws that guarantee a minimum of 60% forest cover across its territory. Focusing on the specific attitude towards animals, consumption and use of animals is not prohibited but rather it is discouraged, in such a way that most of the population avoids these practices. The animal liberation ritual called Tsethar in Tibetan (Tse = life, Thar = liberation) is common in Bhutan. It is usually done to release animals that were intended for consumption. What they are told at the time of the ceremony is: “now you are free, we will not kill you for your meat, we will not sell you for a price, we will not make you work for us, we will not use your wool (in the case of a lamb), the moment is propitious, the consequences are good” (Chophel et al., 2012). These words reveal that the spirit of the practice is to free animals from being used by humans by perceiving them as valuable beings in themselves and respecting their lives (Uddin et al., 2007; van Vuuren & Smeets, 2000).Footnote 14 It is problematic when these kinds of rituals forget their original goal of helping animals, and become just a cultural activity. In this regard, the situation that occurred in China after the establishment of the republic is quite exemplary. With the purpose of protecting animals, associations were created in which Buddhist ethics and values towards animals were expressed. However, in order to survive, they had to align with the political agenda. Because of this, animal protection became a political and economic project, safeguarding only those animals considered useful but still allowing their instrumentalization (i.e. livestock), and neglecting or even targeting as enemies those animals that were considered harmful, such as the mice and insects that were affecting agricultural production (Schumann, 2021). This case is an example of why it is important to keep animal protection grounded in axiology and ideology, if this activity is carried out within a Buddhist framework.

Regarding animals used for scientific research and biotechnological production, this is a use of animals that some might consider analogous to the sacrifice of animals in religious rituals. Laboratory animals are killed for human interests, but also for something higher and for the greater good,Footnote 15 which the Buddha considered reprehensible (Harvey, 2000, p. 168). However, it cannot be denied that biomedical advances are of vital importance not only for humans, since many animals also benefit from them when they receive medical care. It is interesting to note that some research centres in Japan have placed headstones and carry out rituals for the animals killed by these institutions. Researchers have even declared that these rituals are important for the spirit of these animals and easing their conscience after hurting and killing them (Nishikawa & Morishita, 2012).

In order to achieve the right livelihood, some activities related to non-vital human needs may need to stop (i.e. cosmetic or military research and use of animals), while others, if considered impossible to abandon (i.e. biomedical research), should at least be reduced and abide to a minimal harm policy, along with more sensitive conduct and special rituals, such as funeral ceremonies for the animals.

VI. Right effort. In the Dhammapada, two ordinances of the Enlightened Ones are: (a) The not doing of anything evil, undertaking to do what is (ethically) skilful (kusala), and complete purification of the mind; and (b) to not speak evil, not injure, to exercise restraint through the observance of the code of conduct, to be moderate in diet, to live alone, and to occupy oneself with higher mental states (Sangharakshita, 2008, p. 57). According to this, the right effort begins by avoiding doing harm. In this regard, the ethical precepts should be abided by not harming living beings, not taking the not given, avoiding sexual misconduct and having rightful speech. Most of these have already been mentioned, except for sexual misconduct, which is definitely a wrong action when it involves animals, as they are similar to childrenFootnote 16 and there cannot be proper consent to participate in such activities with humans.

Besides avoiding harmful actions, mind purification is also an important task. A right effort includes the decision to work on the mental states that precede action, in accordance with right understanding and intentions. Citta is the word usually translated as mind, but a more accurate translation would be mind-heart as it also refers to emotions (Huxter, 2015, p. 39). Thoughts and emotions together are the source of actions. This is why the right effort should also focus on mental training, meaning that we must strive to prevent the arising of unskilful thoughts and emotions and to develop and to maintain the arising of skilful thoughts and emotions (Sangharakshita, 2001, p. 160). Meditation is a direct way to work with our mental states and this does not have to have a religious approach, as numerous mindfulness programs have proven over the years (Eberth & Sedlmeier, 2012; Tang et al., 2015). Although mindfulness training has mainly been oriented towards stress management, it is possible to apply it also to the improvement of our relationship with other animals. There are meditations especially designed for this purpose, like mettā bahavna, which translates as to foster fondness or kindness. It consists of five stages, of which traditionally the first four are used to develop kindness and goodwill towards specific human beings (oneself, a friend, a stranger and an enemy), and the fifth stage includes all of humanity, but also other living beings, like animals (Manuello et al., 2016; Rana, 2015; Sangharakshita, 2013).

It is important to remember that there should be a balance in our effort; the image of a string instrument (i.e. a guitar or sitar) is traditionally used to remind us that just as the string should not be too tight or too loose to produce a beautiful sound, we should not force ourselves too much, nor to be self-indulgent. A balanced effort is also guided by the discernment to determine what should be accepted, what should be changed and when to just let go (Huxter, 2015, p. 40). The sudden forbiddance of any use of animals might be a forced and problematic kind of effort (especially if the people and society are not ready for it), while indulgence regarding this topic represents no effort at all to continue with business as usual.

VII. Right attention (mindfulness) and VIII. Right concentration. Right attention or mindfulness, involves remembering to be attentive with an ethical quality that discerns between what is useful to follow mentally and what is not, discerning between what is harmful for the self or others and what is beneficial. As mindfulness training progresses there are less mental distractions so that in later stages, through concentration, it is possible to observe, note, and discern the law of conditionality in every phenomenon and clearly see the three marks of existence (impermanence, emptiness, and unsatisfactoriness) enabling wisdom and compassion to arise (right understanding) (Huxter, 2015, p. 42). This kind of mental work is also a part of a right effort.

Right concentration is also called samādhi, which means to collect one’s attention and place it on an object. However, it includes an element of self-transformation. Buddhist meditation is not an end in itself, but a training system to achieve a disciplined mind, in order not only to choose which emotions and thoughts are to be cultivated or diminished but also to prevent the interference from symbolic processing systems, such as language. When a symbolic structure of this script does not agree with the reality that is perceived, this ontological security is threatened. To resolve the inconsistency between the two there are two options: either modify the conceptual system or the perception of reality. Humans usually opt for the latter option in order to keep the symbolic corpus intact, through which numerous sociocultural biases are created, which then interfere in the perception and interpretation of reality (Boyle, 2017).

Meditation work allows us to move from subjective perception to objective observation, to remember that the ideas we build to describe the world end up structuring the world in which we think we live. However, it is not an easy job; dematerialising these ideas means moving away and deviating from the group with its respective consequences of alienation (Boyle, 2017). This includes gender roles that affect how we relate to other animals, since masculinity is associated with violent activities like meat eating and hunting, while femininity is ascribed to care and nature (Reggio, 2018; Warren, 2000). Ideas of human and male supremacy are rooted in many parts of our lives, our psyches, our culture and our lifestyle. Denouncing this situation is frequently received with scorn or disbelief (Reggio, 2018). This is why forming a community is important in Buddhism, in order to provide support and company to ease the path (Sangharakshita, 2001, pp. 34–6).

Regarding emotions, these are not fixed. They can be modified by changing the affective dimensions of our perceptual experience. For this, there are several meditation techniques such as the brahmavihārās, already mentioned, and Tonglen,Footnote 17 among others (Garfield, 2014, p. 290; Mah et al., 2021). Throughout these techniques, our emotional responses to animals can be modified and nourished.

Buddhist philosophy and meditation techniques are helpful tools to diminish speciesism because they acknowledge and tackle the issue at its roots, from mental states (thoughts and emotions) and how these affect perceptions and actions. This can be comprehended as a type of ethical enhancement, one that alters the individual not artificially (pharmacologically or technologically) (Ahlskog, 2017; Persson & Savulescu, 2019), but rather wilfully by studying and meditating.

The ethical precepts of the mindFootnote 18 are relevant to this topic because a lack of mental clarity breaks the other precepts with all the related consequences and harm. The emphasis on the practice of meditation stems from the understanding that a clear mind means greater awareness of our actions. Thoughts are not innocuous because, on the one hand, they have material manifestations through actions, but they also forge character and habits. If we keep our minds clear and cultivate positive mental states derived from wisdom and kindness, this will cause skilful actions of benefit to the agent and others, while those who maintain negative mental states stemming from ignorance and aversion will engage in harmful actions that affect everyone.

Refraining from greed in favour of tranquillity is another ethical precept and an important step. When the mind does not dwell in tranquillity because it covets for possessions or sensations, searching for satisfiers might cause great damage. A mind guided by greed steps over others, because obtaining its objectives is a priority. Even though monastic codes are restrictive regarding economic wealth, for lay people obtaining profits is not prohibited, but this activity should abide by the fulfilment of the ethical precepts, meaning, avoiding the harm and killing of sentient beings (Goodman, 2014, p. 65). Wealth should be conceived as an instrument for the benefit of all beings, not as an end in itself (Harvey, 2000, p. 113).

Negative mental states are not always as evident as when they reach the extremes of hate. Sometimes they present themselves in very subtle ways. It could be said that most human beings do not hate most animals, but most people feel aversion towards some of them. Numerous cultures and civilizations have been built on the idea of human superiority. Challenging this is often considered not only inappropriate, but an affront to society itself. Although hate is an emotion that is diametrically opposed to compassion, it is believed that holding wrong points of view (cognitive and sociocultural biases that prevent us from seeing reality) is more important and fundamental because they are the precise cause of hatred and aversion (Sangharakshita, 2010).

The mindfulness meditation movement that emerged from the Buddhist meditation system began over 50 years ago and has proven that meditation is helpful for stress and health issues (Eberth & Sedlmeier, 2012; Huxter, 2015; Rana, 2015; Tang et al., 2015). However, it is time to unlock more of meditation potential and also use it to alleviate the suffering of other beings. In order to achieve this, it should not be separated from its Buddhist context (Huxter, 2015, p. 30), because if it is reduced to a serenity practice we limit its scope, and the emotional training and support are removed as well. Raising awareness and consciousness without developing positive emotions might be harmful for practitioners (Lomas et al., 2015).

Right attention and concentration lead to a right understanding that emphasises our close connection with the rest of the animals and therefore the importance of considering their suffering as a relevant element in the way we relate to them, it encourages us to reconsider our attitudes, practices and emotional responses. This is where Buddhist thought makes a great contribution; it gives us a conceptualisation of the world that unites us with life in all its forms.

Conclusion

Buddhism provides us with a different perspective to approach the issue of animal suffering, given that the perspective of an ontological duality between human beings and other animals is one of the main barriers to modify certain attitudes towards them. Buddhist philosophy contains an elaborated and sophisticated group of theories and explanations that approach many of the same issues as other traditions, but with a different perspective that results in valuable contributions to the philosophical debate. Furthermore, it not only gives us a theoretical framework, but also a training system that comprehends the most important aspects of our lives. It provides us with ethical guidelines, bases for reflection and a mental training system. Amongst these, the Noble Eightfold Path is particularly useful for its comprehensiveness. Even though it was formulated more than 2500 years ago, human lives still fit within its scope. All these tools could be used to improve our relationship with other animals and reduce their suffering, whether caused by human beings or not.

Acknowledging that all animals have the same ontological status through the understanding of conditionality and interconnection is a fundamental step towards modifying our perception of animals and improving our actions towards them. If we are kin fellows within the same life process, then our suffering is not more worthy than theirs. Therefore the differentiated treatment towards other animals would be considered improper and unjust. Their exploitation, abuse and confinement would be seen with different eyes and would not be so easily accepted. We should feel the same commitment to easing the suffering of other animals, out of compassion and care and not as a charity or an imposition.

We can ease the non-anthropogenic suffering of animals by giving them medical care, food and shelter. We can ease their anthropogenic suffering by understanding the consequences of our actions; that cruelty and neglect harm them in a way that is the same or very similar to the ways they harm human beings. In order to maintain our lifestyles we need many resources and somewhere, somebody is paying the price, mainly vulnerable humans and animals. Even though the environmental crisis and the effects of industrialisation affect us all, they hit harder on those whose suffering is ignored because they are not being regarded as worthy of ethical consideration.

Through the Noble Eightfold Path, it is possible to analyse and transform our relationships with other animals using a philosophical perspective that includes metaphysical, ontological, phenomenological and epistemological tools and to ground this perspective in the practical aspects of our everyday life: what we consume, what we do for a living, what we focus our minds on. Buddhism offers us a different way to relate and to appreciate animals, and it shows us our interrelations, the deep and intimate connections between us as an opportunity to experience ourselves with them, in them and for them.