Do Animals Have a Religion?

[zombieharlot]

This may sound kind of stupid, as I can't really put my exact thoughts down well, but I'll try nonetheless.

Do animals go to heaven and hell? I have heard from many spiritual people that animals don't have a soul or spirit. If that's the case, then there is no afterlife for them. So then what exactly would be the purpose of a divine being creating them? To serve humans and be their food? Or is God or religion embedded into them from conception? Do they prey and survive as following divine orders from a god?

So, my main question is, should we delve into our basic animalistic natures and forget about all the ambivalence of religion that our more intelligent brains provide?

 

[Paraprakrti]

All very good questions, and exactly why I believe in the Vedic doctrine of reincarnation. All living entities are (not have) souls. We are each a spiritual soul who has taken shelter of a material body of some form. The human form is unique in so much that it allows for self-realization that other species generally aren't capable of. The Vedas teach that the soul transmigrates upwards through the different plant and animal bodies until it comes to the human platform. Human life is a crossroads. One can go back down into animal life, go up and live amongst the angel/demigod types, or completely transcend this material universe and return to God. Animals act according to nature, i.e. they eat, sleep, mate and defend. Humans have this nature as well, but are accountable for their actions given their ability to understand the self, the Absolute and the relationship between the two. This knowledge is what constitutes sin, and that is why, since animals generally have no such conceptions, they are incapable of sinning; and thus, incapable of going to a place of punishment. Humans are punished for misusing their intelligence.

 

[zombieharlot]

All very good questions, and exactly why I believe in the Vedic doctrine of reincarnation. All living entities are (not have) souls. We are each a spiritual soul who has taken shelter of a material body of some form. The human form is unique in so much that it allows for self-realization that other species generally aren't capable of. The Vedas teach that the soul transmigrates upwards through the different plant and animal bodies until it comes to the human platform. Human life is a crossroads. One can go back down into animal life, go up and live amongst the angel/demigod types, or completely transcend this material universe and return to God. Animals act according to nature, i.e. they eat, sleep, mate and defend. Humans have this nature as well, but are accountable for their actions given their ability to understand the self, the Absolute and the relationship between the two. This knowledge is what constitutes sin, and that is why, since animals generally have no such conceptions, they are incapable of sinning; and thus, incapable of going to a place of punishment. Humans are punished for misusing their intelligence.

I understand you for the most part. But can you make something clear to me? You believe in heaven, hell, AND reincarnation?

 

[Paraprakrti]

I don't believe that souls go to a place to suffer perpetually with no end. I simply believe that one can move to better places or worse places within this universe, or one can transcend the universe completely and return to God. In general we can consider material existence as "hell" and returning to God as "heaven". In other words, reincarnation is hell. When we return to God we no longer take temporal bodies. Instead we have eternal, spiritual bodies and therefore there is no question of reincarnation. On the other hand, reincarnation can be seen as a blessing in so much that it is a means toward the end of returning to God. So it depends on one's level of enlightenment. The pure devotee of God sees every situation applicable to performing devotional service unto the Supreme Personality of Godhead and therefore sees heaven everywhere.

In Vedic texts it speaks of various hellish places in the universe. I can accept that the Biblical version of hell is legit, up to the point that one is to dwell there forever. That makes no sense and contradicts a loving, inexhaustible God.

 

[mingmty]

This may sound kind of stupid, as I can't really put my exact thoughts down well, but I'll try nonetheless.

Do animals go to heaven and hell? I have heard from many spiritual people that animals don't have a soul or spirit. If that's the case, then there is no afterlife for them. So then what exactly would be the purpose of a divine being creating them? To serve humans and be their food? Or is God or religion embedded into them from conception? Do they prey and survive as following divine orders from a god?

So, my main question is, should we delve into our basic animalistic natures and forget about all the ambivalence of religion that our more intelligent brains provide?

Off course animals have a religion! Why does wolves howl at the moon? Why does a rooster welcome the sun? Why does bees have this extremely complex social order even without conscience?

All of this comes from the inside, deeper than thoughts, deeper than conscience, just in the line between instincts and the unknown. Why does man worship the sun? (apparently the first human religious ritual and from where all seems to come).

The biggest human mistake was to consider humanity exclusively special. We are just another one born from where all comes: Nature. And it welcomes us to life with in all it's greatness trough the kiss of our mom, the light from the sun, the blue of the sky and the whisper of the wind. The ever changing religion of armony on which all that has come to be has a story and a song.

Or so as I see the world I don't believe in heaven and hell.

 

[zombieharlot]

Off course animals have a religion! Why does wolves howl at the moon? ¿Why does a rooster welcome the sun? ¿Why does bees have this extremely complex social order even without conscience?

All of this comes from the inside, deeper than thoughts, deeper than conscience, just in the line between instincts and the unknown. ¿Why does man worship the sun? (The first human religious ritual and from where all seems to come).

The biggest human mistake was to consider humanity exclusively special. We are just another one born from where all comes: Nature. And it welcomes us with in all it's greatness trough the kiss of our mom, the light from the sun, the blue of the sky and the whisper of the wind. The ever changing religion of armony on which all that has come to be has a story and a song.

Or so as I see the world I don't believe in heaven and hell.

Do you think this could be scientifically proven? For instance, if we raise a set number of children without teaching them any concept of a god or lack there of (any form of religion and atheism), you think that the majority of them would naturally grow up to take act in some form of worship?

 

[zombieharlot]

I don't believe that souls go to a place to suffer perpetually with no end. I simply believe that one can move to better places or worse places within this universe, or one can transcend the universe completely and return to God. In general we can consider material existence as "hell" and returning to God as "heaven". In other words, reincarnation is hell. When we return to God we no longer take temporal bodies. Instead we have eternal, spiritual bodies and therefore there is no question of reincarnation. On the other hand, reincarnation can be seen as a blessing in so much that it is a means toward the end of returning to God. So it depends on one's level of enlightenment. The pure devotee of God sees every situation applicable to performing devotional service unto the Supreme Personality of Godhead and therefore sees heaven everywhere.

In Vedic texts it speaks of various hellish places in the universe. I can accept that the Biblical version of hell is legit, up to the point that one is to dwell there forever. That makes no sense and contradicts a loving, inexhaustible God.

So, in essence, everything (animals, plants, humans, etc,...) is a part of God that hasn't yet returned to become part of God yet?

 

[mingmty]

Do you think this could be scientifically proven? For instance, if we raise a set number of children without teaching them any concept of a god or lack there of (any form of religion and atheism), you think that the majority of them would naturally grow up to take act in some form of worship?

First of all I'm a scientist, I work with and for science and I consider myself a loyal user of the scientific thought. That's why I have read many books about the history of science and the history of scientific thought.

I make myself clear on this matter because you can't ask to "scientifically prove" something without understanding what is science... Or better yet, the scientific thought. I don't want to enter in details but even science has been trough many crisis and makes many assumptions. Two examples of such crisis are positivism, which almost make a religion out of science, and relativity, which finally destroyed the centuries old belief of science as an exact interpretation of the universe. One example of the assumptions is to consider that the universe molds the mind instead of the mind molding the universe, which neither of them can be proven (scientifically since the answer must be used to define science itself).

So, if you are asking if there are facts that could drive us to believe this, and if this facts can be scientifically proven, the answer is yes. In Africa the most uncivilized tribes still practice ancient rituals like that of spiting to their hand and stretch the arms to the sun. This people doesn't even know what they are doing, also don't try to explain it, they just do it. When scientists ask them why are they doing this they only get really confused... Never asked that question to themselves.

Asking for scientific proofs for a spiritual belief is pointless: Scientific proofs belong to rational thought, intuition to the spirit... But I'm sure that the child of your "experiment" would see a really powerful symbol in the sun and probably will create sort of a religion out of it... After all, if you don't teach them anything what would be their only experience of light and warmth, and they are warm

 

[zombieharlot]

Asking for scientific proofs for a spiritual belief is pointless: Scientific proofs belong to rational thought, intuition to the spirit.

I'm not sure we're quite understanding each other. It seems to me that you're saying that everything is religious by nature. I wasn't asking if we could prove if any particular religion is correct. I was asking if you think a religious nature could be proven in humans if we took away the legacy of religion and all other outside influences of it. Would we still feel a yearning for religion without having any knowledge of it?

 

[Flappycat]

This may sound kind of stupid, as I can't really put my exact thoughts down well, but I'll try nonetheless.

Communicate your ideas. It's good for you.

Do animals go to heaven and hell? I have heard from many spiritual people that animals don't have a soul or spirit. If that's the case, then there is no afterlife for them.

Well, I'd start by insisting that there's no such thing as a soul or afterlife, but this doesn't seem to be what you're asking. I'll just address what you're asking as best I can, then.

As animals go, what you see is generally what you get, assuming you've looked closely enough to make a fair guess at what you're actually seeing. As a common example, take a pet cat or dog: many can sense a "presence" in them, interpreted by most as a sign that they have a soul. What we're actually observing, most likely, are patterns of movement that reflect such things as thought, feeling, and emotion. We can take one look at Old Roy or Kitty and take a pretty good guess that they're not mindless automatons. While this isn't scientific method, even the scientist would take it as fair grounds for conjecture; if you'd research modern scientific findings on the subject, you'd find that it's lately been verified that proportions don't so significantly affect the behavior of brains that have similar structures as to render something as closely related to us as our favorite pets completely alien.

Now, if you're satisfied that you may not be completely wasting your time in your conversations with Muffin, consider carefully what you think the significance of a soul actually is to a mortal being.

So then what exactly would be the purpose of a divine being creating them? To serve humans and be their food?

I wouldn't think so. Most of them don't seem particularly interested in being on someone's plate. For that matter, most of them don't even taste particularly good, and few of them bear pelts worth robbing. I think that any "purpose" they may have in relation to human beings would be up to our own ingenuity, which I am not embarrassed to say can be quite considerable. However, I've always been under the impression that Christians believed humans themselves to be servents of some "greater" cause, so I'd think it a bit vain to assume an animal to have a purpose directly linked to Mankind, rather than through this "greater" cause, until it were made manifest.

Or is God or religion embedded into them from conception? Do they prey and survive as following divine orders from a god?

Well, they also eat, sleep, and generally have a good time. Really, if you'd pay attention, you'd find that most of the more well off animals spend the overwhelming majority of their time trying their best to make an enjoyable time out of things, which is one of the benefits of not having been taught the lie that one should have a particular reason for doing so. To tell you the truth, it's easy to think of our unreasonably inflated forebrains as a noxious growth that never went away; most seem to lack the ingenuity to make something positive of the thing.

So, my main question is, should we delve into our basic animalistic natures and forget about all the ambivalence of religion that our more intelligent brains provide?

Forget? Oh, lordy, no. A tool left unused is dead weight. Delving into your "animalistic nature," however, might improve your clarity of thought a great deal more than you might imagine.

 

[michel]

All very good questions, and exactly why I believe in the Vedic doctrine of reincarnation. All living entities are (not have) souls. We are each a spiritual soul who has taken shelter of a material body of some form. The human form is unique in so much that it allows for self-realization that other species generally aren't capable of. The Vedas teach that the soul transmigrates upwards through the different plant and animal bodies until it comes to the human platform. Human life is a crossroads. One can go back down into animal life, go up and live amongst the angel/demigod types, or completely transcend this material universe and return to God. Animals act according to nature, i.e. they eat, sleep, mate and defend. Humans have this nature as well, but are accountable for their actions given their ability to understand the self, the Absolute and the relationship between the two. This knowledge is what constitutes sin, and that is why, since animals generally have no such conceptions, they are incapable of sinning; and thus, incapable of going to a place of punishment. Humans are punished for misusing their intelligence.

Not far off from my thinking; actually, pretty spot on!

So, I agree with you, and therefore anything that lives has a soul, including, obviously, plantlife and animals.

 

[ayani]

sure- why shouldn't they? how do we know that feelings of awe, worshipfulness, and compassion are limited to homo-sapiens? and what gives us the basis to assume so? i've seen dogs weep, heard whales sing, seen an ant scream, and watched parrots console one another. i see no reason to disbelieve that animals can have their own understanding of purpose, their own faith in life.

 

[Paraprakrti]

So, in essence, everything (animals, plants, humans, etc,...) is a part of God that hasn't yet returned to become part of God yet?

Except, don't think that our constitutional position is to merge into God's existence. Returning to God means that we go to His spiritual abode and associate with Him directly. We are part and parcel of God ~ eternally individuals.

 

[Paraprakrti]

Browsing through some 'Hare Krishna' discussions I found the following relevant discourse:

(Excerpt from The Science of Self-Realization, chapter 4: )

Srila Prabhupada: So, in the Bible God's practical commandment is that you cannot kill; therefore killing cows is a sin for you.
Cardinal Danielou: God says to the Indians that killing is not good, and he says to the Jews that...
Srila Prabhupada: No, no. Jesus Christ taught, "Thou shalt not kill." Why do you interpret this to suit your own convenience?
Cardinal Danielou: But Jesus allowed the sacrifice of the Paschal Lamb.
Srila Prabhupada: But he never maintained a slaughterhouse.
Cardinal Danielou: [Laughs.] No, but he did eat meat.
Srila Prabhupada: When there is no other food, someone may eat meat in order to keep from starving. That is another thing. But it is most sinful to regularly maintain slaughterhouses just to satisfy your tongue. Actually, you will not even have a human society until this cruel practice of maintaining slaughterhouses is stopped. And although animal killing may sometimes be necessary for survival, at least the mother animal, the cow, should not be killed. That is simply human decency. In the Krsna consciousness movement our practice is that we don't allow the killing of any animals. Krsna says, patram puspam phalam toyam yo me bhaktya prayacchati: "Vegetables, fruits, milk, and grains should be offered to Me in devotion." (Bhagavad-gita 9.26) We take only the remnants of Krsna's food (prasadam). The trees offer us many varieties of fruits, but the trees are not killed. Of course, one living entity is food for another living entity, but that does not mean you can kill your mother for food. Cows are innocent; they give us milk. You take their milk--and then kill them in the slaughterhouse. This is sinful.
Student: Srila Prabhupada, Christianity's sanction of meat-eating is based on the view that lower species of life do not have a soul like the human being's.
Srila Prabhupada: That is foolishness. First of all, we have to understand the evidence of the soul's presence within the body. Then we can see whether the human being has a soul and the cow does not. What are the different characteristics of the cow and the man? If we find a difference in characteristics, then we can say that in the animal there is no soul. But if we see that the animal and the human being have the same characteristics, then how can you say that the animal has no soul? The general symptoms are that the animal eats, you eat; the animal sleeps, you sleep; the animal mates, you mate; the animal defends, and you defend. Where is the difference?
Cardinal Danielou: We admit that in the animal there may be the same type of biological existence as in men, but there is no soul. We believe that the soul is a human soul.
Srila Prabhupada: Our Bhagavad-gita says sarva-yonisu, "In all species of life the soul exists." The body is like a suit of clothes. You have black clothes; I am dressed in saffron clothes. But within the dress you are a human being, and I am also a human being. Similarly, the bodies of the different species are just like different types of dress. There are soul, a part and parcel of God. Suppose a man has two sons, not equally meritorious. One may be a Supreme Court judge and the other may be a common laborer, but the father claims both as his sons. He does not make the distinction that the son who is a judge is very important and the worker-son is not important. And if the judge-son says, "My dear father, your other son is useless; let me cut him up and eat him," will the father allow this?
Cardinal Danielou: Certainly not, but the idea that all life is part of the life of God is difficult for us to admit. There is a great difference between human life and animal life.
Srila Prabhupada: That difference is due to the development of consciousness. In the human body there is developed consciousness. Even a tree has a soul, but a tree's consciousness is not very developed. If you cut a tree it does not resist. Actually, it does resist, but only to a very small degree. There is a scientist named Jagadish Chandra Bose who has made a machine which shows that trees and plants are able to feel pain when they are cut. And we can see directly that when someone comes to kill an animal, it resists, it cries, it makes a horrible sound. So it is a matter of the development of consciousness. But the soul is there within all living beings.
Cardinal Danielou: But metaphysically, the life of man is sacred. Human beings think on a higher platform than the animals do.
Srila Prabhupada: What is that higher platform? The animal eats to maintain his body, and you also eat in order to maintain your body. The cow eats grass in the field, and the human being eats meat from a huge slaughterhouse full of modern machines. But just because you have big machines and a ghastly scene, while the animal simply eats grass, this does not mean that you are so advanced that only within your body is there a soul and that there is not a soul within the body of the animal. That is illogical. We can see that the basic characteristics are the same in the animal and the human being.
Cardinal Danielou: But only in human beings do we find a metaphysical search for the meaning of life.
Srila Prabhupada: Yes. So metaphysically search out why you believe that there is no soul within the animal--that is metaphysics. If you are thinking metaphysically, that's all right. But if you are thinking like an animal, then what is the use of your metaphysical study? Metaphysical means "above the physical" or, in other words, "spiritual." In the Bhagavad-gita Krsna says, sarva-yonisu kaunteya: "In every living being there is a spirit soul." That is metaphysical understanding. Now either you accept Krsna's teachings as metaphysical, or you'll have to take a third-class fool's opinion as metaphysical. Which do you accept?
Cardinal Danielou: But why does God create some animals who eat other animals? There is a fault in the creation, it seems.
Srila Prabhupada: It is not a fault. God is very kind. If you want to eat animals, then He'll give you full facility. God will give you the body of a tiger in your next life so that you can eat flesh very freely. "Why are you maintaining slaughterhouses? I'll give you fangs and claws. Now eat." So the meat-eaters are awaiting such punishment. The animal-eaters become tigers, wolves, cats, and dogs in their next life--to get more facility.

 

[Druidus]

Many animals possess limited spirituality. None possess the same level of religiousity as us. This is a good thing.

In my experience, spirituality has its purposes, but religion rarely helps anyone.

 

[Paraprakrti]

^^^What is the difference between religious and spirituality? I've heard people say, "religion divides people and spirituality unites them", or something to that effect. But religion doesn't necessarily divide people. Just because it often does with a couple of the major religions, does not define religion as dividing people. I always hear people referring to religion versus spirituality in this way and, honestly, it has become quite cliche. Maybe you have another understanding though.

 

[zombieharlot]

^^^What is the difference between religious and spirituality? I've heard people say, "religion divides people and spirituality unites them", or something to that effect. But religion doesn't necessarily divide people. Just because it often does with a couple of the major religions, does not define religion as dividing people. I always hear people referring to religion versus spirituality in this way and, honestly, it has become quite cliche. Maybe you have another understanding though.

I've always understood religion to be the practice (which can almost be systematic) while spirituality is more of a connection with your religious god/goddess or gods/goddesses. So, I guess to me that asking if animals are both, religious and spiritual, is relavent to this thread.

 

[Paraprakrti]

I've always understood religion to be the practice (which can almost be systematic) while spirituality is more of a connection with your religious god/goddess or gods/goddesses. So, I guess to me that asking if animals are both, religious and spiritual, is relavent to this thread.

Well, it is my understanding that the goal of religion is to have or realize a connection with the supreme Goddess/God. So maybe by "religion" you mean the process that is meant to develop or realize this connection, but of which this connection is not found in a particular group of people?

 

[zombieharlot]

Well, it is my understanding that the goal of religion is to have or realize a connection with the supreme Goddess/God. So maybe by "religion" you mean the process that is meant to develop or realize this connection, but of which this connection is not found in a particular group of people?

I suppose.

 

[Druidus]

Religion has dogma. You must prescribe to that dogma to be a part of that religion. Spirituality, to me, is entirely based on the individual. Your beliefs come from YOU, from your experiences and your knowledge. Animals cannot follow religion, usually, because they either have no culture, or they have a relatively limited culture (compared to us). I define culture as the ability to teach to the next generation, and by teach I mean actually trying to get a concept across to the next generation, as an ape might, not letting them learn from your actions, as a feline might. Only a very few animals possess this ability, and, of those, only humans can express it religiously.

Read this: http://www.janegoodall.org/chimp_central/chimpanzees/behavior/rain_dance.asp

Now, do you believe that the chimpanzees are passing down such behaviour? Quite clearly this is not the case. Therefore, their reaction to the waterfall or the python is internally led, and not controlled by dogma.

My reverence towards nature and my joy at being part of it, in and around it, are internally led reactions. I take them not from dogma, but from what I hold to be real and valuable. This is spirituality.