Having pets must be one of the closest relationships.  The great problem is that like all ties, they always lead to heartbreaking partings, especially since their lives are so short.  Although once we are born we are inevitably on our way towards death, we would always continue to part with all living things, and they with us one day, over and over.  Still, suffer as others might, Buddhism doesn't condone to euthanasia, since we never know what the marana sanna vithi (the last process of citta that performs the function of leaving a lifetime) would have as arammana (object experienced by the citta).  This would arise because of kamma {past deeds, physical, verbal or mental (the mental being in the case of jhana citta and panna of different levels, etc.)} as paccaya (cause, conditions) and the citta that arise to know it would be conditioned by past accumulations as well as the arammana as major paccaya, among other things.  All the combined final conditions would produce the next patisandhi citta (first citta of the next life; birth citta), (after an interposition of countless bhavanga or life continuum) and the following bhavanga citta of the entire next life as well, all this at the speed of 17 times the speed of any rupa (non mental phenomenon).

Which means we never know what the last vipaka (result of kamma) would be, nor the mental state of the dying, so we could never tell where they would be reborn.  What if the suffering in the next world is worse than this one?  Surely when one has not attained sotapanna anything is possible, the higher as well as lower planes.  One thing for certain is that while you are still together you could try to make her days as painless as possible, and give her what pets crave most, attention and care, and as much metta as possible.  I am sure she could bear almost anything with that, that's practically all pets live for, I think, and no one else can give it to them the way we can.

Also, I had a dog once, (also sadly deceased,) who loved to listen to the dhamma.  My mother owned the whole set of recorded lectures of our teacher, who has a very nice voice, and my dog used to lie down right in front of the speaker when I wasn't home.  But my mother said when she got tired of listening to the tapes and turn on the news or music he would give a grunt (sigh?) and walked out on her!  Not to imply he understood anything, but he probably liked the sound of my teacher's voice, or rather the tone of her voice.  That's one of the things that consoled me when he died; who knows, there are stories in the Tipitaka of animals being born in the deva planes and such because of the kusala of hearing the sounds of the dhamma which they must have recognized as something good, even without understanding it.  I'm not suggesting you play my teacher's tapes to your dog, even if it were possible, but perhaps talking to her about the dhamma, even if she couldn't understand it (and at the risk of curious glances from people around you!) might be good for the both of you!!!

Another thing is that if it were not our vipaka to die right then, we could not die, no matter what happens, so your dog might have the vipaka to live on a while yet, at which point you will need all the metta possible to look after her, it will be your opportunity to practice the brahma vihara in daily life.  Kusala begins with the ones closest to you, animals as well as people, and you can study the characteristics as they appear to you, metta is composed mainly of adosa, for example, a cetasika completely free from dosa and harmless and beautiful, full of friendship for others, unlike ordinary lobha (attachment) which can only bring dosa in the end.  Karuna (giving assistance to those in need) can be helping them physically as well as improving their mental states as much as possible; also mainly composed of adosa.  And you will certainly need a lot of upekkha (equanimity, indifference) when nothing seems to help in the end.  At least you will have done your best; everyone has their own kamma and vipaka and even the Buddha couldn't help everyone.  In the end, it is our attachment to others, things as well as beings, that bring us dukkha.  When they have passed on, it is generally our attachment that brings us sorrow, we are sorry for ourselves, while they have passed on to another life immediately, like waking up from a dream, to an entire new set of realities.

 

            From: cforsyth@v...
            Date: Fri May 25, 2001 9:12 am
           Subject; Euthanasia

Dear John,

I really feel for you with this heartbreak.  I have had labradors for most of my life (I'm middle-aged now), and regard them as intelligent, kind, and loving companions - one of the few animals with a sense of humour.

I even had one put to sleep in my pre-Buddhist days (she had a brain tumour, had been in the veterinary hospital for ten days on a drip and was in deep, unrelievable pain according to the Vet.).  I don't know what I would do in the same case now. I held her in my arms while the Vet gave her an injection, and she died within seconds. The Vet then hugged my husband and I and the three of us cried.  The vet had known the dog for fourteen years too.

Another time, I had a pet Jersey cow who had a fungating tumour on her face.  She was 21 years old - which is very, very ancient for a milking cow. I had owned her since she was a 'poddy' calf of a few weeks of age. She looked dreadful, but continued in good appetite and showed no vocal or behavioural signs of pain.  However, I was visited by an officer of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals who informed me there had been a complaint and that unless I arranged for her to be shot, the Society would confiscate her and do it themselves. I would then face Court proceedings and a large fine.  I got a local expert marksman to do it.  She died in the company of my son (whom she was two years older than) she was quite calm and knew nothing about it. It was all we could do for her.

So, I can offer no real comfort - I can find no scriptural references to support the killing of an ill or injured animal, though I have looked and looked - as I am sure you have also.

The book "An introduction to Buddhist Ethics" by Peter Harvey simply states "Buddhist veterinary care would not include the killing of an ill or injured animal, for this would still be a breach of the first precept, and is seen as not unlike killing a sick human.  Buddhist compassion would urge the caring for the animal, but not 'putting it to sleep'." (p173)

I don't know what the Kammic consequences will be to me for those two incidences.  Or to the Vet, the Marksman, the anonymous complainer, the Officer from the R.S.P.C.A. or my son.  All of us had good intentions and thought we were doing the right/best thing for the animals concerned.  But Kamma doesn't take any notice of ignorance or good intentions, does it??

metta,

Chris
 
 

From the academic view of the abhidhamma, intention, or cetana cetasika, is the leading cetasika in kamma, and your reluctance to end their lives would be the attenuating factor in the act, you could easily see the difference between a person killing for 'sport', taking a life for fun pitilessly, or killing out of rage or anger, how powerful and ugly the citta must be.  You also wondered if euthanasia was right, therefore the moha or ignorance was also attenuated, unlike for example those who perform sacrifices with the belief that it was kusala to take a life.  Therefore although it still does not make it right to kill, the citta or kamma accumulated was not as dark and harmful as in cases where lobha, dosa and moha were the full driving force.

But we have all lived through endless samsara and been born from the highest to the lowest planes, with few exceptions, so I might safely say that all of us have committed much worse kamma than euthanasia for certain, and more than once.  Even the Buddha had the residue of past kamma happen to him in his last life, although never any thing more serious than a bruise as bodily dukkha.  As long as we are in samsara these endless kamma accumulated can bring vipaka or results of kamma at any time.

This is the advantage of learning the dhamma, it helps us distinguish kusala from akusala and now that we know it we would have more of a reason to avoid the wrong accumulations in the future, since we can't change the past in this life any more than we can the billions on billions of past ones.  One thing is certain, we were born humans because of kusala vipaka, and even more kusala led us to the dhamma, to knowledge of the truth especially of ourselves.  As I said earlier, regret is the most useless thing as well as bad accumulations, it distracts from the present when we should be doing our best at each instant, and accumulate knowledge of things as they really are as much as there are conditions for mindfulness of the characteristics of realities around us to arise.  Only panna can end all ignorance and kilesa one day, thinking about the past can never be as good as accumulating wisdom in the present, and learning about what is kusala and akusala is one of the conditions for right understanding to continue to develop.

    I may be wrong but don't we generally regret things when the intention was not quite pure?  If we know what is right and we do it with the best intention I think we risk minimum regret.  But that might depend on the individual's accumulations as well.  One thing is that if one is constantly mindful of the present regret will have less occasion to arise since the citta is linear, and can only arise one at a time, which is why each moment of kusala is so precious, at least it keeps one more akusala citta from arising.  Then again, we do not know what will happen in the next life, unless one were the Buddha.  Nor do we know if the pet might suffer less the next moment, it might have a reprieve this very life!  An example is a friend's dog that was dying, according to the vet, and whose owner found an old cure in the local traditional medicine that made it get up and run around again after three days!  In the end, each being has his own kamma, and all must die in the end, unless one is no longer born.  We could only make it the best we can for those we can help, that is all anyone can do, I think.