Releasing or Harming Life?

I have blogged many times here about our release life activities, the latest one being here. I have also tried to read up on this intrinsically meritorious activity, one which has instilling compassion in all of us at its core. At the same time, the potential for abuse exists as blogged here, which admonishes us to temper the conduct of the activity with wisdom. Therefore, the pros and cons of release life activity as a benevolent act sanctioned by the Buddhist community have been debated at length.

Recently, the same disagreement, to put it mildly, surfaced in Malaysia in conjunction with the Global Guan Yin Dharma Ceremony (July 30 - Aug 1, 2007) . Among the activities planned to commemorate the occasion was the organized release life activity.

I am not privy to what actually transpired on the ground, but have this news article in Nanyang Siang Pau (Aug 8, 2007) to give me a sense of the undercurrents of conflicting standpoints.

Consider it a proposal for an alternative (the virtual) kind of engaging in release life activities. In the spirit of sharing, here’s my attempt at an English translation:

Do set up a release life website!

Many years ago, per chance I wrote an article commenting on the deviation of the practice of release life from its true meaning. A reader responded in support, saying that if anyone stops catching small animals for release life after reading my article, that itself would constitute a meritorious act of saving life.

The reader also attached an explanation on the significance of releasing life by Venerable Dhammananda, quoting him, “liberating all sentient beings from suffering is the best form of releasing life.”

Many years since, many small animals still suffer because of the practice of releasing life.

Releasing animals from immediate harm is saving life, but not one that is pre-meditated. However, the practice of releasing life in order to accrue good merits has gone astray, bringing much detriment over the long term to the lives of many small animals such as turtles, birds, and fish. For many years, many people have voiced negatively on the practice, as have many venerable monks and practitioners in the Buddhist community explained based on Buddhist scriptures the fine points and protocol required of the proper conduct of the practice. But twisted forms of releasing life rituals continue unabated.

The recent Global GuanYin Dharma Ceremony too has been criticized by the public including Buddhists as damaging the atmosphere of peace and serenity for organizing an activity that released more than ten thousands small animals. Perhaps some of these fish and birds have indeed been spared the fate of immediate slaughter, or regained freedom from captivity; however, many were likely innocent lives but were caught specifically to cater for the need of the ritual.

Even though the organizers have stated categorically that these animals were purchased on the spot from the markets, perhaps in an attempt to deflect the accusation of abetting those in the business of supplying animals for release life activities. But is this a practical method? How many times would it serve the purpose? How does one ensure that the “surprised” purchase is not anticipated by those with vested interests?

Whenever there is the practice of releasing life, then there will be businesses specializing in supplying the needed “commodity”. Today, when one walks past any pet shop, it’s not difficult to observe pitiful small animals that would hardly qualify as pets in cages.

The practice of release life has resulted in many small animals and birds being forced into captivity, even untimely demise. So many reports have chronicled the specter of releasing life being turned into an unwholesome endeavor that going into details here would seem superfluous.

As a result, some release life activities have degenerated into the abyss of hypocrisy, their purposes running counter to the notion that life is sacrosanct. Such meaningless pursuits have brought suffering, even death, upon the small animals. At the same time, the perpetrators have committed grave wrongs, instead of achieving the noble purpose of releasing life.

Today, we can access websites that worship Confucius or ancestors. There are also virtual shrines and temples, even those that cater to striking small likeness of people that have done you wrong [a prevalent practice in some Asian culture, digital likeness that is], though I’m not sure whether there is one for releasing life. If there isn’t, I would like to appeal to any web design whiz kid to make one, so that those who intend to engage in releasing life as doing a good deed can do so to their hearts’ content, on the Net, thus benefiting themselves, others, and the small animals.


Does that mean giving up participating in releasing life on the ground? I demur. There are checks and balances that one can follow as blogged here. But it does mean no publicity, for it’s naïve to think that in this highly commercialized world of ours, there is a dearth of enterprising souls who would spin any innocuous activity into a profit making concern where often the end (the sale) justifies the means (catching small animals that in all likelihood would not become pets).

Also, conduct the activity in small groups, over spatially/geographically divergent areas. Be random in selecting the sites (to ensure that the released animals have the highest chance of getting back to life in the wild, and not becomg part of the food chain, not so soon anyway), and in selecting the place of purchase (to ensure that the proprietors do not temporarily stock up more catches to meet the needs).

Here I would like to end with an excerpt from Reiki Blogger, which I chanced upon while googling “Compassion and Wisdom”:

“So, the basic practice of kindness becomes a unity of wisdom and compassion. Because without one the other suffers. Without the warmth of compassion our wisdom and clarity becomes impartial and cold. And without the clear seeing wisdom our kindness becomes mis-guided and perhaps only serves to perpetuate the problem.”