Buddhist Animal Release Practices: Historic, Environmental, Public Health And Economic Concerns
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Animal release has long been a component of Buddhist practice, although it is little studied contemporarily. This paper examines the historical roots of these rituals, arguing that they may ultimately have been adopted into Chinese Buddhist practices. A short survey of contemporary Buddhist practice in various traditions is given, including references to important scriptural authority. Practices involving large-scale, ritualized animal release is then argued to have a number of unintended negative environmental repercussions, resulting in potential new, non-native invasive species. These practices are also considered from contemporary economic and public health perspectives, culminating in the argument that their compassionate intentions are often lost in the act. Acknowledgements The authors owe a debt of gratitude to a few individuals who contributed to bringing this paper to its present form. First and foremost, the writing of this paper was inspired by Master Tam Shek-wing (rDo rje 'jigs bral), a vajrācarya of the rNying ma school of Tibetan Buddhism who has been criticizing for years the potential problems of the practice of animal release. Our discussions with the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, including Larissa Mohan, Joanne Jeffrey and Natalie Affolter, were central to providing potential solutions to the problems posed by animal release. Our thanks also go to Professor James Benn, Professor Guang Xing and Professor Duncan Ryūken Williams for reading an early version of this paper and providing invaluable feedback. Finally, Professor Sandy Smith of the Forestry Department at the University of Toronto was very generous with her time, and helped to clarify the biological terminology used in this paper. Notes 1. See the news in the local Hong Kong newspaper Orisun, 29 April 2006. 2. Taishō no. 1484, 1006. Duncan Ryūken Williams also mentions that Japanese Buddhist monks such as Keishu also took this scripture as the canonical source of the hōjō-e practice and commented on this passage in his Hōjō jissai katsuma giki. See Williams (1997, 150). 3. For a detailed study of the development of the practice of animal release in China, especially during the Ming and Qing dynasties, see Joanna F. Handlin Smith (Citation1999). 4. For information on Toronto see the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority ‘Live Fish Release Research Project’ report in progress; personal communications with Larissa Mohan; see http://www.trca.on.ca/. 5. In the case of Vancouver, there is evidence that a Buddhist temple regularly conducts the practice; see http://www.buddhisttemple.ca/involvement/international.htm; INTERNET. 6. See http://www.east.org.tw/01/link3-32.htm; INTERNET. 7. Sing Tao Daily, 1 November 2005, citing a report from the Guangzhou local newspaper Nanfang Dushi Bao of the same day. 8. Ibid. There is also an independent report on the practice of illegally introducing uninspected birds into Hong Kong from Guangzhou in issue 879 of Next Magazine (11 January 2007) (available from http://next.atnext.com/template/next/front.cfm; INTERNET). 9. See http://www.iucn.org/themes/ssc/publications/policy/invasivesEng.htm; INTERNET. 10. See http://e-info.org.tw/issue/biotech/issue-biotech00111501.htm; INTERNET.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it