Does releasing animals create merit, and how should buying animals for release be viewed today?

The original intention is giving animals a chance to live. If they die soon afterwards, it becomes releasing them to death, not saving life, and cannot be called merit. What matters is not completing the gesture but survival, suitable habitat, and planning for consequences. The program did not universally prohibit release; it urged thought beforehand.

Historically, monastic Buddhist groups often promoted release for averting misfortune, with saving life understood as accumulating merit and blessings. But folk believers also release animals, so do not assume every activity is Buddhist without identifying organizers. The older concept resembled a fisher returning caught fish to their original place rather than killing them. Shengyuan joined parents releasing fish in childhood Taiwan, when it was widespread. He recalled release into reservoirs or similar waters, where survival seemed likelier, while not understanding ecological effects then.

We discussed two reports. In the first, a woman claiming divine instructions for blessings left two thousand tiny birds in grass near a protected water-source area. Only a few remained alive when discovered, and investigation was ongoing. From photographs, participants thought these were young animals unable to fly or move independently, comparing it cruelly to abandoning two thousand babies. The speaker regarded buying and discarding them as a distortion and superstition, not proper practice, and said Sheng Zhen Men would not do this. The claimed instruction remained questionable: by our logic, our deities would never tell someone to release animals. Calling reckless abandonment divine instruction stigmatized deities and showed the need for sound faith.

In the second, a religious group transported farmed sea bass to the coast while monastics recited blessings. Reports said county permission covered four thousand fish over fifteen centimeters. Anglers soon arrived, with rods covering the area, while some fish failed to adapt and died belly-up. The report described the released fish as either dying or becoming catches. I questioned departure from the original intention. Wishing farmed fish back to sea was kind, but immediate capture or death might mean leaving them farmed would have allowed longer life. Conversely, they may already have been raised for sale and consumption, and release only allowed another day or two before that fate. Intention and compassion were not wrong, but consequences still required responsibility rather than treating the outcome as unrelated once release was done.

From energy, the program understood genuine rescue as bringing an animal’s gratitude and positive feedback, explaining original merit. A seawater fish put in fresh water might initially feel grateful, then die days later and return resentment. Another view raised was that newborn birds or mice lack thought and therefore gratitude or hatred, so no energy rebounds. The speaker replied that nature’s energetic record retains traces of these events, making a subsequent deliverance ceremony seem more appropriate after such a release. The original religious purpose, however, was changing the heart: refraining from killing and valuing release should cultivate compassion, shared concern, and respect for life. Without learning these, mere gestures become superstition.

What would I choose? If people cannot judge, my answer is to give money to those needing help rather than release animals. I compared giving a roadside beggar a little money without knowing whether they deceive: good intentions remain, and even fraud usually gains fifty or a hundred without harming others or creating danger to life. Release more foreseeably risks death when farmed fish face a different sea environment and waiting anglers. A mistaken release kills a fish. Earlier Taiwanese bird and sparrow releases also met immediate recapture or hawks. Knowledge and foreseeable severity differ between the examples. I offered this for personal judgment: goodness must consider consequences, not only oneself. Another episode described a ritual master telling a cancer patient’s family it was merely karmic obstacles and recommending merit, sacred-name recitation, paid release, and unknown recommended medicines. I felt some animals now are captured specifically for release, unlike the original meaning, making the practice less suitable today and requiring wisdom. Unknown medicines were especially unacceptable: substances outside government approval or sound medical judgment should not be taken indiscriminately.

Practices change with time. Understand religious teachings in their founding circumstances, which differ from today. Earlier release might mean buying fish facing slaughter and genuinely returning them to nature before extensive industrial development. Religion should progress with its times rather than remain disconnected. Repeating older methods unthinkingly can be foolish. I compared vast mainland China with smaller Taiwan, where impacts may be more apparent. These were comparisons and views, not historical research.

Helping animals has other forms. We mentioned Dao Xing rescuing injured small animals, bandaging them or taking them to veterinary hospitals. The speaker felt this far better than indiscriminate release because of genuine kindness rather than personal blessing-seeking. The speaker also said acts without pursuit of benefits and merit especially bring them. Conversely, whether beginning with a purpose or ordinary equanimity, genuinely helping an animal can still bring its gratitude.