What animals are sentient?

I'm assuming so, because the site I was reading said that a part of Orphic philosophy was to refrain from killing other sentient beings (which extended to eating those animals which were killed, except in the case that the animal was killed by someone other than yourself, and you had nothing else to eat). If this is true, then are fish, eggs, and shrimp considered to have souls?

Thanks,

Anna.

Shellfish of any kind is not mentioned anywhere in any Orphic or Pythagorean dietary injunction that I am aware of — so that subject is not really addressed. Certainly, if it is avoidable, it is best not to partake of any animal, but there are certainly grades of sentience. Thus, it is a much graver sin to kill a person than to kill a mosquito.

Personally, regarding fish, I think it is important to note that certain sets of dietary mandates prohibit specific types of fish separately from the prohibition on meat, indicating thus that they are considered separate. I do consume fish on occasion.

By eggs, I'm just assuming you mean from domestic birds. A fertilized egg that is in the process of developing into a chicken/duck/quail etc. would be soul-bound (I am not familiar, though, with what the teaching is on when exactly the soul enters a body), but a fertilized egg would have a soul by some point before hatching.

An unfertilized egg is not on track to ever develop into a living being, so it would certainly not have a soul.

Alright. I was wondering after I posted this if I should have elaborated a bit on the egg thing, but it seems as if you've answered everything. We have chickens on our farm, the eggs of which I know have never been fertilized, so those would be safe. Also, if I'm understanding you correctly, there are only certain types of fish which are allowed to be eaten?

Also, if I'm understanding you correctly, there are only certain types of fish which are allowed to be eaten?

Actually, it's that there are only certain types of fish that appear to be specifically prohibited, and these are disallowed for symbolic reasons; usually moral idea associated with or symbolized by that particular fish species, or something about it.

However, in the Sentences of Sextus, we have this precept:
#25. The use of all animals as food is Indifferent, but it is more rational to abstain from them.

which generalizes all of the dietary suggestions by simply stating that the simple act of consumption of animals is neither harmful nor beneficial, but that it is best to avoid doing so if one is able.

The real issue is that some ancients believed in metempsychosis (transmigration of souls from humans to animals) therefore by killing and eating sacrificed animals you could be killing and eating an animal that had a soul once inhabiting a human body. For example, a father could be killing his son and a son his mother. This is why some advocated for vegetarianism.

Vadzhij wrote:The real issue is that some ancients believed in metempsychosis (transmigration of souls from humans to animals) therefore by killing and eating sacrificed animals you could be killing and eating an animal that had a soul once inhabiting a human body. For example, a father could be killing his son and a son his mother. This is why some advocated for vegetarianism.

In Orphic theology, the transmigration of the soul is a progressive ascent. As in, the soul of a worm eventually becomes the soul of a mammal, ad nauseam, until it eventually reaches a sufficient level to become incarnate as a sentient being on the level of a human. Once it has attained that type of level, it doesn't "descend" again into a lower state of being. If they continue to progress, they continue to ascend. If their progress is hindered for some reason (if, for instance, they lived a particularly heinous life), they remain trapped as a landed daemon (i.e. a kakodaemon), sort of like the hungry ghosts of Buddhism, until they eventually incarnate again. There isn't really a direct parallel to the Hindu concept of karma. Similar concepts, but they do have their differences.

The reason abstinence from animal flesh is encouraged and lauded in Orphic strains of thought are more motivated by compassion and a sense of duty.

"These beings are as we once were, and with time shall be what we are now. We should help them on their path, not hinder them."

My opinion is that either transmigration is from the bottom up as in Orphism, or human souls only migrate to other human beings, and the ascent would be from a vicious man to a virtuous man (philosopher).

It's both.

There's no such thing as a "human" soul. A soul is a soul. And souls evolve and grow over the eons. A God is a soul, a human is a soul, a worm is a soul, etc. The only difference is in how far each soul is developed.

Very interesting, and thank you Aktaion. I guess I wasn't looking at the big picture.

I recently wrote more about this on this thread: https://olympianismos.forumotion.com/t319-question-on-the-after-life#2890

Also, apparently, for Plato, the soul of a God doesn't have the same nature as the soul of another being, as the Demiurge created Gods and other beings separately. For the rest, he would probably agree with Aktaion.

However, for Aristotle, there are several kinds of soul (psuchê): vegetative, sensitive, and intellective; all living beings have a vegetative soul; only animals have a sensitive soul; and only human beings (which are rational animals) have an intellective soul (meaning that they have three souls). So it seems that Aristotle was closer to Epicurus and thought that the soul is mortal (meaning that there is no reincarnation).