It doesn't... not the way Buddha defined existence, anyway.Hanzze wrote:so a plant comes to "existence" out of which reason?
Metta,
Retro.
It doesn't... not the way Buddha defined existence, anyway.Hanzze wrote:so a plant comes to "existence" out of which reason?
They're not sentient...Hanzze wrote:are there suttas which call plants "different" forms of live? Do they not arise, exist, and dying? Are they not caught in the circle of life?
Dhammayietra V: Forest, "The Buddha of the battlefield"...As the march passed trough each village, Maha Ghosananda ordinated a tree, to emphasize their sacred nature. "When we ordained a tree, it becomes a monk," he explained. "When you kill the tree, then you kill the monk."...
The fact that plants have developed the ability to "move out of the way", "respond to environmental & predatory pressure", "seek nutrients by moving and growing into nutrient rich zones in their environment", "cooperate in symbiotic relationships", and "communicate electrochemically with not only their own species, but other species", proves that they are more likely conscious than not conscious. I can remember when people routinely stated that animals didn't have feelings as a justification for carving them up in surgery to do medical experiments. Just because we think it doesn't make it so.Re: Plant Life
by Stefan » Mon Jan 10, 2011 5:01 pm
Plants are not sentient beings, because they do not have consciousness.
A "sentient being" (pani, satta) is a living being endowed with mind or consciousness; for practical purposes, this means human beings, animals, and insects. Plants are not considered to be sentient beings; though they exhibit some degree of sensitivity, they lack full-fledged consciousness, the defining attribute of a sentient being.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... toend.html
Actually your example is very good. But, here is what is different:cooran wrote:Hello Ron,
Slightly exaggerated example. I go through automatic doors when entering my work place They are triggered by my footsteps on the mat in front of them. I have never felt that this means they are 'beings' or that I could be reborn as an automatic door. Certainly plants are alive, like bacteria, but according to the Teachings we cannot be re-born as one. Similarly we cannot be re-born as a cabbage or a tomato plant.
Best to stick with what the Buddha taught - a Sammasambuddha.
with metta
Chris
I could find many more examples. But, you get the idea.C. Avihinsa-sankappa: resolving not to think in ways that aim at punishing or doing violence to others, or in ways that would lead to harm for other people or living beings. No matter how good or evil other people may be, we don't give rein to thoughts of envy, jealousy or competitiveness. We can shed these things from the heart because they are harmful to us — and when we can do ourselves harm, there is nothing to keep us from harming others.
IV. Right Action: being upright in our activities. With reference to our personal actions, this means adhering to the three principles of virtuous conduct —
A. Not killing, harming or harassing other people or living beings.
c. Samma-ditthi: abandoning wrong views and mental darkness. If our minds lack the proper training and education, we may come to think that we and all other living beings are born simply as accidents of nature; that "father" and "mother" have no special meaning; that good and evil don't exist. Such views deviate from the truth and can dissuade us from restraining the evil that lies within us and from searching for and fostering the good. To believe that there's no good or evil, that death is annihilation, is Wrong View — a product of short-sighted thinking and poor discernment, seeing things for what they aren't. So we should abandon such views and educate ourselves, searching for knowledge of the Dhamma and associating with people wiser than we, so that they can show us the bright path. We'll then be able to reform our views and make them Right, which is one form of mental uprightness.
Cutupapata-ñana: the ability to focus on the death and rebirth of other living beings — sometimes in good destinations, sometimes in bad — together with the causes that lead them to be reborn in such ways. This gives rise to a sense of weariness and disenchantment with sensations and mental acts, body and mind.
This is a Theravada Buddhist Discussion Forum. What exactly are you saying here?Ron said: If Buddha was truly Sammasambuddha …
Please give the original Pali and a link to where these translations are on-line.Ron said: Another question which arises in this regard is found in the translation of our five precepts for laypersons: "Cause no harm to sentient beings."
In other versions/translations I have read: "Cause no harm to living beings."
Here are the links you requested, Chris:cooran wrote:This is a Theravada Buddhist Discussion Forum. What exactly are you saying here?Ron said: If Buddha was truly Sammasambuddha …
Please give the original Pali and a link to where these translations are on-line.Ron said: Another question which arises in this regard is found in the translation of our five precepts for laypersons: "Cause no harm to sentient beings."
In other versions/translations I have read: "Cause no harm to living beings."
And can you also provide the link to the very long quotation you gave on Avihinsa-sankappa?
With metta
Chris
source: http://what-buddha-said.net/drops/II/Ha ... erance.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;I am a friend and helper to all,
I am sympathetic to all living beings.
I develop a mind full of love and
delights always in harmlessness.
I gladden my mind, fill it with joy,
makes it immovable and unshakable.
I develop the divine states of mind
not cultivated by simple men.
Theragatha. 648-9
This Hanzze is the mainstream position accepted by the vast majority of Theravadin Buddhists.retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Hanzze,
They're not sentient...Hanzze wrote:are there suttas which call plants "different" forms of live? Do they not arise, exist, and dying? Are they not caught in the circle of life?
Therefore, outside the realms of existence (as per the original post in this topic).
Therefore, when the Buddha issued precepts to lay followers that they should not kill sentient beings, he did not create a big hoo-hah telling them not to cut trees. The only people the Buddha told not to cut trees were monks (see Vinaya instructions on soil, seeds, trees etc.) and this was so that people who mistakenly thought trees were sentient would not find the bhikkhus to be at fault, and therefore cause them trouble.
Metta,
Retro.
No need to thank me, my friend. This is a very old topic argued since the time of Buddha and most likely will never be resolved. The key I think has already been given: "Intention".Hanzze wrote: "Although thanks to Ron the edler to point some things out in a much better and more useful way that I ever could"