Plant Life

[parth]

Have a doubt, where does the plant life figure in the rebirth cycle. Plant life does not seem to have been covered in any of the 32 realms of existence.

Regards
Parth

[Stephen K]

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 ... toend.html

[cooran]

Hello parth,

The Abhidhamma explores this matter further. Read about Jivita-indriya (life faculty) here:
http://www.phathue.com/buddhism/dharma- ... ipa-day-5/

with metta
Chris

[Ron-The-Elder]

Have a doubt, where does the plant life figure in the rebirth cycle. Plant life does not seem to have been covered in any of the 32 realms of existence.

Regards
Parth

Hi, Parth.

Have done extensive research into this question and came to the conclusion that early Buddhists did not truly appreciate the various capacities of plants which caused them to arrive at the conclusion that plants are not sentient.

Buddha allowed for protection of certain plants, but it appears only for the reason that such plants are homes or residences for sentient life forms such as creatures of the forest, including devas and various gods. Buddha also required that followers avoid damaging crops of farmers, not for the sake of protecting the plant, but because the farmers' yields would be affected.

Today we understand that various plant species have abilities not previously understood:

Self preservation: Plants emit toxins to keep bugs and animals from devouring them.

Enter Into Symbiotic Relationships: Many plants have complex relationships with various insects, which collect nectar from the plant and in exchange carry pollen from male to female plants in the process of pollination.

My favorite in this regard is relationship between the African fire ant and the Acacia tree. The fire ant protects the trees from larger herbivores in exchange for a sticky sweet substance which the ant collects for its nutritional needs.

Movement Some plants move in protection of their limbs, leaves and branches. Some plants, which rely upon animal proteins and fats for sustenance move in response to actuation of triggers in order to trap small animals and insects. Some plants have evolved slippery surfaces and inescapable bowls with pits filled with digestive enzymes to make the nutrients from the insects that fell therein to be digested.

Plants have long been known to be photo-philes and and photo-taxic, meaning that they can reorient themselves to maximize photon impingement due to radiation from our local star, The Sun, to ensure efficient photosynthetic processes.

Communications: Plants, like ourselves and other sentient animal organisms, have the ability to communicate. Plants do this both chemically and chemo-electrically

Mutational Adaptive Specialization Plants, like animals, have been modified genetically to adapt to varying conditions due to environmental pressures such a predation, competition, and changing environmental conditions such as heat, pressure, wind, water availability and etc..

Because I have spent so much time in the past discussing and debating this topic I have given up trying to persuade others that plants should be treated with as much respect as any animal life-form. While plants "may not" meet the criteria of sapience and sentience by human definitions, they do add enormously to our quality of life, and in reality we could not exist without them as we have evolved on this planet. Certainly there are life-forms which have adapted to sulfurous gases near volcanic vents at the bottom of the ocean, here in New Hampshire we rely on plants for much of the food that we eat, the materials from which our homes are built, the clothing that we wear, and even for the oxygen in the air that we breathe.

Therefore, I hereby submit my vote to allow plants to join the sentient community of life-forms on this planet.

[cooran]

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

[Hanzze]

Dear Ron-The-Elder,

thanks for sharing your explanations and do not give up! The issue is most important for our self (the human family).
There are indeed factors which makes one to be called an elder.

_/\_

Dear friends,

so a plant comes to "existence" out of which reason?
I guess it does not exist out of it self.

Well it can not argue, scream or hurt like other beings but just as I had observed by my self I could not call them mindless. I would not bet on it that there is a second circle of life which is special for plants, but maybe a higher realm

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Hanzze,

so a plant comes to "existence" out of which reason?

It doesn't... not the way Buddha defined existence, anyway.

Metta,
Retro.

[Hanzze]

Dear retrofuturist,

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?
As the tree seams to be one of the most peaceful beings, nutritious so many beings, giving them a place to live, air to breath, holding the soil together that it does not get lost. Even he is such a kind of generous being, he has to struggle and fight from the birth till death. His fight may be soundless, slowly, difficult to observe, not easy to see.

In German palaces where trees are planted to grow in protection are called: "Baumschule" what could be translated as "School for trees". It may has nothing to do with it, it just came to my mind.

[alan]

Plants are irrelevant. Be nice to them anyway--it's good for you.

[Hanzze]

Dear alan,

irrelevant for what?

[alan]

Not a proper question.

[Hanzze]

Dear Alan,

in the way nibbana is translated as "without plants or forest"? Well in south east Asia the acting is mostly like that. But I dont think that your "irrelevant" was pointing in that way. I just do not remember the quote about the different between cutting the forest and cutting the forest in the mind. *searching*

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Hanzze,

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?

They're not sentient...

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.

[Hanzze]

Dear retrofuturist,

could it be that it has only step by step as its reason? What if you observe plants by your self, is there no sentient? The plant Mimosas may be a good sample. If a being has no sentient, it would be possible to harm it? Isn't the misunderstanding of expression always the reason why we are thinking that it does not matter to hurt?

Dear Alan,
I just found the dhammapada verse. Was that why you call it irrelevant?

"O bhikkhus, cut down the forest of caving, not the real tree; the forest of craving breeds danger (of rebirth). Cut down the forest of craving as well as its undergrowth and be free from craving." Dhammapada Vers 283

...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."...

Dhammayietra V: Forest, "The Buddha of the battlefield"

[Ron-The-Elder]

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 ... toend.html

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.

What is consciousness by Buddhist definitions:

Read for expanded understanding: 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 ... toend.html

Consciousness of eye which arises in the mind is dependent upon the sensory organ of the eye. The eye detects light and passes it on to the brain, where the input is processed. Buddha did not teach that eye consciousness was dependent upon a brain, but dependent upon mind which is independent of a brain, that is to say not a part of the brain. (By the way, I have never subscribed to this theory/teaching. It is my understanding and training that mind arises from complex biochemical and electrochemical processes made possible by the neurochemical processes of the organ we call a brain.)

The other five conciousnesses: smell, taste, touch, hearing, mentality are all made possible due to organs which make contact with the exterior world and find residence in the mind, forming consciousnesses integrated by the mental consciousness.

Plants can do all of this as previously stated. The question is, "Do plants have a mental consciousness?", which I can't demonstrate. But, neither can I demonstrate if anyone on this board has a mental consciousness. You each have to volunteer that information to me when asked. The problem with demonstrating that plants have a consciousness is that we aren't smart enough to speak "plant" to raise the question.

[Ron-The-Elder]

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

Actually your example is very good. But, here is what is different:

Plants have living cells with organelles, nutrient transport systems, membranes, and a organelle to provide energy, just as all animal life does. Electronic and electro-mechanical systems do not. Plants are alive. Machines are not.

Now to take your argument one step further. It is now possible to program machines to be self-aware, environmentally aware, and capable of learning and adapting to the environment. Soon they will have the ability to replicate themselves. All of these capabilities are currently possessed by both plants and animals. Will machines then be sentient? If Buddha was truly Sammasambuddha, why didn't he account for this in his 31 Planes of existence?

However, my digression here is off topic. I agree we should stick to what Buddha taught.

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."

The first is used for justification by vegans for not eating meat.

What justification can vegans use for eating plants with respect to the second variation?

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.

I could find many more examples. But, you get the idea.

Therefore the reason I see that plants and plant forms are not included in the 31 Planes of Existence is simply because of ignorance, the root cause of all dukkha. No other explanation makes any sense from a modern scientific standpoint, except perhaps that Buddha realized that all life needs to eat something to stay alive and Buddha chose to make plants a dietary staple, even though in The Vinaya, Rules for Monks, advised his Bhikkhus to eat sentient beings (animals) during alms rounds if they were not cooked specifically for them.

One final choice which comes to mind is, "We don't know and can never know."...which is probably the best, or at least the most honest answer.

[cooran]

Ron said: If Buddha was truly Sammasambuddha …

This is a Theravada Buddhist Discussion Forum. What exactly are you saying here?

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."

Please give the original Pali and a link to where these translations are on-line.

And can you also provide the link to the very long quotation you gave on Avihinsa-sankappa?

With metta
Chris

[Ron-The-Elder]

Ron said: If Buddha was truly Sammasambuddha …

This is a Theravada Buddhist Discussion Forum. What exactly are you saying here?

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."

Please give the original Pali and a link to where these translations are on-line.

And can you also provide the link to the very long quotation you gave on Avihinsa-sankappa?

With metta
Chris

Here are the links you requested, Chris:

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/thai ... peace.html

There are many such quotations varying between "sentient" and "living", and I am certain you must be aware of this, because you are well versed in Theravada literature, e.g. The Tipitaka and the commentaries.

With regard to the meaning of SammāSamBuddha...:

http://what-buddha-said.net/library/DPP ... mbodhi.htm

As to what I meant by it:

If Buddha is in fact a sammasambuddha, then he has perfect knowledge of past, present, and all the possibilities of the future. He is perfectly enlightened.

One more quotation for you:

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

source: http://what-buddha-said.net/drops/II/Ha ... erance.htm

[PeterB]

Greetings Hanzze,

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?

They're not sentient...

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.

This Hanzze is the mainstream position accepted by the vast majority of Theravadin Buddhists.
You are free to accept that position or to reject it...but Retro has stated it with admirable brevity.
I think you owe him a debt of gratitude... you need not commit any time to asking pointless questions like, does a lettuce share sentience.

[Hanzze]

Dear PeterB,

I can only tell what I have seen and understood by my self and I would not follow as I never did. It was just like alway: Look for your self, if it is understood right.
I dont think that retrofuturist is easy able to manipulate, he knows very well what to think of and what to ignore. It could be that I am wrong, that thanks for the hint Peter. And sorry retrofuturist, if it is that case.

One should not forget, that the western life is far, far away from nature... patient and time. If you spend some time in nature and you come to a place where trees are have been cut short time ago you also would feel that there is a lot of suffering and pain, some wood still alive.

In Theravada tradition in south east Asia, it is normaly taught that a plant higher that one meter could have a habitant (I dont know how to say, something like a ghost). That it way one request, I guess it was three days, before he cuts the wood. One could say, that it is important to give others the chance to leave there palace.
Taking what is not given is in any case wrong. To honesty request if it is real needed is a good way for laypeople I guess.

Although thanks to Ron the edler to point some things out in a much better and more useful way that I ever could.