Plants ~ Borderline Beings?

Where members are free to take ideas from the Theravāda Canon out of the Theravāda framework. Here you can question rebirth, kamma (and other contentious issues) as well as examine Theravāda's connection to other paths
User avatar
andre9999
Posts: 465
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 3:04 pm
Location: Milwaukee, WI, US
Contact:

Re: Plant Life

Postby andre9999 » Thu Jan 20, 2011 11:41 am

Ron, this thread isn't making as much sense as you think it is.

If you can't get people to agree on what defines sentience, then there is no point in all the examples. Maybe start there. Is it feeling? Perceiving? Choice?

Individual
Posts: 1970
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 2:19 am

Re: Plant Life

Postby Individual » Thu Jan 20, 2011 12:21 pm

Ron-The-Elder wrote:
Individual wrote: You can choose to be nicer to plants or not; you could choose to starve yourself or not. This could be a neat motivation for scientific research, but it also could cause suffering and insanity. Hence pondering the specifics of kamma is an imponderable.


Yes. In the vegetarian vs. carnivore thread this dhamma comes to light. We have a choice to make. As our ignorance is lifted, we must then decide to act in light of our newly gained knowledge, otherwise, what would be the point of enlightenment.

My single point is that due to our ignorance in the past we made choices out of ignorance. Now we are somewhat less ignorant. Do we use the excuse that The Theravada suttas were written during a period of our ignorance and therefore we must ignore what we now have learned?

My response is no!

You may have a valid point, but I think there is a lot more to establish here before creating any new theories or ideas. For instance, if we can't establish a broadly accepted (and scientifically accepted!) notion of rebirth and devas, it doesn't seem all that important to focus on clarifying to people the sentience of plants.
The best things in life aren't things.

The Diamond Sutra

User avatar
Ron-The-Elder
Posts: 1842
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 4:42 pm
Location: Concord, New Hampshire, U.S.A.

Re: Plant Life

Postby Ron-The-Elder » Thu Jan 20, 2011 12:41 pm

andre9999 wrote:Ron, this thread isn't making as much sense as you think it is.

If you can't get people to agree on what defines sentience, then there is no point in all the examples. Maybe start there. Is it feeling? Perceiving? Choice?



Thanks for the suggestion andre. But sentience need not be the issue. We have already agreed that plants are alive, and the precepts respect all life. "Cause no harm to living beings."

Would anyone other than me and the two definitions already provided like to define sentience for us? :coffee:

When you who stand on "the other side" of this discussion decide, let me know and I will then chime in.

How's that?
What Makes an Elder? :
A head of gray hairs doesn't mean one's an elder. Advanced in years, one's called an old fool.
But one in whom there is truth, restraint, rectitude, gentleness,self-control, he's called an elder, his impurities disgorged, enlightened.
-Dhammpada, 19, translated by Thanissaro Bhikkhu.

User avatar
Ron-The-Elder
Posts: 1842
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 4:42 pm
Location: Concord, New Hampshire, U.S.A.

Re: Plant Life

Postby Ron-The-Elder » Thu Jan 20, 2011 12:51 pm

Individual wrote:
Ron-The-Elder wrote:
Individual wrote: You can choose to be nicer to plants or not; you could choose to starve yourself or not. This could be a neat motivation for scientific research, but it also could cause suffering and insanity. Hence pondering the specifics of kamma is an imponderable.


Yes. In the vegetarian vs. carnivore thread this dhamma comes to light. We have a choice to make. As our ignorance is lifted, we must then decide to act in light of our newly gained knowledge, otherwise, what would be the point of enlightenment.

My single point is that due to our ignorance in the past we made choices out of ignorance. Now we are somewhat less ignorant. Do we use the excuse that The Theravada suttas were written during a period of our ignorance and therefore we must ignore what we now have learned?

My response is no!


You may have a valid point, but I think there is a lot more to establish here before creating any new theories or ideas. For instance, if we can't establish a broadly accepted (and scientifically accepted!) notion of rebirth and devas, it doesn't seem all that important to focus on clarifying to people the sentience of plants.


I don't think post-mortem rebirth, devas, gods or even Brahmas have anything to do with what Buddha taught. --- "Remember his analogy of the leafs he had in his hand versu the leaves in the forest as to what he taught." --- My guess is that story telling got mixed in with what Buddha himself taught over the centuries, much like in The Jataka Tales for Children.

I have had monks who divulged to me that they have even abandoned The Commentaries for the same reason. They stick purely to what Buddha taught and still we are stuck with iffy translations. For example one venerable said that instead of "Right View", etc......He instead uses the term "Harmonious View, etc." to describe The Noble Eight Fold Path. And his reason: It simply makes more sense and does less harm than identifying something as right, which leaves everything and everybody else to be wrong.

I like that term: "Harmonious!" So, with regard to Right Speech, it is better to speak and write only that which is harmonious, instead of that which is "right"....as in "I am right!" and therefore, you are wrong.

On that basis we probably should lock this thread at this point because it has identified so many attachments, which has made it anything, but harmonious.
What Makes an Elder? :
A head of gray hairs doesn't mean one's an elder. Advanced in years, one's called an old fool.
But one in whom there is truth, restraint, rectitude, gentleness,self-control, he's called an elder, his impurities disgorged, enlightened.
-Dhammpada, 19, translated by Thanissaro Bhikkhu.

User avatar
andre9999
Posts: 465
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 3:04 pm
Location: Milwaukee, WI, US
Contact:

Re: Plant Life

Postby andre9999 » Thu Jan 20, 2011 12:54 pm

Ron-The-Elder wrote:Thanks for the suggestion andre. But sentience need not be the issue.


Nice try, but here's how you ended your first post in the thread.

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


The OP is about whether plants are in the rebirth cycle. The next post said they are not sentient. The third post, yours, says that they should be sentient.

So at this point, well... what is your point?

Individual
Posts: 1970
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 2:19 am

Re: Plant Life

Postby Individual » Thu Jan 20, 2011 1:27 pm

Ron-The-Elder wrote:I don't think post-mortem rebirth, devas, gods or even Brahmas have anything to do with what Buddha taught. --- "Remember his analogy of the leafs he had in his hand versu the leaves in the forest as to what he taught." --- My guess is that story telling got mixed in with what Buddha himself taught over the centuries, much like in The Jataka Tales for Children.

I have had monks who divulged to me that they have even abandoned The Commentaries for the same reason. They stick purely to what Buddha taught and still we are stuck with iffy translations. For example one venerable said that instead of "Right View", etc......He instead uses the term "Harmonious View, etc." to describe The Noble Eight Fold Path. And his reason: It simply makes more sense and does less harm than identifying something as right, which leaves everything and everybody else to be wrong.

I like that term: "Harmonious!" So, with regard to Right Speech, it is better to speak and write only that which is harmonious, instead of that which is "right"....as in "I am right!" and therefore, you are wrong.

On that basis we probably should lock this thread at this point because it has identified so many attachments, which has made it anything, but harmonious.

Is it truly harmonious if it results in discussions like this?
The best things in life aren't things.

The Diamond Sutra

User avatar
Ron-The-Elder
Posts: 1842
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 4:42 pm
Location: Concord, New Hampshire, U.S.A.

Re: Plant Life

Postby Ron-The-Elder » Thu Jan 20, 2011 3:00 pm

Individual wrote: Is it truly harmonious if it results in discussions like this?


Right! It is not harmonious, because ignorance causes dukkha. Whenever there is ignorance, and where ever there is one who seeks to alleviate the ignorance of others, when they don't want to know about it, there is dukkha.

So, we now have a quandry: "Do we tell folks that they are on a planet shaped like a globe or not?" "Do we reveal to them that bacteria and not demons are the cause of many diseases?" "Do we reveal to folks that burning wood, coal, and oil leads to toxins in the air that cause cancer, melt glaciers, raise water levels around the planet, and cause shoreline communities to disappear beneath the ocean or not?" None of these appear in the suttas.

What does appear in the suttas repeatedly is: "Cause no harm to living beings."

What to do? :popcorn:
What Makes an Elder? :
A head of gray hairs doesn't mean one's an elder. Advanced in years, one's called an old fool.
But one in whom there is truth, restraint, rectitude, gentleness,self-control, he's called an elder, his impurities disgorged, enlightened.
-Dhammpada, 19, translated by Thanissaro Bhikkhu.

User avatar
Ron-The-Elder
Posts: 1842
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 4:42 pm
Location: Concord, New Hampshire, U.S.A.

Re: Plant Life

Postby Ron-The-Elder » Thu Jan 20, 2011 3:10 pm

andre9999 wrote:
Ron-The-Elder wrote:Thanks for the suggestion andre. But sentience need not be the issue.


Nice try, but here's how you ended your first post in the thread.

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


The OP is about whether plants are in the rebirth cycle. The next post said they are not sentient. The third post, yours, says that they should be sentient.

So at this point, well... what is your point?


My point is that without a definition that all others agree on, there is little point in going on. As far as I am concerned plants meet all the criteria of sentience as posted in previous threads. But, others do not agree. So now what? You tell me. All we are going to do is play ping pong with each other. I'm not up for that and therefore see no point in going forward. Folks are welcome to their opinions, regardless of whether or not they agree with reality.

We will just have to agree to disagree.

To correct you if I may, the real issue is that plants are not included in The 31 Planes of Existence, just as they were not included in the Abrahemic God's list of living creatures to be given berths on Noah's Arc. A very dubious choice in both cases given the fact that we know that plants are living creatures, and without any doubt on my part sentient by modern understanding of the word sentience given the definition in each dictionary in which I have looked it up.

But, we are now going in circles. As was stated previously this thread is not harmonious. So the only way to stop is to stop.

Let's pretend the Earth is flat and the moon is made of Swiss Cheese.

Suggest that the board monitor close and lock the thread.
What Makes an Elder? :
A head of gray hairs doesn't mean one's an elder. Advanced in years, one's called an old fool.
But one in whom there is truth, restraint, rectitude, gentleness,self-control, he's called an elder, his impurities disgorged, enlightened.
-Dhammpada, 19, translated by Thanissaro Bhikkhu.

User avatar
kirk5a
Posts: 1959
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 1:51 pm

Re: Plant Life

Postby kirk5a » Thu Jan 20, 2011 3:18 pm

Ron-The-Elder wrote:
What does appear in the suttas repeatedly is: "Cause no harm to living beings."

What to do? :popcorn:

While non-harm is an important and noble aspiration, it's not possible to continue to live and follow that with absolute purity. We cause harm by accident, unknowingly, such a stepping on unseen bugs. And we have to at least eat plant matter to survive, which requires we kill them. I have no problem accepting the difference between a live plant and a dead plant. I can see live trees in my yard, and dead trees, and there is a difference. I don't need to go to "sentience" to see they are alive and their life shares much in common with the life that goes on in my own body. But how am I only going to eat only non-killed dead plants and never accidentally harm anything? Not possible.
"When one thing is practiced & pursued, ignorance is abandoned, clear knowing arises, the conceit 'I am' is abandoned, latent tendencies are uprooted, fetters are abandoned. Which one thing? Mindfulness immersed in the body." -AN 1.230

User avatar
andre9999
Posts: 465
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 3:04 pm
Location: Milwaukee, WI, US
Contact:

Re: Plant Life

Postby andre9999 » Thu Jan 20, 2011 3:19 pm

I thought we should all just try to agree on what constitutes sentience, but I guess that would be another thread anyway.

User avatar
bodom
Posts: 5151
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 6:18 pm
Location: San Antonio, Texas

Re: Plant Life

Postby bodom » Thu Jan 20, 2011 3:20 pm

*MODERATOR NOTE*

The thread has run its course and is going in circles. Time to shut it down.


:anjali:
“What should be done for his disciples out of compassion by a teacher who seeks their welfare and has compassion for them, that I have done for you, bhikkhus. There are these roots of trees, these empty huts. Meditate, bhikkhus, do not delay or else you will regret it later. This is our instruction to you.” - MN 19

User avatar
hanzze_
Posts: 261
Joined: Fri May 25, 2012 4:30 am

Plants in Buddhism - Idea of B. Nature of Grasses an Trees

Postby hanzze_ » Sat May 26, 2012 2:58 am

I thought to make a topic where it is possible to quote and list sources in relation to plants found in ancient Texts and explainings. It's a thematic which has some absolutism or a kind of stepmotherly treatment (sometimes for the propose of worldly projects or commented in regard of worldly proposes) and I guess its very important to get much impression of the early teachings in this regard.

Plants in Early Buddhism the Far Eastern Idea of the Buddha Nature of Grasses and Trees as free online document and pdf download on www.scribd.com.


Image

Publications University Hamburg - Center for Buddhist Studies

User avatar
cooran
Posts: 8432
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 11:32 pm
Location: Queensland, Australia

Re: Plants in Buddhism - Idea of B. Nature of Grasses an Trees

Postby cooran » Sat May 26, 2012 4:23 am

Dear Hanzze,

There has already been a 5 page discussion (now locked) about this topic in the Open Dhamma forum – you were part of that discussion:

Plant Life
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=6822

with metta
Chris
---The trouble is that you think you have time---
---Worry is the Interest, paid in advance, on a debt you may never owe---
---It's not what happens to you in life that is important ~ it's what you do with it ---

User avatar
manas
Posts: 2223
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2010 3:04 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: Plants in Buddhism - Idea of B. Nature of Grasses an Trees

Postby manas » Sat May 26, 2012 5:12 am

cooran wrote:Dear Hanzze,

There has already been a 5 page discussion (now locked) about this topic in the Open Dhamma forum – you were part of that discussion:

Plant Life
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=6822

with metta
Chris


Hi Chris,

I think it's a fascinating topic, is there any reason why it was locked before? I understand it can become an endless debate, but we have other 'endless debates' here, that are allowed to continue, ad infinitum... :?:

_/I\_
Then the Blessed One, picking up a tiny bit of dust with the tip of his fingernail, said to the monk, "There isn't even this much form...feeling...
perception...fabrications...consciousness that is constant, lasting, eternal, not subject to change, that will stay just as it is as long as eternity."

(SN 22.97)

User avatar
cooran
Posts: 8432
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 11:32 pm
Location: Queensland, Australia

Re: Plants in Buddhism - Idea of B. Nature of Grasses an Trees

Postby cooran » Sat May 26, 2012 5:23 am

Hello manas,

I suggest that you read the thread, there were some good posts initially and throughout, but, in the end, it started to go in circles.

with metta
Chris
---The trouble is that you think you have time---
---Worry is the Interest, paid in advance, on a debt you may never owe---
---It's not what happens to you in life that is important ~ it's what you do with it ---

User avatar
hanzze_
Posts: 261
Joined: Fri May 25, 2012 4:30 am

Re: Plants in Buddhism - Idea of B. Nature of Grasses an Trees

Postby hanzze_ » Sat May 26, 2012 5:29 am

Dear Chris,

"in the end, it started to go in circles" that's why such topics are so important and the discernment out of it milestones for real trust in Buddhas teachings. It's the wheel we are inside and the hindrance to choose the path out of it.

Aware that it's not beloved, I thought to have this tread just for posting resources about it. How ever, I recommend to discuss it much (therefor it would be great to reopen the discussion topic again).

Please do only post references here!

User avatar
hanzze_
Posts: 261
Joined: Fri May 25, 2012 4:30 am

Re: Plants in Buddhism - Idea of B. Nature of Grasses an Trees

Postby hanzze_ » Sat May 26, 2012 2:16 pm

Borderline Beings: Plant Possibilities in Early Buddhism
Ellison Banks Findly
Journal of the American Oriental Society
Vol. 122, No. 2, Indic and Iranian Studies in Honor of Stanley Insler on His Sixty-Fifth Birthday (Apr. - Jun., 2002), pp. 252-263

Abstract:

The ethic of non-violence in the Pāli Vinaya and Nikāyas indicates that the object of the ethic is humans, animals, and plants, thus suggesting that plants are considered living and sentient in the early Buddhist tradition. Recent work by Lambert Schmithausen, however, demonstrates that there are a diversity of views in the Buddhist tradition. This article explores the evidence in the Vinaya and Nikayas on this subject, concluding that plants have one sense, that of "touch," and that plants comprise the "stable, or non-moving" category of living beings.

jason c
Posts: 128
Joined: Mon May 21, 2012 11:41 am

Re: Plants in Buddhism - Idea of B. Nature of Grasses an Trees

Postby jason c » Sat May 26, 2012 3:07 pm

serving on a 10 day goenka retreat, the very wise kitchen manager looked deeply into my eyes held up a bean sprout and said "look at this bean sprout, this is life, how can you eat this and use this energy to do harm or evil. we take the life of this bean sprout and we must use its energy for good so we can walk the path to liberation, not for greed." i found this very helpful. not sure if this is the kind of conversation you were hoping for but its one kind.
metta,
jason

User avatar
Hanzze
Posts: 1906
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2010 12:47 pm
Location: Cambodia

Re: Plants in Buddhism - Idea of B. Nature of Grasses an Trees

Postby Hanzze » Tue Sep 25, 2012 10:27 am

Just that! *smile*
...We Buddhists must find the courage to leave our temples and enter the temples of human experience, temples that are filled with suffering. If we listen to Buddha, Christ, or Gandhi, we can do nothing else. The refugee camps, the prisons, the ghettos, and the battlefields will become our temples. We have so much work to do. ... Peace is Possible! Step by Step. - Samtach Preah Maha Ghosananda "Step by Step" http://www.ghosananda.org/bio_book.html

BUT! it is important to become a real Buddhist first. Like Punna did: Punna Sutta Nate sante baram sokham _()_

User avatar
DAWN
Posts: 801
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2012 5:22 pm

Re: Plants in Buddhism - Idea of B. Nature of Grasses an Trees

Postby DAWN » Tue Sep 25, 2012 2:48 pm

Scientificss nkows that plants can comuncate information with others, by chimical secretions. So they have perception, consciousness.
Plants can eat one type of animals, but not an another. To eat somethink consciousness of it requered, and also some kniwledge about the 'food' behafour. So they have perception, consiousness.
Sunflower folow sun.

If their have consciousness they have Buddha nature.

PS All dhammas have Buddha nature.
Sabbe dhamma anatta
We are not concurents...
I'am sorry for my english


Return to “Fringe Theravāda Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: intolerant_wheel and 8 guests

Google Saffron, Theravada Search Engine