Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Rebirth options?
Bodhivaka
Veteran
Recently I've been thinking about the six realms and all they consist of. For example, does the animal realm include all non-human, earthly organisms, including bacteria, cells, bugs, and other "insignificant" creatures?
Moreover, isn't a cell, for example, incapable of suffering, seeing as how it doesn't experience physical\mental
\emotional pain or possess the mental capacity to feel or contemplate on things such as love, life, death, attachment, desire, etc? If so, wouldn't the four noble truths be irrelevant to life on a cellular level? Of course, I suppose none of that would matter unless we could actually be reborn as a cell; and then again, perhaps it wouldn't matter even if we could be.
What do you think?
Moreover, isn't a cell, for example, incapable of suffering, seeing as how it doesn't experience physical\mental
\emotional pain or possess the mental capacity to feel or contemplate on things such as love, life, death, attachment, desire, etc? If so, wouldn't the four noble truths be irrelevant to life on a cellular level? Of course, I suppose none of that would matter unless we could actually be reborn as a cell; and then again, perhaps it wouldn't matter even if we could be.
What do you think?
0
Comments
Just do your best, and be Mindful.
Simplify.
First of all, read this:
Then when such questions come into your mind, ask yourself:
How conducive is this question - and an answer - to my practice, RIGHT NOW? How will it support me in this Moment?
I find that helps....
The scriptures say animals and insects are sentient and plants aren't. It seems to many that vertebrates have emotions, deciding whether insects do or not is the tricky part, so the presence of nerve cells feels like a good place to draw the line at the moment.
Aardvark!
Aardvarks are awesome. Wait, seriously, forget this nirvana business; from now on I'm following the noble eightfold aardvark path.
You talk about the capacity to feel love, and we tend to think of this as a very sophisticated, human emotion, but in my view love is inherent to life, including bacteria.
The notion of self, which is again not sophisticated but inherent in every non-enlightened being, corrupts love, and makes it exclusive, not inclusive. The most destructive regime of the 20th century, the Nazis, identified their selves with a mythical Germanic ideal, and thus their love was exclusive, divided, not inclusive, not universal.
Even a single celled animal operates in terms of a self, seeking to get what it wants, and if necessary, excluding the needs of others. You can observe this for yourself, by watching animal behaviour. Thought or understanding are not required; self is the inherent (if unchallenged) mode of consciousness, however rudimentary.
Without self-view, love is inclusive. Self-view operates on the basis that if a being isn't looking after self, it will suffer, because the needs of others will be met rather than its own, but in fact, this is not true.
I mean really, right now, this moment, not true. The basis for all our selfish actions. Everything you want - dust and broken glass. I'm not just parroting doctrine here.
As to whether every cell in our body has individual as well as collective consciousness, that kind of question is beyond range, I think.
What can be observed is animals and humans acting selfishly, as if there is attachment, as if they suffer, and also the benefits of acting selflessly.
"wouldn't the four noble truths be irrelevant to life on a cellular level?"
http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf063/sf063b11.htm
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CFgQFjAB&url=http://research.wsulibs.wsu.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/2376/1689/v63%20p19%20Wagner.PDF?sequence=1&ei=UVnnT7eUMKOG0AWb-PWLCQ&usg=AFQjCNEfc94-5xi8gO6yhQWZpAsNzZP7Qg
Does this qualify as being sentient ? hmmmmm
This behavior shows communication, craving for food and even altruism by the %20 that dies. There are many behaviors that seem sentient at very simple forms of life, even in plants like you said. Which is why I don't think behavior is a useful criteria for determining sentience.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropocentric
This is what tends to make us dismiss altruistic or emotional behavior in animals as 'instinct', and intelligence as 'cunning. It has also been used in this way to dehumanise human populations.
cells are made up of molecules.
molecules made up of atoms.
atoms made up of sub-atomic particles.
now imagine if you were reborn as a lepton or boson.
just zipping around, no suffering.....
Do you mean like wood has a grain? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_length
"The five grasping aggregates are previously composed and willed out (purvam abhisamskrtany abhisañcetitani), and to be known as former deed (pauranam karma veditavyam)" (A, 260, 65c-66a).
But lets face it - bacteria don't fit Buddhist cosmology or theory because the Buddha as well as the people he taught didn't know about it. Maybe the next Buddha will clear such things up
A rose is alive but to a rose, there is no distinguishing of any kind so it doesn't suffer from the illusion of seperation. The rose is the entire universe in action.