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.
Trees
Joshua
Veteran
What does Buddhism say about consciousness in plant life, namely trees? I was curious because I was considering the events in the movie The Happening where trees apparently can react to the environment by problem solving without a nervous system. It made me wonder with the winter approaching if trees are aware that the weather sucks and that their leaves have fallen, that the conditions aren't favourable. Is being a tree a form of hell?
0
Comments
How Grass & Trees Become Enlightened
[FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica]
During the Kamakura period, Shinkan studied Tendai six years and then studied Zen seven years; then he went to China and contemplated Zen for thirteen years more.
When he returned to Japan many desired to interview him and asked onscure questions. But when Shinkan received visitors, which was infrequently, he seldom answered their questions.
One day a fifty-year-old student of enlightenment said to Shinkan: "I have studied the Tendai school of thought since I was a little boy, but one thing in it I cannot understand. Tendai claims that even the grass and trees will become enlightened. To me this eems very strange."
"Of what use is it to discuss how grass and trees become enlightened?" asked Shinkan. "The question is how you yourself can become so. Did you ever consider that?"
"I never thought of it in that way," marveled the old man. "Then go home and think it over," finished Shinkan.
http://www.ashidakim.com/zenkoans/46howgrassandtreesbecomeenlightened.html[/FONT]
This just bears repeating for emphasis.
Otherwise how could people eat vegetable matter? There would be nothing for people to eat if they could not eat life from the vegetative realm.
A quick examination of the different realms of rebirth will show you that there are no plant forms.....
Hungry Ghosts, yes.
Animal realm, yes.
but no plants.
I suppose to understand whether or not a plant has consciousness is to determine whether or not plants display the different faculties of consciousness, which themselves must first be defined.
I believe that according to Dependent Origination, consciousness is defined as the function to discern, arisen from the pressence of volitional impulses. Do plants have volition or a will? Do plants perceive, segregate, and discern phenomenological existence?
i completely understand that buddhist do not have to be vegetarians. however buddhism does say you shouldnt kill animals.
i personally consider animals and plants to be on the same playing field as far as consciousness goes. after first learning about buddhism and asking some questions on here, i looked up sentience, and found very little consensus.
life on this planet is extraordinarily diverse. to pick and choose which lifeforms think and feel, seems a bit absurd.
id like to point out i do not consider myself a buddhist primarily for this reason. i also am not in anyway an expert on buddhism. this is just how i see the world.
do animals? if they do at what level? bacteria? viruses? insects?
"Sentience is the ability to feel or perceive. The term is used in science and philosophy, and in the study of artificial intelligence. Sentience is used in the study of consciousness to describe the ability to have sensations or experiences, known to Western philosophers as "qualia". In eastern philosophy, sentience is a metaphysical quality of all things that requires respect and care.
In many science fiction works sentience is often used as a synonym for sapience meaning "human-level or higher intelligence"."
I think this is kind of a "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" type question - utterly pointless. I don't believe plants are sentient, since by any known definition they are not self-aware. Here's a good piece on this subject:
http://unpopularveganessays.blogspot.com/2009/06/plant-sentience.html
Seconded.
I would say that all animals and insects display qualities of volitional actions and discerning behavior. Even ants segregate their colonies and create organized structures of maintenance and control. Animals and ants, in my opinion, obviously display trais of living sentience.
Plants on the other hand? I suppose that there could be a sense of volition and even discerning among different groups of plant life. However, do plants show fear and suffering in the face of death and annhialation? Do plants even know that they are living?
The reason that we do not kill is because we do not want sentient life to suffer for fear of their own destruction. I think it's far too much to even consider the sentience of plant life. No doubt there is suffering in all forms of existence, but as long as you are not intentionally killing trees, etc., for the sake of commercial profit or out of destructive intent, then I'd say there is no negative karma endured.
見聞覺知 (Luminous) nature including non living beings such as tree, and they have no 受、想、行、識. Unlike living beings have Vedana (Perception), Samjna (Conception), Samskara (volition) and Vijnana (Consciousness) - 受、想、行、識. Both living and non living beings are known as sentient beings and have luminous nature or Buddha(覺)-hood. Tree living in winter is like human living around winter period. :cool:
While besides for karmaic defilements, I am of the understanding that consciousnesses are the same despite their hosts, such as a human. This is my concern.
I also understand that in the Buddha's time he was quite oblivious to many things modern science has taught us the knowledge of which may have subtly changed his teachings (I don't even believe the Tipitaka was of one person, rather it was inspired by the invention of a person), therefore you can say that I am not entirely orthodox, I use the Tipitaka as a guide but not as absolute law). I'm not saying the knowledge of a tree possessing a consciousness would alter my opinion of Buddhist philosophy or change my Buddhist lifestyle but it is very interesting food for thought.
I don't think the inability to eat a plant without karmaic consequences is a factor here, because even if they did possess a consciousness a human must eat something to sustain himself, this is where the philosophy of the middle way will become important as well as the fact that, as a plant, you'd be experiencing (one of the lowest forms of) hell and such will be your duty to be destroyed, such would be an unconjecturable.
As far as sentience is concerned, trees certainly can show discernment, even if it isn't methodical. There's something I've just found called the Red Tide Syndrome that is interesting.
Now I know I'm on a Buddhist forum and the obvious Buddhist answer according to scripture is that trees have no consciousness but I believe Buddhism is beyond the Tipitaka, no? I believe the Dalai Lama even said that as science progresses and disproves Buddhist theology that Buddhism must assimilate. I think to simply say that they have no consciousness is premature because something without a nervous system say, producing a chemical that causes nearby bees to become aggressive towards a particular bug eating at the tree, is a bit too methodical for a consciousless being, at least, it's worth considering. I found and follow Buddhism through such analysis, I think it's dumb to simply write it off out of convicted dogmas of Buddhist scripture.
This is the key to me. Buddha asks us even to question our teacher and to experience things for ourselves. Walking around town last night, watching how so many people were unmindful....on mobile phones, shopping without real thought...driving on impulse. Is humanity wholly sentient.
I am one who does pick and choose which parts of Buddhism I currently believe in and follow. Currently, I do not believe in reincarnation or kharma, in the sense that many here do...my sentient self is unable to currently accept such principles; not because I don't want to but because they don't make sense to me.
We should respect all living things including trees and plants, take decisions based on not causing harm and not be caught up in dogmas that make little sense based on current understanding. I wake up with myself every day and have to live with my actions. I'm lucky I do so rarely ever feeling guilt
because of the impact on the environment, and the chain effect on Nature.
Pesticides and chemicals are thought to be responsible for the rapid decline in the global bee population.
Without bees, we don't get food.
it's that simple.
But I'm happy to munch a carrot, or hug a tree, alongside anyone else.....
I suppose the deep thinkers of the day would have put the question in the form of, as one is reincarnated up and down the animal kingdom, is it possible to be reincarnated as a tree? It would seem as impossible to them as being reincarnated as a rock.There are plants, and there are animals, and they are two separate things, even for an early Buddhist.
When in Zen we ask something like, "Does a tree have Buddha Nature? Does a rock? Does a dog?" we are not actually asking if the tree or rock is enlightened. We are asking the student to understand the difference between the mental constructs of the mind and reality. We are asking what is the difference between the reality of a rock and what you think about it.
When Buddhists say "sentient" beings, we're pretty much hedging by leaving an open definition if we want to be totally honest. Intuitively, sentient to us means life that reacts to its environment and makes decisions, no matter how intuitively. And no, while plants move and react, usually too slowly to see, from observation it's obvious there's a difference. A river moves and reacts, also. Plants don't make decisions.
So should Buddhists hold all life, plant and animal and microbes and viruses, sacred? Don't kill plants, same as people? Don't kill germs, same as people? It's nonsense. The Precepts are all about you, not a statement about the world around us. We don't say avoid killing sentient beings because we hold there's something inherently sacred about an ant compared to a flower. We draw the line because people are what they are, and those that kill without remorse cannot cultivate the unselfish compassion needed to follow the 8-Fold path.
"They might not."
"Might."
"Might not."
And so on...
I think for purposes of this forum we need to operate in terms of what can be thought of as being contained or stated in a reasonably accepted Buddhist scripture or canon- as opposed to getting off into areas of conjecture or speculation. If someone is going to say "I pick and choose what I want to from Buddhism", then that's their perfect right, but it tends to drive discussions into those areas of conjecture or speculation. After all, this section of the forum is called "Buddhism for Beginners" so I think it's important to stick with Buddhism in order to not confuse other beginners that might come along to read here rather than get into "Might-might not" discussion about things that really are unknowable and imponderable. Whether or not a tree has a rudimentary form of consciousness really is imponderable. If I were a beginner coming to this forum and saw this extensive discussion about whether or not trees have consciousness beginning with what somebody saw in a movie and going from there, I'd be confused.
In most forms of Buddhism, trees and other plants do not have consciousness, although of course they need to be respected as part of the world ecosystem. Anything beyond that is just "Might-might not" conjecture and speculation.
a river does not react. it slowly erodes away the soil it sits on and as a result of mathematics that i cant explain it ends up twisting an turning. a river does not choose its path. its path is a mathematical formula. it has something to do with pi and speed around curves.
plants on the other hand move for a reason, like sunlight or more nutrient soil. those decisions are not based upon math like a river.
im not saying we shouldnt eat plants. personally i think its perfectly fine to eat animals.
while i agree we should be respectful of any life including plants, i think that by seperating plants from animals makes it easier to not respect them. i guess it boils down to the idea that we should do all that we can to not hurt life. while this is a great idea to strive for, i think it blinds us to the realities of the world.
it is impossible for one species to live without harming another. im not saying we shouldnt try to reduce the harm, but because most people dont believe that they are causing harm, no reasonable solution exists.
I like them, enjoy their company and looking at them
A plant touches water, it absorbs water, all plants behave in this way and chemically they grow in response. Is a dried sponge sentient because it absorbs water and expands? Sometimes a tree will sprout other trunks with identical DNA, sometimes spawning entire forests of connected trees, all reacting in a passive and non-intentional way. Even if you were to say that a plant is sentient, it cannot experience its own world and if you cut off its life, what happens? A chemical reaction ensues, not a conscious one. It is similar to removing the leg from a table, the table falls every time. It does not intend to fall or not fall, it does so inanimately. Similarly, plants respond inanimately, simply by stimuli.
Plants are organisms just like those found in the human body. When something happens to a system in the body, chemical reactions take place and the body reacts accordingly regardless of "intentional formations" or "perception" in the being. Consciousness is aware of this functions, because it is experiencing them, because of birth due to karma. The reason consciousness doesn't normally experience being a plant is because it can't experience without feelings and perceptions.
Consciousness can't become a plant because karma doesn't lead to non-karmic existence, that would be the cessation of karma and thus the being would be released from existence, and therefore could not be a sentient plant. By that logic, if a plant is sentient and thus released from existence, therefore it is not a living being and cannot experience suffering as a plant. The same applies to rocks, tables, cups, or any inanimate objects. Again, in a plant where does the consciousness begin? There is a seed which contains chemicals and nutrients required for growth and sustenance, which cannot grow without soil and water. Fire starts with wood, it needs air and dryness, and an igniting force (for a plant, fertilization of the seed). Then the seed grows, as a fire grows. There needs to be an understanding of karma and consciousness in relation to sentient beings. To call a plant sentient is okay, but where a plant differs from the requirements of a being with consciousness, perceptions, volitional formations, and sensations, united in a living way, this needs to be accepted. The problem with calling plants "living beings" Buddhistically is that it leads to delusions and misunderstandings of the Dharma. That is why it is wrong view. By definition, if it didn't affect at all to enlightenment whether or not plants were sentient, it wouldn't matter.
Plants need to exist because in OUR world, there has to be organic life in order for us to exist. Karma leads to this existence, and since there is the possibility of plantlife, we as sentient beings realize that possibility because our karma leads us to rely on plantlife. In modern society, ideas of plant sentience are the results of preconceived notions based on assumptions about cells and scientific discoveries. Plants don't need to be sentient, they have no karma--no intentional action. It is natural for us to identify ourselves with plants because of how we see them, that it because of our own karma, our own existence in this world, and our inherent reliance on plantlife. In biology we see that all life has common origin and is interdependent. This is in no way whatsoever against ancient Buddhist teachings. Of course we share common origin, how could our human world possibly exist for us--the beings who have the karma for it--if there were no plants? The karma that led us to human lives relies on plants, and when plants come to be it is because beings are being born into worlds where plants are a biological phenomena derived from the processes of Biological Law (Bija Niyama), one of the five sets of law, which describe the consistency of reality. The others are Seasonal Law, Karmic Law, Natural or Dharmic Law, and Psychological Law. The mind-matter reality exists dynamically according to these five orders.
What I think is that all beings, sentients or not deserve respect. A plant maybe is not consciousness but is trying to survive same like us.
I would request members refrain from further comment please, until we hear from son_of_dhamma in answer to my question.
Then we can proceed accordingly.
Many thanks to all for your co-operation. ~ ~ ~
That just goes to show that we only have consciousness to help stop us walking into lamp posts.
No, seriously, if something cannot move, like a tree; it has no requirement for a consciousness.
but if you don't make that division, or highlight that duality, then a tree isn't something standing on it's own at all, but part of a much greater and larger body, like the pancreas is to your body. But why stop there? what is your pancreas' function other than to produce hormones and aid in digestion, etc? To be without your pancreas certainly means death for your body. But why? Why does a pancreas that fails seek to destroy the life in your body? Does it 'know' that it's your time to die? Does it decide that it's your time to die? Maybe the pancreas does have consciousness.... maybe it 'knows' that for life to continue, on the whole, that your body must die. This is what trees 'know'. They know that they must fall over, decay, feeding the ground and soil, planting seeds, and eventually spring another tree, or a plethora of new trees? It's how the forest 'works', as highlited by that fractal video I posted ^up there^. It's almost as if they "have to" function in this way, and to not do so would be in violation of natural law. So maybe your pancreas is conscious, maybe it's not, but it sure does what it needs to when it needs to, regardless of how an individual tries to look at it.
Maybe your pancreas is a tree... a great analogy as far as I'm concerned. And if your pancreas fails in the middle of your body, and no one is around to diagnos it, does it make a gurggling sound? Heh. But who cares, right? We could try to quantify it, as the fractal mathamaticians are attempting to do........ but the real trick is to see that your pancreas and those trees are really just different expressions of the same thing, which is the impermanent cause and effect of boundless love, recreating itself in the multitudenous trillions of forms, so that it may find itself inummerably.