Hello all,
An assortment of information for your delectation:
Plants ~ Borderline Beings?
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=1204" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Plant Life
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=6822" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
From the Patimokkha, suddhapaacittiyaa, The Section about plant beings, 11:
"In causing damage to plant beings there is an offence entailing
expiation."
From SuttaVibhanga (Horner transl), the account leading up to this rule is
given:
"....at Alavi in the chief shrine at Alavi. Now at that time the monks of
Alavi, making repairs, were cutting down trees and having them cut down;
and a certain monk of Alavi cut down a tree, and the devata living in that
tree said to this monk:
"Do not, honoured sir, desiring to make an abode for yourself, cut down my
abode."
This monk, taking no notice, cut it down, and in doing so, struck the arm
of that devata's son. Then it occurred to that devata:
"What now if I, just here, should deprive this monk of life?" Then it
occurred to that devata:
"But this would not be suiting in me, that I were, just here, to deprive
this monk of life. What now if I were to tell this matter to the lord?"
Then this devata approached the lord, and having approached she told this
matter to the lord.
"Very good, devata, it is good that you, devata, did not deprive this monk
of life. If today you, devata, had deprived this monk of life, you,
devata, would also have produced much demerit. You go, devata; in a
certain place there is a solitary tree, go you into it."
People looked down upon, criticised, spread it about, saying:
"How can these recluses, sons of the Sakyans, cut down trees and have them
cut down? These recluses, sons of the Sakyans, are harming life that is
one-facultied." Monks heard these people who looked down upon, criticised,
spread it about. Those who were modest monks looked down upon, criticised,
spread it about, saying:
"How can these monks of Alavi cut down trees and have them cut down?"....
"Is it true, as is said, that you, monks, cut down trees and had them cut
down?"
"It is true, lord," they said.
The enlightened one, the lord, rebuked them, saying:
"How can you, foolish men, cut down trees and have them cut down? Is it
not, foolish men, for pleasing those who are not (yet) pleased.....And
thus, monks, this rule of training should be set forth:
For destruction of vegetable growth there is an offence of expiation."
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastu ... sage/66737" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
.....................
From Ajahn Dhammanando:
Hi all,
This is a re-post as the formatting of the last one was a mess.
> Connie: "For people believe, O Bhikkhus, that life dwells in a tree."
This is the key point. The belief that plants and the earth possess one
faculty (either kaayindriya or jiivitindriya) was held by the
Niga.n.thas (Jains) and acelakas (non-affiliated naked ascetics); since
these were the largest and oldest sama.na groups at that time, their
beliefs had passed into common lore and so any sama.na worth his salt
was expected to conform to them (by keeping the rains retreat so as not
to tread on growing crops, by not digging the earth or damaging plants,
and by taking various precautions when building a hut). But nowhere
does the Buddha actually concede that these beliefs were correct and in
the Vinaya commentaries they are dismissed as "mere imagining".
Best wishes,
Dhammanando
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastu ... sage/69259" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Plants in Early Buddhism and the Far Eastern idea of the Buddha Nature of Grasses and Trees
http://www.scribd.com/doc/47341101/Plan ... -and-Trees" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
with metta
Chris
Plants ~ Borderline Beings?
Re: Do plants possess five aggregate?
---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 ---
---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 ---
Re: Do plants possess five aggregate?
Plats have consciosness.
Why?
Because for eating some insects but not others you have to get information obout them, to know them, to be conscioss about them, to adoptate yourself.
Actualy scientist know too, that plants can even comunicate with oher plants by some chimical process, trasmeting information, and get information.
Also, for exemple, sun flower have a conscious of sun to folow it.
Every living form have a consciossness and self consciosness. Of corse it's anatta, like us.
PS For exemple i dont eat any fresh fruit, or other not cooked food, i cant do it.
Why?
Because for eating some insects but not others you have to get information obout them, to know them, to be conscioss about them, to adoptate yourself.
Actualy scientist know too, that plants can even comunicate with oher plants by some chimical process, trasmeting information, and get information.
Also, for exemple, sun flower have a conscious of sun to folow it.
Every living form have a consciossness and self consciosness. Of corse it's anatta, like us.
PS For exemple i dont eat any fresh fruit, or other not cooked food, i cant do it.
Sabbe dhamma anatta
We are not concurents...
I'am sorry for my english
We are not concurents...
I'am sorry for my english
Re: Do plants possess five aggregate?
Just for fun
Sabbe dhamma anatta
We are not concurents...
I'am sorry for my english
We are not concurents...
I'am sorry for my english
Re: Do plants possess five aggregate?
Rupa which eat, sharing information, and want to survive by procreation.robertk wrote:plants are purely rupa.
Like us It's true
Sabbe dhamma anatta
We are not concurents...
I'am sorry for my english
We are not concurents...
I'am sorry for my english
Re: Do plants possess five aggregate?
I don't want to be a nitpicker but I think this is not a proper question. The aggregates are not possessed by anything. Neither plants nor human beings "possess" aggregates.SarathW wrote:The way I understand is that plants possess Rupa and Some form of Vedana and Jivithandriya (life) not conditioned by Kamma. The five aggregate has a dependent origination. Does it mean Citta is dormant in plants?
I have the same question in regards to bacteria as well. Do bacteria possess five aggregare?
mikenz66 wrote:Hi Sarah,
This is an interesting question. Perhaps it would be useful to look at some Suttas that mention internal and external aggregates and elements.
SN 22.48 Khandha Sutta: Aggregates
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;MN 62 Maha-Rahulovada Sutta: The Greater Exhortation to Rahula"Whatever form is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: That is called the form aggregate.
...
"Whatever form — past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near — is clingable, offers sustenance, and is accompanied with mental fermentation: That is called the form clinging-aggregate.
...
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;"And what is the earth property [commonly translated as "element"]? The earth property can be either internal or external. What is the internal earth property?[3] Anything internal, within oneself, that's hard, solid, & sustained [by craving]: head hairs, body hairs, nails, teeth, skin, flesh, tendons, bones, bone marrow, kidneys, heart, liver, membranes, spleen, lungs, large intestines, small intestines, contents of the stomach, feces, or anything else internal, within oneself, that's hard, solid, and sustained: This is called the internal earth property. Now both the internal earth property & the external earth property are simply earth property. And that should be seen as it actually is present with right discernment: 'This is not mine, this is not me, this is not my self.' When one sees it thus as it actually is present with right discernment, one becomes disenchanted with the earth property and makes the earth property fade from the mind.
Mike
What can be experienced can be grouped as the different aggregates but it would be a misunderstanding to say this or that group belongs to the experienced phenomena, it's the other way round!
I wouldn't say plants or human beings have rupa but of plants and human beings anything that's hard, solid & sustained, internal or external is simply the earth property and that should be seen as it actually is present with right discernment: "This is not mine, this is not me, this is not my self."
best wishes, acinteyyo
Thag 1.20. Ajita - I do not fear death; nor do I long for life. I’ll lay down this body, aware and mindful.
- BubbaBuddhist
- Posts: 640
- Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 5:55 am
- Location: Knoxville, Tennessee
- Contact:
Re: Do plants possess five aggregate?
As I recall (often in my nightmares) this very conversation went on for about a million pages on e-Sangha. The thread was replete with all kinds of Newage trying to make an argument that plant life was a form of sentient-being realm wherein rebirth was possible. Oiy. <---in over 2.5 decades of perusing the Nikayas and supplementary materials I've never come across a single reference of the Buddha saying anything about the plant realm or anyone rebirthing as a tomato. Lots of references to tree devas though.
If so, may I be reborn as a mold spore so I won't have to pay taxes.
BB.
If so, may I be reborn as a mold spore so I won't have to pay taxes.
BB.
Author of Redneck Buddhism: or Will You Reincarnate as Your Own Cousin?
-
- Posts: 939
- Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:41 pm
Re: Do plants possess five aggregate?
I think it can be said that the sunflowers are conscious of the sun passing overhead (heliotropic).appicchato wrote:While agreeing that plants do have (physical) form, I find it a bit of a stretch (actually a large one) to think that they possess feelings, perception, (certainly) mental formations, nor consciousness...this being a purely personal perspective though...an aggregate, yes...five, nay...
I think that a human being maybe tends to be biased about what the consciousness entails (which of course, makes sense... because it's a word from their language, after all): at the very least attributing some kind of human trait to it... because that is the only thing they're familiar with; or at the very worst, attributing to it something like spirit, or some kind of atman... which I think is how many would try to interpret and then explain how a plant might have consciousness (new age stuff), which wasn't what I'm trying for with the sunflower example above, at all (really).
If we looked at what the Buddha said, a consciousness is what arises when there is a contact (e.g., eye + object = eye consciousness, and so on). Obviously, there is a contact in between the sunflower and the sun... or else the sunflower wouldn't have moved its head. It's basically a sunflower-consciousness... though, it's still very different from the human consciousness.
Also, if we view feelings as only positive, neutral or negative sensations (as described by the Buddha)... then I don't think that the feelings necessarily have to be nerve-based. I think it's already been shown that the plants have actions of their own which is based on their sensations of the positive or the negative (from their perception of what's good or bad... not ours)...
Those are just some (vegan) foods for thought.
Re: Do plants possess five aggregate?
That's the way I see it. Aggregates, elements, etc, are not things, especially not little "building blocks".acinteyyo wrote: What can be experienced can be grouped as the different aggregates but it would be a misunderstanding to say this or that group belongs to the experienced phenomena, it's the other way round!
http://what-buddha-said.net/library/Bud ... tm#khandha" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Mike
Re: Do plants possess five aggregate?
Aciteyyo – You are correct. The question should be re phrased to “Do plants arise with five aggregate?” Sorry for my bad English.
BB: I agree with you. I think consciousness is a spectrum like light. It can arise in various form.
Thanks everyone : I agree with you and understand that, this knowledge is not important in attaining Nirvana. But will help us to understand Anatta. Having said that plants are very important part of our life and should be protected.
BB: I agree with you. I think consciousness is a spectrum like light. It can arise in various form.
Thanks everyone : I agree with you and understand that, this knowledge is not important in attaining Nirvana. But will help us to understand Anatta. Having said that plants are very important part of our life and should be protected.
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
- PadmaPhala
- Posts: 169
- Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2012 5:22 am
Re: Plants in Buddhism - Idea of B. Nature of Grasses an Tre
few living beings have more accessible bodhi nature than a bodhi tree
Are plants living beings ?
Hello everyone,
As a very beginner, this is the first (but certainly not the least) of my silly questions.
Scientifically speaking, plants are living beings. I even read a scientific article some time ago, which explained that plants actually communicate with sounds that cannot be heard by the human hear, or communicate releasing chemical stuff into the air.
So my question is: how does Buddhims consider plants?
Is picking up a flower like killing a living being?
Are plants part of the samsara?
I cannot stop wondering so I hope you can help me.
As a very beginner, this is the first (but certainly not the least) of my silly questions.
Scientifically speaking, plants are living beings. I even read a scientific article some time ago, which explained that plants actually communicate with sounds that cannot be heard by the human hear, or communicate releasing chemical stuff into the air.
So my question is: how does Buddhims consider plants?
Is picking up a flower like killing a living being?
Are plants part of the samsara?
I cannot stop wondering so I hope you can help me.
- DNS
- Site Admin
- Posts: 17192
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
- Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
- Contact:
Re: Are plants living beings ?
I believe they are considered "one-facultied" life forms.Ajisai wrote: So my question is: how does Buddhims consider plants?
No.Is picking up a flower like killing a living being?
No. Beings do not get reborn to the plant kingdom, just devas, humans, animals, and other celestial realms (according to Buddhism).Are plants part of the samsara?
- retrofuturist
- Posts: 27848
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: Are plants living beings ?
Greetings,
To borrow an awesome post from Cooran...
Retro.
To borrow an awesome post from Cooran...
Metta,cooran wrote:Hello all,
An assortment of information for your delectation:
Plants ~ Borderline Beings?
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=1204" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Plant Life
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=6822" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
From the Patimokkha, suddhapaacittiyaa, The Section about plant beings, 11:
"In causing damage to plant beings there is an offence entailing
expiation."
From SuttaVibhanga (Horner transl), the account leading up to this rule is
given:
"....at Alavi in the chief shrine at Alavi. Now at that time the monks of
Alavi, making repairs, were cutting down trees and having them cut down;
and a certain monk of Alavi cut down a tree, and the devata living in that
tree said to this monk:
"Do not, honoured sir, desiring to make an abode for yourself, cut down my
abode."
This monk, taking no notice, cut it down, and in doing so, struck the arm
of that devata's son. Then it occurred to that devata:
"What now if I, just here, should deprive this monk of life?" Then it
occurred to that devata:
"But this would not be suiting in me, that I were, just here, to deprive
this monk of life. What now if I were to tell this matter to the lord?"
Then this devata approached the lord, and having approached she told this
matter to the lord.
"Very good, devata, it is good that you, devata, did not deprive this monk
of life. If today you, devata, had deprived this monk of life, you,
devata, would also have produced much demerit. You go, devata; in a
certain place there is a solitary tree, go you into it."
People looked down upon, criticised, spread it about, saying:
"How can these recluses, sons of the Sakyans, cut down trees and have them
cut down? These recluses, sons of the Sakyans, are harming life that is
one-facultied." Monks heard these people who looked down upon, criticised,
spread it about. Those who were modest monks looked down upon, criticised,
spread it about, saying:
"How can these monks of Alavi cut down trees and have them cut down?"....
"Is it true, as is said, that you, monks, cut down trees and had them cut
down?"
"It is true, lord," they said.
The enlightened one, the lord, rebuked them, saying:
"How can you, foolish men, cut down trees and have them cut down? Is it
not, foolish men, for pleasing those who are not (yet) pleased.....And
thus, monks, this rule of training should be set forth:
For destruction of vegetable growth there is an offence of expiation."
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastu ... sage/66737" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
.....................
From Ajahn Dhammanando:
Hi all,
This is a re-post as the formatting of the last one was a mess.
> Connie: "For people believe, O Bhikkhus, that life dwells in a tree."
This is the key point. The belief that plants and the earth possess one
faculty (either kaayindriya or jiivitindriya) was held by the
Niga.n.thas (Jains) and acelakas (non-affiliated naked ascetics); since
these were the largest and oldest sama.na groups at that time, their
beliefs had passed into common lore and so any sama.na worth his salt
was expected to conform to them (by keeping the rains retreat so as not
to tread on growing crops, by not digging the earth or damaging plants,
and by taking various precautions when building a hut). But nowhere
does the Buddha actually concede that these beliefs were correct and in
the Vinaya commentaries they are dismissed as "mere imagining".
Best wishes,
Dhammanando
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastu ... sage/69259" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Plants in Early Buddhism and the Far Eastern idea of the Buddha Nature of Grasses and Trees
http://www.scribd.com/doc/47341101/Plan ... -and-Trees" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
with metta
Chris
Retro.
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
Re: Are plants living beings ?
Killing means the intentional destruction of any living
being. The Pāli term pāna strictly means the psycho-physical
life pertaining to one’s particular existence. The wanton destruction
of this life force, without allowing it to run its due
course, is pānātipāta. Pāna means that which breathes. Hence
all animate beings, including animals, are regarded as pāna,
but not plants as they possess no mind. Bhikkhus, however,
are forbidden to destroy even plant life. This rule, it may be
mentioned, does not apply to lay-followers.
http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/buddh ... gsurw6.pdf
PS:The way I understand they have Jivithandriya
being. The Pāli term pāna strictly means the psycho-physical
life pertaining to one’s particular existence. The wanton destruction
of this life force, without allowing it to run its due
course, is pānātipāta. Pāna means that which breathes. Hence
all animate beings, including animals, are regarded as pāna,
but not plants as they possess no mind. Bhikkhus, however,
are forbidden to destroy even plant life. This rule, it may be
mentioned, does not apply to lay-followers.
http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/buddh ... gsurw6.pdf
PS:The way I understand they have Jivithandriya
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”