Can I apply Anatta to inanimate objects?

[Bundokji]

I have never heard of someone being reborn as a tree, but i still think trees are living beings from a Buddhist perspective. If not, please substantiate.

1. The Pali terms used for living beings in the context of the first precept (i.e., satta and pāṇa) don’t include plants.

2. One Pali term for living beings that does (in some contexts) include plants (i.e. bhūta) is never used in connection with the first precept.

3. In the monastic Vinaya the rule that prohibits the damaging of plants is entirely separate from those relating to the killing of living beings.

Thanks Bhante,

The only relevant verse that i know which comes to my mind is:

As a bee gathers honey from the flower without injuring its color or fragrance, even so the sage goes on his alms-round in the village.

The above is a beautiful illustration of interdependence between living beings.

When i think of the precepts, i try to understand the wisdom behind them and what they are designed to achieve. In Buddhism, there is an emphasis on harmlessness, but the notion of life does not always come first.

For instance, i know that monks are vegetarians, but have to accept animal meat when offered. Also Arahants are allowed to end their lives if they want to when their mission is completed.

When i compare this with Jainism for example, they take harmlessness to an extreme. In Buddhism, as i understand it, detachment comes first, and everything else is secondary to it.

[Mr Man]

Do you identify with "being" an inanimate object?

Just imagine that you are 95% made of artificial limbs and body parts.
Which part you consider being?
The balance 5%?

I don't know how those with artificial limbs and body parts relate to them but I don't imagine that there is as strong an identification as there is with a natural body part. I don't believe an artificial body part would be part of an individuals aggregates/Khanda although there would be an extremely close relationship.

As I see it, investigating our sense of being and where it arises is part of our practice. So where does the sense of being arise? Does it arise in external sense objects or does it arise at this body? And from the Sutta -

"'The empty village' stands for the six internal sense media. If a wise, competent, intelligent person examines them from the point of view of the eye, they appear abandoned, void, & empty. If he examines them from the point of view of the ear... the nose... the tongue... the body... the intellect, they appear abandoned, void, & empty. 'The village-plundering bandits' stands for the six external sense-media. The eye is attacked by agreeable & disagreeable forms. The ear is attacked by agreeable & disagreeable sounds. The nose is attacked by agreeable & disagreeable aromas. The tongue is attacked by agreeable & disagreeable flavors. The body is attacked by agreeable & disagreeable tactile sensations. The intellect is attacked by agreeable & disagreeable ideas.

"'The great expanse of water' stands for the fourfold flood: the flood of sensuality, the flood of becoming, the flood of views, & the flood of ignorance.

'The near shore, dubious & risky' stands for self-identification. 'The further shore, secure and free from risk' stands for Unbinding. 'The raft' stands for just this noble eightfold path: right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration. 'Making an effort with hands & feet' stands for the arousing of persistence. 'Crossed over, having gone to the other shore, he would stand on high ground, a brahman' stands for the arahant."

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

[SamKR]

Is Atta-sanna applicable to inanimate objects like chairs, cars etc.
ie: Is seen a chair as a chair a Atta-citta & atta-ditthi?

Yes, by naming it as an object (chair) and so assuming that it can be pinned down, we already created the self of the chair, which is a type of atta-ditthi. Then by assuming that there must be someone to observe that "real" chair an observer is created, who owns that process of observation. Both can't be pinned down, both are not present in direct experience, both are empty.

[SarathW]

Yes, by naming it as an object (chair) and so assuming that it can be pinned down, we already created the self of the chair, which is a type of atta-ditthi.

It easier to understand that there is no rainbow.
But harder to understand there is no chair.