In Buddhism, how exactly is sentience defined? I hesitate to say this as it will sound facetious but I do not intend it: is it okay for a Buddhist to wash his or her hands because bacteria are not sentient? What about ants in your kitchen? One definition I have heard of sentience is a subjective self awareness. Is that what Buddhists think?
Thank you.
Sentience
Sentience
I think the carrot infinitely more fascinating than the geranium. The carrot has mystery. Flowers are essentially tarts. Prostitutes for the bees. There is you'll agree a certain je ne se quoi oh so very special about a firm young carrot. [Uncle Monty -- Withnail & I.]
Re: Sentience
The basic definition is usually something like "conscious life forms" or "beings with a mind". Plants and some life forms like bacteria would not be included. Ants and other insects definitely are included in "sentient beings".
A good qualifying question might be "Is the being capable of making decisions?". Plants, bacteria, etc do respond to stimuli, but there is not a mind making a decision in there.
A good qualifying question might be "Is the being capable of making decisions?". Plants, bacteria, etc do respond to stimuli, but there is not a mind making a decision in there.
"To reach beyond fear and danger we must sharpen and widen our vision. We have to pierce through the deceptions that lull us into a comfortable complacency, to take a straight look down into the depths of our existence, without turning away uneasily or running after distractions." -- Bhikkhu Bodhi
"No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it's not the same river and he's not the same man." -- Heraclitus
"No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it's not the same river and he's not the same man." -- Heraclitus
Re: Sentience
Thank you for taking the time to answer. Isn't it very difficult to know what has a mind? An ant, for instance. How can we say it has a mind and isn't just responding to stimuli? Humans have a subjective self awareness. We act and ask questions about it. That's the difference between just responding and making decisions.Tex wrote:The basic definition is usually something like "conscious life forms" or "beings with a mind". Plants and some life forms like bacteria would not be included. Ants and other insects definitely are included in "sentient beings".
A good qualifying question might be "Is the being capable of making decisions?". Plants, bacteria, etc do respond to stimuli, but there is not a mind making a decision in there.
But talking of ants, what would be the action of a Buddhist if confronted with thousands of ants in his kitchen where he keeps his food?
I think the carrot infinitely more fascinating than the geranium. The carrot has mystery. Flowers are essentially tarts. Prostitutes for the bees. There is you'll agree a certain je ne se quoi oh so very special about a firm young carrot. [Uncle Monty -- Withnail & I.]
Re: Sentience
Well, with ants and other insects, I think they show varying responses to stimuli. If you move your fingetip into an ant's space, some will choose to run the opposite direction, some will turn 90 degrees and run that way, and some will probably bite your finger instead. To me, that shows a mind at work deciding, rightly or wrongly, about the best course of action, whereas plants will always grow toward the source of light and are not capable of choosing to grow away from it. This is probably not a very good analogy, but in general, yes, insects are considered sentient.Riverbend wrote: Thank you for taking the time to answer. Isn't it very difficult to know what has a mind? An ant, for instance. How can we say it has a mind and isn't just responding to stimuli? Humans have a subjective self awareness. We act and ask questions about it. That's the difference between just responding and making decisions.
And yes, it can be difficult to tell in some cases if a being is sentient, and I think even some Buddhists disagree about exactly where to draw the line. But if we're unsure, we can always play it safe and refrain from killing it.
This exact question was asked and the majority of the responses were things like thoroughly cleaning the kitchen to remove the source of the attraction for the ants and I think there was something that ants don't like the smell of that was recommended to be used as a repellent, but I can't recall what it was.Riverbend wrote:But talking of ants, what would be the action of a Buddhist if confronted with thousands of ants in his kitchen where he keeps his food?
"To reach beyond fear and danger we must sharpen and widen our vision. We have to pierce through the deceptions that lull us into a comfortable complacency, to take a straight look down into the depths of our existence, without turning away uneasily or running after distractions." -- Bhikkhu Bodhi
"No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it's not the same river and he's not the same man." -- Heraclitus
"No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it's not the same river and he's not the same man." -- Heraclitus
Re: Sentience
Is there anything in the teachings on where the 'line' is drawn? I tried searching and couldn't find it. Maybe whatever Pali term was used would help, as opposed to trying to guess based on the English translation?
I was thinking the answer be related to creatures in whose bodies rebirth could occur, but couldn't find any clues on what those would be.
I was thinking the answer be related to creatures in whose bodies rebirth could occur, but couldn't find any clues on what those would be.
- DNS
- Site Admin
- Posts: 17191
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
- Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
- Contact:
Re: Sentience
There is no way we can avoid the "death" to bacteria, mold, fungi, etc. so this is true, that a line must be drawn. Buddhism is not so extreme as say, Jain philosophy and I think there is a clear line with the Animal Kingdom. Insects, humans, mammals, and fish are all members of the Animal Kingdom. Bacteria, mold, fungi are in different separate Biological Kingdoms / classifications and do not have as much sentience, if any.octathlon wrote:Is there anything in the teachings on where the 'line' is drawn? I tried searching and couldn't find it. Maybe whatever Pali term was used would help, as opposed to trying to guess based on the English translation?
I was thinking the answer be related to creatures in whose bodies rebirth could occur, but couldn't find any clues on what those would be.
The First Precept is clearly for sentient beings of the Animal Kingdom which are humans and animals. The 31 planes of existence to which we are subject to in samsara does not mention the other Biological Kingdoms of life.
Re: Sentience
Hi Riverbend and Tex,
kind regards
Ben
Actually, I am in this situation. I keep my kitchen as clean as possible and I try to remove any attractants as quickly as I can. I also take the time to gently sweep them up with a dustpan and hand-brush and take them outside before my wife and kids (non-Buddhists) apply insecticide. But being winter, living in an old house with many cracks in the floor and behind bench fittings, they're coming in for the warmth as well as water and food.Tex wrote:This exact question was asked and the majority of the responses were things like thoroughly cleaning the kitchen to remove the source of the attraction for the ants and I think there was something that ants don't like the smell of that was recommended to be used as a repellent, but I can't recall what it was.Riverbend wrote:But talking of ants, what would be the action of a Buddhist if confronted with thousands of ants in his kitchen where he keeps his food?
kind regards
Ben
“No lists of things to be done. The day providential to itself. The hour. There is no later. This is later. All things of grace and beauty such that one holds them to one's heart have a common provenance in pain. Their birth in grief and ashes.”
- Cormac McCarthy, The Road
Learn this from the waters:
in mountain clefts and chasms,
loud gush the streamlets,
but great rivers flow silently.
- Sutta Nipata 3.725
Compassionate Hands Foundation (Buddhist aid in Myanmar) • Buddhist Global Relief • UNHCR
e: [email protected]..
- Cormac McCarthy, The Road
Learn this from the waters:
in mountain clefts and chasms,
loud gush the streamlets,
but great rivers flow silently.
- Sutta Nipata 3.725
Compassionate Hands Foundation (Buddhist aid in Myanmar) • Buddhist Global Relief • UNHCR
e: [email protected]..
Re: Sentience
Another way to look at Sentience is in terms of realms of rebirth. The Buddha covers all the possible realms sentient beings can be reborn. So since sentient beings do not reborn as plants, plants are not sentient. There are no bacteria realm either that sentient beings reborn into. Bacteria in my opinion is similar to single cell organism like your skin cells but lives independently. It is part of nature but not sentient. In other words, plants and micro organisms are living "things" but not living "beings".
Re: Sentience
Thank you all. I always try to avoid killing anything, even spiders, which I am terrified of.
About sentience, though: it has been said that we as humans can do everything we do without being consciously self-aware of it and that an outside observer wouldn't know the difference; that we could go about our daily lives exactly as we do now while never being subjectively conscious of any of it. So we can't really assume that anything is consciously self aware. We know far too little about it. Not that it matters to me: as a vegetable gardener, I feel guilty throwing away seedlings I don't need!
Personally, I see it as not causing suffering to things that are capable of experiencing it. I have no idea if ants can suffer, but I'll play it safe. I prefer this criterion as experiments suggest humans are not consciously self aware until the age of about two.
Richard
About sentience, though: it has been said that we as humans can do everything we do without being consciously self-aware of it and that an outside observer wouldn't know the difference; that we could go about our daily lives exactly as we do now while never being subjectively conscious of any of it. So we can't really assume that anything is consciously self aware. We know far too little about it. Not that it matters to me: as a vegetable gardener, I feel guilty throwing away seedlings I don't need!
Personally, I see it as not causing suffering to things that are capable of experiencing it. I have no idea if ants can suffer, but I'll play it safe. I prefer this criterion as experiments suggest humans are not consciously self aware until the age of about two.
Richard
I think the carrot infinitely more fascinating than the geranium. The carrot has mystery. Flowers are essentially tarts. Prostitutes for the bees. There is you'll agree a certain je ne se quoi oh so very special about a firm young carrot. [Uncle Monty -- Withnail & I.]
Re: Sentience
Hi Riverbend,
kind regards
Ben
Yes, I can assure you, ants suffer. I've seen it myself.Riverbend wrote:I have no idea if ants can suffer, but I'll play it safe.
What it suggest to me is that you don't have any children. If you did, you would know that babies are conscious and self-aware from the day they are born.Riverbend wrote:I prefer this criterion as experiments suggest humans are not consciously self aware until the age of about two.
kind regards
Ben
“No lists of things to be done. The day providential to itself. The hour. There is no later. This is later. All things of grace and beauty such that one holds them to one's heart have a common provenance in pain. Their birth in grief and ashes.”
- Cormac McCarthy, The Road
Learn this from the waters:
in mountain clefts and chasms,
loud gush the streamlets,
but great rivers flow silently.
- Sutta Nipata 3.725
Compassionate Hands Foundation (Buddhist aid in Myanmar) • Buddhist Global Relief • UNHCR
e: [email protected]..
- Cormac McCarthy, The Road
Learn this from the waters:
in mountain clefts and chasms,
loud gush the streamlets,
but great rivers flow silently.
- Sutta Nipata 3.725
Compassionate Hands Foundation (Buddhist aid in Myanmar) • Buddhist Global Relief • UNHCR
e: [email protected]..
-
- Posts: 1614
- Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:21 am
- Location: By the River Thames near London.
Re: Sentience
One standard definition of sentience is does the organism in its functional state respond to painful/pleasurable stimuli ..
By that criterion ants are certainly sentient. They are drawn to honey. They avoid heat etc.
But...here comes the nematode issue. As others have pointed out on this and other forums Nematodes are the cosmos's way of stopping Buddhists becoming too triumphalist about diet purity..
Nematodes are sentient by any definition. They respond to stimuli. They have separate digestive tracts. Many species of nematodes reproduce sexually.
And they live in all plant tissue...all plant tissue. Organic fruit and veg have more nematodes per gm than inorganic f and v. If you cook fruit and veg the nematodes die. If you eat raw fruit and veg you eat live nematodes.
These are not bacteria.They are small multi celled animals. Some are visible to the naked eye.
So, does this mean that we can hunt deer or kill chickens because we are going to eat sentient creatures anyway ?
Of course not. When we eat a carrot we have no intention of killing nematodes..as we would have if we kill a chicken. When we eat carrots the death of nematodes is an unintended consequence. Therefore no vipaka ensues.
The point being that in conditioned existence the death of sentient creatures is an inevitable result of needing food. Its one big chain. Which means that no Buddhist should point the finger at another Buddhist over the food issue. Its all a matter of degree. Purity as another member pointed out recently is impossible in this area.
By that criterion ants are certainly sentient. They are drawn to honey. They avoid heat etc.
But...here comes the nematode issue. As others have pointed out on this and other forums Nematodes are the cosmos's way of stopping Buddhists becoming too triumphalist about diet purity..
Nematodes are sentient by any definition. They respond to stimuli. They have separate digestive tracts. Many species of nematodes reproduce sexually.
And they live in all plant tissue...all plant tissue. Organic fruit and veg have more nematodes per gm than inorganic f and v. If you cook fruit and veg the nematodes die. If you eat raw fruit and veg you eat live nematodes.
These are not bacteria.They are small multi celled animals. Some are visible to the naked eye.
So, does this mean that we can hunt deer or kill chickens because we are going to eat sentient creatures anyway ?
Of course not. When we eat a carrot we have no intention of killing nematodes..as we would have if we kill a chicken. When we eat carrots the death of nematodes is an unintended consequence. Therefore no vipaka ensues.
The point being that in conditioned existence the death of sentient creatures is an inevitable result of needing food. Its one big chain. Which means that no Buddhist should point the finger at another Buddhist over the food issue. Its all a matter of degree. Purity as another member pointed out recently is impossible in this area.
The going for refuge is the door of entrance to the teachings of the Buddha.
Bhikku Bodhi.
Bhikku Bodhi.
Re: Sentience
Hi Ben,
How do you know ants suffer? What do you see that leads you to that? I think you're probably right, by the way, but I only have a feeling to go on. My feelings are often proved wrong, so I 'd like something more concrete to rely on.
I don't have my own children but I helped bring up my niece. That's not really relevant, though, as we can do everything we do without being consciously self aware and that an outside observer would not be able to tell. It is therefore very easy to assume sentience by projecting our own experience onto others who display similar behaviour. Not that the assumption is necessarily wrong: just not necessarily right.
The experiment I alluded to was simple: a baby was allowed to see itself in a mirror. It was then distracted and a coloured sticker was placed on its forehead. When it looked at the mirror again its attention was not drawn to the sticker. When the experiment was repeated with children above a certain age (I think it was two) they would immediately notice the sticker and reach for it.
That is a crude experiment and not proof of anything; but we know so very little about consciousness and it suggests we might not become self-aware until a specific age. It is also very easy, through crude experiments, to disembody our self-awareness so that we feel the sensation of touch even if it is not us being touched and so on.
Really all I am saying is that conscious self-awareness may not be what we assume it to be. It's such an elusive thing: a fleeting, emergent property of our mental processes that we have only just begun to understand. That is why I personally prefer to base sentience on whether or not a living thing is capable of suffering.
How do you know ants suffer? What do you see that leads you to that? I think you're probably right, by the way, but I only have a feeling to go on. My feelings are often proved wrong, so I 'd like something more concrete to rely on.
I don't have my own children but I helped bring up my niece. That's not really relevant, though, as we can do everything we do without being consciously self aware and that an outside observer would not be able to tell. It is therefore very easy to assume sentience by projecting our own experience onto others who display similar behaviour. Not that the assumption is necessarily wrong: just not necessarily right.
The experiment I alluded to was simple: a baby was allowed to see itself in a mirror. It was then distracted and a coloured sticker was placed on its forehead. When it looked at the mirror again its attention was not drawn to the sticker. When the experiment was repeated with children above a certain age (I think it was two) they would immediately notice the sticker and reach for it.
That is a crude experiment and not proof of anything; but we know so very little about consciousness and it suggests we might not become self-aware until a specific age. It is also very easy, through crude experiments, to disembody our self-awareness so that we feel the sensation of touch even if it is not us being touched and so on.
Really all I am saying is that conscious self-awareness may not be what we assume it to be. It's such an elusive thing: a fleeting, emergent property of our mental processes that we have only just begun to understand. That is why I personally prefer to base sentience on whether or not a living thing is capable of suffering.
I think the carrot infinitely more fascinating than the geranium. The carrot has mystery. Flowers are essentially tarts. Prostitutes for the bees. There is you'll agree a certain je ne se quoi oh so very special about a firm young carrot. [Uncle Monty -- Withnail & I.]
-
- Posts: 1614
- Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:21 am
- Location: By the River Thames near London.
Re: Sentience
" suffering " is too narrow Riverbend. A more broad definition held by many is that a sentient organism responds to painful or pleasurable stimuli.
The going for refuge is the door of entrance to the teachings of the Buddha.
Bhikku Bodhi.
Bhikku Bodhi.
Re: Sentience
I think this is much safer ground. But even then I don't see how we can be sure the ants are not simply responding in a pre-programmed manner to certain stimuli. I am not trying to find excuses to kill ants here, I hasten to add. I just find this area very interesting, not to mention problematic. I avoid the problem by trying to not kill anything at all, while understanding, as you say, it cannot be helped.One standard definition of sentience is does the organism in its functional state respond to painful/pleasurable stimuli ..
By that criterion ants are certainly sentient. They are drawn to honey. They avoid heat etc.
I think the carrot infinitely more fascinating than the geranium. The carrot has mystery. Flowers are essentially tarts. Prostitutes for the bees. There is you'll agree a certain je ne se quoi oh so very special about a firm young carrot. [Uncle Monty -- Withnail & I.]
Re: Sentience
How can we know the organism is responding to 'pleasure' and 'pain' and not just doing what all living things do in that, through natural selection, they are being automatically drawn toward what they need to survive and recoil from what might kill them? Plants do that." suffering " is too narrow Riverbend. A more broad definition held by many is that a sentient organism responds to painful or pleasurable stimuli.
I think the carrot infinitely more fascinating than the geranium. The carrot has mystery. Flowers are essentially tarts. Prostitutes for the bees. There is you'll agree a certain je ne se quoi oh so very special about a firm young carrot. [Uncle Monty -- Withnail & I.]