Lotus_Bitch wrote: Malcolm wrote:
Son wrote: This is a delusion that the Buddha himself tried to put an end to.
The Buddha did not say anything about it at all. All arguments againt plant sentience are from later, extra canonical, scholastic sources. There is in fact good evidence to suppose that like other contemporary Indians, early Buddhists beleived in the sentience of plants. Certainly Jains did and continue to do so.
What do you think of the Surangama Sutra? Regardless of when and who composed this work, it is widely regarded as a meditation manual first. Hence it's importance in Mahayana.
The arguments about the sentience of plants in Chinese Mahāyāna is well known with many Chinese masters coming down on the side of plant sentience.
The view you are propounding is common among those of eternalistic views, which is why you'll hear of this in tribal communities as well.
Am I? That is news to me. Are you quite sure all tribal people are eternalists? How did you come to universal knowledge of the beleifs of all tribal peoples?
In response to Xabir, the idea that plants have "spirits" inhabiting them is as silly as the idea we are a mind inhabiting a body. This is merely a perpetuation of the mind/matter dichtomy, the intractable substance dualism that has infected scholastic Buddhist discourse, with which modern Buddhists authors such as Alan Wallace jump through hoops to vainly defend.
Instead, I prefer to think that matter is intrinsically imbued with intelligence, and that all forms of matter may naturally manifest their intrisic intelligence given proper causes and conditions. In other words, I think the concepts "sentient" vs. "non-sentient" is just an abstraction. The intelligence of matter is a function of self-organization or autopoesis. It used to be the case that we beleived animals to be mere automata. Now we have revised that view, and we consider that while animals demonstrate will, communication, etc., we feel that plants are mere automata -- but this view is also slowly changing.
My present feeling is that we inhabit a living world, and it too has a consciousness that envelops us. In order to make it comprehensible we render it in archtypes like an Earth Goddess, Pritvi, etc. But the world is impermanent, and thus it too is subject to birth, aging, illness and death.
Why would the intelligence of a mountain, a planet, a solar system, a galaxy, a universe resemble that of a human being?