Are trees sentient?

General forum on the teachings of all schools of Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism. Topics specific to one school are best posted in the appropriate sub-forum.
Leaves of Light
Posts: 56
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2022 3:45 am

Re: Are trees sentient?

Post by Leaves of Light »

Kai lord wrote: Tue Jul 05, 2022 12:27 pm
There are many things which Buddhist dharma does not have a clear answer to and this is one of them.

At least thanks to science we now know more about causes and conditions for seed and shoot than say "miraculous birth" in which the causes and conditions are not specific in details and the newly born being simply pops into existence. This leaves a lot to guesses. Its amazing people do not have more issues with that than plant birth.

The reason why I used naga as an illustration previously is because in greek mythology, they have a naga called hydra in which two heads will grow in the place of one that is cut off. So do those two heads share the same consciousness or two different ones?

Similarly in nature, when an animal like Jellyfish is cut into two, two different parts regrow into two different jellyfishes. So are two separate jellyfishes the same being or two separate beings? If its the latter, did the second bardo being enter and resides into the separate jellyfish before its cut or during its cut or after its cut?

Jellyfish also did something like budding in which they simply clone themselves asexually and one of the species even said to have achieved a state of biological immortality in which it simply returns to its younger stage and remature again.

Such natural phenomenon already existed in the animal kingdom for centuries but Buddhists simply ignore them until the topic of non animals being similar to animals is brought up and people start asking questions which is good since finally creatures like jellyfishes, sponges, fungi, bacteria, etc, no longer gets ignored.
Also, plants are not "born" according to Buddhism (note the Tibetan word for "sentient being": sems can, "possessing a mind", i.e., a clump of the four elements, more or less gross or subtle, which has a conscious mind in it for the course of its life). For example, as described in the Bhavasamkranti Sutra, (which merely describes what everyone can observe for himself, but uses it as a basis for the teaching) a seed becomes a sprout due to simple process of hetupratyaya or primary causes and secondary conditions such as light, rain, good soil, good seed - this is not the same thing as miraculous birth. In fact, it is the exact opposite of a miracle - it is the most basic cause and effect, similar to baking a cake. A cake is not born, it comes out of the right ingredients and sequence of action. Hence, just as you can have flour, egg, milk, sugar and oven in your kitchen for 100 years before they come together in the right way to produce a cake, you can have an unsprouted seed for potentially 1000s of years, until the cause and condition of being planted and watered occur to cause it to sprout. This is not the same as a sentient being being born from the combination of bardo consciousness, habit energy/karma, and parents (or other means of conception). So there's no comparison. As for miraculous birth, it is something like the birth of Padmasambhava or birth in the god realms where the lust of mother and father for example aren't required to come together for the being to be conceived or appear. Padmasambhava according to many accounts simply appeared spontaneously as an 8 year old boy in the calyx of a lotus flower. This same kind of spiritual phenomena may be at play with spiritual beings such as nagas that you mention; after all, nagas are said to be able to alter their physical form from naga into human and so forth, as are siddhas and buddhas, so for such a being to have two or more heads is quite reasonable in that context. Also, innumerable Buddhist deities and Hindu deities and so on, have multiple heads, many more than the Hydra, both wrathful and peaceful at the same time. So it's not necessarily possible to comprehend these spiritual phenomena using a mundane scientific approach.
Leaves of Light
Posts: 56
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2022 3:45 am

Re: Are trees sentient?

Post by Leaves of Light »

Kai lord wrote: Tue Jul 05, 2022 12:27 pm There are many things which Buddhist dharma does not have a clear answer to and this is one of them.

At least thanks to science we now know more about causes and conditions for seed and shoot than say "miraculous birth" in which the causes and conditions are not specific in details and the newly born being simply pops into existence. This leaves a lot to guesses. Its amazing people do not have more issues with that than plant birth.

The reason why I used naga as an illustration previously is because in greek mythology, they have a naga called hydra in which two heads will grow in the place of one that is cut off. So do those two heads share the same consciousness or two different ones?

Similarly in nature, when an animal like Jellyfish is cut into two, two different parts regrow into two different jellyfishes. So are two separate jellyfishes the same being or two separate beings? If its the latter, did the second bardo being enter and resides into the separate jellyfish before its cut or during its cut or after its cut?

Jellyfish also did something like budding in which they simply clone themselves asexually and one of the species even said to have achieved a state of biological immortality in which it simply returns to its younger stage and remature again.

Such natural phenomenon already existed in the animal kingdom for centuries but Buddhists simply ignore them until the topic of non animals being similar to animals is brought up and people start asking questions which is good since finally creatures like jellyfishes, sponges, fungi, bacteria, etc, no longer gets ignored.
Kai lord wrote: Tue Jul 05, 2022 12:27 pm
Leaves of Light wrote: Tue Jul 05, 2022 1:16 am Possibly the key difference is what is meant by the four types of birth of sentient beings as opposed to mere reproduction of plants. It could be that the four types of birth - womb, egg, warmth and moisture and miraculous - are so designated because they are the conditions that allow a disembodied bardo consciousness, or something resembling it (it could be slightly different with miraculous birth) to enter into a physical body. There are many sutras especially the Nandagarbhavakrantinirdesha (https://read.84000.co/translation/toh58.html) and the Chinese Shuramgama Sutra, that describe in detail the process of a bardo consciousness entering into a fetus or other kind of receptacle at the point of conception of whichever of the four kinds. Against that, sutras like the Bhavasamkranti Sutra describe the transformation of, for instance, a seed to a shoot as being purely based on external causes and conditions coming together, like sunlight, soil, viable seed, and water; it's not really explained that at the point where the seed ceases and the shoot beings - which we might call the start of the life of a plant, since a seed in not a plant - that there is a process of a bardo consciousness entering into the new shoot, i.e., something being "born" in that sense. So, this could be one way to mark the difference between sentient beings of the six kinds of existence taught in Buddhism, and a plant. Of course how to test and determine this in each case could be challenging and you would have to rely on canonical teaching as much as possible as to whether a sponge for instance undergoes birth according to the above rubric, or on the other hand its genesis or coming into being is only part of the series of transformations described in the Bhavasamkranti Sutra where a seed ceases and a shoot/plant/tree begins based purely on the presence of various causes and conditions, not relying on the presence of a consciousness seeking rebirth. Perhaps there will always be some examples that are difficult to say one way or another for certain. Certainly, a sponge has a lot in common with a fungus.
There are many things which Buddhist dharma does not have a clear answer to and this is one of them.

At least thanks to science we now know more about causes and conditions for seed and shoot than say "miraculous birth" in which the causes and conditions are not specific in details and the newly born being simply pops into existence. This leaves a lot to guesses. Its amazing people do not have more issues with that than plant birth.

The reason why I used naga as an illustration previously is because in greek mythology, they have a naga called hydra in which two heads will grow in the place of one that is cut off. So do those two heads share the same consciousness or two different ones?

Similarly in nature, when an animal like Jellyfish is cut into two, two different parts regrow into two different jellyfishes. So are two separate jellyfishes the same being or two separate beings? If its the latter, did the second bardo being enter and resides into the separate jellyfish before its cut or during its cut or after its cut?

Jellyfish also did something like budding in which they simply clone themselves asexually and one of the species even said to have achieved a state of biological immortality in which it simply returns to its younger stage and remature again.

Such natural phenomenon already existed in the animal kingdom for centuries but Buddhists simply ignore them until the topic of non animals being similar to animals is brought up and people start asking questions which is good since finally creatures like jellyfishes, sponges, fungi, bacteria, etc, no longer gets ignored.
By the way, in terms of the Buddhist concept of birth in one of the four modes - womb, egg, heat and moisture and miraculous - then it is a question of whether an antarabhava or bardo-being, a disembodied consciousness seeking rebirth driven by karma and habit-energy, is entering into the newly conceived body. IF so, regardless if its a human baby conceived, or a star fish or jellyfish cut up into 5 pieces growing into 5 new star fish, or a worm sliced in half growing into two new worms, then this is the birth of a sentient being according to the Buddhist teaching. With science which doesn't even recognize reincarnation, bardo existence, karma etc., or that an external consciousness enters into the fetus or whatever it is, it is really not very useful in understanding the causes for good and inferior births (sugati and durgati) leadiung to possibility of liberation from suffering or otherwise, although it may be fascinating on its own somewhat mundane level.
Leaves of Light
Posts: 56
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2022 3:45 am

Re: Are trees sentient?

Post by Leaves of Light »

Leaves of Light wrote: Tue Jul 05, 2022 9:41 pm For example, as described in the Bhavasamkranti Sutra...
My apologies, wherever it says "Bhavasamkranti Sutra" it should in fact read "Shalistamba Sutra", the Sutra of the Rice Seedling. The Bhavasamkranti Sutra briefly describes an aspect of the operation of karma in the transmigration of the mind or consciousness of beings from the moment of death to that of rebirth among the six destinies, whereas the Shalistamba Sutra talks about how plant seeds become sprouts, trees, fruits and new seeds by the cyclical process of selfless, unintentional cause, condition and effect, comparing it to how the same process, devoid of self, generates good and bad acts and their results, among sentient beings of samsara.
Vajrasambhava
Posts: 160
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2018 1:24 pm

Re: Are trees sentient?

Post by Vajrasambhava »

There Is also the example of the planarian or flat worm. It can be sliced into pieces and every piece will form a total new being. The strangest thing is, if you cut a flatworm from head to belly in vertical you get a two headed flatworm. This is very strange since two brains will form in the same body (Planarian have a proper brain, not just a nerves net).
This Is very hard to explain through any buddhist point of view.
Another strange fact about this worm is: Scientists try to change the polarity bioelectrical pattern in a splitted flatworm in regeneration phase, what they got was a worm with two heads, the second one formed at the tail spot. This, looks like to form an individual brain and a functional basis for consciousness is a matter of bioelectrical pulse.
Do anyone of you can explain such phenomena according to any buddhist point of view?
Leaves of Light
Posts: 56
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2022 3:45 am

Re: Are trees sentient?

Post by Leaves of Light »

Vajrasambhava wrote: Wed Jul 06, 2022 3:12 pm There Is also the example of the planarian or flat worm. It can be sliced into pieces and every piece will form a total new being. The strangest thing is, if you cut a flatworm from head to belly in vertical you get a two headed flatworm. This is very strange since two brains will form in the same body (Planarian have a proper brain, not just a nerves net).
This Is very hard to explain through any buddhist point of view.
Another strange fact about this worm is: Scientists try to change the polarity bioelectrical pattern in a splitted flatworm in regeneration phase, what they got was a worm with two heads, the second one formed at the tail spot. This, looks like to form an individual brain and a functional basis for consciousness is a matter of bioelectrical pulse.
Do anyone of you can explain such phenomena according to any buddhist point of view?
In terms of the Buddhist teaching on birth of sentient beings, it comes down to whether or not an antarabhava or "in-between existence [being]", i.e., a disembodied consciousness seeking rebirth driven by winds of habit-energy or vasana and karma, sometimes called the gandharva enters into a physical body. If it does, then this is "birth". Thus from the Buddhist point of view, with the flat worm, if it is cut in 100 pieces and each one becomes a new living creature, if this involves 100 antarabhavas entering into the 100 new bodies formed from the pieces of tapeworm - this would presumably answer to the form of birth of "heat and moisture", so called (even though it's not obvious that heat and moisture are present or explicit in this particular act of conception; it is simply defined on Rigpawiki as "spontaneous generation from warmth and moisture; i.e., heat-moisture birth (for certain 'inferior' types of animals"); one would have to look into the scriptural teachings on this particular mode of birth for more information), since it doesn't align with womb or egg birth, or miraculous birth - then there are 100 births. The Buddhist teaching sets out fundamental principles of death, bardo and karma-impelled rebirth, but it doesn't claim to intricately explain every single example of this in samsara or make exhaustive lists of all different species because one's life would be exhausted long before mastering even 0.1% of the details. This is why Buddhist teachers from Buddha on up always encourage practitioners to focus on doctrine and practice that pertains very much to liberation, not to attempting to get mundane knowledge of every phenomenon of the world. After all, Buddhism says that even this visible world of ours is only one of an infinity of worlds, with all different kinds of beings, so even if one mastered every detail of all the species of creatures in this world, that would still leave many countless unexplored galaxies of such phenomena. For example, imagine the dismay of 18th century European naturalists who thought they had finally created exhaustive lists of the world's animal and plant species, only for Australia, New Zealand so on to be discovered, with all their wonderfully unique and strange species such as platypus, echidna, kangaroo and koala. Scientists and biologists who are deeply fascinated by all these things can devote their entire lives to the inquiry into them but even then, one website discussing the topic states "It turns out that flatworms undergo an odd and as-yet-unexplained transformation" - so they are really no nearer to having a perfect understanding of it than a regular Buddhist practitioner. Of course, a perfectly enlightened buddha would, according to the Buddhist view, have perfect knowledge of literally everything, including the metempsychosis and associated biology surrounding flatworms,.

Having said that, if there is a two-headed animal creature, with a pair of brains, then there are also two-headed human beings, such as the famous Hensel twins, each with their own individual mind, so there is nothing in principle against two beings being born into the same single bodily unit.

So it could mean that even though Buddhism lays down the conditions of rebirth of sentient beings in broad terms - four modes of rebirth - within the actual infinity of samsara, the varieties of how these occur are far beyond one's comprehension.

Another point that is notable with regard to distinctions between plants, trees, creepers, grasses etc and so called sentient beings (sattva, sems can) is that made in the aforementioned Shalistamba Sutra where a contrast is made between the "outer dependent arising" (bahyapratitya­samutpada) - i.e., the coming into being of plants such as rice - and that of "inner" dependent arising (adhyatmikapratityasamutpada) of sentient beings in the six destinies - wherein six great elements are indicated in the processes, with five in common
in each case, namely the:

1. Earth
2. Water
3. Fire
4. Wind and
5. Space elements

and one difference, namely with plants, the element of time (or season, rtu) and with sentient beings, that of consciousness (vijnana). Here in this sutra a clear distinction is made then between plants and sentient beings in terms of the basic elements involved their genesis and existence. This is of course interesting since in the quote from the Samvarodaya Tantra given above, it states that plants, trees, grasses, creepers etc do have vijnana which is thus, from the sutra point of view, quite a radical statement since throughout the exoteric and indeed all other Buddhist teaching, vijnana is explained as answering to the five physical sense consciousnesses, along with mind or manovijnana, and the other kinds of mental consciousness including the alayavijnana. So when the particular tantra in question uses the exact term vijnana with respect to plant sentience, we may wonder exactly what kind of vijnana is meant in terms of Buddhist understanding of consciousness. Of course, plants like creepers have definite touch or body consciousness and also a sense of the space and objects around them so that they will reach out in the direction of physical supports and of course every plant responds to heat stimulation and that kind of thing.

Note that the use of the word adhyatmika here is significant in that as well as the simple meaning of "inner" as used in the context of this Buddhist sutra, in the traditional sense of the word, it is as given in the Sanskrit dictionaries (Monier-WIlliams):

- relating to the soul or the Supreme Spirit
- relating to self or to the soul ; proceeding from bodily and mental causes within one's self ; relating to the supreme spirit Mn. &c. ; spiritual , holy

So here by distingushing bahya ("outer, exterior, not belonging to the family or country, an outcaste"), for plants - suggesting that they are "outside" of the "family" of sentient beings - and adhyatmika for creatures of the six destinies such as human beings, then a contrast is drawn between that which possesses self and spirit and that which doesn't (not that those are strictly Buddhist concepts of course; but the sense is nonetheless there).
Last edited by Leaves of Light on Wed Jul 06, 2022 8:52 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Leaves of Light
Posts: 56
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2022 3:45 am

Re: Are trees sentient?

Post by Leaves of Light »

Vajrasambhava wrote: Wed Jul 06, 2022 3:12 pm Scientists try to change the polarity bioelectrical pattern in a splitted flatworm in regeneration phase, what they got was a worm with two heads, the second one formed at the tail spot. This, looks like to form an individual brain and a functional basis for consciousness is a matter of bioelectrical pulse.
Do anyone of you can explain such phenomena according to any buddhist point of view?
Also, the argument could be made that trying to change the polarity of the bioelectrical pattern in a splitted flatworm is not a particularly worthwhile or useful thing to do for anyone, least of all for the flatworm, and instead perhaps suggests the idle and foolish antics that scientists might get up to out of having too much time and resources on their hands. Certainly, it doesn't prove anything about the causes and solutions to the problems of suffering and all the other issues inherent in Buddhist teachings relating to how to attain happiness and assist all beings toward enlightenment, like the Four Noble Truths, dependent arising, eightfold path and so on.

Having said that, if you really did want to align the hypothetical "bioelectrical pulse" as being the source of the coming to life of a sentient being, even one which resides in the same single body as another being, then why couldn't this electrical pulse be compared with the "heat" mode of birth in Buddhist doctrine? Certainly there is a similarity between heat and electricity. So no matter how intricate and scientific and apparently nonspiritual a certain phenomenon or interpretation of it, it might still be possible to understand it in terms of Buddhist wisdom traditions, if one felt that was a helpful thing to do, even if only for the sake of clarifying confusion or doubt.
Vajrasambhava
Posts: 160
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2018 1:24 pm

Re: Are trees sentient?

Post by Vajrasambhava »

Leaves of Light wrote: Wed Jul 06, 2022 8:45 pm
Vajrasambhava wrote: Wed Jul 06, 2022 3:12 pm There Is also the example of the planarian or flat worm. It can be sliced into pieces and every piece will form a total new being. The strangest thing is, if you cut a flatworm from head to belly in vertical you get a two headed flatworm. This is very strange since two brains will form in the same body (Planarian have a proper brain, not just a nerves net).
This Is very hard to explain through any buddhist point of view.
Another strange fact about this worm is: Scientists try to change the polarity bioelectrical pattern in a splitted flatworm in regeneration phase, what they got was a worm with two heads, the second one formed at the tail spot. This, looks like to form an individual brain and a functional basis for consciousness is a matter of bioelectrical pulse.
Do anyone of you can explain such phenomena according to any buddhist point of view?
In terms of the Buddhist teaching on birth of sentient beings, it comes down to whether or not an antarabhava or "in-between existence [being]", i.e., a disembodied consciousness seeking rebirth driven by winds of habit-energy or vasana and karma, sometimes called the gandharva enters into a physical body. If it does, then this is "birth". Thus from the Buddhist point of view, with the flat worm, if it is cut in 100 pieces and each one becomes a new living creature, if this involves 100 antarabhavas entering into the 100 new bodies formed from the pieces of tapeworm - this would presumably answer to the form of birth of "heat and moisture", so called (even though it's not obvious that heat and moisture are present or explicit in this particular act of conception; it is simply defined on Rigpawiki as "spontaneous generation from warmth and moisture; i.e., heat-moisture birth (for certain 'inferior' types of animals"); one would have to look into the scriptural teachings on this particular mode of birth for more information), since it doesn't align with womb or egg birth, or miraculous birth - then there are 100 births. The Buddhist teaching sets out fundamental principles of death, bardo and karma-impelled rebirth, but it doesn't claim to intricately explain every single example of this in samsara or make exhaustive lists of all different species because one's life would be exhausted long before mastering even 0.1% of the details. This is why Buddhist teachers from Buddha on up always encourage practitioners to focus on doctrine and practice that pertains very much to liberation, not to attempting to get mundane knowledge of every phenomenon of the world. After all, Buddhism says that even this visible world of ours is only one of an infinity of worlds, with all different kinds of beings, so even if one mastered every detail of all the species of creatures in this world, that would still leave many countless unexplored galaxies of such phenomena. For example, imagine the dismay of 18th century European naturalists who thought they had finally created exhaustive lists of the world's animal and plant species, only for Australia, New Zealand so on to be discovered, with all their wonderfully unique and strange species such as platypus, echidna, kangaroo and koala. Scientists and biologists who are deeply fascinated by all these things can devote their entire lives to the inquiry into them but even then, one website discussing the topic states "It turns out that flatworms undergo an odd and as-yet-unexplained transformation" - so they are really no nearer to having a perfect understanding of it than a regular Buddhist practitioner. Of course, a perfectly enlightened buddha would, according to the Buddhist view, have perfect knowledge of literally everything, including the metempsychosis and associated biology surrounding flatworms,.

Having said that, if there is a two-headed animal creature, with a pair of brains, then there are also two-headed human beings, such as the famous Hensel twins, each with their own individual mind, so there is nothing in principle against two beings being born into the same single bodily unit.

So it could mean that even though Buddhism lays down the conditions of rebirth of sentient beings in broad terms - four modes of rebirth - within the actual infinity of samsara, the varieties of how these occur are far beyond one's comprehension.

Another point that is notable with regard to distinctions between plants, trees, creepers, grasses etc and so called sentient beings (sattva, sems can) is that made in the aforementioned Shalistamba Sutra where a contrast is made between the "outer dependent arising" (bahyapratitya­samutpada) - i.e., the coming into being of plants such as rice - and that of "inner" dependent arising (adhyatmikapratityasamutpada) of sentient beings in the six destinies - wherein six great elements are indicated in the processes, with five in common
in each case, namely the:

1. Earth
2. Water
3. Fire
4. Wind and
5. Space elements

and one difference, namely with plants, the element of time (or season, rtu) and with sentient beings, that of consciousness (vijnana). Here in this sutra a clear distinction is made then between plants and sentient beings in terms of the basic elements involved their genesis and existence. This is of course interesting since in the quote from the Samvarodaya Tantra given above, it states that plants, trees, grasses, creepers etc do have vijnana which is thus, from the sutra point of view, quite a radical statement since throughout the exoteric and indeed all other Buddhist teaching, vijnana is explained as answering to the five physical sense consciousnesses, along with mind or manovijnana, and the other kinds of mental consciousness including the alayavijnana. So when the particular tantra in question uses the exact term vijnana with respect to plant sentience, we may wonder exactly what kind of vijnana is meant in terms of Buddhist understanding of consciousness. Of course, plants like creepers have definite touch or body consciousness and also a sense of the space and objects around them so that they will reach out in the direction of physical supports and of course every plant responds to heat stimulation and that kind of thing.

Note that the use of the word adhyatmika here is significant in that as well as the simple meaning of "inner" as used in the context of this Buddhist sutra, in the traditional sense of the word, it is as given in the Sanskrit dictionaries (Monier-WIlliams):

- relating to the soul or the Supreme Spirit
- relating to self or to the soul ; proceeding from bodily and mental causes within one's self ; relating to the supreme spirit Mn. &c. ; spiritual , holy

So here by distingushing bahya ("outer, exterior, not belonging to the family or country, an outcaste"), for plants - suggesting that they are "outside" of the "family" of sentient beings - and adhyatmika for creatures of the six destinies such as human beings, then a contrast is drawn between that which possesses self and spirit and that which doesn't (not that those are strictly Buddhist concepts of course; but the sense is nonetheless there).
Dear Leaves of light, congratulations for your detailed explaination, I really appreciated, thanks.
The only thing I don't understand it's about the two-headed example:
If the flatworm develop two heads in the same body, you think a gandharva appropriate a part of the body of the already born and existent flatworm and take sentience?
Anyway, the experiment of the two-headed flatworm has been also done under a particolar condition. Scientists severed the last part of the worm which normally react by regenerating a new tail. But since the Scientists have discovered that whichever limb the worm try to regenerate (head with brain or tail) depends just on a mechanical process of bioelectricity, they bypassed the polarity of the bioelectrical stimuli to induct the worm to produce a new head replacing the tail spot, this means that the formation of a new brain or not in this case depends solely on an electrical pulse and nothing more. By taking this as example we must infer that the formation of a new brain, a new "Independent" apparate, a new being, Is just a matter of a physical process. I don't think a Gandharva can be attracted and ensnared into a body (already conscious) just by an electrical pulse. May I'm wrong, I'm here to understand.

Here Is the link to the experiment I'm referring to:

https://www.iflscience.com/scientists-g ... tail-41823
Leaves of Light
Posts: 56
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2022 3:45 am

Re: Are trees sentient?

Post by Leaves of Light »

Vajrasambhava wrote: Thu Jul 07, 2022 12:31 am The only thing I don't understand it's about the two-headed example:
If the flatworm develop two heads in the same body, you think a gandharva appropriate a part of the body of the already born and existent flatworm and take sentience?
Anyway, the experiment of the two-headed flatworm has been also done under a particolar condition. Scientists severed the last part of the worm which normally react by regenerating a new tail. But since the Scientists have discovered that whichever limb the worm try to regenerate (head with brain or tail) depends just on a mechanical process of bioelectricity, they bypassed the polarity of the bioelectrical stimuli to induct the worm to produce a new head replacing the tail spot, this means that the formation of a new brain or not in this case depends solely on an electrical pulse and nothing more. By taking this as example we must infer that the formation of a new brain, a new "Independent" apparate, a new being, Is just a matter of a physical process. I don't think a Gandharva can be attracted and ensnared into a body (already conscious) just by an electrical pulse. May I'm wrong, I'm here to understand.

Here Is the link to the experiment I'm referring to:

https://www.iflscience.com/scientists-g ... tail-41823
It's a very subtle process going on with those worms and as you say, difficult to align directly with Buddhist teaching. I'm not familiar enough with the doctrinal teachings on the different kinds of birth to make an informed comment in this case. Out of the four kinds of birth, the heat/moisture one would possibly be the most appropriate since electricity produces heat; as it states in the definition above, heat-moisture birth is a "spontaneous" kind of birth, which is a little bit like the miraculous type of birth, but involving "inferior" beings, in this case, flatworms, as opposed to devas or nirmanakayas or consciousness-transference birth in a pure land. Perhaps it's useful to try to understand just how subtle the gandharva-being consciousness is and how powerful its ability to take rebirth; and, also, how many countless trillions of such bardo beings there are seeking potential reincarnation at any given time and place. For example, it's said that when any given prospective human parents are in the process of conceiving a child, a swarm of bardo-beings approach the womb like flies to rotting meat. Some people compare this analogy to the number of individual sperm cells produced by the father, although it's not a direct analogy since the bardo consciousnesses have nothing to do with the sperm cells. So, in consideration of the above, maybe it really is that this electrical pulse is all that is required for the bardo being to take rebirth? Clearly this is a point that isn't well understood by science or common spirituality.

However, given such "spontaneous" type of (heat/moisture) birth as described by Buddhism, not requiring parents, maybe it's not inconsistent to see it from a certain, materialistic/scientific perspective as nothing more than a physical process or, to use the Shalistamba Sutra terminology, an "outer" dependent arising of phenomena like the sprouting of seed, which would parallel what you call a "physical process", rather than what Greeks called metempsychosis, which is very similar to the Buddhist concept of reincarnation of souls (=bardo consciousness), even though, for all we know, it could indeed be a case of the "inner" or adhyatmika type of pratityasamutpada or process of coming into existence. And again, what Buddhism says about a new life being born into an already existing body, as is apparently the case in the experiment you describe, I'm not informed to say. The most well known teachings on the topic of death and rebirth in Buddhism tend to focus on human reincarnation rather than insects and so on; although the topic of worms is treated at surprisingly great length in certain sutras although not necessarily in this context.

Either way, I'm still not convinced that these kinds of experiments on worms are strictly ethical or admirable. I feel a little bit sorry of the creatures. It reminds one all too much of Mary Shelley's "Frankenstein" tale, especially the way you describe life springing up from electricity, since that was a key element in animating the monster. Shelley's tale was surely a cautionary tale about scientific tinkering with nature run amok. I suppose there will always be a fascination with playing Frankenstein but compassion for the animal should come first. Animal experimentation for human edification or profit has always been highly problematic.
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Are trees sentient?

Post by Malcolm »

Leaves of Light wrote: Thu Jul 07, 2022 1:48 am Animal experimentation for human edification or profit has always been highly problematic.
Especially when it contradicts our deeply held scriptural bias. Then we want to do Catholic Church tries Galileo 2.0
Leaves of Light
Posts: 56
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2022 3:45 am

Re: Are trees sentient?

Post by Leaves of Light »

Malcolm wrote: Thu Jul 07, 2022 3:29 am
Leaves of Light wrote: Thu Jul 07, 2022 1:48 am Animal experimentation for human edification or profit has always been highly problematic.
Especially when it contradicts our deeply held scriptural bias. Then we want to do Catholic Church tries Galileo 2.0
In what sense does it contradict Buddhist teaching? The heat/moisture mode of birth taught by the Buddha is not inconsistent with what is suggested by the experiment, since electricity creates heat, so it could be that this form of spontaneous, parentless birth can be created via electrical pulse as described. Regrettably I don't have all the scriptural sources that teach on the this particular mode of birth in depth, assuming they exist. This is a logical and reasonable teaching, as long as we accept death, bardo, and rebirth, and there isn't any kind of deeply held or other kind of bias inherent in it. The other alternative is that it is indeed exactly as in the Frankenstein tale, that a conscious sentient being appears like magic purely from a jolt of electricity which is arguably less logical than the Buddhist view, so that it might take a certain amount of profound bias against the Buddhist teaching in order to accept that sort of theory.

Also, the ethical and moral objection to animal experimentation has got nothing to do with a sectarian fear of one's doctrines being exposed as incorrect - instead, it is purely out of compassion for the creature. Many people, both Buddhist and nonreligious, would be quite disturbed at the type of experiment described where men in lab coats are slicing up worms and applying electrical or magnetic forces to them to see what kind of transformations they can induce, purely out of an arguably pretty superficial curiosity. To leap from that purely reasonable ethical objection to draw an analogy of the medieval church versus Galileo - regardless the merits of each party in that particular case - is bordering on the outrageous! Whatever his merits and motivations - which are certainly debatable in the appropriate forum, i.e., not here - Galileo was not torturing animals as part of his work, as far as I know.
Vajrasambhava
Posts: 160
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2018 1:24 pm

Re: Are trees sentient?

Post by Vajrasambhava »

Well it's not really like this, but I think it's my fault since I described the phenomena not so accurately.
It's not about to put electricity in a being and create a source of heat. No electricity has been used to conduct the experiment.
Since if you cut horizontally a flatworm you will have two flatworms, the half with the head will send a proper impulse to the rest of the body to produce the tail, the half with the tail will produce the right stimuli to produce the head. Scientists took a flatworm, put a dose of Octanol (a kind of alcool) so to anesthetize the centrale part of the flatworm's body, by doing this the flatworm doesn't perceive its tail. When after they cut the flatworm, the part with the head since doesn't perceive accurately what part must be regenerated (since have lost sensibility during the anesthetizing process) start to create "casually" a limb. In the 25% of the cases, it will generate a new head right where there was a tail, ending up to be a two headed/brained flatworm.
So, the flatworm generate a head or a tail due to a kind of precise stimuli inherent to the nature of its own body intelligence. It's a very biochemical process no one could deny. I'm wondering if, according to the gandharva theory it Is possibile to have such a birth this way. One thing is sure, this process depend very strictly to a chemical process, and It leaves me perplexed.

Moreover, Scientists tried cut the new two-headed flatworms without treat them with any substance, and again the worm in the 25% of the cases has generated a new head. This is a proof that its biomemory has been altered, and now the worm it's "free" to generate a head or a tail casually, without any treatment, without any substance. It's impossible not to infer that the acquisition of a new sentience is totally regulated by an inherent biochemical process the worm is able to
Leaves of Light
Posts: 56
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2022 3:45 am

Re: Are trees sentient?

Post by Leaves of Light »

Vajrasambhava wrote: Thu Jul 07, 2022 8:32 am Well it's not really like this, but I think it's my fault since I described the phenomena not so accurately.
It's not about to put electricity in a being and create a source of heat. No electricity has been used to conduct the experiment.
Since if you cut horizontally a flatworm you will have two flatworms, the half with the head will send a proper impulse to the rest of the body to produce the tail, the half with the tail will produce the right stimuli to produce the head. Scientists took a flatworm, put a dose of Octanol (a kind of alcool) so to anesthetize the centrale part of the flatworm's body, by doing this the flatworm doesn't perceive its tail. When after they cut the flatworm, the part with the head since doesn't perceive accurately what part must be regenerated (since have lost sensibility during the anesthetizing process) start to create "casually" a limb. In the 25% of the cases, it will generate a new head right where there was a tail, ending up to be a two headed/brained flatworm.
So, the flatworm generate a head or a tail due to a kind of precise stimuli inherent to the nature of its own body intelligence. It's a very biochemical process no one could deny. I'm wondering if, according to the gandharva theory it Is possibile to have such a birth this way. One thing is sure, this process depend very strictly to a chemical process, and It leaves me perplexed.
I see! I was a bit caught up on your use of the terms like magnetic and electrical and got an idea in my head more like Frankenstein's monster coming to life. First thing from your description, again the experiments being carried out sound extremely cruel and unethical; I'm not sure there is any valid ground to be subjecting any animal to that kind of what amounts to abuse, firstly dissecting it live and secondly inducing it into what sound like horrific transformations, even though there maybe something natural about what happens as a result; I'm not sure what would happen if, say the worm was bitten in two by a bird and both sections left, without the application of the anesthetic, whether the push me-pull me worm would develop as seen in 25% of these experiments. As for what Buddhist doctrine says on this type of birth, like I said I'm not conversant enough with the body of teaching on the various ways of birth to comment; it may be that somewhere within Abhidharma or elsewhere in the 84,000 Dharma doors, there is something pertaining to these phenomena, although it's highly doubtful that this exact example was ever mentioned by the Buddha or any other teacher. Then again, since Buddhism like other ancient systems of thought breaks all existing matter in four basic elements, then each one must embrace a vast amount of specific natural phenomena. For example, the fire element doesn't just mean a fire kindled from sticks and friction, but all kinds of subtle manifestations. According to what you said, the arising of the new lifeforce or sentience at the tail end or new head of the animal comes from: "the proper impulse", "the right stimuli", "the precise stimuli to the nature of its own body intelligence, a very biochemical process...a very strictly chemical process" - it's not very clear to me what exactly all these things really are, or how they might be related to the earlier references to electromagnetic polarization, but it couldn't be dismissed out of hand that they could possibly come under the banner of the fire or heat element, and thus fall with the heat/moisture mode of birth.

The rub seems to be, if you can't accept the bardo consciousness entering into the body as explained in Buddhism, how else would you account for the arising of the new apparent consciousness? You would have to either concede that the new worm was no longer an animal but only vegetable, or that the new mindstream, if you accepted it as that, emerged like magic for no logically consistent reason. It might not be worth investing too much time into. At the risk of laboring the point, my overwhelming concern is again with the abuse being subjected to the animals, much more than how to understand the observed goings on through a Buddhist lens.
Vajrasambhava
Posts: 160
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2018 1:24 pm

Re: Are trees sentient?

Post by Vajrasambhava »

Leaves of Light wrote: Thu Jul 07, 2022 8:53 am
Vajrasambhava wrote: Thu Jul 07, 2022 8:32 am Well it's not really like this, but I think it's my fault since I described the phenomena not so accurately.
It's not about to put electricity in a being and create a source of heat. No electricity has been used to conduct the experiment.
Since if you cut horizontally a flatworm you will have two flatworms, the half with the head will send a proper impulse to the rest of the body to produce the tail, the half with the tail will produce the right stimuli to produce the head. Scientists took a flatworm, put a dose of Octanol (a kind of alcool) so to anesthetize the centrale part of the flatworm's body, by doing this the flatworm doesn't perceive its tail. When after they cut the flatworm, the part with the head since doesn't perceive accurately what part must be regenerated (since have lost sensibility during the anesthetizing process) start to create "casually" a limb. In the 25% of the cases, it will generate a new head right where there was a tail, ending up to be a two headed/brained flatworm.
So, the flatworm generate a head or a tail due to a kind of precise stimuli inherent to the nature of its own body intelligence. It's a very biochemical process no one could deny. I'm wondering if, according to the gandharva theory it Is possibile to have such a birth this way. One thing is sure, this process depend very strictly to a chemical process, and It leaves me perplexed.
I see! I was a bit caught up on your use of the terms like magnetic and electrical and got an idea in my head more like Frankenstein's monster coming to life. First thing from your description, again the experiments being carried out sound extremely cruel and unethical; I'm not sure there is any valid ground to be subjecting any animal to that kind of what amounts to abuse, firstly dissecting it live and secondly inducing it into what sound like horrific transformations, even though there maybe something natural about what happens as a result; I'm not sure what would happen if, say the worm was bitten in two by a bird and both sections left, without the application of the anesthetic, whether the push me-pull me worm would develop as seen in 25% of these experiments. As for what Buddhist doctrine says on this type of birth, like I said I'm not conversant enough with the body of teaching on the various ways of birth to comment; it may be that somewhere within Abhidharma or elsewhere in the 84,000 Dharma doors, there is something pertaining to these phenomena, although it's highly doubtful that this exact example was ever mentioned by the Buddha or any other teacher. Then again, since Buddhism like other ancient systems of thought breaks all existing matter in four basic elements, then each one must embrace a vast amount of specific natural phenomena. For example, the fire element doesn't just mean a fire kindled from sticks and friction, but all kinds of subtle manifestations. According to what you said, the arising of the new lifeforce or sentience at the tail end or new head of the animal comes from: "the proper impulse", "the right stimuli", "the precise stimuli to the nature of its own body intelligence, a very biochemical process...a very strictly chemical process" - it's not very clear to me what exactly all these things really are, or how they might be related to the earlier references to electromagnetic polarization, but it couldn't be dismissed out of hand that they could possibly come under the banner of the fire or heat element, and thus fall with the heat/moisture mode of birth.

The rub seems to be, if you can't accept the bardo consciousness entering into the body as explained in Buddhism, how else would you account for the arising of the new apparent consciousness? You would have to either concede that the new worm was no longer an animal but only vegetable, or that the new mindstream, if you accepted it as that, emerged like magic for no logically consistent reason. It might not be worth investing too much time into. At the risk of laboring the point, my overwhelming concern is again with the abuse being subjected to the animals, much more than how to understand the observed goings on through a Buddhist lens.
I agree it's not ethical at all.
I think that the formation of a new being in the case of the flatworm depend so much on its ability to generate parts able to host/rise sentience. And this ability is strictly correlated with a bioelectrical impulse. If a gandharva entrance in that body depends on the memory of the worm which now is able to choose to generate a brain or not, it means that the worm has the ability to host sentience by chance. Since i have not experienced the existence of a gandharva (to be honest, i really don't know how gandharva is in the long run so different to a soul. I know it's not permanent, but is an indestructible individual vessel) i cannot discuss this by referring to buddhist principles
Vajrasambhava
Posts: 160
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2018 1:24 pm

Re: Are trees sentient?

Post by Vajrasambhava »

Malcolm wrote: Thu Jul 07, 2022 3:29 am
Leaves of Light wrote: Thu Jul 07, 2022 1:48 am Animal experimentation for human edification or profit has always been highly problematic.
Especially when it contradicts our deeply held scriptural bias. Then we want to do Catholic Church tries Galileo 2.0
Exactly :applause:
Leaves of Light
Posts: 56
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2022 3:45 am

Re: Are trees sentient?

Post by Leaves of Light »

Vajrasambhava wrote: Thu Jul 07, 2022 9:12 am I agree it's not ethical at all.
I think that the formation of a new being in the case of the flatworm depend so much on its ability to generate parts able to host/rise sentience. And this ability is strictly correlated with a bioelectrical impulse. If a gandharva entrance in that body depends on the memory of the worm which now is able to choose to generate a brain or not, it means that the worm has the ability to host sentience by chance. Since i have not experienced the existence of a gandharva (to be honest, i really don't know how gandharva is in the long run so different to a soul. I know it's not permanent, but is an indestructible individual vessel) i cannot discuss this by referring to buddhist principles
This line "gandharva entrance in that body depends on the memory of the worm which now is able to choose to generate a brain or not" could indicate a misunderstanding in the ordinary or samsaric process of dependent arising (pratityasamutpada) as taught by the Buddha and other teachers ,wherein it is quite explicitly stated - as in the Shalistamba Sutra for instance - that in no case is it a volitional process, so it is not a case of anyone choosing for the sequential stages of arising to occur. In both the "outer" process of a seed becoming a sprout, and the "inner" one of a bardo being entering womb, egg, or entering into a physical body in the "miraculous" or spontaneous ways, it is taught that the process is so to speak mechanical and no workings of self determination or intention are involved in the manner of conscious decision making - and yet, the impression of a self or self nature of the plant, animal, etc., still seems to arise - hence the key paradox exposed by the crucial Buddhist teaching of dependent arising. It wouldn't be right to say that any such arising of life or sentience happened "by chance", because the very principle of dependent arising is that "this gives rise to that in dependence on that", in a logical sequence (even though in the ultimate Madhyamaka philosophy which claims to teach on the ultimate nature of phenomena, even dependent arising is transcended and all is seen as an illusory magic show). Perhaps it comes down to a matter of faith - unless you were a Buddha you couldn't possibly hope to have direct valid cognition of all the infinity of phenomena of nature, which have arisen and developed as explained in various sutras since beginningless time - unthinkably vast time periods - so it would be sufficient to accept that the Buddha's teachings on how sentient beings come to be is correct and at best, if one so desired, to file each certain observed happening such as the one you're talking about under the category that best fits - e.g., filing this under "birth by heat and moisture" - while being confident in the knowledge that at such time that one finally did realize enlightenment, all possible questions would be understood via the inconceivable and effortless omniscient wisdom that comes with that realization.

As for the difference between bardo consciousness and the hypothetical soul, there is said to be a big difference. Essentially a bardo consciousness is no different in nature to your present consciousness, it is just that it is disembodied. Maybe you could draw the analogy between your waking consciousness and that in the dream (dream is also one of the bardos in the system of 6 bardos). That is, it is a series of instantaneous moments of thought arising, abiding and vanishing, also known as stream of consciousness or in Sanskrit, samtana. This series of thoughts has been going on again since beginningless time and will continue, as it has done for millions of lifetimes already, from life to life until the root - delusion and ignorance of ultimate reality - is cut off. So it seems to be quite distinct from the hypothesis of soul taught in other religions in a great many ways.
Leaves of Light
Posts: 56
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2022 3:45 am

Re: Are trees sentient?

Post by Leaves of Light »

Vajrasambhava wrote: Thu Jul 07, 2022 9:37 am
Malcolm wrote: Thu Jul 07, 2022 3:29 am [Especially when it contradicts our deeply held scriptural bias. Then we want to do Catholic Church tries Galileo 2.0
Exactly :applause:
How exactly so? The example of the invertebrate being subjected to experimentation and the apparent resultant arising of consciousness in it doesn't in any way at all contradict the Buddhist teaching - it is quite reasonable to understand this under the heat/moisture type of birth. At any rate, there is no deeply held scriptural bias inherent here at all - I'm not quite sure where that idea came from! It is simply a case of hearing the Buddha's Dharma teaching - in this case, the teaching on the modes of death and rebirth in samsara - and doing one's best to understand various phenomena accordingly. Isn't that the most natural thing for anyone to do? It hardly qualifies as "deeply held sectarian bias", to me anyway - that seems like a pretty unfair assessment, quite out of order. And again, the analogy with the church and Galileo seems highly arbitrary, the two things really have nothing to do with each other - Galileo never tortured animals as part of his work, for instance, so far as I'm aware; and to compare the Catholic or Protestant church of the 16th and 17th century Europe ((it turns out that it was more the impetus of the Protestant reformation arm of the Christian church that objected - rightly or wrongly - to the Galileic theory that the Sun doesn't make its daily round in the sky above the earth and instead the earth itself orbits the Sun, in contradiction of sensory observation) with the teachings of the perfectly enlightened blessed Buddha is really bordering on the outrageous! I don't know how many Buddhists would go along with that line of thinking. It sounds like an unprovoked and inaccurate attack on Buddhism, which is slightly odd in a forum such as this. In the very worst case scenario, the type of phenomena you have mentioned might challenge one's understanding of how various thing could be understood according to Buddha's Dharma teachings, which would be a valuable lesson if applied intelligently - which again has very little if anything to do with "deep religious bias"! Instead, it is the most normal, reasonable thing possible.
Last edited by Leaves of Light on Thu Jul 07, 2022 10:03 am, edited 1 time in total.
Vajrasambhava
Posts: 160
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2018 1:24 pm

Re: Are trees sentient?

Post by Vajrasambhava »

Leaves of Light wrote: Thu Jul 07, 2022 9:45 am
Vajrasambhava wrote: Thu Jul 07, 2022 9:37 am
Malcolm wrote: Thu Jul 07, 2022 3:29 am [Especially when it contradicts our deeply held scriptural bias. Then we want to do Catholic Church tries Galileo 2.0
Exactly :applause:
How exactly so?
Nothing personal, Sorry Leaves of Light.
It's just a finding.
It's not your case, but often to call into question morality and ethics where it's not object of debating, it's a remarkable way to protect ones bias in a challenging conversation, that's all.
Vajrasambhava
Posts: 160
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2018 1:24 pm

Re: Are trees sentient?

Post by Vajrasambhava »

Leaves of Light wrote: Thu Jul 07, 2022 9:38 am
Vajrasambhava wrote: Thu Jul 07, 2022 9:12 am I agree it's not ethical at all.
I think that the formation of a new being in the case of the flatworm depend so much on its ability to generate parts able to host/rise sentience. And this ability is strictly correlated with a bioelectrical impulse. If a gandharva entrance in that body depends on the memory of the worm which now is able to choose to generate a brain or not, it means that the worm has the ability to host sentience by chance. Since i have not experienced the existence of a gandharva (to be honest, i really don't know how gandharva is in the long run so different to a soul. I know it's not permanent, but is an indestructible individual vessel) i cannot discuss this by referring to buddhist principles
It wouldn't be right to say that any such arising of life or sentience happened "by chance",

I didn't mean rebirth is caused by chance, i meant the worm has the ability to choose to create a brain or not by chance. Moreover, this process can be influenced chimically by scientists

As for the Gandharva, yes, I know these differences, what i was saying is, even if it's a matter of self or not, even if it's not permanent and it's a serious of moments, in the long run it's something which experiences in first person different roles since beginningless times, this is really not so different to the soul theory, the only significant differences are the self imputation and the permanent/impermanent concept. But it's a conscious "being" which experiences itself life after life in different forms and abilities. I'm surely wrong due to my ignorance but i see really not so much differences
Leaves of Light
Posts: 56
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2022 3:45 am

Re: Are trees sentient?

Post by Leaves of Light »

Vajrasambhava wrote: Thu Jul 07, 2022 10:00 am Nothing personal, Sorry Leaves of Light.
It's just a finding.
It's not your case, but often to call into question morality and ethics where it's not object of debating, it's a remarkable way to protect ones bias in a challenging conversation, that's all.
Fair enough - it certainly is the case, as you point out, that sectarian bias does exist in the world and the people who cling to such partisanship are known to protect it at great cost. However, as you also point out, this particular phenomenon isn't really in operation in the current discussion, so why it was bought up, I'm not entirely sure. As for pointing out the cruelty and frankly, childish kind of tinkering of those scientists with the poor worms, which reminds me a little bit of little children pulling wings of flies (which I myself did when I was very young, I confess), this is done as a gesture of defense of the dignity of the animals, since the practice was introduced into the discussion; so that even though the topic of compassion and ethics wasn't central to the debate, as a mere side note, there isn't anything really wrong with pointing out the cruel nature of what the lab technicians were doing. You yourself even conceded that perhaps it wasn't ethical what they were doing, and the harm inflicted not commensurate with whatever beneficial wisdom could be gained from such activity. So pointing out the noncompassionate and slightly alarming and disturbing animal cruelty that was going on, which was an organic, innocent expression of concern for the creatures' wellbeing, has nothing at all to do with "remarkable ways of protecting one's bias in a challenging conversation", as you put it! I really have no idea how you could reasonably reach that conclusion. In any case, on the contrary, there is really no bias displayed at all. Instead, the essence of my argument is this: the Buddha taught death, bardo existence, and rebirth of sentient beings in samsara. He explained four modes of rebirth: womb birth, egg birth, spontaneous generation by heat and moisture, and miraculous birth, the last two of which are much less well understood than the first and regrettably I'm not myself conversant with all the scriptural teachings on them, particularly concerning spontaneous generation from heat and moisture which is apropos of this challenging discussion. Given these rubrics, let's apply them to the various observations in nature, such as jellyfish, starfish, sponge, barnacle, tapeworm, etc., and see if we can understand these phenomena in light of them. IF we can without any effort, great! If not, let's not abandon the Buddha's teaching, but instead say that there are inevitably, among the infinity of phenomena of beginningless samsara and nirvana which extends throughout infinite space, going to be phenomena that cannot be directly understood by unenlightened beings. Even the scientists themselves confess, "the operation of the worms regenerating body parts is not understood by us" - and yet they still continue with their view of things, even while they try to understand them, more or less confident - whether this confidence is misplaced or not - that they are on the right track and that with faith and diligence, eventually the desired full understanding will arise in their minds. This is the exact same situation and attitude with following the Buddhist teaching - so if there is "deep sectarian bias" on the one side, by that curious definition, then there also exists the exact same thing on the scientists' side. And since, clearly, no such prejudice hasn't been displayed at all by anyone - quite the contrary - where this whole idea of "deep bias" came from, is anyone's guess!
Vajrasambhava
Posts: 160
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2018 1:24 pm

Re: Are trees sentient?

Post by Vajrasambhava »

Leaves of Light wrote: Thu Jul 07, 2022 10:21 am
Vajrasambhava wrote: Thu Jul 07, 2022 10:00 am Nothing personal, Sorry Leaves of Light.
It's just a finding.
It's not your case, but often to call into question morality and ethics where it's not object of debating, it's a remarkable way to protect ones bias in a challenging conversation, that's all.
Given these rubrics, let's apply them to the various observations in nature, such as jellyfish, starfish, sponge, barnacle, tapeworm, etc.
If I'm not wrong, these animals are not understood to be cassified as sentients. They lack some properties to be defined sentients, they don't have a brain etc. The planarians instead, have a two-lobed brain and a complex neural system
Post Reply

Return to “Mahāyāna Buddhism”