Are trees sentient?

[Leaves of Light]

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

I'm afraid you've lost me...I don't know what you're getting at by saying "the worm has the ability to choose to create a brain or not by chance". Isn't it, apparently, the case that the regrowth of the body part is the natural process of the animal? So I don't know what you mean by "the animal is able to chose to regenerate or not". We might compare this to what is explained of the devas of the Desire Realm - it is taught that if a limb is cut off, it immediately regrows, and they are only killed by violence if their head is severed at the neck. Granted, it's not a perfect analogy with the jellyfish, starfish, tapeworm etc. And again, according to Buddhist doctrine, both the inner (sentient being) and outer (plant) type of dependent arising is entirely selfless with no conscious intention involved.

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

If you can show citations from non-Buddhist teachings where the theory of soul is said to be a series of instantaneously arising, abiding and vanishing thoughts, then it would be right to say that the Buddhist teaching on the transmigrating consciousness was the same as the other traditions' theory on a soul. And if you could likewise show where it is taught in those systems that through direct experience of the ultimate nature of reality which is nondual with that very apprehending consciousness, one is able to sever the continuum of suffering and attain the non-abiding nirvana that is not bound by anything and can consequently take rebirth or perform all manner of miracles in the service of beings wandering in samsara, then there would be consistency between the non Buddhist and Buddhist theories. However, as far as I can tell, such teachings are only found within the Buddhist Dharma.

[Leaves of Light]

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

On that, it's fair to say that the kinds of sponges that are fixed to rocks are very similar in many ways to plants, as you point out. This point was actually already discussed much earlier in the thread. From a Buddhist perspective, the definition of a sentient being of the six destinies - hell, hungry ghost, animal, human, asura and deva - is not a strict question of "does it have a brain or complex nervous system" (although of course these factors would be taken into consideration as the context demanded) but rather, is the physical clump composed of the four elements (pinda) in question an impermanent host of a migrating consciousness/mind - or what other systems would call a "soul" - or not? Like with the question of the worms we were having, there are some cases, notably sessile sponges, where it is difficult to say for certain if this is definitely a sentient being (sattva, "spiritually-natured" or sems can, "mind-possessing" in Tibetan) of the six destinies, or a plant. Be that as it may, and regardless the truth of the matter, the case as it stands within current science is that sponges are indeed classed as animals, not plants:

"Sponges, the members of the phylum Porifera, are a basal animal clade as a sister of the Diploblasts" (Wikipedia)

With the species identified as the next simplest or basal, the comb jellies, they are also presently classed by biologists as animals:

"Scientific classification
Kingdom: Animalia

Ctenophora (/təˈnɒfərə/; sg. ctenophore /ˈtɛnəfɔːr, ˈtiːnə-/; from Ancient Greek κτείς (kteis) 'comb', and φέρω (pherō) 'to carry') comprise a phylum of marine invertebrates, commonly known as comb jellies, that inhabit sea waters worldwide. They are notable for the groups of cilia they use for swimming (commonly referred to as "combs"), and they are the largest animals to swim with the help of cilia" (Wikipedia)

Remember, these are the scientific classifications, not the Buddhist ones. I wouldn't personally make hard and fast claims regarding these matters.

[Vajrasambhava]

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

If you can show citations from non-Buddhist teachings where the theory of soul is said to be a series of instantaneously arising, abiding and vanishing thoughts, then it would be right to say that the Buddhist teaching on the transmigrating consciousness was the same as the other traditions' theory on a soul. And if you could likewise show where it is taught in those systems that through direct experience of the ultimate nature of reality which is nondual with that very apprehending consciousness, one is able to sever the continuum of suffering and attain the non-abiding nirvana that is not bound by anything and can consequently take rebirth or perform all manner of miracles in the service of beings wandering in samsara, then there would be consistency between the non Buddhist and Buddhist theories. However, as far as I can tell, such teachings are only found within the Buddhist Dharma.

There's no so much differences. The goal of a first person experiencing process called soul is to find peace by joining with a kind of absolute nature called god in some religions, in other ones, the goal of the same process (don't matter how understood to be like or the imputing name) is to identify itself with a omnipervasive concept of self to experience peace. In buddhism to understand the true nature of this process which is empty it's the goal in order to find peace. The differences are the goals and how the nature of this first person experiencing process is understood to be like (self or nonself, partless or with parts, permanent or not permanent, momentary ecc.) The brillant insight of Buddhadharma Is that the reaching of the goal lies in the comprehension of the very nature of this process. But to call It soul, indestructible drop, transmigrating conscious principle, no-self, continuum, primordial basis, etc. I don't know how much can differ. I repeat, I'm ignorant

[Leaves of Light]

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

If you can show citations from non-Buddhist teachings where the theory of soul is said to be a series of instantaneously arising, abiding and vanishing thoughts, then it would be right to say that the Buddhist teaching on the transmigrating consciousness was the same as the other traditions' theory on a soul. And if you could likewise show where it is taught in those systems that through direct experience of the ultimate nature of reality which is nondual with that very apprehending consciousness, one is able to sever the continuum of suffering and attain the non-abiding nirvana that is not bound by anything and can consequently take rebirth or perform all manner of miracles in the service of beings wandering in samsara, then there would be consistency between the non Buddhist and Buddhist theories. However, as far as I can tell, such teachings are only found within the Buddhist Dharma.

There's no so much differences. The goal of a first person experiencing process called soul is to find peace by joining with a kind of absolute nature called god in some religions, in other ones, the goal of the same process (don't matter how understood to be like or the imputing name) is to identify itself with a omnipervasive concept of self to experience peace. In buddhism to understand the true nature of this process which is empty it's the goal in order to find peace. The differences are the goals and how the nature of this first person experiencing process is understood to be like (self or nonself, partless or with parts, permanent or not permanent, momentary ecc.) The brillant insight of Buddhadharma Is that the reaching of the goal lies in the comprehension of the very nature of this process. But to call It soul, indestructible drop, transmigrating conscious principle, no-self, continuum, primordial basis, etc. I don't know how much can differ. I repeat, I'm ignorant

Well, now the discussion has completely moved away from the original topic of this thread so probably, this should be the last few comments on this thread until it returned to the topic.

As such, since you say "I don't see there is much difference between calling the consciousness that transmigrates through the six destinies of samsara by the name "soul" or "no self"", this is somewhat problematic. If you can show me where in the non-Buddhist systems their theories of ego-soul or fundamental migrating element - Atman, purusha, Ishvara, prakrti, etc., - is equated with or termed as no-self, then there would be a case to be made but I'm not aware of such. It almost sounds like the conflation is being made between not the Buddhist concept of samsaric consciousness and non Buddhist ego, soul, etc, - since there is really no comparison - but rather between the subtle and profound Buddhist teaching of sugatagarbha, otherwise known as tathagatagarbha or Buddha nature, Buddha element (tathagatadhatu) and so on as taught in some of the Maitreya/Asanga treatises particularly the Uttaratantra as well as the various sutras of the Buddha nature third turning of the wheel, and the philosophical conception of soul or Atman. There is one important scriptural citation regarding the difference:

"At that time, Mahamati the Bodhisattva-Mahasattva said this to the Blessed One: Now the
Blessed One makes mention of the Tathagata-garbha in the sutras, and verily it is described
by you as by nature bright and pure, as primarily unspotted, endowed with the thirty-two
marks of excellence, hidden in the body of every being like a gem of great value, which is
enwrapped in a dirty garment, enveloped in the garment of the Skandhas, Dhatus, and
Ayatanas, and soiled with the dirt of greed, anger, folly, and false imagination, (78) while it is
described by the Blessed One to be eternal, permanent, auspicious, and unchangeable. Is not
this Tathagata-garbha taught by the Blessed One the same as the ego-substance taught by the
philosophers? The ego as taught in the systems of the philosophers is an eternal creator,
unqualified, omnipresent, and imperishable.

The Blessed One replied: No, Mahamati, my Tathagata-garbha is not the same as the ego
taught by the philosophers; for what the Tathagatas teach is the Tathagata-garbha in the sense,
Mahamati, that it is emptiness, reality-limit, Nirvana, being unborn, unqualified, and devoid
of will-effort; the reason why the Tathagatas who are Arhats and Fully-Enlightened Ones,
teach the doctrine pointing to the Tathagata-garbha is to make the ignorant cast aside their
fear when they listen to the teaching of egolessness and to have them realise the state of
nondiscrimination and imagelessness. I also wish, Mahamati, that the Bodhisattva-Mahasattvas of
the present and future would not attach themselves to the idea of an ego [imagining it to be a
soul]. Mahamati, it is like a potter who manufactures various vessels out of a mass of clay of
one sort by his own manual skill and labour combined with a rod, water, and thread,
Mahamati, that the Tathagatas preach the egolessness of things which removes all the traces
of discrimination by various skilful means issuing from their transcendental wisdom, that is,
sometimes by the doctrine of the Tathagata-garbha, sometimes by that of egolessness, and,
like a potter, by means of various terms, expressions, and synonyms. For this reason,
Mahamati, the philosophers' doctrine of an ego-substance is not the same (79) as the teaching
of the Tathagata-garbha. Thus, Mahamati, the doctrine of the Tathagata-garbha is disclosed in
order to awaken the philosophers from their clinging to the idea of the ego, so that those
minds that have fallen into the views imagining the non-existent ego as real, and also into the
notion that the triple emancipation is final, may rapidly be awakened to the state of supreme
enlightenment. Accordingly, Mahamati, the Tathagatas who are Arhats and Fully-Enlightened
Ones disclose the doctrine of the Tathagata-garbha which is thus not to be known as identical
with the philosopher's notion of an ego-substance. Therefore. Mahamati, in order to abandon
the misconception cherished by the philosophers, you must strive after the teaching of
egolessness and the Tathagata-garbha.

http://www.buddhistische-gesellschaft-b ... suzuki.pdf (Section XXVII)

[Malcolm]

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

I'm afraid you've lost me...I don't know what you're getting at by saying "the worm has the ability to choose to create a brain or not by chance". Isn't it, apparently, the case that the regrowth of the body part is the natural process of the animal?

Flatworms reproduce both sexually and asexually: through budding, and through segmentation, They are also fully hermaphroditic.

One can’t really explain their reproduction through recourse to the old four birthplaces model, which is not fully functional as a grand theory of every type of reproduction. For example, heat and moisture birth actually describes the egg birth of insects, etc., some animals and birds are capable of parthenogenesis. We don’t need to fit modern biology into ancient biology anymore than we need to fit modern cosmology into ancient cosmology.

Also, gandharvas possess all five aggregates, and the descent of consciousness “into the womb” is intentional, not unconscious or mechanical. Please examine chapter three of the Abhidharmakoshabhasya.

[Leaves of Light]

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

I'm afraid you've lost me...I don't know what you're getting at by saying "the worm has the ability to choose to create a brain or not by chance". Isn't it, apparently, the case that the regrowth of the body part is the natural process of the animal?

Flatworms reproduce both sexually and asexually: through budding, and through segmentation, They are also fully hermaphroditic.

One can’t really explain their reproduction through recourse to the old four birthplaces model, which is not fully functional as a grand theory of every type of reproduction. For example, heat and moisture birth actually describes the egg birth of insects, etc., some animals and birds are capable of parthenogenesis. We don’t need to fit modern biology into ancient biology anymore than we need to fit modern cosmology into ancient cosmology.

Also, gandharvas possess all five aggregates, and the descent of consciousness “into the womb” is intentional, not unconscious or mechanical. Please examine chapter three of the Abhidharmakoshabhasya.

Correct, I misspoke, I was referring to the description of inner pratityasamutpada as taught in the Shalistamba Sutra:

“In this process, the earth element does not think, ‘I provide the solidity of the body
by assembling.’ Nor does the water element think, ‘I provide cohesion for the body.’ Nor
does the fire element think, ‘I digest whatever the body eats, drinks, chews, or tastes.’

"Nor does the wind element think, ‘I perform the function of the body’s
inhalation and exhalation.’ Nor does the space element think, ‘I create hollow spaces
inside the body.’ Nor does the element of consciousness think, ‘I produce the name and
form of the body.’ Nor does the body think, ‘I am produced by these conditions.’ Yet,
when these conditions are present, the body is born.

“The earth element is not a self, not a being, not a life force, not a creature, not a
human, not a person, not female, not male, not neuter, not me, not mine, and not
anybody else’s.

“Similarly, the water element, the fire element, the wind element, the space element,
and the consciousness element are also not a self, not a being, not a life force, not a
creature, not a human, not a person, not female, not male, not neuter, not me, not mine,
and not anybody else’s"

As you point out this is not in fact referring to the process of rebirth. I will take you up on the recommendation to study the relevant passage of Abhidharmakosha more closely.

As for your description of the Buddha's teaching as "ancient biology", then I cant agree with this description. The Buddha's teaching is neither ancient nor contemporary, but it is the eternal true Dharma. This is the orthodox Buddhist view of it, even if this is displeasing to certain modern Western Buddhists. The principle I'd adhere to is as stated previously:

"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 two. 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 but one has confidence that upon awakening, one can certainly understand all phenomena perfectly and moreover see that the Buddhas teachings are all completely consistent with reality, to an extent that cannot be said about any other".

So like so much of Buddhist belief and life, there is the element of devotion to the teachings and firm faith in them. This principle expressed here is logical and reasonable and given sufficient faith in the Buddha, Dharma and Samgha, it can certainly help to lead to a state of realization in due course according to one's karmic inheritance and most of all application in the present time. It's not necessary from that point of view to apply every single of the infinitude of natural manifestations to see if they can be made to fit. That method doesn't even work in the non Buddhist world, since there are far more phenomena which scientists admit they do not understand fully, than those that they do - including, no less, the very topic
under discussion, of flatworms - so that even for them there is a large element of faith in the correctness of their basic philosophy and path, that it will by and by result in the wisdom or insights they are seeking. We hear this sort of thing so much in scientific rhetoric, whether it be related to psychology, biology, theoretical physics, and so forth. From Patrick Moore of British TV screens of the 1970s up to Brian Cox today, the refrain, "Well, we just don't know" is - quite literally - possibly the most common refrain that escapes the lips of popular scientists. Then you may come across statements such as "we can't account for 95% of the matter of the universe according to our current model" from the likes of Michiu Kaku and Neil Degrasse Tyson - a kind of statement any respectful Buddhist might blush at if it were applied to a Buddhist context.

[Malcolm]

As for your description of the Buddha's teaching as "ancient biology", then I cant agree with this description. The Buddha's teaching is neither ancient nor contemporary, but it is the eternal true Dharma. This is the orthodox Buddhist view of it, even if this is displeasing to certain modern Western Buddhists. The principle I'd adhere to is as stated previously:

Spoken like a true fundamentalist. Apparently you didn’t get the memo on the distinction between provisional and definitive teachings. Things like cosmology, biology, etc., are provisional.

Your example is misplaced. Kongtrul was certainly quite knowledgable, but he never left Tibet, he never knew the world was round, that the earth revolved around the sun, and so on. These things are not necessary to know in order to attain liberation. This conversation is boring. People like you show up on Dharmawheel, all full of piss and vinegar, eager to defend ancient, outdated models as if their conventional validity is intact because they showed up in some sūtra somewhere, none of which were in fact spoken directly by the Buddha, all of which are later revelations, composed for this and that reason. To the extent that any of them are consistent with an identifiable model of liberation taught by the Buddha, we then accept them as Buddhadharma. But we do not have to accept flat earths, Sumerus, and so on. The present Dalai Lama, within my own hearing, rejects the ancient cosmology taught by the Buddha and which is present in Kongtrul's encyclopedia. Why? Because it is contradicted by empirical observation. Modern Tibetan attempts to defend this ancient cosmology, of which there are a few, are just exercises in romantic, wishful thinking. Next you will be insisting that the hell realms are located so many yojanas beneath the ground, that a ring of iron mountains surrounds the four continents in order to prevent the stink of the rive surrounding hell from killing us all, and so on. Please.

[Leaves of Light]

As for your description of the Buddha's teaching as "ancient biology", then I cant agree with this description. The Buddha's teaching is neither ancient nor contemporary, but it is the eternal true Dharma. This is the orthodox Buddhist view of it, even if this is displeasing to certain modern Western Buddhists. The principle I'd adhere to is as stated previously:

Spoken like a true fundamentalist. Apparently you didn’t get the memo on the distinction between provisional and definitive teachings. Things like cosmology, biology, etc., are provisional.

Your example is misplaced. Kongtrul was certainly quite knowledgable, but he never left Tibet, he never knew the world was round, that the earth revolved around the sun, and so on. These things are not necessary to know in order to attain liberation. This conversation is boring. People like you show up on Dharmawheel, all full of piss and vinegar, eager to defend ancient, outdated models as if their conventional validity is intact because they showed up in some sūtra somewhere, none of which were in fact spoken directly by the Buddha, all of which are later revelations, composed for this and that reason. To the extent that any of them are consistent with an identifiable model of liberation taught by the Buddha, we then accept them as Buddhadharma. But we do not have to accept flat earths, Sumerus, and so on. The present Dalai Lama, within my own hearing, rejects the ancient cosmology taught by the Buddha and which is present in Kongtrul's encyclopedia. Why? Because it is contradicted by empirical observation. Modern Tibetan attempts to defend this ancient cosmology, of which there are a few, are just exercises in romantic, wishful thinking. Next you will be insisting that the hell realms are located so many yojanas beneath the ground, that a ring of iron mountains surrounds the four continents in order to prevent the stink of the rive surrounding hell from killing us all, and so on. Please.

Being an orthodox Buddhist , following the Buddha's teaching and all Buddhist traditions of all schools and the nations it has blessed, the holy gurus, teachers, lamas upheld over as many as 3000 years in unbroken tradition, which has only in the last 100 years or so been challenged by secular modern Western so called Buddhists, which is moreover in accord with reason and logic, isn't the same thing as being what is popularly descrbied as a religious fundamentalist. And claiming that you are wiser than the greatest enlightened minds of the Buddhist tradition in any respect is rather extraordinary and a little bit shocking in this kind of forum, and really nothing more needs to be said about that.

As for the conversation being boring, recall that you brought it up. The topic here is "Are Trees Sentient", so I'm not sure why you're complaining about a topic that is not related to that that you brought up. There is nothing at all I can find in your statement that actually accords with a reasonable definition of what Buddhism and the entire Buddhist tradition explains and stands for, so really very little needs to be said about it. To attack the greatest omniscient teachers in Tibetan tradition, claim that the Dharma was not taught by the Buddha, dismiss the Buddha's teaching as "ancient" - even though its the same Dharma that was taught by Dipamkara and will be taught by Maitreya in the future and is currently being taught by Buddhas in all directions of space - is heterodox and has nothing to do with a reasonable understanding of BUddhism.

The Dalai Lama said as an expedient means that he doesn't include Buddhist cosmology within his set of beliefs because otherwise he would alienate all the Western world. It's is necessary to have an understanding of how an influential teacher like the Dalai Lama has to employ skillful means for the furtherance of the doctrine. Besides, you contradict yourself by remarkably claiming that any teaching of the Buddha and countless gurus, lamas, bodhisattvas and so on down the millennia is not even necessarily taught by those teachers at all, and if it was, it's not definitive - and then cite 21st century statements by the Dalai Lama is if they do represent definitive Dharma teachings! Surely you can see how your argument defeats itself.

AS for the claim that heliocentrism - the doctrine that it is not the Sun doing its rounds in the sky above the earth and is rather the earth itself orbiting the Sun at unthinkable speeds - is in accordance with empirical observation, the logic of direct perception, valid cognition, then please. This is in fact a common misconception, and may or may not have something to do with the amount of urine and other sour and bitter fluids in the body. The fact is that simple logical, unmistaken direct perception reveals that there is no empirical basis, nevermind inferential or scriptural, for belief in the theory of heliocentrism, or for that matter a spherical-surfaced earth. Even science's own foundational principles contradict such quaint fancies!

It seems to come down to the point that due to a profound scriptural, so to speak, bias in favor of certain modern nihilist theories, Western Buddhists are prepared to entirely dispense with more or less every single basis of the entire Buddhist tradition including the teaching and authority of the BUddha himself and the Dharma, and to remarkably claim that the greatest ecumenical enlightened minds were in fact gripped by delusion and ignorance.

As for the Buddhist teaching on samsara, with its six destinies of hell, hungry ghost, etc up to the highest heavens, and all the other features as described in the entire body of 84,000 Dharma doors of Sutra, Vinaya, Abhidharma, including Kalacakra and many teachings by Longchenpa and so on, none of which violate empirical reasoning, then rather than reject them all out of a fundamentalist-style attachment to certain modern theories, it seems much more logical to accept them just as much as all of the other teachings. As for the comments about these teachings of Jamgon Kongtrul, Longchenpa, Asanga, Shakyamuni Buddha, Pundarika, etc not being in accordance with liberation, that is a spurious argument that really has no value to it and is if anything dead wrong. Longchenpa for instance gave teachings on the nature and details of samsara for very good reasons, as did all the other teachers like that. Probably, according to you, Longchenpa had never left Bhutan or Tibet and figured out that the world was round and orbiting the Sun! Please.

Finally, since all religious and spiritual traditions of the world are in agreement about the existence of, for example, heaven and hell, and only one single major and sustained human tradition really diverges from that - modern secular Western nihilist science - then it seems to be again veering into a dangerously fundamentalist stance to pompously dismiss every human tradition including that taught by the Buddha and all Buddhist teachers up until, more or less, the present day, in favor of the unique modern nihilist teaching - especially when you consider that much of these beliefs are founded on understandings of the world and universe which violate the most basic empirical observations which any animal can make. Again, your stance is an extremist one which happily dispenses with the entire basis of the Three Jewels, and all schools and teachers of Buddhism whatsoever with the exception of a tiny few very modern statements, made in the style of expedient means - which you claim to be definitive teachings over and above every other thing taught in the whole tradition since the time of Lord Buddha himself - all in service of your personal nihilistic cosmological beliefs, which I'm not convinced is entirely wise and on that account, nothing much really needs to be said about that. Frankly, it's boring. It's not really conducive to liberation, in my view, to devote time to listening to certain people out of their extremist dogmatic zeal dismiss people like Jamgon Kongtrul, the Buddha, Asanga, Longchenpa and so on as ignorant and uninformed.

[Malcolm]

Being an orthodox Buddhist

Doesn't exist, apart from in the febrile imagination of some western converts.

little bit shocking in this kind of forum

If you are shocked, then good.

As for the conversation being boring, recall that you brought it up. The topic here is "Are Trees Sentient", so I'm not sure why you're complaining about a topic that is not related to that that you brought up.

I didn't start this topic.

There is nothing at all I can find in your statement that actually accords with a reasonable definition of what Buddhism and the entire Buddhist tradition explains and stands for, so really very little needs to be said about it.

Buddhadharma is śila, samadhi, and prajñā; and prajña is hearing, reflection, and cultivating. What it is not is blindly accepting a bunch of stuff in books written down by bhikṣus with limited access to knowledge if anything further than 500 miles from where they resided, if that.

To attack the greatest omniscient teachers in Tibetan tradition, claim that the Dharma was not taught by the Buddha, dismiss the Buddha's teaching as "ancient" - even though its the same Dharma that was taught by Dipamkara and will be taught by Maitreya in the future and is currently being taught by Buddhas in all directions of space - is heterodox and has nothing to do with a reasonable understanding of BUddhism.

The real teaching of the Buddha will never be found in any book. Books are something relative, faulty, subject to emendation, and so on, as the any person who has studied even a smidgeon of the textual history of Buddhist texts knows. The Mahāyāna tradition is self-conscious of its revelatory status, as opposed to the oral tradition represented by the Nikāyas and Agamas. You are making a category error in assuming that provenance determines doctrinal validity. The definitive sūtras of the Mahāyāna are true because they are rational, concern emptinesss, selflesness, absence of persons, living beings, and so on, which are the hallmarks of definitive sūtras. Sūtras concerning living beings, cosmologies, and so on, are provisional. There are four criteria we follow in Mahāyāna:

Follow the dharma, not the person.
Follow the meaning, not the words.
Follow the definitive sūtras, the provisional sūtras.
Follow gnosis, not mind.

The Dalai Lama said as an expedient means that he doesn't include Buddhist cosmology within his set of beliefs because otherwise he would alienate all the Western world.

Bullshit, and you just outed yourself as Ode to Joy, someone who has been banned once already. Bye!

[Leaves of Light]

As per your statements Acarya Malcolm, none of which seem worthy of quoting in the box, I can find nothing at all amongst them that reflects in any way the spirit of Buddhism, the Dharma, the teaching of Buddha and all the other teachers such as Longchenpa and Asanga and all the rest, and instead can only detect the most aggrieved, angry, desperate personal offense at and resentment of much of the Buddhist teaching, for reasons which are not immediately apparent but seem to be rooted in a fundamentalist, aggressive, grim and tenacious attachment to certain modern nihilist scientific theories. If you don't believe in Buddhism and spirituality, then fine, but why attack those who do, especially in a Buddhist forum? This is remarkable to me.

[Leaves of Light]

Things like cosmology, biology, etc., are provisional.

As per this statement and the suggestion that it means that Buddhist cosmology is not true and that therefore the nihilist scientific version instead must be, there are several logical problems with that that ought to be addressed:

1. While it's true that the Pali suttas and perhaps also the Abhidharmakosha are considered provisional teachings, I am fairly certain that the Avatamsaka Sutra, Anuttarayoga tantras, and Dzogchen teachings are all accepted by many Mahayanistic and all ecumenical Buddhist schools as definitive. The only way you could get around this is by introducing what seems to me to be a whole new style of scriptural exegesis wherein you separate paragraphs, chapters, or themes from within definitive teachings of sutra and tantra and proclaim them as provisional, which doesn't necessarily seem like a great idea.
2. Being provisional doesn't mean that a teaching is not true or should be rejected; it means it was taught at a certain time for a certain audience but it's not the final definitive statement of ultimate truth. Such being the case, cosmology teaching of Pali sutras and Abhidharma, let alone that of Avatamsaka Sutra, Anuttarayoga, or higher teachings, if you still want to claim that they are provisional, isn't necessarily to be thought of as false.
3. Provisional teachings are so designated because they are superseded by later definitive teachings. Granted that Hinayana and Abhidharma cosmology is somewhat different to Flower Ornament, Kalacakra and such teachings, so that the lower vehicle teaching in that sense can be thought of as provisional, but it's not the case that Mahayana sutra and Vajrayana cosmology teaching is superseded by some other "definitive" teaching so that it could be thought of as provisional in the usual sense.
4. If you claim that Buddhist cosmology teachings are merely provisional and thus to be discarded, then within that formula, if you claim that nihilist scientific cosmology is true, then you have just said that nihilist science is a definitive teaching, over and above Mahayana and Vajrayana teachings, a claim which some might tremble before making.
5. It is not reasonable at any rate to claim that scientific cosmology theories on the world and universe could be called definitive in any sense let alone in the style of the Buddhist classification of teachings, since there is no certainty and consistency to them at all; they are largely theoretical; they have chopped and changed over the course of their history; they in many serious and fundamental ways violate elementary empirical observations and valid cognition; and give rise to endless confusion and are eternally riven with rumors of corruption and deception. It's all a little bit reminiscent of one occasion in a Mahayana sutra where the Buddha mentioned that at the end of the 500 years period (the heliocentrism theory is around 500 years, as it happens) the worldly teachings would fall into confusion, disagreement and schism due to their inherent lack of truth. How then, could you possible dismiss Buddhist teachings - which are, moreover, to a large extent in harmony with many other religious and spiritual traditions such as Veda, Jainism, and even in many meaningful, if not all ways, the Siddhanta and Persian astronomy and cosmology traditions of medieval times, not to mention with many simple empirical observations - as provisional and therefore unbelievable and worthy of being rejected, and instead accept nihilist scientific ones as definitive? It would appear that there is very little sound logic to this argument at all.

[Kim O'Hara]

Disruptive posts removed. Please remember the TOS when you resume the discussion.


Kim

[Berry]

.

This book might be of interest:

"The Hidden Life of Trees" by Peter Wohlleben:

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/282 ... 20unaware.