Ryogen's thought on plants and their acquired Buddhahood

Post Reply
User avatar
FiveSkandhas
Posts: 917
Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2019 6:40 pm

Ryogen's thought on plants and their acquired Buddhahood

Post by FiveSkandhas »

Fabrio Rambelli wrote a great short book called Vegetal Buddhas on (mostly Tendai) medieval Japanese theorizing about Buddhahood and non-sentients. When it came to plants there were numerous questions: Are plants sentients? Can non-sentients achieve Buddhahood? Are plants simply part of the "supporting framework" of reality or are they beings subject to transmigration and all the rest of it? If vegetal enlightenment is possible, are plants expressions of "Original Enlightenment" or is their enlightenment acquired? And so on.

These debates went on for centuries and Rambelli, being the academic steeped in post-modernism that he is, draws all sorts of conclusions about the social, political, and economic implications he sees lurking behind the purely doctrinal questions.

One of the more interesting thinkers he brings up is the Tendai figure Ryogen (912-985), who wrote:

Plants are endowed with the four phases of life (shisou): birth, stability, alteration, and death. These are the shapes of [the four stages of liberation:] arousing the desire [for enlightenment], religious practice, bodhi, and nirvana, as far as plants are concerned.

In other words, for Ryogen, plants were neither "living Buddhas" throughout their whole lives, nor was their Buddhahood achieved over multiple lifetimes. Rather, every plant begins as an aspirant to Buddhahood, progresses through practice as it grows and matures, attains bodhi, and then dies, with its death being its mahaparanirvana.

It's just such an interesting and unique view...I wonder what doctrinal support he used? (I can't remember if Rambelli went into or not; read the book years ago.) I know of Ryogen from other contexts and he was a consummate formal debater in the Nara Jidai mode...I feel certain he wouldn't have proposed such a radical view without amassing careful doctrinal support.

Just imagine if true...Every blade of grass making progress on the Path as it strives upwards to the sun. Every aged, drooping frond full of wisdom and on its way to liberation, if not there already. Every withered stem and crunchy dead leaf a Buddha relic.

How delightful!
"One should cultivate contemplation in one’s foibles. The foibles are like fish, and contemplation is like fishing hooks. If there are no fish, then the fishing hooks have no use. The bigger the fish is, the better the result we will get. As long as the fishing hooks keep at it, all foibles will eventually be contained and controlled at will." -Zhiyi

"Just be kind." -Atisha
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Ryogen's thought on plants and their acquired Buddhahood

Post by Malcolm »

FiveSkandhas wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 1:10 pmAre plants simply part of the "supporting framework" of reality..
According to the Buddha, part of the container, not the contents.
User avatar
FiveSkandhas
Posts: 917
Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2019 6:40 pm

Re: Ryogen's thought on plants and their acquired Buddhahood

Post by FiveSkandhas »

Malcolm wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 3:14 pm
FiveSkandhas wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 1:10 pmAre plants simply part of the "supporting framework" of reality..
According to the Buddha, part of the container, not the contents.
And certainly many Tendai scholars argued exactly that.

Trying to find doctrinal support for plants as sentients and Buddhas is trickier...there is a twisty path back to Chi-i but that wouldn't be considered sufficient by most Buddhists now would it?

Then I see one fellow arguing vaguely through Shingon Mikkyo back to Indian Tantric "nonduality" but he neglects to give us actual textual sources.

Then there is a reading of the Dharmaksema translation of the Mahaparanirvana Sutra of 421 that clearly states "inanimate objects such as walls and stones" are devoid of Buddha Nature. Since there is no explicit mention of plants in this category, some apparently argued they were sentients. There is also a line in this translation that state's "all living beings are endowed with Buddha Nature."

Then we have an argument based on the Chinese translation of some Vinaya texts enjoining people not to trample on plants, etc., suggesting to some possible higher status for plants than stones and water, etc. Again, not the strongest of arguments but there you have it.

The 6th Tientai patriarch, Zhanran (711-783), cites 4 factors in support of the "possibility non-sentients are endowed with Buddha Nature": the nonduality of sentients and their environment; the all-pervasiveness of the universal mind; the interrelationship of the three Buddha Bodies and the Body and territory of the Universal Buddha; and the absolute nature of conditioned reality.

There were Zen, Kegon (Huayen) and Sanron (Madyamaka) arguments too but I'm getting tired of typing about this issue.

All this may seem like slim evidence to many, and indeed the arguments raged for centuries.

Rambelli seems to believe that Japanese elites were particularly invested in Hongaku Shiso thought for political reasons I won't go into here, and that the Buddhahood of plants in some form was part of the greater pro-Original-Enlightenment stance actively pushed by the government, which was particularly close to the Tendai school while the debate was at its most lively.
"One should cultivate contemplation in one’s foibles. The foibles are like fish, and contemplation is like fishing hooks. If there are no fish, then the fishing hooks have no use. The bigger the fish is, the better the result we will get. As long as the fishing hooks keep at it, all foibles will eventually be contained and controlled at will." -Zhiyi

"Just be kind." -Atisha
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Ryogen's thought on plants and their acquired Buddhahood

Post by Malcolm »

FiveSkandhas wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 4:09 pm
All this may seem like slim evidence to many, and indeed the arguments raged for centuries.
There is no evidence to suggest that Indian Buddhists ever even entertained the idea that plants were sentient beings (sattva). The idea that plants might be sentient seems to be a strictly EA Buddhist concern. In Tibetan Buddhism it merits no discussion whatsoever.

This does not mean the discussion is invalid, but the argument for plant sentience cannot be successfully made on the basis of ̄sūtra or tantra.
User avatar
FiveSkandhas
Posts: 917
Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2019 6:40 pm

Re: Ryogen's thought on plants and their acquired Buddhahood

Post by FiveSkandhas »

Malcolm wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 4:27 pm In Tibetan Buddhism it merits no discussion whatsoever.
That's why I put it in the Tendai forum.

I couldn't find a single specific Indian-language text cited as direct evidence.
"One should cultivate contemplation in one’s foibles. The foibles are like fish, and contemplation is like fishing hooks. If there are no fish, then the fishing hooks have no use. The bigger the fish is, the better the result we will get. As long as the fishing hooks keep at it, all foibles will eventually be contained and controlled at will." -Zhiyi

"Just be kind." -Atisha
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Ryogen's thought on plants and their acquired Buddhahood

Post by Malcolm »

FiveSkandhas wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 4:34 pm
Malcolm wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 4:27 pm In Tibetan Buddhism it merits no discussion whatsoever.
That's why I put it in the Tendai forum.

I couldn't find a single specific Indian-language text cited as direct evidence.
There is discussion of this issue in Indian sources, Schmithausen discusses it here:

https://ia802904.us.archive.org/31/item ... ure%29.pdf
User avatar
FiveSkandhas
Posts: 917
Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2019 6:40 pm

Re: Ryogen's thought on plants and their acquired Buddhahood

Post by FiveSkandhas »

Malcolm wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 6:06 pm
FiveSkandhas wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 4:34 pm
Malcolm wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 4:27 pm In Tibetan Buddhism it merits no discussion whatsoever.
That's why I put it in the Tendai forum.

I couldn't find a single specific Indian-language text cited as direct evidence.
There is discussion of this issue in Indian sources, Schmithausen discusses it here:

https://ia802904.us.archive.org/31/item ... ure%29.pdf
Thanks...will have a look.
"One should cultivate contemplation in one’s foibles. The foibles are like fish, and contemplation is like fishing hooks. If there are no fish, then the fishing hooks have no use. The bigger the fish is, the better the result we will get. As long as the fishing hooks keep at it, all foibles will eventually be contained and controlled at will." -Zhiyi

"Just be kind." -Atisha
User avatar
Queequeg
Former staff member
Posts: 14462
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: Ryogen's thought on plants and their acquired Buddhahood

Post by Queequeg »

I used to view all things as sentient at some level, including things like rocks, trees, etc. Examining it closely, I can't justify the view.

There is an element of defining and redefining terms to come around to the assertion that plants and trees are sentient and have buddhanature.

As I understand, this all comes from statements like those in the Vimalakirti Sutra:
15. At that time Śāriputra was influenced by the Buddha’s numinous charisma to have this thought: “If the bodhisattva’s buddha land is pure according to the purity of the bodhisattva’s mind, then when our World-honored One was a bodhisattva his mind must have been pure. Nevertheless, this buddha land is so impure!”

The Buddha knew what he was thinking and asked him, “What do you think? Although the blind do not see them, can the sun and moon be anything
but pure?”

[Śāriputra] answered, “No, World-honored One! This is the fault of the blind, not that of the sun and moon.”

[The Buddha said], “Śāriputra, it is through the transgressions of sentient beings that they do not see the purity of the Tathāgata’s (i.e., my) buddha
land. This is not the Tathāgata’s fault! Śāri putra, this land of mine is pure, but you do not see it.”

16. At that time Conch Crest Brahmā King said to Śāriputra, “Do not think thus, saying that this buddha land is not pure. Why? I have witnessed the purity of Śākyamuni’s buddha land. It is like the heavenly palace of Īśvara.”

Śāriputra said, “As I observe this land, it is hills and hollows, brambles and gravel, and rocks and mountains—all filled with defilements.”

Conch Crest Brahmā King said, “Sir, your mind has (i.e., perceives)high and low because you are not relying on buddha wisdom. Hence you perceive this land as impure. Śāriputra, the bodhisattva is universally same [in attitude] regarding all sentient beings. The purity of his profound mind relies on buddha wisdom and therefore is able to perceive the purity of this buddha land.”

17. At this the Buddha pointed to the earth with his toe, and instantly the trimegachiliocosm was as if ornamented with a hundred thousand jewels. It was like the Jewel Ornamentation land, with all its immeasurable merits, of Jewel Ornament Buddha. The entire great assembly exclaimed at this unprecedented event, and they all saw themselves sitting on many-jeweled lotus flowers.

18. The Buddha told Śāriputra, “You should now observe the purity of this buddha land.”

Śāriputra said, “So it is, World-honored One. Originally I did not see it; originally I did not hear it. Now the purity of the Buddha’s country is entirely
apparent.”

The Buddha said to Śāriputra, “My buddha country is always pure, like this. It is only so as to save inferior persons here that I manifest it as a defiled and impure land. It is like the many-jeweled eating utensils used in common by the gods, the food in which is of different colors depending on their merits.

Just so, Śāriputra, if a person’s mind is pure he sees the merits and ornaments of this land.”
In my understanding, Tientai emphasizes the dependently originated nature of dharmas as coequal with emptiness. This expressed in the ichinen sanzen formula through the realm of the environment, which encompasses insentient things as the land and plants. All things, including the environment, appear dependent on the view of the being. As in the passage above, Sariputra does not see the purity of the Saha world because of his own delusions. When he is shown the world as the Buddha sees it, he sees it as pure. The land appears as a buddhaland when a being attains bodhi because their view is perfected.

I don't think Zhiyi would have endorsed the idea that rocks and plants are sentient. And as far as I know, there is nothing in the record of his teachings to suggest he believed this. This, I think, was brought into Tiantai thought because Zhanran was trying to respond to this view that in circulation in Chinese Buddhist discourse at that time. It was an occupation of others, and so to be relevant, Zhanran had to formulate a Tiantai view on the issue.

I think in Japan, further confusion was added because of the influence of Shinto which sees trees, mountains, rocks, rivers, etc. as gods. I'm not sure, though, if that correctly expresses all Shinto thought. There is also a sense in Shinto that these things are abodes of the gods, not necessarily the gods themselves, though of course there is such nondualistic views of things actually being the deity. The former view tends toward some dualisitc conceptualization of the gods and their abodes which does not really jive with Buddhist views, particularly Tendai, about the non-duality of mind and form. The latter view, that the things are the deities themselves, meets the non-duality standard, but the idea that these things are sentient is another story.

Basically, it seems to me, teachings on the nature of the mind of sentient beings were projected onto insentient and inanimate things, which for various reasons were perceived to be alive and sentient based on non-Buddhist beliefs, and this syncretization created a whole ball of confused ideas.
There is no suffering to be severed. Ignorance and klesas are indivisible from bodhi. There is no cause of suffering to be abandoned. Since extremes and the false are the Middle and genuine, there is no path to be practiced. Samsara is nirvana. No severance achieved. No suffering nor its cause. No path, no end. There is no transcendent realm; there is only the one true aspect. There is nothing separate from the true aspect.
-Guanding, Perfect and Sudden Contemplation,
User avatar
Budai
Posts: 878
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2020 1:12 pm
Location: ༀ ∞ Nam Myoho Renge Kyo ∞ ༀ

Re: Ryogen's thought on plants and their acquired Buddhahood

Post by Budai »

I think people should understand that when things are clearly alive they are sentient. Why do you think we Buddhists respect the growth of the Lotus from the mud so much? What is growing here and there if not life?

As for rocks and streams, atoms, clouds, etc.. household objects even, I think people should pause and consider what consciousness is, on the level of mind. This entire world is like a projected expansion of mind, internal and external, with many controllers. But I think that Sunyata and Anatta teaches us that we are all equal, it’s just how things are meant to be treated, and what they are, is confusing people, so they become hesitant to call a Buddha statue sentient because they don’t understand it’s very real expansion of consciousness, but at the same time they need to respect human and animal life more than the living existence within a statue, which’s life is on a different plane. From a burning building we would soon rescue an animal than a statue, and rightfully so. However we would still mourn the loss of a statue. Why? I do not believe it is only because of attachment or possession, but also because there was some conscious worth to that statue. That is why I feel like we should even respect our shoes. In respecting all things by the means we are meant to, we can come to understand and meditate on how they of themselves have the marks of tranquil extinction borne constantly until Enlightenment. I think this is a core Realization towards the progress of Buddhahood.

:heart:

If you have trouble understanding what I am talking about, say a Buddhist Mantra or chant, if you want, and then notice the consciousness in the sound vibration. That is the Compassion of the Buddha that I am talking about, and it is present in the entire world. The Buddha mentions He is the father of this entire world in the Lotus Sutra.
Last edited by Budai on Sun May 02, 2021 4:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
cjdevries
Posts: 598
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2015 8:06 pm

Re: Ryogen's thought on plants and their acquired Buddhahood

Post by cjdevries »

I live with a really skilled professional gardener/garden designer and she will say that "the plants talk to me", "they tell me when they need more water" etc. Different plants have different personalities. Others who I have talked to who are really into caring for plants have said that it is clear that plants have their own spirits and energy.
"Please call me by my true names so I can wake up; so the door of my heart can be left open: the door of compassion." -Thich Nhat Hanh

"Ask: what's needed of you" -Akong Rinpoche

"Love never claims, it ever gives. Love ever suffers, never resents, never revenges itself." -Gandhi
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Ryogen's thought on plants and their acquired Buddhahood

Post by Malcolm »

cjdevries wrote: Sun May 02, 2021 6:37 pm I live with a really skilled professional gardener/garden designer and she will say that "the plants talk to me", "they tell me when they need more water" etc. Different plants have different personalities. Others who I have talked to who are really into caring for plants have said that it is clear that plants have their own spirits and energy.
The idea that spirits such as yakṣas etc, inhabit trees, etc., is found in Buddhism. The idea that plants themselves are sentient is not found in Budhdism, apart from some East Asian divergences from the standard POV.
SilenceMonkey
Posts: 1448
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2018 9:54 am

Re: Ryogen's thought on plants and their acquired Buddhahood

Post by SilenceMonkey »

cjdevries wrote: Sun May 02, 2021 6:37 pm I live with a really skilled professional gardener/garden designer and she will say that "the plants talk to me", "they tell me when they need more water" etc. Different plants have different personalities. Others who I have talked to who are really into caring for plants have said that it is clear that plants have their own spirits and energy.
I think this is just our minds’ personification of an intuition, in the same way that good cooks have an intuition about when their meal is done. I know some people who are into gongfu cha, who have the same feeling about brewing tea. Maybe it’s “energy” if you want to use that word, but not a living spirit or consciousness.
User avatar
Queequeg
Former staff member
Posts: 14462
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: Ryogen's thought on plants and their acquired Buddhahood

Post by Queequeg »

Könchok Chödrak wrote: Sun May 02, 2021 4:29 pm I think people should understand that when things are clearly alive they are sentient. Why do you think we Buddhists respect the growth of the Lotus from the mud so much? What is growing here and there if not life?
The lotus plant is considered an illustrative metaphor. Its not the plant itself that is respected, necessarily, and certainly not because the plant is perceived as sentient. Even Lotus School Buddhists don't worship lotus flowers.
As for rocks and streams, atoms, clouds, etc.. household objects even, I think people should pause and consider what consciousness is, on the level of mind. This entire world is like a projected expansion of mind, internal and external, with many controllers. But I think that Sunyata and Anatta teaches us that we are all equal, it’s just how things are meant to be treated, and what they are, is confusing people, so they become hesitant to call a Buddha statue sentient because they don’t understand it’s very real expansion of consciousness,
Strictly speaking, the three-fold world is co-dependent with the mind. As Zhiyi remarked, "If there is no thought [mind], that is the end of the matter. If there is even an ephemeral thought [mind], this includes three thousand [realms]." Emptiness goes beyond equal or unequal; there are no distinctions in emptiness. It is inconceivable.

What is confusing is to anthropomophize rupa uncompounded with the other four aggregates (skandha).
If you have trouble understanding what I am talking about, say a Buddhist Mantra or chant, if you want, and then notice the consciousness in the sound vibration. That is the Compassion of the Buddha that I am talking about, and it is present in the entire world. The Buddha mentions He is the father of this entire world in the Lotus Sutra.
I've chanted since I could speak, heard it in the womb. It has never occurred to me that sound has consciousness. I may well lack the capacity for such insights. That said, I challenge you to find any support for the assertion that sound is conscious anywhere in the Buddhist canon.
Last edited by Queequeg on Mon May 03, 2021 1:58 pm, edited 2 times in total.
There is no suffering to be severed. Ignorance and klesas are indivisible from bodhi. There is no cause of suffering to be abandoned. Since extremes and the false are the Middle and genuine, there is no path to be practiced. Samsara is nirvana. No severance achieved. No suffering nor its cause. No path, no end. There is no transcendent realm; there is only the one true aspect. There is nothing separate from the true aspect.
-Guanding, Perfect and Sudden Contemplation,
User avatar
Queequeg
Former staff member
Posts: 14462
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: Ryogen's thought on plants and their acquired Buddhahood

Post by Queequeg »

cjdevries wrote: Sun May 02, 2021 6:37 pm I live with a really skilled professional gardener/garden designer and she will say that "the plants talk to me", "they tell me when they need more water" etc. Different plants have different personalities. Others who I have talked to who are really into caring for plants have said that it is clear that plants have their own spirits and energy.
I am an amateur gardener. While I am fully aware that my plants are alive, I wouldn't consider that they think or speak. I understand they require certain conditions to thrive - soil quality, adequate water, access to light, pruning, and training - but I wouldn't call their appearance based on their conditions communication except in a non-technical, poetic, and expansive sense. I see no evidence to conclude that any plant knows what they are, or even that they are. That doesn't mean I don't feel a sense of loss when a plant I have cared for does not make it, or when a great old tree succumbs and must be cut down.

In my understanding, in the Buddhist view, sentience is a continuous spectrum measured against buddhanature - the capacity to know one's real aspect. Even when rocks and plants are said to have buddhanature in the Tiantai/Tendai view, its not that they awaken themselves, but rather are said to attain bodhi as the environment of the being who attains bodhi.
There is no suffering to be severed. Ignorance and klesas are indivisible from bodhi. There is no cause of suffering to be abandoned. Since extremes and the false are the Middle and genuine, there is no path to be practiced. Samsara is nirvana. No severance achieved. No suffering nor its cause. No path, no end. There is no transcendent realm; there is only the one true aspect. There is nothing separate from the true aspect.
-Guanding, Perfect and Sudden Contemplation,
User avatar
Queequeg
Former staff member
Posts: 14462
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: Ryogen's thought on plants and their acquired Buddhahood

Post by Queequeg »

FiveSkandhas wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 1:10 pm In other words, for Ryogen, plants were neither "living Buddhas" throughout their whole lives, nor was their Buddhahood achieved over multiple lifetimes. Rather, every plant begins as an aspirant to Buddhahood, progresses through practice as it grows and matures, attains bodhi, and then dies, with its death being its mahaparanirvana.
I'd like to look into this, but it sounds like Ryogen is just viewing the life cycle of a plant as a metaphor for the evolution of a being toward buddhahood. As a Tendai adherent, he would understand that model of Buddha as a provisional teaching - particularly that parinirvana is upaya, and it sounds like he was setting up an upaya of sorts with such a provisional metaphor. Without knowing more, this reminds me of the six lotus metaphors Zhiyi described in Profound Meaning of the Lotus Sutra (Fahuaxuani).
There is no suffering to be severed. Ignorance and klesas are indivisible from bodhi. There is no cause of suffering to be abandoned. Since extremes and the false are the Middle and genuine, there is no path to be practiced. Samsara is nirvana. No severance achieved. No suffering nor its cause. No path, no end. There is no transcendent realm; there is only the one true aspect. There is nothing separate from the true aspect.
-Guanding, Perfect and Sudden Contemplation,
Post Reply

Return to “Tendai”