Malcolm wrote: ↑Mon Jul 04, 2022 2:31 pm
The rebirth argument is not particularly convincing. So, in the end, Buddhists who insist on plantlife insentience are really just resting their arguments on passages from texts. That’s fine, but then, how does one pick and choose? Meru is false, but plant insentience is true?
The scripture quoted doesn't say plants are insentient. It says:
"Grasses, creepers and trees have only the consciousness (
vijnanamatraka) of inanimate beings (
jada);
and, those living beings in the six conditions of existence (
gati) live with consciousness (
vijnanasaha vartate)".
Since it says grasses, creepers and trees are conscious - possess
vijnana - it is not saying they are insentient. It is distinguishing the consciousness or sentience of plants like creepers and trees, and grass, from that of the sentient beings of the six kinds of existence of hell, hungry ghost, animal, human, asura and deva. Nobody would deny that an insect, human being, or god has a different, more developed kind of sentience to a grass, one involving sense organs, nervous system, some kind of brain, heart, mind, clearly displayed emotions, etc. It really is just stating the obvious.
The second line:
and those living beings (or "sentient beings") in the six conditions of existence (
gati) live with consciousness.
shadgatikash ca ye sattva vijinanasaha vartate
is somewhat cryptic and may include a play on words. Maybe by distinguishing those inanimate beings - plants and trees - from those living beings of the six
gati by saying that the latter "live with consciousness", it is hinting at a kind of self-awareness of sentient beings (of the six
gati)that a sentient being "lives with", so to speak, that distinguishes them from inanimate beings like grasses and so on. This is of course in the realm of very subtle distinctions. Without direct experience it's impossible to say how much self-awareness grasses, creepers and trees have compared with human beings, animals, etc; you can only rely on inference, scripture and various other kinds of teachings and theories. Also, "
vartate" doesn't necessarily mean just "to live", as the translator gives it. It could also be implying that sentient beings (
sattva, here distinguished from inanimate beings,
jada, which the scripture makes clear does not mean "insentient") are constantly reborn with consciousness or mind (since
jada, inanimate, can be distinguished from
cetana), possessing a mind) since
vartate also means "to turn and roll around", as well as "to be or exist". So it could be pointing to the revolving cycle of death and rebirth of sentient beings in the six rounds of existence, journeying through the various bardos on the basis of karma, becoming disembodied and reincarnated, while not putting forth an argument that plants also participate in this samsaric cycle of karmic death and rebirth, going through the various bardo experiences. Again, these all sounds like pretty normal, standard, and reasonable distinctions with all of Buddhism but again, it is of course only one viewpoint.