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.
Kai lord
Posts: 1166
Joined: Sun May 15, 2022 2:38 am

Re: Are trees sentient?

Post by Kai lord »

Leaves of Light wrote: Mon Jul 04, 2022 7:07 am void of life , inanimate , unintelligent
What makes tantra so great that it leaves some topics so vague that it allows rooms for different interpretations

For instances, what defines "unintelligent"?

Since animals like sponges, jellyfish and sea urchin have no brain, are they considered unintelligent? If so, are they non sentinel and outside animal realm?

Like plants, fungus are widely regarded as unintelligent lifeforms but yet they are somehow able to control the behaviour of more intelligent lifeforms like ants to perform specific tasks? How is that possible if fungus does not have a brain to analyze and plan things?



As for "inanimate", does it mean simply that lifeforms will be not able to move from one location to another?

If so, then the immobile adult sponge will not be considered as sentinel but bacteria will since they move their position constantly.
Life is like a game, either you win or lose!
Life is like a fight, either you live or die!
Life is like a show, either you laugh or cry!
Life is like a dream, either you know or not!!!
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
Posts: 9439
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: Are trees sentient?

Post by PadmaVonSamba »

Vajrasambhava wrote: Mon Jul 04, 2022 3:12 pm So, how Buddhadharma copes with these phenomenology?
What is there to cope with?
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
Vajrasambhava
Posts: 160
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2018 1:24 pm

Re: Are trees sentient?

Post by Vajrasambhava »

PadmaVonSamba wrote: Mon Jul 04, 2022 3:46 pm
Vajrasambhava wrote: Mon Jul 04, 2022 3:12 pm So, how Buddhadharma copes with these phenomenology?
What is there to cope with?
I'm reasoning about what Malcolm said, and effectively there's no negation in Buddhadharma for plants to be sentient. I learned something very special today. Thanks
Kai lord
Posts: 1166
Joined: Sun May 15, 2022 2:38 am

Re: Are trees sentient?

Post by Kai lord »

Vajrasambhava wrote: Mon Jul 04, 2022 3:12 pm So, how Buddhadharma copes with these phenomenology?
From Tenzin Gyatso, 14th Dalai Lama:
"If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change. In my view, science and Buddhism share a search for the truth and for understanding reality. By learning from science about aspects of reality where its understanding may be more advanced, I believe that Buddhism enriches its own worldview."
Life is like a game, either you win or lose!
Life is like a fight, either you live or die!
Life is like a show, either you laugh or cry!
Life is like a dream, either you know or not!!!
User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 5266
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 4:23 pm
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
Contact:

Re: Are trees sentient?

Post by DNS »

Vajrasambhava wrote: Mon Jul 04, 2022 12:45 am I think the problem Is not to establish if this or that animal or cell is sentient or not. The problem is, if plants are sentient, It means that a continuum can be reborn as a plant,
Also, logistically, how would that work? With an animal (or human), it's easy to see the being and where the continuum 'went' to. But with a plant, what part 'receives' this continuum? If you cut off a branch of a shrub or some other plant, the rest of the plant is still alive, in fact you can make another plant from the part you cut off.

Perhaps, multiple continuums, even millions (or souls as defined by Hinduism and Jainism) within a single plant? (I know we have anatman doctrine in buddhism, but referring to the rebirth mindstream continuum.)
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Are trees sentient?

Post by Malcolm »

DNS wrote: Mon Jul 04, 2022 5:58 pm
Also, logistically, how would that work? With an animal (or human), it's easy to see the being and where the continuum 'went' to. But with a plant, what part 'receives' this continuum? If you cut off a branch of a shrub or some other plant, the rest of the plant is still alive, in fact you can make another plant from the part you cut off.
The same is true of humans (cloning), etc. The term “continuum” is a convention for a series of moments that observe morphological regularity, that’s all. But they too have no absolute identity.

It is one thing to say a rock, which has no observable respiratory or metabolic functions, is insentient. It’s a little more difficult to say thus of plants and so on.
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
Posts: 9439
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: Are trees sentient?

Post by PadmaVonSamba »

How Trees Secretly Talk To Each Other:

EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
Toenail
Posts: 568
Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2016 10:06 am

Re: Are trees sentient?

Post by Toenail »

Malcolm wrote: Mon Jul 04, 2022 2:31 pm
Leaves of Light wrote: Mon Jul 04, 2022 7:07 am This is of course only one viewpoint.
Yes. And the fact remains that plant life, like all life, refines the five elements, demonstrates community, communication, interaction, altruistic behavior across species, as well as hostility, etc. One can claim it is all mechanistic, and insentient, but one can make the same argument about two and four-legged beings, I.e. that everything we do and are is merely a function of chemical interactions.

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?
I have personally seen you over the last 15 years during various debate hold positions for it and against it. What do you really think about it if I may ask. Or are you ambivalent?
Kai lord
Posts: 1166
Joined: Sun May 15, 2022 2:38 am

Re: Are trees sentient?

Post by Kai lord »

DNS wrote: Mon Jul 04, 2022 5:58 pm
Also, logistically, how would that work? With an animal (or human), it's easy to see the being and where the continuum 'went' to. But with a plant, what part 'receives' this continuum? If you cut off a branch of a shrub or some other plant, the rest of the plant is still alive, in fact you can make another plant from the part you cut off.

Perhaps, multiple continuums, even millions (or souls as defined by Hinduism and Jainism) within a single plant? (I know we have anatman doctrine in buddhism, but referring to the rebirth mindstream continuum.)
I wonder the same about Mucalinda, the multi headed naga that protected Buddha. Since it was described as an individual, I wonder which head does its consciousness resides in? Or perhaps its somewhere in its enormous body instead?
Life is like a game, either you win or lose!
Life is like a fight, either you live or die!
Life is like a show, either you laugh or cry!
Life is like a dream, either you know or not!!!
User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 5266
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 4:23 pm
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
Contact:

Re: Are trees sentient?

Post by DNS »

Malcolm wrote: Mon Jul 04, 2022 6:45 pm The same is true of humans (cloning), etc. The term “continuum” is a convention for a series of moments that observe morphological regularity, that’s all. But they too have no absolute identity.
True, but at least conventionally speaking, we say things like, Thubten Gyatso (13th dalai lama) passed away and rinpoches identified Tenzin Gyatso (current dalai lama) as his rebirth, the continuation of the mindstream. If some guy named Harvey from Brooklyn passes away and is reborn as a shrub plant; which part of the shrub is Harvey?

For humans that are cloned, I'd say the cloned being probably would have the continuation of the karmic tendencies and energies of the host. If plant life undergoes samsara, I suppose branch saplings could also be continuation of the host plant.
User avatar
SkyFox
Posts: 102
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2021 1:29 pm

Re: Are trees sentient?

Post by SkyFox »

PadmaVonSamba wrote: Mon Jul 04, 2022 6:54 pm How Trees Secretly Talk To Each Other:

Wow, how fascinating. I've always thought of plants and tree as being alive, but man this gives me a whole different outlook. And to think, whole forests are being cut to be turned into toilet paper, kinda sad.
Leaves of Light
Posts: 56
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2022 3:45 am

Re: Are trees sentient?

Post by Leaves of Light »

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.
Last edited by Leaves of Light on Tue Jul 05, 2022 12:23 am, edited 1 time in total.
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: Mon Jul 04, 2022 3:22 pm
Leaves of Light wrote: Mon Jul 04, 2022 7:07 am void of life , inanimate , unintelligent
What makes tantra so great that it leaves some topics so vague that it allows rooms for different interpretations

For instances, what defines "unintelligent"?

Since animals like sponges, jellyfish and sea urchin have no brain, are they considered unintelligent? If so, are they non sentinel and outside animal realm?

Like plants, fungus are widely regarded as unintelligent lifeforms but yet they are somehow able to control the behaviour of more intelligent lifeforms like ants to perform specific tasks? How is that possible if fungus does not have a brain to analyze and plan things?



As for "inanimate", does it mean simply that lifeforms will be not able to move from one location to another?

If so, then the immobile adult sponge will not be considered as sentinel but bacteria will since they move their position constantly.
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.
Last edited by Leaves of Light on Tue Jul 05, 2022 1:18 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Könchok Thrinley
Former staff member
Posts: 3275
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2015 11:18 am
Location: He/Him from EU

Re: Are trees sentient?

Post by Könchok Thrinley »

DNS wrote: Mon Jul 04, 2022 10:46 pm
Malcolm wrote: Mon Jul 04, 2022 6:45 pm The same is true of humans (cloning), etc. The term “continuum” is a convention for a series of moments that observe morphological regularity, that’s all. But they too have no absolute identity.
True, but at least conventionally speaking, we say things like, Thubten Gyatso (13th dalai lama) passed away and rinpoches identified Tenzin Gyatso (current dalai lama) as his rebirth, the continuation of the mindstream. If some guy named Harvey from Brooklyn passes away and is reborn as a shrub plant; which part of the shrub is Harvey?

For humans that are cloned, I'd say the cloned being probably would have the continuation of the karmic tendencies and energies of the host. If plant life undergoes samsara, I suppose branch saplings could also be continuation of the host plant.
In case of clones and samplings I'd guess that a sentirnt being with causes and conditions to gain the cloned body would reside in there.
So basically the same causes and conditions as the original but not entirely as the outer circumstances would naturally differ. So I think I doubt clones being also perfect clones of the personality. They will probably be similar-ish like twins when it comes to thoughts and feelings.
“Observing samaya involves to remain inseparable from the union of wisdom and compassion at all times, to sustain mindfulness, and to put into practice the guru’s instructions”. Garchen Rinpoche

For those who do virtuous actions,
goodness is what comes to pass.
For those who do non-virtuous actions,
that becomes suffering indeed.

- Arya Sanghata Sutra
Kai lord
Posts: 1166
Joined: Sun May 15, 2022 2:38 am

Re: Are trees sentient?

Post by Kai lord »

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.
Life is like a game, either you win or lose!
Life is like a fight, either you live or die!
Life is like a show, either you laugh or cry!
Life is like a dream, either you know or not!!!
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
Posts: 9439
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: Are trees sentient?

Post by PadmaVonSamba »

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.
Coincidentally, I was looking through all of my marine biology books yesterday (I have kind of a thing about Portuguese Man-O-War) and I could find nothing in any of them about how to bring the mind back to its original nature through breathing meditation.

Puzzling, isn’t it?
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
Kai lord
Posts: 1166
Joined: Sun May 15, 2022 2:38 am

Re: Are trees sentient?

Post by Kai lord »

PadmaVonSamba wrote: Tue Jul 05, 2022 12:57 pm
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.
Coincidentally, I was looking through all of my marine biology books yesterday (I have kind of a thing about Portuguese Man-O-War) and I could find nothing in any of them about how to bring the mind back to its original nature through breathing meditation.

Puzzling, isn’t it?
I don't know because kept hearing claims from people that they can still stay in that original state of mind while doing mundane stuffs like reading books, etc.
Life is like a game, either you win or lose!
Life is like a fight, either you live or die!
Life is like a show, either you laugh or cry!
Life is like a dream, either you know or not!!!
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
Posts: 9439
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: Are trees sentient?

Post by PadmaVonSamba »

Kai lord wrote: Tue Jul 05, 2022 1:50 pm
PadmaVonSamba wrote: Tue Jul 05, 2022 12:57 pm
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.
Coincidentally, I was looking through all of my marine biology books yesterday (I have kind of a thing about Portuguese Man-O-War) and I could find nothing in any of them about how to bring the mind back to its original nature through breathing meditation.

Puzzling, isn’t it?
I don't know because kept hearing claims from people that they can still stay in that original state of mind while doing mundane stuffs like reading books, etc.
When you regularly practice then it’s not that difficult to rest the mind in whatever you are doing.
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 5266
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 4:23 pm
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
Contact:

Re: Are trees sentient?

Post by DNS »

Könchok Thrinley wrote: Tue Jul 05, 2022 7:06 am In case of clones and samplings I'd guess that a sentirnt being with causes and conditions to gain the cloned body would reside in there.
So basically the same causes and conditions as the original but not entirely as the outer circumstances would naturally differ. So I think I doubt clones being also perfect clones of the personality. They will probably be similar-ish like twins when it comes to thoughts and feelings.
Yes, I think you're right. Looking back at my post, I think my post was too much from materialism. It's an easy mistake due to anatman. The personality will be different due to different causes and conditions for that being coming into being and also of course, culture, environment, upbringing, etc.
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
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.
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, 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 libertion or otherwise, although it may be fascinating on its own somewhat mundane level.
Post Reply

Return to “Mahāyāna Buddhism”