Why plants don't have citta?

If you're new to the forum or new to Buddhism, this is the best place for your questions. Responses require moderator approval before they are visible.
pael
Posts: 484
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2013 12:49 pm

Why plants don't have citta?

Post by pael » Fri Jul 07, 2017 12:13 pm

Why plants don't have citta? Why they don't transmigrate?
May all beings be free from suffering and causes of suffering

User avatar
Aryjna
Posts: 574
Joined: Mon Mar 27, 2017 12:45 pm

Re: Why plants don't have citta?

Post by Aryjna » Fri Jul 07, 2017 2:00 pm

pael wrote:Why plants don't have citta? Why they don't transmigrate?
Why do you say they don't have? I haven't really thought about it or looked into it, but this reminded me of a story from Patrul Rinpoche's commentary on the Bodhicaryavatara. Though it is not exactly clear whether the person in question was reincarnated as that tree, or maybe as some kind of spirit that was bound there or something like that.

The nectar of Manjushri’s speech , p.97
In the Damamako-sutra, there is a story about a large tree that was entirely covered by worms that were devouring it. It was covered so that not even a pinpoint of its surface was exposed. The tree lamented for it was suffering intensely. It is said that this was the fully ripened effect of the actions of a monastic servant called Lita who embezzled the belongings of the monks and gave it as provisions to the laity. Lita was reborn in the tree and the lay people took the form of the worms. And after this, rebirth in hell awaited him.

pael
Posts: 484
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2013 12:49 pm

Re: Why plants don't have citta?

Post by pael » Fri Jul 07, 2017 3:32 pm

Aryjna wrote:
pael wrote:Why plants don't have citta? Why they don't transmigrate?
Why do you say they don't have?
According to Korean monk.
May all beings be free from suffering and causes of suffering

User avatar
Losal Samten
Posts: 1401
Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2014 4:05 pm

Re: Why plants don't have citta?

Post by Losal Samten » Fri Jul 07, 2017 3:45 pm

Aryjna wrote:
In the Damamako-sutra, there is a story about a large tree that was entirely covered by worms that were devouring it. It was covered so that not even a pinpoint of its surface was exposed. The tree lamented for it was suffering intensely. It is said that this was the fully ripened effect of the actions of a monastic servant called Lita who embezzled the belongings of the monks and gave it as provisions to the laity. Lita was reborn in the tree and the lay people took the form of the worms. And after this, rebirth in hell awaited him.
"Reborn in the tree". This refers to an 'ephemeral hell' incarnation. They can also be born in door frames, mortars, and other inanimate objects for which identification with causes extreme pain.
Lacking mindfulness, we commit every wrong. - Nyoshul Khen Rinpoche
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔
ཨཱོཾ་མ་ཏྲི་མུ་ཡེ་སལེ་འདུ།།

User avatar
Javierfv1212
Posts: 117
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2015 1:39 am
Location: Sacramento, CA

Re: Why plants don't have citta?

Post by Javierfv1212 » Sat Jul 08, 2017 3:55 pm

If memory serves me right Gendün Chöphel argued that they did, even though it is considered a Jain view
It is quite impossible to find the Buddha anywhere other than in one's own mind.
~Padmasambhava

Amid those who are self-constrained, the Stable One would not posit as categorically true or false
anything seen, heard, or sensed, clung to and considered truth by others.
Since they have already seen this dart to which people cling and adhere,
saying “I know, I see, it is just so,”
the Tathāgatas cling to nothing.
-Kalaka sutta

odysseus
Posts: 1117
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 11:50 pm
Contact:

Re: Why plants don't have citta?

Post by odysseus » Sat Jul 08, 2017 9:34 pm

pael wrote:Why plants don't have citta? Why they don't transmigrate?
Plants are not sentient. Unless, we would have nothing to eat. They proliferate by seeds, not by mind. They don't have a mind. They cannot transmigrate like sentient beings.

User avatar
Javierfv1212
Posts: 117
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2015 1:39 am
Location: Sacramento, CA

Re: Why plants don't have citta?

Post by Javierfv1212 » Tue Aug 29, 2017 7:14 pm

odysseus wrote:
pael wrote:Why plants don't have citta? Why they don't transmigrate?
Plants are not sentient. Unless, we would have nothing to eat. They proliferate by seeds, not by mind. They don't have a mind. They cannot transmigrate like sentient beings.
that's debatable,

https://www.pri.org/stories/2014-01-09/ ... out-plants

https://books.google.com/books?id=M1rTN ... e&q&f=true
It is quite impossible to find the Buddha anywhere other than in one's own mind.
~Padmasambhava

Amid those who are self-constrained, the Stable One would not posit as categorically true or false
anything seen, heard, or sensed, clung to and considered truth by others.
Since they have already seen this dart to which people cling and adhere,
saying “I know, I see, it is just so,”
the Tathāgatas cling to nothing.
-Kalaka sutta

User avatar
jkarlins
Posts: 561
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2016 10:58 am
Location: Amesbury, MA USA

Re: Why plants don't have citta?

Post by jkarlins » Tue Aug 29, 2017 7:48 pm

It seems like they would. They live, they grow, they move. Just my intuition about it. Can't wait to hear others' thoughts.

Jake

mutsuk
Posts: 589
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2010 7:35 pm

Re: Why plants don't have citta?

Post by mutsuk » Wed Aug 30, 2017 5:52 am

jkarlins wrote:It seems like they would. They live, they grow, they move.
Dharmakirti (and others) disagrees about the sentience of plants. You should get this :

https://books.google.fr/books/about/The ... edir_esc=y

And if you want the PDF, avoid Scribd at all cost since it is downloadable for free here :

https://icabs.repo.nii.ac.jp/?action=pa ... lock_id=17

Strive
Posts: 260
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 12:24 pm

Re: Why plants don't have citta?

Post by Strive » Wed Aug 30, 2017 6:22 am

Good question I think plants do have souls or citta

mutsuk
Posts: 589
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2010 7:35 pm

Re: Why plants don't have citta?

Post by mutsuk » Wed Aug 30, 2017 1:06 pm

They don't, they are part of the chalices (snod) which are a support (rten) for sentient beings (brten, that which is supported). Conditioned existence is made up of chalices (snod, receptacle, i.e. universes) and elixirs (bcud, i.e. sentient beings). Plants belong to the chalices: they are living but not sentient. Please take the time to read the link to the Schmithausen book given previously, the author did a very nice work and it's really worth reading it.

Seeker12
Posts: 111
Joined: Mon May 08, 2017 5:54 pm

Re: Why plants don't have citta?

Post by Seeker12 » Wed Aug 30, 2017 3:34 pm

Losal Samten wrote:
Aryjna wrote:
In the Damamako-sutra, there is a story about a large tree that was entirely covered by worms that were devouring it. It was covered so that not even a pinpoint of its surface was exposed. The tree lamented for it was suffering intensely. It is said that this was the fully ripened effect of the actions of a monastic servant called Lita who embezzled the belongings of the monks and gave it as provisions to the laity. Lita was reborn in the tree and the lay people took the form of the worms. And after this, rebirth in hell awaited him.
"Reborn in the tree". This refers to an 'ephemeral hell' incarnation. They can also be born in door frames, mortars, and other inanimate objects for which identification with causes extreme pain.
Do you have any sources to learn more about this?
Better than if there were thousands of meaningless words is
one meaningful word that on hearing brings peace. Dhp

User avatar
Aryjna
Posts: 574
Joined: Mon Mar 27, 2017 12:45 pm

Re: Why plants don't have citta?

Post by Aryjna » Wed Aug 30, 2017 5:02 pm

Seeker12 wrote:
Losal Samten wrote:
Aryjna wrote:
"Reborn in the tree". This refers to an 'ephemeral hell' incarnation. They can also be born in door frames, mortars, and other inanimate objects for which identification with causes extreme pain.
Do you have any sources to learn more about this?
These hells are discussed in Words of My Perfect Teacher, and many other texts probably. I thought it may just be an ephemeral hell or not actually reborn as a tree, but I wasn't completely sure.

User avatar
Queequeg
Global Moderator
Posts: 5423
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: Why plants don't have citta?

Post by Queequeg » Wed Aug 30, 2017 5:17 pm

Zhanran's Diamond Scalpel may be of interest... in it, Zhanran advances the Tiantai doctrine that insentients like plants and rocks, even whole environments, have Buddha Nature. While its not quite the same as saying they have citta, I think there is significant overlap, especially once we start considering increasingly subtle levels of "consciousness".

Below is a link to a dissertation synopsis on the Diamond Scalpel. I do not have a copy of this dissertation (but would like one!) I know that there is at least one other translation of the Diamond Scalpel, possibly two or more, floating around out there - I have a pdf of one and a vague recollection that I have another, but I don't have permission to publish.

http://doktori.btk.elte.hu/lingv/papmelinda/thesis.pdf
Those who, even with distracted minds,
Entered a stupa compound
And chanted but once, “Namo Buddhaya!”
Have certainly attained the path of the buddhas.

-Lotus Sutra, Expedient Means Chapter

User avatar
jkarlins
Posts: 561
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2016 10:58 am
Location: Amesbury, MA USA

Re: Why plants don't have citta?

Post by jkarlins » Wed Aug 30, 2017 5:24 pm

mutsuk wrote:They don't, they are part of the chalices (snod) which are a support (rten) for sentient beings (brten, that which is supported). Conditioned existence is made up of chalices (snod, receptacle, i.e. universes) and elixirs (bcud, i.e. sentient beings). Plants belong to the chalices: they are living but not sentient. Please take the time to read the link to the Schmithausen book given previously, the author did a very nice work and it's really worth reading it.
whoahh fascinating thank you!

really interesting ideas there

Jake

User avatar
jkarlins
Posts: 561
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2016 10:58 am
Location: Amesbury, MA USA

Re: Why plants don't have citta?

Post by jkarlins » Wed Aug 30, 2017 5:58 pm

Queequeg wrote:Zhanran's Diamond Scalpel may be of interest... in it, Zhanran advances the Tiantai doctrine that insentients like plants and rocks, even whole environments, have Buddha Nature. While its not quite the same as saying they have citta, I think there is significant overlap, especially once we start considering increasingly subtle levels of "consciousness".

Below is a link to a dissertation synopsis on the Diamond Scalpel. I do not have a copy of this dissertation (but would like one!) I know that there is at least one other translation of the Diamond Scalpel, possibly two or more, floating around out there - I have a pdf of one and a vague recollection that I have another, but I don't have permission to publish.

http://doktori.btk.elte.hu/lingv/papmelinda/thesis.pdf
:D :D :D :D
so cool, thank you

mutsuk
Posts: 589
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2010 7:35 pm

Re: Why plants don't have citta?

Post by mutsuk » Wed Aug 30, 2017 6:11 pm

Queequeg wrote:...insentients like plants and rocks, even whole environments, have Buddha Nature. While its not quite the same as saying they have citta, I think there is significant overlap...
To have a Buddha Nature, you have to have a mind. Buddha Nature does not exist out there by itself as a force embrassing everything. It is the true essence of one's mind. In the Zhangzhung Nyengyü, there is a simile explaining that while ponds, lakes, etc., have an inherent dynamism (rtsal) or dynamic nature that enables them to reflect the moon shining in the sky on their surface, to thus giving rise to a "water-moon" (chu-zla, i.e. a reflection of the moon in water), rocks, etc., even though embraced by the light of the moon do not have any capacity to reflect it and therefore do not have any "water-moon". The insentient universe has no mind and therefore no capacity to reflect the nature of the mind. Without the intention of lightening again the strong debate between Indianists/Tibetologists on one side and Sinologists on the other side, I think that the tendency in Chinese Buddhism to state that Buddha Nature embraces inert matter implies a serious deviation (gol sa) from the correct understanding of such Buddha Nature...i.e. that when one says it embraces everything, it implies that it embraces everything within the mind or everything that arise to and within the mind. This reminds me of another debate about misunderstanding the concept of "khyab-rig" in Dzogchen which has similar issues...

User avatar
Queequeg
Global Moderator
Posts: 5423
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: Why plants don't have citta?

Post by Queequeg » Wed Aug 30, 2017 6:57 pm

mutsuk wrote:
Queequeg wrote:...insentients like plants and rocks, even whole environments, have Buddha Nature. While its not quite the same as saying they have citta, I think there is significant overlap...
To have a Buddha Nature, you have to have a mind. Buddha Nature does not exist out there by itself as a force embrassing everything. It is the true essence of one's mind. In the Zhangzhung Nyengyü, there is a simile explaining that while ponds, lakes, etc., have an inherent dynamism (rtsal) or dynamic nature that enables them to reflect the moon shining in the sky on their surface, to thus giving rise to a "water-moon" (chu-zla, i.e. a reflection of the moon in water), rocks, etc., even though embraced by the light of the moon do not have any capacity to reflect it and therefore do not have any "water-moon". The insentient universe has no mind and therefore no capacity to reflect the nature of the mind. Without the intention of lightening again the strong debate between Indianists/Tibetologists on one side and Sinologists on the other side, I think that the tendency in Chinese Buddhism to state that Buddha Nature embraces inert matter implies a serious deviation (gol sa) from the correct understanding of such Buddha Nature...i.e. that when one says it embraces everything, it implies that it embraces everything within the mind or everything that arise to and within the mind. This reminds me of another debate about misunderstanding the concept of "khyab-rig" in Dzogchen which has similar issues...
Yeah, Zhanran's argument does involve some stretching definitions. Its not the simplistic thing you make it out to be, though. It does have some interesting implications for what "mind" is.
Those who, even with distracted minds,
Entered a stupa compound
And chanted but once, “Namo Buddhaya!”
Have certainly attained the path of the buddhas.

-Lotus Sutra, Expedient Means Chapter

User avatar
dzogchungpa
Posts: 6166
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 10:50 pm

Re: Why plants don't have citta?

Post by dzogchungpa » Wed Aug 30, 2017 7:34 pm

mutsuk wrote:Buddha Nature does not exist out there by itself as a force embrassing everything...
Why would anyone be embarrassed by Buddha nature? Image
Everything is divided
Nothing is complete
Everything looks impressive
Do not be deceived - David Byrne

User avatar
Queequeg
Global Moderator
Posts: 5423
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: Why plants don't have citta?

Post by Queequeg » Wed Aug 30, 2017 7:38 pm

dzogchungpa wrote:
mutsuk wrote:Buddha Nature does not exist out there by itself as a force embrassing everything...
Why would anyone be embarrassed by Buddha nature?
I don't know, but your Buddha Nature is definitely showing.
Those who, even with distracted minds,
Entered a stupa compound
And chanted but once, “Namo Buddhaya!”
Have certainly attained the path of the buddhas.

-Lotus Sutra, Expedient Means Chapter

Post Reply

Return to “Discovering Mahayana Buddhism”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Heruka85, Karma Dondrup Tashi, mikenz66, Wayfarer and 16 guests