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.
User avatar
Tiago Simões
Posts: 928
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2014 8:41 pm
Location: Portugal

Re: Why plants don't have citta?

Post by Tiago Simões » Thu Aug 31, 2017 3:44 pm

Losal Samten wrote:
tiagolps wrote:Would Guru Rinpoche be saying that a buddha can manifest as a rock or a tree?
Manifesting (as) objects to help people is one of the three kinds of nirmanakaya; the typical examples being bridges, texts, etc.

Such manifestations don't require ordinary objects to be sentient, just a buddha which manifests and another mind that perceives it.
Ohh didn't remeber that, thanks :smile: , I went and looked for the kinds of nirmanakaya.
1. Nirmanakaya through birth, such as our teacher taking birth in the heaven of Tushita as the son of the gods, Dampa Tok Karpo.
2. Supreme nirmanakaya (Skt. uttamanirmāṇakāya; Tib. མཆོག་གི་སྤྲུལ་སྐུ་, Wyl. mchog gi sprul sku), such as Shakyamuni Buddha who displayed the twelve deeds here in Jambudvipa.
3. Diverse nirmanakaya (Skt. janmanirmāṇakāya; Tib. སྐྱེ་བ་སྤྲུལ་སྐུ, Wyl. skye ba sprul sku) that manifest in order to tame various beings from Indra to a young girl.
4. Craft nirmanakaya (Skt. śilpinnirmāṇakāya; Tib. བཟོ་བོ་སྤྲུལ་སྐུ་, Wyl. bzo bo sprul sku) such as the manifestation of the lute player in order to tame the gandharva Rabga, and as good food, bridges, pleasure gardens, and islands, as well as sculpted forms, paintings, woven images and cast metal statues

User avatar
treehuggingoctopus
Posts: 1562
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 6:26 pm
Location: Mudhole? Slimy? My home, this is.

Re: Why plants don't have citta?

Post by treehuggingoctopus » Thu Aug 31, 2017 4:37 pm

Javierfv1212 wrote:If memory serves me right Gendün Chöphel argued that they did, even though it is considered a Jain view
Lopez mentions it here:

https://books.google.pl/books?id=M1rTNR ... ts&f=false

Is it actually true? Are any of the texts in which Gendun Chophel probes the matter available in English?
. . . there they saw a rock! But it wasn't a rock . . .

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 28040
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Why plants don't have citta?

Post by Malcolm » Thu Aug 31, 2017 4:44 pm

mutsuk wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
mutsuk wrote: Insentients having a Buddha Nature is already gone way too far. Far outside Buddhism actually.
There is however the inconvenient statement by Padmasambhava in the Khandro Nyinthig rgyab chos where he declares that the distinction between the sentient and the insentient is not to be believed, and that it in fact disappears when one attains rainbow body. FWIIW.
You mean the passage about bem (inert whatever) and rig (awareness) are seen as dual, constituting a wrong view? If yes, it's clear bem is referring here to the body. If not, can you give the quote (in tibetan)?
Yes, that is the quote. But I do not think bem here strictly refers to only the body. I would have to look at the Tibetan again. It basically states that it seems like like they are different, but that this is not to be believed.

M
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


[A]nything at all that is well spoken is the word of the Buddha.

-- Ārya-adhyāśaya-sañcodana-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

-- Samadhirāja Sūtra

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

Re: Why plants don't have citta?

Post by mutsuk » Thu Aug 31, 2017 6:47 pm

Malcolm wrote:
mutsuk wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
There is however the inconvenient statement by Padmasambhava in the Khandro Nyinthig rgyab chos where he declares that the distinction between the sentient and the insentient is not to be believed, and that it in fact disappears when one attains rainbow body. FWIIW.
You mean the passage about bem (inert whatever) and rig (awareness) are seen as dual, constituting a wrong view? If yes, it's clear bem is referring here to the body. If not, can you give the quote (in tibetan)?
Yes, that is the quote. But I do not think bem here strictly refers to only the body. I would have to look at the Tibetan again. It basically states that it seems like like they are different, but that this is not to be believed.

M
This is the passage from the KNT I think :

'o na sku dang ye shes ni stong gsal ci'i ngo bor yang ma grub cing skye shi dang bral la rgyus bskyed pa'i phung po 'di 'jig pa: gong gi mtshan nyid dang 'gal lo snyam na de ni ma go ba yin te rig pa stong nyid gsal ba'i gnad de ma shes pas der 'dzin 'byung ba lnga byung zhing de'i dangs ma la rgyu'i thig le: de la lus byung de la ye shes kyi rtsal dbang po sgo lnga byung : de la yul lnga byung de la 'dzin pa lngas nyon mongs pa lnga: de thog ma'i ye shes kyi rtsal gyis bskyed nas: bar du 'byung ba 'dus pa'i dangs ma'i lus kyang ye shes lnga dngos su yod pa ma shes: yid dpyod kyi lta ba las ma rtogs pas bem rig gnyis su snang ste: yid ma ches so: 'dir thog ma yang ye shes lnga dngos: bar du yang ma rig pa der 'dzin gyis 'byung ba 'dus nas lus grub pa'i dus na'ang ye shes lnga dngos: phung po: dbang po: nyon mongs lnga yang ye shes lnga dngos: tha ma yang de nyid dngos su rtogs pas spang blang dgag sgrub kyi mtha' las 'das pas de ltar bla ma'i man ngag gi shes pas bem rig gnyis su med de gcig pa'i gnad kyis zag bcas med par ye shes su yal 'gro ba ni gnyis su med pa'i rtags so:

I will try to translate that back to English from JL's french translation, although I think there is already the version by Erik Fry-Miller which must be readily available (that would same me time!)

User avatar
CedarTree
Posts: 556
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 10:13 pm

Re: Why plants don't have citta?

Post by CedarTree » Thu Aug 31, 2017 9:27 pm

Malcolm wrote:
mutsuk wrote: Insentients having a Buddha Nature is already gone way too far. Far outside Buddhism actually.
There is however the inconvenient statement by Padmasambhava in the Khandro Nyinthig rgyab chos where he declares that the distinction between the sentient and the insentient is not to be believed, and that it in fact disappears when one attains rainbow body. FWIIW.
I had an experience yesterday in a "kind of" retreat at a quiet lake.

I am not sure I think sentience and insentience are the things we think they are. The distinction does seem to fall away in emptiness. *NOT CLAIMING BUDDHAHOOD!*

Practice, Practice, Practice

User avatar
Queequeg
Global Moderator
Posts: 5722
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: Why plants don't have citta?

Post by Queequeg » Thu Aug 31, 2017 10:14 pm

Malcolm wrote: FWIIW.
Just noticed this. It threw me for a sec, because people usually write FWIW. But that's what it should be without the contraction. [/quote]
Malcolm wrote:
Queequeg wrote:
Hongaku is usually translated into English as "Original Enlightenment" and is a strain of thought that emerged in Japanese Buddhism where it was believed no effort on the path is necessary because we are already enlightened.

Definitely a wrong view, even in Dzogchen.
Its definitely not a widely popular view. There was a scholastic movement in the last few decades to purge Hongaku out of Japanese Buddhism styled, "Critical Buddhism". Its one of those things that mean a lot to a few people.
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

I think each human being has things to find out in his own life that are inescapable. They’ll find them out the easy way or the hard way, or whatever.
-Jerry Garcia

User avatar
Tiago Simões
Posts: 928
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2014 8:41 pm
Location: Portugal

Re: Why plants don't have citta?

Post by Tiago Simões » Thu Aug 31, 2017 10:20 pm

Queequeg wrote:
Its definitely not a widely popular view. There was a scholastic movement in the last few decades to purge Hongaku out of Japanese Buddhism styled, "Critical Buddhism". Its one of those things that mean a lot to a few people.
They seemed to oppose the doctrine of Tathagatagarbha altogether.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_Buddhism

User avatar
Queequeg
Global Moderator
Posts: 5722
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: Why plants don't have citta?

Post by Queequeg » Thu Aug 31, 2017 10:27 pm

Yeah, its been a while since I was up on the subject. My recollection is they would like to reset Mahayana Buddhism back to Nagarjuna's Mulamadhyamikakarika. I don't think they are particularly keen on Yogacara.
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

I think each human being has things to find out in his own life that are inescapable. They’ll find them out the easy way or the hard way, or whatever.
-Jerry Garcia

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 28040
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Why plants don't have citta?

Post by Malcolm » Fri Sep 01, 2017 4:12 am

mutsuk wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
mutsuk wrote: You mean the passage about bem (inert whatever) and rig (awareness) are seen as dual, constituting a wrong view? If yes, it's clear bem is referring here to the body. If not, can you give the quote (in tibetan)?
Yes, that is the quote. But I do not think bem here strictly refers to only the body. I would have to look at the Tibetan again. It basically states that it seems like like they are different, but that this is not to be believed.

M
This is the passage from the KNT I think :

'o na sku dang ye shes ni stong gsal ci'i ngo bor yang ma grub cing skye shi dang bral la rgyus bskyed pa'i phung po 'di 'jig pa: gong gi mtshan nyid dang 'gal lo snyam na de ni ma go ba yin te rig pa stong nyid gsal ba'i gnad de ma shes pas der 'dzin 'byung ba lnga byung zhing de'i dangs ma la rgyu'i thig le: de la lus byung de la ye shes kyi rtsal dbang po sgo lnga byung : de la yul lnga byung de la 'dzin pa lngas nyon mongs pa lnga: de thog ma'i ye shes kyi rtsal gyis bskyed nas: bar du 'byung ba 'dus pa'i dangs ma'i lus kyang ye shes lnga dngos su yod pa ma shes: yid dpyod kyi lta ba las ma rtogs pas bem rig gnyis su snang ste: yid ma ches so: 'dir thog ma yang ye shes lnga dngos: bar du yang ma rig pa der 'dzin gyis 'byung ba 'dus nas lus grub pa'i dus na'ang ye shes lnga dngos: phung po: dbang po: nyon mongs lnga yang ye shes lnga dngos: tha ma yang de nyid dngos su rtogs pas spang blang dgag sgrub kyi mtha' las 'das pas de ltar bla ma'i man ngag gi shes pas bem rig gnyis su med de gcig pa'i gnad kyis zag bcas med par ye shes su yal 'gro ba ni gnyis su med pa'i rtags so:

I will try to translate that back to English from JL's french translation, although I think there is already the version by Erik Fry-Miller which must be readily available (that would same me time!)
Not necessary, this is passage in question and you are right. On the other hand padmasambhava also makes the point earlier with respect to the conditioned rgyu thig le that all perception of the five elements comes from misperceptions of the five lights.
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


[A]nything at all that is well spoken is the word of the Buddha.

-- Ārya-adhyāśaya-sañcodana-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

-- Samadhirāja Sūtra

ItsRaining
Posts: 233
Joined: Fri May 12, 2017 7:45 am

Re: Why plants don't have citta?

Post by ItsRaining » Sun Sep 03, 2017 2:32 am

Queequeg wrote:Hongaku is usually translated into English as "Original Enlightenment" and is a strain of thought that emerged in Japanese Buddhism where it was believed no effort on the path is necessary because we are already enlightened.
Hongaku (Or Ben Jue as I like it :tongue:) does not mean that no effort on the path is necerssary or at least outside of Japanese Buddhism. Many Chan and Hua Yan masters will adhere to the Original Enlightenment doctrine but none will say that the oath doesn't need to be cultivated. The easiest example would probably be Northern Chan (Shen Xiu) that taught
All sentient beings all originally have the nature of Relisation, just as a mirror has the nature of brightness. Covered by the various afflictions this nature is unseen just as a mirror layered with dust. If one follows the teachings of the Master (Shen Xiu) eliminating deluded thoughts, once such thoughts have been ended the nature of the mind is Enlightenment. Nothing is not know, just as wiping away the dusts on a mirror once it's all gone the mirrors body pure and luminous and nothing is not shined (Alternative meaning being reflected) upon. Thus the the Norhtern school's leader Master Shen Xiu told the Fifth Ancestor in a gatha: The body is a Bodhi Tree, the Mind is a luminous Mirror's stand, constantly wiping it, do not allow it to gather dust.
-Gui Feng Zong Mi in the 中华传心地禅门师资承袭图, Zhong Hua Chuan Xin Di Chan Men Zi Cheng Xi Tu.


北宗意者。众生本有觉性。如镜有明性。烦恼覆之不见。如镜有尘暗。若依师言教。息灭妄念。念尽则心性觉悟。无所不知。如磨拂昏尘。尘尽则镜体明净。无所不照。故彼宗主神秀大师呈五祖偈云。

 身是菩提树心如明镜台时时须拂拭。
 莫遣有尘埃

User avatar
Invokingvajras
Posts: 84
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2017 5:11 am
Location: Portland, OR
Contact:

Re: Why plants don't have citta?

Post by Invokingvajras » Mon Sep 04, 2017 8:45 am

From textual descriptions, it always seemed as though it's not the plant itself that has sentience, but rather that it functions as an embodiment or hub for the entities that ARE sentient. Yakshas and rukṣa devas would most definitely fit the bill. In the same way, a flower's fragrance, a waft of incense smoke, and a bolt of lightning, or a rainbow upon an eclipse can serve as incredibly awe-inspiring phenomena. As "citta" is such an emotive aspect of the human experience, it wouldn't be difficult to imagine that these sorts of worldly manifestations are just some of a myriad of potential expressions for sentience, all of which are still subject to rebirth.
Spiraling Down the Middle Path

♒⚡~若悩乱者頭破七分~⚡♑

Anonymous X
Posts: 813
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2017 11:43 am
Location: Bangkok

Re: Why plants don't have citta?

Post by Anonymous X » Mon Sep 04, 2017 1:33 pm

ItsRaining wrote:
Queequeg wrote:Hongaku is usually translated into English as "Original Enlightenment" and is a strain of thought that emerged in Japanese Buddhism where it was believed no effort on the path is necessary because we are already enlightened.
Hongaku (Or Ben Jue as I like it :tongue:) does not mean that no effort on the path is necerssary or at least outside of Japanese Buddhism. Many Chan and Hua Yan masters will adhere to the Original Enlightenment doctrine but none will say that the oath doesn't need to be cultivated. The easiest example would probably be Northern Chan (Shen Xiu) that taught
All sentient beings all originally have the nature of Relisation, just as a mirror has the nature of brightness. Covered by the various afflictions this nature is unseen just as a mirror layered with dust. If one follows the teachings of the Master (Shen Xiu) eliminating deluded thoughts, once such thoughts have been ended the nature of the mind is Enlightenment. Nothing is not know, just as wiping away the dusts on a mirror once it's all gone the mirrors body pure and luminous and nothing is not shined (Alternative meaning being reflected) upon. Thus the the Norhtern school's leader Master Shen Xiu told the Fifth Ancestor in a gatha: The body is a Bodhi Tree, the Mind is a luminous Mirror's stand, constantly wiping it, do not allow it to gather dust.
-Gui Feng Zong Mi in the 中华传心地禅门师资承袭图, Zhong Hua Chuan Xin Di Chan Men Zi Cheng Xi Tu.


北宗意者。众生本有觉性。如镜有明性。烦恼覆之不见。如镜有尘暗。若依师言教。息灭妄念。念尽则心性觉悟。无所不知。如磨拂昏尘。尘尽则镜体明净。无所不照。故彼宗主神秀大师呈五祖偈云。

 身是菩提树心如明镜台时时须拂拭。
 莫遣有尘埃
Just to set the record striaght, your quote of Shen Xiu is exactly why the 5th patriarch did not pass on the robe and bowl to Shen Xiu, but instead, passed it on to Huineng who wrote the following verse which earned him Hongren's (5th patriarch) Dharma seal:

Bodhi is fundamentally not a tree
The bright mirror is also not a stand
Fundamentally there is not a single thing
Where could any dust be attracted


To go a little further, there is also historic controversy whether Shen Xiu and Huineng were ever together at the same time at Hongren's temple. And, whether Huineng ever composed the Platform Sutra where this story appears. Some think it was Shenhui, the dharma heir of Huineng who composed it.

ItsRaining
Posts: 233
Joined: Fri May 12, 2017 7:45 am

Re: Why plants don't have citta?

Post by ItsRaining » Tue Sep 05, 2017 5:55 am

Anonymous X wrote:Bodhi is fundamentally not a tree
The bright mirror is also not a stand
Fundamentally there is not a single thing
Where could any dust be attracted


To go a little further, there is also historic controversy whether Shen Xiu and Huineng were ever together at the same time at Hongren's temple. And, whether Huineng ever composed the Platform Sutra where this story appears. Some think it was Shenhui, the dharma heir of Huineng who composed it.
I know that, Zong Mi all gives his critic of the Northern School later in the text.
This only the appearance of tainted and pure origination, the practice of going against the stream. It does not realise that delusional thoughts are originally empty and the mind's nature is originally pure, enlightenment is not complete how could the pratice be called real.
 评曰。此但是染净缘起之相。反流背习之门。而不觉妄念本空。心性本净。悟既未彻。修岂称真

Post Reply

Return to “Discovering Mahayana Buddhism”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests