Why plants don't have citta?

[pael]

Why plants don't have citta? Why they don't transmigrate?

[Aryjna]

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]

Why plants don't have citta? Why they don't transmigrate?

Why do you say they don't have?

According to Korean monk.

[Losal Samten]

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.

[Javierfv1212]

If memory serves me right Gendün Chöphel argued that they did, even though it is considered a Jain view

[odysseus]

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.

[Javierfv1212]

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

[jkarlins]

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]

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]

Good question I think plants do have souls or citta

[mutsuk]

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.

[ThreeVows]

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?

[Aryjna]

"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.

[Queequeg]

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

[jkarlins]

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

[jkarlins]

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

so cool, thank you

[mutsuk]

...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...

[Queequeg]

...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.

[dzogchungpa]

Buddha Nature does not exist out there by itself as a force embrassing everything...

Why would anyone be embarrassed by Buddha nature?

[Queequeg]

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.