Plants

[Alexander Belousov]

Hi 
Why plants don't have karma?

[awacs]

Hi 
Why plants don't have karma?

Maybe they don't have a mind to collect a karma in a first place. 

And even if they did, what could they do? Pepper you with the leafs 

[Alexander Belousov]

But some plants can eat insects.

[awacs]

But some plants can eat insects.

Nice one 

Nope, some plants digest nitrates from animal sources. They do not have the intention to kill insects otherwise they wouldn't close themselves when you touch them with stick.   
If you think than intention doesn't meter, consider surgeon (doctor). Then he is collecting a terrible bad karma by cutting and breaking flesh and bones.

[waybackhome83]

Perhaps plants don't have karma because they have no consciousness, and therefore don't make any decision in regards to their actions, and therefore hold no responsibility for what they do.  A plant isn't egotistic, it doesn't have a mind, it is not - in the  sophisticated sense - a living being.

I think in the case of a surgeon, they wouldn't be collecting terrible karma by cutting into and breaking flesh; a surgeon's motivation lies in curing a person's ailments, which is done by the necessary means of cutting into a person's body.

Kind regards,
Sandy

[Alexander Belousov]

OK, thank you.

[Joey]

Rinpoche has mentioned recently that plants cannot generate karma or cannot be considered to have consciousness/as a living being because they lack the ability to know what is good or bad/positive and negative.

[GonzoEnder]

But plants bend themselves toward the light. Is this a simple chemical reaction? I've seen plants behave very intelligently, and come on, the fly trap has to be open for a debate on consciousness of some kind. They indicate self-preservation and adaptability and definite evolution. I have heard from a Buddhist source but have forgotten where, that spirits can live inside large trees also.

[awacs]

But plants bend themselves toward the light. Is this a simple chemical reaction?

I think so. Probably a biochemical reaction. Similar reaction occurs in your body when you move your hand away from fire. Your hand doesn't know it is hot, your brain sends electrical impulses to adequate area of hand, the cells of the muscle respond to particular impulses and the result is movement. However i don't know what mechanism exactly lies in the background, but i would not bet on consciousness.

I've seen plants behave very intelligently, and come on, the fly trap has to be open for a debate on consciousness of some kind. They indicate self-preservation and adaptability and definite evolution.

Seems to me that everything is always open for debate Yes i agree, there is a process of evolution of plants, adaptability and self-preservation mechanisms. But that is only a implication not a proof of consciousness. I myself look at the plants as a form of very sophisticated biological machines. Some are more advanced some less. That's it.

Problem with consciousness of the plant is its location. So where could be consciousness located. It could be inside or outside plant itself. If it is outside, than all the plants would bend themselves toward light and tried to hunt for insects, because they could just tap to the consciousness of any other plant. So if the consciousness of the plant is inside then it must be inside some part, or evenly distributed trough whole plant. If it is part of the plant, then by cutting of that part the rest of the plant would die or go crazy which is not always the case. Also if you cut only smaller parts or some of that conscious parts if there are many, the plant would get more stupid, and not react as fast as other healthy plants. Which is also not the case. Finally if brains are distributed evenly throughout whole plant, then the bigger is the plant, the smarter it would get. And vice versa. Which is also not the case.

I have heard from a Buddhist source but have forgotten where, that spirits can live inside large trees also.

Yes, they can live inside stones also. I've seen the video of a young 17'th Karmapa expelling spirits from one. Buddhas can also emanate as stones and plants. So it doesn't proof much. However if you believe in scriptural authority of Buddhism you will find that Buddha did find plants to be without consciousness.

I'm not an expert of course. This is just the way I see it, and it's open for debate.   

[waybackhome83]

Plant life is "programmed", if you like, to develop, grow, react according to its conditions.  It can't change its nature of being, purely because you need a level of consciousness in order to distinguish between positive and negative.

Fly traps will never have guilt trips, nor will they ever be able to debate on the pros and cons of vegetarianism, although to be fair, at least they don't wear leather.  They simply act as they are made to, without thought.

Sandy

[GonzoEnder]

You guys are making me do my homework!

Okay... Instead of taking 5 hours to research and write a good rebuttal to both your statements (which I view as equally flawed as mine, and definately open for debate ) I will cop-out with this quote from Sitthartha Gautama, "A young widower, who loved his five year old son very much, was away on business when bandits came who burned down the whole village and took his son away. When the man returned, he saw the ruins and panicked. The took the burnt corpse of an infant to be his son and cried uncontrollably. He organised a cremation ceremony, collected the ashes and put them in a beautiful little bag which he always kept with him.
Soon afterwards, his real son escaped from the bandits and found his way home. He arrived at his father's new cottage at midnight and knocked at the door. The father, still grieving asked: "Who is it?" The child answered, it is me papa, open the door!" But in his agitated state of mind, convinced his son was dead, the father thought that some young boy was making fun of him. He shouted: "Go away" and continued to cry. After some time, the child left. Father and son never saw each other again."  After this story, the Buddha said: "Sometime, somewhere, you take something to be the truth. If you cling to it so much, even when the truth comes in person and knocks on your door, you will not open it."

Keep an open mind! Can a single one of us go and inform someone so holy as The Dalai Lama of our miraculous scientific discovery on plant life? Our speculation could continue forever and it must end with a consolation open debate.

[awacs]

You guys are making me do my homework!

I am very sorry I didn't do your homework. It points out to serious lack in my perfections of effort and wisdom. Thank you, for pointing this up for me.   

Keep an open mind! Can a single one of us go and inform someone so holy as The Dalai Lama of our miraculous scientific discovery on plant life? Our speculation could continue forever and it must end with a consolation open debate.

Question is not are the plants alive or not. I think we can all agree on that. Question is are the plants capable of collecting a karma. Which is hard to imagine without consciousness and at least some  of sense basis. So if you have any suggestion it would be nice to hear them.   

[waybackhome83]

There is no real open debate on this.  Keeping an open mind is important regarding things which might be true, or are possible, regardless if that possibility is only slight at the current level of our own knowledge, and even if our knowledge rejects that possibility at this time.

Using the story, the father was obviously overwhelmed by grief and his mind so resolute in the "fact" that his son had died, and therefore, psychologically, he was unable to accept that he was the unfortunate victim of mix up and simple confusion, something that is easily explained by reason and logic.  The father's refusal to listen to and accept possible fact in favour of his own closed-mindedness on the situation left him and his son with the tragic consequence of never knowing each other again. 

In this example, the Buddha warns against being so attached to what we might perceive to be an absolute truth (i.e. in the father's case, that his son was absolutely dead and that there could be no mix up). 
To give a practical example, I don't really believe in possession, but I'm not entirely disbelieving of possession - I've just never had the experience of witnessing possession, or been convinced or confronted by pure evidence that suggests it's real.  However, just because I haven't experienced it, doesn't make it unreal: I've never been to Africa, but chances are it exists.

However...to keep an open mind on all things is futile.  You might as well never bang your fist on a table, or throw a table out just in case it creates negative karma for itself by coming after you for revenge!  I could keep an open mind that my dog might someday surprise me and play Moonlight Sonata on my piano, or that I could one day fly into space unaided and by some moon chips for lunch

Some things are simply black and white fact.  Not all things, but some.  One of those facts are that plants do not possess a consciousness and therefore, using inferential logic, cannot create positive or negative karma.  If plants did have a consciousness, they could somehow decide to change their "programming" and therefore their nature, but you will never find a single instance where you'll see a fly trap feeling guilty about its actions and as a result become a fully-fledged vege.  And even if it could, then that would spring up the argument that vegetarianism is just as "bad" as meat-eating, because by destroying and using/eating plants, vegetarians would, ironically, be taking part in the very thing they believe they avoid: the suffering of fellow beings, which would include plants if they had a consciousness, but plants don't have a consciousness, and therefore cannot distinguish between right and wrong and as a result don't have the means to create karma.

Kind regards,
Sandy

[GonzoEnder]

There is no real open debate on this.  Keeping an open mind is important regarding things which [might be true, or are possible], regardless if that possibility is only slight at the current level of our own knowledge, and even if our knowledge rejects that possibility at this time.

Good open mind somewhere...

Question is not are the plants alive or not. I think we can all agree on that. Question is are the plants capable of collecting a karma.

Perhaps plants are the RESULT of karma and not the CAUSE.

"Karma and its result are infallible. They are like a seed and its fruit. If you plant the seed of a sweet fruit such as an orange, it will grow as an orange tree and produce oranges. The result of a sweet fruit is health, if you plant its seed. If you plant a poisonous seed, it will produce poisonous fruit, and its result will be painful or even life threatening."
--http://www.kagyu.org/kagyulineage/buddhism/dha/dha02.php--

 Sounds very good for those who DO only good... sounds like a mixed bag for an intoxicant imbibing, dharma-wannabee like me.

Still... Not doing my proper homework... Perhaps I must concede agreement... That's no fun for those who read, and wish to learn from our debate, however.

[awacs]

Perhaps plants are the RESULT of karma and not the CAUSE.

Whose result to be exact? The mindstream of a being which is now plant, the mindstream of a being eating it, both or neither? If there is a mindstream beneath the plant, and if that mindstream is perceiving itself as a plant, then it could be only as a result of particular  karma of that same mindstream. But that would imply that that same mindstream is actually capable of collecting a new karma, and would make this plant karma question redundant.

Consider a body of a high lama. Is that body projection of his or your karma, both or neither. If you say that it is his or karma of both of you, then how could you explain for a dead body of that lama. After his mindstream has left this body your perception of that body should simultaneously disappear. And fi you say that it is neither karma, than you actually denied that law of karma exists. So every single thing you perceive is actually projection of your own karma. So plant definitely is result of your karma. And yes, every result is simultaneously also a cause.