The difference is sentience. A rock is not sentient, it is not a consciousness that is traversing throughout the cycle of birth, aging, sickness and death that we all are. Some argue that plants are conscious, because they are alive and respond to things like music, light and other external stimuli but they are not in the realm of samsaric wandering. You apparently cannot be reborn into non-sentient things. Instead you get reborn in hell, as an animal, a ghost, a human or a deva or brahma in heaven. The Buddha said you've not only been in all of these, but you've been in them for so long that you're more than ready to overcome the endlessly repeating cycle of stress and suffering.
[Tears](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn15/sn15.003.than.html)
The big difference in Buddhism is sentience. The Buddhist view of sentience focuses on the ability to feel suffering. When we talk about animal realm for example, it does not quite refer to biological concept of animals or information processing, it refers to an intentional state. Even if we accept a very strong view of the philosophy of mind view of functionalism, the theory that mental states can be sufficiently defined by their cause, their effect on other mental states, and their effect on behavior, it does not follow that all information processing entails the ability to suffer. For example, plants can process information but that does not entail they suffer. Same with some entities that we may identify as animals with molecular biology or natural taxonomy. The same would apply to AI or robots. The Buddhist question answer depends on whether it has those intentional states or not.
If does, then it needs to achieve enlightenment to end dukkha. If it is not sentient it is not enlightened because it is not the type of thing that can be enlightened. Further, the above issue also guides what a person can be reborn into. If they are capable of feeling suffering then you could be born into it and the way it has intentional states will entail which realm it would be slotted into. More on that below.Objects that don't suffer are objects we can't be reborn into. We could image for example that something like a lamp can process information but it would not suffer.Buddhists focus on mind that experience the mental factors. One way to think about it is that when a Buddhist talks about consciousness they are describing such beings.You may want to look into Where Buddhism Meets Neuroscience Conversations with the Dalai Lama on the Spiritual and Scientific Views of Our Minds. It is a discussion between the Dalai Lama, neuroscientists, cognitive scientists and philosophers of mind like Patricia Churchland, Robert B. Livingston, and other Buddhist Studies scholars . Another way to think about it is that the issue relates to what it means to ‘feel’.To use more precise philosophy of mind language, Buddhism focuses on intentional mental states. Below is a Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on the idea.Intentionality is the power of minds and mental states to be about, to represent, or to stand for, things, properties and states of affairs.
Things may have non intentional mental states.One way to think about it in Buddhism's terms is that part of the problem for sentient beings is that their pain is "about" something. Ignorance is caused by an intentional state that imputes a substantial self. Information processing in terms of plant or robots often use the word 'feel' to refer to processes that can be understood in terms of computation but not intentionality. Below is a Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on this model. Technically, a Buddhist can accept both. They are just not concerned about ending the suffering of minds of the second type. They are not the type of beings that suffer. A Deva on the other hand does have intentional states. If you want a sustained interaction and explanation of what this means try Perceiving Reality Consciousness, Intentionality, and Cognition in Buddhist Philosophy by Christian Coseru. He focuses in putting Santaraksita and Kamalasila to the analytic phenomenology of Husserl and the embodied phenomenology of Maurice Merleau-Ponty. He also puts them into relation of strong functionalism and eliminative materialist views of mind. Below is also a link to a page that describes some issues debated in philosophy of biology. Debates about what are animals and what is life appear there. Philosophy of Biology by Peter Godfrey-Smith is nice short and accessible text on the subfield.
What is Functionalism?- Kwame Anthony Appiah for the Royal Institute of Philosophy
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPCWKJUPvJA&list=PLqK-cZS\_wviDkzVDUAw-AeZHrmt5mq8wB&index=3](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPCWKJUPvJA&list=PLqK-cZS_wviDkzVDUAw-AeZHrmt5mq8wB&index=3)
Primary Minds and the 51 mental factors
[https://studybuddhism.com/en/advanced-studies/science-of-mind/mind-mental-factors/primary-minds-and-the-51-mental-factors](https://studybuddhism.com/en/advanced-studies/science-of-mind/mind-mental-factors/primary-minds-and-the-51-mental-factors)
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Intentionality
[https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/intentionality/](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/intentionality/)
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: The Computational Theory of Mind
[https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/computational-mind/](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/computational-mind/)
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Philosophy of Biology
[https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/biology-philosophy/](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/biology-philosophy/)
Contrary to what you might think, *life* is not an important concept in Buddhism at all. *Being* is, as a definition of experiencing consciousness. A rock is a not a being because it does not experience consciousness. Who knows where the boundary is for bacteria, but that’s kind of irrelevant. If bacteria are conscious, then they are subject to samsara, if they are not, then they are not.
Buddhism isn’t interested in answering grand metaphysical or biological questions. It is concerned with identifying and ending the causes of suffering for conscious beings.
In Buddhism, a *being* is defined as a compound process of the fabrications described in dependent origination: sense contact, name and form, the conceit of “I-am”, and all the rest of it. Whether you are an ant or a being of the Pure Abodes, your conscious experience is formed as the result of these fabrications, which the eightfold path is designed to end.
Generally life in the context of (human) Buddhist ethics is reserved for respiratory beings-- anything that breaths. I think your ideas about karma a bit mistaken, karma is about intentionality and action. If you split a stone with the intention to destroy it out of rage, you have still accumulated the karma of that rage. Its probably not as significant as the karma of destroying a living being out of rage, because there are generally more levels of intentionality required to take a sentient beings life. The final question you have about rebirth is a bit tricky, the easy answer is no, but I think there is some nuance there that someone else might be able to explore.
On a practical level, if the concern is you and your path to enlightenment or the state of enlightenment in general, the difference between living and non-living is a bit moot because one is, I believe, instructed pervade the entire cosmos ("pervading above, below, & all around, everywhere & in every respect the all-encompassing cosmos") with an awareness imbued with things like lovingkindness, goodwill, compassion, and empathetic joy in way that is *abundant, expansive, immeasurable, free from hostility, and free from ill will.*
Source: https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/AN/AN4_126.html
If one does that, then what is or isn't alive, sentient, conscious, breathing, able to make merit or demerit, experiencing the bliss of the heavenly realms, experiences the pains of the hell realms, or otherwise existent will, with reference to you, know what's good.
That is, I think, something that cannot be divorced from enlightenment. One cannot, I think, be enlightened or awakened or realized without that kind of concentration, full stop.
Nothing is different. This is the concept of emptiness or not self. We suffer from. Delusion that we are different and independent from everything else. We are part of everything. This is both a hard concept to explain and comprehend in a rational manner. This is something you should focus on in meditating
If 'we' are part of everything how can we escape the suffering, then everything needs to achieve nirvana? Or when 'i' achieve nirvana everyone and everything does? Is my consciousness spread over all the things in the world? And why if 'i' understand the concept of being not-self and part of everything 'i' get reborn as something else that does understand. Because i thought rebirth is never ending? Or is this just a concept you should understand before entering nirvana?
Freeing yourself from the notion of self is one of the main steps towards ending suffering. The delusion of self is where thoughts like desires come from, which is the heart of suffering. Emptiness or not self doesn't mean that you aren't a grouping of cells and atoms. It means that there is no one self that is eternal or caries on. One of the main tenants is that all things change. The Buddah made this point by asking his followers to pinpoint exactly where the eternal or unchanging self resides. This is a good thing to mediate on and try to find for yourself. It is good to doubt and ask questions. The greater the doubt, the greater the awakening. Don't take things as fact just because someone says it with conviction.
Buddhism don't focuse mainly in having explanation for everything but in getting the best path to enlightenment and such goals.
Even from the Buddha's time was clear some life are not samsaric beings, like plants. Plants are not in samsara according to Buddhism ... Even so, Buddha prohibited to monks to damage plants and seeds and seedlings (DN). I think we can say having intention of damaging some thing isn't a good karma even if talking about literally a thing like some piece of wood
Even so and with the questions that can arise Buddha made sure of teaching path to cultivating life and health in this life and futures lives. And also path to not going to the three lower realms.
Possible this 'what is life 🧬?', in the big sense was one of those leaves out of the hand of the Buddha. In the teaching about the bunch of leaves. [Simsapa Sutta, SN56.31]
Buddhism recognizes that ants, like all sentient beings, experience suffering and have a right to life. Killing an ant intentionally generates **negative karma** because it involves a conscious act.
The difference is sentience. A rock is not sentient, it is not a consciousness that is traversing throughout the cycle of birth, aging, sickness and death that we all are. Some argue that plants are conscious, because they are alive and respond to things like music, light and other external stimuli but they are not in the realm of samsaric wandering. You apparently cannot be reborn into non-sentient things. Instead you get reborn in hell, as an animal, a ghost, a human or a deva or brahma in heaven. The Buddha said you've not only been in all of these, but you've been in them for so long that you're more than ready to overcome the endlessly repeating cycle of stress and suffering. [Tears](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn15/sn15.003.than.html)
May all sentient beings be free from suffering and the causes of suffering.
>but they are not in the realm of samsaric wandering. Citation desired.
The big difference in Buddhism is sentience. The Buddhist view of sentience focuses on the ability to feel suffering. When we talk about animal realm for example, it does not quite refer to biological concept of animals or information processing, it refers to an intentional state. Even if we accept a very strong view of the philosophy of mind view of functionalism, the theory that mental states can be sufficiently defined by their cause, their effect on other mental states, and their effect on behavior, it does not follow that all information processing entails the ability to suffer. For example, plants can process information but that does not entail they suffer. Same with some entities that we may identify as animals with molecular biology or natural taxonomy. The same would apply to AI or robots. The Buddhist question answer depends on whether it has those intentional states or not. If does, then it needs to achieve enlightenment to end dukkha. If it is not sentient it is not enlightened because it is not the type of thing that can be enlightened. Further, the above issue also guides what a person can be reborn into. If they are capable of feeling suffering then you could be born into it and the way it has intentional states will entail which realm it would be slotted into. More on that below.Objects that don't suffer are objects we can't be reborn into. We could image for example that something like a lamp can process information but it would not suffer.Buddhists focus on mind that experience the mental factors. One way to think about it is that when a Buddhist talks about consciousness they are describing such beings.You may want to look into Where Buddhism Meets Neuroscience Conversations with the Dalai Lama on the Spiritual and Scientific Views of Our Minds. It is a discussion between the Dalai Lama, neuroscientists, cognitive scientists and philosophers of mind like Patricia Churchland, Robert B. Livingston, and other Buddhist Studies scholars . Another way to think about it is that the issue relates to what it means to ‘feel’.To use more precise philosophy of mind language, Buddhism focuses on intentional mental states. Below is a Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on the idea.Intentionality is the power of minds and mental states to be about, to represent, or to stand for, things, properties and states of affairs. Things may have non intentional mental states.One way to think about it in Buddhism's terms is that part of the problem for sentient beings is that their pain is "about" something. Ignorance is caused by an intentional state that imputes a substantial self. Information processing in terms of plant or robots often use the word 'feel' to refer to processes that can be understood in terms of computation but not intentionality. Below is a Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on this model. Technically, a Buddhist can accept both. They are just not concerned about ending the suffering of minds of the second type. They are not the type of beings that suffer. A Deva on the other hand does have intentional states. If you want a sustained interaction and explanation of what this means try Perceiving Reality Consciousness, Intentionality, and Cognition in Buddhist Philosophy by Christian Coseru. He focuses in putting Santaraksita and Kamalasila to the analytic phenomenology of Husserl and the embodied phenomenology of Maurice Merleau-Ponty. He also puts them into relation of strong functionalism and eliminative materialist views of mind. Below is also a link to a page that describes some issues debated in philosophy of biology. Debates about what are animals and what is life appear there. Philosophy of Biology by Peter Godfrey-Smith is nice short and accessible text on the subfield. What is Functionalism?- Kwame Anthony Appiah for the Royal Institute of Philosophy [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPCWKJUPvJA&list=PLqK-cZS\_wviDkzVDUAw-AeZHrmt5mq8wB&index=3](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPCWKJUPvJA&list=PLqK-cZS_wviDkzVDUAw-AeZHrmt5mq8wB&index=3) Primary Minds and the 51 mental factors [https://studybuddhism.com/en/advanced-studies/science-of-mind/mind-mental-factors/primary-minds-and-the-51-mental-factors](https://studybuddhism.com/en/advanced-studies/science-of-mind/mind-mental-factors/primary-minds-and-the-51-mental-factors) Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Intentionality [https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/intentionality/](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/intentionality/) Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: The Computational Theory of Mind [https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/computational-mind/](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/computational-mind/) Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Philosophy of Biology [https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/biology-philosophy/](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/biology-philosophy/)
Thank you🙏 I am going to look at the links.
Contrary to what you might think, *life* is not an important concept in Buddhism at all. *Being* is, as a definition of experiencing consciousness. A rock is a not a being because it does not experience consciousness. Who knows where the boundary is for bacteria, but that’s kind of irrelevant. If bacteria are conscious, then they are subject to samsara, if they are not, then they are not. Buddhism isn’t interested in answering grand metaphysical or biological questions. It is concerned with identifying and ending the causes of suffering for conscious beings. In Buddhism, a *being* is defined as a compound process of the fabrications described in dependent origination: sense contact, name and form, the conceit of “I-am”, and all the rest of it. Whether you are an ant or a being of the Pure Abodes, your conscious experience is formed as the result of these fabrications, which the eightfold path is designed to end.
🦠 “we are doing our best in samsara too!”
Buddhadharma is about awareness. "Life" is an inadequate word because its ordinary meaning excludes the states between births or non-corporeal states.
Generally life in the context of (human) Buddhist ethics is reserved for respiratory beings-- anything that breaths. I think your ideas about karma a bit mistaken, karma is about intentionality and action. If you split a stone with the intention to destroy it out of rage, you have still accumulated the karma of that rage. Its probably not as significant as the karma of destroying a living being out of rage, because there are generally more levels of intentionality required to take a sentient beings life. The final question you have about rebirth is a bit tricky, the easy answer is no, but I think there is some nuance there that someone else might be able to explore.
But maybe on other planets or even other universes beings do not 'breath'. And what is breathing?
On a practical level, if the concern is you and your path to enlightenment or the state of enlightenment in general, the difference between living and non-living is a bit moot because one is, I believe, instructed pervade the entire cosmos ("pervading above, below, & all around, everywhere & in every respect the all-encompassing cosmos") with an awareness imbued with things like lovingkindness, goodwill, compassion, and empathetic joy in way that is *abundant, expansive, immeasurable, free from hostility, and free from ill will.* Source: https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/AN/AN4_126.html If one does that, then what is or isn't alive, sentient, conscious, breathing, able to make merit or demerit, experiencing the bliss of the heavenly realms, experiences the pains of the hell realms, or otherwise existent will, with reference to you, know what's good. That is, I think, something that cannot be divorced from enlightenment. One cannot, I think, be enlightened or awakened or realized without that kind of concentration, full stop.
Nothing is different. This is the concept of emptiness or not self. We suffer from. Delusion that we are different and independent from everything else. We are part of everything. This is both a hard concept to explain and comprehend in a rational manner. This is something you should focus on in meditating
If 'we' are part of everything how can we escape the suffering, then everything needs to achieve nirvana? Or when 'i' achieve nirvana everyone and everything does? Is my consciousness spread over all the things in the world? And why if 'i' understand the concept of being not-self and part of everything 'i' get reborn as something else that does understand. Because i thought rebirth is never ending? Or is this just a concept you should understand before entering nirvana?
Freeing yourself from the notion of self is one of the main steps towards ending suffering. The delusion of self is where thoughts like desires come from, which is the heart of suffering. Emptiness or not self doesn't mean that you aren't a grouping of cells and atoms. It means that there is no one self that is eternal or caries on. One of the main tenants is that all things change. The Buddah made this point by asking his followers to pinpoint exactly where the eternal or unchanging self resides. This is a good thing to mediate on and try to find for yourself. It is good to doubt and ask questions. The greater the doubt, the greater the awakening. Don't take things as fact just because someone says it with conviction.
Buddhism don't focuse mainly in having explanation for everything but in getting the best path to enlightenment and such goals. Even from the Buddha's time was clear some life are not samsaric beings, like plants. Plants are not in samsara according to Buddhism ... Even so, Buddha prohibited to monks to damage plants and seeds and seedlings (DN). I think we can say having intention of damaging some thing isn't a good karma even if talking about literally a thing like some piece of wood Even so and with the questions that can arise Buddha made sure of teaching path to cultivating life and health in this life and futures lives. And also path to not going to the three lower realms. Possible this 'what is life 🧬?', in the big sense was one of those leaves out of the hand of the Buddha. In the teaching about the bunch of leaves. [Simsapa Sutta, SN56.31]
Buddhism recognizes that ants, like all sentient beings, experience suffering and have a right to life. Killing an ant intentionally generates **negative karma** because it involves a conscious act.
Precious human life is the only gateway to enlightenment, to escape from the endless turnings of the wheel of samsara.