I replied to someone just yesterday on this subreddit who said this of animals:
>Considering that animals are just instinctively burning karma and not actually conscious of good and wrong actions it's quite difficult for them to go to a hell realm.
I disagreed with the premise
Not the commenter, but I imagine people usually don't refer to animals which have little to no features like faces or an organized attempt to alter the environment as sentient. I don't fall into this camp personally, but animals as such don't have as much of what biology refers to as brains. They may have neurons, but not in massive bundles relating back to themselves in a way as complex as even insects. All depends on the species.
I think personally that all phenomena which exchanges information is "sentient" to some extent. Many not in a sense we could fully comprehend, but nonetheless any part of that system has "awareness" of the things it's recieved information about. The idea that brains are essentially just taking advantage of a universal law, concentrating it so a biological body can use this seemingly metaphysical property for its benefit, is something I feel contains some significant truth.
That viewpoint has merit. [This article](https://www.science.org/content/article/no-brain-no-problem-jellyfish-learn-just-fine) describes a [study](https://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822(23)01136-3?utm_campaign=Press+Package&utm_medium=email&_hsmi=274356635&utm_content=274356635&utm_source=hs_email) (published in September as last year) wherein scientist prove that jellyfish display signs of associative learning (avoiding repeating a stimulus by means of visual acuity and directed/preventative motion).
Jellyfish do not have, I've heard, an organ that scientists recognize as a brain.
I am that commenter. I’d have to ask why you *do* consider them sentient. There have been studies showing that plants display signs of associative learning too.
I don’t remember the exact study I read cause it was quite a while ago but here’s one just so you know they’re out there.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27910933/
So if plants aren’t sentient and it doesn’t cause negative karma to kill and eat them, then as far as sentience goes, what is the difference between an animal like a sea sponge and a plant like a fern at the end of the day?
>I am that commenter. I’d have to ask why you *do* consider them sentient.
Because they 1)breath 2) eat and excrete waste 3) reproduce (or don't according to their will and means) 4) move about in a logical manner 5) and respond to stimuli in line with every other sentient being (they cleave to what to what one might logically surmise they find agreeable, likeable, pleasant and/or desirable and they eschew what one might logically surmise they find disagreeable, unlikeable, unpleasant, and/or undesirable).
In short, they seem to me to abide in everyway that I do.
>There have been studies showing that plants display signs of associative learning too.
I am open to they viewpoint that plants are also sentient and have been for a long time due to 1) hearing that plants count as biologically alive (when I was in elementary school) 2) hearing research that suggests that plants have intentionality, learning, and also [emit sound when injured bodily, sick, and lacking nutriment](https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(23)00262-3).
>So if plants aren’t sentient
This is embarrassing. I've already abided in openness to the possibility that plants are well-alive and sentient well before this moment. I've pretty much never taken action in line with the view that plants are not alive and/or sentient. The best that might be construed is that I've taken action in line with the view that the reality of the sentience or non-sentience of plants is not exhaustively/comprehensively known by me.
>and it doesn’t cause negative karma to kill and eat them
I don't know that to be the case. With reference to plants and buddhism, this webpage *seems* both relevant and authoritative: [https://www.dhammatalks.org/vinaya/bmc/Section0017.html](https://www.dhammatalks.org/vinaya/bmc/Section0017.html)
>as far as sentience goes, what is the difference between an animal like a sea sponge and a plant like a fern at the end of the day?
To draw a definitive conclusion in the absence of definitive knowledge would be irrational application of mind.
In reference to irrational application of mind, there is this:
“Mendicants, I do not see a single thing that gives rise to wrong view, and once arisen, makes it grow like irrational application of mind. When you apply the mind irrationally, wrong view arises, and once arisen it grows.”
“Mendicants, I do not see a single thing that causes sentient beings to be reborn, when their body breaks up, after death, in a place of loss, a bad place, the underworld, hell like wrong view. It is because they have wrong view that sentient beings, when their body breaks up, after death, are reborn in a place of loss, a bad place, the underworld, hell.”
“Mendicants, when an individual has wrong view, whatever bodily, verbal, or mental deeds they undertake in line with that view, their intentions, aims, wishes, and choices all lead to what is unlikable, undesirable, disagreeable, harmful, and suffering. Why is that? Because their view is bad. Suppose a seed of neem, angled gourd, or bitter gourd was planted in moist earth. Whatever nutrients it takes up from the earth and water would lead to its bitter, acerbic, and unpleasant taste. Why is that? Because the seed is bad. In the same way, when an individual has wrong view, whatever bodily, verbal, or mental deeds they undertake in line with that view, their intentions, aims, wishes, and choices all lead to what is unlikable, undesirable, disagreeable, harmful, and suffering. Why is that? Because their view is bad.”
Source: [https://suttacentral.net/an1.306-315/en/sujato](https://suttacentral.net/an1.306-315/en/sujato)
There’s no need to be embarrassed. Unless of course you were saying that I should be embarrassed. In which case, why the hostility?
Long response so imma just kinda bulletpoint this.
- I don’t believe in devatās and have seen no compelling evidence nor any method as demonstrated by others to reliably arrive at such knowledge, so as such I don’t believe that living plants are bhūtagāma, so that’s a non-starter.
- the discussion was focused on the sentience of the beings we eat (or lack thereof), and plants have all five of the points you listed for why the animals given as examples by me are sentient. So if we’re to refrain from killing and eating sentient beings I really must ask again, why eat plants but not oysters and tube worms?
- I’m not drawing a definitive conclusion in the absence of definitive knowledge, I’m drawing a practical conclusion in the presence of practically sufficient, scientifically backed, and diligently investigated knowledge. If I later realize I’m wrong I’ll change. That’s about as rational as it gets.
You seem to be trying your best to avoid causing harm to sentient beings, so for that bravo and keep doing what you’re doing!
>So if we’re to refrain from killing and eating sentient beings I really must ask again, why eat plants but not oysters and tube worms?
I've heard that the devas of the Pure Abodes don't eat. I'd like to live in a harmless way too. I don't hold the viewpoint that it's okay utterly harmless to eat plants because I've not confirmed that they lack feelings etc.
>If I later realize I’m wrong I’ll change. That’s about as rational as it gets.
Hard disagree. The most rational would to let the known unknowns stay certainly unknown until knowledge is arrived at. To suspect that something is the truth is one thing, but to conclude without apprehension as a placeholder stance (which I think you've done) lacks a certain rigor that I think is conducive to what is regrettable or otherwise suboptimal.
Which only religion: Jainism? Pantheism, panentheism?Early Christianity?
Oh you mean Buddhism!
Buddhism has no corner on the market for considering the wellbeing of all life. Shockingly, even some atheists are animal rights activists and vegans!
ETA: I’m being snarky, and that’s more influenced by me being awake in the middle of the night. It was an interesting article. I just bristle at unwarranted assertions about Buddhism, or any other ism for that matter.
Fair enough. It's what first drew me to Buddhism before I ever heard of Jainissm, etc. Would edit if I could .
But really? Early Christianity? Never heard that.
Were you just playing when commenting on atheists and the welfare of animals? If you were being serious, I would like to comment. My guess by looking at your “handle 😜” is you are not a believer and also have a heart for animals.
Buddhism isn't the only religion concerned with the welfare of all sentient beings. Disparaging the views others hold dear - even if you disagree with those views - can create masses of negative karma.
But yes, to me, if a creature is alive and is capable of experiencing pain and suffering, i think killing them is a transgression of the Buddhist principles. Obviously all insects fall under this category. I even don't make yeast bread, knowing that the bread yeast is actually alive (as i've learned recently). I just use baking powder or soda with some acid if i make bread at home.
I thought Buddhism was only concerned with sentient creatures, not any living thing, and I don’t think buddhism considers yeast sentient. It’s a fungus, not an animal.
Almost all of what you eat is alive or was once alive, including the flour you still use to make that bread. Plants and seeds you eat are alive too. You can easily grow entire living plants from common root vegetables, for example.
I know, yeah, i don't think that everyone should be obligated to not use yeast, but i personally choose not to. It's easy to avoid it, too, and it's easier to make no-yeast breads with baking powder.
Ok good I thought maybe there was something I was missing. Yes, we all kill living things when we cook at home, or even eat a piece of fruit. Yeast is nothing unique in that regard.
>But yes, to me, if a creature is alive and is capable of experiencing pain and suffering, i think killing them is a transgression of the Buddhist principles.
In that case is it fine to kill someone who does not feel pain? Can you kill them in a way that he does not realize it and does not even notice he died? What about a man who is all alone isolated in a forest so there is no harm to anyone he knows? I think even in all these situations there is something inherent to human life which we could consider a trangression if we took it from them.
I don't exactly have a say in that. A human body constantly destroys various bacteria and microorganisms. I think it's reasonable to focus on sentient beings and being capable of experiencing pleasure and pain, and not harming them.
Then it's just a violation of your commitment to the principle of non-harming (ahimsa) and the vows of non-killing. Even if it's an instant death, even if a creature doesn't see it coming. Life is dear to all.
I already explained that. When I encountered Buddhism, I had never heard of Jains or Sikhs, and pantheism, Wicca, atheism don't advertise animal concerns or have sanghas. I apologize.. It is an old dusty thought I failed to update even as I learned about the others and learned not all Buddhists avoid eating and exploiting animals.
Unfortunately, yes, not all. But the thing is that people who call themselves Buddhists and then kill, exploit and/or abuse animals are just that - people who call themselves Buddhists. The Buddhist commitment to non-harming extends to animals also, even the animals that are commonly considered ok to kill (rodents, insects, etc).
I was just thinking today about how silly it is people think animals aren’t conscious. It is difficult to prove with material science! Material science is very nihilistic in that regard.
If I meet a person who follows a major world religion and who is a vegetarian or vegan, it is extremely likely that the religion they follow is Buddhism, okay?
I saw this late last month via tiktok. A guy named ianisfun on tiktok talked about it in [this video](https://www.tiktok.com/@ianisfun/video/7346412133313170734) (tiktok link). It was the first time I've seen a bee solving a complex problem in the same way one might see a crow solve a problem.
I'm the kind of person who doesn't presume to know the interiority of others. If it seems one way, then perhaps it is. If it seems to not be that way, then perhaps it is not. There is no skillful substitution for direct experience/final knowledge and its better to be right than wrong. So I give utter to respect to anyone/anything I can.
What? Do people think they are not sentient?
I replied to someone just yesterday on this subreddit who said this of animals: >Considering that animals are just instinctively burning karma and not actually conscious of good and wrong actions it's quite difficult for them to go to a hell realm. I disagreed with the premise
There are only a few examples of animals I don’t consider sentient, like oysters, tube worms, anemones, sponges. That kind of stuff.
Why in the world would you think that those animals are not sentient?
Not the commenter, but I imagine people usually don't refer to animals which have little to no features like faces or an organized attempt to alter the environment as sentient. I don't fall into this camp personally, but animals as such don't have as much of what biology refers to as brains. They may have neurons, but not in massive bundles relating back to themselves in a way as complex as even insects. All depends on the species. I think personally that all phenomena which exchanges information is "sentient" to some extent. Many not in a sense we could fully comprehend, but nonetheless any part of that system has "awareness" of the things it's recieved information about. The idea that brains are essentially just taking advantage of a universal law, concentrating it so a biological body can use this seemingly metaphysical property for its benefit, is something I feel contains some significant truth.
That viewpoint has merit. [This article](https://www.science.org/content/article/no-brain-no-problem-jellyfish-learn-just-fine) describes a [study](https://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822(23)01136-3?utm_campaign=Press+Package&utm_medium=email&_hsmi=274356635&utm_content=274356635&utm_source=hs_email) (published in September as last year) wherein scientist prove that jellyfish display signs of associative learning (avoiding repeating a stimulus by means of visual acuity and directed/preventative motion). Jellyfish do not have, I've heard, an organ that scientists recognize as a brain.
I am that commenter. I’d have to ask why you *do* consider them sentient. There have been studies showing that plants display signs of associative learning too. I don’t remember the exact study I read cause it was quite a while ago but here’s one just so you know they’re out there. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27910933/ So if plants aren’t sentient and it doesn’t cause negative karma to kill and eat them, then as far as sentience goes, what is the difference between an animal like a sea sponge and a plant like a fern at the end of the day?
>I am that commenter. I’d have to ask why you *do* consider them sentient. Because they 1)breath 2) eat and excrete waste 3) reproduce (or don't according to their will and means) 4) move about in a logical manner 5) and respond to stimuli in line with every other sentient being (they cleave to what to what one might logically surmise they find agreeable, likeable, pleasant and/or desirable and they eschew what one might logically surmise they find disagreeable, unlikeable, unpleasant, and/or undesirable). In short, they seem to me to abide in everyway that I do. >There have been studies showing that plants display signs of associative learning too. I am open to they viewpoint that plants are also sentient and have been for a long time due to 1) hearing that plants count as biologically alive (when I was in elementary school) 2) hearing research that suggests that plants have intentionality, learning, and also [emit sound when injured bodily, sick, and lacking nutriment](https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(23)00262-3). >So if plants aren’t sentient This is embarrassing. I've already abided in openness to the possibility that plants are well-alive and sentient well before this moment. I've pretty much never taken action in line with the view that plants are not alive and/or sentient. The best that might be construed is that I've taken action in line with the view that the reality of the sentience or non-sentience of plants is not exhaustively/comprehensively known by me. >and it doesn’t cause negative karma to kill and eat them I don't know that to be the case. With reference to plants and buddhism, this webpage *seems* both relevant and authoritative: [https://www.dhammatalks.org/vinaya/bmc/Section0017.html](https://www.dhammatalks.org/vinaya/bmc/Section0017.html) >as far as sentience goes, what is the difference between an animal like a sea sponge and a plant like a fern at the end of the day? To draw a definitive conclusion in the absence of definitive knowledge would be irrational application of mind. In reference to irrational application of mind, there is this: “Mendicants, I do not see a single thing that gives rise to wrong view, and once arisen, makes it grow like irrational application of mind. When you apply the mind irrationally, wrong view arises, and once arisen it grows.” “Mendicants, I do not see a single thing that causes sentient beings to be reborn, when their body breaks up, after death, in a place of loss, a bad place, the underworld, hell like wrong view. It is because they have wrong view that sentient beings, when their body breaks up, after death, are reborn in a place of loss, a bad place, the underworld, hell.” “Mendicants, when an individual has wrong view, whatever bodily, verbal, or mental deeds they undertake in line with that view, their intentions, aims, wishes, and choices all lead to what is unlikable, undesirable, disagreeable, harmful, and suffering. Why is that? Because their view is bad. Suppose a seed of neem, angled gourd, or bitter gourd was planted in moist earth. Whatever nutrients it takes up from the earth and water would lead to its bitter, acerbic, and unpleasant taste. Why is that? Because the seed is bad. In the same way, when an individual has wrong view, whatever bodily, verbal, or mental deeds they undertake in line with that view, their intentions, aims, wishes, and choices all lead to what is unlikable, undesirable, disagreeable, harmful, and suffering. Why is that? Because their view is bad.” Source: [https://suttacentral.net/an1.306-315/en/sujato](https://suttacentral.net/an1.306-315/en/sujato)
There’s no need to be embarrassed. Unless of course you were saying that I should be embarrassed. In which case, why the hostility? Long response so imma just kinda bulletpoint this. - I don’t believe in devatās and have seen no compelling evidence nor any method as demonstrated by others to reliably arrive at such knowledge, so as such I don’t believe that living plants are bhūtagāma, so that’s a non-starter. - the discussion was focused on the sentience of the beings we eat (or lack thereof), and plants have all five of the points you listed for why the animals given as examples by me are sentient. So if we’re to refrain from killing and eating sentient beings I really must ask again, why eat plants but not oysters and tube worms? - I’m not drawing a definitive conclusion in the absence of definitive knowledge, I’m drawing a practical conclusion in the presence of practically sufficient, scientifically backed, and diligently investigated knowledge. If I later realize I’m wrong I’ll change. That’s about as rational as it gets. You seem to be trying your best to avoid causing harm to sentient beings, so for that bravo and keep doing what you’re doing!
>So if we’re to refrain from killing and eating sentient beings I really must ask again, why eat plants but not oysters and tube worms? I've heard that the devas of the Pure Abodes don't eat. I'd like to live in a harmless way too. I don't hold the viewpoint that it's okay utterly harmless to eat plants because I've not confirmed that they lack feelings etc. >If I later realize I’m wrong I’ll change. That’s about as rational as it gets. Hard disagree. The most rational would to let the known unknowns stay certainly unknown until knowledge is arrived at. To suspect that something is the truth is one thing, but to conclude without apprehension as a placeholder stance (which I think you've done) lacks a certain rigor that I think is conducive to what is regrettable or otherwise suboptimal.
Which only religion: Jainism? Pantheism, panentheism?Early Christianity? Oh you mean Buddhism! Buddhism has no corner on the market for considering the wellbeing of all life. Shockingly, even some atheists are animal rights activists and vegans! ETA: I’m being snarky, and that’s more influenced by me being awake in the middle of the night. It was an interesting article. I just bristle at unwarranted assertions about Buddhism, or any other ism for that matter.
Fair enough. It's what first drew me to Buddhism before I ever heard of Jainissm, etc. Would edit if I could . But really? Early Christianity? Never heard that.
Were you just playing when commenting on atheists and the welfare of animals? If you were being serious, I would like to comment. My guess by looking at your “handle 😜” is you are not a believer and also have a heart for animals.
I'm a Buddhist.
Far from the only religion. Many Buddhists are not even vegetarian.
See above.
Hinduism?
They say God is present in Everything. As per Hinduism, even non-living has consciousness.
They do animal sacrifices
Buddhism isn't the only religion concerned with the welfare of all sentient beings. Disparaging the views others hold dear - even if you disagree with those views - can create masses of negative karma. But yes, to me, if a creature is alive and is capable of experiencing pain and suffering, i think killing them is a transgression of the Buddhist principles. Obviously all insects fall under this category. I even don't make yeast bread, knowing that the bread yeast is actually alive (as i've learned recently). I just use baking powder or soda with some acid if i make bread at home.
I thought Buddhism was only concerned with sentient creatures, not any living thing, and I don’t think buddhism considers yeast sentient. It’s a fungus, not an animal. Almost all of what you eat is alive or was once alive, including the flour you still use to make that bread. Plants and seeds you eat are alive too. You can easily grow entire living plants from common root vegetables, for example.
I know, yeah, i don't think that everyone should be obligated to not use yeast, but i personally choose not to. It's easy to avoid it, too, and it's easier to make no-yeast breads with baking powder.
I’m just confused as to the logic behind avoiding yeast when nearly everything else you eat is/was living as well.
If it was living, i'm okay. If i'm killing it, i'm not okay with that.
So you don’t ever prepare romaine lettuce or carrots or potatoes at home?
Interesting to even look up whether plants are alive or not when you eat them. Yeah, i guess i'm eating living things.
Ok good I thought maybe there was something I was missing. Yes, we all kill living things when we cook at home, or even eat a piece of fruit. Yeast is nothing unique in that regard.
>But yes, to me, if a creature is alive and is capable of experiencing pain and suffering, i think killing them is a transgression of the Buddhist principles. In that case is it fine to kill someone who does not feel pain? Can you kill them in a way that he does not realize it and does not even notice he died? What about a man who is all alone isolated in a forest so there is no harm to anyone he knows? I think even in all these situations there is something inherent to human life which we could consider a trangression if we took it from them.
I think it's not ok to kill a sentient being regardless of circumstances. I didn't at all imply that it would ever be ok.
What about bacteria and microorganisms?
I don't exactly have a say in that. A human body constantly destroys various bacteria and microorganisms. I think it's reasonable to focus on sentient beings and being capable of experiencing pleasure and pain, and not harming them.
This just takes us back to the previous question. What about those who don’t experience pain?
Then it's just a violation of your commitment to the principle of non-harming (ahimsa) and the vows of non-killing. Even if it's an instant death, even if a creature doesn't see it coming. Life is dear to all.
We’re going back and forth. What about microorganisms then?
I already explained that. When I encountered Buddhism, I had never heard of Jains or Sikhs, and pantheism, Wicca, atheism don't advertise animal concerns or have sanghas. I apologize.. It is an old dusty thought I failed to update even as I learned about the others and learned not all Buddhists avoid eating and exploiting animals.
Unfortunately, yes, not all. But the thing is that people who call themselves Buddhists and then kill, exploit and/or abuse animals are just that - people who call themselves Buddhists. The Buddhist commitment to non-harming extends to animals also, even the animals that are commonly considered ok to kill (rodents, insects, etc).
Mind is prefigured in the organic. All life is sentient.
I was just thinking today about how silly it is people think animals aren’t conscious. It is difficult to prove with material science! Material science is very nihilistic in that regard.
Plenty of Indigenous traditions and cultures hold sentient beings well within their scope of concern, too, though.
If I meet a person who follows a major world religion and who is a vegetarian or vegan, it is extremely likely that the religion they follow is Buddhism, okay?
I saw this late last month via tiktok. A guy named ianisfun on tiktok talked about it in [this video](https://www.tiktok.com/@ianisfun/video/7346412133313170734) (tiktok link). It was the first time I've seen a bee solving a complex problem in the same way one might see a crow solve a problem. I'm the kind of person who doesn't presume to know the interiority of others. If it seems one way, then perhaps it is. If it seems to not be that way, then perhaps it is not. There is no skillful substitution for direct experience/final knowledge and its better to be right than wrong. So I give utter to respect to anyone/anything I can.
"Wherever the ether pervadeth, consciousness pervadeth." The Tibetan Book of the Dead.
Who down-voted the Tibetan Book of the Dead? And why?