Findingmyway ji,
Much of what you are saying is purely semantics.
Not semantics, but seeing difference in terms of characteristic, function, manifestation and proximate cause between two very different phenomena.
If plants had desire, there would also be clinging and taking things as me and mine. Also there would be aversion when that which is desired is unavailable or fades away or some undesirable object comes into contact. Furthermore, desire never stops at one object, but forever seeks new experiences as can easily be seen in one's own experience and inferred from observing the behaviours of animals and other humans but not that of plants.
And if you have really considered the nature of desire, you'd understand what it means when it is said that desire leads to being born in order to experience pleasant and unpleasant objects through the different senses. From this it can be deduced that if plants also had desire and sentience, their very nature contradicts this particular aspect of desire. In other words given the nature of desire, this could never result in what we know plants to be.
Furthermore, plants are totally dependent on the environment (and man's desire ;-)) to thrive, but an animal can move around to change its particular circumstance. And this reflects yet another reality namely 'will' or 'intention', which you'd not think plants to possess, or do you?
But you say:
The processes shown by a plant is indicative of its 'desire' to survive. All biological processes have developed to survive whether that be respiration or photosynthesis, growth and reproduction in all its forms, movement in all its forms whether vertical or longitudinal. The word desire can have a very broad meaning.
Broad meaning if you wish to use it metaphorically, but as I said, my reference point is actual characteristic, functions etc. of a particular kind of "reality". So when you say that plants respire, I don't think that you'd be talking about the same reality that which is behind "breathing" in the case of animals. When you talk about photosynthesis, again this would not be something that is associated with any mental phenomena. Growth, yes, humans grow too, but this *is* in fact physical phenomena. Reproduction; let us not be fooled by this concept just because science uses it indiscriminately with regard to both plants and animals. Firstly, no doubt this requires the coming together of two different kinds of matter, but that's where the similarity between plants and animals stops. In the case of humans, birth happens at the point of conception and involves the arising of a mental phenomenon, namely birth consciousness, which is immediately followed by a never ending chain of other kinds of consciousness to constitute "life". This does not happen in the case of plants where all that really happens is change of physical phenomena. And movement, are you referring to such things as the sunflower turning to face the sun and the creeper crawling up the wall? Do you really believe these to be the same as say a spider spinning a web and then waiting for a fly to get caught in it?
Humans are separate to all other life forms due to our consciousness. Saying animals are on the same plane but plants are not worthy of that status is the egotistical attitude…….
I don't understand this. You say that humans are distinguished from other forms of life *due to consciousness*, but then go on to deny that this also distinguishes other animals from plants? Please explain.
And again, you refer to egoistical attitude. But conceit like attachment, is also a reality with a particular characteristic, function and cause. We can discuss this if you like and then see whether what you say is true. As of now however it appears as though you are only throwing the particular label at me. I don't see how it can be conceit if my perception is that plants are not living beings. In other words, why would I want to compare myself with plants? Perhaps it is because you are convinced that plants are living beings and that I am willfully denying this, and that this is because I'd like to feel superior? In any case, do you not see this as quite unnecessary to factor into the discussion?
I mean, I too could say things such as that, you are denying the truth of what I am saying because to accept it would be to put the whole idea about God to question. Indeed I could also suggest that the belief in God is the ultimate form of self-identification whereby someone can feel equal, as well as inferior and superior, all at the same time and thereby encouraging conceit. But would doing this be helpful?
Humans are separate to all other life forms due to our consciousness. Saying animals are on the same plane but plants are not worthy of that status is the egotistical attitude and arises from the oevr reliance on our senses-we can see and experience animal life more easily, we can hear animal screams more easily so this leads to the premise that animals are more important.
Instead of concluding that it is a result of 'over reliance of the senses', you could think instead, that it is from *understanding* the senses and mind that the conclusions are drawn.
Understanding the senses would mean automatically, that one knows exactly its limitations. But this would be due to the mental reality of "wisdom" which than takes on the position of the 'leader'. Would you now think to question wisdom as well and perhaps that this is also "limited"? If so, pray tell, by virtue of which mental faculty you would know that!!?
All of life is just chemical reactions! Our ability to see is due to dozens of reactions, our ability to digest food is a load of chemical reactions etc.
And if you are implying further, that consciousness is the result of chemical reaction in the brain, know that this is a materialistic view coming to the fore, one which clearly reflects the influence of science on one's world view.
It is understandable that science would arrive at such kind of conclusion, given that it at no point studied mental phenomena as it arises and manifests. From beginning to end it is involved only in "concepts", which means that even physical phenomena has never been touched upon. It works only with shadows and is like the seven blind men holding the different parts of the elephant who will never ever come to know what the elephant really looks like.
For someone who has taken the step in the direction of studying mind as it arises to experience an object, it will be understood that the conditions for the arising of mind are not how the scientific materialist thinks. He'd know amongst other things that greed for example, arises immediately following the experience of particular objects, not because some chemical reaction took place somewhere in the brain, but clearly because of the nature of greed itself. He'd know also that the tendency to this goes back to the past and accumulates every time that it arises such that it will arise again in the future when the conditions are right.
If you are suggesting that in fact one of the conditions for attachment must be some chemical reaction in the brain, know that the speed at which attachment arises and performs its function and falls away is much, much faster than for example, the taste that is experienced. And taste itself is a material reality so fleeting that in one second, there are countless instances of this. Where then is there room for the idea of chemical reaction being cause for sentience, let alone originating in the brain!!? That you think this appears to be is because you are caught up in the world of concepts and have no clue about reality / Truth.
That you even conceive of the idea of 'chemical reaction' requires trillions of mind moments including, seeing and thinking to perform their functions before even a sense of something going on, not to mention what it takes for the concept to form.
From one perspective it actually sounds very silly that that by which one knows anything at all, namely consciousness, is judged as being a by-product of its own creation, namely concept. Wisdom on the other hand will actually come in from the other direction and see the urgency to study consciousness itself and not be drawn by ideas conceived of by ignorance.
Science can be excused for falling back on a materialist view. However for someone who has expressed an interest in a religion where it is taught that mental states such as greed, aversion, ego etc. are to be overcome and that good qualities are to be developed, to still think that these come down to mere chemical reactions, is a shame. Has it by any chance been suggested in Sikh teachings that if one somehow caused a change in chemical process in the brain, that this then could lead to the unwanted qualities to be replaced by the good ones? Would you think perhaps that science could one day come up with the "enlightenment pill" or something? Ridiculous is't it to follow that line of thought?
Research shows that plants react to a lot more in the environment than we realise. Assuming a plant cannot sense just because we are unable to perceive it is the egotistical attitude.
If it were ego that is the driving force, what would stop me from going on to talk about how superior humans are to animals, for which I'm sure I'd get approval from several members here given so much pride in stating how superior human beings are? And don't forget that my conclusion regarding plants not being sentient does not come from the kind of observation that you are suggesting, but more than that.
As far as the difference between supermarket meat and butcher meat goes, the distinction drawn between them still seems a little selfish and immature to me as if there was no demand the supermarkets would not stock meat. By buying supermarket meat or products containing meat related products, one is still supporting the killing-allowing and encouraging it to happen. Market forces dictate only those things will be prodiced that can sell!! To ignore this is living in a cocoon world.
Sure if no one buys meat, no one would stock them for sale and that would automatically mean less killing. But has the tendency to kill been addressed or is this mainly about economics? And with regard to those who simply don't buy, do they really see the harm of killing or is there some other motivating factor?
My attempt at separating the issue of eating meat from killing has been to encourage focusing rightly on what really constitutes an immoral act. Eating is eating and is attachment of course but harmless, however killing is killing no matter what reason we give ourselves. To mix the two is to take the attention away from what should be considered on to what is in fact the result of a proliferation of view. How can morality grow if one mistakes what is simply an act of ordinary attachment and think this to be an evil act. Indeed to do so must be the result of the worse of evil acts, namely wrong understanding. After all to mistake what is not evil for evil likely leads to also taking what *is* evil for not being so! And this is exactly what has happened here as when you and others come out and give justification for killing animals!!
So really, when I buy meat from the supermarket but at the same time do not condone killing, and you do not buy meat but think it is alright to kill for food, it is really you who is encouraging killing.
And the effect of wrong understanding does not stop here. In taking your decision of not buying meat as effecting the larger population can only come from having put yourself at the center of action, and this is arrogance and conceit. After all, you do not even see any need to go up to some individual and talk sense into him, yet you believe that your 'silent protest' is going to cause a ripple effect. Indeed this is all a game that you are playing with yourself, one foot is on the side where you like to think that you are doing a good deed, and the other is on the side where you protect a cherished set of beliefs. Is this not hypocrisy?
And let us talk now a bit about what constitutes a cocoon world.
But first, what is the "world"?
Because there is only one moment of consciousness through one of the five senses and the mind at a time, the world must come down to what it is that is arising and manifesting *now*. If there is hearing; it is the world of hearing, if it is thinking; it is the world of thinking. These are ephemeral and their nature is to disintegrate and fall away. And so the world must actually come down to being 'that which is of the nature to disintegrate' or in Buddhist terms, that which is "dukkha".
That we conceive of the conventional world populated with people, animals, plants and things, this is the result of the thinking process and based on memory gathered from the experience of one or more of the five senses. This is natural and even necessary; else we wouldn't be able to function at all. However the problem comes when we take such perceptions as representing "reality", which would then make them appear to last in time, have individual existence and being inherently desirable. And this goes against the truth of impermanence, suffering and non-self.
It is this that I consider the process of building a cocoon around oneself, which I must admit to doing as well from time to time. But this is not what goes on when I insist on separating the issue of eating meat and that of killing. After all, the direction taken is one which leads to considering the 'one moment one world' Truth. Rather it is you who appears to have wrapped yourself up with "ideals" after having conflated all those experiences and take the end product so seriously. So much so that instead of being aware of what is right here and now, you rely on a set of beliefs to motivate your decision to act. This is living in the head. And what you perceive of me is from within this cocoon of yours, after all my position if seen correctly, can be read as an encouragement to live "one moment at a time"…..
All that said I'd like you to know that although I have been direct and used strong expressions, my perception of you is not how this may impress. I do believe that you have something positive otherwise I wouldn't bother sweating it out so much.
