Findingmyway ji,
You miss my point again and again. I am not asking you to compare yourself to a plant but I will not consider the life of a plant less important than the life of an animal.
First of all, you are again bringing in the idea of utility and this confuses the issue. I was not talking in terms of whether plants were less or more important, only that they are not sentient beings.
I do get a feeling sometimes, of perhaps missing your point, but then I read some statement you made and think that I'm on the right track. But I apologize if it in fact happens that I take your comment out of context.
In this particular case, you kept on mentioning that believing plants to be lower than animals and humans was egoistic, and my understanding of ego is that it arises when someone compares oneself (or one's qualities) with another. So my objection was that since I do not even think that plants are sentient, how could I be comparing myself with plants? And besides, although I do consider animals lower to human beings, when taking into account the role of karma in determining the kind of birth, there is reason in fact, *not* to be egoistical.
Of course no doubt, I do have an infinite supply of conceit which otherwise raises its head throughout the day, and often in very gross and ugly forms. However I think it is wrong to make an association between conceit and some particular belief like the one we are discussing. After all there can be conceit with the very perception of an "I" and nothing to do with any kind of belief…
See the shabad posted by Randip ji. Understanding of the senses includes appreciating their shortcomings and accepting the limitaitons of human senses. That is what I mean by avoiding over reliance in senses.
And I responded to this by suggesting that it was the "understanding" or "wisdom" which is key. Understanding the senses and the experience through them, is understanding what is *not* of the nature of sense and sense-consciousness, and it is from this that I conclude that plants are not sentient. But of course we do rely on the senses, otherwise how would we even be able to identify and communicate about plants, animals and other human beings. But this is only in the context of living in the conventional world. When it comes to what reality or Truth is and what possibly exists beyond that which is perceived through the senses, this becomes a matter then, of understanding the nature of mental and physical phenomena. Or in other words, it is wisdom rather than what can be perceived through the senses that is the source for the kind of knowledge.
I only read bits and pieces and the overall impression is of 'projections galore'. So much so that I believe many of the more serious scientists would also object to the spirit with which some of these people approach the subject. But then even these scientists would fail to recognize the fact of the scientific materialist view which is the basis for their understanding about humans and animals, now being uses as measure for judging what plants are. That is, having reduced human behavior in terms of electric impulses and chemical reactions, the same is being observed in plants and used as reason to draw the particular conclusion. This I believe is The Big Mistake.
Indeed so ridiculous the position and line of thought is that some of what has been attributed to plants makes them appear to be in fact superior in some ways, to human beings, which I'm sure many Sikhs will object to. The part about music actually made me laugh out loud, and I thought that given that I hardly ever listen to classical music now but have gone back to enjoying Rock music (when exercising), I must be becoming progressively less sensitive and more stupid than those plants! ;-)
Many fish and animals also do not have a reproductive process that is involved. Does that make them any less animal?
But was I ever using the idea of reproduction as measure for what are and not sentient beings? When I compared the reproduction between plants and animals, I was pointing to the arising of consciousness at conception, as determining which of the two is a sentient being and which is not.
Processes may be different but the basic biological premise is the same-combining of parts from male and female to produce a brand new organism with no mixing between species.
All within the criterion set by the biological sciences, not by Truth and reality.
Finally, do you really think a butcher or farmer is a more 'evil' being and is less able to behave in a noble way compared to a person who consumes meat from the supermarket or from a person who is vegetarian?!!
I was never talking about "persons", but moral / immoral actions. Yes a butcher may be involved in killing at some point during his work hours, however at other times he may be performing good deeds more than the average person, such as showing generosity in selling his products. Although I would think that this likely won't go on for long if he actually *believed* that it was alright to kill. If he can't see the wrongness of killing, what are the chances of him seeing the wrong in other less obvious kinds of evil deeds? Indeed he would need to question the motives behind those apparent good acts. It could be that he is motivated to those deeds out of guilt and attachment to 'self' or worse, a wrong belief that in doing so, it would balance the books.
In the end however, even this is OK so long as one has begun to patiently develop understanding.
We all have a great tendency to evil and should not expect that to diminish just because we think we are now on the right track. The first step is not in the direction of an attempt at reducing these tendencies, but understanding what they are or in other words, who we are. This means that if any evil deed through body, speech and mind arises, in seeing it for what it is, there is acceptance as a result of 'detachment'. Indeed to think that we must be without certain qualities and going about trying so hard to get rid of them, points to exactly the opposite direction. This is because it is 'attachment' to self which is the driving force at those times, whereas it is detachment which is sign of being on the right track.
So as far as I'm concerned, the butcher, the average consumer of meat and the vegetarian, all are same insofar as all three either know who they are or they do not.
Once again, the SIKH (not Buddhist) perspective is that abstaining from meat eating does not make a person more noble. Life is present in both plants and animals so we are always killing for food. Go back and read the shabads in this thread to demonstrate both points. I rest my case
So you are saying that although the Buddhist too does not make an association between choice of food and that of morality and mental purity, but that killing *is* a matter of morality. The Sikh reason for not making the kind of association on the other hand, is that plants being equally alive, killing is unavoidable and so one might just as well kill some animal for food? Are you really convinced that this is the Sikh position?!!
Given the great emphasis on the five evils and the need to overcome these by the development of such qualities as patience, wisdom and contentment, I don't see that this could lead to what you suggest. Killing can only be motivated by attachment and done with aversion, and we are advised to have patience and contentment. I think therefore that there must be some misinterpretation and taking certain statements out of context. But this is only for you to consider and not to start a debate. And if you still think that you are correct, I will bow out of this discussion.
don't realize that in this universe, about which we know little (basically zero), there may be infinite other forms of intelligence that see us as not sentient at all.
