Posted by ahimsa32fa at 01/11/15 05:49:05You propose using logic, but then abandon logic when you claim that plants are "sentinent" (I believe you mean "sentient").
"Sentience" or the ability to perceive, requires a central nervous system and a brain, things that plants do not possess.
The old argument that plants "respond" to stimuli does not make the case for sentience. If you apply heat to a rock it may "respond" by cracking...this does not make rocks "sentient". Rocks don't "perceive" what is happening to them and neither do plants.
I admire your hopes, but suggest that you use logic more consistently.
Posted by Star the magic vegan at 12/26/15 10:55:19Sentient means feeling. This is not a neuronal nor brain dependent function. All of life is feeling. This is why we must always choose the path of least harm.
Maitreya Buddha is the next Buddha. There are some very esoteric Mahayana prophecies concerning this next Buddha that may have been spoken by Shakyamuni Buddha or as Theravada Buddhists argue, by monastics. However, all schools of modern Buddhism seem to agree there are certain conditions that must be fulfilled to certify his true role as an authentic Buddha.
As to whether the next Buddha bears universal consciousness and is therefore everyone as well as a singular being, of course he will be both. This is why we must accept the sentient nature of life because it is universal and inter-connective. We are the butterfly and the butterfly is us. The decisions made anywhere can affect the butterfly's life path.
The most important thing to help program into reality therefore, and thus the true nature of the future Buddha, is vegan realism. If everyone in Thailand were vegan, the Buddhist monks of Thailand would be vegan. They reflect their world and eat as beggars from that shared experience of their begging bowl. Likewise, the next Buddha will be vegan if all our hearts open to vegan truth.
The best way to open to vegan truth for all Buddhas is to chant unending repetitions of this sacred mantra: "Om Vegan Buddha."
Posted by Star the magic vegan at 01/09/16 10:02:48Ahimsa32fa-
Plants grow towards light and wither away from light. Plants grow yellow from over watering, plants show the effect of the environment where they live, the effects of light, water and soil. There have been scientific studies showing they respond to music and sound. The only logical fundamental premise is that all living beings are feeling. Try to live up to your name, Ahimsa, and stop running a private club where you own every experience and life is your private servant that must obey your allegedly scientific rules. Sentience is not created by human physiology.
Posted by ahimsa32fa at 01/10/16 05:24:41Save-
May I humbly suggest that you do some reading on this subject. You will find hundreds of authors who agree with me.
Rocks exposed to high levels of sound will crack. Are rocks sentient?
Water changes form according to temperature. Is water sentient?
Snow turns yellow when I pee on it. Is snow sentient?
A corpse shows the effects of the environment it's in. Are the dead sentient?
When I wind my watch, it "responds" by ticking. Is my watch sentient?
"Physiology" is a field of study and is not capable of creating anything.
Those who believe that plants feel pain ignore science and believe in fantasies.
Posted by Star the magic vegan at 01/10/16 16:07:54Ahimsa darling-
You sound like you run a torture chamber. Do you only grant 'life' status to those you don't seek to destroy and consume? The rules of your magic kingdom seem tiresome and selfish. You have decided for all the universe who can feel and who does not. Perhaps this is why you do not believe in God, you must think you are God.
You try to demean the argument to win.
Water, rocks, snow and corpses are sentient when filled with life.
Posted by Star the magic vegan at 01/10/16 19:37:59I had to leave for a dinner engagement and now that I have returned, I see that the discourse I have entered into with Ahimsa32fa may have turned in a wrong direction. I was with a friend who is a biochemist and microbiologist. He and I talked about this discourse briefly.
The problem is that there may be some confusion with the symptom of a condition and the condition.
For example, it may be such that a nervous system may heighten sentiency, but it may not claim sole domain for sentiency. Plant sentiency may be quite different from vertebrate sentiency, but it may be understood as sentiency none the less. The point is that because plants do not communicate in a manner most humans choose to understand or for some reason can not understand, we should not draw the false conclusion they are not feeling.
Another example is the death experience. Medical science would have one believe that the ceasing of the heart, respiration and brain waves determines death. One, however, could argue that these are simply symptoms of death and that the true experience of death is the parting of consciousness or, as religionists often refer to it, soul with the flesh. Both may be true.
If you notice I use the word may because nothing is absolute.
Likewise, if a plant or rock responds in a certain manner to stimulus, one may infer this response is a sign of sentiency. Certainly if we put Ahimsa's hand in the fire he will yell. Does this mean he is responding or that he is sentient? Isn't sentience determined by the symptom of response? To claim that a plant is not sentient is to ignore Ahimsa's cries and cooking his arm well done...something a peaceful vegan should never do and probably should not even contemplate.
In this particular regard, both the adherent to science and religion may both be right.
Of course this does not explain many of the other points I made that Ahimsa sidelined due to lack of appreciation. Such is the argument concerning connectivity. This is a much more complex issue and I will discuss it later if it is necessary.