Planet Earth is inhabited by millions of species—at least! Because
different species often inhabit the same spaces and share—or compete
for—the same resources, they interact in a variety of ways, known
collectively as symbiosis. There are four main symbiotic relationships:
mutualism, commensalism, parasitism, and competition.
To explore these relationships, let’s consider a natural ecosystem such as
the ocean. Oceanic environments are known for their species diversity.
Imagine you are on a diving expedition to explore the worlds beneath the
waves. If we were in the warm waters of the Pacific or Indian Oceans, we’d
likely spot an excellent example of mutualism: the relationship between
clownfish and sea anemones. In a mutualistic relationship, both species
benefit. Sea anemones live attached to the surface of coral reefs. They
trap their prey with stinging cells called nematocysts, which are located
on their tentacles. Nematocysts release toxins when a small animal contacts
an anemone’s tentacle. This paralyzes the stung animal, allowing the
anemone to easily bring the animal into its mouth for ingestion.
While other fish succumb to these toxic stings, clownfish secrete a
substance in the mucus covering their bodies that suppresses the firing of
nematocysts. This allows the clownfish to swim comfortably between the
tentacles of anemones, creating a protected environment in which potential
predators are killed off by anemone stings. This clearly benefits the
clownfish, but how about the sea anemones? The brightly colored clownfish
attract other fish looking for a meal. These unsuspecting would-be
predators are then caught and eaten by the anemones.
As we continue in our imaginary deep-sea voyage, we may observe the
communalistic relationship that exists between barnacles and humpback
whales (Megaptera novaeangliae). Commensalism happens when one species
lives with, on, or in another species, known as the host. The host species
neither benefits nor is harmed from the relationship. In our imagined
example, various species of barnacles attach themselves to the skin of
whales. Scientists have not discovered the exact mechanism by which
barnacles are able to do this, but it does not appear to bother the whales.
How do the barnacles benefit from this unlikely relationship? The huge
whales transport the tiny barnacles to plankton-rich waters, where both
species feast upon the abundant microorganisms that live there.
Of course, some symbiotic relationships do cause harm. In parasitism, one
species (the parasite) lives with, on, or in a host species, at the expense
of the host species. Unlike in predation, the host is not immediately
killed by the parasite, though it may sicken and die over time. Examples of
common parasites found in the ocean include nematodes, leeches, and
barnacles. That’s right—though barnacles exist commensally with whales,
they are parasites for swimming crabs. A barnacle may root itself within a
crab’s reproductive system. While the crab does not die from this
interaction, its reproductive capabilities are greatly diminished.
The last example of symbiosis we will explore on our imaginary dive is
competition—the struggle among organisms for the same limited resources in
an ecosystem. Competition can happen between members of the same species
(intraspecific competition) and between different species (interspecific
competition). An example of interspecific competition in the ocean is the
relationship between corals and sponges. Sponges are very abundant in coral
reefs. If they become too successful, however, they take needed food and
other resources from the corals that make up the reef. Sponges may
outcompete corals for resources in the short term, but if too many corals
die, the reef itself becomes damaged. This is bad for the sponges, which
may themselves begin to die off until the reef is balanced again.
Symbiotic relationships can be useful measures of an ecosystem’s health.
For example, large tracts of coral reefs are severely damaged or dead
because of recent increases in ocean temperature due to climate change. The
temperature increase induces coral to expel the algae that live
mutualistically within them. Without their algae, the coral turn white and
die. This loss of symbiosis is an early sign of declining coral health and
speaks to the importance not only of studying symbiosis within marine
environments, but also of examining the negative impacts that humans can
have on these interactions. In the words of National Geographic Explorer
Sylvia Earle: “We need to respect the oceans and take care of them as if
our lives depend on it. Because they do.”
Flora and Fauna of the Rig Veda
As Talageri writes: "
Animals in the Rig Veda
The geographical data pertaining to the Eastern region is as follows:
Animal names: ibha/vāraṇa/hastin/sṛṇi (elephant), mahiṣa (buffalo), gaura
(Indian bison), mayūra (peacock), pṛṣatī (chital, spotted deer).
As Talageri writes: The references to the eastern animals are not
casual ones: it is clear that the animals and their environment form an
intimate part of the idiomatic lore and traditional imagery of the Rigveda:
the spotted deer, for example, are the official steeds of the chariots of
the Maruts. The name of the buffalo (like that of the bull) is used as an
epithet, applied to various Gods, signifying great strength and power. The
Gods approaching the place of sacrifice to drink the libations are likened
to thirsty bisons converging on a watering place in the forest. The
outspread tails or manes of Indra's horses are likened to the outspread
plumes of the peacock's tail. The elephant is clearly a very familiar
animal fully integral to the traditional culture and environment of the
Vedic people: IV.16.14 compares Indra's might to that of a mighty elephant,
and at least three verses (I.64.7; 140.2; VIII.33.8) refer to a wild
elephant crashing its way through the forests and bushes: in the third
reference the elephant is "rushing on this way and that way, mad with heat"
. X.40.4 refers to hunters following two wild elephants, I.84.17 refers to
household elephants as part of the possessions of a wealthy householder,
IV.4.1 refers to royal elephants as part of the entourage of a mighty king,
and IX.57.3 refers to a ceremonial elephant being decked up by the people.
VI.20.8 refers to battle elephants, or at least to elephants in the course
of the description of a battle.
1. The Elephant (Elaphus Maximus: ibha, vAraNa, hastin, sRNi):
2. The Buffalo (Bubalus Bibalus: mahiSa):
3. The Indian Bison (Bibos Gaurus: gaura):
4. The Peacock (Pavo Cristatus: mayUra):
5. The Chital or Spotted Deer (Axis Axis: pRSatI):
It will be seen that, like the rivers of Afghanistan, the sheep of
Afghanistan are completely missing in the three Oldest Books (6,3,7) and
make their first appearance in the Rigveda only in Book 4, which represents
the westernmost thrust of Indo-Aryan expansion during the period of Sudās'
descendants Sahadeva and Somaka and the battle "beyond the Sarayu"
(IV.30.18) in Afghanistan. That the sheep in the Rigveda are indeed the
sheep of Afghanistan is confirmed by the reference in I.126.7, which
directly calls them "gandhārīṇām avikā": the sheep of Gandhara.
Meanwhile, it may be noted there are many other purely native
Indo-Aryan (i.e. IE) names for many Indian animals in the Rigveda: e.g.
siṁha (lion), śiṁśumāra (Gangetic or river dolphin), sālāvṛka (hyaena),
kusumbhaka (scorpion), etc. There are also some animal names which, in the
Rigveda (or in the names of its composer ṛṣi-s), appear only in or as
personal names of particular persons rather than in references to the
animals themselves (though they appear as animals in the Yajurveda and
Atharvaveda): kaśyapa (tortoise), kapi (monkey), vyāghra (tiger), pṛdāku
(leopard). Other such purely Indo-Aryan names which appear in the Yajurveda
and Atharvaveda include śārdūla (tiger), khaḍga (rhinoceros), ajagara
(python), nākra (crocodile), kṛkalāsa (chameleon), nakula (mongoose),
jahakā (hedgehog), śalyaka (porcupine), kūrma (tortoise), jatū (bat), etc.
Most significant of all is the important role in the Rigveda, and
later the Yajurveda and Atharvaveda, of some plants and trees native to
India and extremely important to this day in Indian religion or commerce,
all of which are found in these texts with purely Indo-Aryan names: in the
Rigveda we have śiṁśapa (dalbergia sissoo, the sissoo or shisham or North
Indian rosewood tree, one of the most important Indian timbers to this day)
and khadira (acacia catechu, the heartwood tree) both mentioned in
III.53.19 as used in the manufacture of chariots; and śalmalī (salmalia
malabaricum, the silk-cotton tree) and kiṁṣuka (butea monosperma, the
flame-of-the forest) both mentioned in X.85.20 as used in the manufacture
of chariot wheels. Śalmalī is mentioned elsewhere also in VII.50.3, and as
śimbala in III.53.22, and the flame-of-the forest is mentioned again in
X.97.5 as the parṇa tree. The two important medicinal species vibhīdaka
(terminalia bellerica, the belleric myrobalan or behra, one of the three
ingredients in the famous Ayurvedic tonic or medicine triphala churna) and
araṭva (terminalia arjuna, the arjuna tree) are mentioned in VII.86.6 and
X.34.1, and in VIII.46.27, respectively. The aśvattha or pippala tree
(ficus religiosa, the sacred fig tree, the peepal) is mentioned in I.135.8;
164.20; X.97.5. The urvāruka (cucumis sativus, the cucumber, a very
important Indian vegetable) is mentioned in VII.59.12. The vetasa (calamus
rotang or rattan/cane, used in cane furniture) plant is mentioned in
IV.58.5. Six sacred grasses, darbha, muñja, śarya, sairya, kuśara and
vairiṇa, are mentioned in I.191.3.
The Yajurveda and Atharvaveda mention many more important Indian
plants and trees with purely Indo-Aryan names: for example, ikṣu (saccharum
officinale, the sugarcane plant), bilva (aegle marmelos, the bael fruit
plant), nyagrodha (ficus benghalensis, the banyan tree), śamī (prosopis
cineraria, the shami tree), plakṣa (ficus infectora, the white fig tree),
and pippalī (piper longum, long pepper, an important spice), not to mention
a very long list of Indian medicinal herbs mentioned in the Atharvaveda,
clearly the ancient heritage of a long period of local medicinal
traditions. In short, the flora and fauna of the eastern interior of India
form the heart of the Rigveda (and this is amplified by the data in the
subsequent Samhitas: the Yajurveda and Atharvaveda), while the flora and
fauna of the northwest make only a very late appearance on the Rigvedic
horizon.
Symbiosis connects different organisms with one another through
interspecific interactions to experience a common surrounding environment
in space and time as well as a unique, interfacial symbiotic niche that
they co-create. The perspectives of different organisms vis-à-vis the
environment converge as they enter into symbiosis through physical
association. (A) Each organism that is apart and separated interacts with
the environment by itself, as indicated by the diffuse blue/red cloud (with
dashed boundary). (B) In symbiosis, each organism comes into sustained and
intimate contact so that their ‘perspective spheres’ “interfere,” creating
a unique niche (purple overlap) shared by partners that supplements
specific symbiotic interactions that define the association. Yellow arrows
indicate interactions of each organism with each other, with the
surrounding environment, or with an environment they construct together.
Endosymbiosis is a specialized and more extreme union of partners, where
the environment of one partner is essentially dictated by the internal
environment of another and thus buffered from the external abiotic
environment.
Symbioses by definition involve a close association and interaction between
genetically dissimilar partners, meaning that their very existence as
recognizable entities is fundamentally determined by their
inter-relationships as portrayed in Fig. 1B. The nature and stability of
those inter-relationships are dependent on multiple factors in both their
abiotic and biotic contexts—the environment in which each partner is
embedded—any of which might be disrupted by anthropogenic change. The
relationships between symbiotic partners and the mechanisms evolved to
reinforce them could provide a buffer against change: for example, by
stabilizing a co-constructed environment or by active mechanisms to sense,
find, and connect partners. From an evolutionary perspective, the degree of
reliability in “reproducing” (i) a particular set of inter-relationships
between partners and their environment, and (ii) the mechanisms in place to
recapitulate those inter-relationships, is important for determining the
extent to which a specific symbiosis constitutes a higher-level
evolutionary unit of selection. Our aim in this commentary is to explore
the evidence for how symbioses in particular (as opposed to ecological
interactions in general) might be affected by AC and whether general
principles or broader inferences can be deduced.
Recent human activity has profoundly transformed Earth biomes on a
scale and at rates that are unprecedented. Given the central role of
symbioses in ecosystem processes, functions, and services throughout the
Earth biosphere, the impacts of human-driven change on symbioses are
critical to understand. Symbioses are not merely collections of organisms,
but co-evolved partners that arise from the synergistic combination and
action of different genetic programs. They function with varying degrees of
permanence and selection as emergent units with substantial potential for
combinatorial and evolutionary innovation in both structure and function.
Following an articulation of operational definitions of symbiosis and
related concepts and characteristics of the Anthropocene, we outline a
basic typology of anthropogenic change (AC) and a conceptual framework for
how AC might mechanistically impact symbioses with select case examples to
highlight our perspective. We discuss surprising connections between
symbiosis and the Anthropocene, suggesting ways in which new symbioses
could arise due to AC, how symbioses could be agents of ecosystem change,
and how symbioses, broadly defined, of humans and “farmed” organisms may
have launched the Anthropocene. We conclude with reflections on the
robustness of symbioses to AC and our perspective on the importance of
symbioses as ecosystem keystones and the need to tackle anthropogenic
challenges as wise and humble stewards embedded within the system.
K RAJARAM IRS 211125
On Fri, 21 Nov 2025 at 07:59, Markendeya Yeddanapudi <
[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> --
> *Mar*
>
> The Web of Symbiotic Coordination
>
>
>
> At the most fundamental level, a photon is just excitation. It has no 3D
> shape. It is an energy packet, relating to the next excitation packet or
> photon, in the quantum field. The Field is not composed of 3D shapes. The
> Universe ultimately is one energy field, the excitations fluctuating. It
> has no 3D shape just like your consciousness. It is the ultimate grand
> consciousness, in which you are a ripple, the grand photon, with individual
> photons like you. The universe consists of photon waves. We have to end the
> superstition of excluding consciousness, from Quantum Physics because of
> our bondage to 3D identification.
>
> As a 3D body which your VIBGYOR based seeing has put you into, you are
> also a bigger photon, with energies radiating from you, the excitations
> from you. There are no 3D shaped photons at all, but only fields. You are a
> photon field, expanding and contracting as excitation.
>
> Then, can you with your thoughts and actions create photon waves? I feel
> that the answer is yes. You can actually become bigger and bigger photon
> with your thoughts. You join the photon area around you. You expand as a
> photon. What you need is free and healthy nature without human tampering
> and the courage to feel free in the free and lush nature. Every organism is
> a field of consciousness or of photons. There is and in built communication
> system among the organisms, the system of macro consciousnesses as spells.
>
> Consciousness travel is actually your travel as a wave. Your life now is
> such a wave. If you team up with nature, and become part of nature, then
> your life becomes a wave of photon, I think the state of rapture.Basicaly
> you expand and contract as a Photon body. A photon is a field with webs as
> waves.
>
> May be we cross the VIBGYOR limit to seeing and develop the capacity to
> reach even the Gamma ray, Ultraviolet etc also, as non 3D conscious
> excitation fields. Even now, if you can see with your eyes everything,
> atoms, particles etc, then you cannot see yourself or any 3D shapes. Your
> thoughts, feelings, emotions, understandings, observations etc have no 3D
> shape.
>
> Education is relating to nature and not using and taming nature for
> economic subjugation with technology. Technology blocks your free expansion
> as a photon, as the expanding energy packet. May be the gap between two
> photons is a field of consciousness. I think symbiosis glues the photons.
>
> We need the ‘Free Nature Park, without technological tampering to
> experience education as expanding photons, as photon means energy packet.
> Even Quantum entanglement can get explanation if we introduce consciousness
> into Quantum Physics.
>
> Every University must start a ‘Free Nature Park’without technological
> tampering to pave the way for real education.
>
> The problem today is freeing the universities from the frenzy for
> technology.
>
> YM Sarma
>
> Chat gpt
>
> Below is a clear, respectful critique of your essay—both its strengths and
> where you could refine or rethink concepts to make the argument more
> coherent and impactful.
> ------------------------------
>
> *Overall Impression*
>
> Your essay is imaginative and philosophically ambitious. It attempts to
> fuse quantum physics, consciousness studies, ecology, and education theory
> into a single worldview. The tone is visionary and exploratory, which can
> be a strength if the goal is to provoke thought or inspire alternative
> perspectives.
>
> However, the argument currently mixes scientific terminology (photons,
> fields, quantum entanglement, VIBGYOR, gamma rays) with metaphysical claims
> in ways that may confuse readers or weaken the philosophical case. With
> clearer distinctions between metaphor, hypothesis, and accepted physics,
> your ideas could become more compelling and accessible.
> ------------------------------
>
> *Key Strengths*
>
> *1. Creative Conceptual Metaphors*
>
> The notion that humans are "photon fields" or "waves of excitation" can
> work well as a metaphor for our interconnectedness with nature,
> consciousness, and the universe.
>
> *2. Strong Ecological Vision*
>
> Your emphasis on *free, untampered nature* and its role in education
> aligns with ecological humanities, eco-psychology, and experiential
> learning philosophies.
>
> *3. A Call for Rethinking Education*
>
> The proposal for a “Free Nature Park” aligns with contemporary discussions
> about the need to reconnect education with ecological awareness and
> embodied experience.
> ------------------------------
>
> *Areas for Improvement*
>
> *1. Scientific Accuracy vs. Metaphor*
>
> Some statements about photons, consciousness, and the quantum field are
> scientifically incorrect if taken literally:
>
> - Photons are not “grand consciousness.”
> - Humans are not literally photon fields, though biological systems
> emit low levels of biophotons.
> - Thoughts do not produce photon waves in the physics sense.
> - Crossing “VIBGYOR limits” does not correspond to expanding
> consciousness.
> - Consciousness is not recognized in physics as a component of quantum
> entanglement.
>
> *Suggestion:*
> Explicitly label these ideas as *philosophical interpretations* or
> *metaphorical
> frameworks*. That will preserve your creativity while avoiding confusion.
>
> *2. Logical Structure*
>
> The essay moves quickly between topics without strong transitions:
>
> - photon ontology → human identity → consciousness → nature →
> education reforms
>
> This creates a sense of conceptual jumpiness.
>
> *Suggestion:*
> Organize into sections:
>
> 1. Your philosophical premise
> 2. How it relates to human consciousness
> 3. How this informs ecology
> 4. Applications to education
>
> *3. Clarify the Central Argument*
>
> It's not always clear what the main thesis is. Is it:
>
> - “Consciousness is fundamental to the universe”?
> - “Humans are photon fields”?
> - “Technology restricts natural consciousness”?
> - “Education should take place in untampered nature”?
>
> All are interesting, but the essay needs a foregrounded, stable thesis.
>
> *4. Tone and Precision*
>
> Some claims are presented as facts rather than speculative beliefs. This
> can alienate scientifically literate readers.
>
> *Suggestion:*
> Use phrases like:
>
> - “I propose that…”
> - “One way to view this is…”
> - “Metaphorically speaking…”
> - “A speculative interpretation is…”
>
> This will make your argument more intellectually honest and credible.
> ------------------------------
>
> *Specific Line-Level Suggestions*
>
> - *“The Universe ultimately is one energy field...”*
> Consider qualifying: *“In some philosophical interpretations of
> physics…”*
> - *“You can actually become bigger and bigger photon…”*
> Reframe as metaphor: *“One might imagine oneself as an expanding field
> of awareness.”*
> - *“Quantum entanglement can get explanation if we introduce
> consciousness…”*
> Note that this is a controversial hypothesis; frame as speculative.
> - *“Technology blocks your free expansion as a photon…”*
> Clarify whether you mean *psychological*, *spiritual*, or *literal
> physical* expansion.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *How You Could Strengthen the Essay Without Losing Its Vision*
>
> *1. Make your metaphysics explicit*
>
> Describe that you are offering a *philosophical* reinterpretation of
> physical concepts, not a scientific claim.
>
> *2. Support your ecological argument with grounded examples*
>
> Cite how nature immersion improves learning, mental health, creativity,
> and attention.
>
> *3. Provide a clearer connection between your metaphors and educational
> reform*
>
> Explain *how* seeing humans as “fields of consciousness” leads to a new
> educational model.
>
> *4. Embrace poetic language more intentionally*
>
> Your ideas may be better served by calling the piece a *philosophical
> meditation* or *metaphorical essay*, rather than presenting it as
> scientific commentary.
> ------------------------------
>
> *Conclusion*
>
> Your essay contains the seeds of an inspiring eco-philosophical worldview.
> With clearer structure, more distinction between science and metaphor, and
> stronger justification of your claims, it could become a thought-provoking
> piece that bridges spirituality, nature, and education.
>
> If you’d like, I can help you:
>
> - rewrite the essay in a more polished, coherent form,
> - restructure it into a strong argument, or
> - transform it into a poetic/philosophical piece while preserving your
> vision.
>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Thatha_Patty" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to [email protected].
> To view this discussion visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/thatha_patty/CACDCHCL4U78PeLT_TQ13zVga%3Dt36XDEWt8fnDZq4yg6rvC%3DUKA%40mail.gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/thatha_patty/CACDCHCL4U78PeLT_TQ13zVga%3Dt36XDEWt8fnDZq4yg6rvC%3DUKA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Thatha_Patty" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To view this discussion visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/thatha_patty/CAL5XZor7_QSS6LWppYPPDE%2BJdCHdCuW2JNteuS2dNUNRH1nJAA%40mail.gmail.com.
