All Buddhists Are Atheists

[gregkavarnos]

Consciousness is not a thing(it), and is permanent.

Source?

[lowlydog]

Consciousness is not a thing(it), and is permanent.

Source?

There is no source of consciousness.
If ignorance is eradicated and completely ceases, reaction ceases;
If reaction ceases, consciousness ceases...

If you were killed in front of me , and you are not an arahant or Buddha , for a mere mind moment(no time) the consciousness that believes itself to be Gregkavarnos would cease, but the consciousness that believes itself to be lowlydog would remain uninterupted. The chain of consciousness remains unbroken, the endless cycle of birth and death continues.

Consciousness is permanent.

[gregkavarnos]

There is no source of consciousness.
If ignorance is eradicated and completely ceases, reaction ceases;
If reaction ceases, consciousness ceases...
Consciousness is permanent.

You just like COMPLETELY contradicted yourself here AND you have not defined what you mean by consciousness AND you did not give the source, that I asked for, for your reasoning.

[lowlydog]

There is no source of consciousness.
If ignorance is eradicated and completely ceases, reaction ceases;
If reaction ceases, consciousness ceases...
Consciousness is permanent.

You just like COMPLETELY contradicted yourself here AND you have not defined what you mean by consciousness AND you did not give the source, that I asked for, for your reasoning.

Consciousness: awareness, lifeforce

Source: A place, person, or thing from which something comes or can be obtained.

I cannot provide you with a source for my reasoning(thinking), but the root cause of thinking is ignorance.

It's not a contradiction consciousness exists on different dimensional levels.

[Jikan]

I cannot provide you with a source for my reasoning(thinking), but the root cause of thinking is ignorance.

So you admit you are speaking from a position of ignorance? Not very convincing.

[gregkavarnos]

Consciousness: awareness, lifeforce

Source: A place, person, or thing from which something comes or can be obtained.

I cannot provide you with a source for my reasoning(thinking), but the root cause of thinking is ignorance.

It's not a contradiction consciousness exists on different dimensional levels.

You can just be honest and admit you don't have a clue!

[Red Faced Buddha]

Consciousness is not a thing(it), and is permanent.

Source?

There is no source of consciousness.
If ignorance is eradicated and completely ceases, reaction ceases;
If reaction ceases, consciousness ceases...

If you were killed in front of me , and you are not an arahant or Buddha , for a mere mind moment(no time) the consciousness that believes itself to be Gregkavarnos would cease, but the consciousness that believes itself to be lowlydog would remain uninterupted. The chain of consciousness remains unbroken, the endless cycle of birth and death continues.

Consciousness is permanent.

Thanks a lot,you just gave me a headache.

[lowlydog]

I cannot provide you with a source for my reasoning(thinking), but the root cause of thinking is ignorance.

So you admit you are speaking from a position of ignorance? Not very convincing.

One could also be conveying insight(experiential wisdom).

Didn't mean to give you a headache red faced buddha.

If I watch someone die, and their consciousness ceases, Does my consciousness cease? No, I remain aware.

I fail to see a break in consciousness as a whole, therefore I must conclude that consciousness is permanent.

[viniketa]

I fail to see a break in consciousness as a whole, therefore I must conclude that consciousness is permanent.

I fail to see Tasmanian devils dying or dead; therefore they must be immortal.

[catmoon]

As Greg said it depends how you define consciousness.

As I understand it, the Gelugpas define it as a threefold thing. There is gross mind, the ordinary awareness of daily life. This stops and starts everytime you go to sleep or wake up. There is subtle mind, which is present in sleep but ceases upon death. And there is the very subtle mind, that which crosses the Bardo and is reborn.

[lowlydog]

As Greg said it depends how you define consciousness.

As I understand it, the Gelugpas define it as a threefold thing. There is gross mind, the ordinary awareness of daily life. This stops and starts everytime you go to sleep or wake up. There is subtle mind, which is present in sleep but ceases upon death. And there is the very subtle mind, that which crosses the Bardo and is reborn.

Hi catmoon,

So what you are saying is that at the ultimate level(dimension of formless) consciousness is permanent, but at the mundane level(dimension of form) it is impermanent.

This is my understanding of consciousness, how is this not ultimately permanent.

[KeithBC]

So what you are saying is that at the ultimate level(dimension of formless) consciousness is permanent, but at the mundane level(dimension of form) it is impermanent.

I have usually seen it referred to as "mind". My understanding is that, at the ultimate level, "mind" is permanent, meaning that it is also non-composite and not dependent. However, at this level, there is not is not my mind or your mind. There is just mind, singular.

As soon as we give mind attributes, such as mine, yours, his, hers, big, small, etc, we are no longer talking about the ultimate level of reality. As soon as we do this, we are in the mundane level. These mundane "minds" that have characteristics are dependent, composite and impermanent.

Though we use the same word in English, we are comparing apples and oranges.

Om mani padme hum
Keith

[catmoon]

I take it Keith is saying that the bit that goes forward, if you can call it "a bit", lacks most or all of the characteristics that we would commonly identify as "me" or "self". Is that part of what you are saying Keith?

[KeithBC]

I take it Keith is saying that the bit that goes forward, if you can call it "a bit", lacks most or all of the characteristics that we would commonly identify as "me" or "self". Is that part of what you are saying Keith?

Pretty much, yes. At least to the extent that I can understand it. The terminology is problematic, as a non-composite mind cannot have "bits", but it's as much you as it is me (or neither).

Om mani padme hum
Keith

[lowlydog]

So what you are saying is that at the ultimate level(dimension of formless) consciousness is permanent, but at the mundane level(dimension of form) it is impermanent.

I have usually seen it referred to as "mind". My understanding is that, at the ultimate level, "mind" is permanent, meaning that it is also non-composite and not dependent. However, at this level, there is not is not my mind or your mind. There is just mind, singular.

As soon as we give mind attributes, such as mine, yours, his, hers, big, small, etc, we are no longer talking about the ultimate level of reality. As soon as we do this, we are in the mundane level. These mundane "minds" that have characteristics are dependent, composite and impermanent.

Though we use the same word in English, we are comparing apples and oranges.

Om mani padme hum
Keith

Hi Keith,

Mind consists of consciousness(formless ) perception, sensation, and reaction (form), since I am debating the permanant nature of consciousness I did not use the word mind in my definition as perception, sensation and reaction are impermanent as they are directly linked to form.

Yes, at the ultimate level there is not my mind or your mind there is just mind, singular. This is the "canvas" for lack of a better word that all form manifests from.

The canvas is pure awareness of mind(no-thing), or you could say awareness of consciousness or conscious of consciousness or awareness of awareness. This awareness of consciousness is what I believe some religions call "God".

I believe men such as Gotama(Buddha) and Jesus Christ discovered this truth and attempted to teach this to others. This truth as taught in buddhism must be experienced as it lies beyond the realm of thought and cognitave understanding, the buddhist Monks and Nuns have been diligent in their practice and have done an excellent job at preserving this teaching for 2600yrs.

The Christians have not entirely dropped the ball as some are quite saintly, but it is my personal opinion that the teachings have become confusing as it is not practice based, and hence we have people who believe there is a bearded man in the sky who will rein hell fire upon thee. Taken from this perspective many of Jesus's quotes take on a different meaning.

[pueraeternus]

Its pretty hard to believe in Indra having a role if he doesn't exist in the first place. So one implies the other.

That is beside the point. What Huseng is asserting and what you are asserting are qualitatively different questions - that is the point.

[pueraeternus]

This seems highly improbable to me. I can laud you on your faith, but it does not strike me as a reasoned statement.

So what is unreasoned to you? The fact that the Buddha taught such and such qualities about gods, or the idea about gods with such and such qualities?

There exists in Buddhism a body of teaching, having to do with the 4NT, 8FP, dependent origination, compassion, and meditative technique that is cogent, consistent, useful and is said to lead to enlightenment.

Ok, fair enough. But Enlightenment from what?

Hm. If Buddha is "all wise and powerful" you'll have to show me why he can't do everything himself. If he was all wise and powerful, then he would indeed have funded the sangha as you suggest. This sounds like a series of arguments to prove Buddha is NOT all wise and powerful.

There is no need for the Buddha to do everything himself - in fact, if he does it, it will not aid in the ripening of beings, since they will rely on him for all sorts of sundry matters, and forget the ultimate task of liberation. Precisely because he "didn't do everything himself", he is all wise and powerful.

[catmoon]

Its pretty hard to believe in Indra having a role if he doesn't exist in the first place. So one implies the other.

That is beside the point. What Huseng is asserting and what you are asserting are qualitatively different questions - that is the point.

I don't see it. The only position I have held throughout is identical to to Huseng's (at the outset.) To wit, that Buddha included Indra in his world view. There is no reason to paint Buddha as a follower of Indra, the arguments do not require it and if I have given you that impression it was unintentional.

[Red Faced Buddha]

Its pretty hard to believe in Indra having a role if he doesn't exist in the first place. So one implies the other.

That is beside the point. What Huseng is asserting and what you are asserting are qualitatively different questions - that is the point.

I don't see it. The only position I have held throughout is identical to to Huseng's (at the outset.) To wit, that Buddha included Indra in his world view. There is no reason to paint Buddha as a follower of Indra, the arguments do not require it and if I have given you that impression it was unintentional.

Isn't Sakra depicted as a mortal being who will die?

[catmoon]

Its pretty hard to believe in Indra having a role if he doesn't exist in the first place. So one implies the other.

That is beside the point. What Huseng is asserting and what you are asserting are qualitatively different questions - that is the point.

I don't see it. The only position I have held throughout is identical to to Huseng's (at the outset.) To wit, that Buddha included Indra in his world view. There is no reason to paint Buddha as a follower of Indra, the arguments do not require it and if I have given you that impression it was unintentional.

Isn't Sakra depicted as a mortal being who will die?

Yup, all occupants of all six samsaric realms have that problem. You, me, dogs, cats and various godlike occupants of the two realms above us.