Dharma Wheel

A Buddhist discussion forum on Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism
It is currently Mon Dec 22, 2014 12:25 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Forum rules


Please click here to view the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 311 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 16  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2013 1:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 29, 2010 3:10 pm
Posts: 805
lowlydog wrote:
asunthatneversets wrote:
Buddhism definitely refutes the idea that consciousness is permanent and eternal.


Prove it. :smile:


"Form, Ananda, is impermanent, conditioned, dependently arisen, subject to destruction, to vanishing, to fading away, to cessation. Through its cessation, cessation is spoken of. Feeling is impermanent ... Perception is impermanent ... Volitional formations are impermanent ... Consciousness is impermanent, conditioned, dependently arisen, subject to destruction, to vanishing, to fading away, to cessation. Through its cessation, cessation is spoken of. It is through the cessation of these things, Ananda, that cessation is spoken of."
Samyutta-nikâya, 22:21

_________________
If you believe certain words, you believe their hidden arguments. When you believe something is right or wrong, true of false, you believe the assumptions in the words which express the arguments. Such assumptions are often full of holes, but remain most precious to the convinced.

- The Open-Ended Proof from The Panoplia Prophetica


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2013 2:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2010 2:29 am
Posts: 211
Rachmiel,

You might find this article by David Loy to be helpful. I know I have.
http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-AN/26715.htm

_________________
The Great Way is not difficult
If only there is no picking or choosing
--- Xin Xin Ming

http://nondualism.org/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2013 3:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2012 10:50 pm
Posts: 371
pueraeternus wrote:
lowlydog wrote:
asunthatneversets wrote:
Buddhism definitely refutes the idea that consciousness is permanent and eternal.


Prove it. :smile:


"Form, Ananda, is impermanent, conditioned, dependently arisen, subject to destruction, to vanishing, to fading away, to cessation. Through its cessation, cessation is spoken of. Feeling is impermanent ... Perception is impermanent ... Volitional formations are impermanent ... Consciousness is impermanent, conditioned, dependently arisen, subject to destruction, to vanishing, to fading away, to cessation. Through its cessation, cessation is spoken of. It is through the cessation of these things, Ananda, that cessation is spoken of."
Samyutta-nikâya, 22:21


Notice that the Buddha says "form" singular, if the consciousness that identifies itself to be pueraeternus dies(cessation), does the consciousness that identifies itself as Lowlydog also vanish?
If the perspective is from that of pueraeternus than one could argue yes, everything vanishes(nirvana), but from the perspective of Lowlydog no, only the consciousness of pueraeternus has vanished.
From the beginning of time has there been a universal cessation of consciousness, or is consciousness eternal?
Understand I'm not denying Nirvana, or disagreeing with the dharma. I'm simply giving another perspective that other religions may also share. :smile:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2013 3:53 pm 
Online
Former staff member
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:22 pm
Posts: 4203
Location: Budapest
lowlydog,

Consciousness is momentary. "But what's called 'mind,' 'intellect,' or 'consciousness' by day and by night arises as one thing and ceases as another." (SN 12.61). Also, there are six consciousnesses and not just one, and those six are not single units either, as there are innumerable moments of consciousness going on a day, plus the sixth consciousness is the four aggregates.

_________________
"There is no such thing as the real mind. Ridding yourself of delusion: that's the real mind."
(Sheng-yen: Getting the Buddha Mind, p 73)

"Neither cultivation nor seated meditation — this is the pure Chan of Tathagata."
(Mazu Daoyi, X1321p3b23; tr. Jinhua Jia)

“Don’t rashly seek the true Buddha;
True Buddha can’t be found.
Does marvelous nature and spirit
Need tempering or refinement?
Mind is this mind carefree;
This face, the face at birth."

(Nanyue Mingzan: Enjoying the Way, tr. Jeff Shore; T2076p461b24-26)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2013 4:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 29, 2010 3:10 pm
Posts: 805
lowlydog wrote:
Notice that the Buddha says "form" singular, if the consciousness that identifies itself to be pueraeternus dies(cessation), does the consciousness that identifies itself as Lowlydog also vanish?
If the perspective is from that of pueraeternus than one could argue yes, everything vanishes(nirvana), but from the perspective of Lowlydog no, only the consciousness of pueraeternus has vanished.


The answer is obvious.

lowlydog wrote:
From the beginning of time has there been a universal cessation of consciousness, or is consciousness eternal?


The Buddha has never asserted a consciousness beyond the consciousness of the 5 skandhas.

lowlydog wrote:
Understand I'm not denying Nirvana, or disagreeing with the dharma. I'm simply giving another perspective that other religions may also share. :smile:


Well, we disagree on this point with the other religions.

_________________
If you believe certain words, you believe their hidden arguments. When you believe something is right or wrong, true of false, you believe the assumptions in the words which express the arguments. Such assumptions are often full of holes, but remain most precious to the convinced.

- The Open-Ended Proof from The Panoplia Prophetica


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2013 4:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 08, 2013 6:54 am
Posts: 825
Location: Virginia, USA
lowlydog wrote:
pueraeternus wrote:
[quote=
pueraeternus wrote:
lowlydog wrote:

asunthatneversets wrote:Buddhism definitely refutes the idea that consciousness is permanent and eternal.



Prove it. :smile:
asunthatneversets wrote:
Buddhism definitely refutes the idea that consciousness is permanent and eternal.




Consciousness might not exist eternally, but it seems to be very prone to reappearing. So I doubt there will be a point where it stops appearing.

_________________
"We know nothing at all. All our knowledge is but the knowledge of schoolchildren. The real nature of things we shall never know." - Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2013 4:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2013 1:05 am
Posts: 589
pueraeternus wrote:
"Form, Ananda, is impermanent, conditioned, dependently arisen, subject to destruction, to vanishing, to fading away, to cessation. Through its cessation, cessation is spoken of. Feeling is impermanent ... Perception is impermanent ... Volitional formations are impermanent ... Consciousness is impermanent, conditioned, dependently arisen, subject to destruction, to vanishing, to fading away, to cessation. Through its cessation, cessation is spoken of. It is through the cessation of these things, Ananda, that cessation is spoken of."
Samyutta-nikâya, 22:21

Thanks for this, pueraeternus.

Question: Is the consciousness in the part I bolded reflected consciousness, i.e. consciousness *of* something? Or is it pure/unreflected/pristine consciousness/awareness? If it's NOT the latter, then isn't there "room" in this teaching for pure awareness to be: permanent, unconditioned, non dependently arisen, not subject to destruction, vanishing, etc.? In which case pure awareness would be very much like brahman.

_________________
neti neti


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2013 4:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2012 10:50 pm
Posts: 371
pueraeternus wrote:
The Buddha has never asserted a consciousness beyond the consciousness of the 5 skandhas.



Neither am I, and it's ok to have differing views, we are swimming against the current. :smile:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2013 5:19 pm 
Offline
Global Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
Posts: 3037
Location: Olympia WA
Serious question here, how do you differentiate a "pure" versus "impure" consciousness in this context? By definition, isn't a consciousness always the noting of something, even if it is only noting itself over and over again?

_________________
"We're chained to the world and we all gotta pull" -Tom Waits


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2013 5:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2012 12:23 am
Posts: 245
pueraeternus wrote:

The Buddha has never asserted a consciousness beyond the consciousness of the 5 skandhas.



Most reputable scholars would disagree. Check out the Kevatta (Kevaddha) Sutta: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

"'Your question should not be phrased in this way: Where do these four great elements — the earth property, the liquid property, the fire property, and the wind property — cease without remainder? Instead, it should be phrased like this:


Where do water, earth, fire, & wind
have no footing?
Where are long & short,
coarse & fine,
fair & foul,
name & form
brought to an end?
"'And the answer to that is:


Consciousness without feature,
without end,
luminous all around:
Here water, earth, fire, & wind
have no footing.
Here long & short
coarse & fine
fair & foul
name & form
are all brought to an end.
With the cessation of [the activity of] consciousness
each is here brought to an end.'"
That is what the Blessed One said. Gratified, Kevatta the householder delighted in the Blessed One's words.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2013 5:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 5:58 am
Posts: 993
songhill wrote:
futerko wrote:
The difference is whether this is seen to be truly existing or not. If it is truly existing then it has a beginning, as in Advaita, whereas in Buddhism it is beginingless.


The Buddha's awakening transcends bhava and abhava. The Tathagata neither exists/bhava nor is he non-existent/abhava. Things—temporal things—exit and then perish. We are here today, gone tomorrow. This is samsara which is like a dream. Nothing in this temporal dearm is like the Tathagata who is truly liberated and truly real.

Temporal things do not exist and then perish, even on a physical level we have the idea that matter/energy can be neither created nor destroyed, and in Buddhism they are said to be exactly the same as your definition of Tathagata. The idea that tathatā neither exists nor is non-existent IS the claim that it is like a dream. The idea that they are somehow seperate is Avdaita.

_________________
we cannot get rid of God because we still believe in grammar - Nietzsche


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2013 5:44 pm 
Online
Former staff member
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Posts: 10289
Location: Greece
Perception (sense consciousness) is only one element of consciousness and is, of itself, neither pure nor impure. It is considered ethically variable and exists in all instances of consciousness (remember the mind itself is a sense organ too in Buddhism). The problem starts to manifest at the level of feeling and discrimination.
:namaste:

_________________
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2013 5:46 pm 
Offline
Global Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
Posts: 3037
Location: Olympia WA
gregkavarnos wrote:
Perception (sense consciousness) is only one element of consciousness and is, of itself, neither pure nor impure. It is considered ethically variable and exists in all instances of consciousness (remember the mind itself is a sense organ too in Buddhism). The problem starts to manifest at the level of feeling and discrimination.
:namaste:


Thanks.

_________________
"We're chained to the world and we all gotta pull" -Tom Waits


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2013 5:58 pm 
Online
Former staff member
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Posts: 10289
Location: Greece
songhill wrote:
...Consciousness without feature...
You left out the footnote:
Quote:
Viññanam anidassanam. This term is nowhere explained in the Canon, although MN 49 mentions that it "does not partake in the allness of the All" — the "All" meaning the six internal and six external sense media (see SN 35.23). In this it differs from the consciousness factor in dependent co-arising, which is defined in terms of the six sense media. Lying outside of time and space, it would also not come under the consciousness-aggregate, which covers all consciousness near and far; past, present, and future. However, the fact that it is outside of time and space — in a dimension where there is no here, there, or in between (Ud 1.10), no coming, no going, or staying (Ud 8.1) — means that it cannot be described as permanent or omnipresent, terms that have meaning only within space and time. The standard description of nibbana after death is, "All that is sensed, not being relished, will grow cold right here." (See MN 140 and Iti 44.) Again, as "all" is defined as the sense media, this raises the question as to whether consciousness without feature is not covered by this "all." However, AN 4.174 warns that any speculation as to whether anything does or doesn't remain after the remainderless stopping of the six sense media is to "objectify non-objectification," which gets in the way of attaining the non-objectified. Thus this is a question that is best put aside.

_________________
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2013 5:59 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2012 10:50 pm
Posts: 371
Consciousness is now.


Last edited by Sherab Dorje on Thu Jan 17, 2013 6:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Removed link to off topic video


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2013 6:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 08, 2013 6:54 am
Posts: 825
Location: Virginia, USA
Quote:
Lying outside of time and space, it would also not come under the consciousness-aggregate, which covers all consciousness near and far; past, present, and future. However, the fact that it is outside of time and space — in a dimension where there is no here, there, or in between (Ud 1.10), no coming, no going, or staying (Ud 8.1) — means that it cannot be described as permanent or omnipresent, terms that have meaning only within space and time.


What exactly exists outside of space and time? And how could any person possibly know of it?

_________________
"We know nothing at all. All our knowledge is but the knowledge of schoolchildren. The real nature of things we shall never know." - Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2013 6:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 5:58 am
Posts: 993
lowlydog wrote:
Consciousness is now.

Yeah, I agree, consciousness was then (16.59 utc on 17th Jan, 2013). :tongue:

_________________
we cannot get rid of God because we still believe in grammar - Nietzsche


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2013 6:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2012 12:23 am
Posts: 245
futerko wrote:
songhill wrote:
futerko wrote:
The difference is whether this is seen to be truly existing or not. If it is truly existing then it has a beginning, as in Advaita, whereas in Buddhism it is beginingless.


The Buddha's awakening transcends bhava and abhava. The Tathagata neither exists/bhava nor is he non-existent/abhava. Things—temporal things—exit and then perish. We are here today, gone tomorrow. This is samsara which is like a dream. Nothing in this temporal dearm is like the Tathagata who is truly liberated and truly real.

Temporal things do not exist and then perish, even on a physical level we have the idea that matter/energy can be neither created nor destroyed, and in Buddhism they are said to be exactly the same as your definition of Tathagata. The idea that tathatā neither exists nor is non-existent IS the claim that it is like a dream. The idea that they are somehow seperate is Avdaita.


Physicists don't even know what space is made of let alone matter/energy. No physicist has ever seen pure matter let alone pure energy. These are fictions, although useful ones, but nevertheless fictions like longitudinal and latitudinal lines. Relative to our psycho-physical organism things arise and perish on a momentary basis. Yesterday is not here. It has perished. What kind of phenomena does this is a dream or an illusion. It is not real. Our psycho-physical body is not real and what it sees and determines is also not real. All of our thoughts and ideas about Buddhism and this temporal world are illusory and unreal. Only the Tathagata abides in true and ultimate reality who cannot be discerned with the illusory psycho-physical body since he transcends it. To see/gnosis the Tathagata we have to become the Tathagata. Short of this we are prithagjana, spiritual losers.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2013 6:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 5:58 am
Posts: 993
songhill wrote:
futerko wrote:
songhill wrote:
The Buddha's awakening transcends bhava and abhava. The Tathagata neither exists/bhava nor is he non-existent/abhava. Things—temporal things—exit and then perish. We are here today, gone tomorrow. This is samsara which is like a dream. Nothing in this temporal dearm is like the Tathagata who is truly liberated and truly real.

Temporal things do not exist and then perish, even on a physical level we have the idea that matter/energy can be neither created nor destroyed, and in Buddhism they are said to be exactly the same as your definition of Tathagata. The idea that tathatā neither exists nor is non-existent IS the claim that it is like a dream. The idea that they are somehow seperate is Avdaita.


Physicists don't even know what space is made of let alone matter/energy. No physicist has ever seen pure matter let alone pure energy. These are fictions, although useful ones, but nevertheless fictions like longitudinal and latitudinal lines. Relative to our psycho-physical organism things arise and perish on a momentary basis. Yesterday is not here. It has perished. What kind of phenomena does this is a dream or an illusion. It is not real. Our psycho-physical body is not real and what it sees and determines is also not real. All of our thoughts and ideas about Buddhism and this temporal world are illusory and unreal. Only the Tathagata abides in true and ultimate reality who cannot be discerned with the illusory psycho-physical body since he transcends it. To see/gnosis the Tathagata we have to become the Tathagata. Short of this we are prithagjana, spiritual losers.


So your definition of phenomena is as "a dream or illusion", and your definition of Tathagata is that he "neither exists/bhava nor is he non-existent/abhava". How is it possible to differentiate between two things when your definition of them is identical?

_________________
we cannot get rid of God because we still believe in grammar - Nietzsche


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2013 7:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2012 12:23 am
Posts: 245
futerko wrote:
So your definition of phenomena is as "a dream or illusion", and your definition of Tathagata is that he "neither exists/bhava nor is he non-existent/abhava". How is it possible to differentiate between two things when your definition of them is identical?


My notion of dream or an illusion, as it applies to phenomena, is different than Tathagata who is boundless and all pervasive; never comes into existence (bhava) nor perishes (abhava),


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 311 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 16  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 12 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group