Questions about Buddha's teachings

Hi All,

One question just now came to my mind, and i am not able to understand it - in 5 aggregates, consciousness is an aggregate and is of six types based on six sense organs.

if we take eye as an example, it is said when there is eye, object, light and attention, then visual consciousness arises - but what is this consciousness actually? means what happens in case of a blind person - we can say visual consciousness is absent in a blind person - but what does this mean - what is this visual consciousness , does it mean the eyes are living in a normal person and not living in a blind person something like this?

it can be a too idiotic question. but please help me to understand consciousness as an aggregate in 5 aggregates. Thanks in advance.

Hi All,

One question just now came to my mind, and i am not able to understand it - in 5 aggregates, consciousness is an aggregate and is of six types based on six sense organs.

if we take eye as an example, it is said when there is eye, object, light and attention, then visual consciousness arises - but what is this consciousness actually? means what happens in case of a blind person - we can say visual consciousness is absent in a blind person - but what does this mean - what is this visual consciousness , does it mean the eyes are living in a normal person and not living in a blind person something like this?

it can be a too idiotic question. but please help me to understand consciousness as an aggregate in 5 aggregates. Thanks in advance.

misecmisc1 said:

if we take eye as an example, it is said when there is eye, object, light and attention, then visual consciousness arises - but what is this consciousness actually? means what happens in case of a blind person - we can say visual consciousness is absent in a blind person - but what does this mean - what is this visual consciousness , does it mean the eyes are living in a normal person and not living in a blind person something like this?

You might find the extract below of interest. Basically eye consciousness is dependent on form ( a visual object ) and the eye. Clearly if the physical eye is not "working" then eye consciousness cannot arise.
Spiny

Loka Sutta: The World translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu © 1998–2012

"Dwelling at Savatthi. There the Blessed One addressed the monks: "I will teach you the origination of the world & the ending of the world. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak."
"As you say, lord," the monks responded to the Blessed One.
The Blessed One said: "And what is the origination of the world? Dependent on the eye & forms there arises eye-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance. From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. This is the origination of the world."

http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2012/01/munindra-on-anatta.html?m=1

Some people are better at visual thinking than others. Artists, for example, might thing something out visually.

Conrad.

Consciousness might be a confusing word, in translating the skandhas. It has a specific and a broad meaning. We are both "conscious of" something and we "are in a conscious state" as in awake.

In the skandhas, it seems from context that awareness or our ability to shift the focus of our attention is what they mean. When you focus on what your eyes are seeing, then your mind is conscious of that and brings the other skandhas to bear. You only remember and think about what you are paying attention to. What you are focused on becomes a big part of the mind and causes the other skandhas to react.

But, without that focus of attention, your mind is ignoring the sounds that your ears are picking up or your other senses. One example is, while I'm staring at the computer screen and paying attention to what I'm reading, my wife is in the room and talking away. I won't have a clue what she was saying later because my consciousness is focused on my sight, not my hearing. When she finally gets my attention and I'm conscious of what she's saying, then we have a discussion about a person's ability to concentrate, or shut out the other senses.

Yes, to some extent people can train themselves to be conscious of or aware of all the senses at once. That's what meditation does for us. Still, when faced with a task, we use this particular skandha to bring all the power of our mind to bear on what we're doing.

this starts a bit slow but gets good and will answer most of the dependent origination questions:

Thanks all. So if there is eye, form, light and attention, then visual consciousness arises - so visual consciousness is awareness that something is observed - is this correct?

what is the meaning of attention here? does it mean that we are seeing towards east, then the objects in west which are towards our back, since our eyes are seeing in east and not towards west - so our attention is towards east and not west - is this the sense of attention in basic terms, or ,attention is carefulness involved in watching an object?

Means if there is eye, form and light then also can visual consciousness arise? or attention is also required for visual consciousness to arise? Please suggest.

misecmisc1 said:

Means if there is eye, form and light then also can visual consciousness arise? or attention is also required for visual consciousness to arise? Please suggest.

Technically visual ( eye ) consciousness is just the bare awareness of form, which we may or may not pay attention to. Whether we pay attention or not often depends on our level of interest. The same is true of all sensory input.

Spiny

misecmisc1 said:

Thanks all. So if there is eye, form, light and attention, then visual consciousness arises - so visual consciousness is awareness that something is observed - is this correct?

what is the meaning of attention here? does it mean that we are seeing towards east, then the objects in west which are towards our back, since our eyes are seeing in east and not towards west - so our attention is towards east and not west - is this the sense of attention in basic terms, or ,attention is carefulness involved in watching an object?

Means if there is eye, form and light then also can visual consciousness arise? or attention is also required for visual consciousness to arise? Please suggest.

The attention is the consciousness, which is tied to our perceptions. People who cannot hear cannot be conscious of sounds but are conscious of vibrations, instead. It takes all the skandhas working together to process what our consciousness perceives from our perceptions, what our memories and habits and emotions tell us is the meaning and importance of what's happening, and decide what to do about it.

Even within your field of vision, you're only paying attention to and conscious of whatever you're focused on. There's a famous experiment of a man in a guerilla suit in a crowd that illustrates the power of our attention. That doesn't mean other perceptions are shut down, of course. Let someone speak your name, or something hot touch your hand, and your consciousness immediately focuses on that.

It's really just another model of how the mind works, but it's an amazing model that Cognitive Psychology is only now beginning to accept and adopt in some form, after thousands of years. The important point to the skandhas from a Buddhist perspective is understanding that when we talk about the self or even the soul, we're talking about the all important mind. The mind is who we are. And the mind is not one unchanging, eternal thing, but a group of processes all dancing together and interacting and constantly in motion, thus constantly changing. You cannot point to one thing or even one activity and say, "Here is the mind!"

Let us take the example of hand touching a hot utensil.

So here there is hand, there is utensil - but when our hand touches the utensil, then contact is made, then a feeling arises of unpleasant based on the perception of the utensil being hot from the perception of hot which we have based on our memory and experiences.

but as per dependent origination, after consciousness , contact arises - but in this case the moment hand touches utensil, there arises tacticle consciousness i.e. awareness of something getting touched to hand and also contact is this thing only. So when hand touches utensil, then do tacticle consciousness and contact arises simultaneously in this case? and not contact after consciousness?

Well in all 6 cases is this the case - that consciousness and contact arise simultaneously. But as per dependent origination, consciousness leads to contact.

Please can someone suggest what is happening in this situation. Thanks in advance.

I don't think "contact" is meant in the sense of a hand touching a hot utensil.

I suspect the "contact" involved is the entanglement of thinking with matter that makes it possible for the thinker to touch something hot (as with a hand).

Someone jump in if I got that wrong.


Conrad.

conradcook said:

I don't think "contact" is meant in the sense of a hand touching a hot utensil.
I suspect the "contact" involved is the entanglement of thinking with matter that makes it possible for the thinker to touch something hot (as with a hand).

Did not understand what you said. Please tell in detail.


Hi All,
The question is - in all 6 cases is this the case - that consciousness and contact arise simultaneously. But as per dependent origination, consciousness leads to contact. So in all 6 cases, does consciousness arise before/simultaneously with contact? Please suggest.

There are eye, ear, nose, body ... consciousness that arise from contact eg. light hitting eyes, sound waves hitting ear drum, touch sensations etc. Then there is an awareness or "consciousness" of forms, sounds, touch ie. eye consciousness, ear consciousness(vinnana) etc.

Without this awareness or vinnana it is as though there is no form, sounds heard or touch felt which are the objects of experience (namarupa). The vinnana in DO refers to this type of consciousness as distinct from eye, ear, nose, tongue, body and mind consciousness.

Eg. I am sitting. When I am preoocupied with my thoughts, there is no awareness of sitting. "I" am not sitting until "I" bring my attention to sitting. So the body sits but only when awareness of that fact occurs that the thought "I am sitting" appears. Same with breathing: the body "breathes" but without paying attention to the sensations involved one cannot know one is breathing.

On the other hand when I put my awareness on say sounds of a bell. The sound comes and goes. Even though I am still conscious, there is no experience of sound. Awareness/vinnana needs and object/namarupa for an experience to occur. Then comes the sense media : experience of seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, body sensations and mental world. Vinnana paccaya namarupa; namarupa paccaya salayatanam.

Without this awareness/vinnana there is no experience of sitting,swallowing, sounds, etc. and vice versa.

Experience always has contents. We cannot have an experience without experiencing something. A thought does not exist without a thinking of the thought, and no one can think without thinking a thought.


"Very well then, Kotthita my friend, I will give you an analogy; for there are cases where it is through the use of an analogy that intelligent people can understand the meaning of what is being said. It is as if two sheaves of reeds were to stand leaning against one another. In the same way, from name-&-form as a requisite condition comes consciousness, from consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form. From name & form as a requisite condition come the six sense media. From the six sense media as a requisite condition comes contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance. From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. Such is the origination of this entire mass of suffering & stress.

"If one were to pull away one of those sheaves of reeds, the other would fall; if one were to pull away the other, the first one would fall. In the same way, from the cessation of name-&-form comes the cessation of consciousness, from the cessation of consciousness comes the cessation of name-&-form. From the cessation of name-&-form comes the cessation of the six sense media. From the cessation of the six sense media comes the cessation of contact. From the cessation of contact comes the cessation of feeling. From the cessation of feeling comes the cessation of craving. From the cessation of craving comes the cessation of clinging/sustenance. From the cessation of clinging/sustenance comes the cessation of becoming. From the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth. From the cessation of birth, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair all cease. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of suffering & stress."

@pegembera/all: So there are 2 consciousness in every case - one is the awareness of the working of a sense organ and second is the awareness of experience of the object which is being experienced by the sense organ - is this correct?

means, in case of eye the 2 consciousness are - one is the awareness of a working eye (in case of blind person it is not there as there is no working eye) and second is the awareness of experience of seeing a laptop in front of me - is this correct?

In Dependent origination, which Consciousness is referred to before NameAndForm? i guess it should be second consciousness of the awareness of experience of the object and so Name and Form should be arising based on this awareness of experience - am i getting it correctly or have i understood it wrongly.

you can consider me an idiot to not be able to understand it till now - but please help me understand it. Thanks in advance.

misecmisc1 said:

conradcook said:

I don't think "contact" is meant in the sense of a hand touching a hot utensil.
I suspect the "contact" involved is the entanglement of thinking with matter that makes it possible for the thinker to touch something hot (as with a hand).

Did not understand what you said. Please tell in detail.


Hi All,
The question is - in all 6 cases is this the case - that consciousness and contact arise simultaneously. But as per dependent origination, consciousness leads to contact. So in all 6 cases, does consciousness arise before/simultaneously with contact? Please suggest.

consciousness is potentiality or based on causes/conditions.

for instance hand meets table = arising of touch consciousness. when hand is off table then there is no touch consciousness because there is no contact.

another way we can frame this is. phenomena is consciousness and indistinguishable from consciousness.

there is no arising in or from consciousness. the arising of the sensations, thought, smell, taste, sound, form is in itself consciousness, but all of those are dependent upon a sense organ and contact sense object, etc. thus empty of inherent existence.

and in a way there is no arising. because we cannot determine when something starts and something begins.

for something to arise it needs to have a reference point based on the past, present, and future.

but if you listen to noise. in hearing, just sounds, no hearer. there is only the vivid manifestation of noise. where is it appearing? when is it appear? who is it appearing to?

see none of these apply in reality or direct experience.

"where" is an assumption or projected reference point of here and there.

"when" is an assumption that there is a reference point of this moment making a connection to the last moment and even the upcoming moment.

same with "who". the subject "I" is projected after the experience. in actuality there is only the sound. the hearer is an assumption. in hearing, just sounds, no hearer. hearing is the process of various causes/conditions coming together.

the bell, striking the bell, person who is sticking the bell, the ear, environment, waves = sound (consciousness arising from contact).

there is absolutely no subject other than minds projection of subject. from contact to feeling is totally impersonal. the personal aspects arise from craving and clinging, which in turn arise from contact and feeling, etc.

so it is making clear that when a reference point is assumed based on karma/conditioning then we assume that there is a self experiencing or a consciousness experiencing the phenomena. but in actuality there is only the arising of phenomena in the six sense spheres. and it is the sound that is conscious of sound, no agent, no hearer.

not sure this answers your question.

all the six spheres are disjointed and independent of each other.

sound has absolutely nothing to do with smell, etc. the mind links each sense base thus we have experience. but there is no true subject other than minds projection based on mind/body.

just this thought, smell, taste, sound, form, color, texture.

misecmisc1 said:

conradcook said:

I don't think "contact" is meant in the sense of a hand touching a hot utensil.
I suspect the "contact" involved is the entanglement of thinking with matter that makes it possible for the thinker to touch something hot (as with a hand).

Did not understand what you said. Please tell in detail.

Hi All,
The question is - in all 6 cases is this the case - that consciousness and contact arise simultaneously. But as per dependent origination, consciousness leads to contact. So in all 6 cases, does consciousness arise before/simultaneously with contact? Please suggest.

I'm not an authority on this. But I think the source of the paradox you've identified is the notion that consciousness "is," prior to the contact, or that otherwise it must "not be."

You can work on watching your own consciousness arise as a form of meditation. It seems to me that consciousness becomes more than is, and that part of this becoming which is the normal action of consciousness is its contact with matter, in the form of embodiment.

But frankly I don't know what 6 cases you're talking about, so this way of looking at it might not be useful to you.

Buddha bless,


Conrad.

conradcook said:

But frankly I don't know what 6 cases you're talking about, so this way of looking at it might not be useful to you.

the 6 cases which i am talking about are the cases of 6 sense media - 5 sense organs and mind(also considered a sense organ by Buddha as thoughts, ideas are arising in mind).

@taiyaki: thanks for your reply. but my questions still remain. can you please answer my above questions too in a direct way.

Hi All,
Please suggest.

misecmisc1 said:

@pegembera/all: So there are 2 consciousness in every case - one is the awareness of the working of a sense organ and second is the awareness of experience of the object which is being experienced by the sense organ - is this correct?

means, in case of eye the 2 consciousness are - one is the awareness of a working eye (in case of blind person it is not there as there is no working eye) and second is the awareness of experience of seeing a laptop in front of me - is this correct?

In Dependent origination, which Consciousness is referred to before NameAndForm? i guess it should be second consciousness of the awareness of experience of the object and so Name and Form should be arising based on this awareness of experience - am i getting it correctly or have i understood it wrongly.

you can consider me an idiot to not be able to understand it till now - but please help me understand it. Thanks in advance.

there are six realms of consciousness, six sense spheres, and six objects of contact.

eye (sense organ) + laptop (object) + contact = eye consciousness.

can you explain your question about name and form. i am a bit confused.

misecmisc1 said:

conradcook said:

But frankly I don't know what 6 cases you're talking about, so this way of looking at it might not be useful to you.

the 6 cases which i am talking about are the cases of 6 sense media - 5 sense organs and mind(also considered a sense organ by Buddha as thoughts, ideas are arising in mind).

thoughts do not arise in mind. thoughts are mind.

mind + thought = thought consciousness. there is no independent mind, because it is dependent on thought and contact. thus thought itself is conscious of thought. there is no awareness that is observing a thought. that is just a misperception.

thought is awareness. absence of thought is awareness. nothing arises in awareness or apart from awareness. everything arises as awareness.

http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2009/03/on-anatta-emptiness-and-spontaneous.html

http://what-buddha-said.net/drops/II/The_Core_Duality.htm

Also on nama rupa.

Hi All,
The question is - in all 6 cases is this the case - that consciousness and contact arise simultaneously. But as per dependent origination, consciousness leads to contact. So in all 6 cases, does consciousness arise before/simultaneously with contact? Please suggest.

-btw dependent origination is not linear. each part of the chain is dependent on the other parts.

we cannot say anything has arisen first or second. the contact is the result of the other links in the chain being in play. same with consciousness, etc.

you're coming at it from a dualistic point of view thus looking for a first cause.

dependent origination asserts that multiple causes and conditions needs to already be in order for something to have the appearance of arising/falling.

chicken and egg arise simultaneously. the chicken contains the egg and the egg contains the chicken. neither coming first, nor last. each part containing the whole and each whole containing the part.

so another way that has helped me understand a little bit about this is to think about infinite finites coming together. then those finites can be divisible into even more finites, etc. thus there are no entities, but processes meeting processes.

so there is no first cause because there is no true reference point other than the minds misperception.

@taiyaki: thanks for your replies. it cleared some points.

Hi taiyaki/all,
i was just thinking about it - this thought came to my mind - visual consciousness or visual awareness or seeing is a process , which is technically performed by the light photons coming from the object reaching eye forming an inverted image on the retina of the eye.

contact is the image of the object coming to mind - which is technically performed by the carrying of the inverted image of retina by neurons to the brain and again forming its inverted image leading to original image of the object in our brain.

am i getting it correctly or wrongly? Please suggest.

misecmisc1 said:

@pegembera/all: So there are 2 consciousness in every case - one is the awareness of the working of a sense organ and second is the awareness of experience of the object which is being experienced by the sense organ - is this correct?

yes

means, in case of eye the 2 consciousness are - one is the awareness of a working eye (in case of blind person it is not there as there is no working eye) and second is the awareness of experience of seeing a laptop in front of me - is this correct?

yes. In dreams, one "sees" through mind base and not eye. Seeing, hearing, smelling etc does not have to depend on eyes, ears, nose etc. Even if the eyes are working, in a sea of faces we only "see" the faces that we recognise and don't register the rest as if they don't exist.

In Dependent origination, which Consciousness is referred to before NameAndForm? i guess it should be second consciousness of the awareness of experience of the object and so Name and Form should be arising based on this awareness of experience - am i getting it correctly or have i understood it wrongly.

yes. Name form is similar to the 5 aggregates (form, feeling, perception, formations, consciousness) which is the totality of human experience. In the DO formula vinnana paccaya namarupa, suggests that this consciousness is different. The 5 aggregates are not suffering but clinging to them (pancauppadanakhandha) is.

you can consider me an idiot to not be able to understand it till now - but please help me understand it. Thanks in advance.

Not at all. What I have expressed is just my understanding.

@pegembera: Thanks.

@taiyaki: Thanks for the link on name and form. i was trying to understand consciousness in 5 aggregates, but in DO somehow i saw Name and Form, but didnot thought about it much. Now realized after going through the link that Name and Form in DO is the total experience which we have throughout our life - as Name is Mind and Form is our material body and how we create the whole world around us through our Mind and we idiotically live in this world considering it as reality, which in actual reality is just phenomena arising and passing away and nothing else.

@misecmisc1

http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2011/12/experience-realization-view-practice.html

http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2010/12/my-e-booke-journal.html

http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2009/03/on-anatta-emptiness-and-spontaneous.html

Read the first one and last one, then read the middle one.
It is a lot of reading but this is the material that will open your eyes.

about your question regarding eye consciousness:

http://acidharma.org/aci/online/EmptinessMeditations.pdf



All this material will help you more than I can help you.

The answers are always in the immediate, direct experience. So always come back to the gateless gate.

Best wishes and happy journeying!

misecmisc1 said:

contact is the image of the object coming to mind - which is technically performed by the carrying of the inverted image of retina by neurons to the brain and again forming its inverted image leading to original image of the object in our brain.

In simple terms contact is when we pay attention to a particular sense consciousness. So for example walking down a street, seeing stuff but not really taking it in, then we see somebody we know and our attention focuses - that's contact. If we like the person we will have a pleasant feeling - so feeling arises in dependence on contact, as described in dependent origination.
Or maybe we're meditating, a dog has been barking for some time, then we begin to pay attention to it and get irritated!

Spiny

First of all the aggregate consciousness is distinct from the consciousness of the 6-sense media. In regards to the senses, it means cognition dependent upon contact between the sensor (eye/ear/etc.) and the stimulus (sight/sound/etc.)

Consciousness in the aggregates is in regards to the process of cognition itself. Consciousness is a process that distinguishes one phenomena from another. Such as "this sight and that sight" or "this thought and that thought" or "this person and that person." As described by dependent origination, this process of cognition arises dependent upon both volitional fabrication (behaviors performed by act of will) and nama-rupa (feeling, perception, contact, intention, and feeling, as well as the 4 great elements and the form dependent upon the 4 great elements).

The reason that it is dependent upon volitional fabrications is because volitional fabrications are Karma that lead to fruition in phenomenal manifestation. It is dependent upon namarupa because without namarupa there is no "landing" for cognition to arise. It is impossible for cognition to occur without the co-occurance of name and form.

There is another process seperate from the consciuosness of the aggregates and dependent origination which is often translated by westerners as "consciousness" as well, but may be more properly defined as "mind". It is what includes the citta, manas, and vinnana, which are the state of mind, thinking faculty, and groundless potentiation (subtle mind). These 3 arise dependent upon the aggregates as a whole and they are the ongoing process that translate into one's subjective experience of the world. When the Buddha describes "consciousness without landing" he is talking about the vinnana in a state of final becoming before parinirvana. This is how the Buddha continues phenomenal existence and is able to interact with others after having brought to cessation the entire process dependent origination and along with it the process of gross cognition.

Talisman said:

First of all the aggregate consciousness is distinct from the consciousness of the 6-sense media. In regards to the senses, it means cognition dependent upon contact between the sensor (eye/ear/etc.) and the stimulus (sight/sound/etc.)

Consciousness in the aggregates is in regards to the process of cognition itself. Consciousness is a process that distinguishes one phenomena from another. Such as "this sight and that sight" or "this thought and that thought" or "this person and that person." As described by dependent origination, this process of cognition arises dependent upon both volitional fabrication (behaviors performed by act of will) and nama-rupa (feeling, perception, contact, intention, and feeling, as well as the 4 great elements and the form dependent upon the 4 great elements).

The reason that it is dependent upon volitional fabrications is because volitional fabrications are Karma that lead to fruition in phenomenal manifestation. It is dependent upon namarupa because without namarupa there is no "landing" for cognition to arise. It is impossible for cognition to occur without the co-occurance of name and form.

i did not understand your statements clearly. So to clarify , are you saying:
1. Is consciousness in DO different or same consciousness in 5 aggregates?
2. So is consciousness in case of eye i.e. visual consciousness - awareness of an object which is in front of eyes or awareness of change in object in front of eyes?

Please clarify.

misecmisc1 said:

i did not understand your statements clearly. So to clarify , are you saying:
1. Is consciousness in DO different or same consciousness in 5 aggregates?
2. So is consciousness in case of eye i.e. visual consciousness - awareness of an object which is in front of eyes or awareness of change in object in front of eyes?

1. Consciousness is defined in the same way thoughout, but it has a different function in DO.
2. It could be either. Another example: you're sitting at your computer reading this mesage - you will have visual consciouness of both the computer screen and the background, eg the room you're in. But your attention is on the computer screen and you're having contact with this message. Does that help?

Spiny

Blind or not your still conciously aware. Right?

Hi All,

My understanding about consciousness in Buddha's teachings till now:

the consciousness in 5 aggregates is same as consciousness in DO and everywhere else in Buddha's teachings as there is only this consciousness which Buddha talked about - consciousness or awareness of act of working of 6 sense organs arising at 6 sense organs when there are corresponding 6 external sense objects. For example - in case of eye, the act of seeing is visual consciousness - which is plain awareness of what is in front of the eyes - to recognize an object is perception, so perception will tell if it is same or different object. In case of ear, the act of hearing is auditory consciousness. So the awareness of act of working of a sense organ is its consciousness in all 6 cases.

when eyes are closed, then visual consciousness does not arise as eye is not opened there. when there is no external object (say in a dark room in absence of light), then visual consciousness is not there as there is no external object to view through light.

when both eye and external object (with light) are present, then a conditioned process of visual consciousness arises, which lets us aware of something in front of us - this leads to intention (mental phenomena in NameAndForm) to know about this object - this leads to attention (mental phenomena in NameAndForm) towards this object. This conditioning arises at eye (sense organ) and a contact arises - based on meeting of eye, object, visual consciousness. Since contact is also a mental phenomena in NameAndForm, this leads to internal checking of our memory database(chitta in our mind) to see if we recognize this object and if the object search is found there, perception occurs - or if it is a totally new object, then we label it mentally as an verbal Fabrication, leading to mental consciousness at mind leading to NameAndForm realization by storing this new entry to our memory database. If the object was known to us, then perception (mental phenomena in NameAndForm arises). This leads to thoughts in our mind (sense organ) about that object, which arises contact - based on meeting of mind, thought and mental consciousness. This leads to arising of feeling based on attachment, aversion or neither which we feel towards that object. This leads to craving, clinging towards that object if we like it or craving clinging to get away from that object if we dislike it - leading to becoming and then arising of birth of the action based on it and then the cessation of the action towards that object.

This is my understanding of Buddha's teaching of DO till now. Please correct me wherever my understanding is wrong in above. Thanks in advance.

That seems right, i'll double check in meditation.

You should also read up on how co dependent origination works via wisdom or clear seeing.

@misecmisc1 You might find these meetings with HHDL, neuroscientists and psychologists on attention, memory and mind. The discussions are primarily from a western perspective but there's plenty of stuff about how attention isn't the same as gross sense conciousness and alot of other fun stuff. There's a total of 10 2hr+ sessions.

You tube:

For download:

http://www.dalailama.com/webcasts/post/63-mind-and-life-xviii---attention-memory-and-mind

@person: Thanks, will go through these links.

Hi All,
One question: How can we experience/understand the arising and passing away of consciousness in 5 aggregates? Please suggest. Thanks in advance.

Any suggestions for the above question, please.

misecmisc1 said:

One question: How can we experience/understand the arising and passing away of consciousness in 5 aggregates? Please suggest. Thanks in advance.

Basically by watching closely, both on and off the cushion.

Spiny

Hi All,

is Nirvana possible by living in a family life with wife and child - or - for the possibility of attaining Nirvana, the world needs to be renounced completely? What did Buddha said about this thing? Please suggest.

Hi All,

Any replies to above, please. Thanks in advance.

misecmisc1 said:

Hi All,

is Nirvana possible by living in a family life with wife and child - or - for the possibility of attaining Nirvana, the world needs to be renounced completely? What did Buddha said about this thing? Please suggest.

There are two schools of thought on the subject. First, though, I don't like to talk about what Buddha said, because nobody knows what he said without a time machine. We can talk about what the sutras have to say about it, including what they claim Buddha said.

The sutras were written by temple monks, venerated and preserved by temple monks, and the writings mostly reflect their belief that only by leaving the complications and demands of a normal family life and putting your entire effort into study and practice of the Dharma can someone hope to become a Buddha in this lifetime. For the lay Buddhist, their life's goal was not to become enlightened, but to accumulate merit or good karma through the Precepts and supporting the temples. How could they hope to sit in meditatin and chant for twenty hours a day, when they had to work hard supporting their family and please the authorities?

But the Buddhism we practice in the West or even in more modern Buddhist nations is not the same thing as the monastic practice of its roots. What we call a "lay life" would be inconceivable to people of Buddha's time. Even the monk's life is different.

@cinorjer: Thanks for replying.

I think i have read somewhere (but i cannot recollect where i read it) - in the description of some sutta, there was said that Buddha told for attaining Arhantship (which i think is Nirvana) , the family household life has to be renounced and the reason given was till the time a person leads a family household life, some form of attachment remains - i think this is true because in leading a family life how much we try to remind us of ignorance and so no I, but still some attachment remains towards our family-members and some attachment of keeping some money for our family's including our's future survival. Buddha was a king so he did not have to worry about money for his family's future and so was able to renounce the world, but how can we leave our family without any money for future?

Moreover, the problem is we can try to remove our desires, but our family-members will have their desires and they will want us to fulfill their desires and if we do not fulfill those, they consider us to be incompassionate. If we try to fulfill those never ending desires, we waste our time in useless activities of this material world.

So it does not seem possible to attain Nirvana leading a family life with wife and child. Seems like there is something called Fate or Destiny, which is an outcome of law of karma - the effects (of the causes of past lives) shaping our current life.

Anybody having any different views, please feel free to comment on above.

Anything is possible. Don't set up conditions and limit yourself. Just go straight.

Hi All,

Attachment and aversion are hindrances on the path of Nirvana - this is ok. So a question came to my mind - does attachment to Nirvana and aversion towards Samsara are also hindrances on the path of Nirvana? Does any sutta suggests what Buddha told about this thing? Please suggest. Thanks in advance.

well @misecmisc1, I believe that any attachment is unhealthy, if it's obsessive clinging...
therefore anyone obsessed with ending Samsara or obsessed with achieving Nibbana, is still in the clutches of "suffering".....
the problem is, understanding that they're not even two sides to the same coin... they're the two surfaces of cling-wrap.....
treat those two impostors just the same....
only a buddha can do that.
Kinda catch-22 situation....

What do you think?

federica said:

the problem is, understanding that they're not even two sides to the same coin... they're the two surfaces of cling-wrap.....
treat those two impostors just the same....
only a buddha can do that.

Please explain your view in some more detail.

Nibbana is so close to Samsara, that we can almost see it, feel it touch it.... and yet it is separate, and seemingly unavailable to us.
yet we simply need to stop looking at things from our own PoV and be more open to allowing nibbana to take the place of samsara.
and really, we will find once we reach nibbana, that nothing much has changed.
Before enlightenment, fetch water, chop wood.
After enlightenment, fetch water. chop wood.

@federica: Thanks. my view about it is different, but my view can be totally wrong.

Hi All,
Please suggest your views about it.

One more query(may be a silly question to ask, so you all can consider me to be a fool, but still asking): i think i have read in the stories that many people came to Buddha, having some delusion in their mind, Buddha then cleared their delusions like in Dhammapada Suttras stories and then the story says that some people attained Arhantship immediately after hearing Buddha's words. Is this correct? If yes, so if by just hearing Buddha's words, people got Awakened - so what is the point of doing meditation leading to jhanas leading to Nirvana? i think i am missing some key point here - what am i missing here? Please suggest.

Just to clarify - i do want to say that meditation is done for attainment of jhanas, but why the practice of vipasana meditation was suggested to directly get insight into reality, then the jhanas were told to be transcended, then Nirvana could be directly experienced - when by just hearing the Dhamma people got Arhantship ? Hope my question is clear. Please suggest.

Insight or realization liberates. Experiences do not.

Jhanas do not liberate but are a required condition for insight to be stable. So both go hand in hand but insight is what liberates.

If conditions are met then anyone can have their ah ha moment. But does that ah ha moment imprint deeply on the consciousness? How about the fetters?

So one can have direct insight into reality but may lack the body/mind training to live it. So truly it is an endless practice. Deeper and deeper. And at the same time there is no practice because everything already is so.

No path, thus a path. This is what i've heard.

taiyaki said:

Jhanas do not liberate but are a required condition for insight to be stable. So both go hand in hand but insight is what liberates.

That's my understanding, though some advocate "dry insight", where jhana is considered unecessary.

Spiny

[New Question]

Hi All,
A thought came to my mind today, so thought of sharing it with others -

Is begging good? From a conventional world perspective, we will clearly say that begging is bad because you are lazy to work to earn your living, live on the mercy of others etc.

But if we think there is another perspective to it - by begging we can crush our ego, our self-esteem. When we give alms to beggers, sometimes this self-pride comes within us that 'I' have helped others, 'I' have given food to this begger to eat etc., thereby adding more to our self-conceit or self-pride, though it may be at too subtle level that we may even not notice it.

But if begging was bad, then why would Buddha recommend to monks to go for begging and sustain their lives on mercy of others.

Any views, please.