Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Some collected thoughts on the nature of consciousness and rebirth in Buddhism.
Jason
God EmperorArrakis Moderator
In the Suttas, the arising of sensory-consciousness is said to be dependent upon the meeting of one of the six sense-organs (salayatana) and it... Continue reading
0
Comments
OK.
Let me see if I have this right.
I'm going to paraphrase, because I need to make sure I've got the gist of it all:
Consciousness can be broken down...
Hearing-Consciousness
Seeing-Consciousness
Tasting-Consciousness
Touching-Consciousness
Feeling-Consciousness.
None of these arise, if the stimulus for each sense is not there.
If there is nothing to hear, Hearing-Consciousness does not arise and manifest.
If there is nothing to see, Seeing-Consciousness does not arise and manifest.
And so on and so forth.
This is the dependent-arising of consciousness....
It's like two bundles of reeds, leaning against one another. Take one away, and the other collapses.... So none of these states of consciousness can stand on its own, without the corresponsing stimulus to make it manifest....
So because we have not eliminated craving and ignorance, essentially speaking this consciousness, (related to all the different senses and thought patterns that arise as a result of this co-dependency existing) remains when we die and re-manifests...
We have the image of a forest fire.... it is dependent on the woods to keep burning (that's our consciousness, dependent on the ignorant, clinging sense-aggregates....) When we die (once all the wood is consumed) the flames are transported by the wind to ignite something else... (re-birth) ...... the consciousness is supported by the conditioning of Samsaric existence, (wind) and re-manifests when new wood (sperm, egg, re-birth) is landed upon.....
Consciousness is not dependent on a 'self', to re-emerge. Rather it is dependent on our craving and clinging to samsaric dual states, (including our clinging to the concept of our 'Self') and re-manifests whilst the clinging and grasping are still prevalent.
The aggregates are impermanent, but are dependent on conditions arising prior to Birth, and they also act as causes of eventual re-birth. These causes or conditioning are fuelled by our kamma. In order to cease "Ignorance" and craving, we have to eliminate our negative Kamma. We have to exhaust it......
So whilst there is some continuity manifesting, it should not be regarded as tangible or substantial. it's a complex and uninterrupted process, which will cease, once we have exhausted our negative kamma which is in turn nourished and fed by Ignorance, and craving and attachment.
Is there anything here I haven't got right?
Is there anything you think worth adding to the above?
Because I intend to keep this as a document to remind me of stuff concerning re-birth and Consciousnes.
It's brilliant.
And there is some contradicition in different Teachings and opinions of Bikkhus, is there....?
That's not a criticism, BTW.... I'm just trying to pin this down....
From here: (see footnote #1)
.....One thing I've realised is that we tend to see terms as "eternal", "beginningless", "timeless" and "endless" as terms linked to our concept of time...
but realistically speaking we cannot measure these kinds of definitions with our definition of Time, that is to say, the 'chronological' method of measuring time (calendars, appointments, birthdays, anniversaries, centuries, millennia....) because although they denote periods of time and specific incidents in time, 'Real' time cannot be measured or considered in this context....
Even the scientific measurement of what 'Time' is, might fit into a human-conjured criterion....
Time is time-less.
Am I anywhere near the right track - of anything?
The six classes of consciousness are eye, ear, nose, tongue, body and mind consciousness.
As far as I understand it, sensory consciousness only arises with the presence of the appropriate sense organ and its corresponding object of reference. The six internal sense-media are the eye-medium, the ear-medium, the nose-medium, the tongue-medium, the body-medium, the intellect-medium. The six external sense-media are the form-medium, the sound-medium, the aroma-medium, the flavor-medium, the tactile-sensation-medium, the idea-medium (MN 137). If a being were reborn into a formeless realm where there is only consciousness, for example, there could be no "seeing," or "hearing" et cetera. So, none of the six forms of sensory consciousness can stand on its own without the corresponsing stimulus to make it manifest or arise.
In a sense, yes. As it says in SN 12.64: "Where there is passion, delight, & craving for the nutriment of physical food [the same for the nutriment of contact, for the nutriment of intellectual intention and for the nutriment of consciousness], consciousness lands there and increases. Where consciousness lands and increases, there is the alighting of name-&-form. Where there is the alighting of name-&-form, there is the growth of fabrications. Where there is the growth of fabrications, there is the production of renewed becoming in the future. Where there is the production of renewed becoming in the future, there is future birth, aging, & death, together, I tell you, with sorrow, affliction, & despair." (See Does Rebirth Make Sense? for more information.)
Basically (see Mind Like Fire Unbound, Chapter II and The Five Aggregates for a much better explanation than I could ever give), although we do not have to exhaust our negative kamma. This is essentially the doctrine of the Jains. Theoretically, if we assume for the moment that all of the teachings on rebirth are true, then it would be statisitcally impossible to exhaust all of the "negative kamma" due to the fact that a beginning point to samsara, the cycle of birth and death, is not evident (SN 15.3). The Buddha's teachings, on the other hand, state that to gain release samsara, one must put an end to all types of kamma, not just the negative. That is why the Noble Eightfold Path is called "the path of practice leading to the cessation of kamma" (SN 35.145).
Yes, although the vast majority of Theravadins do seem to side with the "classical" interpretation.
Jason
I spoke (metaphorically speaking) to two Theravadin Monks on another forum, and one in particular feels that there is a definite deviation from the classic teachings....
It's a different forum, but have a look at this thread....
Looks like a bad case of Abhidhamma orthodoxy and quite an arrogant dismissal of the Forest Tradition. There seems to be a fair amount of this sort of thing over there, in all traditions.
Conclusion: There is no 'ray of sunlight'. (As in my signature below).
I don't buy it, as it is nothing but clinical and complete death in the western materialist sense. Sentience?
as to criticisms of other views, teachings and methods, I adopt the opinion that I should experience for myself, before deciding on anything.
All I have so far, is varied viewpoints, and I can't choose all of them...So I have to use discernment and logic to decide whichever one sits better with me....
Well, in his Introduction to Buddhism, Peter Harvey writes:
Here it is that solidity, cohesion, heat and motion have no footing,
Here long and short, coarse and fine, foul and lovely (have no footing),
Here it is that mind (nama) and body (rupa) stop without remainder:
By the stopping of consciousness, (all) this stops here. (D.I.223)
Like Ud.80, above, this describes a state beyond the four physical elements, where mind-and-body are transcended. As the heart of Conditioned Arising is the mutual conditioning of consciousness and mind-and-body, this state is where this interaction ceases: from the stopping of consciousness, mind-and-body stops. Consciousness is not non-existent when it stops, however; for it is said to be non-manifestive and endless. One passage on the stopping (nirodha) of the nidana of consciousness (S.III.54-5) says that there is no longer any object (arammana) or support (patittha) for consciousness; consciousness is thus 'unsupported' (apatitthita) and free of constructing activities, so that it is released, steadfast, content, undisturbed, and attains Nibbana. This desription, of a 'stopped' consciousness which is unsupported by any mental object, where mind-and-body are transcended, seems to accord well with the Ud.80 description of Nibbana itself.
To say that Nibbana is unconditioned, objectless consciousness indicates something of its nature, but it does not penetrate far into its mystery. For it seems impossible to imagine what awareness devoid of any object would be like. As regards the 'stopping' of mind-and-body, as a state occurring during life, this is perhaps to be understood as one where all mental processes (including ordinary consciousness) temporarily cease, and the matter of the body is seen as so ephemeral as not to signify a 'body'. A passage at M. I.329-30 which parallels D.I.223 says that the non-manifestive consciousness 'is not reached by the solidness of solidity, by the cohesiveness of cohesion...'. The analysis of Nibbana as objectless consciousness, though, is the author's own interpretation. Theravadin tradition sees Nibbana as 'objectless' (Dhs.I408), but regards 'consciousness' as always having an object. D.I.223 is thus interpretated as concerning NIbbana as to-be-known-by-conciousness: Nibbana is itself the object of the Arahat's consciousness (Pati.II.I43-5).
It depends on who you ask. As I have mentioned elsewhere:
But the commentaries gloss the term "vinnanam anidassanam" in a way that denies such a possibilty. Using the Kevatta Sutta (DN 11), for example, Suan Lu Zaw, a Burmese lay-teacher of Pali and Abhidhamma, explains that according the the Kevatta Sutta Atthakatha [DN 11 commentary], vinnanam does not refer to the usual meaning of "consciousness" here, but instead defines it as, "There, to be known specifically, so (it is) "vinnanam." This is the name of Nibbana." He also explains that the following line of DN 11, "Here (in Nibbana), nama as well as rupa cease without remainder. By ceasing of conscousness, nama as well as rupa ceases here" illustrates this point. He states that, "Nibbana does not become a sort of consciousness just because one of the Pali names happens to be vinnanam." And finally, he concludes by using a quote from a section of the Dhammapada Attakatha [Dhammapada commentary], which apparently states that there is no consciousness component in parinibbana after the death of an arahant. This, of course, is in direct contrast to Thanissaro Bhikkhu's note to this particular sutta which suggests that this term refers to a consciousness that lies outside of space and time, and therefore, outside the consciousness-aggregate altogether. Basically, what this controversy boils down to is the experience of Nibbana and the nature of that experience. The general tendency is to either describe Nibbana as the ending of all consciousness, all awareness, or in other words, to stress the cessation aspect of Nibbana, or to describe Nibbana as a state of purified awareness, "consciousness without feature," or in other words, to stress the transcendent aspect of Nibbana. The "classical" Theravada Tradition favors the former view of Nibbana while others, like the Thai Forest Tradition, favor the latter.
As I said before, for me the jury is still out on this one. I simply like to share my own thoughts and references with anyone interested. I leave it to others to find out what 'sits best with them.'
Jason
Hi Fede,
This is also my approach, that's why I'm quite eclectic and try to keep an open mind but something in Ven. Dhammanando's philosophy doesn't ring right with me. There is an inherent paradox or contradiction in the nihilistic views he, and others, espouse.
You see, he does not accept that there is any consciousness whatsoever in Nirvana (I mean the final post-death one). He defines it as incognizant and insentient. If you level a charge of nihilism at this you are likely to be told that "that which has never been can never be destroyed".
So let's investigate where this view takes us, as the implications are unusual to say the least. What we are looking at is something, which in essence accords with a modern materialistic view of life in all but one detail - rebirth (more of which later).
Life is a purely biological event (driven by clinging if you will) which terminates at death. There is no person at all (never was) or anything which can be ascribed to the person.
The moment of death sees a volitional spark leap to accrue more fuel in order to perpetuate itself. This volitional spark is not you either and has nothing to do with you at all. The next biological event (I won't call it life) has nothing to do with you, just as the former didn't.
So there is no way you will ever experience suffering in future lives, as there is NO you to experience anything. In any case the future random collection of aggregates animated by volition is not you, so why worry?
All this is supported by the attainment of Ven. Dhammanando's Nirvana, whereby the whole process is stopped once and for all. Nirvana is not any kind of state for any awareness (as we know that no such thing exists) rather it is a term which designates the switching off of this volitional hopping process. That's all. Nothing more. Zilch.
So, why bother? There is suffering for you only in this life and let's face it, it's not all bad (there's Baywatch for example;) ). In any case there's nothing you need to do about it as any subsequent automaton created from that pesky volition ain't you. Even if you attain Nirvana, it only means complete extinction, which is neither 'here nor there' as there's nothing of you which takes rebirth anyway. The best it can give you is some relaxing and awesome moments before you croak.
There is no sentience because upon investigation there are only impersonal aggregates. You are no better than a vacuum cleaner. At death, the plug is pulled and sticks itself into another vacuum cleaner. This vacuum cleaner analogy was given to me years ago by a Jehovah's Witness who disliked the concept of a soul. They define the word soul as the material aggregates and they say that these aggregates are powered by the 'spirit'. If you ask them if this spirit is you, they say no. At death God just switches off the power (as indicated in my analogy).
He remakes us all from new at the time of resurrection, to which my argument was; well that may look and sound like me but it won't be me, merely a copy. It's odd that I've encountered a very similar idea in certain sections of Buddhism. I didn't buy it from the J.W. and I don't buy it from V.D. either. It doesn't stack up.
Why would Buddha have bothered to help a load of non-beings who don't (by virtue of the fact they don't ultimately exist) stand to suffer beyond death? At best, he'd be just shutting the grid down a section at a time.
Regards
Kris
Hi Jason,
Many thanks for a wonderful post. I suppose I'm with the Thai Forest guys on this one.
Namaste
Kris
I think you have given a good critique of this specific form of Buddhist nihilism (forgive the shorthand) and it seems to me that it is precisely the fundamental question that writers such as Masao Abe address when they write about a Western "post-Nietzschean nihilism".
Within the context of such ideas, both within and outwith the 'religions' (see Cupitt and the 'Sea of Faith'), we are confronted with ancient questions about morality and personal life. The Greeks were tormented by them, too. If there is neither punishment nor reward, or, even, only a sort of punishment-by-extinction, why live for anyone or anything but oneself? If this is all there is, if I am here and then gone, what drives a choice of the Good over the Self-Serving?
I think that this is one reason why so many religious-minded people take refuge in extremism: without their 'God' and post-mortem judgment/reward/punishment or their 'rebirth' as 'better' or 'worse' than this birth, why be 'good'?
Epicurus and Seneca both tried to answer the question philosophically, the 'evolutionary biologists' attempt utilitarian explanations of co-operation, but I believe that we are still no nearer a 'rational' motive.
All I can say is that my own experience suggests to me that a happier life arises from the Good than from the Self-Serving. And that I really don't know if I am 'a spark of the flame' or here-today-and-gone-tomorrow.
I have no problem with anatta "not self" but I have a problem when it's pushed just that bit further into "no self".
Like in my signature, our awareness is the sunlight and all the things it alights upon are objects of duality, within time and space. So how do we describe the beam of light when it does not alight? The one hand clapping? How do we 'quantify' something which is by definition beyond all comparative criteria we have at our disposal?
An eternalist will reify it into a sublime realm, a nihilist will deny its very existence. So it's a tough call. If an eternalist is guilty of making something from nothing, then a nihilist is guilty of making something into nothing.
I guess that's why it gets called 'the middle way'.
Namaste
Kris
I'm leaving it to one side.
Why?
because I reckon I'm so far off from it anyway, that being overly concerned about it is going to be more detrimental to my practise, than constructive.
Ask me in a week - I should be MUCH closer then - !!:crazy:
Good idea. It can get 'a bit much' at times. Best not to take it too seriously. Feet up, a nice cuppa and you're sorted - I know that does it for me;)
Namaste
Kris
I feel I have made progress though. six months ago, I would probably have not even had answered Elohim's post... so I've moved along a bit.
Soflee soflee catchee monkee.....
That's my brilliant intellectual contribution to this thread...:buck:
If you are referring to Dependent Origination, volition is not mentioned there. Sankhara are the kaya sankhara, vaca sankhara & the citta sankhara.
Possibly because his method of 'help' will help them here & now.
Hi Dhamma Dhatu,
Thanks for your comments and welcome to the board. I agree with the above - I have no problems with 'not-self'.
Namaste
I agree with you also, when it is pushed just that bit further into "no self".
Buddhas also use the words "I" & "mine" but understand their reality.