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.
A Simple Question on Buddhist Consciousness
Joshua
Veteran
Before I ask the question it requires two presuppositions:
1. That the sixth sense medium is simply a sum of the first five working as one, as if the five are gears and the sixth is the engine, as if the five are a rainbow entering a prism and exiting as the sixth of white light, as if the first five Power Ranger Zords combine into the Megazord as the sixth.
2. That the fifth aggregate follows the above logic for the first four.
Please correct me if I'm wrong here.
The question follows that those two points are simply two sides of the same coin, which is the full (and orthodox let's not get into any Yogcarin or Cittamatrin philosophies please) spectrum of human consciousness. Maybe it'd be best put that the first five sense media and the first four aggregates together function as nine gears to the mind-engine? Am I wrong? If I'm right is there more to the engine?
Thank you.
1. That the sixth sense medium is simply a sum of the first five working as one, as if the five are gears and the sixth is the engine, as if the five are a rainbow entering a prism and exiting as the sixth of white light, as if the first five Power Ranger Zords combine into the Megazord as the sixth.
2. That the fifth aggregate follows the above logic for the first four.
Please correct me if I'm wrong here.
The question follows that those two points are simply two sides of the same coin, which is the full (and orthodox let's not get into any Yogcarin or Cittamatrin philosophies please) spectrum of human consciousness. Maybe it'd be best put that the first five sense media and the first four aggregates together function as nine gears to the mind-engine? Am I wrong? If I'm right is there more to the engine?
Thank you.
0
Comments
The Majority of Newbs won't have a clue what you're talking about.
Consider thread/post location carefully, please.....
There are six gears
Neither is the engine
What you deem to be the engine (consciousness) is not one engine
The Buddha taught there are six kinds of consciousness rather than one
1. Eye & forms & eye consciousness
2. Ears & sounds & ear consciousness
3. Nose & smells & nose consciousness
4. Tongue & tastes & tongue consciousness
5. Body & touches & body consciousness
6. Mind & mind objects & mind consciousness
The mind sense organ (mano) is required for the mind to know or be conscious of its feelings, perceptions & mental formations (thoughts)
feeling, perceptions & thoughts cannot be known via the eye, ears, nose, tongue & body
feeling, perceptions & thoughts require their own sense organ
that sense organ is the mind (mano) which must rely on mind consciousness (mano vinnana)
kind regards
Do you have an opinion about the consciousness in the aggregates? It seems if the sixth sense medium is the means to personally experience the aggregates then so the fifth aggregate functions the same, and therefore they're the same--both vinnana. Which would make the OP not off base.
Thanks for bearing with me.
we are discussing sense bases here (rather than aggregates)
the other five sense bases do not get into the sixth. the sixth performs a totally different function
for example, your mind is conscious of your computer. this requires a sense organ (the eye), a sense object (the physical computer) and consciousness functioning through the eye (eye consciousness). Through eye consciousness & via the eye, the physical computer is known
then your mind labels or names what is seen as "computer". this labelling is called perception. then your mind develops an intention towards the computer, such as: "I am log onto newbuddhist.com". these intentions & plans are mental formations
these labels, names, intentions & thoughts about your computer you experience via mind consciousness & the mind as a sense organ
so if you wish, you can actually do what I described above
first, look at your computer. seeing the computer requires an eye and eye consciousness. if you close your eyes, you cannot see the computer. if you open your eyes, you can see your computer
second, think about your computer. call it 'Toshiba', 'HP', 'Asus', 'Dell', whatever it is called. those thoughts are known by the mind & mind consciousness
if you close your eyes, you cannot see your computer but your mind can still think about it. if fact, possibly your mind can create an image of your computer. instead of seeing your computer as a physical object via the eye, you can picture it as a mental object in the mind
such mental objects or creations are known by the mind as a sense organ functioning together with mind consciousness
kind regards
The more aroma from hops the more bitter it tastes. Even though the alpha acid content, the molecule creating bitterness, is smaller.
Of course bitterness is not a molecule it is an experience and thats why that probably seems clouded.
In a movie the emotions are driven by the music. Another thought. Yet of course the emotions and the music are distinct. One doesn't have confusion about which is music and which is an emotion.
It is an instrument of awareness that allows the mind to experience its own mental creations.
The mentality that is an instrument of awareness is called consciousness ( viññāṇa, vijñāna).
The mentality that creates mental creations or objects is called mind (citta or sankhara khanda). We need to take care with the words cause (hetu) and origination (samudhaya). They can mean different things in Buddhism.
The most important understanding the Buddha sought to impart is consciousness comes into play with a condition (paccaya). These conditions are the sense organs & sense objects.
(see MN 38:
http://www.buddhist-elibrary.org/en/albums/asst/ebook/03_mahatanhasankhaya.pdf) The reason why the eight Mahayana consciousnesses do not accord with the Theravada six consciousnesses is because the Mahayana are simply including mind objects as the 7th consciousness and the mind (citta) as the 8th consciousness.
If take consciousness to be merely an instrument of awareness then there is only six kinds of consciousness.
The 7th and 8th consiousnesses of Mahayana are not instruments of awareness. The 7th is mind objects or consciousness obscurred by mental objects. The 8th is the creative or thinking mind (the citta) and its stored tendencies (anusaya). The sixth sense medium is only the means to personally experience four of the aggregates.
The first aggregate, the body or form, is not experienced via the sixth sense medium.
The first aggregate is experienced via the eyes, ears, nose, tongue & body sense mediums.
Please. Examine this for yourself. Do not take my word for it.
Kind regards
DD
there are eighteen aspects of the sense bases:
1. Eye & forms & eye consciousness
2. Ears & sounds & ear consciousness
3. Nose & smells & nose consciousness
4. Tongue & tastes & tongue consciousness
5. Body & touches & body consciousness
6. Mind & mind objects & mind consciousness
each consciousness (x6) is consciousness aggregate
each physical sense organ (x5) is the body aggregate
each physical sense object (x5) is the body aggregate
mind objects are feeling aggregate, perception aggregate & formations aggregate
what is left (# 16) is the mind as a sense organ
which aggregate is this?
actually, i don't know!
:eek:
the buddha called the mind as a sense organ 'mano'
in Pali, there are three words for mind, namely, 'mano', 'citta' & 'vinnana'
citta = the formations aggregrate
vinnana = the consciousness aggregate
'mano' is rarely discussed in the teachings
This would make the mind sense organ physical or the body aggregate (rupa khanda).
:eek:
In my meditation experience, deeper mental feelings & pure defilement (i.e. without thinking) is known directly by and in the brain.
However, to assert the mind sense organ is something physical, namely, the brain & its neurons, does sound a bit strange in terms of theory.
The Buddha used the term 'mano'. This implies something mental.
Possibly the Buddha was refering to something far more subtle.
Good night
The standard formula is: For me, the mind (mano) is that which senses the 'quality' of experience. It seems related to 'bodhi' or 'rationality' or 'discernment'.
It is close to perception but is much broader than perception because it contains wisdom.
'Mano' is related to 'manas', which is the root of the word 'human' and could be taken to be 'human sensibility'.
So mano senses the 'quality' of our inner experience.
Mano requires consciousness to enable it to know inner experience or mind objects.
For example, if the mind is agitated, the mind can escape being conscious of that disturbing agitation by watching TV. Here, eye consciousness becomes engaged via the eye & TV and mind consciousness ceases to function.
But if the TV is turned off, mind consciousness will arise at the mind which allows the mind to be aware of agitation, which is its mind object.
With metta
DD
It is very close to perception aggregate but seems to embody more than mere perception (labelling).
E.g., The mano could be under:
4. Sankhara:
- 1. Mano, because..
I can try to start this out but I'll need time, I haven't had much lately. Later.
This is Voltron...
I realized that another interpretation of the sixth sense medium (and by extension the first aggregate as you'll see), though obviously nothing more than conjecture, is the so-called conscious observer described in quantum physics. That which manifests fixed particles from omnipresent waves, what a CPU and human will never share, or more pragmatically put, that which can pass the Turing test. However, this certainly contradicts DD's statement: Of course this isn't to say that DD is wrong, but that we should establish which view holds more ground or whether both are equal, for the former assertment of mine is based on the idealistic quantum logic (of Eugene Wigner) whereas DD's assertment (I'm putting some words into his mouth) is a more pragmatic one, based on electroneural impulses of the brain. The issue for me is, due to the nature of Buddhism's rebirth, I tend to project scienfic explanations onto Buddhism to overcompensate for my overwhelming lack of conviction, and because this is the only available scienfic explanation I'm inclined to believe it deserves some ground.
BTW - when I say I'm putting words into DD's mouth it's because it contradicts this statement somewhat: Such that he could be thinking it might be the brain, but he's avoiding decisive action, which is proved:
..
DD, may I ask you an arbitrary question? What is the difference between citta and samskhara?