The stream of consciousness

Comments

• rainbowwarrior

  February 2011

  i find that recognizing consciousness as a continuous thing is difficult due to the time that we live in. but i know that it is a continuous stream

  0
• DhammaDhatu Veteran

  February 2011 edited February 2011

  the buddha never spoke of a stream of consciousness but instead regarded consciousness as impermanent, something seen to be arising & passing, in conjunction with the arising & passing of the sense organs
  
  
  
  http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn25/sn25.003.than.html
  http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.093.than.html
  http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.061.than.html

  It would be better for the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person to hold to the body composed of the four great elements, rather than the mind, as the self. Why is that? Because this body composed of the four great elements is seen standing for a year, two years, three, four, five, ten, twenty, thirty, forty, fifty, a hundred years or more. But what's called 'mind,' 'intellect,' or 'consciousness' by day and by night arises as one thing and ceases as another. Just as a monkey, swinging through a forest wilderness, grabs a branch. Letting go of it, it grabs another branch. Letting go of that, it grabs another one. Letting go of that, it grabs another one. In the same way, what's called 'mind,' 'intellect,' or 'consciousness' by day and by night arises as one thing and ceases as another.
  
  Assutava Sutta: Uninstructed
  

  0
• Jason God Emperor Arrakis Moderator

  February 2011 edited February 2011

  There are places in the Canon where the term vinnanasota (stream of consciousness) is mentioned (e.g., DN 28), and my understanding is that it refers the flow of conscious experience rather than a permanent unbroken phenomena of consciousness. Moments of consciousness arising and passing away in succession simply implies that there's a type of continuity involved in conscious experience, nothing more. The same with terms like bhavangasota (stream of becoming) in Snp 3.12 and samvattanikamvinnanam (evolving consciousness) in MN 106. For example, from Piyadassi Thera's book, Dependent Origination:

  In the Aneñjasappāya Sutta, the vipāka viññaṇa is referred to as saṃvattanikaṃ viññāṇaṃ, the consciousness that links on, that proceeds in one life as vipāka from the kamma in the former life.
  
  When it is said, “the consciousness that links on,” it does not mean that this consciousness abides unchanged, continues in the same state without perishing throughout this cycle of existence. Consciousness is also conditioned, and therefore is not permanent. Consciousness also comes into being and passes away yielding place to new consciousness. Thus this perpetual stream of consciousness goes on until existence ceases. Existence in a way is consciousness. In the absence of consciousness no “being” exists in this sentient world.

  And besides Piyadassi Thera, who comes from a more traditional Theravada background, people like Prof. Gombrich, scholar of Pali and Sanskrit, founder of the Oxford Centre for Buddhist Studies and past president of the Pali Text Society, and Prof. Kalupahana, Buddhist scholar and professor philosophy at the University of Hawaii, are also aware of this term and express a similar understanding of it. For example, from Kalupahana's Buddhist Philosophy, A Historical Analysis:

  All this is evidence that it is consciousness that serves as a connecting link between two lives, and this, of course is unequivocally stated in the early Buddhist texts. Several times it is mentioned that a person who has developed extrasensory perception is able "to perceive a man's unbroken flux of consciousness established both in this world and in the next." This stream of consciousness (vinnanasota) is the same as the stream of becoming (bhavasota) mentioned often in the early discourses.
  
  It is important to note that in the early texts there is no mention of this consciousness surviving even for a moment without the support of a psychophysical personality. In other words, early Buddhism does not contribute to a theory of disembodied existence. (52)

  And from Gombrich's What the Buddha Thought:

  Famously, the Buddha's approach to life's problems was pragmatic. Our problems are urgent, and irrelevant theorizing is a silly as refusing to receive treatment for an arrow wound until you know the name of the man who shot the arrow. Today we see the world as in perpetual motion, and that reminds people of the Buddhist principle of impermanence. True, the Buddha saw our experience as an ever-changing process, a stream of consciousness — the literal Pali equivalent of that expression does occur. But we are talking physics, whereas the Buddha was talking psychology. (67)

  As for the OP, both Mahayana and Theravada posit a type of subconsciousness and/or storehouse consciousness — which, while technically a type of mind consciousness, is often presented as a separate type of consciousness — to account for the times when active consciousness lapses, e.g., during deep sleep. This type of consciousness, called bhavanga-citta in Theravada and alayavijnana in Mahayana, is often used to account for the continuity of individuals, especially over multiple lifetimes. In one essay, Walpola Rahula attempts to show that the three layers of mind as presented by Asanga have their origins in the Pali Canon:

  Thus we can see that vijnana represents the simple reaction or response of the sense-organs when they come in contact with external objects. This is the uppermost or superficial aspect or layer of the vijnanaskandha. Manas represents the aspect of its mental functioning, thinking, reasoning, conceiving ideas, etc. Citta, which is here called alayavijnana, represents the deepest, finest and subtlest aspect or layer of the Aggregate of Consciousness. It contains all the traces or impressions of the past actions and all good and bad future potentialities. The Sandhinirmocana-sutra also says that alayavijnana is called citta (Tibetan sems).
  
  It is generally believed that alayavijnana is purely a Mahayana doctrine and that nothing about it is found in Hinayana. But in the Mahayanasangraha, Asanga himself says that in the Sravakayana (= Hinayana) it is mentioned by synonyms (paryaya) and refers to a passage in the Ekottaragama which reads: 'People (praja) like the alaya (alayarata), are fond of the alaya (alayarama), are delighted in the alaya (alayasammudita), are attached to the alaya (alayabhirata). When the Dharma is preached for the destruction of the alaya, they wish to listen (susrusanti) and lend their ears (srotram avadadhanti), they put forth a will for the perfect knowledge (ajnacittam upasthapayanti) and follow the path of Truth (dharmanudharma-pratipanna). When the Tathagata appears in the world (pradurbhava), this marvellous (ascarya) and extraordinary (adbhuta) Dharma appears in the world.'
  
  Lamotte identifies this Ekottaragama passage with the following passage in the Pali Anguttaranikaya (A II, p.131): Alayarama bhikkhave paja alayarata alayasammudita, sa Tathagatena analaye dhamme desiyamane sussuyati sotam odahati annacittam upattapeti. Tathagatassa bhikkhave arahato sammasambuddhassa patubhava ayam pathamo acchariyo abbhuto dhammo patubhavati.

  Of course, all of the above is a much later elaboration of terms and ideas found within the early discourses, and shouldn't simply be accepted as reflecting the Buddha's teachings in the early discourses themselves. It's always good to challenge these ideas and see if there are areas where they conflict with the Suttas and with our own experience. That's the approach the Buddha himself advises in places like AN 3.65 and MN 38, with passages like:

  "Bhikkhus, you who know thus and see thus, would you say: 'We have reverence for the Teacher. We say it out of reverence to the Teacher'?" "No, venerable sir." "Bhikkhus, you who know thus and see thus, would you say: 'Our recluse said it, these are the recluse’s words. But we do not say that'?" "No, venerable sir." "Bhikkhus, you who know thus and see thus, would you acknowledge another teacher?" "No, venerable sir." "Bhikkhus, you who know thus and see thus, would you seek meaning in religious rites, ceremonies or festivals of other recluses and brahmins?" "No, venerable sir." "Bhikkhus, is it that you yourself knowing, seeing and experiencing this speak thus?" "Yes, venerable sir."
  
  "Good, O, Bhikkhus, I have led you in this Dhamma which is visible here and now, timeless, open to inspection, leading onwards and to be experienced by the wise for themselves. It was in reference to this that it was said: 'Bhikkhus, this Dhamma is visible here and now, timeless, open to inspection, leading onwards and to be experienced by the wise for themselves'."

  0
• Vajraheart Veteran

  February 2011

  Excellent Jason!!
  
  Having perceived past lives directly, I have no doubt of their validity. I know the difference between hallucination and direct meditative insight. I don't see the path as working very deeply if one does not delve into the Alayavijnana and illumine the deeply unconscious and make it conscious from within.

  0
• MellowViper

  February 2011 edited February 2011

  Hmm, I think a lot of what you're referring has to do with memory. Simply because you can't remember at a later time that you experienced something, it doesn't mean you didn't. Dreaming is a perfect example actually, After someone wakes up, a lot of the experiences from the dream just seem to vanish, and there's little recollection of it. However, I've noticed that certain events while awake will actually trigger memories from a dream that I had completely forgotten about. Say I had a dream where I was being chased by a python with a zig zagged pattern on its skin. Then say the following morning I read the funnies and the zig zagged design on Charlie Brown's shirt triggered my memory of the python in the dream. Well, you could argue that just because I wouldn't have read the comic in a different scenario, it doesn't mean that the conscious experience I had from the dream didn't happen. Likewise, if the essence of my awareness was in the form of a different animal in the distant past, it doesn't mean that the experiential moments lived by the animal through the stream of consciousness that composes me now didn't take place simply because I don't remember it.
  
  As for the supposed unconscious processes of the brain, there's a lot of it that you can pick up intuitively if you pay attention to your body close enough. In fact, you can actually modulate a lot of these automatic, brains stem functions with meditative techniques. Interestingly, the Tibetan monks can do all sorts of interesting things related to this, like slowing their heart beat or raising their own body temperature, or accessing the subconscious mind. I think the baser functions are conscious in some way, but they exist outside of the realm of the ego, much like anything outside of your body does. I think all matter has a consciousness or proto-consciousness intrinsically apart of it, but simply because your own ego feels a separateness to it, much like it feels a separateness to other people and other egos, it doesn't mean its not there, and it doesn't mean that consciousness isn't composed of that baser form.
  
  If you think about it, there really isn't an inside the ego and an outside the ego. The ego is kind of a gray area. Its not so black and white as we think. If it weren't for photon clusters hitting our eyes in the particular way they do and the sound waves hitting our ears in the way they do at any given moment in our lives, we'd be different people. Our surroundings shape us and compose us just as much as we shape and compose them. We are our surroundings, and our surroundings are us. The human mind is a kind of focal point of the external world itself.
  
  Also, I have to add that, just because the river breaks into a bunch of beads falling through the air over a cliff doesn't mean those water droplets aren't a part of the river. A stream isn't always consistent, whether its a current of conscious awareness or a current made of water.
  
  I hope this explains where I'm coming from. If you have any questions about this view, I'll answer as best I can.
  

  0
• MellowViper

  February 2011

  Consciousness and matter take a lot of forms. If you look at the history of Cosmic evolution, matter is something that's been proven to be something very plastic. I mean, all you have to do is watch some footage from the cold war to know this. Just because something's a stream doesn't mean its consistent. A stream can carve out mountains, move into larger bodies of water, go over water falls, evaporate, freeze, etc etc. A stream gives the illusion of serenity at times, but its something very erratic, especially in the long term.

  0
• zenff Veteran

  February 2011 edited February 2011

  I find it easy to relate to the swinging monkey in the Assutava Sutta!
  
  This momentary consciousness maybe fits what Dr.Susan Blackmore wrote http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/Articles/jcs02.htm
  (Title : There is no stream of consciousness)
  The continuity could be an illusion.
  
  But you people gave me a lot of info. I really appreciate that!
  
  I will sleep on it.
  

  0