What's consciousness?

music · October 2012

I read so many threads taking it for granted. Maybe it's time we understood what we are talking about. What does it mean to you? Don't just cut and paste, post your understanding of the word.

RebeccaS · October 2012

The substrate of life itself. I also think it exists in varying degrees.

ThailandTom · October 2012

I hear Ajahn Brahm talk about this before, how we throw the word around in may contexts but don't actually really know what it is. Some members on here have discussed with me and said that if you observe it, what is observing the consciousness etc. But it is mentioned in scriptures etc.

I personally don't know what it is so more recently I just don't give much importance to it.

FullCircle · October 2012

My understanding is that Consciousness arises when it has something to be conscious of... so eye-consciousness arises upon seeing something. Ear-consciousness arises upon hearing something etc.

Thus, different from Awareness which is always aware. I picture meeting (being/becoming) awareness as a kind of big deal;) Just my .02:) I have no idea!

Songhill · October 2012

music:

Buy Garma C.C. Chang's book A Treasury of Mahayana Sutras then read the Sutra, The Elucidation of Consciousness (Sutra 39, Taisho 347, pp. 178–186 translated into Chinese by Divâkara.)

Jason · October 2012

In Buddhism, the word consciousness (vinnana) generally refers to cognition of sense data; and in that sense, it's seen as more of a mutually dependent process than a thing in and of itself. For example, in SN 22.79, consciousness (as with the other four khandhas) is described in its verb form:

"And why do you call it 'consciousness'? Because it cognizes, thus it is called consciousness. What does it cognize? It cognizes what is sour, bitter, pungent, sweet, alkaline, non-alkaline, salty, & unsalty. Because it cognizes, it is called consciousness.

Hence consciousness is often defined or divided by the particular sense door and object of cognition. The standard formula is: dependent on the eye and forms there arises eye-consciousness; dependent on the ear and sounds there arises ear-consciousness; dependent on the nose and aromas there arises nose-consciousness; dependent on the tongue and flavours there arises tongue-consciousness; dependent on the body and tactile sensations there arises body-consciousness; and dependent on the intellect and mental qualities there arises intellect-consciousness (SN 12.44).

Beyond this, there are different types or ways of talking about consciousness that are mentioned throughout the Suttas, commentarial literature, and in various traditions. For example, there's what's called the stream of consciousness (vinnana-sota), re-linking consciousness (patisandhi-citta), subconsciousness and/or storehouse consciousness (bhavanga-citta in Theravada and alaya-vijnana in Mahayana), consciousness without feature (vinnanam anidassanam), etc.

Interpretations and acceptance of these terms vary. Some even disregard them altogether and simply focus on understanding and observing the six types of sense consciousness since these are the most discussed in the Suttas and arguably the most important in terms of meditation practice.

Citta · October 2012

Extremely deft summary Jason.

Jason · October 2012

Thanks.

Songhill · October 2012

Jason:

A bit of esoteric Buddhism thrown in, at the end of the Khajjaniya Sutta it speaks about the monk whose mind (citta) is thus released (vimutta-cittaṃ). So astonishing is this release that the devas together with Indra, Brahma and Pajapati say: "We ourselves do not directly know on what your meditation (jhāyasī) rests (nissāya)."

zenff · October 2012

A definition of consciousness doesn’t answer the question what consciousness is.
It is just replacing words with other words.

The crucial aspect of consciousness is – the way I see it - what is sometimes referred to as qualia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia
Daniel Dennett writes that qualia is "an unfamiliar term for something that could not be more familiar to each of us: the ways things seem to us."

This most intimate thing is very difficult to fit into our understanding of the world. “Qualia are unobservable in others and unquantifiable in us. We cannot possibly be sure, when discussing individual qualia, that we are even discussing the same phenomena.”

Buddhism doesn’t have good answers I think, and modern science is in the dark about it too.

Jason · October 2012

Songhill said:
Jason:

A bit of esoteric Buddhism thrown in, at the end of the Khajjaniya Sutta it speaks about the monk whose mind (citta) is thus released (vimutta-cittaṃ). So astonishing is this release that the devas together with Indra, Brahma and Pajapati say: "We ourselves do not directly know on what your meditation (jhāyasī) rests (nissāya)."

Reminds me of this passages like this from MN 64:

Whatever is there of material form, feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness — he beholds these phenomena as impermanent, suffering, as a disease, a boil, a dart, a misfortune, an affliction, as alien, as decomposing, as empty, as selfless. He turns his mind away from these phenomena; and when he has turned his mind away from them, he focuses his mind on the deathless element [amata-dhatu], thinking: "This is the peaceful, this is the sublime, that is, the stilling of all formations, the relinquishing of the foundations, the destruction of craving, dispassion, cessation, nibbana." (Bodhi)

And this from Ud 8.1:

There is that dimension, monks, where there is neither earth, nor water, nor fire, nor wind; neither dimension of the infinitude of space, nor dimension of the infinitude of consciousness, nor dimension of nothingness, nor dimension of neither perception nor non-perception; neither this world, nor the next world, nor sun, nor moon. And there, I say, there is neither coming, nor going, nor staying; neither passing away nor arising: unestablished, unevolving, without support [mental object]. This, just this, is the end of stress.

As well as these from the the Dhammapada:

Not hoarding,
having comprehended food,
their pasture — emptiness
& freedom without sign:
their trail,
like that of birds through space,
can't be traced.

Effluents ended,
independent of nutriment,
their pasture — emptiness
& freedom without sign:
their trail,
like that of birds through space,
can't be traced.

PrairieGhost · October 2012

Consciousness is a self (here) that is conscious of an object (there).

If you mean the other thing... the question is a category mistake, as is the first part of this sentence.

zenff · October 2012

We have sophisticated computers who can store immense amounts of data en who can perform incredibly complicated calculations. But we cannot give them even the most basic ability to experience qualia. If we wanted to do it, we wouldn’t know where to begin.

If we could build a brain, we have no idea whether this brain would experience qualia and if so, how that came about.

FullCircle · October 2012

Hmm to me that 'qualia' term ( the way things seem to us) could also be called perception (another of the 5 aggregates).. And our perceptions are based on the causes and conditions of this life and all our karma.

FullCircle · October 2012

I would disagree that Buddhism doesn't have good answers;) it's all there if we can stop believing our thoughts- the whole thinking over-thinking thing is the problem!:)

Jason · October 2012

The way I see it, Buddhism isn't concerned with what consciousness is (i.e., its essence or being) so much as what it does by analyzing our experience of it (i.e., its nature or activity), particularly in terms of its arising and ceasing (illustrating its inconstancy and selfless nature) and the role it plays in the chain of mental causation/interaction that gives rise to suffering.

driedleaf · October 2012

I'll take a shot at it. What creates perception?

Jason · October 2012

driedleaf said:
I'll take a shot at it. What creates perception?

From MN 18:

"Dependent on eye & forms, eye-consciousness arises. The meeting of the three is contact. With contact as a requisite condition, there is feeling. What one feels, one perceives (labels in the mind). What one perceives, one thinks about. What one thinks about, one objectifies. Based on what a person objectifies, the perceptions & categories of objectification assail him/her with regard to past, present, & future forms cognizable via the eye.

"Dependent on ear & sounds, ear-consciousness arises...

"Dependent on nose & aromas, nose-consciousness arises...

"Dependent on tongue & flavors, tongue-consciousness arises...

"Dependent on body & tactile sensations, body-consciousness arises...

"Dependent on intellect & ideas, intellect-consciousness arises. The meeting of the three is contact. With contact as a requisite condition, there is feeling. What one feels, one perceives (labels in the mind). What one perceives, one thinks about. What one thinks about, one objectifies. Based on what a person objectifies, the perceptions & categories of objectification assail him/her with regard to past, present, & future ideas cognizable via the intellect.

FullCircle · October 2012

My simple mind would say perception is caused by the causes and conditions of this life plus karmic tendencies. If I'd been born into another family with different views in another country then my perceptions of all things would be vastly different..

pegembara · October 2012

Consciousness is the ground. Consciousness needs to be conscious of something whether it be sights, sounds, smells, taste, touch and mind objects (ideas, emotions, dreams etc.). Even sights, sounds, smells, taste, touch can be mind objects.

Consciousness and these objects are codependent. Without the objects there cannot be consciousness and vice versa.

music · October 2012

Consciousness cannot exist without objects. But objects can exist without consciousness. After all, there was no life for many billions of years.

zenff · October 2012

Yes the ear has something to do with our perception of sounds etc., but in fact we can hear and see things that are not there. The Buddha must have had a hallucination or a dream too; so he should have known there’s more to it.

We know a lot more about the brain than the Buddha did; but we’re stuck with the “hard problem” of consciousness.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness

I don’t see the Buddhist position clearly. I suppose Jason is right in saying the Buddha didn’t address this “hard problem” and concentrated on the “easy problems” of finding a practical way of dealing with the suffering-aspect of conscious experience.

David · October 2012

The logistics of information become aware of itself?

Just a shot in the dark.

PrairieGhost · October 2012

David · October 2012

PrairieGhost said:

Why do you feel it cannot be explained?

And how will we ever know if we don't try?

I don't think it's something we attained but something we are.

PrairieGhost · October 2012

Ok, the problem here is that no one has a clue what 'this' is. We may think that we can work it out if we think really hard. But we can't: trying to do so is like a whirlpool trying to grasp the ocean: it can't get purchase, it has nothing to hold on to.

Buddha taught dependent origination because seeing how DO works becomes part of the whirlpool of ennui running out of energy, or karma. That's why whenever he was asked ontological questions, he brought our attention back to dependent origination instead of answering the question.

David · October 2012

PrairieGhost said:

Buddha taught dependent origination because seeing how this works becomes part of the whirlpool of enui running out of energy, or karma. That's why whenever he was asked ontological questions, he brought our attention back to dependent origination instead of answering the question.

Yes but that is because dependant origination is the answer in my honest opinion... He just didn't outright say it.

I don't think he wanted us to take it on faith and some of us would have.

PrairieGhost · October 2012

Hi Ourself:

Dependent origination is not an answer, it's a solution:

"Bhikkhus, do you clearly see, as it really is, with right wisdom, this is arising?." "Yes,venerable sir." "Bhikkhus, do you clearly see, with right wisdom, that this arises supported?" "Yes, venerable sir." "Bhikkhus, do you clearly see, with right wisdom, that when the support ceases the arising too ceases?" "Yes, venerable sir."

"Bhikkkhus, as purified and bright as this view is, if you covet, cherish, treasure and take pride in it, do you understand this Dhamma as comparable to a raft, taught for the purpose of giving up [i.e. crossing over] and not for the purpose of grasping?" "No, venerable sir." "Bhikkhus, as purified and bright as this view is, if you do not covet, cherish, treasure and take pride in it, would you then know this Dhamma as comparable to a raft, taught for the purpose of giving up [i.e. crossing over] and not for the purpose of grasping?" "Yes, venerable sir."

http://www.leighb.com/mn38.htm

When DO is grasped as an ontological answer, Buddhism becomes a death cult.

David · October 2012

Hey PrairieGhost;

Can you sort out the difference between a solution and an answer for me? Sorry, just being a wisenheimer...

Dependant origination does fit the bill for me in answer to the supposedly unponderable questions because it narrows them down to something that has no first cause.

It is hard to define a process that is in constant change... It has to be felt and realised. I think this is where the finger and the moon Zen teaching arose from.

Dependant origination is not just something we are to realise, it is what we are in the absolute sense... A verb, not seperate nouns.

Just my honest opinion.

when DO is grasped as an ontological answer, Buddhism becomes a death cult.

How in the world could seeing compassion as common sense be nhilistic?

PrairieGhost · October 2012

Hi Ourself:

Can you sort out the difference between a solution and an answer for me?

Well, an answer in one sense is the same as a solution, e.g. 'the answer to the problem of climate change'.

But I think it was clear from my post that I meant answer as in ontological answer, solution as in soteriological solution.

'What is this?' Is an ontological question. 'How do we end suffering?' Is a soteriological question.

PrairieGhost · October 2012

Ourself:

Dependant origination is not just something we are to realise, it is what we are in the absolute sense...

No. It's what suffering is. What beings call self is just suffering. That includes identifying with DO.

Jason · October 2012

zenff said:
I don’t see the Buddhist position clearly. I suppose Jason is right in saying the Buddha didn’t address this “hard problem” and concentrated on the “easy problems” of finding a practical way of dealing with the suffering-aspect of conscious experience.

That's because there really isn't a 'Buddhist position.' The Buddha isn't saying, "Hey, I have the answers to all your questions about the nature of consciousness"; he's saying, "Hey, observe your experience of the five aggregates, including consciousness, particularly how these phenomena arise and pass away and aren't subject to your complete control. You'll see that they're inconstant and not-self; and by relinquishing attachment to them, your mind will be liberated" (SN 22.59). And this process doesn't require one to address the 'hard problem' or 'easy problem' of consciousness; it only requires one to be mindful of the flow of conscious experience (MN 10).

pegembara · October 2012

music said:
Consciousness cannot exist without objects. But objects can exist without consciousness. After all, there was no life for many billions of years.

How would you know that?
"there was no life for many billions of years" is just a thought(mental object).
Without thought could you even know "objects can exist without consciousness".

music · October 2012

It is not just a thought. It is the history of our cosmos.

Citta · October 2012

You have accepted as a given that everything happens in linear time.
Perhaps it does. But there are other views.

ThailandTom · October 2012

I T D O E S N ' T M A T T E R

driedleaf · October 2012

Another shot at it. Consciousness is the functioning of life. The fuel for perception. The functioning of the senses. An eyeball from a corpse cannot see because the eyeball lost its consciousness or not functioning 100%, but a fully functioning eyeball can see and perceive objects as pleasant or unpleasant etc.

ThailandTom · October 2012

People are dwelling way too much on it. Just obsrve it as it arrises and passes... It is nothing more or less than anything else, it just causes experience. SO I guess on that point of view it does not matter and should be observed as a mere condition that is ungraspable and comes to arrise and pass, that is all...

Songhill · October 2012

"The Buddha told Wise Protector, The consciousness moves and turns, transmigrates and expires, and comes and goes like the wind. Wind has no color or shape and is invisible, yet it can [generate and] stir up things and cause them to take on different shapes" (Maharatnakuta Sutra, Elucidation of Consciousness).

PrairieGhost · October 2012

Songhill:

The consciousness moves and turns, transmigrates

Tell me I don't have to post about Sati the Fisherman's Son yet again...

I'm probably just being picky and you understand that these are provisional designations.

Sabre · October 2012

I can tell you what it is not. It's not you or yours.

Now the thing is not to find out what it is, but to accept the above.

ThailandTom · October 2012

Sabre said:
I can tell you what it is not. It's not you or yours.

Now the thing is not to find out what it is, but to accept the above.

And who are you?

Songhill · October 2012

PraireGhost:

I think I have addressed Sâti's heresy before. Most Buddhists don't take the time to look at the Pali and impulsively shoot from the hip on this particular matter.

The Buddha admonished Sâti who put forth the erroneous view that consciousness transmigrates as self-same (anañña). The upshot is that the consciousness is not self-same (anañña) — not that consciousness does not transmigrate.

PrairieGhost · October 2012

Hi Songhill:

When I was eel wriggling to try and cling on to my soul, yours is the view I held. But it was never my soul to do as I saw fit with.

Then those bhikkhus thinking to dissuade the bhikkhu Sati from that pernicious view, cross examined him, asked for reasons and discussed with him: "Friend, Sati do not say that, do not misrepresent the Blessed One. The Blessed One did not say that. The Blessed One has shown in various ways, that consciousness arises dependently. Without a cause there is no arising of consciousness." Even when so much was said, he held on to his pernicious view tenaciously and would not give it up and said: "As I know the Teaching of the Blessed One, this consciousness transmigrates through existences, not anything else."

http://www.leighb.com/mn38.htm

There are some things you don't really have until you let them go.

Jeffrey · October 2012

Rangtong/Shentong again

Songhill · October 2012

PraireiGhost:

Reading D. ii. 62-63, we learn that "consciousness conditions (viññana-paccayā) mind-and-body (i.e., namarupa, the embryonic being)"; moreover "if consciousness were not to descend (okkamisatha) into the mother's womb" the mind-and-body would not develop.

It seems clear from the above that this consciousness, which is between karmic dispositions (sankhâra) and namarupa, plays a pivotal role by being the go between thus conditioning the namarupa/embryo which means, of course, that consciousness is not self-same (obviously Sâti was wrong about consciousness).

Songhill · October 2012

Jeffrey:

Rangtong/Shentong again

Wish it were so. That is always a delightful debate. This one, on the other hand, gets to the core of western Buddhism which is fast becoming Buddhist materialism. The debates are far more vicious.

David · October 2012

PrairieGhost said:
Hi Ourself:

Can you sort out the difference between a solution and an answer for me?

Well, an answer in one sense is the same as a solution, e.g. 'the answer to the problem of climate change'.

But I think it was clear from my post that I meant answer as in ontological answer, solution as in soteriological solution.

'What is this?' Is an ontological question. 'How do we end suffering?' Is a soteriological question.

Both questions lead to the same answer.

PrairieGhost said:
Ourself:

Dependant origination is not just something we are to realise, it is what we are in the absolute sense...

No. It's what suffering is. What beings call self is just suffering. That includes identifying with DO.

The illusion is that of being separate, not being, lol.

I am nothing more and nothing less than that which I am doing right now.

David · October 2012

On one occasion the Blessed One was traveling along the road between Ukkattha and Setabya, and Dona the brahman was also traveling along the road between Ukkattha and Setabya. Dona the brahman saw, in the Blessed One's footprints, wheels with 1,000 spokes, together with rims and hubs, complete in all their features. On seeing them, the thought occurred to him, "How amazing! How astounding! These are not the footprints of a human being!"
Then the Blessed One, leaving the road, went to sit at the root of a certain tree — his legs crossed, his body erect, with mindfulness established to the fore. Then Dona, following the Blessed One's footprints, saw him sitting at the root of the tree: confident, inspiring confidence, his senses calmed, his mind calmed, having attained the utmost control & tranquility, tamed, guarded, his senses restrained, a naga.[1] On seeing him, he went to him and said, "Master, are you a deva?"[2]
"No, brahman, I am not a deva."
"Are you a gandhabba?"
"No..."
"... a yakkha?"
"No..."
"... a human being?"
"No, brahman, I am not a human being."
"When asked, 'Are you a deva?' you answer, 'No, brahman, I am not a deva.' When asked, 'Are you a gandhabba?' you answer, 'No, brahman, I am not a gandhabba.' When asked, 'Are you a yakkha?' you answer, 'No, brahman, I am not a yakkha.' When asked, 'Are you a human being?' you answer, 'No, brahman, I am not a human being.' Then what sort of being are you?"
"Brahman, the fermentations by which — if they were not abandoned — I would be a deva: Those are abandoned by me, their root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising. The fermentations by which — if they were not abandoned — I would be a gandhabba... a yakkha... a human being: Those are abandoned by me, their root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising.
"Just like a red, blue, or white lotus — born in the water, grown in the water, rising up above the water — stands unsmeared by the water, in the same way I — born in the world, grown in the world, having overcome the world — live unsmeared by the world. Remember me, brahman, as 'awakened.'
"The fermentations by which I would go to a deva-state, or become a gandhabba in the sky, or go to a yakkha-state & human-state: Those have been destroyed by me, ruined, their stems removed. Like a blue lotus, rising up, unsmeared by water, unsmeared am I by the world, and so, brahman, I'm awake."

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.036.than.html

"I am not this" however "I am awake"

"This" is a noun... "Awake" is a verb. "I" am not a thing. "I" am an action... A process.

I am not a being, I simply am being.

Just another wave on the water... But I am also the water itself in the absolute sense.

Songhill · October 2012

ourself:

Just another wave on the water... But I am also the water itself in the absolute sense.

And when you become a Buddha you'll see that there are really no waves at all — only water. After that you'll have no desire to raise a wave family, buy the big wave house, and own a wave SUV.

David · October 2012

Songhill said:
ourself:

Just another wave on the water... But I am also the water itself in the absolute sense.

And when you become a Buddha you'll see that there are really no waves at all — only water. After that you'll have no desire to raise a wave family, buy the big wave house, and own a wave SUV.

Buddha still recognised the waves or he wouldn't have bothered acknowledging us let alone save us from suffering.

Alas, I have no real desire for any of those things now. I'd never own an SUV or a big house... If I become a father, I will be a loving father and if I don't then I will be a loving whatever else happens.

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

What's consciousness?

Comments