Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Examples: Monday, today, last week, Mar 26, 3/26/04
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 right view? perhaps?

edited October 2009 in Buddhism Basics
I just realized my consciousness, is not something that is born and dies,

it is like this;

like two magnifying glasses that are distorted when looked through seperately, when you put them together a clearness is revealed...
by virtue of it's focusing in...or 'blending' of a few materials together lets consciousness shine through....

blend of things,..

so the question now is, does consciousness exists everywhere like under the covers of the universe? and is just waiting for the right blend of focusing agents to shine through?

and if so, is there other levels of 'focus' that the mind can achieve ? explains buddha's seemingly all pervading knowledge.. and if this is so, when my body dies, I or rather my consciousness i was using will be reborn when there is another right blend of aggregates....?

Comments

  • edited October 2009
    you know i just thought maybe the whole point of buddhism and mind training etc etc, is to "remove the dirt (delusions) that covers that "lens" of this mind/consciousness..+aggregates so that our REAL nature can shine trough properly our buddha nature
  • fivebellsfivebells Veteran
    edited October 2009
    Funny, I was just talking about this on another forum.
  • edited October 2009
    TheFound wrote: »
    I just realized my consciousness, is not something that is born and dies,


    ..?

    If according to Dhamma, even mind does not exist by itself, what more can you say about consciousness? Consciousness (vinnayaana) is conditioned by Naama & Ruupa - it originates because of these conditions. If the conditions don't exist, consciousness does not arise. say a blind person has no eye consciousness, as the eye sensitivity is not present in him/her, which is a condition for eye consciousness to arise.

    Quoting from an earlier thread in which I observed 'What continues is not Consciousness, not Feelings, not Perception, not Mental Formations, not Form (materiality) but just SUFFERING. Volitions or Kamma or actions conditioning a new birth(suffering), new disease, new aging, new pain and so on ending in 5 clinging aggregates. So no 'being' continues in sansaara but only suffering continues and to END this suffering was the essence of Buddha's teaching.'

    If you are unable to understand this concept, go no further. This is the crux of Buddhism. Please read dependent origination - Mahanidaana suttra is a good beginning to understand 'no-self'. Buddha did reprimand a monk who advocated the idea of continuity of consciousness - sorry I am unable to quote that specific suttra. Consciousness arise and cease - cease absolutely - another arise and cease and goes on until the death consciousness. The volitions/actions of this birth conditions the re-birth linking consciousness (NOT THE DEATH CONSCIOUSNESS) of the next birth (Jaathi) and continues the sansaara cycle until we hit Nibbaana. This is a fantastic topic you raised - TheFound.
  • kennykenny Explorer
    edited October 2009
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name="ProgId" content="Word.Document"><meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 11"><meta name="Originator" content="Microsoft Word 11"><link rel="File-List" href="file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5Ckmh%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml"><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:PunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w:DontGrowAutofit/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><style> <!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> </style><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]--> I feel the need to point out that it is not considered “skillful” to claim things as a truth when there is no possible way to come to a conclusion at the present moment. If you wish to speculate that is quite fine, the majority of us do. However it should remain as a possibility and nothing more. More beliefs shouldn’t be piled upon it. This just creates more delusion when the mind is foggy enough. Buddha taught to only speak of something as a truth if indeed it can be proven as true.
  • edited October 2009
    I dunno guys I'm starting to think that there is an underlying super consciousness as the ground of all reality and matter..and we are little shards of "glass" that focus pieces of it.

    maybe my choice of terms is off, you know 'consciousness' was one of the 4 mental aggregates right? I don't really mean it in such a specific, 'WORD', way.

    I mean it...like..... for lack of a better word..vocabulary issues on my part..
  • fivebellsfivebells Veteran
    edited October 2009
    TheFound wrote: »
    I dunno guys I'm starting to think...
    You're totally moving away from what Buddhism is pointing to, here. Not that there's anything wrong with that. But what role do thoughts play in Buddhist practice? Where does this kind of speculation fit, in the chain of dependent origination?
  • edited October 2009
    fivebells wrote: »
    You're totally moving away from what Buddhism is pointing to, here. Not that there's anything wrong with that. But what role do thoughts play in Buddhist practice? Where does this kind of speculation fit, in the chain of dependent origination?

    To the point fivebells!

    Probably semantics - I quoted you on an appreciative way - that is you 'did really hit the point'. Confusions in Buddhism and in English! Blame it on both! and also on me.
  • fivebellsfivebells Veteran
    edited October 2009
    Lotus, you appear to be confused on a number of points.
    lotus123 wrote: »
    we are here to point out the correct view on Buddhist principles or Buddha Dhamma in this forum, to eliminate distortions and incorrect interpretations when it comes to any topic on Buddhism under discussion.
    I am here to help end suffering. Policing dhamma induces suffering.
    lotus123 wrote: »
    Of course idle chatter some do appreciate after few drinks or a smoke.
    TF is deeply confused, and looking in all the wrong places, but this is not idle chatter for him.
    lotus123 wrote: »
    But as Buddhists we should refrain from indulging in these unprofitable practices.
    Who are you trying to reach here? My reaction, as a beginner, would have been "Quit telling me what to do, Polonius!"
    lotus123 wrote: »
    Finally going tangential to this discussion...
    Why? For whose sake?
    lotus123 wrote: »
    we all have the POTENTIAL to become Savaka Buddhas (Arahants) but do we have necessary CONDITIONS to become arhants in this life?
    If you actually understood dependent origination, you would know that practice leads to the end of becoming. You want to become a Buddha, conditioned on conditions? Ridiculous!
    lotus123 wrote: »
    If Lord Buddha appears on this planet today and delivers a dhamma probably none(including monks) or just a handful will enter nibbana.
    Again, what's your point?
  • federicafederica Seeker of the clear blue sky... Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubt Moderator
    edited October 2009
    lotus123 wrote: »
    (. . .) but we are here to point out the correct view on Buddhist principles or Buddha Dhamma in this forum, to eliminate distortions and incorrect interpretations when it comes to any topic on Buddhism under discussion. Otherwise the merit of this august forum will be lost.
    No, we're not here for that. I think that if you were to question the Forum founder he would be horrified to think that this is what you believe you are here for.
    This is not the purpose of this forum.
    We are not here to either correct or teach. We are here to share, discuss, confide and support one another in the quest to End Suffering.
    If you think you have a right to dictate that what you expound is the ultimate truth, and you think it's your duty to point out correct view...eliminate distortions and incorrect interpretations... then you're in the wrong place.
    This is a place of comfort, unity, pleasure and engagement, not of bombastic black-and-white views. Sorry chum....
    Of course idle chatter some do appreciate after few drinks or a smoke. But as Buddhists we should refrain from indulging in these unprofitable practices.
    That is counsel, but again, it is an individual choice, not a dictated definite.... it's your opinion, but each must reach a decision for themselves, when ready.
    Finally going tangential to this discussion...we all have the POTENTIAL to become Savaka Buddhas (Arahants) but do we have necessary CONDITIONS to become arhants in this life? If Lord Buddha appears on this planet today and delivers a dhamma probably none(including monks) or just a handful will enter nibbana.
    It's not tangential, it's off-topic, and as such, irrelevant.
    It warrants no response, because basically, it's not the place to threadjack and bring the discussion around to your view, when it's someone else's views we're discussing.
    Threadjacking is impolite.

    Just for the record.

    Thanks.
  • edited October 2009
    fivebells wrote: »
    To the point fivebells! - see my original posting.

    Probably semantics - I quoted you on an appreciative way - that is you 'did really hit the point'. Confusions in Buddhism and in English! Blame it on both! and also on me. I think its time to wind up here.
  • fivebellsfivebells Veteran
    edited October 2009
    I know you intended that as praise, and I appreciate that, but to me, the way you said it was really a slander.
  • edited October 2009
    u guys are replying a bunch, but
    am i right or what?

    who cares if we (i) want to use concepts+words as tools to achieve a better understanding, if it increases by 0.000000000000000001% i'm super down like a clown charlie brown
  • RenGalskapRenGalskap Veteran
    edited October 2009
    TheFound wrote: »
    I just realized my consciousness, is not something that is born and dies,
    OK. A lot of Buddhists believe this. I'm not one of them, but no problem.
    TheFound wrote: »
    so the question now is, does consciousness exists everywhere like under the covers of the universe? and is just waiting for the right blend of focusing agents to shine through?
    TheFound wrote: »
    u guys are replying a bunch, but am i right or what?
    Yes. Consciousness exists everywhere. You are never going to perceive anything without consciousness being present.

    The fact that you are perceiving something means that consciousness is shining through. It's not waiting for anything. It's acting right now.
    TheFound wrote: »
    and if so, is there other levels of 'focus' that the mind can achieve ?
    What the mind achieves are different perceptions and thoughts. All phenomena, including thoughts and perceptions, are the result of conditions and causes. As the conditions and causes change, the thoughts and perceptions will change also.
    TheFound wrote: »
    you know i just thought maybe the whole point of buddhism and mind training etc etc, is to "remove the dirt (delusions) that covers that "lens" of this mind/consciousness..+aggregates so that our REAL nature can shine trough properly our buddha nature
    It is shining through.
  • fivebellsfivebells Veteran
    edited October 2009
    TheFound wrote: »
    u guys are replying a bunch, but
    am i right or what?
    No.
  • edited October 2009
    How can pure consciousness, without perception, thought, desire, action, assumption, be suffering?
  • RenGalskapRenGalskap Veteran
    edited October 2009
    How can pure consciousness, without perception, thought, desire, action, assumption, be suffering?
    I'm probably not getting something. Who are you asking and what is this a reply to?
  • Let the dust settle.
  • CloudCloud Veteran
    @hermitwin Please stop commenting on old threads. You're not adding anything and you're bumping them to the top for no good reason. Comprende?
This discussion has been closed.