Consciousness without signs - The exit point?

[cathutch]

Consciousness without signs
(anidassana viññāṇa)
The exit door to nibbana?

Does this reading of paṭiccasamuppāda look correct to you?

Your input will be greatly appreciated.

[RyanWind]

Originally Posted by cathutch

Does this reading of paṭiccasamuppāda look correct to you?

Correct as what? A translation of the original? It's too full of the opinions of the author to be a direct translation. The writer also uses undefined words like "consciousness" a lot which are not present in the original or in Buddhism.

[cathutch]

Originally Posted by RyanWind

Correct as what? A translation of the original? It's too full of the opinions of the author to be a direct translation. The writer also uses undefined words like "consciousness" a lot which are not present in the original or in Buddhism.

Greetings RyanWind,

Indeed the author is myself. And although english is my second language, I was not asking if the grammar and the orthography were correct, but more like if the reading was truthful to the suttas.

This is a Theravada reading from the Nikayas (particularly DN, MN, SN, AN, Sutta Nipata 4 & 5, Therigatha and Theragatha. With a preference for suttas that have parallels in the Agamas, etc.

Consciousness is viññāṇa, as defined in SN 22.79:
“And why, bhikkhus, do you call it consciousness? ‘It cognizes, ’ bhikkhus, therefore it is called consciousness." (Bodhi and Thanissaro).
And what, bhikshus, is called consciousness (viññāṇa)? It cognizes (vijānāti), bhikshus, therefore it is called consciousness.(Piya Tan)
And why, brethren, do ye say 'consciousness'? One is conscious, brethren.Therefore the word 'consciousness' is used. (Woodward)!?!

And what does it cognize?
It cognizes sour, it cognizes bitter,
it cognizes spicy hot, it cognizes sweet,
it cognizes sharp, it cognizes mild ,
it cognizes salty, it cognizes bland.
It cognizes, bhikshus, therefore it is called consciousness.

Metta

[cathutch]

Greetings RyanWind

I don't know if your message #82 in the Nirvana thread was your response to my answer; but I will quote back your view on consciousness. I suppose they refer to #1, #2 and #3 below.

Originally Posted by RyanWind

As taught by Tolle, Mooji, Krishnamurti, Buddha and many others:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vijñāna

#1 consciousness conditioned by mental fabrications = consciousness that is focusing on, and identified with thought = ego manifestation

#2. consciousness and the mind-body are independent = you (perception) consciousness have a body which thinks and a memory but you (as consciousness) are not these things. You are independent though merged with these things during the incarnation.

#3. consciousness acts as a life force by which there is a continuity across rebirths = soul concept - consciousness free (or not identified with) from the body and it's mind - (enlightenment)

Consciousness (as per Buddha's definition in the Nikayas,) is (at inception and later on,) the consciousness of something - It is the necessary element in a chain of causation - It is something in itself.

It is also something that varies (and alters, in this particular process!) as it goes through the chain of causation.

It is not perception.
This is perception, as per Buddha's definitions in the Nikayas.
There is, as it seems, an innefable inquiry in perception, that does not exist in consciousness.
Moreover, there is in perception an abstract nature that does not exist in consciousness.
Perceiving blue is not the same as cognizing saltiness. Perception is more the "qualia" of the modern philosophy of mind. There is somewhat certainty in consciousness; not in perception.

My take, from Buddha's definitions, is that consciousness could be defined simply, as the translator Upalavanna did, as "is known".
It is the result of feeling, perception and thinking. The "is known" of those three.

It is also a thing in itself; a result - like "light". Bright or sullied.


You say: "consciousness and the mind-body are independent".
Not quite. For if you read my interpretation through the reading of the suttas, sense-consciousness is processed by the mind-body. This is where dathu-consciousness is made, and fed to the viññāṇa nidāna link in paṭiccasamuppāda.
The mind-body alters the sense-consciousness, and adds to it more feelings, perceptions and thoughts.


You say: "consciousness acts as a life force by which there is a continuity across rebirths".
Life force springs from the primal force that is saṅkhāra, it seems. Saṅkhāra as intentionality to know. The intentional force, the binding force, and the forces that result are the concomitant forces.
Consciousness is one among the many resultant forces; but not the inchoative force at inception.
Life force is an ambiguous expression.
Does it mean that the vanishing of consciousness is the end of life?
Certainly not.
If Buddha speaks about the vanishing of consciousness in the higher states, how could consciousness be a "life force", if nibbana is the ultimate life?
Nibbana is an unconscious state with perception.

I have always thought that consciousness as knowledge-of, was the basis of a rebirth, as long as it did not fulfill its job; namely to reach true-knowledge.
In other word, there is existence (bhava), as long as the knowledge is not true-knowledge (aññā).
That applies to the process we live daily, and to the process of saṃsara.

[RyanWind]

Originally Posted by cathutch

Consciousness (as per Buddha's definition in the Nikayas,) is (at inception and later on,) the consciousness of something - It is the necessary element in a chain of causation - It is something in itself. It is also something that varies (and alters, in this particular process!) as it goes through the chain of causation.

Yes YOU, whatever name or concept you want to give yourself, consciousness, perception, the soul, or whatever, that which sees, that which is reading this now, YOU are the perception of SOMETHING. The something is always changing, nothing is permanent. So as Buddhism likes to say, that means YOU is not permanent since what you are, as far as what your are experiencing as perception, is constantly changing. That's all fine as far as a philosophy, but obviously the seer or perception itself is not changing. In Buddhism, that fact is conceptualized as emptiness or nothingness as the characteristics of the perceiver itself, when it is not identified with the human mind, is empty. But this is of course only conceptual and only defines what the speaker of these things is in that moment. Concepts, words, are not the things they describe. A person can use words like consciousness or perception etc but it is just you. The you reading this. It is not something you can look at. It is that which looks at things. If you can look at some part of yourself, obviously that means what you are looking at is not you, since you are that which looks.

Originally Posted by cathutch

It is not perception.
This is, as per Buddha's definitions in the Nikayas.
There is, as it seems, an innefable inquiry in perception, that does not exist in consciousness. Moreover, there is in perception an abstract nature that does not exist in consciousness. Perceiving blue is not the same as cognizing saltiness. Perception is more the "qualia" of the modern philosophy of mind. There is somewhat certainty in consciousness; not in perception.

We are in a human body. Our human body has 5 senses, taste, touch, smell, hearing, seeing. Our brain does like a trillion calculations a minute to present this sensory data to our consciousness as something. We have nothing to do with this process. We are in the body, we are not the body. We experience life through the body. Buddha is merely pointing this out, what we perceive has subjective qualities to it. Consciousness is not subjective.

Originally Posted by cathutch

My take, from Buddha's definitions, is that consciousness could be defined simply, as the translator Upalavanna did, as "is known".
It is the result of feeling, perception and thinking. The "is known" of those three.
It is also a thing in itself; a result - like "light". Bright or sullied.

Consciousness can't be a result of feeling, perception, and thinking. It's actually the opposite. Thought, as a projected phenomenon, is a product of consciousness. You can see this yourself. Start by not being so abstract about yourself. The thing reading this, YOU, that is consciousness. If you want to define the word consciousness as something else, then make a word for yourself. The one reading this. The seer or perceiver that is you. Ok, stop focusing on your thoughts. Take your attention off of your thoughts. What happens if you do this? Thoughts are no longer perceived. Thought streams are a function of the brain. The brain creates thought. Cognitive scientists have already proven this. Their studies have shown that thoughts appear in the brain before we are conscious of them. In other words, we chose to pay attention to certain thoughts and thus, give them a objective reality. We attach meaning and importance to them. We then, project them outward into the world as action.

Originally Posted by cathutch

You say: "consciousness and the mind-body are independent".
Not quite. For if you read my interpretation through the reading of the suttas, sense-consciousness is processed by the mind-body. This is where dathu-consciousness is made, and fed to the viññāṇa nidāna link in paṭiccasamuppāda.
The mind-body alters the sense-consciousness, and adds to it more feelings, perceptions and thoughts.

By independent, I mean two different things. If they are the same thing, when the body dies consciousness dies. There is no life after death. There is no rebirth. Yes the senses are processed by the body. Where else would they be processed? It's what the senses and the brain does. This data is presented to consciousness. This sense data can alter the consciousness if consciousness is identified with the self produced by the brain. That's the whole point of Buddhism, to free oneself from this false identification.

Originally Posted by cathutch

Nibbana is an unconscious state with perception.

If there is perception, there is a perceiver, therefore, it is not unconscious. Unless you come up with some new way to define and use the word conscious that is different from how it is universally used and conceptualized.

Originally Posted by cathutch

I have always thought that consciousness as knowledge-of, was the basis of a rebirth, as long as it did not fulfill its job; namely to reach true-knowledge.
In other word, there is existence (bhava), as long as the knowledge is not true-knowledge (aññā).
That applies to the process we live daily, and to the process of saṃsara.

I would say your statement implies some things. If YOU or consciousness escapes rebirth by acquiring true-knowledge, that means consciousness, or YOU, is evolving, is increasing in knowledge or awareness of a certain type. Self-knowledge, self realization. Awareness of what is.

[RyanWind]

Originally Posted by cathutch
My take, from Buddha's definitions, is that consciousness could be defined simply, as the translator Upalavanna did, as "is known".
It is the result of feeling, perception and thinking. The "is known" of those three.
It is also a thing in itself; a result - like "light". Bright or sullied.

If consciousness chooses to be identified with the human mind, yes, thinking becomes what that consciousness is, as projected reality, not as form.

Like that saying, you are what you eat, you are what you think. Are you really thought? No. Like how an actor in a zombie costume is not really a zombie. You can project your thoughts and memories, beliefs and opinions, as you and you can go though life experiencing this you as you but you don't have to. You can drop all of that, like how an actor drops his costume and role, and become what you always were under all of that.

[cathutch]

Originally Posted by RyanWind

...

May I ask you what's your background in Buddhism?

It seems that we are not talking from the same canons here.

I usually rely on suttas (from MN, DN, SN, AN, Sutta Nipata 4 & 5, Thera & Theri Gathas) and that have some close parallels in at least two canons, like Pali, Chinese, Tibetan or Sanskrit. (like here).
I believe them, (and so do the serious academic scholars I've read,) to be the closest thing to Buddha's original message. And I also don't believe that Buddha was talking a folks tales' kind of language to "convert the mass" - folksy language that was (and still has) to be stripped off by the "initiated".

From these suttas, I have searched for words as "viññāṇa", "vedana", "saññā", etc. and gathered them in a list of excerpts from these suttas. So I could get some idea about the substantial meaning of those words in their context. I also relied on the PTS and CPD dictionaries, and on the Pali grammar of Duroiselle and others, to get some added interpretations and grammatical equivocalnesses.

I have read absolutely no commentaries, or commentaries on commentaries.

This is my background.
We don't seem to be talking about the same scriptures here.

That's sad; because we are going to get nowhere, but to some false notion of "universality". A tedious waist of time, I presume. Don't you?

Metta.

[mulyo13]

Originally Posted by cathutch

Consciousness without signs
(anidassana viññāṇa)
The exit door to nibbana?

Does this reading of paṭiccasamuppāda look correct to you?

Your input will be greatly appreciated.

No comment about Anidassana Vinnaṇa.

I think it's not about right or wrong, it's more to how you interpret your understanding it into a diagram. If you search on web, there is many Paticcasamuppada diagram(try search with "Paticcasamuppada-pali-english-version5-4" key word).
If you really want to make Paticcasamuppada diagram, I think it will very super huge because all Buddhism teaching is related and you will need to insert it all into the diagram. It's like making Tripitaka diagram.
Making diagram is easier if you have experienced it or already surpass it. Just knowledge or understanding won't help.
My advise, better consultation it with Abhidhamma teacher.

Btw, can I ask you a question? Why you seems so interested making Paticcasamuppada diagram? Have any specific reason?

[cathutch]

Greetings mulyo13

Originally Posted by mulyo13

My advise, better consultation it with Abhidhamma teacher.

As I said before, I do not read commentaries.
The old commentators did not have the tools we have now. I am not going to comment on their speculations that became dogmas.
Plus the Theravada sangha (and the other sanghas as well) are ladden with rituals, magic, etc.; not to speak about their dubious and mandatory submission to the political establishment for millennia now.
It's like asking the Pope to tell you about Jesus' message, while he is riding his $3000 hand-made Berlutti shoes. Useless theology.

Originally Posted by mulyo13

Btw, can I ask you a question? Why you seems so interested making Paticcasamuppada diagram? Have any specific reason?

Why a representation?

Because a picture is worth a thousand words.

And because this representation is the exact replica of Paṭiccasamuppāda in the suttas (not like some other of my sketches, that are more speculative).

Only sense-consciousness may need to have a part of it in satta. Although that part comes after the descent of the indriyas. So I kept it outside satta, while making it clear that it enters the satta's realm at one point, and is altered with satta's khandhas (before being fed to the dhatu-consciousness).
I could have also split viññāṇa nidāna in parts. Anidassana viññaṇa & dhatu-viññāṇa; which I might do later.

As you may have noticed by reading the early Nikayas, there is a lot of redudancies in them.
Skim those out, and there is still a lot to read; but not that much.
Modern search tools allow you to skim and get the gist of the suttas.
This diagram is just the visual part of what is stated in the suttas; pretty much comprehensively and completely - and simply (from the definitions in MN 44, for instance; no more, no less).

What I articulate though, is a somewhat interpretation of that diagram. But the diagram is pretty much accurate and simple.

Note: I looked at Jayarava's diagram.
This is Abidhamma stuff. There is no such thing as aviyāsittacitta in the suttas, for instance.
This is way beyond the simple understanding of Paṭiccasamupāda.
Too much details; and we know who's in details. :)
As I said, I just represented the twelve links from Buddha's definitions; as a visual aid.

Metta.

[mulyo13]

Originally Posted by cathutch

Greetings mulyo13

As I said before, I do not read commentaries.
The old commentators did not have the tools we have now. I am not going to comment on their speculations that became dogmas.
Plus the Theravada sangha (and the other sanghas as well) are ladden with rituals, magic, etc.; not to speak about their dubious and mandatory submission to the political establishment for millennia now.
It's like asking the Pope to tell you about Jesus' message, while he is riding his $3000 hand-made Berlutti shoes. Useless theology.

I do understand why you said that. I only want to say, sometime the truth/reality isn't like what we think.
About Abhidhamma teacher, actually, not all sangha/Buddhist monk is "qualified" to teach Abhidhamma. Usually Abhidhamma teacher have already reached some level and deep understanding, than they could teach Abhidhamma. In my area, there's Abhidhamma class which took about 1 years++ to learn it.
Just sharing.

Originally Posted by cathutch

Why a representation?

Because a picture is worth a thousand words.

And because this representation is the exact replica of Paṭiccasamuppāda in the suttas (not like some other of my sketches, that are more speculative).

Only sense-consciousness may need to have a part of it in satta. Although that part comes after the descent of the indriyas. So I kept it outside satta, while making it clear that it enters the satta's realm at one point, and is altered with satta's khandhas (before being fed to the dhatu-consciousness).
I could have also split viññāṇa nidāna in parts. Anidassana viññaṇa & dhatu-viññāṇa; which I might do later.

As you may have noticed by reading the early Nikayas, there is a lot of redudancies in them.
Skim those out, and there is still a lot to read; but not that much.
Modern search tools allow you to skim and get the gist of the suttas.
This diagram is just the visual part of what is stated in the suttas; pretty much comprehensively and completely - and simply (from the definitions in MN 44, for instance; no more, no less).

What I articulate though, is a somewhat interpretation of that diagram. But the diagram is pretty much accurate and simple.

Note: I looked at Jayarava's diagram.
This is Abidhamma stuff. There is no such thing as aviyāsittacitta in the suttas, for instance.
This is way beyond the simple understanding of Paṭiccasamupāda.
Too much details; and we know who's in details. :)
As I said, I just represented the twelve links from Buddha's definitions; as a visual aid.

Metta.

I think simplicities already happened in Buddhism, for an example Zen. That's why Zen is so popular, simple. But because of its simplicities, many miss understood the real meaning where actually it have same complexities as Theravada.

Good luck with Paticcasamuppada diagram, please share with us after you finished it.

Metta _/\_