Spiritual Forums

Home


Donate!


Articles


CHAT!


Shop


 
Welcome to Spiritual Forums!.

We created this community for people from all backgrounds to discuss Spiritual, Paranormal, Metaphysical, Philosophical, Supernatural, and Esoteric subjects. From Astral Projection to Zen, all topics are welcome. We hope you enjoy your visits.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest, which gives you limited access to most discussions and articles. By joining our free community you will be able to post messages, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload your own photos, and gain access to our Chat Rooms, Registration is fast, simple, and free, so please, join our community today! !

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, check our FAQs before contacting support. Please read our forum rules, since they are enforced by our volunteer staff. This will help you avoid any infractions and issues.

Go Back   Spiritual Forums > Religions & Faiths > Buddhism

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 02-01-2020, 03:20 AM
janielee janielee is offline
Suspended
Master
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 2,785
 
Dependent origination

Whilst Buddhism lite appeals to many, the original teachings of the a Buddha are actually quite specific and precise.

Core teachings such as anicca, dukkha and anatta are not optional or secondary, they are paramount.

As is dependent origination.

People choose the lite version because it’s easy to theorize and utilize, but it’s not Buddhism, at heart, without the reach of Nibbana.

Here is a teaching below -

In its most complete formulation, Dependent Origination is expressed as:

‘avijjapaccaya sankhara; sankharapaccaya vinnanam; vinnanapaccaya namarupam; namarupapaccaya salayatanam; salayantanapaccaya phasso; phassapaccaya vedana; vedanapaccaya tanha; tanhapaccaya upadanam; upadanapaccaya bhavo; bhavapaccaya jati; jatipaccaya jaramaranam- soka-parideve-dukkha-domanassupayasa sambhavanti, evametassa kevalassa dukkhakhandassa samudayo hoti.’

This deals with arising of dukkha.

The cessation of dukkha is then mapped out:

‘avijjayatveva asesaviraga-nirodha sankharanirodho; sankharanirodha vinnananirodho; vinnananirodha namarupanirodho; namarupanirodha salayatananirodho; salayatananirodha phassanirodho; phassanirodha vedananirodho; vedananirodha tanhanirodho; tanhanirodha upadananirodho; upadananirodha bhavanirodho; bhavanirodha jatinirodho; jatinirodha jaramaranam-soka-parideva-dukkha- domanassupayasa nirujjhanti; evametassa kevalassa dukkhakhandhassa nirodho hoti’.

In English this can be translated as:

Dependent on ignorance are habitual formations; dependent on habitual (kamma) formations is consciousness; dependent on consciousness are name-and-form (mentality-corporeality); dependent on name-and-form are the six sense-bases; dependent on the six sense bases is contact; dependent on contact is feeling; dependent on feeling is desire; dependent on desire is grasping is becoming; dependent on becoming is birth; dependent on birth is old age, sickness and death, sorrow, grief, lamentation, pain and despair.

Through the entire ceasing of this ignorance, habitual formations cease; through the ceasing of habitual formations, consciousness ceases; through the ceasing of consciousness, name-and-form cease; through the ceasing of name-and-form, the six sense-bases cease; through the ceasing of the six- sense bases, contact ceases; through the ceasing of contact, feeling ceases; through the ceasing of feeling, desire ceases; through the ceasing of desire, grasping ceases; through the ceasing of grasping, becoming ceases; through the ceasing of becoming, birth ceases; through the ceasing of birth, old age, sickness and death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair come to cease. Thus is the ceasing of this whole mass of suffering.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 02-01-2020, 06:39 AM
Phaelyn Phaelyn is offline
Experiencer
Join Date: Jul 2019
Posts: 336
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by janielee

In English this can be translated as:

Dependent on ignorance are habitual formations; dependent on habitual (kamma) formations is consciousness; dependent on consciousness are name-and-form (mentality-corporeality); dependent on name-and-form are the six sense-bases; dependent on the six sense bases is contact; dependent on contact is feeling; dependent on feeling is desire; dependent on desire is grasping is becoming; dependent on becoming is birth; dependent on birth is old age, sickness and death, sorrow, grief, lamentation, pain and despair.

Through the entire ceasing of this ignorance, habitual formations cease; through the ceasing of habitual formations, consciousness ceases; through the ceasing of consciousness, name-and-form cease; through the ceasing of name-and-form, the six sense-bases cease; through the ceasing of the six- sense bases, contact ceases; through the ceasing of contact, feeling ceases; through the ceasing of feeling, desire ceases; through the ceasing of desire, grasping ceases; through the ceasing of grasping, becoming ceases; through the ceasing of becoming, birth ceases; through the ceasing of birth, old age, sickness and death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair come to cease. Thus is the ceasing of this whole mass of suffering.[/color]

One thing that always stands out to me is whoever translated this into English stuck in the word consciousness, but not in the way that word is used in English.

Here is the English definition:

Quote:
con·scious·ness

the state of being awake and aware of one's surroundings.

Similar: awareness, sentience
Opposite:
unconsciousness
the awareness or perception of something by a person.

realization of cognizance of mindfulness of perception of
apprehension of recognition of
the fact of awareness by the mind of itself

Ok so in English consciousness represents the self, that which is awake, aware,
the perceiver. But in that Buddhist translation it means something wholly different.

Quote:
Dependent on ignorance are habitual formations; dependent on habitual (kamma) formations is consciousness; dependent on consciousness are name-and-form (mentality-corporeality);

Here the writer is going through the negative factors of the delusional self.
Ignorance... name and form, form is delusional conceptual mind, false
interpretations of what is, dependent on consciousness are name-and-form

So in this translation, the word consciousness is not the self, not perception, it is that thing that creates a false perception, so then in Buddhism, what is perceiving all of this? what perceives the false perception ?

If somebody thinks I am reading this wrong here is more where it is even more evident:

Quote:
Through the entire ceasing of this ignorance, habitual formations cease; through the ceasing of habitual formations, consciousness ceases; through the ceasing of consciousness, name-and-form cease...Thus is the ceasing of this whole mass of suffering.

Ok here the writer is describing the right way to be. To end ignorance, which we see at the end of the paragraph.... ends suffering to something or someone. But this something or someone has nothing to do with a consciousness. No the paragraph states consciousness ceases so what then experiences the ending of suffering?

It's not a big deal. I'm just pointing out the word consciousness was given a non-English definition whoever the translator was. According to the translator of this, because he did not use the right English words, an enlightened person does not have a consciousness. In English, that means they have no perception and are unconscious. Dead in other words, not living or alive. Or maybe permanently asleep though we perceive dreams and our alarm clock etc while asleep. So it would be a type of sleep without anything that could have a dream or hear an alarm clock.

It's possible whoever translated this into English did not understand English well and messed up. I wonder if they messed up other words.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 02-01-2020, 09:47 PM
janielee janielee is offline
Suspended
Master
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 2,785
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phaelyn

It's possible whoever translated this into English did not understand English well and messed up. I wonder if they messed up other words.

Buddhism defines consciousness in a specific way.

If you’re interested you can look it up on Access to Insight.

And no, the translator didn’t mess anything up. He was spot on.

You can’t use a different understanding to right fit your understanding of Buddhism..

Consciousness is anatta, it is not self as well as impermanent and dukkha.

Jl
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 02-01-2020, 10:22 PM
Phaelyn Phaelyn is offline
Experiencer
Join Date: Jul 2019
Posts: 336
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by janielee
Consciousness is anatta, it is not self as well as impermanent and dukkha.

Jl

Anatta, (Pali: “non-self” or “substanceless)

Consciousness definition from English Dictionary,

the state of being awake and aware of one's surroundings

So if you claim consciousness is anatta you are saying:

“non-self” or “substanceless is the state of being awake and aware of one's surroundings
- so obviously something or someone is awake and aware.
The terms “non-self” or “substanceless are therefore referring to the qualities of that self.

So this is actually all true but then your added interpretation is wrong. This:

Consciousness is anatta, it is not self as well as impermanent and dukkha

Consciousness is eternal. The ego, or personal identity based on thought
is not. But then really trying to make the English word Consciousness mean
the same thing as something that goes away in the enlightened is just silly.
The meanings don't even come close. You have to understand what the writers were describing.

Because the state of "non-self" better translated into "non-ego" for
westerners, and "substanceless" better translated into "without conceptual
thoughts and images" refers to the state of someone who is awake.

That's how you match up the wording and translations into English better.

So it could read as one possibility, if somebody does not have the heuristic
understanding and base to "read between the lines:" ego thought based consciousness
goes away when ignorance or the lack of self understanding goes away.
Or saying that same thing in the positive, with self understanding, actualized, comes liberation.

Consciousness does not mean no-self in English. It means the opposite.
But then the translator is not using the English definition as I said in an
earlier post. But also no-self is not being properly translated into English
either. Something (a person or entity) obviously has the quality of "no self"
so it means a liberated enlightened state, perception and action from that base
for someone or something. We can say things like "no one is there" not meaning
the litteral that no body is there, but meaning the one there is not identified
with ego or a "personal" identity.

That writer basically translated into English that when ignorance goes away so does
consciousness, meaning in English the enlightened person is unconscious. I'm sure
that was not his or her intent nor was expecting some English person to read "no self"
and to interpret that to mean a body is walking around with nothing inside to perceive or understand.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 03-01-2020, 01:44 AM
Gem Gem is offline
Master
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 19,242
  Gem's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phaelyn
Anatta, (Pali: “non-self” or “substanceless)

Consciousness definition from English Dictionary,

the state of being awake and aware of one's surroundings

So if you claim consciousness is anatta you are saying:

“non-self” or “substanceless is the state of being awake and aware of one's surroundings
- so obviously something or someone is awake and aware.
The terms “non-self” or “substanceless are therefore referring to the qualities of that self.

So this is actually all true but then your added interpretation is wrong. This:

Consciousness is anatta, it is not self as well as impermanent and dukkha

Consciousness is eternal. The ego, or personal identity based on thought
is not. But then really trying to make the English word Consciousness mean
the same thing as something that goes away in the enlightened is just silly.
The meanings don't even come close. You have to understand what the writers were describing.

Because the state of "non-self" better translated into "non-ego" for
westerners, and "substanceless" better translated into "without conceptual
thoughts and images" refers to the state of someone who is awake.

That's how you match up the wording and translations into English better.

So it could read as one possibility, if somebody does not have the heuristic
understanding and base to "read between the lines:" ego thought based consciousness
goes away when ignorance or the lack of self understanding goes away.
Or saying that same thing in the positive, with self understanding, actualized, comes liberation.

Consciousness does not mean no-self in English. It means the opposite.
But then the translator is not using the English definition as I said in an
earlier post. But also no-self is not being properly translated into English
either. Something (a person or entity) obviously has the quality of "no self"
so it means a liberated enlightened state, perception and action from that base
for someone or something. We can say things like "no one is there" not meaning
the litteral that no body is there, but meaning the one there is not identified
with ego or a "personal" identity.

That writer basically translated into English that when ignorance goes away so does
consciousness, meaning in English the enlightened person is unconscious. I'm sure
that was not his or her intent nor was expecting some English person to read "no self"
and to interpret that to mean a body is walking around with nothing inside to perceive or understand.




Basically anatta means no self literally translated. The soul, ata, and an, non, no not. I been over this several times but just to repeat it, it is said that the self is a delusion based on the 'aggregates', but the aggregates are 'not self'. The aggregates are co-dependent (as in dependent origins) having no inherent substance, or 'no self'.


Because people tend to regard 'self' as themselves the meaning of no-self is misconstrued as 'I don't exist', but it was never used in that context in Buddhist teachings.


The authors and transaltors are just humans with ego clinging complexes, so much of what they suggest as meanings are geared to self-validation, to validate the egocentric 'me', but because these authors are somewhat revered, people tend to take what they say as true.

The whole syndrome is then the false supposition that there is a self that endures time and universal phenemena that has enduring substance, when the teachings are fairly clear that there is no enduring substance or identity or self.

The issue then it of rebirth, and law of kamma, the cause, volition; and the effect, manifest conscious experience. In this way, according to Buddhist philosophy, the cause is not an effect. The end of volition is when one is so well established in equanimity that circumstances do not impel the urge of volition, and where there is no volition, the production of sankhara ceases to generate, and hence rebirth ceases, or 'you' cease to arise.

In practice it's like you notice a 'someone' that has been pretending to be you, but isn't, and provided you are consciously aware of that one it can't assume the position of 'me'. That one pretending to be me survives on the energy of reaction, and reaction is volition, so the meditation is awareness without reactivity, or awareness and equanimity, for the sake of disrupting the kammic cycle. At some point the pretender is exposed, and upon Buddha's enlightenment he said he sees the 'house builder' and hence the house builder can build no more. Rebirth ended because there is no reaction/action to provide the energy to perpetuate 'that which is born' through time.

The essence of it is, no one was ever being perpetuated in the first place. The impression that their is is delusion, misperception, moha; and because you realise 'me' is a delusion and a deception, there is no 'me, my, mine or I' at all.

So when they rave about no self not meaning there is no self, thay aren't really explaining the thing. They are being abstractly philosophical and not describing the actual. In the meditation practice there are philosophical lessons about searching for yourself, where is I? In this feeling or that feeling? In this particle or that particle, or in this and that thought? You can seek but you will not find, so we simply say 'not-self', and with regards to the phenomena, it being momentary and not an enduring substance, 'no self'. In regard to 'myself' of course you exist, but are not regenerated in time, so it is said of nirvana, no birth, no death, no becoming, no arising, no passing away and so forth.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 03-01-2020, 03:11 AM
janielee janielee is offline
Suspended
Master
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 2,785
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phaelyn
Anatta, (Pali: “non-self” or “substanceless)

Consciousness definition from English Dictionary,

Did you look up the Buddhist definition? Because that’s what we are talking about here. Regardless the intellect can’t grok that, only experience can imo.

Blessings,

Jl
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 03-01-2020, 08:14 AM
Gem Gem is offline
Master
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 19,242
  Gem's Avatar
On wisdom: the Buddhist ontology, or knowing, consists of 3 categories:


1) The word: One hears the Dhamma and assumes the enlightened one knows what they're talking about, and gives it the benefit of the doubt


2) Discernment: One discerns thruogh logic and reason that what they hear makes sense, seems reasonable enough, adds up, and joins the dots to form an intellectual understanding


3) Insight: On considering is seems somewhat reasonable and it might be true, one tries to find out for themselves, and through their own observation and/or experience discovers it through realisation or insight.


So the process is as follows. First you read the passage on dependent origins , for examle, and figure it's probably be relevant to the truth since Buddha said it, so you ponder it a little and kinda join the dots intellectually, and that inspires you find out if it's really true or not, and if it is true, in what way is it true.

The word is not meant to be taken as true, so discernment is a big thing in Buddhist teachings. If your discernment is that this or that doesn't make sense, seems illogical, isn't reasonable, fails to add up, then put that aside... don't take anything in blind faith.

So far as what seems reasonable, follow it inside, put it to the test, look for yourself, and you will find some semblance of truth to it, but don't then go about playing the Canon like a royal flush in a poker game.

The Canon is the philosophy behind the practice according to ontology of Buddhism.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 02-01-2020, 07:01 AM
BigJohn BigJohn is offline
Master
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: अनुगृहितोऽस्म
Posts: 3,231
  BigJohn's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by janielee
‘avijjapaccaya sankhara; sankharapaccaya vinnanam; vinnanapaccaya namarupam; namarupapaccaya salayatanam; salayantanapaccaya phasso; phassapaccaya vedana; vedanapaccaya tanha; tanhapaccaya upadanam; upadanapaccaya bhavo; bhavapaccaya jati; jatipaccaya jaramaranam- soka-parideve-dukkha-domanassupayasa sambhavanti, evametassa kevalassa dukkhakhandassa samudayo hoti.’

This deals with arising of dukkha.

The cessation of dukkha is then mapped out:

‘avijjayatveva asesaviraga-nirodha sankharanirodho; sankharanirodha vinnananirodho; vinnananirodha namarupanirodho; namarupanirodha salayatananirodho; salayatananirodha phassanirodho; phassanirodha vedananirodho; vedananirodha tanhanirodho; tanhanirodha upadananirodho; upadananirodha bhavanirodho; bhavanirodha jatinirodho; jatinirodha jaramaranam-soka-parideva-dukkha- domanassupayasa nirujjhanti; evametassa kevalassa dukkhakhandhassa nirodho hoti’.
What language is this?
__________________
..
.

He dipped the pen into the ink and then faltered for just a second. A tremor had gone through his bowels. To mark the paper was the decisive act. In small clumsy letters he wrote: ........... April 4th, 1984.
..................
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 02-01-2020, 07:39 AM
Phaelyn Phaelyn is offline
Experiencer
Join Date: Jul 2019
Posts: 336
 
I would also point out as far as Anatta, and The absence of a self something or someone is without this self. If this perceiver did not exist, a teaching like Anatta would be pointless, in fact the entirety of Buddhism would be pointless as there would be no one and nothing existing to practice it, study it, learn from it etc. No one to end suffering in, no one to be suffering, no one to experience nirvana or liberation, no one to be enlightened. No-self is not being properly translated into English either in my opinion.

So obviously if something is there to be enlightened or not enlightened, Buddhism does not deny a consciousness or the perceiver or even a soul. Soul is another word that is not being translated correctly into the English definition. I think the correct English translation of Buddhism into English would be our entire identity is false or delusional because we have mistaken the self made up by thoughts and memory and habitual thinking etc to be the actual self, and we can live more happily and peacefully without identifying with these things as ourselves. The word "ego" for this false self comes close but it is actually more than we normally associate with that word.

Buddhism would say all ego based interpretation is also false or delusional as the ego construct is false. How we "picture" our structure is false. Buddhism takes it to the extreme and asks one to stop all identification with the interpreter but then without consciousness itself discerning the false from the true, liberation could not take place, so there is "interpretation" going on. But the difference is one kind of interpretation has it's source as the ego and thought and the other source is experiential knowledge. This leads to the conclusion that "consciousness" or the "perceiver" is a lot more complex than we assume it to be. Consciousness itself is a kind of "self" or identity and it has qualities, like awareness and understanding and knowledge in varying degrees and all of this would survive the death of the body. One could even argue consciousness has "personality."
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 02-01-2020, 09:50 PM
janielee janielee is offline
Suspended
Master
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 2,785
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phaelyn
I would also point out as far as Anatta, and The absence of a self something or someone is without this self. If this perceiver did not exist, a teaching like Anatta would be pointless, in fact the entirety of Buddhism would be pointless as there would be no one and nothing existing to practice it, study it, learn from it etc. No one to end suffering in, no one to be suffering, no one to experience nirvana or liberation, no one to be enlightened. No-self is not being properly translated into English either in my opinion.

So obviously if something is there to be enlightened or not enlightened, Buddhism does not deny a consciousness or the perceiver or even a soul. Soul is another word that is not being translated correctly into the English definition. I think the correct English translation of Buddhism into English would be our entire identity is false or delusional because we have mistaken the self made up by thoughts and memory and habitual thinking etc to be the actual self, and we can live more happily and peacefully without identifying with these things as ourselves. The word "ego" for this false self comes close but it is actually more than we normally associate with that word.

Buddhism would say all ego based interpretation is also false or delusional as the ego construct is false. How we "picture" our structure is false. Buddhism takes it to the extreme and asks one to stop all identification with the interpreter but then without consciousness itself discerning the false from the true, liberation could not take place, so there is "interpretation" going on. But the difference is one kind of interpretation has it's source as the ego and thought and the other source is experiential knowledge. This leads to the conclusion that "consciousness" or the "perceiver" is a lot more complex than we assume it to be. Consciousness itself is a kind of "self" or identity and it has qualities, like awareness and understanding and knowledge in varying degrees and all of this would survive the death of the body. One could even argue consciousness has "personality."

One of the first stumbling blocks that Westerners often encounter when they learn about Buddhism is the teaching on anatta, often translated as no-self. This teaching is a stumbling block for two reasons. First, the idea of there being no self doesn't fit well with other Buddhist teachings, such as the doctrine of kamma and rebirth: If there's no self, what experiences the results of kamma and takes rebirth? Second, it doesn't fit well with our own Judeo-Christian background, which assumes the existence of an eternal soul or self as a basic presupposition: If there's no self, what's the purpose of a spiritual life? Many books try to answer these questions, but if you look at the Pali canon — the earliest extant record of the Buddha's teachings — you won't find them addressed at all. In fact, the one place where the Buddha was asked point-blank whether or not there was a self, he refused to answer. When later asked why, he said that to hold either that there is a self or that there is no self is to fall into extreme forms of wrong view that make the path of Buddhist practice impossible. Thus the question should be put aside. To understand what his silence on this question says about the meaning of anatta, we first have to look at his teachings on how questions should be asked and answered, and how to interpret his answers.

Rest of the article:
https://accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth.../notself2.html
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:40 AM.


Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
(c) Spiritual Forums