The question of consciousness
1.1. Consciousness is a very elusive subject. It is rather difficult to define consciousness, mainly because it is internal and is a subjective experience. Any experience is always from a given point of view; and it is hard to be objective about our internal experiences. This is particularly true in the case of consciousness where we cannot remove ourselves from the process. The very notion of observing the mind with the mind appears enigmatic, for it does not allow for separation of subject and object. It is a legitimate concern.
1.2. The other problem involved with describing subjective experiences is the use of proper language; these are quite considerable. The language we employ to articulate our subjective experiences have their roots in our unique cultural, historic and linguistic backgrounds. The terms employed by any school, be it oriental or western, have their own broader range of connotations covering not merely the realm of thought but also of emotions and beyond.
For instance, in the western languages one speaks in terms of consciousness, mind, mental phenomenon or awareness etc. In the Indian context one speaks in terms of buddhi, manas, jnana, vijnana vidya etc all of which can roughly be translated as awareness or intelligence or mental states.
But these terms have a wider range of connotation than their English equivalents. For instance the terms manas or chitta cover not merely the realm of thought but also of emotions and much more. It is therefore, not easy to transport the meaning of a term from one system to the other with accuracy. The terms employed are ever subject to varied interpretations.
1.3. The question of consciousness has attracted a great deal of attention in the Indian philosophical systems. Buddhism developed rigorous methods for refining the attention, and applying that attention to exploring the origins, nature, and role of consciousness in the natural world . The earliest Buddhist texts viewed consciousness as an important factor in determining the course of human happiness and suffering; liberation and bondage.
Yet, Buddhism did not “define” consciousness; perhaps, because it is nebulous; and difficult to pinpoint. But in principle, Buddhism asserts it is possible to recognize experientially what consciousness is and identify it.
1.4. The Buddhist texts talk of consciousness in metaphors such as clear light- prabhasvara (implying clarity- all defilements being sort of infection), knowing, and cognizance flowing like a river. They repeatedly talk about consciousness as an ever changing stream.
In order to understand the Buddhist theory of consciousness we have to get to know certain basic Buddhist concepts.
Central reality of all existence is change
2.1. The Buddha pointed out that the central reality of all existence is change. All phenomena come into being as a result of causes and conditions, they change every moment; and, eventually , they pass away.
A belief in a permanent or a changeless-self is regarded a false concept leading to mistaken notions about reality.
This belief is in sharp contrast to the Vedanta view of a changeless, attribute-less and immutable Brahman. The Buddhists assert that one of the basic misconceptions is the notion of a self – Atman; and, only those who free themselves of such false notions can attain liberation. They argue that if there were some disembodied, unchanging entity, it would have no relation to any individual. And, because it lies beyond the world of the senses it could never be perceived.
3.1. According to the Buddhist view, the individuals are not seamless continuum of an enduring essence such as Brahman or Atman (soul) ; but, are actually composites of ever changing configuration of five factors or five aggregates – (Pali: khandha; Skt. : skandha).
These relate to the physical form (rupa) – the body and all material objects including sense organs ; the sensations or the feelings (vedana) – one’s emotional response to the phenomena by way of desires and aversions in which the five senses and mind are involved; the third is the perception or recognition (sanna or sanjnya) of physical and mental objects; and , the fourth factor – sankhara or samskara – is variously called impulses or mental formulations or fabrications – these include volition and attention , the faculty of will , the force of habits etc. And, lastly there is the faculty of vinnana or vijnana the awareness or consciousness, which encompasses mental events and what is generally called sub-conscious in the West.
3.2. All the five aggregates are regarded “empty of self nature” in the sense they are dependent on causes (hetu) and conditions (patica); and are inter-related. In this scheme of things, consciousness too is conditioned and arises out of interaction with the other factors (physical or mental) . The consciousness , in turn, influences one or more mental factors.
Thus consciousness and the mind-body (nama-rupa) are interdependent; there is no arising of consciousness without conditions. These form the chain of cause and effect (karmic).Yet, though consciousness and matter do contribute towards the origination of each other, one cannot become the substantial cause of the other.
3.3.In the Buddhist view, the difference between the plant, animal and the humans is in the level of intelligence; and all possess subtle consciousness. Any sentient being that can experience pain and pleasure is thought to possess consciousness. Therefore, the subtle consciousness is not uniquely human.
4.1. An individual, according to Buddhist thought, is ever changing or rather a fleeting, changing assortment or a procession of various unstable interacting factors. Consciousness too is highly varied , made up of myriad mental states. Those mental states are dependent on the five senses.
4.2. The Buddhist teachers suggest that through careful observation, it is possible to see consciousness as being a sequence of conscious moments rather as a continuum of awareness. Each moment is an experience of an individual mind-state: a thought, a memory, a feeling, a perception. A mind-state arises, exists and, being impermanent, ceases , following which the next mind-state arises. Thus the consciousness of a sentient being can be seen as a continuous series of birth and death of these mind-states. In this context rebirth is simply the persistence of this process.
4.3. Consciousness is said to act like a life force which runs through the process and through life after life. But, consciousness, unlike Atman, is subject to change every movement and influenced by the vicissitudes of one’s life. It is explained that one’s vocational actions produce karmas which influence the consciousness in a certain manner and determine ones rebirth.
It is said, the five skandhas continue on, powered by past karma, propelling births and rebirths. Here, Karma, in essence, is not action per se; but , is rather the state of mind of the person performing the action. The problem with such bad Karma is that it molds our personality, creates ruts or habitual patterns of thinking and feeling. These patterns in turn influence our present and future lives.
A major aim of Buddhism is to become aware of this process, and then to eliminate it by eradicating its causes.
Understanding is the key
5.1. The core problem of human existence, according to Buddhist belief, is Duhkkha – the suffering . It is caused by the ignorance of the reality of things as they are. Such suffering leads to delusions, attachments and stress; and, results in continuing cycle of rebirths. Due to ignorance of the true nature of reality, human beings make choices that drive them to suffering. Since the problem originates from lack of right understanding, the solution to the malady should be sought in gaining the right understanding. Therefore, the Buddha said, one desirous of seeking liberation must discard mistaken ideas and acquire correct understanding.
5.2. In short, a person’s bondage is caused by ignorance or incorrect understanding. Liberation too is, in effect, caused by understanding – but it is the proper understanding; and, nothing more. Bondage is the wrong understanding that binds; while liberation is the right understanding that frees. In either case, it is a matter of understanding. All that is from an individual’s point of view; But, in absolute sense there is neither bondage nor liberation.
6.1. The Dhukkha of bondage is thus a matter of mental process; modifications of the consciousness, projecting the world outside and conditioning our reactions to it. Emancipation is the knowledge of things as they really are; and is the freedom from constraints imposed by phenomenal involvements.Emancipation, it appears, is the reverse or the other side of involvement in the phenomena.
6.2. A right understanding when it arises frees instantaneously; and is not delayed until the exhaustion of the karmas that have brought the current life into existence. In other words, liberation need not wait until one’s death. Such an enlightened one is termed an Arhant in the Buddhist lore. [Its equivalent term in Vedanta is Jivan-muktha – the emancipated one even while alive in this body].
6.3. The Buddha was rather reluctant to be drawn into a discussion on the state of consciousness of an Arhant after he discarded his mortal coils. Asked what happens to an Arhant upon his death, the Buddha was said to have replied: “What happens to footprints of birds in mid air?” Perhaps the Buddha likened the death of an Arhant to the extinction of a flame when the fuel (karma) runs out.
6.4. He evidently felt that such questions arose out of a false attachment to self, and that they distracted one from the main aim of eliminating suffering. Those who seek liberation, according to him, must discard the belief in self. And that requires meditative training, which removes defilements like aversions, attachments, cravings and stress.
Mind and consciousness
7.1. The Vedanta and the Buddhist text treat the mind and consciousness as being distinct. Vedanta believes consciousness is so called because the power of deliberation is hidden in it (like the fire in a log of wood that is not burning); and, it is called mind when deliberation is on (like log on fire).
Mind is a deliberation of consciousness. Mind is that which discriminates the characteristics of objects.Mind is a pattern or a manipulation of consciousness which in turn is a function of our original nature. According to Tantra, Shiva is consciousness (chith) while Shakthi as its deliberation (vimarsha) is mind (dhih).The union of Shiva and Shakthi too is yoga.
7.2. The Buddhist interpretation appears to be slightly different. It says; consciousness (vinnana) is separate and arises from mind (mana). Nagarjuna(c. 150 – 250 CE), the celebrated Buddhist philosopher and founder of Madhyamaika school, expands on it by putting forth a series of vivid images.
Nagarjuna compares the natural purity of mind to the butter lying un-extracted in un-churned milk; to an oil lamp concealed inside a vase; to a pristine deposit of lapis lazuli buried in a rock; and, to a seed covered by its husk. When the milk is churned, the butter is revealed; when holes are made in the vase, the lamp’s light pours out; when the gem is dug out, the brilliance of the lapis lazuli shines forth; and, when the husk is removed the seed can germinate. Nagarjuna’s explanation is akin to that of the Samkhya belief which denotes that the effect is in reality a transformation of the cause. The cause is transformed and differentiated into multiplicity of objects.
Nagarjuna then argues that the essential nature of the mind is pure and its defilements are removable through meditative purification. When our afflictions are removed or cleaned through the sustained cultivation of insight, the innate purity of mind becomes manifest.
Practice of meditation
8.1. As per the Vajrayana Buddhism, Bhodhi-Chitta “that which is conscious” resides in all of us as a hidden pool of compassion, tranquility, unaffected, “ever washed bright” and beyond the phenomenal involvements. It can be experienced when our afflictions are removed or cleaned through sustained cultivation of insight. One way of experiencing pure consciousness, according to Buddhism, is to practice meditation.
8.2. The Buddha believed that if one wishes to avoid certain types of results, one needs to change the conditions that give rise to them.The effect lies latent in the cause; and that effect in turn seeds the next effect. He said, removal of a basic condition will remove its effect. Therefore, if one changes the conditions of one’s state of mind, one can change the trait of one’s consciousness and the resulting attitudes and emotions.
It is in this context that the Buddha taught practice of mindfulness anapana –sati; anapana meaning breath and sati (snkt.smruthi) is non-forgetfulness, being aware of it.
The Buddha spoke of mind as being essentially pure, clear and peaceful. The distractions, dispersions, confusions and agitations are all apparent. But the appearances could be troublesome and stressful. They need to be cleared. The method he recommended for removing the disturbances is the mindfulness. He asked one to be aware of one’s own breathing; in other words, to be mindful of breathing and of the body, feelings, thoughts, and other phenomena.
Accordingly, in order to get rid of dhukkha, suffering one should neither identify with nor attach to vinnana, consciousness; but just watch. That Mindfulness leads to understanding of the impermanent and fleeting character (anitya) and illusory appearance of consciousness and then on to eliminate it by eradicating its causes.
[Please click here for more on Mindfulness]
8.2 . Dharmakirti , a seventh century Buddhist philosopher, too stated that through disciplined meditative training, natural constraints on consciousness are removable and substantive changes can be effected in human consciousness. Dharmakirti argued that, in principle, it is possible for a mental activity like compassion to be developed to a limitless degree. He, in fact, remarked that the greatness of the Buddha as a spiritual teacher lies not so much in his mastery or knowledge in various fields but in his having attained boundless compassion for all beings.
9.1. After having said that, the Buddhist texts caution against treating consciousness as the ultimate reality. It should not be; because consciousness is only a projection of the original nature. And, consciousness is inconsistent and depends on other factors for its existence.
The Buddha Manjushree explained the ultimate state of reality is not something that can be known by consciousness, nor is it an object of the mind..He said, you cannot find This Ultimate One with the mind of thoughts … so how do you find it? … by no-mind, no-thought, by not attaching to thoughts but letting them just be there, but never attaching to them while maintaining presence.
Scientific investigations and Buddhist meditation practices
10.1. As discussed above, Buddhist texts hold the view that human consciousness emerges not from the brain or from matter; but from a deeper level. And, as the brain ceases the consciousness will dissolve back into the substrate and carries on from lifetime to lifetime. The continuum of consciousness will carry on; and it is a beginning- less continuum. They argue, the being that is reborn is different from the previous one that died; but its identity remains as before because of the continuity in the flow of consciousness.
10.2. The classical western theory (among other theories) appears to be that consciousness is an emergent property of a complex organization or of the matter called brain. The science thinks of consciousness as arising out of matter; because , no other explanation seems plausible. It rightly argues that the human emotions, visual perceptions or psyche cannot arise in the absence of the brain or the appropriate faculty. They all arise because of a certain level of brain and nerve-cell complexity.
In other words, the nerve cell complexity of the brain is the seat of consciousness. Thus consciousness is a kind of physical process that arises through the structure and dynamics of the brain. And, when the brain is dead, when it decomposes or when it is no longer capable of functioning as brain, the properties of the brain-based consciousness also vanish. That is the end.
10.3. B. Alan Wallace the noted scholar teacher in his essay “A Science of Consciousness: Buddhism (1), the Modern West (0)” observes the West presently has no pure science of consciousness and it also lacks an applied science of consciousness that reveals means for refining and enhancing consciousness.
Francisco Valera, the renowned Biologist who dedicated his life to the studies of ‘biology of consciousnesses’ , opined that if the scientific study of consciousness is to grow to a full maturity-given that subjectivity is a primary element of consciousness – it will have to incorporate a fully developed and rigorous methodology of first-person empiricism. He felt, there was a tremendous potential in this area for contemplative traditions like Buddhism to make a substantive contribution to science and its methods.
There are signs that the scientific community is trying to understand the Buddhist theories of the nature, origins and potentials of consciousness.
10.4. But, the path is not easy. Unlike that of modern science, Buddhism’s approach has been primarily from first-person experience. The contemplative method, as developed by Buddhism, is an empirical use of introspection. The scientific approach is not comfortable with an empirical investigation of subjective events from a first-person perspective. That is because; meditative experiences are not amenable to verification – both through repetition by the same practitioner; and through other individuals of same caliber and adopting same practices. One therefore wonders, given the highly subjective nature of consciousness, whether it is ever possible to gain a third person –objective and scientific-understanding.
The other problem is that it is very hard for the scientists to refuse the possibility that consciousness may not merely be a phenomenon of the brain.
10.5. H.H. the Dalai Lama in his book The Universe in a Single Atom admitted that such disquiet is entirely understandable given the dominance of the third-person scientific method as a paradigm for scientific investigation . And, yet trying to bridge the two systems , he explained that the Buddhist approach to the study of consciousness is based on the understanding of functions and modalities of the mind and their casual dynamics – and this is precisely the area that the Buddhist understanding can most readily intersect with scientific approach because , like that of science, much of the Buddhist investigation of consciousness is empirically based.
10.6. B. Alan Wallace who in his essay “Training the Attention and Exploring consciousness in Tibetan Buddhism “ examines the methods of attention training and exploring consciousness in Tibetan Buddhism, joined the issue by stating that without the subjective evidence provided by introspection, there would be no discipline of consciousness studies. He argued that these (Hindu and Buddhist) attention-enhancing methods present a challenge to modern researchers in the consciousness studies “to broaden the scope of legitimate methods of scientific inquiry so that the introspective exploration of consciousness may begin to rise to the levels of sophistication of objective means of studying brain correlates of conscious states.”
10.7. H.H . the Dalai Lama explained, Buddhist psychology does not catalogue the mind’s make up or even describes how the mind functions. But the primary aim of the Buddhist contemplative practice, he said, is to alleviate suffering especially the psychological and emotional afflictions and to clear those afflictions. And, Science too has contributed enormously to the lessening of suffering, especially the physical suffering. It is therefore appropriate, he said, science and spirituality make common cause.
10.8. And, he concluded on a hopeful note saying “ I believe that it is possible for Buddhism and modern science to engage in collaborative research in the understanding of consciousness while leaving aside the philosophical question. By bringing together these two modes of inquiry, both disciplines may be enriched. Such collaborative study will contribute to a better understanding of the dynamics of the human mind and its relation to suffering. ”
10.9. B. Alan Wallace considers that such collaboration would mutually benefit scientists and Buddhists. According to him, “one of the greatest potentials of the interface between Buddhism and science is that Buddhists may encourage scientists to question their materialistic assumptions and incorporate sophisticated systems of contemplative inquiry within the scientific community. …. Likewise, scientists may encourage Buddhists to question their own assumptions, to revitalize their own traditions of contemplative inquiry, and to integrate them with the empirical methods of modern science. In short, Buddhists and scientists may help each other in overcoming their tendencies to dogmatism and replace this with a fresh and open-minded spirit of empiricism.”
PLEASE ALSO READ THE COMMENTS AND RESPONSES . SOME OF THOSE ARE TRULY INTERESTING
Sources and References
Let’s hope such collaboration takes off the ground and some good comes of it.
Zen and Dhyâna By Prof.SK Ramachandra Rao; Kalpataru publications, Bangalore
B Allan Wallace : http://www.alanwallace.org/spr08wallace_comp.pdf
Flow by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi; Harper Perennial; 1990
A Science of Consciousness: Buddhism (1), the Modern West (0)
B. Alan Wallace- Published in The Pacific World: Journal of the Institute of Buddhist Studies
Third Series, No. 4, Fall 2002, pp. 15-32
Buddhism and Science: Confrontation and Collaboration by B. Alan Wallace
Training the Attention and Exploring consciousness in Tibetan Buddhism – B. Alan Wallace
What is Consciousness vs. Awareness?
Mixing Buddhism and neuroscience to understand human consciousness
Consciousness – Indian Thought – Buddhist Systems
Daniel Dennett on Consciousness – And a Buddhist Response
ALL IMAGES ARE FROM INTERNET
September 28, 2012 at 1:42 pm
September 28, 2012 at 4:34 pm
Thank you Dear Chico for the appreciation and for reaching this to a wider circle of readers . Regards
September 28, 2012 at 1:43 pm
Reblogged this on Red Rock Crossing.
google plus account login
September 25, 2014 at 12:49 am
When I initially commented I clicked the “Notify me when new comments are added” checkbox and now each time a comment is added I get three
e-mails with the same comment. Is there any way you can remove people from that service?
September 25, 2014 at 2:39 pm
Yes ; I understand
But , I have absolutely no control over the mechanics of the site.
It is run by WordPress
I reckon , we have to take it up with the site Administrators.
Thanks for the observation.
March 19, 2015 at 2:41 pm
Beautifully written. It appears that the Buddhist concepts/ ideas are much clearer than the understanding of consciousness by the scientists.
March 19, 2015 at 2:42 pm
lovely visulas to match the incomparable
slice of reality..
one of your best..
March 19, 2015 at 2:43 pm
Good illucidation of what Buddhha left us with..Vedanta and Shankara are not different or against many of the tenets.Sakshee bhawa and most of the tenets are same with same source of Agama.For clear understanding of Vedanta do not read anything else but Swami Chinmayanada s’ APAROKSHA ANOOBHOOTEE OF SHANKARA-15 FOLD TRUE YOGA 15 FOLD PATH..FEELER THINKER PERCIEVER ARE YOUR LESSER MANIFESTATIONS DO NOYT GET ENTANGLED IN ITS dUKKHAA..YOU WILL GO ROUND AND ROUND WITHOUT ANY DIRECTION THINKING ONLY ABOUT YOUR OWN SELF BODY ,MIND AND ITS CHANGES..Go beyond that if you can..want to..
If you want to still read ahead read Tripura rahasya of Guru Duttatraya told to parshurama 7000 yrs ago–similiar to Yoga Vashistha..do not comment about Vedanta reading some new commentaries..Budhha was a avatar a blesssing for humanity and no one wishes to argue against hm..but his followers should learn what is common between Vedanta and HIS view of the ‘ELEPHANT’ and its parts allegory…his vision was fixed by Dukkhhaa ..Vedanta ‘ is on BLISSS..perpetual..a birds eye view on creation and us all..
for ancient and modern views on conscoiusness I invite your learned self to my pages..
Dr Hemant Sant
Dr Hemant Sant / / 11 yrs agodr hemant sant
I qoute paste my reponse to a kashmir shaivism allegatrion that Vedantas-Shankaras -Duttas brhama is static…
I would like to point attention to all the seekers and the learned ones to one
aspect of Shankaras philosphy probably misunderstood by us.
”The statement that in Shankaras world the Brahman is static is far from
truth.The answer to this was provided by his Guru by tradition of gaudapada
govindapada..GURU Duttatreya 7000 years ago to Kartikeya then Parshuram and
then to Gorakshanath ji ,noted down in script by haritayana rishi as Tripura
rahsya Gyanakanda.I recommend Sura Books Chennais’ K N Subramanians’ classic
small booklet -THE WISDOM OF DUTTATRAYA ISBN 81-7478-390-3 CALL THEM AT
044-26162173—26161099-ADDRESS-1620-J BLOCK 16TH MAIN ROAD-ANNA NAGAR cHENNAI
IT IS BASICALLY ADVANCED yOGA vASHISHTHA WHICH WAS TAUGHT TO RAMA BY VASHISTHA
RISHI TO MAKE A MAN OUT OF HIM..
bRIEFLY the philosphy tells us that all the bhoga enjoyment prati bhigya
enjoying all that manifests in this world through the vehicle the body and
senses is a done thing for even jivan mukta like Janaka the ideal grihastha with
SAKSHI BHAVA! tHE PRAKASH AND VIMARSHA ARE not SEPERATE IN DUTTA’S PHILOSPHY AT
Imagine what one calls as Shiva as a clay divine sky like LIGHT OF CREATION all
over static looking to some and some moments and taking various life and non
life forms at an instant of need for creation!The Universe so created seems like
a Reflection in the mirror of the Chitta ,real and unreal at the same time.You
close your eyes and the world which you see and all that you know at this
instant vanishes .It is different for the other individual as he she it looks at
you as a different form of creation! sakshi bhawa is the key.Ashta vakra ji was
incomplete till he met King Janaka ! Avadhhoota Geeta=Sri Vidya Geeta is
another classic by Duttatraya which is ultimate key to reveal all that we know
esp. for those who already know what they do not know ..many of us in many
different ways..This classic negates the negativity too and importance of
knowledge too for a super abstract view of creation and the creator.It reveals
the science of laya Yoga-mergence and reemrgence from the divine sky like Clay
light Prakasha that is omnipresent and like a water shape creates and merges the
forms Us all- back into the vast ocean like sky like Brahman.Form idol is
created it grows and enjoys bhoga and suffers the vissicitudes of BEING in that
form and the meges back into LIGHT..When LIGHT Brahman creates it seems like
Prakasha to observers and when it merges forms back waiting for a NIMISHA to
recreate forms it seems like Vimarsha static.One is not wrong in this
observation but needs to go higher than this to know that BOTH are NOT static
nor always vibrantly creative!This Laya Yoga is simple.When YOU +Your buddhhee
as created form steerer of the BODY given to you meets Avidya in her impact the
combine YOU+ Budhhee are diverted to create Asthira manna that in contact with
our aspirations-kalpana and desires-ashas’ wants hopes to be ”better”
materially leads to kama Krodha and all six enemies which are the cause of all
sufferring..So if one develops a YOGA joining the YOU+ buddhee which is
inherantly pure with ATMA the soul within YOu attain asamadhi.But even a ravana
can do this.What you do with the Yoga joining within is more important.That is
guided by Aparokshanubhooti By Shankara how to forget SELF tyaaga and by silence
vichaar and meditation plan and act to take SELF and the SOCIETY lives in to a
higher level of existance..tHAT IS THE SOLE PURPOSE OF DHARMA .
When the YOU+budhee gets linked up with the SUPREME ..when one gets a
revealation that Life force brahman is within us and them all without any bias
then one becomes jeevan mukta a Avadhhoota and Dutta roopa living each breath
for others to left them to be better human beings .So pictorally one sees form
of Dutta traya with malang vesha with Digambar or loin clth avatara and
surrounded by all sorts of dogs cows animals in a jungle back ground.Shankara
and Duttatreya explain all sorts of idol to tantra and worships paths as each to
his own appraoch and invites all of us without bias to higher palne of
understanding non diffrentating Bhoga from Yoga Vairagya by principle of
Samatwam Sakshee bhawa ingrained within us once and for all kept alive by
constant naam jaapa or simple remdies and bhaktee as a steeringfuel to keep us
on the path ahead..Karma as force that drives us and our vehicle the body at
each twists and turns and Gyana by a sat guru as the navigating map point that
guides us like a GPRS to the destination..The Path and the Path pointer one is
NOT a destination one must know or else one is stuck much before he she reaches
the final destination..Jeevan mukta Like Janaka enjoying all bhogas but with
sakshee bhawa and Samatwam .That I suppose our aim should be to
achieve..Shankara does no negation in negative way but allegorically defines
Brahman rvealed as such by saying Not this my friend -it si different than you
think..it is ..more simple than thought of..Duttatraya reveals to us like True
Shiva avatara and takes us all beyond TRINITY of Gods..takes us within each of
us to reveal light within us that can merge and surge as per our command through
15 fold yoga simplified by his shaishya milleniums later shankaras’ APAROKSHA
Dr hemant sant
PS -Could some learned friend tell me dictionary meaning of Prati bhigya ..I
could not in five I turned to..Parti means towrds and against at a time as per
the usage one puts it to..Bhigya is Bhog or Vidya or what..Sanskrit dictionary
does not have it .
March 19, 2015 at 2:44 pm
Dear Shri santhemant, Thank you for the visit and comments. Yes Sir, I agree several concepts in Vedanta and Buddhism are similar, both having branched out of a common thought-system. Their treatment is at times flavored by the preferences and dispositions of each system. There would therefore be differences among them. While briefly dealing with the concept of consciousness, I was highly tempted to present the comparative view in Vedanta (jagrat, swapna, shushupti and turiya). I resisted that because it would have lengthened and distorted an already tedious article .The other reason was that the blog was meant just to present the Buddhist view on the subject as well as I could. On going through it again, after posting it, I feel it could have been sharper and more focused.
Thanks for forwarding the link to your article on Uttarayan-changing winds and consciousness. It is a truly a learned compendium of several dimensions of the issue. I liked reading it.
Please keep talking.
March 19, 2015 at 2:48 pm
Dear Shri santhemant , you might perhaps referring to Pratyabijnya, an important concept of the Kashmir Shaivism.I am not sure.
Pratyabijnya means “recognition” and refers to the spontaneous recognition of the divine nature hidden in each human being.Isvara Pratyabijnya means the direct recognition of the Lord (Isvara) as identical to one’s Heart or Antaryamin.
The Pratyabijnya school conceived Shiva (the manifestation of ultimate reality), the individual soul, and the universe as being essentially one; pratyabhijna refers to the way of realizing this identity. Abhinavagupta, while explaining this school of recognition, says, man is not a mere speck of dust but an immense force, comprising a comprehensive consciousness and capable of manifesting through his mind and body limitless powers of knowledge and action (Jnana Shakti and Kriya Shakti). The state of Shiva-consciousness is already there, you have to realize that and nothing else. Please check Abhinavagupta. Regards
March 19, 2015 at 2:45 pm
(1)” it is possible to see consciousness as being a sequence of conscious moments rather as a continuum of awareness. Each moment is an experience of an individual mind-state: a thought, a memory, a feeling, a perception. ” . I can see it intutively , It has vague resemblance to Abaham Maslow’s thoughta – that life is great isnightful expereinces joined together . I forget the words he uses
(2) As you know, there is lot of scientific research on consciousness( which I do not understand at the monent)
(3) How much of these thoughts or buddhist metaphysics is really due to Buddha – the historical Shakyamuni ?
March 19, 2015 at 2:46 pm
Dear Shri Palahalii, Thank you for reading and for the pointed observations. The views I presented are as per the Buddhist texts. The Vedanta too talks in similar terms but there are variations in expressions. As you mentioned some western thinkers too might have employed similar idioms.
Yes, I too came across a plethora of scientific writings on consciousness; but, of course, I do not understand much of that. Among those, I think , the works of Francesco Valera a Biologist who devoted his life to studies on “Biology of consciousness “ and the late Nobel neuroscientist Dr. Roger Sperry (1913 – 1994) are better known. The latter came up with the term new science of consciousness, which is based on the premise that your consciousness – your point of focus which can be compared to a cursor on your computer screen – can create physical effects in your brain as well as the other way around.He argued that mental states and experiences can have a controlling effect on the brain’s physical functions..He said, for example, if you decide to drive somewhere, your decision can activate a chain of events that will cause your car to move, according to the principles of downward causation.
I liked your last observation; it is an interesting one. The notions of Dukkha , as being the nature of existence (Samsara) were already there in the Samkhya system. Buddha’s two teachers were well versed in Samkhya doctrine. The concept of Dukkha; and, emancipation were , perhaps, a part of his education.
The similarities between Samkhya and the early Buddhism could briefly be mentioned as: acceptance of the notion that life is characterized by suffering; rejection of the notion of absolute God; rejection of the concept of soul; emphasis on individual rather on cosmic; similarity in the theories of evolution; similarity in the view of the world as a constantly becoming and changing phenomena; acceptance of the concept of Gunas; acceptance of the Satkaryavada that the effect resides in its cause; similarity in enumeration of the basic elements or components of nature; similarity in the notions of liberation kaivalya or nirvana; rejection of both the Vedic authority and the validity of rituals; rejection of extreme practices and self torture etc.
The Buddha brought into philosophy compassion ( Karunya); unbound love towards all beings. The philosophy was not a mere intellectual exercise ; but, it extended to heartfelt experiences. It was no longer analytical tool ; but, was also loving way to change the world; and, reform human behaviour. attitudes and ideals .
The other distinctive characteristics of the Buddha’s teaching was the emphasis on ethics. . The Buddha asserted that it is not adequate if one merely focuses on elimination of suffering; but one must acquire the skill of probing the nature of the object. Those efforts must essentially be rooted in ethics and a wholesome mental state. The cultivation of the four sublime virtues of loving-kindness, compassion, empathetic Joy, and equanimity is of great importance.
It was the genius of the Buddha to recognize that all existence is in a continuous state of flux; that everything changes and evolves every moment. There is nothing static in this universe. The central reality of all existence is change. All phenomena come into being as a result of causes and conditions, they change every moment, and eventually they pass away. This he called anatta (anitya) – a state of impermanence; and it was uniquely the Buddha’s view.
An individual, according to the Buddha, is an assortment or procession of ever changing elements; he is born and dying each moment. He is like the flame of a burning lamp which presents an illusion of continuity; each moment a particle (anu) of the flame is burning and dying; giving birth to the next particle of fire. One’s consciousness is similar.
Dukkha, according, to the Buddha is caused by failure to understand this reality and clinging to things that have ceased to exist. The person (subject) who is attached to an object scarcely realizes that he is merely holding on to a phantom of an object that no longer is what it was; and that he the subject and the object both have changed and are changing constantly; both are not what -they -were. Holding on to something that no longer exists, leads to delusions. Therefore to “open-hand” “be mindful” “give up” “watch” and to understand the reality was the message. Towards that understanding, he taught his mode of meditation – anapana sati. The Buddha aimed all his methods of teaching to eliminate suffering. All these were the Buddha’s own ideas born out of his experience.
The later philosophers such as Nagarjuna, Dharmakirti and others built elaborate philosophical treatise in Sanskrit based on the law of cause and effect, which suggests that conditions affecting the cause have an inevitable effect on the result. They also brought in their own concepts.
By the time of Gaudapada (c.6th – 7th century: Sri Sankara’s teacher’s teacher – paramaguru) Vedanta and Mahayana Buddhist had come very close. Later, Vajrayana Buddhism got intertwined with Tantra, Yoga etc. Though these schools were Buddhist in spirit their form differed vastly from what the Buddha taught.
Thanks for asking. But, pardon me for the length of my response
March 19, 2015 at 2:46 pm
Dear Shirke, Thank you for reading closely and for raising a valid point. The Pali term “dukkha” is often narrowly translated as suffering. But in the Canon it is meant to denote disquiet, unrest, sorrow, affliction, stress, a sort of heat (tapana) etc caused by attachment. It is explained, attachment to whatever that is impermanent (anichcha) leads to dukkha (Yad aniccam tam Dukkham). The older texts equate dukkha to “tanha” craving or a burden. The term suffering thus does not truly convey the intended sense. In Many English-language Buddhist texts dukkha is therefore often left un-translated.
Craving, it is said, has the tendency to ignite (prabhava) conditions and states which perpetuate progressively, in an unbroken chain. That follows the law of cause and effect; one moment gives rise to another and the momentum continues even after a physical body withers away. So long as the impetus for craving (dukkha – or “suffering”) exists, the “evolving consciousness” or “stream of consciousness” will continue to gravitate towards an environment as directed by the state of mind of the person (karma).The continuum of consciousness will carry on; and the being that is reborn is neither identical to nor entirely different from the old but will be a part of a stream. Therefore, the continuing cycle of death and rebirth refers to consciousness rather than to the body. In the traditional Pali texts, the process of “rebirth” is termed bhava or punabhava (Snkt.punarbhava) meaning becoming or becoming-again.
The Buddha believed, removal of a basic condition will remove its effect. Therefore, if one changes the conditions of one’s state of mind, one can change the trait of one’s consciousness .He believed the cessation (attagama) or freedom (mutti) from craving or detachment (viraga) through right understanding will remove the effects of craving (dukkha –suffering) on consciousness; and that will end the impetus for cycle of rebirths. Some texts compare it to “putting down the burden”.
I should perhaps have explained it earlier; but that would have lengthened an already tedious post. I am sorry. Thank you for asking. Please let me know if this answers your question.
March 19, 2015 at 2:48 pm
Therefore, if one changes the conditions of one’s state of mind, one can change the trait of one’s consciousness and the resulting attitudes and emotions.
How can one change the mind? Doesnt the mind decide action?.
March 19, 2015 at 2:48 pm
Dear Bijaya Ghosh, Thank you. It is said, we act as directed by our mind (chitta vritti) to satisfy our desires or inclinations (vasanas) which arose out of the impressions (samskaras) gained out of previous experiences or acts (karma). It is a cycle. The Buddhists believe, the essential nature of the mind is pure and its defilements are removable. The method recommended for removing the disturbances is the mindfulness. It means being to be aware of one’s breathing; in other words, to be mindfulness of breathing — of the body, feelings, thoughts, and other phenomena. But in the larger context mindfulness, according to Buddhism, is about paying attention so you don’t go about life absentmindedly. Regards
monday night combat server hosting
November 3, 2015 at 12:05 pm
My brother suggested I might like this web site.
He was entirely right. This submit actually made my day. You can not imagine simply how a lot time I had spent for this
information! Thank you!
November 3, 2015 at 1:35 pm
For monday night combat server
Thanks for the visit and the appreciation.
Pray let me know : how or why you found this useful?
That would help me much .
Please also read the articles on other subjects