Some collected thoughts on the nature of consciousness and rebirth in Buddhism.
In the Suttas, the arising of sensory-consciousness is said to be dependent upon the meeting of one of the six sense-organs (salayatana) and its corresponding object. The process of seeing, for example, is described as a conditional process where “dependent on eye and visible forms, eye-consciousness arises” (SN 12.43). Without the presence of the appropriate sense organ (e.g., the eye) or the corresponding object of reference (e.g., rock), sensory-consciousness (e.g., eye-consciousness) cannot arise. Furthermore, dependent co-arising specifically states, “From the arising of name-and-form comes the arising of consciousness. From the cessation of name-and-form comes the cessation of consciousness.” Additionally, in DN 15, special attention is paid to the complex relationship between name-and-form (nama-rupa), i.e., mentality-materiality, and consciousness (vinnana)—with the Buddha detailing the mutual dependency of mental and physical activity and consciousness. In one analogy used to illustrate their relationship, consciousness and name-and-form act as two sheaves of reeds leaning against one another. In essence, the two sheaves of reeds support one another, and if one were pulled away, the other would fall (SN 12.67). Therefore, it is clear that sensory-consciousness is a dependently existing phenomena that cannot exist without a sense organ or its corresponding object of reference. As for the nature of consciousness itself, however, I cannot say for sure. Perhaps consciounsess is something that is fundamental to the basic structure of the universe; perhaps consciousness is purely a conditional phenomenon with nothing else underlying it; perhaps there is a separate type of consciousness that does not partake of any of the six senses or their objects—for me, the jury is still out on this one.
In terms of the aggregate of consciousness (vinnana-khandha), it is clear that consciousness is a dependently existing phenomena … However, there are a couple of sutta passages which could seem to suggest that there is a form of consciousness that does not come under the aggregate of consciousness. For example, Thanissaro Bhikkhu states in a note to his tranlsation of MN 109, “One form of consciousness apparently does not come under the aggregate of consciousness. This type of consciousness is termed vinnanam anidassanam — consciousness without a surface, or consciousness without feature. MN 49 says specifically that this consciousness does not partake of the “allness of the all,” the “all” being conterminous with the five aggregates. The standard definition of the aggregate of consciousness states that this aggregate includes all consciousness, “past, present, or future… near or far.” However, because vinnanam anidassanam stands outside of space and time it would not be covered by these terms. Similarly, where SN 22.97 says that no consciousness is eternal, “eternal” is a concept that applies only within the dimension of time, and thus would not apply to this form of consciousness.” While this view that there is a type of consciousness that lies outside of space and time, and therefore, outside the consciousness-aggregate altogether is not a view that is supported by the “classical” Theravada Tradition in which the enitre Tipitaka and its commentaries are considered authoritative, the imagery of consciousness that “does not land or increase” mentioned in SN 12.64 does seem to support such a possibilty, even if some might say that comparing this imagery of consciousness that “does not land or grow” to the consciousness of Nibbana is taking it out of context. At least I think so.
But the commentaries gloss the term “vinnanam anidassanam” in a way that denies such a possibilty. Using the Kevatta Sutta (DN 11), for example, Suan Lu Zaw, a Burmese lay-teacher of Pali and Abhidhamma, explains that according the the Kevatta Sutta Atthakatha [DN 11 commentary], vinnanam does not refer to the usual meaning of “consciousness” here, but instead defines it as, “There, to be known specifically, so (it is) “vinnanam“. This is the name of Nibbana.” He also explains that the following line of DN 11, “Here (in Nibbana), nama as well as rupa cease without remainder. By ceasing of conscousness, nama as well as rupa ceases here” illustrates this point. He states that, “Nibbana does not become a sort of consciousness just because one of the Pali names happens to be vinnanam.” And finally, he concludes by using a quote from a section of the Dhammapada Attakatha [Dhammapada commentary], which apparently states that there is no consciousness component in parinibbana after the death of an arahant. This, of course, is in direct contrast to Thanissaro Bhikkhu’s note to this particular sutta which suggests that this term refers to a consciousness that lies outside of space and time, and therefore, outside the consciousness-aggregate altogether. Basically, what this controversy boils down to is the experience of Nibbana and the nature of that experience. The general tendency is to either describe Nibbana as the ending of all consciousness, all awareness, or in other words, to stress the cessation aspect of Nibbana, or to describe Nibbana as a state of purified awareness, “consciousness without feature”, or in other words, to stress the transcendent aspect of Nibbana. The “classical” Theravada Tradition favors the former view of Nibbana while others, like the Thai Forest Tradition, favor the latter.
That being said, rebirth is essentially renewal of existence. As with most Eastern philosophies and religions, Buddhism does not view death as the final end of phenomena. In Buddhism, only Nibbana is said to be the final end of phenomena in regards to the arising and passing away of beings (AN 10.58). According to the teachings on dependent origination, if there are sufficient conditions present, those conditions with inevitably result in future births (SN 12.35). Along with consciousness, craving (tahna) plays a vital role in the renewal of beings and the production of future births. To illustrate how craving could result in future births, the Buddha used a simile in which he compared the sustenance of a flame to that of a being at the time of death. Essentially, a flame burns in dependence on its fuel, and that fuel sustains it. When a flame burns in dependence on wood, for example, the wood sustains that flame. However, when a flame is swept up and carried away by the wind, the fuel of wind sustains that flame until it lands upon a new source of fuel. In the same way, a being at the time of death has the fuel of craving as its sustenance (SN 44.9). The last consciousness of a being at the time of death, with the presence of craving, is the cause for the arising of a new consciousness. In the human realm, this would be in combination with the union of a healthy sperm and egg, although the Buddha often mentioned various other forms of birth in other realms of existence—none of which are free from suffering. Hence, the Buddha states, “Wherever there is a basis for consciousness, there is support for the establishing of consciousness. When consciousness is established and has come to growth, there is the production of renewed existence” (SN 12.38). The Buddha never really got more specific than that, though.
Finally, to remove one of the more common misunderstandings in regard to consciousness, in response to the view that “it is this same consciousness that runs and wanders through the round of rebirths, not another” put forth by Sati, a bhikkhu that was the son of a fisherman, the Buddha rebukingly said, “Misguided man, have I not stated in many ways consciousness to be dependently arisen, since without a condition there is no origination of consciousness” (MN 38). This eliminates the idea of consciousness as “self.” Coming back to the teachings on rebirth, the “re” implies that something happens again, and that something is birth, i.e., the appearance of the aggregates, which takes place again and again. As such, this process of birth, death, birth, et cetera will continue as long as the requsite conditions are present. The word for “rebirth” in Pali is punabhava, which literally means “re-becoming” or “renewed existence.” Although the aggregates are impermament, they are conditioned by causes anterior to birth, and act as causes for future births. Kamma is what makes entire this process possible. In Bhikkhu Bodhi’s words, “When ignorance and craving underlie our stream of consciousness, our volitional actions of body, speech, and mind become forces with the capacity to produce results, and of the results they produce the most significant is the renewal of the stream of consciousness following death” (Anicca Vata Sankhara). Therefore, while there is a type of continuity invloved in this process, it should not be mistaken for something substantial. As such, this “stream of consciousnes” should not be understood as a static thing, but simply a complex and uninterupted process of arising and ceasing in which both consciousness and craving play an important role. The term “rebirth” is merely a convenience.
OK.
Let me see if I have this right.
I'm going to paraphrase, because I need to make sure I've got the gist of it all:
Consciousness can be broken down...
Hearing-Consciousness
Seeing-Consciousness
Tasting-Consciousness
Touching-Consciousness
Feeling-Consciousness.
None of these arise, if the stimulus for each sense is not there.
If there is nothing to hear, Hearing-Consciousness does not arise and manifest.
If there is nothing to see, Seeing-Consciousness does not arise and manifest.
And so on and so forth.
This is the dependent-arising of consciousness....
It's like two bundles of reeds, leaning against one another. Take one away, and the other collapses.... So none of these states of consciousness can stand on its own, without the corresponsing stimulus to make it manifest....
So because we have not eliminated craving and ignorance, essentially speaking this consciousness, (related to all the different senses and thought patterns that arise as a result of this co-dependency existing) remains when we die and re-manifests...
We have the image of a forest fire.... it is dependent on the woods to keep burning (that's our consciousness, dependent on the ignorant, clinging sense-aggregates....) When we die (once all the wood is consumed) the flames are transported by the wind to ignite something else... (re-birth) ...... the consciousness is supported by the conditioning of Samsaric existence, (wind) and re-manifests when new wood (sperm, egg, re-birth) is landed upon.....
Consciousness is not dependent on a 'self', to re-emerge. Rather it is dependent on our craving and clinging to samsaric dual states, (including our clinging to the concept of our 'Self') and re-manifests whilst the clinging and grasping are still prevalent.
The aggregates are impermanent, but are dependent on conditions arising prior to Birth, and they also act as causes of eventual re-birth. These causes or conditioning are fuelled by our kamma. In order to cease "Ignorance" and craving, we have to eliminate our negative Kamma. We have to exhaust it......
So whilst there is some continuity manifesting, it should not be regarded as tangible or substantial. it's a complex and uninterrupted process, which will cease, once we have exhausted our negative kamma which is in turn nourished and fed by Ignorance, and craving and attachment.
Is there anything here I haven't got right?
Is there anything you think worth adding to the above?
Because I intend to keep this as a document to remind me of stuff concerning re-birth and Consciousnes.
It's brilliant.
And there is some contradicition in different Teachings and opinions of Bikkhus, is there....?
That's not a criticism, BTW.... I'm just trying to pin this down....
From here: (see footnote #1)
.....One thing I've realised is that we tend to see terms as "eternal", "beginningless", "timeless" and "endless" as terms linked to our concept of time...
but realistically speaking we cannot measure these kinds of definitions with our definition of Time, that is to say, the 'chronological' method of measuring time (calendars, appointments, birthdays, anniversaries, centuries, millennia....) because although they denote periods of time and specific incidents in time, 'Real' time cannot be measured or considered in this context....
Even the scientific measurement of what 'Time' is, might fit into a human-conjured criterion....
Time is time-less.
Am I anywhere near the right track - of anything?
Let me see if I have this right.
I'm going to paraphrase, because I need to make sure I've got the gist of it all:
Consciousness can be broken down...
Hearing-Consciousness
Seeing-Consciousness
Tasting-Consciousness
Touching-Consciousness
Feeling-Consciousness.
If there is nothing to hear, Hearing-Consciousness does not arise and manifest.
If there is nothing to see, Seeing-Consciousness does not arise and manifest.
And so on and so forth.
This is the dependent-arising of consciousness....
It's like two bundles of reeds, leaning against one another. Take one away, and the other collapses.... So none of these states of consciousness can stand on its own, without the corresponsing stimulus to make it manifest....
Consciousness is not dependent on a 'self', to re-emerge. Rather it is dependent on our craving and clinging to samsaric dual states, (including our clinging to the concept of our 'Self') and re-manifests whilst the clinging and grasping are still prevalent.
The aggregates are impermanent, but are dependent on conditions arising prior to Birth, and they also act as causes of eventual re-birth. These causes or conditioning are fuelled by our kamma. In order to cease "Ignorance" and craving, we have to eliminate our negative Kamma. We have to exhaust it......
So whilst there is some continuity manifesting, it should not be regarded as tangible or substantial. it's a complex and uninterrupted process, which will cease, once we have exhausted our negative kamma which is in turn nourished and fed by Ignorance, and craving and attachment.
Jason
I spoke (metaphorically speaking) to two Theravadin Monks on another forum, and one in particular feels that there is a definite deviation from the classic teachings....
It's a different forum, but have a look at this thread....
Conclusion: There is no 'ray of sunlight'. (As in my signature below).
I don't buy it, as it is nothing but clinical and complete death in the western materialist sense. Sentience?
as to criticisms of other views, teachings and methods, I adopt the opinion that I should experience for myself, before deciding on anything.
All I have so far, is varied viewpoints, and I can't choose all of them...So I have to use discernment and logic to decide whichever one sits better with me....
I spoke (metaphorically speaking) to two Theravadin Monks on another forum, and one in particular feels that there is a definite deviation from the classic teachings....
It's a different forum, but have a look at this thread....
Jason
This is also my approach, that's why I'm quite eclectic and try to keep an open mind but something in Ven. Dhammanando's philosophy doesn't ring right with me. There is an inherent paradox or contradiction in the nihilistic views he, and others, espouse.
You see, he does not accept that there is any consciousness whatsoever in Nirvana (I mean the final post-death one). He defines it as incognizant and insentient. If you level a charge of nihilism at this you are likely to be told that "that which has never been can never be destroyed".
So let's investigate where this view takes us, as the implications are unusual to say the least. What we are looking at is something, which in essence accords with a modern materialistic view of life in all but one detail - rebirth (more of which later).
Life is a purely biological event (driven by clinging if you will) which terminates at death. There is no person at all (never was) or anything which can be ascribed to the person.
The moment of death sees a volitional spark leap to accrue more fuel in order to perpetuate itself. This volitional spark is not you either and has nothing to do with you at all. The next biological event (I won't call it life) has nothing to do with you, just as the former didn't.
So there is no way you will ever experience suffering in future lives, as there is NO you to experience anything. In any case the future random collection of aggregates animated by volition is not you, so why worry?
All this is supported by the attainment of Ven. Dhammanando's Nirvana, whereby the whole process is stopped once and for all. Nirvana is not any kind of state for any awareness (as we know that no such thing exists) rather it is a term which designates the switching off of this volitional hopping process. That's all. Nothing more. Zilch.
So, why bother? There is suffering for you only in this life and let's face it, it's not all bad (there's Baywatch for example
There is no sentience because upon investigation there are only impersonal aggregates. You are no better than a vacuum cleaner. At death, the plug is pulled and sticks itself into another vacuum cleaner. This vacuum cleaner analogy was given to me years ago by a Jehovah's Witness who disliked the concept of a soul. They define the word soul as the material aggregates and they say that these aggregates are powered by the 'spirit'. If you ask them if this spirit is you, they say no. At death God just switches off the power (as indicated in my analogy).
He remakes us all from new at the time of resurrection, to which my argument was; well that may look and sound like me but it won't be me, merely a copy. It's odd that I've encountered a very similar idea in certain sections of Buddhism. I didn't buy it from the J.W. and I don't buy it from V.D. either. It doesn't stack up.
Why would Buddha have bothered to help a load of non-beings who don't (by virtue of the fact they don't ultimately exist) stand to suffer beyond death? At best, he'd be just shutting the grid down a section at a time.
Regards
Kris
As I said before, for me the jury is still out on this one. I simply like to share my own thoughts and references with anyone interested. I leave it to others to find out what 'sits best with them.'
Many thanks for a wonderful post. I suppose I'm with the Thai Forest guys on this one.
Namaste
Kris
I think you have given a good critique of this specific form of Buddhist nihilism (forgive the shorthand) and it seems to me that it is precisely the fundamental question that writers such as Masao Abe address when they write about a Western "post-Nietzschean nihilism".
Within the context of such ideas, both within and outwith the 'religions' (see Cupitt and the 'Sea of Faith'), we are confronted with ancient questions about morality and personal life. The Greeks were tormented by them, too. If there is neither punishment nor reward, or, even, only a sort of punishment-by-extinction, why live for anyone or anything but oneself? If this is all there is, if I am here and then gone, what drives a choice of the Good over the Self-Serving?
I think that this is one reason why so many religious-minded people take refuge in extremism: without their 'God' and post-mortem judgment/reward/punishment or their 'rebirth' as 'better' or 'worse' than this birth, why be 'good'?
Epicurus and Seneca both tried to answer the question philosophically, the 'evolutionary biologists' attempt utilitarian explanations of co-operation, but I believe that we are still no nearer a 'rational' motive.
All I can say is that my own experience suggests to me that a happier life arises from the Good than from the Self-Serving. And that I really don't know if I am 'a spark of the flame' or here-today-and-gone-tomorrow.
I have no problem with anatta "not self" but I have a problem when it's pushed just that bit further into "no self".
Like in my signature, our awareness is the sunlight and all the things it alights upon are objects of duality, within time and space. So how do we describe the beam of light when it does not alight? The one hand clapping? How do we 'quantify' something which is by definition beyond all comparative criteria we have at our disposal?
An eternalist will reify it into a sublime realm, a nihilist will deny its very existence. So it's a tough call. If an eternalist is guilty of making something from nothing, then a nihilist is guilty of making something into nothing.
I guess that's why it gets called 'the middle way'.
Namaste
Kris
I'm leaving it to one side.
Why?
because I reckon I'm so far off from it anyway, that being overly concerned about it is going to be more detrimental to my practise, than constructive.
Ask me in a week - I should be MUCH closer then - !!
Good idea. It can get 'a bit much' at times. Best not to take it too seriously. Feet up, a nice cuppa and you're sorted - I know that does it for me
Namaste
Kris
I feel I have made progress though. six months ago, I would probably have not even had answered Elohim's post... so I've moved along a bit.
Soflee soflee catchee monkee.....
I feel I have made progress though. six months ago, I would probably have not even had answered Elohim's post... so I've moved along a bit.
Soflee soflee catchee monkee.....
That's my brilliant intellectual contribution to this thread...