Something "underneath" sensation, thoughts?
-
Ok, thanks Fugazzi for your elaboration, I think it's out of my depth to understand/live/experience, but I'll go over it a few more times.
Weychin: Thanks, I'll go over what constitutes right view again just in case anyway.
AEN: Thanks for the advice, I wonder if I should stick with the "who am I" koan or should I use the "before my parents were born" one though? Although I must admit that my answer to "who am I" developed after my experience and not through contemplating the koan itself.
Sgforumerposter: Thanks for the elaboration, you mean people actually have gone mad during vipassana? I've only ever heard of teachers saying they've never encountered such cases during retreat before. I've actually been thinking of trying yoga anyway, so that's something worth looking into.
-
The first moment of cognition is already the first awareness, the first flash of knowledge, there is no need for another knower to be present. Such ‘knower’ does not exist in Buddhism. By the way, how does opening up of our mindstream cause the insight to arise? Are you referring to insight into impermanence, no-self, stress and suffering or something else?
In buddhism the first awareness is of the body sensation. Cognition follows from feeling.
The non-existent knower you are referring to is the delusional self. Buddhist "knowing" is not perception. Sentient beings have the capacity of "direct knowing" beyond sensation, feelings, perceptions and volition.
One of the fruits of vipassana meditation is the progressive disengagement of our mind from body sensations, feelings, perception and volition. This disengagement is not the silencing of the mind of jhana. When the mind no longer engages the mindstream it has the capacity to discern the quiet advice of our innate wisdom.
When we see the world through a multitude of thoughts all we are really seeing are our thoughts and all the attendant baggages. To see the world without thoughts is to see the world anew, fresh and alive - insight will arise unimpeded.
Liberating insights that you referred to above will come at a special moment.
By the way, what I gather of the definition of metacognition from the internet by a William Peirce is as follows:
There are other definition.
This is the first time I have heard of people losing their mind while attending vipassana meditation session. It would be good if you can substantial your statement with some evident relating to such real life happening.
It is not well reported but some years back there was one in malaysia I could remember. If you visit some vipassana center you are made to sign a waver before you are allowed sign on. I was in myanmar many years back and before I signed up I was asked to sign such waiver.
A person with a lot of thoughts will benefit from some form of dynamic meditation.
The Buddhist has the equivalent of using Koans here.
Hardly buddhist ! Zen is undefinable.
Samadhi meditation, where the focus of concentration is on a particular object such as in kasina meditation.
This is not what I was referring to. Samatha meditation or concentration meditation tries to exclude thoughts by focusing on a singular object. The fruits on the mindstream is very different from repeating a delusional thoughts over and over again.....please don't mention mantra ;-)
Kasina meditation, while it has elements of samatha, its fruits are slightly different from samatha. Kasina works on our energetic system and is very similar to some tantric practice
Access concentration accompanied by mild bliss is just a precondition to the first of the four stages of Absorption concentration, nowhere near to arriving at insight.
The vipassana-yanika will disagree with you. This is one of the almost violent disagreement in buddhism.
-
Negative effects of meditation
http://www.prem-rawat-maharaji.info/index.php?id=31
http://www.thehumanist.org/humanist/MaryGarden.html
-
Originally posted by Sgforumposter:
In buddhism the first awareness is of the body sensation. Cognition follows from feeling.
The non-existent knower you are referring to is the delusional self. Buddhist "knowing" is not perception. Sentient beings have the capacity of "direct knowing" beyond sensation, feelings, perceptions and volition.
One of the fruits of vipassana meditation is the progressive disengagement of our mind from body sensations, feelings, perception and volition. This disengagement is not the silencing of the mind of jhana. When the mind no longer engages the mindstream it has the capacity to discern the quiet advice of our innate wisdom.
When we see the world through a multitude of thoughts all we are really seeing are our thoughts and all the attendant baggages. To see the world without thoughts is to see the world anew, fresh and alive - insight will arise unimpeded.
Liberating insights that you referred to above will come at a special moment.
There are other definition.
It is not well reported but some years back there was one in malaysia I could remember. If you visit some vipassana center you are made to sign a waver before you are allowed sign on. I was in myanmar many years back and before I signed up I was asked to sign such waiver.
A person with a lot of thoughts will benefit from some form of dynamic meditation.
Hardly buddhist ! Zen is undefinable.
This is not what I was referring to. Samatha meditation or concentration meditation tries to exclude thoughts by focusing on a singular object. The fruits on the mindstream is very different from repeating a delusional thoughts over and over again.....please don't mention mantra ;-)
Kasina meditation, while it has elements of samatha, its fruits are slightly different from samatha. Kasina works on our energetic system and is very similar to some tantric practice
The vipassana-yanika will disagree with you. This is one of the almost violent disagreement in buddhism.
The insight of no-self has certain 'effects'. It allows experiences, thoughts, etc to be experienced as not 'mine'. Experiences do not belong to me. Thoughts do not belong to me. This allows experiences and sensations to not be grasped at and thus dissolve (pass away). This me/I/self do not exist at all ! How amazing ! This is just magical display of awareness within awareness. Holographic.
With the realisation of emptiness, whatever that appears to be outside is non-dual.. and also they are not inherently existing. That means, you did not see your friends (eg of others)... the impressions of 'friends' are seen.
It is not an 'I' that recognises experience. Knowing is inbuilt in experiences.
-
The insight of no-self has certain 'effects'. It allows experiences, thoughts, etc to be experienced as not 'mine'. Experiences do not belong to me. Thoughts do not belong to me. This allows experiences and sensations to not be grasped at and thus dissolve (pass away). This me/I/self do not exist at all ! How amazing ! This is just magical display of awareness within awareness. Holographic.
Our consciousness are all geared towards sensing and experiencing "something". We do not have the capacity to "know" that "this do not belong to me". The moment you have such conceptual arising it is no longer an insight of no-self or realisation of emptiness.
The whole dualistic divide of belong-not belong is still not the realisation of non-self.
What you have put forth are mostly textbook regurgitation.
With the realisation of emptiness, whatever that appears to be outside is non-dual.. and also they are not inherently existing. That means, you did not see your friends (eg of others)... the impressions of 'friends' are seen.
With the realisation of emptiness there is no inside-outside.
Sensation self-recognises. Thought self-recognises. It is not an 'I' that recognises experience. Knowing is inbuilt in experiences.
I am not sure whether to laugh or cry ;-) . In denying the self you impregnate sensation and perception (thought) skandha with consciousness and by inference "experiences" are also given similar consciousness.
This is an interesting case of when textbook failed you , you invent ;-) .
-
IMO, Simpo_ is a very experienced meditator who has insights. I have read some of his other articles and i feel that they are not copied from 'textbooks', indeed, some of perspectives he has presented is not easily found elsewhere.
-
Originally posted by Sgforumposter:
In buddhism the first awareness is of the body sensation. Cognition follows from feeling.
The non-existent knower you are referring to is the delusional self. Buddhist "knowing" is not perception. Sentient beings have the capacity of "direct knowing" beyond sensation, feelings, perceptions and volition.
One of the fruits of vipassana meditation is the progressive disengagement of our mind from body sensations, feelings, perception and volition. This disengagement is not the silencing of the mind of jhana. When the mind no longer engages the mindstream it has the capacity to discern the quiet advice of our innate wisdom.
When we see the world through a multitude of thoughts all we are really seeing are our thoughts and all the attendant baggages. To see the world without thoughts is to see the world anew, fresh and alive - insight will arise unimpeded.
Liberating insights that you referred to above will come at a special moment.
There are other definition.
It is not well reported but some years back there was one in malaysia I could remember. If you visit some vipassana center you are made to sign a waver before you are allowed sign on. I was in myanmar many years back and before I signed up I was asked to sign such waiver.
A person with a lot of thoughts will benefit from some form of dynamic meditation.
Hardly buddhist ! Zen is undefinable.
This is not what I was referring to. Samatha meditation or concentration meditation tries to exclude thoughts by focusing on a singular object. The fruits on the mindstream is very different from repeating a delusional thoughts over and over again.....please don't mention mantra ;-)
Kasina meditation, while it has elements of samatha, its fruits are slightly different from samatha. Kasina works on our energetic system and is very similar to some tantric practice
The vipassana-yanika will disagree with you. This is one of the almost violent disagreement in buddhism.
In buddhism the first awareness is of the body sensation. Cognition follows from feeling.
In Buddhist logic, the first awareness of our body sensation is considered as cognition itself. It is the source of our knowledge. It is our intellect that interprets this sensation from our memory into what we eventually take the object we percept to be. Feeling if any arises after repeated cognitions which is recognition.
Buddhist "knowing" is not perception. Sentient beings have the capacity of "direct knowing" beyond sensation, feelings, perceptions and volition.
Simply, just good old Intuition
There are other definition.
Why not give your take as well.
It is not well reported but some years back there was one in malaysia I could remember. If you visit some vipassana center you are made to sign a waver before you are allowed sign on. I was in myanmar many years back and before I signed up I was asked to sign such waiver.
You have being to such retreat before, in your opinion, do you think the course contents or the methods used in such vipassana meditation offered, can be likely cause for one to lost one’s mind? There could be other outside factors too that could contribute to one losing one’s mine even before one attend such retreat.
Hardly buddhist ! Zen is undefinable.
Very Buddhist indeed! And just as undefinable is you statement below.
“To see the world without thoughts is to see the world anew, fresh and alive - insight will arise unimpeded.”
Kasina meditation, while it has elements of samatha, its fruits are slightly different from samatha. Kasina works on our energetic system and is very similar to some tantric practice.
Kasina objects, such as colours, earth, water, fire and wind are used for Samatha meditation. Why should the fruit of using these objects be any different?
The vipassana-yanika will disagree with you. This is one of the almost violent disagreement in buddhism.
You would just use the term momentary concentration instead of access concentration and forgo the absorption stages.
-
Because sgforumposter has not realized no-self, he still experiences subject object duality and think that consciousness is the knower of manifestation. Of course, this totally goes against the Buddha's teaching that cognition, consciousness, is simply manifestation of six kinds that arise due to dependent origination. There is no knower. This, and simpo's realization expresses the true insight: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2007/03/thusnesss-six-stages-of-experience.html
-
Muse over this One who is “thinking� of the possibility of reaching (aka attaining or ...) it in the future, one is already subjecting oneself to a “desire�. The thinking and the desire creates (in fact) adds to the ego, and the latter is a ''phenomenon'' of the ego identifying with the seeking, the idea, a concept, a value, a position - it seems to be a addiction and that is in actuality being absnet to what is not or what is. Escaping the herenow is lost to one's knowing and .... there was this man who went away and indulging in meditation or at least that was what he assumed he was practising to ''awaken'' - with the passage of a year or so, he would write to his master to report his progress/non-progess . The first letter arrived and the master read it and threw it away, after a lapse of another few months - another letter arrived and the master on reading the contents was aghast and threw it away ..... yet another arrived ... he read, he yawned and threw it away... and after a few years, another came - and the master found himself uttering this - ''finally he got it!'' In the letter this or something to the effect of this was written by this man : i dont care whether I awaken or not and dont care if others care or not! Catch the drift?
-
Whatever we see, it is not I, not me, nor a man, not a woman. In the eye, there is just color. It arises and passes away. So who is seeing the object? There is no seer in the object. Then how is the object seen? On account of certain causes. What are the causes? Eyes are one cause; they must be intact, in good order. Second, object or color must come in front of the eyes, must reflect on the retina of the eyes. Third, there must be light. Fourth, there must be attention, a mental factor. If those four causes are present, then there arises a knowing faculty called eye consciousness. If any one of the causes is missing, there will not be any seeing. If eyes are blind, no seeing. If there is no light, no seeing. If there is no attention, no seeing. But none of the causes can claim, "I am the seer." They're just constantly arising and passing. As soon as it passes away, we say, "I am seeing." You are not seeing; you are just thinking, "I am seeing." This is called conditioning. Because our mind is conditioned, when we hear the sound, we say, "I am hearing." But there is no hearer waiting in the car to hear the sound. Sound creates a wave, and, when it strikes against the eardrum, ear consciousness is the effect. Sound is not a man, nor a woman; it is just a sound that arises and passes away. But, according to our conditioning, we say, "That woman is singing and I am hearing." But you're not hearing, you are thinking, "I am hearing." Sound is already heard and gone. There is no "I" who heard the sound; it is the world of concept. Buddha discovered this in the physical level, in the mental level: how everything is happening without an actor, without a doer - empty phenomenon go rolling on. - Munindra, Munindra on anatta http://sgforums.com/forums/1728/topics/444949
-
Originally posted by Jui:
Ok, thanks Fugazzi for your elaboration, I think it's out of my depth to understand/live/experience, but I'll go over it a few more times.
Weychin: Thanks, I'll go over what constitutes right view again just in case anyway.
AEN: Thanks for the advice, I wonder if I should stick with the "who am I" koan or should I use the "before my parents were born" one though? Although I must admit that my answer to "who am I" developed after my experience and not through contemplating the koan itself.
Sgforumerposter: Thanks for the elaboration, you mean people actually have gone mad during vipassana? I've only ever heard of teachers saying they've never encountered such cases during retreat before. I've actually been thinking of trying yoga anyway, so that's something worth looking into.
I was asked by Thusness to contemplate 'Before birth, Who am I?' You can try that.
You already have the experience. The koan is what leads to the Realization, not merely the experience.
-
In Buddhist logic, the first awareness of our body sensation is considered as cognition itself. It is the source of our knowledge. It is our intellect that interprets this sensation from our memory into what we eventually take the object we percept to be. Feeling if any arises after repeated cognitions which is recognition.
What buddhist logic ? We are discussing epistemology. In buddhist epistemology we have the following "model" :
sense impression through contact(phala) without consciousness give rise to sense consciousness. There is no cognition but can have awareness("knowing"). The first foundation of mindfulness in vipassana uses this awareness.
Sense consciousness become the cause and condition for feelings to arise. This feeling is not the feeling you were referring to. This is not emotive. Feelings skandha had 3 possible quality ; pleasant, unpleasant or neutral. There is no cognition but we can be aware("knowing") of it. The second foundation of mindfulness in vipassana uses this awareness.
Feelings then become the cause and condition for perception. Here there is cognition(knowing) and awareness("knowing"). The third foundation of mindfulness in vipassana uses this awareness.
Vipasanna helps us develope "knowing" without knowing.
Why fudge the discussion with "intellect" and "recognition" ?
Buddhist "knowing" is not perception. Sentient beings have the capacity of "direct knowing" beyond sensation, feelings, perceptions and volition.
Simply, just good old Intuition
Is such fudging really necessary ? This "knowing" is not intuition. It's development can facilitate the arising of intuition.
There are other definition.
Why not give your take as well.
Metacognition when it was first conceived of was very accurate and is similar to what Buddha taught as awareness. In fact this metacognitive ability is self-evident. Over the years different "researchers" and authors started to add include other meaning. The inclusion tended to exclude what is essential and include the irrelevant.
I had left the academia for too long now. Go and do your own homework.
You have being to such retreat before, in your opinion, do you think the course contents or the methods used in such vipassana meditation offered, can be likely cause for one to lost one’s mind? There could be other outside factors too that could contribute to one losing one’s mine even before one attend such retreat.
Yes ! The vipassana that is normally taught uses knowing(perception) and the focus/concentration here accentuate delusive thoughts when it stray. "knowing" or awareness is developed as a by-product of developing concentration.
Knowing exclude and concentrate. "Knowing" includes and expands the mind.
Hardly buddhist ! Zen is undefinable.
Very Buddhist indeed! And just as undefinable is you statement below.
The koan technique originated from advaita vedanta. It predated zen.
If zen is definable it is not zen.
“To see the world without thoughts is to see the world anew, fresh and alive - insight will arise unimpeded.”
Given the context in which it was stated, isn't this obvious ? We are addicted to thoughts, to concepts as a means of knowing that we failed to appreciate our innate ability. Remember the phrase "seeing the world through tinted glass" ?
Kasina meditation, while it has elements of samatha, its fruits are slightly different from samatha. Kasina works on our energetic system and is very similar to some tantric practice.
Kasina objects, such as colours, earth, water, fire and wind are used for Samatha meditation. Why should the fruit of using these objects be any different?
Kasina meditation is related to the colours of the various elements and the inner colour we visualise internally emanate from the various chakras. The meditation on the various elements stimulate the chakra related to the element.
Rest assured the fruits are different.
-
Originally posted by Sgforumposter:
sense impression through contact(phala) without consciousness give rise to sense consciousness. There is no cognition but can have awareness("knowing"). The first foundation of mindfulness in vipassana uses this awareness.
Sense consciousness become the cause and condition for feelings to arise. This feeling is not the feeling you were referring to. This is not emotive. Feelings skandha had 3 possible quality ; pleasant, unpleasant or neutral. There is no cognition but we can be aware("knowing") of it. The second foundation of mindfulness in vipassana uses this awareness.
Feelings then become the cause and condition for perception. Here there is cognition(knowing) and awareness("knowing"). The third foundation of mindfulness in vipassana uses this awareness.
Vipasanna helps us develope "knowing" without knowing.
Why fudge the discussion with "intellect" and "recognition" ?
What is the pali equivalent of your knowing, cognition, and awareness?
-
@Eternal now
Because sgforumposter has not realized no-self, he still experiences subject object duality and think that consciousness is the knower of manifestation.
Eternal now is an incorrigible pigeon-holer ;-) who seems to believe that his garbled confused rambling are enlightened masterpieces.
Seem to pigeon-hole everything and everyone.
Of course, this totally goes against the Buddha’s teaching that cognition, consciousness, is simply manifestation of six kinds that arise due to dependent origination. There is no knower.
You have found yourself in the wrong pigeon-hole lah ;-)
-
Or maybe I did it on purpose... hehe
-
There is no knowing apart from the aggregates. In particular, the consciousness aggregate is 'knowing'. Dependent on form/matter/rupa (sense organs and sense object) plus mental aspects like attention, there arise consciousness.
There is no knower apart from that.
As for it being 'beyond sensations.... etc'. If there were no consciousness, there is no sensation, and there isn't consciousness without sensation - Sensation is the pleasant/unpleasant/neutral feeling tone of a felt experience. Just like there is no scenery without shapes. Even arhats have feelings (vedana) - "What, bhikkhus, is the Nibbana-element with residue left? Here a bhikkhu is an arahant, one whose taints are destroyed, the holy life fulfilled, who has done what had to be done, laid down the burden, attained the goal, destroyed the fetters of being, completely released through final knowledge. However, his five sense faculties remain unimpaired, by which he still experiences what is agreeable and disagreeable and feels pleasure and plain. It is the extinction of attachment, hate and delusion in him that is called the Nibbana-element with residue left".
For example a tactile consciousness arise dependent on namarupa, it is simply this cognizance of something tactile, and because of this consciousness naturally there is the arising feeling-tone to it, like 'pain', which is vedana or sensation. The vedana is simply a feeling tone of a felt experience.
There is no 'beyond' in Buddhism, only conventionally observed phenomena which are all flat and dependently originated.
Matter is not anymore 'beyond' mind than 'mind' is beyond matter, since all dependently originates and are not self how can you speak of a beyond? Unless you are talking about nirvana.
By the way the 'sheaves of reeds' analogy is good.
Anyway I do agree with you that consciousness stripped of mental perception (labels, concepts, etc) is of course possible. But it doesn't mean consciousness is some watcher. Consciousness is simply an arising experience, not an experiencer.
And because there is no consciousness as a watcher, experience is itself self-luminous - it is just the process itself that rolls and knows without a watcher. Of course I don't deny there is a difference between 'direct perception' and 'conceptual perception' but nonetheless, they are just different modes of perception and no real watcher at all.
-
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
For example a tactile consciousness arise dependent on namarupa, it is simply this cognizance of something tactile, and because of this consciousness naturally there is the arising feeling-tone to it, like 'pain', which is vedana or sensation. The vedana is simply a feeling tone of a felt experience.
There is no 'beyond' in Buddhism, only conventionally observed phenomena which are all flat and dependently originated.
very nicely expressed AEN. In this connection, i was reading and contemplating for a while about the exchangeability of the five senses. Although i haven't had the actual experience, but i think it is possible that discrimination drops away to such a degree that sight is the same as sound, as sensation, etc all as merely experiences ... actually if the discrimination of the 'tone' dissolves, may it be that the five senses becomes exchangeable in this manner?
can you also comment on what you actually mean when you said 'body and mind fall away'.... in your article
sorry to highjack the topic slightly off course.
-
Originally posted by Dharmadhatu:
very nicely expressed AEN. In this connection, i was reading and contemplating for a while about the exchangeability of the five senses. Although i haven't had the actual experience, but i think it is possible that discrimination drops away to such a degree that sight is the same as sound, as sensation, etc all as merely experiences ... actually if the discrimination of the 'tone' dissolves, may it be that the five senses becomes exchangeable in this manner?
can you also comment on what you actually mean when you said 'body and mind fall away'.... in your article
sorry to highjack the topic slightly off course.
They have the same taste, but different expressions.
Will post a Chinese post that has body-mind drop in it... in the forum.
-
Originally posted by Sgforumposter:
What buddhist logic ? We are discussing epistemology. In buddhist epistemology we have the following "model" :
sense impression through contact(phala) without consciousness give rise to sense consciousness. There is no cognition but can have awareness("knowing"). The first foundation of mindfulness in vipassana uses this awareness.
Sense consciousness become the cause and condition for feelings to arise. This feeling is not the feeling you were referring to. This is not emotive. Feelings skandha had 3 possible quality ; pleasant, unpleasant or neutral. There is no cognition but we can be aware("knowing") of it. The second foundation of mindfulness in vipassana uses this awareness.
Feelings then become the cause and condition for perception. Here there is cognition(knowing) and awareness("knowing"). The third foundation of mindfulness in vipassana uses this awareness.
Vipasanna helps us develope "knowing" without knowing.
Why fudge the discussion with "intellect" and "recognition" ?
Is such fudging really necessary ? This "knowing" is not intuition. It's development can facilitate the arising of intuition.
Metacognition when it was first conceived of was very accurate and is similar to what Buddha taught as awareness. In fact this metacognitive ability is self-evident. Over the years different "researchers" and authors started to add include other meaning. The inclusion tended to exclude what is essential and include the irrelevant.
I had left the academia for too long now. Go and do your own homework.
Yes ! The vipassana that is normally taught uses knowing(perception) and the focus/concentration here accentuate delusive thoughts when it stray. "knowing" or awareness is developed as a by-product of developing concentration.
Knowing exclude and concentrate. "Knowing" includes and expands the mind.
The koan technique originated from advaita vedanta. It predated zen.
If zen is definable it is not zen.
Given the context in which it was stated, isn't this obvious ? We are addicted to thoughts, to concepts as a means of knowing that we failed to appreciate our innate ability. Remember the phrase "seeing the world through tinted glass" ?
Kasina meditation is related to the colours of the various elements and the inner colour we visualise internally emanate from the various chakras. The meditation on the various elements stimulate the chakra related to the element.
Rest assured the fruits are different.
What buddhist logic ? We are discussing epistemology. In buddhist epistemology we have the following "model" :
Looks like you have no idea that there is a whole subject on the study of epistemology that IS Buddhist Logic, which form part of the teachings of the Vijnanavadin. Never mind, I shall stop at that and also the rest of this discussion.
A happy Chinese New Year here to all our Chinese forummers who are visiting the site. Be Well and Happy.
-
Vedana, sanna, sankhara are all mental objects. It follows that there is naturally the consciousness of the mental object, and that consciousness is self-luminous.
In other words, owing to vedana, sanna and sankhara, plus mental attention as condition, there arises mind-consciousnesses. Mind consciousness takes vedana, sanna and sankhara as its objects.
Vedana is feeling tone, sanna is memory and perception, sankhara is volition or mental formaiton.
-
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
Vedana, sanna, sankhara are all mental objects. It follows that there is naturally the consciousness of the mental object, and that consciousness is self-luminous.
In other words, owing to vedana, sanna and sankhara, plus mental attention as condition, there arises mind-consciousnesses. Mind consciousness takes vedana, sanna and sankhara as its objects.
Vedana is feeling tone, sanna is memory and perception, sankhara is volition or mental formaiton.
Three connections are missing from the above "model".
Consciousness is dependent on Rupa and Mental factors (vedana, sanna and sankhara).
Consciousness upon contact (phasa) give rise to sense consciousness which become the dependent condition for Mental factors.
Sense objects are not self-luminous. Only upon contact with consciousness does sense consciousness arise.Check out MN 109.
The 5 skandha model as enunciated by Buddha is a reflection of the dependent origination. But interestingly 2 connections in the description of the 5 skandha was left out and i.e. What does the Rupa skandha depend on and how is viññanam anidassanam - consciousness without surface - arose without dependent on other factors. -
Yes... Rupa is not self-luminous. Luminosity is solely for mind/nama. Nama arises dependent on nama and rupa, having no inherent existence, not self, not knower...
So therefore the Buddha cognizes everything as it is without conceiving/proliferating a perceiving subject/knower or a known object: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.024.than.html
-
viññanam anidassanam - consciousness without surface - arose without dependent on other factors.
Reminds me of this thread: Nirvana is not infinite consciousness
-
Originally posted by Aik TC:
What buddhist logic ? We are discussing epistemology. In buddhist epistemology we have the following "model" :
Looks like you have no idea that there is a whole subject on the study of epistemology that IS Buddhist Logic, which form part of the teachings of the Vijnanavadin. Never mind, I shall stop at that and also the rest of this discussion.
A happy Chinese New Year here to all our Chinese forummers who are visiting the site. Be Well and Happy.
Yes, I have no idea on vijnanavadin but a quick read on the subject revealed the following :
a. Vijnanavada has its basis in the Mandukya Upanishad.
b. Buddhist epistemology is NOT Buddhist logic as you have claimed. In vijnanavada Dinnaga argued that the source of knowlege are (i) sense perception and (ii) Inference. He had essentially given a different interpretation to the perceptual and mental formation skandha. Buddhist logic was superimposed on to the skandha model to explain mental formation.
c. In Vijnanavada there is no objective reality. Example given :
"An itinerant ascetic, an amorous person and a dog, all catch sight of a woman, but they have three different notions. The ascetic looks upon her as a mere carcass, the voluptuary takes her to be an object of amorous delight while the dog takes her to be something eatable.(2) Thus with reference to one and the same body of a woman, diverse judgments arise according to the pre-conception and the mental inclination of the different observers."
Or on another note let's say for the sake of argument that someone had told you that I am a dirty rotten scoundrel. You become hateful and mean everytime you see me and this was due to the belief that motivates all your thoughts, speech and actions.
d. Buddhist logic is not an epistemological tool but a way to explain how each of us deal with our sense perception. How could any artificial and contrived system of thoughts be complete (Godel's incompleteness theorem) to explain or understand the arising thoughts, speech and actions of a sentient being ?
e. Buddhist logic over time became more important than the sutra and realisation.
A lot of mahayana literature were influenced by the hindu tradition and the vehemence denial by her adherent only goes to reinforce the similarity rather than the confirm its uniqueness.
-
yogacara is not upanishadic since consciousness is understood as personal, momentary dependemtly originated and not self whereas upanishad consciousness is cosmic overarching unchanging independent ultimate self