In the absence of vinnana there is...?

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Mike,

you have to also be willing to engage with counter-arguments, and not just dismiss them as "instinctive reactions".

I like counter-arguments, and welcome them... I believe the quality of topics would benefit from on-topic counter-arguments and would like to see more of them.

Metta,
Retro.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Tilt,

I have been at this longer than you have been alive. I am well aware of the points you are making, and because I do not agree with your rigid intellectual phenomanalisam does not mean that I am indulging in an "instinctive reaction to what they think I'm saying." Things are not ever so black and white as you are painting them.

Present positively framed on-topic counter-arguments then, rather than incessant pokes.

rigid intellectual phenomanalisam

"Rigid intellectual"ism applies more to the scholastic formation of concepts/ideas (such as bhavanga-citta) which by definition, cannot be experienced... and then constructing one's world view around one's own intellectual scaffolding (sankharas).

Metta,
Retro.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

Perhaps we can get...



Freefall asked, "Is there a consciousness during deep sleep when no mental formations are there for support?"

I've presented an argument to say "no"... I feel I've taken this argument as far as it needs to go. People can decide whether it is satisfactory or not, according to their reason and experience.

Does anyone have a counter-argument to present?

Metta,
Retro.

[tiltbillings]

Greetings Tilt,

I have been at this longer than you have been alive. I am well aware of the points you are making, and because I do not agree with your rigid intellectual phenomanalisam does not mean that I am indulging in an "instinctive reaction to what they think I'm saying." Things are not ever so black and white as you are painting them.

Present positively framed on-topic counter-arguments then, rather than incessant pokes.

That would be excellent advice for you to follow, given your incessant pokes at commentarial Buddhism. This very thread came about from an unnecessary and inappropriate poke by you at the commentarial tradition in the "Discovering Theravada" section.

"Rigid intellectual"ism applies more to the scholastic formation of concepts/ideas (such as bhavanga-citta) which by definition, cannot be experienced... and then constructing one's world view around one's own intellectual scaffolding (sankharas).

He said, making a poke. Maybe you might try to understand the standpoint and context of the originators of the bhavanga notion and what role it actually plays before you criticize it, before you actually dismiss it, as you have the Abhidhamma, as running counter to the Buddha's teachings.

[Ben]

Greetings,

Perhaps we can get...



Freefall asked, "Is there a consciousness during deep sleep when no mental formations are there for support?"

I've presented an argument to say "no"... I feel I've taken this argument as far as it needs to go. People can decide whether it is satisfactory or not, according to their reason and experience.

Does anyone have a counter-argument to present?

Metta,
Retro.

And I would answer "yes". And I know this from direct experience - as has others.
kind regards

Ben

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Tilt,

This very thread came about from an unnecessary and inappropriate poke by you at the commentarial tradition in the "Discovering Theravada" section..

I disagree. The sutta perspective explained by Walpola Rahula was irreconcilable with the Abhidhammic notion of a citta devoid of object. That's not an "unnecessary and inappropriate poke"... that's highlighting an inconsistency, one which no one seems interested in resolving.

Maybe you might try to understand the standpoint and context of the originators of the bhavanga notion and what role it actually plays before you criticize it, before you actually dismiss it, as you have the Abhidhamma, as running counter to the Buddha's teachings.

Based on the Four Great References, I have negligible personal interest in any Buddhist school's Abhidhamma... but if you wish to present an on-topic counter-argument, showing either that:-

- The Abhidhamma is consistent with what Walpola Rahula presented about the Buddha's teachings on vinnana
- There is consciousness in deep sleep

... then the floor is open to you.

Metta,
Retro.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Ben,

Freefall asked, "Is there a consciousness during deep sleep when no mental formations are there for support?"

And I would answer "yes". And I know this from direct experience - as has others

This experience you refer to... is it mind-consciousness, body-consciousness, tongue-consciousness, ear-consciousness, eye-consciousness, or nose-consciousness? Or something else?

I would argue that if it is any of those listed, it does not qualify as the "deep sleep" being referred to, but rather, it is consciousness associated with an object.

Metta,
Retro.

[Ben]

Greetings Retro,
I question whether deep sleep is actually consciousness with no object.
kind regards

Ben

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Ben,

Is your thought that it might be:

- consciousness with object
- not consciousness



Metta,
Retro.

[Ben]

consciousness with object

[tiltbillings]

Greetings Tilt,

This very thread came about from an unnecessary and inappropriate poke by you at the commentarial tradition in the "Discovering Theravada" section..

I disagree. The sutta perspective explained by Walpola Rahula was irreconcilable with the Abhidhammic notion of a citta devoid of object. That's not an "unnecessary and inappropriate poke"... that's highlighting an inconsistency, one which no one seems interested in resolving.

The section is "Discovering Theravada." Theravada -- by definition -- includes the Abhidhamma and the commentaries. That there are later, minority, positions that are critical of the more traditional position is fine, but they are better discuissed in a different section.

Maybe you might try to understand the standpoint and context of the originators of the bhavanga notion and what role it actually plays before you criticize it, before you actually dismiss it, as you have the Abhidhamma, as running counter to the Buddha's teachings.

Based on the Four Great References, I have negligible personal interest in any Buddhist school's Abhidhamma... but if you wish to present an on-topic counter-argument, showing either that:

If you are going to criticize a point of view, it is up to you to show that you have a good handle on what that point of view is actually about, otherwise it is naught more than a strawman criticism.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Tilt,

The section is "Discovering Theravada." Theravada -- by definition -- includes the Abhidhamma and the commentaries. That there are later, minority, positions that are critical of the more traditional position is fine, but they are better discuissed in a different section.

When the Suttas and Abhidhammic Commentary are at odds, as they are here (unless anyone wishes to attempt the still unattempted reconciliation), there is no one single definitive Theravada position to provide. It is entirely appropriate to present the different views that exist within the spectrum of Theravada, because it is the Discovering Theravada forum, not the Discovering Mahavihara forum.

If you are going to criticize a point of view, it is up to you to show that you have a good handle on what that point of view is actually about, otherwise it is naught more than a strawman criticism.

Just because I don't follow it in my practice or give it much credence, doesn't mean I haven't investigated it. I have read texts like A Manual Of Abhidhamma, Visuddhimagga and some of Nina Van Gorkom's works so I'm certainly not unfamiliar with the concepts. I think those readings alone (let alone other readings done in the Abhidhamma space) are sufficient by way of investigation to allow me to wager an opinion. If you wish to demonstrate that I have understood them incorrectly, then please present your counter arguments, or hold your peace.

Metta,
Retro.

[octathlon]

Just coming in and can't read through every post, but

"Is there a consciousness during deep sleep when no mental formations are there for support?"

I would like to know what is the evidence for the original assumption, that there are no mental formations during deep sleep. I don't think we can just assume that because we don't "remember" them after waking up that they didn't occur. Did I miss that part of the thread?

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Ben,

consciousness with object

In this case, what is the object, bearing in mind the following?

"Monks, I will teach you the All. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak."

"As you say, lord," the monks responded.

The Blessed One said, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range."

Metta,
Retro.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Octathlon,

Just coming in and can't read through every post, but

"Is there a consciousness during deep sleep when no mental formations are there for support?"

I would like to know what is the evidence for the original assumption, that there are no mental formations during deep sleep. I don't think we can just assume that because we don't "remember" them after waking up that they didn't occur. Did I miss that part of the thread?

The original post in this topic contains a link to the original topic in the Discovering Theravada forum from which it spawned.

Metta,
Retro.

[tiltbillings]

Greetings Tilt,

The section is "Discovering Theravada." Theravada -- by definition -- includes the Abhidhamma and the commentaries. That there are later, minority, positions that are critical of the more traditional position is fine, but they are better discuissed in a different section.

When the Suttas and Abhidhammic Commentary are at odds, as they are here (unless anyone wishes to attempt the still unattempted reconciliation), there is no one single definitive Theravada position to provide. It is entirely appropriate to present the different views that exist within the spectrum of Theravada, because it is the Discovering Theravada forum, not the Discovering Mahavihara forum.

Then you should not complain when someone snipes at your snipes.

If you are going to criticize a point of view, it is up to you to show that you have a good handle on what that point of view is actually about, otherwise it is naught more than a strawman criticism.

Just because I don't follow it in my practice or give it much credence, doesn't mean I haven't investigated it. I have read texts like A Manual Of Abhidhamma, Visuddhimagga and some of Nina Van Gorkom's works so I'm certainly not unfamiliar with the concepts. I think those readings alone (let alone other readings done in the Abhidhamma space) are sufficient by way of investigation to allow me to wager an opinion. If you wish to demonstrate that I have understood them incorrectly, then please present your counter arguments, or hold your peace.

That is nice that you have read all those things, but the point is that, before dismissing a point of view out of hand such as the bhavanga, you should be able to make the argument for that point of view, showing that you actually understand it. That you have not done, not even close. The question is, for you, can a traditional Theravadin find awakening, or are they all -- to use your words -- wallowing in "I-making?"

[octathlon]

Oh dear. So these 5-pages-in-one-day are only the tip of the iceberg? OK, I will just say "body & tactile sensations" are present and get out of y'all's way.

[tiltbillings]

Just coming in and can't read through every post, but

"Is there a consciousness during deep sleep when no mental formations are there for support?"

I would like to know what is the evidence for the original assumption, that there are no mental formations during deep sleep. I don't think we can just assume that because we don't "remember" them after waking up that they didn't occur. Did I miss that part of the thread?

Actually, sleep is not so much the issue, it is what is found in this text in this msg:


viewtopic.php?f=16&t=9585&start=20#p147236

It is a an issue that Buddhist have looked at with some interest.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Tilt,

Then you should not complain when someone snipes at your snipes.

If I have presented an illogical or ill-founded argument or conclusion at any point in this conversation, I open the floor to anyone to provide a counter-argument that addresses the argument in question. Please Tilt, be my guest.

That is nice that you have read all those things, but the point is that, before dismissing a point of view out of hand such as the bhavanga, you should be able to make the argument for that point of view, showing that you actually understand it.

Make an argument for the opposing point of view? That's a new one. I'm happy to explain or define it as accurately as I can, but I'm not going to put forward arguments in favour of something I don't believe. That would be hypocritical and against the conventions of debate. (You may observe that my original post, which you found so inappropriate, contained a full dictionary-sourced defintion of bhavanga-citta)

The question is, for you, can a traditional Theravadin find awakening, or are they all -- to use your words -- wallowing in "I-making?"

Given my inability to penetrate their minds in order to know what they're thinking and how they're interpreting what they read of the Dhamma, I don't see how I could answer that. I doubt anyone's Dhammic path involves intentional wallowing in "I-making", nor does the Theravada tradition teach the wallowing in "I-making"... some parts just seem more actively geared against that "I-making" tendency than others.

Metta,
Retro.

[tiltbillings]

Greetings Tilt,

Then you should not complain when someone snipes at your snipes.

If I have presented an illogical or ill-founded argument or conclusion at any point in this conversation, I open the floor to anyone to provide a counter-argument that addresses the argument in question. Please Tilt, be my guest.

Counter-arguments have been presented.

That is nice that you have read all those things, but the point is that, before dismissing a point of view out of hand such as the bhavanga, you should be able to make the argument for that point of view, showing that you actually understand it.

Make an argument for the opposing point of view? That's a new one.

It is standard debating procedure to show that you are presenting the actual argument of the opponent.

The question is, for you, can a traditional Theravadin find awakening, or are they all -- to use your words -- wallowing in "I-making?"

Given my inability to penetrate their minds in order to know what they're thinking and how they're interpreting what they read of the Dhamma, I don't see how I could answer that. I doubt anyone's Dhammic path involves intentional wallowing in "I-making", nor does the Theravada tradition teach the wallowing in "I-making"... some parts just seem more actively geared against that "I-making" tendency than others.

But you have not shown that these supposed "some parts" are more prone to "I-making." You have stated that, repeatedly, but that is not an argument, which means there is not really much to respond to.

But the general point in this paragraph of yours should not be lost: 'the Theravada tradition teach the wallowing in "I-making"'.