Why there is no re-linking consciousness

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
Element

Re: Why there is no re-linking consciousness

Post by Element »

Individual wrote:There's your luminous mind, there's your bhavanga. And it's not dependent on the brain or any particular rupa.
Buddha said:
“You foolish fellow (mogha-purisa), to whom have you ever known me to teach dhamma in that way? You foolish fellow, have I not stated in many discourses that consciousness is dependently arisen, since without a condition consciousness does not come into being? But you, you foolish fellow, have misrepresented us by your wrong grasp & injured yourself and stored up much demerit (apunna); for this will lead to your harm & suffering for a long time.”
Mahàtanhàsankhaya Sutta
Be careful.

With metta

Element
Last edited by Element on Fri Jan 30, 2009 10:51 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
cooran
Posts: 8503
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 11:32 pm
Location: Queensland, Australia

Re: Why there is no re-linking consciousness

Post by cooran »

Hello all,

Some may be interested in this paper by Ven. Bhikkhu Sujato on Perspectives of Early Buddhism - Rebirth and the In-Between State in Early Buddhism
Note that this paper (as with the others) will only be available for download until 2 February, 2009.
http://www.c2rc.org/papers.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

metta
Chris
---The trouble is that you think you have time---
---Worry is the Interest, paid in advance, on a debt you may never owe---
---It's not what happens to you in life that is important ~ it's what you do with it ---
Element

Re: Why there is no re-linking consciousness

Post by Element »

piotr wrote:Hi,

Bija-sutta (SN 22.54) may also interest you.
Hi Piotr,

The above sutta is 100% irrelevent to the topic. This sutta is merely about the growth, increase & proliferation of consciousness as it absorbs and becoming fixated into aramana or various sense objects connected to emotion. This sutta is perfectly explained in the video I previously posted. This sutta has no relationship to relinking consciousness.

With metta

Element
Element

Re: Why there is no re-linking consciousness

Post by Element »

Chris wrote:Some may be interested in this paper by Ven. Bhikkhu Sujato on Perspectives of Early Buddhism - Rebirth and the In-Between State in Early Buddhism
Note that this paper (as with the others) will only be available for download until 2 February, 2009.
http://www.c2rc.org/papers.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In his first sermon, the Buddha presented the Four Noble Truths: suffering, its origin, cessation, and the path. The first term in the definition of suffering is jāti, which we translate as ‘birth’, although ‘conception’ might be more accurate. Note that birth is an existential problem, to be overcome, and hence cannot merely refer to one’s birth in this life. It must refer, as the universal testimony of the Buddhist traditions affirm, to rebirth in saṁsāra, as part of an endless stream of lives. Hence the second Noble Truth is yāyaṁ taṇhā ponobbhavikā, ‘that craving pertaining to future existence’, and the Third is ‘the complete fading away and cessation of that very craving’ (yo tassāyeva taṇhāya asesavirāganirodho...). These few phrases establish rebirth as central to the Buddha’s fundamental teachings.
Dear Chris, All,

Jati in the First Noble Truth is birth rather than conception.

For both woman and child birth is difficult to bear. The word dukkha literally means difficult to bear.

In MN 38 and MN 130, the Buddha said about birth:
Bhikkhus, the conception of an embryo in a womb takes place through the union of three things (Tiṇṇaṃ kho pana, bhikkhave, sannipātā gabbhassāvakkanti hoti). The mother then carries the embryo in her womb for nine or ten months with much anxiety, as a heavy burden. Then, at the end of nine or ten months, the mother gives birth with much anxiety, as a heavy burden. Then, when the child is born, she nourishes it with her own blood; for the mother’s breast-milk is called blood in the Noble One’s (ariya) training.

The king of the under world cross questions, asks for reasons and studies together with him thus. ‘Good man did you not see the first divine messenger among humans?’ He says ‘Sir I did not see.’ Then the king of the under world would ask him. ‘Good man didn’t you see a todler who stands and lies with difficulty, mingled in his own urine and excreta while lying?’
The First Noble Truth teaches attachment to the five aggregates is suffering. It does not explicity teach birth, death, pain, etc, are suffering. Buddha said: "In short, attachment to the five aggregates is dukkha". For example, when Buddha was dying, his mind experienced great pain yet he did not suffer. When there is non-attachment towards those born dear (piyajatika), there will be no suffering.
"That's the way it is, householder. That's the way it is — for sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress & despair are born from one who is dear, come springing from one who is dear."

Piyajatika Sutta
Regarding the matter and meaning of becoming, this has been discussed already. To me, Bhikkhu Sujato is clearly mistaken when he associates becoming in the Second Noble Truth to a literal 'future existence’. To me, Bhikkhu Sujato sounds very confused.

With metta

Element
Last edited by Element on Sat Jan 31, 2009 12:16 am, edited 1 time in total.
Element

Re: Why there is no re-linking consciousness

Post by Element »

Chris wrote:Some may be interested in this paper by Ven. Bhikkhu Sujato on Perspectives of Early Buddhism - Rebirth and the In-Between State in Early Buddhism
Note that this paper (as with the others) will only be available for download until 2 February, 2009.
http://www.c2rc.org/papers.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

‘Whatever ascetics or priests there are that recollect their manifold past lives, all of them recollect the five grasping-aggregates or one of them’. This
suggests that the aggregates are empirical realities that characterize not just this life, but past lives as well. Thus the Saṁyutta tells us that the unawakened individual runs and circles around these five aggregates from one life to the next.

metta
Chris
Dear Chris, All

I must disagree with Bhikkhu Sujato again. The sutta states:
At Savatthi. "Monks, any priests or contemplatives who recollect their manifold past dwellings all recollect the five aggregates clung to or one among them. Which five? When recollecting, 'I was one with such a form in the past,' one is recollecting just form. Or when recollecting, 'I was one with such a feeling in the past,' one is recollecting just feeling. Or when recollecting, 'I was one with such a perception in the past,' one is recollecting just perception. Or when recollecting, 'I was one with such mental fabrications in the past,' one is recollecting just mental fabrications. Or when recollecting, 'I was one with such a consciousness in the past,' one is recollecting just consciousness.
Buddha has spoken clearly, saying - when recollecting 'I was one with such a form in the past,' one is recollecting just form. In other words, the mind thinks back to the past: "I was so fit and handsome when I was young". The Buddha is stating here in the past there was only form, there was no "I".

Thus, when one is enlightened, say, like the Lord Buddha was, not only is the mind in the present free from the delusion of 'self' but the mind realises in the past it had no 'self' either. In the past, the mind was merely deluded. In the past, the mind foolishly regarded the five aggregates as "I" and "mine".

On the night of the Buddha's enlightenment, not only did his mind stop concocting 'self' in the present but his power of insight erradicated all of the clinging in the substratum of the mind that was build up or accumulated from the past.

In one sutta, I cannot recall it, the Buddha said when he was still the Bodhisatva, his mind would not run to the future nor in the present chasing sensuality. However, his mind would often run back and ponder past sensuality. This occurs because of the mind's past regarding of things as 'self' and 'pleasant'.

There are things I am not interested in now that I took an interest in in the past. However, if I recollect the past, the pleasure of those past experiences may arise strongly even though I may feel sad if I see people performing those actions today.

This is recollection of past dwellings. During the first watch of the night, the Buddha's mind purified itself of the deep and subtle attachments connected to past dwellings.

In the sutta, the Buddha goes on further to say:
This, monks, is called a disciple of the noble ones who tears down and does not build up; who abandons and does not cling; who discards and does not pull in; who scatters and does not pile up.
It appears Bhikkhu Sujato is building up rather than tearing down; clinging rather than abandoning; pulling in rather than discarding; piling up rather than scattering.

With metta

Element
Element

Re: Why there is no re-linking consciousness

Post by Element »

Individual wrote: "There is no re-linking consciousness" contradicts kamma and dependent origination.
Individual

Most regard various Buddhist teachings as somehow different. However, most of the Buddha's teachings are more or less expressions of the one path or the same causes for the arising of dukkha.

Take for example ignorance, the asava and the five hindrances. Whilst the five hindrances and the asava are not mentioned in dependent origination, these three dhammas on the side of dukkka are all part of ignorance. In AN X.61, the Buddha states the food or ahara of ignorance is the five hindrances. As long as the five hindrances remain, ignorance will continue to remain.

To understand how ignorance conditions consciousness in dependent origination is the same as understanding how the five hindrances taint or cloud the luminous mind.

In the suttas, the Buddha states:
If there is water in a pot mixed with red, yellow, blue or orange color, a man with a normal faculty of sight, looking into it, could not properly recognize and see the image of his own face. In the same way, when one's mind is possessed by sensual desire, overpowered by sensual desire, one cannot properly see the escape from sensual desire which has arisen; then one does not properly understand and see one's own welfare, nor that of another, nor that of both; and also texts memorized a long time ago do not come into one's mind, not to speak of those not memorized.

If there is a pot of water heated on the fire, the water seething and boiling, a man with a normal faculty of sight, looking into it, could not properly recognize and see the image of his own face. In the same way, when one's mind is possessed by ill-will, overpowered by ill-will, one cannot properly see the escape from the ill-will which has arisen; then one does not properly understand and see one's own welfare, nor that of another, nor that of both; and also texts memorized a long time ago do not come into one's mind, not to speak of those not memorized.

If there is a pot of water, covered with moss and water plants, then a man with a normal faculty of sight looking into it could not properly recognize and see the image of his own face. In the same way, when one's mind is possessed by sloth and torpor, overpowered by sloth and torpor, one cannot properly see the escape from sloth and torpor that have arisen; then one does not properly understand one's own welfare, nor that of another, nor that of both; and also texts memorized a long time ago do not come into one's mind, not to speak of those not memorized.

Sangaravo Sutta
I would suggest this is the way to understand dependent origination. Ignorance conditions formations and formations condition consciousness, in the same manner as in the Buddha's similes above about the five hindrances.

In short, dependent origination is not about meta-physics and does not expound a 're-linking consciousness'.

With metta

Element
Element

Re: Why there is no re-linking consciousness

Post by Element »

Drolma wrote:Dear Element,

Where is the implication in this sutta that the process stops after the sensual objects, material objects, and immaerial objects have been nourished by craving? In the sutta these processes do not seem to be independent of one another. Would we not be continually planting kammic seeds as afflicted consciousness arises?

Kindly,
Drolma
Hi Drolma

To me, the sutta is only about dukkha's arising and does not mention cessation. Using the metaphor found in the sutta, I would say consciousness or mind ceases to be afflicted when the seed is not planted in certain fields of kamma and is not nourished by craving.

In the Upaya Sutta, the Buddha described liberated consciousness.
When that consciousness is unestablished, not coming to growth, nongenerative, it is liberated. By being liberated, it is steady; by being steady, it is content; by being content, he is not agitated. Being not agitated, he personally attains Nibbana. He understands: 'Destroyed is birth, the holy life has been lived, what had to be done has been done, there is no more for this state of being'.
With metta

Element
User avatar
Dhammanando
Posts: 6492
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:44 pm
Location: Mae Wang Huai Rin, Li District, Lamphun

Re: Why there is no re-linking consciousness

Post by Dhammanando »

Hi Element,
Element wrote:The Bhava Sutta does not explain relinking consciousness.
You are indulging in your usual penchant for moving the goalposts. What you asked Piotr to supply was not a sutta explaining relinking consciousness, but rather, one supporting his claim that "viññāṇa is a cognition but I don't think that it is correct to say that it's "merely cognition", since it's also described as a seed with other kammic factors that nourish it."

This is what we have both done.

Best wishes,
Dhammanando Bhikkhu
Yena yena hi maññanti,
tato taṃ hoti aññathā.


In whatever way they conceive it,
It turns out otherwise.
(Sn. 588)
Element

Re: Why there is no re-linking consciousness

Post by Element »

Dhammanando wrote:What you asked Piotr to supply was not a sutta explaining relinking consciousness, but rather, one supporting his claim that "viññāṇa is a cognition but I don't think that it is correct to say that it's "merely cognition", since it's also described as a seed with other kammic factors that nourish it."
Piotr held 'seeds' are 'relinking' (which is the reason he raised it).

The sutta states "consciousness becomes grounded". This is delight, attachment or mental fixation.

However, it reality, it is not consciousness which is the "storehouse" of craving. The storehouse of craving is the citta or sankhara khanda.

If anything performs a function of 'relinking', it would be sanna and sankhara khandas rather than vinnana khanda.

Memories, tendencies, accumulations, etc, are stored in the citta rather than vinnana.

With metta

Element
User avatar
Dhammanando
Posts: 6492
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:44 pm
Location: Mae Wang Huai Rin, Li District, Lamphun

Re: Why there is no re-linking consciousness

Post by Dhammanando »

Element wrote:However, it reality, it is not consciousness which is the "storehouse" of craving. The storehouse of craving is the citta or sankhara khanda.

If anything performs a function of 'relinking', it would be sanna and sankhara khandas rather than vinnana khanda.

Memories, tendencies, accumulations, etc, are stored in the citta rather than vinnana.
Citta is never defined as the aggregate of formations. It is in fact a synonym of viññāṇa.
  • "But, bhikkhus, as to that which is called 'mind' (citta), that which is called 'mentality' (mano), that which is called 'consciousness' (viññāṇa), — the uninstructed worldling is unable to experience revulsion towards it, unable to become dispassionate towards it and be liberated from it.

    "It would be better, bhikkhus, for the uninstructed worldling to take as self this body composed of the four great elements rather than the mind (citta). For what reason? Because this body composed of the four great elements is seen standing for one year, for two years, for three, four, five, or ten years, for twenty, thirty, forty, or fifty years, for a hundred years, or even longer. But that which is called 'mind' (citta), that which is called 'mentality' (mano), that which is called 'consciousness' (viññāṇa) arises as one thing and ceases as another by day and by night."
    (Assutavā Sutta, SN.ii.94. Bodhi trans.)
Best wishes,
Dhammanando Bhikkhu
Yena yena hi maññanti,
tato taṃ hoti aññathā.


In whatever way they conceive it,
It turns out otherwise.
(Sn. 588)
Element

Re: Why there is no re-linking consciousness

Post by Element »

Dhammanando wrote:
  • "But, bhikkhus, as to that which is called 'mind' (citta), that which is called 'mentality' (mano), that which is called 'consciousness' (viññāṇa), — the uninstructed worldling is unable to experience revulsion towards it, unable to become dispassionate towards it and be liberated from it.

    "It would be better, bhikkhus, for the uninstructed worldling to take as self this body composed of the four great elements rather than the mind (citta). For what reason? Because this body composed of the four great elements is seen standing for one year, for two years, for three, four, five, or ten years, for twenty, thirty, forty, or fifty years, for a hundred years, or even longer. But that which is called 'mind' (citta), that which is called 'mentality' (mano), that which is called 'consciousness' (viññāṇa) arises as one thing and ceases as another by day and by night."
    (Assutavā Sutta, SN.ii.94. Bodhi trans.)
Dhammanando

I was hoping you would find the above quote. I advised Individual earlier the Buddha said somewhere the body was more permanent than consciousness.

As for synonymity, having different names clearly negates this. For example, vinnana does not think.

Mano vinnana knows mental objects. Mental objects are concocted and/or performed by the citta.

With metta

Element
User avatar
Dhammanando
Posts: 6492
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:44 pm
Location: Mae Wang Huai Rin, Li District, Lamphun

Re: Why there is no re-linking consciousness

Post by Dhammanando »

Element wrote:As for synonymity, having different names clearly negates this.
What an absurd statement! Far from negating it, synonymity requires that one referent have two or more names. "Citta is citta is citta" would be tautology, not synonymity.
For example, vinnana does not think.
Correct, it cognizes an object. As does that which is called citta.
Mano vinnana knows mental objects. Mental objects are concocted and/or performed by the citta.
Mental objects (dhammā) arises from a variety of causes, but are not "concocted" by the consciousness that cognizes them any more than visual objects are concocted by eye-consciousness, sounds by ear consciousness etc.

Best wishes,
Dhammanando Bhikkhu
Yena yena hi maññanti,
tato taṃ hoti aññathā.


In whatever way they conceive it,
It turns out otherwise.
(Sn. 588)
User avatar
piotr
Posts: 412
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 4:33 pm
Location: Khettadesa

Re: Why there is no re-linking consciousness

Post by piotr »

Hi,
Element wrote:Piotr held 'seeds' are 'relinking' (which is the reason he raised it).
I would love to see where I have stated thus.
Bhagavaṃmūlakā no, bhante, dhammā...
elaine
Posts: 16
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 5:59 pm

Re: Why there is no re-linking consciousness

Post by elaine »

Why there is no re-linking consciousness? I think there is a relinking consciousness or else "what" would "link" our past consciousness to the future consciousness during rebirth, right?


"Consciousness is like a seed (vinnanam bijam) for the growth of the relinking consciousness (patisandhi vinnana) and craving (tanha) is likened to the moisture or water element, which is an essential factor for its growth. A new conditioning consciousness (abhisankhara vinnana) that conditions new becoming takes as its object kamma, a sign of kamma, or a sign of destiny at the moment of dying. There are two causes for new life: kamma and tanha. But kamma without tanha cannot bring about new becoming. Tanha is the main cause. Therefore, it is said that tanha produces rebirth.

The consciousness that arises at the first moment of conception, is known as relinking consciousness, also takes as its object kamma, a sign of kamma, or a sign of destiny. The relinking consciousness is followed by the life continuum consciousness (bhavanga citta) which goes on continuously throughout life, even if there is no sense consciousness arising. According to the Abhidhamma, relinking consciousness, life continuum consciousness, and death consciousness within a single life are all in the same category. They arise as the result of one particular kamma in the past life that appeared at the moment of dying. Thus, tanha forms the root cause of the new existence or new becoming." - from the book, The First Discourse of the Buddha By Revatadhamma, Rewata Dhamma.


Personally, I don't believe in an immediate rebirth, I believe in Bardo, although Theravadins do not believe in a Bardo. Rebirth is supposedly immediate, right? But these assumptions are all just theoretical and speculative, obviously it cannot be proven by non-enlightened beings, right?

Edit: wait, I think I just contradicted myself. The first paragraph and the last paragraph don't match! Oh well... :embarassed:
Element

Re: Why there is no re-linking consciousness

Post by Element »

Dhammanando wrote:Mental objects (dhammā) arises from a variety of causes, but are not "concocted" by the consciousness that cognizes them any more than visual objects are concocted by eye-consciousness, sounds by ear consciousness etc.
Dhammanando

Unless you have made a typing error, we are in agreement here. You have said exactly what I said. Vinnana does not concoct but citta does.

The third satipatthana is contemplation of the citta, namely, cittanupassana.
And how does a monk remain focused on the mind in & of itself? There is the case where a monk, when the mind has passion, discerns that the mind has passion. When the mind is without passion, he discerns that the mind is without passion. When the mind has aversion, he discerns that the mind has aversion. When the mind is without aversion, he discerns that the mind is without aversion. When the mind has delusion, he discerns that the mind has delusion. When the mind is without delusion, he discerns that the mind is without delusion.
E
Post Reply