Ceisiwr wrote: ↑Fri Feb 21, 2020 1:01 pm
Greetings everyone... What are your thoughts on this teaching?
“Attributing a reality to whatever concept that comes up, the worldlings create for themselves perceptions of permanence, perceptions of the beautiful, and perceptions of self.
The above appears to say 'concepts' arise before 'perception', which appears contrary to the suttas. MN 18, for example.
In other words, they objectify these concepts in terms of craving, conceit and views.
The above appears to say 'concepts' arise before 'craving', which appears contrary to the suttas.
DN 22 wrote:"Eye-contact... Ear-contact... Nose-contact... Tongue-contact... Body-contact... Intellect-contact...
"Feeling born of eye-contact... Feeling born of ear-contact... Feeling born of nose-contact... Feeling born of tongue-contact... Feeling born of body-contact... Feeling born of intellect-contact...
"Perception of forms... Perception of sounds... Perception of smells... Perception of tastes... Perception of tactile sensations... Perception of ideas...
"Intention for forms... Intention for sounds... Intention for smells... Intention for tastes... Intention for tactile sensations... Intention for ideas...
"Craving for forms... Craving for sounds... Craving for smells... Craving for tastes... Craving for tactile sensations... Craving for ideas...
Thought directed at forms... Thought directed at sounds... Thought directed at smells... Thought directed at tastes... Thought directed at tactile sensations... Thought directed at ideas...
"Evaluation of forms... Evaluation of sounds... Evaluation of smells... Evaluation of tastes... Evaluation of tactile sensations... Evaluation of ideas seems endearing and agreeable in terms of the world. That is where this craving, when arising, arises. That is where, when dwelling, it dwells.
That objectification takes the form of some inherent nature attributed to them, such as earthiness, deva-hood (etc.).
Again, sounds contrary to the suttas. The suttas refer to certain (impermanent & selfless) natures as "earth", "gods", etc.
But as for the non-manifestative consciousness,it is free from the so-called natures that delude the worldlings.
It seems the teaching of "non-manifestative consciousness" is that which might delude the worldlings. The teaching of "non-manifestative consciousness" was given to Brahmas and Brahmans and none of them got enlightened. The teaching of "non-manifestative consciousness" is about a consciousness without nama-rupa, which is contrary to the core suttas. It seems possibly the teaching of "non-manifestative consciousness", given to Brahmans, is in the language of Brahmins. Brahmins are "worldlings".
In the consciousness of the arahants, there is not that infatuation with regard to the mass of concepts which the worldlings imagine as real, in order to keep going this drama of existence.
Sure. Arahants are without "infatuation" but they are not without concepts. If Arahants were without concepts, they could not think, speak or teach.
Sujato Monk wrote:
Viññāṇāṁ anidassanaṁ anantaṁ sabbato pabhaṁ
‘Consciousness non-manifest, infinte, radiant all around.’
This is sometimes said to be a term for Nibbana, although since it is an obscure poetic passage of dubious meaning we should not infer any major conclusions from it.
https://sujato.wordpress.com/2011/05/13 ... E2%80%99t/