viññāṇa as divided knowing

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22396
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: viññāṇa as divided knowing

Post by Ceisiwr »

PeterC86 wrote: Mon Feb 06, 2023 6:59 pm
Ceisiwr wrote: Mon Feb 06, 2023 6:30 pm
PeterC86 wrote: Mon Feb 06, 2023 4:57 pm Of course, there are also the 'DO is physical' teachers,
Since dependent origination, in terms of the 12-link formula, contains both physical and mental dhammas no one claims it is "physical".
It is very simple Ceisiwr. Ask yourself the question; do I have knowledge?


If the answer is yes, you have confirmed your self-view.
That doesn't have anything to do with what I just said.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
PeterC86
Posts: 1412
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2019 7:06 pm

Re: viññāṇa as divided knowing

Post by PeterC86 »

Ceisiwr wrote: Mon Feb 06, 2023 8:34 pm
PeterC86 wrote: Mon Feb 06, 2023 6:59 pm
Ceisiwr wrote: Mon Feb 06, 2023 6:30 pm

Since dependent origination, in terms of the 12-link formula, contains both physical and mental dhammas no one claims it is "physical".
It is very simple Ceisiwr. Ask yourself the question; do I have knowledge?


If the answer is yes, you have confirmed your self-view.
That doesn't have anything to do with what I just said.
It has everything to do with what you said, because you know what I mean, and you know that I know that you know what I mean.

So ask yourself the question..
ssasny
Posts: 379
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2020 10:03 pm

Re: viññāṇa as divided knowing

Post by ssasny »

"But if they learn and it is very remarkable how quickly they learn
It makes not only but by and by
And they can not only be not here
But not there
Which after all makes no difference
After all this does not make any does not make any difference
I add added it to it.
I could rather be rather be here."

-from 'Stanzas in Meditation' by Gertrude Stein
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22396
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: viññāṇa as divided knowing

Post by Ceisiwr »

PeterC86 wrote: Mon Feb 06, 2023 8:38 pm
Ceisiwr wrote: Mon Feb 06, 2023 8:34 pm
PeterC86 wrote: Mon Feb 06, 2023 6:59 pm

It is very simple Ceisiwr. Ask yourself the question; do I have knowledge?


If the answer is yes, you have confirmed your self-view.
That doesn't have anything to do with what I just said.
It has everything to do with what you said, because you know what I mean, and you know that I know that you know what I mean.

So ask yourself the question..
Positioning yourself as an awakened master and I the foolish worldling has nothing to do with how your interlocutors view dependent origination. I could be the most ignorant man alive, and still what you said would be a misrepresentation. Whilst dependent origination, traditionally conceived, has physical aspects to it to describe that view as being simply about a physical process is a mischaracterisation.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
ssasny
Posts: 379
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2020 10:03 pm

Re: viññāṇa as divided knowing

Post by ssasny »

"Should they call me what they call me
When they come to call on me
And should I be satisfied with all three
When all three are with me
Or should I say may they stay
Or will they stay with me
On no account must they cry out
About which one went where they went
In time to stay away may be they do
But I doubt it
As they were very much able to stay there.
However may they go if they say so."

Stanza 16, Gertrude Stein
wenjaforever
Posts: 390
Joined: Tue May 24, 2022 4:44 am

Re: viññāṇa as divided knowing

Post by wenjaforever »

What is the soul and consciousness translated into in Pali language? Are they 2 different words?
money is worthless toilet paper • the tongue has no bone (a person might say one thing but it cannot be further from the truth) • you cannot teach a goat math as in you cannot teach the dhamma to a dumb person
ssasny
Posts: 379
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2020 10:03 pm

Re: viññāṇa as divided knowing

Post by ssasny »

wenjaforever wrote: Mon Feb 06, 2023 8:59 pm What is the soul and consciousness translated into in Pali language? Are they 2 different words?
There are probably several words, but typically attan and viññāṇa

from the Pali English Dictionary:

Attan (m.) & atta (the latter is the form used in compn.) [Vedic ātman]
1. The soul as postulated in the animistic theories held in N India in the 6th and 7th cent. B. C. It is described in the Upanishads as a small creature, in shape like a man, dwelling in ordinary times in the heart. It escapes from the body in sleep or trance; when it returns to the body life and motion reappear. It escapes from the body at death, then continues to carry on an everlasting life of its own.

Viññāṇa (nt.) [fr. vi+jñā; cp. Vedic vijñāna cognition]
(as special term in Buddhist metaphysics) a mental quality as a constituent of individuality, the bearer of (individual) life, life-force (as extending also over rebirths), principle of conscious life, general consciousness (as function of mind and matter), regenerative force, animation, mind as transmigrant, as transforming (according to individual kamma) one individual life (after death) into the next.


(there are many contextual uses of viññāṇa in the suttas. See the full Dictionary entry for an in depth discussion
for instance, the aggregate called 'viññāṇa' seems a different usage than 'viññāṇa' found in the typical dependent origination formula. It's a challenging word to translate and understand.)
Last edited by ssasny on Mon Feb 06, 2023 9:27 pm, edited 3 times in total.
PeterC86
Posts: 1412
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2019 7:06 pm

Re: viññāṇa as divided knowing

Post by PeterC86 »

Ceisiwr wrote: Mon Feb 06, 2023 8:56 pm
PeterC86 wrote: Mon Feb 06, 2023 8:38 pm
Ceisiwr wrote: Mon Feb 06, 2023 8:34 pm

That doesn't have anything to do with what I just said.
It has everything to do with what you said, because you know what I mean, and you know that I know that you know what I mean.

So ask yourself the question..
Positioning yourself as an awakened master and I the foolish worldling has nothing to do with how your interlocutors view dependent origination. I could be the most ignorant man alive, and still what you said would be a misrepresentation. Whilst dependent origination, traditionally conceived, has physical aspects to it to describe that view as being simply about a physical process is a mischaracterisation.
Especially for you Ceisiwr; the 'birth in DO refers to the process of physical birth, as well as mental birth, although physical birth is cognized, nonetheless it refers to physical birth even though it is cognized, so without regarding that what is cognized as physical birth is cognized, the process of DO spans multiple cognized physical lives, that even though they are cognized are regarded as not-cognized' teachers. Does that qualify as an adequate characterisation? Just so as I am clear that I am not misrepresenting..
Last edited by PeterC86 on Mon Feb 06, 2023 9:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22396
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: viññāṇa as divided knowing

Post by Ceisiwr »

PeterC86 wrote: Mon Feb 06, 2023 9:21 pm
Ceisiwr wrote: Mon Feb 06, 2023 8:56 pm
PeterC86 wrote: Mon Feb 06, 2023 8:38 pm

It has everything to do with what you said, because you know what I mean, and you know that I know that you know what I mean.

So ask yourself the question..
Positioning yourself as an awakened master and I the foolish worldling has nothing to do with how your interlocutors view dependent origination. I could be the most ignorant man alive, and still what you said would be a misrepresentation. Whilst dependent origination, traditionally conceived, has physical aspects to it to describe that view as being simply about a physical process is a mischaracterisation.
Especially for you Ceisiwr; the 'birth in DO refers to the process of physical birth, as well as mental birth, although physical birth is cognized, nonetheless it refers to physical birth even though it is cognized, so without regarding that what is cognized as physical birth is cognized, the process of DO spans multiple cognized physical lives, that even though they are cognized are regarded as not-cognized' teachers. Does that qualify as an adequate characterisation?
A little wordy, and not all that clear, but at least an improvement on it just being a physical process.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
ssasny
Posts: 379
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2020 10:03 pm

Re: viññāṇa as divided knowing

Post by ssasny »

For instance, later Pāli texts speak of a 'paṭisandhi-viññāṇa', a 'rebirth-linking consciousness'. A very different 'viññāṇa' than say, the contact between a sense base and a sense object.
PeterC86
Posts: 1412
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2019 7:06 pm

Re: viññāṇa as divided knowing

Post by PeterC86 »

Ceisiwr wrote: Mon Feb 06, 2023 9:24 pm
PeterC86 wrote: Mon Feb 06, 2023 9:21 pm
Ceisiwr wrote: Mon Feb 06, 2023 8:56 pm

Positioning yourself as an awakened master and I the foolish worldling has nothing to do with how your interlocutors view dependent origination. I could be the most ignorant man alive, and still what you said would be a misrepresentation. Whilst dependent origination, traditionally conceived, has physical aspects to it to describe that view as being simply about a physical process is a mischaracterisation.
Especially for you Ceisiwr; the 'birth in DO refers to the process of physical birth, as well as mental birth, although physical birth is cognized, nonetheless it refers to physical birth even though it is cognized, so without regarding that what is cognized as physical birth is cognized, the process of DO spans multiple cognized physical lives, that even though they are cognized are regarded as not-cognized' teachers. Does that qualify as an adequate characterisation?
A little wordy, and not all that clear, but at least an improvement on it just being a physical process.
Now as we may have arrived in acceptable terms of what was already clear for both of us before we came to terms on what was already clear for both of us, maybe you can ask yourself the question..

Good night.
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22396
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: viññāṇa as divided knowing

Post by Ceisiwr »

ssasny wrote: Mon Feb 06, 2023 9:24 pm For instance, later Pāli texts speak of a 'paṭisandhi-viññana', a 'rebirth-linking consciousness'. A very different 'viññaṇa' than say, the contact between a sense base and a sense object.
The contact going on there is a mental one. It arises due to intention (kamma).
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
ssasny
Posts: 379
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2020 10:03 pm

Re: viññāṇa as divided knowing

Post by ssasny »

not only is it mental, in this context it generally implies an I and mine-making.

As Ven Nanavira has written:

"phassa comes to be seen as contact between the conscious eye and forms—but mark that this is because contact is primarily between subject and object, and not between eye, forms, and eye-consciousness. This approach makes it possible to see in what sense, with the entire cessation of all illusion of 'I' and 'mine', there is phassanirodha in the arahat (where, though there are still, so long as he continues to live, both the conscious body and the other phenomena, there is no longer any appropriation). But when (as commonly) phassa is interpreted as 'contact between sense-organ and sense-object, resulting in consciousness'—and its translation as '(sense-)impression' implies this interpretation—then we are at once cut off from all possibility of understanding phassanirodha in the arahat;"
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22396
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: viññāṇa as divided knowing

Post by Ceisiwr »

ssasny wrote: Mon Feb 06, 2023 9:33 pm not only is it mental, in this context it generally implies an I and mine-making.

As Ven Nanavira has written:

"phassa comes to be seen as contact between the conscious eye and forms—but mark that this is because contact is primarily between subject and object, and not between eye, forms, and eye-consciousness. This approach makes it possible to see in what sense, with the entire cessation of all illusion of 'I' and 'mine', there is phassanirodha in the arahat (where, though there are still, so long as he continues to live, both the conscious body and the other phenomena, there is no longer any appropriation). But when (as commonly) phassa is interpreted as 'contact between sense-organ and sense-object, resulting in consciousness'—and its translation as '(sense-)impression' implies this interpretation—then we are at once cut off from all possibility of understanding phassanirodha in the arahat;"
The point being that it still involves contact between a sense base and an object. As for Venerable Ñāṇavīra, I don't agree with this arguments.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
Jack19990101
Posts: 714
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2021 4:40 am

Re: viññāṇa as divided knowing

Post by Jack19990101 »

There is outer sense-base -
there is inner sense-base.

Contact with outer sense-base, is not Phassa as in dependent origination context nor
It is the phassa that gonna cease.

Outer sense-base contacts continue on after consciousness ceases to contact with inner sense-base, i.e. our common physical death, Samadhi, sleep, or certain traumatic event, coma, under anestasia(those drugs?)

It is the inner sense-base that Phassa is talking about. (to my opinion).
Post Reply