That doesn't have anything to do with what I just said.
viññāṇa as divided knowing
Re: viññāṇa as divided knowing
“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.”
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.”
Re: viññāṇa as divided knowing
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..
Re: viññāṇa as divided knowing
"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
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
Re: viññāṇa as divided knowing
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.”
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.”
Re: viññāṇa as divided knowing
"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
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
-
- Posts: 390
- Joined: Tue May 24, 2022 4:44 am
Re: viññāṇa as divided knowing
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
Re: viññāṇa as divided knowing
There are probably several words, but typically attan and viññāṇawenjaforever wrote: ↑Mon Feb 06, 2023 8:59 pm What is the soul and consciousness translated into in Pali language? Are they 2 different words?
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.
Re: viññāṇa as divided knowing
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..Ceisiwr wrote: ↑Mon Feb 06, 2023 8:56 pmPositioning 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.
Last edited by PeterC86 on Mon Feb 06, 2023 9:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: viññāṇa as divided knowing
A little wordy, and not all that clear, but at least an improvement on it just being a physical process.PeterC86 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 06, 2023 9:21 pmEspecially 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?Ceisiwr wrote: ↑Mon Feb 06, 2023 8:56 pmPositioning 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.”
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.”
Re: viññāṇa as divided knowing
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.
Re: viññāṇa as divided knowing
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..Ceisiwr wrote: ↑Mon Feb 06, 2023 9:24 pmA little wordy, and not all that clear, but at least an improvement on it just being a physical process.PeterC86 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 06, 2023 9:21 pmEspecially 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?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.
Good night.
Re: viññāṇa as divided knowing
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.”
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.”
Re: viññāṇa as divided knowing
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;"
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;"
Re: viññāṇa as divided knowing
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.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;"
“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.”
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.”
-
- Posts: 714
- Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2021 4:40 am
Re: viññāṇa as divided knowing
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).
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).