'Consciousness without Surface': Not Eternalism?

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: 'Consciousness without Surface': Not Eternalism?

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings,
Ceisiwr wrote: Fri Sep 23, 2022 10:33 pm His insight was that there is no such thing to begin with.
cappuccino wrote: Fri Sep 23, 2022 11:22 pm No self is annihilationism
No it's not. Annihilationism involves destroying something that exists.
cappuccino wrote: Fri Sep 23, 2022 11:22 pmHis insight wasn’t no self
This, however is correct. Rather than "no self", the Buddha taught that "anything you might take as self, isn't". A subtle difference, but one that takes it from an speculative ontological view, to a true statement on the nature of anything experienced or conceived.

Metta,
Paul. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10172
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: 'Consciousness without Surface': Not Eternalism?

Post by Spiny Norman »

retrofuturist wrote: Sat Sep 24, 2022 2:15 am This, however is correct. Rather than "no self", the Buddha taught that "anything you might take as self, isn't". A subtle difference, but one that takes it from an speculative ontological view, to a true statement on the nature of anything experienced or conceived.
Though "Anything you might take as a self, isn't" still sounds like a view, or a position to be adopted, or even a strategy. A position taken to challenge, for example, the view that self is consciousness.
Last edited by Spiny Norman on Sat Sep 24, 2022 7:15 am, edited 1 time in total.
Buddha save me from new-agers!
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10172
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: 'Consciousness without Surface': Not Eternalism?

Post by Spiny Norman »

Ceisiwr wrote: Fri Sep 23, 2022 10:33 pm During the Buddha's time there were two large camps. Those of the eternalists and those of the annihilationists. Both used to get into heated debates with each other. Does the atta exist forever, or does it perish (or be made to perish). Then the Buddha comes along and points out they are arguing over something that hasn't even been established as true and existing. His insight was that there is no such thing to begin with. Both groups were tying themselves up in knots, getting into ever more heated and detailed debates over literally nothing. Instead, there are simply conditioned dhammas arising and ceasing according to conditions.
I think that's a good observation, though taking the position that there is no atta is still a view, isn't it?
"I have looked for an atta, but can't find one" is a valid statement, but going on to assert there is no atta sounds more like an expression of disbelief.
It's reminiscent of the debate between theists and atheists.
Buddha save me from new-agers!
User avatar
Pondera
Posts: 3073
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2011 10:02 pm

Re: 'Consciousness without Surface': Not Eternalism?

Post by Pondera »

Spiny Norman wrote: Sat Sep 24, 2022 6:45 am
retrofuturist wrote: Sat Sep 24, 2022 2:15 am This, however is correct. Rather than "no self", the Buddha taught that "anything you might take as self, isn't". A subtle difference, but one that takes it from an speculative ontological view, to a true statement on the nature of anything experienced or conceived.
Though "Anything you might take as a self, isn't" still sounds like a view, or a position to be adopted, or even a strategy. A position taken to challenge, for example, the view that self is consciousness.
I’d personally like to remain unconscious for eternity after I die, but, according to DN 1, this is a wrong view.

Does the Tathagata exist after death? Doesn’t apply.

Does the Tathagata not exist after death? Doesn’t apply.

Does the Tathagata both exist and not exist after death? DOESN’T APPLY. JEEZE - I’m starting to sound like a broken record.

Does the Tathagata neither exist nor not exist after death? LOOK BUD. ONE MORE QUESTION ABOUT THE NATURE OF THE TATHAGATA AFTER DEATH AND I’LL HAVE A YAKKA SMASH YOUR SKULL INTO A MILLION PIECES WITH A THUNDER BOLT.

Point is - hard to say. So how about we stop wondering and get on with jhana?
Like the three marks of conditioned existence, this world in itself is filthy, hostile, and crowded
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: 'Consciousness without Surface': Not Eternalism?

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Spiny,
Spiny Norman wrote: Sat Sep 24, 2022 6:45 am
retrofuturist wrote: Sat Sep 24, 2022 2:15 am This, however is correct. Rather than "no self", the Buddha taught that "anything you might take as self, isn't". A subtle difference, but one that takes it from an speculative ontological view, to a true statement on the nature of anything experienced or conceived.
Though "Anything you might take as a self, isn't" still sounds like a view, or a position to be adopted, or even a strategy. A position taken to challenge, for example, the view that self is consciousness.
Moreover, it's a direct consequence of sabbe sankhara anicca, which is an observable truth.

Metta,
Paul. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
Cause_and_Effect
Posts: 1067
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2021 7:39 am

Re: 'Consciousness without Surface': Not Eternalism?

Post by Cause_and_Effect »

Ceisiwr wrote: Fri Sep 23, 2022 10:21 pm
Cause_and_Effect wrote: Thu Sep 22, 2022 3:03 pm
You find liberation terrifyingly, preferring to conceptualize the goal as no different than any atheist materialist conceptualized death. Your view is a varient of annihilationism.
A materialist atheist thinks there is a self who dies. That "their" existence will come to an end. That isn't my view at all. My view is that there is no eternalism or annihilationism, existence or non-existence, when it comes to death because there isn't any self here at all. What doesn't really exist cannot live forever or perish. Saṃsāra is an empty process, in the non-Madhyamaka Sthavira sense.
There are variations of materialist atheism and yours is one. Many of them believe there is no fundamental self, soul or mind aside from the processes of the brain and body, and that when these cease at death that is the end of it all. Your views whether you realize or not, are heavily shaped by this and are essentially no different, aside from the view that you have to work extremely hard and contemplate the dhamma to achieve the same result that the materialist atheist thinks will happen to everyone anyway.
It's a corruption of the reading of the dhamma.
Ceisiwr wrote: Fri Sep 23, 2022 10:21 pm
Cause_and_Effect wrote: Thu Sep 22, 2022 3:03 pm The Buddha taught all that is subject to arising is subject to cessation.
I would agree. That which arises will cease. That which is dependent can never be independent. That which is impermanent never permanent. Citta is impermanent. Being impermanent it is dukkha and void. You are supposed to develop revulsion towards citta, not become enamoured with it.
You are supposed to develop revulsion towards all formations, all dependently arisen and thus inconstant phenomena of sensory experience. You develop revulsion using awareness, that knowingness is liberated. Your views of revulsion towards all including pure awareness free from sense contacts seem to be an offshoot of some kind of self-revulsion.

Ceisiwr wrote: Fri Sep 23, 2022 10:21 pm
Cause_and_Effect wrote: Thu Sep 22, 2022 3:03 pm
This is the only way to avoid intellectual annihilationists from corrupting the reading of the suttas due to their fear of the boundless infinite Island.
It might be worth bearing in mind that the highest meditative attainment in the Dhamma is the cessation of perception & feeling, which is comparable with being a corpse, rather than infinite conciousness. This gives a clue as to what the Buddha considered the goal to be. It is to calm down all activities of body, speech and mind so as to be unaffected by anything. The highest being total cessation. Total freedom from disturbance of any kind. Freedom from feeling. Freedom from conciousness. Freedom from citta.
Your corruption of the teaching here and comparing the attainment to a corpse is telling.

Very good, venerable sir.” And, delighting in and approving of Ven. Kāmabhū’s answer, Citta asked him a further question: “What is the difference between a monk who has died and passed away and a monk who has attained the cessation of perception and feeling?”

“In the case of a monk who has died and passed away, his bodily fabrication has ceased & subsided, verbal fabrication has ceased and subsided, mental fabrication has ceased and subsided, his life force is totally ended, his heat is dissipated, and his faculties are shut down. But in the case of a monk who has attained the cessation of perception and feeling, his bodily fabrication has ceased and subsided, verbal fabrication has ceased and subsided, mental fabrication has ceased & subsided, his life force is not ended, his heat is not dissipated, and his faculties are exceptionally bright and clear. This is the difference between a monk who has died and passed away and a monk who has attained the cessation of perception and feeling.”


SN 41:6
That the ultimate attainment is not, as you claim, associated with the shutting down of consciousness like a corpse, but rather associated with an exceptionally bright and clear consciousness that no longer feels or perceives (i.e is beyond sense contacts and is thus
surfaceless) is telling.
Ceisiwr wrote: Fri Sep 23, 2022 10:21 pm
Two quotes here. The first quote, in full

“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 unagitated, he personally attains Nibbāna. 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.’” - SN 22.53

This is something realised whilst alive.
Yes, but that's your very large assumption and speculation on limiting it to not include the after death implications. The imagery given in the Canon doesn't support your position.

A quote from Bhikkhu Bodi is apt here and applies exactly to your wrong views on the after death state of the Arahant.
Bhikkhu Bodhi wrote: "It might seem logical to suppose that since the five aggregates that constitute experience completely cease with the attainment of the Nibbāna element without residue, this element must itself be a state of complete nonexistence, a state of nothingness. Yet no text in the Nikāyas ever states this. To the contrary, the Nikāyas consistently refer to Nibbāna by terms that refer to actualities. It is an element (dhātu), a base (āyatana), a reality (dhamma), a state (pada), and so on. However, though so designated, it is qualified in ways that indicate this state ultimately lies beyond all familiar categories and concepts."

- Bodhi, Ch.9 - In the Buddha's words
Contemplate this deeply and put aside your materialistic inspired assumptions about what cessation of the defilements and true liberation means according to the Canon.
"Therein monks, that Dimension should be known wherein the eye ceases and the perception of forms fades away...the ear... the nose...the tongue... the body ceases and the perception of touch fades away...

That Dimension should be known wherein mentality ceases and the perception of mind-objects fades away.
That Dimension should be known; that Dimension should be known."


(S. IV. 98) - The Dimension beyond the All
asahi
Posts: 2732
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2020 4:23 pm

Re: 'Consciousness without Surface': Not Eternalism?

Post by asahi »

You are not supposed to look for the atta instead but observe the aggregates . And dont reduce the process into something just mere all about mind then you may go south .
No bashing No gossiping
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10172
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: 'Consciousness without Surface': Not Eternalism?

Post by Spiny Norman »

retrofuturist wrote: Sat Sep 24, 2022 7:46 am Greetings Spiny,
Spiny Norman wrote: Sat Sep 24, 2022 6:45 am
retrofuturist wrote: Sat Sep 24, 2022 2:15 am This, however is correct. Rather than "no self", the Buddha taught that "anything you might take as self, isn't". A subtle difference, but one that takes it from an speculative ontological view, to a true statement on the nature of anything experienced or conceived.
Though "Anything you might take as a self, isn't" still sounds like a view, or a position to be adopted, or even a strategy. A position taken to challenge, for example, the view that self is consciousness.
Moreover, it's a direct consequence of sabbe sankhara anicca, which is an observable truth.

Metta,
Paul. :)
Though that doesn't apply to Nibbana, right? I'm not suggesting Nibbana is a true self, or whatever (that would contradict the suttas), I'm just observing that Nibbana is an exception to the rule.
Buddha save me from new-agers!
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22405
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: 'Consciousness without Surface': Not Eternalism?

Post by Ceisiwr »

Pondera wrote: Sat Sep 24, 2022 7:20 am
Spiny Norman wrote: Sat Sep 24, 2022 6:45 am
retrofuturist wrote: Sat Sep 24, 2022 2:15 am This, however is correct. Rather than "no self", the Buddha taught that "anything you might take as self, isn't". A subtle difference, but one that takes it from an speculative ontological view, to a true statement on the nature of anything experienced or conceived.
Though "Anything you might take as a self, isn't" still sounds like a view, or a position to be adopted, or even a strategy. A position taken to challenge, for example, the view that self is consciousness.
I’d personally like to remain unconscious for eternity after I die, but, according to DN 1, this is a wrong view.

Does the Tathagata exist after death? Doesn’t apply.

Does the Tathagata not exist after death? Doesn’t apply.

Does the Tathagata both exist and not exist after death? DOESN’T APPLY. JEEZE - I’m starting to sound like a broken record.

Does the Tathagata neither exist nor not exist after death? LOOK BUD. ONE MORE QUESTION ABOUT THE NATURE OF THE TATHAGATA AFTER DEATH AND I’LL HAVE A YAKKA SMASH YOUR SKULL INTO A MILLION PIECES WITH A THUNDER BOLT.

Point is - hard to say. So how about we stop wondering and get on with jhana?
It’s more those questions do not apply because there is no self. By asking them, the individual is really asking “Will I exist or not when there is nibbana”.
“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.”
User avatar
equilibrium
Posts: 522
Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2012 11:07 am

Re: 'Consciousness without Surface': Not Eternalism?

Post by equilibrium »

The teachings are based on “not-self” which allows one to transcend samsara…..the middle-way…..and NOT based on “self or no-self” which is an extreme. How many times does this need to be told?

Furthermore…..objectify the non-objectification.
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22405
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: 'Consciousness without Surface': Not Eternalism?

Post by Ceisiwr »

equilibrium wrote: Sat Sep 24, 2022 9:40 am The teachings are based on “not-self” which allows one to transcend samsara…..the middle-way…..and NOT based on “self or no-self” which is an extreme. How many times does this need to be told?

Furthermore…..objectify the non-objectification.
The extreme is that there is always a self, or there is a self that is destroyed. The middle is that everything is not-self. To say everything is not-self is to say there is no self to be found, anywhere. That there is no self.
“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.”
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22405
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: 'Consciousness without Surface': Not Eternalism?

Post by Ceisiwr »

Spiny Norman wrote: Sat Sep 24, 2022 6:55 am
Ceisiwr wrote: Fri Sep 23, 2022 10:33 pm During the Buddha's time there were two large camps. Those of the eternalists and those of the annihilationists. Both used to get into heated debates with each other. Does the atta exist forever, or does it perish (or be made to perish). Then the Buddha comes along and points out they are arguing over something that hasn't even been established as true and existing. His insight was that there is no such thing to begin with. Both groups were tying themselves up in knots, getting into ever more heated and detailed debates over literally nothing. Instead, there are simply conditioned dhammas arising and ceasing according to conditions.
I think that's a good observation, though taking the position that there is no atta is still a view, isn't it?
"I have looked for an atta, but can't find one" is a valid statement, but going on to assert there is no atta sounds more like an expression of disbelief.
It's reminiscent of the debate between theists and atheists.
It begins as just a view and ends as understanding/wisdom/knowledge. The knowledge that all is empty. If someone wants to speculate on what’s outside of the All they can, but since they don’t even know (and can’t know) if there is such a thing it’s just meaningless talk akin to asking how many angels dance on the head of a pin.
“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.”
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22405
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: 'Consciousness without Surface': Not Eternalism?

Post by Ceisiwr »

I think it’s worth remembering that the Buddhas guide you to final death, not to eternal life.
“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.”
Cause_and_Effect
Posts: 1067
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2021 7:39 am

Re: 'Consciousness without Surface': Not Eternalism?

Post by Cause_and_Effect »

Ceisiwr wrote: Sat Sep 24, 2022 10:14 am I think it’s worth remembering that the Buddhas guide you to final death, not to eternal life.
What a perverse corruption of the dhamma you are spewing. Misinterpretion of meditative attainments and now mislabeling of the goal.

The Buddha's guide one to 'The Deathless', there is no synonym of Nibbana called 'the everlasting death and nothingness' which is what you want to twist it into.
"Therein monks, that Dimension should be known wherein the eye ceases and the perception of forms fades away...the ear... the nose...the tongue... the body ceases and the perception of touch fades away...

That Dimension should be known wherein mentality ceases and the perception of mind-objects fades away.
That Dimension should be known; that Dimension should be known."


(S. IV. 98) - The Dimension beyond the All
User avatar
equilibrium
Posts: 522
Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2012 11:07 am

Re: 'Consciousness without Surface': Not Eternalism?

Post by equilibrium »

Ceisiwr wrote: Sat Sep 24, 2022 9:59 am The extreme is that there is always a self, or there is a self that is destroyed.
The above are two different things.
Red is where one over-reaches by objectifying based on assumption…..a fabrication.
Blue refers to the actual destruction of the illusion.
One with the correct middle-way transcends the illusion itself.
Ceisiwr wrote: Sat Sep 24, 2022 9:59 am The middle is that everything is not-self. To say everything is not-self is to say there is no self to be found, anywhere. That there is no self.
No, clearly not the case here.
Not-self is the illusion that one needs to see for one self…..so delusion can be resolved.
To say self, once again here, over reaching….an assumption not required really…..for obvious reasons…….the exact reasons why the Buddha didn’t need to answer.

Besides, standing with the view from “self / no-self” is basically wrong view…..based on intellectual and not wisdom.
Post Reply