'Consciousness without Surface': Not Eternalism?

[Ceisiwr]

If we accept that the nihilism you postulate is orthodox Theravada, then yes I would disagree.
I am interested only in the truth of the matter, and that comes from not denying, and examining my experiences

You keep calling me a nihilist, but I've proposed no such thing. Could you give us the sutta definition of nihilism please? On truth I'm sure we are all interested in it. Wanting to know what the Buddha did or did not teach is being concerned with truth. On experiences, the point I have been trying to make is that it makes sense to see what the Buddha taught on his own terms first, and then see if they make sense or your experiences match them. If there are certain experiences which are at odds with what he taught then we can either accept that we are mistaken, or we can think the Buddha was mistaken and move on. Many people disagreed with the Buddha when he was alive. Many do today too. The question here is if the Buddha taught there is an eternal citta, or a "proto-conciousness field". When we look at the earliest material, the answer is no. If then you are absolutely convinced there is such a thing, you can either view it in terms of you being in error or the Buddha being in error.

Luckily I do see in the Nikayas support for both

-Kamma and consciousness being both individuated and having shared field aspects

-Liberation of citta and attainment of Nibbana being the realization of a reality beyond the aggregates and sense bases.

On kamma, it seems pretty obvious to me that when the Buddha said kamma is the field he meant it as a metaphor. A metaphor that was apt in the mostly agricultural society he lived in. I mean, craving isn't literally moisture is it. On the citta, the texts state that it is dependently originated. That isn't intellectualism, or speculative reasoning. That is what the text actually says. How then is the citta liberated in the sense of it being permanently existing in or as nibbāna?

The fact that some Mahayana exegisis of the early suttas support this strengthens my views that they are in fact correct, without having to embrace their entire theory or ideology. My conviction is in the authenticity of the Pali suttas being closest to what the Buddha taught.

I'm not sure the Mahāyāna trends which agree with you are based on the early texts.

I could say it is a transformed and liberated field of awareness. What exactly this entails at that point I can't say. However nibbana being the supreme dhamma definitely excludes it from being merely a designation for the cessation of the aggregates and subjective experience.

According to what you said, you can't say it is a "transformed and liberated field of awareness" either. If you say that I can't say what nibbāna is because it is beyond all concepts, that means you can't either. It cuts both ways.

[cappuccino]

How then is the citta liberated in the sense of it being permanently existing in or as nibbāna?

Consciousness without feature,
without end,
luminous all around:
Here water, earth, fire, & wind
have no footing.

Kevatta Sutta

[Cause_and_Effect]

If we accept that the nihilism you postulate is orthodox Theravada, then yes I would disagree.
I am interested only in the truth of the matter, and that comes from not denying, and examining my experiences

You keep calling me a nihilist, but I've proposed no such thing.

You adhere to a form of nihilism. You believe that all experience is annihilated at the death of the arahant, and that this is 'bliss' in only a very provisional and metaphorical sense when one reflects on it whilst alive.

Wanting to know what the Buddha did or did not teach is being concerned with truth. On experiences, the point I have been trying to make is that it makes sense to see what the Buddha taught on his own terms first, and then see if they make sense or your experiences match them.

And what I have repeatedly told you which you seem to be struggling with, is that this can only ever be relative because 'what the Buddha taught on his own terms' is known only to him. For everyone else it's going to be to an extent mediated via our experience and bias.

The question here is if the Buddha taught there is an eternal citta, or a "proto-conciousness field". When we look at the earliest material, the answer is no.

And I have repeatedly stated that I disagree, and that the earliest material can be seen to posit indeed such a thing, or at least does not exclude it; both in indications of the mechanics of how kamma can work between people and also in how liberation is described.

You are coming at the Buddha's teaching as though the material body and mental processes are dependently arisen from the background of a field of empty space.

I am approaching the Buddha's teachings as though the nama-rupa are dependently arisen from the background of a field of protoconsciousness.

We could say then that your view is more base in classical Newtonian physics, and mine is more quantum physics to use a loose approximation.

Luckily I do see in the Nikayas support for both

-Kamma and consciousness being both individuated and having shared field aspects

-Liberation of citta and attainment of Nibbana being the realization of a reality beyond the aggregates and sense bases.

On kamma, it seems pretty obvious to me that when the Buddha said kamma is the field he meant it as a metaphor. A metaphor that was apt in the mostly agricultural society he lived in. I mean, craving isn't literally moisture is it.

Yes your interpretation is obvious to you. Thanks for clarifying.

On the citta, the texts state that it is dependently originated. That isn't intellectualism, or speculative reasoning. That is what the text actually says. How then is the citta liberated in the sense of it being permanently existing in or as nibbāna?

Which is why I am supposing some TFT monks had to differentiate dependently arisen and impermanent citta, from what they could only term 'original citta' or 'knowingness' and which I have attempted to term 'protoconscious field' which is known through nama rupa in ordinary conditions but could be transformed in a deathless state.

The fact that some Mahayana exegisis of the early suttas support this strengthens my views that they are in fact correct, without having to embrace their entire theory or ideology. My conviction is in the authenticity of the Pali suttas being closest to what the Buddha taught.

I'm not sure the Mahāyāna trends which agree with you are based on the early texts.

Well that's a whole another topic. I am quite sure at least some of their ideas had the basis in their interpretation of early suttas.

I could say it is a transformed and liberated field of awareness. What exactly this entails at that point I can't say. However nibbana being the supreme dhamma definitely excludes it from being merely a designation for the cessation of the aggregates and subjective experience.

According to what you said, you can't say it is a "transformed and liberated field of awareness" either. If you say that I can't say what nibbāna is because it is beyond all concepts, that means you can't either. It cuts both ways.

It cuts away your wrong view more. Since if Nibbana is 'The Supreme Unconditioned Dhamma' it is a form of a reality whatever it is. My attempt to point to what it could be in some sense is of course going to be somewhat off. But there is a reality to speak of (my view) not simply a cessation of all realities of which there would be nothing to designate (your wrong view).

[cappuccino]

You keep calling me a nihilist, but I've proposed no such thing.

You adhere to a form of nihilism.

I call it annihilationism


Buddha called it this


Problem is few understand

[equilibrium]

You keep calling me a nihilist, but I've proposed no such thing.

You adhere to a form of nihilism.

I call it annihilationism

Buddha called it this

Problem is few understand

…..like a dog tied to a post, going round and round.
Can’t escape the illusion!

[Pondera]

…

As you say, those are questions about what happens after death. A non-existing thing doesn’t live forever nor is it destroyed. Existence and non-existence then do not apply. Existence and non-existence do not apply to the Flying Spaghetti Monster when it dies, because there is no Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Self is not an empty concept. This is how your comparison works in practice.

“Are the skhandas marked by ease or marked by ill?”
“Ill”
“Are the skhandas marked by permanence or impermanence?”
“Impermanence.”
“Then is it appropriate to call that which is marked by I’ll and impermanence, the Flying Spaghetti Monster?”
“No.”

Existence is marked by not self. Existence is not marked by “non-existence”.

“There see these two extremes. Those who yearn for existence and those who yearn for non-existence.”

Your equivalence between “no self” and “Nibbana” is a misinterpretation.

[pegembara]

If one sees the ending of the world, one will never say the world truly exists.
If one sees the arising of the world, one will not say the world doesn't truly exists.

What is the world?

The Blessed One said, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. [1] Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range."

When consciousness doesn't land on anything, nothing else can be said. Eternalism or annihilation doesn't apply.

If you were the sun and your light lands on nothing, the experience is the same as the light going out even though the sun may still be burning.
Whether the sun still burns or not changes nothing for you. If you see the sun, it means the light has just landed on a mirror!

[justindesilva]

If one sees the ending of the world, one will never say the world truly exists.
If one sees the arising of the world, one will not say the world doesn't truly exists.

What is the world?

The Blessed One said, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. [1] Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range."

When consciousness doesn't land on anything, nothing else can be said. Eternalism or annihilation doesn't apply.

If you were the sun and your light lands on nothing, the experience is the same as the light going out even though the sun may still be burning.
Whether the sun still burns or not changes nothing for you. If you see the sun, it means the light has just landed on a mirror!

Consciousness or vingnana is a state of burning ignition and or combust, but niravana called a state of coolness does not help ignition, as it is also a fire without a surface or flames. Desire or tanha is the cause of ignition or flames. This is what the suttas culs vedalla or aditya paryaya explain.
It is best to understand the root or basics of a subject .

[Spiny Norman]

Later schools such as Advaita and Mahayana share significant similarities, and both are very much deviped from ideas in the early Buddhist canon.

Really? So what are the significant similarities between Advaita and Mahayana, and how are Advaita teachings derived from ideas in the early Buddhist canon?

[Cause_and_Effect]

Later schools such as Advaita and Mahayana share significant similarities, and both are very much deviped from ideas in the early Buddhist canon.

Really? So what are the significant similarities between Advaita and Mahayana, and how are Advaita teachings derived from ideas in the early Buddhist canon?

It's an interesting question but if you really want to discuss it I suggest starting a thread on the Connections to other Paths forum.

[Mahabrahma]

You can definitely discuss it. One Vedic Monk I know, among many, calls Advaita Vedanta "covered Buddhism." As in Buddhism covered as a coat by the Vedas. It was taught by Shiva.

[Spiny Norman]

You can definitely discuss it. One Vedic Monk I know, among many, calls Advaita Vedanta "covered Buddhism." As in Buddhism covered as a coat by the Vedas. It was taught by Shiva.

I've heard that kind of rhetoric from some Advaitans, but I don't think it's grounded in truth. Some Hindus will tell you that Buddhism is really another school of Hinduism, but again it's just rhetoric, IMO.

[Spiny Norman]

Later schools such as Advaita and Mahayana share significant similarities, and both are very much deviped from ideas in the early Buddhist canon.

Really? So what are the significant similarities between Advaita and Mahayana, and how are Advaita teachings derived from ideas in the early Buddhist canon?

It's an interesting question but if you really want to discuss it I suggest starting a thread on the Connections to other Paths forum.

Yes, I've done that.

[Ceisiwr]

Later schools such as Advaita and Mahayana share significant similarities, and both are very much deviped from ideas in the early Buddhist canon.

Really? So what are the significant similarities between Advaita and Mahayana, and how are Advaita teachings derived from ideas in the early Buddhist canon?

Gauḍapāda was influenced by Mahayana, specifically Nāgārjuna. For him dhammas are empty and illusionary, but instead there is only 1 real thing. Since it is eternal, it doesn’t change and so in the ultimate truth there is no birth, no death, no arising nor ceasing. For Nāgārjuna because all dhammas are empty there is no arising and ceasing. For Gauḍapāda because there is only one real thing (Brahman) there is no arising and ceasing. The Māṇḍukya Kārikā also mentions the Buddha by name, in a positive way. On dhammas being empty, in the earliest texts they are only empty of Atman, an underlying substratum (substance) and so permanence and lasting pleasure.

Nāgārjuna said that if something really exists then arising and ceasing would not occur. Gauḍapāda agrees, but instead of denying true existence he embraces it.

[Spiny Norman]

Later schools such as Advaita and Mahayana share significant similarities, and both are very much deviped from ideas in the early Buddhist canon.

Really? So what are the significant similarities between Advaita and Mahayana, and how are Advaita teachings derived from ideas in the early Buddhist canon?

Gauḍapāda was influenced by Mahayana, specifically Nāgārjuna. For him dhammas are empty and illusionary, but instead there is only 1 real thing. Since it is eternal, it doesn’t change and so in the ultimate truth there is no birth, no death, no arising nor ceasing. For Nāgārjuna because all dhammas are empty there is no arising and ceasing. For Gauḍapāda because there is only one real thing (Brahman) there is no arising and ceasing. The Māṇḍukya Kārikā also mentions the Buddha by name, in a positive way. On dhammas being empty, in the earliest texts they are only empty of Atman, an underlying substratum (substance) and so permanence and lasting pleasure.

Nāgārjuna said that if something really exists then arising and ceasing would not occur. Gauḍapāda agrees, but instead of denying true existence he embraces it.

Interesting, but would you mind copying this over to the new thread in the Connections forum?