Is sati a saṅkhāra? Or 'pure consciousness'?
Re: Is sati a saṅkhāra? Or 'pure consciousness'?
Does anyone here know if there is an antonym to 'sati'? I am wondering if there is a word which indicates the ignorant tendency to automatically identify with conditioned experiences (i.e., the opposite of sati).
-
- Posts: 715
- Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2021 4:40 am
Re: Is sati a saṅkhāra? Or 'pure consciousness'?
Lack of Right Sati is called 5 Hindrances.
-
- Posts: 66
- Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2022 4:57 pm
Re: Is sati a saṅkhāra? Or 'pure consciousness'?
The Buddha said all consciousness is impermanent, dukkha and not-self. That means any type of consciousness. He didn’t say all consciousness bar xriceandcashews wrote: ↑Fri Dec 09, 2022 12:13 amWell, except for consciousness without surface It is still not-self of course. But it is neither impermanent or dukkha. And to be clear, it also doesn't change.
“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.”
- cappuccino
- Posts: 12977
- Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
- Contact:
Re: Is sati a saṅkhāra? Or 'pure consciousness'?
he merely said it changes, alters, becomes different
which is why you can't maintain concentration
which is why you don't remain happy (or sad)
Re: Is sati a saṅkhāra? Or 'pure consciousness'?
Thanks Santa.santa100 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 08, 2022 4:21 pmAs far as the question of whether the "consciousness without surface"/viññanam anidassanam is one and the same with Nibbana, it's still a subject of debate. Ven. Thanissaro says yes while Ven. Bodhi says no, so guess one would have to attain Nibbana first in order to settle this inquiry once and for all.knotting wrote:I haven't seen anywhere that the Buddha explicitly defines pure consciousness as unconditioned, or equivalent with Nibbana. If it were so, why didn't he just come out and say it, repeatedly?sure, per the Abhidhamma's classification, it's one among the 19 items in the SobhanaSadharana/BeautifulUniversals, which is a sub-group in the SobhanaSadharana < Sobhana < Cetasika < Nama < Sankhata < Paramattha classification ( ref: https://www.saraniya.com/books/meditati ... dhamma.pdf )knotting wrote:would it then be reasonable to say that sati is a type of saṅkhāra that one cultivates with practice?
Is this in a particular page number?
I am struggling to locate it.
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
-
- Posts: 66
- Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2022 4:57 pm
Re: Is sati a saṅkhāra? Or 'pure consciousness'?
I acknowledge that is one point of view. I also acknowledge that there are others, such as that the relevant passage is referring to conditioned, established consciousness. Or that passage refers to 'consciousness' in a reified sense, in which case it is the case that all consciousness is impermanent.Ceisiwr wrote: ↑Fri Dec 09, 2022 12:18 amThe Buddha said all consciousness is impermanent, dukkha and not-self. That means any type of consciousness. He didn’t say all consciousness bar xriceandcashews wrote: ↑Fri Dec 09, 2022 12:13 amWell, except for consciousness without surface It is still not-self of course. But it is neither impermanent or dukkha. And to be clear, it also doesn't change.
Here's one set of related concepts that again correspond to a different reading based on the passages I referenced:
1) Consciousness without surface is endless and has not been experienced through the allness of the all.
2) Nothing beyond the all is describable.
3) For one who has reached the end, all phenomena are done away with, and all means of speaking are done away with as well.
From (1) and (2), we can conclude (4) that consciousness without surface is deathless (endless) and beyond description.
From (3) and (4), we can conclude that (5) consciousness without surface is what is realized in nirvana, as both are beyond description.
This is reinforced by passages that refer to the surfaceless as equivalent to the deathless and unconditioned.
Re: Is sati a saṅkhāra? Or 'pure consciousness'?
Sati is just a reminder('note to self'), like seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting. A process or activity.From this frame, sati has nothing to do with Nibbana in a metaphysical sense, it is only an expedient means to reach Nibbana.
Sights, sounds, smells, tastes, sensations, thoughts, feelings, perception all changes.consciousness changes, that's what is being emphasized
Does the awareness of those objects change? Is awareness even a 'thing or self'?
The eye can see its reflection but can it ever see itself?
The sun can light up the planets and say "that's not me" but there is no way 'it' can point out 'itself' 'that's me!"
Does it matter whether the light lands on nothing(without surface) and the sun actually going out?
Is there a practical difference in terms of experience between the sun going out and the planets going out and the sun remaining?
Can it be said that the sun cannot know it exists until its light falls on another object or a mirror ie. dependent arising?
Last edited by pegembara on Fri Dec 09, 2022 12:52 am, edited 1 time in total.
And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, from abusive speech, & from idle chatter: This is called right speech.
- cappuccino
- Posts: 12977
- Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
- Contact:
Re: Is sati a saṅkhāra? Or 'pure consciousness'?
Buddhism is not Advaita
Re: Is sati a saṅkhāra? Or 'pure consciousness'?
That is why it's called Buddhism and not Advaita.
And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, from abusive speech, & from idle chatter: This is called right speech.
- cappuccino
- Posts: 12977
- Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
- Contact:
Re: Is sati a saṅkhāra? Or 'pure consciousness'?
Buddhism is a different way of thinking
Buddhists do not necessarily appreciate this way of thinking
Re: Is sati a saṅkhāra? Or 'pure consciousness'?
Thanks.
Just an off topic brief question.
I just wonder why Metta and Upekkha is not there.
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
Re: Is sati a saṅkhāra? Or 'pure consciousness'?
I have attempted three times to read this but failed.
However I read Narada at least five times.
Any way I am glad you have read it.
Thanks anyway.
Also I found the answer elsewhere.
https://www.dhammatalks.net/Books13/Men ... actice.pdfCompassion and sympathetic joy, together with goodwill and equanimity, form the Four
Sublime Abodes (brahma vihāra). Goodwill and equanimity were mentioned under the common
beautiful factors.
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”