Is sati a saṅkhāra? Or 'pure consciousness'?

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
knotting
Posts: 95
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2022 12:49 pm
Location: USA

Re: Is sati a saṅkhāra? Or 'pure consciousness'?

Post by knotting »

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).
Jack19990101
Posts: 714
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2021 4:40 am

Re: Is sati a saṅkhāra? Or 'pure consciousness'?

Post by Jack19990101 »

Lack of Right Sati is called 5 Hindrances.
riceandcashews
Posts: 66
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2022 4:57 pm

Re: Is sati a saṅkhāra? Or 'pure consciousness'?

Post by riceandcashews »

Ceisiwr wrote: Thu Dec 08, 2022 10:29 pm All conciousness, anywhere, is impermanent, dukkha and not-self.
Well, 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.
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22410
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Is sati a saṅkhāra? Or 'pure consciousness'?

Post by Ceisiwr »

riceandcashews wrote: Fri Dec 09, 2022 12:13 am
Ceisiwr wrote: Thu Dec 08, 2022 10:29 pm All conciousness, anywhere, is impermanent, dukkha and not-self.
Well, 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.
The Buddha said all consciousness is impermanent, dukkha and not-self. That means any type of consciousness. He didn’t say all consciousness bar x
“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
cappuccino
Posts: 12879
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
Contact:

Re: Is sati a saṅkhāra? Or 'pure consciousness'?

Post by cappuccino »

Ceisiwr wrote: Fri Dec 09, 2022 12:18 am The Buddha said all consciousness is impermanent
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)
SarathW
Posts: 21240
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: Is sati a saṅkhāra? Or 'pure consciousness'?

Post by SarathW »

santa100 wrote: Thu Dec 08, 2022 4:21 pm
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?
As 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:would it then be reasonable to say that sati is a type of saṅkhāra that one cultivates with practice?
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 )
Thanks Santa.
Is this in a particular page number?
I am struggling to locate it.
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
santa100
Posts: 6814
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:55 pm

Re: Is sati a saṅkhāra? Or 'pure consciousness'?

Post by santa100 »

SarathW wrote: Fri Dec 09, 2022 12:22 am Thanks Santa.
Is this in a particular page number?
I am struggling to locate it.
See the summary of all 52 mental factors on page 79. But I'd recommend you read the whole book to get the context behind those factors.
riceandcashews
Posts: 66
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2022 4:57 pm

Re: Is sati a saṅkhāra? Or 'pure consciousness'?

Post by riceandcashews »

Ceisiwr wrote: Fri Dec 09, 2022 12:18 am
riceandcashews wrote: Fri Dec 09, 2022 12:13 am
Ceisiwr wrote: Thu Dec 08, 2022 10:29 pm All conciousness, anywhere, is impermanent, dukkha and not-self.
Well, 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.
The Buddha said all consciousness is impermanent, dukkha and not-self. That means any type of consciousness. He didn’t say all consciousness bar x
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.

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.
pegembara
Posts: 3466
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 8:39 am

Re: Is sati a saṅkhāra? Or 'pure consciousness'?

Post by pegembara »

From this frame, sati has nothing to do with Nibbana in a metaphysical sense, it is only an expedient means to reach Nibbana.
Sati is just a reminder('note to self'), like seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting. A process or activity.

consciousness changes, that's what is being emphasized
Sights, sounds, smells, tastes, sensations, thoughts, feelings, perception all changes.
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.
User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 12879
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
Contact:

Re: Is sati a saṅkhāra? Or 'pure consciousness'?

Post by cappuccino »

pegembara wrote: Fri Dec 09, 2022 12:46 am Does the awareness of those objects change? Is awareness even a 'thing or self'?
Buddhism is not Advaita
pegembara
Posts: 3466
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 8:39 am

Re: Is sati a saṅkhāra? Or 'pure consciousness'?

Post by pegembara »

cappuccino wrote: Fri Dec 09, 2022 12:51 am
pegembara wrote: Fri Dec 09, 2022 12:46 am Does the awareness of those objects change? Is awareness even a 'thing or self'?
Buddhism is not Advaita
That is why it's called Buddhism and not Advaita. :tongue:
And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, from abusive speech, & from idle chatter: This is called right speech.
User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 12879
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
Contact:

Re: Is sati a saṅkhāra? Or 'pure consciousness'?

Post by cappuccino »

pegembara wrote: Fri Dec 09, 2022 12:53 am That is why it's called Buddhism and not Advaita.
Buddhism is a different way of thinking


Buddhists do not necessarily appreciate this way of thinking
SarathW
Posts: 21240
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: Is sati a saṅkhāra? Or 'pure consciousness'?

Post by SarathW »

santa100 wrote: Fri Dec 09, 2022 12:34 am
SarathW wrote: Fri Dec 09, 2022 12:22 am Thanks Santa.
Is this in a particular page number?
I am struggling to locate it.
See the summary of all 52 mental factors on page 79. But I'd recommend you read the whole book to get the context behind those factors.
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”
santa100
Posts: 6814
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:55 pm

Re: Is sati a saṅkhāra? Or 'pure consciousness'?

Post by santa100 »

SarathW wrote: Fri Dec 09, 2022 1:25 am Thanks.
Just an off topic brief question.
I just wonder why Metta and Upekkha is not there.
This is exactly why you should read the book. I'll give just 1 more clue, see page 89.
SarathW
Posts: 21240
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: Is sati a saṅkhāra? Or 'pure consciousness'?

Post by SarathW »

santa100 wrote: Fri Dec 09, 2022 1:32 am
SarathW wrote: Fri Dec 09, 2022 1:25 am Thanks.
Just an off topic brief question.
I just wonder why Metta and Upekkha is not there.
This is exactly why you should read the book. I'll give just 1 more clue, see page 89.
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.
:D
Also I found the answer elsewhere.
Compassion 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.
https://www.dhammatalks.net/Books13/Men ... actice.pdf
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
Post Reply