Anyway, just simplify your thinking first. It seems like you are moving between allowable and not allowable.
No developed faculties = No knowledge.
Good luck.
Anyway, just simplify your thinking first. It seems like you are moving between allowable and not allowable.
These translation make sense...
It's the views that we hold dear which can be hard to lose.User13866 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 04, 2023 3:55 pm
There is one good example where i was wrong on this forum. It's about the exceptional dogs keeping their tail down as a rule, there Sam Vara showed me up and it didn't traumatize me at all. I didn't get upset about it and i didn't need to be right about it. I've since seen more of these dogs when in southern europe thinking about Sam Vara's teachings. That demonstrates that your psychoanalysis is wrong and unsubstantiated.
That is what you were initially arguing, and now you are backtracking. It's quite clear to all who read this ghastly conversation. On stupidity, I really couldn't comment. You do however show a lack of critical thinking skills. That can always be improved though. I did say previously I would leave it there, but I'll make this the last post on this particular topic.Do you really think i am stupid to the point of claiming that consciousness should be explained as 'divided knowing' because this is what follows from your argument.
It's rather funny when people on the internet tell me that they know better than me as to what my intentions are and what i mean when i say things.Ceisiwr wrote: ↑Sun Feb 05, 2023 12:38 pmIt's the views that we hold dear which can be hard to lose.User13866 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 04, 2023 3:55 pm
There is one good example where i was wrong on this forum. It's about the exceptional dogs keeping their tail down as a rule, there Sam Vara showed me up and it didn't traumatize me at all. I didn't get upset about it and i didn't need to be right about it. I've since seen more of these dogs when in southern europe thinking about Sam Vara's teachings. That demonstrates that your psychoanalysis is wrong and unsubstantiated.
That is what you were initially arguing, and now you are backtracking. It's quite clear to all who read this ghastly conversation. On stupidity, I really couldn't comment. You do however show a lack of critical thinking skills. That can always be improved though. I did say previously I would leave it there, but I'll make this the last post on this particular topic.Do you really think i am stupid to the point of claiming that consciousness should be explained as 'divided knowing' because this is what follows from your argument.
Begun, the age of dubious translations, has.
Hi,Lal wrote: ↑Sun Feb 05, 2023 11:32 am May I remind everyone that the topic is: "Contradiction 1- Viññāṇa Means Consciousness?"
Do you agree with the translation of “viññāṇa“ as “consciousness?”
- There is no need to cite other translations. This determination involves only logic.
- “Viññāṇa“ means “consciousness” (in all contexts), AND “viññāṇa nirodha” is "cessation of consciousness" per Bhikkhu Sujato and many other translators.
- That leads to the contradiction that Buddha must have lost consciousness upon Enlightenment!
Let me show you Bhikkhu Sujato's other sutta translation where this universal usage of “viññāṇa“ as “consciousness” is evident. This is just a few few.
...
Again, it is a waste of time to quote numerous translators who translate the above verses similarly.
- If the foundation is rotten, the building cannot last long. This practice of mechanically and mindlessly translating suttas must end.
One distinguishes (vijiiniiti), bhiksus, that is why it is called
consciousness. What does one distinguish? One
distinguishes sour or bitter, acrid or sweet, alkaline or non-alkaline,
saline or non-saline. One distinguishes, bhiksus, that is why it is
called consciousness.
I think that we should start with this no? Why we should translate it differently?The characteristic of distinguishing is the aggregate of
consciousness with attachment. What is one conscious of ? One is
conscious of visible forms, sounds, odours, tastes, tangibles, mental
objects. That is why it is called the aggregate of consciousness with
attachment.
Seems a way to describe the act of detachment. You want to delight in x (say a car or a thought). Desire is abandoned, consciousness does not land there by will and, if it lands for other reasons, it doesn't grows or generate activity. Not landing on a object, there is no possible suffering about that, no possible generation of desires, actions, feelings etc. Remember that consciousness is always "Consciousness of". If you delight into "I am the ruler of the world" that instead will generate activity, consciousness will land and so it will persist* (in the form of attachment). That counter-act of non-delight will produce (absence,cessation of) no consciousness-of, no ignorance-contact and of course no feeling, etc. There are ofc other type of lectures, but every one seems inescapable of consciousness = becoming aware of a certain object. that usage of consciousness (consciousness of) really helps to see the arising of consciousness(es) in time and should make evident how consciousness passes away as well by non-delight/non-acquisition and dispel the notion of "I am, I am That, I will be" in regard to consciousness and Avoid to think in terms of "who is conscious?" Which is same as "Who feels", a reasoning that takes existence as something that persist without being dependent on craving.Growth, increase, and abundance of consciousness is caused by seeking
delight (nandi-upasevana ~ ~), or desire (raga Jt) for material form,
feeling, perception, and activities. If desire for those four is abandoned, then
consciousness is deprived of its object or platform. Without that platform,
consciousness will not grow and generate activity, and thus is liberated.
*The word "distinguishes" (or "is conscious of', vijanati) in SN is similar -in
meaning to "characteristic of distinguishing" and "is conscious of' in SA.
Thus, although the SN version of the second account mentions only flavours
as the objects, the two versions agree in teaching that consciousness is a sort
of becoming aware of objects.
This section has shown the two versions largely in agreement in defining
the five aggregates in two different ways: (1) by listing the components of
each aggregate, and (2) by giving a mainly etymological derivation of each
of the five terms.
Bhiksus, by attachment (or approach) to material form (riipupiiyam), consciousness (viiifiiil}.aIp), having an abode (titJ:hamiinaIp), may persist (titJ:heyya).
as an example what he means by vinnana,
based on the above it is manomaya kaya.https://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?p=702418#p702418 wrote: ..
8. In the “Mahā Nidāna Sutta (DN 15)“ (https://suttacentral.net/dn15/en/sujato ... latin#21.1): “..Viññāṇapaccayā nāmarūpan’ti iti kho panetaṃ vuttaṃ, tadānanda, imināpetaṃ pariyāyena veditabbaṃ, yathā viññāṇapaccayā nāmarūpaṃ. Viññāṇañca hi, ānanda, mātukucchismiṃ na okkamissatha, api nu kho nāmarūpaṃ mātukucchismiṃ samuccissathā” ti? “No hetaṃ, Bhante.” “Viññāṇañca hi, ānanda, mātukucchismiṃ okkamitvā vokkamissatha, api nu kho nāmarūpaṃ itthattāya abhinibbattissathā” ti? “No hetaṃ, Bhante.”
Translation: “.With consciousness as a condition, there is mentality-materiality (nāmarūpa). How that is so, Ānanda, should be understood in this way: If viññāṇa were not to descend into the mother’s womb, would mentality-materiality (nama rūpa) take shape in the womb?” “Certainly not, venerable sir.” “If the descended viññāṇa were to depart, would mentality-materiality be generated into this present state of being?” “Certainly not, venerable sir.”
- Here, it is clear that by “a viññāṇa descending to the womb,” the Buddha meant the descent of the manōmaya kaya (gandhabba), not the paṭisandhi citta. A paṭisandhi viññāṇa cannot come out (depart) of the womb! In #12 below, I will present evidence that the other four khandhas always accompany viññāna. That includes the rupakkhandha (and a gandhabba has all five khandhas).
- That is clear from the verse at marker 21.6, which says that “viññāṇa” has determined the sex of the baby (“kumārakassa vā kumārikāya vā” or “boy or girl.”) As pointed out in #12 below, a paṭisandhi viññāṇa(or any kamma viññāṇa) cannot exist without a rupa (i.e., at least a suddhāṭṭhaka.) - In this case, the bhāva dasaka (which indicates the sex of the child) also “descends to the womb” together with hadaya vatthu and pasāda rupa in the gandhabba.
- The Pāli word “Okkanti” is often mistranslated as “rebirth.” But it means the “descend” of an already formed manōmaya kaya (gandhabba). Rebirth happens (and a gandhabba is born) within a thought moment, at the cuti-paṭisandhi moment; see “Cuti-Patisandhi – An Abhidhamma Description.“https://puredhamma.net/abhidhamma/gandh ... scription/
IMO, it happens because you are so poor and transparent a liar with regards to them. If you do better next time, no one will question your obvious backpedalling, because it won't be obvious.
I still don't understand what exactly you are talking about.
Show me posts where i supposedly lied...
I believe the OP isn't insisting on a completely new translation for the word vinnana as “consciousness”, but rather the translation should be augmented, clarified / differentiate and most importantly based on context. If one looks up the English definition of "consciousness', here's what we get:
I believe that's exactly what the OP is trying to say /point out.
What I’m about to mention isn’t meant to criticize any individuals; after all, we're just sharing our views and opinions.
No, they don't become unconscious but awakening does mean that all conciousness will cease. People get stuck on this because they don't take into account that dependent origination happened in the past, and that awakening isn't retroactive.Noble Sangha wrote: ↑Sun Feb 05, 2023 5:11 pm One of the points OP is trying to make is that when avija (ignorance) completely ceases (when one becomes enlighten), which are the Buddha's and Arahants, does their consciousness cease? If we take / translate vinnana literally just as “consciousness” in "all cases", that would imply / state that the Buddha and arahants consciousness would cease when they become enlightened which has lead / leading to much confusion for Buddhist practitioners today.
Do the Buddha and Arahants no longer become aware and responsive to one's surroundings? Do they no longer become aware or perceive things?
Myself have seen many times on here and other forums where people asks, "does the Buddha and Arahants have no consciousness?" and other similar questions / discussions. Pretty much in all cases, no conclusion was / is reached.
Note that Venerables Pesala and Dhammanando were in agreement that the Waharakist translations were egregiously bad; and also that Ven. Dhamanando re-ordained and is still a monk to this day, as far as I know. I personally have a very high level of confidence in his translations and his understanding of Pali.Noble Sangha wrote: ↑Sun Feb 05, 2023 5:11 pm
What I’m about to mention isn’t meant to criticize any individuals; after all, we're just sharing our views and opinions.
But didn't Dhammanando disrobed to get married? Can I take him to be someone capable of evaluating Venerable Waharaka Thero teachings (which includes Lal)?