Contradiction 1- Viññāṇa Means Consciousness?

[Ceisiwr]

@ Bundokji or anyone else who thinks they understand Paticca Samuppada:
OK. So, you should be able to answer the question I asked earlier.

what you understand by "avijja nirodha, phassa nirodha"?
- Does it make sense to translate it as "with the cessation of ignorance, contact ceases"?
- What "contact" is that? Please explain that in your own words.

Contact is a name for a sensory experience. When we cognise something, say an apple, there is eye-contact.

[Pondera]

What is the point. Consciousness is a substance which fills the universe. See “the dimension of the infinite of consciousness” ie. 6th jhana.

It is a simple particle which links the mind to its sense objects. By intense concentration, one can rid the mind of this substance. And then all feeling and perception cease. Unbinding occurs.

How can you rid yourself of an independently existing thing?

Consciousness is dependent of kammic formations. Kammic formations are dependent on ignorance.

Consciousness is not an independently existing thing. Dependent origination states this clearly, does it not?

[Pondera]

What is the point. Consciousness is a substance which fills the universe. See “the dimension of the infinite of consciousness” ie. 6th jhana.

It is a simple particle which links the mind to its sense objects. By intense concentration, one can rid the mind of this substance. And then all feeling and perception cease. Unbinding occurs.

How can you rid yourself of an independently existing thing?

Don’t wax on philosophical about the meaning of “substance”!

A piece of meat off a bone is “substance”. SPIT IT OUT! That is how you rid your self of it.

I’m not about to get KANTIAN on the ULTIMATE MEANING of substance!

[Ceisiwr]

What is the point. Consciousness is a substance which fills the universe. See “the dimension of the infinite of consciousness” ie. 6th jhana.

It is a simple particle which links the mind to its sense objects. By intense concentration, one can rid the mind of this substance. And then all feeling and perception cease. Unbinding occurs.

How can you rid yourself of an independently existing thing?

Consciousness is dependent of kammic formations. Kammic formations are dependent on ignorance.

Consciousness is not an independently existing thing. Dependent origination states this clearly, does it not?

Substances, by their definition, have independent existence. They don't rely on anything else, but are the cause of other things (which we experience as qualities). If substances were reduced to dependency on something else, they wouldn't be a substance. Since conciousness is dependent, it is not a substance.

[Bundokji]

@ Bundokji:
OK. So, you should be able to answer the question I asked earlier.

what you understand by "avijja nirodha, phassa nirodha"?
- Does it make sense to translate it as "with the cessation of ignorance, contact ceases"?
- What "contact" is that? Please explain that in your own words.

You are presenting a question that is devoid of context. Contact is taught in terms of the six types of consciousness, not in terms of "kamma vinnana" and "vipaka vinnana", nor in terms of "patisandhi vinnana". The type of contact is determined by the relevant sense medium.

[Ceisiwr]

I’m not about to get KANTIAN on the ULTIMATE MEANING of substance!

That would be Kant who claimed all we can know are phenomena (sense experience) yet somehow claimed there is a thing-in-itself? For Kant substance is a concept we must have in order to make sense of experience. In Buddhist terms this is true. Conventionally we speak of substances, cause and so on. Of course, in Buddhist terms ultimately there are no substances, causality etc.

[Pondera]

How can you rid yourself of an independently existing thing?

Consciousness is dependent of kammic formations. Kammic formations are dependent on ignorance.

Consciousness is not an independently existing thing. Dependent origination states this clearly, does it not?

Substances, by their definition, have independent existence. They don't rely on anything else, but are the cause of other things (which we experience as qualities). If substances were reduced to dependency on something else, they wouldn't be a substance. Since conciousness is dependent, it is not a substance.

Speaking of drugs and other things which don’t belong on a forum like this - why are you so obsessed with text book definitions of substances.

Substance - (noun) - def. a thing

Do you think the Buddha would waste his time arguing with someone over the meaning of an ultimately existing substance.

How would anything in this world even be ultimately existing? EVERYTHING is dependently originated. And you are entirely missing the point.

Consciousness is a messenger particle for sense faculties to collide with sense objects. Eliminate the messenger. Eliminate the message!

[Ceisiwr]

Consciousness is dependent of kammic formations. Kammic formations are dependent on ignorance.

Consciousness is not an independently existing thing. Dependent origination states this clearly, does it not?

Substances, by their definition, have independent existence. They don't rely on anything else, but are the cause of other things (which we experience as qualities). If substances were reduced to dependency on something else, they wouldn't be a substance. Since conciousness is dependent, it is not a substance.

Speaking of drugs and other things which don’t belong on a forum like this - why are you so obsessed with text book definitions of substances.

Substance - (noun) - def. a thing

Do you think the Buddha would waste his time arguing with someone over the meaning of an ultimately existing substance.

How would anything in this world even be ultimately existing? EVERYTHING is dependently originated. And you are entirely missing the point.

Consciousness is a messenger particle for sense faculties to collide with sense objects. Eliminate the messenger. Eliminate the message!

The Buddha spent a great deal of his time debating with substance metaphysicians. Jains, Ājīvikas, Brahmins from various traditions of Brahminism and so on. To see substance in experience is to have the mis-perception of seeing permanence in what is impermanent.

[Pondera]

I’m not about to get KANTIAN on the ULTIMATE MEANING of substance!

That would be Kant who claimed all we can know are phenomena (sense experience) yet somehow claimed there is a thing-in-itself? For Kant substance is a concept we must have in order to make sense of experience. In Buddhist terms this is true. Conventionally we speak of substances, cause and so on. Of course, in Buddhist terms ultimately there are no substances, causality etc.

I can’t think about KANT. It’s an utter waste of time. If I wanted to boast I would say I’ve read his “Critique of Pure Reason” and yet I fail to appreciate a single concept in that thick piece of crap he called a treatise.

As I’m sure you’re right, however. And I trust you value the philosophy of the Buddha more.

[Pondera]

Substances, by their definition, have independent existence. They don't rely on anything else, but are the cause of other things (which we experience as qualities). If substances were reduced to dependency on something else, they wouldn't be a substance. Since conciousness is dependent, it is not a substance.

Speaking of drugs and other things which don’t belong on a forum like this - why are you so obsessed with text book definitions of substances.

Substance - (noun) - def. a thing

Do you think the Buddha would waste his time arguing with someone over the meaning of an ultimately existing substance.

How would anything in this world even be ultimately existing? EVERYTHING is dependently originated. And you are entirely missing the point.

Consciousness is a messenger particle for sense faculties to collide with sense objects. Eliminate the messenger. Eliminate the message!

The Buddha spent a great deal of his time debating with substance metaphysicians. Jains, Ājīvikas, Brahmins from various traditions of Brahminism and so on. To see substance in experience is to have the mis-perception of seeing permanence in what is impermanent.

Why are you hooked on substances? Have you been abusing substances, Ceiweser. I thought we were trying to eliminate all talk of substances from this board!

[Ceisiwr]

I’m not about to get KANTIAN on the ULTIMATE MEANING of substance!

That would be Kant who claimed all we can know are phenomena (sense experience) yet somehow claimed there is a thing-in-itself? For Kant substance is a concept we must have in order to make sense of experience. In Buddhist terms this is true. Conventionally we speak of substances, cause and so on. Of course, in Buddhist terms ultimately there are no substances, causality etc.

I can’t think about KANT. It’s an utter waste of time. If I wanted to boast I would say I’ve read his “Critique of Pure Reason” and yet I fail to appreciate a single concept in that thick piece of crap he called a treatise.

As I’m sure you’re right, however. And I trust you value the philosophy of the Buddha more.

It is a difficult read. German Idealism gets particularly dense after Kant too, something that Schopenhauer also complained about. I'm not a Kantian, no.

[Ceisiwr]

Why are you hooked on substances? Have you been abusing substances, Ceiweser. I thought we were trying to eliminate all talk of substances from this board!

Substance is something we should all be trying to look past. The atta is the main example. On drug use I don't think that should be promoted here, no.

[Pondera]

Substances, by their definition, have independent existence. They don't rely on anything else, but are the cause of other things (which we experience as qualities). If substances were reduced to dependency on something else, they wouldn't be a substance. Since conciousness is dependent, it is not a substance.

Speaking of drugs and other things which don’t belong on a forum like this - why are you so obsessed with text book definitions of substances.

Substance - (noun) - def. a thing

Do you think the Buddha would waste his time arguing with someone over the meaning of an ultimately existing substance.

How would anything in this world even be ultimately existing? EVERYTHING is dependently originated. And you are entirely missing the point.

Consciousness is a messenger particle for sense faculties to collide with sense objects. Eliminate the messenger. Eliminate the message!

The Buddha spent a great deal of his time debating with substance metaphysicians. Jains, Ājīvikas, Brahmins from various traditions of Brahminism and so on. To see substance in experience is to have the mis-perception of seeing permanence in what is impermanent.

I don’t think he spent TOO MUCH time with these idiot metaphysicians. Vachagotta may have been one. If you see, the Buddha chose irony with Vachagotta when it came to the question of “do I or do not have a Self” - the Self being the preeminent IDEAL of “substance” called jiva by the Jains

[Pondera]

Why are you hooked on substances? Have you been abusing substances, Ceiweser. I thought we were trying to eliminate all talk of substances from this board!

Substance is something we should all be trying to look past. The atta is the main example. On drug use I don't think that should be promoted here, no.

Even when we’re on the same page, we tend to argue. My friend. A truce?

[Pondera]

That would be Kant who claimed all we can know are phenomena (sense experience) yet somehow claimed there is a thing-in-itself? For Kant substance is a concept we must have in order to make sense of experience. In Buddhist terms this is true. Conventionally we speak of substances, cause and so on. Of course, in Buddhist terms ultimately there are no substances, causality etc.

I can’t think about KANT. It’s an utter waste of time. If I wanted to boast I would say I’ve read his “Critique of Pure Reason” and yet I fail to appreciate a single concept in that thick piece of crap he called a treatise.

As I’m sure you’re right, however. And I trust you value the philosophy of the Buddha more.

It is a difficult read. German Idealism gets particularly dense after Kant too, something that Schopenhauer also complained about. I'm not a Kantian, no.

At least we can thank the whole Continental Philosophical Movement for existentialism. Much more my cup of tea, than those 18th century analysts. A lot of good math coming out of the 17th and 18th century. Music too. Philosophy? Who would ever know. It so dense! As you say.