Contradiction 1- Viññāṇa Means Consciousness?

[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.

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

I was having more of a conversation than an argument, but sure

[Ceisiwr]

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.

I'm not a massive fan of Existentialism, nor Phenomenology, in part because I find it too dense. Either because I'm just thick, or it's badly written. Either way, some people do get a lot out of it which is fine.

[Pondera]

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.

I'm not a massive fan of Existentialism, nor Phenomenology, in part because I find it too dense. Either because I'm just thick, or it's badly written. Either way, some people do get a lot out of it which is fine.

Sure. If you start with, say Sartre or Hegel, you’ll be overwhelmed.

But one I had a lot of “fun” with Kierkegaard “Either/Or”

Go with novels first:

Camus “the stranger”
Dostoyevsky “notes from underground”

Then philosophy:

Heidegger “Being and Time”

Existentialism - to me, is the art of describing the human condition as best as you experience it. So, every work of existentialism is an insight into the mind of the author. There are no absolutes.

In Buddhism, I often think of Sariputta. “There was a a further escape. And for him, there was.”

Or “there was no further escape. And for him, there really wasn’t”.

I dunno. My 2 cents

[Ceisiwr]

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.

I'm not a massive fan of Existentialism, nor Phenomenology, in part because I find it too dense. Either because I'm just thick, or it's badly written. Either way, some people do get a lot out of it which is fine.

Sure. If you start with, say Sartre or Hegel, you’ll be overwhelmed.

But one I had a lot of “fun” with Kierkegaard “Either/Or”

Go with novels first:

Camus “the stranger”
Dostoyevsky “notes from underground”

Then philosophy:

Heidegger “Being and Time”

Existentialism - to me, is the art of describing the human condition as best as you experience it. So, every work of existentialism is an insight into the mind of the author. There are no absolutes.

In Buddhism, I often think of Sariputta. “There was a a further escape. And for him, there was.”

Or “there was no further escape. And for him, there really wasn’t”.

I dunno. My 2 cents

I did buy a book by Kierkegaard a few months ago. I felt like it was aimed more at Christians, or Theists. I never actually finished it though. Perhaps I will, when I get the time.

[Lal]

@ 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.

So, does that eye-contact cease for an Arahant or the Buddha?

That is why I asked the following:
"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? "

You are saying that "contact" is eye-contact, etc.
- So, you are saying that the Buddha lost that upon the cessation of avijja (during the night of the Enlightenment).
- That is a contradiction. That did not happen.

[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.

So, does that eye-contact cease for an Arahant or the Buddha?

That is why I asked the following:
"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? "

You are saying that "contact" is eye-contact, etc.
- So, you are saying that the Buddha lost that upon the cessation of avijja (during the night of the Enlightenment).
- That is a contradiction. That did not happen.

My reply would be the same as when you raised the conciousness issue. You are seeing a contradiction when there isn't one, because you are forgetting that in the past there was ignorance for the Buddha. When there is ignorance, contact follows. What has ceased for the Buddha and Arahants is dependent origination occurring again, but the past cannot be erased.

[Sam Vara]

Teaching involves asking questions.

Sometimes it does, Socrates, and sometimes it doesn't.

But who asked you to teach them?

I have taken on the task myself, Sam.
- Because most "teachers" are not teaching the correct Buddha Dhamma in English.
- Also, because I may not have that much time left in this life, I would like to try.

But you are evading the question again.

No, evasion can only happen if there is a reasonable expectation that something will or should be engaged with. For example, I can't be said to be "evading" American taxes if the American state has no claim over me. But if your native language cannot distinguish between "evade" and "ignore", then we might say that I am currently "evading" everything about you except your tendency to engage in the informal fallacy of petitio principii, and your unrealistic expectation that others will play along with your self-appointed role as teacher.

[auto]

Eye vinnana, sota vinnana is NOT vipaka vinnana. Someone is truly confused.
..

You should read abhidhamma. Solely for that you wouldn't say London is not GB capital kind of arguments.

According to Abhidhamma, one is in contact with disagreeable
senses on account of one’s own past akusala-kamma (unwholesome
deed) and at these instances akusala vipàka cittas will arise in the
cognition process.
On the other hand one is in contact with agreeable senses
on account of one’s own past kusala-kamma (wholesome deed),
and at these instances kusala-vipàka cittas will arise in the cognition
processes.

i actually did mistake earlier in this thread, didn't make difference between hetu(root) and ahetu(rootless). Learning that at the moment. Sense-consciousness purely is ahetu vipaka citta. At the moment as i understand it is that the consciousness with the root arises after contact.

What abhidhamma does is that it goes beyond conventional,
Visuddhimagga gives an example,

On seeing a visible object with the eye:
on seeing a visible object with the eye-consciousness that is capable of seeing visible
objects and has borrowed the name “eye” from its instrument. But the Ancients (poráóá)
said: “The eye does not see a visible object because it has no mind. The mind does not
see because it has no eyes. But when there is the impingement of door and object he
sees by means of the consciousness that has eye-sensitivity as its physical basis. Now,
(an idiom) such as this is called an ‘accessory locution’ (sasambhárakathá), like ‘He shot
him with his bow,’ and so on. So the meaning here is this: ‘On seeing a visible object
with eye-consciousness.’”14

you might read from sn12.2 old age is wrinkly skin, but it does have more scientific, abstract analysis. I doubt contemplation, meditation methods
based on conventional definitions and analysis on a level of broken teeth will get you much far(given you want results like you said non-breathing)

[Lal]

"Elephant in the room": https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/%2 ... n+the+room

I say: "1 + 1 = 3" is a contradiction.
The response from many:
"I don't see it!" OR "1 +2 is, of course, equal to 3" OR "It is going to rain today"

But hopefully, the silent majority can see the "elephant in the room."

Then I ask a simple question, and no one commenting can give a straight answer.
Pali verse: "avijja nirodha, phassa nirodha"
- Does it make sense to translate it as "with the cessation of ignorance, contact ceases"?
- What "contact" is that? "
(The Bodhisatta had ignorance in mind until the moment of Enlightenment. That ignorance ceased when he attained Buddhahood overnight, BUT the sensory contact did not cease. How hard is it to see the contradiction?)

[Ceisiwr]

"Elephant in the room": https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/%2 ... n+the+room

I say: "1 + 1 = 3" is a contradiction.
The response from many:
"I don't see it!" OR "1 +2 is, of course, equal to 3" OR "It is going to rain today"

But hopefully, the silent majority can see the "elephant in the room."

Then I ask a simple question, and no one commenting can give a straight answer.
Pali verse: "avijja nirodha, phassa nirodha"
- Does it make sense to translate it as "with the cessation of ignorance, contact ceases"?
- What "contact" is that? "
(The Bodhisatta had ignorance in mind until the moment of Enlightenment. That ignorance ceased when he attained Buddhahood overnight, BUT the sensory contact did not cease. How hard is it to see the contradiction?)

Was the Buddha ignorant in the past?

[Lal]

Was the Buddha ignorant in the past?

Before the night of the Enlightenment, he was not a Buddha but one trying to become a Buddha, i.e., a Bodhisatta.
- A Bodhisatta is a satta (living being) striving to attain the Buddhahood.
- So, yes, he had a defiled mind (to a lower extent than most) until attaining Buddhahood.

[Ceisiwr]

Was the Buddha ignorant in the past?

Before the night of the Enlightenment, he was not a Buddha but one trying to become a Buddha, i.e., a Bodhisatta.
- A Bodhisatta is a satta (living being) striving to attain the Buddhahood.
- So, yes, he had a defiled mind (to a lower extent than most) until attaining Buddhahood.

And what comes with ignorance? Formations, yes? That leads to a body and mind in this life, no? I would say so. What happens upon awakening is ignorance is abolished, so dependent origination comes to cease. That doesn’t mean that the past can be undone. That ignorance in the past was abolished too. That occurred, and so the effects have to be felt now, whilst alive, for the Buddha (when alive).

[Lal]

That requires a bit longer explanation. I will write one later today when I have the time.

[ssasny]

"So long as there is avijjā, all things (dhammā) are fundamentally as described in the earlier part of the Mūlapariyāyasutta (Majjhima i,1 <M.i,1>); that is to say, they are inherently in subjection, they are appropriated, they are mine. This is the foundation of the notion that I am and that things are in contact with me. This contact between me and things is phassa. The ditthisampanna sees the deception, but the puthujjana accepts it at its face value and elaborates it into a relationship between himself and the world
But though the ditthisampanna is not deceived, yet until he becomes arahat the aroma of subjectivity (asmī ti, ' am') hangs about all his experience. All normal experience is dual :
there are present (i) one's conscious six-based body (saviññānaka salāyatanika kāya),
and (ii) other phenomena (namely, whatever is not one's body); and reflexion will show that, though both are objective in the experience, the aroma of subjectivity that attaches to the experience will naturally tend to be attributed to the body.
[c] In this way, phassa comes to be seen as contact between the conscious eye and forms—but mark that this is because contact is primarily between subject and object, and not between eye, forms, and eye-consciousness. This approach makes it possible to see in what sense, with the entire cessation of all illusion of 'I' and 'mine', there is phassanirodha in the arahat (where, though there are still, so long as he continues to live, both the conscious body and the other phenomena, there is no longer any appropriation).

https://www.nanavira.org/index.php/note ... tes/phassa

[Ceisiwr]

That requires a bit longer explanation. I will write one later today when I have the time.

No rush.