DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**fuslkdhfma** · 04-06-2012, 01:03 PM

Dear Esho,

Thanks for sharing passages from those publications. This subject never ceases to fascinate me.

Based on the findings of neuroscientic research, and as can be experienced for oneself via meditative practice, consciousness is indeed discrete. The Buddha appears to have taught [in the Mahatanhasankhaya Sutta (MN 38) and elsewhere] that consciousness is NOT continuous, instead changing from moment to moment, never the same over time. I recall that consciousness dependent on the eyes (as one of the numerous sense media) and forms (as one of many types of sensory stimuli) is specifically called eye-consciousness (the rough equivalent of vision, one of the sensory modalities). The same is true of the ear, with ear-consciousness arising out of contact with sounds, and likewise with the nose, tongue, body, and mind. Consciousness only functions when it has something to be conscious of, primarily via contact. When this object of consciousness is no longer present, consciousness subsides, as does the sense of self.

A number of suttas spring to mind based on this topic. Could this be the sutta you reference?

Parileyyaka Sutta (SN 22.81)

There is the case where an uninstructed person assumes form, feeling, perception, fabrication, sense consciousness to be "the self".

That assumption is a fabrication.

Now what is the cause, what is the origination, what is the birth, what is the coming-into-existence of that fabrication?

To an uninstructed person, touched by that which is felt born of contact with ignorance, craving arises. That fabrication [of 'self'] is born of that.

And that fabrication is inconstant, fabricated, dependently co-arisen. That craving... That feeling... That contact... That ignorance is inconstant, fabricated, dependently co-arisen.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit....081.than.html
Or could it be this? Forgive me for the length of the following excerpt. I feel this section from the middle of the sutta should be included in its entirety, as every word contributes to the overall meaning.

Chachakka Sutta (MN 148)

"If anyone were to say, 'The eye is the self,' that wouldn't be tenable. The arising & falling away of the eye are discerned. And when its arising & falling away are discerned, it would follow that 'My self arises & falls away.' That's why it wouldn't be tenable if anyone were to say, 'The eye is the self.' So the eye is not-self. If anyone were to say, 'Forms are the self,' that wouldn't be tenable... Thus the eye is not-self and forms are not-self. If anyone were to say, 'Consciousness at the eye is the self,' that wouldn't be tenable... Thus the eye is not-self, forms are not-self, consciousness at the eye is not-self. If anyone were to say, 'Contact at the eye is the self,' that wouldn't be tenable... Thus the eye is not-self, forms are not-self, consciousness at the eye is not-self, contact at the eye is not-self. If anyone were to say, 'Feeling is the self,' that wouldn't be tenable... Thus the eye is not-self, forms are not-self, consciousness at the eye is not-self, contact at the eye is not-self, feeling is not self. If anyone were to say, 'Craving is the self,' that wouldn't be tenable. The arising & falling away of craving are discerned. And when its arising & falling away are discerned, it would follow that 'My self arises & falls away.' That's why it wouldn't be tenable if anyone were to say, 'Craving is the self.' Thus the eye is not-self, forms are not-self, consciousness at the eye is not-self, contact at the eye is not-self, feeling is not self, craving is not-self.

"If anyone were to say, 'The ear is the self,' that wouldn't be tenable...

"If anyone were to say, 'The nose is the self,' that wouldn't be tenable...

"If anyone were to say, 'The tongue is the self,' that wouldn't be tenable...

"If anyone were to say, 'The body is the self,' that wouldn't be tenable...

"If anyone were to say, 'The intellect is the self,' that wouldn't be tenable. The arising & falling away of the intellect are discerned. And when its arising & falling away are discerned, it would follow that 'My self arises & falls away.' That's why it wouldn't be tenable if anyone were to say, 'The intellect is the self.' So the intellect is not-self. If anyone were to say, 'Ideas are the self,' that wouldn't be tenable... Thus the intellect is not-self and ideas are not-self. If anyone were to say, 'Consciousness at the intellect is the self,' that wouldn't be tenable... Thus the intellect is not-self, ideas are not-self, consciousness at the intellect is not-self. If anyone were to say, 'Contact at the intellect is the self,' that wouldn't be tenable... Thus the intellect is not-self, ideas are not-self, consciousness at the intellect is not-self, contact at the intellect is not-self. If anyone were to say, 'Feeling is the self,' that wouldn't be tenable... Thus the intellect is not-self, ideas are not-self, consciousness at the intellect is not-self, contact at the intellect is not-self, feeling is not self. If anyone were to say, 'Craving is the self,' that wouldn't be tenable. The arising & falling away of craving are discerned. And when its arising & falling away are discerned, it would follow that 'My self arises & falls away.' That's why it wouldn't be tenable if anyone were to say, 'Craving is the self.' Thus the intellect is not-self, ideas are not-self, consciousness at the intellect is not-self, contact at the intellect is not-self, feeling is not self, craving is not-self.

"This, monks, is the path of practice leading to self-identification. One assumes about the eye that 'This is me, this is my self, this is what I am.' One assumes about forms... One assumes about consciousness at the eye... One assumes about contact at the eye... One assumes about feeling... One assumes about craving that 'This is me, this is my self, this is what I am.'

"One assumes about the ear...

"One assumes about the nose...

"One assumes about the tongue...

"One assumes about the body...

"One assumes about the intellect that 'This is me, this is my self, this is what I am.' One assumes about ideas... One assumes about consciousness at the intellect... One assumes about contact at the intellect... One assumes about feeling... One assumes about craving that 'This is me, this is my self, this is what I am.'

"Now, this is the path of practice leading to the cessation of self-identification. One assumes about the eye that 'This is not me, this is not my self, this is not what I am.' One assumes about forms... One assumes about consciousness at the eye... One assumes about contact at the eye... One assumes about feeling... One assumes about craving that 'This is not me, this is not my self, this is not what I am.'

"One assumes about the ear...

"One assumes about the nose...

"One assumes about the tongue...

"One assumes about the body...

"One assumes about the intellect that 'This is not me, this is not my self, this is not what I am.' One assumes about ideas... One assumes about consciousness at the intellect... One assumes about contact at the intellect... One assumes about feeling... One assumes about craving that 'This is not me, this is not my self, this is not what I am.'

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit....148.than.html
As I understand it, there is no Self that sees, only an eye that sees. Without an object of vision, eye-consciousness (which may be mistaken for a Self) ceases. And at the very next moment, eye-consciousness may re-arise in dependence upon another object of vision.

Interestingly, this sentiment is echoed by Nagarjuna in the Mulamadhyamakakarika:

Mulamadhyamakakarika III.7.
As the birth of a son is said to occur presupposing the mother and the father,
Knowledge is said to occur presupposing the eye being dependent on the visible forms.

Mulamadhyamakakarika III.8.
Since the "object seen" and the vision do not exist (independently, on their own),
there is no four-fold consequence: knowledge, etc. cognitive sensation, affective sensation, and "desire".
Also, then, how will the acquisition (upadana) of karma and its consequences i.e., existence, birth, aging, and death be produced?

Mulamadhyamakakarika III.9.
Likewise hearing, smelling, tasting, touching and thought are explained as vision.
Indeed one should not apprehend the "hearer," "what is heard," etc. as self-existent entities.

http://www.orientalia.org/article492.html
The connections between this ancient understanding and modern science is astounding. I will add more another day.

04-06-2012, 01:03 PM	#25
fuslkdhfma Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 429 Senior Member	Dear Esho, Thanks for sharing passages from those publications. This subject never ceases to fascinate me. Based on the findings of neuroscientic research, and as can be experienced for oneself via meditative practice, consciousness is indeed discrete. The Buddha appears to have taught [in the Mahatanhasankhaya Sutta (MN 38) and elsewhere] that consciousness is NOT continuous, instead changing from moment to moment, never the same over time. I recall that consciousness dependent on the eyes (as one of the numerous sense media) and forms (as one of many types of sensory stimuli) is specifically called eye-consciousness (the rough equivalent of vision, one of the sensory modalities). The same is true of the ear, with ear-consciousness arising out of contact with sounds, and likewise with the nose, tongue, body, and mind. Consciousness only functions when it has something to be conscious of, primarily via contact. When this object of consciousness is no longer present, consciousness subsides, as does the sense of self. A number of suttas spring to mind based on this topic. Could this be the sutta you reference? Parileyyaka Sutta (SN 22.81) There is the case where an uninstructed person assumes form, feeling, perception, fabrication, sense consciousness to be "the self". That assumption is a fabrication. Now what is the cause, what is the origination, what is the birth, what is the coming-into-existence of that fabrication? To an uninstructed person, touched by that which is felt born of contact with ignorance, craving arises. That fabrication [of 'self'] is born of that. And that fabrication is inconstant, fabricated, dependently co-arisen. That craving... That feeling... That contact... That ignorance is inconstant, fabricated, dependently co-arisen. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit....081.than.html Or could it be this? Forgive me for the length of the following excerpt. I feel this section from the middle of the sutta should be included in its entirety, as every word contributes to the overall meaning. Chachakka Sutta (MN 148) "If anyone were to say, 'The eye is the self,' that wouldn't be tenable. The arising & falling away of the eye are discerned. And when its arising & falling away are discerned, it would follow that 'My self arises & falls away.' That's why it wouldn't be tenable if anyone were to say, 'The eye is the self.' So the eye is not-self. If anyone were to say, 'Forms are the self,' that wouldn't be tenable... Thus the eye is not-self and forms are not-self. If anyone were to say, 'Consciousness at the eye is the self,' that wouldn't be tenable... Thus the eye is not-self, forms are not-self, consciousness at the eye is not-self. If anyone were to say, 'Contact at the eye is the self,' that wouldn't be tenable... Thus the eye is not-self, forms are not-self, consciousness at the eye is not-self, contact at the eye is not-self. If anyone were to say, 'Feeling is the self,' that wouldn't be tenable... Thus the eye is not-self, forms are not-self, consciousness at the eye is not-self, contact at the eye is not-self, feeling is not self. If anyone were to say, 'Craving is the self,' that wouldn't be tenable. The arising & falling away of craving are discerned. And when its arising & falling away are discerned, it would follow that 'My self arises & falls away.' That's why it wouldn't be tenable if anyone were to say, 'Craving is the self.' Thus the eye is not-self, forms are not-self, consciousness at the eye is not-self, contact at the eye is not-self, feeling is not self, craving is not-self. "If anyone were to say, 'The ear is the self,' that wouldn't be tenable... "If anyone were to say, 'The nose is the self,' that wouldn't be tenable... "If anyone were to say, 'The tongue is the self,' that wouldn't be tenable... "If anyone were to say, 'The body is the self,' that wouldn't be tenable... "If anyone were to say, 'The intellect is the self,' that wouldn't be tenable. The arising & falling away of the intellect are discerned. And when its arising & falling away are discerned, it would follow that 'My self arises & falls away.' That's why it wouldn't be tenable if anyone were to say, 'The intellect is the self.' So the intellect is not-self. If anyone were to say, 'Ideas are the self,' that wouldn't be tenable... Thus the intellect is not-self and ideas are not-self. If anyone were to say, 'Consciousness at the intellect is the self,' that wouldn't be tenable... Thus the intellect is not-self, ideas are not-self, consciousness at the intellect is not-self. If anyone were to say, 'Contact at the intellect is the self,' that wouldn't be tenable... Thus the intellect is not-self, ideas are not-self, consciousness at the intellect is not-self, contact at the intellect is not-self. If anyone were to say, 'Feeling is the self,' that wouldn't be tenable... Thus the intellect is not-self, ideas are not-self, consciousness at the intellect is not-self, contact at the intellect is not-self, feeling is not self. If anyone were to say, 'Craving is the self,' that wouldn't be tenable. The arising & falling away of craving are discerned. And when its arising & falling away are discerned, it would follow that 'My self arises & falls away.' That's why it wouldn't be tenable if anyone were to say, 'Craving is the self.' Thus the intellect is not-self, ideas are not-self, consciousness at the intellect is not-self, contact at the intellect is not-self, feeling is not self, craving is not-self. "This, monks, is the path of practice leading to self-identification. One assumes about the eye that 'This is me, this is my self, this is what I am.' One assumes about forms... One assumes about consciousness at the eye... One assumes about contact at the eye... One assumes about feeling... One assumes about craving that 'This is me, this is my self, this is what I am.' "One assumes about the ear... "One assumes about the nose... "One assumes about the tongue... "One assumes about the body... "One assumes about the intellect that 'This is me, this is my self, this is what I am.' One assumes about ideas... One assumes about consciousness at the intellect... One assumes about contact at the intellect... One assumes about feeling... One assumes about craving that 'This is me, this is my self, this is what I am.' "Now, this is the path of practice leading to the cessation of self-identification. One assumes about the eye that 'This is not me, this is not my self, this is not what I am.' One assumes about forms... One assumes about consciousness at the eye... One assumes about contact at the eye... One assumes about feeling... One assumes about craving that 'This is not me, this is not my self, this is not what I am.' "One assumes about the ear... "One assumes about the nose... "One assumes about the tongue... "One assumes about the body... "One assumes about the intellect that 'This is not me, this is not my self, this is not what I am.' One assumes about ideas... One assumes about consciousness at the intellect... One assumes about contact at the intellect... One assumes about feeling... One assumes about craving that 'This is not me, this is not my self, this is not what I am.' http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit....148.than.html As I understand it, there is no Self that sees, only an eye that sees. Without an object of vision, eye-consciousness (which may be mistaken for a Self) ceases. And at the very next moment, eye-consciousness may re-arise in dependence upon another object of vision. Interestingly, this sentiment is echoed by Nagarjuna in the Mulamadhyamakakarika: Mulamadhyamakakarika III.7. As the birth of a son is said to occur presupposing the mother and the father, Knowledge is said to occur presupposing the eye being dependent on the visible forms. Mulamadhyamakakarika III.8. Since the "object seen" and the vision do not exist (independently, on their own), there is no four-fold consequence: knowledge, etc. cognitive sensation, affective sensation, and "desire". Also, then, how will the acquisition (upadana) of karma and its consequences i.e., existence, birth, aging, and death be produced? Mulamadhyamakakarika III.9. Likewise hearing, smelling, tasting, touching and thought are explained as vision. Indeed one should not apprehend the "hearer," "what is heard," etc. as self-existent entities. http://www.orientalia.org/article492.html The connections between this ancient understanding and modern science is astounding. I will add more another day.
	Quote