[ulnanVti]

Hello all,

I have posted this thread because I have hit a stumbling block on my path of on two accounts:

1.) I am having trouble understanding the point of kamma and whether one who is enlightened will still experience the fruits of kamma. Lets say for a second that at this instant for some mysterious reason everyone in the world would become enlightened. Therefore according to the teachings no one would truly experience suffering. If a loved one were to die, they would understand all things are impermanent. Would an enlightened person experience the fruits of kamma by killing someone? He would not be "reborn" into a lower realm because he is free from the wheel of life. He would not cause suffering to those who loved the one who was killed because they are enlightened too. You may say to yourself that an enlightened person would not have the urge to kill, because he is free from craving. I am aware of this, but this enlightened person would lets say not do this out of anger or hatred or greed, but killed another just so. You may then say that since an enlightened person is free from urges, he would not have any urge at all not even killing. But then would he have the urge to eat and so forth. I am sorry for the long question but it is really a stumbling block for me on my insight. The moral aspect of this is really bothering me. Should I just drop this question altogether? Any thoughts or links to site regarding this would be awesome thank you!!

2.) I know that the fifth aggregate of consciousness talks about how consciousness is changed moment to moment, e.g eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness. And that the consciousness that sees is different from the one that hears. However, when you watch a movie, you see a person, and hear them talk at the same time. Is this because the moments of consciounsess arise and pass away so fast that they blend together? Again any thoughts or links to site regarding this aspect would be great.

THANKS GUYS!!! I REALLY APPRECIATE YOU ALL AND THIS FORUM!!!

[Unrersvar]

Lets say for a second that at this instant for some mysterious reason everyone in the world would become enlightened. Therefore according to the teachings no one would truly experience suffering. If a loved one were to die, they would understand all things are impermanent.

Yes

Would an enlightened person experience the fruits of kamma by killing someone?

No. An enlightened person has no reason or motive to kill someone

He would not cause suffering to those who loved the one who was killed because they are enlightened too.

No. An enlightened person has no reason or motive to kill someone

You may say to yourself that an enlightened person would not have the urge to kill, because he is free from craving.

Yes.

I am aware of this, but this enlightened person would lets say not do this out of anger or hatred or greed, but killed another just so.

No. That is not possible.

You may then say that since an enlightened person is free from urges, he would not have any urge at all not even killing.

Yes.

But then would he have the urge to eat and so forth.

The enlightened person is not a cannibal and therefore does not need to kill other human beings for food.

However, as for killing other beings, such as worms or fish in acquiring food, your question is just hypothetical because there has never been 100% enlightened beings on this earth. But, you know, they could just eat things like fruit & nuts, which does not require any killing.

I am sorry for the long question but it is really a stumbling block for me on my insight. The moral aspect of this is really bothering me. Should I just drop this question altogether? .

Yes, definitely. But your mind already know the solution to your own dilema. This comes from insight or intuitive wisdom.

I know that the fifth aggregate of consciousness talks about how consciousness is changed moment to moment, e.g eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness. And that the consciousness that sees is different from the one that hears. However, when you watch a movie, you see a person, and hear them talk at the same time. Is this because the moments of consciounsess arise and pass away so fast that they blend together?

The arising & passing away is not so fast they it cannot be discerned by the mind. As for the blending together, this is just obscuration.

Regards & welcome

[constanyiskancho]

So when watching a movie when i see someone and hear them talk "at the same time" is it really just seeing arising, then passing, hearing arisng then passing, and so forth?

[hoconnor6605]

(portions removed )

... However, when you watch a movie, you see a person, and hear them talk at the same time. Is this because the moments of consciousess arise and pass away so fast that they blend together?

At a speed of 24 frames per second (the speed required for talking movies) it takes 4 frames to register consciously. If anything is projected for less than 4 frames, you probably won't 'know' that you saw it.

The frames in a movie projector (and moving film camera) actually stop, for 1 / 24th of a second each. The reason why a series of still images shown is such rapid succession gives the illusion of movement is due to something called 'persistence of vision' (a term coined by Roget, the one who wrote the thesaurus) meaning that we still remember, subconsciously, the previous frame.

I would imagine that subconscious brain activity contributes to intentional actions. Perhaps some of the more learned Pali scholars in this group might share with uS EXamples where the Buddha could be referring to what we call subconscious activity.

[zatronanec]

Im just trying to understand the fifth aggregate better thats all, how about when you talk to someone you look at them and hear them at the same time. The buddha says that consciousness does not flow as one but is rather made up of mental states which arise and fall moment by moment. So I'm asking if eye consciousness arises then falls then ear consciousness arises then falls, then eye consciousness arises then falls, but this alll happens in a way that makes it appear as if one consciousness is hearing and seeing at the same time. Thoughts?

[QRhnNSg9]

Hi SoZ

I can suggest you consider examining the matter via introspection.

Like now I am focusing on the features an orange flower growing from a tree but am also trying to focus on the sound of birds.

It is easy to focus on the flower and hear the birds in the background but if I wish to focus accurately on the sounds it is difficult to pay acute attention to both.

But, at least in my experience, it seems more than one consciousness can function at any given time.

It can be said one consciousness is hearing and seeing at the same time but, alternately, it can also be said two consciousnesses are hearing and seeing at the same time.

What do we think?

Kind regards



what's called 'mind,' 'intellect' or 'consciousness' by day and by night arises as one thing and ceases as another. Just as a monkey, swinging through a forest wilderness, grabs a branch. Letting go of it, it grabs another branch. Letting go of that, it grabs another one. Letting go of that, it grabs another one. In the same way, what's called 'mind,' 'intellect,' or 'consciousness' by day and by night arises as one thing and ceases as another.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit....061.than.html
If anyone were to say, 'Eye consciousness is the self,' that wouldn't be tenable. The arising & falling away of eye consciousness are discerned.

If anyone were to say, 'Ear consciousness is the self,' that wouldn't be tenable. The arising & falling away of eye consciousness are discerned.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit....148.than.html

[Equackasous]

Thanks element, you have been a big help. I think now I know that it is the rising and falling of consciousness interspersed, but it is an illusion which makes us feel that it is one consciousness all along check it out in this article: http://www.buddhapadipa.org/pages/me...indmoment.html


IF we could get back to the main issue which is regarding an enlightened person not killing another in a world where everyone is enlightend. Could someone explain to me what it is that would prevent an enlightened person from killing another, he would commit no harm nor create any more fruits of kamma because he is enlightened. He would no longer have the desire to kill, because he would no longer have desire, but what about the desire to eat. Would he still have that?

[Tibaveriafark]

The Buddha said actions such as killing arise due to intention. Possibly first answer the following questions:

"What motive would an enlightened being have to kill another person?"

"What intention would drive an enlightened being to kill another person?"

Regards

[MilenaMKB]

Your right element he would have no intention nor drive, but then the question arises what motive would an enlightened person have to eat? He would be free of the desire to kill, so would he be free of the desire to eat? Does anyone see my dilema here? Remember this is a world in which everyone is enlightened, no no more fruits of kamma is created?


One final question and then i should stop being so inquisitive. The so called subconscious part of a person. What aggregate would this belong to? Since consciousness is merely awareness, then would the subconscious belong to the aggregate of "mental formations" the aggregate which includes volition and such? Thanks guys

[newspetty]

He would be free of the desire to kill, so would he be free of the desire to eat?

To be enlightened do not mean to die of starvation. Eat is a need, not a desire. Now, some people live for eating and others eat for living.

Does anyone see my dilema here? I don't see such a dilemma.

[Kissntell]

the question arises what motive would an enlightened person have to eat? He would be free of the desire to kill, so would he be free of the desire to eat? Does anyone see my dilema here? Remember this is a world in which everyone is enlightened, no no more fruits of kamma is created?

Welcome, sonofzeus.

A human body, enlightened or not, requires food to sustain it. Food provides the nutrients we need to build and maintain our bodies, and to supply them with energy. As Kaarine said already, eating is a need and not a desire.

Can I ask if you practice offline with any particular tradition, or are you investigating Buddhism in general ?

with kind wishes,

A-D

[salomal-qask]

IF we could get back to the main issue which is regarding an enlightened person not killing another in a world where everyone is enlightend. Could someone explain to me what it is that would prevent an enlightened person from killing another, he would commit no harm nor create any more fruits of kamma because he is enlightened. He would no longer have the desire to kill, because he would no longer have desire, but what about the desire to eat. Would he still have that?

It can be said that all suffering results from craving.
From that, it can be said that craving leads to suffering.
But this does not mean that ALL craving ALWAYS leads to suffering,
or that craving by itself IS suffering (although it CAN be).
Suffering results when we crave conditioned things, thinking that having those things will bring lasting happiness.
But if the things are themselves temporary, this will bring us back to suffering.

On the other hand, if you crave something with the full understanding that it will not bring lasting happiness, then you will not suffer when the happiness it brings ends.

So, if Buddha wants a sandwich, Buddha can enjoy a sandwich because an enlightened being knows that even though it tastes good, it's only temporary, but that's okay. An enlightened being doesn't expect a sandwich to end suffering. He just wants to have some lunch.

He knows that he'll want to eat again tomorrow, but he's okay with that.

[payloansday]

Thanks guys, Ill have to sit on this for a while. Aloka I in fact practice vipassana
meditation daily. Lately I have been having stumbling block lately. You see I am an inquisitive person by nature. I like answers to questions, I like definite answers. An this need has become a stumbling block to my meditation. For the first time today I realised I must note this desire for right answers when it arises. I hope I am on the right track.

One other question which has been perplexing to me is the subconscious in buddhism. Where does it fit in with the respect to the five aggregates. The buddha believe in no soul, so the subconscious could not be the soul of a person. I remember reading that subconscious is a kind of mind consciousness. Is this where it would fit in? Whats the deal?

[BenBoobmers]

Where does it fit in with the respect to the five aggregates. The buddha believe in no soul, so the subconscious could not be the soul of a person. I remember reading that subconscious is a kind of mind consciousness. Is this where it would fit in? Whats the deal?

Just as an advice, forget subconscious and, even more, soul and focus in mental fabrications. Keep doing vipsassana.

[logpogingg]

So you think im thinking too much and should just do the practice? I like it. Your absolutely right, this is what im struggling with. If anyone does have an answer that would be awesome though. Thanks!!

[TeemFilla]

This advice from Ajahn Sumedho called "Letting Go " might be helpful, sonofzeus.

http://www.vipassanadhura.com/lettinggo.html

[zilsolley3]

By subconscious you guys I mean, the factors of us that dont involve consciousness. Like we dont control our heartbeat at will, what aggregate is it that keeps one alive that keeps one going at the base level. It can't be a soul, so what aggregate is it?

Thanks ALOKA-D I appreciate it. Maybe it is time I give up looking for mental concepts and such.

[Tilmbeinymn]

By subconscious you guys I mean, the factors of us that dont involve consciousness. Like we dont control our heartbeat at will, what aggregate is it that keeps one alive that keeps one going at the base level. It can't be a soul, so what aggregate is it?

Sometimes an organ can be kept alive by artificial means. Thus, cognition (conscious or subconscious) is not needed.
Perhaps a more accurate example of subconscious with regard to your question would be seeing something without being aware that you see it, such as an image shown for 1/48th of a second, or an animal who blends into its environment.

[Fegemiembendy]

Interesting fojiao2, thats an analogy i think I needed!!! I appreciate all of the help guys. I am no longer craving an answer for this, but I am still just very curious if anyone knows, what aggregate would this technically fit into.

I know I am talking in concepts and this is exactly what I should not be doing. But when meditating I am able to see the impermanence of my body, my perceptions, my feelings, my mind object, and my consciousness. Even though these things are not really "mine" yet when reflecting on what is it that keeps my heart pumping, what is it that keep my blood flowing, I am at a loss.

I think if I knew what aggregate the subconscious, (responsible for such things) belonged to, I could possibly understand it better. Is it part of the body aggregate, the consciousness aggregate? Thanks guys I LOVE THIS FORUM

[herbalviagra]

This talk from Ajahn Sucitto on the five khandas (aggregates) might be helpful.

http://www.dhammatalks.org.uk/index....40&file_id=323

I like in the last 20 mins the way he describes clinging as being like a rat or a terrier holding on to things - and how we solidify them.