[MortgFinsJohnQ]

Dear friends,

I am reviving this topic again because unfortunately it got completely derailed the last time around.

What is your interpretation of the term 'kamma/karma' ? There seem to be mixed ideas about this, taken sometimes to an extreme view that its a kind of cosmic punishment system.

[blankostaroe]

I understand karma as in the physical sense that for instance if a person is a criminal who is amongst criminals will as well as commit crimes will be subject to crimes committed against him, like the saying "Live by the sword, die by the sword."
Beyond the physical sense I neither believe nor disbelieve or understand.

Gary

[Calluffence]

The colloquial use of "karma" is the idea that what goes around comes around, which strikes me as a very very good way to victim-blame. In fact, that was basically its function in Hinduism where it first arose. It was a way of saying that slaves are slaves because they deserve it, as suffering is always caused by the person experiencing it and not any external injustice. In fact, the idea of karma doesn't seem to allow for the idea of injustice at all. I've seen far too much of that in my short years alive to subscribe to a system which doesn't include it in the overall picture of reality presented. Therefore I would be a bad Hindu, and am kind of averse to it in Buddhism as well.

I've heard different explanations from Buddhists of the Buddhist angle on the notion, but no one seems better supported than any of the others, and it just requires too much mental gymnastics to hold it in my head in some kind of painfully-specific way that doesn't feed victim-blaming tendencies in myself or others. Considering that the belief doesn't really add anything to my practice, nor would it change how I behave, I just... have sort of tossed it as one of the few elements of Buddhist dogma which can cause harm (since if it isn't necessary, and can cause harm, I see no reason why I should spend a lot of time building anything around it).

[DghtRdc]

Kamma is a delicate issue. Trying not to speculate too much about it the only thing I can take about this doctrine is to know that through Kamma we can create conditions to discern unwholesome from wholesome actions. Going far from this can end in sterile speculations.

[OmqMZtkv]

.

Buddha said we shouldn't speculate about karma. (I've also mentioned this sutta in another thread.)

AN 4.77 - Acintita Sutta

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit....077.than.html

[grofvuri]

What is your interpretation of the term 'kamma/karma' ?

Buddha said we shouldn't speculate about karma.

[Dyslermergerb]

Oops !

[sztc38tg]

When a sense organ makes contact with an object something we call ego immediately reacts to this contact in some way, e.g. it is attracted or averted by it - this plants a seed in the consciousness, which when watered by repeated ego responses will bear fruit or have an effect. This is the process of karma as I see it. It is something to do with our reaction to contacts we make continuously. If the reaction is anger, for example, this is not good because it causes harm somewhere down the line. If the seed of anger is watered by more anger this could lead to extreme harm, such as murder, taking place and this in turn is the cause of another effect further down the line in the stream of consciousness.

[kictainiSot]

When a sense organ makes contact with an object something we call ego immediately reacts to this contact in some way, e.g. it is attracted or averted by it - this plants a seed in the consciousness, which when watered by repeated ego responses will bear fruit or have an effect. This is the process of karma as I see it. It is something to do with our reaction to contacts we make continuously. If the reaction is anger, for example, this is not good because it causes harm somewhere down the line. If the seed of anger is watered by more anger this could lead to extreme harm, such as murder, taking place and this in turn is the cause of another effect further down the line in the stream of consciousness.

Makes sense to me. Additionally, I feel that each reaction further reinforces that conceptual notions that led one to such action. Like, "I want to kill this person because they have done me great harm." Unconsciously acting on the premise that another has done one great harm solidifies the notion that harm was done. So not only are the habits of anger and hurting others strengthened, also the concept of harm coming from without (the reason for killing in this example) is strengthened.

If one believes that the mind does not depend on the body for existence it is easy to see how holding such a powerful belief (of harm coming from without) could lead to an existence in a hell realm. I personally do not believe that the mind is dependent on the body for its existence, but if someone else does, this reasoning would not be helpful.

Also, I wonder sometimes that when we lash out and attack another are we not really attacking our unconscious projections. Not to deny the reality of another or the harm one can do to another. But if our mind is dominated by ignorance then when we attack based on our perception of another (as such and such evil person or whatever) are we not in some way, speaking loosely, attacking that perception? Since perception comes from the mind that would mean that we are in a way attacking our own mind. If that is so, then it would make a lot of sense about how anger could lead to very detrimental results in our mindstream.

[lYVgWWcP]

When a sense organ makes contact with an object something we call ego immediately reacts to this contact in some way

This statement pre-supposes the constant and continuous existence of some "thing" that "we call ego" that generates attraction and aversion to sensory data. It is a doctrine of "Attavada".

Nothing intrinsically wrong with such a hypothesis, but the Buddha taught something vastly different.

this plants a seed in the consciousness, which when watered by repeated ego responses will bear fruit or have an effect.

Now we have two Attas at work here -- a constant and continuous ego, and a constant and continuous consciousness. Neither comports with the Buddha's doctrine of Anatta. The Buddha taught vinnana, which we translate as "consciousness", as a process of awareness of a sense object through a sensory system, and nothing more. This awareness comes and goes as sense objects enter and leave the range of that sensory system's capabilities.

Vinnana for the Buddha was not some cosmic karma repository.

...further down the line in the stream of consciousness

The idea of a "stream of consciousness" is a much later invention. Again, for the Buddha, vinanna is not a constant and continuous "stream", but one of several perceptive processes that arise and disappear completely according to contact that arises between a particular sensory system and objects that fall within that particular system's sensory range.

If one believes that the mind does not depend on the body for existence it is easy to see how holding such a powerful belief (of harm coming from without) could lead to an existence in a hell realm.

A person who commits a premeditated murder believes that there will be no adverse consequences. And believes powerfully enough to carry through that intention of premeditated murder. Otherwise, that person would not commit a premeditated murder. Holding such a powerful belief, of no harm coming from without, how could a hell realm come to be after death, through the mechanism of that person's "strong belief", for that person in the speculative scenario you suggest?

I personally do not believe that the mind is dependent on the body for its existence, but if someone else does, this reasoning would not be helpful.

Nor would it be helpful or relevant for one who does not hold a belief that the mind can exist separately from the body, meaning, neither claims that "the mind is separate from the body", nor claims that "the mind is not separate from the body".

The Buddha did not hold that the mind exists separately from the body, by the way.

Also, I wonder sometimes that when we lash out and attack another are we not really attacking our unconscious projections.

I think that we are attacking both unconscious and (even more so) conscious projections. We actively ignore any good qualities a person might have, and hold to any detrimental ones we might conceive as we formulate our aversive intentions.

in our mindstream

Again, a constant and continuous "mindstream" is an attavada notion the Buddha did not teach.

[Anatolii]

The colloquial use of "karma" is the idea that what goes around comes around, which strikes me as a very very good way to victim-blame. In fact, that was basically its function in Hinduism where it first arose. It was a way of saying that slaves are slaves because they deserve it, as suffering is always caused by the person experiencing it and not any external injustice. In fact, the idea of karma doesn't seem to allow for the idea of injustice at all. I've seen far too much of that in my short years alive to subscribe to a system which doesn't include it in the overall picture of reality presented. Therefore I would be a bad Hindu, and am kind of averse to it in Buddhism as well.

I've heard different explanations from Buddhists of the Buddhist angle on the notion, but no one seems better supported than any of the others, and it just requires too much mental gymnastics to hold it in my head in some kind of painfully-specific way that doesn't feed victim-blaming tendencies in myself or others. Considering that the belief doesn't really add anything to my practice, nor would it change how I behave, I just... have sort of tossed it as one of the few elements of Buddhist dogma which can cause harm (since if it isn't necessary, and can cause harm, I see no reason why I should spend a lot of time building anything around it).

Hi Cobalt, Karma is not used a lot in Zen but I think it need not be (self-)victimising. In everyday caste society 2500 BP it probably fulfilled that role. We cannot really judge others, but in relation to ourselves we can go a bit deeper. I think there lies the value also of the concept of Karma, not to bestow it upon others but to get in touch with a deeper reality. Not our fault, if there has been a tradition of sexual abuse, for instance, passed down the generations of our ancestors, but something where we have an opportunity to break through a cycle of bad habit by taking responsibility. Very best wishes, Jan

[gorbasevhuynani]

I like the following comments from Ajahan Sumedho of the Theravada Thai Forest tradition, (whom I heard giving an excellent Dhamma talk today):

"So is kamma something you have to believe in to be a Buddhist ? I've heard Buddhists say that to be a Buddhist you have to believe in the law of kamma and rebirth. But I've never felt that that was ever an expectation.

The thing that attracted me to Buddhism was that you didn't have to believe in anything. You didn't need to take positions. But these are terms that are used. So what is kamma now, rebirth now? Always bringing attention to the here and now rather than deciding whether you believe in the concepts or not. The concepts are just conditions, words."

(The Sound of Silence)

[spoddersedpn]

The thing is about karma is that it is a samsaric phenomena - it is brought about by the ego-clinging self that is existant in samsara. Once we are liberated it can be seen that the self is a delusion as is of course karma but we have to be liberated from samsara for this to happen - until hen we are subject to the self, the ego and to karma - positive or negative. Karma is about doing or not doing harm - enlightened beings who have transcended samsara are of course not subject to this, as there is no inherent self and a complete awakening to the emptiness of all phenomena.

[veizKinquiz]

The thing is about karma is that it is a samsaric phenomena - it is brought about by the ego-clinging self that is existant in samsara. Once we are liberated it can be seen that the self is a delusion as is of course karma but we have to be liberated from samsara for this to happen - until hen we are subject to the self, the ego and to karma - positive or negative. Karma is about doing or not doing harm - enlightened beings who have transcended samsara are of course not subject to this, as there is no inherent self and a complete awakening to the emptiness of all phenomena.

Hi, yes living in the moment is liberation, but you still need a direction, a goal or purpose; for me that is taking responsibility where it's been left unattended The one gives birth to the other, and vice versa.
jan

[Catieliecutty]

The thing is about karma is that it is a samsaric phenomena - it is brought about by the ego-clinging self that is existant in samsara.

Is not this "existent self" a doctrine of Self? How is this seen to comport with the Buddha's teaching of Anatta?

Once we are liberated it can be seen that the self is a delusion as is of course karma but we have to be liberated from samsara for this to happen

Am I liberated, then, since I see that notions of "self" are delusions, and that karma is a delusion?

until hen we are subject to the self, the ego and to karma...

...enlightened beings who have transcended samsara are of course not subject to this, as there is no inherent self and a complete awakening to the emptiness of all phenomena.

By what mechanism are you proposing this? Presumably, by "samsara", you are referring to superstitions of rounds of reincarnation -- correct me if you are not. Does the Flying Spaghetti Monster sit up in the skies and touch enlightened beings with his Noodly Appendage, and thus issue a reprieve from this "self" you propose, karma, and ego?

[chuecafressds]

Originally Posted by londonerabroad When a sense organ makes contact with an object something we call ego immediately reacts to this contact in some way

This statement pre-supposes the constant and continuous existence of some "thing" that "we call ego" that generates attraction and aversion to sensory data. It is a doctrine of "Attavada".

Nothing intrinsically wrong with such a hypothesis, but the Buddha taught something vastly different.

this plants a seed in the consciousness, which when watered by repeated ego responses will bear fruit or have an effect.

Now we have two Attas at work here -- a constant and continuous ego, and a constant and continuous consciousness. Neither comports with the Buddha's doctrine of Anatta. The Buddha taught vinnana, which we translate as "consciousness", as a process of awareness of a sense object through a sensory system, and nothing more. This awareness comes and goes as sense objects enter and leave the range of that sensory system's capabilities.

Vinnana for the Buddha was not some cosmic karma repository.

So, I am getting a clear idea of many ways karma does not work for you Stuka... I have to ask , what is the process through which karma cause & effect operates according to your understanding or tradition?

...further down the line in the stream of consciousness

The idea of a "stream of consciousness" is a much later invention. Again, for the Buddha, vinanna is not a constant and continuous "stream", but one of several perceptive processes that arise and disappear completely according to contact that arises between a particular sensory system and objects that fall within that particular system's sensory range.

Could you elaborate on this a little more on this definition of consciousness? I am not understanding why it is an issue to refer to a sequence of perceptive processes as a stream, this does not imply definitive reality.

If one believes that the mind does not depend on the body for existence it is easy to see how holding such a powerful belief (of harm coming from without) could lead to an existence in a hell realm.

A person who commits a premeditated murder believes that there will be no adverse consequences. And believes powerfully enough to carry through that intention of premeditated murder. Otherwise, that person would not commit a premeditated murder. Holding such a powerful belief, of no harm coming from without, how could a hell realm come to be after death, through the mechanism of that person's "strong belief", for that person in the speculative scenario you suggest?

Hmmm.... well I will say that this scenario needs work. I think the basic of what I am trying to communicate is that people tend to react to the world based upon preconceptions and that there is a strong connection between the motivating intent of an action and preconceptions. This can occur in 2 ways: preconceptions guiding actions and actions creating/influencing preconceptions.

Well if a murdered did not believe that there will be any karmic results of murder: I am thinking that we can agree that the beliefs referenced above are essentially delusions. So, when the murderer reinforces these erroneous beliefs he is actually strengthening the delusions, not necessarily making his thoughts come true. Reinforcing belief in no karmic results of murder = reinforcing the delusion that there is no karmic cause & effect.

As far as the hell realm piece... I am proposing that there is a connection between the way we perceive things and the way we act, although it may be subtle. I also think that more grossly negative actions (non-virtues) will mask this subtle connection by contaminating perception. In contrast refined positive actions will lead to clearer perception and a greater understanding of the effect of one's action on one's own experience. I am proposing that perception contaminated by negative actions is generally experienced as suffering and perception influenced by meritorious actions will be generally experienced as happiness. Over time a person engages in many actions, both positive and negative. This is where I am taking the leap to say that if a person engages in a great degree of negativity (through repeated moderate negative actions or one or more greatly negative actions such as murder) this results in perception of negativity (or suffering) that will be activated when the appropriate conditions present themselves. This can have an effect in this life, but the majority of an extremely negative perception may also play out as an entire form of existence in a hell realm.

I personally do not believe that the mind is dependent on the body for its existence, but if someone else does, this reasoning would not be helpful.

Nor would it be helpful or relevant for one who does not hold a belief that the mind can exist separately from the body, meaning, neither claims that "the mind is separate from the body", nor claims that "the mind is not separate from the body".

The Buddha did not hold that the mind exists separately from the body, by the way.

Thinking that I have to change this to read that the mind is not entirely dependent on the present body for existence but may move from body to body.

Also, I wonder sometimes that when we lash out and attack another are we not really attacking our unconscious projections.

in our mindstream

Again, a constant and continuous "mindstream" is an attavada notion the Buddha did not teach.

As I understand it the Buddha taught no-self, but had no issue with referential self. Meaning that even though "I" do not exist, this does not mean that we cannot use the word I or another's name as a working point of reference for communication. Why then not refer to a sequence of events of consciousness as a stream?

[911_993_911]

the four noble truths, the eightfold path, just tryng to stay mindful and awake more than fills my little plate. kamma doesn't enter the picture at all. speculation isn't that important to me.

[ensuppono]

the four noble truths, the eightfold path, just tryng to stay mindful and awake more than fills my little plate.

Me too.

[beethyday]

Nothing intrinsically wrong with such a hypothesis, but the Buddha taught something vastly different.

Agreed.

what is the process through which karma cause & effect operates according to your understanding or tradition?

"Karma" is a speculative view-cum-superstition. It is not the same as cause-and-effect. Superstitions and speculative views are irrelevant to the Buddha's liberative teachings.

Could you elaborate on this a little more on this definition of consciousness? I am not understanding why it is an issue to refer to a sequence of perceptive processes as a stream, this does not imply definitive reality.

]

The word implies a constant continuity that is not there, and it is a jumping-off place for a reification of that proposed constant, continuous "stream" to take the role of a karma-storing homunculus, an Atta.

I think the basic of what I am trying to communicate is that people tend to react to the world based upon preconceptions and that there is a strong connection between the motivating intent of an action and preconceptions. This can occur in 2 ways: preconceptions guiding actions and actions creating/influencing preconceptions.

I agree.

Well if a murdered did not believe that there will be any karmic results of murder: I am thinking that we can agree that the beliefs referenced above are essentially delusions .So, when the murderer reinforces these erroneous beliefs he is actually strengthening the delusions, not necessarily making his thoughts come true.

When the Buddha spoke of "kamma", he equated it with intention. One intends to commit murder, and follows through on that bodily intention (vipaka).

Reinforcing belief in no karmic results of murder = reinforcing the delusion that there is no karmic cause & effect.

That certainly follows, given the tenets of the speculative view you propose. It is, however, a speculative view.

I am proposing that there is a connection between the way we perceive things and the way we act, although it may be subtle. I also think that more grossly negative actions (non-virtues) will mask this subtle connection by contaminating perception. In contrast refined positive actions will lead to clearer perception and a greater understanding of the effect of one's action on one's own experience. I am proposing that perception contaminated by negative actions is generally experienced as suffering and perception influenced by meritorious actions will be generally experienced as happiness. Over time a person engages in many actions, both positive and negative. This is where I am taking the leap to say that if a person engages in a great degree of negativity (through repeated moderate negative actions or one or more greatly negative actions such as murder) this results in perception of negativity (or suffering) that will be activated when the appropriate conditions present themselves. This can have an effect in this life

I don't see anything I disagree with in that.

...but the majority of an extremely negative perception may also play out as an entire form of existence in a hell realm.

....but that does not follow (assuming you are speaking of a "next life"). You have provided no mechanism for there being a physical "hell realm", and no mechanism of judgment and execution that places that person in that hell realm. Further, any speculation about what those mechanisms might be, would be only just that: speculation.

Thinking that I have to change this to read that the mind is not entirely dependent on the present body for existence but may move from body to body.

-- which turns "the mind" into a homunculus, an Atta. Back to Square One.

As I understand it the Buddha taught no-self...... Meaning that even though "I" do not exist

He taught "not-self"; no "Self" (as proposed by extant philosophers of his day) can be found.

but had no issue with referential self...this does not mean that we cannot use the word I or another's name as a working point of reference for communication.

Agreed.

Why then not refer to a sequence of events of consciousness as a stream?

The problem is that once the various sequences of events are bundled together and labeled as "the mind-stream", or "the stream of consciousness" -- and indeed this is the very reason it has been done in this case -- the next step is to take that bundle and turn it into an Atta that transmigrates from one life to another and reaps the benefits and rewards of actions done in "previous lives", wallowing in speculations about the past and the future, i.e., speculative view-cum-superstition. This is really the only reason one would look at the Buddha's description of vinnana in that way: in order to transform it from a phenomenological, psychological description of the processes by which we ignorantly cling to pleasurable, displeasurable, and neutral sense data, into the metaphysics that it is not.

[LoohornePharp]

Could you elaborate on this a little more on this definition of consciousness?

Let me go further into this with the Buddha's comparison from MN 38 of how (according to him), an uninstructed person, a person in training, and an arahant treat pleasurable, displeasurable, and neutral sense data that arises through each of the sense systems:

"Bhikkhus, that child grows and his faculties mature and he plays games that children play, such as playing with toy ploughs, turning somersaults, making toy wind mills with palm leaves, making small carts and bows. Bhikkhus, that child grows and his faculties mature [further] and the youth enjoys the five strands of sense pleasures; he lives enticed by pleasing and agreeable forms cognizable by eye consciousness, agreeable sounds cognizable by ear consciousness, agreeable smells cognizable by nose consciousness, agreeable tastes cognizable by tongue consciousness and agreeable touches cognizable by body consciousness.

"On seeing a form with the eye he becomes greedy for a pleasant form, or averse to a disagreeable form. He abides with mindfulness of the body not established and with a limited mind. He does not know the deliverance of mind nor the deliverance through wisdom as it really is, where unwholesome states cease completely. He follows the path of agreeing and disagreeing and experiences whatever feeling that arises - pleasant, unpleasant, or neither unpleasant nor pleasant. Delighted and pleased with those [pleasant] feelings he appropriates them. This arouses interest in those feelings. That interest for feelings is clinging. From clinging, there arises becoming, from becoming arises birth, from birth old age, sickness and death, grief, lament, unpleasantness, displeasure and distress. Thus arises the complete mass of dukkha.

"Hearing a sound with the ear, smelling a smell with the nose, tasting a taste with the tongue, feeling a touch with the body, thinking a thought with the mind, he becomes greedy for a pleasant experience, or averse to a disagreeable one. He abides with mindfulness of the body not established and with a limited mind. He does not know the deliverance of mind nor the deliverance through wisdom as it really is, where unwholesome states cease completely. He follows the path of agreeing and disagreeing and experiences whatever feeling that arises - pleasant, unpleasant, or neither unpleasant nor pleasant. Delighted and pleased with those [pleasant] feelings he appropriates them. This arouses interest in those feelings. That interest for feelings is clinging. From clinging, there arises becoming, from becoming arises birth, from birth old age, sickness and death, grief, lament, unpleasantness, displeasure and distress. Thus arises the complete mass of dukkha.


...

"A householder, or a householder's son, or one born into some other family, hears the Dhamma. Having heard the Dhamma, he gains faith in the Tathagata. Endowed with such faith, he reflects: 'The household life is crowded, a path of dust. Going forth is like the open air. It is not easy for one dwelling at home to lead the perfectly complete, perfectly purified holy life, bright as a polished conch. Let me then shave off my hair and beard, put on saffron robes, and go forth from the household life into homelessness.'

"After some time he abandons his accumulation of wealth, be it large or small; he abandons his circle of relatives, be it large or small; he shaves off his hair and beard, puts on saffron robes, and goes forth from the household life into homelessness.

"When he has thus gone forth, he lives restrained by the rules of the Patimokkha, possessed of proper behavior and resort....

...


"On seeing a form with the eye, he does not grasp at any theme or details by which -- if he were to dwell without restraint over the faculty of the eye -- evil, unskillful qualities such as greed or distress might assail him. On hearing a sound with the ear... On smelling an odor with the nose... One tasting a flavor with the tongue... On touching a tactile sensation with the body... On cognizing an idea with the intellect, he does not grasp at any theme or details by which -- if he were to dwell without restraint over the faculty of the intellect -- evil, unskillful qualities such as greed or distress might assail him. Endowed with this noble restraint over the sense faculties, he experiences within himself an unblemished happiness.


.....




"With the abandoning of pleasure and pain -- as with the earlier disappearance of joy and sorrow -- he enters and remains in the fourth Jhana which is beyond pleasure and pain; and purified by equanimity and mindfulness.

"On seeing a form with the eye he does not become greedy for pleasant forms, or averse to disagreeable forms. He abides with mindfulness of the body established and with a immeasurable mind. He knows the deliverance of mind and the deliverance through wisdom as it really is, where unwholesome states cease completely. Having abandoned the path of agreeing and disagreeing, he experiences whatever feeling that arises - pleasant, unpleasant, or neither unpleasant nor pleasant - just as it is. He is not delighted or pleased with those feelings and he does not appropriates them. Interest in those feelings ceases. With the cessation of interest, clinging ceases. With no clinging, there is no becoming; no becoming, no birth; with no birth, there is no old age, sickness or death, no grief, lament, unpleasantness, displeasure or distress. Thus ceases the complete mass of dukkha.

"On hearing a sound with the ear, smelling a smell with the nose, tasting a taste with the tongue, feeling a touch with the body, thinking a thought with the mind, he does not become greedy for pleasant experiences, or averse to disagreeable ones. He abides with mindfulness of the body established and with a immeasurable mind. He knows the deliverance of mind and the deliverance through wisdom as it really is, where unwholesome states cease completely. Having abandoned the path of agreeing and disagreeing, he experiences whatever feeling that arises - pleasant, unpleasant, or neither unpleasant nor pleasant - just as it is. He is not delighted or pleased with those feelings and he does not appropriates them. Interest in those feelings ceases. With the cessation of interest, clinging ceases. With no clinging, there is no becoming; no becoming, no birth; with no birth, there is no old age, sickness or death, no grief, lament, unpleasantness, displeasure or distress. Thus ceases the complete mass of dukkha.










And to elaborate further on this idea of the various forms of sense-consciousness arising ans fading away, let's look at the Loka Sutta:


Samyutta Nikaya XII.44
Loka Sutta
The World
Translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu.
For free distribution only.
Dwelling at Savatthi. There the Blessed One addressed the monks: "I will teach you the origination of the world & the ending of the world. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak."

"As you say, lord," the monks responded to the Blessed One.

The Blessed One said: "And what is the origination of the world? Dependent on the eye & forms there arises eye-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance. From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. This is the origination of the world.

"Dependent on the ear & sounds there arises ear-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact... [same sequence follows]

Dependent on the nose & aromas there arises nose-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact...

Dependent on the tongue & flavors there arises tongue-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact...

Dependent on the body & tactile sensations there arises body-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact...

Dependent on the intellect & mental qualities there arises intellect-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance. From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. This is the origination of the world.

"And what is the ending of the world? Dependent on the eye & forms there arises eye-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. Now, from the remainderless cessation & fading away of that very craving comes the cessation of clinging/sustenance. From the cessation of clinging/sustenance comes the cessation of becoming. From the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth. From the cessation of birth, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair all cease. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of stress & suffering. This is the ending of the world.


"Dependent on the ear & sounds there arises ear-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact...

Dependent on the nose & aromas there arises nose-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact...

Dependent on the tongue & flavors there arises tongue-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact...

Dependent on the body & tactile sensations there arises body-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact...


Dependent on the intellect & mental qualities there arises intellect-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. Now, from the remainderless cessation & fading away of that very craving comes the cessation of clinging/sustenance. From the cessation of clinging/sustenance comes the cessation of becoming. From the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth. From the cessation of birth, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair all cease. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of stress & suffering. This is the ending of the world."


See, Koolaid, the Buddha's emphasis in what is occurring in the here-and-now? What all this hinges on -- dukkha or the quenching of dukkha -- is whether one gives in to craving for any particular sensation coming from any particular sensory system. "Consiousness", within this framework, is mere awareness of a sense object arising within the range of a particular sensory system. A noise arises within range of my hearing, and I hear a sound - that is the arising of ear-consciousness. the noise dissipates, and ear-consciousness goes away. If I cling to that sound -- oh, MUSIC! Ah - yes, let's give that a listen, or OH, Damn, the parrot is screaming again! -- then there is clinging to that sensation. If the ceiling fan is running, it might make a constant sound, but i might be completely unaware of that sound, unless it somehow attracts my attention. Ear-consciousness with regard to that sound is absent, because mentally I have tuned that out or I am otherwise unaware of it -- not "conscious" of it.