[Ruilnasr]

They are fundamental to, and produce consciousness?

Right, consciousness is a by product of feeling, perception and mental formation... because of them arise consiusness and we can use its property to understand how mental fabrications produce this experience called consciousness. Is just about to contemplate. It is not big deal.

[LICraig]

This is because [consciousness] does not has an inherent existence.

So, theoretically all consciousness/awareness where ever it may reside could potentially be annihilated completely?

What then would be the "point" of arising and falling phenomena if there is no consciousness/awareness of it?

[HOTgirlsXXL]

Arise and fade within what?

Feelings and perceptions...

[Tyncneiff]

What then would be the "point" of arising and falling phenomena if there is no consciousness/awareness of it?

Nobody told there is no consciousness... it is told that it is a by product of feelings, perceptions and mental fabrications... and yes, it makes us aware of this.

[Fosavoa]

So, theoretically all consciousness/awareness where ever it may reside could potentially be annihilated completely?

No body has talk about annihilation. Just to contemplate how it arises and fades. There will be consciousness until we feel, perceive and elaborate mental fabrications. What the Buddha taught is to use this property to identify this mental formations and understand them as such so not to be attached to them; not to give them an inherent existence. That is all.

[Usendyduexy]

But remember, there is also no conscious experience in deep sleep so of course there is no sense of "I".

Exactly my point.

Naturally the sense of "I" depends on consciousness and in deep sleep, one is unconscious. Yeah, so you can see it depends on something else.

But as long as there is conscious experience, there will be a sense of "I" There is. It helps prevent us from stepping under buses and so on. It's fairly useful.

however one wants to define that sense- either as truly existing or inherently nonexistent. They can tell themselves that the sense is an illusion, but that does not prevent the sense from continuing. I agree 100% There's a good deal of waffle on this topic, that's for sure and no amount of fancy intellectual footwork can change the basics.

The fact that I know a mirage is an illusion doesn't prevent me from seeing, sensing it, and experiencing it all the same. Sure, it may not be water, but it is something. I may never know what is is, but I sense it nonetheless. True. I find that the difference is that a mirage is just a trick of the mind whereas an object does what it's supposed to. Just been my experience. In any case, this whole 'reality is mere illusion' philosophy is just more intellectual speculation.

So is eternal and irrevocable "deep sleep"/unconsciousness the final end of this process of experience for "you" and "I"? Hey where did you get the "eternal and irrevocable" bit from? I only mentioned deep sleep in my example. You ain't dead in deep sleep right?

I guess that Buddhist spirituality conforms exactly with materialist reductionism in this respect- in that the final analysis conscious experience will eventually yield to its own eternal and irrevocable extinction/annihilation. Whoa! Steady on dude. I didn't say that at all. In any case I don't buy that at all. Annihilation is just more speculation, along with eternalism. Both are mere belief or opinion and don't alter the facts. Who gives a fig if some bloke in a robe says 'self is/ is not eternal / is non existent / mere illusion / is whatever???

Do such statements accord with your experience? (rhetorical question)

Namaste

[Falik]

But everyone has this sense of "me".

No. Not everyone

Enlightened minds do not have a sense of "me".

I would go so far as to say that it it will always be there for everyone, regardless of what they do or don't do, or how "enlightened" they are.

No. Your view is definitely incorrect from a Buddhist perspective. From a scientific perspective, your view is mere unverified unproven speculation.

They can spend talk indefinitely about how there is no "I" or "me", but at the end of the day, this sense of "I" will always remain. It will remain even for someone who has dedicated their life to dispelling the illusion of it.

Again, your view here is mere speculation. But you are asserting it as though it is fact.

Memory is not what is experiencing experience.

I did not say memory is experiencing. I said memory creates the sense of continuity.

And even if you lost all your past memories, you would still have the sense of "I".

The sense of "I"would be a 'new becoming' (ponobhavika).

...you just wouldn't have a story or a history to go with it.

Yes! Well spoken. You have agreed with me in this last point and answered your own question about a "stream" of experience.

Yes! You just wouldn't have a story or a history to go with it. Yes! The mind would not have a sense of continuity.

There is no stream of experience. There is no movie or DVD that can be played back, again and again. There is just momentary or present experience. The illusion of a "stream" is cause by selective and imperfect memory, as I said in my original reply to you.

Regards

[bjacogaerllyo]

Enlightened minds do not have a sense of "me".

Do you know this as a proven fact? Are you going by someone's words/beliefs or the convention of the belief system?

Can you ever really crawl into someone's head and truly analyze whether or not they do have the sense of "I"? If the answer is no, then the statement that "enlightened minds do not have a sense of I" would amount to unverified unproven speculation.

You have asserted this as though it were a fact. But it is far from a fact that some people do not experience the sense of "I". Whether they say they do or not doesn't prove anything. So called "enlightened" people can be wrong, mistaken, misled, intentionally misleading, or very well versed in the art of self-deception.

Therefore, the statement it is ultimately mere speculation.

[I9dydJrX]

I did not say memory is experiencing. I said memory creates the sense of continuity.

My question was: In terms of "function and continuity of experience"- what is experiencing the continuity of experience?

Your response: Memory, albeit imperfect.

So, I'll ask again- what is experiencing experiences?

If memory creates a sense of continuity, as I agree with you that it does, I am wondering if memory is exclusively a construct of the physical brain.

I think it is rather evident that subtle consciousness is not dependent upon the brain, and this corresponds to Tibetan Buddhism according to Ricard. I wonder if memory can also exist independent of the brain. This version of Buddhism also says that this is true, as it describes memory as patterning within the subtle consciousness- a patterning which persists between and into other lifetimes.

This, according to Tibetan Buddhism, is what allows for a continuity of experience after death, through the bardo, and into the next incarnation rather seamlessly.

So an interesting question would be: Does this sense of the continuity of experience continue after death and through death and into the next life?

[cargo_brad]

So an interesting question would be: Does this sense of the continuity of experience continue after death and through death and into the next life?

We've already got quite a number of existing topics about rebirth/reincarnation on the website, philosophia. If you put "rebirth" into the seach facility at the top of the page, you'll be able to find them.

[XYTommy]

Do you know this as a proven fact?

Sure. This can only be confirmed for oneself.

But to deny it, is to not freedom from suffering (dukkha) and the path.

[fiettariaps]

My question was: In terms of "function and continuity of experience"- what is experiencing the continuity of experience?

Your response: Memory, albeit imperfect.

So, I'll ask again- what is experiencing experiences?

If memory creates a sense of continuity, as I agree with you that it does, I am wondering if memory is exclusively a construct of the physical brain.

My first response was in the context of your question. We have agreed about the role of memory.

I think it is rather evident that subtle consciousness is not dependent upon the brain....

There is no evidence here. You are entering into the sphere of speculation again.

For example, when a human being is given an anesthetic, which sedates the brain & nervous system, they have no conscious experiences whatsoever.

[Nemerov]

Sure. This can only be confirmed for oneself.

With "inward" subjective confirmation? That hardly qualifies as the seemingly rigorous verification that you're making it out to be. As we know self-deception is a very powerful phenomenon. It is so powerful in fact that it can convince itself that it doesn't exist. In this case it would be the "not-self-deception."

Your statements are still ultimately mere speculation.

But it has become evident that we've crossed squarely into the realm of dogmatic doctrine, so I won't pursue that any farther.

[womberte]

There is no evidence here. You are entering into the sphere of speculation again.

Well, it would be impetuous to say that there is no evidence at all. There have been millions of people that have had DAR (Death And Resuscitation) experiences. Numerous experiences, such as these, have taken place in clinical setting (e.g., hospitals) where people have been hooked to vital-sign monitors and EEG (electroencephalogram) machines. Many individuals, some clinically dead longer than 5 minutes, were resuscitated and described what was happening around them the entire time they were clinically dead. The described who came into the room, what was happening, what people were saying and doing, etc.

EEG machines reveal that all electrical neuronal activity ceases with the brain instants after death. These people are having conscious experiences while the brain is dead. I'm not talking about run-of-the-mill near death experiences. I am talking about death experiences, from individuals who died and were resuscitated.

Additionally, it is a core principle within Tibetan Buddhism that some forms of consciousness (subtle consciousness) are not dependent upon the physical brain. The is the whole basis of The Tibetan Book of the Dead, which is essentially a navigational "travel" guide through the death experience. Ricard speaks of this in his books. Are you familiar with The Tibetan Book of the Dead?

He also talks about how the belief that consciousness is limited only to the brain as being purely metaphysical belief in its own right. Sure, it may be the consensus, in terms of scientific reductionism, but it is still just a metaphysical belief and hardly a proven fact.

An interesting metaphor is as follows: When you have your antenna plugged into television, you get a picture on your screen. When you damage your antenna, the picture becomes damaged on your screen. When you remove or completely break your antenna, your picture goes out.
Some would see that as proof that the picture originates, and exists solely in, the antenna. Would that be a fair conclusion?

You are entering into the sphere of speculation again.

Can we stop the charade here, honestly. Buddhism itself, as with every other religious tradition, falls firmly into the sphere of speculation as a whole.

Let me let you in on a little secret: Spirituality= speculation. Buddhism= speculation.

For example, when a human being is given an anesthetic, which sedates the brain & nervous system, they have no conscious experiences whatsoever.

People have no conscious experience when given anesthetic? Are you sure this might not be an unfounded generalization?

Actually, I received general anesthetic when I was a child. I got into a bike accident and tore up my arm and ended up with pieces of pavement inside my arm. I was rushed to the hospital and the chief of surgery ended up removing the roadway from deep inside my arm. Under general anesthetic I had one of the most vivid and sublime dreams that I can ever remember having. I was floating on a gigantic red ballon into an endless sky filled with other balloons. I drifted higher and higher in this world of balloons.

The point is, I had a conscious experience (a dream) while under anesthesia. I'm not saying that everyone does, or that everyone remembers their experience, but it is possible.

[amelveEnromma]

it has become evident that we've crossed squarely into the realm of dogmatic doctrine, so I won't pursue that any farther.

How can confirming something for oneself be dogmatic doctrine? There's a world of difference between the two. If you want to entirely dismiss anything which can be established by ourselves through personal experience as "self-deception" and anything anyone else has to say as dogma, where are you going to start?

[SonicPs]

How can confirming something for oneself be dogmatic doctrine? There's a world of difference between the two. If you want to entirely dismiss anything which can be established by ourselves through personal experience as "self-deception" and anything anyone else has to say as dogma, where are you going to start?

First of all has anyone presently involved in this conversation actually had the pervasive and perpetual experience of having no sense of "me", "I" or identity? In short, is anyone here claiming to be enlightened?

If not, then we're turning others' words about others' supposed experiences into doctrine.

In terms of someone that has supposedly experienced this: What I was meaning to say by that is, just because you experience something yourself, doesn't make it a universal truth. Claiming your experience as universal truth is, by definition, dogmatic.

The quote was: "Enlightened minds do not have a sense of 'me'."

What would probably be a less dogmatic way of stating this would be: "Some people, said to be enlightened, have claimed to not have a sense of 'me'."

In terms of the original statement: Are we going on what we've read, what we've heard, what we're supposed to believe if we're a Buddhist? If we are going on something we've subjectively experienced, how can we than translate into a universal definition of "enlightenment"?

The fact that there have been innumerable "enlightened" figures throughout history who came to conclusions that are diametrically opposed to this through their "enlightenment" shows that the discovery of not-self is not a necessary and inevitable component of "enlightenment." As I said before, their have been countless yogis that by all accounts were "enlightened" and talked about a great Self, the direct opposite of no self.

So you can't make blanket statements that are somehow supposed to apply to all people and all traditions.

What has been said is the equivalent of: If you haven't experienced no self as part of your enlightenment, then you're not enlightened.

Countless people would radically disagree.

Then there's also the self-deception aspect which I will go into as well.

The moment you listen to someone say some sort of "truth" about the "experience" of ultimate reality/enlightenment, it will inevitably influence (distort?) your experience of it, should you ever think you've come upon it.

Your experience is filtered, informed, and shaped by your perception, your perceptions through your beliefs, and your beliefs through what you have been taught (i.e., heard, so to speak).

This is why the same event can be experienced completely different by different people depending on their perception of reality, world-view, etc. If it has been said to someone that such-and such- event is "bad" then they are likely to have negative experience of the event. If another person has it said to them that this same event is "good" then they are likely to have a positive experience of it.

Which person's experience is "true"?

So, if you've ever had anyone (including any spiritual teacher/sage-past or present) say to you anything about reality, it essentially precludes you from any sort of "pure" unfettered experience of reality.

Unfortunately, experience is a rather unreliable guage of truth.

How many people have you heard say: "In my experience..." and then go on to describe something that you experienced completely differently.

If a Buddhist looks expecting to find no self because he has had that incessantly drilled into his head, he will likely find no self.
If a Yogi looks expecting to find a great Self, he will likely find a great Self.

As it's been said, people always have the convenient tendency of finding what they're looking for/expecting.

[MondayBlues]

How can confirming something for oneself be dogmatic doctrine? There's a world of difference between the two.

Something only becomes dogmatic doctrine when it becomes applied to all humanity. For instance, countless Christians have had an overwhelmingly powerful experience of Jesus dwelling within their hearts. This experience has confirmed to them that having Jesus in one's heart leads to salvation. This confirmation leads to the most steadfast conviction that having Jesus in one's heart is the only way to salvation for everyone, everywhere, at any time. And thus, you have the birth of dogma.

To ascribe universal implications for a subjective inward experience- every religion falls prey to it.

[Donlupedron]

Hi philosophia,

I have been through your discussion with Element and I have found it really interesting. For many years I studied and practiced a doctrine called Theosophy so I was was taught about after dead not as an experience of people in a operating room but as a systematic, coherent and rational system of events according to what Theosophy understands a human being is about. The issue about after death has always fascinated mankind and has always been an intriguing issue for human beings. Also as Cultural Anthropologist I have witnessed many different explanations about after death realms and it is clear that they are more about cultural fenders against the fear of facing nothingness after death because the idea of a solid self that "should" be everlasting.

The problem here is that the discussion is been set taken two different approaches:Tibetan Religion and the teachings of the historical Buddha. Different things. Tibetan Buddhism has its own perspective about after death and for them this is a very important aspect of their culture. In many ways it resembles to what Theosophy has stated at least with the orthodox teachings. But Tibetan Buddhism is not Buddhism at all; its a shamanic esoteric set of religious believes that are right in their own context.

Originally, the teachings of the historical Buddha given in the Pali Canon were not about after death explorations as has happened with Tibetan Religion when some of the teachings of the historical Buddha melted with the Bö religion. Also the teachings of the historical Buddha are not a religion. It is a set of methods so to understand unsatisfactoriness and its cessation. This teachings are to be practiced in the present moment and warns us not to go under further speculative argumentation so to keep mind in the here and now, aware of how it works and how it makes us get in trouble with ourselves and live issues. This neither confirm nor deny the possibility of after death realms. Simply that is not the issue.

To say that somebody is enlightened can lead to many mental entanglements about such idea. An enlightened being can be found waling down the street and you will never know about. To be enlightened is just to have developed a special understanding about the nature of things by contemplation of anatta, anicca and dukkha as an essential aspect of natural phenomena.

What the Buddha taught is to deeply understand the essential unsatisfactoriness of things so to prevent us to be attached to them otherwise we will experience such unsatisfactoriness.

The way the Buddha taught is to examine reality through contemplation which with practice will lead to stillness of mind. What has to be contemplated? Our mental formations and its impermanent nature.

When mind is relaxed, still, aware, focused, and concentrated in the here and now, we call it, in Soto Zen, "Shi-Kan". When mind works in "Shi-Kan" mode through Zazen, we experience a kind of blissful stillness where the need of further speculative ideas about things ceases and it is not further felt.

The experience is not to need anything else that just to be completely in the present moment. When mind looses this state, a bunch of speculative thoughts about this and that comes again and at the end this just adds tension and unsatisfactoriness to our live.

In Zen we are told to practice here and now and let the rest work by itself.

[TeftyJokip]

If a Buddhist looks expecting to find no self because he has had that incessantly drilled into his head, he will likely find no self.
If a Yogi looks expecting to find a great Self, he will likely find a great Self.

As it's been said, people always have the convenient tendency of finding what they're looking for/expecting.

What about if people just keep an open mind and don't try to go looking for something? Academic study, conjecture, belief and expectation are all like trying to imagine what a meal would taste like based on reading the ingredients list. It's not the same thing as eating the meal.

I personally study Kashmiri Shavism, as well as Tibetan Vajrayana, so I'm not anti anyone else's doctrines. I will seriously consider most points of view (including a wide diversity of Buddhist ones - it's not monolithic by a long shot).

Doctrines don't matter in samhadi meditation. You can't take anything in with you, not even Buddha. There is a Zen Koan which runs: "If you meet Buddha on the road, kill him."

Namaste

[sicheAscems]

"If you meet Buddha on the road, kill him."

Sure... one of the main koans of Zen meditative skills.