[DiatryDal]

Lazy, I think that when it is told "person" and "individuality" as told by Element and Stuka, we are speaking about Dhamma lenguage and such is about Aggregates and nothing more than just that.

To see a person or an individual under another scope, it is called 'sakkaya ditthi' meaning:

How does this "individuality" differ from a "mind-stream"? Both terms refer to conventional reality; however "mind-stream" suggests flux and impermanence, whereas the concept of an individual has connotations of substantially and self.

This "mind stream" can fit the 6 to 10 personality believes if not the rest of them. The Aggregates are not streams of anything. Trying to find streams at the aggregates... aggregates defilements to the already deluded mind...

SN 27.2: Rupa Sutta — Forms
At Savatthi. "Monks, any desire-passion with regard to forms is a defilement of the mind. Any desire-passion with regard to sounds... aromas... flavors... tactile sensations... ideas is a defilement of the mind. When, with regard to these six bases, the defilements of awareness are abandoned, then the mind is inclined to renunciation. The mind fostered by renunciation feels malleable for the direct knowing of those qualities worth realizing."

SN 27.3: Viññana Sutta — Consciousness
At Savatthi. "Monks, any desire-passion with regard to eye-consciousness is a defilement of the mind. Any desire-passion with regard to ear-consciousness... nose-consciousness... tongue-consciousness... body-consciousness... intellect-consciousness is a defilement of the mind. When, with regard to these six bases, the defilements of awareness are abandoned, then the mind is inclined to renunciation. The mind fostered by renunciation feels malleable for the direct knowing of those qualities worth realizing."

[...]

SN 27.10: Khandha Sutta — Aggregates
At Savatthi. "Monks, any desire-passion with regard to form is a defilement of the mind. Any desire-passion with regard to feeling... perception... fabrications... consciousness is a defilement of the mind. When, with regard to these five bases, the defilements of awareness are abandoned, then the mind is inclined to renunciation. The mind fostered by renunciation feels malleable for the direct knowing of those qualities worth realizing."

Defilements

[kuzbaslachek]

From the same link given by Element at p. 4:

Bhikkhus, whenever a noble disciple clearly understands kamma, the birth place of kamma, the diversity of kamma, the fruits of kamma, the quenching of kamma like this, then that noble disciple clearly understands the brahmacariya as the means of penetrating to the quenching of action (kammanirodha) This part of the teaching seems interesting because instead of Dukkha appears Kamma in the way the four noble truths are given. It is not the same "Dukkha" as "kamma". Kamma can be "bright" kamma with "bright" results or in terms of diversity, there is kamma that lead to experience a deva world. Seems this is beyond the scope of just "suffering" because here what is at sight it the complete renunciation also to such "good" kamma ripening or to abide in a Deva world. To contemplate this, the four noble truths formula with kamma, seems far more reaching.

Any Comments?

[ZIZITOPER]

My impression is the notion of kamma is instrinsically connected to self-view. When there is "doing" (kamma) without self-view then that is not really kamma, in the traditional meaning of the word

But then some will argue: "Can't we murder with such an attitude?" The answer here is obviously "no" because murder can only occur due to self-view. How could a mind free of self-view murder? That is impossible. Murder can only occur due to some kind of self-cherishing/self-attachment.

Imo, the quenching of kamma is "doing without a doer" or "non-doing". "Doing" but "not-doing".

Buddhadasa had his own Zen phrase: "All day long I do nothing". This did not literally mean doing nothing. It meant doing as though doing nothing. Doing without attachment. It meant doing without the doer. Something like that.

[gluckmeea]

Imo, the quenching of kamma is "doing without a doer" or "non-doing". "Doing" but "not-doing".

Like doing without craving, for example?

Buddhadasa had his own Zen phrase: "All day long I do nothing". This did not literally mean doing nothing. It meant doing as though doing nothing. Doing without attachment. It meant doing without the doer. Something like that. Yes...

Other Zen saying goes like this... Eat your food, wash your dishes...

Soto Zen has a teaching for this called Mushotoku as the non profit acction: Mu = Non; Shotoku = profit.

[NarunapyCalry]

hi

I am referring to the reality of psychological experience rather than Yogacara's theory.

The thinking mind (citta) generates anger and stores anger.

The conscious (meditation) mind allows anger to rise from storage & dissolve.

This is basic psychological reality.

In spirituality, the practise is to become conscious in order to 'release' mental defilements.

So, imo, all of the theories of rebirth/alaya consciousness are contrary to spiritual reality.

Thus the Buddha strongly admonished those (such as Bhikkhu Sati in MN 38 ) that asserted consciousness is reborn.

My view is it is impossible for consciousness to be reborn. It could be possible for a mental formation to be reborn, such as a frog living a certain pond deciding to jump into and makes its home in another pond.

My impression is even the Buddha had the self-respect to never ever declare consciousness is reborn. If he did, he would be censured by both the foolish and the wise.

Even religious folks have the good sense to believe "the soul", "personality", "life force", "atman", etc, is reborn.

But to believe consciousness or sense awareness (mere knowing) is reborn simply does not make sense, imo

Hi Element,

I don't think one needs to believe in (literal) rebirth or a "reborn consciousness" to find value in the alaya-vijnana paradigm. Certainly the Yogacarins took rebirth as a given, and alaya applies to it among other things. But in general its utility is that it provides an model for psychological continuity over time, without recourse to an atman. "Seeds" go in, ripen slowly or quickly as the case may be, and produce their vipaka. It can be understood in terms of the present life, and can be applied to the here and now through heedfulness with regard to one's actions.

For me, at least, it's a practical teaching. Cultivate the wholesome seeds, avoid cultivating the unwholesome ones. Hold the view that all seeds will come to fruition in some way or another, in present or future, "my" life or another's. That's pretty much it.

[Broker15015]

Buddhadasa had his own Zen phrase: "All day long I do nothing". This did not literally mean doing nothing. It meant doing as though doing nothing. Doing without attachment. It meant doing without the doer. Something like that. A great explanation of "doing nothing"! Wonderful!

Words from the Layman, oft quoted and worth repeating:

My daily affairs are quite ordinary;
but I’m in total harmony with them.
I don’t hold on to anything, don’t reject anything;
nowhere an obstacle or conflict.
Who cares about wealth and honor?
Even the poorest thing shines.
My miraculous power and spiritual activity:
drawing water and carrying wood.

[StivRichardOff]

Hi Element,

I don't think one needs to believe in (literal) rebirth or a "reborn consciousness" to find value in the alaya-vijnana paradigm.

It's a made-up contrivance. There is value in the ethics it was devised to support, but there are far more effective paradigms that do not indulge -- and hinge -- on a house-of-cards of superstition.

Certainly the Yogacarins took rebirth as a given, and alaya applies to it among other things. And so do you. Which is why you simply cannot see why it is so meaningless to folks who are past such things. You would have to start thinking outside of the superstition box to see.

But in general its utility is that it provides an model for psychological continuity over time, without recourse to an atman. There are lots of other far less convoluted models that do not impose superstition or require suspension of logic or rationality. Simple adages such as "what comes around goes around", "people treat you how you treat them", and " you get's what you give's" suffice.


"Seeds" go in, ripen slowly or quickly as the case may be, and produce their vipaka. It can be understood in terms of the present life, and can be applied to the here and now through heedfulness with regard to one's actions.

For me, at least, it's a practical teaching. Cultivate the wholesome seeds, avoid cultivating the unwholesome ones. The Buddha's exposition of Right Effort suffices nicely with out any recourse to superstitious speculations.

Hold the view that all seeds will come to fruition in some way or another, in present or future, "my" life or another's. That's pretty much it. So we should just tell ourselves what we know to be made-up elegant lies, for what?

[ñàéäèíã]

Seven off-topic posts deleted. Please stay on topic

[buchmausar]

Seven off-topic posts deleted. Please stay on topic

It would seem that "mahayana"/yogacara "aliyavijnana"-evangelism in this Theravada forum would be off-topic as well.

[BoattyGonm]

I don't think one needs to believe in (literal) rebirth or a "reborn consciousness" to find value in the alaya-vijnana paradigm. For me, at least, it's a practical teaching. Cultivate the wholesome seeds, avoid cultivating the unwholesome ones. Hold the view that all seeds will come to fruition in some way or another, in present or future, "my" life or another's.

Sure

But for me, there is no value because the Buddha already provided many teachings about morality & kammic inheritence.

From a meditation/liberation purpose, it is essential to comprehend consciousness & its objects. Bringing the mind to a state of bare awareness (bare consciousness) is the vehicle for insight & liberation.

Alaya is mind objects. Alaya is not mind consciousness. If the mind cannot discern/distinguish between mind consciousness and mind objects then insight & liberation is impossible.

This is why the only practical value you can define from the Yogacarins is a moral one. However, I can only suggest you consider for yourself the "morality" of altering the Buddha's liberative (supramundane) teachings for an egotistical motive of avoiding an unfavourable rebirth.

In experience, the mind can only discern six kinds of consciousness.

Kind regards

What is the mind? The mind isn't really any “thing”. Conventionally speaking, it's that which feels or senses. That which senses, receives and experiences all mental impressions is called “mind”.

Right at this moment there is mind. As I am speaking to you, the mind acknowledges what I am saying. Sounds enter through the ear and you know what is being said. That which experiences this is called “mind”.

This mind doesn't have any self or substance. It doesn't have any form. It just experiences mental activities, that's all!

If we teach this mind to have right view, this mind won't have any problems. It will be at ease.

The mind is mind. Mental objects are mental objects. Mental objects are not the mind, the mind is not mental objects.

In order to clearly understand our minds and the mental objects in our minds, we say that the mind is that which receives the mental objects which pop into it.

When these two things, mind and its object, come into contact with each other, they give rise to feelings. Some are good, some bad, some cold, some hot, all kinds! Without wisdom to deal with these feelings, however, the mind will be troubled.

Meditation is the way of developing the mind so that it may be a base for the arising of wisdom.

http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/teachings_chah.pdf

[Lymneterfeiff]

I don't think one needs to believe in (literal) rebirth or a "reborn consciousness" to find value in the alaya-vijnana paradigm.

All the Alayas and Alayas Vijñanas are about theoretical models to explain literal rebirth and reincarnation. Is one of many models that Mahayana religion has to guide, sooner or later, direct or indirectly, subtly or coarsely, into such views.

model for psychological continuity Psychological continuity is an illusion. The process of perception, as can be guessed in DO and the Khandha doctrine is discrete and discontinuous. Also brain research has gave account of this at: Llinas, R and Paré, D. (1991) "On Dreaming and Wakefulness". Neuroscience. 44: 521-535.

It can be understood in terms of the present life, and can be applied to the here and now through heedfulness with regard to one's actions. Then, there is no need for Alayas or Alayas Vijñanas. Where, along the "here and now" teachings of the historical Buddha, is an allusion about the need for an Alaya or an Alaya Vijñana?

When we practice in terms of present life, the whole Alaya and Alaya Vijñana fades, as delusions fade too.

Cultivate the wholesome seeds, avoid cultivating the unwholesome ones. I think here is all the issue. The wholesome and unwholesome seeds you are referring here are about Samma-diithi or Right View. I think there is a big difference from the Mahayana Bijas and the seed metaphors that can be found in the main Pali discourses of Buddha.

To have found the seed metaphor in the document given by Element do not mean that the Buddha taught Alayas or Alayas Vijñanas.

But, anyway, I can be wrong. So I open this question:

From where does the "seed" metaphor of the Bhava Sutta (the sutta of the given link where "seeds" appear) leads to Alayas or Alayas Vijñanas?

...where other suttas:

"Like the earth property, monks, is how the four standing-spots for consciousness should be seen. Like the liquid property is how delight & passion should be seen. Like the five means of propagation is how consciousness together with its nutriment should be seen.

"Should consciousness, when taking a stance, stand attached to (a physical) form, supported by form,[1] established on form, watered with delight, it would exhibit growth, increase, & proliferation.

[...]

"If a monk abandons passion for the property of consciousness, then owing to the abandonment of passion, the support is cut off, and there is no base for consciousness. Consciousness, thus unestablished, not proliferating, not performing any function, is released. Owing to its release, it is steady. Owing to its steadiness, it is contented. Owing to its contentment, it is not agitated. Not agitated, he (the monk) is totally unbound right within. He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.'"

Bija Sutta: Means of Propagation are about [passion as... or whatever] the support or base for consciousness where honestly I can't see the Alaya or the Alaya Vijñana, if there is such.

[johnsonjunior]

I think Element has given enough thoughtfull material in post # 30 about the stuff of the Alayas theory...

[CaseyFronczek]

Psychological continuity is an illusion. The process of perception, as can be guessed in DO and the Khandha doctrine is discrete and discontinuous. Also brain research has gave account of this at: Llinas, R and Paré, D. (1991) "On Dreaming and Wakefulness". Neuroscience. 44: 521-535.

Of course it can ultimately be seen as illusory, but in terms of conventional reality it is a meaningful and even necessary illusion; indeed, mental health may depend on it. That's why, for example, we have such things as the recovery cycle after loss and trauma.

Without psychological continuity it is difficult to see how the Buddha could be truthful in saying:

in whichever individuality that kamma bears fruit, he experiences that karmic fruit within that very individuality, either immediately, a moment later, or some time later .

or

Bhikkhus, what are the fruits (vipāka) of those actions? I speak of the fruits of those kamma as being threefold: fruit that is immediately experiencable (diṭṭhadhamma), that happens soon after (upapajja), and that occurs some time after that (aparapariyāya). I speak of these as the fruits of kamma. and not to mention:

Beings are owners of kamma, heir to kamma, born of kamma, related through kamma... It's hard to see how kamma-vipaka would make any sense at all, actually.

[violalmina]

That's why, for example, we have such things as the recovery cycle after loss and trauma.

The way to be recovered from a trauma or a loss is to understand that such past moment is gone and there is no continuity of it into the here and now moment.

Of course it can ultimately be seen as illusory, but in terms of conventional reality is a meaningful[...] This is contrary to the development of Right View and awareness of the present moment (conventional reality), stillness of mind and insight.

in whichever individuality that kamma bears fruit, he experiences that karmic fruit within that very individuality, either immediately, a moment later, or some time later This do not mean a psychological continuity. Each happens in a single moment. Psychological continuity is just an illusion that happens because of fabrications. Psychological continuity makes us to think in DO and Khandha doctrines wrongly thinking in them as mind stream stuff. Psychological continuity is not a teaching of the historical Buddha.

Because of unawareness of feelings as feelings, perception as perception, fabrications as fabrications and consciousness as consciousness we are under the illusion of psychological continuity and deliverance of mind will never occure.

[AccusaJalsBub]

Of course it can ultimately be seen as illusory, but in terms of conventional reality it is a meaningful and even necessary illusion; indeed, mental health may depend on it. That's why, for example, we have such things as the recovery cycle after loss and trauma.

Again, this idea of "ultimate vs. conventional reality" is not a shared assumption.

Without psychological continuity it is difficult to see how the Buddha could be truthful in saying:

or

and not to mention:

It's hard to see how kamma-vipaka would make any sense at all, actually. Head-tripping on "kamma-vipaka", and trying to "make sense" out of it, is only a problem for folks who feel a need to indulge in, and tie it to, the superstitions they cling to. Part of the "liberation" of the Buddha's teaching is precisely liberation from the chains of superstitious views. And the burden of trying to "make sense" of things within the shackles of those views. Life is so much better without such burdens....

Not sure there is any point in arguing against a notion of "psychological continuity" of some kind. Seems like rather a straw man, anyway...

But in your case it is a set-up for a multi-lifetime homunculus, which would not follow anyway. It's just a "god-of-the-gaps" strategy, but with an Atman-that-is-not-an-atman in the god's place.

[Fhgzmftq]

This do not mean a psychological continuity. Each happens in a single moment. Psychological continuity is just an illusion that happens because of fabrications. Psychological continuity makes us to think in DO and Khandha doctrines wrongly thinking in them as mind stream stuff. Psychological continuity is not a teaching of the historical Buddha.

In which case, why did the Buddha repeatedly tell us (in the Dvedhavitakka Sutta):


Whatever a bhikkhu frequently thinks and ponders upon, that will become the inclination of his mind. If there is no psychological continuity, how can a mind be said to "incline" towards anything at all?

[illilmicy]

Whatever a bhikkhu frequently thinks and ponders upon, that will become the inclination of his mind.

Where is the psychological continuity as a model for Alayas and Alayas Vijñanas in that phrase?

Inclination here is a proper disposition of a bhikkhu's mind.

[gastabegree]

Where is the psychological continuity as a model for Alayas and Alayas Vijñanas in that phrase?

Inclination here is a proper disposition of a bhikkhu's mind.

Actually, I'd say this sutta links up quite nicely with the alaya-vijnana model.

Unwholesome seeds (conducive to suffering): thoughts of sensual desire, ill-will, harmfulness
Wholesome seeds (leading towards liberation and away from suffering): thoughts of renunciation, non-ill-will, non-harming

The two sets of teachings share a common denominator, namely the goal of purifying the mind.

[UKkoXJvF]

Actually, I'd say this sutta links up quite nicely with the alaya-vijnana model.

It does not because the inclinations in the sutta are not vinanna. They are thought formations or sankhara. When one cannot differentiate vinnana from sankhara (mind consciousness from mind objects) one “can't see the forest for the trees". The sutta states:

Yaññadeva, bhikkhave, bhikkhu bahulamanuvitakketi anuvicāreti, tathā tathā nati hoti cetaso

Whatever a bhikkhu frequently thinks and ponders upon, that will become the inclination of his mind (citta).

Citta (nt.) [Sk. citta, orig. pp. of cinteti, cit, cp. yutta> yuñjati, mutta>muñcati. On etym. from cit. see cinteti].

I. Meaning: the heart (psychologically), i. e. the centre & focus of man's emotional nature as well as that intellectual element which inheres in & accompanies its manifestations; i. e. thought.

Cetaso gen. sg. of ceto, functioning as gen. to citta (see citta & ceto).

[luffyplayaz]

Wholesome seeds (leading towards liberation and away from suffering): thoughts of renunciation, non-ill-will, non-harming. The two sets of teachings share a common denominator, namely the goal of purifying the mind.

No. Wholesomeness supports liberation but does not lead to liberation. Insight (vipassana) leads to liberation.

The Buddha made it clear the kammic views you are purporting do not lead to liberation (MN 117).