Dhamma Wheel Buddhist Forum

Ñāṇa wrote:

kirk5a wrote:So. If "mind" is defined in one place as inconstant, and here as constant, that requires some explanation, I would say. That is not resolved by admonitions not to "papanca-ize" Seems to me like an important point of the Dhamma.

What is being referred to is the lucidity, clarity, and suppleness of mind. When one meditates a lot the mind can become incredibly lucid and clear. This vivid presence of mind can be mistaken for an unchanging quality. But the mind must necessarily change along with its perceptions. If the mind didn't change along with its perceptions then either:

(a) the mind would forever be frozen exclusively perceiving one unchanging object, or

(b) the mind would continuously perceive every single object cognized.

If we take visual consciousness for example: If you turn your head from right to left (with eyes open), your entire visual field changes as your head moves. When your head is to the left you are no longer cognizant of what was cognized in the beginning position to the right. Therefore, both (a) and (b) above are refuted, and we can correctly discern that visual consciousness changes along with its perceptions. And what is true for visual consciousness is also true for the other five consciousnesses. There can be no unchanging, permanent consciousness.

All the best,

Geoff

Dan74 wrote:So are these qualities of lucidity, clarity and suppleness impermanent? In nibbana are they not stabilised?

Ñāṇa wrote:There are plenty of other suttas which, if properly considered, safeguard against such notions.

Ven. Ṭhānissaro's latent fire theory really cannot be sustained. The fire metaphor most commonly refers to the three fires of passion, aggression, and delusion. If the Indian Buddhist understanding of fire was really that an extinguished fire goes into a "latent state," then these three fires could re-combust within an arahant's mind as long as there is fuel remaining (i.e. saupādisesa nibbānadhātu: nibbāna element with fuel remaining). Of course, this would render nibbāna quite meaningless.

All the best,

Geoff

Ñāṇa wrote:As for the view expressed there, I'd suggest that it's far more skillful to follow the advise of the Buddha as recorded in the Pāḷi Canon. This will safeguard against engaging in pointless mental proliferation (papañca). Suttanipāta 5.6:

• [Upasiva:] He who has reached the end: Does he not exist, or is he for eternity free from dis-ease? Please, sage, declare this to me as this phenomenon has been known by you.
  
  [The Buddha:] One who has reached the end has no criterion by which anyone would say that — for him it doesn't exist. When all phenomena are done away with, all means of speaking are done away with as well.

All the best,

Geoff

Sylvester wrote:After all our Jhana debates, I'm glad there's at least this thing we can agree on.

mikenz66 wrote:Hi Kirk,

But the Suttas do speak of "mind and mind objects". Whether "mind" is something constant or not is a different question that doesn't seem to me to affect Ajahn Chah's statement. Like Geoff, I wouldn't try to read metaphysics into such statements.


Mike

Ñāṇa wrote:

kirk5a wrote:So. If "mind" is defined in one place as inconstant, and here as constant, that requires some explanation, I would say. That is not resolved by admonitions not to "papanca-ize" Seems to me like an important point of the Dhamma.

What is being referred to is the lucidity, clarity, and suppleness of mind. When one meditates a lot the mind can become incredibly lucid and clear. This vivid presence of mind can be mistaken for an unchanging quality. But the mind must necessarily change along with its perceptions. If the mind didn't change along with its perceptions then either:

(a) the mind would forever be frozen exclusively perceiving one unchanging object, or

(b) the mind would continuously perceive every single object cognized.

If we take visual consciousness for example: If you turn your head from right to left (with eyes open), your entire visual field changes as your head moves. When your head is to the left you are no longer cognizant of what was cognized in the beginning position to the right. Therefore, both (a) and (b) above are refuted, and we can correctly discern that visual consciousness changes along with its perceptions. And what is true for visual consciousness is also true for the other five consciousnesses. There can be no unchanging, permanent consciousness.

All the best,

Geoff

kirk5a wrote:

Ñāṇa wrote:

kirk5a wrote:So. If "mind" is defined in one place as inconstant, and here as constant, that requires some explanation, I would say. That is not resolved by admonitions not to "papanca-ize" Seems to me like an important point of the Dhamma.

What is being referred to is the lucidity, clarity, and suppleness of mind. When one meditates a lot the mind can become incredibly lucid and clear. This vivid presence of mind can be mistaken for an unchanging quality. But the mind must necessarily change along with its perceptions. If the mind didn't change along with its perceptions then either:

(a) the mind would forever be frozen exclusively perceiving one unchanging object, or

(b) the mind would continuously perceive every single object cognized.

If we take visual consciousness for example: If you turn your head from right to left (with eyes open), your entire visual field changes as your head moves. When your head is to the left you are no longer cognizant of what was cognized in the beginning position to the right. Therefore, both (a) and (b) above are refuted, and we can correctly discern that visual consciousness changes along with its perceptions. And what is true for visual consciousness is also true for the other five consciousnesses. There can be no unchanging, permanent consciousness.

All the best,

Geoff

There might be something that could be done with a metaphor involving light and that which it falls upon to get around this - change in object does not change light - but probably getting outside the scope of this thread.

But if there was a consciousness that did not "fall" upon anything, there would be no objects, which would make that analysis inapplicable.