Consciousness and no-self (explained in drawings)

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
Twilight
Posts: 684
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2016 10:43 pm

Consciousness and no-self (explained in drawings)

Post by Twilight » Mon Jan 16, 2017 2:43 am

I have posted a drawing in another topic speaking about consciousness and realized it is much more easy to understand it in this way. So here is a topic where we can post such drawings. Note: These drawings are in no way a substitute for contemplating the profound suttas explaining this. For a proper undestanding it is recommanded to read and contemplate the Pali Canon, especially the SN volume of the pali canon where the higher teachings on aggregates, sense bases, elements, impermanence, no self etc. are contained.

First picture: Understanding the problem of the fisherman son who believed consciousness transmigrates from one life to the other.


Buddha explanation to the fisherman:
“Bhikkhus, consciousness is reckoned by the particular condition dependent upon which it arises. When consciousness arises dependent on the eye and forms, it is reckoned as eye-consciousness; when consciousness arises dependent on the ear and sounds, it is reckoned as ear-consciousness; when consciousness arises dependent on the nose and odours, it is reckoned as nose-consciousness; when consciousness arises dependent on the tongue and flavours, it is reckoned as tongue-consciousness; when consciousness arises dependent on the body and tangibles, it is reckoned as body-consciousness; when consciousness arises dependent on the mind and mind-objects, it is reckoned as mind-consciousness. Just as fire is reckoned by the particular condition dependent on which it burns—when fire burns dependent on logs, it is reckoned as a log fire; when fire burns dependent on faggots, it is reckoned as a faggot fire; when fire burns dependent on grass, it is reckoned as a grass fire; when fire burns dependent on cowdung, it is reckoned as a cowdung fire; when fire burns dependent on chaff, it is reckoned as a chaff fire; when fire burns dependent on rubbish, it is reckoned as a rubbish fire—so too, consciousness is reckoned by the particular condition dependent on which it arises. When consciousness arises dependent on the eye and forms, it is reckoned as eye-consciousness…when consciousness arises dependent on the mind and mind-objects, it is reckoned as mind-consciousness.
https://suttacentral.net/en/mn38
Attachments
wrong.png
wrong.png (62.76 KiB) Viewed 2455 times
correct.png
correct.png (42.72 KiB) Viewed 2455 times
Last edited by Twilight on Mon Jan 16, 2017 3:45 am, edited 1 time in total.
You'll have a better chance finding a moderate rebel in Ildib than finding a buddhist who ever changed his views. Views are there to be clung to. They are there to be defended with all one's might. Whatever clinging one will removed in regards to sense pleasures by practicing the path - that should be compensated with increased clinging to views. This is the fundamental balance of the noble 8thfold path. The yin and yang.
----------
Consciousness and no-self explained in drawings: link
How stream entry is achieved. Mahasi / Zen understanding vs Sutta understanding: link

User avatar
Twilight
Posts: 684
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2016 10:43 pm

Re: Consciousness and no-self (explained in drawings)

Post by Twilight » Mon Jan 16, 2017 2:44 am

Second picture: Why consciousness changes.

Consciousness can not exist in a void. There is always consciousness of something. We have already seen at picture 1 how consciousness is always consciouss of something. There exists "eye sights, ear sights, nose sights.... mind sights". The eye is changeable, alterable, becoming otherwise. Eye sights are changeable, alterable, becoming otherwise. Feelings born out of eye contact are changeable, alterable, becoming otherwise. The ear... the nose... the body... The mind is changeable, alterable, becoming otherwise. Mind sights (thoughts, mental phenomena) are changeable, alterable, becoming otherwise. Feelings born out of mind sights are changeable, alterable, becoming otherwise.
Bhikkhus, consciousness comes to be in dependence on a dyad. And how, bhikkhus, does consciousness come to be in dependence on a dyad? In dependence on the eye and forms there arises eye-consciousness. The eye is impermanent, changing, becoming otherwise; forms are impermanent, changing, becoming otherwise. Thus this dyad is moving and tottering, impermanent, changing, becoming otherwise.

“Eye-consciousness is impermanent, changing, becoming otherwise. The cause and condition for the arising of eye-consciousness is also impermanent, changing, becoming otherwise. When, bhikkhus, eye-consciousness has arisen in dependence on a condition that is impermanent, how could it be permanent?

“The meeting, the encounter, the concurrence of these three things is called eye-contact. Eye-contact too is impermanent, changing, becoming otherwise. The cause and condition for the arising of eye-contact is also impermanent, changing, becoming otherwise. When, bhikkhus, eye-contact has arisen in dependence on a condition that is impermanent, how could it be permanent?

“Contacted, bhikkhus, one feels, contacted one intends, contacted one perceives. Thus these things too are moving and tottering, impermanent, changing, becoming otherwise.

“In dependence on the ear and sounds there arises ear-consciousness … … In dependence on the mind and mental phenomena there arises mind-consciousness. The mind is impermanent, changing, becoming otherwise; mental phenomena are impermanent, changing, becoming otherwise. Thus this dyad is moving and tottering, impermanent, changing, becoming otherwise.

“Mind-consciousness is impermanent, changing, becoming otherwise. The cause and condition for the arising of mind-consciousness is also impermanent, changing, becoming otherwise. When, bhikkhus, mind-consciousness has arisen in dependence on a condition that is impermanent, how could it be permanent?

“The meeting, the encounter, the concurrence of these three things is called mind-contact. Mind-contact too is impermanent, changing, becoming otherwise. The cause and condition for the arising of mind-contact is also impermanent, changing, becoming otherwise. When, bhikkhus, mind-contact has arisen in dependence on a condition that is impermanent, how could it be permanent?

“Contacted, bhikkhus, one feels, contacted one intends, contacted one perceives. Thus these things too are moving and tottering, impermanent, changing, becoming otherwise.

“It is in such a way, bhikkhus, that consciousness comes to be in dependence on a dyad.”
https://suttacentral.net/en/sn35.93
Attachments
consciousness - Copy.png
consciousness - Copy.png (69.06 KiB) Viewed 2488 times
You'll have a better chance finding a moderate rebel in Ildib than finding a buddhist who ever changed his views. Views are there to be clung to. They are there to be defended with all one's might. Whatever clinging one will removed in regards to sense pleasures by practicing the path - that should be compensated with increased clinging to views. This is the fundamental balance of the noble 8thfold path. The yin and yang.
----------
Consciousness and no-self explained in drawings: link
How stream entry is achieved. Mahasi / Zen understanding vs Sutta understanding: link

User avatar
Twilight
Posts: 684
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2016 10:43 pm

Re: Consciousness and no-self (explained in drawings)

Post by Twilight » Mon Jan 16, 2017 2:45 am

doublepost
Last edited by Twilight on Mon Jan 16, 2017 2:49 am, edited 1 time in total.
You'll have a better chance finding a moderate rebel in Ildib than finding a buddhist who ever changed his views. Views are there to be clung to. They are there to be defended with all one's might. Whatever clinging one will removed in regards to sense pleasures by practicing the path - that should be compensated with increased clinging to views. This is the fundamental balance of the noble 8thfold path. The yin and yang.
----------
Consciousness and no-self explained in drawings: link
How stream entry is achieved. Mahasi / Zen understanding vs Sutta understanding: link

User avatar
Twilight
Posts: 684
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2016 10:43 pm

Re: Consciousness and no-self (explained in drawings)

Post by Twilight » Mon Jan 16, 2017 2:47 am

Picture 3: Understanding no-self and conditionality.

From another topic:
About those questions about what happens to an arahant after death, it is quite simply to see why they are wrong. They all imply that there is/was a self. While in reality there was never a self to begin with. There is no arahant that dies. There are just the 5 aggregates that cease without reminder. There was never an arahant (witch implies a self) to begin with, just the 5 aggregates that exist and make up that being. There is nobody there to experience the death. There never was anybody there to experience anything. Just the 5 aggregates that used to exist and now do not exist anymore.

Another way to understand it better: There is not a person that experiences suffering. There is just suffering that arises. This person or self that supposedly experiences things was always just an invention, just an opinion. Same as Freud "super ego" and other ideas of his that people laugh about now. Just an invention, just an opinion that has arisen. It is not a self that perishes, there never was a self to begin with.

Another way to understand it even more better: Imagine a car parking sensor. There are 2 elements. The physical parking sensor and the "sensor sights" or the thing the sensor perceives. This sensor perception then triggers the beep-beep to start. In the case of a being, there are 3 elements. There is the eye, eye sights and a 3rd one - eye consciousness. Then these things trigger volition, feelings etc. to arise like the parking sensor triggers the beep-beep. There is not a self that sees the eye sights. There is just eye consciousness/ear consciousness/mind consciousness/nose consciousness etc. For more on consciousness:

https://justpaste.it/v08v
https://justpaste.it/urmw
https://justpaste.it/p6gg

Those mountains in the pictures are born out of contitions. The top of the mountains represent a feeling felt in this moment, or a thought cognized in another moment. They all arisse because of conditions. For example when one needs to go to the bathroom. First arises bodily discomfort. Dependent on this bodily discomfort arises the volition (will) to go to the bathroom. This is a simple example but shows that even will arises dependent on conditions. All that arises, arises because of conditions, even will (volition). When there arises the idea "I am experiencing this" - that idea is just another mountain that has appeared dependent on conditions. Dependent on the human brain, dependent on thinking about that in that particular moment (witch also had happened because of conditions, because of other thoughts that lead one to thinking that thought), dependent on the lack of wisdom about that not been so, etc. It is just another mountain that has arisen dependent on conditions.


And here is a powerful sutta for contemplation:
Thus have I heard. On one occasion the Blessed One was dwelling at Baraṇasi in the Deer Park at Isipatana. There the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus of the group of five thus: “Bhikkhus!”

“Venerable sir!” those bhikkhus replied. The Blessed One said this:

“Bhikkhus, form is nonself. For if, bhikkhus, form were self, this form would not lead to affliction, and it would be possible to have it of form: ‘Let my form be thus; let my form not be thus.’ But because form is nonself, form leads to affliction, and it is not possible to have it of form: ‘Let my form be thus; let my form not be thus.’

Feeling is nonself…

Perception is nonself…

Volitional formations are nonself…

Consciousness is nonself. For if, bhikkhus, consciousness were self, this consciousness would not lead to affliction, and it would be possible to have it of consciousness: ‘Let my consciousness be thus; let my consciousness not be thus.’ But because consciousness is nonself, consciousness leads to affliction, and it is not possible to have it of consciousness: ‘Let my consciousness be thus; let my consciousness not be thus.’

“What do you think, bhikkhus, is form permanent or impermanent?”—“Impermanent, venerable sir.”—“Is what is impermanent suffering or happiness?”—“Suffering, venerable sir.”—“Is what is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change fit to be regarded thus: ‘This is mine, this I am, this is my self’?”—“No, venerable sir.”

Is feeling permanent or impermanent?…

Is perception permanent or impermanent?…

Are volitional formations permanent or impermanent?…

Is consciousness permanent or impermanent?”—“Impermanent, venerable sir.”—“Is what is impermanent suffering or happiness?”— “Suffering, venerable sir.”—“Is what is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change fit to be regarded thus: ‘This is mine, this I am, this is my self’?”—“No, venerable sir.”

“Therefore, bhikkhus, any kind of form whatsoever, whether past, future, or present, internal or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near, all form should be seen as it really is with correct wisdom thus: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’

Any kind of feeling whatsoever …

Any kind of perception whatsoever …

Any kind of volitional formations whatsoever …

Any kind of consciousness whatsoever, whether past, future, or present, internal or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near, all consciousness should be seen as it really is with correct wisdom thus: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’

“Seeing thus, bhikkhus, the instructed noble disciple experiences revulsion towards form, revulsion towards feeling, revulsion towards perception, revulsion towards volitional formations, revulsion towards consciousness. Experiencing revulsion, he becomes dispassionate. Through dispassion his mind is liberated. When it is liberated there comes the knowledge: ‘It’s liberated.’ He understands: ‘Destroyed is birth, the holy life has been lived, what had to be done has been done, there is no more for this state of being.’”

That is what the Blessed One said. Elated, those bhikkhus delighted in the Blessed One’s statement. And while this discourse was being spoken, the minds of the bhikkhus of the group of five were liberated from the taints by nonclinging.
https://suttacentral.net/en/sn22.59 :anjali:
Attachments
wrong 2.png
wrong 2.png (98.68 KiB) Viewed 2470 times
correct 2.png
correct 2.png (103.43 KiB) Viewed 2470 times
You'll have a better chance finding a moderate rebel in Ildib than finding a buddhist who ever changed his views. Views are there to be clung to. They are there to be defended with all one's might. Whatever clinging one will removed in regards to sense pleasures by practicing the path - that should be compensated with increased clinging to views. This is the fundamental balance of the noble 8thfold path. The yin and yang.
----------
Consciousness and no-self explained in drawings: link
How stream entry is achieved. Mahasi / Zen understanding vs Sutta understanding: link

User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 2496
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am

Re: Consciousness and no-self (explained in drawings)

Post by cappuccino » Mon Jan 16, 2017 5:03 am

Is your intention to imply no consciousness in nirvana?

Annihilation isn't the teaching.
www.FineArtLibrary.com

User avatar
Twilight
Posts: 684
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2016 10:43 pm

Re: Consciousness and no-self (explained in drawings)

Post by Twilight » Mon Jan 16, 2017 1:18 pm

According to the historical Buddha, there is no such thing in nibbana. One who will properly understand consciousness will not ask such a question afterwards.
Then the Blessed One, picking up a tiny bit of dust with the tip of his fingernail, said to the monk,
[...]
"There isn't even this much consciousness that is constant, lasting, eternal, not subject to change, that will stay just as it is as long as eternity. If there were even this much consciousness that was constant, lasting, eternal, not subject to change, that would stay just as it is as long as eternity, then this living of the holy life for the right ending of suffering & stress would not be discerned. But because there isn't even this much consciousness that is constant, lasting, eternal, not subject to change, that will stay just as it is as long as eternity, this living of the holy life for the right ending of suffering & stress is discerned.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html



Difference between nibbana and anihilationism:

1. Anahilationist claim it all ends at death and you have to do nothing to stop a round of rebirth.

2. Anihilationist claim that there is a self and this self is destroyed. Buddha claims there was never any self to begin with, just the 5 aggregates.

3. According to Buddha, nibbana is pleasant. Accoding to anihilationist view, it is neutral.
When this was said, Ven. Udayin said to Ven. Sariputta, "But what is the pleasure here, my friend, where there is nothing felt?"
https://suttacentral.net/en/an9.34
You'll have a better chance finding a moderate rebel in Ildib than finding a buddhist who ever changed his views. Views are there to be clung to. They are there to be defended with all one's might. Whatever clinging one will removed in regards to sense pleasures by practicing the path - that should be compensated with increased clinging to views. This is the fundamental balance of the noble 8thfold path. The yin and yang.
----------
Consciousness and no-self explained in drawings: link
How stream entry is achieved. Mahasi / Zen understanding vs Sutta understanding: link

User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 2496
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am

Re: Consciousness and no-self (explained in drawings)

Post by cappuccino » Mon Jan 16, 2017 4:34 pm

It is the Other Shore, the Everlasting, Safety,
the Island, the Refuge, the Beyond.
~ S 43.1-44
www.FineArtLibrary.com

User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 2496
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am

Re: Consciousness and no-self (explained in drawings)

Post by cappuccino » Wed Jan 25, 2017 6:25 pm

Twilight wrote:there is no such thing in nibbana. One who will properly understand consciousness will not ask such a question afterwards.
"It's not good to misrepresent the Blessed One, for the Blessed One would not say, 'A monk with no more effluents, on the break-up of the body, is annihilated, perishes, & does not exist after death.'"
Yamaka Sutta
www.FineArtLibrary.com

davidbrainerd
Posts: 1011
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2016 3:12 am

Re: Consciousness and no-self (explained in drawings)

Post by davidbrainerd » Wed Jan 25, 2017 6:44 pm

So much time time and energy is wasted trying to prove there is no self when in reality Buddha was only attacking the idea of viewing the body as the self because it militates against ascetism. Who would enter monasticism and live a celibate life thinking they are only the body? And who that might on a quirk do so would be consistent in it? These are rhetorical questions BTW, because not many people would or could, so the idea of the self being the physical thing, the body or aggregates is a hindrance to monasticism. Its really that simple.

User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 2496
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am

Re: Consciousness and no-self (explained in drawings)

Post by cappuccino » Wed Jan 25, 2017 7:03 pm

It's not good to misrepresent the Blessed One
www.FineArtLibrary.com

davidbrainerd
Posts: 1011
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2016 3:12 am

Re: Consciousness and no-self (explained in drawings)

Post by davidbrainerd » Wed Jan 25, 2017 9:31 pm

cappuccino wrote:It's not good to misrepresent the Blessed One
The sutta writers (other than the writer of the Dhammapada) are to blame for it though, not anyone in modern times, because they wrote them to be purposefully incoherent on this topic.

User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 2496
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am

Re: Consciousness and no-self (explained in drawings)

Post by cappuccino » Wed Jan 25, 2017 9:46 pm

hard to see, hard to realize
www.FineArtLibrary.com

User avatar
Twilight
Posts: 684
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2016 10:43 pm

Re: Consciousness and no-self (explained in drawings)

Post by Twilight » Wed Jan 25, 2017 10:51 pm

I am open to refuting these soul theories but not here. This topic takes for granted that people interested in it are trying to understand the non-existence of a self better. It is not a topic for the endless debate about weather there is a soul or not.

Therefore, let's all move here to continue that debate: http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... es#p407969
I have already responded there
You'll have a better chance finding a moderate rebel in Ildib than finding a buddhist who ever changed his views. Views are there to be clung to. They are there to be defended with all one's might. Whatever clinging one will removed in regards to sense pleasures by practicing the path - that should be compensated with increased clinging to views. This is the fundamental balance of the noble 8thfold path. The yin and yang.
----------
Consciousness and no-self explained in drawings: link
How stream entry is achieved. Mahasi / Zen understanding vs Sutta understanding: link

User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 2496
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am

Re: Consciousness and no-self (explained in drawings)

Post by cappuccino » Wed Jan 25, 2017 11:18 pm

Not self is the correct term, rather than no self.
As everything is not self.

No self would imply annihilation!
Not self wouldn't.
www.FineArtLibrary.com

User avatar
SDC
Posts: 4793
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

Re: Consciousness and no-self (explained in drawings)

Post by SDC » Wed Jan 25, 2017 11:21 pm

davidbrainerd wrote:
cappuccino wrote:It's not good to misrepresent the Blessed One
The sutta writers (other than the writer of the Dhammapada) are to blame for it though, not anyone in modern times, because they wrote them to be purposefully incoherent on this topic.
Frequenting this forum must be unbearable.

For your struggles: :hug:



;)

(Edit: I hope it clear that this is a lighthearted joke.)

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], mikenz66, Nwad, Sam Vara and 135 guests