Why Buddha never state which part of us is mind sense base ?

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
sentinel
Posts: 1979
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 1:26 pm

Re: Why Buddha never state which part of us is mind sense base ?

Post by sentinel » Mon Aug 19, 2019 4:20 am

chownah wrote:
Mon Aug 19, 2019 2:23 am
I will add that my view is that this is because the mind base is a fabrication and it is not what is fabricated as a mind base which is important but rather it is the process of fabricating the mind base which needs to be examined.
chownah
So , Buddha fabricated a mind base to point to others in order to let them examine the mind is a fabrication ?
Last edited by sentinel on Mon Aug 19, 2019 4:23 am, edited 1 time in total.
:buddha1:

sentinel
Posts: 1979
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 1:26 pm

Re: Why Buddha never state which part of us is mind sense base ?

Post by sentinel » Mon Aug 19, 2019 4:23 am

sunnat wrote:
Mon Aug 19, 2019 3:20 am
If a leg, two legs, arms, various organs, the trunk, neck, lungs (replaced with pumps etc) are amputated, will there still be consciousness.? If the cranium, jaws, tounge, eyes, nose etc, is removed, will there still be consciousness? If nothing except the brain is cut out, will there still be consciousness..? Is there less mind if a finger is cut off.?
If the brain is cut off I doubt that there still be consciousness !
:buddha1:

ToVincent
Posts: 681
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Why Buddha never state which part of us is mind sense base ?

Post by ToVincent » Tue Aug 20, 2019 5:00 am

sentinel wrote:
Mon Aug 19, 2019 4:23 am
sunnat wrote:
Mon Aug 19, 2019 3:20 am
If a leg, two legs, arms, various organs, the trunk, neck, lungs (replaced with pumps etc) are amputated, will there still be consciousness.? If the cranium, jaws, tounge, eyes, nose etc, is removed, will there still be consciousness? If nothing except the brain is cut out, will there still be consciousness..? Is there less mind if a finger is cut off.?
If the brain is cut off I doubt that there still be consciousness !
The greatest hydra that Buddhism is facing in its corrupted form, is the use of "mind" to give an account of citta, mano, and ceto - (and even viññana) - as a somewhat single entity.

The second ill, that cannot be overcome because of its persistent and pervasive impairment, is the odd willingness to make Buddhism a Lockean & Humean philosophy. The latters might be the "true" philosophy; however "saḷāyatanism" is not all it takes in Buddhism.

In other words, sense-consciousness (in saḷāyatana) is one thing - Consciousness nidāna is another.
Like it or not.
"If the brain (mano) is cut off", there will be no more sense-consciousness. However, one might pretty well be reborn as a viññanañcayatanupaga deva.

Buddhism is much closer to the modern philosophy of Information, than the rusty and obsolete philosophy of the "Enlightenment". The latter becoming de facto, the new "Inquisition" of the 21st century.
The former being already transformed as the latter.
As Tacky Doni the potus would say:
"Sad!"
.
.
Some working for the Mara's world; some for the Brahma's world; some for the Unborn.
.
In this world with its ..., māras, ... - In this population with its ascetics.... (AN 5.30).
------

https://justpaste.it/j5o4

User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 5783
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Why Buddha never state which part of us is mind sense base ?

Post by DooDoot » Tue Aug 20, 2019 5:21 am

ToVincent wrote:
Tue Aug 20, 2019 5:00 am
"Sad!"
Not sure converts will be won when people can't understand what is posted. Too much sarcasm results in an ability to discern fact from fiction.
ToVincent wrote:
Tue Aug 20, 2019 5:00 am
In other words, sense-consciousness (in saḷāyatana) is one thing - Consciousness nidāna is another.Like it or not.
Consciousness nidāna, quoted below. Looks & sounds like sense-consciousness (in saḷāyatana) to me.
Sammaditthi Sutta wrote:
There are these six classes of consciousness: eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, nose-consciousness, tongue-consciousness, body-consciousness, mind-consciousness. With the arising of formations there is the arising of consciousness. With the cessation of formations there is the cessation of consciousness.


https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .ntbb.html
Paticca-samuppada-vibhanga Sutta wrote:
And what, bhikkhus, is consciousness? There are these six classes of consciousness: eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, nose-consciousness, tongue-consciousness, body-consciousness, mind-consciousness. This is called consciousness.


https://suttacentral.net/sn12.2/en/bodhi
Mahātaṇhāsaṅkhaya Sutta wrote:
Good, bhikkhus. It is good that you understand the Dhamma taught by me thus. For in many ways I have stated consciousness to be dependently arisen, since without a condition there is no origination of consciousness.

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.

https://suttacentral.net/mn38/en/bodhi
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati

Dinsdale
Posts: 6644
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: Why Buddha never state which part of us is mind sense base ?

Post by Dinsdale » Tue Aug 20, 2019 6:09 am

sentinel wrote:
Mon Aug 19, 2019 4:20 am
chownah wrote:
Mon Aug 19, 2019 2:23 am
I will add that my view is that this is because the mind base is a fabrication and it is not what is fabricated as a mind base which is important but rather it is the process of fabricating the mind base which needs to be examined.
chownah
So , Buddha fabricated a mind base to point to others in order to let them examine the mind is a fabrication ?
It seems a rather convoluted approach. Introducing a model of experience based on duality, and then declaring that model to be invalid? Why bother? Why not just teach non-duality, if that is the intention?

Usually models are created to illuminate a process, not as a way of denying the process being described.
Buddha save me from new-agers!

User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 21543
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Why Buddha never state which part of us is mind sense base ?

Post by retrofuturist » Tue Aug 20, 2019 6:25 am

Greetings Dinsdale,
Dinsdale wrote:
Tue Aug 20, 2019 6:09 am
It seems a rather convoluted approach. Introducing a model of experience based on duality, and then declaring that model to be invalid? Why bother? Why not just teach non-duality, if that is the intention?
Because people need to let go of the idea that there's any essence to the classifications and concepts they use. Consider how the Buddha does exactly what you describe in the Phena Sutta.
Dinsdale wrote:
Tue Aug 20, 2019 6:09 am
Usually models are created to illuminate a process, not as a way of denying the process being described.
Or in this case, to shake us out of the ignorant complacency that assumes these things to be substantial, and thus, assumes these fabrications are worth grasping at.

Metta,
Paul. :)
"The uprooting of identity is seen by the noble ones as pleasurable; but this contradicts what the whole world sees." (Snp 3.12)

"It is natural that one who knows and sees things as they really are is disenchanted and dispassionate." (AN 10.2)

“Truth does not change according to our ability to stomach it.” (Flannery O'Connor)

Dinsdale
Posts: 6644
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: Why Buddha never state which part of us is mind sense base ?

Post by Dinsdale » Tue Aug 20, 2019 6:40 am

I still think it's a convoluted approach. Why teach a dyad if the dyad doesn't actually exist? Why not just say the dyad doesn't exist?
https://suttacentral.net/sn35.92/en/bodhi

Why go to great lengths teaching a system of classification if it's all unreal? Why bother? Why teach a model based on duality in the first place, when there is actually no need to do that?
Why didn't the Buddha just teach non-duality?
Buddha save me from new-agers!

ToVincent
Posts: 681
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Why Buddha never state which part of us is mind sense base ?

Post by ToVincent » Tue Aug 20, 2019 6:59 am

DooDoot wrote:
Tue Aug 20, 2019 5:21 am
Apple sauce as usual.
There are two kinds of consciousnesses, so to speak.
- Consciousness as the cause (nidāna) of nāmarūpa (the third "link" of paṭiccasamupāda), and
- Sense- consciousness in Saḷāyatana - such as eye-consciousness, etc. (see the visual aid below).

In the first case: "From the origination of consciousness comes the origination of name-&-form," (as nāmarūpa nidāna).

In the second case: "From the origination of name-&-form comes the origination of (sense) consciousness." (SN 12.65)

However these two "consciousnesses," come to the designation of consciousness aggregate:
Any consciousness whatsoever — past, present, or future; internal or external; gross or subtle; inferior or superior; near or far — that is the consciousness aggregate.
......
Name-&-form is the cause & condition for the discernibility of the (sense) consciousness aggregate.
MN 109

Internal, gross and inferior is the sense-consciousness:
“‘Bhikkhu, this person consists of six elements.’ So it was said. And with reference to what was this said? There are the earth element, the water element, the fire element, the air element, the space element, and the consciousness element. So it was with reference to this that it was said: ‘Bhikkhu, this person consists of six elements.’
MN 140

External, subtle and superior i is the viññāna nidāna.
"Friend, with the purified intellect-consciousness (manoviññāṇena) divorced from the five faculties (eye, ear, nose, ...,) the dimension of the infinitude of space can be known [as] 'infinite space.' The dimension of the infinitude of consciousness can be known [as] 'infinite consciousness.' The dimension of nothingness can be known [as] 'There is nothing.'
MN 43

“And then, with the complete transcending of the dimension of the infinitude of space, [perceiving,] ‘Infinite consciousness,’ the monk enters & remains in the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness. His earlier perception of a refined truth of the dimension of the infinitude of space ceases, and on that occasion there is a perception of a refined truth of the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness. On that occasion he is one who is percipient of a refined truth of the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness. And thus it is that with training one perception arises and with training another perception ceases.
DN 9

Consciousness that is not manifested (becoming visible) (viññanam anidassanam - https://justpaste.it/6373k),
without end,
luminous all around:
Here water, earth, fire, & wind have no footing.
Here long & short
coarse & fine
fair & foul
name & form
are, without remnant,
brought to an end.
of (the activity of) consciousness,
each is here brought to an end.
DN 11
See also SN 12.64

"'Consciousness that is not manifested, endless, radiant all around, has not been experienced through the earthness of earth ... the liquidity of liquid ... the fieriness of fire ... the windiness of wind ... the allness of the all.'
(Note that the"All" adresses the world of senses).
MN 49


_______

You have, DooDoot, the same problem understanding the concept of Nāma (as stated in previous threads) - That is to say:
1. The fact that consciousness has both determinations (saṇkhāra) and name-&-form as requisite conditions. (SN 12.65) - https://justpaste.it/1bzye

2. The all shebang of the maintenance and the establishing of the "external" consciousness (https://justpaste.it/1695d) - and consequently what "not yours" (anicca) and "impermanent" mean.

Sad (√ सद्) !

“Thus Ānanda, kamma is the field, consciousness the seed, and craving the moisture. The consciousness of living beings hindered by ignorance & fettered by craving is established in (tuned to) a lower (middling, refined) element. Thus there is the production of renewed becoming in the future.
“Iti kho, ānanda, kammaṃ khettaṃ, viññāṇaṃ bījaṃ, taṇhā sneho. Avijjānīvaraṇānaṃ sattānaṃ taṇhāsaṃyojanānaṃ hīnāya dhātuyā viññāṇaṃ patiṭṭhitaṃ evaṃ āyatiṃ punabbhavābhinibbatti hoti.
AN 3.76

“But, bhikkhus, as to that which is called ‘mind’ (citta) and ‘intellect’ (mano) and ‘consciousness’ (viññāṇa) —the uninstructed worldling is unable to experience revulsion towards it, unable to become dispassionate towards it and be liberated from it. For what reason? Because for a long time this has been held to by him, appropriated, and grasped thus: ‘This is mine, this I am, this is my self.’ Therefore the uninstructed worldling is unable to experience revulsion towards it, unable to become dispassionate towards it and be liberated from it.
SN 12.61
You should salivate a bit more (in your own words) :) , before seeing sarcasm!?!? leading to "fiction"?!?!.
.
Some working for the Mara's world; some for the Brahma's world; some for the Unborn.
.
In this world with its ..., māras, ... - In this population with its ascetics.... (AN 5.30).
------

https://justpaste.it/j5o4

User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 5783
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Why Buddha never state which part of us is mind sense base ?

Post by DooDoot » Tue Aug 20, 2019 7:04 am

ToVincent wrote:
Tue Aug 20, 2019 6:59 am
There are two kinds of consciousnesses, so to speak.
- Consciousness as the cause (nidāna) of nāmarūpa (the third "link" of paṭiccasamupāda), and
- Sense- consciousness in Saḷāyatana - such as eye-consciousness, etc. (see the visual aid below).
The above wrong view was already refuted. The suttas define third "link" of paṭiccasamupāda as eye-consciousness, etc. Its literally written in the suttas. There is nothing of contention or distinction here.
ToVincent wrote:
Tue Aug 20, 2019 6:59 am
DN 11... MN 49
No-one got enlightened in this above stuff spoken to Brahma Gods and Brahmans.
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati

form
Posts: 1178
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2016 3:23 am

Re: Why Buddha never state which part of us is mind sense base ?

Post by form » Tue Aug 20, 2019 7:36 am

Cos he doesn't know there is an organ called brain and he doesn't know how the nervous system functions.

ToVincent
Posts: 681
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Why Buddha never state which part of us is mind sense base ?

Post by ToVincent » Tue Aug 20, 2019 7:50 am

DooDoot wrote:
Tue Aug 20, 2019 7:04 am
Even more applesauce.
Then how do you explain:

Any consciousness whatsoever — past, present, or future; internal or external; gross or subtle; inferior or superior; near or far — that is the consciousness aggregate.
MN 109
(Internal, gross and inferior is the "living beings" sense-consciousness.
External, subtle and superior is the viññāna nidāna - or at best descended (avakkanti) [established] in the nāmarūpa nidāna; but definitely not in the saḷāyatana nidāna.)

Or this:

Friend, with the purified intellect-consciousness (manoviññāṇena) divorced from the five faculties (eye, ear, nose, ...,) ... the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness can be known [as] 'infinite consciousness.'
MN 43

Or this:

Consciousness that is not manifested (becoming visible) (viññanam anidassanam - https://justpaste.it/6373k),
...
Here water, earth, fire, & wind have no footing.
DN11 & SN 12. 64

Consciousness that is not manifested (viññanam anidassanam - https://justpaste.it/6373k), endless, radiant all around, has not been experienced through the earthness of earth ... the liquidity of liquid ... the fieriness of fire ... the windiness of wind ... the allness of the all.'
(Note that the"All" adresses the world of senses).
MN 49
(I hope that you have read the suttas with the definition of the "All" - Have you ?
I suppose not.)

Or this:

The consciousness of living beings hindered by ignorance & fettered by craving is established in (tuned to) a lower (middling, refined) element.
AN 3.76
(Please know what a dhatu means - https://justpaste.it/13nk3 - Also, why being so punctilious about defining a living beings consciousness?


You can't just swipe the previous post under the rug, with your trivial answers.
That's ludicrous.
You're "occulting" a bit too much. (I have noticed this tendency among the people of the "Emporium Luminum" (aka "Enlightenment's" crowd). A bit sectarian about their creed, that shouldn't be one (in their own creed).
Go figure! :)
Painful persistent and pervasive hydra.
.
.
Some working for the Mara's world; some for the Brahma's world; some for the Unborn.
.
In this world with its ..., māras, ... - In this population with its ascetics.... (AN 5.30).
------

https://justpaste.it/j5o4

ToVincent
Posts: 681
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Why Buddha never state which part of us is mind sense base ?

Post by ToVincent » Tue Aug 20, 2019 7:52 am

form wrote:
Tue Aug 20, 2019 7:36 am
Cos he doesn't know there is an organ called brain and he doesn't know how the nervous system functions.
Because you know?
I thought the crucial questions had not been yet answered - as qualia, for instance.
Some working for the Mara's world; some for the Brahma's world; some for the Unborn.
.
In this world with its ..., māras, ... - In this population with its ascetics.... (AN 5.30).
------

https://justpaste.it/j5o4

Dinsdale
Posts: 6644
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: Why Buddha never state which part of us is mind sense base ?

Post by Dinsdale » Tue Aug 20, 2019 7:56 am

form wrote:
Tue Aug 20, 2019 7:36 am
Cos he doesn't know there is an organ called brain and he doesn't know how the nervous system functions.
It might have just been to present a comprehensive model.

If you need an ear to hear sounds, then what do you need to "hear" thoughts? You need a mano! :thumbsup:
Buddha save me from new-agers!

User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 21543
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Why Buddha never state which part of us is mind sense base ?

Post by retrofuturist » Tue Aug 20, 2019 8:16 am

Greetings,
Dinsdale wrote:
Tue Aug 20, 2019 6:40 am
Why not just say the dyad doesn't exist?
I regularly tell you that things don't exist... But are you an arahant yet?

Perhaps the Buddha is a better teacher than I and there's a reason he taught in such a way that enables people to see the Dhamma for themselves?

Metta,
Paul. :)
"The uprooting of identity is seen by the noble ones as pleasurable; but this contradicts what the whole world sees." (Snp 3.12)

"It is natural that one who knows and sees things as they really are is disenchanted and dispassionate." (AN 10.2)

“Truth does not change according to our ability to stomach it.” (Flannery O'Connor)

Dinsdale
Posts: 6644
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: Why Buddha never state which part of us is mind sense base ?

Post by Dinsdale » Tue Aug 20, 2019 8:32 am

retrofuturist wrote:
Tue Aug 20, 2019 8:16 am
Greetings,
Dinsdale wrote:
Tue Aug 20, 2019 6:40 am
Why not just say the dyad doesn't exist?
I regularly tell you that things don't exist... But are you an arahant yet?

Perhaps the Buddha is a better teacher than I and there's a reason he taught in such a way that enables people to see the Dhamma for themselves?

Metta,
Paul. :)
The question remains, why did the Buddha teach duality so extensively if he really intended to teach non-duality?
I'm not seeing a convincing explanation so far.
Buddha save me from new-agers!

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 125 guests