Does consciousness exist?

[cappuccino]

consciousness arises when there is ignorance. It does not arise when there is no ignorance.

are you without ignorance to speak of this?

[SamKR]

Thanks, friends, for your contribution.

Let's approach this in another way.

What DOES exist, according to the Buddha?

Again, since the word 'exist' creates confusion (due to many shades of its meaning), I would prefer not to use it without defining it.

If you define "to exist" means "to exist inherently and independently" then according to the Buddha nothing exists.

[cappuccino]

said by the Master: I do not praise even the shortest spell of existence, be it no longer than a snap of the fingers.

[SamKR]

consciousness arises when there is ignorance. It does not arise when there is no ignorance.

are you without ignorance to speak of this?

No. Are you implying that to speak of this I need to be free of ignorance?

[cappuccino]

I advise to only speak of what you know, somehow

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

The Contemplation of Consciousness

Here, O bhikkhus, a bhikkhu understands … the state of consciousness with some other mental state superior to it, as the state with something mentally higher; the state of consciousness with no other mental state superior to it, as the state with nothing mentally higher; the quieted state of consciousness, as the quieted state; the state of consciousness not quieted, as the state not quieted; the freed state of consciousness as freed; and the unfreed state of consciousness, as unfreed.

Satipatthana Sutta

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... html#fnt-1

Consciousness without feature,
without end,
luminous all around

OK, so you're talking about anidassana viññāṇa... a distinction worth making clear, as that's a very different thing to making a blanket statement about consciousness, without differentiation.

As you're probably aware, anidassana viññāṇa is a very subtle and disputed subject, hence why I deliberately and explicitly left it out of scope in my earlier analysis. It's been hotly contested here at Dhamma Wheel in past topics, and is picked up by ven. Nanananda in his Nibbana Sermons.

Nonetheless, whether it might be classified as "independent" (to use your term) or not, I see no grounds for saying it "exists".

See also:
- Pali Term: Viññāṇaṃ anidassanaṃ
- The meaning of Viññanam Anidassanam
- Viññāṇaṃ anidassanaṃ & appatiṭṭha viññāṇa, 2 types nibbana?
- Nibbana is not viññāṇa. Really, it just isn’t. (by Ajahn Sujato)

Metta,
Paul.

[cappuccino]

it's contested, because it's very difficult to see

therefore I used the analogies, poetry, music

[cappuccino]

(i.e., the Buddha’s real teaching is not to temporarily escape materiality, but to reach an ending of suffering. And since all forms of viññāṇa (yaṁ kiñci viññāṇaṁ…) are said countless times to be suffering, even the infinite consciousness has to go.)

Nirvana is a state, sans suffering,

since consciousness is unconditioned,

not annihilated.

[SamKR]

anidassana viññāṇa is different from the regular viññāṇa. The latter viññāṇa (which is the one relevant to OP) is the dualistic consciousness dependent upon ignorance about the illusion of subject-object duality (in addition to other types of ignorance) and consequent craving and suffering. This viññāṇa must have the basis of " inherent things" (subject and object) for it to arise.

anidassana viññāṇa, on the other hand, is viññāṇa without any basis of (illusion of) subject and object. It is luminous and vivid and "such" (no accurate description is possible because each description will give rise to the illusion of a basis - but it is not difficult to see). But still anidassana viññāṇa is not the ultimate because it still arises based on conditions (that is ignorance, though not the ignorance of regular subject-object duality).

[cappuccino]

To solve suffering,
do not annihilate yourself,
just take medicine.

You will be well,
in no further need
of suicidal thinking.

capeesh?

[SamKR]

(i.e., the Buddha’s real teaching is not to temporarily escape materiality, but to reach an ending of suffering. And since all forms of viññāṇa (yaṁ kiñci viññāṇaṁ…) are said countless times to be suffering, even the infinite consciousness has to go.)

Nirvana is a state, sans suffering,

since consciousness is unconditioned,

not annihilated.

Nirvana is not a 'state' (though depends upon what you mean by state). All states come and go. And, consciousness is always conditioned.
Don't want to be too much argumentative, but could not resist replying.

[cappuccino]

well that's all not so

[chownah]

Thanks. In the same sutta, doesn't he say (in the final paragraph) that this is the cessation of birth? Then how is this different from non-existence? How is this the middle path, avoiding both existence and non-existence?

The final paragraph is about dependent origination (DO). The buddha presents DO as better explanation of experience than the "exist vs not exist" explanation. If you don't see how what it describes avoids existence/non-existence then I think the best thing is to study DO to try to figure out how it does that. I think that for you to ask how the cessation of birth as shown in that sutta avoids existence/non-existence shows that you do not understand the meaning of its description of DO.

Notice that the final paragraph also says that this is the cessation of the six sense media......does this mean that arahants don't have eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body, and mind? Seems like the suttas describe arahants who have these features. I think that a proper grasp of DO will answer both my question here about the six sense media and your question about birth and a lot of other questions as well.
chownah

[SamKR]

well that's all not so

Regarding your views on consciousness expressed in above posts - I don't see significant difference between Advaita Vedanta and your views.

It's not that Advaita Vedanta is not good - it is great actually, but the Buddha's teachings surpass it precisely because of having more depth on the teachings about consciousness (how it is conceptualized and experienced (as supreme 'Self)' but still is a dependent arising and not the ultimate).

[cappuccino]

Buddha never spoke of suicidal annihilation.

Nor of staying the same. Life to life to life.

So - where does that leave us?

Somewhere in the middle. Both!

And neither.