Please, to those who believe in a seventh consciousness: what would a consciousness devoid of touch, smell, taste, vision, and conceptual thought be? Why this one would be permanent?
Rather than offering faith for the matter, having read many materials to that effect, I could offer some ideas.
Here now youāre trying to apply concepts to an awareness thatās supposed to be aware beyond conceptions, and can only be conventionally so referred with these words. Itās like trying to ask whatās the sound of a treeās colours. 
Proponents argue, that itās a meditative experience that can only be imperfectly explained. After all, how can you explain freedom from verbal deliberations with words?
Why are things impermanent, or appear so? I donāt think Buddha gives a good reason why things are impermanent either. How is destruction of taints permanent? How did what once gave rise to taints, gets cured permanently as to not raise any new taints?
Dualist and Non-dualist schools would tackle this question differently. Non-dualists would assert that the designations āpermanentā or āimpermanentā are just structural concepts that appear as we try to make sense of the āallā. So, thereās nothing āimpermanentā in reality, just like left side of the painting is the same painting as the right side, so is time another dimension where you view the All, just one side of it all.
Dualists have different ideas, for example in Samkhya, permanent purusha and prakriti meeting creates the impermanent manifest prakriti. Time happens for a while to explain prakriti itself to purusha, like a dancer performing a show. Manifestation is limited and temporal, as a preparatory stage for reunion, for the benefit of purushaās eternal freedom.
3 Likes
Hi, @Dogen . Thanks. 
Thus, it concludes as a postulation of something that remains unknown. In that case, Iāll side with Harivarman: discernment is better than faith.
1 Like
From a Kantian perspective, time and space, manifesting as form, are within us. They are our categories of understanding this empirical realm. Which begs the question, how could things of form not be impermanent? If everything just persisted eternally then this empirical world would be a logical impossibility let alone completely un-navigable. So T and S are completely necessary for this world to exist, as impermanent phenomena.
It is only the ineffable noumenal world beyond our grasp and understanding that reflects permanence I believe.
Kant provides a sound basis for us to understand the teachings.
Metta,
Jon
1 Like
You just answered the question yourself.
Assumption of impermanence is our categorical attribution to the empiric. Imagine trying to understand a person only through a photograph - youād wonder why theyāre only two dimensional, and how could a 2d thing exist. But itās just a matter of dimensional reduction giving you a limited perspective.
In the same way, if you can conceive of a vantage point beyond time, anything āimpermanentā would simply appear to be like the foot of an elephant, a part of a whole. Try to imagine a doll, not just in 3D, but also in the 4th dimension, from itās construction to itās ādestructionā, all as a single item, for example.
Hi Dogen, yes I see your point, despite being a rather difficult mental exerciseš¤£
2 Likes
You must excuse my as the above was my first post here and Im still learning the controls. 
2 Likes
No problem! Welcome to the boards, friend.
1 Like
Hi Jon64,
Welcome to the D&D forum! We hope you enjoy the various resources, FAQs, and previous threads. We encourage you to use the search function for topics and keywords you are interested in.
We also ask you to please take a moment now to familiarize yourself with the forum guidelines: Forum Guidelines. May some of these resources be of assistance along the path.
If you have any questions or need further clarification regarding anything, feel free to contact the moderators by including @moderators in your post or a PM.
Regards,
trusolo (on behalf of the moderators)
3 Likes
Hi Dogen,
There is a difference between:
- A contradiction
- A paradox
- A non-sequitur
Do you admit a useful difference between these? To my mind, this is how Iād define them and give examples:
-
A contradiction occurs when two statements are mutually exclusive; they cannot both be true at the same time and in the same sense. They violate the law of non-contradiction. āIt is raining and it is not raining at the same time in the same place.ā The son of a barren woman is another straightforward example of a contradiction.
-
A paradox is a statement or situation that appears self-contradictory or absurd at first glance, yet might reveal a deeper truth upon closer analysis. āThis statement is false.ā cannot be considered either true or false. Berryās paradox is another wonderful example of a paradox: āThe smallest positive not definable in under sixty letters.ā
-
A non sequitur (Latin for āit does not followā) is a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statements. āAll dogs are animals. The sky is blue. Therefore, chocolate is delicious.ā
__
Iām pointing this out because I sometimes see you conflating these different things.
āThe sound of a treeās coloursā, is a form of non-sequitur. While it isnāt a conclusion, it does postulate linkages between mixed type predicates that break normal logical rules.
Do you agree?
I would think itās an empty set, so none of the three?
For example for A = (1, 3), asking what are the even numbers in the set A, the answer is blank.
Precisely asking the question āWhat do you see when you donāt seeā is āWell, you donāt see anythingā. Another empty set, which I thought what Pjās question was asking (That is āWhat is an awareness beyond conceptual thoughts?ā āWell, itās beyond conceptual thoughts, so I canāt say anything else conceptualā). So thatās why I donāt understand your point of inquiry.
I do see a difference between these. And itās useful. I donāt think they apply in this case, but do feel free to warn me if you think Iām conflating them! 
Thank you for the welcoming.
Ive been on this site for a month now, prior to my first post above and my first reaction was to get involved in philosophic debate due to my academic background but after reading many such ādebatesā I noticed that it affects my practice and sense of peace. So I think it best to mainly just read and only if I can hopefully provide something helpful will I post.
Practice, sutta reading and meditation comes first for me, then philosophical discussion.
With respect to all,
Jon
2 Likes
The question: āWhat is, āthe sound of a treeās colours?āā ā Is a nonsensical question.
The statement: āThe sound of a treeās coloursā ā Is a nonsensical instantiating statement.
Why? Because the predicate āsoundā, is not applicable to the type of ācolourā. When someone says āthe sound of a treeās colours,ā they are effectively applying the predicate āsoundā (which should be applicable to things that can have an auditory property) to ātreeās colours,ā which are of a different type (visual properties). This results in a type mismatch, much like applying a mathematical function to an argument of the wrong type.
Non-sequitur is the most fitting description of what is happening ^^ IMO. I do understand that to someone with synesthesia this might be sensical, but I think it is introduced in this context to point out its oddness aka nonsensicalness, right?
1 Like
You could think of the question like asking āWhat are the odd numbers in a set of even numbers?ā
I understand that you think thereās a media mismatch, but sound and audio are both media, just like odd and even numbers are both numbers.
Even assuming that it is a non-sequitor, then so would Pjās question would be, since itās trying to understand the concepts that occur in a non-conceptual framework.
So again, your ventureās point is lost on me Iām afraid. Be that it is non-sequitor, what does it mean for Pjās question and how does it all matter? 
1 Like
I think PJās question is more akin to paradox than non-sequitur and as I said above paradox usually hints towards deep insight into the nature of the system within which the paradox is revealed. Iāll remind again of our our discussions that the great undefinability results of 20th century logicians are based on exactly the liar and berryās paradox.
So my quibble wasnāt with your overall diagnosis of PJās question but with the example you gave not being one of genuine paradox. In this case weāre learning about the constraints on conceptual systems by positing with words that which canāt be described with words aka a genuine paradox in every sense of the word
3 Likes
In my case, I simply think theyāre both empty sets rather than paradox or a non-sequitor. Itās like asking what are the odd numbers of odd numbers set when you remove all the odd numbers from it.
But I have to take a leave now for my splitting migraine.
3 Likes
Itās not a non-sequitor (a non non-sequitor if you will 
) and you actually explained why ( but then arrived at the wrong conclusion).
In
there is actually no thing that is followed upon. That would require something along the lines of āThe sound of a treeās colours is beautifulā. Even then itās not a non-sequitor because non-sequitors are false conclusions, fallacies - the reasoning has gone wrong but the premises are valid. In your example and as you said, itās just non-sensical.
So I think itās best to read it as a
Btw, was your question a hommage to Chomskyās
ācolourless green ideas sleep furiouslyā? 
Anyway, that was my contribution to todayās special: Nitpicking for enthusiasts.
2 Likes
Hi Thistle!
Ah but did you perhaps miss that I ack this in the first post? Anyway, youāre strictly and nitpickingly right. That is why I said that while not strictly a non-sequitur it is the most fitting
That said, perhaps it would have been prudent for me to expand to four categories and list your good idea of category mistake instead.
2 Likes
In VaiÅeį¹£ika, as far as I understand it, the self is permanent because itās independent. Itās just one independent substance though amongst many (earth, water, air etc). When liberation occurs no more qualifies inhere in the Atman substance, and so moksha entails as a sort of eternal unconscious existence.
Yes, I did miss it and I apologize, yeshe! 
This is what happens if the inclination to nitpick wins over scrolling up a bit to have more context! 
2 Likes