Greetings @Mat,
Again this need to hit with some commonplace truisms.
We are not here to review the Nikayas, (which I recall pretty well,) but to canvas some deeper features or meaning in them.
In our case, the relationship between the nature of the cosmic consciousness and the wordly consciousness. Relationship that occurs, for instance, in practices like ānāpānasati.
Ajahn Paññāvaddho saw a divided consciousness. But he restrained it to the subject/object realm. And I believe this to be a bit reductive.
Note: Cosmic does not mean the stars and galaxies; like some sort of acid trip - but a “formless realm”; if that can be a summary of its simplest, yet not inclusive meaning - a formless realm in which stars and galaxies have no more relevancy anyway.
What, for instance, do we use, when building a phenomena, from body to feeling to citta, to dhamma in ānāpānasati?
Do we use the wordly consciousness, or some kind of cosmic one?
What are the saṅkhāras involved? Is it assasa/passasa - feeling/perception - vitaka/vicāra - the three united? Or do we use the saṅkhāras “inherited” from the wordly consciousness? eye/form, etc?
Consequently, how do we calm the saṅkhāras involved, so as to score this duality out, to the best of possible?
What is the true nature of this duality? Black & white, or something else?
We’ve seen, more or less, how consciousness was conceived in Indian early and late Vedic philosophy; and how it was conceived by the Buddha. At least where this consciousness stands in the process. That is to say at the beginning of the process for the Vedic sages; and within the process, for Buddha; of which two natures can be clearly distinguished: cosmic and wordly.
We saw that that consciousness “inherited”, so to speak, the duality of the saṅkhāra nidāna.
So it is dual. But how dual is it? - And how do we apply that in our mindfulness (recollection of the Teaching)?.
SN 12.61 to which you gladly refer as a proof of your abhidhammic creed, seems to me exactly the opposite of what you want to prove.
If the body (as conceived by Buddha) can have a span of more than a 100 years, and that the body (conceived by science) a more or less 10 years span; what is to be considered as “now”? What is a “moment”?
Some sort of quantic wave function collapse - which wave would encompass all possible future and past and present possibilities - with the “moment” as the collapsing actualisation? Maybe, maybe.
But certainly not the “moment” and the “now” of the abhidammic crowd anyway.
Do we mean body as somewhat the “organs” of Indian philosophy here; which can be extended as far as the “mind” (spirit) called bodhi? A body that has, (as consciousness does,) a cosmic and wordly nature.
Anyway, it sounds like the “moment” of the body, restricted to the body made of the four great elements (aka wordly body,) is definitely more than a mere “now”.
But again, I don’t want to get in the endless discussion of the “now” and “moment”, elaborated later on, by the clergy of what had become a religion, and not a philosophy anymore.
And yes, impermanence is the key word of Buddhism. So what?
Another commonplace out of the blue. Does it make your argument truer? - Do we have to rely to whatever true concept we can pick-up in the Nikayas, to systematically ponctuate our doubts or dubious conceptions?
Note: paramatta is, again, called “ultimate reality” by the abhidammic crowd - and has nothing to do with the ultimate reality - avyakata - we are talking about. You are mixing up everything; wondering if this is not on purpose?
Moreover this paramatta appears only in the EBTs’ Thig 5.12, with the simple meaning of a higher goal.
Viewing the abhidammic (confusing,) & “vipassanic” (also confusing,) turn that this conversation is taking; I think that I will stop here, if you don’t mind. No offence. It is just that I like to discuss; but not to argue on different grounds. I find it useless & stressful.
Each one its kamma, I suppose.
Notes:
- A definition of vipassana is given at the end of the EBT’s (almost comprehensive) relevant suttas here:
- “Life is possible because things are impermanent,” you say.
“Life & death are the results of the impermanent nature of paṭiccasamuppāda,” I’d reply. And I would add: “and the attribute of those who haven’t yet stilled the saṅkhāras; and brought that duality to a middle-ground”.
Whatever happens next.
Metta,
suci