Interesting article with reference and links to some interesting papers.
Infant consciousness emerges earlier than previously thought, perhaps even before birth. This has implications for considering infants as beings with experiences.
Babies are capable of conscious perceptions and basic learning from birth. This indicates they possess a rudimentary form of awareness from the start.
Fetuses may dream or have primitive conscious experiences in the third trimester based on their brain responses. This raises fascinating questions about consciousness before birth.
Infants see, hear and process the world very differently than adults. Their perceptions are generally more developed for some senses like hearing initially.
Understanding infant consciousness better can help clinical assessment of uncommunicative babies and guide ethical considerations in medical research involving newborns.
The review integrates recent advances in adult consciousness research to shed light on infant experiences. This interdisciplinary approach continues improving theories of consciousness development.
Many questions remain unanswered, such as the onset of dreaming, but research is advancing our knowledge of very early conscious life and neurological foundations.
Also DN28: " Purisassa ca viññÄáčasotaáč pajÄnÄti, ubhayato abbocchinnaáč idha loke patiáčáčhitañca paraloke patiáčáčhitañca
They understand a personâs stream of consciousness , unbroken on both sides, established in both this world and the next.
And this post by Ven. Brahmali:
" I think the link between kamma and its fruit is captured in the EBTs by the idea of the stream of consciousness. A stream of consciousness is a continuity that does not overlap with other streams of consciousness, and as such, in a sense, there are separate individuals.
The problem with puggala may be that some words are more prone than others to be understood as indicating an âinherent essenceâ. Puggala, âpersonâ, is perhaps too closely tied to the idea of an attÄ/Ätman, whether literally as used in Vedic texts (this would have to be researched) or culturally as understood in contemporary Indian society. The idea of the stream of consciousness, viññÄáčÄsota, on the other hand, may not have any such connotations. As such, it is more likely to be interpreted in the right way according to the anattÄ teaching. In fact, the picture of a stream is quite apt. It suggests continuous change (always new water molecules), but an overall sense of continuity through the fact that the overall shape of the stream/river only changes slowly with the seasons."
(In Modern Pudgalavada? - #3 by Brahmali).
Can we say that a body is a continuity of matter and energy in the form of atoms/subatomic particle/waves that is ever flowing, ever in flux that does not overlap with other continuities of matter/energy?
Does a body begin before birth, at birth, after? Is there some precise moment where there is âbodyâ and if we took away even a single atom or subatomic particle/wave, then there would no longer be âbody?â If not, then isnât âbodyâ just a label or agreement for a very fuzzy concept that seemingly dissolves the closer you inspect it?
Whatâs with the ânon-overlapâ characteristic anyway? Is this really true in the case of bodies? In the case of matter/energy? In the case of consciousness? What does it actually mean to say that there is non-overlap?
The quote you posted is by Ven. Brahmali, so I prefer not to offer explanations on his behalf.
In a general sense, the overlap of âmatter/energyâ as you label it is certainly mutually conditioned and interactive with other conditions. At the same time, the particular configurations and characteristics are different in the same way as the appearances and characteristics of clouds are different.
What this example does not convey, of course, are the conditions of intention and actions which manifest in the human realm.
Anyway, my response was to offer citations for the question raised in the OP.
Understood. My questions were questions for the aether and not for anyone in particular. Rather, inspired by the quote of Ven. Brahmali they appeared to my mind as seemingly quite related to the OPâs questions and so I thought Iâd offer them.
Yes. I recall somewhere that every molecule in your body recycles every ?7 years or so. I think they radiolabel molecules and watch them. In other words, molecules keep flying off, rejoining, replacing similar molecules all throughout your body. Bones seem solid and âpermanentâ but we know even bones are vibrant living âthingsâ that are constantly forming breaking down and reforming.
I agree, this is all about semantic labelling! As I see it, ârupaâ is a specific set of molecules which are assigned to the sentient being as distinct from the adjacent molecules. The molecules existed long before the âbeingâ came to be, but the rupa came to be once the being came to beâŠif that makes senseâŠnot sure if that is what you were getting at???
Does the Buddha specify or define the rupa in any way other than to say it is the course of the sensations/feelings? It doesnt matter whether you take a molecule off or add one, if a signal is sent of pain and you experience pain and then you add the sankhara of disliking pain ⊠etc etc then the origination of the sensation was the rupa of that individual. Add or subtract molecules all you like but the sensation was still generated!!!
I take that comment to mean if there was consciousness in the preceding life co-existent with consciousness in the next life, that wouldnât make any sense in the context of the Buddhaâs explanation for how the universe works. Struggling to see where you are confused by that particular comment. The issue I have with that is whether the certainty in Ajahn Brahmâs treatise is warranted by the texts, including the stuff about petri dishes. Just to be clear, I agree with him on all those points!!! I just dont think we know for certain, and I personally wouldnt have any problem with a life-form existing in a petri dish or a bottle of appropriate mediumâŠwhat matters is the rupa and nama being there not where they areâŠ
The human body is consciousness.
Self-awareness or consciousness develops at around 18 months for some - this is the early development of mindfulness that happens automatically for those who are fortunate and without physical disability.
It means that the same stream of consciousness has to experience the effects of its past actions. It also means that personal habits are carried forward in the same stream of consciousness. Thatâs two important areas of non-overlap.
When it comes to the body, I would argue it is little more than an appendage of the mind, that is, the stream of consciousness. The body is an aspect of how we experience the world (and thus closely related to the stream of consciousness), and it is in large part shaped by that same stream.
How do you know these two points? Through sutta or reason or both? Can you explain or give references?
You regard consciousness as primary and form secondary? How about the other aggregates? Do you regard consciousness as primary and the rest secondary or lesser? If so, how did you come to so regard? In my experience they cannot be truly distinguished when analyzed, they are co-dependents whose distinction falls apart under analysis much like trying to delimit the âbodyâ as commented above.
Kamma is intention (AN 6.63), and intention is always individual. It follows that the results also will be individual, that is, belong to the same stream of consciousness.
As for habits, it is just common sense. You can observe in this life that your habits belong to your stream of consciousness, that is, you have to deal with them, not someone else.
Yes, I would largely agree with this. The stream of consciousness could in fact be called the stream of the mind.
I think it is true that an individual person acts with intention by way of body, speech, and mind. The Teacher says as much in MN 136. However, in my experience under analysis âpersonsâ dissolve and no individual person can be found. It seems a bit weird and artificial to my mind to say that a stream of consciousness acts.
At a mundane level sure, but when I analyse even a little bit it seems to me that my habits and actions also result in consequences for other people. When I lash out in anger and commit acts with my body against another person that other person also experiences a consequence, right?
Thatâs why I was asking about overlap. It seems to me that if under analysis individual persons canât be found, then how is it possible to draw a true distinction between persons? When I say âtrue distinctionâ I just mean a distinction that holds up under analysis. If true distinctions canât be found, then âtrue non-overlapâ is also missing, right?
How about the body? Do you regard the mind as primary and the body secondary? Do you find that they are co-dependent just like the rest? In my experience, under analysis both seem to dissolve with no distinction being found.
Are you saying your thoughts and answers on this forum canât be identified or distinguished under analysis and so are no different than those of others?
Even if we agree there are no essential differences, as you might put it, arenât they still different in their appearances and characteristics?
Is a gun a flower?
When weâre hungry do we eat dirt because analysis reveals no fundamental distinctions from apples?
If dirt and apples are different enough to distinguish for a snack, the same goes for different beings and their kamma.
In terms of our practice, we can know there is no enduring essence to anything and at the same time recognize different manifestations and characteristics for different beings â including intentions and actions, some of which lead towards liberation and others that do not.
True, when we look deeply there is no " being" or âthingâ. But in experience, combinations of essence-less processes are functionally different â and thatâs important for our practice, no?
Speaking for myself, yes. Under analysis I can find no true distinction between myself and others. Under analysis, the âIâ seems to dissolve and so distinguishing seems not possible.
No. The distinction between apples and dirt when not under analysis is clear and apparent. I eat apples and not dirt when I have the choice.
I donât think so? I think I was speaking about âtrue distinctionsâ as something that could be confirmed through analysis. That is in contrast to mundane distinctions I make all the time like for instance between apples and dirt.
To my mind that is exactly what I was doing with the above?! Iâm sorry if that was not clear, but such a mundane distinction was certainly my intention. Iâve highlighted the part that indicates my attempt to make such a distinction.
In other words, even if as you say no âtrue distinctionâ can be found how does that practically apply to what Ven. Brahmali wrote? Itâs the very âmundaneâ differences that matter in terms of habits, kamma, and our individual practice.
Perhaps weâre saying the same things differentlyâŠnot sure.
Absolutely the mundane differences matter. I was not trying to suggest they do not. Keeps people from eating dirt for instance!
The reason I questioned overlap and distinction in this thread with my first comment was twofold I think:
The OPâs questions seem to imply a form of analysis to my mind. They are asking non mundane questions about precise moments that seem analogous to the questions I asked about the body, where the questions of how you distinguish and whether you can make true distinctions seem important to my mind.
I take the questions about true distinctions and where and how they can be made as very important to my individual practice. In my experience assuming a true distinction can be made - where in actuality the true distinction cannot be made - often leads to grasping and craving.
Iâd also say whether you can make a true distinction between mind and body is very pertinent to OPâs questions. At least it seems that way to me. Hope this makes clear the context for my questions.
