How can nibbana be achieved if it is causeless and unconditioned?

The Watercooler
83

This is quite consistent with the suttas.
Since the Suttas state:

  1. That the moment of consciousness does not arise without the impulse of causes and conditions, that is, they require the receipt of some “energy from the outside.”
  2. Moments of consciousness constantly produce effects. And they disintegrate (anicca), that is, they discharge their impulse.

And these effects are very diverse, some of which I have named. And this is the path along which the energy impulse flows away, the moment of consciousness is discharged and dissolves like the moment of a tongue of flame.

This is very well based on the suttas and the Buddha’s teaching on impermanence and dependent arising consciousness.

And your consciousness is substantial. It is clear that there will be problems with such a substantial consciousness, because it does not accept energy and does not discharge it into the surrounding world and is in no way interdependently connected with this world.

1 Like
84

That simile was to illustrate that conscuousness is dependently arisen.

You are conflating contradicting me with refuting me.

If you really want to discuss these ideas i can do so but i don’t see how it’s worth my attention.

Buddha explained that consciousness arises in dependemce on eye & form and likened this to a log-fire. The simile was to demonstrate how it is not one and the same consciousness that transmigates from one life to another.

From this you infer that consciousness emits energy into the surrounding world…

What is there to discuss?

I have never heard anyone speak of consciousness emitting energy into the world.

This is just foreign to the sutta because in the texts that which is called mind, consciousness or intellect is called a world because it conceives & perceives a world.

It is never explained to be emitting energy into the world. You made this up.

1 Like
85

Suttas do not speak of “moments of consciousness” nor of “impulse from causes” nor “receipt of energy from outside” nor of “discharge of impulse”. None of this is in the texts. You made this up.

1 Like
86

Yes, it emits. It emits in the form of karmic potential, in the form of realization of iddh, in the form of blessings and curses, in the form of body movement and any complex mental work, and finally in the form of maintaining nama-rupa itself. Consciousness serves as the basis for contact, contact for intention, intention triggers processes in the body, which are expressed in the movement of an arm or leg. All these are efficient processes and this is how energy is discharged. You had complaints about where the energy went, you yourself initially assumed the energy, and now you deny it! So I tell you that moments of consciousness constantly produce effects and disintegrate in the same place. This is the teaching of the suttas. The doctrine of anicca and ido-panchanata. The flames also constantly produce effects and disintegrate in the same place. If you don’t like the language of energies and impulses, take the language of Dharma.

1 Like
87

Breathe in. Take a breath.)

All these teachings can be found in the suttas. The Buddha taught that consciousness is like a monkey that grabs one branch and lets go to another. Each moment disappears as one thing and arises as another. This is the teaching of momentariness.

In another sutta, the Buddha says that there is nothing in the world that changes as quickly as citta. Change is the emergence of one state and the cessation of another.

The Buddha also described how a moment of consciousness arises when a sensory support collides with an object. The remaining terms that I used only demonstrate to you personally how exactly the law of conservation of energy is not violated.

I can say all the same things in Dhammic language. Citta arises depending on its conditions, changes and disintegrates. If there are no conditions, a new citta does not arise. This language is in the suttas. Why then do you dislike him so much and want to talk about energy and conservation of energy? :wink:

1 Like
88

I understand what you are saying but the things you speak of are impossible.

You are just telling me a story about there being a world wherein consciousness arises due to receiving an impulse of energy, it exists for a moment and emits the energy back into the environment.

I understand your story but it is just a story and has nothing to do with Buddhist texts.

This is like the tale of creation of the garden of Eden, it is just a story not grounded in anything real.

You are welcome to try coming up with epistemological proof or scriptural reference to prove any of this.

1 Like
89

Energy translated from Greek means action or effect. Of course, consciousness leaves traces in the environment, performs actions and leaves effects. And for the existence of consciousness, reasons and conditions are necessary, that is, the effects of certain forces suitable for it in order for it to arise.

I understand that you will not accept my argumentation, since it destroys the support of some of your beliefs. Therefore, not wanting to cause you suffering, I stop maintaining this dialogue and take my leave.
Best wishes to you.

1 Like
90

Do you believe vinnana’s can arise in space , or do they arise in the mind?

From reading a science book on the brain i have understood that there is a certain neurological treshold to pass before we become aware of a smell, taste, tactile feeling etc. This seems to be related to the synchronic firing or neurons. If sense-input on the ear, eye, etc. has that impact that is leads to this synchronic firing to a certain degree, that is what we experience as awareness of a certain smell, sound etc. But if this treshold is not passed, the sense-info is processed but does not lead to a moment of awareness.

Not many sense-input what arrives at the eye, ear, body-sense, tongue etc. leads to a moment of awareness because that treshold is not passed. That is oke, otherwise we would become mad.

That is also why, i feel, it is makes no sense to believe that what we experience is the world, the All. It is only our human version of reality, dependently arising any moment. How we experience the world is just a result of how many senses we have, how they function, how the brain functions , the mind etc.
It is always our-world. It is never as it is. It is not like the smell of a decaying body IS bad, unpleasant. It is for us. For other beings it can be very pleasant and attractive. It clearly is.
Also colours they are not at all real. If we see an apple as red that is just shows how our senses, brain, nerves, mind works. It is not that the apple is red of itself.

Take for example dogs, some atoms are only needed to become aware of a certain smell. But human condition is very different. We as humans are more or less blind, deaf, without smell, taste, sight etc.
But we all have a kind of dulness, ignorance that how we experience ourselves, others, the world does not depend on causes and conditiones, like how are senses are, but as it really is. Like we life in a objective world and have objective knowledge.

Science also accepts that there or ways to influence beings and humans beyond the level of vinnana.
More on a subconscious level. This means not all knowing is a clear conscious kind of knowing.

By the way…it is said that only kamma-vinnana’s have energy. These are loaded moments of awareness of something. Loaded with emotions, will. But mere sense vinnana’s are not loaded.
Thoses kamma vinnana’s are karmically loaded. This happens in the javana stage of citta vitthi.
It is like the cognitive processing of sense-info becomes loaded in this javana stage. It is like it makes a connection to anusaya in that stage. This happens all very quickly and is not under control. It is not a choice.

1 Like
91

I do not accept your argumentation because it’s wrong. For instance the thing you call an outside world wherein consciousness arises is something that is refuted by ensteinean physics, special relativity in particular.

1 Like
92

Don’t worry about it. I didn’t consider your theories as a threat to my well being even for a fraction of a second.

Your way of conversing is however most annoying and these theories are unheard of.

You say that consciousness receives an impulse from the outside

That the moment of consciousness does not arise without the impulse of causes and conditions, that is, they require the receipt of some “energy from the outside.”

Now what exactly is this energy and what exactly is this outside?

If you assert that there exists a world wherein consciousness arises this is not buddha’s teaching.

Whatever in the world through which you perceive and conceive the world is called the world in the training of the Noble One. And through what in the world do you perceive the world and conceive the world?

Through the eye in the world you perceive the world and conceive the world. Through the ear … nose … tongue … body … mind in the world you perceive the world and conceive the world.

Whatever in the world through which you perceive the world and conceive the world is called the world in the training of the Noble One.
SuttaCentral

So what is this outside that you are talking about?

The Blessed One said, “What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, mind & dhammas. This, monks, is called the All. Anyone who would say, ‘Repudiating this All, I will describe another,’ if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range.” Sn35.23

Now again what is this outside of which you speak?

Because to speak of an outside to perception & conception of the world is not warranted as it would repudiate the all described by the Buddha.

Therefore when you speak of consciousness arising due to an energy impulse from the outside.

You are essentially asserting that the world arises due to a transfer of energy or an impulse from outside the world.

If you don’t want to use the terminology of the Buddhas to explain the world and everything, that’s fine, but don’t call it Buddhism.

I don’t know what else to say…

There is no world outside of conception & perception of the world. There is no outside world wherein perception arises. To speak of a world is to speak of the conception & perception of the world.

Your theories are just based on these wrong premises where the material begets the immaterial and it is entirely foreign to the suttas.

1 Like
93

Yes, i think that is factual. Ear-vinnana’s arise because the energy of soundwaves are transferred onto the ear-drum. This energy leads to electro-chemical impulses on the ear-nerves. These cause all kind neuro-chemical reactions in the brain and in the end a synchrone firing of neurons in the auditive center. When this happens, that is what we perceive as a sound. As hearing something.

We do not a hallucinate a world. What we perceive is instigated by molecules, Electromagnetic waves, sound-waves that contact the physical senses. If sunlight would not reflect on external objects, you would not see a thing.

Does the Buddha not teach also external rupa?

For me it is very clear that when the sense of the body disappears, this does not really mean that the body disappears. Only the sensing of the body ends. This body that consist of cells is not the product of my mind, it is the product of egg and sperm and was born one day. It is not born from my mind.
Chicken are also not born form my minds, but eggs.

Also, if someone is in sannavedayitanirodha and feels not body it is not that the body really disappears. It remains seen, felt by others.

Yes, in a discipline who wants to end suffering.

1 Like
94

All these things you say prompt the arising of hearing are your thinking about the requisite causes of hearing.

  1. Just as one would look upon a bubble, just as one would look upon a mirage [NāradaFn13-04] - if a person thus looks upon the world, the King of Death sees him not.

This stuff is very simple. Do you accept that The All in the sabbe sutta is the all or do you think that there are other things, there is no alternative.

1 Like
95

Well, I’m going with the teachings offered by the Buddha which indicate otherwise.

In AN8.70 the Buddha says, "“Ānanda, there are these eight causes and reasons for a great earthquake. " He then expounds on this and there are nothing but perceptions of an “outside” world going on regarding these phenomena.

From a phenomenological standpoint, I agree that our direct experiences are through the senses and that from this standpoint one cannot directly perceive “outside” reality, so to speak.
But you appear to be conflating this with the also unprovable assumption that there is therefore no “outside” world at all.
This is philosophical idealism, in which only mind is real, which is not taught in the suttas.

In fact, AN10.95 cited in my last post also implies an “outside” world: “In the same way, it’s not the Realized One’s concern whether the whole world is saved by this, or half, or a third.”
I mean if it was only the Buddha’s mind, then all beings would have been awakened within it.

Finally, the general assumption of phenomenology doesn’t necessarily preclude an outside world, but instead limits what’s experienced and directly knowable to the senses and the mind. In fact, it can acknowledge that there can be an outside reality on which the senses are based, even as that outside reality cannot be directly apprehended.

Fortunately, none of this invalidates anything in the Buddha’s teachings.

2 Likes
96

The point is that the question whether there is such a thing is meaningless because there exists no experiment by which it can be established.

When we discuss it, we are not grounded in the demonstrably verifiable.

Like we can agree on things that are true here & now and from this we can infer things which are true. But there exists absolutely no procedure by which we can infer such a thing.

Therefore the idea of an outside world is meaningless for one trying to figure out how the world works based on demonstrable truths.

In our thinking about the workings of our experience and the results of experiments this idea doesn’t come into play at all.

This is like talking about a far out planet, at the edge of space, where humans walk on their ears and communicate telepathically.

However unfortunately the idea of an outside world is sort of a monster that people have conjured up and it oppresses them because they think that they live in that outside world.

If you really see this then you understand that it is only in as far as there is feeling that we discern what we think of as an earthquake & whatnot.

This is why Buddha instructs

"Herein, Bahiya, you should train yourself thus: ‘In the seen will be merely what is seen; in the heard will be merely what is heard; in the sensed will be merely what is sensed; in the cognized will be merely what is cognized.’ In this way you should train yourself, Bahiya.

And this why there is no talk about a world or things beyond the percetion & conception of a world or things.

This is why origination of a world depends on contact

The Blessed One said: "And what is the origination of the world? Dependent on the eye & forms there arises eye-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance. From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. This is the origination of the world.

Furthemore there are Einsteinean thought experiments that demonstrate that we can only talk about things & events in as far they are perceived by this or that observer and that there are no things or events to speak of beyond what occurs in an observer’s frame of reference. But nevermind these things, it’s not necessary.

1 Like
97

If i clap in my hands, what causes you to hear this?
What instigated that hearing moment you had?
Is my action in no way cause and condition for your hearing experience?

Can you describe in short what this sutta wants to express. I do not understand this.

1 Like
98

The Buddha sinply says that Everything created will be in either of these categories

Eye & forms
Nose & aromas
Ear & sounds
Tongue & taste
Body & sensations
Mind & dhammas

And that it is not possible to describe created anything apart from this All, if anyone was to try it would be futile.

For example;
The word ‘soup’ is a word. A word is verbal formation and the verbal formation is a thing know with mind where language is it’s instrument.

Thus your thinking about ‘soup’ will be included in the category dhammas, things thought of, as in ‘mind & dhammas’

The word ‘soup’ can refer to a thing you see, you can call this experience ‘seeing a bowl of soup’

The seen soup, is a non-verbal formation, pertaining to the visible field, thus the visible form you call ‘soup’ is included in the category ‘forms’ as in eye & forms.

The word ‘soup’ can refer to a thing you taste, you can call this experience ‘tasting soup’

The tasted soup, is a non-verbal formation, pertaining to the field of taste, thus the taste you call ‘soup’ is included in the category ‘tastes’ as in tongue & tastes.

The word ‘soup’ can refer to a thing you touch, you can call this experience ‘touching soup’

The tangible soup, is a non-verbal formation, pertaining to the tangible field, thus the tangible sensation called ‘soup’ is included in the category ‘sensations’ as in body & sensations.

The word ‘soup’ can refer to a thing you hear, you can call this experience ‘hearing soup’, eg boiling soup or whatnot.

The hearing of soup, is a non-verbal formation, pertaining to the audible field, thus the audiblr sensation called ‘soup’ is included in the category ‘sounds’ as in ear & sounds.

The word ‘soup’ can refer to a thing you smell, you can call this experience ‘smelling soup’

The smell of soup, is a non-verbal formation, pertaining to the field of smell, thus the smelled sensation called ‘soup’ is included in the category ‘smells’ as in nose & smells.

And just so it is with any created object that you can think of, no thing among things will repudiate the All.

The All refers to the collective of things among things.

2 Likes
99

I will skip these questions. You can probably infer the answer from the previous post.

2 Likes
100

Oke, for me it shows that when one want to analyse the arising of vinnana’s in an unbiased way, one must admit that there are external factors (external from the body and senses, such as soundwaves), that play a role in the arising of vinnana’s. Otherwise one starts to believe there is no external factor involved and this is just not true.

Thanks for your explanation of the All.

1 Like
101

Maha Boowa seems to teach that an observer frame of reference is also something that is created in the mind and it not nicca but annica. It is contructed not the unconstructed. It relies on causes and conditons. It can totally collapse. Then one sees the Truth, and only then.

The observer frame of reference makes us believe that the citta, as the totally empty knowing essence of mind, a mere knowing, is something personal, local, time and space bound. But when the observer reference collapses in one instant, this whole idea is left behind. Then one sees that the knowing essence has never been local. It is only the combined working of body and vinnana’s that create the impression that mind is something local.

What do you think of this?

1 Like
102

Namo Buddhaya!

How do you infer the existence of external factors as apart from the all?

You can’t use the inside of your nervous system to get a signal from the outside of the nervous system.

For example,

Suppose you see a table. Your nervous system made the table that you see! I can prove it.

You might be familiar with the table that you see.

However If you equip your eye with a microscopic lens then you will see all kinds of unfamiliar things like bacteria and various uneven surface.

In this way i can show that that your nervous system created what you see. There is more tho.

Suppose you want to keep getting strong & stronger magnification. At some point you can no longer zoom in any further and it’s a blurr.

You start thinking why is that? How do your instruments work?
In due process you figure out that the electromagnetic radiation ought to be though of as having various wavelengths and visible light has certain spectrum of wavelength and if you do not ‘observe’ the entire wave then your can not get a visual.
Seeing this you have to conclude that what you see is but a visual model of what you can only think of, and the visual model is made by your nervous system.

In this way i can show that that your nervous system created the table that you see.

If you think further about the electro magnetic radiation , in due process, by making experiments, you will establish the existence of subatomic particles and theorize about them.

However your thinking about the electromagnetism is just your thinking. Certainly you can realize that your thinking is created by your nervous system.

Thus i established that the table you see is entirely a construct of your nervous system, on the mundane visual level, on the microscopic level and on the sub microscopic level.

In examining what is a table that you see you can use your eye in as far as the visible goes and proceed further only with your mind’s thinking. And it’s all made up of your nervous system.

It is of course similar with sound.

1 Like