Shipyard of Theseus (Analysing the Problem of Cessation)

Discussion
1

I’ve been having some thought experiments regarding Nirvana. I’ve merged the Ship of Theseus, The on-going candle analogy (for rebirth) and threw them in a shipyard for good measure. :slight_smile:

This thread assumes you’re familiar with the concept of Ship of Theseus. From Wikipedia:

In its original formulation, the “Ship of Theseus” paradox concerns a debate over whether or not a ship that has had all of its components replaced one by one would remain the same ship.

First ship: Let’s arbitrarily pick a ship as our “first” lifetime. Following anatta principle, over time, this ship changes its crew, its broken parts, over time, such that what’s called “First Ship” at some point no longer contains any of the original crew members nor any of the components. Also, there are many such other ships in the shipyard - but our ship is placed in the docks #1.

Death of the First Ship & Birth of the Second Ship: At some point, even the ragged patches made for the first ship no longer hold strong, and it’s clear that the ship is no longer servicable. Following the original design, as well as the technologies and understanding developped since then, some of the veteran crew tear down the First Ship completely, and start building a Second Ship.

This Second Ship is not quite the same as the First Ship, but it’s still dependent on the actions & the memories of the original crew & ship. Thus, everything that happened during the First Ship’s lifetime is a contributing factor in how this Second Ship is made. It still docks in the first dock, #1. So far so good.

Repeating this process a few times, we come to Arahat Ship. This is a special ship. The crew members (as well as the ship, go figure!) realise that sailing is not all that fun, and decide to de-comission the ship that’s stationed in dock #1 for good.

From SN 38.3:

Those who have given up greed, hate, and delusion—so they’re cut off at the root, made like a palm stump, obliterated, and unable to arise in the future—are Holy Ones in the world.”

But this only applies to the ship in dock #1 - rest of the ships & their crews keep on seafaring and so on.

Once the Arahat Ship is completely torn down, some of the crew members find a job elsewhere, and some of the wood gets repurposed in other ships. Conveniently, another brand new ship is built in dock #1.

(Compare this to the body of the arahat - composed of atoms, molecules, ideas and so on. These constituents are not the same as the arahat, but neither is it correct to say they’re different. A feces of an arahat finds soil and hosts life for new creatures. A disciple hears an arahats ideas and words and carries them.)

So, what exactly did get obliterated, unable to rise again in the future? Because the shipyard is still intact, and the analogy that carried First Ship to Arahat Ship, still carries on.

I hope my analogies were clear enough to reformulate, in essence - how can anatta and the kind of descriptions in SN 38.3 hold true at the same time? :slight_smile:

:lotus:

4 Likes
2

Quick comment: the major events you’ve listed in BOLD are “first ship” - which has no analogue in Buddhism - and then death which is given the bold treatment. I don’t see any major event for enlightenment which seems odd. Finally, I’ll say that what you CHOOSE to label as a major event is a choice and not inherent in the analogy. It is a conventional agreement and not dictated somehow by some underlying reality. That is kinda the whole point of the Ship of Theseus. What we choose to label as a major event says more about us and our choices than it says about any underlying reality. :pray:

2 Likes
3

Nothing at all from what I can tell. Were there an enlightened moment perhaps the illusion-like phenomena that is the Ship of Theseus could be understood as empty, void, and insubstantial though. :folded_hands:

1 Like
4

Ships get built whereas consciousness gets established and grows if the conditions are right. If the conditions are not there any more to allow that establishment and growth, then no establishment or growth will occur. So this is a different mechanism to ship building.

At a pinch I guess in your thought experiment we might suggest that it is maybe the ‘veteran crew’ that is the equivalent of ‘craving’ which allows for the establishment and growth of consciousness in a new life? Well, maybe. It reminds me of dhp154

5

The point of my inquiry is that, ever since Buddha got enlightened, there are “other” consciousnesses that are established and that grow.

So, what does it mean that “consciousness does not grow”? For “whom” or “where”? :slight_smile:

6

In this case it seems that the Form (Rūpa) of the ship is being identified as the Ship. The material components (Four Elements) are certainly not the ship, and they’re also not the Form of the Ship. But Form only is manifested with these materials as support. These materials need to be modified to construct the ship- a fabrication (Sankhāra) process.

Of course, any component of the ship is subject to the process of identification. The techniques of fabrication, the intended purpose of the ship etc…

The arising of the second ship is conditioned by the desire/craving for the Form of the first ship. As long as this form is desired, it will be subject to arise again.

Maybe there’s not a fixed dock to the ship. The dock is also subject to impermanence, forcing the ship to wander (Samsāra) through the sea to find other places to dock. The reconstruction process may also happen in different docks.

1 Like
7

According to the sutta: `raga (passion), dosa, moha.

1 Like
8

By consciousnesses you are referring to vinnana right?
Could you briefly define what you mean by consciousnesses in this context, namely:

  • how can it grow, decline?
  • how can one grasp, desire it, have passion for it?
  • Suttas state that all vinnana - consciousness - past, future, present should be seen as not I, mine, my self: what is past, future consciousness and how can one see it as I, mine, my self?

I struggle with the translation of vinnana as consciousness as I have no clue how other people understand this term.

9

Oh right. I get what you are after now I think.

Does dn28:7.13 help?

1 Like
10

Indeed, it introduces more questions! :smiley:

Let’s quote that part here for the discussion:

And they understand of a person that their stream of consciousness is consistent on both sides: established in both this world and the next.
Purisassa ca viññāṇasotaṁ pajānāti, ubhayato abbocchinnaṁ idha loke patiṭṭhitañca paraloke patiṭṭhitañca.

If my and your stream of consciousnesses have no trading so to speak (meaning, the constituents of each one is always specific to one person, and never is part of another’s stream of consciousness), then this means they can be differentiated completely, therefore establishing a self that is unique and different from all other selves (I’m sure @yeshe.tenley will have a thing or two to say about this!).

I also think any kalapa ideas fall under that category. This type of thinking for me, challenges the anatta principle, establishing a truly separate set of conditions that creates a particular stream of consciousness, thus a “self”.

Pudgalavādins were trolled for suggesting even less than that. :slight_smile:

If there is trading (that is, what once belonged to one stream might become a part of another, vice versa), then how can we talk about cessation of anything, or obliteration of raga, dosa, moha, since those things keep on arising elsewhere?

1 Like
11

I admit I don’t understand how these questions relate to the topic. :slight_smile: But yes, I’m using consciousness colloquially for vinnana.

12

:smiley:

Good friends, companions, and associates are the whole of the spiritual life

sn45.2

1 Like
13

I am attempting to understand what “consciousness” in this context means to you so that I can understand the previous posts and possibly reply.

For example, currently I understand vinnana as that which discerns ‘pleasant’, ‘painful’, ‘neutral’. And example being: the classic example of a trained dog by giving it food and ringing a bell. At certain point the dog makes a connection that ringing a bell equals food/‘pleasant’ and on subsequent bell ringing, vinnana discerns it as ‘pleasant’.

14

Again, I don’t think it’s relevant to the discussion. When @stu was talking about “consciousness” I took it to mean vinnana & other khandas. Specifying what vinnana is or does is not relevant to the discussion at hand - consider any and all mental processes that are said to cease with the parinibbana of an arahat, and we can move on. :slight_smile:

Well said! :folded_hands: :lotus:

15

MN38 Mahātaṇhāsaṅkhayasutta:

" As I understand the Buddha’s teaching, it is this very same consciousness that roams and transmigrates, not another.”

“Sāti, what is that consciousness?”

“Sir, he is the speaker, the knower who experiences the results of good and bad deeds in all the different realms.”

“Futile man, who on earth have you ever known me to teach in that way? Haven’t I said in many ways that consciousness is dependently originated, since consciousness does not arise without a cause?"

Each consciousness (eye/ear/nose/tongue/body/mind consciousness) depends on a corresponding contact (eye/ear/nose/tongue/body/mind contact) to arise. Ceasing such contact, the consciousness also ceases.

According to the sutta’s commentary by Piya Tan, “established” means “subject to rebirth”. A person with the stream of consciousness “unestablished “in this world and “unestablished” in the next has overcome all forms of rebirth.

I don’t recall any text mentioning such an exchange of properties between different streams of consciousness. The texts say that each being is the heir of their own actions. However, there are phenomena like family bonds, personality changes due to prolonged exposure and close association, and the sharing of merit (or demerit). It’s possible that these may be related to some kind of interaction or exchange between these streams. These things I’m saying here are all hypothetical, probably related to the workings of kamma, which the Buddha refused to explain in detail.

In any of these cases, approval and appreciation of these (good or bad) qualities from other beings seems to be necessary for such an exchange to occur. And if a being only receives from another what they appreciate or approve of, then what is accepted remains their own responsibility.

1 Like
16

Alright. Following this, it leads back to my previous post - then the (unique) inner sense base that each stream has, is unique to that stream (which has contact and/or ceases contact), clearly differentiated, creating a self.

This would challenge the idea that Buddha directly refuting the accusation that his teaching was about destruction of a self.

Am I able to make my point across? :slight_smile:

17

I don’t necessarily agree that this ^^ is always the case. To re-use a previous example, consider the English alphabet. Both you and I have consciousness of this alphabet as one of our constituents, but neither you nor I own it - it is not specific to an individual. “This is not mine” to keep it EBT.

Whereas this ^^ is different. Clearly, my literal point of visual view and yours must always be unique due (at least) to the constraints of physical geometry and time. To me though, this is covered by ye olde fire analogy; the bonfire to the west has a different ‘identity’ to the one on the east…but they’re both still just processes which can cease for lack of fuel; no self being destroyed.

1 Like
18

So, they are separate; they still do not belong to X (me, you, etc), yet their distinction is somehow maintained.

Do you see how that is a problematic preposition? :slight_smile:

It should either belong to a distinction, or not. It can’t be both at the same time.

1 Like
19

What you’re calling the “inner sense” is just the mind base. It picks up on mental objects, which include not just thoughts, but also the sense-derived consciousnesses. All six sense bases (including the mind) give rise to impressions that affect the citta — the mind or heart.

To continue this discussion, it would be necessary to talk about the concept of citta. On the risk of going off-topic here. There’s many topics about citta in Discover.

I have some difficulties with the concepts (citta, mano…), so I will leave this part of this conversation for now. For now, I’ll stick to “Sabbe dhammā anattā”

2 Likes
20

I don’t because (rightly or wrongly) I interpret “no self” as “no eternal self”. I will step aside now and let clever-er, more Buddhist-knowledgeable people speak :slight_smile:

I find your threads enjoyable

1 Like