I am not a Buddhist scholar/teacher or a monk. I do not know much Pali and my English is bad. I only read suttas not abhidhamma or commentaries. Therefore, my understanding is limited within suttas. However, I’d like to share some of my understanding on this subject. Hope that it may shed some new ideas and understanding, or point out my mistakes so I can understand better.
How do I understand consciousness in Buddhism according to Suttas?
This is not an easy answer. However, with my limited understand, I think consciousness is the connection between physical and mental aspects through the six senses of a sentient being.
Look at name (nama), it is defined as: feeling, perception, intention, attention and contact. We can see all mental aspects are there (feeling, perception, intention). Name(nama) is connected with form(rupa) and gives us name-and-form (namarupa). The connection is “attention and contact”.
“Attention and contact” suggests some kind of “observation”. With observation, sense faculty and sense object, we recognize.
With this understanding, we can compare name-and-form and the five aggregates.
Because this consciousness is the connection between physical and mental aspect of a sentient being. It should have both physical and mental characteristics/behavior (like light has both wave and particle behavior). That why we have both attention (mental) and contact (physical) in nama. Contact involves sense faculty which is physical. Therefore, it has physical characteristics/behavior. We can see this connection (consciousness) has both mental and physical components; therefore, it can make connection between nama and rupa.
Because consciousness is the “attention, contact” to the mental aspects of a sentient being. It is the physical pointer to those mental components (because consciousness has both mental and physical characteristics), or we can say that it can physically represent all mental components. Therefore, when we list the (physical) elements of a person, we can list as “earth, water, fire, air” and consciousness. Space element is also added to the list to indicate the physicality of the elements (physical elements imply space).
We can now see the connection among name-and-form, five aggregrates and elements. They are quite consistent with this understanding and the suttas.
From this understanding, what is name(nama)? It is feeling, perception, intention, attention and contact, or we can say feeling, perception, intention and consciousness. In other word, it is the mind. Interestingly, this mind (nama) can interact to body (rupa) without falling into the mind-and-body problem thanks to the duality mode of consciousness.
In Pali, attention (manasikara) here does not refer to consciousness (vinnana). Attention refers to a deliberate intention to observe or pay attention to something. For example, it is used in term ‘yoniso manasikara’, which means to deliberately ponder or think about something.
For example, the intention to watch breathing results is paying attention to the breathing. Attention is a deliberate act to direct the mind to a specific object of interest.
As for contact (passa), here it might refer to inner contact only via internal sense doors, which includes contact with mental objects (which is not physical).
Importantly, I guess ‘contact’ in all cases (both internal & external) refers to a salient sense impression. For example, when consciousness quickly scans a landscape but does not have salient/strong/impacting sense impressions with many objects, this is probably not contact. In other words, consciousness probably does not always result in contact.
Good investigation. But consciousness is listed as something discretely separate from nama-rupa.
For me, consciousness is something ‘neutral’ & ‘passive’, namely, the mere objective reflection of sense objects. Where as nama has a subjective & active component, including the contact therein because it is a contact that is ‘felt’ or ‘impacted’. [quote=“freedom, post:24, topic:5202”]
It should have both physical and mental characteristics/behavior (like light has both wave and particle behavior).
[/quote]
Interesting. Sounds reasonable.[quote=“freedom, post:24, topic:5202”]
From this understanding, what is name(nama)? It is feeling, perception, intention, attention and contact
[/quote]
Sutta such as MN 111 seem to extend this list of nama-dhammas to include mindfulness, zeal, faith, effort & decision. These things do not appear to be consciousness but, instead, responses to objects of consciousness.
For example, you are meditating and suddenly the breath becomes noticeably very calm.
Knowing the breath is consciousness.
Feeling the breath is calm & pleasant is feeling (nama).
Perceiving the breath is calm is perception (nama).
Strongly noticing the feeling of the breath is calm & pleasant is contact (nama).
Wanting to stay with & develop this calm meditation more is intention (nama).
Arousing more attention (manasikara) to watch this calm breathing is attention (nama).
Remembering to stay with this breathing & not get distracted elsewhere is mindfulness (nama). [quote=“freedom, post:24, topic:5202”]
Interestingly, this mind (nama) can interact to body (rupa) without falling into the mind-and-body problem thanks to the duality mode of consciousness.
[/quote]
Sounds good.[quote=“freedom, post:24, topic:5202”]
That’s how I understand.
[/quote]
Because I see consciousness can be represented as “attention and contact” (or consciousness has attention and contact as its components), and attention is the connection of consciousness to the mental components (feeling, perception, intention) while contact is the connection to physical components (six sense bases).
As I understand, attention is a cognitive factor present in all states of sense consciousness; I do not see how can we recognize any sense object without any attention to it. Therefore, I think it is a required component of sense consciousness.
Depend on sense object and sense faculty, sense consciousness arises. The meeting of them is contact. This is the definition of contact in Buddhism. Therefore, contact relates closely to sense consciousness.
Sense consciousness arises due to the present of sense object and sense faculty. Therefore, when sense consciousness arises, we have all three components (sense object, sense faculty and sense consciousness). We can see that contact must arise because it is the meeting of these three components. I could not think of any case that these three will not meet. Moreover, according to Dependent Origination, with consciousness as condition, name-and-form must come to be. With name-and-form as condition, six sense base must come to be. With six sense base as condition, contact must come to be. Therefore, With sense consciousness as condition, contact must come to be. So, there is no sense consciousness without contact.
As I understand, all experiences happen within name-and-form. We can see feeling, perception and intention in name-and-form even if feeling link is listed outside in DO. That feeling link in DO is actually the representative of the feeling in name-and-form as I see. The volitional formations link is also the representative of intention in name-and-form. Therefore, consciousness should also be in name-and-form. Name-and-form is the whole person included consciousness in it. However, in name-and-form, consciousness is represented by its components “attention and contact”. We can also see that consciousness is in between mental and physical components of the person, and it connects name and form together to be name-and-form as a unit.
My intention was not to debate you. Since it was your first post, I did not want to appear adversarial although I felt that way. Further, I am always pleased to see someone personally investigating the teachings for themselves.
Consciousness is certainly required for attention & contact to occur. However, it is also required for feeling & perception to occur.
OK.
Yes. However, Dependent Origination is only a specific explanation of the 12 conditions for dukkha. Dependent Origination does not exactly describe how mental cognition operates.
In relation to how mental cognition operates, the scriptures say consciousness & nama-rupa are mutually dependent. For example:
Well then, friend, I will make up a simile for you, for some intelligent people here understand the meaning of a statement by means of a simile. Just as two sheaves of reeds might stand leaning against each other, so too, with name-and-form as condition, consciousness comes to be; with consciousness as condition, name-and-form comes to be. SN 12.67
In terms of how how consciousness arises, it actually depends on nama-rupa. For example:
Name-and-form is the cause and condition for the manifestation of the consciousness aggregate. SN 22.82
That is why the suttas state, as you already posted:
Dependent on the eye and forms, eye-consciousness arises… MN 148
[quote=“freedom, post:26, topic:5202”]As I understand, all experiences happen within name-and-form.
[/quote]
OK.
Correct. However, for me, feeling here is used in two ways.
The 1st feeling in nama-rupa (4th link) refers to the feeling that occurs when the mind is conscious (3rd link) of the sankharas (2nd link) and ignorance (1st link), which are internal sense objects.
The 2nd feeling in the 7th link occurs in relation to external sense objects or when mindfulness is lost in relation to internal sense objects (resulting in the mind becoming obsessed & attached to an internal sense object).
In other words, feeling is operating on many levels in many places/links, from subtle to gross.
Again, I disagree. I would suggest to read MN 19, which is about two kinds of thought.
The 1st kind of thought is 2nd link sankhara, which are the ignorant formations that arise from ignorance.
The 2nd kind of thought is the wise thought that occurs when nama-rupa (4th link) is mindful.
However, if nama-rupa (4th link) is not mindful, nama-rupa (4th link) will think further about those sankhara thoughts (2nd link), which will result in more thinking at attachment (9th link) & becoming (10th link).
MN 19 states: “Bhikkhus, whatever a bhikkhu frequently thinks and ponders upon [2nd link], that will become the inclination [4th link] of his mind.” The Pali word here for “inclination” or “inclines” is “namati”, which appears related to “nama”.
In summary, at the 2nd link certain tendencies of mind arises as “volitional formations”. Then at the 4th link, if mindfulness is absent, the nama (mind) reinforces those tendencies by acting according to those tendencies.
Yes & no. Consciousness is mere knowing. Contact is the union of three things (including consciousness) that make a strong sensory impact upon the mind. Attention is a deliberate act to focus conscious attention on a certain object or task.
For example, in MN 19, nama (4th link) is conscious (3rd link) of an unwholesome thought (2nd link). If mindfulness is present, nama (4th link) will apply particular intention & attention towards that unwholesome thought for the purpose of abandoning & ending that unwholesome thought. In other words, mindfulness pays attention to the Dhamma teachings & uses Dhamma wisdom to end that unwholesome thought, as follows:
When I considered (paṭisañcikkhato): ‘This leads to my own affliction,’ it subsided in me; when I considered: ‘This leads to others’ affliction,’ it subsided in me; when I considered: ‘This leads to the affliction of both,’ it subsided in me; when I considered: ‘This obstructs wisdom, causes difficulties, and leads away from Nibbāna,’ it subsided in me. Whenever a thought of sensual desire arose in me, I abandoned it, removed it, did away with it. MN 19
The term “considered” above is very similar to the meaning & use of “attention” (“manasikara”).
Thanks for your response, Deeele. I too do not want to turn this into a debate. I just lay out what I think, and you make the judgement.
I do not think “Consciousness is certainly required for attention & contact to occur” as you said, but I think “attention and contact are components of consciousness”. With attention and contact, we can also feel , perceive and have intention since attention connected to mental components (feeling, perception, intention).
If attention (manasikara) is a deliberate act to direct the mind to a specific object of interest as you said, then without feeling, perception and intention how can we have any interest in that object? Therefore, attention should already connected to mental components (feeling, perception, intention) before we can feel, perceive and direct the mind to the object of interest.
If consciousness is used to refer to mere natural automatic knowing as you said, then deliberate killing cannot involve consciousness since it is not an automatic process.
I do not think dependent origination is only a specific explanation of the 12 conditions for dukkha as you said. To me, dependent origination are specific relationships that are eternal, stable, fixed, not otherwiseness that we can use as premises of Buddhist’s system.
If you understand dependent origination, you will understand why name-and-form can turn back to consciousness, and why name-and-form and consciousness are mutually dependent when there is ignorance. If there is no ignorance, that dependency is break. This is the key of dependent origination.
I do not think the 1st kind of thought is 2nd link sankhara, which are the ignorant formations that arise from ignorance as you said. To me, the 2nd link sankhara is defined as “the bodily volitional formation, the verbal volitional formation and the mental volitional formation”. We can see “bodily, verbal and mental” components here. Where are they from? They come from name-and-form. Without name-and-form, where do we get “bodily, verbal and mental”?
I do not understand how “the 2nd kind of thought is the wise thought that occurs when nama-rupa (4th link) is mindful”? To me, the intention component in nama is actually the “bodily intention, verbal intention and mental intention”.
If consciousness is mere knowing then consciousness is not much different than awareness. However, I do not think so. To me, consciousness is more than that. With consciousness, we can recognize pleasant, we can recognize unpleasant, we can recognize friend and foe…
It seems like we have a lot in different. However, I will keep examine what you have said, and I hope that you also have an open mind to explore what you do not believe in me for now.
Thanks. My judgment was ‘attention’ (‘manasikara’) does not have the meaning in the suttas that you are using, which seems to come from the everyday English meaning of attention.
As I suggested, read the suttas that use the word ‘attention’ or ‘reflection’.
Imagine the mind looks at a crowd of people and sees different people. This seeing of different people is consciousness (and also contact).
Then one particular person stands out from the crowd because the sense object has strongly impacted the mind (nama) with feeling. This is sense contact with strong feeling.
Due to the feeling, the mind inclines to pay special attention to that one particular person. This is attention.
For example, right now, I heard the voice of my neighbour (unrelated to my intentions). This is not attention. But my focusing on my computer screen writing this post is attention.
Refer to the definition in SN 12.2
And what, bhikkhus, is dependent origination? With ignorance as condition, volitional formations come to be; with volitional formations, consciousness … as in preceding sutta … Such is the origin of this whole mass of suffering. SN 12.2
[quote="freedom, post:28, topic:5202"]
To me, dependent origination are specific relationships that are eternal, stable, fixed, not otherwiseness that we can use as premises of Buddhist's system.
[/quote]
This is called '<a href="https://suttacentral.net/define/dhammaniy%C4%81ma">dhammaniyama</a>'. Refer to SN 12.20 & AN 3.136.
[quote="freedom, post:28, topic:5202"]
To me, the 2nd link sankhara is defined as "the bodily volitional formation, the verbal volitional formation and the mental volitional formation".
[/quote]
While I personally do not conform with this standard translation of the 3 sankhara, I used the term "volitional formations" in my post to conform with your post.
This said, the 2nd link, according to your viewpoint, is about volition **towards** the body. The 2nd link is **100% mental** according to the standard interpretation you are using.
For example, the volition to chop down a tree is towards a physical object (rupa). However, the tree is not a volition formation. The volitional formation is 100% mental and not in the tree itself.
[quote="freedom, post:28, topic:5202"]
Without name-and-form, where do we get "bodily, verbal and mental"?
[/quote]
If that is so, why is not nama-rupa the 1st link? [quote="freedom, post:28, topic:5202"]
I do not think dependent origination is only a specific explanation of the 12 conditions for dukkha
[/quote]
This is probably why your posts are circling back & forth between the different links, imputing up one link upon another.
[quote="freedom, post:28, topic:5202"]
I do not understand how "the 2nd kind of thought is the wise thought that occurs when nama-rupa (4th link) is mindful"?[/quote]
I was giving an example to distinguish between volitional formations at the 2nd link and volitional formations at the 4th link, which I posted are different but you posted are the same.
To repeat, a bad & angry mood & thought arises (spontaneously) from ignorance. This is sankhara.
Then if you are a good meditator, you immediately think: "_This angry thought is unwholesome_" and you make the intention to end that thought. There are two kinds of thought here. One thought is an ignorant volitional formation & the other thought is a wise volitional formation.
The human mind has the ability to be conscious of itself. The basic mental sense objects are sankhara (2nd link). The mind that is conscious of, feels, perceptions, intends towards and pays attention to those sankhara is nama-rupa (4th link).
[quote="freedom, post:28, topic:5202"]
If consciousness is mere knowing then consciousness is not much different than awareness.
[/quote]
Yes. Correct. At least that is my view.
[quote="freedom, post:28, topic:5202"]
With consciousness, we can recognize pleasant, we can recognize unpleasant, we can recognize friend and foe...
[/quote]
Pleasant & unpleasant is very basic consciousness, as I already quoted from MN 43. It is very difficult to separate consciousness, feeling & perception, as also stated in MN 43, as follows:
> _Feeling, perception & consciousness are conjoined, friend, not disjoined. It is not possible, having separated them one from another, to delineate the difference among them. For what one feels, that one perceives. What one perceives, that one cognizes. Therefore these qualities are conjoined, not disjoined, and it is not possible, having separated them one from another, to delineate the difference among them. MN 43_
Recognising 'friend' & 'foe' is not consciousness or attention but more thinking & attachment (9th link). 'Friend' & 'foe' are '_views & opinions_', which is one of the four kinds of attachment (9th link):
> _And what is clinging? These four are clingings: sensuality clinging, **view clinging**, precept & practice clinging and doctrine of **self clinging**. This is called clinging. SN 12.2_
[quote="freedom, post:28, topic:5202"]
I hope that you also have an open mind to explore what you do not believe in me for now.
[/quote]
No problem. I post with good intention.
Different people will think differently about dependent origination. This is not controversial. For example, many Buddhists, including here at SC, would agree with your views about dependent origination.
However, your equating of consciousness (_vinnana_) with attention (_manasikara_) I think most learned Buddhists would say is incorrect.
Manasikara I would suggest is always dependent upon intention. 1st is intention and 2nd is attention. Where as consciousness happens very passively, such as when I _unintentionally_ heard the sound of my neighbour's voice while I was _intentionally_ typing.
Beneficial discussion. Thank you. Kind regards :seedling:
[quote=“James, post:30, topic:5202”]
And if not mistaken self identity arises from here ?[/quote]
Self-identity seems to be 9th & 10th link:
And what is attachment? These four are attachment: sensuality attachment, view attachment, precept & practice attachment and doctrine of self attachment. This is called attachment. SN 12.2
The craving that makes for further becoming — accompanied by passion & delight, relishing now here & now there — i.e., craving for sensual pleasure, craving for becoming, craving for non-becoming: This, friend Visakha, is the origination of self-identification described by the Blessed One. MN 44
It’s OK. I do not say you are wrong or right. You can have your own view. Now, let me ask you why attention is present in name(nama) but we do not see attention in the five aggregrates? To your understanding, is name-and-form the same or different from the five aggregrates? If it is the same, why don’t we see attention in the five aggregrates? If it is not, then why they are not the same? Does name-and-form represent a person? Does the five aggregrates represent a person?
I said that I do not think dependent origination is used only to explain dukkha. It definitely can use to do so. I tried to emphasize what is dependent origination so you can see what we can use it for. However, it seems to me that you cannot see it.[quote=“Deeele, post:29, topic:5202”]
While I personally do not conform with this standard translation of the 3 sankhara, I used the term “volitional formations” in my post to conform with your post.
This said, the 2nd link, according to your viewpoint, is about volition towards the body. The 2nd link is 100% mental according to the standard interpretation you are using.
For example, the volition to chop down a tree is towards a physical object (rupa). However, the tree is not a volition formation. The volitional formation is 100% mental and not in the tree itself.
[/quote]
It seems to me you misunderstood what I mean. To me, bodily volitional formation is the intention created by the body. It is the intention, so it is mental but it needs the body to create it.
This is the interesting loop back effect of consciousness and name-and-form. If you look deeper into dependent origination, you will see why. It will also show you why we need the noble eight-fold path to end the loop (or end the suffering).
I do not equate consciousness with attention. I said attention is a component of consciousness.
I do not have enough time to response to all of your point of views, so I will need to end it here.
Thanks for your responses and wish you well. I totally respect your own view even though I do not agree with it. Sorry that we are not yet in agreement.
Sorry to say , Imo we need to
determine what is the
terms first , in order to
go further . For example ,
the meaning of : sankhara ,
vinnana , namarupa , bhava etc.
If this not being clarify ,
confusion will arise .
Thank you .
Agreement is not something that is necessary. This is the nature of diversity.
I mentioned before that ‘nama’ is the subjective & active components of mentality & includes other mental capacities such as mindfulness, zeal, effort decision, etc, as described in MN 111. In addition, MN 111 demonstrates how consciousness is something different to attention. To quote:
There was the case where Sariputta — quite secluded from sensuality, secluded from unskillful qualities — entered & remained in the first jhana: rapture & pleasure born of seclusion, accompanied by directed thought & evaluation. Whatever qualities there are in the first jhana — directed thought, evaluation, rapture, pleasure, singleness of mind, contact, feeling, perception, intention, consciousness, zeal, decision, persistence, mindfulness, equanimity & attention — he ferreted them out one after another. MN 111
In my experience, the purpose of the nama-rupa link is not to describe the components of life. It is to describe those subjective & changeable mental faculties that get affected/tainted by ignorance and, to the contrary, can be used to calm the sankharas & overcome ignorance.
‘Consciousness’ is not something changeable & subjective. Consciousness is always the same.
Consciousness of a tree is always consciousness of a tree; the same for each person. But nama (‘mental inclination’) towards a tree is subjective & changeable for each person/mind. For some persons/minds, the inclination is to love trees. For other minds, the inclination is to hate or be indifferent to trees.
My answer here is ‘no’. To me, this question is not relevant despite the common aggregates contained in both definitions of the nama-rupa and the five aggregates.
If nama-rupa was meant to describe the five aggregates then the five aggregates would have been used there.
‘Nama-rupa’ is an very important term in pre-Buddhist Brahmanism, which means ‘naming-forms’. For some reason, the Buddha decided to use this term with a different meaning, which I can only speculate had the purpose of both redefining & debunking (making obsolete) the original meaning of the term.
To speculate, the Brahmans held ‘nama-rupa’ is how people ‘create’ their differentiated external world by naming various forms, such as ‘tree’, ‘sky’, ‘rock’, house’, etc. However, the Buddha was concerned with how the mind ignorantly names things as ‘permanent’, ‘pleasurable’ , ‘I’ & ‘mine’, which creates suffering.
I would speculate this is why 'attention" was the last word used in nama-rupa because, for suffering to arise, the mind must pay “inappropriate attention” to things, as follows:
By attending to things unfit for attention and by not attending to things fit for attention, both unarisen taints arise in him and arisen taints increase.
This is how he attends unwisely: ‘Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what did I become in the past? Shall I be in the future? Shall I not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future? Having been what, what shall I become in the future?’ Or else he is inwardly perplexed about the present thus: ‘Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where will it go?’
When he attends unwisely in this way, one of six views arises in him. The view ‘self exists for me’ arises in him as true and established; or the view ‘no self exists for me’ arises in him as true and established; or the view ‘I perceive self with self’ arises in him as true and established; or the view ‘I perceive not-self with self’ arises in him as true and established; or the view ‘I perceive self with not-self’ arises in him as true and established; or else he has some such view as this: ‘It is this self of mine that speaks and feels and experiences here and there the result of good and bad actions; but this self of mine is permanent, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and it will endure as long as eternity.’ This speculative view, bhikkhus, is called the thicket of views, the wilderness of views, the contortion of views, the vacillation of views, the fetter of views. Fettered by the fetter of views, the untaught ordinary person is not freed from birth, ageing, and death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair; he is not freed from suffering, I say.
It seems to me that you and I are not in the same Buddhist’s domain, so I do not think we can ever come up with the agreements. However, thanks for your thoughtful responses. Very nice to talk to you.
To me, this is a convenient excuse, so I do not follow that path. We just think the suttas are inconsistent because we do not know why those elements are there, so someone must put them in later.
I, instead, find they are totally make sense and necessary, and they create consistency in many different concepts such as five aggregates, name-and-form, elements in the Suttas…
