What really is Sati's Wrong View?

If such a continuum is accessible by jhana, is it not related to memory rather than to consciousness?

This matter should be evaluated in the context of some people are capable of remembering past lives.

This is how I understand it.
If we take the same example of someone watching a match, even though he thinks he watched the match uninterruptedly for half an hour in reality he did not. His consciousness shifted from eye to ears to nose to tongue and so on. It is with lightning speed that consciousness shifts and therefore he does not observe this momentary change of consciousness.
So this is the delusion because what we call “I saw” for example is in fact how we express our experience in linguistic terms. We cannot express this experience without using the word “I”. So when we say “I saw” what has actually happened is eye and an external form have come together causing the eye consciousness to occur and within that split second too the form which we call “my body” too has changed though infinitesimally. The key point here is that the consciousness arose dependently and there was no seer.
Madhupindika Sutta says "Dependent on eye & forms, eye-consciousness arises. The meeting of the three is contact. With contact as a requisite condition, there is feeling. What one feels, one perceives (labels in the mind). What one perceives, one thinks about.” And so on.
From this illustration it should be clear that what actually happens is an impersonal process which is anatta and the momentary nature of this experience shows impermanence anicca and the resulting unsatisfactoriness dukkha of it all. Not realizing these three characteristics beings continue to indulge in pleasure, (greed) despise unpleasant experiences (hatred) and delusion continues. These three greed hatred and delusion constantly make beings to be clinging upadana which oblivion to them leads to becoming bhava due to their kammic potential.
Becoming bhava needs more explaining. The way I understand it is this. In the above illustration the being does not let go because he does not understand anicca dukkha and anata of his/her experience but tenaciously awaits the next moment (consciousness ) of pleasure (greed), shuns the next moment (consciousness) of unpleasantness (hatred) and again the delusion continues. In other words the being is constantly awaiting the next moment (consciousness) and does not think for a moment that the death will strike him unexpectedly. By the time the death actually comes the kammic potential of all actions (sanskara) done due to above ignorance (avijja) has accumulated and ready to accept the next moment (consciousness).
Now the death actually occurs but the consciousness due to having not let go (greed, hatred and delusion) accepts whatever experience is awaiting kammically. This is the new birth. So it is a new consciousness also caused by the meeting of mind and the new mental object which is the womb if it is a human rebirth. The term Ghandhabba is the name for this new consciousness.
I understand that the above is a rather crude interpretation and this is my humble understanding of it. It may differ from other expert opinions and I request you to use your own judgement.
With Metta

Well if memory is the storage place remembering is taking from there. So taking has to be the mind getting an object giving rise to consciousness.

The book " The Buddha and His Teachings" by Ven: Naradha Mahathera explains this process in detail (Chapter 28). It can be accessed here. http://www.urbandharma.org/pdf6/bteach.pdf

1 Like

From above link;

Just as the wheel rests on the ground only at one point, so, strictly
speaking, we live only for one thought-moment. We are always in the
present, and that present is ever slipping into the irrevocable past. Each
momentary consciousness of this ever-changing life-process, on passing
away, transmits its whole energy, all the indelibly recorded impressions
on it, to its successor. Every fresh consciousness, therefore, consists of
the potentialities of its predecessors together with something more. At
death, the consciousness perishes, as in truth it perishes every moment,
only to give birth to another in a rebirth. This renewed consciousness
inherits all past experiences. As all impressions are indelibly recorded in
the ever-changing palimpsest-like mind, and all potentialities are transmitted
from life to life, irrespective of temporary disintegration, thus
there may be reminiscence of past births or past incidents. Whereas if
memory depended solely on brain cells, such reminiscence would be
impossible.

You seem to be talking about sankhara, not vinnana. The point is that neither one remains unchanging, and therefore, vinnana is different at each experience, not the same under a different name, as you had said.

No; it is aware of sanna-vedana(-sankhara); modern science has repeatedly demonstrated that long-term memory is not exact - but it doesn’t matter because in either case it functions as part of the mind sense sphere, and knowing that is enough for Dhamma practice.

This assumes the conclusion (that there are past-life reminiscences rather than ‘mere’ brain effects); past-life recall has neurological explanations as well - but this is off-topic here.

|deleted some links | sorry about that | :expressionless: |

3 Likes

Please undertake the intention to forgive me @daverupa if I am in any way out of line here, but I must ask if permission has been granted to post this highly relevant chapter (which is copyrighted by Elsevier). As much as I yearn to read it, I stopped until this can be clarified, since I take seriously the precept not to take that which is not freely given.

I hope we can all enjoy this information without blame. Thanks in advance for your patience with one as new as I.

1 Like

Well, it was available on the internet without relevant trouble, so I felt its ease of access was an indication of its availability. I’m actually unsure how to go about checking this. Ugh.

:sweat:

Since I got rid of that, even though it’s a bit more difficult I can offer this (…I think?).

(It’s all off-topic anyway - tangential at best - so maybe the whole thing should go somewhere else, eh? Sigh.)

2 Likes

Ahh… yes!

Thank you, thank you, @daverupa (love that moniker, BTW). I was afraid I might embarrass. Please not to sweat this (ref. Your emoticon here). I perceive no ill intentions in your behavior. It is really our intentions that shape so much of our vipaka. I see your desire to share as a very good thing indeed. And you have shared something now I can read with no qualms at all. So thanks.

As for its relevance, I am clearly not skillful enough to judge, but I will share this. I have long believed that skillful behavior grows from human consciousness examining itself as carefully and honestly as possible – Ultimately seeking that wise knowledge which fosters intentional actions that are good in the beginning, good while they persists, and good at their ultimate transformation…

I see a Buddha as one who has taken such a journey as far as is humanly possible. To an ultimate conclusion. Hand, heart, and mind working through lifetimes of kilesas. Untangling all those tangles which are our heritage from unskillful past actions. Dissolving all that hides a radiant heartmind that, perhaps, resides deep within us all.

Were I a younger fellow, I would find the field of neurobiology very attractive. On one level it IS an example of consciousness examining itself with care and concern. The mind earnestly attending the mind… For me, this actually resonates with a very ancient human agenda – to reduce suffering through adding to a collective store of knowledge. Sound familiar?

But I ramble…

Again, thank you, @daverupa, for an article which I will read with considerable interest.

I didn’t see the other article you posted but I found this one about memory quite interesting, even if tangential. Thanks for posting it.