🧡 If you find benefit in my videos, consider supporting the channel by joining us on Patreon and get fun extras like exclusive videos, ad-free audio-only versions, and extensive show notes: www.patreon.com/dougsseculardharma 🙂 📙 You can find my book here: books2read.com/buddhisthandbook
@@mysterc5826 Surely yes. But I think most cognitive scientists would agree that there are structural constituents that must form, which give rise to consciousness as some kind of emergent property (or at least, the impression of consciousness). And, that without those constituents, there is no independently existing consciousness - at least that science can measure or address in any meaningful way.
@@Daniel-Strain It's not a bad assumption, and it's not an assumption that I disagree with, but it still sounds like an assumption to me. Unless it's testable, it's just speculation and, therefore, belongs in philosophy, but not science. Buddhism isn't a science, so what I'm saying is not a criticism of the philosophy/religion. There's just no scientific consensus as of yet.
There is a difference between the three Pali terms used in sutta for mind. Vinanna (sense consciousness, including aspects of cognition , Mano and Citta. Worth investigation and deepens the meaning knowing this i would offer. Opinions differ whether Citta is core impersonal subjectivity but it is of note in all cases where descriptions of consciousness arising codependent, consciousness ending without remainder it is always Vinnana (sense-including aspects of cognition- consciousness) whereas whenever freed, liberated, purified, it is Citta (Citta Vimutti). Some would argue that Citta is Suttas description of core subjectivity blemished by avijja (ignorance) and thus vibrating with craving Sankaras leading to resarising of 'being' whereas the cleansed and purified Citta is Nibanna and thus the unconditioned and unrisen element, the impersonal absolute. Would also make more sense of Gotama's statement of the world being caught between two poles of eternalism and annihilationism. There isn't eternal self of khandas/vinanna. There cannot be Nothing (annihilationism) if there is a monist consciousness only reality (impersonal citta beyond language to describe 'ie Gotama's repeated 'doesn't apply') that when affected with avija is directed outwards in craving and dependently arises into paticcasamuppada/dependent origination with the vinnana of being. Citta is the eternal light that when affected with Avijja pulses and grasps outwards and this light reflected in papaticcasamuppada/dependent origination with the Vinnana of being. Whatever the case it is worth while for a student to familiarize themselves of the interpretations and meanings between Vinanna, Mano, and Citta (i would submit the context and evidence in sutta does not present them as all interchangeable terms for mind/consciousness) as well as the Vedic Monist context of India at that time.
In Yogacara, consciousness doesn't work this way either. Consciousness is ultimately dependently originate also, Vasbandhu explicitly says mind-only is merely conventional. The ultimate is the realization of nonconceptual nondual Nirvana.
@@vinhngoc7208 As far as my understanding goes the concept of subconsciousness is not an explicitly formulated concept within Mahayana nor any Buddhist school of thought that I know of? The concept appears in some western philosophical systems and is “probably” viewed as part of the many layers of consciousness described within the Buddhist context describing the many facets of a deluded mind. The question posed in this video was about if an independently existing consciousness can exist outside an interdependent relationship with the aggregates and the phenomena it is aware of? Do you suggest that a subconscious entity exists independently of the aggregates and the observed phenomena? According to Buddhist thought the concept of consciousness is a construct based on our erroneous relationship with reality. When liberation (enlightenment) dawns consciousness, as such, falls away and give rise to the limitless expansion of primordial wisdom that is said to not be a “product” but rather an uncovering of a dormant treasure of understanding that our clinging to ignorance kept hidden. There are well known variations within the different schools of Buddhist philosophy on what exactly is the relationship between the knowing aspect and the phenomena it apprehends. But it goes even further than that when we are introduced into the idea of a Buddha Nature concept in the well known Tathagatagarbha Sutra. Also Lord Matriya expounds extensively on the concept of Buddha Nature (Tathagatagarbha) in his well known Uttaratantra shastra as well. Some people may mistakenly interpret this concept as being equal to the Hindu concept of Atman. This is a mistake and arise only if we haven’t understood the Mahayana teachings on emptiness (sunyata) properly. -The indivisible union of form/emptiness. The practice of Varjayana (Tantra) within a Buddhist context utilises this explanation of an inherent Buddha Nature to its fullest. It is viewed as a positivistic approach towards the realisation of emptiness (sunyata).
The storehouse consciousness is where all the mud settles, through diligent practice transmutation occurs within when there is understanding and compassion, from the mud grows the lotus.
Sadhu. Sadhu. Sadhu! Another brilliant offering; thanks so much. My sutta study group often uses your videos as a resource and I've already filed this one away for our continued discussion of the aggregates. The care and effort you put into these videos makes the Dhamma accessible and in doing so enriches lives, Doug!
Great video, Doug! I think this provides a pretty clear explanation of where Buddhism and, say, Advaita Vedanta, differ on the subject of consciousness. While I am a practicing Buddhist, I am quite friendly to Advaita. There are numerous parallels and I've benefited from learning about its theories and practices. But this is probably the most obvious difference between the two paths. Thank you 🙏
I'm generalizing a bit,but as reincarnation is perceived as something negative within Buddhism , one cold argue that being free from samsara maybe means one 'just dies' '. The lights going out and that's it .
Yes, one could argue this, though the Buddha's claim in the suttas is that the question of what happens to the enlightened being after death cannot be answered.
@@DougsDharma That's why I call myself an agnostic and not an atheist . While I'm pretty skeptical , my inner child secretly hopes I'll end up in some nice place with some all loving god patiently explaining 'the meaning of life ';)
Doug, this video and the one on Sāti's wrong view were so helpful in helping me understand open individualist and empty individualist interpretations of awareness. It doesn't seem to resolve the question of whether there is "one experiencer" behind the Buddha's formulation of (multiple) dependent consciousness, as Sāti was mistakenly claiming "one consciousness" going through an illusion of multiple experiencers and experiences. See "A New Theory of Open Individualism" by Michael Edward Johnson and the original article "Open Individualism and Antinatalism: If God could be killed, it’d be dead already" by Andrés Gómez-Emilsson (QRI). I'm still confused if "Advaita Buddhism" or "Non-dual Buddhism" is an oxymoron according to the Canon due to these nuances. As for rigpa / The Ground of All Being in early Buddhism, have you read "Small Boat, Great Mountain" by Ajahn Amaro? I'm reading it now after I asked you about Dzogchen as viewed from a Theravadan perspective and I think it would make for a really fascinating video topic!
There are significant differences between the teachings found at various times, and in various schools, in Buddhism. I think this is what we find by looking at the texts.
Doug: you might be interested to read Bernadette Roberts. She came to enlightenment through being a Catholic nun, and given that Christianity has little or no tools for dealing with this, she sort of had to understand it on her own, so it's a unique and fresh perspective. The books of her's that you'd most be interested in are, "The Path to No-Self," "The Experience of No-Self," and "What is Self?" Her later books would probably be less interesting, as they're attempts to reform Christianity to incorporate the insights she lays out. She talks about this exact topic in her book "What is Self?" She seems to place consciousness as primary/first in the chain, but the point is the same: the will and consciousness have a close, dependent relationship and if one goes, the other goes as well. She even outright says that this state she lives her life in is void of consciousness. There's just the senses now, but consciousness, as the reflexive mechanism of the mind bending back on itself, is gone.
Nice. Interesting lecture. The ancients had it wrong because they thought there would be some seed for future rebirth that motivates the arising of consciousness, instead of sufficiently complex nervous systems. They also believed gullibly in future lives after death, something that we have no evidence of.
Hi, Doug. Thank you for bringing this up. I think this is like the Tathagatha-garbha or Buddha-nature that is commonly undestood as an entity within each sentient being. Many buddhists say, "I am Buddha. You are Buddha. Chogyam "the sex addict" was a Buddha. The dog is a Buddha. Your pillow is a Buddha. Everything is Buddha." All because they have a wrong view that the everything has a pure nature within, capable of being enlightened. I have been having a struggle digesting such view since the Buddha did not teach a "pure nature" or "ground being" in us that just needs polishing for it to arise and express enlightenment. Sounds like Vedanta. The Buddha taught causality, dependent origination. Not Buddha-nature.
This subject is so deep. We just can't get to the bottom of what consciousness really is and where it comes from. And what about sleeping? Or being in coma or vegetative state. Obviously when someone is sleep they are still alive and there body is intact but their consciousness is greatly diminished to the point that there is no eye,ear, consciousness etc.
It's hard to get over the realization that consciousness is also empty and impermanent, if feels like the one constant that you can hold on to early on then you realize like everything else in the universe it is also empty and non self. Of course it is, how would Nibbana be a thing if consciousness was permanent.
I think you're not right, Doug. MN 49: "Consciousness where nothing appears, infinite, luminous all-round-that is what does not fall within the scope of experience characterized by earth, water, fire, air, creatures, gods, the Progenitor, Brahmā, the gods of streaming radiance, the gods replete with glory, the gods of abundant fruit, the Vanquisher, and the all." I Viññāṇaṁ anidassanaṁ anantaṁ sabbato pabhaṁ, taṁ pathaviyā pathavattena ananubhūtaṁ, āpassa āpattena ananubhūtaṁ, tejassa tejattena ananubhūtaṁ, vāyassa vāyattena ananubhūtaṁ, bhūtānaṁ bhūtattena ananubhūtaṁ, devānaṁ devattena ananubhūtaṁ, pajāpatissa pajāpatittena ananubhūtaṁ, brahmānaṁ brahmattena ananubhūtaṁ, ābhassarānaṁ ābhassarattena ananubhūtaṁ, subhakiṇhānaṁ subhakiṇhattena ananubhūtaṁ, vehapphalānaṁ vehapphalattena ananubhūtaṁ, abhibhussa abhibhuttena ananubhūtaṁ, sabbassa sabbattena ananubhūtaṁ. I think you can't compare consciousness in the sense of dependent co-origination and the aforementioned consciousness of nibbāna.
DN 11 Mendicant, this is not how the question should be asked: “Sir, where do these four primary elements cease without anything left over, namely, the elements of earth, water, fire, and air?” This is how the question should be asked: “Where do water and earth, fire and air find no footing? Where do long and short, fine and coarse, beautiful and ugly; where do name and form cease with nothing left over?” And the answer to that is: “Consciousness where nothing appears, infinite, luminous all-round- that’s where water and earth, fire and air find no footing. And that is where long and short, fine and coarse, beautiful and ugly; that’s where name and form cease with nothing left over- with the cessation of consciousness, that’s where they cease.”’” “Consciousness, where nothing appears“. Therefore, I think you're not right. You're right as long as co-dependent consciousness is concerned.
These citations most likely refer to formless attainments or perhaps jhāna which is often compared to a luminosity of mind. See: Is the Mind Luminous? ua-cam.com/video/175JTI5AXc4/v-deo.html
Thank you for your response. "that’s where name and form cease with nothing left over- with the cessation of consciousness, that’s where they cease" considering dependent co-arising, though, it seems to me that dukkha ceases whenever name and form and consciousness cease. And that's what is described in the cited passage. That's why I would argue that it is a description of nibbāna.
consciousness, awareness, the phenomenon of knowing arising due to constituent cause and conditions, just like phenomenon of rainbow or horizon depending on conditions to exist.
So complicated... what I think I've learned so far (either correctly or incorrectly)... 1. It seems at least 2 words seem to be interchangeable: citta and vinnana. 2. Some said there are 2 types of vinnana: Vinnana element (like in English probably it's like "object" maybe, I don't know) and Vinnana in something like in the 5 aggregates (in English it's probably like a "verb" - doing, awaring, maybe). 3. Citta cannot arise alone it has to arise with cetasika. Cetasikas are like vedana, sanna, sankhara, etc I guess. And they cannot be multiple Cittas arise at the same time (no such thing as multi tasking). One citta (with one cetasika) arises and passes then another one arises and passes. But it goes so fast that you cannot notice. It's like you're watching this video you think you see Doug and hear him at the same time but you cannot see and hear him at the same time. It's the cittas that arise one by one at extremely high speed (some said faster than the speed of light, I don't know) That's probably why vipassana comes in.
One concern here is that you're mixing up sutta Buddhism (early Buddhism) with the abhidhamma, which is a later development. Talk of citta and cetasika comes from the abhidhamma, you don't find it in the suttas. For more on this idea of momentariness in the abhidhamma ("mind moments") see: ua-cam.com/video/mSRp6WHGdjk/v-deo.html
I think some Non-dualists interpret the 'alone' as the togethernes of the relative with the absolute. Relative can't change relative without the absolute all one (alone connection). A non finite contiguous area then with connected areas changing other areas. The relative can not exclude the absolute because it could not relate in seperation.
I hear he does shorts. I would not k n ow because I never watch the shorts. Ven. Samahita Thera talked about this. Got to dig for it. We have a little polemic that is beyond Thervada/Mahayana. Has to do with this.
The idea is that intentions and plans are ego-directed, through craving. Once craving is ended, there is no more attachment and the intentions and plans are not of a character to continue the persistence of the self. The underlying tendencies here are specifically those related to the fires of greed, hatred, and delusion.
Having watched a lot, really a lot exactly, of your videos, I have to say that this one was one of if not the most important of all of them. Many thanks. I hope this thing on your forehead is the result of scratching too vigorously to facilitate thinking process while making videos, not something serious?
@DougsDharma here in Poland strong sunlight is something new to us and we're not truly accustomed to it, I'm getting used to wearing long sleeves and hats in summer months. I hope it stops in your case where it is and won't develop any further.
If one listens to the Theravada monk Ajahn Sumedho (just any of his talks on video) one will have a complete different understanding of what is presented in this talk… This talk reminds me of the materialistic idea that “consciousness” is a function of the brain and the idea that samsara is real. Is nibbana nihilism then, when the body mind of an enlightened being dissolves? Isn’t this the view of secular Buddhism?
actually if you study a real Theravada practitioner and scholar like ven. bodhi you will get the Buddha's positions on these topics. the unanswered questions were when the questions were asked by someone unfit to hear the answer, not that they are or were unanswered in general. of course the whole of the Buddha's dharma is explaining those questions and more at great length.
It's a good question, but one for a practitioner of yoga. The position of the legs makes no difference to meditation so long as you are comfortable and well supported.
couldn't someone argue that the "ground" doesn't really fit in the list of 6 consciousnesses, it's more like the capacity for there to be this list in the first place. it's a shared aspect of all these consciousnesses. so then to point out that consciousness is dependently originated is true but i think subtly misses the point being made by mahayana. am I missing something? still it was a great video and thank you for making it.
Thanks! The Buddha never talks about such a "ground" in the suttas. Indeed, if anything in MN 1 he argues a "ground of being" is basically just another delusion.
How do you perceive Non Dual Saivaism philosophy in light of Buddha's dharma and what do yoy think about the idea of these teachings being a lower vehicle to prepare the person for "higher" awareness or samadhis? Is moksha and Buddhahood the same? Is the visionary world of Tantric development a distraction from the goal which is moksha or Buddhahood or is it just another power seeking trap? I used to follow Buddhist practices combined with Yoga and I had this Kundalini awakening which totally shifted my perception of everything, it got me thinking that this level of teachings and wisdom was merely to be prepared for what I would later experience.
If you mean the status of the enlightened person after death, then that is one of the Buddha's "unanswered questions": ua-cam.com/video/59FXAW3AS2I/v-deo.html
Doug- i urge you to return to this question every six months with a different perspective. Only such return can be truthful to meaningfulness of the question. How one answers this question in one’s practice determines the Dharma of one’s practice. I urge you not to be complacent in this presented answer. Here’s a question: is -knowing- a consciousness? Are there different types of consciousness implicit in the early texts? Like the Eskimo has multiple words for snow, so the Vedic milieu of the Buddha we know had multiple words for consciousness. Return again in six months.
There are six different types of consciousness explicitly stated in the early texts: one for each sense base. There are none other mentioned that I know of.
Newbie here. Is the definition of consciousness knowing an object? Is this saying that there can be no state of knowing without that something, that object which is known? In other words, knowing and the object arise together? So is the nibbana state one that’s beyond knowing of objects? What’s the difference between nibbana and being unconscious in this scheme?
Big questions ... for the nature of consciousness see my earlier video: ua-cam.com/video/W1Pn65QZiZs/v-deo.html . But yes, in early Buddhism consciousness is produced through causes and conditions. Each conscious state is conscious of something. The notion of an "unconscious" is a modern notion that didn't really exist in early Buddhism, though there are distant parallels. See: ua-cam.com/video/nlN3oCeCRFQ/v-deo.html
I have a question please. You said that consciousness depends upon nama and rupa, but there is also an element of vijnana in nama. So, is Vijnana and the Consciousness that you refer to one or different?
The precise character of nama-rupa is something of a question. Some consider "nama" in nama-rupa not to include viññāṇa for this very reason. Presumably it would only include vedanā, saññā, and saṅkhāra.
@@DougsDharma As you said, does that mean there are only four Aggregates? I feel confused so much, sir. If it's convenient, could you please give me the sources?
There is no difference to my knowledge in early Buddhism. "Self referential consciousness" would probably be understood just as mental consciousness that arises with a perception of itself, if such a thing were really possible.
I'vs been learning about Buddhism for over 2 years now and have been practicing more or less its precepts. Recently, as I have probed deeper, I am starting to take issue with concept of no self and no pure consciousness. How is Buddha's Enlightenment any different from Nihilism? Is it merely "joyful" Nihilism? What is "it" that becomes enlightened? I love everything Buddhist except the ending - enlightenment, it seems rather dim. To permanently end suffering we must extinguish oursevles? How is that any different than physical sucuide?
Didn't Roger Penrose say something about it being the collapse of the wave function? I think he also said it can transcend time, but I don't understand any of that. It probably doesn't matter. I think even if someone explained to us all the mysteries of the universe, we still wouldn't be able to comprehend it. That's the 5th option that the Buddha spoke of, isn't it? True, false, both, neither, and a 5th option. Graham Priest said something about that, but I may have misunderstood.
I'm not aware of a fifth option in early Buddhism. The catuṣkoṭi has only four options. If none of them apply, then the question cannot be answered in its present form.
@DougsDharma I'll find the video. It's like, the incomprehensible or something. The video was about Buddhism in general, so it may not have even been early Buddhism. I'm doing all this from memory, so who knows. He did use that word. The catastrophic... kudi... that thing.
•The 3 marks of existence Everything is suffering, impermanence, and non self,, •Suffering - all living beings suffer in different ways, mental and physical suffering, mental suffering like stress, depression, worry, etc. and physical suffering like disease, skin or organs problems, wounds, etc... •Impermanence - nothing last forever except change, everything or everyone will die or will change, like people, house, plants, possession, gadgets, perspective etc... •No self - everything is made out of 4 elements, fire water earth air, example is the house, how to build a house? Need stone blocks, how to create stone blocks? Need some earth or dirt, combined with water, then shaping to blocks after that need heat to be cooked and steady then need air to make the blocks dry and finish product, and humans and other living beings too are created by the 4 elements, People have heat in their body to not get cold, and water like blood, and air to breath, and earth is the physical form of humans and other organisms (living beings), Humans are just like cars, humans have organs, 6 senses, hormones, chemical reactions to the brain and the nature of mind, nature of the mind is greedy for sensual pleasure to the 5 senses, and car have engine, wheels, fuel, lights, windows, etc.. That's why humans are just like animals, humanity just invented sense of self, the sense of "me" "mine" "I'm this" "I'm that" but in reality all living beings are just an organism in the environment, So everything are just organism trying to survive everyday, name, labels is an illusion it's not real because truth is beyond words and beyond ordinary people and ordinary living beings understanding
documented near-death experiences would debunk this belief, no? people who have zero brain or organ function, but are able to perceive outside of their bodies.. I did not realize this was an early Buddhist belief! its not how I feel about it for sure, but interesting, especially the part about volition.
This wouldn't necessarily debunk the belief. In Buddhism there is support for the idea that mind can exist without the literal body, though this isn't really developed in the early suttas it's generally understood that in those cases there is a sort of "subtle matter" that supports the mind. (E.g., this would be the case for the devas that don't have physical bodies). As to whether there is actually well documented evidence of such claims, that's a different question.
That's why later Mahayana teachings emphasized the goal of collective transformation all sentient beings into unperturbable consciousness like that of rocks. Only when everyone has the unperturbable values of a rock, the need for any help from suffering just like any other need subsides with all subjective evaluations.
🧡 If you find benefit in my videos, consider supporting the channel by joining us on Patreon and get fun extras like exclusive videos, ad-free audio-only versions, and extensive show notes: www.patreon.com/dougsseculardharma 🙂
📙 You can find my book here: books2read.com/buddhisthandbook
It is amazing how consistent this is with modern biology and cognitive science.
Really? Isn't consciousness still a mystery?
According to my opinion, the psychology of mind in Buddhist study goes further than modern biology and cognitive science.
@@mysterc5826 Surely yes. But I think most cognitive scientists would agree that there are structural constituents that must form, which give rise to consciousness as some kind of emergent property (or at least, the impression of consciousness). And, that without those constituents, there is no independently existing consciousness - at least that science can measure or address in any meaningful way.
@@vinhngoc7208 True, in many ways :)
@@Daniel-Strain It's not a bad assumption, and it's not an assumption that I disagree with, but it still sounds like an assumption to me. Unless it's testable, it's just speculation and, therefore, belongs in philosophy, but not science. Buddhism isn't a science, so what I'm saying is not a criticism of the philosophy/religion. There's just no scientific consensus as of yet.
This is why pattica sammupada (dependent origination) is the Dhamma: "know dependent origination is the core of the teaching".
There is a difference between the three Pali terms used in sutta for mind. Vinanna (sense consciousness, including aspects of cognition , Mano and Citta. Worth investigation and deepens the meaning knowing this i would offer. Opinions differ whether Citta is core impersonal subjectivity but it is of note in all cases where descriptions of consciousness arising codependent, consciousness ending without remainder it is always Vinnana (sense-including aspects of cognition- consciousness) whereas whenever freed, liberated, purified, it is Citta (Citta Vimutti). Some would argue that Citta is Suttas description of core subjectivity blemished by avijja (ignorance) and thus vibrating with craving Sankaras leading to resarising of 'being' whereas the cleansed and purified Citta is Nibanna and thus the unconditioned and unrisen element, the impersonal absolute. Would also make more sense of Gotama's statement of the world being caught between two poles of eternalism and annihilationism. There isn't eternal self of khandas/vinanna. There cannot be Nothing (annihilationism) if there is a monist consciousness only reality (impersonal citta beyond language to describe 'ie Gotama's repeated 'doesn't apply') that when affected with avija is directed outwards in craving and dependently arises into paticcasamuppada/dependent origination with the vinnana of being. Citta is the eternal light that when affected with Avijja pulses and grasps outwards and this light reflected in papaticcasamuppada/dependent origination with the Vinnana of being. Whatever the case it is worth while for a student to familiarize themselves of the interpretations and meanings between Vinanna, Mano, and Citta (i would submit the context and evidence in sutta does not present them as all interchangeable terms for mind/consciousness) as well as the Vedic Monist context of India at that time.
In Yogacara, consciousness doesn't work this way either. Consciousness is ultimately dependently originate also, Vasbandhu explicitly says mind-only is merely conventional. The ultimate is the realization of nonconceptual nondual Nirvana.
how do you think about the subconsciouss in yogacara tradition?
@@vinhngoc7208 As far as my understanding goes the concept of subconsciousness is not an explicitly formulated concept within Mahayana nor any Buddhist school of thought that I know of? The concept appears in some western philosophical systems and is “probably” viewed as part of the many layers of consciousness described within the Buddhist context describing the many facets of a deluded mind. The question posed in this video was about if an independently existing consciousness can exist outside an interdependent relationship with the aggregates and the phenomena it is aware of? Do you suggest that a subconscious entity exists independently of the aggregates and the observed phenomena?
According to Buddhist thought the concept of consciousness is a construct based on our erroneous relationship with reality. When liberation (enlightenment) dawns consciousness, as such, falls away and give rise to the limitless expansion of primordial wisdom that is said to not be a “product” but rather an uncovering of a dormant treasure of understanding that our clinging to ignorance kept hidden. There are well known variations within the different schools of Buddhist philosophy on what exactly is the relationship between the knowing aspect and the phenomena it apprehends. But it goes even further than that when we are introduced into the idea of a Buddha Nature concept in the well known Tathagatagarbha Sutra. Also Lord Matriya expounds extensively on the concept of Buddha Nature (Tathagatagarbha) in his well known Uttaratantra shastra as well. Some people may mistakenly interpret this concept as being equal to the Hindu concept of Atman. This is a mistake and arise only if we haven’t understood the Mahayana teachings on emptiness (sunyata) properly. -The indivisible union of form/emptiness. The practice of Varjayana (Tantra) within a Buddhist context utilises this explanation of an inherent Buddha Nature to its fullest. It is viewed as a positivistic approach towards the realisation of emptiness (sunyata).
@@vinhngoc7208 I'm not sure what the the subconscious actually is but the concept sounds similar to alaya-vijnana
The storehouse consciousness is where all the mud settles, through diligent practice transmutation occurs within when there is understanding and compassion, from the mud grows the lotus.
Sadhu. Sadhu. Sadhu! Another brilliant offering; thanks so much. My sutta study group often uses your videos as a resource and I've already filed this one away for our continued discussion of the aggregates. The care and effort you put into these videos makes the Dhamma accessible and in doing so enriches lives, Doug!
You're most welcome! 🙏
Great video, Doug! I think this provides a pretty clear explanation of where Buddhism and, say, Advaita Vedanta, differ on the subject of consciousness. While I am a practicing Buddhist, I am quite friendly to Advaita. There are numerous parallels and I've benefited from learning about its theories and practices. But this is probably the most obvious difference between the two paths. Thank you 🙏
Wishing you and your wife a successful spiritual journey 🙏
I'm generalizing a bit,but as reincarnation is perceived as something negative within Buddhism , one cold argue that being free from samsara maybe means one 'just dies' '. The lights going out and that's it .
Yes, one could argue this, though the Buddha's claim in the suttas is that the question of what happens to the enlightened being after death cannot be answered.
@@DougsDharma That's why I call myself an agnostic and not an atheist . While I'm pretty skeptical , my inner child secretly hopes I'll end up in some nice place with some all loving god patiently explaining 'the meaning of life ';)
Ultimately everything within Samsara is subject to dependent origination including consciousness
Yes, exactly.
Doug, this video and the one on Sāti's wrong view were so helpful in helping me understand open individualist and empty individualist interpretations of awareness. It doesn't seem to resolve the question of whether there is "one experiencer" behind the Buddha's formulation of (multiple) dependent consciousness, as Sāti was mistakenly claiming "one consciousness" going through an illusion of multiple experiencers and experiences. See "A New Theory of Open Individualism" by Michael Edward Johnson and the original article "Open Individualism and Antinatalism: If God could be killed, it’d be dead already" by Andrés Gómez-Emilsson (QRI). I'm still confused if "Advaita Buddhism" or "Non-dual Buddhism" is an oxymoron according to the Canon due to these nuances.
As for rigpa / The Ground of All Being in early Buddhism, have you read "Small Boat, Great Mountain" by Ajahn Amaro? I'm reading it now after I asked you about Dzogchen as viewed from a Theravadan perspective and I think it would make for a really fascinating video topic!
There are significant differences between the teachings found at various times, and in various schools, in Buddhism. I think this is what we find by looking at the texts.
Doug: you might be interested to read Bernadette Roberts. She came to enlightenment through being a Catholic nun, and given that Christianity has little or no tools for dealing with this, she sort of had to understand it on her own, so it's a unique and fresh perspective. The books of her's that you'd most be interested in are, "The Path to No-Self," "The Experience of No-Self," and "What is Self?" Her later books would probably be less interesting, as they're attempts to reform Christianity to incorporate the insights she lays out.
She talks about this exact topic in her book "What is Self?" She seems to place consciousness as primary/first in the chain, but the point is the same: the will and consciousness have a close, dependent relationship and if one goes, the other goes as well. She even outright says that this state she lives her life in is void of consciousness. There's just the senses now, but consciousness, as the reflexive mechanism of the mind bending back on itself, is gone.
Interesting to know, thanks!
@@DougsDharma You're welcome! If you do give her a read I'd really look forward to hearing your thoughts.
Splendid talk, Doug! Thanks a lot! Also for providing us with all the sources and further information in the video description box! ❤️🐱🙏
Glad it was helpful!
Nice. Interesting lecture. The ancients had it wrong because they thought there would be some seed for future rebirth that motivates the arising of consciousness, instead of sufficiently complex nervous systems. They also believed gullibly in future lives after death, something that we have no evidence of.
Hi, Doug. Thank you for bringing this up.
I think this is like the Tathagatha-garbha or Buddha-nature that is commonly undestood as an entity within each sentient being.
Many buddhists say, "I am Buddha. You are Buddha. Chogyam "the sex addict" was a Buddha. The dog is a Buddha. Your pillow is a Buddha. Everything is Buddha." All because they have a wrong view that the everything has a pure nature within, capable of being enlightened.
I have been having a struggle digesting such view since the Buddha did not teach a "pure nature" or "ground being" in us that just needs polishing for it to arise and express enlightenment. Sounds like Vedanta. The Buddha taught causality, dependent origination. Not Buddha-nature.
This subject is so deep. We just can't get to the bottom of what consciousness really is and where it comes from. And what about sleeping? Or being in coma or vegetative state. Obviously when someone is sleep they are still alive and there body is intact but their consciousness is greatly diminished to the point that there is no eye,ear, consciousness etc.
Yes, it's a very deep topic!
It's hard to get over the realization that consciousness is also empty and impermanent, if feels like the one constant that you can hold on to early on then you realize like everything else in the universe it is also empty and non self. Of course it is, how would Nibbana be a thing if consciousness was permanent.
We know it's not permanent because you can lose it, right?
Thank-you brother!
Thank you, Doug. Great content.
Glad you enjoyed it!
Thanks!
You bet! 🙏
Really good video doug, can you do a video going into more stories about buddha and his deciples having arguments about certain topics? Bless 💜
I've done a few already, such as Sati's mistake, related to this topic: ua-cam.com/video/NoFF8-rA1zE/v-deo.html
Great video - thank you!
My pleasure!
thank you so much for your detail explaination
You are welcome!
I think you're not right, Doug.
MN 49: "Consciousness where nothing appears, infinite, luminous all-round-that is what does not fall within the scope of experience characterized by earth, water, fire, air, creatures, gods, the Progenitor, Brahmā, the gods of streaming radiance, the gods replete with glory, the gods of abundant fruit, the Vanquisher, and the all."
I Viññāṇaṁ anidassanaṁ anantaṁ sabbato pabhaṁ, taṁ pathaviyā pathavattena ananubhūtaṁ, āpassa āpattena ananubhūtaṁ, tejassa tejattena ananubhūtaṁ, vāyassa vāyattena ananubhūtaṁ, bhūtānaṁ bhūtattena ananubhūtaṁ, devānaṁ devattena ananubhūtaṁ, pajāpatissa pajāpatittena ananubhūtaṁ, brahmānaṁ brahmattena ananubhūtaṁ, ābhassarānaṁ ābhassarattena ananubhūtaṁ, subhakiṇhānaṁ subhakiṇhattena ananubhūtaṁ, vehapphalānaṁ vehapphalattena ananubhūtaṁ, abhibhussa abhibhuttena ananubhūtaṁ, sabbassa sabbattena ananubhūtaṁ.
I think you can't compare consciousness in the sense of dependent co-origination and the aforementioned consciousness of nibbāna.
DN 11
Mendicant, this is not how the question should be asked: “Sir, where do these four primary elements cease without anything left over, namely, the elements of earth, water, fire, and air?”
This is how the question should be asked:
“Where do water and earth,
fire and air find no footing?
Where do long and short,
fine and coarse, beautiful and ugly;
where do name and form
cease with nothing left over?”
And the answer to that is:
“Consciousness where nothing appears,
infinite, luminous all-round-
that’s where water and earth,
fire and air find no footing.
And that is where long and short,
fine and coarse, beautiful and ugly;
that’s where name and form
cease with nothing left over-
with the cessation of consciousness,
that’s where they cease.”’”
“Consciousness, where nothing appears“.
Therefore, I think you're not right. You're right as long as co-dependent consciousness is concerned.
These citations most likely refer to formless attainments or perhaps jhāna which is often compared to a luminosity of mind. See: Is the Mind Luminous?
ua-cam.com/video/175JTI5AXc4/v-deo.html
Thank you for your response.
"that’s where name and form
cease with nothing left over-
with the cessation of consciousness,
that’s where they cease"
considering dependent co-arising, though, it seems to me that dukkha ceases whenever name and form and consciousness cease. And that's what is described in the cited passage.
That's why I would argue that it is a description of nibbāna.
consciousness, awareness, the phenomenon of knowing arising due to constituent cause and conditions, just like phenomenon of rainbow or horizon depending on conditions to exist.
So complicated... what I think I've learned so far (either correctly or incorrectly)...
1. It seems at least 2 words seem to be interchangeable: citta and vinnana.
2. Some said there are 2 types of vinnana: Vinnana element (like in English probably it's like "object" maybe, I don't know) and Vinnana in something like in the 5 aggregates (in English it's probably like a "verb" - doing, awaring, maybe).
3. Citta cannot arise alone it has to arise with cetasika. Cetasikas are like vedana, sanna, sankhara, etc I guess. And they cannot be multiple Cittas arise at the same time (no such thing as multi tasking). One citta (with one cetasika) arises and passes then another one arises and passes. But it goes so fast that you cannot notice. It's like you're watching this video you think you see Doug and hear him at the same time but you cannot see and hear him at the same time. It's the cittas that arise one by one at extremely high speed (some said faster than the speed of light, I don't know) That's probably why vipassana comes in.
One concern here is that you're mixing up sutta Buddhism (early Buddhism) with the abhidhamma, which is a later development. Talk of citta and cetasika comes from the abhidhamma, you don't find it in the suttas. For more on this idea of momentariness in the abhidhamma ("mind moments") see: ua-cam.com/video/mSRp6WHGdjk/v-deo.html
I think some Non-dualists interpret the 'alone' as the togethernes of the relative with the absolute. Relative can't change relative without the absolute all one (alone connection). A non finite contiguous area then with connected areas changing other areas. The relative can not exclude the absolute because it could not relate in seperation.
I hear he does shorts. I would not k n ow because I never watch the shorts. Ven. Samahita Thera talked about this. Got to dig for it. We have a little polemic that is beyond Thervada/Mahayana. Has to do with this.
4:28 How are we supposed to live without intending, planning or having underlying tendencies? Are we supposed to be robots?
The idea is that intentions and plans are ego-directed, through craving. Once craving is ended, there is no more attachment and the intentions and plans are not of a character to continue the persistence of the self. The underlying tendencies here are specifically those related to the fires of greed, hatred, and delusion.
If consciousness is cease to exit, what is there to determine if your state is stable, content and not being anxious?
Consciousness in this sense ceases only at parinirvana; what is “you” or “your state” after that is one of the unanswered questions.
Having watched a lot, really a lot exactly, of your videos, I have to say that this one was one of if not the most important of all of them. Many thanks.
I hope this thing on your forehead is the result of scratching too vigorously to facilitate thinking process while making videos, not something serious?
Thanks, a small carcinoma that was removed recently, I've had a number of them ... remember to wear sunscreen!
@DougsDharma here in Poland strong sunlight is something new to us and we're not truly accustomed to it, I'm getting used to wearing long sleeves and hats in summer months. I hope it stops in your case where it is and won't develop any further.
If one listens to the Theravada monk Ajahn Sumedho (just any of his talks on video) one will have a complete different understanding of what is presented in this talk…
This talk reminds me of the materialistic idea that “consciousness” is a function of the brain and the idea that samsara is real.
Is nibbana nihilism then, when the body mind of an enlightened being dissolves?
Isn’t this the view of secular Buddhism?
Nibbana is not ever understood as nihilism. The Buddha explicitly rejected nihilistic interpretations of his view.
The status of the enlightened being after death was one of the famous "unanswered questions" of the Buddha: ua-cam.com/video/59FXAW3AS2I/v-deo.html
actually if you study a real Theravada practitioner and scholar like ven. bodhi you will get the Buddha's positions on these topics.
the unanswered questions were when the questions were asked by someone unfit to hear the answer, not that they are or were unanswered in general. of course the whole of the Buddha's dharma is explaining those questions and more at great length.
Can you do a video explaining how to sit in a lotus or half lotus position?
It's a good question, but one for a practitioner of yoga. The position of the legs makes no difference to meditation so long as you are comfortable and well supported.
@@DougsDharma the fact is that almost every Buddha statue depicts the Buddha sitting in a Lotus position.
couldn't someone argue that the "ground" doesn't really fit in the list of 6 consciousnesses, it's more like the capacity for there to be this list in the first place. it's a shared aspect of all these consciousnesses. so then to point out that consciousness is dependently originated is true but i think subtly misses the point being made by mahayana. am I missing something?
still it was a great video and thank you for making it.
Thanks! The Buddha never talks about such a "ground" in the suttas. Indeed, if anything in MN 1 he argues a "ground of being" is basically just another delusion.
How do you perceive Non Dual Saivaism philosophy in light of Buddha's dharma and what do yoy think about the idea of these teachings being a lower vehicle to prepare the person for "higher" awareness or samadhis? Is moksha and Buddhahood the same? Is the visionary world of Tantric development a distraction from the goal which is moksha or Buddhahood or is it just another power seeking trap? I used to follow Buddhist practices combined with Yoga and I had this Kundalini awakening which totally shifted my perception of everything, it got me thinking that this level of teachings and wisdom was merely to be prepared for what I would later experience.
For a video on non-dualism and early Buddhism see: ua-cam.com/video/43v6lLweukg/v-deo.html
So for clarity, with the absence of the aggregates, consciousness would not arise. Is that state possible to exist in a living human being?
A living human being is one for whom the aggregates are present.
When we talk about this 'ultimate state' do we mean something which has no manifest qualities and therefore impossible to describe?
If you mean the status of the enlightened person after death, then that is one of the Buddha's "unanswered questions": ua-cam.com/video/59FXAW3AS2I/v-deo.html
Doug- i urge you to return to this question every six months with a different perspective. Only such return can be truthful to meaningfulness of the question. How one answers this question in one’s practice determines the Dharma of one’s practice. I urge you not to be complacent in this presented answer. Here’s a question: is -knowing- a consciousness? Are there different types of consciousness implicit in the early texts? Like the Eskimo has multiple words for snow, so the Vedic milieu of the Buddha we know had multiple words for consciousness. Return again in six months.
There are six different types of consciousness explicitly stated in the early texts: one for each sense base. There are none other mentioned that I know of.
Advaita (non-dual) concept is a later developed concept, and it doesn't align with the soul concept. Thank you. 🙏
Non-dualism is related but different, I have another video on it: ua-cam.com/video/43v6lLweukg/v-deo.html
Newbie here. Is the definition of consciousness knowing an object? Is this saying that there can be no state of knowing without that something, that object which is known? In other words, knowing and the object arise together? So is the nibbana state one that’s beyond knowing of objects? What’s the difference between nibbana and being unconscious in this scheme?
Big questions ... for the nature of consciousness see my earlier video: ua-cam.com/video/W1Pn65QZiZs/v-deo.html . But yes, in early Buddhism consciousness is produced through causes and conditions. Each conscious state is conscious of something. The notion of an "unconscious" is a modern notion that didn't really exist in early Buddhism, though there are distant parallels. See: ua-cam.com/video/nlN3oCeCRFQ/v-deo.html
I have a question please. You said that consciousness depends upon nama and rupa, but there is also an element of vijnana in nama. So, is Vijnana and the Consciousness that you refer to one or different?
The precise character of nama-rupa is something of a question. Some consider "nama" in nama-rupa not to include viññāṇa for this very reason. Presumably it would only include vedanā, saññā, and saṅkhāra.
@@DougsDharma As you said, does that mean there are only four Aggregates?
I feel confused so much, sir. If it's convenient, could you please give me the sources?
🙏🏼
Is there a difference between consciousness itself and self referential consciousness? Can this be given more time and discussion?
There is no difference to my knowledge in early Buddhism. "Self referential consciousness" would probably be understood just as mental consciousness that arises with a perception of itself, if such a thing were really possible.
I'vs been learning about Buddhism for over 2 years now and have been practicing more or less its precepts. Recently, as I have probed deeper, I am starting to take issue with concept of no self and no pure consciousness.
How is Buddha's Enlightenment any different from Nihilism? Is it merely "joyful" Nihilism? What is "it" that becomes enlightened?
I love everything Buddhist except the ending - enlightenment, it seems rather dim. To permanently end suffering we must extinguish oursevles? How is that any different than physical sucuide?
There is no extinguishing of ourselves in Buddhism. There is only a wise awareness of the way things actually are.
Which word is being translated as 'consciousness'?
good question
Viññāṇa is the Pāli word typically translated "consciousness".
@@DougsDharma Thank you. I was having some problems with the use of 'citta' in a text and thought it might be related.
@@DougsDharma I Think it's better translatable as mind or ego of mind
Didn't Roger Penrose say something about it being the collapse of the wave function? I think he also said it can transcend time, but I don't understand any of that. It probably doesn't matter. I think even if someone explained to us all the mysteries of the universe, we still wouldn't be able to comprehend it. That's the 5th option that the Buddha spoke of, isn't it? True, false, both, neither, and a 5th option. Graham Priest said something about that, but I may have misunderstood.
I'm not aware of a fifth option in early Buddhism. The catuṣkoṭi has only four options. If none of them apply, then the question cannot be answered in its present form.
@DougsDharma I'll find the video. It's like, the incomprehensible or something. The video was about Buddhism in general, so it may not have even been early Buddhism. I'm doing all this from memory, so who knows. He did use that word. The catastrophic... kudi... that thing.
you could have made this video in 87 seconds. but this is perfect. subjectivity happens, but everything is happening. enjoy
Can you please talk about nibbida
Yes, I have mentioned it in several past videos but will keep it in mind for the future. 🙏
•The 3 marks of existence
Everything is suffering,
impermanence, and
non self,,
•Suffering - all living beings suffer in different ways, mental and physical suffering, mental suffering like stress, depression, worry, etc. and physical suffering like disease, skin or organs problems, wounds, etc...
•Impermanence - nothing last forever except change, everything or everyone will die or will change, like people, house, plants, possession, gadgets, perspective etc...
•No self - everything is made out of 4 elements, fire water earth air, example is the house, how to build a house? Need stone blocks, how to create stone blocks? Need some earth or dirt, combined with water, then shaping to blocks after that need heat to be cooked and steady then need air to make the blocks dry and finish product, and humans and other living beings too are created by the 4 elements,
People have heat in their body to not get cold, and water like blood, and air to breath, and earth is the physical form of humans and other organisms (living beings),
Humans are just like cars, humans have organs, 6 senses, hormones, chemical reactions to the brain and the nature of mind, nature of the mind is greedy for sensual pleasure to the 5 senses, and car have engine, wheels, fuel, lights, windows, etc..
That's why humans are just like animals, humanity just invented sense of self, the sense of "me" "mine" "I'm this" "I'm that" but in reality all living beings are just an organism in the environment,
So everything are just organism trying to survive everyday, name, labels is an illusion it's not real because truth is beyond words and beyond ordinary people and ordinary living beings understanding
Buddhism is not dharma.
Budha is a state of mind
And followers of prince Siddharth is. Called Buddhist
documented near-death experiences would debunk this belief, no?
people who have zero brain or organ function, but are able to perceive outside of their bodies..
I did not realize this was an early Buddhist belief! its not how I feel about it for sure, but interesting, especially the part about volition.
This wouldn't necessarily debunk the belief. In Buddhism there is support for the idea that mind can exist without the literal body, though this isn't really developed in the early suttas it's generally understood that in those cases there is a sort of "subtle matter" that supports the mind. (E.g., this would be the case for the devas that don't have physical bodies). As to whether there is actually well documented evidence of such claims, that's a different question.
Very contradictory, one verse against another
I think even early Buddhist are not sure about consciousness and it's nature
"The state which is the goal of early buddhist practice is not a state in which consciousness itself arises." Are you trying to become a rock?
This sounds more like suicide to me
Yes, but in the next life. In this one, mainly end of suffering.
@@anattasunnata3498 how can a rock possibly help to end anyone’s suffering?
That's why later Mahayana teachings emphasized the goal of collective transformation all sentient beings into unperturbable consciousness like that of rocks. Only when everyone has the unperturbable values of a rock, the need for any help from suffering just like any other need subsides with all subjective evaluations.
Yes, actually