Buddha: "Consciousness is not self"

[hundreth]

Quote

Bhikkhus, consciousness is not self. Were consciousness self, then this consciousness would not lead to affliction, and one could have it of consciousness: 'Let my consciousness be thus, let my consciousness be not thus.' And since consciousness is not-self, so it leads to affliction, and none can have it of consciousness: 'Let my consciousness be thus, let my consciousness be not thus

The Buddha spoke extensively about there being no Atman, no eternal spirit. Even consciousness is impermanent. The Buddha teaches dropping all identifications, even to the "Absolute" ! 

So how do we reconcile this view with all the dialog here about the Absolute, Infinity, consciousness, God, etc? 

To go a step further, the Buddha teaches consciousness depends on the existence of sense organs!

Quote

The arising of consciousness, thus, depends on sense perception, but it also depends on attention, since sensory activity alone does not give rise to perception. The latter activity requires attending to the stimuli: the amorphous mass of the sense data gives rise to a percept only when sensation is coupled with attention. In the formula of dependent arising that we encounter at several places in the canonical literature, consciousness is said to arise in dependence upon the sense and the physical object. But the appearance of phenomena itself depend in turn upon this empirical awareness. Thus, the Buddha declares:

Mind and body condition contact. By whatever properties, characteristics, signs or indications the mind factor is to be conceived, in their absence...would any grasping at the idea of the body factor be manifest? No, Sir...By whatever properties the mind factor and the body factor are designated, in their absence...would any grasping at the notion of sensory reaction be manifest? No, Sir. By whatever properties, characteristics, signs or indications the mind factor is conceived, in their absence is there any contact to be found? No, Sir. Then, Ānanda, just this, namely mind and body, is the root, the cause, the origin, the condition for all contact. I have said: ‘Consciousness conditions mind and body’ (Dīgha Nikāya II, 63, 2–21).

Passages such as this present a metaphysical picture of mental and psychological individuation as arising in dependence upon the activity of empirical consciousness. Consciousness, however, is not treated as the direct cause for the manifestation of body, feelings and perceptions. Rather, the Buddhist tradition assigns this causal role to the four elements. The structure is one of mutual entailment: on the one hand, feelings, perceptions, and volitions are caused by contact resulting from intentional states of cognitive awareness; on the other hand, the psycho-physical aggregates in turn condition the manifestation of consciousness.

 https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mind-indian-buddhism/#3.4

We like to conceptualize that brains exist within consciousness, but the Buddha teaches that all experiences are a result of "aggregates." The material depends on consciousness just as much as consciousness depends on the material! Talk about a mind fuck strange loop. 

My only take away from this is that we take a lot of what we're taught for granted. There's more investigation that needs to be done here. There's a lot of nuance here and it's not enough to simply believe the ancients had it all figured out, and all we need to do is trust "them" on x or y. They themselves disagreed on some extremely fundamental ideas.

[Leo Gura]

People generally misunderstand what the word "consciousness" means. Consciousness is not mental activity. Consciousness is Nothingness. It is the "substance" of everything.

This confusion happens because of the subtle assumptions of the materialist paradigm.

Absolute Consciousness is what Buddha taught. It does not depend on the sense organs. The stuff that depends on the sense organs would best be called perception or experience. Yes, perception and experience is impermanent.

Don't confuse consciousness with thinking or experiencing.

 

[egoless]

@Leo Gura Consciousness is Knowing. And knowing is Being. That's the best explanation for those who are confused. And just overall the best explanation imho.

[d0ornokey]

@Leo Gura

so this is what u meant in your high consciousness vs low consciousness video?

[Joseph Maynor]

Unchanging Awareness is not anyone's mind.  This was a major insight for me.  This broke me away from the psychological conception of Ego.  The mistake I was making was assuming 'my mind' was Awareness.  

Edited March 14, 2018 by Joseph Maynor

[robdl]

59 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

People generally misunderstand what the word "consciousness" means. Consciousness is not mental activity. Consciousness is Nothingness. It is the "substance" of everything.

This confusion happens because of the subtle assumptions of the materialist paradigm.

Absolute Consciousness is what Buddha taught. It does not depend on the sense organs. The stuff that depends on the sense organs would best be called perception or experience. Yes, perception and experience is impermanent.

Don't confuse consciousness with thinking or experiencing.

 

I think it depends on the teacher.  I've found it tricky because various gurus/teachers use these terms differently.  Nisargadatta, for instance, often separately used "consciousness" and "awareness" to better distinguish the two.  Awareness being the Absolute state, and consciousness being dualistic experience.  He'd say that consciousness (ego mind) occurs within Awareness, and there could be (nondual) Awareness without consciousness.  But of course another teacher/guru could use "consciousness" to mean Absolute Awareness, so every teacher can have their own terminology. 

 

Q:

You use the words 'aware' and 'conscious'. Are they not the same?

Nisargadatta:

Awareness is primordial; it is the original state, beginningless, endless, uncaused, unsupported,

without parts, without change. Consciousness is on contact, a reflection against a surface, a state of

duality. There can be no consciousness without awareness, but there can be awareness without

consciousness, as in deep sleep. Awareness is absolute, consciousness is relative to its content;

consciousness is always of something. Consciousness is partial and changeful, awareness is total,

changeless, calm and silent. And it is the common matrix of every experience.

Q:

How does one go beyond consciousness into awareness?

Nisargadatta:

Since it is awareness that makes consciousness possible, there is awareness in every state of

consciousness. Therefore the very consciousness of being conscious is already a movement in

awareness. Interest in your stream of consciousness takes you to awareness. It is not a new state.

It is at once recognised as the original, basic existence, which is life itself, and also love and joy.

Edited March 14, 2018 by robdl

[Faceless]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

Don't confuse consciousness with thinking or experiencing.

 

Thought and experience are the same. Without thought no experience. 

And to say consciousness is nothingness is an idea. As far as all of you are concerned consciousness is thought which determines experiences. 

If there was no memory, knowledge, and experiences then this would imply this nothingness. And we could say consciousness was then free of it’s conditioned/content/perspective. 

In actuality consciousness is everything the physical stimuli ‘senses’ and then thought being the response of memory, knowledge, and experience. This shows how you all seek new great experiences

 

Edited March 14, 2018 by Faceless

[Leo Gura]

54 minutes ago, d0ornokey said:

@Leo Gura

so this is what u meant in your high consciousness vs low consciousness video?

Actually, no. In that video the word "consciousness" is being used slightly differently.

You have to understand that the word "consciousness" is a very loaded word. Sort of like the word "God". It can mean different things in different contexts to different people. Your understanding of this word will evolve and deepen significantly over time.

Eventually you will come to realize that consciousness is Nothing. In my video about High Consciousness Vs Low Consciousness, I didn't go so deep. There I was using the word in a more conventional sense. I wasn't talking about Absolute Consciousness there.

[robdl]

17 minutes ago, Faceless said:

Thought and experience are the same. Without thought no experience. 

And to say consciousness is nothingness is an idea. As far as all of you are concerned consciousness is thought which determines experiences. 

If there was no memory, knowledge, and experiences then this would imply this nothingness. And we could say consciousness was then free of it’s conditioned/content/perspective. 

In actuality consciousness is everything the physical stimuli ‘senses’ and then thought being the response of memory, knowledge, and experience. This shows how you all seek new great experiences

 

You're kind of nitpicking here.  He joined thought and experience with  "or" not to suggest they were distinctly different, but to imply they were similar/synonymous.

[Faceless]

Just now, robdl said:

You're kind of nitpicking here.  He joined thought and experience with  "or" not to suggest they were distinctly different, but to imply they were similar/synonymous.

Just commenting on it. Maybe others will be clearer ?

[Faceless]

16 minutes ago, robdl said:

If there was no memory, knowledge, and experiences then this would imply this nothingness. And we could say consciousness was then free of it’s conditioned/content/perspective.

This is what people mean by absolute, truth, god, and so on. 

That which is complete/infinite

Harmony is of itself. Only the conditioned mind/thought creates disharmony.

 

Edited March 14, 2018 by Faceless

[robdl]

5 minutes ago, Faceless said:

This is what people mean by absolute, truth, god, and so on. 

That which is complete/infinite

Harmony is of itself. Only the conditioned mind/thought creates disharmony.

 

 I think you quoted yourself but it's showing as my quote.

[Faceless]

@robdlNo it’s just showing that you quoted me. 

I just highlighted off of your quote to explain the consciousness part as Leo speaks of it.

 My bad 

Edited March 14, 2018 by Faceless

[hundreth]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

People generally misunderstand what the word "consciousness" means. Consciousness is not mental activity. Consciousness is Nothingness. It is the "substance" of everything.

This confusion happens because of the subtle assumptions of the materialist paradigm.

Absolute Consciousness is what Buddha taught. It does not depend on the sense organs. The stuff that depends on the sense organs would best be called perception or experience. Yes, perception and experience is impermanent.

Don't confuse consciousness with thinking or experiencing.

 

Thanks for the response. I understand that consciousness is a loaded word, but the Buddha did not teach "Absolute Consciousness" unless you're arguing semantics. For simplicity, let's consider consciousness to be more or less synonymous with "Atman" or the "Para-Brahman" - the Absolute. But the Buddha explicitly speaks in depth about there being no Atman. No absolute or eternal soul to grasp to.

All is Not Self: The Buddha’s Rejection of Atman

https://inthewordsofbuddha.wordpress.com/2015/08/02/all-is-not-self-the-buddhas-rejection-of-atman/

Quote

Throughout all his teachings, the Buddha never once pointed to a soul or absolute self (आत्मन्; Sanskrit: ātman; Pāḷi: atta) in or outside the aggregates that comprise a conventional being.

There are some who will claim that by stating the aggregates are not self, the Buddha left open the possibility of a self beyond the aggregates. Yet this feeble attempt at an argument falls apart immediately upon investigating the Buddha’s teachings with any depth.

Either I'm misunderstanding you, I'm misunderstanding the Buddha, or you both disagree on this. I appreciate your kindness in actually speaking to this.

[Faceless]

It’s safe to say this Buddha characters sharings were distorted by past interpreters anyhow right? 

I think it’s better to start from scratch without the assumptions of past knowledge. But that’s just me. ?

Edited March 14, 2018 by Faceless

[robdl]

"Self", like "consciousness," is also a loaded word.   Ramana Maharshi, for example, used "Self" not to describe an individual soul or spirit, but Absolute,  Nondual Reality.  

[hundreth]

2 minutes ago, robdl said:

"Self", like "consciousness," is also a loaded word.   Ramana Maharshi, for example, used "Self" not to describe an individual soul or spirit, but Absolute,  Nondual Reality.  

Sure, but this is the core teaching of Buddha - that there is NO SELF. No self in any frame, not relative, not absolute. There is nothing impermanent in his philosophy. 

He's in direct opposition to the Vedic interpretation of the ontological self. Now we like to behave as if they all said the same thing, and it's just a given that there's an absolute self and we are it. Buddha would argue this is yet again, another attempt for our egos to grasp at a concept of self to help us fall asleep at night. There is nothing more terrifying than mortality, so much so that if we remove the concept of relative self, we invent an absolute self to cling on to.

[robdl]

7 minutes ago, hundreth said:

Sure, but this is the core teaching of Buddha - that there is NO SELF. No self in any frame, not relative, not absolute. There is nothing impermanent in his philosophy. 

He's in direct opposition to the Vedic interpretation of the ontological self. Now we like to behave as if they all said the same thing, and it's just a given that there's an absolute self and we are it. Buddha would argue this is yet again, another attempt for our egos to grasp at a concept of self to help us fall asleep at night. There is nothing more terrifying than mortality, so much so that if we remove the concept of relative self, we invent an absolute self to cling on to.

I really don't think they're in conflict.  I think it's just semantics, really, and the problem with using language/concepts to convey what lays beyond language and mind.

[robdl]

When the Buddha says "Bhikkhus, consciousness is not self," is he saying that ego mind consciousness is not Absolute Self, or is he saying that that Absolute Consciousness is not of the individual self/ego mind?

It's hard for me to say that Buddhism is at odds with vedanta when it's a semantic soup going on.

Edited March 14, 2018 by robdl

[Faceless]

7 minutes ago, robdl said:

He's in direct opposition to the Vedic interpretation of the ontological self. Now we like to behave as if they all said the same thing, and it's just a given that there's an absolute self and we are it. Buddha would argue this is yet again, another attempt for our egos to grasp at a concept of self to help us fall asleep at night. There is nothing more terrifying than mortality, so much so that if we remove the concept of relative self, we invent an absolute self to cling on to.

This is a rather common trap for sure. 

Thought is not aware of its own movement. This is an example of how thought is not proprioceptive to such  movements

Edited March 14, 2018 by Faceless