Hi AEN,
Regarding q2
Are you confident that all
phenomena arising is without self, arising without an agent,
experiencer, doer?
I read the link u pasted here...
http://www.aimwell.org/Books/Suttas/Anattalakkhana/anattalakkhana.html
Quite "steep" leh
I drew references from Buddha's Four Foundation of
Mindfulness... not sure whether is it applicable or not. For
example,
Material form- that one I know is impermanent, therefore it is
not self. The Mindfulness of all Dharma explains that there is no
"lasting identities"... everything is formed by many "different
parts" to make up that particular "part". Lack of any "part" and
this form or "part" will cease... and so there is no self
Feelings- understand that feeling is also one of the
Foundation of Mindfulness, and its impermance... this one
ok... and so there is no self
Perception- this one I understands... even social
scientists says that perceptions stem from cultures and this
world got so many different cultures... different yardstick. But
because we are born in particular ethnic groups and therefore we
tend to follow and think our ethnic group is "normal" and others is
abnormal. Therefore perception is quite warped sometimes... When we
are babies, there is no self... OK this one correct
Mental formation- this one similar to what we call "thoughts"?
Thoughts are always changing too. So there is no self... OK
correct...
Last one: Consciousness... this one deep leh... I thought we all
got consciousness...? if there is no consciousness... how do we
function? maybe the Mindfulness of Dharma has already explain
this...
Whatever you said about four foundations of mindfulness is
alright... however mindfulness is not a conceptualization process.
Mindfulness means bare naked observation of reality... it is also
what gives rise to direct experiential insight provided there is
right view. Here's an article on mindfulness I consider a
'must-read' for everyone practicing Buddhism: Chapter
13 ...(Mindfulness - Sati)
About consciousness: in Buddhism, we do not say there is no
consciousness. There is consciousness, but consciousness is not a
Self. Consciousness is not an ultimate observer of objects... this
is the ordinary being's thinking and even those with transcendental
glimpses of the I AM Presence.
So what is consciousness? In http://www.leighb.com/mn38.htm
The Buddha reprimanded a monk who thinks that consciousness
'is
that which feels and experiences, that which reaps the results of
good and evil actions done here and there' and that
'this
consciousness transmigrates through existences, not anything
else'.
Why is this monk reprimanded for holding such a view of
consciousness? It is because he thinks that Consciousness is a
soul, a Self that experiences and observes things and that this is
ultimately that unchanging entity that transmigrates through
different lifetimes.
The Buddha furthermore states that
"Foolish man, to whom do you know me having taught the Dhamma like
this. Haven’t I taught, in various ways that consciousness is
dependently arisen. Without a cause, there is no arising of
consciousness. Yet you, foolish man, on account of your wrong view,
you misrepresent me, as well as destroy yourself and accumulate
much demerit, for which you will suffer for a long
time."'
Note that the Buddha is saying two things here: 1) Consciousness
is a manifestation that dependently originates. 2) By holding on to
the wrong view, you create much demerits for yourself and prevent
your own enlightenment.
So it goes two ways: having right view ensures your
enlightenment, while holding on to the wrong view prevents
awakening and further to propagate these views as truth
or worse as Buddha's words (called slandering) destroys yourself
and accumulate a lot of demerits. This is why having this
discussion in this forum is very important, it is my wish that
everyone can attain Nirvana ASAP.
Now back to the topic of consciousness... now we understand that
Consciousness is not a self, but a manifestation that dependently
originates. It is an Arising... it is not a Self or a Soul, or an
Observer/Experiencer/Feeler.
What kind of arising is called consciousness? The Buddha further
explains:
"Bhikkhus, consciousness is reckoned by the condition dependent
upon which it arises. If consciousness arises on account of eye and
forms, it is reckoned as eye consciousness. If on account of ear
and sounds it arises, it is reckoned as ear consciousness. If on
account of nose and smells it arises, it is reckoned as nose
consciousness. If on account of tongue and tastes it arises, it is
reckoned as tongue consciousness. If on account of body and touch
it arises, it is reckoned as body consciousness. If on account of
mind and mind-objects it arises, it is reckoned as mind
consciousness. Bhikkhus, just as a fire is reckoned based on
whatever that fire burns - fire ablaze on sticks is a stick fire,
fire ablaze on twigs is a twig fire, fire ablaze on grass is a
grass fire, fire ablaze on cowdung is a cowdung fire, fire ablaze
on grain thrash is a grain thrash fire, fire ablaze on rubbish is a
rubbish fire - so too is consciousness reckoned by the condition
dependent upon which it arises. In the same manner consciousness
arisen on account is eye and forms is eye consciousness.
Consciousness arisen on account of ear and sounds is ear
consciousness. Consciousness arisen on account of nose and smells
is nose consciousness. Consciousness arisen on account of tongue
and tastes is taste consciousness. Consciousness arisen on account
of body and touch is body consciousness. Consciousness arisen on
account of mind and mind-objects is mind consciousness.
"Bhikkhus, do you see, This has arisen?" "Yes, venerable sir".
"Do you see it arises supported by That?" "Yes, venerable sir."
"Bhikkhus, Do you see if the support ceases, the arising too
ceases?" "Yes, venerable sir."
So we can see from here, there is no one single type of
consciousness. There is actually six different types of
consciousness, which arises due to interdependence and supporting
conditions.
The act of hearing music depends on many things: the ears, the air,
the speakers, and so on... that act of cognizance is an arising
with supporting conditions.
Consciousness is a pure cognizance manifestation. There is no
'self' involved... there is no 'self' hearing, seeing, there is
pure seeing, pure hearing, everything happening without an
experiencer. This is the nature of consciousness. There is no 'you'
in here watching the 'tree out there'... there is just the pure
seeing of tree without a seer and external object being seen -
there is no distance, only distantless pure visual
consciousness.
Lastly, I believe you hear from Heart Sutra that the five skandhas
are empty and that forms, feelings, perception, volition and
consciousness are all empty. What does 'empty' mean? Doesn't mean
they don't exist, but that they interdependently originate, are
impermanent, non-self, and thus are without an inherent, permanent
essence.
Consciousness is empty because it does not have an inherent,
independent, permanent nature: consciousness is an act of
cognizance that dependently originates with supporting
conditions.
Everything we experience is an act of cognizance that appears to be
solid, real, 'out there' but is actually just a dependently
originated 'magic show'.
Thus the Buddha says in Phena Sutta that consciousness is like a
magic trick:
Form is like a glob of foam; feeling, a bubble; perception, a
mirage; fabrications, a banana tree; consciousness, a magic trick —
this has been taught by the Kinsman of the Sun. However you observe
them, appropriately examine them, they're empty, void to whoever
sees them appropriately.
