Consciousness: A Dharmic Comparison

[Unveiled Artist]

The Buddha taught that there is no lasting mind or soul which undergoes different experiences. Our experiences themselves are different moments of consciousness, which arise one at a time and then fall away immediately. Each moment of consciousness that arises and falls away is succeeded by the next moment of consciousness. Our life is thus a series of moments of consciousness arising in succession. Gradually we can learn to distinguish different types of consciousness. There is consciousness which is unwholesome or unskillful, and there is consciousness which is wholesome or skillful, and besides these there are other types of consciousness which are neither wholesome nor unwholesome. Only one type of consciousness occurs at a time, but each type is accompanied by several mental factors. Unwholesome types of consciousness are accompanied by unwholesome mental factors, such as attachment, stinginess, jealousy or aversion. Wholesome types of consciousness are accompanied by beautiful mental factors, such as generosity, kindness or compassion.

Dana: The Practice of Giving

Since The Buddha didn't believe in an inherent and fixed soul, how does he define consciousness apart from the Hindus (generalizing) comparison?

That or maybe an insight on the different meanings of consciousness either from the description above or a Hindus one (again, generalizing).

 

[Salty Booger]

Since The Buddha didn't believe in an inherent and fixed soul, how does he define consciousness apart from the Hindus (generalizing) comparison?

I'm not certain about the Buddhist' Perspective other than they don't believe in the soul, The Hindus' is that God is in each of us and all things, that life is a drama for his pleasure. I encourage anyone to refute the above if they know better.

 

[stvdv]

I'm not certain about the Buddhist' Perspective other than they don't believe in the soul, The Hindus' is that God is in each of us and all things, that life is a drama for his pleasure. I encourage anyone to refute the above if they know better.

"His" being still not defined

"For His pleasure" is the Bhakti part of Hinduism. Some Advaitists might think a bit differently about this

 

[SalixIncendium]

"His" being still not defined

"For His pleasure" is the Bhakti part of Hinduism. Some Advaitists might think a bit differently about this

This one does, indeed.

From the advaitic perspective (at least this one's), in one's true nature, one is the Atman, which is the same as Brahman. Maya (time/space/causation) gives us the illusion of fragmentation.

What we perceive from the perspective of vyavaharika, transactional reality, is Maya, and Maya brings about ignorance of one's true nature as Brahman.

As far as "for His pleasure," from an advaitic perspective, pleasure is guna, a quality or attribute, specifically sattva. From and an advaitic perspective, Brahman is nirguna, without gunas.

 

[Vinayaka]

I'm not certain about the Buddhist' Perspective other than they don't believe in the soul, The Hindus' is that God is in each of us and all things, that life is a drama for his pleasure. I encourage anyone to refute the above if they know better.

Hinduism has many schools. 'His' works for some of the main ones, but not Shaktism, which entails a significant amount of Hinduism. 'Pleasure' is right out of Gaudiya Vaishnavism. In my sampradaya, 'Pleasure' would be 'action' as pleasure would make it far too anthropomorphic.

But hey, I'm a simpleton. Only the enlightened would 'know'.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I'm not certain about the Buddhist' Perspective other than they don't believe in the soul, The Hindus' is that God is in each of us and all things, that life is a drama for his pleasure. I encourage anyone to refute the above if they know better.

Thanks. Don't really know better, though. I love reading accesstoinsight and knew The Buddha didn't teach or denied, I guess, a fixed soul. However, since both Hindu and Buddhist use the term consciousness, I wonder have that word differs between the two approaches.

 

[ameyAtmA]

Consciousness as defined in Buddhism - is in fact the transient albeit impersonal - play of Maya.
The definition focuses on the illusory or temporary, transient, fleeting thoughts emerging from the mind (typically lower, ordinary or mundane mind)

This is anAtmA - to which Hinduism and Buddhism are in perfect agreement - that these fleeting elements are NOT AtmA, NOT THAT NOT eternal (NOT [the real] Brahman).

Neti Neti - not this, not this [either]


So, it is funny --- the 2 are agreeing on what is transient, fleeting anAtmA, aSat (NOT Sat), NOT eternal, NOT shAshwat NOT everlasting, NOT constant.

OK, great,We understand the IS NOT.

Buddhism stops here because Buddha was silent after this (which a wing of Buddhism misunderstood as "there is nothing after this" - while Buddha really meant - "don't worry about it - do the homework first - that I assigned to you")

Hinduism/VedAnta continues...
Then.... what IS constant, unchanging? what IS eternal? what IS shAshwat> what IS AtmA? what IS Sat?

THAT is the 4th, the turIya, the SUBSTRATUM, the foundation, on which lie the fleeting experiences of the 3. Which 3?
1. JAgrut = waking
2. Swapna = dreaming
3. Shushupti = deep sleep

This is Brahman, this is the Origin, the Source , super-consciousness. omniscience,


Since all the fleeting and transient is a projected appearance of the eternal, we see the Source pervading the transformed and transient. This is how the ParamAtmA (Highest Purest Self) VishNu (meaning who pervades the Vishwa - world) is always with us, in all hearts.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

You lost me I'm afraid.

So, it is funny --- the 2 are agreeing on what is transient, fleeting anAtmA, aSat (NOT Sat), NOT eternal, NOT shAshwat NOT everlasting, NOT constant.

Could you rephrase?

Buddhism stops here because Buddha was silent after this (which a wing of Buddhism misunderstood as "there is nothing after this" - while Buddha really meant - "don't worry about it - do the homework first - that I assigned to you")

I heard it also put another way... instead of death, it's the result of enlightenment.

 

[ameyAtmA]

You lost me I'm afraid.

Could you rephrase?

Hinduism and Buddhism agree on what is transient, fleeting and temporary and should be put aside.
A few examples are - the mind and its thoughts - they come and go
The living things i.e the body and its attachments - comes and goes
The temperament, likes, dislikes, wants, some needs - come and go

All of these are changing, they are there one day and not there the next. What holds today does not hold tomorrow.

This is the inherent property of mother nature

This is the non-eternal -- this is the world and worldly - of the world.

NOT eternal, NOT everlasting, NOT constant.

Being entangled in the NON-eternal causes the involuntary rebirth (not the voluntary avatArs).