The Problem of Consciousness

[atanu]

See prior post. Parsimony is only one of the criteria you should look for in a useful, accurate explanation. Falsifiability is another.

To reiterate what I said earlier, I'm not defending philosophical materialism here. I think it ultimately suffers the same problem as idealism. We have no way of knowing the "fundamental nature," as you asked before, of what is. All we can do is rely on our physical senses to provide us with functional working models of whatever reality is. So if stuff exists beyond our ability to perceive it, we have no way of knowing about it one way or the other.

1. I edited my last post, asking you a question.
2. I disagree that we have no means to discern the truth.
...

 

[Left Coast]

Now. Is this a joke? Do you mean to say that there is a model that explains birth of phenomenal consciousness from mass, momentum, and charge?

1) You're arguing from ignorance. Even if there is no such model at this time, that doesn't establish that there can't ever possibly be such a model.

2) I don't need to understand the details of the chemistry and engineering involved in how a combustion engine works to understand that when I put my key in my car's ignition and turn it, that causes my car's engine to turn on. By analogy, I don't need to understand the exact physics of how atoms produce consciousness to observe the clear-as-day evidence that changes in our brain cause changes in our mental state, including stopping and starting consciousness.

You're employing the same basic argument structure of creationists arguing against evolution. As soon as one "gap" is bridged, you say, "Well what about this smaller gap now?" As you accept the science of evolution, as far as I know, you should be able to see why this reasoning is fallacious.

 

[Left Coast]

Am I supposed to bridge the gap or you? I am proposing consciousness as ontological primitive. In this worldview there is no need to bridge the explanatory gap and all descriptive physical laws remain as such.

You're just asserting consciousness as a brute fact of reality. Again, this is unfalsifiable.

BTW. See you tomorrow. But can you kindly again explain how meditation can change brain if our consciousness is a product of brain?

If mind is the phenomenal aspect of the brain, this is an example of the brain changing itself. I actually read a book on brain plasticity in college called, "The Brain That Changes Itself," by Dr. Norman Doidge.

See you tomorrow.

 

[Koldo]

BTW. See you tomorrow. But can you kindly again explain how meditation can change brain if our consciousness is a product of brain?

Why wouldn't that be possible?
Why can't a product cause a change on its' source? Doesn't that depend on the nature of the product?

 

[atanu]

To reiterate what I said earlier, I'm not defending philosophical materialism here. I think it ultimately suffers the same problem as idealism. We have no way of knowing the "fundamental nature," as you asked before, of what is. All we can do is rely on our physical senses to provide us with functional working models of whatever reality is. So if stuff exists beyond our ability to perceive it, we have no way of knowing about it one way or the other.

1) You're arguing from ignorance. Even if there is no such model at this time, that doesn't establish that there can't ever possibly be such a model.

Please compare the assertion made in the first quote (highlighted red) with the assertion made in the second quote (highlighted in blue). It seems that I am discussing with a mirage. You say "I'm not defending philosophical materialism here.", yet you have, it seems to me argued in its defence throughout the thread.

Please clarify your 'one' position in respect of the OP, which I reproduce below, so that we may reboot the thread.

From the original post/s.

According to William Seager of the University of Toronto, the problem of consciousness can be summed up in a simple inconsistent triad:

1. The fundamental reality is entirely un-present.
2. There is presence.
3. There is no way to generate presence from the un-presence.

According to Seager, premise 2 is not negotiable.

Presence, according to the Seager, is undeniable. He says "We could be wrong about many things connected to our states of consciousness, but we cannot be mistaken about the existence of an immediately available source of information present to the mind. Consider your belief that something exists or that something is happening right now. As Descartes famously noted, this proposition is in a different category from most quotidian knowledge. It is in the category of things that you could not be wrong about. So there must be some source of information that vouchsafes your unassailable claim that something is happening. This source is the ‘present to mind’ we call consciousness."

The idea of what is fundamental reality can vary from person to person. Currently, however, we consider that physics informs us about the objective fundamental reality. Currently, mass, angular momentum, and spin are three basic parameters that are supposed to characterise the fundamental material that constitutes the black holes to the universe. This fundamental reality, as per Seager, is un-present.

Seager formulates the problem: How that which is unassailably present to the mind could arise from un-present physical reality?

https://www.utsc.utoronto.ca/~seager/ipe.pdf​

Seager himself discusses three radical alternatives: Idealism, Panpsychism and Emergentism. I asked for opinions regarding these three positions.

...

 

[Left Coast]

Please compare the assertion made in the first quote (highlighted red) with the assertion made in the second quote (highlighted in blue). It seems that I am discussing with a mirage. You say "I'm not defending philosophical materialism here.", yet you have, it seems to me argued in its defence throughout the thread.

I've argued that consciousness appears by all evidence I'm aware of to be produced materially. That is not synonymous with philosophical materialism, which is the position that everything that exists is material. We have no way of knowing if there is anything immaterial in existence, because our only access to information about the world is through our physical senses.

Do you see the difference now, and understand my position?

Please clarify your 'one' position in respect of the OP, which I reproduce below, so that we may reboot the thread.

From the original post/s.

According to William Seager of the University of Toronto, the problem of consciousness can be summed up in a simple inconsistent triad:

1. The fundamental reality is entirely un-present.
2. There is presence.
3. There is no way to generate presence from the un-presence.

According to Seager, premise 2 is not negotiable.

Presence, according to the Seager, is undeniable. He says "We could be wrong about many things connected to our states of consciousness, but we cannot be mistaken about the existence of an immediately available source of information present to the mind. Consider your belief that something exists or that something is happening right now. As Descartes famously noted, this proposition is in a different category from most quotidian knowledge. It is in the category of things that you could not be wrong about. So there must be some source of information that vouchsafes your unassailable claim that something is happening. This source is the ‘present to mind’ we call consciousness."

The idea of what is fundamental reality can vary from person to person. Currently, however, we consider that physics informs us about the objective fundamental reality. Currently, mass, angular momentum, and spin are three basic parameters that are supposed to characterise the fundamental material that constitutes the black holes to the universe. This fundamental reality, as per Seager, is un-present.

Seager formulates the problem: How that which is unassailably present to the mind could arise from un-present physical reality?

https://www.utsc.utoronto.ca/~seager/ipe.pdf​

Seager himself discusses three radical alternatives: Idealism, Panpsychism and Emergentism. I asked for opinions regarding these three positions.

...

And I have given opinions on the underlying "problem" which leads you and Seager to your alternate ontologies. As I've now reiterated multiple times, you're both simply asking how unconscious stuff produces conscious stuff.

But even if the current answer to that question is, "We have no clue," that is not a rational justification for believing that unconscious stuff couldn't possibly produce conscious stuff. That's a fallacious argument from ignorance.

Do you now understand my position as it pertains to your OP?

 

[Martin]

Thank you for asking. I will try.

To understand the Advaita worldview, I will request that you allow a possibility that the deep sleep state is not lack of consciousness but is consciousness of lack (lack of subject-object division and of space-time-objects). Furthermore, it helps to allow the possibility that consciousness is like an unlimited ocean on which individual selves are like individual surface waves. In this worldview, in deep sleep, the individual wave goes down into the body of the ocean and loses individuality temporarily.

Deep sleep is characterised by lack of desire and thus lack of subject and a corresponding world. The state is devoid of space-time-objects. Being devoid of a body-mind, it is a state of pure bliss (although we remember of the bliss only upon waking). According to Vedanta, deep sleep is not a state of unconsciousness but is a state of ignorance. It is a state of the pure non-dual ground of consciousness.

In deep sleep, we are pure potential awareness — nothing is known in deep sleep since the realm is non-dual; it being devoid of any sort of contrast of sound, touch, taste, sight, or smell. It is pure dense potential awareness. From the pure potential awareness of the deep sleep arises the subtle dream body to which the mind attaches and experiences a subtle world. This manifestation is entirely mental, devoid of input from senses. But, while in a dream, our experiences of pain or joy are not unreal. Only on waking, we come to know the unreality.

Again when dream transitions to waking, senses open up and in association with mind, it shows us a gross world and a gross body that is used for experiencing inputs from five senses — sound, smell, sight, taste, and touch. The touch function is killing, it delineates a boundary as if — necessary for sexual enjoyment etc. — and this leads to the idea “I am this body”.

There are the physical expressions of the states of waking, dreaming, and sleep of a person's brain that a third-party observer can record (as the brain waves) employing EEG. In waking and dreaming, the beta waves dominate. In deep sleep, the delta waves dominate (remember that these are the waking state observations of a third person and not the actual first-person subjective consciousnesses of waking, dreaming, and sleeping states).

What are Brainwaves ? Types of Brain waves | EEG sensor and brain wave – UK

We can influence waking state (and possibly dream state to some extent). But we cannot do anything in a deep sleep state since the ego-intellect-mind is absorbed and is practically absent. But from the waking state, we can follow prescribed methods of mediation: yoga-TM, Zen, Mindfulness etc. and attain blissful waking sleep state, also known as Samadhi. The ultimate attainment is loss of subject-object distinction with full consciousness present. Under this condition, the reality will be known as 'unbounded ocean' like rather than 'interacting billiard balls' like.

Different types of mediations generate different kinds of brain waves: gamma, alpha1, theta, or delta. All these expressions are different from the common everyday waking-dreaming beta brain wave type. In deep sleep and in the rare ultimate state of samadhi meditation (characterised by total loss of subject-object distinction), delta waves predominate. In other intermediate meditative states, the brain emits theta, alpha 1 or gamma waves.

It is now well established, thanks to advances in neuroscience, that we control the brain and not the opposite. I link below two informative videos of well-respected scientists.

...

An interesting explanation of the Advaita view, though I think you'd acknowledge it involves quite a lot of assumptions about the nature and location of consciousness.
Clearly there is some kind of "awareness" present in deep sleep, because we can be woken up from it by a loud noise, or whatever.
It's like in the waking state consciousness is outwardly directed, in the dreaming state it's inwardly directed, and in deep sleep it's in "standby mode".
I'm not sure there is a direct comparison between samadhi and deep sleep though.
You could call deep sleep "potential awareness", but samadhi is actual awareness. So samadhi isn't ordinary waking consciousness, but it is "awake".

 

[atanu]

I've argued that consciousness appears by all evidence I'm aware of to be produced materially. That is not synonymous with philosophical materialism, which is the position that everything that exists is material. We have no way of knowing if there is anything immaterial in existence, because our only access to information about the world is through our physical senses.

Do you see the difference now, and understand my position?

Your position is full of inconsistencies.

And I have given opinions on the underlying "problem" which leads you and Seager to your alternate ontologies. As I've now reiterated multiple times, you're both simply asking how unconscious stuff produces conscious stuff.

But even if the current answer to that question is, "We have no clue," that is not a rational justification for believing that unconscious stuff couldn't possibly produce conscious stuff. That's a fallacious argument from ignorance.

Do you now understand my position as it pertains to your OP?

So. You believe that although the materialistic 'promise' that empirical data will bridge the explanatory gap (how 'unconscious'. gives rise to consciousness) in future, may not be realised, yet since 'our only access to information about the world is through our physical senses' we should not explore alternative explanations that can better explain the 'consciousness' in the PRESENT? Is it an okay summary of your position?

If that is so, your position itself is a fallacy. A call to examine alternative worldview is not, in my opinion, a fallacy, especially when 1) Data can be better explained by adopting such a worldview and 2) such worldview can motivate one to gain control over the mechanical working of chemicals that control instincts through meditation and other practices.

OTOH, if you decide that "our only access to information about the world is through our physical senses" and term the examination of the alternative views as fallacious there remains nothing to discuss.

You disregard the fact that consciousness is the very basis of perception of matter and our worldview. You disregard that in meditative practices you are the seer of the senses and the thoughts. You claim to be a Buddha curious yet you refuse to enquire as to what is 'Prajnana' and how Nirvana -- which is unborn, uncreated, and unformed -- be discerned? Please tell me how the 'ultimate reality' of Nirvana will be discerned if the ultimate reality is unborn, uncreated, and unformed? What discerns what and how?

Before stopping the conversation with you on this topic, I will like to draw your attention to one exhibit that is a summary of categories of this universe as per Buddhism. I am sharing it with you because you claim to be a Buddha curious and possibly you may be interested to know as to what according to Abhidhamma Buddhism constitute the 'Ultimates'.

You may kindly note that consciousness (Citta), mental factors, and material phenomena are considered the ultimates. But these three are underlain by the unborn, unformed, uncreated Nirvana. Since the Buddha is supposed to have taught from experience, how did he discern Nirvana? Did he discern Nirvana by remaining as a second entity besides the Nirvana?

I hope that you will realise that this is not an engagement in the argument but is a more fundamental enquiry.
...

 

[atanu]

An interesting explanation of the Advaita view, though I think you'd acknowledge it involves quite a lot of assumptions about the nature and location of consciousness.
Clearly there is some kind of "awareness" present in deep sleep, because we can be woken up from it by a loud noise, or whatever.
It's like in the waking state consciousness is outwardly directed, in the dreaming state it's inwardly directed, and in deep sleep it's in "standby mode".
I'm not sure there is a direct comparison between samadhi and deep sleep though.
You could call deep sleep "potential awareness", but samadhi is actual awareness. So samadhi isn't ordinary waking consciousness, but it is "awake".

What I told is the subject of Mandukya Upanishad, validated from experiences of yogis. We can follow up the meditative practices and verify the quality of samadhi to be 'waking sleep' -- a deep sleep like peace with unbroken awareness.

I agree that Samadhi is not waking consciousness, which is characterised by beta brain waves. Samadhi is 'waking sleep' and is characterised by delta brain waves. Intermediate states of meditation are characterised by theta, alpha1 or gamma brain waves.

This is only pointing to consciousness but it must be validated by the seeker.

 

[Left Coast]

Your position is full of inconsistencies.

We shall see.

So. You believe that although the materialistic 'promise' that empirical data will bridge the explanatory gap (how 'unconscious'. gives rise to consciousness) in future, may not be realised, yet since 'our only access to information about the world is through our physical senses' we should not explore alternative explanations that can better explain the 'consciousness' in the PRESENT? Is it an okay summary of your position?

No. I'm perfectly happy to explore alternative explanations. But 1) those explanations would need to be falsifiable, and 2) you'll need to explain how you can ever come to the conclusion that something immaterial exists, when your only access to the world is through your physical senses.

If that is so, your position itself is a fallacy. A call to examine alternative worldview is not, in my opinion, a fallacy, especially when 1) Data can be better explained by adopting such a worldview and 2) such worldview can motivate one to gain control over the mechanical working of chemicals that control instincts through meditation and other practices.

If data can be better explained in a way that's falsifiable, I welcome it. Thus far, you've offered explanations, but they are not useful ones because they're unfalsifiable.

OTOH, if you decide that "our only access to information about the world is through our physical senses" and term the examination of the alternative views as fallacious there remains nothing to discuss.

Are you claiming to have an alternate mechanism for obtaining information about the world? If so, what is it?

You disregard the fact that consciousness is the very basis of perception of matter and our worldview.

No, I don't. I simply recognize that that fact is irrelevant to what causes consciousness itself.

You disregard that in meditative practices you are the seer of the senses and the thoughts.

No, I don't. Self-awareness is exactly that.

You claim to be a Buddha curious yet you refuse to enquire as to what is 'Prajnana' and how Nirvana -- which is unborn, uncreated, and unformed -- be discerned?

You're engaging in a lot of mind reading about what I do and don't refuse to do. Needless to say, your future as a clairvoyant is bleak.

Please tell me how the 'ultimate reality' of Nirvana will be discerned if the ultimate reality is unborn, uncreated, and unformed? What discerns what and how?

It seems to me it's something of a paradox. As Zen folks often say, nirvana is samsara, form is emptiness, and emptiness is form.

I think the Buddha would find the whole idealism/materialism/dualism dispute to be rather pointless, as far as achieving enlightenment goes. For the same reason he didn't engage in disputes about God(s).

Before stopping the conversation with you on this topic, I will like to draw your attention to one exhibit that is a summary of categories of this universe as per Buddhism. I am sharing it with you because you claim to be a Buddha curious and possibly you may be interested to know as to what according to Abhidhamma Buddhism constitute the 'Ultimates'.

You may kindly note that consciousness (Citta), mental factors, and material phenomena are considered the ultimates. But these three are underlain by the unborn, unformed, uncreated Nirvana. Since the Buddha is supposed to have taught from experience, how did he discern Nirvana? Did he discern Nirvana by remaining as a second entity besides the Nirvana?

I hope that you will realise that this is not an engagement in the argument but is a more fundamental enquiry.
...

So a couple of things: what one particular school of Buddhism thinks (or heck, what the Buddha himself thought) is not Gospel to me. So this is fascinating, but I'm not some sort of Buddhist fundamentalist. Quoting Buddhist dogma to me is not going to convince me of anything. As I recall, the Buddha actually spoke against believing something simply because a scripture says it, or even because he says it.

Second, if I knew "how" the Buddha attained enlightenment, I suppose I'd be a Buddha myself, wouldn't I? Since I'm just a regular person, I can only say that nirvana, in Buddhist thought, seems to be paradoxical. It's an insight that can't really be adequately described in words. That's what many Buddhists say, anyway.

People try to describe it as a sort of undifferentiated oneness of all things, but that experience can be squared with either materialism or idealism. Both are forms of monism.

 

[Martin]

Your position is full of inconsistencies.



So. You believe that although the materialistic 'promise' that empirical data will bridge the explanatory gap (how 'unconscious'. gives rise to consciousness) in future, may not be realised, yet since 'our only access to information about the world is through our physical senses' we should not explore alternative explanations that can better explain the 'consciousness' in the PRESENT? Is it an okay summary of your position?

If that is so, your position itself is a fallacy. A call to examine alternative worldview is not, in my opinion, a fallacy, especially when 1) Data can be better explained by adopting such a worldview and 2) such worldview can motivate one to gain control over the mechanical working of chemicals that control instincts through meditation and other practices.

OTOH, if you decide that "our only access to information about the world is through our physical senses" and term the examination of the alternative views as fallacious there remains nothing to discuss.

You disregard the fact that consciousness is the very basis of perception of matter and our worldview. You disregard that in meditative practices you are the seer of the senses and the thoughts. You claim to be a Buddha curious yet you refuse to enquire as to what is 'Prajnana' and how Nirvana -- which is unborn, uncreated, and unformed -- be discerned? Please tell me how the 'ultimate reality' of Nirvana will be discerned if the ultimate reality is unborn, uncreated, and unformed? What discerns what and how?

Before stopping the conversation with you on this topic, I will like to draw your attention to one exhibit that is a summary of categories of this universe as per Buddhism. I am sharing it with you because you claim to be a Buddha curious and possibly you may be interested to know as to what according to Abhidhamma Buddhism constitute the 'Ultimates'.

You may kindly note that consciousness (Citta), mental factors, and material phenomena are considered the ultimates. But these three are underlain by the unborn, unformed, uncreated Nirvana. Since the Buddha is supposed to have taught from experience, how did he discern Nirvana? Did he discern Nirvana by remaining as a second entity besides the Nirvana?

I hope that you will realise that this is not an engagement in the argument but is a more fundamental enquiry.
...

I think you're making the mistake of viewing Buddhism though an Advaita lens here. Nibbana isn't some sort of underlying reality like Brahman, and Nibbana is most often described in terms of cessation. Technically it's an unconditioned dhamma (not subject to birth and death), and an object of mind-consciousness.

If you read the Buddhist suttas, you will see that consciousness always arises in dependence upon conditions. This is completely different to the Advaita view of consciousness.
For example, have a look at MN38, where the Buddha corrects Sati the fisherman's misunderstanding of the same consciousness "wandering on".
SuttaCentral
And for an example of the dependent origination of consciousness, have a look at the Loka Sutta, where eye-consciousness arises in dependence on eye and form.
Loka Sutta: The World

 

[Martin]

What I told is the subject of Mandukya Upanishad, validated from experiences of yogis. We can follow up the meditative practices and verify the quality of samadhi to be 'waking sleep' -- a deep sleep like peace with unbroken awareness.

I agree that Samadhi is not waking consciousness, which is characterised by beta brain waves. Samadhi is 'waking sleep' and is characterised by delta brain waves. Intermediate states of meditation are characterised by theta, alpha1 or gamma brain waves.

This is only pointing to consciousness but it must be validated by the seeker.

It does make sense that different types of brain-waves would indicate different types of consciousness, though of course brain-waves and chemical reactions are only a proxy.
But unlike samadhi, the experience of deep-sleep is inaccessible to us, so it remains a matter of speculation or belief.

 

[Martin]

We shall see.



No. I'm perfectly happy to explore alternative explanations. But 1) those explanations would need to be falsifiable, and 2) you'll need to explain how you can ever come to the conclusion that something immaterial exists, when your only access to the world is through your physical senses.



If data can be better explained in a way that's falsifiable, I welcome it. Thus far, you've offered explanations, but they are not useful ones because they're unfalsifiable.



Are you claiming to have an alternate mechanism for obtaining information about the world? If so, what is it?



No, I don't. I simply recognize that that fact is irrelevant to what causes consciousness itself.



No, I don't. Self-awareness is exactly that.



You're engaging in a lot of mind reading about what I do and don't refuse to do. Needless to say, your future as a clairvoyant is bleak.



It seems to me it's something of a paradox. As Zen folks often say, nirvana is samsara, form is emptiness, and emptiness is form.

I think the Buddha would find the whole idealism/materialism/dualism dispute to be rather pointless, as far as achieving enlightenment goes. For the same reason he didn't engage in disputes about God(s).



So a couple of things: what one particular school of Buddhism thinks (or heck, what the Buddha himself thought) is not Gospel to me. So this is fascinating, but I'm not some sort of Buddhist fundamentalist. Quoting Buddhist dogma to me is not going to convince me of anything. As I recall, the Buddha actually spoke against believing something simply because a scripture says it, or even because he says it.

Second, if I knew "how" the Buddha attained enlightenment, I suppose I'd be a Buddha myself, wouldn't I? Since I'm just a regular person, I can only say that nirvana, in Buddhist thought, seems to be paradoxical. It's an insight that can't really be adequately described in words. That's what many Buddhists say, anyway.

People try to describe it as a sort of undifferentiated oneness of all things, but that experience can be squared with either materialism or idealism. Both are forms of monism.

To complicate things further, Buddhism is diverse and pluralistic, so different schools have different explanations. And the same applies to Hinduism.

 

[atanu]

I think you're making the mistake of viewing Buddhism though an Advaita lens here. Nibbana isn't some sort of underlying reality like Brahman, and Nibbana is most often described in terms of cessation. Technically it's an unconditioned dhamma (not subject to birth and death), and an object of mind-consciousness.

If you read the Buddhist suttas, you will see that consciousness always arises in dependence upon conditions. This is completely different to the Advaita view of consciousness.
For example, have a look at MN38, where the Buddha corrects Sati the fisherman's misunderstanding of the same consciousness "wandering on".
SuttaCentral
And for an example of the dependent origination of consciousness, have a look at the Loka Sutta, where eye-consciousness arises in dependence on eye and form.
Loka Sutta: The World

Good that you brought it up. I have read originals of some of these sutras.

When Buddhist scriptures talk of rising of consciousness, what is the original word? Please check in Pali or Sanskrit. It is vijnana — consciousness that is dependent upon subject-object division. Check the picture I posted in earlier thread. In the same picture you will find citta (consciousness) as an ultimate. ‘citta’ is not arisen.

(BTW, do you think that a bodily Buddha experiences a realm of Nirvana? Is that the idea? Please read Heart sutra. Whereas monks renounce vijnana, through course of various Jhana states (meditation states), discernment of Nirvana must depend on Prajnana. The Buddha is Nirvana — unborn, uncreated, unformed. That is the primitive ontology.)

...

 

[atanu]

It does make sense that different types of brain-waves would indicate different types of consciousness, though of course brain-waves and chemical reactions are only a proxy.
But unlike samadhi, the experience of deep-sleep is inaccessible to us, so it remains a matter of speculation or belief.

That is your opinion and it is unfounded.

The Turiya is the consciousness that links, waking, dreaming, and sleeping states. Turiya is the non dual ultimate.

The deep sleep state is known as the causal body and it is well known to countless Yogis who have experienced samadhi. Turiya, that is seer of waking, dream, and sleep states, is your truth right now. But it is clouded by objects of consciousness. When in meditation, one loses the subject-object division, one sees identity of oneself with the seer consciousness called Turiya.

You may or may not agree with Mandukya Upanishad (or other upanishads) about the deep sleep. But you can experience Turiya, if you follow the meditation practices.
...

I will recommend that you read Mandukya Upanishad, if you wish to follow up on advaita.

 

[Martin]

Good that you brought it up. I have read originals of some of these sutras.

When Buddhist scriptures talk of rising of consciousness, what is the original word? Please check in Pali or Sanskrit. It is vijnana — consciousness that is dependent upon subject-object division. Check the picture I posted in earlier thread. In the same picture you will find citta (consciousness) as an ultimate. ‘citta’ is not arisen.

(BTW, do you think that a bodily Buddha experiences a realm of Nirvana? Is that the idea? Please read Heart sutra. Whereas monks renounce vijnana, through course of various Jhana states (meditation states). Experience of Nirvana must depend on Prajnana. )

...

No, citta is a conditioned dhamma, meaning it's subject to conditions.
From the Assutava Sutta: "But what's called mind, intellect or consciousness.. arises as one thing and ceases as another".

And in Buddhism prajna/panna is wisdom, not consciousness.
Honestly, I would stick to Advaita, and recognise that Buddhism and Hinduism approach things in quite different ways. Apples and oranges!

 

[atanu]

I am repeating the exhibit to demonstrate the point that the ‘rising’ consciousness (vijnana) is not same as ultimate ‘citta’ consciousness.

https://www.religiousforums.com/media/aggregates-000001.3385/full

...

 

[Martin]

That is your opinion and it is unfounded.

The Turiya is the consciousness that links, waking, dreaming, and sleeping states. Turiya is the non dual ultimate.

The deep sleep state is known as the causal body and it is well known to countless Yogis who have experienced samadhi. Turiya, that is seer of waking, dream, and sleep states, is your truth right now. But it is clouded by objects of consciousness. When in meditation, one loses the subject-object division, one sees identity of oneself with the seer consciousness called Turiya.

You may or may not agree with Mandukya Upanishad (or other upanishads) about the deep sleep. But you can experience Turiya, if you follow the meditation practices.
...

I will recommend that you read Mandukya Upanishad, if you wish to follow up on advaita.

Now you're preaching. I didn't deny the experience of samadhi, I questioned the equivalence of samadhi and deep-sleep, which you acknowledged yourself was inaccessible.

 

[Martin]

I am repeating the exhibit to demonstrate the point that the ‘rising’ consciousness (vijnana) is not same as ultimate ‘citta’ consciousness.

https://www.religiousforums.com/media/aggregates-000001.3385/full

...

I've already explained that citta is a conditioned dhamma, subject to conditions.
Buddhism isn't a school of Hinduism, or a version of Advaita, or whatever. You're out of your depth here.

 

[atanu]

No, citta is a conditioned dhamma, meaning it's subject to conditions.
From the Assutava Sutta: "But what's called mind, intellect or consciousness.. arises as one thing and ceases as another".

And in Buddhism prajna/panna is wisdom, not consciousness.
Honestly, I would stick to Advaita, and recognise that Buddhism and Hinduism approach things in quite different ways. Apples and oranges!

What is wisdom? Does it happen in absence of consciousness? And what is citta? Is it not an ultimate?

I do not compare apples and oranges. But it is wise to distinguish between ‘vijnana’, prajnana, and citta.

Ultimately, Nirvana could not be discerned if ‘discernment’ is not an intrinsic property, since there cannot be a second besides the Nirvana.

Does anyone imagine that Avilokitesvara gave up all consciousness and yet discerned Nirvana and then regained consciousness to teach of Nirvana?

No, During various dhyana processes the forms of vijnana is all lost — but discernment is not lost.

If discernment was lost there would be no knowledge of Nirvana as the unborn, unformed, and uncreated realm.

...