Why is consciousness seen as something impermanent?

[Caoimhghín]

[...]

Dīghanikāya 1[...]:

[...]

This is the fourth ground on which some ascetics and brahmins rely to assert that the self and the cosmos are partially eternal.

I wonder how this related with venerable Nāgārjuna's proposal:

Between nirvāna and this world there is not even slight disparity. Between this world and nirvāṇa also there is not even a slight disparity. From nirvāṇa's true apex towards this world's apex, like this, there are two apices and, like this, there is not the smallest sliver of disparity between them.

(Āryanāgārjunasya Madhyamakaśāstre, T1564.35c27)

[Rick]

Doesn't the opening salvo of the MMK pretty much annihilate causality?

Chapter one discusses the reality of conditions, and, as one could expect, conditions are very much unreal and fabricated. But that's not an annihilation of conditions, or causality, but rather its clarification, where it is in dependent origination that there is no origination, and not that there is no origination at all.

I dunnae fathom. Are you saying the MMK says that there IS arising/origination 'outside of' dependent origination?

[Johnny Dangerous]

My shorthand understanding:

Arising and cessation (well, anything) exist only relatively speaking, believing them to be real is wandering in samsara. Ultimately there is no arising and cessation, both have the nature of emptiness, the full realization of which is nirvana.

Then again, I am not personally convinced that Madhyamaka does anything but avoid this question on consciousness anyway, lol. I am not sure it is the most convincing model for me.

[Rick]

Howdy JD! Good to hear from you.

My shorthand understanding:

Arising and cessation (well, anything) exist only relatively speaking, believing them to be real is wandering in samsara. Ultimately there is no arising and cessation, both have the nature of emptiness, the full realization of which is nirvana.

This is pretty much my understanding too. Which is why Astus's "... not that there is no origination at all" threw me. Hopefully he'll set me straight.

Then again, I am not personally convinced that Madhyamaka does anything but avoid this question on consciousness anyway, lol. I am not sure it is the most convincing model for me.

Interesting! Is there a model you find more convincing?

[Johnny Dangerous]

This is pretty much my understanding too. Which is why Astus's "... not that there is no origination at all" threw me. Hopefully he'll set me straight.

Well, arising and cessation do exist conventionally, in the same manner as any phenomena. Take the Heart Sutra's deconstruction of the Twelve Links etc. here, it is saying the same thing.

Interesting! Is there a model you find more convincing?

No, not really, but Yogacara works well enough to get me practicing, despite it's flaws and being seen as "lower". I am not sure there is any such thing as a definitive conceptual answer altogether;) This stuff is just praxis, there is no "aha" moment with ideas, they are just ideas. If anything, that is probably the point of Madhyamaka..heh.

[Yavana]

..heh.

I see what you did there...

[Rick]

Well, arising and cessation do exist conventionally, in the same manner as any phenomena.

If that's what he meant, all is well.

I am not sure there is any such thing as a definitive conceptual answer altogether ...

You could always spend some time in Advaita-Land, where there *is* a definitive conceptual answer. See how the Other Half live.

Just for the record: I am not an Advaitin, nor a Buddhist, though I do spend time in both worldviews.

[Johnny Dangerous]

Well, arising and cessation do exist conventionally, in the same manner as any phenomena.

If that's what he meant, all is well.

I am not sure there is any such thing as a definitive conceptual answer altogether ...

You could always spend some time in Advaita-Land, where there *is* a definitive conceptual answer. See how the Other Half live.

Just for the record: I am not an Advaitin, nor a Buddhist, though I do spend time in both worldviews.

I'm pretty well dedicated to Buddhadharma. I've read Advaita stuff here and there like the Ashtavakra Gita etc., but it seems much less developed than Buddhism, generally speaking. It also seems to tend towards a kind of monism that rubs me the wrong way.The modern teachers who ally themselves in that direction do not appeal to me, in style or content. There's wisdom there, but it definitely is not my path.

[Rick]

84,000 dharma doors, right?

[Caoimhghín]

84,000 dharma doors, right?

I hope this aside about the numerology of the 84,000 dharma doors is not unwelcome:

84,000 is not just a randomly picked number. It’s a higher expression of the number four. Loosely, it’s 4 times a thousand, doubled, and then some. So it’s an abundance, a plenitude, a universe of fours.

Now, four is the basic number of symmetry and balance. As the directions, it expresses a simple but universal harmony, facing each way to cover the whole world. Seeing things in terms of multiples of the number four is a way of expressing a universe that is meaningful, ordered, harmonious. Using a specific, symbolically charged number conveys this sense of order and meaning in a way that “very large” never can.

[Rick]

Who knew? I wonder how they got the 10,000 of 10,000 things?

We love our numbers, right? 19 Principles sounds so much more solid than Buncha Things to Consider.

[Astus]

Are you saying the MMK says that there IS arising/origination 'outside of' dependent origination?

It is in dependent origination there is no origination, but it does not negate dependent origination. Just as in birth there is no birth, that's why it's birth. In other words, that appearances are empty does not mean there are no appearances.

[LordByronX]

Now my bone with this is that this is just a premise. A possibly valid one, but still a premise.

No, it is not a premise. The information has come about through thousands of years of practitioners (starting with the Buddha) observing the workings of their own minds. It is not a theory. If you take the time to hone your practice (You do practice, right? In which tradition/lineage?) then you will observe this for yourself.

I have been practicing vipassana meditation for 14 years and various other methods of consciousness exploration such as deep and tranpersonal psychology, holotropic breathwork and psychedelic journeying.

I have also come to study and love Buddhism (Theravada and Mahayana), as well as Vedanta, in order to better understand and integrate certain profound experiences I myself and many people around me have had in all of these contexts.

So my conclusions come from many years of personal practice, and practice of many other people who've shared their experiences and insights with me. Both of which I find just as valid as "thousands of years of [other] practitioners observing the workings of their own minds."

I find most Buddhist insights profound and deep, but again I can confidently argue that as in science so in mind/consciousness exploration, we work with an observational phenomena of the mind, following with interpretations and premises that we then make based upon these observations.

So alternative interpretations of the same observational data are often possible. In that light, the premise that consciousness is arising and falling along with phenomena is valid one, but - if we can leave orthodoxy aside - we can see it's just as valid as the premise that consciousness is a fixed field within which phenomena arise and fall. Observational data equally supports one or the other.

[Astus]

Observational data equally supports one or the other.

An independent, permanent awareness cannot be observed or experienced in any way, because either it is always apparent or never, otherwise it is not permanent. Consequently the assumption that an unchanging awareness is observed is neither reasonable nor perceptual.

[LordByronX]

If you are positing that consciousness is separate from phenomena and continues to endure, what is it, and where is it found? Phenomena/dharmas can be examined, can you do the same with consciousness? Where is it located, how does it abide, where does it abide, etc. Further, if it is separate from phenomena, then what is the relationship of phenomena to it?

You are absolutely right, the only thing that we can examine is the phenomena/dharmas. But who or what examines them? We need awareness/consciousness to do the observation.

We can argue that it is a process that arises along with phenomena/dharmas, but we can also argue that it is always there, separate in a way from observational phenomena. As I answered to Grigoris above, both are equality plausible explanations, based on what we observe.

Take black holes in space for example. Due to their nature, we also cannot observe them directly since they pull in all the light, but we can get to know them by observing the effects they have on their environment. Again, we could equally plausibly say they are separate from their environment or one with it. We can only get to know them in-directly.

As for where consciousness is it found, how does it abide, where does it abide, and what is the relationship of phenomena to it, there are many possible answers from many traditions, and we can go after them, but for now let me just post something from Ajahn Chah from Theravada tradition.

"Now, examining the nature of the mind, you can observe that in its natural state it has no preoccupation... it remains still; if it flutters, that is because of the wind, an external force. In its natural state, the mind is the same, without attraction or aversion... It is independent, existing in a state of purity that is clear, radiant, and stainless... Original mind is also known as pure mind. It is the mind without attachment. It isn't affected by mental objects and doesn't chase after pleasant and unpleasant phenomena. Rather, it is in a state of continuous wakefulness, thoroughly aware of all it experiences. When the mind is like this, it does not become anything, and nothing can shake it. Why? Because there is awareness. The mind knows itself as pure. It has reached its original state of independence."

[Grigoris]

I have been practicing vipassana meditation for 14 years and various other methods of consciousness exploration such as deep and tranpersonal psychology, holotropic breathwork and psychedelic journeying.

I have also come to study and love Buddhism (Theravada and Mahayana), as well as Vedanta, in order to better understand and integrate certain profound experiences I myself and many people around me have had in all of these contexts.

So my conclusions come from many years of personal practice, and practice of many other people who've shared their experiences and insights with me. Both of which I find just as valid as "thousands of years of [other] practitioners observing the workings of their own minds."

I find most Buddhist insights profound and deep, but again I can confidently argue that as in science so in mind/consciousness exploration, we work with an observational phenomena of the mind, following with interpretations and premises that we then make based upon these observations.

So alternative interpretations of the same observational data are often possible. In that light, the premise that consciousness is arising and falling along with phenomena is valid one, but - if we can leave orthodoxy aside - we can see it's just as valid as the premise that consciousness is a fixed field within which phenomena arise and fall. Observational data equally supports one or the other.

So you are saying that we should take your observations as equally valid as those of 2000+ years of yogic observations?

Doesn't look like your practice has helped with your self-grasping and self-cherishing all that much.

FYI I am a clinical psychologst and Buddhist practitioner and my experience thus far has quite clearly shown that consciousness and awareness is impermanent and subject to birth-sustenance-decay. Just like all dependently arising phenomena.

Here is a question for you: where does permanently existing consciousness/awareness go when you are unconscious? What happens to it then? Is it maintained somewhere else, ie do you continue being conscious even though you are not conscious? Because if it is permanent, as you claim, then it has to be constantly present. There is no such thing as partially permanent.

[LordByronX]

Observational data equally supports one or the other.

An independent, permanent awareness cannot be observed or experienced in any way, because either it is always apparent or never, otherwise it is not permanent. Consequently the assumption that an unchanging awareness is observed is neither reasonable nor perceptual.

You are right - independent, permanent awareness cannot be [directly] observed. BUT dependent, impermanent awareness cannot be [directly] observed either. We can only observe impermanent phenomena that arises and fall and based on that make various premises.

So observational data of that phenomena, can be used to postulate either permanence or impermanence of awareness. Again we are working only with observational data. Everything more than we say about nature of consciousness is a premise based on in-direct observation.

[Grigoris]

"Now, examining the nature of the mind, you can observe that in its natural state it has no preoccupation... it remains still; if it flutters, that is because of the wind, an external force. In its natural state, the mind is the same, without attraction or aversion... It is independent, existing in a state of purity that is clear, radiant, and stainless... Original mind is also known as pure mind. It is the mind without attachment. It isn't affected by mental objects and doesn't chase after pleasant and unpleasant phenomena. Rather, it is in a state of continuous wakefulness, thoroughly aware of all it experiences. When the mind is like this, it does not become anything, and nothing can shake it. Why? Because there is awareness. The mind knows itself as pure. It has reached its original state of independence."

Independent (free or purified) of the afflictions is what is meant here. Not independently existent.

[Astus]

BUT dependent, impermanent awareness cannot be [directly] observed either. We can only observe impermanent phenomena that arises and fall and based on that make various premises

Awareness is an impermanent phenomenon that arises and falls, hence observable even by your definition.

[Grigoris]

You are right - independent, permanent awareness cannot be [directly] observed. BUT dependent, impermanent awareness cannot be [directly] observed either

Of course it can be observed. It can be observed arising and passing in dependence on an object of cognition.