CONSCIOUSNESS

[Reference: The First Noble Truth: Dukkha]

There is no scientific basis for consciousness that transmigrates and wanders about. There is no consciousness, which expresses, which feels, which experiences the results of good and bad deeds here and there.

According to Buddhist philosophy there is no permanent, unchanging spirit which can be considered ‘Self’, or ‘Soul’, or ‘Ego’. The consciousness should not be taken as ‘spirit’ in opposition to matter. It is a wrong notion that consciousness is a sort of Self or Soul that continues as a permanent substance through life.

Consciousness is only a sort of awareness of the presence of an object. It does not recognize the object. It is perception that recognizes the object. When the eye comes in contact with a color, for instance blue, visual consciousness arises which simply is awareness of the presence of a color; but it does not recognize that it is blue. There is no recognition at this stage. It is perception that recognizes that it is blue.

Buddha explained that consciousness arises out of conditions. There is no arising of consciousness without conditions.  Consciousness is named according to whatever condition through which it arises.

  • Visual consciousness arises on account of the eye and visible forms
  • Auditory consciousness arises on account of the ear and sounds.
  • Olfactory consciousness arises on account of the nose and odors.
  • Gustatory consciousness arises on account of the tongue and tastes.
  • Tactile consciousness arises on account of the body and tangible objects.
  • Mental consciousness arises on account of the mind and mind-objects (ideas and thoughts).

The Buddha declared in unequivocal terms that consciousness depends on matter, sensation, perception and mental formations and that it cannot exist independently of them.

‘Were a man to say: I shall show the coming, the going, the passing away, the arising, the growth, the increase or the development of consciousness apart from matter, sensation, perception and mental formations, he would be speaking of something that does not exist.’

.

Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

Comments

  • vinaire  On May 11, 2012 at 5:40 PM

    There has to be something to be conscious of before consciousness may exist.

    It is therefore inconsistent to believe that consciousness can exist separately and independently of this universe.

    .

    • Chris Thompson  On May 14, 2012 at 1:18 PM

      Haven’t you reversed conscious of, and consciousness?

      • vinaire  On May 14, 2012 at 1:25 PM

        I believe that if there is nothing to be conscious of then there is no consciousness either.

        .

        • Chris Thompson  On May 14, 2012 at 8:00 PM

          Then consciousness and what is are the same?

        • vinaire  On August 15, 2013 at 4:34 AM

          Consciousness and what-is are two sides of the same coin.

          .

  • Chris Thompson  On May 14, 2012 at 1:16 PM

    What do you think would be the basis for the continuity of memory? Of what do you think memory is constructed? Where does memory reside?

    • vinaire  On August 15, 2013 at 4:44 AM

      (1) Physical objects reside in the physical space at the concrete level. Mental objects reside in mental space at the abstract level.

      (2) We are conscious of physical objects. Similarly, we are conscious of mental objects.

      (3) Mental objects continue the same way that physical objects continue.

      (4) Continuence of mental objects may be called memory.

      .

  • vinaire  On May 14, 2012 at 1:23 PM

    I haven’t looked at that question since I wrote the following:

    KHTK 5: MEMORY & RECALL

    Maybe I should look at it again.
    .

  • vinaire  On May 14, 2012 at 2:34 PM

    According to Buddha, it is Volition (will) which is at the root of existence and continuity, striving forward by the way of good and bad actions.

    Will is that aspect of the system, which keeps the system there.

    So, what more is there to explore about “Free Will”?

    .

  • vinaire  On May 14, 2012 at 2:56 PM

    WILL= the will to be, to exist, to re-exist
    ……..= to become more and more
    ……..= to grow more and more
    ……..= karma
    ……..= desire

    This is the cause of the arising of dukkha, and this is found within the Aggregate of Mental Formations, one of the Five Aggregates which constitute a being.

    .

  • vinaire  On May 14, 2012 at 3:31 PM

    The following two paragraphs from the book, “What Buddha Taught” are quite telling:

    “The theory of karma should not be confused with so-called ‘moral justice’ or ‘reward and punishment’. The idea of moral justice, or reward and punishment, arises out of the conception of a supreme being, a God, who sits in judgment, who is a law-giver and who decides what is right and wrong. The term ‘justice’ is ambiguous and dangerous, and in its name more harm than good is done to humanity. The theory of karma is the theory of cause and effect, of action and reaction; it is a natural law, which has nothing to do with the idea of justice or reward and punishment. Every volitional action produces its effects or results. If a good action produces good effects and a bad action bad effects, it is not justice, or reward, or punishment meted out by anybody or any power sitting in judgment on your action, but this is in virtue of its own nature, its own law. This is not difficult to understand. But what is difficult is that, according to the karma theory, the effects of a volitional action may continue to manifest themselves even in a life after death. Here we have to explain what death is according to Buddhism.

    “We have seen earlier that a being is nothing but a combination physical and mental forces or energies. What we call death is the total non-functioning of the physical body. Do all these forces and energies stop altogether with the non-functioning of the body? Buddhism says ‘No’. Will, volition, desire, thirst to exist, to continue, to become more and more, is a tremendous force that moves whole lives, whole existences, that even moves the whole world. This is the greatest force, the greatest energy in the world. According to Buddhism, this force does not stop with the non-functioning of the body, which is death; but it continues manifesting itself in another form, producing re-existence which is called rebirth.”

    .

  • vinaire  On May 14, 2012 at 3:42 PM

    Being = a combination physical and mental forces or energies

    Death = the total non-functioning of the physical body

    Will = This tremendous ‘force to continue’ does not stop with the non-functioning of the body. it continues manifesting itself in another form, producing re-existence (rebirth).

    .

  • vinaire  On May 14, 2012 at 3:53 PM

    Life is a combination of physical and mental energies, which is constantly changing. This continues even after the non-functioning of the body. No permanent, unchanging substance like Self or Soul is required whether the body is functioning or not.

    Physical and mental energies which constitute the so-called being have within themselves the power to take a new form, and grow gradually and gather force to the full.

    .

  • vinaire  On May 14, 2012 at 4:11 PM

    What is “free” in “free will”? I would like to know.

    It is time to take a good look at it. 🙂

    .

    • Chris Thompson  On May 14, 2012 at 8:15 PM

      The free in free will is that spectrum of choice which I have not denied myself. Wouldn’t you say?

  • vinaire  On May 14, 2012 at 8:45 PM

    But what is “I”?.

    • Chris Thompson  On May 14, 2012 at 9:31 PM

      Pinging back and forth between “I” and “not I” is inconsistent. You are setting it up one way and then swatting it back the other way… Reminds me of “pong.”

      You propose no self.

      Then you propose something continuing after body death.

      Then you propose no reason to believe something is continuing beyond body death.

      This inconsistency can lead us to understanding when we are ready to understand. It might require some uncomfortable disconnecting of attachments and not only the usual things but of our comfortable frames of reference as well.

      I think that I is appropriate as a context of self in this place. If you want to apply a higher truth then I can become inappropriate but still not in this frame of reference. Possibly the problem is in mixing metaphors of large and small and trying to make them fit within the same context when they are not of the same context. Example: Newton v. Planck. Each has a preponderance of rightness in his own context.

      • vinaire  On May 15, 2012 at 4:46 AM

        I do not propose no self. I propose no permanent self.

        I do not propose inherently independent self. I propose relative and dependent self.

        Please see THE STRUCTURE OF “I”

        “Will” is a property of the system called “I”. It is a system that is ever changing. There is nothing inherently permanent.

        So, “will” is relative like anything else. There is no absolutely free will.

        .

  • vinaire  On May 15, 2012 at 4:57 AM

    The motion of a space vessel in free space is not free. It is still governed by many factors.

    Similarly, will may appear to be free, but it is not absolutely free. It is governed by many factors.

    .

  • vinaire  On May 15, 2012 at 5:11 AM

    Freedom is relative. There is no absolute freedom.

    A ball bouncing on the ground is free relative to a ball stuck in a hole. But the bouncing ball is still subject to gravity.

    .

  • vinaire  On May 15, 2012 at 7:01 AM

    Any consideration is bound by itself.

    The consideration of matter is bound by the consideration of matter.
    The consideration of energy is bound by the consideration of energy.
    The consideration of space is bound by the consideration of space.
    The consideration of time is bound by the consideration of time.

    Similarly,
    The consideration of will is bound by the considerations of solidity, fluidity, heat, motion, etc.

    The consideration of self is bound by the considerations of sense faculties, physical and mental objects, sensations, perceptions, mental formations, consciousness, etc.

    The labels may be changed, but the boundedness will remain.

    .

    • Chris Thompson  On May 15, 2012 at 9:00 AM

      Quite right. Now what considers? or What do you mean when you write “one considers?”

      • vinaire  On May 15, 2012 at 9:14 AM

        Please see KHTK 11A: The structure of “I”. “One” is just a convenient label.

        .

  • vinaire  On May 15, 2012 at 8:24 AM

    Dukkha is continuity of being.
    This continuity of being arises out of ignorance.
    The ignorance persists because of the thirst for sensation.
    This thirst is what prevents one from looking past one’s ignorance.

    .

    • Chris Thompson  On May 15, 2012 at 9:03 AM

      Yes, I believe I have been saying this. You say thirst, and I have said addiction. Now who or what is thirsting?

      • vinaire  On May 15, 2012 at 9:17 AM

        The best way to express this whole phenomenon is by calling it the “circle of conditioned genesis.”

        “Who” or “what” is part of this circle. It is not something independent.

        .

        • Chris Thompson  On May 15, 2012 at 12:17 PM

          I believe it is consistent for me to say that your circle of genesis will not arrive at a satisfactory solution to the problem of consciousness as it attempts to solve this problem with the same mind and within the same system and within the same circle which created it. It will not even dissolve any layer deeper.

          I believe also that it is inconsistent with the laws of thermodynamics for it proposes a perpetual motion machine. Doesn’t it?

        • vinaire  On May 15, 2012 at 12:36 PM

          Well, I am glad that you are working on it.

          .

  • Chris Thompson  On May 15, 2012 at 9:06 AM

    You are making many good points and I mostly see it the same way. The looming and unanswered question of this discussion seems how considerations come into being. What is the reason that they appear?

  • vinaire  On May 15, 2012 at 10:12 AM

    Mental volition is the will to live, to re-exist, to continue to become more and more.

    Mental volition strives forward by the way of good and bad actions.

    In doing so mental volition creates the root of existence and continuity.

    This is Karma.

    .

    • Chris Thompson  On May 15, 2012 at 12:20 PM

      So the volition is the what — independent of any who?

      • vinaire  On May 15, 2012 at 12:39 PM

        I am glad that you are working it all out. More power to you.

        .

        • Chris Thompson  On May 15, 2012 at 12:41 PM

          When you say you are glad that I am working on it, are we talking about a who?

        • vinaire  On May 15, 2012 at 12:43 PM

          Sorry, I didn’t get your point.

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On May 15, 2012 at 12:44 PM

          Sorry, I didn’t understand your comment.

        • vinaire  On May 15, 2012 at 1:01 PM

          Self is not permanent. It is part of the circle of conditioned genesis.

          If I am unable to explain it so far, and you want to understand it more fully, then please study the link that I provided to you.

          .

    • Chris Thompson  On May 15, 2012 at 12:47 PM

      More simply, Karma is the life that you find yourself living.

      Now we should decide what we mean by “yourself” and “we.”

  • vinaire  On May 15, 2012 at 12:50 PM

    Thirst (selfish desire)
    ….. –> karma and rebirth

    Continuity of being is fed by
    ….. *Ordinary material food
    ….. *Contact of sense organs with external world
    ….. *Consciousness
    ….. *Mental volition (will to live, to re-exist, to continue to become more and more)

    Mental volition (one of the mental formations that constitute the being)
    ….. –> In striving forward by the way of good and bad actions
    ….. –> It creates the root of existence and continuity
    ….. –> This is karma
    ….. –> This is the cause of the arising of dukkha.

    .

    • Chris Thompson  On May 15, 2012 at 12:53 PM

      That’s the long way around but I agree. Please see: http://wolframscience.com/nksonline/toc.html

      • vinaire  On May 16, 2012 at 8:12 AM

        The basis of “A New Kind of Science” is a new way to think, reckon, compute, etc. The purpose of such activity is to estimate what is there behind appearances; and what appearance can be brought about.

        I still find LOOKING to be more direct, and I shall be looking at what “A New Kind of Science” is attempting to do.

        .

  • vinaire  On May 15, 2012 at 12:53 PM

    ‘WHATEVER IS OF THE NATURE OF ARISING, ALL THAT IS OF THE NATURE OF CESSATION.’

    Dukkha (Five Aggregates)
    ….. –> has within itself the nature of its own arising
    ….. –> and has also within itself the nature of its own cessation

    .

    • Chris Thompson  On May 15, 2012 at 1:00 PM

      Is this type of convoluted language meaningful to you? James Joyce wrote like this as a joke. What it makes me think is that it is poorly translated into English.

      This “having within itself the nature of arising and of cessation” is what is defined in Scientology as “as-is.” Do you mean to agree with this? In Scientology, this is meant by the occurrence during the moment of creation and of destruction – both.

      • vinaire  On May 15, 2012 at 1:05 PM

        I am quoting from the book “What Buddha Taught.” If you want to understand it more fully then please read the book.

        I have my own understanding, and I am afraid I do not have the right words to convey that understanding to you.

        .

        • Chris Thompson  On May 15, 2012 at 1:09 PM

          Thank you but Buddha’s way was his own way. My way is my way and coming to terms with that statement has taken a lifetime of serious work on the subject. I am finding it more efficient and direct to simply look at existence for myself for no matter how many lessons a teacher teaches, I seem to have to come to my own conclusions in my own way and in my own time. Your effort to direct my attention to helpful lessons is appreciated.

        • Chris Thompson  On May 15, 2012 at 1:11 PM

          Do you see the parallel consciousness between your Dukkha and my comment about “as-is?”

        • vinaire  On May 15, 2012 at 1:13 PM

          Good for you. Please follow your own way.

          When you find a who or what at the bottom of the rabbit hole then please let me know.

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On May 15, 2012 at 1:17 PM

          hehe easy one… that will be you and me but not in part as we are now.

        • vinaire  On May 15, 2012 at 1:17 PM

          Re “as-is” please follow what you see.

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On May 15, 2012 at 1:20 PM

          Well, I try to. What do you think of the word “as-is?” This is the appearance of created thought and it is the dissolving of inconsistencies. Isn’t this similar to your comments about Dukkha?

        • vinaire  On May 15, 2012 at 1:19 PM

          Re: who or what at the bottom of the rabbit hole.

          I am pleased to know that you are happy with your find. 🙂

          .

  • vinaire  On May 15, 2012 at 1:37 PM

    Chris: Well, I try to. What do you think of the word “as-is?” This is the appearance of created thought and it is the dissolving of inconsistencies. Isn’t this similar to your comments about Dukkha?

    I don’t think so. But you go by what you see.

    .

  • vinaire  On May 16, 2012 at 8:42 AM

    Wolfram’s A NEW KIND OF SCIENCE deals in discrete mathematics. It postulates simple programs, such as, cellular automata (check in Wikipedia), to underlie the complex appearance of this universe. However, this does not imply that the universe is discrete in an ultimate sense. It is simply another way of exploring the structure of this universe.

    • vinaire  On May 16, 2012 at 9:22 AM

      The thesis of A New Kind of Science (NKS) is twofold:

      (1) That the nature of computation must be explored experimentally, and

      (2) That the results of these experiments have great relevance to understanding the natural world, which is assumed to be digital.

      .

      It is important to recognize that “the natural world is digital” is simply an assumption. It should not be taken for granted.

      .

      • Chris Thompson  On May 16, 2012 at 9:45 AM

        Ah, you have spotted an inconsistency?

      • vinaire  On May 16, 2012 at 10:11 AM

        To assume something is not an inconsistency. But to consider an assumption to be the truth would be an inconsistency.

        .

        • Chris Thompson  On May 16, 2012 at 10:46 AM

          Yes, everyone knows this. But you had a point about NKS? . . . or you wanted to make the same point about Dukkha?

        • vinaire  On May 16, 2012 at 11:09 AM

          I am studying Buddha with eyes fully open, so I can recognize assumptions for what they are.

          Buddha himself demands that.

          .

    • vinaire  On May 16, 2012 at 10:47 AM

      For a program to qualify as simple, there are several benchmarks:

      1. Its operation can be completely explained by a simple graphical illustration.
      2. It can be completely explained in a few sentences of human language.
      3. It can be implemented in a computer language using just a few lines of code.
      4. The number of its possible variations is small enough so that all of them can be computed.

      The remarkable feature of simple programs is that a significant percentage of them are capable of producing great complexity. A New Kind of Science argues that this is evidence that simple programs are enough to capture the essence of almost any complex system.

      .

      • vinaire  On May 16, 2012 at 10:49 AM

        It is plausible to me that underlying the complexity of this universe, there is great simplicity.

        The process of LOOKING and resolving inconsistencies is one of those simplicities.

        .

        • Chris Thompson  On May 16, 2012 at 10:54 AM

          Ahh. I could not have guessed what you were going to say to that.

          Well I believe this is precisely what Wolfram does.

    • vinaire  On May 16, 2012 at 12:14 PM

      I like this quote from Wikipedia:

      In a sense, many of Wolfram’s ideas are based on understanding the scientific process—including the human mind—as operating within the same universe it studies, rather than somehow being outside it.

      This is the same as Buddha’s approach.

      .

      • Chris Thompson  On May 16, 2012 at 12:29 PM

        Yes. I found that very intriguing. It sets up the deterministic argument with a foundation that can account for complexity AND apparent randomyty. This is my first contact with such a foundation.

        • vinaire  On May 16, 2012 at 12:50 PM

          That is the property of a system, which is independent as a whole. Therefore, all its components shall be inter-dependent.

          In Scientology, I see THETA and MEST as inter-dependent, though not intended as such by Hubbard. To me, THETA and MEST are components of some overall, independent system.
          .

    • vinaire  On May 16, 2012 at 1:09 PM

      The following from Wikipedia is quite interesting:

      Wolfram suggests that the theory of computational irreducibility may provide a resolution to the existence of free will in a nominally deterministic universe. He posits that the computational process in the brain of the being with free will is actually complex enough so that it cannot be captured in a simpler computation, due to the principle of computational irreducibility. Thus while the process is indeed deterministic, there is no better way to determine the being’s will than to essentially run the experiment and let the being exercise it.

      The very presence of considerations makes a system deterministic. A consideration bounds itself by its scope. To that degree any independence (free will) in a system is reduced. This is the point underlying computational irreducibility. The natural laws of this universe limit the free will possible.

      .

    • vinaire  On May 16, 2012 at 1:43 PM

      The following is interesting:

      NKS Chapter 9 postulates that there is a finite automaton that builds time, space, and energy from informational substrate below the Planck scale. According to Wolfram, infinities and infinitesimals do not occur in nature, except perhaps for time as a potential infinity. In particular, there is a maximum physical wavelength in addition to the minimum physical wavelength postulated by M-theory.

      I believe that space evolves as energy, which further evolves as matter; and time provides a measure of this evolution.

      .

      • Chris Thompson  On May 16, 2012 at 3:55 PM

        Do I detect excitement?

        • vinaire  On May 16, 2012 at 6:30 PM

          I shall be excited when I know what space is.

        • Chris Thompson  On May 16, 2012 at 6:37 PM

          I think you better indulge in a little bit of excitement between now and then!

        • vinaire  On May 16, 2012 at 6:53 PM

          My excitement comes with leveling of inconsistencies. The only excitement that I see here is some experimental data on computations backing up my intuition.

          And there seem to be unknowns to be discovered below Planck scale.

          .

    • vinaire  On May 16, 2012 at 2:16 PM

      The fundamental theory (NKS Chapter 9)

      ”In the NKS theory, the basic physical realities of time, space, and energy are merely approximations that arise from a few simple rules that operate with hidden determinism below the Planck scale. According to Wolfram, “building on the discovery that even simple programs can yield highly complex behavior, A New Kind of Science shows that with appropriate kinds of rules, simple programs can give rise to behavior that reproduces a remarkable range of known features of our universe — leading to the bold assertion that there could be a simple short program that represents a truly fundamental model of the universe, and which if run for long enough would reproduce the behavior of our world in every detail.”

      I am sure Buddha’s isolation of Thirst (desire, craving) would fit into that simple short program. I still need to fully understand that program.

      Wolfram’s assertion parallels the DNA program, which is responsible for the generation of a very complex human body.

      .

  • vinaire  On May 16, 2012 at 3:29 PM

    The simple rules underlying the Nature may best be approximated by the Laws of KARMA (rules of cause and effect). They cannot include any ideas of right and wrong, or justice and injustice, because those ideas are influenced by viewpoints.

    .

  • vinaire  On May 17, 2012 at 8:13 AM

    (a) A combination of physical and mental forces, or energies, expresses itself as a being.

    (b) The being manifests itself through a physical body.

    (c) The physical body, when it is functioning, is considered alive.

    (d) The physical body, when it goes into a state of total non-function, is considered dead.

    (e) The physical and mental forces are still there even when no longer being manifested through body after its death.

    (f) Underlying these forces is this tremendous thirst (will, volition, desire) to continue.

    (g) It may manifest itself through another form (physical body), producing re-existence (rebirth).

    .

    • Chris Thompson  On May 17, 2012 at 8:38 AM

      We come closer to each other! This is the direction which I suspect is the “forward toward enlightenment.” Is there an ultimate closeness? An absence of space? And if and when that is achieved, will we then discover a new separateness? My experience says “yes,” but my ability to be surprised says “maybe not.”

    • vinaire  On May 17, 2012 at 9:13 AM

      Closeness will come about as this thirst gets extinguished. What will then remain is just a calm observation of everything followed by co-creation.

      It is this thirst that creates ego (self) and separateness.

      Presence of self means boundaries and thus separateness.

      What needs to occur is a leveling of all thirst.

      .

      • Chris Thompson  On May 17, 2012 at 2:09 PM

        Now you should define thirst.

        Or possibly closeness will come about as a lack of withholding ourselves from one another. Isn’t it more nearly about “like charges repelling?” As the charges diminish, might the space diminish as well? Isn’t that more consistent with the mechanics of the universe?

        Or maybe your thirst metaphor satisfies this?

      • vinaire  On May 17, 2012 at 2:48 PM

        Maybe ‘thirst’ is the charge you are talking about.

        The process of creation provides an identity. As a creation manifests itself, then it is, in fact, the creator manifesting itself. That creation is the self or identity of the creator, who had no self or identity before. As the creator gets enamored with that creation/identity, and keeps it, it becomes the first manifestation of thirst.

        As the creator, from that first identity, manifests more creations, and wants to keep them, then that only serves to expand that existing identity. This makes me think that HAVINGNESS is that thirst, which Buddha is talking about.

        The more starting points of creations that there are, the more selves there can be. Each starting point of creation becomes a self when thirst is there. The self then starts to expand as creation continues with the thirst also in operation.

        Maybe this universe is a big self. I have to look at this more.

        .

        • Chris Thompson  On May 17, 2012 at 3:47 PM

          ” Maybe this universe is a big self.” haha, I do not have a problem with this…

  • fotochic97  On May 22, 2012 at 2:51 AM

    What about people like Helen Keller? Or a person who is in a coma? Would the coma create a prison type environment where the person is not aware of their condition or could they be conscious of it but trapped in some way?

    • vinaire  On May 22, 2012 at 5:53 AM

      I think the key point here is that there is consciousness, but it is changing all the time depending on the circumstances.

      There is nothing permanent underlying all that changing consciousness that is carried forward.

      We have the concept of self or “I”. But it is intrinsically impermanent. “I” changes. It comes about, it continues, it then disappears into nothing.

      We think foolishly that we shall continue for ever. “I”, as a manifestation, dies with body death. Forces and energies that were combining to form the “I” may manifest themselves in a different combination in another body at birth. That would be a different “I”, even if the same forces and energies underlie it.

      .

  • vinaire  On May 24, 2012 at 11:48 AM

    There is emancipation, liberation, freedom from suffering, from the continuity of dukkha. The root cause is the inconsistency to do with thirst.

    Absolute truth is an extraordinary experience and it cannot be expressed in words. Language is limited in what it can convey. Ignorant people get stuck in words like an elephant in the mud.

    There is the unborn, ungrown, and unconditioned but it may only be expressed in negative terms, “What it is not,” because it is not something.

    We may call it Nirvana = Extinction of thirst = Unconditioned = Absence of desire = Cessation = Blowing out = Detachment = Calming of all conditioned things = Giving up of all defilements = Extinction of hatred = Extinction of illusion = Freedom from conceit = Uprooting of attachment = Cutting off of continuity, etc.

    Nirvana is definitely no annihilation of self, because there is no self no annihilate. Nirvana is neither negative nor positive. Nirvana is freedom from all evil, freedom from craving, hatred and ignorance, freedom from all terms of duality, relativity, time and space.

    Looking at the impermanence of consciousness and sensations, the mind becomes detached. One then becomes calm and stable. But, as one focuses that calmness and stability on infinite space, on infinite consciousness, on nothingness, on state of non-duality, etc., to attain those states, one realizes that this effort is becomingness too. Suddenly, it dawns on him what Nirvana is, and he no longer wills continuity, becoming or annihilation.

    With that wisdom, he no longer feels bound by the sensations he now experiences. He knows that all these sensations will be pacified with the dissolution of the body (past, present and future).

    The knowledge of the extinction of all dukkha is the absolute noble wisdom.

    .

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: