Embers ji,
While waiting for you to come back so that we can start our discussion regarding the reality / concept distinction, I would like to respond to this part of your message. My questions are C and your response E.
C: 1) And this means that you are convinced about the truth of Atman?
E: 1) I seem convinced that consciousness does not change. I consider consciousness to be synonymous with the Atman in this respect and hence I am inclined to confirm that I am convinced of the Atman. (God is a slightly different topic).
I wonder if the belief in Atman came before or after consideration regarding the nature of consciousness. If it is before, then it looks like you are trying to make your theory regarding consciousness to fit with the belief. If it is after then I'd like you to consider the following.
If consciousness does not change, then it is *not conditioned*. I wonder then how you explain the experience of the different objects through the five senses and the mind?
As I understand it, seeing is conditioned amongst other phenomena, by the eye-base, visible object and contact, so with the other sense experiences with their corresponding bases and object. This means that eye-base is different from ear-base etc., visible object is different from sound etc. and seeing is different from hearing etc. And this is what it means to be “conditioned”.
Surely you are not suggesting that seeing has the same characteristic as hearing and touching. But you are positing a consciousness / Atman which at different moments experience different objects and therefore somehow move around different bases, namely one moment it is at the eye, another at the toe and another at the nose, right?
If this is what you picture, I don't see why it is easier to believe this, than that each sense door experience and the mind are completely different and that they rise and fall away by differing conditions?
C: 2) We cannot detect but we can understand. Why do you think that the development of the Path requires coming to be aware of a single unit of consciousness?
E: 2) Agreed. We can understand, we can see with an inner eye, so to speak. I do not believe Buddhism needs to start with consciousness, be it single unit or as the Buddha explains as subject to anicca. My earlier observation came from my brief study of Theravada and is one reason I felt I felt was an area of concern for me and raised it with you.
We begin and end with our moment to moment experience. No need to refer abstractly to consciousness, mental factors or physical phenomena and no need to think about Nibbana beyond the fact that it is the unconditioned which is the object of the path and fruition consciousness. Now, from moment to moment, there is seeing, touching, feeling, perception, visible object, sound, hardness, pressure, attachment, ignorance and so many other realities. All these, like consciousness, rise and fall away by conditions and can be known as such. So no need to start particularly with consciousness, but whatever appears “now”.
Indeed, that so many number of people who were the Buddha's audiences became enlightened there and then while listening to him teach, this is not because they all experienced insight into the particular reality that the Buddha was referring to at the time, but any of the possible realities each one of them were experiencing at at that very moment. So no need to talk about consciousness, but neither is there a need not to do so. ;-)
C: 3) The fourth of the Four Noble Truths is the Noble Eightfold Path. This is a Path of understanding and not of coming to see individual consciousness which is impossible anyway, due to the very nature of the consciousness process. Besides, what you are saying has the implication that the development of wisdom begins only after seeing individual consciousness rise and fall, and this does not make sense, does it?
E: 3) I agree it doesn't make sense to believe that wisdom begins with Consciousness. One can study the four noble truths and the eightfold noble path and it will lead to its own end (nirvana) and wisdom.
No, you are misreading what I suggested. I wasn't saying that we need not start with consciousness, but was addressing your idea that because it is not possible to experience one instance of consciousness since it rises and falls away so fast, that one could then assume that consciousness is constant / permanent. What I was trying to tell you is that impermanence, insubstantiality and non-self are known not as a result of seeing “one” consciousness rise and fall away, but as a result of wisdom experiencing what appears in the moment. It does not need to experience one infinitesimal reality in order to understand / know. Characteristics both particular and general appear all day. What wisdom sees is not as though looking down a microscope, indeed it would come away with the impression of how ordinary and “like now” it all is.
Consciousness is not separate from the Noble Truths. It is Dukkha, the first Noble Truth. The second Noble Truth, craving, this cannot arise without consciousness. The fourth, the Path, these refer to mental factors that must arise with consciousness. You're thinking and considering all this is not without consciousness. There is consciousness now and at all times, so why not begin with this?
C: 4) Also with all levels of understanding is the mental factor of saddha or confidence / faith, are you saying that this cannot arise for one who does not see individual consciousness rise and fall away?
E: 4) I am sure faith plays a role in Buddhism and other religions. It only matters to the view of the teaching as to how the being/aspirant sees consciousness.
It doesn't look like you understood what I was referring to.
Saddha is a mental factor which arises with all wholesome consciousness. It is there already when the wholesome state arises and is not about a particular line of thought / attitude towards a set of teachings. There are two kinds of faith, one which reflects confidence in all good deeds. The other is associated only with the Buddha's teachings; it arises with all instances of Right Understanding and reflects confidence in the Path. When the level of understanding is weak as in intellectual understanding, the confidence is of the corresponding strength. This means that as understanding develops, the confidence also grows. This is why with enlightenment; the confidence becomes perfect / unshakeable.
I think this is in contrast to how most people and probably you as well, picture faith, which is more about a belief in something one has yet to experience or understand. But from where I stand, this looks to be more about attachment, and should therefore be discouraged. Studying the Buddha's teachings requires understanding all the way through from the first step to the last, and with each step not only does confidence grow, but also there is a corresponding level of detachment.
C: 5) This is not right is it, given that you approach the teachings in order to understand and then suddenly appeal to empirical evidence to judge whether or not the Buddha was right?
E: 5) I am not a Buddhist so I am not seeking to prove Buddha right or wrong. I have the utmost respect for his Dhamma. The reason I refer to empirical evidence is that it is 'me' who needs to understand. I do not need another to understand me or persuade me, hence I was seeking for empirical evidence in my being.
The only way that respect is shown towards the Buddha is through the development of Right understanding. If there is wrong understanding, this can't be respect, can it?
Why do you refer to empirical evidence then if you think that it is about understanding? You either understand or you don't and know it. But you questioned about the impermanence of citta and needed to be proven that indeed the description given reflects the reality. And you even went on to suggest not only that citta is permanent, but identify this as being the same as Atman, which as you know, is what the concept of Anatta directly denies the existence of. Is this the attitude of someone who acknowledges his own ignorance or is it of someone who thinks he knows better?
C: 6) And since you refer to the need for evidence, why don’t you show me the evidence for permanence and atman?
E: 6) For clarity, I am not here to convince others of my views. Rather I would like to learn more about Sikhism, which is why I am posting here, using my views as a sounding board to receive criticism, correction and help to my answers. That said, I have no desire to convince anyone of the Atman (if convincing someone were even possible).
You don't have to try and convince anyone, but you can give an explanation in order that the other person knows where you are coming from. If you say that you have no basis to believe in non-self and impermanence, telling me what the basis for the belief in Atman and permanence is would help with the discussion, I would think.
E: The reasoning for why I am not a Buddhist might be called ignorance by Buddhists, that is fine too.
I would say no right view has arisen; instead much wrong view has been conditioned to arise. (And this is worse than saying that it is due to ignorance isn't it. ;-)) But you don't know and I don't know about any right view that may have arisen in the past and accumulated, hence why I can't rule out the possibility that you may one day understand.
E: When I turned to Buddhism to understand it, it was for a different reason than to end suffering for myself.
You'd have to know what “suffering” is first, before you can think to develop right understanding in order to end it. I hardly understand what suffering as in the First Noble Truth is. My interest is directed towards understanding this First Truth better, that's all.
E: What attracted me to Theravada was that it does not require Varna. I learnt that there are over 166 Million Dalit Dalits (untouchables) and I wanted to understand Buddhism further in respect to their position. Varna is something I feel I need to understand better as it overlaps into social and political spheres it seems.
Yes, these are social considerations, which is not the objective of the Buddhadhamma. You won't find statements such as “no varna”, “equal rights for all”, “women should be treated as equal to men”, or even such suggestions as “one should treat everyone with kindness”. The point at all times is to develop right understanding of the present moment. From this it follows automatically that good deeds are seen as skillful and bad deeds as unskillful. No need to tell oneself to be and do good, let alone adopt particular attitudes in relation to society. Indeed it would seem that those who need prompting and who then tend also to prompt others 'to do good', 'to treat everyone equally' and those who think to develop loving kindness and such, are the ones who lack these qualities. And because they also lack understanding, they end up trying to do these things just so as to feel good about themselves. This is reflection of the worst of afflictions, namely “attachment to self”, the Second Noble Truth, which they all end up believing to be good. :-/
