The God Element

[Ambarsaria]

Confused ji just wondering on the following,

• Intellectual understanding that develops little by little does it not become part of your sub-conscious and accumulates
  • This then has the effect of your auto response without thinking and following the truth
• Where one has not developed the right understanding, we will still have the wrong understanding in our subconscious
  • So our subconscious without involvement will still allow wrong
  • Is the learning process actually displacing wrong with right over time in the sub-conscious

Thank you.

Sat Sri Akal.

 

[prakash.s.bagga]

THERE IS ONLY ONE ?TRUTH" OF THE UNIVERSE AND THAT IS STATED IN GURBANI AS

"AADi SACHu JUGAADi SACHu HAI BHEE SACHu NANAK HOSEE BHEE SACHu"

OTHER THAN THIS TRUTH EVERYTHING ELSE IS "CONFUSION" ONLY.

SO WE SHOULD KNOW THE TRUTH OF THE UNIVERSE AS STATED IN GURBANI.THAT IS
ALL.

PRAKASH.S.BAGGA

 

[Archived_member14]

Ambarsaria ji,



Thanks for your questions.
I’m going to get into some details, so please read with patience.

==
Ambarsaria:
-Intellectual understanding that develops little by little does it not become part of your sub-conscious and accumulates

Cf: There is no subconscious in the Buddhist teachings. The concept as is used in psychology is the result of not understanding the nature of consciousness and the accompanying mental factors.

There can only be one consciousness through one of the five senses and the mind arising at one time. Consciousness is chief in experiencing, however it must arise with at least seven mental factors namely, feeling, contact, perception (or memory), intention, concentration, attention and life faculty each performing their particular functions without which there can’t be any experience. This minimum seven is only in the case of ‘resultant’ consciousness such as seeing, hearing, smelling etc. During moments of impulsion which follow these and at other times, and which are of the nature of ‘cause’, there must however be other mental factors to act as support such as, applied thought, discursive thought, energy, interest and so on, and these must be rooted either by the unwholesome roots namely attachment, aversion and ignorance or the wholesome ones, namely non-attachment, non-aversion and wisdom.

From the above you can see that ‘feeling’ and ‘perception’ arises with every moment of consciousness and one can reflect on how these two play very important roles in our moment to moment experiences. This is why in the classification into the ‘Five Groups of Existence’ which human beings in the final analysis are, both these make up each one group. The other three are consciousness, mental formations and matter. All other mental factors apart from feeling and perception come under the group, ‘mental formations’. This is because, greed, aversion, kindness, understanding, ignorance, shame, shamelessness, generosity, miserliness, confidence, doubt and so on, these when they arise, accumulate as tendency.

This accumulation however is in the consciousness itself which when falling away, conditions the next moment of consciousness and transfers so-to-speak, all that has been accumulated from the past onto it. Remember however, that we are talking about a “mental reality” and this has no shape or form. So we need to be careful about imagining how this works, taking care not to become confused because we are able to conceive of it only in terms of something which has shape and form.

There is no limit as to how much of the tendencies is accumulated and carried on from one life to another. When attachment arises however, aversion cannot. Does this then mean that the latter is not there? No, all the tendencies exist, but when one manifests, the others lie dormant within the consciousness itself. And when the conditions are right for these, any one of them can arise while the others do not.

Consciousness arises and falls away so fast that it gives the impression not only of continuity, but also the illusion that many things are happening at the same time. But allow me to give an illustration:

Seeing arises to experience visible object. If this is a pleasant object, attachment arises immediately and begins to think about it. There must be many, many life-continuum consciousness in between each process. But also before one can begin to recognize any object and subsequently label it, there must be many more instances of raw ‘seeing’ and the thinking which gradually adds a sense of dimension, with perception working its way at recognizing based on past experiences. All this would have involved trillions of mind moments and by the time we even begin to ‘consider’ the object, many more would have arisen and fallen away.

It is understandable therefore that a psychologist posits the idea of subconscious to explain what is hidden as a result of his own ignorance.

So to answer your question about intellectual understanding, yes it does accumulate as tendency, but in the consciousness itself.

====
Ambarsaria:
-This then has the effect of your auto response without thinking and following the truth

Cf: There are many levels of understanding. When strong enough, it can arise instead of attachment and ignorance, the moment we wake up in the morning. And yes, just as attachment can arise for example, with regard to ‘sound’, so can wisdom arise to understand sound as just sound. Indeed this is what is encouraged all the time, even when the understanding is obviously very weak, namely to understand the reality by their characteristic and not to be concerned about the names / labels.

====
Ambarsaria:
-Where one has not developed the right understanding, we will still have the wrong understanding in our subconscious

Cf: We will continue to have wrong understanding accumulated as tendency unless we have reached the first stage of enlightenment when this tendency is eradicated completely. But yes, in the meantime any direct understanding works to weaken the overall tendency to wrong understanding.

====
Ambarsaria:
-So our subconscious without involvement will still allow wrong

Cf: Not subconscious of course, but yes as long as there is the tendency, anything can happen, including deeds that we can’t imagine we could do.

====
Ambarsaria:
-Is the learning process actually displacing wrong with right over time in the sub-conscious

Cf: The process is sometimes identified as “straightening of view”. It involves amongst other things, recognizing wrong as wrong when it arises.

 

[prakash.s.bagga]

CONFUSED Ji,

Your concept of ?ONE CONSCIOUSNESS " is well understandable and this is the only "TRUTH" we should talk about.
Other than this truth everything else is relative and more one goes far in explanations there is "CNFUSION "Oonly.

In Sikh philosophy what is being refered as TRUTH" is the reference of this consciosness only.There is complete knowledge of this consciousness in terms of DIVINE WORD as GURU.So nothing beyond this word GURU.

The above explanation should be clear enough.

Prakash.S.Bagga

 

[Kanwaljit.Singh]

I once suggested that people who are attracted to religion do so initially, because of the teachings about the value of morality, kindness, compassion, giving, honesty and other kinds of good. Indeed one of my intentions was to encourage people here to consider more about this aspect of their religion while I try to overlook the other ideas that I do not agree with. This was fine in theory, but now I realize that it is not so in practice.

I think the best moment is post adulthood when someone reconnects to religion (or connects to a religion for first time). It is at that time they have questions and they need good answers. And if they stick, that means they are getting the right answers. People following a religion they were born into is just like living in their parent's house. They have not made the house brick by brick like parents. We need to make our own spirituality and connection with God (knowledge/truth) brick by brick.

The idea of encouraging good and discouraging evil, in the case of certain other religions, is based on the understanding about the nature and value of good states and harm in bad ones, beginning with attachment to sense objects. While Buddhism does encourage all kinds of good, its aim however is to understand all states, be it good, bad or indeterminate, and also all matter, as impermanent, insubstantial and non-self. In other words, while other religions “understand the value” of say, morality, Buddhism “sees it for what it is”.

I guess for bad states, we have been given 5 basic Evils which misguide man.

And this understanding would include seeing them as elements, as aggregates, as base, as cause (karma), resultants or functional, as wholesome, unwholesome or indeterminate and more. One also comes to know besides the characteristics and manifestation of each reality, their functions and proximate cause. However from the very beginning, understanding the difference between concept and reality is necessary if further development is to happen.

So while other religions, despite seeing the value of good and harm of evil, end up ‘identifying’ with their experiences as me, mine and I, Buddhism does not see any ‘self’ or ‘soul‘ anywhere, but only impersonal elements.

But then aren't you trying to find out how these elements work in each 'person'? And don't you assess how things are within 'yourself'?

The fact is that you and I make reference to moral states all day and this is because they are very much real. Kindness is a state of mind, ill-will is a state of mind, and similarly moral restraint is a state of mind. Each of these has particular characteristic, function and cause. They can be referred to and communicated to others precisely because everyone experiences them, except that there is no understanding involved. And this is why we need to at least learn about them from those who do understand. And why failing this we end up with our own misleading theories.

We believe the Blueprint for these States of Mind is the Cause of all Causes. That is how we see Waheguru.

You mean anything that we can think of about a situation can be referred to as reflecting some underlying truth?

Precisely, there are things (or Truth(s)) hidden behind everything which we may not see, which might change our judgement later. So the most wise person is the one who sees the Complete Truth.

Let me give example of a newly married couple. The young wife does not get up on time in the morning and husband scolds and berates her. Then wife tells the husband that he snores and she can't sleep. Now you have a fight with no reason, which should have been avoided. But a Truth about husband was NOT known to husband himself. It was some Truth observed by the other person. We are all lacking in knowledge of Truth, in some form or the other.

One starts off ignorant about the Truth and then one hears about it. Most people do not even appreciate it but for those who do; it starts with intellectual understanding and reflective acceptance. This *is* a level of understanding and must accumulate before it can become ‘practice’. If one thinks to practice when the understanding at the intellectual level is absent or weak, one can be sure that the driving force must be ignorance and craving.

What do you mean by practice Kj?

Practice means speaking Truth all the time, even if Truth hurts. Being honest in all your work dealings. Never bribing a cop just to let go off ticket or get your file attested in some government office. Having the patience that people are corrupted and if you stick to Truth, things will take time to get done. Truth means not taking one minute more than your regular lunch time. Truth means being in office when it starts. There are so many things, and at each action in your life, you can be or not be following Truth.

Like I said above, one hears about the Truth, accepts it and proceeds from there. And as explained, the Truth according to Buddhism is just these experiences through the five senses and the mind and their objects (excepting concepts / ideas) when known for what they are. After having made the reality vs. concept distinction, we can be sure that if we do not have any awareness of say, visible object and only the perception of people and things, that there must indeed be ignorance there. Or, since we accept that each reality must have a characteristic, if we find ourselves thinking for example, that objects and situations perceived are real, then not only is there ignorance, but wrong understanding as well.

This is intellectual understanding, and is how it must be for every beginner. There is much to be developed (over lifetimes) at this level itself before little by little, ‘practice’ arises and develops. So you don’t actually need to have great wisdom before you can let go, indeed there must be an element of detachment from the very beginning of development, including at the level of intellectual understanding. Only this happens with understanding and is not something we can decide to ‘do’ or make happen.

Agreed that Truth is what we sense through the five senses. But in Sikhism we have been taught that what you see, hear, touch etc. in this world will be lost. So what happens when you die? Does the world become a fiction for you? Or you become a fiction for the world? Now Death is another big Truth for all those who have been Born. But only Guru (or a spiritual master) can help your realize that truth! And when you realize the Truth, your actions in life change. I think that is when True Detachment kicks in.

 

[prakash.s.bagga]

KANWALJEET SINGH JI,

First and the last part of your post are the most appropriate views you have presented.I greatly appreciate your these views.

Prakash.S.Bagga

 

[Archived_member14]

Prakash ji,

CONFUSED Ji,

Your concept of ?ONE CONSCIOUSNESS " is well understandable and this is the only "TRUTH" we should talk about.
Other than this truth everything else is relative and more one goes far in explanations there is "CNFUSION "Oonly.

In Sikh philosophy what is being refered as TRUTH" is the reference of this consciosness only.There is complete knowledge of this consciousness in terms of DIVINE WORD as GURU.So nothing beyond this word GURU.

The above explanation should be clear enough.

Prakash.S.Bagga

C: I am not sure whether I grasped what you wanted to convey.
The ‘one consciousness’ that I was referring to is not something that is underlying or common to all, but in fact what is uniquely experienced at any given moment. What is common is that for each person, there must be only one experience at a time. I point this out because we usually get the impression for example, that we see, hear and think simultaneously when in fact this can’t actually happen. And because we don’t know this, we then go on to form ideas about reality which must necessarily then be wrong.

 

[Archived_member14]

Kanwaljit ji,


===
Quote:I once suggested that people who are attracted to religion do so initially, because of the teachings about the value of morality, kindness, compassion, giving, honesty and other kinds of good. Indeed one of my intentions was to encourage people here to consider more about this aspect of their religion while I try to overlook the other ideas that I do not agree with. This was fine in theory, but now I realize that it is not so in practice.

Kj:
I think the best moment is post adulthood when someone reconnects to religion (or connects to a religion for first time).


C: I don’t think this is necessarily so. Just because we are attracted to a religion does not necessarily mean that we understand what it is that we are seeking. Obviously we start off with ignorance and some craving, even when it is a reaction to the perception of something being wrong with our lives. The teachings do not have any magical effect, and people find what they seek in it. So religion likely becomes just another object of attachment, conceit and view. And when added with the fact that as adults, reactions rooted in these three proliferations have become habitual, things become even harder especially given the possibility of being fooled into thinking that one is on the right track.

True when we are young we are usually drunk in the perception of youth. Not only do we not consider the facts of old age, sickness and death, but we often also strongly believe in ourselves. This latter is often the reason why young people are unwilling to pay any attention to the suggestions of religion. I however believe that a major fault lies is in the way that it is generally presented by the adults around them. And this reflects how these adults themselves must lack in understanding.

===
Kj:
It is at that time they have questions and they need good answers. And if they stick, that means they are getting the right answers.


C: In my own experience, even in the presence of the best of teachers, wrong questions are asked and when the appropriate answers are given, they are easily misinterpreted. The reason is because of one’s own lack of understanding and the tendency to grasp at everything in order to satisfy the ‘self’. It takes some wisdom to ask the right questions, but the truth is that mostly we ask not for the sake of understanding, but with the aim of getting results. Also I think you will agree that in reality most adults do end up in the presence of teachers who are not wise at all. What happens then is that these teachers will teach in a way catering to the desires of the followers, and this can never lead to any good. Yet, they all believe that they are getting the right answers and this is why they stick to the teacher.

===
Kj:
People following a religion they were born into is just like living in their parent's house. They have not made the house brick by brick like parents. We need to make our own spirituality and connection with God (knowledge/truth) brick by brick.


C: At one time I entertained the idea that, given the fact that young people are presented with a distorted view about their own religion as reflected in the way people around them practice it, to begin and question the religion they are born into is a sign of intelligence. But since then I’ve come to distinguish intelligence from wisdom and therefore do not think that way anymore. Besides people are motivated all the time by ignorance and craving including when they agree or disagree with religion.

So in fact to follow the religion we are born into or any other religion is not the question, since it comes down to whether or not any level of understanding does arise. The bricks used as building block must therefore refer to instances of such understanding arising and not some vague idea bout following a particular religion.

====
Quote:And this understanding would include seeing them as elements, as aggregates, as base, as cause (karma), resultants or functional, as wholesome, unwholesome or indeterminate and more. One also comes to know besides the characteristics and manifestation of each reality, their functions and proximate cause. However from the very beginning, understanding the difference between concept and reality is necessary if further development is to happen.

So while other religions, despite seeing the value of good and harm of evil, end up ‘identifying’ with their experiences as me, mine and I, Buddhism does not see any ‘self’ or ‘soul‘ anywhere, but only impersonal elements.

Kj:
But then aren't you trying to find out how these elements work in each 'person'? And don't you assess how things are within 'yourself'?


C: I do often make the mistake of attributing experiences to self and persons, but I’m often reminded about this. Reference to ‘you’ and ‘me’ when making a statement about reality is for the purpose of distinguishing different ‘streams of consciousness’ which must necessarily be separate and distinct. When making a statement about particular characteristic, function and proximate cause and pointing out the fact of conditionality and the general characteristics of impermanence, insubstantiality and non-self, one must take care about associating this with a ‘self’.

Feeling is feeling, not my or your feeling. If I forget this, I move away from understanding feeling for what it is. If I try to assess what feeling is in terms of how it works “in me”, then I’m not talking about feeling itself, but about me and mine. If I compare my experiences with those of other people, then it is a story about “I” or conceit. Indeed when feeling is known directly, it is known as just an ‘element’ and it is in this very process that one comes to understand that there is no self. So in fact it is not even about convincing oneself of anything.

=====
Quote:You mean anything that we can think of about a situation can be referred to as reflecting some underlying truth?

Kj:
Precisely, there are things (or Truth(s)) hidden behind everything which we may not see, which might change our judgement later. So the most wise person is the one who sees the Complete Truth.


C: Reading the first half of the first sentence, I thought that you were getting somewhere. But when it came to the idea about ‘change of judgment’ and of ‘complete’ truth, I realized that you were not referring to what I thought you might have.

There are of course underlying truths to every conventional situation conceived of and the objects of which it is composed. When for example I perceive of a train that I have to catch, this can only happen because there are the realities such as seeing experiencing visible object, thinking based on past memory and body consciousness experiencing pressure and hardness. These being ephemeral can only be understood as and when they appear or not at all. Hence the idea of revisiting whereby what was not known is now revealed and our minds changing, does not apply here. This and the idea of complete / incomplete truth seem therefore to be about conventional situations.

Conventional situations are not real since they can only ever be “thought about”. Anything about it which comes across as truth or untruth, must also therefore be a product of thinking about things based on difference in information.

=====
Kj:
Let me give example of a newly married couple. The young wife does not get up on time in the morning and husband scolds and berates her. Then wife tells the husband that he snores and she can't sleep. Now you have a fight with no reason, which should have been avoided. But a Truth about husband was NOT known to husband himself. It was some Truth observed by the other person. We are all lacking in knowledge of Truth, in some form or the other.


C: The example given is about change of stance due to difference in information received. If the truth that you are referring to is known by similar kind of process, then I doubt it would be something I’d consider Truth.

=====
Quote:One starts off ignorant about the Truth and then one hears about it. Most people do not even appreciate it but for those who do; it starts with intellectual understanding and reflective acceptance. This *is* a level of understanding and must accumulate before it can become ‘practice’. If one thinks to practice when the understanding at the intellectual level is absent or weak, one can be sure that the driving force must be ignorance and craving.

What do you mean by practice Kj?

Kj:
Practice means speaking Truth all the time, even if Truth hurts. Being honest in all your work dealings. Never bribing a cop just to let go off ticket or get your file attested in some government office. Having the patience that people are corrupted and if you stick to Truth, things will take time to get done. Truth means not taking one minute more than your regular lunch time. Truth means being in office when it starts. There are so many things, and at each action in your life, you can be or not be following Truth.


C: If what you are saying is in fact a reference to understanding the value of good states and how these can develop, I will agree with you. However if you are referring to courses of action that must be undertaken irrespective of whether any understanding is involved, this to me is the stuff of rite and ritual, and which I see as wrong.

=====
<snip>
Kj:
Agreed that Truth is what we sense through the five senses. But in Sikhism we have been taught that what you see, hear, touch etc. in this world will be lost.


C: All realities rise and fall away completely in an instant. However when one consciousness falls away, it conditions the next instance of consciousness and passes on all that has been accumulated. We forget about our experiences in past lives, but we certainly carry over the tendencies for good and bad that have arisen in the past such that they must arise again in the future.

=====
Kj:
So what happens when you die? Does the world become a fiction for you? Or you become a fiction for the world?


C: All we know is ‘conventional’ death just as it is with everything else. We are swimming in the ocean of concepts from birth to death and therefore our life is lived like in a dream. In reality death is a particular type of resultant consciousness, so is the case with birth. And what we call ‘life’ is composed of yet other types of resultant consciousness, interspersed with moments of volitional consciousness which are of the nature of cause. When death arises, it is followed immediately by rebirth as another being. But conditionality rolls on whether we are here or somewhere else.

=====
Kj:
Now Death is another big Truth for all those who have been Born.


C: Right on!

====
Kj:
But only Guru (or a spiritual master) can help your realize that truth! And when you realize the Truth, your actions in life change. I think that is when True Detachment kicks in.


C: There must always be beginning steps to everything. Big detachment must start with small detachment.

 

[Kanwaljit.Singh]

Kj:
I think the best moment is post adulthood when someone reconnects to religion (or connects to a religion for first time).


C: I don’t think this is necessarily so. Just because we are attracted to a religion does not necessarily mean that we understand what it is that we are seeking. Obviously we start off with ignorance and some craving, even when it is a reaction to the perception of something being wrong with our lives. The teachings do not have any magical effect, and people find what they seek in it. So religion likely becomes just another object of attachment, conceit and view. And when added with the fact that as adults, reactions rooted in these three proliferations have become habitual, things become even harder especially given the possibility of being fooled into thinking that one is on the right track.

Yes it shouldn't be superficial, you have to dig inside your soul like a mole, continuously, go deeper and deeper!

===

It takes some wisdom to ask the right questions, but the truth is that mostly we ask not for the sake of understanding, but with the aim of getting results. Also I think you will agree that in reality most adults do end up in the presence of teachers who are not wise at all. What happens then is that these teachers will teach in a way catering to the desires of the followers, and this can never lead to any good. Yet, they all believe that they are getting the right answers and this is why they stick to the teacher.

A good teacher will also make you ask the right questions. In our Gurbani, Guru asks some amazing questions and answers them in the next Stanza. Like you are having a conversation.

====

Quote:You mean anything that we can think of about a situation can be referred to as reflecting some underlying truth?

Kj:
Precisely, there are things (or Truth(s)) hidden behind everything which we may not see, which might change our judgement later. So the most wise person is the one who sees the Complete Truth.


C: Reading the first half of the first sentence, I thought that you were getting somewhere. But when it came to the idea about ‘change of judgment’ and of ‘complete’ truth, I realized that you were not referring to what I thought you might have.

There are of course underlying truths to every conventional situation conceived of and the objects of which it is composed. When for example I perceive of a train that I have to catch, this can only happen because there are the realities such as seeing experiencing visible object, thinking based on past memory and body consciousness experiencing pressure and hardness. These being ephemeral can only be understood as and when they appear or not at all. Hence the idea of revisiting whereby what was not known is now revealed and our minds changing, does not apply here. This and the idea of complete / incomplete truth seem therefore to be about conventional situations.

Conventional situations are not real since they can only ever be “thought about”. Anything about it which comes across as truth or untruth, must also therefore be a product of thinking about things based on difference in information.

I am talking about the fact that not everyone can see the big picture. And change of judgement revolves around finding more pieces to the puzzle than you thought

=====

Kj:
Let me give example of a newly married couple. The young wife does not get up on time in the morning and husband scolds and berates her. Then wife tells the husband that he snores and she can't sleep. Now you have a fight with no reason, which should have been avoided. But a Truth about husband was NOT known to husband himself. It was some Truth observed by the other person. We are all lacking in knowledge of Truth, in some form or the other.


C: The example given is about change of stance due to difference in information received. If the truth that you are referring to is known by similar kind of process, then I doubt it would be something I’d consider Truth.

This is example of not looking before you leap. We think we know everything or so. We fire our mouths at first word of criticism from someone. And basically everyone is unhappy
=====

Kj:
So what happens when you die? Does the world become a fiction for you? Or you become a fiction for the world?


C: All we know is ‘conventional’ death just as it is with everything else. We are swimming in the ocean of concepts from birth to death and therefore our life is lived like in a dream. In reality death is a particular type of resultant consciousness, so is the case with birth. And what we call ‘life’ is composed of yet other types of resultant consciousness, interspersed with moments of volitional consciousness which are of the nature of cause. When death arises, it is followed immediately by rebirth as another being. But conditionality rolls on whether we are here or somewhere else.

Well said.. death as consciousness! And immediate rebirth.. Hmm.

 

[prakash.s.bagga]

CONFUSED Ji,
You have rightly thought of "CONSCIOUSNESS".

We should talk.think and live with this CONSCIOUSNESS only.All talks other than this CONSCIOUSNESS are futile and yieldno fruitful results.

Gurbaani is the SIMPLEST way of remaining in contact with this CONSCIOUSNESS because Gurbaani is all about this Consciousness only .Gurbaani connects thru DIVINE knowledge of NAAAMu of this CONSCIOUSNESS.

The bliss of thisDIVINE CONSCIOUSNESS can not be realised thru talks or any other such efforts

Prakash.S.Bagga

 

[Archived_member14]

Kanwaljit ji,


Quote:Kj:
I think the best moment is post adulthood when someone reconnects to religion (or connects to a religion for first time).


C: I don’t think this is necessarily so. Just because we are attracted to a religion does not necessarily mean that we understand what it is that we are seeking. Obviously we start off with ignorance and some craving, even when it is a reaction to the perception of something being wrong with our lives. The teachings do not have any magical effect, and people find what they seek in it. So religion likely becomes just another object of attachment, conceit and view. And when added with the fact that as adults, reactions rooted in these three proliferations have become habitual, things become even harder especially given the possibility of being fooled into thinking that one is on the right track.

Kanwaljit:
Yes it shouldn't be superficial, you have to dig inside your soul like a mole, continuously, go deeper and deeper!


Con: I think we need to be precise in this matter.

What is it to be superficial, what is it to be deep and what is it to ‘dig inside’? If we start off with wrong perception and wrong understanding, the end result must also be wrong, although it would appear right to the one in whom it is all happening.

Introspection is an activity much praised by all; however this is almost all the time, a navel-gazing activity. Understanding must be involved every step of the way, if not, what appears sincere and aimed at self-knowledge may in fact just be a trick played by ‘self’ to perpetuate itself.

We may appear to think less and less about other people and grow to consider more, our own reactions to situations. But this could well be aimed at the kind of results which arouses pleasant feelings to which we are then attached, which is no different from what use to happen while involved in judging other people. So is this deep or is it as superficial as ever? If it is simply a reaction to pleasant feelings as used to happen, could one then said to have dug any deeper inside?

One needs to take care not to be taken in by the perception of a ‘self’ who must dig deeper into his own mind or some such. After all if a ‘self’ does not in fact exist and the idea of mind is based on the perception of something ‘lasting in time’, this would then not be a good starting point.

But of course it is to be expected that we would start off mostly going wrong, and in fact this would happen quite often all the way through until wisdom has been developed to some good extent. The point however is that we need to recognize wrong as wrong and not mistake it for right and insist upon it.

===
<snip>
C: Conventional situations are not real since they can only ever be “thought about”. Anything about it which comes across as truth or untruth, must also therefore be a product of thinking about things based on difference in information.

Kanwaljit:
I am talking about the fact that not everyone can see the big picture. And change of judgement revolves around finding more pieces to the puzzle than you thought.


Con: And what I was saying is that this applies only to conventional reality and situations. This is not to say that thinking as you suggest is useless, indeed it must be useful in our day to day living particularly when involving interaction with other people. However I distinguish such thinking from the development of wisdom itself. Besides, as I suggested with regard to the idea of introspection, here too, attachment and self-view may well be the motivating factor. In which case, the end result will only have the appearance of wisdom, but not so in reality.

The development of understanding must have the present moment reality as object. This is not something that we ‘think about’, indeed if we find ourselves thinking too much about it, this is likely because of attachment, while the correct development of understanding must necessarily involve some degree of detachment.

=====
<snip>
Kanwaljit:
This is example of not looking before you leap. We think we know everything or so. We fire our mouths at first word of criticism from someone. And basically everyone is unhappy.


Con: Again, although this is good advice, it does not necessarily point to the development of wisdom, the kind that I refer to. ‘Looking before one leaps’ may be a result of understanding there and then, the unwholesome state of mind arisen. However it is also possible that some self-serving motives was underlying of which one was not aware, but which comes across as sincere. On the social level this may appear to have resulted in good, however in terms of the development of wisdom and other good states, no good likely happened at all.

=====
Quote:Kj:
So what happens when you die? Does the world become a fiction for you? Or you become a fiction for the world?


C: All we know is ‘conventional’ death just as it is with everything else. We are swimming in the ocean of concepts from birth to death and therefore our life is lived like in a dream. In reality death is a particular type of resultant consciousness, so is the case with birth. And what we call ‘life’ is composed of yet other types of resultant consciousness, interspersed with moments of volitional consciousness which are of the nature of cause. When death arises, it is followed immediately by rebirth as another being. But conditionality rolls on whether we are here or somewhere else.

Kanwaljit:
Well said.. death as consciousness! And immediate rebirth.. Hmm.


Con:
Just like now really.
One moment of consciousness falls away which must give rise to another moment, as long as the fuel remains. The fuel is not this ‘body’ which we have grown to identify with and associated with ‘our life’. But is the attachment which we’ve accumulated over the endless round of existence and which we clearly have kept adding to in this life itself.

Almost no one ever thinks to study consciousness itself, being that ignorance invariably arises and with this follows attachment and wrong understanding that have ‘concepts’ as object. With no understanding of the reality of the moment, the inclination is to then take those perceptions very seriously. From this we then go on to deny ideas that lie outside of our world view.

We deny rebirth, but do we know the “birth” of this life!? Have we ever had any inclination to even wonder about it, or do we just push it to the back of our minds or explain it away one way or another? Do we not end up denying that which we have zero understanding about or which we misunderstand completely? Is this not like a child covering her eyes with her hands, believing then that the object in front of her must have therefore disappeared?

 

[prakash.s.bagga]

CONFUSED Ji.
I would refer to the conent of your last para' Almost no one ever thinks to study consciousness itsel".I appreciate this is actually what is really important in life.
Can you pl answer the following

1,,What is the way of studying this consciousness ?
2...What is Going to happen having studied this consciousness?

I look forward to your post on these points.

Prakash.S.Bagga

 

[prakash.s.bagga]

KANWALJIT SINGH Ji,/CONFUSED Ji

I have read your postings with personal attention and I salute to your way of presenting logics.At such a age of your it is really a gift to you thru SATiGURu Ji.

I am sure you can come up with very strong understanding of Gurbaani to guide the younger generation with strong convition.

Confused Ji is again marvellous eloculator if he can be more specific about Consciousness it would be a great contribution from him.

With best wishes to both of you

Prakash.s.bagga

 

[Archived_member14]

Prakash ji,


Other matters kept coming up and I couldn’t find time to respond earlier.
You asked:

Prakash:
1,,What is the way of studying this consciousness ?


C: Although you have not asked the question in the way that only someone who has already begun to study Buddhism would, I’d like to respond as though you did in fact do so.

The Buddha’s teachings should be seen as ‘descriptive’ and not ‘prescriptive’ in nature, therefore questions about ‘how to’ and ‘methods’ often reflect some degree of misunderstanding. The reason for this is that at any given moment no matter what situation and whether asleep or awake, in reality there is only one consciousness with the support of its mental concomitants arisen to experience an object. These have arisen as a result of causes and conditions some from the past and some in the present, but the important thing to realize is that there is no ‘self’ who stands apart and can control anything.

There is of course willing or intention to do this or to do that. Intention however, arises with all states, including the ones leading to the thought about doing this or doing that. It is fine, in fact necessary, to plan, to think and to follow thought suggestions in one’s conventional day to day life. And here we can talk about ‘how to’ and about ‘methods’. However when it comes to consciousness and other realities involved during these times, the understanding should be that they have been conditioned to arise and fallen away already by the time we know it. Therefore we need to realize that here, there is no method as in ‘what can be done’ or ‘what can I do’.

But of course there are causes and conditions and these can be pointed to at, such that upon hearing about them, if any understanding has been accumulated from the past, this can condition some level of the same now. The conditions for the development of understanding itself are roughly:

1. Hearing the Truth.
2. Association with the wise.
3. Wise attention.
4. Practice in accordance to the Truth.

The above needs elaboration and much explanation, however I won’t go into that now, but instead start to address your question more directly.

Consciousness is one of two conditioned mental realities, the other being the mental factors which accompany it and which perform functions the consciousness itself cannot. We can’t therefore be expected to come to understand consciousness without also understanding these other mental realities. Not only this, since our life in fact consists of experiences through the five senses and the mind, of ‘material realities’, without which consciousness which ‘thinks’ about this and that could never take place, we need to also develop understanding about these material realities as well. Indeed the first ‘insight knowledge’ which is a very high level of wisdom but only the beginning before there can be the other insight knowledges, is the clear distinction between mental and physical phenomena.

So we start off with understanding intellectually, that there are two kinds of conditioned realities, one mental and the other physical. The former is that which can and must experience something, the latter is that which cannot experience anything. These two are considered ‘realities’ because they have characteristic, function, manifestation and proximate cause. And this is what distinguishes both from ‘concepts’. Concepts are mind created and therefore have not objective reality. Any apparent breaking down of concepts such as in trying to determine the chemical composition of some chemical, is done so by way of thinking in terms of more concepts, one serving the function to explain another.

So with the background of this distinction, we can then develop better understanding about whatever that goes on from moment to moment. We learn for example, to know when we take concepts for reality and when we confuse material realities for mental ones. We know when there is understanding and when there is ignorance. And understanding, we know how little or how much.

None of this however, happens as a result of ‘trying’, and given that we must understand any and every reality, this can’t happen if we think to understand one reality (such as consciousness) of our own choosing. Besides any level of understanding, including the first baby steps must come with it a corresponding level of detachment and this is opposed to attachment. And so it follows that if we are moved by desire, from which ideas about ‘how to’ and ‘methods’ are conceived, one goes further away from the goal rather than towards it.

In conclusion, there is consciousness now, and it has already fallen away. It is missing the point to try to catch it or wait to catch the next one, since in truth this is following shadows with ignorance and craving. When these tendencies are noticed often enough, it can happen then that a time will come when instead of ignorance; some level of wisdom arises with a mental or physical reality as object. And this is “how” the study of consciousness takes place.

All that said, I must confess that what I’ve written is not based on any deep understanding on my part, but as you say, I am good at exposition and therefore it is due to this ;-). As time passes, I can only admit to more ignorance and become ever more convinced that mine are just the first baby steps in the right direction. Although I believe that this is how it must be, and I should be glad to at least realize it.

====
Prakash:
2...What is Going to happen having studied this consciousness?


C: I suspect that your conception of consciousness is not the same as mine. I however will say this with regard to my own understanding, that the study of consciousness and other realities works directly to oppose and finally overcome ignorance. And being that ignorance is the root cause for all evil states, the development of wisdom works to encourage all good states. All this is aimed at enlightenment, and this means getting out of the cycle of existence.

I am not sure I have answered your question in a way that will satisfy. But do ask more questions if you think that you must.

 

[prakash.s.bagga]

CONFUSED Ji,
Your all explanaton about consciousness is excellent and worth knowing.
You will appreciate a fact that our knowledge about anything should be taken as complete when at least minimum two parametres are known about that thing.
And these two parametres are

1.....Name of the thing

2.....FigorForm of the thing

In absence of any one of above parametres my knowledge would remain incomplete
So my knowledge about 'CONSCIOUSNESS" would be complete when I know about
Name as well as Fig/Form of the consciousness.
I am interested in knowing from your goodself

The NAME [If any} of the CONSCIOUSNESS and
THE FIG/FORM of the CONSCIOUSNESS

Having known above I think I can have better understanding about CONSCIOUSNESS.

PRAKASH.S.BAGGA

 

[Ambarsaria]

Ambarsaria understands the red font parts in this section delimited by quotes.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Prakash ji,


Other matters kept coming up and I couldn’t find time to respond earlier.
You asked:

Prakash:
1,,What is the way of studying this consciousness ?


C: Although you have not asked the question in the way that only someone who has already begun to study Buddhism would, I’d like to respond as though you did in fact do so.

The Buddha’s teachings should be seen as ‘descriptive’ and not ‘prescriptive’ in nature, therefore questions about ‘how to’ and ‘methods’ often reflect some degree of misunderstanding. The reason for this is that at any given moment no matter what situation and whether asleep or awake, in reality there is only one consciousness with the support of its mental concomitants arisen to experience an object. These have arisen as a result of causes and conditions some from the past and some in the present, but the important thing to realize is that there is no ‘self’ who stands apart and can control anything.

There is of course willing or intention to do this or to do that. Intention however, arises with all states, including the ones leading to the thought about doing this or doing that. It is fine, in fact necessary, to plan, to think and to follow thought suggestions in one’s conventional day to day life. And here we can talk about ‘how to’ and about ‘methods’. However when it comes to consciousness and other realities involved during these times, the understanding should be that they have been conditioned to arise and fallen away already by the time we know it. Therefore we need to realize that here, there is no method as in ‘what can be done’ or ‘what can I do’.

But of course there are causes and conditions and these can be pointed to at, such that upon hearing about them, if any understanding has been accumulated from the past, this can condition some level of the same now. The conditions for the development of understanding itself are roughly:

1. Hearing the Truth.
2. Association with the wise.
3. Wise attention.
4. Practice in accordance to the Truth.

The above needs elaboration and much explanation, however I won’t go into that now, but instead start to address your question more directly.

Consciousness is one of two conditioned mental realities, the other being the mental factors which accompany it and which perform functions the consciousness itself cannot. We can’t therefore be expected to come to understand consciousness without also understanding these other mental realities. Not only this, since our life in fact consists of experiences through the five senses and the mind, of ‘material realities’, without which consciousness which ‘thinks’ about this and that could never take place, we need to also develop understanding about these material realities as well. Indeed the first ‘insight knowledge’ which is a very high level of wisdom but only the beginning before there can be the other insight knowledges, is the clear distinction between mental and physical phenomena.

So we start off with understanding intellectually, that there are two kinds of conditioned realities, one mental and the other physical. The former is that which can and must experience something, the latter is that which cannot experience anything. These two are considered ‘realities’ because they have characteristic, function, manifestation and proximate cause. And this is what distinguishes both from ‘concepts’. Concepts are mind created and therefore have not objective reality. Any apparent breaking down of concepts such as in trying to determine the chemical composition of some chemical, is done so by way of thinking in terms of more concepts, one serving the function to explain another.

So with the background of this distinction, we can then develop better understanding about whatever that goes on from moment to moment. We learn for example, to know when we take concepts for reality and when we confuse material realities for mental ones. And understanding, we know how little or how much. We know when there is understanding and when there is ignorance.

None of this however, happens as a result of ‘trying’, and given that we must understand any and every reality, this can’t happen if we think to understand one reality (such as consciousness) of our own choosing. Besides any level of understanding, including the first baby steps must come with it a corresponding level of detachment and this is opposed to attachment. And so it follows that if we are moved by desire, from which ideas about ‘how to’ and ‘methods’ are conceived, one goes further away from the goal rather than towards it.

In conclusion, there is consciousness now, and it has already fallen away. It is missing the point to try to catch it or wait to catch the next one, since in truth this is following shadows with ignorance and craving. When these tendencies are noticed often enough, it can happen then that a time will come when instead of ignorance; some level of wisdom arises with a mental or physical reality as object. And this is “how” the study of consciousness takes place.

All that said, I must confess that what I’ve written is not based on any deep understanding on my part, but as you say, I am good at exposition and therefore it is due to this ;-). As time passes, I can only admit to more ignorance and become ever more convinced that mine are just the first baby steps in the right direction. Although I believe that this is how it must be, and I should be glad to at least realize it.

====
Prakash:
2...What is Going to happen having studied this consciousness?


C: I suspect that your conception of consciousness is not the same as mine. I however will say this with regard to my own understanding, that the study of consciousness and other realities works directly to oppose and finally overcome ignorance. And being that ignorance is the root cause for all evil states, the development of wisdom works to encourage all good states. All this is aimed at enlightenment, and this means getting out of the cycle of existence.

I am not sure I have answered your question in a way that will satisfy. But do ask more questions if you think that you must.

Confused ji can I summarize that for myself as follows,

One is so detached and has so conditioned oneself that everything happens as good, hence one is enlightened.

That is, one does not have to think to do good.

This all being driven by understanding.

Hence, Is it equivalent to a fully enlightened soul and through your conditioning your actions and consciousness are in synch that your action/reactions have no conflict and there is no remorse or any other emotions displayed as life goes on.


The emotional part scares me as I think I will feel like a "zombie" but I am obviously making a mistake along the way of this understanding.

Please comment and correct.

Thanks.

Sat Sri Akal.

 

[prakash.s.bagga]

AMBARSARIA Ji,
You have given the perfect answer by stating the effect of understanding the consciousness as getting out of the cycle of existence.
I hope here our understanding of consiousness could not be different.
Thanks,
Prakash.S.Bagga

 

[Ambarsaria]

AMBARSARIA Ji,
You have given the perfect answer by stating the effect of understanding the consciousness as getting out of the cycle of existence.
I hope here our understanding of consiousness could not be different.
Thanks,
Prakash.S.Bagga

Prakash.s.bagga ji that is left in black as I don't understand what " ... consciousness as getting out of the cycle of existence." has anything to do with anything.

Sorry in case it was not clear. It is only the red parts that I agree with or understand within the quoted text.

Sat Sri Akal.

 

[Archived_member14]

Prakash ji,

CONFUSED Ji,
Your all explanaton about consciousness is excellent and worth knowing.
You will appreciate a fact that our knowledge about anything should be taken as complete when at least minimum two parametres are known about that thing.
And these two parametres are

1.....Name of the thing

2.....FigorForm of the thing

In absence of any one of above parametres my knowledge would remain incomplete
So my knowledge about 'CONSCIOUSNESS" would be complete when I know about
Name as well as Fig/Form of the consciousness.
I am interested in knowing from your goodself

The NAME [If any} of the CONSCIOUSNESS and
THE FIG/FORM of the CONSCIOUSNESS

Having known above I think I can have better understanding about CONSCIOUSNESS.

PRAKASH.S.BAGGA

I am not sure what you are asking. You highlight ‘name’ and ‘figure / form’. While I have come across ‘name’ used with reference to ‘mental realities’, although I would not use it myself, I suspect that yours must be different still, from what I have encountered so far. And although I have seen ‘form’ used in place of ‘material realities’, which again is a term I wouldn’t use, but since you are using it with relation to consciousness and in conjunction with ‘figure’, I have no idea what it is that you are pointing at. I tried to look up ‘figure / form’ on the internet, but no success.

So please do explain what it is that you have in mind exactly.

 

[Archived_member14]

Ambarsaria ji,


Thanks for taking an interest and asking questions.

====
Ambarsaria:
Confused ji can I summarize that for myself as follows,


Quote:One is so detached and has so conditioned oneself that everything happens as good, hence one is enlightened.


Con: Detachment is the mental factor of non-attachment which arises together with wisdom and also during other wholesome states. When it is with wisdom, it serves the function of detaching from what otherwise is the object of ignorance and attachment. Just as wisdom when arisen, accumulates as tendency, so too detachment when arisen, accumulates.

Enlightenment is the function not of detachment, but of understanding. And this is not about seeing everything as “good” but “as it is”. Remember, all conditioned phenomena are by nature, “dukkha”.

===
Ambarsaria:
That is, one does not have to think to do good.
This all being driven by understanding.

Con: After the first stage of enlightenment, there is still attachment to sense objects and hence aversion continues to arise, and also ignorance and conceit remains until one reaches full enlightenment. What is no more at this stage are wrong understanding, doubt, jealousy and tendency to rite and ritual. And because there is no more wrong understanding, the tendency to lie, steal, kill, involvement in illicit sex and to taking intoxicants no more exists. So with reference to these, it is not a matter of thinking ‘not to’, but just that it won’t ever happen.

When it comes to lesser forms of attachment and aversion, because of the level of understanding, these decrease in strength and frequency. Besides, because wisdom supports the development of other kinds of good, such as kindness, compassion, sympathetic joy and equanimity, these readily arise during times which otherwise would have given rise to attachment and aversion. And this may or may not be prompted by thoughts to do good. There is no rule in this regard.

====
Ambarsaria:
Hence, Is it equivalent to a fully enlightened soul and through your conditioning your actions and consciousness are in synch that your action/reactions have no conflict and there is no remorse or any other emotions displayed as life goes on.


Con: The tendency to remorse does not exist from the first stage of enlightenment. I would not think in terms of good actions on the part of enlightened individuals, especially the fully enlightened ones, as being the result of ‘conditioning’, but rather that of having “eradicated” the tendency to wrong / evil states.

While the lesser enlightened ones still go by wholesome states of mind, the fully enlightened are driven by what is called, ‘functional states’. Wholesome and unwholesome states are of the nature of cause which must bring results, but Arahats being fully enlightened, have functional consciousness instead, and these can’t produce any results. They however are nevertheless the culmination of the good accumulated from the past; including times well before any understanding was developed.

======
Ambarsaria:
The emotional part scares me as I think I will feel like a "zombie" but I am obviously making a mistake along the way of this understanding.
Please comment and correct.

Con: Yes, you are imagining wrongly. And since I think that what you have in mind are states (emotions) that are undesirable even for us now, I’d like to ask you why you value them?

All enlightened beings obviously have much greater kindness, generosity, compassion, sympathy, faith, moral shame and so on than you and I can imagine. When it comes to “equanimity” with relation to other beings, this is with the understanding about karma and its results. This arises with the perception that nothing can be done to help the other person, and often following moments of pure kindness and compassion. But this is far from cold or zombie like, but in fact very bright, being that it is rooted in, besides wisdom, the mental factors non-attachment and non-aversion as well.
I hope this has cleared things up Ambarsaria ji.