• Welcome to all New Sikh Philosophy Network Forums!
    Explore Sikh Sikhi Sikhism...
    Sign up Log in

The God Element

Ambarsaria

ੴ / Ik▫oaʼnkār
Writer
SPNer
Dec 21, 2010
3,387
5,690
Confused ji thank you very much. That has cleared it up for me.

A little bit of the mental agitation trying to understand has subsided.

Sata Sri Akal.mundahug
 
Aug 28, 2010
1,514
1,116
73
CONFUSED Ji,
I consider CONSCIOUSNESS primarily as a "CONCEPT".Therefore I am interested in knowing the basic definition or reference of CONSCIOUS NESS.This would enable me to understand the concept of CONSCIOUSNESS as I can find from within GGS Whether it is same or different so that I may not be interacting in a wrong way.
Prakash.s.Bagga
 
Nov 14, 2004
408
388
63
Thailand
Prakash ji,


CONFUSED Ji,
I consider CONSCIOUSNESS primarily as a "CONCEPT".Therefore I am interested in knowing the basic definition or reference of CONSCIOUS NESS.This would enable me to understand the concept of CONSCIOUSNESS as I can find from within GGS Whether it is same or different so that I may not be interacting in a wrong way.
Prakash.s.Bagga

I understand consciousness at the conceptual level too. But there are concepts which refer to that which is real and to those that do not exist in reality. The concept of consciousness is an example of the former and a most important one at that. This is because without it, nothing can be known; not the mental factors, not the material phenomena, not the unconditioned reality and no ‘concepts’ would ever be conceived of. This means that as long as there is life, there is consciousness, one experiencing one object, followed by another, on and on. So for example as you read this message, there must be at least seeing consciousness, thinking and life faculty arising in alternation very rapidly and continuously without any gap. But of course we know this only in theory and you are asking further, what in theory is the nature of consciousness?

Here is what I found on the web (and did some edition to):

“Consciousness (citta) is that which is conscious; the meaning is that it knows (vijaanaati) an object. So it is said: ‘consciousness has the characteristic of knowing objects.’(As 112) For although such causal conditions as those of support and immediate contiguity are also relevant, consciousness does not arise in the absence of an object, and therefore its characteristic is spoken of with reference to that. This rejects the view that consciousness arises in the absence of an object.”
====

“By ‘consciousness’ is meant that which ‘thinks of’ its object, is aware variously”.
...
“But consciousness does not arise singly. Just as in saying ‘the king has arrived,’ it is clear that he does not come alone...........But it may be said that consciousness has arisen in the sense of a forerunner. For in worldly phenomena consciousness is the chief, consciousness is the principal, consciousness is the forerunner.”

====
“Its characteristic is cognizing an object.

Its function is being a forerunner, precursor. It is like a town-guard, seated at cross-roads in the middle of town. He notes each townsman or visitor who comes, that is, the object. Thus it is the chief or leader in knowing an object.

It has connection as manifestation. We read:
“The consciousness which arises next does so immediately after the preceding consciousness, forming a connected series.” Consciousness arises and falls away, succeeding one another.

The proximate cause of consciousness is mental phenomena and material phenomena. Consciousness is a conditioned reality. Conditioned realities cannot arise singly, and thus, consciousness does not arise without accompanying mental factors.”

====
"By 'consciousness' (citta) is meant that which thinks of its object, is aware variously. Or, inasmuch as this word 'consciousness' is common to all states or classes of consciousness, that which is known as worldly, moral, immoral, or the great inoperative, is termed 'consciousness', because it arranges itself in a series (cintoti, or, its own series or continuity) by way of apperception in a process of thought. And the resultant is also termed 'consciousness' because it is accumulated (cito) by kamma and the corruptions.

"Moreover, all (four classes) are termed 'consciousness' because they are variegated (citra) according to circumstance. The meaning of consciousness may also be understood from its capacity of producing a variety of effects.

"Herein consciousness with lust is one thing, that with hate is another, that with delusion is another, that experienced in the universe of sense is another, and those experienced in the universe of attenuated matter, etc., are others. Different is consciousness with a visible object, with an auditory object, etc.; and in that with visible object, varied is consciousness of a blue-green object, of a yellow object, etc. And the same is the case with the consciousness of auditory objects.

"And of all this consciousness one class is low, another is medium, and another is exalted. Among the low class again consciousness is different when dominated by desire-to-do, or when dominated by energy, or by investigation. Therefore the variegated nature of consciousness should be understood by way of these characteristics of association, locality, object, the degrees of comparison and dominance."

=====
And here is a good explanation by someone who truly knows what she is talking about:

< Consciousness is an element which experiences something, a reality which experiences an object. It is the “chief”, the leader in knowing the object which appears. There is not only consciousness which sees, consciousness which hears, consciousness which smells, consciousness which tastes or consciousness which experiences tangible object, there is also consciousness which thinks about many diverse subjects. The world of each person is ruled by his consciousness....

Because of visible object which appears through the eyes it seems as if there are many people living together in this world, at a certain time and in a particular location. However, if there is clear comprehension of the characteristic of the element which experiences, the reality which arises and sees the object which appears at that moment, one will know that, while there is seeing just for a short moment, there is only the world of seeing. Then there are no people, other living beings or different things. At the moment of seeing there is not yet thinking about shape and form, there is not yet thinking of a story about what is seen.

When we think that there is the world, beings, people or different things, we should know that this is only a moment of consciousness which thinks about what appears to seeing, about visible object. Seeing occurs at a moment different from thinking about what appears. For everyone there is consciousness which arises just for a moment and is then succeeded by the next one, and this happens continuously. Thus, it seems that there is the whole wide world with many different people and things, but we should have right understanding of what the world is. We should know that realities appear one at a time, and that they appear only for one moment of consciousness. Since consciousness arise and fall away, succeeding one another very rapidly, it seems that there is the world which does not disintegrate, the world which lasts, with beings, people and many different things. In reality the world lasts just for one moment, namely, when consciousness arises and cognizes an object just for that moment; and then the world falls away together with the consciousness. ...

Mindfulness of consciousness means that, when there is for instance seeing, mindfulness is mindful, non-forgetful, of its characteristic. We should investigate, study and apply our attention to the reality of seeing so that we shall gradually have more understanding of it. We can come to know it as the element which experiences what is appearing through the eyes. ...>

and

<Consciousness is the reality which clearly knows the object which appears, be it through the eyes, the ears, the nose, the tongue, the body-sense or the mind. Whatever objects the mental factor contact, contacts, the consciousness which arises together with it clearly knows the characteristic of that object, it knows each different object. When it is said of consciousness, the reality which experiences something, that it has the characteristic of clearly knowing an object, we should understand what that means. It means that consciousness knows the different characteristics of the different objects appearing through the senses or through the mind-door. Consciousness is the reality which clearly knows an object, and the object is a condition for consciousness to arise and to experience that object. The object is object-condition (aaramma.na-paccaya), it is a condition for the arising of consciousness by being its object. Consciousness cannot arise without knowing an object, but besides object-condition there are also several other conditions for each type of consciousness which arises.>

Prakash ji, I hope the above is enough to give you an idea as to the Buddhist understanding of consciousness.
 
Aug 28, 2010
1,514
1,116
73
CONFUSED JI,
YES Now I understand your concept of Consciousness which is related to the Consciousness of thoughts,feelings and senses.
In this context your interpretation is very correct.
But I was probably thinking of some SUPER DIVINE CONSCIOUSNESS which should be quite different from this .
Thank you very much for such wonderful response to my questions.
Prakash.S.Bagga
 

Ambarsaria

ੴ / Ik▫oaʼnkār
Writer
SPNer
Dec 21, 2010
3,387
5,690
CONFUSED JI,
YES Now I understand your concept of Consciousness which is related to the Consciousness of thoughts,feelings and senses.
In this context your interpretation is very correct.
But I was probably thinking of some SUPER DIVINE CONSCIOUSNESS which should be quite different from this .
Thank you very much for such wonderful response to my questions.
Prakash.S.Bagga
Prakash.S.Bagga ji it is very interesting dialog.

It appears that I interpret the following,

Confused ji: Buddhism teaches,

  • Self Enlightenment
    • Through Buddha's teachings
  • There is no dependence on,
    • Super consciousness
      • Or trying to merge in the same
  • No belief in God
  • Believes in incarnation
Prakash.S.Bagga ji:

  • Enlightenment as consciousness
    • Enlightenment through understanding
  • Belief in super consciousness
    • Merging into super consciousness
    • All efforts towards it
      • Ik Jyot (one light)
  • Belief in God
  • Believes in Soul never dying and staying one
Ambarsaria:

  • Enlightenment as consciousness
    • Enlightenment through understanding
  • Super consciousness
    • Does not believe in it
    • Does not believe in the merging business
  • Belief in God
    • God is conceptual personification of the truth behind all in the Universe
    • Living in maximum consonance with the truth is Enlightenment
  • Believes in Soul as consciousness that grows with you from Birth to Death
    • The soul interacts with other souls and develops and impacts every soul interacted with
    • Soul interactions do not need physical face-to-face sensory exchanges
    • Souls are always interacting through mental processes including
    • Souls as a single entity dissipate at death
      • Become pats of other souls that interacted or will interact with the soul in means other than physically live interaction (writings, videos, memories, etc.)

Just summarizing and sharing my understanding for comments and not to read anyone's mind.

Sat Sri Akal.
 
Nov 14, 2004
408
388
63
Thailand
Ambarsaria ji,


Some comments regarding your summary of my position:


Prakash.S.Bagga ji it is very interesting dialog.

It appears that I interpret the following,

Confused ji: Buddhism teaches,

  • Self Enlightenment
    • Through Buddha's teachings
  • There is no dependence on,
    • Super consciousness
      • Or trying to merge in the same
  • No belief in God
  • Believes in incarnation


C: Incarnation or reincarnation is what Hindus believe in. The Tibetan Buddhist tradition go by the same concept as well, but this is because they do not really understand the Buddha’s message.

But the Buddha taught “rebirth”, not incarnation and reincarnation. Indeed the latter idea is necessitated in the minds of those people who can’t get away from the idea of a lasting entity or soul, which is what Tibetan Buddhists appear to be trapped in, in spite of their knowledge about conditionality and dependent origination. So in fact, incarnation or reincarnation is compatible with the belief in soul or Atman more than it does with those who believe in non-self or Anatta.

“Self Enlightenment”, I wonder what you mean by this? It is obvious that enlightenment is what each individual experiences as a result of understanding accumulated and developed from the past. Is this not how you’d conceive of it as happening for a Sikh as well? Also why have you stated the Buddhist position regarding enlightenment as being “through Buddha's teachings” distinct from the Sikh one which is, “through understanding”? Does it impress upon you that the Buddha’s way has little to do with any real understanding but more to do with working with certain set principles?
 

Ambarsaria

ੴ / Ik▫oaʼnkār
Writer
SPNer
Dec 21, 2010
3,387
5,690
Ambarsaria ji,


Some comments regarding your summary of my position:





C: Incarnation or reincarnation is what Hindus believe in. The Tibetan Buddhist tradition go by the same concept as well, but this is because they do not really understand the Buddha’s message.

But the Buddha taught “rebirth”, not incarnation and reincarnation. Indeed the latter idea is necessitated in the minds of those people who can’t get away from the idea of a lasting entity or soul, which is what Tibetan Buddhists appear to be trapped in, in spite of their knowledge about conditionality and dependent origination. So in fact, incarnation or reincarnation is compatible with the belief in soul or Atman more than it does with those who believe in non-self or Anatta.

“Self Enlightenment”, I wonder what you mean by this? It is obvious that enlightenment is what each individual experiences as a result of understanding accumulated and developed from the past. Is this not how you’d conceive of it as happening for a Sikh as well? Also why have you stated the Buddhist position regarding enlightenment as being “through Buddha's teachings” distinct from the Sikh one which is, “through understanding”? Does it impress upon you that the Buddha’s way has little to do with any real understanding but more to do with working with certain set principles?
Confused ji I wrote that knowing the danger but felt it will be worthwhile to contrast. I can correct or change as you explained.


  • In terms of the following,
more to do with working with certain set principles?

    • Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji is a holy book that through a question and answer type logic elicits your understanding
      • It is an interactive treatise to develop understanding and is not laid out in defining a set of all inclusive rules or principles and listed in specific order of precedence or priority
      • So this I classified as "through understanding" versus if there are stages of enlightenment definition and movement from one stage to the next as being different.
      • I probably missed something and appreciate your comments or rebuke from a Buddhism perspective!
  • Also the following please,
So in fact, incarnation or reincarnation is compatible with the belief in soul or Atman (Is this Tibetan Buddhism belief!) more than it does with those who believe in non-self or Anatta (Is this your belief and is it part of Buddhism and a common referencable name for it!).
  • Sikhism believes in Atma or Soul but not in the context of incarnation or reincarnation.
I thank you and regards.

Sat Sri Akal.
 
Nov 14, 2004
408
388
63
Thailand
Ambarsaria ji,


A:
Confused ji I wrote that knowing the danger but felt it will be worthwhile to contrast. I can correct or change as you explained.


Con: I thought that this more or less might have been the case. :)

==
A:
In terms of the following,
Quote:more to do with working with certain set principles?

Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji is a holy book that through a question and answer type logic elicits your understanding
It is an interactive treatise to develop understanding and is not laid out in defining a set of all inclusive rules or principles and listed in specific order of precedence or priority
So this I classified as "through understanding" versus if there are stages of enlightenment definition and movement from one stage to the next as being different.
I probably missed something and appreciate your comments or rebuke from a Buddhism perspective!



Con: You think that the idea about stages of enlightenment is incompatible with that of understanding got through listening and discussing?

I think it was in this thread itself that I mentioned that the conditions for the development of right understanding leading to enlightenment are:
1. Hearing the Truth.
2. Association with the wise.
3. Wise reflection.
4. Practice in accordance with the Truth.

The above applies not only to those who have yet to reach the first stage, but also those who have, but yet to reach the final stage of enlightenment. Indeed the first three stages are said to ‘need more work’, and even if one has reached the stage when ‘no work needs to be done’, no one ever says no to ‘hearing and discussing’ the Truth. But of course, all this has value only if the ‘Truth’ heard is indeed the Truth. After all the Greeks also value dialogue and questioning, which to me has no real value, being that what they do talk about is not the Truth, can only therefore lead to more attachment and ignorance.

The stages of enlightenment point to the fact of particular unwholesome tendencies at each stage being eradicated completely, beginning at stage one with, wrong understanding, doubt, tendency to rite and ritual, miserliness and envy. Ignorance, conceit and craving for being are eradicated at the final stage. Even the Buddha when he was under the Bodhi tree, had to pass through all these four stages, although in his case, one succeeding the other very rapidly. In conclusion therefore, as far as I’m concerned, anyone, anywhere, if they claim full enlightenment, would have to have experienced these four stages.

====
A:
Also the following please,
Quote:So in fact, incarnation or reincarnation is compatible with the belief in soul or Atman (Is this Tibetan Buddhism belief!) more than it does with those who believe in non-self or Anatta
(Is this your belief and is it part of Buddhism and a common referencable name for it!).


Con: The Tibetans will of course deny that they believe in soul or Atman. I however do not judge a person’s position from what he thinks he beliefs or admits to. The Tibetans would talk a lot about dependent origination which points to co-dependence of mental and physical phenomena and meant to explain the very ‘existence of life’. They’d also stress much on the idea of ‘emptiness’, which although is meant to discourage clinging to all phenomena, is in fact aimed at denying their very existence in order to then assert a belief in a kind of underlying ground of being, supposedly from which all phenomena arise and fall away and are interrelated.

While dependent origination was indeed taught by the Buddha and explains why there must be birth and rebirth. And while ‘emptiness’ can be said to come out from his teachings about Anatta or non-self. The Tibetan Buddhists however end up misinterpreting and mixing these two concepts together in a way which only reinforces what must in the end be a perverted understanding of the Buddha’s message.

This above and their idea about ‘reincarnation’ (as against rebirth) points to the fact of an unwillingness to forgo of the idea of an abiding ‘self’ which moves on from life to another and which at the end (upon death of the fully enlightened), reap the fruit of success. In other words, it is self-view which is what motivates the beliefs and peculiar interpretations, yet it is self-view which must be dealt with before any other kinds of unwanted states can be seen through and finally eradicated.

Yes, there is no ‘self’ and a correct understanding is that all phenomena, both physical and mental, are Anatta or non-self. This is the Buddhist understanding.

=====
A:
Sikhism believes in Atma or Soul but not in the context of incarnation or reincarnation.

Con: Yes, I see a lot of resistance to the idea of continuation of accumulated tendencies as another ‘being’, beyond this particular life.
 
📌 For all latest updates, follow the Official Sikh Philosophy Network Whatsapp Channel:

Latest Activity

Top