🧡 If you find benefit in my videos, consider supporting the channel by joining us on Patreon and get fun extras like exclusive videos, ad-free audio-only versions, and extensive show notes: www.patreon.com/dougsseculardharma 🙂 📙 You can find my book here: books2read.com/buddhisthandbook
@smlanka4u Жыл бұрын
Mental and Physical faculties cause the mind to have some qualities, but they are not parts of the mind. Those faculties work like processes of a soul, but they are not parts of a soul.
@ahumanlikeme Жыл бұрын
The concept of neural pathways seems relevant. When we practice an act repeatedly, it eventually becomes “automatic”, a neural pathway is made. For many of us this includes driving, writing, walking - or an example you use - the practice of counting while meditating. These used to be novel, even difficult, practices that required our full attention. These are now well-worn activities that don’t require the focus of our attention to do as they previously did when we were less experienced. We might say, we need not be very conscious of those activities any longer while we do them, and indeed, find ourselves at once daydreaming.
@DougsDharma Жыл бұрын
Right, once the pathway is lain down, it requires a minimal sort of consciousness to continue.
@truth_finder2001 Жыл бұрын
Abhidhamma teachings are very important and deep. Abhidhamma can give answers for most of the confusions and questions related to Buddhist philosophy. 😊
@chriskaplan6109 Жыл бұрын
The depth of consideration, and diversity of topics/firlds/disciplines you bring to bear on these tough philosophical questions always fascinates me...enjoyable and mind scrambling! 😊
@DougsDharma Жыл бұрын
Thanks so much! Glad you are enjoying them. 😊
@xiaomaozen Жыл бұрын
In my opinion it's - first of all - important not to confuse mind with consciousness. We have to distinguish between the phenomenal first-person perspective (conscious experience: what and how do we experience?) and the scientific third-person perspective (brain/cognitive/neuro sciences etc.). In a nutshell, we simply experience (parts of) the actually parallel and widely distributed neuro-anatomical information processing process as a linear/serial one. Early Buddhists couldn't know that (they didn't have the tools of modern sciences but only their introspection). We can.
@5piles Жыл бұрын
no, we cant. we only have neural correlate monitoring and folk introspection. the science of the mind ie. the development of methods of rigorously observing the phenomenon we seek to understand, is far beyond both and explains things accurately, unlikely each of the former who until only a couple of decades ago still asserted static brain theory, the nonexistence of lucid dreams, and countless other silly position. for example christof koch who along with crick lead the search to locate the NCC but failed so spectacularly to do so that it caused him to no longer be a physicalist, now openly saying that subjective qualities are fundamentally distinct to fat, protein, water, and electricity ie. the brain.
@johnhaller7017 Жыл бұрын
The Lord Buddha's adherents armed only with The Noble Eight fold Path, were quite capable of realizing the Cessation of dukkha and it's conditional foundation. The linear/serial nature of the activities of the five aggregates, were perfectly well known to them. How else would they have achieved this realization? The nana (knowledge) is freedom itself. "A Rose, by any other name, would Smell as Sweet"
@DougsDharma Жыл бұрын
Yes, I agree it's important not to confuse mind with consciousness. On the other hand, the precise distinction between mind and consciousness is *very* confusing! 😄
@smlanka4u Жыл бұрын
Theravada Fundamentals are based on direct observations of them. A developed mind itself can see those realities.
@5piles Жыл бұрын
@@smlanka4u "maybe buddhists can do it, but i cant, so i'll stick to biological investigation" -noam chomsky
@emperorpalpatine9841 Жыл бұрын
I think saying those parallel processes are all happening unconsciously makes much more sense and is more parsimonious than claiming there are coincidental consciousness that we are not aware of. Just like how there are many parts that come together in making a computer work, but the things we see on the screen is like a unified final product. There’s an optical+auditory illusion you can look up where you hear someone saying f or b depending on how they move their lips (but the audio doesn’t change the whole time). This shows that the conscious experience of sight is integrated with that of sound rather than disintegrated conscious experiences of various senses that are separate from one another.
@DougsDharma Жыл бұрын
Right, there are a number of such examples that show how various kinds of perceptual processing work together. I agree it's most parsimonious to assume there is a single consciousness that is active, but the alternative is also fun to contemplate, in that we would not be able to know introspectively if it were the case or not.
@saralamuni Жыл бұрын
Things occur at any rate one or many at a time. Everything queues up with different priorities and then each thing is assigned to be processed sequentially (in a series) by the mind. When you reflect and meditate regularly it gives you the opportunity to clear the queue, once the queue has been cleared the mind can settle. Modern people tend let things pile up instead and then seek out distractions just to avoid handling the backlog, you can tell you have a problem if you cannot sit still and do nothing for five minutes.
@DougsDharma Жыл бұрын
🙏
@fingerprint5511 Жыл бұрын
Regardless, what matters is the experience itself, which can be proven by observing. The Buddha pointed, and warned us of intellectualising. I am aware of focusing wholly while aware of some other phenomenon, like Vedana and sound, however the mind can only focus wholly on one thing, as Sankara at a time but awareness is definitely there there is more going on that the awareness is picking up. Afterall the Citta is what reincarnates so it is aware of all. It is mind directed to focus on something that I am aware of. As you've described in driving yes it's like that when we experience as the Atta. Bottom line is awareness is aware of all simultaneously. Thanks Doug I was typing while listening plus ads so may be a bit long winded. I agree with your observations 🙏🏼 Edit - further example is when the nervous system is stressed, in fight or flight, the sympathetic system is on. I've observed the body, through focused breath and full embodiment, the body itself switch into parasympathetic system, rest and digest, while the body has let go, the mind is still stuck on the 4th Hindrance and it's the brain itself hyper aware of everything yet body is as if non existent, non responsive to the mind's focus. The Buddha said the way to awaken is through the body, yet this seeming split is still perplexing me. This was a good talk thank you, good material for Contemplation later 🙏🏼
@DougsDharma Жыл бұрын
Thanks for your thoughts! 🙏😊
@be1tube Жыл бұрын
Culadasa John Yeats discusses this seriality a little in the "fourth interlude" of "The mind illuminated." He calls it "the moments of consciousness model" which is based mainly on the Abhidhamma. His purpose is didactic, and he does not claim metaphysical reality, just that the model has helped people and corresponds to meditative experience. I understood him to say that conscious experience is serial. But it's been a while since I read it. He also has more complex models for more advanced practitioners later in the book.
@5piles Жыл бұрын
all schools accepts that only 1 consciousness type may arise at a time, even though all of the sense organs are being stimulated all the time and operating, this does not mean imply they will produce a mental aspect (consciousness). all schools accept that any arisen consciousness is necessarily accompanied by several mental factors such as feeling, concentration, karma/urge, etc.
@be1tube Жыл бұрын
@5piles So contact does not always produce consciousness (viññāṇa)?
@DougsDharma Жыл бұрын
Well traditionally, "contact" implies a coming-together of object, base, and consciousness. The formula in MN 148 for the eye is: "Eye consciousness arises dependent on the eye and sights. The meeting of the three is contact." But yes, again traditionally conscious experience (the integration of feeling, perception, and consciousness) is taken to be serial, based in the abhidhamma around the model of mind-moments. So it sounds like Culadasa is following this abhidhammic model as you say.
@5piles Жыл бұрын
@@be1tube of course. for example the whole point of the 9th stage of shamata/peak of the desire realm, shamata, 1st dhyana, and onwards, is to construct a perfectly concentrated mental consciousness that is unable to be impinged upon by any external sense stimulus or internal object. in the 9th stage, shamata, and 1st dhyana, the sense organs still operate but are entirely subjugated by the person as to become irrelevant. in the 2nd dhyana the sense organs are made not only to be dormant but are made to cease functioning entirely, which is a symptom of/what allows one to realize the 2nd dhyana. even culadasa describes this in many places. a good debate among authentic meditators is the point at which one's body can be destroyed without impinging the concentration at all. for example since the 1st dhyana still has functioning although dormant sense bases probably the person will die if the body dies thus terminating their concentration. however a person with concentration of the 2nd no longer has operating sense bases at all and could easily remain in meditation should their body be destroyed. examples of extreme versions of this is tukdam concentration which occurs post natural clinical death. less severe examples are tulkus who can precisely recall being alive during the time of the buddha, then having entered extended durations of absorption, only to discover their bodies had been killed when they exited their absorption centuries or millennia later.
@oldstudent2587 Жыл бұрын
Some things that the brain/mind does are strictly serial -- the visual field is scanned by a series of saccades going to different objects in the visual field successively based on which one is the one that has greatest probability of having changed. But other things are parallel, when driving a car, one can pay attention to more than one thing at a time and one must as well. In meditation, one can actually focus on more than one thing at a time consciously, but then to maintain it for long the breath comes in little sips as one maintains that focus sort of like balancing a ball on a stick and making little movements to keep it there. A useful question is, if one was to focus on nothing (sunyata) how many things would one be focusing on at one time? It seems easy to answer but try it.
@DougsDharma Жыл бұрын
Yes great points! 🙏
@fairytalejediftj7041 Жыл бұрын
"I can only think about one thing at a time" seems like a male perspective. Regarding daydreaming while doing something else, two different parts of the brain light up when you're concentrating on details versus letting your mind wander. For most people, when one of these parts of the brain is switched on, the other is switched off. But artists can activate both parts simultaneously while working on a piece of art - they can concentrate on the details of the work while daydreaming at the same time. That's the key to creating art.
@DougsDharma Жыл бұрын
🙏😊
@fairytalejediftj7041 Жыл бұрын
@@DougsDharma I've seen it in action. My son has paintings hanging in two homes and a restaurant now. Not bad for age 12. 😊
@peterharvey845 Жыл бұрын
Thanks for this. Note though that in the Abhidhamma, in the series of mind states, each has a different object of consciousness and attention, but a mind state includes many simultaneous states: a feeling, , a perception, various constructing activities, and a consciousness.
@DougsDharma Жыл бұрын
Ah yes, thanks Peter. I’m not sure that changes anything substantive in the video but it is important to note and indeed to investigate.
@fivosdeshpande1376 Жыл бұрын
in my 10 vipassana course under goenka, we were taught the 4 main parts of a mind that work successively. the first just objectively observes the second refers the memory archives and judges the third creates the sensation the fourth reacts
@DougsDharma Жыл бұрын
Interesting, I wonder where that comes from.
@jonwesick2844 Жыл бұрын
Movies show 24 frames per second and it appears to us to be continuous motion. Therefore, I interpret a mind moment as 1/24 second.
@DougsDharma Жыл бұрын
Yes that is something I thought about as well.
@geoffh2560 Жыл бұрын
There is much to consider in this discussion, which I've not seen covered elsewhere. Thanks for the video Doug.
@DougsDharma Жыл бұрын
You’re most welcome! Thanks for your comment. 🙏
@missmerrily4830 Жыл бұрын
So interesting and I haven't seen this aspect of the Abhidhamma discussed anywhere else previously either. I like its analogy of the animals pulling in different directions simultaneously, but practically speaking, if they are 'thinking', then those thoughts would not really be simultaneous, although very close together, so more like the analogy of the keyboard, which is actually operating serially but can appear to be simultaneous. But the animal analogy does pretty much sum up the outcome! It does often seem that our minds operate on several different levels at once, as we can and do manage multitasking. Ever had that experience when someone is busy multitasking, and talking to us at the same time? If startled into an unexpected interruption in thought, that person can continue the conversation but has changes in facial and speech patterns that indicate that it's now changed to a very different level? And maybe multiple coincident consciousnesses could be the answer! All operating at different levels and promoting the most pressing thought to the top of the queue like your computer and its list of preferred networks, while demoting others. Much food for thought here. Thanks Doug.
@5piles Жыл бұрын
another point of view is that the modern mind and its activities such as multitasking are a state of psychosis, totally obscuring any close observation of the mind. all there is is noise, and all we are cultivating is severe cognitive distraction which is currently leading the wealthy world into death. also, a normal person with 2 seconds on avg attention and concentration spans (based on neural correlate monitoring) multitasking compared to someone with samadhi multitasking, is like comparing someone with 60iq with einstein. similarly doing high order mathematics with a normal persons attention and concentration capacity compared to doing it with samadhi is the same. this is why ppl need to begin accomplishing samadhi so that the worlds institutions are not dominated by inadequate ppl with fleeting glimpses of genius, utterly entrenched in broken metaphysics, forever trying to pray nonexistent emergent properties of consciousness in even the the simplest neural correlate of even the most basic fully mapped out brains and artificially grown synapse structures with learned behavior.
@DougsDharma Жыл бұрын
Yes it's hard to say for sure. I'd assume that language processing has to be pretty cognition-intensive, which may be why it's so difficult for us to focus on two different conversations at the same time, if say people are talking simultaneously at a party. But on the other hand, we can walk or drive while we talk with no problem ...
@OppoPhone-j8j Жыл бұрын
i appreciate your explanation about this wisdom truth in Abbidharm, although i can't understand thoroughly at the first time ' cause i'm lack of the advance English.i try to study more next chance.🙏😊🇹🇭🌍🌌
@DougsDharma Жыл бұрын
🙏😊
@ascohn Жыл бұрын
This really highlights some of the potential metaphysical tensions between early Buddhism and contemporary materialism. I also wonder if it highlights the linguistic tensions between the Pali texts and the contemporary computational metaphor of the mind-brain (obviously, there were no electronic computers in the time of the Buddha or the Abidhamma). I'd actually love to see an episode comparing early Buddhism to Husserlian or Heideggerian phenomenology. I really don't know if I'd have been ready for Buddhism if I hadn't struggled with some Heidegger first.
@DougsDharma Жыл бұрын
Well I came out of the analytic tradition so I'd need that intro too ... 😄 But although these problems are introduced through the material lens of the brain, they don't require it. Even if the mind is immaterial, we still might wonder if it functions serially, particularly when we can talk and chew gum at the same time ...
@5piles Жыл бұрын
the pali literature is full of stories of constructed automatons and much more. do not assume computers etc are a recent invention. especially when you are dealing with ppl who have mastered the form realm and are explaining to you that our spacetime is a distorted broken symmetry emanated from that form realm.
@ascohn Жыл бұрын
I agree,@@5piles, which is why I specified "electronic computers." Computers are very old. The abacus was designed in 2700 BCE.
@ascohn Жыл бұрын
Thanks, @@DougsDharma. To me, the relevance of phenomenology begins with the notion of "bracketing," which basically means that you suspend your belief in the material world and focus on experience. Basically, beginner's mind. I think it gives westerners a handy way to get started. But I'm an amateur philosopher--my doctorate is in Family Therapy. :)
@5piles Жыл бұрын
@@ascohn i was referring to electronic computers and automatons as well. these make sense as being new from a modern materialistic pov. from the kalachakra pov our technology is extremely basic. but that is difficult to contextualize without direct perception of the form realm.
@claudiapirani8948 Жыл бұрын
We study the Abidhamma in a group study on Saturday. Anatomy of the mind on KZbin.
@hatebreeder99911 ай бұрын
I still remember from my high dose acid trip, during peak of trip i experienced multiple different conciousnesses interacting with each other very similar to 6 animals example and also there was complete desolution of self.
@DougsDharma11 ай бұрын
Wow, interesting ... hope you are OK now.
@Dharmaku56 Жыл бұрын
"So, the Buddha said to him, "Vakkali, it will be of no use to you by always keeping close to me, looking at my face. You should practise concentration meditation; for, indeed, only the one who sees the Dhamma sees me (Buddha). One who does not see the Dhamma does not see me." DH 381
@zappthezapper335 ай бұрын
sounds like Jesus
@Dharmaku56 Жыл бұрын
"And what is nutriment, what is the origin of nutriment, what is the cessation of nutriment, what is the way leading to the cessation of nutriment? There are these four kinds of nutriment for the maintenance of beings that already have come to be and for the support of those seeking a new existence. What four? They are physical food as nutriment, gross or subtle; contact as the second; mental volition as the third; and consciousness as the fourth. With the arising of craving there is the arising of nutriment. With the cessation of craving there is the cessation of nutriment. The way leading to the cessation of nutriment is just this Noble Eightfold Path; that is, right view, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness and right concentration. "When a noble disciple has thus understood nutriment, the origin of nutriment, the cessation of nutriment, and the way leading to the cessation of nutriment, he entirely abandons the underlying tendency to greed, he abolishes the underlying tendency to aversion, he extirpates the underlying tendency to the view and conceit 'I am,' and by abandoning ignorance and arousing true knowledge he here and now makes an end of suffering. In that way too a noble disciple is one of right view, whose view is straight, who has perfect confidence in the Dhamma and has arrived at this true Dhamma." MN 9
@L..E..X Жыл бұрын
The concept of a single brain producing multiple, simultaneous streams of consciousness has intrigued me for some time. Specifically, I find it fascinating that some individuals with schizophrenia report auditory or visual hallucinations of beings or creatures. Could it be possible that these perceived entities possess a separate form of consciousness distinct from that of the host?
@DougsDharma Жыл бұрын
Good question, though schizophrenia isn’t so much about multiple consciousnesses as about a disconnect with reality. In dreams as well, and indeed when writing fiction, we seem to at least be able to mimic multiple consciousnesses or awarenesses.
@L..E..X Жыл бұрын
@@DougsDharma It’s a fascinating area of discussion. Technically, psychiatry and psychology do not deal with multiple consciousnesses when it comes to mental illnesses. The disorder that comes closest to this concept is Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID), which focuses more on identity and personality rather than consciousness. Therefore, hallucinations experienced in certain disorders are not typically considered in terms of consciousnesses but are rather seen as physically not real phenomena. During my undergrad, we had a guest speaker in my abnormal psychology class who lived with schizophrenia. He shared his experience of sometimes seeing a small devil hanging around his desk and engaging in conversation with him. He perceived this devil as a separate, very real entity. This brings to light two(?) possibilities: either the brain generates these perceptions (visual, auditory) and the sense of realness, or it might create a sort of stream of consciousness for these hallucinated beings as well. While the first option is likely the accurate one given our current understanding, and the latter is probably an untestable hypothesis, it's intriguing to ponder. In dreams, the alternate consciousnesses seem ephemeral and beings exist for a short time, while in fiction writing, authors may feel a sense of mimicry. However, it’s not persistent over time or as vividly real as hallucinations in schizophrenia. By the way, you might already know or perhaps have touched upon in your videos, but I thought I'd mention that. Along with split-brain cases, the cases of merged brains are also quite intriguing. For instance, Tatiana and Krista Hogan, the craniopagus twins with shared neural connections, present a curious case. It’s fascinating to ponder whether they experience a single stream of consciousness or multiple.
@vyderka Жыл бұрын
More on the basis of my humble and limited experience with meditation I would say that neither the concept of seriality or multiplicity is relevant, mind seems to be a conglomerate of flowing perceptions of different inputs kept together by the everchanging perception of a construct of being this or that.
@DougsDharma Жыл бұрын
For sure, the mind is a flow of perceptions, volitions, feelings, and so on.
@vyderka Жыл бұрын
@@DougsDharma i often comment for the sake of algorithm to help your videos, many thanks for your replies to these not always that wise comments of mine :D
@70pujitha10 ай бұрын
Please read Anupada sutta to understand this.
@DougsDharma10 ай бұрын
I should have mentioned MN 111; it's considered a late sutta, very influenced by the abhidhamma.
@an_tran_author Жыл бұрын
Have you read at all into the discussions of Successive vs Simultaneous Causality in the Sarvastivada/Sautrantika-Yogacara Abhidharma texts? This actually sounds quite similar to what's going on there. There's an excellent lecture on this topic by Nobuyoshi Yamabe from within the Yogacara tradition, and their early vs later view, but I believe there was also this discussion among the Vaibhasikas and Sautrantikas (though can't remember where I came across that from). Really interesting to see this from the Theravada tradition too!
@DougsDharma Жыл бұрын
Interesting! I'm not familiar with these discussions.
@an_tran_author Жыл бұрын
@@DougsDharma I forgot to link the lecture, but it’s here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/nKjScoJ4d9V3jpY I’ll see if I can find any sources on this topic from the Sarvastivadin side.
@5piles Жыл бұрын
@@an_tran_author simultaneous causation in sautrantika and mindonly? surely you jest. likely what you misunderstood regarding mindonly is that the perceiver and the perceived arise from the same natal source, but this does not mean they do not depend on their own conditions to arise for a 2nd moment.
@normalizedaudio2481 Жыл бұрын
This ends up being a big deal. Look at serial vs. parallel in computer science. You would think parallel is instantly the best; but, that is not always the case. There is parallelism deep into the Avatamsaka Sutra. 10th or 11th level Bodhisattva. A big change that happens, I guess. "Quan Yin hears all the sounds of the world." Parallel is not the way to go for us beginners. The scholar at Brown Univ. talks about this too.
@DougsDharma Жыл бұрын
Sure, there are advantages to both.
@ZiaullahZia-q7f Жыл бұрын
I left islam.buddhusm is so appealing to me.looking for peace. Buddham shranam gachchami🙏🏿🙏🏿❤️
@DougsDharma Жыл бұрын
🙏😊
@phassahara Жыл бұрын
this is a surprisingly interesting issue you bring up here. it seems the right interpretation is that the Buddha is trying to deconstruct the concept of a singular mind. so i don't think it is right to introduce back a momentary mind to explain how the mind works. to stretch the six animal description here the so called focus is like focusing on the rope and saying that the rope has this momentary and separate consciousness😅
@DougsDharma Жыл бұрын
🙏😊
@TheIntrepid7 Жыл бұрын
To what do you refer when you use the word "mind"?
@DougsDharma Жыл бұрын
😄 Hard to say for sure! But in Buddhism it means the four mental aggregates: feeling, perception, volitions, consciousness. All deeply causally interconnected.
@TheIntrepid7 Жыл бұрын
Thank you very much for your explanation. I have been thinking about this- mind definition - for a long time now. It's helpful to consider the aggregates as "that which makes up the mind."@@DougsDharma
@user-sl6gn1ss8p Жыл бұрын
I was wondering. I don't think that the brain being a "parallel organism" necessarily means that we must be aware or attentive to more than one thing at a time. I mean, in a sense maybe the parallel operations of the brain, on their "level", aren't even "about" the "things" we're conscious about - their definition, their "thingyness" being a result of the collective operation, not held in any single, specific part of the operation, if that makes sense? I feel like I'm missing words here, but though I'd try to throw them out anyway : p Anyway, it doesn't feel to me like understanding the brain as an organism which does work in parallel and which is the basis for our conscious experience or awareness is necessarily in contradiction with said awareness having serial attention. I think this is one are were the analogy with machine learning's "neural networks" might actually brush off to much subtlety, but again, it's not a clear thought yet, so yeah, I'll stop rambling for now : )
@DougsDharma Жыл бұрын
Right, attention might be serial and yet perception seems parallel. Can we perceive without attending?
@user-sl6gn1ss8p Жыл бұрын
@@DougsDharma that sounds like a good question to me, but I think my point is more that whatever goes on that eventually we attend to might be going on in parallel even if attention were serial, you know?
@victorneufeld6516 Жыл бұрын
does Buddhism allow for unconscious prosses? if so, this opens another area of possible parallel process
@DougsDharma Жыл бұрын
To my knowledge the abhidhamma allows for some processes that we might consider subconscious in the sense that they pass too quickly for most of us to notice, but they occur in the same general series rather than in a parallel process.
@Simson616 Жыл бұрын
In my experience, the seriality of good and bad feeling does not refute simultaneous contact with senses. Consider this: while watching your video, several things happen at once. I hear your voice and I see your image. It's not that I see you and wonder what you're saying bc I cannot hear you while seeing. And also, whilst hearing you I do not wonder where I should attach the voice to, as I see the video and you speaking in it. The fact that our brain arranges not only different shapes, but also sounds, smells and textures into single concepts, entails, that this function is simultaneous. But at the same time when observing how my mind is torn back and forth by desires and fears, I notice how pleasant and unpleasant feelings seems serial. Mostly anyway. Sometimes I attempt to numb an unpleasant feeling through gaming. Then both are there. Pleasant distraction in a sort of foreground, unpleasantness looming in the back. They could not, however, both share the foreground.
@DougsDharma Жыл бұрын
Yes right, it’s different. Interesting to contemplate!
@Alain153311 ай бұрын
Hello Doug ! Can two states of being exist simultaneously? To do so, they would have to be absolutely identical in order to be subject to temporality in the same way. If they are not absolutely identical, they cannot be absolutely contemporaneous, even if they appear as such to our senses. If they are not simultaneous, they necessarily follow one another. Now, nothing in the phenomenal world is absolutely identical to itself or to anything else. Consequently, simultaneity exists only in our imagination. With mettā, Alain Durel (from Brittany)
@DougsDharma11 ай бұрын
I'm not sure what sameness has to do with simultaneity.
@Alain153311 ай бұрын
Nothing is identical to itself because of time (or impermanence, if you prefere). It's also true for relations. So there cannot be 2 things at the same time. We can also use the Einstein's simily of the train en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity
@ikkong8436 Жыл бұрын
But then we need to consider the fact that each of the six consciousness (eye, ear, nose, tongue, body & mind consciousness) arises dependent on contact of the internal base with the external sense object, and this arises one at a time, not simultaneously. For example when the eye contacts a form, only eye consciousness arises with the exclusion of any other consciousness.
@DougsDharma Жыл бұрын
Certainly this is one way to consider it. On the other hand, where in the suttas does it claim that one kind of consciousness cannot arise with another? Can we have eye consciousness and ear consciousness arising simultaneously with each other and their respective sense bases?
@5piles Жыл бұрын
@@DougsDharma it doesnt need to be explicitly spelled out because a buddha is not for the purpose of holding ppls hands through kindergarten. he expects you to have rapidly accomplished at least shamata at which point these basic questions about the simplest functions of the mind are already fully penetrated. it has nothing even to do with buddhism, its mere perfect samadhi. the substantial cause of one type of consciousness is the immediately preceding moment of consciousness. thus you cannot generate multiple consciousnesses. there is not even minor dispute on this point among any of the schools in the entire history of buddhism.
@chrisl3330 Жыл бұрын
Doug, I know you study Buddhism but please consider this idea about the meaning of the story of Adam and Eve and perhaps comment on it. Thank You... The snake is language, and the devil is evolution. There was this lady Eve, and she knew this fellow Adam, and they lived in a garden. The garden of Eden, a garden which covered the whole of our blue-green earth. One day, Eve ate some fruit, and she evolved the ability of language, and her words flew through the garden telling Adam everything he did right, everything wrong, everything good, everything evil. And so, Eve had developed the ability of thought, but it came at a price for language displaces instincts and so she could no longer live in the garden as did the bears and the wolves and the chickadees. Now Eve wasn’t just one woman, she was all of women, kind or otherwise, in her day’s journey of evolution, and Adam wasn’t just one man, kind or otherwise, he was all of men in his day’s journey of evolution, and a day is one-seventh of a measure of time, as in they were living in the seventh age of creation and God is resting. And we might recall that Adam was found to be naked, and that’s not to say he wasn’t adorned with a fig leaf-pattered shirt, but rather that he had lost the thick coat of fur that had once covered his human body. And with the loss of fur, his exposed skin evolved the ability to sweat, keeping him cool and allowing him to toil upon the soil for the not-so-symbolic fruit of labor. But what of the snake? That slithering symbol of evolution gave Eve the first words ever spoken, “And it was Gossip.” Attached to old ideas? Is it time for new interpretations?
@obalafiajohnson797211 ай бұрын
🤲🏽
@วิจิตรวงษ์ทอง Жыл бұрын
If we understand the Abhidhamma Sutta We will understand the nature of the world.