What If Consciousness Comes First?

[ajay0]

Nirvana does not mean ‘the unborn’. It means ‘free of craving and aversion’, which is an undisturbed mind, no more and no less.
.

I reached in experience the nirvana which is unborn, unrivalled, secure from attachment, undecaying and unstained. This condition is indeed reached by me which is deep, difficult to see, difficult to understand, tranquil, excellent, beyond the reach of mere logic, subtle, and to be realized only by the wise. ~ Gautama Buddha

 

[Howard Is]

I reached in experience the nirvana which is unborn, unrivalled, secure from attachment, undecaying and unstained. This condition is indeed reached by me which is deep, difficult to see, difficult to understand, tranquil, excellent, beyond the reach of mere logic, subtle, and to be realized only by the wise. ~ Gautama Buddha

Do you think he could not mean ‘the ordinary mind of nowness’ ?

Just a thought - perhaps this discussion is best continued in the Buddhist DIR ? Although I may need to update my profile details, because I did not nominate Buddhism when I registered.

 

[Riju]

Do you think he could not mean ‘the ordinary mind of nowness’ ?

'Ordinary mind of nowness'. That is a mouthful. What does that even mean with regards to the origin and nature of an ordinary mind??

Furthermore, is the following description of Nibbana a fabrication?

Ud 8.3
PTS: Ud 80
Nibbāna Sutta: Unbinding (3)
translated from the Pali by
Thanissaro Bhikkhu

Then, on realizing the significance of that, the Blessed One on that occasion exclaimed:

There is, monks, an unborn-unbecome-unmade-unfabricated. If there were not that unborn, unbecome, unmade, unfabricated, there would not be the case that escape from the born-become-made-fabricated would be discerned. But precisely because there is an unborn-unbecome-unmade-unfabricated, escape from the born-become-made-fabricated is discerned.
​

 

[Mock Turtle]

Just like two humans reason and behave differently, it is so with the animals also. Normally chimps lead a social life, but there are some rogues also who trouble other chimps. We are not much different from animals.

So the earliest microbe and humans have the same level of consciousness? (with respect to a continuum)

 

[Howard Is]

'Ordinary mind of nowness'. That is a mouthful. What does that even mean with regards to the origin and nature of an ordinary mind??

Furthermore, is the following description of Nibbana a fabrication?

Ud 8.3
PTS: Ud 80
Nibbāna Sutta: Unbinding (3)
translated from the Pali by
Thanissaro Bhikkhu

Then, on realizing the significance of that, the Blessed One on that occasion exclaimed:

There is, monks, an unborn-unbecome-unmade-unfabricated. If there were not that unborn, unbecome, unmade, unfabricated, there would not be the case that escape from the born-become-made-fabricated would be discerned. But precisely because there is an unborn-unbecome-unmade-unfabricated, escape from the born-become-made-fabricated is discerned.
​

The whole of reality is unborn-unbecome-unmade-unfabricated.
The beings who arise are born-become-made-fabricated. Temporary. A process.
Realising that is the escape from false identifications, and the sufferings associated with them.
This does not require that the temporal processes of consciousness cease.

 

[Howard Is]

Furthermore, is the following description of Nibbana a fabrication

No. I totally endorse it, for what that’s worth.
I don’t think it refers to a ‘state’ or ‘stage’ though, as many seem to.
It refers to a realisation which utterly changes one’s perspective.

 

[Riju]

The whole of reality is unborn-unbecome-unmade-unfabricated.
...

Okay.

No. I totally endorse it, ...

Okay.

 

[atanu]

The whole of reality is unborn-unbecome-unmade-unfabricated.
The beings who arise are born-become-made-fabricated. Temporary. A process.

You mean that the world of sensed objects is unborn and the subject that senses the world is born and fabricated?

 

[Polymath257]

I ran. He ran.

Both of these are equivalent to the body itself moving.

Thinking is a process.

These are processes involving a subject. Do you mean to say the brain pattern themselves are the experiencer and the experiences?

Yes, precisely. The way that the patterns of neural fire happen produce BOTH the sense of 'I' and the experiences.

The problem is that 'self' is a process not a thing. It is equivalent to a 'sense of self' which happens through time.

 

[Howard Is]

You mean that the world of sensed objects is unborn and the subject that senses the world is born and fabricated?

Yeah, no, yeah...

Form/force, feeling, perception, concept, consciousness. The five skandhas. That is the classic Buddhist formula. The ‘sensed objects’ are a mental fabrication, pattern recognition, based on form/force, or prakriti to use the Sanskrit word for material energy.
So is the ‘subject’, which is consciousness. the experience labelled as “I”.
The seer and the seen are coemergent.
I just read Polymath’s last reply to you, I also see it as he described it. Although I’m not up for marrying robots. Ha ha.

What is ‘unborn’ is the whole-damn-thing, which produces endless bozos like us.

I sometimes wish Buddha had told a few jokes. It all gets so goddam serious.

 

[atanu]

Yeah, no, yeah...

Form/force, feeling, perception, concept, consciousness. The five skandhas. That is the classic Buddhist formula. The ‘sensed objects’ are a mental fabrication, pattern recognition, based on form/force, or prakriti to use the Sanskrit word for material energy.
So is the ‘subject’, which is consciousness. the experience labelled as “I”.
The seer and the seen are coemergent.
I just read Polymath’s last reply to you, I also see it as he described it. Although I’m not up for marrying robots. Ha ha.

What is ‘unborn’ is the whole-damn-thing, which produces endless bozos like us.

I sometimes wish Buddha had told a few jokes. It all gets so goddam serious.

Buddha waited for Poly and Howard, perhaps.

Brain processes that the subject cognises is the subject itself.

 

[Shad]

Whence comes this premise?
It sounds an awful like the argument that there must be a supreme deity.

The premise is often used to support God and religions. See; this thread.

 

[atanu]

Both of these are equivalent to the body itself moving.
Thinking is a process.

Body does not say “I”. Have you seen a dead body say “I want to live”?

You simply do not know what is “I”. People who casually assert “I is product of brain processes” are bluffing, since they will not be able to explain or demonstrate the process.

Yes, precisely. The way that the patterns of neural fire happen produce BOTH the sense of 'I' and the experiences.

Inanimate material interactions create the subject phantom (P)? And the created P then proceeds to unravel its own creator? It is a true Phantom story.

The problem is that 'self' is a process not a thing. It is equivalent to a 'sense of self' which happens through time.

It is indeed a problem — Perhaps a gross mis-application of Buddhism.

Time is a process of mind. But self exists unknown to mind in deep sleep state. The identity and all memory exist but mind is unaware. This can be experienced by everyone. But only a few will ponder and only a few will recognise that it is not necessary that self is only that which your mind processes come to know.

Self is pre space-time-objects.

...

 

[atanu]

No. I totally endorse it, for what that’s worth.
I don’t think it refers to a ‘state’ or ‘stage’ though, as many seem to.
It refers to a realisation which utterly changes one’s perspective.

What? What is ‘one’? You seem to say that self is a process. Do you then mean that perspective of a process changes and the process recognises “My perspective has changed. Ahh what a relief”?

Spoiler: Discernment

Let me repost a part of a sutta someone else earlier posted.

Ud 8.3
PTS: Ud 80
Nibbāna Sutta: Unbinding (3)
translated from the Pali by
Thanissaro Bhikkhu

Then, on realizing the significance of that, the Blessed One on that occasion exclaimed:

There is, monks, an unborn-unbecome-unmade-unfabricated. If there were not that unborn, unbecome, unmade, unfabricated, there would not be the case that escape from the born-become-made-fabricated would be discerned. But precisely because there is an unborn-unbecome-unmade-unfabricated, escape from the born-become-made-fabricated is discerned.
​

The sutta talks about ‘discernment of escape’. So, is it the processes of aggregates that discern the escape? Who or what discerns?. Does it not indicate that the competence of ‘discernment‘ itself is unborn?

...

 

[Bethsheba Ashe]

I get what you mean. It’s ‘mysticism’ because it is mysterious. Duh. Basic etymology. Even the most hardcore scientists admit that the nature of consciousness is a mystery for **** sake.
And ‘occult’ simply means hidden from view. Which we all agree consciousness is !

The discussion at around 33 minutes is interesting.
The interviewer mentions a criticism of OrchOR, or more a challenge, that some feature of brain consciousness can only be explained using quantum mechanics.
As I understand it, from a cognitive scientist who pointed it out to me, it is observable at times that different areas of the brain act in sync, despite there being no known mechanism of communication between those regions fast enough to account for it.

I would appreciate any links or references to that subject.

I'll have a think and see if I've read anything about that. I'm rusty in this area. I think of the rising of the kundalini as a synchronous cascade of microtubules to superposition, but that would be a full body type of thing (there are microtubules in every major organ too).

 

[Polymath257]

Body does not say “I”. Have you seen a dead body say “I want to live”?

You simply do not know what is “I”. People who casually assert “I” is product of brain processes are bluffing, since they will not be able to explain or demonstrate the process.

There is no difference between 'I' and the 'sense of I'. And that sense of I is a brain process.

The dead body doesn't say it wants to live because the arrangement of its chemicals don't allow the chemical reactions of life.

Inanimate material interactions create the subject phantom (P)? And the created P then proceeds to unravel its own creator? It is a true Phantom story.

The word 'inanimate' seems to be a central one in this discussion. What, precisely, does it mean?

Chemistry is *very* animate. The chemicals undergo reactions and those reactions release energy and change the dynamics. In life, there are whole collections of chemicals, often compartmentalized, that have multiple feedback loops. This is what makes living things 'animate'.

But 'life' is a different topic than 'consciousness'. Consciousness is not a common aspect of all life.

It is indeed a problem — Perhaps a gross mis-application of Buddhism.

Time is a process of mind.

No. Time is a physical coordinate and minds operate in spacetime.

 

[Aupmanyav]

So the earliest microbe and humans have the same level of consciousness? (with respect to a continuum)

No. The capabilities are different according to their needs. Eagles have a better far vision, dogs have a better listening power, tigers, etc. have a better smelling power, lice have a better jumping power. Same goes in case of mind. To the extent required with sufficient reserve. Thanks to evolution.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

And there you went subjective. It is fun to read your posts and spot when you go from objective facts to subjective evaluation and interpretation. You seem apparently functionally incapable of spotting that. You take your subjective meaningfulness for granted.
That is because it works for you and you don't have to be self-reflectively aware of it. You haven't learned to use the 5% to spot your subjectivity in this case. I have at least in some cases and I bet you can also do it in other cases. But here you are "blind" to your own subjectivity.
So here are some words for you: Mentalization, meta-cognition and self-reflection. They are also a part of what you speak of and you can learn to spot, who can do that or not, but that requires that you have learned that. You might be able to do this in some cases, but relevant for this you are not capable of it, it would seem.
The 5% can change some behaviors, but that requires that you learn to use them.
That is how cognitive therapy works. You use the 5% to "reprogram" other parts of the 95%. Nice. Now would you please learn that, if you want to claim science.

Was there something specific you wanted to address in my post? Were you aware of your birth? Are you aware of other consciousnesses? Can consciousness perceive itself? Were these the type of questions you wanted to contribute to the conversation? Or, is your contribution only accusations and meaningless word salad? Clearly, you didn't understand the simile I used to describe the function of our 5% conscious state. Clearly, you don't understand why consciousness was the inevitable evolutionary outcome, of our 2 nervous systems, our Limbic and Endocrine systems, Language, and how we adapt to our environment. Unless, of course, you do believe that the physical brain arises from consciousness itself? This would be irrational. Our consciousness is simply the conscious representation of the brain processing and compartmentalizing sensory inputs. This also includes the electrochemical excitation of specialized neurons, from a hundred different parts of the brain. Remember, neurons in the brain are highly interconnected. One neuron can receive tens of thousands of connections from other neurons. And, they in turn, can make tens of thousands of connections with other neurons. It is the circuits formed by these connections that give rise to behavior, emotions, intelligence, hate, charity, etc. This 5 min video might help you to focus on the subject of the OP, and not on trolling me. https://www.ted.com/talks/michael_s_a_graziano_what_is_consciousness?language=en#t-86335

It is very easy to verify the consciousness-physical brain dependency, when we look at the brain's pathologies. Also, I appreciate your concern for my mental/psychological health, but I am far too old in the tooth to give a damn. Besides, after reading your post on the other thread, I think that it is you that is over-compensating with "big words" for your own lack of scientific understanding. I think that it is you that is projecting your own insecurity and fears of inadequacy. But that is just my subjective opinion. I would need more objective evidence to be certain. ​

 

[Willamena]

Patterns are the diverse experiences and the experiencer?

In some regards. The experience of the world is nothing more than what is experienced. To make it something more is to add a superfluous element to the picture.

To explain what is experienced in terms of what does the experiencing (nervous system) is one way (currently about the only way, until we set new terms) to make it graspable.

The experiencer, the "seer," is a placeholder. It is another superfluous element supplied by belief in the experience being "more," and firmly supported in (some, most) languages that were developed specifically to support it: seeing needs a seer. An action (verb) requires a subject.

 

[atanu]

In some regards. The experience of the world is nothing more than what is experienced. To make it something more is to add a superfluous element to the picture.

To explain what is experienced in terms of what does the experiencing (nervous system) is one way (currently about the only way, until we set new terms) to make it graspable.

The experiencer, the "seer," is a placeholder. It is another superfluous element supplied by belief in the experience being "more," and firmly supported in (some, most) languages that were developed specifically to support it: seeing needs a seer. An action (verb) requires a subject.

I am reading your post. Do you mean to say that there is no distinction between me and your post?