Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!wuarchive!rex!ukma!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!eagle!data.nas.nasa.gov!news
From: pingali@umvlsi.ecs.umass.edu (Sridhar Pingali)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern
Subject: Re: Consciousness and Buddhism
Message-ID: <1991May17.180404.22942@nas.nasa.gov>
Date: 17 May 91 18:04:04 GMT
References: <1991May16.203346.2760@nas.nasa.gov>
Sender: news@nas.nasa.gov
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Lines: 94
Approved: prabhu@amelia.nas.nasa.gov

[I had sent in another article "Thoughts, practice..." from another
machine before seeing this one]

In article <1991May16.203346.2760@nas.nasa.gov> johnw@farside.eng.ready.com (John Wheeler) writes:
>*My comments are surrounded by asterisks. johnw* 
>
>>There has been the experience of thoughts arising and
>>passing away and there is the question "Who is the 
>>knower"? There is no "knower". 
>
>*This is not so. Obviously, you know your thoughts. You are the
> knower of them.*
>
>>There is only "knowing".
>
>*Correct there is the knowing process. But how can you leave out the
> knower? There is the thing known (thought), the subject (you), and
> the perception of knowing* 

I think we are falling into a circular trap here - but
let me ask you this, "What is this knower made of"? Is
there is a knower apart from the knowing? Is the knower
ever without knowing? If so, what is the knower then?

>>Thoughts are transient and fleeting - that is a fact.
>>But that fact can only be seen with awareness - mindfulness.
>
>*No. It does not require any special technique to see. It is
> simple to observe at any time*

Mindfulness is not a special technique - it is just a word
for this observation that you speak of.

>>But meditation does not end there. Not only are thoughts
>>transient and fleeting - consciousness itself is fleeting
>>and transient. It also is an empty phenomenon that arises
>>and passes away. 
>
>*No. I maintain that this is the biggest error made by interpreters
> of Buddhism. Consciousness is not a phenonmenon (an object), it
> is non-objective. It does not arise nor does it pass away. Knowingness
> or the act of perception of things rises and falls, but awareness, pure
> subjectivity, does not cease at any time.*

I think we are pretty much stuck here - for we are
using dualistic language to speak of things. I agree
that it seems strange - but the screen analogy seems
to fall away (this thing which "shines" and after which
all else shines is not there at all). So long as there
is this notion of a separate, abiding, knower - there
is dualism. Meditation masters speak of this experience of 
*everything* disintegrating - a moment of light striking the
eye, a moment of seeing consciousness, a moment of hearing 
consciousness, thoughts arising and falling away - everything
happening at incredible speed. All aggregates in pure
process. "Sabbe anicca" - all conditioned dharmas are
impermanent. They do not say that this is an unconditioned
state of being.

>>There is then no resting place
>>at all - there is nothing to be grasped, no security 
>>even in awareness. Only when all foundations of a belief
>>in a separate self have been undermined are we left
>>with the wisdom of insecurity. There is complete protection
>>and freedom because there is *no one* to be protected.
>
>*I believe you are seeing only half of the matter. It is true that there
> is no separate self, and the dissolution of this notion is a key
> to understanding Bhuddha's sublime philosophy, but it would be
> wrong to conceive that the result is simply a state of insecurity,
> much less would such a state be wisdom. This borders on simple
> nihilism. Buddha taught that nihilism was an error.

The security that comes is real enough. "Taking refuge in the
Buddha" begins to acquire real meaning. Dependent co-origination
is what the Buddha taught as the way between nihilism and eternalism -
that "everything is" and "everything is not" are both extreme views.

> He also spoke of Nirvana, that ineffable, sublime state, beyond description,
> very glorious indeed. Sometimes he called it the Void. What do you think
> he meant by the Void? That which is beyond all objective chracteristics,
> and cannot be described in terms of any other thing, unborn, undying,
> neither permanent, nor impermanent. Remember, Buddha was not a nihilist.

I didn't say anything about Nibbana because I simply
don't know anything about it. The Buddha did say that
there is an unconditioned state that nothing much can be
can be said about - and for most part there is nothing
much that he did say about it. Nowhere is the claim
made that non-self and impermanence are the end of 
Buddhist teaching or the end of meditation.

Peace,
Sridhar