On Consciousness
Matthieu Ricard
Humanitarian, photographer, scientist, Buddhist monk, author ???? Founder of Karuna-Shechen
Buddhism speaks of six, seven, or eight aspects of consciousness. It speaks first of the ground or basic consciousness, which has a global, general knowledge that the world is there and that I exist. Then there are five aspects related to the five sensory experiences: seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, and touching. The seventh aspect is mental consciousness, which associates abstract concepts to the first six aspects. Sometimes there is considered to be an eighth aspect of conscious-ness that is related to afflictive mental states that distort reality (hatred, craving, etc.). But even more fundamental than all these states and aspects is primary consciousness, what is called the continuum of the luminous fundamental consciousness.
In Buddhism, the matter/consciousness duality, the so-called mind-body problem, is a false problem given that neither of them has an intrinsic, independent existence. According to some Buddhist teachings that analyze phenomena at a more contemplative level, the primordial nature of phenomena transcends notions of subject and object or time and space. But when the world of phenomena emerges from primordial nature, we lose sight of this unity and make a false distinction between consciousness and the world. This separation between the self and the non-self then becomes fixed, and the world of ignorance, samsara, is born. The birth of samsara did not happen at a particular moment in time. It simply reflects at each instant, and for each of our thoughts, how ignorance reifies the world.
Buddhism’s conception is thus radically different from Cartesian dualism, which postulates on one side a truly existing solid material reality and, on the other side, a completely immaterial consciousness, which cannot have any real connection with matter. The Buddhist analysis of phenomena recognizes the lack of intrinsic reality of all phenomena. Whether animate or inanimate, they are equally devoid of autonomous, ultimate existence. Thus, a merely conventional difference exists between matter and consciousness.
Because Buddhism refutes the ultimate reality of phenomena, it also refutes the idea that consciousness is independent and exists inherently, just as much as it refutes that matter is independent and exists inherently. This fundamental level of consciousness and the world of apparent phenomena are linked by interdependence, and together they form our world of thought and the exterior physical reality is a mere illusion. There’s only one reality or, rather, only one lack of intrinsic reality! Buddhism does not adopt a purely idealist point of view or argue that the outer world is a fabrication of consciousness. It just points to the fact that without consciousness, one cannot claim that the world exists because that statement already implies the presence of a consciousness.
This might sound puzzling, but it resembles the answer given by some cosmologists when asked what was there before the Big Bang. They say that this question does not make sense because time and space began with the Big Bang. Likewise, anything we can ever say about the world, the brain, and even consciousness begins with consciousness. Even the question, “But couldn’t a world totally deprived of life and sentience exist on its own?” as well as any answer that you might like to give to this question—all of this presupposes consciousness. Of course, it would be foolish to deny the existence of lifeless worlds because most planets are indeed lifeless, but without consciousness, in a way, there is no question, no answer, no concepts, no “world” as an object of experience.
Read more, including Wolf Singer’s (the neuroscientist) reply:
Beyond the Self: Conversations between Buddhism and Neuroscience
MIT Press 2017
Occupational Therapy Assistant with professional focus in neuro-rehabilitation and concussion/stroke recovery
7 年This line of thinking/contemplating sets up the need for the question, "Then what started consciousness? What was the first 'thinking ' mind? God? The Infinite Is? The Great Spaghetti God? What was the initial spark? Divine work? Or just prehistoric animals crawling out of a primordial sea wondering what the lights in the evening sky are....? And the rest is history!
Occupational Therapy Assistant with professional focus in neuro-rehabilitation and concussion/stroke recovery
7 年So, uttering the Cartesian maxim, "I think, therefore I am" is mistakingly used to imply that if "I" am true/existing, then the rest of perceived reality must also simultaneously and in like-minded, exist?
Fundraiser, and cofounder of " G. Borre' Association for Juridical Studies " ROMA
7 年https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=snKJLlAVKS0&feature=youtu.be
--
7 年Buddhism does not adopt a purely idealist point of view or argue that the outer world is a fabrication of consciousness. It just points to the fact that without consciousness, one cannot claim that the world exists because that statement already implies the presence of a consciousness. reply: TO MAKE a postulate that kick starts inference requires consciousness, if one is 'not aroused' or one is 'not interested' and make no postulate we may as well be unconscious object (comatose). René Descartes claim, 'i think therefore i am' is amplified to, 'i think therefore the world exits'. Example, i see a red apple amongst the green leaves of the apple tree, it visually stands out from the background. Why so? because i differentiate (perceive) red with respect to green. My daltonian brother sees no apple. we may pose a perfectly formed question in the english language, 'does the apple exist?' but there is no guarantee that any question of statement is well posed (i.e. carries meaning). Everyday Language should be based in a given system of reason. For many of us this is {true, false} reason either the concept is attributed true or false. My daltonian brother has a concept of apple very similar to mine provided we are talking of green apples on a blue plate, if i go shopping and buy a red apple and ask him to put it on the plate 'only if it 'is' a green apple' he will do. i would say he has made a mistake in classification. We cannot claim a red apple exists independent of the conscious (as informed by perception), thus, as above, without (conscious appraisal) consciousness, one cannot claim that the world exists. The Confusion arises from trying to force an ontology onto mental construct, for example having in mind the number '2' as one stick and one stone. It appears then that Buddhist thought and everyday language in which it is versed is based in {true, false} reason just like our everyday perspective which is that of Aristotle and Boole. The question is how can we globally hand in hand over and above differences arising on archaic, banal, cultural disjointedness advance on this paradigm? One aspect is that mathematical work over the past 50 years or so has indicated that the bigger picture exists, we know that {true,false} reason is the backbone of the theory of sets and is but one exemplar in a zoo called 'category theory' that explores commonalities over distinct and novel categories of reason. Since the category of Set is constructed on the same basis as everyday language and reason it is familiar to the extent of 'being true' or even 'intuitive', for example, either you are dead or alive, innocent or guilty. The 'categories of higher order' have more sophisticated truth classifiers, truths can lie between truth and false not merely as shades of our common place true and false but in totally novel manners taking us beyond the shading of truth classically derived by the injection a degree of plausibility to a statement (as in conventional probability theory). The big quest is to develop a natural language that is consonant each such higher order category, at present we describe and assign ontology in the language of {true,false} reason this must distort our appreciation of the power,flexibility of reason and outlook on consciousness. I would very much appreciate your thoughts, regards nic bernhoeft 01-12-17
LightBox
7 年That's what jaggi vasudev says when every other materialistic/realistic comes and mocks him .. that we don't believe what we have never seen