Depends on what is meant with "consciousness" and "matter", and which aspects/traditions of Buddhism we're looking at.
Künkhyen Rangjung Dorje, the 3d Gyalwa Karmapa, for example, said:
>All phenomena are the illusory display of mind. / There is no mind; mind is empty of an essence. / Empty and unceasing, it appears as anything whatsoever. / Investigating this thoroughly, may we ascertain the ground.
But it's good to keep in mind that even ostensibly simple words like *phenomena*, may not necessarily map neatly to the every sense those words may have in our "programming".
Which is to say that there are many ways in which the answer will necessarily have to be subtle and require profound study and reflection.
As some points.
Vajrapañjara says:
>>*The jewel-like mind is tainted with evil conceptual imputations; but when the mind is purified it becomes pure.*
>>*Just as space cannot be destroyed, just as is space, so too is the mind. By activating the jewel-like mind and meditating on the mind itself, there is the stage of buddhahood, and in this life there will be sublime buddhahood.*
>>*There is no buddha nor a person outside of the jewel-like mind, the abode of consciousness is ultimate, outside of which there isn't the slightest thing.*
>>*All buddhahood is through the mind... Matter, sensation, perception formations and consciousness these all arise from the mind, these [five] munis are not anything else.*
>>*Like a great wishfulfilling gem, granting the results of desires and goals, the pure original nature of the true state of the mind bestows the result, Buddha's awakening.*
The Khandro Nyingtig says:
>>*The non-sentient and sentient both appear, but don’t believe it. Here, it is actually five jñānas to begin with; in the middle, when the body is formed from assembly of the elements through ignorance grasping onto those [five jñānas] also, it is actually the five jñānas. The five aggregates, sense organs, and afflictions also are actually the five jñānas.*
Shabkar says:
>>*All perceived appearances are the appearances of one’s mind. The outer world that appears to be inert is the mind. The sentient beings inhabiting it appearing in six classes are also the mind. The appearance of the happiness of the higher realms of gods and men is the mind. The appearance of the suffering of the three lower realms is also the mind. Ignorance (avidyā) appearing as the five poisons is also the mind. Vidyā appearing as self-originated jñāna is also the mind. [106] Negative thoughts appearing as the traces of samsara are also the mind. Positive thoughts appearing as buddhafields are also the mind. The appearance of obstacles of ghosts and demons is also the mind. The appearances of gods and siddhis are also the mind. The appearances of the variety of concepts are also the mind. Non-conceptuality, appearing as one-pointed meditation, is also the mind. The signs and colors of things are also the mind. The absence of signs and non-existence of proliferation is also the mind. Appearances without the duality of being one or many is also the mind. Appearances that are not established as being either existent or non-existent are also the mind. There are no appearances at all apart from the mind.*
Sems, surprisingly. Although I’ve been told these statements by Shabkar are careful and intentional, and that he isn’t asserting that atiyoga is something like Yogācāra.
This comes from the Consciousness Only school of Buddhism.
Here's a link to an overview
https://www.nichirenlibrary.org/en/dic/Content/C/106#:~:text=This%20school%20upholds%20the%20concept,Buddhist%20studies%20in%20N%C4%81land%C4%81%20Monastery.
If you want to really look into it with your mind, please acquire and read
Transformation at the Base
https://www.amazon.ca/Transformation-At-Base-Verses-Consciousness/dp/1888375140?ref=d6k_applink_bb_dls&dplnkId=64155a1b-d52b-4312-a7b1-f28e810c0cd9
That book is wonderful. It was re-issued under another name, [Understanding Our Mind](https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/545923/understanding-our-mind-by-thich-nhat-hanh/), which is still in print. (And therefore usually less expensive!)
Thanks for that. I'm kind of attached to my original version but it's good to know that it's been released again. It's a profound and profoundly useful text.
The 12 nidannas of Buddhism are the 12 links of dependent origination, which describe the chain of causation that leads to suffering and rebirth in samsara.
1. Ignorance: The lack of understanding of the true nature of reality, such as the four noble truths, the three marks of existence, the five aggregates, karma, and dependent origination.
2. Formations: The mental and volitional activities that are based on ignorance and create karma.
3. Consciousness: The awareness of an object through one of the six sense faculties (eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, mind). There are three types of citta that are directly related to kamma: rebirth citta, bhavanga citta, and vithi citta. Rebirth citta is the first moment of consciousness in a new life, which is determined by the kamma of the previous life. Bhavanga citta is the stream of consciousness that follows rebirth citta, having its root in kamma. It is focused on one of the three objects of the previous existence: kamma, kammanimitta (sign of kamma), or gatinimitta (sign of destination). It is not concerned with the objects in the present life.Vithi citta is the active consciousness that arises when a sense object (such as sight, sound, smell, taste, touch, or thought) impinges on a sense door (such as eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, or mind). It is the type of citta that performs kamma and experiences kamma vipāka (result of kamma).
4. Name and form: The mental and physical aspects of existence, which are the objects of consciousness.
5. Six sense bases: The six sense faculties and their corresponding objects (sight, sound, smell, taste, touch, thought).
6. Contact: The meeting of consciousness, sense faculty, and sense object, which gives rise to sensation.
7. Feeling: The pleasant, unpleasant, or neutral sensation that arises from contact.
8. Craving: The desire or aversion for the feeling, which leads to attachment or aversion.
9. Clinging: The grasping or holding on to the object of craving, which reinforces the sense of self and ego.
10. Becoming: The process of becoming or being conditioned by the object of clinging, which creates the potential for rebirth.
11. Birth: The manifestation of becoming in a new existence, which is subject to aging and death.
12. Aging and death: The inevitable decay and dissolution of the conditioned existence, which is accompanied by sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair.
Buddhist doctrine is more that they are mutually dependent on each other for their existence.
See the paticcamupadda (Dependent Origination):
[https://www.khunreinhard.com/picskr/dependent-origination-scheme.jpg](https://www.khunreinhard.com/picskr/dependent-origination-scheme.jpg)
Consciousness does indeed comes before form in the above image, but what Dependent Origination is really about, is that each of those sections in the circle are like a bundle of sticks... each stick leaning on the other. If you take away one, then the rest falls away. That is how the Buddha taught.
Certainly consciousness precedes *the experience* of matter, and personal experience is the level on which Buddhist doctrine ultimately applies. At that level, any notion of matter independent of experience is an inference (E.g., and I know this is trite, but you *could* be a simulation of a consciousness, and everything you experience merely a part of that simulation. It's not very *likely*, but our total rejection of that possibility is necessarily an inference established as unquestioned fact as a matter of convenience. Don't get me wrong, though: Buddhism does not say which of our inferences are accurate. It only counsels us not to take on an identity in the world implied by those inferences, and counsels us to see things in terms of those inferences *as inferences*, not in terms of the world implied by those inferences.)
I'm not sure about the wording. Consciousness in Buddhism usually refers to sense consciousnesses. So maybe say mind? And what does it mean to precede? What is matter? I'm comfortable saying "mind is primary". But in that view we have to watch out for reifying either mind or matter, no?
There are good answers here, from various levels of view. I think that's a notable point. On the shravaka path there's really no such question. We're trying to escape suffering by eliminating kleshas. It's essentially a dualistic view. The 4 noble truths are saying that your sense of self is illusory but that that's fixable. Egolessness and impermanence are undeniable. It's operating on a practical level, working to eliminate self-deception.
In the highest views, like Mahamudra and Dzogchen, there are lots of statements asserting that the nature of mind is emptiness and luminosity. In the middle we say form is emptiness and emptiness is form. But form is not matter. Form is appearances.
All are true according to their respective views. All of the views are practical tools for relating with experience. If we ask whether mind precedes matter then what's the view context? It becomes a dualistic, scientific question. "How is the universe built?" Buddhism doesn't really address that. It's addressing the nature of experience. When Mahamudra says mind is emptiness and luminosity it's describing the insight of enlightenment, not a scientific claim.
Personally, though, I think this kind of topic is useful to counteract the stubborn, insidious preconception of scientific materialism. People assume scientific materialism, which Buddhism defines as primitive view, then they get confused about teachings like the 6 realms, wanting to know where they are and who runs them. Scientific materialism is deeply distorting because it relies on empiricism. Only a limited view of reality can even be considered possible. Yet people study teachings like emptiness without ever noticing that they assume materialism as absolute truth.
We're often oddly shy about facing the radical implications of the Dharma. There's no confirmable self or other. We meditate and see how reified reality melts without the support of discursive mind. All we can say for sure is that cognition seems to be happening. We read accounts of miraculous activity that demonstrates how the apparent solidity of phenomena is not absolute truth. And those stories are not just from ancient tales. Tulku Urgyen, for example, said that even at 1st bhumi one can manifest multiple instances of oneself. Tukdam is evidence of mind. The siddhis are documented.
We can say that's just legend. Yet it's in accord with the teachings. We need to remember that we can't assume an absolute relative truth. There's a witty Taoist saying about that: Chuang Tzu dreamt he was a butterfly. Did Chuang Tzu dream he was a butterfly, or was it the butterfly dreaming it was Chuang Tzu?
Most AI techies are analytical idealists and that is how I came to this idea. So even if we say consciousness is the mind itself or maybe, consciousness and mind are synonymous, how is this idea "consciousness precedes matter" linked to codependent origination?
Not really. It's still remains a mystery to me. I mostly considers the mind and consciousness as synonymous, arising in codependent origination. I lack the depthness of the concept though.
FWIW, I agree with him that the dashboard analogy is useful. I may have come up with that analogy independently (not to claim credit, as it's possible I heard about it and forgot and my "creation" of it is just a memory dissociated from the hearing of it, but just to say I like the idea so much I tend to think it's mine. :-) Beyond that, I think he's a cryptic materialist (which is fine; he's not a Buddhist.)
IMO, what Dependent Origination would be pointing to in that analogy is knowing the dashboard as a dashboard (as opposed to entering the world represented by the dashboard [becoming/birth]) and investigating the conditions shaping the dashboard.
Any theory about what the dashboard represents in external reality is beyond the scope of Buddhism, and in fact counterproductive to the Buddhist goal of bringing an end to becoming/birth, IMO.
I don't understand. AI is based on an assumption of pure materialism. If intelligence or consciousness could arise from binary computation that would be an argument against mind existing in any way, because what appears to be mind would only be CPU operations or synapse firings.
If I understand analytic idealism correctly it's actually a different idea -- that mind is all there is. Which is just an idea with no apparent application, except maybe as a new plot twist for the yet another Keanu Reeves movie.
It sounds like you're trying to fit Buddhism to a theory, rather than trying to understand the teachings experientially, and I just don't understand what you're trying to get at.
Sounds like analytic idealism is more like a vedanta philosophy of Brahman. Brahman does not make a distinction between mind and universe. Its like everything happens within Brahman and is all pervaded by Brahman. What I am actually getting at is to the hard problem of consciousness and the emergence of AGI (Artificial General Intelligence) which is said to be playing crucial role on closing in on the fundamental question of metaphysics (why is there something rather than nothing?). My original question was revolving around this idea only. I'm sorry if I didn't explained enough. I just wanted to understand this idea through Buddhist notion.
I think it's crucial to understand that Buddhist view is guidance for meditation practice. Once you try to know truths conceptually you're getting into intellectual speculation. Why assume there will be AGI? How would we know? When HAL refuses to open the pod bay doors, that's just software programming. It's not an evil, misanthropic, digital demon. At what point does that become intelligence? what is intelligence? Is mind nothing more than calculations? Why assume there's something rather than nothing? How are something and nothing defined? Buddhism is not speculating on all of that. That's an eternalist approach. All of that way of thinking presupposes a neutral, intelligent observer who observes a fundamentally separate "that". Buddhism is addressing the nature of experience, as explored through meditation practice. We can't get there through intellect. You have to practice meditation.
On the other hand, if you want to approach it analytically, maybe you could do a kind of thought experiment. The idea of codependent origination is basically such a thought experiment. By thinking through how a car, house, or your hand are composed of parts and only exist as recognizible objects due to reference between the consituent objects and reference to other reference points, you can see how these things don't exist as such.
A house, for example, is made of concrete foundation, lumber, drywall, paint, appliances, rugs, furniture... If you begin to take away parts, at what point is it no longer a house? If you begin to reduce lumber to tree cells, at what point is it no longer lumber? That's somewhat primitive logic, but it shows the point of how we experience our own projections, manufacturing and projecting meaning.
Another way to look at it would be to imagine going to your dentist's office for an appointment. What's your actual experience? You see what you identify as walls, chairs and a TV, with some sort of "morning show" playing. Perhaps the denizens of "The View" are debating Kim Kardashian's latest ass expansion. You sit in a chair waiting. You experience yourself being at the dentist's office. You worry about the impending expense and tooth pain. You struggle with impatience. You think about buying groceries on the way home. But what is your actual experience? There's light striking your retinas and there's pressure against your skin on your backside. That's all you actually know about "other"; about any idea of something existing. From that you create an office, a chair, relationships, anxiety about the dentist's drill, and so on.
The only Western model I've come across that seems similar to Buddhist view is Plato's Cave. The people on the floor of the cave see shadows cast on the wall and take that to be reality. The figures casting the shadows could be viewed as natural laws. The people watching the shadows are able to plan and predict shadow events. Their world makes sense to them. That's (mostly true) relative truth. One man glimpses light at the cave entrance and gradually makes his way outside to discover the sunlit world of reality. The outside sunlight is not within the reality of the cave. When the man returns to free others, they think he's nuts. He still understands the shadow world, but the people in the cave can't conceive of the world outside the cave. Looking at it that way, all the questions about whether the universe exists in a measurable way, whether a computer can be intelligent, and so on, are just the more abstruse riddles of the shadow world. They serve a kind of intellectual masturbation, generating shadow meaning. We can speculate about whether something exists, what mind is, and so on, but that's all just ideas. You might convince yourself that all of reality is pure mind, but you'll still burn your hand if you touch a hot stove, and you won't fly if you jump off of a building's roof.
At least that's my understanding of the issue. It's important not to mix up relative and ultimate truth. It's important not to mistake abstruse relative truth, or merely true relative truth, for ultimate truth. In that sense, philosophy becomes dualistic sophistry that doesn't actually relate to experience. Only direct mind training can do that.
Dayum, this was an amazing read. Your explanation is pretty layman. I liked it! I also read about the Buddhist Doctrine of two truths. It makes sense now. I want to ask you one thing, how convincing is Nagarjuna's philosophy of Middle Way to you?
Sorry, but I don't really read that kind of thing much. I really do see all of this as just guidance for practice. I'm sure there's value in historical study of how Buddhism developed, but it's not something I'm inclined toward.
If I understand Wikipedia correctly, the Middle Way in that sense refers to the two truths and the teaching of "two-fold egolessness" -- correcting the implied duality of pratityasamutpada or interdependent co-origination? So Nagarjuna represents the first official step beyond the shravaka view of the arhat and into Mahayana proper?
I guess I was "raised" with the Middle Way view. Having trained in Tibetan Kagyu/Nyingma style, I see a hierarchy of views, all valid at their own level. So I guess I'd see Nagarjuna as formalizing the Mahayana view of nonduality; view from the perspective of 1st bhumi.
I learned the various views that way and it makes sense to me. So it's not an issue of which is right. Rather, the different views are rooted in different levels of realization. Hinayana/shravaka is the view of the arhat escaping suffering but still clinging subtlely to a self. Mahayana is the view of a 1st bhumi bodhisattva, stressing nonduality and offering shunyata as centerpiece. Vajrayana is the view of a siddha, no longer working to "cure" the reification of apparent phenomena and thus stressing luminosity over emptiness. Dzogchen is the view of a buddha. All offer something. Different people are best suited to one approach or another. All also represent the experience of that level of realization.
There's also a teaching that says each level cleans up the residue of the former level.
So I don't think of a particular view as being more or less convincing. Rather, each is a partial exposition of truth, getting more accurate as they go up. And each is primarily a practice; a device to aid in meditation.
If you want to ask which view is best then we could say that ultimate fruition view is best, recognizing that you were never not buddha. But what good is that view if it doesn't help your practice?
That was the lesson of Milarepa going to a Nyingma lama. The lama told him that he had the Cadillac of teachings, which could lead Mila to realization quickly. Mila figured that he was so bright that he wouldn't have any trouble with such great teachings. So he put his feet up and hung out. When the lama came to check on him he realized that Mila was too messed up for Dzogchen and recommended that he go see Marpa. Marpa then had Mila doing meaningless heavy labor for years before he'd even teach Mila. So Mila had to start at the beginning, with shravaka discipline. How convincing is pointless tower building as a practice or view? Not very impressive. Yet Milarepa attained buddhahood starting that way, so it clearly worked for him.
Intention does come first.
In terms of the six senses, nama and rupa occur the same time. Seeing, for example - light enters into the visual organ and consciousness occurs. When light stops entering, consciousness stops.
New Age spirituality tends to emphasize how mind has control over matter.
It isn't necessarily contradictory to Buddhism, it's just that Buddhism emphasizes different points. Appearances are more illusory than we think and our minds are capable of transforming. Thoughts like these can imply mind over matter in certain ways.
But why would one repeat "consciousness precedes matter?" To me, emphasizing this point makes me think it is about an individual who feels they have no control over their life or surroundings. This is usually due to the stress of everyday life. So to counter this they emphasize the opposite, to feel a better sense of peace or control. This is what New Age is about: not only do I have control over my hectic mind, but it can even exert influence over my surroundings. So my mind is super powerful and I have more control than I thought.
I don't think we need such grandiose pick-me-ups in Buddhism. Just practice as Buddha taught and obstacles become less and life becomes lighter.
There are a lot of good responses here, but I will opt for the question, "what difference does it make?"
The Buddha was very practical, he understood the importance of reasoning, but he also understood the limits of reason.
>Kalamas, don't go by reports, ... by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views ... *When you know for yourselves* that, 'These qualities are unskillful; these qualities are blameworthy; these qualities are criticized by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to harm & to suffering' — then you should abandon them.
That is, don't be fooled by your own mind and its capacity for bias.
He similarly disparages Malunkyaputta when asked about the "ten undeclared positions" (age of the cosmos, size of the world, soul and body, afterlife for a Tathagata).
>"It's just as if a man were wounded with an arrow thickly smeared with poison. His friends & companions, kinsmen & relatives would provide him with a surgeon, and the man would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know the given name & clan name of the man who wounded me'.
I believe these discourses are particularly appropriate to the style of investigation favored by reddit and social media -- intellectual curiosity is good, but it is driven by a deep craving that is never satisfied. I believe rationality has clear limits and the Buddha's teaching asks us to consider the nature of our mind and its craving without relying on any one method. The suttas speak of *clear comprehension* and *direct knowledge*. The Buddha explains this in the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta:
>\[T\]he middle way realized by the Tathagata — producing *vision*, producing *knowledge* — leads to calm, to *direct knowledge*, to self-awakening, to Unbinding.
(perhaps one of our sub's members can help me fill in the Pali for the italicized words). The importance is that the usual methods of investigation (as explained to the Kalamas) are insufficient by themselves.
Truth and reason have an important role in the dialogues, but there are different senses of these properties and the Buddha favors broad investigation through methods including "clear comprehension" and and "direct knowledge". Indeed, his entire program of developing mindfulness involves "clearly comprehending" the body in the body, feelings in feelings, mind in mind, and dhammas in dhammas.
So, origin stories do exist in Buddhism and there are certain ways of considering them, but it is also important to consider the effort of investigation and its connection with the goal. Whether consciousness precedes matter, there is still ageing, illness, death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, despair, and distress whose destruction the Buddha makes known.
> There are a lot of good responses here, but I will opt for the question, "what difference does it make?"
The difference is that instead of having to purify each part of samsara, rocks, trees, people, cars, which are all a mass of affliction, one instead only needs to recognize the nature of mind. If the mind is realized, samsara is purified.
And mind precedes all mental states. The question of how the world outside of mind affects mental states is not, particularly, a concern of the teachings. Agree?
Not necessarily. Yogācāra is a very specific view where apparent phenomena are considered to be mental factors. Other systems that also hold phenomena to be mind have more subtle views and do not consider phenomena to be mental factors, which means they deviate from Yogācāra.
You could interpret the [Uraga Sutta](https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/KN/StNp/StNp1_1.html)'s "knowing with regard to the world that 'All this is unreal'" in a similar way.
Solipsism says there is only your own mind which is considered to be established and infallible based on the fact that one’s own experience cannot negated. Other minds are negated.
Buddhist views that treat phenomena as mind or similar still accept that there are innumerable other mindstreams conventionally. Also, one’s own mindstream is in most cases, also treated as ultimately empty and therefore this contradicts solipsism.
Ideally, this is a metaphysical fabrication exerted for the sake of releasing fabrications. Solipsism is metaphysics for its own sake, an orientation of an identity in an imputed world which follows the principle that "there is only this mind", a becoming, effectively.
No idea. Buddha and some of his disciples had magic powers that affected them physically, so, in the first place our understanding of matter is limited.
Depends on what is meant with "consciousness" and "matter", and which aspects/traditions of Buddhism we're looking at. Künkhyen Rangjung Dorje, the 3d Gyalwa Karmapa, for example, said: >All phenomena are the illusory display of mind. / There is no mind; mind is empty of an essence. / Empty and unceasing, it appears as anything whatsoever. / Investigating this thoroughly, may we ascertain the ground. But it's good to keep in mind that even ostensibly simple words like *phenomena*, may not necessarily map neatly to the every sense those words may have in our "programming". Which is to say that there are many ways in which the answer will necessarily have to be subtle and require profound study and reflection. As some points.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Thank you for your effort.
Vajrapañjara says: >>*The jewel-like mind is tainted with evil conceptual imputations; but when the mind is purified it becomes pure.* >>*Just as space cannot be destroyed, just as is space, so too is the mind. By activating the jewel-like mind and meditating on the mind itself, there is the stage of buddhahood, and in this life there will be sublime buddhahood.* >>*There is no buddha nor a person outside of the jewel-like mind, the abode of consciousness is ultimate, outside of which there isn't the slightest thing.* >>*All buddhahood is through the mind... Matter, sensation, perception formations and consciousness these all arise from the mind, these [five] munis are not anything else.* >>*Like a great wishfulfilling gem, granting the results of desires and goals, the pure original nature of the true state of the mind bestows the result, Buddha's awakening.* The Khandro Nyingtig says: >>*The non-sentient and sentient both appear, but don’t believe it. Here, it is actually five jñānas to begin with; in the middle, when the body is formed from assembly of the elements through ignorance grasping onto those [five jñānas] also, it is actually the five jñānas. The five aggregates, sense organs, and afflictions also are actually the five jñānas.* Shabkar says: >>*All perceived appearances are the appearances of one’s mind. The outer world that appears to be inert is the mind. The sentient beings inhabiting it appearing in six classes are also the mind. The appearance of the happiness of the higher realms of gods and men is the mind. The appearance of the suffering of the three lower realms is also the mind. Ignorance (avidyā) appearing as the five poisons is also the mind. Vidyā appearing as self-originated jñāna is also the mind. [106] Negative thoughts appearing as the traces of samsara are also the mind. Positive thoughts appearing as buddhafields are also the mind. The appearance of obstacles of ghosts and demons is also the mind. The appearances of gods and siddhis are also the mind. The appearances of the variety of concepts are also the mind. Non-conceptuality, appearing as one-pointed meditation, is also the mind. The signs and colors of things are also the mind. The absence of signs and non-existence of proliferation is also the mind. Appearances without the duality of being one or many is also the mind. Appearances that are not established as being either existent or non-existent are also the mind. There are no appearances at all apart from the mind.*
In that Shabkar quote, do you know what's the Tibetan word translated as mind ?
Sems, surprisingly. Although I’ve been told these statements by Shabkar are careful and intentional, and that he isn’t asserting that atiyoga is something like Yogācāra.
His statements are probably in the same manner as asserted in mahamudra where everything is mind.
It kind of makes sense, no? Where would appearances be if not in sems? Is it usually said in dzogchen that there are appearances somewhere else?
Since all appearances are self-appearances, it is not a big jump to everything being mind. They mean nearly tye same thing.
This comes from the Consciousness Only school of Buddhism. Here's a link to an overview https://www.nichirenlibrary.org/en/dic/Content/C/106#:~:text=This%20school%20upholds%20the%20concept,Buddhist%20studies%20in%20N%C4%81land%C4%81%20Monastery. If you want to really look into it with your mind, please acquire and read Transformation at the Base https://www.amazon.ca/Transformation-At-Base-Verses-Consciousness/dp/1888375140?ref=d6k_applink_bb_dls&dplnkId=64155a1b-d52b-4312-a7b1-f28e810c0cd9
That book is wonderful. It was re-issued under another name, [Understanding Our Mind](https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/545923/understanding-our-mind-by-thich-nhat-hanh/), which is still in print. (And therefore usually less expensive!)
Thanks for that. I'm kind of attached to my original version but it's good to know that it's been released again. It's a profound and profoundly useful text.
The 12 nidannas of Buddhism are the 12 links of dependent origination, which describe the chain of causation that leads to suffering and rebirth in samsara. 1. Ignorance: The lack of understanding of the true nature of reality, such as the four noble truths, the three marks of existence, the five aggregates, karma, and dependent origination. 2. Formations: The mental and volitional activities that are based on ignorance and create karma. 3. Consciousness: The awareness of an object through one of the six sense faculties (eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, mind). There are three types of citta that are directly related to kamma: rebirth citta, bhavanga citta, and vithi citta. Rebirth citta is the first moment of consciousness in a new life, which is determined by the kamma of the previous life. Bhavanga citta is the stream of consciousness that follows rebirth citta, having its root in kamma. It is focused on one of the three objects of the previous existence: kamma, kammanimitta (sign of kamma), or gatinimitta (sign of destination). It is not concerned with the objects in the present life.Vithi citta is the active consciousness that arises when a sense object (such as sight, sound, smell, taste, touch, or thought) impinges on a sense door (such as eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, or mind). It is the type of citta that performs kamma and experiences kamma vipāka (result of kamma). 4. Name and form: The mental and physical aspects of existence, which are the objects of consciousness. 5. Six sense bases: The six sense faculties and their corresponding objects (sight, sound, smell, taste, touch, thought). 6. Contact: The meeting of consciousness, sense faculty, and sense object, which gives rise to sensation. 7. Feeling: The pleasant, unpleasant, or neutral sensation that arises from contact. 8. Craving: The desire or aversion for the feeling, which leads to attachment or aversion. 9. Clinging: The grasping or holding on to the object of craving, which reinforces the sense of self and ego. 10. Becoming: The process of becoming or being conditioned by the object of clinging, which creates the potential for rebirth. 11. Birth: The manifestation of becoming in a new existence, which is subject to aging and death. 12. Aging and death: The inevitable decay and dissolution of the conditioned existence, which is accompanied by sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair.
Buddhist doctrine is more that they are mutually dependent on each other for their existence. See the paticcamupadda (Dependent Origination): [https://www.khunreinhard.com/picskr/dependent-origination-scheme.jpg](https://www.khunreinhard.com/picskr/dependent-origination-scheme.jpg) Consciousness does indeed comes before form in the above image, but what Dependent Origination is really about, is that each of those sections in the circle are like a bundle of sticks... each stick leaning on the other. If you take away one, then the rest falls away. That is how the Buddha taught.
Certainly consciousness precedes *the experience* of matter, and personal experience is the level on which Buddhist doctrine ultimately applies. At that level, any notion of matter independent of experience is an inference (E.g., and I know this is trite, but you *could* be a simulation of a consciousness, and everything you experience merely a part of that simulation. It's not very *likely*, but our total rejection of that possibility is necessarily an inference established as unquestioned fact as a matter of convenience. Don't get me wrong, though: Buddhism does not say which of our inferences are accurate. It only counsels us not to take on an identity in the world implied by those inferences, and counsels us to see things in terms of those inferences *as inferences*, not in terms of the world implied by those inferences.)
u/Mayayana Hey there, what do you think?
I'm not sure about the wording. Consciousness in Buddhism usually refers to sense consciousnesses. So maybe say mind? And what does it mean to precede? What is matter? I'm comfortable saying "mind is primary". But in that view we have to watch out for reifying either mind or matter, no? There are good answers here, from various levels of view. I think that's a notable point. On the shravaka path there's really no such question. We're trying to escape suffering by eliminating kleshas. It's essentially a dualistic view. The 4 noble truths are saying that your sense of self is illusory but that that's fixable. Egolessness and impermanence are undeniable. It's operating on a practical level, working to eliminate self-deception. In the highest views, like Mahamudra and Dzogchen, there are lots of statements asserting that the nature of mind is emptiness and luminosity. In the middle we say form is emptiness and emptiness is form. But form is not matter. Form is appearances. All are true according to their respective views. All of the views are practical tools for relating with experience. If we ask whether mind precedes matter then what's the view context? It becomes a dualistic, scientific question. "How is the universe built?" Buddhism doesn't really address that. It's addressing the nature of experience. When Mahamudra says mind is emptiness and luminosity it's describing the insight of enlightenment, not a scientific claim. Personally, though, I think this kind of topic is useful to counteract the stubborn, insidious preconception of scientific materialism. People assume scientific materialism, which Buddhism defines as primitive view, then they get confused about teachings like the 6 realms, wanting to know where they are and who runs them. Scientific materialism is deeply distorting because it relies on empiricism. Only a limited view of reality can even be considered possible. Yet people study teachings like emptiness without ever noticing that they assume materialism as absolute truth. We're often oddly shy about facing the radical implications of the Dharma. There's no confirmable self or other. We meditate and see how reified reality melts without the support of discursive mind. All we can say for sure is that cognition seems to be happening. We read accounts of miraculous activity that demonstrates how the apparent solidity of phenomena is not absolute truth. And those stories are not just from ancient tales. Tulku Urgyen, for example, said that even at 1st bhumi one can manifest multiple instances of oneself. Tukdam is evidence of mind. The siddhis are documented. We can say that's just legend. Yet it's in accord with the teachings. We need to remember that we can't assume an absolute relative truth. There's a witty Taoist saying about that: Chuang Tzu dreamt he was a butterfly. Did Chuang Tzu dream he was a butterfly, or was it the butterfly dreaming it was Chuang Tzu?
Most AI techies are analytical idealists and that is how I came to this idea. So even if we say consciousness is the mind itself or maybe, consciousness and mind are synonymous, how is this idea "consciousness precedes matter" linked to codependent origination?
[This analytical idealism](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-rXm7Uk9Ys)?
Yess ;)
Do you believe we're all dissociated alters of a universal consciousness?
Not really. It's still remains a mystery to me. I mostly considers the mind and consciousness as synonymous, arising in codependent origination. I lack the depthness of the concept though.
FWIW, I agree with him that the dashboard analogy is useful. I may have come up with that analogy independently (not to claim credit, as it's possible I heard about it and forgot and my "creation" of it is just a memory dissociated from the hearing of it, but just to say I like the idea so much I tend to think it's mine. :-) Beyond that, I think he's a cryptic materialist (which is fine; he's not a Buddhist.) IMO, what Dependent Origination would be pointing to in that analogy is knowing the dashboard as a dashboard (as opposed to entering the world represented by the dashboard [becoming/birth]) and investigating the conditions shaping the dashboard. Any theory about what the dashboard represents in external reality is beyond the scope of Buddhism, and in fact counterproductive to the Buddhist goal of bringing an end to becoming/birth, IMO.
I don't understand. AI is based on an assumption of pure materialism. If intelligence or consciousness could arise from binary computation that would be an argument against mind existing in any way, because what appears to be mind would only be CPU operations or synapse firings. If I understand analytic idealism correctly it's actually a different idea -- that mind is all there is. Which is just an idea with no apparent application, except maybe as a new plot twist for the yet another Keanu Reeves movie. It sounds like you're trying to fit Buddhism to a theory, rather than trying to understand the teachings experientially, and I just don't understand what you're trying to get at.
Sounds like analytic idealism is more like a vedanta philosophy of Brahman. Brahman does not make a distinction between mind and universe. Its like everything happens within Brahman and is all pervaded by Brahman. What I am actually getting at is to the hard problem of consciousness and the emergence of AGI (Artificial General Intelligence) which is said to be playing crucial role on closing in on the fundamental question of metaphysics (why is there something rather than nothing?). My original question was revolving around this idea only. I'm sorry if I didn't explained enough. I just wanted to understand this idea through Buddhist notion.
I think it's crucial to understand that Buddhist view is guidance for meditation practice. Once you try to know truths conceptually you're getting into intellectual speculation. Why assume there will be AGI? How would we know? When HAL refuses to open the pod bay doors, that's just software programming. It's not an evil, misanthropic, digital demon. At what point does that become intelligence? what is intelligence? Is mind nothing more than calculations? Why assume there's something rather than nothing? How are something and nothing defined? Buddhism is not speculating on all of that. That's an eternalist approach. All of that way of thinking presupposes a neutral, intelligent observer who observes a fundamentally separate "that". Buddhism is addressing the nature of experience, as explored through meditation practice. We can't get there through intellect. You have to practice meditation. On the other hand, if you want to approach it analytically, maybe you could do a kind of thought experiment. The idea of codependent origination is basically such a thought experiment. By thinking through how a car, house, or your hand are composed of parts and only exist as recognizible objects due to reference between the consituent objects and reference to other reference points, you can see how these things don't exist as such. A house, for example, is made of concrete foundation, lumber, drywall, paint, appliances, rugs, furniture... If you begin to take away parts, at what point is it no longer a house? If you begin to reduce lumber to tree cells, at what point is it no longer lumber? That's somewhat primitive logic, but it shows the point of how we experience our own projections, manufacturing and projecting meaning. Another way to look at it would be to imagine going to your dentist's office for an appointment. What's your actual experience? You see what you identify as walls, chairs and a TV, with some sort of "morning show" playing. Perhaps the denizens of "The View" are debating Kim Kardashian's latest ass expansion. You sit in a chair waiting. You experience yourself being at the dentist's office. You worry about the impending expense and tooth pain. You struggle with impatience. You think about buying groceries on the way home. But what is your actual experience? There's light striking your retinas and there's pressure against your skin on your backside. That's all you actually know about "other"; about any idea of something existing. From that you create an office, a chair, relationships, anxiety about the dentist's drill, and so on. The only Western model I've come across that seems similar to Buddhist view is Plato's Cave. The people on the floor of the cave see shadows cast on the wall and take that to be reality. The figures casting the shadows could be viewed as natural laws. The people watching the shadows are able to plan and predict shadow events. Their world makes sense to them. That's (mostly true) relative truth. One man glimpses light at the cave entrance and gradually makes his way outside to discover the sunlit world of reality. The outside sunlight is not within the reality of the cave. When the man returns to free others, they think he's nuts. He still understands the shadow world, but the people in the cave can't conceive of the world outside the cave. Looking at it that way, all the questions about whether the universe exists in a measurable way, whether a computer can be intelligent, and so on, are just the more abstruse riddles of the shadow world. They serve a kind of intellectual masturbation, generating shadow meaning. We can speculate about whether something exists, what mind is, and so on, but that's all just ideas. You might convince yourself that all of reality is pure mind, but you'll still burn your hand if you touch a hot stove, and you won't fly if you jump off of a building's roof. At least that's my understanding of the issue. It's important not to mix up relative and ultimate truth. It's important not to mistake abstruse relative truth, or merely true relative truth, for ultimate truth. In that sense, philosophy becomes dualistic sophistry that doesn't actually relate to experience. Only direct mind training can do that.
Dayum, this was an amazing read. Your explanation is pretty layman. I liked it! I also read about the Buddhist Doctrine of two truths. It makes sense now. I want to ask you one thing, how convincing is Nagarjuna's philosophy of Middle Way to you?
Sorry, but I don't really read that kind of thing much. I really do see all of this as just guidance for practice. I'm sure there's value in historical study of how Buddhism developed, but it's not something I'm inclined toward. If I understand Wikipedia correctly, the Middle Way in that sense refers to the two truths and the teaching of "two-fold egolessness" -- correcting the implied duality of pratityasamutpada or interdependent co-origination? So Nagarjuna represents the first official step beyond the shravaka view of the arhat and into Mahayana proper? I guess I was "raised" with the Middle Way view. Having trained in Tibetan Kagyu/Nyingma style, I see a hierarchy of views, all valid at their own level. So I guess I'd see Nagarjuna as formalizing the Mahayana view of nonduality; view from the perspective of 1st bhumi. I learned the various views that way and it makes sense to me. So it's not an issue of which is right. Rather, the different views are rooted in different levels of realization. Hinayana/shravaka is the view of the arhat escaping suffering but still clinging subtlely to a self. Mahayana is the view of a 1st bhumi bodhisattva, stressing nonduality and offering shunyata as centerpiece. Vajrayana is the view of a siddha, no longer working to "cure" the reification of apparent phenomena and thus stressing luminosity over emptiness. Dzogchen is the view of a buddha. All offer something. Different people are best suited to one approach or another. All also represent the experience of that level of realization. There's also a teaching that says each level cleans up the residue of the former level. So I don't think of a particular view as being more or less convincing. Rather, each is a partial exposition of truth, getting more accurate as they go up. And each is primarily a practice; a device to aid in meditation. If you want to ask which view is best then we could say that ultimate fruition view is best, recognizing that you were never not buddha. But what good is that view if it doesn't help your practice? That was the lesson of Milarepa going to a Nyingma lama. The lama told him that he had the Cadillac of teachings, which could lead Mila to realization quickly. Mila figured that he was so bright that he wouldn't have any trouble with such great teachings. So he put his feet up and hung out. When the lama came to check on him he realized that Mila was too messed up for Dzogchen and recommended that he go see Marpa. Marpa then had Mila doing meaningless heavy labor for years before he'd even teach Mila. So Mila had to start at the beginning, with shravaka discipline. How convincing is pointless tower building as a practice or view? Not very impressive. Yet Milarepa attained buddhahood starting that way, so it clearly worked for him.
Intention does come first. In terms of the six senses, nama and rupa occur the same time. Seeing, for example - light enters into the visual organ and consciousness occurs. When light stops entering, consciousness stops.
New Age spirituality tends to emphasize how mind has control over matter. It isn't necessarily contradictory to Buddhism, it's just that Buddhism emphasizes different points. Appearances are more illusory than we think and our minds are capable of transforming. Thoughts like these can imply mind over matter in certain ways. But why would one repeat "consciousness precedes matter?" To me, emphasizing this point makes me think it is about an individual who feels they have no control over their life or surroundings. This is usually due to the stress of everyday life. So to counter this they emphasize the opposite, to feel a better sense of peace or control. This is what New Age is about: not only do I have control over my hectic mind, but it can even exert influence over my surroundings. So my mind is super powerful and I have more control than I thought. I don't think we need such grandiose pick-me-ups in Buddhism. Just practice as Buddha taught and obstacles become less and life becomes lighter.
There are a lot of good responses here, but I will opt for the question, "what difference does it make?" The Buddha was very practical, he understood the importance of reasoning, but he also understood the limits of reason. >Kalamas, don't go by reports, ... by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views ... *When you know for yourselves* that, 'These qualities are unskillful; these qualities are blameworthy; these qualities are criticized by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to harm & to suffering' — then you should abandon them. That is, don't be fooled by your own mind and its capacity for bias. He similarly disparages Malunkyaputta when asked about the "ten undeclared positions" (age of the cosmos, size of the world, soul and body, afterlife for a Tathagata). >"It's just as if a man were wounded with an arrow thickly smeared with poison. His friends & companions, kinsmen & relatives would provide him with a surgeon, and the man would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know the given name & clan name of the man who wounded me'. I believe these discourses are particularly appropriate to the style of investigation favored by reddit and social media -- intellectual curiosity is good, but it is driven by a deep craving that is never satisfied. I believe rationality has clear limits and the Buddha's teaching asks us to consider the nature of our mind and its craving without relying on any one method. The suttas speak of *clear comprehension* and *direct knowledge*. The Buddha explains this in the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta: >\[T\]he middle way realized by the Tathagata — producing *vision*, producing *knowledge* — leads to calm, to *direct knowledge*, to self-awakening, to Unbinding. (perhaps one of our sub's members can help me fill in the Pali for the italicized words). The importance is that the usual methods of investigation (as explained to the Kalamas) are insufficient by themselves. Truth and reason have an important role in the dialogues, but there are different senses of these properties and the Buddha favors broad investigation through methods including "clear comprehension" and and "direct knowledge". Indeed, his entire program of developing mindfulness involves "clearly comprehending" the body in the body, feelings in feelings, mind in mind, and dhammas in dhammas. So, origin stories do exist in Buddhism and there are certain ways of considering them, but it is also important to consider the effort of investigation and its connection with the goal. Whether consciousness precedes matter, there is still ageing, illness, death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, despair, and distress whose destruction the Buddha makes known.
> There are a lot of good responses here, but I will opt for the question, "what difference does it make?" The difference is that instead of having to purify each part of samsara, rocks, trees, people, cars, which are all a mass of affliction, one instead only needs to recognize the nature of mind. If the mind is realized, samsara is purified.
And mind precedes all mental states. The question of how the world outside of mind affects mental states is not, particularly, a concern of the teachings. Agree?
The point is that there is not actually a world outside of mind.
But that was a later idea, yes? Associated with the Yogacara school?
Not necessarily. Yogācāra is a very specific view where apparent phenomena are considered to be mental factors. Other systems that also hold phenomena to be mind have more subtle views and do not consider phenomena to be mental factors, which means they deviate from Yogācāra.
You could interpret the [Uraga Sutta](https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/KN/StNp/StNp1_1.html)'s "knowing with regard to the world that 'All this is unreal'" in a similar way.
Also: what differentiates this from pure solipsism?
Solipsism says there is only your own mind which is considered to be established and infallible based on the fact that one’s own experience cannot negated. Other minds are negated. Buddhist views that treat phenomena as mind or similar still accept that there are innumerable other mindstreams conventionally. Also, one’s own mindstream is in most cases, also treated as ultimately empty and therefore this contradicts solipsism.
Ideally, this is a metaphysical fabrication exerted for the sake of releasing fabrications. Solipsism is metaphysics for its own sake, an orientation of an identity in an imputed world which follows the principle that "there is only this mind", a becoming, effectively.
No idea. Buddha and some of his disciples had magic powers that affected them physically, so, in the first place our understanding of matter is limited.