What does Buddhism say about the random stuff (sankhara?) that just comes into mind when I am meditating? And I mean random, like I'll be meditating and a memory just comes out of nowhere, sometimes a half-visual, half-felt scene of a place I travelled 20+ years ago. Or I'll just start thinking of a person I haven't seen for a long while. This is while meditating, so there is no sense input ~ it's not like I heard a song that reminded me of someplace. It's like my mind has a mind of its own! Is this kind of material related to the "storehouse consciousness"? I think of it as like sitting on a cauldron, because this material just continuously bubbles up ~ sometimes it is an angry boil, sometimes a gentle roil. I would love to learn more about what Buddhism has to say about this phenomenon.

By that I mean, an oak tree that doesn't have a sudden death from fire or being cut down or whatever, will for all intents and purposes live many years. Everyone who comes and visits the tree will see generally the same tree. Of course, the tree is never the "same" moment to moment, every atom is being swapped out and moving around, radiation is coming and going, branches and leaves fall off and regrow, etc.. But still, if I visit the tree today, and you visit it 1 year from now (in the middle of the tree's life), the tree is still "there" (even though it might be slightly different). Everyone who walks by will point "there is a tree over there". It's persistent across time and space, for some period. I understand that everything is technically an "illusion". We are all one unified flow of stuff, and the idea of a self or independence is an illusion in the grand scheme of things. But still, within the illusion, there are basically "natural physical laws of the universe" you could say. It's not like all of a sudden, "zap", the tree is an elephant when you visit. Then boom (magic wand), it is a car, then later it is a piece of cotton, or a sun, etc.. Or it magically jumps around in space. That is, there is some sort of structure somewhat independent of me that obeys some sort of rules to stay somewhat consistent in time and space. Even if my "mind" is projecting this experience or interpretation of such a tree illusion.... Everyone's mind is basically projecting a roughly similar illusion. I saw an example of a "river" from somewhere: > - A deva sees a river as a stream of gems. > - A human sees it as water. > - A hungry ghost sees it as a river of pus and blood. Sure, fine. But it's still at least perceived as a general "flow" by all. A continuous stream. It's not like it's a rock to some and an animal to others, and a river to everyone else. Or an explosion of rippling radiation or some other dispersed and hard to imagine network/system of many things.... It's still a flow, in time and space. Maybe to a fast-moving light-being, it is like a slow moving game of tetris, etc.. But it is still moving! If you account for the change in perspective, you have the same overall "flow" in the place. So my question is, at least in Yogācāra Buddhism (or other schools deeply analyzing consciousness to that degree), how do they account for this? My understanding so far is that, in Yogācāra, everything is mind. Everything is consciousness, from the base consciousness (ālaya-vijñāna). So then my question becomes "how do you account for physical form then"? To which they respond (it seems) with, "it's a mental projection". Okay, sure, MY experience of a form is a mental projection in my own mind, but that doesn't change the fact that the form is persistent in time and space (like the tree!). How does Yogācāra account for that? But then my reading/understanding of Yogācāra perspective is basically that: > All appearances, including persistent physical forms like trees, are manifestations of consciousness (vijñapti-mātra) arising from causal seeds (bīja) stored in the storehouse consciousness (ālaya-vijñāna). Basically, the tree is a co-constructed, stable illusion due to ongoing karmic resonance, not an independent material substance. Its form is projected within consciousness, but projected in accordance with karmic law, which behaves much like physical law. Something like that is very hard for me to comprehend, and feels circular in reasoning somehow. Is there a way to explain how physical forms seem to persist in time and space, from this sort of mind-only perspective here? _Looking further, it seems they would say "all sentient beings who perceive the tree are doing so because they have karmic seeds that generate similar experiences." But that doesn't make any sense to me, that the tree's reality is based on everyone else's reality. Or something like that. That everything is based on everything else, and if one thing changes all of a sudden, the entire universe could change it's fundamental laws. Doesn't seem to jive with me yet. Maybe I'm also reading it wrong._

[This answer on Reddit](https://old.reddit.com/r/Buddhism/comments/12flgq9/what_are_some_arguments_for_reincarnation_from_a/jfgry4f/) gave a basic outline of [Dharmakīrti's argument for rebirth](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebirth_(Buddhism)#Metaphysical_arguments) in the form of a syllogism: 1. Matter and consciousness are metaphysically different, their characteristics and nature are different 2. An effect must be of the same nature as its substantial cause 3. Thus consciousness cannot arise from or be produced by matter (1, 2) 4. Conclusion: Therefore, there must have a been a consciousness prior to any person's conception which causes the first moment of consciousness in this life For the sake of the question, let's assume that you accept this line of argumentation. The question then becomes, how did the first mental event arise according to this framework? Of course, there is the idea that many immaterial intellects exist in the transcendent realms some of which stretch beyond iterations of the universe and many eons, but at the same time, for there to be so many creatures on just this planet with consciousness would implicate that billions upon billions, if not more, immaterial entities survived the past iteration(s) and eons and made it to this one, and also never achieved enlightenment during that time, which seems highly implausible. Perhaps the Yogacara idea of the store-house consciousness must be of use here, but it would be difficult to prove, I'm not too sure. If anyone knows more about Dharmakīrti's thinking with regards to this, please share your knowledge.

Why, exactly, in technical detail, does consciousness "divide" into selves in Buddhism? Has this every been adequately answered by anyone in history, in any school of Buddhism? Don't need a complete analysis here as an answer necessarily, but looking for an intro to the depths of technical detail. By that I mean, how does it go from "base consciousness" (like ālaya-vijñāna in Yogācāra Buddhism), to self-consciousness basically? Step by step, break it down so one can see the inner workings :) If you'd just like to comment on the sources I can find this information in, please list where to find it. English translation ideally, ideally not 100's or 1000's of pages of reading. But maybe that doesn't exist yet :). _Hoping this can be boiled down to just a few short/brief paragraphs, or just a few concise pages of external reading._ I ask this question because was just trying to narrow down my understanding of the foundation of reality, the universe, the everything, writing: > There is only experience. > > Experience is a cause (to experience), and an effect (the experience), at the same time. It is difficult to imagine but if you think about what that would mean, that means there is no separation into two things (cause and effect), there is only one thing, the cause-effect flow. > > Experience is action and reaction, action and object, motion and form. Cause and effect. It is one unified thing, non-separable into parts or even befores and afters. > > Somehow though it subdivides into individual experiences. Experiences only aware of a relative portion of the whole, not the whole itself. _By "experience" I mean basically consciousness in traditional terminology. But I think experience is a better English word for it. It's all just words anyways, words aren't the actual thing obviously._ In Buddhism, this "subdivision" is also in places described as a defilement of pure consciousness, or ignorance, a temporary blotting out of the light like a cloud moving in front of the sun. Etc.. But WHY. WHY does experience subdivide, or become ignorant, or the underlying field of consciousness, the one flow, the One permanent thing? It must DO something to get there it seems. It must TURN AWAY perhaps. But why would it do that? No reason that I can think of yet. Maybe it's a locality thing, it just can't experience the whole thing? But why? Etc.. My rational brain is like: 1. "In the beginning" there was pure consciousness, undifferentiated, One continuous undivided experience. _I don't mean there was a beginning, I just mean conceptually there is a base state, sort of thing._ 2. Then it exploded into a plethora of ignorant selves, thinking they were each independent of the underlying field and everything else. 3. The selves go through cycles of life and death, rising into pleasure realms, falling into pain realms, for long periods of time. 4. Until eventually they realize their oneness, and find the middle path of peace, break the cycle, and I guess become "extinguished" experiences (nirvana/cessation), releasing that part of the base consciousness back to the field. _Obviously there is no beginning though, but this is just a mental exercise to model the system._ But so many questions in that. Main one here is: - Why does pure/base consciousness need to or have to or eventually evolve into semi-ignorant sub-consciousnesses, unaware of the whole? - And assuming consciousness is always in some sense "disturbed", a rippling pond by definition, always and forever, why do they say you can ever achieve "nirvana/cessation", the extinguished state, where you are back to the perfectly calm pond state? - Why couldn't the whole stay aware of the whole, why did it have to subdivide? Basically: - If the pond started in a perfectly calm state, why would it ever become disturbed? - Assuming it was disturbed for some reason (by it's nature somehow?), and spontaneously erupts into a plethora of selves, how can we say/model/imagine/know that those selves can eventually become extinguished back into pure calmness again? - And if they are capable of becoming pure calm in a disturbed pond, why wouldn't everything eventually evolve back into pure calm, and the whole system is extinguished? Basically trying to convey the blurry imagination I have in my head of this network of processes and evolutions.... - Selves spontaneously emerge because the pond can't stay calm (WHY? HOW? Step by step in technical detail?). - Yet disturbance can become calm again? In a physical pond, the calm pond is disturbed by something external like a piece of dirt, a rock, or the wind. Or something within like a jumping or swimming fish. But this metaphor of the pond breaks down, it is not totally accurate. In a physical pond, there are already objects like fish and birds and molecules, etc.. But in base consciousness, there is none of this yet. Just potential somehow. To summarize though, main focus on this question is: **Why does the pure undivided calm pond of consciousness divide into selves (disturbances in the underlying field)?** Please break it down for me, step by step somehow, in some technical detail. Many will say "because it did X" (it turned away, it started desiring, it forgot about the whole, etc..). Okay then, but _why_ did it start doing that even? What was the detailed technical process that led to those initial actions leading to the separation? It's like, I imagine this is the usual answer I read/see: 1. Base consciousness. 2. It decided to do X. 3. Result was ignorance, selves, etc.. I can reason about going from step 2 -> 3, but **how do you rationalize step 1 -> 2?** Put another way (if that helps): > What is the _technical mechanism_ by which primordial consciousness becomes _mistaken consciousness_? You might answer, "well it clings, creating the I". Okay, why does it cling then? _What is the in-between step there exactly, substeps?_ **There is a _missing link_ in the explanation.** In every text/thread I have seen so far, it goes from pure to impure, with no explanation of why or how this works. Once we are clinging, I get that the self forms and the illusion exists. But going from non-self to clinging, why. If this is never elaborated on in any text or anywhere, please just let me know. If you have _your own_ developed ideas on it, I would love to hear that as well too, either way.

Posthumanist ideas often explore how moral concern might extend beyond just human beings, including the possibility of artificial intelligences or other non-human entities. While we haven’t created a conscious AI yet, the idea raises some interesting questions from a Buddhist perspective. Let's assume if we are able to create conscious AI, in some distant future Would a conscious AI be included in the scope of compassion and ethical responsibility that Buddhism teaches? Could an artificial being like this fit into existing Buddhist categories such as beings subject to karma? I’d be really interested to hear how different traditions or contemporary Buddhist thinkers might approach this, even if it's speculative.

Just [was walking through](https://cluesurf.substack.com/p/base-consciousness) how to go from a base flow of pure, undivided, ego-less, consciousness, to a sense of self, after falling onto the [Eight Consciousnesses page](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight_Consciousnesses) (most insight from [Vasubandhu](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasubandhu) ~500 CE 🤯). It makes total sense in this brief moment how to go from one to many basically 😍💥. But though I haven't read the original works, and have many decades worth of thinking/research/learning/engaging/experiencing to go through to perhaps get a deeper glimpse, I am not satisfied with my interpretation of how the "5 senses" emerged from the base consciousness. I'm not talking about literal eyes and ears, and human-level sense organs. I am talking about the **potential** for the experience of sight/sound/taste/touch/smell. If that potential is baked into the base consciousness, then I have some base questions: 1. What is the experience of base consciousness like (is it _more than_ all 5 senses, since it is not the absence of them)? 2. How _exactly_ do the 5 normal senses get created out of the base consciousness? I don't quite follow. If nothing else, where can I read to learn more (ideally in English, but even mentioning original sources might help)? But if you can offer a basic summary, that would be good too.

I find that the five Skandhas can be very confusing at times, as the Western idea of mind and perception is very different to the Buddhist idea of mind and perception. On top of that, many explanations of the five Skandhas online seem vague and sometimes seem to be interpreted differently, depending on where you go. The first Skandha: **Form** --------------------------- Does this refer to physical form? Can we only know form through the sense organs? The second Skandha: **Sensation** --------------------------------- Are these just sensations from the sense organs? One description online describes sensation as follows: > ... it is the sensation experienced through the contact of eye with > visible form, ear with sound, nose with odor, tongue with taste, body > with tangible things, mind (manas) with ideas or thoughts. If this is the case, does emotion fall under sensation? The third Skandha: **Perception** --------------------------------- A description I found: >Samjna is the faculty that recognizes. Most of what we call thinking fits into the aggregate of samjna. > > The word "samjna" means "knowledge that puts together." It is the > capacity to conceptualize and recognize things by associating them > with other things. For example, we recognize shoes as shoes because we > associate them with our previous experience with shoes. My understanding is that the faculty to recognize is consciousness. However, consciousness is said to be a different Skandha. My understanding is that consciousness is that which perceives the world around it. More broadly, how is perception and consciousness different? The fourth Skandha: **Mental Formation** --------------------------------- A description I found: > This aggregate includes all mental factors except feeling and > perception, which are two of the possible fifty-two mental factors > noted in Buddhism. I'm assuming this is where emotions exist? Is happiness an emotion? Is loving-kindness an emotion? If not, were do they exist, in terms of the Skandhas? The fifth Skandha: **Consciousness** --------------------------------- A description I found: > Vijnana is a reaction that has one of the six faculties as its basis and one of the six corresponding phenomena as its object. For example, aural consciousness -- hearing -- has the ear as its basis and a sound as its object. Mental consciousness has the mind (manas) as its basis and an idea or thought as its object. If this is the case, then is consciousness that which *observes* sensations, mental formations, perception and form, or that which *experiences* sensation, perception, mental formations and form? Can the experience of sensation exist if we are not conscious of it? Are animals conscious? Maybe a more important question is: what is the difference between consciousness and self-awareness, in the Buddhist context? I realize there are a lot of questions here, so thank you to whoever takes the time out of their day to answer them. Have a good day! Comment: This is a very cogent, very important, even fundamental issue in the process of direct inquiry. The last question haunts me: what is the true definition of consciousness when referred to as a Buddhist skanda? Specifically, self reflexive awareness--for lack of a better term--seems fundamental, even unitary. Vedantic teachings inevitably lead to the direct discovery that "consciousness is all". Consider Turyia. The Tibetan term, Rigpa, seems to point to the same realization.

Philosophers of mind, such as David Chalmers, now recognize three general approaches to the question – what is consciousness? 1. **Materialism** - Materialism is the view that the mind is what the brain does. This is often stated as the mind is caused by the brain. The brain is the physical substance, while the mind or consciousness is a process that emerges from the brain. 2. **Dualism** - Dualism is the position that consciousness is something separate from the brain and not entirely caused by it. It may be a separate property of the universe (property dualism) or be something beyond the confines of our material universe. Whatever it is, it does not reduce to the firing of neurons in the brain, which cannot, in the opinion of dualists, explain subjective experience. 3. **Idealism** - The third position, the one is idealism – the claim that consciousness is all there is and the physical universe, including the brain, is a manifestation of consciousness. Explaining the position, Bernardo Kastrup uses the metaphor of a river, where the flowing water is consciousness. The material world is like a whirlpool in the stream – the whirlpool has a definite existence in time and space, you can point to it and say, “there it is,” but it is comprised entirely of the stuff of consciousness. Which position is the most closely aligned with Buddhist schools?

What arguments does buddhism have to hold that consciousness is dependently originated when majority of non-buddhist philosophies/theologies hold consciousness/soul to be immutable/unchanging, without any origin and independent of matter and external factors?

This question may seem a little new age. I am often discouraged in my life in general by the belief that I want more, nothing specific, but something is missing, perhaps a more meaningful life. Could this be attachment or thirst for an abstract idea? Can we be attached to the objects of the 6th consciousness? It's not obviously causing me to suffer physically or psychologically, perhaps in a subtle way, and it may be the suffering of change as it manifests to the 6th consciousness and its attachments. Any ideas? FTR I ***definitely don't blame*** - Buddhist - religion for that, even having had religious psychosis. It is just the mundane sense that my past is a disappointment and there's nothing I can do to shift my future into something better than that.

If consciousness/awareness as the 5th skandha is impermanent (?), shouldn't it cease to exist when entering Paranirvana? But in SN 22.53 the Buddha says: > "If a monk abandons passion for the property of consciousness, then > owing to the abandonment of passion, the support is cut off, and there > is no landing of consciousness. Consciousness, thus not having landed, > not increasing, not concocting, is released. Owing to its release, it > is steady. Owing to its steadiness, it is contented. Owing to its > contentment, it is not agitated. Not agitated, he (the monk) is > totally unbound right within. He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the > holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this > world.'" Here cuddlyable3 answers with a quote which says that: > - Damien Keown states: Nirvana [...] involves a radically transformed state of consciousness which is free of the obsession with ‘me and > mine’ > - when a person attains nirvana, they are liberated from ordinary rebirth. When such a person dies, their physical body disintegrates > and their consciousness is said to be completely liberated. They are > not reborn in the ordinary sense. Their consciousness does not take > rebirth into a physical form > - terms like ‘born’ or ‘not born’ do not apply in the case of an Arahant, because those things—matter, sensation, perception, mental > activities, consciousness—with which the terms like ‘born’ and ‘not > born’ are associated, are completely destroyed and uprooted, never to > rise again after his death Doesn't the last point contradict with the others? For me it makes much sense that consciousness is that which gets enlightened and that Nirvana is the state of free, liberated consciousness. I mean if everything what I am, even consciousness, which I think I ultimately am, vanishes, why should I pursue enlightenment then? Thank you.

Quick question. How do we hear the sound of our own thought? I assume ear-consciousness but without the contact of internal-external bases ? Is this right?

What Buddhist distinction is made between "awareness" and "consciousness"? I view "mindfulness" as a purposeful application of awareness. However, I am at a loss for a clear distinction between awareness and consciousness.

I read this wikipage and it seems like 'reacting to stimuli' is being called perception (saññā). Is 'reacting to stimuli' perception, or is perception itself stimuli? To me, the article implies perception is the condition for expression, i.e. a reaction. Do you agree that for a plant the stimulus-response is a single unitary movement (no karmaphala) and there is no intermission (of perception)? Is it more likely a projection of human knowledge - the personification of a plant? A perception has a result (Karmaphala). The results are perception are explained as such: > "And what is the result of perception? Perception has communication by > speech as its result, I tell you. However a person per ceives > something, that is how he expresses it: 'I have this sort of > perception.' This is called the result of perception. Here is a quote for BSE: > "In the scriptures we have the word sañña. Sañña means distinguishing, > putting a label, telling difference, making distinction, > discriminating." Is labeling perception or the result of perception?

Is perception discriminative thinking? I got the term from the lankavatara sutra, but I think it appears in zen a bit, and I wondered if it means only one type of consciousness, perhaps the 6th or 7th, and if not whether perception itself does not occur during enlightenment?

I may consider myself as a strong buddhist. But when I read about concept of quantum consciousness , it seems very realistic. And add to that, considering capabilities of current simple(chat GPT, etc) AI models, and considering how powerful an AI model(in DNA) would be powered by evolution through millions of years, it seems possible to believe ability to produce consciousness like behavior with 1) biological quantum consciousness and 2) AI model coded by DNA. So, my question is, what are the best **Buddhist answers** against this? Why may be these ideas of physically produced consciousness are wrong? In other words, what information we can gather from buddhist philosophy and buddhist teachings regarding origin of the consciousness?

I don't understand the formless jhanas. Does this meditator completely lose consciousness of form, or are they meditating on something formless and, apart from that, as before? I've read the abhidharmakosa bhashyam, of Vasubhadhu, and he says that a mediator of this sort will be later reborn into a realm without form, so that suggests that there are sentient beings without any of the sense consciousnesses. But I just find the idea impossible, to be honest. Interesting, one of those books says that some Buddhists claim that there is a residue of visual consciousnesses there. Can anyone describe to me what the formless jhana is like? I'm especially intrigued as to whether there is any sense of ***shade*** to it: if it seems darker or lighter than any given colour I've experienced.

I read [somewhere](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/50955/why-is-there-no-attention-aggregate/51065#51065) that: > Attention is a product of/maintained by volition/intention (which is sankhara aggregate). I am puzzled by this as the following examples illustrate: 1. I am driving back from a party. I maybe drunk but is 100% focused on the road. Despite this, I find myself driving into a road divider. 2. I am really interested in heavenly beings. I tried to read up, research and find any materials on this subject. After years and decades of studying, I still do not find any devas around me. 3. I am studying for an important test tomorrow. I am aware of the test’s importance and trying hard to attend to my study but my mind keeps drifting to the Netflix show on TV. So, what is attention and how does it work?

I asked this question recently to understand why consciousness is different from the intellect itself and considering the answer given I now think that Consciousness is not something higher than intellect but just the working of intellect i.e. "consciousness of". But now I encountered another type of consciousness Consciousness without surface (viññanam anidassanam) which seems to be beyond the intellect itself, as Bhikkhu Thanissaro explain it here it is beyond the six sense media. I read somewhere else that it is consciousness of arising of Dhammacakka, The Eye of Wisdom. Could you please direct me to a detailed exposition of this type of consciousness, if any. Thanks a mil.

From MN 49 (trans. Sujato): > Consciousness that is invisible, infinite, radiant all round—that’s > what is not within the scope of experience based on earth, water, > fire, air, creatures, gods, the Creator, Brahmā, the gods of streaming > radiance, the gods replete with glory, the gods of abundant fruit, the > Overlord, and the all. > > *Viññāṇaṃ anidassanaṃ anantaṃ sabbato pabhaṃ* ... The invisible consciousness (*viññāṇaṃ anidassanaṃ*) from MN 49 seems to be different from the sense consciousness described in MN 18 e.g. eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness etc. because it is not within the scope of sense experience, according to MN 49. It is also found in DN 11 . It is also translated as "consciousness without surface" (from here , trans. Thanissaro). Question 1: What is the invisible consciousness or consciousness without surface described in MN 49 and DN 11? Is it a cosmic consciousness like the one found in Hinduism? I guess not. Question 2: This answer implies that this invisible consciousness or consciousness without surface is the re-linking consciousness (*patisandhi-viññana*) that connects one lifetime to the next. This also implies that the re-linking consciousness (*patisandhi-viññana*) which is the invisible consciousness or consciousness without surface (*viññāṇaṃ anidassanaṃ*) is the consciousness that descends into the womb causing materiality-mentality (*nāmarūpa*) to arise (from DN 15 ). Is this right? Question 3: Also, the description of "invisible, infinite and radiant all round" sounds very similar to the "luminous mind" (*pabhassara citta*) from AN 1.51-52 . The same word "*pabham*" (luminosity) or "*pabhassara*" (luminous) is used in both MN 49 and AN 1.51-52. How is the invisible consciousness or consciousness without surface related to the luminous mind?