Observer consciousness and Buddhist consciousness

If there is an observer in science it is assumed that the observer is neutral.  This observer has no influence on the object nor does the object, at hand, impact upon the observer.  

But what if the observer were not so neutral?  Furthermore, let’s imagine that the neutral observer is more like the surgeon of the 19th century who never washed his hands, always contaminating his patients with his germ laden fingers.  Truth be told, the supposed boundary between the observer and the observed is a complete fiction—but nevertheless a convenient fiction which is not without evil consequences.  This leads to the problem of mutual influence or coordinate influence.

For the Buddha, the observer aggregate or skandha consciousness and the observed object are always coordinate.  This is an opening to deception or the same, duplicity (dvaya).  By establishing itself with determinate being, skandha consciousness comes to growth and with it is the growth of sorrow, anguish and despair, according to the Buddha.  This also includes rebirth.  Obviously, in the teachings of Buddhism there is a price to pay for every observation. 

Related to this, observer neutrality creeps into Westernized Buddhism with regard to awareness as if awareness were always neutral and above the fray.  This use amounts to a makeshift for skandha consciousness which never ceases interfacing with temporal reality; most prominently, the corporeal body together with its drives and demands.  Implicit with this is also desire.

From a totally different perspective, without consciousness being shackled to the observer/observed dyad the Buddha tells us that, “Consciousness, [is] without distinguishing mark, infinite and shining everywhere” (D. i. 223).  In the commentary (athakatha) to this (DA. ii. 393) such consciousness, now infinite consciousness, is a term for nirvana!  Connected with this view, these passages from the canon make perfect sense in addition to helping us understand higher consciousness, for example the consciousness of the Tathagata.

“Bhikkhus, if that released mind of the bhikkhu was to be searched by Indra, Brahmà, Pajàpati and their retinue, it would not be found; thus unsupported is the consciousness of the Thus Gone One. What is the reason: I say that the Thus Gone One cannot be found even here and now” (M. i. 140).

And,

“That is Mara the Evil One  searching for the consciousness of Vakkali the Clansman: ‘Where is the consciousness of Vakkali the Clansman established?’ But, monks, it is through unestablished consciousness that Vakkali the Clansman has attained total nirvana (parinibbuto)” (S. iii. 124).

Obviously, we learn from the foregoing that consciousness, itself, doesn’t need brains or objects.  

Right now, the West is still deciding whether or not mind or consciousness constitutes an epiphenomenon of the brain.  Based upon my own ad hoc survey of the literature, there seems to be a battle line developing between the understanding of some quantum physicists about consciousness and the understanding of some neuroscientists. 

A late note to commentators.  I permit heated debates on this blog (I enjoy the 'em).  Just avoid swear words. 

 

Comments

[Bob Morris]

Kojizen - I think Dr. Johnson had grown tired of those arguments when he demonstrated tacit understanding by kicking the stone.

[Bob Morris]

Kojizen, I think that by the time Dr. Johnson resorted to kicking a rock he had grown weary of those (endless) arguments

[Kojizen]

Bob, the good bishop might argue that the foot of Dr. Johnson and the stone can be reduced to ideas, i.e., elementary units of perception.

[Bob Morris]

Responding to Bishop Berkeley's philosophy of mystical idealism , Dr. Samuel Johnson kicked a heavy stone and exclaimed, "I refute it thus!" (I learned that in college.)

[Bob Morris]

I seem to have disturbed a nest...