About mind/citta that “knows” without using the viññāṇa of the 6 senses

Discussion
, ,
55

Yes. But how you define real is important. The Teacher defined nibbana as real because it was non-deceptive in appearance. That was the Teacher’s definition of real: what is ‘real’ is non-deceptive in appearance.

You appear to be using the word real in a different way than the Teacher to signify true existence. This is not how the Teacher chose to define real.

You also appear to be describing a self-knower or nibbana conceived as a thing or somehow a non-thing. Neither of these are appropriate. Nibbana, if conceived of as a thing, is like all things empty of any true existence. It cannot be found when subject to penetrative analysis. Nibbana, if conceived of as a non-thing, is like all non-things empty of any true existence. It cannot be found when subject to penetrative analysis. It is not appropriate to conceive of Nibbana as a thing nor as a non-thing.

Conceiving of Nibbana as some truly existing thing or non-thing attained by someone, sometime, somewhere has to be given up. No truly existing Nibbana was ever attained by anyone, at anytime, anywhere.

:pray:

56

in the Theravada teaching the nibbana is true and real, while the -self experience is delusion and unreal:

"See how the world together with the devas has self-conceit for what is not-self. Enclosed by mind-and-body it imagines, ‘This is real.’ Whatever they imagine it to be, it is quite different from that. It is unreal, of a false nature and perishable. Nibbana, not false in nature, that the Noble Ones know as true. Indeed, by the penetration of the true, they are completely stilled and realize final deliverance.

Dvayatanupassana Sutta: The Noble One's Happiness

well, also one could say that also what you says it has to be given up because no truly existing person is saying such thing, and therefore nibbana can be attained now. And again we can apply one more turn, to leave the previous conclusion and to say nibbana already was attained by all beings so what we are talking about… Etcetera.

I understand well what you says because I was following Mahayana quite years ago. And still I appreciate quite mahayana teachings.

At least I agree with that the user Ceisrw wrote in one message, about the Mahayana arose also like a reaction to stress anatta in front more realistic abhidhammic strategies.

This Mahayana strategy is a main issue in their teachings to avoid the building of an atta image from nibbana. However, note the final issue is about catching the point. Be in the first turn or in the twenty second…

In example, a Mahayana follower can read about no entering into nibbana until all sentient beings can be liberated. However, we know the Diamond Sutra says that there are no sentient beings to be liberated. And then the strategy is clear. It is obvious.

However, even when this strategy is not hidden, it cannot impede that many Mahayana followers build an atta image from these teachings, despite are addressed to avoid an atta image. And quite people develop a rejection to realize nibbana until the end of the multiverse. Because the contrary thing can sound selfish or something like that. And at that point, one can ask if there is any trick in youtube to avoid such degree of cosmic procastination.

I mean, somebody can build an atta image from nibbana in whatever turn around the anatta notion. The problem is not in the teaching but in the understanding. If somebody is not able to catch the anatta teaching with the first sources then maybe he can try with these Mahayana strategies. No problem, I believe.

The anatta meaning is already contained inside the Canon Pali teachings. Although realizing the anatta meaning always is an individual issue in both Theravada and Mahayana traditions.

57

Agreed. I give up. :joy: :pray:

58

Puerh has declared a solution to the contradiction presented in the first post of this thread by modification the definition of “the mind/citta that “knows” without using the viññāṇa of the 6 senses”. As following what he said in the above quotes, his modification is: [“mind/citta” (=“knowledge”) to be in “Nibbāna”] OR [“mind/citta” (=“knowledge”) itself is “Nibbāna”]

Puerh, please kindly let me know whether there is any misunderstanding here.

I am curious to understand if this proposed solution is also accepted by other Dhamma friends who seem to support the citta/mind idea like @HinMarkPeng or @Green or @Charlie or anyone else? The reason is because I have never seen anyone even attempt to make such a bold declaration as putting citta/mind anywhere even close to the same level as Nibbāna.

You only need to voice your disagreement below, providing arguments to support your disagreement is recommended but optional. If you somehow don’t want to voice your disagreement, I will have to make an assumption that this modification of definition of citta/mind (citta/mind itself is Nibbāna) is how you want to resolve the mentioned contradiction.

59

yes, it is. You are right. This is named in Pali viññanam anidassanam. This is the result of the Cease of Consciousness rightly understood instead a nihilism as previously explained.

You can investigate that Pali name if you wish. You will find it inside Suttas describing the nibbana experience.

nidassanam means “pointing at”. Therefore, viññanam anidassanam means “consciousness without pointing to something”.

To expand more the point:

one should remember the cease of consciousness is developed for the clinging-consciousness aggregate. Because we should remember that there are the five aggregates, and also there are the five clinging-aggregates. Two related although different issues.

"At Savatthi. There the Blessed One said, “Monks, I will teach you the five aggregates & the five clinging-aggregates. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak.”
Khandha Sutta: Aggregates

in short:

  • five aggregates: forms, feelings, perceptions, fabrications, consciousness

  • five clinging-aggregates: clinging forms, clinging feelings, clinging perceptions, clinging fabrications, clinging consciousness

the five clinging-aggregates is what the -self grasp. This is the delusion of ownership of the kammic production arising from the aggregates. So in example, when the -self clings to a form it means = form-clinging aggregate. And the same happens with the rest. This is how the deluded -self experience builds the experienced reality: with the clinging aggregates.

The task of liberation should be carried regarding the five-clinging-aggregates. We cannot act in the aggregates in themselves but just in the ambit of the five-clinging-aggregates. They are the clinging activity building the delusion of -self and the “me” and “mine”.

"The Blessed One said, "And which is the burden? ‘The five clinging-aggregates,’ it should be said. Which five? Form as a clinging-aggregate, feeling as a clinging-aggregate, perception as a clinging-aggregate, fabrications as a clinging-aggregate, consciousness as a clinging-aggregate: This, monks, is called the burden.

"And which is the carrier of the burden? ‘The person,’ it should be said. This venerable one with such a name, such a clan-name: This is called the carrier of the burden.

"And which is the taking up of the burden? The craving that makes for further becoming — accompanied by passion & delight, relishing now here & now there — i.e., craving for sensual pleasure, craving for becoming, craving for non-becoming: This is called the taking up of the burden.

“And which is the casting off of the burden? The remainderless dispassion-cessation, renunciation, relinquishment, release, & letting go of that very craving: This is called the casting off of the burden.”

Bhāra Sutta: The Burden

I believe that’s very clear: the cease of the five-clinging aggregates is nibbana.

Aggregates in themselves are just the kamma production. Because this reason also dukkha can be eradicated completely in life as the Buddha discovered. When there is no more -self delusion, that is the cease of the five clinging-aggregates, that kammic activity from the aggregates is not causing clinging, and therefore no more dukkha. And that activity becomes like the presence of a guest for the arhant.

In the case of the cease of consciousness, the Cease of the clinging-consciousness aggregate will leave the aggregate of consciousnes as it is. And when it happens the consciousness is viññanam anidassanam; this is anatta and nibbana.

1 Like
60

You may wish to have a look at:

and

DN11 with commentary by Ven. Sujato in parentheses:
" “‘Viññāṇaṁ anidassanaṁ, Consciousness where nothing appears;"

(“Infinite” (ananta) is the direct qualifier of “consciousness”, but in the Pali it is shifted to the next line to fit the meter. It indicates the second of the formless attainments. Yājñavalkya describes consciousness as infinite in the famous passage at Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 2.4.12. infinite, luminous all-round—“Invisible” (anidassanaṁ) here is a synonym for “formless” (see eg. MN 21:14.8, “space is formless and invisible”, ākāso arūpī anidassano). Normally the colors and images seen in the “form” absorptions are described as “visible” (eg [DN16:3.29.1(SuttaCentral)), so this indicates the formless attainments. | Pabhaṁ means “luminous”, as with the deities that are “self-luminous”
Sabbato pabhaṁ (“luminous all-round”) is synonymous with pariyodāta (“bright”, literally “white all over”), a stock descriptor of the mind of fourth jhāna, on which the formless states are based.
I read these verses as broken into two statements. The first part, ending here, speaks of the formless attainments as “infinite consciousness”, agreeing with the highest of the Brahmanical meditative sages. The following verses go further to speak of the cessation of consciousness.).

DN11: "And that is where long and short, fine and coarse, beautiful and ugly; that’s where name and form cease with nothing left over—with the cessation of consciousnessViññāṇassa nirodhena, "

(According to dependent origination, when consciousness ceases, name and form cease, and with it the manifestation of all things desirable and undesirable in the world. that’s where they cease.”)

1 Like
61

The reponse given by Puerh in post 59 (and also 51) is how I understand this also. It is a good description of what I was presenting in the essay I wrote on this topic.

As a result of that essay, I have come to learn that there are those here that have a very different understanding of the suttas. People are free to have their own views and of course their own experiences, it is after all, a big elephant I hear tell.

That’s about all I can say.

62

Myself I don’t know about that. How do people read the Bhūmijasutta (SN 12.25)? Meaning, I am not sure that it’s an appropriate means to destroy ignorance by saying, it’s nothing but a big elephant after all.

63

Namo Buddhaya!

As i see it, there is actually very little corruption in as far as definitive proof of corruption goes.

There is some discrepancy in who said what & the exact version of events, sometimes a brief statement might contradict another but these are very obvious minor things.

When it comes to text critical studies, what do you expect but scrutiny of the texts? But does this scrutiny actually prove anything beyond doubt?

I think this is unfair too. Where the translators deviate is in but a few terms and they will tell you all about it if you ask.

For example sujato probably doesn’t think that choices is a literal translation of sankhara like thanissaro knows that extinguishment is closer to nibbana than is ‘unbinding’.

The real pali controversies are very few. As with the word papanca and even for this you can figure out a couple viable interpretations.

Even tho there is no master-consensus-edition of a most close literal translation, generally you will find that there is agreement on what is closer if you take a word or a line of verse out of context.
Because translators have variant interpretations they disagree mostly on the context and therefore translate differently but they are all generally taught the same things as i don’t know of there being much schism in pali studies.

This i think is a fair statement and you can learn about the discrepancy as to make up your own mind.

In other words i think that if you ask the 5 forrmost translators to translate everything literally, set aside invested interest & bias, then they will probably come up with something which is very close to one another’s rendering.

Yes, this is how it is. My point is that this is good and not bad. We actually know what the texts say and can make up our own minds. What more can a person of our generation ask for?

There is no need to become a pali expert to figure out how pali translations developed as the sets were published. It’s a small group of people translating the same body of text over 4-5 generations and it is all rather well documented.

64

If there is attachment, grasping to arising vinnana’s, mind tends to be seen as a stream. Under influence of defilements, knowledge of what mind is, very much circles around coming and going, stream, movement, i believe.

But when mind gradually is purified, the knowlegde of what mind is also changes. Knowledge of mind changes from a stream to non-movement, from inclined to this and that, to uninclined. From burdened to taking up no burden. From in fire to cooled or extinguished. From restless to peaceful. From seeing signs everywhere to signless. From passionate to desireless.

Mind is not the problem but the solution to the end of suffering. Our understanding of mind, THAT is the problem. If mind would be the problem, then it would be irrational to teach that we must make a refuge of ourselves, an island and not seek refuge in something external.

The problem is, i feel, people believe that the sublime supreme coolness or peace of Nibbana is some house that one can build up with much effort. No, that is wrong, i believe. The peace of Nibbana is arrived at when the mind is released from such building up and constructing activity.

But because people see Nibbana as something that is build-up, constructed over time, whit much effort, like a huge house, stone by stone, with a lot of sweat, they also feel it will cease. They treat it as sankhata, as something seen arising, ceasing and changing. A Nibbana building consisting of building blocks with much effort put in place. I feel this is wrong.

Suppose you walk in nature. There is someone who has a loud radio. He shuts down the radio. Do you really believe that this person has now made, created, produced the stillness that now reveals?

Likewise, the removal of defilements does not create in any way the peaceful, uninclined, signless, desireless unlimited nature of mind. It only reveals it. That is very different from produces, makes and creates it.

Buddha is not a creator of Nibbana. He re-discovered it. That is what all Buddha’s do.
Nibbana is for free, a state of Grace and a birthright.

I read this and i very much recognise this, from Ajahn Pannavaddho:

“In Buddhism, we are not aiming to become saints or to attach labels like “arahant” to ourselves. We are simply aiming to become normal people who have straightened out the crookedness in our hearts;
people who have tamed those inner demons we call the kilesas, allowing us to lead ordinary lives happily, instead of at the dictates of a mass of emotions, sensations and other influences all tangled up inside our hearts. Surely this is our birthright, so to speak, rather than some exalted special status such as the word “saint” brings to mind. It is what we ought to be, a state of normality. But to reach that state we will have to fight and defeat the demon properly”

Beautiful. So true, i feel. I have always felt it exactly like this.

It is also not that we must earn Nibbana. Or that Nibbana depends on our morals or behaviour or wisdom or skills, our intelligence, our merits, our religion, our Path, the teachings, that Not at all. Those are only things that are conducive to discover and reveal Nibbana but not things that condition Nibbana like fuel and oxigen conditions a fire. It is not like that. But apparantly that is what most people here believe.

Nibbana is revealed and never made, produced, created by anyone. One must not see Nibbana is some constructed house. Precisely because it is not like that, it was what Buddha sought and in which his search came to an end.

65

Sounds Catholic to me.

66

Namo Buddhaya!

I can give an analogy

For example in a video game like mario there is a narrative about the princess & whatnot. One might ask ‘what happens to the princess when you turn off the game?’

Here one can answer similarly to how one answers whether the arahant exists after death by counter questioning ‘but what do you take to be the princess?’.

Are the pixels a princess? Is the visible form a princess? And so on demonstrating inability to pin a pincess down as a truth & reality even when the game is on, nevermind having turned the game off.

And so one only uses the convention ‘princess’ when certain things are present like the perception of visible form being thus described & narrated.

If the realities pertaining to the game was all there was to reality in general then it would be impossible to turn the game off but because the realities pertaining to the game are but a subset of reality - the game can cease and a different reality can be discerned.

The narrarive of a person is similarly talked about.

If the realities pertaining to the six sense fields was all there was to reality in general, then there could be no cessation of the six sense fields as the constructed would be the only element. But because the constructed is but a subset of all elements there is also the asankhata in dependence on which the sankhata ends.

However these elements have no interaction like the narrative of a video game does not go beyond describing the game.

It’s foolish to discuss things like whether the princess really exists or not, whether she knows that the game ended and whether she discerns when it’s on.

67

As my understanding: there are conditions (air, electricity, working radio, speakers, working radio station, antenna, volition of listening, etc.) for a loud radio. When these conditions are there then a loud radio is there. When these conditions are not there then a loud radio is not there.

Note that, I didn’t say [stillness reveals]. Instead, I said [loud radio is not there]. In the similar way, I can say [Mount Everest is not there] which can be very much a truthful and verifiable statement.

However, when I say [stillness is there], that means: I must also understand somewhat the conditions for stillness and I must also have the common understanding with the listener for a definition of stillness.

Now, using the same approach for stillness. If we settle for a common understanding for definition of stillness such as “no audible sound can be heard by an average human’s ear”, then, there are conditions for such stillness: working ear, air, perturbations under certain limit, consciousness, etc. When these conditions are there then such stillness is there. When these conditions are not there then such stillness is not there. So, under such approach and under such definition of stillness, when a person shuts down the radio, he has actually made the condition “perturbations under certain limit” for stillness.

In other words, contrasting to what you thought, I have just explained to you why and how that such kind of stillness is produced, not revealed.

I understand you are trying to use “stillness” to point to an unconditioned dhamma (Nibbāna) but such “stillness that can be disturbed a loud radio” is still very much a conditioned dhamma. In EBT suttas, only “this is peaceful, this is sublime, that is, the stilling of all activities, the relinquishing of all acquisitions, the destruction of craving, dispassion, cessation, Nibbāna.” can be considered as “stillness that reveals”. Any other type of stillness is still a conditioned dhamma which requires conditions to exist.

Here, you are giving another type of stillness: “removal of defilements from the mind”. As I have said in the above paragraph: Any other type of stillness (beside “stilling of all activities”) is still a conditioned dhamma which requires conditions to exist. Therefore, the result of stillness for “purified mind” is a conditioned dhamma which requires conditions to exist.

However, it seems to me that you have declared that such type of stillness to be as much unconditioned as Nibbāna by saying “does not create” and “only reveal”. Such citta/mind fits the idea about citta/mind which is beyond name-form. The word “beyond” here means: such citta/mind is not anicca, not dukkha as name-form is but such citta/mind is still anatta. The word “beyond” here also means: such citta/mind is an unconditioned dhamma (not created, not requires conditions to exist), unlike name-form which is conditioned dhamma.

As I have said in this thread to you before: there is no trouble about the idea of “purifying the mind to realize Nibbāna”. The trouble is only when people “upgrades” that “purified mind” into the status of an unconditioned dhamma which is beyond name-form.

There are 3 instances in only 1 of your post that I have highlighted in bold above that you criticized people in this forum to believe Nibbāna to be sankhata.

That’s very strange for you to invest so much effort in so many critics toward such idea because I do not have such understanding and I don’t see any sutta that supports such idea. Also, I don’t really see anyone around in this forum who supports such strange idea that you are criticizing.

As I see so far, a possible reason to explain why you keep bringing up and criticizing people in this forum to believe Nibbāna to be sankhata (but in reality, almost nobody in this forum really believes Nibbāna to be sankhata as you thought) is:

Other people (including me) was actually telling you that such purified mind/citta is sankhata while you have made for yourself an implicit declaration “purified citta/mind itself is Nibbāna” or “purified citta/mind to be in Nibbāna”. Because of that implicit declaration, you thought that other people was telling you Nibbāna to be sankhata; meanwhile in reality, almost nobody in this forum really believes Nibbāna to be sankhata as you thought.

Is that the actual reason for your many critics so far?

68

This is well said. Many people do this saying that arahant’s mind is ‘beyond namarupa’ meaning only that they are dispassionate towards namarupa.

69

I had Ud6.4 in mind.

70

Interesting. Which part? It reminded me of the Dhammapada:

House-builder, you’re seen!
You will not build a house again.
All your rafters broken,
the ridge pole dismantled,
immersed in dismantling, the mind
has attained to the end of craving.

71

Familiar with Raymond Carver? Definitely not a Catholic.

I put in windows with arches. I drew flying buttresses. I hung great doors. I couldn’t stop. The TV station went off the air. I put down the pen and closed and opened my fingers. The blind man felt around over the paper. He moved the tips of the fingers over the paper, all over what I had drawn, and he nodded. “Doing fine,” the blind man said.

I took up the pen again, and he found my hand. I kept at it. I’m no artist. But I kept drawing just the same. My wife opened up her eyes and gazed at us. She sat up on the sofa, her robe hanging open. She said, “What are you doing? Tell me, I want to know.” I didn’t answer her.

The blind man said, “We’re drawing a cathedral. Me and him are working on it. Press hard,” he said to me. “That’s right. That’s good,” he said. “Sure. You got it, bub. I can tell. You didn’t think you could. But you can, can’t you? You’re cooking with gas now. You know what I’m saying? We’re going to really have us something here in a minute. How’s the old arm?” he said. “Put some people in there now. What’s a cathedral without people?”

My wife said, “What’s going on? Robert, what are you doing? What’s going on?”
“It’s all right,” he said to her. “Close your eyes now,” the blind man said to me. I did it. I closed them just like he said.“Are they closed?” he said. “Don’t fudge.” “They’re closed,” I said. “Keep them that way,” he said. He said, “Don’t stop now. Draw.”

So we kept on with it. His fingers rode my fingers as my hand went over the paper. It was like nothing else in my life up to now. Then he said, “I think that’s it. I think you got it,” he said. “Take a look. What do you think?” But I had my eyes closed. I thought I’d keep them that way for a little longer. I thought it was something I ought to do.
“Well?” he said. “Are you looking?” My eyes were still closed. I was in my house. I knew that. But I didn’t feel like I was inside anything. “It’s really something,” I said.

72

No, but I used to have a bomber jacket back in those days just like his. Horse hide I think it was. Probably from the fifties. Great jacket. Not sure what happened to it.

73

Let me say three things:

  1. Even the Lord Buddha could not exactly define Nibbana. He realised the limitations and futility of language when it came to explaining Nibbana - especially when asked about His own existence or not after the disintegration of the Khandha. So, not a single post on this thread can be one hundred percent accurate. All the ideas expressed have one or more flaws.

We can pinpoint each individual with their corresponding citta as: Person A with citta A, person B with citta B, etc.

Anyone who starts this subject with the notion of Person A and Person B will have difficulty in understanding concepts involved because there is no such thing as Person A and Person B. This is what Anatta refers to. As I have said previously, the whole of Lokadhatu is Sankhara. There is no Person A with Citta A, only Sankhara.

  1. Just as Sankhara dominate the conventional reality, so too there is the non-conditioned reality of Nibbana. It has always existed and always will. It is not created through Nirodha, simply known. The defilements of the Citta prevent this reality from being known. When the defilements are cleansed, Nibbana can be known.

So now you are going to say, “Well, what knows?” This is the real conundrum, and the question you should have asked. The Vinnana of the five Khandha is the “One Who Knows” right up to the point of the Arahant Maggasamangi moment when the Khandha are abandoned. At this point, the Vinnana of the Khandha, which are define by their Ayatana, are seen as Anicca, Dukkha and Anatta and attachment to them is severed. However, the reality that is non-conditioned has a “knowing” nature and, at this point, it “knows” itself. It is singular, peaceful and still. This “Knowing” is no longer the Vinnana of that Khandha and it has no external object. This is a point most fail the get.

This “Knowing” is not part of anyone or anything. It is void. This “knowing” never was a part of an individual. It was never a Sankhara. It is beyond the control of anyone. It always was and always will be Anatta. IT IS PURE DHAMMA and anyone who sees the Dhamma, sees the Buddha.

74

Hmm.

And what is the fourth ground on which they rely? It’s when some ascetic or brahmin relies on logic and inquiry. They speak of what they have worked out by logic, following a line of inquiry, expressing their own perspective: ‘That which is called “the eye”, “the ear”, “the nose”, “the tongue”, and also “the body”: that self is impermanent, not lasting, transient, perishable. That which is called “mind” or “sentience” or “consciousness”: that self is permanent, everlasting, eternal, imperishable, remaining the same for all eternity.’ This is the fourth ground on which some ascetics and brahmins rely to assert that the self and the cosmos are partially eternal.
…
The Realized One understands this: ‘If you hold on to and attach to these grounds for views it leads to such and such a destiny in the next life.’

DN 1

What’s interesting to me is over and over again in this sutta the Teacher doesn’t seem to refute the views so much as point out that holding on to them and attaching to them as “the one true view!” isn’t advisable.

:pray: