As i understand you position… you think you cannot know the disappearance of the six bases of contacts because when they are absent also all vinnana’s are absent. There is also no mind consciousness at that moment. So what kind of knowledge is this that the Buddha describes as
You haven’t understood what I said yet. Let me put it in clear phrase: “an arahant indeed knows/tastes/experiences/awakes to Nibbāna”
I will try to explain in details below, there are 2 situations:
Situation 1: As shown in Sāriputtasutta AN 10.7
“One perception arose in me and another perception ceased: ‘The cessation of continued existence is extinguishment. The cessation of continued existence is extinguishment.’ Suppose there was a burning pile of twigs. One flame would arise and another would cease. In the same way, one perception arose in me and another perception ceased: ‘The cessation of continued existence is extinguishment. The cessation of continued existence is extinguishment.’ At that time I perceived that the cessation of continued existence is extinguishment.”
Also, it’s shown in Cūḷasuññatasutta MN 121
They understand: ‘Here there is no stress due to the defilements of sensuality, desire to be reborn, or ignorance. There is only this modicum of stress, namely that associated with the six sense fields dependent on this body and conditioned by life.’ They understand: ‘This field of perception is empty of the perception of the defilements of sensuality, desire to be reborn, and ignorance. There is only this that is not emptiness, namely that associated with the six sense fields dependent on this body and conditioned by life.’
In my understanding, this is how an arahant directly knows and sees Nibbāna. As the sutta showed, it’s still a viññāṇa belongs to the 6 senses. However, that kind of viññāṇa is special because it directs to Nibbāna, therefore, even the gods with their divine eyes can not trace that viññāṇa.
Maybe an example will help to illustrate this point: In the cinema, people can watch on the screen all the details of the scenes. They can trace whatever happens on the screen from moment to moment. However, at certain moment, the screen is totally dark then people can not trace anything anymore. At that dark moment, people can’t say for sure that 1) either this is just a scene belongs to the whole movie which lasts for like 5-10 minutes 2) or the projector is simply turned off temporarily. The people in the projector room on the other hand knows very well what exactly is happening at that dark moment.
This situation 1 is corresponding to the situation 1 in that illustration example above.
Situation 2: This is the case with the cessation of perception and feeling. Due to special preparation, the verbal saṅkhāra then body saṅkhāra then finally mental saṅkhāra comes to a perfectly still state. The viññāṇa is turned off temporarily. The realization of Nibbāna happens after exiting this stage with a condition that all the defilements are cleansed.
In Kīṭāgirisutta MN 70, you can read that there are 2 types of arahant: 1) the one called “freed by wisdom” (paññāvimutto) is the one refers to situation 1, 2) the one called “freed both ways” (ubhatobhāgavimutto) is the one refers to situation 2. If after exiting the cessation of perception and feeling, all the defilements are not fully cleansed yet, that will be the one called “direct witness” (kāyasakkhi)
This situation 2 is corresponding to the situation 2 in that illustration example about cinema above.
So, the Buddha did indeed tasted the ultimate peace Nibbāna with the viññāṇa which belongs to the 6 senses, the Buddha did also attained the cessation of perception and feeling where the viññāṇa belongs to the 6 senses is temporarily turned off.
Based on this I guess I don’t honestly understand the contradiction you were originally pointing out, because to my mind you just committed what I understood the contradiction to be; thus I don’t get what you were saying. That’s ok though. My best guess is that what is now going on is a debate on whether a self-knower is a regular mind or some exalted “other” mind separated from the regular mind. Either way, it seems the self-knower is presumed. Best wishes to all in unraveling mysteries. 
Which part I said that you are referring to with “this”?
Sorry but if you don’t clearly point out which part regarding “you just committed” then I will have no idea what you are trying to say. I am also not sure what exactly you have understood about “the contradiction to be”.
What do you mean by “self-knower”? If you compare with the definition of citta/mind I put in the very first post of this thread, will this “self-knower” fits that definition?
1 Like
I was referring to the provided example of the cinema where the people in the seats can’t tell if the dark screen is a projected dark image or just the result of the projector being turned off while those in the booth can be sure either way. I take it you are saying that both cases are possible and that a regular mind is capable of knowing this and no extraordinary “other” mind is needed. I take it @Green is arguing that an extraordinary “other” mind is needed?
Either way, what’s being posited is a self-knower I think? A mind capable of knowing its own existence and also capable of knowing its own cessation into non-existence. At least, that’s what I think the two of you are referring to? I could be mistaken and may have misunderstood either one of you or both of you. If I have made an error in understanding what you’re saying, then I apologize.
A self-knower is a mind capable of directly perceiving itself and/or capable of directly perceiving its own cessation into non-existence. It is comparable in my mind to a knife which can cut itself. Or a fingertip which can touch itself. A fire that can burn itself. It is a generalized problem of self-referential statements and involves paradox. This is the contradiction that I thought you were setting up above or something akin to it.
I’m not sure. I thought you were putting forward something like the following conundrum to answer the question, “How can nibbana be directly known and confirmed?”
Theorem: With regard to knowing Nibbana, there are only two possibilities.
- A mind that is distinct/other from nibbana can know nibbana
- A mind that is itself nibbana can know itself
And then I thought you were pointing out the problem with both of these options. However, based on your recent example of the cinema I’m guessing that you accept #1 or #2 and claim that it is just a regular mind that is capable of this. And I guess @green is also accepting #1 or #2 but just differs with you that it can be a regular mind that is capable of this? It could be that I’m just very confused about what the two of you are communicating though so feel free to ignore.
I was not referring to a “self-knower” with that illustrative example about the cinema. Instead, I was trying to show there are 2 cases for 2 different types of arahant to resolve the question that Green had about “how a normal viññāṇa can experience the supreme peace state where viññāṇa itself is turned off”.
No, this is not the contradiction that I presented in the first post of this thread. The citta/mind, by definition, inherently “knows” Nibbāna. That’s among the definition and description about this citta/mind idea. It’s different with the self-knower who got difficulty with the question “how a knife can cut itself?” The people who proposes the citta/mind idea don’t bother with such question, instead, they put a definition: “this is a knife, this knife only cuts this supreme apple, no question is entertained whether this knife can cut itself or not”
I was pointing out option #1 with the note: that viññāṇa is too within name-form.
That’s in contrast with the citta/mind idea, which requires citta/mind must be beyond name-form and inherently “knows” the ultimate peace Nibbāna and also anatta.
I think one can say: The knowing of vinnana is the knowing of sensing or detecting.
“They speak of ‘consciousness’. How is consciousness defined?”
“It’s called consciousness because it cognizes. And what does it cognize? It cognizes ‘pleasure’ and ‘pain’ and ‘neutral’. (MN43)
And why do you call it consciousness? It cognizes; that’s why it’s called ‘consciousness’. And what does it cognize? It cognizes sour, bitter, pungent, sweet, hot, mild, salty, and bland. It cognizes; that’s why it’s called ‘consciousness’. (SN22.79)
The knowing of vinnana is, i believe, a mere detecting function, feeling, sensing. It is not more then that.
Vinnana has not the knowing that one can call intelligence, gnosis nor peace. These are aspect of the mind. Vinnana presents us a world but how we deal with it is not part of the six sense vinnanas. They have no intelligence.
In fact, it is unwise when discussing nibbana to explain “this does not exist, that does not exist”, even continuing that the citta can arise without a foundation (ayatana). We are used to “existence” so we end up discussing nibbana as the opposite of “existence” which is “non-existence”; but this is not true.
We should first understand the root of “dukkha”, because nibbana is the cessation of dukkha. We can start from the grossest dukkha, namely all forms of bad actions, bad words and bad thoughts. Then when bad actions do not arise, bad words do not arise, bad thoughts do not arise, we can reflect on the comparison between “the appearance of bad thoughts” and “the absence or non-appearance of bad thoughts”; we compare calmness, stability of mind. We can do this for a start.
When we understand the reality of dukkha that grips the mind and body as well as the external world; then the mind seeks a way to liberation. That is the extinction of dukkha. At this level, people have perfected morality, then people will understand that the next thing that becomes a disturbance is attachment to the five sense contacts (body). Therefore he seeks a way to extinguish the desire for sense contacts. The next level is the extinguishing of the desires of existence in the realms of Rupajhana and Arupajhana… etc.
So as long as there is still mind and body; Nibbana must be understood as the extinction of asava, the extinction of bondage, the extinction of desires. This is the gradual attainment of nibbana. So it is understood that when this desire does not exist, there will be no consequences resulting from this desire in the future. So what is missing is the chain of conditionality, not the problem of existence vs non-existence. There is almost no point in discussing nibbana as a philosophical expression that actually leads to non-existence.
It is a misguided thing to think that nibbana is out there and can be felt or grasped as an object by the citta. Once again, realizing nibbana while the mind and body still exist is the cessation of tendencies/fetters/poisonous desires (anusaya/asava/samyojana).
1 Like
I agree, but in a positive way this is described as the Peak Of Peace. A sublime supreme peacefulness, a coolness. This peace is called everlasting and imperishable and must be distinguished from the temporary peace of mind after a satisfying meal or talk with a friend, the peace of being appreciated, loved, the peace of any jhana, the peace that everything goes well in life, a conditioned peace. This peace is not depend on conditions. Unconditioned.
The problem is, i feel, people see it like this that when defilements are uprooted this peace is created, made and produced… but that is not true. Like purification does not create the water or gold, peace is not created, made nor produced when the mind is purified and all defilements uprooted. But mind is now just in its original peaceful state, like water is in its original state when all defilements are removed. Now one really sees what mind is! And that was not apparant at all with defilements.
It is never like this that the peacefulness nature of the original state of mind is ever absent. Defilements only cover it up. It was there all the time and only becomes very apparant.
The peace of Nibbana is asankhata. The sutta’s refer to it as unmade, not become and that is exactly as it is. One does never see peace made, produced, become. Never. If one see it that way one has some theory first but not experience!
Can one say that what is not seen arising, ceasing and changing, is eternal?
In my opinion, if you claim that: mind/citta needs viññāṇa of the 6 senses to do such function as “intelligence, gnosis or peace” then I think it leaves very little ground for anybody around here to disagree with you.
This thread is meant to presented a contradiction to the idea that a citta/mind which is beyond name-form. A normal citta/mind within name-form (which is anicca, dukkha and anatta as any name-form) does not conflict with this thread’s presentation of contradiction.
So, I am waiting for a correction or a modification or a counter argument to the contradiction that I have presented. Of course, other different contradiction presentations vs. that beyond name-form citta/mind idea are very much welcome in this thread too.
there is no contradiction. Just it happens that you forget that in nibbana also anatta arise for the mind. And in the same way that we apply a middle-way status between -self and no-self for the body and reality, the same should be applied regarding mind/knowledge in nibbana.
If one claim an annihilation of knowledge, a nothingness, one falls in nihilism. However, one should claim the Cease of Consciousness because Consciousness are the movements of knowledge arising because a delusion of -self. This what the Buddha taught.
"And why do you call it ‘consciousness’? Because it cognizes, thus it is called consciousness. "
[SN 22.79]
“There is, bhikkhus, a not-born, a not-brought-to-being, a not-made, a not-conditioned. If, bhikkhus, there were no not-born, not-brought-to-being, not-made, not-conditioned, no escape would be discerned from what is born, brought-to-being, made, conditioned. But since there is a not-born, a not-brought-to-being, a not-made, a not-conditioned, therefore an escape is discerned from what is born, brought-to-being, made, conditioned.”
- Ud 8.3
you can check how the Buddha checked that ambit and knew it. No Consciousness moves that knowledge. That knowledge exists in nibbana sustained by itself and being nibbana itself. This is anatta and the result from a Cease of Consciousness.
Sounds like you believe in a truly existing nibbana; a nibbana that is a mind knowing itself as independent, permanent and eternal. Maybe you don’t say it is a mind but rather it is somehow knowledge itself that somehow knows itself? Either way, it sounds like this is a conception of nibbana as a fixed thing that exists truly and independently and somehow is a self-knower. Is that what you’re presenting?
In the Buddha teaching nibbana is fully real, there is no doubt on that. In the previous quoted Sutta, the Buddha precisely taught about this. He says: there is the nibbana ambit… if that ambit wouldn’t be real then no escape would exist… But because that ambit is real there is an escape"
I believe it is clear how the Buddha explain the issue. There is a true existing nibbana. And this ambit is real precisely because there is the opposite which is delusion, our common experience. Here we can remember the Buddha investigated the Reality until the end and he found the delusion of our common experience(SN 12,65). And after eradicating that delusion under the Bodhi Tree, what arose was the complete nibbana. It was the process, and nibbana was the result.
Could nibbana be irreversible?. Yes when the delusion is completely eradicated. Then only nibbana can exist. Is this not logical?
Some people says “when somebody believes the nibbana cannot decay, this is no nibbana”. This is an absurdity. Because we cannot apply again dukkha to nibbana when dukkha already was eradicated completely and nibbana was the result. Where is the sense in doing that?. We cannot return the juice to the orange. Same issue about “nibbana only is complete at death”. This is another wrong view to return the juice to the orange.
Maybe it happens that some people confuses eternalism. Eternalism is a position in where there is the thought about something or some experience will last forever. As the Eternalism is sustained by a -self, there is also a reference in the grasping of something. And from that relation arises the Time and also the “forever”. This detail of the “forever” is quite important to understand what is an Eternalism. Because in anatta there is no -self grasping, and therefore the Time cannot arise and truly there is no decay.
Therefore, no all no-decay notion means an Eternalism. It will depend of the eradication of delusion of -self.
I believe that regarding a transcendental goal, Eternalism would be a position like looking oneself in a mirror and then forgetting about oneself. If such situation were to be prolonged without an apparent end, the image will pass to appear like the only reality in a delusion about to exist forever.
However, this situation will start to end when the knowledge about what is keeping the situation could arise again. And it would happen in an unavoidable way, because in the same action of grasping inhabits the seed of that knowledge which will arise soon or later. And then the building will start to reveal its nature and to decay.
The problem of eternalism is not in the non-decay but in the -self delusion.
And when finally it is wisdom what will condition any result, IMHO I believe it is very important understanding nibbana like a result to be discovered. And also the Cease should be understood in that way. Every Cease also means anatta and a non-nihilist result.
Every time we read “Cease” inside the Suttas it means the end of a -self construction of the experience. It doesn’t mean the destruction of the dhammas related with the arising of the experience.
A cease of perception of blue color is not the annihilation of seeing neither the blue color. As also the cease of Consciouness on something is not the annihilation of knowing neither that something. And so on.
The cease of perception, feeling, consciousness… all are developed for the builder, the -self. Because this reason we can read how the Buddha taught to cultivate the Cease in this way: “This is not me, this is not mine, this is not my -self”. This is an emptying of the delusion of the -self experience but no an anhiliation of the involved reality. The Buddha never taught in such nihilistic way.
Anyone can try a search for “cease of knowledge” or “cessation of knowledge” inside the sources. There is no any mention. None. Try it.
IMHO the cease of Consciousness must be rightly understood: the cease of Consciousness is not the cease of knowledge. The Buddha never taught a “Cease of knowledge”. Anatta and nibbana is not unconsciousness, nothingness or annihilation. This was not the Buddha teaching.
Just some thoughts on this issue which could be better explained and with more detail. Anyway I hope it can help to reflect in some points which at least I miss in this thread.
The problem is, i feel, people see it like this that when defilements are uprooted this peace is created, made and produced… but that is not true. Like purification does not create the water or gold, peace is not created, made nor produced when the mind is purified and all defilements uprooted. But mind is now just in its original peaceful state, like water is in its original state when all defilements are removed. Now one really sees what mind is! And that was not apparant at all with defilements.
When Buddha stated: “nibbana is the highest bliss”; This is still in the sense of happiness felt by the mind (citta), so this is still a metaphor, an approach in explaining nibbana. Because everything that is felt by the mind (citta) means it is still conditioned (sankhatta). We must not even fall into the trap of thinking that nibbana is defined. In other suttas it is clear that nibbana is undefined because nibbana is beyond perception. Anything that is still perceived is proliferation.
Regarding nibbana, once again, we have to see whether it is final nibbana (unupadisesa nibbana) where the mind and body have completely extinguished after the final death. This final nibbana cannot be proliferated.
When we say that the happiness of nibbana is unconditioned, not even conditioned by the destruction of mental defilements, then we have fallen into something that we should understand as a metaphor. We must always return to the chain of cause and effect. When samyojana (mental bondage) is destroyed then the cause of dukkha has been extinguished, so because the cause is destroyed the dukkha as a result is also extinguished. This cessation is what we must understand as nibbana. When the cause is extinguished, we may ask: what then arises after the cause is extinguished, does nothingness appear? this is also proliferation. We cannot say that nothingness appear (because when we try to imagine what nothingness is then it is already proliferation). What we can say: because the cause has been extinguished, the effect has also been extinguished.
When dukkha is extinguished due to samyojana (bondage of mind) being extinguished, there are still pancakhanda (five aggregates of body and mind) that are still alive. While this pancakhanda is still dukkha, this is what is called remainder, saupadisesa-nibbana (nibbana that remains). The remainder of nibbana in the form of pancakhanda which no longer has samyojana (inner fetters) is still sankhatta-dhamma (conditioned dhamma). So the meaning of saupadisesa-nibbana is nibbana which is still not truly final, nama-rupa (i.e. pancakhanda) has not really been extinguished, but the cause of subsequent rebirth has been extinguished.
Therefore the Buddha always stated: if the tathagata exists after parinibbana? If you say it doesn’t exist, this is proliferation. If it is said that it still exists, this is also proliferation. If it is said to exist and not exist, this is also proliferation. Because existing and not existing are both products of perception. Likewise, if we debate whether this happiness of final-nibbana (unupadidesa-nibbana) exists? If it is said to exist then this is proliferation. If it doesn’t exist, it’s also proliferation. If it is said to exist and not exist then this is also proliferation. All we can say is cessation. Namely the extinction of the chain of cause and effect. Because tanha (desire) has been extinguished there is no longer any condition for becoming, no more condition for rebirth, no more condition for the sense bases, no more condition for perception…
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.
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.
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.
Agreed. I give up. 
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.
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.”
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
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