Hi Bhante Sujato and all others,
I read Bhante’s blog post “Nibbana is not viññāṇa. Really, it just isn’t.”
https://sujato.wordpress.com/2011/05/13/vinna%E1%B9%87a-is-not-nibbana-really-it-just-isn%E2%80%99t/
I do concur that Nibbana is not vinnana, and neither is it vinnana without craving/clinging (the latter being possible for an Arahant who is still alive).
With that being said, I think it’s useful to discuss this topic, from a different angle, that perhaps addresses the core issue at hand with respect to the reconcilability/irreconcilability of Vedic/Upanishadic teachings and Buddhist teachings, and their respective approaches.
Before I begin, I should share that my practice is inclined toward the Buddha Dhamma, and relatively speaking, I have more familiarity with the Buddha Dhamma than I do with the Upanishads/Vedas.
Here’s my perspective:
It appears to me that in the synthesis of the Upanishads/Vedas (e.g. Chandogya Upanishad (CU) currently dated 8th - 6th century BCE, and Brihadaranyaka Upanishad (BU) currently dated 7th - 6th century BCE), that the approach there is, an ontology that is not focused on lateral dependencies, but rather on vertical dependencies (e.g. clay pot analogy in CU 6.1.4 or banyan tree fruit analogy in CU 6.12.1). On the other hand, in the Buddha Dhamma, the ontology appears to be closer to one focused on lateral dependencies, in the teaching of dependent arising (e.g. SN 12.1), etc.
Upanishads/Vedas – more focus on vertical dependence ontology
The focus on vertical dependence ontology in the Upanishads/Vedas appears to be that phenomena has in its makeup/components dependence on other phenomena, and those makeup/components in turn have further dependence via their own makeup/components, etc. and this goes on and on, and at the end, the assertion is that the underlying fundamental nature is Atman/Brahman, which is indescribable/imperceptible BU 3.9.26 – (i.e. not to be speculated about), indivisible – CU 6.8.7, BU 4.4.19 (i.e. without dependence), and put another way, eternal/unchanging – BU 4.4.25 (i.e. unborn, deathless).
As an example, a wooden table has vertical dependency on wood, and wood is dependent on cellulose fibers, etc. and cellulose fibers are dependent on molecules, and molecules are dependent on atoms, and atoms are dependent on subatomic particles, and so on. The assertion is that at the most fundamental level, there is an underlying fundamental nature (Atman/Brahman) that all of the previous entities depend on.
Further, the assertion is that in the unenlightened state, our consciousness (vinnana, if you will) and mind more generally, is colored by the ignorance (avijja, if you will), and hence, we are unable to discern appearances from the fundamental reality that those appearances depend on. When this ignorance is dispelled, and Atman/Brahman is realized, there is no grief/misery (BU 4.3.21, BU 4.4.14).
The Atman/Brahman is not vinanna – Atman/Brahman is indescribable/imperceptible. Rather, vinnana is vertically dependent on the underlying fundamental nature that is supposedly Atman/Brahman.
Once the Atman/Brahman is fully realized, there is no arising of vinnana – I noticed the term “non-manifest” used on your blog with respect to vinnana in the Upanishadic context – that term lends itself to the notion that there can be a future arising of vinnana even after the death of someone who has had full realization of Atman/Brahman; however, that does not appear to the case (e.g. bee honey juice analogy in CU 6.9.1) – there does not appear to be any further arising of vinnana in such a case.
Also, I noticed a reference to rebirth and Self in your blog post. To clarify, it appears that is not the Atman that is reborn. Atman/Brahman is supposedly the eternal fundamental nature that is not subject to birth and death. Rather, it appears that it is the conditioned subtle body that is involved in the individuated rebirth process.
Buddha Dhamma - More focus on lateral dependence ontology
On the other hand, in the Buddha Dhamma, there appears to be more focus on lateral dependency, primarily expounded in dependent arising, indicating the process of how various phenomena are conditioned on other phenomena, based not on what they are made out of, but rather how they relate to each other, as a process. With that being said, ignorance (avijja) again plays a central role, and once ignorance is dispelled, there is cessation of suffering. The assertion here, are the relations/dependencies between the various links in the chain of Samsara, in contrast to Nibbana which is unconditioned.
Given that the Buddha’s focus is around the above process, it appears he avoids discussing what Nibbana is, other than with respect to how it is different from the above process – in other words, when Buddha discusses Nibbana, he appears to primarily discuss it as the cessation of craving/suffering, and as the unconditioned/deathless/unborn (in effect, drawing a contrast to the links in dependent arising process where the links are all conditioned upon other links, and where craving/suffering is present). Put another way, in this practice, it is not for us to speculate on the nature of Nibbana, beyond it being in contrast to the process of linked conditioned phenomena in Samsara.
To summarize, it appears that both traditions:
1. have assertions/hypotheses based on dependencies, albeit of different kinds (Atman/Brahman is fundamental nature without vertical dependence unlike other phenomena, and Nibbana is unconditioned, unlike conditioned phenomena in SN 12.1 which have lateral dependencies in linked/chained process),
2. caution against speculation about what realization is, beyond the above assertions, and
3. suggest practices to realize the assertions/hypotheses for ourselves
It may be the case that the assertions/hypothesis and practices of one tradition are more appealing to some than others, depending on our inclinations.
My own practice is inclined toward the Buddha Dhamma for a number of reasons, that I can get into, if need be.
Bhante and others, I welcome more of your perspectives/reflections on this matter, and happy to learn more.
Thank you for your time and consideration.