DN11, Five Aggregates, Vinanna Anidassana

Essays
38

It seems to me that there are currently at least 2 scenarios:

Scenario 1:

  1. There is clinging.
  2. There is consciousness.
  3. There is also another type of consciousness which is clinging consciousness which is the result of: ignorance covering/influences consciousness in (2) above.

Now we look at the cessation in scenario 1:
a) Cessation of ignorance conditions cessation of clinging. Cessation of clinging conditions cessation of clinging consciousness.
b) Consciousness in (2) is always there, it does not change, it is not affected, it still remains while (1) and (2) are gone, it is not conditioned by the cessation procedure.

Illustration:
[Wearing color glass](Ignorance) so [a person with good eyes](Consciousness) [sees through color glass](Clinging consciousness) then [sees distorted color](Samsara).
Cessation: [Removing color glass](Cessation of ignorance) so [a person with good eyes](Consciousness) [does not see through color glass](Cessation of clinging consciousness) then [sees color as it really is](Nibbāna)

In this case: [Good eyes](Consciousness) from start to finish, remains the same, never changes.

People will call this [Good eyes](Consciousness) as pure heart, pure mind, pure consciousness, pure citta, anidassana consciousness, etc. Because it never changes, it is deathless, it is unconditioned just like Nibbāna.

Scenario 2:

  1. There is clinging.
  2. There is clinging consciousness which is the result of: ignorance
  3. Note that there is no 2 types of consciousness as in scenario 1.

Now we look at the cessation in scenario 2:
a) Cessation of ignorance conditions cessation of clinging. Cessation of clinging conditions cessation of clinging consciousness.
b) Clinging consciousness becomes consciousness.
c) Consciousness in (b) above is conditioned by the cessation procedure. Whatever the name we give to Consciousness in (b), we can call it pure heart, pure mind, pure consciousness, pure citta, anidassana consciousness, etc. it is still a conditioned dhamma. Therefore, it will also be destroyed.

Illustration:
[A sick person](Ignorance) with [sick eyes](Clinging consciousness) [sees distorted color](Samsara).
Cessation: [a healthy person](Cessation of ignorance) with [healthy eyes](Consciousness) [sees color as it really is](Nibbāna)

In this case: [healthy eyes](Consciousness) is a conditioned dhamma because it changes from sick eye into healthy eye with the cessation of sickness as condition. Although that consciousness can be used to see the unconditioned Nibbāna, that consciousness will still be destroyed.

So, I have presented here 2 scenarios. From our discussion, it seems to me, you are telling scenario 1. Meanwhile, I was trying to show you scenario 2.

Until here, are we still on the same page?

39

Yes, pretty good. But the wording of Scenario 1 isn’t quite what I am describing so if I may rephrase it:

  1. There is undefiled mind (citta)
  2. This citta has an inherent quality/attribute/characteristic of knowing.
  3. In the presence of ignorance, this knowing quality is subject to clinging.
  4. With the cessation of ignorance, clinging ceases.

Can you work with that?

40

This is the whole point of the essay. I am responding to Ven. Sujato’s view that consciousness ceases (to exist) with the cessation of dependent origination. Seems like we agree on this.

What happens at death of the physical body of an Arahat - can’t really speculate on. Are you saying here that Bhava only ceases with the death off the physical body? - Maybe I am misunderstanding you. Bhava is dependent on ignorance.

41

My response was to your question:

Answer: Because the consciousness aggregate hasn’t ceased for the arahant.
Glad we appear to agree on this.

Upon Awakening and the ending of ignorance, there is still continued existence/bhava (let’s say in the human realm), via the 5 aggregates until it all ceases with the death of an arahant – better, with the cessation of the aggregates.
In other words, the cessation of ignorance does not lead to the immediate cessation or disappearance of all the factors of DO. There remain the conditional manifestations of the vipkāka that lead to this final birth and life, including bhava, the senses, etc.

An arahant knows there will be no rebirth, but bhava, the aggregates, illness, old age, and physical death still remain and will take place until final niibbāna, (not that an arahant can be pinned down or that there’s any identification with anything).

1 Like
42

The presence of the aggregates, an aging body, kamic tendencies (likes, dislikes, habits, and so on) are like a potential place for consciousness to establish itself in the presence of ignorance (I am). But for the Arahat, that consciousness never lands anywhere - and so there can be no becoming (bhava) there. Becoming is not a physical state but rather experiential or psychological - a sense of identity, a future, past - we create our world, our past, our future - in search of happiness and such. But in the absence of ignorance this simply can not arise.

What will appear with relation to these phenomena is just seeing, hearing, feeling, thinking. They aren’t picked up - and bhava (becoming) relies on being picked-up - that is, consciousness needs to become established there.

Take a look at AN3.77

I suppose you are not the only one here that sees things this way but I have never encountered such a view. I don’t see any way to approach it but I do appreciate you taking the time to explain it to me.

43

In Iti44 it is explicitly said that the cessation of bhava “follows this life”. It happens after death, in other words, at parinibbāna or “extinguishment with nothing left over”. Bhava is not a sense of identity. See also here.

I’m surprised this view is new to you. It’s not exactly a fringe interpretation.

2 Likes
44

Thanks for sharing.

In AN3.77 the establishment of consciousness based on craving and intentions leads to rebirth, a new existence, bhava.:
"“If, Ānanda, there were no deeds to result in the sensual realm, would continued existence in the sensual realm still come about?”
“Kāmadhātuvepakkañca, ānanda, kammaṁ nābhavissa, api nu kho kāmabhavo paññāyethā”ti?"
And so on in the sutta.

This also aligns with the Buddha’s teaching about the three kinds of bhava in SN12.2:
And what is continued existence?
Katamo ca, bhikkhave, bhavo?
There are these three states of existence.
Tayome, bhikkhave, bhavā—
Existence in the sensual realm, the realm of luminous form, and the formless realm.
kāmabhavo, rūpabhavo, arūpabhavo.
This is called continued existence.
Ayaṁ vuccati, bhikkhave, bhavo.

This points to existence as a general way of being. The three realms are not verbs of “becoming” here. A being exists in a particular realm based on prior ignorance, craving, etc.

I think this may be where we’re not in agreement – if bhava is defined as “becoming” then this active verb is brought into DO as something that must end when craving and ignorance are given up.
But when the Buddha defines it as a kind of existence in a particular realm, then that existence, like the aggregates, will not fully cease until parinibbāna.

Anyway, that’s how I understand it…

45

Bhava is what Buddha refers to as a home. The mind grasping at her own projections such as hate and greed creates a greedy home, and a hateful home for herself at that moments. It becomes her reality, her bhava at that moment. It is constructed, build-up. Such temporary states, build up, are liable to desintgerate and cease. This is the suffering refered to as the suffering in change and desintegretation.
It always causes a certain unrest. The mind that builds up, constructs, that is never totally peaceful, at ease. Easy to see.

Ofcourse, if this building proces (Paticca Samuppada) does not take place, when all grasping is gone, the mind does not construct a home anymore, also not in this life. Ofcourse the senses keep intact. That is what called the sa-upadisesa Nibbana of the arahant. This Nibbana is no bhava.

Cessation of all bhava follows also this life because it has been realised here and now ofcourse. That is also the only reason.

The way the sutta’s express the cessation of bhava in this life is as ‘an emptiness’.

46

Glad that we made progress and that you have confirmed that it was scenario 1 that you meant.

As I said in my previous post about Scenario 1, here, in your rephrase, you are simply splitting the Consciousness of point (2) into 2 parts: (1) undefiled mind, aka citta (2) inherent quality/attribute/characteristic of knowing.

Everything about Consciousness of point (2) in Scenario 1 now will apply to both point (1) and point (2) in your rephrase. To make explicit, it will be something like this:

[Undefiled mind aka citta AND its inherent quality/attribute/characteristic of knowing] are always there, they do not change, they are not affected, they still remains while clinging and ignorance are gone, they are not conditioned by the cessation procedure.

As I said in my post, people can all that combination or any single of them any name they like. The important point in scenario 1 is: they never change, they are deathless, they are unconditioned just like Nibbāna.

In your rephrase, you are effectively increasing the quantity of dhamma with the characteristics of unconditioned just like Nibbāna.

There are some essential questions for scenario 1 below:

Q1:
From scenario 1: The [undefiled mind aka citta] is unconditioned, that means it is NOT anicca. Meanwhile, the Buddha’s teaching is to realize from anicca to dukkha then to anatta. But now, we can’t start from anicca for [undefiled mind aka citta], how can we still assert/prove that it is anatta?

Q2:
If we somehow manage to prove that it is anatta, how can we prove/assert that it is dukkha (or NOT dukkha)?

Q3:
Its knowing characteristics is NOT anicca either. How can we see the difference from this non-stop knowing ability with the claim of non-stop knowing ability from the Jains in MN76 Sandakasutta and MN101 Devadahasutta?

Q4:
What is the role of this [undefiled mind aka citta] between different lives? How to distinguish it with the view of Sati in MN38 Mahātaṇhāsaṅkhayasutta?

Those are not trick questions, I asked because I honestly don’t know the satisfactory answers to them. As long as I don’t know the satisfactory answers to those questions, I am still not convinced of scenario 1.

Until here, I hope we are still on the same page?

47

Namo Buddhaya!

Having skimmed the discussion it has become apparent that you are using the expression ‘the cessation of consciousness’ to describe a change in consciousness as it persists, where having been with clinging it becomes without clinging.

Essentially just as one would describe a change in weather as a cessation of weather.

Example
The rainy weather ceases and sunny weather arises. Thus describing a change in weather as a cessation of weather.

48

You can certainly do this, it’s not wrong, but you should be made aware that this merely describes a change in the constructed [sankhatadhatu] as it persists.

This is not describing a cessation of the constructed occuring in dependence on the asankhata.

49

The difference is like the difference between describing a change in weather and an altogether cessation of all weather.

It’s a radical difference.

To speak of a cessation of the conditioned in dependence on the unconditioned you should examine the attainments of the cessation of perception & feeling.

The aggregates of feeling-perception-consciousness-construction[sankhara; intention] are conjoined. When you speak of a cessation of eother one of these, then the cessation of the entire semantic complex is implied, the general cessation of sankhata is implied.

Therefore to understand the cessation of consciousness, in the sense of it’s cessation in dependence on the asankhata, you need to direct your attention to understanding this kind of cessation and that in dependence on what it occurs.

There is an escape from feeling & perception, therefore there must be something categorically different to these constructed constructs, there must be some truth & reality in dependence which this escape is discerned.

Just this alternate truth & reality is the asankhata and it is neither a function nor a property of the mind nor of anything constructed whatsoever.

Suppose a fire is extinguished in dependence on water. Is the water a function of the fire? No.
Suppose a fire is extinguished in dependence on a lack of oxygen. Is the lack of oxygen an inherent property of a fire? No.

Like this you should see that the cessation of consciousness occurs in dependence on the asankhata. And the asankhata is neither a property nor a function of any consciousness whatsoever.

50

It is here at this point that we diverge. What I am saying is that the citta of the Arahat is no longer conditioned by the asavas, ignorance, sankharas. Cessation of defilements reveals the undefiled citta in the same way removal of impurities from water reveals pure water. Another way of saying this is that on a cloudy day, if the clouds dissipate, the sun is revealed. It is not that the sun is conditioned by the clouds dissipating. Does that help?

The Buddha is not concerned with the undefiled mind (which by definition is only fully realized by an Arahat). For the Arahat there is no sense of ‘I am’ with regard to anything. The teaching on impermanence is with regard to identification with one or more of the five aggregates as being 'this is what I am ’ and similar such thinking. The Buddha doesn’t care if there is or is not a ‘true self’ because by his definition it would not be a source of suffering. As it would not be a source of suffering it is by definition outside the teaching. This is clear if you read the first sutta we have on the not self teaching (SN22.59) that he gives to the five ascetics he had been hanging around with. This idea that the Buddha teaches that there is or is not some sort of true self is commentarial. He specifically states that speculating on this is unskillful and best avoided.

51

If you could quote the specific text you are referring to that would help. I don’t see it.

52

In SN22.76 it is also said that being an arahant is still a type of bhava.

1 Like
53

Bhava by itself is one of the asavas - the asavas are also known as ‘preparations’ because that is what they do: They ‘prepare’ the Five Aggregates by making them clingable - that is, by making them into something suitable as a landing place for consciousness - which also requires the presence of ignorance and grasping. This is why it is translated as ‘becoming’. And this is why I suggested to Jasudho to read AN3.77 - because it makes this relationship very clear:

deeds are the field, consciousness is the seed, and craving is the moisture.

The consciousness of sentient beings - shrouded by ignorance and fettered by craving—is established in … a realm. That’s how there is rebirth into a new state of existence in the future.

But the Arahat being freed from the asavas, freed from grasping, freed from ignorance - in this very life - their consciousness is incapable of landing there. To equate the presence of a physical body through which the Arahat experiences sights, sounds, etc. with the state of existence of a worldy person - it’s a really big stretch.

What the Buddha is saying here in SN22.76, in my view, is that the Arahat is the most subtle form of ‘existence’ possible and still function - walk, talk, etc. in the physical world. Existence in quotes because the Arahat cannot be located anywhere even in this life.

Oh! How happy are the perfected ones!
Craving is not found in them,
the conceit ‘I am’ is cut off,
and the net of delusion is shattered.

Bhava works together with ignorance and grasping to form a complex structure - which can then be called an existence. Another name for this complex structure is ‘name-and-form bound up with consciousness’.

Bhava isn’t just playing a role in creating rebirth. It is going on all the time generating (preparing) a landing spot for consciousness (of the worldly person). Do you have a sense of the future?, wondering about what will come to be? How will you deal with this or that? - this is bhava at work.

54

In this case Arahats and the Buddha would still be locatable. I would agree that a physical body exists in a particular realm due to prior ignorance, etc. But if the Arahat is freed from that, no longer subject to ‘I am’ - you can say there is a body but there is no one that identifies with it. And as I recall the Buddha somewhere states in regard to his body “There is this”.

Yes, this is what I am saying - bhava ceases with the cessation of DO. Bhava is one of the asavas - it is not a body. Bhava+ignorance+grasping = future rebirth. Bhava alone does not. This is my understanding.

55

While the awakened “mind” of an arahant can’t be pinned down, the aggregates still remain and can be located, no?
That’s why the suttas talk about people going to see the Buddha and Sariputta – existence/bhava and the aggregates were still present and active in the human realm.

True, grasping that creates and perpetuates bhava and rebirth have ended. But bhava, the senses, and the aggregates from previous kammic intentions and craving don’t cease until final nibbāna.
DO includes illness, old age and death and these still occur for an arahant, although there is of course no clinging or identification with these conditional processes.

The perpetuating and creating processes of DO (craving, clinging, ignorance) end with awakening, but the “inherited” features from prior kamma continue, including the existence/bhava of the aggregates in a particular realm, until the final death where it all ceases without rebirth.

Again, you may wish to refer to SN22.76 as Ven. Sunyo pointed out and to SN12.2.

:pray:

1 Like
56

I am not too sure what you meant by saying “It is here at this point that we diverge”. I have highlighted what I said and also what you said above, they are not that much different in the meaning. You have told me that you want to rephrase scenario 1, which is the scenario that brought up an unconditioned dhamma.

So, just to make sure I understand you correctly: while you accepted scenario 1, you still said above that “the citta of the Arahat is no longer conditioned by the asavas, ignorance, sankharas.”, therefore,

Did you mean that:

“Before the cessation of ignorance, the undefiled mind was conditioned dhamma. But, after the cessation of ignorance, the undefiled mind becomes unconditioned dhamma”?

OR, did you mean that

“The undefiled mind is unconditioned dhamma from the very beginning, it never changes from conditioned to unconditioned. What were changed instead are the clinging, the ignorance, asavas, sankharas.”? (Note that, this meaning is what we already agreed for scenario 1)

OR, did you mean that

“the undefiled mind is just another conditioned dhamma from beginning to end, like any other conditioned dhamma”? (Note that, this is scenario 2)

We need to clear the above misunderstanding first because what you said in the 2nd paragraph of your post seems that you misunderstood my questions (My questions for you in my previous last post are within scenario 1, not scenario 2).

57

Hiya, :slightly_smiling_face:

It seems you are much influenced by a particular interpretation of the suttas, and I think I can guess whose it is. That’s alright, of course. No problem. :+1: But for sake of discussion you may want to widen your reading a bit, because it isn’t a very standard interpretation afaik. And therefore, to simply post a sutta and say it’s all very clear, won’t achieve much, because people will generally interpret it in a different way. Anyway, here are some thoughts:

No, bhavāsava is the āsava, not bhava itself. This word is a compound where the relationship between bhava and āsava can be interpreted in various ways. It’s not likely to be a kammadharaya, which is a technical way of saying it doesn’t mean ‘bhava which is an āsava’. More likely it means ‘the āsava for/towards bhava’, ‘the defilement [aimed] towards existence’. On this, Sujato notes at MN4, “Bhavāsava is the defilement that craves to continue life in a new birth.” The continuance in a new birth is the bhava. Also:

This sutta too is generally interpreted differently. Ven. Bodhi notes at the similar AN3.76: “Bhava. What is meant is a concrete state of individual existence in one of the three realms.” And he notes that this sutta describes “the rebirth process”. That is also how Sujato interprets it, as you can see in the translation you quoted: “That’s how there is rebirth into a new state of existence in the future.”

The word for ‘new state of existence’ here is punabbhava, which means “a next bhava”, i.e., a new life. So this sutta doesn’t “make this relationship very clear”. It only does so when you start reading it with a certain interpretation already. To me it makes no sense to talk about “rebirth into a new becoming”.

The overall problem here is that bhava is never explicitly defined in the suttas. In that case we need to use context to determine it’s meaning. I haven’t seen any definite indications for it to mean some momentary becoming and many that indicate it to mean a life. The Ratana Sutta says, for example, that the stream winner will not have a eighth bhava. This clearly means an eighth life, not an eight “sense of the future” or eighth “wondering about what will be”.

Anyway, I’m not sure what this still has to do with this viññāṇa anidassana. Were you aware that Ven. Sujato just posted a short essay on this topic?

4 Likes