DN11, Five Aggregates, Vinanna Anidassana

Essays
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
58

As far as resources go. I tend to use Thanissaro’s site in order to identify which suttas might help me understand something. I do this because the site has a good search function and his consistency in translating terms makes it easy to find a number of suttas to look at. With each sutta he almost always has a list of other suttas that also discuss the same topic.

Once I have a list of suttas I then look them up at sutta central such that I have the line by line Pali/English. I compare Sujato’s version with Bikkhu Bodhi, and Thanissaro where possible and sometime look at parallels in the Agamas if things don’t seem clear to me (but that is not often). I make pretty regular use of the Pali dictionary on Sutta Central.

For understanding Pali terminology I use the Sutta Central dictionary as well as the Glossology at Buddha Dust - I suspect this is an underused resource but he has a list of most key Pali terms and for each term he has a table showing how that word is translated by a number of translators, along with the Pali Text Society meaning and often a list of suttas where the term is used.

I also find the Index of similes at accesstoInsight is very useful. Similes are one of the greatest ways of understanding terms in my view because for the most part the meaning is very clear even after translation and 2,500 years.

For deep stuff like ‘vinnana anidassana’ in this essay I look at Ven. Nananandas The Mind Stilled talks and see if and how he covers it. His discussions are the most extensive coverage as far as Pali terminology goes that I am aware of.

It [Bhava] needs to be understood as the āsava (the defilement) of desire for existence

Yes, this is how I understand it as well. One difference may be that I see it as ongoing (as long as ignorance is present) in the process of making a faculty of the mind (ex: seeing) as something clingable. And such an ongoing process is naturally also going to prepare some future landing place for consciousness when the present body dies.

This clearly means an eighth life, not an eight “sense of the future” or eighth “wondering about what will be”.

I have no problem with what you are saying in general. I have no doubt that bhava plays a very key role in future rebirth. What I am trying to point out is that DO is a process - there are a number of different pieces to this and they are always working as a complex. This is why Bhava itself is not referring to a next life (IMO) because it is simply one part of the complex. Consider how consciousness is discussed where we speak of its jumping around landing here and then there. It isn’t doing this by itself. That’s obvious. It is understood to be one part of a process.

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?

Thanks, I just read it. It seems a restatement of his earlier line of thinking. I didn’t see anything there that would change what I have written here - the Suttas I referenced. I have no particular bias around the word ‘vinanna’ - it’s just a label and I don’t understand why it bothers him so much.

One thing I want to add - I have no idea if Ven. Sujato is awakened or not - so just speaking for myself: If I thought I was awakened but it seemed quite different from what the Thai Forest Ajahns seem in general agreement on - I would be there to hang out with them in a heart beat. What has happened to curiosity? Why are Ajahns dismissing each other so readily? It truly saddens me.

Thanks for being willing to discuss these things. We may not agree but I appreciate your views. Hopefully I don’t come across too much with the “I am right and you are wrong attitude” - it is a good way of shutting down dialog as well as being just generally kind of obnoxious. But its hard to know what other peoples views are and my assumption is that we tend to see things in a similar way - until I realize we don’t.

1 Like
59

If this analogy (simile - I get them confused) works for you with regard to the above then I think we are on the same page:
Lets imagine we live on a world where the sky is always completely covered by clouds - never a spot of blue to be seen. This has been going on since before we were born. We know nothing about the sun. It’s a very gray world. But it isn’t completely dark. We can see other people and things just like on a heavily overcast day anywhere else. We meet someone who tells us if we climb to the top of a certain mountain we will be amazed. So we do that - it takes a long time. But as we get up near the top, we see the blue sky with the Sun shining and can see for miles and miles. We realize that even though we had never experienced this before - this is why we could see everything down below. Because it was this sun that illuminated the clouds all along.

So if your scenario 1 is a good way of understanding this story - if that is how you could describe it - then I think we agree.

60

I am trying to focus on just this topic of vinnana anidassana. It takes a lot of time to put this together and I don’t have the time to follow up on this topic you are bringing up. We have kind of gotten off topic. Maybe we can visit it at some future time or if you want to post a topic where you go into more detail I would be happy to look at it. But can’t do it right now.