How states of mind fit into the Five Khandas

[SunilW]

Consciousness takes the pride of place because any experience means being conscious of other 4 aggregates. When I am conscious of something it means something is PRESENT to me. Sight is present to me. I am conscious of it. Consciousness without an object of which one is conscious --a ’ pure consciousness ’ is an impossibility, an inconceivability. We cannot have 'consciousness of consciousness ’ like 'presence of presence '. Though we speak consciousness and objects separately they are inseperable in experience. When spoken separately they are mere verbal abstractions. When in this abstract way we speak about consciousness the Suttas tell us that we are making an “aggregate designation” MN.Sutta 109. As against this when we speak of “consciousness of X” we are speaking of a concrete and particular thing and not something abstract.

The Suttas do not speak of varying degrees of consciousness such as unconsciousness or sub-consciousness, however they speak of state wherein feeling and perception have ceased, and therefore consciousness to have ceased. But there is the heat and vitality in the body, and so there is a return to consciousness at the end of the time predetermined before the attainment of that state called “sañña vedayahita nirodha Samapatti”. MN Sutta 44.

Also consciousness does not refer to the phenomenon or even a part of the phenomenon. It is only the PRESENCE of the phenomenon. In an immediate visual experience “the thing is seen” though eye consciousness is not seen. Eye consciousness is negative as regards to essence. But reflexively there is eye consciousness.

So we have a situation wherein consciousness is that upon which other things depend on for their EXISTENCE. And that merely means that consciousness is the EXISTENTIAL DETERMINATION.

Since consciousness is negative regarding to essence it is always associated with the body. It is fastened there, bound there. (ettha sita ettha patibaddha) MN.sutta 77. Therefore in the Suttas we get the phrase “body endowed with consciousness”.

Normal experience is however multiple, that is, in an experience there is seeing, hearing, touching, etc. the experience is not confined to one faculty alone and so we have six kinds of consciousness arise dependent on Six Bases. The World is described as these six bases. World perceiving and world conceiving.

Need to remember that the mind base can be regarded as incorporating five imaginary perceptions and along with their respective consciousness, eye consciousness ear consciousness etc. So we can expand the earlier statement to “six+based body endowed with consciousness”.

I hope the above would give you a sufficient understanding of Consciousness.

With Metta

Sunil

[SunilW]

Most welcome Theruwan Saranai

[Dogen]

@SunilW

Consciousness without an object of which one is conscious --a ’ pure consciousness ’ is an impossibility, an inconceivability. We cannot have 'consciousness of consciousness ’ like 'presence of presence '.

I think this confuses two different ideas: Circular Consciousness (Being conscious of consciousness), and Consciousness Without Object.

For Circular Consciousness, arguably this has its peak in Viññāṇañcāyatana, where only the notion of a boundless consciousness remains.

For Objectless Consciousness, we can have a good example from the EBTs in AN 11.9:

They don’t meditate dependent on what is seen, heard, thought, known, attained, sought, or explored by the mind.

yampidaṁ diṭṭhaṁ sutaṁ mutaṁ viññātaṁ pattaṁ pariyesitaṁ anuvicaritaṁ manasā, tampi nissāya na jhāyati;

Yet they do meditate.

jhāyati ca pana.

So jhāyati means “to think”, contemplate, meditate over. And here it describes someone meditating not on any recognizable object, yet still meditate.

These are tricky topics. It would be unwise to make broad statements of certainty, so I hope I hedged my understanding accordingly.

[moxu]

@Dogen

I think this confuses two different ideas: Circular Consciousness (Being conscious of consciousness), and Consciousness Without Object.

How is it possible, logically, for someone being concious of consciousness? If you are concious of anything, that which you are concious cannot be consciousness itself, since you are concious of it. You are using it to be concious of that.

And how can you have consciousness without an object? That would be no-experience, since without consciousness of an object there is not perception of an object and no feelings of an object, and if it is no-experience how can it be something?

@Dogen

So jhāyati means “to think”, contemplate, meditate over. And here it describes someone meditating not on any recognizable object, yet still meditate.

This passage is tricky on itself and to conclude that this is objectless meditation, so meditation with “pure consciousness, perception and feeling”, so meditation outside experience is a strange arrangement… For the beginning of the sutta, the horse makes a thing an object of meditation and concentrate on that (“Fodder! Fodder!”), instead of looking at the context of its mind and seeing what is necessary to be trained.

And how does a thoroughbred meditate? A fine thoroughbred, tied up by the feeding trough, doesn’t meditate: ‘Fodder, fodder!’ Why is that? Because it occurs to the fine thoroughbred tied up by the feeding trough: ‘What task will the horse trainer have me do today? How should I respond?’ Tied up by the feeding trough they don’t meditate: ‘Fodder, fodder!’ For that fine thoroughbred regards the use of the goad as a debt, a bond, a loss, a misfortune.

In this simile, the horse does not “meditate” dependent on the feeding trough, dependent on the fodder. It would make more sense that “meditating dependent on” means that the mind meditates using something to be established upon, instead of looking at what the context of the mind is.

[Dogen]

@moxu

How is it possible, logically, for someone being concious of consciousness? If you are concious of anything, that which you are concious cannot be consciousness itself, since you are concious of it. You are using it to be concious of that.

“This sentence refers to itself.”

We can logically construct such constructs, if logic is your sole parameter.

If I were to argue that it’s possible for an attention to be self-attentive, this would be an experiential declaration and everyone’s mileage would vary! That thus would be a useless polemic.

And of course, our parameters here are the suttas themselves.

Sadly, the suttas are not very deliberate on the notion. The sole description is “anantaṁ”, which would mean something like “without ends”.

So we’re back to the square one. There’s only the notion of “There’s endless consciousness.” remaining.

To what this consciousness is referring to? The previous consciousness-moment? The present consciousness-ness? Again, suttas don’t elaborate too much.

Logically, self-referring declarations and observations are trivial. When I’m thinking the sentence “This sentence refers to itself”, the sentence-consciousness refers back to itself.

@moxu

And how can you have consciousness without an object? That would be no-experience, since without consciousness of an object there is not perception of an object and no feelings of an object, and if it is no-experience how can it be something?

SNP 4.11 has an interesting bit:

“Without normal perception or distorted perception;
“Na saññasaññī na visaññasaññī,
not lacking perception, nor perceiving what has vanished.
Nopi asaññī na vibhūtasaññī;
Form vanishes for one proceeding thus;
Evaṁ sametassa vibhoti rūpaṁ,
for judgments due to proliferation spring from perception.”
Saññānidānā hi papañcasaṅkhā”.

Another interesting, weird sutta.

We also have “Neither conscious, nor non-conscious”. That category itself also sounds like a paradox — something that logically speaking, shouldn’t really make sense (after all, there could only either be consciousness, or its absence, right?).

So, I do think there’s an EBT basis for objectless-consciousness, something well expounded in Mahāyāna traditions, but I agree that EBTs are generally very curt about various forms of experiences, beyond analysing that they’re too anicca and therefore dukkha.

@moxu

It would make more sense that “meditating dependent on” means that the mind meditates using something to be established upon, instead of looking at what the context of the mind is.

Thanks for the interesting analysis on the simile! I would not necessarily disagree with your conclusion.

Again, Mahāyāna traditions describe these in more details, as well as the Abhidhamma traditions. As those get into elaborations not easily found in the EBTs, I would rather not discuss them in this thread.

[Adutiya]

@moxu

And how can you have consciousness without an object? That would be no-experience, since without consciousness of an object there is not perception of an object and no feelings of an object, and if it is no-experience how can it be something?

Just recently, I was listening to a sutta teaching by Ajahn Brahm and he was describing jhanas and the meditative states like the dimensions of infinite space, of infinite consciousness and the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception. Even Ajahn Brahm could not adequately describe that experience. And to get there, one is long beyond consciousness of mere objects.

SN 36.11

"When I said this I was referring to the impermanence of conditions, to the fact that conditions are liable to end, vanish, fade away, cease, and perish.

But I have also explained the progressive cessation of activities. For someone who has attained the first absorption, speech has ceased. For someone who has attained the second absorption, the placing of the mind and keeping it connected have ceased. For someone who has attained the third absorption, rapture has ceased. For someone who has attained the fourth absorption, breathing has ceased. For someone who has attained the dimension of infinite space, the perception of form has ceased. For someone who has attained the dimension of infinite consciousness, the perception of the dimension of infinite space has ceased. For someone who has attained the dimension of nothingness, the perception of the dimension of infinite consciousness has ceased. For someone who has attained the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception, the perception of the dimension of nothingness has ceased. For someone who has attained the cessation of perception and feeling, perception and feeling have ceased. For a mendicant who has ended the defilements, greed, hate, and delusion have ceased.

And I have also explained the progressive settling of activities. For someone who has attained the first absorption, speech has stilled. For someone who has attained the second absorption, the placing of the mind and keeping it connected have stilled. … For someone who has attained the cessation of perception and feeling, perception and feeling have stilled. For a mendicant who has ended the defilements, greed, hate, and delusion have stilled.

There are these six levels of tranquility. For someone who has attained the first absorption, speech has been tranquilized. For someone who has attained the second absorption, the placing of the mind and keeping it connected have been tranquilized. For someone who has attained the third absorption, rapture has been tranquilized. For someone who has attained the fourth absorption, breathing has been tranquilized. For someone who has attained the cessation of perception and feeling, perception and feeling have been tranquilized. For a mendicant who has ended the defilements, greed, hate, and delusion have been tranquilized.”

[SunilW]

Quote; They don’t meditate dependent on what is seen, heard, thought, known, attained, sought, or explored by the mind. Yet they do meditate. AN. 11.9
(from Ven Sujato’s translation Sutta Central)

Jayathi given in the SCentral does NOT say to “think” as you have mentioned, but as you see above it says “yet they do meditate” .
There is huge difference between Mediation Vs Thinking.

Homage to you, O thoroughbred!Homage to you, supreme among men!We don’t understandthe basis of your absorption.’”
Here he is in meditation or absorption and that’s where the God’s don’t understand? If they were thinking or contemplating, the Gods with their Devine Eye would know what they are thinking or contemplating. This is very easy for them. Yet the story is different when they say “we don’t understand the basis of your absorption” Why? It is because the thoroughbred has gone in to the sañña vedehita nirodha Samapatti where only a person with that ability of an Arahat can recognise. Like Ven Anuruddha recognised Buddha during the PARINIBBĀNA, and said “Lord now is in the above absorption”.

Secondly if one were to go into the 2nd arupa jhana his consciousness takes the “perception” of consciousness and that becomes his mental object. Hence pure consciousness as consciousness is an impossibility. We can talk till the cows come home, but if you were to experience such attainments then you will see. There is no such thing called the circular consciousness found in the Suttas as far as I know.

Thirdly I am simply answering the question with respect to the 5 aggregates to the gentleman concerned.

Finally: For the one who Sees there are no tricky questions in the DHAMMA but only an careful observation with Sati Sampajanna. Whether I am wise or unwise it’s the reader to asses that either way he wishes. My view is just a view, one can take it or leave it. After all we need to experience and See the dhamma ourselves to assess what is right or what is wrong. And only those who Sees the Dhamma have a right to assess through his compassion. Dhamma is to be experienced.
There is a big difference between Knowing the Dhamma and Seeing the Dhamma. That difference is mighty as the element of Ignorance.
With Metta

[Dogen]

@SunilW

Why? It is because the thoroughbred has gone in to the sañña vedehita nirodha Samapatti where only a person with that ability of an Arahat can recognise.

This sounds like a weak argument, as Nirodha samāpatti shouldn’t have no mental aspects to it — that’s the point of cessation.

However, jhāyati is slightly different than just samādhi:

So I think it’s a stretch to interpret AN 11.9 to be talking about nirodha.

And as Moxu kindly reminded us of the simile of the sutta, it’s hard to reconcile the simile with anything close to cessation of mental processes:

@moxu

“Because it occurs to the fine thoroughbred tied up by the feeding trough: ‘What task will the horse trainer have me do today? How should I respond?’”

[SunilW]

Is best one SEES the Dhamma then all weaknesses will vanish.
Theruwan Saranai

[Adutiya]

I recall MN 25 where the Buddha describes the simile of the deer hunters who lure the deer with seed in order to slaughter them. The only way for the deer to escape is to go where the hunters can’t see them.

So to escape Mara, we’re to go where Mara cannot see us. This is yet another sutta where the Buddha is leading us to jhana where ultimately “thinking” for the sake of contemplation of objects or feeling has at least been temporarily restrained and/or abandoned. We further develop jhana ultimately to where the mind “having seen with wisdom, their defilements come to an end” and the only mind activity left is to see and know the Three Knowledges.

MN 25

"And where is it that Māra and his assembly can’t go? It’s when a mendicant, quite secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unskillful qualities, enters and remains in the first absorption, which has the rapture and bliss born of seclusion, while placing the mind and keeping it connected. This is called a mendicant who has blinded Māra, put out his eyes without a trace, and gone where the Wicked One cannot see.

Furthermore, as the placing of the mind and keeping it connected are stilled, a mendicant enters and remains in the second absorption, which has the rapture and bliss born of immersion, with internal clarity and mind at one, without placing the mind and keeping it connected. This is called a mendicant who has blinded Māra …

Furthermore, with the fading away of rapture, a mendicant enters and remains in the third absorption, where they meditate with equanimity, mindful and aware, experiencing for themselves the bliss of which the noble ones declare, ‘Equanimous and mindful, one meditates in bliss.’ This is called a mendicant who has blinded Māra …

Furthermore, with the giving up of pleasure and pain and the disappearance of former happiness and sadness, a mendicant enters and remains in the fourth absorption, without pleasure or pain, with pure equanimity and mindfulness. This is called a mendicant who has blinded Māra …

Furthermore, a mendicant, going totally beyond perceptions of form, with the disappearance of perceptions of impingement, not focusing on perceptions of diversity, aware that ‘space is infinite’, enters and remains in the dimension of infinite space. This is called a mendicant who has blinded Māra …

Furthermore, a mendicant, going totally beyond the dimension of infinite space, aware that ‘consciousness is infinite’, enters and remains in the dimension of infinite consciousness. This is called a mendicant who has blinded Māra …

Furthermore, a mendicant, going totally beyond the dimension of infinite consciousness, aware that ‘there is nothing at all’, enters and remains in the dimension of nothingness. This is called a mendicant who has blinded Māra …

Furthermore, a mendicant, going totally beyond the dimension of nothingness, enters and remains in the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception. This is called a mendicant who has blinded Māra …

Furthermore, a mendicant, going totally beyond the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception, enters and remains in the cessation of perception and feeling. And, having seen with wisdom, their defilements come to an end. This is called a mendicant who has blinded Māra, put out his eyes without a trace, and gone where the Wicked One cannot see. And they’ve crossed over clinging to the world.”

[am7]

@Borek

But where do I put states of mind like anger, greed etc?

According to suttas, the answer to this questions should be citta (heart).

MN27: 5 hindrances section mentions this

Giving up covetousness/greed(abhijjha) for the world, they abide with heart/intention?(cetasā) rid of covetousness, cleansing the heart(citta) of covetousness.

MN10 states other qualities:

And how does a mendicant abides observing an aspect of the heart(citta)?
It’s when a mendicant understands heart(citta) with passion(sarago) as 'heart with passion,’
and heart without passion as 'heart without passion.’

[Borek]

Thank you

The word used in the teachings on the five aggregates is viññāṇa, which is distinct from citta. However, if we assume that viññāṇa is simply another term for citta, then yes, states of mind would be considered part of viññāṇa.

[am7]

@Borek

However, if we assume that viññāṇa is simply another term for citta

No, according to suttas I believe it states viññāṇa is conditioned, it is considered one of the four fuels/supports. While purifying citta so it will not become corrupted in future anymore is the goal of path.