Is background awareness consciousness aggregate or something else?

The Watercooler
10

I completely agree!!
Mind is the forerunner of all States.
Yes, Mindfulness/ Awareness does have to have an object. And for most of us, that object should be any of the 4 Satipathanna. This is simply a tool, one piece of the raft, part of the 8 fold Path. Practicing Right Mindfulness we build up our Equanimity, cement our Samadhi, let go of the unwholesome, refine the wholesome.

Purifying ourselves, some person becomes an Arahant.

Now an Arahant is always Mindful. As such, he/she has pure undefiled Awareness, …but of what?

AN4.195

“A mendicant whose mind is rightly freed like this has achieved six consistent responses. Seeing a sight with the eye, they’re neither happy nor sad, but remain equanimous, mindful and aware. Hearing a sound with the ears … Smelling an odor with the nose … Tasting a flavor with the tongue … Feeling a touch with the body … Knowing a thought with the mind, they’re neither happy nor sad, but remain equanimous, mindful and aware. Feeling the end of the body approaching, they understand: ‘I feel the end of the body approaching.’ Feeling the end of life approaching, they understand: ‘I feel the end of life approaching.’ They understand: ‘When my body breaks up and my life has come to an end, everything that’s felt, being no longer relished, will become cool right here.’

Now, what is the object of this Arahant’s experience, as is described in the Sutta?

It is simply Samsara.

That is where the final duality lies… Pure Awareness (Nibbana) // Samsara.

And what when the Arahant passes away? What is that state? Pure Emptiness? 1/ Infinity? Non duality?

I’ll post the answer once I become an Arahant (and you must promise to do the same)!!

2 Likes
11

I appreciate the various replies. However, perhaps my question was unclear, because these sort of responses do not seem to address the question I thought I was asking:

My question was not about the pros and cons of particular meditation approaches, it was asking how a particular phenomenon fits into the classification schemes of the suttas, so that I could see what the suttas have to say about it.

The phenomenon I am asking about is the appearance (undoubtedly mistaken - I’m talking about an unawakened mind such as my own) of a constant background awareness. Some phenomena, such as awareness of touch or sounds, obviously come and go quite rapidly. Some, such as mind states (the third satipatthana) do come and go, but much more slowly. For most people I’ve talked to, this background awareness seems constant, and only seems to go away when sleeping. This makes it a prime candidate for identification as “my self”.

3 Likes
12

Ah, the passion led me astray…
Not having a definite answer about where to locate this ‘awareness’ in the dhamma, but I’d say: It’s a sankhara, thus also not an ideal meditation object because too subtle.

1 Like
13

I would urge you to hear out Luang por Sumedho. He has explored this background Awareness/ Consciousness/ Sati Pannya in great depth through his Dhamma talks of the past few years. He points out, as you have so clearly noted “It doesn’t change”. It is that which Knows, it is what does the Know-ing and See-ing described in the Suttas, it has the experience of Samsara as its object. Nor is it different from one person to another. It is what remains in the Arahant, once all defilements have been done away with, that which is responsible for his experience of Samsara (Sankhara and Vinyana having already reached non arising status at Nibbana). Luang por Sumedho points out that this Pure Awareness/ Mindfulness is Dhamma. And Dhamma are Not Self - “Sabbe Dhamma Anatta”.

The eightfold is the best of paths, four principles the best of truths,
passionlessness the best of states, the Visionary the best of men.

This is the path, there is no other, for insight and for purity,
you should enter upon this path, this is the confounding of Māra.

Having entered upon this path you will make an end to suffering,
the path was declared by me, the removal of the dart by knowledge.

Your duty is to have ardour declare the Realised Ones,
entering this path meditators will be released from the bonds of Māra.

All conditions are impermanent, when one sees this with wisdom,
then one grows tired of suffering – this is the path to purity.

All conditions are suffering, when one sees this with wisdom,
then one grows tired of suffering – this is the path to purity.

All components of mind and body are without self, when one sees this with wisdom,
then one grows tired of suffering – this is the path to purity.

The one who has not energy at a time for energy,
youthful, strong, but given to laziness,
whose mind lacks right intention and is indolent –
the lazy one does not find wisdom’s path.

Verbally guarded, well-restrained in mind,
not doing a wrong deed with the body,
one should purify these three paths of action,
one should undertake the path shown by seers.

From effort arises wisdom, without effort wisdom is destroyed,
having understood these two paths of development and decline,
one should establish oneself so that one’s wisdom increases.

Cut down the forest of defilements not just a tree, from the forest arises a danger,
having cut down the forest and thicket, you should be without forests, monastics.

For as long as an atom of desire
of a man for a woman is not cut down,
for just so long is the mind in bondage,
like a calf in bondage to mother’s milk.

Cut off any affection for one’s self,
like an autumn lotus plucked with the hand,
develop fully the path to peace and
Nibbāna taught by the Fortunate One.

14

These Suttas might be relevent;

Mendicants, when it comes to this body made up of the four primary elements, an uneducated ordinary person might become disillusioned, dispassionate, and freed.

Why is that?

This body made up of the four primary elements is seen to accumulate and disperse, to be taken up and laid to rest.

That’s why, when it comes to this body, an uneducated ordinary person might become disillusioned, dispassionate, and freed.

But when it comes to that which is called ‘mind’ or ‘sentience’ or ‘consciousness’, an uneducated ordinary person is unable to become disillusioned, dispassionate, or freed.
((Yañca kho etaṃ, bhikkhave, vuccati cittaṃ itipi, mano itipi, viññāṇaṃ itipi, tatrāssutavā puthujjano nālaṃ nibbindituṃ nālaṃ virajjituṃ nālaṃ vimuccituṃ.))

Why is that?

Because for a long time they’ve been attached to it, thought of it as their own, and mistaken it:

‘This is mine, I am this, this is my self.’
SN12.61

Ven Ananda teaches Ven Udayi how to pull it apart,

“Reverend Ānanda, the Buddha has explained, opened, and illuminated in many ways how this body is not-self. Is it possible to explain consciousness in the same way? To teach, assert, establish, open, analyze, and make it clear how consciousness is not-self?”

“It is possible, Reverend Udāyī.

Does eye consciousness arise dependent on the eye and sights?”

“Yes, reverend.”

“If the cause and condition that gives rise to eye consciousness were to totally and utterly cease without anything left over, would eye consciousness still be found?”

“No, reverend.”

“In this way, too, it can be understood how consciousness is not-self.

Does ear … nose … tongue … body … mind consciousness arise dependent on the mind and thoughts?”

“Yes, reverend.”

“If the cause and condition that gives rise to mind consciousness were to totally and utterly cease without anything left over, would mind consciousness still be found?”

“No, reverend.”

“In this way, too, it can be understood how consciousness is not-self.

Suppose there was a person in need of heartwood. Wandering in search of heartwood, they’d take a sharp axe and enter a forest. There they’d see a big banana tree, straight and young and grown free of defects. They’d cut it down at the base, cut off the root, cut off the top, and unroll the coiled sheaths. But they wouldn’t even find sapwood, much less heartwood.

In the same way, a mendicant sees these six fields of contact as neither self nor belonging to self. So seeing, they don’t grasp anything in the world. Not grasping, they’re not anxious. Not being anxious, they personally become extinguished.

They understand: ‘Rebirth is ended, the spiritual journey has been completed, what had to be done has been done, there is no return to any state of existence.’”
SN35.234

3 Likes
15

4 posts were split to a new topic: Striving and Satipatthana (diverging from background awareness thread)

16

Possibly this is descriptive of nupassana, the mode of observation or awareness described in the Satipattana Sutta.
I don’t think this awareness is a type of vinnana, because in the suttas vinnana is basic sense-consciousness. It seems more like the modern idea of “self-awareness”, a sort of higher-level global awareness. Possibly related to panna?

In my experience this mode of awareness has an impersonal and unchanging quality, so it’s not defined or limited by ideas of “me” and “mine”.
I recall Ajahn Chah described it as “the one who knows”. Not really a “true self” (God forbid!), but descriptive of higher ( deeper?) awareness.

The OP raises some interesting questions, though I’m not convinced they are directly addressed by the suttas.

1 Like
18

Yes, it does seem that with the practice of nupassana there develops an observer “separate from the flow”, as you say.
But if this observer is not a self, then what is it?
Who or what is being mindful, who or what is observing?

19

The funny thing is that the faith follower cannot resolve this conflict easily. If LP Chah or Sumedho are right and there is an non-changing ‘one who knows’ then how the heck it that different is that different than a self? But of course they are master Buddhists and Buddhism says ‘nope to self’, so they must mean something very fancy that is hard to comprehend.

But if we’re not apologetic then it’s just the position of MN 8 “I perceive not-self with self”. Or, if we replace ‘self’ with ‘non-changing observer/knower’ then I guess it’s more palatable, as long as we don’t utter the word that Buddhists shouldn’t use.

20

I’m not a follower of these Ajahns, but their descriptions do accord with my own experience. It’s nothing fancy in my experience, just a consequence of practising nupassana.
I don’t regard the unchanging observer as a self, because it feels impersonal, and not related to “me” and “mine”.
I don’t find the sutta explanations satisfactory on this question.

21

I’d guess the background awareness or observing mind appears unchanging because it is a simple function and so each occurrence of it is exactly similar to the last unlike say the occurrence of thoughts or feelings. But it is just another function/event in the mind, rising and passing away with each sense-datum it captures.

I believe it is by means of the apperception aggregate that this simple aspect of the consciousness aggregate is recognized.

2 Likes
22

Two comments: That something appears unchanging, doesn’t mean it’s unchanging. Secondly, who says that a ‘self’ feels ‘personal’? As pointed out often before, for the pre-Buddhist Brahmin practitioners atman was nothing personal at all. Remember that it was the link to the cosmic ultimate.

atman is the one who is beyond hunger and thirst, sorrow and delusion, old age and death.
(Brhadaranyaka Upanisad 3.5.1)

About this atman, one can only say ‘not—, not—.’ He is ungraspable, for he cannot be grasped. He is undecaying, for he is not subject to decay. He has nothing sticking to him, for he does not stick to anything. He is not bound (BU 3.9.26 / BU 4.2.4 / BU 4.4.22 / BU 4.5.15).

23

Sure, atman would be viewed as impersonal. But I was referring to “self” here in the way it’s usually described in the suttas, ie the sense of self, regarding the aggregates as “me” and “mine”.
Or in this case, regarding the observer or background awareness as “me” and “mine”.

“Unchanging” is indeed subjective, but then how does one notice change without an unchanging observer? Or at least without some continuity of awareness? Partly for that reason, I dont think what we’re discussing fits very well into the event-based model of consciousness in the suttas.
And I dont think nupassana (observation) is a type of vinnana, its really a higher function, one step removed.

24

Here I would refer back to Maha Bua’s description of his liberation. In my words, he for a longer time had unchanging meditation states until at one point he realized that what seemed to be unchanging (a radiating citta) showed small variations and fluctuations after all. Only then the citta collapsed and liberation came about (again, don’t take me literally, but something in these lines).

This opens an interesting question: Do we maybe have two different not-self strategies in the suttas? One is countering the Brahmin concept of a cosmic anatta. The other would be a more ‘psychological’ strategy for seekers of their deeper experiential self…

1 Like
25

It’s the old question of what anatta is actually negating or challenging.
The suttas seem mainly concerned with challenging “psychological” self-view, which is based on regarding the aggregates as “me” and “mine”. So for example, challenging notions of “my body”, “my thoughts”, etc.

What’s also challenged is the notion of “me” as an individual being, which in the suttas is really just a convention, or heap of aggregates (see SN5. 10, which includes the chariot simile). That’s probably closer to challenging the notion of atta/atman as an eternal “soul”, or the notion of an abiding self.

26

I have to partly disagree here. We cannot compare our understanding today with the ancient Indian one, and I would blame Buddhist studies for not caring enough about the Indian context. There are 100s of books and articles with an isolationist Buddhist perspective as if Buddha and Buddhism developed in a conceptual vacuum. It’s like telling the story of Christianity without the Jewish/Roman background…

Anyhow, here are some examples where concepts like the khandhas were considered atman. What we see today with our individualistic perspective as psychological was to the ancient Indian still divine or a gateway to the absolute divine. I don’t exclude that there was a more psychological rejection of ‘me’ in the suttas, but still there is a big chunk of links of the physical & mental with the metaphysical or absolute…

BU 1.4.7 Breath, speech, sight, hearing, mind should be considered atman
BU 1.5.3 atman = speech, mind, breath
BU 1.6.1-3 atman = nama, rupa, karma
BU 2.4.5 / BU 4.5.6 Yajnavalkya to Maitreyi: it is one’s atman which one should see and hear, and on which one should reflect and concentrate. For by seeing and hearing one’s self, and by reflecting and concentrating on one’s self, one gains the knowledge of this whole world.
…

1 Like
27

This discussion getting to be like:-

:rofl:

Ok, seriously now, guys…

We know that all conditioned things are impermanent, with no true essence, attachment to them as permanent or a fixed concept is simply suffering.
We also know that all conditioned things arise codependently based on multiple, mutually non exclusive progenitors… which too are conditioned… All interlinking in a vast ever changing infinite circularly recurring web called Samsara.
We know that since we exist within Samsara, we too are conditioned phenomena (both mental and physical), impermanent, with no true essence.

Now, since nothing conditioned has a true essence, and Samsara itself consists of an infinity of such conditioned phenomena, which includes us… Ergo Samsara too has no true essence… It is only an illusion perceived by us…and we ourself are also an illusion… impermanent, with no true essence, as already proven above.

So, in one way, there is the observer perceiving reality… This is the Duality.
At the same time there is neither observer, nor reality…this is Non Duality.

Siding with Duality…you tilt towards the viewpoint of the Eternalist. Siding with Non Duality, you tilt towards the viewpoint of the Annhiliationists.

Rejecting all such views, the Buddha has taught the Dhamma as it really is…
This is Suffering, this is the cause of Suffering, this is the end of Suffering, this is the path leading to the end of Suffering.

:grinning:

1 Like
29

Clearly sati involves much more than nupassana, but I’m not sure how this observation is directly relevant to the OP?
Also, why do you say that the OP only relates to the third frame of Satipattana?

30

Sure, but the fact remains that the Buddha’s teaching on anatta was a radical departure from contemporary ideas about Atman.
Not only are the aggregates not self, but there is nothing “beneath” the aggregates either, no “soul”, or “cosmic self”, or whatever. Neti-neti taken to its logical conclusion, you might say.

31

But nupassana practice involves observation, and therefore inevitably re-inforces “duality”.
Then according to the Bahiya Sutta, we practice to remove the “you”, dissolving the duality.
How does one reconcile these two apparently contradictory practices?