Is background awareness consciousness aggregate or something else?

The Watercooler
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?

32

@Martin You might be interested in the following sutta which seemingly combines nupassana practice with the advice given to Bahiya.
SN35.95
I would be interested to know your thoughts on it.

1 Like
33

SN35.95 appears to describe cessation of self-view, resulting from cessation of desire (because craving leads to self-view?)
However in this sutta “mindfulness” appears not to mean nupassana (observation), but rather remembering dhamma, eg the 3 marks. For example recognising that ice-cream is unsatisfactory, because it is impermanent.

I think sati = nupassana only when considered as the first factor of enlightenment, followed by the second factor, dhamma-vicaya (investigation).

But this still leaves the problem I noted, ie that nupassana appears to reinforce the sense of there being an observer, and an observed.

34

‘Observer’ or act/process of observation?

3 Likes
35

Yes, you are absolutely spot on!

Clear, detailed, impartial and non judgmental Observation is indeed the first step… But it is only a tool. This Observation has to be followed up by Investigation and the drawing of inferences, construction of a working hypothesis of what it all means, more evidence collection, tweaking the hypothesis to reflect the greater knowledge of Reality… in an ever improving Right Practice loop of sorts. Even then, this does not by itself cause Enlightenment (Nibbana) to arise. Rather, all that happens is that a ‘raft’ comes to be constructed. This raft has at its heart Right View- the ability to frame experience in terms of Impermanence, Suffering and as not possessing any intrinsic Essence/ Soul/ Self.
The process of following the 8 fold path in its entirety leads to the adoption of successively more skillful definitions of what we take to be Self. See Selves not Self by Thanissaro Bhikkhu.
During this process of evolution, the Personality frequently goes through multiple existential crises, of greater or lesser degree. This is the reason that Virtue (Sila) and Calming (Samatha/ Samadhi) practice is equally as important as Insight (Vipassana).

Finally, at a certain point in time there is a ‘seeing through’ a ‘Realization’ of the way things are. All questions, all contradictions dissolve once there is “Realization”. This can’t be forced, it is the Unconditioned, it just happens. It is something experiential, not easily put into words, not conceptual. Words, being mere signposts, detract from the Experience… It’s like eating the Menu, rather than savoring the food, or describing a sunset rather than watching it, or a tadpole thinking about what water is rather than the frog seeing it clearly (to paraphrase Ajahn Brahm :grin:).

Look to your Experience. What do you find when you observe the outer world? What do you find when you observe your inner world? From the bubbling up of thoughts to the collapse of empires, the ever changing inner/ outer World moves inexorably on, driven by interlinking Conditions, diverted by Choices, stunned by Accidents. Where in any of this can you find a “Self”- a true, unchanging essence with any control over Reality? It is easy to say that “this Ferrari Car is impermanent, with no true ‘Car-ness’, not worthy of being held onto, prone to dissolution, trying to hold onto it is Suffering. Everyone knows that…” But how do you react when you come into the parking lot and find that someone sideswiped it while you were in the Dhamma hall?

That “feeling” of the Observer can of course be taken as being Self. But one cannot pin it down- it is as ephemeral as the fragrance of a flower. Ven Khemaka described it as the very last bit of Self left. Getting to this level where one is consistently experiencing Reality as just the Observer is itself a huge jump- it means that identification with the World and with Form has been let go of to quite a degree. With sufficient understanding, even the Observer will finally be let go of. Hear out Ajahn Amaro describing this process…

(Once again, just to remind you - this explanation represents only my current understanding. It’s offered as friendly advice to a fellow traveller on the Path- eventually all of us have to make our own journey!)

May you experience Nibbana in this lifetime!! :pray:

4 Likes
36

DN33 has a marvelously simple treatment:

DN33:2.1.4: Five aggregates:
form, feeling, perception, choices, and consciousness.
DN33:2.1.6: Five grasping aggregates:
form, feeling, perception, choices, and consciousness.

The only difference between these two remarkable verses is one word. That word is grasping.

Form, feeling, perception, choices and consciousness all bubble up and disappear without beginning or end in the simmering broth of conditions. Without wishes in this very life, it is the grasping and underlying tendency to grasp that disappears, directly known, extinguished and relinquished as pointless defilements. Mara is directly known as Mara, the grasping in that.

MN44:6.3: The desire and greed for the five grasping aggregates is the grasping there.”

Without grasping, there will still be five aggregates.

3 Likes
37

I think it’s only a semantic distinction, since the act of observing depends upon something to observe (“observer”), and something to be observed (“the observed”).
Similar to how the suttas describe eye-consciousness (“seeing”) arising in dependence upon eye and visible form.

As I see it, the real question is not about the presence of an observer, but about the assumptions we make about it.

1 Like
38

Another useful way in which to understand how Duality and Non Duality can both be true at the same time…

image

This is why the Buddha taught that it is pointless to get caught up in endless discussions about the ultimate nature of Reality… Reality can never be directly and completely known through the six senses, it can at best be approximated. Knowing this, one understands how a viewpoint is just a useful tool- holding onto any particular view is just Suffering.
One should be able to change the viewpoint as required by the situation- however you may conceive it - it is otherwise… that is the nature of the Dhamma.

1 Like
39

Sure, but this discussion is about the nature of experience, not about the nature of “reality”.

1 Like
40

Ah… but are they separate?
That is where this question is leading…

As also this…

And you are indeed somewhat right when you say

Experience is one end, Reality the other…they are connected by the Experiencing.
The Observer is one end, the Observed the other, they are connected by the Observation.
Grasping to either views of Experience or of Reality, there is Suffering.
When the Mind comes to rest in the Knowing, it lets go of all such clinging/craving to either side of the Duality.
In that final letting go lies Nibbana.

1 Like
41

In the broader Indian tradition the background awareness is called the Sākṣī (Saakshi). The word is used sparingly in the suttas and not developed in a similar sense way except in MN 119, Kāyagatāsati Sutta where in the 29th-31st verses [PTS iii 96-97] the Buddha says:
“Bhikkhus, when anyone has developed and cultivated mindfulness of the body, then when he inclines his mind towards realising any state that may be realised by direct knowledge, he attains the ability to witness any aspect therein, there being a suitable basis. Suppose, set out on a stand, there were a water jug full of water right up to the brim so that crows could drink from it. Whenever a strong man tips it, would water come out?”
“Yes, Venerable Sir.”
"So too, bhikkhus, when anyone has developed and cultivated mindfulness of the body, then when he inclines his mind towards any state that may be realised by direct knowledge, he attains the ability to witness any aspect therein, there being a suitable basis.
“Suppose there were a square pond on level ground, surrounded by an embankment, full of water right up to the brim so that crows could drink from it. whenever a strong man loosens the embankment, would water come out?”
“Yes, Venerable Sir.”
"So too, bhikkhus, when anyone has developed and cultivated mindfulness of the body, then when he inclines his mind towards any state that may be realised by direct knowledge, he attains the ability to witness any aspect therein, there being a suitable basis.
"Suppose there were a chariot on even ground at the crossroads, harnessed to thoroughbreds, waiting with a goad lying ready, so that a skilled trainer, a charioteer of horses to be tamed, might mount it, and taking the reins in his left hand and the goad in his right hand, might drive out and back by any road whenever he likes. “So too, bhikkhus, when anyone has developed and cultivated mindfulness of the body, then when he inclines his mind towards any state that may be realised by direct knowledge, he attains the ability to witness any aspect therein, there being a suitable basis.”
the Pali text reads:
Seyyathāpi bhikkhave, udakamaṇiko pūro udakassa samatittiko kākapeyyo ādhāre ṭhapito, atha puriso āgaccheyya udakabhāraṃ ādāya. Taṃ kimmaññatha bhikkhave, api nu so puriso labhetha udakassa nikkhepananti.

No hetaṃ bhante.

Evameva kho bhikkhave, yassa kassaci kāyagato sati bhāvitā bahulikatā, na tassa labhati māro otāraṃ, na tassa labhati māro ārammaṇaṃ.

Yassa kassaci bhikkhave, kāyagatā sati bhāvitā bahulīkatā, so yassa yassa abhiññā sacchikaraṇīyassa dhammassa cittaṃ abhininnāmeti abhiññā sacchikiriyāya. Tatra tatrave sakkhibhabbataṃ pāpuṇāti sati sati āyatane.

Seyyathāpi bhikkhave, udakamaṇiko pūro udakassa samatittiko kākapeyyo ādhāre ṭhapito, tamenaṃ balavā puriso yato yato āvajjeyya, āgaccheyya udakanti
Evaṃ bhante.

Evameva kho bhikkhave, yassa kassaci kāyagatā sati bhāvitā bahulīkatā, so yassa yassa abhiññā sacchikaraṇīyassa dhammassa cittaṃ abhininnāmeni abhiññā sacchikiriyāya. Tatra tatrava sakkhibhabbataṃ pāpuṇāti sati sati āyatane.

Seyyathāpi bhikkhave, same bhūmibhāge caturassā pokkharaṇi assa āḷibaddhā pūrā udakassa samatittikā kākapeyyā. Tamenaṃ balavā puriso yato yato āḷiṃ muñceyya5, āgaccheyya udakanti.

Evaṃ bhante.

Evameva kho bhikkhave, yassa kassaci kāyagatā sati bhāvitā bahulīkatā, so yassa yassa abhiññā sacchikaraṇīyassa dhammassa cittaṃ abhininnāmeti abhiññā sacchikiriyāya. Tatra tatreva sakkhibhabbataṃ pāpuṇāti sati sati āyatane.

Seyyathāpi bhikkhave, subhūmiyaṃ cātummahāpathe ājaññaratho yutto assa ṭhito odhastapatodo. Tamenaṃ dakkho yoggācariyo assadammasārathi abhiruhitvā vāmena hatthena rasmiyo gahetvā dakkhiṇena hatthena patodaṃ gahetvā yenicchakaṃ yadicchakaṃ sāreyyāpi paccāsāreyyāpi evameva kho bhikkhave, yassa kassaci kāyagatā sati bhāvitā bahulīkatā, so yassa yassa abhiññā sacchikaraṇīyassa dhammassa cittaṃ abhininnāmeti abhiññā sacchikiriyāya, tatra tatreva sakkhi bhabbataṃ pāpuṇāti sati sati ayatane.

2 Likes
42

Based on Mindfulness of the Body and other suttas, I would suggest that the point of the various anussatis is not so much to develop awareness of various objects as to reflect back on the sati itself, realising awareness itself that is prior to any dualistic perception of an object. We begin with ‘putting sati before us’ when we sit down to meditation, but at the beginning we confuse sati because we are caught up in all the various phenomena. Through practicing the four foundations, sati naturally develops through direct knowledge (as in MN 119.29) into pañña/liberating wisdom. or perhaps it is incorrect to say that sati develops into anything, as it is prior to conditioning or modification, so more correctly, it is our own understanding which develops and finally we can see clearly, and you can use any word you wish or not use any word at all about this clear seeing.
To get back to the original question about viññāna, it is sometimes referred to in the suttas in this sense, but usually carries the meaning of conditioned awareness, as in Dependent Arising. Viññāna is used in a wide variety of ways, so we have to pay attention to the context. Do the suttas use the word viññāna to describe unmodified awareness? I believe the answer is yes, but it is not usually the case.

3 Likes
43

For a westerner, crossing a street in Delhi results in much suffering and wondering “How the *#$@! do I get across?”

Letting go of personal goals and opening to the brahmaviharas, one simply crosses. All five aggregates are there. Indeed, crossing the street while ignoring the aggregates would be death. :see_no_evil: :hear_no_evil: = :skull_and_crossbones:

The crow can drink from any place on the lip of the jug, drinking in only what is needed at the right time in the right place. Grasping the jug creates a big splashy mess.

2 Likes