The poised one does not take anything
seen, heard, or thought to be ultimately true or false.
But others get attached, thinking it’s the truth,
limited by their preconceptions.Since they’ve already seen this dart,
to which people are attached and cling,
they say, ‘I know, I see, that’s how it is’;
the Realized Ones have no attachments.”
2 Likes
Sources please?
For finding witness consciousness in the broader Indian tradition, here is a place to begin: Sakshi (Witness) - Wikipedia
It can also be found in the Dzogchen and Mahamudra (Vajrayana Buddhist) traditions under the term rigpa. Try pasting rigpa into your browser. The Advaita Vedanta tradition emphasizes this principle and Swami Sarvapriyananda has a number of talks on the subject. Here is one: YouTube. If that link fails, search Swami Sarvapriananda and witness consciousness on Youtube. I hope that helps.
2 Likes
Here is a reference that uses the term viññāna in such a way as to suggest an unconditioned, unmodified viññāna. Upaya Sutta SN 22.53. This is Ven. Thanissaro translation of Upaya Sutta [PTS iii 53]:
At Savatthi. There the Blessed One said, "One attached is unreleased; one unattached is released. Should consciousness, when standing, stand attached to (a physical) form, supported by form (as its object), landing on form, watered with delight, it would exhibit growth, increase, & proliferation.
Should consciousness, when standing, stand attached to feeling, supported by feeling (as its object), landing on feeling, watered with delight, it would exhibit growth, increase, & proliferation.
Should consciousness, when standing, stand attached to perception, supported by perception (as its object), landing on perception, watered with delight, it would exhibit growth, increase, & proliferation.
Should consciousness, when standing, stand attached to fabrications, supported by fabrications (as its object), landing on fabrications, watered with delight, it would exhibit growth, increase, & proliferation.
Were someone to say, ‘I will describe a coming, a going, a passing away, an arising, a growth, an increase, or a proliferation of consciousness apart from form, from feeling, from perception, from fabrications,’ that would be impossible.
If a monk abandons passion for the property of form…
If a monk abandons passion for the property of feeling…
If a monk abandons passion for the property of perception…
If a monk abandons passion for the property of fabrications…
If a monk abandons passion for the property of consciousness, then owing to the abandonment of passion, the support is cut off, and there is no landing of consciousness. Consciousness, thus not having landed, not increasing, not concocting, is released. Owing to its release, it is steady. Owing to its steadiness, it is contented. Owing to its contentment, it is not agitated. Not agitated, he (the monk) is totally unbound right within. He discerns that ‘Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.’
Th Pali:
Upaya suttaṃ
- Sāvatthiyaṃ:
Upayo bhikkhave, avimutto, anupayo vimutto, rūpūpayaṃ vā bhikkhave, viññāṇaṃ tiṭṭhamānaṃ tiṭṭheyya, rūpārammaṇaṃ rūpappatiṭṭhaṃ nandūpasecanaṃ vuddhiṃ virūḷahiṃ vepullaṃ āpajjeyya,
Upayo bhikkhave, avimutto, anupayo vimutto, vedanūpayaṃ vā bhikkhave, viññāṇaṃ tiṭṭhamānaṃ tiṭṭheyya, vedanārammaṇaṃ vedanappatiṭṭhaṃ nandūpasecanaṃ vuddhiṃ virūḷahiṃ vepullaṃ
Upayo bhikkhave, avimutto, anupayo vimutto, saññūpayaṃ vā bhikkhave, viññāṇaṃ tiṭṭhamānaṃ tiṭṭheyya, saññārammaṇaṃ saññappatiṭṭhaṃ nandūpasecanaṃ vuddhiṃ virūḷahiṃ vepullaṃ āpajjeyya,
Upayo bhikkhave, avimutto, anupayo vimutto, saṃkhārūpayaṃ vā bhikkhave viññāṇaṃ tiṭṭhamānaṃ tiṭṭheyya saṃkhārārammaṇaṃ saṃkhārappatiṭṭhaṃ nandūpasecanaṃ vuddhiṃ virūḷahiṃ vepullaṃ āpajjeyya.
Yo bhikkhave evaṃ vadeyya: ahamaññatra rūpā aññatra vedanāya aññatra saññāya aññatra saṃkhārehi viññāṇassa āgatiṃ vā gatiṃ vā cutiṃ vā uppattiṃ vā vuddhiṃ vā virūḷhiṃ vā vepullaṃ vā paññāpessāmīti netaṃ ṭhānaṃ vijjati.
Rūpadhātuyā ce bhikkhave, bhikkhuno rāgo pahīno hoti, rāgassa pahānā vocchijjatārammaṇaṃ, patiṭṭhā viññāṇassa na hoti, vedanādhātuyā ce bhikkhave bhikkhuno rāgo pahīno hoti, rāgassa pahānā vocchijjatārammaṇaṃ, patiṭṭhā viññāṇassa na hoti, saññādhātuyā ce bhikkhave bhikkhuno rāgo pahīno hoti, rāgassa pahānā vocchijjatārammaṇaṃ, patiṭṭhā viññāṇassa na hoti, saṃkhāradhātuyā ce bhikkhave bhikkhuno rāgassa pahino hoti. Rāgassa pahānā vocchijjatārammaṇaṃ patiṭṭhā viññāṇassa na hoti. Viññāṇadhātuyā ce bhikkhave, bhikkhunā rāgo pahīno hoti. Rāgassa pahānā vocchijjatārammaṇaṃ, patiṭṭhā viññāṇassa na hoti, tadappatiṭṭaṭhitaṃ viññāṇaṃ avirūḷhaṃ anabhi saṅkhacca vimuttaṃ, vimuttattā ṭhitaṃ ṭhitattā santusitaṃ, santusitattā na paritassati aparitassaṃ paccattaṃ yeva parinibbāyati. 'Khīṇā jāti, vusitaṃ brahmacariyaṃ, kataṃ karaṇīyaṃ, nāparaṃ itthattāyā’ti pajānātīti.
2 Likes
Thanks, I was not aware of the concept. But also it is not pre-Buddhist and thus we cannot say that it was used in the suttas in this sense. After all sa-akkhi literally just means “with eyes”. I have to admit though that some terms involving ‘seeing’, ‘eyes’, etc. (like upekkha, vipassana) could carry additional meaning (the formula of MN 119 btw appears also in AN 3.102, AN 5.23, AN 5.28, AN 5.68, AN 6.71, AN 9.35, MN 73). So I would love to see a deeper treatment of the term and its connotations in the suttas.
Also, please when you quote a sutta, do it sparingly by highlighting the term/passage you mean. Otherwise people (e.g. me) will just skip it.
3 Likes
I think I understand SN 22.53 in terms of consciousness being released from form, perceptions, feelings and fabrications, but how does sense-consciousness (vinnana) “land on” itself. Or NOT land on itself, for that matter?
1 Like
In DN33, I struggle with the phrase “five grasping aggregates”, which suggests the aggregates are themselves grasping something. But what are they grasping? How does form grasp anything, for example?
Maybe “the five aggregates subject to grasping” would work better, but then, who or what is doing the grasping? Or not doing it?
2 Likes
Yes, in the suttas vinnana generally refers to six-fold sense-consciousness, which looks like a pretty basic function.
The only exception I can think of is vinnanam anidassanam (“consciousness without surface”), but there doesn’t seem to be a consensus about what that is.
But here we seem to be discussing a higher-level awareness or knowing, perhaps more like a quality of mind (citta)?
The following indicates that consciousness freed from greed simply comes and goes naturally. It does not grow or increase:
SN22.53:2.2: ‘Apart from form, feeling, perception, and choices, I will describe the coming and going of consciousness, its passing away and reappearing, its growth, increase, and maturity.’ That is not possible. If a mendicant has given up greed for the form element, the support is cut off, and there is no foundation for consciousness. If a mendicant has given up greed for the feeling element … perception element … choices element … consciousness element, the support is cut off, and there is no foundation for consciousness. Since that consciousness does not become established and does not grow, with no power to regenerate, it is freed.
One might understand “grasping aggregates” in the same way as “sticky duct tape”. When the sticky adhesiveness is removed, there is just cloth tape (i.e., just “aggregates”). There is no “who”–identity view is just the sticky grasping. Nibbana isn’t sticky or grasping, so form, feeling, perception, choices and consciousness operate freely. It’s the same five aggregates, unencumbered.
1 Like
I sort of get it with four of the aggregates, but I still don’t understand how consciousness can land on consciousness, or how consciousness can be freed from consciousness. I have no idea what this means.
And I still don’t understand what the “sticky” aggregates are sticking TO, or how rupa could stick to anything.
I get the idea of a “me” clinging TO the aggregates, when self-view is present, but I’m not sure if that is what is meant here? If so, it would be “aggregates subject to clinging”, which then “convert” to aggregates not subject to clinging, when self-view is removed.
That’s how I tend to see it. I would go even further and say, a mind with ‘sati’ is a altogether different mind from a mind without ‘sati’.
1 Like
Yes, you’re right. Interesting how the 7-fold definition there focuses on the 3 marks.
1 Like
Consciousness arises to make choices and in turn requires “more data”, thereby leading to a refinement (i.e., increase) of form, feeling, perception and choices.
With a freed consciousness, if Taylor Swift or Donald Trump walked by and asked for the time of day, one would simply look at a timepiece and answer.
With a sticky consciousness, if Taylor Swift or Donald Trump walked by and asked for the time of day, one would just look at them somewhat bemused and confused by a mass of consciousness. And that confused consciousness would be a sticky bundle of forms, feelings, perceptions, choices and consciousness all bound up together. It would not simply be a person asking the time.
So “person asking the time” and “Taylor Swift” and “Donald Trump” are all forms. Complex forms are stickily aggregated out of simple forms by feeling, perception, choices and consciousness. Aggregated forms tend to differ by individual, aggregated forms differ by identity view.
MN44:7.3: They regard form as self, self as having form, form in self, or self in form. they regard feeling … perception … choices … consciousness as self, self as having consciousness, consciousness in self, or self in consciousness. That’s how identity view comes about.”
Applied with wisdom, meditation is sort of like an adhesive remover. Takes a lot of patience, effort and resolve. And with some success in practice, one might see just a person asking the time, a person who might also be a singer or a head of state, or even just a fellow human being.
3 Likes
Maybe this talk could be useful here🙏
2 Likes
Right. I think Ven. Thanissaro’s translation is curious at this point.
Ven. Bhikhu Bodhi gives the following: “When that consciousness is unestablished, not coming to growth, nongenerative, it is liberated.”
Does that make more sense of the passage?
3 Likes
Thank you for the other references. I knew of some of them but not all. I will have a look. I did not mean to fill up too much space on the screen with my quotes of passages, and the yellow highlight is a good suggestion. I love reading the suttas, repetition and all, and usually try to fully understand the context of what is said. So as to best get the context I tend to go for full quotes, including all the similes.
1 Like
If it would help, perhaps it would be better to revert to the term"established", rather than “landed”, for patiṭṭhaṃ. One needs to see where Ven Thanissaro’s comes from with his “lands”, as it is part of his belief that there is some thing called a consciousness that does not land. See his translation of SN 12.64 -
"Where there is passion, delight, & craving for the nutriment of physical food, consciousness lands there and increases. Where consciousness lands and increases, there is the alighting of name-&-form. Where there is the alighting of name-&-form, there is the growth of fabrications. Where there is the growth of fabrications, there is the production of renewed becoming in the future. Where there is the production of renewed becoming in the future, there is future birth, aging, & death, together, I tell you, with sorrow, affliction, & despair.
(Ditto for contact, intention and consciousness)
“Just as if there were a roofed house or a roofed hall having windows on the north, the south, or the east. When the sun rises, and a ray has entered by way of the window, where does it land?”
“On the western wall, lord.”
“And if there is no western wall, where does it land?”
“On the ground, lord.”
“And if there is no ground, where does it land?”
“On the water, lord.”
“And if there is no water, where does it land?”
“It does not land, lord.”
Firstly, it’s a grammatically incorrect translation. The text does not say “It does not land”. The text does not have the present indicative verb na patiṭṭhahati. It has the past participle appatiṭṭhita. This is a significant point, as it throws into doubt his translation of the questions that precede the final answer in the passage of the metaphor of sunlight. Those questions ask “where is it patiṭṭhita”? Why is this important? Because that sutta starts off with this doctrinal proposition -
Kabaḷīkāre ce, bhikkhave, āhāre atthi rāgo atthi nandī atthi taṇhā, patiṭṭhitaṃ tattha viññāṇaṃ virūḷhaṃ.
If there is desire, relishing, and craving for solid food, consciousness becomes established there and grows. (per Bhante Sujato)
Again, the past participle is used; there is no present indicative verb establishes or lands as proposed by Ven Thanissaro’s translation. The crux of the matter is that this piece of bad translation gives him the leeway to introduce the idea of an “unestablished consciousness”, like some kind of arahant’s post-mortem consciousness. But the opening proposition in SN 12.64 makes clear that the issue is not “establishment” as a quality/adjective of the noun consciousness. Rather, establishment or non-establishment of consciousness is functioning adverbally to describe the occurrence or non-occurrence of an event. The correct translation is simply “Consciousness does not become established”.
I would add to that the grammatical observation that the verb patiṭṭhahati is intransitive. Predication is dependent on transitivity, which means that an “unestablished consciousness” is a grammatical unicorn in Pali.
But coming back to your question above, consciousness can be established on consciousness, as per SN 12.64. It is the passion, delight and craving for consciousness that causes consciousness to be established on consciousness.
6 Likes
I find it useful to generalise or simplify as much as possible. How to live in the world but be unaffected by it, how to be aloof from it. And what makes you get sucked in to it.
Mendicants, I will teach you the things that are prone to being fettered, and the fetter. Listen …
What are the things that are prone to being fettered? And what is the fetter?
Form is something that’s prone to being fettered. The desire and greed for it is the fetter.
Feeling …
Perception …
Choices …Consciousness is something that’s prone to being fettered. The desire and greed for it is the fetter.
These are called the things that are prone to being fettered, and this is the fetter.”
SN22.120
It’s the desire for more that proliferates the world.
One who is dependent has wavering. One who is independent has no wavering. There being no wavering, there is calm. There being calm, there is no yearning. There being no yearning, there is no coming or going. There being no coming or going, there is no passing away or arising. There being no passing away or arising, there is neither a here nor a there nor a between-the-two. This, just this, is the end of stress.
Nibbana Sutta
2 Likes
Thanks, but I still don’t get how sense-consciousness (vinnana) can establish and grow on itself. This seems like a paradox to me.
How for example would eye-consciousness establish itself on eye-consciousness?
I can understand eye-consciousness becoming established and growing on attractive visible form, but not on eye-consciousness itself.
Or perhaps its describing the craving for continued sense-consciousness, in this case a desire to continue seeing?
1 Like