The state of saññāvedayitanirodha is in fact a result of mental projections (saṅkhārā):
Husgafvel briefly mentions saññāvedayitanirodha as a potential non-dual meditative attainment within the Canon in note 32 of this article: Full article: THE ‘UNIVERSAL DHARMA FOUNDATION’ OF MINDFULNESS-BASED STRESS REDUCTION: NON-DUALITY AND MAHĀYĀNA BUDDHIST INFLUENCES IN THE WORK OF JON KABAT-ZINN. Of course, this position is debatable and requires further evidence to support it, but Husgafvel does not provide any arguments in its favor.
Honestly, I did not undestand your point of view: on one hand, you tend to agree with Griffiths’ idea regarding the paññā’s formula being out of place; on the other hand, you are not convinced by the possibility of developing paññā after emerging from the meditative attainment of nirodha. Do you think that this is simply a paradox, perhaps intentionally created?
1 Like
Yes, though I don’t think I’d characterize it as “intentionally created.” It just is that way. And, certainly, they were intentional in expressing it that way, or in not making it more palatable. And, to be clear, while I might agree that that formula is out of place there (Shulman notes that [Schmithausen notes that] it’s only present in the MN and AN, it’s absent from the DN and SN), I wouldn’t go so far as to say paññā itself would be out of place there: if that makes sense. I wonder, though, what that paññā consists of. (Shulman advises recognizing a distinction between the paññā of saññāvedayitanirodha and the ñāṇaṁ of fourth jhāna.) What sort of paññā might obtain in such a state?
The formula paññāya cassa disvā āsavā parikkhīṇā honti also occurs in the Kīṭāgiri-sutta, referring to the liberated person. But I’m not sure of the content of this knowledge. Do you have any ideas?
Just the understanding that the āsavas are extinguished.
Gone. Absent. Empty of āsavas. Cessation of defilements.
Yet, while the arahant who realizes this is still alive and the khandhas are still present, there is consciousness of the absence, the cessation, of the āsavas.
1 Like
That’s a logical conclusion, and I did think that for years, but I don’t know if that’s necessarily so. Taking the formula straightforwardly, it would appear that whatever the meditator saw with paññā was seen before the eradication of the āsavā. In fact, we might surmise that the eradication of the āsavā was predicated on the seeing with paññā.
If you accept that this attainment is the same as the one being discussed in the Samādhi Sutta and the Sāriputta Sutta linked above (again, something which might not necessarily be so), then I would propose that what was seen could perhaps be whatever those suttas claimed the meditator was percipient of.
Whether the defilements are eradicated before or after samādhi may be of less importance than the direct knowledge that they are indeed ceased, without the possibility of arising again. That’s what I meant by :
Futher, in MN44 the Bhikkhuni Dhammadinnā is asked:
“But ma’am, which arise first for a mendicant who is emerging from the cessation of perception and feeling: physical, verbal, or mental processes?”
“Mental processes arise first, then physical, then verbal.”
This points to the resumption of these processes after the state of saññāvedayitanirodha - including the perception of the eradication of the defilements.
If by the Samādhi sutta, you referring to AN4.92-AN4.94 or to SN22.5 – none of them specifies what insights may or may not occur during jhana.
But, again, what I think matters beyond our speculations is whether the defilements have been fully eradicated – and that there is the understanding, the realization, of this.
At that point all our speculations are ended. 
This discussion assumes that ‘sannavedayita’ is a dvanda compound meaning ‘perception and feeling’. Another view is that it may be a tappurisa compound meaning ‘what is felt or experienced due to perception’. An ordinary English example is: ‘stage fright’. When it is stopped the vedayita is stopped but the sanna is not necessarily stopped.
Unless you want to say that a corpse also have perception, I don’t think it’s a tappurisa compound meaning. Is the saññāvedayitanirodha a cognitive state? - #2 by Jasudho
I suggest to read MN 43. MN 43 seems to say there cannot be feeling, perception & consciousness without each other.
“Feeling, perception, and consciousness—
“Yā cāvuso, vedanā yā ca saññā yañca viññāṇaṁ—
these things are mixed, not separate.
ime dhammā saṁsaṭṭhā, no visaṁsaṭṭhā.
And you can never completely disentangle them so as to describe the difference between them.
Na ca labbhā imesaṁ dhammānaṁ vinibbhujitvā vinibbhujitvā nānākaraṇaṁ paññāpetuṁ.
For you perceive what you feel, and you cognize what you perceive.
Yaṁ hāvuso, vedeti taṁ sañjānāti, yaṁ sañjānāti taṁ vijānāti.
That’s why these things are mixed, not separate.
Tasmā ime dhammā saṁsaṭṭhā no visaṁsaṭṭhā.
And you can never completely disentangle them so as to describe the difference between them.”
1 Like
Thanks.
I was less interested in the grammatical form than offering a summary of how it’s taught in the suttas.
That’s why I used “temporary”, which doesn’t apply to a corpse.
But have I misunderstood your point?
I was replying to robert using your answer. Not replying to you.
1 Like
Ok, thanks. It came through to me and I was unclear about the post.
Thanks for clarifying.
1 Like
Dear Ven Pannadhammika,
Yes, I have read MN 43 and 44 (Mahavedalla and Culavedalla Suttas).
Again I think there is a weakness in the English translation. The prefix ‘sam’ refers to what is in us: ‘sanna’ is what we know; ‘sankhara’ is what we have learned to do—obscurely translated as ‘formations’ when a better translation is ‘activities’.
An illustration of sannavedayitanirodha is in the happy country yokel who, when asked what he is doing as he sits in the village watching the people going by, says “Sometimes I sit and think, and sometimes I just sit.” His kayasankharas are calmed as he sits quietly, his vacisankharas are stilled as he remains silent, and his cittasankharas are stilled because he is not thinking or worrying about anything. But he still perceives that people are going by and he will recognize his friends.
With respect and metta,
Robert Exell
Hi. MN 43 says:
“Feeling, perception, and consciousness—
“Yā cāvuso, vedanā yā ca saññā yañca viññāṇaṁ—
these things are mixed, not separate.
ime dhammā saṁsaṭṭhā, no visaṁsaṭṭhā.
saṃsaṭṭha
- pp. mixed (with); combined (with); lit. mixed together [saṃ + √saj + ta]
- pp. closely associated (with); lit. mixed together [saṃ + √saj + ta]
- pp. stuck (to); entangled (with); entwinder (with); lit. mixed together [saṃ + √saj + ta]
- pp. joined; connected (with); lit. mixed together [saṃ + √saj + ta]
- pp. originated together [saṃ + √saj]
1 Like
It does not say that. It says that vinnana, sanna, vedana are related, meaning if there is a moment of sensing something, an awareness of something (a sense vinnana), that cannot be seperated from having a certain sensation/feeling (vedana) and certain ability to notice the characteristics of what is sensed (sanna) such as sweet, sour, pleasant, unpleasant.
Abhidhamma has given even more detail about this and says that vinnana also cannot be separated from an element of direction (cetana), attention, concentration, vitality, contact. This is what sensing something, or a moment of becoming aware of something, always, at least, accompanies.
Vinnana refers to a moment we become aware of something in the domain of the senses. It does not define mind, or the ability to know. I believe, we can also think about sense-vinnana’s as the manifestation aspect or element of mind. For example, when we talk about the sun it has an element of warmth, of light, of shape, etc. Mind has in the same way an element or aspect of manifestation. That is covered by the word vinnana. It does not mean that the sun is completely known by its element of warmth. Likewise mind is not completely known by its aspect or element of manifesting things.
Vinnana in a defiled mind is also a directed mind moment. But Buddha does not teach that mind is always directed. It can also be undirected, uninclined, which is a way to talk about the nature of a purified mind that does not habitually get engaged in the 6 sense domains and which nature is seclusion and which contacts are signless, undirected and empty.
When the sutta’s talk about vinnana that refers almost always to an engaged mind moment. Mind is lost and engaged in the senses. Like a monkey grasping a branch. It almost never refers to mere seeing, hearing, smelling moment, but vinnana is almost all the time used as kamma-vinnana. A with sankhara’s loaded sense moment which is allready defiled by the load of the sankhara’s. To think about vinnana as some neutral unloaded knowing moment is not correct. That is only true for arahant asnd not for a yet defiled functioning mind that engaged instinctively with sense object with desires, conceit, views, emotions.
There is also a difference between vinnana moments, conscious sense moments, and mind ability to know. Conscious sense moments cease all the time and depend on the presence of a sense-object,
but minds ability to know does not even cease under narcosis, in deep dreamless sleep, or when nothing is felt and perceived in a conscious way. So we cannot think about vinnana as mind ability to know. But vinnana refers to the manifestion element or aspect of the mind.
I would recommend you not to simply cite Abhidhamma when you’re presenting a theory of mind which is explicity not aligned to orthodox Theravada. You might misled people into thinking that your theory of mind is affirmed by orthodox Theravada.
Orthodox Theravada says the bhavaṅga, the unconscious/subconscious, the sleeping state also is counted as consciousness, and also has perception, feeling. In the cessation of perception and feeling, there’s no consciousness. Given that mind is just the 4 aggregates, there’s no mind at all in cessation of perception and feeling. This is the orthodox Theravada view, if you don’t agree with it, please don’t use Abhidhamma.
The only way for this to make sense is that you don’t think viññāṇa is the same as consciousness, whereas it’s the very translation of consciousness. Or you’re just saying, “no but actually yes.”
Arahants also have consciousness and they do just merely seeing, merely hearing because there’s no sense of self for them to insert into these experiences.
I do not do that. I said something else. I said the sutta’s teach that one cannot really seperate vinnana, sanna, vedana. Abhidhamma adds more to this.
No, Abhdihamma does not speak of consciousness. This is a translation…of what Pali word?
Ofcourse i do not accept that it is rational to introduce an unconscious consciousness like you do.
I think it is much more elegant to think about vinnana as the conscious moments, the moments we really are aware of perceptions and feelings. Most people will think about consciousness this way.
Mind consists of conscious and unconscious moments.
Yes, i do not denie that. But a defiled functioning mind engages with a sense object habitually emotional (like, dislike), with conceit (this I am), with possessiveness, (this is mine), with views (this is my self). There is almost ever an element of desire and ignorance in that sense contact. It is called ignorant contact in the sutta’s, as you know. This is a kamma vinnana and not just vinnana. Extremely important to realise that almost all our sense contacts are defiled contacts.
This engagement is absent in a purified mind. What this practically means according the sutta’s is that this pure mind ever touches the stilling of all formations. So even when perceptions and feeling arise and cease, it does not move at all. It also does not arise and cease together with those perceptions and feelings. This is possible because this element of stilling and cessation, purity, dispassion is asankhata.
It is never seen arising, ceasing and changing.
This is exactly identifying the dhammakāya with nibbāna. A mistake pointed out clearly by Burgs.
Abhidhamma says bhavaṅga is the consciousness when sleeping, and it counts as consciousness in the Buddhist usage. Since you don’t agree with this, I don’t think it’s fair for you to just Abhidhamma.
citta, it’s translated by B. Bodhi as consciousness.
In common usage we have mind=citta = 4 mental aggregates, which includes viññāṇa, but in Abhidhamma terminology mind= citta+cetasika, wherein citta take the role of viññāṇa and cetasika includes the other 3 mental aggregates.
Regardless of it, the translation of viññāṇa as consciousness is valid in sutta context, and citta as consciousness is valid in Abhidhamma context. And these consciousness is not the same as western psychology consciousness where one is awake. Buddhist usage of consciousness includes what is known in psychology as unconscious, subconsious.
Buddhist usage of consciousness: Whenever a mind is there, consciousness is there. There’s no such thing as a mind without consciousness.
We haven’t talk about this before?
I do not speak about dhammakaya, right? And i am also not interested in disciples Bhante. I am a learner. But also a learner that does not really understand why Buddhist are so reluctant to accept asankhata, so eager to just ignore it, reject it, or turn it into mere a concept or even equate it to nothing at all. Strange things happen to my poor heart.
Abhidhamma also does not say that there is consciousness under narcosis or in deep dreamless sleep. It says there is bhavanga citta. You choice to translate this as consciousness, or Bodhi, or whoever, and i believe this is irrational and confuses.
All such things are invented to support a certain understanding of mind, like Newton invented his theory of force of gravity to understand and make a model that explains things.
It is not reality. Like there is no such things as gravity force i also do not believe there is such thing as a stream of vinnana’s or bhavanga sota or a mix.
The perception of movement, stream, i see as mere a perception. Like a rainbow just arises and ceases, all sensations, all perceptions just arise and cease but form no continues stream at all. That idea of a stream is merely a conceived reality.
It is like projecting many pictures rapidly on a screen. They only create the illusion of streaming pictures. But there is not really a stream. Mind does not really move. It only projects, manifest things that come and go. There is not really a vinnana sota. That is the result of conceiving these arising ansd ceasing projections as a continuum, which is delusonial. It is not a continuum, no stream.
The idea of vinnana sota, bhavanga sota is, i believe, part of a delusional view, how things are perceived. But not how they really are. Buddha aligns with how we perceive things, but i do not believe that he really means there is literally a stream of vinnana’s or bhavanga sota.
Theravada fancies that bhavanga functions as some kind of life-continuum and fancies there are endless stream flying through the air from body to egg, from deva state to womb…sorry…i feel this is all so primitive. I believe in rebirth but not in this magical thinking.
Theravada seems to rely on the idea that personal existence is real and i believe this is a mistake.