More on internal, external, or both

[BethL]

Tangential to

On anidassana, viññāṇa, and dreams

The difficult verse on consciousness in DN 11 and MN 49 has prompted much discussion. I think certain things have been cleared up with a fair degree of confidence, especially: anidassana (“invisible”, “unmanifest”) is a synonym of arūpa pabhaṁ means “radiant” “radiant all around” is a synonym of pariyodāta, a descriptor of fourth jhana and above. all three main adjectives indicate the formless attainment known in prose as the dimension of infinite consciousness: infinite invisible (= formles…

More on “internal, external, or both” as regards Śaṅkarācārya’s commentary on the Investigation of the Three States.

@sujato

This suggests that the passage was indeed the locus of discussion between Buddhists and Non-dualists, both of whom recognized that their views were, in fact, different and incompatible. Perhaps such records remain because there is a cultural memory of the fact that the Buddha, who studied the Upanishads under his former teachers, referred obliquely to such passages in his own teachings.

I’m about 25% through the Investigation of the Three States. I was intrigued by the commentary on v4.3.2. That verse:

2. ‘Yājñavalkya, what serves as the light for a man?’ ‘The light of the sun, O Emperor,’ said Yājñavalkya, ‘it is through the light of the sun that he sits, goes out, works and returns.’ ‘Just so, Yājñavalkya.’

Then the commentary (my italics):

Question: What difference does it make if he uses a light extraneous to his body or one forming a part of it?

Reply: Listen. If it is decided that he by his very nature has to use a light extraneous to his body, then with regard to the effects of a light that is invisible we shall infer that they are also due to an extraneous light. If, on the other hand, he acts through a light not extraneous to the body, but part and parcel of himself, then, where the effects of a light are visible, although the light itself is invisible, we can infer that the light in question must be an inner one. If, however, there is no restriction as to whether the light which a person uses is within or without himself, then there is no decision on the matter of the light.

Is it possible that the somewhat enigmatic refrain in the satipaṭṭhānasutta (MN10, DN22) is a kind of counterpoint?

And so they meditate observing an aspect of the body internally, externally, and both internally and externally.

That is, the Buddha teaches there is no meaningful distinction between whether, in this case, sati is maintained through external or internal means (or both). It is sati regardless.

Versus the Upanishad commentary which is decidedly in favor of cognizing the “internal light” as means of reaching the Supreme Self. In fact, further down the commentary is the firm disputation of the Buddhist response:

…they deny the light of the self as distinct from the body and illumining the consciousness of the intellect.

I realize, at the end of the day, that the MN10/DN22 refrain “says what is says” and so we don’t have to impute any more meaning to it than that.

@sujato

Internally means in one’s own self; externally means outside one’s self; and internally/externally means seeing with wisdom that inside and outside are essentially the same, for example, that the earth element inside and outside are just the earth element.

Still, from a contextual perspective, it is intriguing to me that this may have been an origin of the Buddha’s teaching – that internally/externally or both (as it relates to sati) is perhaps a refutation as well as a point of practice.