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 (= formless)
- radiant all around
The text, in both cases, is addressed in a Brahmanical context and clearly refers to the Upanishadic notion of infinite consciousness taught by Yajnavalkya. Yet one outstanding issue is that the term anidassana does not appear in such contexts in the Upanishads.
There is, however, one place where it does occur: as the vision seen in a dream. Chāndogya Upaniṣad 5.2.8:
tadeṣa śloko yadā karmasu kāmyeṣu striyaṃ svapneṣu paśyanti samṛddhiṃ tatra jānīyāttasminsvapnanidarśane tasminsvapnanidarśane ||
Here is a verse in this connection: When one sees a woman in a dream while performing a rite for the fulfillment of a desire, that means it is successful. One can know this from the dream.
Here, svapnanidarśana is the vision (nidarśana) seen in a dream (svapna).
Now, the Upanishadic treatment of dreams is subtle and mysterious. In one sense, it is about actual normal dreams. But it is also closely connected with the process of dying and rebirth, as well as the meditative attainment of the mystical divinity. I believe this obscurity is deliberate, and the texts are hiding their true meaning so that only the wise will understand.
In any case, we can see that the nidassana here is that which “appears” or “manifests” as a vision in a dream, and hence is similar to the rūpa that manifests as the nimitta seen in the form absorptions, and which is of course absent in the “formless” meditations.
From the same Upanishad, we can see that viññāṇa is used in a related way in the context of dreams, also.
8.6.3
tadyatraitatsuptaḥ samastḥ samprasannaḥ svapnaṃ na vijānātyāsu tadā nāḍīṣu sṛpto bhavati taṃ na kaścana pāpmā spṛśati tejasā hi tadā sampanno bhavati ||
When a person is sound asleep, all his organs are inactive and quiet. He is free from all worries, and he does not have any dreams. The organs then disappear into the veins. No sin can affect him then, for the rays of the sun have surrounded him.
8.11.1
tadyatraitatsuptaḥ samastaḥ samprasannaḥ svapnaṃ na vijānātyeṣa ātmeti hovācaitadamṛtamabhayametadbrahmeti sa ha śāntahṛdayaḥ pravavrāja sa hāprāpyaiva devānetadbhayaṃ dadarśa nāha khalvayamevaṃ sampratyātmānaṃ jānātyayamahamasmīti no evemāni bhūtāni vināśamevāpīto bhavati nāhamatra bhogyaṃ paśyāmīti ||
Prajāpati said: ‘When the self is sleeping, with all its organs inactive, it is free from worry and has no dreams. This is what the Self is like [i.e., it is spotless]. It is immortal and fearless. It is Brahman.’ Indra left happy in mind. But even before he got back to the gods, he was troubled by a doubt: ‘When the self is in deep sleep, it is not able to recognize itself as “I am so-and-so,” as it does when it is awake. Not only that, it does not even recognize beings around it. It is as if the self has been obliterated. I don’t see that anything good will come from this’.
So in dreams, viññāṇa is the seeing, while nidassana is what is seen.
The treatment of dreams is similar in Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 4.3.7:
katama ātmeti – yo 'yaṃ vijñānamayaḥ prāṇeṣu hṛdy antarjyotiḥ puruṣaḥ | sa samānaḥ sann ubhau lokāv anusaṃcarati dhyāyatīva lelāyatīva | sa hi svapno bhūtvemaṃ lokam atikrāmati add. mṛtyo rūpāṇi ||
‘Which is the self?’ ‘This infinite entity (Puruṣa) that is identified with the intellect and is in the midst of the organs, the (self-effulgent) light within the heart (intellect). Assuming the likeness (of the intellect), it moves between the two worlds; it thinks, as it were, and shakes, as it were. Being identified with dreams, it transcends this world—the forms of death (ignorance etc.).’
It seems that, as so often, the connection between otherwise mysterious terms in Buddhism is illuminated when the wider context is taken into consideration, especially the Upanishads. The manner of interpretation here is difficult, especially since the Upanishadic texts are deliberately obscure. But once we admit that Upanishadic dreaming is, at least in one dimension, about meditative realization, a path opens towards seeing the connections.
I suspect that such links may also help on the other side, to understand the Upanishads on their own terms, rather than through the lens of later commentators. Which is not to say that commentators are not illuminating. In fact, the passage quoted above has a very long commentarial discussion, much of which is devoted to considering (and rejecting) the Buddhist view.
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.
By far the most common use of nidassana in the suttas is the stock passage talking about seeing things “appear” as different colors, especially as visions in meditation. In this passage, nidassana appears alongside nibhāsa; the latter term appears rarely elsewhere in Pali, and seems to be a straight synonym.
The Tattvasangraha uses nibhāsa in connection with the two ideas relevant here, consciousness and dreams.
vijñānasyaiva nirbhāsaṃ samāśritya prakalpyate |
svapnamāyopamaṃ nedaṃ mahābhūtacatuṣṭayam || 1891 ||
These four primary substances are assumed on the basis of what appears in consciousness—just like dreams and illusions—and they have no real existence.
Once again we have forms appearing in consciousness, and the analogy drawn with dreams.
Now, it turns out that nibhāsa is also found in an interesting passage in the Yoga Sūtra, namely in the definition of samādhi.
tad evārthamātranirbhāsaṃ svarūpaśūnyam iva samādhiḥ || YS_3.3 ||
When that same (contemplation) illuminates only the object, as if devoid of its own form, it is samādhi.
The idea is that samādhi is a state characterised by illumination and elimination of subject/object distinction.
We find a similar definition elsewhere, where the influence of Buddhist terminology is even more evident.
smṛtipariśuddhau svarūpaśūnyevārthamātranirbhāsā nirvitarkā || YS_1.43 ||
With the purification of mindfulness, the illumination of only the object, as if devoid of its own form, is nirvitarkā.
The term nirvitarkā suggests a state beyond the first jhana, while the purification of mindfulness suggests fourth jhana or above.
These passages echo the Buddhist usage of nidassana/nibhāsa for meditative states of the four jhanas. By implication, the anidassana is what lies beyond that, namely the formless states.
I’d appreciate it if the “consciousness is Nibbana” folks would refrain from commenting on this thread, thanks.
Nice connection.
But yeah, for those unaware, I wrote a small addendum on my essay on this.