I wasn’t ever saying that Brahma worshipers get awakened. Merely that the Suttas attribute ‘consciousness without surface’ to awakened beings.
Thank you for MN49, it was an interesting read. I found the following passage in MN49 that supports the idea that there are two types of consciousness. The one attributed to awakened beings is in bold.
[Buddha]
Having directly known earth as earth, and having directly known that which does not fall within the scope of experience based on earth, I did not identify with earth, I did not identify regarding earth, I did not identify as earth, I did not identify ‘earth is mine’, I did not enjoy earth. So Brahmā, I am not your equal in knowledge, still less your inferior. Rather, I know more than you.Having directly known water … fire … air … creatures … gods … the Creator … Brahmā … the gods of streaming radiance … the gods replete with glory … the gods of abundant fruit … the Overlord … Having directly known all as all, and having directly known that which does not fall within the scope of experience based on all, I did not identify with all, I did not identify regarding all, I did not identify as all, I did not identify ‘all is mine’, I did not enjoy all. So Brahmā, I am not your equal in knowledge, still less your inferior. Rather, I know more than you.’
[Brahama]
‘Well, good sir, if you have directly known that which is not within the scope of experience based on all, may your words not turn out to be void and hollow![Buddha]
Consciousness that is invisible, infinite, entirely given up—that’s what is not within the scope of experience based on earth, water, fire, air, creatures, gods, the Creator, Brahmā, the gods of streaming radiance, the gods replete with glory, the gods of abundant fruit, the Overlord, and the all.
The key words are:
Consciousness that is invisible, infinite, entirely given up
The words entirely given up point to how, although there is this consciousness, it is not identified with as self.
Similarly with with DN11
This is how the question should be asked:
“Where do water and earth, fire and air find no footing; where do long and short, fine and coarse, beautiful and ugly; where do name and form cease with nothing left over?”
And the answer to that is:
“Consciousness that’s invisible, infinite, entirely given up: that’s where water and earth, fire and air find no footing.
And that’s where long and short, fine and coarse, beautiful and ugly—that’s where name and form cease with nothing left over. With the cessation of consciousness, that’s where they cease.”’
As to the article on Ven. Sujato’s analysis of the Chinese texts - he is assuming that the Chinese texts supersede the Pali ones. However the accuracy of the Chinese texts cannot be taken for granted; it depends on the translator’s willingness to be faithful to the original rendering.
You may think that I am splitting hairs, but there is evidence within this very forum of Ven. Sujato having mistranslated the Metta Sutta by using the word love for mettā. In the post linked below, he provides a rationale for replacing the word three distinct Pali words kāma, pema, and mettā with a single English word love.
[:mindblown: a new reading of the Mettasutta that will change everything]
I now translate mettā as “love” rather than the Buddhist neologism “loving-kindness”. The latter has become widely accepted, and is justified by arguing that “love” has too much of a sensual connotation. And it is true that Pali distinguishes sensual love (kāma, pema, etc.) from spiritual love (mettā), much like the Greek eros and agape. I once asked a Catholic contemplative monk about this. His native language was Italian. He said there is no equivalent distinction in modern Italian; they just use amore in both cases and let the context make the meaning clear. I adopted the same approach, and it seems to work fine.
I suspect that the real reason for the rendering of “loving-kindness” is that we can be uncomfortable around expressing emotions. “Loving-kindness” is a more distancing word; it’s emotionally cooler than “love”. I prefer the more direct, ordinary language expression.
I commented on his article providing evidence that replacing multiple Pali words differentiating lust, romantic love, loving-kindness/goodwill etc. with a single word love would lead to confusion.
[:mindblown: a new reading of the Mettasutta that will change everything - #22 by sujato]
If Ven. Sujato can decide to cater to his own preferences by merging multiple distinct terms into a single term I see no reason why the Chinese translations could not have gone through similar editing. Unless there is evidence from multiple sources that ‘consciousness without surface’ is an illusion, the Pali texts will have to be the authoritative source (ideally well translated Pali texts).