On not-self, existence, and ontological strategies

[dhamma012]

Thanks for this mike.

I had a read of the original essay. Here is my take on it:

@Sunyo presents the argument that the following six line verse is actually two separate answers to two separate questions:

@Sunyo

[Q1] “Where do earth, water,
fire, and air find no footing?
[Q2] Where do the long and short,
the small and gross, the fair and ugly—
where do nāma and form
fully come to cease?

For that the explanation is:

[A1] Boundless consciousness,
invisible, fully shining:
here earth, water,
fire, and air find no footing.

[A2] Here the long and short,
the small and gross, the fair and ugly—
here nāma and form
fully come to cease:
when consciousness ceases,
then those come to cease.”8

If the two verses are separated by a full-stop, as argued, this is a reasonable interpretation to take.

However also argued is:

@Sunyo

No sutta equates nibbāna to any type of consciousness.

With the following reasoning…

@Sunyo

I show here that viññāṇa anidassana is not nibbāna, but a poetic description of the state of boundless consciousness, the second “formless” meditation state. Most of the arguments were made before by others.4 I gathered them here, together with a few thoughts of my own…

The first answer verse mentions the existence of a type of consciousness (boundless consciousness), the second the cessation of consciousness. These opposites are not both part of the same answer…

Remember, the question essentially asks, “where does form find no footing?” The answer—“boundless consciousness, invisible, fully shining”—refers to the state of boundless consciousness, the second so-called formless state of meditation, also known as ‘the base of infinite consciousness’, or sometimes called ‘the sixth jhāna’. This is evident from the words ‘boundless’ (ananta) and ‘consciousness’ (viññāṇa)…

In Pali the five words making up the answer are:

viññāṇaṁ anidassanaṁ (consciousness invisible)
anantaṁ sabbato pabhaṁ (boundless fully shining)

These words seem to be forced into their particular order by the meter of the verse, which requires eight syllables in each line. As A.K. Warder, a leading scholar of Pali verse, wrote: “Poetic licence is most noticeable in the freedom of word order in verse.”[10]. This means ‘boundless’ can be taken as the central adjective describing ‘consciousness’, with ‘invisible’ and ‘fully shining’ being secondary to it. That is to say, the latter two apply not to ‘consciousness’, but to ‘boundless consciousness’ as a whole. It is not consciousness that is fully shining and invisible, it is boundless consciousness that is. I rearranged the words in my translation to clarify this. (Such rearrangement, let it be clear, is done often in translations of Pali.)…

The only other occurrence of viññāṇa anidassana is found in the Brahmanimantaṇika Sutta,[32] which portrays a discussion between the Buddha and Brahmā Baka. Here too, just like in the Kevaddha Sutta, the Buddha shows his knowledge to be superior to a Brahmā god. The passage we are concerned with is abstract and not easy to translate. It says something like this:

“Boundless consciousness, invisible, fully shining: that is outside the solidity of earth, outside the wetness of water, the heat of fire, the movement of air, the being of beings, the godhood of the gods, the Creator-hood of the Creator, the Brahmāhood of Brahmā, the Streaming Radiance of [the Gods of] Streaming Radiance, the Refulgent Glory of [the Gods of] Refulgent Glory, the Great Fruit of [the Gods of] Great Fruit, the Overlordship of the Overlord, and outside the allness of all.”[33]

Given the clarity of the phrase in the Kevaddha Sutta, it would make sense for “boundless consciousness, invisible, fully shining” to refer the state of boundless consciousness here too. The four elements and the various worlds mentioned are indeed all part of the realm of forms, existing outside of this formless state.[34] “The allness of all” poses a problem, though, as it can be interpreted to include the formless, and thus the state of boundless consciousness itself. But there are some ways to reconcile this.

First option. Although ‘all’ (sabba) elsewhere occasionally refers to the six senses,[35] this does not have to be the case here. ‘All’ is an indefinite word which (in both English and Pali) does not have a single fixed meaning. Here ‘all’ could just refer to the four elements and all the heavenly worlds mentioned before it, which together make up all the form realms…

The second option relies on the fact that the different Pali versions disagree on who spoke the words quoted above. Only the Burmese edition attributes them to the Buddha; the Thai, Sri Lankan and PTS editions all attribute them to Brahmā Baka.[36] Moreover, the Burmese version is broken, missing an iti (end quote marker) after the passage, which is be needed to give the word back to Baka. So it too does not fully attribute boundless consciousness to the Buddha. In the Chinese parallel in the Madhyama Āgama the exchange is very different, but it also has Baka making a claim to be “conscious of boundless elements”, not the Buddha.[37]

The reasoning can be summarised in the following way:

1. The order of the words within the poem have been changed to fit the metre
2. If it is ‘corrected’, then the the viññāṇaṁ in viññāṇaṁ anidassanaṁ can be equated to consciousness of the second Jhana, rather than anything to do with Nibbana
3. One more challenge must be overcome because MN49 mentions that viññāṇaṁ anidassanaṁ is not part of the allness of the all (a common way to refer to the aggregates).
4. This can be resolved by either deciding that:

• 'allness of the all does not refer to the aggregates, but rather to the elements and all heavenly realms prior to the second Jhana OR
• By deciding that the Burmese version of the Sutta is wrong. This would mean that the sentence below was NOT spoken by the Buddha but actually by Baka the Brahma. If that is the case, then because the Buddha didn’t speak the words, Baka could only have been referring to consciousness as part of the aggregates (e.g. consciousness in the second Jhana).

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.

On the Pali poetry aspect. Perhaps it is true that words in a poem can be rearranged. However viññāṇaṁ anidassanaṁ appears in the same order, without rearrangement, in MN49. Given this, the proposed change in word order seems somewhat arbitrary.

Then, as far as I know, allness of the all has only ever been spoken about with regard to the aggregates. Taking ‘all’ as simply the elements and lower heavenly realms seems to ignore the context provided by other Suttas. Also, just before the above the sentence in question, the Buddha speaks the following:

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.’

Here, the Buddha has set the precedent that all means the aggregates rather than just the elements of fire, water etc. and the lower heavenly realms. The Buddha’s words must encompass all the aggregates. To limit all to just the elements and the lower heavenly realms would mean that the Buddha has not given up the second Jhana and above. Given the context within the other Suttas, and the context within this one, treating all as something other than the aggregates makes no sense. It also makes no sense to use the word all to mean the aggregates, and then immediately use it again afterward as simply meaning the elements and lower heavenly realms.

Finally, let’s suppose that the Burmese version of the Sutta is indeed wrong and that the sentence above can be attributed to Baka the Brahma. If this is so, Baka is now insulting himself. He wants to show the Buddha that he is more knowledgeable, but then at the same time he’s arguing that Viññāṇaṁ anidassanaṁ 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.

So in essence he would be admitting that this kind of consciousness is out of his reach. That the proud Brahama would admit to such a thing is difficult to believe.

Further, prior to the above passage which is attributed by @Sunyo to Baka, the Buddha says the following:

But there is another realm that you don’t know or see. But I know it and see it. There is the realm named after the gods of streaming radiance. You passed away from there and were reborn here. You’ve dwelt here so long that you’ve forgotten about that, so you don’t know it or see it. But I know it and see it. So Brahmā, I am not your equal in knowledge, still less your inferior. Rather, I know more than you.

Here, the Buddha mentions for the first time that there is a realm above the realm of Baka, namely, that of the gods of streaming radiance. Given this, it doesn’t make sense that Baka would claim to have knowledge of a kind of consciousness that was not only beyond his current reach but also beyond the reach of the gods supposedly above his realm; especially having heard of them for the first time. So on these grounds the attribution of the passage containing viññāṇa anidassana to Baka makes no sense.

To summarise, I find a few issues with @Sunyo’s analysis of viññāṇa anidassana as several assumptions have been made that seem to deviate from the principle of Occam’s razor.