On not-self, existence, and ontological strategies

[Sunyo]

Hey, thanks for reading and responding to that.

@dhamma012

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.

In MN49 it the line also still follows the metrical rules of verse. Bodhi has even typeset it as verse in his translation iirc. It’s a bit awkward to have a single line like this, but perhaps it is not unique.

@dhamma012

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.

It leaves other questions, that’s for sure. But is it really that strange that the Brahma would say he discovered something beyond his realm? And that he was also mistaken about his attainment at the same time? In the end, it seems like he was unable to attain it anyway. Either way, the sutta (to me) is obviously a story that makes a philosophical point. It didn’t literally happen, so such inconsistencies may be because of that.

Anyway, most importantly, the Burmese version is not only unique: it is also broken. Because it too does not fully attribute the quote to the Buddha. It seems one quote marker (iti) is added later, yet one was forgotten. So other issues aside, the quote must be attributed to Baka. See also:

Whose consciousness is invisible, infinite, and all-radiant?

Continuing discussion of a number of issues raised by MN 49 Brahmanimantanika from here: And here: We have now come to the famous line: Viññāṇaṃ anidassanaṃ anantaṃ sabbato pabhaṃ Like the previous verse on the sun and moon, this straddles the line between verse and prose. While in Ven Bodhi’s translation it is set as verse, the Pali text contains no close -ti that would confirm it was meant as verse. It’s not unlikely that it, too, was a verse fragment loosely used in a prose sentenc…

Regardless of who spoke the line in MN49—and this was actually my conclusion—it is not a good idea to put to much weight on it. Especially if one’s interpretation turns it into something rather unique, like a consciousness of nibbana which isn’t mentioned anywhere else.