On not-self, existence, and ontological strategies

[dhamma012]

Nice to meet you

@Sunyo

@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 is also a line of verse. Bodhi has typeset it in this way, and it clearly follows the metrical pattern stil. It’s a bit awkward to have a single line like this, but perhaps it is not unique.

Thank you for clarifying this point. It isn’t immediately obvious that MN49 also follows a metrical pattern.

@Sunyo

@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.

This seems strange to me because, in addition to Baka insulting himself, he would have had to outright lie in order to claim this, because he is claiming knowledge of the gods of radiance which the Buddha pointed out he doesn’t know about. There was one other Sutta I remember reading (I can’t remember which unfortunately), where a Brahma was asked a question he didn’t know the answer to by a monk, and he had to take the monk aside and ask the monk not to embarrass him. I believe there is a precedent that Brahmas can’t or don’t lie. So, while Baka claiming an attainment mistakenly may make sense, Baka lying doesn’t.

On the brokenness of the Burmese version. I understand that not all transmitted teachings are regular, perhaps particularly in an initially orally transmitted teaching. So perhaps this explains why it seems broken. But that is just a guess on my part.

Thank you for the new link also.

@Sunyo

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.

I’m not sure it is unique though. The presentation of the phrase viññāṇa anidassana is definitely unique and found only in a couple of places. But there is evidence of phenomena that lie outside of the aggregates.

I mentioned above, in a previous comment, that stream-enterers utter the following phrase:

Whatever is subject to arising is all subject to ceasing

It seems a little superfluous to say whatever is subject to arising unless there are one or more elements that are not subject to arising. In the absence of such elements, stream-enterers might have said instead:

All is subject to cessation

Since they did not say this, it seems a reasonable conclusion that one or more elements fall into the category of unarisen and consequently are not subject to cessation.

For example, the law of kamma cannot be subject to arising or ceasing because the entire teaching of the Buddha is based on the laws of kamma operating in a particular manner. We expect it to be constant such that killing people always eventually leads to unpleasant results, unless Nibbana is achieved. If the law of kamma is thought of as the governing principle for a set of activities, although the activities are subject to arising and ceasing, the governing principle itself is not.

I think what complicates the viññāṇa anidassana debate is the use of viññāṇa, which many are tempted to equate with the aggregate of consciousness. However, it could also be understood as a metaphor that uses the reader’s familiarity with the aggregate of consciousness to point to something else.

If the law of kamma can be understood as a governing principle that is unarisen, then there is no reason that viññāṇa anidassana could not be understood in the same way. Perhaps as the principle governing the activities of consciousness or fabrication. If viññāṇa anidassana is understood in this way, then no sense of self needs to be superimposed upon it that violates the teaching of anatta.