Revisiting Viññāṇaṃ anidassanaṃ

sankhāra paccayā viñnanam [DO]

Intention causes consciousness to arise, as noted in the dependent origination.

Nama and rupa also cause consciousness to arise, intentions falling into the category of nama. Sankhāra even if broadly considered as phenomena seem to give rise to consciousness, in a manner of cause and effect, experientially.

2 Likes

The only part of the expression which i find open to interpretation and potentially disagreeable is this part;

With this understanding, water, earth, fire, & wind have no footing since they do not always be > recognized that way. Long & short, coarse & fine, fair & foul, name & form (or the dualism) is brought to and end since we no longer grasp to one side. Since it is unestablished on any side, anywhere, it is boundless, has no limit and trouble.

As for unestablished cognition this is expression is not unheard of and can be drawn out from SN12.64;

“Just as if there were a roofed house or a roofed hall having windows on the north, the south, or the east. When the sun rises, and a ray has entered by way of the window, where does it land?”

“On the western wall, lord.”

“And if there is no western wall, where does it land?”

“On the ground, lord.”

“And if there is no ground, where does it land?”

“On the water, lord.”

“And if there is no water, where does it land?”

“It does not land, lord.”

“In the same way, where there is no passion for the nutriment of physical food… contact… intellectual intention… consciousness, where there is no delight, no craving, then consciousness does not land there or increase. Where consciousness does not land or increase, there is no alighting of name-&-form. Where there is no alighting of name-&-form, there is no growth of fabrications. Where there is no growth of fabrications, there is no production of renewed becoming in the future. Where there is no production of renewed becoming in the future, there is no future birth, aging, & death. That, I tell you, has no sorrow, affliction, or despair.”

SN 22.54;

"If a monk abandons passion for the property of consciousness, then owing to the abandonment of passion, the support is cut off, and there is no base for consciousness. Consciousness, thus unestablished, not proliferating, not performing any function, is released.

I personally think that the expression “consciousness unestablished” refers to a state of cosciousness which eventually ceases and can be said to be personal for this or that person [Arahant], rather than referring to what is beyond the world, beyond objectification, beyond six-sense media, is not included in the Allness of the All, has no sorrow, the unmade, which, is discerned as an escape from the made as consciousness which can be taken to be personal or belonging to this or that person is released as one attains it’s cessation.

"That, bhikkhus, is Māra the Evil One searching for the consciousness of the clansman Vakkali, wondering:
‘Where now has the consciousness of the clansman Vakali been established?’
However, bhikkhus, with consciousness unestablished, the clansman Vakkali has attained final Nibbāna.
SN 3 22 87: Vakkali

Therefore i don’t think Unestablished Consciousness is the same as Vinnanam Anidassanam because the latter is not associated with the Aggregates and when properly discerned is therefore not personal and can not be taken or grasped by wrong view to be, be associated with or belonging to this or that person.

1 Like

When you take vinnana as consciousness then you will need to explain what happens when consciousness totally ceased? Is this the same with total unconsciousness?

When you think about established consciousness and unestablished consciousness, you will need to explain what are they? What can they do?

If you think "consciousness unestablished” refers to a state of consciousness (of an arahant) which eventually ceases then it seems to me that you imply the arahant is/will be unconscious? However, we knew that the Buddha was totally conscious while he was alive.

Because I see vinnana as established (re)cognition, so the completed cessation of established (re)cognition is not the completed cessation of consciousness. One can be conscious without any established (re)cognition. I can (consciously) know a cat simply as a cat as its current condition without grasping it as “good cat” or “bad cat” or “beautiful cat” or “ugly cat”…I do not even grasp it as a cat! It is what it is as its current condition. It is not me, but I am not apart from it. It composed by electrons and photons, and so do I. It has form, feelings, perception,… and so do I. However, I am currently not a cat, but I am not apart from it!

The unestablished (re)cognition is simply the absence of the established (re)cognition. However, it is not the unconsciousness.

Since I do not have any established (re)cognition on anything, I also do not see the unestablished (re)cognition as “I, me, mine”. If I do so, I established me/myself in the unestablished (re)cognition; therefore, I still have established (re)cognition!

Even though I do not have any established (re)cognition, I am not unconscious. However, I am not that consciousness (or that unestablished (re)cognition). It is what it is! I am not it, but I am not apart from it.

That’s how I understand.

“What happens” does not apply because there is no “after” or “future” for this of that being who attains Parinibbana;

"Now what, bhikkhus, is the Nibbana-element with no residue left? Here a bhikkhu is an arahant, one whose taints are destroyed, the holy life fulfilled, who has done what had to be done, laid down the burden, attained the goal, destroyed the fetters of being, completely released through final knowledge. For him, here in this very life, all this is experience, not being delighted in, will be extinguished. That, bhikkhus, is called the Nibbana-element with no residue left.

“These bhikkhus, are the two Nibbana-elements.”

Verse:
These two Nibbana-elements were made known
By the Seeing One, stable, and unattached:
One is the element seen here and now
With residue, but with the cord of being destroyed;
The other, having no residue for the future,
Is that wherein all modes of being utterly cease. (Itivuttaka 2.17)

You are trying to talk about what happens to what is conditioned (an arahant) after cessation of conditioned phenomena. Which is not something that ought to be done and you are going too far.

There is no going beyond Parinibbana, there is no “coming out of conditioned phenomena” or “conditioned phenomena going to some place” therefore Sutta are very explicit language such as;

The other, having no residue for the future,
Is that wherein all modes of being utterly cease.

Talking about after Parinibbana does not apply, again, here Maha Kotthita asks similar questions;

[Maha Kotthita:] “Being asked if, with the remainderless stopping & fading of the six contact-media, there is anything else, you say, ‘Don’t say that, my friend.’ Being asked if … there is not anything else … there both is & is not anything else … there neither is nor is not anything else, you say, ‘Don’t say that, my friend.’ Now, how is the meaning of your words to be understood?”

[Sariputta:] "The statement, ‘With the remainderless stopping & fading of the six contact-media [vision, hearing, smell, taste, touch, & intellection] is it the case that there is anything else?’ objectifies non-objectification.[[1]]

The statement, ‘… is it the case that there is not anything else … is it the case that there both is & is not anything else … is it the case that there neither is nor is not anything else?’ objectifies non-objectification. However far the six contact-media go, that is how far objectification goes. However far objectification goes, that is how far the six contact media go. With the remainderless fading & stopping of the six contact-media, there comes to be the stopping, the allaying of objectification. Kotthita Sutta: To Kotthita

Here is another one which goes deeper but also does not go on to objectify non-objectification;

“What do you think, Anuradha: Is form constant or inconstant?”

“Inconstant, lord.”

“And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?”

“Stressful, lord.”

“And is it proper to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: ‘This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am’?”

“No, lord.”

“Is feeling constant or inconstant?”

“Inconstant, lord.”…

“Is perception constant or inconstant?”

“Inconstant, lord.”…

“Are fabrications constant or inconstant?”

“Inconstant, lord.”…

"Is consciousness constant or inconstant?

“Inconstant, lord.”

“And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?”

“Stressful, lord.”

“And is it proper to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: ‘This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am’?”

“No, lord.”

“What do you think, Anuradha: Do you regard form as the Tathagata?”

“No, lord.”

“Do you regard feeling as the Tathagata?”

“No, lord.”

“Do you regard perception as the Tathagata?”

“No, lord.”

“Do you regard fabrications as the Tathagata?”

“No, lord.”

“Do you regard consciousness as the Tathagata?”

“No, lord.”

“What do you think, Anuradha: Do you regard the Tathagata as being in form?.. Elsewhere than form?.. In feeling?.. Elsewhere than feeling?.. In perception?.. Elsewhere than perception?.. In fabrications?.. Elsewhere than fabrications?.. In consciousness?.. Elsewhere than consciousness?”

“No, lord.”

“What do you think: Do you regard the Tathagata as form-feeling-perception-fabrications-consciousness?”

“No, lord.”

“Do you regard the Tathagata as that which is without form, without feeling, without perception, without fabrications, without consciousness?”

“No, lord.”

“And so, Anuradha — when you can’t pin down the Tathagata as a truth or reality even in the present life — is it proper for you to declare, ‘Friends, the Tathagata — the supreme man, the superlative man, attainer of the superlative attainment — being described, is described otherwise than with these four positions: The Tathagata exists after death, does not exist after death, both does & does not exist after death, neither exists nor does not exist after death’?”

“No, lord.”

"Very good, Anuradha. Very good. Both formerly & now, it is only stress that I describe, and the cessation of stress."Anuradha Sutta: To Anuradha

If we look at the Sutta it seems to me that whenever the Unmade is talked about in a sense of some sort of reality of it’s own it is always talked about in a paradoxical terms;

  • Pleasure where nothing is felt Ud8.2

  • That place not gone to

However when questioned further there are these explainations;

‘Gotama the contemplative speaks of the cessation of perception & feeling and yet describes it as pleasure. What is this? How can this be?’ When they say that, they are to be told, ‘It’s not the case, friends, that the Blessed One describes only pleasant feeling as included under pleasure. Wherever pleasure is found, in whatever terms, the Blessed One describes it as pleasure.’" Bahuvedaniya Sutta: Many Things to be Experienced

Or Sariputta;

“Then there is the case where a monk, with the complete transcending of the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception, enters & remains in the cessation of perception & feeling. And as he sees (that) with discernment, effluents are completely ended. So by this line of reasoning it may be known how unbinding is pleasant.”

There just isn’t much explaining going on as we can see.

As for discernment this is also one of the way it is spoken of in form of affirmation;

There is, monks, an unborn[[1]] — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated. If there were not that unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, there would not be the case that escape from the born — become — made — fabricated would be discerned. But precisely because there is an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, escape from the born — become — made — fabricated is discerned.[[2]]
Nibbāna Sutta: Unbinding (3)

By inference it’s itness can be established but not defined here.

Afaik the last expression of positive affirmation of the Unmade is Ud 8.1;

There is that dimension, monks, where there is neither earth, nor water, nor fire, nor wind; neither dimension of the infinitude of space, nor dimension of the infinitude of consciousness, nor dimension of nothingness, nor dimension of neither perception nor non-perception; neither this world, nor the next world, nor sun, nor moon. And there, I say, there is neither coming, nor going, nor staying; neither passing away nor arising: unestablished, unevolving, without support. This, just this, is the end of stress.

When taken as riddle it really narrows it down tho but also here it is explained in terms which it is not as it’s itness is affirmed so it does not really go to objectify it.

As for unestablished consciousness it may well be that my expression when saying;
“Unestablished consciouness ceases”

is not the Classical Theravadin Abhidhamma Method expression but the meaning is that it ceases in as far as the Aggregates which can be grasped with wrong view to be personal or belonging to this or that person, all that, is utterly extinguished.

As for the term unestablished in ud8.1 i think one can draw a link between the unestablished here and unestablished consciousness in case of an Arahant however i think that then one would be going by “Abhidhamma Method” and this is an important distinction, by the Abhidhamma method one can go on to explain Mind-Base as being conditioned or unconditioned and within that framework i do see it work very well but that expression is definitely much more comprehensive & intricate and therefore requires context to work because it ties together the doctrine in it’s entirety and requires Abhidhamma understanding and otherwise it would be one shade away from eternalism and a soul imho.

OK, Let’s not ask about what happens. However, if someone has ceased his consciousness, he must be in an unconscious state, so he cannot response to things around him. However, I do not vision a living arahant or the Buddha that way.

As I understand, the residue here is simply the current body. After putting down that body and does not take any new one, there is no more residue for the arahant.

You are talking about anatta. When we do not establish our recognition anywhere, there is no “I, me, mine, myself” anywhere.

When painful feeling is gone, or when we realize that there is/will be no more painful feeling, that can be seen as pleasure.

When I have a son, that son will give birth to something, he will become this or that, he will do this or that,…
When I never have any son, I escape the above troubles.

To me, this is the result of the unestablished (re)cognition.

Nibbana is permanent in the sense that there is no fall back for an arahat. But permanent does not mean eternal.

Now about vinnana (the 5th khandhas). As per dependent origination it is the khandha that leads to nama-rupa and nama-rupa also leads to vinnana. A sutta talks about the whirlwind created by the dance of vinnana and nama-rupa. This vinnana khandha applies to a non-arahat.

For the arahat the unestablished-vinnana is no more associated with nama-rupa.
I understand unestablished as meaning not grabbing any sign from the six-sense-bases.

even tho you did not ask a question, i will address this.

Nibbana when defined as removal of ignorance and the abscence of delusion in an Arahant;

“This, bhikkhu, is a designation for the element of Nibbāna: the removal of lust, the removal of hatred, the removal of delusion. The destruction of the taints is spoken of in that way.” SN45.7

"What, bhikkhus, is the Nibbana-element with residue left? Here a bhikkhu is an arahant, one whose taints are destroyed, the holy life fulfilled, who has done what had to be done, laid down the burden, attained the goal, destroyed the fetters of being, completely released through final knowledge. However, his five sense faculties remain unimpaired, by which he still experiences what is agreeable and disagreeable and feels pleasure and plain. It is the extinction of attachment, hate and delusion in him that is called the Nibbana-element with residue left.Silavant Sutta: Virtuous

As i see It, it is the “impairment” of Intellect faculty by removal of the ignorance element that is spoken of in this way.

As for namarupa and vinnanakhanda. Khanda means a heap or a group, meaning any kind of consciouness, past, present and future. It does not say any consciousness of non-arahant or groups of consciousness associated with ignorance.

There are also refutations to such expression which can be pulled up;

“Then which things should an arahant attend to in an appropriate way?”

“An arahant should attend in an appropriate way to these five clinging-aggregates as inconstant, stressful, a disease, a cancer, an arrow, painful, an affliction, alien, a dissolution, an emptiness, not-self. Although, for an arahant, there is nothing further to do, and nothing to add to what has been done, still these things — when developed & pursued — lead both to a pleasant abiding in the here-&-now and to mindfulness & alertness.”

There are other Sutta wherein it is affirmed that an Arahant is not without vininnanakhanda and there is not a single expression in the canon saying that consciousness of an Arahant is not associated with Name & Form.

Expressions longing for and being associated with carry very different meaning and the way “associated with” is used in for example the Vibhanga Analysis of Aggregates;

Consciousness associated with painful feeling is gross; consciousness associated with pleasant also with neither-painful-nor-pleasant feelings is subtle. Consciousness associated with pleasant and painful feelings is gross; consciousness associated with neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling is subtle. SuttaCentral

It is imo therefore a disagreeable way to express; an Arahant is without delusion and does not long for name&form. Because it is imo naturally misunderstood when one says ‘consciousness of an arahant is not associated with namarupa’

2 Likes

I regret making this topic because it’s probably very confusing and my own understanding of expression and meaning has evolved since. Having given this much thought i think the semantics of the verse itself where an answer is given to ‘where do phenomena not find a footing?’ is; ‘in that which isn’t included in the allness of the all’

Taken as a noun with an adjective which does seem to be the most reasonable thing to do then imo vinnanam anidassanam would be something like; ‘Consciousness not-appearing’ and this would make sense given that one is talking about the cessation of consciousness which is explicit in the later lines.

It can be summed up that i hold that the compound ‘vinnanam anidassanam’ is probably therein an adjective or descriptive characteristic/factor rather than the referrent, so the meaning when drawn out would read something like (simplified);

That [which isn’t included in the allness of the all] where ‘consciousness doesn’t appear’
[It] is luminous and boundless all-around.
There name & form gain no footing
With the cessation of consciousness
All is brought to an end or extinguished

Another reason to take it as adjective is that what isn’t included in the allness of the all is beyond objectification for it is said that ‘as far as sense-bases go that is as far as objectification goes’ and All is said to be the eye & forms, tongue & tastes, ear & sounds etc

Thus if vinnana is nirodha ceased, then name & form also ceases along with sankhara; thus the sense bases cease and so objectification.
One is warned not to objectify non-objectification and it is therefore reasonable to assume that when talking about that which isn’t included in the Allness of the All it would not be named per se.

2 Likes

The paradox of “objective not-ness” was also vexing to me. I found the following easier to understand since it gave both ends and referred to the middle:

AN6.61:12.4: “Contact, mendicants, is one end. The origin of contact is the second end. The cessation of contact is the middle. And craving is the seamstress,

Thanks for a fascinating thread!

2 Likes

I think the contact excerpt is to be understood in the context of something arising as one thing and ceasing as another; ‘as a monkey seeking fruit in the forest; letting go of one branch as it grabs another’. Thus contact therein is not one and the same contact but is also constant; in case of the monkey it is constantly in contact with a brach but the contact therein changes, arises as one thing and ceases as another.

Just as a monkey, swinging through a forest wilderness, grabs a branch. Letting go of it, it grabs another branch. Letting go of that, it grabs another one. Letting go of that, it grabs another one. In the same way, what’s called ‘mind,’ ‘intellect,’ or ‘consciousness’ by day and by night arises as one thing and ceases as another.

This is also why a cessation of contact in definitive sense is so special and leads to the discernment of what isn’t included in the allness of the all.

2 Likes

Not always. Here there is no constant contact. He seems quite aware. If he fails, he dies. But I understand what you say. His mind has contacted the next grip.

2 Likes

Quite apart from the points discussed, Thank-you for having the honesty to post the below sentence :pray::slightly_smiling_face:

This is such an important real example of impermanence of views, and why arguing and fighting over them is pretty much a waste of time. This situation has happened to me so often, and I am sure that almost everyone would be able to reflect on how understanding changes with the gradual progress of the path - Thank-you :thaibuddha: :dharmawheel: :relieved:

6 Likes

:apple: This apple is not green

‘0’ This number has no value

1 Like

I also think vinnanam anidassanam [not apparent] is analogue to vinnanam appatitthitena [not established]

It occurs here;

Suppose, bhikkhus, there was a house or a hall with a peaked roof, with windows on the northern, southern, and eastern sides. When the sun rises and a beam of light enters through a window, where would it become established?”

“On the western wall, venerable sir.”

“If there were no western wall, where would it become established?”

“On the earth, venerable sir.”

“If there were no earth, where would it become established?”

“On the water, venerable sir.”

“If there were no water, where would it become established?”

“It would not become established anywhere, venerable sir.”

“So too, bhikkhus, if there is no lust for the nutriment edible food … for the nutriment contact … for the nutriment mental volition … for the nutriment consciousness … consciousness does not become established there and come to growth. Where consciousness does not become established and come to growth … … I say that is without sorrow, anguish, and despair.” SuttaCentral

Another here:

"If a monk abandons passion for the property of consciousness, then owing to the abandonment of passion, the support is cut off, and there is no base for consciousness. Consciousness, thus unestablished, not proliferating, not performing any function, is released. Udana Sutta: Exclamation

Another yet:

That, bhikkhus, is Mara the Evil One searching for the consciousness of the clansman Vakkali, wondering: ‘Where now has the consciousness of the clansman Vakkali been established?’ However, bhikkhus, with consciousness unestablished, the clansman Vakkali has attained final Nibbāna. SuttaCentral

I am very confident that this is the solution to the controversy and that the referent of the verse is the nibbananirodhadhatu which can be spoken of as entering into for sannavedananirodha attainments or as a extinguishment of aggregates for parinibbana

Patisambhidamagga, Nibbana-dhatu:

[“There are two kinds of relinquishment through cessation: relinquishment as giving up, and relinquishment as entering into. It gives up defilements and aggregates, thus it is relinquishment as giving up; cognizance enters cessation which is the nibbana principle thus it is relinquishment as entering into. These are the two kinds of relinquishment through cessation.”

Nirodhavasena dve vossaggaa: pariccaagavossaggo ca, pakkhandanavossaggo ca. Kilesa ca khandhe ca pariccajatiiti, pariccaagavossaggo; nirodhanibbaanadhaatuyaa cittam pakkhandatiiti. Pakkhandanavossaggo nirodhavasena ime dve vossaggaa.]

As for entering into one has this verse where a principle is spoken on as an element unknown to gods (much like vinnanam anidassanam is unknown to Brahma):

to this excellent thoroughbred of a man, absorbed in this way, the gods, together with Indra, the Brahmas, & Pajapati, pay homage even from afar: 'Homage to you, O thoroughbred man. Homage to you, O superlative man — you of whom we don’t know even what it is dependent on what it is you are absorbed.
Sandha Sutta: To Sandha

It’s the only element or principle not included in the allness of the all and unknown even to the gods lest they are also disciples of the foremost teacher.

It is the cessation principle which is void of delusion and seeing it with wisdom destroys taints. It is also referred to as the ‘asoka’ state and is directly known by one who can direct the mind to it.

1 Like

“Intangible” for anidassana might be good. It fits well with space being intangible as not fit to be painted

Please refer to AN 11.7

  • Numbered Discourses 11
    1. Dependence

7. Percipient

Then Venerable Ānanda went up to the Buddha, bowed, sat down to one side, and said to him:

“Could it be, sir, that a mendicant might gain a state of immersion like this? They wouldn’t perceive earth in earth, water in water, fire in fire, or air in air. And they wouldn’t perceive the dimension of infinite space in the dimension of infinite space, the dimension of infinite consciousness in the dimension of infinite consciousness, the dimension of nothingness in the dimension of nothingness, or the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception in the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception. They wouldn’t perceive this world in this world, or the other world in the other world. And they wouldn’t perceive what is seen, heard, thought, known, attained, sought, or explored by the mind. And yet they would still perceive.”

“It could be, Ānanda, that a mendicant might gain a state of immersion like this. They wouldn’t perceive earth in earth, water in water, fire in fire, or air in air. And they wouldn’t perceive the dimension of infinite space in the dimension of infinite space, the dimension of infinite consciousness in the dimension of infinite consciousness, the dimension of nothingness in the dimension of nothingness, or the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception in the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception. They wouldn’t perceive this world in this world, or the other world in the other world. And they wouldn’t perceive what is seen, heard, thought, known, attained, sought, or explored by the mind. And yet they would still perceive.”

“But how could this be, sir?”

“Ānanda, it’s when a mendicant perceives: ‘This is peaceful; this is sublime—that is, the stilling of all activities, the letting go of all attachments, the ending of craving, fading away, cessation, extinguishment.’

That’s how a mendicant might gain a state of immersion like this. They wouldn’t perceive earth in earth, water in water, fire in fire, or air in air. And they wouldn’t perceive the dimension of infinite space in the dimension of infinite space, the dimension of infinite consciousness in the dimension of infinite consciousness, the dimension of nothingness in the dimension of nothingness, or the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception in the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception. They wouldn’t perceive this world in this world, or the other world in the other world. And they wouldn’t perceive what is seen, heard, thought, known, attained, sought, or explored by the mind. And yet they would still perceive.”

And then Ānanda approved and agreed with what the Buddha said. He got up from his seat, bowed, and respectfully circled the Buddha, keeping him on his right. Then he went up to Venerable Sāriputta, and exchanged greetings with him. When the greetings and polite conversation were over, he sat down to one side and said to Sāriputta:

“Could it be, reverend Sāriputta, that a mendicant might gain a state of immersion like this? They wouldn’t perceive earth in earth … And they wouldn’t perceive what is seen, heard, thought, known, attained, sought, or explored by the mind. And yet they would still perceive.”

“It could be, Reverend Ānanda.”

“But how could this be?”

“Ānanda, it’s when a mendicant perceives: ‘This is peaceful; this is sublime—that is, the stilling of all activities, the letting go of all attachments, the ending of craving, fading away, cessation, extinguishment.’ That’s how a mendicant might gain a state of immersion like this. They wouldn’t perceive earth in earth … And they wouldn’t perceive what is seen, heard, thought, known, attained, sought, or explored by the mind. And yet they would still perceive.”

“It’s incredible, it’s amazing! How the meaning and the phrasing of the teacher and the disciple fit together and agree without conflict when it comes to the chief matter! Just now I went to the Buddha and asked him about this matter. And the Buddha explained it to me in this manner, with these words and phrases, just like Venerable Sāriputta. It’s incredible, it’s amazing! How the meaning and the phrasing of the teacher and the disciple fit together and agree without conflict when it comes to the chief matter!”

1 Like

Do you think nibbana is something to be perceived ?

It would be a seeing with the Dhamma-Eye.

The Abhidhamma expression is that the vision there would be an analogical vision, it isn’t perception per definition but an analog to perception.

The sutta expression is that these are attainments classed as a cessation of perception & feeling, one is then said to be ‘sensitive to unalloyed pleasure’ yet there is nothing felt, hence it is analogical.

“And what, Ananda, is another pleasure more extreme & refined than that? There is the case where a monk, with the complete transcending of the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception, enters & remains in the cessation of perception & feeling. This is another pleasure more extreme & refined than that. Now it’s possible, Ananda, that some wanderers of other persuasions might say, ‘Gotama the contemplative speaks of the cessation of perception & feeling and yet describes it as pleasure. What is this? How can this be?’ When they say that, they are to be told, ‘It’s not the case, friends, that the Blessed One describes only pleasant feeling as included under pleasure. Wherever pleasure is found, in whatever terms, the Blessed One describes it as pleasure.’”

This is what the Bodhisatta attained as an entering into under the Bodhi tree and emerged from after 7 days & 7 nights as a Buddha.

The word ‘nibbana’ is generally a removal of taints, sometimes the word is used referring to these attainments entered into because this ‘analogical seeing’ is without greed, anger & delusion and because it is by this seeing taints are removed in one who emerges from it.

1 Like

I think when Buddha said “freed mind” or “a mind which is freed of corruption of defilements” he means exactly vinnanam anidassanam, what do you think ?

Like mn140
They understand: ‘If I were to apply this equanimity, so pure and bright, to the dimension of infinite space, my mind would develop accordingly. But that is conditioned. If I were to apply this equanimity, so pure and bright, to the dimension of infinite consciousness … nothingness … neither perception nor non-perception, my mind would develop accordingly. But that is conditioned.’

They neither make a choice nor form an intention to continue existence or to end existence. Because of this, they don’t grasp at anything in the world. Not grasping, they’re not anxious. Not being anxious, they personally become extinguished.

Mn112
When it was freed, I knew it was freed. I understood: “Rebirth is ended; the spiritual journey has been completed; what had to be done has been done; there is no return to any state of existence.” That is how I know and see so that I have eradicated ego, possessiveness, and underlying tendency to conceit for this conscious body and all external stimuli.’

An3.32
“It could be, Ānanda, that a mendicant gains a state of immersion such that they have no ego, possessiveness, or underlying tendency to conceit for this conscious body; and no ego, possessiveness, or underlying tendency to conceit for all external stimuli; and that they’d live having attained the freedom of heart and freedom by wisdom where ego, possessiveness, and underlying tendency to conceit are no more.”

“But how could this be, sir?”

“Ānanda, it’s when a mendicant thinks: ‘This is peaceful; this is sublime—that is, the stilling of all activities, the letting go of all attachments, the ending of craving, fading away, cessation, extinguishment.’

I think that when they say;

"When it was freed, I knew it was freed. I understood: “Rebirth is ended; the spiritual journey has been completed; what had to be done has been done; there is no return to any state of existence.”

That refers to to recognizing that they have emerged from the 4th path attainment as an Arahant, afterall that is the final goal.

Usually emerging from the first path attainment is called ‘seeing the Deathless [Deathless denotes destruction of taints]’, attaining the Dhamna-Eye, penetrating to the Sorrowless [asoka] state, seeing with wisdom.

It is only the attainment of the 4th path that completely removes defilements and therefore only the Arahant has attained ‘removal of taints [nibbana]’ in that sense.

The lower path attainments realize nibbana only in as far as that they become absorbed in dependence on the nibbananirodhadhatu, cessation-extinguishment principle and removing some of their defilements when emerging.

I think vinnana anidassanam is synonymous with unconditioned element, that which is not included in the allness of the all, and it’s direct realization in this very life is described as being percepient thus ‘cessation of existence is nibbana’; or as directing the mind to the deathless element ‘this is peaceful…’; or it is explained as ‘consciousness unestablished’.

After it’s attainment some or all defilements are removed from the mind that attained it.

A Buddha can also enter into & emerge from cessation of perception & feeling but he has no defilements to be removed after emerging, therefore we can’t say that he attains a removal of taints as he has none.Technically Arahantship is called a Nibbana with residue which is only that by which he feels painful & pleasant feelings.

These are some of the circumstances that make it complicated and why Nibbana even tho sharing semantic properties with cessation of perception & feeling isn’t always used interchangibly.

To make it simple one can say that there are attainments that lie on the treshold of and are associated with Nibbana and the difference is in how they are approached, apprehended and what defilements are removed by the entering into & emerging from based on the extinguishment-cessation-principle.

1 Like