The experience of "Anatta"

The Watercooler
151

This is not about the topic “Anatta”. However, I try to explain my understanding about what we called “viññāṇa” since I see many arguments about it in this topic.

All we know about viññāṇa or the so-called consciousness is about objective consciousness. This kind of consciousness needs its object to function. Therefore, it is conditioned by its objects.

Look at DO, we can see that viññāṇa or the so-called consciousness is conditioned by saṅkhāras and also name-and-form. There will be six classes of consciousnesses that will rely on six doors to their objects. This objective consciousness depends on the body (rupa) and its object to function (since it is conditioned by name-and-form).

Whenever we talk about consciousness, we are talking about this conditional consciousness. If we pay attention to the “consciousness” that the Buddha rejected, it is this viññāṇa. However, the Buddha does not reject direct knowing (abhijānāti). He did not call this direct knowing as “viññāṇa”.

Since we do not know anything about this “direct knowing”, we will think that with the cessation of viññāṇa, we will be “unconscious”, or will no longer be able to know anything, and it is annihilation. Or there will be some undefiled objective consciousness left. Only the defilements ceased, not the viññāṇa.

If we actually achieved Jhanas, we will know about this kind of “direct knowing”. However, it is impossible to prove it to a skeptical person.

This direct knowing (abhijānāti) is a kind of “consciousness” because its function is also “knowing” or “recognizing”. However, it is not that objective consciousness (viññāṇa), so we can see the term “viññāṇa anidassana” in the Suttas. When earth, water, fire, and air find no footing and name-and-form fully come to cease, the objective consciousness (viññāṇa) will cease. That means when the senses of the body (earth, water, fire, and air) have no object (find no footing), viññāṇa is cut off from its objects; therefore, it ceases. What left is that “viññāṇa anidassana”. This is the hidden, invisible knowing that we do not know about, and it is what we called “direct knowing.” This “direct knowing” has no object since the object and subject is one. That is why it is called “direct knowing”. This “direct knowing” is not the viññāṇa that we know about since it does not depend on its objects.

That’s how I understand.

152

Thanks for pointing out that you had made earlier comments on this topic – it is hard to try and digest 140 posts while keeping track of who says what where.

No, I did not say that but having now read through your earlier comments I can see how you might interpret it that way.

With regard to your understanding that I am promoting an awareness beyond conditional consciousness– beyond is incorrect – maybe the following example will make it clearer (so to speak):

Take two glasses of water: one is pure and the other is polluted. There are several characteristics that I can identify like: taste, color, smell, etc. I observe that the polluted one smells bad, tastes like crap, makes me sick, and looks brownish in color. With the pure water it tastes clean, smells fresh, quenches my thirst, and looks sparkling. If I take the polluted water and purify it, it will be indistinguishable from the glass of pure water.

Water here stands for mind, pollutants obviously defilements, while the characteristics and the awareness of them are the khandas.

Both samples have the same set of characteristics but how those characteristics are experienced is very different. And these characteristics cannot be separated out from one another as they are characteristics of the water itself.

Agreed. Not sure what your issue is with what I am saying. Maybe rephrasing might help:

My point is that mind is conscious – it comes in the package. If the mind is defiled then what one experiences is consciousness that is bound-up with the other aggregates due to ignorance. If the mind is undefiled then the conscious aspect of the mind is no longer subject to ignorance. It still sees the arising and passing of phenomena because that is what consciousness aspect of our mind does. But no longer subject to ignorance, it no longer plays a role in objectification of phenomena – (in other words it no longer creates a world of things that are subject to grasping).

If you need citations we are so far apart it would make no difference at all. If I understand you correctly, you are suggesting that the consciousness of an Arahat is conditioned? This makes no sense to me.

With regard to citations: I have spent hours and hours citing suttas to support what I write. I have been reading them for a good 25 years. I have learned that citations make no difference at all. The older I get the less inclined I am to waste my time. I try to put together answers that summarize my understanding in a broader perspective. If you don’t relate, so it goes – maybe someone else will.

I don’t understand why you are saying this. Maybe confusing me with someone else?

1 Like
153

Many people really appreciate those who have figured out everything by reasoning or study and can lay down a seemingly coherent dhamma-puzzle. I believe, it probably is more like a trap. It is more like bate. Bate for the mind who craves for order.

The mind who experiences this order as clarity and happiness. It is always busy seeking and making order. But this is, i feel, the expression of what attachment and confusion really is about. It is very close to me, this desire for order. But i see this as a great obstacle now. So, i am aware of the danger, the allure, of those who are seemingly very knowledgable. This is not to offend them but i feel it is very relative, and not really trustworthy too. Real Dhamma knowledge is more seen in how one behaves.

154

Is there an “x” state where the"i" experienced as a momentary continuum ? What is that “x” state ? And how does one knows it is the “i” that is experiencing it ? Say the “x” state you meant is a process of seeing something for example ? Is the “seeing” is being experiencing by the “i” ? And which or what “i” is that you are referring to ? Does the “i” is the witness ? and how does one knows that process is in a linear momentary continuum line ? Similarly it can be applied in such a way to the experience of anatta you are saying .

155

Thanks for sharing.
Apologies if I misunderstood some of your points.

Actually, we agree on this.

IMHO, it’s not about only becoming a human reference book and, of course, discussion alone is insufficient for deep insight. But on forums like this with open discussions, citations help to differentiate what we have as teachings from the Buddha from personal opinions and wishes.

Of course, there are a number of interpretations about the Teachings – but hopefully they’re based on different understandings of the suttas rather than just personal wants.
Just sharing how citing the suttas in support of one’s understanding is both useful and generally more convincing – but I suppose that’s my opinion! :slightly_smiling_face:

You’re correct – we’re not in agreement on this. The arahant “is” knowledge and understanding of unconditional liberation from dukkha and rebirth, so to speak.
Consciousness while the Arahant is alive is exactly the consciousness aggregate.
Your assertion here aligns with why I understand you to believe in an unconditional consciousness.

In the suttas, the realization of liberation is not described as an unconditional “Arahant” consciousness, but as the knowledge and understanding of the extinguishment of all defilements, hence no further production of dukkha and no rebirth.
The liberation from dukkha is unconditional, not consciousness.

But, again, maybe we’re misunderstanding each other…

:pray:

156

Yes, I agree with you here. However we can never underestimate the power of the human mind to transform something that is clearly a ‘v’ and rationalize that it actually must have been a ‘W’ and so every time we/they see a reference to ‘v’ we/they just see ‘w’. And of course this factor plays a role in say my understanding of something (I may unknowingly add in my own opinion) when posting and it is also happening on the side of the reader - a sutta telephone game - if you like. Anyway, this is why I like to summarize my understanding in plain English rather than using often cryptic translations of suttas that are so subject to being interpreted via a personal bias - added by either the reader or the translator.

That being said, I realized that I could just go through older posts on similar topics (not that we ever repeat things here) and simply pull out citations from there. So this will take a bit to put together but I want to follow up on:

  • with citations when possible.

I think we have narrowed down the scope pretty well of where we differ such that the topic is both manageable and perhaps entertaining at least.

157

Mind is not the same as vinnana. Because when there is no vinnana, there is still mind, such as in deep dreamless sleep and under narcosis. I feel this must be acknowledged otherwise we cannot rationally talk about this. Vinnana is a very particular kind of knowing or expression of mind. I believe that is a nice way to talk about vinnana.

Vinnana is a small aspect of mind. It is like the top of the iceberg. It is also not that we only via vinnana are informed about ourselves, others and the world. Not at all. Or that only via vinnana we are influenced. The mind door is more subtle.

It is said that it is possible to be detached from vinnana, but what is detached at that moment? Vinnana?

Also when all perceptions and feelings cease there cannot be nothing. How would one otherwise reappear from this state if there is nothing to support that re-appearance? What is there if there is no vinnana and no bhavanga?

I feel some teachers are right when they teach we must not see mind as a certain phenomena with certain characteristics or at a certain location in time and space. That is vinnana not mind.
We better think of mind as an emptiness which is unborn and is no phenomena and has not location.
But not only as emptiness but this emptiness has also an aspect of clarity and functions also as a ground for things to arise.

1 Like
158

Hi , what do you mean by mind ?

Thanks

159

I have shared a bit of what makes most sense to me. Some schools distinguish the nature of mind from the expressions of the mind. I find that an nice way of talking about things.

The mind is like the sea and the expressions or manifestations are like the waves. The mind has, as a were, a deep aspect and a surface aspect.
The deep aspect is about stilling, cessation of all formations, end of movements, no inclinations. The mind rests at it were in her own nature.
The surface aspect is noisy, much movement, a lot of activity, vinnana’s coming and going.
I like this metaphore.

This metaphore also implies there is a real base for stability, for peace, stilling of all formation and that is the deep nature of mind, which is, i believe, no different from the deep nature of the Tathagata.

Vinnana cannot be called deep. I also feel Dhamma is given us a sense of the deeper aspect of mind. Its abiding nature, not its movements, not its expressions, but its nature.

This deep aspect of mind is like grounding. The Noble Path is grounds. It is like one is in touch with a deeper and also more sensitive aspect of the mind. Something like this.

160

Thanks for your reply.

And exactly the same can be said for expressions in plain English. In fact, there’s no stimulus in the conditional world that isn’t influenced by bias, interpretation, and selectivity.
With the suttas, imo, we’re doing the best we can with the original teachings of the Buddha, as best as we have them.
The authenticity of the Nikāyas is well supported by modern scholarship:

Also in the works of Mark Allon, Richard Gombrich, Ven. Anālayo, Bhikkhu Bodhi, and others.

So I favor bringing citations into many of the discussions as a means to clarify and support a position during a Dhamma discussion – rather than just hashing and re-hashing opinions. And I’m not saying you’re doing this – speaking generally here.

And so, citations!
While I know of no sentence in the suttas where the Buddha explicitly says this, it’s based on hundreds of suttas where the Buddha speaks of consciousness as always conditional. So I follow from that.

Several are: DN15, SN12.125, MN43, Snp3.12, SN22.136, MN35, Snp734 and more.
Also MN38: "… aññatra paccayā natthi viññāṇassa sambhavo; “consciousness does not arise without a cause.”

On the other hand, what’s missing in the suttas are clear and explicit teachings about any other kind of unconditional consciousness.
There have been a number of posts and topics about this on D&D over the years.

Those who profess an unconditional consciousness can be asked to provide sutta references…

Finally, when there is a description of the attaining of liberation, arahantship, the common phrases used do not mention an unconditional consciousness (not surprisingly), but rather the knowledge and realization of liberation from all defilements – the freedom from dukkha.

SN43.2: “And what is the unconditioned? The ending of greed, hate, and delusion. This is called the unconditioned.”
SN22.61: "They understand: ‘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.’

Santi :pray:

161

SN47.42: Nāmarūpasamudayā cittassa samudayo; nāmarūpanirodhā cittassa atthaṅgamo; " The mind originates from name and form. When name and form cease, the mind ends.

You may wish to refer to SN36.19 and MN59 which teach about saññāvedayitanirodhaṁ, a state utterly free of all perceptions and feelings, and hence consciousness. And yet, the medicant, due to conditions, comes out of that state to teach about it.

Finally, viññāna, mana, and citta all refer to “mind” – with different shades of meaning in the suttas.
From Ven. Sujato:
" The terms are, generally speaking, synonyms, and their usage overlaps to some degree, but they tend to be used in different contexts:

  1. Viṇṇāṇa is part of the khandhas and āyatanas, and hence pertains to the first noble truth: it is suffering.
  2. Mano is typically used in an active sense of will or volition, closely related to kamma, and hence pertains to the second noble truth, the cause of suffering.
  3. Citta is to be developed and thus pertains to the fourth noble truth.
  4. The cessation of all these is, of course, the third noble truth**.**
162

In the above context, Bodhi explains (note 181) that mind here refers to vinnana.
That is not bad because vinnana can be seen as the active aspect of mind, the movement aspect .
That arises and ceases due to conditions likes waves in water.

What do you personally mean when you would say that something arises in the mind? For example, suddely an idea arises in the mind? What do we mean by in-the-mind? If there is really not a mind in which plans, intentions arise? Is there nothing in which they arise? Arise in space? How do you see this?

When the Buddha teaches the purification of mind what does he mean? What must be purified? Eye-vinnana? Ear-vinnana, tactile vinnana? Or tendencies in the subconscious?

If vinnana moments form a stream what holds all this distinct moments of vinnana together? Why is there a stream?

Do you think Buddha would agree to call someone mindless who is unconscious?

1 Like
163

I don’t know if someone has explained this before, but in a stream of experiences, Experience can not be changed due to ‘I’ or ‘my will’. Experience was born with the object and in no way ‘I’ can choose,change or do anything about it. When we see that there is an observer ‘I’, that is merely the object (thought) of the experience.
Since we can’t change anything about a given experience, assuming that there is an ‘I’ observing the experience is a delusion. This momentary ‘I’ can only observe the experience and the momentary ‘I’ is the object of the experience. It’s unskillful to cling to an ‘I’ when we can only cling to ‘I’.

164

Great observation. Yes, the meaning here is obvious now. It is speaking about how consciousness and name and form circle around each other - each supporting the other. Clearly looking at worldly experience in the context of dep. origination.
Thanks!

This is one of the problems with translations. Every skill has it’s own terminology and there is a reason for it. You wouldn’t want to learn sailing from a sailing manual where all terminology was replaced with everyday words that are kind of similar in meaning to the original but not quite right. Confusing port and starboard with left and right comes to mind. Could get you killed.

1 Like
165

I don’t think it refers to final nibbana. Here is why:
The first four suttas in that book (8) are all dealing with a similar theme.
8.2) …for one who sees, there is nothing.
8.3) … But precisely because there is an unborn–unbecome–unmade–unfabricated, escape from the born–become–made–fabricated is discerned.
8.4) There being no coming or going, there is no passing away or arising. There being no passing away or arising, there is neither a here nor a there nor a between-the-two. This, just this, is the end of stress.

Ud 8.9 and Ud 8.10 clearly are about final nibbana. It is stated in the text and the wordings of the verses take on a different feel.

So what are 8.1-8.3 about?

That is what these are referring to. The Buddha describes that when he awakened the world (loka) ceased - no citation here - I think you know this one.
Here is one though:
AN9.38 … And as he sees (that) with discernment, effluents are completely ended. This is called a monk who, coming to the end of the cosmos, remains at the end of the cosmos, having crossed over attachment in the cosmos.”

Ud8.1-8.3 describe the cessation of thingness/objectification that occurs on awakening. The most common description in the suttas is the classic "In seeing there is just the seen…’

166

One can deal with it in certain ways, right? For example, it is not that if anger arises one must become angry and speak and act angry.

167

Yes, but we are also in a situation that different experts on Pali translate Pali words differently. Apparantly they feel this need to re-translate sutta’s again and again. That is also making things complex because the flavour or even the content of a text can change. Sometimes i am really amazed how translations can really give a very different flavour and also meaning to the same text. It can be really challenging.

What i can see is that vinnana has different meanings. Most of the time it refers to much more then only a bare awareness of something, a mere sense moment. Most of the time it refers to an awareness with longings, emotions loaden. Based upon a defiled sense contact. The result of it is called a kamma vinnana and its nature is very different from a sense-vinnana which is a vipaka vinnana.

So, even a world like ‘vinnana’ can have very different meanings. Vinnana often refers to much more then a bare awareness of a sense-object. Most of the time its meaning is very close to having developed a certain mentallity towards a sense-object But mentallity towards a sense-object is in fact quit different from a bare awareness of the sense-object.

168

Nice. If the proces of conceiving stops, (and Buddha says that conceiving must be seen as a sickness) can there be objectivation/thingness?
Does this align with what you mean?

169

Yes, this is what I mean. There are a number of references in the suttas that indicate this.
Contemporary descriptions I have come upon are: ‘no thingness’, ‘There are no edges’, ‘I see everything at once’.
There is a nice description from Chan Buddhism:

The Buddha Mind stays calm and still,
Keep your mind within it and nothing can disturb you.
The harmless and the harmful cease to exist.
Subjects when disengaged from their objects vanish
Just as surely as objects,
when disengaged from their subjects, vanish too.
Each depends on the existence of the other.

If this doesn’t remind one of anything in the EBT’s try this:
Subjects (consciousness influenced by ignorance resulting in the sense ‘I am’)
engaged with (bound up with)
objects (name and form)

1 Like
170

Thanks for sharing.
imo, philosophical speculations and opinions are fine.
I’m just less interested in pursuing them here so I’ll respectfully bow out of this thread.

Wishing you all the best and:
Santi :pray:

1 Like