The experience of "Anatta"

Green · September 11, 2023, 5:48pm

In my country anyone is trained this way, instructed this way and learns that things conditionally arise. We do all kinds of experiments in schools who show this principle. We know that plants grow based on conditions (water, light), we know that a cloud formes under certain conditions, we know leaves fall due to certain conditions, we know that wind arises because of certain conditions, the seasons are conditionally existent etc. We are trained in this way of seeing and understanding things.

But this seeing or understanding of how things arise due to conditions, does not mean that we are all graduated Dhamma experts, or see the Dhamma, right?

And, suppose, that i see or understand that pain arises due to certain conditions (i have neglected my tooth), which almost every child does, does that imply i see the Dhamma?

I do not think so. So, i believe the above statements needs more explanation. When does one really see the Dhamma?

Ceisiwr · September 11, 2023, 6:01pm

This assume a “who” from the beginning. Consciousness is aware. That’s all.

Jasudho · September 11, 2023, 7:49pm

Hi,

Of course, we’re all entitled to our views and opinions.
What the Buddha is pointing to is the remarkable “ability” of viññāna and the other khandhas to see into, and to understand, their conditional nature. No separate faculty of wisdom-consciousness is described or taught.

If all the khandhas cease completely, there is no mind. Again, there is nothing in the suttas where the Buddha clearly teaches otherwise.
When a person is alive but unconscious, subtle activities of “mind” are still present and can be recorded with EEGs and other means.

No way to describe “what” the unconditioned is. But, happily, the Buddha taught that it’s the ultimate escape and liberation from all dukkha. So, on we go…

If by this you’re pointing to the conditional mind and experiences then, yes, there is no lasting peace or stability in them. I mean, everything conditional is anicca, dukkha, anattā, right?

However, this differs from the stable peace (though not the complete elimination of all dukkha, given the presence of the khandhas) of an arahant in which all defilements, identification with the khandhas, and self-view have been extinguished and from final nibbāna, when an arahant passes away and the khandhas cease without rebirth.

The Buddha used the khandhas to describe our conditional experiences.
We aren’t arahants, so we can’t directly know their freedom – but according to the teachings in the suttas, there is no self-sense, no identification with the khandhas, and no defilements – hence, peace and equanimity.
See Ud1.10 in which Bhaiya by not adding anything to the conditional experiences of the senses realizes liberation and becomes an arahant.

“Boundless” is a term generally used with the jhanas and samadhi in the Brahmaviharas.

Agree. Just to superficially recognize impermanence, arising and ceasing, does not mean one is a Dhamma “expert”, as you wrote.
That’s why we practice to see ever more deeply into this aspect of the Dhamma – which, importantly, leads to letting go, nibbidā, virāga, and liberation, as taught in many suttas.

Green · September 12, 2023, 9:49am

@Jasudho , i feel it becomes to tiresome for me to try to convince myself and others of something i do not really know, but more or less feels that it cannot be true or does not appeal to me.

We can start, again, a long discussion of what the Pali sutta’s do and do not support. I have that tendency. Maybe i must become a bit wiser. It is tiresome for me.

I feel i must be careful to pretent what Buddha aimed at, what his teachings are, what he realised, how he meant things. Even when there are texts i am not sure it is really the ideas, words and life of the Buddha, so in the end, it comes down to me. What do i want? What drives me?

I do feel free to make up my own mind of what is good, wise, true, sincere, the goal of the holy life etc.
I feel free to study and investigate others traditions too. I cannot follow something that, for me, does not feel good and truthful and does not really drive me. For example, to escape suffering by a mere cessation of the khandha’s (which I would be), going out like a fire at death, that goes against anything i feel as sincere, authentic drive, truthful, good, holy life. If this means i am not a buddhist, oke, i accept that.

Green · September 12, 2023, 9:56am

I believe Buddha says that vinnana cognises, meaning, it feels, it senses, it experiences.

But is there not a kind of knowing that is not like that? A knowing that is not connected to feeling/sensing as vinnana always is?

Jacques · September 12, 2023, 11:51am

Respectfully, it doesn’t seem like you will be finding answers to this manner of questioning here.

You might look elsewhere, like here (extract from a longer post):

So long as we are looking at anything other than ourself, we seem to be something other than pure awareness, but if we give up looking at anything else by looking at ourself alone, we will see that we are actually just pure awareness, as Bhagavan clearly implies in verse 16 of Upadēśa Undiyār :

வெளிவிட யங்களை விட்டு மனந்தன்
னொளியுரு வோர்தலே யுந்தீபற
வுண்மை யுணர்ச்சியா முந்தீபற.

veḷiviḍa yaṅgaḷai viṭṭu maṉantaṉ
ṉoḷiyuru vōrdalē yundīpaṟa
vuṇmai yuṇarcciyā mundīpaṟa.

பதச்சேதம்: வெளி விடயங்களை விட்டு மனம் தன் ஒளி உரு ஓர்தலே உண்மை உணர்ச்சி ஆம்.

Padacchēdam (word-separation): veḷi viḍayaṅgaḷai viṭṭu maṉam taṉ oḷi-uru ōrdalē uṇmai uṇarcci ām.

அன்வயம்: மனம் வெளி விடயங்களை விட்டு தன் ஒளி உரு ஓர்தலே உண்மை உணர்ச்சி ஆம்.

Anvayam (words rearranged in natural prose order): maṉam veḷi viḍayaṅgaḷai viṭṭu taṉ oḷi-uru ōrdalē uṇmai uṇarcci ām.

English translation: Leaving external phenomena, the mind knowing its own form of light is alone real awareness.

Explanatory paraphrase: Leaving aside [awareness of any] external viṣayas [namely phenomena of every kind, all of which are external in the sense that they are other than and hence extraneous to oneself], the mind knowing its own form of light [namely the light of pure awareness, which is its real nature and what illumines it, enabling it to be aware both of itself and of other things] is alone real awareness [true knowledge or knowledge of reality].

(…)

English translation: The insentient body does not say ‘I’; being-awareness does not rise; in between one thing, ‘I’, rises as the extent of the body. Know that this is the awareness-insentience-knot, bondage, soul, subtle body, ego, this wandering and mind.

Explanatory paraphrase: The jaḍa [insentient] body does not say ‘I’; sat-cit [being-awareness] does not rise; [but] in between [these two] one thing [called] ‘I’ rises as the extent of the body. Know that this [the spurious adjunct-mixed awareness that rises as ‘I am this body’] is cit-jaḍa-granthi [the knot (granthi) formed by the entanglement of awareness (cit) with an insentient (jaḍa) body, binding them together as if they were one], bandha [bondage], jīva [life or soul], nuṭpa mey [subtle body], ahandai [ego], this saṁsāra [wandering, revolving, perpetual movement, restless activity, worldly existence or the cycle of birth and death] and manam [mind].
When he says that ego rises in between the body and sat-cit (existence-awareness), he is obviously using the term ‘இடையில்’ (iḍaiyil ), ‘in between’, in a metaphorical sense, and what he means by it is that ego is neither the body, which is not aware of itself as ‘I’, nor sat-cit , which does not rise, but something that misappropriates certain properties of each. From sat-cit it borrows its substance, namely its existence (sat ) and its awareness (cit ), because it is aware of itself as ‘I am’, whereas from the body it borrows its form, which rises and subsides and is limited in time and space.

As he says in verse 25 of Uḷḷadu Nāṟpadu , ego is ‘உருவற்ற பேய்’ (uru-v-aṯṟa pēy ), a ‘formless phantom’, because it has no form or substance of its own, so as you say, it does not actually exist. However, it does seem to exist, and only so long as it seems to exist do all other things seem to exist (…)

Jasudho · September 12, 2023, 12:26pm

Understood.
If you’re interested in the Dhamma, you might start with the teachings that resonate with you and practice them in meditation and in daily life --see for yourself what benefits arise.

We can just start where we are and walk the Path, as it gradually opens to deeper insight, to peacefulness, and happiness.

The teachings of Ramana Maharshi do not align with the Buddha’s teachings in the EBTs.
Of course, we can choose to learn and follow them if we wish, and having read his major teachings and shared emails with Michael James in the past, I honor the Maharshi’s sageness – but it’s important to know they are different from the Path and teachings of the Buddha and no amount of attempting to square a circle will change that.

But which spiritual path we choose to follow is up to us, and reflects our power to choose.
If you choose the Buddha’s Path then the humble advice is to give it a chance and see what happens. It’s like a door that opens to many wonders.

Santi and may you find happiness and ease

Ceisiwr · September 12, 2023, 1:21pm

Not in the Buddha’s Dhamma.

Green · September 12, 2023, 5:23pm

Buddha’s Path was a Path of endless lives serving goodness, thereby honouring goodness, serving purity of hearth. I feel this is the real holy life.

When i feel this is the right Path for me, then i am not choosing for Buddha’s Path? Do i only choose for Buddha’s Path when i have a sincere wish to go out like a flame at death for ever? Or a better rebirth?

This is completely alien to me. I cannot find such longings or wishes in myself. I have never ever had any interest in Dhamma because i want a better rebirth for myself or go out like a flame. This is not an authentic wish for me. But does this mean that i do not choose for Buddha’s Path?

For me Dhamma is all about goodness. Goodness is not having a business like mentallity and even seeing ethics as business or trading. Doing good as trade is no noble Path.

Detachment is, for me, not really about the end of my suffering, but more like being totally unselfish, and doing good naturally, effortless.

Jasudho · September 12, 2023, 6:02pm

Goodness, as you say, is a necessary aspect of the Path in the EBTs, but not the full way to liberation.
If this is how you wish to practice, that’s of course your choice. May you be happy and offer benefits to many!

This is true in the Mahayana teachings. Not in the Buddha’s teachings in the suttas.
Your wish to serve endlessly and to realize and be liberated into “Buddha-Nature” is also an aspect of most Mahayana schools.
Again, that’s your choice.

What’s being expressed here is only that these sentiments and aspects of the Mahayana, such as endless practice/endless lives and an “eternal” Buddha-Nature are not found in the suttas of the Pāli Canon, nor in the Āgamas.

Much respect to your wish to help and serve others – this is also found clearly in the EBTs – in whatever form of Dhamma practice resonates with you.

Santi

Green · September 13, 2023, 8:27am

Anyway, I think that the cognising or knowing quality of vinnana cannot be said to be the same as the knowing quality of vipassana, sampajanna, nana, sati, panna. Intelligence seems to be different from just experiencing, sensing, feeling, perceiving. Hearing a sound is not intelligence.

I am quit sure it is also not true that there can only be knowing when there is vinnana, or a conscious experience of a sense object. There is much more subtle knowing going on in our mind then a conscious knowing. I am quit sure body and mind can know things in a way that does not pass the treshhold of vinnana but it is stille known.

Maybe there is some expert here which can confirm this.

Green · September 13, 2023, 9:04am

I do not agree @Jasudho,

EBT, for me, makes very clear that Buddha taught a noble path and a mundane Path. For example there is a difference between mundane rights views and intentions etc. and noble right view and intention (Mn117).

The noble Path and all its qualities are grounded in the mind without inclination, the uninclined, signless, emptiness. For me, meaning, the noble path and all its qualities are not grounded in ones disposition. It is not a result of anusaya, tanha, asava, inclinations, tendencies.

The Noble Path is grounded in the deathless, in the uninclined. One canot say that thoughts, plans, intentions, speech, actions which are grounded in your disposition are noble or liberating or pure. Impossible. That is what i read in the Pali sutta’s and recognise as true.

Anusaya, tanha, asava is about disposition. This can differ from person to person and being to being, but the deathless, uninclined not. Can you live with this?

There is thought, intention, speech, action that is grounded in the deathless. That does not arise out of habitual forces (tanha, anusaya, asava), it is not grounded in our disposition, as it were.

I do not believe that this does mean that this does not arise conditionally, but the conditions are very different.

Jacques · September 13, 2023, 11:17am

Well said (as well as the rest of your comments in this particular post). Suffice it to say that things make sense to different people (and probably, at different times).

My route was the same as yours … in reverse. I meditated and studied Buddhism for several years before falling on the rendering of the original teachings of Ramana Maharshi (via the remarkable work and dedication of Michael James).

We can parse, dice and spice the debate until we’re blue in the face; it nonetheless boils down to what makes the most sense to us. It is much to do with subjectivity, no matter how any tradition claims to be the ultimate authority on the objective view of “seeing things as they are.”

Anyway, for those interested (and for what it’s worth in posting this in such a forum):

Jimh · September 14, 2023, 11:02pm

MN 117 is the only discourse in the Pāli canon that presents a supramundane version of the path-factors, which do not appear in the parallels.

Bhikkhu Analyo has analyzed this in his paper entitled: The Mahācattārīsaka-sutta in the Light of its Parallels — Tracing the Beginnings of Abhidharmic Thought.

The Mahācattārīsaka-sutta is the only discourse in the Pāli canon that presents such a supramundane version of the path-factors.

Closer scrutiny of the discourse itself shows that some of the Pāli terms used in the Mahācattārīsaka-sutta’s definition of supramundane right intention, such as “fixing” (appanā) of the mind and “mental inclination” (cetaso abhiniropanā), are not found in other discourses and belong to the type of language used only in the Abhidharma and historically later Pāli texts. In fact, the terms employed to define the supramundane path-factors of right intention, right speech, right action and right livelihood are precisely the same as those used in the Vibhaṅga of the Pāli Abhidhammapiṭaka. Notably, the Vibhaṅga uses these terms in its exposition of the path-factors according to the specific method of the Abhidharma, diferent from the terms the same work uses when it analyses these path-factors according to the method of the discourses. That is, from the viewpoint of the Vibhaṅga this type of terminology is distinctly Abhidharmic, differing from the mode of exposition found in the discourses.

Moreover, the treatment of the path-factors from a supramundane viewpoint in the Mahācattārīsaka-sutta qualifies the mundane wholesome path-factors as “with influx” and as “ripening in attachment”. Yet, the definitions given in the Mahācattārīsaka-sutta for the path-factors of mundane right intention, right speech, right action and right livelihood recur in other discourses as part of the standard definition of the noble eightfold path that leads to the eradication of dukkha. Thus, what according to other discourses leads to the eradication of dukkha, in the Mahācattārīsaka-sutta is presented as something that ripens in attachment and is associated with the influxes.

As already mentioned at the outset of the present paper, the treatment of the supramundane path-factors does not seem to be necessary from viewpoint of the central topic of the discourse, the same treatment shows distinct Abhidharmic characteristics and vocabulary, and it is absent from both parallels. This makes it highly probable that the supramundane path-factors are a later addition to the Pāli discourse.

Metta

Green · September 15, 2023, 9:00am

I interpretate this otherwise. Many sutta’s describe something like this:

“And how, bhikkhus, does a bhikkhu who is diligent develop and cultivate the Noble Eightfold Path? Here, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu develops right view … right concentration, which is based upon seclusion, dispassion, and cessation, maturing in release. It is in this way, bhikkhus, that a bhikkhu who is diligent
develops and cultivates the Noble Eightfold Path.” (see Maggasamyutta, SN45).

The Noble Path is based upon seclusion, dispassion and cessation, meaning, here and now.
Dispassion is not something that is absent or something that lies in the future to be gained. Like many teachers say, the goal is present. This is because passion and formations are something that always arises and ceases and is of an adventitous nature. One must understand this to develop correctly (AN1.51). If one takes ones situation like this that one is always passionate then, i feel, one takes a wrong start. I feel those sutta’s of AN1.51 say this.

Also about the holy life it is said:

“For, brahmin the holy life is lived with Nibbana as its ground, Nibbana s its destination, Nibbana as its final goal”(SN48.42, Bodhi)

Another way the sutta’s talk about this is that the enlightment factors, the powers, the qualities have the Deathless as its ground (see SN48, for example).

I interprete this as: they do not have a personal disposition as there ground. They are not grounded in habits. They are not grounded in reactivity, in patterns, in inclinations. They ground in the uninclined.

For example, one might have been grown up in a culture in which the belief in rebirth is very accepted, common, habit-like, or not, but that has nothing to do with the right view of the Noble Path based upon seclusion, cessation, dispassion etc. This Noble Path does not depend on cultural ideas or how one is educated or how one is raised. There is a ground that is not influenced by that.

I feel, interpretation deviate because some feel that the goal is not present yet. Everything must be gained. They do not see or feel that the uninclined, signless, dispassion is not absent and is not something to gain but to uncover. I think that the Dhamma-eye means one sees and knows that it is not absent and not something to be gained in the future.

For me, MN117 is not some strange sutta. I feel it is in line with the rest of the sutta’s. What must be distinguised, i feel, is a path of merit which the Buddha teaches: such as developing good intentions, abandoning wrong views (materialism), etc, because those are not helpful to discover and see the Noble Path based upon dispassion and enter the stream.

It is not like the path of accumulating merit is the same as entering the stream. The stream refers to the Path that is here and now based upon dispassion, seclusion, stilled formations.

Green · September 17, 2023, 12:44pm

The sutta’s talk about different kinds of right views. If i sum this up:

There are a kind of worldview like materialism or scepticisms or nihilism or others. MN76 threats some.
Buddha describes them as: four ways that negate the spiritual life, and four kinds of unreliable spiritual life. Those are wrong worldviews. Those views in a way negate the spiritual life.

Buddha taught a worldview of rebirth, there is meaning in giving, there are people who know this and another world, there is kamma and fruit of kamma etc. These are views which support the holy life.

But…this does not mean that anyone who accepts those views, or is grown up with those views, has full trust in them, is convinced that this is how life is, has the right view of the Noble Path. Such people have not entered the stream.

Green · September 17, 2023, 2:25pm

Because i feel this is important another post on this, and then, i promisse, i stop participating because i notice my participation/posts is/are not liked. Oke.

I think SN12.51 describes it well:

"If an ignorant individual makes a good choice, their consciousness enters a good realm. If they make a bad choice, their consciousness enters a bad realm. If they make an imperturbable choice, their consciousness enters an imperturbable realm. When a mendicant has given up ignorance and given rise to knowledge, they don’t make a good choice, a bad choice, or an imperturbable choice. Not choosing or intending, they don’t grasp at anything in the world. Not grasping, they’re not anxious. Not being anxious, they personally become extinguished.’

This is in line with MN117. Good choices do not mean that they are undefiled, not based upon ignorance. Good choices are the mundane noble path of MN117. The Noble Path is not about choosing and intending because it is based upon dispassion. Good choices are based upon passion.

For example, someone making the choice for higher rebirth does not really have right noble view nor right noble intention. His intent is of the nature of passion. His view is egocentric.
Ofcourse a dislike for suffering is also not grounded in dispassion and not based upon noble right view.

I feel, in many sutta’s the Noble Path is showed, for example in those describing that while one sees and understands that any conditioned and volitionallly produced state is impermanent and liable to cease, one also sees and understands that this kind of effort, investment, orientation, wish for, desire, volition for what is only temporary (also jhana) is not the Noble Path. It will never end suffering. This is an imporant insight i believe. It is the Path everybody walks. It is just a mundane path. The Noble Path is not based upon such passions but grounded in dispassion.

That there is a supramundane Path one can also see in the teachings of four kinds of kamma, i feel. The mundane paths are those about bright , dark kamma and mixed kamma with corresponding results. But the supramundane path is about kamma that is nor bright nor dark, not ripening in dark and bright ways, leading to the end of kamma.

Now i stop about this and stop participating. Thank you.

Charlie · October 4, 2023, 4:01am

140 posts! Oh well, what’s one more among friends.

Is there an “I”? or - Is there knowing/awareness? They are not the same thing. But I think your observation is correct. However the misconception is not ‘I’ but instead something like ‘I am the thinker’ – this is the underlying condition of ignorance that then colors and distorts everything we experience. I is not an umbrella word for the sum of skandhas but rather a deeply felt truth regarding who and what I think I am. But of course, as phenomena are more like flows than things, nothing that we identify with is permanent – reliable – thus the nature of the problem.

The fact that we can start watching these things and see that they are temporary is why the Buddhas teaching is even possible. If we were not capable of stepping back and reflecting on what we are doing – as you describe here - then sila (ethics) is impossible and that is just the start of the path.

There will always be some kind of knowing present in anything you can be aware of (kind of obvious). The ability to tune in to subtler and subtler aspects of our experience leads to the development of the mind. Leads to wisdom.

Mind is fundamental in Buddhism because we all have one – Arahats and worldly people alike. The former is undefiled while the latter is defiled (with ‘I am the thinker’). The Arahat knows they are done and also knows which bowl and robe is theirs (assuming they don’t have Alzheimers).

The sense that ‘I am’ or ‘I am this or that’ is said to be the last thing you give up in this world.

The Anatta teaching is pointing to the fact that we should not regard anything that is subject to change outside of our control as being what we are because when we grasp anything in this way there will be suffering. If it were not possible to do this then the Buddha would not bother teaching it as part of the practice.

Anytime anything is observed there is knowing/awareness involved. If there is the sense of an observer, that is ignorance creeping into the picture. Awareness/knowing is a fundamental aspect of mind. But this does not mean there is an observer or witness so much as there is ‘knowing’. You have to keep pulling on this thread – that is the practice.
The Buddha doesn’t get into whether there is some sort of true or ultimate self. He does point out that if something is part of your Self (true self, higher self) than you could completely control it to be as you like. So by his definition, a Self (if it exists) is not a source of suffering (and therefore outside the domain of his teaching).

An interesting side of this is that Buddha does say he controls his thoughts – thinks what he wants to think and doesn’t think what he doesn’t want to think.

I agree. Awareness in and of itself does not imply a permanent self. And usage of such terms can simply mean something like ‘this is what there is when the mind is no longer defiled’. I think it is natural for people to assume that there cannot be awareness without a sense of self - it’s a kind of projection based on our own experience.

They are quite literally packed with such references. Is the undefiled mind not aware? Is it imperturbable? A consciousness that does not land anywhere? Every Arahat has by definition an undefiled mind – an unconditioned mind – unconditioned by ignorance. The mind defiled is a conditioned mind. Every aspect (khanda) of that mind is conditioned by ignorance. A conditioned mind is incapable of realizing the unconditioned. Every sutta where the Buddha talks about realizing the unconditioned is only possible with an awareness (consciousness) that is unconditioned. The undefiled mind is not impacted by changing phenomena. Realizing this is the entire purpose of the path.

Perhaps I am mistaken but it seems that people here are viewing the khandas as ‘things’ rather than categories of experience that arise in the mind. My understanding is: when the mind is defiled, consciousness binds-up or is compounded with other khandas creating the sense that ‘I am this or that’ and so on. When the mind is undelfiled (awakened), the khandas are described as ‘scattered and abandoned’ – but they don’t go away – they simply cease to build-up and create a world of things – because ignorance, that led to this state, has ceased. If knowing/awareness had ceased for the Buddha when he awakened then he would of instantly been seen as vegetable like. Buddhas know and see – this is obvious.

Almost always consciousness is described as the consciousness khanda + sense organ + object. But this is consciousness when conditioned by ignorance – it is compounded or built up with other khandas. Why does Buddha almost always define consciousness in its built-up form? Because he is concerned with suffering and the end of suffering and right up until the end, that is the kind of consciousness we are all dealing with. But let’s not throw the baby (awareness) out with the water (consciousness).

Green · October 4, 2023, 10:32am

How it lives for me in a practical sense is that i can feel, understand, or recognise that there is a proces in the mind, a movement, a drift, that leads to self-alienation, to becoming insensitive. A proces of hardening, coarsening.

It can be called a proces of degrading. It is not easy to escape this process. Because, when things do not go as one wishes, one is probably in the middle of it. Or when things go like one wishes, or when one does not care at all, one is in the middle of it. This happens al lot, right?

For myself i have recognised that the nature of mind is not like this, meaning, we are not really like this. No being. But it are adventitious defilements and grasping at them that instigate this process of degrading.

So in this approach there is a kind of recognition of self in the sense that one recognises that becoming insensitive, hardened, merciless, alienated, is like a degrading of oneself. It is not really you. You are becoming not-you.

I feel in essence we are not insensitive, but we can quit easily become insensitive due to tanha, asava, anusaya, kilesa. It is not that we are deluded but we quit easliy can become deluded.

Jasudho · October 4, 2023, 12:15pm

Who said otherwise? This is a straw man argument. In a number of prior posts I, and others, have explicitly said that the Buddha and arahants still remained conscious, experiencing the senses and contact – but without any clinging, delusion, or identification with the khandhas.

But that’s different from claiming – as you appear to be doing – that there is a kind of permanent awareness, outside of time and space, beyond conditional consciousness.
You cited " a consciousness that does not land anywhere" – this points to the non-clinging consciousness of an arahant, that no longer clings to the khandhas and will not land into another rebirth.
Best to read the suttas and the contexts in which this example is used and:

Citations, please.

Rather, in MN43:
"“Feeling, perception, and consciousness—these things are mixed, not separate. And you can never completely dissect them so as to describe the difference between them. For you perceive what you feel, and you cognize what you perceive. That’s why these things are mixed, not separate. And you can never completely dissect them so as to describe the difference between them.”

Or in MN38 “…Haven’t I said in many ways that consciousness is dependently originated, since consciousness does not arise without a cause?”

The undefiled mind of an arahant is conscious through the consciousness aggregate that is still present while the arahant is alive.
If you can show with citations where the Buddha clearly differentiated consciousness from awareness outside time and space, etc. please share them.