When your eye is caught by something seen, then that eye vinnana establishes in the mind. Your mind is now fixed upon that car, acutely aware of it. But this is very different from seeing with a mind that is not caught and in which eye vinnana’s do not establish. The practical difference between seeing and being caught by the seen can be felt, known. Seeing also has no conceptualisation. Seeing is never an acute awareness of what is seen. Seeing has no ideas about what is seen. When there is only the seen then eye vinnana’s do no establish.
Perhaps you are in signless or undirected samadhi?
"Then I thought: ‘In this a monk, paying no attention to any distinguishing signs,[3] enters on and dwells in that concentration of the heart which is without signs. This is called “The signless concentration of heart.”’
"Then, friends, paying no attention to any distinguishing signs, I entered on and dwelt in that concentration of the heart which is without signs. But as I dwelt thus,[4] the consciousness-conforming-to-signs arose.[5]
1 Like
According to Vijñāna - Wikipedia
viññāṇa can be translated as “discrimination” or “discernment”.
With such translation some of the verses mentioned here would read like:
It’s called discernment because it discerns.”
“Wisdom and discernment—are these things mixed or separate? And can we completely disentangle them so as to describe the difference between them?”
And what does it discern? It discerns ‘pleasure’ and ‘pain’ and ‘neutral’.
Whether this translation is correct or not, I do not know, however I believe there is discernment and there is attachment/grasping to discernment.
For example when a forum post like this is read:
- one can discern it,
- as pleasant
- unpleasant
- or neutral
- For either of 1. 2. or 3: then there can be
a. attachment to this discernment
b. or no attachment
Another example of translation of viññāṇa as “discernment” to see if it makes sense:
As long as discernment remains, it would remain involved with form, supported by form, founded on form. And with a sprinkle of relishing, it would grow, increase, and mature.
Or discernment would remain involved with feeling …
Or discernment would remain involved with perception …
Or discernment would remain involved with choices, supported by choices, grounded on choices. And with a sprinkle of relishing, it would grow, increase, and mature.
Suppose, mendicant, you were to say: ‘Apart from form, feeling, perception, and choices, I will describe the coming and going of discernment, its passing away and reappearing, its growth, increase, and maturity.’ That is not possible.
If a mendicant has given up greed for the form element, the support is cut off, and there is no foundation for discernment.
If a mendicant has given up greed for the feeling element …
perception element …
choices element …
discernment element, the support is cut off, and there is no foundation for discernment. Since that discernment does not become established and does not grow, with no power to regenerate, it is freed.
Being free, it’s stable. Being stable, it’s content. Being content, they’re not anxious. Not being anxious, they personally become parinibbāyati.
They understand: ‘Rebirth is ended … there is no return to any state of existence.’
The ending of the defilements is for one who knows and sees this.”
2 Likes
You might be right. Thanks
I agree that he taught a knowing beyond something fragmented, and viññāna probably primarily refers to awareness of something, but it can be difficult to figure out exactly how with translation problems and such.
How do you see this in relationship with dependent origination?
Do you believe that DO is referring to only overly engaged awareness?
If we look at just the regular order,
choices are a condition for viññāna,
which is a condition for name and form,
which is a condition for a sense channel,
which is a condition for contact,
and then sensation.
But how could it work like this?
Is this process exactly the same for enlightened and unenlightened? The difference is that enlightened never has desire next, and unenlightened sometimes does, which is what I’ve seen many teachers say. Would viññāna be the same for them both? Or do unenlightened specifically have this undirected and fragmented? Or do they have viññāna which knows stuff (wrongly) as permanent, not suffering, and self.
Choices conditioning consciousness could imply that it is (somewhat) directed, but the directing is done so often to the point it may seem undirected and out of control. Choices aren’t in control, but they do change things based around cycles. If I make a choice, consciousness certainly follows based on this choice, but I think my choices over time adding up also shape where consciousness goes.
What’s interesting is that consciousness comes before sensation, and I think this still supports that viññāna does include or imply general awareness. There must be some (physical) interaction in some sensory organ, light hitting eye or vibration in ear, and consciousness goes to know it as whatever it is, then the name or form of that something is picked up (color, pitch) in some sense channel. When the sense organ, sense knowing, and sense object are here, then we have contact and there is sensation.
This means that in order to sense, there was knowing or viññāna before, at least in the context of dependent origination.
This sensation can condition more knowing of course, but I’ve seen the view that “we can sense without knowing it”, but dependent origination seems to contradict that if viññāna does mean knowing. Perhaps the mind picks up things we aren’t aware of (“subconscious”), but these just aren’t sensed from knowing.
And all of this also still applies to the 6th sense channel, such as the knowing of sensation, perception, mental formations, or intention.
I don’t see what else could (sañña?), and I haven’t seen any word or text to describe the difference except for maybe when “knowing rightly / wrongly” is discussed. I think there’s also knowing in the general sense of “having a view” or wisdom, which isn’t really momentary awareness but something more static, so that is why there was the talk of the relationship between wisdom and consciousness.
Also I think “being conscious / awake” is just a very general or colloquial term which implies some being which is aware of different things in general, and it’s where we got the term "conscious"ness, but I feel like it evolved to mean whatever being awake itself implies, which could be many things in English such as general momentary awareness over time or even sentience. And without this awareness, we would go unconscious, unable to react to the world around or within us (which could be deep meditation).
If it doesn’t apply, then that’s excellent, it was just one comment in that sutta and I only meant to include it just in case, while my main point was to show that the suttas recognize the complexities around knowing and that it should be understood in a certain way.
You are right that people should investigate viññāna/awareness/knowing/consciousness deeply, since it is how all of one’s life works, and a lot of people ignore it for some reason, but as that sutta and other ones say, consciousness should be understood (to be truly happy).
Nice.
I very much like the difference between vinnana that becomes established and not.
It is all about mind or knowing ofcourse.
Estalishes knowing as a discernment of this or that (red, blue, tree, bush, man, woman) or not.
The sutta’s say that vinnana cognises… and some believe that this means that there is no other way of cognising then sensing something. Only a discernment of pleasure, pain, neutral or sour, sweet, etc. These examples the sutta’s give for the cognizance of vinnana. But does it really mean there is only this kind of knowing? Only a knowing engaged with senses? I do not think so.
That is not accurate to say, accurate to say would be the suttas say with English translation translating viññāṇa as consciosness and viññāṇanti as cognise:
It’s called consciousness because it cognizes.
‘Vijānāti vijānātī’ti kho, āvuso, tasmā viññāṇanti vuccati.And what does it cognize? Kiñca vijānāti? It cognizes ‘pleasure’ and ‘pain’ and ‘neutral’.
Sukhantipi vijānāti, dukkhantipi vijānāti, adukkhamasukhantipi vijānāti.
But even the suttacentral dictionary has the entry for
Vijānāti SuttaCentral
to have discriminative (dis = vi˚) knowledge
But translation with viññāṇa as discernment and viññāṇanti as discern states:
It’s called discernment because it discerns.
‘Vijānāti vijānātī’ti kho, āvuso, tasmā viññāṇanti vuccati.And what does it discern?
Kiñca vijānāti?It discerns ‘pleasure’, it discerns ‘pain’, it discerns ‘neutral’.
Sukhantipi vijānāti, dukkhantipi vijānāti, adukkhamasukhantipi vijānāti.
1 Like
Hi.
I believe words like mind, vinnana, mentallity, all refer to knowing, but knowing with a different taste or quality. A different kind of knowing. If the mind relates to something or someone with a mentallity of hate, that is ofcourse very different from knowing that something or person free from that mentallity.
When vinnana’s is used in the sutta’s that almost always refers to a knowing of something sensed. Knowing connected and engaged with the senses. (probably anidasanna vinnana not).
This is called established vinnana.
Thanks for the invitation.
First of all, I do not see sankhara’s as choices. Or at least not conscious ones. But sankhara’s in PS for me refer to those subconscious formations that lead the mind to its first or initial engagement. As it were the first moments in which mind becomes oriented or directed towards something. Avijja rules this. But this is something subconsciousnessly happening and not our choice.
When the first orientation or direction start to arise in the mind because of avijja and sankhara’s, that also becomes the condition for vinnana’s to establish in the mind. Without an intial direction or orientation in the mind, vinnana cannot establish. So first there must be some orientation starting to develop in the mind. This is conditioned by avijja and sankhara together. Then vinnana can establish.
The nidana’s of name and form, sense channels, contact, sensation, all refer to the situation that vinnana’s have now established. In other words: Mind, from being in a state of bare undifferentiated awareness, yet without direction and orientation (uninclined), has now entered into as state of sensing something, feeling something specific. So from being without direction, undirected, it has become with direction, directed upon something. It feels something.
This is like a proces of coarsening. While the mind is now in state of sensing something, contacting something, feeling something, this gives rise to emotions, like, dislike, desires.
Being habitually repulsed by painful contacts, being attracted to pleasant contacts, being indifferent towards neutral contacts.
This whole situation may be fed by careless or unwise conscious attention or not. Only here is a real choice. With the instruction of the Buddha we can choice for wise and unwise attention here.
This is the phase where the mind can or cannot feed the way it engages with sense-contacts. It can feed repulsion, it can feed like, it can feed indifference…or not. But if it feeds that (upadana)
this feeding leads to an even greater aggregation or coarsening process. Even into certain states of mind or existence (bhava). The mind can become animal like or even hellish or deva like. It depends.
Ofcourse this total construct also will decay again. This is resteless, not peaceful at all. This constant constructing and deconstructing. But constructing is like coarsening and in this sense PS descibes a coarsening process and that same coarsening also represents dukkha.
At the base of this construction and coarsening lay avijja and sankhara. Because those together lead to the first moments mind start to become directed, oriented upon something. Those are the first conditions for vinnana to establish (not the same as to arise). And from there all develops further.
This can be applied to this life many.
The more uncareful attention we give to sense contacts in this life, the more we feed the subconscious tendencies, i.e. the formations that cause the initial directing of the mind towards…
When mind is purified to a degree that no habitual initial engagement and direction arises anymore, vinnana’s will not establish anymore in the mind. They arise but not establish, or land anymore.
Perceptions and feelings do not land but come and go. The total flavour of mind is now peace and freedom, while there are also vinnana’s arising and ceasing.
This can be applied to this very life and many lifes.
The combination of avijja and sankhara i see as the arising of the first or initial subconscious directing or orientation of the mind. …and from there on all develops further.
When this does not happen anymore mind is secluded. There is seeing, hearing etc. but not engagement with it. This also means: it does not develop anymore to the stage that minds knowing capacity becomes scattered over the 6 sense domains. So, the arahant still sees, hears but not in a way that the mind really is engaged in the sense-domains. In fact mind is now undirected and uninclined.
When all avijja and sankhara’s are gone, this means that no direction or orientation will arise in the mind again. At least not out of drift, habits, subconsciously. In this life but also after death it is impossible for vinnana to establish.
I believe a pure knowing remains, the citta. It cannot be traced.
Can you live with this?
I hope this threat helps us to understand the concept of vinnana.
Some more reflection on this
I believe, there are only 2 situations:
- mind is undirected, empty, open, desireless, uninclined, without limits, untraceble, extremely subtle
- in mind direction arises, an orientation, it becomes limited, with passion, inclines towards, traceble, felt, coarsening
This development is described by Paticca Samuppada.
Avijja and sankhara’s are the conditions that cause that the natural state of mind as undirected, uninclined, signless, desireless, subtle, open, unlimited as it were, becomes violated. Due to avijja and sankhara in mind a direction develops, an inclination. It tends to direct towards something that stirrs the mind. But at that moment that what stirrs is not at all known yet in a conscious way.
This initial development of a direction in the mind becomes the condition for vinnana’s to establish.
The mind develops in stages now to a feeling and perception stage of something particular.
It starts to become involved in the senses. Pleasant, painful or neutral contacts now arise. This an sich is already burdening the mind. Even when neutral vedana’s arise. Because this is an coarsening process from a mind that was extremely subtle and not felt, into a mind that now has developed the coarseness of vedana’s. Whatever vedana that is a burden.
Vinnana’s/vedana’s do not establish in the mind without some element of engagement (MN28). That is very important, i believe. Buddha talked about this engagement in terms of asava, tanha, anusaya.
A mind in which vinnana’s do not establish because it does not develop direction, inclinations, engagement, is like empty space. It is describes in AN10.81. Its limits or boundaries cannot be found. It is detached from vinnana’s. Detached here means, i believe, they still arise but do not establish or land anymore in the subtle openess of mind.
If a lightbeam would fall trough a window in emptiness it would not find anything to establish on. No walls. It finds no footing. I believe, the same for the mind that does not engage. It is subtle, empty and open and vinnana’s cannot find a footing.
The burden on the mind arises because of establishment of vinnana due to engagement which at the same time describes a coarsening proces.
Viññāna is a conditional process, not a thing. The process, in the suttas, always involves being aware of something, even in the formless attainments.
This is in contrast to saññāvedayitnirodha in which consciousness temporarily ceases.
In no sutta is it ever taught that there is another kind of consciousness or awareness that remains while in this state – which would be a perfect time to realize and experience this, if it were so.
The non-landing of the beam of light simile can be seen as a mind free of greed, anger, and ignorance not landing anywhere in terms of attachment in the present and especially not landing in any rebirth.
The consciousness of an awakened one, since the senses and aggregates are still present, is still a process of cognizing, although without defilements – not a free-floating awareness of nothing at all.
There’s a lot of very helpful information about this in:
@Jasudho , i feel some need for a bit meta-communication and this is not meant to offend you but to describe how i experience the contact between me and you.
Why do we not meet from heart to heart?
You only seem to have an eye for an engaging awareness, i.e. an awareness pulled towards a sense domain and that becomes aware of something specific in that domain. It even seems like you want to make me believe that Buddha did not teach another awareness then an awareness pulled towards to senses? (pulled towards is just used as an expression!)
I very much disagree. Buddha taught an awareness that is not pulled anymore towards the senses, that does not engage, that has lost all inclinations to do this. This awareness is at ease, secluded, peaceful, stable, untracable, subtle, unburdened. One can also say: this awareness of mind functions like a mirror. It reflects everything as it is. But never becomes engaged
I feel we cannot really continue our discussion if your message remains that there is only awareness pulled towards senses, engaged with senses, only sensing this or that. We must finds some shared ground here. I feel.
Are you really not open at all to acknowledge an awareness that is not pulled towards the senses, that is different from an awareness of a visual, smell, taste etc? If you are really not open to this at all, i do not exactly know how we can continue. But I hope we meet eachother.
Actually, I’m not trying to make you believe anything. 
I don’t see the discussions on this forum as win-lose contests or as a way of convincing anyone of anything.
I see it as a place to exchange ideas and different interpretations of the suttas, hopefully for the benefit of everyone who chooses to participate – even when disagreements remain.
In line with this, I’m asking if you’re willing to answer why no suttas in which there is the temporary cessation of consciousness and experience, saññāvedayitnirodha , ever mention the persistence of any “awareness not pulled towards the senses” as you put it.
Whenever this state is mentioned, it is never stated that any other awareness persisted or was still present and “uncovered”, or of any other remaining awareness at all.
If the consciousness that is attached or pulled towards the senses has ceased, then the awareness that you’re asserting should be clearly present and experienced in this state.
But sutta teaching ever says this.
There’s no hostility here. Just asking how you respond to this.
2 Likes
The sabhāva of viññāṇa is cognition.
Are you saying they are synonyms? I guess you use “sabhāva” as provocation? Considering that viññāṇa is empty of essence how can it be said to have sabhāva? I confess, I read many of your posts lately @Ceisiwr as playful provocations 
And that points to the answer as I understand it: the nature of vinnana is empty as no essence can be found when looked for. This thread seems devoted to the idea of a self-knower or reflexive self-awareness. That too cannot be found and is paradoxical by definition. What’s interesting is the paradoxical definition is of a kind with the inference of the experience of the end of experience which the OP of this thread disagrees with. 
The OP asked what the nature of viññāṇa is. It cognises.
Yes, it was your usage of the word "sabhāva” as a loaded term that piqued my curiosity. Sure, the function of viññāṇa is knowing or cognition. Which isn’t to say it has any substantial essence of knowing as I’m pretty sure we agree.
Hi,
First some introduction, because i feel that cannot miss in answering this:
If mind is still defiled, habitually and subconsciously an inclination towards the senses arises. There arises a certain engagement. Sense contacts arise (there are not always sense contacts) and this also comes with a certain sensation (vedana) to be neutral, painful or pleasant. So, this describes how a defiled mind functions.
A purified mind just does not instinctively incline and engage anymore with the senses. This is the meaning of detachment. Ofcourse we must discover for ourselves what this is, right? Buddha describes it as a sublime state of supreme peace, Nibbana, and i do not doubt that.
From the perspective of a defiled functioning mind, above described, mind is understood as a stream of alternating sense moments. Alternatingly engaging with visuals, smells, plans, thoughts, etc.
From a defiled perspective awareness seemingy arises and ceasing. This is not true. Only awareness-of-something specifically sensed arises and ceases.
For example, mindful you follow the breath, but suddenly some plan arises and the mind inclines towards that plan, engages with it, contacts it, and now mano vinnana has established. You are now thinking in stead of mindful aware of the breath. This is how a defiled mind operates. As a monkey mind. Habitually driven towards this and that sense. This is the fettering Buddha saw, the unfreedom, slavery , untamedness but also how it becomes burdened due to this constant engagement.
From this defiled perspective mind looks like a monkey alternatingly grasping this and that. From this perspective mind looks like a stream of different sense- vinnana’s, sense moments. We have always looked upon mind from this wrong, defiled and distorted perspective. We have failed to understand the true nature of mind. We have failed to see that a pure mind functions very different. We need a Buddha to makes us see and understand that mind is only perceived as a stream of vinnana when it is defiled.
Buddha talkes about pure mind. This awareness does not habitually inclines anymore towards the senses,. Buddha describes it as: unloaded, unburdened, not directed, signless, desireless, empty, peaceful, untracable. Now the fires have extinguished, Nibbana.
An awareness that does not habitually and subconsciously become engaged with senses is secluded and is not experiences as a stream of alternating sense moments. It is never seen as arising and ceasing nor changing. It is stable, constant, and cannot be traced.
That all said:
Sannavedayitanirodha is probably with a purpose not called just vinnana-nirodha. I know for sure, and the sutta’s are also clear about this, in no jhana awareness disappears. Ín all jhana there is the ability to perceive. I also do not know why it would disappear in svn.
The point seems to be: in any jhana there is still an awareness-of-something…of a purified mindfulness, of certain formations still being present, of endless vinnana, or ‘there is nothing’. This to a point that one can hardly say anymore there is still an-awareness-of-something. (the last arupja jhana). This is like saying…this is at the boundary of cognition.
The next phase, i believe, most logically is that awareness stands on it own. But this does not mean that there is still sensing going on. But now mind is fully immersed in her knowing nature. Become one with this, as it were. Not only Maha Boowa describes this but i have seen many buddhist teachers describe this state that awareness has arrived at itself, as it were.
One can doubt if it is really useful for a teacher to give words to all this. There are many buddhist teachers that do not reveal or speak of all this because they feel that is not conducive to the goal at all. People must find out for themselves what this and that is, and intellectual knowledge might even be a hindrance because it gives rise to desires and expactions which in themselves hinder that one will see what the teachers have seen.
There is no sutta that states that sannavedaytinirodha is without awareness. Probably the composers of the sutta’s could not even imagine that people would make such strange conclusions that in jhana or svn suddenly all ability to know ceases and there is some blacking out etc.
What is even the use of all this? Every day we become unconscious but that does not lead to any wisdom, skill, purification.
But if one can see the nature of mind as it is, not self, empty, a knowing essence, no ego at all, then at least that can uprooot all last sense a “me or I knowing and experiencing this or that”.
So would Theravada, since they deny substance too.
This is merely by way of speech because in reality there is no difference between cognising-, the moment we become aware of something via the senses-, and a moment that a sense-vinnana establishes or manifest.
But most important, i feel is:
Sense-vinnana’s only establish with engagement as condition. Even when some sight comes in range of the eye, if there is no element of interest or engagement of mind, eye-vinnana does not establish.
Reverends, though the eye is intact internally, so long as exterior sights don’t come into range and there’s no corresponding engagement, there’s no manifestation of the corresponding type of consciousness. Though the eye is intact internally and exterior sights come into range, so long as there’s no corresponding engagement, there’s no manifestation of the corresponding type of consciousness. But when the eye is intact internally and exterior sights come into range and there is corresponding engagement, there is the manifestation of the corresponding type of consciousness. (MN28)
But this never mean that when such a moment of eye-vinnana does not establish you are blind. No, it only means that whatever is seen, your eye and mind are not caught by it.
In fact, the manifestation or establishing of different sense vinnana’s, refer a constant changing engagement. A monkey mind. A mind constant jumping from this to that, caught by this, caught by that. Most of the time this is what is refered to as vinnana. It almost always includes engagement.