The Nature of Vinnana?

The Watercooler
63

Great. Thanks for sharing. I think apperception is also not really bad for vinnana?

For myself i have understood that the mere fact of seeing, hearing etc does not imply that i am consciously aware of what i see, nor have i labelled what i see, have given it is a name etc. This only happens when my eye is caught by something. Seeing things also does not mean that there is sense-contact and a feeling. But the moment my eye is caught by something all that arises. But mind is fundamentally an openess and not differentiated.

I have come to see that the sutta’s only call eye, ear…mind caught moments the moments that vinnana really manifest itself or establishes in the mind (MN28). These are moments that the attention of the mind has becomes grasped by something seen, heard etc. Those are always loaded moments.
Eye-, ear,…mind are never caught by what is seen, heard etc, without an element of engagement of interest that the mind has.

What is this interest? It is passion or volition on its must fundamental level. To make it graphical: When there is some impact on the senses, it is for the mind like someone knocks on the sense-door. The mind has in endless lifes build up a natural habit to incline towards the sense-doors. This has become an instinct. It wants to see what guest presents itself. It recognise it as this and that guest (sanna), shake its hand (phassa touch, load), that comes with a certain feeling or sensation (vedana) and mind also tends to judge about the guest. Some guest are liked, some not, some leave the mind indifferent. Some are welcomed, some not.

But this all does not describe the pure nature of mind, which is an openesss, unburdended. But it describes how a defiled mind for long instinctively functions. Avijja rules over this.
Only a defiled mind is still inclined to engage with sense object and shake the hands of the guests. It habitually does. For so long that it has become an instinct to incline towards what knocks on the door.

Example: You follow the breath, a certain memory of that day arises, and the mind instinctively inclines towards that arising memory… It grasps it. Now you are not following the breath but thinking about what happened that day. An example of how the mind instinctively inclines towards what presents itself at a sense door. It is not a choice.

A pure mind does not function this way. It does not only not judge the guests anymore, welcoming them or not welcoming them, it has no interest in them at all. But this is not a reaction of indifference upon what is sensed! Not at all. It expresses that mind does not inclinate anymore towards the senses instinctively. Avijja is now ruled out as anusaya. Avijja support the most rudimaintatry form of passion or volitional which is this inclination towards what is sensed.

If you look at all this, it very normal that when something has become consciously aware (vinnana has now established) there is always: some element of cetana in that, some element of samadhi, sense-contact, vedana, sanna, manasikara. But does not mean at all! that this is always present in the mind.
But it is always present in any eye-, ear-, …mind caught moment, any moment we are consciously aware of something.

When there is merely seeing, hearing etc there is dispassion. There is now still seeing, hearing etc. but no eye, ear --mind catching moments anymore that graps the attention of the mind.
Mind is now extremely subtle, untraceble, pliant, empty, open.

In this context i believe it is also wrong to say that vinnana is neutral, like @Martin thinks. Vinnana’s are loaded. They arise based upon avijja and sankhara. They are loaded with experiences in endless lifes. In fact they are karmically loaded. Paticca Samuppada also expresses this.

64

I also understand it this way.

Please look into this. Seeing does not at all mean that something has caught your eye and your attention is fixed upon it and you are engaged with it. Seeing is not the same as being caught by the seen. Read also MN28, even when things come into the range of the eye…this does NOT mean eye vinnana’s manifest or establish. Only when the mind has interest in it and there is, as it were, also a subconscious will to engage. See also reaction to @am7.

It is not that vinnana only knows, it also knows things in a certain way, and one cannot seperate all this from eachother. Vinnana is not neutral but it refers to an engaged knowing situation.

Not at all. When vinnana’s establish that is always based upon avijja and karmically loaded formations. This is true for sense vinnana’s and also rebirth vinnana. See PS.

Please, before commenting read about the difference between vinnana’s that arise and establish because there is a huge difference.

You cannot seperate it like the sutta’s say. This is also true. One must not think about vinnana as neutral knowing. It is already loaded with avijja and kamma because that is its condition to establish.

It is detected there because the 6 th sense is connected with the brain. If a memory arises, a plan, thoughts, certain tendency, this is received by the mental sense and we experience this in the head.

For most people the stream of mano-vinnana;'s are considered mind and their lives. If there is some illness in the brain, or some problem, one will immediately see mano-vinnana’s change. There is a strong relation with the brain.

65

IMO,

Vinnana is the process of Knowing that arises in dependence on the process of Nama (viz the Processing of Information) and the changing process of Rupa (viz physical Form which is always deforming and which in turn supports, and is supported by Nama), with the changes of Nama - Rupa being the object known by the Knowing (Vinnana) which creates the illusion of a Subject viz Self.

When Everything, ie all processes cease - even space/time (the World) - what’s left?

Whatever it is, with the cessation of all processes, every way of description is ended too.

But its not Nothing.

Because, when the processes restart - Everything appears again! Especially Suffering…

OK, I’m done with my mystical contribution of the day! :joy: :blush:

66

@Green I think I understand where you are coming from but I also think that you have missed the point about Vinnana. Thousands upon thousands of Citta/Vinnana moments occur in every second. Most of these DON’T register in what we would call our “consciousness”. This is where we need to be careful about terminology. Objects that reach our “normal” conscious mind have experienced thousands of Vinnana moments before they get there. When I talk about Vinnana, I am referring to it in its fundamental state, not what we call consciousness in the conventional world. At the fundamental level, a sense conscious Citta/Vinnana arises immediately after sense doors have been scanned for input. Such contact is only acted on if Sanna and Sankhara like what they see. Then, the processing around that object is intensified and magnified. I think this is what you are getting at, yes?

Vinnana is neutral but Sankhara and Sanna are not. Sanna is governed by past Kamma and Sankhara creates new Kamma. Because all Khandha arise and fall together, it may appear that Vinnana is not neutral, but it is. It would be fair to say that the Citta is not neutral because the Citta is all the Khandha at work. When that work cleanses Sankhara of the Kilesa, then the Citta becomes neutral.

Again, I think you are confusing Vinnana with the western view of consciousness. When Vinnana arise, unless you have very strong Samadhi and Sati, you won’t/cann’t even notice them - they are really subtle. The level of consciousness to which you are referring is a million times removed from this level of subtlety. By the time you are conscious of an object at the “eye catching” level, Sanna and Sankhara have already spun their web of deception around the experience.

Vinnana arises in the Citta. It is a Nama Dhamma. The Citta has no physical location. The notion that the brain is the seat of thinking is an illusion.

I will end with the following quote from Ashin Tejaniya:

The knowing mind (Vinnana) is the mind that cognises whatever comes to the sense doors. It is always present but it can neither recognise nor interpret; it has no wisdom, no understanding of what is going on. The knowing mind simply senses objects

I can put it no better myself so I will end my contribution here.

67

I believe that IF something has got your attention, or less personal, has got the attention of the mind, this is not a neutral state. Whatever has become object of attention is already loaded with volitional activity. It is based upon avijja and sankhara’s. The mind cannot land upon something without an element of engagement.

Buddha called this the first arrow. Arrow. I believe it is never like this that there is a first moment of becoming consciously aware of something that is not an arrow. This landing of vinnana and vedana is the first arrow. Based upon what is felt, a second arrow arises. Those are the dark feelings that come with reactions as dislike, hate.

Therefor also any establishing vedana and vinnana represents some element of dukkha. We can talk about nice feelings but from an awakened perspective even nice feelings, any feeling is a weight, a burden. I fact, because establishing vinnana’s come also with vedana’s, that is the burden they bring to the mind.

To feel something is a burden. That is also why Sariputta said that when nothing is felt (so no vinnana’s/vedana establish) that is bliss. This is, i’m quit sure, not a state of unawareness but totally open awareness. Non-engaging awareness, not inclining towards senses. In an empty openess things can arise but nothing can establish, take root.

Not all knowing is also felt. But the knowing of vinnana is always felt.

I think that even the first arrow can be removed. There is an escape.

I think Buddhist have always been in debate on this. Even now there are buddhist that believe one cannot escape the first arrow while alive, and others who are sure it can and their masters did. They seem be able to abide in a state in which perception and feeling are just not able to land, establish. A total empty openess. Often they have all kind of wondrous powers too. i have faith in that dimension.

I also believe it is a mistake to believe that Buddha ever meant that mind is a stream of alternating sense moments (vinnana’s). He only meant: from the perspective of delusion this is what mind seems to be.

1 Like
68

@Green For clarification, you have proposed your own thinking/ideas/feeling about this matter. Now, can you give a situation or a kind of event or a personal experience that can prove that you were wrong? In other words, under what circumstance, under what condition that you can ever admit that “I was wrong”?

If you can not imagine or think of such a case where your idea/feeling/thinking can be proven wrong, is this not a kind of clinging that can only bring fruitless debate? In other words, you came into a discussion with a stance “I can not be convinced to be wrong, no matter what”, so when other people try to convince you, they are just wasting their time, fruitless.

69

IMHO in the practical side it is not so complicated because whatever distinction able to differentiate vinnana from nibbana is useful. Without necessity to stress very much the philosophical side.

If there is a wish to stress the philosophical side, a first source can be the AN 5.95. There we find a proto-abhidhamma about this issue, which was later expanded in the Patisambhidammagga and also the Vibhanga.
There is an useful Nanamoli introduction about vinnnana inside “The Path of Discrimination”. This Abhidhamma stuff is very useful to get many details for the reason, although at least I believe this is not necessary in practical terms. Or maybe it could be a personal issue to pacify the own doubts and the reason.

In a general way, vinnana was used by the Buddha to identify the movements of knowledge (cognitions) towards the atta realities. In the History of Buddhism, this issue frequently has been illustrated with the metaphor of a mirror. One can think in nibbana and the Reality (and also its D.O. chain) like a description of what happens in a mirror.

While there is ignorance about there is a mirror, the things are taken to be substantial, “real”. And all what happens in the mirror will be known like atta, and then also according the D.O., starting from that first Ignorance.

If we define “knowledge” like the nature able to realize what is manifest, in the mirror there are two types of activities:
-First, there is the own nature of the mirror (anissadadam ) which is always stilled, just reflecting the Reality as it is (anatta).
-And there is also a second type of activity (vijnnana) which are the movements towards the things in the mirror as if the things were substantial(atta), “real” things.

At the very moment when the second activity cease, only the first type will remain. Although is difficult to name it “Consciousness” because the Buddha named “Consciousness” to the second type of activity: the knowledge of substantial entities.

The metaphor of a mirror to show that difference has been frequent in all the Buddhist History. In example, we can read how the Buddha used the mirror metaphor to illustrate the grasping of atta and the arising of -self delusion:

“Just as if a young woman - or a man — youthful, fond of adornment, contemplating the image of her face in a mirror, pure & bright, or in a bowl of clear water, would look with possessiveness, not without possessiveness. In the same way, through possessiveness of form there is “I am,” not without possessiveness. Through possessiveness of feeling… perception… fabrications… Through possessiveness of consciousness there is “I am,” not without possessiveness.”
- SN 22.83

In the Mahayana tradition there is the famous Platform Sutra, explaining the “two properties” (atta/anatta) of the nature of knowledge. This was a source of discussions around 2 different practical approaches:

The body is the tree of the awakening;
The mind is like a clear mirror.
Be unceasingly diligent in wiping and polishing it
So that it will be without dust.

Awakening entails no tree at all,
Nor does the clear mirror entail any material frame.
The Buddha-nature is eternally pure;
Where could there be any dust?
- Platform Sutra

Although this is an universal issue not restricted to Buddhism. In example, in the Upanisad:

Just as an unreal image
Is reflected in a mirror,
The one mind, reflected in the mirror of its own perfumings,
Is seen by the ignorant as a duality.
- Svetasvatara Upanishad

and in Islam:

“Imagine an oxidized metal mirror, with rust covering its surface, its clarity obscured, unable to register our images. Normally a mirror is able to receive images and reflect them just as they are, but whoever wishes to restore this mirror must carry out two tasks. He must first wipe and polish it, so as to remove the rust which does not belong there. Then he has to position the mirror in front of the object which he wants to be reflected. Thus the human soul has the capacity to become a mirror which can at any time be oriented to the true”
-Al-Ghazzali

and in Christianity:

"Now we see in effect by a mirror, enigmatically; but then, it will be face to face.
Now I know partially; but then, I will know as I have been known."
- St. Paul

At least I understand the use of vinnana was applied by the Buddha in a general way to the knowledge of the substantial atta reality. In contraposition with its anatta aspect, the anissadadam anatta nature after the Cease of Consciousness.

This is not just a Buddhist doctrinal thing but an universal issue about the mind and the nature of knowledge. It has been checked by many people through the Times, with different depths and beliefs. And also we find the differences to explain the final nature of that mirror and then also about the liberation.
Anyway, it is good keeping in mind these two aspects to facilitate the understanding of vinnana.

Hope it helps,

2 Likes
70

Is it all so bad what i say? I study the sutta’s, reflect upon them, connect it also with my own experience. What more can i do? I have not seen any critque based upon the sutta’s.

Buddha instructs us to understand the nature of vinnana right? For myself i have come to see how important this is. But it makes no sense at all, for me, to start to talk about the nature of vinnana as something that arises and ceases in a rythm of thousand of more per second. That is theory. No person sees and knows such things. This does not at all lead to understanding of vinnana, i feel, but at best it upholds some theory of mind. I am not interested in that.

I regret that people see the establising of vinnana as the moment that some neutral state of knowing of somethig arises. Vinnana in the contexts of the sutta’s is not some objective mirroring of what is. But when vinnana’s establish and things become felt, that is allready based upon the fact that something caught the attention, and the mind has become inclined towards that and also engages with that in a certain way. Read MN28 and Paticca Samuppada. When something has caught your attention, or the attention of the mind, the result is not neutral. And this is a condition for a sense vinnana to establish.

I believe this is important. Buddha says Vinnana must be understood. In that context i feel this is important. One must NOT see vinnana as neutral. Defilements happens even before something is sensed. It is not a pure state of mind when it has developed into a mind that is now inclined and engaged with the senses and senses alternately this or that, a smell, a taste, an visual.
When the mind has attention for alternately this or that, that is never pure.

When you follow the breath, and a memory arises, and now the mind lands upon that memory, its attention is caught by that…that is not a neutral knowing. It is defiled state. Any such knowing is defiled. Maybe you believe this is all useless to know, i do not. I believe it helps to understand vinnana.

Long before i started this threat i ofcourse knew that people believe that vinnana is neutral and then defilement happens. It is not like that at all. Defilement underlies how the mind is caught by this and that, and makes sense contact with this and that. This is never a choice. It is not ones choice that while following the breath, the attention of mind is suddenly caught by an arising memory. But defilement underlies this proces. Defilement rules this proces.

@HinMarkPeng and probably others to like @Martin believe that first there happens to be a neutral moment of vinnana, like becoming aware of that memory arising. It is not like that. It is defilement that lies at the root of this. Can you see this?

The moment your attention has become caught by something, and you are now actutely aware of what you see, contact has taken place, you recognise it, that is not a neutral moment. Defilement underlies this proces.

This all explains also why the Buddha understood the khandha’s as dukkha, because in fact when the mind has developed into a stage that it senses something specific, then the mind has already become defiled and impure, burdened.

I do not see all this as fruitless but as what contributes to understanding vinnana. That is my hope, at least. It is exactly the idea that initial vinnana is neutral and starts to defiled later, that is wrong. The whole situation is defiled.

I feel my forelast reply was not the best. Because in stead of a first and second arrow i could better say that vinnana and vedana’s establishing that is the first burden. That develops further or becomes even more intense when reactions upon what is felt arise.

If …in the seen is merely what is seen… in the cognized is merely what is cognized, then, Bahiya, you will not be ‘with that.’ When, Bahiya, you are not ‘with that,’ then, Bahiya, you will not be ‘in that.’ When, Bahiya, you are not ‘in that,’ then, Bahiya, you will be neither here nor beyond nor in between the two. Just this is the end of suffering."

This refers to vinnana’s that do no establish. There is just no engagement. No eye-, ear—mind catchings moment take place. Knowing does not become involved with the sense-domains anymore.
Meaning, the mind does not out of inner drifts land upon anything, and does not develop into a feeling state. It remains in a knowing state.

When the mind remains in its natural knowing stage, this is called vinnana-nirodha. It does not mean there is no seeing, no hearing, but the mind does just not incline towards it anymore.

I do not think i am wrong about this, like others often also feel they are not wrong about things they express. But i am open to critique. But not critque that starts from grasping some theory of mind such as taught in Abhidhamma.

Mind, awareness, knowing is just not always involved in senses. This can also be experientially known. This is no theory of mind. Also meaning, knowing is very subtle but the kind of knowing of vinnana is not so subtle.

71

@Green I am trying to help you here, so I will make this one more post.

You like Luang Dta Maha Boowa, so here is what he says Vinnana is:

The conscious acknowledgement of phenomena as they arise and cease is called Viññāna. For instance, Viññāna acknowledges and registers the sense impressions that are produced when sights, sounds, smells, tastes, and tactile sensations contact the eyes, ears, nose, tongue, and body respectively. Each such contact between an external sense sphere and its corresponding internal base gives rise to a specific consciousness that registers the moment at which each interaction takes place, and then promptly ceases at the same moment that the contact passes. Viññāna, therefore, is consciousness as a condition of the citta.

This is what Luang Poo Tate says:

The Viññāna of the five Khandha means the “knowing” that arises with Phassa (sense contact), which then vanishes. For example, the eye sees a form (object). “The one who knows” this form is called Viññāna. After this, Saññā takes over. It recognises the type of form. Saññā then passes away. Sankhāra then jumps in and starts thinking and imagining. The awareness of the form in the first place is called Viññāna Khandha and is one of the 5 Khandha.

"The one who knows” refers to a basic awareness of the object. It does not imply that everything that is known about the object arises at this time.

Just because you cannot see these moments of consciousness does not mean that others cannot. You need strong Samadhi and Sati and the right disposition but it is possible. For you to imply otherwise is a disservice to those who have spent years perfecting this knowledge.

72

I will not deny one’s experience, however, what if someone were to ask you: that which you have came understand as vinnana, is it not mana, and that which is experienced thousands times is it not vedana from phassa from meeting of mana dhamma manoviññāṇaṁ thousands times? In other words, it is a question about terminology. If not, then what is your understanding of mana & dhamma and how would you differentiate them from vinnana.

The reason I’m asking is to clear confusion relating these matters, as for example the dictionary for mana states:

mana
masculine & neuter

  1. mind; consciousness

That makes one think of following theory of translation: mana(mind/consciousness/intellect?) dhamma(though/ideas) manoviññāṇaṁ(mental discrimination) . One observation I see if we were to translate it like this is that now manoviññāṇaṁ can cease but this does not make mana and dhamma cease, it would be replaced with equanimity, still allowing one to think.

73

Yes, but this does not at all describe the establising of sense vinnana’s. When attention is caught by something sensed, there is no mere arising and ceasing of vinnana’s, but an establishing of vinnana.
A landing, a taking root. I try to bring this across but it remains unnoticed.

Vinnana’s can grow, right? But only vinnana’s that establish! Vinnana’s that merely arise and cease cannot grow. For vinnana to grow, it must first establish, take root. It cannot take root when mind is not caught by something.

If the mind alternately engages with this or that sense, and attention is alternately caught by the eye, ear, …mind… that all is based upon defilements. Never mere neutral sense moments. Impossible. The mind that engages with senses, and when its attention is alternaltely caught by this and that, that all is just how defiled mind functions. There is no use to seek purity there.

I feel it very useful to see this difference between vinnana’s arising and ceasing and vinnana’s establising.

I feel this is not really oke. Probably you now give up, and believe i am fool that does not want to listen and is full of conceit. Maybe, i just think on my own. I also believe we all need the trust, the faith to do so.

When our attention is caught by something, i believe, it is never like this that there is first some neutral moment of sensing something, and then sankhara and sanna takes over. Not at all. The moment mind drifts away towards the senses and the knowing becomes connected to the sense, that is conditioned by sankhara’s and avijja. It just means that the attention of the mind has established onto something sensed. It is caught by that.

I understand this situation thus: when vinnana has established, so, our attention is now caught by something, there is always, at the same time:

  • an element of being in touch with something, phassa
  • an element of distinguishing unique characteristics or recognising it as ‘red’ , sour etc., sanna
  • an element of sensation or feeling something, vedana
  • an element of will or volition, that is the element that directs the mind and all its mental factors towards the sensed. For example, the kind of volition of anusaya. When the mind becomes sensual stimulated also subconsciously volition arises, a tendency to see what knocks on the door, a tendency to connect, engage, cetana.
    There is not only volition that is a reaction upon what is allready sensed, there is also volition that conditions what we sense! Where attention is being caught. It is not accidental where our attention is.
  • an element of being focused upon the sense-object, samadhi
  • an element of alertness and mental attention, manasikara
  • an element of vitality, like the mind is vitalized or stimulated that moment, jivita. I believe this refers to the energy that is brought into the situation by karmically active or energy loaded formations.

Without, vinnana does not establish. All these things cannot be distinguished from a moment that vinnana establishes. Meaning, when our attention is caught by something sensed, all these factors are there too. One cannot seperate all this. So, one must not see it like this that there is first vinnana and then sanna, sankhara, cetana etc. No.

I hope you see the difference between vinnana’s that establish and that merely arise and cease.

74

@am7 Where to start? I think that you are right to assume that much confusion comes from the terminology. This is because terminology is open to interpretation. Because of this it is not easy to overlay one person’s codification of terms over another’s. So, rather than trying to understand what you mean by these terms, I will explain how my teacher, Luang Poo Tate, explained them.

He liked to separate the use of the terms Mano, Citta, Nama, Vinnana in different settings.

Mano, he would colloquially call the Heart. By this term he would mean the originating source of ALL Dhamma (all conditioned and unconditioned phenomena). This is a singularity, beyond the dualistic conventional world of Sammuti. I’ll come back to this later.

Avijja has caused the Heart to break out from its natural state into mental activities, which he termed the Citta. So, the Citta is the active mind, operating in the conventional world and Mano is the natural mind withdrawn from the conventional world.

The workings of the Citta comprises four aggregates, Vedana, Sanna, Sankhara, Vinnana. None of these are the Citta (and not Mano) but, when functioning together, they form the Citta. The Citta is defiled but the defilements are not the Citta. The aggregates, and therefore the Kilesa, are only expressions (conditions) of the Citta.

Nama is just a name for the four Khandha. Vinnana is just one Khandha but, without it, none of the other Khandha exist (are known). Vinnana is “the one who knows”.

If you think of an engine, Nama is the word for engine, Khandha is the word for all the parts of the engine. Citta is the word for the engine running and Mano is the word for the engine at rest.

In Appana Samadhi, the Citta withdraws from the world of Sammuti and becomes a singularity (Ekaggata). The Kilesa are temporarily suspended. This is Mano, but still wraped in Avijja. When the Citta breaks out into Upacara Samadhi, after much practice and strong Sati, SOME people can actually see the rising and passing away of moments of consciousness.

As Vedana cannot be “known” without Vinnana, the arising and passing away is definitely Vinnana and not Vedana - although Vedana is involved because the Khandha arise and pass away simultaneously.

As the Citta with Sati trains the Citta without Sati, Panna arises in the Citta. This has the power to expel the Kilesa. When this happens, all Upadana is gone and pure Citta remains. At parinibbhana, the pure Citta and Mano are indistinguishable.

This explanation may not suit some, and I am not interest in duelling Suttas at twenty paces, but it is the description of Dhamma provide by all the Thai forest teachers that I have practised with.

75

I must add - before anyone says anything - Mano, Citta, Nama, Vinnana, Khandha ARE ALL ANATTA. THEY BELONG TO NO ONE AND ARE NOT UNDER THE CONTROL OF ANY ENTITY!!!

1 Like
76

I believe, we cannot be not in a state of Mano.
The heart is always our home. There is never ever really no singularity.
That is the whole clue, i feel

The singularity has never ever been broken.
A wave might think it lives its own life seperate from the sea, that is just its delusional view.
Singularity or Mano can only seem broken. This is the distorted vision defilements cause.
Even when there is grasping and full identification with body and mind, this all never leaves the realm of the Heart. It is never like this that avijja makes the Heart disappear or leads to a real break with the Heart.

77

Thank you for the detailed explanation and sharing on how you understand these different yet often similarly translated terms.

It won’t be easy for one to understand all of what was said, thus I won’t be able to comment on most of it.

One difference in terminology that I noticed is in defining Nama as four Khandas, and not as: Vedanā, saññā, cetanā, phasso, manasikāro (MN9)

I too am not intereted in duelling Suttas, and am happy at leaving it at that, unless someone wishes for discussion.

78

I have always felt the heart is a singularity. I am also convinced the Buddha teaches this.

But this:

… has never really happened.

Avijja has not caused this break. Avijja for me means that one believes that this break really happened or happens.

Oke, our views differ. If this means that you feel your wish to help me, is not appreciated by me, i am sorry. If you feel offended i am sorry. If you now ignore me, i am sorry.

I cannot accept the idea that a break from Hearts natural state has ever really happened or even CAN happen.

1 Like
79

(post deleted by аuthor)

1 Like
80

What is this about friend?

81

Indeed, vinnana’s that establish, are the result of a proces in which an inclination, a direction towards the senses first arises. Without this vinnana does not establish. This initial engagement leads to making sense contact, coming with a certain feeling, a recognition of what is sensed. This is also why in any established vinnana there is always an element of volition, cetana.

I feel that is important. This connecting with a sense domain is always something that arises.
BUT this does not means that when this has not yet arisen we are unconscious, agreed?

The mind of an awakened one is described in SN22.53 for example:

Bhikkhus, if a bhikkhu has abandoned lust for the form element, with the abandoning of lust the basis is cut off: there is no support for the establishing of consciousness. If he has abandoned lust for the feeling element … for the perception element … for the volitional formations element … for the consciousness element, with the abandoning of lust the basis is cut off: there is no support for the establishing of consciousness.

“When that consciousness is unestablished, not coming to growth, nongenerative, it is liberated. By being liberated, it is steady; by being steady, it is content; by being content, he is not agitated. Being unagitated, he personally attains Nibbāna. He understands: ‘Destroyed is birth, the holy life has been lived, what had to be done has been done, there is no more for this state of being.’”

Consciousness is here described as unestablished in this very life and also as steady. I believe ‘steady’ here refers to:…not a stream of alternating sense moments… because that cannot be steady.
When our attention is constant drawn towards this and that sense domain that, ofcourse is not a steady mind.
So the mind of an awakened one does not develop into a mind engaging in the senses. Attention is not being caught by this or that sense.

It is not hard to imagine this right? We can all understand, in practice, in real life, now mind is steady. Why can we know this? Because we know this situation. Even the mind of us is not always in state of estbalished vinnana, with attention grasped by something.

Even I, defiled to the bone, know that there is a difference between seeing and being caught by something seen. Same for other 5 senses. It is never like this that anyones mind is constant being caught by something. I feel this is not speculative but visible here and now.

Anyway, the mind of an awakened one, or rather a mind without tendencies to engage (anusaya) cannot develop to a point that attention is instinctively caught by something, and sense vinnana establishes.

This mind of an awakened one is not anymore a monkey mind, instinctively (habitually) connecting with this and that sense-object. In a definitive sense. It is free, freed from that.

The sutta’s call this ‘vinnana does not establishes now’. Ofcourse there is still seeing, hearing, etc.

Indeed. This describes a mind that in this very life is without tendencies to land on anything sensed.
it does not land on rupa, not on vedana, not on sankara’s, not on sanna’s. When this is arrived at, the mind knows: rebirth is ended. Seems very reasonable to me.

Here you are becoming uncareful, i feel. The Buddha really describes something that is unsupported.
Not only that…he describes this as the end of suffering:

“There is, mendicants, that dimension where there is no earth, no water, no fire, no wind; no dimension of infinite space, no dimension of infinite consciousness, no dimension of nothingness, no dimension of neither perception nor non-perception; no this world, no other world, no moon or sun. There, mendicants, I say there is no coming or going or remaining or passing away or reappearing. It is not established, does not proceed, and has no support. Just this is the end of suffering.” (Ud8.1)

That people believe this must refer to a mere cessation after a last death??? That is extremely farfetched, i believe.

There is also no need to ridiculize things and use words like free-floating awareness.
I think there will come a time that also scientist will see that awareness is not some result of cognition (that is awareness of something), result of brain, a result of a proces, something that has evolved in time, but something that lies at the fundaments of life itself. A basic element. Not emerging from matter but a basic thing. This is also, i believe, what the Citta of Maha Boowa means. On this level we are talking about awareness as a basic element of life. Something that also cannot be destroyed.

82

Coming back to this. Yes, i have come to see that this referes to established vinnana.
So when your attention is caught by something seen, eye vinnana establishes and can also grow.
An eye vinnana establishing is a different situation then an eye-vinnana arising.
The difference is the difference between resp. being caught by something seen, and seeing.

When a sense vinnana has established, the following conditions are always met:

  • sense-contact (phassa), a touch
  • awareness of a certain object of the senses
  • recognition, and an ability to distinguish sour from sweet, red from blue etc. (sanna)
  • because of touch there is also a vedana experienced as pleasant, unpleasant and neutral
  • an element of kamma activity, cetana
  • an element of focus, samadhi
  • an element of vitaly, energized situation, not cool.
  • an element of attention

Does Buddha teach…there is no other situation, no other awareness but an awareness that is engaged with senses , that feels something?

I see no sutta saying this. He only teaches…IF vinnana establishes those conditions described are met.

The sutta’s really teach how mind can be steady and not become involved in the senses.

Also, it is taught that there can also be these 3 kind of contacts:

“They experience three kinds of contact: emptiness, signless, and undirected contacts.” (MN44)

I believe, here are contacts described that are not of the nature of vedana: not pleasant, not painful, not neutral, not dark (domanassa) nor bright (somannasa).

What do you think of this?