The Nature of Vinnana?

[Green]

"A noble disciple understands vinnana, its origin, its cessation, and the practice that leads to its cessation. But what is vinnana? What is its origin, its cessation, and the practice that leads to its cessation? There are these six classes of vinnana. Eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind vinnana. Vinnana originates from sankhara. Vinnana ceases when sankharas cease. The practice that leads to the cessation of vinnnna is simply this noble eightfold path …”

I think MN9 here contains an explanation of Paticca Samuppada in which vinnana does not refer to rebirth-consciousness but just to the six classes of vinnana, as in above fragment.

I also tend to believe that as well rebirth vinnana as sense-vinnana’s can be meant in PS.

There are also sutta’s that teach that vinnana is dependend on the body, supported by the body (MN77, DN2).

‘This body of mine, made of material form, consisting of the four great elements, procreated by a mother and father, and built up out of boiled rice and porridge, is subject to impermanence, to being worn and rubbed away, to dissolution and disintegration, and this consciousness of mine is supported by it and bound up with it.’ (MN77, Bodhi, Sujato does not translate ‘supported’)

I believe this is true. For, the physical info this is quit obvious. But i believe also for thinking and emotions, tendencies, and even how we perceive ourselves, others, objects.

I see this now very good with my mother who has Alzheimer. She is now not able to see anymore the difference between for example a robot cat and a real cat or a doll and a real baby. She does not recognise herself in a mirror but is sure that is ‘not me, not mine, not my self’ but it is another person she sees. Often she says things like; 'hé there is someone else in the room (seeing herself). She has no awareness of what is mine and that is really not wisdom. She takes away stuff from the room of others and does not experience her room as her room. This all becauses of changes in the brain.

I do not really know if there is anything that we experience that is not somehow related to brain activity. I also read a book that a scientist also believes there is not really something like a mental illness without the brain being ill too. Like depression. He believes it is only matter of time and increasing knowledge that we will see that all mental issues also means there are physical issues.

Anyway, change the state of the brain and changes happen in thinking, emotions, perceptions etc. Even mystical experiences can be triggered.
I do not exactly see yet how to integrate such empirical knowledge with ideas about rebirth.
I know theories but, i do not know.

Anyway, i believe the sutta’s are right that vinnana is supported by the body, also the mind-vinnana’s. That is an undeniable empirical fact i believe.
Are they causes by the brain? At this moment i keep it at…supported by the brain.

Vinnana is described as not-stable SN22.96

“Bhikkhu, there is no form that is permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change, and that will remain the same just like eternity itself. There is no feeling … no perception … no volitional formations … no consciousness that is permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change, and that will remain the same just like eternity itself.”

But still the freed vinnana or mind, represented by the fully awakend ones, is described as stable (SN22.53)

I still do not understand how people can see mind as fundamentally unstable, any moment arising and ceasing, but also believe one can arrive as a stable mind, even peaceful. But how can that instability be a base for peace? And how can one ever see that instability if not from a stable point? It seems to make all no sense.

Later more about vinnana

[Jasudho]

@Green

“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)

This is understood by many, although not everyone, to be referring to parinibbāna, not nibbāna while alive.

This characterization applies to cessation as well as to the sort of ineffable “something” that some believe, so I don’t think it can be used to strongly support one side or the other.

BTW, Ud8.1 does not mention any sort of consciousness. That’s something you’re adding to it.

@Green

There is also no need to ridiculize things and use words like free-floating awareness.

Agree that “free-floating” is too loose. It was meant to refer to what you appear to refer to as a consciousness that is permanent and without support – which is a concept of a consciousness free of all conditions.
That’s up to you – but there are many suttas, which have been cited in prior posts that teach that all consciousness – past, present, and future – is impermanent and not-self.

@Green

On this level we are talking about awareness as a basic element of life. Something that also cannot be destroyed.

Quite like the teachings in the Upanishads.

[Jasudho]

@Green

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

If by “involved” you mean without greed, anger, and ignorance, we agree.
But this doesn’t mean there is another consciousness beyond this. Where do any suttas clearly point to this?

@Green

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?

Rather, than categorizing things like this, I appreciate the Buddha’s more foundational teaching: “Whatever arises and ceases is only dukkha arising and ceasing.” SN12.15
Then we practice and go on from there.

[HinMarkPeng]

@am7

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

@am7 Nama does refer to these Cetasika, all 52. This definition is just a refinement of the mental Khandha definition. When one is extremely skilled in meditation, one can see beyond the Khandha and it becomes clear that the real source of these Cetasika is Mano, shrouded by Avijja. The job of investigating the mental Khandha, including Vinnana, is then done and all that remains is understanding the workings of Avijja. The Khandha will be abandoned. When this is completed, the pure Citta and Mano are indistinguishable. They are Nibbana Dhatu or Dhamma Dhatu, according to the Thai forest tradition teachers.

[Green]

@Jasudho

@Green

“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)

This is understood by many, although not everyone, to be referring to parinibbāna, not nibbāna while alive.

How can one do that? To talk about a mere cessation at a final death as a dimension that is not established and unsupported is absurd. I do not understand at all why this interpretation appeals to you or others.

@Jasudho

BTW, Ud8.1 does not mention any sort of consciousness. That’s something you’re adding to it.

It certaintly does not talk about a mere cessation. That is what you add to it Jasudho and you also know that.

@Jasudho

Agree that “free-floating” is too loose. It was meant to refer to what you appear to refer to as a consciousness that is permanent and without support – which is a concept of a consciousness free of all conditions.

Again, how i understand it, the citta is more like an intelligent field and you must not consider this as consciousness. You keep more or less pushing me into that position that i promote some eternal consciousness, while i see this very different. For me, it all refers to intelligence, awareness as a fundamental to life, more or less, the stage on which all takes place.

@Jasudho

Quite like the teachings in the Upanishads.

I have no problem with that. I do not see Buddha as a reactionaire. He was a seeker.

[Green]

@Jasudho

If by “involved” you mean without greed, anger, and ignorance, we agree.
But this doesn’t mean there is another consciousness beyond this. Where do any suttas clearly point to this?

You all the time frame the discussion wrong. It is never about another consciousness. The mind has a certain nature to which Buddha refers to as desireless, uninclined, undirected, signless, empty. But due to defilements this we overlook, it remains unseen. A defiled mind has a wrong idea about herself. . Defilements lead to a wrong understand of mind. The defiled perspective is that mind is an alternating stream of sense moments, always following signs of ugly, beauty, me, mine, nicca, atta etc etc. Inclined towards sensing. Engaged with a sense-object etc. Buddha teaches…this is not really the nature of mind. This is how a defiled mind functions. Buddha teaches what mind really is. That we have to discover all for ourselves.

That is the correct frame and never that there is some other consciousness. I never talk about this.
It is extremely tiresome that you do not see this and keep pushing all i say in a wrong direction.

The whole clue is…at this very moment we have no idea about how subtle the mind is. How limitless.
Defilements hinder us to see this. It is never about another consciousness where Buddha talkes about or Maha Boowa or any buddhist master. Do you see how this differs from what you think it is about?

@Jasudho

Rather, than categorizing things like this, I appreciate the Buddha’s more foundational teaching: “Whatever arises and ceases is only dukkha arising and ceasing.” SN12.15
Then we practice and go on from there.

Yes, but it makes no sense to define everyting as suffering. Suffering must be mirrored by what is free from suffering. But that last has no meaning for you. You feel only non-existence is free of suffering, and you believe a last death means that one, as lifestream, finally ceases to exist.

[Jasudho]

@Green

How can one do that? To talk about a mere cessation at a final death as a dimension that is not established and unsupported is absurd. I do not understand at all why this interpretation appeals to you or others.

No one is saying you have to understand or agree. “Absurd” is a statement of judgement and adds no information.
The Buddha also called nibbāna the “island.” Do you believe that it’s literally an island somewhere? Or a metaphorical description? Same with āyatana.

It comes down to the many meanings and connotations of āyatana which does not have to mean a literal place or sphere. This has been discussed and reviewed in prior posts on other threads.

@Green

It certaintly does not talk about a mere cessation. That is what you add to it Jasudho and you also know that.

I didn’t say it mentioned cessation. I said it was consistent with it – as it also can be with those who believe in an “eternal” kind of nibbāna. You appeared to be claiming it had to show the latter.

@Green

Again, how i understand it, the citta is more like an intelligent field and you must not consider this as consciousness.

How can there be intelligence or knowing of any sort if there is not awareness of some kind? Call it knowing, consciousness, awareness-- these are just words; in the end if there’s none of these, then any kind of knowing without awareness of it is a contradiction.

@Green

I have no problem with that. I do not see Buddha as a reactionaire. He was a seeker.

A seeker who found the way to finally end rebirth and dukkha – and I don’t believe he spent decades offering new Teachings which only lead to the same result as in the Upanishads.

[Jasudho]

@Green

The mind has a certain nature to which Buddha refers to as desireless, uninclined, undirected, signless, empty.

You appear to understand this as pointing to some kind of eternal mind. Others see these as qualities of the mind of an arahant, which being conditional, will cease after parinibbāna.

@Green

Yes, but it makes no sense to define everyting as suffering.

Everything conditional is dukkha, not final nibbāna, of course.
Don’t take it from me, the Buddha taught this over and over again.
See SN56.11 for the 1st NT.
See SN12.15:
“…what arises is just suffering arising, and what ceases is just suffering ceasing.”
See Dhp278: " All conditions are suffering— Sabbe saṅkhārā dukkhā

At no point does the Buddha make these statements with the qualification that there is a mind existing “within” or “behind” these conditions that is always pure and undefiled.

If you can offer specific, clear, and repeated teachings in which the Buddha explicitly teaches this please feel free to do so.
Ud8.1, for example, as discussed before does not clearly or explicitly point to the kind of pure mind you appear to believe in. There are several ways to interpret this sutta.

[Green]

@Jasudho

I didn’t say it mentioned cessation. I said it was consistent with it – as it also can be with those who believe in an “eternal” kind of nibbāna. You appeared to be claiming it had to show the latter.

The sutta’s really speak of Nibbana as a sublime state of supreme peace that is 1. imperishable and 2. everlasting. I am not gonna repeat all this. Ofcourse Nibbana does not desintegrate. Why would we aim at something that is liable to cease? Buddha understood that makes no sense at all. This is an ignoble search.

@Jasudho

How can there be intelligence or knowing of any sort if there is not awareness of some kind?

Intelligence is like the medium and lifestreams are like the currents in it.
Lifestream, streams of vinnana cannot exist without it.
Rebirth cannot happen in air or vaccuum.
Or do you really believe some stream of vinnana moves after death like a snake/stream throught the air?
Really. Rebirth is only possible if there is a background or base of intelligence or awareness .

@Jasudho

A seeker who found the way to finally end rebirth and dukkha – and I don’t believe he spent decades offering new Teachings which only lead to the same result as in the Upanishads.

The Buddha did not invent the Truth nor the stream. Purity, dispassion, detachment, Nibbana. It are not inventions of the Buddha. Non-clinging mind is not the invention of the Buddha.
He did not create any of this. He found it, he re-discovered the nature of a pure mind as peaceful, unburdened, untracable, free. The end of suffering. Non-generative. He discovered it, revealed it. Like a piece of gold that was always there but hidden.

Nibbana, the stream, purity, dispassion, detachments these are no things exclusive for buddhist but all aspect of the mind. It is, ofcourse, extremely unlikely no other persons but buddhist can arrive at the natural state of mind.

[Green]

@Jasudho, lets not do this all over again. @yeshe.tenley becomes crazy…and me too

I believe you…in the end…cannot accept that there can be an end to suffering while alive,.
While the suttas state that here and now he makes an end to suffering, for example MN9),
But i have thought about this and i finally sees what goes wrong.
You still imagine the awakened ones to be persons** who has pains, becomes sick and dies.
There is no more to this. That’s all. All our debates come down to this.
This is, by the way true, for all mere cessationalist.
They cannot escape to think about awakened ones as persons still in pains, decaying, ill, dying.
So still suffering while alive.

Finally, we arrived at how things really are

[Jasudho]

@Green

Ofcourse Nibbana does not desintegrate. Why would we aim at something that is liable to cease?

Who said nibbāna ceases?
Dukkha ceases.

@Green

Or do you really believe some stream of vinnana moves after death

See DN15. It teaches about viññāna-sota, a selfless stream of consciousness after death “entering” into a womb to combine with nāma-rūpa.

@Green

Really. Rebirth is only possible if there is a background or base of intelligence or awareness .

It’s understood this is your view. However, this never appears in any teaching on DO, for example.

@Green

It are not inventions of the Buddha. Non-clinging mind is not the invention of the Buddha.

Who said it was?

Thanks, but I’m going to exit this thread.

All best to you.

[Green]

@Jasudho

See DN15. It teaches about viññāna-sota, a selfless stream of consciousness after death “entering” into a womb to combine with nāma-rūpa.

I know all this. You never have to think i do not know the sutta’s. I know them. But think about this.
How must this work? a stream of vinnana’s flying trough the air??

@Jasudho

It’s understood this is your view. However, this never appears in any teaching on DO, for example.

Mere cessation also never appears in any teachings but still it appears in your mind.

In fact DHP1 states that mind is the forerunner. And i believe also of any feeling or perception or vinnana’s. Feelings and perceptions and vinnana’s do not arise in air.

@Jasudho

Who said it was?

Thanks, but I’m going to exit this thread.

Please, check your view. You still see a Buddha as a Person. And because you believe this person still has pains, becomes sick, and dies you believe he is not freed from the first arrow.
I believe…wrong thinking.

[Jasudho]

@Green

I believe you…in the end…cannot accept that there can be an end to suffering while alive,.

Correct. Since the senses and aggregates are conditional and so are intrinsically dukkha, the complete cessation of dukkha occurs after parinibbāna.

@Green

While the suttas state that here and now he makes an end to suffering, for example MN9),

Yes, because it refers awakening and so to the future when there will be no rebirth; so freedom from suffering is significantly reduced with awakening but not finally gone until after parinibbāna. See above.

Also, as has been mentioned in other threads, the Pāli present tense can refer to the future.

[Green]

@Jasudho

At no point does the Buddha make these statements with the qualification that there is a mind existing “within” or “behind” these conditions that is always pure and undefiled.

I see this differently. See, for example, AN1.51. Defilements are said to be adventitious or incoming.
Incoming in what? It just means, i feel, defilements are not really an intrinsic part of the mind, like defilements in water. This is also true for any formation not only for defilements. Texts do not say that only defilements must be seen as not me, not mine, not my self but all. Any rupa, vedana, sanna, sankhara and vinnana.

Whatever mind reflects, whether this is an idea, a nice feeling, a tendency, view, taste etc. that all is never any moment substantially part of the mind but incoming. Whatever reflection might appear in the mirror of the mind it is never really intrinsically part of the mirror.

It is only always avijja and sankhara which, when arising, make us believe it is otherwise. And then we mix up things. Then we think mind IS rupa, vedana, sanna, vinnana, sankhara arising. But that moment we are already deluded. That moment we have already not seen that it are mere reflections in the mirror of the mind.

Avijja just means that whatever arises is not seen as mere a reflection. Not me, not mine, not my self. In an awakened mind whatever arises is seen as a reflection.

Mind in its most subtle nature cannot be found as being rooted in samsara or any world. It is taught as unestablished, unsupported. It is never like this that once born as human, mind is now on Earth and in the kama loka. Such things are only taught to align with how a defiled mind thinks. But this does not represent truth.

Minds nature is also not human. Our disposition can be called human but never minds nature.
Even in this very life as human, mind can be in kama loka, rupa loka and arupa loka and beyond all this. Mind can go beyond all this because it is not somewhere in samsara rooted. If mind would really be fixed in kama loka, it would not even be able to enter jhana. It is never like this that a human being enters jhana but mind does.

The mind that is not rooted anywhere is called anidassana, and also unestablished (for example in SN22.53) and is not known by Maha Brahma.
“Unestablished” means: if you would seek it, you cannot find it, but still you cannot say it does not exist.

Maybe you do not see all this in the teachings, i do, and all is supported by sutta’s. No reason to doubt this. And believe me, I also care to not distort Dhamma.

The problem is, you always think about me as some promotor of an eternal consciousness, or discussion is framed like this that those who do not believe in mere cessation, have a strong attachment to self.

I believe it is not like that. As i see it: Some understand Dhamma intuitively and are more connected to how all every moment arises, and develops from unseen to seen , from not established to established, from subtle to coarse, from unburdened to burdened, from not build up to build up, from egoless to ego, from being open to becoming narrow, from unconstructed to constructed, from peaceful to restless, from free to being captured etc. And others do not seem to have much feeling for the momentairy character of all this. They think about peace, freedom, dispassion, Nibbana, unburdeness etc. as something in the future. But some do not and i believe there is nothing wrong with this.

I believe, it is not lack of quality to have a more esoteric or intuitive or direct understanding of Dhamma, but it is a quality.

[Green]

@Jasudho

Correct. Since the senses and aggregates are conditional and so are intrinsically dukkha, the complete cessation of dukkha occurs after parinibbāna.

Probably buddhist have always debated this.

I see it like this: Things can not be intrinsically dukkha. That is not rational for me.
But one can say that any feeling state respresents always a burden. Feeling something is the moment things establish, manifest. Sense contact comes with touch. And like touching the skinn comes with a certain imprent, like a pressure or load, also touch in the mental domain comes with that. That can be seen as a burden, a load. That is why it is rational that when the mind has developed into a sensing mind, with sense contacts, in touch with something, also a burden arises.
This is also why it is rational to say that when nothing is felt, that is bliss, because then there is still a totally yet open dimension.

Is mind always in a feeling state? I say…NO. Only when there is a connection made with the senses and mind starts sensing something. This always something that arises. And this is always due to engagement. It is not that mind is sensual of character. Minds nature is knowing.
PS describes how mind from being empty and open and non-sensual, gradually, but also quickly, becomes a sensing mind with feelings and connected to senses.

@Jasudho

Yes, because it refers awakening and so to the future when there will be no rebirth; so freedom from suffering is significantly reduced with awakening but not finally gone until after parinibbāna. See above.

I certaintly also believe rebirth stops, but i feel that the escape from suffering in this very life lies in the not sensual character of most subtle nature of mind. Its emptiness, its openess, its wholeness. A mind that does not connect anymore with the senses does not arrive in a feeling state. Feelings might arise but are unable to establish. When feelings do not establish, mind is not in a sensing and feeling mode.
I believe the end of suffering can be realised in this very life.

[Jasudho]

Hi,

@Green

I see this differently. See, for example, AN1.51. Defilements are said to be adventitious or incoming.
Incoming in what?

The sutta ends with cittabhāvanā – cultivation/development of the mind. How can an intrinsically pure mind be developed/cultivated?
If you assume that the defilements are “external” to this, the Buddha never explicitly mentions another sort of everlasting and pure mind.

Also. you’ve chosen to not respond to the questions about why, in particular, such a mind is never taught or mentioned in all the suttas in which saññāvedayitanirodha appears.
Clearly, in such a state there can be no defilements – and yet it is never said in these suttas that a pure, everlasting, mind is present and known.

Regarding, SN22.53 – this sutta actually contradicts your point:
“‘Apart from form, feeling, perception, and choices, I will describe the coming and going of consciousness, its passing away and reappearing, its growth, increase, and maturity.’ That is not possible.”

Right here, consciousness is presented as utterly conditional without the mention of a separate consciousness, mins, or “knowing.”

Then:
“Since that consciousness does not become established and does not grow, with no power to regenerate, it is freed.”

Again, a conditional consciousness with no mention of any other sort of consciousness or mind.

Since greed, anger, and ignorance have been eliminated, the conditional consciousness “is freed” – both from the dukkha of mental anguish and mainly, as the sutta says at the end, freed from rebirth:

"They understand: ‘Rebirth is ended, the spiritual journey has been completed, what had to be done has been done, there is no return to any state of existence.’”

Of course, rebirth is not ended immediately, since the arrant remains alive. It ends after parinibbāna – with the final cessation of all the aggregates and senses, there is no establishing of consciousness anywhere, as there is when craving is still present.

Anyway, I said I’d be leaving the thread but chose to engage in some further discussion.
You can have the last word but for real this time.

[Green]

@Jasudho

The sutta ends with cittabhāvanā – cultivation/development of the mind. How can an intrinsically pure mind be developed/cultivated?

Very easy. Water and defilements never ever really mix up. That’s why with a purification method defilements can be removed. The same with mind. Mind and defilements are never ever really mixed up. Applying the purification method of the Noble Path, adventitious defiments will be removed from mind. The pure mind that results is not made or created, like also the water is not made nor created when defilements are removed by a technical method. A Buddha does not create the mind that is purified by the Path. Nibbana is unmade. Please think about this some moment.

@Jasudho

If you assume that the defilements are “external” to this, the Buddha never explicitly mentions another sort of everlasting and pure mind.

Defilements are not really ‘external’ to water, but they never really mix up, otherwise they cannot be removed from water. The same with mind and defilements.

Buddha constant talks about pure mind, but apparantly you do not understand that Nibbana refers to this bare awareness without defilements, peaceful, cooled, not agitated, deep and calm as the ocean, stilled, empty, untracable, imperishable.

You have apparantly grasped the idea that Nibbana is mere a concept. No. It really refers to something that can be realised and directly known. MN1 clearly says so and many other sutta’s.
What can i do about it that people start to think that Nibbana is mere a concept?
I can only say…not true…

@Jasudho

Also. you’ve chosen to not respond to the questions about why, in particular, such a mind is never taught or mentioned in all the suttas in which saññāvedayitanirodha appears.
Clearly, in such a state there can be no defilements – and yet it is never said in these suttas that a pure, everlasting, mind is present and known.

Why must this be said? While mind progressively stills in jhana, it also does not cease. This does not have to be said because we know that. Any jhana still represents an awareness of something. Meaning, in any jhana there is still some volition, inclination that directs towards the mano-sense, 6 the sense. At the last jhana this reaches more or less the limits. Sannavedayitanirodha, i believe, means that mind has no inclination anymore. Is it now unconscious, gone, ceased? I say, NO, it is now absorbed into her own knowing nature. The nature of mind is now directly seen. Sense Vinnana cannot do this. Sense vinnana must cease. Your idea is that when sensing ceases, there can be no knowing ability anymore. Who says so?

@Jasudho

Right here, consciousness is presented as utterly conditional without the mention of a separate consciousness, mins, or “knowing.”

Please i have try to explain this now many times…see further

@Jasudho

Of course, rebirth is not ended immediately, since the arrant remains alive. It ends after parinibbāna – with the final cessation of all the aggregates and senses, there is no establishing of consciousness anywhere, as there is when craving is still present.

The problem is…you constant frame the discussion like this that i would introduce another kind of mind or another awareness behind the regular, not true.

Also, you do not yet see the difference between sense-vinnana that establishes and that does not.
If your eye, ear…mind is caught by something seen, only then sense-vinnana establishes.
If not, then they arise and cease but do not establish.
Sense Vinnana’s that do not establish cannot grow.

With liberation vinnana’s/perceptions/feelings still arise and cease but do not establish and cannot grow. All becomes cool now.

@Jasudho

Anyway, I said I’d be leaving the thread but chose to engage in some further discussion.
You can have the last word but for real, this time, adio

You might think this is all about winning, not at all. I try to make you see things. I believe it is conducive if you start to see these things. Call me a fool, i do my best.

[Green]

Why is vinnana impermanent? I believe, because vinnana refers to sense moments. Those always arise and cease. If awareness becomes an awareness of something sensed, that refers to vinnana.

It does not mean, i believe that awareness, or the knowing ability in our lifes, is the same as vinnana. Vinnana tend to establish when something stirrs the mind, like a stone thrown in water. That stirr tends to grasp the attention of the mind. While this happens, the attention, as it were, goes towards that stirr. It directs and inclines towards it (cetana, this is the condition for a sense moment to arise.

Even when the senses are bombarded with input like also for someone in sannavedayitanirodha, without this basic subconscious volitional activity (cetana) that directs and inclines the mind towards the stirr, no sense vinnana will arise, also no mental sense moments, mano-vinnana’s. This is why i believe vinnana is taught to be impermanent.

Many buddhist teachers teach that awareness and vinnana are not the same, or, the knowing ability in our lifes is not perse the same as sensing something and feeling something.

I believe this is also rooted in the EBT and is refered to as the uninclined, undirected, desireless, signless. Like a kind of knowing that does not get involved in the senses like vinnana. A still not differentiated knowing, not yet scattered over the senses.

EBT also describe the mind freed from vinnana (AN10.81), a knowing element, or mind, without limits, which here , i believe, refers to this bare awareness that does not incline towards the senses.
Another name to describe it, i believe, is: asankhata element. This element is not seen arising, ceasing and changing.

Vinnana refers to a particular kind of knowing, a sense moment.
Vinnana cannot be seen apart from what it knows, because that connection with the sense-object is the condition for its arising. Does this mean there is no knowing apart from sensing, from vinnana?
I do not see this is what Buddha teaches.

Many Buddhist teachers teach awareness/knowing as not the same as vinnana/sensing. I also see this in the EBT like i said.

The difficulty with seeing awareness would be:

So close you can’t see it.
So deep you can’t fathom it.
So simple you can’t believe it.
So good you can’t accept it.

I also believe this is true. There is an aspect to knowing that is extremely stilled, empty, peaceful, deep, amazing that vinnana never is. I am convinved that Buddha here found the escape.

Is the cessation of vinnana necessarily also the cessation of the knowing ability in our lifes?
I do not see that the EBT teach this. I believe this relies on misunderstanding.

Sense moments (vinnana’s) must be seen as magical illusions (SN22.95), void, hollow, and insubstantial.

All these teachings really have only one goal, i believe, to cure that basic inclination of the mind to become involved in the senses. And without alternating sensing this and that, it looses all its burden, restlessness, all grows cool. It becomes more and more clear now what mind is without clinging.
Not a feeling state, not sensing, a bare awareness, like a total openess.

So, now i am have reasoned myself into enlightment

[am7]

Sharing another finding regarding yet another alternate translation: in MN43 translated by I.B. Horner viññāna is translated as “discriminative consciousness”:

“Your reverence, it is called ‘Discriminative consciousness, discriminative consciousness.’ Now in what respects, your reverence, is it called ‘discriminative consciousness’?” “Your reverence, if it said ‘It discriminates, it discriminates,’ it is therefore called discriminative consciousness. And what does it discriminate? It discriminates pleasure and it discriminates pain and it discriminates neither pain nor pleasure. If it is said ‘It discriminates, it discriminates,’ your reverence, therefore it is called ‘Discriminative consciousness.’”

“That which is intuitive wisdom, your reverence, and that which is discriminative consciousness, are these states associated or dissociated? And is it possible to lay down a difference between these states, having analysed them again and again?” “That which is intuitive wisdom, your reverence, and that which is discriminative consciousness, these states are associated, not dissociated, and it is not possible to lay down a difference between these states, having analysed them again and again. Whatever one comprehends, your reverence, that one discriminates; whatever one discriminates that one comprehends; therefore these states are associated, not dissociated, and it is not possible to lay down a difference between these states, having analysed them again and again.”

[Green]

@Jasudho

Then:
“Since that consciousness does not become established and does not grow, with no power to regenerate, it is freed.”

Again, a conditional consciousness with no mention of any other sort of consciousness or mind.

This last is never the issue for me @Jasudho . The issue is: Our understanding of the nature of mind, or, what mind really is, depends on the level of defilements. These colour our actual understanding of what mind is.

For example:

• If there is grasping, mind tends to be seen as something restless and burdened.
• If there is a strong inclination to become involved in the 6th sense domain, mind tends to be seen as thinking, reflecting, or the same as conceiving or maybe connected to intention or purpose
• If there is a strong inclination to become alternately engaged in all different sense domains, then mind is being understood as a stream of senses moments, sense-vinnana’s, a monkey mind, which grasps then this then that.
• Often mind is due to deep defilement understood as being Me, as someone, a knower, a subject who knows. Atta-like

Anyway, I do not talk about another mind but about the fact that mind can be understood very differently dependend on the level of defilements. But does this all really describe what mind is?

Do we really see and know what water is when we do not see what is adventious to water (defilements)? Impossible. Our understanding will not be correct.

So, what is mind? If mind is tripped from all what is adventitious what remains?

I trust those teacher that share from experience that when all impurities or corruption are gone that are able to distort a true and direct understanding of what mind is, then mind is understood as untracable, empty, open, a bare awareness, without any differentation, stilled. I also feel the EBT teach this. I see many clues for this like i have tried to show.

When mind is seen as a stream of sense-vinnana 's do we really see what mind is?

It is not about another consciousness or awareness or mind or knowing. The issue is: Do we have a direct and correct understanding of what mind is? Regardless of any answer…only this is the issue and never IF there is another mind. Do you see? I hope you see this because that would make a huge difference in meeting eachother and discussing these things.