Thank you for these interesting considerations, Venerable!
… which lead me to a question for Bhante @sujato: Bhante, in your translation of this passage, both in DN 11 and MN 49, the radiance seems to have disappeared from consciousness. In this essay you are still speaking of a consciousness that is “invisible, infinite, and all-radiant”, but now in your translation, this has been “entirely given up” … why?
Awesome essay, venerable, thanks so much. It makes a lot of sense, especially the idea of anidassana being equivalent to arūpa. We’d certainly find, I think, that a closer look at the Upanishads reveals more references to something like the dimension of infinite consciousness.
I also like the idea of swapping the sequence of terms. You are quite right, this is the kind of thing that is done all the time, and clearly ananta should be taken as the primary adjective. Maybe I’ll update my translation.
The term pa[b]haṁ has two readings, from pajahati “giving up” or pabhā “light”. There’s no really strong reason to choose one or the other, so I am open to being persuaded!
Whatever vinnanam anidsssanam is, it is said to be associated with a uparujjhati [stopping/cessation] of name [contact, perception, feeling, sankhara].
If you were correct it would merely be a uparujjhati of rupa and not of nāmañca.
The arupa jhana are associated with ‘name’, these states are construed, perceived & felt, the contact therein is at the mind base and they are known by that which is called ‘mind, intellect or consciousness’ which is at that time divorced from the five sense faculties.
I don’t know how you arrived at the conclusion that the arupajhana is associated with a cessation of consciousness.
“Consciousness that’s invisible,
‘Viññāṇaṁ anidassanaṁ,
infinite, entirely given up [alt luminous]:
anantaṁ sabbatopabhaṁ;
Variant: sabbatopabhaṁ → (?)
that’s where water and earth,
Ettha āpo ca pathavī,
fire and air find no footing.
tejo vāyo na gādhati.
And that’s where long and short,
Ettha dīghañca rassañca,
fine and coarse, beautiful and ugly—
aṇuṁ thūlaṁ subhāsubhaṁ;
that’s where name and form
Ettha nāmañca rūpañca,
cease with nothing left over.
asesaṁ uparujjhati; With the cessation of consciousness,
Viññāṇassa nirodhena, that’s where they cease.”’”
etthetaṁ uparujjhatī’”ti.
The luminousity is likely the same luminosity that is ascribed to a mind that is freed from defimenents;
This mind, mendicants, is radiant.
“Pabhassaramidaṁ, bhikkhave, cittaṁ.
But it’s corrupted by passing corruptions.”
Tañca kho āgantukehi upakkilesehi upakkiliṭṭhan”ti. - an1.49
The boundless ‘anantaṁ’ property can be explained by there being no limits due to an absence of taints because it is said in mn43;
Greed, hate, and delusion are makers of limits.
Rāgo kho, āvuso, pamāṇakaraṇo, doso pamāṇakaraṇo, moho pamāṇakaraṇo.
To sum up;
The most natural reading of this verse is simply a paradoxical;
Buddha talks about a cessation of consciousness but describes it as “consciousness invisible”
This would be parallel to mn59
There is the case where a monk, with the complete transcending of the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception, enters & remains in the cessation of perception & feeling. This is another pleasure more extreme & refined than that. Now it’s possible, Ananda, that some wanderers of other persuasions might say, ‘Gotama the contemplative speaks of the cessation of perception & feeling and yet describes it as pleasure. What is this? How can this be?’ When they say that, they are to be told, ‘It’s not the case, friends, that the Blessed One describes only pleasant feeling as included under pleasure. Wherever pleasure is found, in whatever terms, the Blessed One describes it as pleasure.’"
Also paradoxical passage here in an9.34;
There he said to the monks, “This Unbinding is pleasant, friends. This Unbinding is pleasant.”
When this was said, Ven. Udayin said to Ven. Sariputta, “But what is the pleasure here, my friend, where there is nothing felt?”
"Just that is the pleasure here, my friend: where there is nothing felt.
Consciousness and feeling are semantically conjoined in the texts and this is a very reasonable conclusion.
“Feeling, perception, and consciousness—
these things are mixed, not separate.
And you can never completely dissect them so as to describe the difference between them.
For you perceive what you feel, and you cognize what you perceive. That’s why these things are mixed, not separate.
Therefore when author asserts;
No sutta equates nibbāna to any type of consciousness
He is slipping by these two texts and the semantic properties of the terminology.
This conclusion doesn’t require insisting on overriding the definitively normative usage of the words ‘name’ and ‘all [as in allness of the all]’ which author has done let alone splitting the question into two questions.
There are more contextual problems with that interpretations but nothing as blatant as these assumptions overriding normative use of the terminology and that without evidence. I don’t think it’s even worth entertaining because what is asserted without evidence is likewise dismissed without evidence and the author makes like 5 extraordinary assumptions…
I think it should be obvious that the passage refers to a direct seeing & knowing of the truth of cessation of which god’s don’t know and therefore it is said;
"Absorbed in this way, the excellent thoroughbred of a man is absorbed dependent neither on earth, liquid, fire, wind, the sphere of the infinitude of space, the sphere of the infinitude of consciousness, the sphere of nothingness, the sphere of neither perception nor non-perception, this world, the next world, nor on whatever is seen, heard, sensed, cognized, attained, sought after, or pondered by the intellect — and yet he is absorbed. And to this excellent thoroughbred of a man, absorbed in this way, the gods, together with Indra, the Brahmas, & Pajapati, pay homage even from afar:
‘Homage to you, O thoroughbred man.
Homage to you, O superlative man —
you of whom we don’t know even what it is
dependent on which
you’re absorbed.’"
He is absorbed in dependence on nibbananirodha principle of course.
The boundless ‘anantaṁ’ property can be explained by there being no limits due to an absence of taints because it is said in mn43;
Greed, hate, and delusion are makers of limits.
Rāgo kho, āvuso, pamāṇakaraṇo, doso pamāṇakaraṇo, moho pamāṇakaraṇo.
It is also said that
Greed, hate, and delusion are makers of signs.
Rāgo kho, āvuso, nimittakaraṇo, doso nimittakaraṇo, moho nimittakaraṇo.
Therefore it can be inferred that the signless release is also without greed, anger & delusion and is on that account also limitless which semantically related to endless/boundless.
The signless release refers to the apprehension of cessation of perception & feeling because it is said;
“When a monk has emerged from the cessation of perception & feeling, three contacts make contact: contact with emptiness, contact with the signless, & contact with the undirected.” - mn41.6
Commentary to this;
Emptiness, the signless, & the undirected are names for a state of concentration that lies on the threshold of Nibbana. They differ only in how they are approached. According to the commentary, they color one’s first apprehension of Nibbana: a meditator who has been focusing on the theme of inconstancy will first apprehend Nibbana as signless; one who has been focusing on the theme of stress will first apprehend it as undirected; one who has been focusing on the theme of not-self will first apprehend it as emptiness.
As i see it, this explains the verses but each to their own.
Since the meaning of rūpa includes ‘appearance’, means ‘without appearance’, thus ‘invisible’. This translation is in accordance with the apparent meaning of anidassana in the Saṅgīti Sutta, which mentions visible form and invisible form (i.e. material form and the more subtle types such as in meditation).
The verse in Sangiti Sutta is thus;
A threefold classification of the physical/form:
Tividhena rūpasaṅgaho—
visible and resistant, invisible and resistant, and invisible and non-resistant.
sanidassanasappaṭighaṁ rūpaṁ, anidassanasappaṭighaṁ rūpaṁ,
anidassanaappaṭighaṁ rūpaṁ.
I am not aware of any evidence that would support the assertion that these invisible forms refer to Arupa jhana. There are much more simple explainations as to what is invisible & tangible form such as Wind or Air element, it’s invisible and resistant [tangible].
This explaination doesn’t override normative definitive usage of Rupa referring to the four great elements & form derived from them.
Bhikkhu K Nanananda also has done a very thorough analysis of this in the NIbbana Sermons, and it is my understanding that it is related to Arahantaphalasamadhi. I’m not at home, with access to my references at the moment, so can’t quote exactly, but it is related to post-awakening experiences of voidness (and the numerous sub-categories of this). Though at this stage the categorisations are so very refined that personally I don’t find it useful to engage in too much definition - it is really a case of it needs to be experienced to be known and for the ‘words/descriptions’ to be understood.
Excellent essay! It is clear and I think the conclusion you arrive at is solid.
I have no problems at all with your interpretation of the verse at DN 11. It is virtually identical to my view of the matter.
The passage at MN 49 is a bit more tricky, but I think putting the verse in the mouth of Baka the Brahmā is the most plausible interpretation. The evidence you have provided is actually quite strong. I don’t think we need look any further for a solution. Infinite consciousness it is.
There is, however, one solution to this conundrum that you have not mentioned. If the passage in MN 49 is instead spoken by the Buddha, then “all”, in my view, would most likely mean all of samsāric existence. Moreover, we have the fact that anidassana viññāṇa means something like “invisible consciousness”. Again, I would suggest that it is reasonable to understand this as a kind of consciousness that is invisible from a samsāric point of view, similar, perhaps, to saying that the mind is “untraceable here and now” (MN 22).
Now the suttas do speak of a kind of samādhi that fits these constraints, namely, the ariya samādhi spoken of in a number of suttas, such as AN 3.32, AN 9.37, AN 10.6-7, AN 11.7-9 + 18-21. This seems to be a kind of samādhi that takes the idea of nibbāna as its object. As such it cannot be accessed by anyone except ariyas.
Woah, lots of answers! Thanks everybody. I’ll try to respond to everybody who addressed me.
Well, to that idea the suttas are the problem.
I’m being facetious here, because, Ratana, I’m not sure what exactly you are asking. If you can clarify, are you referring to some specific passage in the essay?
Thanks, bhante. I also think there’ll be more in the Upanishads. That’s not really my terrain, though.
Wouldn’t pahaṁ (which is an alternative manuscript reading for pabhaṁ, for those not in the know) be a present participle, so its translation would be “giving up” instead of “given up”? … Or am I being dumb today? (Well… I am… but I mean am I Pali-dumb today?)
Anyway, I don’t think either participle makes much contextual sense. In boundless consciousness, counsciousness is not “given up” or “giving up”. Not that pabhaṁ (shining) is fully convincing, but that’s just because it’s all somewhat obscure. I do think pabhaṁ is less “heavy” in changing the overall meaning of the passage, if that makes sense. So if we had to choose, that does favor it, in a way.
Hi, thanks for the comments. No reason for hate! (< this is my new favorite emoji)
Only if you take the verses as one single big answer. If you can explain why that is not possible to do, that may help.
If you can quote where you think I say this, please do and I’ll clarify, because I didn’t intend to. I actually think that’s what others are forced to do when they read the two verses as one answer. I’m doing the exact opposite. By seeing two separate answers, i’m disassociating the two. (By the way, if you have some time, I suggest reading the references, as I didn’t come up with this idea myself.)
I read that passage in AN1.49 as the mind being temporarily freed from the hindrances, not defilements. (It was either Analayo or Sujato who came to this conclusion. Sorry, can’t remember the reference.) So in that case, it would also apply to my interpretation of pabham, as a reference to the absence of the five hindrances.
Joke intended, but “natural reading” and “paradoxical”, to me are paradoxical! To describe the cessation of consciousness as a consciousness, to me makes little sense.
That’s on a different level than describing the absence of feeling as a kind of “happiness”, namely happiness not as a feeling but as the absence of suffering, sukha being the opposite of dukkha.
Moreover, in those suttas on feeling, the questioners actually wonder about the paradox: “What is this? How can this be?” and “what is the pleasure here?”. In the suttas on vinnana anidassana there is no such wondering. Quite the opposite, in fact; it all seems taken for granted. Hence I see no reason to assume a paradox in the verses.
Well, even then, going by your interpretation, these two texts don’t directly mention nibbana, which is what I meant by “equate”.
Every translator I know of has done that. (You probably mean splitting into two answers.)
To end this exchange of ours with some harmony, I think this interpretation, although I also don’t agree with it, is far less problematic than another which implies a permanent consciousness existing forever after an arahant’s death. That interpretation was the main focus of my critique. Yours (if I understand it correctly) I consider quite harmless, and wouldn’t have gone to such lengths to argue against.
PS. You can address me directly with “you”, if you’d like.
They don’t. I’m just explaining the meaning of the word anidassana. This is a different context, but you can still use different context to arrive at the basic meaning of a word.
Hi Viveka! I’m not very familiar with his works, but from memory the venerable’s ideas rely on translating uparujjhati as ‘held in check’ which just makes no sense if you look at how the word is used elsewhere. I may respond in detail once you have the references.
I agree with this, and I disagree with this.
Too much discussion is not useful. The whole essay, in a sense, I’d rather not have to make.
But I do think you can understand words and descriptions without “experience” (by which I suppose you mean enlightenment). In fact, I’d say the opposite: You can be enlightened and still misunderstand words. Because enlightenment doesn’t give you magical Pali powers. In this case, you may be enlightened and still not get the idea to separate the verses into two separate answers.
Hi bhante, thanks! (Sorry for posting here before awaiting your feedback in email… but maybe it’s more interesting for others to see it “live”. )
I don’t know what that would mean, a consciousness invisible from samsaric point of view. All types of consciousness are part of samsara. Arahants are part of samsara, too. Their consciousness is still dependently arisen, in that it still depends on objects of the senses. (Though no longer on sankharas.)
I always thought (and do still think) the Buddha uses samadhi in those texts in a loose sense, not like a definite state of mind akin to the jhanas or arupas. I take it as remembering the insights of stream winning, e.g., knowing that rebirth will end, that the defilements will end, that consciousness will end, and so on, all the aspects of nibbana. And as remembering the total letting go of consciousness, that results in stream entry.
It’s funny. Remembering or envisioning nibbana in one sense is beyond jhanas and arupas (because nibbana itself is beyond those)! But in another sense it isn’t, because it is still quite an “ordinary” mind state (because you can still think and perceive, for one thing).
So to me the Buddha is sort of playing with both these ideas. When in AN10.6 Ananda asks “is there a perception beyond neither-perception-nor-non-perception?” the Buddha could simply have said “nope!”, because after neither-perception-nor-non-perception usually comes the cessation of feeling and perception. However, that answer is boring, and Ananda would have known that already. So instead the Buddha is a creative, and says “well if you reflect upon nibbana, in a sense that is a perception beyond all that.” (I love the Buddha )
I have difficulty choosing my words carefully here, but that perception is not totally unlike any other type of reflection. It’s unlike others in that it is limited to ariyas, yes, I would agree. But other peeps can still do a somewhat similar thing (have an idea of nibbana); however, it will always be somewhat wrong, somewhat not the real deal.
Does that makes sense, Ajahn? I’m just typing this on the spot, as I never thought about this much, as I didn’t see this issue. So if I misunderstood you, let me know.
Either way, I don’t think this kind of “nibbana samadhi” has to do with anidassana viññana. For one thing, I don’t think the Buddha would have called it a viññana. He doesn’t seem to use the term in such a way. It’s a perception, not a consciousness. (And a perception it is indeed called in AN10.6)
Well, you have already changed your mind from one side to the other, and I didn’t find anywhere an explanation why. I thought you might have had a reason.
I too find it pretty convincing that this passage refers to the infinite consciousness, and it appears more natural to me that “radiance” is attributed to this state of consciousness as a characteristic than “being given up”. Especially if you think of the passage in MN 49 being spoken by Brahmā, the idea of “giving up” consciousness is outside of his realm. The cessation of consciousness is something he can’t imagine.
There are other passages that hinting at that ‘It’s not the case, friends, that the Blessed One describes only consciousness which is established & associated with contact as included under consciousness. Wherever consciousness is found, in whatever terms, the Blessed One describes it as consciousness.’"
Such as here;
Suppose there was a bungalow or a hall with a peaked roof, with windows on the northern, southern, or eastern side. When the sun rises and a ray of light enters through a window, where would it land?”
…
“On the western wall, sir.”
…
“If there was no western wall, where would it land?”
…
“On the ground, sir.”
…
“If there was no ground, where would it land?”
…
“In water, sir.”
…
“If there was no water, where would it land?”
…
“It wouldn’t land, sir.”
…
“In the same way, if there is no desire, relishing, and craving for solid food, consciousness does not become established there and doesn’t grow. …
If there is no desire, relishing, and craving for contact as fuel … If there is no desire, relishing, and craving for mental intention as fuel … If there is no desire, relishing, and craving for consciousness as fuel, consciousness doesn’t become established there and doesn’t grow. Where consciousness is not established and doesn’t grow, name and form are not conceived.
Also here
“That, bhikkhus, is Mara the Evil One searching for the consciousness of the clansman Vakkali, wondering: ‘Where now has the consciousness
of the clansman Vakkali been established?’ However, bhikkhus, with consciousness unestablished, the clansman Vakkali has attained final Nibbāna.”
Note it is spoken of as a where name & form are not conceived.
It’s sounds awfully a lot like vinnana anidassana where name & form are brought to an end or
There is that dimension, monks, where there is neither earth, nor water, nor fire, nor wind; neither dimension of the infinitude of space, nor dimension of the infinitude of consciousness, nor dimension of nothingness, nor dimension of neither perception nor non-perception; neither this world, nor the next world, nor sun, nor moon. And there, I say, there is neither coming, nor going, nor staying; neither passing away nor arising: unestablished, unevolving, without support. This, just this, is the end of stress.
There is also Bahuna Sutta;
"Freed, dissociated, & released from ten things, Bahuna, the Tathagata dwells with unrestricted awareness.
…
Which ten? Freed, dissociated, & released from form, the Tathagata dwells with unrestricted awareness. Freed, dissociated, & released from feeling… Freed, dissociated, & released from perception… Freed, dissociated, & released from fabrications… Freed, dissociated, & released from consciousness… Freed, dissociated, & released from birth… Freed, dissociated, & released from aging… Freed, dissociated, & released from death… Freed, dissociated, & released from stress… Freed, dissociated, & released from defilement, the Tathagata dwells with unrestricted awareness.
There is no more danger in asserting this than asserting that cessation of feeling is extremely pleasant. If it’s pleasant then it ought to be cognized somehow, otherwise it wouldn’t be known, just like one person can’t feel what another person feels, one’s awareness is dissociated from the feelings of another and he doesn’t know it.
Nirodha is directly known & experienced by the mind that is directed to the Deathless. It is not some darkness or a memory loss. It is mindblowingly peaceful, beautiful and pleasant and yes nothing there is felt and there is no mind, consciousness or intellect associated with contact. After emerging from the attainmemts based on nibbananirodha principle a person vaguely remembers the peace & vision.
The danger here is only in equating consciousness unestablished with consciousness established or the cessation of feeling with feeling.
I am not sure but i think that these are plants, not aware of anything.
They don’t attain nibbana, they grow old & exist as only the physical and are not aware.
They are like simmering coals, neither aflame nor extinguished.
Nibbana is a cessation of existence, an extinguishment.
We shouldn’t go into details about what is nibbana exactly and how it is to be understood because i don’t want to derail this thread from the matters of sutta method of expression.
Either way,
I do think that invisible is a good translation for anidassana and will also leave the forum for a while.
As i understand it this is only partially correct.
I hold that it is not only Arahants who get to see the Unmade/Unestablished as in attaining samadhi based on the nibbananirodhadhatu and furthermore that there is no destruction of taints without it.
I will explain how this can be inferred. Consider first the case of Sariputta’s initial awakening to the truth;
When the Buddha had been in Rājagaha for about half a month. At that time, the great teacher of the wandering ascetics, [Sañjaya], was residing at Rājagaha with two hundred and fifty followers. During this period, the wandering ascetic [Upatissa], the future Chief Disciple Venerable [Sāriputta](and wandering ascetic [Kolita], the future Chief Disciple Venerable [Mahā Moggallāna], happened to be undergoing training in the ascetic practices under this great teacher Sañjaya.
The two ascetics, Upatissa and Kolita, who were childhood friends, found out, on completion of the course of training within two or three days, that the ascetic teacher’s doctrine did not contain any elements whatsoever of the Deathless)
“My friend, this ascetic teacher’s doctrine is fruitless, it is without essence. We will make solemn vow that, from now on, the one who realises first the Deathless Nibbāna should tell about it to the other who is still after it.” The Great Chronicle of Buddhas
Even before encountering The Buddhadhamma they were looking for something Deathless.
The semantic property of this word is very important, it is something that doesn’t die, doesn’t disintegrate, a safety from death, something true and immortal.
As the story goes, Upatissa eventually meets Ven Assaji and after a brief teaching attains something described in these terms;
Then to Sariputta the wanderer, as he heard this Dhamma exposition, there arose the dustless, stainless Dhamma eye: “Whatever is subject to origination is all subject to cessation.”
Even if just this is the Dhamma,
you have penetrated
to the Sorrowless (asoka) State
unseen, overlooked (by us)
for many myriads of aeons.
Then Sariputta the wanderer went to Moggallana the wanderer. Moggallana the wanderer saw him coming from afar and, on seeing him, said, “Bright are your faculties, my friend; pure your complexion, and clear. Could it be that you have attained the Deathless?”
"Yes, my friend, I have attained the Deathless. "Upatissa-pasine
Buddha says that the path to abandoning the five lower fetters requires directing the mind to the Deathless element;
“And what, Ānanda, is the path, the way to the abandoning of the five lower fetters? Here, with seclusion from the acquisitions, with the abandoning of unwholesome states, with the complete tranquillization of bodily inertia, quite secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unwholesome states, a bhikkhu enters upon and abides in the first jhāna, which is accompanied by applied and sustained thought, with rapture and pleasure born of seclusion.
“Whatever exists therein of material form, feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness, he sees those states as impermanent, as suffering, as a disease, as a tumour, as a barb, as a calamity, as an affliction, as alien, as disintegrating, as void, as not self. He turns his mind away from those states and directs it towards the deathless element thus: ‘This is the peaceful, this is the sublime, that is, the stilling of all formations, the relinquishing of all attachments, the destruction of craving, dispassion, cessation, Nibbāna. ’ Mālunkyāsutta
The verse explaining the directing of the mind to the Deathless for the destruction of five lower fetters, describes the discernment of it as ‘cessation’ and ‘nibbana’ and importantly as a turning away from material form, feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness.
In particular we should take note that this is in so many terms a cessation of perception & feeling.
On cessation of perception feeling it is said;
When a monk has emerged from the cessation of perception & feeling, three contacts make contact: contact with emptiness, contact with the signless, & contact with the undirected. Kamabhu Sutta
Commy explains;
Emptiness, the signless, & the undirected are names for a state of concentration that lies on the threshold of Unbinding. They differ only in how they are approached. According to the commentary, they color one’s first apprehension of Unbinding: a meditator who has been focusing on the theme of inconstancy will first apprehend Unbinding as signless; one who has been focusing on the theme of stress will first apprehend it as undirected; one who has been focusing on the theme of not-self will first apprehend it as emptiness.
If we assume that this is correct then signless release is a word for cessation of perception & feeling attainment and it being necessary for the destruction of the five lower fetters.
There is support for this too;
There are, monks, three unskilled ways of thought: thoughts of lust, thoughts of ill-will, thoughts of hurting. And these three unskilled states disappear utterly in him whose heart is well established in the four foundations of mindfulness, or who practices concentration on the signless. Pi.n.dolya.m Sutta: Going Begging
I will here add the general designation for the terms Nibbana and Deathless
“Venerable sir, it is said, ‘the removal of lust, the removal of hatred, the removal of delusion.’ Of what now, venerable sir, is this the designation?”
“This, bhikkhu, is a designation for the element of Nibbāna: the removal of lust, the removal of hatred, the removal of delusion. The destruction of the taints is spoken of in that way.”
When this was said, that bhikkhu said to the Blessed One: “Venerable sir, it is said, ‘the Deathless, the Deathless.’ What now, venerable sir, is the Deathless? What is the path leading to the Deathless?”
“The destruction of lust, the destruction of hatred, the destruction of delusion: this is called the Deathless. This Noble Eightfold Path is the path leading to the Deathless; that is, right view … right concentration.” A Certain Bhikkhu (2)
Well, you cannot know a higher level of consciousness without actually attaining it. This is why the jhānas are sometimes called mystical states. Here is the quote from MN 22 that I referred to:
Because even in the present life the Realized One is undiscoverable/untraceable, I say.
Other suttas make a similar point. For instance at MN 48, the Brahmanimantanika Sutta, Baka the Brahmā says he will disappear from the Buddha, but is unable to do so. The Buddha on the other hand is able to disappear from Baka. This implies that there is a state of consciousness not accessible to Baka.
If the Buddha did use the word samādhi then I think we need to see it as such. But even if we don’t, I am not sure it makes any difference. The point, rather, is that there are mental states that might fit the description of anidassana viññāṇa.
Yes, this is pretty much what I meant by “idea of nibbāna”. Yet I do not think
in these states. This is how this “state” is described at AN 10.7:
One perception arose in me and another perception ceased: ‘The cessation of continued existence is extinguishment. The cessation of continued existence is extinguishment.’ ‘Bhavanirodho nibbānaṁ bhavanirodho nibbānan’ti kho me, āvuso, aññāva saññā uppajjati aññāva saññā nirujjhati.
One perception after another, all of the same kind, suggests to me a kind of samādhi.
I don’t think you can make this distinction. I mean, the “sphere of unbounded consciousness” is clearly a perception. In fact, a particular state of consciousness implies a state of perception. The two go together.
I think you have made a very good case that it refers to the second immaterial attainment. Just the words ananta viññāṇa are very suggestive. (And by the way, the idea of prioritizing the adjectives is super-duper.) In a sense the solution is staring us in the face. It’s just that we are either swayed by the commentary (in my case ) or by our inherent tendency to see eternal minds wherever we can.
Supposing one plants two mango seeds in identical location say identical two large pots filled with soil and manure from same lots and given same amount of fertiliser and same amount of water and placed in a place getting sunlight, and one seed germinates but not the other seed.
The reason being though from same Mango tree and from same crop of fruits, one does not have capability to germinate while the other has. Anidassana Vinnana is where the nama-rupa and the 4 great elements are no more illustrating the consciousness.
This term Anidassana Vinnana should not be taken in isolation from the rest that Buddha said. At the end of it Buddha said, “eththa namanch rupancha asesan uparujjathi. vinnanassa nirodena eththethan uparujjathi”. Niroda means stopped and no more birth again.
Indeed, the anidassana vinnana has stopped and thus no more birth again and that is Nibbana.
Once Buddha said, "Bhikkhus suppose a person comes here with a buckets of paint red, green, yellow, orange etc. and a brush and say “I am going to paint a picture in the sky. Can he do that?” Bhikkhus said no he cannot. Buddha asked as to why he cannot. Then Bhikkhus said “aakase arupi anidassnan”
The nidassana or illustrations are the nama-rupa, four great elements. When those are not there then that person has already attained nibbana in this life.
Perdonen mi atrevimiento. No se Pali aunque estudio el Dhamma desde hace años.
Entiendo que si, como se sugiere en el ensayo, seguimos los eslabones del origen condicionado al revés, es la desaparición de naparupa como condición lo que da lugar a una conciencia más primaria que la dependiente de namarupa. La conciencia a la que hace referencia el ensayo estaría en este ámbito y, por tanto, sería condición de ciertos sankharas no purificados. El caso, desde mi parcial y limitado punto de vista, es ¿dónde empieza Nibbana?
Si Nibbana es un proceso que comienza con la ‘entrada en la corriente’ es muy probable que la conciencia a la que se hace referencia en el ensayo esté en el ámbito de Nibbana aunque todavía no sea correcto hablar de ‘paccavekkhana nana’
Con mucha admiración y mucho agradecimiento por la sabiduría compartida.
I love the kind of thinking that has informed this essay. So clear and grounded, thank you, you have solved this particular question for me.
Oh-so-coincidentally I just recently came to this very same idea of “two-questions, two-answers”-verses, but for a different sutta: Snp 4.11. In reading Snp 4.11 and trying to understand it thoroughly, I noted that the exchange sometimes is in terms of two questions at a time, then answers to those two questions, often two different answers. It wouldn’t have occurred to me to re-use this idea for the verses with “viññāṇa anidassana”, probably because the translators are confused too.
I think you should add a paragraph to your essay about this, i.e. the fact that this two-ness of Q&A’s in verse also occurs elsewhere.
I have not read the entire thread, so maybe someone mentioned this already, but why not interpret viññāṇa anidassana as the saupadisesa nibbana and consciousness of a living arahant - or anagami, for that matter? The four elements not finding a footing would merely mean the arahant will not be reborn / anagami will not be reborn in the form realm. In that case the second answer would be an even more logical extrapolation of the first one, describing the anupadisesa nibbana. In that case, interpreting the Brahmanimantaṇika Sutta is also way easier: an arahant’s consciousness is outside the allness of all.
I may be confusing it with something else (probably with my own thoughts), but I think this or a very similar line of reasoning was presented by Ven. Nanananda in Concept and Reality, and I remember being in awe of how logical and elegant his exegesis was. Again, this may be a figment of my imagination, jut here it is for what it is worth.
I think your essay points out an important thing, thatvI also remember reading in Ven. Sujato’s writing on the matter. It is always very tempting to juggle Sutta fragments to make the Buddha suit our own ideas and views; hiwever, generally it is not advisable to take a very rare (!), poetic (!!) phrase from the Suttas featuring Brahma himself (!!!) to make them the basis of your doctrine. Accidentally, this is exactly what the eternalist Theravada team does, quoting viññāṇa anidassana to death, hardly providing the full context for the verse, blithely ignoring the part with the, you know, 'cessation of consciousness’or explaining it away in feats of mental gymnastics, and - last but not least - reacting to at least the two of counter interpretations we have presented with contemptuous silence.
In fact, it may be hard for many to realize how much these obscure verses have influenced the modern Western understanding of the Theravada doctrine. I have recently talked to a European Theravadin monk from the Sri Lankan forest tradition, who is anything else but an eternalist, and I casually mentioned that well, yeah, of course there is no consciousness in Nibbana. And boy, was he taken aback! ‘But Ilya, what about theviññāṇa anidassana?’ So I had to extensively quote the Samyutta Nikaya and whatnot to this learned and very knowledgeable monk to show how the Buddha constantly said that viññāṇakhandha included all of the past, present and future consciousness, how it is all suffering and how it ends with the final Nibbana. Contrast that with two obscure verses in the entire Canon! I think he was bot completely convinced but was courteous enough to leave me be - but at least I sowed some seeds of wholesome doubts in his head. My point in telling this story is that the far-fetched and totally groundless interpretations of these Sutta fragments are so ubiquitous now that we need more essays like yours!
I’ll try to respond to everybody who addressed me.
thanks for the comments. No reason for hate! 
but maybe it’s more interesting for others to see it “live”. 
)
) or by our inherent tendency to see eternal minds wherever we can.