Viññana anidasana = escape from being

As we know from dependent arising mutual dependence of consciousness and name-&-matter is what constitute samsaric bondage, and so is determined by ignorance [I take conceit “I am” as core of ignorance: “as long as there is the attitude ‘I am’ there is organization of the five faculties of eye, ear, nose, tongue, and body.” SN 22:47]; of course conceit “I am” itself is dependently arisen: 'I am’ is derivative, not underivative. Derivative upon what? Derivative upon matter, feeling, perception, determinations, and consciousness.” SN. 22:83

Thus far, Ananda, may one be born or age or die or fall or arise, thus far is there a way of designation, thus far is there a way of language, thus far is there a way of description, thus far is there a sphere of understanding, thus far the round proceeds as manifestation in a situation,—so far, that is to say, as there is name-&-matter together with consciousness.

DN 15

Just as two sheaves of reeds might stand leaning against each other, so too, with name-and-matter as condition, consciousness [comes to be]; with consciousness as condition, name-and-matter [comes to be]. With name-and-matter as condition, the six sense bases [come to be]; with the six sense bases as condition, contact…. Such is the origin of this whole mass of suffering.

“If, friend, one were to remove one of those sheaves of reeds, the other would fall, and if one were to remove the other sheaf, the first would fall. So too, with the cessation of name-and-matter comes cessation of consciousness; with the cessation of consciousness comes cessation of name-and-matter. With the cessation of name-and-matter comes cessation of the six sense bases; with the cessation of the six sense bases, cessation of contact…. Such is the cessation of this whole mass of suffering.” SN 12: 67

So it is obvious that viññana anidasana is synonymous with the cessation of consciousness and so with nibbana, and as a matter of fact apart from verbal similarity -the same term “viññana” is used when consciousness is analyzed as one of aggregates - there is no any contradiction with another Suttas, since by the very definition viññana anidasana does not arise in dependence on sensory organs. Moreover, liberation from name-and-matter implicates cessation of language, with the fundamental dialectic keeping us in bondage, namely: being/ not-being

“On what basis, Samiddhi, do intentions and thoughts arise in a person?”
“On the basis of name-and-form, Bhante.” AN IX: 14

“Bhikkhus, there are these two views: the view of being and the view of non-being. Any recluses or brahmins who rely on the view of being, adopt the view of being, accept the view of being, are opposed to the view of non-being. Any recluses or brahmins who rely on the view of non-being, adopt the view of non-being, accept the view of non-being, are opposed to the view of being.

“Any recluses or brahmins who do not understand as they actually are the origin, the disappearance, the gratification, the danger, and the escape in the case of these two views are affected by lust, affected by hate, affected by delusion, affected by craving, affected by clinging, without vision, given to favouring and opposing, and they delight in and enjoy proliferation. They are not freed from birth, ageing, and death; from sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair; they are not freed from suffering, I say. MN 11

And viññana anidasana, associated with cessation of being, is precisely the escape from these two kind of views.

“ ‘I have seen fear in every mode of being
Including being seeking for non-being;
There is no mode of being I affirm,
No relish whatsoever whereto I cling.’

Although Mara was rather sceptical about liberating nature of viññāna anidasana, namely that it doesn’t provide the access to what is not co-essential with the earthness of earth … not co-essential with the allness of all, that such claims of Lord Buddha are vain and empty, and was able to influenced Brahma, nevertheless, Lord Buddha after reciting the stanza above and performing certain act of supernormal power, was able to make a positive impression on Brahmā and the Assembly and all its members.

Now, not having supernormal powers, nor wisdom of Lord Buddha I can only point out, that while the term itself -viññāna anidasana- appears explicitly only in the two Suttas, it is present in many more places in the Pali Canon implicitly, for example when the cessation of name-and-matter is mentioned, or consciousnesses which is unestablished on name-and-matter or on aggregates.

[Ghaṭīkāra:]

“It was not apart from the Blessed One!
It was not apart from your Teaching!
By having understood your Dhamma
They cut through the bondage of existence.
“Where name-and-form ceases,
Stops without remainder:
By understanding that Dhamma here
They cut through the bondage of being.

[The Blessed One:]
“Deep is the speech you utter,
Hard to understand, very hard to grasp.(…)

SN I 176

The same situation described in dependent arising as dependence of consciousness on name-&-matter, is alternatively described in terms of aggregates. And when consciousness is unestablished on any kind of experience, it is liberated:

“The matter element, householder, is the home of consciousness; one whose consciousness is shackled by lust for the matter element is called one who roams about in a home.The feeling element is the home of consciousness … The perception element is the home of consciousness … The determinations element is the home of consciousness; one whose consciousness is shackled by lust for the determinations element is called one who roams about in a home. It is in such a way that one roams about in a home.

SN 22: 3

At Sāvatthī. “Bhikkhus, one who is engaged is unliberated; one who is disengaged is liberated. Consciousness, bhikkhus, while standing, might stand engaged with form; based upon form, established upon form, with a sprinkling of delight, it might come to growth, increase, and expansion. Or consciousness, while standing, might stand [engaged with feeling … engaged with perception …] engaged with determinations; based upon determinatios, established upon determinations, with a sprinkling of delight, it might come to growth, increase, and expansion.“Bhikkhus, though someone might say: ‘Apart from form, apart from feeling, apart from perception, apart from determinations, I will make known the coming and going of consciousness, its passing away and rebirth, its
growth, increase, and expansion’—that is impossible.

“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 determinations 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 realises extinction. 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.’” SN 22: 53

“Do you see, bhikkhus, that cloud of smoke, that swirl of darkness, moving to the east, then to the west, to the north, to the south, upwards, downwards, and to the intermediate quarters?”“Yes, venerable sir.”“That, bhikkhus, is Māra the Evil One searching for the consciousness of the clansman Godhika, wondering: ‘Where now has the consciousness of the clansman Godhika been established?’ However, bhikkhus, with consciousness unestablished, the clansman Godhika has attained final Nibbāna.”

SN 4: 23

“Bhikkhus, when the gods with Indra, with Brahmā and with Pajāpati seek a bhikkhu who is thus liberated in mind, they do not find [anything of which they could say]: ‘The consciousness of one thus gone is supported by this.’ Why is that? One thus gone, I say, is untraceable here and now.

MN 22

Not to mention descent into the void as described in Suttas, which is precisely description of the same situation as liberation of consciousness from name-and- matter, just different vocabulary is used.

There is mistaken idea, that while experience of arahat is really difficult to understand, in the case of puthujjana, we encounter less problems, (perhaps on the grand that we don’t know much about arahat, but as a puthujjanas, we supposed to know something about our experience). But if we take care to look at the problem from the perspective of the Four Noble Truths, where the first two truths describe puthujjana existential situation, and following truths escape from it, we must come to conclusion, that who understands experience of puthujjana, inevitably must be able to understand arahat. Four Noble Truths are one structure, and one who understands one of the truths understands all of them.

Similarly we can say that one who doesn’t understand the nature of viññiana anidasana is in error because he really doesn’t understand the consciousness of puthujjana. And even as a one of aggregates of experience, where undoubtedly it has to be described as impermanent, since any experience whatsoever is temporal (arising, disappearing and change are evident), consciousness is definitely the most important and the most mysterious part of experience, so in fact practice of the Dhamma can be stated as: consciousness is to be fully understood.”

"The difference, friend, between understanding and consciousness, these states that are conjoined, not disjoined, is this: understanding is to be developed, consciousness is to be fully understood.”

MN 43

And the most fundamental thing about consciousness which has to be understood, is its negativity, other aggregates of experience are positive in itself, we can observe certain feeling as such, its arising, persistence, and disappearing. So we can say that there is consciousness of feeling. But since consciousness is negative: it arises only as a consciousness of something, by itself it is empty of any positive quality, so there is no such thing as consciousness of consciousness, all we can get reflecting on experience is consciousness of consciousness of something. Like in immediate visual experience (apart of looking at the mirror) eye isn’t seen, in any immediate experience whatsoever, all what we know, we know as objects in the field of consciousness, in immediate experience consciousness is not known, only reflecting on experience we discover that there is such thing as consciousness.

The beauty of the Dhamma is that it describes the things as they are, so most of descriptions can be verified on reflexive level by anyone - I mean anyone who is wise (see AN VIII : 30)- for example Master Eckhart made a similar observations about the nature of consciousness. Small digression, certain Indian philosopher, well known in Europe, shocked modern Western philosophers, by insisting that Master Eckhart was the greatest Western philosopher. Of course there are many different schools, and for example Heidegger recognised importance of Master Eckhart. (In the following quote “soul” stands for consciousness):

Through this presented image, the soul approaches creatures - an image being something that the soul makes of (external) objects with her own powers. Whether it is a stone, a horse, a man, or anything else that she wants to know, she gets out the image of it that she has already taken in, and is thus enabled to unite herself with it.

But for a man to receive an image in this way, it must of neces­sity enter from without through the senses. In consequence, there is nothing so unknown to the soul as herself. Accordingly, one master says that the soul can neither create nor obtain an image of herself.

Therefore she has no way of knowing herself, for images all enter through the senses, and hence she can have no image of herself. And so she knows all other things, but not herself. Of nothing does she know so little as of herself, for want of mediation. Sermons

And the negativity of consciousness is precisely the reason that in order to demonstrate its impermanence, one have to demonstrate impermanence of the sensory organs upon which it arises, or impermanence of its object.

So again about negativity of consciousness (Nanamoli Thera):

.> … one always finds that one has not been talking about mind (either mano or viññāṇa) but only about nāma-rūpa.

The committee called Buddhaghosa Thera made a parallel most grave and fundamental error in their Visuddhimagga’s 14th Chapter when they set out to describe the viññāṇakkhandha second, next to the rūpakkhandha, and before vedanā, saññā and saṅkhārā (that is why the description of the last two is so thin there, because it is these two, not viññāṇa that has been described second under viññāṇa and so there is nothing intelligible left to say about them beyond mere repetition). This is quite contrary to the Suttas, which never change the order for the vital reason that it is only after you have exhausted everything positive by the first four that viññāṇa remains (MN 140) and that is indescribable except on the basis of that due to which it arises (MN 38), or on the basis of nāma-rūpa (MN 109) which it is—not (in the mode of not-being-what-it-is-and-being-what-it-is-not), and unlike the other four, it is the only infiniteness among them (ānañca—see the four āruppas) and so, phenomenologically it is the pure negative (“purer” than the first negation, ākāsa the four ārupas are Absolute Negation). Thinker’s Notebook

Phrase “of not-being-what-it-is-and-being-what-it-is-not” is borrowed from the existential philosophy, and while it sounds awkwardly, it precisely describes what we know about consciousness: it is not name-&-matter (objects is the field of consciousness) and is what name-&-matter is not.

Again, understanding of dependently arisen nature of consciousness should help to clarify misconceptions about dependent arising: with determinations as consciousness … what does it mean? The answer is in the Suttas, as long as we don’t alternate definition of terms provided by the Suttas.

There are two elements, determined and un-determined. MN115, so dependent arising and cessation of perception and feeling are strictly connected since cessation of sankharas which are obviously on dukkha side, gives knowledge about undetermined element free from dukkha:

And I have also said: ‘Whatever is felt is included in suffering.’ That has been stated by me with reference to the impermanence of determinations. That has been stated by me with reference to determinations being subject to destruction … to determinations being subject to vanishing … to determinations being subject to fading away … to determinations being subject to cessation … to determinations being subject to change.

“Then, bhikkhu, I have also taught the successive cessation of determinations. For one who has attained the first jhāna, (…) For one who has attained the cessation of perception and feeling, perception and feeling have ceased. For a bhikkhu whose taints are destroyed, lust has ceased, hatred has ceased, delusion has ceased.
SN 36: 11

Or:

It is hard for such a generation to see this truth, that is to say, specific conditionality, dependent arising. And it is hard to see this truth, that is to say, stilling of all determinations, relinquishing of the essentials of existence, exhaustion of craving, fading of lust, cessation, Nibbana.

MN 26

Now it should be easy to understand why although literally all things in space and time are sankharas -including the space and time - in the context with dependent arising ( for example in MN 9), kāyasankhāra, vacìsankhāra, cittasankhāra are mentioned as examples of sankharas.

Of course this somehow forcible removal of things upon which consciousness can establish itself in experience is not the only way of liberating consciousness from the name-and-matter, but who cannot attain the cessation of perception and feeling, at least can contemplate its nature in order to increase one’s own understending of Dhamma.

Since consciousness of puthujjana is always associated with the attitude “I am” which itself is derived from self-identification with this or that aspect of experience, and the most subtle object of upadana is the forth immaterial state*, the absence of any determinations must lead to the cessation of ignorance. So regarding the attainment of the cessation of perception and feeling emphasis should be put rather on absence of any objects of upadana and so the impossibility of puthujjana to survive such attainment as the puthujjana.

*> “But, venerable sir, when that bhikkhu clings, what does he cling to?”

“To the base of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, Ānanda.”
“When that bhikkhu clings, venerable sir, it seems he clings to the best [object of] clinging.”
“When that bhikkhu clings, Ānanda, he clings to the best [object of] clinging; for this is the best [object of] clinging, namely, the base of neither-perception-nor-non-perception.

“Here, Ānanda, a bhikkhu is practising thus: ‘It might not be, and it might not be mine; it will not be, and it will not be mine. What exists, what has come to be, that I am abandoning.’ Thus he obtains equanimity. He does not delight in that equanimity, welcome it, or remain holding to it. Since he does not do so, his consciousness does not become dependent on it and does not cling to it. A bhikkhu without clinging, Ānanda, attains Nibbāna.” MN 106

Summarise: viññana anidasana is the consciousness of arahat, a bhikkhu without upadana.

3 Likes

Namo Buddhaya!

As i understand it, the term ‘consciousness unestablished’ does not have the same semantic target as ‘vinnana anidassana’

"Should consciousness, when standing (still), stand attached to fabrications, supported by fabrications (as its object), established on fabrications, watered with delight, it would exhibit growth, increase, & proliferation.

"Were someone to say, ‘I will describe a coming, a going, a passing away, an arising, a growth, an increase, or a proliferation of consciousness apart from form, from feeling, from perception, from fabrications,’ that would be impossible.

"If a monk abandons passion for the property of form …

"If a monk abandons passion for the property of feeling …

"If a monk abandons passion for the property of perception …

"If a monk abandons passion for the property of fabrications …

"If a monk abandons passion for the property of consciousness, then owing to the abandonment of passion, the support is cut off, and there is no base for consciousness. Consciousness, thus unestablished, not proliferating, not performing any function, is released. Owing to its release, it stands still. Owing to its stillness, it is contented. Owing to its contentment, it is not agitated. Not agitated, he (the monk) is totally unbound right within. He discerns that ‘Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.’ Udana Sutta: Exclamation

I could see how this is somewhat open to interpretion.

As i read this, consciousness unestablished’ refers to the absence of passion for name & form in the mind of the arahant.

It folows, that consciousness unestablished only goes in as far as nibbana with residue goes. And when it is said

The quote doesn’t say that having attained parinibbana Godhika’s consciousness has become unestablished.

Rather it says that Godhika was an Arahant, his consciousness (at the time of being an arahant) wasn’t established as in not being set on continued proliferation due to relishing of name & form. And with a mind like this he attained final extinguishment, hence his consciousness no longer comes into play.

As to vinnana anidassana

There are two readings

  1. Vinnana anidassana is the where consciousness ceases.
  2. Vinnana anidassana is a statement about the where consciousness ceases.

I favor the 2nd reading and i translate the verse thus

Consciousness not being apparent (due to having ceased) where name & form are ended, with the cessation of consciousness all is brougt to an end.

Meaning that consciousness is therein not apparent due to having ceased.

Regarding this topic, the OP and the response, you may wish to read:

2 Likes

Yes, I agree. It is a good topic to explore as I feel there are many references to be found. I mentioned a number of sutta references in my essay on this topic:

Meister Eckhart is one of the great mystics and once accustomed to his terminology I find many parallels to what is found in the suttas. I recently discovered an online version of his sermons translated by Maurice Walshe:

.

:+1:

Sadhu! Sadhu! Sadhu!

:pray:

1 Like

As i see it, this is easily refuted because vinnana anidassana, whatever it is, pertains to something not experienced through the allness of the all.

‘If, good sir, you have directly known the extent of what has not been experienced through the allness of the all, may it not turn out to be actually vain and void for you.’

"'Consciousness without surface,
endless, radiant all around,
has not been experienced through the earthness of earth … the liquidity of liquid … the fieriness of fire … the windiness of wind … the allness of the all. Brahma-nimantanika Sutta: The Brahma Invitation

The all includes mind & dhammas, so in as far as you describe the mind of the arahant and what is experienced in dependence on that, all that is included in what is experienced through the allness of the all.

As i see it, the obvious interpretation is that cessation of perception & feeling is not experienced through the allness of the all.

The Buddha is talking about becoming absorbed in dependence on that which is not experienced through the allness of the all and is unknown to Brahmas

"He 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.’"
Sandha Sutta: To Sandha

Because these Brahmas don’t know this they are perplexed about it in the suttas mentioning vinnana anidassana.

Are you talking about me as included in that collective ‘Theravadins’?

I’ve taught the proper interpretation, these suttas converge on two points

  • one thing unknown to Brahmas
  • not experienced through allness of the all

It is undeniable that this must be correct.

We had no initial choice in our becoming or coming to be.
The actions of our parents determined our birth. In deep sleep: there is no conception of even ‘being’. A perfect intermission.
For there to be no further birth would require an active conscious effort to suppress such yet the circumstances around ones arising happened outside of your conscious control but formed you as consciousness (aliveness).

From birth, a seed of mindfulness to be tended to. The Tathagata is beyond ‘coming and going’. That to me shouts ‘rooted in perfection and utterly present but moving in perfect harmony’.

As it was written, consciousness unestablished on name-and-matter implicates cessation of language, so nobody here is insisting that such consciousness aftrer dissolution of the body still “is”, or “is not”. As long as descriptions are done in the presence of dependently arisen consciousness, which supports the state of being, language is a useful tool, if used by skillful logicans. But:

‘Escape’ to what is not liberation whether from one side of a dialectic to the other by unilateral insistence or from a dialectic about one determined (sankhata) idea to another determined idea with its dialectic [to be or not to be?] is a false escape that offers no final release. ‘Escape’ via the pattern of the 4 Truths, of which the third is undetermined (asankhata), provides the true escape from dialectic. This is pointed to as follows: with a special emphasis on words which is not without relevance here; ’ “Then, one gone out, does he no more exist? Or is he safe and sound eternally?” . . .

“For one gone out there’s no criterion; . . . That whereby one might word him, he has not: Where all ideas obliterate themselves, obliterated too are ways of wording” ’ (Sn. 1075-6). Nanamoli Thera footnote in The Guide

Well, since sankhara can be defined as the act of self-identification*, which obviously is not the case with arahat, term asankhata can be used in phenomenal descriptions, even without mentioning asankhata dhatu. Not that there is any difference between the two elements of extinction. Whether body is still alive, or dead, it doesn’t matter, apart that “living” arahat can still teach us Dhamma.

*He regards matter—or feeling, or perception, or determinations, or consciousness—as self. That is a determination…<S. XXII,81: iii,96-7>

Nanavira Thera:

"I recently received from Mr. Samaratunga your carefully prepared comments on my Notes on Dhamma. I read them with great interest and sent a reply to Mr. Samaratunga. I now hear from him that he has sent it on to you, so no doubt it will reach you in due course. Unfortunately, I find that I have made a slip that needs correcting. In my discussion of viññānam anidassanam anantam sabbatopaham, I said (as I remember) that ‘the arahat’s consciousness neither indicates nor originates a “self” or “subject”.’ This should be: ‘neither indicates a “self” or a “subject” nor originates from a “self” or “subject”’. Actually, the meaning of anidassanam and sabbato-apaham is the same: it is simply that, since there is no more Ahan ti vā Maman ti vā Asmi ti vā[1] with the arahat, consciousness is no longer ‘mine’. And anantam may be taken in the same sense—for the arahat consciousness is no longer limited by being ‘my’ consciousness (a determination is always a limiting, being a negation; and consciousness is now, in this respect, asankhata or non-determined). In the Asankhata Samyutta (iv,359-73) you will see that asankhata, anidassana, and nibbāna are all synonyms, and are all defined as rāgakkhaya dosakkhaya mohakkhaya, which, in the Itivuttaka (v,5: 38) is said to be saupādisesā nibbānadhātu.[2]

Edward Conze’s translation as ‘invisible infinite consciousness which shines everywhere’ is quite wild (no doubt he has taken it without considering the Pali at all), and one is tempted to ask how consciousness can be ‘invisible’ if it ‘shines everywhere’. But what, precisely, it is that Mahāyānists understand by nibbāna is very difficult to make out." L 107
**
(‘That consciousness by which the Tathāgata might be manifested has been eliminated by the Tathāgata, cut off at the root, dug up, made non-existent, it is incapable of future arising; the Tathāgata, great king, is free from reckoning as consciousness…’) (Avyākata Samy. 1 <S.iv,379>). There is no longer any consciousness pointing (with feeling and the rest) to an existing ‘self’ and with which that ‘self’ might be identified. And in the Kevaddhasutta (Dīgha i,11 <D.i,223>), viññānam anidassanam,[*] which is the arahat’s ‘non-indicative consciousness’, is also viññānassa nirodho. While the arahat yet lives, his consciousness is niruddha, or ‘ceased’, for the reason that it is ananuruddha-appativiruddha (Majjhima ii,1 <M.i,65>). In the same way, when there is no longer any apparent ‘self’ to be contacted, contact (phassa) is said to have ceased: Phusanti phassā upadhim paticca / Nirūpadhim kena phuseyyum phassā. (‘Contacts contact dependent on ground – How should contacts contact a groundless one?’) (Udāna ii,4 <Ud.12>

  • In the line Viññānam anidassanam anantam sabbatopaham, (‘Non-indicative consciousness, limitless, wholly non-originating.’) the compound sabbatopaham (in Majjhima v,9 <M.i,329>, sabbatopabham) is probably sabbato + apaham (or apabham) from apahoti, a + pahoti (or apabhavati [apabhoti]). (Note that in the Majjhima passage preceding this line there is a Burmese v.l., nāpahosi for nāhosi.)
1 Like

If you say that it is beyond language then you shouldn’t be saying that ‘it is’ or ‘isn’t’ while the arahant is alive either.

So the consciousness unestablished is not dependently arisen?

There is no support for this in the texts.

Consciousness unestablished refers to the absence of passion in the mind of the Arahant, his mind is impermanent and dependently arisen.

This consciousness ceases with the attainment of parinibbana.

Although any act is sankhara, sankhara in general can not be defined as ‘an act of self-identification’ because it’s meaning is much broader than that as the four aggregates are conjoined.

I didn’t read the quotes of Nanamoli & Nanavira so i won’t comment.

I am confident that you feel this way. Thank you for sharing.

It’s not something i feel. It is objectively reasonable and we won’t see anybody disprove it.

This

Entails this

having directly known the extent of what has not been experienced through the allness of the all

Because The All is defined as this

What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, mind & dhammas.

Therefore

  • Mn49 and an11.10 are describing one thing not experienced through the allness of the all
  • dn11, mn49, an11.10 are describing one thing unknown to Brahmas
  • dn11 & mn49 are using the same term in describing one thing

It follows that all three are describing the same thing.

The evidence for the assertion is conclusive and it is fully substantiated.

To assert something other than this is unreasonable because there exists no logical or textual basis for doing so.

This is kind of important because it sheds light on other texts connected to these and it disproves the many people holding wrong views about these things.

You aren’t able to see ambiguity regarding an experience of arahat, but certain problems, or questions should be first alalized, since they contain an ambiguity, which has to be exposed. In the dialectic: Is it possible to describe arahat now and here as existing, the ambiguity is hidden in different points of reference. Arahat is an individual - puggala, without personality - sakkaya.

The reason why the Tathāgata is not to be found (even here and now) is that he is rūpa-, vedanā-, saññā-, sankhāra-, and viññāna-sankhāya vimutto (ibid. 1 <S.iv,378-9>), i.e. free from reckoning as matter, feeling, perception, determinations, or consciousness.

This is precisely not the case with the puthujjana, who, in this sense, actually and in truth is to be found." (Nanavira)

And so following words refer to the cessation of sakkaya:

‘I was’ is not for me, not for me is ‘I shall be’;
Determinations will un-be: therein what place for sighs?
Pure arising of things, pure series of determinants –
For one who sees this as it is, chieftain, there is no fear.

Theragāthā 715, 716

On the other since individual as set of impersonal khandhas is quite real no matter it carries burden of sakkaya or not, following words refer to unbroken chain of aggregates:

“When his concentrated mind is thus purified, bright, unblemished, rid of imperfection, malleable, wieldy, steady, and attained to imperturbability, he directs it to knowledge of the recollection of past lives. He recollects his manifold past lives, that is, one birth, two births, three births, four births, five births, ten births, twenty births, thirty births, forty births, fifty births, a hundred births, a thousand births, a hundred thousand births, many aeons of world-contraction, many aeons of world-expansion, many aeons of world-contraction and expansion: ‘There I was so named, of such a clan, with such an appearance, such was my nutriment, such my experience of pleasure and pain, such my life-term; and passing away from there, I reappeared elsewhere; and there too I was so named, of such a clan, with such an appearance, such was my nutriment, such my experience of pleasure and pain, [348] such my life-term; and passing away from there, I reappeared here.’ Thus with their aspects and particulars he recollects his manifold past lives.
MN 51

Still some ambiguity persist due to use words “I” or “mine”, but as far as language goes it is unavoidable:

—A monk who is a worthy one, his task done,
His cankers destroyed, wearing his last body, –
Is it because this monk has arrived at conceit
That he might say ‘I say’,
And that he might say ‘They say to me’?

—For one who is rid of conceit there are no ties,
All his ties of conceit (mānaganthā’ssa) are dissolved;
This wise man, having got beyond conceiving (yam matam),
Might say ‘I say’, And he might say ‘They say to me’:
Skilled in worldly expressions, knowing about them,
He might use them within the limits of usage.

Devatà Samy . iii,5

No, not as I understand what you have said so far. It seems to me that your view is that because the “allness of the all” includes the 6 sense bases, the Arahat could not experience vinanna anidassana until after the death of the physical body. My view on the other hand is that the allness of the all has to do with what I build a sense of identity upon and when there is no longer a sense of self in relation to sense objects, this is when consciousness is no longer established.

Consider SN12.44: Here we have a definition of “the world” and the cessation of “the world” which includes the 6 senses. And in AN4.45 it says "Yet it is just within this fathom-long body, with its perception & intellect, that I declare that there is the cosmos, the origination of the cosmos, the cessation of the cosmos, and the path of practice leading to the cessation of the cosmos.” So on this basis, I feel that vinanna anidassana arises for the Arahat at the time of their awakening. What happens after they die, I have no idea.

Now I understand that you feel quite strongly that your view is correct. You have made that quite clear to me. You probably have a different understanding of those two suttas. The world would be quite boring if everyone shared the same view. I have no interest in arguing or debating these points. If you are happy with your view then I think that is great.

The Theravada view, on the other hand, as I understand it is that there are just aggregates. Even the Arahat is just aggregates. The only thing keeping the Arahat around is the physical body. When the physical body dies then the Arahat (being nothing but aggregates) is annihilated as it never existed anyway. Based on this view, dependent origination continues as long as the physical body exists regardless of if one is an Arahat or a worldly person. Therefore any consciousness described with reference to an Arahat must be no different from worldly consciousness found in dependent origination.

To any Theravadins out there reading this: if I have something wrong here then please start a separate thread explaining your point of view. I would be interested in understanding this view correctly.

I’ve taught the proper interpretation, these suttas converge on two points
-one thing unknown to Brahmas
-not experienced through allness of the all

It is undeniable that this must be correct.

The way you present your views is something like “I know the undeniable truth” (implying that I don’t). If you tried showing interest in the others view, a desire to understand them and a willingness to allow others to have their own view rather then telling them they are wrong, that would encourage people to engage in discussion with you. How would you speak to me if we were friends sitting at an outdoor cafe having a capuchino and croissant together?