SuttaCentral
With respect Dogen, I’m not sure what’s so dangerous about holding strong opinions in relation to Dhamma meanings and content? As far as I can see, there are lots and lots of strong opinions expressed on this forum on matters of great importance.
And I’m not sure that a person expressing their strong opinion is expecting for it all to be solved in a few paragraphs, and it’s a very interesting post which has sparked my curiosity.
And it seems that the view expressed likely arises from Abhidhamma sources which give a more intricate definition of vinnana.
Two wrongs don’t make a right, does it? 
Well, don’t listen to me, but maybe I can direct you to MN139 
‘Don’t insist on popular definitions and don’t overstep normal labels.’
That’s what I said, but why did I say it? And how do you insist on popular definitions and overstep normal labels?
It’s when among different populations they label the same thing as a ‘cup’, a ‘bowl’, a ‘jar’, a ‘scoop’, a ‘vessel’, a ‘dish’, or a ‘plate’.
And however it is known among those various populations, you speak accordingly, obstinately sticking to that and insisting: ‘This is the only truth, anything else is futile.’
That’s how you insist on popular definitions and overstep normal labels.
The less we know, the more we think we know everything. The more we learn, the more we understand in what ways we can be wrong.
On the specific word of Consciousness, for example: It means entirely different things in Neurology, Sociology, Psychology. Which one fit best, which ones do not?
What does vinnana mean, precisely? Abhidhamma maps it to a certain extent, yes — is that really the same thing as what’s told in suttas?
Speaking hurriedly is a principle beset by pain, harm, stress, and fever, and it is the wrong way. That’s why this is a principle beset by strife. Speaking unhurriedly is a principle free of pain, harm, stress, and fever, and it is the right way. That’s why this is a principle free of strife.
Insisting on popular definitions and overriding common usage is a principle beset by pain, harm, stress, and fever, and it is the wrong way. That’s why this is a principle beset by strife. Not insisting on popular definitions and not overriding common usage is a principle free of pain, harm, stress, and fever, and it is the right way. That’s why this is a principle free of strife.
Thanks for the sutta references, and it seemed to me that ‘dangerous’ was a strong word to use in relation to a person’s opinion.
Of course the Abhidhamma definitions are often not in line with the suttas, yet if the person with this opinion is a strong adherent to the Abhidhamma, then they have legitimate reasons of their own to hold their views, even though we may disagree.
Mn43 defines Viññāṇa and Vedanā(feeling) as follows:
| Viññāṇa | Vedanā |
|---|---|
They speak of 'Viññāṇa' . |
They speak of ‘Vedanā’. |
Both of these definitions are very similar, Viññāṇa is defined in terms of vijānāti, Vedanā in terms of vedeti - so that does not tell us much, except there is one difference in what these verbs apply for: Sukhantipi vijānāti and Sukhampi vedeti
According to dictionary:
Sukhantipi: sukhaṁ + iti + api: ‘this is pleasant’
Sukhampi: sukhaṃ + api
I am not sure what exactly the api means, but the difference in case of vijānāti is the added iti particle.
Now let’s not forget, that this definition lists 3 feelings as an example, as other suttas also use 6 feelings, even up to 108 feelings, the main point is that the definition of vijānāti and vedeti has something to do with feelings.
What is left is to decide what English word fits well for vijānāti. If we picked for example discern, distinguish (which is in the dictionary entry for vijānāti), then Viññāṇa would be distinguishing knowledge and it would be acquirable - for example the classic example of Pavlov’s dog experiment with a bell - a dog is given meal and a bell is rang, after a while ringing the bell would make the dog expect a meal and begin salivating as it would associate the sound as pleasant. It has acquired distinguishing knowledge that the bell sound is pleasant.
Another translation of AN 10.81, by F. L. Woodward for the Pali Text Society:
What are the ten?
The Wayfarer dwells free, detached, and released from physical body, feeling, perception, mental factors and (persisting) consciousness… from rebirth, decay and death… from the passions, Bahuna, the Wayfarer is free, detached and released, and dwells with a mind whose barriers are broken down.
(vol V p 103)
Note the “(persisting)” consciousness–wonder how Woodward arrived at that qualification!
But we do have this, wherein Woodward also used the word “persistance” in relation to consciousness:
That which we will…, and that which we intend to do and that wherewithal we are occupied:–this becomes an object for the persistance of consciousness. The object being there, there comes to be a station of consciousness. Consciousness being stationed and growing, rebirth of renewed existence takes place in the future, and here from birth, decay, and death, grief, lamenting, suffering, sorrow, and despair come to pass. Such is the uprising of this mass of ill.
Even if we do not will, or intend to do, and yet are occupied with something, this too becomes an object for the persistance of consciousness… whence birth… takes place.
But if we neither will, nor intend to do, nor are occupied about something, there is no becoming of an object for the persistance of consciousness. The object being absent, there comes to be no station of consciousness. Consciousness not being stationed and growing, no rebirth of renewed existence takes place in the future, and herefrom birth, decay-and-death, grief, lamenting, suffering, sorrow and despair cease. Such is the ceasing of this entire mass of ill.
(SN 12.38; translation Pali Text Society SN vol. II p 45)
Of course, Gautama frequently abbreviated suffering as “in short, the five groups of grasping” (AN 3.61; tr. Pali Text Society vol I p 160). That would say that “that which we will…, and that which we intend to do and that wherewithal we are occupied” results in grasping after a sense of self in one of the five groups.
In MN 109, Gautama juxtaposes freedom from grasping in the five groups with the loss of latent conceits that “I am the doer, mine is the doer” with regard to the consciousness-informed body:
Whatever… is material shape, past, future or present, internal or external, gross or subtle, mean or excellent, or whatever is far or near, (a person), thinking of all this material shape as ‘This is not mine, this am I not, this is not my self’, sees it thus as it really is by means of perfect wisdom. Whatever is feeling… perception… the habitual tendencies… whatever is consciousness, past, future, or present… (that person), thinking of all this consciousness as ‘This is not mine, this am I not, this is not my self’, sees it thus as it really is by means of perfect wisdom. (For one) knowing thus, seeing thus, there are no latent conceits that ‘I am the doer, mine is the doer’ in regard to this consciousness-informed body.
(MN 109, tr. Pali Text Society vol III p 68)
That is a loss of latent conceits that follows the cessation of volition in action of the body, when the body still acts (I would say, in particular in inhalation and exhalation):
It is intention that I call deeds. For after making a choice one acts by way of body, speech, and mind.
(AN 6.63, tr. Bhikkyu Sujato; Pali Text Society [PTS] vol III p 294)
And what is the cessation of deeds?
When you experience freedom due to the cessation of deeds by body, speech, and mind.
SN 35.146
Maybe we can say that the “mind free of limits” is without a persistence of consciousness, without a stationing of consciousness, enough of the time to have no latent conceits that “I am the doer, mine is the doer” with regard to the consciousness-informed body.
Ps @Dogen, I admit that I find this whole area of views to be very tricky. I see that the Buddha taught of the danger of holding tightly to views and I can certainly see and feel the dukkha in that. Yet those in Dhamma circles often hold very fast to their own differing views, do they not? Perhaps because each believes their own view to be ‘right view’?
They (we 
) often do indeed! The majority of Buddhists, remember, aren’t enlightened!
Oh, yes, I seemed to have overlooked that small point, thank you. 