viññāṇaṃ anidassanaṃ (non-partaking consciousness)

• An Eternal Now

  17 Aug 12, 19:14

  A lot of people misunderstood buddha's "viññÄ�ṇaṃ anidassanaṃ", mistaking it with eternalist ideas of an eternal substratum of consciousness in Advaita. In fact whenever eternalists talk about Pali scriptures, all they will talk about this viññÄ�ṇaṃ anidassanaṃ because that is the only thing in the canon (along with falsely misunderstood descriptions of 'deathless' which the Buddha describes clearly as the elimination of the three poisons), which apparently seems to have a correlation (due to their wrong understanding of the statement) to their idea of luminous Self.

  The issue is not so much about the luminosity of mind or consciousness (such a denial would make one a nihilist), but the false reification of consciousness into a transcendentally (existing beyond the All) existing source and substratum or a Self (such views belong to the eternalist). Nowhere does Buddha describe consciousness in such ways but he always taught the middle way of dependent origination which is free of extreme positions of existence and non-existence, free of all views of a Self.

  
  
  AEN
  X, you misquoted the Buddha. Rigpa (knowledge) is beyond ma-rigpa but not beyond phenomena as pointed out to you. But you misquoted the Buddha to support your Advaita-like, Turiya-like understanding of consciousness. This is eternalistic. I shall repeat myself on that statement of Buddha despite it being seemingly out of place in this topic of discussion:
  
  "I love Geoff/Nana/Jnana (another strong scholar-practitioner like Malcolm though his main practice is Mahamudra)'s explanation here on viññÄ�ṇaṃ anidassanaṃ:
  
  "As for anidassana, in this context I'm liking the translation as "non-illustrative" or "non-indicative." "Non-illustrative" in the sense of the term as used in MN 21 Kakacūpama Sutta: �k�so arūpī anidassano, the sky is formless and non-illustrative. "Non-indicative" in the sense of the term as used in the Abhidhammapiṭaka, where the applications of mindfulness. etc., are said to be anidassana. The sense here being that they are not indicative of defilements, and so on.
  
  Also cf. Ven. ÑÄ�ṇananda, NibbÄ�na Sermon 07:
  Now viññÄ�ṇaṃ anidassanaṃ is a reference to the nature of the released consciousness of an arahant. It does not reflect anything. To be more precise, it does not reflect a nÄ�ma-rÅ«pa, or name-and-form. An ordinary individual sees a nÄ�ma-rÅ«pa, when he reflects, which he calls 'I' and 'mine'. It is like the reflection of that dog, which sees its own delusive reflection in the water. A non-arahant, upon reflection, sees name-and-form, which however he mistakes to be his self. With the notion of 'I' and 'mine' he falls into delusion with regard to it. But the arahant's consciousness is an unestablished consciousness.
  
  We have already mentioned in previous sermons about the established consciousness and the unestablished consciousness. A non-arahant's consciousness is established on name-and-form. The unestablished consciousness is that which is free from name-and-form and is unestablished on name-and-form. The established consciousness, upon reflection, reflects name-and-form, on which it is established, whereas the unestablished consciousness does not find a name-and-form as a reality. The arahant has no attachments or entanglements in regard to name-and-form. In short, it is a sort of penetration of name-and-form, without getting entangled in it. This is how we have to unravel the meaning of the expression anidassana viññÄ�ṇa.
  
  All the best,
  
  Geoff"
  
  This explains the so called 'consciousness which does not land' which should be more appropriately translated as "consciousness is not established there".
  
  This 'non-established consciousness' is also explained in Kalaka Sutta which I often quote from: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.024.than.html "
  Kalaka Sutta: At Kalaka's Park
  16 minutes ago · Like · Delete

  AEN
  Consciousness not partaking (grasping to the themes of things) in the all does not equal to some eternalistic transcendent consciousness. It is the released consciousness of an arahant in its self-liberating state. Kalaka sutta describes the experience of Buddha's unestablished consciousness very well, this is also in accord with Bahiya Sutta and others. The pali suttas are super consistent (believe me because I have read hundreds of them) while you are cherry picking one poetic phrase out of all the suttas and misinterpreting completely (not only misinterpreting but completely misquoting) not knowing the context of it.
  
  It is seen very clearly in anatta that all views and notions of consciousness/super-consciousness having some independent or unchanging true existence is not true, awareness is simply the quality of transient sensate world, it is intrinsically self-luminous or self-aware but does not exist as some independent unchanged substratum, background, source, etc. Of course, without awareness there is nothing made manifest. But it is not "awareness, therefore sensation". It is "awareness-sensation", "awareness-world". Prior and after (false construct of time) doesn't apply so the source-emanation analogy does not apply. The three kayas are a single co-arising. Source/awareness goes with transience like wetness goes with water. They are not even inseparable (no truly existing subject/awareness to be inseperable from transience). In seeing is just the seen. To speak of water is to speak of wetness, to speak of sensations is to speak of luminosity, just as to speak of wind is to speak of blowing. Both are words but just points to the single flow of empty-luminosity, as just this action, just this activity (but not some One Mind/source and substratum of phenomena).