Hi Mike, Tilt, Anders,
mikenz66 wrote:
Freawaru wrote:
The necessity is not to develop a stable consciousness but a consciousness that does not alter with the changes and instabilities of consciousness. ...
Seems contradictory. Consciousness arises in association with objects. That's clear not only in the Abhidhamma and Commentaries, but in many Suttas. It is always altering (according to the Buddha Dhamma). It seems to me that the Buddha challenges us to accept that everything we experience is anicca. He does not advocate seeking something "stable" in it.
Yes, I see what you mean about contradictory. Sounds paradox. But let me quote the Uddesa-vibhanga Sutta again:
His consciousness changes & is unstable, but his consciousness doesn't — because of the change & instability of consciousness — alter in accordance with the change in consciousness.
His consciousness changes but his consciousness doesn't alter with the change in consciousness. Well, "alter" is a synonym of "change", isn't it? So the sutta states that "his consciousness changes but his consciousness doesn't change with the change in consciousness". Sounds paradox. But it isn't.
What is meant, IMO, is that there are two kinds of consciousness happening. The first one is linked to the arising objects (like the monkey holding the branches) and the second is free of this activity. The second one (here called "consciousness"; I don't know whether the Pali term is citta or vinanna) is that what gives rise to our good old "sati-sampajanna": Awareness, Clear Comprehending.
In what this sutta calls "an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person" the two consciousnesses alter in tandem, when the first changes so does the second. Thus awareness is consumed:
There is the case where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma ... His consciousness changes & is unstable. Because of the change & instability of consciousness, his consciousness alters in accordance with the change in consciousness. With the agitations born from the alteration in accordance with the change in consciousness and coming from the co-arising of (unskillful mental) qualities, his mind stays consumed. And because of the consumption of awareness, he feels fearful, threatened, & solicitous.
"This, friends, is how agitation is caused by clinging/sustenance.
So there are two kinds of agitation. The first is known to everybody, including the "uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person", this is the agitation caused by the arising of different kinds of objects. But the other kind of agitation is caused by clinging, meaning by the absence of sati-sampajanna. The "run-of-the-mill person" does not discern between these two kinds of agitation because he does not know the second kind of "consciousness" that arises from not-clinging as the "instructed disciple of the noble ones" knows. For this second kind of person - the "instructed disciple of the noble ones" - the two consciousnesses do not arise and fall in tandem, their arising and falling is independent of each other, this is called "not-clinging".
This is, IMO, exactly what we try to accomplish in Theravada. Think of the Mahasi method: one walks and tries to stay aware of walking: two kinds of consciousness arise, one absorbed in the experience of the walking and the other is observing this consciousness of experience. The first changes (one foot, the other foot) but the other, the aware one, is stable, unchanging. And because of this stability of the second kind of consciousness the mind is not consumed.
"And how is non-agitation caused by lack of clinging/ sustenance? There is the case where an instructed disciple of the noble ones — who has regard for nobles ones, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma; who has regard for men of integrity, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma ...
His consciousness changes & is unstable, but his consciousness doesn't — because of the change & instability of consciousness — alter in accordance with the change in consciousness. His mind is not consumed with any agitations born from an alteration in accordance with the change in consciousness or coming from the co-arising of (unskillful mental) qualities. And because his awareness is not consumed, he feels neither fearful, threatened, nor solicitous.
"This, friends, is how non-agitation is caused by lack of clinging/sustenance.
This is a crucial point: The two kinds of consciousness, one experiencing and the other observing the experience. The second is a kind of Meta-consciousness. When people meditate they often think that the goal is an experience - like jhana. But Liberation is attained by detaching from experience, this does not mean that there is no experience any more but that there is this Meta-consciousness that observes all experience and can be stabilised through all kinds of experience.... well, this is not Liberation, yet, either, IMO, but it is the important accomplishment that leads to Liberation.
As to the Abhidhamma: to see change one needs a fix-point. A star-ship moving in free space can only be said to be moving when comparing the distance to something, like stars or galaxies. If everything moves in the same way, at the same speed, in the same direction all these definitions can't be used and the term "movement" or "change" becomes meaningless. Abhihamma talks about change in consciousness but here, too, one needs a fix-point for the term change to become meaningful. This fix-point is the stable sati-sampajanna awareness, the second kind of consciousness that is based on non-agitation caused by lack of clinging.
I think it is because of the seeming paradox - calling both "consciousness" - that some teachers prefer to give it other names. Thus I think it quite possible that Ahjan Sucitto means it - at least it fits the description.