Ñāṇa wrote:Sylvester wrote:Might you perhaps be thinking of Geoff's "unestablished consciousness"? IMHO, this is a unicorn born from Ven Nanananda's unfortunate translations. Ven N translates "tadappatittham vinnanam" in SN 22.53 as "that unestablished consciousness..." ... this is a very poor attempt to reify something that does not exist
As I've already taken the time to reply in detail to your query, your repeated and intentional fallback to absurd characterizations is completely fallacious and does nothing to contribute to the discussion in an honest and meaningful way.Ñāṇa wrote:As for my rendering of "unestablished" (appatiṭṭha) as an adjective for a "consciousness which does not become established," this is in keeping with the sense of the above from Ven. Ñāṇananda. One could designate it as mental-consciousness (manoviññāṇa), as per MN 38: "[W]hen consciousness arises dependent on the mind and mind-objects, it is reckoned as mind-consciousness." This is what the early ābhidhammikas have decided, adding that said mental-consciousness is classified within the unincluded level (apariyāpanna bhūmi). That's fine by me, but doesn't really convey the full meaning of Ven. Ñāṇananda's interpretation of SN 12.64 and Udāna 8.1 (PTS Ud 80).Sylvester wrote:I've searched the Canon, and I can't seem to find any context in which consciousness is not estasblished, except in the context of Parinibbana. So, even if this unicorn exists, it does not seem relevant to an living Arahant.
Your reading of the relevant suttas is mistaken. Yet once again you're running off at the mouth without having the foggiest idea of what Ven. Ñāṇananda and Ven. Bodhi and Ven. Ṭhānissaro are indicating.
Let's be honest about the dishonesty here.
You're evading my critique of Ven Nanananda's creative translation of all the suttas he relies upon for this "unestablished consciousness". You'd cited Ven N and I've given my reasons why I find his characterisation wrong. What was dishonest, unmeaningful or fallacious about my disagreement or reasoning? I did not disagree with anything you offered, since you offered nothing but a reference to Ven N's theory. That being the case, I'm taking potshots at Ven N's translations. BB also took potshots in his SN (p.421) at the "unestablished consciousness" campers, so does that make BB dishonest or unmeaningful?
If your only comeback to my critique are those empty ad hominems and ex cathedras, WHOPPEE!! They are nothing but the calling cards of those unable to respond.
If you wish to demonstrate one iota of honesty and willingness to discuss, let's discuss Ven Nanananda's, Ven Thanissaro's and BB's translations of those 2 suttas and address my critique of Ven N's translation. Pontificating does not belong in this sasana.
The ball is in your court.