I can not, at this time, through personal experience, examine the consciousness of an arahant. That is why I rely on the text.reflection wrote:How many confusion can arise because of some quotes in a 2500 old text? Buddhism is not a religion that should base its view on texts. Some suttas even explicitly say we shouldn't. Because who's to say these words "consciousness without feature" were ever spoken by the Buddha? It's clear the suttas have been modified quite a lot over the years, so to base our views on such a line is silly. I personally think the Buddha never said these words. They don't fit in the big part of the teachings at all. The gross of the suttas never hints at a consciousness outside of the six senses or outside of the five khandas, outside of body and mind. Neither have I ever experienced it, and I suggest those who support such a view to reconsider if they ever have. Why go by ancient text if you can go by experience?
With kindness,
I am not qualified to assert that this text is corrupt, and have never heard anybody suggest it was. What is wrong with saying that the arahant remains conscious while experiencing nibbana, and that this consciousness is not dependent on the sense-bases?
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
There is that dimension, monks, where there is neither earth, nor water, nor fire, nor wind; neither dimension of the infinitude of space, nor dimension of the infinitude of consciousness, nor dimension of nothingness, nor dimension of neither perception nor non-perception; neither this world, nor the next world, nor sun, nor moon. And there, I say, there is neither coming, nor going, nor staying; neither passing away nor arising: unestablished,[1] unevolving, without support [mental object].[2] This, just this, is the end of stress.