Michael Olds wrote (translating 'viññāṇa' as 're-knowing knowing'):
Greetings! As some of you know, I have been digging into the notion of
Vinnana Anidassana for some time now. This is my take:
Tracing things back from our visible world by way of finding it's essential
dependancies, we see that growing old and dying depend on the fact of birth.
Without birth there would be no getting old and dying.
Birth depends on the fact of life itself. If there were no such thing as
"Life" in any form anywhere, then there could be no birth.
Life depends on the animation known as "going after getting" and "going
after getting away from." If there were no activity in the form of
attempting to get or get away, then there would be no living.
Activitiy in the pursuit of getting and getting away depends on the fact of
wanting. If there were no wanting to get or wanting to get away, there would
be no attempting to get or attempting to get away.
Wanting depends on sense experience in the form of pleasant sensation,
unpleasant sensation, and sensation that is neither pleasant nor unpleasant.
If there were no sensations there would be no wanting to get or wanting to
get away.
Sensations depend on the mechanisms of sensation-production: the organ of
sense, the object of sense, the contact of the two, and the sensation,
perception, and consciousness that arises from the conjunction of the three
(sense organ, sense object, and mechanism of consciousness). If there were
no mechanism of sensation-production, then there would be no sense
experience.
The Mechanisms of sensation-production depend on the inter-operation of the
mental and the material. If there were no inter-operation of the mental and
the material, there would be no mechanism for sensation production.
The interoperation of the Mental and Material depends on the ability to
re-know knowing. If there were no ability to re-know knowing, then there
would be no interoperation of the Mental and Material.
The ability to re-know knowing depends on the interoperation of the Mental
and Material. If there were no interoperation of the Mental and Material,
there would be no re-knowing knowing.
So it can be seen at this point that re-knowing knowing depends on the
interoperation of the mental and the material, and the interoperation of the
mental and the material depends on re-knowing knowing. The one doubles back
on the other.
It is because individuals do not see the outcome in aging and death, and
because they do not see the origin of that aging and death in the wanting
that is connected to the re-knowing of knowing sense experiences, and
because they do not see the ending of that aging and death in the ending of
that wanting that is connected to the re-knowing of knowing sense
experiences, that they take action to get or get away from in the form of
identification with intentional acts (to get or get away from) of body,
speech and mind. If individuals saw the outcome as aging and death, if they
saw the origin as wanting, if they saw the ending as the ending of that
wanting, there would be no taking action to get or get away from and there
would be no resultant identification found in the outcome. This is the
meaning of: Depending on Blindness [a = not; vijja = vision]; Confounded
Identification [sangkhara = sang = own, with; khara= making].
This blindness takes the form of points of view about existance and
non-existance. Put in first-level terms, it is the point of view that "I am"
or "It is my."
The inter-operation of the mental and the material in what is subjectively
understood to be the present moment is producing sensations, perceptions,
and re-knowing knowing carrying with it [from it's previously having been
implanted there by identification with intentional acts of body, speech and
mind] the notion "I am" or "It is my." Re-knowing the knowing of that,
depending on the now current point of view of the individual, this notion is
accepted or not accepted. Accepted it produces a tendancy to react.
Reacting, it produces another "round." Rejected, it does not produce any
tendancy to react. Not reacting, nothing is produced.
This "re-knowing the knowing" of the personalized [carrying with it the
notion of "I am" from the point of it's being previously intentionally set
rolling] "re-knowing knowing" produced by the inter-operation of the mental
and the material in the present moment is what is known as "Vinnana
Anidassananam," the re-knowing knowing that cannot be seen or pointed out.
It is essential to this notion of a re-knowing knowing that cannot be
pointed out that it remain without "descriptors". This is because that which
is used as a descriptor is made in the "mental" side of the two-sided beast
that is the interoperation of the mental and the material that is the basis
for the senses. Like a mirror, when a thing is conceptualized in the mental
side, there is automatically formed a corresponding "thing" in the material
side. In other words, conceptualized through the senses [in this case "the
mind" of the individual], that is, described as a "thing" (and a "state" is
a "thing") the re-knowing knowing of the Arahant is always [must always be]
being wrongly described. Since there is no other way to describe a thing, it
must remain undescribed.
Attempting a description of the re-knowing knowing of the Arahant is the
error of those who maintain an on-going "Pure Mind", or "Buddha Mind": they
have conceptualized the unconceptualizable. They have made the Unborn,
Unmade, Undying, etc into existing states and have consequently bound
themselves to the attainment of such a "thing". Attaining such a thing is
attaining a "state" and as such is attaining something that will end and as
such is not the goal.
We must be satisfied to let well-enough alone. Let go of what we can know is
going to result in Pain, and the rest will take care of itself.
Say I.
Best Wishes!
Michael Olds
http://www.buddhadust.org
