viññāṇa as divided knowing

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22383
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: viññāṇa as divided knowing

Post by Ceisiwr »

pegembara wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 3:07 am How about this?

Vinnana=The experiencer or subject
Nama-rupa=The experienced or object

The (subject internally) here and (objects externally) there or this and that.
I think Wynne would argue that isn’t the case, and that such a distinction is based upon later ideas. He doesn’t see a case for mind-body dualism, or the more refined dualism given above. Rather you can’t separate Vinnana from Nama-rupa.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
asahi
Posts: 2732
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2020 4:23 pm

Re: viññāṇa as divided knowing

Post by asahi »

Ceisiwr wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 8:03 am
pegembara wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 3:07 am How about this?

Vinnana=The experiencer or subject
Nama-rupa=The experienced or object

The (subject internally) here and (objects externally) there or this and that.
I think Wynne would argue that isn’t the case, and that such a distinction is based upon later ideas. He doesn’t see a case for mind-body dualism, or the more refined dualism given above. Rather you can’t separate Vinnana from Nama-rupa.
Yes vinnana and namarupa co-exists .
No bashing No gossiping
pegembara
Posts: 3465
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 8:39 am

Re: viññāṇa as divided knowing

Post by pegembara »

Ceisiwr wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 8:03 am
pegembara wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 3:07 am How about this?

Vinnana=The experiencer or subject
Nama-rupa=The experienced or object

The (subject internally) here and (objects externally) there or this and that.
I think Wynne would argue that isn’t the case, and that such a distinction is based upon later ideas. He doesn’t see a case for mind-body dualism, or the more refined dualism given above. Rather you can’t separate Vinnana from Nama-rupa.
Then Wynne would agree with Sariputta!
No thinker without thoughts.
If thought arises and ceases it follows that the thinker also arises and ceases.
Hence the thinker isn’t self.

Ergo hearer and sounds.
“ When a tree falls and there’s no one around, does it make a sound?”
And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, from abusive speech, & from idle chatter: This is called right speech.
User avatar
SDC
Posts: 9062
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

Re: viññāṇa as divided knowing

Post by SDC »

Ceisiwr wrote: Sun Dec 05, 2021 10:09 pm
SDC wrote: Sun Dec 05, 2021 10:03 pm
Ceisiwr wrote: Sun Dec 05, 2021 10:00 pm

According to Alexander Wynne those are likely later suttas :stirthepot:
Don’t be one of those people! :tongue:

They are found in many places, not just there - the presentation is helpful nonetheless.
I recently listened to his series of lectures. They were quite thought provoking. They certainly challenged some of my views, which is a good thing. He sees MN 43 & 44 as supporting a calm then insight view of liberation which he considers late, whilst the likes of the Honeyball sutta and SN 35.95 support a more bare awareness road to liberation which he sees as being the original view (I was reminded a bit of Zen in listening to him). This then informs his view that the Buddha was close to Ven. Nāgārjuna, and that the Jhānas are embodied absorption (he makes use of the body similes for example) and that there was no concept of a meditation object in early Buddhism.
Wow, SN 35.95 is a brilliant discourse. :bow:

The discussion is with Sariputta in MN 43, and I think the “signless freedom” he describes has a basis in MN 121 (another sutta that many take issue with). As for Dhammadinna in MN 44, her approach looks to be very specific according to her own insight - a common occurrence in descriptions of both the Thag and Thig as well. Fine to call it “later” since it is based on the insight of someone other than the Buddha, but I really get a strong sense of those “early” themes uniquely expressed according to her specific discernment, so I don’t see any reason to gauge them differently. I hope to have a chance to listen to those lectures - any sense that that was how Wynne took it?

Yes, evidence for “meditation objects” is sketchy at best. Even kasinas seem to be in reference to “the whole” of a certain quality. Another case of theme/situation/context as opposed to an isolated viewpoint IMO.
“Life is swept along, short is the life span; no shelters exist for one who has reached old age. Seeing clearly this danger in death, a seeker of peace should drop the world’s bait.” SN 1.3
waryoffolly
Posts: 346
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 8:30 pm

Re: viññāṇa as divided knowing

Post by waryoffolly »

Ceisiwr wrote: Sun Dec 05, 2021 10:09 pm I recently listened to his series of lectures. They were quite thought provoking. They certainly challenged some of my views, which is a good thing.
I really enjoyed them as well. It’s a case where the arguments are so pretty that I wish them to be true 😂.

He sees MN 43 & 44 as supporting a calm then insight view of liberation which he considers late, whilst the likes of the Honeyball sutta and SN 35.95 support a more bare awareness road to liberation which he sees as being the original view
I don’t buy his two paths theory though. Many, many suttas explicitly link samadhi with the ability to see phenomena clearly enough. The places where samadhi isn’t explicitly mentioned should just be assumed to include it IMO. Just like suttas that only mention the aggregates or sense spheres (but do describe liberation) aren’t “throwing out” sense restraint and sila. We have clear comprehensive maps in a very large number of suttas. So his “bare awareness” IMO requires samadhi in the first place, and must also be “preceded by thought on the dhamma” (i.e. using conceptual categories) for it to be useful. (Quote is either from the parayanavagga or atthakavagga). To me, this suggests the “bare awareness” in the suttas he mentions isn’t really “bare”, but instead is a direct knowing of what the conceptual categories of the path are pointing to.

Probably should start a new thread to discuss those lectures, there’s a lot we could talk about.
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22383
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: viññāṇa as divided knowing

Post by Ceisiwr »

waryoffolly wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 7:24 pm
Probably should start a new thread to discuss those lectures, there’s a lot we could talk about.
Sure. This was also a good lecture, on a slightly different topic

“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
Jack19990101
Posts: 714
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2021 4:40 am

Re: viññāṇa as divided knowing

Post by Jack19990101 »

pegembara wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 3:07 am How about this?

Vinnana=The experiencer or subject
Nama-rupa=The experienced or object

The (subject internally) here and (objects externally) there or this and that.
"Very well then, Kotthita my friend, I will give you an analogy; for there are cases where it is through the use of an analogy that intelligent people can understand the meaning of what is being said. It is as if two sheaves of reeds were to stand leaning against one another. In the same way, from name-&-form as a requisite condition comes consciousness, from consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form.

"If one were to pull away one of those sheaves of reeds, the other would fall; if one were to pull away the other, the first one would fall. In the same way, from the cessation of name-&-form comes the cessation of consciousness, from the cessation of consciousness comes the cessation of name-&-form ... Such is the cessation of this entire mass of suffering & stress.""

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

“With the cessation of vinnana/nama-rupa, all this comes to an end.”
Pure experiencing or just knowing.
"Herein, Bahiya, you should train yourself thus: 'In the seen will be merely what is seen; in the heard will be merely what is heard; in the sensed will be merely what is sensed; in the cognized will be merely what is cognized.' In this way you should train yourself, Bahiya.

"When, Bahiya, for you in the seen is merely what is seen... in the cognized is merely what is cognized, then, Bahiya, you will not be 'with that.' When, Bahiya, you are not 'with that,' then, Bahiya, you will not be 'in that.' When, Bahiya, you are not 'in that,' then, Bahiya, you will be neither here nor beyond nor in between the two. Just this is the end of suffering."

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .irel.html
Not quite so tho.
It is describing how an average mind works.
The split is entirely within Nama-Rupa.
Nama is subject and Rupa is object.
Vinnana is entirely overlooked by an average mind.
Vinnana powers nama-rupa(existence) with insight only. Without insight, existence is powered by whatever you insist on - most likely some sort of agent.
pegembara
Posts: 3465
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 8:39 am

Re: viññāṇa as divided knowing

Post by pegembara »

Jack19990101 wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 7:57 pm
Not quite so tho.
It is describing how an average mind works.
The split is entirely within Nama-Rupa.
Nama is subject and Rupa is object.
Vinnana is entirely overlooked by an average mind.
Vinnana powers nama-rupa(existence) with insight only. Without insight, existence is powered by whatever you insist on - most likely some sort of agent.
Care to point out where in the suttas does rupa mean object and nama subject.
Does sights, sounds, smells, tastes, touch, and, thoughts/feelings/perceptions come under object or rupa? Or nama?
"And what is name-&-form? Feeling, perception, intention, contact, & attention: This is called name. The four great elements, and the form dependent on the four great elements: This is called form. This name & this form are called name-&-form.

"And what is consciousness? These six are classes of consciousness: eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, nose-consciousness, tongue-consciousness, body-consciousness, intellect-consciousness. This is called consciousness.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
Nāmarūpa
viewtopic.php?f=23&t=41617&hilit=NAMA+RUPA
And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, from abusive speech, & from idle chatter: This is called right speech.
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10157
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: viññāṇa as divided knowing

Post by Spiny Norman »

pegembara wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 3:07 am How about this?

Vinnana=The experiencer or subject
Nama-rupa=The experienced or object

The (subject internally) here and (objects externally) there or this and that.
In the suttas, eye-consciousness arises in dependence on eye and visible form. So vinnana arises in dependence on a subject-object duality.
Buddha save me from new-agers!
pegembara
Posts: 3465
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 8:39 am

Re: viññāṇa as divided knowing

Post by pegembara »

Spiny Norman wrote: Tue Dec 07, 2021 6:58 am
pegembara wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 3:07 am How about this?

Vinnana=The experiencer or subject
Nama-rupa=The experienced or object

The (subject internally) here and (objects externally) there or this and that.
In the suttas, eye-consciousness arises in dependence on eye and visible form. So vinnana arises in dependence on a subject-object duality.
The experience of seeing depends on eye and visible form. The dyad is not necessarily subject-object but merely a pair.
To clap, you need a right and left hand, that's all. Dependent arising, not subject and object.
Vinnana and namarupa dependently arise also.
https://suttacentral.net/sn35.93/en/bodhi

This applies even to the arahant who still has eye-consciousness. The difference is that for the arahant, there is no centre/subject.
No "I see, hear, think, feel ..." which is the default view with sakkayaditthi that divides the experience into subject/here and object/there.
Only the seen, heard, cognized ...

Self-view or subject-object dichotomy results from identification with the aggregates, regarding them as 'me' and 'mine'. The vinnana that clings or sticks to things as opposed to the vinnana adinassanam or Teflon consciousness of the arahant.
All sights, sounds, smells, tastes,
tactile sensations, & ideas
that are welcome,
appealing,
agreeable —
as long as they're said
to exist,
are supposed by the world
together with its devas
to be bliss.
But when they cease,
they're supposed by them
to be stress.
The stopping of self-identity
is viewed by the noble ones
as bliss.
This is contrary
to what's seen
by the world as a whole.


https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
Last edited by pegembara on Tue Dec 07, 2021 8:22 am, edited 3 times in total.
And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, from abusive speech, & from idle chatter: This is called right speech.
User avatar
Assaji
Posts: 2106
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 7:24 pm

Re: viññāṇa as divided knowing

Post by Assaji »

Hi Ceisiwr,
Ceisiwr wrote: Sun Dec 05, 2021 8:28 pm
Spiny Norman wrote: Sun Dec 05, 2021 8:10 pm
I'm not sure about "divided knowing" as a translation for vinnana.
Compare "vipassana" for example, where the "vi" prefix seems to mean "full".
I did read somewhere that sometimes pāli suffixes don't actually mean anything. I think vi-takka was an example, if I recall correctly.
Indeed, Pali prefixes don't have any specific independent meaning as adjectives or nouns. In English, they can be somewhat comparable only to the words like "out", "in", "on", etc. In Ukrainian, we have prefixes that more or less correspond to these prefixes, but they are absent in English.
justindesilva
Posts: 2602
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2016 12:38 pm

Re: viññāṇa as divided knowing

Post by justindesilva »

Assaji wrote: Tue Dec 07, 2021 8:00 am Hi Ceisiwr,
Ceisiwr wrote: Sun Dec 05, 2021 8:28 pm
Spiny Norman wrote: Sun Dec 05, 2021 8:10 pm
I'm not sure about "divided knowing" as a translation for vinnana.
Compare "vipassana" for example, where the "vi" prefix seems to mean "full".
I did read somewhere that sometimes pāli suffixes don't actually mean anything. I think vi-takka was an example, if I recall correctly.
Indeed, Pali prefixes don't have any specific independent meaning as adjectives or nouns. In English, they can be somewhat comparable only to the words like "out", "in", "on", etc. In Ukrainian, we have prefixes that more or less correspond to these prefixes, but they are absent in English.
Adittaparyaya sutta explains that form, perception , and vinnana are all aflame and is cognition . Each of salayatana as ear, smell, raste, seeing or eye or sensation or pottabba are all burning and are felt as pertinent vinnana and is ablaze. In fact in todays scientific terms it is cognition in brain which vanishes when a single ayatana or aggregate takes place giving room to another aggregate or ayatana. I feel it is divided vingnana which cognizes and vanishes so fast. Once adittaparyaya is referred to one can understand this better.
User avatar
nirodh27
Posts: 681
Joined: Mon Nov 18, 2019 12:31 pm

Re: viññāṇa as divided knowing

Post by nirodh27 »

A lot of good stuff here. vi- as expansion is particularly interesting btw, but I have to study more this issue.
this suggests the “bare awareness” in the suttas he mentions isn’t really “bare”, but instead is a direct knowing of what the conceptual categories of the path are pointing to.
I totally agree with Waryoffolly, there's nothing bare in the Dhamma, even when there's non-arising, that is due to wisdom and sati. The floods of craving are contained by sati and blocked by wisdom.

I would look again at Wynne, in my first experience with his work, he seemed a little too precipitous in his conclusions.

Thank you to everyone that partecipated here, I hope that the discussion will not stop.
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 8150
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: viññāṇa as divided knowing

Post by Coëmgenu »

"Vi" can even be negatory, as in "visaṃyukta" (disjunct, disconnected).

As for Pāli prefixes meaning nothing, it's difficult. The negatory "a-" in avijjā and asaṅkhāta certainly retains a meaning.

English is good to use as an example here. The "ab-" in "aboriginal" is redundant. Similarly, the "a-" in "aggressive" is no longer functional either. English has more suffixes than prefixes. We can string together morphemes in English to produce monstrosities like "interpenetrationality" and prefixed morphemes to form abominations like "polyphiloprogenitive."
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10157
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: viññāṇa as divided knowing

Post by Spiny Norman »

pegembara wrote: Tue Dec 07, 2021 7:45 am
Spiny Norman wrote: Tue Dec 07, 2021 6:58 am
pegembara wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 3:07 am How about this?

Vinnana=The experiencer or subject
Nama-rupa=The experienced or object

The (subject internally) here and (objects externally) there or this and that.
In the suttas, eye-consciousness arises in dependence on eye and visible form. So vinnana arises in dependence on a subject-object duality.
The experience of seeing depends on eye and visible form. The dyad is not necessarily subject-object but merely a pair.
To clap, you need a right and left hand, that's all. Dependent arising, not subject and object.
Vinnana and namarupa dependently arise also.
https://suttacentral.net/sn35.93/en/bodhi

This applies even to the arahant who still has eye-consciousness. The difference is that for the arahant, there is no centre/subject.
No "I see, hear, think, feel ..." which is the default view with sakkayaditthi that divides the experience into subject/here and object/there.
Only the seen, heard, cognized ...

Self-view or subject-object dichotomy results from identification with the aggregates, regarding them as 'me' and 'mine'. The vinnana that clings or sticks to things as opposed to the vinnana adinassanam or Teflon consciousness of the arahant.
That's one interpretation. My point was that vinnana results from a duality or division, it doesn't create one.
Self-view is rather different.
Buddha save me from new-agers!
Post Reply