viññāṇa as divided knowing

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
nirodh27
Posts: 681
Joined: Mon Nov 18, 2019 12:31 pm

viññāṇa as divided knowing

Post by nirodh27 »

Today I've discovered that Leight Brasington (not very loved by some, I know) has written a new book on dependent origination. The book can be download freely on his personal site.

I don't want to discuss the book itself, there are good points and weak points, but those two passages prompted me some reflection:

[Commenting DN11: http://leighb.com/dn11_85.htm ]

The last line is really puzzling. “With the cessation of consciousness, all this comes to an end.” Does that mean you have to become
unconscious? The usual explanation is that, at a path moment – a momentary experience of Nibbāna – there’s a cessation experience
where everything stops, then it starts up again, only it’s really different on the other side. That turns out not to be what’s being talked
about here, because the idea of “path moments” is from the later commentaries and this is a sutta.

The word viññāṇa which we translate as “consciousness” literally means “divided knowing.” When divided knowing comes to an end,
all these dualities come to an end. When we stop chopping up the holistic unfolding into bits and pieces, then all this comes to an end.
As Ud 8.1 says, “Just this is the end of dukkha.”

This required holistic experience is expressed so very eloquently by Kitaro Nishida in his work The Nothingness Beyond God:
Pure experience is the beginning of Zen. It is awareness stripped of all thought, all conceptualization, all categorization, and all
distinctions between subject-as-having-an-experience and experience-as-having-been-had-by-a-subject. It is prior to all judgment.
Pure experience is without all distinction; it is pure no-thingness, pure no-this-or-that. It is empty of any and all distinctions. It is
absolutely no-thing at all. Yet its emptiness and nothingness is a chock-a-block fullness, for it is all experience-to-come. It is rose,
child, river, anger, death, pain, rocks, and cicada sounds. We carve these discrete events and entities out of a richer-yet-non-
distinct manifold of pure experience.
“Consciousness” is a translation of the Pāli word viññāṇa, which literally means “divided knowing.” It maybe best understood as “that which knows.” “Consciousness” in Buddhist philosophy is not the same thing as either what the word would mean to a doctor (i.e.
global level of awareness) or to a Western philosopher of mind (where the word means roughly “experiencing,” – peripheral vision, for
example, is always conscious, even though one doesn’t have any kind of metacognitive awareness of it). “Viññāṇa” is not a “well
defined” term in the suttas – it's used slightly differently in multiple contexts. In fact, MN 112 uses the word in four different ways in a
single sutta.
I'm interest in the point of view of the users, but also about the knowledge of the users, in the sense that if there are academic interpretations that are interesting I would like to know about them so to recollect all the possible opinions on this matter. Since the last time with Dhamma I've had so much helpful and variegated response that helped immensely, I will simply try to do the same with viññāṇa :juggling: :smile:

Some thoughts, you can just pick one or none and simply comment freely as you like in a way that you think that is useful to understand more about viññāṇa.

- How the experiences described by Brasington relates to Theravada and EBT? (btw it is always dangerous in my opinion to use Zen to explain EBT and/or Theravada).
- How the translation "Divided knowing" can be helpful? It is correct? There are usages that clarify?
- I fear that this focus of non-duality, divided knowing, to a different way of seeing is related to a mode of perception, while I feel that the message of the Dhamma here-and-now is about non-delighting, non-craving, feeling equanimity as pleasurable, being at peace, non-anxiety, but maybe the result of Dhamma is not simply the non-arising of Dukkha, but also this mode of perception? Is it essential? It is a byproduct?
- Can path moments be dismissed so easily for EBT?
- How the term viññāṇa relates to concurrent religions and beliefs at the time of the Buddha? Does this knowledge changes something/helps to better frame the issue?

Thank you very much for your responses and effort.
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10176
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: viññāṇa as divided knowing

Post by Spiny Norman »

nirodh27 wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 11:37 am Today I've discovered that Leight Brasington (not very loved by some, I know) has written a new book on dependent origination. The book can be download freely on his personal site.

I don't want to discuss the book itself, there are good points and weak points, but those two passages prompted me some reflection:

[Commenting DN11: http://leighb.com/dn11_85.htm ]

The last line is really puzzling. “With the cessation of consciousness, all this comes to an end.” Does that mean you have to become
unconscious? The usual explanation is that, at a path moment – a momentary experience of Nibbāna – there’s a cessation experience
where everything stops, then it starts up again, only it’s really different on the other side. That turns out not to be what’s being talked
about here, because the idea of “path moments” is from the later commentaries and this is a sutta.

The word viññāṇa which we translate as “consciousness” literally means “divided knowing.” When divided knowing comes to an end,
all these dualities come to an end. When we stop chopping up the holistic unfolding into bits and pieces, then all this comes to an end.
As Ud 8.1 says, “Just this is the end of dukkha.”

This required holistic experience is expressed so very eloquently by Kitaro Nishida in his work The Nothingness Beyond God:
Pure experience is the beginning of Zen. It is awareness stripped of all thought, all conceptualization, all categorization, and all
distinctions between subject-as-having-an-experience and experience-as-having-been-had-by-a-subject. It is prior to all judgment.
Pure experience is without all distinction; it is pure no-thingness, pure no-this-or-that. It is empty of any and all distinctions. It is
absolutely no-thing at all. Yet its emptiness and nothingness is a chock-a-block fullness, for it is all experience-to-come. It is rose,
child, river, anger, death, pain, rocks, and cicada sounds. We carve these discrete events and entities out of a richer-yet-non-
distinct manifold of pure experience.
“Consciousness” is a translation of the Pāli word viññāṇa, which literally means “divided knowing.” It maybe best understood as “that which knows.” “Consciousness” in Buddhist philosophy is not the same thing as either what the word would mean to a doctor (i.e.
global level of awareness) or to a Western philosopher of mind (where the word means roughly “experiencing,” – peripheral vision, for
example, is always conscious, even though one doesn’t have any kind of metacognitive awareness of it). “Viññāṇa” is not a “well
defined” term in the suttas – it's used slightly differently in multiple contexts. In fact, MN 112 uses the word in four different ways in a
single sutta.
I'm interest in the point of view of the users, but also about the knowledge of the users, in the sense that if there are academic interpretations that are interesting I would like to know about them so to recollect all the possible opinions on this matter. Since the last time with Dhamma I've had so much helpful and variegated response that helped immensely, I will simply try to do the same with viññāṇa :juggling: :smile:

Some thoughts, you can just pick one or none and simply comment freely as you like in a way that you think that is useful to understand more about viññāṇa.

- How the experiences described by Brasington relates to Theravada and EBT? (btw it is always dangerous in my opinion to use Zen to explain EBT and/or Theravada).
- How the translation "Divided knowing" can be helpful? It is correct? There are usages that clarify?
- I fear that this focus of non-duality, divided knowing, to a different way of seeing is related to a mode of perception, while I feel that the message of the Dhamma here-and-now is about non-delighting, non-craving, feeling equanimity as pleasurable, being at peace, non-anxiety, but maybe the result of Dhamma is not simply the non-arising of Dukkha, but also this mode of perception? Is it essential? It is a byproduct?
- Can path moments be dismissed so easily for EBT?
- How the term viññāṇa relates to concurrent religions and beliefs at the time of the Buddha? Does this knowledge changes something/helps to better frame the issue?

Thank you very much for your responses and effort.
I'm not sure about "divided knowing" as a translation for vinnana.
Compare "vipassana" for example, where the "vi" prefix seems to mean "full".
Buddha save me from new-agers!
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22405
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: viññāṇa as divided knowing

Post by Ceisiwr »

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.
“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.”
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10176
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: viññāṇa as divided knowing

Post by Spiny Norman »

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.
So what's your view on the vi prefix for "vinnana"?
Buddha save me from new-agers!
Jack19990101
Posts: 714
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2021 4:40 am

Re: viññāṇa as divided knowing

Post by Jack19990101 »

nirodh27 wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 11:37 am Today I've discovered that Leight Brasington (not very loved by some, I know) has written a new book on dependent origination. The book can be download freely on his personal site.

I don't want to discuss the book itself, there are good points and weak points, but those two passages prompted me some reflection:

[Commenting DN11: http://leighb.com/dn11_85.htm ]

The last line is really puzzling. “With the cessation of consciousness, all this comes to an end.” Does that mean you have to become
unconscious? The usual explanation is that, at a path moment – a momentary experience of Nibbāna – there’s a cessation experience
where everything stops, then it starts up again, only it’s really different on the other side. That turns out not to be what’s being talked
about here, because the idea of “path moments” is from the later commentaries and this is a sutta.

The word viññāṇa which we translate as “consciousness” literally means “divided knowing.” When divided knowing comes to an end,
all these dualities come to an end. When we stop chopping up the holistic unfolding into bits and pieces, then all this comes to an end.
As Ud 8.1 says, “Just this is the end of dukkha.”

This required holistic experience is expressed so very eloquently by Kitaro Nishida in his work The Nothingness Beyond God:
Pure experience is the beginning of Zen. It is awareness stripped of all thought, all conceptualization, all categorization, and all
distinctions between subject-as-having-an-experience and experience-as-having-been-had-by-a-subject. It is prior to all judgment.
Pure experience is without all distinction; it is pure no-thingness, pure no-this-or-that. It is empty of any and all distinctions. It is
absolutely no-thing at all. Yet its emptiness and nothingness is a chock-a-block fullness, for it is all experience-to-come. It is rose,
child, river, anger, death, pain, rocks, and cicada sounds. We carve these discrete events and entities out of a richer-yet-non-
distinct manifold of pure experience.
“Consciousness” is a translation of the Pāli word viññāṇa, which literally means “divided knowing.” It maybe best understood as “that which knows.” “Consciousness” in Buddhist philosophy is not the same thing as either what the word would mean to a doctor (i.e.
global level of awareness) or to a Western philosopher of mind (where the word means roughly “experiencing,” – peripheral vision, for
example, is always conscious, even though one doesn’t have any kind of metacognitive awareness of it). “Viññāṇa” is not a “well
defined” term in the suttas – it's used slightly differently in multiple contexts. In fact, MN 112 uses the word in four different ways in a
single sutta.
I'm interest in the point of view of the users, but also about the knowledge of the users, in the sense that if there are academic interpretations that are interesting I would like to know about them so to recollect all the possible opinions on this matter. Since the last time with Dhamma I've had so much helpful and variegated response that helped immensely, I will simply try to do the same with viññāṇa :juggling: :smile:

Some thoughts, you can just pick one or none and simply comment freely as you like in a way that you think that is useful to understand more about viññāṇa.

- How the experiences described by Brasington relates to Theravada and EBT? (btw it is always dangerous in my opinion to use Zen to explain EBT and/or Theravada).
- How the translation "Divided knowing" can be helpful? It is correct? There are usages that clarify?
- I fear that this focus of non-duality, divided knowing, to a different way of seeing is related to a mode of perception, while I feel that the message of the Dhamma here-and-now is about non-delighting, non-craving, feeling equanimity as pleasurable, being at peace, non-anxiety, but maybe the result of Dhamma is not simply the non-arising of Dukkha, but also this mode of perception? Is it essential? It is a byproduct?
- Can path moments be dismissed so easily for EBT?
- How the term viññāṇa relates to concurrent religions and beliefs at the time of the Buddha? Does this knowledge changes something/helps to better frame the issue?

Thank you very much for your responses and effort.
Not know much about the author neither the book.
On this specific topic, Divided knowing is a better description than 'consciousness'. Not sure the reason zen is mentioned here.
Divided knowing immediately offers a tune of danger, unwholesome, and to be avoided. Consciousness is not, it is very benign.
Peace is only possible to be stable when there is no divided knowing. Peace after divided knowing is transient.

Dependent origination, is talking right and straight that sense consciousness is to be avoided and eventually yield to a full stop.
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22405
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: viññāṇa as divided knowing

Post by Ceisiwr »

Spiny Norman wrote: Sun Dec 05, 2021 8:42 pm
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.
So what's your view on the vi prefix for "vinnana"?
Sujato has some interesting points
The etymology of viññāṇa is invoked to justify this conclusion. ‘Vi’, so the story goes, means ‘separation’, and ‘ñāṇa’ means ‘knowing’, so viññāṇa means ‘separative knowing’ (as opposed to the universal cosmic consciousness of Nibbana.) But you cannot derive the meaning of a word by adding up a root with a prefix. Words derive meaning from context. This is especially true in the case of words in abstract philosophical use. In any case, the etymology of viññāṇa does not mean ‘separative consciousness’. The prefix ‘vi’ has many different meanings, which you can check up on in the Pali Text Society’s dictionary. If you don’t want to read the entire entry, the applied meanings it gives are four:

1. expansion, spreading out
2. disturbance, separation, mixing up (opp. saṁ)
3. the reverse of the simple verb, or loss, difference, opposite
4. in intensifying sense

Obviously, there is no requirement to read vi in its separative sense here. There are many terms formed from the root ‘ñā’ in Pali that all refer to knowing in some way (‘know’ is in fact the English cognate): aññā, ñāṇa, pariññā, paññā, paṭiññā, saññā, and so on. In some cases these words are interchangeable, in some cases usage tells us that they carry different nuances. In no cases can we simply infer the meaning from adding prefix + root. Given that vi- is probably the second most common prefix in Pali, and has an extremely wide variety of implications – including in some cases not affecting the meaning at all – we can’t say anything meaningful from the etymology. Even if we did look to the etymology, we can come to all sorts of different conclusions. In some cases, viññāṇa is clearly a synonym of paññā, ‘wisdom’ (e.g. Sutta Nipāta 92-3). Here the implication could be that vi- means ‘intensive’, or ‘clear’ (as it does, say, in vipassanā).

It is true that the Buddha often presented viññāṇa in an analytical way as the consciousness of the six senses. But this tells us nothing about what the word means. He also used plenty of other terms related to the six senses: vedanā, phassa, or saññā, for example. The fact that a word is used in an analytical sense does not mean that the basic meaning of the word is analytical.
http://www.ahandfulofleaves.org/documen ... o_2011.pdf
“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.”
User avatar
SDC
Posts: 9062
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

Re: viññāṇa as divided knowing

Post by SDC »

The meaning of consciousness starts to come out in the context of “cognize” (vijānāti); and sights, sounds, smells, tastes, touches and thoughts being “cognizable” (viññeyya). There are connotations of this being perhaps the scope of what can be known; “what is there”; “that things are there”. Moreover, this availability is inseparable from body, as the body is the reason it. I think this is also why we find “this conscious body” or “body paired with consciousness”. Lots of good stuff in MN 43 and MN 44.
“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
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22405
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: viññāṇa as divided knowing

Post by Ceisiwr »

SDC wrote: Sun Dec 05, 2021 9:49 pm Lots of good stuff in MN 43 and MN 44.
According to Alexander Wynne those are likely later suttas :stirthepot:

To expand a bit he thinks the equivalent of what you have said here

"Moreover, this availability is inseparable from body, as the body is the reason it. I think this is also why we find “this conscious body” or “body paired with consciousness”

is original early Buddhism, whilst MN 43 & 44 show signs of later Upanishadic like thought where the mind (viññāṇa) is the direct subjective experiencer and knower. Basically you could just swap viññāṇa for Ātman in suttas like MN 43 & 44 and they would say the same thing as the Upanishads.
Last edited by Ceisiwr on Sun Dec 05, 2021 10:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“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.”
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 10:00 pm
SDC wrote: Sun Dec 05, 2021 9:49 pm Lots of good stuff in MN 43 and MN 44.
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.
“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
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22405
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: viññāṇa as divided knowing

Post by Ceisiwr »

SDC wrote: Sun Dec 05, 2021 10:03 pm
Ceisiwr wrote: Sun Dec 05, 2021 10:00 pm
SDC wrote: Sun Dec 05, 2021 9:49 pm Lots of good stuff in MN 43 and MN 44.
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.
“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.”
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19943
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: viññāṇa as divided knowing

Post by mikenz66 »

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. 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.
That's these lectures? https://ocbs.org/early-buddhist-meditat ... stigation/

Lack of meditation "objects" in EBTs is something Bhikkhu Sujato also discusses in his various talks on the Vissudhimagga.

:heart:
Mike
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22405
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: viññāṇa as divided knowing

Post by Ceisiwr »

mikenz66 wrote: Sun Dec 05, 2021 10:28 pm
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. 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.
That's these lectures? https://ocbs.org/early-buddhist-meditat ... stigation/

Lack of meditation "objects" in EBTs is something Bhikkhu Sujato also discusses in his various talks on the Vissudhimagga.

:heart:
Mike
Yes that's them. Also found here:


Lack of meditation "objects" in EBTs is something Bhikkhu Sujato also discusses in his various talks on the Vissudhimagga.
That's interesting. Can you link to that at all?
“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.”
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19943
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: viññāṇa as divided knowing

Post by mikenz66 »

Ceisiwr wrote: Sun Dec 05, 2021 10:34 pm
Lack of meditation "objects" in EBTs is something Bhikkhu Sujato also discusses in his various talks on the Vissudhimagga.
That's interesting. Can you link to that at all?
There are two series of four lectures, which are similar. The first was:


This is the second series. One of them is mislabelled on youtube, so it's best to look at the links here:
https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/se ... hosa/21520

I think each series is: Introduction, Sila, Samadhi, Panna, so it's probably the third ones you want for this purpose.

:heart:
Mike
User avatar
Lucas Oliveira
Posts: 1890
Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2015 10:07 pm

Re: viññāṇa as divided knowing

Post by Lucas Oliveira »

The viññāṇa factor in Paṭiccasamuppāda is always referred to as “paṭisandhi viññāṇa.” This is not the normal type of viññāṇa that we refer to as consciousness. Rather, it is the re-linking consciousness that connects one birth to the next. That re-linking consciousness forms the connection between past and future which leads to grasping at the moment of conception. Paṭisandhi viññāṇa is said to be “free of doors,” that is, free of the sense doors.

To understand paṭisandhi viññāṇa you should put aside the word “consciousness,” which can be quite a misleading translation. My understanding of the word viññāṇa in this context is that the prefix “vi,” meaning “divided,” is combined with “ñāṇa,” meaning “knowing.” In other words, “divided knowing.” The one mind splits into two, subject and object, and instead of being pure unlimited knowing, the mind is driven by avijjā plus kamma to discriminate so that it becomes “this” knowing “that.”

A duality is thus established in which the “this” becomes nāma and the “that” becomes rūpa. Thus viññāṇa is the condition for the arising of nāma-rūpa. Although avijjā, sankhāra and viññāṇa are conditioning factors, those factors all arise simultaneous to the split into duality. No time interval is involved. It’s like a railway engine pulling a train: the engine is the cause but none of the cars move independently.

So viññāṇa is a condition for nāma-rūpa to arise. Nāma-rūpa is a difficult factor to interpret. Nāma literally means name; in other words, putting names to things, designating and defining. And rūpa is the form; that is, the thing that we make concrete with the name. When we make forms concrete with names, we divide them out from the whole. Looking at the forest, we see leaves, trees and flowers. We call them leaves, trees and flowers merely to define certain aspects of what we see. But they are only our aspects—they do not exist as such there in the forest. The forest itself is one whole; it is we who differentiate the various aspects.

In reality, our perceptions do not exist as separate entities at all. We separate the forest into various parts so that we can bring some order to our perceptions. This is how nāma-rūpa works. It is the dividing out of certain aspects of our perceptions of nature which accord with the previous sankhāras. In other words, we are defining our world according to our own past tendencies. So we create a world in the present based on data from the past. This loops back to avijjā paccaya sankhāra, with sankhāra being the karmic conditions from the past that determine rebirth.

Feeling – 213

Uncommon Wisdom - Life and Teachings of Ajaan Paññāvaddho
http://www.forestdhamma.org/ebooks/engl ... Wisdom.pdf
:anjali:
I participate in this forum using Google Translator. http://translate.google.com.br

http://www.acessoaoinsight.net/
pegembara
Posts: 3466
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 8:39 am

Re: viññāṇa as divided knowing

Post by pegembara »

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
And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, from abusive speech, & from idle chatter: This is called right speech.
Post Reply