'Consciousness without Surface': Not Eternalism?

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
Post Reply
jankala
Posts: 65
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2022 1:59 am

'Consciousness without Surface': Not Eternalism?

Post by jankala »

Hello all.

This post is addressed to those who are familiar with the view of certain teachers, such as Ajahn Sumedho, Ajahn Geoff, etc. who claim that there is a class of consciousness that is outside of the 6 sense spheres, that does not 'grow cool' with the aggregates, and that is eternal/undying.

I'm already very familiar with the quotes and arguments for it being an eternalist view that simply denies itself as eternalist/implying a self, by avoiding the word 'self' or otherwise. I myself am currently of this position: it seems to ve a form of eternalism. This post is not here to provide evidence in support of this being an eternalist view. I would ask nobody try to argue that it is eternalist unless in response to a claim that it isn't. I want to see the arguments in opposition to it being eternalist clearly layed out to consider their position.

I'm interested in hearing arguments in favor of it not being eternalist. It also seems to conceive samsara as inherently existent and try to escape it, akin to what Ven. Ñanananda would call running from a ghost after imaginign one to be there. What arguments are there to understand this as non-eternalist and as not wrong view? Why would it be worth speaking about and mentioning if it leads to the inclination towards bhava, eternalism, etc? How is it not a form of self? How does the word 'consciousness' apply after the growing cool of the consciousness aggregate? How can one affirm the existence of such a form of consciousness if it is said to lay outside of contact, and yet is asserted and papañcized within the realm of contact/language?

Furthermore, where would this consciousness come from if it is a separate kind of consciousness, not the 6-sense consciousnesses that are no longer affected by ignorance? Does it arise at arahantship? Has it always been here? Is it behind the taking up of the aggregates/transmigration, similar to what Ven. Sāti proposed? In Ven. Thanissaro's commentary on the sutta with Sāti, he says it would have been interesting to see the Buddha's answer had Sāti clarified that he meant the non-manifestative consciousness rather than the six-sense consciousness, implying the answer would have been different.

Ideas? Thoughts?

Thank you :)
With mettā
User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 12879
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
Contact:

Re: 'Consciousness without Surface': Not Eternalism?

Post by cappuccino »

Viññanam anidassanam

This term is nowhere explained in the Canon, although MN 49 mentions that it "does not partake in the allness of the All" — the "All" meaning the six internal and six external sense media (see SN 35.23). In this it differs from the consciousness factor in dependent co-arising, which is defined in terms of the six sense media. Lying outside of time and space, it would also not come under the consciousness-aggregate, which covers all consciousness near and far; past, present, and future.

However, the fact that it is outside of time and space — in a dimension where there is no here, there, or in between (Ud 1.10), no coming, no going, or staying (Ud 8.1) — means that it cannot be described as permanent or omnipresent, terms that have meaning only within space and time. The standard description of nibbana after death is, "All that is sensed, not being relished, will grow cold right here." (See MN 140 and Iti 44.)

Again, as "all" is defined as the sense media, this raises the question as to whether consciousness without feature is not covered by this "all." However, AN 4.174 warns that any speculation as to whether anything does or doesn't remain after the remainderless stopping of the six sense media is to "objectify non-objectification," which gets in the way of attaining the non-objectified. Thus this is a question that is best put aside.


Thanissaro Bhikkhu
jankala
Posts: 65
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2022 1:59 am

Re: 'Consciousness without Surface': Not Eternalism?

Post by jankala »

Another quote for reference, from the Paradox of Becoming:
However, a third analogy raises the question of whether there is another mode of consciousness unaffected by the arahant’s death. In this analogy, awakened consciousness is depicted not as a seed but as a beam of light, the four nutriments of consciousness are the various places where a beam of light might land, while passion and delight are the means of its landing.
(Reference to SN 12.64)
This analogy does not specifically state whether it refers to the arahant before or after death. However, in the context of this analogy, the beam of light depends on the wall, the ground, etc., only for the fact of its appearance and growth within space and time. This suggests that it otherwise would not be affected when the nutriments disappear. Thus the analogy would refer to the arahant both before and after death.
This interpretation is supported by two contexts, one authorial and the other textual. The authorial context is that if the Buddha’s Awakening had revealed that total Unbinding was a state of total unconsciousness, he would never have thought of using this analogy to describe the awakened state.
(Reference then to MN 49)
A basic feature of the Buddha’s teachings on causality is that if x depends on y for its existence, it will cease when y ceases. But because consciousness without surface—unlike sensory consciousness—is known independently of the six sense media, it will not cease when they do.
Reading this verse in light of MN 49, the “cessation of consciousness” would seem to refer to the cessation of the aggregate of sensory consciousness, whereas “consciousness without surface” would not be touched by that cessation. This is because this mode of consciousness would also lie outside the aggregates, inasmuch as the aggregate of consciousness covers only those forms of consciousness that can be located in space and time. Consciousness without surface, however, no longer has a “place” defined by craving and clinging, and so does not fall under the categories of time or space.
So it seems, rather than taking this consciousness / the ceased consciousness to be the same, he posits a separate type of consciousness entirely that is not ceased at all, and in fact never does cease. In context, he also mentioned how an arahant can experience the lack of the 6-senses in this life, similar to what Ven. Ñanananda explains. He then goes on to speak of this third analogy/type though: a separate form of consciousness entirely different from the viññāna aggregate freed of passion.
User avatar
nirodh27
Posts: 681
Joined: Mon Nov 18, 2019 12:31 pm

Re: 'Consciousness without Surface': Not Eternalism?

Post by nirodh27 »

Hi Jankala,

I would not put Thanissaro and Sumedho in the same field. Very different. Sumedho, especially in old age, is making some confusion about Dhamma because there's a very personal usage of terms from him. In an introduction in the Anthologies Amaro has cleared up the use of some terms for Sumedho and I think is very important to digest it before speaking about Sumedho = Eternalism.

This is Sumedho in 1989. Doesn't seem eternalism at all to me.
Question:
If consciousness and the khandhas** cease in a
Tathagata, in a Buddha, in someone who becomes
enlightened, who exists, what kind of existence is
there left? Is there anything, is there nothing, or what?
Answer:
There's no delusion, about it any more. There's
consciousness -the buddha was conscious, he wasn't
unconscious - and he had a body and he had
perception. He had vedana and he had sanna sankhara,
vinnara. He had sense organs, and could see, hear,
smell, taste, touch, think, and he had vedana,- there
was vedana but there was no desire from that, coming
from, ignorance. There was the ability to respond, to
teach out of compassion for other beings, but there
was no self to do it: there was just the remaining of
what was left of that lifetime. He lived over forty years
after his enlightenment, for the welfare of others
beings. Language gets very confusing, because
cessation sounds like annihilation to us-but it isn't. It's
the ceasing of ignorance, the cessation of ignorance.

Question:
If there is no desire, if there's parinibbana, doesn't that
mean everything ceases?

Answer:
That's it. There's the nibbana of non-grasping while the
bodies still living, and then there's the parinibbana the
final relinquishment; there's nothing to get reborn.
You see, when people die still unenlightened they
desire to be reborn again. If you identify with the
body, then you try to hold onto it as long as possible or
there's the desire to be reborn into something else. You
can see it just in a day here when you want something
to stimulate you - that's rebirth actually. There's all this
desire that will always take us to doing something,
absorbing into something else. Well, apply that to
when the body is dying. If you're frightened of death,
and you've not really contemplated life and you're still
attached to all these views about yourself, then there's
a lot of desire going to come for rebirth.
jankala
Posts: 65
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2022 1:59 am

Re: 'Consciousness without Surface': Not Eternalism?

Post by jankala »

nirodh27 wrote: Mon Sep 19, 2022 9:01 pm Hi Jankala,

I would not put Thanissaro and Sumedho in the same field. Very different. Sumedho, especially in old age, is making some confusion about Dhamma because there's a very personal usage of terms from him. In an introduction in the Anthologies Amaro has cleared up the use of some terms for Sumedho and I think is very important to digest it before speaking about Sumedho = Eternalism.

This is Sumedho in 1989. Doesn't seem eternalism at all to me.
Question:
If consciousness and the khandhas** cease in a
Tathagata, in a Buddha, in someone who becomes
enlightened, who exists, what kind of existence is
there left? Is there anything, is there nothing, or what?
Answer:
There's no delusion, about it any more. There's
consciousness -the buddha was conscious, he wasn't
unconscious - and he had a body and he had
perception. He had vedana and he had sanna sankhara,
vinnara. He had sense organs, and could see, hear,
smell, taste, touch, think, and he had vedana,- there
was vedana but there was no desire from that, coming
from, ignorance. There was the ability to respond, to
teach out of compassion for other beings, but there
was no self to do it: there was just the remaining of
what was left of that lifetime. He lived over forty years
after his enlightenment, for the welfare of others
beings. Language gets very confusing, because
cessation sounds like annihilation to us-but it isn't. It's
the ceasing of ignorance, the cessation of ignorance.

Question:
If there is no desire, if there's parinibbana, doesn't that
mean everything ceases?

Answer:
That's it. There's the nibbana of non-grasping while the
bodies still living, and then there's the parinibbana the
final relinquishment; there's nothing to get reborn.
You see, when people die still unenlightened they
desire to be reborn again. If you identify with the
body, then you try to hold onto it as long as possible or
there's the desire to be reborn into something else. You
can see it just in a day here when you want something
to stimulate you - that's rebirth actually. There's all this
desire that will always take us to doing something,
absorbing into something else. Well, apply that to
when the body is dying. If you're frightened of death,
and you've not really contemplated life and you're still
attached to all these views about yourself, then there's
a lot of desire going to come for rebirth.
Hi, nirodh27 :)

Thank you for providing the quote. Indeed, that is a very lucid understanding. It's possible Ajahn Sumedho has changed some of his views since then, or perhaps it is a change in terminology. I wouldn't come to any conclusions, but it's good to clarify this.

I think focusing on what Ajahn Geoff has presented is my primary interest. I'm curious to hear explanations/defences of that view in particular, so as to try and understand and not make assumptions / learn. We can put Ajahn Sumedho aside :)

With mettā
kala
User avatar
nirodh27
Posts: 681
Joined: Mon Nov 18, 2019 12:31 pm

Re: 'Consciousness without Surface': Not Eternalism?

Post by nirodh27 »

jankala wrote: Mon Sep 19, 2022 9:16 pm
I think focusing on what Ajahn Geoff has presented is my primary interest. I'm curious to hear explanations/defences of that view in particular, so as to try and understand and not make assumptions / learn. We can put Ajahn Sumedho aside :)

With mettā
kala
Unfortunately, I have doubts myself so I cannot clarify it for you. The problem is the usage of "Outside of space and time". If that is a feeling and a way to say that this knowledge/abandonment (the end of conceit) gives you a freedom that feels like time doesn't bound or limit, measure you for me is ok.
dharmacorps
Posts: 2298
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2015 7:33 pm

Re: 'Consciousness without Surface': Not Eternalism?

Post by dharmacorps »

If I may say so, this is a quite tired subject with innumerable posts on it already. If you are not helped by Ajahns Sumedho or Thannisaro's framing of the self or conciousness, listen to someone else. There is an awful lot of throwing around the label "eternalist" on here, and it is rarely ever true, almost always just misunderstandings of statements on complicated topics. These Ajahns you mention are good teachers who are only able to explain things through their experience. Paccitam and all that.
jankala
Posts: 65
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2022 1:59 am

Re: 'Consciousness without Surface': Not Eternalism?

Post by jankala »

dharmacorps wrote: Mon Sep 19, 2022 9:44 pm If I may say so, this is a quite tired subject with innumerable posts on it already. If you are not helped by Ajahns Sumedho or Thannisaro's framing of the self or conciousness, listen to someone else. There is an awful lot of throwing around the label "eternalist" on here, and it is rarely ever true, almost always just misunderstandings of statements on complicated topics. These Ajahns you mention are good teachers who are only able to explain things through their experience. Paccitam and all that.
If you noticed, the point of this post is to try and be open-minded and understand these teachers. I'm trying to understand what they are conveying. I specifically said this wasn't to claim they were eternalist, rather, it is to see the reasons it ISN'T eternalist and to hear out where I could be misunderstanding or reading into these statements mistakenly. If you have something to contribute to that endeavour I would really appreciate it—I'm genuinely trying to understand, not debate and throw around accusations at people blindly.

With mettā
User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 17188
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
Contact:

Re: 'Consciousness without Surface': Not Eternalism?

Post by DNS »

jankala wrote: Mon Sep 19, 2022 10:00 pm I'm trying to understand what they are conveying. I specifically said this wasn't to claim they were eternalist, rather, it is to see the reasons it ISN'T eternalist and to hear out where I could be misunderstanding or reading into these statements mistakenly.
I'd say they would say it's not a soul nor a permanent-self. At best, it's an indeterminate, inexpressible, impermanent self. This would fit with the Pudgalavada School, although they still see themselves as Theravadins or Buddhists, in general. The Pudgalavadins still accepted the doctrine of anatta; they just had their own unique interpretation of anatta. Their explanation, while certainly not Classical Theravada, are probably the de facto beliefs of most Buddhists. Although, majority view does not necessarily equate to reality, as we know.
dharmacorps
Posts: 2298
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2015 7:33 pm

Re: 'Consciousness without Surface': Not Eternalism?

Post by dharmacorps »

jankala wrote: Mon Sep 19, 2022 10:00 pm
If you noticed, the point of this post is to try and be open-minded and understand these teachers. I'm trying to understand what they are conveying. I specifically said this wasn't to claim they were eternalist, rather, it is to see the reasons it ISN'T eternalist and to hear out where I could be misunderstanding or reading into these statements mistakenly. If you have something to contribute to that endeavour I would really appreciate it—I'm genuinely trying to understand, not debate and throw around accusations at people blindly.

With mettā
I get it, but intentions are one thing and the likely ensuing discussion is another. One you can control, the other you can't. Hopefully this will be different than all the other threads of this type, though.
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 8150
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: 'Consciousness without Surface': Not Eternalism?

Post by Coëmgenu »

nirodh27 wrote: Mon Sep 19, 2022 9:01 pm[...]This is Sumedho in 1989. Doesn't seem eternalism at all to me.
[...] consciousness and the khandhas** cease in a Tathagata [...]
Do you know why there is a double asterisk on "aggregates" and why he listed consciousness separately from the five aggregates?
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.
pegembara
Posts: 3465
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 8:39 am

Re: 'Consciousness without Surface': Not Eternalism?

Post by pegembara »

jankala wrote: Mon Sep 19, 2022 6:12 pm Hello all.

This post is addressed to those who are familiar with the view of certain teachers, such as Ajahn Sumedho, Ajahn Geoff, etc. who claim that there is a class of consciousness that is outside of the 6 sense spheres, that does not 'grow cool' with the aggregates, and that is eternal/undying.

I'm already very familiar with the quotes and arguments for it being an eternalist view that simply denies itself as eternalist/implying a self, by avoiding the word 'self' or otherwise. I myself am currently of this position: it seems to ve a form of eternalism. This post is not here to provide evidence in support of this being an eternalist view. I would ask nobody try to argue that it is eternalist unless in response to a claim that it isn't. I want to see the arguments in opposition to it being eternalist clearly layed out to consider their position.

I'm interested in hearing arguments in favor of it not being eternalist. It also seems to conceive samsara as inherently existent and try to escape it, akin to what Ven. Ñanananda would call running from a ghost after imaginign one to be there. What arguments are there to understand this as non-eternalist and as not wrong view? Why would it be worth speaking about and mentioning if it leads to the inclination towards bhava, eternalism, etc? How is it not a form of self? How does the word 'consciousness' apply after the growing cool of the consciousness aggregate? How can one affirm the existence of such a form of consciousness if it is said to lay outside of contact, and yet is asserted and papañcized within the realm of contact/language?

Furthermore, where would this consciousness come from if it is a separate kind of consciousness, not the 6-sense consciousnesses that are no longer affected by ignorance? Does it arise at arahantship? Has it always been here? Is it behind the taking up of the aggregates/transmigration, similar to what Ven. Sāti proposed? In Ven. Thanissaro's commentary on the sutta with Sāti, he says it would have been interesting to see the Buddha's answer had Sāti clarified that he meant the non-manifestative consciousness rather than the six-sense consciousness, implying the answer would have been different.

Ideas? Thoughts?

Thank you :)
With mettā
IMO this "consciousness" is not an entity but just an activity of knowing.
Knowing what? Arising and passing of the world! Arising and passing of the aggregates.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one.
"Bhikkhus, how do you conceive it: is form permanent or impermanent?" — "Impermanent, venerable Sir." — "Now is what is impermanent painful or pleasant?" — "Painful, venerable Sir." — "Now is what is impermanent, what is painful since subject to change, fit to be regarded thus: 'This is mine, this is I, this is my self'"? — "No, venerable sir."

"Is feeling permanent or impermanent?...

"Is perception permanent or impermanent?...

"Are determinations permanent or impermanent?...

"Is consciousness permanent or impermanent?" — "Impermanent, venerable sir." — "Now is what is impermanent pleasant or painful?" — "Painful, venerable sir." — "Now is what is impermanent, what is painful since subject to change, fit to be regarded thus: 'This is mine, this is I, this is my self'"? — "No, venerable sir."
The 5 aggregates become objects of knowing. That is all that is required for Unbinding. There is no need to make this into another object like "universal consciousness/God/Brahman/Ultimate etc". Sabbe dhamma anatta ie. All things are without self.
"Bhikkhus, when a noble follower who has heard (the truth) sees thus, he finds estrangement in form, he finds estrangement in feeling, he finds estrangement in perception, he finds estrangement in determinations, he finds estrangement in consciousness.

"When he finds estrangement, passion fades out. With the fading of passion, he is liberated. When liberated, there is knowledge that he is liberated. He understands: 'Birth is exhausted, the holy life has been lived out, what can be done is done, of this there is no more beyond.'

Like so...
"What lies on the other side of Unbinding?"

"You've gone too far, friend Visakha. You can't keep holding on up to the limit of questions. For the holy life gains a footing in Unbinding, culminates in Unbinding, has Unbinding as its final end. If you wish, go to the Blessed One and ask him the meaning of these things. Whatever he says, that's how you should remember it."

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
In other words, don't look a gift horse in the mouth
And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, from abusive speech, & from idle chatter: This is called right speech.
pegembara
Posts: 3465
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 8:39 am

Re: 'Consciousness without Surface': Not Eternalism?

Post by pegembara »

A Verb for Nirvana
by
Thanissaro Bhikkhu

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/aut ... averb.html
And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, from abusive speech, & from idle chatter: This is called right speech.
jankala
Posts: 65
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2022 1:59 am

Re: 'Consciousness without Surface': Not Eternalism?

Post by jankala »

I recently listened to talks of Ven. Thanissaro on the forest masters. He made it clear that there is a type of awareness after the naupādisesā parinibbāna of an arahant, but that we can't know much about it besides the fact that it's outside of the 6 sense spheres, and that it isn't the absence of consciousness/awareness.
He also said that Nibbāna is not the 3rd noble truth, it is a separate experience, and that the radiant mind is different from the pure/awakened mind, which does not cease.

This is the first of the 3 talks:


He also said questions of existence/non-existence are Mahayana questions, not questions in Theravada or Early Buddhism. It seems this is potentially a conclusion for me on the whole issue.

If anyone has an understanding to clarify any mistakes or misinterpretations I may be making, I'd be glad to hear them out. I want to understand what the Venerable is actually claiming properly, and not jump to any assumptions. This does seem, as of now, to be a relatively clear answer though of a misunderstanding of existence / consciousness. Please correct me if wrong.

Metta
SteRo
Posts: 5950
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 10:27 am
Location: Εὐρώπη Eurṓpē

Re: 'Consciousness without Surface': Not Eternalism?

Post by SteRo »

jankala wrote: Mon Sep 19, 2022 6:12 pm ... I myself am currently of this position: it seems to ve a form of eternalism. This post is not here to provide evidence in support of this being an eternalist view.

I'm interested in hearing arguments in favor of it not being eternalist.

Ideas? Thoughts?
Before wondering "Is it eternalist?" "Is it not eternalist?" referring to a term like 'Consciousness without Surface' I would have to believe that there is reliable evidence that the term isn't just a fancy. Since there is no such evidence 'eternalist or not' isn't a relevant issue but merely a waste of time.
Cleared. αδόξαστος.
Post Reply