Is sati a saṅkhāra? Or 'pure consciousness'?

[knotting]

Hello friends,

I have been wondering about the development of sati.

It seems that many spiritual teachers (Buddhist or otherwise) refer to 'pure consciousness', 'pure awareness', 'knowing', 'original mind', etc., as the essence of meditation. They often identify this 'pure consciousness' with Nibbana itself. This seems to contradict the sutta teachings that all viññāṇa is conditioned.

On the other hand, if we accept that sati is simply a quality of mind which develops across time, then it seems to avoid the 'pure consciousness' dilemma. From this frame, sati has nothing to do with Nibbana in a metaphysical sense, it is only an expedient means to reach Nibbana.

Given that a sentient being is defined as a heap of the five aggregates, would it then be reasonable to say that sati is a type of saṅkhāra that one cultivates with practice? And, upon realization of arahantship, sati itself is no longer necessary, being the 'raft' which one leaves behind, having reached the goal beyond all the aggregates (including consciousness)?

[mjaviem]

...
It seems that many spiritual teachers (Buddhist or otherwise) refer to 'pure consciousness', 'pure awareness', 'knowing', 'original mind', etc., as the essence of meditation. They often identify this 'pure consciousness' with Nibbana itself. This seems to contradict the sutta teachings that all viññāṇa is conditioned.
...

Yes, sounds wrong. They seem still in need of getting rid of delusion. And as they theoretically know that talking about essences must be wrong they justify their view saying it's Nibbana itself. They mistake quenching with a supposed pure self. And, right, it seems all viññana is conditioned as per the suttas.

...
Given that a sentient being is defined as a heap of the five aggregates,...

Where is a sentient being defined as a heap of the five aggregates, please? A being is defined in SN 23.2 like this:

... In what way, venerable sir, is one called a being?"

"One is stuck, Radha, tightly stuck, in desire, lust, delight, and craving for form; therefore one is called a being. One is stuck, tightly stuck, in desire, lust, delight, and craving for feeling … for perception … for volitional formations … for consciousness; therefore one is called a being.

... would it then be reasonable to say that sati is a type of saṅkhāra...

I would say it's a sankhara, not a type of sankhara.

... that one cultivates with practice? And, upon realization of arahantship, sati itself is no longer necessary, being the 'raft' which one leaves behind, having reached the goal beyond all the aggregates (including consciousness)?

Necessary for what? Do you mean upon awakening one forgets the teachings and starts lying and cheating and getting things and killing and indulging in sensuality, etc.? What do you understand by "leaving behind"?

[knotting]

Where is a sentient being defined as a heap of the five aggregates, please?

... that one cultivates with practice? And, upon realization of arahantship, sati itself is no longer necessary, being the 'raft' which one leaves behind, having reached the goal beyond all the aggregates (including consciousness)?

Necessary for what? Do you mean upon awakening one forgets the teachings and starts lying and cheating and getting things and killing and indulging in sensuality, etc.? What do you understand by "leaving behind"?

I am new to studying the suttas, apologies for the mistake. I appreciate the clarification about craving as the essential factor.

And, I meant the opposite about sati. It seems to be an expedient means, which the non-arahants use to recognize, diminish, and eventually eradicate all of the defilements. Given that an arahant has no defilements, they could (theoretically) safely leave behind the practice of sati, as the 'raft' which took them to the other shore.

[riceandcashews]

Hello friends,

I have been wondering about the development of sati.

It seems that many spiritual teachers (Buddhist or otherwise) refer to 'pure consciousness', 'pure awareness', 'knowing', 'original mind', etc., as the essence of meditation. They often identify this 'pure consciousness' with Nibbana itself. This seems to contradict the sutta teachings that all viññāṇa is conditioned.

Well, I cannot speak for any particular teachers, but I'm influenced by a way of thinking that is similar to what you are referring to so I will defend that.

Pure consciousness, here, would be equivalent to the deathless. Realizing/gaining insight into the deathless, of pure consciousness, is the goal of the path and therefore that realization of pure consciousness is equivalent to nirvana, with meditation as the key central component, so it's the essence of meditation in that sense.

Established consciousness is conditioned, but unestablished consciousness is unconditioned. It is referred to as consciousness without surface, without support, without establishment in the suttas. E.g.:

"That is Mara, the Evil One. He is searching for the consciousness of Vakkali the clansman: "Where is the consciousness of Vakkali the clansman established?" But, monks, it is through unestablished consciousness that Vakkali the clansman has become totally unbound."

SN 22.87

On the other hand, if we accept that sati is simply a quality of mind which develops across time, then it seems to avoid the 'pure consciousness' dilemma. From this frame, sati has nothing to do with Nibbana in a metaphysical sense, it is only an expedient means to reach Nibbana.

Sati =/= consciousness without surface. Sati is mindfulness, and is a conditioned quality of mind that is developed. Sati is only a means to realization and not the goal itself.

Given that a sentient being is defined as a heap of the five aggregates, would it then be reasonable to say that sati is a type of saṅkhāra that one cultivates with practice? And, upon realization of arahantship, sati itself is no longer necessary, being the 'raft' which one leaves behind, having reached the goal beyond all the aggregates (including consciousness)?

Although sati is conditioned activity and not the goal, arahants will not leave it behind just as they won't leave behind eating food.

"Then which things should an arahant attend to in an appropriate way?"

"An arahant should attend in an appropriate way to these five clinging-aggregates as inconstant, stressful, a disease, a cancer, an arrow, painful, an affliction, alien, a dissolution, an emptiness, not-self. Although, for an arahant, there is nothing further to do, and nothing to add to what has been done, still these things — when developed & pursued — lead both to a pleasant abiding in the here-&-now and to mindfulness & alertness."

SN 22.122

[knotting]

Pure consciousness, here, would be equivalent to the deathless. Realizing/gaining insight into the deathless, of pure consciousness, is the goal of the path and therefore that realization of pure consciousness is equivalent to nirvana, with meditation as the key central component, so it's the essence of meditation in that sense.

Established consciousness is conditioned, but unestablished consciousness is unconditioned. It is referred to as consciousness without surface, without support, without establishment in the suttas. E.g.:

"That is Mara, the Evil One. He is searching for the consciousness of Vakkali the clansman: "Where is the consciousness of Vakkali the clansman established?" But, monks, it is through unestablished consciousness that Vakkali the clansman has become totally unbound."

SN 22.87

That sutta seems to describe 'unestablished consciousness' as a means to become unbound, not that it is equivalent with Unbinding.

I haven't seen anywhere that the Buddha explicitly defines pure consciousness as unconditioned, or equivalent with Nibbana. If it were so, why didn't he just come out and say it, repeatedly?

[riceandcashews]

Pure consciousness, here, would be equivalent to the deathless. Realizing/gaining insight into the deathless, of pure consciousness, is the goal of the path and therefore that realization of pure consciousness is equivalent to nirvana, with meditation as the key central component, so it's the essence of meditation in that sense.

Established consciousness is conditioned, but unestablished consciousness is unconditioned. It is referred to as consciousness without surface, without support, without establishment in the suttas. E.g.:

"That is Mara, the Evil One. He is searching for the consciousness of Vakkali the clansman: "Where is the consciousness of Vakkali the clansman established?" But, monks, it is through unestablished consciousness that Vakkali the clansman has become totally unbound."

SN 22.87

That sutta seems to describe 'unestablished consciousness' as a means to become unbound, not that it is equivalent with Unbinding.

I haven't seen anywhere that the Buddha explicitly defines pure consciousness as unconditioned, or equivalent with Nibbana. If it were so, why didn't he just come out and say it, repeatedly?

Arguably, he did:

SN 12:64 -- In the same way, where there is no passion for the nutriment of physical food… contact… intellectual intention… consciousness, where there is no delight, no craving, then consciousness does not land there or increase. Where consciousness does not land or increase, there is no alighting of name-&-form. Where there is no alighting of name-&-form, there is no growth of fabrications. Where there is no growth of fabrications, there is no production of renewed becoming in the future. Where there is no production of renewed becoming in the future, there is no future birth, aging, & death. That, I tell you, has no sorrow, affliction, or despair.

SN 43 -- Monks, I will also teach you the effluent-free and the path leading to the effluent-free...Monks, I will also teach you permanence and the path leading to permanence...Monks, I will also teach you the surfaceless and the path leading to the surfaceless...Monks, I will also teach you the deathless and the path leading to the deathless...

MN 49 -- ‘Having directly known the all as the all,8 and having directly known the extent of what has not been experienced through the allness of the all, I wasn’t the all, I wasn’t in the all, I wasn’t coming forth from the all, I wasn’t “The all is mine.” I didn’t affirm the all. Thus I am not your mere equal in terms of direct knowing, so how could I be inferior? I am actually superior to you.’

‘If, good sir, you have directly known the extent of what has not been experienced through the allness of the all, may it not turn out to be actually vain and void for you.’

‘Consciousness without surface,
endless, radiant all around,
has not been experienced through the earthness of earth… the liquidity of liquid… the fieriness of fire… the windiness of wind… the allness of the all.’

SN 35:23 -- The Blessed One said, “What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All.1 Anyone who would say, ‘Repudiating this All, I will describe another,’ if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain and, furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range.”

SN 5:6 -- One who has reached the end has no criterion by which anyone would say that—for him it doesn’t exist.
When all phenomena are done away with, all means of speaking are done away with as well.

SN 22:53 -- Consciousness, thus not having landed, not increasing, not concocting, is released. Owing to its release, it is steady. Owing to its steadiness, it is contented. Owing to its contentment, it is not agitated. Not agitated, he (the monk) is totally unbound right within. He discerns that ‘Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.’

UD 8:1 -- 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, unevolving, without support [mental object]. This, just this, is the end of stress.

[santa100]

I haven't seen anywhere that the Buddha explicitly defines pure consciousness as unconditioned, or equivalent with Nibbana. If it were so, why didn't he just come out and say it, repeatedly?

As far as the question of whether the "consciousness without surface"/viññanam anidassanam is one and the same with Nibbana, it's still a subject of debate. Ven. Thanissaro says yes while Ven. Bodhi says no, so guess one would have to attain Nibbana first in order to settle this inquiry once and for all.

would it then be reasonable to say that sati is a type of saṅkhāra that one cultivates with practice?

sure, per the Abhidhamma's classification, it's one among the 19 items in the SobhanaSadharana/BeautifulUniversals, which is a sub-group in the SobhanaSadharana < Sobhana < Cetasika < Nama < Sankhata < Paramattha classification ( ref: https://www.saraniya.com/books/meditati ... dhamma.pdf )

[knotting]

As far as the question of whether the "consciousness without surface"/viññanam anidassanam is one and the same with Nibbana, it's still a subject of debate. Ven. Thanissaro says yes while Ven. Bodhi says no, so guess one would have to attain Nibbana first in order to settle this inquiry once and for all.

There is also Ven. Sujato, who takes a hard-line stance against any notion of Nibbanic consciousness.

The suttas are a bit vague on the possibility of a supramundane consciousness, so valid arguments can be made across a wide spectrum. But does it matter?

The Buddha clearly advised us to not get wrapped up in unnecessary metaphysical positions. In practical terms, all we can really do is regard our mundane human (sensory) consciousness as anatta.

[Jack19990101]

Direct knowledge of the un-supported consciousness, is the Path.
Nibbana is the Fruit.

[Ceisiwr]

All conciousness, anywhere, is impermanent, dukkha and not-self.

[cappuccino]

All consciousness, anywhere, is impermanent, dukkha and not-self.

Maybe going too far


Consider the middle way

[Ceisiwr]

All consciousness, anywhere, is impermanent, dukkha and not-self.

Maybe going too far


Consider the middle way

That all types of conciousness, anywhere, are dependently originated is the middle way.

“Venerable sir, is there any form that is permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change, and that will remain the same just like eternity itself? Is there, venerable sir, any feeling … any perception … any volitional formations … any consciousness that is permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change, and that will remain the same just like eternity itself?”

“Bhikkhu, there is no form that is permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change, and that will remain the same just like eternity itself. There is no feeling … no perception … no volitional formations … no consciousness that is permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change, and that will remain the same just like eternity itself.”

https://suttacentral.net/sn22.96/en/bod ... ight=false

[cappuccino]

…

no consciousness that is permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change, and that will remain the same just like eternity itself

[Ceisiwr]

…

no consciousness that is permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change, and that will remain the same just like eternity itself

Therefore, all types of consciousness are impermanent, not stable and liable to cease. Dependently originated. We discussed this last night.

[cappuccino]

We discussed this last night.

what matters is change, not existential conclusions