Spiny Norman wrote:Vinnana anidassana is tricky.
In this case, it doesn't seem so tricky at all.
Viññāṇaṃ anidassanaṃ, not claiming being with respect to all (good translation by Bodhi,), is not experienced as (through) the allness of the "all" (good translations by Thanissaro and Piya tan).
Viññāṇaṃ anidassanaṃ anantaṃ sabbato pabhaṃ, taṃ pathaviyā pathavattena ananubhūtaṃ, āpassa āpattena ananubhūtaṃ, tejassa ..., sabbassa sabbattena ananubhūtaṃ.
So no "physical body" is involved here. Not trick there.
Anyway, even the rapture in SN 54.13 is not sāmisa (fleshly, carnal); but nirāmisa (spiritual - not of the flesh).
In one whose persistence is aroused, a rapture not-of-the-flesh arises. When a rapture not-of-the-flesh arises in one whose persistence is aroused, then rapture as a factor for Awakening becomes aroused. He develops it, and for him it goes to the culmination of its development.
Āraddhavīriyassa uppajjati pīti nirāmisā. Yasmiṃ samaye, ānanda, bhikkhuno āraddhavīriyassa uppajjati pīti nirāmisāpītisambojjhaṅgo tasmiṃ samaye bhikkhuno āraddho hoti, pītisambojjhaṅgaṃ tasmiṃ samaye bhikkhu bhāveti, pītisambojjhaṅgo tasmiṃ samaye bhikkhuno bhāvanāpāripūriṃ gacchati.
So why so many materialists, (so called buddhists,) are having problems, with things that could be experienced out of the physical body? And why do they have to make of that, a special "super eternal Being/Sat" of some sort?
It is just a cognitive experience, that get you rid of the birth/death process; because it is not experienced through the body anymore. It is an experience, where there is no "contact" with the spheres of senses anymore.
Therein, bhikkhus, when those recluses who are [the whatever 60+ views are], proclaim on XX grounds the xxxxxxxxxxxxx — that is conditioned by contact. That they can experience that feeling without contact—such a case is impossible.
all these recluses and brahmins experience these feelings only by repeated contacts through the six bases of contact.
When, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu understands as they really are the origin and passing away of the six bases of contact, their satisfaction, unsatisfactoriness, and the escape from them, then he understands what transcends all these views.
Who said that this (transcendence,) had to be eternal; or that this should be some kind of Self (Sat/Atman or Whatever), with which you would finally merge, or whatever?Note: I don't know if viññāṇa anidassana is atemporal or not, as Thanissaro views it - (although the space-time pair would say so. No more space = no more time). I don't really care much about these speculations. But I know one thing, from what Buddha said; and that is that viññāṇa anidassana, (and more particularly viññāṇañcāyatana (infinite consciousness*) that concerns us,) is experienced¨out of the physical body.* Viññāṇa añcāyatana (infinite consciousness) seems to be of the same nature than viññāṇa anidassana. The difference being that viññāṇa anidassana does not experience the "all", while viññāṇa añcāyatana does experience the "all" (through sense-consciousness;) but abandon the "all".
Edited: Added end note.
We are all possessed - more or less.
And what, bhikkhu, is inward rottenness? Here someone is immoral, one of evil character, of impure and suspect behaviour, secretive in his acts, no ascetic though claiming to be one, not a celibate though claiming to be one, inwardly rotten, corrupt, depraved. This is called inward rottenness.”
Just as a chunk of salt, cast in water, loses its form and keeps only its taste; so does one who deals with the deathless loses himself in that reality.