It is not obscure at all. It seems obscure to theravadin schools. most of them, who got all wrong the Buddha teaching as He was teaching Anatta, no.self doctrine. Buddha never, ever taught any theory od no self. Is simply stupid to think that a Sramana, not only Shakyamuni, seaching for the Immortal state, (amata) would go around teaching the nihilism.ancientbuddhism wrote: ↑Wed May 23, 2012 10:46 pmFrom Bhante Sujato’s blog-page “Nibbāna is not viññāṇa. Really, it just isn’t.”
- “I’ve just read yet another assertion that tries to slip a ‘cosmic consciousness’ Nibbana into the Suttas. In these kinds of arguments the same mistakes are made again and again, and you should beware of them.
One popular argument is based on the famous passage:
This is sometimes said to be a term for Nibbana, although since it is an obscure poetic passage of dubious meaning we should not infer any major conclusions from it.
- viññāṇāṁ anidassanaṁ anantaṁ sabbato pabhaṁ
‘Consciousness non-manifest, infinte, radiant all around.’
This obscure passage has been often exalted to the revelation of the highest teachings of Nibbana. One of the arguments one hears is that viññāṇa normally means ‘separative consciousness’, and that this has been revalued to refer to an infinite awareness. This argument is wrong. ...”
Buddha was using a tipical Via Negativa style, apofatic teaching, like 'na me so atta'
Theravadin shools holds that they have the original teaching but actually is quite terrible wrong on this matter of self or not self
Is too difficult here to show why of this great missunderstanding, but I can assure, it is like that.
Buddha was already accused to be ninhilistic and he replays to that, in some passage of Pali canonic texts. So, viññanam anidassanam is simply the buddhavinnana, the awareness nirvanic, is cetovimutti, and Nibbana nana (Nirvana Jnana) . Anatta is just one of the upaya used for teaching.
Sorry to be quite direct on this, but it's time to say these things clearly.