What is the difference between infinite consciousness and the consciousness of the five aggregate?

The cultivation of calm or tranquility and the development of concentration
SEC201482
Posts: 50
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2016 3:24 pm

Re: What is the difference between infinite consciousness and the consciousness of the five aggregate?

Post by SEC201482 » Thu Oct 27, 2016 5:08 pm

SarathW wrote:What is the difference between infinite consciousness and the consciousness of the five aggregate?
There is no difference. Every phenomenal experience (i.e. from ordinary sensory experience to the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception) falls within the realm of the aggregates. They are simply different configurations of the aggregates:

"Furthermore, with the complete transcending of the dimension of the infinitude of space, [perceiving,] 'Infinite consciousness,' Sariputta entered & remained in the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness. Whatever qualities there are in the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness — the perception of the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness, singleness of mind, contact, feeling, perception, intention, consciousness, desire, decision, persistence, mindfulness, equanimity, & attention — he ferreted them out one after another. Known to him they arose, known to him they remained, known to him they subsided. He discerned, 'So this is how these qualities, not having been, come into play. Having been, they vanish.' He remained unattracted & unrepelled with regard to those qualities, independent, detached, released, dissociated, with an awareness rid of barriers. He discerned that 'There is a further escape,' and pursuing it there really was for him.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

ToVincent
Posts: 418
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: What is the difference between infinite consciousness and the consciousness of the five aggregate?

Post by ToVincent » Thu Oct 27, 2016 9:03 pm

SEC201482 wrote:
SarathW wrote:What is the difference between infinite consciousness and the consciousness of the five aggregate?
There is no difference.
That might be hastily said.

MN 111 (with no parallels) might make sense to you; but MN 49 (Thanissaro) seems to say the contrary.
"'Having directly known the all as the all, 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.'
......
"'Consciousness without surface (feature) - (anidassana viññāṇa),
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.'


Where in the suttas did you find that the aggregates do transcend the allness of the all?

With the end of food, contact and nāmarūpa comes the end of the aggregates.
The modicum (the bare necessity) to survive is irrelevant, once one has entered the higher dimensions; of which consciousness without feature (anidassana viññāṇa) is a part.
Feeling and perception in the higher dimensions are not aggregates. "Neither-perception-nor-non-perception" is exactly what is meant here; namely that there is no more perception (as perceived when in the "all"), but there is still perception.

What is meant here, is that you are just going back to the third link of paṭiccasamupāda (and higher - https://justpaste.it/v08v ); but this time, with the knowledge of the four noble truths. You have actualized your ignorance/truth, through the khandhas and the clinging-khandhas; and you transcend them.
The aggregates do not transcend the "all". You transcend the aggregates.

So we might still agree that consciousness is to be considered as one, as a whole in itself; but it has its expression (dhatu) through the khandhas (form - earth, etc) and the clinging-khandhas (consciousness-aggregate, feeling-aggregate, perception aggregate and intention-aggregate).
The "is known" that is consciousness, takes different varieties along the process of actualizing the truth. Consciousness takes different attributes along the way. However, the nature of consciousness as aggregate, is far different than the nature of consciousness without feature (anidassana viññāṇa).

------

Related suttas:

The element (manifestation/expression) - dhātu
AN 3.61
MN 115
MN 140
In this world with its ..., Māras, ... in this population with its ascetics.... (AN 5.30).
------
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.”
SN 35.241
------
https://justpaste.it/j5o4

SEC201482
Posts: 50
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2016 3:24 pm

Re: What is the difference between infinite consciousness and the consciousness of the five aggregate?

Post by SEC201482 » Thu Oct 27, 2016 9:07 pm

ToVincent wrote:
SEC201482 wrote:
SarathW wrote:What is the difference between infinite consciousness and the consciousness of the five aggregate?
There is no difference.
That might be hastily said.

MN 111 (with no parallels) might make sense to you; but MN 49 (Thanissaro) seems to say the contrary.
"'Having directly known the all as the all, 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.'
......
"'Consciousness without surface (feature) - (anidassana viññāṇa),
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.'


Where in the suttas did you find that the aggregates do transcend the allness of the all?

With the end of food, contact and nāmarūpa comes the end of the aggregates.
The modicum (the bare necessity) to survive is irrelevant, once one has entered the higher dimensions; of which consciousness without feature (anidassana viññāṇa) is a part.
Feeling and perception in the higher dimensions are not aggregates. "Neither-perception-nor-non-perception" is exactly what is meant here; namely that there is no more perception (as perceived when in the "all"), but there is still perception.

What is meant here, is that you are just going back to the third link of paṭiccasamupāda (and higher - https://justpaste.it/v08v ); but this time, with the knowledge of the four noble truths. You have actualized your ignorance/truth, through the khandhas and the clinging-khandhas; and you transcend them.
The aggregates do not transcend the "all". You transcend the aggregates.

So we might still agree that consciousness is to be considered as one, as a whole in itself; but it has its expression (dhatu) through the khandhas (form - earth, etc) and the clinging-khandhas (consciousness-aggregate, feeling-aggregate, perception aggregate and intention-aggregate).
The "is known" that is consciousness, takes different varieties along the process of actualizing the truth. Consciousness takes different attributes along the way. However, the nature of consciousness as aggregate, is far different than the nature of consciousness without feature (anidassana viññāṇa).

------

Related suttas:

The element (manifestation/expression) - dhātu

AN 3.61
MN 115?
MN 140
My discussion refers to the arupa jhana, not "vinnanam anidassanam." I find the rest of your discussion incoherent, so I'm not sure how to respond.

ToVincent
Posts: 418
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: What is the difference between infinite consciousness and the consciousness of the five aggregate?

Post by ToVincent » Thu Oct 27, 2016 9:35 pm

SEC201482 wrote: My discussion refers to the arupa jhana, not "vinnanam anidassanam."
Well, I would say that infinite consciousness viññāṇañcāyatana, and consciousness without feature (viññāṇa anidassana) are quite related.

So to put it simply, arupa jhanas ( https://justpaste.it/zh6i ) (fourth to eight liberation), do not deal with clinging-khandhas.
The khandhas (aggregates) have been transcended at that level.
In this world with its ..., Māras, ... in this population with its ascetics.... (AN 5.30).
------
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.”
SN 35.241
------
https://justpaste.it/j5o4

SEC201482
Posts: 50
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2016 3:24 pm

Re: What is the difference between infinite consciousness and the consciousness of the five aggregate?

Post by SEC201482 » Thu Oct 27, 2016 10:06 pm

ToVincent wrote:
SEC201482 wrote: My discussion refers to the arupa jhana, not "vinnanam anidassanam."
Well, I would say that infinite consciousness viññāṇañcāyatana, and consciousness without feature (viññāṇa anidassana) are quite related.

So to put it simply, arupa jhanas ( https://justpaste.it/zh6i ) (fourth to eight liberation), do not deal with clinging-khandhas.
The khandhas (aggregates) have been transcended at that level.
Nope. That passage you describe is similar to the one in the Bahiya sutta describing Nibbana. It's not referring to the arupa jhanas:

Where water, earth,
fire, & wind
have no footing:
There the stars don't shine,
the sun isn't visible.
There the moon doesn't appear.
There darkness is not found.
And when a sage,
a brahman through sagacity,
has realized [this] for himself,
then from form & formless,
from bliss & pain,
he is freed.

[/url]
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html[/url]

ToVincent
Posts: 418
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: What is the difference between infinite consciousness and the consciousness of the five aggregate?

Post by ToVincent » Thu Oct 27, 2016 11:03 pm

SEC201482 wrote:
ToVincent wrote:
SEC201482 wrote: My discussion refers to the arupa jhana, not "vinnanam anidassanam."
Well, I would say that infinite consciousness viññāṇañcāyatana, and consciousness without feature (viññāṇa anidassana) are quite related.
So to put it simply, arupa jhanas ( https://justpaste.it/zh6i ) (fourth to eight liberation), do not deal with clinging-khandhas.
The khandhas (aggregates) have been transcended at that level.
Nope.
Nope?
Nope what?

You are just bringing water to my mill.

What is no earth, no water, etc... but the "no form khandha". You know about the definition of form (MN 44)?

Have you read what I gave you as a link about jhana? https://justpaste.it/zh6i
With the complete transcendence of perceptions of forms, with the passing away of perceptions of sensory impingement, with nonattention to perceptions of diversity
Whatever exists therein of material form, feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness, he sees those states as impermanent, as suffering, .... He turns his mind (citta) away from those states and directs it towards the deathless element.
For one who has attained the base of the infinity of space, the perception of form has ceased (and subsided).
Etc.

This is exactly what you find in anidassana viññāṇa (consciousness without feature); or in the infinity of consciousness (viññāṇañcāyatana). No form (arupa).
You don't have to be so rigidly formal.

However, I repeat: "there is no more khandha in the consciousness of "arupa jhana" (or in "consciousness without feature" or in the "infinity of consciousness", for that matter).
There is definitely no more form. And as far as the other khandhas are concerned, they are definitely not to be considered as clinging-khandhas.
There is just this modicum of khandhas for the purpose of living (survival).

In other words, when you consider "infinite consciousness" as the same thing as the "consciousness of the five aggregates", you are making a small mistake; as far as their nature is concerned.

What SarathW is talking about (when he speaks about the "consciousness of the five aggregates",) is the consciousness that gets established (https://justpaste.it/urmw) in the aggregates of nāmarūpa.
This consciousness is the consciousness of someone who is not turning "his mind away from the khandhas".

On the other hand, the consciousness of the higher jhana, or the "consciousness without feature", or the "infinite consciousness" (as SarathW puts it,) is the consciousness of someone who has turned his mind (citta) away from the khandhas". It is the consciousness of someone who has transcended the khandhas.

So, consciousness might be consider as one, as a whole; but it has different characteristics along the way, that makes the "consciousness of the five aggregates" different than the "infinite consciousness" (aka consciousness of the arupa jhana).
If I had to take an analogy, you could not say that a toddler is the same as an adult; although both are human.

Metta.
In this world with its ..., Māras, ... in this population with its ascetics.... (AN 5.30).
------
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.”
SN 35.241
------
https://justpaste.it/j5o4

SEC201482
Posts: 50
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2016 3:24 pm

Re: What is the difference between infinite consciousness and the consciousness of the five aggregate?

Post by SEC201482 » Fri Oct 28, 2016 7:42 am

ToVincent wrote:
SEC201482 wrote: My discussion refers to the arupa jhana, not "vinnanam anidassanam."
Well, I would say that infinite consciousness viññāṇañcāyatana, and consciousness without feature (viññāṇa anidassana) are quite related.
So to put it simply, arupa jhanas ( https://justpaste.it/zh6i ) (fourth to eight liberation), do not deal with clinging-khandhas.
The khandhas (aggregates) have been transcended at that level.
Nope.
ToVincent wrote:
SEC201482 wrote: Nope?
Nope what?

You are just bringing water to my mill.

What is no earth, no water, etc... but the "no form khandha". You know about the definition of form (MN 44)?

Have you read what I gave you as a link about jhana? https://justpaste.it/zh6i


:roll: "Nope," as in you don't know what you're talking about. Look at the 11th verse in that quote: "...then from form &formless." He is obviously referring to something that "exists" in contradistinction to both rupa & arupa. At any rate, it's absurd for me to have to point this out, but the transcending of perceptions of form, doesn't mean perception, in and of itself, has been transcended (i.e. the nama khandhas haven't been transcended). Let's see if you can understand a sutta where it clearly states that clinging is still present in the arupa jhanas:

"Then again, the disciple of the noble ones considers this: 'Sensuality here & now; sensuality in lives to come; sensual perceptions here & now; sensual perceptions in lives to come; forms here & now; forms in lives to come; form-perceptions here & now; form-perceptions in lives to come: both are inconstant. Whatever is inconstant is not worth relishing, is not worth welcoming, is not worth remaining fastened to." Practicing & frequently abiding in this way, his mind acquires confidence in that dimension. There being full confidence, he either attains the imperturbable now or else is committed to discernment. With the break-up of the body, after death, it's possible that this leading-on consciousness of his will go to the imperturbable. This is declared to be the third practice conducive to the imperturbable.

"Then again, the disciple of the noble ones considers this: 'Sensuality here & now; sensuality in lives to come; sensual perceptions here & now; sensual perceptions in lives to come; forms here & now; forms in lives to come; form-perceptions here & now; form-perceptions in lives to come; perceptions of the imperturbable: all are perceptions. Where they cease without remainder: that is peaceful, that is exquisite, i.e., the dimension of nothingness.' Practicing & frequently abiding in this way, his mind acquires confidence in that dimension. There being full confidence, he either attains the dimension of nothingness now or else is committed to discernment. With the break-up of the body, after death, it's possible that this leading-on consciousness of his will go to the dimension of nothingness. This is declared to be the first practice conducive to the dimension of nothingness.

"Then again, the disciple of the noble ones, having gone into the wilderness, to the root of a tree, or into an empty dwelling, considers this: 'This is empty of self or of anything pertaining to self.' Practicing & frequently abiding in this way, his mind acquires confidence in that dimension. There being full confidence, he either attains the dimension of nothingness now or else is committed to discernment. With the break-up of the body, after death, it's possible that this leading-on consciousness of his will go to the dimension of nothingness. This is declared to be the second practice conducive to the dimension of nothingness.

"Then again, the disciple of the noble ones considers this: 'I am not anyone's anything anywhere; nor is anything of mine in anyone anywhere.' Practicing & frequently abiding in this way, his mind acquires confidence in that dimension. There being full confidence, he either attains the dimension of nothingness now or else is committed to discernment. With the break-up of the body, after death, it's possible that this leading-on consciousness of his will go to the dimension of nothingness. This is declared to be the third practice conducive to the dimension of nothingness.

"Then again, the disciple of the noble ones considers this: 'Sensuality here & now; sensuality in lives to come; sensual perceptions here & now; sensual perceptions in lives to come; forms here & now; forms in lives to come; form-perceptions here & now; form-perceptions in lives to come; perceptions of the imperturbable; perceptions of the dimension of nothingness: all are perceptions. Where they cease without remainder: that is peaceful, that is exquisite, i.e., the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception.' Practicing & frequently abiding in this way, his mind acquires confidence in that dimension. There being full confidence, he either attains the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception now or else is committed to discernment. With the break-up of the body, after death, it's possible that this leading-on consciousness of his will go to the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception. This is declared to be the practice conducive to the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception.

When this was said, Ven. Ananda said to the Blessed One: "There is the case, lord, where a monk, having practiced in this way — 'It should not be, it should not occur to me;[2] it will not be, it will not occur to me.[3] What is, what has come to be, that I abandon' — obtains equanimity. Now, would this monk be totally unbound, or not?"

"A certain such monk might, Ananda, and another might not.'

"What is the cause, what is the reason, whereby one might and another might not?"

"There is the case, Ananda, where a monk, having practiced in this way — (thinking) 'It should not be, it should not occur to me; it will not be, it will not occur to me. What is, what has come to be, that I abandon' — obtains equanimity. He relishes that equanimity, welcomes it, remains fastened to it. As he relishes that equanimity, welcomes it, remains fastened to it, his consciousness is dependent on it, is sustained by it (clings to it). With clinging/sustenance, Ananda, a monk is not totally unbound."

"Being sustained, where is that monk sustained?"

"The dimension of neither perception nor non-perception."

"Then, indeed, being sustained, he is sustained by the supreme sustenance."

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

ToVincent
Posts: 418
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: What is the difference between infinite consciousness and the consciousness of the five aggregate?

Post by ToVincent » Fri Oct 28, 2016 2:22 pm

SEC201482 wrote:"Nope," as in you don't know what you're talking about.
That again, might be hastily said.

Once more, I am trying to answer SarathW's question; namely: "What is the difference between infinite consciousness and the consciousness of the five aggregates?".

As such, I have pointed out the progression of consciousness along the process of attaining the truth.
viññāṇa anidassana (consciousness without feature) > consciousness of the five aggregates (consciousness that establishes itself in the aggregates of nāmarūpa) > sense-consciousness (eye-consciousness, etc) > consciousness processed and altered by mano (by toughts, etc) > viññāṇā nidāna (as consciousness maintained; and if not maintained) > infinite consciousness.

Again, I don't consider that "infinite consciousness" is of the same nature than the "consciousness of the five aggregates" (although we are talking about "one consciousness" as a whole).
I have pointed out ealier that there is no form in "infinite consciousness".
ToVincent wrote:There is definitely no more form. And as far as the other khandhas are concerned, they are definitely not to be considered as clinging-khandhas.
There is just this modicum of khandhas for the purpose of living (survival).
That, by itself, would be enough to say that "infinite consciousness" is not the same as "consciousness of the five aggregates". There is no form in "infinite consciousness".

The khandhas that are left (once form has been thoroughly transcended,) are this modicum for mere survival; as well as feelings, perceptions and saṅkharas, that are very close to the nature of the khandhas that came to be at the inception of consciousness (viññāṇa anidassana). These are feelings and perceptions of the sphere (base) itself:
By completely surmounting (completely transcending) the base (dimension) of infinite space, aware that 'consciousness is infinite', one enters upon and abides in the base of infinite consciousness.
sabbaso ākāsānañcāyatanaṃ samatikkamma ‘anantaṃ viññāṇan’ti viññāṇañcāyatanaṃ upasampajja viharati,....
MN 77

Note: we are not even talking anymore about perception (sañña), but about awareness/consciousness (viññāṇan’ti).
It is in the seventh liberation that we talk again about perception (sañña). A perception (neither-perception nor non-perception,) that has absolutely nothing to do with the perception that we know of. A perception that is closer to the perception at inception (in saṅkhāra nidāna). A perception that has nothing to do with the "world" and the "all".

Once more, I see very little resemblances between the khandhas in the arupa jhanas, and the khandhas in nāmarūpa. And "infinite consciousness" (aka consciousness without feature) is one of the former.


P.S.
Your reference to MN 106 is far from being convincing.
Then again, the disciple of the noble ones considers this: 'Sensuality here & now; sensuality in lives to come; sensual perceptions here & now; sensual perceptions in lives to come; forms here & now; forms in lives to come; form-perceptions here & now; form-perceptions in lives to come; perceptions of the imperturbable, ...
This is the practice of the rupa jhanas. The "imperturbable" (if you had read my link about jhana,) is attained in the fourth jhana.
I don't see how relevant could this sutta be?
In this world with its ..., Māras, ... in this population with its ascetics.... (AN 5.30).
------
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.”
SN 35.241
------
https://justpaste.it/j5o4

SEC201482
Posts: 50
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2016 3:24 pm

Re: What is the difference between infinite consciousness and the consciousness of the five aggregate?

Post by SEC201482 » Fri Oct 28, 2016 3:39 pm

ToVincent wrote:
SEC201482 wrote:"Nope," as in you don't know what you're talking about.
That again, might be hastily said.

Once more, I am trying to answer SarathW's question; namely: "What is the difference between infinite consciousness and the consciousness of the five aggregates?".

As such, I have pointed out the progression of consciousness along the process of attaining the truth.
viññāṇa anidassana (consciousness without feature) > consciousness of the five aggregates (consciousness that establishes itself in the aggregates of nāmarūpa) > sense-consciousness (eye-consciousness, etc) > consciousness processed and altered by mano (toughts, etc) > viññāṇā nidāna (as consciousness maintained; and if not maintained) > infinite consciousness.

Again, I don't consider that "infinite consciousness" is of the same nature than the "consciousness of the five aggregates" (although we are talking about "one consciousness" as a whole).
I have pointed out ealier that there is no form in "infinite consciousness".
ToVincent wrote:There is definitely no more form. And as far as the other khandhas are concerned, they are definitely not to be considered as clinging-khandhas.
There is just this modicum of khandhas for the purpose of living (survival).
That, by itself, would be enough to say that "infinite consciousness" is not the same as "consciousness of the five aggregates". There is no form in "infinite consciousness".

The khandhas that are left (once form has been thoroughly transcended,) are this modicum for mere survival; as well as feelings, perceptions and saṅkharas, that are very close to the nature of the khandhas that came to be at the inception of consciousness (viññāṇa anidassana). These are feelings and perceptions of the sphere (base) itself:
By completely surmounting (completely transcending) the base (dimension) of infinite space, aware that 'consciousness is infinite', one enters upon and abides in the base of infinite consciousness.
sabbaso ākāsānañcāyatanaṃ samatikkamma ‘anantaṃ viññāṇan’ti viññāṇañcāyatanaṃ upasampajja viharati,....
MN 77

Note: we are not even talking anymore about perception (sañña), but about awareness (upasampajja).
It is in the seventh liberation that we talk again about perception (sañña). A perception (neither-perception nor non-perception,) that has absolutely nothing to do with the perception that we know of. A perception that is closer to the perception at inception (in saṅkhāra nidāna). A perception that has nothing to do with the "world" and the "all".

Once more, I see very little resemblances between the khandhas in the arupa jhanas, and the khandhas in nāmarūpa. And "infinite consciousness" (aka consciousness without feature) is one of the former.


P.S.
Your reference to MN 106 is far from being convincing.
Then again, the disciple of the noble ones considers this: 'Sensuality here & now; sensuality in lives to come; sensual perceptions here & now; sensual perceptions in lives to come; forms here & now; forms in lives to come; form-perceptions here & now; form-perceptions in lives to come; perceptions of the imperturbable, ...
This is the practice of the rupa jhanas. The "imperturbable" (if you had read my link about jhana,) is attained in the fourth jhana.
I don't see how relevant could this sutta be?
"Vinnanam anidassanam" is a controversial topic and it obviously isn't being used to refer to the arupa jhanas. <sigh> No offense, but I think there is a language barrier and/or you're incorrigibly stupid. I'm not talking about the operational function of consciousness (i.e. being aware of the 5 aggregates), but about the general consciousness khandha. It is tireless to have to go over Buddhism 101, but we will see if you can follow a simple chain of reasoning; if you can't follow this, then I'm done with you. In Buddhist cosmology, there are 3 general macrocosmic realms: the sensory realm, fine material realm, and immaterial realm. These are obviously connected on the microcosmic level with the jhanas (i.e. 4 rupa jhanas = fine material, 4 arupas =immaterial) and they correspond to different configurations of the aggregates. The fine material realms have a subtle perception of form and the arupas move beyond perception of form entirely. Let's look at a few suttas.

How name and form are defined:

"And what is name-&-form? Feeling, perception, intention, contact, & attention: This is called name. The four great elements, and the form dependent on the four great elements: This is called form. This name & this form are called name-&-form.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

You really need to study the suttas more assiduously. You need to take it up with the Buddha and Sariputta if you don't think the nama khandhas are present in the arupas:

"Furthermore, with the complete transcending of the dimension of the infinitude of space, [perceiving,] 'Infinite consciousness,' Sariputta entered & remained in the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness. Whatever qualities there are in the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness — the perception of the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness, singleness of mind, contact, feeling, perception, intention, consciousness, desire, decision, persistence, mindfulness, equanimity, & attention — he ferreted them out one after another. Known to him they arose, known to him they remained, known to him they subsided. He discerned, 'So this is how these qualities, not having been, come into play. Having been, they vanish.' He remained unattracted & unrepelled with regard to those qualities, independent, detached, released, dissociated, with an awareness rid of barriers. He discerned that 'There is a further escape,' and pursuing it there really was for him.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

<sarcasm alert> Yes, you're right. What relevance could MN 106 have when it explicitly states that there is clinging in the arupas:

"Being sustained, where is that monk sustained?"

"The dimension of neither perception nor non-perception."

"Then, indeed, being sustained, he is sustained by the supreme sustenance."

"Being sustained, Ananda, he is sustained by the supreme sustenance; for this — the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception — is the supreme sustenance. There is [however] the case where a monk, having practiced in this way — 'It should not be, it should not occur to me; it will not be, it will not occur to me. What is, what has come to be, that I abandon' — obtains equanimity. He does not relish that equanimity, does not welcome it, does not remain fastened to it. As he does not relish that equanimity, does not welcome it, does not remain fastened to it, his consciousness is not dependent on it, is not sustained by it (does not cling to it). Without clinging/sustenance, Ananda, a monk is totally unbound."

ToVincent
Posts: 418
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: What is the difference between infinite consciousness and the consciousness of the five aggregate?

Post by ToVincent » Fri Oct 28, 2016 6:48 pm

SEC201482 wrote: "Vinnanam anidassanam" is a controversial topic and it obviously isn't being used to refer to the arupa jhanas.
Why not?
Although controversial, you still have to put a name on the nature of the third link of paṭiccasamuppada at inception. So why not "viññāṇa anidassana" ("conciousness without feature"). In other words, consciousness that has not yet been established, altered and maintained; aka consciousness at inception. Consciousness that has acknowledged the first three saṅkhāra pairs and their characteristics, and no more.
A consciousness that is very close to the "infinite consciousness" of the higher jhana. The only difference being that this "infinite consciousness" of the higher jhanas has truth in its luggage (which is not the case for the "Vinnanam anidassanam".
Don't be so formal.
SEC201482 wrote: I'm not talking about the operational function of consciousness (i.e. being aware of the 5 aggregates), but about the general consciousness khandha.

Sure.
I don't think that you have to be a Stanford alumni to understand that the "general consciousness" encompasses the all range of consciousness.
It would be the same as saying that "there is no difference" between a toddler-human and an adult human; because they are both human. This is a bit what you said when you stated the following:
SEC201482 wrote:
SarathW wrote: What is the difference between infinite consciousness and the consciousness of the five aggregate?
There is no difference.

SEC201482 wrote: In Buddhist cosmology, there are 3 general macrocosmic realms: the sensory realm, fine material realm, and immaterial realm.

You mean like here: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dham ... /loka.html
SEC201482 wrote: 4 rupa jhanas = fine material, 4 arupas =immaterial) and they correspond to different configurations of the aggregates. The fine material realms have a subtle perception of form and the arupas move beyond perception of form entirely.

Did I say the contrary?
I believe that this is exactly what I am trying to show you since day one. Namely a difference between perceptions AS MUCH AS a difference between consciousnesses. Which does not seem to be your original point of view, when you say "there is no difference".
SEC201482 wrote: You need to take it up with the Buddha and Sariputta if you don't think the nama khandhas are present in the arupas.
I would not call them "nāma khandhas" per se, but just "khandhas" (of the same nature than what is in "vinnanam anidassanam", as explained above); plus the remaining modicum (for survival) of the nāma khandhas.
For instance (I repeat,) the perception of "infinite space", is the perception of that sphere (base) only; with the modicum that is remaining from the nāmarūpa khandhas (just for survival sake). However, this modicum of khandhas have nothing to do with the clinging-khandhas (for there is not the taint (asava) of sensual pleasure in them, for instance).
"Again, bhikkhus,a noble disciple considers thus:
'Sensual pleasures here and now and sensual pleasures in lives to come, sensual perceptions here and now and sensual perceptions in lives to come, material forms here and now and material forms in lives to come, perceptions of forms here and now and perceptions of forms in lives to come, and perceptions of the imperturbable - all are perceptions. Where these perceptions cease without remainder, that is the peaceful, that is the sublime, namely, the base of nothingness.'
MN 106 (Bodhi)
This shows that along the practice of the jhanas, you lose the perception of form, then the perception of the imperturbable (āneñja), etc.
Perception is changing. Same thing for consciousness.

By now, I hope that you have realized that the "supreme sustenance" (the "best object of clinging" [Bodhi]), that is this particular perception (neither-perception, nor non-perception,) has nothing to do with the perception clinging-khandha we find in nāmarūpa and the "all".
In the higher jhanas, the bhikkhus are not clinging to the clinging-khandhas of the kama-loka and rupa-loka; but to the refined perception particular to each of the constituents of the three pairs of saṅkhāra nidāna, (a perception that "consciousness without feature" was aware of at inception, [without the knowledge of the four noble truths]; which "infinite consciousness" is aware of, through the actualisation by the senses [saḷāyatana] and direct knowledge of the truth).

I'll stop here, for I have to go "study the suttas more assiduously" (and also eat [sustain myself]).
One more question though. Do I have to read the Agama parallels as well; or will the formal Nikayas do?. In other words, can I take MN 111 seriously?
And, by the way, I don't consider myself to have a "language barrier". :)

However, good to see someone that is into jhana so deeply. It is rare nowadays to see people that want to go over the 11th sphere.
The level is high.

Metta.
In this world with its ..., Māras, ... in this population with its ascetics.... (AN 5.30).
------
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.”
SN 35.241
------
https://justpaste.it/j5o4

SEC201482
Posts: 50
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2016 3:24 pm

Re: What is the difference between infinite consciousness and the consciousness of the five aggregate?

Post by SEC201482 » Sat Oct 29, 2016 5:48 am

ToVincent wrote: And, by the way, I don't consider myself to have a "language barrier". :)
Thanks for being honest enough to admit that the "incorrigibly stupid" proposition in the disjunction is true.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests