How can the disappearance of consciousness, be directly discerned?

[manas]

Regarding this passage from the Maha-satipatthana Sutta:

[2] "Furthermore, the monk remains focused on mental qualities in & of themselves with reference to the five clinging-aggregates. And how does he remain focused on mental qualities in & of themselves with reference to the five clinging-aggregates? There is the case where a monk [discerns]: 'Such is form, such its origination, such its disappearance. Such is feeling... Such is perception... Such are fabrications... Such is consciousness, such its origination, such its disappearance.' (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html)

Consciousness of visual forms, sounds, smells, tastes, tactiles and mind-objects are all distinctly different from one another. That is evident. So, one could directly perceive that consciousness is inconstant with regard to it's object. But that quality of 'knowing' - how can it's disappearance be directly discerned? We know that every night there is no consciousness during deep sleep, so it does indeed cease and rearise, but how can it's disappearance or arising be directly seen, ie, in real time so to speak, and not merely known by inference? In short, if the quality of knowing itself were to cease, how could it's cessation be known?

I'd appreciate any suggestions regarding this, or maybe I am misunderstanding what the Buddha means by consciousness? Thanks for reading.

[manas]

To define the term, this from the Pali-English dictionary:

Viññāṇa

Viññāṇa (nt.) [fr. vi+jñā; cp. Vedic vijñāna cognition] (as special term in Buddhist metaphysics) a mental quality as a constituent of individuality, the bearer of (individual) life, life -- force (as extending also over rebirths), principle of conscious life, general consciousness (as function of mind and matter), regenerative force, animation, mind as transmigrant, as transforming (according to individual kamma) one individual life (after death) into the next. (See also below, c & d). In this (fundamental) application it may be characterized as the sensory and perceptive activity commonly expressed by "mind." It is difficult to give any one word for v., because there is much difference between the old Buddhist and our modern points of view, and there is a varying use of the term in the Canon itself. In what may be a very old Sutta S ii.95 v. is given as a synonym of citta (q. v.) and mano (q. v.), in opposition to kāya used to mean body. This simpler unecclesiastical, unscholastic popular meaning is met with in other suttas. E. g. the body (kāya) is when animated called sa -- viññāṇaka (q. v. and cp. viññāṇatta). Again, v. was supposed, at the body's death, to pass over into another body (S i.122; iii.124) and so find a support or platform (patiṭṭhā). It was also held to be an immutable, persistent substance, a view strongly condemned (M i.258). Since, however, the persistence of v. from life to life is declared (D ii.68; S iii.54), we must judge that it is only the immutable persistence that is condemned. V. was justly conceived more as "minding" than as "mind." Its form is participial. For later variants of the foregoing cp. Miln 86; PvA 63, 219.
Ecclesiastical scholastic dogmatic considers v. under the categories of (a) khandha; (b) dhātu; (c) paṭiccasamuppāda; (d) āhāra; (e) kāya. (a) V. as fifth of the five khandhas (q. v.) is never properly described or defined. It is an ultimate. But as a factor of animate existence it is said to be the discriminating (vijānāti) of e. g. tastes or sapid things (S iii.87), or, again, of pleasant or painful feeling (M i.292). It is in no wise considered as a condition, or a climax of the other incorporeal khandhās. It is just one phase among others of mental life. In mediaeval dogmatic it appears rather as the bare phenomenon of aroused attention, the other khandhās having been reduced to adjuncts or concomitants brought to pass by the arousing of v. (Cpd. 13), and as such classed under cetasikā, the older sankhārakkhandha. -- (b) as dhātu, v. occurs only in the category of the four elements with space as a sixth element, and also where dhātu is substituted for khandha (S iii.10). -- (c) In the chain of causation (Paṭicca -- samuppāda) v. is conditioned by the sankhāras and is itself a necessary condition of nāma -- rūpa (individuality). See e. g. S ii.4, 6, 8, 12 etc.; Vin i.1; Vism 545 sq.=VbhA 150; Vism 558 sq.; VbhA 169 sq.; 192. -- At S ii.4=iii.61 viññāṇa (in the Paṭicca -- samuppāda) is defined in a similar way to the defn under v. -- ṭṭhiti (see c), viz. as a quality peculiar to (& underlying) each of the 6 senses: "katamaŋ viññāṇaŋ? cha -- y -- ime viññāṇa -- kāyā (groups of v.), viz. cakkhu˚ sota˚ etc.," which means that viññāṇa is the apperceptional or energizing principle, so to speak the soul or life (substratum, animator, lifepotency) of the sensory side of individuality. It arises through the mutual relation of sense and sense -- object (M iii.281, where also the 6 v. -- kāyā). As such it forms a factor of rebirth, as it is grouped under upadhi (q. v.). Translations of S ii.4: Mrs. Rh. D. (K.S. ii.4) "consciousness"; Geiger (in Z. f. B. iv.62) "Erkennen."<-> (d) As one of the four āhāras (q. v.) v. is considered as the material, food or cause, through which comes rebirth (S ii.13; cp. B.Psy. p. 62). As such it is likened to seed in the field of action (kamma) A i.223, and as entering (a body) at rebirth the phrase viññāṇassa avakkanti is used (D ii.63; S ii.91). In this connection the expression paṭisandhi -- viññāṇa first appears in Ps i.52, and then in the Commentaries (VbhA 192; cf. Vism 548, 659 paṭisandhicitta); in Vism 554=VbhA 163, the v., here said to be located in the heart, is made out, at bodily death, "to quit its former ʻ support ʼ and proceed (pavattati) to another by way of its mental object. (http://dsalsrv02.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/p ... :1470.pali)

[santa100]

Consciousness of visual forms, sounds, smells, tastes, tactiles and mind-objects are all distinctly different from one another. That is evident. So, one could directly perceive that consciousness is inconstant with regard to it's object. But that quality of 'knowing' - how can it's disappearance be directly discerned? We know that every night there is no consciousness during deep sleep, so it does indeed cease and rearise, but how can it's disappearance or arising be directly seen, ie, in real time so to speak, and not merely known by inference? In short, if the quality of knowing itself were to cease, how could it's cessation be known?

Consciousness here means the 6 classes of consciouness, not the overall quality of 'knowing'. This is why the Five Aggregates contemplation is placed in the 4th Foundation, DhammaNupassana, instead of the 3rd, CittaNupassana. The bare 'knowing' quality was listed separately in the previous 3rd Foundation, CittaNupassana. And as you mentioned, its state is hard to recognized and hence have to be determined by its associated mental factors under the contemplation of the 8 pairs of contrasting states: greed, aversion, delusion, etc. Ven. Bodhi's note from "In the Buddha's Words" further explains:

The word khandha (Skt: skandha) means, among other things, a heap or mass (rasi). The five aggregates are so called because they each unite under one label a multiplicity of phenomena that share the same defining characteristic. Thus whatever form there is, "past, future, or present, internal or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near," is incorporated into the form aggregate; whatever feeling there is, "past, future, or present, internal or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near," is incorporated into the feeling aggregate; and so for each of the other aggregates. Text IX,4(l)(a) enumerates in simple terms the constituents of each aggregate and shows that each aggregate arises and ceases in correlation with its own specific condition.[so in terms of consciousness, there're of 6 classes: eye-, ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-consciousness]

[Bhikkhu Pesala]

But that quality of 'knowing' - how can it's disappearance be directly discerned?

Let's discuss eye-consciousness, which is the most predominant and obvious to all who had read this thread.

Eye-consciousness arises from contact between the visible object and the eye. When you see my post, at first you just see it, without understanding what it says. Then you zoom in your attention to each letter to read each word, and the mental process kicks in to understand the message of the text.

Now zoom out again, and just know the "seeing." Visual consciousness knows nothing about letters, words, or meanings. It just sees colour and shape. Keep looking at the post. Can you stop at just seeing, or do other types of consciousness flood your senses? Maybe you think about what I said, or you hear some sound, or you smell some coffee.

Clearly, eye-consciousness is not something static and unchanging. It arises when you pay attention to seeing. If you switch your attention, it ceases, and thinking, hearing, or smelling arise. If you're very mindful for a long time, perhaps you can directly perceive the arising and cessation of eye-consciousness?

[Nicolas]

Some perhaps-relevant sutta quotes regarding the dimension of neither-perception-nor-non-perception and the cessation of perception and feeling (and how, for those two, it would seem that the discernment arises upon emergence from them):

“And further, with the complete transcending of the dimension of nothingness, Sāriputta entered & remained in the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception. He emerged mindfully from that attainment. On emerging mindfully from that attainment, he regarded the past qualities that had ceased & changed: ‘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, he confirmed that ‘There is.’

“And further, with the complete transcending of the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception, Sāriputta entered & remained in the cessation of perception & feeling. And when he saw with discernment, his effluents were totally ended. He emerged mindfully from that attainment. On emerging mindfully from that attainment, he regarded the past qualities that had ceased & changed: ‘So this is how these qualities, not having been, come into play. Having been, they vanish.’5 He remained unattracted & unrepelled with regard to those qualities, independent, detached, released, dissociated, with an awareness rid of barriers. He discerned that ‘There is no further escape,’ and pursuing it, he confirmed that ‘There isn’t.’

“Now, lady, how does the attainment of the cessation of perception & feeling come about?”

“The thought does not occur to a monk as he is attaining the cessation of perception & feeling that ‘I am about to attain the cessation of perception & feeling’ or that ‘I am attaining the cessation of perception & feeling’ or that ‘I have attained the cessation of perception & feeling.’ Instead, the way his mind has previously been developed leads him to that state.”

[...]

“Now, lady, how does emergence from the cessation of perception & feeling come about?”

“The thought does not occur to a monk as he is emerging from the cessation of perception & feeling that ‘I am about to emerge from the cessation of perception & feeling’ or that ‘I am emerging from the cessation of perception & feeling’ or that ‘I have emerged from the cessation of perception & feeling.’ Instead, the way his mind has previously been developed leads him to that state.”

“Thus, as far as the perception-attainments go, that is as far as gnosis-penetration goes. As for these two dimensions—the attainment of the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception & the attainment of the cessation of feeling & perception—I tell you that they are to be rightly explained by those monks who are meditators, skilled in attaining, skilled in attaining & emerging, who have attained & emerged in dependence on them.”

[SarathW]

Three great posts!

[User156079]

Consciousness of visual forms, sounds, smells, tastes, tactiles and mind-objects are all distinctly different from one another. So, one could directly perceive that consciousness is inconstant with regard to it's object. But that quality of 'knowing' - how can it's disappearance be directly discerned?

What arises is called Contact, it lasts for one moment and it's gone, next moment is diffrent Contact. This doesnt stop when we sleep.
Consciousness, perception, feeling and discernment are connected in sense that what is cognized is felt, what is felt is perceived, what is perceived is discerned, what one discerns one thinks about. We can differentiate between them in this way , "consciousness is what cognizes", "feeling is what feels", "discernment is what discerns" and "perception is what perceives" etc but this is it, there is no more delineating of them apart from this kind of differentiation which is really delineation or categorization of Contact. Apart from this "conceptually-functional" for lack of a better word separation, there is not diffrence, it is all merely and only Contact.

Why dont we just note contact, contact, contact instead of Satipatthanas id ask myself. I would answer that it would not be useful because we have to make sense of conceptual reality which is Samsara to remove delusion, we need to understand the nature of Five Aggregates so that we understand Contact, Diversity of Contact and it's origin.

here from the Suttas

“Friends, on account of eye and forms arise eye consciousness. The coincident meeting of the three is contact. On account of contact feelings arise; what is felt is perceived; of what is perceived there is thinking; in thoughts there is diffusedness; on account of that, diffused perceptive components of forms of the past, future, and present cognizable by the eye consciousness arise and behave in that man.

One more translation:

"Dependent on eye & forms, eye-consciousness arises. The meeting of the three is contact. With contact as a requisite condition, there is feeling. What one feels, one perceives (labels in the mind). What one perceives, one thinks about. What one thinks about, one objectifies. Based on what a person objectifies, the perceptions & categories of objectification assail him/her with regard to past, present, & future forms cognizable via the eye.

Another Sutta:

"Feeling, perception, & consciousness are conjoined, friend, not disjoined. It is not possible, having separated them one from another, to delineate the difference among them. For what one feels, that one perceives. What one perceives, that one cognizes. Therefore these qualities are conjoined, not disjoined, and it is not possible, having separated them one from another, to delineate the difference among them."

Another translation

Friend, feelings, perceptions and consciousness are associated and not dissociated and it is not possible to differentiate them and show them apart: Friend, the felt is perceived, and the perceived is consciously known Therefore these things are associated and not dissociated and it is not possible to differenciate them and show them apart.

Mahavedalla Sutta:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
https://www.awake.kiev.ua/dhamma/tipita ... ta-e1.html
Madhupindika Sutta:
http://www.awake.kiev.ua/dhamma/tipitak ... ta-e1.html
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .html#fn-1


If this doesnt make sense at all then ignore it
If someone gets it then Sadhu and id like comments, because to me it is really difficult to further articulate the nature of Nama&Rupa and the function of these two in relation to the concepts in this thread and eachother.

[User156079]

More from MN 140 Dhatu-vibhanga Sutta: An Analysis of the Properties

The Blessed One said: "A person has six properties, six media of sensory contact, eighteen considerations, & four determinations.

"'A person has six properties.' Thus was it said. In reference to what was it said? These are the six properties: the earth property, the liquid property, the fire property, the wind property, the space property, the consciousness property. 'A person has six properties.' ...

...
"And what is the earth property?...
"And what is the liquid property?...
"And what is the fire property?...
"And what is the wind property? ...
"And what is the space property?...
"There remains only consciousness: pure & bright. What does one cognize with that consciousness? One cognizes 'pleasure.' One cognizes 'pain.' One cognizes 'neither pleasure nor pain.' In dependence on a sensory contact that is to be felt as pleasure, there arises a feeling of pleasure. When sensing a feeling of pleasure, one discerns that 'I am sensing a feeling of pleasure.' One discerns that 'With the cessation of that very sensory contact that is to be felt as pleasure, the concomitant feeling — the feeling of pleasure that has arisen in dependence on the sensory contact that is to be felt as pleasure — ceases, is stilled.' In dependence on a sensory contact that is to be felt as pain... In dependence on a sensory contact that is to be felt as neither pleasure nor pain, there arises a feeling of neither pleasure nor pain. When sensing a feeling of neither pleasure nor pain, one discerns that 'I am sensing a feeling of neither pleasure nor pain.' One discerns that 'With the cessation of that very sensory contact that is to be felt as neither pleasure nor pain, the concomitant feeling — the feeling of neither pleasure nor pain that has arisen in dependence on the sensory contact that is to be felt as neither pleasure nor pain — ceases, is stilled.'

[pegembara]

“Friends, on account of eye and forms arise eye consciousness. The coincident meeting of the three is contact. On account of contact feelings arise; what is felt is perceived; of what is perceived there is thinking; in thoughts there is diffusedness; on account of that, diffused perceptive components of forms of the past, future, and present cognizable by the eye consciousness arise and behave in that man.

Eye + Forms -----> eye consciousness. Ergo eye consciousness per se is independent of contact which is the meeting of the three. Close your eyes and eye consciousness cease.

Consciousness of visual forms, sounds, smells, tastes, tactiles and mind-objects are all distinctly different from one another. That is evident. So, one could directly perceive that consciousness is inconstant with regard to it's object. But that quality of 'knowing' - how can it's disappearance be directly discerned?

This quality of knowing is more tricky. It gives rise to the sense of being a knower.
Knowing is mind consciousness. Forms, sounds, smells, tastes, tactiles can also be mind objects in the sense of them coming up in the mind itself.
When there is no more mind object, mind consciousness or knowing ceases. The mind can turn the process of knowing into an object(the one who knows).

A better way to phrase the question perhaps is: Can there be knowing when there are no objects to know? Knowing what rather than just knowing which is meaningless?

"Consciousness, monks, is classified simply by the requisite condition in dependence on which it arises. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the eye & forms is classified simply as eye-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the ear & sounds is classified simply as ear-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the nose & aromas is classified simply as nose-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the tongue & flavors is classified simply as tongue-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the body & tactile sensations is classified simply as body-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the intellect & ideas is classified simply as intellect-consciousness.

MN 38

[manas]

But that quality of 'knowing' - how can it's disappearance be directly discerned?

Let's discuss eye-consciousness, which is the most predominant and obvious to all who had read this thread.

Eye-consciousness arises from contact between the visible object and the eye. When you see my post, at first you just see it, without understanding what it says. Then you zoom in your attention to each letter to read each word, and the mental process kicks in to understand the message of the text.

Now zoom out again, and just know the "seeing." Visual consciousness knows nothing about letters, words, or meanings. It just sees colour and shape. Keep looking at the post. Can you stop at just seeing, or do other types of consciousness flood your senses? Maybe you think about what I said, or you hear some sound, or you smell some coffee.

Clearly, eye-consciousness is not something static and unchanging. It arises when you pay attention to seeing. If you switch your attention, it ceases, and thinking, hearing, or smelling arise. If you're very mindful for a long time, perhaps you can directly perceive the arising and cessation of eye-consciousness?

Greetings Bhante,
As I read your reply, I shifted my awareness as you suggested. Right after doing that, I noticed that there had indeed been different types of consciousness. Two that particularly stood out, were the alternation of visual consciouness, with consciousness of the meaning, ie, what I was thinking about regarding the post. Recollecting the experience, their distinctiveness stood out. Visual consciousness did indeed momentarily vanish, to be replaced by consciousness of thoughts, then something else, etc. Perhaps as my mind gets better trained I will be able to notice 'arising' and 'cessation' closer to the actual event? In any case, that was an illuminating experience. Thank you very much.

[Sam Vara]

But that quality of 'knowing' - how can it's disappearance be directly discerned?

Let's discuss eye-consciousness, which is the most predominant and obvious to all who had read this thread.

Eye-consciousness arises from contact between the visible object and the eye. When you see my post, at first you just see it, without understanding what it says. Then you zoom in your attention to each letter to read each word, and the mental process kicks in to understand the message of the text.

Now zoom out again, and just know the "seeing." Visual consciousness knows nothing about letters, words, or meanings. It just sees colour and shape. Keep looking at the post. Can you stop at just seeing, or do other types of consciousness flood your senses? Maybe you think about what I said, or you hear some sound, or you smell some coffee.

Clearly, eye-consciousness is not something static and unchanging. It arises when you pay attention to seeing. If you switch your attention, it ceases, and thinking, hearing, or smelling arise. If you're very mindful for a long time, perhaps you can directly perceive the arising and cessation of eye-consciousness?

Greetings Bhante,
As I read your reply, I shifted my awareness as you suggested. Right after doing that, I noticed that there had indeed been different types of consciousness. Two that particularly stood out, were the alternation of visual consciouness, with consciousness of the meaning, ie, what I was thinking about regarding the post. Recollecting the experience, their distinctiveness stood out. Visual consciousness did indeed momentarily vanish, to be replaced by consciousness of thoughts, then something else, etc. Perhaps as my mind gets better trained I will be able to notice 'arising' and 'cessation' closer to the actual event? In any case, that was an illuminating experience. Thank you very much.

Agreed. That was a very effective teaching on an important topic. My experience was exactly as described by manas.

[manas]

I wish to sincerely thank everyone else who replied also, you have all contributed to widening my understanding of this issue. I'd say the most important thing that has been clarified for me today, is that consciousness isn't some standalone entity, but arises in dependence upon other conditions, which is, perhaps, why the Buddha lists six types of consciousness, as arising in dependence upon the meeting between six senses and their corresponding objects. (To clarify: I've been reading about that for years, but it's growing clearer now.) Also that perhaps the notion 'I am the knower' or 'I am the thinker' can only be truly rooted out via meditation practice, where the mind grows more calm and the cascade of mental events that normally create those notions, is slowed down, so as to be clearly seen.

[manas]

As a favour, I recall reading a sutta in which the Buddha rebukes a monk for claiming that it's the same consciousness that travels from one body to the next, between one life and the next, but I don't recall the name of it, if someone knows, could they kindly post a link?

[Bhikkhu Pesala]

As a favour, I recall reading a sutta in which the Buddha rebukes a monk for claiming that it's the same consciousness that travels from one body to the next, between one life and the next, but I don't recall the name of it, if someone knows, could they kindly post a link?

It is the Mahātaṇhāsaṅkhaya Sutta

[Polar Bear]

And here is another translation:

Mahātaṇhāsankhaya Sutta: The Greater Discourse on the Destruction of Craving

http://www.wisdompubs.org/book/middle-l ... haya-sutta

https://suttacentral.net/en/mn38