What is the Classical Theravada argument against consciousness outside the aggregates?

[cappuccino]

the Pali Canon should not be a problem in Classical Theravada

[zan]

the suttas should not be a problem in Classical Theravada

They aren't, it's the interpretation and intention that matters. Here the commentary and Abhidhamma interpretations are authoritative and any posting of suttas should be to support them, and not challenge them.

[cappuccino]

the Pali Canon should be authoritative above all

just saying

[DooDoot]

I quoted the Kevatta Sutta

Possibly but the quote itself may not support your personal interpretation of the quote.

[cappuccino]

I quoted the Kevatta Sutta

Possibly but the quote may not support your personal interpretation of the quote.

I have no personal interpretation

[DooDoot]

“Just as... the great ocean is vast, boundless, fills not up for all
of the streams that flow into it. Precisely so Nibbæna is vast,
boundless, fills not up for all of the living beings that pass
thereunto.

“Good, Reverend Nægasena! It is even so! I agree absolutely!”
~ Miln 315-323 (abridged, E.W. Burlingame trans.)

Nibanna is not consciousness. The above appears irrelevant.

[zan]

the Pali Canon should be authoritative above all

just saying

It is. The Abhidhamma and commentaries wouldn't even exist without the suttas so the suttas are automatically number one. They are a classification and interpretation of the suttas. And in this subforum the Abhidhamma and commentaries are authoritative and not to be challenged.

In fact, the Abhidhamma is part of the Pali Canon, the very thing you say should be above all, and it categorically rules out consciousness outside the aggregates.

No matter how you slice it, your views are the wrong ones here.

[cappuccino]

“Just as... the great ocean is vast, boundless, fills not up for all
of the streams that flow into it. Precisely so Nibbæna is vast,
boundless, fills not up for all of the living beings that pass
thereunto.

“Good, Reverend Nægasena! It is even so! I agree absolutely!”
~ Miln 315-323 (abridged, E.W. Burlingame trans.)

Nibanna is not consciousness. The above appears irrelevant.

the relevancy is why I quoted it

[DooDoot]

the relevancy is why I quoted it

Consciousness is a conditioned phenomena. Nibbana is unconditioned.

[zan]

the relevancy is why I quoted it

Consciousness is a conditioned phenomena. Nibbana is unconditioned.

I think two important and obvious points are

One: that the Abhidhamma and likely the earllier matikas, too, classified every consciousness, and categorically ruled out any consciousness outside the aggregates. Particularly noteworthy is that the matikas are mentioned in the suttas and so may have been known to the Buddha and his immediate followers.

And two: the countless suttas that use all inclusive language to describe the consciousness aggregate as including all consciousness. Not to mention the many other suttas that speak about all consciousness in general and declare it all temporary, and make no mention of the aggregates at all.

[ToVincent]

...

I do'nt understand your ludicrous question.

Consciousness IS an aggregate. How can it be "outside"!?!?

What's your point?
Are you trying to prove that consciousness is an emergent property of satta (that is to say, from the brain (mano) in the saḷāyatana nidāna.
That is ridiculous.

The Theravadins' suttas are very clear:
E. g. SN 35.101 (SA 274-SA 269)

Consciousness is not yours!
Nor are any other of the aggregates.

This is getting absolutely preposterous.
Cry me a river!
.
.

[zan]

...

I do'nt understand your ludicrous question.

Consciousness IS an aggregate. How can it be "outside"!?!?

What's your point?
Are you trying to prove that consciousness is an emergent property of satta (that is to say, from the brain (mano) in the saḷāyatana nidāna.
That is ridiculous.

The Theravadins' suttas are very clear:
E. g. SN 35.101 (SA 274-SA 269)

Consciousness is not yours!
Nor are any other of the aggregates.

This is getting absolutely preposterous.
Cry me a river!
.
.

Calm down friend, we're on the same side I think. I'm on the Abhidhamma/commentary side here. No rivers to cry.

[zan]

There is also the fact that the Buddha classified all reality into the aggregates, sense bases and objects, and nibbana. There is nothing beyond these classifications. Same for the Abhidhamma but mind, mental factors, matter and nibbana. So the only thing outside the aggregates and sense bases and objects is nibbana, which is not consciousness (see Majjhima Nikaya 72, Anguttara Nikaya 10.93, Majjhima Nikaya 2, Samyutta, Nikaya 35.93, Samyutta Nikaya 12.2, Udana 8.1, Itivuttaka 44, Ud 8.9, MN 38 etc. etc.)


There is simply no room to add such a thing. Further, if we say such things can be added, all reason goes out the window and we have a free for all, as you could find literally anything if you are going for what is outside of what the Buddha unambiguously classified. You could just as easily say there's eternal gods like Zeus or Thor or other realms, magical animals, whatever you want, since the Buddha didn't clearly deny these things in every possible formulation of speech, and they are outside the teachings, then they could be said to exist too.

All it takes is a few lines here and there that might support an idea, clever interpretation and then tying them all together with a lot of narration and you have whatever you'd like.

Also, the Brahmajala sutta DN 1 obliterates this argument. Only careful reinterpretation and making up new rules and redefining terms allows one to circumvent that sutta. What the sutta says has to be substituted for what a narrator decides that it means.

And the hundreds of other suttas that rule this idea out. Like SN 22.97, SN 22.95, SN 22.94, SN 22.53, MN 22, and on and, where this idea is utterly destroyed.

The commentaries and Abhidhamma aren't opinionated or interpreting anything with this issue, there is no bias. They simply listed out what consciousnesses the Buddha said existed, coldly and objectively, and no consciousness outside the aggregates is present in the suttas to be listed.

Some argue the Abhidhamma and commentary have a bias in their interpretation but this is raw data, not even interpreted, just listed out.

[Volo]

Consciousness without feature,[1]
without end,
luminous all around

Kevatta Sutta

… it differs from the consciousness factor in dependent co-arising, which is defined in terms of the six sense media. Lying outside of time and space, it would also not come under the consciousness-aggregate …

Then you should quote the verse in full:

Consciousness that’s invisible,
infinite, radiant all round.
Here’s where water and earth,
fire and air find no footing;

here’s where long and short,
fine and coarse, beautiful and ugly;
here’s where name and form
cease with nothing left over—
with the cessation of consciousness,
that’s where this ceases.

viññāṇaṃ anidassanaṃ,
anantaṃ sabbatopabhaṃ.
ettha āpo ca pathavī,
tejo vāyo na gādhati..

ettha dīghañca rassañca,
aṇuṃ thūlaṃ subhāsubhaṃ.
ettha nāmañca rūpañca,
asesaṃ uparujjhati.
viññāṇassa nirodhena,
etthetaṃ uparujjhatī’ti..

[ToVincent]

...

I do'nt understand your ludicrous question.
Consciousness is not yours!
Nor are any other of the aggregates.

Calm down friend, we're on the same side I think. I'm on the Abhidhamma/commentary side here. No rivers to cry.

You might call me friend if you want to.
You might think that we are "on the same side", if you want to.
But one thing for sure is that there is nothing like an emergent property of consciousness from satta, in early Buddhism - (might it be Theravada, Sarvāstivāda, Puggalavada, or whatever early (prohibited) schism there was at the time; after Buddha's death).

"Consciousness is not yours", said Buddha.

Let's be clear about that.
.
.