[1:46 AM, 11/8/2020] Soh: malcolm says this quote by buddha from the pali canon: "Viññanam anidassanam from the Kevatta sutta:
Consciousness without feature, without end, luminous all around"
[1:47 AM, 11/8/2020] Soh: is equivalent to dzogchen pristine consciousness
"Malcolm wrote:
The view is self-originated pristine consciousness, free from the extreme of the dualism of an apprehended object and an apprehending subject.
— Self-Liberated Vidyā Tantra"
[7:52 AM, 11/8/2020] John Tan: Yes. But how it is understood.
[8:01 AM, 11/8/2020] John Tan: Can be I AM, can be anatta.
[8:05 AM, 11/8/2020] John Tan: This I m aware all along. Malcolm doesn't understand zen, they r pointing to the same essence and nature. The only difference is Dzogchen is strong in view and clear about freedom from extremes and mmk.
[Comments by Soh: I don't think Malcolm is saying Zen is not pointing to the same realization, as Malcolm also stated, "There really is no difference between perfection of wisdom, mahāmudra, Chan/Zen, etc., and tregchöd.
I have heard it said that Tulku Orgyen asserted that trekchöd exists in
all yānas, perhaps EPK would be kind enough to confirm this. What
separates from trekchöd from these other systems of the method of
introduction. Trekchöd, like any secret mantra practice, is based on
empowerment/introduction."]
[8:55 AM, 11/8/2020] John Tan: Once we r free subject-object duality, consciousness/appearance is without feature, without end and luminous all around. So is there realization about mere appearances is key otherwise It is just reification of consciousness.
p.s. another term in Dzogchen is Zang Thal:
Kyle Dixon, "The reality of mind for him is non-arising which
would be anatta
The difference between gsal ba and zang thal is difference between
clarity experienced as background subject and clarity totally freed from that
through realizing anatta"
He also wrote,
"Cognitive clarity is your cognizance reified as a subject, a
self, while zangthal is that same aspect totally freed of all extremes and
conditions."
- Soh:

Also, John Tan, 2014:
"It
is also important that Buddha relates a description similar to
consciousness without features in Bahiya sutta. This is what I told jax
abt allowing the five elements to "kill u" when he asked me abt how I
understand consciousness without features."
"Consciousness without features. See how yor answer.
We
must know that Buddha told the bhikkhu the way the question is phrased
is invalid and must be understood not as a cessation of the 4 elements
without remainder.
But I believe Stian is not seeing that way.
Therefore
cessation/nirodha should b understood from the perspective of "no
footing", the release without ground of the elements.
And a consciousness that is so is luminous without feature
Where the place without heat and cold
Not
exactly no-mind but the featureless quality of groundlessness...that is
u must understand the featureless quality in the experience."
"Just
realized that kevatta consciousness without features is not the
cessation of the 4 elements but the 4 elements having no footing.
Yes
Very
often we say if there is no subject, how can there b object. This may
sound logical but isn't verified as an experiential truth.
As we can c from the case of actual ism and two fold emptiness. Y is this so?
- Soh:
- ·
Reply
- · 1m
.....
“Where do water, earth, fire, & wind
have no footing?
Where are long & short,
coarse & fine,
fair & foul,
name & form
brought to an end?
"'And the answer to that is:
Consciousness without feature,
without end,
luminous all around:
Here water, earth, fire, & wind
have no footing.
Here long & short
coarse & fine
fair & foul
name & form
are all brought to an end.
With the cessation of [the activity of] consciousness
each is here brought to an end.'"
So it seems when the Buddha speaks of this in the Pali texts, he is speaking about viññāna anidassanam
Venerable Ñānananda has written extensively on this topic.
Basically
it seems it is considered the equipoise of an Arahant when they are
completely free from ignorance and no longer reify any appearances as
“Self vs Other” or the extremes of “existence” vs “non-existence” - the
elements ‘cease to find footing’ - they are no longer reified at all
& their mind is no longer established in passion, hatred or
delusion.
Some
sources also suggest that this can refer to the mind of an awakened
being (stream-enterer or higher) while engaged in meditation and on the
Paṭiloma cessation aspect of contact/dependent origination.
In the earliest Abhidhamma texts it is called Supramundane Jhāna, a samādhi only available to stream-winners and above.
copy and pasted from a post from Geoff on the dhammawheel forum:
“Conditioned
arising in its forward sequence is always a description of deluded
cognition. When rooted in ignorance and craving, any experience
automatically includes all of the first eleven links. That is, for the
worldling there is always ignorance, contact, craving, grasping,
becoming, and birth, which is the birth of a "being" (satta).
This
sets up identity and alienation -- i.e. the struggle for ego survival
-- of "my being" in "the world." Whenever there is "a being" in "the
world" there is going to arise circumstances of "my being" vs. "the
world."
When
the forward and reverse sequences of conditioned arising are penetrated
the entire deluded cognitive and conflicted affective edifice of the
forward sequence of dependent arising immediately collapses like a house
of cards.
This
is why the mind of a learner engaged in practice is designated as
measureless (appamāṇa). But this does not mean that there is a
non-cognitive blackout. Non-cognitive absorptions are never considered
supramundane.
Ven. Ñāṇananda, Nibbāna Sermons:
The
cessation of the six sense-bases does not mean that one does not see
anything. What one sees then is voidness. It is an in-‘sight’. He gives
expression to it with the words suñño loko, “void is the world.”
In
Concept and Reality Ven. Ñāṇananda equates the experience of
non-indicative/non-manifestative consciousness (anidassana viññāṇa) with
the fruition-gnosis samādhi (aññāphala samādhi) of an arahant. AN 9.37
describes this samādhi as follows:
Sister,
the concentration whereby -- neither pressed down nor forced back, nor
with fabrication kept blocked or suppressed -- still as a result of
release, contented as a result of standing still, and as a result of
contentment one is not agitated: This concentration is said by the
Blessed One to be the fruit of gnosis.”
“With
his penetrative insight the Arahant sees through the concepts. Now, an
object of perception (ārammaṇa) for the worldling is essentially
something that is brought into focus -- something he is looking at. For
the Arahant, however, all concepts have become transparent to such a
degree in that all-encompassing vision, that their boundaries together
with their umbra and penumbra have yielded to the radiance of wisdom.
This, then, is the significance of the word ‘anantaṃ’ (endless,
infinite). Thus the paradoxically detached gaze of the contemplative
sage as he looks through concepts is one which has no object (ārammaṇa)
as the point of focus for the worldling to identify it with.”
Ven. Ñāṇananda, Nibbāna Sermon 07:
“Now
viññāṇaṃ anidassanaṃ is a reference to the nature of the released
consciousness of an arahant. It does not reflect anything. To be more
precise, it does not reflect a nāma-rūpa, or name-and-form. An ordinary
individual sees a nāma-rūpa, when he reflects, which he calls 'I' and
'mine'. It is like the reflection of that dog, which sees its own
delusive reflection in the water. A non-arahant, upon reflection, sees
name-and-form, which however he mistakes to be his self. With the notion
of 'I' and 'mine' he falls into delusion with regard to it. But the
arahant's consciousness is an unestablished consciousness.
We
have already mentioned in previous sermons about the established
consciousness and the unestablished consciousness. A non-arahant's
consciousness is established on name-and-form. The unestablished
consciousness is that which is free from name-and-form and is
unestablished on name-and-form. The established consciousness, upon
reflection, reflects name-and-form, on which it is established, whereas
the unestablished consciousness does not find a name-and-form as a
reality. The arahant has no attachments or entanglements in regard to
name-and-form. In short, it is a sort of penetration of name-and-form,
without getting entangled in it. This is how we have to unravel the
meaning of the expression anidassana viññāṇa.”
Soh:
Sim Pern Chong wrote in 2007:
There
is also a spacious or all-pervading quality to the experience of
non-duality and this is what was meant as a sense of Oneness. At times,
objects and surroundings can be 'de-cognated' ( that is ... freed from
being perceived as such) and a free-ing joyful and vitalising feeling
can be felt. This feels like the mind has finally comes to a must-needed
rest from its incessant mental activities.
Also,
in the deeper range of non-duality, there is an increasingly
penetrating brightness. This brightness is the result of mind's
deconstruction which allows for intense penetration into consciousness.
The Brightness can be so intense that it is truly stunning.
......
Consciousness outside time and space
Viññanam
anidassanam. This term is nowhere explained in the Canon, although MN
49 mentions that it "does not partake in the allness of the All" — the
"All" meaning the six internal and six external sense media (see SN
35.23). In this 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, which covers all consciousness near and far;
past, present, and future. However, the fact that it is outside of time
and space — in a dimension where there is no here, there, or in between
(Ud 1.10), no coming, no going, or staying (Ud 8.1) — means that it
cannot be described as permanent or omnipresent, terms that have meaning
only within space and time. The standard description of nibbana after
death is, "All that is sensed, not being relished, will grow cold right
here." (See MN 140 and Iti 44.) Again, as "all" is defined as the sense
media, this raises the question as to whether consciousness without
feature is not covered by this "all." However, AN 4.174 warns that any
speculation as to whether anything does or doesn't remain after the
remainderless stopping of the six sense media is to "objectify
non-objectification," which gets in the way of attaining the
non-objectified. Thus this is a question that is best put aside.
Anurag Jain
It is worth mentioning that Thanissaro is reputed to have a subtle
eternalist bias in his thinking on Nibbāna and Viññāna Anidassanam.
His ideas on Viññāna anidassanam are absolutely NOT the same as those of someone like Ven. Ñānananda
some quotes from dhammawheel forum:
Buckwheat wrote:
I'm genuinely interested in knowing any weaknesses in Thanissaro's approach
Nyana wrote:
Ṭhānissaro
has taken a small number of suttas and forced his interpretation on
them to fit with his preconceived thesis about nibbāna, while completely
disregarding every credible tradition of Buddhist commentary in the
process.
Buckwheat wrote:
Is there another explanation for the following passage besides a consciousness beyond the all (the six sense bases)?
Nyana wrote:
Let
me ask you: How can there be a consciousness beyond the six sense
bases? Moreover, how could nibbāna ever be known except through the mind
(manas)?
Buckwheat wrote:
(1)
The term viññanam anidassanam also occurs in DN 11, where it is
described as where name & form are brought to an end: surely a
synonym for nibbana.
Nyana wrote:
This doesn't support his thesis in any way.
Nyana wrote:
In the endnotes to MN 49 he also asserts that nibbāna is a form of consciousness:
“Some
have objected to the equation of this consciousness with nibbana, on
the grounds that nibbana is no where else in the Canon described as a
form of consciousness. Thus they have proposed that consciousness
without surface be regarded as an arahant's consciousness of nibbana in
meditative experience, and not nibbana itself.”
No
Indian Buddhist author -- whether Theravāda, Sarvāstivāda, Mādhyamaka,
or Yogācāra -- ever made this assertion that nibbāna is a type of
consciousness. And in the Introduction to his translation of the same
sutta he also asserts that this consciousness is not known by means of
any of the six senses at all:
“The
Buddha describes his awakened knowledge in a variety of ways ... by
describing an awakened consciousness that is not known by means of any
of the six senses at all.... Some of these assertions — in particular,
the assertion of a consciousness not mediated by any of the six senses —
are extremely important dhamma lessons....”
And in the endnotes to MN 38 he asserts that this consciousness is not included in the consciousness aggregate:
“The
Buddha, knowing that there are two types of consciousness — the
consciousness aggregate (viññāṇakkhandha), which is experienced in
conjunction with the six sense media, and consciousness without surface
(viññāṇaṃ anidassanaṃ), which is experienced independently of the six
sense media....”
Again,
no Indian Buddhist author -- whether Theravāda, Sarvāstivāda,
Mādhyamaka, or Yogācāra -- ever made any of these assertions. So
apparently we are to believe that Ṭhānissaro has re-discovered the
correct understanding of nibbāna as a form of consciousness which can
only be experienced independently of the six sense media, that somehow
eluded all of the best and brightest minds of Buddhist India!
His interpretation of nibbāna is very novel. It's also nonsense.
Nyana wrote:
Ṭhānissaro
also thinks that his assertion of a post-mortem "unadulterated
experience" of "absolute freedom from all constraints of time, space,
and being" should somehow exempt him from getting entangled in wrong
views. Well, it doesn't.
So
for someone like Ven. Ñānananda, viññāna anidassanam is merely when
ignorance ceases and the Arahant no longer reifies a self or objectifies
a world - the Venerable likes to use the terminology “seeing THROUGH
the object” - seeing the essencelessness of appearances through wisdom -
but the appearances are still there, just understood properly through
wisdom & there is no “independent transcendent consciousness” apart
from the appearances.
For
Thanissaro, viññāna anidassanam is some kind of completely independent
consciousness experienced outside of space and time, it is literally
considered to be like an “element” existing on its own where there is no
coming or going, no sun and moon...etc.
He also states that this special consciousness is the ‘unadulterated experience of an Arahant after death.’
He argues that this consciousness is completely equivalent with Nibbāna itself.
The latter view is eternalist and has no precedent in the history of Buddhist tradition.
I will need to post this to AtR blog for future reference.
Let me know if there are any other things I should post to the blog.
- ·
Reply
- ·
Anurag Jain
These quotations are well-explained in detail by Venerable Ñānananda
without any need to resort to jumping to wrong conclusions that:
- There is some “independent transcendent consciousness apart from the six sense bases”
- That this viññāna anidassanam can even be equated with nibbāna at all
- That this refers to anything but the mind when it stops ignorantly bifurcating appearances into a reified “Self vs World”
- ·
Reply
- · 7m
- ·
Edited
Thanissaro is an eternalist, like many (most) Thai forest monks, I believe.
All Thai forest teachers that I know of are eternalists stuck at I AM and one mind with the exception of:
Ajahn Buddhadhasa
Phra Kovit Khemananda (Ajahn Buddhadhasa's student)
Ajahn Nyanamoli Thero
Ajahn Brahmavamso
The
good thing is that with a heavy emphasis on Awareness teachings, they
lead to the direct realization of Awareness (I AM and so on)
Some of the non-Thai forest Theravadins are prone to annihilation type states. Like Thusness Stage 3.
Of
course, in a very small minority (this is the case for all Buddhist
traditions), they realise anatta and do not fall into extremes.
- ·
Reply
- · 4m
Also,
Greg Goode agreed with me that many Thai forest famous teachers are
eternalists with no difference from eternalist view and Advaita, and he
quoted a story about how some famous Ajahn (was it Ajahn Chah?) found no
difference with Nisargadatta.