A lot of people misunderstood buddha's "viññāṇaṃ anidassanaṃ",
mistaking it with eternalist ideas of an eternal substratum of
consciousness in Advaita. In fact whenever eternalists talk about
Pali scriptures, all they will talk about this viññāṇaṃ anidassanaṃ
because that is the only thing in the canon (along with falsely
misunderstood descriptions of 'deathless' which the Buddha
describes clearly as the elimination of the three poisons), which
apparently seems to have a correlation (due to their wrong
understanding of the statement) to their idea of luminous Self.
The issue is not so much about the luminosity of mind or
consciousness (such a denial would make one a nihilist), but the
false reification of consciousness into a transcendentally
(existing beyond the All) existing source and substratum or a Self
(such views belong to the eternalist). Nowhere does Buddha describe
consciousness in such ways but he always taught the middle way of
dependent origination which is free of extreme positions of
existence and non-existence, free of all views of a Self.
AEN
X, you misquoted the Buddha. Rigpa (knowledge) is beyond ma-rigpa
but not beyond phenomena as pointed out to you. But you misquoted
the Buddha to support your Advaita-like, Turiya-like understanding
of consciousness. This is eternalistic. I shall repeat myself on
that statement of Buddha despite it being seemingly out of place in
this topic of discussion:
"I love Geoff/Nana/Jnana (another strong scholar-practitioner like
Malcolm though his main practice is Mahamudra)'s explanation here
on viññāṇaṃ anidassanaṃ:
"As for anidassana, in this context I'm liking the translation as
"non-illustrative" or "non-indicative." "Non-illustrative" in the
sense of the term as used in MN 21 Kakacūpama Sutta: ākāso arūpī
anidassano, the sky is formless and non-illustrative.
"Non-indicative" in the sense of the term as used in the
Abhidhammapiṭaka, where the applications of mindfulness. etc., are
said to be anidassana. The sense here being that they are not
indicative of defilements, and so on.
Also cf. 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.
All the best,
Geoff"
This explains the so called 'consciousness which does not land'
which should be more appropriately translated as "consciousness is
not established there".
This 'non-established consciousness' is also explained in Kalaka
Sutta which I often quote from:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.024.than.html
"
Kalaka Sutta: At Kalaka's Park
16 minutes ago · Like · Delete
AEN
Consciousness not partaking (grasping to the themes of things) in
the all does not equal to some eternalistic transcendent
consciousness. It is the released consciousness of an arahant in
its self-liberating state. Kalaka sutta describes the experience of
Buddha's unestablished consciousness very well, this is also in
accord with Bahiya Sutta and others. The pali suttas are super
consistent (believe me because I have read hundreds of them) while
you are cherry picking one poetic phrase out of all the suttas and
misinterpreting completely (not only misinterpreting but completely
misquoting) not knowing the context of it.
It is seen very clearly in anatta that all views and notions of
consciousness/super-consciousness having some independent or
unchanging true existence is not true, awareness is simply the
quality of transient sensate world, it is intrinsically
self-luminous or self-aware but does not exist as some independent
unchanged substratum, background, source, etc. Of course, without
awareness there is nothing made manifest. But it is not "awareness,
therefore sensation". It is "awareness-sensation",
"awareness-world". Prior and after (false construct of time)
doesn't apply so the source-emanation analogy does not apply. The
three kayas are a single co-arising. Source/awareness goes with
transience like wetness goes with water. They are not even
inseparable (no truly existing subject/awareness to be inseperable
from transience). In seeing is just the seen. To speak of water is
to speak of wetness, to speak of sensations is to speak of
luminosity, just as to speak of wind is to speak of blowing. Both
are words but just points to the single flow of empty-luminosity,
as just this action, just this activity (but not some One
Mind/source and substratum of phenomena).