This article explains why the Nirvana of Buddha should not be
understood as the 'I AM'.
http://sujato.wordpress.com/2011/05/13/vinna%E1%B9%87a-is-not-nibbana-really-it-just-isn%E2%80%99t/
and
http://sujato.wordpress.com/2011/05/21/nibbana-remains-not-vinnana/
I’ve just read yet another assertion that tries to slip a
‘cosmic consciousness’ Nibbana into the Suttas. In these kinds of
arguments the same mistakes are made again and again, and you
should beware of them.
One popular argument is based on the famous passage:
viññāṇāṁ anidassanaṁ anantaṁ sabbato pabhaṁ
‘Consciousness non-manifest, infinte, radiant all around.’
This is sometimes said to be a term for Nibbana, although since
it is an obscure poetic passage of dubious meaning we should not
infer any major conclusions from it.
This obscure passage has been often exalted to the revelation of
the highest teachings of Nibbana. One of the arguments one hears is
that viññāṇa normally means ‘separative consciousness’,
and that this has been revalued to refer to an infinite awareness.
This argument is wrong.
The etymology of viññāṇa is invoked to justify this
conclusion. ‘Vi’, so the story goes, means ‘separation’,
and ‘ñāṇa’ means ‘knowing’, so viññāṇa means
‘separative knowing’ (as opposed to the universal cosmic
consciousness of Nibbana.)
But you cannot derive the meaning of a word by adding up a root
with a prefix. Words derive meaning from context. This is
especially true in the case of words in abstract philosophical
use.
In any case, the etymology of viññāṇa does not mean
‘separative consciousness’. The prefix ‘vi’ has many
different meanings, which you can check up on in the Pali Text Society’s dictionary. If you don’t
want to read the entire entry, the applied meanings it gives are
four:
1. expansion, spreading out
2. disturbance, separation, mixing up (opp. saṁ)
3. the reverse of the simple verb, or loss, difference,
opposite
4. in intensifying sense
Obviously, there is no requirement to read vi in its
separative sense here.
There are many terms formed from the root ‘ñā’ in Pali
that all refer to knowing in some way (‘know’ is in fact the
English cognate): aññā, ñāṇa, pariññā,
paññā, paṭiññā, saññā, and so on. In
some cases these words are interchangeable, in some cases usage
tells us that they carry different nuances. In no cases can we
simply infer the meaning from adding prefix + root.
Given that vi- is probably the second most common
prefix in Pali, and has an extremely wide variety of implications –
including in some cases not affecting the meaning at all – we can’t
say anything meaningful from the etymology.
Even if we did look to the etymology, we can come to all sorts
of different conclusions. In some cases, viññāṇa is
clearly a synonym of paññā, ‘wisdom’ (e.g. Sutta Nipāta
92-3). Here the implication could be that vi- means
‘intensive’, or ‘clear’ (as it does, say, in
vipassanā).
It is true that the Buddha often presented viññāṇa in
an analytical way as the consciousness of the six senses. But this
tells us nothing about what the word means. He also used plenty of
other terms related to the six senses: vedanā,
phassa, or saññā, for example. The fact that a
word is used in an analytical sense does not mean that the basic
meaning of the word is analytical.
On the contrary, what the ‘viññāṇa = Nibbana’ school
overlook is that viññāṇa is in fact used very commonly in
the sense, not of ‘separative consciousness’, but of ‘infinite
consciousness’. This is, of course, in the standard passage on the
formless attainments. This samadhi meaning is directly applicable
in the case of the so-called ‘Nibbanic consciousness’, as they are
both described as ‘infinite’ (anantaṁ).
The Buddhist texts strongly suggest that this idea is
pre-Buddhist. And we do indeed find the phrase ‘infinite
consciousness’ in the pre-Buddhist Upanishads. But more on that
later. First let us survey the use of viññāṇa briefly in
the oldest Upanishad, the Brihadarannyaka. This probably pre-dates
the Buddha by a century or so, and many of its ideas and turns of
phrase can be felt in the Suttas.
Viññāṇa is used in the ordinary sense of ‘sense
consciousness’:
jihvayā hi rasān vijānāti || BrhUp_3,2.4 ||
For one knows tastes through the tongue.
More commonly it is found as the final of the four terms,
‘seen’, heard’, ‘thought’, ‘cognized’, a set that is frequently
found in the Suttas. In this context it is said that ‘how can one
cognize the cognizer’, a means of pointing beyond limited sense
experience to the true Atman.
kaṃ vijānīyāt yenedaṃ sarvaṃ vijānāti taṃ kena vijānīyāt sa
eṣa neti nety ātmā |agṛhyo na hi gṛhyate | aśīryo na hi śīryate
|asaṅgo na hi sajyate |asito na vyathate na riṣyati |vijñātāram are
kena vijānīyād ity
Through what should one know that owing to which all this is
known ? This self is That which has been described as ‘Not this,
Not this’. It is imperceptible, for It is never perceived;
undecaying, for It never decays; unattached, for It is never
attached; unfettered – it never feels pain, and never suffers
injury. Through what, O Maitreyi, should one know the Knower?
BrhUp_2,4.14
See also BrhUp_3,4.2, BrhUp_2,4.5
The self is defined in terms of viññāṇa.
katama ātmeti — yo ‘yaṃ vijñānamayaḥ prāṇeṣu hṛdy
antarjyotiḥ puruṣaḥ
What is the Self? This very person made of viññāṇa, among the
breath (life-faculties), the light in the heart.
BrhUp_4,3.7 ||
sa vā ayam ātmā brahma vijñānamayo
This very Self is Brahma, made of viññāṇa… (a long list
of other things of which Brahma is formed follows)
BrhUp_4,4.5
yo vijñāne tiṣṭhan vijñānād antaro yaṃ vijñānaṃ na veda
yasya vijñānaṃ śarīraṃ yo vijñānam antaro yamayaty eṣa ta
ātmāntaryāmy amṛtaḥ || BrhUp_3,7.22 ||
He who inhabits the viññāṇa, but is within it, whom the
viññāṇa does not know, whose body is the viññāṇa,
and who controls the viññāṇa from within, is the Internal
Ruler, your own immortal self.
As in Buddhism, viññāṇa is closely associated with
rebirth. In the following passage, the phrase ekībhavati
refers to the withdrawal of the sense at the time of death – which
is interesting since in Buddhism the same term is used to mean
samadhi. Viññāṇa has two meanings here: in the first use
it refers to sense-consciousness (because others realize that the
dying person no longer hears or responds). Later it refers to the
conscious self that takes rebirth.
ekībhavati na vijānātīty āhuḥ | tasya haitasya hṛdayasyāgraṃ
pradyotate | tena pradyotenaiṣa ātmā niṣkrāmati | cakṣuṣṭo vā
mūrdhno vānyebhyo vā śarīradeśebhyaḥ | tam utkrāmantaṃ prāṇo
‘nūtkrāmati | prāṇam anūtkrāmantaṃ sarve prāṇā anūtkrāmanti |
savijñano bhavati | saṃjānam evānvavakrāmati | taṃ vidyākarmaṇī
samanvārabhete pūrvaprajñā ca ||
He becomes united; then they say, ‘He does not have
viññāṇa’. The top of the heart brightens. Through that
brightened top the self departs, either through the eye, or through
the head, or through any other part of the body. When it departs,
the vital force follows; when the vital force departs, all the
organs follow. Then the self has viññāṇa, and goes to the
body which is related to that consciousness. It is followed by
knowledge, kamma and past experience.
BrhUp_4,4.2
But the most directly applicable passage is the following. Like
several of the above it is the teaching of Yājñavalkya, who should
be recognized as the father of the teachings of consciousness as
the great Brahman. Notice the simile of the lump of salt, also
familiar in Buddhism. The passage from which this is taken is full
of such parallels, as I discussed in A History of
Mindfulness.
evaṃ vā ara idaṃ mahad bhūtam anantam apāraṃ vijñānaghana
eva | etebhyo bhūtebhyaḥ samutthāya tāny evānuvinaśyati | na pretya
saṃjñāstīty are bravīmi | iti hovāca yājñavalkyaḥ ||
BrhUp_2,4.12 ||
As a lump of salt dropped into water dissolves with (its
component) water, and no one is able to pick it up, but from
wheresoever one takes it, it tastes salt, even so, my dear, this
great, endless, infinite Reality is but sheer mass of
viññāṇa. This comes out from these elements, and is
destroyed with them. After this it has no more perception
(saññā). This is what I say, my dear. So said
Yajnavalkya.
Compare with the Buddhist line above. Both describe
viññāṇa as ‘infinite’ (anantaṁ). Both use the
philosophical term mahābhūta, although in different sense:
in the Buddhist context it is a word for the four elements which
the state of viññāṇa described goes beyond, whereas here
it is the Great Reality itself. The Upanishadic passage describes
the infinite consciousness as having disappeared or become
non-manifest like salt dissolved in water, just as the Buddhist
passage describes viññāṇa as ‘non-manifest’
(anidassana). The Buddhist passage speaks of
viññāṇa as ‘radiant’, just as elsewhere the self that is
viññāṇa is said to be the ‘light in the heart’.
The parallels are by no means arbitrary. In fact the Buddhist
passage appears in a specifically Brahmanical context. The text is
the Kevaddha Sutta (Digha Nikaya 11: text here, translation here, parallels here.) A monk wants to find out where the four
Great Elements (mahābhūta) end, and goes to Brahma for the
answer. Brahma, however, doesn’t know, and he sends the monk back
to the Buddha. The Buddha rejects the original question, and tells
the monk how it should be reformulated.
The basic idea is clear enough. Brahma’s realm extends as far as
jhana, as Buddhists assume that the Brahmanical philosophy was
based on jhanic experience (at best). So Brahma doesn’t know what
lies beyond this, while the Buddha does.
The problem is that, apparently, what lies beyond is a kind of
consciousness. Given the evident connections between this
description and the Brahmanical conception of the higher atman as a
form of infinite consciousness, the most obvious inference is that
it refers to the formless attainments, specifically that of
‘infinite consciousness’, where the ‘four great elements’ don’t
find a footing.
It is in the next lines of the verse, which are usually
overlooked by the viññāṇa = Nibbana school, that the
Buddha’s true position is stated. With the cessation of
viññāṇa all this comes to an end. The ‘infinite
consciousness’ is merely the temporary escape from the oppression
of materiality, but true liberation is the ending of all
consciousness.
‘Kattha āpo ca pathavī,
Tejo vāyo na gādhati;
Kattha dīghañca rassañca,
Aṇuṃ thūlaṃ subhāsubhaṃ;
Kattha nāmañca rūpañca,
Asesaṃ uparujjhatī’ti.
Where does water and earth
fire, air not find a footing?
Where does long and short
Small, gross, fair and ugly,
Where does name and form
Without remainder cease?
Tatra veyyākaraṇaṃ bhavati—
For that the explanation is:
‘Viññāṇaṃ anidassanaṃ,
Anantaṃ sabbatopabhaṃ;
Ettha āpo ca pathavī,
Tejo vāyo na gādhati.
Viññāṇa non-manifest
Infinite, radiant all-round
There water and earth
fire, air do not find a footing
Ettha dīghañca rassañca,
Aṇuṃ thūlaṃ subhāsubhaṃ;
Ettha nāmañca rūpañca,
Asesaṃ uparujjhati;
Viññāṇassa nirodhena,
Etthetaṃ uparujjhatī’”ti.
There does long and short
Small, gross, fair and ugly,
There does name and form
Without remainder cease:
With the cessation of viññāṇa
There this ceases.
The problem is not so much the interpretation of
viññāṇa as such, but the syntax of the verses – which is
one reason why poetry should not decide doctrine. The Buddha
rephrases the original question, but his rephrasing has three
question words and two verbs. It may be read as a single complex
question, but this assumes that the two verbs mean the same thing
(which they don’t: na gādhati means ‘does not find a firm
footing’, like a man crossing a ford, while uparujjhati
means ‘ceases’) – and that viññāṇa means ‘infinite
consciousness of Nibbana’ in the first occurrence and ‘separative
sense consciousness’ in the second.
It is simpler and more natural to read the verses as asking two
questions, with the verb uparujjhati (ceases) acting as a
‘lamp’ to apply to both the preceding clauses. In that case the
syntax of the answer would be expressed thusly:
Water, earth, fire, air do not find a footing in
viññāṇa that is non-manifest, infinite, radiant
all-round.
(i.e., the four material elements cease temporarily in the
formless attainments, which is the highest reach of the Brahmanical
teachings – even this much Brahma, being a deity of the form realm,
did not know.)
Long and short, small, gross, fair and ugly, name and form cease
without remainder with the cessation of viññāṇa. This is
where this all ceases.
(i.e., the Buddha’s real teaching is not to temporarily escape
materiality, but to reach an ending of suffering. And since all
forms of viññāṇa (yaṁ kiñci viññāṇaṁ…) are said
countless times to be suffering, even the infinite consciousness
has to go.)
In this reading, the reason for the Buddha’s reformulation of
the original question becomes clear. The errant monk had asked
where the ending of the four elements was – which is of course the
formless attainments. But the Buddha said the question was wrongly
put, as this would merely lead beyond the form realm of Brahma to
the formless realms. The real question is what lies beyond that,
with the cessation of consciousness. It is not enough for matter to
be transcended, one must also transcend mind as well. If not, one
ends up, apart from all the other philosophical problems, with a
mind/body dualism.
And one ends up with a description of the Buddhist goal which is
not merely indistinguishable from the Brahmanical Higher Self, but
is quite evidently the same thing. A description that was meant to
critique the inadequate conception of the Brahmanical goal is
turned into a description of the Buddhist goal. Meanwhile, the
hundreds of times when the Buddha explicitly and definitively
refuted this idea (viññāṇaṁ aniccaṁ…) are explained away
with a trivial etymological mistake. And so it goes…