Knowing the Eye: An Inquiry into Consciousness
An extract from a discussion between Venerable Alawwe Anomadassi Thero and few lay disciples
Knowing
the Eye: An Inquiry into Consciousness
Q: When we speak of
"knowing of the eye," does it refer to what is known by the eye
(form), or does "knowing the eye" refer to knowing an eye that
already exists? Could it be both, since consciousness is inherently the nature
of knowing? I’ve considered that if the eye doesn't know it is an eye, and the
form doesn't know it is a form, how do we know anything? Does consciousness
only arise when "I" creeps in, turning the eye and form into named
conventions (nama-rupa)?
A: The Buddha preached the
Dhamma with reference to our experiential world. Those who are not satyavadi (truthful) assume that things exist
independently for an "I" to encounter. For such individuals, how a vimutti-kami (one desiring liberation) relates to the
world remains beyond comprehension.
The parlance of those who are truthful differs
fundamentally from the terminology of worldlings (puthujjana). Just as
the specialised language used by scientists in a laboratory may not be relevant
to the general public, the modes of expression
of the satyavadi are distinct from common worldly views.
The Buddha addressed vimutti-kamins selectively based on context. For
example, he used agricultural analogies when preaching to the farmer Kasi
Bharadvaja. Conventionally, we are eager to hear the Dhamma meant for
truth-seekers because we desire Nibbana. However, because that parlance is aimed at those already seeking truth, it is
often incomprehensible to us.
In our attempt to
understand, we tend to re-label Dhamma terms to fit our own worldly concepts.
While a truth-seeker understands the Dhamma directly because it aligns with
their internal modes of expression, we replace the
original meanings with our own preferences. In doing so, we distort the
original intent and fail to reach even the initial vision of a seeker.
Ordinary beings
associate with a world where an "I" and "external things"
exist; thus, they try to liberate themselves from that
"I" and those things. They grasp the Dhamma through that specific
lens. To convey Dhamma to a puthujjana, a
teacher must first address or remove this existing view. For those tethered to
conventions, we must first evoke faith (saddha) to help them
let go of their habit of labeling.
Regarding consciousness,
one can speak of "eye-consciousness" or "consciousness of the
eye." A well-instructed follower, established in the order of Dhamma , does not conceive of a pre-existing
"eye" when hearing either term.
Q: But Bhante, don't we
instinctively refer to all three—the eye, the form, and the
knowing—simultaneously due to ignorance?
A: If one begins to truly
see this issue, they may feel forlorn. The Dhamma is meant for the satyavadi; to them, "the eye" or "of the
eye" makes no difference.
It is necessary for
worldlings to first be trained to relinquish their views. They must inquire in
a way that challenges their underlying assumptions, primarily the self-view (sakkaya ditthi). We often speak of consciousness as an
existing "thing" or a "process," and tend to label it a
"fallacy" or "illusion." Instead of trying to reason it
out, we must question what consciousness is until we
transcend it. Note, however, that this transcendence cannot be explained
through mere description.
Q: So, is it an assertion
that consciousness is impermanent (anicca)?
A: Yes, but it is not
simply the intellectual realisation that "consciousness is
impermanent." It is a state where that realisation becomes
meaningful—where the view is actively challenged and shattered.
Q: So, not just
"knowing" that it is anicca?
A: Correct. Any form of
reasoning or description ends in a "knowing." For instance, in
certain states of liberation, consciousness is described as infinite. Yet, no
matter how much we ponder it, we do not "see" it as infinite. We
simply arrive at a new "knowing" of consciousness, which still has
limits.
If one does not hold
onto mere knowledge, they move toward a state similar to what is known as vinnanancayatana (the base of infinite consciousness).
Here, one notes the occurrence of knowing that is not measured or framed.
However, even this is not the ultimate Dhamma taught by the Buddha.
Q: How do you relate what
you just explained to what the Buddha referred to as "This
Consciousness" (Iti Vinnanam)?
A: Iti Vinnanam refers to a process of wisdom ($panna$), whereas what we have discussed previously is
still within the experiential world. You cannot compare the two directly. The
difference lies in the presence of Sakkaya
(identity-view), which is prevalent in certain "liberated" states but
entirely absent in the specific state the Buddha taught.
Comments
Post a Comment