Green Tea
On the Invisible Consciousness
and about
Knowing when It's Time to Quit
Tracing things back from our visible world by way of finding its essential dependencies, we see that growing old and dying depend on the fact of birth. Without birth there would be no getting old and dying.
Birth depends on the fact of life itself. If there were no such thing as "Life" in any form anywhere, then there could be no birth.
Life depends on the animation known as "going after getting" and "going after getting away from." This includes concepts such as 'getting bound up', 'involvement', 'grasping', 'clinging', 'upkeep' ... If there were no activity in the form of attempting to get or get away, then there would be no living.
Activity in the pursuit of getting and getting away depends on the fact of wanting. If there were no wanting to get or wanting to get away, there would be no attempting to get or attempting to get away.
Wanting depends on sense experience in the form of pleasant sensation, unpleasant sensation, and sensation that is neither unpleasant nor pleasant. If there were no sensations there would be no wanting to get or wanting to get away.
Sensations depend on the mechanisms of sensation-production: the organ of sense, the object of sense, the contact of the two, and the sensation, perception, and consciousness that arises from the conjunction of the three (sense organ, sense object, and mechanism of consciousness). If there were no mechanism of sensation-production, then there would be no sense experience.
The Mechanisms of sensation-production depend on the inter-operation of identifications or names of things and the material thing itself. If there were no inter-operation of these things, there would be no mechanism for sensation production.
The inter-operation of names and forms depends on the ability to re-know knowing (be conscious of, individualized consciousness of, consciousness attached to sense experience of named forms. If there were no ability to re-know knowing, then there would be no inter-operation of names and forms.
The ability to re-know knowing depends on the inter-operation of names and forms. If there were no inter-operation of names and forms, there would be no re-knowing knowing.
So it can be seen at this point that re-knowing knowing depends on the inter-operation of names and forms, and the inter-operation of names and forms depends on re-knowing knowing. The one doubles back on the other.
It is because individuals do not see the outcome in aging and death, and because they do not see the origin of that aging and death in the wanting that is connected to the re-knowing of knowing sense experiences, and because they do not see the ending of that aging and death in the ending of that wanting that is connected to the re-knowing of knowing sense experiences, that they take action to get or get away from in the form of identification with intentional acts (to get or get away from) of body, speech and mind. If individuals saw the outcome as aging and death, if they saw the origin as wanting, if they saw the ending as the ending of that wanting, there would be no taking action to get or get away from and there would be no resultant identification found in the outcome. This is the meaning of: Depending on Blindness [a = not; vijja = vision]; Own-making [saṇkhara = saṇ = own, with; khara = making].
This blindness takes the form of points of view about existence and non-existence. Put in first-level terms, it is the point of view that "I am" or "It is my."
The inter-operation of named forms in what is subjectively understood to be the present moment is producing sensations, perceptions, and re-knowing knowing knowledge carrying with it [from its previously having been implanted there by identification with intentional acts of body, speech and mind] the notion "I am" or "It is my." Re-knowing the knowing of that, depending on the now current point of view of the individual, this notion is accepted or not accepted. Accepted it produces a tendency to react. Reacting, it produces another "round." Rejected, it does not produce any tendency to react. Not reacting, nothing is produced. Nothing is made. Nothing is own-made, identified with. The result, which cannot now be called own-made, is the knowledge that the results that would have been identified with are not and cannot be experienced by the individual.
This "re-knowing the knowing" of the personalized
[carrying with it the notion of "I am" from the point of its being previously intentionally set rolling]
"re-knowing knowing"
which is not produced by the inter-operation of named forms in the present moment
(it is a distinct consciousness separate from, but whose object is no longer being identified with the personal named form phenomena) is what is known as "Viññāṇā Anidassananam," the re-knowing knowing that cannot be seen or pointed out.
It doesn't exist, it cannot be seen.
It is essential to this notion of a re-knowing knowing that cannot be pointed out that it remain without "descriptors".
This is because that which is used as a descriptor is made in the "mental" side of the two-sided beast that is the inter-operation of the named forms that is the basis for the senses.
When a thing is conceptualized in the mental side, there is automatically formed (in terms of Nibbāna say, even if just in the imagination) a corresponding "thing" in the material side.
In other words, that which is conceptualized through the senses [in this case "the mind" of the individual], that is, described as a "thing" or a "state" is a "thing". It, even if only in the imagination, has become an existing, own-made thing.
The re-knowing knowing of the Arahant is always [except if described in the negative, must always be] being wrongly described. Since there is no other way to describe a thing, it must remain undescribed. Since it has not become, has not been own-made, it cannot be seen.
Attempting a description of the re-knowing knowing of the Arahant is the error of those who maintain an on-going "Pure Mind", or "Buddha Mind": they have conceptualized the unconceptualizable. They have made the Unborn, Unmade, Undying, etc into existing states and have consequently bound themselves to the attainment of such a "thing". Attaining such a thing is attaining a "state" and as such is attaining something that will end and as such is not the goal.
We must be satisfied to let well-enough alone. Let go of what we can know is going to result in pain, and the rest will take care of itself. We can know when we cannot know any more by way of conceptual thought.
Say I.
