From: Dmytro Ivakhnenko
Message: 3863
Date: 2014-07-30
Dear Bhante,
> Norman renders: “… having thrust away enjoyment and attachment to these things, [and consciousness], you would not remain in [this] existence.” NAJ’s rendering is similar, ending with “you shall not remain in becoming.”
IMHO, these renderings don't make much sense. Who is that 'you' which will not remain in becoming? The cessation of becoming can't be described in terms of 'me' or 'you'.
And why to interpret the natural word order in such a strange way? Perhaps the commentators didn't quite understand this intricate point of meditative practice?
Besides, the instructions in this verse are exact and immediately practical, and meant to describe the practice here and now. In the next verse Buddha describes the results of following the instructions:
‘‘Evaṃvihārī sato appamatto, bhikkhu caraṃ hitvā mamāyitāni;
Jātiṃ jaraṃ sokapariddavañca, idheva vidvā pajaheyya dukkhaṃ’’.
The monk who dwells thus
— mindful, heedful —
letting go of his sense of mine,
knowing right here would abandon
birth & aging,
lamentation & sorrow,
stress & suffering.
This brings to mind Bahiya sutta, which emphasizes that "you" in this case can't be localized:
"Then, Bahiya, you should train yourself thus: In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to the cognized, only the cognized. That is how you should train yourself. When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the cognized, then, Bahiya, there is no you in terms of that. When there is no you in terms of that, there is no you there. When there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just this, is the end of stress."
> It seems to me intuitively, however, that viññāṇam should be taken, not as an object of panujja, but as the subject of bhave na tiṭṭhe. One might claim support for this from the following texts (and perhaps still others):
Yes, the 'appatiṭṭha viññāṇa' is a key term by which the cessation of becoming, and the cessation of Conditioned Arising is described:
‘‘‘Nāmarūpapaccayā viññāṇa’nti iti kho panetaṃ vuttaṃ, tadānanda, imināpetaṃ pariyāyena veditabbaṃ, yathā nāmarūpapaccayā viññāṇaṃ. Viññāṇañca hi, ānanda, nāmarūpe patiṭṭhaṃ na labhissatha, api nu kho āyatiṃ jātijarāmaraṇaṃ dukkhasamudayasambhavo paññāyethā’’ti? ‘‘No hetaṃ, bhante’’.
"'From name-and-form as a requisite condition comes consciousness.' Thus it has been said. And this is the way to understand how from name-and-form as a requisite condition comes consciousness. If consciousness were not to gain a foothold in name-and-form, would a coming-into-play of the origination of birth, aging, death, and stress in the future be discerned?
"No, lord."
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=12515 (please follow this link for more references)
I don't remember any passages where 'panujja' would be applied to 'viññāṇa', or where the Buddha would say that "you wil not remain in becoming".