It now seems to me the matter has been put to rest. I have taken this long to write to allow time for other replies to come in so as to have a larger ‘base’ for my response. (I have already deleted two posts before submitting).
But we have run into an etymological contradiction.
First let me thank Lal for the most recent post on Vinnana. I have been looking forward to it – expecting it even, and I sense it was the result of this very discussion topic, and perhaps another one or two recent ones related to the subject matter. For this I feel deeply grateful.
Now, from that very recent post: “Viññāna – Consciousness Together With Future Expectations”:
– 1. Viññāna means “without ñāna” or without wisdom:
– Viññāna also means “defiled consciousness”; (when one attains the Arahanthood, one will have “undefiled or pure consciousness”.
Lal has gone into this in depth enough. Upekkha’s summary (approved by Lal) goes:
1) Sobhana cetasika lead to good vinnana.
2) An Arahant still has sobhana cetasikas.
3) A good vinnana is not contaminated.
4) An Arahant still has good vinnana
Lal concludes: “An Arahant has undefiled vinnana (one could call that “good vinnana”), which is attained at the optimum of the set of sobhana cetasika, that includes panna.”
Meaning, per the definition of Vinnana above, (vi = defiled, nana = wisdom) an Arahant has a ‘good’ defiled consciousness. Lal would have done better here,, for the purpose of clarity and consistency with root meaning of words, to stick to the conventional (though incomplete or wrong) word ‘undefiled consiousness’ instead of ‘undefiled vinnana’. Also, has an Arahant then sobhana cetasika with defiled nana, without wisdom? Certainly not.
I have understood perfectly what Lal means to say, and it is confirmation that at Arahanthood sohana cetasika are still there, which is a great relief in view of the danger, otherwise, of having to fall back into considering Mahāyāna concepts, which I dread even the mention of.
The villain in the piece is the prefix ‘vi’. Defined solely as ‘defiled’ is inadequate, because we see here that it can also mean ‘untainted’, in this case ‘untainted with tanha’, ‘untainted with the possibility of leading to rebirth’, as there is no ‘vedana paccaya tanha’ ,therefore no vipaka being generated, therefore no ayatana, no paccaya and therefore no bhava and no jati.
The ‘taint’, therefore, unlike the case with lobha, dosa and moha arising out of akusala, DO NOT INHERE IN THE QUALITIES of ALOBHA, ADOSA AND AMOHA IN THEMSELVES, but rather, for all but Arahants, in there being tanha and the expectation of reward; and the rewards will follow, re-birth will follow. In the case of Arahants, however , those sobhana cetasika are ‘ ONLY rendered powerless to be made a cause of for (good) rebirth’. The ‘good’ in them persist. Only the asobhana cetasika are utterly destroyed.
I hope I have been clear. Please do point out anything I said that is not, or that is wrong outright.
Metta to all