Reply To: Post on “Salāyatana Are Not Sense Faculties”


Your observations are good, Lang.

Regarding: “We know that cakkhuviññāṇaṁ for an arahant is pure and vastly different from that of ours; it’s just not fathomable to us. If someone can make up a special term to describe that to help him understand better then it’s all good (perhaps something like “cakkhuñāṇaṁ” (without the “vi“)).”

  • The same word cakkhuviññāṇa (or any other type of viññāṇa) is used for an Arahant as well. However, it is understood that it is NOT  defiled in any way (all associated mental qualities, i.e., vedana, sanna, sankhara, vinnana) have no trace of defilements.
  • I think the main reason to use the term is that even for an Arahant, a citta goes through some stages of evolvement, ending up with incorporating all past experiences (i.e., becoming viññāṇakkhandha or the ‘aggregate of viññāṇa.)
  • P.S. See “Citta, Manō, Viññāna – Nine Stages of a Thought.”

Regarding: “Anyhow, it is much easier to draw the distinction between an arahant and us in the subsequent verse: there is NO “tiṇṇaṁ saṅgati phasso” for arahants, but there is for us. And this point can serve us better in terms of practice — to work to reduce “san“.”

  • Exactly!