vi¾¾¤¼a: [fr. vi+j¾¤; cp. Vedic vij¾¤na cognition] (as special term in Buddhist metaphysics) a mental quality as a consistuent of individuality, the bearer of (individual) life, life-force (as extending also over rebirths, principle of conscious life, general consciousness (as function of mind and matter), regenerative force, animation, mind as transmigrant, as transforming (according to individual kamma) one individual life (after death) into the next.
 
(MO: This is incorrect in that consciousness is said to depend on the factors of nama and rupa, whether as that which has been sankaramed, or that which results from nama/rupa, or that which proceeds from the contact of sense-organ with sense object, and is, therefore, downbound to the individuality bounded by a single life-span. By implanting self-identification with the results by identifying with intentional acts resulting in consequences in a future life one is not by that transmigrating this consciousness to that state, in the same way as when one match lights another match it cannot be said that the fire that results in the second match is the same as the fire of the first match. This is the error made by Sati the Fisherman which was very forcefully denied.)
 
In this (fundamental) application it may be characterized as the sensory and perceptive activity commonly expressed by "mind." It is difficult to give any one word for vi¾¾¤¼a, because there is much difference between the old Buddhist and our modern points of view, and there is a varying use of the term in the Canon itself. In what may be a very old Sutta S II.95 vi¾¾¤¼a is given as a synonym of citta . . .and mano . . .in opposition to k¤ya used to mean body. This simpler unecclesiastical, unscholastic popular meaning is met with in other suttas. e.g. the body (k¤ya) is when animated called sa-vi¾¾¤¼aka (MO: with-consciousness)...Again, vi¾¾¤¼a was supposed, at the body's death, to pass over into another body (S I.122; III.124) and so find a support or platform (patiÂÂh¤).
 
(MO: again, this is a misreading:
 
--From Mrs. Rhys Davids: "That, bhikkhus, is M¤ra the evil one, who is seeking everywhere for the consciousness of Godhika..." she footnotes: "Comy: 'for the paÂisandhi-citta, or consciousness [as it emerges afresh] at re-conception or new birth. The reason (k¤ra¼a) or conditions for its becoming reinstatded in a new embryo were, in Godhika's case, absent.' It is a subtle touch, in this delightful legend, that, to be able to discern a trasmission, from body to germ, of that which was not a substance, material or immaterial, but a resultant of forces, M¤ra, fertile in shape-transformation, should sublimate himself into vapour (MO: Mrs Rhys Davids does not empathize with Mara who is showing exasperation by this). Is it possible associated with ¤tman (pneuma) myths?"
 
First of all, this is saying that that consciousness could not be found. Second it is saying that Mara (who is, by definition blind) is the one not able to find it, which is like saying of any faithful believer in rebirth that he hoped to find the reborn self of so-and-so -- because a non-Buddhist believes in the transmigration of consciousness does not taint the views of Buddhists.--)
 
Since, however, the persistence of vi¾¾¤¼a from life to life is declared (D II.68 S III.54)
 
(MO. This is just simply not "declared" at all, and what is stated does not carry this implication:
 
D II.68: Rhys Davids (Mr): "And of such a brother, Ananda, whose heart is thus set free, if any one should say: -- "His creed is that an Arahant goes on after death" -- that were absurd. Or: "His creed is that an Arahant does not go on. . . does, and yet does not, go on . . . neither goes on nor goes not on after death" -- all that were absurd. Why is that? Because, Ananda, whatever verbal expression, whatever explanation there may be, and whatever system of explanation, whatever communication is possible and whatever system of communication, whatever knowledge there is and whatever sphere of knowledge, whatever round of life and how far the round is traversed, -- by mastery over all this that brother is set free. But to say, of a brother who has been so set free by insight: -- :"He knows not, he sees not" -- that were absurd.
 
And S II 54, Woodward: "Were a man, brethren, to declare thus: "Apart from body, apart from feeling, apart from perception, apart from the activities, I will show forth the coming or the going or the decease or the rebirth of consciousness, or the growth or the increase or the abundance of consciousness" --to do that were impossible.
If lust for body, brethren, is abandoned by a brother, by that abandonment of lust its foothold is cut off. Thereby there is no platform for consciousness.
Likewiise as regards feeling, perception, the activities . . . So also, brethren, if lust for the consciousness-element be abandoned by a brother, by that abandonment of lust its foothold is cut off. Thereby there is no platform for consciousness.
Without that platform consciousness has no growth, it generates no action and is freed..."
 
The implication here is twofold, neither fold of which would imply the transmigration of consciousness: (1) that by the elimination of lust, a kind of sense-bound consciousness is eliminated leaving consciousness free -- this does not mean "contiuing" as in the continuance of one consciousness element; or (2) that with lust there is provided grounds for the reappearance of sense-bound consciousness, which does not mean that this is the same consciousness which has "continued on" to the next life.)
 
...we must judge that it is only the immutable persistence that is condemned.
 
(MO: No. It is the view that the self is this consciousness whether immutable or immutable.)
 
Vi¾¾¤¼a was justly conceived more as "minding" than as "mind."
Ecclesiastical scholastic dogma considers vi¾¾¤¼a under the categories of (a) khandha; (b) dh¤tu; (c) paÂicca samupp¤da; (d) ¤h¤ra; (e) k¤ya.
(a) as fifth of the five khandhas...the discriminating (factor) e.g. tastes... It is in no wise considered as a condition, or a climax of the other incorporeal khandh¤s
 
(MO: Again the basis of this statement is not clear and the reverse is a natural conclusion from the multiplicity of statements that discuss the appearance of the factors as a consequence of sankaram, the appearance of vedana as a consequence of the contact of sense organ with sense stimula, and the unity as process of sanna, vedana and vinnana)
 
(b) as dh¤tu, vi¾¾¤¼a occurs only in the category of the four elements with space as a sixth element, and also where dh¤tu is substituted for khandha (S III.10)
(c) In the chain of causation vi¾¾¤¼a is conditioned by the sankharas and is itself a necessary condition of nama-rupa (individuality)
 
(MO: that is one way it is presented, it is also presented as resulting from nama/rupa, and as being both cause and effect of nama/rupa)
 
See e.g. S II.4, 6, 8, 12. (in the paÂicca samupp¤da) vi¾¾¤¼a is defined...as a quuality peculiar to (and underlying) each of the 6 senses...which means that vi¾¾¤¼a is the apperceptional or energizing principle, so to speak the soul or life (substratum, animator, life potency) of the sensory side of individuality. It arises through the mutual relation of sense and sense-object...As such it forms a factor of rebirth, as it is grouped under upadhi.
(d)As one of the four ¤h¤ras...vi¾¾¤¼a is consiidered as the material, food or cause, through which comes rebirth...As such it is likened to seed in the field of action (kamma). . . and as entering (a body) at rebirth . . .
(e) As k¤ye i.e. group. vi¾¾¤¼a is considered psycho-physically, as a factor in sense perception...namely, the contact between sense-organ and object . . . produces vi¾¾¤¼a of sight...The three factors constitute the vi¾¾¤¼a-k¤ya of the given sense. And the vi¾¾¤¼a is thus bound to bodily process as a catseye is threaded on a string.
+¤na¾c¤(=the un-limited) the infinity of
&+ayatana(=the sphere, or Realm or area of) the sphere or plane of the infinity of