user471: From MN 49 (trans. Sujato):

Consciousness that is invisible, infinite, radiant all round—that’s
  what is not within the scope of experience based on earth, water,
  fire, air, creatures, gods, the Creator, Brahmā, the gods of streaming
  radiance, the gods replete with glory, the gods of abundant fruit, the
  Overlord, and the all.
Viññāṇaṃ anidassanaṃ anantaṃ sabbato pabhaṃ ...

The invisible consciousness (viññāṇaṃ anidassanaṃ) from MN 49 seems to be different from the sense consciousness described in MN 18 e.g. eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness etc. because it is not within the scope of sense experience, according to MN 49. It is also found in DN 11. It is also translated as "consciousness without surface" (from here, trans. Thanissaro).
Question 1:
What is the invisible consciousness or consciousness without surface described in MN 49 and DN 11?
Is it a cosmic consciousness like the one found in Hinduism? I guess not.
Question 2:
This answer implies that this invisible consciousness or consciousness without surface is the re-linking consciousness (patisandhi-viññana) that connects one lifetime to the next. This also implies that the re-linking consciousness (patisandhi-viññana) which is the invisible consciousness or consciousness without surface (viññāṇaṃ anidassanaṃ) is the consciousness that descends into the womb causing materiality-mentality (nāmarūpa) to arise (from DN 15). Is this right?
Question 3:
Also, the description of "invisible, infinite and radiant all round" sounds very similar to the "luminous mind" (pabhassara citta) from AN 1.51-52. The same word "pabham" (luminosity) or "pabhassara" (luminous) is used in both MN 49 and AN 1.51-52. How is the invisible consciousness or consciousness without surface related to the luminous mind?

user8157: This teaching was not given to Buddhists. No one got enlightened. It has no relationship to Heartwood Buddhism.
Heartwood Buddhism teaches there can be no consciousness without nama-rupa (MN 9; SN 12.67; SN 22.53; MN 38; etc). But this teaching, given to unfaithful Brahma gods and Brahmins, says in infinite luminous consciousness, nama-rupa is destroyed.
Its not Buddhism. The nama-rupa referred to is the nama-rupa of Brahmanism. The Buddha is speaking in the language of Brahmanism to Brahmins.
In the suttas, there are two types of nama-rupa:

Nama-rupa for Buddhists, which is defined as earth, wind, fire, water, feeling, perception, intention, contact & attention.

Nama-rupa of Brahmins, which is defined as 'naming-forms', per the Vedas; per DN 15; which the modern scholars say was composed for Brahmins.


Honoring viññāṇaṃ anidassanaṃ cannot be a Buddhist. Must be a Hindu (Brahmin). Taking faith in teaching given to stubborn faithless Brahma. Please remember, the suttas say the Buddha is the teacher of gods & men. Often, what the Buddha teaches is for the gods and not for the human state, which is the enlightened state (per SN 56.47).
Ajahn Sujato says viññāṇaṃ anidassanaṃ is immaterial jhana & not Nibbana. But I disagree. Viññāṇaṃ anidassanaṃ is just themeless concentration of basic concentration.
Brahma delights in creating the world by naming forms. Buddha tells Brahma to stop naming forms; stop creating; and start meditating.
Viññāṇaṃ anidassanaṃ is not the non-Buddha relinking consciousness of the covert Brahmin named Buddhaghosa, who dedicated his Visuddhimagga for his rebirth in a Brahma world. This is because a pure Nibbanic consciousness cannot be reborn.
The description of "invisible, infinite and radiant all round" sounds very similar to the "luminous mind" (pabhassara citta) from AN 1.51-52. However, please note! The "luminous mind" (pabhassara citta) from AN 1.51-52 is something that can be defiled. It is not Nibbana, also.

Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is defiled by incoming defilements.
AN 1.51-52

AN 1.51-52 proves viññāṇaṃ anidassanaṃ is not Nibbana because pabhassara citta & viññāṇaṃ anidassanaṃ can be defiled and become dirty & filthy.
Viññāṇaṃ anidassanaṃ is not said to be "asesa" ("remainderless"). It is not Nibbana. It is not relinking. It is just the luminous mind without thoughts & naming. It is the type of mind a beginner to meditation should have.
I recommend to all sincere Buddhist to not waste their time with this teaching of viññāṇaṃ anidassanaṃ. It is just a wild goose chase about nothing.

user-1: As i understand it:
Nidassana means that is apparent, eg in the sutta is of a canvas that can be painted as opposed to something not-apparent like space which can not be painted.
Vinnanam a noun consciousness
Therefore:
Consciousness not apparent
I think this is what the text says.
Some people might have a problem with this but these people will likewise have problem with all the seemingly paradoxical passages:

riend Sāriputta, could a bhikkhu obtain such a state of concentration that (1) he would not be percipient of earth in relation to earth; (2) of water in relation to water; (3) of fire in relation to fire; (4) of air in relation to air; (5) of the base of the infinity of space in relation to the base of the infinity of space; (6) of the base of the infinity of consciousness in relation to the base of the infinity of consciousness; (7) of the base of nothingness in relation to the base of nothingness; (8) of the base of neither-perception-nor-non-perception in relation to the base of neither-perception-nor-non-perception; (9) of this world in relation to this world; (10) of the other world in relation to the other world, but he would still be percipient?”
“He could, friend Ānanda.”
“But how, friend Sāriputta, could he obtain such a state of concentration?”
“On one occasion, friend Ānanda, I was dwelling right here in Sāvatthī in the Blind Men’s Grove. There I attained such a state of concentration that I was not percipient of earth in relation to earth; of water in relation to water; of fire in relation to fire; of air in relation to air; of the base of the infinity of space in relation to the base of the infinity of space; of the base of the infinity of consciousness in relation to the base of the infinity of consciousness; of the base of nothingness in relation to the base of nothingness; of the base of neither-perception-nor-non-perception in relation to the base of neither-perception-nor-non-perception; of this world in relation to this world; of the other world in relation to the other world, but I was still percipient.”
“But of what was the Venerable Sāriputta percipient on that occasion?”
“One perception arose and another perception ceased in me: ‘The cessation of existence is nibbāna; the cessation of existence is nibbāna.’ Just as, when a fire of twigs is burning, one flame arises and another flame ceases, so one perception arose and another perception ceased in me: ‘The cessation of existence is nibbāna; the cessation of existence is nibbāna.’ On that occasion, friend, I was percipient: ‘The cessation of existence is nibbāna.’”

Basically you have to imagine what the answer is if that same question is posed in terms of congnizance rather than percepience and you will see that the passages are analogical.

perception & consciousness are conjoined, not disjoined, what one perceives that one cognizes.

If one thinks that vinnanam anidassana posits a super consciousness then one will posit that the above sutta posits a super perception.
Furthermore the same will happen with this passage:

There is the case where a monk, with the complete transcending of the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception, enters & remains in the cessation of perception & feeling. This is another pleasure more extreme & refined than that.

Here they will analogically criticize the text for positing a super feeling.

Now it's possible, Ananda, that some wanderers of other persuasions might say, 'Gotama the contemplative speaks of the cessation of perception & feeling and yet describes it as pleasure. What is this? How can this be?' When they say that, they are to be told, 'It's not the case, friends, that the Blessed One describes only pleasant feeling as included under pleasure. Wherever pleasure is found, in whatever terms, the Blessed One describes it as pleasure.'"

Likewise the verse when properly translated is criticized by people of other persuasions:
"This verse speaks of cessation of consciousness but describes it as consciousness"
There are other Sutta related to this which talk about consciousness unestablished, eg:

Suppose, bhikkhus, there was a house or a hall with a peaked roof, with windows on the northern, southern, and eastern sides. When the sun rises and a beam of light enters through a window, where would it become established?”
“On the western wall, venerable sir.”
“If there were no western wall, where would it become established?”
“On the earth, venerable sir.”
“If there were no earth, where would it become established?”
“On the water, venerable sir.”
“If there were no water, where would it become established?”
“It would not become established anywhere, venerable sir.”
“So too, bhikkhus, if there is no lust for the nutriment edible food … for the nutriment contact … for the nutriment mental volition … for the nutriment consciousness … consciousness does not become established there and come to growth. Where consciousness does not become established and come to growth … … I say that is without sorrow, anguish, and despair.” https://suttacentral.net/sn12.64/en/bodhi

Another here:

"If a monk abandons passion for the property of consciousness, then owing to the abandonment of passion, the support is cut off, and there is no base for consciousness. Consciousness, thus unestablished, not proliferating, not performing any function, is released. https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.055.than.html

Another yet:

That, bhikkhus, is Mara the Evil One searching for the consciousness of the clansman Vakkali, wondering: ‘Where now has the consciousness of the clansman Vakkali been established?’ However, bhikkhus, with consciousness unestablished, the clansman Vakkali has attained final Nibbāna. https://suttacentral.net/sn22.87/en/bodhi

Now there are several ways of translating vinnanam anidassana which are not literal but i prefer the literal one.
I think that this is more or less the proper sutta analysis.

user14468: In Kevaddha Sutta (DN 11) it has mentioned that,

Viññāṇaṃ anidassanaṃ anantaṃ sabbato pabhaṃ
  Ettha āpo ca paṭhavī tejo vāyo na gādhati
  Ettha dīghañca rassañca aṇuṃ thūlaṃ subhāsubhaṃ
  Ettha nāmañca rūpañca asesaṃ uparujjhati
  Viññāṇassa nirodhena etthetaṃ uparujjhatīti.

This is a verse about Nibbana. Meaning of the verse is mentioned below;

Viññāṇaṃ - Nibbana

Explanation: The word "Viññāṇa" has three interpretations.

"vijanatiti vinnanam" - 'get to know' is known as Viññāṇa.
According to this explanation, the word "Viññāṇa" defined as an agent noun. In other words consciousness is defined as the doer who cognizes objects.
"vijanati etenati vinnanam" - 'get to know by the use of' is known as Viññāṇa.
According to this explanation, the word "Viññāṇa" defined as an ablative noun. In other words consciousness is defined as the instrument used to cognize objects.
"vijanana mattam vinnanam" - in the sense of knowing it is known as Viññāṇa.
According to this explanation, the word "Viññāṇa" defined as its true nature. This is the most suitable definition because the consciousness is conditioned. i.e. it has no power of independently appear without the help of its causes. Its mere function is knowing the object.  

Here in this verse, the word Viññāṇaṃ (consciousness) was described using the second definition which I have provided above. "Viññāṇaṃ" used to mention "what should be cognized by consciousness (more precisely by the four supermundane wholesome path consciousness)". So, it has used to mention nothing else but Nibbana. We can find more evidence for this interpretation by looking at the commentary (Atthakathā) on Kevaddha Sutta:

Tattha viññātabban ti viññānaη, nibbānassa taη nāmaη.


Anidassanaṃ - This word has two definitions in this verse;  


Cannot be seen with eye consciousness.
Cannot provide an example.


Explanation for definition 1: There are two types of rūpa.

Sanidassana rūpa - Vanna rūpa. In other words whatever visible (or known) to eye consciousness.
Anidassana rūpa - Rūpa which are not visible (or known) to eye consciousness. (For example, Shabdha rūpa, Gandha rūpa, Potthabbha rūpa, etc...)

Here in this verse, the word "Anidassanaṃ" used not to mention a rūpa but to emphasize that Nibbana is not visible to the eye consciousness. In other words, Nibbana cannot be the object for eye consciousness.
Also according to the book, A Dictionary of the Pali Language by Robert Caesar Childers, the word "Anidassana" has the following meaning;

Anidassana - Beyond the reach of sight, Immaterial

Explanation for definition 2: There is no equal dhamma in this universe which can be provided as an example to Nibbana.
Anidassanam = A + Nidassanam
According to the book, A Dictionary of the Pali Language by Robert Caesar Childers;

Nidassanam - Pointing out, Indicating, Designation; Example, Illustration; Sight, View

and

A, and before a vowel AN - A negative particle, used only as an inseparable prefix.

So, here in this verse, the word "Anidassanaṃ" used to emphasize that an example cannot be provided to explain Nibbana.

Anantaṃ - has no end nor boundary

Anantaṃ = An + Antaṃ
According to the book, A Dictionary of the Pali Language by Robert Caesar Childers;

Antaṃ = Anto = End; Limit, Boundary; Proximity, Side; Destruction, Death; Lowest, Inferior; Interior

Here in this verse, the word "Anantaṃ" used to mention that the Nibbana has no end nor boundary. All the conditioned things has three stages, uppāda (arise), titi (exist), bhañga (cease). Since Nibbana is unconditioned it has no beginning nor end but only existence.

user43: Few thoughts, based on my understanding of Buddhism:
One: Vijñāna is not an entity, not a substance - it is an emergent effect, an emergent phenomenon known in modern terms as "subjective experience" or "subjectivity". Most people, when they read this phrase ("Consciousness that is invisible, infinite" etc.), assume it means consciousness as something objective that exists or dwells - like electromagnetic field - but in Buddhism it means subjective awareness, subjective experience, the continuously unfolding content of cognition. So we're not talking about cosmic consciousness that lives in space, we are talking about one's actual state of mind.
Two: on many occasions Buddha spoke about "support" and "condition" and "ground" - and how any such support/condition/ground is a basis of dukkha. He then advocated transcending any notion of ground, to achieve a dynamic state of mind which is ground-less, and therefore unconditional. Consider the following image from SN 12.64: 

"... Just as if there were a roofed house or a roofed hall having windows on the north, the south, or the east. When the sun rises, and a ray has entered by way of the window, where does it land?"
  "On the western wall, lord."
  "And if there is no western wall, where does it land?"
  "On the ground, lord."
  "And if there is no ground, where does it land?"
  "On the water, lord."
  "And if there is no water, where does it land?"
  "It does not land, lord."
  "In the same way, when there is no [ground such as] desire, attachment, craving, then viññāṇaṃ [=cognition or cognized] does not land and does not grow."

Also, in MN21 there is a following image:

"... Suppose a person was to come along with dye such as red lac, turmeric, indigo, or rose madder, and say: ‘I shall draw pictures on the sky, making pictures appear there.’ What do you think, mendicants? Could that person draw pictures on the sky?”
  “No, sir."
  "Why is that? Because the sky is formless and anidassano. It’s not easy to draw pictures there."

Here the word is used in context of blame and blamelessness, indicating a condition when one's pure morals provide no ground for any blame. So, anidassano refers to something that provides no surface to lean on, no basis for something to happen or to be done.
Adding points One and Two together, we can reach conclusion that Viññāṇaṃ anidassanaṃ means subjective experience that is completely open and groundless, without support, that feels like the infinite radiant sky.
This of course matches all of my teachers' descriptions of Enlightenment. For official sources, here's Dogen:

The water is clean, right down to the ground,
  Fishes are swimming like fishes.
  The sky is wide, clear through to the heavens,
  And birds are flying like birds.

or Pema Chodron, a student of Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche:

"...Then he [Trungpa Rinpoche] goes on and he talks about the mantra. And the mantra is: OM GATE GATE PARAGATE PARASAMGATE BODHI SVAHA.  
In other words, a way to practice the profound prajnaparamita is actually to say this mantra —as well as the on-going practice of continually letting go, or letting be, training in a flexible, open, ready mind. 
[Chogyam Trungpa] Rinpoche's translation is: OM, GONE (GATE is gone), GONE, (then PARAGATE) GONE BEYOND, (PARASAMGATE) GONE COMPLETELY BEYOND, (BODHI) AWAKE, (SVAHA) SO BE IT. So: OM, GONE, GONE, GONE BEYOND, GONE COMPLETELY BEYOND, AWAKE, SO BE IT.  
There's lots of translations of this, and one is: OM, TRANSCENDING, EVER TRANSCENDING, TRANSCENDING EVEN TRANSCENDING, TRANSCENDING EVEN TRANSCENDING OF TRANSCENDING, SUCHNESS, SO BE IT. 
What is wonderful about this mantra is that it is not a description of some fruition. It's actually a description of a journey that we are all on. We are all on this journey of going, going, going beyond, going even beyond.  
No matter where we are, we can move on to the next beyond. Do you see? It's not a description of: I made it! It's like this! It's a description of: OM, groundless, even more groundless, can it get more groundless than this, Oh my gosh, it's ultimately groundless, there's no ground!, and then BODHI could be translated as Aaaaaaaaaahhhhiiiiiiiii! [Makes a falling scream] So be it! [Audience laughs] 

To summarize, I think

Viññāṇaṃ anidassanaṃ anantaṃ sabbato pabhaṃ

means 

Cognition with no support, unbounded, completely transparent.

or perhaps, if we take viññāṇaṃ with an -m to be an adjective, then 

Providing no ground for the cognized [to land and grow into dukkha], without a limit [to stop it], completely transparent.

which reminds of the following instruction given by Buddha in Bahiya Sutta:

"... Then, Bāhiya, 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, Bāhiya, there is no you in connection with that. When there is no you in connection with 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."

Either way this is clearly a description of Non-abiding Nirvana (apratisthita-nirvana), also known as "suchness" (tathata).

471: <p>From <a href="https://suttacentral.net/mn49/en/sujato" rel="nofollow noreferrer">MN 49</a> (trans. Sujato):</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Consciousness that is invisible, infinite, radiant all round—that’s
  what is not within the scope of experience based on earth, water,
  fire, air, creatures, gods, the Creator, Brahmā, the gods of streaming
  radiance, the gods replete with glory, the gods of abundant fruit, the
  Overlord, and the all.</p>
  
  <p><em>Viññāṇaṃ anidassanaṃ anantaṃ sabbato pabhaṃ</em> ...</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The invisible consciousness (<em>viññāṇaṃ anidassanaṃ</em>) from MN 49 seems to be different from the sense consciousness described in <a href="https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.018.than.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">MN 18</a> e.g. eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness etc. because it is not within the scope of sense experience, according to MN 49. It is also found in <a href="https://suttacentral.net/dn11/en/sujato" rel="nofollow noreferrer">DN 11</a>. It is also translated as "consciousness without surface" (from <a href="https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.049.than.html#fn-9" rel="nofollow noreferrer">here</a>, trans. Thanissaro).</p>

<p>Question 1:<br>
What is the invisible consciousness or consciousness without surface described in MN 49 and DN 11?</p>

<p>Is it a cosmic consciousness like the one found in Hinduism? I guess not.</p>

<p>Question 2:<br>
<a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/30689/471">This answer</a> implies that this invisible consciousness or consciousness without surface is the re-linking consciousness (<em>patisandhi-viññana</em>) that connects one lifetime to the next. This also implies that the re-linking consciousness (<em>patisandhi-viññana</em>) which is the invisible consciousness or consciousness without surface (<em>viññāṇaṃ anidassanaṃ</em>) is the consciousness that descends into the womb causing materiality-mentality (<em>nāmarūpa</em>) to arise (from <a href="https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.15.0.than.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">DN 15</a>). Is this right?</p>

<p>Question 3:<br>
Also, the description of "invisible, infinite and radiant all round" sounds very similar to the "luminous mind" (<em>pabhassara citta</em>) from <a href="https://suttacentral.net/an1.51-60/en/thanissaro" rel="nofollow noreferrer">AN 1.51-52</a>. The same word "<em>pabham</em>" (luminosity) or "<em>pabhassara</em>" (luminous) is used in both MN 49 and AN 1.51-52. How is the invisible consciousness or consciousness without surface related to the luminous mind?</p>
 8157: <p>This teaching was not given to Buddhists. No one got enlightened. It has no relationship to Heartwood Buddhism.</p>
<p>Heartwood Buddhism teaches there can be no consciousness without nama-rupa (MN 9; SN 12.67; SN 22.53; MN 38; etc). But this teaching, given to unfaithful Brahma gods and Brahmins, says in infinite luminous consciousness, nama-rupa is destroyed.</p>
<p>Its not Buddhism. The nama-rupa referred to is the nama-rupa of Brahmanism. The Buddha is speaking in the language of Brahmanism to Brahmins.</p>
<p>In the suttas, there are two types of nama-rupa:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Nama-rupa for Buddhists, which is defined as earth, wind, fire, water, feeling, perception, intention, contact &amp; attention.</p>
</li>
<li><p>Nama-rupa of Brahmins, which is defined as 'naming-forms', per the Vedas; per DN 15; which the modern scholars say was composed for Brahmins.</p>
</li>
</ol>
<p>Honoring viññāṇaṃ anidassanaṃ cannot be a Buddhist. Must be a <a href="https://hinduism.stackexchange.com/">Hindu</a> (Brahmin). Taking faith in teaching given to stubborn faithless Brahma. Please remember, the suttas say the Buddha is the teacher of gods &amp; men. Often, what the Buddha teaches is for the gods and not for the human state, which is the enlightened state (per <a href="https://suttacentral.net/sn56.47/en/bodhi" rel="nofollow noreferrer">SN 56.47</a>).</p>
<p>Ajahn Sujato says viññāṇaṃ anidassanaṃ is immaterial jhana &amp; not Nibbana. But I disagree. Viññāṇaṃ anidassanaṃ is just themeless concentration of basic concentration.</p>
<p>Brahma delights in creating the world by naming forms. Buddha tells Brahma to stop naming forms; stop creating; and start meditating.</p>
<p>Viññāṇaṃ anidassanaṃ is not the non-Buddha relinking consciousness of the covert Brahmin named Buddhaghosa, who dedicated his Visuddhimagga for his rebirth in a Brahma world. This is because a pure Nibbanic consciousness cannot be reborn.</p>
<p>The description of &quot;invisible, infinite and radiant all round&quot; sounds very similar to the &quot;luminous mind&quot; (pabhassara citta) from AN 1.51-52. However, please note! The &quot;luminous mind&quot; (pabhassara citta) from AN 1.51-52 is something that can be defiled. It is not Nibbana, also.</p>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is defiled by incoming defilements.</strong></p>
<p><a href="https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an01/an01.049.than.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><strong>AN 1.51-52</strong></a></p>
</blockquote>
<p>AN 1.51-52 proves viññāṇaṃ anidassanaṃ is not Nibbana because pabhassara citta &amp; viññāṇaṃ anidassanaṃ can be defiled and become dirty &amp; filthy.</p>
<p>Viññāṇaṃ anidassanaṃ is not said to be &quot;<a href="https://suttacentral.net/define/asesa" rel="nofollow noreferrer">asesa</a>&quot; (&quot;remainderless&quot;). It is not Nibbana. It is not relinking. It is just the luminous mind without thoughts &amp; naming. It is the type of mind a beginner to meditation should have.</p>
<p>I recommend to all sincere Buddhist to not waste their time with this teaching of viññāṇaṃ anidassanaṃ. It is just a wild goose chase about nothing.</p>
 -1: <p>As i understand it:</p>
<p>Nidassana means that is <strong>apparent</strong>, eg in the sutta is of a canvas that can be painted as opposed to something not-apparent like space which can not be painted.</p>
<p>Vinnanam a noun consciousness</p>
<p>Therefore:</p>
<p><strong>Consciousness not apparent</strong></p>
<p>I think this is what the text says.</p>
<p>Some people might have a problem with this but these people will likewise have problem with all the seemingly paradoxical passages:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>riend Sāriputta, could a bhikkhu obtain such a state of concentration that (1) he would not be percipient of earth in relation to earth; (2) of water in relation to water; (3) of fire in relation to fire; (4) of air in relation to air; (5) of the base of the infinity of space in relation to the base of the infinity of space; (6) of the base of the infinity of consciousness in relation to the base of the infinity of consciousness; (7) of the base of nothingness in relation to the base of nothingness; (8) of the base of neither-perception-nor-non-perception in relation to the base of neither-perception-nor-non-perception; (9) of this world in relation to this world; (10) of the other world in relation to the other world, but he would still be percipient?”</p>
<p>“He could, friend Ānanda.”</p>
<p>“But how, friend Sāriputta, could he obtain such a state of concentration?”</p>
<p>“On one occasion, friend Ānanda, I was dwelling right here in Sāvatthī in the Blind Men’s Grove. There I attained such a state of concentration that I was not percipient of earth in relation to earth; of water in relation to water; of fire in relation to fire; of air in relation to air; of the base of the infinity of space in relation to the base of the infinity of space; of the base of the infinity of consciousness in relation to the base of the infinity of consciousness; of the base of nothingness in relation to the base of nothingness; of the base of neither-perception-nor-non-perception in relation to the base of neither-perception-nor-non-perception; of this world in relation to this world; of the other world in relation to the other world, but I was still percipient.”</p>
<p>“But of what was the Venerable Sāriputta percipient on that occasion?”</p>
<p>“One perception arose and another perception ceased in me: ‘The cessation of existence is nibbāna; the cessation of existence is nibbāna.’ Just as, when a fire of twigs is burning, one flame arises and another flame ceases, so one perception arose and another perception ceased in me: ‘The cessation of existence is nibbāna; the cessation of existence is nibbāna.’ On that occasion, friend, I was percipient: ‘The cessation of existence is nibbāna.’”</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Basically you have to imagine what the answer is if that same question is posed in terms of congnizance rather than percepience and you will see that the passages are analogical.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>perception &amp; consciousness are conjoined, not disjoined, what one perceives that one cognizes.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>If one thinks that vinnanam anidassana posits a super consciousness then one will posit that the above sutta posits a super perception.</p>
<p>Furthermore the same will happen with this passage:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>There is the case where a monk, with the complete transcending of the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception, enters &amp; remains in the cessation of perception &amp; feeling. This is another pleasure more extreme &amp; refined than that.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Here they will analogically criticize the text for positing a super feeling.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Now it's possible, Ananda, that some wanderers of other persuasions might say, 'Gotama the contemplative speaks of the cessation of perception &amp; feeling and yet describes it as pleasure. What is this? How can this be?' When they say that, they are to be told, 'It's not the case, friends, that the Blessed One describes only pleasant feeling as included under pleasure. Wherever pleasure is found, in whatever terms, the Blessed One describes it as pleasure.'&quot;</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Likewise the verse when properly translated is criticized by people of other persuasions:</p>
<p>&quot;This verse speaks of cessation of consciousness but describes it as consciousness&quot;</p>
<p>There are other Sutta related to this which talk about consciousness unestablished, eg:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Suppose, bhikkhus, there was a house or a hall with a peaked roof, with windows on the northern, southern, and eastern sides. When the sun rises and a beam of light enters through a window, where would it become established?”</p>
<p>“On the western wall, venerable sir.”</p>
<p>“If there were no western wall, where would it become established?”</p>
<p>“On the earth, venerable sir.”</p>
<p>“If there were no earth, where would it become established?”</p>
<p>“On the water, venerable sir.”</p>
<p>“If there were no water, where would it become established?”</p>
<p>“It would not become established anywhere, venerable sir.”</p>
<p>“So too, bhikkhus, if there is no lust for the nutriment edible food … for the nutriment contact … for the nutriment mental volition … for the nutriment consciousness … consciousness does not become established there and come to growth. Where consciousness does not become established and come to growth … … I say that is without sorrow, anguish, and despair.” <a href="https://suttacentral.net/sn12.64/en/bodhi" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://suttacentral.net/sn12.64/en/bodhi</a></p>
</blockquote>
<p>Another here:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>&quot;If a monk abandons passion for the property of consciousness, then owing to the abandonment of passion, the support is cut off, and there is no base for consciousness. Consciousness, thus unestablished, not proliferating, not performing any function, is released. <a href="https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.055.than.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.055.than.html</a></p>
</blockquote>
<p>Another yet:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>That, bhikkhus, is Mara the Evil One searching for the consciousness of the clansman Vakkali, wondering: ‘Where now has the consciousness of the clansman Vakkali been established?’ However, bhikkhus, with consciousness unestablished, the clansman Vakkali has attained final Nibbāna. <a href="https://suttacentral.net/sn22.87/en/bodhi" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://suttacentral.net/sn22.87/en/bodhi</a></p>
</blockquote>
<p>Now there are several ways of translating vinnanam anidassana which are not literal but i prefer the literal one.</p>
<p>I think that this is more or less the proper sutta analysis.</p>
 14468: <p>In Kevaddha Sutta (DN 11) it has mentioned that,</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Viññāṇaṃ anidassanaṃ anantaṃ sabbato pabhaṃ<br>
  Ettha āpo ca paṭhavī tejo vāyo na gādhati<br>
  Ettha dīghañca rassañca aṇuṃ thūlaṃ subhāsubhaṃ<br>
  Ettha nāmañca rūpañca asesaṃ uparujjhati<br>
  Viññāṇassa nirodhena etthetaṃ uparujjhatīti.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>This is a verse about <strong>Nibbana.</strong> Meaning of the verse is mentioned below;</p>

<ul>
<li><strong>Viññāṇaṃ</strong> - Nibbana</li>
</ul>

<p><em>Explanation</em>: The word "Viññāṇa" has three interpretations.</p>

<ol>
<li>"vijanatiti vinnanam" - 'get to know' is known as Viññāṇa.<br>
According to this explanation, the word "Viññāṇa" defined as an agent noun. In other words consciousness is defined as the doer who cognizes objects.</li>
<li>"vijanati etenati vinnanam" - 'get to know by the use of' is known as Viññāṇa.<br>
According to this explanation, the word "Viññāṇa" defined as an ablative noun. In other words consciousness is defined as the instrument used to cognize objects.</li>
<li>"vijanana mattam vinnanam" - in the sense of knowing it is known as Viññāṇa.<br>
According to this explanation, the word "Viññāṇa" defined as its true nature. This is the most suitable definition because the consciousness is conditioned. i.e. it has no power of independently appear without the help of its causes. Its mere function is knowing the object.  </li>
</ol>

<p>Here in this verse, the word Viññāṇaṃ (consciousness) was described using the second definition which I have provided above. "Viññāṇaṃ" used to mention "what should be cognized by consciousness (more precisely by the four supermundane wholesome path consciousness)". So, it has used to mention nothing else but <strong>Nibbana.</strong> We can find more evidence for this interpretation by looking at the commentary (Atthakathā) on Kevaddha Sutta:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Tattha <strong>viññātabban</strong> ti viññānaη, <strong>nibbānassa</strong> taη nāmaη.</p>
</blockquote>

<ul>
<li><strong>Anidassanaṃ</strong> - This word has two definitions in this verse;  

<ol>
<li>Cannot be seen with eye consciousness.</li>
<li>Cannot provide an example.</li>
</ol></li>
</ul>

<p><em>Explanation for definition 1</em>: There are two types of rūpa.</p>

<ol>
<li><p>Sanidassana rūpa - Vanna rūpa. In other words whatever visible (or known) to eye consciousness.</p></li>
<li><p>Anidassana rūpa - Rūpa which are not visible (or known) to eye consciousness. (For example, Shabdha rūpa, Gandha rūpa, Potthabbha rūpa, etc...)</p></li>
</ol>

<p>Here in this verse, the word "Anidassanaṃ" used not to mention a rūpa but to emphasize that <strong>Nibbana</strong> is not visible to the eye consciousness. In other words, Nibbana cannot be the object for eye consciousness.</p>

<p>Also according to the book, A Dictionary of the Pali Language by Robert Caesar Childers, the word "Anidassana" has the following meaning;</p>

<blockquote>
  <p><strong>Anidassana</strong> - Beyond the reach of sight, Immaterial</p>
</blockquote>

<p><em>Explanation for definition 2</em>: There is no equal dhamma in this universe which can be provided as an example to Nibbana.</p>

<p><strong><em>Anidassanam = A + Nidassanam</em></strong></p>

<p>According to the book, A Dictionary of the Pali Language by Robert Caesar Childers;</p>

<blockquote>
  <p><strong>Nidassanam</strong> - Pointing out, Indicating, Designation; Example, Illustration; Sight, View</p>
</blockquote>

<p>and</p>

<blockquote>
  <p><strong>A</strong>, and before a vowel <strong>AN</strong> - A negative particle, used only as an inseparable prefix.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>So, here in this verse, the word "Anidassanaṃ" used to emphasize that an example cannot be provided to explain <strong>Nibbana</strong>.</p>

<ul>
<li><strong>Anantaṃ</strong> - has no end nor boundary</li>
</ul>

<p><strong><em>Anantaṃ = An + Antaṃ</em></strong></p>

<p>According to the book, A Dictionary of the Pali Language by Robert Caesar Childers;</p>

<blockquote>
  <p><strong>Antaṃ</strong> = <strong>Anto</strong> = End; Limit, Boundary; Proximity, Side; Destruction, Death; Lowest, Inferior; Interior</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Here in this verse, the word "Anantaṃ" used to mention that the <strong>Nibbana</strong> has no end nor boundary. All the conditioned things has three stages, uppāda (arise), titi (exist), bhañga (cease). Since Nibbana is unconditioned it has no beginning nor end but only existence.</p>
 43: <p>Few thoughts, based on my understanding of Buddhism:</p>

<p>One: <em>Vijñāna</em> is not an entity, not a substance - it is an emergent effect, an emergent phenomenon known in modern terms as "subjective experience" or "subjectivity". Most people, when they read this phrase ("Consciousness that is invisible, infinite" etc.), assume it means consciousness as something objective that exists or dwells - like electromagnetic field - but in Buddhism it means subjective awareness, subjective experience, the continuously unfolding content of cognition. So we're not talking about cosmic consciousness that lives in space, we are talking about one's actual state of mind.</p>

<p>Two: on many occasions Buddha spoke about "support" and "condition" and "ground" - and how any such support/condition/ground is a basis of dukkha. He then advocated transcending any notion of ground, to achieve a dynamic state of mind which is ground-less, and therefore unconditional. Consider the following image from SN 12.64: </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>"... Just as if there were a roofed house or a roofed hall having windows on the north, the south, or the east. When the sun rises, and a ray has entered by way of the window, where does it land?"<br>
  "On the western wall, lord."<br>
  "And if there is no western wall, where does it land?"<br>
  "On the ground, lord."<br>
  "And if there is no ground, where does it land?"<br>
  "On the water, lord."<br>
  "And if there is no water, where does it land?"<br>
  "It does not land, lord."<br>
  "In the same way, when there is no [ground such as] desire, attachment, craving, then <em>viññāṇaṃ</em> [=cognition or cognized] does not land and does not grow."</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Also, in MN21 there is a following image:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>"... Suppose a person was to come along with dye such as red lac, turmeric, indigo, or rose madder, and say: ‘I shall draw pictures on the sky, making pictures appear there.’ What do you think, mendicants? Could that person draw pictures on the sky?”<br>
  “No, sir."<br>
  "Why is that? Because the sky is formless and <em>anidassano</em>. It’s not easy to draw pictures there."</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Here the word is used in context of blame and blamelessness, indicating a condition when one's pure morals provide no ground for any blame. So, <em>anidassano</em> refers to something that provides no surface to lean on, no basis for something to happen or to be done.</p>

<p>Adding points One and Two together, we can reach conclusion that <em>Viññāṇaṃ anidassanaṃ</em> means subjective experience that is completely open and groundless, without support, that feels like the infinite radiant sky.</p>

<p>This of course matches all of my teachers' descriptions of Enlightenment. For official sources, here's Dogen:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>The water is clean, right down to the ground,<br>
  Fishes are swimming like fishes.<br>
  The sky is wide, clear through to the heavens,<br>
  And birds are flying like birds.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>or Pema Chodron, a student of Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>"...Then he [Trungpa Rinpoche] goes on and he talks about the mantra. And the mantra is: OM GATE GATE PARAGATE PARASAMGATE BODHI SVAHA.  </p>
  
  <p>In other words, a way to practice the profound prajnaparamita is actually to say this mantra —as well as the on-going practice of continually letting go, or letting be, training in a flexible, open, ready mind. </p>
  
  <p>[Chogyam Trungpa] Rinpoche's translation is: OM, GONE (GATE is gone), GONE, (then PARAGATE) GONE BEYOND, (PARASAMGATE) GONE COMPLETELY BEYOND, (BODHI) AWAKE, (SVAHA) SO BE IT. So: OM, GONE, GONE, GONE BEYOND, GONE COMPLETELY BEYOND, AWAKE, SO BE IT.  </p>
  
  <p>There's lots of translations of this, and one is: OM, TRANSCENDING, EVER TRANSCENDING, TRANSCENDING EVEN TRANSCENDING, TRANSCENDING EVEN TRANSCENDING OF TRANSCENDING, SUCHNESS, SO BE IT. </p>
  
  <p>What is wonderful about this mantra is that it is not a description of some fruition. It's actually a description of a journey that we are all on. We are all on this journey of going, going, going beyond, going even beyond.  </p>
  
  <p>No matter where we are, we can move on to the next beyond. Do you see? It's not a description of: I made it! It's like this! It's a description of: OM, groundless, even more groundless, can it get more groundless than this, Oh my gosh, it's ultimately groundless, there's no ground!, and then BODHI could be translated as Aaaaaaaaaahhhhiiiiiiiii! [Makes a falling scream] So be it! [Audience laughs] </p>
</blockquote>

<p>To summarize, I think</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Viññāṇaṃ anidassanaṃ anantaṃ sabbato pabhaṃ</p>
</blockquote>

<p>means </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Cognition with no support, unbounded, completely transparent.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>or perhaps, if we take <em>viññāṇaṃ</em> with an <em>-m</em> to be an adjective, then </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Providing no ground for the cognized [to land and grow into dukkha], without a limit [to stop it], completely transparent.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>which reminds of the following instruction given by Buddha in Bahiya Sutta:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>"... Then, Bāhiya, 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, Bāhiya, there is no you in connection with that. When there is no you in connection with 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."</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Either way this is clearly a description of Non-abiding Nirvana (<em>apratisthita-nirvana</em>), also known as "suchness" (<em>tathata</em>).</p>
