We were posting at the same time! I'll look at this later. What I posted just now does not address these new questions.

Ani: From where does the "knowing" property come or to whom does it belong to?

Ani: Is "knowing" a eternal property of the mind/chitta?

Ani: Can you explain more on "knowing" property of mind?

To answer these I will refer to a non-Theravada source, "Present Fresh Wakefulness" by Chokyi Nyima Rinpoche. He uses the term mind, but I think citta, which is commonly used in Thai Forest Tradition, could be substituted. I've lifted parts from pp. 44-46, using bold where he italicizes:

One of the characteristics of mind is that it is empty, in the sense that it has not come into being as any concrete thing; it does not assume any particular form. At the same time, it is aware. It has a nature that knows, unobstructedly.

Mind's nonarising essence is empty and its nature is cognizant, unobstructedly aware. We speak about miond's two qualities, essence and nature. These two words describe the same identity. These qualities are an indivisible unity, just as you cannot separate water from its inherent wetness.

Now we need to ask: does this empty nature of mind exist, or not? Is there such a thing or not? If we say that it is, does it exist in the same way as some other concrete thing, like earth, water, fire or wind? We have to agree that mind is not material. The nature of mind does not exist in a material way like those four elements. Yet if you say it does not exist, you have to deal with the fact that it is not a total nothingness, because mind is capable of knowing in all different ways.

Mind, however is described as inconcrete because it is intangible, formless. Being formless, it has no color, no smell, no tangible characteristics whatsoever. Still, if it exists, we have to be able to describe it. We can start by saying that mind is empty. Empty mind is similar to space. It is important to note here that it is not the same as space; that this is only an example, not the literal meaning.

Our mind, the knower, is like space because it has no form, color or shape. In short, mind is an empty cognizance. Space is merely empty. The empty quality of mind and the empty quality of space are similar. But mind can cognize; it can kno, while space cannot. Because of this cognizant quality, its intrinsic ability to know, mind is called empty cognizance, while space is called empty void, empty nothingness. Mind is naturally empty and naturally cognizant. It is empty in essence and cognizant by nature---and these qualities are an indivisible unity, primordially, from the very beginning. No one made the self-existing nature the way it naturally is. It is not made by eithier a divine or devilish power, not did any human being create it. Nobody made mind the way it is; it is just naturally so.

It is because of mind's cognizamt quality that we experience. And it is in the act of experiencing that we become confused. It is not through the empty quality that confusion arises----only through cognizing. This cognizant quality, when directed towards experincing, fixates on things like "It is," and all thought of "I and mine, you and yours." It is precisely our failure to know this that constitutes ignorance. (End of quotes from Present Fresh Wakefulness)

I don't find any inconsistencies when comparing this to Theravada writings or to things Ajahn Chaiya and Ajahn Suchart have said to me. More details are given!

Now for your last question.

Ani: Is "knowing/awareness" same as "consciousness"?

In Theravada, I've noticed that sometimes these terms are used interchangeably. However, technically speaking, consciousness means what happens when there is a sensual or mental contact. When this occurs, three types of feeling may occur---pleasant, unpleasant or neutral.

You just have to make your own differentiation because the term "consciousness" is often misused. And as you said correctly, consciousness is one of the aggregates to be extinguished.

Understood, thanks for taking precious time from your practice to explain these delicate concepts.

The difference in meaning of awareness or knowing and consciousness used in Pali canon as an aggregate to be destroyed always troubled me, now it is clarified. It is a very nuanced detail, you caught it rightly.

i read your response twice and very slowly on cognizance nature of mind it is beautifully articulated. It is final state of absorption or immersion in pure knowingness of mind.

Very systematically articulated by the Tibetan author!

Thanks for sharing!

I am convinced of your explanation on how it is used in Buddhism.

in Sankhya, chitta or mind is inert or semi-inert, it gets its awareness from atma. Here, there is division of the unity of chitta/mind and its attributes. That is water and its attribute or property of wetness is different and distinct.

Only the interpretation of the nature of the mind are different but the immersion or absorption or samadhi state in which these truths spoken by respective monks are valid.

I am convinced by your explanations of the usage and applications of these words in Buddhism, it cleaned up my psyche.