How to distinguish consciousness and perception?

[barcsimalsi]

I think the MN43 quote is not that you can't understand some differences between perception and consciousness, but that you can't have one without the other. No painting without canvas, that sort of idea.

I broadly agree, but I don't think there is a mutual dependence - I'd say that perception depends upon consciousness, but not necessarily the other way round. Consider the meditative state of "cessation of perception and feeling", for example.

A dialogue between ven Kotthika and ven Sariputta in MN43,

"What is the difference, your reverence, between that dead thing, passed away, and that monk who has attained to the stopping of perception and feeling?"

"Your reverence, the bodily activities of that dead thing, passed away, have been stopped, have subsided, the vocal activities have been stopped, have subsided, the mental activities have been stopped, have subsided, the vitality is entirely destroyed, the heat allayed, the sense-organs are entirely broken asunder. But that monk who has attained to the stopping of perception and feeling, although his bodily activities have been stopped, have subsided, although his vocal activities have been stopped, have subsided, although his mental activities have been stopped, have subsided, his vitality is not entirely destroyed, his heat is not allayed, his sense-organs are purified. This, your reverence, is the difference between a dead thing, passed away, and that monk who has attained to the stopping of perception and feeling."

It doesn't mention a thing about consciousness or awareness so i wonder if consciousness also subsided.

[SamKR]

But going back to the OP, what do you think is the difference between consciousness and perception?

I understand consciousness as mere presence, and perceptions as what is present. When I say "what is present" I don't mean an object out there but the pure "real" experience without assumptions.
Now, without "what is present" the idea of presence cannot exist. And without presence (in absence) "what is" is not presented/discerned/manifested.

To make myself more clear, let me present different modes of attention we may have in ascending order of refinement:

1. Normally, we assume that an object is inherently lying there, and it inherently possesses the attributes (like color, shape, size, etc.).
That is, in our normal mode of attention we think: "I am here, and I am conscious of an object lying there."
Example: "I am here, and I am seeing the red rectangular table lying there."

2. We can discard the assumption of an object inherently lying there having inherent attributes, and shift our attention to the mere attributes (perceptions, like color, shape). Instead of seeing a red rectangular table there (which is an assumption), we can just see red & rectangle (which is not an assumption but a perception, an actual experience).
So the mode of attention is: "I am here, and I am conscious of the perception there."
Example: "I am here, and I am seeing the red rectangle there."

3. Now, the idea that "perceptions are there" does not make sense. In perceptions idea of locality does not apply.
So we refine our mode of attention to: "I am here, and I am conscious of the perceptions"
Example: "I am here, and I am am seeing the red rectangle."

4. The idea of "here" only exists in relation to "there". So the idea of "here" also evaporates.
So with further refinement the mode of attention becomes: "I am, and I am conscious of the perception."
Example: "I am, and I am seeing the red rectangle."

5. With the understanding of anatta our assumption about "I" evaporates.
So the mode of attention now is: "Consciousness of perceptions."
Example: "Seeing the red rectangle."
Thus we reach the stage as described in Bahiya sutta: In seeing of the red-rectangle (in the seen) just the seeing of the red-rectangle (just the seen) - no seer" and no seen object.
In the seeing of a red rectangular table, "table" is just an idea. In reality of mere seeing, newer and newer "images" of red rectangle (seen) are appearing (presenting/manifesting) and disappearing.

[chownah]

SamKR,
I like your breakdown. I have a slightly different take on it. While leaving perhaps most do it intact my view of how perception and consciousness is different from yours.

1. Consciousness performs cognition. (Might be better to think that consciousness IS cognition to avoid self making.)
2. Consciousness must be present for cognition to occur. (Might be better to think that consciousness IS cognition here similarly and also elsewhere.)
3. Consciousness can, if present, cognize perceptions.
4. Consciousness can also cognize mental objects which I view to be different from perceptions.
5. Perceptions are the simplest forms of cognition of stimulus received at the FIVE sense doors (mental objects are not perceptions) and they only occur if the sense door, it's object, and consciousness come together.

So, my idea is that if the eye is open and light is entering it and consciousness is present then colors perceived are cognized first..."I see green! yellow, red.".....then shapes are cognized....."I see different shapes of green, yellow, and red"......and then we mistakenly cognize selves...."the red shape is a table, the green shape is a bush, the yellow shape is a banana".....and then we perhaps cognize similarities and differences....."the banana was green yesterday but is yellow today and looks like it will taste like the ones I like to eat, yummy, it would be good if I could make a banana split with some chocolate ice cream which I cognize is located in the freezer.

So you see, my view on consciousness and it's job of cognition performs a multitude of different tasks covering the entire range more or less of mental activities as well as doing the preliminary job of sense input also known as "perception".....so, I guess for me, perception is one type of cognition; the recognition of sensory input known as perception.

I guess......don't know for sure......

I have never tried to actually state these ideas before so there may be some mistakes or even outright mistaken ideas.....criticism is encouraged.

chownah

[SamKR]

Thanks, chownah, for your perspective. I may have misunderstood you, but It appears to me that you see the same consciousness cognizing different things, and that first there is consciousness then there are perceptions and others.
But in my understanding, we cannot say that it is the same consciousness doing different cognitions. Saying so would lead to a conclusion that consciousness exists inherently as some essence; that would not be in accordance to teaching of emptiness. Also, for each consciousness there is corresponding perception - coarising being dependent upon each other, not separate from each other.

[chownah]

SamKR,
Good post. The idea that consciousness is an essence is not what I'm trying to portray in that I agree with you that consciousness is empty of self which precludes it's continued existence as some sort of essence.

One of the reasons I posted is that I think that it is unlikely that there will be an airtight analysis of feeling/perception/consciousness for many reasons not the least of which is that the meanings of these words in the English language are multiple and often poorly defined and relying on each other for support. I have no faith that Pali scholars have been able to discern exactly which Pali words correspond to which English words.....perhaps perception and consciousness got reversed for example.....I am no Pali scholar (haha) but I really don't think that there is a broad enough body of Pali literature to be able to clearly understand the precise meaning of the Pali words which are translated into perception and consciousness. Think about the HUGE body of literature on the English language which is directed at understanding perception and consciousness!.......and still there is a multiplicity of views.

Seems like we agree that a primary consideration is to maintain the view of emptiness which I take to mean the same thing as having no doctrine of self.

So, having said that, your posts have piqued my curiosity about some things and I think I will take some time to research them and perhaps post here again later although my most pressing research project of the moment is my farming...I don't want some young plants I transplanted to wither from lack of attention/water! DO for farming includes withered plants is conditioned by lack of water!

chownah

[chownah]

SamKR,
I read in MN43 that in one instance consciousness is conjoined with discernment and in another instance consciousness is conjoined with perception and feeling. I take this to mean that consciousness acts in two different capacities one being the intake of data from the sense media and the other being analysis and judgement sorts of things.

You posted that consciousness and perception coarise and are mutually dependent. What reference do you have that shows this?

Also, can you expand on your idea that consciousness is mere presence?......presence of what?....etc. Also, is there some sutta to support this idea? It seems to me since consciousness is repeatedly described as having the function of cognizing that your concept of mere presence seems to be too passive of a representation.
chownah

[SamKR]

SamKR,
I read in MN43 that in one instance consciousness is conjoined with discernment and in another instance consciousness is conjoined with perception and feeling. I take this to mean that consciousness acts in two different capacities one being the intake of data from the sense media and the other being analysis and judgement sorts of things.

I do not understand consciousness (vinnana) as something that takes data or analyzes anything. I understand it as a process itself: cognizing/knowing/manifesting/presenting/arising/appearing/"being aware of"/existing itself is consciousness. Anything (perception, feeling, etc.) that has this very quality of manifesting/presenting itself is said to be conjoined with consciousness.

You posted that consciousness and perception coarise and are mutually dependent. What reference do you have that shows this?

The same sutta MN43 implies that they are mutually dependent. And there are many suttas that imply or directly state this. For example, Nagara Sutta and Nalakalapiyo Sutta.

It is as if two sheaves of reeds were to stand leaning against one another. In the same way, from name-&-form as a requisite condition comes consciousness, from consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form.

Also, can you expand on your idea that consciousness is mere presence?......presence of what?....etc. Also, is there some sutta to support this idea? It seems to me since consciousness is repeatedly described as having the function of cognizing that your concept of mere presence seems to be too passive of a representation.
chownah

Being present = presence = function of cognizing. Being present is knowing or cognizing. When do you know something? You know something (dhamma) when that thing is present or that thing comes to the spotlight of awareness. You don't know that thing if it is absent. Then the very quality of presence itself is consciousness. Presence (consciousness) of what? Presence of perception, feeling, thoughts, fabrication, any experience or anything that arises or known. Sutta support is MN43 itself:

"'It cognizes, it cognizes': Thus, friend, it is said to be 'consciousness.' And what does it cognize? It cognizes 'pleasant.' It cognizes 'painful.' It cognizes 'neither painful nor pleasant.' 'It cognizes, it cognizes': Thus it is said to be 'consciousness.'"

If there is anything that cognizes then it is consciousness (cognizing) itself that cognizes. There is no separate inherently or independently existing thing that possesses the separate function of cognizing. So, feeling feels and consciousness cognizes the feeling (that is consciousness brings the feeling to the spotlight of existence or appearance) - and they are mutually dependent.

That is how I understand it currently which, of course, is subject to change.

[Spiny Norman]

But going back to the OP, what do you think is the difference between consciousness and perception?

I understand consciousness as mere presence, and perceptions as what is present. When I say "what is present" I don't mean an object out there but the pure "real" experience without assumptions.
Now, without "what is present" the idea of presence cannot exist. And without presence (in absence) "what is" is not presented/discerned/manifested.

I think you're confusing mind-consciousness and eye-consciousness ( for example ). If one becomes conscious of a perception or feeling or whatever, then IMO those are examples of mind-consciousness.
Compared to say eye-consciousness, which I see as the cognition of basic visual information, followed by perception and recognition, then feeling.

As for your statement "without what is present the idea of presence cannot exist", well, yes, but I think it's simpler to say that consciousness always has an object.

[Spiny Norman]

It doesn't mention a thing about consciousness or awareness so i wonder if consciousness also subsided.

As a general observation about meditative states like the jhanas, I'd say that there is consciousness of these states.
See here: http://www.palikanon.com/english/wtb/table1.htm

[daverupa]

But going back to the OP, what do you think is the difference between consciousness and perception?

I understand consciousness as mere presence, and perceptions as what is present. When I say "what is present" I don't mean an object out there but the pure "real" experience without assumptions.
Now, without "what is present" the idea of presence cannot exist. And without presence (in absence) "what is" is not presented/discerned/manifested.

I think you're confusing mind-consciousness and eye-consciousness ( for example ). If one becomes conscious of a perception or feeling or whatever, then IMO those are examples of mind-consciousness.
Compared to say eye-consciousness, which I see as the cognition of basic visual information, followed by perception and recognition, then feeling.

As for your statement "without what is present the idea of presence cannot exist", well, yes, but I think it's simpler to say that consciousness always has an object.

Following Nanavira, I think it's helpful to use 'presence' as a translation for vinnana in cases of examining tripartite contact.

For any presence, the presence is not replicated elsewhere: senses' arising or passing is present, else it is experienced as change-while-standing (e.g. one note is not another note & one song is not another song even though they occur over a duration as reflected in memory, but even hearing the same song again is in in toto differently present if for no other reason than that later it is the n+1 occasion of hearing it, instead of the earlier n-occasion, with consequent differences in citta, etc. This formulation, incidentally, makes positing momentariness unnecessary; anicca is a principled result of conditionality, nothing more - it doesn't need to get ossified in mental processes in that way).

Perceptions are the way sense impressions are broken up into meaningful bits. Perceiving specific notes can take training, while discerning music is relatively common. Perceiving different colors is relatively common, but discerning a lot of color-names is less common, and agreeing with someone about certain shades is less common still. Perception is an interesting event.

And, of course, there are one of three hedonic tones to any sort of perceptual presence.

And, finally, these all occur on top of one another.

[SamKR]

I understand consciousness as mere presence, and perceptions as what is present. When I say "what is present" I don't mean an object out there but the pure "real" experience without assumptions.
Now, without "what is present" the idea of presence cannot exist. And without presence (in absence) "what is" is not presented/discerned/manifested.

I think you're confusing mind-consciousness and eye-consciousness ( for example ). If one becomes conscious of a perception or feeling or whatever, then IMO those are examples of mind-consciousness.
Compared to say eye-consciousness, which I see as the cognition of basic visual information, followed by perception and recognition, then feeling.

Just like eye-consciousness is the presence of vision (color, shape), mind-consciousness is the presence of ideas, thoughts, images. Just as for eye-consciousness (cakkhuviññāṇa) there is corresponding form-perception (rūpasaññā), for mind-consciousness (manoviññāṇa) there is corresponding idea-perception (dhammasaññā). (Similarly we have others: sotaviññāṇa & saddasaññā, ghāṇaviññāṇa & gandhasaññā, jivhāviññāṇa & rasasaññā, kāyaviñañā & phoṭṭhabbasaññā).
Suttas also imply that mind-consciousness can be associated with all others. Mahavedalla Sutta says:

"Friend, these five faculties — each with a separate range, a separate domain, not experiencing one another's range & domain: the eye-faculty, the ear-faculty, the nose-faculty, the tongue-faculty, & the body-faculty — have the intellect as their [common] arbitrator. The intellect is what experiences [all] their ranges & domains." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

As for your statement "without what is present the idea of presence cannot exist", well, yes, but I think it's simpler to say that consciousness always has an object.

Daverupa's post above addresses this part. Thanks, Dave.

[chownah]

Following Nanavira, I think it's helpful to use 'presence' as a translation for vinnana in cases of examining tripartite contact.

For any presence, the presence is not replicated elsewhere: senses' arising or passing is present, else it is experienced as change-while-standing (e.g. one note is not another note & one song is not another song even though they occur over a duration as reflected in memory, but even hearing the same song again is in in toto differently present if for no other reason than that later it is the n+1 occasion of hearing it, instead of the earlier n-occasion, with consequent differences in citta, etc. This formulation, incidentally, makes positing momentariness unnecessary; anicca is a principled result of conditionality, nothing more - it doesn't need to get ossified in mental processes in that way).

Perceptions are the way sense impressions are broken up into meaningful bits. Perceiving specific notes can take training, while discerning music is relatively common. Perceiving different colors is relatively common, but discerning a lot of color-names is less common, and agreeing with someone about certain shades is less common still. Perception is an interesting event.

And, of course, there are one of three hedonic tones to any sort of perceptual presence.

And, finally, these all occur on top of one another.

Yes, there are the three hedonic tones (pleasant, unpleasant, and neither) but it is consciousness which seems to bring them out:

"'Consciousness, consciousness': Thus is it said. To what extent, friend, is it said to be 'consciousness'?"

"'It cognizes, it cognizes': Thus, friend, it is said to be 'consciousness.' And what does it cognize? It cognizes 'pleasant.' It cognizes 'painful.' It cognizes 'neither painful nor pleasant.' 'It cognizes, it cognizes': Thus it is said to be 'consciousness.'"
..........................
So is it the same instance of consciousness having arisen as a mere presence to accept a perception also making a determination of the hedonic tone or is it another occurrence of consciousness which does this?......seems like we are slipping off the plate of "merely present", perhaps.
chownah

[daverupa]

So is it the same instance of consciousness having arisen as a mere presence to accept a perception also making a determination of the hedonic tone or is it another occurrence of consciousness which does this?......seems like we are slipping off the plate of "merely present", perhaps.
chownah

Not really. Vinnana doesn't arise as a mere presence; vinnana basically means, "presence of".

So, the presence of a distinction of hedonic tones includes everything, as it were, on top of the others: vinnana, sanna, vedana.

This idea "also making a determination" is odd, since vinnana isn't doing that, sanna is. The presence of making determinations is vinnana, and how it feels is vedana. All on top of one another.

As soon as differently present percepts obtain, we must speak of different vinnana alongside different sanna & vedana. Different, dependently arisen.

[chownah]

So is it the same instance of consciousness having arisen as a mere presence to accept a perception also making a determination of the hedonic tone or is it another occurrence of consciousness which does this?......seems like we are slipping off the plate of "merely present", perhaps.
chownah

Not really. Vinnana doesn't arise as a mere presence; vinnana basically means, "presence of".

So, the presence of a distinction of hedonic tones includes everything, as it were, on top of the others: vinnana, sanna, vedana.

This idea "also making a determination" is odd, since vinnana isn't doing that, sanna is. The presence of making determinations is vinnana, and how it feels is vedana. All on top of one another.

As soon as differently present percepts obtain, we must speak of different vinnana alongside different sanna & vedana. Different, dependently arisen.

You say that vinnana basically means "presence of".....is this your translation of the Pali or is it from somewhere else?
I guess that vinnana usually is translated as consciousness, do you know the Pali word which is translated into cognize? I guess I can accept consciousness as being "presence of" (I would have to give it some more thought though) except that the Buddha says that what it does is cognize and I'm having a difficult time with what the Buddha says being pointing to just presence of.
My first post on this thread pointed to the conjoined nature of con/per/feel as I am very comfortable with dealing with them (and other things in DO as we'll) through my overarching views of having no doctrine of self. It was, however pointed out that the Buddha did differentiate between these things so it seems valid to discuss the differences etc......and I agree. One way to do this is through analysis and here I a taking analysis to mean breaking a concept down into constituent parts and considering the parts separately so as to determine their qualities and functions. It does seem to me that this is what the Buddha was doing when I he expounded DO....and it is the way that many people see the world i.e. as being a big self that can be analyzed into constituent selves so as to better understand. It has been suggested by some (notably Thanissaro) that one can make good progress on the path if one can discern the relationship between any two of the "units" which comprise DO........so it seems that it might be important to have a good understanding of how these "units" interact.....so I get a bit conflicted in that some people (like your post here for instance) like to run them all together and I agree with this completely and in fact I carry it way further as I am of the view that experience essentially cannot be divided into subunits, while other people are looking for meaningful ideas to contemplate within the "units" of DO......or maybe it is the tension between these two views of experience which provides the zen slap on the face.

I don't know where all this came from.....but I don't have time right now to proofread it.....hope it is legible.
chownah

[daverupa]

hope it is legible.

So far, it seems so.

You say that vinnana basically means "presence of".....is this your translation of the Pali or is it from somewhere else?

I can't translate Pali, I can only hammer away at it as a rather myopic hobbyist.

I'm not trying to say that "presence of" translates the term, but I am saying that vinnana is never alone, and therefore must have a buddy, and so I take the term as pointing at the necessity of a buddy: "presence of X" where X = buddy, presence of = vinnana.

vinnana <--> namarupa, in other words. It doesn't take a translation to note that the term always functions with a buddy.

I guess that vinnana usually is translated as consciousness, do you know the Pali word which is translated into cognize?

I had thought it was a conjugation of vinnana: something akin to "vinnana vinnanizes X". It's going to take others to discuss these language details, though, as I have a hard time keeping even adverbs and adjectives straight.

the Buddha says that what it does is cognize and I'm having a difficult time with what the Buddha says being pointing to just presence of.

I wonder what you think the practical difference is? "Vinnana cognizes X", "presence of X"... they seem quite similar to me (though perhaps there is a danger of ossifying whatever is present as a self-thing, and not a process-flow-snapshot, in either case).

I think experience can indeed be broken up into units ('snapshot'), and this happens all the time. Currently, you are breaking up a Jackson Pollock light-show into, among other things, letter-units and a mouse-cursor-unit (or you're on a phone, which has been broken up into phone-unit from the surround). It's just that none of these units is a self-unit, but instead dependently arisen.

The presence of visual input & seeing is contact - The vinnana of rupa & eye is contact.

---

Somewhere there was some discussion about the similarity between the definitions of sanna and vinnana, since both 'cognize' a similar realm. That discussion would probably apply here... I wonder where I saw it...