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).Spiny Norman wrote: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.SamKR wrote:
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.
Compared to say eye-consciousness, which I see as the cognition of basic visual information, followed by perception and recognition, then feeling.
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
Daverupa's post above addresses this part. Thanks, Dave.Spiny Norman wrote: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.