Is consciousness the problem

[Pondera]

It is the go between for sense object and sense faculty. It rushes out of the head and makes contact bringing about perception.

In the suttas consciousness arises in dependence upon the presence of sense-base and sense-object, so I don't understand your comment about how it "rushes out of the head".

Sense media arise on the basis of name and form. Name and form condition consciousness and consciousness conditions name and form. Beings are filled with consciousness. The fact that it flows outwards from a being is the reason why we experience an “outside” world. This counters the idea that reality is “all in our head”. No. There really is an outside world. It isn’t all mere appearance. The only way that is facilitated is by consciousness being a go between for sense faculties and sense objects.

[Pondera]

Consciousness means eye consciousness, ear; nose; tongue; body; and mind consciousness. This exclusive use prevails over the widespread use of the word in English. If it is consciousness in Buddhism, then it is the medium between sense faculty and sense object which brings about sense perception. Consciousness “clings”. It is the go between for sense object and sense faculty. It rushes out of the head and makes contact bringing about perception. When it is subdued and let go of - earth, water, fire, etc. - they all have no foot hold. The outcome is unbinding.

Essentially, I agree with your comments. I don't agree with the word subdued as it gives the impression of suppression. Unbinding is like the opening of a hand. We open our mind, not to something, but to the open space where there is no boundary, the space between thoughts, the real nature of mind. All the analysis resolves in the letting go of our thinking. That space is empty and free of stress, clinging, and the like.

Ho ho we finally agree on something!!!

[Spiny Norman]

It is the go between for sense object and sense faculty. It rushes out of the head and makes contact bringing about perception.

In the suttas consciousness arises in dependence upon the presence of sense-base and sense-object, so I don't understand your comment about how it "rushes out of the head".

Sense media arise on the basis of name and form. Name and form condition consciousness and consciousness conditions name and form. Beings are filled with consciousness. The fact that it flows outwards from a being is the reason why we experience an “outside” world. This counters the idea that reality is “all in our head”. No. There really is an outside world. It isn’t all mere appearance. The only way that is facilitated is by consciousness being a go between for sense faculties and sense objects.

Sorry but I still don't understand your idea about consciousness "flowing outwards", since practically it feels more like sense-objects "arriving" at the various sense bases. For example if I shut my eyes, there are no visible sense objects "arriving", and therefore no visual experience.

And I don't see the relevance of the mutual conditioning of consciousness and name+form here.

[Pondera]

In the suttas consciousness arises in dependence upon the presence of sense-base and sense-object, so I don't understand your comment about how it "rushes out of the head".

Sense media arise on the basis of name and form. Name and form condition consciousness and consciousness conditions name and form. Beings are filled with consciousness. The fact that it flows outwards from a being is the reason why we experience an “outside” world. This counters the idea that reality is “all in our head”. No. There really is an outside world. It isn’t all mere appearance. The only way that is facilitated is by consciousness being a go between for sense faculties and sense objects.

Sorry but I still don't understand your idea about consciousness "flowing outwards", since practically it feels more like sense-objects "arriving" at the various sense bases. For example if I shut my eyes, there are no visible sense objects "arriving", and therefore no visual experience.

And I don't see the relevance of the mutual conditioning of consciousness and name+form here.

So, (to get an idea of where you’re coming from) would you say that since sense media “arrives” at the sense gate, sense gate consciousnesses arises in the mind? Would you say that sense consciousness makes reality out of sense objects?

[Spiny Norman]

Sense media arise on the basis of name and form. Name and form condition consciousness and consciousness conditions name and form. Beings are filled with consciousness. The fact that it flows outwards from a being is the reason why we experience an “outside” world. This counters the idea that reality is “all in our head”. No. There really is an outside world. It isn’t all mere appearance. The only way that is facilitated is by consciousness being a go between for sense faculties and sense objects.

Sorry but I still don't understand your idea about consciousness "flowing outwards", since practically it feels more like sense-objects "arriving" at the various sense bases. For example if I shut my eyes, there are no visible sense objects "arriving", and therefore no visual experience.

And I don't see the relevance of the mutual conditioning of consciousness and name+form here.

So, (to get an idea of where you’re coming from) would you say that since sense media “arrives” at the sense gate, sense gate consciousnesses arises in the mind? Would you say that sense consciousness makes reality out of sense objects?

IMO what the suttas describe is rather similar to a modern scientific view. For example there are sound waves "arriving" at the ear, these are like the raw data which is then processed, interpreted and recognised.

Common sense tells us that for there to be an experience of hearing you need both the ability to hear, and the presence of a sound. This is exactly what the suttas describe, ie ear-consciousness arising in dependence upon ear and sound.

"Dependent on the ear & sounds there arises ear-consciousness."
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

I think there is an impression of consciousness expanding out, eg as far as the eye can see, but IMO this is just an impression.

[cappuccino]

consciousness is paying attention in different places

consciousness is awareness

[Pondera]

Sorry but I still don't understand your idea about consciousness "flowing outwards", since practically it feels more like sense-objects "arriving" at the various sense bases. For example if I shut my eyes, there are no visible sense objects "arriving", and therefore no visual experience.

And I don't see the relevance of the mutual conditioning of consciousness and name+form here.

So, (to get an idea of where you’re coming from) would you say that since sense media “arrives” at the sense gate, sense gate consciousnesses arises in the mind? Would you say that sense consciousness makes reality out of sense objects?

IMO what the suttas describe is rather similar to a modern scientific view. For example there are sound waves "arriving" at the ear, these are like the raw data which is then processed, interpreted and recognised.

This is a widely accepted view point. The view I am trying to explain is different. If you see a tree or a brick wall, there really is a tree or a brick wall “out there”. The main problem for your point of view is that it doesn’t explain the “being out there” of common objects in our experience. I am merely suggesting that things are as they seem and that sense consciousness is a bridge towards sense faculties and sense objects.

Imagine if you removed sense consciousness from the picture. In your world view, assumedly, a person would go blind or deaf or unconscious. In my world view a person would enter “neither perception nor non-perception”. Ie. the sense object would exist exactly as it was formerly perceived - however it would not register at the eye or the ear or what have you. There would simply be sense object and sense faculty - but no meeting of the two. An awarenss of the sense objects would still exist.

Common sense tells us that for there to be an experience of hearing you need both the ability to hear, and the presence of a sound. This is exactly what the suttas describe, ie ear-consciousness arising in dependence upon ear and sound.

"Dependent on the ear & sounds there arises ear-consciousness."
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

I think there is an impression of consciousness expanding out, eg as far as the eye can see, but IMO this is just an impression.

I believe these objects are really out there. As I approach a bridge, for example, and it gets larger and larger - my brain is not constantly reprocessing the image of the bridge. It is merely approaching an object which is really out there in reality exactly as it appears.

So, I won’t try to convince you of this. I merely put it out there as something to consider. In meditation, as one lets go of more and more stress, one also lets go of more and more conscious attachment to perception and feeling. This is how the insight that sense consciousness is a bridge between faculty and object can arise.

Cheers.

[Spiny Norman]

consciousness is paying attention in different places

No, that sound more like sati, mindfulness.

consciousness is awareness

Yes.

[Spiny Norman]

Imagine if you removed sense consciousness from the picture. In your world view, assumedly, a person would go blind or deaf or unconscious. In my world view a person would enter “neither perception nor non-perception”. Ie. the sense object would exist exactly as it was formerly perceived - however it would not register at the eye or the ear or what have you. There would simply be sense object and sense faculty - but no meeting of the two. An awarenss of the sense objects would still exist.

Sorry but I don't get this. Surely consciousness is awareness, so without consciousness there would be no awareness and therefore no perception.

I believe these objects are really out there. As I approach a bridge, for example, and it gets larger and larger - my brain is not constantly reprocessing the image of the bridge. It is merely approaching an object which is really out there in reality exactly as it appears.

I believe there is stuff out there too, but I also think that we interpret and process a lot of "raw data" arriving at our senses, effectively creating a view of the world in our mind. I also think that we only experience phenomena, the qualities and characteristics of assumed objects.

[JohnK]

My 2 cents regarding consciousness "going out" and "raw data:"
Scientists don't just sit back and wait for raw data to arrive -- they collect it based on intention and desire.
Similarly, we seek sense objects (go out to them) that are relevant to our current desire -- otherwise we would not make it to the refrigerator, distracted by all the raw data.

We have a desire and create a world that is capable of providing it and a self that can both get it and its associated gratification.
(That's a paraphrase from a talk by Thanissaro Bhikkhu -- apologies for any misrepresentation.)
Perhaps relevant to the conversation...

[Spiny Norman]

Similarly, we seek sense objects (go out to them) that are relevant to our current desire -- otherwise we would not make it to the refrigerator, distracted by all the raw data.

There is very little that can distract me from ice-cream.

[Pondera]

Imagine if you removed sense consciousness from the picture. In your world view, assumedly, a person would go blind or deaf or unconscious. In my world view a person would enter “neither perception nor non-perception”. Ie. the sense object would exist exactly as it was formerly perceived - however it would not register at the eye or the ear or what have you. There would simply be sense object and sense faculty - but no meeting of the two. An awarenss of the sense objects would still exist.

Sorry but I don't get this. Surely consciousness is awareness, so without consciousness there would be no awareness and therefore no perception.

I would venture that the mind faculty is the seat of awareness - whether or not it is in contact with mind objects and mind consciousness. I think you’re imputing a westernized view of the word onto the background of things here. It makes sense - but is it in line with the Buddha’s statements?

I believe these objects are really out there. As I approach a bridge, for example, and it gets larger and larger - my brain is not constantly reprocessing the image of the bridge. It is merely approaching an object which is really out there in reality exactly as it appears.

I believe there is stuff out there too, but I also think that we interpret and process a lot of "raw data" arriving at our senses, effectively creating a view of the world in our mind. I also think that we only experience phenomena, the qualities and characteristics of assumed objects.

I admit your view is reasonable. I will just state that I don’t think our senses translate any of our experience. That “bridge” - for example; is exactly the way it appears. When there’s no one around to look at it - it still “is”. What do you think about external objects that aren’t being perceived - the old “if a tree falls in the forest...” question?

[Saengnapha]

Imagine if you removed sense consciousness from the picture. In your world view, assumedly, a person would go blind or deaf or unconscious. In my world view a person would enter “neither perception nor non-perception”. Ie. the sense object would exist exactly as it was formerly perceived - however it would not register at the eye or the ear or what have you. There would simply be sense object and sense faculty - but no meeting of the two. An awarenss of the sense objects would still exist.

Sorry but I don't get this. Surely consciousness is awareness, so without consciousness there would be no awareness and therefore no perception.

I would venture that the mind faculty is the seat of awareness - whether or not it is in contact with mind objects and mind consciousness. I think you’re imputing a westernized view of the word onto the background of things here. It makes sense - but is it in line with the Buddha’s statements?

I believe these objects are really out there. As I approach a bridge, for example, and it gets larger and larger - my brain is not constantly reprocessing the image of the bridge. It is merely approaching an object which is really out there in reality exactly as it appears.

I believe there is stuff out there too, but I also think that we interpret and process a lot of "raw data" arriving at our senses, effectively creating a view of the world in our mind. I also think that we only experience phenomena, the qualities and characteristics of assumed objects.

I admit your view is reasonable. I will just state that I don’t think our senses translate any of our experience. That “bridge” - for example; is exactly the way it appears. When there’s no one around to look at it - it still “is”. What do you think about external objects that aren’t being perceived - the old “if a tree falls in the forest...” question?

If there is no one around to 'look' at anything, then there is no experience. This, of course, is impossible to conceptualize, and for good reason. The absence of the subject is also the absence of the object. Cessation. Wanting to know what this is like is not possible unless one is an Arahant. We can only imagine and speculate what it is like. What an unfruitful endeavor is the trying to know this.

[Spiny Norman]

I would venture that the mind faculty is the seat of awareness - whether or not it is in contact with mind objects and mind consciousness. I think you’re imputing a westernized view of the word onto the background of things here. It makes sense - but is it in line with the Buddha’s statements?

I'm just describing what the suttas say, and observing that it does look rather similar to a modern understanding. In the suttas sense-consciousness arises in dependence upon sense-base and sense-object, eg eye-consciousness arises in dependence upon eye and visible form. I think there is a different interpretation in some other Buddhist schools, but that is probably another discussion.

I admit your view is reasonable. I will just state that I don’t think our senses translate any of our experience. That “bridge” - for example; is exactly the way it appears. When there’s no one around to look at it - it still “is”. What do you think about external objects that aren’t being perceived - the old “if a tree falls in the forest...” question?

Fortunately it is possible to practice using the phenomenological approach, which means we are only concerned with the phenomena actually experienced via the sense bases.

[Saengnapha]

I would venture that the mind faculty is the seat of awareness - whether or not it is in contact with mind objects and mind consciousness. I think you’re imputing a westernized view of the word onto the background of things here. It makes sense - but is it in line with the Buddha’s statements?

I'm just describing what the suttas say, and observing that it does look rather similar to a modern understanding. In the suttas sense-consciousness arises in dependence upon sense-base and sense-object, eg eye-consciousness arises in dependence upon eye and visible form. I think there is a different interpretation in some other Buddhist schools, but that is probably another discussion.

I admit your view is reasonable. I will just state that I don’t think our senses translate any of our experience. That “bridge” - for example; is exactly the way it appears. When there’s no one around to look at it - it still “is”. What do you think about external objects that aren’t being perceived - the old “if a tree falls in the forest...” question?

Fortunately it is possible to practice using the phenomenological approach, which means we are only concerned with the phenomena actually experienced via the sense bases.

But you are still within the subject/object dichotomy which is mental. Phenomenon do not exist in the absolute sense. How can you 'experience' this? All experience is self-view, no matter how you slice it or dice it. That is why it is said that an awakened one has no experience. It is finished. Cessation.