I don't think the Mahavedalla Sutta is particularly helpful here, it basically says we can't distinguish between 3 of the aggregates - but in that case, why is the distinction repeatedly made in the suttas?SamKR wrote:This way of looking, I think, is in accordance with Mahavedalla Sutta:Spiny Norman wrote: That's an interesting way of looking at it.Feeling, perception, & consciousness are conjoined, friend, not disjoined. It is not possible, having separated them one from another, to delineate the difference among them.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.htmlAs I understand it, consciousness is not of an object out there (or a subject in here). Consciousness just is - conjoined with associated perception and feeling - arising when the conditions are fulfilled:Spiny Norman wrote:I experience it more like a sequential process, ie first the "bare" consciousness of an object, then perception and identification, then the feeling response based on that perception.
"Dependent on the eye & forms there arises eye-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
It is true that whenever there is consciousness there necessarily is perception and feeling, and vice versa. But I do not understand how it can be a sequential process that happens in time one after another. Time itself is a concept that is as "illusory" as a subject or an object.
However if you look at the Loka Sutta, it seems to describe a dependently arising sequence: object, sense-organ and sense-consciousness lead to contact, and then contact leads to feeling. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
I don't see a problem with describing sequential processes, it seems to tie in with experience.
And as I understand it, consciousness always involves an object, ie we are always conscious of something.