But, that's enough of that, that was more so there isn't any confusion at what I'm getting at here. So, without further ado:
(http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html Trans. Thanissaro)The Blessed One said: "And what is the origination of the world? Dependent on the eye & forms there arises eye-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance. From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. This is the origination of the world.
So, what I take from this is that, dependent on the eye (sense organ) and forms, there arises eye consciousness (or sight? Would one differentiate sight here? Or is "sight" something one arbitrarily attributes to eye consciousness?). Now, the Buddha does not endorse annihilationism, nor does he endorse eternalism, nor does he endorse them both:
(http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html Trans. Thanissaro)"That has not been declared by the Blessed One: 'The Tathagata both exists and does not exist after death.'"
Following this, the Buddha can't be putting forward a materialist view, that consciousness, or rather awareness... Or better yet, existence (in materialism, or physicalism, it is assumed that all matter has existence "out there" whilst all "subjective" phenomena arise do to neural events-- indeed, this view is further different than what is mentioned in the Lokasutta. Consciousness of the world (under materialism) doesn't need to be dependent on outside causes. It is only causes within the brain, ie taking hallucinogenic drugs. The point being, existence is an epiphenomenal illusion, within materialism) relies on a living body, and forms for it to interact with.
Well, hm. I must tread lightly here, because I feel as though I am making matters worse. I suppose, to simplify, I should ask what is consciousness in Buddhism? Would I be right to say that all fabrications have existence independent of minds? Which is to say that, as I look at the screwdriver on my desk, it's not my experience of the screwdriver, nor is it a screwdriver, but a mass of fabrication that exists in-and-of itself? This is difficult for me to put into words.
Looking forward to some replies to help me sort this out