What you mean is eye-consciousness when there is no perception (concept, label, "conceiving") of "eye" Since one's eyes are never disconnected from the rest of one's body and mind, I agree that one always "perceives" them one way or another (as you have described). But...

So if we think of the eye as meaty eye-ball, we are cut off from the possibility of understanding what seeing is. No we aren't. Without the understanding of the "meaty eye-ball" we have no explanation for how seeing arises in the first place. Because of course, if someone has no meaty eye...

Hello Vincent, there is one Sutta (SN 35.197) which compares the internal sense bases with an empty village and the external sense bases with village-plundering bandits . I think we must regard the eye as a negative, a kind of "gap" or "hole", which is intruded, filled or occupie...

Hello pulga,

thank you for the answer. I think the Sutta in question is SN 12.12 (Phagguna Sutta).

Best wishes

PS: In case I sounded a bit harsh or unfriendly, I beg your pardon.

Without the individual "behind" the eye or "in the background", the eye has not even a place, it is not "here". As I said, the eye at ground level, at the most primitive level of experience, is inherently negative. To think of it as "here" requires an act of ...

I haven't read much Husserl, but "punkt" or "point" sounds too disembodied to me. The experience of being surrounded by forms, opposing them, cannot come from a "no-thing" . The external end of my gaze are forms, but the other end is not some "punkt" but a &q...

What do you think? The eye -- and the rest of the ajjhatt'ayatanani -- as Husserlian nullpunkts. I haven't read much Husserl, but "punkt" or "point" sounds too disembodied to me. The experience of being surrounded by forms, opposing them, cannot come from a "no-thing" ...