We know only consciousness?

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
Post Reply
User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 4035
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

We know only consciousness?

Post by Alex123 »

Hello all,

I was thinking about these interesting questions.
"Dependent on the eye & forms there arises consciousness at the eye. "
1) "Cakkhuñca paṭicca rūpe ca uppajjati cakkhuviññāṇaṃ"

"Dependent on the intellect & ideas there arises consciousness at the intellect. "
2) "manañca paṭicca dhamme ca uppajjati manoviññāṇaṃ"

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Can one see a form or the eye (rūpa or Cakkhu) prior to eye-consciousness (cakkhuviññāṇaṃ)?

One could only say that as an imagination in the mind, which brings to another part of the question:

Can one know object of the mind (dhamma) prior to Mind consciousness (manoviññāṇaṃ)?

So it appears that what we have is that we know only consciousness and more complex mental states. It appears that even the conditional chart of sense organ + sense object = consciousness is a mental construct that isn't cognized until manoviññāṇaṃ.



Any comments, ideas?
rowyourboat
Posts: 1952
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 5:29 pm
Location: London, UK

Re: We know only consciousness?

Post by rowyourboat »

The answer to both your questions is 'Yes', but with much practice. It is a perceptive (mind the pun) question you have asked. All of what has been described by the Buddha can be experienced, otherwise he wouldn't have asked his disciples to see them. However from that you might infer that we are 'conscious' of rupa before the corresponding 'consciousness' arises. So then it becomes a little clearer that the Buddhist 'vinnana' is somewhat different from the English concept of 'consciousness', experientially.

However through our unpracticed underdeveloped (putajjana) faculties we are only conscious of mental elements from contact (phassa) onwards, ie what we think of as the world is mental creation with it's roots in the material (arising from cause and effect).

Hope that wasn't too confusing.

with metta

RYB
With Metta

Karuna
Mudita
& Upekkha
Sunrise
Posts: 199
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2010 2:26 pm

Re: We know only consciousness?

Post by Sunrise »

Alex123 wrote:
Can one see a form or the eye (rūpa or Cakkhu) prior to eye-consciousness (cakkhuviññāṇaṃ)?

One could only say that as an imagination in the mind, which brings to another part of the question:

Can one know object of the mind (dhamma) prior to Mind consciousness (manoviññāṇaṃ)?

So it appears that what we have is that we know only consciousness and more complex mental states. It appears that even the conditional chart of sense organ + sense object = consciousness is a mental construct that isn't cognized until manoviññāṇaṃ.
Eye-consciousness cannot arise before the eye makes contact with a form. When it does, the cognition related to the eye is called eye-consciousness. But I see that eye-consciousness arise in the mind. But it is termed as eye-consciousness because it is sensory recognition related to the eye.
Sunrise
Posts: 199
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2010 2:26 pm

Re: We know only consciousness?

Post by Sunrise »

rowyourboat wrote: However from that you might infer that we are 'conscious' of rupa before the corresponding 'consciousness' arises
How? How can we be conscious of rupa before seeing it? It is ok to say so regarding something you have seen before so that your citta has memories of it which would provide thoughts regarding that rupa you have seen in the past. But how can you know what an apple tastes like before tasting one?
User avatar
acinteyyo
Posts: 1706
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 9:48 am
Location: Bavaria / Germany

Re: We know only consciousness?

Post by acinteyyo »

Hi,
Alex123 wrote:Can one see a form or the eye (rūpa or Cakkhu) prior to eye-consciousness (cakkhuviññāṇaṃ)?
I don't think so, because "seeing" means being conscious of form through the eye. When these three things aren't there at the same time, there is no "seeing".
Alex123 wrote:Can one know object of the mind (dhamma) prior to Mind consciousness (manoviññāṇaṃ)?
Again I don't think so, because "knowing" means being conscious of a mindobject throught the mind. When these three things aren't there at the same time, there's no "knowing".
Alex123 wrote:So it appears that what we have is that we know only consciousness and more complex mental states. It appears that even the conditional chart of sense organ + sense object = consciousness is a mental construct that isn't cognized until manoviññāṇaṃ.
When there's eye-consciousness, there is eye and form, the meeting of the three is contact. Which means that one sees a form with the eye. When there's mind-consciousness, there is mind and mind-object, the meeting of the three is contact. Which means that one knows a mind-object with the mind.
In other words, for example, with eye-consciousness one sees a form. With mind-consciousness one knows that there is eye-consciousness, which means, one knows "seeing". Toghether one knows that one sees a form through the eye.
The process of "seeing" or "knowing" each depends on all three necessary causes, which have to be together here and now in order to arise.

I can't see any other way for it to be possible.

best wishes, acinteyyo
Thag 1.20. Ajita - I do not fear death; nor do I long for life. I’ll lay down this body, aware and mindful.
rowyourboat
Posts: 1952
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 5:29 pm
Location: London, UK

Re: We know only consciousness?

Post by rowyourboat »

Sunrise wrote:
rowyourboat wrote: However from that you might infer that we are 'conscious' of rupa before the corresponding 'consciousness' arises
How? How can we be conscious of rupa before seeing it? It is ok to say so regarding something you have seen before so that your citta has memories of it which would provide thoughts regarding that rupa you have seen in the past. But how can you know what an apple tastes like before tasting one?
Imagine you are out for a walk in the forest in the middle of the night. You see something moving from the corner of your eye, immediately you turn towards it and flashes your torch light on it, to see a rabbit framed in the light.

Experientially this is very similar to what happens with perception (I am relating from my vipassana experiences here). First there is a very subtle disturbance (The movement in the corner of your eye, from the above exmaple). This is the arising of eye+visual object. With developed sati this can be sensed (otherwise there is no reason to say it exists or give it a name). Then there is the movement of the mind arising from that (the turning towards the movement in the forest -eye consciousness), followed by a light being shone (contact-or phassa), then knowing that it is rabbit (sanna). Note that we become fully conscious of the rabbit only after the light has shone on it- ie after the arising of eye consciousness, we become properly 'conscious' of it. However there is a subconscious 'disturbance' before all of this, which is the arising of eye+visual object. This can only be detected with refined vipassana. Even with 'bare attention' one might get only to phassa level. If a person can get beyond that as well then they will start seeing the arising of various sense base related consciousnesses and the arising of rupa (sense base+corresponding object) even before that. However my point is the Buddha's use of the word vinnana is not the same as the English meaning of consciousness, in my experience. The English term applies from the point sense base+object arises right through to the end. The Buddhist usage refers to an event which arises after that arising sesne base+object.

None of this is terribly important unless you are doing this particular type of vipassana however :)

with metta

RYB
With Metta

Karuna
Mudita
& Upekkha
curiousgeorge
Posts: 24
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 8:16 am

Re: We know only consciousness?

Post by curiousgeorge »

Alex123 wrote: "Dependent on the eye & forms there arises consciousness at the eye. "
1) "Cakkhuñca paṭicca rūpe ca uppajjati cakkhuviññāṇaṃ"

"Dependent on the intellect & ideas there arises consciousness at the intellect. "
2) "manañca paṭicca dhamme ca uppajjati manoviññāṇaṃ"

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... .than.html
This reminds me of a quote from a textbook on somatosensation I read recently. Paraphrased, it is: incoming sensation from the senses is causal in nature ... meaning that the action of the eye is dependent on the light that falls on the eye. (consciousness at the eye) The light is no longer light, its translated into eye-speak (sensation).

Once sensation gets to/past the thalamus, (nearly all sensation synapses on the thalamus before getting sent along to specialty processing: pain, itch, and social touch(e.g. petting), and smell are exceptions) sensation is modulatory. This means that sensation does not have a direct effect on what goes on in the mind. Instead, it only modulates prior experience ... informing the models already established by experience... it is those models that do the interpreting of further experience (consciousness of the intellect) The eye-speak is no longer eye-speak, it is translated into (and by) learning.

Learning is the combination of the senses, and predictions made on the combinations.
None of this is terribly important unless you are doing this particular type of vipassana however :)


A difference of opinion here. IMHO, its very important because it speaks to how the mind works. The example of the rabbit is very good, but it happens constantly. Monkey mind is the same working, except that there is a lot more of it. Thousands of rabbits and thousands of lights that make it difficult to make sense of anything. It is also useful to understand that we can make things brighter in our consciousnesses. Theses a lot we can do with this knowledge beyond better meditation - its useful for more skillful understanding of ourselves and our decision making, and also for understanding of others in general.
Sunrise
Posts: 199
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2010 2:26 pm

Re: We know only consciousness?

Post by Sunrise »

rowyourboat wrote:
Note that we become fully conscious of the rabbit only after the light has shone on it- ie after the arising of eye consciousness, we become properly 'conscious' of it. However there is a subconscious 'disturbance' before all of this, which is the arising of eye+visual object.
Yes. So in simple language what you are saying is that before seeing the rabbit there was this disturbance in the mind. So you say that we were 'conscious' of the rabbit even before seeing it right? But that disturbance is actually mind-consciousness where complex thought patterns and memories of the mind appearing in a form of an "alert for danger".

Take a scenarios like this. Suppose you have never tasted and apple. People describe how an apple tastes like to you and everytime an apple is mentioned you feel your mouth watering. That is because of your mind/citta at work producing complex though patterns related to a possible taste which you do not know for sure. However, you will not know what an apple tastes like before actually eating one for yourself.
rowyourboat wrote: However my point is the Buddha's use of the word vinnana is not the same as the English meaning of consciousness, in my experience. The English term applies from the point sense base+object arises right through to the end. The Buddhist usage refers to an event which arises after that arising sesne base+object.
Over and over again in the suttas vinnana has been explained in only one way, consistently in all the suttas I have referred to so far. That is:
"Consciousness aka vinnana is the cognition that arises when a sense organ makes contact with an external object"

Do you think vinnana has a different meaning than this?
curiousgeorge
Posts: 24
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 8:16 am

Re: We know only consciousness?

Post by curiousgeorge »

whats to prevent eye conscious from being a synonym to 'disturbance of mind', or the latter from being the immediate precursor to the former?
Sunrise
Posts: 199
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2010 2:26 pm

Re: We know only consciousness?

Post by Sunrise »

curiousgeorge wrote:whats to prevent eye conscious from being a synonym to 'disturbance of mind', or the latter from being the immediate precursor to the former?
Aaahhh :rolleye: lol

Would you elaborate more what you are asking please? I'm a little slow today; sorry
curiousgeorge
Posts: 24
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 8:16 am

Re: We know only consciousness?

Post by curiousgeorge »

Note that we become fully conscious of the rabbit only after the light has shone on it- ie after the arising of eye consciousness, we become properly 'conscious' of it. However there is a subconscious 'disturbance' before all of this, which is the arising of eye+visual object.
In other words, I think you guys agree with each other. Its terminology thats hanging up the discussion.
rowyourboat
Posts: 1952
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 5:29 pm
Location: London, UK

Re: We know only consciousness?

Post by rowyourboat »

the arising of the eye+visual object is sub/pre-conscious, but not unconscious.
The arising of Vinnana itself is also sub/pre conscious but less so
Phassa/contact is quite conscious
subsequent elements becomes more intense experiences therefore we are more conscious of them

Hope that is less confusing :)

with metta

RYB
With Metta

Karuna
Mudita
& Upekkha
Sunrise
Posts: 199
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2010 2:26 pm

Re: We know only consciousness?

Post by Sunrise »

rowyourboat wrote:the arising of the eye+visual object is sub/pre-conscious, but not unconscious.
The arising of Vinnana itself is also sub/pre conscious but less so
Phassa/contact is quite conscious
subsequent elements becomes more intense experiences therefore we are more conscious of them
There is nothing called sub/pre-conscious mentioned in the suttas. Consciousness is vinnana and it arises based on the contact of a sense organ with an external object. Consciousness is the initial cognition. Any complex thought patterns might develop based on this cognition. You seem to be terming the initial Consciousness as sub-Consciousness and those complex thought patterns as Consciousness. There is no reason to do so
Post Reply