What sees?

[Spiny Norman]

While we're discussing sense-consciousness, I'd like to understand why it's presented as being six-fold in the suttas, and whether this is done for a specific reason.
You could just make the general statement that sense-consciousness arises in dependence on sense-bases and sense-objects. Why is consciousness split up between the sense-bases in the suttas?

Whether or not the six constitute six distinct consciousnesses that cooperate or one consciousness in six modalities is another big fight in Buddhism.

Yes, that's the sort of thing what I was wondering about.
Or is it more to do with where attention is placed at any one time? What we notice among the various inputs from the senses.

[Spiny Norman]

While we're discussing sense-consciousness, I'd like to understand why it's presented as being six-fold in the suttas, and whether this is done for a specific reason.
You could just make the general statement that sense-consciousness arises in dependence on sense-bases and sense-objects. Why is consciousness split up between the sense-bases in the suttas?

That's the ingenuity of the Buddha.
The reason is to deconstruct the sense experience into its parts or the self into the five aggregates.

Eg. we assume we know what a "computer" is but, in reality, the computer is merely a convention. There is no computer without the CPU, storage device, circuitry, etc.

We assume that "I" see, hear, smell, taste, touch, think, feel, etc. That self is a fabrication. Without the experience, where is the self?
The "body" is also a construct. Hence the teaching like this analysis of the body-

So are you basically saying that everything is broken down into constituent parts, in oder to undermine self-view?

[Coëmgenu]

While we're discussing sense-consciousness, I'd like to understand why it's presented as being six-fold in the suttas, and whether this is done for a specific reason.
You could just make the general statement that sense-consciousness arises in dependence on sense-bases and sense-objects. Why is consciousness split up between the sense-bases in the suttas?

Whether or not the six constitute six distinct consciousnesses that cooperate or one consciousness in six modalities is another big fight in Buddhism.

Yes, that's the sort of thing what I was wondering about.
Or is it more to do with where attention is placed at any one time? What we notice among the various inputs from the senses.

I associate the "six modalities of one consciousness" stance with Kalupahana's reading of the eight consciousnesses in The Principles of Buddhist Psychology, but I've yet to actually read the work and am only familiar with his ideas secondhand. I do know that it is a highly controversial book, just as controversial and severely contested as his readings of the Mulamadhyamakakarika and his assertion that Ven Nagarjuna was "not a Mahayanist." This in spite of the Prajnaparamita references peppered throughout the Nagajuna corpus. When dealing with severely contrarian scholarship, it is good to know what you are getting into.

[Coëmgenu]

It looks like the book's here.

I'm not sure if it belongs with "Early Buddhism," but it will directly address the OP at least.

[sunnat]

signals from active sense bases are delivered in discrete packets so rapidly that continuity and multitasking is a readily believable illusion, but an illusion nevertheless

Form is like a glob of foam;
feeling, a bubble;
perception, a mirage;
fabrications, a banana tree;
consciousness, a magic trick —
this has been taught
by the Kinsman of the Sun.
...

Thus a monk, persistence aroused,
should view the aggregates
by day & by night,
mindful,
alert;

[Coëmgenu]

Derpendent Origination: Its Elaboration in Early Sarvāstivādin Abhidharma Texts

I think this is the funniest typo I've seen on here in a while, if people can stomach the vanity. The Sarvāstivādin theory of the derpendent origination of the derps is one of their most elegant, herp.

[mjaviem]

What exactly "sees"... What "sees" in Buddhadhamma? The eye, eye-consciousness, some other dhamma or is seeing what occurs when various dhammas work together?

I think there's no actor performing the action of seeing. There is eye-consciousness or there is not, but there is not a thing doing the act, only conditions met as pointed out below:

Not a valid question.

I don't say what sees, but rather seeing is dependent on the "eye".

...

There is no "eye" - "Eye" is without self/essence. You cannot point out and say that is the "eye".

And yet there is the experience of seeing.
...

[pegembara]

While we're discussing sense-consciousness, I'd like to understand why it's presented as being six-fold in the suttas, and whether this is done for a specific reason.
You could just make the general statement that sense-consciousness arises in dependence on sense-bases and sense-objects. Why is consciousness split up between the sense-bases in the suttas?

That's the ingenuity of the Buddha.
The reason is to deconstruct the sense experience into its parts or the self into the five aggregates.

Eg. we assume we know what a "computer" is but, in reality, the computer is merely a convention. There is no computer without the CPU, storage device, circuitry, etc.

We assume that "I" see, hear, smell, taste, touch, think, feel, etc. That self is a fabrication. Without the experience, where is the self?
The "body" is also a construct. Hence the teaching like this analysis of the body-

So are you basically saying that everything is broken down into constituent parts, in oder to undermine self-view?

By convention, there are "things" like...

Without protons, neutrons, electrons etc., there is no atom.
Then there is the chariot analogy by Sister Vajira.

Atta=self nature or "thingness"
Anatta=without self or "no-thingness" NOT "nothingness"

"Again, monks, a monk reflects on this same body as it stands and as it is
disposed as consisting of elements thus: 'In this body there are the earth element,
the water element, the fire element, and the air element'.
Just as a skilled butcher or his apprentice, having killed a cow were seated at
the crossroads with it cut up into small pieces, so, too, a monk reflects on this
same body as it stands and as it is disposed as consisting of elements thus: 'In
this body there are the earth element, the water element, the fire element, and the
air element'."

Why now do you assume 'a being'?
Mara, have you grasped a view?
This is a heap of sheer constructions:
Here no being is found.

Just as, with an assemblage of parts,
The word 'chariot' is used,
So, when the aggregates are present,
There's the convention 'a being.'

The Buddha had an analytical mind. He deconstructed the "self" and brought an end to "birth and death".

"'From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth.' Thus it has been said. And this is the way to understand how from becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. If there were no becoming at all, in any way, of anything anywhere — i.e., sensual becoming, form becoming, or formless becoming — in the utter absence of becoming, from the cessation of becoming, would birth be discerned?"

"No, lord."

"Thus this is a cause, this is a reason, this is an origination, this is a requisite condition for birth, i.e., becoming.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

[Spiny Norman]

signals from active sense bases are delivered in discrete packets so rapidly that continuity and multitasking is a readily believable illusion, but an illusion nevertheless

Form is like a glob of foam;
feeling, a bubble;
perception, a mirage;
fabrications, a banana tree;
consciousness, a magic trick —
this has been taught
by the Kinsman of the Sun.
...

Thus a monk, persistence aroused,
should view the aggregates
by day & by night,
mindful,
alert;

OK. The theme of that sutta is the aggregates being empty and insubstantial, but it doesn't explain how consciousness is a "magic trick".
Your description of rapid discrete packets sounds like momentariness, but that's in the commentaries rather than the suttas.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

[sunnat]

That's the ingenuity of the Buddha.
The reason is to deconstruct the sense experience into its parts or the self into the five aggregates.

Eg. we assume we know what a "computer" is but, in reality, the computer is merely a convention. There is no computer without the CPU, storage device, circuitry, etc.

We assume that "I" see, hear, smell, taste, touch, think, feel, etc. That self is a fabrication. Without the experience, where is the self?
The "body" is also a construct. Hence the teaching like this analysis of the body-

So are you basically saying that everything is broken down into constituent parts, in oder to undermine self-view?

By convention, there are "things" like...

Without protons, neutrons, electrons etc., there is no atom.
Then there is the chariot analogy by Sister Vajira.

Atta=self nature or "thingness"
Anatta=without self or "no-thingness" NOT "nothingness"

"Again, monks, a monk reflects on this same body as it stands and as it is
disposed as consisting of elements thus: 'In this body there are the earth element,
the water element, the fire element, and the air element'.
Just as a skilled butcher or his apprentice, having killed a cow were seated at
the crossroads with it cut up into small pieces, so, too, a monk reflects on this
same body as it stands and as it is disposed as consisting of elements thus: 'In
this body there are the earth element, the water element, the fire element, and the
air element'."

Why now do you assume 'a being'?
Mara, have you grasped a view?
This is a heap of sheer constructions:
Here no being is found.

Just as, with an assemblage of parts,
The word 'chariot' is used,
So, when the aggregates are present,
There's the convention 'a being.'

The Buddha had an analytical mind. He deconstructed the "self" and brought an end to "birth and death".

"'From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth.' Thus it has been said. And this is the way to understand how from becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. If there were no becoming at all, in any way, of anything anywhere — i.e., sensual becoming, form becoming, or formless becoming — in the utter absence of becoming, from the cessation of becoming, would birth be discerned?"

"No, lord."

"Thus this is a cause, this is a reason, this is an origination, this is a requisite condition for birth, i.e., becoming.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

[dharmavital]

Hi friends.

I'm student of Early buddhism [words]. Having no direct experience, my view maybe wrong.

As I understand, the question "What knows?" seems working only if we say first "There is something what knows".

The nature of experience is the experience of things as they arising and passing away. For example, the Buddha doesn't say "There is something what knows." He explain the nature of experiencie as something dependently arising, in an impersonal way (there is not knower, only knowing).What is happening now is the working of the five aggregates.

In some sense, the aggregates flow like a river. When we see a circle, we cannot separate the experience of circle from the eye-consciousness itself. In this sense, the circle experienced is the same thing as eye-consciousness itself. Our experience is something build up and shapened from the five aggregates. I think this is more like contructivism than representation-only.

Regards,
Jorge.

[auto]

It looks like the book's here.

I'm not sure if it belongs with "Early Buddhism," but it will directly address the OP at least.

perhaps that was the OP point, to show importance of abhidhamma and commentaries. Why use one's own brain if someone has already thought about it 40 years.

[Coëmgenu]

I don't know what that means, sorry.

[auto]

I don't know what that means, sorry.

I'm curious, to whom you reply and what do you not know and why are you sorry?

[Coëmgenu]

I'm sorry because I'm Canadian and we are too much like our former British owners in that respect (that is a joke, btw). I was responding to you and I didn't understand how showing the importance of Abhidhamma and not using one's own brain were related.