Lal wrote: ↑Fri Jun 29, 2018 2:11 am
What we really experience is really vinnannakkhandha, and even then only after many of them run through our minds.
As i understand the Dhamma If one was to describe reality as a one-fold occurrence as per your question it would be Contact not Vinnana nor Vinnanakhanda. The element of consciousness is merely postulated as a requisite condition for the occurrence of contact.
“There are, Ānanda, these eighteen elements: the eye element, the form element, the eye-consciousness element; the ear element, the sound element, the ear-consciousness element; the nose element, the odor element, the nose-consciousness element; the tongue element, the flavor element, the tongue-consciousness element; the body element, the tangible element, the body-consciousness element; the mind element, the mind-object element, the mind-consciousness element. When he knows and sees these eighteen elements, a bhikkhu can be called skilled in the elements.”
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
...
"Dependent on eye & forms, eye-consciousness arises. The meeting of the three is contact. With contact as a requisite condition, there is feeling. What one feels, one perceives. What one perceives, one thinks about.
Contact is what occurs, with the occurrence of contact Vinnana can be delineated and classified by 6 types, ear-consciousness, eye-consciousness, nose-consciousness, tongue-consciousness, ideation-consciousness, body-consciousness and these 6 when taken together are the heap of consciousness, the Aggregate Consciousness, Consciousness Cluster, a group made up of types of consciousnesses.
"Whatever consciousness is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: That is called the consciousness aggregate.
If one says that Vinnanakhanda is what we really experience that is nonsensical because obviously we are not always experiencing all 6 types of consciousness simultaneously. So the statement itself is 100% falsifiable in the here and now
If one was to say Vinnanakhanda (or Vinnana) is what we experience then why not say it is all Sanna[/+khanda] or Vedana[/+khanda] or better yet why isn't Sankhara[/+khanda] the chief, what makes Vinnanakhanda so special and how is one chief when they are conjoined not disjoined?
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
...
"Now, when there is the eye, when there are forms, when there is eye-consciousness, it is possible that one will delineate a delineation of contact.[1] When there is a delineation of contact, it is possible that one will delineate a delineation of feeling. When there is a delineation of feeling, it is possible that one will delineate a delineation of perception.
"Feeling, perception, & consciousness are conjoined, friend, not disjoined. It is not possible, having separated them one from another, to delineate the difference among them. For what one feels, that one perceives. What one perceives, that one cognizes. Therefore these qualities are conjoined, not disjoined, and it is not possible, having separated them one from another, to delineate the difference among them."
I also wonder what progress you have made in your training and what makes you esteem the nature of that progress to be sufficient to determine that those teachings are true in their entirety and the status of your teacher?
