SuttaCentral

Sense-consciousness


#21

How would you apply Internal and external to the body to “Mano” and “Dhammās” ?

Another question;

What about the divine eye . Where is that located in the body ?

iti61
Bhikkhus, there are these three eyes. What three? The fleshly eye, the divine eye, and the wisdom eye. These, bhikkhus, are the three eyes.”
The fleshly eye, the divine eye,
And the unsurpassed wisdom eye—
These three eyes were described
By the Buddha, supreme among men.


#22

There’s this to add to the mix:

For it is in this fathom-long carcass with its perception and mind that I describe the world, its origin, its cessation, and the practice that leads to its cessation.

From AN 4.45


#23

yes . I have no problem with that. But Buddha also said

When the nutriment of consciousness is comprehended, name & form are comprehended. When name & form are comprehended, I tell you, there is nothing further for a disciple of the noble ones to do."
SN12.63

what i am saying is when you say this body what we are conscious of is namarupa. when you say outside the body it’s still namarupa.

Consciousness exists when name-&-form exists. From name-&-form as a requisite condition comes consciousness.’
"Then the thought occurred to me, 'This consciousness turns back at name-&-form, and goes no farther.
SN12.65


#24

Mano is purely “mental” and has purely “mental” objects, so I would regard these as internal. The other five sense bases involve internal “physical” organs, and they take external form as their objects ( technically derived form ).


#25

Sorry but I’m not seeing any clear support for this assertion from your sutta references. What we’re conscious of outside the body is derived form, eg sights and sounds - not nama-rupa. Unless you mean “external” in the sense of nama-rupa as other people.
The difficulty here is that nama-rupa seems to have different meanings in different suttas, and I think it can have the meaning of other people ( similar to the use of “external” in the Satipatthana Sutta ).


#26

Well then, friend, I will make up a simile for you, for some intelligent people here understand the meaning of a statement by means of a simile. Just as two sheaves of reeds might stand leaning against each other, so too, with name-and-form as condition, consciousness comes to be; with consciousness as condition, name-and-form comes to be. SN12.67

I understood the above as;
namarupa is the object of consciousness or namarupa is what we are conscious of.


#27

Maybe these…

Feeling, perception, volition, contact and attention — these are called mentality. The four great elements and the material form derived from the four great elements — these are called materiality. So this mentality and this materiality are what is called mentality-materiality. With the arising of consciousness there is the arising of mentality-materiality. With the cessation of consciousness there is the cessation of mentality-materiality. The way leading to the cessation of mentality-materiality is just this Noble Eightfold Path; that is, right view… right concentration. Sammaditti sutta MN9

There are these six bases: the eye-base, the ear-base, the nose-base, the tongue-base, the body-base, the mind-base. With the arising of mentality-materiality there is the arising of the sixfold base. With the cessation of mentality-materiality there is the cessation of the sixfold base. MN9

With Metta


#28

This is a DO sutta ( it’s in SN12 ), and in that context the passage is saying that consciousness arises in dependence upon name+form, and vice versa. It’s not saying that nama-rupa is the object of consciousness, just that there is a dependency.


#29

Namarupa cannot be disjoined in to Name+form. It comes as one bundle. We can delineate Nama and rupa through paññā by there different characteristics.

If the qualities, traits, themes, & indicators by which there is a description of name-group (mental activity) were all absent, would designation-contact with regard to the form-group (the physical properties) be discerned?"

“No, lord.”

“If the permutations, signs, themes, and indicators by which there is a description of form-group were all absent, would resistance-contact with regard to the name-group be discerned?”

“No, lord.” - DN15


#30

Sure. But if we can’t separate nama from rupa, then how can there be a bifurcation?

It might help to establish more clearly what nama-rupa is, or what it represents. Mat has helpfully provided a description above from MN9, ( same as in SN12.2 ): “Feeling, perception, volition, contact and attention — these are called mentality. The four great elements and the material form derived from the four great elements — these are called materiality. So this mentality and this materiality are what is called mentality-materiality. With the arising of consciousness there is the arising of mentality-materiality”

So in DO mentality-materiality arises in dependence upon sense-consciousness. Or, according to the other main mode of conditionality in DO ( “While this is, that is…” ) we could also say that mentality-materiality is present while sense-consciousness is present .

IMO this dependency is quite difficult to interpret, particularly because the mentality aspect here includes contact ( phassa ), which in turn includes sense-consciousness. On this basis you could interpret nama-rupa as equivalent to the aggregates, or equivalent to a “person”.


#31

Just to clarify in terms of the OP question, I think the bifurcation interpretation is that sense-consciousness creates a subject-object duality, rather than sense-consciousness arising in dependence upon eye and form etc. Or something like that. :yum:


#32

Does it ?
What about a meditator who has entered ākāsānañcāyatanaṃ ?

"Furthermore, with the complete transcending of perceptions of [physical] form, with the disappearance of perceptions of resistance, and not heeding perceptions of diversity, [perceiving,] ‘Infinite space,’ Sariputta entered & remained in the dimension of the infinitude of space.
Whatever qualities there are in the dimension of the infinitude of space — the perception of the dimension of the infinitude of space, singleness of mind, contact, feeling, perception, intention, consciousness, desire, decision, persistence, mindfulness, equanimity, & attention — he ferreted them out one after another. Known to him they arose, known to him they remained, known to him they subsided. He discerned, ‘So this is how these qualities, not having been, come into play. Having been, they vanish.’ He remained unattracted & unrepelled with regard to those qualities, independent, detached, released, dissociated, with an awareness rid of barriers.
MN111


#33

So a meditator is aware of the qualities present in the formless jhanas? I’m not sure how this relates to the discussion about bifurcation, could you elaborate?


#34

The meditator seems to still have the perceiver and the perceived duality in that state.


#35

This duality only seems to disappear from the nevasaññānāsaññāyatanaṃ upwards.

"Furthermore, with the complete transcending of the dimension of nothingness, Sariputta entered & remained in the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception. He emerged mindfully from that attainment. On emerging mindfully from that attainment, he regarded the past qualities that had ceased & changed: ‘So this is how these qualities, not having been, come into play. Having been, they vanish.’ He remained unattracted & unrepelled with regard to those qualities, independent, detached, released, dissociated, with an awareness rid of barriers.


#36

Yes, I see. So is this an argument against the bifurcation interpretation?


#37

Aggregates vs a ‘being’.

[Rādha:] “‘A being,’ lord. ‘A being,’ it’s said. To what extent is one said to be ‘a being’?”

[The Buddha:] "Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for form, Rādha: when one is caught up [satta] there, tied up [visatta] there, one is said to be ‘a being [satta].’

"Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for feeling… perception… fabrications…

"Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for consciousness, Rādha… SN23.2

§ 22. “Monks, I will teach you the burden, the carrier of the burden, the taking up of the burden, and the casting off of the burden. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak.”

“As you say, lord,” the monks responded.

The Blessed One said, "And which is the burden? ‘The five clinging-aggregates,’ it should be said. Which five? Form as a clinging-aggregate, feeling as a clinging-aggregate, perception as a clinging-aggregate, fabrications as a clinging-aggregate, consciousness as a clinging-aggregate: This, monks, is called the burden.

"And which is the carrier of the burden? ‘The person,’ it should be said. This venerable one with such a name, such a clan-name: This is called the carrier of the burden.

"And which is the taking up of the burden? The craving that makes for further becoming — accompanied by passion & delight, relishing now here & now there — i.e., craving for sensual pleasure, craving for becoming, craving for non-becoming: This is called the taking up of the burden.

“And which is the casting off of the burden? The remainderless dispassion-cessation, renunciation, relinquishment, release, & letting go of that very craving: This is called the casting off of the burden.”
— SN 22.22

I see a ball throughout my life, and I come to identify my self with the ball!


#38

I think it’s pretty clear we are going past each other :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

Can you clarify in detail what you mean by bifurcation interpretation?


#39

If you reread the thread, I think I have explained the basics. The question is basically whether sense-consciousness creates a duality, or whether it arises in dependence upon one.

We also got onto a discussion about what it means to say that name+form arises in dependence upon sense-consciousness.


#40

If you are meaning this

Now there is both this body and external name-&-form. Here, in dependence on this duality, there is contact at the six senses. Touched by these, or one or another of them, the fool is sensitive to pleasure & pain. -SN12.19

I completely agree with you.

What i am saying is once contact has occurred what we are conscious of is namarupa. For example, say i hold out my hand at arms length. I see that shape and colour as my hand and the shapes and colours behind it as my room. That is namarupa.