The Buddha predicted the neuroscience of blindness

I am reading an excerpt from a book on the differences between Viññāṇa, Manas and Citta as they are treated in the Sutta Piṭaka (just because I want to understand the differences between these), and for some reason, this is the first time I’ve given serious thought to the implications of having eye-consciousness and so forth, and to the implications of not having it. So it got me thinking, “Suppose there’s someone who’s blind from birth. If they see black, then that is still eye-consciousness, right? So what do they actually perceive?”

Turns out: nothing. A blind person doesn’t perceive anything, so the Buddha was absolutely correct that eye-consciousness arises out of contact of the eye with forms cognizable via the eye along with consciousness, etc.

I just had my mind blown :mindblown:


There’s a whole lotta difference between blankness and nothingness.


Or in an even more accurate way to phrase it: From perceiving nothing, to not perceiving.

In the person with normal faculties eye consciousness arises when there is a visual sense impression but is absent when other senses are active. Sense faculty (including mind) consciousness arises one at a time.