What is it that cause consciousness arise ?
Hi James,
What is your question precisely?
Are you after an essence or a cause for consciousness?
These are distinct things.
Two questions actually .
I presume consciousness come into being because something i called essence
which already existed in latent .
For example , water in a way came from something already one can find in the universe .
Consciousness arises not only due to an eye in contact with corresponding realm , it suppose to have a something
" ignite " for it to come into being .
A defective eye in contact with corresponding realm can’t cause
the consciousness to arise .
[quote=“James, post:1, topic:5647, full:true”]
What is it that cause consciousness arise ?[/quote]
I doubt this question is answerable. All I have read the suttas explain is consciousness is a dhatu (element); that is all.
Consciousness arises in dependence on sense organs & sense objects (MN 38). But what the ‘substance’ or ‘sub-particles’ that make up the element of consciousness I have never read.
In addition, this would fall outside of the scope of Buddha-Dhamma, which is only about suffering & the cessation of suffering.
Regards 
1 Like
The consciousness aggregate did not come into being because of something. It exists since forever. The 5 aggregates exist and are assembled like that since forever.
I think Not necessarily .
But , how does it arises & due to ?
Isn’t that somewhat different between consciousness and elements ?
Elements ain’t something conscious .
Perhaps we can think
out of the box ?
Supposed to be something ,
otherwise , out of blue ?
I think the question is unanswerable. In order to know the cause of consciousness you would have to be aware of it - that is, you would have to be conscious of the precursor of consciousness. Likewise, to say that consciousness is momentary or timeless, consciousness would have to transcend these boundaries in order to make such a statement - in which case, the statement becomes nonsensical.
1 Like
If so, please answer the question.
Consciousness is one of the elements (dhatu). The seems to be the most ‘reductionist’ the Buddha taught about consciousness.
Ānanda, when the bhikkhu becomes clever, in the elements, in the spheres, in dependent arising and in the possible and impossible, he becomes an inquirer.
Venerable sir, saying it rightly how is the wise bhikkhu clever in the elements?
Ānanda, there are eighteen elements. They are the elements of eye, forms and eye consciousness; ear, sounds, and ear consciousness; nose, scents and nose consciousness; tongue, tastes and tongue consciousness; body, touches and body consciousness; mind, ideas and mind consciousness. Ānanda, these are the eighteen elements, when the bhikkhu knows and sees them, he becomes clever in the elements.
Venerable sir, is there another method through which the bhikkhu becomes clever in the elements?
There is a method. The bhikkhu becomes clever in the six elements, such as the elements of earth, water, fire, air, space and consciousness Ānanda, these are the six elements, when the bhikkhu knows and sees them, saying it rightly he becomes clever in the elements.
MN 115[quote=“James, post:6, topic:5647”]
Perhaps we can think out of the box ?[/quote]
Perhaps we can ask: “What makes a mirror able to reflect an image?” “What makes a still pond of water able to reflect an image?”
This said, the questions remain unrelated to Buddhism, which asks: “What is dukkha & how is dukkha ended?”
You already answered it .
Isn’t consciousness something not
substantial ? If so , at the end
of the day , nothing has ever arise .
It is related in such a way , where
one finally penetrate the illusory
of the 5 aggregates .
Dukkha therefore is ended .
Imo 6 elements was an addition
in the sectarian period .
No, you did not understand at all.
It exists since forever.
I suppose that’s an assumption !
If so, keep searching. Regards. 
“Monks, it is just as if a master magician or the disciple of a master magician at a crossroads creates the magical illusion of an elephant troop, a horse troop, a chariot troop, and an infantry troop, and a clear-sighted person carefully examines, attends to, and analyses it. At the time of carefully examining, attending to, and analysing it, he finds that there is nothing in it, nothing stable, nothing substantial, it has no solidity. Why is that? It is because there is nothing solid or substantial in a magical illusion.
“In the same way, a monk carefully examines, attends to, and analyses whatever consciousness, past, future, or present, internal or external, gross or subtle, sublime or repugnant, far or near. When carefully examining, attending to, and analysing it, the monk finds that there is nothing in it, nothing stable, nothing substantial, it has no solidity; it is like a disease, like a carbuncle, like a thorn, like a killer, it is impermanent, dukkha, empty, and not self. Why is that? It is because there is nothing solid or substantial in consciousness.”
SA 265
3 Likes
[quote=“James, post:11, topic:5647, full:true”]
I suppose that’s an assumption !
[/quote]It is an assumption that the Buddha appears to make in AN 10.61, albeit that is only one reading of why the Buddha would say that the cause of ignorance (and, by extension, this whole mass of suffering, consciousnesses included,) “is not seen” (someone better than I at Pāli will have to parse “to see” (paññāyati?) out of this: “Purimā, bhikkhave, koṭi na paññāyati avijjāya: ‘ito pubbe avijjā nāhosi, atha pacchā samabhavī’ti."). Two possible readings of this depend on who is doing the “seeing” when the Buddha says that it “is not seen”, the Buddha, or generally everyone (i.e. speaking from a “general” or saṁvṛiti POV, not an EBT term AFAIK), and, theoretically, is abhiññā involved (assuming the Buddha is speaking from ‘his’ POV), and what does that say about the truth (paramārtha, not AFAIK an EBT term) and if that is relevant to the path, all of these factors could influence the reading of “is not seen” here.
Nevertheless, beginningless ignorance seems to be what underpins the Dhamma if one views one of its incidental applications as an account of a “history of saṃsāra”.
@James, if āgama-nikāya parallels interest you, the way that the Chinese is phrased is a lot more non committal, as if the Buddha as attested in the Sarvāstivāda recension seems (and this is the operative word, because this is inference I want to stress) to be either a) not interested in the question that underpinned what he was saying and did not care to spend a great deal of time explaining it, or b) speaking from a “general perspective/POV”.
Consider:[quote]我聞如是：
一時，佛遊舍衛國，在勝林給孤獨園。
爾時，世尊告諸比丘：「有愛者，其本際不可知，本無有愛，然今生有愛，便可得知，所因有愛。有愛者，則有習，非無習。
I have heard thus: Once, the Buddha travelled to Śrāvastī and stayed at Anāthapiṇḍada’s Park in Jeta’s Grove.
At that time, the World Honored One addressed the bhikṣus: “That the craving for existence is the ultimate origin for it is unknowable. Or is there no craving for existence at the origin? But, there does presently arise this craving for existence.[/quote]
(MA 51)
1 Like