<p>Pointing to a consciousness is the same as pointing to a computer program. Your consciousness is not an object, but rather a property of another object (your brain), similar to how a computer program's behavour is really just a convenient side-effect of a very specific arrangement of million of bits. You can't point to your consciousness, just like you can't point to Microsoft Word. The best you could do is point to your brain, which would be comparable to pointing to your monitor or hard drive.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-03-14T04:04:09.237Z
Saying that the mind is a byproduct of the brain is a materialistic view. Such views are rejected in Buddhism.
Sankha Kulathantille
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-01-09T08:36:40.820Z
mind is a byproduct of karma
Shrawaka
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-03-14T03:25:51.520Z
2016-03-14T03:25:51.520Z
Alex Petrov
<p>Based on the Vipassana retreat I attended (and translated), when it comes to place one's mindfulness one one's mind(s), the trick is to start with identifying the function of the mind: seeing, hearing, thinking, etc.</p>

<p>The mind is that which is clear and knowing. Its function is to know (realize) objects and it is easier to identify this aspect than it is to identify its clarity factor (which is its nature and makes it able to take the subjective aspect of what it apprehends, in the same way a mirror takes the  aspect of whatever it reflects). I suggest you start by identifying the functions of your mind: seeing, hearing, and so forth. You can also read Analayo Bhikkhu on the topic.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-03-13T18:09:04.037Z
Do you mean that the mind is consciousness?
Anton A. Zabirko
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-03-13T18:14:43.643Z
Yes. I have come across Theravadin references saying (it seems) there is a one mind with doors that are the eye-consciousness, etc. But I'm not well-versed in Theravada Abhidharma. In Mahayana Abhidharma, at least mind, knower, cognizer, consciousness are synonymous. There is the eye-consciousness, the ear-consciousness, and so forth.
Tenzin Dorje
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-03-13T18:18:43.643Z
The mind can't be the consciousness because consciousnesses are taken as 6 equal parts (according to Theravadin sources), and thus you cannot label the mind as any 1 of those parts. Edit: Also, I believe it would be more accurate to say that the mind hosts the 6 consciousnesses, along with the alaya-consciousness (in Mahayana tradition). I am not sure, however.
Anton A. Zabirko
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-03-13T18:25:44.493Z
According to Mahayana, consciousnesses and mind are synonymous. What you refer to is probably what we usually call 'continuum [of consciousnesses]'. This continuum is not so much the object you seek to identify. You seek to identify particular instances of minds / consciousnesses / cognizers.
Tenzin Dorje
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-03-13T18:30:54.737Z
Purbuchok says: "First, the definition of an awareness is : a knower. The definition of a consciousness is: that which is clear and knowing. Mind (blo), Awareness (blo), knower (rig pa), and consciousness (shes pa) are synonymous."
Tenzin Dorje
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-03-13T19:11:31.820Z
I disagree that they are synonymous based on my understanding of the texts. I also disagree that awareness is a knower - knowing is an aspect of the intellect, not of awareness. Unless by knowing is meant something along the lines of: "being aware of". Also, I understand that mind is separate from the sort of consciousness that arises from sense-object and sense-organ, in the sense that such a consciousness and a mind is not one and the same. In this case, how can mind and awareness be said to be the same? That would make mind arise from an eye transplant.
Anton A. Zabirko
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-03-13T19:15:30.173Z
Let us [continue this discussion in chat](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/36920/discussion-between-tenzin-dorje-and-anton-zabirko).
Tenzin Dorje
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-03-13T18:07:56.907Z
2016-03-13T18:07:56.907Z
Tenzin Dorje
<p>In short:</p>

<ul>
<li>You cannot point to your consciousness nor can you feel it directly</li>
<li>You can direct [point] your attention to the respective consciousness at any of the 6 sense doors to which you can feel the sensations born out of contact (passa - also see: <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/13146/what-is-the-definition-of-passa">What is the definition of passa ?</a>)</li>
</ul>

<p>In the case you point to your eye through body consciousness by feeling the sensations around the eye. Here you are not pointing to the eye consciousness but directing your attention to the body consciousness around where the eye physically exist.</p>

<p>In the case what to point to an object of the eye you direct your attention to the eye consciousness whereby you see the object at the eye.</p>

<p>In both cases above once contact with the eye happens this is followed by the contact with the mind in which further processing and thinking is done.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-03-20T22:51:36.683Z
But how do you direct your attention to the eye consciousness?
Anton A. Zabirko
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-03-21T17:21:23.303Z
Just be mindful of what you see.
Suminda Sirinath S. Dharmasena
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-03-14T02:40:52.643Z
2016-03-14T02:40:52.643Z
2017-04-13T12:51:06.400Z
Suminda Sirinath S. Dharmasena
<p>From <a href="https://suttacentral.net/en/mn28" rel="nofollow">MN 28</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>If, friends, internally the eye is intact but no external forms come into its range, and there is no corresponding conscious engagement, then there is no manifestation of the corresponding section of consciousness. If internally the eye is intact and external forms come into its range, but there is no corresponding conscious engagement, then there is no manifestation of the corresponding section of consciousness. But when internally the eye is intact and external forms come into its range and there is the corresponding conscious engagement, then there is the manifestation of the corresponding section of consciousness.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Trying to point to one's consciousness is like trying to point at the wind. One can't really "point" it out. One can only point to its manifestation. How to point at the wind? When seeing a tree and its branches are shaking or feeling a breeze brushing against one's face, etc. Similarly, how to point out one's eye consciousness? By the fact that one's able to cognize the form object like a book, a table, etc..</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-03-20T22:47:40.633Z
That's a great summary! However, how do I know you're correct? I don't see the sutta you referenced saying the same thing as what your metaphor is. But I am not sure what is meant by corresponding conscious engagement. Are they talking about intellect-consciousness? If they are talking about the corresponding sense-consciousness, then that doesn't really make sense. How can something cause itself to arise?
Anton A. Zabirko
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-03-22T21:18:53.327Z
The Suttas Pitaka was never meant to be a comprehensive source of information. Otherwise there'd be no need for volumes upon volumes of Commentaries and Sub-Commentaries. Conscious engagement in MN 28 is the fancy word for "attention". So basically the paragraph says that when a visual object comes into range of the eye, if you're occupied with something else, like some deep thought about some math homework, you won't pay attention and so won't be able to see that object, hence no manifestation of eye-consciousness.
santa100
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-03-13T19:36:42.757Z
2016-03-13T19:36:42.757Z
santa100
<p>For example, I can point to my eye:</p>

<p>the eye itself;</p>

<p>I can point to an object of the eye:</p>

<p>a book;</p>

<p>But I cannot point to the eye-consciousness that arises based on the two.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-03-14T01:12:57.413Z
Close your eyes and you can still see the object mentally. You can only point to the mind then.
Sankha Kulathantille
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-03-20T22:48:41.810Z
But that's not what I want to point towards, I want to point specifically to one of the six sense-consciousnesses.
Anton A. Zabirko
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-03-21T01:32:52.397Z
Yes, that is one of the six sense-consciousnesses. The mind consciousness. It gives you an idea of the presence of the mind when seeing occurs.
Sankha Kulathantille
<personal-practice><abidhamma>
How can one point to one's consciousness?
# How can one point to one's consciousness?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2016-03-13)

For example, I can point to my eye:

the eye itself;

I can point to an object of the eye:

a book;

But I cannot point to the eye-consciousness that arises based on the two.

**Tags:** personal-practice, abidhamma

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Close your eyes and you can still see the object mentally. You can only point to the mind then.  
> **username_0**: But that's not what I want to point towards, I want to point specifically to one of the six sense-consciousnesses.  
> **username_1**: Yes, that is one of the six sense-consciousnesses. The mind consciousness. It gives you an idea of the presence of the mind when seeing occurs.  

---

## 4 answers

### Answer by username_6 on 2016-03-13. Score: 4

From [MN 28](https://suttacentral.net/en/mn28):

> If, friends, internally the eye is intact but no external forms come into its range, and there is no corresponding conscious engagement, then there is no manifestation of the corresponding section of consciousness. If internally the eye is intact and external forms come into its range, but there is no corresponding conscious engagement, then there is no manifestation of the corresponding section of consciousness. But when internally the eye is intact and external forms come into its range and there is the corresponding conscious engagement, then there is the manifestation of the corresponding section of consciousness.

Trying to point to one's consciousness is like trying to point at the wind. One can't really "point" it out. One can only point to its manifestation. How to point at the wind? When seeing a tree and its branches are shaking or feeling a breeze brushing against one's face, etc. Similarly, how to point out one's eye consciousness? By the fact that one's able to cognize the form object like a book, a table, etc..

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: That's a great summary! However, how do I know you're correct? I don't see the sutta you referenced saying the same thing as what your metaphor is. But I am not sure what is meant by corresponding conscious engagement. Are they talking about intellect-consciousness? If they are talking about the corresponding sense-consciousness, then that doesn't really make sense. How can something cause itself to arise?  
> **username_6**: The Suttas Pitaka was never meant to be a comprehensive source of information. Otherwise there'd be no need for volumes upon volumes of Commentaries and Sub-Commentaries. Conscious engagement in MN 28 is the fancy word for "attention". So basically the paragraph says that when a visual object comes into range of the eye, if you're occupied with something else, like some deep thought about some math homework, you won't pay attention and so won't be able to see that object, hence no manifestation of eye-consciousness.  

---

### Answer by username_2 on 2016-03-14. Score: 1

Pointing to a consciousness is the same as pointing to a computer program. Your consciousness is not an object, but rather a property of another object (your brain), similar to how a computer program's behavour is really just a convenient side-effect of a very specific arrangement of million of bits. You can't point to your consciousness, just like you can't point to Microsoft Word. The best you could do is point to your brain, which would be comparable to pointing to your monitor or hard drive.

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Saying that the mind is a byproduct of the brain is a materialistic view. Such views are rejected in Buddhism.  
> **username_3**: mind is a byproduct of karma  

---

### Answer by username_4 on 2016-03-13. Score: 0

Based on the Vipassana retreat I attended (and translated), when it comes to place one's mindfulness one one's mind(s), the trick is to start with identifying the function of the mind: seeing, hearing, thinking, etc.

The mind is that which is clear and knowing. Its function is to know (realize) objects and it is easier to identify this aspect than it is to identify its clarity factor (which is its nature and makes it able to take the subjective aspect of what it apprehends, in the same way a mirror takes the aspect of whatever it reflects). I suggest you start by identifying the functions of your mind: seeing, hearing, and so forth. You can also read Analayo Bhikkhu on the topic.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Do you mean that the mind is consciousness?  
> **username_4**: Yes. I have come across Theravadin references saying (it seems) there is a one mind with doors that are the eye-consciousness, etc. But I'm not well-versed in Theravada Abhidharma. In Mahayana Abhidharma, at least mind, knower, cognizer, consciousness are synonymous. There is the eye-consciousness, the ear-consciousness, and so forth.  
> **username_0**: The mind can't be the consciousness because consciousnesses are taken as 6 equal parts (according to Theravadin sources), and thus you cannot label the mind as any 1 of those parts. Edit: Also, I believe it would be more accurate to say that the mind hosts the 6 consciousnesses, along with the alaya-consciousness (in Mahayana tradition). I am not sure, however.  
> **username_4**: According to Mahayana, consciousnesses and mind are synonymous. What you refer to is probably what we usually call 'continuum [of consciousnesses]'. This continuum is not so much the object you seek to identify. You seek to identify particular instances of minds / consciousnesses / cognizers.  
> **username_4**: Purbuchok says: "First, the definition of an awareness is : a knower. The definition of a consciousness is: that which is clear and knowing. Mind (blo), Awareness (blo), knower (rig pa), and consciousness (shes pa) are synonymous."  
> **username_0**: I disagree that they are synonymous based on my understanding of the texts. I also disagree that awareness is a knower - knowing is an aspect of the intellect, not of awareness. Unless by knowing is meant something along the lines of: "being aware of". Also, I understand that mind is separate from the sort of consciousness that arises from sense-object and sense-organ, in the sense that such a consciousness and a mind is not one and the same. In this case, how can mind and awareness be said to be the same? That would make mind arise from an eye transplant.  
> **username_4**: Let us [continue this discussion in chat](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/36920/discussion-between-tenzin-dorje-and-anton-zabirko).  

---

### Answer by username_5 on 2016-03-14. Score: -1

In short:

* You cannot point to your consciousness nor can you feel it directly
* You can direct [point] your attention to the respective consciousness at any of the 6 sense doors to which you can feel the sensations born out of contact (passa - also see: [What is the definition of passa ?](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/13146/what-is-the-definition-of-passa))

In the case you point to your eye through body consciousness by feeling the sensations around the eye. Here you are not pointing to the eye consciousness but directing your attention to the body consciousness around where the eye physically exist.

In the case what to point to an object of the eye you direct your attention to the eye consciousness whereby you see the object at the eye.

In both cases above once contact with the eye happens this is followed by the contact with the mind in which further processing and thinking is done.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: But how do you direct your attention to the eye consciousness?  
> **username_5**: Just be mindful of what you see.  

---

