viniketa wrote:deepbluehum wrote:I think that Buddhists are making the fallacy of a distinction without a difference when it comes to these semantic games. There is no difference really between perception, consciousness and knowing.... All the distinguishing comes from looking at the nature of the unconditioned.
Semantics isn't just a game. It is trying to be precise in communication. At the risk of further reification of conceptualization, I respectfully disagree that all these are the same. Perception arises from sense contact, consciousness arises from distinguishing observer from observed, understanding arises from intellect. Distinguishing arises once the "looking at the nature of the unconditioned" is done from within specially-conditioned time. Once the momentary nature of thought arises, all becomes conditioned. "Knowing" is different from all of these. It is only the same in the casual way we typically use the term as a substitute for any of the other three. Knowing occurs when all is one with the known.
There is a way to understand the 12-links where the word "consciousness" doesn't come into play. Similarly with the 8-consciousness of yogacara, that is by considering vijnana as perception, manas as discrimination. Or we can say it's the entire structure we are calling a consciousness.
Nirvana is simply the perception of seeing nothing in the mind and being okay with that, getting used to that, while not preferring to close one's eyes when presented with sense objects.
In any event, your definitions are rather novel and unclear. Dharma students love sounding erudite. Erudition is not really a highlight of Buddha-dharma. Yogis like Milarepa could not read, but could give very precise descriptions from their own valid cognition.
So calling nibbana and object is like calling nothing a something.