Another way to look at vision is by the objects it sees.
Vision either sees the presently visible, or the presently invisible, or both, or neither.
Vision doesn't see objects that are presently visible, because they are already being seen. Because they are already being seen, they do not need vision to see them. So this vision is not what is seeing them.
Vision doesn't see objects that are presently invisible. Invisible objects have the property of not being seen, so nothing can see them.
Vision doesn't see objects that are both visible and invisible because of a combination of the first two reasons above.
Vision doesn't see objects that are NEITHER visible nor invisible because we can REVERSE the first two reasons above.
Therefore vision doesn't see. If it doesn't see, then seeingness is not its intrinsic nature. Then it makes no sense to think that vision exists in the ultimate way that it appears to.
If vision doesn't exist, then how can visible objects exist?"[/i]
Well, I totally do not understand anything that you posted up until this point (above). That part about the jasmine flower just went right over my head. Can you explain it better?
But, this part here (above) is partly correct.
What is experienced
as "seeing" is an electronic pulse in the chemistry of the brain, triggered by light bouncing off objects and into the eyes. Technically, we don't even see objects. we only see light bouncing off objects.
Even ore technically, there is no 'we' seeing it. There is only awareness arising with objects of awareness.
That's why the whole thing about 'eye consciousness" , and so forth, doesn't make any sense to me
part is largely true. "Seeing" doesn't actually occur outside of being a manifestation of awareness. What occurs is awareness arising with physical brain activity, and experiencing that brain activity (which is all going on in total darkness, by the way) as the experience of 'sight'.
But "exist' is a somewhat meaningless term in Buddhism, I think.
If something 'exists' it must do so essentially
, meaning that if an object is broken down into component parts, each part contains that object in essence. But, there's not too much that does that.
So, the question "If vision doesn't exist, then how can visible objects exist?" is off the mark.
composite objects, cars, for example, arise and are perceived visually.
What makes them 'visible objects' has nothing to do with their arising as composites.
Take for example, a painting of a Buddha. Like a Tibetan thang'ka.
The image on that scroll of canvas or paper only arisies ("exists", if you want to use that word)
in the presence of light. If you put that painting into a lightproof room,
that image isn't there. It's not just that it's there but you can't see it.
without light, there is no painted image.
But there is the cause
of a painting of a Buddha (well, part of a cause, anyway).
for a specific image to arise is there,
because the different chemicals in the paint on the surface of that canvas are there
and they can reflect different parts of the visible light spectrum.
So, the potential for a visible object may be present.
Otherwise, everything in the world would vanish for a split second every time your eyes blinked.
Just imagine how annoying that would be.