Skandha question

[PadmaVonSamba]

Minds also are conscious, but that consciousness is not fabricated by someone or something. Minds cannot be reduced in such a way as to exclude consciousness, consciousness is an irreducible fact of minds. Unlike inanimate phenomena, minds possesses two irreducible qualities, consciousness and emptiness.

Minds are defined by being cognizant (vijñānaṁ prativijñaptiḥ - Kośa 1.16; MPPS XXX.4.1.5), by knowing an object (ālambanaṃbijñaptiḥ - Pañcaskandhaprakaraṇa 112; cf. Kośa 1.34), and they always arise not simply based on conditions but also with concomitants (caitta - Kośa 2.23-24). Hence the issue with saying that somehow the quality of cognizance/consciousness is independent of conditions seems contrary to what's generally taught about the mind. As Śāntideva points out (Bodhicaryāvatāra 9.60), consciousness without an object makes no sense. Also, the MPPS, when discussing the emptiness of all dharmas (XLVIII.14), covers also the defining characteristic of mind as cognizant.

While it is true that being cognizant of objects occurs when awareness comes into contact with objects of awareness, this is not the whole picture. As the Buddha purportedly brings up in the Surangama Sutra, if you cover your eyes so that you can’t see anything, how do you know that you can’t see anything? You know because the ‘eye consciousness’ doesn’t cease simply because there is no object to see.

[Astus]

If there is no object for it, does a consciousness cease and become nonexistent? If this is the case, how does someone arise from a samadhi of cessation?

Consciousness is when it is conscious of something. Not being conscious of something is simply no consciousness. So to say that consciousness somehow can cease to be conscious of something and then stop existing is not an option, like saying that first the light of a candle ceases to be bright and then ceases to be light.
As for arising from a samadhi of cessation and other similar examples used by some to propose a theory of an unbroken stream of consciousness, even those theories maintain momentariness and the need for an object. So no matter what, consciousness stays no longer than a moment and never without something to be conscious of.

More to the point, if consciousness must always have an object, how can one practice prajñāpāramitā?

By not perpetuating the attachment to consciousness or any other phenomenon.

Candra points out in his MAV autocommentary, "Yogis do not perceive all aspects, when those are not perceived, that which is appropriated by the eye, and so on, and so on does not occur. In this way, yogis do not perceive an intrinsic nature in any entities, and therefore, they are liberated from samsara."

That's about ending the misconceptions of self and belonging to a self, as in MMK 18.4 that the autocommentary quotes.

If consciousness must always have an object, such a nonperception would be impossible, and therefore, liberation also would be impossible, and one must accept the consequence that liberation involves consciousness becoming a nonexistent, and therefore, one's view is necessarily annihilationist, like that of sautrantikas.

It can be said that recognising that the door key is not in one's pocket is an instance of nonperception, but that's actually a deduction, a conceptual inference. In the case of inherent existence, once its mistaken assumption is removed, there is simply no generation of the idea of a self. So there is no need for a consciousness without object.

"‘But there couldn’t be any seeing of such a nature, could there? So how do they then see?’ Though that is true, it is said that, ‘It’s by not seeing it that they see.’"
(MAB 6.29)

'It is said in the very profound sūtras that the state of nonseeing is seeing [ultimate reality]. In that (ultimate reality), there is neither seeing nor seer, but peace without beginning or end.'
(Entry to the Two Realities, v 7, in Jewels of the Middle Way, p 119)

[Astus]

As the Buddha purportedly brings up in the Surangama Sutra, if you cover your eyes so that you can’t see anything, how do you know that you can’t see anything? You know because the ‘eye consciousness’ doesn’t cease simply because there is no object to see.

That's only one half of the reasoning presented in the sutra, but if one takes only that much from it, that would not "differ from the ‘truth of the unmanifested nature’ as taught by the Brahmin Kapila, or from the ‘true self’ as taught by the ascetics who smear ashes on themselves, or by others who are not on the right path" (2.9, p 72). So the conclusion drawn is that "Statements that account for its existence cannot be negated, yet one cannot say that they cannot be negated. Such statements cannot be affirmed, yet one cannot say that they cannot be affirmed. What is entirely beyond all defining attributes — that is the entirety of Dharma." (p 74)

From Ven. Sheng-yen's commentary:

'You must try to not cling to either extreme and to let go of the center, as well – this is Madhyamika, the middle way. Could this be the way to find true self?
If you continue to hold on to a concept such as a true self, or an idea of something that pervades through all space and time, then you are holding on to an attachment. Buddhadharma does not speak of true self; it speaks only of causes and conditions.
You might ask if causes and conditions are the true Dharma, the true way. No, these are only concepts, expedient ways of explaining things.'
(Until We Reach Buddhahood, vol 1, p 123)