Debate about consciousnesses realising themselves

Do consciousnesses (implicitly) realise themselves?

• Khedrup Je's Thousand Doses on consciousness not realising itself
• Khedrup Je's system (Jetsunpa)
• LTK's Illumination on consciousness realising itself (Jetsunpa)
• Khedrup Je's system (JS)
• Possible response from Jetsunpa (specifically to the main consequence by Khedrup Je):
  • Despite the exalted wisdom of meditative equipoise implicitly realising itself upon explicitly realising its cognised-object (i.e. emptiness), emptiness would not become an ../Preliminaries/Collected Topics/Implicative negation because of not fulfilling the definition of implicative negation; because its conveyed-object is not a positive phenomenon; because the exalted wisdom directly realising emptiness is an implicative negation.

Summary:

Therefore for Jetsunpa:

• The eye-consciousness apprehending blue (implicitly) realises the eye-consciousness apprehending blue, but does not experience the eye-consciousness apprehending blue.
• This is based on the Illumination of the Thought saying: "When the non-conceptual exalted wisdom of meditative equipoise has established its cognised-object (i.e. dharmata), then through the force of that the exalted wisdom that is its object-possessor will be established;"
  དགོངས་པ་རབ་གསལ་ལས། མཉམ་གཞག་རྣམ་པར་མི་རྟོག་པའི་ཡེ་ཤེས་ཀྱིས་རང་གི་གཞལ་བྱ་ཆོས་ཉིད་གྲུབ་པ་ན།
  དེའི་སྟོབས་ཀྱིས་ཡུལ་ཅན་གྱི་ཡེ་ཤེས་འགྲུབ་པ་ལ།
• If it experienced it, it would become a self-knower because then it would need to observe itself.
• This is because Illumination of the Thought says: In terms of differentiating between observing and experiencing: apart from a few cases, there is no need to [differentiate them] in most cases.
  དམིགས་མྱོང་སོ་སོར་འབྱེད་པ་ནི་སྐབས་འགའ་ཞིག་མ་གཏོགས་པ་འདི་འདྲ་བ་མང་པོ་ཞིག་ལ་མི་དགོས་སོ།
  • Observing but not experiencing: The Buddha's exalted wisdom observed the suffering of the hell-realms but does not experience them.
  • Experiencing but not observing: The mental factor of pleasant feeling experiences pleasure but does not observe it.

For other textbooks:

• The eye-consciousness apprehending blue does not realise (explicitly or implicitly) the eye-consciousness apprehending blue because:
  • If non-conceptual exalted wisdom of meditative equipoise realises itself, then:
    • If it explicitly realised itself, it would possess dualistic appearances; and
    • If it implicitly realised itself, it's object would become an implicative negation.
• Therefore, since the first above passage says "will be established" (future tense), it does not mean that it implicitly realises itself but rather that it will be realised through the force of that, meaning:
  • Despite the aspect of that object not dawning to that awareness and superimpositions wrt that have not been eliminated at the time of that awareness, it eliminates superimpositions wrt that subsequently to it without relying upon another valid cognition.

Up a level: Refutation of self-knowers as the basis for memory