The issue with this particular subject is that direct realism is the default position of unreflective people. Language itself is oriented toward direct realism. Even though I personally have no belief in it, I still tend to talk in terms of it when speaking with other people. A great deal of these quotes are the same way: the Buddha is addressing a tangent subject and is not going to go to linguistic lengths to avoid this issue. It’s very similar to using the concept of self in everyday conversation.
You don’t need the scriptures for this issue anyways. You don’t even need meditative attainments. All you have to do is sit down and look. Direct realism is clearly wrong. The thought “this object exists in a real world” only appears as a thought…a belief. Your mind is projecting this belief into your direct perceptions in the exact same way it is projecting a self into your experience. Just look.
If realism is true, then you should be able to bring me an object that exists apart from consciousness. Bring me such an object!
“Bhikkhus, consciousness comes to be in dependence on a dyad. And how, bhikkhus, does consciousness come to be in dependence on a dyad? In dependence on the eye and forms there arises eye-consciousness.:
-SN 35.93
This fits what I said. Consciousness and objects depend on each other (and the perception-gate in this case, as dependent origination has the contact stage).
A given instance of perceptual consciousness is said to arise only in dependence upon two conditions: the sense organ and its corresponding object-field. This implies that perceptual consciousness arises only in conjunction with an appropriate and existent object; perceptual consciousness of a nonexistent object or without an object is, therefore, impossible.
-Disputed Dharmas
Early Buddhist Theories on Existence
An Annotated Translation
of the Section on Factors Dissociated from Thought
from Sanghabhadra’s Nyayanusara
Collett Cox
p 136-137
No it doesn’t. This author is wrong, because he read in “form is not dependent on consciousness in equal measure.” Form is dependent on consciousness; consciousness is dependent on form. They co-arise. Without consciousness, form does not arise. Without form, consciousness does not arise. If anything, idealism is closer to the truth than realism, as you can actually experience consciousness of nothingness (arupa-jhanas or a ~20mg dose of vaporized 5-MeO-DMT) but an object that exists but has no impact on any consciousness is literally impossible. You can’t even think of such an object as thoughts only appear in consciousness.
There are also beings with no mind, but their bodies exist anyway:
There are, bhikkhus, certain gods called 'non-percipient beings.
-DN 1
That is NOT what that says. You’re reading your interpretation into this in several quotes.
“And what is it, bhikkhus, that the wise in the world agree upon as existing, of which I too say that it exists? Form that is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change: this the wise in the world agree upon as existing, and I too say that it exists."
-SN 22.94
Form exists…like clearly the form exists as it’s directly experienced; “physical object” is a mental construct that is projected onto form. These are not the same. Disentangle these concepts!
In every case you’re projecting a specific interpretation into these passages. You’re confusing “form” with “physical object.” You don’t need scripture to figure this issue out anyways. Just look. “Physical object” is just a concept that is projected onto the experienced forms the exact same way “self” is a concept projected onto experience in general. This projection is easier to track down than “self,” as it is rooted in the idea we develop in childhood called object permanence, which has practical use but is just a heuristic none-the-less.
Again, if direct realism is the case, then bring me an object outside of my consciousness. Should be easy!