Why does base consciousness "divide" into selves in Buddhism?

Why, exactly, in technical detail, does consciousness "divide" into selves in Buddhism? Has this every been adequately answered by anyone in history, in any school of Buddhism? Don't need a complete analysis here as an answer necessarily, but looking for an intro to the depths of technical detail. By that I mean, how does it go from "base consciousness" (like ālaya-vijñāna in Yogācāra Buddhism), to self-consciousness basically? Step by step, break it down so one can see the inner workings :) If you'd just like to comment on the sources I can find this information in, please list where to find it. English translation ideally, ideally not 100's or 1000's of pages of reading. But maybe that doesn't exist yet :). _Hoping this can be boiled down to just a few short/brief paragraphs, or just a few concise pages of external reading._ I ask this question because was just trying to narrow down my understanding of the foundation of reality, the universe, the everything, writing: > There is only experience. > > Experience is a cause (to experience), and an effect (the experience), at the same time. It is difficult to imagine but if you think about what that would mean, that means there is no separation into two things (cause and effect), there is only one thing, the cause-effect flow. > > Experience is action and reaction, action and object, motion and form. Cause and effect. It is one unified thing, non-separable into parts or even befores and afters. > > Somehow though it subdivides into individual experiences. Experiences only aware of a relative portion of the whole, not the whole itself. _By "experience" I mean basically consciousness in traditional terminology. But I think experience is a better English word for it. It's all just words anyways, words aren't the actual thing obviously._ In Buddhism, this "subdivision" is also in places described as a defilement of pure consciousness, or ignorance, a temporary blotting out of the light like a cloud moving in front of the sun. Etc.. But WHY. WHY does experience subdivide, or become ignorant, or the underlying field of consciousness, the one flow, the One permanent thing? It must DO something to get there it seems. It must TURN AWAY perhaps. But why would it do that? No reason that I can think of yet. Maybe it's a locality thing, it just can't experience the whole thing? But why? Etc.. My rational brain is like: 1. "In the beginning" there was pure consciousness, undifferentiated, One continuous undivided experience. _I don't mean there was a beginning, I just mean conceptually there is a base state, sort of thing._ 2. Then it exploded into a plethora of ignorant selves, thinking they were each independent of the underlying field and everything else. 3. The selves go through cycles of life and death, rising into pleasure realms, falling into pain realms, for long periods of time. 4. Until eventually they realize their oneness, and find the middle path of peace, break the cycle, and I guess become "extinguished" experiences (nirvana/cessation), releasing that part of the base consciousness back to the field. _Obviously there is no beginning though, but this is just a mental exercise to model the system._ But so many questions in that. Main one here is: - Why does pure/base consciousness need to or have to or eventually evolve into semi-ignorant sub-consciousnesses, unaware of the whole? - And assuming consciousness is always in some sense "disturbed", a rippling pond by definition, always and forever, why do they say you can ever achieve "nirvana/cessation", the extinguished state, where you are back to the perfectly calm pond state? - Why couldn't the whole stay aware of the whole, why did it have to subdivide? Basically: - If the pond started in a perfectly calm state, why would it ever become disturbed? - Assuming it was disturbed for some reason (by it's nature somehow?), and spontaneously erupts into a plethora of selves, how can we say/model/imagine/know that those selves can eventually become extinguished back into pure calmness again? - And if they are capable of becoming pure calm in a disturbed pond, why wouldn't everything eventually evolve back into pure calm, and the whole system is extinguished? Basically trying to convey the blurry imagination I have in my head of this network of processes and evolutions.... - Selves spontaneously emerge because the pond can't stay calm (WHY? HOW? Step by step in technical detail?). - Yet disturbance can become calm again? In a physical pond, the calm pond is disturbed by something external like a piece of dirt, a rock, or the wind. Or something within like a jumping or swimming fish. But this metaphor of the pond breaks down, it is not totally accurate. In a physical pond, there are already objects like fish and birds and molecules, etc.. But in base consciousness, there is none of this yet. Just potential somehow. To summarize though, main focus on this question is: **Why does the pure undivided calm pond of consciousness divide into selves (disturbances in the underlying field)?** Please break it down for me, step by step somehow, in some technical detail. Many will say "because it did X" (it turned away, it started desiring, it forgot about the whole, etc..). Okay then, but _why_ did it start doing that even? What was the detailed technical process that led to those initial actions leading to the separation? It's like, I imagine this is the usual answer I read/see: 1. Base consciousness. 2. It decided to do X. 3. Result was ignorance, selves, etc.. I can reason about going from step 2 -> 3, but **how do you rationalize step 1 -> 2?** Put another way (if that helps): > What is the _technical mechanism_ by which primordial consciousness becomes _mistaken consciousness_? You might answer, "well it clings, creating the I". Okay, why does it cling then? _What is the in-between step there exactly, substeps?_ **There is a _missing link_ in the explanation.** In every text/thread I have seen so far, it goes from pure to impure, with no explanation of why or how this works. Once we are clinging, I get that the self forms and the illusion exists. But going from non-self to clinging, why. If this is never elaborated on in any text or anywhere, please just let me know. If you have _your own_ developed ideas on it, I would love to hear that as well too, either way.