The Eye is Impermanent.

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
Post Reply
vinasp
Posts: 1675
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 7:49 pm
Location: Bristol. United Kingdom.

The Eye is Impermanent.

Post by vinasp »

Hi everyone,

The Eye is Impermanent.

Here we examine six suttas together, SN 35.1 to SN 35.6

"Bhikkhus, the eye is impermanent. What is impermanent is suffering. What
is suffering is nonself. What is nonself should be seen as it really is
with correct wisdom thus:'This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my
self.' [Repeat for ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind.]
Seeing thus, bhikkhus, the instructed noble disciple experiences revulsion
towards the eye, [ear, nose, tongue, body, mind.]
Experiencing revulsion, he becomes dispassionate. Through dispassion his
mind is liberated. ..." [ BB CD page 1133, part of SN 35.1]

Here is a part of SN 35.1 with the sentences numbered for easy reference.

1. Bhikkhus, the eye is impermanent.
2. What is impermanent is suffering.
3. What is suffering is nonself.

Does anyone actually understand this?

Let us consider line 1: the eye is impermanent.

This does not, on a surface reading, make any sense (in the context).

What does "eye" mean here? What does "impermanent" mean?

What do you think?

Regards, Vincent.
vinasp
Posts: 1675
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 7:49 pm
Location: Bristol. United Kingdom.

Re: The Eye is Impermanent.

Post by vinasp »

Hi everyone,

These six discourses differ only in the first few sentences:

"Bhikhus, the eye is suffering. What is suffering is nonself. What is nonself
should be seen as it really is ....." [SN 35.2]

"Bhikkhus, the eye is nonself. What is nonself should be seen as ...."[SN 35.3]

"Bhikkhus, (visible) forms are impermanent. What is impermanent is suffering.
What is suffering is nonself. What is nonself should be seen as it really is
with correct wisdom ...." [SN 35.4]

"Bhikkhus, (visible) forms are suffering. What is suffering is nonself. What
is nonself should be seen as it really is ...." [SN 35.5]

"Bhikkhus, (visible) forms are nonself. What is nonself should be seen as
it really is with correct wisdom ..." [SN 35.6]

Regards, Vincent.
User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 4035
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: The Eye is Impermanent.

Post by Alex123 »

vinasp wrote: Let us consider line 1: the eye is impermanent.
This does not, on a surface reading, make any sense (in the context).
What does "eye" mean here? What does "impermanent" mean?
What do you think?
Why can't we say that "the fleshy eye-organ is impermanent"? It, as a whole, exists as long as body exists (usually around 80-120 years). Also, eye can be damaged and seeing will not occur or be faulty. So we can't fully and permanently rely on eye-organ to give permanent happiness.

The Buddha might be trying to say that what we like, what we use for worldly happiness, depends on causes which are impermanent. Because they are impermanent, we cannot have permanent happiness based on them.


With metta,

Alex
pegembara
Posts: 3465
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 8:39 am

Re: The Eye is Impermanent.

Post by pegembara »

The eye is impermanent, so what we see is also impermanent. Visual objects arise and pass away in awareness from moment to moment. Whatever you note should be regarded thus :This is not mine(clinging), this I am not(conceit), this is not my self(self view). The same goes with the other senses.

It is the stock instruction of vipassana not to grasp at objects arising and passing away from awareness. But since eyes are usually close, the objects used are sounds, body sensations, feelings, thoughts etc.

Regarding the eye : When you see an object, you must not grasp it. It's true nature is impermanence but grasping to its signs gives rise to perception eg. beautiful man/woman. Then comes feelings of like-dislike-neutral followed by thoughts, mental proliferations and intentions.

If you don't grasp, the object arises and passes as when looking at a large group of group of people. There is no clinging, conceit and wrong view. No suffering.
And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, from abusive speech, & from idle chatter: This is called right speech.
vinasp
Posts: 1675
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 7:49 pm
Location: Bristol. United Kingdom.

Re: The Eye is Impermanent.

Post by vinasp »

Hi Alex123,

Since there are various ways to understand both "eye" and "impermanent" in
these passages, then it follows that many interpretations are possible.

Alex said:"Why can't we say that "the fleshy eye-organ is impermanent"? It, as a whole, exists as long as body exists (usually around 80-120 years)."

We certainly can say this. And this gives us our first interpretations for
both "eye" and "impermanent". Allow me to substitute "actual eye" for your
"the fleshy eye-organ".

Interpretations of "eye" #1 - the actual eye.

Interpretations of "impermanent" #1 - "ceases at death."

So line 1 becomes: The actual eye ceases at death.

Alex said:"Also, eye can be damaged and seeing will not occur or be faulty."

Interpretation of "impermanent" #2 - "can stop functioning before death."

Alex said:"So we can't fully and permanently rely on eye-organ to give permanent happiness."

This is true. But SN 35.2 begins with "the eye is suffering" not that the
eye is a potential source of future suffering by being damaged.

Some problems with these interpretations:

1. SN 35.7 (not quoted before) says: "... the eye is impermanent, both of
the past and the future, not to speak of the present. ..."
This suggests that some other understanding of "impermanent" might be
more appropriate.

2. Since "the eye is suffering" and the aim of the teachings is to bring
suffering to an end, would this not require the "eye" to cease, which is
a problem if we take "eye" as being "the actual eye."

3. "the actual eye ceases at death", do we really need a Buddha to explain
this to us? Does not every ten-year-old already know this?

Regards, Vincent.
vinasp
Posts: 1675
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 7:49 pm
Location: Bristol. United Kingdom.

Re: The Eye is Impermanent.

Post by vinasp »

Hi everyone,

I have my own interpretation of what "eye" means in these discourses, but I
am also interested in what others think about this problem.

Before I explain what I think "eye" means, I need to quote a passage from
SN 35.30

"Bhikkhus, I will teach you the way that is appropriate for the uprooting of
all conceivings. Listen to that and attend closely, I will speak ...
"And what, bhikkhus, is the way that is appropriate for uprooting all
conceivings?[15]
Here, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu does not conceive the eye, does not conceive in
the eye, does not conceive from the eye, does not conceive, 'The eye is mine.'
He does not conceive forms ... eye consciousness ... eye-contact ... and as
to whatever feeling arises with eye-contact as condition - whether pleasant
or painful or neither-painful-nor-pleasant - he does not conceive that, does
not conceive in that, does not conceive from that, does not conceive, 'That
is mine.'
"He does not conceive the ear ....
He does not conceive the mind ... mental phenomena ... mind-consciousness ...
mind-contact ... and as to whatever feeling arises with mind-contact as
condition ... he does not conceive that, does not conceive in that, does
not conceive from that, does not conceive,'That is mine.'
"He does not conceive all, does not conceive in all, does not conceive from
all, does not conceive,'All is mine.'
"Since he does not conceive anything thus, he does not cling to anything in
the world. Not clinging, he is not agitated. Being unagitated, he personally
attains Nibbana. ....."

[ Bhikkhu Bodhi, Connected Discourses, page 1144, SN 35.30]

Regards, Vincent.
User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 4035
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: The Eye is Impermanent.

Post by Alex123 »

Hi Vincent
vinasp wrote: This is true. But SN 35.2 begins with "the eye is suffering" not that the eye is a potential source of future suffering by being damaged.
The Buddha never said that in English. Eye IS dukkha, but dukkha has broader meaning (though it includes) than suffering.

vinasp wrote: 1. SN 35.7 (not quoted before) says: "... the eye is impermanent, both of the past and the future, not to speak of the present. ..." This suggests that some other understanding of "impermanent" might be more appropriate.

In the past, future or present life the eye is impermanent.
vinasp wrote: 2. Since "the eye is suffering" and the aim of the teachings is to bring suffering to an end, would this not require the "eye" to cease, which is a problem if we take "eye" as being "the actual eye."
Not all dukkha is immediately eliminated even for an Arahant. But, no more future dukkha will arise when parinibbana occurs.

vinasp wrote: "the actual eye ceases at death", do we really need a Buddha to explain this to us? Does not every ten-year-old already know this?
But how many people practice to cease all craving? The point of Buddha's teaching is not to give a description of existence. Buddha gives us instructions on what to do to extinguish all dukha.


With metta,

Alex
pulga
Posts: 1502
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 3:02 pm

Re: The Eye is Impermanent.

Post by pulga »

vinasp wrote: What do you think?
The eye -- and the rest of the ajjhatt'ayatanani -- as Husserlian nullpunkts.
"Dhammā=Ideas. This is the clue to much of the Buddha's teaching." ~ Ven. Ñanavira, Commonplace Book
daverupa
Posts: 5980
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: The Eye is Impermanent.

Post by daverupa »

pulga wrote:
vinasp wrote: What do you think?
The eye -- and the rest of the ajjhatt'ayatanani -- as Husserlian nullpunkts.
A fruitful direction; although, a relative dearth of contemplative technology renders much of Western phenomenology rather toothless...
  • "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.

- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
pulga
Posts: 1502
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 3:02 pm

Re: The Eye is Impermanent.

Post by pulga »

daverupa wrote: A fruitful direction; although, a relative dearth of contemplative technology renders much of Western phenomenology rather toothless...
Ah but apply "contemplative technology" to "Western phenomenology" and an intriguing clarity becomes manifest. It's just a matter of separating the wheat from the chaff.
"Dhammā=Ideas. This is the clue to much of the Buddha's teaching." ~ Ven. Ñanavira, Commonplace Book
Anxt
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2012 6:17 pm

Re: The Eye is Impermanent.

Post by Anxt »

pulga wrote:
vinasp wrote: What do you think?
The eye -- and the rest of the ajjhatt'ayatanani -- as Husserlian nullpunkts.
I haven't read much Husserl, but "punkt" or "point" sounds too disembodied to me. The experience of being surrounded by forms, opposing them, cannot come from a "no-thing". The external end of my gaze are forms, but the other end is not some "punkt" but a "voluminous" body (with hands and feet etc.) as the means to act. To illustrate what I mean: The things I see are utensils, i.e. objects of an (possible) interaction with the body. By means of an eye alone, forms cannot be utensils, not even obstacles, because seeing cannot be described as contact between two visible opposites (eye and forms). Seeing gives us only one side, but one side cannot stand alone.

I hope you know what I mean. It was not intended to be a criticism of what you said.
pulga
Posts: 1502
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 3:02 pm

Re: The Eye is Impermanent.

Post by pulga »

Anxt wrote: I haven't read much Husserl, but "punkt" or "point" sounds too disembodied to me. The experience of being surrounded by forms, opposing them, cannot come from a "no-thing". The external end of my gaze are forms, but the other end is not some "punkt" but a "voluminous" body (with hands and feet etc.) as the means to act. To illustrate what I mean: The things I see are utensils, i.e. objects of an (possible) interaction with the body. By means of an eye alone, forms cannot be utensils, not even obstacles, because seeing cannot be described as contact between two visible opposites (eye and forms). Seeing gives us only one side, but one side cannot stand alone.
One needs to distinguish between reflexive and pre-reflexive experience. The eye appears as a thing amongst other things in reflexion, but pre-reflexively it is inherently negative. But just focus your vision on anything and you'll sense that it is in the background: the very fact that we perceive things from a particular point-of-view confirms that.
"Dhammā=Ideas. This is the clue to much of the Buddha's teaching." ~ Ven. Ñanavira, Commonplace Book
Zach
Posts: 9
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 10:41 pm

Re: The Eye is Impermanent.

Post by Zach »

vinasp wrote:Hi everyone,

The Eye is Impermanent.

Here we examine six suttas together, SN 35.1 to SN 35.6

"Bhikkhus, the eye is impermanent. What is impermanent is suffering. What
is suffering is nonself. What is nonself should be seen as it really is
with correct wisdom thus:'This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my
self.' [Repeat for ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind.]
Seeing thus, bhikkhus, the instructed noble disciple experiences revulsion
towards the eye, [ear, nose, tongue, body, mind.]
Experiencing revulsion, he becomes dispassionate. Through dispassion his
mind is liberated. ..." [ BB CD page 1133, part of SN 35.1]

Here is a part of SN 35.1 with the sentences numbered for easy reference.

1. Bhikkhus, the eye is impermanent.
2. What is impermanent is suffering.
3. What is suffering is nonself.

Does anyone actually understand this?

Let us consider line 1: the eye is impermanent.

This does not, on a surface reading, make any sense (in the context).

What does "eye" mean here? What does "impermanent" mean?

What do you think?

Regards, Vincent.
Self grasping Ignorance = I :P
Anxt
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2012 6:17 pm

Re: The Eye is Impermanent.

Post by Anxt »

pulga wrote:
Anxt wrote: I haven't read much Husserl, but "punkt" or "point" sounds too disembodied to me. The experience of being surrounded by forms, opposing them, cannot come from a "no-thing". The external end of my gaze are forms, but the other end is not some "punkt" but a "voluminous" body (with hands and feet etc.) as the means to act. To illustrate what I mean: The things I see are utensils, i.e. objects of an (possible) interaction with the body. By means of an eye alone, forms cannot be utensils, not even obstacles, because seeing cannot be described as contact between two visible opposites (eye and forms). Seeing gives us only one side, but one side cannot stand alone.
One needs to distinguish between reflexive and pre-reflexive experience. The eye appears as a thing amongst other things in reflexion, but pre-reflexively it is inherently negative. But just focus your vision on anything and you'll sense that it is in the background: the very fact that we perceive things from a particular point-of-view confirms that.
But that was my point: There is "something in the background", more than just a "point". In order to focus my vision on something, an eye is not enough. In order to focus, the eye must be connected to and held by muscles. And whatever I see then is something which is related to what I can do. Without the individual "behind" the eye or "in the background", the eye has not even a place, it is not "here". Similar to a stone in one's hand, which "disappears" from one's tactile experience if one throws it away - it has no place.
pulga
Posts: 1502
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 3:02 pm

Re: The Eye is Impermanent.

Post by pulga »

Anxt wrote: Without the individual "behind" the eye or "in the background", the eye has not even a place, it is not "here".
As I said, the eye at ground level, at the most primitive level of experience, is inherently negative. To think of it as "here" requires an act of reflexion in which it appears as the eye of flesh, an idea of the mind. The idea being attended to at ground level is itself an object, the mind being the inherent negative in the background. To thematize the mind of pre-reflexion, i.e. to objectify it requires a further act of reflexion, and we enter into a sort of noetic hierarchy. (This is where Ven. Nanavira radically departs from both Husserl and Sartre in his understanding of the nature of experience.)
"Dhammā=Ideas. This is the clue to much of the Buddha's teaching." ~ Ven. Ñanavira, Commonplace Book
Post Reply