Jechbi wrote:A question regarding the twelve ayatanas: I get that there are the eye, ear, nose, tongue, body and mind; as well as their corresponding objects of visible form, sound, smell, taste, touch and mental objects. But what about senses that don't clearly fall into any of these categories, such as equilibrioception?
The sense of equilibrioception seems to depend largely on the ear, but I don't think it could be regarded as a sound object. But it also seems to depend on sight and brain functioning, but it doesn't seem to be clearly a visible ayatana or a purely mental object, either.
And how about the radar perception of a being such as a bat? These animals appear to create an entire visual-like impression based on interpretation of touch objects and sound. Or bees, which seem to communicate with pheromones (people perceive pheromones too), but it hardly seems like a purely smell object. In these cases, the distinction between "touch" and "sound" and "visible form" seems to become blurred.
And I can imagine the possibility of a being who has sense perceptions with which human beings are not familiar. I'm wondering, would all such senses be understood as having their base solely in the 12 ayatanas? And if that is so, could there be more to the ayatanas than what we, in our human form, are able to perceive and understand?
rowyourboat wrote:I think many things are included under 'mind'
verbalization, visualization, computation, memory, recognition- so many very different things. I think balance comes under this as well, it clearly doesnt fall under the others
Yes.Jechbi wrote:.. would all such senses be understood as having their base solely in the 12 ayatanas?
Yes.Jechbi wrote:And if that is so, could there be more to the ayatanas than what we, in our human form, are able to perceive and understand?
You could say the same of the 'sense' of hearing. The 'sense' of hearing is a sense, not a sound. So even though it might be physically located in the ear, that has nothing to do with experiential Buddhism etc.? Not sure where that gets us exactly. Seems to be skirting the issue, which is that one experiences balance through a physical sense organ, just as one experiences sound through a physical sense organ. Or maybe you're saying the ayatana descriptions bear no meaningful relationship to the actual sense organs of the human body?rowyourboat wrote:the 'sense' of balance is a sense- not a sound
so even though it might be physcially located in the ear, that has nothing to do with experiential buddhism (in which the experience of something takes precedence over everything else)
The same could be said of the 'sense' of hearing, or the 'sense' of sight.rowyourboat wrote:how does one decide if something is mind or matter- nama or rupa?
if something is made up of the 4 elements (fire, wind, earth, water) then it is physical
clearly the sense of balance is a mental component
Wouldn't that mean that there are only mind-related ayatanas then? Because none of the 'senses' are physical in the framework as you've laid it out.rowyourboat wrote:it would come under mano (mind) ayatana
Users browsing this forum: exonesion, Yahoo [Bot] and 4 guests