This makes sense to me. But despite this, I am not wearied by, disenchanted with or, as it has been translated here, "disgusted" by either visible forms, eye consciousness, eye contact, or vedana. Is this because one must first have become a noble disciple, ie sutavā ariyasāvaka? Is this teaching therefore aimed more at the stream-enterer, rather than one at a lower level? Or: is the crucial thing here the strength or quality of my "seeing" (passati: to see)? In other words, I think I know, but actually I have not seen...?On account of the eye and visible forms, cakkhu·viññāṇa arises. The meeting of the three is phassa. Phassa·paccayā vedanā. Seeing thus, bhikkhus, a sutavā ariyasāvaka is disgusted by the eye, he is disgusted by visible forms, he is disgusted by the eye-viññāṇa, he is disgusted by eye-phassa, he is disgusted by vedanā. Being disgusted, he gets detached. Being detached, he gets liberated. Being liberated, he understands: 'upādāna has been completely understood by me'.
http://www.buddha-vacana.org/sutta/samy ... 5-060.html
Is the 'seeing' the Buddha refers to here a type of seeing that goes beyond mere intellectual agreement? (I think the answer is 'yes' but I would like some feedback on the nature of this kind of "seeing" so I am asking an obvious sounding question, not to sound stupid, but in the interests of gaining understanding).