The Eye is Impermanent.

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
Dmytro
Posts: 1590
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 7:24 pm
Location: Kyiv, Ukraine
Contact:

Re: The Eye is Impermanent.

Post by Dmytro » Thu Jul 12, 2012 6:24 am

Hi Vincent,
vinasp wrote:What does "eye" mean here?
"Eye" here is a wrong traditional English translation.

Pali term "cakkhu" here means "sight".

Recently published Margaret Cone's Pali-English dictionary gives in the "cakkhu" article following meanings:

cakkhu, 1. the eye; the organ of sight; the faculty of seeing, sight;...

Here the last meaning applies.

As for "cakkhu" (eye)", etc., Sue Hamilton discusses this issue at length in Identity and Experience: The Constitution of the Human Being According to Early Buddhism (pp. 7-35). She concludes that these six do not refer to the physical organs.

Wisdom-oriented suttas describe the investigation in terms of the elements (dhatu), sense spheres (ayatana), conditioned arising and aggregates (khandha):

Kathañca, bhikkhave, bhikkhu tividhūpaparikkhī hoti? Idha, bhikkhave, bhikkhu dhātuso upaparikkhati, āyatanaso upaparikkhati, paṭiccasamuppādaso upaparikkhati.

"And how does a monk have three modes of investigation? There is the case where a monk investigates in terms of properties, investigates in terms of sense spheres, investigates in terms of dependent co-arising.

(Sattathana sutta http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; )

So the "cakkhu", etc., denote the sense spheres (ayatana), and not the physical organs.

Vibhanga explains these ayatanas in such a way:

Tattha katamaṃ cakkhāyatanaṃ? Yaṃ cakkhu catunnaṃ mahābhūtānaṃ upādāya pasādo attabhāvapariyāpanno anidassano sappaṭigho, yena cakkhunā anidassanena sappaṭighena rūpaṃ sanidassanaṃ sappaṭighaṃ passi vā passati vā passissati vā passe vā, cakkhumpetaṃ cakkhāyatanampetaṃ cakkhudhātupesā cakkhundriyampetaṃ lokopeso dvārāpesā samuddopeso paṇḍarampetaṃ khettampetaṃ vatthumpetaṃ nettampetaṃ nayanampetaṃ orimaṃ tīrampetaṃ suñño gāmopeso. Idaṃ vuccati “cakkhāyatanaṃ”.

The key word in the definition, "pasādo", is explained in the Margaret Cone's dictionary as:

Ghāna-pasāda, m., the tranquillity (resulting in sensitivity) of the sense-organ that is the nose; the receptive power of the sense-organ that is the nose; Spk II 131,11
What does "impermanent" mean?
Subject to arising and cessation. Sight, as one of six ayatanas, is subject to arising and ceasing, as described in Conditioned Arising.

Regards, Dmytro

User avatar
black hole
Posts: 11
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2012 9:32 am
Location: Abu Dhabi (UAE)

Re: The Eye is Impermanent.

Post by black hole » Thu Jul 12, 2012 7:11 am

By "eye", I think we should understand the "consciousness" that is related to the eye.
If we refer to the Abhidhamma (chapter 1 on consciousness, mental states, thought processes) that consciousness is composed. And all that is compound is impermanent.
Everything is naturally perfect just as it is

User avatar
DarwidHalim
Posts: 537
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 11:49 am
Location: Neither Samsara nor Nirvana

Re: The Eye is Impermanent.

Post by DarwidHalim » Thu Jul 12, 2012 8:24 am

Dmytro wrote:
What does "impermanent" mean?
Subject to arising and cessation. Sight, as one of six ayatanas, is subject to arising and ceasing, as described in Conditioned Arising.
Is it true that impermanent subject to arising and cessation?

If this is true, why Buddha said there is no arising, no cessation?
I am not here nor there.
I am not right nor wrong.
I do not exist neither non-exist.
I am not I nor non-I.
I am not in samsara nor nirvana.
To All Buddhas, I bow down for the teaching of emptiness. Thank You!

User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 16498
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: The Eye is Impermanent.

Post by mikenz66 » Thu Jul 12, 2012 8:34 am

DarwidHalim wrote: Is it true that impermanent subject to arising and cessation?

If this is true, why Buddha said there is no arising, no cessation?
Where did he say that?

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .nymo.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Now during this utterance, there arose in the venerable Kondañña the spotless, immaculate vision of the True Idea: "Whatever is subject to arising is all subject to cessation."
:anjali:
Mike

User avatar
DarwidHalim
Posts: 537
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 11:49 am
Location: Neither Samsara nor Nirvana

Re: The Eye is Impermanent.

Post by DarwidHalim » Thu Jul 12, 2012 8:58 am

No arising is discernible, no passing away is discernible, no alteration while staying is discernible

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
And there, I say, there is neither coming, nor going, nor stasis; neither passing away nor arising: without stance, without foundation, without support [mental object]...."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
If impermanent can consist of arising and cessation, it means you can find something that can arise and can cease.

Please show what is that something?

If something can arise and then cease, impermanent is not valid.
I am not here nor there.
I am not right nor wrong.
I do not exist neither non-exist.
I am not I nor non-I.
I am not in samsara nor nirvana.
To All Buddhas, I bow down for the teaching of emptiness. Thank You!

User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 16498
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: The Eye is Impermanent.

Post by mikenz66 » Thu Jul 12, 2012 9:07 am

Well, if you read the whole sutta, clearly fabricated things are impermanent. They arise and cease:
"Monks, these three are fabricated characteristics of what is fabricated. Which three? Arising is discernible, passing away is discernible, alteration (literally, other-ness) of what stays is discernible.

"These are three fabricated characteristics of what is fabricated.

"Now these three are unfabricated characteristics of what is unfabricated. Which three? No arising is discernible, no passing away is discernible, no alteration of what stays is discernible.

"These are three unfabricated characteristics of what is unfabricated."
:anjali:
Mike

User avatar
DarwidHalim
Posts: 537
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 11:49 am
Location: Neither Samsara nor Nirvana

Re: The Eye is Impermanent.

Post by DarwidHalim » Thu Jul 12, 2012 9:19 am

So, is buddha conflicting himself?
"Monks, these three are fabricated characteristics of what is fabricated. Which three? Arising is discernible, passing away is discernible, alteration (literally, other-ness) of what stays is discernible.
Another occasion, he said
No arising is discernible, no passing away is discernible, no alteration while staying is discernible

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... .than.html
Please ask this question to yourself, What is arising at this moment?

If you assert there is something call arising, you should be able to prove and pin point exactly what is arising.

What is that?
I am not here nor there.
I am not right nor wrong.
I do not exist neither non-exist.
I am not I nor non-I.
I am not in samsara nor nirvana.
To All Buddhas, I bow down for the teaching of emptiness. Thank You!

User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 16498
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: The Eye is Impermanent.

Post by mikenz66 » Thu Jul 12, 2012 9:35 am

There is no contradiction. The sutta (and many others) clearly states that the fabricated arises and ceases, the unfabricated does not.

:anjali:
Mike

User avatar
DarwidHalim
Posts: 537
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 11:49 am
Location: Neither Samsara nor Nirvana

Re: The Eye is Impermanent.

Post by DarwidHalim » Thu Jul 12, 2012 9:43 am

mikenz66 wrote:There is no contradiction. The sutta (and many others) clearly states that the fabricated arises and ceases, the unfabricated does not.

:anjali:
Mike
Are you saying this world is divided into 1 part is fabricated and another part is unfabricated?

If you cannot find the unfabricated right now and right here, where else can you find the unfabricated?
I am not here nor there.
I am not right nor wrong.
I do not exist neither non-exist.
I am not I nor non-I.
I am not in samsara nor nirvana.
To All Buddhas, I bow down for the teaching of emptiness. Thank You!

User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23044
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: The Eye is Impermanent.

Post by tiltbillings » Thu Jul 12, 2012 9:54 am

DarwidHalim wrote:
mikenz66 wrote:There is no contradiction. The sutta (and many others) clearly states that the fabricated arises and ceases, the unfabricated does not.

:anjali:
Mike
Are you saying this world is divided into 1 part is fabricated and another part is unfabricated?

If you cannot find the unfabricated right now and right here, where else can you find the unfabricated?
The only place it can be found:


S.N. IV 359 and S.N. 362: "That which is the destruction of greed, hatred and delusion is asankhata." No destruction of greed, hatred, and delusion, no "the unfabricated," asankhata.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 16498
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: The Eye is Impermanent.

Post by mikenz66 » Thu Jul 12, 2012 9:56 am

DarwidHalim wrote: Are you saying this world is divided into 1 part is fabricated and another part is unfabricated?
On the evidence of the suttas that appears to be what the Buddha taught.
DarwidHalim wrote: If you cannot find the unfabricated right now and right here, where else can you find the unfabricated?
Well, of course. You'd have to "find" the unfabricated right here and right now. No surprise there. How to find it seems to be the difficult question. However, as Tiltbillings is indicating, making "the unfabricated" into a "thing" to be "found" is probably missing the point.

:anjali:
Mike

User avatar
DarwidHalim
Posts: 537
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 11:49 am
Location: Neither Samsara nor Nirvana

Re: The Eye is Impermanent.

Post by DarwidHalim » Thu Jul 12, 2012 10:37 am

Let's discuss this further.

This world is not something, which is initially permanent, then you do some dharma practice and then it becomes impermanent.

This worls is also not something which is initially has self, then you do some dharma practice and then it becomes anatta.

Buddha has no power to change permanent to impermanent, and to change self to no self.

What Buddha find is this world is always impermanent and always anatta. But we misinterpred it as permanent and has self.

Buddha discovered what is already there. Buddha never make anything new.

Copernicus found that the sun is the centre of the orbit in around 1514.

Although people living in Year 800 or 500, think the earth is the centre of the orbit, their ignorance cannot reject the fact that the sun is ALREADY AND ALWAYS the centre of the orbit.

Copernicus is not someone who make the sun becomes the centre of the orbit. He is only someonly who discovered.

Similarly,

Buddha is not someone who make permanent becomes impermanent, and atta becomes anatta. Buddha is just someone who has discovered that RIGHT NOW, LONG LONG TIME AGO, and IN THE FUTURE, this world and yourself is ALREADY impermanent and anatta.

Buddha has no power to make something permanent to impermanent and atta to anatta.

There is no such thing that this place is permanent and atta, then after you study buddhism, you can go to another dimension, which is impermanent and anatta. This is completely absurd.

It is right now and right here, everything is always and always impermanent, anatta, no arising, no cessation, no duration, no increment, no decrement, etc.

Just because we can't see no arising, and no cessation right now and right here, it doesn't mean you are right now not impermanent, and not anatta.

Just like people who live in Year 800, just because they can't see the earth is the centre of the orbit, it doesn't mean the earth is actually the centre of the orbit.

Just because you still have greed, hatred and delusion , it cannot avoid the fact that right now and right here, it is impermanent, no arising, and no cessation, no self.

Just like people who have this mindset earth is the centre of orbit, it cannot avoid the fact that right now and right here, the sun is the centre of the orbit.

A very famous buddhist monk was asked this question this question:

(Q) My mind is anxious. Please pacify it.

(A) Bring me your mind, and I will pacify it.

(Q) Although I’ve sought it, I cannot find it.

(A) I have pacified your mind.

We can say I am angry, I am so greedy.

But have we ever ask this question - RIGHT NOW AND RIGHT HERE - I want to pin point my anger and my greedy?

You find nothing even when you are angry. You cannot find your anger, even when you are angry.

You also cannot find your greedy, even when you are greedy.

If you never search, they look like there. But when you go and search, you find nothing.

It depends on whether you are lazy or not to search it.

It is right now and right here you find nothing, because like what Buddha said in his higher teaching:
No arising is discernible, no passing away is discernible, no alteration while staying is discernible
Always, and always.

It has been there since beginningless time, right now, and forever in the future.

Impermanent is anatta.
Anatta is impermanent.
There is no arising, no cessation, no duration.

Right here.
Right now.

Yes, you might be angry right now.
But, please show me, where is that anger? Which part of you body I can find your anger?

Just because you think you have self right now and you are permanent, you cannot avoid the very fact that right now, right here, there is no such thing called self.

You think there is arising, and cessation.
It looks like that.

But, please show it, where is that very thing, which is right now arising and ceasing?
I am not here nor there.
I am not right nor wrong.
I do not exist neither non-exist.
I am not I nor non-I.
I am not in samsara nor nirvana.
To All Buddhas, I bow down for the teaching of emptiness. Thank You!

User avatar
daverupa
Posts: 5980
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: The Eye is Impermanent.

Post by daverupa » Thu Jul 12, 2012 10:54 am

Sounds like a strain of emptiness sickness. After all, the Mahasatipatthana Sutta suggests that one knows an angry mind as such, or a non-angry mind as such. This bewildered "where is it?" is hardly in keeping with that.
  • "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]

santa100
Posts: 3191
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:55 pm

Re: The Eye is Impermanent.

Post by santa100 » Thu Jul 12, 2012 1:01 pm

DarwidHalim wrote:
"A very famous buddhist monk was asked this question this question:

(Q) My mind is anxious. Please pacify it.

(A) Bring me your mind, and I will pacify it.

(Q) Although I’ve sought it, I cannot find it.

(A) I have pacified your mind."

When Master Bodhidharma replied to Master Huike's problem with an agitated mind, he gave a response that is perfectly in line with what the Buddha taught. "Bring me your mind" was to remind Huike not to fall into that nasty "identification" trap of "I", "mine", and "myself". Then "I cannot find it" was the affirmation of the Three Characteristics of impermanence, unsatisfactory, and non-self..

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

Re: The Eye is Impermanent.

Post by vinasp » Thu Jul 12, 2012 3:31 pm

Hi Alex123,

Alex:"I haven't read all that you have posted, but to me it seems that "conceiving" means something like strongly considering things to be "I, me, mine" and also to wrongly believe that they are nicca, sukha, atta, and worthy of attachment."

I completely agree that all these things are involved. I have not spoken about
them yet because it is not clear to me which, if any, are involved from the start.

For example, in this passage:

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.'

If we reverse this to describe the ordinary man:

... he conceives the eye, he conceives in the eye, he conceives from the eye,
he conceives, 'The eye is mine.'

Are these four separate "conceivings"? Four sequential "conceivings"?
Or four aspects of a single "conceiving"?

Could the ideas of permanence and pleasure be involved at first, followed
after by ideas of "I" and "mine"?

I do not know the answer at present.

Regards, Vincent.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 78 guests