The Eye is Impermanent.

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
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 4:10 pm

Hi Dmytro,

If we consider this passage:

"If, through revulsion towards the eye, through its fading away and cessation,
one is liberated by nonclinging, one can be called a bhikkhu who has attained
Nibbana in this very life." [Part of SN 35.155]

Which meaning of "eye" shall we use here from Margaret Cone's Dictionary?

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

Is this bhikkhu trying to lose his sight?

Regards, Vincent.

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 4:28 pm

If there is something, and we possess that something, it is the greatest lying if we say we do not conceive it.

But if there is no anything, and we claim there is something, it is foolish.

Buddhism is not the teaching that make you lie to yourself.

It doesn't teach us, there are eyes, but please don't conceive it.

If you have it, of course we should conceive it.

But if you don't it, how do you conceive?

We have this mindset that buddhahood is only realized when you have died. When you don't have this body, at that moment you don't have eyes, you don't have ear, etc.

But Siddharta Gautama achieved buddhahood when he was 35/36. All Buddha great disciples realize their arhat, when they are still alive, with their eyes, nose, ears, etc. still intact.

But why when your eyes are still intact, nose, ears are there you can't conceive that?

Are you stroke or something?

The one that make you have eyes is not these 2 white and black balls. But it is your concept that say that as eyes, that mislead you to perceive as if you have eyes.

If you see the mirage, the mirage deceive you there is water there.

Similarly, if you see something with label, that label can deceive you there is self there.

How does label deceive us?

If we really look carefully, label is put on the basis. But we are not consistent.

My basis is always changing every moment, but my label never change!

Because of that, you trap yourself with something permanent.

Why? Because what you see is your labeling. And your labeling cover your insight or make you forget that the basis actually is always changing.

Once you make a label on some basis, you jail yourself to the fixity through that constant label.

If you want to be consistent, be fair.

If you basis is changing, you should change your label as well.

Since any basis which is impermanent is always changing at every second, your label must change at every second.

If we can do it, we have a hope to see that actual reality which is untrapped by the constant label.

The best thing to do is actually to strip off the label completely. Free yourself from any label.

Experience yourself the true impermanence without any concept.

You will see there, it is in fact foolish to even think we have 2 eyes, nose, etc. at this moment.

When in your experience, you cannot find by specific character, the appearance of eyes really can deceive us to conceive there are something called eyes.

Another aspect that close our ability to see we don't have eyes are actually the rate of changing is extremely slow. It really fool us. If you see the mirror, you will see your eyes never change.

This can fool us, but if you take the photo and compare, you can see there is nothing specific in the eyes.

When there are nothing specific, what can you conceive as such and such?
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
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 4:50 pm



Yes, you see flower there.

But, in such a fast pace, please ask yourself where is the specific flower which is unchanged?

If you can't find the specific thing, why you still strongly hold there is a flower?

This question is really important.

Can I say something as such when I cannot pin point the specific thing which never change?
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!

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 11:49 pm

Hi DarwidHalim,

DH said: "Buddhism is not the teaching that make you lie to yourself."

"It doesn't teach us, there are eyes, but please don't conceive it." [End Quote.]

One form of "conceiving" is to "conceive"; 'The eye is mine.'

In my opinion, Theravada Buddhism DOES teach that the eye exists, and that we
can cognize (know) that fact, but we should not "conceive": 'The eye is mine.'

The word "conceive" is not really correct here. To cognize means to know
things as they really are. To "conceive" (mannati) means to imagine that
which is not real.

"There exists in the Blessed One the eye, the Blessed One sees a form with
the eye. ..." [This is said by the Buddha in SN 35.232 - Kotthita Sutta.]

There may be a difference between Theravada and later Buddhist Schools about
whether external things actually exist.

Regards, Vincent.

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 » Fri Jul 13, 2012 12:50 am

vinasp wrote: In my opinion, Theravada Buddhism DOES teach that the eye exists, and that we
can cognize (know) that fact, but we should not "conceive": 'The eye is mine.'

The word "conceive" is not really correct here. To cognize means to know
things as they really are. To "conceive" (mannati) means to imagine that
which is not real.
The problem is we just can't.

If something is seen, it is natural for us to hold it, to grasp it.

If something is seen or conceive, it is unavoidable for grasping and attachment or aversion to arise.

No matter how hard you try to maintain that distance between seeing that something and conceiving that something, you will collapse.

Buddha said suffering is to be understood in the first noble truth.
Interestly, he didn't said suffering is to be avoided.

The problem Is avoiding cannot solve the problem. We can avoid certain things, but again soon or later we will collapse.

Even god at the highest peak of samsara, who say in the neither-perception-nor-non-perception, cannot maintain their meditative power forever. In the beginning of his life, he can maintain his meditative power that can make him maintain to not conceive the object. But, at the end of his life, due to his karma, when he can see he will reborn again in this or that state, he will lost control. God has the power to see clairvoyance to some extend. When you see you will born here and get this torture, that treatment, etc., you lost control.

At that point, something who can maintain for so many aeons, simply fall apart. The suffering then starts at the end of his life.

NO point to try to not conceive. We can sit in the room and get away from this life, just meditate and go to jhana. Fine. At that point you are safe. But, watch out, once you get out from that meditation state, you will just collapse soon or later.

This is where vipassana cOme in. Vipassana is to see the true nature of this thing. And the true nature of everything is hollow, empty.

It looks like there is something, but that thing which you think is there, is actually not there.

If you can see that, that insight free you from grasping and attachment in a very natural way.

The stillness caused by vipassana insight, is unaffected by anything, unstained by anything.

You don't scare with anything. Because the more you see the behavior of thing, the more intense they are, the more you feel the truth that they are empty. It is like firewood. The more you involve in this life, the more you see directly there is nothing.

You can't see emptiness with eyes. You see that with your insight (wisdom), which belong to the mind.

In all Buddhist school, none of them reject there are things called eyes. They do acknowledge that.

But,

When you really take the object in front of you, and you try to find the core, you end up with nothing. Like you peel the onion.

If you see the onion it looks like there is onion. It is at this point, everything is accepted as true.

But,

When you search the core of the onion, when you peel it, what you get is empty space. It is at this point, your insight grows.

I see something with my eyes, BUT I DONT SEE ANYTHING WITH MY INSIGHT.

There is no point how we discuss eyes are impermanent or we don't conceive this or that.

The really point that kick the ball is only this?

Do you see that something with your insight or not?

If yes, you are not free yet, from any dangerous.

But if you can see the insight has nothing, no matter how your eyes see the form, hear the sound, taste the food, etc., you will just still in the stillness of nothing is arising and nothing is ceasing.

No matter how strong and how real the mirage looks like, your insight that tell you there is nothing there, make you extremely still from grasping the idea there is water there.

Look here, although the though of "there is water there". The one that make you still is not the power of avoidance.

If you tell people who never know the more phenomena, no matter how strong there are in maintaining your idea in the beginning, that people will lose believe in your words. They will go and chase that mirage, and try die there.

But if that person have the insight there is nothing there, it is thing insight that make them still, that make them unmove - no matter how strong the appearance of water really look like.

Empty, hollow.

Is this water or mirage?

Image

Image

Can you rely on your 5 senses to see the deceiver?

You see eyes with your 5 senses by touching it, by seeing it, by feel it. but you shouldn't get fooled by your own senses.

Insight is seen with mind.

When you see with insight, even this mind is unseen.

Thia life if unseen with insight of emptiness is really a Great deceiver.

I see the water with my eyes, but I don't see the water with my insight, because no water there
I see the feeling with my senses, but I don't see the feeling with my insight, because no self there.

Existence is just a deceiver.

Nothing truly exist in all appearances.

Empty-appearances.
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!

pegembara
Posts: 1315
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 8:39 am

Re: The Eye is Impermanent.

Post by pegembara » Fri Jul 13, 2012 3:34 am

As Ajahn Chah says, "Things are determined into existence ie. labelled into existence. There is no eye in reality( it is empty). Eye is just a label.

Appearances are determined into existence. Why must we determine them? Because they don't intrinsically exist. For example, suppose somebody wanted to make a marker. He would take a piece of wood or a rock and place it on the ground, and then call it a marker. Actually it's not a marker. There isn't any marker, that's why you must determine it into existence. In the same way we ''determine'' cities, people, cattle - everything! Why must we determine these things? Because originally they do not exist.

Concepts such as ''monk'' and ''layperson'' are also ''determinations.'' We determine these things into existence because intrinsically they aren't here. It's like having an empty dish - you can put anything you like into it because it's empty. This is the nature of determined reality. Men and women are simply determined concepts, as are all the things around us.

If we know the truth of determinations clearly, we will know that there are no beings, because ''beings'' are determined things. Understanding that these things are simply determinations, you can be at peace. But if you believe that the person, being, the ''mine,'' the ''theirs,'' and so on are intrinsic qualities, then you must laugh and cry over them. These are the proliferation of conditioning factors. If we take such things to be ours there will always be suffering. This is micch?ditthi, wrong view. Names are not intrinsic realities, they are provisional truths. Only after we are born do we obtain names, isn't that so? Or did you have your name already when you were born? The name comes afterwards, right? Why must we determine these names? Because intrinsically they aren't there.

http://www.amaravati.org/teachingsofaja ... le/480/P4/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Here are the Buddha's own words:

"By & large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by (takes as its object) a polarity, that of existence & non-existence. But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, from abusive speech, & from idle chatter: This is called right speech.

User avatar
kirk5a
Posts: 1959
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 1:51 pm

Re: The Eye is Impermanent.

Post by kirk5a » Fri Jul 13, 2012 5:11 am

Yes and the physical eye is also impermanent and not me, not mine. That can not somehow be rejected as not being what "the eye is impermanent" means.
"When one thing is practiced & pursued, ignorance is abandoned, clear knowing arises, the conceit 'I am' is abandoned, latent tendencies are uprooted, fetters are abandoned. Which one thing? Mindfulness immersed in the body." -AN 1.230

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 » Fri Jul 13, 2012 7:51 am

daverupa wrote: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.
After I read the link from Pagembara, I think I can give some comments on it.

It is indeed tempting to read all Buddhist scriptures. It sounds very nice when you can know the meaning of Pali, or the definition of Buddhist jargon, buddhist concepts, etc. All of them are vast.

But, no matter how vast you want to study buddhism - there is only 1 question in the end.

How can I surpass this suffering? And the answer is only this emptiness sickness - "Where are those things?"

If we want to get sick, the best sickness is this emptiness sickness.

Yes, we may have studied buddhism day and night, but are we actually study the "external teaching" or the "core teaching"?
People are generally ignorant when it comes to determinations, they think they all exist of themselves. When the books tell us that trees, mountains and rivers are non-mind-attended conditions, this is simplifying things. This is just the superficial teaching, there's no reference to suffering, as if there was no suffering in the world. This is just the shell of Dhamma. If we were to explain things in terms of ultimate truth, we would see that it's people who go and tie all these things down with their attachments. How can you say that things have no power to shape events, that they are not mind-attended, when people will beat their children even over one tiny needle? One single plate or cup, a plank of wood... the mind attends all these things. Just watch what happens if someone goes and smashes one of them up and you'll find out. Everything is capable of influencing us in this way. Knowing these things fully is our practice, examining those things which are conditioned, unconditioned, mind-attended, and non-mind-attended.

This is part of the ''external teaching,'' as the Buddha once referred to them. At one time the Buddha was staying in a forest. Taking a handful of leaves, He asked the bhikkhus, ''Bhikkhus, which is the greater number, the leaves I hold in my hand or the leaves scattered over the forest floor?''

The bhikkhus answered, ''The leaves in the Blessed One's hand are few, the leaves scattered around the forest floor are by far the greater number.''

''In the same way, bhikkhus, the whole of the Buddha's teaching is vast, but these are not the essence of things, they are not directly related to the way out of suffering. There are so many aspects to the teaching, but what the Tath?gata really wants you to do is to transcend suffering, to inquire into things and abandon clinging and attachment to form, feeling, perception, volition and consciousness7.'' Stop clinging to these things and you will transcend suffering. These teachings are like the leaves in the Buddha's hand. You don't need so much, just a little is enough. As for the rest of the teaching, you needn't worry yourselves over it. It is just like the vast earth, abundant with grasses, soil, mountains, forests. There's no shortage of rocks and pebbles, but all those rocks are not as valuable as one single jewel. The Dhamma of the Buddha is like this, you don't need a lot.

http://www.amaravati.org/teachingsofaja ... le/480/P5/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
.... to inquite into things ..... are the works of emptiness sickness.

Very good article from Ajahn Chah btw.
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
Dmytro
Posts: 1582
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 7:24 pm
Location: Kyiv, Ukraine
Contact:

Re: The Eye is Impermanent.

Post by Dmytro » Fri Jul 13, 2012 12:08 pm

Hi Vincent,
vinasp wrote:If we consider this passage:

"If, through revulsion towards the eye, through its fading away and cessation,
one is liberated by nonclinging, one can be called a bhikkhu who has attained
Nibbana in this very life." [Part of SN 35.155]

Which meaning of "eye" shall we use here from Margaret Cone's Dictionary?

cakkhu, 1. the eye; the organ of sight; the faculty of seeing, sight;...
The 'cakkhu' in this Pali passage means 'sight'. It would be ridiculous to speak of the passion towards the literal eye, ear, nose, tongue as the key factors of samsara.
Is this bhikkhu trying to lose his sight?
There's no word like 'lose' in this passage.

The experience of Nibbana is beyond the six sense spheres, so during it six senses cease.

If you are interested in particulars of how this happens, you can read, for example, Aditta-pariyaya sutta
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 35#p189635" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Arahant's consciousness is no longer fixated (appatittha) on any perceptual image (nimitta) of the six sense doors, so the Arahant can experience Nibbana at will.

"Concieving as mine" you write about is a key way of fixation, and one should not lay claim to anything:
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 35#p189626" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Regards, Dmytro

User avatar
kirk5a
Posts: 1959
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 1:51 pm

Re: The Eye is Impermanent.

Post by kirk5a » Fri Jul 13, 2012 12:35 pm

Dmytro wrote: The 'cakkhu' in this Pali passage means 'sight'. It would be ridiculous to speak of the passion towards the literal eye, ear, nose, tongue as the key factors of samsara.
Hardly. There are billion $ industries revolving around passion for the physical eye.
"When one thing is practiced & pursued, ignorance is abandoned, clear knowing arises, the conceit 'I am' is abandoned, latent tendencies are uprooted, fetters are abandoned. Which one thing? Mindfulness immersed in the body." -AN 1.230

Anxt
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2012 6:17 pm

Re: The Eye is Impermanent.

Post by Anxt » Fri Jul 13, 2012 12:54 pm

Hello Vincent,

there is one Sutta (SN 35.197) which compares the internal sense bases with an empty village and the external sense bases with village-plundering bandits. I think we must regard the eye as a negative, a kind of "gap" or "hole", which is intruded, filled or occupied by the forms as soon as it "arises". The Buddha said that all beings depend on nutriment, which also seems to point in this direction. The kind of "fullness" or "positivity" that we associate with "being (conscious)" requires something which is "filled up". The senses (by being negatives) allow for "intrusion" and "fullness" (but not fusion). To "conceive" the eye could therefore mean to regard it as something positive instead of seeing its negative nature (as described above). So if we think of the eye as meaty eye-ball, we are cut off from the possibility of understanding what seeing is.

Best wishes

User avatar
kirk5a
Posts: 1959
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 1:51 pm

Re: The Eye is Impermanent.

Post by kirk5a » Fri Jul 13, 2012 1:01 pm

Anxt wrote: So if we think of the eye as meaty eye-ball, we are cut off from the possibility of understanding what seeing is.
No we aren't. Without the understanding of the "meaty eye-ball" we have no explanation for how seeing arises in the first place. Because of course, if someone has no meaty eye balls, they do not see.
MN148 wrote: Dependent on the eye & forms there arises consciousness at the eye.
"When one thing is practiced & pursued, ignorance is abandoned, clear knowing arises, the conceit 'I am' is abandoned, latent tendencies are uprooted, fetters are abandoned. Which one thing? Mindfulness immersed in the body." -AN 1.230

Anxt
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2012 6:17 pm

Re: The Eye is Impermanent.

Post by Anxt » Fri Jul 13, 2012 1:28 pm

kirk5a wrote:
Anxt wrote: So if we think of the eye as meaty eye-ball, we are cut off from the possibility of understanding what seeing is.
No we aren't. Without the understanding of the "meaty eye-ball" we have no explanation for how seeing arises in the first place. Because of course, if someone has no meaty eye balls, they do not see.
That is not the understanding of seeing that I mean. I mean the seeing of the "first-person perspective", which is devoid of "meaty eye-balls". I don't deny that one will find that seeing depends on "meat", but in order to make such a statement, one has to introduce an external or additional point of view (which allows for becoming conscious of one's eye as something positive).
MN148 wrote:Dependent on the eye & forms there arises consciousness at the eye.
Yes, but you have to decide whether this is a description that "someone else" makes of you or a description which you make of yourself. The understanding of "eye" will be different (unless you pretend to be "someone else").

User avatar
kirk5a
Posts: 1959
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 1:51 pm

Re: The Eye is Impermanent.

Post by kirk5a » Fri Jul 13, 2012 1:55 pm

Anxt wrote:
kirk5a wrote:
Anxt wrote: So if we think of the eye as meaty eye-ball, we are cut off from the possibility of understanding what seeing is.
No we aren't. Without the understanding of the "meaty eye-ball" we have no explanation for how seeing arises in the first place. Because of course, if someone has no meaty eye balls, they do not see.
That is not the understanding of seeing that I mean. I mean the seeing of the "first-person perspective", which is devoid of "meaty eye-balls".
What you mean is eye-consciousness when there is no perception (concept, label, "conceiving") of "eye"
I don't deny that one will find that seeing depends on "meat", but in order to make such a statement, one has to introduce an external or additional point of view (which allows for becoming conscious of one's eye as something positive).
No because in squinting, crossing the eyes, focusing on foreground and background, and taking my finger and gently poking at the place where that is occurring I am perfectly able to make the statement that seeing depends upon "meat." Not to mention, looking in the mirror. No external points of view required. All first-person.
MN148 wrote:Dependent on the eye & forms there arises consciousness at the eye.
Yes, but you have to decide whether this is a description that "someone else" makes of you or a description which you make of yourself. The understanding of "eye" will be different (unless you pretend to be "someone else").
Whether I decide this is a description that someone else makes of me, or a description I make of myself, it's still true, and my understanding of "eye" is the same.
"When one thing is practiced & pursued, ignorance is abandoned, clear knowing arises, the conceit 'I am' is abandoned, latent tendencies are uprooted, fetters are abandoned. Which one thing? Mindfulness immersed in the body." -AN 1.230

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

Re: The Eye is Impermanent.

Post by vinasp » Fri Jul 13, 2012 2:01 pm

Hi everyone,

The Mulapariyaya Sutta, MN 1, explains the differences between four kinds of
individuals.

1. Ordinary man ------- he perceives X ------------------ He conceives X.

2. Learner (sekha) ---- has higher knowledge of X --- makes effort not to conceive X.

3. Arahant -------------- has higher knowledge of X --- does not conceive X.

4. Tathagata ------------ has higher knowledge of X --- does not conceive X.

The term "mannati" (conceive) is important to understand. It is by bringing
conceiving to an end that one becomes enlightened. It is the origin of all
unwholesome states of mind.

In MN 113 the description of the "true man" ends with these words:

"And his taints are destroyed by his seeing with wisdom. This bhikkhu does
not conceive anything, he does not conceive in regard to anything, he does
not conceive in any way." [BB, MLDB, 1995, p.912]

Regards, Vincent.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], Johnnymac, Majestic-12 [Bot] and 108 guests