A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
- Posts: 1333
- Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 3:02 pm
piotr wrote: I think that you're stuck with an idea that here „the eye” (cakkhu) is an actual organ. But in fact if you take a look at Pāli you can see that there's more or less clear distinction in terminology between organ & function of an organ.
“That in the world by which one perceives the world and conceives conceits about the world is called ’the world’ in the Noble One’s Discipline. And what is it in the world with which one does that? It is with the eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind.” (SN 35:116)
I don't think the distinction is so much as between the eye as function and the eye as organ, but between the eye as experienced from the first-person perspective and that of the third-person perspective. So long as we don't start from the third-person perspective in trying to understand the nature of experience, the mamsa-cakkhu
is a perfectly valid concept in spatially orienting ourselves in the world. It's that the third-person perspective is ultimately founded upon the first that the quoted passage from the Samyutta is trying to convey paradoxically.