Spiny Norman wrote:
chownah wrote:The eye can see as far as the retina......not very far I guess.......actually doesn't even make it out of the cns in that respect.
Sorry I don't get that. Eye-consciousness arises in dependence on the eye and form...so are you denying form?
"Eye" is the common translation of "cakkhu
". But I think by "cakkhu
" the Buddha did not mean the eye-ball but he meant the vision-faculty (the seer). Also, in this context, by "rupa
" (form) the Buddha meant whatever that comes in "contact" with the vision-faculty. "Rupa
" does not mean an object out there, in this context; but it could be understood
as the representation (or signal or image that directly comes in contact with vision-faculty - not the signal even at retina) of an inferred and projected object out there.
According to science, it is in visual cortex
(in the back of the brain) where processing for visual perception occurs. The electro-biochemical signal ("rupa
") has to come in contact with the visual cortex ("cakkhu") for the arising of eye-consciousness and perception. A form as an object out there (whether it is really there or not) is always a projection and our assumption. It is at the junction of the signal and the visual cortex where the "contact" occurs (along with eye-consciousness).
So, to be a little bit more accurate, I would replace chownah's sentence "The eye can see as far as the retina" with "The vision-faculty can see as far as the visual cortex". At the contact-point there is no distance between the signal, visual cortex, and the resultant consciousness.
It is just my crude attempt to stretch chownah's views a little further on the basis of science - to make the point that even on the basis of science we cannot say that we directly see an actual object out there as it is; all that a vision faculty sees is the immediate signal that it comes in contact with . It does not necessarily and accurately represent my personal understanding about rupa
, contact, consciousness, etc.