What is right view?

[Cittasanto]

Hi Manapa,

Yes. I should have said something about the passage I quoted. The term loka ( world, cosmos) is used in several senses. In this passage it seems to mean some internally constructed world. I agree with Acinteyyo that the most probable meaning is the five aggregates of clinging. These are the entire cosmos - all three realms of existence and all thirty-one classes of beings.

Best wishes, Vincent.

I know

[acinteyyo]

Hi acinteyyo,

You say that the six senses still exist. Most passages talk about the six sense-spheres which are not the same thing as the six senses. The six sense-spheres cease as is stated clearly many times. Do you need quotations for this ?

Best wishes, Vincent.

Hi Vincent,

please provide a suttareference.

best wishes, acinteyyo

[mikenz66]

Hi Vincent,

Where does it say that the sense bases (I presume is that you mean ayatana when you say "spheres") vanish for an arahant (before parinibbana)?

Mike

[vinasp]

Hi everyone,

Here are some quotations on the six sense bases, selected to show that they cease at enlightenment - in this life.

At Savatthi. "Bhikkhus, the eye is impermanent, both of the past and the future, not to speak of the present. Seeing thus, bhikkhus, the instructed noble disciple is indifferent towards the eye of the past ; he does not seek delight in the eye of the
future ; and he is practising for revulsion towards the eye of the present, for its fading away and cessation".
"The ear is impermanent ... The nose ... The tongue ... The body ... The mind is impermanent ...for its fading away and cessation". Bhikkhu Bodhi, Connected Discourses, 35.7 page 1136.

[ Although 35.7 speaks of "the eye" it is not the actual eye which is meant, but the eye-sphere or base - the actual eye remains after enlightenment ]

"Venerable sir, it is said, 'Mara, Mara'. In what way, venerable sir, might there be Mara or the description of Mara ?"
"Where there is the eye, Samiddhi, where there are forms, eye-consciousness, things to be cognized by eye consciousness, there Mara exists or the description of Mara. ( repeat for ear, nose, tongue, body and mind).
"Where there is no eye, Samiddhi, no forms, no eye-consciousness, no things to be cognized by eye-consciousness, there Mara does not exist nor any description of Mara". ( repeat for ear, nose, tongue, body and mind ).

Connected Discourses, 35.65 page 1152.

The next sutta 35.66 is identical except Mara is replaced by "a being".
The following sutta 35.67 replaces Mara with "suffering".
The following sutta 35.68 replaces Mara with "the world".

MN 9.49 "When, friends, a noble disciple understands the sixfold base, the origin of the sixfold base, the cessation of the sixfold base, and the way leading to the cessation of the sixfold base, in that way he is one of right view ... and has arrived
at this true Dhamma".

Best wishes, Vincent.

[mikenz66]

Hi Vincent,

Yes, I'm familiar with those quotes, but I do not interpret them as the six-fold base ceasing for an Arahant (until the body expires).

... a noble disciple understands ... the way leading to the cessation of the sixfold base...

It doesn't say: "For a noble disciple the six-fold base has ceased".

Metta
Mike

[vinasp]

Hi mike,

I expect that they say it somewhere, its just the time it takes to find things. Try this one :

"Pray, brother when the six spheres of contact cease without residue, is there anything still left ?" "Ah ! say not so brother".
[ This is repeated for "not anything ...", "both is and is not ..." and "niether is nor is not anything still left."]

"Brother, he who says : 'When the six spheres of contact cease without residue there is still something left', is conceptualising what should not be proliferated conceptually ... (repeat for the other three cases). Brother, whatever is the range of the six spheres of contact, that itself is the range of prolific conceptualisation. And whatever is the range of prolific conceptualisation, that itself is the range of the six spheres of contact. By the utter detachment from, and the cessation of the six spheres of contact, there comes to be the cessation, the allayment, of prolific conceptualisation."

Dialog between Maha Kotthita and Sariputta at AN. II. 161. From : Bhikkhu Nanananda, Concept and Reality, BPS Kandy 1986, page 21.

Perhaps one needs to understand in addition that "prolific conceptualisation" (papanca) has ceased for an enlightened individual.

'Iam', brethren, is a conceptual proliferation. 'This am I' ... 'I shall be' ... 'I shall not be' ... these, brethren, are proliferations. Wherefore, brethren, ye must say : "With mind free from proliferations will we abide". Thus must ye train yourselves". K.S. IV. 133-4 Nanananda, page 16.

Best wishes, Vincent.

[tiltbillings]

Hi mike,

I expect that they say it somewhere, its just the time it takes to find things.

So, the arahant does not see or hear or taste or touch anything. Goodness.

[kannada]

What is right view?

Open eyes...

[vinasp]

Hi tiltbillings,

I am not sure what you mean. Of course arahants still have eyes and see things.

"There exists in the Blessed One the eye, the Blessed One sees a form with the eye, yet there is no desire and lust in the Blessed One; the Blessed One is well liberated in mind. There exists in the Blessed One the ear ..."

Connected Discourses, Bhikkhu Bodhi, page 1231. SN 35.232

This only goes to show that the six sense spheres, which cease, are not the actual six senses.

Best wishes, Vincent.

[vinasp]

Hi everyone,

At Connected Discourses 56.13 , Bhikkhu Bodhi page 1847, There is a version of the four noble truths. This is the same as the normal version except for the first truth :

"And what, bhikkhus, is the noble truth of suffering ? It should be said : The five aggregates subject to clinging; that is, the form aggregate subject to clinging ... The consciousness aggregate subject to clinging. This is called the noble truth of suffering." [ the rest is identical to the normal four noble truths. ]

The next sutta 56.14 is also a variant version of the four noble truths. Again it is the first truth which is changed :

"And what, bhikkhus, is the noble truth of suffering ? It should be said : the six internal sense bases. What six ? The eye base ... the mind base. This is called the noble truth of suffering."

When this sutta gives the fourth truth as the noble eightfold path, what it leads to is the cessation of the six internal sense bases - in other words, suffering.

Therefore, the six sense bases have ceased for everyone who has completed the noble eightfold path.

Best wishes, Vincent.

[tiltbillings]

Therefore, the six sense bases have ceased for everyone who has completed the noble eightfold path.

So they do not see, hear, think, taste, touch. Goodness.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Tilt,

I suspect he means no longer conditioned by ignorance.

Metta,
Retro.

[tiltbillings]

Greetings Tilt,

I suspect he means no longer conditioned by ignorance.

Metta,
Retro. :

One hopes that is what he means, but it not quite what he has said as of yet.

[acinteyyo]

Hi everybody,

cakkhu = eye
cakkháyatanam = the organ of the eye, the sense of sight. [not the eye itself, a kind of internal thing]
cakkhundriyam = the organ of the eye, the faculty of sight. [not the eye itself, a kind of internal thing]

‘Cha ajjhattikāni āyatanānī’ tissa vacanīyaṃ. Katamāni cha? Cakkhāyatanaṃ…pe… manāyatanaṃ – idaṃ vuccati, bhikkhave, dukkhaṃ ariyasaccaṃ.
"And what, bhikkhus, is the noble truth of suffering ? It should be said : the six internal sense bases. What six ? The eye base ... the mind base. This is called the noble truth of suffering."

"ajjhattikāni āyatanānī" is here translated into "six internal sense bases", which seems to make things difficult to understand.
ajjhattiko means: Relating or belonging to the individual or self, personal, internal, subjective.
Thus it should be understood as: What is the noble truth of suffering? It should be said: the six sense bases related to a self.
The ability/faculty of sight (cakkhundriyam) is not affected. But the sense of sight changes. From "this form is mine, I am this form, this form is my self" to "this form is not mine, I am not this form, this form is not my self" and for the arahant it isn't even that, it's just "form".
For example, the puthujjana sees: "this is my body, I am this body, it is my self"
the sekha sees: "this is not my body, I am not this body, it is not my self"
the asekha sees: "this form is form, depending on this form there is the term "body"
This is only an example to illustrate what I mean! Pleas don't take it too literally.

I don't see anywhere that the six sense bases cease before the death of the body. Maybe because I usually do not draw a distinction between the six senses and the six sense bases. But we could say the internal six sense bases have ceased after enlightenment, leaving the abilitiy to see untouched. This would then only mean that the six sense bases are no longer related to a self (refering to ajjhattiko). Things would be seen as they are: not-self.

But imho this shouldn't be discussed too much (in detail), because it easily leads to confusion . In the end it is again the well-known statement of the Buddha:
sabbe dhamma anatta

best wishes, acinteyyo

[BeduBodhi]

I'm afraid I began to lose the thread of this discussion after the first couple of pages, when it seemed to fall to bickering about terms, like a big cloud of dust out of which came flying Pali words and sutta citations.

Forgive me if I am being off topic, but I thought I'd share something I listened to only a couple of days ago, one of Sangharakshita's more well-known lectures on the 8FP, an eight-part series that when I heard it the first time about a year ago was the most engaging and enlightening presentation on the subject I have come across.

Among the things he has to say on Right View:

In the literature of Buddhism there
are many expositions of Right Understanding, as Perfect Vision
is generally called. One might even say there are too many, for
some expositions are not very helpful, and may even be mislead -
ing. Under the heading of Right Understanding some writers on
Buddhism would apparently like to include the whole of Bud -
dhist doctrine. Whatever could not be included under any other
heading is squeezed in here. ‘After all’, they seem to think, ‘it is
all a matter of Right Understanding: it is all something to be un -
derstood .’ So in it all goes – the whole doctrine, the whole teach -
ing, the whole philosophy. This tends to create the wrong
impression. I have found that students of Buddhism often think
that Right Understanding, as the first step of the Noble Eightfold
Path, means making a thorough study of the whole of Buddhist
thought, and taking a sort of Ph.D. in Buddhist philosophy.
They think that before you can start walking on the Noble Eight -
fold Path you have to learn all about the Mãdhyamikas and the
Yogãcãrins, the Sarvãstivãdins and the Sautrãntikas, as well as
about the T’ien T’ai School and the Avataæsaka School, and so
on. Only then, they think, can you put your foot on the Path and
start practising Buddhism.

But really it is not like that at all. Samyag-dòëìi , it must be em -
phasized, is just Perfect Vision. It has nothing to do with the
study of the schools of Buddhist philosophy. It is a vision , and as
such something direct and immediate, and more of the nature of
a spiritual experience than an intellectual understanding. Of
course the experience, the insight, can be expressed intellectually,
in terms of doctrinal concepts, philosophical systems, and so on,
but it is not identical with these. The vision itself stands apart,
stands above.

So what is this Perfect Vision? One may say it is a vision of the
nature of existence, but what does this vision reveal? What is the
nature of existence? This question is difficult to answer because
it is easy – only too easy – to answer. I am not being paradoxical.
What I mean is that only too many concepts lie ready to hand.
There is so much Buddhist philosophy available. We can so eas -
ily use a few technical terms, refer to this system or that, and say
this is the nature of existence according to Buddhism. But this is
too slick, too easy. We must beware of the temptation to produce
our concepts too readily. What we are trying to communicate is
not simply a set of ideas, not a system of philosophy in the aca -
demic sense, but what the Buddha himself, in his own language,
quite unambiguously called dòëìi –a vision .

If you'd like to read more, a book was published from the lectures and can be downloaded as a PDF here:
http://www.sangharakshita.org/bookshelf ... mation.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Or download the lecture series as MP3s here:
http://www.freebuddhistaudio.com/series/details?ser=X07" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;