Alex123 wrote:So one can see without using the eyes? I would like to know how to do that. Doesn't this reject the Buddhist teaching that seeing occurs when there is external object AND THE EYE present along with all the other necessary conditions?
I don't want to argue either for nor against super-normal vision, but according to the dependent origination, trying to establish any of the six sense bases would have to be rooted on the ignorance of the sankharas involved.
If we try to cling to our own ideas of "eye" or its "seeing" as something definitive (i.e., something which is not anicca), then that is ignorance. It leads to a dukkha, since there always will be people who have different perceptions along with their own definitions to struggle against.
I'm not sure if you're aware, but deaf people are actually able to listen without the use of ears. Blind people are also able to see the nature of something, even without the use of their eyes. What does that mean really? Is this due to an error in the perceptions? Does it seem wrong because of our own clinging to the preconceived notions? I don't think that this is merely semantics.
It only shows the anicca nature of our perceptions, along with our own willingness to try to cling to them at any cost, even though that will create misunderstanding, and difficulty. It's one of the five aggregates which are considered unreliable.
Also, I think one of the qualities of an arahant is a so-called "consciousness" which isn't established on anything. To me, that means that the arahant doesn't get stuck to anything... he's unbounded.
Whenever we notice ourselves becoming perplexed... when someone seem to manage to "see" without the use of any preconceived notion of the "eye," for example, then maybe that is something to think about.
When Bahiya was told by the Buddha to try to see only what was seen... what do you think that he meant exactly? Do you think that there was something permanent for Bahiya to see, such as the eye and its object...?