The Eye is Impermanent.

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 14947
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: The Eye is Impermanent.

Postby mikenz66 » Thu Jul 12, 2012 9:56 am


User avatar
DarwidHalim
Posts: 537
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 11:49 am
Location: Neither Samsara nor Nirvana

Re: The Eye is Impermanent.

Postby DarwidHalim » Thu Jul 12, 2012 10:37 am

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
daverupa
Posts: 5980
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: The Eye is Impermanent.

Postby daverupa » Thu Jul 12, 2012 10:54 am

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.

santa100
Posts: 2673
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:55 pm

Re: The Eye is Impermanent.

Postby santa100 » Thu Jul 12, 2012 1:01 pm

DarwidHalim wrote:
"A very famous buddhist monk was asked this question this question:

(Q) My mind is anxious. Please pacify it.

(A) Bring me your mind, and I will pacify it.

(Q) Although I’ve sought it, I cannot find it.

(A) I have pacified your mind."

When Master Bodhidharma replied to Master Huike's problem with an agitated mind, he gave a response that is perfectly in line with what the Buddha taught. "Bring me your mind" was to remind Huike not to fall into that nasty "identification" trap of "I", "mine", and "myself". Then "I cannot find it" was the affirmation of the Three Characteristics of impermanence, unsatisfactory, and non-self..

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

Re: The Eye is Impermanent.

Postby vinasp » Thu Jul 12, 2012 3:31 pm

Hi Alex123,

Alex:"I haven't read all that you have posted, but to me it seems that "conceiving" means something like strongly considering things to be "I, me, mine" and also to wrongly believe that they are nicca, sukha, atta, and worthy of attachment."

I completely agree that all these things are involved. I have not spoken about
them yet because it is not clear to me which, if any, are involved from the start.

For example, in this passage:

Here, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu does not conceive the eye, does not conceive in
the eye, does not conceive from the eye, does not conceive, 'The eye is mine.'

If we reverse this to describe the ordinary man:

... he conceives the eye, he conceives in the eye, he conceives from the eye,
he conceives, 'The eye is mine.'

Are these four separate "conceivings"? Four sequential "conceivings"?
Or four aspects of a single "conceiving"?

Could the ideas of permanence and pleasure be involved at first, followed
after by ideas of "I" and "mine"?

I do not know the answer at present.

Regards, Vincent.

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

Re: The Eye is Impermanent.

Postby 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.

Postby 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.

Postby 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.

Postby 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.

Postby DarwidHalim » Fri Jul 13, 2012 12:50 am

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: 1140
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 8:39 am

Re: The Eye is Impermanent.

Postby pegembara » Fri Jul 13, 2012 3:34 am

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.

Postby 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.

Postby DarwidHalim » Fri Jul 13, 2012 7:51 am

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: 1449
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 7:24 pm
Location: Kyiv, Ukraine
Contact:

Re: The Eye is Impermanent.

Postby Dmytro » Fri Jul 13, 2012 12:08 pm



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

Re: The Eye is Impermanent.

Postby kirk5a » Fri Jul 13, 2012 12:35 pm

"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.

Postby 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.

Postby kirk5a » Fri Jul 13, 2012 1:01 pm

"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.

Postby Anxt » Fri Jul 13, 2012 1:28 pm


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

Re: The Eye is Impermanent.

Postby kirk5a » Fri Jul 13, 2012 1:55 pm

"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.

Postby 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.


Return to “General Theravāda discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Caodemarte and 35 guests

Google Saffron, Theravada Search Engine