Moderator: Mahavihara moderator
from paccaya (condition)
(2) Object-condition (ārammana-paccaya) is called something which, as object, forms the condition for consciousness and mental phenomena. Thus, the physical object of sight consisting [maybe "appearing" is better] in colour and light ('light-wave'), is the necessary condition and the sine qua non for the arising of eye-consciousness (cakkhu-viññāna), etc.; sound ('sound wave') for ear-consciousness (sotā-viññāna), etc.; further, any object arising in the mind is the condition for mind-consciousness (mano-viññāna). The mind-object may be anything whatever, corporeal or mental, past, present or future, real or imaginary.
"And why do you call it 'perception'? Because it perceives, thus it is called 'perception.' What does it perceive? It perceives blue, it perceives yellow, it perceives red, it perceives white. Because it perceives, it is called perception.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
reflection wrote:Light is really particles called photons, not waves.
DAWN wrote:reflection wrote:Light is really particles called photons, not waves.
Buddha said that all it's a wave.
All is energy, all dhamma is energy.
Light is pure energy.
To get energy we must have an mouvement from 0 to +1 from +1 to 0, from 0 to -1 and from -1 to 0.
We must have a burn, arise, decline and death. It's a wave mouvement.
There is no atta, there is no particles.
Some one said that : "In this world, there are no nouns, there are only verbs."
Light is composed by primary colors : red green and blue, and after he decline on rainbow and other varieties. So we have all in one. Light have not any color, but he have all colors at the same time.
If there are particles, the light must be composed by all of particules for each color, that an object can obsorb or reflect.
It's not like this.
All light is reflecled by dhammas. Sun-light shows us material objects, mind-light show us mental objects.
But why it is reflected?
It's reflected because it's not absorbed, it's not absorbed because it's have not the same nature, is different. For example water can absorb water, but water can't absorb a stone, a stone will not be deluded by water, so he is reflected by the water.
Reflection arise from duality
The Buddha said that all dhamma is mind, also Buddha said that "Buddha's light is unsurpased".
So we can understand that light (phisical or mental) is the concsiousness, that apears between 0 and 1, between Budhha and dhamma, Buddha is not any dhamma, but Buddha is all dhammas at the same time. 0 is no 1, but all numbers take their place relatively 0, all mathematics re constructed on 0, all dhammas are constructed on Buddha, thats why Buddha is not any dhamma, Buddha is all dhammas at the same time, Buddha is the Non-duality, no conscisousness.
It's consciousness will determinate wich form will take a dhamma.
Consciosness apears when there is duality
Light apears when there is duality
So there is no color and no rupa,
Just consciousness, just a light of Buddha
I hope somebody will understand this heretic reply.
Hanzze wrote:I guess here one must be carefull not to end as a counciousnessless being or a formless being. What ever he might reject, forgetting the other (or better the whole wheel of co-depending origin).
reflection wrote:Now I agree that everything is in the mind. And the Buddha was a perfect teacher for understanding this reality from an inside point of view, but scientific understanding of the 'outside' world at his time was very limited. So be careful mixing the two up. I just wanted to correct some statements made in this topic about the physical properties of light, not because I think it is important for understanding the Dhamma - not at all - but just because of some obvious errors - at least when compared to the current scientific understanding. And I think people should be careful to not make statements about things they haven't really studied, it creates a very imcomprehensible read - and may even affect the overal credibility of this forum. Now I don't want to go into details and I also admit I don't know it all, but you can use google (or better a good physics book) to catch up on the theories to see where some statements made here are obviously incorrect.
Hanzze wrote:Have you ever observed rupa that has a color?
Hanzze wrote:What about a color-blind? Mabye color (thinking on the different waves) is related with "fire". Color it self, I would regard more as a mental construct. I guess it's not easy to draw a sharp line, but that is good so.
"And why do you call it 'perception'? Because it perceives, thus it is called 'perception.' What does it perceive? It perceives blue, it perceives yellow, it perceives red, it perceives white. Because it perceives, it is called perception. SN22.79
DAWN wrote:Hanzze wrote:I guess here one must be carefull not to end as a counciousnessless being or a formless being. What ever he might reject, forgetting the other (or better the whole wheel of co-depending origin).
Internet is alrady a formless loka.
Hanzze wrote:DAWN wrote:Hanzze wrote:I guess here one must be carefull not to end as a counciousnessless being or a formless being. What ever he might reject, forgetting the other (or better the whole wheel of co-depending origin).
Internet is alrady a formless loka.
So here we are and still much colors
Maybe just the fine material world. Would there be the perception of color in the formless realms?
Know, Perceive, Conceive, and View
To know that it is "that form (rupa)" is a delusion of mind (citta).
To perceive that it is that form is a delusion of perception (saññā).
To conceive that it is that form is a delusion of conceit (māna).
To view it as that form is a delusion of view (ditthi).