Ceisiwr wrote: ↑Sun Jul 04, 2021 1:46 am
pegembara wrote: ↑Sat Jul 03, 2021 11:42 pm
My point is that the eye base is just a concept. It is the rods and cones of the retina, the optic nerve, the cornea, lens, the liquid and gelatinous parts and much much more. The "eye" is just a convenient way to describe a sum of many parts which by themselves are also composed of parts. The so called cells are themselves dependent on the cell membranes, cytoplasm, etc.
The conventional eye does not exist but since citta and visual forms exist, as well as contact, the corresponding sense base must also exist.
If it did not then there would be no contact and
we wouldn't be aware of anything. The eye does then exist, as visual sensitive rūpa-dhamma.
Just because we label or give them names doesn't mean that they truly exist!
Correct. There are either concepts of the real or concepts of the unreal.
Okay, you say that the "eye" kind of exist in the same way that a "chariot" exist. As mere convention but it still exists nevertheless.
And you disagree with the sutta stating the "eye" cannot be found and that it is not merely an assumption. The "chariot" must exist for otherwise we wouldn't be able to ride it.
Why now do you assume 'a being'?
Mara, have you grasped a view?
This is a heap of sheer constructions:
Here no being is found.
Just as, with an assemblage of parts,
The word 'chariot'[eye] is used,
So, when the aggregates are present,
There's the convention 'a being.'[eye]
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .bodh.html
Is your position then that-
The eye exists prior to contact/seeing or otherwise one cannot see.
Or a thinker must exist prior to thinking, for otherwise how could thoughts arise.
And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, from abusive speech, & from idle chatter: This is called right speech.
