sense bases disappear ?

[cappuccino]

…

Try to clarify that and simplify it

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

stop wrongly insisting I believe certain things.

You told me there is no self to annihilate

No offence, but this side-conversation you are pursuing is pointless.

I cannot mute you like others can (because of moderation duties), but I will be ignoring your eternalist ramblings for the reminder of this conversation. If Bahiya is alive, as you claim, you should ask him for guidance.



Metta,
Paul.

[cappuccino]

Eternalism is about lack of change


In contrast to inconstancy


Enough said…

[asahi]

To you , what does the above highlighted means ? If you think they are not sense base , sphere or organ or domain , what are they ?

the faculties of the eye, ear, nose, tongue, and body.

I'm satisfied with the PTS Dictionary definition provided earlier.

(personal potentiality of) vision etc.

So , how do you differentiate Vision and Eyes Consciousness ?

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Asahi,

Are you asking the difference between vision and eyes, or vision and eye-consciousness?

Metta,
Paul.

[asahi]

Greetings Asahi,

Are you asking the difference between vision and eyes, or vision and eye-consciousness?

You were saying , you regards eyes faculty etc (which is cakkhu indriya etc) as Vision , the question above is asking about how you differentiate it from eyes consciousness or cakkhu vinnana !?

[retrofuturist]

Greetings asahi,

You were saying , you regards eyes faculty etc (which is cakkhu indriya etc) as Vision , the question above is asking about how you differentiate it from eyes consciousness or cakkhu vinnana !?

Gotcha.

In brief...

The eye-faculty is simply the ability to see. It remains dependent upon vitality and warmth for continuation. It is not a phenomena. Simple.

The consciousness of eye-consciousness is called viññāṇa because it discriminates - the prefix vi implies two, as per the Latin word bi and -jñā implies knowledge. Per PTS, "it arises through the mutual relation of sense and sense-object"... so it can be explained as the discrimination of an object, i.e. a fabricated dhamma, i.e. a phenomena, from the raw sensory data enabled by the eye-faculty.

As is applies to paticcasamuppada...

Paticcasamuppada then shows this fabricated object flowing in a whirlpool motion with nama-rupa, whereby the fabricated object becomes the rupa of nama-rupa, which is then further molested (ruppati) by the consistutents of name... feeling, perception, intention, attention and contact. Consciousness is thus no longer eye-consciousness, but mind-consciousness reflecting the nama-rupa (name and form) of the fabricated object, and that vortex, causes further evolution of the name-and-form until it falls apart once attention, as one of the constituents of name, is no longer paid to it.

Paticcasamuppada also shows eye-consciousness becoming the basis for salayatana. As mentioned previously, salayatana involves the bifurcation of an internal sense base (which comes later to be known as "me") from an "external sense-base", i.e. the object that eye-consciousness created (which can later come to be known as "mine"). The following steps in paticcasamuppada show the further iterations of that I-making process, which gives rise to identification (jati) as "I".

Viññāṇa-nirodha signifies the cessation of doing any of the above mental activities from a position of ignorance. Hence, the cessation of I-making which underpins the arahant's claim that "jati is ended!"

The eye-faculty plays no role in paticcasamuppada other than enabling viññāṇa by providing raw sensory data.

Metta,
Paul.

[justindesilva]

…

Try to clarify that and simplify it

From anatta lakkhana sutta:
Rupa are eye object , ear object , nose object or sound, taste (tongue object ) or touch on the skin or object on mind at mana ayatana.
As an eye object, one receives a signal of say a tree which enters the eye as rays and gets reflected in the retina and such feeling is vedana which is signalled to the brain which phenomenon is called sangna. The brain analyses and makes a figure from colours received in the brain.. With past experience of mind (manayatana) recorded previously the mind or vingnana suggests a figure as tree or a being etc. on sammuti.
The vingnana now decides to like, dislike or be neutral on feeling of the object. It is then desire or tanha followed by craving as followed by paticca samuppada is formed.
Once this action is done with the eye sense only another sense object of one other of salayatana becomes active. When the other (say) a sound object is taken by the brain the eye base activation disappeares.
An arhant do not continue with each sense base as heard is only heard , whlle seen is only seen and unfollowed with each salayatana thus not forming karma. Kammakkayo nibbanam
This can be further explained as each step is vibration and combust as explained from aditya paryaya sutta .

[asahi]

In brief...

The eye-faculty is simply the ability to see. It remains dependent upon vitality and warmth for continuation. It is not a phenomena. Simple.

The consciousness of eye-consciousness is called viññāṇa because it discriminates - the prefix vi implies two, as per the Latin word bi and -jñā implies knowledge. Per PTS, "it arises through the mutual relation of sense and sense-object"... so it can be explained as the discrimination of an object, i.e. a fabricated dhamma, i.e. a phenomena, from the raw sensory data enabled by the eye-faculty.

As is applies to paticcasamuppada...

Paticcasamuppada then shows this fabricated object flowing in a whirlpool motion with nama-rupa, whereby the fabricated object becomes the rupa of nama-rupa, which is then further molested (ruppati) by the consistutents of name... feeling, perception, intention, attention and contact. Consciousness is thus no longer eye-consciousness, but mind-consciousness reflecting the nama-rupa (name and form) of the fabricated object, and that vortex, causes further evolution of the name-and-form until it falls apart once attention is no longer paid to it.

Paticcasamuppada also shows eye-consciousness becoming the basis for salayatana. As mentioned previously, salayatana involves the bifurcation of an internal sense base (which comes later to be known as "me") from an "external sense-base", i.e. the object that eye-consciousness created (which can later come to be known as "mine"). The following steps in paticcasamuppada show the further iterations of that I-making process, which gives rise to identification (jati) as "I".

Viññāṇa-nirodha signifies the cessation of doing any of the above mental activities from a position of ignorance. Hence, the cessation of I-making which underpins that arahant's claim that "jati is ended!"

The eye-faculty plays no role in paticcasamuppada other than enabling viññāṇa by providing raw sensory data.

Okay , to confirm once more , in short , you are saying eyes faculty are NOT referring to the eyes sense bases (organs , sphere) itself and NOT the eyes consciousness either , right ?

[retrofuturist]

Greetings asahi,

Correct.

The eye-faculty is simply the ability to see - something arahants, sekhas and putthujanas have in common.

Those phenomena you note are dependently originated things - ignorant, afflicted cognitions. They are the common understanding of unenlightened puthujjanas, and they are things that sekhas should refrain from giving rise to, such that their illusory and fabricated nature may be understood.

Metta,
Paul.

[asahi]

Greetings asahi,

Correct.

The eye-faculty is simply the ability to see - something arahants, sekhas and putthujanas have in common.

Those phenomena you note are dependently originated things - ignorant cognitions, the understanding of putthujanas, and the things that sekhas should refrain from giving rise to, such that they can be understood.

Okay , now if we can find a sutta that refers eyes faculty (cakkhu indriya) as eyes organ itself , how would you explain then ?

[retrofuturist]

Greetings asahi,

Okay , now if we can find a sutta that refers eyes faculty (cakkhu indriya) as eyes organ itself , how would you explain then ?

Firstly, I would say that the PTS Dictionary entry for indriya, quoted previously, explicitly refutes that claim, so good luck with it.

Secondly, I would take a look at the sutta in question, and share my thoughts on what was presented.

Metta,
Paul.

[justindesilva]

Greetings asahi,

Correct.

The eye-faculty is simply the ability to see - something arahants, sekhas and putthujanas have in common.

Those phenomena you note are dependently originated things - ignorant cognitions, the understanding of putthujanas, and the things that sekhas should refrain from giving rise to, such that they can be understood.

Okay , now if we can find a sutta that refers eyes faculty (cakkhu indriya) as eyes organ itself , how would you explain then ?

Out of many the best in this regard is Salayatana vibangha sutta. It explains each sense base as externally , internally with reference to vingnana. A comprehension of this beyond my capacity , hence request an abled person to make it.

[asahi]

Firstly, I would say that the PTS Dictionary entry for indriya, quoted previously, explicitly refutes that claim,

Per dictionary you provided , eyes indriya etc is ability of seeing , hearing , smelling , tasting & kāyindriyaṁ is body sensing or tactile . Ability of seeing and Seeing are two things , you said .
How do you regard the mind or mano? Is it an indriya & an ability of thinking ? Why it is not mentioned as an indriya ?
MN 43 seems to miss out on the mind which must depends on life and warmth too ? ? ?

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

Ability of seeing and Seeing are two things , you said .

Two different things, yes.

How do you regard the mind or mano? Is it an indriya & an ability of thinking ? Why it is not mentioned as an indriya ?

It is mentioned as an indriya occasionally, bundled in with the pañc' indriyāni, and in that context would simply mean the ability to use the mind.

MN 43 seems to miss out on the mind which must depends on life and warmth too ? ? ?

Presumably, but it would be sufficient to know that what is being referred to as an indriya is not a phenomena, nor is it dependent upon avijja. Thus, when the avijja is removed and all fabricated sankharas cease... the arahant isn't left deaf, dumb, numb, blind, mindless and anosmic, as some wags would have it.

Metta,
Paul.