Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

[dsg] Re: To the clientele of Sujin Boriharnwanaket

Expand Messages
  • upasaka@aol.com
    Hi, Stephen - I understand. Thank you for explaining! :-) With metta, Howard ... ==================================== With metta, Howard
    Message 1 of 32 , Nov 27, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi, Stephen -

      I understand. Thank you for explaining! :-)

      With metta,
      Howard

      --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman <hhofmeister@...> wrote:
      >
      > Hi Howard, RobE and all,
      >
      > On 26 November 2012 23:23, <upasaka@...> wrote:
      >
      > > **
      > >
      > >
      > > Hi, Herman -
      > >
      > >
      > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman <hhofmeister@> wrote:
      > > >
      > > > So, next time you travel to Poland or Vietnam or Antarctica, in order to
      > > be
      > > > asked the question:
      > > >
      > > > Is there seeing now?
      > > >
      > > > Just answer NO, even if you don't undertsand that, and save yourself the
      > > > plane fare to Peru :-)
      > > >
      > > > Ciao
      > > ============================
      > > Herman, maybe I've missed prior, more detailed posts of yours on this
      > > topic, but I would like to read something a bit less cryptic than this.
      > > What are you asserting exactly, and what are the details that are your
      > > basis for it? I may be being more than a bit dense on this, but I'm missing
      > > your point, and I would really like to understand it.
      > >
      > >
      > Yes, you are right - sorry for being cryptic, and thanks for asking for
      > clarification.
      >
      > My understanding of a common DSG view is that there is such a thing as
      > "seeing now". By that is meant a bare seeing, a seeing at paramattha dhamma
      > level, a seeing that is entirely without any conceptual framework but still
      > knowable / experienced.
      >
      > Not only do I deny on behalf of everyone that there is any such seeing
      > happening now, I also deny it as a possibility.
      >
      > I deny it mainly on the basis of neuroscience, in which it is well
      > understood that only processes occurring in the cerebral cortex are
      > represented in awareness. It is well established that most, if not all
      > visual pre-processing occurs in neural pathways outside of the cerebral
      > cortex, and therefore those "seeing" processes are outside of awareness, or
      > unconscious.
      <Snip>
      ====================================
      With metta,
      Howard
    • jonoabb
      Hi Herman ... J: Thanks for mentioning this, otherwise I d not have known :-)) Your original question was, what, if any, is the difference (in quality)
      Message 32 of 32 , Jan 1, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi Herman

        --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman <hhofmeister@...> wrote:
        >
        > Hi Jon,
        > ...
        > > J: In your previous post you asked about visible object, one of the
        > > dhammas mentioned in the suttas, whereas you now refer to 'mind-made
        > > percepts' and 'eye-sense based percepts', terms not found in the texts (and
        > > not defined by you either). Perhaps you could explain the relation.
        > >
        >
        > HH: Certainly. Somewhere in the texts, I am sure, there is a story about
        > whether an object is a rope or a snake. This is a story about the
        > possibility of misperception. There are accurate concepts of the world, and
        > there are inaccurate ones.
        >
        > Now, whether a seen object is a snake or a rope relies on seeing with the
        > eyes first, and then again and again.
        >
        > When you are in jhana, and a cobra wraps itself around you to shield you
        > from the weather, and all of this for seven days and seven nights, this
        > does not depend on seeing at all. It is totally mind-made.
        >
        > We are talking about the spectrum perception-illusion-hallucination.
        > ===============

        J: Thanks for mentioning this, otherwise I'd not have known :-))

        Your original question was, "what, if any, is the difference (in quality) between visible object experienced through the eye door and visible object experienced through the mind door?"

        To me, this asks about the experience of visible object, one of the dhammas spoken of frequently by the Buddha, and whether there is any difference in that dhamma as experienced through the eye-door compared to when experienced through the mind-door.

        I'm afraid I don't see how this raises the issue of the perception-illusion-hallucination spectrum (whatever that means - could you please define these terms if we are to discuss them). If I have misunderstood the question, please feel free to indicate how the question is to be read :-))

        > ===============
        > > J: Going back to your original question, to my understanding it is possible
        > > for the dhamma known as 'visible object' to be experienced, momentarily,
        > > through the mind-door after having been experienced through the eye-door.
        > > Subsequent experiences through the mind-door, however, are not of the
        > > visible object but of a concept of it.
        > >
        > >
        > HH: I question the relevance of anything "momentary" in coming to understand
        > whether there is perception, illusion or hallucination.
        > ===============

        J: Interesting, but would you mind expanding upon the reasoning/thinking behind your statement, so that I can understand it better. Thanks.

        Jon
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.