Re: [dsg] Re: To the clientele of Sujin Boriharnwanaket
- Hi Sarah,
On 4 December 2012 19:01, sarah <sarahprocterabbott@...> wrote:
> Hi Herman,
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, Herman <hhofmeister@...> wrote:
> > What is visible object?
> S: Just that reality which is seen now.
> > We need to hear about visible object to see it?
> S: It is seen whenever there is seeing. However, this isn't usually known.
I appreciate your honesty, that visible object usually isn't known. I would
not have faulted you if you had written that visible object is never known.
> Usually there's the idea that objects and people are seen, shapes and
> patterns. There is usually the idea that it's "I" or someone that sees too,
> so no idea of realities, no understanding of anatta.
> > >S: If we try to 'work it out' in scientific terms, we'll never get
> closer to
> > > the truth, never directly understand what appears now.
> > >
> > >
> > If you are saying that you don't need to first understand all there is to
> > know about cancer before one can give up smoking, I agree.
> S: I'm saying that an understanding of science doesn't help in the
> slightest when it comes to an understanding of realities - of those
> realities which can experience an object, such as seeing, and those
> realities which cannot experience anything, like visible object.
> > But Theravada is certainly guilty of straying into the domain of science,
> > and many willingly continue to follow them their - that is the ongoing
> > problem of much of science and Theravada - it is unrelated to the problem
> > of human suffering.
> S: Whatever is read or said, all that matters is the understanding now of
> the reality appearing.
This means that this version of "the Path" is a wild goose chase, because,
as you partially admit, and I totally admit, there is never a knowing of
the reality that is appearing
I do not know what I do not know
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- Hi Herman
--- In email@example.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.