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

Re: [dsg] Re: Seeing = Visible object

Expand Messages
  • Herman
    Hi RobE, ... HH: Thanks for sharing your interesting thoughts. I think we agree on the fundamentals - sound is heard. ... HH: Yes, neither you or I, or the
    Message 1 of 299 , Dec 29, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi RobE,

      On 30 December 2012 06:57, Robert E <epsteinrob@...> wrote:

      > **
      >
      >


      HH: Thanks for sharing your interesting thoughts. I think we agree on the
      fundamentals - sound is heard.



      > Hi Herman.
      >
      >
      > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman <hhofmeister@...> wrote:
      >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > HH: Why is the unheard drip of water a sound and not a sight?
      >
      > Speaking quasi-scientifically rather than Abhidhammically, a photon is not
      > the same thing as a sound wave. Whether they are seen or unseen, heard or
      > unheard, those phenomena are distinguishable as distinct forms of
      > occurrence, and their existence in space is not dependent on perception.
      >


      HH: Yes, neither you or I, or the Buddha, subscribe to old Berkeley's
      idealist dictum - to be is to be perceived,


      >
      >
      > A tape recorder left recording in an empty room would pick up the sound
      > that took place in that room, while it would ignore potential visual
      > objects. A movement-sensitive camera would pick up visual objects, but
      > would ignore sound-phenomena.
      >


      HH: It is of no great significance, but I disagree strongly here :-) Sound
      is heard, there is no sound on a tape recording. Similarly, sights are
      seen, there is no visual object in a camera. I would agree that there are
      always some of the conditions for hearing and seeing around, and that
      evidence for those conditions exists, but the necessary condition, the sine
      qua non, for sound is hearing. We cannot just abstract away the sentient
      being.


      >
      > I don't disagree with your reluctance to call an "unheard object" a
      > "sound," since it tortures the definition of "sound." But in terms of what
      > kind of physical phenomena exists and may be potentially heard or seen,
      > such phenomena are distinguishable.
      >
      >
      HH: Yes, agreed.



      > The drip of water has two aspects to it - one visual, one aural in nature.
      > The sound of the water hitting the ground creates a sound, the sight of it
      > moving through the air from source to ground may be seen, but would not be
      > heard.
      >
      >

      HH: We differ here, but I don't think it matters. The Buddha is not a
      scientist, he is an ethicist.

      To my understanding, sound is entirely mind-made, as is vision. When sound
      and vision occur based on stimuli that are non-mental, then we perceive the
      world as the mind would have. When sound or vision occur based on mental
      stimuli only, then we are hallucinating, but again, as the mind would have
      it.

      Certainly, there is a world that exists independently of perception, but
      knowledge of how that world is apart from perception is totally beyond the
      possible. The issue for Buddhists is not the pursuit of such absurd
      knowledge, but how to live.




      > Best,
      > Rob E.
      >
      > - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
      >



      --
      Cheers

      Herman


      I do not know what I do not know


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • sarah
      Hi Howard, ... S: It means that whilst the arahat lives, all the khandhas, all the conditioned elements (taken for the arahat) continue to arise and fall away.
      Message 299 of 299 , Mar 4, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi Howard,

        --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote:

        > > S: As Jon wrote in another recent post: "Dukkha is a characteristic of all conditioned dhammas. As long as there is life in samsara, there is dukkha (even for the arahant).
        > ------------------------------------
        > HCW:
        > What does it mean for there to be dukkha FOR the arahant?
        > ------------------------------------

        S: It means that whilst the arahat lives, all the khandhas, all the conditioned elements (taken for the arahat) continue to arise and fall away. Each of these elements is dukkha.
        ....
        > >S: "Dukkha is ended only when parinibbana is attained."
        > -------------------------------------
        > HCW:
        > If one experiences no dissatisfaction, why should one care whether dhammas are not sources of satisfaction?
        > ---------------------------------------
        S: That's the point. When attachment and ignorance have been eradicated, there is no more caring or searching for satisfaction, no more conditions for rebirth. The job is done.
        ....
        > > S: Yes, for the arahat, no more tanha, no more dissatisfaction, no more mental suffering, but still "sabbe sankhara dukkha"
        > ----------------------------------
        > HCW:
        > Who cares? All that means is that conditioned phenomena are among the conditions for dissatisfaction. But without avijja and tanha, they are insufficient conditions.
        > ---------------------------------

        S: It's not a matter of caring, but of understanding the Truths. The first Noble Truth is that all conditioned dhammas are dukkha. The Truth is universal.
        ....

        > > S: When arahathood has been attained, the job is done. Do you agree that if all defilements are eradicated, at the end of the arahat's life, at parinibbana, there are no more conditions for dhammas to arise?
        > -----------------------------
        > HCW:
        > I agree that when all defilements have been eradicated, there are, right then and there, no sufficient conditions for dissatisfaction to arise, and it will not ever arise. It is then irrelevant whether conditioned dhammas arise or not.
        > -------------------------------

        S: Even for the anagami there are no more conditions for any dissatisfaction, however slight, to arise again. When attachment is finally eradicated, no more conditions for further birth.
        ...
        > > ....
        > > > It is not the mere presence or ending of conditioned dhammas that leads to suffering, but craving, aversion, and clinging, and without these, existence is nibbanic and joyful.
        > > ...
        > > S: Craving, aversion and ignorance have been eradicated because all the perversions of view, memory and consciousness have been eradicated.
        > -----------------------------
        > HCW:
        > So?
        ....
        S: You continue to suggest that when there is no craving or aversion, such as during the arahat's life or now at moments when they don't arise, that there is no suffering. I'm pointing out that the deeper meaning of dukkha, sankhara dukkha, as taught by the Buddha and referred to in the 1st Noble Truth, applies to all conditioned dhammas. So even the khandhas of the arahat are dukkha. The arahat has no more illusion, unlike us, that the dhamma arising now is sukkha rather than dukkha. The nature of dukkha of all conditioned phenomena is completely understood.
        > -------------------------------
        >>S: There is no more illusion of any kind that the impermanent is permanent, the non-self is self, the foul is beautiful or what is dukkha (unsatisfactory or suffering) is sukha (happy).
        > ------------------------------
        > HCW:
        > Yes. So?
        > -----------------------------
        S: So all conditioned dhammas are anicca, anatta, asubha and dukkha.
        ...
        Metta

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