Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In Register
Examples: Monday, today, last week, Mar 26, 3/26/04
Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.

types of seeing (illustrated)

RichardHRichardH Veteran
edited May 2010 in Philosophy
This is a diagram I made as an aid to my practice. It may be of interest. It may not be.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_dlPzLGuWfA4/S-dmgl4TONI/AAAAAAAAAwk/5-H0DZNWDGM/s1600/seer+seeing+ssen.png

Comments

  • PietroPumokinPietroPumokin
    edited May 2010
    peeing consumes peeing
    > lots of pee
  • RichardHRichardH Veteran
    edited May 2010
    Pietro Pumokin wrote: »
    peeing consumes peeing
    > lots of pee
    goof :rolleyes:

    The point is....the notion of seeing, or of an awareness ground, is consumed in awareness.

    You start of with the assumption of an unchanging experiencer, and this view stays on in more subtle ways, in the form of an awareness base of some kind.
  • DazzleDazzle
    edited May 2010
    I'm not clear what it's demonstrating or how its an aid to your practice, Richard.

    I also find it difficult reading from right to left.





    .
  • RichardHRichardH Veteran
    edited May 2010
    Dazzle wrote: »
    I'm not clear what it's demonstrating or how its an aid to your practice, Richard.

    I also find it difficult reading from right to left.





    .
    This is a "home made" reference so it may not be clear. The arrow of awareness points toward the subject because the subject is negative-receptive, while the object is positive-extensive. The object here is not refering to object of eye, but object of mind, internal and external.
  • xabirxabir Veteran
    edited May 2010
    Which one of the diagram should the bahiya sutta be refering to... or is seeing consumed by the seen?

    Buddha:

    In the seen, there is only the seen,
    in the heard, there is only the heard,
    in the sensed, there is only the sensed,
    in the cognized, there is only the cognized.
    Thus you should see that
    indeed there is no thing here;
    this, Bahiya, is how you should train yourself.
    Since, Bahiya, there is for you
    in the seen, only the seen,
    in the heard, only the heard,
    in the sensed, only the sensed,
    in the cognized, only the cognized,
    and you see that there is no thing here,
    you will therefore see that
    indeed there is no thing there.
    As you see that there is no thing there,
    you will see that
    you are therefore located neither in the world of this,
    nor in the world of that,
    nor in any place
    betwixt the two.
    This alone is the end of suffering.” (ud. 1.10)
  • RichardHRichardH Veteran
    edited May 2010
    xabir wrote: »
    Which one of the diagram should the bahiya sutta be refering to... or is seeing consumed by the seen?

    Buddha:

    In the seen, there is only the seen,
    in the heard, there is only the heard,
    in the sensed, there is only the sensed,
    in the cognized, there is only the cognized.
    Thus you should see that
    indeed there is no thing here;
    this, Bahiya, is how you should train yourself.
    Since, Bahiya, there is for you
    in the seen, only the seen,
    in the heard, only the heard,
    in the sensed, only the sensed,
    in the cognized, only the cognized,
    and you see that there is no thing here,
    you will therefore see that
    indeed there is no thing there.
    As you see that there is no thing there,
    you will see that
    you are therefore located neither in the world of this,
    nor in the world of that,
    nor in any place
    betwixt the two.
    This alone is the end of suffering.” (ud. 1.10)

    The last diagram. It doesn't matter which consumes which, only that everything is consumed. Object consumes subject, subject consumes object, or seeing consumes subject and object. Whatever is left truly alone consumes itself and leaves this....

    you are therefore located neither in the world of this,
    nor in the world of that,
    nor in any place
    betwixt the two.


    I recall Chinul describing these different approaches using the metaphor of a town and it's people, but I'd need to look it up.
  • PietroPumokinPietroPumokin
    edited May 2010
    Richard Herman wrote: »
    goof :rolleyes:

    The point is....the notion of seeing, or of an awareness ground, is consumed in awareness.

    You start of with the assumption of an unchanging experiencer, and this view stays on in more subtle ways, in the form of an awareness base of some kind.
    i actually have my own diagram for the purposes of aiding my practice as well. it's a little different from yours in the particulars, but has generally the same take.
    muscle_man_poop_explosion_by_funnylaughbughouse.jpg


    in the peen, there is only the peen.
    this, bahiya, is the end of all bedwetting.


    jk:lol:
  • RichardHRichardH Veteran
    edited May 2010
    ....
  • PietroPumokinPietroPumokin
    edited May 2010
    HAHA WHAt is that a lotus growing out of a mound of dung??
  • RichardHRichardH Veteran
    edited May 2010
    Pietro Pumokin wrote: »
    HAHA WHAt is that a lotus growing out of a mound of dung??
    We have a little garden, and an eye for manure. Planting sunflowers this year.
  • PietroPumokinPietroPumokin
    edited May 2010
    they should be called buddha daises
  • RichardHRichardH Veteran
    edited May 2010
    xabir wrote: »
    Which one of the diagram should the bahiya sutta be refering to... or is seeing consumed by the seen?

    Buddha:

    In the seen, there is only the seen,
    in the heard, there is only the heard,
    in the sensed, there is only the sensed,
    in the cognized, there is only the cognized.
    Thus you should see that
    indeed there is no thing here;
    this, Bahiya, is how you should train yourself.
    Since, Bahiya, there is for you
    in the seen, only the seen,
    in the heard, only the heard,
    in the sensed, only the sensed,
    in the cognized, only the cognized,
    and you see that there is no thing here,
    you will therefore see that
    indeed there is no thing there.
    As you see that there is no thing there,
    you will see that
    you are therefore located neither in the world of this,
    nor in the world of that,
    nor in any place
    betwixt the two.
    This alone is the end of suffering.” (ud. 1.10)

    xabir What is your view on this? The Sutta begins by affirming the object alone, and ends with non-dwelling.

    I recall reading a Sutta long ago (forgive me I dont know which), where the Buddha illustrated this by leaning two bundles of straw against each other, so that they stood. Then he pulled one away and the other fell. Very simple and very powerful. Reading this was an aha moment.
  • xabirxabir Veteran
    edited May 2010
    Richard Herman wrote: »
    xabir What is your view on this? The Sutta begins by affirming the object alone, and ends with non-dwelling.

    I recall reading a Sutta long ago (forgive me I dont know which), where the Buddha illustrated this by leaning two bundles of straw against each other, so that they stood. Then he pulled one away and the other fell. Very simple and very powerful. Reading this was an aha moment.
    Yes. This sutta is of particular interest to me too as it is perhaps the only sutta that relates the end of suffering to non-duality instead of the 3 poisons.

    May I ask.. how does "affirming the object" lead to "end of suffering"?

    Also, how does Theravada understand the end of suffering? My understanding is that it understands in terms of dispassion, end of clinging, and the 3 poisons. Though I'm not sure.

    Thanks.
  • RichardHRichardH Veteran
    edited May 2010
    xabir wrote: »
    Yes. This sutta is of particular interest to me too as it is perhaps the only sutta that relates the end of suffering to non-duality instead of the 3 poisons.

    May I ask.. how does "affirming the object" lead to "end of suffering"?

    Also, how does Theravada understand the end of suffering? My understanding is that it understands in terms of dispassion, end of clinging, and the 3 poisons. Though I'm not sure.

    Thanks.
    xabir wrote: »
    Hmm... no view to share at the moment :P Still learning.

    May I ask.. what is 'affirming the object alone' and how does it lead to non-dwelling and end of suffering?

    Also, how does Theravada understand the end of suffering? My understanding is that it understands in terms of dispassion, end of clinging, and the 3 poisons. Though I'm not sure.

    Thanks.
    - "this, Bahiya, is how you should train yourself" ....this is a practice, a process with a result.

    -"In the seen, there is only the seen" . .... This is affirming the object alone.

    -"you are therefore located neither in the world of this,
    nor in the world of that,
    nor in any place
    betwixt the two.". .... This is non-dwelling.


    -"This alone is the end of suffering" ..... This is non-suffering.

    Affirming the object alone negates the subject. At first this affirmation/negation is partial, but once the last trace of subject is negated, the object is negated too.

    Here is an illustration...

    There are two piles of stones, one on the left, and one on the right. We will move the stones from the left pile over to the right pile. The stones on the left will diminish as the stones on the right increase, but there will remain a left pile and a right pile right up until the last pebble is moved . The instant that last pebble is moved to the the right pile, it ceases to be the right pile. Niether right nor left nor betwixt the two. In that instant there is non-suffering.

    My undersdtanding of suffering is as described by Ajahn Sumedho in this little booklet... http://www.buddhanet.net/4noble.htm . It was my first introduction, very simple, and it has never been superseded. IMO
  • xabirxabir Veteran
    edited May 2010
    Richard Herman wrote: »
    - "this, Bahiya, is how you should train yourself" ....this is a practice, a process with a result.

    -"In the seen, there is only the seen" . .... This is affirming the object alone.

    -"you are therefore located neither in the world of this,
    nor in the world of that,
    nor in any place
    betwixt the two.". .... This is non-dwelling.


    -"This alone is the end of suffering" ..... This is non-suffering.

    Affirming the object alone negates the subject. At first this affirmation/negation is partial, but once the last trace of subject is negated, the object is negated too.

    Here is an illustration...

    There are two piles of stones, one on the left, and one on the right. We will move the stones from the left pile over to the right pile. The stones on the left will diminish as the stones on the right increase, but there will remain a left pile and a right pile right up until the last pebble is moved . The instant that last pebble is moved to the the right pile, it ceases to be the right pile. Niether right nor left nor betwixt the two. In that instant there is non-suffering.

    My undersdtanding of suffering is as described by Ajahn Sumedho in this little booklet... http://www.buddhanet.net/4noble.htm . It was my first introduction, very simple, and it has never been superseded. IMO
    Thanks for the explanation :)
  • pegembarapegembara Veteran
    edited May 2010
    I recall reading a Sutta long ago (forgive me I dont know which), where the Buddha illustrated this by leaning two bundles of straw against each other, so that they stood. Then he pulled one away and the other fell. Very simple and very powerful. Reading this was an aha moment.

    Hi Richard,

    Could you give your take on this sutta passage? What does consciousness mean to you?
    Sheaves of Reeds
    http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.067.than.html

    It is as if two sheaves of reeds were to stand leaning against one another. In the same way, from name-&-form as a requisite condition comes consciousness, from consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form. From name & form as a requisite condition come the six sense media. From the six sense media as a requisite condition comes contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance. From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. Such is the origination of this entire mass of suffering & stress.

    "If one were to pull away one of those sheaves of reeds, the other would fall; if one were to pull away the other, the first one would fall. In the same way, from the cessation of name-&-form comes the cessation of consciousness, from the cessation of consciousness comes the cessation of name-&-form. From the cessation of name-&-form comes the cessation of the six sense media. From the cessation of the six sense media comes the cessation of contact. From the cessation of contact comes the cessation of feeling. From the cessation of feeling comes the cessation of craving. From the cessation of craving comes the cessation of clinging/sustenance. From the cessation of clinging/sustenance comes the cessation of becoming. From the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth. From the cessation of birth, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair all cease. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of suffering & stress."
  • RichardHRichardH Veteran
    edited May 2010
    pegembara wrote: »
    Hi Richard,

    Could you give your take on this sutta passage? What does consciousness mean to you?
    pegembara wrote: »
    Hi Richard,

    Could you give your take on this sutta passage? What does consciousness mean to you?

    Consciousness (subject) co-arises with name and form (Object). No name and form((object), no consciousness (subject).

    This...

    -"you are therefore located neither in the world of this,
    nor in the world of that,
    nor in any place
    betwixt the two.".

    ...is not consciousness. I disagree when people say that in the absence of consciousness (subject and object) what remains is a "Pure Awareness". "Pure awareness" is still dualistic, still subtle consciousness/name-form.

    That is my understanding.
  • pegembarapegembara Veteran
    edited May 2010
    Richard Herman wrote: »
    Consciousness (subject) co-arises with name and form (Object). No name and form((object), no consciousness (subject).

    This...

    -"you are therefore located neither in the world of this,
    nor in the world of that,
    nor in any place
    betwixt the two.".

    ...is not consciousness. I disagree when people say that in the absence of consciousness (subject and object) what remains is a "Pure Awareness". "Pure awareness" is still dualistic, still subtle consciousness/name-form.

    That is my understanding.

    Thanks.

    It's just that name-form or nama-rupa in Theravada consists of 5 aggregates ie. form/feeling/perception/thought formations/consciousness. I am wondering if this "consciousness" is different from the aggregate of consciousness.
    I have read that there are people who remain aware even in deep dreamless sleep. The body rests but mind remains awake.
    But even this conciousness ceases with cessation of name-form ie. there is no abiding essence anywhere.
  • RichardHRichardH Veteran
    edited May 2010
    pegembara wrote: »
    Thanks.

    It's just that name-form or nama-rupa in Theravada consists of 5 aggregates ie. form/feeling/perception/thought formations/consciousness. I am wondering if this "consciousness" is different from the aggregate of consciousness.
    I have read that there are people who remain aware even in deep dreamless sleep. The body rests but mind remains awake.
    But even this conciousness ceases with cessation of name-form ie. there is no abiding essence anywhere.
    No it is not different. Forgive my hybrid language, but yes, this is what Im saying. Consciousness is not other than name and form. Consciousness ceases with name and form.
    We cannot project anything beyond that cessation. We cannot project nothingness, we cannot project somethingness. All we can say is non-suffering.

    I have touched upon awareness in dreamless sleep and there is still a subtle object. Perhaps these folks are referring to something else, but I think people who say this is a pure subject without an object are letting something slip by.

    On the other hand, cessation of consciousness (subject and object) is touched upon in the middle of the day.......

    -"you are therefore located neither in the world of this,
    nor in the world of that,
    nor in any place
    betwixt the two.".

    ....So we are not talking about nothingness. Seeing consumes seeing.....
  • pegembarapegembara Veteran
    edited May 2010
    On the other hand, cessation of consciousness (subject and object) is touched upon in the middle of the day.......

    -"you are therefore located neither in the world of this,
    nor in the world of that,
    nor in any place
    betwixt the two.".

    ....So we are not talking about nothingness. Seeing consumes seeing.....

    There is no "you" to speak of.

    The me in here and the world out there is an illusion. There is no me. This "me" is a mental construct which requires a past, present and future ie. "What was I in the past, what am I now, what will I be in the future?". Without this history the ego self cannot be defined.

    There is only the process of seeing, hearing, sensing and cognizing.
  • upekkaupekka Veteran
    edited May 2010
    mind = citta

    consciousness = vinnana

    what is the difference between mind and consciousness?
  • RichardHRichardH Veteran
    edited May 2010
    pegembara wrote: »
    There is no "you" to speak of.

    The me in here and the world out there is an illusion. There is no me. This "me" is a mental construct which requires a past, present and future ie. "What was I in the past, what am I now, what will I be in the future?". Without this history the ego self cannot be defined.

    There is only the process of seeing, hearing, sensing and cognizing.
    I agree, and see the use of the term as a figure of speech.
  • RichardHRichardH Veteran
    edited May 2010
    upekka wrote: »
    mind = citta

    consciousness = vinnana

    what is the difference between mind and consciousness?
    Cant see a difference. Mind, consciousness, is relative. There is the idea in some Zen circles of "mind" as an absolute ground, but this does not meet the test of practice.

    Others may see it differently.
  • upekkaupekka Veteran
    edited May 2010
    Richard Herman wrote: »
    Cant see a difference. Mind, consciousness, is relative. There is the idea in some Zen circles of "mind" as an absolute ground, but this does not meet the test of practice.

    Others may see it differently.

    mind = citta = pure mind

    consciousness = vinnana = tainted mind




    pure mind = no greed, no hate, no delusion

    tainted mind = with greed, with hate, with delusion
  • RichardHRichardH Veteran
    edited May 2010
    upekka wrote: »
    mind = citta = pure mind

    consciousness = vinnana = tainted mind




    pure mind = no greed, no hate, no delusion

    tainted mind = with greed, with hate, with delusion
    Pure-Impure, relative. I am not addressing this. Certainly uprooting greed hatred and delusion is the practice. What I am addressing (and rejecting) is "pure mind" in the sense of an absolute unchanging eternal essence.

    This is getting muddled. We are talking apples and oranges.
  • PietroPumokinPietroPumokin
    edited May 2010
    can arising and passing be considered birth and death?
  • upekkaupekka Veteran
    edited May 2010
    Richard Herman wrote: »
    Pure-Impure, relative. I am not addressing this. Certainly uprooting greed hatred and delusion is the practice. What I am addressing (and rejecting) is "pure mind" in the sense of an absolute unchanging eternal essence.

    This is getting muddled. We are talking apples and oranges.

    ok

    forget pure and impure

    how about

    pure mind and monky mind?


    monk mind and monky mind?;)
  • ValtielValtiel Veteran
    edited May 2010
    lmao @ #9 - mad Photoshop skills Richard haha
  • upekkaupekka Veteran
    edited May 2010
    Valtiel wrote: »
    lmao @ #9 - mad Photoshop skills Richard haha

    ha ha ha!!!

    but

    i say it is not nice voltair
Sign In or Register to comment.