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.
"The ALL" - Dogmatic classification of the senses
Talisman
Veteran
The Blessed One said, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. [1] Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range."This seems very limiting considering evidence of several other senses in humans alone, not to mention senses used by non-human organisms. Such as:
SN 35.23
-equilibrioception (balance and acceleration)
-thermoception (sense of elevation and decline in temperature)
-proprioception (sense of relative positions of body parts)
-nociception (sense of pain)
-As well as internal senses used for regulating bodily functions (some of these are made conscious to the individual while others are not)
There are also cases of synesthesia, where the senses combine or alter one-another (such as tasing sounds or seeing smells)
The reason I bring this up is because the 6 sense gates are very frequently mentioned throughout the canon, and as this quote states "Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range." It seems that this is incorrect. There are certainly senses above and beyond those immediately apprehended. And even those senses are difficult to pin down because they effect one-another and are determined through complex organs and sensors.
At first I felt like this discrepency was a proof for doubt in the Buddha and Dharma. If such an obvious error in understanding was so frequently admitted as truth, what other errors may exist as well? However, I feel that the statement is not "these are the only forms of sense." The Buddha is saying that "the ALL" can only be determined from the sense gates (whichever gates those may be.) He is sying that the world and universe can only be determined to exist through reference to one or more of the many sense gates. And the sense gates are impermanent, conditioned, unsatisfactory phenomena.
As dependent origination states, the sense gates are coditoned by Namarupa. So with the arising of feeling, perception, intention, contact, attention, the 4 great elements, and the forms dependent upon the 4 great elements, the many (if not infinite) sense gates arise.
What do you all think about this?
(keep in mind I am at my desk at work so my thoughts arent going to be as articulate as usual)
0
Comments
that consciousness is prior to thinking, thus it is consciousness with no surface. what is being seen cannot be truly divisible. only by our mental projection is there division.
so prior to thinking everything is one. or like you stated dependently arising parts to have a collective experience.
just my thoughts.
From my understanding the six senses are not containing an 'I'. This is the whole point. They are eye, ear, nose, tongue, skin, perception, feeling, ideas etc, consciousness..
In none of those things is an I because it is everchanging. Since there is no I there is nothing to lose. Thats exactly what the heart sutra says as well: no eye, no ear, no nose, no tongue, no eye consciousness up to no mind consciousness. No purity, no impurity, no path, and no dharma. Since there is no attainment the bodhisattva dwells beyond fear.
This isn't eloquent or anything, but I hope my point is coming across. The All conditions. The non-All simply function? I don't know. I've often thought about this too.
So following dependent origination, the sense gate for physical pain (the receptors responsible for communicating pain to the brain + pain-sonciousness) gives rise to contact, gives rise to sensation, etc.
Pain used to be classified under the tactile sense.
I don't think that pain fits exclusively under tactile. Perhaps pain is just the sensation of "bad." Which would make sense.
You're right.
thermoception might be tactile too.
proprioception might fall undert he intellect sense.
Yeah, that makes sense. Thanks for helping me work this out.
buddha wasn't a biologist.