At 02:00 PM 5/3/2005 -0500, you wrote: > > Ok - something is not adding up for me here. When I put "me" in quotes > > like that, I am referring to the constructed self-grasping - the idea of "I > > am". This is not an essential component of awareness at all. It can be > > abandoned. I am not referring to the aggregates (which includes the > > physical eyes). > > > > After enlightenment, the Buddha, Zen Masters, and others still see, hear, > > feel and function normally, obviously. But they are completely free of > > self-grasping constructions, unlike others, who still have this. How does > > this fit in with what you are saying? > >Before I answer this, what do you consider an essential component of >awareness?
I'm enjoying the conversation too... heh heh isn't that how this all got started? Something about enjoyment? :) Anyway, thanks for taking it up. I wonder if I should not have used the term "awareness". Maybe this could be something bigger, or construed as something bigger, than the narrow sensory experience I wanted to focus on. So I want to just talk about seeing, for the context of this discussion. I.e. - eye-consciousness. So in this context, I am taking your question to be - "what do I consider to be *an* essential component" of eye consciousness. You didn't say "all" the essential components. But here's what seems to me to be the essential bits for the arising of eye-consciousness. 1) I'm awake, not sleeping 2) eyes open 3) attention is on the visual aspect of experience (as opposed to being totally absorbed in thinking or listening, for example) 4) there's enough light Given this, "vision" appears. Right? So these seem essential. Again, what does not seem essential, is any "I" idea to be present, for vision to arise. There's also the technical definition of "perception" which is a level above raw eye-consciousness, which I'm not getting into here. This is why I said that eye-consciousness can arise without any "ego-self grasping" present. It certainly does depend on the 5 aggregates being present, i.e. this impermanent, anatta body with two eyes that registers a heartbeat on an EKG machine (hopefully) :) and it's corresponding mental faculties, which is given the name "Ian". So my question then is, given what I have said above, how does this fit in with what you are saying, which I am understanding to be, "seer/seeing/seen", which I am understanding to mean "seer arises with the seen"? That is all in response to your question, hopefully that makes sense. The whole question we are revolving around, to put it back in basic terms because the technical language is piling on quickly: "do enlightened people see/hear/taste/feel/think, yet without self-grasping, without the "I" feeling present?" My answer would be yes. Ian ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> What would our lives be like without music, dance, and theater? Donate or volunteer in the arts today at Network for Good! http://us.click.yahoo.com/WwRTUD/SOnJAA/i1hLAA/S27xlB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Current Book Discussion: Appreciate Your Life by Taizan Maezumi Roshi Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZenForum/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
