Dhammānupassanā Series
The eye seems like a commonplace enough and useful thing. Who would imagine that it would be so implicated in the human pathology, nor that understanding the eye would play such an important role in its resolution?
The Buddha attributes many, at first sight, puzzling properties to the eye in the Early Buddhist Texts (EBT), and equivalently to the other sense faculties – ear, nose, tongue, body and ofttimes mind. We learn that the eye is something that can be guarded or restrained, by not grasping signs and features of the forms it contacts, for Māra is constantly trying to gain access through the eye. Moreover, “it is better for the eye faculty to be lacerated by a red-hot iron pin … than for one to grasp the features in a form cognizable through the eye” (SN 35.235). We learn that the eye is that by which one is “a perceiver of the world, a conceiver of the world” (SN 35.116). On the other hand, we learn that the eye is impermanent, and that its rise and fall can be discerned, and moreover reveals itself as impermanent with the development of concentration. Since the eye is impermanent, it is suffering and cannot be a self.
We learn that “that sphere should be understood where the eye ceases and the perception of forms fades away” (SN 35.117). It is possible not to conceive the eye, in the eye, from the eye, or “this eye is mine,” and, as a result, it is possible to end conceptualizing and clinging. As we gain such direct knowledge of the eye, we are able to develop dispassion for the eye, revulsion for eye and thereby abandon the eye. Surprisingly, we also learn that the eye itself is old kamma, fashioned by volition and something to be experienced.
So, what is this eye the EBT speak of? And analogously, what are the ear, nose, tongue, body and ofttimes mind?
April 19, 2018 at 11:30 pm |
Thank you for this article, Bhante. I found it quite beneficial. Are the eye (cakkhu) and the eye faculty (cakkhindriya) synonymous, or is there a functional (or doctrinal) difference between them?
LikeLike
April 25, 2018 at 1:54 am |
Chris, Yes, in general the eye is and the eye faculty are the same, unless “cakkhu” is compounded with something else, like ayatana.
LikeLike