Is perception discriminative thinking? I got the term from the lankavatara sutra, but I think it appears in zen a bit, and I wondered if it means only one type of consciousness, perhaps the 6th or 7th, and if not whether perception itself does not occur during enlightenment?

MN 137 discusses the six sense fields. How can we understand lay equanimity with respect to the six sense fields? For sights, lay equanimity arises for an uneducated ordinary layperson but such equanimity does not transcend the sight, and that's why it's called lay equanimity - says the sutta. What does that mean? What is an example of lay equanimity? > And in this context what are the six kinds of lay equanimity? When > seeing a sight with the eye, equanimity arises for the uneducated > ordinary person—a foolish ordinary person who has not overcome their > limitations and the results of deeds, and is blind to the drawbacks. > Such equanimity does not transcend the sight. That’s why it’s called > lay equanimity. When hearing a sound with the ear … When smelling an > odor with the nose … When tasting a flavor with the tongue … When > feeling a touch with the body … When knowing a thought with the mind, > equanimity arises for the uneducated ordinary person—a foolish > ordinary person who has not overcome their limitations and the results > of deeds, and is blind to the drawbacks. Such equanimity does not > transcend the thought. That’s why it’s called lay equanimity. These > are the six kinds of lay equanimity. > MN 137

What is world (*loka*) in the context of SN 12.44 ? Why is it called "world"? Is it related to "The All" (SN 35.23 )? > “And what, bhikkhus, is the origin of the world? In dependence on the > eye and forms, eye-consciousness arises. The meeting of the three is > contact. With contact as condition, feeling comes to be; with feeling > as condition, craving; with craving as condition, clinging; with > clinging as condition, existence; with existence as condition, birth; > with birth as condition, aging-and-death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, > displeasure, and despair come to be. This, bhikkhus, is the origin of > the world. > > “In dependence on the ear and sounds … In dependence on the nose and > odours … In dependence on the tongue and tastes … In dependence on the > body and tactile objects … In dependence on the mind and mental > phenomena, mind-consciousness arises. The meeting of the three is > contact. With contact as condition, feeling comes to be; with feeling > as condition, craving; with craving as condition, clinging … existence > … birth; with birth as condition, aging-and-death, sorrow, > lamentation, pain, displeasure, and despair come to be. This, > bhikkhus, is the origin of the world. > > “And what, bhikkhus, is the passing away of the world? In dependence > on the eye and forms, eye-consciousness arises. The meeting of the > three is contact. With contact as condition, feeling comes to be; with > feeling as condition, craving. But with the remainderless fading away > and cessation of that same craving comes cessation of clinging; with > the cessation of clinging, cessation of existence; with the cessation > of existence, cessation of birth; with the cessation of birth, > aging-and-death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure, and despair > cease. Such is the cessation of this whole mass of suffering. This, > bhikkhus, is the passing away of the world. > > “In dependence on the ear and sounds … … In dependence on the mind and > mental phenomena, mind-consciousness arises. The meeting of the three > is contact. With contact as condition, feeling comes to be; with > feeling as condition, craving. But with the remainderless fading away > and cessation of that same craving comes cessation of clinging … > cessation of existence … cessation of birth; with the cessation of > birth, aging-and-death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure, and > despair cease. Such is the cessation of this whole mass of suffering. > This, bhikkhus, is the passing away of the world.”

There are six internal sense bases named eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind. There are six external sense bases named visible form, sound, odour, taste, and mental objects. I have two parts in my question; 1. If we look at our own hand, leg, or any other conventional body part or if we touch and feel our own conventional body, do all these belong to the external sense bases? 2. If the answer is "yes" to the first part of the question, which form elements (rūpa) are included in internal?

I am new to buddhism and this is my first question here. I hope I can provide something of value and that I am clear in my phrasing. So I have recently started learning about the teachings of the buddha, principally through the book The Basic Teachings of the Buddha by Glenn Wallis. I have decided that there is value to the practice but have not figured out to what extent I want to apply it, but I'm leaning towards not becoming a monastic, instead continuing on my current path but with a buddhist mindset. Today, I decided to buy a tea kettle. This might sound ridiculous as a jumping off point but it made me consider my attraction to certain products rather than others. I really want a kettle that is well designed aesthetically and that has more advanced functions like temperature control, but it feels like this is a form of grasping of sensory pleasure. Both for the aesthetic appeal of the design itself and for the flavour of the tea it will be used to brew. At the same time I believe that beauty, and minimalism in particular, are worthwhile in some regard. I do not want to become an ascetic (I seem to be joined by the majority of buddhist practitioners in this), but ascetiscism seems like the logical conclusion which the denial of the value of beauty leads to. So what does my desire for a nice kettle say about me as a buddhist, and is it compatible with buddhas teachings? Edit: Thank you all for your thoughtful answers! I am hesitant to pick one answer as these types of questions rarely have a definitive one, but I'll accept the highest voted one to make the question answered.

I have been discussing online whether there is a counterpart to the Greek idea of 'nous' (intellect) in the early Buddhist texts. The discussion was about discriminating between sensory experience and rational thought. I was arguing that there is a clear distinction between sensory and rational faculties in Greek philosophy. Then someone said, what about in Buddhism, where 'manas' is given as one of the six sense gates? Doesn't this mean that Buddhism equates manas and sensory faculties? I said, no, because there is the faculty that 'discerns the dharma' which is not a sensory faculty but discriminative wisdom. The word that came to mind was the Sanskrit 'viveka', for which I found the definition 'Sense of discrimination; wisdom; discrimination between the real and the unreal, between the self and the non-self, between the permanent and the impermanent; discriminative inquiry; right intuitive discrimination; ever present discrimination between the transient and the permanent.' However, I'm not aware of much discussion of this in the texts. I'm wondering if there's any discussion in abhidharma texts of this distinction and the faculty of discriminative wisdom?

In the process of reading a book, we need only the mind and the eyes. There is no need of ears and tongue. In the process of hearing *Dhamma*,there may no need of eyes. Are there any meditation practice to ignore senses completely for a period of time ? (I'm looking for a specific meditation practice designed to achieve this, I know that we can achieve a similar result by doing Ānāpāna/breathing exercises,but may take much time )

1. How do I deal with food cravings or craving in general? According to the four efforts I should replace craving with the disadvantages. Can loving-kindness also work? I feel like concentrating on impermanence and on the disadvantages, in the midst of an emotion, works not as effective. I guess one needs to strengthen one's conviction in both? 2. I read the Buddha saying about guarding the senses -- but I doubt that the Buddha meant not looking, not hearing (etc) at things. While it can be advantageous, I think perceiving them differently is much more important. Can someone answer what "sense-guarding" means, or "not grasping at the beautiful", and how do I do it?

The Sabba Sutta (SN 35.23) (trans. Thanissaro) states: > 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. 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." The commentary on this sutta by Thanissaro Bhikkhu states: > Furthermore, the following discourse (SN 35.24 ) says that the "All" is > to be abandoned. At no point does the Canon say that nibbana is to be > abandoned. Nibbana follows on cessation (*nirodha*), which is to be > realized. Once nibbana is realized, there are no further tasks to be > done. > > Thus it seems more this discourse's discussion of "All" is meant to > limit the use of the word "all" throughout the Buddha's teachings to > the six sense spheres and their objects. As the following discourse > shows, this would also include the consciousness, contact, and > feelings connected with the sense spheres and their objects. Nibbana > would lie outside of the word, "all." This would fit in with another > point made several times in the Canon: that dispassion is the highest > of all dhammas (Iti 90 ), while the arahant has gone beyond even > dispassion (Sn 4.6 ; Sn 4.10 ). > > This raises the question, if the word "all" does not include nibbana, > does that mean that one may infer from the statement, "all phenomena > are not-self" that nibbana is self? The answer is no. As AN 4.174 > states, to even ask if there is anything remaining or not remaining > (or both, or neither) after the cessation of the six sense spheres is > to differentiate what is by nature undifferentiated (or to objectify > the unobjectified — see the Introduction to MN 18 ). The range of > differentiation goes only as far as the "All." Perceptions of self or > not-self, which would count as differentiation, would not apply beyond > the "All." When the cessation of the "All" is experienced, all > differentiation is allayed. On the other hand, Bhikkhu Bodhi wrote in the book The Connected Discourses of the Buddha Vol II : > On first consideration, it would seem that the six internal and > external sense bases should be understood simply as the six sense > faculties and their objects, with the term *āyatana*, base, having the > sense of origin or source. Though many suttas lend support to this > supposition, the Theravada exegetical tradition, beginning already > from the Abhidhamma period, understands the six pairs of bases as a > complete scheme of classification capable of accommodating all the > factors of existence mentioned in the Nikayas. This conception of the > six bases probably originated from the Sabba Sutta (35:23) , in which > the Buddha says that the six pairs of bases are "the all" apart from > which nothing at all exists. To make the six bases capable of > literally incorporating everything, the Vibhanga of the Abhidhamma > Pitaka defines the mind base (*manāyatana*) as including all classes > of consciousness, and the mental phenomena base (*dhammāyatana*) as > including the other three mental aggregates, subtle nonsensuous types > of form, and even the unconditioned element, Nibbāna (see Vibh 70-73). So, Thanissaro Bhikkhu says that Nibbana is not included in The All. Bhikkhu Bodhi says Nibbana is included in The All. Who is right? And why? What is also interesting is that Bhikkhu Bodhi's interpretation would put all types of consciousness within the classification of the six sense bases.

In dependent origination after sense-contact occured, craving is the next condition, which in turn forms attachment at its basis and so on... Suppose I am eating something or taking a massage to get rid of pains, is this pleasant vedana immediately connected with craving? Similarly with unpleasant feelings; Suppose I have a bike accident and I fall down the ground and my immediate reaction is: "Arghhh", and no other cursing; Is this considered aversion to unpleasant feelings? Furthermore, if I go to toilett to take a pee is this good feeling connected with craving? It seems to be quite difficult to discern whether one feels pleasant feelings (vedana) without craving, pleasant feelings with craving & the same with unpleasant feelings & aversion.

Based on the sutta quote below: 1. Why are these called "The All": the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas? 2. Why someone trying to explain "The All" as being something else would fail? 3. What does "it lies beyond range" mean? From Sabba Sutta : > "Monks, I will teach you the All. Listen & pay close attention. I will > speak." > > "As you say, lord," the monks responded. > > 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. 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."

We all now that habits which are not acted upon wither with time. However, is it possible to reduce cravings to a point where the specific cravings are close to non-existent? How does one go about to achieve this? Let's take sexual desire or sensual desire as an example: If I don't engage in sexual activities then craving will probably reduce in intensity and frequency, but I doubt that external objects have no control in how I process them. If I see an attractive woman or tasty food isn't it inevitable that I at times will feel strong craving?

>"And what are the six kinds of renunciation joy? The joy that arises when — experiencing the inconstancy of those very forms, their change, fading, & cessation — one sees with right discernment as it actually is that all forms, past or present, are inconstant, stressful, subject to change: That is called renunciation joy. (Similarly with sounds, smells, tastes, tactile sensations, & ideas.) Is this achieved by intellectual pondering about the six senses (and meditative insight into the three characteristics) or just pondering alone? I'd say the former, but then this Sutta is primarily directed towards Stream Entrants, no?

According to these suttas, is itsomewhat possible through seeing the inherent harm in sensual pleasures, to shy away from them? I remember that it by first experiencing piti during meditation that one slowly but surely starts to abandon sensual pleasures.

If the mind experiences more and more happiness, calmness and all the other positive emotions due to virtue and meditation, does the mind then by itself slowly (!) withdraw from sensual pleasures? Answers with sutta reference are preferred

Every internal sense organ comes along with corresponding external organ. For example eye comes along with form, ear comes along with sound, nose comes along with smell , mind comes along with mental phenomenon. I am aware of the meaning of form or sight , sound , smell etc .. but I am not sure what is meant by mental phenomenon? When eye and form/sight come together eye consciousness arises. When nose and smell come to together nose consciousness arises. In both the statement above it is clear from my experience what is sight and smell. But when we say mind and mental phenomenon come together mind consciousness arises, it is not clear from my experience ,what is the mental phenomenon? Is mental pehnomenon the memory of past or the simulation of future or is it the dream or is it the speech ? There are different types of tastes ,colors ,odours, touch etc... Are there different types of mental phenomenon also?

Are the six sense faculties just the sense organs, sense objects, and sense consciousnesses, considered all together, that (conventionally) makes up a (conventional) person? Does it make any difference if we think about "ourselves" in terms of them, rather than any other scheme? What canonical literature talks about nirvana in terms of the six sense Indriyas?

In SN 56.11 we find a famous passage: > “Bhikkhus, these **two extremes** should not be followed by one who has gone forth into homelessness. What two? The pursuit of **sensual happiness** in sensual pleasures, which is low, vulgar, the way of worldlings, ignoble, unbeneficial; and the pursuit of **self-mortification**, which is painful, ignoble, unbeneficial. Without veering towards either of these extremes, the Tathagata has awakened to the middle way, which gives rise to vision, which gives rise to knowledge, which leads to peace, to direct knowledge, to enlightenment, to Nibbāna. Laity frequently interprets the above as *moderation of sensual pleasures*, even though the above passage seems to refer to monks (those "gone forth into homelessness"). **Are there suttas where the Buddha or his disciples teach specifically laity on the subject of sensual pleasures (e.g. to be in anyway cautious about them)?** Also, a minor curiosity: how the above passage is interpreted by the Theravada tradition, since the suttas clearly teach the abandonment of sensual pleasures for those who become monks/nuns.

I noticed aside from gross sensory pleasures such as eating, or sometimes writing, I don't feel much pleasure or joy. It is as though the emotional spectrum of joy and pride, and other such positive emotions, is limited in myself. This considered, is there any likelihood of success to any meditations or practices given I am doing things without happiness and joy? I feel like I'm trying to move forwards while something is inherently lacking. Thank you. **QUESTION: Also, what are the wholesome pleasures and joys usually implied in the Buddhist path?** EDIT: I would like to say that it feels as though such positive emotions are unFELT, but not unSOUGHT. Basically, I am drawn to positive situations and joys, e.g. listening to music, but the FEELING seems absent. Anyone have any idea what is going on?

I looked it up but the person answer was unclear. I read greed which is a sense desire of unprofitable things (Which if I'm correct is different from sense desire of objects) has all 5. So doesn't that mean when suppressing the defilement i should suppress all 5 cords separately kind of like you do the hindrances.