3

This is from Ñanavira's Notes on Dhamma - Phassa footnote C:

If experience were confined to the use of a single eye, the eye and forms would not be distinguishable, they would not appear as separate things; there would be just the experience describable in terms of pañc'upādānakkhandhā​. But normal experience is always multiple, and other faculties (touch and so on) are engaged at the same time, and the eye and forms as separate things are manifest to them (in the duality of experience already referred to). The original experience is thus found to be a relationship: but the fleshly eye is observed (by the other faculties, notably touch, and by the eyes themselves seeing their own reflexion) to be invariable (it is always 'here', idha), whereas forms are observed to be variable (they are plural and 'yonder', huram)

What does he mean when he says that experience is always multiple?

And why does form being plural and yonder mean also, variable?

CriglCragl
  • 21,494
  • 4
  • 27
  • 67
PDT
  • 458
  • 2
  • 10
  • 2
    This is the magic of Yogacara where pañc'upādānakkhandhā is already like five huge huge encircling mountains with thick darkness acting as the single experience of ignorance covering human mind and all its derived senses, yet by your above explained fact of the clearly perceived separation of eye and forms, touch and thigmesthesia, etc, our normal experience is always multiple due to added experiences of this dualistic new dimension. In this dualism of course the perceived specific forms are plural and yonder while the eye is stable and here, thus the totality of forms are varied... – Double Knot Jun 22 '22 at 03:31
  • 1
    Also see Buddhism classic filial piety sutra for your deepthinking: like those who travel in a dark night... If there were a person who carries his father on his left shoulder and his mother on his right shoulder until his bones were ground to powder by their weight as they bore through to the marrow, and if that person were to circumambulate Mount Sumem for a hundred thousand kalpas until the blood that flowed out from his feet covered his ankles, that person would still not have repayed the deep kindness of his parents... – Double Knot Jun 22 '22 at 03:58
  • Better: if there would be a single object (what the eye observes) and a single subject (the subject with an eye), then, there are no boundaries (neither between objects, nor between the subject and the object). A plaid shirt is a single object and not many: the eye sees multiple colors, but we come to know that it is a single object, because we experience the shirt by multiple faculties (touch, sight, sound, smell, movement...). See for example the Molyneux Problem: former blind people can't recognize known objects purely by sight. – RodolfoAP Apr 19 '23 at 08:30
  • @DoubleKnot: How is that sutra at all relevant? – CriglCragl Apr 19 '23 at 12:35
  • @CriglCragl that sutra part was to base the subtle yet deeper connection between the myriad perceived forms and the darkness as the covering pañc'upādānakkhandhā which is a key thesis of Yogacara, thus such experience is basically an analogy of traveling in a dark night and bound to separate shape with touch as an analogy of the Molyneux Problem where the blind cannot link them in a same object. And to possibly overcome this extremely difficult hopeless situation one has to read further, failing to do so according to the sutra is like another analogy of falling into the spaceless Avici hell... – Double Knot Apr 20 '23 at 05:14

2 Answers2

1

Plurality in this sense is about dimension. There are many dimensions to the world and to see them we need many eyes, both interior and exterior.

If there was only one eye and one thing on the world then both the observer and the observed are identified.

With the many eyes of many people, more dimensions of the world are brought to light. Instead of seeing one-dimensionally or even zero-dimensionally, we see pluri-dimensionally and multi-dimemsionally.

If we close one eye and look with one, the world fades into flatness; when we look with both, it jumps into stereoscope.

When we read a book by a physicist, we see through the eyes of a physicist; when we listen to a piece of music we listen with the ears of its composer etc, etc & etc.

Mozibur Ullah
  • 47,073
  • 14
  • 93
  • 243
0

What does he mean he says that experience is always multiple?

In the context of the quoted passage, experience comes through our senses. Smell, touch, sight, sound, taste. Each of these senses provides a unique experience that collectively help to give a form substance.