You say: "What truly distinguishes whether one possesses the capacity for genuine practice lies in whether one can engage in deep, precise, and accurate critical independent thinking. There has never been a single practitioner of the Dharma who lacked this capacity and yet “miraculously” attained liberation. From a logical standpoint, such a notion is simply untenable."
What then do you make of the many stories of people who achieved instant enlightenment from a single act of a teacher or master?
"The sense object (form) continues to appear uninterruptedly, and the eye-consciousness of successive moments gathers its force, shifting from 'appearing yet undecided/indeterminate' to 'true and full realization'. This is the key role of the 'sense base' (āyatana) in being able to 'generate and enhance cognition'."
“‘Capable of being rūpa’ is the defining characteristic of rūpa-dharma, meaning ‘able to function as / qualify as rūpa’.
The essential nature of rūpa-dharma is ‘having resistance / obstruction’ (possessing interactive force and the ability to affect other entities).
The presence of the word ‘rūpa’ in the definition involves no contradiction: first, it is to be understood as the intension rather than the mere name; second, this word serves as a key point for excluding over-pervasive cases, and the definition can be validly established without prior complete comprehension of the name/term itself.”
By using the precise and rigorous language of Buddhist logic to define these everyday familiar phenomena and to clarify their classifications, we shall establish a solid foundation for gradually mastering the principles of Hetuvidyā.🙏🌹
Excellent breakdown of the rupa classification system. The distinction between obstructive contact as the defining characteristic and the fiveforms of FIDB really clarifies why certain phenomena get categorized as form even when they're not directly sense-perceivable. The magnet example for explaining obstructive contact without physical touch is particuarly helpful. I've seen students get confused about why disciplinary forms count as rupa when they seem so abstract, but framing them as unmanifest forms arising from vow-taking makes the logic pretty clear.
How should I give an example of ‘ Form produced through meditative mastery’ ?
It’s really hard for me to understand.
Today, I learned the following from the text:
The bottle (form base), the color of the bottle (form base), the impermanence of the
bottle (non-associated compositional factor), and the conditioned nature of the
bottle (non-associated compositional factor) are all objects apprehended by the eye
consciousness apprehending the bottle. Among them, the bottle, the color of the
bottle, and so forth can be both apprehended and directly perceived by the eye
consciousness. However, the impermanence of the bottle and the conditioned
nature of the bottle, being non-associated compositional factors, cannot be directly
perceived by the eye consciousness—they can only be apprehended. The eye
consciousness can only directly perceive the form base.
You say: "What truly distinguishes whether one possesses the capacity for genuine practice lies in whether one can engage in deep, precise, and accurate critical independent thinking. There has never been a single practitioner of the Dharma who lacked this capacity and yet “miraculously” attained liberation. From a logical standpoint, such a notion is simply untenable."
What then do you make of the many stories of people who achieved instant enlightenment from a single act of a teacher or master?
Those stories are misleading and many readers are utterly ignorant.
Of course you disregard them because they contradict your categorically absolute claim. Of course you are welcome to your opinion.
Yes I'm absolutely against superstitious blind beliefs.
I just happened to come across this article, which mentioned your question; I had thought about the same thing before.
https://open.substack.com/pub/niaq/p/breaking-free-from-habits-the-real?r=5cikzs&utm_medium=ios&shareImageVariant=overlay
🙏🙂↕️💛
"The sense object (form) continues to appear uninterruptedly, and the eye-consciousness of successive moments gathers its force, shifting from 'appearing yet undecided/indeterminate' to 'true and full realization'. This is the key role of the 'sense base' (āyatana) in being able to 'generate and enhance cognition'."
“‘Capable of being rūpa’ is the defining characteristic of rūpa-dharma, meaning ‘able to function as / qualify as rūpa’.
The essential nature of rūpa-dharma is ‘having resistance / obstruction’ (possessing interactive force and the ability to affect other entities).
The presence of the word ‘rūpa’ in the definition involves no contradiction: first, it is to be understood as the intension rather than the mere name; second, this word serves as a key point for excluding over-pervasive cases, and the definition can be validly established without prior complete comprehension of the name/term itself.”
As for how form and cognition mutually influence each other—looking forward to that in the article.
By using the precise and rigorous language of Buddhist logic to define these everyday familiar phenomena and to clarify their classifications, we shall establish a solid foundation for gradually mastering the principles of Hetuvidyā.🙏🌹
Excellent breakdown of the rupa classification system. The distinction between obstructive contact as the defining characteristic and the fiveforms of FIDB really clarifies why certain phenomena get categorized as form even when they're not directly sense-perceivable. The magnet example for explaining obstructive contact without physical touch is particuarly helpful. I've seen students get confused about why disciplinary forms count as rupa when they seem so abstract, but framing them as unmanifest forms arising from vow-taking makes the logic pretty clear.
The fire generated through visualization is not (real) fire.Is it a form ?Does it possess obstruction ?What functions can it serve?
🙏🙏🙏
Rejoice in beginning the exploration of the true nature of all things.
🙏
🙏
🙏
🙏