Is it possible to see this world and don’t take people or person as a object.
When we see them we don’t see as. Men women, wealth poor, attractive non attractive..is there way???
2 Likes
What concept of “object” are you using?
- Things that make contact with the mind.
- Things that may be used as means to achieve certain ends, for which there is no moral responsibility, and may be treated as non-living things.
A great question.
There is a brilliant translation by Bhikkhu Bodhi of the Mulapariyaya sutta and Commentary that addresses this very well:
bp210s_Bodhi_Root-Of-Existance.pdf (547.2 KB)
Your question is also related to what is explained in the Honey sutta:
The venerable Mahā-Kaccāna said this:
“Dependent on eye and forms, eye consciousness arises. The coincidence of these three is contact. With contact as condition there is feeling. What a man feels that he perceives. What he perceives that he thinks about. What he thinks about that he diversifies. With what he has diversified as the source the evaluation of diversifying perceptions beset a man with respect to past, future and present forms cognizable by the eye.
1 Like
**“When I see someone, certain thoughts automatically arise.
For example, if I see a person, I might immediately think, ‘Oh, he is tall.’
But another person might look at the same person and think, ‘He looks poor,’ or ‘He looks rich.’
So the way we perceive others depends on our own habits, desires, and insecurities. I notice this in myself — my mind labels people according to my patterns. When this happens, I try to apply *karuṇā* and stop these unhelpful perceptions.
I also feel that there might be a way of seeing others where such thoughts don’t arise at all — perhaps by perceiving beings as just the five aggregates (*khandhas*) rather than as fixed personalities.
*Mettā* meditation is easy for me. I can generate loving-kindness and wish others well. But I still tend to see people as individuals with certain traits.”**
-
1 Like
Thanks for book I am going to read it now 
sadhu sadhu sadhu
1 Like
This is another excellent book on the topic: Realities and Concepts : the Buddha’s explanation of the world by Sujin Boriharnwanaket
realities and concepts 1 11, 111.pdf (279.8 KB)
1 Like
Citta must take an object and it can take both realities and concepts as object. And the processes of mind run in a fixed order - whether wise or foolish, old or young, human or animal. Thus there is cakkhu-vinnana - seeing consciousness - then many more processes before the concept is know. The difference between the wise and the others is that the one with understanding is not fooled by these concepts, the difference between reality and concept is becoming clear.
Take the example of knowing “that is a rose”. In fact that quick recognition is composed of many, many moments.
ABHIDHAMMA STUDIES BUDDHIST EXPLORATIONS OF CONSCIOUSNESS AND TIME
NYANAPONIKA THERA
Not only the “taking up” but also the “making” and the “remembering” of marks may be relevant to all cases of perception if it is understood as follows: What really happens in a simple act of perception is that some features of the object (sometimes only a single striking one) are selected. The mental note made by that perception is closely associated with those selected features; that is, we attach, as it were, a tag to the object, or make a mark on it as woodcutters do on trees. So far every perception is “a making of marks” (nimittakaraṇa). In order to understand how “remembering” or “recognizing,” too, is implied in every act of perception, we should mention that according to the deeply penetrative analysis of the Abhidhamma the apparently simple act of seeing a rose, for example, is in reality a very complex process composed of different phases, each consisting of numerous smaller combinations of conscious processes (cittavīthi), which again are made up of several single moments of consciousness (cittakkhaṇa) following each other in
a definite sequence of diverse functions. Among these phases there is one that connects the present perception of a rose with a previous one, and there is another that attaches to the present perception the name “rose,” remembered from previous experience. Not only in relation to similar experiences in a relatively distant past, but also between those infinitesimally brief single phases and successive processes, the connecting function of rudimentary “memory” must be assumed to operate, because each phase and each lesser successive state has to “remember” the previous one—a process called by the later Ābhidhammikas “grasping the past” (atīta-gahaṇa). Finally, the individual contributions of all those different perceptual processes have to be remembered and coordinated in order to form the final and complete perception of a rose.
2 Likes
this sort of reflection indicates your confidence in anatta and Dhamma.
We start to see the world through the eye of impermanence - what was there a moment ago has already ceased. This takes the sting out of life - why be upset with something that no longer exists.
But thoughts keep arising - it is the nature of the mind to form concepts. The right way is to see into the features of the thinking.
People are different, they do have certain traits. So the concepts of people and things are like always but there is an understanding of realities that grows so that we are not so fooled by these appearances.
I posted this before but worth adding here: While reflecting on the nature of reality no ill will for any supposed act or slight by another can arise:
visuddhimagga. ix 38
he should try resolution into elements. How? “Now, you who have gone forth into homelessness, when you are angry with him, what is it you are angry with? Is it head hairs you are angry with? Or body hairs? Or nails? … Or is it urine you are angry with? Or alternatively, is it the earth element in the head hairs, etc., you are angry with? Or the water element? Or the fire element? Or is it the air element you are angry with? Or among the five aggregates or the twelve bases or the eighteen elements with respect to which this venerable one is called by such and such a name, which then, is it the materiality aggregate you are angry with? Or the feeling aggregate, the perception aggregate, the formations aggregate, the consciousness aggregate you are angry with? Or is it the eye base you are angry with? Or the visible-object base you are angry with? … Or the mind base you are angry with? Or the mental-object base you are angry with? Or is it the eye element you are angry with? Or the visible-object element? Or the eye-consciousness element? … Or the mind element? Or the mental-object element? Or the mind-consciousness element you are angry with?” For when he tries the resolution into elements, his anger finds no foothold, like a mustard seed on the point of an awl or a painting on the air.
1 Like