I am glad that Lang is continuing to engage in the discussion. This is a critical aspect. Without discussions, we cannot resolve issues/bottlenecks.
1. Lang’s example is a good one. Everything is fine until we get to the following statement.
Lang wrote: “Next, body parts: blond “hair”, blue “eyes”, fair “skin” — these are still “from Lang”. His built-in saññā as a human (and perhaps his learning) make him identify those as “hair”, “eyes”, “skin”. At the suddhāṭṭhaka level there are no “hair”, “eyes”, “skin”. So “hair”, “eyes”, “skin” still come “from Lang”, not from “the object”.”
- The bolded part is not correct. That woman’s body is real and is made with suddhāṭṭhaka. It would have all the body parts, too.
- However, to provide the “attractiveness” (and for Lang to see the woman), all those colors are ‘induced in Lang’s mind’ via Paticca Samuppada. Not only Lang, but any human (including the older gentleman A) will see her that way. Gentleman A may not like the way she is dressed, but he would see her as ‘beautiful.’
- Let me add a few more relevant points: (i) she is born ‘beautiful’ because she had done some punna kamma with the expectation to enjoy life as a human. (ii) However, an animal would not care for ‘human beauty.’ If she has a dog, that dog would like her not because of her beauty, but because she would be taking care of it.
2. Now, to the question from Lang: ” Is it correct to say this: Objects in “the world out there” are (in a sense) blank slates, and our saññā projects qualities on them: red, blue, beautiful, ugly, pleasant, unpleasant, etc.”
- I hope the answer is explained above. Objects in the world out there are real. The woman would have all body parts (likely well-proportioned).
- However, Paticca Samuppada cannot produce colors or tastes directly. Only colorless, tasteless, smell-less suddhāṭṭhaka can be made by the mind. Paticca Samuppada process can only make ‘stuff’ (both internal and external) with suddhāṭṭhaka. This is why saññā plays a critical role in generating the mirage of colors, tastes, and other sensations. The Buddha directly called saññā a mirage in the “Pheṇapiṇḍūpama Sutta (SN 22.95),” and we discussed that in the post, “Sotapanna Stage and Distorted/Defiled Saññā.” Also see “Fooled by Distorted Saññā (Sañjānāti) – Origin of Attachment (Taṇhā).”
3. P.S. Note that the ‘beauty of a woman’ saññā arising in Lang’s mind depends on the specific woman and also on Lang’s own gati (pronounced as ‘gathi’). Another man’s evaluation of that woman could differ somewhat, even though he would still consider her beautiful.