vinasp wrote:Many discourses describe something of this sort, a bhikkhu trains himself to not react to things seen by producing feelings, but instead to reduce them, perhaps eliminate them.
SN 36.6 wrote:If he feels a pleasant feeling, he feels it detached. If he feels a painful feeling, he feels it detached. If he feels a neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling, he feels it detached. This, bhikkhus, is called a noble disciple who is detached from birth, aging, and death; who is detached from sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure, and despair; who is detached from suffering, I say.
vinasp wrote:Hi everyone,
This third factor is translated as 'engagement' by Bhikkhu Bodhi and by Ven. Thanissaro.
According to D.W.Evans (1992) the Pali expression means something like 'consent to sustenance.'
Sustenance suggests one of the nutriments but which one?
Whatever it is, if it is not present, then there is no arising of consciousness, which means 'no coming together of these three', which in turn means no contact.
This must create a problem for those who think that 'eye-consciousness' means seeing. Of course, there is already a word for 'seeing' in Pali, and there is no need to invent a new one.
To a native Pali speaker it would be obvious that 'eye-consciousness' does not mean seeing. It would sound strange, like I would, if I started talking about 'eye-knowing.'
Besides, consciousness is said to cease, and also the six-bases. The sankhara's are said to construct form, feeling, perception, volition and consciousness. Enlightenment is the stopping of all sankhara's, volitional constructive activities.
vinasp wrote:The noble disciple understands that the aggregates cease...
"One discerns that 'If I were to direct equanimity as pure & bright as this towards the dimension of the infinitude of space and to develop the mind along those lines, that would be fabricated. One discerns that 'If I were to direct equanimity as pure and bright as this towards the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness... the dimension of nothingness... the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception and to develop the mind along those lines, that would be fabricated.' One neither fabricates nor mentally fashions for the sake of becoming or un-becoming. This being the case, one is not sustained by anything in the world (does not cling to anything in the world). Unsustained, one is not agitated. Unagitated, one is totally unbound right within. One discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.'
"Sensing a feeling of pleasure, one discerns that it is fleeting, not grasped at, not relished. Sensing a feeling of pain... Sensing a feeling of neither pleasure nor pain, one discerns that it is fleeting, not grasped at, not relished. Sensing a feeling of pleasure, one senses it disjoined from it. Sensing a feeling of pain... Sensing a feeling of neither pleasure nor pain, one senses it disjoined from it. When sensing a feeling limited to the body, one discerns that 'I am sensing a feeling limited to the body.' When sensing a feeling limited to life, one discerns that 'I am sensing a feeling limited to life.' One discerns that 'With the break-up of the body, after the termination of life, all that is sensed, not being relished, will grow cold right here.'
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
vinasp wrote: I also think that much more than just clinging has ceased, craving, feeling, contact, six bases, name-and-form, consciousness, ignorance..
vinasp wrote: I do not understand what you mean by: ".. an arahant still experiences via aggregates .."
Why would he need any aggregates in order to experience things?
MN 36 wrote:"And how is one developed in body and developed in mind? There is the case where a pleasant feeling arises in a well-educated disciple of the noble ones. On being touched by the pleasant feeling, he doesn't become impassioned with pleasure, and is not reduced to being impassioned with pleasure. His pleasant feeling ceases. With the cessation of the pleasant feeling there arises a painful feeling. On being touched with the painful feeling, he doesn't sorrow, grieve, or lament, beat his breast or becomes distraught. When that pleasant feeling had arisen in him, it didn't invade his mind and remain because of his development of the body. When that painful feeling had arisen in him, it didn't invade his mind and remain because of his development of the mind. This is how one is developed in body and developed in mind."
Spiny Norman wrote:Unrul3r wrote:Here's the answer I found: The phenomenon that you are describing is entering the emotional stage (saṅkhāra), where you feel big or small emotions after perceiving an object incorrectly. For example, perceiving danger were there is none, will generate fear. Or, from your example, perceiving the sea as beautiful, will generate a pleasant mental feeling.
On the other hand, the vedanā is instantaneous from contact, you don't even need to recognize (That's why in the suttas it is mentioned a lot of times as [organ]samphassajā vedanā). If you have your eyes functioning, there is a world around you & are conscious of sight, you are feeling something through the eyes. For example, if you enter a room with very bright light after you've been in a dark place, your eyes will hurt. Or, if you enter a room with loud noise after being in a silent space, it will hurt your ears. Or the inverse, if you enter a quiet space after being in a room with loud noise, you'll feel relief.
You don't even need to recognize the sound. But when you recognize the loud noise as unpleasant, then it can generate aversive saṅkhāras.
Thanks, that's a good explanation, particularly the distinction between immediate vedana and subsequent sankhara. Is this related to the distinction in the Arrow Sutta between bodily pain ( 1st dart ) and mental anguish ( 2nd dart)?
Sorry to go off topic, Vincent!
barcsimalsi wrote:Spiny Norman wrote: It feels more like the perception happens first, followed by a feeling based on that perception. So for example if I have a pleasant mental feeling associated with looking at the sea, doesn't the perception of "sea" come first? Or to put it another way, how can a feeling arise from a sense-object if there is no initial recognition of that sense-object?
Unfortunately the suttas don't say much about what perception ( sanna ) actually involves, beyond the example of say recognising a colour.
Maybe you can try to reflect the moment when your naughty classmate place a beautiful nail on your chair waiting for you to sit, if not because of feeling why did people immediately lift up their butt when the mind can barely recognize anything.
Yet if you are referring to inner feelings which arise due to specific mental state then one needs to consider the process of chemical reaction which may take sometime except for neutral feelings.
Mahavedalla Sutta (MN 43) wrote:"Feeling, perception, & consciousness, friend: Are these qualities conjoined or disjoined? Is it possible, having separated them one from another, to delineate the difference among them?"
"Feeling, perception, & consciousness are conjoined, friend, not disjoined. It is not possible, having separated them one from another, to delineate the difference among them. For what one feels, that one perceives. What one perceives, that one cognizes. Therefore these qualities are conjoined, not disjoined, and it is not possible, having separated them one from another, to delineate the difference among them."
vinasp wrote:Hi mike,
Mike said:- [ citation from MN 140]
I think that you are trying to show that an enlightened individual still has feelings. It depends on what one means by enlightened.
Unsustained, one is not agitated. Unagitated, one is totally unbound right within. One discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.'
"Sensing a feeling of pleasure, one discerns that it is fleeting, not grasped at, not relished. Sensing a feeling of pain...
vinasp wrote:Do you mean he must have a body in order to have the five senses
and that this body is the form aggregate?
On the quotation from MN 36, one must be careful with passages talking about the instructed noble disciple, it probably means a learner (sekha).
When I say that contact and feeling have ceased, I am talking about full enlightenment. The contact and feeling which have ceased for a non-returner are the items 'contact' and 'feeling' in the DO chain. But he still has some contact and feeling remaining, in the item 'name-and-form.'