Contact, Suffering, Cessation Qs?

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Mike,

I appreciate the suggestion, but I think the original statement was rather clear. If people don't understand the distinction, they're free to ask.

Metta,
Retro.

[Pannapetar]

Avijja" in the Conditioned Arising (paticca-samuppada) refers to the previous lifetime.

Or not. See Buddhadasa.

Question is: is this really such an important distinction? I can see how it can be interpreted both ways. Perhaps the "lifetime" perspective is just one frame of reference, as valid as any other frame of reference.

Cheers, Thomas

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Pannapetar,

Question is: is this really such an important distinction? I can see how it can be interpreted both ways. Perhaps the "lifetime" perspective is just one frame of reference, as valid as any other frame of reference.

Trying to stick within the context of the discussion in hand, cessation of contact (phassanirodha) would not be possible in a particular lifetime if there had been avijja in the previous lifetime, let alone earlier in this lifetime (under the three-lifetime model)

The question then is, "Do arahants attain phassanirodha or do only dead people achieve phassanirodha?"

"Now from the remainderless fading & cessation of that very ignorance comes the cessation of fabrications. From the cessation of fabrications comes the cessation of consciousness. From the cessation of consciousness comes the cessation of name-&-form. From the cessation of name-&-form comes the cessation of the six sense media. From the cessation of the six sense media comes the cessation of contact. From the cessation of contact comes the cessation of feeling. From the cessation of feeling comes the cessation of craving. From the cessation of craving comes the cessation of clinging/sustenance. From the cessation of clinging/sustenance comes the cessation of becoming. From the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth. From the cessation of birth, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair all cease. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of stress & suffering."

Āyasmā Sāriputto etad avoca. Sukham idam āvuso nibbānam, sukham idam āvuso nibbānan ti. Evam vutte āyasmā Udāyi āyasmantam Sāriputtam etad avoca. Kim pan'ettha āvuso Sāriputta sukham, yad ettha n'atthi vedayitan ti. Etad eva khv ettha āvuso sukham, yad ettha n'atthi vedayitam.
Anguttara IX,iv,3 <A.iv,414>

The venerable Sāriputta said this:—It is extinction, friends, that is pleasant! It is extinction, friends, that is pleasant! When this was said, the venerable Udāyi said to the venerable Sāriputta,—But what herein is pleasant, friend Sāriputta, since herein there is nothing felt?—Just this is pleasant, friend, that herein there is nothing felt.

Sariputta is cool.

The problem lies in the present, which is always with us; and any attempt to consider past or future without first settling the present problem can only beg the question—'self' is either asserted or denied, or both, or both assertion and denial are denied, all of which take it for granted

Metta,
Retro.

[adosa]

Hi Adosa,

Contact arises when the sense base (i.e. eye), form, and eye-consciousness meet. From contact, suffering arises.

That's wrong.

Suffering arises with a contact as a necessary condition (paccaya). The relationship of conditioned arising (paticca-samuppada) doesn't mean that the links happen simultaneously.

So the contact, being distanced from suffering by several links: http://dhamma.ru/lib/paticcas.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; , may happen years before the resulting suffering. Or it may not lead to suffering at all, being just a necessary condition.



Metta, Dmytro

Thanks Dmtryo.... but from contact suffering arises. Without contact, no suffering. Contact is the necessary condition for suffering to arises. I see where you're coming from but the statement is still true.

"The Blessed One, my friend, has said that pleasure & pain are dependently co-arisen. Dependent on what? Dependent on contact. One speaking in this way would be speaking in line with what the Blessed One has said, would not be misrepresenting the Blessed One with what is unfactual, and would be answering in line with the Dhamma so that no one whose thinking is in line with the Dhamma would have grounds for criticism.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

adosa

[Pannapetar]

The question then is, "Do arahants attain phassanirodha or do only dead people achieve phassanirodha?"

I'd be interested to know how phassanirodha is possible with a functioning body. Perhaps using a sensory deprivation chamber? But even in a sensory deprivation chamber, there is still mental contact. So, I don't think it is possible.

Cheers, Thomas

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Pannapetar,

[Post repeated for Pannapetar's benefit... sometimes posts get lost on longer topics]

Extract from Kalahavivada Sutta
http://buddhasutra.com/files/kalahavivada_sutta.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"What is the source of sense-impression? From what arises so much grasping? By the absence of what is there no selfish attachment? By the disappearance of what is sense-impression not experienced?"

"Sense-impression is dependent upon the mental and the material. Grasping has its source in wanting something. What not being present there is no selfish attachment. By the disappearance of material objects sense-impression is not experienced."

"For whom does materiality disappear? How do pleasure and discomfort cease to be? Tell me how it ceases so that I may be satisfied in my mind that I have understood it."

"His perception is not the ordinary kind, nor is his perception abnormal; he is not without perception nor is his perception (of materiality) suspended. -- to such an one immateriality ceases. Perception is indeed the source of the world of multiplicity."

Note, he is not dead. He is an arahant.

The Buddha is cool.

How to resolve these suttas about the cessation of phassa, with the three-life-interpretation of the Mahavihara? Let us ask the Blessed one...

DN 16: Mahaparinibbana Sutta
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .vaji.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Then the Blessed One said: "In this fashion, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu might speak: 'Face to face with the Blessed One, brethren, I have heard and learned thus: This is the Dhamma and the Discipline, the Master's Dispensation'; or: 'In an abode of such and such a name lives a community with elders and a chief. Face to face with that community, I have heard and learned thus: This is the Dhamma and the Discipline, the Master's Dispensation'; or: 'In an abode of such and such a name live several bhikkhus who are elders, who are learned, who have accomplished their course, who are preservers of the Dhamma, the Discipline, and the Summaries. Face to face with those elders, I have heard and learned thus: This is the Dhamma and the Discipline, the Master's Dispensation'; or: 'In an abode of such and such a name lives a single bhikkhu who is an elder, who is learned, who has accomplished his course, who is a preserver of the Dhamma, the Discipline, and the Summaries. Face to face with that elder, I have heard and learned thus: This is the Dhamma and the Discipline, the Master's Dispensation.'

"In such a case, bhikkhus, the declaration of such a bhikkhu is neither to be received with approval nor with scorn. Without approval and without scorn, but carefully studying the sentences word by word, one should trace them in the Discourses and verify them by the Discipline. If they are neither traceable in the Discourses nor verifiable by the Discipline, one must conclude thus: 'Certainly, this is not the Blessed One's utterance; this has been misunderstood by that bhikkhu — or by that community, or by those elders, or by that elder.' In that way, bhikkhus, you should reject it. But if the sentences concerned are traceable in the Discourses and verifiable by the Discipline, then one must conclude thus: 'Certainly, this is the Blessed One's utterance; this has been well understood by that bhikkhu — or by that community, or by those elders, or by that elder.' And in that way, bhikkhus, you may accept it on the first, second, third, or fourth reference. These, bhikkhus, are the four great references for you to preserve."

Metta,
Retro.

[Pannapetar]

Retro, I had read it the first time, but I am wondering how this ties in with cessation of sense impression. Where does it say in the text that sense impression (phassa) has ceased?

It would appear that the cessation of sense impression (in the sense of nerve impulses reaching the brain) is neurologically impossible, unless you actually cut nerves. Wouldn't you agree?

Cheers, Thomas

[mikenz66]

Hi Retro,

Greetings Mike,

I appreciate the suggestion, but I think the original statement was rather clear. If people don't understand the distinction, they're free to ask.

Metta,
Retro.

Yes, it's technically correct, but to me:

According to the Mahavihara sect.

To me implies that you think that the Theravada were misguided.

Mike

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Pannapetar,

It would appear that the cessation of sense impression (in the sense of nerve impulses reaching the brain)

It would appear that you define the Buddha's words by your own definitions and then wonder why you cannot make sense of what is said.

...is neurologically impossible, unless you actually cut nerves. Wouldn't you agree?

I don't really consider it relevant. However, there were religionists of the time who felt they could purify themselves through removing sensory inputs altogether

The Buddha did not agree with their assessment.

I would provide the sutta reference, but I can't think of a keyword by which to search it.

Metta,
Retro.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Mike,

To me implies that you think that the Theravada were misguided.

It implies they are a sect of Theravada... thus a subset and not to be equated in a 1:1 fashion with "Theravada" as doing so would alienate all Theravadins (monks and layfolk alike) who do not adhere to the doctrinal interpretations of the ancient Sri Lankans. Being the General Theravada discussion area, it is important to distinguish between General Theravada (A) and the Mahavihara subset (B).



As to what may be misguided, DN16 gives directions from the Buddha on how one might go about assessing that sort of thing for themselves.

Metta,
Retro.

[Shonin]

I think I saw something recently that implied that contact was dependent on 'the conceit 'I am'' (not sure where this is represented in the chain though). I might be misremembering but I'll try to find it.

[Pannapetar]

It would appear that you define the Buddha's words by your own definitions and then wonder why you cannot make sense of what is said.

The words "sense impression" is not my own definition. It is a standard translation of phassa. Mostly, the word phassa is just translated as "contact" (eye-..., ear-..., nose-..., etc.), or "touch". If you think that something else is meant here, could you perhaps explain it instead of referencing enigmatic passages of the canon? The three monkeys don't really help clarifying that point.

You are saying that arahats have realised phassnirodha. And since you love to quote sutta, perhaps you could come up with a more pertinent sample? If -in your opinion- phassanirodha has nothing to do with sense impression then I am really looking forward to learning something new.

Cheers, Thomas

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Pannapetar,

The words "sense impression" is not my own definition.

I was referring to the bracketed part of this... "sense impression (in the sense of nerve impulses reaching the brain)". The Buddha did not say that.

Mostly, the word phassa is just translated as "contact" (eye-..., ear-..., nose-..., etc.), or "touch". If you think that something else is meant here, could you perhaps explain it instead of referencing enigmatic passages of the canon?

As far as one word translations go, they're fine. But what touches what? What makes contact with what?

Let us see if this is too enigmatic...

DN 15: Mahanidana Sutta
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

'From name-&-form as a requisite condition comes contact. Thus it has been said. And this is the way to understand how, from name-&-form as a requisite condition comes contact. If the qualities, traits, themes, & indicators by which there is a description of name-group (mental activity) were all absent, would designation-contact with regard to the form-group (the physical properties) be discerned?"

"No, lord."

"If the permutations, signs, themes, and indicators by which there is a description of form-group were all absent, would resistance-contact with regard to the name-group be discerned?"

"No, lord."

"If the permutations, signs, themes, and indicators by which there is a description of name-group and form-group were all absent, would designation-contact or resistance-contact be discerned?"

"No, lord."

"Thus this is a cause, this is a reason, this is an origination, this is a requisite condition for contact, i.e., name-and-form.

The answer to your little conundrum may lie in the difference between designation-contact (adhivacanasamphassa) and resistance-contact (patighasamphassa)

You are saying that arahats have realised phassnirodha.

Yes.

And since you love to quote sutta, perhaps you could come up with a more pertinent sample?

I've already shown sutta examples... I suggest the onus is now on you to find something to support your POV. Shall you bring more than speculation to the table? We shall see...

If -in your opinion- phassanirodha has nothing to do with sense impression then I am really looking forward to learning something new.

I didn't say nothing to do with it. Re-read the extract from the Mahanidana Sutta above.

Contacts contact
dependent on ground --
How should contacts contact
a groundless one?

(Phusanti phassā, upadhim paticca, Nirūpadhim kena, phuseyyum phassā)

Is the groundless one dead?



Metta,
Retro.

[Pannapetar]

I was referring to the bracketed part of this... "sense impression (in the sense of nerve impulses reaching the brain)". The Buddha did not say that.

Of course the Buddha did not say that, because the Buddha lived in a pre-scientific age, where neuro-science was unknown. But what else could it possibly mean? Are you implying some supernatural component?

The answer to your little conundrum may lie in the difference between designation-contact (adhivacanasamphassa) and resistance-contact (patighasamphassa).

To be frank: it doesn't. This dichotomy simply connects phassa with the two components of its antecedent namarupa, namely nama and rupa. It implies a dual nature of phassa, but how do you get from there to your conclusion?

I suggest the onus is now on you to find something to support your POV. Shall you bring more than speculation to the table? We shall see...

I have no other POV than that of sense impression having a neurological basis and that POV is well supported by science. It is definitely not speculation. Aren't you the one engaging in speculation about arahants?

Cheers, Thomas

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Pannapetar,

Perhaps you might take your theories to a Physiology forum, in search of enlightenment.

Once again, we have reached a point in the conversation where it is suitably demonstrated that our views are so incompatible that this conversation serves no further purpose. No offense intended, but speculation doesn't interest me.

Metta,
Retro.