Pannapetar wrote:Aha! Kingsley doesn't say that the arahat exhibits no contact (phassa), but that the arahat "does not pay attention" to them. That appears to be something that happens after contact, post-phassa so to speak, doesn't it?
Dmytro wrote:Hi Adosa,adosa wrote: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
"Suffering arises from contact" and "suffering arises with a contact as a necessary condition" are two very different statements.
The sutta you quote tell about how the feelings of pleasure and suffering arise dependent on contact.
Feelings of suffering (dukkha-vedana) and dukkha as a link in Conditioned Arising are two very different things.
Sobeh wrote:I'd like to copy here an extended discussion of phassa by Nanavira Thera (edited for brevity):
"Phassa, 'contact', is defined as the coming together of the eye, forms, and eye-consciousness... But it is probably wrong to suppose that we must therefore understand the word phassa, primarily at least, as contact between these three things. So long as there is avijjā, all things (dhammā) are... inherently in subjection, they are appropriated, they are mine. This is the foundation of the notion that I am and that things are in contact with me. This contact between me and things is phassa. The ditthisampanna sees the deception, but the puthujjana accepts it at its face value and elaborates it into a relationship between himself and the world... But though the ditthisampanna is not deceived, yet until he becomes arahat the aroma of subjectivity hangs about all his experience.
"All normal experience is dual: there are present (i) one's conscious six-based body (saviññānaka salāyatanika kāya), and (ii) other phenomena (namely, whatever is not one's body); and reflexion will show that, though both are objective in the experience, the aroma of subjectivity that attaches to the experience will naturally tend to be attributed to the body. In this way, phassa comes to be seen as contact between the conscious eye and forms—but mark that this is because contact is primarily between subject and object, and not between eye, forms, and eye-consciousness. This approach makes it possible to see in what sense, with the entire cessation of all illusion of 'I' and 'mine', there is phassanirodha in the arahat (where, though there are still, so long as he continues to live, both the conscious body and the other phenomena, there is no longer any appropriation)."
"But when (as commonly) phassa is interpreted as 'contact between sense-organ and sense-object, resulting in consciousness'—and its translation as '(sense-)impression' implies this interpretation—then we are at once cut off from all possibility of understanding phassanirodha in the arahat; for the question whether or not the eye is the subject is not even raised—we are concerned only with the eye as a sense-organ, and it is a sense-organ in puthujjana and arahat alike. Understanding of phassa now consists in accounting for consciousness starting from physiological (or neurological) descriptions of the sense-organs and their functioning. Consciousness, however, is not physiologically observable, and the entire project rests upon unjustifiable assumptions from the start. This epistemological interpretation of phassa misconceives the Dhamma as a kind of natural-science-cum-psychology that provides an explanation of things in terms of cause-and-effect."
retrofuturist wrote:Once again, interpreting things according to your own physiological definitions and wondering why it doesn't make sense.
Pannapetar wrote:As in the case of naming Mahavihara a "sect", you appear to miss accurate descriptions by a few centimeters here and there.
retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Pannapetar,Pannapetar wrote:As in the case of naming Mahavihara a "sect", you appear to miss accurate descriptions by a few centimeters here and there.
"Mahavihara sect", "Mahavihara school", "Mahavihara tradition".... they all yield their fair share of Google results. I don't know what makes you the arbitrator on which is relevant.
a group of people with somewhat different religious beliefs (typically regarded as heretical) from those of a larger group to which they belong.
• (often derogatory) a group that has separated from an established Church; a nonconformist Church.
• a philosophical or political group, especially one regarded as extreme or dangerous.
- ORIGIN Middle English: from Old French secte or Latin secta, literally ‘following’, hence ‘faction, party’, from the stem of sequi ‘follow’.
The Oxford Dictionary of English (revised edition). Ed. Catherine Soanes and Angus Stevenson. Oxford University Press, 2005.
retrofuturist wrote:"Mahavihara sect", "Mahavihara school", "Mahavihara tradition".... they all yield their fair share of Google results.
retrofuturist wrote:...you try to turn that to be the problem of anyone engaging in discussion with you, rather than seeing the common denominator as yourself.
Pannapetar wrote:Well, then let me explain: a "sect" is by definition a small group deviating from a generally accepted mainstream, a small branch on tree so to speak.
retrofuturist wrote:By teaching from outside the established Dhammavinaya and the Four Great References, yet at the same time springboarding from it and claiming allegiance to Buddhism and refuge to the Buddha, lineages established themselves apart from Dhammavinaya as sects.
retrofuturist wrote:Two unconnected things have been twisted together by Buddhaghosa. I wonder if he understood equanimity beyond what he read and thought about it.
mikenz66 wrote:Yes, I understand that's opinion of the particular modern sect that you belong to.
"Two unconnected things have been twisted together by Buddhaghosa. I wonder if he understood equanimity beyond what he read and thought about it."
The ordination lineage, Sammitiya, in which the Puggalavadins belonged were more numerous, but that does not mean that all Sammitiyas were doctrinally Puggalavadins.retrofuturist wrote:
At one point in time, the Puggalavadins had more bhikkhus than any other sect - did that make them the "generally accepted mainstream"?
retrofuturist wrote:mikenz66 wrote:Yes, I understand that's opinion of the particular modern sect that you belong to.
What "modern sect" would that be?
retrofuturist wrote:Where do I intentionally deviate in my understandings from the Dhammavinaya? If I ever do deviate in my understanding from Dhammavinaya, please bring it to my attention! I would welcome any such correction, for my understanding is rooted in the teachings of the Buddha, in whom I take refuge and take as my teacher. I hope my non-allegiance to any sect does not make you uncomfortable - I do not take refuge in such things. Any allegience I have is to my teacher, and even then I still question and investigate his teachings in the manner he encouraged us to do.
retrofuturist wrote:Since there is no Buddhist lineage which adheres solely to the Buddha's Dhammavinaya and the Four Great Reference - they are all by definition sectarian, thus sects.... and that includes Theravada too. (Relative) orthodoxy or majority rule doesn't grant immunity from being a sect, nor does being the one to have deviated the least distance.
retrofuturist wrote:A sect cannot become unsectarian unless it removes its sectarian additions and returns to a pre-sectarian state (i.e. Dhammavinaya).
mikenz66 wrote:According to the Retro Sect...
mikenz66 wrote:The Retro sect that rejects the approach of the Classical Commentaries. Is that not accurate?
ReadyFeet wrote:If one lives a life where one reads lots of Dhamma books and tries hard to meditate but still engages in social activity with friends, works and plays lota of sports etc is it possible for me to achieve any of the benefits of the Dhamma's if I am essentially "flooded with contact and suffering" all the time. I like to think that as my compassion and understanding for all those around me deepens so does my spiritual maturity. Any suggestions. Thanks.
retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Mike,mikenz66 wrote:According to the Retro Sect...
That's all a bit puerile don't you think?