Could someone please explain or rephrase this passage?

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
manas
Posts: 2223
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2010 3:04 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Could someone please explain or rephrase this passage?

Postby manas » Wed Jan 01, 2014 7:07 pm

Greetings all,

there is this passage from the Maha-nidana Sutta, (as translated by Ven. Thanissaro):

"'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.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html


I don't mind having to reread the Maha-nidana Sutta from time to time, because in this way, the meaning of the Discourse as a whole gradually becomes clearer to me. But this passage still leaves me stumped, partly because I don't know what many of the terms are actually referring to, for example "qualities, traits, themes, & indicators", and "permutations, signs, themes, and indicators".

As a whole I find the Great Causes Discourse very inspiring and illuminating, so if someone could help me to understand this one passage, I would much appreciate it. I can normally get a basic comprehension of things I read, but this is an exception...please help :?

kind regards,
manas.
Then the Blessed One, picking up a tiny bit of dust with the tip of his fingernail, said to the monk, "There isn't even this much form...feeling...
perception...fabrications...consciousness that is constant, lasting, eternal, not subject to change, that will stay just as it is as long as eternity."

(SN 22.97)

User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 13419
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Could someone please explain or rephrase this passage?

Postby mikenz66 » Wed Jan 01, 2014 7:47 pm

See if Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation is helpful:
http://suttacentral.net/dn15/en
And his comments,and translation of the Commetaries seem to be completely readable on Google Books:
http://books.google.co.nz/books?id=kMDd ... on&f=false

:anjali:
Mike

User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 13419
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Could someone please explain or rephrase this passage?

Postby mikenz66 » Wed Jan 01, 2014 7:52 pm

Here's Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation of that passage. Neither translation is easy to follow...
Contact

“It was said: ‘With mentality-materiality as condition there is contact.’ How that is so, Ānanda, should be understood in this way: If those qualities, traits, signs, and indicators through which there is a description of the mental body were all absent, would designation-contact be discerned in the material body?”

“Certainly not, venerable sir.”

“If those qualities, traits, signs, and indicators through which there is a description of the material body were all absent, would impingement-contact be discerned in the mental body?”

“Certainly not, venerable sir.”

“If those qualities, traits, signs, and indicators through which there is a description of the mental body and the material body were all absent, would either designation-contact or impingement-contact be discerned?”

“Certainly not, venerable sir.”

“If those qualities, traits, signs, and indicators through which there is a description of mentality-materiality were all absent, would contact be discerned?”

“Certainly not, venerable sir.”

“Therefore, Ānanda, this is the cause, source, origin, and condition for contact, namely, mentality-materiality.

User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 13419
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Could someone please explain or rephrase this passage?

Postby mikenz66 » Wed Jan 01, 2014 7:57 pm

Ven Nananda's Nibbana Sermons
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katukurund ... anda_Thera
http://www.seeingthroughthenet.net/eng/home.php
may also be helpful. I've quoted some of those in various places in the Sutta Study section, but don't have time to find them all right now. If you look for the SN 12 entries, that may be helpful.
E.g. http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=12133

:anjali:
Mike

User avatar
manas
Posts: 2223
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2010 3:04 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: Could someone please explain or rephrase this passage?

Postby manas » Wed Jan 01, 2014 8:11 pm

Hi Mike,

thank you for providing all those links, that is most helpful of you. I will go through them first, before asking anything more.

metta,
manas
:anjali:
Then the Blessed One, picking up a tiny bit of dust with the tip of his fingernail, said to the monk, "There isn't even this much form...feeling...
perception...fabrications...consciousness that is constant, lasting, eternal, not subject to change, that will stay just as it is as long as eternity."

(SN 22.97)

User avatar
Mkoll
Posts: 5424
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:55 pm

Re: Could someone please explain or rephrase this passage?

Postby Mkoll » Wed Jan 01, 2014 8:34 pm

Dear manas,

Here is MOC Walshe’s translation.
‘“Mind-and-body conditions contact.” By whatever properties features, signs, or indications the mind-factor[336] is conceived of, would there, in the absence of such properties…pertaining to the mind-factor, be manifest any grasping at the idea of the body-factor?[337]’ ‘No, Lord.’

‘Or in the absence of any such properties pertaining to the body-factor, would there be any grasping at sensory reaction on the part of the mind-factor?’ ‘No, Lord.’

‘By whatever properties the mind-factor and the body-factor are designated – in their absence is there manifested any grasping at the idea, or at sensory reaction?’ ‘No, Lord.’

‘By whatever properties, features, signs or indications the mind-factor is conceived of, in the absence of these is there any contact to be found?’ ‘No, Lord.’

‘Then, Ānanda, just this, namely mind-and-body, is the root, the cause, the origin, the condition for all contact.’

[336]Nāma-kāya: the mental component of the pair nāma-rūpa ‘name-and-form’ or ‘mind-and-body’. See next note.
[337]Rūpa-kāya: the physical component of the pair nāma-rūpa. Both rāpa and kāya can on occasion be translated ‘body’, but there is a difference. Rūpa is body as material, especially visible, form, while kāya is body as aggregate, as in ‘a body of material, a body of men’.


My current understanding is that the sutta is basically saying:
By whatever properties we can attribute to the mind/mental factors, without those properties, there can’t be any idea of a “physical body”, as such.

Without the properties of the body-factor, viz. the physical basis for the senses, the mind couldn’t grasp at any sense reaction (because sense reaction wouldn’t be possible without the physical body's material organs).

If there was no nāma-rūpa, there couldn’t be grasping at ideas or sensory reactions because their basis, viz. their causes and conditions, are not present.

Without feelings, perceptions, and formations there is no contact.

Nāma-rūpa conditions all contact.

[NB that the six-sense bases aren’t included between name-and-form and contact as it often is. But it is not rare in the suttas for one or more of the links of dependent origination to be absent.]


Comments or suggestions are welcome and appreciated.

:anjali:
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato sammāsambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato sammāsambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato sammāsambuddhassa

Buddhaṃ saraṇaṃ gacchāmi
Dhammaṃ saraṇaṃ gacchāmi
Saṅghaṃ saraṇaṃ gacchāmi

User avatar
manas
Posts: 2223
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2010 3:04 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: Could someone please explain or rephrase this passage?

Postby manas » Thu Jan 02, 2014 2:37 am

Thanks Mkoll, I am just :reading: for now, but your rephrasing is beginning to make it clearer. It will sink in eventually :)

:anjali:
Then the Blessed One, picking up a tiny bit of dust with the tip of his fingernail, said to the monk, "There isn't even this much form...feeling...
perception...fabrications...consciousness that is constant, lasting, eternal, not subject to change, that will stay just as it is as long as eternity."

(SN 22.97)

User avatar
Spiny Norman
Posts: 4223
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Spam, wonderful spam

Re: Could someone please explain or rephrase this passage?

Postby Spiny Norman » Thu Jan 02, 2014 3:56 pm

Mkoll wrote:My current understanding is that the sutta is basically saying:
Without feelings, perceptions, and formations there is no contact.
Nāma-rūpa conditions all contact.


I'm wondering how this passage relates to the standard description for "contact", eg as described in the Loka Sutta, SN12.44:
"Dependent on the eye & forms there arises eye-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving."

Does this suggest a literal explanation of the OP passage, ie nama-rupa here just means mind-body, the aggregrates, a "person"? No person, no contact. :reading:
"My religion is very simple - my religion is ice-cream."
Dairy Lama

Thule
Posts: 13
Joined: Sun Dec 08, 2013 6:27 pm

Re: Could someone please explain or rephrase this passage?

Postby Thule » Thu Jan 02, 2014 8:42 pm



I liked Ven Nanananda's example of a little child:
http://www.seeingthroughthenet.net/file ... m#_ednref9
Vedanā, saññā, cetanā, phasso, manasikāro - idaṃ vuccatāvuso, nāmaṃ; cattāri ca mahābhūtāni, catunnañca mahābhūtānaṃ upādāyarūpaṃ - idaṃ vuccatāvuso, rūpaṃ. Iti idañca nāmaṃ idañca rūpaṃ - idam vuccatāvuso nāma-rūpaṃ.[9]
"Feeling, perception, intention, contact, attention - this, friend, is called 'name'. The four great primaries and form dependent on the four great primaries - this, friend, is called 'form'. So this is 'name' and this is 'form' - this, friend, is called 'name-and-form'."

Well, this seems lucid enough as a definition but let us see, whether there is any justification for regarding feeling, perception, intention, contact and attention as 'name'. Suppose there is a little child, a toddler, who is still unable to speak or understand language. Someone gives him a rubber ball and the child has seen it for the first time. If the child is told that it is a rubber ball, he might not understand it. How does he get to know that object? He smells it, feels it, and tries to eat it, and finally rolls it on the floor. At last he understands that it is a plaything. Now the child has recognised the rubber ball not by the name that the world has given it, but by those factors included under 'name' in nāma-rūpa, namely feeling, perception, intention, contact and attention.

[...and a little later...]

Rūpa exists in relation to 'name' and that is to say that form is known with the help of 'name'. As we saw above, that child got a first-hand knowledge of the rubber ball with the help of contact, feeling, perception, intention and attention. Now in the definition of 'form' as cattāri ca mahābhūtāni, catunnañca mahābhūtānaṃ upādāya rūpaṃ the four great primaries are mentioned because they constitute the most primary notion of 'form'. Just as much as feeling, perception, intention, contact and attention represent the most primary notion of 'name', conventionally so called, even so the four great primaries form the basis for the primary notion of 'form', as the world understands it.

It is not an easy matter to recognize these primaries. They are evasive like ghosts. But out of their interplay we get the perception of form, rūpasaññā. In fact what is called rūpa in this context is rūpasaññā. It is with reference to the behaviour of the four great elements that the world builds up its concept of form. Its perception, recognition and designation of form is in terms of that behaviour. And that behaviour can be known with the help of those members representing name.

The earth element is recognized through the qualities of hardness and softness, the water element through the qualities of cohesiveness and dissolution, the fire element through hotness and coolness, and the wind element through motion and inflation. In this way one gets acquainted with the nature of the four great primaries. And the perception of form, rūpasaññā, that one has at the back of one's mind, is the net result of that acquaintance. So this is nāma-rūpa. This is one's world.
....
Paṭigha and rūpasaññā form a pair. Paṭigha is that experience of resistance which comes by the knocking against an object, and rūpasaññā, as perception of form, is the resulting recognition of that object. The perception is in terms of what is hard, soft, hot or cold. Out of such perceptions common to the blind worldlings, arises the conventional reality, the basis of which is the world.

User avatar
robpiso
Posts: 29
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2014 11:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Could someone please explain or rephrase this passage?

Postby robpiso » Mon Sep 15, 2014 1:42 pm

manas wrote:Greetings all,
There is this passage from the Maha-nidana Sutta, (as translated by Ven. Thanissaro):
"'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?"
etc.
"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.

If someone could help me to understand this one passage, I would much appreciate it.
kind regards,
manas.


Dear manas,
Buddha wrote:"Feeling, perception, intention, contact, & attention: This is called name. The four great elements (earth, fire, etc,) and the form dependent on the four great elements: This is called form. This name & this form are called name-&-form.
(Sammaditthi Sutta)


In other words:
If the apparent manifestations of forms (permutations, signs, themes, and indicators - the properties of forms) were absent, would there be resistance-contact with regard to feeling, perception, intention, contact, & attention?
Etc.

Cheers.

User avatar
gavesako
Posts: 1639
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 5:16 pm
Location: England

Re: Could someone please explain or rephrase this passage?

Postby gavesako » Sat Feb 06, 2016 3:08 pm

Phassa - Contact: A hybrid between 'Verbal Impression' (adhivacana-samphassa) and 'Resistance Impression' (paṭigha-samphassa).

One can form an idea about the relation between name-and-form and consciousness by going deeper into the implications of this discourse. In the discussion of the interrelation between name and form, the Buddha makes use of two highly significant terms, namely adhivacanasamphassa and paṭighasamphassa. How contact arises dependent on name-and-form is explained by the Buddha in the MahāNidānasutta of the Dīgha Nikāya.
It is addressed to Venerable Ānanda in the form of a catechism.
Phassa, or contact, is a sort of hybrid, carrying with it the implications of both adhivacanasamphassa and paṭighasamphassa. That is to say, it partakes of the character of name, nāma, as suggested by adhivacanasamphassa, as well as that of form, rūpa, indicated by paṭighasamphassa. This will be clear from the relevant section of the catechism in the MahāNidānasutta:
'Nāmarūpapaccayā phasso'ti iti kho panetaṃ vuttaṃ, tad'Ānanda, imināpetaṃ pariyāyena veditabbaṃ, yathānāmarūpapaccayā phasso. Yehi, Ānanda, ākārehi yehi liṅgehi yehi nimittehi yehi uddesehi nāmakāyassa paññatti hoti, tesu ākāresu tesu liṅgesu tesu nimittesu tesu uddesesu asati api nu kho rūpakāye adhivacanasamphasso paññāyethā'ti?' 'No hetaṃ, bhante.'
'Yehi, Ānanda, ākārehi yehi liṅgehi yehi nimittehi yehi uddesehi rūpakāyassa paññatti hoti, tesu ākāresu tesu liṅgesu tesu nimittesu tesu uddesesu asati api nu kho nāmakāye paṭighasamphasso paññāyethā'ti?' 'No hetaṃ, bhante.'
'Yehi, Ānanda, ākārehi yehi liṅgehi yehi nimittehi yehi uddesehi nāmakāyassa ca rūpakāyassa ca paññatti hoti, tesu ākāresu tesu liṅgesu tesu nimittesu tesu uddesesu asati api nu kho adhivacanasamphasso vā paṭighasamphasso vāpaññāyethā'ti?' 'No hetaṃ, bhante.'
'Yehi, Ānanda, ākārehi yehi liṅgehi yehi nimittehi yehi uddesehi nāmarūpassa paññatti hoti, tesu ākāresu tesu liṅgesu tesu nimittesu tesu uddesesu asati api nu kho phasso paññāyethā'ti?' 'No hetaṃ, bhante.' 'Tasmātih'Ānanda, eseva hetu etaṃ nidānaṃ esa samudayo esa paccayo phassassa, yadidaṃ nāmarūpaṃ.'
"From name-and-form as condition, contact comes to be. Thus it has been said above. And that Ānanda, should be understood in this manner, too, as to how from name-and-form as condition, contact arises. If, Ānanda, all those modes, characteristics, signs and exponents, by which the name-group, nāma-kāya, is designated were absent, would there be manifest any verbal impression, adhivacanasamphassa, in the form-group, rūpa-kāya?" "There would not, lord."
"If, Ānanda, all those modes, characteristics, signs and exponents, by which the form-group is designated were absent, would there be manifest any resistance-impression, paṭighasamphasso, in the name-group?" "There would not, lord."
"And if, Ānanda, all those modes, characteristics, signs and exponents, by which there is a designation of both name-group and form-group were absent, would there be manifest either any verbal impression or any resistance-impression?" "There would not, lord."
"And if, Ānanda, all those modes, characteristics, signs and exponents, by which there comes to be a designation of name-and-form were absent, would there be manifest any contact?" "There would not, lord." "Wherefore, Ānanda, this itself is the cause, this is the origin, this is the condition for contact, that is to say, name-and-form."

With the help of four words of allied sense, namely ākāra, mode, liṅga, characteristic, nimitta, sign, and uddesa, exponent, the Buddha catechetically brings out four conclusions by this disquisition. They are:
1) By whatever modes, characteristics, signs and exponents the name-group, nāma-kāya, is designated, in their absence no designation of verbal impression, adhivacanasamphassa, in the form-group, rūpa-kāya, is possible.
2) By whatever modes, characteristics, signs and exponents the form-group is designated, in their absence no designation of resistance-impression, paṭighasamphasso, in the name-group, nāmakāya, is possible.
3) By whatever modes, characteristics, signs and exponents both name-group and form-group are designated, in their absence no designation of verbal impression or resistance-impression is possible.
4) By whatever modes, characteristics, signs and exponents name-and-form is designated, in their absence no designation of contact is possible.

What we have here is adhivacanasamphassa. Its affinity to name is obvious, and this is precisely the meaning we attributed to nāma. Therefore, what we have in this concept of nāmakāya, or name-group, literally 'name-body', is a set of first principles in linguistic usage pertaining to definition.
The form-group, or rūpakāya, literally 'form-body', on the other hand has something to do with resistance, as suggested by the term paṭighasamphassa. Paṭigha means 'striking against'. Form, or rūpa, has a striking quality, while name, or nāma, has a descriptive quality. Phassa, or contact, is a hybrid of these two. This is what gives a deeper dimension to the above disquisition.
The point that the Buddha seeks to drive home is the fact that the concept of contact necessarily presupposes both name and form. In other words, name and form are mutually interrelated, as already stated above. There would be no verbal impression in the form-group, if there were no modes, characteristics, etc., proper to name. Likewise there could be no resistant impression in the name-group, if there were no modes, characteristics, etc., proper to form.
At first sight these two may appear as totally opposed to each other. But what is implied is a case of mutual interrelation. The expression peculiar to the name-group is a necessary condition for the form-group, while the resistance peculiar to the form-group is a necessary condition for the name-group. Since here we have something deep, let us go for an illustration for the sake of clarity.
As we have already stated, a verbal impression in regard to the form-group is there because of the constituents of the name-group. Now the form-group consists of the four great primaries earth, water, fire and air. Even to distinguish between them by their qualities of hardness and softness, hotness and coolness, etc., feeling, perception, intention, contact and attention, which are the constituents of the name-group, have to play their part. Thus it is with the help of those members on the name side that the four basic elements associated with form receive recognition.

Interest, attention and contact together bring out some deeper implications of the law of dependent arising. Not only with regard to inanimate objects, but even in the case of this conscious body, the question of contact is related to the fact of attention.
If, for instance I ask what I am touching now, one might say that I am touching the palm leaf fan in my hand. This is because we usually associate the idea of touching with the hand that holds. But suppose I put away the fan and ask again what I am touching now, one might find it difficult to answer. It might not be possible for another to guess by mere external observation, since it is essentially subjective. It is dependent on my attention. It could even be my robe that I am touching in the sense of contact, in which case I am becoming conscious of my body as apart from the robe I am wearing.
Consciousness follows in the wake of attention. Whatever my attention picks up, of that I am conscious. Though I have in front of me so many apparently visible objects, until my attention is focused, eye-consciousness does not come about. The basic function of this type of consciousness, then, is to distinguish between the eye and the object seen. It is only after the eye has become conscious, that other factors necessary for sense perception fall into place.
The two things born of that basic discrimination, together with the discriminating consciousness itself, that is eye-consciousness, make up the concept of contact. Cakkhuñca paṭicca rūpe ca uppajjati cakkhuviññāṇaṃ, tiṇṇaṃ saṅgati phasso. "Dependent on eye and forms, eye-consciousness arises, the concurrence of the three is contact."

Let us now consider how resistance-impression, paṭighasamphassa, comes about. It is said that the factors of the form-group have a part to play in producing resistance-impression on the name-group. We sometimes speak of an idea 'striking us', as if it were something material. Or else an idea could be 'at the back' of our mind and a word 'on the tip' of our tongue.
The clearest manifestation of contact is that between material objects, where collision is suggestive of resistance, as implied by the word paṭigha. This primary sense of striking against or striking together is implicit even in the simile given by the Buddha in the Dhātuvibhaṅgasutta of the Majjhima Nikāya, and in the Phassamūlakasutta of the Saṃyutta Nikāya, concerning two sticks being rubbed together to kindle a fire.
Though as a gross manifestation contact is primarily associated with the form-group, it is essentially connected with the name-group, as we have already explained with illustrations. It is when both resistance-impression and verbal impression come together that contact arises, dependent on name-and-form, nāmarūpapaccayā phasso.

Ven. Nyanananda
http://www.seeingthroughthenet.net/file ... dstilled10


Kalupahana, in explicating the Buddha's teaching phenomenologically, writes the following: "... when the question regarding the nature of mind (nama) and matter (rupa) was raised, he responded by saying that the so-called matter is 'contact with resistence' (patigha-samphassa) and what is called mind is 'contact with concepts' (adhivacana-samphassa). In doing so, he was reducing both mind and matter to contact (samphassa) and, therefore, processes of
experience rather than any kind of material-stuff or mind-stuff." (The Principles of Buddhist Philosophy)


Phassa (from phusati, to touch): 'sense-impression', contact.
The term samphassa is used in compounds, e.g. in the following: '"There are 6 classes of sense-impression: visual impression (cakkhu-samphassa), impressions of hearing, smelling, tasting, bodily (tactile) impression and mental impression" (M.9).

A twofold division occurs in D.15: patigha (q.v.) -samphassa, impression by sensory reaction', and adhivacana-samphassa, verbal (or conceptual, i.e. mental) impression'.

Phassa does not signify physical impact, but is one of the 7 constant mental concomitants of consciousness (cetasika) and belongs to the group of mental formations (sankhāra-kkhandha). In lists of both these categories it is generally mentioned first (e.g. Dhs.1: M.9), due to its fundamental position in the cognitive process. In M.18 it is thus defined: "Dependent on the eye and the forms, eye-consciousness arises; the coming-together of the three is sense-impression" (similarly stated in the case of the other 5 senses, including mind). In the dependent origination, it is conditioned by the six sense-bases and is a conditioning factor of feeling (s. paticca-samuppāda 5, 6). Its relation to mind-and-body (nāma-rūpa) is described in D.15, and its influence on feeling and wrong views, in D.1 (at the end). It is one of the 4 nutriments (āhāra, q.v.), and the first factor in the pentad of sense-impression (phassa-pañcamaka), together with feeling, perception, volition and consciousness (see Abh. St., p. 47ff ).

http://www.palikanon.com/english/wtb/n_r/phassa.htm


Ajahn Sucitto:

‘Being touched’ is a formation; contact/impression (phassa) is an activity that modifies and colours the sense of self. In this respect, I’m referring not so much to direct sensory contact or ‘impingement contact’ (patigha-phassa), but the impression that the mind makes of that contact, called ‘designation contact’ (adhivacana-phassa). This form of contact is the significant one: owing to the subjective flavouring of designation contact, different people find different sights, sounds, flavours, ideas, remarks and gestures delightful, repugnant, or neutral. Designation contact sets up the familiar pattern of how we experience the world; and the consequent perceptions and impressions guide what we will make impingement contact with in the future. So this is the key to how we react and create fresh action, or kamma, based on the blueprint of the past. (Only to discover that what was wonderful once becomes ‘same old thing’ the third time round.)


Ajahn Buddhadasa:

MINDFULNESS IS DIFFICULT BECAUSE PHASSA IS NOTED ON ONLY ONE LEVEL.
The problem is that it is difficult to note anatta in the arammana (objects) that strike (the senses). This is because we don't know how to note both levels of phassa (contact). The level of patigha-samphassa (sensory contact) is to be aware merely of color or sound; once there is adhivacana-samphassa (designating contact) the meaning or value is known. Right here it is possible for sati (mindfulness) to note the fact of anatta in time. We consider patigha-samphassa to be "literal" and adhivacana-samphassa to be "essential." There's enough of a chance to note anatta in the nick of time.

http://www.suanmokkh.org/archive/nbooks/illness1.htm

--------

I also like Buddhadasa's take on this because he combines the scholar and the practitioner in his approach. I was unable to find the Thai original of this passage so I am not sure what 'literal' and 'essential' are supposed to mean here. But also from reading the other passage (in Thai) where he explains it in more detail, it is obvious that to him the patigha-samphassa is just the primary sense impression (at any of the six sense doors) pure and simple, and the adhivacana-samphassa is the secondary layer of adding meaning and value to the experience (which is the work of mano-viññāna). This is where the perception starts to cause trouble and mental proliferation happens. So he says that we have to practise restraint at this point of secondary contact and not allow covetousness and dejection to arise. In that way the secondary contact will be kept under control. That is where he also quotes the Sutta passage about "ignorant contact" (avijja-samphassa) which means basically the secondary contact infected by avijja which then works through perception and mental formation. Developing wisdom is a gradually process of both restraining the mind and introducing different kinds of perceptions to break up old habits of perceiving things as "me" and "mine".
Bhikkhu Gavesako
Kiṃkusalagavesī anuttaraṃ santivarapadaṃ pariyesamāno... (MN 26)

ajahnchah.org - Teachings of Ajahn Chah in many languages
Dhammatube - Videos on Buddhist practice
Ancient Buddhist Texts - Translations and history of Pali texts


Return to “General Theravāda discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Cormac Brown, Heather1996, Lucas Oliveira and 23 guests

Google Saffron, Theravada Search Engine