What is resistance (patigha)?
What is resistance (patigha)?
What is resistance (patigha)?
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
Re: What is resistance (patigha)?
http://www.palikanon.com/english/wtb/n_r/patigha.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;patigha
1. In an ethical sense, it means: 'repugnance', grudge, resentment, anger, and is a synonym of vyāpāda, 'ill-will' (s. nīvarana) and dosa, 'hate' (s. mūla). It is one of the proclivities (anusaya, q.v.).
2. '(Sense-) reaction'. Applied to five-sense cognition, p. occurs in the following contexts:
(a) as patigha-saññā, 'perception of sense-reaction', said to be absent in the immaterial absorptions (s. jhāna 5). Alternative renderings: resistance-perception, reflex-perception;
(b) as patigha-samphassa, '(mental) impression caused by 5fold sensorial reaction' (D. 15); s. phassa;
(c) as sappatigha-rūpa, 'reacting corporeality', and appatigha, 'not reacting', which is an Abhidhammic classification of corporeality, occurring in Dhs. 659, 1050. Sappatigha are called the physical sense-organs as reacting (or responding) to sense stimuli; and also the physical sense-objects as impinging (or making an impact) on the sense-organs. All other corporeality is appatigha, non-reacting and non-impinging. These 2 terms have been variously rendered as resistant and not, responding and not, with and without impact.
Re: What is resistance (patigha)?
Ven. Nanananda says in Nibbana- The Mind Stilled;
“"Where name and form
As well as resistance and the perception of form Are completely cut off,
It is there that the tangle gets snapped."
The reference here is to Nibbāna. It is there that the tangle is disen- tangled.
The coupling of name-and-form with patigha and rūpasaññā in this context, is significant. Here pa ptigha does not mean ‘repugnance’, but ‘resistance’. It is the resistance which comes as a reaction to inert matter. For instance, when one knocks against something in passing, one turns back to recognize it. Sense reaction is something like that.
The Buddha has said that the worldling is blind until at least the Dhamma-eye arises in him. So the blind worldling recognizes an object by the very resistance he experiences in knocking against that object.
Patigha and rūpasaññā form a pair. Patigha is that experience of resistance which comes by the knocking against an object, and rūpa- saññā, 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.”
Is the generally accepted explanation?
“"Where name and form
As well as resistance and the perception of form Are completely cut off,
It is there that the tangle gets snapped."
The reference here is to Nibbāna. It is there that the tangle is disen- tangled.
The coupling of name-and-form with patigha and rūpasaññā in this context, is significant. Here pa ptigha does not mean ‘repugnance’, but ‘resistance’. It is the resistance which comes as a reaction to inert matter. For instance, when one knocks against something in passing, one turns back to recognize it. Sense reaction is something like that.
The Buddha has said that the worldling is blind until at least the Dhamma-eye arises in him. So the blind worldling recognizes an object by the very resistance he experiences in knocking against that object.
Patigha and rūpasaññā form a pair. Patigha is that experience of resistance which comes by the knocking against an object, and rūpa- saññā, 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.”
Is the generally accepted explanation?
Re: What is resistance (patigha)?
Can someone bring some sutta references where this term is used?
chownah
chownah
Re: What is resistance (patigha)?
DN15
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.
patigha
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.
patigha
"People often get too quick to say 'there's no self. There's no self...no self...no self.' There is self, there is focal point, its not yours. That's what not self is."
Ninoslav Ñāṇamoli
Senses and the Thought-1, 42:53
"Those who create constructs about the Buddha,
Who is beyond construction and without exhaustion,
Are thereby damaged by their constructs;
They fail to see the Thus-Gone.
That which is the nature of the Thus-Gone
Is also the nature of this world.
There is no nature of the Thus-Gone.
There is no nature of the world."
Nagarjuna
MMK XXII.15-16
Ninoslav Ñāṇamoli
Senses and the Thought-1, 42:53
"Those who create constructs about the Buddha,
Who is beyond construction and without exhaustion,
Are thereby damaged by their constructs;
They fail to see the Thus-Gone.
That which is the nature of the Thus-Gone
Is also the nature of this world.
There is no nature of the Thus-Gone.
There is no nature of the world."
Nagarjuna
MMK XXII.15-16
Re: What is resistance (patigha)?
mahānidāna sutta“It was said: ‘With name-form 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 name-group were all absent, would verbal impression be discerned in the form-group?”
“Certainly not, venerable sir.”
“If those qualities, traits, signs, and indicators through which there is a description of the form-group were all absent, would resistance impression be discerned in the name-group?”
“Certainly not, venerable sir.”
“If those qualities, traits, signs, and indicators through which there is a description of the name-group and the form-group were all absent, would either verbal impression or resistance impression be discerned?”
“Certainly not, venerable sir.”
“If those qualities, traits, signs, and indicators through which there is a description of name-form were all absent, would contact be discerned?”
“Certainly not, venerable sir.”
“Therefore, Ānanda, this is the cause, source, origin, and condition for contact, namely, name-form."
dīgha nikāya 15
Born, become, arisen – made, prepared, short-lived
Bonded by decay and death – a nest for sickness, perishable
Produced by seeking nutriment – not fit to take delight in
Departure from this is peaceful – beyond reasoning and enduring
Unborn, unarisen – free from sorrow and stain
Ceasing of all factors of suffering – stilling of all preparations is bliss
Bonded by decay and death – a nest for sickness, perishable
Produced by seeking nutriment – not fit to take delight in
Departure from this is peaceful – beyond reasoning and enduring
Unborn, unarisen – free from sorrow and stain
Ceasing of all factors of suffering – stilling of all preparations is bliss
Re: What is resistance (patigha)?
https://suttacentral.net/sn1.23 has translations from Sujato and Bodhi
“Where name-and-form ceases,
Stops without remainder,
And also impingement and perception of form:
It is here this tangle is cut.”
https://suttacentral.net/sn1.23/en/bodhi#sc4
Ven Nananda's discussion is in the first Nibbana Sermon:and impingement and perception of form:
Paṭighaṃ rūpasaññā ca,
https://suttacentral.net/sn1.23/en/sujato#4.3
http://seeingthroughthenet.net/wp-conte ... d_HTML.htm
Just search for "tangle".
Mike
Re: What is resistance (patigha)?
I have to admit despite familiarity with various readings of these passages (Ven. N. Nanamoli, Nanananda, Sylvester, Sujato) I still find them incomprehensible. Providing Bhante Sujato's take just for reference (the bolded and underlined part makes me feel better )
The Mystique of the AbhidhammaBhante Sujato wrote:Let us continue the story of name & form in the specifically Buddhist context of dependent origination. There, name & form is shown to be dependent on cognition. This suggests that ‘name’ is a term for certain mental functions exclusive of cognition, while ‘form’ designates physical phenomena. There is a very interesting passage in the Mahā Nidāna Sutta which highlights the root meaning of ‘name’. I would therefore consider this to be an early conception of ‘name’. The passage is obscure even in Pali and nearly incomprehensible in a literal English translation, so I paraphrase.
‘Name’ and ‘form’ are each shown to correlate with a particular kind of ‘contact’. Name correlates to ‘labeling contact’, while form correlates to ‘impact contact’. So let us have a look at this ‘contact’. In the normal analysis of contact, it is said to be the co-operation of three factors: the external sense object (e.g. ‘image’), the internal sense organ (e.g. ‘eye’), and the corresponding class of cognition (e.g. ‘visual cognition’). In the case of the five physical senses, then, the ‘impact contact’ would be the ‘impact’ of the external sense object on the internal sense organ – light ‘hitting’ the eye, or sound ‘hitting’ the ear. In the case of mental cognition, we have the mental objects (dhammas), mano (usually rendered ‘mind’), and mano -cognition.
...
But we digress. To return to the Mahā Nidāna Sutta, we now have form giving rise to ‘impact contact’ consisting in the impact of external sense objects on the sense organs, and name, appropriately enough, giving rise to ‘labeling contact’ consisting in conceptual processing of sense data. I am desperately flailing about here in a probably doomed attempt to avoid making this discussion too technical. There are important qualifications to be made to my discussion both above and below, but I hope that by simplifying somewhat I can clarify the outlines without distortion. We can see that ‘impact contact’ deals primarily with receiving data from outside, while ‘labeling contact’ deals primarily with processing inner, conceptual information. Thus the earlier, mystical understanding of name & form receives a strictly rational, psychological treatment. Name & form are shown to be interdependent. If there were no name, there could be no labeling, i.e. no conceptual processing of sensory experience. If there were no form, there would be no awareness of the world outside. Finally the passage proceeds by way of synthesis to show that both of these processes are essential aspects of ‘contact’.
So far I have treated this analysis as general psychology. But the context, and elsewhere too, suggests that it may be applied rather more specifically to the field of infant development. Thus we can see that without sensory stimulus the infant’s mind would not develop past an undifferentiated, ‘oceanic’ subconscious, like a fetus in the womb. And without developing conceptual abilities one could not learn to assimilate and process sensory input in a meaningful and useful form.
But I have omitted the most important aspect of this passage for understanding early Buddhist ontology. Normally in dependent origination, existence is simply described in terms of the existence of the factor itself, as in the famous formula: ‘This being, that is…this not being, that is not’. But our present passage speaks, not of the existence of, say, ‘name’, but of the existence of ‘the features, properties, signs, and summaries by which there is a concept of name’. If these ‘properties’ are absent, no ‘labeling contact’ regarding ‘form’ can be ‘found’. Conversely, if the ‘properties’ by which there is a ‘concept’ of ‘form’ are absent, no ‘impact contact’ regarding ‘name’ can be ‘found’.
This demonstrates in a most emphatic and explicit way that the ‘properties’ by which phenomena are known are, for all Dhamma purposes, equivalent to the phenomena themselves, since they perform the identical function in dependent origination. We cannot distinguish between a thing’s properties and the thing itself, since the label we give a ‘thing’ is just a concept denoting the exercise of certain functions. To say a thing ‘exists’ is to say it is ‘found’. And the very workings of experience, the fundamental structure of information processing, is necessarily dependent on this conceptual apparatus. Without ‘labeling’, without the properties by which a thing is ‘conceptualized’, stimulus, and hence the entire perceptual process cannot work. Thus this passage thoroughly demolishes any attempt to wedge a division between ‘ultimate reality’ and ‘conventional reality’. Wisdom does not consist in going past convention to the ultimate substratum, but in understanding how conceptualizing is inherent in the cognitive process itself. Hence the Buddha said that the extent of concepts, language, and labeling is precisely the domain of wisdom; that is, birth, ageing, and death, cognition together with name & form.
Bhikkhu Bodhi, however, reads this passage in just the opposite way. For him, the mention of the ‘properties’ implies that they are conceptually distinct from the thing in & of itself. But he is surely just reading a later agenda into an earlier teaching...
"People often get too quick to say 'there's no self. There's no self...no self...no self.' There is self, there is focal point, its not yours. That's what not self is."
Ninoslav Ñāṇamoli
Senses and the Thought-1, 42:53
"Those who create constructs about the Buddha,
Who is beyond construction and without exhaustion,
Are thereby damaged by their constructs;
They fail to see the Thus-Gone.
That which is the nature of the Thus-Gone
Is also the nature of this world.
There is no nature of the Thus-Gone.
There is no nature of the world."
Nagarjuna
MMK XXII.15-16
Ninoslav Ñāṇamoli
Senses and the Thought-1, 42:53
"Those who create constructs about the Buddha,
Who is beyond construction and without exhaustion,
Are thereby damaged by their constructs;
They fail to see the Thus-Gone.
That which is the nature of the Thus-Gone
Is also the nature of this world.
There is no nature of the Thus-Gone.
There is no nature of the world."
Nagarjuna
MMK XXII.15-16
Re: What is resistance (patigha)?
Hi Aflatun, I’ve not read as much as you, you’ve probably seen it, but in case you missed it, the questions and answers at the back of ‘Meanings’ by Ven. N.Namaoli on Resistance and Desigantion (P416), offer a good explanation;
“Resistance and Designation (R&D) could be described using ‘behaviour’ and ‘appearance’ in the following manner:
—Those tokens... by which the name-body is described,—they being absent, would designation-contact appear in the matter-body...
—Those tokens... by matter-body is described,—they being absent would resistance-contact behave in name-body...
[You will notice the absence of the term ‘manifestation’. Cf. R&D, para. 1, where “manifestations of ‘designation’ and ‘resistance’” are said to be the problem].
Or you could simply say:
—Those tokens... by which the name-body is described,—they being absent, would designation contact the matter-body...
—Those tokens... by which the matter-body is described,—they
being absent would resistance contact name-body... Or the way you put it is also fine, with a slight change:
—He assumes that behaviour of this appearance is that which is
‘matter’.
—He assumes that appearance of this behaviour is that which is ‘name’.
Assuming that it is ‘this appearance’ that behaves, that because of which behaviour is there manifests in the name-body. What is that because of which behaviour is there? ‘Matter’ is that because of which behaviour is there. But, since ‘matter’ can only be known as ‘behaviour’ then it is correct to say that behaviour is that because of which behaviour is there; or “in behaviour there is only behaviour,” or even more concisely: behaviour behaves. Thus, in thinking that it is the appearance that behaves, that behaviour, that resistance, contacts the name-body (it is manifested in it).
Assuming that it is ‘this behaviour’ that appears, that because of which appearance is there manifests in the matter-body. What is that because of which appearance is there? ‘Name’ is that because of which appearance is there. But, since ‘name’ can only be known as ‘appearance’ then it is correct to say that appearance is that because of which appearance is there; or “in appearance there is only appearance”; or even more concisly: appearance appears. Thus, in thinking that it is the behaviour that appears, that appearance, that designation, contacts the matter-body (it is manifested in it).
Thus, behaviour behaves and appearance appears, or resistance resists and designation designates. In this way behaviour does not manifest in appearance and appearance does not manifest in behaviour. (Or behav- iour does not contact appearance, appearance does not contact behaviour.)“
“Resistance and Designation (R&D) could be described using ‘behaviour’ and ‘appearance’ in the following manner:
—Those tokens... by which the name-body is described,—they being absent, would designation-contact appear in the matter-body...
—Those tokens... by matter-body is described,—they being absent would resistance-contact behave in name-body...
[You will notice the absence of the term ‘manifestation’. Cf. R&D, para. 1, where “manifestations of ‘designation’ and ‘resistance’” are said to be the problem].
Or you could simply say:
—Those tokens... by which the name-body is described,—they being absent, would designation contact the matter-body...
—Those tokens... by which the matter-body is described,—they
being absent would resistance contact name-body... Or the way you put it is also fine, with a slight change:
—He assumes that behaviour of this appearance is that which is
‘matter’.
—He assumes that appearance of this behaviour is that which is ‘name’.
Assuming that it is ‘this appearance’ that behaves, that because of which behaviour is there manifests in the name-body. What is that because of which behaviour is there? ‘Matter’ is that because of which behaviour is there. But, since ‘matter’ can only be known as ‘behaviour’ then it is correct to say that behaviour is that because of which behaviour is there; or “in behaviour there is only behaviour,” or even more concisely: behaviour behaves. Thus, in thinking that it is the appearance that behaves, that behaviour, that resistance, contacts the name-body (it is manifested in it).
Assuming that it is ‘this behaviour’ that appears, that because of which appearance is there manifests in the matter-body. What is that because of which appearance is there? ‘Name’ is that because of which appearance is there. But, since ‘name’ can only be known as ‘appearance’ then it is correct to say that appearance is that because of which appearance is there; or “in appearance there is only appearance”; or even more concisly: appearance appears. Thus, in thinking that it is the behaviour that appears, that appearance, that designation, contacts the matter-body (it is manifested in it).
Thus, behaviour behaves and appearance appears, or resistance resists and designation designates. In this way behaviour does not manifest in appearance and appearance does not manifest in behaviour. (Or behav- iour does not contact appearance, appearance does not contact behaviour.)“
-
- Posts: 2602
- Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2016 12:38 pm
Re: What is resistance (patigha)?
patigha is not a simple subject. It turns out to be resistance in the mind arising with greed and ignorance. Patigha nimitta arising with greed and ignorance as of ayoniso manasikara ( inappropriate attention ) creates ' vyapada' or anger that can remain fixed through the journey of samsara. It is explained with Jataka stories of buddas former lives.
Abandoning and its effects of patigha is explained well in
Sallekha sutta. ( please refer to this sutta from internet) .
With metta.
Abandoning and its effects of patigha is explained well in
Sallekha sutta. ( please refer to this sutta from internet) .
With metta.