Kāyikañca & Cetasikañca

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
Post Reply
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22391
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Kāyikañca & Cetasikañca

Post by Ceisiwr »

This is a continuation of a discussion that started here: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=39283&start=15
coconut wrote: Wed Feb 10, 2021 5:43 pm
First I said there are 6 senses, not 5, so you can stop your cookie-cutter generic copy paste responses..
You did, but you seem to forget the 6th in your analysis. This is why I mentioned it again.
Second, Arahants don't get unwholesome mental images, so they don't get the sixth sensual contact. Also, one doesn't get mental contact to enter jhanas either, that's why your interpretation of needing a nimitta to enter jhanas is wrong.
You said that Arahants "don't get unwholesome mental images, so they dont get the sixth sensual contact". You then provided some sutta quotes and explanations of your own to back up this claim. Let's take a look:
Arahants have overcome unvirtuous mental images

Arahants have overcome unvirtuous mental images:

Friend, in the eighty years since I went forth [into the ascetic life] I do not recall a sensuous mental image having ever arisen in me.

Asīti me āvuso kassapa vassāni pabbajitassa nābhijānāmi kāmasaññaṃ uppannapubbaṃ.

— M.3.125

This is in accordance with the fact that:

All spiritually unwholesome factors stem from uninsightfulness into reality, emanate from uninsightfulness into reality, and all are abolished when uninsightfulness into reality is abolished.

Evameva kho bhikkhave ye keci akusalā dhammā sabbe te avijjāmūlakā avijjāsamosaraṇā. Avijjāsamugghātā sabbe te samugghātaṃ gacchanti.

— S.2.263
It seems the translator here has translated sañña as "image". This seems rather dubious to me. Sañña is not an "image". If we want a Pāli translation for image we have "rūpa":

Pāli
Rūpa
- form
- figure
- appearance
- principle of form

Sanskrit
रूप [ rūpa ]
- any outward appearance or phenomenon or colour
- form
- shape
- figure
- dreamy or phantom shapes

This comes from the thematic verb रूप् (rūp) which is in the 10th Gaṇa:

√ रूप् [ rūp ]
- to form
- figure
- represent

Sadly I cannot locate any Proto Indo European roots as of yet. Still, without this the meaning of rūpa here is quite clear. It is the "image" or "form" that occurs at contact. Sañña itself is designation/conceptualisation/appellation, which does involve perception but is not perception simpliciter. This can be seen in DN 15, where we see that nāma is involved in designation/conceptualisation/appellation through "designation contact". We can also see it in this sutta:
“Idha, bhikkhave, tadevekaccesu janapadesu ‘pātī’ti sañjānanti, ‘pattan’ti sañjānanti, ‘vittan’ti sañjānanti, ‘sarāvan’ti sañjānanti ‘dhāropan’ti sañjānanti, ‘poṇan’ti sañjānanti, ‘pisīlavan’ti sañjānanti. Iti yathā yathā naṃ tesu tesu janapadesu sañjānanti tathā tathā thāmasā parāmāsā abhinivissa voharati: ‘idameva saccaṃ, moghamaññan’ti. Evaṃ kho, bhikkhave, jana¬pada¬niruttiyā ca abhiniveso hoti samaññāya ca atisāro.

Here, bhikkhus, in different localities they call the same thing a “dish” (pāti) or they call it a “bowl” (patta) or they call it a “vessel” (vittha) or they call it a “saucer (sarava) or they call it a “pan” (dhāropa) or they call it a “pot” (poṇa) or they call it a “mug” (hana) or they call it a “basin” (pisīla). So whatever they call it in such and such a locality, he speaks accordingly, firmly adhering to and insisting on that, “Only this is true, anything else is wrong.” This is how there comes to be insistence on local language and overriding of normal usage.”
MN 139

The pali word used here “sañjānanti” is the 3rd person plural of sañña. Here we clearly do not have a case of perception simpliciter. Instead sañjānanti is being used in naming or designating. In other words, in using concepts in relation to X rūpa. This is done through sañña recognising the distinctive mark or nimitta of an object, which is then the basis for forming concepts about it. Once again this ties in with DN 15, through adhivacanasamphasso. Based on this evidence then we can clearly see that sañña has more to do with designation/conceptualisation/appellation rather than simple perception. Incidentally this also means nāmarūpa is "designation & appearance" or "name & forms", which is the principal definition we also see in the Upaniṣadaḥ. However, I am digressing here. To go back to sañña itself, when we look at the etymology we can also see it's connection with designation/conceptualisation/appellation and language:

Saṃjñā
संज्ञा saṃjñā [ saṃ-√ jñā ]
- to agree together, be of the same opinion , be in harmony with RV. AV. VS. ŚBr
- to appoint , assign , intend (for any purpose) AitBr
- to acknowledge, recognize, own, Pāṇ
- to know well, understand, R
- to cause to be of the same opinion or agree together AV. ; AitBr
- to cause to acquiesce or agree in (euphemistically said of a sacrificial victim, which ought not to be led forcibly to its death but made to resign itself), ŚBr. ; GṛŚrS. ; MBh. ; BhP. ;
- agreement, mutual understanding, harmony, TBr. ; ŚBr. ; Kathās.
- consciousness, clear knowledge or understanding or notion or conception, ŚBr.

Sam
सम् [ sam ]
- with
- together with
- along with
- together
- altogether

Opposite is वि [ vi ]
- apart
- asunder
- in different directions
- to and fro
- about
- away
- away from
- division

From the Proto Indo-European:

√ sem
- together
- one

ज्ञा [jñā]
- perceive, apprehend, understand (also with inf. [Pāṇ])
- experience, recognise, ascertain, investigate, RV

From the Proto Indo-European:

√ ǵneh₃
- to know

Saṃjñā = Together knowledge, united understanding. It likely refers to that by which we reach and agreement and understanding, thus having common or agreed understanding. This is through designation, conceptualisation and labelling:

"It’s when in different localities the same thing is known as a ‘plate’, a ‘bowl’, a ‘cup’, a ‘dish’, a ‘basin’, a ‘tureen’, or a ‘porringer’.

So, as you can see it seems unlikely that sañña means "mental image" or "image". Far less still to do with perception, as understood in English, by which we mean perception simpliciter. The actual act of perceiving an object begins with viññāṇa & vedanā. Vedanā is usually translated as "feelings" but, I feel, this doesn't quite capture it. If, once again, we look at the etymology we find:

Pāli
Vedanā
- feeling
- sensation

From the athematic root विद् in the 2nd Gaṇa

√ विद् [ vid ]
- to know
- understand
- perceive
- learn
- become or be acquainted with

As we can see, vedanā is about pleasant, neutral or unpleasant knowing, understanding or, to put it better, perception. It would be then in vedanā that we find perception simpliciter, not sañña. If we take vision this makes sense. It makes sense that the initial perception of an object occurs with viññāṇa & vedanā, with vedanā being the experiential side of initially pleasant, unpleasant or neutral sights. If sañña were what we call perception, how can one have a pleasant visual sensation before perceiving said object? It doesn't make sense. It does, however, make sense to say that perception occurs prior to sañña, with sañña being the conceptualising and labelling of said experience.
Arahants perceive without mental images

Arahants perceive objects as they are, without any associated mental images:

He does not conceive the slightest mental image regarding what is seen, heard, sensed, or cognised.

Tassīdha diṭṭhe vā sute mute vā pakappitā natthi aṇu pi saññā.

— Sn.v.802
My own rough translation:

"Tassīdha diṭṭhe va sute mute vā;
pakappitā natthi aṇu pi saññā

Here in regard to views, like sute [sacred law, revelation] or mutes [sceptics?];
There doesn't exist the smallest conception."

We parenthesise accordingly. This is justified, because in the Madhupiṇḍika Sutta, where the following quote comes from, the Buddha explains how his teaching does not lead to unwholesome consequences. This rationally means that the mental images he is condemning are those which are unwholesome. The usual combination of words used in the scriptures to capture unwholesome connotations is pāpakā akusala, i.e. 'unvirtuous and spiritually unwholesome.' We use this parenthesis here, for example:

[I proclaim) a doctrine, friend, such that…​ one does not abide quarrelling with anyone in the world; such that for the Brahman who abides emancipated from sensuous pleasures, free of uncertainty [about the significance of the teaching], free of anxiety, free of craving for all states of individual existence, [unvirtuous and spiritually unwholesome] mental images do not lurk within him.

yathāvādī kho āvuso…​ na kenaci loke viggayha tiṭṭhati yathā ca pana kāmehi visaṃyuttaṃ viharantaṃ taṃ brāhmaṇaṃ akathaṅkathiṃ chinnakukkuccaṃ bhavābhave vītataṇhaṃ saññā nānusenti.

— M.1.108
As we have seen above, sañña does not mean "image". Regardless the problem is not sañña itself, even if it meant "image", but rather the āsavas that underlie it.
To solve the puzzle of the Kalahavivāda Sutta (Sn.v.873-4), we render saññā as 'mental images,' as follows:
I would like to know who the author is? They seem rather wedded to this "saññā as 'mental images" idea, which doesn't make any sense.
[Question:] 'For one attained to what state does bodily form vanish? Whether pleasant or painful, how does it vanish? Tell me this, how does it vanish? My objective is that we should know this.'

Kathaṃ sametassa vibhoti rūpaṃ sukhaṃ dukkhaṃ vāpi kathaṃ vibhoti
Etaṃ me pabrūhi yathā vibhoti taṃ jāniyāmāti me mano ahu

— Sn.v.873

[Answer:] 'He does not perceive mental images [of what is seen, heard, sensed, or cognised]. He does not perceive [what is seen, heard, sensed, or cognised] with deranged perception. He is not without perception. He does not perceive what has vanished. For one arrived at such a state, bodily form vanishes. Mental images are indeed the source of entrenched conception.'

Na saññasaññī na visaññasaññī no pi asaññī na vibhūtasaññī
Evaṃ sametassa vibhoti rūpaṃ saññānidānā hi papañcasaṅkhā.

— Sn.v.874
Hmm, lets see (my own translation again):

[Question]
“Kathaṃ sametassa vibhoti rūpaṃ,
Sukhaṃ dukhañcāpi kathaṃ vibhoti;
Etaṃ me pabrūhi yathā vibhoti,
Taṃ jāniyāmāti me mano ahu”.

How together rūpaṃ ceases to be,
Sukhaṃ & this resoviour of dukkha, how they cease to be?;
Please tell me how they cease to be,
For this is my intent to understand.


[Buddha]
“Na saññasaññī na visaññasaññī,
Nopi asaññī na vibhūtasaññī;
Evaṃ sametassa vibhoti rūpaṃ,
Saññānidānā hi papañcasaṅkhā”.

Not conceptualising the conceptualised, not unconceptualising the conceptualised,
Neither without conceptualised nor clearly conceptulised;
In this way comes the non-existence of rūpa,
For conceptualising & designation is the origin of numerous proliferations.
"

This sounds more like the formless attainments, or an experience of nibbāna itself. Regardless, this does not refer to the normal every day functioning mind of the Buddha and Arahants. You said prior that the Buddha and Arahants do not experience the 6th sensual contact. If this is true, then how does the Buddha and those special Arahants enter into the formless attainments? How do they engage with abstract thought, like counting? I assume becoming awakened doesn't mean losing basic mathematical ability? If it does not, then it would seem that the Buddha and Arahants do indeed experience contact at the mind base. If then they experience contact at the mind base then they experience vedanā at the mind base. Of course, for them this does not go lead on to sorrow, grief or lamentation etc if it is a painful contact. Those emotions no longer arise. They still experience vedanā at the mind base, which is not the same as cetasikañca. One is the raw experience itself with a tone (vedanā) whilst the other is the emotive and reactive side to that experience (cetasikañca). This ties into me finishing off in relation to what you said here:
So no, for Arahants the mental feelings and the physical feelings are independent, and they do not cross over into eachother, a physcal sensation cannot create a mental image. The connection between those two have been severed, as illustrated in the metaphor of the cow's skin being removed, tendons removed, and then thrown on the body again.
Your mistake seems to be in equating Kāyikañca with physical sensations only and in equating cetasikañca with vedanā, as well as defining sañña as "image" For reasons outlined above, I feel you are in error here.

I look forward to your reply

P.S.
You may have cut off other forms of sensuality, but you overcompensate into philosophical and scientific debates, just like a blind man who has overcompensated in hearing, and just like a deaf man who has overcompensated in seeing. You're overcompensating by being extra stimulated by the intellect faculty.
I disagree. Far from indulging in metaphysics, I feel I am fulfilling the Master's wishes:
(4) “And how is a person one of much learning who is intent on what he has learned? Here, someone has learned much— that is, of of the discourses, mixed prose and verse, expositions, verses, inspired utterances, quotations, birth stories, amazing accounts, and questions-and-answers—and having understood the meaning of what he has learned, and having understood the Dhamma, he practices in accordance with the Dhamma. In such a way, a person is one of much learning who is intent on what he has learned."
AN 4.6

This is all I am doing.

:anjali:
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
Post Reply