Do Arhats experience contact with their sixfold sense media? What about vedanā?

[Ceisiwr]

And understanding them means …

Realizing them for oneself with direct knowledge, in this very life.

You didn’t answer the question. Understanding them would mean understanding their conditionality, and none of that means that birth didn’t mean literal birth when the Buddha talked about it. When a definition is given for a word that is how we are to understand it when we read it elsewhere, given a similar context. Birth then in dependent origination means literal birth. What you understood by the word “birth” before being a Buddhist. The same for ageing and death.

[mjaviem]

You didn’t answer the question...

... “And what, bhikkhus, is birth? The birth of the various beings into the various orders of beings, their being born, descent into the womb, production, the manifestation of the aggregates, the obtaining of the sense bases. This is called birth....

... Understanding them would mean understanding their conditionality, and none of that means that birth didn’t mean literal birth when the Buddha talked about it. When a definition is given for a word that is how we are to understand it when we read it elsewhere, given a similar context. Birth then in dependent origination means literal birth. What you understood by the word “birth” before being a Buddhist. The same for ageing and death.

Understanding them is a direct realization we worldlings yet don't have. This is done in the present, is related with conceiving beings, something we worldlings love to do and involves understanding also its origin, cessation and way to its cessation. None of this implies biology. The Buddha didn't lecture about biology, he taught about the human experience. Birth in DO does not mean a biological process, it is only dependent on becoming/existence all the way up to ignorance. No genomics in that explanation of conditions leading to suffering.

[Coëmgenu]

In that sutta, he first defines old kamma, then he defines new kamma, then he defines the ending of it. His explanation of the end of it only addresses the new kamma. He says "When one reaches liberation through the cessation of bodily action, verbal action, and mental action, this is called the cessation of kamma." What was new kamma? It is said, "Whatever action one does now by body, speech, or mind. This is called new kamma."

So it seems the sutta is actually about the ending of kamma by inhibiting the generation of future kamma via the sankharas. It doesn't say that the ending of kamma is the ending of the eye. It says the three poisons end. To quote the Ireland translation of the Nibbānadhātusutta, "It is the extinction of attachment, hate, and delusion in him that is called the Nibbāna-element with residue left." There is an eye. What there isn't is attachment, hate, and delusion.

I'll be done the larger post on perception soon. Thank you for your patience.

I think we reached the point where you believe DO is about rebirth and I don't. We reached the point where you don't think the cessation of birth, becoming/existence, feeling, contact, the eye, and so on happens all right here and now while I do.

Further bhava ends. Further birth ends. Feelings, eyes, and so on, end, and their ending is known all right here and now. This is just normal Buddhism. What is different is you saying that because there is still an eye, cessation has not happened in the here and now. Ven Sariputta said "The cessation of bhava is Nibbana," but he wasn't amidst bhavanirodha when he said it. He said it after having experienced bhavanirodha, after having known it for himself, having known it all right now in his then "here and now." He had the conviction that comes from incontrovertible personal experience of the Dhamma.

As for you believing in metaphorical rebirth and me believing in rebirth ("metaphorical rebirth" was the language you used a few months ago when we spoke, or am I confusing things?), we can let the texts speak for themselves and then worry about interpretation. Certainly, scripture like the Udāna quoted here at the start of this thread is congenial to your reading of "here-and-now" where "here-and-now" necessarily excludes "with the eye present" etc. I think the Kammanirodhasutta you quoted on the cessation of kamma is more congenial to a traditional non-metaphorical rebirth paradigm and the Buddhism that flows from that. With regards to perception, from earlier:

“‘Saññā saññā’ti, āvuso, vuccati.
Kittāvatā nu kho, āvuso, saññāti vuccatī”ti?

“‘Sañjānāti sañjānātī’ti kho, āvuso, tasmā saññāti vuccati. Kiñca sañjānāti? Nīlakampi sañjānāti, pītakampi sañjānāti, lohitakampi sañjānāti, odātampi sañjānāti. Sañjānāti sañjānātī’ti kho, āvuso, tasmā saññāti vuccatī”ti.
“They speak of this thing called ‘perception’. How is perception defined?”

“It’s called perception because it perceives. And what does it perceive? It perceives blue, yellow, red, and white. It’s called perception because it perceives.”

(Mahāvedallasutta MN 43 Ven Sujāto translation)

The perception, sañña, is bare sensorial awareness of the object at its most primitive: colour (and shape of colour) and whatnot. Obviously the body does not perceive colour, so tangibles would fall under what I called "whatnot." It does not conceive/conceptualize. It, sañña, does not discriminate as to the quality of the experience either. It does not subsequently ponder and ruminate over, nor does it proliferate and make associations regarding. Earlier, you asked two questions:

1) Are you perceiving when not regarding the sky and clouds as sky and clouds?

and 2) Are you perceiving when not discriminating an idea as an idea?

To "regard as," which I take to mean "regard something as something," is to "conceive of." We've a concept of what we call the sky, and this concept is of "sky as sky." Similarly, I am not quite sure how you mean to use "discriminating" here, but if I take it as "differentiating," I get "when not differentiating one idea from another." I think you might have meant "when not conceiving of an idea as 'an idea.'" Is that wrong? How were you using "discriminate an idea?"

It says in the Madhupiṇḍika, MN 18:

yaṁ vedeti taṁ sañjānāti, yaṁ sañjānāti taṁ vitakketi, yaṁ vitakketi taṁ papañceti, yaṁ papañceti tatonidānaṁ purisaṁ papañcasaññāsaṅkhā samudācaranti atītānāgatapaccuppannesu cakkhuviññeyyesu rūpesu.
What you feel, you perceive. What you perceive, you think about. What you think about, you proliferate. What you proliferate about is the source from which a person is beset by concepts of identity that emerge from the proliferation of perceptions. This occurs with respect to sights known by the eye in the past, future, and present.

(Ven Sujāto translation)

Does that give you a satisfactory response as to why viewing sañña as bare cognition is not necessarily the same as "thinking like a biologist does?"

[Ceisiwr]

SN12.2 B. Bodhi"]... “And what, bhikkhus, is birth? The birth of the various beings into the various orders of beings, their being born, descent into the womb, production, the manifestation of the aggregates, the obtaining of the sense bases. This is called birth....

When Gotama was born, it was the birth of a being. Nothing in your quote here supports your metaphorical/psychological restriction of “birth”.

Understanding them is a direct realization we worldlings yet don't have. This is done in the present, is related with conceiving beings, something we worldlings love to do and involves understanding also its origin, cessation and way to its cessation. None of this implies biology. The Buddha didn't lecture about biology, he taught about the human experience. Birth in DO does not mean a biological process, it is only dependent on becoming/existence all the way up to ignorance. No genomics in that explanation of conditions leading to suffering.

Doesn’t involve biology?

“old age brings hoary hair, lost teeth, deteriorating health, hunched body, unsteady step, overweight body, shortness of breath, reliance on a walking cane, shrinking flesh, sagging skin, wrinkles like pockmarks, failing sense faculties, and unsightly complexion. This is reckoned to be old age.”

As you say, the Buddha talked about the human experience. Is the common human experience one where birth, as it relates to people, doesn’t mean contractions and expulsion from the womb?

[Coëmgenu]

SN12.2 B. Bodhi"]... “And what, bhikkhus, is birth? The birth of the various beings into the various orders of beings, their being born, descent into the womb, production, the manifestation of the aggregates, the obtaining of the sense bases. This is called birth....

When Gotama was born, it was the birth of a being. Nothing in your quote here supports your metaphorical/physiological restriction of “birth”.

Mjaviem is definitely free to correct me, but I think he reads the plurality of "various beings" as indicating that one person will be subject to birth as many beings over the course of "one life." It's a "one life" model, because they don't believe in "traditional rebirth." Is this wrong? The argument is based on the pluralization, no?

[mjaviem]

... you saying that because there is still an eye, cessation has not happened in the here and now.

I say the opposite: When full extinguishment happened there is no eye.

... As for you believing in metaphorical rebirth and me believing in rebirth ("metaphorical rebirth" was the language you used a few months ago when we spoke, or am I confusing things?)...

I never said that. You seem confusing things.

... The perception, sañña, is bare sensorial awareness of the object at its most primitive: colour (and shape of colour) and whatnot...

Awareness like in consciousness, like in sense-cognition? That's a different aggregate. Perception is the faculty to differentiate one thing from another. No conceptualization here either, just discrimination.

... you asked two questions:

1) Are you perceiving when not regarding the sky and clouds as sky and clouds?

and 2) Are you perceiving when not discriminating an idea as an idea?

To "regard as," which I take to mean "regard something as something," is to "conceive of." We've a concept of what we call the sky, and this concept is of "sky as sky." Similarly, I am not quite sure how you mean to use "discriminating" here, but if I take it as "differentiating," I get "when not differentiating one idea from another." I think you might have meant "when not conceiving of an idea as 'an idea.'" Is that wrong? How were you using "discriminate an idea?"
...

Yes, wrong, conceiving involves thought, that's a different aggregate again.

...
It says in the Madhupiṇḍika, MN 18:

yaṁ vedeti taṁ sañjānāti, yaṁ sañjānāti taṁ vitakketi, yaṁ vitakketi taṁ papañceti, yaṁ papañceti tatonidānaṁ purisaṁ papañcasaññāsaṅkhā samudācaranti atītānāgatapaccuppannesu cakkhuviññeyyesu rūpesu.
What you feel, you perceive. What you perceive, you think about. What you think about, you proliferate. What you proliferate about is the source from which a person is beset by concepts of identity that emerge from the proliferation of perceptions. This occurs with respect to sights known by the eye in the past, future, and present.

(Ven Sujāto translation)

Does that give you a satisfactory response as to why viewing sañña as bare cognition is not necessarily the same as "thinking like a biologist does?"

Yes, feeling, perception and thought go hand in hand. Sañña is not cognition it's perception, differentiation, discrimination.

[mjaviem]

SN12.2 B. Bodhi"]... “And what, bhikkhus, is birth? The birth of the various beings into the various orders of beings, their being born, descent into the womb, production, the manifestation of the aggregates, the obtaining of the sense bases. This is called birth....

When Gotama was born, it was the birth of a being. Nothing in your quote here supports your metaphorical/physiological restriction of “birth”.

Mjaviem is definitely free to correct me, but I think he reads the plurality of "various beings" as indicating that one person will be subject to birth as many beings over the course of "one life." It's a "one life" model, because they don't believe in "traditional rebirth." Is this wrong? The argument is based on the pluralization, no?

I know not about models. I mean only a being can be born. Coming out of the womb is just that. But when we see beings there is not just coming out of the womb, there is birth. Can you give an example of a birth of something which is not a being? And I'm not focusing in the plural.

[mjaviem]

When Gotama was born, it was the birth of a being. Nothing in your quote here supports your metaphorical/psychological restriction of “birth”.


Doesn’t involve biology?

“old age brings hoary hair, lost teeth, deteriorating health, hunched body, unsteady step, overweight body, shortness of breath, reliance on a walking cane, shrinking flesh, sagging skin, wrinkles like pockmarks, failing sense faculties, and unsightly complexion. This is reckoned to be old age.”

As you say, the Buddha talked about the human experience. Is the common human experience one where birth, as it relates to people, doesn’t mean contractions and expulsion from the womb?

Can you give an example of a birth of something which is not a being?

[Ceisiwr]

When Gotama was born, it was the birth of a being. Nothing in your quote here supports your metaphorical/psychological restriction of “birth”.


Doesn’t involve biology?

“old age brings hoary hair, lost teeth, deteriorating health, hunched body, unsteady step, overweight body, shortness of breath, reliance on a walking cane, shrinking flesh, sagging skin, wrinkles like pockmarks, failing sense faculties, and unsightly complexion. This is reckoned to be old age.”

As you say, the Buddha talked about the human experience. Is the common human experience one where birth, as it relates to people, doesn’t mean contractions and expulsion from the womb?

Can you give an example of a birth of something which is not a being?

Birth of a nation. Why?

[mjaviem]

Birth of a nation. Why?

Excellent example. You probably know there are no nations in reality. Only something conceived, such as a nation can be born. Have you got another example?

[Ceisiwr]

Birth of a nation. Why?

Excellent example. You probably know there are no nations in reality. Only something conceived, such as a nation can be born. Have you got another example?

We could go on for sometime this way. It would be better for you to state your argument.

[Coëmgenu]

I never said that. You seem confusing things.

I'm sorry. It was AlexBrains92, not you, who used that specific language. I'll get to responding to the rest in a few.

[mjaviem]

Birth of a nation. Why?

Excellent example. You probably know there are no nations in reality. Only something conceived, such as a nation can be born. Have you got another example?

We could go on for sometime this way. It would be better for you to state your argument.

Birth only happens to beings but the Buddha found a way to stop conceiving beings, he fund a way to see things as they really are. By ending the delusion of beings, the delusions of birth, ageing-and-death are ended. So it is becoming, feeling, contact, mentality-materiality, consciousness, etc. All this which can only happen to beings is ended with the very ending of delusion right here and now, like when blowing out a fire, all the resulting suffering is ended.

[Ceisiwr]

Birth only happens to beings but the Buddha found a way to stop conceiving beings, he fund a way to see things as they really are. By ending the delusion of beings, the delusions of birth, ageing-and-death are ended. So it is becoming, feeling, contact, mentality-materiality, consciousness, etc. All this which can only happen to beings is ended with the very ending of delusion right here and now, like when blowing out a fire, all the resulting suffering is ended.

Birth only happens to beings, yes. I did say this previously. Nothing in that means that birth in dependent origination is psychological, or that the Buddha didn’t experience sañña & vedanā.

[Ceisiwr]

This Sanskrit fragment is interesting

“Birth is suffering, old age is suffering, sickness is suffering, death is suffering; separation from the loved is suffering, association with the unloved is suffering; not getting what you want when you search for it is suffering; in brief, the five grasping aggregates are suffering. For the final knowledge of this the noble eightfold path should be developed.

“What is the noble truth of the origin of suffering?

“Craving that gives rise to future existence, which, together with delight and lust, delights here and there. For the abandoning of that the noble eightfold path should be developed.

“What is the noble truth of the cessation of suffering?

“The remainderless abandoning, relinquishment, destroying, ending, fading, cessation, stilling, and finishing of that very same craving that gives rise to future existence, which together with delight and lust, delights here and there. For the witnessing of that the noble eightfold path should be developed.

“What is the noble truth of the way of practice that leads to the cessation of suffering?

“The noble eightfold path, that is to say: right view, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right samādhi. That should be developed.”

https://suttacentral.net/sf259/en/sujato

Which makes sense, since the Buddha taught

“Birth is ended; the spiritual journey has been completed; what had to be done has been done; there is no return to any state of existence.”

Which we can rephrase as

"The formation of the aggregates and the development of the life faculties which is the condition for ageing, declining of health, getting ill, suffering and dying via the termination of the life faculty is ended; what had to be done has been done; there is now no return to any state of future existence.”