Ignorance as a dependently arisen condition.

[Ceisiwr]

That's what I'm asking; if that's what it means.

I’ve always read it not as contacting ignorance but rather contact under ignorance, which is to crave and cling when there is contact. The opposite then is wise contact, where we don’t crave and cling what is contacted.

Yes, that makes sense. I guess that also makes ignorance something like "not knowing the way things are". Because if we did, we wouldn't cling.

Yes, and in part this is why ignorance is impermanent. It ceases when there is understanding (panna).

[Ceisiwr]

Thanks, though I would like to see if wise contact is in the Nikayas. You know I like Ajahn Buddhadasa's talks and he talks about ignorant-contact and wise-contact many times but I have never read a sutta about wise contact. I understand that the wise thing is the cessation of contact. Contact is to be regarded like a skinned cow like in the Son's flesh sutta. So I'd like to read more about it.

Thinking about it I don’t think you see the exact phrase as you do in the sutra. It’s usually worded differently, such as having understanding or having wisdom regarding contact, feelings etc. That the same as saying wisdom contact, which we find in the northern canon.

[mjaviem]

I’ve always read it not as contacting ignorance but rather contact under ignorance, which is to crave and cling when there is contact. The opposite then is wise contact, where we don’t crave and cling what is contacted.

Yes, that makes sense. I guess that also makes ignorance something like "not knowing the way things are". Because if we did, we wouldn't cling.

Yes, and in part this is why ignorance is impermanent. It ceases when there is understanding (panna).

It ceases when there is no nutriment as in the sutta I quoted unlike the similar quotation made from the Visuddhimagga.

[mjaviem]

Thinking about it I don’t think you see the exact phrase as you do in the sutra. It’s usually worded differently, such as having understanding or having wisdom regarding contact, feelings etc. That the same as saying wisdom contact, which we find in the northern canon.

[Ceisiwr]

Yes, that makes sense. I guess that also makes ignorance something like "not knowing the way things are". Because if we did, we wouldn't cling.

Yes, and in part this is why ignorance is impermanent. It ceases when there is understanding (panna).

It ceases when there is no nutriment as in the sutta I quoted unlike the similar quotation made from the Visuddhimagga.

If I’m ignorant about Swedish history then learn Swedish history, my ignorance about Swedish history has ceased. Now there is understanding of Swedish history. The hindrances sustain ignorance by blocking vision, thus preventing understanding (panna) which abolishes ignorance.

[sunnat]

Knowing and seeing the senses, sense objects, sense-consciousness, sense-contact and whatever feelings, pleasant unpleasant or neither unpleasant nor pleasant born of sense-contact as constantly changing and hence not-I, the latent tendency (anusaya) of ignorance fades and knowledge arises.

[santa100]

In addition, what do you think is meant by the term avijjāsamphassajena (born by means of contact with ignorance)?

Ven. Bodhi's note from "Connected Discourses":

I interpret this whole passage as a demonstration of how the new kammically active phase of existence commences through the renewal of conceiving in terms of the notion “I am” and speculative views of selfhood. Spk identifies “mind” (mano) with the kamma-mind (kammamano) and “mental phenomena” (dhamma) with its objects, or the former as the bhavanga and adverting consciousness. Ignorance-contact (avijjasamphassa) is the contact associated with ignorance (avijjasampayuttaphassa). Ignorance is the most fundamental condition underlying this process, and when this is activated by feeling it gives rise to the notion “I am” (a manifestation of craving and conceit). The idea “I am this” arises subsequently, when the vacuous “I” is given a content by being identified with one or another of the five aggregates. Finally, full eternalist and annihilationist views originate when the imagined self is held either to survive death or to undergo destruction at death. This passage thus presents us with an alternative version of dependent origination, where the “way of regarding things” and the notion “I am” belong to the causally active side of the past existence; the five faculties to the resultant side of the present existence; and the recurrence of the notion “I am” to the causal side of the present existence. This will in turn generate renewed existence in the future.

[Jack19990101]

Contact with ignorance, it means Entangled with a specific wrong view, or an unexamined assumption.

In first phase, the assumption "form is self", is the specific wrong view.
then onward, each phase has a different wrong view.
Followed by Buddha's teaching on each wrong view is sankhara.

[justindesilva]

That's what I'm asking; if that's what it means.

I’ve always read it not as contacting ignorance but rather contact under ignorance, which is to crave and cling when there is contact. The opposite then is wise contact, where we don’t crave and cling what is contacted.

Yes, that makes sense. I guess that also makes ignorance something like "not knowing the way things are". Because if we did, we wouldn't cling.

Like a carpenter ignorant of his creation , we try to project our image as a person with a permanent self. Yet untrue as of anatta lakkhana sutta . That we are a minute part of a whole system cannot be denied. We are a relativity truly hence dependant on all others that relies on metta . Ignorance or avijja does not allow us to realise this truth which is explained by dukka, reasons for dukka, cessation of dukka with cessstion of dukka. Eight fold noble truth is the only path for salvation has to be realised.
We crave for our own image of a self projected through our own vingnana.

[Sam Vara]

....

Thanks santa!

[Sam Vara]

I’ve always read it not as contacting ignorance but rather contact under ignorance, which is to crave and cling when there is contact. The opposite then is wise contact, where we don’t crave and cling what is contacted.

Yes, that makes sense. I guess that also makes ignorance something like "not knowing the way things are". Because if we did, we wouldn't cling.

Like a carpenter ignorant of his creation , we try to project our image as a person with a permanent self. Yet untrue as of anatta lakkhana sutta . That we are a minute part of a whole system cannot be denied. We are a relativity truly hence dependant on all others that relies on metta . Ignorance or avijja does not allow us to realise this truth which is explained by dukka, reasons for dukka, cessation of dukka with cessstion of dukka. Eight fold noble truth is the only path for salvation has to be realised.
We crave for our own image of a self projected through our own vingnana.

Thank you, that's a helpful analogy.

[Bundokji]

I understand contact with ignorance to be an intuition, that the cessation of ignorance has to be through maintaining contact.

[pegembara]

And what is the nutriment for ignorance? It should be said: the five hindrances. The five hindrances, too, I say, have a nutriment; they are not without nutriment. And what is the nutriment for the five hindrances? It should be said: the three kinds of misconduct. The three kinds of misconduct, too, I say, have a nutriment; they are not without nutriment. And what is the nutriment for the three kinds of misconduct? It should be said: non-restraint of the sense faculties. Non-restraint of the sense faculties, too, I say, has a nutriment; it is not without nutriment. And what is the nutriment for non-restraint of the sense faculties? It should be said: lack of mindfulness and clear comprehension. Lack of mindfulness and clear comprehension, too, I say, has a nutriment; it is not without nutriment. And what is the nutriment for lack of mindfulness and clear comprehension? It should be said: careless attention. Careless attention, too, I say, has a nutriment; it is not without nutriment. And what is the nutriment for careless attention? It should be said: lack of faith. Lack of faith, too, I say, has a nutriment; it is not without nutriment. And what is the nutriment for lack of faith? It should be said: not hearing the good Dhamma. Not hearing the good Dhamma, too, I say, has a nutriment; it is not without nutriment. And what is the nutriment for not hearing the good Dhamma? It should be said: not associating with good persons.

That is why this is the starting point of the great blessings.

"Many deities and men, yearning after good, have pondered on blessings.[4] Pray, tell me the greatest blessing!"

[The Buddha:]

"Not to associate with the foolish,[5] but to associate with the wise; and to honor those who are worthy of honor — this is the greatest blessing.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .nara.html

[Ontheway]

And what is the nutriment for ignorance? It should be said: the five hindrances. The five hindrances, too, I say, have a nutriment; they are not without nutriment. And what is the nutriment for the five hindrances? It should be said: the three kinds of misconduct. The three kinds of misconduct, too, I say, have a nutriment; they are not without nutriment. And what is the nutriment for the three kinds of misconduct? It should be said: non-restraint of the sense faculties. Non-restraint of the sense faculties, too, I say, has a nutriment; it is not without nutriment. And what is the nutriment for non-restraint of the sense faculties? It should be said: lack of mindfulness and clear comprehension. Lack of mindfulness and clear comprehension, too, I say, has a nutriment; it is not without nutriment. And what is the nutriment for lack of mindfulness and clear comprehension? It should be said: careless attention. Careless attention, too, I say, has a nutriment; it is not without nutriment. And what is the nutriment for careless attention? It should be said: lack of faith. Lack of faith, too, I say, has a nutriment; it is not without nutriment. And what is the nutriment for lack of faith? It should be said: not hearing the good Dhamma. Not hearing the good Dhamma, too, I say, has a nutriment; it is not without nutriment. And what is the nutriment for not hearing the good Dhamma? It should be said: not associating with good persons.

That is why this is the starting point of the great blessings.

"Many deities and men, yearning after good, have pondered on blessings.[4] Pray, tell me the greatest blessing!"

[The Buddha:]

"Not to associate with the foolish,[5] but to associate with the wise; and to honor those who are worthy of honor — this is the greatest blessing.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .nara.html

Good finding !

[Cause_and_Effect]

The sutra parallel does...

https://suttacentral.net/sa45/en/smith? ... ight=false

Thanks, though I would like to see if wise contact is in the Nikayas. You know I like Ajahn Buddhadasa's talks and he talks about ignorant-contact and wise-contact many times but I have never read a sutta about wise contact.

Yes you have, you just haven't realized it is everywhere in the Canon.
Wise contact is contact where there is mindfulness and bringing perceptions of inconstancy etc i.e bringing the knowledge of the teaching.