sense bases disappear ?

[Ceisiwr]

That is not so , consciousness still arises . But it doesnt get polluted anymore .

For Buddhas and Arahants consciousness never arises again after they have died.

No ? You are talking in this life , surely in this life , consciousness still functioning , no ?

Consciousness still functions for Buddhas and Arahants whilst alive, yes. It has ignorance and kamma as prior root conditions.

[cappuccino]

Consciousness still functions for Buddhas and Arahants whilst alive, yes.

Consciousness without feature,
without end,
luminous all around:
Here water, earth, fire, & wind
have no footing.

Kevatta Sutta

[Ceisiwr]

Rather when ignorance is gone the rest of the links can never arise again.

How is this practically different from the nidanas ceasing when ignorance ceases, which is what the DO suttas actually say?

The suttas say that when x doesn't exist, y cannot exist. When there is no birth, death cannot come to be. You can't die without first being born. If you are never born, you never die.

"When this does not exist, that does not come to be; with the cessation of this, that ceases." - SN 12.62

The difference is in upon awakening the Buddha being free from emotional pain now, and all mental & physical bare pain at death vs the Buddha being free from emotional pain and mental & physical bare pain during life. On the first reading the Buddha would still be walking around the place, talking to people and getting back pain. On the second reading Buddhas and Arahants simply vanish upon awakening, which begs the question of how we even know about Buddhas and Dhamma to begin with.

[Ceisiwr]

Here the faculties are shown to be part of dependent origination

And what is old age and death? The old age, decrepitude, broken teeth, grey hair, wrinkly skin, diminished vitality, and failing faculties of the various sentient beings in the various orders of sentient beings. This is called old age. The passing away, perishing, disintegration, demise, mortality, death, decease, breaking up of the aggregates, and laying to rest of the corpse of the various sentient beings in the various orders of sentient beings. This is called death. Such is old age, and such is death. This is called old age and death.

https://suttacentral.net/sn12.33/en/suj ... ript=latin

[Ceisiwr]

Here we are told the awakened ones still experience the saḷāyatana.

At Savatthi. “Bhikkhus, these six bases for contact—if untamed, unguarded, unprotected, unrestrained—are bringers of suffering. What six?

“The eye, bhikkhus, as a base for contact—if untamed, unguarded, unprotected, unrestrained—is a bringer of suffering. The ear as a base for contact … The mind as a base for contact … is a bringer of suffering. These six bases for contact—if untamed, unguarded, unprotected, unrestrained—are bringers of suffering.

“Bhikkhus, these six bases for contact—if well tamed, well guarded, well protected, well restrained—are bringers of happiness. What six?

“The eye, bhikkhus, as a base for contact—if well tamed, well guarded, well protected, well restrained—is a bringer of happiness. The ear as a base for contact … The mind as a base for contact … is a bringer of happiness. These six bases for contact—if well tamed, well guarded, well protected, well restrained—are bringers of happiness.”

This is what the Blessed One said. Having said this, the Fortunate One, the Teacher, further said this:

“Just six, O bhikkhus, are the bases for contact,
Where one unrestrained meets with suffering.
Those who know how to restrain them
Dwell uncorrupted, with faith their partner.

“Having seen forms that delight the mind
And having seen those that give no delight,
Dispel the path of lust towards the delightful
And do not soil the mind by thinking,
‘The other is displeasing to me.’

“Having heard sounds both pleasant and raucous,
Do not be enthralled with pleasant sound.
Dispel the course of hate towards the raucous,
And do not soil the mind by thinking,
‘This one is displeasing to me.’

“Having smelt a fragrant, delightful scent,
And having smelt a putrid stench,
Dispel aversion towards the stench
And do not yield to desire for the lovely.

“Having enjoyed a sweet delicious taste,
And having sometimes tasted what is bitter,
Do not greedily enjoy the sweet taste,
Do not feel aversion towards the bitter.

“When touched by pleasant contact do not be enthralled,
Do not tremble when touched by pain.
Look evenly on both the pleasant and painful,
Not drawn or repelled by anything.

“When common people of proliferated perception
Perceive and proliferate they become engaged.
Having dispelled every mind-state bound to the home life,
One travels on the road of renunciation.

“When the mind is thus well developed in six,
If touched, one’s mind never flutters anywhere.
Having vanquished both lust and hate, O bhikkhus,
Go to the far shore beyond birth and death!”

https://suttacentral.net/sn35.94/en/bod ... ight=false

[Coëmgenu]

Here we are told the awakened ones still experience the saḷāyatana.

...

https://suttacentral.net/sn35.94/en/bod ... ight=false

Also phassa, according to that excerpt.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Ceisiwr,

For the PTS Dictionary the 6 āyatana then are the sense organs. The eye, ear and so on. If we were to make the āyatana and indriya into two separate and distinct things, it would be with the āyatana as the sense organ of the eye and the indriya as the vision.

Your analysis assumes that they are both extant things. Alternatively...

The eye indriya is the "faculty of seeing" - the ability to see. It is common to puthujjanas, sekhas and Buddhas alike, unless they are blind.

The salayatana is the bifurcation of "the seen" into a subject (internal sense-base) and an object (external sense-base) (despite the warnings from MN1, Ud 1.10 etc.). It is the standard mode of (wrong) comprehension for the puthujjana, it is something to be avoided by the sekha, and it is an activity that has ceased for the arahant with the cessation of avijja - henceforth it is known for the arahant as salayatananirodha.

The former is dependent upon heat and vitality, thus outside of the avijja-based causality of paticcasamuppada. It is an extant thing.

The latter is dependent upon prior nidanas, and essentially rooted in avijja. It is therefore a delusion - not an extant thing.

And as you know, having followed this topic throughout - all of the above is based on sutta, whether you agree with the assembly and categorization or not.

If I dare be so bold, having spent significant time reading your perspectives, I think the fundamental differential between how you see things versus how I see things, is that I regards all of the products of paticcasamuppada as delusional (i.e. not extant things) whereas you regard them as extant things and events. Having seen what you've seen of my posts, would you agree, more or less, with that assessment?

You have misunderstood the implications of the sutta I quoted.

Not misunderstood. I understand that you delineate these terms as you have described above, and that I delineate these terms as I describe above. Thus, when SN 48.26 is read, it inevitably means different things to each of us. I therefore haven't misunderstood the implications, and I understand fully well that these are the implications you would reasonably draw, having first delineated the salayatana and indriyani as you have done. Personally, I don't understand how you manage to tuck MN 43 away, in order to sustain the aforementioned delineations, but that's not my issue to resolve.

Thank you for the remainder of your post, which I'll take as noted, and as containing nothing of any real surprise or note beyond what's been addressed in this topic. The civilized nature of the discourse is appreciated.

Metta,
Paul.

[Ceisiwr]

Your analysis assumes that they are both extant things.

I think the Buddha thought that birth, ageing, sickness and death were facts of nature, as it were, yes. I don't think he thought those things were just ignorantly fabricated ideas, no. Rather he saw them as truths.

“Mendicants, these four things are real, not unreal, not otherwise. What four? ‘This is suffering’ … ‘This is the origin of suffering’ … ‘This is the cessation of suffering’ … ‘This is the practice that leads to the cessation of suffering’ … These four things are real, not unreal, not otherwise. That’s why you should practice meditation …” - SN 56.20

Birth is suffering. It is real, not unreal, not otherwise. Ageing is suffering. It is real, not unreal, not otherwise. Now of course the labels are concepts. The 4 great elements are a concept and as a concept they are now, in our age, quite clumsy. Today we have better, more refined concepts. What the concept of the 4 great elements were referring to though is real, namely the physical aspect of our human existence. Today we no longer apply the Iron Age scheme of the 4 elements to it. Instead we apply the concepts of byronic matter, but the referent is still the same. Your physical form. The idea is still the same too. That is your physical form is dependent, not independent. It is suffering, not sukha. It is empty, not an atta. The same for the saḷāyatana. They are real, not unreal, not otherwise. They are not ignorantly fabricated ideas which disappear upon awakening. They are factual aspects of our existence. Natural phenomena which arise and fall according to conditions.

Alternatively...

The eye indriya is the "faculty of seeing" - the ability to see. It is common to puthujjanas, sekhas and Buddhas alike, unless they are blind.

The salayatana is the bifurcation of "the seen" into a subject (internal sense-base) and an object (external sense-base) (despite the warnings from MN1, Ud 1.10 etc.). It is the standard mode of (wrong) comprehension for the puthujjana, it is something to be avoided by the sekha, and it is an activity that has ceased for the arahant with the cessation of avijja - henceforth it is known for the arahant as salayatananirodha.

Ok, well we have the ability to see because of an eye no? The cakkhuāyatana is the eye sense base, or the eye organ. This too is common to all, if they are healthy. The āyatana in the 12-links is just the internal āyatana, so in the 12-link scheme there is no "bifurcation" into sense base and object. Of course though, the internal āyatana do contact their respective objects in the world. This "bifurcation" however isn't the problem. The problem is in the craving and clinging to those sense objects which are contacting the internal āyatana, and are cognised by the mind. That is the problem. You refer us to MN 1, but I don't see how that supports your view. The worldly person perceives "earth" and then conceives a self in relation to it. In comparison the awakened doesn't simply perceive "earth". He knows earth. He understands it, and so does not conceive a self in relation to it. None of that means the worldly person ignorantly fabricates a sense base and external object, whilst an awakened person experiences no sense base nor an external object. I don't see how Ud 1.10 helps either since there is still a "seen" being experienced. There is still contact going on with a sense object, experienced by an eye etc. What that teaching about is perfecting sense-restraint when we cognise external objects at each base.

The former [indriya] is dependent upon heat and vitality, thus outside of the avijja-based causality of paticcasamuppada. It is an extant thing.

The latter [āyatana] is dependent upon prior nidanas, and essentially rooted in avijja. It is therefore a delusion - not an extant thing.

When we look at MN 121 it talks in the same language as MN 43, but instead of indriya it speaks of the saḷāyatana. In other words, the Sangha used the terms interchangeably. Being dependent upon heat and vitality doesn't mean this is some dependent scheme being referred to that is outside of paṭiccasamuppāda. Your heat is part of rūpa in nāmarūpa, and one cannot age, get sick and die without having life. Both are part of paṭiccasamuppāda.

If I dare be so bold, having spent significant time reading your perspectives, I think the fundamental differential between how you see things versus how I see things, is that I regards all of the products of paticcasamuppada as delusional (i.e. not extant things) whereas you regard them as extant things and events. Having seen what you've seen of my posts, would you agree, more or less, with that assessment?

That would be one disagreement, but I think more it has to do with what words mean in the Dhamma and how to read suttas.

Not misunderstood. I understand that you delineate these terms as you have described above, and that I delineate these terms as I describe above. Thus, when SN 48.26 is read, it inevitably means different things to each of us. I therefore haven't misunderstood the implications, and I understand fully well that these are the implications you would reasonably draw, having first delineated the salayatana and indriyani as you have done. Personally, I don't understand how you manage to tuck MN 43 away, in order to sustain the aforementioned delineations, but that's not my issue to resolve.

What does SN 48.26 mean to you then? It talks about insight into the faculties as being part of the insight that makes one a sotāpanna. One becomes a sotāpanna by having insight into paṭiccasamuppāda, no?

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Ceisiwr,

I think the Buddha thought that birth, ageing, sickness and death were facts of nature, as it were, yes. I don't think he thought those things were just ignorantly fabricated ideas, no.

Except that all those things require a referent and make no sense in the absence of one. The prior nidana explain how the referrent comes to be iteratively and ignorantly fabricated.

Rather he saw them as truths.

“Mendicants, these four things are real, not unreal, not otherwise. What four? ‘This is suffering’ … ‘This is the origin of suffering’ … ‘This is the cessation of suffering’ … ‘This is the practice that leads to the cessation of suffering’ … These four things are real, not unreal, not otherwise. That’s why you should practice meditation …” - SN 56.20

That's the Four Noble Truths. No one is denying the veracity of dukkha, samudaya, nirodha and magga. Specifically as it pertains here, no one is denying "arising"... we are just in disagreement on the nature of the arisen, and consequently, how the arisen ceases.

Now of course the labels are concepts.

Just a quick interjection at this point to confirm that what I'm speaking about isn't the Abhidhammic dichotomy of paññatti (concept) and paramattha (reality). I appreciate your responses, and wouldn't want you to be inadvertently responding to what was not said or intended.

The eye indriya is the "faculty of seeing" - the ability to see. It is common to puthujjanas, sekhas and Buddhas alike, unless they are blind.

The salayatana is the bifurcation of "the seen" into a subject (internal sense-base) and an object (external sense-base) (despite the warnings from MN1, Ud 1.10 etc.). It is the standard mode of (wrong) comprehension for the puthujjana, it is something to be avoided by the sekha, and it is an activity that has ceased for the arahant with the cessation of avijja - henceforth it is known for the arahant as salayatananirodha.

Ok, well we have the ability to see because of an eye no? The cakkhuāyatana is the eye sense base, or the eye organ. This too is common to all, if they are healthy.

We see because of an eye, but per what I just said above re: indriya vs salayatana, I don't equate cakkhuāyatana with an actual eye.

The āyatana in the 12-links is just the internal āyatana, so in the 12-link scheme there is no "bifurcation" into sense base and object.

No, it's that the "object" has already been hived off and designated as eye-consciousness. Salayatana arises in dependence upon having done so, and (deludedly) affirming internal-sense bases, distinct from and in opposition to it.

Your heat is part of rūpa in nāmarūpa

You already know I think that's awfully spurious. I won't relitigate the point, so as to not tread old ground.

one cannot age, get sick and die without having life. Both are part of paṭiccasamuppāda.

I note the referrent (i.e. "one") and that your assertion cannot be meaningfully (let alone un-awkwardly) made without one.

What does SN 48.26 mean to you then?

To me, it's like a heavily abbreviated version of MN 152 which we've discussed at length previously.

It talks about insight into the faculties as being part of the insight that makes one a sotāpanna. One becomes a sotāpanna by having insight into paṭiccasamuppāda, no?

It is... which is "arising" and "cessation" (i.e. the 2nd and 3rd Noble Truths).

The "arising" is the gratification via paticcasamuppada.

The drawback is knowing the "arising" of dependently originated things, and the dukkha therein.

The escape is "cessation" nirdoha, via magga.

The "origin, ending" of the indriyana is as per MN 43... not via paṭiccasamuppāda.

Metta,
Paul.

[Coëmgenu]

The Tathāgata, who has by himself become enlightened of this, who has attained the highest enlightenment, declares it for humankind, teaches it, reveals it, namely: Conditioned by birth, there exist aging-sickness-death-sorrow-affliction-suffering. “All these dharmas are the status of dharma, the standing of dharma, the suchness of dharma; the dharma neither departs from things-as-they-are, nor differs from things-as-they-are; it is the truth, reality, without distortion. Such conformity to conditioned genesis is called the dharmas arisen by causal condition, namely: Ignorance, activities, consciousness, name-and-form, the six sense-spheres, contact, feeling, craving, attachment, becoming, birth, aging-sickness-death-sorrow-affliction-suffering. This is called the dharmas arisen by causal condition.

(Saṁyuktāgama Sūtra No. 296 as translated by Choong Mun-keat)

This isn't my favourite translation, but it communicates what it needs to. Aging and death, the sense bases, etc., are "the status of dharma, the standing of dharma," and "the suchness of dharma." They "neither depart from things-as-they-are, nor differ from things-as-they-are." They are "the truth, reality, without distortion." Even ignorance, in it's way, is "true," but is not the same order of truth as "birth, aging, sickness, death, sorrow, affliction, and suffering." A very good sūtra, IMO, and one with a lot of details to unpack.

[asahi]

When one begins learning dhamma with wrong understanding , then the following will just be astrayed .
Inventing a new concept that Phassa is contact between "me and things" is simply wrong headed and undoubtedly fallacious .

[Ceisiwr]

Except that all those things require a referent and make no sense in the absence of one. The prior nidana explain how the referrent comes to be iteratively and ignorantly fabricated.

Do you mean an atta here? I don't think you need an atta for there to be a literal birth, ageing, sickness and death.

That's the Four Noble Truths. No one is denying the veracity of dukkha, samudaya, nirodha and magga. Specifically as it pertains here, no one is denying "arising"... we are just in disagreement on the nature of the arisen, and consequently, how the arisen ceases

If the 4 Noble Truths are true, the saḷāyatana are also true.

Just a quick interjection at this point to confirm that what I'm speaking about isn't the Abhidhammic dichotomy of paññatti (concept) and paramattha (reality). I appreciate your responses, and wouldn't want you to be inadvertently responding to what was not said or intended.

I didn't think you were.

We see because of an eye, but per what I just said above re: indriya vs salayatana, I don't equate cakkhuāyatana with an actual eye.

If the cakkhu faculty is vision, what is the cakkhuāyatana and just where in the Buddhas teachings is the actual eye?

No, it's that the "object" has already been hived off and designated as eye-consciousness. Salayatana arises in dependence upon having done so, and (deludedly) affirming internal-sense bases, distinct from and in opposition to it.

Eye-consciousness is the external object? What does the meeting of 3 entail then?

You already know I think that's awfully spurious. I won't relitigate the point, so as to not tread old ground.

Fire is part of rūpa in nāmarūpa. Nāmarūpa is different for you and I. Both of us have heat as part of our rūpa. The sutta in question is also talking about personal heat.

I note the referrent (i.e. "one") and that your assertion cannot be meaningfully (let alone un-awkwardly) made without one.

You don't need an atta for there to be life.

To me, it's like a heavily abbreviated version of MN 152 which we've discussed at length previously

It is... which is "arising" and "cessation" (i.e. the 2nd and 3rd Noble Truths).

The "arising" is the gratification via paticcasamuppada.

The drawback is knowing the "arising" of dependently originated things, and the dukkha therein.

The escape is "cessation" nirdoha, via magga.

The "origin, ending" of the indriyana is as per MN 43... not via paṭiccasamuppāda.

This is quite messy. The sutta doesn't say arising = arising of gratification. It says the faculties origin, ending, gratification, drawback and escape. The arising is the arising of the faculties themselves. The cessation is their ending. The gratification is in their pleasurable aspects, whilst they persist. The drawback is their impermanence, and so dukkha, whilst the escape is detachment. This is talking about the faculties in terms of paṭiccasamuppāda. Paṭiccasamuppāda isn't just about the arising of gratification. What this sutta means is that the 6 faculties are part of paṭiccasamuppāda. Via insight into the conditionality of these dhammas, the meditator becomes a sotāpanna. One doesn't become a sotāpanna via insight into non-paṭiccasamuppāda related dhammas.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Ceisiwr,

Except that all those things require a referent and make no sense in the absence of one. The prior nidana explain how the referrent comes to be iteratively and ignorantly fabricated.

Do you mean an atta here?

Or more precisely, perhaps... asmi. In other words, the sense or belief that "I am" that is applicable for all non-arahants. That delusion does not come from nowhere. As I said above "the referrent comes to be iteratively and ignorantly fabricated" - hence, it arises via paticcasamuppada, as a dependently originated thing (paṭiccasamuppanne).

If the 4 Noble Truths are true, the saḷāyatana are also true.

False. The noble truth of arising (samudaya) is truth, but arisen things (paṭiccasamuppanne) are deluded fabrications.

This is why SN 12.20 opens with the line "Monks, I will teach you dependent co-arising (paticcasamuppada) & dependently co-arisen phenomena (paṭiccasamuppanne). Listen & pay close attention. I will speak"... before concluding with...

When a disciple of the noble ones has seen well with right discernment this dependent co-arising & these dependently co-arisen phenomena as they have come to be, it is not possible that he would run after the past, thinking, 'Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what was I in the past?' or that he would run after the future, thinking, 'Shall I be in the future? Shall I not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future? Having been what, what shall I be in the future?' or that he would be inwardly perplexed about the immediate present, thinking, 'Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where is it bound?' Such a thing is not possible. Why is that? Because the disciple of the noble ones has seen well with right discernment this dependent co-arising & these dependently co-arisen phenomena as they have come to be."

Note the role of "I" as a referrent in all of the above, which does not occur to whom there is no confusion about jati.

Thus, the truth of arising is "this regularity of the Dhamma, this orderliness of the Dhamma, this this/that conditionality" (SN 12.20)... not paṭiccasamuppanne such as salayatana. You err in conflating the two.

If the cakkhu faculty is vision, what is the cakkhuāyatana

This was explained above.

and just where in the Buddhas teachings is the actual eye?

Where eye is said, neither in the context of salayatana, nor as part of any compound (e.g. dhamma-eye) then it may be referring to "the actual eye", but again, you'd need to ascertain the context. Unsurprisingly to me, it's not a core teaching of the Buddha, but if you have a sutta to bring forth, by all means do and we'll take a look.

Eye-consciousness is the external object?

Yes. As was said earlier in this topic...

The consciousness of eye-consciousness is called viññāṇa because it discriminates - the prefix vi implies two, as per the Latin word bi and -jñā implies knowledge. Per PTS, "it arises through the mutual relation of sense and sense-object"... so it can be explained as the discrimination of an object, i.e. a fabricated dhamma, i.e. a phenomena, from the raw sensory data enabled by the eye-faculty.

What does the meeting of 3 entail then?

This was explained in another recent topic.

The sutta doesn't say arising = arising of gratification.

If doesn't need to... it's craving, which is often used in the suttas as shorthand for the arising of dukkha. For example...

"And this, monks, is the noble truth of the origination of stress: the craving that makes for further becoming — accompanied by passion & delight, relishing now here & now there — i.e., craving for sensual pleasure, craving for becoming, craving for non-becoming.

What this sutta means is that the 6 faculties are part of paṭiccasamuppāda.

That is your conclusion yes, and as you already know, that who are disinclined towards "the three lifetime model" already hold grave reservations about its inability to account for the here-and-now nirodha of the arahant, who still maintains heat and vitality, along with the eye-faculty. To avoid needless repetition, it's probably not worth relitigating unless anything new can be brought to the table.

Metta,
Paul.

[asahi]

Here is retro given on :

1. The eye indriya is the "faculty of seeing" - the ability to see.
2. The eye vinnana is the discrimination of an eye object .
3. Eye vinnana happens is enabled by eye indriya or ability to see .

Of course , imo , he really misconstrued the Buddha teachings . However , that is to my commiseration though , because it seems is a helpless situation .

[retrofuturist]

Greetings asahi,

Of course , imo , he really misconstrued the Buddha teachings . However , that is to my commiseration though , because it seems is a helpless situation .

It seems your only contribution to this topic now is to tell me in different ways that I do not understand. It's a bit boring to be honest, so let's mix it up a bit.

Three weeks ago when you started this topic you clearly didn't know all the answers, so you asked...

In the dependent arising , the cessation of namarupa comes to cessation of sense bases . How do you understand this , the sense bases disappear right there ? Or it means something else . Following that , cessation of contact .

Since apparently you know all the answers now, such that you can heckle mindlessly from the sidelines, how would you answer your own questions that you posed when you didn't understand everything three weeks ago?

Or are you merely discharging your discontent now at explanations that make you feel uncomfortable or challenged?

Let's find out. Enlighten us, oh asahi!

Metta,
Paul.