Does phassa include saññā?

Discussion
21

Sorry, this is an experiential description-

So if we wrote a theoretical or fictitious account of perception, we might say ‘the image fell on the eye, and we became conscious of it (at the eye)’. However the above sutta quite isn’t of theoretical origin- here the Buddha is giving names to experiences, along the pathway to perceive something. He experienced the separate components with its feelings, fabrications etc. It isn’t anything remarkable, and we can experience this for ourselves, now. If we think about how we become aware of a sudden noise, -there is the initial awareness followed by tighter focusing on the sound itself.

The initial awareness of the sound is the arising of the sound+ear door. The focusing is the arising of ear-consciousness. The awareness that follows is phassa, a mental event. After this identification of the sound, etc can arise. ""Eye consciousness arises dependent on the eye and sights. [that event, is followed by] The meeting of the three is contact [the meeting of the 3 is seen to be a seperate incident, from the first bit].

This can be practiced in a prolonged way in an EBT based ‘vipassana’ method of meditation.

22

I means that ‘you experience’ all three at the moment of cognition e.g. “dependant on eye and forms, eye-consciousness arises. With the union of these three is contact.” (Cakkhuñca paṭicca rūpe ca uppajjati cakkhuviññāṇaṃ. Tiṇṇaṃ saṅgati phasso) SN 12.44.

Simply, nāmarūpa is present at this ‘union of three’ with consciousness (viññāṇa), as a composite image – or recognition – of the sensate experience.

“Ayaṃ loko santāpajāto,
Phassapareto rogaṃ vadati attato;
Yena yena hi maññati,
Tato taṃ hoti aññathā.”

“This world (indicating the āyatana) is born of affliction,
Affected by contact, a disease is called ‘self’.
For however it is thought of,
It is certainly other than this.” – Ud 3.10

1 Like
23

I still don’t understand what you mean by this.

Here is how name+form is described in SN12.2:
“And what is name-&-form? Feeling, perception, intention, contact, & attention: This is called name. The four great elements, and the form dependent on the four great elements: This is called form. This name & this form are called name-&-form.”

“External” here implies outside, so presumably external nama-rupa is referring to another person.

Could you explain how somebody else’s feeling, perception, intention, contact and attention are “transferred” as “properties”, using your interpretation? And if you don’t think these mental activities belong to another person, then where do you think they are?

24

I’m not sure what you mean by nama-rupa being “present” at the meeting of the three ( phassa ).

The suttas quoted earlier in the thread ( AN 6.63 and MN18 ) show that vedana and sanna arise in dependence upon phassa. And I would have thought that intention is involved either prior to phassa, or subsequent to it ( see my next post, replying to Mat ).

Isn’t recognition the function of sanna rather than vinnana? I’m also not sure what you mean by “composite image” here.

25

By “focusing”, do you mean noticing? The noticing could be either unintentional or intentional.

Though I wonder if the noticing/focussing is phassa rather than vinnana.

1 Like
26

Others can be another human, or paranimmita-vasavatti deva, for instance. Whoever or Whatever.

In our case, a human like Picasso, (unless he was a nimmanarati deva himself, :)) is providing humans (and devas of the kama loka), with his external khandhas and their related external ayatanani.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sagga/loka.html

Picasso is providing us with his forms (painting), through the external field of sensory experience (ayatana) , that is somewhat what we call “sight”.
He is providing us with his feelings (his experience and his artistical research - vedana). He is providing us with his underlying artistical inquiries and his artistical assumptions (sanna); he is providing us with his personal artistical choices (sankhara); and he is providing us with his personal artistical personal knowledge (vinnana). All of the latter through the external ayatana that is dhamma.

And he transfers all these properties through contact; when this thing occurs in salayatana, at the level of our sense-consciousness proper.

Again refer to both definition of namarupa in this diagram.

It will make a lot more sense.
SA 298 and SN 12.2 is a rare parallel, where the two schools are not in a disagreement, but offer instead the big picture of the evolution of namarupa, when it is external, then internal.

In this context, only the khandhas in the external namarupa can be considered as “raw data” - but when they descend in salayatana, they become sensory data, through the fields of sensory experience that are the external ayatanani.
The form of Picasso canvas and painting, becomes his sensory form only when it reaches its external ayatana.
“Form” is not the really proper name of rupa (the external ayatana). It should be translated instead as “the field of sensory experience of the external khandha in the namarupa nidana, that is form”. That is to say the sensory expression of the “raw data” of the external khandha, in namarupa.
I hope this is not too hard to grasp.

However, the external ayatanani (feeling and dhamma) of Picasso, are his sensory rupa, vedana, sanna, etc.
“Not ours”.
Again what we “sense-conscious” is Picasso’s khandhas through their externel (sensory) ayatanani.
They are transfered through contact (phassa). Only then comes the appreciation & appropriation process.

Where does the inspiration of Picasso comes from is another question.

Metta.

1 Like
27

On balance ‘become aware’ might be a better choice of words. But experientially the ‘attention’ is singularly diverted to a particular sense base- which is generally termed focusing, just for a moment.

One of the main points of observing this process is that everything is causally arisen- even intention. That would be seen further down the process, of course, where sankhara (intention, among other types of sankahara) is given rise to by contact. There’s no self doing this, or indeed even, necessary.

A main point here is that vinnana or concsciousness arises and passes away, before contact arises. There is no permanent or everlasting vinnana. That is a myth- arising from improperly utilized samadhi, or samadhi for samatha purely, without balancing it with vipassana, as both a required for progressing on the meditative path to enlightenment (calm and insight both needed).

with metta

1 Like
28

Consciousness rises and falls with the saḷāyatana = ‘union of three’ where phassa is established viz. the sense-gates and their respective objects and cognition (viññāṇa) give rise to contact = the full awareness of a sense-experience is made. Nāma-rūpa rises and falls with viññāṇa – “With the arising of nāmarūpa is the arising of consciousness, with the cessation of nāmarūpa is the cessation of consciousness.” (Nāmarūpasamudayā viññāṇasamudayo, nāmarūpanirodhā viññāṇanirodho.) [SN 22.56]

Yes, saññā is sense-perception or recognition, and arises and falls with phassa (see again SN 22.56). Nāma-rūpa has these and further is the full sensate image of sense-objects (rūpa) including ideation and intention viz. vedanā, saññā, cetanā, phasso, manasikāro, (SN 12.2) as we read in Sāriputta’s catechetical instruction to Samiddhi:

‘Kimārammaṇā samiddhi, purisassa saṅkappavitakkā uppajjantīti? Nāmarūpārammaṇā bhanteti.

“Samiddhi, what is the basis for thoughts and intentions to arise in a person?

“Name and form is the basis, bhante. (AN 9.14)

1 Like
29

SN 35.82 is also a good sutta, when replacing “disintegrates” (Bodhi’s translation of lujjati), by
Lujjati: [Pass．of ruj，corresponding to Sk．rujyate -> pr. √रुज् ruj ]
√ रुज् ruj

  • to cause pain , afflict (VS.)

Eye-contact causes pain (disintegrates?). And whatever there is that arises in dependence on eye-contact—experienced as pleasure, pain or neither-pleasure-nor-pain—that too causes pain (disintegrates?).

In other words, the transfer of the external khandha (form), and its related ayatana (visual field of sensory experience), to the internal ayatana (field of sensory experience) of the eye—experienced as pleasure, pain or neither-pleasure-nor-pain—that too causes pain.

1 Like
30

I really struggle with this interpretation, and I don’t think it is supported by the suttas. A Piccaso painting is an example of visible form, in this case a static image. Eye-consciousness arises when we see the image, and that is the basis of contact.

I don’t see how Picasso’s vedana, sanna and sankharas could be directly “transferred” to us when we look at one of his paintings. We might make assumptions about Picasso’s state of mind based on our perceptions and reactions to his work, but that would be our own sanna, vedana and sankharas, not Picasso’s.

See SN35.23 for example, which clarifies that our immediate experience is just what arises at the sense bases. We don’t have a sense base which “detects” somebody else’s vedana, sanna or sankhara. We might become aware of thoughts and feelings about Picasso arising “at” our mind-base, but that is another matter - it is our stuff, not Picasso’s.

https://suttacentral.net/sn35.23/en/bodhi

See SN35.23. What we experience at the sense-bases is really derived form, ie sights, sounds, sensations, flavours and odours.

3 Likes
31

SN22.56 describes vinnana arising in dependence on nama-rupa, and not vice-versa, so I don’t think your description of nama-rupa rising and falling with vinnna is accurate.
It also depends how one interprets nama-rupa, and dependent origination generally, but perhaps it’s best not to open that can of worms here. :yum:

However SN22.56 does provide further confirmation that sanna, vedana and sankharas arise in dependence upon phassa, in other words phassa and sanna are discreet functions ( see the OP ).

32

Since phassa is the meeting of the three, wouldn’t vinnana and phassa occur simultaneously?

But I do agree that all these activities are conditional and transient.

I think that intention can precede contact. For example if we are intending to buy a particular model of car, then we are more likely to notice that model of car when out and about.

33

Again, the lexicography of the Vedic texts (before and after Buddha’s time,) gives these meanings about phassa, but also about vedana, sanna, etc.
And the progression makes perfect sense in this case. A sense that remains pretty vague and fuzzy, in the case of other “interpretations”. Viz.:

Contact, as transfer of the external khandhas, through the external sensory fields of experience (ayatana), to the internal ayatana; and the sensory-consciousness that ensues at the internal ayatana level.
Note that ayatana is a field of experience (sensory, in the case of salayatana)
Vedana as experience with the wish to know more.
Sanna as the inquiry (into that wish,) and the assumptions that ensue.
Sankhara as the choices made about these assumptions.
Vinnana as the personal knowledge that follow this or these choices.

Things could not be (lexicographically) more clear - could they ?

Why Phassa wouln’t take its Vedic meaning ? - when it seems to work so well for the other meanings.

And again, the extract of SN 35.82 above, shows that “whatever there is that arises in dependence on eye-contact — (is) experienced as pleasure, pain or neither-pleasure-nor-pain…”.

The question is, what is included in this “in dependence on contact-with-the-eye” (cakkhusamphassa) - that is later on experienced (felt) as “pleasure, pain or neither-pleasure-nor-pain” ?
Isn’t it the sense-consciousness of the external ayatanani in salayatana, (from the external khandhas in namarupa nidana)?

Please Whippet, read again the notes (and lexical references) at the end of this page, on the meaning of ayatana. Particularly while keeping in mind, the case of the (sensory) salayatana.
https://justpaste.it/18u12

We are sensorily conscious of an external sensory field of experience (ayatana).
We are here to be felt (SN 12.37).
We are just here to say “I like, I dislike, I don’t care” (“pleasure, pain or neither-pleasure-nor-pain”) about what is transfered to us. Then, and only then, we do (and should not, ) wish to know more about this simple experience (vedana), born of this transfer (phassa).
This is when sanna, the inquiry and its assumptions come along. It is at that level, and only at that level, that, in your own words, we: “make assumptions about Picasso’s state of mind based on our perceptions and reactions to his work”.

Metta

34

I think you are complicating something which is actually quite straightforward. It is clear from the suttas referenced in this thread that vedana, sanna and sankharas arise in dependence upon phassa. Phassa is the “meeting of the three”, and just means noticing “raw data” at the sense bases.

1 Like
35

Ah, ok !

36

Since you have taken the first step in opening the said can of worms :rofl:

1.sankhara paccaya vinnanam
2.vinnana paccaya nama rupam
3.nama rupa paccaya salayatanam
4.salayatana paccaya passo

1.intentions (for our purposes) gives rise to consciousness (intending to buy a car or even just see it)
2/3.consciousness is directed to the nama-rupa + sense base (seeing the car more- also establishment of consciousness, due to attachment)
4.gives rise to contact, consisting of the image of a car.
…and so on.

If you see the process of perceiving something, you see the paticcasamuppada!
There is nothing here but a factors arising and passing away, like a line of dominoes.
From afar the dominoes looks like something moving down a line, but there is nothing moving, just falling, falling, falling…

You read a poster about an art exhibhtion (nama-rupa), this prompts you to take a trip to go and see it (vinnana), then you see it (phassa). Vinnana enables seeing only at phassa, not in vinnana itself. ‘Coming together of the three’ is an action, a verb- that gives rise to the noun, that is contact.

with metta

37

No. This is why I offer the pāḷi with translated text. The phrase quoted from SN 22.56 does not mention ‘dependence’, rather these arise and cease together, in tandem. In other words viññāṇa and nāmarūpa are interdependent (aññamaññā).

I prefer the interpretation given in the suttas.

The OP has been answered.

38

Sorry but I still disagree. Samudayā means origin or source, and in this case nama-rupa is the origin or source for vinnana - but not vice-versa, so they are not interdependent in SN22.56.
SN22.56 says that vinnana arises when nama-rupa arises, and ceases when nama-rupa ceases - in other words vinnana is dependent upon nama-rupa.

39

To me this is the tricky bit. Can there be vinnana without phassa, and what does this look like, practically speaking? Both vinnana and phassa seem to describe becoming aware of something. Perhaps it’s as you suggested earlier, that phassa is when we focus in on something, really notice it. Intentionally or unintentionally.
In any case I find it is fascinating to observe this stuff!

40

Again, one has to realize that the sal-ayatana(ni) are not “objects” or “sense-gates” (as cited above), but “sensory fields of experience”. Taste is not an object, no more than tongue, in this context of fields of experience.
“Sense-consciousness” is just what it is meant to mean. Viz. consciousness of a sensory experience between an external field of sensory experience (taste), and an internal field of sensory experience (tongue).
The combination of the three is phassa; which is also the transfer of the said external field, to the internal one. Of the external field “taste”, to the internal field “tongue”, through sense-consciousness.