It’s best to stick to Pali terms to avoid confusion. Feelings for example could mean anything.
What “Pali terms”?
Translators or dictionaries’ terms !?!?
That’ pretty reductive to the sole EBTs, with common parallels (and much redundancies).
When that is not just plain subjective interpretation on the part of the translator.
Better look also, at what the roots of these terms meant in the texts across and around Buddha’s time.
I see no problem in doing that.
What confusion ?
Reducing the amount of suttas to parallels; and studying the lexical meaning of words, from the Indian philosophy of the time, is far from being confusing.
completely agree with you suci1, especially on that part. that’s, by the way, what i have been doing for a while now!
The problem is that you seem to be introducing interpretations which contradict and complicate what the EBTs actually say.
Your earlier Picasso painting interpretation of phassa is a case in point. The idea that Picasso’s personality is somehow “transferred” to us when we look at one of his paintings is not supported by the suttas. The suttas simply describe how eye-consciousness arises in dependence upon the eye and visible form.
Ah, ok !
So any response (emotional, moral, intellectual) I have when I see the visible form (colour, line, shape) of a Picasso painting according to the EBTs is a mental formation? And as such it is observable through mind-consciousness arising in dependence upon the mind and its formations?
1 Like
Yes, that is what the suttas seem to describe. There is an initial experience comprised of vinnana/sanna/vedana, then sankharas ( mental formations ) arise.
2 Likes
Meanings ought to be inferred contextually not (primarily) textually.
Buddha gave different meanings to words that were present at the time in other religions, therefore context is important.
The Buddha never said discard a text because it is rare, but only if it isn’t in line with the Dhamma-Vinaya.
With metta
1 Like
It was initially a greater challenge for me to see this 3-way relationship as it applies to mind than as it applies to the other 5 senses. I had to learn the difference between mind and awareness that modernist models don’t acknowledge.
1 Like
Indeed, and meanings really need to be based on their context and description in the EBTs, not on their usage in the texts of other religions.
1 Like
I was doing a search here and came across this very interesting somewhat old post by friend @Martin. I will share my understanding.
Please note that sañña is not a mere “recognition” of an object; this mere recognition is precisely what phassa itself is. For, if one did not recognise an object, then no consciousness of it took place and therefore no contact was established. phassa is established only in so far as the object has been recognised, and there is no meaning in talking about any phassa otherwise, and regardless of whether this recognising, along with our subsequent emotional responses, where self-conscious or otherwise.
Sañña on the other hand is that which produces the impression, the emotive tone if you will, that is associated with the object being recognised, and it does that by recourse to memory. Picture a lion appearing in the horizon of the steppes; because the monkey has encountered a lion before, and since then learned that it is deadly dangerous, it has now recognised it again, and recognised its danger again; this is what sañña is, a fundamental force or function which will cause the monkey to scream and crane its nick to alert other monkeys of the approaching danger. Sañña here is the fearful impression which the appearance of the lion (eye-contact) gives rise to in the psyche of the monkey. Fear, then, and agitation, will be the corresponding vedana; and the desire to escape the tanha, and the running away the upadana.
This recognising again (emotional memory) is precisely what sañña is; a fundamental evolutionary adaptive mechanism that is necessary for learning and for survival, and for the regulation of emotion (vedana). In a certain sense, sañña is what makes vedana an intelligent, effective, and also adaptable utility. So picture now our monkey to be rather inexperienced; a toddler perhaps! Having screamed and craned its nick pointing with it at the approaching danger, it finds that no other monkey responds with fear! “What is the matter?!” It wonders, “why is no one running?! Last time a lion just like this caught one of us and tore it to shreds!” Then it takes a closer look now that the stimulating object has come even closer! Behold! This is no lion! This is just a stag!! The inexperienced monkey has confused them, because they have the same colour and size and both walk on four. Now all fear is gone, vedana has changed. But why? Because the impression, the emotive tone a deer evokes in a monkey’s psyche is one mostly of indifference rather than fearfulness (having learned in the past that a deer is not dangerous). Sañña changes, vedana changes, and so on. Without sañña there is no survival for the sentient organism: either it will fail in recognising a lion, and the danger of the lion, a second time it encounters it, or it will never learn how to distinguish between a lion and a deer, thus fearing both and escaping both (and everything else that resembles them), hence living in constant escape and avoidance and unable to access limited resources.
So much happens between phassa and vedana, only, it happens so fast that, without meditation, we can barely notice it. However we can actually discern sañña taking place in between, and not only that, but it actually directly fashions the subsequent vedana. You could say that sañña is a cognitive phenomenon, where vedana is the emotional-behavioural manifestation or experiencing of that phenomenon. This is so important! Learning, prejudice, and habits, are formed and reinforced through that process.
I liked your question a lot and I have often thought that sañña deserved a place in the paticcasamuppada just as it appears in the pañcupadanakhanda; it’s kinda puzzling that it is missing in the earlier!
Sadhu.
3 Likes
Thank you Bhante! 
What is your take on on the two fold contact described in the Maha nidana sutta.
- rūpakāye adhivacanasamphasso
- nāmakāye paṭighasamphasso
2 Likes
In this passage the Buddha is explaining how, given the nature of our namarupa (body an mind), there can exist fundamentally two possibilities of contact, sensorial and ideational (hence verbal). It’s remarkable that the text recognises the “verbal” nature of ideation, but further, one of the most unique aspects about Buddhist philosophy of mind is the understanding of “ideas” as phenomena that we experience (come in contact with) rather than produce!
2 Likes
If you understand Abhidhamma, you will not have this problem.
The seven universal cetasika are
- phassa
- vedana
- sanna
- cetana
- ekaggata
- jivitindriya
- manasikara
These 7 cetasikas namely phassa or contact, vedana or feeling, sanna or perception, cetana or volition, ekaggata or one pointedness, jivitindriya or mental life, manasikara or attention always arise together with each arising citta.
See this topic “Cetasikas (or mental factors)” for a better understanding.
Is Abhidhamma Buddhavacana?
If Abhidhamma is not Buddhavacana, do you think it will be in the Tipitaka?
If the Sutta is the Buddhavacana where Ven. Ananda heard it and pass it down and Vinaya is the Buddhavacana where Ven. Upali heard it and pass it down, then Abhidhamma is the Buddhavacana where Ven. Sariputta heard it and pass it down to his deciples.
except ‘recited in xxxx deva world’ is a common tool used by Mahayana sutras, as well to confer authenticity to the given sutra
1 Like