How do you understand the arising, ceasing and impermanence?

I understand that the Buddha has placed emphasis on the present moment in most of the Suttas. But does it mean that the sights - rupa - that we see can be completely ignored because seeing in the present moment is contact which is only a meeting of three. That is the eye, the sight and eye consciousness.
For example, eye faculty arises with say the sight “A” leading to contact “A” and when the sight “B” comes into eye’s focus contact “B” takes place. When contact “B” happens, the eye, the sight and the eye consciousness in contact “A” have ceased and a new eye, a sight and a consciousness have arisen.

So when the Buddha says eye is born, sight (rupa) is born and consciousness is born - jati - and eye is impermanent, the sight - rupa - is impermanent and consciousness is impermanent does he mean only the momentary impermanence associated with contact “A” .

So my specific question is whether the Buddha speaks only about the momentary impermanence of the three components of contact to the complete exclusion of the impermanence that we ordinarily see. For example, the eye, ear, nose, tongue and the body get old, get sick etc. The mind too becomes weak and feeble.

Please provide Sutta references to all your answers.
Thanks everyone in advance.
With Metta

1 Like

Can you give sutta references for your understanding of the meeting of the three and the impermanence that implies above? :pray:

AN 3.47 which I’ve been referencing in other conversations recently might be of interest to you:

Arising is evident, vanishing is evident, and change while persisting is evident.
Uppādo paññāyati, vayo paññāyati, ṭhitassa aññathattaṁ paññāyati.

Seems to indicate non-momentary impermanence. :pray:

‘All conditioned things are impermanent’ — when one sees this with wisdom, one turns away from suffering. This is the path to purification.

v.277 The Dhammapada

Not just the sense contacts, but any sense objects which are conditioned are also impermanent. And basically, only Nibbāna sense object is not conditioned. Ok, maybe include concepts there too, like 1+1=2, the laws of maths and physics, etc.

This Sutta I should have mentioned is SN35.93.
"The eye is impermanent, decaying, and perishing.
*Cakkhu aniccaṁ vipariṇāmi aññathābhāvi. *
Sights are impermanent, decaying, and perishing.
Rūpā aniccā vipariṇāmino aññathābhāvino.
Some interpret “Cakkhu anicca” as arising of eye (faculty) in response to a sight with consciousness cognizing - the meeting of three. The three cease and arise again to give way to the next meeting of three and so on. And similarly for sights and consciousness.
I suspect if this is the correct way to understand impermanence.
With Metta

I believe that all of this impermanence business is just to say that creation is inherently flawed / botched.

I also believe that this knowledge is at the core of right view.

Thanks Bhante, for your response. Some interpret “all conditioned things” as the components of contact- the three - to the complete exclusion of sights and sounds etc. They say that “when this is seen with wisdom, yadā paññāya passati” is seeing the arising and ceasing of the three from contact to contact.
Is this understanding in line with EBTs? I have read briefly that Sarvastivadin and Sauthantikas interpret impermanence in this way. Is this correct?
With Metta

I dunno the ancient schools.

Just ask yourself, is your feelings conditioned or not?

Is the phone you own conditioned or not?

Just that simple.

I fully understand that my feelings and the phone are conditioned.
With Metta

Which knowledge are you referring to? Is it the momentary impermanence or impermanence that we ordinarily see around us?
With Metta

Why would it be momentary? As long as you’re watching something and as long as you’re watching it, there’s contact. The problem is you can still be watching something long after it’s gone by. This speaks to what consciousness is. It also speaks to what contact is, and what grasping is.

Just because Abhidhamma developed a theory of momentary impermanence on the basis of a theory of the absolute reality of dhammas doesn’t mean this should be applied to reading the suttas.

Puttamaṁsasutta (SN 12.63)

Monks there are these four fuels. They maintain sentient beings that have been born and help those that are about to be born. “cattārome, bhikkhave, āhārā bhūtānaṁ vā sattānaṁ ṭhitiyā sambhavesīnaṁ vā anuggahāya.

What four? Katame cattāro?

Solid food, whether coarse or fine; contact is the second, mental intention the third, and consciousness the fourth. Kabaḷīkāro āhāro oḷāriko vā sukhumo vā, phasso dutiyo, manosañcetanā tatiyā, viññāṇaṁ catutthaṁ.

And how should you regard contact as fuel? Kathañca, bhikkhave, phassāhāro daṭṭhabbo?

Suppose there was a flayed cow. If she stands by a wall, the creatures on the wall bite her. Seyyathāpi, bhikkhave, gāvī niccammā kuṭṭañce nissāya tiṭṭheyya. Ye kuṭṭanissitā pāṇā te naṁ khādeyyuṁ.

If she stands under a tree, the creatures in the tree bite her. Rukkhañce nissāya tiṭṭheyya, ye rukkhanissitā pāṇā te naṁ khādeyyuṁ.

If she stands in some water, the creatures in the water bite her. Udakañce nissāya tiṭṭheyya, ye udakanissitā pāṇā te naṁ khādeyyuṁ.

If she stands in the open, the creatures in the open bite her. Ākāsañce nissāya tiṭṭheyya, ye ākāsanissitā pāṇā te naṁ khādeyyuṁ.

Wherever that flayed cow stands, the creatures there would bite her. Yaṁ yadeva hi sā, bhikkhave, gāvī niccammā nissāya tiṭṭheyya, ye tannissitā pāṇā te naṁ khādeyyuṁ.

I say that this is how you should regard contact as fuel. Evameva khvāhaṁ, bhikkhave, ‘phassāhāro daṭṭhabbo’ti vadāmi.

When contact as fuel is completely understood, the three feelings are completely understood. Phasse, bhikkhave, āhāre pariññāte tisso vedanā pariññātā honti.

When the three feelings are completely understood, a noble disciple has nothing further to do, I say. Tīsu vedanāsu pariññātāsu ariyasāvakassa natthi kiñci uttarikaraṇīyanti vadāmi.

1 Like