What a great part of the Tipitaka this Sutta Nipata is, right? I love it most. I also like Dhammapada.
Rid of desire for both ends, having completely understood contact, (Snp4.2)
I believe understanding contact refers to …only when the eye-, ear…mind is caught by something then there is sense-contact. It is when there is, as it were, an inclination towards something that stirs the mind. It arises with engagement as condition. When there is an inclination towards something then there is a touch, a sense contact. But merely seeing is different. To see, there does not have to be an eye-catching situation, etc. So, i believe, the coming together of all this (eye, visual, visual consciousness, contact) does not happen without engagement (MN28).
I believe the deepest form of engagement is that mind is just curious of all what stirs the mind. It always tends or inclines towards that. Not different from external things. When there moves something externally that attracks the attention of the mind. Cognition is like that. It stirs the mind and habitually the mind wants to know what happens.
Sanna is what distinguish marks…signs, and based upon this, mind has a certain interest for that what is seen, heard etc. Marks of beauty, ugliness, self etc. There is a markless or signless concentration (AN6.60), but also a markless or signless liberation of mind (AN6.13)
The markless liberation of mind means that the consciousness (or just mind) does not follow after marks anymore. So, the sign, marks awaken a certain interest of the mind and then it tends to become mind-caught. So sanna plays a very active role in this.
Marks cause eye- ear…mind catching moments. This comes with sense contact and kamma vinnana, an established vinnana that grows while one feeds the underlying desire for this contact.
Tanha describes all that leads the mind to engage with sense-objects.
The end of sanna , i believe, refers here to the end of those signs or marks that lead to eye, ear…mind catching moments… But i do not believe that it refers to the loss of the ability to know the unique characterstics of something. So, a Buddha still sees if a certain person is beautifyl or ugly but not in a way it comes with desire or repulsion. The mind does not become caught.
‘In the seen will be merely the seen; in the heard will be merely the heard; in the thought will be merely the thought; in the known will be merely the known.’ (Ud1.10)
I feel this refers to…there is no vinnana that does establish in the mind and can grow.
I do not believe that the cessation of vinnana really refers to the cessation of the ability to see, hear, feel etc. I believe in these contexts it refers to the cessation of karmically active sense moments (kamma-vinnana). Those are also called established vinnana’s. Those cease.
I have spent some time investigating vinnana and i can see that one must be aware that vinnana has different meanings in different context. Often it describes kamma-vinnana, an engaged and loaded sense moment, based upon sankhara’s, karmically active formations, leading to a loaded sense moment, which is always felt because of the load.
But i have also seen that vinnana can be called establised and not-established, with growth or not. Or even Anidassana, not visible. But sometimes vinnana and mind are also used as synonyms. While i do not think we can say that we purify sense-vinnana’s, right?
Can you live with this, does this suit how you see this? (i cannot really see this)