SuttaCentral
I guess the question is whether contact is just a name given to an event whereby the three meet or is it a mental faculty.
If it is the latter, is it taking notice of the experience or something else?
If it is taking notice of an experience, then how is it different from attention which is another mental faculty in the name group?
Ultimately, how do we observe this contact phenomenon? This is where I’m getting at. Not an academic exercise.
In understanding consciousness we understand contact. It’s not something to be observed.
“They speak of ‘a wise person’. How is a wise person defined?”
“They’re called wise because they understand. And what do they understand? They understand: ‘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.’ They’re called wise because they understand.”
“They speak of ‘consciousness’. How is consciousness defined?”
“It’s called consciousness because it cognizes. And what does it cognize? It cognizes ‘pleasure’ and ‘pain’ and ‘neutral’. It’s called consciousness because it cognizes.”
“Wisdom and consciousness—are these things mixed or separate? And can we completely dissect them so as to describe the difference between them?”
“Wisdom and consciousness—these things are mixed, not separate. And you can never completely dissect them so as to describe the difference between them. For you understand what you cognize, and you cognize what you understand. That’s why these things are mixed, not separate. And you can never completely dissect them so as to describe the difference between them.”
“Wisdom and consciousness—what is the difference between these things that are mixed, not separate?”
“The difference between these things is that wisdom should be developed, while consciousness should be completely understood.” mn43
One has to merely understand it’s implication in all experience. The coming into play of consciousness is associated with contact.
Thanks for bringing up this sutta Mn43. I was searching for it recently.
I think we can understand something through reasoning but in order to truly know it, we have observe.
For instance, if someone say there is a type of plant call monkey flower. You may understand it as a type of flower that look like a monkey. However, to truly know it, you have to observe its sight, smell, habitat etc.
Not everything that exists can be observed in that way.
For example that which you call “feelings of another person”, you can never observe that as you can a flower. It doesn’t mean that it’s not real because you can see the truth of it’s existence with your intellect.
Seeing with intellect in this sense is how you would see a point that somebody is making when they make an argument or when you see the point of a joke being made.
In the same way when you understand what is meant by the words “mind, consciousness or intellect” you then see the truth of that reality and this is how you observe it having grasped with right discernment.
So hard to see,
so very, very subtle,
alighting wherever it likes:
the mind.
The wise should guard it.
The mind protected
brings ease.Wandering far,
going alone,
bodiless,
lying in a cave:
the mind.
Those who restrain it:
from Mara’s bonds
they’ll be freed. Dhp 36-37
I think the meaning is that the mind is incorporeal, hidden from sight and is very difficult grasp with intellect.
It may well be that many things cannot be comprehended.
However, I suppose Buddha Dhamma can be directly seen in the present moment as it is stated as its characteristic.
In order to understand DO, one needs to observe its links, i.e. contact-feeling-craving-clinging-becoming to know origination and cessation.
There are texts explaining this;
“‘The Dhamma is visible here-&-now, the Dhamma is visible here-&-now,’ it is said. To what extent is the Dhamma visible here-&-now, timeless, inviting verification, pertinent, to be realized by the wise for themselves?”
“Very well, then, Sivaka, I will ask you a question in return. Answer as you see fit. What do you think: When greed is present within you, do you discern that ‘Greed is present within me’? And when greed is not present within you, do you discern that ‘Greed is not present within me’?”
“Yes, lord.”
"The fact that when greed is present within you, you discern that greed is present within you; and when greed is not present within you, you discern that greed is not present within you: that is one way in which the Dhamma is visible in the here-&-now, timeless, inviting verification, pertinent, to be realized by the wise for themselves.
"What do you think: When aversion is present within you… When delusion is present within you… When a greedy quality[1] is present within you… When an aversive quality is present within you…
“What do you think: When a delusive quality is present within you, do you discern that ‘A delusive quality is present within me’? And when a delusive quality is not present within you, do you discern that ‘A delusive quality is not present within me’?”
“Yes, lord.”
“The fact that when a delusive quality is present within you, you discern that a delusive quality is present within you; and when a delusive quality is not present within you, you discern that a delusive quality is not present within you: that is one way in which the Dhamma is visible in the here-&-now, timeless, inviting verification, pertinent, to be realized by the wise for themselves.”
As to Dhamma visible in this very life;
“Reverend, they speak of ‘a Dhamma visible in this very life’. In what way did the Buddha speak of a Dhamma visible in this very life?”
“First, take a mendicant who, quite secluded from sensual pleasures … enters and remains in the first absorption. To this extent the Buddha spoke of the Dhamma visible in this very life in a qualified sense. …
Furthermore, take a mendicant who, going totally beyond the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception, enters and remains in the cessation of perception and feeling. And, having seen with wisdom, their defilements come to an end. To this extent the Buddha spoke of the Dhamma visible in this very life in a definitive sense.” an9.46
Thanks for highlighting these sutta. I discovered an interesting viewpoint in a related AN9.42 Sambādhasutta sutta in the process.
But back to those sutta quoted. Don’t they all point to the fact that those Dhamma are experienced and observable? Greed, aversion, delusion, Jhana are all mental qualities that can be known by oneself.
I think those texts speak for themselves.
When we talk about the Dhammas which are the Aggregates such as Consciousness, this is how one discerns them;
2] "Furthermore, the monk remains focused on mental qualities in & of themselves with reference to the five clinging-aggregates. And how does he remain focused on mental qualities in & of themselves with reference to the five clinging-aggregates? There is the case where a monk [discerns]: ‘Such is form, such its origination, such its disappearance. Such is feeling… Such is perception… Such are fabrications… Such is consciousness, such its origination, such its disappearance.’ Dn22
On developments of concentration;
"And what is the development of concentration that, when developed & pursued, leads to mindfulness & alertness? There is the case where feelings are known to the monk as they arise, known as they persist, known as they subside. Perceptions are known to him as they arise, known as they persist, known as they subside. Thoughts are known to him as they arise, known as they persist, known as they subside. This is the development of concentration that, when developed & pursued, leads to mindfulness & alertness.
"And what is the development of concentration that, when developed & pursued, leads to the ending of the effluents? There is the case where a monk remains focused on arising & falling away with reference to the five clinging-aggregates: ‘Such is form, such its origination, such its passing away. Such is feeling, such its origination, such its passing away. Such is perception, such its origination, such its passing away. Such are fabrications, such their origination, such their passing away. Such is consciousness, such its origination, such its disappearance.’ This is the development of concentration that, when developed & pursued, leads to the ending of the effluents. Samadhi Sutta
I think that the latter, in a definitive sense, refers to the attainments of cessation of perception & feeling by which taints are destroyed; and a grasping of these dhammas with intellect in a qualified sense.
It is a mental quality with its origination in avijja.
Dependent origination describes only how avijja works.
It implies that - there is case that eye, form and sense consciousness don’t unit, don’t tangle, once avijja is gone.
Thanks for quoting the samadhi sutta. I never realized the paragraph of on mindfulness and alert instructs one to observe feeling, perception and thoughts. Not the usual 4 foundation of mindfulness. Interesting.
Thanks. Do you mean when avija is gone, there will be no contact?
Natural function aside -
Eviction of avijja results cessation of contact.
SN36. 10
“Bhikkhus, just as heat is generated and fire is produced from the conjunction and friction of two fire-sticks, but when the sticks are separated and laid aside the resultant heat ceases and subsides; so too, these three feelings are born of contact, rooted in contact, with contact as their source and condition. In dependence on the appropriate contacts the corresponding feelings arise; with the cessation of the appropriate contacts the corresponding feelings cease.”
I suppose contact has the connotation of bringing the sense faculties to meet the objects repeatedly due to craving. As craving ceases, the urge for contact ceases.
Martin, I had puzzled about this too but now I understand that contact refers to the beginning of the deeper affective and perceptional part of an experience that had begun with the nascent arisen consciousness (from the sense-bases). Contact triggers the arising of feeling, perception, craving, and clinging. All of these further give rise to new “consciousnesses” as the process of becoming happens. It’s easy to relate to this for the first initiation of consciousness when something is triggered at the sense-bases only begins the mental process of “cognition”. It’s really post-contact (as described above) that the full experience (and becoming) happens.
Contact depends on the quality of the consciousness, i.e. the degree to which it is tainted with ignorance, which will then generate proportionate degrees of feeling and craving and clinging. It, therefore, becomes an important part of transcendent DO when contact involving wisdom-imbued consciousness leads to attenuated feeling, craving, becoming, etc.
This is how I understand it. Perhaps it will resonate with you.
You may also want to read this very astute exposition that appeared on this forum a few years ago…
As I understand it, I don’t believe contact ever ceases, even in an arahant but the downstream sequelae are “different” as avijja is replaced with vijja.
What you’re saying makes sense to me. In SN 12.1 the Buddha clearly defines conditioning of Dependent Origination:
“And what is dependent origination? Ignorance is a condition for choices. Choices are a condition for consciousness. Consciousness is a condition for name and form. Name and form are conditions for the six sense fields. The six sense fields are conditions for contact. Contact is a condition for feeling. Feeling is a condition for craving. Craving is a condition for grasping. Grasping is a condition for continued existence. Continued existence is a condition for rebirth. Rebirth is a condition for old age and death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, sadness, and distress to come to be. That is how this entire mass of suffering originates. This is called dependent origination.
When ignorance fades away and ceases with nothing left over, choices cease. When choices cease, consciousness ceases. When consciousness ceases, name and form cease. When name and form cease, the six sense fields cease. When the six sense fields cease, contact ceases. When contact ceases, feeling ceases. When feeling ceases, craving ceases. When craving ceases, grasping ceases. When grasping ceases, continued existence ceases. When continued existence ceases, rebirth ceases. When rebirth ceases, old age and death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, sadness, and distress cease. That is how this entire mass of suffering ceases.”
So the lynchpin is ignorance (avijja); when ignorance ceases, all the rest cease.
Towards what you said in the quote above, interestingly, Contact seems to be the condition that links the “higher” forms of critical thinking and “together making” (as is one definition of sankhara)to the “lower” forms of consequences which percolate down the chain. When Ignorance ceases, the defilements cease and the consequences cease.
Perhaps “higher” and “lower” are inadequate, but I can’t think of a better way to describe.
Ignorance is full of mental delusion and misunderstanding.
Sankhara are mental choices based on ignorance, delusion, misunderstanding.
Consciousness is conditioned by a mental world of wrong thought and wrong action.
Name and form consists of: feeling, perception, intention, contact and attention and has a reciprocating dependence with consciousness as well as the conditioning influence on the sense fields which include the mind.
Six sense fields are the physical conduits which require guarding and taming, particularly the mind.
Contact might be the meeting point of the “higher” mental faculties and the “lower” consequences of what happens due to ignorance.
Feeling is not something mental-based, but is an indicator of mental dissonance.
Craving is the result of gravitation towards the pleasant and unpleasant.
Grasping is wanting more of what happens when craving is operating.
Desire for continued existence is fed by grasping.
Rebirth happens when kammabhava is.
Old age and death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, sadness, and distress naturally follows rebirth.
The Buddha put a lot of emphasis on beginning with the body and feelings, developing and using mindfulness and investigation to enable one to find the contact point of seeing vendana and how it ultimately leads to seeing avijja.
In dhammas there is the term “dependence co-arise”, i.e. mutual dependence in the arising of mental factors that arise together. When the sense bases “collide” with the object, at the same time vinnana (consciousness) arises. The event is called contact. It is often said that contact conditions the emergence of vinnana, but actually vinnana arises in a “dependence co-arise” in the event of contact.
Now you are starting to insert non-suffering condition in place of avijja.
Accurately speaking -
If there is no avijja, there is no eye-consciousness and contact based on avijja.
Simply it means -
Without avijja, there won’t be contact or sense consciousness which will cause suffering.
As to contact or sense consciousness which will not cause suffering, it is not our problem to start with, is it. They can carry on or cease, either way, it is fine.
As to how to tell the difference, that is the training. you start with case by case with sati.
As to water when you are thirsty. What is the point to apply dependent origination for? I guess you can choose not to raise eye consciousness to water by knowing its emptiness. but again, there is hardly a point to it.
Arahant knows it without sati or antidote or caution. It is true freedom.