Cessation of Contact

[Digity]

Intention, I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of body, speech and mind.

And what is the cause by which kamma comes into play? Contact, bhikkhus.
...

And what is the cessation of kamma? From the cessation of contact is the cessation of kamma; and just this noble eightfold path – right view, right aim, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration – is the path of practice leading to the cessation of kamma.

I'm a little confused by what is meant by the phrase "cessation of contact". Doesn't a fully awakened person still experience contact through the sense organs...at least for as long as they're still alive? What is meant by cessation of contact here? I would have thought the end of kamma was related to the cessation of clinging/craving and not the cessation of contact. I'd presume contact continues after awakening, but that there's no longer clinging/craving involved.

[cappuccino]

"And what is the cause by which kamma comes into play? Contact is the cause by which kamma comes into play."

[equilibrium]

Intention, I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of body, speech and mind.

And what is the cause by which kamma comes into play? Contact, bhikkhus.
...

And what is the cessation of kamma? From the cessation of contact is the cessation of kamma; and just this noble eightfold path – right view, right aim, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration – is the path of practice leading to the cessation of kamma.

I'm a little confused by what is meant by the phrase "cessation of contact". Doesn't a fully awakened person still experience contact through the sense organs...at least for as long as they're still alive? What is meant by cessation of contact here? I would have thought the end of kamma was related to the cessation of clinging/craving and not the cessation of contact. I'd presume contact continues after awakening, but that there's no longer clinging/craving involved.

"cessation of contact".....the word "contact" is an illusion which involves the false "I-am/not-self".....hence there is "contact" under delusion.
When this "I-am/not-self" is transcended, that is when "cessation" happens.

"cessation of kamma" is when "cessation of contact" happens because one has transcended the "I-am/not-self". "cessation of kamma" here is that one does not create any more kamma thereafter because one is released from it. Yet, one is still in receipt of previous created kamma.

"cessation of clinging/craving" is just another way to say "cessation of contact" or "cessation of "I-am/not-self".....or "release".

SN 35.145:....."Monks, I will teach you new & old kamma, the cessation of kamma, and the path of practice leading to the cessation of kamma. Listen and pay close attention. I will speak.

"Now what, monks, is old kamma? The eye is to be seen as old kamma, fabricated & willed, capable of being felt. The ear... The nose... The tongue... The body... The intellect is to be seen as old kamma, fabricated & willed, capable of being felt. This is called old kamma.

"And what is new kamma? Whatever kamma one does now with the body, with speech, or with the intellect: This is called new kamma.

"And what is the cessation of kamma? Whoever touches the release that comes from the cessation of bodily kamma, verbal kamma, & mental kamma: This is called the cessation of kamma.

[Pondera]

Contact is this. The eye, forms, and eye consciousness. Together they produce "contact". And from there comes, of course, "feeling". But when eye consciousness has been subdued and let go of there is no possible way that the eye will make contact with forms. And since that same argument goes for the other senses the outcome is "cessation of perception and feeling". There, there is only contact with the knowledge of final release.

[santa100]

What is meant by cessation of contact here? I would have thought the end of kamma was related to the cessation of clinging/craving and not the cessation of contact. I'd presume contact continues after awakening, but that there's no longer clinging/craving involved.

Ven. Bodhi's note explains:

This should probably be understood in the sense that, because contact is the condition for intention and kamma can be explained as intention, contact is therefore the condition for kamma

Notice the keyword "condition". For example, smoking is a condition for lung cancer. But that doesn't mean every single smoker will develop lung cancer. Similarly, contact is a condition for kamma, but it doesn't always gives rise to kamma. Arahants still have contact but they no longer create kamma.

The six classes of contact should be known.' Thus was it said. In reference to what was it said? Dependent on the eye & forms there arises consciousness at the eye. The meeting of the three is contact. Dependent on the ear & sounds there arises consciousness at the ear. The meeting of the three is contact..."

[chownah]

Let's consider vision and what cessation of contact means.

The not so common (awakend) experience of vision is that vision arises as a phenomena. When vision is seen as arising one can see what is seen and does not fabricate other things in the experience....i.e. in seeing only the seen.

The common experience of vision is the fabrication of the eye and the visual object and visual consciousness which when all three come together we get contact. This experience is based on a perception of a self. The eye is owned by the self as is the consciousness. In this way the visual experience is constructed as a fabricated thing centered around the self.

Both of these modes of experience are adequate for carrying on with human life. The cessation of visual contact does not render one blind....quite the contrary as evidenced by the arahants mentioned in the suttas.

chownah

[dhammacoustic]

On seeing a form with the eye, he does not grasp at any theme or details by which -- if he were to dwell without restraint over the faculty of the eye -- evil, unskillful qualities such as greed or distress might assail him. On hearing a sound with the ear... On smelling an odor with the nose... One tasting a flavor with the tongue... On touching a tactile sensation with the body... On cognizing an idea with the intellect, he does not grasp at any theme or details by which -- if he were to dwell without restraint over the faculty of the intellect -- evil, unskillful qualities such as greed or distress might assail him...

***

On seeing a form with the eye he does not become greedy for pleasant forms, or averse to disagreeable forms. He abides with mindfulness of the body established and with a immeasurable mind. He knows the deliverance of mind and the deliverance through wisdom as it really is, where unwholesome states cease completely. Having abandoned the path of agreeing and disagreeing, he experiences whatever feeling that arises - pleasant, unpleasant, or neither unpleasant nor pleasant - just as it is. He is not delighted or pleased with those feelings and he does not appropriates them. Interest in those feelings ceases. With the cessation of interest, clinging ceases. With no clinging, there is no becoming...

[Spiny Norman]

The common experience of vision is the fabrication of the eye and the visual object and visual consciousness which when all three come together we get contact. This experience is based on a perception of a self. The eye is owned by the self as is the consciousness. In this way the visual experience is constructed as a fabricated thing centered around the self.

It's an interesting interpretation, but can you reference any suttas which support it? To me the three-fold formula for contact looks functional, and not related to self-view. It's just describing the elements required for experience to occur, ie a sense-base, a sense-object and consciousness.

In the suttas the key to liberation is usually insight into transience, for example the transience of contact, the transience of the sense bases, and so on.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Spiny,

I think chownah is on the right path.

The best sutta I can find to support that kind of interpretation is SN 35.93

Of that sutta, ven Nanananda says...

Dvayaṃ, bhikkhave, paṭicca viññāṇaṃ sambhoti, "monks, dependent on a dyad consciousness arises", says the Buddha. That is to say, dependent on internal and external sense-spheres consciousness arises. As we have already pointed out, consciousness is the very discrimination between the two. Therefore consciousness is the middle. So at the moment when one understands consciousness, one realizes that the fault lies in this discrimination itself. The farther limit of the internal is the nearer limit of the external. One understands then that the gap, the interstice between them, is something imagined.

Metta,
Paul

[Spiny Norman]

Greetings Spiny,

I think chownah is on the right path.

The best sutta I can find to support that kind of interpretation is SN 35.93

Of that sutta, ven Nanananda says...

Dvayaṃ, bhikkhave, paṭicca viññāṇaṃ sambhoti, "monks, dependent on a dyad consciousness arises", says the Buddha. That is to say, dependent on internal and external sense-spheres consciousness arises. As we have already pointed out, consciousness is the very discrimination between the two. Therefore consciousness is the middle. So at the moment when one understands consciousness, one realizes that the fault lies in this discrimination itself. The farther limit of the internal is the nearer limit of the external. One understands then that the gap, the interstice between them, is something imagined.

Metta,
Paul

Thanks Paul. SN 35.93 basically says the consciousness is transient because the eye and form are transient, therefore contact is transient, and so on down the line. I don't see how that supports Chownah's interpretation, rather it supports the idea that insight into transience is pivotal.

I'm afraid I don't understand Nanananda's comment, or how it relates to the sutta. Is he saying that consciousness is the gap, and that consciousness is just imagined and there is only the object, "in the seen, just the seen". Or is this just a reference to the duality implied in the vi- prefix of "vinnana"? Or something else? Maybe you could shed some light.

[Spiny Norman]

And since that same argument goes for the other senses the outcome is "cessation of perception and feeling".

Cessation of perception and feeling is a meditative state, so I'm not sure I see the relevance.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Spiny,

Were we to see in accordance with the Buddha's instructions, there would simply be "the seen".

Yet instead, we ignorantly fabricate a bifurcation between the "object" (known as "eye consciousness") and the "base" (known as "eye").

Only once we generate "eye consciousness" and "eye", and dependent upon both, can it be said that "contact" arises.

Where there is simply the seen, there is no bifurcation, and thus no contact.

(After all, what is the sound of one hand clapping?)

Metta,
Paul.

[Spiny Norman]

Greetings Spiny,

Were we to see in accordance with the Buddha's instructions, there would simply be "the seen".

Yet instead, we ignorantly fabricate a bifurcation between the "object" (known as "eye consciousness") and the "base" (known as "eye").

Only once we generate "eye consciousness" and "eye", and dependent upon both, can it be said that "contact" arises.

Where there is simply the seen, there is no bifurcation, and thus no contact.

(After all, what is the sound of one hand clapping?)

Metta,
Paul.

I'm puzzled that you're describing "eye-consciousness" as the "object" here. Nanananda seems to be saying that the bifurcation is actually between sense-base ( eye ) and sense-object ( visible form ), and that this duality is a function of discriminating ( eye ) consciousness.

As for one hand clapping, it looks like all that "remains" is the sense-object, eg visible form. So in the Bahiya Sutta there is only the seen in the seen, the visible object, with no conceiving around self. And in MN1 the elements of form ( again sense-objects ) are "known directly", also without conceiving around self.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Spiny,

I wouldn't consider "the seen" to be a "sense object" or object of the senses.

Something needs to be object-ified (which is an act of fabrication) before it can be designated as an object. To designate an object out of the seen would be to conceive and proliferate beyond merely "the seen".

Metta,
Paul.

[vinasp]

Hi Digity,

Quote: - "I'm a little confused by what is meant by the phrase "cessation of contact"."

The teachings (Sutta Pitaka) are formulated to make sense on two levels, there is a lower understanding, and a higher understanding. Essentially, the ordinary man follows the lower understanding, while the noble disciple follows the higher.

So almost everything in the teachings has two meanings, depending on which interpretation is being explained.

Quote: - "Doesn't a fully awakened person still experience contact through the sense organs...at least for as long as they're still alive?"

Yes - this is correct for the lower understanding.

The Understanding of the Ordinary Man.

1. The six-bases are the actual sense organs.
2. Contact is the normal functioning of these sense organs.
3. There is a temporary cessation of contact in the highest concentration state.
4. Those who have attained this state are called 'arahants' and they are not reborn anywhere in the three realms after death. So the six bases and contact cease permanently after death, for these individuals.
5. So the ordinary man is developing the path until his death.
6. Actually, he is developing the 'wrong eightfold path' but he assumes that he is on the noble eightfold path.

With kind regards, Vincent.