On feeling being conjoined not disjoined from perception

On the cultivation of insight/wisdom
Post Reply
R1111
Posts: 1019
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2015 4:17 am

On feeling being conjoined not disjoined from perception

Post by R1111 » Wed Apr 05, 2017 1:11 pm

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .html#fn-1
Ven. Maha Kaccayana said this:
"Dependent on eye & forms, eye-consciousness arises. The meeting of the three is contact. With contact as a requisite condition, there is feeling.
...
What one feels, one perceives (labels in the mind). What one perceives, one thinks about. What one thinks about, one objectifies.
It has not been blatantly obvious to me but is feeling always present at contact?
So what is cognized or perceived is also felt, is this a fair statement? The neutral feelings of neither pleasure or pain are kind of hard to notice it seems.
its really amazing isnt it:)

Further
"Now, when there is the eye, when there are forms, when there is eye-consciousness, it is possible that one will delineate a delineation of contact.[1] When there is a delineation of contact, it is possible that one will delineate a delineation of feeling. When there is a delineation of feeling, it is possible that one will delineate a delineation of perception. When there is a delineation of perception, it is possible that one will delineate a delineation of thinking. When there is a delineation of thinking, it is possible that one will delineate a delineation of being assailed by the perceptions & categories of objectification.
Note:
1.The artificiality of this phrase — "delineate a delineation" — seems intentional. It underlines the artifice implicit in the process by which the mind, in singling out events, turns them into discrete things.
I dont understand this very well but i think he is saying that whenever there is a Sense Consciousness one can "isolate" feeling as that which is felt, perception as that which is perceived and consciousness as that which cognizes,

Now Sariputta explains further
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
"Feeling, perception, & consciousness are conjoined, friend, not disjoined. It is not possible, having separated them one from another, to delineate the difference among them. For what one feels, that one perceives. What one perceives, that one cognizes. Therefore these qualities are conjoined, not disjoined, and it is not possible, having separated them one from another, to delineate the difference among them."
Here As i understand it Sariputta says that Feeling, perception & consciousness having been isolated by delineation of diffrence upon contact, it is impossible to delineate the diffrence among them further, if one was to delineate upon contact as per Ven. Maha Kaccayana's formula having delineated them from one another as contact there is no more difference between them?

Ven. Maha Kaccayana said this later:
..."When there is no intellect, when there are no ideas, when there is no intellect-consciousness, it is impossible that one will delineate a delineation of contact. When there is no delineation of contact, it is impossible that one will delineate a delineation of feeling. When there is no delineation of feeling, it is impossible that one will delineate a delineation of perception. When there is no delineation of perception, it is impossible that one will delineate a delineation of thinking. When there is no delineation of thinking, it is impossible that one will delineate a delineation of being assailed by the perceptions & categories of objectification." ..
So basicly they are manifestations of experiece one way or another and its is only possible to delineate the diffrence upon contact, conceptually they are aspects of the same thing.

I would appreciate comments, analogies etc :bow: :heart:

vinasp
Posts: 1675
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 7:49 pm
Location: Bristol. United Kingdom.

Re: On feeling being conjoined not disjoined from perception

Post by vinasp » Thu Apr 06, 2017 6:44 am

Hi R1111,

Here I attempt to 'improve' the translation of the MN 18 passage.

"Dependent on (fabricated) eye & (fabricated) form (object), visual-mind arises. The meeting of the three is contact. With contact as a cause, there is feeling, perception, and volitional formations (mental-factors).
...
The object which is felt, is also the object perceived (labels in the mind). The object one perceives, is also the object one thinks about. What one thinks about, one objectifies."

These are all very difficult passages, and interpretations will differ, depending on whether one follows the early-strata teachings or late-strata / abhidhamma.

Regards, Vincent.

paul
Posts: 866
Joined: Tue May 31, 2011 11:27 pm
Location: Vietnam

Re: On feeling being conjoined not disjoined from perception

Post by paul » Thu Apr 06, 2017 8:03 am

"Every conscious experience has a feeling tone..." ---Contemplation of Feeling, Nyanaponika Thera.
This is the subject of the second foundation of mindfulness.

pegembara
Posts: 1170
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 8:39 am

Re: On feeling being conjoined not disjoined from perception

Post by pegembara » Thu Apr 06, 2017 8:09 am

"Thus, Ananda, from name-and-form as a requisite condition comes consciousness. From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-and-form. From name-and-form as a requisite condition comes contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging. From clinging as a requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, aging, death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, and despair come into play. Such is the origination of this entire mass of stress.

Contact -----> feeling ------>craving----->clinging

The reason perception is not mentioned at all is that it is conjoined to feeling. Also feeling is more easy to classify-pleasant, painful or neither. In terms of what is driving the cycle, feeling(rather than perception) is easier to identify.
"And why do you call it 'feeling'? Because it feels, thus it is called 'feeling.' What does it feel? It feels pleasure, it feels pain, it feels neither-pleasure-nor-pain. Because it feels, it is called feeling.

"And why do you call it 'perception'? Because it perceives, thus it is called 'perception.' What does it perceive? It perceives blue, it perceives yellow, it perceives red, it perceives white. Because it perceives, it is called perception.
"And what is feeling? These six bodies of feeling — feeling born of eye-contact, feeling born of ear-contact, feeling born of nose-contact, feeling born of tongue-contact, feeling born of body-contact, feeling born of intellect-contact: this is called feeling."

"And what is perception? These six bodies of perception — perception of form, perception of sound, perception of smell, perception of taste, perception of tactile sensation, perception of ideas: this is called perception."
Don't even get started on fabrication>
"And what are fabrications? There are these six classes of intention: intention aimed at sights, sounds, smells, tastes, tactile sensations, & ideas. These are called fabrications."
From the origination of contact comes the origination of feeling. From the cessation of contact comes the cessation of feeling… From the origination of contact comes the origination of perception. From the cessation of contact comes the cessation of perception…From the origination of contact comes the origination of fabrications. From the cessation of contact comes the cessation of fabrications… From the origination of name-&-form comes the origination of consciousness. From the cessation of name-&-form comes the cessation of consciousness."

— SN 22.57
And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, from abusive speech, & from idle chatter: This is called right speech.

R1111
Posts: 1019
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2015 4:17 am

Re: On feeling being conjoined not disjoined from perception

Post by R1111 » Thu Apr 06, 2017 12:33 pm

Thanks, SN 22.57 is a great one :) On a similar note;

i saw a very peculiar Sutta on Suttacentral a while ago while looking for something else, it was just one or two sentences ala "intentions are actions, actions are intentions", i didnt pay attention to it when it came up but became curious in hindsight. Cant recall what it was, is anybody familiar with what im talking about?

User avatar
Nicolas
Posts: 720
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2014 8:59 pm
Location: Somerville, MA, USA

Re: On feeling being conjoined not disjoined from perception

Post by Nicolas » Thu Apr 06, 2017 1:20 pm

R1111 wrote:it was just one or two sentences ala "intentions are actions, actions are intentions"
Could it be this one?
Nibbedhika Sutta wrote:Intention, I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of body, speech, and intellect.

R1111
Posts: 1019
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2015 4:17 am

Re: On feeling being conjoined not disjoined from perception

Post by R1111 » Thu Apr 06, 2017 1:22 pm

Nicolas wrote:
R1111 wrote:it was just one or two sentences ala "intentions are actions, actions are intentions"
Could it be this one?
Nibbedhika Sutta wrote:Intention, I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of body, speech, and intellect.
it was certainly presented in a diffrent format, but this is probably the origin and is much better :woohoo:

thanks friend:)

These are very important teachings on how things are conjoined and how contact is delineated, also in regards to intentions. I think one can apply same formulae, thus delineating by delineation upon contact as when there is contact one might delineate thinking, when there is thinking one might delineate Intention. What is performed is also intended and intention itself is an act that is performed. Having delineated by delineation of Contant, there is no more diffrence between the two. Action is thus to be discerned and intention is to be understood.
just guessing:P

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests