In the Dependent Origination formula, shouldn't perception precede craving instead of feeling?











up vote
2
down vote

favorite












In the paticcasamuppada's formulation of the twelve nidanas, vedana precedes tanha.



As far as I currently understand, vedana is just the physiological and psychological -and involuntary- response
(felt as a pleasent, unpleasent or neutral sensation) to an specific stimulus. Vedana by itself shouldn't be an enough condition to give rise to tanha, because there's no necessarily an evaluation (sañña) of that feeling that could lead to the rise of a preference (like, dislike or neither-like-nor-dislike), and consequently, to the rise of tanha.



If read in this fashion, shouldn't be sañña placed between vedana and tanha?



Thanks in beforehand.










share|improve this question


























    up vote
    2
    down vote

    favorite












    In the paticcasamuppada's formulation of the twelve nidanas, vedana precedes tanha.



    As far as I currently understand, vedana is just the physiological and psychological -and involuntary- response
    (felt as a pleasent, unpleasent or neutral sensation) to an specific stimulus. Vedana by itself shouldn't be an enough condition to give rise to tanha, because there's no necessarily an evaluation (sañña) of that feeling that could lead to the rise of a preference (like, dislike or neither-like-nor-dislike), and consequently, to the rise of tanha.



    If read in this fashion, shouldn't be sañña placed between vedana and tanha?



    Thanks in beforehand.










    share|improve this question
























      up vote
      2
      down vote

      favorite









      up vote
      2
      down vote

      favorite











      In the paticcasamuppada's formulation of the twelve nidanas, vedana precedes tanha.



      As far as I currently understand, vedana is just the physiological and psychological -and involuntary- response
      (felt as a pleasent, unpleasent or neutral sensation) to an specific stimulus. Vedana by itself shouldn't be an enough condition to give rise to tanha, because there's no necessarily an evaluation (sañña) of that feeling that could lead to the rise of a preference (like, dislike or neither-like-nor-dislike), and consequently, to the rise of tanha.



      If read in this fashion, shouldn't be sañña placed between vedana and tanha?



      Thanks in beforehand.










      share|improve this question













      In the paticcasamuppada's formulation of the twelve nidanas, vedana precedes tanha.



      As far as I currently understand, vedana is just the physiological and psychological -and involuntary- response
      (felt as a pleasent, unpleasent or neutral sensation) to an specific stimulus. Vedana by itself shouldn't be an enough condition to give rise to tanha, because there's no necessarily an evaluation (sañña) of that feeling that could lead to the rise of a preference (like, dislike or neither-like-nor-dislike), and consequently, to the rise of tanha.



      If read in this fashion, shouldn't be sañña placed between vedana and tanha?



      Thanks in beforehand.







      pratityasamutpada craving perception






      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question











      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question










      asked Dec 3 at 10:42









      Brian Díaz Flores

      1088




      1088






















          4 Answers
          4






          active

          oldest

          votes

















          up vote
          1
          down vote



          accepted










          In paticcasamuppada, shouldn't sañña precede tanha, instead of vedana?



          It should and it does: vedana => sañña => vitakka => papanca.



          From Madhupindika Sutta (MN 18):




          With contact as a requisite condition, there is feeling (vedana). What one feels, one perceives (sañña). What one perceives, one thinks (vitakka) about. What one thinks about, one objectifies (papanca).




          To clarify terms, vedana is the qualitative component of the experience of subjective contact with a subjectively delineated (mental representation of) object: "this object feels right" / "this object feels wrong" / "this object feels neither right nor wrong".



          Sañña is recognition/classification/delineation of a (subjective notion of) object by the raw features (signs) available to direct observation. While described as a single step, in actuality it is a chain of inferences that evaluates the signs, puts forward hypotheses about the perceived entity and feeds back to seeking more signs to confirm the hypothesis. At the advanced phases of the inference chain, sañña reaches a level of abstraction when it can be described as "conceptualization".



          Vitakka (in this context) is pondering or mulling over. It is bringing the attention again and again to a given idea.



          Papanca is entering a relationship of "pursuer & pursued" (or acquirer and acquired) with regard to an object. It is objectifying something and making it one's goal (-- and implicitly, making oneself an agent of pursuit. This is out of scope for this question but this is exactly how bhava or "becoming a personal form of existence" comes to fruition).



          So, first we delineate an object, then we attribute pleasant experience to a contact with the object, then we conceptualize this experience of contact and the resulting feeling and make it into a target we'd like to acquire.






          share|improve this answer























          • I marked this down. It is just personal ideas and unrelated to Buddhism. This poster needs to provide references for their answers and ideas; such as "sañña reaches a level of abstraction when it can be described as "conceptualization" or sanna is "hypotheses". Also it is "vicara" that is commonly referred to as "pondering over" rather than "vitakka". Also. i have never read a sutta saying vedana is the feeling of "right" & 'wrong". The last paragraph sounds very mixed up and the whole answer seems to keep referring to "self agency" doing things.
            – Dhammadhatu
            Dec 3 at 20:20












          • At least as I understood it, I think Andrei said "right" and "wrong" in the sense of sensorial quality, not in a value-oriented or ethicalwise manner.
            – Brian Díaz Flores
            Dec 3 at 20:24










          • I meant dukkha vedana, sukha vedana, and adukkhamasukha vedana. I prefer "feels painfully wrong" as a more idiomatic rendering of dukkha these days and "feels nice and right" as translation for sukha.
            – Andrei Volkov
            Dec 3 at 20:27












          • Saṃjñā translated as "conceptualization" is standard in Mahayana Yogacara texts. As is explanation of saṃjñā as recognition/inference based on nimitta (sign,mark).
            – Andrei Volkov
            Dec 3 at 20:29












          • Yes, standard in Mahayana Yogacara (lol).... I covered the things you wrote in my answer, such as "nimitta". "Nimitta" (such as the idea of "beautiful") is not "sanna". It is a different level of abstraction. The idea of :beautiful" is related to lust rather than to sanna. This said, I won't claim to be an expert. It very subtle.
            – Dhammadhatu
            Dec 3 at 20:38




















          up vote
          1
          down vote













          Vedana and Sanna are conjoined not disjoint.
          When it says Vedan it implies there is Sanna as well.



          =============



          "Feeling, perception, & consciousness, friend: Are these qualities conjoined or disjoined? Is it possible, having separated them one from another, to delineate the difference among them?"



          "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."



          https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.043.than.html






          share|improve this answer





















          • I didn't know that sutta. Thanks for the info. But going beyond the suttas: how do we explained the state of mind when conceptualization stops, but sensations are still present? Do the suttas speak of such a state?
            – Brian Díaz Flores
            Dec 3 at 11:25






          • 1




            conceptualization is not sanna. Contact is a condition for feeling. What you feel (vedeti), you perceive (sañjānāti). What you perceive, you think about (vitakketi). What you think about, you proliferate (papañceti). phassapaccayā vedanā, yaṃ vedeti taṃ sañjānāti, yaṃ sañjānāti taṃ vitakketi, yaṃ vitakketi taṃ papañceti suttacentral.net/mn18/en/sujato
            – Dhammadhatu
            Dec 3 at 11:48












          • Or MN 1 - Having perceived (sañjānāti) earth as earth, he conceives himself (maññati) as earth, he conceives himself in earth, he conceives himself apart from earth, he conceives earth to be ‘mine,’ he delights in earth. Why is that? Because he has not fully understood it, I say. suttacentral.net/mn1/en/bodhi
            – Dhammadhatu
            Dec 3 at 11:52












          • To Dhammadhatu: My knowledge of the sutta is almost non-existent, so my only sources are from anywhere else but the suttas. In the wiki entry about sañña, it is explained that the function of sañña is to noting, characterize and distinguish objects from other objects. That's what I understand as conceptualization: to distinguish things between each othe by assigning and describing their corresponding features (either verbally or by non-verbal recognition). en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saṃjñā
            – Brian Díaz Flores
            Dec 3 at 11:58










          • I found another source that defines sañña as "label, recognition or interpretation". accesstoinsight.org/glossary.html#s
            – Brian Díaz Flores
            Dec 3 at 12:14


















          up vote
          0
          down vote














          shouldn't be sañña placed between vedana and tanha?




          Vedana & sanna are co-joined (MN 43). They are the mind conditioner (citta sankhara - MN 44).




          As far as I currently understand, vedana is just the physiological and
          psychological -and involuntary- response (felt as a pleasent,
          unpleasent or neutral sensation) to an specific stimulus. Vedana by
          itself shouldn't be an enough condition to give rise to tanha,




          Vedana alone is enough to give rise to craving. Surely the immediate taste of certain foods is sufficient to give rise to craving. Or surely the sight of certain forms is sufficient to give rise to attraction (which is craving). For example, surely there are all sorts of chemical, hormones & neurological design that gives rise to sexual attraction on a non-verbal or non-thinking level.




          there's no necessarily an evaluation (sañña) of that feeling that
          could lead to the rise of a preference (like, dislike or
          neither-like-nor-dislike), and consequently, to the rise of tanha.




          Sanna is not evaluation. Nor is sanna "like & dislike". "Like" & "dislike" are craving; even attachment (abhinandi; found in the definition of the 2nd noble truth). Evaluation of "good" & "bad" are views & opinions attachment (diṭṭhupādānaṃ). Ideas such as "beautiful" are called "themes" ("nimitta"). MN 38 says "delight (nandi) in feelings is attachment".




          Engaged as he is in favouring and opposing, whatever feeling he feels—whether pleasant or painful or neither-painful-nor-pleasant—he
          delights in that feeling, welcomes it, and remains holding to it. As
          he does so, delight arises in him. Now delight in feelings is
          clinging
          . With his clinging as condition, being comes to be; with
          being as condition, birth; with birth as condition, ageing and death,
          sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair come to be. Such is the
          origin of this whole mass of suffering.



          Having thus abandoned favouring and opposing, whatever feeling he feels, whether pleasant or painful or neither-painful-nor-pleasant, he
          does not delight in that feeling, welcome it, or remain holding to it.
          As he does not do so, delight in feelings ceases in him. With the
          cessation of his delight comes cessation of clinging; with the
          cessation of clinging, cessation of being; with the cessation of
          being, cessation of birth; with the cessation of birth, ageing and
          death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair cease. Such is
          the cessation of this whole mass of suffering.



          MN 38







          share|improve this answer






























            up vote
            -1
            down vote













            In terms of sankharas, Sanna and vedanna are citta sankharas and as usual, sankharas stems from ignorance (like asavas) and the rest of what is conditioned stems from contact and dukkha form craving.
            https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn36/sn36.011.than.html
            http://obo.genaud.net/dhamma-vinaya/pts/sn/04_salv/sn04.36.015.wood.pts.htm



            Since sanna and vedana are citta sankharas, qualifying them of physiological is not a good idea. Same thing with trying to separate them. TYpically, the higher realm have vedana and sanna, without having the 4 elements, meaning without rupa.



            Ignorance and contact are the two main conditions that must be stopped. Craving conditions dukkha.
            Most of the stuff in the dependent origination depends on contact, more than ignorance and craving.



            You say that vedana cannot lead to tanha, by using some proof by contradiction and the concept of necessity. On the contrary. Vedana like you know is typically pleasant, non-pleasant and nor pleasant nor dis-pleasant [typically in 4th jhana]. SO that's the ideal basis for craving to pop up. Once there is a pleasant vedana, there is typically delight,and anybody wants more pleasant vedana.




            "Brethren, if there were not this satisfaction which comes from
            scents, beings would not lust after scents.



            But inasmuch as there is satisfaction in scents, therefore beings lust
            after scents.



            If misery, Brethren, pertained not to scents, beings would not be
            repelled by scents.



            But inasmuch as there is misery in scents, beings are repelled by
            scents.



            If there were no way of escape from scents, beings could not escape
            from scents.



            But inasmuch as there is a way of escape from scents, beings do escape
            from scents.
            http://obo.genaud.net/dhamma-vinaya/pts/sn/04_salv/sn04.35.018.wood.pts.htm#p1




            the buddha even says how to see the 3 vedanas, in order to progress on the path




            One who has seen the pleasant as painful And the painful as a dart,



            Seen as impermanent the peaceful feeling Neither painful nor pleasant:



            He is a bhikkhu who sees rightly, One who fully understands feelings.




            But vedana is conditioned by contact, not by craving,
            https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn36/sn36.023.than.html



            and once there is vedena, there is craving, and craving is the ''patipada[=path] to vedana''.
            Just like the noble path is the cessation of dukkha, the opposite of noble path that is tanha is the path to contact, which is the condition for the arising of vedana [you do not need to do anything than craving more to get more vedana through contact]. craving as a path is really a super simple path: the path is just craving.
            On the contrary, the opposite of craving-as-path has plenty of branches, from right discernment to the stilling of the Sankharas to their destruction.



            Puthujjanas who love the idea that there can be perception without vedana are the rationalists. They love to call such a fantasy ''the objective perception'' and they always say that vedana pollutes the knowledge, the perception and the reality [puthujjanas who are rationalist say that the reality is the objects living in a world devoid of humans]. Those people say that the pinnacle of being a human is to be a free thinker, meaning a thinker who is not influenced by other humans, nor swayed by emotions, devoid of biases.
            Of course, the dhamma has nothing to do, nor by goals nor methods, with the moronic fantasy of the rationalists.



            If you want to know more, there is a whole vagga on khandas, on nidana, on Salayatana and there is a whole Samyutta on vedana



            http://obo.genaud.net/backmatter/indexes/sutta/sn/idx_samyutta_nikaya.htm



            Typically this stuff is what the sutta in Saɱyutta Nikāya are about. Sadly, not many monks talk about them in a systematic manner. Bikkhu bodhi has done MN and is in the middle of AN right now, so it will be at least one year before he finishes AN, and perhaps he will do DN or Kn before SN.



            Another famous bikkhu did an exposition on SN, but also MN, KN and DN, Bhante Dhammavuddho



            https://www.youtube.com/user/vbgnet98/playlists?disable_polymer=1



            you can get the records of his readings here
            http://www.vbgnet.org/resource-audio.asp?page=7&cbbAuthor=&cbbLanguage=2143&cbbSortBy=Title&btnSubmit=Go






            share|improve this answer





















            • Thanks for your time! I'm kind of confused. In the Sallatha Sutta, Buddha explained that both worldlings and noble ones experience vedana in its trifold modality (pleasent, unpleasent and neutral), the difference being the way "their" minds reacted to such feelings. accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn36/sn36.006.nypo.html
              – Brian Díaz Flores
              Dec 3 at 20:35












            • Vedana & sanna are not citta and they are not sankhara khandha. The term "citta sankhara" means vedana & sanna condition the citta. For example, pleasant feeling causes lust to arise; unpleasant feeling causes anger to arise. Therefore a physical feeling, such as pain from a broken leg, is a citta sankhara because it can make the citta become angry.
              – Dhammadhatu
              Dec 4 at 0:17








            • 1




              Yes, "their" minds reacted to such feelings. The mind is "citta". The reaction is "sankhara". This is the meaning of "citta sankhara", namely, feeling & perception can cause the mind to react to them. Feeling & perception are "provokers" of the "mind", which is "citta sankhara".
              – Dhammadhatu
              Dec 4 at 0:20












            • Thanks for your time! This is exactly the root of my confusion. In the ariyas' minds there's the unpleasent feeling (in the case of a painful stimulus), but the subsequent anger does not arise. Where's the perception in this specific scenario? Why in this case the citta sankharas do not produce a citta?
              – Brian Díaz Flores
              Dec 4 at 1:19











            Your Answer








            StackExchange.ready(function() {
            var channelOptions = {
            tags: "".split(" "),
            id: "565"
            };
            initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

            StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
            // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
            if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
            StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
            createEditor();
            });
            }
            else {
            createEditor();
            }
            });

            function createEditor() {
            StackExchange.prepareEditor({
            heartbeatType: 'answer',
            autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
            convertImagesToLinks: false,
            noModals: true,
            showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
            reputationToPostImages: null,
            bindNavPrevention: true,
            postfix: "",
            imageUploader: {
            brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
            contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
            allowUrls: true
            },
            noCode: true, onDemand: true,
            discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
            ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
            });


            }
            });














            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fbuddhism.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f30156%2fin-the-dependent-origination-formula-shouldnt-perception-precede-craving-inste%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown

























            4 Answers
            4






            active

            oldest

            votes








            4 Answers
            4






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes








            up vote
            1
            down vote



            accepted










            In paticcasamuppada, shouldn't sañña precede tanha, instead of vedana?



            It should and it does: vedana => sañña => vitakka => papanca.



            From Madhupindika Sutta (MN 18):




            With contact as a requisite condition, there is feeling (vedana). What one feels, one perceives (sañña). What one perceives, one thinks (vitakka) about. What one thinks about, one objectifies (papanca).




            To clarify terms, vedana is the qualitative component of the experience of subjective contact with a subjectively delineated (mental representation of) object: "this object feels right" / "this object feels wrong" / "this object feels neither right nor wrong".



            Sañña is recognition/classification/delineation of a (subjective notion of) object by the raw features (signs) available to direct observation. While described as a single step, in actuality it is a chain of inferences that evaluates the signs, puts forward hypotheses about the perceived entity and feeds back to seeking more signs to confirm the hypothesis. At the advanced phases of the inference chain, sañña reaches a level of abstraction when it can be described as "conceptualization".



            Vitakka (in this context) is pondering or mulling over. It is bringing the attention again and again to a given idea.



            Papanca is entering a relationship of "pursuer & pursued" (or acquirer and acquired) with regard to an object. It is objectifying something and making it one's goal (-- and implicitly, making oneself an agent of pursuit. This is out of scope for this question but this is exactly how bhava or "becoming a personal form of existence" comes to fruition).



            So, first we delineate an object, then we attribute pleasant experience to a contact with the object, then we conceptualize this experience of contact and the resulting feeling and make it into a target we'd like to acquire.






            share|improve this answer























            • I marked this down. It is just personal ideas and unrelated to Buddhism. This poster needs to provide references for their answers and ideas; such as "sañña reaches a level of abstraction when it can be described as "conceptualization" or sanna is "hypotheses". Also it is "vicara" that is commonly referred to as "pondering over" rather than "vitakka". Also. i have never read a sutta saying vedana is the feeling of "right" & 'wrong". The last paragraph sounds very mixed up and the whole answer seems to keep referring to "self agency" doing things.
              – Dhammadhatu
              Dec 3 at 20:20












            • At least as I understood it, I think Andrei said "right" and "wrong" in the sense of sensorial quality, not in a value-oriented or ethicalwise manner.
              – Brian Díaz Flores
              Dec 3 at 20:24










            • I meant dukkha vedana, sukha vedana, and adukkhamasukha vedana. I prefer "feels painfully wrong" as a more idiomatic rendering of dukkha these days and "feels nice and right" as translation for sukha.
              – Andrei Volkov
              Dec 3 at 20:27












            • Saṃjñā translated as "conceptualization" is standard in Mahayana Yogacara texts. As is explanation of saṃjñā as recognition/inference based on nimitta (sign,mark).
              – Andrei Volkov
              Dec 3 at 20:29












            • Yes, standard in Mahayana Yogacara (lol).... I covered the things you wrote in my answer, such as "nimitta". "Nimitta" (such as the idea of "beautiful") is not "sanna". It is a different level of abstraction. The idea of :beautiful" is related to lust rather than to sanna. This said, I won't claim to be an expert. It very subtle.
              – Dhammadhatu
              Dec 3 at 20:38

















            up vote
            1
            down vote



            accepted










            In paticcasamuppada, shouldn't sañña precede tanha, instead of vedana?



            It should and it does: vedana => sañña => vitakka => papanca.



            From Madhupindika Sutta (MN 18):




            With contact as a requisite condition, there is feeling (vedana). What one feels, one perceives (sañña). What one perceives, one thinks (vitakka) about. What one thinks about, one objectifies (papanca).




            To clarify terms, vedana is the qualitative component of the experience of subjective contact with a subjectively delineated (mental representation of) object: "this object feels right" / "this object feels wrong" / "this object feels neither right nor wrong".



            Sañña is recognition/classification/delineation of a (subjective notion of) object by the raw features (signs) available to direct observation. While described as a single step, in actuality it is a chain of inferences that evaluates the signs, puts forward hypotheses about the perceived entity and feeds back to seeking more signs to confirm the hypothesis. At the advanced phases of the inference chain, sañña reaches a level of abstraction when it can be described as "conceptualization".



            Vitakka (in this context) is pondering or mulling over. It is bringing the attention again and again to a given idea.



            Papanca is entering a relationship of "pursuer & pursued" (or acquirer and acquired) with regard to an object. It is objectifying something and making it one's goal (-- and implicitly, making oneself an agent of pursuit. This is out of scope for this question but this is exactly how bhava or "becoming a personal form of existence" comes to fruition).



            So, first we delineate an object, then we attribute pleasant experience to a contact with the object, then we conceptualize this experience of contact and the resulting feeling and make it into a target we'd like to acquire.






            share|improve this answer























            • I marked this down. It is just personal ideas and unrelated to Buddhism. This poster needs to provide references for their answers and ideas; such as "sañña reaches a level of abstraction when it can be described as "conceptualization" or sanna is "hypotheses". Also it is "vicara" that is commonly referred to as "pondering over" rather than "vitakka". Also. i have never read a sutta saying vedana is the feeling of "right" & 'wrong". The last paragraph sounds very mixed up and the whole answer seems to keep referring to "self agency" doing things.
              – Dhammadhatu
              Dec 3 at 20:20












            • At least as I understood it, I think Andrei said "right" and "wrong" in the sense of sensorial quality, not in a value-oriented or ethicalwise manner.
              – Brian Díaz Flores
              Dec 3 at 20:24










            • I meant dukkha vedana, sukha vedana, and adukkhamasukha vedana. I prefer "feels painfully wrong" as a more idiomatic rendering of dukkha these days and "feels nice and right" as translation for sukha.
              – Andrei Volkov
              Dec 3 at 20:27












            • Saṃjñā translated as "conceptualization" is standard in Mahayana Yogacara texts. As is explanation of saṃjñā as recognition/inference based on nimitta (sign,mark).
              – Andrei Volkov
              Dec 3 at 20:29












            • Yes, standard in Mahayana Yogacara (lol).... I covered the things you wrote in my answer, such as "nimitta". "Nimitta" (such as the idea of "beautiful") is not "sanna". It is a different level of abstraction. The idea of :beautiful" is related to lust rather than to sanna. This said, I won't claim to be an expert. It very subtle.
              – Dhammadhatu
              Dec 3 at 20:38















            up vote
            1
            down vote



            accepted







            up vote
            1
            down vote



            accepted






            In paticcasamuppada, shouldn't sañña precede tanha, instead of vedana?



            It should and it does: vedana => sañña => vitakka => papanca.



            From Madhupindika Sutta (MN 18):




            With contact as a requisite condition, there is feeling (vedana). What one feels, one perceives (sañña). What one perceives, one thinks (vitakka) about. What one thinks about, one objectifies (papanca).




            To clarify terms, vedana is the qualitative component of the experience of subjective contact with a subjectively delineated (mental representation of) object: "this object feels right" / "this object feels wrong" / "this object feels neither right nor wrong".



            Sañña is recognition/classification/delineation of a (subjective notion of) object by the raw features (signs) available to direct observation. While described as a single step, in actuality it is a chain of inferences that evaluates the signs, puts forward hypotheses about the perceived entity and feeds back to seeking more signs to confirm the hypothesis. At the advanced phases of the inference chain, sañña reaches a level of abstraction when it can be described as "conceptualization".



            Vitakka (in this context) is pondering or mulling over. It is bringing the attention again and again to a given idea.



            Papanca is entering a relationship of "pursuer & pursued" (or acquirer and acquired) with regard to an object. It is objectifying something and making it one's goal (-- and implicitly, making oneself an agent of pursuit. This is out of scope for this question but this is exactly how bhava or "becoming a personal form of existence" comes to fruition).



            So, first we delineate an object, then we attribute pleasant experience to a contact with the object, then we conceptualize this experience of contact and the resulting feeling and make it into a target we'd like to acquire.






            share|improve this answer














            In paticcasamuppada, shouldn't sañña precede tanha, instead of vedana?



            It should and it does: vedana => sañña => vitakka => papanca.



            From Madhupindika Sutta (MN 18):




            With contact as a requisite condition, there is feeling (vedana). What one feels, one perceives (sañña). What one perceives, one thinks (vitakka) about. What one thinks about, one objectifies (papanca).




            To clarify terms, vedana is the qualitative component of the experience of subjective contact with a subjectively delineated (mental representation of) object: "this object feels right" / "this object feels wrong" / "this object feels neither right nor wrong".



            Sañña is recognition/classification/delineation of a (subjective notion of) object by the raw features (signs) available to direct observation. While described as a single step, in actuality it is a chain of inferences that evaluates the signs, puts forward hypotheses about the perceived entity and feeds back to seeking more signs to confirm the hypothesis. At the advanced phases of the inference chain, sañña reaches a level of abstraction when it can be described as "conceptualization".



            Vitakka (in this context) is pondering or mulling over. It is bringing the attention again and again to a given idea.



            Papanca is entering a relationship of "pursuer & pursued" (or acquirer and acquired) with regard to an object. It is objectifying something and making it one's goal (-- and implicitly, making oneself an agent of pursuit. This is out of scope for this question but this is exactly how bhava or "becoming a personal form of existence" comes to fruition).



            So, first we delineate an object, then we attribute pleasant experience to a contact with the object, then we conceptualize this experience of contact and the resulting feeling and make it into a target we'd like to acquire.







            share|improve this answer














            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer








            edited Dec 3 at 20:05

























            answered Dec 3 at 15:10









            Andrei Volkov

            37.1k330107




            37.1k330107












            • I marked this down. It is just personal ideas and unrelated to Buddhism. This poster needs to provide references for their answers and ideas; such as "sañña reaches a level of abstraction when it can be described as "conceptualization" or sanna is "hypotheses". Also it is "vicara" that is commonly referred to as "pondering over" rather than "vitakka". Also. i have never read a sutta saying vedana is the feeling of "right" & 'wrong". The last paragraph sounds very mixed up and the whole answer seems to keep referring to "self agency" doing things.
              – Dhammadhatu
              Dec 3 at 20:20












            • At least as I understood it, I think Andrei said "right" and "wrong" in the sense of sensorial quality, not in a value-oriented or ethicalwise manner.
              – Brian Díaz Flores
              Dec 3 at 20:24










            • I meant dukkha vedana, sukha vedana, and adukkhamasukha vedana. I prefer "feels painfully wrong" as a more idiomatic rendering of dukkha these days and "feels nice and right" as translation for sukha.
              – Andrei Volkov
              Dec 3 at 20:27












            • Saṃjñā translated as "conceptualization" is standard in Mahayana Yogacara texts. As is explanation of saṃjñā as recognition/inference based on nimitta (sign,mark).
              – Andrei Volkov
              Dec 3 at 20:29












            • Yes, standard in Mahayana Yogacara (lol).... I covered the things you wrote in my answer, such as "nimitta". "Nimitta" (such as the idea of "beautiful") is not "sanna". It is a different level of abstraction. The idea of :beautiful" is related to lust rather than to sanna. This said, I won't claim to be an expert. It very subtle.
              – Dhammadhatu
              Dec 3 at 20:38




















            • I marked this down. It is just personal ideas and unrelated to Buddhism. This poster needs to provide references for their answers and ideas; such as "sañña reaches a level of abstraction when it can be described as "conceptualization" or sanna is "hypotheses". Also it is "vicara" that is commonly referred to as "pondering over" rather than "vitakka". Also. i have never read a sutta saying vedana is the feeling of "right" & 'wrong". The last paragraph sounds very mixed up and the whole answer seems to keep referring to "self agency" doing things.
              – Dhammadhatu
              Dec 3 at 20:20












            • At least as I understood it, I think Andrei said "right" and "wrong" in the sense of sensorial quality, not in a value-oriented or ethicalwise manner.
              – Brian Díaz Flores
              Dec 3 at 20:24










            • I meant dukkha vedana, sukha vedana, and adukkhamasukha vedana. I prefer "feels painfully wrong" as a more idiomatic rendering of dukkha these days and "feels nice and right" as translation for sukha.
              – Andrei Volkov
              Dec 3 at 20:27












            • Saṃjñā translated as "conceptualization" is standard in Mahayana Yogacara texts. As is explanation of saṃjñā as recognition/inference based on nimitta (sign,mark).
              – Andrei Volkov
              Dec 3 at 20:29












            • Yes, standard in Mahayana Yogacara (lol).... I covered the things you wrote in my answer, such as "nimitta". "Nimitta" (such as the idea of "beautiful") is not "sanna". It is a different level of abstraction. The idea of :beautiful" is related to lust rather than to sanna. This said, I won't claim to be an expert. It very subtle.
              – Dhammadhatu
              Dec 3 at 20:38


















            I marked this down. It is just personal ideas and unrelated to Buddhism. This poster needs to provide references for their answers and ideas; such as "sañña reaches a level of abstraction when it can be described as "conceptualization" or sanna is "hypotheses". Also it is "vicara" that is commonly referred to as "pondering over" rather than "vitakka". Also. i have never read a sutta saying vedana is the feeling of "right" & 'wrong". The last paragraph sounds very mixed up and the whole answer seems to keep referring to "self agency" doing things.
            – Dhammadhatu
            Dec 3 at 20:20






            I marked this down. It is just personal ideas and unrelated to Buddhism. This poster needs to provide references for their answers and ideas; such as "sañña reaches a level of abstraction when it can be described as "conceptualization" or sanna is "hypotheses". Also it is "vicara" that is commonly referred to as "pondering over" rather than "vitakka". Also. i have never read a sutta saying vedana is the feeling of "right" & 'wrong". The last paragraph sounds very mixed up and the whole answer seems to keep referring to "self agency" doing things.
            – Dhammadhatu
            Dec 3 at 20:20














            At least as I understood it, I think Andrei said "right" and "wrong" in the sense of sensorial quality, not in a value-oriented or ethicalwise manner.
            – Brian Díaz Flores
            Dec 3 at 20:24




            At least as I understood it, I think Andrei said "right" and "wrong" in the sense of sensorial quality, not in a value-oriented or ethicalwise manner.
            – Brian Díaz Flores
            Dec 3 at 20:24












            I meant dukkha vedana, sukha vedana, and adukkhamasukha vedana. I prefer "feels painfully wrong" as a more idiomatic rendering of dukkha these days and "feels nice and right" as translation for sukha.
            – Andrei Volkov
            Dec 3 at 20:27






            I meant dukkha vedana, sukha vedana, and adukkhamasukha vedana. I prefer "feels painfully wrong" as a more idiomatic rendering of dukkha these days and "feels nice and right" as translation for sukha.
            – Andrei Volkov
            Dec 3 at 20:27














            Saṃjñā translated as "conceptualization" is standard in Mahayana Yogacara texts. As is explanation of saṃjñā as recognition/inference based on nimitta (sign,mark).
            – Andrei Volkov
            Dec 3 at 20:29






            Saṃjñā translated as "conceptualization" is standard in Mahayana Yogacara texts. As is explanation of saṃjñā as recognition/inference based on nimitta (sign,mark).
            – Andrei Volkov
            Dec 3 at 20:29














            Yes, standard in Mahayana Yogacara (lol).... I covered the things you wrote in my answer, such as "nimitta". "Nimitta" (such as the idea of "beautiful") is not "sanna". It is a different level of abstraction. The idea of :beautiful" is related to lust rather than to sanna. This said, I won't claim to be an expert. It very subtle.
            – Dhammadhatu
            Dec 3 at 20:38






            Yes, standard in Mahayana Yogacara (lol).... I covered the things you wrote in my answer, such as "nimitta". "Nimitta" (such as the idea of "beautiful") is not "sanna". It is a different level of abstraction. The idea of :beautiful" is related to lust rather than to sanna. This said, I won't claim to be an expert. It very subtle.
            – Dhammadhatu
            Dec 3 at 20:38












            up vote
            1
            down vote













            Vedana and Sanna are conjoined not disjoint.
            When it says Vedan it implies there is Sanna as well.



            =============



            "Feeling, perception, & consciousness, friend: Are these qualities conjoined or disjoined? Is it possible, having separated them one from another, to delineate the difference among them?"



            "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."



            https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.043.than.html






            share|improve this answer





















            • I didn't know that sutta. Thanks for the info. But going beyond the suttas: how do we explained the state of mind when conceptualization stops, but sensations are still present? Do the suttas speak of such a state?
              – Brian Díaz Flores
              Dec 3 at 11:25






            • 1




              conceptualization is not sanna. Contact is a condition for feeling. What you feel (vedeti), you perceive (sañjānāti). What you perceive, you think about (vitakketi). What you think about, you proliferate (papañceti). phassapaccayā vedanā, yaṃ vedeti taṃ sañjānāti, yaṃ sañjānāti taṃ vitakketi, yaṃ vitakketi taṃ papañceti suttacentral.net/mn18/en/sujato
              – Dhammadhatu
              Dec 3 at 11:48












            • Or MN 1 - Having perceived (sañjānāti) earth as earth, he conceives himself (maññati) as earth, he conceives himself in earth, he conceives himself apart from earth, he conceives earth to be ‘mine,’ he delights in earth. Why is that? Because he has not fully understood it, I say. suttacentral.net/mn1/en/bodhi
              – Dhammadhatu
              Dec 3 at 11:52












            • To Dhammadhatu: My knowledge of the sutta is almost non-existent, so my only sources are from anywhere else but the suttas. In the wiki entry about sañña, it is explained that the function of sañña is to noting, characterize and distinguish objects from other objects. That's what I understand as conceptualization: to distinguish things between each othe by assigning and describing their corresponding features (either verbally or by non-verbal recognition). en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saṃjñā
              – Brian Díaz Flores
              Dec 3 at 11:58










            • I found another source that defines sañña as "label, recognition or interpretation". accesstoinsight.org/glossary.html#s
              – Brian Díaz Flores
              Dec 3 at 12:14















            up vote
            1
            down vote













            Vedana and Sanna are conjoined not disjoint.
            When it says Vedan it implies there is Sanna as well.



            =============



            "Feeling, perception, & consciousness, friend: Are these qualities conjoined or disjoined? Is it possible, having separated them one from another, to delineate the difference among them?"



            "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."



            https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.043.than.html






            share|improve this answer





















            • I didn't know that sutta. Thanks for the info. But going beyond the suttas: how do we explained the state of mind when conceptualization stops, but sensations are still present? Do the suttas speak of such a state?
              – Brian Díaz Flores
              Dec 3 at 11:25






            • 1




              conceptualization is not sanna. Contact is a condition for feeling. What you feel (vedeti), you perceive (sañjānāti). What you perceive, you think about (vitakketi). What you think about, you proliferate (papañceti). phassapaccayā vedanā, yaṃ vedeti taṃ sañjānāti, yaṃ sañjānāti taṃ vitakketi, yaṃ vitakketi taṃ papañceti suttacentral.net/mn18/en/sujato
              – Dhammadhatu
              Dec 3 at 11:48












            • Or MN 1 - Having perceived (sañjānāti) earth as earth, he conceives himself (maññati) as earth, he conceives himself in earth, he conceives himself apart from earth, he conceives earth to be ‘mine,’ he delights in earth. Why is that? Because he has not fully understood it, I say. suttacentral.net/mn1/en/bodhi
              – Dhammadhatu
              Dec 3 at 11:52












            • To Dhammadhatu: My knowledge of the sutta is almost non-existent, so my only sources are from anywhere else but the suttas. In the wiki entry about sañña, it is explained that the function of sañña is to noting, characterize and distinguish objects from other objects. That's what I understand as conceptualization: to distinguish things between each othe by assigning and describing their corresponding features (either verbally or by non-verbal recognition). en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saṃjñā
              – Brian Díaz Flores
              Dec 3 at 11:58










            • I found another source that defines sañña as "label, recognition or interpretation". accesstoinsight.org/glossary.html#s
              – Brian Díaz Flores
              Dec 3 at 12:14













            up vote
            1
            down vote










            up vote
            1
            down vote









            Vedana and Sanna are conjoined not disjoint.
            When it says Vedan it implies there is Sanna as well.



            =============



            "Feeling, perception, & consciousness, friend: Are these qualities conjoined or disjoined? Is it possible, having separated them one from another, to delineate the difference among them?"



            "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."



            https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.043.than.html






            share|improve this answer












            Vedana and Sanna are conjoined not disjoint.
            When it says Vedan it implies there is Sanna as well.



            =============



            "Feeling, perception, & consciousness, friend: Are these qualities conjoined or disjoined? Is it possible, having separated them one from another, to delineate the difference among them?"



            "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."



            https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.043.than.html







            share|improve this answer












            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer










            answered Dec 3 at 10:48









            SarathW

            2,472212




            2,472212












            • I didn't know that sutta. Thanks for the info. But going beyond the suttas: how do we explained the state of mind when conceptualization stops, but sensations are still present? Do the suttas speak of such a state?
              – Brian Díaz Flores
              Dec 3 at 11:25






            • 1




              conceptualization is not sanna. Contact is a condition for feeling. What you feel (vedeti), you perceive (sañjānāti). What you perceive, you think about (vitakketi). What you think about, you proliferate (papañceti). phassapaccayā vedanā, yaṃ vedeti taṃ sañjānāti, yaṃ sañjānāti taṃ vitakketi, yaṃ vitakketi taṃ papañceti suttacentral.net/mn18/en/sujato
              – Dhammadhatu
              Dec 3 at 11:48












            • Or MN 1 - Having perceived (sañjānāti) earth as earth, he conceives himself (maññati) as earth, he conceives himself in earth, he conceives himself apart from earth, he conceives earth to be ‘mine,’ he delights in earth. Why is that? Because he has not fully understood it, I say. suttacentral.net/mn1/en/bodhi
              – Dhammadhatu
              Dec 3 at 11:52












            • To Dhammadhatu: My knowledge of the sutta is almost non-existent, so my only sources are from anywhere else but the suttas. In the wiki entry about sañña, it is explained that the function of sañña is to noting, characterize and distinguish objects from other objects. That's what I understand as conceptualization: to distinguish things between each othe by assigning and describing their corresponding features (either verbally or by non-verbal recognition). en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saṃjñā
              – Brian Díaz Flores
              Dec 3 at 11:58










            • I found another source that defines sañña as "label, recognition or interpretation". accesstoinsight.org/glossary.html#s
              – Brian Díaz Flores
              Dec 3 at 12:14


















            • I didn't know that sutta. Thanks for the info. But going beyond the suttas: how do we explained the state of mind when conceptualization stops, but sensations are still present? Do the suttas speak of such a state?
              – Brian Díaz Flores
              Dec 3 at 11:25






            • 1




              conceptualization is not sanna. Contact is a condition for feeling. What you feel (vedeti), you perceive (sañjānāti). What you perceive, you think about (vitakketi). What you think about, you proliferate (papañceti). phassapaccayā vedanā, yaṃ vedeti taṃ sañjānāti, yaṃ sañjānāti taṃ vitakketi, yaṃ vitakketi taṃ papañceti suttacentral.net/mn18/en/sujato
              – Dhammadhatu
              Dec 3 at 11:48












            • Or MN 1 - Having perceived (sañjānāti) earth as earth, he conceives himself (maññati) as earth, he conceives himself in earth, he conceives himself apart from earth, he conceives earth to be ‘mine,’ he delights in earth. Why is that? Because he has not fully understood it, I say. suttacentral.net/mn1/en/bodhi
              – Dhammadhatu
              Dec 3 at 11:52












            • To Dhammadhatu: My knowledge of the sutta is almost non-existent, so my only sources are from anywhere else but the suttas. In the wiki entry about sañña, it is explained that the function of sañña is to noting, characterize and distinguish objects from other objects. That's what I understand as conceptualization: to distinguish things between each othe by assigning and describing their corresponding features (either verbally or by non-verbal recognition). en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saṃjñā
              – Brian Díaz Flores
              Dec 3 at 11:58










            • I found another source that defines sañña as "label, recognition or interpretation". accesstoinsight.org/glossary.html#s
              – Brian Díaz Flores
              Dec 3 at 12:14
















            I didn't know that sutta. Thanks for the info. But going beyond the suttas: how do we explained the state of mind when conceptualization stops, but sensations are still present? Do the suttas speak of such a state?
            – Brian Díaz Flores
            Dec 3 at 11:25




            I didn't know that sutta. Thanks for the info. But going beyond the suttas: how do we explained the state of mind when conceptualization stops, but sensations are still present? Do the suttas speak of such a state?
            – Brian Díaz Flores
            Dec 3 at 11:25




            1




            1




            conceptualization is not sanna. Contact is a condition for feeling. What you feel (vedeti), you perceive (sañjānāti). What you perceive, you think about (vitakketi). What you think about, you proliferate (papañceti). phassapaccayā vedanā, yaṃ vedeti taṃ sañjānāti, yaṃ sañjānāti taṃ vitakketi, yaṃ vitakketi taṃ papañceti suttacentral.net/mn18/en/sujato
            – Dhammadhatu
            Dec 3 at 11:48






            conceptualization is not sanna. Contact is a condition for feeling. What you feel (vedeti), you perceive (sañjānāti). What you perceive, you think about (vitakketi). What you think about, you proliferate (papañceti). phassapaccayā vedanā, yaṃ vedeti taṃ sañjānāti, yaṃ sañjānāti taṃ vitakketi, yaṃ vitakketi taṃ papañceti suttacentral.net/mn18/en/sujato
            – Dhammadhatu
            Dec 3 at 11:48














            Or MN 1 - Having perceived (sañjānāti) earth as earth, he conceives himself (maññati) as earth, he conceives himself in earth, he conceives himself apart from earth, he conceives earth to be ‘mine,’ he delights in earth. Why is that? Because he has not fully understood it, I say. suttacentral.net/mn1/en/bodhi
            – Dhammadhatu
            Dec 3 at 11:52






            Or MN 1 - Having perceived (sañjānāti) earth as earth, he conceives himself (maññati) as earth, he conceives himself in earth, he conceives himself apart from earth, he conceives earth to be ‘mine,’ he delights in earth. Why is that? Because he has not fully understood it, I say. suttacentral.net/mn1/en/bodhi
            – Dhammadhatu
            Dec 3 at 11:52














            To Dhammadhatu: My knowledge of the sutta is almost non-existent, so my only sources are from anywhere else but the suttas. In the wiki entry about sañña, it is explained that the function of sañña is to noting, characterize and distinguish objects from other objects. That's what I understand as conceptualization: to distinguish things between each othe by assigning and describing their corresponding features (either verbally or by non-verbal recognition). en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saṃjñā
            – Brian Díaz Flores
            Dec 3 at 11:58




            To Dhammadhatu: My knowledge of the sutta is almost non-existent, so my only sources are from anywhere else but the suttas. In the wiki entry about sañña, it is explained that the function of sañña is to noting, characterize and distinguish objects from other objects. That's what I understand as conceptualization: to distinguish things between each othe by assigning and describing their corresponding features (either verbally or by non-verbal recognition). en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saṃjñā
            – Brian Díaz Flores
            Dec 3 at 11:58












            I found another source that defines sañña as "label, recognition or interpretation". accesstoinsight.org/glossary.html#s
            – Brian Díaz Flores
            Dec 3 at 12:14




            I found another source that defines sañña as "label, recognition or interpretation". accesstoinsight.org/glossary.html#s
            – Brian Díaz Flores
            Dec 3 at 12:14










            up vote
            0
            down vote














            shouldn't be sañña placed between vedana and tanha?




            Vedana & sanna are co-joined (MN 43). They are the mind conditioner (citta sankhara - MN 44).




            As far as I currently understand, vedana is just the physiological and
            psychological -and involuntary- response (felt as a pleasent,
            unpleasent or neutral sensation) to an specific stimulus. Vedana by
            itself shouldn't be an enough condition to give rise to tanha,




            Vedana alone is enough to give rise to craving. Surely the immediate taste of certain foods is sufficient to give rise to craving. Or surely the sight of certain forms is sufficient to give rise to attraction (which is craving). For example, surely there are all sorts of chemical, hormones & neurological design that gives rise to sexual attraction on a non-verbal or non-thinking level.




            there's no necessarily an evaluation (sañña) of that feeling that
            could lead to the rise of a preference (like, dislike or
            neither-like-nor-dislike), and consequently, to the rise of tanha.




            Sanna is not evaluation. Nor is sanna "like & dislike". "Like" & "dislike" are craving; even attachment (abhinandi; found in the definition of the 2nd noble truth). Evaluation of "good" & "bad" are views & opinions attachment (diṭṭhupādānaṃ). Ideas such as "beautiful" are called "themes" ("nimitta"). MN 38 says "delight (nandi) in feelings is attachment".




            Engaged as he is in favouring and opposing, whatever feeling he feels—whether pleasant or painful or neither-painful-nor-pleasant—he
            delights in that feeling, welcomes it, and remains holding to it. As
            he does so, delight arises in him. Now delight in feelings is
            clinging
            . With his clinging as condition, being comes to be; with
            being as condition, birth; with birth as condition, ageing and death,
            sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair come to be. Such is the
            origin of this whole mass of suffering.



            Having thus abandoned favouring and opposing, whatever feeling he feels, whether pleasant or painful or neither-painful-nor-pleasant, he
            does not delight in that feeling, welcome it, or remain holding to it.
            As he does not do so, delight in feelings ceases in him. With the
            cessation of his delight comes cessation of clinging; with the
            cessation of clinging, cessation of being; with the cessation of
            being, cessation of birth; with the cessation of birth, ageing and
            death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair cease. Such is
            the cessation of this whole mass of suffering.



            MN 38







            share|improve this answer



























              up vote
              0
              down vote














              shouldn't be sañña placed between vedana and tanha?




              Vedana & sanna are co-joined (MN 43). They are the mind conditioner (citta sankhara - MN 44).




              As far as I currently understand, vedana is just the physiological and
              psychological -and involuntary- response (felt as a pleasent,
              unpleasent or neutral sensation) to an specific stimulus. Vedana by
              itself shouldn't be an enough condition to give rise to tanha,




              Vedana alone is enough to give rise to craving. Surely the immediate taste of certain foods is sufficient to give rise to craving. Or surely the sight of certain forms is sufficient to give rise to attraction (which is craving). For example, surely there are all sorts of chemical, hormones & neurological design that gives rise to sexual attraction on a non-verbal or non-thinking level.




              there's no necessarily an evaluation (sañña) of that feeling that
              could lead to the rise of a preference (like, dislike or
              neither-like-nor-dislike), and consequently, to the rise of tanha.




              Sanna is not evaluation. Nor is sanna "like & dislike". "Like" & "dislike" are craving; even attachment (abhinandi; found in the definition of the 2nd noble truth). Evaluation of "good" & "bad" are views & opinions attachment (diṭṭhupādānaṃ). Ideas such as "beautiful" are called "themes" ("nimitta"). MN 38 says "delight (nandi) in feelings is attachment".




              Engaged as he is in favouring and opposing, whatever feeling he feels—whether pleasant or painful or neither-painful-nor-pleasant—he
              delights in that feeling, welcomes it, and remains holding to it. As
              he does so, delight arises in him. Now delight in feelings is
              clinging
              . With his clinging as condition, being comes to be; with
              being as condition, birth; with birth as condition, ageing and death,
              sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair come to be. Such is the
              origin of this whole mass of suffering.



              Having thus abandoned favouring and opposing, whatever feeling he feels, whether pleasant or painful or neither-painful-nor-pleasant, he
              does not delight in that feeling, welcome it, or remain holding to it.
              As he does not do so, delight in feelings ceases in him. With the
              cessation of his delight comes cessation of clinging; with the
              cessation of clinging, cessation of being; with the cessation of
              being, cessation of birth; with the cessation of birth, ageing and
              death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair cease. Such is
              the cessation of this whole mass of suffering.



              MN 38







              share|improve this answer

























                up vote
                0
                down vote










                up vote
                0
                down vote










                shouldn't be sañña placed between vedana and tanha?




                Vedana & sanna are co-joined (MN 43). They are the mind conditioner (citta sankhara - MN 44).




                As far as I currently understand, vedana is just the physiological and
                psychological -and involuntary- response (felt as a pleasent,
                unpleasent or neutral sensation) to an specific stimulus. Vedana by
                itself shouldn't be an enough condition to give rise to tanha,




                Vedana alone is enough to give rise to craving. Surely the immediate taste of certain foods is sufficient to give rise to craving. Or surely the sight of certain forms is sufficient to give rise to attraction (which is craving). For example, surely there are all sorts of chemical, hormones & neurological design that gives rise to sexual attraction on a non-verbal or non-thinking level.




                there's no necessarily an evaluation (sañña) of that feeling that
                could lead to the rise of a preference (like, dislike or
                neither-like-nor-dislike), and consequently, to the rise of tanha.




                Sanna is not evaluation. Nor is sanna "like & dislike". "Like" & "dislike" are craving; even attachment (abhinandi; found in the definition of the 2nd noble truth). Evaluation of "good" & "bad" are views & opinions attachment (diṭṭhupādānaṃ). Ideas such as "beautiful" are called "themes" ("nimitta"). MN 38 says "delight (nandi) in feelings is attachment".




                Engaged as he is in favouring and opposing, whatever feeling he feels—whether pleasant or painful or neither-painful-nor-pleasant—he
                delights in that feeling, welcomes it, and remains holding to it. As
                he does so, delight arises in him. Now delight in feelings is
                clinging
                . With his clinging as condition, being comes to be; with
                being as condition, birth; with birth as condition, ageing and death,
                sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair come to be. Such is the
                origin of this whole mass of suffering.



                Having thus abandoned favouring and opposing, whatever feeling he feels, whether pleasant or painful or neither-painful-nor-pleasant, he
                does not delight in that feeling, welcome it, or remain holding to it.
                As he does not do so, delight in feelings ceases in him. With the
                cessation of his delight comes cessation of clinging; with the
                cessation of clinging, cessation of being; with the cessation of
                being, cessation of birth; with the cessation of birth, ageing and
                death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair cease. Such is
                the cessation of this whole mass of suffering.



                MN 38







                share|improve this answer















                shouldn't be sañña placed between vedana and tanha?




                Vedana & sanna are co-joined (MN 43). They are the mind conditioner (citta sankhara - MN 44).




                As far as I currently understand, vedana is just the physiological and
                psychological -and involuntary- response (felt as a pleasent,
                unpleasent or neutral sensation) to an specific stimulus. Vedana by
                itself shouldn't be an enough condition to give rise to tanha,




                Vedana alone is enough to give rise to craving. Surely the immediate taste of certain foods is sufficient to give rise to craving. Or surely the sight of certain forms is sufficient to give rise to attraction (which is craving). For example, surely there are all sorts of chemical, hormones & neurological design that gives rise to sexual attraction on a non-verbal or non-thinking level.




                there's no necessarily an evaluation (sañña) of that feeling that
                could lead to the rise of a preference (like, dislike or
                neither-like-nor-dislike), and consequently, to the rise of tanha.




                Sanna is not evaluation. Nor is sanna "like & dislike". "Like" & "dislike" are craving; even attachment (abhinandi; found in the definition of the 2nd noble truth). Evaluation of "good" & "bad" are views & opinions attachment (diṭṭhupādānaṃ). Ideas such as "beautiful" are called "themes" ("nimitta"). MN 38 says "delight (nandi) in feelings is attachment".




                Engaged as he is in favouring and opposing, whatever feeling he feels—whether pleasant or painful or neither-painful-nor-pleasant—he
                delights in that feeling, welcomes it, and remains holding to it. As
                he does so, delight arises in him. Now delight in feelings is
                clinging
                . With his clinging as condition, being comes to be; with
                being as condition, birth; with birth as condition, ageing and death,
                sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair come to be. Such is the
                origin of this whole mass of suffering.



                Having thus abandoned favouring and opposing, whatever feeling he feels, whether pleasant or painful or neither-painful-nor-pleasant, he
                does not delight in that feeling, welcome it, or remain holding to it.
                As he does not do so, delight in feelings ceases in him. With the
                cessation of his delight comes cessation of clinging; with the
                cessation of clinging, cessation of being; with the cessation of
                being, cessation of birth; with the cessation of birth, ageing and
                death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair cease. Such is
                the cessation of this whole mass of suffering.



                MN 38








                share|improve this answer














                share|improve this answer



                share|improve this answer








                edited Dec 3 at 12:01

























                answered Dec 3 at 11:33









                Dhammadhatu

                24.2k11043




                24.2k11043






















                    up vote
                    -1
                    down vote













                    In terms of sankharas, Sanna and vedanna are citta sankharas and as usual, sankharas stems from ignorance (like asavas) and the rest of what is conditioned stems from contact and dukkha form craving.
                    https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn36/sn36.011.than.html
                    http://obo.genaud.net/dhamma-vinaya/pts/sn/04_salv/sn04.36.015.wood.pts.htm



                    Since sanna and vedana are citta sankharas, qualifying them of physiological is not a good idea. Same thing with trying to separate them. TYpically, the higher realm have vedana and sanna, without having the 4 elements, meaning without rupa.



                    Ignorance and contact are the two main conditions that must be stopped. Craving conditions dukkha.
                    Most of the stuff in the dependent origination depends on contact, more than ignorance and craving.



                    You say that vedana cannot lead to tanha, by using some proof by contradiction and the concept of necessity. On the contrary. Vedana like you know is typically pleasant, non-pleasant and nor pleasant nor dis-pleasant [typically in 4th jhana]. SO that's the ideal basis for craving to pop up. Once there is a pleasant vedana, there is typically delight,and anybody wants more pleasant vedana.




                    "Brethren, if there were not this satisfaction which comes from
                    scents, beings would not lust after scents.



                    But inasmuch as there is satisfaction in scents, therefore beings lust
                    after scents.



                    If misery, Brethren, pertained not to scents, beings would not be
                    repelled by scents.



                    But inasmuch as there is misery in scents, beings are repelled by
                    scents.



                    If there were no way of escape from scents, beings could not escape
                    from scents.



                    But inasmuch as there is a way of escape from scents, beings do escape
                    from scents.
                    http://obo.genaud.net/dhamma-vinaya/pts/sn/04_salv/sn04.35.018.wood.pts.htm#p1




                    the buddha even says how to see the 3 vedanas, in order to progress on the path




                    One who has seen the pleasant as painful And the painful as a dart,



                    Seen as impermanent the peaceful feeling Neither painful nor pleasant:



                    He is a bhikkhu who sees rightly, One who fully understands feelings.




                    But vedana is conditioned by contact, not by craving,
                    https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn36/sn36.023.than.html



                    and once there is vedena, there is craving, and craving is the ''patipada[=path] to vedana''.
                    Just like the noble path is the cessation of dukkha, the opposite of noble path that is tanha is the path to contact, which is the condition for the arising of vedana [you do not need to do anything than craving more to get more vedana through contact]. craving as a path is really a super simple path: the path is just craving.
                    On the contrary, the opposite of craving-as-path has plenty of branches, from right discernment to the stilling of the Sankharas to their destruction.



                    Puthujjanas who love the idea that there can be perception without vedana are the rationalists. They love to call such a fantasy ''the objective perception'' and they always say that vedana pollutes the knowledge, the perception and the reality [puthujjanas who are rationalist say that the reality is the objects living in a world devoid of humans]. Those people say that the pinnacle of being a human is to be a free thinker, meaning a thinker who is not influenced by other humans, nor swayed by emotions, devoid of biases.
                    Of course, the dhamma has nothing to do, nor by goals nor methods, with the moronic fantasy of the rationalists.



                    If you want to know more, there is a whole vagga on khandas, on nidana, on Salayatana and there is a whole Samyutta on vedana



                    http://obo.genaud.net/backmatter/indexes/sutta/sn/idx_samyutta_nikaya.htm



                    Typically this stuff is what the sutta in Saɱyutta Nikāya are about. Sadly, not many monks talk about them in a systematic manner. Bikkhu bodhi has done MN and is in the middle of AN right now, so it will be at least one year before he finishes AN, and perhaps he will do DN or Kn before SN.



                    Another famous bikkhu did an exposition on SN, but also MN, KN and DN, Bhante Dhammavuddho



                    https://www.youtube.com/user/vbgnet98/playlists?disable_polymer=1



                    you can get the records of his readings here
                    http://www.vbgnet.org/resource-audio.asp?page=7&cbbAuthor=&cbbLanguage=2143&cbbSortBy=Title&btnSubmit=Go






                    share|improve this answer





















                    • Thanks for your time! I'm kind of confused. In the Sallatha Sutta, Buddha explained that both worldlings and noble ones experience vedana in its trifold modality (pleasent, unpleasent and neutral), the difference being the way "their" minds reacted to such feelings. accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn36/sn36.006.nypo.html
                      – Brian Díaz Flores
                      Dec 3 at 20:35












                    • Vedana & sanna are not citta and they are not sankhara khandha. The term "citta sankhara" means vedana & sanna condition the citta. For example, pleasant feeling causes lust to arise; unpleasant feeling causes anger to arise. Therefore a physical feeling, such as pain from a broken leg, is a citta sankhara because it can make the citta become angry.
                      – Dhammadhatu
                      Dec 4 at 0:17








                    • 1




                      Yes, "their" minds reacted to such feelings. The mind is "citta". The reaction is "sankhara". This is the meaning of "citta sankhara", namely, feeling & perception can cause the mind to react to them. Feeling & perception are "provokers" of the "mind", which is "citta sankhara".
                      – Dhammadhatu
                      Dec 4 at 0:20












                    • Thanks for your time! This is exactly the root of my confusion. In the ariyas' minds there's the unpleasent feeling (in the case of a painful stimulus), but the subsequent anger does not arise. Where's the perception in this specific scenario? Why in this case the citta sankharas do not produce a citta?
                      – Brian Díaz Flores
                      Dec 4 at 1:19















                    up vote
                    -1
                    down vote













                    In terms of sankharas, Sanna and vedanna are citta sankharas and as usual, sankharas stems from ignorance (like asavas) and the rest of what is conditioned stems from contact and dukkha form craving.
                    https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn36/sn36.011.than.html
                    http://obo.genaud.net/dhamma-vinaya/pts/sn/04_salv/sn04.36.015.wood.pts.htm



                    Since sanna and vedana are citta sankharas, qualifying them of physiological is not a good idea. Same thing with trying to separate them. TYpically, the higher realm have vedana and sanna, without having the 4 elements, meaning without rupa.



                    Ignorance and contact are the two main conditions that must be stopped. Craving conditions dukkha.
                    Most of the stuff in the dependent origination depends on contact, more than ignorance and craving.



                    You say that vedana cannot lead to tanha, by using some proof by contradiction and the concept of necessity. On the contrary. Vedana like you know is typically pleasant, non-pleasant and nor pleasant nor dis-pleasant [typically in 4th jhana]. SO that's the ideal basis for craving to pop up. Once there is a pleasant vedana, there is typically delight,and anybody wants more pleasant vedana.




                    "Brethren, if there were not this satisfaction which comes from
                    scents, beings would not lust after scents.



                    But inasmuch as there is satisfaction in scents, therefore beings lust
                    after scents.



                    If misery, Brethren, pertained not to scents, beings would not be
                    repelled by scents.



                    But inasmuch as there is misery in scents, beings are repelled by
                    scents.



                    If there were no way of escape from scents, beings could not escape
                    from scents.



                    But inasmuch as there is a way of escape from scents, beings do escape
                    from scents.
                    http://obo.genaud.net/dhamma-vinaya/pts/sn/04_salv/sn04.35.018.wood.pts.htm#p1




                    the buddha even says how to see the 3 vedanas, in order to progress on the path




                    One who has seen the pleasant as painful And the painful as a dart,



                    Seen as impermanent the peaceful feeling Neither painful nor pleasant:



                    He is a bhikkhu who sees rightly, One who fully understands feelings.




                    But vedana is conditioned by contact, not by craving,
                    https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn36/sn36.023.than.html



                    and once there is vedena, there is craving, and craving is the ''patipada[=path] to vedana''.
                    Just like the noble path is the cessation of dukkha, the opposite of noble path that is tanha is the path to contact, which is the condition for the arising of vedana [you do not need to do anything than craving more to get more vedana through contact]. craving as a path is really a super simple path: the path is just craving.
                    On the contrary, the opposite of craving-as-path has plenty of branches, from right discernment to the stilling of the Sankharas to their destruction.



                    Puthujjanas who love the idea that there can be perception without vedana are the rationalists. They love to call such a fantasy ''the objective perception'' and they always say that vedana pollutes the knowledge, the perception and the reality [puthujjanas who are rationalist say that the reality is the objects living in a world devoid of humans]. Those people say that the pinnacle of being a human is to be a free thinker, meaning a thinker who is not influenced by other humans, nor swayed by emotions, devoid of biases.
                    Of course, the dhamma has nothing to do, nor by goals nor methods, with the moronic fantasy of the rationalists.



                    If you want to know more, there is a whole vagga on khandas, on nidana, on Salayatana and there is a whole Samyutta on vedana



                    http://obo.genaud.net/backmatter/indexes/sutta/sn/idx_samyutta_nikaya.htm



                    Typically this stuff is what the sutta in Saɱyutta Nikāya are about. Sadly, not many monks talk about them in a systematic manner. Bikkhu bodhi has done MN and is in the middle of AN right now, so it will be at least one year before he finishes AN, and perhaps he will do DN or Kn before SN.



                    Another famous bikkhu did an exposition on SN, but also MN, KN and DN, Bhante Dhammavuddho



                    https://www.youtube.com/user/vbgnet98/playlists?disable_polymer=1



                    you can get the records of his readings here
                    http://www.vbgnet.org/resource-audio.asp?page=7&cbbAuthor=&cbbLanguage=2143&cbbSortBy=Title&btnSubmit=Go






                    share|improve this answer





















                    • Thanks for your time! I'm kind of confused. In the Sallatha Sutta, Buddha explained that both worldlings and noble ones experience vedana in its trifold modality (pleasent, unpleasent and neutral), the difference being the way "their" minds reacted to such feelings. accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn36/sn36.006.nypo.html
                      – Brian Díaz Flores
                      Dec 3 at 20:35












                    • Vedana & sanna are not citta and they are not sankhara khandha. The term "citta sankhara" means vedana & sanna condition the citta. For example, pleasant feeling causes lust to arise; unpleasant feeling causes anger to arise. Therefore a physical feeling, such as pain from a broken leg, is a citta sankhara because it can make the citta become angry.
                      – Dhammadhatu
                      Dec 4 at 0:17








                    • 1




                      Yes, "their" minds reacted to such feelings. The mind is "citta". The reaction is "sankhara". This is the meaning of "citta sankhara", namely, feeling & perception can cause the mind to react to them. Feeling & perception are "provokers" of the "mind", which is "citta sankhara".
                      – Dhammadhatu
                      Dec 4 at 0:20












                    • Thanks for your time! This is exactly the root of my confusion. In the ariyas' minds there's the unpleasent feeling (in the case of a painful stimulus), but the subsequent anger does not arise. Where's the perception in this specific scenario? Why in this case the citta sankharas do not produce a citta?
                      – Brian Díaz Flores
                      Dec 4 at 1:19













                    up vote
                    -1
                    down vote










                    up vote
                    -1
                    down vote









                    In terms of sankharas, Sanna and vedanna are citta sankharas and as usual, sankharas stems from ignorance (like asavas) and the rest of what is conditioned stems from contact and dukkha form craving.
                    https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn36/sn36.011.than.html
                    http://obo.genaud.net/dhamma-vinaya/pts/sn/04_salv/sn04.36.015.wood.pts.htm



                    Since sanna and vedana are citta sankharas, qualifying them of physiological is not a good idea. Same thing with trying to separate them. TYpically, the higher realm have vedana and sanna, without having the 4 elements, meaning without rupa.



                    Ignorance and contact are the two main conditions that must be stopped. Craving conditions dukkha.
                    Most of the stuff in the dependent origination depends on contact, more than ignorance and craving.



                    You say that vedana cannot lead to tanha, by using some proof by contradiction and the concept of necessity. On the contrary. Vedana like you know is typically pleasant, non-pleasant and nor pleasant nor dis-pleasant [typically in 4th jhana]. SO that's the ideal basis for craving to pop up. Once there is a pleasant vedana, there is typically delight,and anybody wants more pleasant vedana.




                    "Brethren, if there were not this satisfaction which comes from
                    scents, beings would not lust after scents.



                    But inasmuch as there is satisfaction in scents, therefore beings lust
                    after scents.



                    If misery, Brethren, pertained not to scents, beings would not be
                    repelled by scents.



                    But inasmuch as there is misery in scents, beings are repelled by
                    scents.



                    If there were no way of escape from scents, beings could not escape
                    from scents.



                    But inasmuch as there is a way of escape from scents, beings do escape
                    from scents.
                    http://obo.genaud.net/dhamma-vinaya/pts/sn/04_salv/sn04.35.018.wood.pts.htm#p1




                    the buddha even says how to see the 3 vedanas, in order to progress on the path




                    One who has seen the pleasant as painful And the painful as a dart,



                    Seen as impermanent the peaceful feeling Neither painful nor pleasant:



                    He is a bhikkhu who sees rightly, One who fully understands feelings.




                    But vedana is conditioned by contact, not by craving,
                    https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn36/sn36.023.than.html



                    and once there is vedena, there is craving, and craving is the ''patipada[=path] to vedana''.
                    Just like the noble path is the cessation of dukkha, the opposite of noble path that is tanha is the path to contact, which is the condition for the arising of vedana [you do not need to do anything than craving more to get more vedana through contact]. craving as a path is really a super simple path: the path is just craving.
                    On the contrary, the opposite of craving-as-path has plenty of branches, from right discernment to the stilling of the Sankharas to their destruction.



                    Puthujjanas who love the idea that there can be perception without vedana are the rationalists. They love to call such a fantasy ''the objective perception'' and they always say that vedana pollutes the knowledge, the perception and the reality [puthujjanas who are rationalist say that the reality is the objects living in a world devoid of humans]. Those people say that the pinnacle of being a human is to be a free thinker, meaning a thinker who is not influenced by other humans, nor swayed by emotions, devoid of biases.
                    Of course, the dhamma has nothing to do, nor by goals nor methods, with the moronic fantasy of the rationalists.



                    If you want to know more, there is a whole vagga on khandas, on nidana, on Salayatana and there is a whole Samyutta on vedana



                    http://obo.genaud.net/backmatter/indexes/sutta/sn/idx_samyutta_nikaya.htm



                    Typically this stuff is what the sutta in Saɱyutta Nikāya are about. Sadly, not many monks talk about them in a systematic manner. Bikkhu bodhi has done MN and is in the middle of AN right now, so it will be at least one year before he finishes AN, and perhaps he will do DN or Kn before SN.



                    Another famous bikkhu did an exposition on SN, but also MN, KN and DN, Bhante Dhammavuddho



                    https://www.youtube.com/user/vbgnet98/playlists?disable_polymer=1



                    you can get the records of his readings here
                    http://www.vbgnet.org/resource-audio.asp?page=7&cbbAuthor=&cbbLanguage=2143&cbbSortBy=Title&btnSubmit=Go






                    share|improve this answer












                    In terms of sankharas, Sanna and vedanna are citta sankharas and as usual, sankharas stems from ignorance (like asavas) and the rest of what is conditioned stems from contact and dukkha form craving.
                    https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn36/sn36.011.than.html
                    http://obo.genaud.net/dhamma-vinaya/pts/sn/04_salv/sn04.36.015.wood.pts.htm



                    Since sanna and vedana are citta sankharas, qualifying them of physiological is not a good idea. Same thing with trying to separate them. TYpically, the higher realm have vedana and sanna, without having the 4 elements, meaning without rupa.



                    Ignorance and contact are the two main conditions that must be stopped. Craving conditions dukkha.
                    Most of the stuff in the dependent origination depends on contact, more than ignorance and craving.



                    You say that vedana cannot lead to tanha, by using some proof by contradiction and the concept of necessity. On the contrary. Vedana like you know is typically pleasant, non-pleasant and nor pleasant nor dis-pleasant [typically in 4th jhana]. SO that's the ideal basis for craving to pop up. Once there is a pleasant vedana, there is typically delight,and anybody wants more pleasant vedana.




                    "Brethren, if there were not this satisfaction which comes from
                    scents, beings would not lust after scents.



                    But inasmuch as there is satisfaction in scents, therefore beings lust
                    after scents.



                    If misery, Brethren, pertained not to scents, beings would not be
                    repelled by scents.



                    But inasmuch as there is misery in scents, beings are repelled by
                    scents.



                    If there were no way of escape from scents, beings could not escape
                    from scents.



                    But inasmuch as there is a way of escape from scents, beings do escape
                    from scents.
                    http://obo.genaud.net/dhamma-vinaya/pts/sn/04_salv/sn04.35.018.wood.pts.htm#p1




                    the buddha even says how to see the 3 vedanas, in order to progress on the path




                    One who has seen the pleasant as painful And the painful as a dart,



                    Seen as impermanent the peaceful feeling Neither painful nor pleasant:



                    He is a bhikkhu who sees rightly, One who fully understands feelings.




                    But vedana is conditioned by contact, not by craving,
                    https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn36/sn36.023.than.html



                    and once there is vedena, there is craving, and craving is the ''patipada[=path] to vedana''.
                    Just like the noble path is the cessation of dukkha, the opposite of noble path that is tanha is the path to contact, which is the condition for the arising of vedana [you do not need to do anything than craving more to get more vedana through contact]. craving as a path is really a super simple path: the path is just craving.
                    On the contrary, the opposite of craving-as-path has plenty of branches, from right discernment to the stilling of the Sankharas to their destruction.



                    Puthujjanas who love the idea that there can be perception without vedana are the rationalists. They love to call such a fantasy ''the objective perception'' and they always say that vedana pollutes the knowledge, the perception and the reality [puthujjanas who are rationalist say that the reality is the objects living in a world devoid of humans]. Those people say that the pinnacle of being a human is to be a free thinker, meaning a thinker who is not influenced by other humans, nor swayed by emotions, devoid of biases.
                    Of course, the dhamma has nothing to do, nor by goals nor methods, with the moronic fantasy of the rationalists.



                    If you want to know more, there is a whole vagga on khandas, on nidana, on Salayatana and there is a whole Samyutta on vedana



                    http://obo.genaud.net/backmatter/indexes/sutta/sn/idx_samyutta_nikaya.htm



                    Typically this stuff is what the sutta in Saɱyutta Nikāya are about. Sadly, not many monks talk about them in a systematic manner. Bikkhu bodhi has done MN and is in the middle of AN right now, so it will be at least one year before he finishes AN, and perhaps he will do DN or Kn before SN.



                    Another famous bikkhu did an exposition on SN, but also MN, KN and DN, Bhante Dhammavuddho



                    https://www.youtube.com/user/vbgnet98/playlists?disable_polymer=1



                    you can get the records of his readings here
                    http://www.vbgnet.org/resource-audio.asp?page=7&cbbAuthor=&cbbLanguage=2143&cbbSortBy=Title&btnSubmit=Go







                    share|improve this answer












                    share|improve this answer



                    share|improve this answer










                    answered Dec 3 at 15:47









                    Veiculo longo

                    5312




                    5312












                    • Thanks for your time! I'm kind of confused. In the Sallatha Sutta, Buddha explained that both worldlings and noble ones experience vedana in its trifold modality (pleasent, unpleasent and neutral), the difference being the way "their" minds reacted to such feelings. accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn36/sn36.006.nypo.html
                      – Brian Díaz Flores
                      Dec 3 at 20:35












                    • Vedana & sanna are not citta and they are not sankhara khandha. The term "citta sankhara" means vedana & sanna condition the citta. For example, pleasant feeling causes lust to arise; unpleasant feeling causes anger to arise. Therefore a physical feeling, such as pain from a broken leg, is a citta sankhara because it can make the citta become angry.
                      – Dhammadhatu
                      Dec 4 at 0:17








                    • 1




                      Yes, "their" minds reacted to such feelings. The mind is "citta". The reaction is "sankhara". This is the meaning of "citta sankhara", namely, feeling & perception can cause the mind to react to them. Feeling & perception are "provokers" of the "mind", which is "citta sankhara".
                      – Dhammadhatu
                      Dec 4 at 0:20












                    • Thanks for your time! This is exactly the root of my confusion. In the ariyas' minds there's the unpleasent feeling (in the case of a painful stimulus), but the subsequent anger does not arise. Where's the perception in this specific scenario? Why in this case the citta sankharas do not produce a citta?
                      – Brian Díaz Flores
                      Dec 4 at 1:19


















                    • Thanks for your time! I'm kind of confused. In the Sallatha Sutta, Buddha explained that both worldlings and noble ones experience vedana in its trifold modality (pleasent, unpleasent and neutral), the difference being the way "their" minds reacted to such feelings. accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn36/sn36.006.nypo.html
                      – Brian Díaz Flores
                      Dec 3 at 20:35












                    • Vedana & sanna are not citta and they are not sankhara khandha. The term "citta sankhara" means vedana & sanna condition the citta. For example, pleasant feeling causes lust to arise; unpleasant feeling causes anger to arise. Therefore a physical feeling, such as pain from a broken leg, is a citta sankhara because it can make the citta become angry.
                      – Dhammadhatu
                      Dec 4 at 0:17








                    • 1




                      Yes, "their" minds reacted to such feelings. The mind is "citta". The reaction is "sankhara". This is the meaning of "citta sankhara", namely, feeling & perception can cause the mind to react to them. Feeling & perception are "provokers" of the "mind", which is "citta sankhara".
                      – Dhammadhatu
                      Dec 4 at 0:20












                    • Thanks for your time! This is exactly the root of my confusion. In the ariyas' minds there's the unpleasent feeling (in the case of a painful stimulus), but the subsequent anger does not arise. Where's the perception in this specific scenario? Why in this case the citta sankharas do not produce a citta?
                      – Brian Díaz Flores
                      Dec 4 at 1:19
















                    Thanks for your time! I'm kind of confused. In the Sallatha Sutta, Buddha explained that both worldlings and noble ones experience vedana in its trifold modality (pleasent, unpleasent and neutral), the difference being the way "their" minds reacted to such feelings. accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn36/sn36.006.nypo.html
                    – Brian Díaz Flores
                    Dec 3 at 20:35






                    Thanks for your time! I'm kind of confused. In the Sallatha Sutta, Buddha explained that both worldlings and noble ones experience vedana in its trifold modality (pleasent, unpleasent and neutral), the difference being the way "their" minds reacted to such feelings. accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn36/sn36.006.nypo.html
                    – Brian Díaz Flores
                    Dec 3 at 20:35














                    Vedana & sanna are not citta and they are not sankhara khandha. The term "citta sankhara" means vedana & sanna condition the citta. For example, pleasant feeling causes lust to arise; unpleasant feeling causes anger to arise. Therefore a physical feeling, such as pain from a broken leg, is a citta sankhara because it can make the citta become angry.
                    – Dhammadhatu
                    Dec 4 at 0:17






                    Vedana & sanna are not citta and they are not sankhara khandha. The term "citta sankhara" means vedana & sanna condition the citta. For example, pleasant feeling causes lust to arise; unpleasant feeling causes anger to arise. Therefore a physical feeling, such as pain from a broken leg, is a citta sankhara because it can make the citta become angry.
                    – Dhammadhatu
                    Dec 4 at 0:17






                    1




                    1




                    Yes, "their" minds reacted to such feelings. The mind is "citta". The reaction is "sankhara". This is the meaning of "citta sankhara", namely, feeling & perception can cause the mind to react to them. Feeling & perception are "provokers" of the "mind", which is "citta sankhara".
                    – Dhammadhatu
                    Dec 4 at 0:20






                    Yes, "their" minds reacted to such feelings. The mind is "citta". The reaction is "sankhara". This is the meaning of "citta sankhara", namely, feeling & perception can cause the mind to react to them. Feeling & perception are "provokers" of the "mind", which is "citta sankhara".
                    – Dhammadhatu
                    Dec 4 at 0:20














                    Thanks for your time! This is exactly the root of my confusion. In the ariyas' minds there's the unpleasent feeling (in the case of a painful stimulus), but the subsequent anger does not arise. Where's the perception in this specific scenario? Why in this case the citta sankharas do not produce a citta?
                    – Brian Díaz Flores
                    Dec 4 at 1:19




                    Thanks for your time! This is exactly the root of my confusion. In the ariyas' minds there's the unpleasent feeling (in the case of a painful stimulus), but the subsequent anger does not arise. Where's the perception in this specific scenario? Why in this case the citta sankharas do not produce a citta?
                    – Brian Díaz Flores
                    Dec 4 at 1:19


















                    draft saved

                    draft discarded




















































                    Thanks for contributing an answer to Buddhism Stack Exchange!


                    • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                    But avoid



                    • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                    • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                    To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





                    Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


                    Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


                    • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                    But avoid



                    • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                    • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                    To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                    draft saved


                    draft discarded














                    StackExchange.ready(
                    function () {
                    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fbuddhism.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f30156%2fin-the-dependent-origination-formula-shouldnt-perception-precede-craving-inste%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                    }
                    );

                    Post as a guest















                    Required, but never shown





















































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown

































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown







                    Popular posts from this blog

                    Ellipse (mathématiques)

                    Quarter-circle Tiles

                    Mont Emei