Hello Alan,
This question just came up at dsg. I repeat:
The sense-cognitions (seeing etc,) experience sense objects through the
sense-doors, and phassa is in those cases: cakkhu-samphassa, etc. The
phassas arising with the five sense-cognitions are named after their
relevant base.
Seeing and contact that accompanies it, have the eyesense as physical base,
vatthu. Eyesense functions as base for seeing (and its accompanying
cetasikas, phassa etc.) only, and it functions as doorway for all the cittas
arising in the eye-door process.
Mano-samphassa, mind-contact: this is phassa accompanying the cittas other
than the sense cognitions.
op 20-09-2005 19:47 schreef Alan McClure op alanmcclure3@...:

> However, would it be correct to say, that if we do take the mind to be a
> "sixth" sense base so to speak, that even these cittas could be seen as sense
> objects?

-----
N: Sense objects, such as visible object, are ruupas, not naamas. Eyebase
etc. are ruupas, not naamas as you know. Citta could not be a sense base nor
could it be a sense object.
------

A:If I understand things correctly, where there is contact, there must

> be a sense base,a sense object, and the consciousness that arises in relation
> to the base and object. In the case of jhaanacitta then, the base must be the
> mind and therefore can't we call it the "sixth" sense-base. If this is true,
> does it just boil down to you preferring to not call the mind a "sixth" sense?

------
N: Right. I am disinclined to call citta a sixth sense. I associate the word
sense with ruupa. I would not mix naama and ruupa, they are different. I
took jhaanacitta as example to make it more obvious, but perhaps that
confused things. Jhaanacitta is accompanied by mano samphassa and this
contacts the nimitta of jhaana which is not a sense object.
Nina.