user8157: I read the following on the internet:

Thus we can say that consciousness is a result of contact.
It looks like ocean waves: there is something beneath (water, an organ of perception) and something above (wind, perceived object).
We can say that consciousness doesn't exist if there is no contact of organ of perception and object of perception.

Is consciousness a result of contact? 
Or contact a result of consciousness? 
What did the Lord Buddha, the Master, have to say about this? 

user12020: Personally consiousness and the physical are inseparable the intangible and tangeble are as just as a necessity of everything else that's diametrically opposed. The physical does not exist without the spiritual to concieve of it and vice versa as far I can percieve. That thought though negates a ultimate source of consience ie god etc because that sentience would be incorporeal and be independent of the material.
I actually believe that realty is a product of every possibility and is without boundary a whole has limitless division similarly how we perceive the infinite of space our perception of it is limited by the scale of it ,a measurement we have like a Meter or inch is simply relative to our scale and the number it throws back is of no degree of the whole because of limitless division and no precise measurement. The whole exists and the path to knowledge is not in reduction of it but by studying it as it is.
Grasshopper lol

user12985: Consciousness is not a result of contact.
In conditional relation, consciousness and contact (mental formation) arise together by sahajata paccaya. 

user11009: Buddha never talked about the beginning of the original consciousness (the first cause).
Vinnana and Nama-rupa are dependently originated.

user43: 
consciousness is a result of contact.

Of course not! That would be a totally materialistic explanation. Instead,
consciousness, or rather, experience (vijnana) arises when enough samskaras have been accumulated to allow for recognition of patterns. Recognition leads to arising of objects (nama-rupa) and experience of the world where objects exist (vijnana). Then based on experience of the world and objects, there comes experience of contact, from which comes the notion of outer and inner, which eventually matures into a self once the experience of contact is projected in future.
In other words, contact should be understood in terms of developmental phenomenology, not physics. 

user471: From the Madhupindika Sutta (MN18):

"Dependent on eye & forms, eye-consciousness arises. The meeting of
  the three is contact. With contact as a requisite condition, there is
  feeling. What one feels, one perceives (labels in the mind). What one
  perceives, one thinks about. What one thinks about, one objectifies.
  Based on what a person objectifies, the perceptions & categories of
  objectification assail him/her with regard to past, present, & future
  forms cognizable via the eye.
"Dependent on ear & sounds, ear-consciousness arises...
"Dependent on nose & aromas, nose-consciousness arises...
"Dependent on tongue & flavors, tongue-consciousness arises...
"Dependent on body & tactile sensations, body-consciousness arises...
"Dependent on intellect & ideas, intellect-consciousness arises. The
  meeting of the three is contact. With contact as a requisite
  condition, there is feeling. What one feels, one perceives (labels in
  the mind). What one perceives, one thinks about. What one thinks
  about, one objectifies. Based on what a person objectifies, the
  perceptions & categories of objectification assail him/her with regard
  to past, present, & future ideas cognizable via the intellect.


8157: <p>I read the following on the internet:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p><em>Thus we can say that consciousness is a result of contact.</em></p>
  
  <p><em>It looks like ocean waves: there is something beneath (water, an organ of perception) and something above (wind, perceived object).</em></p>
  
  <p><em>We can say that consciousness doesn't exist if there is no contact of organ of perception and object of perception.</em></p>
</blockquote>

<p>Is consciousness a result of contact? </p>

<p>Or contact a result of consciousness? </p>

<p>What did the Lord Buddha, the Master, have to say about this? </p>
 12020: <p>Personally consiousness and the physical are inseparable the intangible and tangeble are as just as a necessity of everything else that's diametrically opposed. The physical does not exist without the spiritual to concieve of it and vice versa as far I can percieve. That thought though negates a ultimate source of consience ie god etc because that sentience would be incorporeal and be independent of the material.
I actually believe that realty is a product of every possibility and is without boundary a whole has limitless division similarly how we perceive the infinite of space our perception of it is limited by the scale of it ,a measurement we have like a Meter or inch is simply relative to our scale and the number it throws back is of no degree of the whole because of limitless division and no precise measurement. The whole exists and the path to knowledge is not in reduction of it but by studying it as it is.
Grasshopper lol</p>
 12985: <p>Consciousness is not a result of contact.</p>

<p>In conditional relation, consciousness and contact (mental formation) arise together by sahajata paccaya. </p>
 11009: <p>Buddha never talked about the beginning of the original consciousness (the first cause).
Vinnana and Nama-rupa are dependently originated.</p>
 43: <blockquote>
  <p>consciousness is a result of contact.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Of course not! That would be a totally materialistic explanation. Instead,</p>

<p>consciousness, or rather, experience (vijnana) arises when enough samskaras have been accumulated to allow for recognition of patterns. Recognition leads to arising of objects (nama-rupa) and experience of the world where objects exist (vijnana). Then based on experience of the world and objects, there comes experience of contact, from which comes the notion of outer and inner, which eventually matures into a self once the experience of contact is projected in future.</p>

<p>In other words, contact should be understood in terms of developmental phenomenology, not physics. </p>
 471: <p>From the <a href="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.018.than.html" rel="noreferrer">Madhupindika Sutta (MN18)</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>"Dependent on eye &amp; forms, eye-consciousness arises. The meeting of
  the three is contact. With contact as a requisite condition, there is
  feeling. What one feels, one perceives (labels in the mind). What one
  perceives, one thinks about. What one thinks about, one objectifies.
  Based on what a person objectifies, the perceptions &amp; categories of
  objectification assail him/her with regard to past, present, &amp; future
  forms cognizable via the eye.</p>
  
  <p>"Dependent on ear &amp; sounds, ear-consciousness arises...</p>
  
  <p>"Dependent on nose &amp; aromas, nose-consciousness arises...</p>
  
  <p>"Dependent on tongue &amp; flavors, tongue-consciousness arises...</p>
  
  <p>"Dependent on body &amp; tactile sensations, body-consciousness arises...</p>
  
  <p>"Dependent on intellect &amp; ideas, intellect-consciousness arises. The
  meeting of the three is contact. With contact as a requisite
  condition, there is feeling. What one feels, one perceives (labels in
  the mind). What one perceives, one thinks about. What one thinks
  about, one objectifies. Based on what a person objectifies, the
  perceptions &amp; categories of objectification assail him/her with regard
  to past, present, &amp; future ideas cognizable via the intellect.</p>
</blockquote>
