[Tobias G]

See posts:
Ānāpānasati – Mindfulness (Sati) Based on Buddha’s Worldview

Ānāpāna – Adopting Buddha’s Worldview and Discarding ‘Mundane Views’   #9

I understand that one must approach the Satipaṭṭhāna Bhūmi gradually, progressing from the Nava Kamma stage to the Purana Kamma stage and then to the Satipaṭṭhāna Bhūmi without kama sanna. A Sotapanna must cultivate Satipaṭṭhāna Bhāvanā to reach Satipaṭṭhāna Bhūmi.

In #9 mentioned above it is said: “…A Buddhist meditation NEVER takes a worldly object, such as the breath or a kasina object, as the meditation subject!” In Satipaṭṭhāna Bhūmi one should do Vipassana. But Vipassana requires dhammas. Even Buddha dhamma is a worldly object and belongs to this world. In Vipassana one must think about concepts/dhammas in relation to worldly objects to understand the anicca nature of these. That seems a contradiction to the text in bold above. Can someone explain?  

On the other hand this sentence is much clearer: “Of course, Ānanda. There is such a saññā. It is the saññā of ‘cooling down associated with Nibbāna.” <br />
When thinking about dhamma concepts the mind cools down and the panca nivarana are not present. That seems to be the Satipaṭṭhāna Bhūmi and Samatha.

[Lal]

1. It is true that the Buddha Dhamma also belongs to the world. 

• However, Buddha Dhamma includes only concepts, not ‘things’ (‘sankhata‘) that have arisen in the world.
• Sankhata (things in the world) arise via raga, dosa, moha/avijja arising in the mind. 
• A mind devoid of raga, dosa, moha/avijja (the mind of an Arahant) will no longer generate sankhata and is dissociated from the world.
• This is why Nibbana is called ‘asankhata.’ See “Saṅkhatalakkhaṇa Sutta (AN 3.47).”
• Also, see “Asaṅkhata Sutta (SN 43.12)” and “Maggaṅga Sutta (SN 43.11).”

2. One’s mind is always fooled by the ‘things’ (‘sankhata‘) that have arisen in the world.

• By focusing the mind on such things, one can never get to Nibbana. That is why ‘breath meditation’ can never lead to Nibbana, even though it can provide a ‘temporary relief.’
• This is why it is critical to understand that ‘color’ does not even exist in the world. However, the mind has conjured up a way to give the perception of color. 
• We would not even be able to see ‘things’ (‘sankhata‘) that have arisen in the world, if the mind did not fool us with ‘color perception.’ 
• If one can understand the following two posts, it would clear up many issues: “Rūpa Samudaya – A ‘Colorful World’ Is Created by the Mind” and “Human Life is Unlivable in a ‘Colorless’ World.” 
• Feel free to ask further questions.

[Tobias G]

Why should the relatively new scientific finding that “colors are created by the mind” be so relevant? People in earlier times could not have known this, yet they were still able to attain Nibbana.

Isn’t it more important to understand the anicca and asubha nature? After all, the things of the world can be whatever they want; if one cannot permanently obtain what one wants, dukkha arises, and thus existence is pointless. Then it also doesn’t matter whether colors come from things or are mind-made. Furthermore, I wonder where the Buddha says that colors are merely mind-made and that this is a problem.

Sanna always corresponds to the plane of existence (kamaloka, rupaloka, arupaloka), and this occurs with many nuances. This is what Sanna Vipallasa means. Thus, we are deluded by this perception and, through samyojana and gati, generate new kamma in two stages (purana/nava).

regarding the sentence:  “…A Buddhist meditation NEVER takes a worldly object, such as the breath or a kasina object, as the meditation subject!”  Do you say that the meditation object shall not be a “thing of this world” but dhammas/concepts are OK? 

[Lal]

“Why should the relatively new scientific finding that “colors are created by the mind” be so relevant? People in earlier times could not have known this, yet they were still able to attain Nibbana.”

• To understand that one must know what “paramita” means. Learning/comprehending Buddha’s teachings may not happen in a single lifetime. Different people are at different stages of that. Normally, when a Buddha is born into the world, there are numerous people who have fulfilled “paramita” to higher levels and are ‘almost there’, able to complete that process. They don’t need detailed explanations. But most people today need ‘all the help they can get.’ In other words, those people were able to grasp the fact that not only sights, but all other sense faculties arise to ‘fool us’ with the ‘built-in’ kama sanna.
• Anyway, I am very much puzzled by the fact that people are not taking that scientifically proven fact seriously. Do you think it is not true? Do you think ‘colorful objects’ really exist in the world?

________

“Isn’t it more important to understand the anicca and asubha nature?”

• To understand the anicca and asubha nature, one must first understand that ‘kama sanna‘ fools us (e.g., colors are not real).

____________

“Sanna always corresponds to the plane of existence (kamaloka, rupaloka, arupaloka), and this occurs with many nuances. This is what Sanna Vipallasa means. Thus, we are deluded by this perception and, through samyojana and gati, generate new kamma in two stages (purana/nava).”

• That is correct.

______________

“regarding the sentence:  “…A Buddhist meditation NEVER takes a worldly object, such as the breath or a kasina object, as the meditation subject!”  Do you say that the meditation object shall not be a “thing of this world” but dhammas/concepts are OK? “

• Yes. I say that “meditation object shall not be a ‘thing of this world,’ but dhamma concepts are OK.” Not only OK, but required!
• One must contemplate Dhamma concepts, and that is the way to avoid ‘kama sanna‘ from triggering thoughts of greed, anger, and ignorance. 
• Focusing the mind on a ‘mundane neutral object” like the breath or a clay ball may calm the mind, but ignorant thoughts arise due to taking a ‘worldly object’ as the focus, still with the ‘kama sanna.’
• In other words, some worldly objects trigger greedy thoughts, some angry thoughts, and those neutral ones trigger ignorant thoughts. 
• When one’s mind begins to comprehend Dhamma concepts, it will automatically move toward the Satipatthana Bhumi. In the days of the Buddha, those who had most of their “paramita” fulfilled were able to grasp those concepts, and their minds would enter the Satipatthana Bhumi during that discourse itself, and even attain the Sotapanna stage. They probably had exposure to concepts like the role of ‘kama sanna‘ in their previous lives. They just needed a ‘little push.’ 

1 user thanked author for this post.

Tobias G

[Tobias G]

Hello Lal, here my reply:

“Anyway, I am very much puzzled by the fact that people are not taking that scientifically proven fact seriously. Do you think it is not true? Do you think ‘colorful objects’ really exist in the world?”

–> I take the fact seriously and I think that the eye sense receives electromagnetic waves which are in fact special types of rupa with a wave function. Our perception is an optimized illusion/deception about a much deeper, more unified reality. The mind builds a useful “user interface” optimized for our survival. Colors, smells, tastes, the sense of time, the solidity of objects—none of these exist “out there” in that form. They are emergent perceptual constructs.

Let’s consider both possibilities: Colors are inherent in external things, or colors are purely mind-made.

Colors are inherent in external things:
The external thing appears somewhat more valuable if it actually possesses this quality.

Colors are purely mind-made:
The external thing appears less valuable without genuine intrinsic color.

In both cases, this doesn’t change the anicca/asubha nature, because one might still not be able to possess this thing, or at least not permanently, in the way one desires (anicca). Even the desired color can eventually become truly irritating (dukkha). Therefore, in my opinion, the difference lies only in the slightly lower perceived value when color is purely mind-made.

______________

“Isn’t it more important to understand the anicca and asubha nature?”

• To understand the anicca and asubha nature, one must first understand that ‘kama sanna‘ fools us (e.g., colors are not real).

–> I disagree. One can also understand the anicca nature of the world by understanding the adinava and viparinama of each sankata, thus grasping the tilakkhana at a basic level. This is sufficient for the sotapanna stage. Only after that does a sotapanna look at deeper aspects, such as the recognition of purana/nava kamma. Actually, it is this aspect that has continued to occupy me: although I understand the Buddha Dhamma quite well, I still indulge in small desires, such as good food. This is due to sanna vipallasa/kama sana in combination with purana/nava kamma and unbroken samyojana/gati. Your series of texts on this topic has helped me a lot. Thank you so much!

• This reply was modified 1 day ago by Tobias G.

[Lal]

Thanks for the input, Tobias. If more people commented, I would be able to address these key issues better.

You made two comments above. Let us categorize them #1 and #2.

___________

#1: You agree that colors are mind-made and do not exist in sunlight or external objects. You also agree that ‘perception of color’ (our experience of color) is for our survival.

• However, you are not making the connection to Buddha’s teachings on the anicca nature.
• Modern science makes the same argument as you do. They say that the perception of color evolved over time. They say that life evolved into more complex forms, starting with primitive forms that lacked color perception. That is based on Darwin’s theory of evolution, which says life evolves to generate ‘more capabilities’ for survival.
• Buddha’s description is the opposite. Life did not evolve on Earth. The first lifeform on the newly formed Earth was humans with ‘Brahma-like subtle bodies’ (not the dense physical bodies we have today); they were also unisexual like Brahmas, no men or women. Initially, they did not need dense food either. However, with time, their minds defiled (because their samyojana or anusaya were NOT eliminated) and they gradually started engaging in immoral deeds. Their bodies changed over millions of years to become denser, and sex organs also evolved (more correctly, it is devolution, the opposite of evolution). Then, the environment also changed with vegetation appearing. That was necessary for the next step: those humans who had engaged in immoral deeds were reborn as animals. I have discussed/summarized that complex account in two posts :
• “Aggañña Sutta Discussion – Introduction” and “Buddhism and Evolution – Aggañña Sutta (DN 27)“

____________________

Issue #2 on the anicca nature is firmly attached to issue #1.

• One must first decide which of the two ways to explain how ‘color perception’ appeared. Did it evolve over billions of years as modern science proposes, or is it “built in differently to different living beings based on their gati“? That second process operates via Paticca Samuppada. For example, humans who have better moral gati but crave sensual pleasure are born with sense faculties to ‘enjoy life’ with colorful, tasteful… sensory experiences, while most animals do not ‘enjoy such pleasures’ because of the immoral gati that led to their births.
• As I have explained, the theory of evolution is based on one critical basis. Thoughts arise in the brain. When the brain (i.e., the physical body) dies, that lifeform ends. The ‘evolution of species’ propagates via random mutations in the DNA. Let us get that fact established first. If someone bases their argument on the ‘theory of evolution,’ then Tobias’s explanation holds. If that is the case, then one should first get rid of that ‘wrong worldview’ to follow the Buddha’s teachings. However, that is for each person to decide.
• Regarding the choice between those two possibilities, I can only provide evidence that thoughts can not arise in the brain. This is the main obstacle facing those who advocate Darwin’s theory. They cannot explain how thoughts and perception (including color perception) can arise in the brain, which is made of inert atoms/molecules. It is called the “hard problem of consciousness.” There are two other pieces of evidence against Darwin’s theory (same as the proposition that thoughts/perceptions arise in the brain), and those are rebirth accounts and Near-Death Experiences (NDE): “Near-Death Experiences (NDE): Brain Is Not the Mind.”

______________

We can continue the discussion, but we need to make a distinction about how to proceed. 

• We cannot have two separate discussions: (i) Discuss the choice between Darwin’s theory of evolution and Buddha’s theory of Paticca Samuppada, or (ii) Discuss how to explain color perception within Paticca Samuppada. 
• The basis of my posts is the Buddha’s teachings, i.e., color perception arises via Paticca Samuppada. 

1 user thanked author for this post.

Tobias G

[Tobias G]

We can stay with discussion No. (ii).

I don’t care about Darwin’s theory either and how life evolved. What is the connection between anicca and mind-made colors? Perhaps you could also address my distinction above: colors in external things versus only mind-made colors.

Color-recognition is required to live a pleasureable life or life at all. Paticca Samuppada is the process to maintain samsara and hence bhava/jati. The six sense fields are established to enable contact/recognition and that in a way that bhava is supported and extended into the future via new kamma. Thus, our desire for contact and experience is baked into the ayatana, and this manifests as sanna vipallasa.

[Lal]

Of course. I knew that you would choose option (ii).

I will try to explain it a bit more later today or tomorrow. I have a few mundane tasks to finish first.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Tobias G

[Lal]

Tobias asked in his last comment: “Perhaps you could also address my distinction above: colors in external things versus only mind-made colors.” 

The following is what he wrote in his previous comment:

“Let’s consider both possibilities: Colors are inherent in external things, or colors are purely mind-made.

Colors are inherent in external things:

The external thing appears somewhat more valuable if it actually possesses this quality.

Colors are purely mind-made:

The external thing appears less valuable without genuine intrinsic color.

In both cases, this doesn’t change the anicca/asubha nature..”

______________________

@Tobias: I understand what you are trying to resolve as follows:

Does it really matter whether the color is really in an external object or whether it is mind-made (because it does not affect how we understand the anicca nature)?

• Is that the correct way to reframe your question?

• This reply was modified 23 hours ago by Lal.

[Tobias G]

Yes, that is correctly stated. 

[Lal]

OK. This is a great question that could help clarify the issue for many. Let us consider the two possibilities.

Color Is Intrinsically In Each External Object

1. If this is the case, that means we perceive the ‘true nature’ of the object, at least regarding its color.

• Since the color (and the beauty or attractiveness) is associated with the external object, it would not be possible to lose cravings for it without getting rid of it or at least by totally avoiding it.
• This was the thought process of ancient yogis who went deep into forests to avoid contact with ‘mind-pleasing things.’
• While some of them successfully cultivated jhāna with that approach, they were not able to eliminate the ‘kāma rāga saṁyojana.’ Thus, they are still not released from the ‘kāma loka.’ 
• Furthermore, since they still held the wrong view that the beauty or attractiveness is associated with external objects, they could not eliminate the three ‘diṭṭhi saṁyojana‘ of sakkāya diṭṭhi, vicikicchā, and silabbata parāmāsa. Thus, they are still not released from the apāyās either.

Objects in the World Do Not Have ‘Color’; Color (and Beauty) Is Mind-Made

2. Once one understands that the color (and the beauty or attractiveness) is not in external objects, but is a mind-generated phenomenon, then one realizes that the craving for it can be lost. 

• That realization holds not only for color, but for all other ‘attractive features’ of sensory experiences. For example, ‘sweet taste of honey’ is not in honey, but is a mind-made illusion. I have discussed that in many posts.
• Once one’s mind fully grasps that fact, one’s mind would eliminate the three ‘diṭṭhi saṁyojana‘ of sakkāya diṭṭhi, vicikicchā, and silabbata parāmāsa, and one would attain the Sotapanna stage of Nibbāna. This fulfills the first stage of Ānāpānasati in the Ānāpānasati Sutta (MN 118).
• See “Ānāpāna – Adopting Buddha’s Worldview and Discarding ‘Mundane Views’.”

3. However, it is not easy to remove that ‘built-in kāma sanna‘ from the mind of even a Sotapanna. We have been trapped in the rebirth process for an eternity because of that. It is not easy to get rid of it.

• Thus, their minds would still attach to ‘attractive things in the world’ and enter the ‘kāma loka‘ automatically. However, since they have removed the three ‘diṭṭhi saṁyojana‘, they are incapable of ‘taking extreme measures’ (i.e., engaging in apāyagāmi immoral deeds) to fulfill sensory desires. That is why they are released from rebirth in the apāyās.
• A Sotapanna must cultivate Satipaṭṭhāna or the second stage of Ānāpānasati in the Ānāpānasati Sutta (MN 118) to enter the Satipaṭṭhāna Bhūmi free of the kāma saññā to cultivate higher magga phala.
• See “Ānāpānasati – Mindfulness (Sati) Based on Buddha’s Worldview.”

4. Another critical point is the following. The mind can only generate energies that can lead to the formation of subtle matter, like the invisible body of a gandhabba or a Brahma. 

• The kammic energy (generated in the ‘nava kamma‘ stage with javana citta) can generate only inert matter in the external world. 
• Both the ‘subtle bodies’ of living beings (with the seat of the mind and the bases of sense faculties) and the inert things of the external world arise via Paṭicca Samuppāda. 
• However, it cannot directly generate ‘mind-pleasing qualities’ (e.g., taste, color) in the external environment. For example, the Paṭicca Samuppāda process cannot generate ‘honey with sweet taste.’ It can only make honey, which would not have taste or color, for example. It can induce that ‘effect of taste’ only via various types of saññā built into the subtle ‘mental bodies’ of living beings. This is why honey may not be sweet for some animals, even though it tastes sweet to us and some other animals.
• Furthermore, the effect of saññā can only trigger very low levels of ‘liking’ (manāpa) at the first moment of encountering an external stimulus. It can grow into magnified ‘kāma assada‘ or “sensual pleasures’ that a puthujjana experiences only if the mind enters ‘kāma loka‘ and goes through many steps (in the ‘purāna kamma‘ and ‘nava kamma‘ stages) that I have discussed.
• I have discussed that the Buddha, or an Arahant, experiences only the faint manāpa stage.
• Thus, the sense of joy one feels with external objects (with attractive colors, tastes, etc.) is almost all mind-made and can be stopped. That is discussed in “Kāma Assāda and Pain Are Mostly Mind-Made.”
• The problem with attaching to such joyful experiences is that they lead one to commit immoral deeds or akusala kamma. That is what gets one into trouble. Such temptations may be avoided temporarily but can never be stopped until one attains at least the Sotapanna stage, where apāyagāmi deeds are blocked by the mind itself without needing a conscious effort.

___________

Feel free to ask questions. This is a critical issue to sort out.

• Again, thanks to Tobias for formulating that question. Questions like that help me understand what the ‘sticking points’ are. 

• This reply was modified 6 hours ago by Lal.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Tobias G

[Tobias G]

Thanks for the explanation! After thinking about it I have a few points to be clarified:

You say: “Since the color (and the beauty or attractiveness) is associated with the external object, it would not be possible to lose cravings for it without getting rid of it or at least by totally avoiding it.”

–> This is probably the crucial point where we disagree. The seeker of truth must “see with wisdom” that the things of this world are anicca, meaning they cannot be permanently obtained in the way one desires (anicca). Why should this be prevented if things possess certain intrinsic qualities? Above all, we don’t know precisely how distorted perception really is. Or did the Buddha describe this in detail?

–> I completely agree with you when you say that the mind, through kama sanna, presents the outer world as “mirage”, adapted to the plane of existence. The ancient yogis were ignorant of the true nature of this world; that is, they were not aware of the Four Noble Truths. Therefore, the anicca-nature was unknown to them, and they maintained nicca sanna.

 

————————————–

There is still a contradiction in your description of the first stage of Ānāpānasati or to become a Sotapanna. See #2 in First Stage of Ānāpānasati – Seeing the Anicca Nature of ‘Kāya’:

• The first phase involves “seeing the anicca (unfruitful) nature of attaching to the pañcupādānakkhandha kāya to attain the Sotapanna stage. This step is only mentioned briefly in “Ānāpānasati Sutta (MN 118).” We will discuss this first stage in detail in this post. 
• In this stage, one focuses on the whole pañcupādānakkhandha kāya and how it is initiated. One must ‘see with wisdom’ that each time the pañcupādānakkhandha kāya is initiated, one’s mind moves away from Nibbāna. This is easily in the charts that we will discuss below.
• Ānāpāna is āna āpāna.In this stage, ‘āna‘ is to “take in/comprehend that the world (pañcupādānakkhandha) is fruitless or of anicca nature“, and ‘āpāna‘ is to “discard the wrong view that the pañcupādānakkhandha is beneficial or of nicca nature.”
•  

vs. your reply above:

2. Once one understands that the color (and the beauty or attractiveness) is not in external objects, but is a mind-generated phenomenon, then one realizes that the craving for it can be lost. 

• That realization holds not only for color, but for all other ‘attractive features’ of sensory experiences. For example, ‘sweet taste of honey’ is not in honey, but is a mind-made illusion. I have discussed that in many posts.
• Once one’s mind fully grasps that fact, one’s mind would eliminate the three ‘diṭṭhi saṁyojana‘ of sakkāya diṭṭhi, vicikicchā, and silabbata parāmāsa, and one would attain the Sotapanna stage of Nibbāna. This fulfills the first stage of Ānāpānasati in the Ānāpānasati Sutta (MN 118).

 

–> I agree that the Sotapanna stage is reached by “seeing the unfruitfulness of attaching to the kāya”. I disagree that this already requires the understanding of kama sanna or that colors are not in external objects. That comes after Sotapatti is realised.

 

 

 

[Author]

Posts