[cubibobi]

— Under #2:
This idea might seem startling, but it is a well-established fact in philosophy and science. Our perceptual reality, the world we experience through our senses, is vastly different from the objective, physical reality that exists independently of us. My (Lal’s) comment: This ‘objective reality’ is ‘paramattha‘ (‘parama attha‘ or ‘ultimate truth’) in Buddha’s teachings.

Translating this to the language of Dhamma, is it correct to say the following:

“Objective reality” are the gocara rupā (among 28 types of rupā): vanna rupa, sadda rupa, gandha rupa, rasa rupa, photthabba rupa.

When there is contact (phassa) between these gocara rupā and their corresponding internal (pasāda) rupā, citta vithi arise (with their associated set of cetāsika), and this is “subjective reality”, i.e., contact with the same gocara rupa gives rise to different qualities of citta vithi in two distinct beings.

But subjective reality (citta + cetasika) is still an ultimate truth (paramattha sacca), along with rupā and nibbana.

Rupa, citta, cetasika are sankata, and thus are anicca, dukkha, anatta.

Nibbana is asankata and is nicca, sukkha, atta.

Thank you,
Lang

[Lal]

I am glad you asked the question. This must be fully understood, because it is a somewhat ‘twisted’ mechanism that comes into play. Let me explain it in a bit more detail for those who may not know about vanna rupa, sadda rupa, gandha rupa, rasa rupa, and photthabba rupa.

• Everything in the world is made of suddhāṭṭhaka (fundamental unit of matter in Buddha Dhamma). Suddhāṭṭhaka (“suddha” for “pure” or fundamental” + “aṭṭha” or “eight”) means  a unit of matter consisting of eight fundamental entities (usually translated as the “pure octad,” for example, in Bhikkhu Bodhi’s book referenced in #1 of “The Origin of Matter – Suddhāṭṭhaka.” A suddhāṭṭhaka is made of eight dhātu: pathavi, āpo, tejo, vāyo, and vaṇṇa,  gandha, rasa, oja.
• The mind creates four types of gati (pathavi, āpo, tejo, and vāyo) due to avijjā or ignorance. The other four types of gati of vaṇṇa,  gandha, rasa, and oja arise due to taṇhā. These gati (arising in the mind) lead to the creation of corresponding suddhāṭṭhaka with eight components of fundamental matter (called dhātu) in the ‘external’ world (and also in the physical body and even the mental body consisting of hadaya vatthu and the five pasada rupa, which can be called ‘internal’). 
• Different types of saññā arise in distinct species due to the matching of ‘internal suddhāṭṭhaka‘ and ‘external suddhāṭṭhaka.‘
• This is why, while rotten food tastes yucky to humans, it tastes great to pigs. Even though the rotten food (‘external suddhāṭṭhaka‘) are the same, the composition of ‘internal suddhāṭṭhaka‘ in pigs is very different compared to humans. That is why they taste the same thing differently than humans do. This is a critical point to understand. Don’t hesitate to ask questions if the point is not clear.
• This is also why this (distorted) saññā arises even in an Arahant. An Arahant will live the same body that he/she was born with. Those ‘internal suddhāṭṭhaka‘ in the Arahant‘s body do not change upon attaining Arahanthood. Thus, he will experience the world just as any other human.
• But the Arahant fully understands how the “subjective reality’ with distorted saññā arises via Paṭicca samuppāda. The bonds to the rebirth process (ten samyojana) have been removed from the Arahant‘s mind via several stages (Sotapanna, Sakadagami, Anagami). An Arahant fully understands and has fully verified the “objective reality” (paramattha) but will experience the “subjective reality” until the death of the physical body.
• One can become a Sotapanna by just understanding the basic idea. But a Sotapanna would still have the distorted (kāma) saññā. That second step of not attaching to kāma saññā is achieved at the Anagami stage. Then the distorted saññā associated with the rupa loka (jhāma saññā) and arupa loka (arupa samāpatti saññā) are removed at the Arahant stage.
• I can write a post to clarify this critical point. Please keep asking questions.

[Lal]

It is essential to realize that the types of gati leading to the birth of a pig (with ‘pig suddhāṭṭhaka’) are cultivated by a human in my above analysis.

• A human with ‘human suddhāṭṭhaka’ is born mainly via the cultivation of ‘human gati‘ by a human. 
• In the same way, a Deva with ‘Deva suddhāṭṭhaka’ is born mainly via the cultivation of ‘Deva gati‘ by a human. 
• In Paticca Samuppada, we analyze how different types of kamma cultivated by humans (with different types of gati) lead to various types of births.

• This reply was modified 1 week ago by Lal.

[Lal]

Subjective reality differs from objective reality. For example, colors are not external objects or light but are subjective experiences (perceptions) formed in the mind. That holds for all five senses: sight, sound, taste, smell, and touch. Why is this not a ‘big deal’? I don’t see scientists or philosophers addressing this ‘mind-made illusion.’ In particular, scientists do not seem to be concerned. It seems they are interested only in figuring out how that happens in the brain.

• In the Buddha’s time, people had to believe that subjective reality (what one perceives) is very different from the ‘real nature’ of the external world, solely based on faith. 
• However, it has now been shown that subjective experience (e.g., colored objects, tasty foods) is entirely mind-made. It is baffling to me why the general public is not even aware of this astounding fact. I think that is mainly because it is not put in such ‘blunt words’ by philosophers who use words like ‘qualia’ (only those in the field know what that means). 
• I put the above question to Google’s Gemini. The following is the answer.

____________

Google Gemini:

That is a profound observation, and you are tapping directly into one of the oldest, most foundational, and most vigorously debated issues in philosophy and science: The Hard Problem of Consciousness and the nature of Qualia.

The reason you may feel that scientists and philosophers are not concerned about the “mind-made illusion” is not that they are ignoring it, but instead that they have divided themselves into highly specialized camps that approach the problem differently. It is a “big deal,” but its solution is sought through specialized lines of inquiry.

Here is why it often seems neglected, and where the core concerns actually lie:

1. The Divide: Philosophy vs. Science

A. The Philosophical Camp: “The Big Deal”

Philosophers are absolutely concerned with the subjective nature of reality. They have labeled the subjective quality of experience (like the redness of red, or the pain of pain) as Qualia and the entire question as The Hard Problem of Consciousness (coined by David Chalmers).

• The Concern: Philosophers are trying to answer why and how physical processes in the brain give rise to subjective, inner experience. They want to know: Why does $X$ wavelength of light feel like “red” instead of just being a factual data point?

• Key Positions:

  • Dualism: The mind/experience is separate from the physical brain (e.g., Descartes).

  • Idealism: Reality itself is fundamentally mental/conscious (e.g., Berkeley).

  • Panpsychism: Consciousness (or proto-consciousness) is a fundamental feature of all matter.

• Why it seems quiet: The philosophical debate is highly technical, using specialized language (like “phenomenal consciousness” vs. “access consciousness”) that often doesn’t enter mainstream scientific discussion.

B. The Scientific Camp: “The How-It-Happens”

You are correct—scientists, particularly neuroscientists, focus on the “how it happens.” They are operating under a self-imposed, pragmatic constraint called Methodological Naturalism.

• The Constraint: Science can only study things that are measurable, testable, and repeatable in the objective, external world.⁵ Subjective experience (Qualia) is inherently private and cannot be directly measured by a machine.

• The Focus: They are seeking the Neural Correlates of Consciousness (NCC)—the minimum brain activity required to produce a specific subjective state. For example, they look for the specific firing pattern of neurons that corresponds to the perception of “red.”

• The Limitation: Even if they find the NCC for “red,” they still haven’t explained why that firing pattern feels like anything at all. This is the Explanatory Gap—the distance between the physical facts and the subjective experience.

---

2. Why the “Mind-Made Illusion” is Accepted as a Given

The subjective nature of perception is often not questioned because it is a settled principle of how the brain functions.

Sense	Objective Reality	Subjective Reality (Perception)
Sight	Electromagnetic radiation (wavelengths).	Color, shape, depth.
Sound	Pressure waves in the air (frequency).	Melody, pitch, volume.
Smell	Volatile chemical molecules.	Sensation of “scent.”

The brain doesn’t receive light or pressure waves; it receives electrical signals from the retina or cochlea. The entire 3D world of color and sound is a reconstruction or simulation created by the brain based on those sparse signals.

It’s not an illusion in the sense of a trick, but a functional representation. The “illusion” works perfectly to keep us alive and interacting with the external world, so scientists focus on understanding the mechanisms that generate this functional reality.

---

3. Areas Where the “Big Deal” Is Actively Studied

If you want to see where this “mind-made illusion” is directly tackled, look into these fields:

1. Philosophy of Mind: This is the primary home of the Hard Problem and Qualia debate.

2. Integrated Information Theory (IIT): A major scientific-philosophical theory (proposed by Giulio Tononi) that attempts to define consciousness mathematically. It proposes that consciousness is a measure of the amount of integrated information a system generates.

3. Predictive Coding / Free Energy Principle: This neuroscience theory suggests the brain’s main job is not to passively process sensory input but to constantly predict what sensory input should be next. Perception is the mind’s best guess about the external world, which strongly supports your idea of a “mind-made reality.”

In conclusion, you are right—it is a “big deal.” It is simply categorized as the Hard Problem of Consciousness and is a primary focus of advanced philosophical and theoretical neuroscience research.

_________

I am a scientist, and I know scientists in general are not even aware of this astounding fact. Most neuroscientists are aware of this issue; however, they are only interested in how those perceptions arise in the brain (per Buddha’s teachings, they do not occur in the brain, but in the mind). Philosophers understand the problem, but they tend to use terms such as ‘qualia’; thus, the general public is not aware of the central point: our ‘subjective experience’ (perception of colors, tastes, etc.) is vastly different from ‘objective reality’ or the ‘real nature of the world’ (e.g., there are no colored objects out there; flowers are colorless!)

• I expected to see many comments on the post “The Illusion of Perception (Saññā) – It Is Scientific Consensus.” I know that most people were not aware of the issue.
• But it seems that most readers are not even understanding (or refusing to understand) the importance of this fact.

[cubibobi]

I just finished writing and revising this and was about to post it, and saw that Lal had a more recent comment. I’m going to post it anyhow since it was my thought at that time, so this was written before reply #55889, which I am about to read.

—
Thank you!

Let’s take an example of a person looking at a blue sky, is it correct to think of it in this way: Ultimately it is suddhāṭṭhaka colliding with suddhāṭṭhaka — vaṇṇa rupa making contact with cakku pasada rupa (and ultimately hadaya vatthu — and from that contact citta and cetasika arise (one of which is the saññā cetasika). It is the saññā cetasika that produces the “blue sky”, and most humans looking at the same thing will see it as the “blue sky”, since we are of the same species.

I have trouble understanding the phrase “attaching to kāma saññā“, and I have read all the posts and tried to digest them to the best of my ability. I have always understood attachment (tanha) in the context of vedana, as per paticca samuppada:

… vedana paccaya tanha …

Let’s continue with a person looking at the blue sky and make some scenarios out of it:

(1) Person A looks at the blue sky, and let’s say it is a “beautiful day”: clear sky, cool temperature, gentle breeze, etc.

Seeing the blue sky on a beautiful day could lead to a good feeling (somanassa vedana), and attachment (tanha) is to that vedana. In A’s mind a scenario like this could be possible: “Last year, on a day just like this, I had a wonderful picnic with my family, and everyone was so happy; let’s see if I can get everyone to another picnic this year”.

(2) Person B looks at the same blue sky on such a beautiful day and could have a bad feeling (domanassa vedana) instead. B’s story could be something like: “Last year, on a day just like this, I lost a loved one”, and tanha in B arises dependent on that domanassa vedana.

(3) An arahant, looking at the same thing, still perceives it as a blue sky, or even a “beautiful” day. But there can be no tanha in the arahant, since no somanassa vedana nor domanassa vedana arise for an arahant.

There must be another process, something that gives the subjective reality an “evaluation”, and out of that evaluation a certain type of vedana arise, and tanha is to that vedana. My guess is that that process is the manasikāra cetasika: it takes what the saññā cetasika produces (eg the “blue sky”), and puts it in context — based on a past memory or expectation of the future.

I’ve always understood tanha in that context, and I appreciate your comments.

Best,
Lang

[cubibobi]

I read Reply #55889, but not everything in the embedded links, and thought about it.

For the question “Why is this not a ‘big deal?'”, I must admit I do not (yet) see the “big deal” with it in terms of realizing nibbana. I mean no disrespect nor to trivialize this in anyway; I’m just churning all of this in my mind at the moment — very slowly.

(1)The fact that subjective reality differs from objective reality (for example colors are mind-made), all of us must have encountered this fact in our lives. A couple of examples from my mundane life:

(a) I used to play Chinese chess, a board game with 32 pieces, 16 red and 16 green. I once played with someone who was color blind, between red and green no less. He often had to pick up a piece to examine it closely. I realized that my subjective reality of the chess board with is pieces was very different from his.

(b) During covid time, a doctor friend got covid bad. He lost the senses of smell and taste, on top of flu symptoms. Food, whether a breakfast taco or an omelet, “tasted” like a chew toy. It was easy to see that “taste” did not come from the taco or the omelet.

 

The question then is “So what?”, in the sense of “We know that this is mind-made, so what can you do about it?”. In a way, this reality is all we have: it’s the reality for a particular person (or any sentient being) at that time, dictated by paticca samuppada.

The more relevant question, at least for me, is how we process that reality: is it leading further into samsara or to nibbana?

My covid friend knew that “taste” did not come from the food, but he experienced dukkha vedana just the same, which quickly led to domanassa vedana.

Another situation could easily be something opposite: someone experiences a sukha vedana (from something mind-made), which leads to sonamassa vedana, which leads to craving of more of that somanassa vedana.

There are many old posts about this: that a puthujjana spends his time seeking sukha/somanassa vedana and avoiding dukha / domanassa vedana, since this is all he knows in the absence of Buddha Dhamma. He is not aware of the 3rd kind of happiness: niramisa sukha or nibbana.

All of this is to say that vedana is the critical juncture, at least for me, ie, seeing that sukha/somanassa vedana as anicca, dukkha, anatta.

Understanding that subjective reality — experiences of the five senses produced by saññā — differs from objective reality; how does this lead to magga phala is still beyond me.

Thank you!

[Lal]

1. Your last two posts are the only real feedback I have received. Thank you for that.

• Otherwise, I could be writing away endlessly, and no one could understand what I am talking about. 

2. I think it is better (at least for the moment) not to go into Abhidhamma aspects. We don’t need to get into suddhāṭṭhaka, pasada rupa, hadaya vatthu, etc., to understand the basic ideas. Once one has the basic idea, that understanding can be expanded through Abhidhamma as one delves deeper.

3. I hope others will post comments so that I can get an idea of what I need to focus on in the next post.

[Lal]

Let me see whether I can address some issues in Lang’s first comment today (December 10, 2025 at 11:14 am) ;

1. Lang wrote: “I have trouble understanding the phrase “attaching to kāma saññā“, and I have read all the posts and tried to digest them to the best of my ability. I have always understood attachment (tanha) in the context of vedana, as per paticca samuppada: … vedana paccaya tanha …”

• In most cases, it is hard to distinguish between saññā and vedana, especially at the very beginning of a sensory event. 
• Just below your above comment, you wrote: “Seeing the blue sky on a beautiful day could lead to a good feeling (somanassa vedana), and attachment (tanha) is to that vedana.”
• No. The first attachment is to the ‘saññā of blue sky on a beautiful day.’ The sky (or anything else in the world) does not have the blue color. The mind goes through many steps before reaching the “vedana paccaya tanha” and “tanha paccaya upadana” steps in Paticca Samuppada. See the chart in #6 of “Purāna and Nava Kamma – Sequence of Kamma Generation.”
• In many cases, it is hard to distinguish between saññā and vedana. See “Saññā Gives Rise to Most of the Vedanā We Experience.”
• It is critical to understand saññā. See, for example, “Saññā – Hidden Aspect of Paṭicca Samuppāda.” See different types of saññā discussed starting from #6.
• It takes a determined effort to understand these deep concepts. Feel free to ask questions on any of the above by referring to the post and relevant bullet numbers. 
• I am glad that Lang spoke his mind. That is the only way I can determine which issues to focus on.

2. After that, Lang wrote: “(2) Person B looks at the same blue sky on such a beautiful day and could have a bad feeling (domanassa vedana) instead. B’s story could be something like: “Last year, on a day just like this, I lost a loved one”, and tanha in B arises dependent on that domanassa vedana.

• There, the ‘blue sky’ is not the cause of domanassa vedana for person B. The reason for his domanassa vedana is in your following sentence: “Last year, on a day just like this, I lost a loved one.”

• This reply was modified 6 days ago by Lal.

[DhammaSponge]

I would also like to double on Lang’s point, since it is still quite hard for my sila to adjust in accordance to my understanding of sanna, to not mention getting to a phala. 

For example: I still have trouble eating healthy sometimes, even though I tell myself that the taste is not in the object. This is something I intellectually understand, but clearly don’t grasp or comprehend. Otherwise, I wouldn’t be a repeat recipient of the Fell for It Again Award, given personally by vinnana himself. :D

[Lal]

Since no one else has commented with their perspective, I thought I would respond to Lang’s last comment. This is in no way to ‘put down’ Lang. I am grateful that he was being honest. This material is not easy to digest. First, let me say a few words about that.

1. This is why, just after attaining Buddhahood, the Buddha decided not to teach his newfound Dhamma. He thought, “This Dhamma I have discovered is deep, hard to see, hard to understand, peaceful, sublime, beyond the scope of mundane logic (atakkāvacaro), subtle, comprehensible only to the wise (paṇḍita).” 

• For details, see #9 of “Attachment Is to Saññā, Not to Pañcakkhandha.”

2. In Lang’s last comment he wrote: “For the question “Why is this not a ‘big deal?’”, I must admit I do not (yet) see the “big deal” with it in terms of realizing nibbana. I mean no disrespect nor to trivialize this in anyway; I’m just churning all of this in my mind at the moment — very slowly.”

• Yes. It is a ‘big deal,’ and one cannot attain Nibbana without that understanding. We have been exposed to many Buddhās’ teachings throughout a beginningless process of rebirth. Unless one grasps the ‘keys to Nibbana,’ one merely starts over in a new existence. 
• That is why attaining Nibbana cannot be measured in the number of attempts. See “The Infinity Problem in Buddhism.”

3.  In Lang’s last comment he wrote: “The question then is “So what?”, in the sense of “We know that this is mind-made, so what can you do about it?”. In a way, this reality is all we have: it’s the reality for a particular person (or any sentient being) at that time, dictated by paticca samuppada.”

• What we can do is to fully understand how Paticca Samuppada processes are initiated. Each Paticca Samuppada process is initiated by ‘distorted saññā.’ We will be trapped in this rebirth process until we do. The Paticca Samuppada process stops the moment one attains the Arahant stage. Then it cannot again generate another existence where one is ‘being fooled’ by the ‘saññā that one is born with.’
• See “Purāna and Nava Kamma – Sequence of Kamma Generation.”

4. However, we must be careful not to totally reject ‘sensual pleasures.’ Many types of ‘saññā‘ are critical for our survival. Our bodies are designed with certain types of saññā to survive in our environment.

• See #10 of “Attachment Is to Saññā, Not to Pañcakkhandha.”

5. Let me try one more time to point out how we attach to ‘mind-pleasing things’ in the world via ‘distorted saññā.’

• As I emphasized many times, the easiest way is to look at the impact of ‘colorful things.’ 

• Life would be pretty boring without colors! But the world is truly ‘colorless.’ It is the ‘ultimate reality.’ 

This is a critical point to understand. The following video shows what the world would look like without color (actually with just two colors, black and white). 

 

• This second video also does not convey the full impact. In a ‘colorless world,’ there is no ‘black or white’ either! Essentially, there will be nothing to see. That is why Paticca Samuppada (or the mind via Paticca Samuppada) makes a ‘colorful world.’
• We will not be able to see any objects without them ‘having colors.’ However, the objects in the world do not have inherent colors. The ‘color perception’ is mind-made via Paticca Samuppada. 
• Paticca Samuppada does not try to get us into trouble. It merely prepares one’s internal and external worlds to provide the ‘pleasures’ one is pursuing. Of course, if one engages in immoral deeds, the birth will accordingly be filled with much suffering.  The problem is that when one pursues ‘pleasures’, it is inevitable that one will, sooner or later, engage in immoral deeds, which will lead to rebirths in an apaya. Please don’t think you can avoid that in the long run. We know, for example, that Ven. Moggalana was in an apaya just before he was reborn a human to attain Arahanthood.
• The above videos are from the post “Colors Are Mind-Made (Due to Kāma Saññā).”

6. Again, I encourage all to comment. I don’t know what types of unresolved questions one has or how many people understand what I am trying to say. As I emphasized above, ‘tinkering at the edges’ (just engaging in good deeds and living a moral life) is not enough to attain Nibbana. Of course, those things are required too.

• We must understand the deeper aspects of Buddha’s teachings to make a difference.
• Furthermore, one may get depressed only by having a superficial understanding. As I emphasized in #4 above, we must also understand that many types of ‘saññā‘ are critical for our survival. Simple example: We will not be able to drive around without the help of ‘color lights’ at junctions. Even an Arahant would know they must abide by those rules (such as stopping at a red light) to live in this world. But since they have fully understood that ‘colors are mind-made,’ they will not be reborn in this suffering-filled world again.

[Lal]

DhammaSponge wrote: “For example: I still have trouble eating healthy sometimes, even though I tell myself that the taste is not in the object.”

• This is what I tried to explain above. One must eat healthily to survive in this world and to learn Buddha’s teachings. It helps that foods have tastes. That is one reason why foods are made tasty via Paticca Samuppada. The other reason, of course, is to provide the ‘pleasure of eating’ that one had craved and led to this human life.
• If anyone is getting depressed after reading my posts, they should stop reading them. I don’t want to be responsible for ‘mental breakdowns.’ Buddha’s teachings, if properly grasped, will lead to joy, not to depression.

• This reply was modified 5 days ago by Lal.
• This reply was modified 5 days ago by Lal.

[cubibobi]

I would like to use an example as a thought experiment and run away with it to see if I can understand just a small part of what we are discussing about distorted saññā.

In my previous posts I used what I understood in abhidhamma to understand the new subject, since I had nothing else to fall on. But in this one I’m making up just a silly example, but I hope the answers to which will clarify something for me.

In several posts on the site we often cited how humans perceive “beauty of a woman” or “sweetness of sugar”. As an adult male, I’m going to use an example about a beautiful woman and “run away with it” (and I may get quite silly with it) as I said above. This is not to offend anyone or stereotype anything, just a thought experiment, and I hope everyone will see it as such. But if not then Sir Lal can just delete the post.

Without further ado, here we go.

The scene: Lang is at a bar and sees a beautiful, sexy woman wearing a very revealing low-cut red dress.

Here, I am describing what most in an American culture consider a sexy beautiful woman: blond hair, blue eyes, fair skin, oval face, beautiful eyes and nose, etc.

From here on I may refer to the woman in the sense of an “external input”, and in such a case I’ll refer to her as “the object”. (Again, no intention of offend).

First, the easy part about colors (we had a number of posts about mind-made colors): the “blond” hair, “blue” eyes, “fair” skin, “red” dress — all of this comes from Lang’s saññā (let’s say “from Lang” from here on), not from “the object”.

Next, body parts: blond “hair”, blue “eyes”, fair “skin” — these are still “from Lang”. His built-in saññā as a human (and perhaps his learning) make him identify those as “hair”, “eyes”, “skin”. At the suddhāṭṭhaka level there are no “hair”, “eyes”, “skin”. So “hair”, “eyes”, “skin” still come “from Lang”, not from “the object”.

Now, sorry to get a little more “adult”. Lang peeks at the woman’s chest from time to time, but just like above: “breasts” still come “from Lang”; suddhāṭṭhaka have no “breasts”.

Next (I know I’m pushing it), I wonder if the fact that “the object” is a woman is also “from Lang”. Do suddhāṭṭhaka have inherent male/female quality?

Next, the “sexy woman” is still “from Lang”. Let’s say that there’s another older gentleman (call him A) in the bar; he comes from a culture that regards a woman dressing that way as “vulgar”; and so “vulgar woman” is “from A”, and not from “the object”.

Let me just stop here and get to the point I want to ask. Is it correct to say this: Objects in “the world out there” are (in a sense) blank slates, and our saññā projects qualities on them: red, blue, beautiful, ugly, pleasant, unpleasant, etc.

[Lal]

I am glad that Lang is continuing to engage in the discussion. This is a critical aspect. Without discussions, we cannot resolve issues/bottlenecks.

1. Lang’s example is a good one. Everything is fine until we get to the following statement.

Lang wrote: “Next, body parts: blond “hair”, blue “eyes”, fair “skin” — these are still “from Lang”. His built-in saññā as a human (and perhaps his learning) make him identify those as “hair”, “eyes”, “skin”. At the suddhāṭṭhaka level there are no “hair”, “eyes”, “skin”. So “hair”, “eyes”, “skin” still come “from Lang”, not from “the object”.”

• The bolded part is not correct. That woman’s body is real and is made with suddhāṭṭhaka. It would have all the body parts, too.
• However, to provide the “attractiveness” (and for Lang to see the woman), all those colors are ‘induced in Lang’s mind’ via Paticca Samuppada. Not only Lang, but any human (including the older gentleman A) will see her that way. Gentleman A may not like the way she is dressed, but he would see her as ‘beautiful.’
• Let me add a few more relevant points: (i) she is born ‘beautiful’ because she had done some punna kamma with the expectation to enjoy life as a human. (ii) However, an animal would not care for ‘human beauty.’ If she has a dog, that dog would like her not because of her beauty, but because she would be taking care of it.

2. Now, to the question from Lang: ” Is it correct to say this: Objects in “the world out there” are (in a sense) blank slates, and our saññā projects qualities on them: red, blue, beautiful, ugly, pleasant, unpleasant, etc.”

• I hope the answer is explained above. Objects in the world out there are real. The woman would have all body parts (likely well-proportioned).
• However, Paticca Samuppada cannot produce colors or tastes directly. Only colorless, tasteless, smell-less suddhāṭṭhaka can be made by the mind. Paticca Samuppada process can only make ‘stuff’ (both internal and external) with suddhāṭṭhaka. This is why saññā plays a critical role in generating the mirage of colors, tastes, and other sensations. The Buddha directly called saññā a mirage in the “Pheṇapiṇḍūpama Sutta (SN 22.95),” and we discussed that in the post, “Sotapanna Stage and Distorted/Defiled Saññā.” Also see “Fooled by Distorted Saññā (Sañjānāti) – Origin of Attachment (Taṇhā).”

3. P.S. Note that the ‘beauty of a woman’ saññā arising in Lang’s mind depends on the specific woman and also on Lang’s own gati (pronounced as ‘gathi’). Another man’s evaluation of that woman could differ somewhat, even though he would still consider her beautiful.

• This reply was modified 5 days ago by Lal.
• This reply was modified 5 days ago by Lal.

[dosakkhayo]

Let me summarize what I have understood.

When a sensory experience is presented, the mind begins to become conteminated as it processes it. This defilement gradually intensifies and eventually leads to unwholesome thoughts, speech or actions. At this point, how a sensory experience is presented is the most crucial point for understanding the concept of distorted saññā. According to one’s gati, people engage in various kinds of wholesome or unwholesome kamma. When the proper conditions are present, those kamma lead to a jāti that fits that particular style.

The kamma that produces a given jāti carries the mind’s distortion (vanka) that existed in the mind at the moment that kamma was performed. Accordingly, conditions are arranged so that a vipāka viññāṇa with that distortion embedded in it can arise. Thus, even though distorted saññā arises in the citta, the diversity of indriya that makes distorted saññā possible is built into the organism. Different kamma lead to different jāti, and therefore to different forms of distorted saññā. In short, distorted saññā explains why the content of form value differs across beings.

Sensory experiences that arise through distorted saññā present us with things that appear different from one another in terms of their form value. As we sense and interpret those differences, contours of meaning begin to take shape—such as thinking pasta is better than curry, or rock is better than classical music.

There is a saying in marketing: don’t make the customer wonder whether to buy; make them wonder which one to buy. The role of distorted saññā is, in essence, no different from marketing. The diversity of form value generates likes and dislikes toward things that, at the most fundamental level, share an equal meaning value.

However, because everything within saṃsāra is anicca, dukkha, anatta, without a single exception all things possess the same meaning value.

Moreover, when we encounter a strong stimulus through distorted saññā, what is involved is not merely the intensity of the pleasure itself. Rather, we undergo an experience that gives rise to the illusion of being filled. A useful analogy is a container with a hole at the bottom: when water is poured in until it overflows, it gives the impression that the container is filling up.

It is at this point that problems begin to arise in the meaning value. Even though the container can never actually be filled because of the hole, the illusion of “being filled” still occurs. This illusion is precisely what is meant by nicca–sukha–atta. On the basis of this illusion, we willingly throw ourselves into the pursuit of even more sensory pleasure.

Because there is a hole, the situation is anicca; because both the effort to fill it and the inevitable loss are stressful, it is dukkha; and because the entire process is ultimately futile, it is anatta.

A magic show might seem like an example of violating natural laws, but its tricks still operate entirely within those laws. What a magic show does is present an experience that appears to be an exception. We watch the magic show of nature and fall into the illusion that we are seeing something that lies outside of Paṭicca Samuppāda. But such a thing cannot exist. Therefore, even when the form value appears different, we must penetrate the truth that the meaning value remains equal(anicca dukkha anatta).

Purana kamma is resolved not through willpower but through wisdom. If we find ourselves relying on willpower in practice, it is a sign that something is going wrong. In this long samsara, we never won with willpower. Being drawn toward sensory pleasure simply means that wisdom is not yet sufficient. We must focus on the cause, not the symptoms. When we understand that, the fundamental question of practice changes. “What am I wanting? Until that moment I may not even realize I was wanting something, but once I see it—“Ah, this is what I was wanting”—I see that letting go of that very desire would bring true happiness. This is the real direction of practice.

When anger arises, we must reflect on what it is that we are wanting. For example, if I become angry because someone has not acknowledged me, it is because I desired recognition. In that case, if I abandon the desire to be acknowledged, anger will not arise.

Anything in this samsara is not worth. What we need is to grasp this truth emotionally at the deepest level of the mind.

[Lal]

Thank you, Dosakkhayo.

• Based on the comments of Lang, DhammaSponge, and Dosakkhayo, I think I have an idea of explaining the ‘sticky issues’ associated with understanding the role of saññā.
• I will focus on that in the next post, hopefully tomorrow.
• However, please feel free to post more comments in the meantime. The better I understand the ‘sticky issues,’ the clearer it becomes where I should focus.

[cubibobi]

While Sir Lal works on the next post I wish to elaborate a little more on what I’ve written, and this has to do with practicality. I said that I understood tanha better in the context of vedana.

And I have asked the question “so what”, in this sense: “We know that saññā presents us a “world of pleasures” that keep us attached, yet they are illusion. Still, what can we do about it in terms of practice? How do we contemplate?”

My previous understanding, one based on vedana, gives me firmer ground to stand on in terms of contemplation. Let me recap:

A “world of pleasures” to me means sukha vedana and somanassa vedana, and they are real! Real in the sense that I can feel them, albeit they are effects of an illusion, and “real” enough to maybe lead to tanha, upadana, bhava, etc.

They are also real in the sense that they give me a firm ground for contemplation: that vedana, however much “sukha” and “somanassa” they are, are anicca, dukkha, anatta, since all past vedana have turned out to be just that.

I hope this adds a little more clarity to what I was trying to say.

Most gratitude to Lal for the effort in explaining all of this to us!

[Lal]

Thank you for the input, Lang. I will address it in the upcoming post.

[Lal]

New post: Origin of Attachment – Rāga Triggered by Saññā

• Please feel free to ask questions (after carefully reading it and the links provided).

[Lal]

I added a new #10 to the post:  Origin of Attachment – Rāga Triggered by Saññā

[Lal]

If I have not addressed any issues, please let me know. It is necessary to understand these fundamental concepts.

[cubibobi]

Thank you so much, Lal!

I’m still reading (and rereading) the post, but it is already making more sense, or at least I hope so.

In one of my previous responses, I said I had trouble with the phrase “attaching to kāma saññā”. I had thought of “attaching” as tanha as in “… (samphassa-ja) vedana paccaya tanha.

But this “attachment” is BEFORE that, weaker and in the form of raga as in rūparāgappaṭisaṁvedī.

Is this a correct description of the flow of sequence in a seeing event:

viparita saññā
          |
          |
         \/
manāpāmanāpaṁ
          |
          |
         \/ 
rūparāgappaṭisaṁvedī
          | 
          |   (more value added to the rupa)
         \/
cakkhu viññāṇa

If the experience stops here then we are still within the purāna kamma stage, where kamma is not strong enough to lead to future rebirths?

 

• This reply was modified 1 day ago by cubibobi.
• This reply was modified 1 day ago by cubibobi.
• This reply was modified 1 day ago by cubibobi.

[Author]

Posts