[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.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Tobias G

[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.

[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.”

[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.

[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.

[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?

 

[Lal]

1. I did not see Lang’s added comments. 

• Yes. That sequence is correct.
• Usually, a mind does not stop at the cakkhu viññāṇa stage for a puthujjana. But the mind can be stopped there by a Sotapanna who is cultivating Satipaṭṭhāna. That process involves stopping ‘new kamma‘ in the ‘nava kamma‘ stage first. I will write more about that in the next post. 
• Up to now, I have tried to explain how the mind of a puthujjana gets increasingly attached to sensory inputs. They attach to ALL sensory inputs, but some do not go past the second step in the ‘purana kamma‘ stage (which I discussed in today’s post linked below).

2. Hopefully, the new post I just posted can further clarify the concepts involved: “Taṇhā – Saññā Leading to Mind-Made Vedanā.”

• Feel free to ask questions on any post.

P.S. Lang wrote: “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.”

• The answer is in today’s post. Tanha happens in the second step in the ‘purana kamma‘ stage.

[Lal]

Here is another video that explains ‘colors do not exist in the world.’

• At 13 minutes: “No colors in the world, it is a shared illusion.” 
• Then he says, “Colors are made up in the neurons in the brain.” That part is wrong according to the Buddha’s teachings. Colors are generated in the mind based on the information received from the brain. That is how the Paticca Samuppada process generates a “pleasurable world.”
• That initial ‘pleasure sensation’ (in the first step of the ‘purana kamma‘ stage) is only a saññā and is not there in the world. That initial ‘pleasure sensation’ is real (built into a human body) and is experienced even by an Arahant. 
• However, the ‘samphassa-jā-vedanā’ that arises in the second step of the ‘purana kamma‘ stage is not generated in an Arahant. That can be stopped from arising with the elimination of samyojana.

P.S. I have revised the new post (“Taṇhā – Saññā Leading to Mind-Made Vedanā“) to emphasize that point.

[Lal]

In his comment on December 12, 2025 at 4:46 pm (Reply #55914), Lang asked: “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?”

• The practice of a Noble Person is based on that issue. One truly becomes a ‘sanditthiko‘ (one who has seen how ‘san‘ or ‘raga, dosa, moha‘ arise in the mind due to sanna) after comprehending this issue. See “Sandiṭṭhiko – What Does It Mean?“
• One cannot see the ‘anicca nature’ clearly until one understands that “mind-made rupa‘ does not correctly represent the ‘external rupa‘ out there in the world. That “mind-made rupa‘ means ‘rupa upadanakkhandha,’ and in almost all suttas is stated merely as ‘rupa.‘
• Eye-catching, colorful things don’t exist in the external world; the mind adds colors. Tasty foods are not in the external world; the mind adds tastes. The same applies to all other ‘mind-pleasing aspects.’ 

____________

In the same post, Lang wrote:

“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.”

Let us look at a couple of statements in there:

1. “A ‘world of pleasures’ to me means sukha vedana and somanassa vedana, and they are real!“

• They are ‘real’ only in the sense that our bodies and the external environment have been ‘prepared’ (via Paticca Samuppada) to provide the corresponding ‘pleasing sanna.’ They arise at the very beginning of a sensory event (‘Rūpa dhātuṁ, bhikkhave, paṭicca uppajjati rūpa saññā‘). See #2 of Taṇhā – Saññā Leading to Mind-Made Vedanā
• Even an Arahant would feel them, but their minds do not attach to them, because they have ‘seen with wisdom’ that those are mirages. 
• Those are not really vedana. This ‘sanna‘ is the only way that a ‘pleasing sensation’ can be generated via Paticca Samuppada. The Buddha called it a mirage: “Fooled by Distorted Saññā (Sañjānāti) – Origin of Attachment (Taṇhā).”
• Then ‘samphassa-jā-vedanā‘ (the stronger mind-made vedana leading to firm attachment to the sensory input, i.e., tanha) arises in a puthujjana (or anyone below the Anagami stage) later in the ‘purna kamma‘ stage; see #12 in Taṇhā – Saññā Leading to Mind-Made Vedanā.

2. The second part highlighted above in Lang’s comment: ‘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.’

• That statement is correct only if one can truly grasp #1 above. Furthermore, ‘They are also real’ must be removed from that statement to read as: ‘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.’  
• We are all trapped in this cycle of rebirth because of that built-in ‘sanna.’ They are definitely not ‘real’ in ‘ultimate reality’ or ‘paramattha dhamma.’ There are no colorful, tasty, .. things in the external world. 
• This is what Buddha’s teachings are based on! The first step in Paticca Samuppada is due to that sanna, i.e., avijja arises because of that sanna: What Does “Paccayā” Mean in Paṭicca Samuppāda?

[Lal]

In his comment on December 12, 2025 at 4:46 pm (Reply #55914), Lang asked: “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?”

• I did not provide an answer to the last part of Lang’s comment yesterday: “Still, what can we do about it in terms of practice? How do we contemplate?”
• We have not yet discussed in detail how to cultivate Satipaṭṭhāna. 
• I am still in the process of explaining the necessary background material. Over the past 2-3 years, I have tried to explain the concept of saññā. Then, in the “Satipaṭṭhāna Sutta – New Series” section, I provided background on Satipaṭṭhāna. Then, I realized that it would be necessary to explain the concept of pañcupādānakkhandha: “Five Aggregates (Pañcakkhandha)– New Series”
• What everyone needs to contemplate first is how the pañcupādānakkhandha arises in response to sensory input. That is equivalent to initiating a Paṭicca Samuppāda process.
• All of those steps are required to attain Sotapanna status. Only then can one practice Satipaṭṭhāna. To cultivate Satipaṭṭhāna, one must enter Satipaṭṭhāna Bhūmi, which is free of all ‘loka saññā.’ The point is: avijjā cannot be triggered while the mind is in Satipaṭṭhāna Bhūmi. Thus, ‘real contemplation’ can happen only when the mind is in Satipaṭṭhāna Bhūmi.
• So, what one must contemplate right now is not to cultivate Satipaṭṭhāna, but to contemplate the background material and understand how raga, dosa, moha are automatically triggered by the viparita or distorted saññā that is built into us.
• The ‘anicca nature’ becomes clear (and becomes a Sandiṭṭhiko is a Sotapanna) when one truly comprehends how raga, dosa, moha are automatically triggered by the viparita or distorted saññā. See Sandiṭṭhiko – What Does It Mean?
• This is also known as establishing ‘yoniso mansikāra‘ (understanding the root cause for defilements to arise automatically), a requirement for attaining Sotapanna status.

[Tetsuo]

I had intended to post the following comment earlier, but think that it may still be relevant to the discussion:

I just wanted to provide my two cents because Lal’s remarks about trying to understand where people stand resonated with me. Way before I found Pure Dhamma, I had some pretty unusual experiences with psychedelics (which, just to be clear, I am not recommending at all). Those experiences pushed me into an obsessive search for answers, but nothing I found was satisfying until I encountered Pure Dhamma.

Even then, it was only when Lal began explaining distorted saññā — how perception and value are mentally constructed rather than inherent in objects — that the pieces truly clicked for me. I realized that what I had experienced earlier was just a brief glimpse of how the mind projects qualities onto things, which they don’t actually possess in the way they appear to.

For instance, during one of those experiences, I tried playing a video game with friends. Normally, the game had obvious entertainment value. But suddenly, it was as if someone had flipped a switch and all that “fun” was gone. We still understood exactly how to play. The rules, the goals, what was happening on the screen — all of that was perfectly clear. What vanished was the sense that it was enjoyable. We stopped playing because once that enjoyment disappeared, it felt completely pointless. That was the shock: realizing that the meaning wasn’t in the game at all — it was entirely in the mind.

Another key realization for me was that once something like this is seen directly, it’s not about restraining the senses through willpower. It’s not about forcing oneself to avoid entertainment or attraction. Rather, when it becomes clear that perceived “value” isn’t inherent in the object, a natural shift occurs. There’s nothing to fight against; the pull simply weakens on its own.

I also want to stress that satipaṭṭhāna bhūmi and psychedelic states are not the same thing. However, those experiences did seem to provide a kind of temporary “distance”, which allowed me to notice this mechanism directly. Pure Dhamma is what later gave me the correct framework to understand what was actually going on.

And now, in everyday life, there are these intuitive flashes — for example, seeing someone and noticing that what once appeared inherently attractive is really just another mental projection. It’s not nearly as dramatic as that earlier experience, but it’s a subtle understanding that feels deeper than purely intellectual comprehension.

[Lal]

Thank you for sharing that life experience, Tetsuo. Those are insightful comments. Also, welcome to the forum!

• Let me add the following.

Saññā is a largely unknown concept, particularly in the Western world. It is an ‘innate feeling’ that arises spontaneously.

1. Some saññā are necessary for our survival: we feel the urge to use the bathroom or to eat when we are hungry. Color is a saññā, and it helps us avoid collisions at junctions or deciding whether a fruit is ripe for eating. Migrating birds would not survive without the saññā that enables them to leave their current location at a specific time and fly in a particular direction (they have built-in tiny magnets) to reach a safe destination. There are many such examples.
2. Some saññā are the root cause for keeping us bound to the cycle of rebirth: Mind-pleasing sensations are initially generated via saññā. All our cravings and attachments begin with that critical step. As we have discussed, ‘color sanna‘ is the easiest to understand, since modern science has fully confirmed that colors are not in external objects or in light itself. That is why the Buddha called it a mirage; the same applies to tastes, aromas, and the like. Use your favorite AI (ChatGPT, Gemini, Grok, etc.) to verify that to your satisfaction. 

Therefore, we must use the first type to live a healthy and long life (so that we can attain a magga phala). Simultaneously, we must contemplate the ‘unfruitful, dangerous, anicca nature’ of attaching to the second type to reach a magga phala.

• Keep in mind, as Tetsuo pointed out, ‘restraining the senses through willpower’ is unwise and could backfire, leading to depression. When one begins to see the drawbacks of attachment to ‘mind-made sensory pleasures’, such cravings will subside over time. P.S. The first task is to comprehend the fact that our attachments are rooted in kāma saññā; that is the same as Sammā Diṭṭhi with yoniso manasikāra, i.e., understanding the ‘genesis’ (‘yoni‘) of ‘san‘ (raga, dosa, moha) accumulation.

[Saurabh@2110]

I am actually following your posts sir lal. Idk why I don’t even need to read the questions to read your answers/posts. So I am following your posts without missing. As for my understanding them, i accept them all completely but it is very hard to put in practice. A question i have related to above your posts, does that mean that we are kind of living in virtual reality like as in game but which is real for us (for most of us excluding ariyas maybe) and we are (as puthujana/anariya beings) just character who just mistakenly identifies himself as concrete being with possessions and deep attachment with the strong sense of individuality? Am I wrong in viewing like this?

So if the answer is sort of yes then does this understanding becomes irreversible after stream entry? And one not so related question, is a stream entered able to bear kind of more suffering (from the viewpoint of puthujana) to avoid bigger suffering (from the viewpoint of ariya), as he has realized the lack of real essense in his own body?

I might get follow up questions but Idk if answers to these above questions (not sure if they are beneficial to me) are even required for stream entry. But more or less you can decide that I believe. Thank you!

[Lal]

“..does that mean that we are kind of living in virtual reality like as in game..”

• Yes. That is the ultimate truth (‘paramattha sacca‘ where ‘sacca’ is pronounced ‘sachcha’). Modern science has confirmed that external objects do not have colors (sunlight does not have colors either). The same is true for other ‘sensory pleasures’ too.
• However, one must be careful not to try to give ‘sensual pleasures’ with willpower, as I emphasized above.
• Even a Sotapanna (who has ‘seen the truth of the ‘paramattha sacca‘) will not be able to give up the craving for sensual pleasures until attaining the Anāgāmi stage. 
• We have all been ‘immersed in’ sensual pleasures for so long in this rebirth process that it is not easy for many to even consider the fact that ‘paramattha sacca‘ could be true!

So, your description is correct. Keep reading posts related to this issue with an open mind; the concepts will become clear, and at some point, mind will accept them. It cannot be forced.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Saurabh@2110

[HugoZyl]

Dear friend Saurabh@2110

  Peace and love to you and all the other noble ones.

  In this brother’s humble opinion: We must be very careful with this idea of we are living in a game or a virtual reality.

  To use the Holy Buddha’s symbolism, this is like trying to catch a snake by just simply walking up to it and grabbing its tail. Causes harm to yourself, causes harm to the snake, and causes harm to others who love you.

  Perhaps this is a more constructive or skillful way of looking at it: Let’s imagine a UFO lands in front of the white house in Washington DC. All cameras will be focused on that event, and anyone who has an internet connection will be glued to his or her screen watching it. Why? Because it’s a big thing, it must be worthy of our attention. But what is big, what is worthy? Why do we want a big thing? Why do we want something worthy of our attention? Because, it’s reducing the fire of suffering. When we focus on something intently, it is blocking the suffering of being. Consider carefully. The hardest thing for a human being to do is what? Nothing. Doing nothing is the hardest thing. Why? Because then there’s nothing blocking the suffering of being. 

  Now look at the big picture. We are humans. We have a better ‘being’ than 99.999% of living beings. Think about that for a moment.

  You shared, ”…does this understanding becomes irreversible after stream entry? And one not so related question, is a stream entered able to bear kind of more suffering (from the viewpoint of puthujana) to avoid bigger suffering (from the viewpoint of ariya), as he has realized the lack of real essense in his own body?”

  Look at the words which are said by a most venerable arahant, ”I have lived the life, done what was to be done, laid down the burden, attained my own goal, the fetters of becoming utterly destroyed, freed by perfect profound knowledge.”

  You ask if a stream-enterer can bear more suffering. He does not need to be able to bear more suffering. He has realized that 99.999% of living beings are suffering more than humans but he will never become one of those beings (he cannot be born as an animal or a ghost or go to hell). He is starting to put down the incredible burden of ‘being’. He’s starting to cut the fetters of ‘becoming’. He is starting to be freed by the knowledge of suffering. To do nothing is suffering. To do something is a humiliating attempt to cover some suffering for a time. This is UNACCEPTABLE.

  No state of being is acceptable. No life form is free of this humiliation. No pleasure through eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body or mind is worth it. No level of jhana (subtle forms of joy in deep meditation) is worth it. 

  Drop this burden. May all the beings of this universe escape.

  Namo Buddhaya 🙏🏻

[Saurabh@2110]

HugoZyl wrote:

Dear friend Saurabh@2110

  Peace and love to you and all the other noble ones.

  In this brother’s humble opinion: We must be very careful with this idea of we are living in a game or a virtual reality.

  To use the Holy Buddha’s symbolism, this is like trying to catch a snake by just simply walking up to it and grabbing its tail. Causes harm to yourself, causes harm to the snake, and causes harm to others who love you.

  Perhaps this is a more constructive or skillful way of looking at it: Let’s imagine a UFO lands in front of the white house in Washington DC. All cameras will be focused on that event, and anyone who has an internet connection will be glued to his or her screen watching it. Why? Because it’s a big thing, it must be worthy of our attention. But what is big, what is worthy? Why do we want a big thing? Why do we want something worthy of our attention? Because, it’s reducing the fire of suffering. When we focus on something intently, it is blocking the suffering of being. Consider carefully. The hardest thing for a human being to do is what? Nothing. Doing nothing is the hardest thing. Why? Because then there’s nothing blocking the suffering of being. 

  Now look at the big picture. We are humans. We have a better ‘being’ than 99.999% of living beings. Think about that for a moment.

  You shared, ”…does this understanding becomes irreversible after stream entry? And one not so related question, is a stream entered able to bear kind of more suffering (from the viewpoint of puthujana) to avoid bigger suffering (from the viewpoint of ariya), as he has realized the lack of real essense in his own body?”

  Look at the words which are said by a most venerable arahant, ”I have lived the life, done what was to be done, laid down the burden, attained my own goal, the fetters of becoming utterly destroyed, freed by perfect profound knowledge.”

  You ask if a stream-enterer can bear more suffering. He does not need to be able to bear more suffering. He has realized that 99.999% of living beings are suffering more than humans but he will never become one of those beings (he cannot be born as an animal or a ghost or go to hell). He is starting to put down the incredible burden of ‘being’. He’s starting to cut the fetters of ‘becoming’. He is starting to be freed by the knowledge of suffering. To do nothing is suffering. To do something is a humiliating attempt to cover some suffering for a time. This is UNACCEPTABLE.

  No state of being is acceptable. No life form is free of this humiliation. No pleasure through eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body or mind is worth it. No level of jhana (subtle forms of joy in deep meditation) is worth it. 

  Drop this burden. May all the beings of this universe escape.

  Namo Buddhaya 🙏🏻

Oh. Thanks for responding. I appreciate the response. Being stream enterer means one starts dropping the burden. I see that. But I wonder why you say this :

HugoZyl wrote:

No level of jhana (subtle forms of joy in deep meditation) is worth it.

I thought, if one even on the surface understands (and accepts) the 3 characteristics of existence which are anicca, dukkha and anatta, then for such a person jhanas can be very good base for penetrating insight? I have read somewhere in suttas that jhanas (higher the jhana better, 4th the best) for penetrating the insight of truth first and and all 4 through that. So why do you say jhanas are not worth it? I mean yes for someone who sees them as a form of blissful experience and craves them without understanding these 3 characteristics of existence then for him jhanas can be perfect entry point to apayas in future but for someone who knows those 3 characteristics atleast on surface and wants to penetrate and choose insight into reality as soon as possible, aren’t jhanas helpful for such person? Because that person won’t be approaching them for the sake of enjoyment and for such person jhanas wouldn’t even be goal, rather it would be just some kind of side effect of the process, isn’t it?

Also I feel when one starts to go near and near to paramattha sacca then one inevitably passes through jhanas even if they don’t know at that time it is 1st now it is 2nd like that. I think this must be true but not sure. Sir lal would know the truth maybe.

I also think jhanas are necessary till some time only just as sir lal said that one should not forcefully try to avoid sensual pleasures which might even lead to depression! I think same goes for jhanas as well but this maybe applies to anariya jhanas only and not to ariya jhanas which are the domain of anagamis/arahat I think. But I think I am wrong here. Because I don’t think anariya person like me would know these things so it is just probability.

[Lal]

Saurabh@2110 wrote: “I also think jhanas are necessary till some time only just as sir lal said that one should not forcefully try to avoid sensual pleasures which might even lead to depression! I think same goes for jhanas as well but this maybe applies to anariya jhanas only and not to ariya jhanas which are the domain of anagamis/arahat I think.”

• Attaining an anariya jhana will not guarantee attaining a magga phala. 
• One must either attain an Ariya jhana or enter the Satipaṭṭhāna Bhūmi to attain a magga phala. Both require comprehension of the Noble Truths, Paṭicca Samuppāda, and Tilakkhana (all are equivalent).
• Most people attain magga phala without going through Ariya jhana by entering the Satipaṭṭhāna Bhūmi.
• Of course, one with the ability to get into anariya jhana can attain magga phala by comprehending the Noble Truths.
• This is discussed in “Overcoming Kāma Saññā – Satipaṭṭhāna Bhumi or Jhāna.”

1 user thanked author for this post.

Saurabh@2110

[HugoZyl]

Beloved friend Saurabh@2110

  Peace to you and all the dear humans here in 2026.

  Very thankful for your expressing gratitude for the humble post this brother shared. Please forgive me if anything came out unclearly.

  Jhanas are of great importance. The holy Buddha even said that it’s impossible to overcome sensual stimulation without them. They even make a part of the noble path. The eighth factor: right samadhi (concentration). What I simply wanted to suggest was that attachment to them is unworthy. Accepting continued becoming which is dukkha, just for the sake of jhanas, is a wrong view. It would be just like a person wanting to become a monk, but unable to in this life, now doesn’t want to become a sakadagami because then he would not be born as a person again, and thus he cannot become a monk. This is an extremely wrong view.

  How exactly the jhanas help in gaining insight, this brother cannot tell. With much gratitude I can admit to being able to get into the first jhana but no higher. The venerable Lal has shared before that he can reach the third one, so perhaps he can tell you more. 

  We must be careful of clinging to certain words. The book that made me turn to the Dhamma was Handbook for Mankind, by Bhikkhu Buddhadasa. The definition he gave for Dhamma was simply to see things as they are. Just to have certain concepts, and now playing around with them in your mind, this is not to see things as they are. This is just information which will be lost when the body dies. To use a comparison: 

  Let’s look at a math problem,

  4 x 19 + 8 x 3

  If we answer,

  = 76 + 24

  = 100

  Then no points for us.

  If we answer,

  = 4 x 19 + 4 x 6

  = 4 x 25

  = 100

  Then we get the points.

  Wherever we know the mathematical term for what we just did, makes no difference. In the same way, just because as humans who are interested in Dhamma we use a lot of technical terms when communicating with each other, that does not mean the value is in those terms. The Holy Buddha used the expression that His finger points to the moon, but the moon is not at His finger. The words are pointing us at something: To see things as they are. 

  When in jhana, it is crystal clear that this is much better than getting joy from eating a hamburger. But using a little logic will tell us that there is again something better than jhana. Therefore, just as we should not cling to sensuality, we should not cling to jhana. Not cling to views. Not cling to becoming. And not cling to ‘self’ ideas. When this brother was a commoner, his body was his ‘I am’. When I was a Christian, my soul was my ‘I am’. When I was a Hindu Non-dualist, atman was my ‘I am’. Now by the grace of the Dhamma and Noble Ariyans, there is no clinging to ideas of ‘I am’.

  You shared, ”Because I don’t think anariya person like me…” This is a horrifying statement. You say you are anariya, that means you are saying you’re going to end up in hell! You got to do something! FAST! Stop reading this post, sit down, calm your mind, think deeply, realise nothing is worth getting… nothing is worth becoming… Nothing can in truth be, ”I am this, this is me, this is my ‘self’, this belongs to me.” Put away all doubt, superstition and ritualism. This body, mind and consciousness… ”I am not this, this is not me, this is not my ‘self’, this does not belong to me.” GO!…

[Saurabh@2110]

HugoZyl wrote:

What I simply wanted to suggest was that attachment to them is unworthy.

Yes I understand this.

HugoZyl wrote:

How exactly the jhanas help in gaining insight, this brother cannot tell. With much gratitude I can admit to being able to get into the first jhana but no higher. The venerable Lal has shared before that he can reach the third one, so perhaps he can tell you more.

Wow that’s awesome I think! Btw as far as I know, jhanas help only those with wisdom by making the realisation into 3 characteristics possible/easier (although ‘easier’ word is wrong to use here). I feel it’s like insight into truth of suffering and through all 4 noble truths become smoother with jhanas. Just speculation though, not sure. I can’t even get into 1st jhana btw. You can get into 1st that’s nice, so maybe your journey has become smoother I guess. Sir lal can reach third one that’s also very good to know. But I think journey towards truth (realisation of 3 characteristics becomes smoother with jhanas i believe, but this holds true only for those with wisdom, maybe those who are atleast sotapanna anugami)

HugoZyl wrote:

When in jhana, it is crystal clear that this is much better than getting joy from eating a hamburger. But using a little logic will tell us that there is again something better than jhana. Therefore, just as we should not cling to sensuality, we should not cling to jhana. Not cling to views. Not cling to becoming. And not cling to ‘self’ ideas. When this brother was a commoner, his body was his ‘I am’. When I was a Christian, my soul was my ‘I am’. When I was a Hindu Non-dualist, atman was my ‘I am’. Now by the grace of the Dhamma and Noble Ariyans, there is no clinging to ideas of ‘I am’.

Nice to know. When I was around 12-14 years (school life) i could get into some trance like state which was water like state where I would get very very light and it was possible only after becoming thoughtless but it was not 1st jhana as my teacher told me. but I can confidently say that I can guess/understand how happiness from jhana is subtle compared to happiness from these 5 sense doors, even though I haven’t even reached 1st jhana.

HugoZyl wrote:

You shared, ”Because I don’t think anariya person like me…” This is a horrifying statement. You say you are anariya, that means you are saying you’re going to end up in hell! You got to do something! FAST! Stop reading this post, sit down, calm your mind, think deeply, realise nothing is worth getting… nothing is worth becoming… Nothing can in truth be, ”I am this, this is me, this is my ‘self’, this belongs to me.” Put away all doubt, superstition and ritualism. This body, mind and consciousness… ”I am not this, this is not me, this is not my ‘self’, this does not belong to me.” GO!…

Wow, I can clearly see that you are trying to point to reality! Thank you for that. I think if I have to say it i would say I am something like (sotapanna anugami). Well I heard my teacher say this about me to my family member but he never told me in face. But since my teacher cannot say lie/untruth so I feel yes that must be the case. Other than that, dying without even glimpsing at nibbana, is like wasting precious human birth. I am certainly not gonna waste it anyhow.

1 user thanked author for this post.

HugoZyl

[Saurabh@2110]

Lal wrote:

“..does that mean that we are kind of living in virtual reality like as in game..”

• Yes. That is the ultimate truth (‘paramattha sacca‘ where ‘sacca’ is pronounced ‘sachcha’). Modern science has confirmed that external objects do not have colors (sunlight does not have colors either). The same is true for other ‘sensory pleasures’ too.
• However, one must be careful not to try to give ‘sensual pleasures’ with willpower, as I emphasized above.
• Even a Sotapanna (who has ‘seen the truth of the ‘paramattha sacca‘) will not be able to give up the craving for sensual pleasures until attaining the Anāgāmi stage. 
• We have all been ‘immersed in’ sensual pleasures for so long in this rebirth process that it is not easy for many to even consider the fact that ‘paramattha sacca‘ could be true!

So, your description is correct. Keep reading posts related to this issue with an open mind; the concepts will become clear, and at some point, mind will accept them. It cannot be forced.

Respected Sir @Lal I wanted to ask a related thing if you don’t mind. You said :

Lal wrote:

“..does that mean that we are kind of living in virtual reality like as in game..”

Yes. That is the ultimate truth (‘paramattha sacca‘ where ‘sacca’ is pronounced ‘sachcha’). Modern science has confirmed that external objects do not have colors (sunlight does not have colors either). The same is true for other ‘sensory pleasures’ too.

So if one realises that paramattha sacca or atleast glimpses it, then does this virtual game become slightly easier to play? I mean in regard to paying back debts (not in terms of money but all kinds of debts from many lives from many beings), fulfilling duties, getting hard but important things done, do all these things become slightly easier? Or am I just stretching the analogy. Because I feel like a character in a game but at the same time I also feel like I cannot play this character properly/cannot live properly. Its like this character has its own settings which cause him/myself difficulties. Btw idk if this is necessary or not, but I have experienced only once though, the happiness of metta bhavana, I mean literally…As usual I sat in the morning and while doing that I could feel the spring of happiness filled with immense gratitude inside my heart which was so overwhelmingly blissful that tears started flowing through my eyes from the start of metta bhavana to end of it for that session. It was pinnacle of goosebumps but my hairs were not standing rather it was internal, I couldn’t bear that happiness hence continuous tears during the session. But after session I just felt bad that I couldn’t express this literal happiness of metta bhavana to my parents or anyone else so felt sad and very less capable. I tried to convey it as best as possible, my parents accepted completely what I told but only on the surface..but they definitely did not realise the depth, level of reality and literality in what I experienced. If they would have realized that I don’t think they would remain the same person. If you respond then it’s my luck but if you don’t then I’ll know that I am going in wrong direction. Offcourse I appreciate inputs from others as well.

I may sound rude because my English is not that good. Thank you.

[cubibobi]

I have been following this discussion and reading the posts, and am still struggling to form a framework of understanding, so I’m going to share again my thought process to get your input. Also, I’m resorting to abhidhamma (a modicum of abhidhamma I could glean from the site) to think about these concepts. Further up above, Sir Lal did say that it was not necessary to resort to abhidhamma terms, but without them I don’t have anything to stand on at this moment.@Saurabh@2110
“..does that mean that we are kind of living in virtual reality like as in game..”

@Lal
“Yes. That is the ultimate truth (‘paramattha sacca‘ where ‘sacca’ is pronounced ‘sachcha’)…”

“…it is not easy for many to even consider the fact that ‘paramattha sacca‘ could be true!”

 

I have always understood ‘paramattha sacca‘ to mean the 4 “ultimate realities”: rūpa, citta, cetasika, nibbāna.

Take colors, as the example frequently mentioned; they are the product of sensory processing (citta vithi). In this sense, saying that they are mind-made is obvious. It’s equally true to say that they are “ultimate realities,” i.e., they come from cittā.

On this part, it’s not difficult to understand that “paramattha sacca could be true!”

For me, what’s truly difficult is to understand (ditthi) and perceive (saññā) that they are anicca, dukkha, anatta.

Best,
Lang

1 user thanked author for this post.

Saurabh@2110

[Lal]

I think both of you are ‘overthinking’ the issue. Let me give the crude, direct answer that I have been trying to avoid because I was not sure whether it could psychologically affect some people. 

• Suppose our world is as follows: Nothing has colors, not even black and white, because those are also colors. Foods don’t have taste, not even salty taste; absolutely no taste. No ‘pleasing music.’ No smells. No sexual enjoyment (that is also a saññā).
• For those who enjoy jhāna/samāpatti, there will be no ‘jhānic/samāpatti pleasure.’ That is also a saññā.’ 

Now, you may have to think through this in detail. It would be impossible to live in a colorless world, let alone being able to enjoy it. It would be as if we didn’t have eyes. This is why the Buddha called ‘saññā‘ a mirage.

• Again, science has confirmed that nothing in this world has color, and Sunlight is colorless as well. See “The Illusion of Perception (Saññā) – It Is Scientific Consensus.” 
• As discussed there, scientists have also confirmed that other sensory inputs do not have the corresponding attributes of taste, smell, etc. 

That is the ‘ultimate truth’ or ‘paramattha sacca.’ It can also be called ‘ultimate reality’ or ‘paramattha dhamma.’

• The ‘experienced reality’ of a world with colors, smells, tastes, etc., is generated in the mind (in the brain, according to scientists).
• I guess scientists do not consider this an issue to worry about, because they do not believe in rebirth. They say that the perception (saññā) of color, taste, etc., gradually evolved over time. According to them, life started with inert molecules forming more complex versions, and perception and other ‘mental entities’ (such as feelings of joy and sorrow) emerged over time!
• Of course, they are unable to explain how that happens, i.e., how a bunch of complex molecules can give rise to feelings, perception, and consciousness. This is called the ‘hard problem of consciousness.’ 
• Most people are not even aware of this astonishing fact. The general public believes that colors are either in objects or in sunlight.
• When I read books or publications on the ‘hard problem of consciousness,’ no one seems to be bothered about it. They are only bothered by the inability to explain how it occurs via evolution. 

______

Lang wrote: “I have always understood ‘paramattha sacca‘ to mean the 4 “ultimate realities”: rūpa, citta, cetasika, nibbāna.”

• That is also correct. The world of 31 realms and the living beings in them, in ultimate reality, can be described by only rūpa, citta, and cetasika. When an Arahant separates from the ‘world of 31 realms,’ Nibbana is the result.
• “Things” in the world of 31 realms are described by rupa, which do not possess colors, tastes, etc.  The ‘living beings’ have rūpa, citta, cetasika.

2 users thanked author for this post.

HugoZyl, Saurabh@2110

[HugoZyl]

Dear friends and venerable ones 🌼

  Joy to the world.

  Forgive this brother, but he can’t seem to not view this topic as exactly what the Tathagata Buddha said was a wrong focus in sutta MN2:

  “This is how he attends inappropriately: ‘Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what was I in the past? Shall I be in the future? Shall I not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future? Having been what, what shall I be in the future?’ Or else he is inwardly perplexed about the immediate present: ‘Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where is it bound?’

  Notice the 3rd last question, ‘How am I?’

  Namo Buddhaya 🙏🏻

[Saurabh@2110]

Lal wrote:

Let me give the crude, direct answer that I have been trying to avoid because I was not sure whether it could psychologically affect some people.

Sir @Lal, now I understand why you were trying to avoid sharing directly because slightly panicked after reading it especially when you said this….

Lal wrote:

not even black and white

And this…

Lal wrote:

For those who enjoy jhāna/samāpatti, there will be no ‘jhānic/samāpatti pleasure.’

But then, it is what it is.

Lal wrote:

When an Arahant separates from the ‘world of 31 realms,’ Nibbana is the result.

Wow, no birth no end. Damn ariyas are super awesome beings who realise these kind of things and yet they remain irreversibly more balanced, happy and ultimately secure as compared to those who don’t realise these things. Such a wonderful thing it is.😎

[Lal]

Yes. When I first realized this a few years ago, I was awestruck. 

• This is the key message the Buddha sought to convey. In those days, one had to first take his word based on faith. 
• But now we have another confirmation via modern science. Colors, tastes, etc., are not real; they are mind-made perceptions, and that is why the Buddha called ‘saññā‘ a mirage.

Without realizing this, all living beings attach to those /mind-made pleasures and engage in akusala kamma. 

• That leads to rebirths in the apayas, where most rebirths are. That is the root cuase of suffering!

__________

The following quote is from the post “Cuti and Marana – Related to Bhava and Jāti.”

8. The series of specific suttas start with the “Manussacutiniraya Sutta (SN 56. 102)” which says, “..those who die as humans (not the physical death, but cuti) and are reborn as humans are few, while those who die as humans and are reborn in hell are many ….”

• Then the following suttas say that those who die as humans and are reborn in the animal and hungry ghost realms are many:  “Manussacutitiracchāna Sutta (SN 56. 103),” and “Manussacutipettivisaya Sutta (SN 56. 104).“
• The “Manussacutidevanirayādi Sutta (SN 56. 105)” says those who die as humans and are reborn in Deva realms are few, but born in niraya are many. Then the “Devacutinirayādi Sutta (SN 56. 106)” states, “who die as Devās and are reborn as Devās are few, while those who die as Devās and are reborn in hell, animal realm, or the hungry-ghost realm are many.”
• Note that “Manussacutiniraya Sutta” is “Manussa cuti niraya Sutta” and indicates a human grasping a niraya bhava at the cuti moment. The other suttas have similar names.
• Many such combinations are shown in the rest of the series. It is a good idea to click through the rest of the suttas.

2 users thanked author for this post.

HugoZyl, Saurabh@2110

[Saurabh@2110]

Lal wrote:

Yes. When I first realized this a few years ago, I was awestruck. 

This is the key message the Buddha sought to convey. In those days, one had to first take his word based on faith. 
But now we have another confirmation via modern science. Colors, tastes, etc., are not real; they are mind-made perceptions, and that is why the Buddha called ‘saññā‘ a mirage.
Without realizing this, all living beings attach to those /mind-made pleasures and engage in akusala kamma. 

That leads to rebirths in the apayas, where most rebirths are. That is the root cuase of suffering!

How amazing it must be to be free from apayas forever! But this seems very very hard to digest. No wonder very few people are ariyas as compared to anariyas… Feels very very sad knowing that.

Lal wrote:

The following quote is from the post “Cuti and Marana – Related to Bhava and Jāti.”

I went through above post again and those linked suttas as well. It kind of says that, today’s majestic person can or rather inevitably become apayagami tomorrow. It seems even if one is good, one will be forced by the three poisons certainly somehow to take birth in lower realms/places of dangerous suffering. All this can be avoided by and only by following buddha’s teachings! It makes me very happy to know that, it is possible to literally reverse this cycle. But I wonder how all this dhamma is literally free of cost!? It seems like it is actually the hardest to repay debt, that is repaying to the one who guided one or caused one to glimpse nibbana. I read your post about difference between metta bhavana and ariya metta bhavana. Wishing for others to be happy on surface is relatively easy task, but wishing for others to be sotapanna, sakadagami, anagamai, arahant is literally scarily tough task. When I read that difference idk why it felt like it takes ultimate guts to even do ariya metta bhavana and why it is called ariya metta bhavana. Ok one question sir @Lal, you said,

Lal wrote:

Now, you may have to think through this in detail. It would be impossible to live in a colorless world, let alone being able to enjoy it. It would be as if we didn’t have eyes. This is why the Buddha called ‘saññā‘ a mirage.

So to live in such world it seems impossible to me. I mean very concept of ‘to live’ doesn’t seem to apply there. If I just suppose for the sake of asking question, so to live in such a world one really needs ultimate wisdom I think, isn’t it? Because if not then it is as good as non-existence or something like that, isn’t it?

And after that you said..

Lal wrote:

The world of 31 realms and the living beings in them, in ultimate reality, can be described by only rūpa, citta, and cetasika. When an Arahant separates from the ‘world of 31 realms,’ Nibbana is the result.
“Things” in the world of 31 realms are described by rupa, which do not possess colors, tastes, etc.  The ‘living beings’ have rūpa, citta, cetasika.

So for the arahant it is just rupa, Citta and cetasikas and no individual concrete beings around…So nibbana is the result for only arahats after separating from 31 realms right? Is it the case that everyone(puthujana) at the moment of marana or if not marana, atleast at the moment of cuti i.e. end of uppatti bhava, can access this nibbana element but cannot realise that because there are no eyes to see, is that the case? Or putthujana is so unlucky (or so away from truth) that even in the end of uppati bhava doesn’t even have a chance to glimpse at this nibbana element from beyond 31 realms? In other words, even having eyes after marana or the end of uppati bhava would just show him only that which is within 31 realms and not the reality beyond them! Is that the case? :(..what am I missing here?

[Lal]

Regarding my statement, “Now, you may have to think through this in detail. It would be impossible to live in a colorless world, let alone being able to enjoy it. It would be as if we didn’t have eyes. This is why the Buddha called ‘saññā‘ a mirage,” Saurabh@2110 wrote: “So to live in such world seems impossible to me.”

• Yes. Life cannot be sustained in such a world. Without even black and white, there would be nothing to see. 
• That is why Paticca Samuppada creates a ‘colorful world’ for those who crave such a world. The world is created by ‘mental energy’ (same as kammic energy). The only way mental energy can make a ‘colorful world’ is by saññā built into our ‘mental bodies’ or ‘manomaya kaya.’
• Mental energy cannot make ‘colored objects’; only ‘colorless suddhāṭṭhaka’ can be created by kammic energy. It can only generate a saññā (perception) of color. That holds for other entities of taste, smell, etc. 

___________

Regarding my statement, “The world of 31 realms and the living beings in them, in ultimate reality, can be described by only rūpa, citta, and cetasika. When an Arahant separates from the ‘world of 31 realms,’ Nibbana is the result. “Things” in the world of 31 realms are described by rupa, which do not possess colors, tastes, etc.  The ‘living beings’ have rūpa, citta, cetasika,” Saurabh@2110 wrote: “So for the arahant it is just rupa, Citta and cetasikas and no individual concrete beings around…So nibbana is the result for only arahats after separating from 31 realms right? …”

• A living Arahant can see just like anyone else, because they are also born with the ‘distorted saññā.‘ 
• The difference between an Arahant and a puthujjana is in the cetasika generated. Arahant‘s mind would not generate immoral cetasika (raga, dosa, moha) in response to any sensory event. They only experience the sensory inputs without attaching to them: “‘Diṭṭhe Diṭṭhamattaṁ Bhavissati’ – Connection to Saññā .”
• Even though an Arahant would still generate (pure, undefiled) citta, they have already attained Nibbana, which is defined as “rāgakkhayo dosakkhayo mohakkhayo—idaṁ vuccati nibbānan” ti OR “the ending of rāga, ending of anger/hate, and ending of ignorance/delusion is Nibbāna.” See, for example, “Nibbānapañhā Sutta (SN 38.1).”  
• Until the death of the physical body (which is a vipaka), an Arahant would experience the ‘colorful world’ just as anyone else. 

1 user thanked author for this post.

Saurabh@2110

[Saurabh@2110]

Lal wrote:

Yes. Life cannot be sustained in such a world. Without even black and white, there would be nothing to see.  That is why Paticca Samuppada creates a ‘colorful world’ for those who crave such a world. The world is created by ‘mental energy’ (same as kammic energy). The only way mental energy can make a ‘colorful world’ is by saññā built into our ‘mental bodies’ or ‘manomaya kaya.’ Mental energy cannot make ‘colored objects’; only ‘colorless suddhāṭṭhaka’ can be created by kammic energy. It can only generate a saññā (perception) of color. That holds for other entities of taste, smell, etc.

So, only way mental energy can make colorful world is through sanna only and not in real!? Hmm.

Lal wrote:

A living Arahant can see just like anyone else, because they are also born with the ‘distorted saññā.‘  The difference between an Arahant and a puthujjana is in the cetasika generated. Arahant‘s mind would not generate immoral cetasika (raga, dosa, moha) in response to any sensory event. They only experience the sensory inputs without attaching to them: “‘Diṭṭhe Diṭṭhamattaṁ Bhavissati’ – Connection to Saññā .” Even though an Arahant would still generate (pure, undefiled) citta, they have already attained Nibbana, which is defined as “rāgakkhayo dosakkhayo mohakkhayo—idaṁ vuccati nibbānan” ti OR “the ending of rāga, ending of anger/hate, and ending of ignorance/delusion is Nibbāna.” See, for example, “Nibbānapañhā Sutta (SN 38.1).”   Until the death of the physical body (which is a vipaka), an Arahant would experience the ‘colorful world’ just as anyone else.

So, does arahat exhaust all his karma at death i.e. at parinibbana? 

The more I understand these things, the more I realize how difficult it is to glimpse nibbana. 

[Tobias G]

Please see reply #55897.

• 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. 

Color perception is part of kama sanna, right? The Arahant also has kama sanna (but does not attach to it). The Arahant does not operate on PS anymore. Thus, color perception can not be generated by PS. Also, kama sanna comes before the PS-step avijja paccaya sankhara.
On the other hand, bhava, jati, and kaya are mind-made by PS. Is that what you intend to say?

• This reply was modified 6 hours ago by Tobias G.
• This reply was modified 4 hours ago by Lal.

[Lal]

Tobias wrote: “The Arahant does not operate on PS anymore. Thus, color perception can not be generated by PS.”

• The generation of ‘color perception’ for an Arahant happens because the Arahant was born with a mental and physical body generated via PS.
• Anyone born a human is born with the ‘kāma saññā‘ built into them.
• The stopping of ‘attachment to color perception’ for an Arahant happens because PS no longer operates for the Arahant.
• I have bolded the incorrect part of your comment. Think about that critical point.

P.S. Paṭicca Samuppāda (PS) process works in two ways: (i) It explains how we generate kamma (kammic energy). (ii) It also explains how future existences arise based on kammic energies we have accumulated;  “paṭi+ichcha” leads to “sama+uppāda,” i.e., “willingly attaching to the root causes” leads to “corresponding (re)births.” 

• Because we have craved ‘sensual pleasures’ (‘kāma assāda’) and generated kammic energy to sustain such an existence, we are born with mental and physical bodies to generate the ‘kāma saññā.‘ That is how the Arahant was born with the built-in ‘kāma saññā.‘ That ‘kāma saññā‘ will be there as long as the Arahant lives in this world, i.e., until their death.

• This reply was modified 3 hours ago by Lal.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Saurabh@2110

[Author]

Posts