[sybe07]

i hope this is a good place to post this. It deals with Tilakkhana.

Source: Patisambhidamagga, Treatise on Liberation (ToL)

I think in ToL §54 is explained how to contemplate on anicca, dukkha and anatta. It says:

“Now these three gateways to liberation lead to the outlet from the world:

1. “To the seeing of all formations as limited and (???, this word i cannot read in my bad copied text, does someone?), and to the entering of cognizance into the signless principle”.

I think this describes what anicca nupassana means and what is its effect, i.e. cognizance enters into the signless principe. What does this mean? Maybe this can be explained by someone?

2.” To the bestirring of the mind with respect to all formations and to the entering of cognizance into the desireless principle”
Probably this refers to dukkha-nupassana

3. “To the seeing of all ideas (what is the Pali word? dhamma?) as alien and to the entering of cognizance into the voidness principle. These three gateways to liberation lead to the outlet from the world”

This last seems to refer to anatta nupassana. My own understanding at this moment: anatta-nupassana means seeing all formations/ideas/conditioned phenomana as alien in the sense of ‘this i am not, this is not mine, not myself’. Alien, for me, at this moment, means, whatever in the mind arises that i am not, is not “me”. What do you think?

What is liberated by applying these nupassana’s? A certain (distorted) perception becomes liberated due to applying the three nupassana. Which?

ToL §45 says:
1 “Knowledge of contemplating of impermanence is liberated from perception of permanence”.

I think this especcially refers to the perception there is some permanent happiness to get, by clinging to all kinds of things which are in fact instabel, inconsistent, impermanent. This sanna is special. Ofcourse people die all the time. So one should have a sense of impermanence. But, still, when my father died, i was totally confused. The death of a loved one or near one is something completely different. So it may seem sometimes like impermanence is some kind of obvious truth, but if a loved one dies or when we ourself get really sick, then it shows we do not understand impermanence.
Or, when we hate decay, decaying body, decaying flower, decaying buildings, nature. A longing for perfection is a lack of understanding impermanence, i feel.

Sometimes people say “till tomorrow’, they have no sense of impermanence. When i was myself in therapy i talked to a health professional and i talked about death. See laughed at me and said, that is not going to happen yet! She had no sense of impermanence.

Death can come any moment. Maybe this is not how anicca is understood by Lal but i think it is not veru bad. Ofcourse, this perception of impermanence refers also to a lack of control, a sense of not being able to maintain things as wish. It all relates closely. Impermanance means also changing, becoming otherwise, and that we often do not like when clung to something.

2. “Knowledge of contemplation of pain is liberated from perception of pleasant”.

Our sanna is most of the time distorted in that way that we see things which really contribute to suffering, or rather are suffering, as pleasant. This is not easy to understand because the reference frame of a Buddha is the ultimate peace of cessation and not sukha. One, like a Buddha, who knows cessation, for such a person even pleasant feelings are a kind of suffering. This is clearly somewhere states in a sutta. His reference frame of what is happiness and what suffering is very different from us, as normal people.
Even the presence of consciousness (seeing, hearing, smelling etc) is some kind of very subtle pain. This also is meant with the contemplation of dukkha. So what is dukkha is subjective, but in buddhism the reference is, i think, Always cessation.

3. “Knowledge of contemplating of not-self is liberated from perception as self”.

This describes, i belief, what is the real goal of anatta nupassana. We have a tendency to regards arising formations as self, or have a sense there is a self who possesses such formations. Contemplating anatta wants to liberate that wrong sanna.

ToL §49 explains that this also frees from clinging. Anatta nupassana frees from clinging about self.

I personally belief that contemplating the Tilakkhana means applying them onto what we ourselves experience, applied to the khandha’s, or like §54 says, “all formations”. I think contemplating them will only be helpful when we apply this insight mediation onto our own experiences. I am curious if you agree and am looking forward to your comment.

Siebe

[sybe07]

Maybe these above fragments need to be translated by someone else than Nanamoli? But maybe you are all overworked. I hope not.

I am especially interested in the right meaning and application of anatta nupassana.

i think it is correct that the idea of “atta” refers to a self-who-is-in-control, an autonomous agent.

For example: “Bhikkhus, form is not-self. Were form self, then this form would not lead to affliction, and one could have it of form: ‘Let my form be thus, let my form be not thus.’ And since form is not-self, so it leads to affliction, and none can have it of form: ‘Let my form be thus, let my form be not thus.’ (SN22.59)

so the idea of a self refers to a kind of autonomous agent or entity which is in control.

I compare this with a tree. The tree is no entity or autonomous agent which decides to loose her leaves or to suck water or to grow. This happens due to causes and conditions and is not governed by some inner or outer tree-self or tree-soul or tree entity. The point of anatta is, i belief, all happens due to causes and conditions without there is some agency or self or soul or entity responsible for all this to happen.

In the old days they postulated endless such entities, such as all kind of Gods who ruled over lightening, the oceans, etc. Science has another approach and has made this entities needless. Causes and conditions are determining what happens.

The concept of anatta does not denie the (conventional) existence of ‘a person’ or ‘a being’, just like it does not denie the existence of a tree. And just like there is no tree-entity who decides to let the leaves fall, there is also no entity inside us who governs all those formations as breathing, verbal formations, mental formations, phyiscal formations. Those formations are not governed by a self, some psychological entity who rules, they arise due to causes and conditions.

I keep on investigating the right meaning and application of anatta nupassana and look forward to your answers and comment.

Siebe

[Akvan]

Hi Siebe,

You are correct to say that all happens due to causes and conditions without there being an agency for all this to happen. I agree with you and this is the cause and effect (hethu pala) that is exposed by the Buddha. But I don’t see this as anatta.

When it is said that form is anatta, the form here (rupa), does not refer only to the bodily form, but includes all forms; living and non-living. So, if you take anatta to mean “there being no agent who controls” we can easily see the connection with living forms. But what is the connection with non-living forms?

For example, a book is a type of form. Do we need anyone to explain to us that there is no agent that controls the book? Anyone, even a young child, can understand that there is no agent that controls the book.

Is a book non-self? Yes, anyone will tell you that a book is not themselves. Does the book have a self? Is there someone who controls the book? Don’t these questions seem a bit foolish?

[sybe07]

Hello Akvan,

I have learned anatta nupassana the way U Pandita teaches this in his book “in this very live, the liberations teachings of the Buddha”, Sayadaw. See pages 293-295. But i did not learn this from him. I also belief, am quit sure, it is Tipitaka proof.

He emphasizes certain things which make much sense to me:

“aniccānupassana-ñāṇa only can occur in the precise moment when one sees the passing away of a phenomenon. In the absence of such immediate seeing, then, it is impossible to understand impermanence”.

In the some way he refers to the other nupassana’s, dukkha and anatta.

Maybe you do not agree with the translation ‘impermanence’ but, i feel, it is very important to understand that …“True insight only occurs in the presence of a nonthinking, bare awareness of the passing away of phenomena in the present moment”.

So insight is not some kind of reasonable conclusion or gut-feeling or sense of understanding that arises after some time thinking or pondering about these concepts anicca, dukkha and anatta. It is an kind of seeing, wisdom or understanding that penetrates in this very moment the nature of phenomena. I think this is very important.

For example, (he explains) when contemplating dukkha one sees the arising and passing away of phenomena and “you will realize that nothing is dependable and there is nothing fixed to cling to. Everything is in flux, and this is unsatisfactory. Phenomena provide no refuge” (U. Pandita)

The fact that “no-refuge” is understood in relation with dukkha-nupassana and not anatta nupassana agrees with Patisambhidamagga.

One can ask oneself…when one sees there is no refuge in samsara, is that a kind nupassana-nana? Is that understanding tilakkhana? I have the impression this is not real insight meditation, but it is a kind of intellectual understanding.

I feel anatta has, like the other concepts of anicca and dhukka different meanings, or levels of understanding. I will give some in the below.

Applying anatta-nupassana on all that arises in the moment in the mind, one sees that there is no self governing these formations. It is a selfless proces. When one continues this practise one can get to see that it is also not a self (I am) who sees, hears, etc.

One can also see anatta nature in material phenomena. For example a rainbow. It just arises because of causes and conditions and it is no entity which came from anywhere when is arose and does not go anywhere when it vanishes. It has no self-nature, it is no entity with wishes.

A book is just a collection of pages which are in turn a collection of molecules which are in turn a collection of atoms, which are in turn etc. Independend of pages there is no book. Independend of molecules no pages etc. So, nothing exist on it’s own accord or has any self-nature, anatta, the absence of an abiding self.

These are also meanings of anatta.

I think it is important that insight-meditation is not the same as pondering, or reasoning or thinking about the meaning of tilakkhana and nana is not the understand which arises based on that thinking etc. but it is the activity which sees the mental and phyiscal formations arise and cease in the moment and at that moment sees the anicca, dukkha and anatta nature.

Siebe

[Author]

Posts