[Lal]

I have done some significant revisions to the post in question: “An Apparent “Self” Is Involved in Kamma Generation.”

Those interested should re-read the revised post.

One major change was to add #5 under a new heading, as follows:

Attā Translated as “Self” Is Not Correct

5. The Pāli word “attā” does not really mean “self” even though I used that translation above. That translation is quite common these days. We will go with that until we finish discussing Paticca Samuppāda. If I try to discuss the real meaning of attā right now, that could lead to confusion.

That is in fact why the Buddha refused to answer Vaccagotta’s question about whether or not there is an “attā.” See, “Ānanda Sutta (SN 44.10).”

Vacchagotta comes to the Buddha asked “kiṃ nu kho, bho gotama, atthattā” ti?” OR “Master Gotama, is it correct to say that there is an “attā”?”.

Note that “atthattā” is “atthi attā” where “atthi” means “exists.” Vaccagotta meant in this case “attā” to be “self.” Thus, Vacchagotta meant: “Is it correct to say that a “self” exists?”

The Buddha remained silent, and Vacchagotta asked the question again in the negative form. The second time, he asked: “Kiṃ pana, bho gotama, natthattā” ti?” or, “Master Gotama, is it not correct to say that there is a “self”?”.
– Seeing that the Buddha is refusing to answer his question, Vacchagotta got up and left.

Note that “natthattā” is made up of three words: “naatthi attā,” which negates “atthattā.”Just as these days, many people were confused about the Pali word “attā” and the Sanskrit word “ātma.” The latter meaning is closer to a “soul.”

I will discuss this sutta when I will come back to discuss “attā” in detail, after discussing Paticca Samuppāda.

[Lal]

Those two posts that I referred to above are very important. I hope everyone will take the time to read them carefully.

The first post explains that tanha is not craving: “Tanhā – How We Attach Via Greed, Hate, and Ignorance.”

It is a common mistake to translate “tanhā” as “craving.” The translation that Johnny referred to translates tanhā as craving.
– Tanhā means “getting attached to” sensory input and that happens within a FRACTION OF A SECOND.
– That is a key message of the Chachakka Sutta that we have been discussing recently: “Worldview of the Buddha.”

I have revised the second post mentioned above:
“Difference Between Tanhā and Upādāna”

These are important concepts to understand. But it requires spending time to think, not merely to read.

P.S. The key point is that “tanhā” happens instantly, the moment you see, hear,..something. Then one thinks, speaks, and takes actions based on “craving” for it. That second step happens over time. That is the “upādāna” step.

[Lal]

Johnny wrote: “It appears tenable that kamma is a natural byproduct of craving. I think that’s why the second noble truth is tanhā and never upādāna. Because by the time one performs kamma/sankhara/upādāna, it’s already too late.”

Tanha is not craving: Tanhā – How We Attach Via Greed, Hate, and Ignorance

Tanha is removed via stopping upadana by getting rid of avijja:
Difference Between Tanhā and Upādāna

These concepts require a lot of thinking. Please feel free to ask questions.

[Lal]

What Lang wrote is correct.

However, what needs to be really done is to realize the following:
1. To understand WHY there is no “self” or a “soul” involved in the initial sensory event.
2. That the response to those initial sensory events with the idea of a “self” leads to suffering in the long-term.
– We have not yet discussed how that suffering arises via Paticca Samuppada. (but some may be able to make that connection on their own).
– In any case, the next few posts will make that connection clear.

Stated in another way, there will be suffering as long there one has the view that it is WORTHWHILE to take good sensory inputs as “mine” and TRY TO ENJOY THEM, especially by doing immoral deeds. An extreme case is where one kills or steals in order to get money and buy luxury items and live a “good life.”
– Same works the other way too. We tend to dislike other sensory events and MAY TRY to do IMMORAL THINGS in order to stop those. For example, as an extreme case, some people try to hurt or even kill their enemies.

Tobias asked: “Why is anattā “not-self”?.”

I said it is the WRONG APPROACH to say that there is “no-self” OR there is a “self”.
– Please read the post carefully. I emphasized that point at the very end.
– We need to realize that suffering arises because of the idea of a “self.” One does immoral things BECAUSE of that.
– In a strict sense, it is correct to say that anattā implies “no-self.” But we cannot START there BECAUSE just saying that will not help. One will be just fooling “oneself.” We are under the perception of a “self.” We need to SEE the bad consequences of that perception by SEEING the dangers of that view.

Basically one is “anattā” (with no refuge) AS LONG AS one has the wrong view of sakkaya ditthi.
– One starts becoming an “attā” (one with refuge) when one starts realizing the true nature (that there is no “experiencer.” Then one will be free of the apayas.
– However, the perception of a “self” goes away only at the Arahant stage, and at that time one will have the full refuge of NO SUFFERING AT ALL (after the Parinibbana.)

I am glad that both of you thought about it. It is not possible to write all this in a post. When we go through the next few posts, this will hopefully become clear.
– This is why the Buddha said, “my Dhamma is difficult to understand.” That Dhamma cannot be UNDERSTOOD by repeating verses to oneself. One needs to “see-through” the true nature.
– The procedure of repeating verses (which most people call meditation) becomes useful after “SEEING” the true nature. Then, in order to remove the wrong perception and get to higher magga phala, such “formal meditations with repeating verses” will be more effective.
– That is why “bhavanaya pahatabba” comes at the end in the Sabbasava Sutta. First one needs to get to “dassanena pahatabba” or “removal by vision” or Samma Ditthi.
– Of course, one who has removed sakkaya ditthi needs to do those formal meditations. That will help remove the “wrong perceptions” (sanna vipallasa).

An analogy is a smoker. A smoker first needs to “SEE” the bad consequences of smoking. But unless one keeps recalling that frequently, it may be hard to break the “old habit” completely (by removing the sanna).
– Of course, there is a difference at the Sotapanna stage. Even if one may be tempted to do “some immoral things” one WILL NEVER BE CAPABLE of doing apayagami deeds after removing sakkaya ditthi.

P.S. Here is what I stated at the very end of the post:

17. In other words, the wrong views about a “self” (sakkāya diṭṭhi) go away at the Sōtapanna stage. But the perception of a “self” (asmi māna) goes away in stages and disappear only at the Arahant stage.
– Only an Arahant has no saññā vipallāsa and asmi māna.
– That is also why we CANNOT say that “there is no-self.” Until the attainment of Arahanthood, there is a perception of a “self.”
– It is a wrong approach to analyze sensory experiences based on a “self” or “no-self.” Instead, we can explain everything in terms of causes and effects or Paticca Samuppāda. We will discuss this in the future.

[Lal]

Siebe wrote: “I do not argue the use of weakening defilements, and letting them go while they arise, but it seems that this cannot lead to their uprooting. On that point 1 would like some clarificaton. It seems that only te magga citta that experiences Nibbana can uproot defilements.”

You have already clarified.

You wrote, ” I do not argue the use of weakening defilements, and letting them go while they arise.”

It seems you agree that the weakening of defilements is NECESSARY in order to get rid of anusaya. That is a NECESSARY condition.

Once the defilements start fading, at some point, the “point of no return” is reached. That is the magga phala moment.
– One CANNOT get to that point without going through the “mind purification” process, which is just getting rid of the wrong view of sakkaya ditthi (for the Sotapanna stage).

Are you saying otherwise? Please focus on the key point.

[Lal]

Siebe wrote: “It is said by some that defilements and also anusaya can only be eradicated by the magga-citta, for example this is said by Nina van Gorkom who writes a lot about Abhidhamma.”

The way that is written gives a wrong impression.
– It is true that anusaya is removed in stages at each stage of magga phala. But that does not happen automatically. It requires learning and practicing dhamma.
– Once one starts understanding the true nature, that understanding grows with time (as a Sotapanna Anugami). Then the wrong view of sakkaya ditthi is removed at the moment of attaining the Sotapanna magga/phala citta.
– Removing the wrong perceptions (saññā) requires more learning and practice and that is removed only at the Arahant stage.

[Lal]

Lang asked: “For paṭighānusaya, if we flip the above around and say something like this, will it be true:
“When one experiences a dukha vēdāna, if one is irritated with it, pushes it away, and thinks and speaks harshly of it, tries to get away from it, then the underlying tendency for paṭighā (paṭighānusaya) gets stronger…”

That is right and that parallels the statement in the post about rāgānusaya.

However, actually DOING THAT is the hard part. In some meditation retreats, they say, “feeling is just feeling. Just ignore it.” Even if one may be able to do that during the retreat, it will be HARD to do in real situations.

The key is to truly understand that there is no “experiencer.” That will really help to suppress the “mind-made” vedana or samphassa-jā-vēdanā.
– In #8 of the post I said, “To remove that strong diṭṭhi, we need to see the “true nature,” i.e., need to cultivate “yathābhuta ñāna.” I just added the following to that: “A big part of that is realizing that there is no “experiencer,” as we have discussed in detail using the movie analogy. See, “Vision Is a Series of “Snapshots” – Movie Analogy.”

The key here is to UNDERSTAND why getting absorbed in either sukha or dukkha vedana is harmful. The mind needs to “SEE” that there is no actual “experiencer.”
– Either sukha or dukkha vedana (the real ones) come only through the physical body.
– All others are mind-made as we discussed.

Even the “real” dukkha vedana are kamma vipaka. They WILL keep coming AS LONG AS we have physical bodies (i.e., we are in kama loka). And they are much worse in the four lower realms in kama loka (i.e., apayas).
– Therefore, the goal is to stop rebirth first in the apayas.

The bottom line is that it is essential to stop generating “mind-made vedana” based on even real vedana generated with the physical body.
– But unless one really understands that there is no “experiencer” involved, it is not possible to stop births even in the apayas.
– That requires BOTH learning the true nature AND practice. But the understanding must be there first.
– We will discuss more in upcoming posts. But it is necessary to understand the “movie analogy” mentioned above.

[Lal]

Thank you, lodonyo.

You seem to have been working hard to understand the concepts. I hope it will inspire others too.

[Lal]

Yes. That is the perfect sutta to explain the difference between sakkaya ditthi and asmī māna. Thanks, Siebe.

Since I had some time this morning, I just made a few changes to the English translation referred to by Siebe above. The following is the full sutta:

Khemaka Sutta (SN 22.89)

At one time some senior bhikkhus were staying near Kosambi, in Ghosita’s Monastery. Now at that time, Venerable Khemaka was staying at a nearby Monastery, and he was sick, suffering, gravely ill.

In the late afternoon, those senior bhikkhus came out of retreat and addressed Venerable Dāsaka, “Please, Reverend Dāsaka, go to bhikkhu Khemaka and say to him: ‘Reverend Khemaka, the seniors hope you’re keeping well; they hope you’re alright. They hope that your pain is fading and you are getting better’”

“Yes, reverends,” replied Dāsaka. He went to Khemaka and said to him:
“Reverend Khemaka, the senior bhikkhus hope you’re keeping well; they hope you’re alright. They hope that your pain is fading, not growing, that its fading and you are getting better.”
“Reverend, I’m not keeping well, I’m not alright. My pain is terrible and it is not fading away.”

Then Dāsaka went to those senior bhikkhus and told them what had happened. They said,
“Please, Reverend Dāsaka, go to the mendicant Khemaka and say to him: ‘Reverend Khemaka, the seniors say that these five grasping aggregates (upādānakkhandhā) have been taught by the Buddha: the grasping aggregates of form, feeling, perception, choices, and consciousness. Do you regard anything among these five grasping aggregates as self or as belonging to self? (Imesu āyasmā khemako pañcasu upādānakkhandhesu kiñci attaṃ vā attaniyaṃ vā samanupassatī)’”

“Yes, reverends,” replied Dāsaka. He relayed the message to Khemaka, who replied:
“These five grasping aggregates have been taught by the Buddha, that is: the grasping aggregates of form, feeling, perception, choices, and consciousness. I do not regard anything among these five grasping aggregates as self or as belonging to self.”

Then Dāsaka went to those seniors and told them what had happened. They said:
“Please, Reverend Dāsaka, go to the mendicant Khemaka and say to him: ‘Reverend Khemaka, the seniors say that these five grasping aggregates have been taught by the Buddha, that is: the grasping aggregates of form, feeling, perception, choices, and consciousness. If, as it seems, Venerable Khemaka does not regard anything among these five grasping aggregates as self or as belonging to self, then he is a perfected one, with defilements ended.’”( No ce kirāyasmā khemako imesu pañcasu upādānakkhandhesu kiñci attaṃ vā attaniyaṃ vā samanupassati. Tenahāyasmā khemako arahaṃ khīṇāsavo’”ti.)

“Yes, reverends,” replied Dāsaka. He relayed the message to Khemaka, who replied:
“These five grasping aggregates have been taught by the Buddha, that is: the grasping aggregates of form, feeling, perception, choices, and consciousness. I do not regard anything among these five grasping aggregates as self or as belonging to self, yet I am not a perfected one, with defilements ended. For when it comes to the five grasping aggregates I’m not rid of the conceit ‘I am’. But I don’t have the wrong view of anything as ‘I am this’.”

Then Dāsaka went to those seniors and told them what had happened. They said:
“Please, Reverend Dāsaka, go to the mendicant Khemaka and say to him: ‘Reverend Khemaka, the seniors ask, when you say ‘I am’, what is it that you’re talking about? Is it form or apart from form? Is it feeling … perception … choices … consciousness, or apart from consciousness? When you say ‘I am’, what is it that you’re talking about?”

“Yes, reverends,” replied Dāsaka. He relayed the message to Khemaka, who replied:
“Enough, Reverend Dāsaka! What’s the point in running back and forth? Bring my walking stick, I’ll go to see the senior bhikkhus myself.”

Then Venerable Khemaka, with the aid of the walking stick, went to those senior mendicants and exchanged greetings with them. When the greetings and polite conversation were over, he sat down to one side. They said to him:
“Reverend Khemaka, when you say ‘I am’, what is it that you’re talking about? Is it form or apart from form? Is it feeling … perception … saṅkhāra … viññāṇa, or apart from viññāṇa? When you say ‘I am’, what is it that you’re talking about?”
“Reverends, I don’t say ‘I am’ with reference to form, or apart from form. I don’t say ‘I am’ with reference to feelings or apart from feelings… perception … saṅkhāra … viññāṇa, or apart from viññāṇa. For when it comes to the five grasping aggregates I’m not rid of the conceit (asmī māna) ‘I am’. But I don’t view anything as ‘I am this’.
It’s like the scent of a blue water lily, or a pink or white lotus. Would it be right to say that the scent belongs to the petals or the stalk or the pistil?”
“No, reverend Khemaka.”
“Then, reverends, how should it be said?”
“It would be right to say that the scent belongs to the flower.”
“In the same way, reverends, I don’t say ‘I am’ with reference to form, or apart from form. I don’t say ‘I am’ with reference to feeling … perception … saṅkhāra … viññāṇa, or apart from viññāṇa. For when it comes to the five grasping aggregates I’m not rid of the conceit ‘I am’. But I don’t regard anything as ‘I am this’.
Although a noble disciple has given up the five lower samyojana, they still have a lingering residue of the conceit ‘I am’, the desire ‘I am’, and the underlying tendency ‘I am’ which has not been eradicated. After getting rid of the wrong view they meditate observing rise and fall in the five grasping aggregates (udayabbayānupassī viharati, i.e., udaya and vaya of the five aggregates). ‘Such is form, such is the origin of form, such is the destruction of form. Such is feeling … Such is perception … Such are saṅkhāra … Such is viññāṇa, such is the origin of viññāṇa, such is the ending of viññāṇa.’ As they do so, that lingering residue (i.e., asmī māna) is eradicated.
Suppose there was a cloth that was dirty and soiled, so the owners give it to a launderer. The launderer kneads it thoroughly with detergent and rinses it in clear water. Although that cloth is clean and bright, it still has a lingering scent of that detergent that had not been eradicated. The launderer returns it to its owners, who store it in a chest permeated with scent. And that lingering scent would be eradicated.
In the same way, although a noble disciple has given up the five lower samyojana, they still have a lingering residue of the conceit ‘I am’, the desire ‘I am’, and the underlying tendency ‘I am’ (i.e., asmī māna) which has not been eradicated. After getting rid of the wrong view they MEDITATE observing rise and fall in the five grasping aggregates (udayabbayānupassī viharati, i.e., udaya and vaya of the five aggregates). ‘Such is form, such is the origin of form, such is the destruction of form. Such is feeling … Such is perception … Such are saṅkhāra … Such is viññāṇa, such is the origin of viññāṇa, such is the ending of viññāṇa.’ As they do so, that lingering residue (i.e., asmī māna) is eradicated.

When he said this, the senior bhikkhus said to Venerable Khemaka, “We didn’t want to trouble Venerable Khemaka with our questions. But you’re extremely capable of explaining, teaching, advocating, establishing, disclosing, analyzing, and clarifying the Buddha’s instructions in detail. And that’s just what you’ve done.”
And during this discussion, the minds of the sixty senior bhikkhus and of Venerable Khemaka were freed from defilements and they all attained Arahanthood.

My comments: It is clear that Ven. Khemaka (and possibly those senior bhikkhus) had already removed the first five samyojana (of course, that include sakkaya ditthi), but had not removed the higher samyojana (including asmī māna). The discussion helped them all remove those higher samyojana including asmī māna.

It is critical to understand the difference between getting rid of wrong views (ditthi) and wrong perceptions (sañña). Sakkaya ditthi is associated with wrong views and asmī māna is associated with wrong perceptions (sañña).
– I will write more about this in the next post.

[Lal]

What y not says above is correct in general.

I want to emphasize two points:

1. Having sakkaya ditthi is just one part of avijjā. But it is a big part. Removal of sakkaya ditthi basically prevents one from committing apāyagāmi deeds.

2. Removal of sakkaya ditthi is just removing a “wrong vision” about a “self.” That DOES NOT remove the “wrong saññā” about a “self”.
– Even though one realizes that it is not correct to say that “things are happening to a self,” one still has the “distorted saññā” of a “self.”
– That perception of a “me” is “asmi māna.” That wrong perception decreases in stages and is removed at the Arahant stage.

P.S. I have revised the post in question:
1. #5 in the original post was split into #5 and #6.
2. An addition was made to new #11 about wrong perceptions.
3. Few other minor revisions.

[Lal]

I have re-written the post, “Our Two Worlds: Material and Immaterial.”

Hopefully, it will help further clarify these concepts. Let me know if there are any unresolved issues.

[Lal]

Yes. That is my understanding. At least they started the process, using the convention that I described above.

[Lal]

OK. I just revised my earlier post above. I hope it is clear now.

[Lal]

EDITED: OK. I got confused, and after seeing the comment by y not below, I realized what Tobias (may be) asking.

The scripts are the same for English and Latin. That is why I got confused.

The conversion from Sinhala to English script was done by early European scholars like Rhys Davis, Eugene Burnouf, and others, who learned Pali as well as Sanskrit. They also TRANSLATED Tipitaka to English. See, “Misinterpretation of Anicca and Anatta by Early European Scholars.”

They were also confused by Pali words like anicca and anatta, which they thought the same as anitya and anatma in Sanskrit. That is why the English TRANSLATIONS are not reliable.
– However, Pali Tipitaka in English SCRIPT is correct. But there is some confusion about the spelling of some words. For example, the Pali word anicca is pronounced as “anichcha” where “ch” sound is the same as in “chicken” or “choice”. But it is written with just “c”. That was done to prevent words from getting too long.

[Lal]

Thank you, lodonyo.

May you also reach the ultimate happiness!

[Author]

Posts