Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Another explanation of saññā with a different, yet related approach: “Saññā – Hidden Aspect of Paṭicca Samuppāda.”
- Feel free to ask questions.
1 user thanked author for this post.
I will try to explain the difference between the “mundane theories” (of science, philosophy, and religions) and the “ultimate theory (paramatta dhamma)” of the Buddha about the world using another approach in the next post.
- In the meantime, it is essential to understand that most of the “feelings” of sukha/somanassa or dukkha/domanassa are due to saññā: Vedanā and saññā are closely related. Even though saññā is usually translated as “recognition/perception,” it includes emotions that come with that “recognition/perception.” See “Saññā – What It Really Means.”
- For example, the sweet taste of honey (and the feeling of joy associated with it) is a saññā. The attractiveness of a person or a thing and the pleasant smell of a rose are also the same. Only bodily feelings (e.g., an injury) are strictly vedanā. This is emphasized in Abhidhamma, but not in the suttas.
- We attach to most things with saññā!
- Also, feel free to ask questions about the current post, “Loka – Each Person Perceives the “External World” Differently,” What I am trying to explain is not necessarily hard. Still, it is probably something most people have not even thought about.
1 user thanked author for this post.
Reading is not the same as understanding.
- “Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta (SN 56.11)” was the first discourse delivered by the Buddha.
- The verse “..pubbe ananussutesu dhammesu cakkhuṁ udapādi, ñāṇaṁ udapādi, paññā udapādi, vijjā udapādi, āloko udapādi.” appears 12 times in the sutta. It means “such was the vision, knowledge, and wisdom, realization arose in me regarding the true/real nature of this world. This understanding was not known to the world before me.” That led him to attain Nibbana and separate from the world. Here, “āloko udapādī” means “separation from the world” upon reaching Buddhahood.
- The Buddha also taught that it is dangerous to grasp his deep/profound teachings incorrectly. See “Alagaddūpama Sutta (MN 22).” Trying to grasp these teachings in the wrong way is dangerous, like trying to catch a snake by its tail; it will bite you, and it can be deadly! This is why I do not wish to answer questions from those who cannot understand what I stated in my previous comment. It will be a waste of time because we will be examining issues from two very different perspectives.
- This series of posts may not be suitable for everyone. If anyone becomes confused, please stop reading the posts in the new section: “Worldview of the Buddha.” I am saying this with compassion. I don’t want to see people getting hurt. Also, remember that the Buddha was discouraged upon attaining Buddhahood, because he thought it would not be easy to teach his newfound Dhamma to the world: “Brahmāyācana Sutta (SN 6.1).”
- My goal is not to increase the number of people who read this website. My goal is to teach those who can grasp these profound teachings without becoming stressed. The goal is to reduce suffering, not increase it!
1 user thanked author for this post.
Question: “So would it be wrong to say that everything is mental?”
- What I described in my earlier comment is correct. But that version does not explain how that world arises and is sustained. For example, modern science suggests that the universe originated from nothing with a “Big Bang,” and all those “things” and sentient beings evolved over billions of years. That is the “mundane theory” I described in the post.
- The Buddha taught that our world (with all sentient beings and all inert things (trees, mountains, stars, galaxies, etc) arises based on the mental power generated by sentient beings. That is the “ultimate theory (paramatta dhamma)” that I discussed.
- Please re-read the post and ask more questions as needed. It would be helpful for me to cite from the post and ask questions about any unclear points.
The above baseline must be understood before I can answer your other questions.
1 user thanked author for this post.
Yes. It is essential to have full clarity on these questions.
Question: Is it correct to say that matter exists in the outside world and we use our minds to experience a mental version of it? Like the table is really in the outside world and not because I can sense it through my senses?
- Yes. 100%
Question: If I eat a cake , is the cake really in the outside world composed of matter or its just a mental thing because I can see, smell, hear, taste, touch it?
- Yes. The cake is real, and your sensations (e.g., its taste) based on it are real.
Question: What if the senses are not present?
- If a given sense faculty is not working, you will not experience the sensation.
- For example, the blind cannot see, and the deaf cannot hear.
1 user thanked author for this post.
I have just posted “Loka – Each Person Perceives the “External World” Differently,” which explains the above in detail.
- Feel free to ask questions.
I was going to follow up with another comment yesterday, but I got tied up with an issue at home.
1. What I described in my two comments above is the “mundane reality.”
2. The Buddha discovered the “ultimate reality” (“paramatta dhamma“) about the world.
- Here, “paramatta” is “parama atta” or the “ultimate truth.”
- The external world and the sentient beings in it are sustained by the “mental power” or the “kammic energy” of the sentient beings.
- Each sentient being generates “kammic energy” based on rāga, dosa, and moha. Part of that energy leads to new rebirths, and the rest of the collective kammic energies of all sentient beings contribute to sustaining the external world.
- All inert objects, as well as the physical and mental bodies of sentient beings, are made of suddhāṭṭhaka created by kammic energy. A suddhāṭṭhaka has eight components: the four great elements (pathavi, āpo, tejo, and vāyo) that arise due to avijjā and four more (vaṇṇa, gandha, rasa, oja) due to taṇhā. The latter four are discussed in Abhidhamma but are only referred to as “upādāya rupa” in the suttās. As we have discussed, the Abhidhamma theory was not fully developed during the Buddha’s lifetime. This is a deeper aspect discussed in “The Origin of Matter – Suddhāṭṭhaka.”
3. When a given sentient being figures out (fully understands) the teachings of the Buddha, the generation of “kammic energy” (based on rāga, dosa, and moha) stops. The disappearance of moha (or avijjā) leads to the loss of one’s cravings for worldly pleasures (rāga), and that also leads to the fading away of moha.
- One critical aspect of that is the following. The avijjā (or moha) is not to see the “full picture” of the endless rebirth process based solely on “mind power” or kammic energy.
- Since the energy to sustain the whole process is created in the defiled mind (this is what “Manōpubbangamā dhammā..” means), whatever is created cannot be sustained forever. Each existence (whether in the human realm, in the animal realm, or a Brahma realm) has a finite duration, a limited lifetime. The problem is that most rebirths are in the suffering-filled lowest four realms. That is why the rebirth process leads to much more suffering in the long term.
4. Another aspect is as follows: We pointed out above that kammic energies are responsible for maintaining the external world and the sentient beings (all composed of suddhāṭṭhaka). That process leads to the generation of “distorted saññā” in the minds of all sentient beings, making them automatically attach to sensory inputs.
- That is why the Buddha said that all sentient beings are deceived by this “distorted saññā” inherent in all sentient beings via Paṭicca Samuppāda. See “Fooled by Distorted Saññā (Sañjānāti) – Origin of Attachment (Taṇhā).”
- P.S. In other words, fully understanding how “distorted saññā” arises helps eliminate avijjā and taṇhā. Thus, Nibbāna is reached via cultivating wisdom (paññā), i.e., fully understanding the above.
Yes. Our color perception is due to the physical properties of our eyes and the interaction with light.
- Humans and various animals “see” using different wavelength bands of light. Humans perceive colors within the “colored light wavelengths” (violet to red), which is why we see in vivid colors. Dogs don’t see with color; they see in black and white. Bats “see” using a very different technique.
- Gandhabbas (our mental bodies) see without using light when they come out of the physical body, as in OBE and NDE. Of course, they cannot use physical eyes. They don’t need light to see, and they can see better than we, because of that. A friend of mine can come out of the body and says she can see things much clearly while “out-of-the-body.” That “seeing” is, however, without color. The “color scheme” is associated with seeing through the physical eyes of humans.
1 user thanked author for this post.
Maybe you misunderstood what that bhikkhu was saying (or did he actually mean it)? The following is my understanding.
1. Yes. The world that I experience is mental and “real” for me.
2. But my mental experience is based on sensory inputs coming from the external world, and that external world is also real.
3. However, another person may experience the same external world differently from me.
_______
I think the above points describe the fundamental basis.
- In other words, everyone experiences the same external world.
- However, the “mental experience” depends on the person. The simplest example is the following. Two people, A and B, look at person X (who is a friend of A and an enemy of B). A experiences joy upon seeing X, but anger arises in B upon seeing the same person X.
Yes. It is a simple yet good example to get the basic idea.
- Of course, we can extend to deeper issues.
- For example, if you like to eat ice cream, it seems that it is an action of “nicca nature” while eating it. Then you keep eating ice cream every day to get “more of it.” Eventually, it will have adverse health consequences.
- Going a bit deeper, sensual pleasures, in general, seem to provide a sense of “nicca” or “satisfaction.” Yet, seeking sensual pleasures will keep one away from Nibbana; it is, thus, of anicca nature in the long term. Furthermore, if one engages in immoral deeds to obtain more sensory pleasures, it will have negative consequences even in this life.
3 users thanked author for this post.
On May 29, 2025, at 5:34 pm (above), I wrote the following:
4. Kāya saṅkhāra refers to sankappa (subtle version of “abhisaṅkhāra“) that are automatically generated in the “purāna kamma” stage; see “Purāna and Nava Kamma – Sequence of Kamma Generation.”
- I have not explicitly discussed the fact that kāya saṅkhāra refers to sankappa. I will explain that when I start rewriting the posts on Satipaṭṭhāna.
- Until then, I can only state the meaning of “Assāsapassāsā kāyasaṅkhāro” as “one must fully comprehend how sankappa arises in the purāna kamma stage.” Thus, “Assāsapassāsā” is not a definition of kāya saṅkhāra. It merely states that to cultivate Satipaṭṭhāna, one must fully comprehend how sankappa arises in the purāna kamma stage.
____
In the coming weeks, I will start a series of posts on Satipaṭṭhāna. I am still setting up the necessary background, and I am almost finished with that.
- There, I will explain the above in detail.
- It will take a few posts to explain that.
1. I listened to about 20 minutes from that point. The Thero is saying the following:
- Just breathing in and out is only saṅkhāra, not abhisaṅkhāra.
- One needs to breathe to move body parts (He quotes a Waharaka Thero‘s discourse on this, and I have also listened to it).
- If one moves body parts with sañcetanā, or “defiled cetanā” or “defiled intentions,” then those involve abhisankhara.
2. All of those are correct.
- That is precisely what I am saying, too.
- Moving the body requires breathing. If you move your body to steal or kill someone, that involves abhisaṅkhāra, not pure saṅkhāra (without raga, dosa, moha)
3. The problem is the following: The Buddha always referred to abhisaṅkhāra. In the suttas, the word saṅkhāra almost always refers to abhisaṅkhāra. There is no point discussing pure saṅkhāra in the suttas, because kamma generation involves raga, dosa, and moha.
- Pure saṅkhāra (without raga, dosa, moha) are generated by Arahants, too. There is no point talking about pure saṅkhāra in the suttas.
- The suttas discuss only those saṅkhāra involving sañcetanā, i.e., abhisaṅkhāra.
4. Conclusion: Assāsapassāsā in “Assāsapassāsā kāyasaṅkhāro” (discussed in the Cūḷavedalla Sutta) cannot be “breathing in and out.”
- “Breathing in and out” is due to pure saṅkhāra.
___________
If any of the above is incorrect, you (or the Thero) should respond to each incorrect point. I don’t have the time to read other documents or watch more videos.
1 user thanked author for this post.
I think it is a good idea to emphasize the following.
- “Kamma” in Buddha’s teachings does not refer to all actions.
- Only those actions, speech, and thoughts involving rāga, dosa, and moha are “kamma.”
- Thus, the goal (“kamma nirodha“) does not refer to stopping all actions, speech, and thoughts, but only those involving rāga, dosa, or moha.
- The Buddha lived for 45 years after attaining Buddhahood and engaged in countless actions, speech, and thoughts.
- Additionally, “kamma nirodha” is equivalent to “saṅkhāra nirodha.” Still, as we have discussed, saṅkhāra refers to abhisaṅkhāra performed with sañcetanā, or “defiled cetanā” or “defiled intentions” (characterized by rāga, dosa, or moha).
- This is a crucial yet simple point to remember. That is why “breathing in and out” cannot be a type of abhisaṅkhāra.
- Please feel free to ask questions, because this is a critical point. Also see “Kamma are Done with Abhisaṅkhāra – Types of Abhisaṅkhāra.”
You asked: “Do you agree with the implied meaning from Cūḷavedallasutta (MN 44) that assāsapassāsā means breathing in and out?”
No. I don’t agree. I suppose I didn’t make it clear enough. So, I have revised my comment above to add the following (please see my comment above):
“P.S. Therefore, Assāsapassāsā cannot possibly mean “breathing in and out.” That translation is wrong.”
- The correct meaning is explained in #4 of my comment.
- As we have discussed many times, a word can have different meanings depending on the context. That holds not only for Pāli, but also for English and most languages. See, for example, “Pāli Dictionaries – Are They Reliable?“
