Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Hi Lal,
Though it is commonly referred to as the antthalakkhana sutta https://suttacentral.net/sn22.59/pli/ms, the actual pali sutta is named “Pancavaggiya Sutta”. And even in the sutta the word “lakkhana” is not mentioned.
Or is there another anattha lakkhana sutta that I missed out?
Hi Lal,
Sorry, I have inserted the links to the sutta’s and pali sections to my earlier post and added some new content as well.
The sutta’s mention that one needs to abstain from akusala and kama to get to the first jhana (vivicca kamehi vivicca akusalehi dhammehi). And as you mention, abstaining does not mean complete removal.
This corresponds with the Kama Sutta (https://suttacentral.net/mnd1/pli/ms), where it is mentioned that kama is suppressed while in the first jhana upto nevasanna na sanna. In the same way it is mentioned that kama could be suppressed by using (bhaventopi) the buddhanussati and anapanasati etc. So we cannot come to the conclusion that this is referring to an anariya jhana.
Pali: Buddhānussatiṃ bhāventopi vikkhambhanato kāme parivajjeti, dhammānussatiṃ bhāventopi … pe … …. ānāpānassatiṃ bhāventopi … upa¬sa¬mānus¬sa¬tiṃ bhāventopi vikkhambhanato kāme parivajjeti.
Paṭhamaṃ jhānaṃ bhāventopi vikkhambhanato kāme parivajjeti … pe … dutiyaṃ jhānaṃ bhāventopi … … neva¬saññā¬nā¬saññāya¬tana¬samā¬pattiṃ bhāventopi vikkhambhanato kāme parivajjeti. Evaṃ vikkhambhanato kāme parivajjeti.In the Mahavedalla Sutta (https://suttacentral.net/mn43/pli/ms) it is mentioned that the pancanivarana are removed.
Pali: Paṭhamaṃ kho, āvuso, jhānaṃ pañcaṅ¬ga¬vippa¬hīnaṃ, pañcaṅ¬ga¬saman¬nā¬gataṃ. Idhāvuso, paṭhamaṃ jhānaṃ samāpannassa bhikkhuno kāmacchando pahīno hoti, byāpādo pahīno hoti, thinamiddhaṃ pahīnaṃ hoti, uddhac¬ca¬kukkuc¬caṃ pahīnaṃ hoti, vicikicchā pahīnā hoti;In the naga sutta (https://suttacentral.net/pi/an9.40) it is mentioned that one gets to the first jhana by removing panca nivarana and abstaining from kama.
So ime pañca nīvaraṇe pahāya cetaso upakkilese paññāya dubbalīkaraṇe vivicceva kāmehi vivicca akusalehi dhammehi savitakkaṃ savicāraṃ vivekajaṃ pītisukhaṃ paṭhamaṃ jhānaṃ upasampajja viharati.In the Jhana Sutta (https://suttacentral.net/an9.36/pli/ms) it is mentioned that if one does not complete the removal of āsava, while in the first jhana, he would remove the first five samyōjana because of the dhamma raga and dhamma nandiya and thus will be born opapatika (in brahma loka) and attain pariNibbāna there, and will not return to this world.
Pali: evamevaṃ kho, bhikkhave, bhikkhu vivicceva kāmehi … pe … paṭhamaṃ jhānaṃ upasampajja viharati. So yadeva tattha hoti rūpagataṃ vedanāgataṃ saññāgataṃ saṅkhāragataṃ viññāṇagataṃ, te dhamme aniccato dukkhato rogato gaṇḍato sallato aghato ābādhato parato palokato suññato anattato samanupassati. So tehi dhammehi cittaṃ paṭivāpeti. So tehi dhammehi cittaṃ paṭivāpetvā amatāya dhātuyā cittaṃ upasaṃharati: ‘etaṃ santaṃ etaṃ paṇītaṃ yadidaṃ sabba¬saṅ¬khā¬ra¬sama-tho sabbū¬padhipa¬ṭi¬nissaggo taṇhākkhayo virāgo nirodho nibbānan’ti. So tattha ṭhito āsavānaṃ khayaṃ pāpuṇāti. No ce āsavānaṃ khayaṃ pāpuṇāti, teneva dhammarāgena tāya dhammanandiyā pañcannaṃ orambhāgiyānaṃ saṃyojanānaṃ parikkhayā opapātiko hoti tattha parinibbāyī anāvattidhammo tasmā lokā. ‘Paṭhamampāhaṃ, bhikkhave, jhānaṃ nissāya āsavānaṃ khayaṃ vadāmī’ti, iti yaṃ taṃ vuttaṃ, idametaṃ paṭicca vuttaṃ.
In addition the anupubbaviharasamapatti sutta (https://suttacentral.net/pi/an9.33) mentions that kama is repeatedly stopped while being in the first jhana.
idhāvuso, bhikkhu vivicceva kāmehi vivicca akusalehi dhammehi savitakkaṃ savicāraṃ vivekajaṃ pītisukhaṃ paṭhamaṃ jhānaṃ upasampajja viharati. Ettha kāmā nirujjhanti, te ca kāme nirodhetvā nirodhetvā viharantī’ti.
If vivicca kamehi meant that kama is completely removed then it doesn’t need to be mentioned again that kama will not arise (nirodha, nirujjanti etc.).
In Tapussagahapati Sutta (https://suttacentral.net/an9.41/pli/ms) it is mentioned that in the first jhana one will get kama sanna and that the kama sanna is a hindrance.
So kho ahaṃ, ānanda, vivicceva kāmehi vivicca akusalehi dhammehi savitakkaṃ savicāraṃ vivekajaṃ pītisukhaṃ paṭhamaṃ jhānaṃ upasampajja viharāmi. Tassa mayhaṃ, ānanda, iminā vihārena viharato kāmasahagatā sañ¬ñāmana¬sikārā samudācaranti. Svassa me hoti ābādho.So based on these sutta’s my conclusion is as follows:
One needs to eliminate the panca nivarana (be a sotapanna) and abstain from kama and akusala dhamma, to get to the first arya jhana. While in the first arya jhana one should contemplate on the anicca, dukka, anatta nature etc. Through this method he can attain nibbana. So it is not absolutely necessary to get to higher jhana to attain nibbana, if one is to attain nibbana through jhana. If one does not attain nibbana through practicing this method because of his liking to the dhamma (dhamma nandiya, dhamma ragaya) he will eliminate orambagiya samyojana and become an anagami.Hi Lal,
In most places aniccha, dukka, anaththa is referred to as the thilakkana, and you refer to it as three marks of existence.
However, in most sutta’s aniccha, dukka, anaththa are referred to as sanna; signs or perceptions. I take mark (lakkana) to mean something that is inherent in the object, while perception (sanna) is a way that one will see it or a meaning that one will extract from it.
For example, any object (sankatha) will deteriorate and this is something inherent to that object; vayo sankatha lakkanang. While an object is not inherently aniccha because for it to be aniccha (or niccha) one has to have a liking towards it. I cannot recall any sutta’s that say something like aniccha sankatha lakkanan or aniccha lakkana.
I know that talking about whether it is a lakkana or a sanna will have no difference to the understanding of aniccha, dukka and anaththa. But can you share any sutta’s that refer to aniccha, dukka, anaththa as lakkana?
Thanks, I went through those posts and have a few comments / queries.
The sutta’s mention that one needs to abstain from akusala and kama to get to the first jhana (vivicca kamehi vivicca akusalehi dhammehi). And as you mention, abstaining does not mean complete removal.
This corresponds with the Kama Sutta, where it is mentioned that kama is suppressed while in the first jhana upto nevasanna na sanna. In the same way it is mentioned that kama could be suppressed by using (bhaventopi) the buddhanussati and anapanasati etc. So we cannot come to the conclusion that this is referring to a anariya jhana.
In the Mahavedalla Sutta it is mentioned that the pancanivarana are removed. As I understand kamachanda and byapada are not the same as kama raga and patiga. So does this mean that even though pancanivarana is removed there can be the kama raga and patiga samyojana?
In the Jhana Sutta it is mentioned that if one does not complete the removal of āsava, while in the first jhana, he would remove the first five samyōjana because of the dhamma raga and dhamma nandiya and thus will be born opapatika (in brahma loka) and attain pariNibbāna there, and will not return to this world.
It is not mentioned that one needs to eliminate the first five samyojana to get into the first jhana but only needs to abstain from it. After he gets to the first jhana (by practicing it) he can eliminate the five samyojana and become an anāgāmi.
Hi Saket,
The following suttas give reasons as to why one may not attain a magga pala even when when listening the true Dhamma.
https://suttacentral.net/en/an6.86
https://suttacentral.net/en/an6.87
https://suttacentral.net/en/an6.88I have listed them down below:
He is endowed with a kamma obstruction, a defilement obstruction, a result-of-[past]-kamma obstruction(kamma-vipaka); he lacks conviction, has no desire [to listen], and has dull discernment, and while listening he does not listen well, does not give ear, does not apply his mind to gnosis, grabs hold of what is worthless, rejects what is worthwhile, and is not endowed with the patience to conform with the teaching.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?
I just thought of putting down my thoughts on this topic. I feel like discussing what a sotapanna would feel after attaining the sotapanna stage is similar to a man (who has never seen a tree or fruit in his life) staring at a bare block of land and discussing what kind of fruits he would get if he planted some seeds. If he does not plant any seeds he will not have any fruits however much he discusses about it. Other farmers who have already sown their harvest may come and tell this man what the fruits are like and this may be important for the man to know what needs to be done to get the fruits. However, each farmers explanation about his own harvest can be very different as the fruits themselves will vary depending on the skill of the farmer, the type of soil, the type of seeds he planted and also his ability of communication. So, if a man wants to get this fruit the only thing he has to do is plant the seeds and do what the others farmers have done. If this is done the fruits will come even whether the man wants it or not.
There is one sutta where one monk asks Ven. Sariputta what needs to be done to become a sotapanna. He explains that one needs to contemplate on the anicca, dukka, anatta nature of the world to become a sotapanna. And a sotapanna needs to contemplate on the anicca, dukka, anatta nature of the world to become a sakadagami and so on until one becomes an arahanth. When asked what an arahanth needs to do, he says that there is nothing more for an arahanth to do, but that he will live contemplating the anicca, dukka, anatta nature of the world. So, there is nothing else to do other than contemplate on the anicca, dukka, anatta nature of the world and the fruits will bare at the right time.
Continuing with the simile, there can be lots of people explaining what these fruits will be like and what needs to be done to get the fruits. However, if someone explains what the fruits will be like but has not got any fruits I would simply think that the methods they used were faulty and not go down that path. On the other hand, if someone says that they have got fruits then we could follow their methods, if it actually makes sense.
It is important to assess and compare the different methods used by the different people and not their explanation of what the fruit looks like. Whatever the explanation of the fruits, if the methods put forward by someone is inconsistent and does not make sense, then I will simply disregard them. Personally, I will not follow a method if there is any inconsistency anywhere in his method.
Hi Saket,
Yes, we may have been in all these realms (except arupi realms that anagami’s go) and even the Buddha has been in all these as well. However, it is said that beings spend most of their lives in the apayas. As for me, it is very easy to see my-self being in the apayas, as opposed to the deva and brahma realms due to the gathi I have / had. So even though we would have heard the Dhamma, the number of times we heard it, might be very miniscule in contrast to our whole samsara.
You said: “Isnt it strange that I have not been able to develop the required level of panna for attaining the sotapanna stage in any of my infinite number of past lives”.
Isn’t it strange that some people are not even willing to listen to this dhamma when it is right in front of them? Don’t you think we would have done similar things in the past? Then how many people actually insult the dhamma. Don’t you think we would have done the same things in the past? And each time someone insults the Dhamma his level of panna will decrease.
Yes, it can be a bit depressing, but look at it this way. Imagine what a lot of luck we have that we are exposed to this Dhamma. The Buddha gives different similes to explain the probability of one being born a human. That probability in itself is unfathomable. Then take the likelihood of one being born a human during the time the Dhamma is exposed to the world. The statistical probability is virtually zero. Don’t you think we would have done something right sometime in the past to be born a human in a time like this? And then take the probability of being exposed to the Dhamma. How many of this 7 billion population are exposed to this?
On a personal note: I was exposed to the Dhamma while trying to find a solution to the world’s problems. My dream was to eradicate poverty and have a better world for all beings. But now I understand that the most permanent and complete solution (to all the worlds’ problems) could only be obtained through the understanding of the Dhamma. And even this has to be done by each person by him-self and cannot be forced on anyone. And the old proverb is very apt here “you can take a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink”. However, I am also trying to help all beings in my own way by cultivating the arya metta bhvana, and as Lal has mentioned this is all one could do.
If you want to become the best in the world, achieve the highest level attainable in this life, there is only one option as I see it; becoming an arahanth. So, if you really want to be the highest, then strive to be an arahanth in this life itself.
The following is based on my understanding, of the dhamma and also languages. So please point out any mistakes.
The pali in this section is as follows. Aniccatoti, aniccā¬nu¬passanā. Which I take to mean, seeing it as aniccha is contemplation of aniccha. So each pali word is linked to the contemplation of aniccha, dukka and anatta.
Siebe said: In the above you see that all kinds of synonyms have been used to explain impermanence.
I don’t think these words can simply be taken as synonyms but regarded as different ways of seeing / understanding / contemplating aniccha. So, seeing things as perishable, subject to change etc. are different ways of understanding aniccha. But aniccha does not simply mean that it is perishable or subject to change. If perishable simply meant aniccha then the following don’t make any sense Aniccatoti, aniccā¬nu¬passanā. Dukkhatoti, duk¬khā¬nu¬passanā. Anattatoti, anattā¬nu¬passanā.
Under anattanupassana, the contemplation of anatta, the following are given; Rittatoti, Tucchatoti, Suññatoti, and Anattatoti, anattā¬nu¬passanā. These have been translated as empty, void, having no core and not-self respectively (I believe that Sunnatoti has been mistakenly placed under dukka, when it should be under anatta).
Here I don’t agree with the translation of Tuccha as void. I understand tuccha to mean something lowly and something to be disgraced of. Also I would say that a better way of explaining sunna would be to say having no value / substance. Sunna (Shunya) means empty and if we say something is empty the emptiness is always relative. For example if we say a glass is empty, what we actually mean is that the glass is empty of milk. But there can be air in it, but for our intents and purposes it is empty. So even here sunna (empty) does not mean that it is absolutely empty but that it is empty of any value or substance.
Asārakatoti, anattā¬nu¬passanā is also mentioned but I did not see it in Siebe’s list. I take asaraka to mean having no value to take / having nothing good to extract.
Of course, each one of us will understand aniccha, dukka and anatta in different ways, based on our backgrounds and ways of looking at things. Therefore, it is important that we don’t just stick to one single word (impermanence and non-self) to understand aniccha and anatta. Like Lal has mentioned these words are packed with meaning and it is hard to explain it using a single synonym. I would go on to say that aniccha, dukka and anatta is actually an understanding rather than just a simple word.
Hi Saket,
With regard to us hearing the arya dhamma; yes, I agree that we would have heard it numerous number of times. But just because one hears it doesn’t mean that he will understand it. And it is the proper understanding that is necessary and not merely hearing it. Think of all the people who hear this sa-dhamma even today but cannot understand it or merely don’t want to try to understand it or even just shun it aside and look down upon and insult it. So, all of us would have done such things in our past lives and hence even if we heard the dhamma we may not have been in a state to comprehend it.
To understand the dhamma one needs to have pragna and through samsara each one of us would have been cultivating pragna to different levels and ultimately peak when (if) one becomes an arahanth. I think this also refers to paramitha that one cultivates.
So to your question of why we didn’t attain any magga pala even though we may have heard the dhamma earlier, it would have been because our pragna may not have been developed to the required level.
This or a similar question was asked from the Buddha. According to paticcha samuppada the reason for the samsara is avijja. So, after avijja is taken off completely then there could be no reason for samsara. I cannot recall the sutta though.
On a personal note if there was a possibility that one could return to sansara after one attains nibbana, there would have been no point in the Buddha teaching all this. It is such a comprehensive solution to all problems that if such a possibility was there, I’m sure it would have been taken into account by him.
Just because one couldn’t attain any magga pala in the past doesn’t mean that he cannot attain it now or in the future. However only a Buddha will know whether someone has the potential to understand the dhamma and if so how far and what level of magga pala he can attain in this life. So we should not be discouraged and try as much as possible to understand the aniccha, dukka, anatta nature and attain magga pala. And if we have attained a magga pala to keep on going until we attain arahanth.
But even if someone doesn’t attain any magga pala in this life the effort will not be invain, as this effort will help grow ones pragna (paramitha) so that he can attain magga pala in a future life. There are also examples of instances where people attained various magga pala at their dying moments. So even if one has not attained anything yet, we have to keep that effort going.
Siebe said: My small objection to this translation (aniccha – one cannot maintain anything like one wishes) is that it is very close, or almost the same, as what Dukkha means.
As mentioned earlier it is said that if one sees aniccha, he also sees dukkha and anattha at the same time. As per the sutta’s if something is aniccha, it is dukkha and if something is dukkha, it is anattha. So from these it makes sense that the true meaning of aniccha has to be very close or the same as dukka.
Can you also give a link to this; Patisambidamagga, Treatise on insight, or the relevant pali text.
In the Datukatha Puggala Pannaththi some of these terms are explained. I have translated them (and some others) to English from the Sinhala and Pali based on my understanding.
Ubathobaga Vimuttho – Someone who experiences the Ashta Vimokka while living and eliminated all defilements (ashrawa) through understanding (pragna).
Pragna Vimuttho – Someone who does not experience the Ashta Vimokka but has eliminated all defilements through understanding.
Kaya Sakki – A person who experiences the Ashta Vimokka while living and has eliminated some of the defilements.
There is no explanation about a Chetho Vimuttho person. However there is mention about Cheto Vimutthing and Pragna Vimutthing, where it is mentioned that a person who still has defilements has not experienced chetho vimutthing or pragna vimutthing. In all the explanations, it is mentioned that all defilements are eliminated through understanding (pragna).
From these explanations I feel that a Chetho Vimuktha Arahanth may be actually referring to a Ubathobaga Vimutta person.
Siebe said, I do not think the sutta’s instruct that one must first use anicca and then dukka and then anatta.
I also don’t think that one needs to first see one and then the others. It is said that if a person sees one of them he sees the other two.
However, it is very clearly mentioned that anicca, dukka and anatta are related. For example in SN22.15 “Yadaniccaṃ taṃ dukkhaṃ; yaṃ dukkhaṃ tadanattā”, which I take to mean if something is anicca it is dukka, if something is duka then it is anatta. The relationship between the anicca, dukka, anatta is clearly mentioned.
This has been translated as “What is impermanent is suffering. What is suffering is non-self.” If we simply go by this translation we can see that this doesn’t make any sense; just because something is impermanent it will not be suffering.
The next phrase in the sutta is “yadanattā taṃ ‘netaṃ mama, nesohamasmi, na meso attā’ti evametaṃ yathābhūtaṃ sammappaññāya daṭṭhabbaṃ”. This has been translated as “What is non-self should be seen as it really is with correct wisdom thus: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’” Again, this translation is a bit confusing for me. If I understand that something is non-self (not me), then after I understand that it is non-self, I again need to understand that “it is not my-self”.
So from these sutta’s and their translations it is clear to me that anicca does not mean impermanence and anatta does not mean non-self.
Thank you Saket for the post. I thought of posting something related to this. This is something I heard some time back from a monk and I have been contemplating about it of late so I thought I should share it.
What is the self? If someone asks “who are you?” and “what are you?”, what will be your answer? It will obviously include physical things like your body and conceptual things like your feelings, thinking, philosophy and most importantly your name etc. In addition to this there are extensions to one self, people; like “my parents”, my wife, my friends, objects like: my car, my house and even concepts like: my country, my religion etc.
So what makes all of these things mine? Let’s start off with my friends. What makes a specific person your friend and someone else not your friend? Isn’t it simply the fact that, that person, is the way you like him to be. For example, he wishes you on your birthday, comes and helps you out in tough times, you can rely on him and all such things right. But if this person doesn’t do any of these things he becomes less of a friend to you. If this person acts in a way that I really dislike, for example he goes and says nasty things about me or my family to everyone, or steals some valuable thing from me, we simply drop him of our friends list. He is no more “my friend”.
Isn’t this the same thinking that makes everything else mine as well? Anything that is the way I want it to be or the way I like it to be, is mine, while things that are not the way I want it to be and I have no control of, are not considered as mine. It is my hand because when I want to lift it, I can lift it. It is my car because when I want to drive it I can drive it. If it is not my car I cannot drive it the whenever I want to and need to ask someone if I can drive it, and if it is some else’s hand I need to ask that person to lift it.
So, which means that the self (the me or the I) is created based on these things that I like, and the things that are there or behave / act the way I want it to. So, when one understands that one cannot keep anything to one’s liking or satisfaction this concept of self will fade away.
There are three related sutta’s (SN22.154 – SN22.156) which are Miccaditti sutta, Sakkayaditti Sutta and Attanuditti Sutta. In all these sutta’s the Buddha explains why such ditti’s arise and he explains that if one comprehends aniccha and dukka he will not have these ditti.
“That which is aniccha, dukka, viparinama dhamma, is it suitable to be reflected, `It is mine, I am that, it is my self’?”
Here the question he asks is; “is it suitable to be reflected as mine”, not that “is it mine”.
So, here when one says that there is no self (non-self), it doesn’t mean that there is no being or animal or mind or whatever. All of that is there, just like the person we call the friend or the car. Just that, that person or being or mind that we call me, mine or my-self is simply a concept each person makes up for himself based on if he can keep something or someone the way he likes it.
So it is by comprehending the aniccha, dukka, anatta nature of the world that one moves away from miccha ditti, and gradually loses sakkaya ditti and later attanu ditti.
Another aspect to consider is, if Sakkaya Ditti actually means the complete removal of the conceit “I am” (as translated and commonly understood in most instances), then why should there be other aspects like Attanu Ditti and Asmee maana, which are removed after sakkaya ditti is removed?
Hi Siebe,
Under the Characteristics of a Sotapanna you have mentioned the following;
Point 5 – Five perils and enmities are eliminated: destroying life…
Point 6 – A stream entrant is not more able to commit the five serious crimes; killing your father, mother and arahanth…This does not make sense because if a sotapanna has eliminated killing all lives, then killing your father, mother, an arahanth does not need to be mentioned separately.
The relevant pali section in AN10.92 is “Pāṇātipātā paṭiviratassa evaṃ taṃ bhayaṃ veraṃ vūpasantaṃ hoti.” Does this mean that a Sotapanna sees the perils of these five aspects (killing life etc.) and therefore tries to stay away from these, rather than completely eliminating them? May be Lal can explain this better.
