Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
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 viññāṇaIf the experience stops here then we are still within the purāna kamma stage, where kamma is not strong enough to lead to future rebirths?
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!
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.
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!
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,
LangWonderful desana, thank you!
The speaker talked a lot about assāda, a topic of contemplation that has been of much benefit to me; for example:
Assāda, Ādīnava, Nissarana – Introduction
(There are several other posts on the same subject)
The topic of control was brought up in the discussion, e.g.
@sybe07 — “If there would be no control at all, purification of mind would be impossible.”
@Lal — “One gets “full control” only at the Arahant stage.”It’s helpful to think of control from the perspective of having control over kamma; otherwise, purification is not possible, as sybe07 pointed out.
In several recent posts, Lal explained the difference between purana kamma and nava kamma. We do have control over nava kamma, according to our level of purification:
A puthujjana has control over nava kamma to some degree to work toward the sōtapanna anugāmi stage.
A sōtapanna anugāmi has total control over apāyagāmi kamma: he/she does not commit them under ANY circumstances.
Similarly, an anāgāmi has total control over kāmalokagāmi kamma (I just made up that word).
An arahant has full control over ALL kamma (nava kamma).
The post above also touches on this subject of control; under #3: “We HAVE CONTROL over vacī and kāya saṅkhāra, and that is the key to changing our defiled gati.”
Best,
LangHi,
It sounds like your mind is quite turbulent at the moment (we have all been there), and a calm mind is necessary to sort things out, either mundane or supra-mundane:
Key to Calming the Mind – The Five Hindrances
… and of course we know that the more purified the mind the more calm it is. There is a whole section on meditation about that:
It is important to get started — first with smaller things to give the motivation to keep going, as pointed out in #6 of this post:
3. The Second Level – Key to Purify the Mind
The meditation-related posts mention frequently the BIG EIGHT, which are:
Killing pānātipātā
Stealing adinnādānā
sexual misconduct kāmesumicchācārā
lying musāvāda
gossiping, vain talks samphappalāpā
slandering pisunā vācā
harsh speech parusā vācāIn my own experience, cutting down just samphappalāpā (vain, idle talks) — at least to start with — already brought some relief.
Best wishes to you.
3 users thanked author for this post.
If we put things in terms of “ceasing”, I recall the words of a bhikkhu some time back that stuck with me: “Only dukkha arises and only dukkha ceases”. From that, I take nibbana to be the complete cessation of dukkha, and nothing more.
Questions such has “Why haven’t I attained nibbana in this infinite samsara?” or “Why isn’t everything parinibbana?” have driven some people to an intellectual maze, and I’ve seen that too. There is a thread somewhere about how bizarre infinity can be. The only thing we can do is to appreciate the opportunity to be in a Buddha Sasana and the urgency to attain nibbana.
Hope this helps.
1 user thanked author for this post.
One observation: 99% of Dhamma material out there consider nibbana to be anatta, since they take anatta to be “no self”.
Hi all, I was just looking for a thread in the anicca, dukkha, anatta forum to write something, based on a recent discussion with someone, and I’ll just right it here, and hopefully some things will be relevant to the discussion at hands. It has to do with an analogy I came up with about the difference between ditthi and saññā conerning anicca, and I wish to get input about the analogy.
But first, a couple of things in response to upekkha100:
You said you have read every post on anicca, dukkha, anatta. In fact, I came upon this website many years ago precisely because of these topics.
I assume some of the posts you read are in this section:
Anicca, Dukkha, Anatta
I do come here from time to time to review. As you see, anicca is discussed under 4 angles/perspectives:Anicca – Inability to Keep What We Like
Anicca – Repeated Arising/Destruction
Anicca – Worthlessness of Worldly Things
Anicca – The Incessant Distress (“Pīḷana”)Lately, the perspective about “Worthlessness of Worldly Things” resonates with me a lot.
Anicca – Worthlessness of Worldly Things
Also, years ago we were discussing a desana from Waharaka Thero, and Lal kindly translated it. The theme of the talk was also related to anicca from the point of view of how we put high value on things that are worthless. See if this way of looking at anicca clicks with you. Best of luck!
=====
Now, to the main reason I wanted to write; it also has to do with anicca. We learned that:(1) Having samma ditthi about anicca regarding kāma to a certain extent can get one to the sotapanna stage; let’s call it “anicca ditthi” if we can create a new phrase.
(2) A sotapanna still enjoys kāma until he/she develops “anicca saññā” to overcome that. And a few posts in the above-mentioned section is about developing annica saññā.Recently I was sharing this with someone and was asked: “What is the difference between “anicca ditthi” and “anicca saññā“? At that time I was able to only say that saññā is deeper understanding, that ditthi was “vision” whereas saññā was “perception”.
Later, I came up with the following analogy since I enjoy watching magic shows.
Let’s say two adults and a child are watching a magic show in which a magician produces a bird from a supposedly empty hat and then vanishes it.
The child truly believes that the magician has the magic power to conjure the bird from thin air and then vanish it into thin air. The child is engrossed in the act.
Adult A KNOWS that the magician uses a trick, that it’s not possible to create a bird and then make it disappear, but he has no idea how the magician does it; and he also enjoys the show.
Adult B can see through the trick — for example when the magician distracts (misdirects) the audience to slip the bird into the hat, when he pulled the bird out, when he misdirects the audience again and slips the bird into his coat, etc. Adult B may just watch the show knowingly without being attached to it.
I liken the child to someone with no “anicca ditthi,” Adult A has “anicca ditthi” but not “anicca saññā,” and Adult B has “anicca saññā.”
Does that make sense?
Thank you,
Lang1 user thanked author for this post.
@pathfinder
You referred to the English transcript by Janith Boniface Fernando. Do you know that there is a transcript prepared by Lal himself:
https://puredhamma.net/wp-content/uploads/Waharaka-Thero-Discourse-The-Way-to-Nibbana.pdf
As you said, this desana is in simple language, yet I find it a tremendous resource, and review it very often. Hope everyone finds great benefits from it.
Best,
Lang“Not knowing that the initial attachment doesn’t need a doer …”
The ignorance here is likely not about a “doer”, or whether a “doer” is or is not needed, but it is ignorance about anicca, dukkha, anatta.
In your example, looks like you were describing the following steps in paticca samuppada (in nidessa version):
samphassa paccayā samphassa-jā-vedanā
samphassa-jā-vedanā paccayā taṇhā
taṇhā paccayā upādānaYou may be interested in the following post:
Taṇhā Paccayā Upādāna – Critical Step in Paṭicca Samuppāda
Best,
Lang1 user thanked author for this post.
@pathfinder
“Also, I haven’t been able to find ‘anatta’ (without long ā) as a standalone word in any sutta, so I don’t think that word exists, …”This may have to do with Pali grammar, where “anatta” changes form depending on the words that appear with it, such as the case or number of the noun it goes with. For example, “Sabbe dhammā (plural) anattā“. This general rule applies to other words like anicca and dukkha as well, as in:
“Sabbe saṅkhārā aniccā” ti, yadā paññāya passati; Atha nibbindati dukkhe, esa maggo visuddhiyā.”
“Sabbe saṅkhārā dukkhā” ti, yadā paññāya passati; Atha nibbindati dukkhe, esa maggo visuddhiyā.”
“Sabbe dhammā anattā” ti, yadā paññāya passati; Atha nibbindati dukkhe, esa maggo visuddhiyā.”
In general, I notice that the “-a” words rarely appear in their original form; it must be a very rarely-used case. Take “dhamma” for example; a Pali textbook describes “dhamma” as the vocative case. Other cases, such as accusative or locative, must be more common, thus we see more of: dhammam, dhammo, dhammesu, etc.
1 user thanked author for this post.
Here’s a very short one, but I think it captures the essence of the Bhante’s teaching.
In the “6R” method the Bhante taught he often emphasized the “Relax” step. In the video he talked about the “tightening” of the mind at the “craving” step, so relaxing is relaxing of that “tightening”.
Dependent Origination Explained – A Key Buddhist Teaching
If you do a search on Youtube there should be much longer videos of the Bhante about paticca samuppada.
1 user thanked author for this post.
After Relax, it is “Re-smile” — intentionally putting on a smile before returning to the object of meditation (metta) after a distraction. The Bhante did say that he put the smiling step in there himself since he found it helpful.
A very popular talk from the Bhante is this one:
What is a Jhana? Commentaries vs Suttas – Meaning?
At around 27:35, he said how easy it was to get to the 1st jhana.
At around 22:00 he talked about smiling.
From about 1:00, he talked about how one moves from jhana to jhana and then to nibbana (by seeing “dependent origination”).
Personally, at one point I listened to Bhante a lot although I did not practice this, at least not as the main practice. I must say it did bring a sense of calm fairly quickly, but then I directed that calm mind to contemplating anicca, dukkha, anatta, although near the end of the talk the Bhante said that one cannot see nibbana via seeing anicca, dukkha, anatta.
