Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Thank you for your kind words! I believe that understanding what we actually crave when we crave sensual pleasure makes a massive difference. Here’s another simile to illustrate the point:
Imagine someone confined in a room that is slightly too cold. Occasionally a small flame is held near them. There is genuine relief — real, experienced warmth. They begin to crave the flame.
But notice: without the cold room as the permanent condition, the flame would be neutral or unpleasant. The flame’s pleasantness is entirely a product of the cold that precedes it, surrounds it, and returns the moment the flame is removed. The pleasure has no independent existence — it is entirely a function of the suffering that frames it.
Now: what are they actually craving? They are craving the cold room briefly answered. They have built thanha around an experience that cannot exist without the suffering as its precondition.
Remove the cold room permanently — which would be actual liberation — and the craving for the flame evaporates completely, because the flame’s apparent pleasantness was never its own property. It was borrowed from the suffering it temporarily reduced.
Ultimately, we are craving our own suffering. This is why suffering is another name for kama, and why more craving can only lead to more suffering.
1 user thanked author for this post.
Hello Lal and HugoZyl,
I would like to contribute some of my thoughts to this discussion. Why did the Buddha refer to sense pleasures as ‘a pit of burning coals’? I am mainly familiar with this simile from two suttas:
Both suttas describe the experience of being dragged by two strong men into a pit of burning coals.
I think the Magandiya Sutta in particular makes this idea very clear: the pleasant experience is not separate from the distress that preceded it; it is merely a temporary modulation of that distress. The burning and the pleasure are not two separate events. The pleasure is soaked in the burning that made it possible.
If pleasure is structurally the temporary modulation of prior burning, then what you are craving when you crave kama is not an independent positive quality somewhere out there. You are craving your own burning, briefly reduced. The object of craving is inseparable from the suffering that makes it appear pleasant.
1 user thanked author for this post.
(ii) Arising of ‘colorless rūpa‘ in the external world and the arising of the physical and mental bodies to generate ‘kāma saññā‘ that makes those ‘colorless rūpa‘ appear as ‘colorful.’
I really like this definition! Does it essentially state that ‘colorful rūpa‘ are not worthy of liking, since color cannot be found anywhere in the external world? This would be a deeper aspect of the anicca nature, right?
Although I understand the concept of distorted sanna intellectually, I don’t feel any resonance when I contemplate it. On the other hand, I feel a sense of resonance when I contemplate anicca simply as „worldly gratification wears off“. It’s not much, but it works for me.
Why do people kill, steal, lie, etc., i.e., engage in immoral deeds in general? Aren’t all those done in the pursuit of ‘sensory pleasures’ if they are illusions?
Absolutely, yes! I’d say that people who go to extremes for sensory pleasure are convinced that they can find lasting stability in this world and that it’s possible to be completely safe from suffering.
The realization that sensory pleasure is fleeting drastically reduces immoral behavior.
Furthermore, once one realizes that attachment ultimately brings nothing but suffering, the desire for sensual pleasure diminishes even further.
Of course, the realization that sensory pleasure is ultimately just a hallucination has the most drastic consequences. Although I think it’s also the hardest to put into practice.
It would be great if you could briefly touch on my last question about the purana kamma phase. I think that one unfortunately got a bit lost in the mix.
I’m glad I got it!
So, does this mean that anicca sanna is cultivated through contemplating examples such as colours and tastes?
Furthermore, what exactly needs to be understood about the purāṇa kamma stage? So far, I understand that it happens automatically and unconsciously. A puthujjana cannot prevent the initial attachment.
When I read the translation, I initially thought that it referred to the anicca nature. Essentially, the contemplation of anicca as “[every pleasurable experience] that has a beginning also has an end,” which is technically correct.
But when I saw the Pali terms “samudayadhammaṁ” and “nirodhadhammanti,” I assumed that it was probably referring to exactly what you explained.
I think this is a good place to thank you for everything I’ve learned on your website!
If avijjā conditions rāga, and rāga in turn conditions paṭigha, then ‘avijjā paccayā rāga’ and ‘rāga paccayā paṭigha’ should logically follow, even though I have not seen them stated explicitly.
In that case, these two steps would effectively amount to taṇhā.
Likewise, ‘viparita saññā paccayā avijjā/taṇhā’ should also hold, since viparita saññā is inherent in the physical body and cannot be prevented from arising.
Are these conclusions valid?
If this statement holds, does it imply that “taṇhā paccayā upādāna” is equivalent to “avijjā/rāga/paṭigha paccayā (abhi) mano-/vaci-/kāya-saṅkhāra”?
Hi Lal,
Thank you for your reply! I am aware of all the points you mentioned.
I was just wondering if tanhā could be viewed as a generalisation of all the ways in which one could become attached, i.e. through greed, anger or ignorance.
What about a non-ariya individual who has learned the Buddha’s teachings — someone positioned between a puthujjana and a sotāpanna anugāmi?
You mentioned that such a person automatically enters the pūrana kamma stage but can stop the nava kamma stage through mindfulness.
Does this mean that, by being mindful, they can effectively avoid drifting further toward “Aniccaṁ vipariṇāmi aññathābhāvi”?
Lal, you wrote that the mind of a Puthujjana is ALWAYS moving in the direction of vipariṇāma. So, essentially, their minds can only become more and more defiled.
This means that an ordinary person, a Puthujjana, is swept away by the flood and has no real power to resist it. They lack the means to fight against it, for they have no understanding of the Tilakkhana, the Noble Truths, or the process of rebirth.
But what about a Sotāpanna—or someone who at least knows the Dhamma and strives to put it into practice (Saddhānusārī or Dhammānusārī)—when they find themselves in a Nava Kamma stage?
If I understand correctly, such a person would apply the Dhamma. They would contemplate the nature of anicca, dukkha, and anatta and use that understanding to push back against the current. In doing so, they move away from “Aniccaṁ vipariṇāmi aññathābhāvi” and direct their mind toward Nibbāna.
I believe this is a legitimate way to understand Anicca. Order and chaos are not intrinsic properties of any object. In physics, we describe disorder in terms of entropy: a gas has higher entropy than a liquid, and a liquid has higher entropy than a solid. Yet none of these states is inherently “better” or “worse.” They simply arise from different causes and conditions — that’s it.
There are many ways to contemplate Anicca:
- Everything unfolds according to cause and effect, not according to our wishes.
- The nature of the world cannot fulfill the desires we direct towards it.
- Think of a desert, a sandcastle, a dry bone, or a pile of garbage.
What matters most is that Anicca always carries with it a tone of frustration and stress, because our desires are inevitably disappointed over time.
There are three categories of Dukkha, all of which describe forms of suffering that can be eliminated by relinquishing attachment to worldly things:
- Dukkha-Dukkha: Immediate suffering that arises as the direct consequence of harmful actions.
- Viparinama-Dukkha: The pain that comes when something precious inevitably comes to an end.
- Sankhara-Dukkha: The ceaseless effort and strain we invest in trying to recreate the causes and conditions of pleasure.
Among these, Sankhara-Dukkha is considered the most dangerous form of suffering.
Anatta also carries a range of interpretations, depending on context. It can mean:
- The unsubstantial nature of worldly pleasure — once it’s over, nothing remains but a fading memory.
- The absence of refuge in the world — where there is suffering, there can be no safety.
- The futility of all efforts to find lasting fulfillment within this world.
Ultimately, the Three Marks of Existence serve as arguments for gradually diminishing our attachment to worldly pleasures until it finally disappears altogether.
1 user thanked author for this post.
While reading your post, Lal, I found myself wondering what a rūpa truly feels like — objectively, unfiltered, and free from mental contamination. As I understand it, the Buddha offers some guidance on this.
In the Girimānanda Sutta, it is said that anicca-saññā is the correct perception of all saṅkhāra, and likely also of the other clinging-aggregates. The Buddha describes them as
- exhausting and ultimately unfulfilling (attiyati),
- insubstantial, like mere colors without inherent reality (harāyati),
- and even repulsive in their futility (jigucchati).
Over the past few months, I’ve reflected deeply on this point. It occurred to me that perhaps I’ve never truly perceived a rūpa objectively in my entire life. Every perception is instantly overlaid by the mind — filled with memories, expectations, emotions, and countless subtle reactions.
In the Mūlapariyāya Sutta, the Buddha says:
“Pathaviṁ pathavito sañjānāti.”
This statement reminds me of an anecdote from my school days.
In a chemistry class, our teacher explained that all the atomic nuclei of a steam locomotive could fit into a matchbox — which, however, would be incredibly heavy, since almost all the mass of an atom is concentrated in its nucleus. The rest consists almost entirely of empty space.
You’ve also touched on this topic beautifully in one of your posts.And yet, despite knowing this, the ground beneath my feet and the objects I use daily feel solid, stable, substantial. They don’t feel like mostly empty space. There seems to be a profound gap between physical reality and direct perception.
Such scientific insights make me increasingly suspicious of my own perceptions. There is not a trace of true happiness to be found in the external world; every pleasure is mind-made, as you said — a kind of magic show.
“Viññāṇa is unseen, infinite, and leads to the rebirth process for all.”
I understand this to mean that consciousness itself is capable of generating any imaginable illusion — able to create and ascribe reality to whatever appears. It can even make false, dangerous, or immoral convictions seem legitimate. And perhaps that is the deepest deception of all.
1 user thanked author for this post.
Do you think the AI’s interpretation of the sutta is acceptable? In any case, I find the reasoning very clever and plausible, even if I’m not sure whether it might not be a bit far-fetched.
Here is another tabular overview of the interpretations:
Method
Conventional Interpretation (Summary & Keywords)
Pure Dhamma Interpretation (Summary & Core Concepts)
1. Replace the Sign
Replace an unskillful thought with a skillful one (cognitive replacement, distraction). Keywords: replacement, skillful thought, fine peg.
Shift perception by contemplating the anicca nature (worthlessness, vexation) of the object that triggered the thought. The “fine peg” is wisdom (paññā).
2. Examine the Danger
Ponder the immediate, mundane disadvantages and psychological harm of the thought. Keywords: disadvantages, danger, reprehensible.
Contemplate the true saṃsāric danger (ādīnava)—the terrifying dukkha of rebirth in the lower realms (apāyā) as a consequence of the thought.
3. Ignore/Forget
Willfully ignore or suppress the thought; turn attention away. Keywords: forget, not give attention, look away.
A natural disengagement born of wisdom, realizing the thought’s anatta nature (essenceless, unfruitful, not ‘mine’).
4. Still Thought-Formation
Vaguely defined as relaxing tension or simplifying the thought process. Keywords: stilling formation, relaxing fabrication.
Directly observe the causal arising of the thought via Paṭicca Samuppāda, seeing its conditioned nature and thereby removing its fuel (hetu).
5. Forceful Suppression
A last-resort, brute-force method to crush the unwholesome mind with the wholesome mind. Keywords: crush, beat down, restrain.
A preliminary tool to establish temporary calm (tadaṅga samatha) when the mind is too agitated for insight. It is not the path of wisdom (dassanena pahātabbā).
I found the fact that method 5 is an absolute emergency solution particularly interesting.
As for your question as to whether AI will ever be able to derive new insights from existing knowledge, I can only speculate.
In any case, the current models are not in a position to do this, as they are essentially trapped within their universe, i.e. the totality of all training data. This makes it impossible for them to think outside the box and be creative and innovative.
It is difficult to predict what the future holds. I find the rapid progress in the field of artificial intelligence both impressive and frightening.
I believe that models that are able to create completely new theories are possible in principle. Every scientist has developed their own theory based on other theories and research findings.
One example is Schrödinger’s theory, in particular his famous wave mechanics and the associated Schrödinger equation. It was inspired by Louis de Broglie’s idea of matter waves and Hamilton’s classical mechanics.
If you train a model with certain initial theories (input) on a target theory (output), it could in principle learn how to gain new insights from existing knowledge.
At least this is a naive approach that could perhaps be tried out. It would merely be a mapping from the source of inspiration to the resulting theory.
But if we are honest, there are already countless theories in physics. However, most of them fail to be validated against measurement data from the real world.
Despite all the hype, it should not be forgotten that current models are statistical in nature and language modelling is not intelligence.
