Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I can see that modern science has made the anatta nature more approachable than ever before. Physics and neuroscience have established that colours, tastes and smells are not in the objects or in light. Anyone can verify that today. That takes away the belief that the beauty I see belongs to the object. I suppose this belief was difficult to challenge before this evidence came to light?
But their theory that the brain is the source of human consciousness is wrong. As you explained in “Brain – Interface between Mind and Body,” the brain relays sensory inputs, and the experience itself arises in the mental body (gandhabba). Science stops at the brain because its instruments can only reach one physical body in one lifetime. They are putting themselves at risk of reaching the conclusion that ‘there is no self, only neurons’, which is the uccheda view that the Buddha rejected.
1 user thanked author for this post.
Thank you for your detailed response! This is how I understand the origin of colour perception.
Past valuing built an eye with its saññā built in. The saññā presents green as out there and beauty as belonging to the object. The mind attaches, and the gratification wears off at the moment of contact. The frustration renews the value and the expectation, which generate kamma, which builds the next eye.
So the green we see is produced by equipment our own past attaching ordered, and our response to it orders the next set. Physics has no term for an observer’s response feeding into the construction of the next observer. The loop also spans lifetimes, which no laboratory can observe. We cannot see our past births. Since the saññā is built in, nobody can uncover the trick from inside it; it took a Buddha. That is why this knowledge first reaches us as something heard, and only later as something seen.
A physicist will object that evolution also explains the eye, and that evolution is a loop too. It is, but it runs on differential survival across a species and has no regard for what any individual valued. The Dhamma’s loop runs on one mindstream’s own valuing, and it has an exit. Every link in the physics chain is a mechanism. The only way to stop the colour is to break a link: no light, a damaged eye, a dead brain. That means blindness or death. On the Dhamma account, death does not stop anything, because the valuing has already ordered the next eye.
I see the difference now: “eso me attā” applies only to what one likes, while “rūpaṁ attato samanupassati” applies to every sensory experience.
I have two follow-up questions.
1. At school, I learnt that colour is electromagnetic radiation and that grass does not contain any green. That belief never changed how I relate to what I see. In #17 of the post “Attato Samanupassati and Sotāpanna Stage,” you write that Noble Persons below the Arahant stage still attach to neutral sights, but no longer hold the wrong view that those sights are real. What separates my educational knowledge from their seeing?
2. Your reply names three kinds of attachment: to liked things with kāma rāga, to disliked things with paṭigha, and to everything else with a neutral vedanā, like green grass. Anicca handles the first two: what we like cannot be kept, and what we dislike cannot be kept away. The neutral case is where your reading adds something the value reading does not reach. Did you intend the new reading of “attato” to cover that neutral case in particular?
Lal wrote: “However, a few could grasp that sensory pleasures were not in the world, i.e., the sensory experiences are mind-made and are an ‘untruth‘ or ‘na atta‘ (anatta). They could understand what the Buddha meant by saying sanna is a mirage and vinnana is a magician.”
That’s interesting. When it comes to Anatta, I mainly associate it with the essenceless nature of Paticca Samuppada. When something drifts, decays and vanishes regardless of my command, what substance does it have?
Saurabh wrote: “Anatta is something I cannot comprehend at all.”
I am sorry to hear this, Saurabh. I know you asked Lal how to realise Anatta, but I’d like to try to give you at least an idea.
See, there is no mind in the universe with the atta capacity that can extract anything substancial from anything belonging to this world, nor one that can command the five aggregates as desired. Nothing inside the 31 realms has anything in it to be had, which is asārakaṭṭhena, essencelessness. This covers what you have banked as much as what you reach for: accumulated kammic energy and the good rebirths it buys are of the same nature, because every such existence ends and the fall follows. When the holding is over, nothing remains that was gained, and the holder is left without refuge.1 user thanked author for this post.
I have tried to find further evidence to support my claim.
SN 35.1 Ajjhattānicca, in full
Cakkhuṁ, bhikkhave, aniccaṁ. Yadaniccaṁ taṁ dukkhaṁ; yaṁ dukkhaṁ tadanattā. Yadanattā taṁ ‘netaṁ mama, nesohamasmi, na meso attā’ti evametaṁ yathābhūtaṁ sammappaññāya daṭṭhabbaṁ.
SN 22.15 runs identically over the khandhas: Vedanā aniccā yadaniccaṁ taṁ dukkhaṁ, yaṁ dukkhaṁ tadanattā, yadanattā taṁ “netaṁ mama, neso ‘hamasmi, na me so attā”ti.
The key findings
SN 35.2 Ajjhattadukkha starts from the middle term with no anicca premise: Mano dukkho, yaṁ dukkhaṁ, tadanattā, yadanattā taṁ netaṁ mama, neso’hamasmi, na meso attā.
SN 35.3 Ajjhattānatta starts from the third term with no premises at all: Cakakhuṁ bhikkhave anattā, yadanattā taṁ “netaṁ mama, neso’hamasmi, na meso attāti evametaṁ yathābhūtaṁ sammappaññāya daṭṭhabbaṁ.
The Khandhasaṁyutta carries the same triad at SN 22.15 to 22.17, with SN 22.16 entering at dukkha: Saññā dukkhā yaṁ dukkhaṁ tadanantā, yadanattā taṁ “netaṁ mama neso ‘hamasmi, na me so attā”ti.
Any one of the three terms serves as an entry point on its own, and each reaches netaṁ mama by itself. The three are not stages of a derivation where the second must be earned from the first.
Sāriputtas analysis from the Paṭisambhidāmagga gives the three terms with their sense-glosses in a single co-ordinate string: Rūpaṁ (vedanā, saññā, saṅkhārā, viññāṇa) atītānāgatapaccuppannaṁ aniccaṁ khayaṭṭhena dukkhaṁ bhayaṭṭhena anattā asārakaṭṭhenāti.
Three predicates of rūpa, in parallel, each with -aṭṭhena, “in the sense of”. Anicca in the sense of destruction. Dukkha in the sense of danger. Anattā in the sense of essencelessness. No yad…taṁ at all, so no sequence and no derivation.
Here are the passages:
Thilakuna Ep06 (Anaththa, Deceptive view of the world)
“The next most important thing is Anaththānupassanā. Now one has to see all three. To realise the stages of Enlightenment (Maga Pala) all three must be seen. All three are to be observed based on one.
The one who is faithful with understanding and knowledge (Shraddādika) sees Dukkhānupassanā and Anaththānupassanā based on Anichchānupassanā.
The one who is effortful with understanding and knowledge, (Viryādika) sees Anichchānupassanā and Anaththānupassanā based on Dukkhānupassanā.
The one who is prominent in wisdom (Pannādika) contemplates and sees Anichchānupassanā and Dukkhanupassanā based on Anaththānupassanā.”The same episode continues straight into the Sotāpanna fetters:
“Now, will ‘SakkāyaDitti’ be abolished? Was it understood to that extent? There is a pertinent point. There is an important point for achieving ‘Sōthāpanna Pala’. It is necessary to be well versed in ‘SakkāyaDitti’.”
Thilakuna Ep05 (Dukkha, Unheard trap of suffering)
“the effortful person will stop the suffering from Sankhāra Dukkha (suffering of processing and construction), and attain Nibbāna through Dukkhānupassanā. We need to analyse and understand one by one. There is another person; Pannādhika person (Wisdomful person). He will attain Nibbāna through Anaththānupassanā (contemplation based on Anaththa – worthlessness, essence lessness).”
“As the Pannādhika individual (wisdomful individual) contemplates on Anaththānupassanā (contemplation according to worthlessness, essence lessness), he also sees Anichcha and Dukkha based on Anaththānupassanā. That’s how it happens.”
“In the end, when Anaththānupassanā … is understood, one important aspect should be understood. What is ‘Sakkāya Ditthi?’ … What does ‘Vichikichchā’ mean? … What is ‘Seelabbatha Parāmāsa?’ … Sōvānhood will be attained if these three are eradicated.”
Thilakuna Ep01 (the three verses, and the dependence order)
Thero states the same chain you cite:
“‘O lord, the ear is Anicca too. If something is Anicca, then is it sorrowful (Dukka).’ ‘If something is Anicca, sorrowful (Dukka) and ever changing to unwelcomed state (Viparinama) it is Anathta.'”
And then:
“That is to understand Buddha Dhamma, one must understanding Anicca or Dukka or Anaththa.
‘Sabbe Sankara Aniccathi. Yada Pagngnaya Passathi. Atha Nibbindathi Dukke. Esa maggo Visuddiya.’ This is one of the paths to Nibbana. …
Similarly, ‘Sabbe sankara Dukkathi. Yada Pagngnaya passathi. Atta Nibindathi Dukke. Esa Maggo Visuddiya.’ This is a path to Nibbana. …
There is another. ‘Sabbe Dhamma Anaththathi. Yada Pagngnaya passathi. Atta Nibindathi Dukke. Esa Maggo Visuddiya.’ … This too is a path to Nibbana.”Sooryalokaya Ep05 (What Kind of a Person is Sōvan Path-follower)
“There is a thing called Indriya Nānathvaya (the diversity in five mental elements); Shraddhā Indriya, Vīriya Indriya, Sati Indriya, Samādi Indriya. Pagnā Indriya. As a basis of continuous existence of a being, those who have the wisdom to understand Dhamma or qualified to understand Dhamma possess these five elements (Indriyas) in different levels.”
“In whatever way if Anichcha was realized, Dukkha is also realized. Anaththa is also realized. If Dukkha was understood through Dhamma, Anichcha and Anaththa are also observed. If Anaththa was understood through Dhamma, Anichcha and Dukkha are also observed.”
Links (You posted these on the forum in September 2020)
- Thilakuna Ep05, World and its real suffering: https://youtu.be/G8MLkEyGRNs
- Thilakuna Ep06, Deceptive view of the world: https://youtu.be/uE-Uqk4b7vo
- Sooryalokaya, What Kind of a Person is Sōvan Path-follower: https://youtu.be/hC7Aao-4VB4
1 user thanked author for this post.
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?
