[sybe07]

I understand it this way:

The only cause for thinking/seeing/experiencing along this line of ‘me’ and ‘mine’ is the accumulated strenght of tanha and avijja. In many lives mind or has identified with what it experiences (khandha’s) or it sees that as ‘mine’. This is the main cause for continuation of rebirth.

Siebe

[sybe07]

Hi Akvan,

When it comes down to practice, the following i have encountered on stream-entrence:

SN22.122

…”Friend Koffhita, a virtuous bhikkhu should carefully attend to the five aggregates subject to clinging as impermanent, as suffering, as a disease, as a tumour, as a dart, as misery, as an affliction,as alien, as disintegrating, as empty, as nonself. What five? The form aggregate subject to clinging, the feeling aggregate subject to clinging, the perception aggregate subject to clinging, the volitional formations aggregate subject to clinging, the consciousness aggregate subject to clinging….When, friend, a virtuous bhikkhu carefully attends thus to these five aggregates subject to clinging, it is possible that he may realize the fruit of stream-entry”.

AN1.596-599

“Bhikkhus, one thing, when developed and cultivated, leads (596) to realization of the fruit of s tream-entry . . . (597) to realization of the fruit of once-returning… (598) to realization of the
fruit of non-retuming [4 5 ] .;. (599) to realization of the fruit of arahantship. What is that one thing? It is mindfulness directed to the body. This is the one thing that, when developed and cultivated, leads to realization of the fruit of stream-entry… to realization of the fruit of once-returning. . . to realization of the fruit of non-returning… to realization of the fruit of arahantship.”

The commentaries, like Patisambhidamagga, explain that dependend on ones sharpness of faculties (faith, concentration, wisdom) one person will focus more on anicca, another on dukkha and again another person on anatta. You know that. Ofcourse this is all relative but it is to be expacted that there is a favourable focus.

My idea is still, and apparently Lal does not agree, anatta is a focus which deals mainly with identity. A person with wisdom faculty relatively strong will begin to see the experienced body, feelings, perceptions, mental formations etc as alien, as void, as not-self, in the sense: this i am not, this is not mine, not myself, like many sutta’s instruct the student to do.
One can also say, one develops the understanding that whatever arises and ceases in the mind (the conditioned) cannot be “me”. Ofcourse this understanding has to develop, ripen. But for me, at this moment, this is what anatta nupassana refers to when one does apply it to the khandha’s.

The other method, mindfulness of the body, refers mainly to breath-meditation. See for the right kind of breath meditation anapanasamyutta, SN54. Breath meditation is seen as very fruitful, of great benefit. In (almost) every sutta of SN54 this is said.

Practising breath-meditation according the sutta’s will at the same time establish the four ‘fields’ of mindfulness and the enlightment factors will develop too. When these 7 factors are being developed and cultivated they fulfil true knowledge and liberation.

So breath meditation is in fact presented as a complete practice, because it is so more then only concentration on breath. One can read this in, for example, SN54.10 and SN54.13.

I do not know if contemplating the anicca, dukkha and anatta nature of the world, is really the same as applying this to the aggregates subject to clinging, like the sutta’s instruct. Maybe the same is meant, but maybe one takes this to philosophical and postulates a world which would be anicca, dukhha and anatta? I do not see this clearly but at the moment it feels there is a difference to apply these nupassana directly onto what is being experienced at a certain moment, or to some world or some samsara which only exist in the mind as a concept.

Do you see what i mean. Would appreciate your comment.

Siebe

[sybe07]

Lal in his webpost on sakkaya ditthi highlights the views regarding the body, while he says: “In other words, sakkāya ditthi in the present day is rooted in the view of “I am my physical body” and “I can achieve happiness by providing a lot of pleasurable sense inputs to my body”.

I do want to be all the time critical but i cannot ignore the feeling that this last one is not a sakkaya ditthi. At least i have not seen this described in the sutta’s as a sakkaya ditthi. It is more a sanna, a deluded perception.

“I am my physical body”, seems to be the most prominent sakkaya ditthi, but at the same time, it is just 1 of 20 kinds of sakkaya ditthi’s there are. “The physical body is mine” is also a prominant one.

I think Lal also knows that sakkaya ditthi is much more extensive then the views regarding the body. It relates to all khandha’s. I do not know exactely why this focus on the body?

I think it is not oke to think that sakkaya ditthi is uprooted when one does not identify with the body or does not see the body as mine. It also deals with feelings, perceptions, mental formations and consciousnesses, in short the wholeness of conditionally arising experience.

I think this is important to Judge if one is a Sotapannan. A sotapanna has not only uprooted the view ‘i am the body’ it is much more extensive then that.

By the way, it is not like sakkaya ditthi’s are Always present in the mind just like asmi mana, craving and avijja are not always present.

Siebe

[sybe07]

Hi Lal,

I am also interested in what the Budddha taught and what he meant. And i appreciate your research very much. I did and do ofcourse also my own research.

I have respect for different schools of buddhism and teachers but i will not refer to them anymore. But i belief those schools also have led and can lead to liberation.

I know ‘Dhamma’, in the end, does not refer to the teachings of the Buddha or his methods or any intellectual understanding of the teachings. The pure Dhamma cannot be found on internet, in books, in writings Lal. That’s the truth.

I know ‘pure Dhamma’ refers to Nibbana, the unborn and uncreated, the unconditioned.

A Buddha shows the path to the unconditioned (SN43.1). For me, that’s his core bussiness!

The Buddha does invite us to see the timeless Dhamma (not his teachings) for ourselves.

Tilakkhana and sotapanna
I belief that understanding Tilakkhana can lead to cooling down, in the sense of becoming more realistic what to expact of this world, and also really seeing the uselessness of greed, much desire, craving, hate, inner fire.

But i belief the teachings refer to this ripening understanding of tilakkhana as a proces of becoming less wordly. It wants to subside these wordly desires in ourselves. It wants us to turn the mind to the Dhamma, but do we see the timeless Dhamma yet?

I belief that is the distinctive mark of a sotapanna.

This is not meant to offend or agitate you.

Siebe

[sybe07]

Thanks Vilaskadival, i am glad you can relate to my writing. Nice to read you made such a progress. Wish you the best, siebe

[sybe07]

Hi Tobias,

I belief the Buddha has seen it is not a being which experiences pancakhandha. The idea that a being experiences is, i belief, the basic deluded sanna deeply rooted in the mind. It is mind which experiences. But also that is only a given name.

Mind can also experience the total ending of all craving and asava’s and experience ultimate peace. I think mind can experience the conditioned (five khandha’s) but also the unconditioned element.

kind regards,
Siebe

[sybe07]

The above talk between Lal and C. Saket refers to Udana 1.10. A fragment from this sutta;

“In that case, Bāhiya, you should train yourself thus: In what is seen there must be only what is seen, in what is heard there must be only what is heard, in what is sensed there must be only what is sensed, in what is cognized there must be only what is cognized. This is the way, Bāhiya, you should train yourself”.

I agree (on points) with Lal. But in my own words (please comment if you see any mistakes):

I belief the Buddha does explain in this fragment that in the heard, seen, cognised etc. there must not be the impression of an “I” who is hearing, seeing, cognising etc. There must be only the pure awareness, as it were.

This is contra-intuitive because together with (almost) any sense-contact there arises the impression that a subject (I am conceit) sees, hears, etc.
This impression of a subject who experiences one can also call ‘ego’ or self-view of self-belief. The sutta’s talk about “I am” desire, “I am” conceit and “I am” underlying tendency.

This subject/ego/self has it’s own needs. It want to be fed with sense-pleasures, feel comfortable. It want to be fed with attention, with love, with compliments, respect, status, with subtle jhana, with all kinds of things it wants to be fed.

Sometimes this socalled entity does not want to live anymore while it experiences much suffering. So it has also its own suffering such as the suffering of being not respected enough, being lonily, being puffed up, being not understood, not loved etc.

The Buddha called this insatible hunger of this subject, ego or “I am” conceit ‘tanha’, craving. He saw that this desire of ego, this “I am” desire and conceit, are in fact troubling the mind constantly.

While other religions take a moral position and Judge the ego negative, the Buddha was so compassionate and wise that he saw that in fact beings are troubled by this ego-conceit and ego-centric habits, ego centric needs, ego-centric way of living.

He saw this is not because beings are immoral or inherently bad but being are deluded because they belief this ego or I am conceit is there real identity or the real nature of mind. The Buddha saw this was the real burdon for beings, this ego or “I am” desires and conceit.

Because the Buddha was such an expert in calming the mind, in calming all formation, he was able to see, the Great One, the Wise and Compassionate one, that this ego-conceit although experienced as mind itself, is just a strong adventitious defilement of the mind. It can end. It’s not the nature of mind.

The unawakened mind does not know the total ending of this identity. It has the constant perception ‘mind-as-a-subject’. It lives with the sanna that mind IS a subject. It takes that subject-like-character of the mind to be the inherent or the absolute nature of mind.

I belief the Buddha had seen that this is not true. The conceit “I am” which colours the mind with the impression it is a subject which experiences, can end totally. I belief the Buddha saw that this subjective way of experiencing ‘the world’ is mostly due to vinnana. Vinnana is distorting the mind with it’s typical subject-object duality, i.e. a perceiver which perceives a certain object.

What is the nature of mind when mind is not a subject?

On this point i tend to Mahāyāna. I do not think, at this moment, the nature of mind are citta vitthi’s running very vast, nor a gandhabba, but the nature of mind is Nibbana, unborn ultimate peace. This is also called supreme emptiness and Dhamma.

Anything that relates to movement, running, arising, existing a while, transforming, ceasing, changing etc, that does not really describe who or what we are. It might be reflections/phenomena created by the mind but it is not the nature of mind.

Grasping at conditioned phenomena or processes as ‘mine’ or as ‘who i am’ seems to be the basic mistake we have made in many many lives.

I feel like the Buddha teaches that in the end the nature of mind is indestructable, unborn, uncreated, ultimate refuge, not me, not you, unborn peace, Nibbana.

Siebe

[sybe07]

I belief contemplating tilakkhana will help to see that grasping or attachment is of no use. Whatever. It is even contra-productive. It cannot provide any stabel happiness, refuge and does not lead to stability and peace of mind.

Instead it leads to increasing feelings of unsafety, worry, sorrow, fear. Whatever grasped that is inconstant, impermanent, will vanish, end. So it is clear this leads to suffering. It is like grasping a soap bubble and expacting it will not vanish.

If one translates anicca as impermanence or instability or inconsistancy or as ‘one cannot maintain anything to ones wish’, i belief the message is the same. Craving, which comes with clinging is not a good way to realise our legitimate longing for peace, freedom and happiness.

Siebe

[sybe07]

I belief the real meaning and purpose of no-self is expressed in a tantra verse (uttara tantra shastra of asanga based on the teachings of the coming Budddha Maitreya).

In my own words: the awakened Sangha knows that the mind-poisons are without essence and understands that de real nature of any being is a state of ultimate peace. This is the ultimate non-existence of a self.

[sybe07]

Thanks Lal and SengKiat.
Kind regards,
Siebe

[sybe07]

Hi SengKiat, thanks.

I understand asaraka should be listed in the categorie of anicca. What does asaraka mean ?

What do you think, are the anatta-nupassana’s correctly translated as:
alien, empty, void and not-self?

Anatta refers, i still belief, to the fact that in the end there is no entity inside us, no self or ego or entity-I, which is in control.

I mostly refer to this notion as the common daily notion there is some kind of being inside our head, a man or woman, a person Siebe. It is like there is some kind of figure inside our head living, right?

In earlier days they refered to this daily common experience with the concept of the homunculus. See:
http://what-buddha-said.net/gallery/index.php/Dhamma-illustrations/Homunculus-Drawing

I belief, this is exactly what the belief in a self (atta) means. It is the belief there is a being inside our head, which is control, which does the seeing, hearing, thinking, walking, living etc. That is the most common daily and very strong impression.

This is, i belief, what an-atta wants to denie. Nowhere inside our head lives a being like that, although this is our daily impression. Neuroscientist do not find such a being inside our head when they examin it.
It is very easy to understand this impression of a being inside our head must be some creation of the brain/mind but it feels like we are that creation, isn’t ? This is the effect of avijja.

I belief, the Budddha refered to this daily strong perceptions of an real ego inside us, some indepedent and powerful entity as atta. And his teachings of anatta, denie the existence of such an powerful independent existing entity.

I belief, the Buddha discovered the notion ‘I am’, i.e. the notion there is a homuncules inside my head which is in control, is the greatest and strongest delusion of beings. There is nothing so strong as this notion “I am”. Nothing that fetters mind that much as this “I am” notion and desire.

The daily perception that there is an ego or self or I in our heads, comes with a feeling that this does the seeing, hearing, feeling etc. It comes also with the perception it is control. Especially when we get things happen our way. This does in fact contribute to our happiness and the joy of life, but in the end this notion of an I-in-control is an illusion. Anatta is true.
This becomes very clear when becoming sick, old and dying.

It is not an entity-I who does the seeing, smelling, walking, talking, thinking etc. It is ruled by conditionally arising formations not by a self in our head.

I see no objection to relate in this way to the meaning of anatta, as no self, as no entity in our head or mind which is in controll.
There is no homuncules.

The idea there is an ego or self inside us that is in control is a kind of intoxication. Anatta-nupassana wants to end this delusion and intoxication which comes with so much suffering. Anyone who strongly beliefs that there is a atta, a homuncules inside, and we are that, he/she becomes really helpless.

Siebe

[sybe07]

Different kinds of Sotapanna
(Reference: Anguttara Nikāya 3.87 (translation Bodhi))

There are three kinds of Sotapanna mentioned. With the utter destruction of the three fetters it is possibele to become:

-1. a seven-times-at-most attainer (sattakkhattuparama): after roaming and wandering on among devas and humans seven times at most, he/she makes an end of suffering. Bodhi says in note 525 this is the most sluggish of the three.

-2. a family-to-family attainer (kolamkola): after roaming and wandering on among good families two or three times, he/she makes an end to suffering.

-3. a one-seed attainer (ekabiji); after being reborn once more in human existence, makes an end of suffering.

One can read this sutta also here: https://suttacentral.net/en/an3.87

Siebe

[sybe07]

This refers to Majjhima Nikāya 101. Fragments are from MN translation Bodhi.

It seems that the Nigantha’s were a sect who believed that …”Whatever
this person feels, whether pleasure or pain or neither-pain nor-pleasure, all that is caused by what was done in the past”…

…and they believed that extreme exertion with al lot of pain would annihilate that past bad kamma.

I feel the Buddha rejects this view. He makes clear that when they are involved in intense exertion (like the Buddha himself once was) they felt a lot of pain, but when they ended that intense exertion the pain left. So is the pain caused by bad kamma of the past?

I think the Buddha with this example makes clear it is not wise to think that all pain is due to past bad kamma. Pain can also arise (as Bodhi says in note 922 of MN)…”as a concomitant of present action…” According Bodhi Buddha also admits feeling that is neither kammically active nor kammic result”.

Ofcourse one can say that a concomitant painful feeling (accompaning intense exertion) is also due to an intentions, due to present actions, but does that mean that that concomitant painful feeling is also a repaid immoral act? Is it due to a evil act?

I still think one cannot call running a marathon an evil act while one knows there is concomitant pain. One cannot say that all actions which will lead to some pain are immoral and therefor the pain is due to bad kamma.
This makes, for me, no sense at all.

Most people, like paviours, plumbers will feel pain because of their actions.
For many professions this is true. Are those immoral professions or immoral deeds?

Siebe

[sybe07]

What is meant bij ‘the stream’?

From SN55.5 (translation Bodhi)

…”Sariputta, this is said: ‘The stream, the stream.’ What now Sariputta, is the stream?”
“This Noble Eightfold Path, venerable sir, is the stream; that is: right view, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration.”
“Good, good, Sariputta! This Noble Eightfold Path is the stream; that is, right view…right concentration.
“Sariputta, this is said: ‘A stream-enterer, a stream-enterer.’ What now, Sariputta, is a stream-enterer?”
“One who possesses this Noble Eightfold Path, venerable sir, is called a stream-enterer: this venerable one of such a name and clan.”
“Good, good, Sariputta! One who possesses this Noble Eightfold Path is a stream-enterer: this venerable one of such a name and clan.”

I belief, but correct me if i am wrong, MN117 makes clear one has to discern two Path’s, one mundane and one supra-mundane or one mundane and one nobel.

For example the factor right view. There are two kinds. There is mundane right view and nobel. Mundane right view is for example that there is rebirth, a father and mother, results of giving, working of kamma. Regarding this kind of right view it is said (MN117§6) …it “is affected by taints, partaking of merit, ripening on the side of attachment….”. So right view can be affected by taints. This right view is meritorious and leads to high rebirth but does not by itself lead to an ending of the rebirth proces.

And then there is right view that is noble, taintless, supramundane, a factor of the path“.

I belief this last view is meant when it said that a stream-enterer posseses the Nobel Eightfold Path (is this case right view). Not meant is the mundane Path.

Siebe

[sybe07]

I agree Akvan, those words, like ‘unenduring’ and ‘perishable’ etc are not really meant as synonims. Your right. It are different ways of contemplating anicca, as you say.

“no protection”, “no shelter”, no refuge’ is, i belief, in lal’s explanation not really belonging to dukkha nupassana like in patisambhidamagga, but more tending to anatta, the helplessness-perception. But maybe Lal thinks otherwise?

“as having no core” is contemplation of anicca in patisambidhamagga…this i would personally see as a kind of anatta or sunnatanupassana, without essence or core.

Siebe

[Author]

Posts