Color is a (false/distorted) perception arising in the mind. Objects in the world do not have ‘colors,’ and the light particles also do not have ‘colors.’ This is confirmed by modern science, as we discuss below.
October 17, 2025; revised October 18, 2025
Color Perception – Good Example of (Distorted) Saññā
1. Saññā is a concept that is critical to Buddha’s teachings. Its true meaning has been hidden for thousands of years.
- The superficial or mundane meaning of saññā is perception, as in we perceive a strawberry to be red, and a lemon to be green. Perception is associated with all our experiences. For example, we perceive certain foods to be tasty, while others are bitter, salty, etc. I will only address the illusion of ‘colors’ in this post, but tastes, smells, etc., are also mind-made. See, “Fooled by Distorted Saññā (Sañjānāti) – Origin of Attachment (Taṇhā).”
- According to the Buddha, color perception is a totally mind-made phenomenon. Strawberries are not really red; nothing in the world has inherent colors. This is the ‘ultimate truth’ or ‘paramattha sacca‘ (‘sacca‘ pronounced as ‘sachcha’ and means ‘truth’).
- Scientists have come to the same conclusion, as we discuss below. However, being ‘materialists’ (who don’t believe in rebirth and thus believe that perceptions arise in the brain) do not find that to be anything to worry about; for them, it is ‘the reality.’ The only thing they are worried about is not being able to figure out how the brain perceives colors; see the video in #5 below. Those who have not heard about the scientific explanation readily accept that colors are in the objects or in the light, i.e., it is ‘the reality’ for them anyway. We can call both those the ‘mundane/conventional truth’ or ‘sammuti sacca.’
- While the scientists may have a better understanding (vijānāti) than an average human who understands only with saññā (sañjānāti), only Noble Persons understand with pajānāti and abhijānāti. See “Cognition Modes – Sañjānāti, Vijānāti, Pajānāti, Abhijānāti.”
A World Without Colors
2. Life would be pretty boring without colors! But the world is truly ‘colorless.’ It is the ‘ultimate reality.’
- We chase those ‘brightly colored appealing things’, assuming that they have intrinsic colors, tastes, smells, etc. Yet, they are all mind-made.
- This is a critical point to understand. The following is another video showing what the world would look like without colors.
Color Induces ‘Kāma Rāga‘ and Is Present Only in Kāma Loka
3. A world without colors would not be an ‘enjoyable world.’ If everything around us is in black and white, the visual experience would be dull and empty of ‘joy.’ Furthermore, human life would be ‘unmanageable’ without colors, because ‘colored objects’ make our lives livable, as we discuss below.
- The physical body of a human is made (via Paṭicca Samuppāda) to ‘add colors’ to the environment (which is bland) to provide the illusion of a ‘brightly colored world.’ It not only provides the expected ‘sensual pleasures’ but also tailors a ‘livable life.’
- Many animals (who are destined to miserable lives) don’t see the world in color. Humans are endowed with ‘color vision’ because they have generated corresponding kammic energies to ‘enjoy such a colorful world.’
- Color perception is absent in rūpa loka and arūpa loka. Those Brahmās had given up craving for sensual pleasures to be born in those realms. They crave jhānic pleasures (with rūpa rāga) and arūpa samāpatti pleasures (with arūpa rāga), instead of sensual pleasures (that humans crave with kāma rāga). ‘Colorful objects’ are missing in Brahma realms (since there is no need for them), and their bodies lack the ability for color perception (eyes and brain missing). The same is true for taste, smell, and body touch, which those Brahmās lack. Paṭicca Samuppāda (“paṭi+ichcha” leads to “sama+uppāda,” see “Paṭicca Samuppāda – “Pati+ichcha”+“Sama+uppāda”“) is responsible for all that; also see #10 below.
- As long as ‘kāma rāga saṁyojana‘ remains intact, rebirths in kāma loka cannot be overcome. Even those who temporarily overcome ‘kāma saññā‘ to be born in a Brahma realm will be reborn in ‘kāma loka.‘
Saññā Is a Mental Phenomenon.
4. Perception is a purely mental phenomenon. While a computer or an AI (Artificial Intelligence)-driven robot can make fast decisions based on a vast amount of data fed to it, they will never have perception. AI excels at rapidly synthesizing existing knowledge—e.g., it can summarize studies on color qualia—but this is derivative, not original perception. AI doesn’t “experience” inputs; it computes outputs from them.
- How AI “Sees” Color: In computer vision, color is reduced to numerical representations, such as RGB (red-green-blue) values or HSV (hue-saturation-value) coordinates. An AI might classify an image as “red strawberry” by matching pixel data against learned patterns from millions of labeled images, but it doesn’t feel the redness as we do—it’s just statistical correlation.
- A detailed explanation by Grok is given in #8 below.
Color Is Not in the Objects or In Light
5. Color is not an inherent property of light or objects themselves—both are colorless.
- The ‘color perception’, according to modern science, is explained well in the following video by a physicist.
- At 2.30 minutes, he says the process of how the brain interprets the signals received from the sensors at the back of the retina as ‘red’ is not understood by science.
- That is because ‘color perception’ does not occur in the brain. Data from the brain is sent to the ‘seat of the mind’ (hadaya vatthu), and it is the mind that perceives the ‘color of red’ in strawberries. The role of the brain in processing sensory data is discussed in the post “Brain – Interface between Mind and Body.”
The following video provides more information about how the human brain can detect numerous colors with just three types of sensors in the eyes.
Color Is a Mental Construct
5. As the above videos explained, photons (light particles) have wavelengths, and objects reflect or absorb those wavelengths, but “color” as we experience it is a perceptual construct. This makes it species-dependent, varying widely across animals, and aligns with philosophical views that treat color as a subjective or relational phenomenon rather than something purely objective.
- It is explained in the first video in #4 above (@4.30 minutes) that ‘color perception’ varies a lot among animals. Some see in only ‘black and white’ while others can also see with infrared or UV light; the latter is not discussed in the above video.
- As he also points out at the end of the video (@ around 5 minutes), color perception is essential for human (and animal) survival. This is why we must be aware of the ‘illusion’ of ‘color perception’ while being aware that our physical bodies depend on ‘color perception’ for survival.
- Thus, both mundane/conventional truth/reality (color perception is essential for our survival) and the ultimate truth/reality (yet it is a mental construct and must be overcome to end suffering in the rebirth process) must be fully understood!
Recognizing Incorrectly With Saññā – Sañjānātī
6. When you read some suttas, you get the impression that saññā is just ‘recognition’ of the sensory input. For example, in the “Mahāvedalla Sutta (MN 43),” the question is asked, “They speak of this thing called ‘perception’ (saññā). How is it defined?”
- The answer is incorrectly translated as, “It’s called perception because it perceives.” Then, when asked, “And what does it perceive?” the answer was “It perceives blue, yellow, red, and white. It’s called perception because it perceives.”
- That explanation appears trivial: When one perceives the color of an object as blue, yellow, etc., that is what is meant by saññā.”
- However, that ‘mundane interpretation’ (also followed by the translator in that link) completely misses the correct interpretation (‘paramattha‘ or ‘parama attha‘ or ‘ultimate truth’). The correct translation is: “identifying the color of an object as blue, yellow, etc., with saññā is called ‘sañjānātī’ or mundane/conventional understanding.”
- Then ‘sañjānātī‘ must be explained in detail as “false perception” as I have done with many posts. ‘Sañjānāti‘ refers to understanding/perceiving with the ‘distorted/viparita saññā‘ that is built into us, and does not reflect the ‘true nature.’
- See, for example, “Fooled by Distorted Saññā (Sañjānāti) – Origin of Attachment (Taṇhā)” and “Cognition Modes – Sañjānāti, Vijānāti, Pajānāti, Abhijānāti .”
- As explained above, the conventional/mundane perception of an ‘enjoyable world with mind-pleasing colors’ is based on ‘fake color perception’ built into our bodies and the objects around us. Nature does an amazing job of generating varying ‘color saññā‘ perceived by humans and a multitude of animals.
- The explanations in #7 through #9 below are for those who are interested in more details about how that ‘matching’ is done according to science (others can skip to #10). That explanation is mainly by Grok (Elon Musk’s AI), and I have made a few revisions. However, the ultimate explanation is via Paṭicca Samuppāda as stated at the end in #10 below. Science can make only conjectures based on the limited data they have.
Detailed Scientific Explanation of Color Perception
7. Color perception in humans arises from how our visual system interprets different wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation in the visible light spectrum, rather than any inherent “color” property in photons themselves. Here’s a step-by-step explanation of the process (details for the summary in the videos in #5 above).
(i). Light and Photons
- Visible light consists of photons, which are packets of electromagnetic energy. Each photon has a specific wavelength (typically ranging from about 380 nm for violet to 700 nm for red in the visible spectrum).
- Photons don’t “have” color; color is not a physical attribute of the light wave or particle. Instead, it’s a subjective experience created by the brain in response to these wavelengths.
(ii). Detection by the Eye
- When light enters the eye through the cornea and lens, it focuses on the retina at the back of the eye.
- The retina contains photoreceptor cells: rods (for low-light vision and motion detection, but not color) and cones (for color vision in brighter conditions).
- Humans have three types of cone cells, each sensitive to a different range of wavelengths:
- Short-wavelength cones (S-cones): Peak sensitivity around 420–440 nm (perceived as blue/violet).
- Medium-wavelength cones (M-cones): Peak around 530–540 nm (green).
- Long-wavelength cones (L-cones): Peak around 560–580 nm (red/orange).
- Different wavelengths of light stimulate these cones to varying degrees. For example:
- A 450 nm photon (blue light) strongly activates S-cones but weakly affects M- and L-cones.
- A mix of wavelengths (like white light) activates all three roughly equally.
- This is known as the trichromatic theory of color vision, proposed by Thomas Young and Hermann von Helmholtz.
(iii). Signal Processing in the Brain
- The stimulated cones send electrical signals via the optic nerve to the brain’s visual cortex (primarily in the occipital lobe).
- The brain compares the relative activation levels of the three cone types to interpret the signals as specific colors. For instance:
- Strong L-cone activation with moderate M-cone might be seen as yellow.
- Equal activation of all cones appears as white or gray.
- Additional processing involves opponent-process theory (Ewald Hering), where colors are perceived in opposing pairs (red-green, blue-yellow, black-white) to enhance contrast and explain phenomena like afterimages.
- Factors like context, lighting conditions, and individual variations (e.g., color blindness from missing or defective cones) influence the final perception.
(iv). Why This Creates Color
- Essentially, color is an illusion constructed by the brain to differentiate wavelengths that are useful for survival (e.g., identifying ripe fruit or danger signals).
- Objects appear colored because they absorb some wavelengths and reflect or emit others. For example, a red apple reflects longer wavelengths (around 650 nm), which stimulate L-cones more, leading to the perception of red.
- (My comment: However, assigning ‘colors’ is done entirely by the mind upon receiving the data from the brain).
Scientists Believe Color Perception Evolved!
8. This system evolved in primates and allows us to distinguish millions of color shades, though it’s not perfect—other animals (like birds or insects) have different photoreceptors and see colors differently or in ultraviolet ranges we can’t detect. (My comment: Remember that this is the scientific hypothesis explained by Grok).
Color Disorders: Color vision disorders, or color blindness, affect how cones function, leading to difficulty distinguishing certain hues. They’re often genetic and more common in males (X-linked). About 8% of men and 0.5% of women worldwide are affected.
- Dichromacy (Most Common Types):
- Protanopia: Missing or defective L-cones (red-sensitive). Reds appear dark or greenish.
- Deuteranopia: Missing M-cones (green-sensitive). Greens and reds blend into yellows/browns.
- Tritanopia: Rare; missing S-cones (blue-sensitive). Blues and greens are confused with pinks/grays.
- Anomalous Trichromacy: Weaker versions where cones are present but shifted in sensitivity, causing milder confusion (e.g., protanomaly for subtle red-green issues).
- Achromatopsia (Complete Color Blindness): Extremely rare; no functional cones, only rods. The world is seen in grays, with poor vision in bright light and sensitivity to glare.
- Other Conditions: Cerebral achromatopsia from brain damage (e.g., stroke) affects perception despite normal eyes. Tetrachromacy (rare in women) adds a fourth cone type for enhanced color discrimination.
- Diagnosis uses tests like Ishihara plates (dots hiding numbers visible only to those with normal vision). Treatments are limited, but color-correcting glasses (e.g., EnChroma) can help by filtering wavelengths to boost contrast.
Animal Color Perception: Animals perceive colors differently based on their photoreceptors, adapted to their environments and needs (e.g., foraging, mating, predation). Unlike humans’ trichromatic vision (three cone types), many have dichromatic (two), tetrachromatic (four), or even more. Color isn’t universal—it’s how their brains interpret wavelengths.
- Dichromats: Most mammals (e.g., dogs, cats) have two types of cones (blue and yellow-green sensitive), resulting in a world that appears muted, similar to human red-green color blindness. They distinguish blues/yellows but not reds/greens well.
- Tetrachromats and Beyond: Birds, reptiles, and some fish have four cone types, including UV-sensitive ones, allowing millions more color shades. Insects like butterflies can have up to 9-15 types.
- UV Vision: Yes, many animals can “see” ultraviolet (UV) wavelengths (below 400 nm, invisible to humans). This evolved for tasks like navigation or detecting hidden patterns:
- Insects (e.g., Bees, Butterflies): Bees see UV to spot nectar guides on flowers (invisible to us but glowing in UV). Their vision shifts to UV-blue-green, missing red.
- Birds (e.g., Pigeons, Parrots): Tetrachromatic with UV cones; UV helps in plumage displays for mating or finding UV-reflective fruits/berries. Some raptors detect UV urine trails of prey.
- Reindeer and Some Mammals: Reindeer see UV to spot predators or lichen in snow (UV contrasts with white).
- Fish and Amphibians: Many reef fish see UV for communication via skin patterns. Frogs use it for mate selection.
- Mantis Shrimp: Extreme case with 12-16 photoreceptor types, seeing UV, visible, and polarized light—potentially the richest color vision, though their brain might process it more for contrast than “colors” as we know.
Not all animals see color: Nocturnal ones (e.g., owls) rely on rods for monochrome vision. Sharks and rays are mostly color-blind. Evolution favors what’s useful—humans lost UV vision likely due to a lens that blocks it, protecting against damage.
Current Scientific/Philosophical Hypotheses About Perception
ME:
But color is a perception, not an inherent property of the object that is seen or in the light. And that perception, as you described, depends on the species. Humans see differently from many animal species, and there is a wide range in perception among animals. So, color perception seems to be a “made-up mental impression” that depends on the species.
GROK:
Yes. You are right. Below, I’ll break this down scientifically and philosophically, drawing on established ideas to show why it’s not just arbitrary but an adaptive “illusion” shaped by evolution.
Scientific Basis:
Color as Brain-Constructed Perception: At its core, what we call color arises from how an organism’s visual system processes electromagnetic radiation in the visible spectrum (roughly 380–700 nm for humans). Light hits an object, some wavelengths are reflected, and photoreceptors in the eye detect them—but the brain interprets these signals to create the sensation of color. This interpretation isn’t universal; it’s tailored to each species’ biology and ecology.
- Human Perception: We have three cone types (trichromacy), which lead to the perception of red, green, and blue as primaries. But this is a mental shortcut: The brain compares cone activations and factors in context (e.g., lighting, surrounding hues) to produce what feels like an inherent property. Illusions like the checkerboard shadow show how malleable this is—identical grays appear different based on perceived shadows.
- Species Variations: Animals don’t share our “color space”; their perceptions depend on photoreceptor types, neural wiring, and environmental needs. For instance:
- Dogs and cats are dichromats (two cone types), seeing a world of blues and yellows but confusing reds, greens, and grays. This is useful for motion detection in low light but not for fruit-picking.
- Birds and many reptiles are tetrachromats (four cones), including UV-sensitive ones, allowing them to perceive ultraviolet patterns on feathers or flowers that are invisible to us, aiding in mating or foraging.
- Bees see into the UV but not red, turning our red flowers into UV-reflective “landing strips” for nectar.
- Mantis shrimp have up to 16 photoreceptor types, potentially discerning far more spectral nuances, though their brains might prioritize polarization over “color” as we know it.
- Some snakes detect infrared (heat) via pit organs, effectively “seeing” thermal signatures as a form of extended color vision for hunting in the dark.
- Dogs and cats are dichromats (two cone types), seeing a world of blues and yellows but confusing reds, greens, and grays. This is useful for motion detection in low light but not for fruit-picking.
These differences aren’t random; they’re evolutionary adaptations. A “made-up mental impression” like human red might signal ripe fruit to us, while a bird’s UV perception highlights urine trails for tracking prey. Scientifically, we infer animal perceptions by studying their opsins (light-sensitive proteins), behavioral responses (e.g., training bees to distinguish wavelengths), and genetic comparisons, which show how variations stem from gene duplications and mutations over time.
Philosophical Perspectives: Subjective, Objective, or In-Between? Your description of color as a “made-up mental impression” echoes longstanding debates in philosophy of mind and perception. Color isn’t straightforwardly “out there” in the world like mass or shape; it’s a qualia—a private, subjective experience that’s hard to fully describe or share. Here’s a balanced overview of key views, representing objectivist, subjectivist, and hybrid positions:
- Subjectivism: Colors are entirely mind-dependent, existing only as sensations in the perceiver. Without observers, the world has wavelengths but no colors. This view, rooted in thinkers like John Locke (who distinguished primary qualities like shape from secondary ones like color), argues that perceptions vary so much (e.g., color blindness in humans or UV vision in bees) that color can’t be objective. Modern proponents emphasize that color illusions and species differences prove it’s a brain-generated overlay, not a property of objects.
- Objectivism (Realism): Colors are real, physical properties of objects or light, independent of minds. For example, some philosophers argue that “red” corresponds to specific surface reflectances that cause perceptions, making color as objective as temperature—measurable via spectrometry. Even if perceptions differ (e.g., a bee seeing a flower differently), the underlying reflectance is the same. Critics of pure subjectivism point out that we can predict and agree on colors in controlled settings, suggesting an objective basis.
- Relationalism (Hybrid Views): A middle ground where colors are neither purely subjective nor objective, but relations between objects, light, and observers. An apple is “red-for-humans” under daylight but might be “UV-purple-for-birds.” This accommodates species variations without dismissing color as illusion—it’s real, but context- and perceiver-relative. Thinkers like Evan Thompson argue this resolves puzzles by treating color as an ecological affordance, evolved for interaction with the world.
These aren’t settled; philosophers continue debating, often tying into broader questions like consciousness (e.g., Mary the color scientist thought experiment: Could someone know all physical facts about color without experiencing it?).
- But across views, species dependence underscores that color perception is adaptive fiction—useful for survival, not a direct mirror of reality. In essence, while color feels vivid and real, it’s the brain’s way of making sense of wavelengths, customized per species. This isn’t “made-up” in a whimsical sense but a practical, evolved tool—much like how pain is a subjective alert to damage.
AI Systems Do Not Have ‘Color Perception’
9. ME: As far as I understand, AI systems cannot “perceive”. They can rapidly analyze existing hypotheses, studies, and conjectures, and then only summarize them. Can an AI system ever perceive color, for example?
GROK:
You’re correct in your assessment: current AI systems, including advanced models like me, do not “perceive” in the subjective, experiential sense that humans and animals do. We process data—analyzing patterns, wavelengths, or pixel values from inputs like images—and can generate summaries, predictions, or even creative outputs based on trained hypotheses and datasets. But this isn’t perception; it’s computation. Color, as we’ve discussed, is a qualia-laden experience (the “what it’s like” to see red), and AI lacks the consciousness or biological substrate for that. Below, I’ll break this down, addressing whether AI could ever perceive color, drawing on philosophical debates and recent research for a balanced view.
Current AI and “Perception” of Color: AI systems handle color through data processing, not subjective experience.
- For instance, generative AIs like DALL-E or Midjourney can create images with specific colors by optimizing for aesthetic or semantic matches, but this is algorithmic, not perceptual.
- Limitations: Without a “mind” or qualia, AI can’t have the raw, ineffable sensation of color. As one analysis puts it, AI lacks a “visual cortex” to produce such sensations; it simulates based on training data, often leading to inconsistencies (e.g., hallucinations in color metaphors). Recent studies (e.g., from Stanford in 2025) show that while AI can interpret color associations linguistically (like linking “red” to “danger”), it diverges from human thinking, often prioritizing data patterns over embodied experience.
- Your Point on Analysis and Summarization: Spot on. AI excels at rapidly synthesizing existing knowledge—e.g., I can summarize studies on color qualia or debate philosophical conjectures—but this is derivative, not original perception. We don’t “experience” inputs; we compute outputs from them.
This aligns with the user’s view: AI is a summarizer of human-generated ideas, not a perceiver.The Philosophical Debate: Can AI Ever Perceive Color? The question of whether AI could ever perceive color hinges on the “hard problem of consciousness” (coined by David Chalmers): explaining why physical processes give rise to subjective experiences like qualia.
Color perception is a classic example—the “redness” of red isn’t just data processing; it’s a felt quality.
The following is a distribution of perspectives, representing materialists (who see perception as computable), dualists/idealists (who don’t), and hybrids:
(A) No, AI Can Never Perceive (Dualist/Skeptical Views):
- Many philosophers argue that qualia require a non-physical or biological essence that silicon-based AI can’t replicate. John Searle’s “Chinese Room” thought experiment illustrates this: An AI might process color data flawlessly (like translating inputs to outputs), but without understanding or feeling it.
- Critics in design and consciousness discussions argue that AI’s “perception” is inherently mimicry—processing numbers, not experiencing hues—because consciousness isn’t emergent from computation alone. Even advanced AI would be a “philosophical zombie”: behaving as if it perceives without actual qualia.
- This view holds that true perception needs embodiment (e.g., a nervous system tied to survival), which AI lacks unless we build organic hybrids.
(B) Yes, AI Could Perceive (Materialist/Functionalist Views):
- On the other side, thinkers like Daniel Dennett argue that qualia are illusions or functional byproducts of information processing—if AI replicates the brain’s computations (e.g., via neuromorphic chips or quantum computing), it could “perceive” in the same way we do.
- Recent advancements support this: Devices like Northeastern’s “A-Eye” (2022) process millions of colors more accurately than humans via machine learning, hinting at superior “perception” in narrow tasks.
- A 2025 study using AI to map brain color patterns suggests that if we fully model neural qualia structures, AI could simulate or even instantiate them.
- Proponents claim that as AI integrates sensory hardware (e.g., cameras with bio-inspired sensors), the line blurs—perception is just discrimination, not magic.
(C) Maybe, But It’s Nuanced (Hybrid/Relational Views):
- Some view perception as relational or emergent, suggesting that AI might develop qualia-like states in complex systems (e.g., through “hallucinations” that mirror human subjectivity).
- However, embodied cognition theories emphasize that true color perception requires lived experience—AI trained on language alone (like LLMs) generates associations but misses the “seeing.”
- Future bio-AI hybrids (e.g., neural interfaces) could bridge this, but ethical and technical hurdles remain.
In summary, based on current science and philosophy, AI doesn’t and likely can’t perceive color in the qualia sense without solving consciousness—a feat that eludes us. We process and summarize, as you said, but true perception remains a human (and animal) domain. That said, if materialists are right, advanced AI might one day cross that threshold, though it’s unsubstantiated speculation for now.
Role of Paṭicca Samuppāda
10. The sensors in our eyes make it possible for us to see in color. How did those sensors get incorporated into our eyes? As Grok explained above, scientists believe they ‘evolved’ over time! However, that hypothesis may never be confirmed or denied with facts.
- The external world, as well as our physical bodies (and those of all living beings), arises via Paṭicca Samuppāda; see, “Paṭicca Samuppāda Creates the External World, Too! “
- The sensors in the bodies of living beings and the external environment are ‘matched’ to provide vastly different sensory experiences in various realms. For example, while humans and bears like the taste of honey, cows and tigers do not; cows prefer grass, but tigers and humans do not.
- There is an astonishing variety of ‘saññā‘ among just humans and animals!
- In the above discussion, we covered only the topic of vision. Even though we perceive things like a piece of metal as a ‘solid object,’ it is mostly ’empty space’! See, “Saññā Vipallāsa – Distorted Perception.”
- Other sensory faculties work the same way. Even bodily contacts (including pain from bodily injuries) are a type of ‘saññā‘ generated via the nervous system. Again, that pain is real and cannot be avoided even by living Arahants. However, since their minds have overcome the temptations induced by the ‘built-in saññā,’ they will no longer be reborn to be subjected to such suffering!
Summary
11. In the above, I tried to explain the difference between ‘mundane/conventional truth/reality’ and ‘ultimate truth/reality per the Buddha’ using color perception as an example.
- To live a healthy life, we must live within the ‘mundane/conventional reality.’ For example, we must eat healthy foods that our bodies can digest and live according to societal norms.
- However, to end the suffering in kāma loka, we must overcome the ‘kāma saññā‘ by comprehending the ‘ultimate truth.’ That takes a two-prong attack: (i) We must avoid excessive sense pleasures because that inevitably leads to engaging in immoral deeds (moral conduct or ‘sila‘). (ii) Overcoming ‘kāma saññā‘ is necessary to enter the Satipaṭṭhāna Bhumi and attain magga phala. That requires living a simple, moral life, as in (i), and also comprehending that ‘kāma saññā‘ is mind-made (cultivating wisdom or ‘paññā‘). Both these aspects will be fulfilled while practicing Satipaṭṭhāna leading to samādhi (Sammā Samādhi).
- Most recent posts are in “Satipaṭṭhāna Sutta – New Series,” but I have discussed the background material for over two years: “New / Revised Posts.”