The teachings of Ven. Waharaka Abhayaratanalankara Thero

A forum for Dhamma resources in languages other than English
Lal
Posts: 491
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2016 11:39 am

Re: The teachings of Ven. Waharaka Abhayaratanalankara Thero

Post by Lal »

We get bck to the discussion on Sakkāya Diṭṭhi.

Sakkāya Diṭṭhi – “Me and Mine” View

The View of “Me and Mine”- Only For About a Hundred Years

1. An average human has the wrong view that it is beneficial to consider mind-pleasing things in this world as “me” or “mine”. As we discussed in the previous few posts, the most valuable rūpa in the world is one’s physical body. Then there are parents, spouses, children, friends, etc that are considered to be “mine.” See, “Five Aggregates – Connection to Tilakkhaṇa.”

- It is critical to realize that all those things last only about 100 years.
- Upon death, even if one is reborn human, it will be a different body and a different set of humans that will become “me” and “mine.” We would not even know who we were in our previous life. We would not know what happened to all those “loved ones” we had in the previous life.
- That is the “big picture” that we need to focus on. That big picture can be discovered only by a Buddha.
- It would be impossible for any other human to discover the “real nature of the wider world of 31 realms” where a given living-being goes through the birth/death process.
- But once explained by a Buddha or a true disciple of the Buddha, one can see the truth in his teachings.

“Me and Mine” View Can Lead to Immoral Actions

2. Based on that wrong view of “me” and “mine” we are sometimes forced to do immoral actions. Think about it carefully. If we lie, steal, or hurt others, such actions can always be traced back to “taking care of me or mine.”

- It is critical to understand that this wrong view of “me and mine” (sakkāya diṭṭhi) is different from the perception of “me and mine.” Diṭṭhi means “view.”
- Even after getting rid of the wrong view of “me and mine” that wrong-perception will still be there. That perception of “me” or the innate feeling of “me” will go away only at the Arahant stage.
- However, just “seeing” that it is is not fruitful to act on the basis of “me and mine” is enough for the mind to stay away from doing highly-immoral deeds. That “seeing” happens when one becomes a Sotapanna.
- Of course, it may not be easy to comprehend. That is why the Buddha said, “this Dhamma has not been known to the world.”

“Me and Mine” View Cannot Be Removed by Will Power – It Is Lost via Understanding the “True Nature”

3. The logic of Buddha Dhamma cannot be understood without the underlying principles. Those underlying principles are the rebirth process, laws of kamma, how Paṭicca Samuppāda to give rise to new births, etc. For that, one first needs to get rid of the ten wrong views and learn basic concepts like gati, anusaya, etc. See, “Micchā Diṭṭhi, Gandhabba, and Sōtapanna Stage.”

- It is not easy to put all that together and see the truth of the “wider world-view.” Yet, without that foundation, it is not possible to see that big picture and realize the truth of it.
- It may be hard to believe, but just that “understanding of the big picture” will lead to the removal of 99% of the “gunk” that has been accumulated in our minds in a rebirth process that has no discernible beginning.

That “Big Picture” Must be Learnt From a Buddha

4. If one has not heard the above from a Buddha or a true disciple of the Buddha, that person — no matter how intelligent — would not be able to figure that out by him/herself.

- The Buddha called such a person “assutavā puthujjano.” That means “an ignorant person who had not heard this Dhamma.”
- Of course, many people cannot and will not agree with that “new Dhamma”. They do not have the capability to grasp it. They may not be willing to discard the wrong views that they have. There is nothing we can do about that.
- I have come this far in the rebirth process because I also had been incapable of grasping that in my previous lives.
- So, all we can do is try our best to understand. Even if one cannot understand, one needs to live a moral life and engage in meritorious deeds, so that the understanding can come in future life.

Who Is an Assutavā Puthujjano?

5. There are many suttā where the Buddha described an “assutavā puthujjano.”

For example, the “Paṭipadā Sutta (SN 22.44)” states, “Katamā ca, bhikkhave, sakkāya samudayagāminī paṭipadā? Idha, bhikkhave, assutavā puthujjano ariyānaṃ adassāvī ariyadhammassa akovido ariyadhamme avinīto, sappurisānaṃ adassāvī sappurisadhammassa akovido sappurisadhamme avinīto, rūpaṃ attato samanupassati, rūpavantaṃ vā attānaṃ; attani vā rūpaṃ, rūpasmiṃ vā attānaṃ. Vedanaṃ …saññaṃ …saṅkhāre …viññāṇaṃ attato samanupassati

Translated: “And what, bhikkhus, is the path leading to the origination of identity view? Here, bhikkhus, an ignorant person who has not heard Dhammaregards form as selfvedana as self … sañña as self … saṅkhāra as self … viññāṇa as self“

- “Rūpaṃ attato samanupassati” means, “regards form (meaning one’s body) as “me” in one of four ways. In the same way, that person may consider each of the other four aggregates as “me” in one of four ways.
- Thus, considering each of the five aggregates in four ways “to be mine”, leads to the “self-view” or ‘identity view”. That is “twenty-types of sakkāya diṭṭhi” or “vīsativatthukā sakkāya diṭṭhi.” See, “Nayasamuṭṭhāna” of Nettipakaraṇa.https://suttacentral.net/ne36/pli/ms
- Anyone who has not heard the correct explanation of sakkāya diṭṭhi is an “uninformed/ignorant” human or assutavā puthujjano. That is why most people today belong to this category. Even when explained, some people have a hard time grasping this “previously unheard Dhamma.”

Sutavā Ariyasāvako – One Who Has Heard and Comprehended Dhamma

6. The opposite of an assutavā puthujjano is a sutavā ariyasāvako, who has heard and comprehended the correct teachings of the Buddha. Such a person knows the dangers in attaching to worldly things.

- There are many suttā in SN 35 (especially SN 35. 1 through SN 35. 12) that discuss a sutavā ariyasāvako. For example, “Ajjhattāniccātītānāgata Sutta (SN 35.7)” says: “Cakkhuṃ, bhikkhave, aniccaṃ atītānāgataṃ; ko pana vādo paccuppannassa. Evaṃ passaṃ, bhikkhave, sutavā ariyasāvako atītasmiṃ cakkhusmiṃ anapekkho hoti; anāgataṃ cakkhuṃ nābhinandati; paccuppannassa cakkhussa nibbidāya virāgāya nirodhāya paṭipanno hoti. Sotaṃ aniccaṃ … ghānaṃ aniccaṃ …”

Translated:Bhikkhus, the eye of the past and future (let alone the present) is of anicca nature, . Seeing this, a learned noble disciple doesn’t attach to the eye of the past, he doesn’t look forward to enjoying the eye in the future, and he practices for non-attachment, dispassion, and cessation regarding the eye of the present. The ear … nose …”

- Note that translating “anicca” as “impermanent” does not make any sense. The “eye of the past” has already been destroyed. There is no need to talk about the impermanence of it. What the verse says is that it is not beneficial to recall one’s past and think fondly about it, hoping to enjoy such an eye in the future.

An Assutavā Puthujjano Has Sakkāya Diṭṭhi

7. Thus sakkāya diṭṭhi (identity or self-view) arises because one takes one’s body as “me.” Of course, one may take one’s vedana, sañña, saṅkhāra, and viññāṇa as self too. In other words, anyone who views one or more of the five aggregates as “mine” has sakkāya diṭṭhi.

Sakkāyadiṭṭhi Sutta (SN 22.155)” the Buddha says, “rūpe kho, bhikkhave, sati, rūpaṃ upādāya, rūpaṃ abhinivissa sakkāya diṭṭhi uppajjati. Vedanāya sati … saññāya sati … saṅkhāresu sati … viññāṇe sati, viññāṇaṃ upādāya, viññāṇaṃ abhinivissa sakkāya diṭṭhi uppajjati.

OR, “When one focuses on rūpa when one is “immersed” in rūpa and keep them close (in one’s mind), identity view arises. The same can happen with vedanā, saññā, saṅkhāra, and viññāṇa.
Then the Buddha asks, “Taṃ kiṃ maññatha, bhikkhave, rūpaṃ niccaṃaniccaṃ vā”ti?

- OR, “bhikkhus, are those rupā of nicca oranicca nature?”
- Anicca and nicca are complex Pāli words with multiple (but related) meanings. See, See, “Anicca – True Meaning.”
- Those two words are related to “icca” or “icchā” meaning liking or desire. See, “Icca, Nicca, Anicca – Important Connections.”
- We will discuss the correct meaning of “Taṃ kiṃ maññatha, bhikkhave, rūpaṃ niccaṃaniccaṃ vā”ti? in #7 below. First, let us look at the common INCORRECT meaning of it.

Critical Error in Equating “Nicca and Anicca” in Pāli as “Nitya and Anitya” in Sanskrit

8. The INCORRECT translation of “Taṃ kiṃ maññatha, bhikkhave, rūpaṃ niccaṃaniccaṃ vā”ti? is, “bhikkhus, are those rupā permanent or impermanent?”

- That is the English translation that appears in most current English texts. It is WRONG!
- The Pāli word “nicca” DOES NOT mean “permanent” and “anicca” DOES NOT mean “impermanent”.
- However, the Sanskrit words “nitya” and “anitya” DO MEAN “permanent” and “impermanent”.
- That grave mistake of confusing Pāli words with wrong Sanskrit words has kept so many people from grasping the correct Buddha Dhamma.
- Pāli words for “permanent” is niyata AND dhuva. Impermanence expressed as “aniyata” or “addhuva“.
- For the life of me, I do not understand why all these “learned bhikkhus and scholars” refuse to take a bit of time to go through the Tipiṭaka and figure this out. They should keep in mind that teaching wrong Dhamma is an offense. The Buddha admonished that dealing with Dhamma is like handling a snake. If you get hold of the wrong end, you will be in danger.

Correct Translation of “Taṃ kiṃ maññatha, bhikkhave, rūpaṃ niccaṃ vā aniccaṃ vā”ti?

9. In fact, there are more suttā in this series that probe deeper into how the root causes of suffering are tied up to the view of “me” and “mine” based on the high-value for world objects.

For example, Ānanda Sutta (SN 22.159) further clarifies what we discussed in #6 above. In that sutta, the Buddha explains to Ven. Ānanda how attachment to rūpa with VIEW of “me and mine” leads to suffering and, thus, is the wrong view. The conversation goes as follows.

Taṃ kiṃ maññasi, ānanda, rūpaṃ niccaṃ vā aniccaṃ vā”ti?
Aniccaṃ, bhante”.
Yaṃ panāniccaṃ dukkhaṃ vā taṃ sukhaṃ vā”ti?
Dukkhaṃ, bhante”.
Yaṃ panāniccaṃ dukkhaṃ vipariṇāmadhammaṃ, kallaṃ nu taṃ samanupassituṃ: ‘etaṃ mama, esohamasmi, eso me attā’”ti?
No hetaṃ, bhante”.

Translation:

“What do you think, Ānanda? Can anyone maintain rūpa to one’s liking?”
“One cannot (aniccam), Bhante.”
“If one cannot maintain something to one’s liking, does the lead to suffering or happiness?”
“Suffering, Bhante.”
“If something cannot be maintained to one’s liking, leads to suffering, and is subject to unexpected changes, is it wise to regard that as: ‘This is mine, I am this, this is my self or identity’?”
“No, Bhante.”
Then the Buddha asks about the other four aggregates (the mental aggregates) of vedanā, saññā, saṅkhāra, and viññāṇa.

- Venerable Ānanda agrees that those are also unfit to be “taken as mine or my identity.”

Is It Wise to Take the Five Aggregates As “Me and Mine”?

10. The key point is that these suttā only talk about whether it is SUITABLE or WISE to take any of the five aggregates as me or mine.

- That pertains only to one’s view of a “me.” Getting rid of that VIEW is getting rid of sakkāya diṭṭhi.
- One may still have the feeling/perception of a “me.” That goes away only at the Arahant stage.
- Yet many people today try to start with “I do not exist” (with the incorrect translation of anatta as “no-self”). It is ridiculous to say, “I do not exist.” It is obvious that we all exist.
- We will discuss the concept of anatta in the next post. That basically says one will be helpless in the rebirth process with the wrong view and wrong perception of a “me.” That “me” will go through uncountable “bad births” with that wrong view/perception of a “me.”

One Could Be Reborn a Human, Deva, Brahma, Animal, Hell-Being – Which One Is “Me”?

11. Think about that. Is “me” a human, animal, a Brahma, (or any of the many births possible)? This is why one cannot comprehend Buddha Dhamma without understanding the “big picture” of the Buddha about this world.

- That “big picture” is the non-stop rebirth process within the 31 realms of this world.
- It also includes the laws of kamma and Paṭicca Samuppāda. Here, Paṭicca Samuppāda explains how different existences (bhava) arise due to abhisaṅkhāra (strong kamma.)
- It is those abhisaṅkhāra (done with avijjā) that lead to different existences as a human, Deva, Brahma, animal, hell-being, etc.
- Any living-being will be “preparing one’s own future births” via generating corresponding abhisaṅkhāra (or good bad kamma) due to ignorance (avijjā.) That was the conclusion of the series of posts on “Origin of Life.” See, “Origin of Life – One Creates One’s Own Future Lives.”
- That avijjā will reduce by a huge fraction when one gets rid of sakkāya diṭṭhi. It will completely go away at the Arahant stage with the removal of “asmi māna.”

auto
Posts: 1628
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:02 pm

Re: The teachings of Ven. Waharaka Abhayaratanalankara Thero

Post by auto »

Lal wrote:
Tue Jun 30, 2020 10:58 am
“Taṃ kiṃ maññasi, ānanda, rūpaṃ niccaṃ vā aniccaṃ vā”ti?
“Aniccaṃ, bhante”.
“Yaṃ panāniccaṃ dukkhaṃ vā taṃ sukhaṃ vā”ti?
“Dukkhaṃ, bhante”.
“Yaṃ panāniccaṃ dukkhaṃ vipariṇāmadhammaṃ, kallaṃ nu taṃ samanupassituṃ: ‘etaṃ mama, esohamasmi, eso me attā’”ti?
“No hetaṃ, bhante”.

Translation:

“What do you think, Ānanda? Can anyone maintain rūpa to one’s liking?”
“One cannot (aniccam), Bhante.”
“If one cannot maintain something to one’s liking, does the lead to suffering or happiness?”
“Suffering, Bhante.”
“If something cannot be maintained to one’s liking, leads to suffering, and is subject to unexpected changes, is it wise to regard that as: ‘This is mine, I am this, this is my self or identity’?”
“No, Bhante.”
Then the Buddha asks about the other four aggregates (the mental aggregates) of vedanā, saññā, saṅkhāra, and viññāṇa.
hmm,
take Sutta mn 75 you posted earlier.
https://suttacentral.net/mn75/en/sujato wrote: These sentient beings who are not free from sensual pleasures—being consumed by craving for sensual pleasures, burning with passion for sensual pleasures—have impaired sense faculties. So even though sensual pleasures are actually painful to touch, they have a distorted perception that they are pleasant.
Ime ca, māgaṇḍiya, sattā kāmesu avītarāgā kāmataṇhāhi khajjamānā kāmapariḷāhena pariḍayhamānā upahatindriyā dukkhasamphassesuyeva kāmesu sukhamiti viparītasaññaṃ paccalatthuṃ.
Khandhas being anicca or nicca is dependent on sense faculties(impairment/upahata). Impaired senses are burning and if to touch them they are painful.
Now comes in the term viparīta. Acquisition that there still is possible to get some kind of pleasure out of it.
Suppose there was a person affected by leprosy, with sores and blisters on their limbs. Being devoured by worms, scratching with their nails at the opening of their wounds, they’re cauterizing their body over a pit of glowing coals.
The more they scratch their wounds and cauterize their body, the more their wounds become foul, stinking, and infected.

But still, they derive a degree of pleasure and gratification from the itchiness of their wounds.
Like you see something cringe and then facepalm yourself. Facepalming is acquisition.

In the Sutta mn 75 quote the person has distorted acquisition as of doing kamma by way of a body, voice or mentally.
Third step,
https://suttacentral.net/sn22.159/en/sujato wrote:“But if it’s impermanent, suffering, and liable to fall apart, is it fit to be regarded thus:“Yaṃ panāniccaṃ dukkhaṃ vipariṇāmadhammaṃ, kallaṃ nu taṃ samanupassituṃ:‘This is mine, I am this, this is my self’?”‘etaṃ mama, esohamasmi, eso me attā’”ti?
craving is origin of sakkaya and five grasping aggregates are identity,
https://suttacentral.net/mn44/en/sujato wrote:“Visākha, the Buddha said that these five grasping aggregates are identity.
..
craving for sensual pleasures, craving to continue existence, and craving to end existence.kāmataṇhā bhavataṇhā vibhavataṇhā;The Buddha said that this is the origin of identity.”ayaṃ kho, āvuso visākha, sakkāyasamudayo vutto bhagavatā”ti.
idea of disregarding distorted behavior by foreseeing, direct seeing. First by asking is facepalming your doing or is it kamma? and if it is understood as not self or not your doing then there needs be reacquisition.
“Seeing this …“Evaṃ passaṃ … pe …They understand: ‘… there is no return to any state of existence.’”nāparaṃ itthattāyāti pajānātī”ti.
possible the five grasping aggregates refer to the things you do by habit, inclination or practice.

also grasping has sense consciousness as their objects. So can easily derive that the habit to fart or have pleasant feeling arise from making dirty jokes etc is distortion of that is fun, yeah prolly for you but it is actually painful.
https://suttacentral.net/vb16/en/thittila wrote:The five types of sense consciousness are not roots; are not accompanied by roots; are not associated with roots; are with cause; are conditioned; are not material; are mundane; are objects of the defilements; are objects of the fetters; are objects of the ties; are objects of the floods; are objects of the bonds; are objects of the hindrances; are objects of the perversions; are objects of the graspings;
is your view still existential like if the self exist or not or something like what i presented above? i mean you still figuring out things based on if the self exist or not or if it weren't there to begin with or will be gone later after parinibbana etc.

User avatar
zerotime
Posts: 196
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: The teachings of Ven. Waharaka Abhayaratanalankara Thero

Post by zerotime »

sorry for break; just one question:
Lal wrote:
Thu May 28, 2020 1:39 pm
Translated: “And what, bhikkhus, is the path leading to the origination of identity view? Here, bhikkhus, an ignorant person who has not heard Dhamma … regards form as self … vedana as self … sañña as self … sa?khara as self … viñña?a as self“
not only your case because it appears in many places. I mean, when we hear or read the -self translated as an "identity view".
When we say "I am X", like "I am George" or "I am a driver", here "George" and "driver" are identities. However, the -self is developed in the "I am".

Atta means individuation. Arising and grasping of atta is previous and a condition for the establishment of some identity.

Lal wrote: Does “Anicca” Mean “Impermanence”?

7. It is quite common these days to see the Pali word “anicca” translated as “impermanence.” We can see the error in such a translation by looking at a simple sutta.

- For example, the “Nandikkhaya Sutta (SN 22.51),” among others, state: “Aniccaññeva, bhikkhave, bhikkhu rupa? aniccanti passati. Sassa hoti sammadi??hi.” or “A bhikkhu who sees rupa (form) as anicca has seen the anicca nature. He has Samma Di??hi.”
- Most English translations INCORRECTLY translate that verse as “A bhikkhu who sees form as impermanent has seen the anicca nature. He has Samma Di??hi.”
- Any reputable scientist knows that NO MATERIAL OBJECT in this world has permanent existence. See the following Scientific American article: “The Only Thing That Remains Constant Is Change.” : https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/ob ... is-change/ Does that mean those scientists all have “Samma Di??hi” and have attained Nibbana? Of course not. Therefore, it must be clear that “anicca” CANNOT mean just “impermanence.”
- We will discuss the real meanings of anatta and anicca in detail in this series in future posts.
[...]

- Very briefly, the meanings are as follows. Icca means desire. If we believe that it is possible to fulfill that desire and totally content, that is the perception of nicca. The opposite of nicca is anicca.
[...]
- The intrinsic nature of this world is “anicca,“ i.e., we will never get what we crave for, and thus at the end (at least at death), we will leave all this behind and suffer, that is dukkha.
this is interesting and the reason for my question.

I don't know enough Pali, although my doubt with this anicca notion is: It isn't a repetition of dukkha?.
In short, what you mean is "unsatisfactory" which is a notion inside dukkha, and I ask myself how can we develop the 3 characteristics: anicca, anatta, dukkha. I try to develop this point:

you writes "Any reputable scientist knows that NO MATERIAL OBJECT in this world has permanent existence". Therefore you leave that impermanent nature as something obvious and not needed inside the 3 characteristics.

However, this is not so obvious in any way because our common experience of the Reality is very tangled inside that while we cannot see it. Impermanence is not only related with the physical stability of the grasped objects. In example, it also can means the knowledge of the experience of our own life while we live as if the death was non existent to us.

When there is craving for something (desirable or not) at that same moment there is no notion of the impermanent nature of what is pleasurable in the object, and in that way the craving and attachment can be developed and it can grow. So, it doesn't mean only the knowledge of decay in the physical nature of the object (rupa) but also the decay of the idea of that object (nama).

Do we think any reputable scientist knows that no mental object in this world has permanent existence?. It doesn't care Nobel Prize or illiterate, both can be ass in this issue.

When we see a fire we know what is it. Fire is beautiful, hot pleasurable, even hypnotic. However, we don't develop the needed craving and attachment to go inside because we know what is the fire and how it works. In that knowledge it is also included the impermanent nature of the pleasure the fire give us. And we know that we need some distance to appreciate the beauty of fire and getting some hot without being damaged. In front the fire, all we behave like anagamins. However, we lack of the same knowledge and position in front the endless objects of attachment arising without stop.

The anicca nature of what is pleasurable in the object it should mean also the knowledge of decay of the pleasurable nature, which in fact is not kept by the object but by the -self. If we restrict anicca only to a notion of "no fulfilling the expected wish" then this knowledge would be missing from the 3: anatta, anicca and dukkha.
How could we solve this?

Lal
Posts: 491
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2016 11:39 am

Re: The teachings of Ven. Waharaka Abhayaratanalankara Thero

Post by Lal »

@zerotime:
you write "Any reputable scientist knows that NO MATERIAL OBJECT in this world has permanent existence". Therefore you leave that impermanent nature as something obvious and not needed inside the 3 characteristics.
Two points.
1. The impermanent nature is part of anicca. But anicca means much more than impermanence.
2. Impermanence does not always lead to suffering. But anicca nature (that nothing can be maintained to one's satisfaction) is always true.
The anicca nature of what is pleasurable in the object it should mean also the knowledge of decay of the pleasurable nature, which in fact is not kept by the object but by the -self. If we restrict anicca only to a notion of "no fulfilling the expected wish" then this knowledge would be missing from the 3: anatta, anicca and dukkha.
How could we solve this?
Even though the anicca nature holds for anything in this world, we need to focus on how it relates to future suffering. We suffer because of two general occurrences:
1. We would like pleasurable experiences to continue.
2. We want unpleasant, distressful, and painful experiences to stop.

Anicca nature means both those CANNOT happen. In the first case, the wish is to maintain the pleasurable experiences. In the second case, the wish is to immediately stop the bad experiences.
- For example, when one gets a good birth like a human or Deva, one would want that to continue. But that is not going to happen.
- One would not want to born as an animal or worse. But that cannot be stopped (in the long run) either. That is until one comprehends this real nature of the world and attains Nibbana (at least the Sotapanna stage of Nibbana).

Of course, there is a lot more that goes into the explanation. One ends up bad births (like an animal birth) because one tends to do immoral deeds to get hold of "pleasurable things". Such deeds are done because one has the opposite view that nature is of "nicca nature" (i.e., one will be able to enjoy that pleasure and don't need to worry about the consequences of such immoral deeds).
- One needs to read previous posts to understand those "connections".
- This is why grasping Buddha Dhamma REQUIRES one to be aware of the laws of kamma, the rebirth process, the existence of 31 realms (not just the two that we see, i.e., human and animal realms), etc.

P.S. I have revised #2 at the top since it did not really convey what I wanted to convey.
Last edited by Lal on Wed Jul 01, 2020 10:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
zerotime
Posts: 196
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: The teachings of Ven. Waharaka Abhayaratanalankara Thero

Post by zerotime »

Lal wrote:
Wed Jul 01, 2020 3:54 pm

Two points.
1. The impermanent nature is part of anicca. But anicca means much more than impermanence.
2. Also, impermanence applies to material things. But anicca applies to anything (even mental attributes) as I explained.
not sure if you mean impermanence only is applied to material things but we read:

"Eye-consciousness too is impermanent. For how could eye-consciousness arisen by depending on an impermanent condition be permanent? The coincidence, concurrence, and confluence of these three factors which is called contact and those other mental phenomena arising as a result are also impermanent."
— SN 35.93


here we check with the present translations also impermanence is applied to nama objects (vinnana).

Although I understand the other part you writes, in where you says anicca is endowed with that sense of a non-fulfilling wish. It is intgeresting. I wonder if maybe it can be contained in some way inside the classical translation of "impermanence" because all impermanent things are unsatisfactory by its own nature. We cannot get satisfaction from changing things. Even if we think we are getting pleasure from a changing thing, the attachment would be towards an stable situation in where some pleasurable perception of change works only like an appearence to become attached to the stable nature in the object Think in example if we get pleasure by looking a flashing light from some car, or any other pleasurable changing perception. Now is on, now is off.... and such perceived change can be some source of pleasure. It can be.

However, I suppose the change in Dhamma is not referred directly to that appearence of a change that we grasp from the object but it should be linked to the arising idea from that object. In fact, all is changing in a higher speed of what we can conceive, and what we name "change" is more related with the arising idea we have.

Anyway, the added sense you writes is interesting. I don't have knowledge to know Pali details to judge a better exact translation. Just I have the feeling that both ingredients can be in the same sauce. For the rest of your message I agree.

When in point 1 you writes the impermanent nature is part of your notion of anicca then maybe this can be more a problem for translators to choose the best term because that ingredient is too much related

Lal
Posts: 491
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2016 11:39 am

Re: The teachings of Ven. Waharaka Abhayaratanalankara Thero

Post by Lal »

Anicca, Dukkha, Anatta – According to Some Key Suttā

The key to understanding the First Noble Truth (Dukkha Sacca; pronounced “dukkha sachcha”) is to understand the Three Characteristics or Tilakkhana of “this wider world of 31 realms”, i.e., anicca, dukkha, anatta. Let us discuss a few key suttā.

Dhamma Cakka Pavattana Sutta (SN 56.11)

1. How suffering arises from anicca is explicitly described in the very first sutta, Dhamma Cakka Pavattana Sutta (SN 56.11). Here is the text from the sutta:

Idam kho pana, bhikkhave, dukkham ariyasaccam:

jātipi dukkhā, jarāpi dukkhā, byādhipi dukkho, maraṇampi dukkhāṃ, appiyehi sampayogo dukkho, piyehi vippayogo dukkho, yampicchaṃ na labhati tampi dukkhāṃ—saṃkhittena pañcu­pādā­nak­khan­dhā dukkhā.


2. Bhikkhus, What is the Noble Truth of Suffering?

jātipi dukkhā” means “birth causes suffering” (all births end up in suffering and death). “jarā pi dukkhā” means, “decay of something that is liked causes suffering.” And “maranan pi dukkhā” means, “Death of a liked causes suffering.”
Then comes, “..appiyehi sampayogo dukkho, piyehi vippayogo dukkho,” meaning, “it brings sorrow when a loved one has to depart, and it also brings sorrow to be with a hated person.”
3. And then the summary of all that: “yamp’iccham (yam pi iccham) na labhati tam’pi dukkhām.” Here we see, “ichcha” that we encountered in both anicca and anatta, and also in Paṭicca Samuppāda (“pati+ichcha” “sama+uppāda”). And “labhati” means “get.”

Thus, “If one does not get what one likes, that leads to suffering.” This phrase has everything condensed. That is anicca. It does not say suffering arises because of impermanence.
For details, see, “Does the First Noble Truth Describe only Suffering?“.
Note that icca and iccha (ඉච්ච and ඉච්ඡ in Sinhala) are used interchangeably in the Tipiṭaka under different suttā, as you can see below. The word “iccha” with the emphasis on the last syllable indicates “strong icca” or “strong attachment”.
For correct pronunciations see, “Tipiṭaka English” Convention Adopted by Early European Scholars – Part 1.”

Anatta Lakkhana Sutta

4. The Buddha delivered Anattā Lakkhana Sutta (SN 22.59) to the five ascetics within a fortnight of the above first sutta. The following are some questions that the Buddha asked the ascetics.

"Taṃ kiṃ maññatha, bhikkhave, rūpaṃ niccaṃaniccaṃ vā”ti?

Aniccaṃ, Bhante.”
Yaṃ panāniccaṃ dukkhaṃ vā taṃ sukhaṃ vā”ti?

Dukkhaṃ, Bhante.”
Yaṃ panāniccaṃ dukkhaṃ vipari­ṇāma­dhammaṃ, kallaṃ nu taṃ samanupassituṃ: ‘etaṃ mama, esohamasmi, eso me attā’”ti?

No, hetaṃ, Bhante.”


5. The first question was, “Bhikkhus: is any rūpa nicca or anicca?” or “Bhikkhus: can any rūpa be kept to one’s satisfaction or cannot be kept to one’s satisfaction?”

And the bhikkhus answer: “It cannot be kept to one’s satisfaction, Venerable Sir”.

- Here it is to be noted that “rūpa” can be either internal or external. There are many rūpa in this world that are “permanent,” at least compared to our lifetimes. For example, an item made of gold or a diamond can last millions of years. But neither can be kept to “our satisfaction” since we will have to give them up when we die.

6. The second question: “Will such an entity lead to suffering or happiness?” And the bhikkhus answer: “Suffering, Venerable Sir”.

- Here it is essential to see that if an entity is not permanent, whether that will lead to suffering: How many people suffered when Bin Laden got killed? Only those who liked him to live! Many people rejoiced in his demise. See details in “Does the First Noble Truth Describe only Suffering?“.
- The third question: “Will such an entity that cannot be kept to one’s satisfaction, that leads to suffering, and is a viparināma dhamma, should be considered as “myself or mine, or has any substance?” And the bhikkhus answer: “No reason to think so, Venerable Sir”.
Then the Buddha explained that those characteristics of anicca, dukkha, anatta also hold for vedanā, saññā, saṅkhārā, viññāṇa.

Anicca, Dukkha, Anatta Are Related and Universal

7. Here we need to pay attention to the sequence of the three questions. The Buddha was pointing out that no “rūpa” can be kept to our satisfaction. Forming attāchment to such rūpa will lead to suffering. Therefore, there is no reason to consider them having any substance. Anicca leads to dukkhā and anatta because we have nicca saññā about such (anicca) rūpa.

- Of course, the same holds for vedanā, saññā, saṅkhārā, viññāṇa.
- This relationship among anicca, dukkha, anatta was pointed out as “Yad aniccaṃ taṃ dukkhaṃ, yaṃ dukkhaṃ tad anattā.” in the Ajjhattānicca Sutta in the Samyutta Nikāya. See, “Anicca, dukkhā, Anattā – Wrong Interpretations“.
- Therefore, anicca, dukkha, anatta are UNIVERSAL characteristics applicable to anything in this world.

Impermanence Does Not Always Lead to Suffering

8. It is essential to realize that the Buddha was not referring to just one’s body. Anicca applies to all saṅkhāra and sankata. Nothing in this world can be kept to our satisfaction: “Sabbē saṅkhārā aniccā”. By the way, it is superfluous to say, “all saṅkhāra are impermanent.” Of course, all saṅkhāra arise and fall. How can saṅkhāra be permanent anyway?

- Furthermore, “impermanence” does not ALWAYS lead to suffering. When Osama bin Laden died, most people were happy.
- However, bin Laden’s death caused suffering to his followers. In both cases, the statement, “if something cannot be maintained to one’s satisfaction, that causes suffering” holds. The death of bin Laden caused suffering only to his followers.
- If we have a headache/injury/disease, and if it became permanent, would we not suffer? It is a good thing that those conditions are impermanent so that we can get rid of them with medical treatment.

9. We strive to accumulate “good stuff,” but will have to leave them all behind at death. When we go through the rebirth process, we just repeat this process in each life.

- In most rebirths, the suffering is great, and in some, there is happiness (human, deva, and Brahma realms.) But such “good rebirths” are encountered very rarely. The Buddha said that the lowest four realms are the “home base” for the living beings; they may visit other realms once-in-a-while, but always have to come back and spend the most time in the home base.
- That is why the Buddha said this never-ending process of the cycle of rebirths, where we suffer so much, is fruitless, and one is truly helpless. That is anattā.
- It does not make sense to say because of anicca and dukkhā, we have “no-self” or “no-soul”. Instead, as long as we have the wrong perception of anicca about anything in “this world”, we are subject to suffering, and thus we are truly helpless, anattā.

Girimananda Sutta

10. Girimananda Sutta (AN 10.60) is another critical sutta in the Tipiṭaka that describes anicca in the most profound sense. The Buddha delivered this sutta to Ven. Ananda (for him to recite to Ven. Girimananda, an Arahant, who was in pain due to an ailment). Here is a key phrase (in the middle of the sutta):

Katamā cānanda (ca Ananda), sabba­saṅ­khā­resu aniccha saññā?

Idhānanda (Idha Ananda) bhikkhu sabba­saṅ­khā­resu aṭṭīyati harāyati jigucchati.

Ayaṃ vuccatānanda (vuccati Ananda), sabba­saṅ­khā­resu aniccha saññā.


Translated:

“Ananda, What is the (correct) perception of all saṅkhāra?

“Ananda, all saṅkhāra are like meatless bones, without substance, to be rejected like urine and feces.”

“That is Ananda, how one should perceive all saṅkhāra.”

11. Here the Buddha is describing the characteristics of all saṅkhāra (“sabba” is “all”).

- “Aṭṭi” is “bone”. A dog enjoys chewing a bone. But a bone has no nutrition or taste. Most of the time, the dog’s gum starts bleeding, and that is what it tastes. But the dog does not realize that and values a bone very highly.
- “Hara” is “substance”, and “harāyati” is without substance.
- Furthermore, “ji” and “gu” (pronounced “Jee” and “goo”) are the Pāli and Sinhala words for “urine” and “feces”. As we already know, “icca” (Pronounced “ichcha”) means “like”. Thus “jiguccati” pronounced “jiguchchathi” means “it is no different than liking urine or feces”. Note that “jiguccati” is “ji” + “gu” + iccati” means “a liking for urine and feces.”
- All (abhi)saṅkhāra should be avoided (but this applies only at the Arahant stage).

12. Another critical point here is to note that the Buddha was talking about the “anicca saññā”, where saññā or perception is one of the main mental factors or cētasika. Anicca is a perception in our minds as we pointed out in the discussion on the Anattā Lakkhana Sutta above.

- Impermanence is a physical reality of things in the universe. Scientists know quite well that nothing in our universe is permanent. But that does not provide them with the perception of anicca. No scientist can attain Nibbāna via comprehending impermanence.

Anicca Does Not Mean Impermanence

13. Thus it is quite clear that anicca does not mean “impermanence”. The Pāli words for impermanence are aniyata and addhuva. Once one understands the true nature of the world, one will realize that any saṅkhāra (thought, speech, and action that is focused on attāining pleasurable things) is not to be valued. None can be maintained to one’s satisfaction and will only lead to suffering at the end.

- The fruitlessness of ALL saṅkhāra is perceived only at the Arahant stage. We cannot even begin to comprehend that yet. That is why an Arahant is said to see the burden associated with even breathing (which is a kāya saṅkhāra). Anything we do to live in this world is a saṅkhāra.
- Initially, we should try to comprehend the unsuitability of apunnābhi abhisaṅkhāra, those associated with immoral actions. Since we can grasp the consequences of such sinful actions, we CAN get our minds to reject them. That is enough to get to the Sotāpanna stage.
- Once we do that, our cleansed minds can begin to see the fruitlessness of punnābhi abhisaṅkhāra, and then even the pleasures of arupavacara jhānic states (anenjhabhi abhisaṅkhāra).

Iccha Sutta (Samyutta Nikāya)

14. The Iccha Sutta (SN 1.69) clearly describes what “icca” (and thus what anicca) is:

Kenassu bajjhatī loko, kissa vinayāya muccati;
Kissassu vippahānena, sabbaṃ chindati bandhanan” ti
.

Icchāya bajjhatī loko, icchā vinayāya muccati;
Icchāya vippahānena, sabbaṃ chindati bandhanan”ti
.

Translated:

“What binds the world together? How does one get released? How can one gain release?”

“The world is bound by iccha; one becomes free by losing iccha, one becomes free of all bonds by losing iccha.”

The word “icca” means “liking” and is closely related to “nicca”. Of course, “nicca” means the perception that one can maintain those things to one’s satisfaction (and “anicca” implies the opposite: “na + icca”). The perception of nicca leads to icca, i.e., one believes that worldly things can provide everlasting happiness, and thus one likes to hold on to them. Just like an octopus grabs stuff with all its eight legs and will not let go, humans (and other beings too) grab onto to worldly things with the hope of enjoying them.

- Note that in this sutta, the word “iccha” is used instead of “icca” to emphasize that “strong attachment” as in the Dhamma Cakka Pavattana Sutta discussed above.

The Key Problem with Sutta Interpretations

15. There are many, many suttā in the Tipiṭaka that describe anicca, dukkha, anatta. But if one starts with the wrong interpretations, some of those suttā can be interpreted the wrong way. Many suttā do not describe the relevant concepts in detail. Instead, a suttā provides a brief description or the niddēsa version. The commentaries (Sinhala Atthakathā) were supposed to give the detailed (patiniddēsa) explanations; see, “Sutta – Introduction“.

- The root cause for the confusion has been the acceptance of the Visuddhimagga by Buddhaghosa as THE key commentary by Theravada tradition.
- Nowadays, most bhikkhus do not read the Tipiṭaka or the remaining three original commentaries that are in the Tipiṭaka. They just follow what is in the Visuddhimagga. That has been the single-most obstacle for people attāining Nibbāna for the past many hundreds of years.
- Luckily, we have three of the original commentaries (even earlier than the Sinhala Atthakathā) preserved in the Tipiṭaka. See, “Misinterpretations of Buddha Dhamma” and “Preservation of the Dhamma“.

Then there is the following sutta which clearly states that the Buddha rejected both “self” and “no-self”, even according to conventional translations.

Channa SuttaAnatta Does Not Mean “No-Self”

16. The “Channa Sutta (SN 22.90)” clearly says anatta does not mean “no-self,” even in a “traditional” English translation: “Channa Sutta: To Channa (SN 22.90) “:https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
“Everything exists”: That is one extreme. “Everything doesn’t exist”: That is a second extreme. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle: From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications. From fabrications, consciousness. Similarly, to name-&-form, the six sense faculties, contact, feeling, craving, clinging/sustenance, becoming (bhava), and birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. Such is the origination of this entire mass of stress & suffering.”

- “Everything doesn’t exist” in the above translates to “no-self” when applied to a “living being.” As far as a “person” is concerned, “self” is one extreme, and “no-self” is the other extreme. Therefore, it wrong to say either “a person exists” or “a person does not exist.”
- Most Theravada websites (including the above sites) and texts today translate “anatta” as “no-self.” But, it is clear from their translations (especially of the Channa Sutta) that the Buddha rejected this “no-self” view.
- Whether it is a living being or the whole world, it is not correct to say they "exist" or "do not exist." Things exist when suitable causes and conditions (per Paṭicca Samuppāda) are there.

Also, the Pāli word atta can have two very different meanings. I will discuss that in the next post.

User avatar
zerotime
Posts: 196
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: The teachings of Ven. Waharaka Abhayaratanalankara Thero

Post by zerotime »

Lal wrote:
Thu Jul 02, 2020 3:09 pm
5. The first question was, “Bhikkhus: is any rūpa nicca or anicca?” or “Bhikkhus: can any rūpa be kept to one’s satisfaction or cannot be kept to one’s satisfaction?”

And the bhikkhus answer: “It cannot be kept to one’s satisfaction, Venerable Sir”.
when I try to accept that sense, How one should understand Suttas like this? - MN 147 :

"And is it fitting to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: 'This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am'?"
"No, lord."
"What do you think, Rahula — is the ear constant or inconstant?"
"Inconstant, lord" ...
"What do you think, Rahula — is the nose constant or inconstant?"
"Inconstant, lord" ...
"What do you think, Rahula — is the tongue constant or inconstant?"
"Inconstant, lord" ...
"What do you think, Rahula — is the body constant or inconstant?"
"Inconstant, lord" ...


It would mean "we cannot keep the ear, nose.. (etc) to our own satisfaction"?.
How such type of phrases inside the Suttas can be meaningful?

In the Pali tr. at each part it says: "Aniccaṃ bhante." Here the translator uses "Inconstant" so it mean there is no intention to inoculate "impermanent" at any price but he try to keep the sense of change. That sense of change can be supported in other Suttas like here: SN 36.7 :

"Sensing a feeling of pleasure, he discerns that it is inconstant, not grasped at, not relished. Sensing a feeling of pain... Sensing a feeling of neither-pleasure-nor-pain, he discerns that it is inconstant, not grasped at, not relished. Sensing a feeling of pleasure, he senses it disjoined from it. Sensing a feeling of pain... Sensing a feeling of neither-pleasure-nor-pain, he senses it disjoined from it. When sensing a feeling limited to the body, he discerns that 'I am sensing a feeling limited to the body.' When sensing a feeling limited to life, he discerns that 'I am sensing a feeling limited to life.'"


here it seems the purpose wouldn't be understand the impossibility to get satisfaction from the objects but getting more dettachment because its changing nature, so the purpose is it can be leaved finally to the only scope of the body-sense. In this way, at the end he says: "that 'I am sensing a feeling limited to the body"

If we change "inconstant" by "without satisfaction":

"Sensing a feeling of pleasure, he discerns that it is without satisfaction, not grasped at, not relished. Sensing a feeling of pain, he discerns that it is without satisfaction, not grasped at, not relished. Sensing a feeling of neither-pleasure-nor-pain, he discerns that it is without satisfaction, not grasped at, not relished. Sensing a feeling of pleasure, he senses it disjoined from it. Sensing a feeling of pain... Sensing a feeling of neither-pleasure-nor-pain, he senses it disjoined from it. When sensing a feeling limited to the body, he discerns that 'I am sensing a feeling limited to the body.' When sensing a feeling limited to life, he discerns that 'I am sensing a feeling limited to life.'"


I note the: "Sensing a feeling of pain, he discerns that it is without satisfaction". It's sound strange to me while a feeling of pain and of neither-pleasure-nor-pain are not a source of satifaction to be fulfilled. Where it can be the sense?

I ask to understand. Thanks!

Lal
Posts: 491
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2016 11:39 am

Re: The teachings of Ven. Waharaka Abhayaratanalankara Thero

Post by Lal »

You have revered the verses in the first few verses that you quoted.

Here is the Pali version: "Cūḷarāhulovāda Sutta (MN 147)" : https://suttacentral.net/mn147/pli/ms

Here is the English translation at Sutta Central: "The Shorter Advice to Rāhula": https://suttacentral.net/mn147/en/sujato

Here are the relevant verses that appear first in MN 147:

“Taṃ kiṃ maññasi, rāhula, cakkhu niccaṃ vā aniccaṃ vā”ti?

“Aniccaṃ, bhante”.

“Yaṃ panāniccaṃ dukkhaṃ vā taṃ sukhaṃ vā”ti?

“Dukkhaṃ, bhante”.

“Yaṃ panāniccaṃ dukkhaṃ vipariṇāmadhammaṃ, kallaṃ nu taṃ samanupassituṃ: ‘etaṃ mama, esohamasmi, eso me attā’”ti?


Here is the English translation of that from Sutta Central:

“What do you think, Rāhula? Is the eye permanent or impermanent?”

“Impermanent, sir.”

“But if it’s impermanent, is it suffering or happiness?”

“Suffering, sir.”

“But if it’s impermanent, suffering, and perishable, is it fit to be regarded thus: ‘This is mine, I am this, this is my self’?”

The following is #4 from my post above:

4. The Buddha delivered Anattā Lakkhana Sutta (SN 22.59) to the five ascetics within a fortnight of the above first sutta. The following are some questions that the Buddha asked the ascetics.

"Taṃ kiṃ maññatha, bhikkhave, rūpaṃ niccaṃ vā aniccaṃ vā”ti?

“Aniccaṃ, Bhante.”
“Yaṃ panāniccaṃ dukkhaṃ vā taṃ sukhaṃ vā”ti?

“Dukkhaṃ, Bhante.”
“Yaṃ panāniccaṃ dukkhaṃ vipari­ṇāma­dhammaṃ, kallaṃ nu taṃ samanupassituṃ: ‘etaṃ mama, esohamasmi, eso me attā’”ti?

“No, hetaṃ, Bhante.”


As you can see both suttas (MN 147 and SN 22.59) state the same verses. Those statements apply to cakkhu, rupa, cakkhuviññāṇaṃ, and many other entities as I explained in the post.

Following is my translation from my post:

5. The first question was, “Bhikkhus: is any rūpa nicca or anicca?” or “Bhikkhus: can any rūpa be kept to one’s satisfaction or cannot be kept to one’s satisfaction?”

And the bhikkhus answer: “It cannot be kept to one’s satisfaction, Venerable Sir”.

- Here it is to be noted that “rūpa” can be either internal or external. There are many rūpa in this world that are “permanent,” at least compared to our lifetimes. For example, an item made of gold or a diamond can last millions of years. But neither can be kept to “our satisfaction” since we will have to give them up when we die.

6. The second question: “Will such an entity lead to suffering or happiness?” And the bhikkhus answer: “Suffering, Venerable Sir”.

- Here it is essential to see that if an entity is not permanent, whether that will lead to suffering: How many people suffered when Bin Laden got killed? Only those who liked him to live! Many people rejoiced in his demise. See details in “Does the First Noble Truth Describe only Suffering?“.
- The third question: “Will such an entity that cannot be kept to one’s satisfaction, that leads to suffering, and is a viparināma dhamma, should be considered as “myself or mine, or has any substance?” And the bhikkhus answer: “No reason to think so, Venerable Sir”.

So, you can see that difference in translations is due to what is meant by the Pali words nicca and anicca.

What I have tried to explain is that the Sutta Central translation is not correct. It is essential to understand the whole post. You should also compare the Sutta Central translations of the other suttas for my corresponding translations.
- One needs to understand that there MUST be consistency among all Tipitaka suttas. Furthermore, they MUST make sense too.
- For example, I have explained why translating "anicca" as "impermanent" (or "inconstant" in the translation that you quoted) does not make sense.

auto
Posts: 1628
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:02 pm

Re: The teachings of Ven. Waharaka Abhayaratanalankara Thero

Post by auto »

Lal wrote:
Thu Jul 02, 2020 3:09 pm
14. The Iccha Sutta (SN 1.69) clearly describes what “icca” (and thus what anicca) is:

Kenassu bajjhatī loko, kissa vinayāya muccati;
Kissassu vippahānena, sabbaṃ chindati bandhanan” ti
.

Icchāya bajjhatī loko, icchā vinayāya muccati;
Icchāya vippahānena, sabbaṃ chindati bandhanan”ti
.

Translated:

“What binds the world together? How does one get released? How can one gain release?”

“The world is bound by iccha; one becomes free by losing iccha, one becomes free of all bonds by losing iccha.”

The word “icca” means “liking” and is closely related to “nicca”. Of course, “nicca” means the perception that one can maintain those things to one’s satisfaction (and “anicca” implies the opposite: “na + icca”). The perception of nicca leads to icca, i.e., one believes that worldly things can provide everlasting happiness, and thus one likes to hold on to them. Just like an octopus grabs stuff with all its eight legs and will not let go, humans (and other beings too) grab onto to worldly things with the hope of enjoying them.

- Note that in this sutta, the word “iccha” is used instead of “icca” to emphasize that “strong attachment” as in the Dhamma Cakka Pavattana Sutta discussed above.

The Key Problem with Sutta Interpretations
Iccha is more to do with chandarāgo
https://suttacentral.net/sn1.69/en/sujato wrote: “Desire is what binds the world.“Icchāya bajjhatī loko,
By the removing of desire it’s freed.icchāvinayāya muccati;
see,
https://suttacentral.net/sn22.121/en/sujato wrote: Form is something that’s prone to being grasped.Rūpaṃ, bhikkhave, upādāniyo dhammo,
The desire and greed for it is the grasping.yo tattha chandarāgo, taṃ tattha upādānaṃ.
and atta is something to do with sankhara,
https://suttacentral.net/sn22.81/en/sujato wrote: They regard form as self.rūpaṃ attato samanupassati.
But that regarding is just a conditioned phenomenon.Yā kho pana sā, bhikkhave, samanupassanā saṅkhāro so.
regarding/taking is conditioned act what has craving its origin,
https://suttacentral.net/sn22.81/en/sujato wrote:And what’s the source, origin, birthplace, and root of that conditioned phenomenon?So pana saṅkhāro kiṃnidāno kiṃsamudayo kiṃjātiko kiṃpabhavo?
When an uneducated ordinary person is struck by feelings born of contact with ignorance, craving arises.Avijjāsamphassajena, bhikkhave, vedayitena phuṭṭhassa assutavato puthujjanassa uppannā taṇhā;
from other sutta's(mn44) we can know that the craving is the origin of sakkaya/identity. So Sakkaya=saṅkhāra,
https://suttacentral.net/sn22.79/en/sujato wrote: Choices produce conditioned phenomena; that’s why they’re called ‘choices’.Saṅkhatamabhisaṅkharontīti kho, bhikkhave, tasmā ‘saṅkhārā’ti vuccati.
chandarāga=saṅkhāra will produce upādānakhandha=atta.
.
atta is the viññāṇa link in the dependent origination,
https://suttacentral.net/sn22.81/en/sujato wrote:When an uneducated ordinary person is struck by feelings born of contact with ignorance, craving arises.Avijjāsamphassajena, bhikkhave, vedayitena phuṭṭhassa assutavato puthujjanassa uppannā taṇhā;
it takes three things to form a contact; sense organ, its object and resultant consciousness(taken as atta),
https://suttacentral.net/sn12.44/en/sujato wrote:“And what, mendicants, is the origin of the world?“Katamo ca, bhikkhave, lokassa samudayo?
Eye consciousness arises dependent on the eye and sights. The meeting of the three is contact.Cakkhuñca paṭicca rūpe ca uppajjati cakkhuviññāṇaṃ. Tiṇṇaṃ saṅgati phasso.
It is eyes paṭicca over rupa what produces viññāṇa upādānakhandha. So coming to the first quote then it is eyes gets freed from the rupa, so that the resultant viññāṇa would cease and next time when coming aware you know viññāṇa ceased..i think it is vipassana as you noticing "being gone", you will literally remember, recollect in the present moment, sati sampajanna and maybe this mean the rupa jhana is attained.

Lal
Posts: 491
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2016 11:39 am

Re: The teachings of Ven. Waharaka Abhayaratanalankara Thero

Post by Lal »

@zerotime:

In the Following, I have made some revisions to the Sutta Central English translation by Bhikkhu Sujato. I have not made an attempt to provide necessary details, but just to provide the basic idea embedded in the Sutta.

The Shorter Advice to Rāhula (MN 147)

Thus I have heard. At one time the Buddha was staying near Sāvatthī in Jeta’s Grove, Anāthapiṇḍika’s monastery.

Then as he was in private retreat this thought came to his mind, “Rahula has now grasped the essentials to understand Dhamma that is needed to attain Nibbana. I need to instruct him the way to attain Nibbana by lessening cravings for worldly things”

Then the Buddha robed up in the morning and, taking his bowl and robe, entered Sāvatthī for alms.

After returning and after the meal, he addressed Venerable Rāhula, “Rāhula, let’s go to the Dark Forest for the day’s meditation.”
“Yes, sir,” replied Rāhula. He followed behind the Buddha.

Now at that time many thousands of deities (Devas) started following the Buddha, thinking, “Today the Buddha is going to teach Rāhula how to attain supreme Nibbana”

Then the Buddha entered the Dark Forest and sat at the root of a tree. Rāhula bowed to the Buddha and sat down to one side. The Buddha asked him:
“What do you think, Rāhula? Can you keep your eyes the way you like?”
“I cannot, sir.”
“Is that going to make you suffer or make you happy?”
“It will lead to suffering, sir.”
“If something cannot be maintained in the way one likes, if it leads to suffering, if it is subject to unexpected change and eventual destruction (vipariṇāmadhammaṃ), is it fit to be regarded thus: ‘This is mine, I am this, this is my self’?”
“No, sir.”

“What do you think, Rāhula? Can you keep those things that you see with your eyes the way you like?”
“I cannot, sir.”
“Is that going to make you suffer or make you happy?”
“It will lead to suffering, sir.”
“If something cannot be maintained in the way one likes, if it leads to suffering, if it is subject to unexpected change and eventual destruction (vipariṇāmadhammaṃ), is it fit to be regarded thus: ‘This is mine, I am this, this is my self’?”
“No, sir.”

“What do you think, Rāhula? Can you keep your eye-consciousness the way you like?” (meaning, can you just see only those things that please you?)
“I cannot, sir.”
“Is that going to make you suffer or make you happy?”
“It will lead to suffering, sir.”
“If something cannot be maintained in the way one likes, if it leads to suffering, if it is subject to unexpected change and eventual destruction (vipariṇāmadhammaṃ), is it fit to be regarded thus: ‘This is mine, I am this, this is my self’?”
“No, sir.”

“What do you think, Rāhula? Can you keep those defilements that arise due to eye contact (cakkhu samphasso) the way you like?” (This requires knowledge of the term “samphassa.” See, “Difference between Phassa and Samphassa” Nov 08, 2018 (p. 44))
“I cannot, sir.”
“Is that going to make you suffer or make you happy?”
“It will lead to suffering, sir.”
“If something cannot be maintained in the way one likes, if it leads to suffering, if it is subject to unexpected change and eventual destruction (vipariṇāmadhammaṃ), is it fit to be regarded thus: ‘This is mine, I am this, this is my self’?”
“No, sir.”

“What do you think, Rāhula? Anything included in feeling (vedana), perception (sanna), sankhara, and vinnana that arises conditioned by eye contact – can you keep those the way you like?”
“I cannot, sir.”
“Is that going to make you suffer or make you happy?”
“It will lead to suffering, sir.”
“If something cannot be maintained in the way one likes, if it leads to suffering, if it is subject to unexpected change and eventual destruction (vipariṇāmadhammaṃ), is it fit to be regarded thus: ‘This is mine, I am this, this is my self’?”
“No, sir.”

“What do you think, Rāhula? How about all things associated with the ear … nose … tongue … body … mind? Can you keep those the way you like?”
“I cannot, sir.”
“Is that going to make you suffer or make you happy?”
“It will lead to suffering, sir.”
“If something cannot be maintained in the way one likes, if it leads to suffering, if it is subject to unexpected change and eventual destruction (vipariṇāmadhammaṃ), is it fit to be regarded thus: ‘This is mine, I am this, this is my self’?”
“No, sir.”

“What do you think, Rāhula? Can you keep those dhamma (thoughts) that come to your mind the way you like?”
“I cannot, sir.”
“Is that going to make you suffer or make to happy?”
“It will lead to suffering, sir.”
“If something cannot be maintained in the way one likes, if it leads to suffering, if it is subject to unexpected change and eventual destruction (vipariṇāmadhammaṃ), is it fit to be regarded thus: ‘This is mine, I am this, this is my self’?”
“No, sir.”

“What do you think, Rāhula? Can you keep your mind-consciousness the way you like?”
“I cannot, sir.”
“Is that going to make you suffer or make to happy?”
“It will lead to suffering, sir.”
“If something cannot be maintained in the way one likes, if it leads to suffering, if it is subject to unexpected change and eventual destruction (vipariṇāmadhammaṃ), is it fit to be regarded thus: ‘This is mine, I am this, this is my self’?”
“No, sir.”

“What do you think, Rāhula? Can you keep those defilements that arise due to mind- contact (mano samphasso) the way you like?” (This requires knowledge of the term “samphassa.” See, “Difference between Phassa and Samphassa” Nov 08, 2018 (p. 44))?”
“I cannot, sir.”
“Is that going to make you suffer or make to happy?”
“It will lead to suffering, sir.”
“If something cannot be maintained in the way one likes, if it leads to suffering, if it is subject to unexpected change and eventual destruction (vipariṇāmadhammaṃ), is it fit to be regarded thus: ‘This is mine, I am this, this is my self’?”
“No, sir.”

“What do you think, Rāhula? Anything included in feeling (vedana), perception (sanna), sankhara, and vinnana that arises conditioned by mind-contact – can you keep those the way you like?”
“I cannot, sir.”
“Is that going to make you suffer or make to happy?”
“It will lead to suffering, sir.”
“If something cannot be maintained in the way one likes, if it leads to suffering, if it is subject to unexpected change and eventual destruction (vipariṇāmadhammaṃ), is it fit to be regarded thus: ‘This is mine, I am this, this is my self’?”
“No, sir.”

“Seeing this, Rāhula, a learned Noble Disciple (Ariya) would not crave the eye, sights, eye-consciousness, and eye contact. He would not crave anything included in feeling, perception, thoughts, and consciousness that arises due to eye-contact. He would not crave the ear … nose … tongue … body … mind, thoughts, mind-consciousness, and mind-contact. And would not crave anything included in feeling, perception, choices, and consciousness that arises conditioned by those contacts. When the cravings fade, desires fade away. When the desire fades away, he is freed. When he is freed, he will know that he is freed (that he has attained Nibbana).
He understands: ‘Rebirth is ended, the spiritual journey has been completed, what had to be done has been done, there is no return to any state of existence.’”

That is what the Buddha said. Satisfied, Venerable Rāhula was happy with what the Buddha said. And while this discourse was being spoken, Rāhula’s mind was freed from defilements. He had attained Nibbana (Arahanthood).

Furthermore, the pure vision of the Dhamma arose in those thousands of deities (Devas): “Everything that arises due to causes can be stopped from arising.” (meaning that rebirths in this word arise due to defilements in the mind. When those defilements or cravings are removed, rebirth process ends).

P.S. There is much more detail.

1. For example, in the beginning of the Sutta, the following verse is there: “What do you think, Rāhula? Can you keep your eyes the way you like?”
- This means two things. One cannot maintain one’s eye or eyesight to the way one likes in this life.
- Furthermore, one does not have control over what kind of eye would one get in future rebirths. If one is born a Deva, he will have a set of eyes suitable for a Deva. If he is reborn an animal, he would get a set of eyes suitable for an animal, etc.

2. In the same way, each term that the Buddha discussed above REQUIRES much more explanation. It is quite possible that Ven. Rahula had much of that understanding before this exchange. In fact, the sutta begins by the Buddha thinking that Ven. Rahula has sufficient background material to make the "final push."

3. This is why I keep saying that there much more to study before trying to grasp a deep sutta like this. One cannot expect to attain any stage of Nibbana (let alone Arahanthood) by just reading a brief word-by-word translation of a deep sutta.

User avatar
confusedlayman
Posts: 2139
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2019 12:16 am
Location: Human Realm

Re: The teachings of Ven. Waharaka Abhayaratanalankara Thero

Post by confusedlayman »

Hi Lal,

what is different between self view and conceit acc to you?
You can become king of world with all the wealth but it is not equal to 0.1 % of jhana pleasure...

Lal
Posts: 491
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2016 11:39 am

Re: The teachings of Ven. Waharaka Abhayaratanalankara Thero

Post by Lal »

what is different between self view and conceit acc to you?
Self-view is sakkāya ditthi. Conceit (or perception of "me") is māna.

- Sakkāya ditthi removed at the Sotapanna stage, when one starts comprehending anicca, dukkha, anatta nature.

- Māna removed at the Arahant stage when comprehension of anicca, dukkha, anatta nature is complete. At that time, one realizes that there is absolutely nothing of "real substance" in this world and even a trace of attachment to this world only leads to future suffering. Of course, one SHOULD NOT start at this place.

- First, one needs to realize the fruitlessness/danger in doing akusala kamma to achieve worldly pleasures. This is related to getting rid of the 10 types of wrong views that I have discussed before.

See my post, "Sakkāya Diṭṭhi – “Me and Mine” View" on Jun 30, 2020, to see the difference between sakkāya ditthi and māna.

User avatar
zerotime
Posts: 196
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: The teachings of Ven. Waharaka Abhayaratanalankara Thero

Post by zerotime »

Lal wrote:
Fri Jul 03, 2020 3:42 pm

P.S. There is much more detail.

1. For example, in the beginning of the Sutta, the following verse is there: “What do you think, Rāhula? Can you keep your eyes the way you like?”
- This means two things. One cannot maintain one’s eye or eyesight to the way one likes in this life.
- Furthermore, one does not have control over what kind of eye would one get in future rebirths. If one is born a Deva, he will have a set of eyes suitable for a Deva. If he is reborn an animal, he would get a set of eyes suitable for an animal, etc.

2. In the same way, each term that the Buddha discussed above REQUIRES much more explanation. It is quite possible that Ven. Rahula had much of that understanding before this exchange. In fact, the sutta begins by the Buddha thinking that Ven. Rahula has sufficient background material to make the "final push."
it is, it would require a very long explanation. I wonder it can be too much forced for all the sentences from that Sutta. And still more for all the possible Suttas related.

On my humble understanding, I believe the center of the issue is what you wrote here:
1. The impermanent nature is part of anicca. But anicca means much more than impermanence.
because we read the Buddha taught:


"The five aggregates, monks, are anicca, impermanent; whatever is impermanent, that is dukkha"
- SN 22.45


"whatever is impermanent, that is dukkha" it means when there is anicca there is also dukkha. And where is dukkha, there is also anicca.
Both are different, although we always find one in the another one.

I understand you try to emphasize the dukkha of anicca, and then you don't like the word "impermanence" in the translations.

However, note the difficulty when anicca in that sense of "inconstancy" or "change" it can appear directly explained. In example here:

"Impermanent are all component things, they arise and cease, that is their nature: they come into being and pass away. Release from them is bliss supreme."
- DN 16


we read "they arise and cease" in a direct explanation to describe what is anicca.

Anyway I believe what you defend about the meaning of "unsatisfactory" for anicca is right. This is useful to remember dukkha is present when we read "impermanence" (anicca). Same we can do regarding the word "suffering"(dukkha) to defend: "dukkha is more than the word suffering because also it means impermanence".

We could apply the same when the Buddha taught: "whatever is anicca, that is dukkha". And we can find Suttas explaining dukkha is impermanent, etc. Same issue.

- Furthermore, “impermanence” does not ALWAYS lead to suffering. When Osama bin Laden died, most people were happy.


it can be. Although it doesn't mean they were happy forever which is the meaning of anicca applied to sukkha or worldly happiness.

When we take "a person" as something permanent, we can be happy or sad when a person dies. However, when somebody realize that "a person" doesn't exist at all, there is no attachment to that delusion and then it doesn't care if that person lives or die. This was the case when the Buddha entered in the definitive Nibbana, the arhants did not cry.

Well, just my view.

Anyway I read your website and it is very interesting. Congrats.:)

Lal
Posts: 491
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2016 11:39 am

Re: The teachings of Ven. Waharaka Abhayaratanalankara Thero

Post by Lal »

@zerotime:
"The five aggregates, monks, are anicca, impermanent; whatever is impermanent, that is dukkha"
- SN 22.45
You state this as the final authority that anicca means "impermanence". It does not.

No matter how much I write, you do not seem to understand my key point.
- Anicca DOES NOT mean impermanence. It is MUCH MORE. Don't just pick on a part of a sentence that I wrote.
For example, I wrote the following on my July 2, 2020, post above.

"8. It is essential to realize that the Buddha was not referring to just one’s body. Anicca applies to all saṅkhāra and sankata. Nothing in this world can be kept to our satisfaction: “Sabbē saṅkhārā aniccā”. By the way, it is superfluous to say, “all saṅkhāra are impermanent.” Of course, all saṅkhāra arise and fall. How can saṅkhāra be permanent anyway?

- Furthermore, “impermanence” does not ALWAYS lead to suffering. When Osama bin Laden died, most people were happy.
- However, bin Laden’s death caused suffering to his followers. In both cases, the statement, “if something cannot be maintained to one’s satisfaction, that causes suffering” holds. The death of bin Laden caused suffering only to his followers.
- If we have a headache/injury/disease, and if it became permanent, would we not suffer? It is a good thing that those conditions are impermanent so that we can get rid of them with medical treatment."

What you keep quoting are WRONG translations, as I have explained in detail.
- No matter how many times you keep quoting, it does not change anything.
- If you can explain the quoted portion above on how anicca interpreted as "impermanence" can explain Osama bin Laden or headache, etc. (and that it is ridiculous to say "all sankhara are impermanent") that would be the way to contradict my explanation.

In any case, it is up to each individual to decide for him/herself.
- That is all I have to say.

auto
Posts: 1628
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:02 pm

Re: The teachings of Ven. Waharaka Abhayaratanalankara Thero

Post by auto »

Lal wrote:
Fri Jul 03, 2020 11:33 pm
"8. It is essential to realize that the Buddha was not referring to just one’s body. Anicca applies to all saṅkhāra and sankata. Nothing in this world can be kept to our satisfaction: “Sabbē saṅkhārā aniccā”. By the way, it is superfluous to say, “all saṅkhāra are impermanent.” Of course, all saṅkhāra arise and fall. How can saṅkhāra be permanent anyway?
perhaps you need revisit what saṅkhāra means and how it is used, in what context etc.

Post Reply