Attuning to the View (Darshanaya) | Thiththagalle Anandasiri Thero

මුල් සිංහල වීඩියෝව සඳහා Play කරන්න

Attuning to the View (Darshanaya) | Thiththagalle Anandasiri Thero

So, what are we discussing these days? Understanding and realizing Anicca, Dukkha, Anatta - the Three Characteristics. Understanding them is one thing; realizing them is another. The Dhamma has six qualities. What's the sixth and final quality? "Paccattam Veditabbo Vinnuhiti" - it must be directly experienced by the wise. The Dhamma is there to be directly experienced. If you can't experience it directly at once, the Buddha says to first listen carefully (Suta). The second is to retain it (Dhata). However, neither listening nor retaining is direct experience. Just remembering it isn't direct experience. We need to understand this well. Otherwise, some people take remembering the Dhamma as having understood it. Now, we remember the words of the Dhamma, we remember everything, we contemplate it. They take that as understanding. Then, a little later, contemplation (Chinta) leads to an understanding. An understanding arises regarding the things remembered. Then, they take that understanding as realization. What do they say? That's also wrong. Listening to the Dhamma is the act of listening. Remembering it is the act of remembering. Understanding is the act of understanding. All three must be transcended for direct experience to occur.

What's there? However, if one cannot go directly to direct experience, the Buddha shows us a method: Suta, Dhata, Vacata, Patisanta, Manasanupekkhita, Dittiya Supati. This is the method. So, what's happening at this moment? Understanding goes beyond mere listening, but at such a time, direct experience can occur. What can happen? It can transcend those stages and direct experience can arise while listening. Brother, at this moment, we are discussing certain Dharmata that are arising. When he discusses that, at that moment, it can become directly experienced in his mind through wisdom. Wisdom can arise. That's why the Buddha has shown that listening to the Dhamma is a path to direct experience. That is, it's a path to liberation. Even for the one teaching the Dhamma, when they speak with deep reflection, they too experience direct realization. There are many such instances.

In the Buddha's time, many realized the truth through listening. At the very moment of listening, they understood it. There's a reason for that too. Now, the Dhamma that the Buddha taught for 45 years at various places is now available as collected data, like the 10 lessons. Because of this, if we know about every single one of those aspects, in those days, people who came to meet the Buddha didn't know about every single one of them. Some didn't even know what becoming a Sothapanna (stream-enterer) meant. The term "Arahant" (fully enlightened one) was in use at that time, and liberation existed, but they didn't know those things. They met the Buddha. They had a discussion. And then they experienced direct realization. And what was directly realized, they then called the "Sotapatti Phala" (fruit of stream-entry) and the "Arahat Phala" (fruit of arahantship).

Now, today, we are truly Buddhists. What are we? Buddhists. They are born Buddhists. There's no fault in that, and there's great merit in it. Right? But they have heard about the Sotapatti Phala. They have heard about the Arahat Phala. They have heard about their value. They have heard about the four lower realms. They have heard all of that. So, as a Buddhist, they now think they are a Buddhist. And they think the most valuable thing in this life is to become a Sotapanna. So, they try to become a Sotapanna. What happens? There's nothing wrong with that. But there is a mistake. There's no apparent fault in targeting something that has been closed off like that. The Buddha himself encouraged it. But what is the mistake? The mistake is trying to make oneself a Sotapanna.

So, what happens? We always think about the "I," don't we? We always think about ourselves. We try to appropriate the state of Sotapanna for ourselves. When we try to appropriate it, we make a mistake. However, in the Buddha's time, those who came to him didn't know any of these stories. In the discussion, the Buddha would show them certain Dharmata that were arising at that moment. And then they would see that Dharmata within themselves. So, what happened? He would show them, "This is my life itself that I'm teaching about." Nothing else, just this process of my mind. Then, going beyond the Buddha's teaching, what happens? The Buddha needs to borrow it. He shows it to them through their own wisdom. Then, the phenomenon they understood was called "Sotapanna." That's what it's called. But the person who came to the discussion was not someone who came to discuss their "Sotapanna-ness." They just came to chat.

Then, when the Buddha taught about the eye, taught about form, taught about consciousness, taught about contact, in that teaching, he was showing something that was happening at that moment. What was he showing? The event. So, "self" (mamathva) isn't something that exists. When we're asleep, "self" doesn't arise, does it? No one has that. But when we wake up and interact with the world, "self" arises. What happens? So, he was teaching about that. Sakkayaditthi (identity view) arises with the self. Now, when you say "Sakkayaditthi," Sinhala people don't understand it much. In the language of that time, it was simply understood. But now, when we say "mamathva" (self/ego), we understand. Our "our-ness" arises. We take it as "mine." What do we take it as? We take it as "mine." That idea arises. Then, the way it arises within us, with that arising, with a form seen, a sound heard, a thought thought – it is through these that your "self" arises, look! he would say.

However, that arising "self" – what happens to it? It's like this existence. We think we have an existence. The Buddha says, "Even if you think that, it's not the truth." The truth, according to the Buddha's Dhamma, is a teaching to see and realize the truth. So, people in those times sought the truth, and they found the truth. What did they find? They didn't really find anything for their "self." They found the truth. They truly understood that this whole way of thinking, "I" and "mine," what happens? Thinking like that is not the truth. That is ignorance (avidya). That was called ignorance. So, when we think "I" and "mine," this thought process – the Buddha said that's not true. Even if you think it's true, it's not. He showed how to see the truth.

So, what the Buddha did was always to point out and explain the understanding of others through words. However, if one didn't understand the Buddha's explanation exactly as he presented it, but understood things in their own way, they couldn't reach direct knowledge. The Buddha used an analogy. If someone wants to get milk, even if they milk from the horns for an eon, they won't get any. Even if someone tries to milk from the legs, they won't get any. To milk, you have to milk directly from the udder. Similarly, we won't attain understanding by conceiving the Dhamma taught by the Buddha in our own desired way. It must be cultivated precisely as shown by Yonisomanasikara (wise attention). That's what true blessedness is. If you act as shown, the path to Nibbana develops. If you think in other ways, another path develops. But its result is not Nibbana. You will get some other result. Either concentration (samadhi) or other deliberations, or something else. That is, if you walk any path, you get some result. Right. If our mind follows the path shown by the Buddha, the mind calms down. But other paths, as was said, if you milk from the horns, the mind will never calm down. We must understand that.

Now, someone put up a video, what was it? Is it right? They put it up because they think what that monk says is right. So, what's the mistake there? Why did people like Sunitha, Sopaka, Isakha, Angulimala understand this? Okay. They understood it quickly. Right? But we weren't there to see how much was shown to them when they understood it quickly. So, what's the mistake in that? It's that their time is still in the past. Now, for you, much has been explained about time. The Dhamma transcends time. Time is an illusion. Now, if anyone in the present is still striving, for them, both the past and future are still real. They haven't even understood the distinction of time. First, there's understanding, isn't there? Before realization, what's there? First, understand the distinction of time. This thing called time, we are in the present relative to the past and future. If someone is in the present, they have a past. There's a past a moment ago, isn't there? A moment later, the future arises. They are between those two.

So, the first thing about the Buddha's Dhamma is that it transcends the distinction of time. It is Akalika (timeless). What then? Even though we say "at this moment," at this moment, it's a result of causes. Something arises because of causes. You can't set a time for the cessation of causes. You can't set it. Now, in the ordinary world, they set a time for it. That's their mistake; they get caught in time. So, there is a timeless nature there. Now, the sound is heard at this moment. Something arose and ceased there, that's all. So, you can't set a time for it. But the mind creates a time. Understanding that creating it is wrong is the first thing to do. So, if one is stuck there, they won't understand this anyway. That's why.

So, the second point is this: when someone sees the truth, if they see the truth within themselves when someone speaks, then they understand. So, they are with the Buddha. The Buddha is conveying the message. Then, to a great extent, they can inquire with wisdom precisely in their own language. Then, they can understand it perfectly. But now, even if the Buddha or that monk said it, the Tipitaka is not there as something simple. It's very difficult. Why is it difficult? The Buddha showed that abandoning Sakkayaditthi (identity view) is so difficult that Ananda Thero says he understood Dependent Origination (Paticca Samuppada) simply. The Buddha says, "Don't say that, Ananda." Why? It's not a simple matter. Because people couldn't understand it, the world has fallen into suffering (Dukkha). And again, in the Maha Nidana Sutta, there's a long Nikaya Sutta that shows this. It explains in detail even down to Nama-rupa how difficult it is, how difficult it is even to comprehend. It's more difficult than integration and differentiation in mathematics. Right?

The next point is that in another place, the Buddha shows, "Monks, there are skilled archers." He says they can hit any target. In those days, and even today, there are such people, like those going to the Olympics. That is, we can't imagine that; we can't even get close to hitting like that. Even with a tiny plum (lovi gediyak), they can hit it from two kilometers away. Even today, there are people who can hit bullets like that. So, is that easy or difficult? It's very difficult. Ananda Thero says these are the most difficult things in life. The Buddha says, "What is that? There are those who can penetrate even more difficult things than that." He says there's a horse-hair (asloma). What is a horse-hair? He says they can split it into 16 parts or something. A horse-hair is a bit stronger than a human hair, isn't it? After splitting it into 16, they tie it. Then, when told to shoot at a distant target, there are those who can split even that and shoot. So, he asks Ananda, "Is hitting a plum difficult, or splitting a horse-hair into 16 and hitting it?" Ananda says, "I can't even imagine that." The Buddha says, "Even more difficult than that is the penetration of Sakkayaditthi." That is an even more subtle development.

Now, how difficult it is has been shown. That means no matter how much you show it, you can't show the truth with words. Words are meant to help, but that help is often taken in the wrong angle. What does he say? It's taken in the wrong angle. So, it's only when one becomes extremely subtle, exactly at the point shown by the Buddha, that the mind calms down and becomes free. It's not easy. What happens? If it were easy, he wouldn't need to take so much time explaining this. It's not difficult either. It's not difficult. At the right time, when we inquire with wisdom, we can touch the right spot. If it's touched, even the inquirer cannot stop it from calming down. What did he say? Even he cannot stop it. Who was it that this happened to? The Buddha's half-brother. He didn't want to become a monk. He became a monk out of friendship and affection for the Buddha. But he heard the Dhamma. He inquired with wisdom. He didn't have a desire to free his mind. But it became free. Who was it? Arahant Anuruddha.

So, if one falls into that path, even if they are here listening to Dhamma and don't want to attain Nibbana, if they listen and inquire, even they can't stop it. That's how it is; that's its nature; that's the Dharmata. What is it? It's not because the Buddha says it, but because it's how the universe exists. It's a Dharmata. Even Pacceka Buddhas (Solitary Buddhas), when they contemplate like that, they inquire within themselves. When they inquire, it becomes clear. No one teaches them. So, if someone attunes to that, they won't change. There are no two words about it.

So, this is not a process that one needs to extinguish themselves. What is it? When the causes are formed, it ceases. Here, the Buddha is showing us that once he understood it, meaning, he strives to guide his disciples, those who trust him, towards that. This is what the entire Tipitaka is about. It's explained from various angles, for different people. In those days, it was mostly for the wise; not for the foolish. Why? Because if you teach a foolish person, they will take it in a different way. The wise person will take the matter correctly. If an analogy is given, they won't go beyond the limits of the analogy. Some foolish people, when told something, even hold onto the analogy. An analogy is only for understanding. It's just for help. So, because of that, one needs to be diligent. Then, one can understand the Dhamma.

Now, someone like us is explaining this, it can be done. But if someone says they have understood it, now if people think about it, those who have listened to Dhamma for 20-25 years have done many things. In this life and in unseen lives, how much they have done! So, it's not impossible to understand. But for whomever it is understood, it's not an easy thing. That's why it's so much more valuable than attaining the Sakkayaditthi state. So, if someone does that and praises it, they are giving praise as if it were as easy as eating sweets. So, that's what it is. Even if they think a little, they can't. Or else, why should this be explained so much? Now, even if you go to Abhidhamma and ask, they will explain it. They explain it on the path too. They explain it again. Why? Because I still understand, when you talk, that your understanding isn't correct. That's why it's explained. If it were correct, there would be no need to explain it, would there? At that time, it's always the case that if you say it immediately, they will take it differently.

That's why it's said one must stay with the Dhamma. It helps with other things too. Your main thing is to stay with the Dhamma. The Sabda Sutta says that if you stray away at some point, like our friend who was here helping, who was it? Sela. It's a pity, isn't it? If you understand now, it's about going towards the Three Characteristics, even if you listen to these things that cover it up, it's useless, isn't it? We don't know if someone sitting nearby and being taught is understanding it wrongly. So, if you want other things, there are other things here for us to live. If they want something more, they will have to go for it. Get a better phone. Get something better. That's not easy to get either. Even if they go for those things, they lose the most valuable thing. Right? If we are content with what we have, and we listen to Dhamma, or go by bus and eat what we have, after some time, even if we don't fully understand it, we can at least get a glimpse of it. Understanding is important. After that, it will naturally lead to realization. If wise attention arises, it will be understood. Direct experience will occur. Wisdom will arise. When one acts wisely, wisdom arises. That's why it was said to Alavaka that a life lived with wisdom is what? Look, the Buddha didn't preach Dhamma to make Alavaka Yaksha a Sotapanna. He taught him about life, to make him a Sotapanna. What happened to him?

Now, when he went to Kasi Bharadvaja, he said, "Give me some milk rice." He said, "I can't give it; go sow and eat." Then he said, "I too sow and eat." Now, the Buddha didn't go to him and say, "Here, I have a message to become a Sotapanna, to become an Arahant, take this." No. In their conversations, the Buddha always taught about the six sense bases and Dependent Origination, and how they fall into our lives. What did he do? He understood, "It's amazing! It's an amazing Dhamma!" So, what did he see? He saw the truth. What truth did he see? This is what he is teaching to see the truth. That's why I said Dhamma and life are not two separate things.

Now, in the first Sutta of the Sutta Nipata, he stayed with that farmer for months like a friend. He went to his field, conversed with him. He never told him to come and become an Arahant, did he? In the end, the farmer himself understood what happened when material things in life were destroyed. This life, what life is, this is what is understood again. He didn't even know if he was a Buddha, who he was, he just thought he was a friend. So, what happened in those days was that they didn't know about the Tipitaka. As they talked, they understood that the foundation they had believed in all this time was wrong, and this was the real truth. Everyone thinks, even a Buddhist listening to Dhamma thinks, "How much property I have, my children!" That's how they think. So, the Buddha says about that, "What is it? That's ignorance. Because of ignorance, they think like that." What is it because of? He says if wisdom arises, you can't hold onto such a thing.

So, the Buddha is trying to show us a Darshana (view/perspective). So, Anicca (impermanence) is a Darshana. What kind of Darshana? Dukkha (suffering) is a Darshana. Anatta (non-self) is a Darshana. At the very point where that Darshana is seen, suffering ends. What happens? Now, suffering doesn't end just by thinking about impermanence. Mental distress doesn't end permanently. Now, human suffering at this moment, someone here talked about it. So, their mental problem was this. Okay, I'll take that later. So now, listen.

So now, if we say thinking about it as impermanent, it's a concept in their mind. Now, these thoughts are impermanent. When they think this is impermanent, they get some relief. Why? Because when people accept even a little bit of change or destruction, they get relief. When they don't accept it, it leads to more unrest. But that is not Dhamma understanding. What understanding is it not? It's not Dhamma understanding, nor is it the path to liberation. Neither of those happens. They get temporary relief. What do they get? That's why people listen to these things. They listen to them because they cling to temporary relief. When seen that way, it's not even an inquiry with wisdom. It's just holding onto some concept in the mind, thinking it's impermanent, it changes, there's no "I" or "mine" in it. So, you need to understand now that thinking is not seeing. Thinking is just doing what? There's nothing wrong with that. But taking it as seeing is the mistake.

Now, if you think, "Everything changes, everything perishes," that's fine; those thoughts are good. Because there's temporary peace when meditating, isn't there? But if you think this is the path to Nibbana, that's wrong. That's not the path to Nibbana. The Buddha has taught the path to Nibbana. "Sabbe Sankhara Anicca" - what is "Sabbe Sankhara"? Conditioned things are impermanent. What are impermanent? Conditioned things are impermanent. "Yada Pannaya Passati" - when one sees this with wisdom, "Nibbhindati Dukkhe Attana" - they become dispassionate towards suffering, and are immediately freed from suffering then and there. "Eso Maggo Suddhaya" - that is the path to liberation, that is the path, that is the path to Nibbana.

So, Nibbana, the path to Nibbana, all of them are at one stage. When Sariputta Thero said "Ye Dhamma Hetuppabhava" (Of those things that arise from causes), he didn't start thinking. Thinking takes time. Contemplating takes time, remembering. At that very moment, what happened? He came to the Darshana (vision/direct seeing). What did he come to? After coming to the Darshana, he immediately came to understanding. He didn't get the fruit of stream-entry later, did he? It happened right when the first few lines were spoken. He didn't even have a moment to think about those first few lines. That means, at that very moment, what happened within him? It came. He came to the Darshana.

Now, if someone doesn't come to the Darshana here, they can become a Sotapanna right here. When we take Moggallana Thero, he said the remaining two lines: "Whatever arises from causes, ceases with the cessation of causes." When he said that, he had that Darshana. Now, even if we listen to those lines and contemplate for how long, we don't get that Darshana. Ordinary Buddhists and monks who listen to Dhamma and preach Dhamma think that contemplating on that is the path to Nibbana. That's not the path to Nibbana. Trying to understand it is what? Trying to understand it. There's nothing wrong with that. But don't confuse trying to understand with realization. So, now, when you try to understand, you start understanding more than before. "Aha, it arises from causes!" And that understanding, what is it? It's through contemplation, isn't it? It's not an understanding that arises with the manifestation of wisdom without contemplation.

Now, what is being said here is for discussions like this, it's not for ordinary people. Now, someone who is a mother and has been listening to Dhamma continuously will understand. So, for them, those Suttas the Buddha has, like what he taught Gamini, those are for them to understand first. Right? If there's a wise person, they might even understand it at that very moment; we don't know. Mostly, it's rare. Right? It was rare then, it's rare now. Otherwise, the Jeta Grove Assembly wouldn't have to preach Dhamma every day; people would come to listen to Dhamma every evening like watching a show. Why? Because it's repeatedly explained. Someone came and asked, "I have been listening to your sermons for 16 years. I still haven't had any results." Like a Buddhist of this era, he had been coming to listen to sermons from the beginning, trying to understand all the details and become a Sotapanna.

Then the Buddha asks him, "Are you not from this region?" He says, "Yes, I am from another region." "You haven't been to these provinces in this region, have you?" So, if someone asks you for directions, can you tell them? He says, "Yes, I can tell them." So, if they take your directions and go in the wrong direction, are you responsible for that? You give the correct directions. "Go this way. The landmarks are like this, go like this." They listen to everything, like donkeys listening, and they go to different places, different roads. Now, what is it like when someone asks? Is it the one who told the path or the one who listened? I only have to say those things, he says. That is, they have searched for it in the wrong way. They have listened wrongly. It's not what is being said. They are wrong. Only the sound is heard, thinking something wrong.

So, the Buddha says, "I am only the one who shows the path. Akkha Tathagata, the Tathagata, means only the path-shower." Who has to follow the path after listening? Oneself. Go yourself. Now, one can teach meditation. "This is how you cultivate the first jhana." These things can be taught. If they are wrong, they can be corrected. These can be practiced by others. The path to Nibbana cannot be taught like that. What must one do? Listen and follow it correctly. It will only happen if they go. That's why he says, "I am only the path-shower. I teach the path. You must go. It must arise from within yourself, on the path to Nibbana." What must it arise from? From yourself. You can't make it arise yourself. You need to be skilled for that. That's why we are teaching this now; we are only helping. The teaching given must be understood clearly.

If you understand it wrongly, you'll contemplate something wrong. That's why you get satisfaction from it. "Dhamma Priti Sukham Veda" – even delight and happiness arise from the Dhamma. However, if the true path to Nibbana is developing, what happens? "Yathayato sammasate khandanam udayabbayam, Piti pamujjam amatam viccharati" – when one truly reflects on the arising and passing away of the aggregates, delight arises. What arises? Delight arises. The mind naturally becomes tranquil. When one comes to the correct view, delight arises. Body tranquility (kaya passaddhi) arises.

So, this understanding of suffering, understanding impermanence, understanding non-self, is not painful. It's not a disappointment. Normally, people get disappointed when they get fed up with something, or when what they think won't happen. But the disappointment that arises in Dhamma is called Nibbida (dispassion/disenchantment). What is it called? Nibbida is not that kind of disappointment; it's a non-clinging. If something isn't stable here and now, how can the mind establish itself there? It can't establish itself. You can't establish it. That's when joy arises.

So, because we haven't seen these things correctly, people think that Buddhism is about suffering. They thought so then, and they think so now, that Buddhism talks about suffering. It talks about understanding that suffering. But understanding suffering is not suffering. Understanding suffering is not suffering. Understanding suffering itself leads to delight and joy (piti pamujjam). However, suffering (dukkha vedana) doesn't lead to delight and joy. What did he say? It's a feeling. It's a mental and physical feeling. That's how it is. So, people think he's talking about painful feelings. But the Buddha is talking about transcending painful feelings. He's talking about the cessation of suffering.

So, now in the Dhamma, when "Dukkha Dukkha" (suffering of suffering) is mentioned, it refers to painful feelings. Then Viparinama Dukkha (suffering due to change) refers to the impermanence of material things, this body, those things – that is also suffering. But the understanding of the Noble Truth of Suffering is not those two. What did he say? The Noble Truth of Suffering, or the understanding of suffering, is not that. Now, that's what is being explained; that's what we are trying to clarify these days. So, you can gain that by thinking, it's an understanding. What kind of understanding? It's a conceptual understanding. The painful feeling, the aversion or disappointment we feel towards an object, that's what it is. We dislike it, we don't want it, that's why. That's physical pain.

Now, I taught Ajith. When we walk over that bridge, the shadow of the bridge falls on the water, doesn't it? Have you seen it? You know. When we feed fish, our shadow falls. When that shadow falls, do we get deceived by it, thinking it's a shadow? Do we get deceived by it? No, we don't. Why? We know it's a shadow. We know the cause. We know the reason. That means we have an understanding. Therefore, do we think the shadow is impermanent? Do we try to think that there's no shadow here? No, we don't try that. Or, we don't try to think that this shadow isn't real. We don't try to think that way. At that very moment, the shadow is there, and if a dog goes there, it thinks there's another dog. So, the deception a dog experiences, we don't experience with a shadow. We don't even think about it, and we don't need to try to think about it, because we have an understanding about it. What understanding? Because of understanding, we are not deceived. We are not confused.

However, can we say there is no shadow there? No, we can't say that. A shadow forms. What happens? Due to light, due to certain causes, the thing called a shadow forms. That's why the Buddha says, "That formation is what is called Sankhara (conditioned phenomena)." What is it called? Not the formation of a shadow. Now, because of the eye, form, and consciousness, the phenomenon of seeing arises. What phenomenon arises? The phenomenon of seeing arises. Because of the ear, sound, and consciousness, the phenomenon of hearing arises. Now, seeing is not something that exists in the form, is it? Seeing is not in the bulb. Seeing is not in my eye. So, if consciousness doesn't see when it arises, then we don't need the eye or the bulb, do we? Right? Both are needed.

Then the Buddha says the phenomenon of seeing is not in the bulb. The phenomenon of seeing, at this moment, is not in the eye that is arising. It's not in the mind that arises at that moment. However, when those three come together, "Tinnam Sangati Phasso" – when that conjunction happens, what happens? The phenomenon of seeing arises. Then, feeling, perception, and contact arise there. Now, is that a formation or not? That's what "Sabbe Sankhara Anicca" means. That formation, that formation, that is, the formation at this moment – isn't he talking about certain Dharmata that are arising at this moment? He refers to all six sense bases.

So, the tongue, taste, and consciousness – now, is taste in the fruit, or in the tongue? Or is it in consciousness? Does taste arise due to the combination of these three? What is it? "Tinnam Sangati Phasso." So, if those three don't combine, if taste is in the fruit itself, we should taste it directly, right? If not, we don't need to put the fruit on the tongue; the tongue has taste. Consciousness has it; we don't need both. So, because all three factors combine, what happens? Something called taste forms. That's a Paccuppanna Dhamma (present phenomenon). There's a formation. That is, due to the mind, the object, and consciousness, something called "knowing a fact" forms. Isn't that what we call our life? There's a formation. Right? So, that's what "Sankhara Anicca," "Sabbe Sankhara Anicca" means.

Now, the Buddha gave a discourse like this in the Anattalakkhana Sutta. He gave it to the five ascetics. What he did first was not a discourse like this, but he clarified the two extremes, like in the Sammaditthi Sutta. He explained how "self" arises. He explained how it ceases. He explained how suffering arises. Yet, even a person who has attained the fruit of stream-entry doesn't have a great understanding of impermanence. But they would never take any of those formations as permanent. Why? Because it's a logical Dharmata for them. Now, an ordinary person takes the phenomenon of seeing as permanent. They take the phenomenon of hearing as permanent. They take it as something stable; it appears to them as something stable. Therefore, their mind proceeds in that way.

So, ordinary people always take things as permanent because they haven't heard the Noble Dhamma. So, what perception do they have, not the perception of impermanence? The perception of permanence (nicca saññā). So, even if the perception of permanence is a lie, look! Do they assume it's permanent, or does it happen automatically? Now, there too, there's a perception of permanence. Even if it's wrong, it's a perception. It happens automatically. Now, they don't think, "These things are permanent because of such and such reasons," do they? They just get caught in it. What happens to it? Now, the Buddha's teaching shows that it's not the truth. It's a delusion. It's something that happens because of ignorance. He tries to show us that.

However, then we go from the perception of permanence to the perception of pleasure (sukha saññā), where we see an existence. What do we see? So, people chase after pleasure, target it, and run after it because of that. Right? Because it appears as pleasure. So, pleasure, it's the same for that too, isn't it? The mind doesn't go on thinking and thinking about it. It arises with that wrong understanding. Next, they take it as self (atta saññā). What do they take it as? They take it as their own, as belonging to them. Now, do we take that by thinking? No. We don't think, "I am myself, it's mine." We argue, we think what we think is correct. Isn't it? Look, it's wrong. It's wrong there. But that's how the wrong foundation exists. We don't need to think anything else now. Just like the dog barking at the shadow, believing it's real, it has completely taken it as a dog existing there. It wasn't taken by thinking, was it? What was it? It was taken as a dog existing, by direct seeing. It didn't take hours to bark again. What happened? It barked immediately. Similarly, when things appear to us, we immediately take them. Permanence, pleasure, self.

Therefore, the Buddha showed impermanence (anicca), suffering (dukkha), and non-self (anatta). What are they? They are a Darshana (vision/direct seeing). So, a Darshana is something that is directly experienced at that very moment. It's a direct experience. Okay, now look, understanding what is being said is not a problem at all. But the Darshana is important. First, you must understand. So, when you understand, even in a subtle way, you understand that this is the path you need to take at the lowest point. Right?

Now, at this moment, due to the ear, sound, and consciousness, the phenomenon of hearing arises. It arises, doesn't it? So, does that formation have stability? Does it have stability? Right? Now, we are saying that by thinking, aren't we? The answer we say by thinking is correct. The answer truly appears that way. However, if we see this formation, what happens? Does wisdom need to think it's impermanent? Is impermanence understood there? "Yathayato sammasati" – when one is mindful there, if they see what is happening, what happens? That this is forming. Then, at that time, what happens to them? They don't need words to think it's impermanent. They understand that it doesn't establish itself. It cannot be established. Right? Now, permanence means establishment, stability, doesn't it? Now, there's no establishment here. Those things are formed. Right? We think in our minds that they perish. So, do we need to think in our minds that they perish? So, within that formation, wisdom immediately arises in them.

Then the Buddha says, "Now, if something is impermanent, if something is impermanent, is it pleasant or unpleasant?" Right? "This is suffering." What does it mean that it's suffering? That suffering doesn't mean painful feelings. What is it? Because it's impermanent, the formation of those causes is suffering. Because it has no establishment, it's a perception of suffering. Now, to the ordinary person, to the uninstructed person, what appears? They see that there is pleasure. That establishment appears as pleasure. The perception of pleasure. Now, what is here? The perception of suffering. Next, what is it? Now, do we need to think that there is no "I" or "mine" there? Is it really not there? It's not there. You don't even need to think "I" or "mine." It's not taken there. What doesn't happen? It's not taken. That's why he said impermanent, suffering. It is through the very seeing of impermanence that suffering is seen. Seeing impermanence is seeing suffering. Seeing suffering is non-self. So, it's a seeing. What is it? It's a seeing.

Now, what is being taught to you is not this seeing. This is for conception. What is it for? To contemplate and understand. Is what is being said not true? Now, if you see that with mindfulness, at this moment, this is what is happening. Now, do you need to think it's impermanent, suffering, and non-self? It is understood. That's why the Buddha showed that this is the Dhamma to be understood. What Dhamma? Whatever arises from causes. That's an understanding. However, thinking that something arises from causes, what is that? Concepts. What kind of concepts? Concepts. Now, he gave an example again. Let's say there's that dog. Let's say from the dog's perspective. If the dog barks from its angle, now the dog gets really fed up with barking. After that, the dog tries to meditate and understand that there's no dog here. Now, is the understanding that there is a dog real or false? Is it real or false? That too is false. Thinking there's a dog is also false. There's no dog there. It's false. That understanding, that conception, is not true. That truth, if looked at from the dog's side, the dog is not seeing the truth. Then it gets tired of barking and barking. Then someone meets it and says, "There's no dog there, but think like this." So, when it starts thinking like that, it tries to think there's no dog. Then it comes to the view that there's no dog. So, is that true or false? That's an even bigger lie. It's an even bigger lie. That was a lie, and this is a lie. That's what was called the two extremes. What two extremes? Now the two extremes: the Buddha says that the world exists. Kaccayana, what is it? It goes to existence. Or it goes to non-existence. Just like it was said, the dog barks thinking there's a dog. That's what Sakkayaditthi is normally.

So, if we ask that dog, what is the truth there for us? If someone sees the truth there, they must see. What comes to mind now? If the dog sees the truth, it must see. Taking that there is a dog here is also wrong. It's an absolute lie. Saying there is no dog is an even greater foolishness. So, what is the truth of the matter there? What is heard? Now, I have been giving that analogy for a long time. Think about it. Has it been preached? Now, what is the truth? The truth of the matter there is that an image arises. What happens? We can't say it's not there, can we? Otherwise, that's why he misunderstood the image and started seeing a dog. An image forms. What happens now? We cannot say that because of the ear, sound, and consciousness, the phenomenon of hearing does not form. Something like that happens. If we say that, it would be foolishness to say we don't hear. Such a formation happens. That is the truth there. That is what is there. But hearing is not a single phenomenon. What is it? "Tinnam Sangati Phasso" (the conjunction of three).

Now, the Buddha said in one place that the sound of the lute is not there. Now, the sound of the guitar is not there, is it? Those children have the ability to play, but they don't play. Even if they have the ability and move their hands like this, the sound doesn't come, does it? The sound only comes if you pluck the string correctly. So, is the sound in the lute, or does the sound form from the lute? Is that correct to say? Does the sound form from the hand? From the ability? No, the sound forms as a result of a combination of causes. So, you can't point out that it exists anywhere. But does a sound not form when those events combine? Similarly, when the ear, sound, and consciousness combine, the phenomenon of hearing forms. However, there's nothing there to be taken as "I" or "mine." There's no stability in it. That is, if one sees the formation within that aggregate of conditioned things, then it's seen. There's no "I" or "mine" there, nothing at all. That's seeing the truth that exists there. The truth that exists there is what is brought into these words as impermanent, suffering, and non-self.

Now, we don't see the truth that exists there, like that dog. We don't see the formation. That is, the dog didn't see the arising of the image, did it? It didn't understand that. We go to the point where we hear it. Then we go to the point where "I hear." Believing it to be true, we live by contemplating from there. So, is that seeing the truth, or is it complete delusion? Now, the Buddha is saying that beings are blinded by ignorance at every moment. Therefore, believing something to be real is not the truth. Then, when told that believing is wrong, they go to the other extreme. To which extreme? That there is no such thing. That's also not the truth. That's what was settled. Now, when people are told that this world we see, this world we hear, is a delusion, an illusion, then they go to the point of saying there's no such thing. Then they don't even accept that an image forms. They take that as an illusion too. What do they take it as? They don't even accept the formation from causes. So, what is that? That's an even greater foolishness.

"Tinnam Sangati Phasso" – what does that mean? It means "Emmā Hetu Prabhava" – it's an arising from causes. An arising from causes. Therefore, it's not the eye, or the ear, or consciousness. There's a conjunction of all those causes. From that conjunction, a formation occurs. If that formation is seen clearly at that very moment, that's what is called the arising of wisdom. What is said to arise? That's what you need to directly experience at some point. That's what "Paccattam Veditabbo Vinnuhite" means.

Now, after that, I will take those suttas and do them. If I start now, it will go on until night. Right? The Buddha says that if one sees that, six benefits are gained. If impermanence is seen, six benefits are gained. If suffering is seen, six benefits are gained. If non-self is seen, six benefits are gained. That's written right there in the Anavatti Sutta. Okay, now you need to clarify that properly. What do you need to clarify? You don't need to be afraid to contemplate. You need to contemplate. You need to be afraid of going wrong. Even if you go down a hundred or a billion wrong paths, at some point, you will inquire with wisdom on the right path. Then this formation happens. However, truly understanding this clearly is a real gain. What is the gain? You are going down many wrong angles.

Now, let's say there's a formula, like s = ut + 1/2 at^2. We've been taught that, haven't we? Now, 's' is this. The symbol represents this. 'u' is this. 't' is time. They say that. That means acceleration. So, once you put it in, you can only get an answer for those specific factors. Given some facts, you can't get an answer from other factors. Similarly, in the Dhamma shown by the Buddha, if we substitute what we want instead of making it a specific case, what happens? The mind will not calm down. Okay? Now, with that formula, you can find acceleration if you have the data, or time, or velocity, or displacement. You can't find anything else, can you? Pressure, no. It's meant for that, and you understand it by applying it. Those are the relevant facts. Similarly, the Buddha showed the Noble Truth. I said "Imasmin sati idam hoti" (When there is this, this comes to be). We are given something like that. Once given, understand it from that. But you get entangled there. However, what is understanding first? As you understand and proceed, then you come to direct knowledge. Because we went to many wrong limits and fell into misunderstanding, getting other results, that's why those things were given to us. So, first, understand that fact correctly.

When ignorance exists, what happens? Formation occurs. When formation exists, consciousness arises. So, this is not something that happens over hours; it happens in an instant. However, for an ordinary person, it's difficult to understand how these 12 factors apply at this moment. But before realizing, understand it factor by factor. Now, look, he said that day there are four Noble Truths: when this exists, this is; when this arises, this arises; when this ceases, this ceases. When this is not, this is not. Right? Now, look, if those factors don't combine – eye, form, and consciousness – does hearing exist? Then hearing happens because of a cause, doesn't it? "Tinnam Sangati Phasso" – when this exists, this is. Otherwise, hearing is a single formation. It is because of a formation that you hear this. Now, we don't take it that way, do we? We don't think that way. We don't see that way. Why? Because we say, "I hear." What happens? "I hear."

So, when conditioned things arise from causes, do we see that formation as impermanent or permanent? What do we understand? We automatically understand it as permanent. That means we misunderstand the fact. What do we take it as? Now, everyone always misunderstands the fact. So, is that seeing the truth or seeing wrongly? So, Sammaditthi (Right View) means seeing the truth. Now, the Buddha, this discussion is happening about these things, isn't it? People come. The Buddha just talks about the six sense bases. The six sense bases are what we use every day. So, they transcend their own way of seeing and what happens in it? They come to the direct seeing of truth. To what do they come? To purity. Then, that liberation, it's not something that happens later, it happens right then. The mind getting caught in this delusion is not something that happens later. When does it happen? It gets caught in this delusion. That is, because of wrong seeing. Because of what seeing? So, if you see correctly, the mind being liberated is not something that happens later. This is why the Buddha called it Sanditthika (directly visible), Akalika (timeless), Ehipassika (inviting to come and see). It's right here, right now.

So, we are deceived. We are not deceived later, are we? What are we deceived by? We are deceived right now. Because of that wrong view. Now, we are always making a wrong view, so we are deceived. If at some point, due to this Dhamma, due to the Noble Dhamma, due to this Buddha's teaching, one comes to the right view, what happens? Seeing the truth is not something that happens later; it's right where it's seen. Just like now, we don't need to think anything about the shadow; we know it, we have some understanding. So, because of that, even though it seems like you understood it immediately when this was preached, you don't really understand it. Right? Now, you might think, "Now that I'm explaining these things, you might think, 'Didn't he say these things before?'" And you might go and look. But it's understood from a different angle. From what angle? Now, the angle comes again. But now, after some time, I will clarify. Oh my goodness! That angle comes closer and closer to the point shown by the Buddha.

So, because of that, you need to discuss the Dhamma. You need to engage in that practice. You need to have a desire for it. Otherwise, this was taught only because there are a few people who have the desire now. If there aren't a few who have the desire, there's no point in my teaching this now, is there? I have anyway inquired with wisdom and understood it. So, just because you say you understood it now, it's not a big deal, is it? You still watch those teachings. You still watch that. You still discuss that. So, there are people who came along our path, aren't there? Now, many people have abandoned and left. Like you, they came and stayed and then abandoned and left. Why? Those who became householders are more numerous. Now, at the time we became monks, I was helping, you became monks, weren't you? No, there are thousands who became monks with that monk, and today they are not there. They have gone back to that wrong understanding. At least, with wisdom, in those days, it was a great effort for us. So, it's not like that. When problems arose, people ran away, fearing painful feelings. Everyone runs away, not because of pleasant feelings. Because of what feelings? Painful feelings. So, if these painful feelings don't cease, you won't get joy. And what causes those painful feelings? Wrong understanding. What causes pleasant feelings? Wrong understanding. Equanimity also exists because of wrong understanding. From what understanding? Being deceived at this very moment. Being caught at this moment.

So, before trying to understand the Three Characteristics of impermanence and suffering, repeatedly go through the Sammaditthi Sutta.

It's only when you come to that point that you realize, "Ah, this is indeed the Buddha's teaching!" So, what is the path to Arhatship? It's exactly this. In the discourse I just gave, there's no path to Arhatship beyond that. No one can show another path to becoming an Arhat. That's all there is. Some people say that the mothers who listened to sermons said, "That monk teaches excellent Dhamma for achieving mental peace, but he doesn't teach Dhamma for becoming an Arhat." I find that very offensive. Right? What do they know to say such things? What have they studied to say that?

Doesn't the Buddha say, "Sabbe Sankhara Aniccā'ti yadā paññāya passati, atha nibbindati dukkhe, esa maggo visuddhiyā" (When one sees with wisdom that all conditioned things are impermanent, then one becomes disenchanted with suffering – this is the path to purity)? That's it. That's the path to Nibbana. There is no path to Nibbana beyond that. All of Arhatship is just that. The entire path to Nibbana is just that. All three verses in the Dhammapada say, "Sabbe Sankhara Dukkhā'ti yadā paññāya passati, atha nibbindati dukkhe, esa maggo visuddhiyā" (When one sees with wisdom that all conditioned things are suffering, then one becomes disenchanted with suffering – this is the path to purity), and "Sabbe Dhammā Anattā'ti yadā paññāya passati..." (When one sees with wisdom that all phenomena are non-self...). So, that's it. So, why do they make it so complicated? If the Buddha showed it as simple as that, can we show something more than that? Do we know more than that? Do we have such great capacity?

Indeed, that's all there is. Through that seeing (darshana), defilements are abandoned. All fetters are abandoned. But it's something that happens within a seeing. Within what? Within a seeing. Now, like in those previous suttas, the Buddha tells the monk who came, "You are not mature yet." Why? If he had gone and tried to achieve it, he would have come back crying, saying, "I couldn't." He says, "Live this way, live this way." Then he shows Anicca Anupassi (contemplating impermanence), thinking and being mindful of impermanence first. Then that understanding. So, until that understanding is taught, suffering won't end. It won't end suffering. You won't attain liberation.

Even as we are contemplating now, we are getting caught. That catching is good, because even if you get caught, you are getting caught to understand this. But normally, what you see, hear, and perceive, you get caught in all of it as a mere dense perception (ghana saññā). What perception? A completely wrong one.

So, now for the ordinary person, the Buddha says that all these problems in the world exist because they don't understand this. Isn't that true? Isn't every war happening because of focusing on oneself? Right? When many people unite by highlighting themselves, by highlighting their selfhood, what happens? It becomes a nation. Now, that's not a path of non-self. What's happening? All fools are being deceived, one fool deceives another. Millions of fools are all deceived by what they hear and see. And the kingdom they create by being deceived is a kingdom of fools. So, the result cannot be good, can it? Then they talk about pride, this and that, and fight to protect it. It's not for that reason. Take a problem in a home. Normally, in a country... now, isn't it the mother's ego, the father's ego, the children's ego, the grandfather's and grandmother's ego, that are the root of most problems in a home? Take a temple, isn't it the same? Isn't it a bit of each one's ego that causes many problems? But if one has come to this seeing, there's no one here to cause problems. That means there's truly nothing to even think about. There's nothing there to take, nothing to contemplate. You can't find such a thing through seeing.

When the aggregates are seen, it's not that those aggregates exist like this. It's not that the formation exists even if the image exists. What happens? It ends just like that. "Ye dhamma" – whatever arises from causes, the cessation of causes... Now, the form cannot hold the phenomenon of seeing. The eye cannot hold the phenomenon of seeing. Consciousness cannot hold it either. So, when all three combine, it's like putting a matchbox and a matchstick together. When you strike it, the matchbox can't hold the flame. The matchstick can't hold it, nor can the impact of striking it. Only the flame can. So, the flame has no causes now, does it? It arose from those three causes. When those causes cease, the flame also ceases. When you take that analogy, you shouldn't take the flame as something that continues to exist. What is it? The flame that arises at that moment, there's truly no continuing flame, is there? It ends right there. It's a lineage of flames. If the analogy is misunderstood, it's over after that.

Understood? So, similarly, from that conjunction, the causes don't exist to continue. That is, there isn't even a tiny moment. What happens after that moment? Like that lineage of flames, the mind, the object, and consciousness combine. When they combine, what happens? It's through the phenomenon of "thinking" that it moves forward. When you look back at the phenomenon of "thinking," what is here? The arising of the mind, the object, and consciousness. Then, further formations. What kind of formation? Again, the mind, the object, and consciousness arise. Again, it forms. So, what happens there? Like a lineage of flames, what is it? It's a lineage of causes that appears to us as life, that is constructed. The Abhidhamma shows that, doesn't it? That's where Abhidhamma becomes important. A single mind cannot make this identification. A lineage of consciousnesses is needed for that. What happens? That lineage is what is called an aggregate (khandha). A lineage of consciousness is the aggregate of consciousness. A lineage of feelings is the aggregate of feelings. That is, aggregates arise. "Ye dhamma..." What is it? "Yathayato sammasati khandanam udayam" – the arising of the aggregates. Udaya is arising, vaya is ceasing. What happens? It's caught by mindfulness. If it's caught by mindfulness, wisdom arises. What arises? Only with wisdom can craving be abandoned. If you take that there's something to crave, then craving arises, doesn't it? If there's nothing, then what do you crave? Now, if we think there's a mother, craving for the mother arises. If we take that there's a father, craving and desire for the father arise. If we take that there's someone to love and befriend, it arises. Now, if it's not taken as existing there, who do you love? Does craving not arise? It is said right there, there is nothing to take. The word "to love" is also wrong. There's nothing to even think like that. Now, craving arises because we take it as existing there. Because of what? Because we don't come to that seeing.

Then mindfulness (sati) becomes very important. That's why I told you to cultivate mindfulness. For that, what meditation techniques... when you do daily activities with mindfulness, you have heard this fact, haven't you? So, what you have heard can emerge and intensify within you. When it intensifies, wisdom arises. However, those who heard this story and came, what happened to them? They haven't heard this story, they haven't understood it. No matter how much mindfulness they have, wisdom won't arise. Only concentration (samadhi). Only what? But if they had heard it, they would immediately understand. Why? They have such powerful mindfulness. When mindfulness and wisdom combine, it's called Sati Sampajanna (mindfulness and clear comprehension). Otherwise, meditation is useless. Useless for what? Meditation is useless.

Now, I spoke to this group this time. I spoke so much. Now, when you listen to the sermon, I told you to keep your phone on. I said it took two hours to use. I taught you not to come here and say, "I haven't heard these suttas, go and look them up." Even if you look, you won't understand it alone. What happens? Try looking up the Anavatti Sutta, see if you understand. It's a simple thing, but a very profound thing. The main reason you can't understand it is if you don't know the Pali language. What language do you know? If you know it, you understand a little. Even those who translate Pali don't understand it. Why don't they understand? They don't learn a language to use it, do they? We are looking to use it now. What to do? It's only when you start to use it that you understand it. Otherwise, there's no point in just learning it as a language.

Now, a monk in an ordinary temple might know Pali, having learned it from a young age in pirivena (monastic school). But he doesn't know how to apply it. What happens? He's not looking for application. He's looking to pass exams. How valuable is application? We are not looking for that, are we? What are we looking for? We are looking to see how the Buddha told us to apply this. How it is to be applied. Now, "Sabbe Sankhara Anicca" is said in so many places, isn't it? It's said at every funeral. So, who knows what he thinks when he says it? They don't even think about it. They don't want it there. They only want to give a discourse at that time. What happens? But the people who created those concepts are super smart. Why did they create it? Because it's there even at the time of death. However, if he doesn't correctly understand the word "Sankhara," how will he see impermanence? He might take "Sankhara" to mean the coffin and the dead body. And what happens? Only then does he think it's impermanent. Then he doesn't see the formation of mind, object, and consciousness. What is it? He sees an object as impermanent, as the monk said. What does he see as impermanent? Then it's not the formation that is seen as impermanent. It's a concept that is seen as impermanent. What happens when a concept is seen as impermanent? You think the concept exists. That is, like the dog that gets fed up barking and barking and then thinks there's no dog there. It doesn't understand the story of the reflection. Because of that, it thinks, "What is it? It's an illusion, there's no dog." So, is that true? No. He thinks there's a dog, then he thinks there's no dog. That's a huge foolishness. In his mind, the dog exists. He thinks there's no dog. When the glass breaks, he thinks there was a glass. It was the glass that existed. That's not true. That's not the seeing of impermanence. He thinks there was a glass, holding the concept of the glass in his mind, and thinks the glass broke. But the glass is still in his mind. What is it? Nothing happened to that concept. That's a permanent concept. Thinking about impermanence based on that permanence is what it's called. What is forming? Then the perception of permanence is not the perception of suffering. He is established in the perception of permanence. And what does he do when established? He contemplates impermanence. It's like that dog, fed up with barking, thinks the dog exists. "It exists, no, it doesn't. No, something is wrong with me. This is my mind's problem." That's what happens. That's what happens to many people.

So, that's why I said mindfulness is the path. What the Buddha said to Alara Kalama and Uddaka Ramaputta seems like a crime, doesn't it? Why? Because if he had taught them this, they would have immediately understood. Only this seeing was missing. Only this angle was missing. Now, the Buddha developed the path to liberation at that time. That's why he is called Buddha. He looked from that angle. The Noble Vision arose in him. Right? So, the seeing that the Buddha had, that's what we also see. It's through that seeing that we are liberated. It's not two different things. But because he taught it, he is the Buddha. What kind of Buddha? Buddha. That understanding is not an easy thing.

Now, many people watch Osho and others. They listen to them and think they are great figures. They are not great figures. The truly great figure is Gautama Buddha. Why? It's because they haven't understood those Three Characteristics that they are "great figures." So, highlighting and showing this fact here is not an easy thing. So, that's why there's no problem in reading books. When you read, you hear and think, "What amazing things are written here!" It's not about amazing things. It's about directing the disciple to see this aggregate of conditioned things in this way. That is the common thing. And it also shows that this is not about contemplating without any cause. What is it? Don't forget that this is something to be directly experienced (Paccattam Veditabbo). What to do? To directly experience. Therefore, you should take those suttas and read them. They are there, some small suttas are mentioned by name. So now, the other things, I don't have a problem. I don't know what you are looking at on your phone, what you are closing. That's your business. Right? So, don't contemplate wrong things using the two extremes I mentioned. Now, when this is explained so clearly, if you understand the sermon of some monk you have heard, I have no problem with that. I don't inquire, it's not my business. It's fine, you're listening to a sermon. But when it's shown so clearly like this, what is the meaning of saying that taking milk from the two ends is useless for 20 years? That's the Buddha's analogy. No one comes saying they want milk and pulls it from the two ends of a cow. Right? You have to pull it from the cow that has milk. So, that's correct. So, that's enough for today. Now, as this Vassa (rainy season) approaches, we are preparing a lot. We will give some discourses then.

Original Source (Video):

Title: දර්ශනයට සුසර වීම | Darshanaya | Thithtagalle Anandasiri Himi

https://youtu.be/sZVywz7kmGY?si=V7WqntbA-R7pyTul

Disclaimer

The translations shared on this blog are based on Dhamma sermons originally delivered in Sinhalese. They have been translated into English with the help of AI (ChatGPT & Gemini AI), with the intention of making these teachings more accessible to a broader audience.

Please note that while care has been taken to preserve the meaning and spirit of the original sermons, there may be errors or inaccuracies in translation. These translations are offered in good faith, but they may not fully capture the depth or nuance of the original teachings.

This blog does not seek to promote or endorse any specific personal views that may be expressed by the original speaker. The content is shared solely for the purpose of encouraging reflection and deeper understanding of the Dhamma.