.jpg)
මුල් සිංහල වීඩියෝව සඳහා Play කරන්න
Of Emptiness and That Which Breaks Apart, Do You Know? | Thiththagalle Anandasiri Thero
Now, we explained the Dhamma taught by the Buddha. It is not for a 'self' to find Nibbana. What is it? It is not for a 'self' to find Nibbana. Then what is this Dhamma for? Eh? Our normal tendency when this Dhamma is spoken is that a 'self' tries to understand it. What does it try to do with the Dhamma? A 'self' tries to understand. Is that method correct? What is the fault in it?
Now, the Blessed One is always trying to show who this 'self' that is taken to exist is, who is this so-called 'self'. So, if someone, especially in the early days of listening to the Dhamma, when first listening, tries to find a Nibbana for themselves, it's justifiable, as they don't know any better. What is it? But after some time, it becomes clear that this Nibbana has been lost to oneself precisely because of grasping onto this 'mine' and 'self'. Therefore, the Buddha taught the Dhamma to investigate who this 'self' is. What is called identity view (Sakkāya-diṭṭhi)? Revolving around a self. What is it? What is seen with the eye is thought of as 'self'. What is heard with the ear is thought of as 'self'. All of that is the revolving of the self. So, if one tries to understand the Dhamma as a 'self', what happens? That person doesn't get the message being conveyed. You see? That directly perceivable nature is not understood. That immediate nature is not understood. In that case, the way that person looks is wrong. The way of entering the Dhamma is wrong.
So now, in another place in the Connected Discourses (Saṃyutta Nikāya), there is a short discourse. Last time... this is also a very important one. In the Saṃyutta Nikāya, in the Division of the Six Sense Bases (Saḷāyatana Vagga), there is the Paloka-dhamma Sutta. What is it? The Paloka-dhamma Sutta. Paloka-dhamma means a nature. Dhammatā means a nature. Paloka means breaking down, ceasing, being destroyed, or in other words, it refers to a changing nature. That is what is called paloka-dhamma. It is said this was taught in Savatthi. Then the Venerable Ānanda approached the Blessed One… that part there… Venerable Ānanda came to where the Buddha was and asked the following.
Having sat to one side, the Venerable Ānanda said this to the Blessed One. Now, Venerable Ānanda came to the Buddha and inquired in this way. So then, how have these Dhamma discourses come down to us? When we look at the history, who remembered all this? Venerable Ānanda. So, what he said at the time of the Dhamma council is what is said to have been later committed to writing. But it doesn't say here, "I asked this question." How is it written? That Venerable Ānanda did this… Is the Venerable Ānanda Thero who remembered it a different person? Eh? Not two different people. But the incident is described in that way. Venerable Ānanda inquired, "Venerable Sir. Loko, loko ti, bhante, vuccati. ‘The world, the world,’ it is said, venerable sir. Kittāvatā nu kho, bhante, loko ti vuccati? In what way, venerable sir, is it said to be ‘the world’?" Now, in previous instances, the Buddha has described 'the world' in the Sabba Sutta (discourse on the all) as this eye, forms, and so on; the ear, sounds, and so on. Right?
Here, a completely different point is explained. Now, this is a matter that Venerable Ānanda himself inquired about: "What do you mean by 'the world, the world'? On account of what reason?" Then the Buddha says, "Yaṁ kho, ānanda, palokadhammaṁ, ayaṁ vuccati ariyassa vinaye loko." "Ānanda, whatever has the nature of breaking down (paloka-dhamma), that is called 'the world' in the discipline of the noble ones (ariyassa vinaye)." Paloka-dhamma means breaking down, dhamma means nature—the nature of breaking down, the nature of changing, the nature of being destroyed. That is what is called paloka-dhamma. "Whatever has the nature of breaking down... In the noble discipline (ariya vinaya)..." This means it's not the ordinary saying. It's not what the ordinary world says. It is what the Buddhas and the Noble Ones say. This means it's not a meaning used in the common worldly parlance. "Whatever has the nature of breaking down... Kiñcānanda, palokadhammaṁ? And what, Ānanda, has the nature of breaking down?" "...in the noble one's discipline, is called the world." So what is this 'world'? Things that have the nature of breaking down. What is the nature of breaking down? The nature of ceasing, and beyond that, the nature of perishing, the nature of changing—that is the paloka-dhamma that is called 'the world'. Right? Next, the Buddha explains. "Kiñcānanda, palokadhammaṁ?" "And what, Ānanda, are these changing things, these things that break down? What are the things that have the nature of breaking down? What are these phenomena that break down?"
"Cakkhuṁ kho, ānanda, palokadhammaṁ." "The eye, Ānanda, has the nature of breaking down." What is it? The eye has the nature of breaking down. Next, "Rūpā palokadhammaṁ." "Forms have the nature of breaking down." "Cakkhuviññāṇaṁ palokadhammaṁ." This means the consciousness at the eye, the consciousness arisen dependent on the eye, has the nature of breaking down. "Cakkhusamphasso palokadhammo." "Eye-contact has the nature of breaking down." "Yampidaṁ cakkhusamphassapaccayā uppajjati vedayitaṁ sukhaṁ vā dukkhaṁ vā adukkhamasukhaṁ vā, tampi palokadhammaṁ." This means that if any internal pleasure, pain, or equanimity arises from eye-contact, that too has the nature of breaking down.
Now, what was the question Venerable Ānanda asked? "Loko, lokoti bhante, vuccati." "It is said, 'the world, the world.' On what account?" Then the Buddha said it is a paloka-dhamma that is called the world. In the noble one's discipline. Now, what do ordinary people call the world? Eh? Ordinary people call the eye, ear, nose, tongue, body the world. Ordinary people also call the sun, moon, stars, and planets 'worlds'. What is said here is a different matter. It means the eye has the nature of breaking down. Is that how it was said here? How was it said? "Cakkhuṁ kho, ānanda, palokadhammaṁ." What is called the world? Things that have the nature of breaking down. What is the thing that has the nature of breaking down? The eye has the nature of breaking down. That is, the eye is impermanent (anicca). What is it? The eye is impermanent? When we say the eye is impermanent, have we taken the 'eye' as a stable entity or not? Have we or haven't we? Then, we think that an existing eye changes.
That is not what the Buddhas point out. Usually, when ordinary people listen to this point of Dhamma, they imagine an 'eye' in their mind. That eye changes. What does that become? Ah, that is what is meant by 'the eye has the nature of breaking down'. It is not like that. It's not that an existing eye has the nature of breaking down. The very nature of the eye itself is that. What is it? The nature of breaking down. An 'eye' is a nature that breaks down. When we say 'forms of the eye,' it doesn't mean that a form changes. The very nature of forms is the nature of breaking down, the nature of perishing. What is the difference between these two points?
Now, saying "The eye is impermanent, the eye breaks down," and saying "That is the nature of the eye"—what is the difference? When we take it the first way, 'my eye' comes into our mind. Which eye? 'My eye' arises. Then, 'my eye,' and the form seen by 'my eye'. The Buddha has not explained it like this. Now, when we hear this, whose eye comes to mind? Our own. That is wrong. You think that that eye changes. So, why was this Dhamma taught? To show that there is no process here belonging to a person called 'a self'. However, through what do we try to understand this Dhamma? We try to explain it to a 'self', assuming that the process of a 'self' is real, saying, "See, this is how these phenomena (dhammatā) occur in this." This is how the world has gotten tangled up in listening to sermons.
Therefore, that is not the thing the Buddha is pointing to. That is not wise attention (yoniso manasikāra). That person thinks they are contemplating something, that they are understanding something. Even at this moment, you are listening to this sermon to understand it. Trying to understand. But what is being described? Is it about a nature or about what? A description about a nature. So, if this nature is to be caught by wisdom (paññā), if it is caught by wisdom like this, one doesn't encounter an existing eye that is breaking down. What is found? A nature of breaking down is found. You can't even say 'found'. That itself is the nature of wisdom (paññā). But what is the nature of our thinking? There is an eye, ah, that eye changes. That's right. There are forms seen by the eye. Those forms change. A mind arises that knows the eye and the form. That's how we think, isn't it? That thinking is a big mistake. The mistake is that we have then made the eye absolute, we have taken that there is a permanent eye. That permanent eye becomes impermanent. The Buddha is not saying that. What is meant by a paloka-dhamma? The eye is a paloka-dhamma. That is, the eye has the nature of breaking down. Forms have the nature of breaking down. Consciousness has the nature of breaking down. Therefore, they have no stable existence whatsoever. It's not about an existing thing ceasing. Now, this glass, people think, "The glass exists, it gets old, it is impermanent." This is exactly what we think about the eye as well. This is exactly what we think about forms as well. But the nature of this is not like that. What is its nature? The nature of being destroyed. It is not that an existing thing is destroyed; its very nature is the nature of destruction. That is what is called 'the world'. The ear is also like that. The ear is also described, "Ānanda, again, what is this world called in the noble discipline? A paloka-dhamma." Paloka-dhamma means... then there is nothing that does not belong to it. If the all belongs to it, then what kind of nature does the all have? It is something that has the nature of breaking down. The mind is also like that. Now, we think with that mind, assuming the mind is real, and then we contemplate from there. Even what is being said now is taken in by the mind. Then, we don't understand that the mind has the nature of breaking down. We understand that what the mind has grasped changes. What is it? The mind heard something, and that thing which was heard changes. But what does the Buddha say? The mind itself has the nature of breaking down. The object that comes to the mind itself has the nature of breaking down. Here it is: "Mano palokadhammo." The mind has the nature of breaking down. It has the nature of changing. It has the nature of being destroyed. Mind-consciousness is also like that. Mind-contact is also like that. Because of that, the internal pleasure, pain, and equanimity that arise are also like that. "Ayaṁ vuccati ariyassa vinaye loko." "Ānanda, in the noble discipline, this is what is called the world." In the noble discipline. So, the idea that an existing eye changes is what ordinary people think. That is, an ordinarily intelligent person thinks, "This eye exists, it gets old. It changes. It gets destroyed." Whose eye is that? Their own eye. They don't take it as a nature. They take it as their own eye. If it is not their own eye, then it's someone else's eye. Then the forms seen by it. By thinking in that manner, a person's wise attention (yoniso manasikāra) does not develop. Unknowingly, that person is just spinning again within that same ignorance.
However, if we understand the point the Buddha shows exactly as it is, then within it, we don't encounter 'my eye' or 'another's eye'. What is there to be found? There is nothing to be found. Now, in our experience, we find an eye, don't we? It's that found eye that we think changes. We find a form. It's that found form that we think changes. But in this [understanding], there is nothing to be found. That is why it is called a paloka-dhamma. So, discourses like this are very short. But, just like the other one, these must be memorized and their meaning investigated. Now, heard, remembered, familiarized by speech, mentally examined, and thoroughly penetrated by view (sutā, dhatā, vacasā paricitā, manasānupekkhitā, diṭṭhiyā suppaṭividdhā). Only then will that point be remembered. For example, if someone wants to get milk, even if they milk a horn for their entire life, they will not get any milk. Why? They are squeezing in the wrong place. Similarly, no matter how wrongly one contemplates these suttas, even if one contemplates for a lifetime, that person will not grasp the meaning of the Dhamma the Buddha taught.
Right. Next, the second sutta there is also... it's there too. This is also an extremely profound sutta. Right? An extremely profound, very short, extremely profound sutta. But it is valuable to listen to and keep these in mind. The name of this sutta is the Suñña Loka Sutta. That means... what does suñña mean? Empty. Emptiness. The discourse spoken about the empty world. Having sat to one side, the Venerable Ānanda said this to the Blessed One... he inquired of the Blessed One. "Suñño loko, suñño loko'ti, bhante, vuccati." What did he ask before? "Loko, loko'ti bhante, vuccati." What does he say in this one? "Suñño loko, suñño loko'ti, bhante, vuccati." "Venerable sir, it is said, 'empty is the world, empty is the world.'" Even today, people talk about the 'Dhamma of emptiness' (suññatā) everywhere, don't they? Even in those days, it was said, "The world is empty, empty." "Kittāvatā nu kho, bhante, suñño loko'ti vuccatīti?" "On what account, venerable sir, is it said that the world is empty?"
Now, over there [in the previous sutta], it was "On what account is it 'the world'?" Then the Buddha said, because it is a paloka-dhamma. What is it? Because it is a phenomenon with the nature of being destroyed. Because it is a phenomenon with the nature of breaking down. Now here he asks, on what account is it said that the world is empty? "Yasmā ca kho, ānanda, suññaṁ attena vā attaniyena vā..." Ah, that is the important part. "...suññaṁ attena vā attaniyena vā, tasmā suñño loko ti vuccati." A very short answer, but a profound one. "Ānanda, because it is empty of a self or of what belongs to a self, it is therefore said that the world is empty." What is meant by 'self' (atta)? Here, there is no process belonging to a 'self'. So, of what is the world empty? Of self or of what belongs to a self (attena vā attaniyena vā). What is it? There is nothing to be taken as one's own, belonging to a self.
Now, when ordinary people say 'empty', they mean thoughts becoming empty. "If my thoughts become empty after meditating, ah, that is what the Buddha meant by the world being empty." But for whom have the thoughts become empty? For 'oneself'. So, has it been taken as 'one's own' or not? Then it is not empty of the feeling of 'mine'. The emptiness of thoughts they grasp is merely a reduction in their many thoughts. Right?
Now, ordinary people break things down, analyze, look, and see, "There is nothing here, right? These are particles," and they go even beyond that. However, the Buddha did not explain emptiness (suññatā) in that sense. That is why this question itself is important. Venerable Ānanda asks, "On what account is it called emptiness?" The Buddha says, "Suññaṁ attena vā attaniyena vā, tasmā suñño loko ti vuccati." "Because it is empty of a self or of what belongs to a self, it is said that the world is empty." There is nothing here that is a self or belongs to a self. That's what we said before, right? That there was never a dog there. What did we say using the mirror analogy? It is wrong to say that a dog that was there ceased to be. It is also wrong to say it was there. It was never there. It is the same here. Although a feeling of 'self' comes to us, such a thing was never there. It is empty of such a thing.
Then he asks again, "Kiñca, ānanda, suññaṁ attena vā attaniyena vā?" "And what, Ānanda, is empty of a self or of what belongs to a self?" ... "Cakkhuṁ kho, ānanda, suññaṁ attena vā attaniyena vā." "The eye, Ānanda, is empty of a self or of what belongs to a self." Now, what did the previous sutta say? That the eye has the nature of breaking down. Therefore, there is nothing there to be taken as 'one's own'. What is it? Ah, in this discourse, it is said that there is nothing there to be taken as one's own or as belonging to oneself. But when we bring up an eye, we think, "Ah, my eye is impermanent. Therefore, it changes. It is empty... it changes and then ceases." That's how we think. But then, is that eye empty of what? It is not empty of the feeling 'mine'. That's the way we look.
But the Buddha shows that even within the eye... "Cakkhuṁ kho, ānanda, suññaṁ attena vā attaniyena vā." The eye is empty of a self and of what belongs to a self. Next, it is the same within forms. The form is also like that; within the form, what is there? It is empty of self and what belongs to a self (attena vā attaniyena vā). It is empty of a self and what belongs to a self. Next, "Cakkhuviññāṇaṁ suññaṁ attena vā attaniyena vā... Cakkhusamphassaṁ suññaṁ attena vā attaniyena vā..." "Whatever internal pleasure or pain arises on account of that contact... ah, that, what is it? Even within that, there is no process of 'I' or 'mine'. There is nothing to be taken as 'I' or 'mine'. It is empty. Empty of a self." It is for this that the Blessed One says, "Tasmā suñño loko ti vuccati." "Therefore, it is said that the world is empty." For that reason, it is said that the world is empty. What is the world said to be? It is said to be empty.
But our world is not empty. Why? Why is that? We take something as 'the eye'. We take what is seen by the eye as "I saw it." Now, as soon as we see something, even this sermon, we take it as "I understand." Then we take it as "I don't understand." Or we think of something else. So what has happened? We think that there is something here. That there is something for a 'self' to grasp. That there is something for a 'self' to think about. Then, the nature of the world as being empty of self and what belongs to a self (attena vā attaniyena vā) is not clear to us.
Here, what the Buddha is showing is that the way people exist is wrong. The way people think is wrong. What exists here is an empty nature. This whole world is... what was said to be the world? That which breaks down and falls apart. Or else, that which is subject to change. A paloka-dhamma. Within that paloka-dhamma, is there anything like a 'self' or what belongs to a 'self' (attena vā attaniyena vā)? Such a thing cannot be taken. It is an empty process.
Now, with that, there is another discourse. In it, it talks about a gang of four great element-thieves. Next, they go to a village... there is a sutta like that, the Āsīvisopama Sutta. In it, the Buddha points out again that this external eye is empty, the external form is empty. After going through that, what happens? They gather the available things, make a raft, and cross over. Then it says not to abandon the raft... it's a long, beautiful discourse with many similes. First, there are four snakes. They chase after one to bite, representing the four great elements one is holding onto. You see? It is the Āsīvisopama. So in these discourses, this meaning is shown very beautifully.
What is meant by this 'emptiness' is not the cessation of the various things we imagine. Even within that thinking, what is there? We have a feeling of 'mine,' a feeling of self. But if we can understand that with wisdom (paññā), if wisdom is applied, we will realize, what is it? That there is nothing here to be taken as 'self' or 'mine'. That has been the error in the world all this time.
So now, on one hand, we look at this Dhamma in terms of cause and effect. In what way do we look? Why do we look at it that way? Now, for us, knowing the cause... now, with ignorance as a condition, formations arise; with formations as a condition, consciousness arises (Avijjā paccayā saṅkhārā, saṅkhārā paccayā viññāṇa)... that's how we look at it. There is a cause-and-effect principle (hetuphala dhammatā) in this. It even shows that when you take a result—now, when you take the eye and a form, and the oil and the wick, because of those things, what does the flame get? The flame has no stable nature. What always comes to the result? It is made up of causes. When the causes cease, so does its stable nature. Now, here, when the eye is called a paloka-dhamma, it means it has arisen from causes. So why does it break down and fall apart? Because it has no stable nature of its own. In this world, everything is a paloka-dhamma.
Now, the Blessed One points out the characteristics of a conditioned thing (saṅkhata). What are they? "Uppādo paññāyati, vayo paññāyati, ṭhitassa aññathattaṁ paññāyati." An arising is seen. A passing away is seen. A change in what exists is seen. That is the mark of a conditioned thing. So, every single thing we encounter is what? Yes, put it inside paloka-dhamma, and it's over. What happens to it? It has the nature of being destroyed. It has the nature of ceasing. It has the nature of breaking down and falling apart.
So now, these discourses are there in the Connected Discourses (Saṃyutta Nikāya). Ah, now there is another one here. If I mention this as well, this also fits in with this very topic. However, this one concerns Venerable Ānanda personally, as he was a stream-enterer (sotāpanna), inquiring about the path to Arahantship (arahatta magga). But these two are connected. The name of this is Saṅkhitta Dhamma, the discourse on the brief teaching of the Dhamma. Having sat to one side, the Venerable Ānanda inquired of the Blessed One. "Sādhu, bhante, bhagavā saṅkhittena dhammaṁ desetu..." "Venerable sir, it would be good if the Blessed One would teach me the Dhamma in brief." So I may, being diligent, with ardent energy, go to a secluded place and reflect on the Dhamma you have spoken. He is saying, having heard and known a teaching from the Blessed One, "I will devote myself to it, I will dwell with my life dedicated to it."
"Taṁ kiṁ maññasi, ānanda, cakkhuṁ niccaṁ vā aniccaṁ vā'ti?" Ah, the Buddha asks, "What do you think of this, Ānanda? Is the eye permanent or impermanent?" Then Ānanda says, "Aniccaṁ, bhante." What is it? Is the eye permanent or impermanent? Now, when we consider whether the eye is permanent or impermanent, what do we look at? See, when we take 'the eye', whose eye is it again? One's own. Now, does the Buddha say anything like that here? Does he say that 'your own eye' is permanent or impermanent? What has he asked? "Cakkhuṁ niccaṁ vā aniccaṁ vā'ti?" "Is the eye permanent or impermanent?" So, the discourse is about whether the eye is permanent or impermanent. But what do we do when we hear it? We think there is 'my eye', and he is asking if it changes or not. Then we give the answer. What is it? "It changes." Now we also understand, don't we? Ah, when I take 'my eye', what happens to it? Looking at something conjured in the mind, we give the answer. Does it change or not? "Ah, it gets old, it matures, yes," that's what is being said, that it changes. That is the description. But the Blessed One... so, we imagine it's either 'my eye' or 'another's eye'. But it's not like that here. It's the nature of the eye. It's a paloka-dhamma, isn't it? What is its nature? It inherently possesses the nature of breaking down. It's not that an existing eye breaks down. It's not that an existing eye becomes impermanent. It's not a story like a glass existing and then shattering and being destroyed. The moment the eye arises, it is endowed with that nature. So it is about that eye that the Blessed One is questioning.
So here, the eye... now why is 'one's own' taken here? A worldling (puthujjana) takes it as 'one's own' because of identity view (Sakkāya-diṭṭhi), right? Is this discourse being given to a worldling? Venerable Ānanda is a noble disciple (ariya sāvaka). So Venerable Ānanda at this point does not take it as 'my eye'. Just as the householder Anāthapiṇḍika said in the Kiṁdiṭṭhika Sutta, "This is a conditioned thing," and so on. So a noble disciple does not take this as 'my eye'. It does not occur to him that way. However, when an ordinary person listens to this sermon, what do they think is being spoken of? 'My eye'. That is the nature of an ordinary worldling (puthujjana). The worldling takes it that this is about 'my eye'. Then it revolves entirely around identity view (Sakkāya-diṭṭhi).
Now, this is why I said this. This discourse is actually one given to someone who has become a stream-enterer (sotāpanna) or a once-returner (sakadāgāmi) to become an Arahant. It is understood along with the other two. So, this was something Venerable Ānanda personally requested for himself, to have it explained briefly. So the Buddha asks briefly, "Cakkhuṁ niccaṁ vā aniccaṁ vā?" "Aniccaṁ, bhante." "Yaṁ panāniccaṁ, dukkhaṁ vā taṁ sukhaṁ vā?" "But what is impermanent, is that suffering or happiness?" Now, if something has the nature of breaking down and falling apart... it is not an existing thing, but a thing that has arisen, a thing that arises... if it has the nature of breaking down and falling apart, can we take that as pleasure? Pleasure comes from something that is stable, right? If something has a nature of breaking down and falling apart, if a nature of changing is seen, if a nature of ceasing is seen, what is it? It has a nature of suffering (dukkha). Here, this 'suffering' (dukkha) does not refer to painful feeling. It refers to a noble reality... it means the nature of a paloka-dhamma is suffering (dukkha). "Yaṁ panāniccaṁ dukkhaṁ vipariṇāmadhammaṁ, kallaṁ nu taṁ samanupassituṁ: ‘etaṁ mama, esohamasmi, eso me attā’ti?" So he asks, "But what is suffering and subject to change (vipariṇāmadhamma), is it proper to regard that as 'this is mine, this I am, this is my self'?" Is there anything appropriate to take? "No hetaṁ, bhante." Then the answer is invariably given, "No, venerable sir, it is not proper to take it so."
Then he asks again, "Rūpaṁ niccaṁ vā aniccaṁ vā'ti?" "Is a form... what is it? Is it permanent or impermanent?" So now, this is not asking about an existing form. What is he asking about? About a paloka-dhamma, a nature that breaks down. What was a form called earlier? It was called a paloka-dhamma. A paloka-dhamma means having the nature of breaking down. Now, we think of it as the changing nature of a form that appears to our eye. But there again is what? The feeling that it is 'a form that I see'. Now, as soon as we get close to something, we connect with it and create a feeling of 'mine'. We then give answers about what is felt by that feeling. But the Buddha is asking about such a nature, about the nature of form. He asks about such a nature of form. So he speaks in that way, and again asks in the same manner.
This nature of knowing, of eye-consciousness... now, the nature of knowing... we think about what our mind... when we take it in the ordinary way, we try to see as impermanent the things we feel and cognize. In doing so, has the thing we knew and cognized become stable for us or not? Even at this moment, you are trying to understand these points of Dhamma regarding something you can feel and cognize. So, you assume that thing is stable and try to see its change.
But what the Buddha is saying here is not something to be looked at with the mind, thought about with the mind, broken down, and analyzed. This is a nature that is comprehended by wisdom (paññā). A nature comprehended by what? When a person's wisdom is sharpened, it speaks of a nature that is apparent to that wisdom. Now, what we see with our eyes is... we see a glass as if it exists. That is how we think. But if our eye were to see and know this place differently, to see it as electrons, what would we see it as then? As the activity of a collection of electrons. If we go beyond that and look through glasses that see particles, we would see particles. So, this is not talking about the nature of something that the mind thinks of, the eye sees, or the ear hears. It is about a nature that is comprehended by wisdom (paññā). When wisdom is sharpened, when there is wise attention (yoniso manasikāra), and wisdom is sharpened, it is describing a vision of reality as it is.
Otherwise, just listening to these suttas, we might think, "Ah, I also understand this, don't I?" Now, Venerable Ānanda became an Arahant only after the Buddha's final passing (parinibbāna). But this was taught to Venerable Ānanda while the Buddha was alive. That means even Venerable Ānanda had not understood it. He had not truly realized it. But he remembered it. If he had understood, he should have become an Arahant at that very moment. If one understands, what happens? If the point the Buddha is making becomes clear to us, what happens to us? The directly visible nature (sandiṭṭhika) of the Dhamma becomes clear. A directly visible result... its immediate effectiveness, its directly experienceable nature must be understood. It must be understood that it is well-proclaimed. But that is not what you are understanding. What you are understanding now is according to your own perception of self. "Ah, I am listening, I am trying to understand." So one must listen knowing that there is a fault even in that. The fault within it... these three suttas were taken precisely to point out that fault.
Therefore, we are always trying to understand for ourselves... as I started the sermon, for whom do we listen to the Dhamma to attain Nibbana? We listen to the Dhamma to take 'ourselves' to Nibbana. But the Buddha has spoken about an empty world. Why? Because it is empty of self and what belongs to a self (attena vā attaniyena vā). He has spoken of a world that is empty of anything to be taken as one's own. But we try to explain emptiness to the person called 'self'. What is this? Listening to the Dhamma completely upside down. That is why I said, if this sermon I am giving now was given to you five years ago, you would not have understood it at all. Now, if you go bit by bit, what is it? Now you can at least grasp what is being attempted to be taught here. Now, at the very least, if you, 'the self', understand, you know that there is a shortcoming here. There is a fault here.
What is it? Who has understood this now? It is something understood by directing this thought process, something that became clear to thought, not something that became clear to wisdom (paññā). What becomes clear to wisdom (paññā) is an experience. When it becomes clear to thought, it is something understood through thoughts. Like one plus one equals two. Two plus two equals four. "Ah, if I do this, this happens." So that is done by directing thought. But wisdom (paññā) is not that; it is something different. So, at that time, there were people like Saccaka. They got to hear these things. But they were intelligent, with multiple degrees, but their wisdom (paññā) was not sharpened. But for people like Sunīta and Sopāka, what happened from this? As they listened, as they listened to things like this, wisdom (paññā) arose within them. It became clear to their wisdom (paññā). The moment "Rūpaṁ niccaṁ vā aniccaṁ vā'ti" was said, they had already realized it. So that is the result of having that wholesome quest. This was a brief discourse that Venerable Ānanda got to hear, but it was only after the Buddha's final passing (parinibbāna) that he fully realized it.
So, it is said in this way: "Ānanda, what do you think of this? Is the eye permanent or impermanent?" "Impermanent, venerable sir." "If something is impermanent, is it happiness or suffering?" "Suffering." Ah, look. If something is conditioned by something else... if something is impermanent, it is because of its nature of breaking down and falling apart that it cannot be given a stable nature. It cannot be taken as happiness. That is why it is designated as suffering (dukkha). "Is it proper to see this suffering as 'this is mine, this I am, this is my self'?" "It is not proper, venerable sir."
Now, this part is found in many places in the Sutta Pitaka, like in the Nandakovāda Sutta and in other places, this very teaching has been given for the sake of Arahantship. This very thing in different places, like in the Anattalakkhaṇa Sutta. So then, "Is it proper to see this as 'my self'?" "Venerable sir, it is not proper to see this as 'I,' 'mine,' or 'my self'." "Is form permanent or impermanent?" "Impermanent." So, when Venerable Ānanda is giving these answers, for him... the formations... he is a stream-enterer (sotāpanna) who is not yet free from 'I' and 'mine' in a subtle sense. He has eradicated identity view (Sakkāya-diṭṭhi), but powerful wisdom (paññā) has not yet arisen in him. So, in a gross way, the other fetters (saṁyojana) are still operating. But what Venerable Ānanda did first was sutā—he listened. He is a disciple (sāvaka); a disciple is one who has heard. Dhatā—he bore it in mind. Next, he practiced it with speech. He kept it in mind. Next, he obtained the results.
Then he is asked in this way about all six sense bases. What is asked is that. "Is the eye permanent or impermanent?" ... "Is form permanent or impermanent (rūpaṁ niccaṁ vā aniccaṁ vā)? Next, is eye-consciousness permanent or impermanent (cakkhuviññāṇaṁ niccaṁ vā aniccaṁ vā)?" And so on for the ear, nose... mind. "Is the mind permanent or impermanent?" "Impermanent, venerable sir." "If something is impermanent... next... yaṁ panāniccaṁ... should that be taken as happiness or as suffering?" "Dukkhaṁ, bhante." "Next, can that be taken as 'I', as 'one's own'? etaṁ mama... samanupassituṁ... can it be taken as 'I' or 'mine'?" "It cannot be taken, venerable sir." If it is impermanent, suffering, and has a changing nature—ah, there a few words are used—if something is impermanent, meaning it has a changing nature, if it is suffering, can there be a 'mine' there? There is nothing left there to be taken as 'one's own'. Nothing is established there. Nothing was ever there. Right? It was never there.
"Evaṁ passaṁ, sutavā ariyasāvako..." "Seeing thus, the learned noble disciple..." Ah, the term sutavā ariyasāvako. Here, sutavā means one who has come to the true path. "Ānanda, when the learned noble disciple sees in this way..." If the learned noble disciple sees in a different way, he does not realize the Dhamma. Now, 'seeing in a different way' means, when we come to the side of the world and look, there is an eye. There are forms. We have something to think about them. We have something to recognize. We are settled in the pleasure and pain within that. That is, the ordinary person in the ordinary world has no use for investigating the eye. The ordinary world has no use for investigating form. The ordinary world has no use for investigating the mind, the body, or speech. So, what the ordinary world wants is the pleasure derived from them. To experience pleasure without pain. That's what I told you to look at before. It is in the Sañcetanika Sutta. People in the ordinary world do not investigate these three things. So, the ordinary world, dwelling within these three, remains established internally in pleasure and pain. When pain comes, they shout, cry, lament, and come to temples. Then, when the other thing [pleasure] comes, they get established right on top of it. That is the nature of the ordinary world.
But a noble disciple is not like that. Even if a noble disciple gets caught up and sees in that way... "Ānanda, when the learned noble disciple sees in this way... the learned noble disciple... regarding the eye (cakkhusmiṁpi)... what happens? Nibbindati. Becomes disenchanted with the eye. Rūpesupi nibbindati. Becomes disenchanted with forms. Cakkhuviññāṇasmimpi nibbindati. Becomes disenchanted with the consciousness arising at the eye, with the knowing at the eye. Cakkhusamphasse... Becomes disenchanted with that contact. Right? He teaches this for all six sense bases in this way. Next, one becomes disenchanted with the pleasure and pain that arise because of that. "Nibbindaṁ virajjati." Through disenchantment, one becomes dispassionate. Through dispassion, one is liberated. Ah, then the knowledge arises that one is liberated. The knowledge arises that one has understood for oneself in liberation (vimutti). "Vimuttasmiṁ vimuttamiti ñāṇaṁ hoti. Khīṇā jāti, vusitaṁ brahmacariyaṁ, kataṁ karaṇīyaṁ, nāparaṁ itthattāyā'ti." Whatever should be done for Nibbana... for cessation... the understanding comes that all of it has now been done and is finished. A realization comes.
So then, here, Venerable Ānanda had personally asked for a brief teaching, hadn't he? So this is a discourse given to a learned noble disciple. In other places, the discourses are often not for learned noble disciples. What are they? They are teachings for a person in the state of a worldling (puthujjana) to become a noble disciple. The discourses given are mostly for becoming a stream-enterer (sotāpanna). A stream-enterer is one who has eradicated identity view (Sakkāya-diṭṭhi). The Buddha has taught mostly for the eradication of identity view (Sakkāya-diṭṭhi). For those who have eradicated identity view (Sakkāya-diṭṭhi), as I said, in the suttas that are there... beyond that, what are they? The Anattalakkhaṇa Sutta, the Nandakovāda Sutta, the Cūḷapuṇṇama Sutta. Next, when asked in places like this, the Blessed One, without making any changes, asks the same thing everywhere. What is it? "Is the eye permanent or impermanent?" "Impermanent, venerable sir." "If something is impermanent, is it happiness or suffering?" "Dukkhaṁ, bhante." "If something is suffering, is it proper to accept it as 'I' or 'mine'?" "No hetaṁ, bhante." "No, it is not proper, venerable sir."
So, because of this, now you have a task to do. It is not that you understand these things just by hearing them. What must you do with these things? Memorize them, keep them in mind. It is after that that the act of investigating with wisdom occurs. It is not that a 'self' needs to understand; what happens? The point of Dhamma that was taken is investigated with wisdom. It's the same with what was explained about the hand. What about it? "When there is a hand... when there isn't a hand..." That sutta directly speaks of transcending identity view (Sakkāya-diṭṭhi). It is by assuming "when there is something" that we build up the entire edifice of proliferating perceptions (papañca-saññā). If it is a case of "when there isn't something," all our problems end right there. There is nothing more to talk about after that. What people don't understand is a pre-existing thing ceasing. When something arises as "when there is," they look at those things changing, decaying, and becoming empty, and try to find Nibbana.
What the Buddha calls Nibbana is not something that has arisen in this way ceasing to be. It is not about scraping and scraping something until it is worn away and finished. The other side of that is "when there is something, when there is not something." The movements and unfoldings exist only when "there is a hand." The bendings and stretchings exist only when "there is a hand." If "there isn't a hand," such a thing cannot be done. It's over. The other side is not... "there is a hand, and seeing that existing hand get destroyed is Nibbana." That is not the path to Nibbana; that is the hand that has to be transcended by identity view (Sakkāya-diṭṭhi). So you are looking with the feeling that "there is." Then that is annihilationism (uccheda). What are they? Two extremes (anta). Existence and non-existence. Standing on the side of existence, one looks at the side of non-existence. Again, standing on the side of non-existence, one looks at the side of existence. That is existence/becoming. One does not get liberated by looking at existence.
However, if one practices contemplation (anupassanā) in this way, wisdom (paññā) arises. If one looks at the Dhamma in the way the Buddha has shown, wisdom arises, the Dhamma-eye (dhammacakkhu) arises. When the Dhamma-eye arises, liberation occurs. So now, the eye is a paloka-dhamma. The eye is a thing that breaks down and falls apart. If the eye has the nature of breaking down, when that becomes clear to wisdom (paññā), what happens? Does one grasp it? No. Now, we want to grasp the forms seen by the eye, and having grasped them, we think along those lines. Why? Because we do not see that nature of breaking down. So if it becomes clear to wisdom (paññā) that "the eye is breaking down, form is breaking down, consciousness is breaking down," what happens? Is there a grasping of it? What happens? What is there is disenchantment. It is called disenchantment. Because no stable thing is seen here. When one is disenchanted, what arises? Dispassion. When one is dispassionate, what happens? One is liberated. When one is liberated, the knowledge arises that one is liberated. That is the nature of wisdom (paññā). It is not a feeling that arises for a 'self'.
So because of that, a person's wisdom (paññā) is sharpened. Then one must think along the lines of these discourses. That is why it was said, "the noble disciple sees in this way." If the noble disciple sees in the old way again, what happens? Ah, in an existing world, one can create proliferating phenomena (papañca-dhamma); that can be done as much as one likes. You see? Like with the phone screen, when one thing falls upon another... now, is there blood on the phone screen? No. Do we get scared and what happens? We say it’s there, tell someone else about it, say "I saw a bad thing, I saw this," and what happens? Proliferation (papañca) is all of it. So what is that view? That is the view of an ordinary worldling (puthujjana). If he had understood at the very least, he would think, "A person can't even be inside this phone." We are so deceived by the images on the screen we see. We assume, "Ah, what has come here is something that happened over there." We think even further. That is, letting foolishness breed more foolishness. That is, finding a reason to experience pleasure and pain inside. By looking at it that way, one will never be liberated.
That is what is meant by the foolish world; it is foolish anyway. The view within that foolish nature is the way we see. In our normal lives, we operate with a foolish view. Now what does the Buddha say here? "If a noble disciple sees in this way..." If one sees in the way the Buddha points out, liberation will occur. By seeing in that other way, will one ever be liberated? So then what arises in us? The opposite of this arises. The eye becomes permanent; "when there is an eye"... we have just automatically accepted that and are done with it. Next, what? The eye has become permanent. The forms seen by the eye have become permanent. Because of that, what do we do about the pleasure and pain that arise? We try to live searching for more and more pleasure. We try to eradicate pain. That is what people in the world struggle for; they are lodged in that. There is no more talk about what the eye is or what the ear is. The pleasure and pain that arise inside are felt very well. They struggle with pleasure and pain. That is why poor people study and work hard to obtain more pleasure. People with pleasure work even harder to stabilize that pleasure. Right? When pain comes, they watch to see when it will disappear. That is the nature of the ordinary world. It is complete ignorance, foolishness, the nature of a fool, the view of a fool.
But if one comes to the noble view, ah, then what happens to that person? Disenchantment arises (nibbindati), from that comes dispassion (virajjati), from dispassion one is liberated (vimuccati), and in liberation the knowledge arises that one is liberated (vimuttasmiṁ vimuttamiti ñāṇaṁ hoti). Liberation arises. So these discourses are there. I have become a monk. Now, there's nothing else I can do by just being here, is there? Only to point this out. The path has been shown to you. What has been shown? So, throughout this beginningless time, what one has taken as one's own, that selfhood... it is not an empty nature that is seen, is it? It is a process of 'mine' that is seen. Now, one can understand the fault in that process. By developing wisdom (paññā). So one must be dedicated to that. There are a few people who are dedicated, aren't there?
So now, for instance, I have seen on YouTube, there are heaps of sermons about emptiness (suññatā). You might think they are correct. What they speak of is a different story. This matter of being empty of self or of what belongs to a self (attena vā attaniyena vā) is not touched upon at all. What they call emptiness (suññatā) is a different story within an existing world. Now, when the Buddha says 'empty', it is not a story about whether things in this world cease to exist or continue to exist. It is not a story about this external world or society. What is it about? It speaks of an emptiness that arises within this stream of thoughts that arises in this form of one's own. And it is not a story about thoughts ceasing either. What is it? Self... empty of self and what belongs to a self (attena vā attaniyena vā). It speaks of the nature of selfhood. It speaks of the fact that the process taken as 'I' and 'mine' is not here.
A dog sees another dog in the mirror. But in reality, there was never a dog there. It is empty of another dog there. It speaks of something like that. For us, 'mine' is always forming. "What happened to me?" forms. "What will I get?" is a thought that comes. "What will I not get?" is a thought that comes. The Buddha speaks of a nature where such a thing is absent here. One might ask, "What is this 'I, mine' you are talking about?" That nature is just like that dog. So because of that, in one's lifetime... now, in those days, if Venerable Ānanda had not memorized and remembered these things... he never inserted anything like "I asked." Why? Because this is not a Dhamma where one's 'self' is aggrandized. The event has been reported as the event itself. An event has been reported as an event, that this was the answer given.
So, you must memorize these things. There is no point in having other things in your head. You must remember them and investigate along those lines in the way that has been shown. Otherwise, you will get it wrong. Otherwise, you will think, "There is an eye, and that eye is impermanent." I have now pointed out that error. So having this recording is enough. This is not talking about an existing eye, but about the nature of the eye. Then one can investigate along those lines with wisdom.
Alright, the sermon is over for today. May the Triple Gem bless you all. May you be well.
Original Source (Video):
Title: ශුන්යතාවය හා බිඳියන දේ ඔබ දන්නවාද ? | පූජ්ය තිත්තගල්ලේ ආනන්දසිරි හිමි
https://youtu.be/vKush3SCvf4?si=wNm7j5MpD1Wli3uj
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.
Comments
Post a Comment