Since we’re doing the favorites sutta thing, here’s one that’s very high up on my list: Chachakkasutta 
     
     
    • Majjhima Nikāya

    148. The Six Sets of Six

    Thus have I heard. On one occasion the Blessed One was living at Sāvatthī in Jeta’s Grove, Anāthapiṇḍika’s Park. There he addressed the bhikkhus thus: “Bhikkhus.”—“Venerable sir,” they replied. The Blessed One said this:

    “Bhikkhus, I shall teach you the Dhamma that is good in the beginning, good in the middle, and good in the end, with the right meaning and phrasing; I shall reveal a holy life that is utterly perfect and pure, that is, the six sets of six. Listen and attend closely to what I shall say.”—“Yes, venerable sir,” the bhikkhus replied. The Blessed One said this:

    Synopsis

    “The six internal bases should be understood. The six external bases should be understood. The six classes of consciousness should be understood. The six classes of contact should be understood. The six classes of feeling should be understood. The six classes of craving should be understood.

    Enumeration

    i “‘The six internal bases should be understood.’ So it was said. And with reference to what was this said? There are the eye-base, the ear-base, the nose-base, the tongue-base, the body-base, and the mind-base. So it was with reference to this that it was said: ‘The six internal bases should be understood.’ This is the first set of six.

    ii “‘The six external bases should be understood.’ So it was said. And with reference to what was this said? There are the form-base, the sound-base, the odour-base, the flavour-base, the tangible-base, and the mind-object-base. So it was with reference to this that it was said: ‘The six external bases should be understood. ’ This is the second set of six.

    iii “‘The six classes of consciousness should be understood. ’ So it was said. And with reference to what was this said? Dependent on the eye and forms, eye-consciousness arises; dependent on the ear and sounds, ear-consciousness arises; dependent on the nose and odours, nose-consciousness arises; dependent on the tongue and flavours, tongue-consciousness arises; dependent on the body and tangibles, body-consciousness arises; dependent on the mind and mind-objects, mind-consciousness arises. So it was with reference to this that it was said: ‘The six classes of consciousness should be understood.’ This is the third set of six.

    iv “‘The six classes of contact should be understood.’ So it was said. And with reference to what was this said? Dependent on the eye and forms, eye-consciousness arises; the meeting of the three is contact. Dependent on the ear and sounds, ear-consciousness arises; the meeting of the three is contact. Dependent on the nose and odours, nose-consciousness arises; the meeting of the three is contact. Dependent on the tongue and flavours, tongue-consciousness arises; the meeting of the three is contact. Dependent on the body and tangibles, body-consciousness arises; the meeting of the three is contact. Dependent on the mind and mind-objects, mind-consciousness arises; the meeting of the three is contact. So it was with reference to this that it was said: ‘The six classes of contact should be understood. ’ This is the fourth set of six.

    v “‘The six classes of feeling should be understood.’ So it was said. And with reference to what was this said? Dependent on the eye and forms, eye-consciousness arises; the meeting of the three is contact; with contact as condition there is feeling. Dependent on the ear and sounds, ear-consciousness arises; the meeting of the three is contact; with contact as condition there is feeling. Dependent on the nose and odours, nose-consciousness arises; the meeting of the three is contact; with contact as condition there is feeling. Dependent on the tongue and flavours, tongue-consciousness arises; the meeting of the three is contact; with contact as condition there is feeling. Dependent on the body and tangibles, body-consciousness arises; the meeting of the three is contact; with contact as condition there is feeling. Dependent on the mind and mind-objects, mind-consciousness arises; the meeting of the three is contact; with contact as condition there is feeling. So it was with reference to this that it was said: ‘The six classes of feeling should be understood. ’ This is the fifth set of six.

    vi “‘The six classes of craving should be understood.’ So it was said. And with reference to what was this said? Dependent on the eye and forms, eye-consciousness arises; the meeting of the three is contact; with contact as condition there is feeling; with feeling as condition there is craving. Dependent on the ear and sounds, ear-consciousness arises…with feeling as condition there is craving. Dependent on the nose and odours, nose-consciousness arises…with feeling as condition there is craving. Dependent on the tongue and flavours, tongue-consciousness arises…with feeling as condition there is craving. Dependent on the body and tangibles, body-consciousness arises…with feeling as condition there is craving. Dependent on the mind and mind-objects, mind-consciousness arises; the meeting of the three is contact; with contact as condition there is feeling; with feeling as condition there is craving. So it was with reference to this that it was said: ‘The six classes of craving should be understood.’ This is the sixth set of six.

    Demonstration of not Self

    i “If anyone says, ‘The eye is self,’ that is not tenable. The rise and fall of the eye are discerned, and since its rise and fall are discerned, it would follow: ‘My self rises and falls.’ That is why it is not tenable for anyone to say, ‘The eye is self.’ Thus the eye is not self.

    “If anyone says, ‘Forms are self’…That is why it is not tenable for anyone to say, ‘Forms are self.’ Thus the eye is not self, forms are not self.

    “If anyone says, ‘Eye-consciousness is self’…That is why it is not tenable for anyone to say, ‘Eye-consciousness is self.’ Thus the eye is not self, forms are not self, eye-consciousness is not self.

    “If anyone says, ‘Eye-contact is self’…That is why it is not tenable for anyone to say, ‘Eye-contact is self.’ Thus the eye is not self, forms are not self, eye-consciousness is not self, eye-contact is not self.

    “If anyone says, ‘Feeling is self’ …That is why it is not tenable for anyone to say, ‘Feeling is self.’ Thus the eye is not self, forms are not self, eye-consciousness is not self, eye-contact is not self, feeling is not self.

    “If anyone says, ‘Craving is self’…That is why it is not tenable for anyone to say, ‘Craving is self.’ Thus the eye is not self, forms are not self, eye-consciousness is not self, eye-contact is not self, feeling is not self, craving is not self.

    ii “If anyone says, ‘The ear is self,’ that is not tenable. The rise and fall of the ear are discerned, and since its rise and fall are discerned, it would follow: ‘My self rises and falls.’ That is why it is not tenable for anyone to say, ‘The ear is self.’ Thus the ear is not self.

    “If anyone says, ‘Sounds are self,’…‘Ear-consciousness is self,’…‘Ear-contact is self,’…‘Feeling is self,’…‘Craving is self’… That is why it is not tenable for anyone to say, ‘Craving is self.’ Thus the ear is not self, sounds are not self, ear-consciousness is not self, ear-contact is not self, feeling is not self, craving is not self.

    iii “If anyone says, ‘The nose is self,’ that is not tenable. The rise and fall of the nose are discerned, and since its rise and fall are discerned, it would follow: ‘My self rises and falls.’ That is why it is not tenable for anyone to say, ‘The nose is self.’ Thus the nose is not self.

    “If anyone says, ‘Odours are self,’…‘Nose-consciousness is self,’ …‘Nose-contact is self,’…‘Feeling is self,’…‘Craving is self’…That is why it is not tenable for anyone to say, ‘Craving is self.’ Thus the nose is not self, odours are not self, nose-consciousness is not self, nose-contact is not self, feeling is not self, craving is not self.

    iv “If anyone says, ‘The tongue is self,’ that is not tenable. The rise and fall of the tongue are discerned, and since its rise and fall are discerned, it would follow: ‘My self rises and falls.’ That is why it is not tenable for anyone to say, ‘The tongue is self.’ Thus the tongue is not self.

    “If anyone says, ‘Flavours are self,’…‘Tongue-consciousness is self,’…‘Tongue-contact is self,’…‘Feeling is self,’…‘Craving is self’…That is why it is not tenable for anyone to say, ‘Craving is self.’ Thus the tongue is not self, flavours are not self, tongue-consciousness is not self, tongue-contact is not self, feeling is not self, craving is not self.

    v “If anyone says, ‘The body is self,’ that is not tenable. The rise and fall of the body are discerned, and since its rise and fall are discerned, it would follow: ‘My self rises and falls.’ That is why it is not tenable for anyone to say, ‘The body is self.’ Thus the body is not self.

    “If anyone says, ‘Tangibles are self,’…‘Body-consciousness is self,’…‘Body-contact is self,’…‘Feeling is self,’…‘Craving is self’…That is why it is not tenable for anyone to say, ‘Craving is self.’ Thus the body is not self, tangibles are not self, body-consciousness is not self, body-contact is not self, feeling is not self, craving is not self.

    vi “If anyone says, ‘The mind is self,’ that is not tenable. The rise and fall of the mind are discerned, and since its rise and fall are discerned, it would follow: ‘My self rises and falls.’ That is why it is not tenable for anyone to say, ‘The mind is self.’ Thus the mind is not self.

    “If anyone says, ‘Mind-objects are self,’…‘Mind-consciousness is self,’…‘Mind-contact is self,’…‘Feeling is self,’… … ‘Craving is self’…That is why it is not tenable for anyone to say, ‘Craving is self.’ Thus the mind is not self, mind-objects are not self, mind-consciousness is not self, mind-contact is not self, feeling is not self, craving is not self.

    The Origination of Identity

    “Now, bhikkhus, this is the way leading to the origination of identity. i One regards the eye thus: ‘This is mine, this I am, this is my self.’ One regards forms thus…One regards eye-consciousness thus…One regards eye-contact thus…One regards feeling thus…One regards craving thus: ‘This is mine, this I am, this is my self.’

    ii–vi “One regards the ear thus: ‘This is mine, this I am, this is my self.’…One regards the nose thus: ‘This is mine, this I am, this is my self.’…One regards the tongue thus: ‘This is mine, this I am, this is my self.’…One regards the body thus: ‘This is mine, this I am, this is my self.’…One regards the mind thus: ‘This is mine, this I am, this is my self.’ One regards mind-objects thus…One regards mind-consciousness thus…One regards mind-contact thus…One regards feeling thus…One regards craving thus: ‘This is mine, this I am, this is my self.’

    The Cessation of Identity

    “Now, bhikkhus, this is the way leading to the cessation of identity. i One regards the eye thus: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’ One regards forms thus…One regards eye-consciousness thus…One regards eye-contact thus…One regards feeling thus…One regards craving thus: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’

    ii–vi “One regards the ear thus: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’…One regards the nose thus: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’…One regards the tongue thus: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’…One regards the body thus: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’…One regards the mind thus: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’ One regards mind-objects thus…One regards mind-consciousness thus…One regards mind-contact thus…One regards feeling thus…One regards craving thus: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’

    The Underlying Tendencies

    i “Bhikkhus, dependent on the eye and forms, eye-consciousness arises; the meeting of the three is contact; with contact as condition there arises a feeling felt as pleasant or painful or neither-painful-nor-pleasant. When one is touched by a pleasant feeling, if one delights in it, welcomes it, and remains holding to it, then the underlying tendency to lust lies within one. When one is touched by a painful feeling, if one sorrows, grieves and laments, weeps beating one’s breast and becomes distraught, then the underlying tendency to aversion lies within one. When one is touched by a neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling, if one does not understand as it actually is the origination, the disappearance, the gratification, the danger, and the escape in regard to that feeling, then the underlying tendency to ignorance lies within one. Bhikkhus, that one shall here and now make an end of suffering without abandoning the underlying tendency to lust for pleasant feeling, without abolishing the underlying tendency to aversion towards painful feeling, without extirpating the underlying tendency to ignorance in regard to neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling, without abandoning ignorance and arousing true knowledge—this is impossible.

    ii–vi “Bhikkhus, dependent on the ear and sounds, ear-consciousness arises…Dependent on the mind and mind-objects, mind-consciousness arises; the meeting of the three is contact; with contact as condition there arises a feeling felt as pleasant or painful or neither-painful-nor-pleasant…Bhikkhus, that one should here and now make an end of suffering without abandoning the underlying tendency to lust for pleasant feeling…without abandoning ignorance and arousing true knowledge—this is impossible.

    The Abandonment of the Underlying Tendencies

    i “Bhikkhus, dependent on the eye and forms, eye-consciousness arises; the meeting of the three is contact; with contact as condition there arises a feeling felt as pleasant or painful or neither-painful-nor-pleasant. When one is touched by a pleasant feeling, if one does not delight in it, welcome it, and remain holding to it, then the underlying tendency to lust does not lie within one. When one is touched by a painful feeling, if one does not sorrow, grieve and lament, does not weep beating one’s breast and become distraught, then the underlying tendency to aversion does not lie within one. When one is touched by a neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling, if one understands as it actually is the origination, the disappearance, the gratification, the danger, and the escape in regard to that feeling, then the underlying tendency to ignorance does not lie within one. Bhikkhus, that one shall here and now make an end of suffering by abandoning the underlying tendency to lust for pleasant feeling, by abolishing the underlying tendency to aversion towards painful feeling, by extirpating the underlying tendency to ignorance in regard to neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling, by abandoning ignorance and arousing true knowledge—this is possible.

    ii–vi “Bhikkhus, dependent on the ear and sounds, ear-consciousness arises…Dependent on the mind and mind-objects, mind-consciousness arises; the meeting of the three is contact; with contact as condition there arises a feeling felt as pleasant or painful or neither-painful-nor-pleasant…Bhikkhus, that one shall here and now make an end of suffering by abandoning the underlying tendency to lust for pleasant feeling…by abandoning ignorance and arousing true knowledge—this is possible.

    Liberation

    “Seeing thus, bhikkhus, a well-taught noble disciple becomes disenchanted with the eye, disenchanted with forms, disenchanted with eye-consciousness, disenchanted with eye-contact, disenchanted with feeling, disenchanted with craving.

    “He becomes disenchanted with the ear…He becomes disenchanted with the nose…He becomes disenchanted with the tongue…Hebecomes disenchanted with the body…He becomes disenchanted with the mind, disenchanted with mind-objects, disenchanted with mind-consciousness, disenchanted with mind-contact, disenchanted with feeling, disenchanted with craving.

    “Being disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate. Through dispassion his mind is liberated. When it is liberated, there comes the knowledge: ‘It is liberated.’ He understands: ‘Birth is destroyed, the holy life has been lived, what had to be done has been done, there is no more coming to any state of being.’”

    That is what the Blessed One said. The bhikkhus were satisfied and delighted in the Blessed One’s words. Now while this discourse was being spoken, through not clinging the minds of sixty bhikkhus were liberated from the taints.

    24 Comments


  • Alejandro Serrano
    Favorite sutta thing?


    Stian Gudmundsen Høiland
    Author
    Just a fad I imagined is going on on the group since Robert posted the Yamakasutta, inspired by Soh posting the Bahiyasutta.

    • Reply
    • 2d
    • Edited

    Robert Dominik Tkanka
    Stian Gudmundsen Høiland wasnt it Geovani Geo who posted Bahiya Sutta recently? 😆 Bahiya Sutta is still my fav 😍 I havent read Chachakkasutta yet so Ill definetely do that now, thanks for posting 😁

    • Reply
    • 2d
    • Edited

  • Stian Gudmundsen Høiland
    Author
    I think it might have been Yin Ling, then Soh made a pretty version.


  • Stian Gudmundsen Høiland
    Author
    And I cannot bring myself to post a link to Chachakkasutta without also linking Mahatanhasankhayasutta: https://suttacentral.net/mn38/
    Mahātaṇhāsaṅkhaya Sutta—Suttas and Parallels
    SUTTACENTRAL.NET
    Mahātaṇhāsaṅkhaya Sutta—Suttas and Parallels
    Mahātaṇhāsaṅkhaya Sutta—Suttas and Parallels

    • Reply
    • 2d
    • Edited

  • Alejandro Serrano
    My favorite are short suttas. I'll post them below:


    SUTTACENTRAL.NET
    suttacentral.net | 502: Bad gateway
    suttacentral.net | 502: Bad gateway

    • Reply
    • 2d
    • Edited

  • SUTTACENTRAL.NET
    suttacentral.net | 502: Bad gateway
    suttacentral.net | 502: Bad gateway


  • Roger Hiduk
    The 7th night of my 10 day retreat this was read as a guided meditation and I experienced cessation. Life has been different since…🙏 still times of contraction but also long periods of “watching everything happen” with no attachment. There is no doubt about the path tho.


    Stian Gudmundsen Høiland
    Author
    I know the first part of the sutta, the six sets of six, by heart, and have had realization occur while merely mentally reciting. Powerful sutta—it even says so at the beginning and end!

      • Reply
      • 2d
      • Edited

  • William Lim
    Chachakkasutta Suuta : "Dependent on the eye and forms, eye-consciousness arises; the meeting of the three is contact..."
    Bahiya Syutta : "In the seen, there is only the seen..."
    I thought the idea was to collapse the eye, forms & eye-consciousness?

    • Reply
    • 2d
    • Edited

    Yin Ling
    Admin
    William Lim imo, just imo, let’s see what others think..
    The Bahiya sutta is good raft to trigger non dual/ Anatta insight, collapsing observer and observed separation …
    See more


  • Hary Man
    The 2nd part of the Bahiya sutta goes well beyond anatta.


    Yin Ling
    Admin
    Hary Man still anatta imo, a little bit on dropping the “mine”.
    Emptiness imo is a separate insight with separate pointing needed , unless that practitioner is extra high caliber who already is familiar with emptiness teaching.


  • Hary Man
    Yin Ling Try this audio from Rob Burbea. He talks in depth about the 2nd part of the Bahiya Sutta. Please let me know what you think after listening to it. https://www.dharmaseed.org/talks/17960/
    Dharma Seed - Approaching the Dharma: Part One - Unbinding the World
    DHARMASEED.ORG
    Dharma Seed - Approaching the Dharma: Part One - Unbinding the World
    Dharma Seed - Approaching the Dharma: Part One - Unbinding the World


    Yin Ling
    Admin
    Hary Man thanks. Will watch if have the time.
    But as long as one don’t stop at anatta and continue to penetrate emptiness, no need much discussion. 🙂







  • William Lim
    “If anyone says, ‘The eye is self,’ that is not tenable. The rise and fall of the eye are discerned, and since its rise and fall are discerned, it would follow: ‘My self rises and falls.’ That is why it is not tenable for anyone to say, ‘The eye is self.’ Thus the eye is not self."
    How is the rise and fall of the eye discerned? Or how do you discern the rise and fall of the eye?

    • Reply
    • 2d
    • Edited

    Stian Gudmundsen Høiland
    Author
    Namarupapaccaya salayatana.
    Namarupa nirodha salayatana nirodha.

    • Reply
    • See Translation
    • 2d

  • Stian Gudmundsen Høiland
    Author
    Now you’re asking the real questions. I’ll be back with more as I’m busy atm. Check out the Idappaccayatā group if you haven’t already.


  • Yin Ling
    Admin
    William Lim William, it’s like you see a tree, then you move your head, you hear a sound.
    The eye consciousness when you see a tree last only that instant, then it is the ear consciousness knowing the sound, …
    See more

    • Reply
    • 2d
    • Edited

    William Lim
    Yin Ling are the 6 sense-consciouness same or different from one another?


  • Yin Ling
    Admin
    William Lim different .
    Imo.
    The Buddha wants to tell us that each moment the consciousness rise and fall, never ever the same.
    Even this moment eye consciousness and the next moment eye consciousness is different.
    So there’s no one continuous consciousness that act as a string to string all experiences together.
    That is my understanding of the sutta lah. I hope I am not wrong 🤦🏻‍♀️

      • Reply
      • 1d
      • Edited

  • Stian Gudmundsen Høiland
    Author
    I've spent a lot of time and effort trying to deeply understand the questions that you're asking and their possible answers, and deeply contemplate it all. On the Idappaccayatā group I've written loads about my thoughts, investigations and realizations, but here let me share two things to consider for your questions:
    SANKHARA
    The eye is something that some other things depend on. For example: eye-consciousness, eye-contact, feelings born of eye-contact, craving, etc. These things depend on the eye. What "depends" mean here is dependent *arising*. What that means is that it is the arising of those things—and, logically, their ceasing—that is dependent on the eye.
    So, again, the eye is something that some other things depend on for their arising & ceasing.
    Now, ask yourself: Does it make sense for something that other things depend on for their arising & ceasing to be constant?
    You may wonder, why would that be any issue? "Constant"? And to answer that, consider more deeply the issue of dependent arising & ceasing.
    What does that mean?
    Well: First let's establish that without the eye, there is no eye-consciousness, eye-contact, feelings born of eye-contact, craving, etc. We can "see" or cognize that those things depend on the eye, since without the eye they do not arise: "eye nirodha those-things nirodha."
    That's all well and good. But what was this business about things that other things depend on being constant or not?
    Well: Imagine that the eye is constant; it never arises, it never ceases. Well, what then about those things that depend on the eye: Aren't they inconstant? Don't they arise and cease? Of course. But how would that work?
    To explore that, let's imagine that the eye is constant, but that those things that depend on the eye are inconstant. For this, supposedly the eye has just always been ever-present; never arisen, but always just already existing. Otherwise—if the eye was perpetually and constantly not arisen—how could those things that depend on the eye ever arise?
    All right, so the eye is constant—and it just always was, is and will be—and so those things that depend on the eye can arise and cease.
    Well hold on a minute. There's an issue:
    In this setup, do those things really actually depend on the eye, or not? Is there really a dependence, as we observe there to be when those things can't arise when the eye is absent?
    How can we check if those things are dependent in this setup? Couldn't it just be in this setup that those things could arise damn well fine by themselves without the eye?
    Well, to check for that we have to know what happens when the eye ceases. If those things can arise without the eye, then they are not dependent on the eye. But if those things can not arise without the eye, then those things are dependent on the eye.
    So: *To establish dependence*, it is *not sufficient* to correlate arising (of those things) to presence (of the eye). We must also correlate ceasing (of those things) to absence (of the eye). Otherwise, *there is no dependence*.
    But alas! The eye is constant! So if it exists, it cannot then cease; or if it's non-existent, it cannot arise; otherwise it's not constant! So we cannot check either way!
    In other words: We cannot establish dependence on constant things. Or, said differently: Things that other things depend on—in Pali: sankhara—must necessarily be inconstant. *This also means that things that depend on other things are inconstant* (since things that other things depend on must necessarily be inconstant).
    All right.
    With that thought experiment out of the way and thoroughly contemplated you may be able to gain confidence in the following "shortcut": The reason why we needed to think out all of that is that we allowed ourselves to imagine that something could exist without ever having arisen. That's what we thought about the eye—that it just always was, is and will be.
    Well, now we know that *even if* something could exist without ever having arisen, it could not be something that other things depend on, nor something that depends on something else. We have become clear about "sankhara" and "sankhata"—"things that other things depend on" and "things that depend on other things", and we can conclusively say that such things are inconstant.
    As a side note, it is possible to further contemplate about if something could exist without having arisen, but for our purposes we don't have to do that now.
    ANICCA
    All right. So now, let's answer your questions.
    William Lim wrote:
    > How is the rise and fall of the eye discerned?
    > How do you discern the rise and fall of the eye?
    And to answer your questions, I will simply quote the suttas:
    > Monks, is the eye constant or inconstant?
    Now, regardless of whether you utilize your new understanding of sankhara and dependent arising from the above thought experiment, or you just understand *that the eye is inconstant because it is obviously not constant*, *it follows that you discern the rise and fall of the eye*.
    Do you understand?
    > The six senses are impermanent, conditioned, dependently originated, liable to end, vanish, fade away, and cease. ~ SN 12.20

    • Reply
    • 1d
    • Edited

  • Stian Gudmundsen Høiland
    Author
    "Whatever is subject to origination is all subject to cessation."

  • Reply
  • 1d
0 Responses