“Soh Wei Yu

25m  ·

Shared with Your friends

This explanation by Geoff on anatta is very good. Seer and seeing dependent on seen means no [self-existing] seer or seeing. Seen dependent on faculty and cognition is nothing seen. Therefore, in the seen just the seen is no seer, no seeing, and nothing seen. The vivid radiance of appearances are not denied yet resembles a rainbow or a mirage, illusory and unestablished.

p.s. The source PDF by Geoff [although this particular text is focused on the Pali canon, Geoff is both a scholar and practitioner in both Vajrayana/Mahamudra and Theravada traditions] is so good that John Tan has commented its good quality multiple times and has asked me to pin it to the top of the 'Insightful Materials' of the AtR blog. Hope there are more similar summaries for Mahayana and Vajrayana paths as well. Measureless Mind PDF: https://app.box.com/s/nxby5606lbaei9oudiz6xsyrdasacqph

The Recognition of Selflessness (Anattasaññā)

Look at the world and see its emptiness Mogharāja, always mindful,

Eliminating the view of self, one goes beyond death.

One who views the world this way is not seen by the king of death.

— Sutta Nipāta 5.15, Mogharājamāṇavapucchā

The contemplation of selflessness is given in AN 10.60 Girimānanda Sutta:

Now what, Ānanda, is the recognition of selflessness? Here, Ānanda, a monk, gone to the wilderness, to the root of a tree, or to an empty place, discriminates thus: ‘The eye is not-self, forms are not-self; the ear is not-self, sounds are not-self; the nose is not-self, odors are not-self; the tongue is not-self, flavors are not-self; the body is not-self, tactual objects are not-self; the mind is not-self, phenomena are not-self.’ Thus he abides contemplating selflessness with regard to the six internal and external sensory spheres. This, Ānanda, is called the recognition of selflessness.

In practice, we need to be able to recognize this absence of self in our immediate experience: When seeing, there is the coming together of visible form, the eye, and visual consciousness. When hearing, there is the coming together of sound, the ear, and auditory consciousness. When touching, there is the coming together of tactual sensation, the body, and tactile consciousness. When thinking, there is the thought, the mind, and mental consciousness. These processes arise simply through ‘contact.’ When a sense faculty and a sensory object make contact, the corresponding sensory consciousness arises. This entire process occurs through specific conditionality (idappaccayatā). There is no independent, fully autonomous agent or self controlling any of this.

An independent, autonomous self would, by definition, be:

1. permanent

2. satisfactory

3. not prone to dis-ease

4. fully self-determining (be in complete autonomous control of itself)

Thus, what is being negated is a permanent, satisfactory self which is not prone to old age, sickness, and death. As SN 22.59 Pañcavaggiya Sutta (abridged) states:

Monks, form, feeling, recognition, fabrications, and consciousness are not-self. Were form, feeling, recognition, fabrications, or consciousness self, then this form, feeling, recognition, fabrications, and consciousness would not lead to dis-ease.

This criterion of dis-ease is the context for the following statement that:

None can have it of form, feeling, recognition, fabrications, or consciousness: ‘Let my form, feeling, recognition, fabrications, or consciousness be thus, let my form, feeling, recognition, fabrications, or consciousness be not thus.’

By engaging in sustained, dedicated contemplation we find only impermanent processes, conditionally arisen, and not fully self-determining. First we clearly see that all conditioned phenomena of body and mind are impermanent. Next we come to see that whatever is impermanent is unsatisfactory in that it can provide no lasting happiness. Then we realize that all impermanent, unsatisfactory phenomena of body and mind are not-self — they can’t be the basis for a self, which by definition would be permanent and (one would hope) satisfactory. This relationship between the recognition of impermanence, the recognition of unsatisfactoriness, and the recognition of selflessness is illustrated in the following diagram.

With the recognition of selflessness there is an emptying out of both the “subject” and “object” aspects of experience. We come to understand that “I-making” and “mine-making” with regard to the mind and body as well as all external representations is deluded. When the recognition of selflessness is fully developed there is no longer any reification of substantial referents to be experienced in relation to subjective grasping. Whatever is seen is merely the seen (diṭṭhamatta). Whatever is heard or sensed is merely the heard (sutamatta) and merely the sensed (mutamatta). Whatever is known is merely the known (viññātamatta). This is explained in Ud 1.10 Bāhiya Sutta:

"Then, Bāhiya, you should train yourself thus: In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to the cognized, only the cognized. That is how you should train yourself. When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the cognized, then, Bāhiya, there is no you in connection with that. When there is no you in connection with that, there is no you there. When there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just this, is the end of stress."

When there is no self to be found one’s experience becomes very simple, direct, and uncluttered. When seeing, there is the coming together of visible form, the eye, and visual consciousness, that’s all. There is no separate “seer.” The seer is entirely dependent upon the seen. There can be no seer independent of the seen. There is no separate, independent subject or self.

This is also the case for the sensory object. The “seen” is entirely dependent upon the eye faculty and visual consciousness. There can be no object seen independent of the eye faculty and cognition. This is the case for all possible sensory objects. There is no separate, independent sensory object.

The same holds true for sensory consciousness as well. “Seeing” is entirely dependent upon the eye and visible form. There can be no seeing independent of the eye and cognition. This is the case for all possible sensory cognitions. There is no separate, independent sensory consciousness.

It’s important to understand this experientially. Let’s take the straightforward empirical experience of you looking at this screen right now as an example. Conventionally speaking, you could describe the experience as “I see the computer screen.” Another way of describing this is that there’s a “seer” who “sees” the “seen.” But look at the screen: are there really three independent and separate parts to your experience? Or are “seer,” “sees,” and “seen,” just three conceptual labels applied to this experience in which the three parts are entirely interdependent?

The “seer,” “seen,” and “seeing” are all empty and insubstantial. The eye faculty, visible form, and visual consciousness are all interdependent aspects of the same experience. You can’t peel one away and still have a sensory experience — there is no separation. AN 4.24 Kāḷakārāma Sutta:

Thus, monks, the Tathāgata does not conceive an [object] seen when seeing what is to be seen. He does not conceive an unseen. He does not conceive a to-be-seen. He does not conceive a seer.

He does not conceive an [object] heard when hearing what is to be heard. He does not conceive an unheard. He does not conceive a to-be-heard. He does not conceive a hearer.

He does not conceive an [object] sensed when sensing what is to be sensed. He does not conceive an unsensed. He does not conceive a to-be-sensed. He does not conceive a senser.

He does not conceive an [object] known when knowing what is to be known. He does not conceive an unknown. He does not conceive a to-be-known. He does not conceive a knower.

Sensory consciousness can’t be isolated as separate and independent. Nor can any of these other interdependent phenomena. Even the designations that we apply to these various phenomena are entirely conventional, dependent designations. But this doesn’t mean that we should now interpret our experience as being some sort of cosmic oneness or unity consciousness or whatever one may want to call it. That's just another empty, dependent label isn’t it? The whole point of this analysis is to see the emptiness of all referents, and thereby stop constructing and defining a “self.”

The purpose of correctly engaging in the contemplation of selflessness is stated in AN 7.49 Dutiyasaññā Sutta:

‘The recognition of selflessness in what is unsatisfactory, monks, when developed and cultivated, is of great fruit and benefit; it merges with the death-free, has the death-free as its end.’ Thus it was said. In reference to what was it said?

Monks, when a monk’s mind frequently remains acquainted with the recognition of selflessness in what is unsatisfactory, his mind is rid of “I-making” and “mine-making” with regard to this conscious body and externally with regard to all representations, and has transcended conceit, is at peace, and is well liberated.

If, monks, when a monk’s mind frequently remains acquainted with the recognition of selflessness in what is unsatisfactory, his mind is not rid of “I-making” and “mine-making” with regard to this conscious body and externally with regard to all representations, and has not transcended conceit, is not at peace, and is not well liberated, then he should know, ‘I have not developed the recognition of selflessness in what is unsatisfactory, there is no stepwise distinction in me, I have not obtained the strength of development.’ In that way he is fully aware there. But if, monks, when a monk’s mind frequently remains acquainted with the recognition of selflessness in what is unsatisfactory, his mind is rid of “I-making” and “mine-making” with regard to this conscious body and externally with regard to all representations, and has transcended conceit, is at peace, and is well liberated, then he should know, ‘I have developed the recognition of selflessness in what is unsatisfactory, there is stepwise distinction in me, I have obtained the strength of development.’ In that way he is fully aware there.

‘The recognition of selflessness in what is unsatisfactory, monks, when developed and cultivated, is of great fruit and benefit; it merges with the death-free, has the death-free as its end.’ Thus it was said. And in reference to this it was said.

Here we get to the heart of the matter, which is one of the most subtle aspects of the Buddhadhamma. Simply stated: when ignorance ceases, belief in self simultaneously ceases. And when there is no self to be found, then there is no self to die or take birth. This right here is “death-free.” And it is precisely this that the Buddha is declaring when he says to Mogharāja:

Look at the world and see its emptiness Mogharāja, always mindful,

Eliminating the view of self, one goes beyond death.

One who views the world this way is not seen by the king of death.

When one completely abandons the underlying tendencies which give rise to mistaken apprehensions of a self — any and all notions of “I am” — then there is no self to die. This stilling of the “currents of conceiving” over one’s imagined self, and the resulting peace that is empty of birth, aging, and death, is straightforwardly presented in MN 140 Dhātuvibhaṅga Sutta:

‘He has been stilled where the currents of conceiving do not flow. And when the currents of conceiving do not flow, he is said to be a sage at peace.’ Thus was it said. With reference to what was it said?

Monk, “I am” is a conceiving. “I am this” is a conceiving. “I shall be” is a conceiving. “I shall not be” ... “I shall be possessed of form” ... “I shall be formless” ... “I shall be percipient” ... “I shall be non-percipient” ... “I shall be neither-percipient-nor-non-percipient” is a conceiving. Conceiving is a disease, conceiving is a cancer, conceiving is an arrow. By going beyond all conceiving, monk, he is said to be a sage at peace.

Furthermore, a sage at peace is not born, does not age, does not die. He is unagitated, and is free from longing. He has nothing whereby he would be born. Not being born, how could he age? Not aging, how could he die? Not dying, how could he be agitated? Not being agitated, for what will he long?

So it was in reference to this that it was said, ‘He has been stilled where the currents of conceiving do not flow. And when the currents of conceiving do not flow, he is said to be a sage at peace.’

Truly, “a sage at peace is not born, does not age, does not die.” In this way, when ignorance ceases, the entire complex of conditioned arising bound up with dissatisfaction also ceases. When all traces of “I-making” and “mine-making” are abandoned through the fully integrated threefold training of ethical conduct, meditation, and discernment, just this is dispassion (virāga). Just this is cessation (nirodha). Just this is extinguishment (nibbāna). Just this is without outflows (anāsava). Just this is not-born (ajāta), not-become (abhūta), not-made (akata), not-fabricated (asaṅkhata), endless (ananta), indestructible (apalokita), and yes, death-free (amata). It is freedom (mutti).

The Recognition of Selflessness and the Seven Factors of Awakening (Satta Bojjhaṅgā):

Sustained, dedicated practice of the recognition of selflessness will gradually create the optimal conditions for the arising of all seven factors of awakening. SN 46.73 Anatta Sutta (abridged):

Here monks, a monk develops the awakening factor of mindfulness accompanied by the recognition of selflessness in what is unsatisfactory, dependent upon seclusion, dispassion, and cessation, resulting in letting go. He develops the awakening factor of dhamma-investigation accompanied by the recognition of selflessness in what is unsatisfactory, dependent upon seclusion, dispassion, and cessation, resulting in letting go. He develops the awakening factor of energy accompanied by the recognition of selflessness in what is unsatisfactory, dependent upon seclusion, dispassion, and cessation, resulting in letting go. He develops the awakening factor of joy accompanied by the recognition of selflessness in what is unsatisfactory, dependent upon seclusion, dispassion, and cessation, resulting in letting go. He develops the awakening factor of tranquility accompanied by the recognition of selflessness in what is unsatisfactory, dependent upon seclusion, dispassion, and cessation, resulting in letting go. He develops the awakening factor of meditative composure accompanied by the recognition of selflessness in what is unsatisfactory, dependent upon seclusion, dispassion, and cessation, resulting in letting go. He develops the awakening factor of equanimity accompanied by the recognition of selflessness in what is unsatisfactory, dependent upon seclusion, dispassion, and cessation, resulting in letting go.

It is in this way that the recognition of selflessness in what is unsatisfactory is developed and cultivated so that it is of great fruit and benefit. It is in this way that the recognition of selflessness in what is unsatisfactory is developed and cultivated so that one of two fruits is to be expected: either final gnosis in this very life or, if there is a residue of clinging, the state of nonreturning. It is in this way that the recognition of selflessness in what is unsatisfactory is developed and cultivated so that it leads to great good. It is in this way that the recognition of selflessness in what is unsatisfactory is developed and cultivated so that it leads to great security from bondage. It is in this way that the recognition of selflessness in what is unsatisfactory is developed and cultivated so that it leads to a great sense of urgency. It is in this way that the recognition of selflessness in what is unsatisfactory is developed and cultivated so that it leads to dwelling in great comfort.”

Stian Gudmundsen Høiland shared a link.

oSner0 gc9M0l3126MA : t0lyf2alaac   ·
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.

suttacentral.net
Chachakka Sutta—Suttas and Parallels
The Buddha analyzes the six senses from six perspectives, and demonstrates the emptiness of all of them.

24 Comments

• 
  
Alejandro Serrano
Favorite sutta thing?
• 
  
• Reply
• 2d
• 
  
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.
• 
  
• • • • Reply
      • 2d
• 
  
Stian Gudmundsen Høiland
Author
And I cannot bring myself to post a link to Chachakkasutta without also linking Mahatanhasankhayasutta: https://suttacentral.net/mn38/

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:
• 
  
• Reply
• 2d
• 
  
Alejandro Serrano
https://suttacentral.net/an10.80
SUTTACENTRAL.NET
suttacentral.net | 502: Bad gateway
suttacentral.net | 502: Bad gateway
• 
  
• • Reply
  • 2d
  • Edited
• 
  
Alejandro Serrano
https://suttacentral.net/an11.2
SUTTACENTRAL.NET
suttacentral.net | 502: Bad gateway
suttacentral.net | 502: Bad gateway
• 
  
• • • Reply
    • 2d
• 
  
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.
• 
  
• Reply
• 2d
• 
  
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
• 
  
• • Reply
  • 2d
• 
  
Hary Man
The 2nd part of the Bahiya sutta goes well beyond anatta.
• 
  
• Reply
• 2d
• 
  
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.
• 
  
• • • Reply
    • 2d
• 
  
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/

DHARMASEED.ORG
Dharma Seed - Approaching the Dharma: Part One - Unbinding the World
Dharma Seed - Approaching the Dharma: Part One - Unbinding the World
• 
  
• Reply
• 1d
• 
  
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.
• 
  
• • • Reply
    • 1d




• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
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.
• 
  
• • Reply
  • 2d
• 
  
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?
• 
  
• • Reply
  • 1d
• 
  
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