Sim Pern Chong shared:

“ https://www.monroeinstituteuk.org/focus-levels/

Just my own understanding and experience.

Mapping the Focus to likely realms and experiences:

Focus 15 : the experience of I AM, timelessness or Eternal Now

Focus 24-26 : this is the realms most human Beings 'goes' to after death. This is the astral realms.. ranging from 'heaven' to' hungry ghost realm'..

Focus 42 (I-there): this is the Unbounded Alaya. It is much harder to access this than Focus 15.  Here it is not just a Presence. It is the direct knowing/ perception of the manifestations across lifetimes. Anatta insight cannot directly see the 'cause and effect' in realtime . The cause and effect is perceived here.. and is more nuanced and complex.. as one seems to be able to also plan what to inhibit or constraint.. That means the 'unpleasant' things in life can be self-imposed for purposes unknown to the human body/mind. Monroe called it the I-there.. i can understand. Because the 'self', 'I' is already assumed as this level. 'Self' is not only formed at the body/mind.. it is much deeper at this level. IMO, very few has ever access this level (even after death) .. Most death destinations are at FOCUS 24-26.. Hence, NDEs are not any reliable source of truth at all.. Anatta can be realised after FOCUS 15.. without any awareness of the levels beyond 15.

My take is that the correction of perceptual error at FOCUS 42, is what is winding down the compulsive rebirthing and the enabling the perception beyond.. that is a mystery.. and i only had a tiny glimpse 

Just my opinion”

Soh replied:

“Yes there are two kinds of arahats. There are those freed from fetters and rebirth without recollecting past lives and seeing the karma of beings, and there are those who obtained the three knowledges.

Tevijjā and Paññāvimutti: The Two Paths to Arahantship in the Pāli Canon

The early Pāli texts provide a clear road-map for understanding the different capacities of fully liberated beings, or arahants. Some are described as “three-knowledge” (tevijjā) saints, possessing remarkable psychic abilities, while others are equally liberated yet lack these powers. The Canon itself makes this distinction explicit, presenting two primary archetypes of the perfected individual, which differ not in their degree of freedom but in their method of attainment.

Key Points in One Paragraph

The Pāli Canon defines the three higher knowledges (tisso vijjā) as (1) the ability to recollect one's own past lives (pubbenivāsānussati-ñāṇa), (2) the "divine eye" for observing the death and rebirth of other beings according to their kamma (cutūpapāta-ñāṇa), and (3) the direct knowledge of the destruction of the mental taints, or āsavas (āsavakkhaya-ñāṇa). Every arahant must realize this third knowledge, as it constitutes enlightenment itself. The first two, however, are by-products of deep meditative absorption (jhāna) cultivated to a high degree. This leads to two recognized types of arahant: the "both-ways-liberated" (ubhatobhāgavimutta), who masters the formless meditative states and thus gains access to psychic powers, and the "wisdom-liberated" (paññāvimutta), who is freed by penetrating insight (vipassanā) alone and may not possess these supernormal abilities. The famous Susīma Sutta (SN 12.70) depicts a group of arahants who openly state they lack the first two knowledges, while suttas like the Anuruddha Sutta (AN 8.30) feature disciples who have mastered all three. The difference, therefore, lies in the specific meditative faculties developed, not in the final, unshakeable liberation from the cycle of rebirth.

1. The Three Higher Knowledges (Tisso Vijjā)

The Sāmaññaphala Sutta (DN 2) provides the classical definition of the three knowledges as fruits of the contemplative life.

The āsavas, or "taints," are the fundamental defilements that perpetuate suffering and rebirth. They are typically listed as:

• The taint of sensual craving (kāmāsava)
• The taint of craving for existence/becoming (bhavāsava)
• The taint of ignorance (avijjāsava)

The third knowledge is the direct, experiential understanding that these taints have been utterly destroyed. The Itivuttaka (Iti 112) confirms that a monk who has perfected these three is rightly called a "tevijjo brāhmaṇo," a true "three-knowledge brahmin," having laid down the burden and become fully liberated.

2. Two Canonical Classes of Arahant

The difference in attainment of the higher knowledges maps directly onto two distinct classifications of arahants found throughout the Canon. This distinction hinges on the balance and development of two core meditative faculties: serenity (samatha) and insight (vipassanā).

2.1. Ubhatobhāgavimutta (“Liberated Both Ways”)

This arahant is described as being liberated "in both ways" because they are freed through:

1. Mind-liberation (cetovimutti): The mastery of the eight meditative absorptions—the four fine-material jhānas and the four formless attainments (arūpa-samāpattis). This profound level of samatha purifies the mind and serves as the platform for psychic powers.
2. Wisdom-liberation (paññāvimutti): The uprooting of the defilements through insight into the true nature of reality.

The Kīṭāgiri Sutta (MN 70) describes this individual as one who "contacts with his body and dwells in those peaceful, formless liberations that transcend form, and having seen with wisdom, his taints are destroyed." They have both the profound serenity of the formless states and the penetrating wisdom of liberation.

2.2. Paññāvimutta (“Liberated by Wisdom”)

This arahant attains liberation solely through the faculty of wisdom (paññā). While they must cultivate a sufficient degree of concentration to support insight, they do not necessarily master the four formless attainments. As the Buddha states in the Susīma Sutta, their freedom comes from seeing the nature of reality directly:

"First, there is the knowledge of the principle of causality, and afterwards, there is the knowledge of Nibbāna." (SN 12.70)

Their path is the direct application of vipassanā to understand impermanence (anicca), suffering (dukkha), and not-self (anattā), leading to the destruction of the taints. This is the definition of paññāvimutti.

The Yuganaddha Sutta (AN 4.170) clarifies that arahantship can be reached by developing serenity first, insight first, or both in tandem, confirming that the end-goal is the same regardless of the sequence.

3. Suttas Showing Arahants with the First Two Knowledges

• MN 71, Tevijja-Vacchagotta Sutta: The Buddha, speaking to the wanderer Vacchagotta, explicitly claims to be a tevijjā. He defines the three knowledges and affirms that he possesses them, while clarifying this is not a claim to constant, all-at-once omniscience.
• AN 8.30, Anuruddha Sutta: The Venerable Anuruddha, a foremost disciple renowned for his divine eye, declares his attainment in a verse: "The three knowledges have been attained; the Buddha’s teaching has been done."
• AN 5.28, Samādhaṅga Sutta: The Buddha explains that mastery of "five-factored right concentration" is the basis for attaining the higher knowledges, including past-life recollection and the divine eye. This links jhānic skill directly to these psychic feats, which are characteristic of the ubhatobhāgavimutta arahant.

4. Suttas Showing Arahants without the First Two Knowledges

• SN 12.70, Susīma Sutta: This is the locus classicus for the wisdom-liberated arahant. The wanderer Susīma questions a group of monks who have just declared their final knowledge (arahantship).

• Susīma asks: "Have you attained the various kinds of psychic powers... do you recollect your manifold past lives... with the divine eye, do you see beings passing away and reappearing?"
• The monks reply: "No, friend."

Susīma is bewildered, unable to understand how they can be arahants without these powers. The Buddha intervenes and explains to him that they are paññāvimutta, wisdom-liberated. Their liberation was secured not through psychic feats, but through a direct insight into dependent origination (paṭiccasamuppāda) and the impermanence of all phenomena. The Buddha confirms their status, stating that the knowledge of the Dhamma precedes the knowledge of Nibbāna.

5. Conclusion: Why the Difference?

The existence of these two types of arahant is not a contradiction but a reflection of the flexibility of the Buddhist path. The difference arises from three factors:

1. Meditative Foundation: The first two knowledges require the profound mental stillness and power generated by mastery of the jhānas. Insight alone, focused on the three marks of existence, is sufficient to cut the fetters and achieve the third knowledge, but it does not automatically produce psychic abilities.
2. Canonical Requirement: The Buddha’s core formula for liberation, repeated countless times throughout the suttas, culminates in the statement: "Birth is ended, the holy life has been lived, what had to be done has been done, there is no more for this state of being." This declaration is contingent only on the third knowledge (āsavakkhaya-ñāṇa). The first two are never presented as mandatory for release from saṃsāra.
3. Individual Inclination: Disciples have different temperaments and aptitudes (carita). Some, like Ven. Anuruddha or Ven. Moggallāna, were naturally inclined toward developing concentration and psychic mastery. Others were more analytically bent and focused exclusively on the insight practices that lead directly to liberation. Both paths are valid and lead to the same unshakeable freedom.

Ultimately, the Pāli Canon presents a spectrum of saintly attainment. By distinguishing between wisdom-liberated and both-ways-liberated arahants, the teachings steer practitioners away from the error of conflating psychic displays with the true essence of enlightenment. The ultimate measure of an arahant is not the range of their special powers, but the complete and irreversible eradication of greed, hatred, and delusion.”

(Sim “liked” my message)

—-

Update, something relevant:

I agree with ChatGPT explanation:

The early texts give a clear reply to your friend’s worry: an arahant’s certainty that rebirth has ended comes from the “knowledge of the destruction of the taints” (āsavakkhaya-ñāṇa), not from archaeological tours through their own past lives.

Once craving and ignorance—the “fuel” of becoming—are extinguished, the mind directly knows that no new birth can arise.  The Buddha repeatedly confirms that this third knowledge is both necessary and sufficient for awakening, whereas the first two super-knowledges (past-life memory and the “divine eye”) are optional extras attained only by those who master the higher jhānas.  

⸻

1  What the third knowledge actually sees

The stock canon formula runs:

“When it is liberated there arises the knowledge: ‘It is liberated.’ He understands: ‘Destroyed is birth … there is no more of this state of being.’” (SN 22.59) 

This insight is present-time, reflexive, and causal: the mind simultaneously experiences Nibbāna (the cessation of all passion, aversion, and delusion) and sees why the cycle cannot resume—because its causes have been cut.  No retrospective life-history survey is required.

⸻

2  Texts that showcase arahants without the first two knowledges

• Susīma Sutta (SN 12.70). A group of newly-liberated monks tell the inquisitor Susīma that they cannot recall past lives, cannot see beings passing on, and possess no psychic powers—yet they are arahants.  The Buddha backs them up and labels their attainment paññāvimutti, “wisdom-liberation.”  

• (Navaka) Paññāvimutta Sutta (AN 9.44). Defines the wisdom-liberated arahant as one who ends the taints through insight without necessarily mastering the formless meditations that enable psychic feats. 

These discourses prove that direct past-life vision is not a prerequisite for certitude about the end of rebirth.

⸻

3  Why certainty does not hinge on seeing the past

3.1  Dependent origination works both forward and backward

By penetrating dependent origination in real time—seeing how ignorance → craving → becoming → birth—an arahant also sees the reverse sequence in cessation (ignorance ended ⇒ craving ended ⇒ no new becoming).  The causal principle itself is enough; personal autobiographies add nothing decisive.

3.2  The fire simile

Asked where a Tathāgata goes after death, the Buddha says it is like a fire that has gone out once its fuel is exhausted; there is simply nothing left to trace .  An arahant knows the fuel is gone, so the future blaze of rebirth is impossible.

⸻

4  Answering your friend’s two points, step by step

Friend’s doubt Canonical reply

1. “If one can’t see past lives, how know the future is finished?” The arahant knows the causal mechanism and has verified that its conditions are absent, just as a doctor knows a disease won’t return when its pathogen is eradicated.  SN 22.59 and every standard liberation verse rely solely on this present-time certainty, not on retro-cognition. 

2. “One must realise the ignorance that propels birth.” Exactly so—and that realisation is the third knowledge.  Āsavakkhaya-ñāṇa is defined as knowing both the extinguishing of the taints and the exhaustion of ignorance and craving, which is why it guarantees no future becoming. 

⸻

5  How you might phrase a friendly reply

“The Buddha distinguishes two kinds of arahant.  Both-ways-liberated saints gain deep jhāna and often the ‘three knowledges’; wisdom-liberated saints cut the fetters through insight alone.  What makes either of them sure rebirth is over is not a replay of past lives, but the third knowledge—the felt, causal certainty that craving and ignorance are finished.  Think of a fire that’s run out of fuel: you don’t need to track every spark in its history to know it can’t flare up again once the fuel is gone.”

You could then cite Susīma Sutta for arahants without psychic powers, SN 22.59 for the liberation formula, and the Fire Simile (SN 44.9) to illustrate why seeing the past is unnecessary.  That should address his concerns while staying faithful to the Pali Canon.

⸻

Quick source list

1. SN 22.59 Anattalakkhaṇa 

2. Itiv 102 Āsavakkhaya 

3. SN 12.70 Susīma (dhammatalks.org) 

4. SN 12.70 (Access to Insight) 

5. AN 9.44 Paññāvimutta (dharmafarer.org) 

6. AN 2.30 Vijjā-bhāgiya 

7. AN 5.28 Samādhanga 

8. SN 44.9 Kutūhalasālāsutta 

9. AN 8.30 Anuruddha (ATI) 

10. MN 71 Tevijja-Vacchagotta (SuttaCentral) 

——

Of relevance are some excerpts from John Tan’s new book, which includes a chapter discussing rainbow body.

“This is a liberation that is both

psychological and physical. It is the freedom that comes from seeing all

phenomena—thoughts, feelings, and even the physical body—as a "radiant and

dynamic presence" without a solid, independent core. For the Taoist adept,

it is the potential to transmute the physical form into an immortal

"energy body," harmonizing the self with the cosmic flow of the Tao.

For the Dzogchen practitioner, it is the ultimate fruition of the rainbow

body—a "deathless state" where the physical elements dissolve back

into the primordial, five-colored lights from which they arose, the final

testament to the indivisibility of mind and matter.”

“* How is seamlessness realized from a non-substantialist perspective? Not by trying to merge separate things, but by deconstructing the imaginary boundary that was never truly there. No attempt is made to connect anything, for no separate "things" or "substrates" exist at all beyond valid, empty conventionalities.

* How is the experiential taste of anatta (no-self) realized? Not by annihilating a self, but by clearly recognizing the imaginary nature of the self that was never present. Hearing is always only sound; sensing is always only sensation. There is no self or agency to be found from the very start.

* How are phenomena understood as empty? Not by destroying them, but by recognizing that "things" are designations only. When there is no substrate, there are no inherent things, only conventions mistakenly reified through names.

In the same light, consider a practitioner seeking knowledge of past lives. A misunderstanding of the path leads them to search for a specific location or repository holding the records of infinite lifetimes—a cosmic archive. But this is a mistake, which is precisely why a master like Tsongkhapa rejects the notion of a storehouse-consciousness (ālaya-vijñāna). True access comes not from locating a store, but via the removal of reified obscurations, especially the deep attachments to body and mind. Just as regression therapy brings release by clearing emotional scars, spiritual realization unveils what is already present by clearing the hypnotic fog of reification. Why? Because the nature of all appearances is perfect. There is no need to look elsewhere; one must only remove what obscures the view.

This brings us to the ultimate supramundane power, the one that surpasses all others. It is not the ability to read minds or recall past lives—for these can still be objects of grasping. It is 漏尽通 (lòu jìn tōng): the supramundane power of the exhaustion of outflows. The "outflows" or "leaks" (āsava) are the fundamental taints of craving, aversion, and ignorance that create the illusion of a separate self and a solid world.

This power is not an ability to do anything new. It is the power that arises from the complete cessation of doing, the final sealing of every leak. It is the fruition of a deconstruction executed without remainder. When the outflows are exhausted, what remains is the already-perfect, zero-action radiance of being itself. This is not just another power among many; it is liberation itself, the very state that gives birth to the light and rainbow bodies as its natural, effortless, and final expression.””

Original English Article: No nouns are necessary to initiate verbs

简体中文版 (Simplified Chinese Version)

請參閱：論無我、空性、摩訶（大）、平常與自然圓成

發起動詞，無需名詞 

更新：在這次對話一年后，Fishskull3 突破了“一心”的見地，證悟了無我！詳見《并無單一統合的覺知，唯有顯相之光明》。

Xabir = Soh

萬物并非由覺知所造，它根本就是覺知本身。在你的直接體驗中，并沒有一個在內者向外看著什么。你當下認為是“所見”之物，正是“見者”或覺知的持續活動。

我喜歡你的回答。另外，我想補充一點，覺知無非是那持續不斷的活動。并非是覺知作為一個不變的實體，變現為萬物。“覺知”就像“天氣”這個詞，僅僅是一個名言，指代著下雨、浸濕、日曬、風吹、雷擊等等這些持續進行的動態活動。“覺知”除了剎那剎那的顯現之外，并無任何固有的存在。即便在那一剎那它只是一種無相“存在”的純粹感覺，那也只是另一種“前景”式的無二顯現，而非一個不變的背景。

正如除了閃光之外并無閃電（閃電即是閃光——閃電只是閃光的別名，而非閃光背后的動作者），除了吹動之外并無風，除了流動之外并無水，發起動詞，并不需要名詞或動作者。除了顏色，從未有過動作者、見者，乃至“看見”；除了聲音，從未有過動作者、聞者，乃至“聽聞”。萬物只是在沒有知者的情況下明澈地放光，聲音在聽，景色在看。無我。

以下摘錄自我們這個時代第二位最著名的佛教大師（僅次于達賴喇嘛）、一行禪師的文字：

摘自 http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2008/10/sun-of-awareness-and-river-of.html Thusness/PasserBy 從書中摘選的他所喜歡的另外一些引文——

當我們說“我知道風在吹”時，我們并不認為是有個東西在吹動另一個東西。“風”與“吹”是相隨的。如果沒有吹，就沒有風。知也是如此。心是知者；知者是心。我們在談論與風相關的“知”。“知”是知某物。知與風不可分離。風與知是一體的。我們可以說“風”，這就足夠了。風的存在，意味著“知”的存在，也意味著“吹”這個行動的存在。”……最普遍的動詞是“是”：我是，你是，山是，河是。“是”這個動詞，并不能表達宇宙的動態生命狀態。要表達那個狀態，我們必須說“成為”。這兩個動詞也可以用作名詞：“存有”，“生成”。但存有什么？生成什么？“生成”意味著“不停地演化”，它和動詞“是”一樣普遍。我們不可能將一個現象的“存有”與其“生成”分離開來表述，好像它們是各自獨立的。就風而言，吹既是其存有，也是其生成……在任何現象中，無論是心理的、生理的還是物理的，都存在著動態的運動，即生命。我們可以說，這種運動、這種生命，是宇宙性的顯現，是“知”這個行為最普遍為人所識的形式。我們絕不能將“知”看作是某種來自外部的東西，它為宇宙注入了生命。它就是宇宙自身的生命。舞與舞者，是一體的。

Thusness/PasserBy 的評論：“……作為動詞，作為行動，便無概念可言，唯有體驗。不二之無我，即是將主體/客體體驗為動詞、體驗為行動。無心，唯有心行……源頭即是生滅流變的現象……以及如何從緣起的角度來理解不二的顯現。” ............. 一行禪師：

當我們說‘天在下雨’時，我們的意思是‘下雨’這件事正在發生。你不需要一個高高在上的誰來執行下雨這件事。并非是有一個‘雨’，又有一個導致雨降落的‘誰’。事實上，當你說‘雨在降落’時，這非常有趣，因為如果它不降落，它就不是雨了。在我們的說話方式中，我們習慣于要有一個主語和一個動詞。所以當我們說‘it rains’（它下雨）時，我們需要‘it’（它）這個詞。‘它’就是主語，是那個使下雨成為可能的‘誰’。但是，深入地去看，我們不需要一個‘下雨者’，我們只需要雨。下雨和雨是同一回事。鳥的形成和鳥是同一回事——其中沒有‘自我’，沒有主宰者。有一種心行叫作“尋”（vitarka），即“初念”。

當我們在英語中使用動詞‘to think’（思考）時，我們需要一個動詞的主語：我思，你思，他思。但實際上，一個念頭的產生并不需要一個主語。沒有思維者的思維——這完全是可能的。思考，是思考某物。感知，是感知某物。能感知者與所感知的對象是一體的。

當笛卡爾說‘我思，故我在’時，他的意思是，如果我思考，那就必然有一個‘我’存在，思考才得以可能。當他做出‘我思’這個宣告時，他相信他能夠證明那個‘我’是存在的。我們有相信一個‘自我’的強烈習氣。但是，通過非常深入地觀察，我們可以看到，一個念頭并不需要一個思維者才能存在。思維的背后沒有思維者——只有思維；這就足夠了。現在，如果笛卡爾先生在這里，我們或許會問他：‘笛卡爾先生，您說，您思，故您在。但您是什么呢？您就是您的思維。思維——這就夠了。思維的顯現，不需要一個在其背后的自我。’

沒有思維者的思維。沒有感受者的感受。沒有我們的‘自我’，我們的憤怒是什么？這就是我們禪修的對象。所有五十一種心行都在發生和顯現，其背后并沒有一個‘自我’在安排這個出現、那個出現。我們的意識習慣于將自身建立在‘自我’這個觀念上，建立在末那識上。

但我們可以通過禪修，來更清楚地覺察我們的藏識，所有那些當前未在我們心中顯現的心行的種子，都儲存在那里。當我們禪修時，我們練習深入地觀看，以便為我們看待事物的方式帶來光明和清晰。當證得無我的知見時，我們的錯覺就被移除了。這就是我們所說的轉化。在佛教傳統中，轉化是可以通過深度理解而實現的。一旦無我的知見生起，末那，那個‘我是’的幻覺，便會瓦解，我們就會發現自己于當下這一刻，享受著自由與快樂。

Original English Article: No nouns are necessary to initiate verbs

繁體中文版 (Traditional Chinese Version)

请参阅：论无我、空性、摩诃（大）、平常与自然圆成

发起动词，无需名词 

更新：在这次对话一年后，Fishskull3 突破了“一心”的见地，证悟了无我！详见《并无单一统合的觉知，唯有显相之光明》。

Xabir = Soh

万物并非由觉知所造，它根本就是觉知本身。在你的直接体验中，并没有一个在内者向外看着什么。你当下认为是“所见”之物，正是“见者”或觉知的持续活动。

我喜欢你的回答。另外，我想补充一点，觉知无非是那持续不断的活动。并非是觉知作为一个不变的实体，变现为万物。“觉知”就像“天气”这个词，仅仅是一个名言，指代着下雨、浸湿、日晒、风吹、雷击等等这些持续进行的动态活动。“觉知”除了刹那刹那的显现之外，并无任何固有的存在。即便在那一刹那它只是一种无相“存在”的纯粹感觉，那也只是另一种“前景”式的无二显现，而非一个不变的背景。

正如除了闪光之外并无闪电（闪电即是闪光——闪电只是闪光的别名，而非闪光背后的动作者），除了吹动之外并无风，除了流动之外并无水，发起动词，并不需要名词或动作者。除了颜色，从未有过动作者、见者，乃至“看见”；除了声音，从未有过动作者、闻者，乃至“听闻”。万物只是在没有知者的情况下明澈地放光，声音在听，景色在看。无我。

以下摘录自我们这个时代第二位最著名的佛教大师（仅次于达赖喇嘛）、一行禅师的文字：

摘自 http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2008/10/sun-of-awareness-and-river-of.html Thusness/PasserBy 从书中摘选的他所喜欢的另外一些引文——

当我们说“我知道风在吹”时，我们并不认为是有个东西在吹动另一个东西。“风”与“吹”是相随的。如果没有吹，就没有风。知也是如此。心是知者；知者是心。我们在谈论与风相关的“知”。“知”是知某物。知与风不可分离。风与知是一体的。我们可以说“风”，这就足够了。风的存在，意味着“知”的存在，也意味着“吹”这个行动的存在。”……最普遍的动词是“是”：我是，你是，山是，河是。“是”这个动词，并不能表达宇宙的动态生命状态。要表达那个状态，我们必须说“成为”。这两个动词也可以用作名词：“存有”，“生成”。但存有什么？生成什么？“生成”意味着“不停地演化”，它和动词“是”一样普遍。我们不可能将一个现象的“存有”与其“生成”分离开来表述，好像它们是各自独立的。就风而言，吹既是其存有，也是其生成……在任何现象中，无论是心理的、生理的还是物理的，都存在着动态的运动，即生命。我们可以说，这种运动、这种生命，是宇宙性的显现，是“知”这个行为最普遍为人所识的形式。我们绝不能将“知”看作是某种来自外部的东西，它为宇宙注入了生命。它就是宇宙自身的生命。舞与舞者，是一体的。

Thusness/PasserBy 的评论：“……作为动词，作为行动，便无概念可言，唯有体验。不二之无我，即是将主体/客体体验为动词、体验为行动。无心，唯有心行……源头即是生灭流变的现象……以及如何从缘起的角度来理解不二的显现。” ............. 一行禅师：

当我们说‘天在下雨’时，我们的意思是‘下雨’这件事正在发生。你不需要一个高高在上的谁来执行下雨这件事。并非是有一个‘雨’，又有一个导致雨降落的‘谁’。事实上，当你说‘雨在降落’时，这非常有趣，因为如果它不降落，它就不是雨了。在我们的说话方式中，我们习惯于要有一个主语和一个动词。所以当我们说‘it rains’（它下雨）时，我们需要‘it’（它）这个词。‘它’就是主语，是那个使下雨成为可能的‘谁’。但是，深入地去看，我们不需要一个‘下雨者’，我们只需要雨。下雨和雨是同一回事。鸟的形成和鸟是同一回事——其中没有‘自我’，没有主宰者。有一种心行叫作“寻”（vitarka），即“初念”。

当我们在英语中使用动词‘to think’（思考）时，我们需要一个动词的主语：我思，你思，他思。但实际上，一个念头的产生并不需要一个主语。没有思维者的思维——这完全是可能的。思考，是思考某物。感知，是感知某物。能感知者与所感知的对象是一体的。

当笛卡尔说‘我思，故我在’时，他的意思是，如果我思考，那就必然有一个‘我’存在，思考才得以可能。当他做出‘我思’这个宣告时，他相信他能够证明那个‘我’是存在的。我们有相信一个‘自我’的强烈习气。但是，通过非常深入地观察，我们可以看到，一个念头并不需要一个思维者才能存在。思维的背后没有思维者——只有思维；这就足够了。现在，如果笛卡尔先生在这里，我们或许会问他：‘笛卡尔先生，您说，您思，故您在。但您是什么呢？您就是您的思维。思维——这就够了。思维的显现，不需要一个在其背后的自我。’

没有思维者的思维。没有感受者的感受。没有我们的‘自我’，我们的愤怒是什么？这就是我们禅修的对象。所有五十一种心行都在发生和显现，其背后并没有一个‘自我’在安排这个出现、那个出现。我们的意识习惯于将自身建立在‘自我’这个观念上，建立在末那识上。

但我们可以通过禅修，来更清楚地觉察我们的藏识，所有那些当前未在我们心中显现的心行的种子，都储存在那里。当我们禅修时，我们练习深入地观看，以便为我们看待事物的方式带来光明和清晰。当证得无我的知见时，我们的错觉就被移除了。这就是我们所说的转化。在佛教传统中，转化是可以通过深度理解而实现的。一旦无我的知见生起，末那，那个‘我是’的幻觉，便会瓦解，我们就会发现自己于当下这一刻，享受着自由与快乐。

 "Numbered Discourses 3.75

8. Ānanda

Support

Then Venerable Ānanda went up to the Buddha, bowed, and sat down to one side. The Buddha said to him:

“Ānanda, those who you have sympathy for, and those worth listening to—friends and colleagues, relatives and family—should be encouraged, supported, and established in three things. What three?

Experiential confidence in the Buddha: ‘That Blessed One is perfected, a fully awakened Buddha, accomplished in knowledge and conduct, holy, knower of the world, supreme guide for those who wish to train, teacher of gods and humans, awakened, blessed.’

Experiential confidence in the teaching: ‘The teaching is well explained by the Buddha—apparent in the present life, immediately effective, inviting inspection, relevant, so that sensible people can know it for themselves.’

Experiential confidence in the Saṅgha: ‘The Saṅgha of the Buddha’s disciples is practicing the way that’s good, direct, systematic, and proper. It consists of the four pairs, the eight individuals. This is the Saṅgha of the Buddha’s disciples that is worthy of offerings dedicated to the gods, worthy of hospitality, worthy of a religious donation, worthy of greeting with joined palms, and is the supreme field of merit for the world.’

There might be change in the four principal states—earth, water, air, and fire—but a noble disciple with experiential confidence in the Buddha would never change. In this context, ‘change’ means that such a noble disciple will be reborn in hell, the animal realm, or the ghost realm: this is quite impossible.

There might be change in the four principal states—earth, water, air, and fire—but a noble disciple with experiential confidence in the teaching … or the Saṅgha would never change. In this context, ‘change’ means that such a noble disciple will be reborn in hell, the animal realm, or the ghost realm: this is quite impossible.

Those who you have sympathy for, and those worth listening to—friends and colleagues, relatives and family—should be encouraged, supported, and established in these three things.” - https://suttacentral.net/an3.75/en/sujato