On six sense organs

Leave a Reply

When we speak of the six senses, modern readers often assume a biological interpretation: the eye is the physical organ of sight, the ear the organ of hearing, and so on. In the philosophical traditions of ancient India, however, the senses were understood primarily as faculties involved in the arising of experience. The Upaniṣads and early Buddhist texts both examine the six senses in this broader sense, describing their functions and their role in perception and cognition. Viewed together, these teachings present complementary perspectives on the nature of the senses and the way experience is formed.

From Atman are born prana, mind and all the sense organs

Mu Up II i.3

When it does the function of living, It is called the prana, when It speaks, the organ of speech, when It sees, the eye, when It hears, the ear and when It thinks, the mind. These are merely Its names according to its functions

Br Up I. iv. 7

Reverend, these five faculties have different domains and different ranges, and don’t experience each other’s domain and range. That is the faculties of the eye, ear, nose, tongue, and body. What do these five faculties, with their different domains and ranges, have recourse to? What experiences their domains and ranges? These five faculties, with their different domains and ranges, have recourse to the mind. And the mind experiences their domains and ranges

MN 43

Mendicant, suppose a person had never seen a parrot tree before. They’d go up to someone who had seen a parrot tree and ask them, ‘My man, what’s a parrot tree like?
They’d say, ‘A parrot tree is blackish, like a charred stump.’ Now, at that time a parrot tree may well have been just as that person saw it. Not content with that answer, that person would go up to a series of other people and receive the following answers: A parrot tree is reddish, like a scrap of meat, a parrot tree has flaking bark and burst pods, like a lebbeck tree, a parrot tree has luxuriant, shady foliage, like a banyan.
Now, at each of those times a parrot tree may well have been just as those people saw them.

SN 35.245

Brahman/Atman fancies:

This is I, This is mine, and fetters himself by his own actions as a bird by its nest

Mai Up III. 2

Is the eye the fetter of sights, or are sights the fetter of the eye? Is the ear … nose … tongue … body … mind the fetter of ideas, or are ideas the fetter of the mind?
Reverend Kāmabhū, the eye is not the fetter of sights, nor are sights the fetter of the eye. The fetter there is the desire and greed that arises from the pair of them. The ear … nose … tongue … body … mind is not the fetter of ideas, nor are ideas the fetter of the mind. The fetter there is the desire and greed that arises from the pair of them

SN 35.233

Mendicants, an unlearned ordinary person speaks of the ocean. But that’s not the ocean in the training of the Noble One. That’s just a large body of water, a large sea of water. For a person, the eye is an ocean, and its currents are made of sights. For a person, the ear … nose … tongue … body …mind is an ocean, and its currents are made of ideas

SN 35.228

Grasping arises:

There are sounds … smells … tastes … touches … ideas known by the mind, which are likable, desirable, agreeable, pleasant, sensual, and arousing. These are called the things that fuel grasping. The desire and greed for them is the grasping

SN 35.123

Suppose there was a latex-producing tree—such as a peepal, a banyan, a wavy leaf fig, or a cluster fig—that’s a tender young sapling, if a man were to chop it here and there with a sharp axe, would latex come out? Yes, sir. Why is that? Because it still has latex.” “In the same way, take any monk or nun who, when it comes to sights known by the eye, still has greed, hate, and delusion, and has not given them up. When it comes to sounds … smells … tastes … touches … ideas known by the mind, they still have greed, hate, and delusion, and have not given them up.

SN 35.231

But actually:

And what is empty of self or what belongs to self? The eye, sights, eye consciousness, and eye contact are empty of self or what belongs to self

SN 35.85

And the path is:

Mendicants, develop immersion. For a mendicant with immersion, things become truly clear. And what becomes truly clear? It becomes truly clear that the eye, sights, eye consciousness, and eye contact are impermanent. And it also becomes truly clear that the painful, pleasant, or neutral feeling that arises dependent on eye contact is impermanent.

SN 35.160

Mendicants, I will teach you a practice that’s conducive to extinguishment. Listen… What do you think, mendicants? Is the eye permanent or impermanent?
Impermanent, sir
But if it’s impermanent, is it suffering or happiness?
Suffering, sir
But if it’s impermanent, suffering, and perishable, is it fit to be regarded thus: ‘This is mine, I am this, this is my self’?
No, sir.
Are sights …eye consciousness … eye contact …The pleasant, painful, or neutral feeling that arises dependent on mind contact: is that permanent or impermanent
Impermanent, sir
But if it’s impermanent, is it suffering or happiness?
Suffering, sir.
But if it’s impermanent, suffering, and perishable, is it fit to be regarded thus: ‘This is mine, I am this, this is my self’
No, sir.
Seeing this, a learned noble disciple grows disillusioned with the eye, sights, eye consciousness, and eye contact. And they grow disillusioned with the painful, pleasant, or neutral feeling that arises dependent on eye contact, they grow disillusioned with the ear … nose … tongue … body … mind … painful, pleasant, or neutral feeling that arises dependent on mind contact. Being disillusioned, desire fades away, when desire fades away they’re freed, they understand: ‘… there is nothing further for this place.
This is that practice that’s conducive to extinguishment

SN 35.150

Mendicants, give up what’s not yours. Giving it up will be for your welfare and happiness. And what isn’t yours? The eye isn’t yours: give it up. Giving it up will be for your welfare and happiness, the ear … nose … tongue … body …mind isn’t yours: give it up. Giving it up will be for your welfare and happiness
Suppose a person was to carry off the grass, sticks, branches, and leaves in this Jeta’s Grove, or burn them, or do what they want with them. Would you think: ‘This person is carrying us off, burning us, or doing what they want with us’?”
No, sir.
Why is that? Because to us that’s neither self nor belonging to self.In the same way, the eye isn’t yours: give it up. Giving it up will be for your welfare and happiness, the ear … nose … tongue … body …mind isn’t yours: give it up. Giving it up will be for your welfare and happiness

Sn 35.138

Then a mendicant went up to the Buddha … and said to him: “Sir, how does one know and see so that substantialist view (sakkayadithi) is given up?
Mendicant, knowing and seeing the eye, sights, eye consciousness, and eye contact as suffering, substantialist view is given up

SN 35.166

Then a mendicant went up to the Buddha … and said to him: Sir, how does one know and see so that theory of self (attanudithi) is given up?
Mendicant, knowing and seeing the eye, sights, eye consciousness, and eye contact as not-self, theory of self is given up

SN 35.167

And the result is:

Someone who can prevail over those currents is said to have crossed over the ocean of the mind, with its waves and whirlpools, its saltwater crocodiles and monsters. Crossed over, gone to the far shore, the brahmin stands on solid ground
A knowledge master who’s crossed the ocean so hard to cross, with its saltwater crocodiles and monsters, its waves, whirlpools, and dangers; they’ve completed the spiritual journey, and gone to the end of the world, they’re called ‘one who has gone beyond’.”

SN 35.228

Sir, suppose someone were to describe the Buddhas of the past who have become fully quenched, cut off proliferation, cut off the course, finished off the cycle, and passed beyond all suffering. Does the eye exist by which they could be described? Does the ear … nose … tongue … body exist …does the mind exist by which they could be described?
The eye does not exist by which they could be described, the ear … nose … tongue … body does not exist …the mind does not exist by which they could be described

SN 35.83

World and time 2

Leave a Reply

And there is a realm outside the worlds which exists and does not exist at the same time because existence comes up with the time and the world. “Outside” of the worlds and time there are no time, no worlds and “existence” is not applicable there.

It is not eternal as being eternal means to exist forever and therefore to be under the power of time. The realm is not not-eternal as it is the only origin and the only reality, other realities being a product of the realm.

It is not limited as having limits mean a space exist, a length, a duration, a movement a time, a change, a measure.

Nothing from our worlds and other worlds is there:

Where water, earth,
fire, & wind
have no footing:
There the stars don’t shine,
the sun isn’t visible.
There the moon doesn’t appear.
There darkness is not found.
And when a sage,
a brahman through sagacity,
has realized [this] for himself,
then from form & formless,
from bliss & pain,
he is freed.

AN 4.50

World and time

Leave a Reply

The world is the same as the time, time cannot exist without the world and world cannot exist without time. Stopping of the world is stopping of the time. Time is born together with the worlds and worlds exist until time exist. There is no time outside worlds, there is only eternal, deathless, bornless, timeless. And the world is the same as the state of consciousness.

“Mendicants, the world (Loka) has been understood by a Realized One; and he is detached from the world. The origin of the world has been understood by a Realized One; and he has given up the origin of the world. The stopping of the world has been understood by a Realized One; and he has realized the stopping of the world. The practice leading to the stopping of the world has been understood by a Realized One; and he has developed the practice leading to the stopping of the world. (AN 4.23)

Loka (Pali): “world”, “being”, “cycles of birth, life and death”

Aeon from Greek αἰῶνες (aiōnes) is “life”, “being”,”generation”,”ages”, “period of time” and “timeless” and “eternal”.

Same in Hebrew עולם (ʿōlām) is “worlds”, “ages”, “universe”, “time”, “eternity”.

  1. Maimonides (1138-1204 CE): ʿŌlām represents eternity, emphasizing God’s timelessness.
  2. Nachmanides (1194-1270 CE): ʿŌlām signifies the unity of God, encompassing past, present, and future.
  3. Kabbalistic Thought: ʿŌlām is associated with the Sephirot (divine attributes) and the concealment of God’s essence.

“Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.” Hebrews 11:3 (KJV)

Further parallels:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aion_(deity)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeon_(Gnosticism)

MN 25 Nivāpasutta

Leave a Reply

The sutta is quite odd as with similes of deer herd it lead us to the conclusion that only cessation of perception and feeling (ninth jhana or ayatana) is the escape from Mara to Deathless (leads to Nibbana).

Four Jhanas and four ayatanas (arupa-jhanas) are listed and each description ends with “This is called a mendicant who has blinded Māra, put out his eyes without a trace, and gone where the Wicked One cannot see”.

The last one, cessation of perception and feeling, has a different ending: “This is called a mendicant who has blinded Māra, put out his eyes without a trace, and gone where the Wicked One cannot see and to have crossed beyond attachment to the world” (translation by Bodhi, Sujato has a wrong translation of the ending)

About meaning of the term “Ekaggatā”

Leave a Reply

There are various translations of the word on the Internet: “tranquility”, “one-pointedness”, “unification”. Mostly the term is used in the definitions of jhanas so it is quite important to understand the meaning of it properly. If we search for all occurrences in suttas we find that only in two cases the word is used not in jhana’s definition context, exactly in Digha Nikaya:

Hearing that, the gods of the Thirty-Three agreed in unison
Idaṁ sutvā devā tāvatiṁsā ekaggā samāpajjiṁsu (DN 18, DN 19)

All other occurrences are in the jhana’s definitions:

Unification of mind with these seven factors as prerequisites is called noble right immersion with its vital conditions and also with its prerequisites.
yā kho, bhikkhave, imehi sattahaṅgehi cittassa ekaggatā parikkhatā—ayaṁ vuccati, bhikkhave, ariyo sammāsamādhi saupaniso itipi, saparikkhāro itipi (SN 45.28, MN 117)

“Unification of the mind is immersion.
cittassa ekaggatā ayaṁ samādhi (MN 44)

and their mind is immersed in samādhi.
samāhitaṁ cittaṁ ekaggaṁ (AN 4.12, SN 35.134, AN 3.130, MN 28, MN 19, AN 8.11, MN 4)

gain immersion, gain unification of mind
labhati samādhiṁ, labhati cittassa ekaggataṁ (SN 51.13, SN 48.11, SN 48.50, SN 48.9, SN 48.10)

With mind unified and serene
ekaggaṁ susamāhitaṁ (SN 8.4, AN 3.59, AN 3.58)

unification of mind
cittassa ekaggatan’”ti (MN 125)

Thus Digha Nikaya confirms by using of the word in a different context that the primary idea of the word is getting together, be united, unified and in application to mind to unite the mind

About the importance of balance

Leave a Reply

How a Buddhist gets any new information regarding the teaching? There are three basic groups of inputs: own experience stemming from own practice, information from textual sources (scriptures of Buddhism, other texts on Buddhism, Dhamma), information from authoritative people (Buddhist teachers, Sangha). Regardless how we first learnt of Dhamma the three sources sooner or later appear in everyday life of the person.

Finding a right balance between them is extremely important. I have seen so many extremities like accepting only the word of the Teacher and not practicing at all or accepting only the word of the Teacher, practicing but never reading any suttas. Or only practicing and drawing all conclusions from the practice only. Or any other combinations of one or two sources from the three.

Using only one or two sources creates various delusions, hamper or completely stops the progress on the Path to Enlightenment. A teacher may make mistakes. A textual source may be interpreted incorrectly. Own practice may be delusive by itself. Sometimes all three are used but not equally.

I believe it is important to make use all of them and use equally. Whatever your practice produce should be questioned and verified against texts (suttas) and words of Teachers. Whatever you hear from a Teacher should be questioned and verified against suttas and own practice. Whatever you read in a sutta should be questioned and verified against two other. Then we reach a truly balanced approach and build a strong foundation for moving down the Path.

Tree stumps and roots

Leave a Reply

It is been noticed many times that Pali Canon extensively use ideas and conceptions borrowed from Vedas and Upanishads. At that time the ideas and analogies were obvious to any educated student of Buddha’s lectures without any explanations. They were leveraged by Gautama to convey his ideas apprehensively. The analogies was lost with time and the meaning of them is not clear for a reader nowadays. Some of the analogies might even stay completely unnoticed.

Pali canon texts often compare an Arahant with a palm stump (MN 72, overall more than 70 times). Sometimes it is followed by the statement that the stump is not able to give growth anymore. ucchinnamūlaṁ – cut off at the root (some translations incorrectly translate it as “destroyed roots”) Some suttas applies the same idea to a forest (SN 7.17). A modern meticulous reader having a bit of gardening skills might get confused here as a tree stump normally gives new branches very soon if the roots are not removed. The answer here is that palm trees unable to grow new branches being cut off at the root. But it is not the end of the story.

At Buddha’s times the notion of a tree with its roots was a very familiar and recognizable analogy for one more reason. The ninth brahmana of third chapter of Brihadaranyaka Upanishad (dated around or little earlier than suttas of Pali Canon) compares a person to a tree with the root of a man being his Self. The trunk and branches of the tree are false personal identity, created by the Self, rooted in the true Self and all that we consider as a being (a visible part like we consider visible part of a tree to be the tree). The death of the being is compared to the withering of the trunk and branches, and rebirth is when a tree grows again from a trunk, from roots.

Therefor a tree cut-off at the root meant that any visible false Self should be abandoned, cut off, extinguished and by means of it to end rebirths in any of the samsaric worlds. Removing the root was not an option according to Buddha though…

About Dhamma term in the Pārāyana Vagga

Leave a Reply

The understanding of the word dhamma is a complicated and unresolved problem in the study of early Buddhism, and a protracted discussion is beyond this study. But I will at least comment on the meanings of dhamma in the Pārāyana Vagga.
In most places it simply means ‘teaching’ or ‘subject matter’. In one place it is an adjective meaning ‘nature’ in the sense of the main characteristic of a thing, and in another place it means “righteousness”. Variants on the idiom dittha-dhamma are found in four places, which Norman always translates as “in the world of phenomena”.  It seems that Norman relates this idiom to the expression ditthe va dhamme, for he translates the latter in exactly the same way. I am not sure of the exact meaning of this difficult expression, and although in this case Norman translates dhamma as ‘phenomena’, it is probably not relevant to the occurrence of dhamma in v. 1076. There are only seven more occurrences of dhamma in the Parayanavagga, but all of them have a direct bearing on the meaning of word in v. 1076; in virtually all of these occurrences, Norman translates dhamma as ‘phenomena’.
Three of these occurrences occur in the expression “gone to the far shores of all dhamma-s” (sabbadhammāna pāragu), an expression which describes the Buddha in Sn 992, 1105, 1112. Here, it is doubtful that the meaning of the word dhamma is ‘phenomena’ in general: if so, it would suggest that the Buddha had gone to the far shore of all phenomena, physical as well as mental phenomena, in which case he would be dead. In fact in two of these verses in which the expression “gone to the far shores of all dhamma-s” is found, it occurs among a group of adjectives that describe the mental state of the Buddha: in v. 1105 the Buddha is described as a meditator (jhāyiṃ) who is without corruption (anasavam) and without passion (virajam) and in v.1112 he is descibed as without desires (anejo), the one who has cut off doubt (chinnasamsayo). It makes better sense to suppose that the expression “gone to the far shores of all dhamma-s” in this context refers to the Buddha’s elevated mental state, i.e. that he is a meditator “gone to the far shore of all mental states/phenomena”. This must be true in the only other verse where the expression is found. In v. 992 the Buddha is said to ‘have vision into all dhamma-s’ (sabbadhammacakkhuma) and to ‘have attained the destruction of all dhamma-s’ (sabbadhammakkhayam patto). In the latter expression dhamma cannot refer to physical phenomena, for then the verse would be a eulogy of a dead person; the word dhamma throughout this verse must refer to mental phenomena. Moreover, the compound sabbadhammacakkhuma is similar to the phrase kusalo sabbadhammanam (v. 1039), which Norman translates as “skilful in all mental states”. They must have more or less the same meaning, i.e. that the Buddha is knowledgeable about the workings of the mind. The occurrences of dhamma in v. 992, which include the expression sabbadhammāna pāragu, must all refer to ‘mental phenomena’. This suggests that the word similarly means ‘mental phenomena’ in v. 1105 and v. 1112, as argued above for different reasons. The only other occurrence of dhamma is in the phrase upekhasatisamsuddham dhammatakkapurejavam (1107), which Norman translates as “purified by indifference and mindfulness, preceded by examination of mental states”. The word here could just as easily mean “doctrine”, i.e. “preceded by an examination of the doctrine”. It is even possible that the word has shades of both meanings; at least we can be quite sure that it does not refer to physical phenomena.

Alexander Wynne “The origin of Buddhist meditation”