Category Archives: Suttas

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

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

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…

Early Dhamma

Leave a Reply

Sometimes people ask why is it so important to figure out what were true Buddha’s words, what was the Early Dhamma if there have been living so many enlightened Teachers since Buddha’s age? The Teachers explain us the Dhamma and teach us according to their traditions, schools and lineages and thus convey the true meaning of the Buddha words they say. Thus they equal words of teachers and Buddha’s own words. This is how the commentary tradition started. What Buddha himself thought about this?

Staying near Sāvatthī. “Monks, there once was a time when the Dasārahas had a large drum called ‘Summoner.’ Whenever Summoner was split, the Dasārahas inserted another peg in it, until the time came when Summoner’s original wooden body had disappeared and only a conglomeration of pegs remained. [The Commentary notes that the drum originally could be heard for twelve leagues, but in its final condition couldn’t be heard even from behind a curtain.]
“In the same way, in the course of the future there will be monks who won’t listen when discourses that are words of the Tathāgata—deep, deep in their meaning, transcendent, connected with emptiness—are being recited. They won’t lend ear, won’t set their hearts on knowing them, won’t regard these teachings as worth grasping or mastering. But they will listen when discourses that are literary works—the works of poets, elegant in sound, elegant in rhetoric, the work of outsiders, words of disciples—are recited. They will lend ear and set their hearts on knowing them. They will regard these teachings as worth grasping & mastering.
“In this way the disappearance of the discourses that are words of the Tathāgata—deep, deep in their meaning, transcendent, connected with emptiness—will come about.
“Thus you should train yourselves: ‘We will listen when discourses that are words of the Tathāgata—deep, deep in their meaning, transcendent, connected with emptiness—are being recited. We will lend ear, will set our hearts on knowing them, will regard these teachings as worth grasping & mastering.’ That’s how you should train yourselves.”
SN 20.7

So while the commentaries and traditions might help us to understand Buddha’s words better, we should first figure out what were the original Buddha words and compare any teachings we have heard (whatever famous and popular the teacher is) to the most extant layers of early suttas. If they match then the teacher’s doctrines should be accepted if not the Buddha words should be most important to us.

That is why it is extremely important for us to figure out what was the original Buddha’s words, the Early Dhamma.

Allness of All

Leave a Reply

One of the very known suttas in Pali Canon is SN 35.23. Unfortunately very often the sutta is misunderstood. Too many Buddhists tend to think that the sutta means nothing exists beyond six spheres of perception. This is not so.

An excellent comment of Thanissaro Bhikkhu:

The Commentary’s treatment of this discourse is very peculiar. To begin with, it delineates three other “All’s” in addition to the one defined here, one of them supposedly larger in scope than the one defined here: the Allness of the Buddha’s omniscience (literally, All-knowingness). This, despite the fact that the discourse says that the description of such an all lies beyond the range of explanation.
Secondly, the Commentary includes nibbana (unbinding) within the scope of the All described here — as a dhamma, or object of the intellect — even though there are many other discourses in the Canon specifically stating that nibbana lies beyond the range of the six senses and their objects. Sn 5.6, for instance, indicates that a person who has attained nibbana has gone beyond all phenomena (sabbe dhamma), and therefore cannot be described. MN 49 discusses a “consciousness without feature” (viññanam anidassanam) that does not partake of the “Allness of the All.” Furthermore, the following discourse (SN 35.24) says that the “All” is to be abandoned. At no point does the Canon say that nibbana is to be abandoned. Nibbana follows on cessation (nirodha), which is to be realized. Once nibbana is realized, there are no further tasks to be done.
Thus it seems more this discourse’s discussion of “All” is meant to limit the use of the word “all” throughout the Buddha’s teachings to the six sense spheres and their objects. As the following discourse shows, this would also include the consciousness, contact, and feelings connected with the sense spheres and their objects. Nibbana would lie outside of the word, “all.” This would fit in with another point made several times in the Canon: that dispassion is the highest of all dhammas (Iti 90), while the arahant has gone beyond even dispassion (Sn 4.6; Sn 4.10).
This raises the question, if the word “all” does not include nibbana, does that mean that one may infer from the statement, “all phenomena are not-self” that nibbana is self? The answer is no. As AN 4.174 states, to even ask if there is anything remaining or not remaining (or both, or neither) after the cessation of the six sense spheres is to differentiate what is by nature undifferentiated (or to objectify the unobjectified — see the Introduction to MN 18). The range of differentiation goes only as far as the “All.” Perceptions of self or not-self, which would count as differentiation, would not apply beyond the “All.” When the cessation of the “All” is experienced, all differentiation is allayed

Consciousness without feature

Leave a Reply

Consciousness without feature,
 without end,
luminous all around:
Here water, earth, fire, & wind
have no footing.
Here long & short
coarse & fine
fair & foul
name & form
are all brought to an end.
With the cessation of [the activity of] consciousness
each is here brought to an end.

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.

There is that dimension, monks, where there is neither earth, nor water, nor fire, nor wind; neither dimension of the infinitude of space, nor dimension of the infinitude of consciousness, nor dimension of nothingness, nor dimension of neither perception nor non-perception; neither this world, nor the next world, nor sun, nor moon. And there, I say, there is neither coming, nor going, nor staying; neither passing away nor arising: unestablished, unevolving, without support [mental object]. This, just this, is the end of stress.

“Just as if there were a roofed house or a roofed hall having windows on the north, the south, or the east. When the sun rises, and a ray has entered by way of the window, where does it land?”
“On the western wall, lord.”
“And if there is no western wall, where does it land?”
“On the ground, lord.”
“And if there is no ground, where does it land?”
“On the water, lord.”
“And if there is no water, where does it land?”
“It does not land, lord.”

“In the same way, where there is no passion for the nutriment of physical food … contact … intellectual intention … consciousness, where there is no delight, no craving, then consciousness does not land there or grow. Where consciousness does not land or grow, name-&-form does not alight. Where name-&-form does not alight, there is no growth of fabrications. Where there is no growth of fabrications, there is no production of renewed becoming in the future. Where there is no production of renewed becoming in the future, there is no future birth, aging, & death. That, I tell you, has no sorrow, affliction, or despair.”

Sandcastles

Leave a Reply

At Sāvatthī.
Seated to one side, Venerable Rādha said to the Buddha:
“Sir, they speak of this thing called a ‘sentient being’. How is a sentient being defined?”
“Rādha, when you cling, strongly cling, to desire, greed, relishing, and craving for form, then a being is spoken of. When you cling, strongly cling, to desire, greed, relishing, and craving for feeling … perception … choices … consciousness, then a being is spoken of.
Suppose some boys or girls were playing with sandcastles. As long as they’re not rid of greed, desire, fondness, thirst, passion, and craving for those sandcastles, they cherish them, fancy them, treasure them, and treat them as their own. But when they are rid of greed, desire, fondness, thirst, passion, and craving for those sandcastles, they scatter, destroy, and demolish them with their hands and feet, making them unplayable.
In the same way, you should scatter, destroy, and demolish form, making it unplayable. And you should practice for the ending of craving. You should scatter, destroy, and demolish feeling … perception … choices … consciousness, making it unplayable. And you should practice for the ending of craving. For the ending of craving is extinguishment.”

SN 23.2