THE GREAT DISCOURSE ON THE ANATTALAKKHA¤A SUTTA

PART FIVE

(Delivered on the 8th waxing day of Wæso 1325 M.E.)

PREFACE

The series of discourse on the Anattalakkha¼a Sutta was begun on the 8th waxing day of Nayone. Already four discourses have been given with full expositions of the teaching on the five aggregates being non-self. From today, we will go on to the second Part of the Sutta which described the aggregates in terms of the characteristics of anicca and dukkha, (impermanence and unsatisfactoriness). But before we deal with them, we wish to explain before hand the characteristic of non self and how this characteristic is hard to comprehend.

THE CHARACTERISTIC OF NON-SELF

All the næma rþpa components of the five aggregates are Non-self. That they are not Atta, Non-self becomes evident through their characteristics or sgins of non-self. The Commentary describes these characteristics as below: That it is not amenable to one's will is a characteristic of non-self. In this Sutta this characteristics is expressed in these terms: 'It is not possible to say of rþpa, "Let rþpa be thus (all wholesome)".

Further in this Sutta we find the expression, 'It tends to afflict.' Affliction or oppressing should thus be taken as another characteristic of Non-self. Also there is a query in the Sutta, 'Is it fitting to consider it a self that which is subject to change?' Thus constant change and alteration is a characteristics of non-self.

When these characteristics are observed in the cause of taking note of the næma rþpa phenomena as it is happening, the knowledge developed that the aggregates of næma rþpa are non-self, but mere phenomena; such knowledge is termed Anattænupassanæ ñæ¼a, knowledge developed by contemplation on the characteristics of non-self. The name of Anattalakkha¼a is given to this Sutta since it deals with the characteristics of Non-self.

THE CHARACTERISTICS OF NON-SELF IS HARD TO COMPREHEND

"The characteristics of impermanence and suffering are easy to understand, but the characteristics of non self is hard to comprehend," states the commentary of Sammoha. According to the Commentary, utterances easily come to the mouth. "Oh, impermanence, not enduring," when a pot is dropped accidentally and gets broken. Again, afflicted with boils or sores on the body and with pain because of piercing thorns or pointed sticks, one usually murmurs "Oh what trouble, what suffering." In this way the nature of impermanence and unsatisfactoriness is clearly visible and easily understandable. But the characteristic of Non-self is not so easily comprehensible just like an object lying in the dark is hard to explain to others.

The characteristics of impermanence and unsatisfactoriness are well known either inside the Dispensation or outside it. But the characteristics of non-self is known only in the Dispensation, it is non-existent outside it. The wise hermits such as Saraba³ga who were outside of the Dispensation could teach only about the nature of impermanence and suffering; the doctrine of Non-self was beyond them. If they could only teach this doctrine, their disciples would have attained the knowledge of the Path and Fruition. But since they could not teach it, attainment of Path and Fruition was an impossibility outside of the Dispensation.

It is the unique quality of the attribute of the Exalted Enlightened One to be able to teach and explain the doctrine of non-self. Teachers outside of the dispensation could not handle this doctrine which is so subtle and profound. The commentary states that the non-self doctrine is so deep that even the Enlightened One had to employ either the characteristics of impermanence or the characteristics of suffering or both of them to facilitate the teaching of the doctrine of non-self.

The sub-commentary explained further that: 'In the above statement of the commentary, the anicca and dukkha known outside the Dispensation are mere conventional terms, by means of which idea of non-self could not be known. Only the anicca and dukkha realized in the absolute sense could be useful in explaining the doctrine of non-self. Making use of this sub-commentary comments, we have described conventional and real concepts of anicca-dukha in our book on Sølavanta Sutta: reference to which may be made for further information on them.

ANATTA EXPLAINED BY MEANS OF ANICCA

In Chachakka Sutta of Uparipa¼¼æsa Pæ¹i Text we find Anatta explained by means of anicca. According to this Sutta, the Yogø should know the following six classes of six kinds:

1. The six internal bases namely eye, ear, nose etc.

2. The six external base namely sight, sound, odour etc.

3. Six kinds of consciousness.

4. Six kinds of phassa, impressions.

5. Six kinds of feeling.

6. Six kinds of desire, hunger for sight, sound etc.

Here 'should know' means, according to the Commentary, 'should know' by means of vipassanæ contemplation, by means of Ariya magga ñæ¼a. Therefore, whenever anything is seen, it should be mindfully noted so that the eye and its objects of sight, the eye consciousness, the contact and the vedanæ that arises on seeing are all made aware of. And if liking and craving for the object develops along with seeing, that rising desire should also be noted as 'liking liking etc.'

Likewise, while hearing, smelling, tasting, touching, and thinking the six classes of six kinds of objects should be known. To the Yogø who is aware of these by noting each phenomenon of seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching, thinking the knowledge is gained personally that eye, visible sight, eye consciousness etc rising and vanishing away. The Yogø realizes, "previously, it was thought that there is a permanent entity, an enduring self. Now it is perceived by actual observation that there is only a natural phenomenon of incessant rising and vanishing. Perceiving no self, no living entity, the Yogø may even wonder for whom is he engaged in meditation. Realization, that there is no self, is attained through fully understanding the nature of impermanence. In corroboration of this practical experience, the Blessed One continued to state in this Chachakha Sutta:

"The sensitive material quality of the eye, which serves as the base for eye consciousness, rises and vanishes on every occasion of seeing; it is, therefore, not permanent, not the seemingly enduring, everlasting entity, the self. If one says, 'the eye is self,' it will amount to saying one's self, Atta is arising and passing away, not stable. Therefore, it must be concluded that the unenduring material quality of the eye is not self."

Likewise, similar conclusions may be drawn with respect to the visible form, eye consciousness, eye contact and Vedanæ resulting from eye contact, liking and desiring for the sight, that they are not self. This is how the six phenomena which become prominent at the moment of seeing are to be regarded as non-self. In a similar manner, the six classes of the six kinds of phenomena which are apparent at the moment of hearing, smelling, tasting, touching, and thinking may also be regarded as non-self.

SEEING NON-SELF THROUGH SEEING DUKKHA

Anatta is explained in terms of dukkha in the Anattalakkha¼a Sutta itself: ' Rþpa tends to afflict because it is not self,' states the sutta. That which is oppressing is a terror, a suffering; and it is very plain that a terrible suffering cannot to be one's self, one's inner entity.

NON-SELF EXPLAINED IN TERMS OF BOTH ANICCA AND DUKKHA

To explain non-self in terms of both anicca and dukkha, the Blessed One said, 'Rþpa is not permanent. What is not permanent is suffering. what is suffering is not self. What is not self should be regarded with proper wisdom according to reality thus: This is not mine; this I am not; this is not my self.'

In short, 'Rþpa is subject to change and suffering and is therefore, not self. It is not proper to regard with acquisitiveness as mine what is really not self; it is not proper to think vainly of oneself as I am, I can etc; it is not proper to regard it as my self. 'In this manner should rþpa be viewed and regarded in accordance with reality.

            In a similar manner, vedanæ, saññæ, sa³khæra, and viññæ¼a are also shown to be not self by their nature of impermanence and suffering. We shall find in the latter portions of the Anattalakkha¼a Sutta, the nature of non self being described in terms of anicca and dukkha.

The concept of anicca and dukkha is known and accepted outside of the Buddhist teaching too. But the doctrine of non-self, refusing the existence of living entity, is hardly acceptable to those outside of the Buddha's dispensation. At the time of the Buddha, a certain wandering recluse by the name of Saccaka came to the Blessed One and disputed with him on this subject of non-self.

DISPUTES BY THE WANDERER SACCAKA

There was a wandering recluse by the name of Saccaka, who was a teacher of the prince of Vasælø. The wandering recluse asked of Assaji, the youngest of the group of five Bhikkhus, "How is Sama¼a Gotama teaching his disciples, what are the chief instructions of his?". Assaji replied, rþpa, vedanæ, saññæ, sa³khæra, viññæ¼a are impermanent, not self; That's how the master is teaching us; these are his chief instructions."

Upon this, Saccaka, the wandering recluse said, "Friend, we hear an utterance which is evil, unpropitious, We have been hearing that Sama¼a Gotama used to teach this doctrine of anatta, to hear which is evil, unpropitious for us. One of these days we may have opportunity to meet with Sama¼a Gotama and rid him of this wicked, obvious doctrine of his, the wrong view of nonself."

This is an example of how believers in atta look down upon this doctrine of anatta. To hear what the Blessed One has taught about non self is utterly evil and baneful for them. The wandering recluse even talked about ridding the Blessed One of his 'wrong view'. Dogmatists are always of this frame of mind; they run down others, holding fast to their own view. Even those who are teaching in accordance with the Pæ¹i canons are disparaged. Such people who are reviling others are usually found to be deficient in their knowledge of the texts and not to have much practical experience of meditational exercise.

The said Saccaka had not yet made sufficient study of Buddha's teaching and had no practical knowledge of the Dhamma. Yet he held a poor opinion of it, feeling himself very much above and superior to it. Therefore, he made an attempt to go to the Blessed One and to engage in contest of beliefs. He was feeling certain to come out the winner in the contest and he wanted people to witness his victory. He went to the Licchavis of Vesali and invited them to accompany him, making a vain boast that he would whirl the Blessed One round in the matter of doctrines just like a powerful man, catching hold of a kid by his fleece, whirl it round and round.

When they reached the presence of the Blessed One, the wanderer asked permission from the Blessed One to put questions to him. He then asked, "Venerable Gotama, how are your disciples instructed?" What are the main points in your instructions? The Blessed One's reply was exactly the same as that given by the Venerable Assaji namely, "Rþpa, vedanæ, saññæ, sa³khæra, viññæ¼a are impermanent, not self. In this way I instruct my disciples. These are the main points of teaching to my disciples."

The wanderer then began to introduce doctrinal matters into discussion by way of illustrations. "Venerable Gotama, the seed and the shoot (cutting) have to rely on the earth, depend on the earth for their growth into plants and trees; likewise, every action that is done with vigour and strength needs the earth for its support; in a similar manner, a person having rþpa as substantial self, Atta, depends on it for both wholesome and unwholesome activities. Likewise a person having vedanæ, saññæ, sa³khæra, viññæ¼a as substantial self, depends on vedanæ, saññæ, sa³khæra, viññæ¼a for both wholesome and unwholesome activities."

What is meant by this assertion is that: seeds and trees have to depend on the support of the earth for their growth; so also all kinds of activities require strength and vigour. They need the firm support of the earth. Similarly, the wholesome and unwholesome activities are performed by individuals having rþpa, vedanæ, saññæ, sa³khæra, viññæ¼a as self; dependent on these attas are the activities carried out. Also, it is the atta that reaps the fruits (good or bad) thereof. Were rþpa not self, where would be the support for the performance of wholesome and unwholesome deeds; and who would enjoy the fruits of these action?

It is outside the intellectual scope of the disciples to solve this doctrinal matter of atta which is likened to the earth. Only the Blessed One could handle the problem. So said the commentary. Accordingly, the Blessed One intending to tackle the problem personally, asked of the Wanderer, "Saccaka of the Aggivessana clan, Do you hold that rþpa is self, vedanæ is self, saññæ is self, sa³khæra is self, viññæ¼a is self?"

"Yes, Venerable Gotama, I hold that view and these people here also hold the same view."

The Blessed One urged him, "Saccaka of Aggivessana clan, leave aside other people's view; let us hear what you hold as your own."

It was Saccaka's intention to share the blame, if his view of Atta happens to be blameworthy with the others present there. But the Blessed One urged him to confine his reply only for himself. He was thus forced to admit, that he holds that rþpa is his atta, vedanæ is his atta, saññæ is his atta, sa³khæra is his atta, viññæ¼a is his atta.

Then the Blessed One asked him, "Saccaka of Aggivessana clan, Rulers like king Pasenadi, king Ajætasatta hold sovereign powers in their own dominions; they kill of those who should be killed, punish those who should be punished, and banish those who should be banished. They rule over their countries as they will; is this not a fact, Saccaka?"

"Sovereign kings have indeed such authority over their countries: Even the Licchavis, elected by popular votes to rule, hold such powers to kill, to punish or banish in their own countries," replied Saccaka, going beyond the bounds of the question put to him, not foreseeing what repercussions it would have on his personal beliefs.

Thereupon, the Blessed One said, "Saccaka of Aggivessana clan you said, rþpa is self, 'My Atta'; Could you exercise your control over that Atta, saying, "Let this Atta of mine be thus; let this Atta be not thus."

The wanderer Saccaka was finding himself on the horns of dilemma. The doctrine of self holds that it can exercise control as one will. The Sæmi Atta clinging, which we have repeatedly mentioned before, believes that it can manage self as it will. At this juncture, Saccaka had admitted that sovereign kings had complete control over their kingdoms; it appeared that he would have to admit that Rþpa which he regarded as self would be amenable to management. If he did that, there would come the further questions whether he would exercise control over his Rþpa so as to keep it youthful like the rþpa of the Licchavi princes. If he replied that it could not be managed, then that would amount of admission that there could be no control over rþpa and therefore it could not be self. Finding himself in this difficult dilemma, Saccaka kept silent without giving any answer.

The Blessed One repeated the question for the second time, but Saccaka remained silent all the time. Before asking him for the third time, the Blessed One gave him this warning: "Saccaka of Aggivessana clan, you'd better answer my question. It is not the time to remain silent. When questioned by a Tathægatæ for a third time, one has to come up with answer or else his head will get split open into seven pieces."

At that time a celestial ogre was said to be hovering above Saccaka head. Armed with thunderbolt, the ogre was poised to split open his head with the thunderbolt. The ogre was visible only to the Blessed One and Saccaka and invisible to others. It is somewhat like ghost manifestations of present days, the ghost being visible to some, invisible to others. Saccaka was greatly frightened by the sight of the ogre; but when he saw the rest of the audience undisturbed in any way, he realized that the ogre was not visible to them. He could not therefore, say that he had to answer the way he did, being in terror threatened by the ogre. He knew also that he had no other refuge but the Blessed One, to whom, therefore, he submitted: "May it please the Blessed One to put the question; I am ready to answer."

Thereupon, the Blessed One asked; "Saccaka of Aggivessana clan, what do you think of that? You said Rþpa is self; Could you say of that self, "Let this rþpa be thus, let this rþpa be not thus, according to your wish?"

"No, the Blessed One there is no control over it", replied Saccaka, contradicting himself thereby. He had said that rþpa is self; if rþpa were self; it should be amenable to control. Now he said that there was no control over rþpa. This amounts to admission that rþpa is not self, one's inner substance.

When the Blessed One heard him contradicting himself, he was cautioned thus; 'Saccaka of Aggivessana clan, take heed, be careful with what you say in reply; what you said later is not in accord with what you have said earlier. What you have said earlier is not in accord with what you said later.

'Now, Saccaka of Aggivessana clan, what do you think of that? You said vedanæ is self; could you say of that self, "Let vedanæ be thus, let this vedanæ be not thus," according to your wish.'

"No, the Blessed One, there is no control over it."

Similar questions were asked concerning saññæ, sa³khæra, and viññæ¼a prefaced by the same caution to take heed so as not to be contradicting himself. Saccaka also provided similar answers saying there was no control over each of them.

Then the Blessed One asked him whether rþpa is permanent or impermanent. He answered, 'Impermanent, Sir' "What is not permanent, is that suffering or happiness 'Suffering Sir', answered Saccaka." Then, what is impermanent, suffering and subject to change, is it proper to regard it as 'This is mine, This I am, This is my self.' "Not that, the Blessed One", he replied. The same questions were repeated with regard to vedanæ, saññæ, sa³khæra and viññæ¼a and similar replies were given by Saccaka.

Then he was further questioned thus: "Saccaka of Aggivessana clan, what do you think of that? A certain person holds fast to these aggregates of suffering, clinging to them, attached to them, clasping them firmly, believing them to be 'This is mine, This I am, This is my self;' Is there possibility for this person to understand suffering truly and well, to end this suffering. "This question is quite subtle and profound. The aggregates of næma and rþpa which manifest themselves at the six doors, at every moment of seeing, hearing, touching, knowing .. one who takes delight in them, and thinks them to be, "This I am, This is mine, This is myself' would this person know that these aggregates of næma and rþpa are suffering; would it be possible for him to end these sufferings, to be rid of these sufferings.

Saccaka provided the answers according to the questions asked. "Venerable Gotama how could it be possible for him to know the truth of suffering, to end the suffering, impossible Lord Gotama.

In that case, the Blessed One asked, 'are you not the person who holds fast to these aggregates of suffering, clinging to them, attached to them, clasping them firmly, the person who believes them to be "This is mine, This I am, This is my self", Saccaka replied. "The Blessed One I am verily that person, Sir How could I be otherwise?"

The wanderer Saccaka had thought very highly of his own belief in Atta. He was very vain with regard to it, spoke boastfully about it, but when examined by the Blessed One he was forced to admit all along the error of his views. His belief in Atta, Atta væda, was thoroughly annihilated. To give a final blow to his bloated ego, pride and vanity, the Blessed One taught thus by way of an illustration:

"Saccaka of Aggivessana clan, suppose a person wanting the heartwood or draymen of a tree went into the forest to look for it. Seeing a plantain tree and believing to find the heartwood inside it, he fell the tree cutting it down from the bottom of it. He cut off the top part of the tree and began to peel off the outer skin of the plantain trunk. Not to say of the inner heartwood, he could not even find the outer wood fiber that surrounds the inner pith in the plantain trunk.

"Exactly as in that example, when I examine your doctrine in atta, it is found to be void of essential inner substance. Did you not make the boast amidst the crowd in the city of Vesæli: "There is no one who can withstand me in any contest of doctrines, without trembling, without sweating; I have not yet come across any recluse or Brahmin, who can withstand me without trembling nor sweating, nor any one who has admitted himself to be an Arahat (fully accomplished Worthy One) and who has become all Enlightened. Even a lifeless wooden post, not endowed with mind or mental concomitants, when challenged by me in the matter of doctrine, would tremble and tumble down, not to say of a human person. "Had you not made such boasts, Saccaka of Aggivessana clan? As it happens, some of the sweat from your brows have soaked through your upper robe and are dropping on the ground. As for me, I have no sweat on my body, "So saying the Blessed One exposed a portion of his body so as to let people see for themselves, there was indeed no sweat on him.

The wanderer Saccaka, having nothing to say in reply, remained silent, embarrassed and crest-fallen, with slumping shoulders and lowered head. Then one of his followers, a Licchavi prince by the name of Dummukha rose and asked permission from the Blessed One to bring up an illustration. On being permitted by the Blessed One, Dummukha, the Licchavi prince, said, "The Blessed One, there was a tank not far from the town and there was a crab living in the tank. The young people of the town came out from the town and arriving at the tank, caught hold of crab and place it on land. That crab was clumsily raising its hand and feet and waving them about. Every time the crab raised its hand or feet, the young people had it smashed off by beating it with sticks or broken pieces of pottery. With its limbs thus crushed, the crab could not make its way back to the tank. In a similar manner, the Blessed One had destroyed all the thorns and spikes of Saccaka's wrong view, pastures (haunts) of wrong views, and movements of his wrong views. Thus there is no more possibility for Saccaka to approach the Blessed One again to dispute over doctrinal matters."

While Dummukha, the Licchavi prince was addressing the Blessed One, other Licchavi princes were anxiously awaiting their turn to denounce the wanderer Saccaka by more illustrative stories. Seeing the dangerous situation developing in which the Licchavi would be heaping disgrace on him, one after another Saccaka decided to stop Dummukha from marking further remark. "Hold on Dummukha, we are having our discussions with the Venerable Gotama, not with you. "Then he addressed the Blessed One, "The Venerable Gotama, let those be, what we had said and what others have said. I wish to bring them to a close. There have been such random talks."

Then he asked the Blessed One how one had to go about (practise) in the Buddha's dispensation to reach the stage where sceptical doubts are overcome and courage of conviction attained. The Blessed One taught him that one has to engage oneself in the practice of meditation until one attains the stage when one can see, with Vipassanæ insight and knowledge of the Path, that the five aggregates of rþpa, vedanæ, saññæ, sa³khæra and viññæ¼a which are liable to be misconceived as 'This is mine, This I am, This is my self" are in reality "This is not mine. This is I am not, This is not my self.'

Saccaka wanted to know also how to practise to become an Arahat. The Buddha told him that, after realization that the aggregates of "næma and rþpa are not mine, This is I am not, This is not my self," one has to continue on practicing until one is free of clinging and attachments.

What comes out of this disputatious arguments of Saccaka with the Blessed One is that there is a type of wrong belief which holds all the five aggregates are self and that those who cling to atta always think disparagingly of those who believe in the doctrine of Non-self.

Further there is another type of wrong belief which holds only one of the aggregates to be Non-self. This is evident from the atta clinging of Sæti which we have described in part IV and also from vedaka atta clinging as well as kæraka atta clinging.

REFUTING THE ATTA WHICH IS SAID TO BE APART FROM THE FIVE AGGREGATES

There appears in modern times, still another type of atta belief. As described in a book on Indian Philosophy, this new type of atta clinging has no reference to the five aggregates; it lies apart from them. This must be rejected as just an opinion, for in the absence of the five aggregates, there can be no atta clinging. Consider for a moment: if that atta has no rþpa, it cannot be experienced in any form or substance. If næma still exists, there can be atta clinging to be similar to the attachment of the common worldling to the formless realm. But if that næma is not existent, then there is nothing to be attachment to as one's atta. If there is no vedanæ, too, there can be no clinging to feelings, pleasant or unpleasant. In the absence of saññæ, no attachment can arise, to recognizing or remembering. Having no consciousness nothing can be known; and since there is no sa³khæra, such as cetanæ etc., that atta cannot have anything done. Therefore that type of atta will exist only in name; it will be of no practical use; even no description of it can be given. Thus, although they assert that their atta is apart from the five aggregates, actually it is obvious that their atta clinging is one of the five aggregates or on many of the five aggregates, or on all of the five aggregates. It is an impossibility to have any clinging on atta apart from or outside of the five aggregates.

Thus in the Anattalakkha¼a Sutta, we find the words, 'Rþpa is not self; vedanæ in not self; saññæ is not self; sa³khæra is not self; viññæ¼a is not self' which remove and refute all types of clinging, doing away with the possibility of atta clinging that is said to exist apart from the five aggregates, and atta clinging for two kinds of aggregates, three kinds, four kinds or all five kinds of aggregates.

If rþpa is clung to as atta, then the remaining four aggregates such as vedanæ etc form part of that atta, its attribute, its support and are also clung to as such; or if one of the other aggregates such as vedanæ is clung to as atta then the remaining four are also clung to as part of that atta as its attribute and its support. All these types of atta clinging are refuted by the statement "rþpa is not self etc." Now the Blessed One had talked fully about Anatta, but in order to explain it further in terms of the characteristics of anicca, and dukkha, he continued:

"Tam kim maññathæ Bhikkhave rþpam niccam væ aniccæm væti. aniccam Bhante. Yam panæ'niccam dukkham væ tam sukham væti. Dukkham Bhante. Yam pana'niccam dukkham viparinæma dhammam kallam nu tam sammupassitum etam mama eso 'ham asmi eso me attæti. No h'etam Bhante."

"Bhikkhus, what do you think of that? (I am about to ask; my answer in any way you think fit). Is rþpa permanent or impermanent?"

"Not permanent, the Blessed One"

The Blessed One asked them whether rþpa is permanent or not permanent. The group of five Bhikkhus replied, 'Not permanent', and answer which can be given from knowledge gained by ordinary hearsay. But what the Blessed One wanted was an answer based on their own knowledge. And the group of five Bhikkhus having become all; Sotæpanas, had seen the truth and their answers were thus out of their own knowledge in accordance with the wishes of the Blessed One.

The Yogø of this center, who have been practicing the meditation, can also answer with their own knowledge. When the Yogø takes note of the actions of rising, he perceives the phenomenon of extension, pressure and motion in the abdomen quite vividly. This phenomenon of extension, was non-existent before; it becomes manifested just as the abdomen beings to take a rise. This is then the rising of the phenomenon ... its becoming. The beginning of the phenomenon is thus the arising of the abdomen which comes under observation, and duly noted. When the rising comes to an end, there is no more extension, pressure and motion in the abdomen. They are said to terminate, disappear, cease, pass away. Thus while the rising of the abdomen is being noted, the Yogø also perceives this rising to pass away, to disappear. This dissolution following on the heel of rising, becoming, is the sure characteristic of impermanence.

Realizing this nature of impermanence in the course of noting the rising and falling of the abdomen is true insight into the nature of impermanence, Aniccænupassanæ ñæ¼a. This knowledge of the impermanence accruing from noting the beginning and end of each arising constitutes Sammasana ñæ¼a, the first step in the series of ten ñæ¼as, developed through Vipassanæ meditation. This Samæsana ñæ¼a, sees through only the beginning and the end of phenomenon of the same types of næma, rþpa; the fine details of what happens in between cannot be perceived yet. It is just the knowledge of impermanence which accrues from perceiving the becoming and dissolution of the continuing processes, presently happening.

When noting the phenomenon of rising, the beginning of the rise is perceived as well as its end. To know the beginning of the rise is to know the becoming; to know the end of the rise is to know its dissolution of each arising, there can be no misconception on it to be permanent. It is definitely impermanent.

When noting the phenomenon of falling, the contracting motion of the abdomen is distinctly seen. It is the væyo element in motion. In seeing the beginning of the falling motion of the stomach and its end, the phenomenon of væyo element is being seen. The falling rþpa was not in existence at the time of extension, only when the rising motion comes to an end, that the falling rþpa comes into being. Then finally the falling rþpa vanishes away, disappears instantly. So this falling rþpa is also definitely not permanent.

WHY IT IS CALLED IMPERMANENT

Aniccam khayathen .. impermanent because of its nature of coming to an end. In accordance with this definition, the falling of abdomen, manifested by the contracting motion, comes to an end, ceases. Hence, it is impermanent.

According to another Commentary definition .. Hutvæ Abhævato aniccæ. Non-existent previously, it comes into being and then dissolves, perishes away. Hence it is impermanent.

While making note, 'falling,' 'falling,' the beginning and end of the phenomenon of falling is perceived, and the Yogø realizes its impermanent nature. This is true Aniccænupassanæ ñæ¼a, that is understanding the nature of impermanence, at the stage of samæsana ñæ¼a by seeing the becoming and dissolution of the 'continuous processes presently happening', At the level of Udayabbaya ñæ¼a during the interval of the one cycle of rising and falling, three, four, five distinct moments of beginning and ending of the phenomenon can be noted. When the Yogø comes to the bha³ga stage, during the interval of one cycle of rising and falling, numerous moments of dissolution will be seen to flit by. The material body of rising and falling, being subjected to incessant dissolution is indeed not permanent.

When the motion of bending or stretching the limbs are heedfully noted, as bending, bending, stretching, stretching the beginning and end of each bending or stretching is distinctly seen. It is seen thus because the respective motion are being carefully noted. A person not engaged in noting may not be aware of the bending or stretching of his limbs, he will not perceive the beginning of the motion separately from their ends. He will be under the impression that the hand which was there before bending or stretching still remains there till after the motion.

When bending or stretching, it will be seen that there is a slow motion of the limbs gradually passing from one moment to another moment. At every occasion of bending or stretching, the beginning of the extending and moving is the coming into being (becoming) of the material quality of væyo element; the end of the extending and moving is the dissolution of the væyo element. When noting the bending, to know the beginning and ending of each bending is to know the arising and dissolution of væyo element. Similarly, when noting the stretching to know the beginning and end of each stretching is to know the arising and dissolution of væyo element. During the time taken by one single act of bending and stretching, knowing the separate slow motions of the limbs gradually passing from one moment to another is also knowing the arising and dissolution of the væyo element whose characteristics are extension and movement. The gradual slow motion of the limb definitely brings out the nature of impermanence which cannot, however, he realized without taking heedful note of each action.

While going, the Yogø who is taking note as 'right stepping out; left stepping out, knows the beginning and end of each step. This is knowing the arising and dissolution of the væyo element which is responsible for extension and movement of the legs. Similarly the Yogø who takes note of the movements of the legs in raising, steeping out, dropping down knows separately the beginning and end of movements .. raising, stepping out, dropping down. This is also knowing the arising and dissolution of the væyo element. Knowing the separate slow motions of the legs involved in each act of moving is also knowing the coming into being and dissolution of væyo element. Thus the væyo element, responsible for movement of step, is arising and passing away with each step and is, therefore, impermanent.

When noting the feeling of touch that may be felt anywhere on the body, knowing the arising of sensation of touch and its disappearance is knowing the arising and dissolution of the material quality involved in touch sensation. The Yogø knows the arising and passing of the sensitive material quality of his own body as well as that of the tactile body. He realizes the freshly arising material bodies are not stable, but impermanent because he has seen their incessant arising and passing away by actual noting.

When hearing and taking note as 'hearing, hearing', the Yogø notices the sound to be freshly arising and disappearing. This is knowing the arising and dissolution of sound. Thus the sound which arises every time sound is heard is not permanent. Along with this material quality of the sound, the material quality of the ear on which sound makes its impression also arises a fresh and disappears with the sound. So it may be said that once the arising and dissolution of sound is perceived, the arising and dissolution of the material quality of ear is also known. Thus the Yogø who takes note of sound as 'hearing, hearing,' every time a sound is heard, and knows the impermanent nature of the sound, knows at the same time the impermanent nature of the material quality of the ear as well. The whistle from the rice mill or the howling of dogs are generally regarded to be heard at one continuous stretch, but to the Yogø whose Vipassanæ insight has grown strong, those sounds appear in minute portions, section by section, one after another. The Yogø therefore, realizes that material quality of sound also is arising and perishing in a very fast pace.

Likewise the Yogø who is noting 'seeing, seeing' at the time of seeing an object knows, when his vipassanæ ñæ¼a gets highly developed, that eye consciousness and seeing the objects are fast appearing and disappearing. Then the visible form which arises a fresh and perishes instantly are permanent. The material quality of eye which arises and perishes simultaneously with the visible form is also impermanent.

While eating, the Yogø who notes knowing the taste as 'knowing knowing' knows, when the taste which has thus appeared, disappears. The taste which appears afresh and disappears is, therefore, impermanent. The impermanent nature of the taste is very prominent. However pleasant the taste is, it remains only for a short while on the tongue before it disappears. Just like the taste the material quality of the tongue in which the taste manifests itself disappears simultaneously. Thus when the taste is seen to be impermanent, the material quality of the tongue is also seen at the same time to be impermanent.

The Yogø who keeps note of smell knows that the smell keeps on appearing and disappearing, all the time renewing itself. Smell, which comes into being and gets dissolved instantly, is therefore impermanent and the material quality of the nose which arises and vanishes simultaneously with the smell is also impermanent. When thinking, or ideation occurs while noting the rise and fall of abdomen, it has to be carefully noted. It will be observed that the thinking disappears even while it is being noted. Every time thinking disappears, the material quality on which thinking is based disappears also. This material base which arises and vanishes with every act of thinking is non-enduring, impermanent.

What we have stated above concerns with material qualities which can be stated to be impermanent by the Yogø who has realized the knowledge personally by nothing constantly the phenomena of the aggregates. These material qualities relate to the whole of one's body; they arise and dissolve, renewing themselves at every moment of seeing, hearing, smelling, touching, tasting and thinking. Just like these material qualities from inside one's body, the material qualities from the body of other people are also simultaneously arising and vanishing. For instance noting the sound as 'hearing, hearing' the material quality of sound is perishing so also other material qualities in one's body as well as those outside in the whole world are also disappearing simultaneously.

Thus the Blessed One asked of these material bodies which are impermanent, because they are dissolving all the time, "Is rþpa permanent or impermanent?" The group of five Bhikkhus who had personal knowledge of their impermanent nature, replied, 'Impermanent, Blessed One.' We would also ask of this audience, 'Is rþpa in your body permanent or impermanent?' Impermanent, Sir.' 'Is rþpa in other people's body, permanent or impermanent?' 'Impermanent, Sir.' 'Is rþpa in the whole world, permanent or impermanent?' 'Impermanent, Sir.'

THE CHARACTERISTICS OF IMPERMANENCE

These are questions concerning the characteristics of impermanence. When one knows the characteristics of impermanence thoroughly, one understands easily the characteristics of dukkha and anatta. The characteristics of impermanence is that it does not endure. The Commentary defines it as 'Hutvæ Abhævækæro Anicca lakkhanam .. not being in existences at first, it comes into being and then it ceases to exist, disappears, dissolves away .. these are the characteristics of impermanence. The streak of lightening in the sky, every one knows. It does not exist before; then it comes into being, signified by a flash. But it does not last long, it disappears instantly. The phenomenon of lightening provides all the characteristics of impermanence. Whatever arises afresh to disappear soon is said to have the characteristics of impermanence.

"Having arisen, things cease to exist. This is the sign of Impermanence."

ANICCÆNUPASSANÆ ÑƤA

The Yogø who keeps on noting when seeing, hearing etc, sees things arising and ceasing to exist. Only when he has acquired this personal knowledge of the characteristics of impermanent, is the true knowledge of aniccænupassanæ ñæ¼a developed in him. Seeing dissolution while noting, the Yogø knows that it is impermanent. This knowledge is the Aniccænupassanæ ñæ¼a. In order to help develop this ñæ¼a had the Blessed One asked, 'Is rþpa permanent or impermanent?' We have fairly fully dealt with this question of impermanence. We shall now go on with the question dealing with the characteristics of Dukkha.

"That which is impermanent, Is it unsatisfactory or satisfactory?" asked the Blessed One. The five Bhikkhus answered, 'Unsatisfactory, the Blessed One.'

TWO KINDS OF DUKKHA

There are two kinds of dukkha, suffering or unsatisfactoriness. The first kind relates to unbearable pain or suffering, the second kind is dukkha because it is terrible, objectionable, disgusting, repulsive. The impermanence because of incessant arising and vanishing is not of the painful kind of suffering. It belongs to the second kind in accordance with the Commentary definition: 'It is suffering because it is terrible, the phenomenon of incessant arising and perishing is terrible; fearsome, or synonymously with the Myanmar word's not being good.' The question, "that which is impermanent, is it suffering or happiness?, dukkha or sukkha ?" is the same as "Is it bad or good?" The group of five Bhikkhus answered, 'It is dukkha;' in Myanmar idiom 'It is not good.'

The reason why it is dukkha, why it is not good, is that it is ever arising and perishing, impermanent, and so it is terrible. People imagines it to be sukha, good because it appears to be enduring, stable. When they realize that it does not endure even a second, and is constantly dissolving, they can no longer see any sukha or goodness in it.

We depend for our existence on the aggregates which are in dissolution all the time. If at any moment, the aggregates are not renewed, we die which is a terrible thing to know. It is just like living in an old dilapidated building liable to collapse at any time. In the case of such building, there is the possibility that it may last for days, months, or even years before coming down; where as the næma, rþpa aggregates inside the body cannot endure even for a second. They are undergoing dissolution all the time and, therefore more terrible. Hence it is termed suffering, dukkha.

"Objectionable, undependable, not good at all."

CHARACTERISTICS OF DUKKHA

What are the characteristics of Dukkha? According to the Commentary, Abhinha sampa¥ipilanækæro dukkha lakkhanam: Incessant, unceasing oppression is the characteristics mark of Dukkha. Here unceasing oppression means arising and passing away incessantly of aggregates of rþpa and næma which are subject to constant arising and perishing, are regarded as dukkha, things which are 'not good.'

"Oppression by incessant origination and dissolution is the characteristic mark of dukkha. "

DUKKHÆNUPASSANÆ ÑƤA

Seeing the sign of dukkha by personal experience and realizing them to be terrible suffering, 'not good', objectionable, not dependable is true Dukkhænupassanæ ñæ¼a. "

HOW THE DUKKHÆNUPASSANÆ ÑƤA IS DEVELOPED

The Yogø while noting constantly the phenomenon of næma, rþpa, starting, from the rising and falling, bending, stretching, lifting, stepping, dropping, the origination and dissolution taking place incessantly. Similarly in noting every instance of touching hearing, seeing, tasting, the origination and dissolution is seen. He begins to see the aggregates of rþpa and næma being oppressed by processes of origination and dissolution. There is possibility of death at any moment; hence the oppression is seen as a terrible dukkha. This is true Dukkhænupassanæ ñæ¼a."

In order to help develop this ñæ¼a, the Blessed One had asked, 'That which is impermanent, is it dukkha or sukha ?' In the paragraph stating, 'Rþpa is not self, it is definitely mentioned. 'Since rþpa is not self, it tends to affliction.' Therefore it is very plain that rþpa is terrible suffering, and the five Bhikkhus had given the answer, 'Dukkha, the Blessed One.'

Having shown in this way that rþpa is Anicca and dukkha, the Blessed One went on to urge the Bhikkhus not to regard the rþpa as 'This is mine, This I am, This is my self.'

"That which is impermanent; suffering, unsatisfactory and subject to change, is it fitting or proper to regard it as 'This is mine, This I am, This is my self?" The five Bhikkhus answered, 'Not proper, the Blessed One.'

CLINGING WITH CRAVING, 'THIS IS MINE.'

Of the above three forms of grasping, 'This is mine' is clinging with craving; 'This I am' is clinging with conceit; 'This is my self' is clinging with wrong view. When one has taken delight in an object with craving, even if the object does not belong to oneself, it is grasped with craving as if it is one's own. Thus going into the bazaar, seeing delightful objects, one takes delight in them as if one already owns them. Jackets and longyis we fancy, we put them on in imagination; the shoes too, we wear them in imagination, as if they were one's own already. We grasp every thing, animate or inanimate, as if one's own if we fancy them. Therefore, the Blessed One asked, whether it was wise to grasp and take delight, as 'This is mine.' In things that are impermanent, suffering and subject to change, meaning whether it is proper to delight in terrible suffering.

The rþpas in one's person are constantly originating and dissolving; if one sees this phenomenon of arising and dissolution as it really is, one would be frightened just like having to live in the dilapidated building as said above. Even though feeling well and all right at the present moment, a change for the worse may take place depending on conditions and circumstances. Once it is realized that it is not enduring even for a moment, always changing and therefore, terrible suffering, how could one take delight in it? Would any one choose with great pleasure as one's life partner, some one who is going to become a patient within hours or days or who is going to die soon. No one would take delight in such course of action if he really knows what is about to happen.

Likewise the Yogø who sees the unceasing process of origination and dissolution of the aggregates finds only terrible suffering in them. Finding them as such, the Yogø has no desire to grasp his rþpa as 'This is mine. The group of five Bhikkhus, therefore, answered that it is not proper to regard the rþpa as 'This is mine.' 'This is an account of the questions and answers on how, having seen the characteristics of dukkha, it is not proper to take delight in it as sukha, happiness, some thing that is 'good'.

CLINGING WITH CONCEIT ......'THIS I AM'.

To consider rþpa as 'This I am' is to cling to it with conceit. When one has good eyes, ears etc and can see, hear well etc one begins to take pride in them: 'I have good eyes, ears; I look beautiful; I have a pleasant voice; I am well; I am strong; 'Is it proper to cling to rþpa, in this manner, with conceit?

Conceit is developed with regard to one's possessions when there is misconception that they are enduring and permanent. The material qualities of eyes, ears, visible forms, are wrongly held to be permanent and consequently vanity is built round them. Take for instance the case of a person who has a cache of wealth, gold, silver etc hidden in a certain place. The owner is full of pride over his wealth. But when he knows that his cache has been robbed and he no longer owns any rich property the bubble of his conceit gets busted.

Likewise, clinging to the material qualities of eyes, etc., which become manifest at the moment of seeing, hearing etc., and thinking they are still in existence, conceit is developed over them. For the Yogø who is always taking note, he knows that they all vanish after they have arisen and finds no excuse to show pride as 'I have good eyes, I am beautiful.' Therefore when the Bhikkhus were asked, 'Is it proper, to regard rþpa as 'This I am,' their reply was, 'Not proper, the Blessed One.' the Blessed One let it be known by means of this question and answer that there is conceit when things are conceived as permanent; there is no conceit when they are known to be impermanent.

CLINGING WITH WRONG VIEW......'THIS IS MY SELF

Holding on to the belief 'This is my self' is clinging with wrong view. This wrong view is held fast when there is belief that the rþpa in one's person is ever lasting, and amenable to one's control. When knowledge arises it is unstable, rising and vanishing all the time and suffering because it is  unenduring and subject to change, there is no more ground to cling to rþpa as 'Self, as a living entity. When the Yogø knows that rþpa cannot be controlled:' Let every thing be pleasant, good; let nothing unpleasant or bad happen, let all good rþpas remain permanent,' there is nothing for him to cling to as self. Thus to the question, 'Is it fitting to regard rþpa as 'This is my self,' the five Bhikkhus replied'. No, the Blessed One. 'With this question, the Blessed One made it clear that, when it is known that it is changing every instant, rþpa is to be clung to as self when it is known thus, there is no more clinging.' According to this question, 'changeableness at every instant' should also be taken as a characteristic mark of Non-self.

To recapitulate, we shall ask the question to which the audience here should provide answers as they think fit.

(a) Is rþpa permanent or impermanent? Impermanent, Sir.

(b) That which is impermanent, is it dukkha or sukha? Dukkha, Sir. Is impermanent a good thing or bad thing. A bad thing, Sir.

(c) Is it fitting to regard that which is impermanent, suffering, subject to change as 'This is mine' and take delight in it? .. No Sir; 'to get conceited believing it, 'This I am' .. No Sir; or to cling to it, 'This is my self' .. No Sir.

We shall also recite the questions asked by the Blessed One and the answers provided by the group of five Bhikkhus.

"Bhikkhus, what do you think of this? Is rþpa permanent or impermanent? Impermanent, Sir. Now, that which is impermanent, is it dreadful suffering or delightful happiness? Dreadful suffering the Blessed One. Now, that which is impermanent, unsatisfactory, suffering, subject to change, is it proper to regard that as 'This is mine, This I am, This is my self', Indeed not that the Blessed One."

"Is feeling permanent or impermanent? .. Indeed not the Blessed One."

"Is perception permanent or impermanent? .. Indeed not the Blessed One."

"Are mental formations permanent or impermanent? ..... Indeed not, the Blessed One."

"Is consciousness permanent or impermanent? .. Indeed not the Blessed One."

We have dealt with the characteristics of impermanent in the first part of today's lecture; in the latter portion of today's discourse, we have gone over all the three characteristics stated in the Anattalakha¼a Sutta in the form of questions and answers. Our exposition on the aggregate of rþpa is fairly complete. We shall deal with the questions and answers concerning the aggregates of feeling etc, in our next discourse. We shall stop here today.

May you all, by virtue of having given respectful attention to this discourse on Anattalakha¼a Sutta, attain and realize soon the Nibbæna, by means of the Path and Fruition of your wish.

Sædhu! Sædhu! Sædhu!

End of the Fifth Part of the Discourse on
The Anattalakkha¤a Sutta.