THE GREAT DISCOURSE ON THE ANATTALAKKHA¤A SUTTA

PART SIX

(Delivered on the new moon day of Wæso and the 8th waxing day of Wægaung, 1325 M.E.)

PREFA CE

We have already delivered five lectures on the Anattalakha¼a Sutta. We have so far explained the teaching on how the five aggregates are not self and have dealt with the three characteristics concerning rþpa. We shall go on to the questions and answers on whether vedanæ is permanent or impermanent.

VEDANÆ IS NOT PERMANENT

"Vedanæ niccæ væ aniccæ væti aniccæ, bhante. Yam pana' niccam dukkham væ tam sukham væti. Dukkham bhante. Yam panæ' niccam dukkham viparinæma dhamman kællam nu tam samanupassitum' etam mama eso' ham-asmiø eso me attatø, no hi' etam bhante."

The Blessed One asked: 'Is vedanæ permanent or impermanent?' 'Not permanent,' replied the group of the five Bhikkhus.

We have spoken about vedanæ to a certain extent in the previous sections, but as it is its turn to be considered according to the Sutta, we shall explain a little more a about it.

Feeling is of three kinds: feeling of pleasantness or happiness; feeling of unpleasantness or unhappiness; feeling of neither pleasantness nor unpleasantness. Ordinary common worldlings regard all these three types of feeling as being self, living substance, enduring, permanent. This form of clinging in called Nivæsø atta clinging and vedaka atta clinging.

Nivæsø atta clinging is belief in a permanent entity or self in one's person. Ordinary people believes that there exists a living entity, self, in one's body from the time of conception to the time of death. Some believe that it continued on enduring even after death, this is Nivæsø atta clinging.

This same permanent entity in the body is the one that feels the sensation pleasant or unpleasant. This Self feels pleasant in mind and body; the same self feel unpleasant and uncomfortable on certain occasions. Thus they believe the feelings last forever, enduring. Actually, when feeling pleasant, there is no unpleasant feeling; no neutral feeling; when feeling unpleasant, there is no pleasant nor neutral feeling. Similarly when feeling the neutral feeling, there is no pleasant nor unpleasant feeling. There is no feeling which is ever lasting. Whether pleasant, unpleasant or neutral, it arises depending on its conditions to last for only a moment and then disappears.

The uninitiated person who is unable to follow the feelings as they arise is liable to have the impression that all the three feelings are simultaneous co-existent. Thus while is feeling a painful sensation in the body, he hears some glad news and feels happy over it. Or he may be enjoying a pleasant sensation in the body when he happens to think about an unhappy event and feels unhappy. On these occasions, it is usually believed that both pleasant and unpleasant sensations are being felt at the same time, simultaneously. It is believed so, because one lacks the ability to distinguish between two minds or two feelings, the preceding one as distinct from the following one. In reality, the feelings arise only one at a time one after another.

Therefore when the Yogø who is constantly engaged in noting the phenomenon of rising and falling notices the appearance of a painful feeling inside his body, he should give concentrated attention to it and note it continuously as 'painful, painful'. If his concentration is strong enough, the unbearable pain keeps decreasing in intensity even as he is taking note of it. It will finally disappear. For some, the pain will vanish completely in a short time as if removed by hand. When there is no pain nor pleasant feeling to take note of, the Yogø reverts back to noting the usual, ordinary phenomenon of rise and fall of the abdomen. This amount to contemplating the neutral feeling. While engaged thus in contemplating the neutral feeling, if pleasant feeling arises, attention should be switched on to it. Similarly attention should be given to the unpleasant feeling if it happens to arise too. Taking note of the pleasant, unpleasant and neutral feelings, in this manner, as they arise personal knowledge ensures that these feelings are not everlasting. This is knowing discriminately each kind of feeling as it occurs in the 'continuity of the present'.

The Yogø who has advanced up to the stage of udayabbaya ñæ¼a and bha³ga ñæ¼a while taking note of the pleasant feeling finds such pleasant feeling vanishing and coming to an end section by section, bit by bit, the ordinary phenomenon of rise and fall is also found to be passing away section by section, bit by bit. When pleasant feeling and neutral feeling appear in turn, they are not separated and not as one continuous phenomenon or process. Similarly with unpleasant feeling appearing along with neutral feeling, they are noted as two distinct feelings. The Yogø observing in this manner perceives each feeling or sensation to arise and disappear instantly which drives home the fact that vedanæ is not everlasting. This is knowing the phenomenon section by section in terms of the 'moment present'. The Yogøs who are watching the phenomena of rising, falling, feeling painful are doing so, in order to see each phenomenon, section by section, bit by bit, in its 'momentary present.'

Therefore, the Yogø who is watching the phenomena as they arise at the six doors while noting 'seeing, hearing, touching, thinking, etc, perceives well how the pleasant feeling, unpleasant feeling, neutral feeling with respect to seeing etc., vanish, disappear immediately after they have arisen. Similarly, all the feelings with respect to hearing, thinking etc. Thus the Yogø realizes with the personal knowledge that all the vedanæs are of the nature of impermanence.

The group of five Bhikkhus, having reached the stage of Sotæpana through contemplating in a similar manner, gave an answer to the question. 'Is vedanæ permanent or impermanent?' they reply with their own personal knowledges, Not permanent, Sir.'

We will also ask of our audience similar questions which they may answer as they seem it fit.

'Is the unbearable pain in the body, permanent or impermanent?'

'Impermanent, Sir.'

'It is not permanent because the pain was not here before. It arose just at that moment. Did it not? ... 'Yes, Sir.'

'While noting that pain as 'painful, painful' 'It vanished away? Did it not?' ... 'It did, Sir.'

'For the Yogø whose concentration is getting quite strong, each sensation of pain disappears with each noting as 'painful' As one sensation disappears, a fresh one arises only to vanish away instantly. It is not perceived thus? ... Yes, it is perceived in this manner, Sir."

'When noting with very good concentration, some good feelings may be observed appearing in the body. When these feelings are noted as 'good, good', they disappeared quickly. Didn't they? ... They did, Sir.'

Disappearing thus, are these good feelings permanent or impermanent? ... 'Impermanent, Sir.'

'Sometimes unhappiness, worries make their appearance; when these are noted as 'unhappiness' as 'worries', they disappeared, didn't they? So are they permanent or impermanent? ... Impermanent, Sir'.

'Sometimes, happiness will arise; when noted as 'gladness happiness,' it will disappear. Is it permanent or impermanent? ... Impermanent, Sir.'

'When seeing a pleasant sight, there arises an agreeable feeling; this also disappears when noted. Is it permanent or impermanent? ... Impermanent, Sir.'

In a similar manner, an unpleasant sight causes a disagreeable feeling disappears when noted. Pleasant to unpleasant feeling which arise from hearing, smelling or tasting also disappear when noted. Are these feelings permanent or impermanent? ... Impermanent Sir.

'When noting, neither particularly, pleasant nor unpleasant, just the ordinary objects of contemplation such as the rising and falling of abdomen, the feeling observed is a neutral one, which also disappears with every noting, Is that permanent or impermanent? ... Impermanent, Sir.'

'All the three feelings pleasant, unpleasant and neutral, are they permanent or impermanent? ... Impermanent, Sir.'

When these three feelings pleasant, unpleasant and neutral are perceived to be impermanent, it is realized too that they are suffering, not self just a phenomenon. Perceive them to be suffering and not self, the Blessed One continued to question: 'That which is impermanent, is that suffering or happiness?' 'Suffering, the Blessed One.'

We have dealt considerable fully on this previously; therefore, it needs not much further elaboration. People have liking for pleasant sensations or so called happiness, thinking they are enduring, everlasting. Seeing them dissolving fast every moment, not lasting even for the tenth of a second, they lose their passion for them. Just for the sake of enjoying the so called happiness, they have to go in pursuit of it, not for one hour, not for one day, one year but their whole life. While in pursuit of this happiness, people meet their death. There is nothing one can rely upon. Even if the happiness one is seeking for is not obtained, one has to find means of avoiding unhappiness, unpleasantness, that is, of maintaining oneself in neutral condition of neither happiness nor unhappiness. Even as the neutral feeling of neither happiness nor unhappiness is being sought for, physical pain and mental anguish may arise causing suffering. And they can appear because the happy feeling and the mental feeling are not permanent. Thus the impermanent happy feeling and the neutral feeling are also not dependable. To go after them is suffering; when they disappear it is suffering too because unhappy feeling comes in to take their place. Especially so after the disappearance of the happy feeling, one may be plunged into depths of unhappiness. Take for instance the plight of parents who have been given delight and happiness by the presence of their children, when suddenly deprived of them through death; or of a united, happy family when suddenly bereaved of dear ones of the family through death or separation; or of some one who has been happy with his wealth and affluence, when deprived of them. They will all become subjected to intense unhappiness, which may cost some of them their lives even. Thus vedanæ is terrifying because of its nature of impermanence.

Coming to the next paragraph of the Pæ¹i text:

"That which is impermanent, suffering and subject to change, is it proper to regard it as "This is mine, This I am, This is my self." It is not, the Blessed One. This is the same type of the questions and answers employed when explaining rþpas . The difference is that in the case of rþpa, the term involves not only the material qualities inside one's person, but also all those external animate and inanimate objects too. As to the feeling the main thing is internal one, which one grasps as one's own. In feeling of happiness, sukha he takes delight with craving: "This is mine." The neutral feeling, being devoid of unpleasantness, has the nature of a happy feeling; although attachment to it is not so strong, as with the proper happy feeling, still there is taking of delight to some extent in the very fact of being neither pleasant nor unpleasant, but just neutral. The unpleasant feeling is no doubt, undesirable as such, but thinking 'It is I who is suffering,' there is still grasping for it as Self.

Attachment to the feeling in this way is brought about by ignorance of the real nature of impermanence, suffering and subjection to change. The Yogø who is taking note of the feeling as it occurs knows at once the oppressive nature of the feeling. What is the difference between the Yogø and the ordinary person with regard to their knowledge about feeling? There is indeed a very great difference. The ordinary person perceives his feeling in terms of Self: "I suffer; I feel happy; I feel pain while delighting in happiness; if this pain goes away, I will feel happy.' So he views his feelings all in terms of self, whereas for the Yogø, he knows, from the very outset, there is just continuous phenomena of the aggregates arising and perishing incessantly. When unhappy feeling appears, the Yogø perceives it as an undesirable intrusion occurring in the continuous process of næma and rþpa and renewing, itself afresh. The Yogø perceives it as another process of arising and perishing superimposed on the first one he has been observing. From its very first appearance, the Yogø recognizes its oppressive nature just like a thorn which comes to be embedded in the flesh.

The happy feeling appears to be pleasant, good while it is happening; but the effort that has to be put in, in search of the pleasurable sensation, is suffering itself. If an akusala act happens to be performed while in the pursuit of pleasurable feeling, suffering has to be faced in the apæya state to which one will be doomed for the akusala acts. Taking delight in the pleasurable sensations that arise will keep on renewing the cycle of existences, resulting in suffering of old age, death. When that happy feeling disappears, the attachment to it will give rise to intense unhappiness. Therefore, happy feeling is to be regard as suffering. We have already explained this as well as how neutral feeling too is regarded as suffering because of its impermanence.

The Vedanæ Samyutta Pæ¹i Canon describes how these feelings should be noted and regarded:

Three types of feeling seen as they really are.

"Yo sukham dukkhato adda, dukkha maddakkhi sallato, adukkha ma sukham santam, addakkhin am aniccato, sa ve sammaddas abhikkhu, parijænati vedanæ."

"The Bhikkhu has seen the happy feeling as suffering; the unhappy feeling as a thorn and the neutral feeling as suffering too because of its impermanence."

"The Bhikkhu has seen the feelings rightly add well (so as not to give rise to notions of permanence, happiness and self) and comprehensively (knowing that should be known)."

The Yogø who is all the time engaged in noting sees the unpleasant feeling as an oppression like a thorn; the pleasant feeling as frightful suffering having to pursue after it and because of the pain it causes when it is absent. The neutral feeling is seen as suffering because of its impermanence and the effort or volitional activities required to maintain it. Thus when asked whether it is proper to regard vedanæ as 'This is mine, This I am, This is my self.,' the group of five Bhikkhus replied, 'Not indeed, the Blessed One.'

We would also ask questions in accordance with the Pæ¹i Canon; the audience may give their replies as they deem fit,

1. "Is pleasant feeling, unpleasant feeling, permanent or Impermanent?" "Impermanent, Sir."

2. "That which is impermanent, is it suffering, or happiness?" "Suffering, Sir."

3. "That which is impermanent, suffering, subject to change, is it fitting to regard it as 'This is mine, and take delight in it?" "No, Sir." "Or to get conceited by regarding it as 'This I am.' Or to be attached to it as 'This is my self?'" "No, Sir."

Vedanæ which is impermanent because of incessant arising and vanishing, suffering and subject to change is taught not to be viewed as 'This is mine, This I am, This is my self' so as not to see vedanæ as being permanent, as being 'This is mine, This I am, thus causing the arising of craving and conceit. For the common worldling, not to cause the wrong view 'This is my self.

That vedanæ is anattæ is explained in terms of characteristics of anicca and dukkha. This is not self is very clear from its nature of oppressing, the characteristic mark of terrible dukkha.

We have dealt sufficiently with Vedanæ. We shall now go on to considering Saññæ, perception starting with the Pæ¹i Text:

IMPERMANENCE OF SAÑÑÆ, PERCEPTION

"Saññæ niccæ væ aniccæ væti. Aniccæ, Bhante. Yam panæ niccam, dukkham væ tam sukham væti, dukkham, Bhante. Yam pananiccam dukkham viparinæma dhammam kallam nu tam samanupassitum etam mama eso h'asmi eso me attæti, no hetam Bhante."

"Is saññæ, perception, permanent or impermanent", asked the Blessed One.

"Impermanent, the Blessed One."

Saññæ is of six kinds: Recognizing and remembering visible objects; recognizing and remembering sound; recognizing and remembering smell; recognizing and remembering taste; recognizing and remembering touch and recognizing and remembering what one has thought about. It is saññæ which remembers object one has seen before; saññæ is essential in learning and remembering what one is studying. A good saññæ will remember for long anything seen or heard only once. This retentiveness is wrongly taken to be everlasting, to be good, to be self.

But saññæ having recognized what it has seen, vanishes; what are recognized later are the function of the saññæ which arise later. The same applies to hearing etc. What is heard and remembered first vanished away, followed by what is heard and recognized later. The Yogø who is taking note of everything seen or heard perceives that seeing and recognizing hearing and recognizing, the two processes vanish together. Knowing this, he concludes that saññæ is also impermanent. The group of five Bhikkhus, also knowing the same fact, answered when asked, whether saññæ is permanent or impermanent, 'Impermanent, Sir.' Because they found the words of the Blessed One, even while being heard and recognized by them are vanishing away rapidly:

"Furthermore, that which is impermanent, is that suffering or happiness?" "Suffering Sir." "Satisfactory or unsatisfactory?" "Unsatisfactory, Sir." "Now, that which is impermanent, unsatisfactory, subject to change, is it proper to regard it as "This is mine, This I am, This is my self." "Not proper, Sir."

These are the same types of questions and answers we have discussed before. It is necessary to know only how saññæ is attached to with craving, conceit and wrong view. Generally people who cannot contemplate on the phenomenon of næma, rþpa like saññæ (or act of recognition by saññæ) and are pleased with it, clinging to it as 'This is mine'. He thinks he has better retentive memory than others and is proud of it: This is clinging by conceit, 'This I am'. He thinks also that every act of seeing, hearing is recognized and remembered by him which is atta clinging to saññæ, 'This is my self'.

Actually, the saññæ which retains every object as seen, so as not to forget it, is impermanent as it arises and vanishes instantly. The Yogø who is ever watchful knows saññæ to be impermanent because it is seen arising and vanishing instantly; unpleasurable suffering because of its impermanence; saññæ may retain memories of abominable, terrible things and therefore, oppressing and suffering. It does not exist in one form but keeps on changing. Therefore saññæ is after all not desirable as something pleasant, nothing to take pride in as everlasting, nothing to cling to as self, a living entity. Therefore, the group of five Bhikkhus replied, it was not proper to regard saññæ as 'This is mine, This I am, This is my self.' We shall now ask question pertaining to saññæ; you may answer in any away you deem fit.

1. "Is saññæ, perception, permanent or impermanent?" "Impermanent, Sir."

2. "That what is not permanent, is it satisfactory or not satisfactory, Not satisfactory, Sir. Good or bad?" "Not good, Sir."

3. "That which is not permanent, suffering, subject to change, is it proper to delight in it taking it as 'This is mine?" - "Not proper, Sir." "To take pride in it, thinking This I am?" - "Not proper, Sir." "To cling to it wrongly as This is myself?" - "Not proper, Sir."

This question is asked so as not to let you cling with craving and pride to the impermanent, suffering, changing saññæ as 'This is mine, This I am.' Also not to let the common worldling cling to it with wrong view of self.

We have dealt sufficiently with saññæ. We shall go on to explain the teaching with regard to sa³khæra.

IMPERMANENT OF VOLITIONAL ACTIVITIES

"Sa³khæra niccæ væ aniccæ væti; aniccæ bhante. Yam panæ niccam dukkham væ tam sukham væti; dukkham bhante. Yam panæ niccam dukkham viparinþmadhammam kællam nu tam samanupassitum 'etam mama eso h'amasmi eso me attæti; no hi'etam bhante."

"Are sa³khæras, the volitional activities, permanent or impermanent? asked the Blessed One. 'Not permanent, the Blessed One."

Sa³khæras are the volitional motivation responsible for physical, vocal and mental actions. In abstract sense, they are the fifty kinds of mental concomitants headed by cetanæ, volition, which we have already talked about before, sa³khæras, volitional activities, cover and extensive field. The motivating power behind all physical actions such as going, standing, sitting, lying, bending, stretching, moving is the sa³khæra; the vocal actions are also caused by the same sa³khæra agents- We are now talking as urged on by the sa³khæra while thus talking and reciting, every word uttered has been primed by the sa³khæra. It is the sa³khæra too which is at the back of all thoughts and imaginations.

Ordinary people think all the said actions (physical, vocal and mental) are being done by 'me, self' and this self' the doer is believed to be ever lasting, permanent. But the Yogø who is ever watchful of rising and falling of abdomen takes note of any activity of the mind as soon as it occurs. Cetanæ, volition accompanied by lobha, desire is perceived by the Yogø to be arousing the desire to want and urging to go after that which is wanted. The Yogø notes these mental activities as liking, wanting. Associated with dosa, volition appears as anger, an out rage that has to be noted as 'angry, outrageous.' When headed by delusion, moha, wrong actions are thought about; these thoughts have to be noted. When associated with conceit, or ego, one becomes bloated with ego and one has to get rid of it by noting, 'conceit, conceit.' When accompanied by envy, jealousy, avariciousness, it manifests as enviousness and avariciousness and it should be noted as such.

When volition appears associated with faith and confidence, devotion and piety develop towards the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Sanghæ. Urging one to give homage and respect to them. These thoughts are noted as they arise as devotion, piety etc. Akusala leads to unwholesome results. Cetanæ may manifest itself, discouraging one from it, hindering it; Kusala leads to wholesome results; Cetanæ may arise one to practice it. In similar manner volition may manifest in a number of ways and as such should be noted. It may appear accompanied by mindfulness, heedful of the fact at such and such a time, such a wholesome act will be done. It may arise in various manners and the mental attitudes of those moments should also be noted. When mettæ, loving kindness arises with volition, there appears feeling of benevolence to others, thinking of ways of making others happy. With compassion, volition arises having pity on others and thinking of how to help others out of suffering. All these mental attitudes should be carefully noted.

While noting the rise and fall of the abdomen, if there is feeling of stiffness or heat appearing, they should be noted. As these are being noted, there appear the thought and the urge to bend, stretch and change postures. These have to be noted too. Then there is the urge to lower or raise the head, to move forward or backward etc, to get up and walk. These are physical activities conditioned and willed by volition and they are all noted.

Then there is volitional urging concerning vocal activities, urging and directing what to say and how to say, just like now when I am saying things as willed by volition. The Yogø who keeps constant track of all these volitional activities knows with personal experience that these activities appear and vanish instantly and are therefore, impermanent. And the group of five Bhikkhus had become Sotæpanas through their own knowledge of the nature of impermanence. While listening to this discourse on the Anattalakkha¼a Sutta, they saw again the nature of impermanence by perceiving the constant rising and falling of the sa³khæras such as phassa, cetanæ manasikæra, saddhæ, sati etc. Thus to the question "Is sa³khæras permanent or impermanent?", they replied, "Not permanent, Sir."

"Furthermore, that which is impermanent, is it dukkha or sukha?" - " Dukkha, the Blessed One."

"That which is impermanent, suffering and subject to change -- Is it fitting to regard that as This is mine, This I am, This is my self?" "It is not proper, the Blessed One."

These are the same types of the questions and answers as we have dealt before. We have only to know here how sa³khæras could be clung to with craving conceit and wrong view and how to become free of these clingings.

Ordinary persons who cannot take note of the phenomena of rþpa, næma as they occur believe that volitional activities headed by cetanæ are good, pleasant and take delight in them. This is clinging with craving. To think that these activities are his to perform, that he can perform better than others is clinging with conceit. Thinking that activities such as going, stopping, sitting, bending, stretching, moving, etc., are being done by me, "I do, It is I who does the action; I talk, It is I who talk; I think, It is I who think; I see, hear, look, listen, It is I who sees, hears, locks, listens, etc." This is clinging with wrong view; as the clinging is in the person of the doer, it is known as Kæraka Atta clinging. Believing all actions, physical, vocal, mental are being done by self is Karaka atta clinging. Believing that this self resides permanently in one's person is Nivæsø Atta clinging. This self which resides permanently in one's person goes when it wants. stands, sits, bends, stretches, talks, thinks when it wants, when it wills, and is subject to one's control. Believing thus is Sæmi Atta clinging.

The Yogø who is ever on the watch of the næma, rþpa phenomenon perceives that activity that arises namely desire to think, desire to see, hear, bend, stretch, change position, rise, go talk, vanishes instantly after it has been noted; therefore, all these activities, arising and vanishing incessantly are impermanent: Consequently they are not delightful, not dependable, mere suffering; thus it is concluded through personal knowledge. Therefore, he realizes that there is nothing to cling to as "This is mine," to take pride in, as 'This I am, and to believe that 'This is my self.' The group of five Bhikkhus had realized in a similar manner and become Sotæpanas. While listening to this discourse too, they perceived the volitional activities rising and perishing. Therefore they replied to the Blessed One that it was not proper to regard that which is impermanent, suffering and subject to change as 'This is mine, This I am, This is my self.'

We will now ask questions regarding the sa³khæras; the audience may reply as they deem fit.

1. Is the effort to do permanent or impermanent? (Impermanent, Sir); Is the thought of doing permanent or impermanent? (Impermanent, Sir); Is the desire to bend, stretch, change position, get up, to go, raise the legs, step out, drop down, permanent or impermanent? (Impermanent, Sir); Is the desire to turn back, to stand, sit, permanent or impermanent? (Impermanent, Sir); Is the desire to see, talk, eat, chew, permanent or Impermanent? (Impermanent Sir).

2. That which is impermanent, is it pleasant or unpleasant? good or not good? (Unpleasant, Sir; Not good, Sir).

3. That which is impermanent, suffering, subject to change, is it fitting to delight in it regarding it as 'This is mine? (not fitting Sir); to get conceited regarding it as 'This I am?' (not fitting Sir); to cling to it as 'This is my self?' (not fitting Sir).

These questions are asked so as to prevent the clinging to sa³khæras by craving and conceit as 'This is my idea,' 'I can think it out'; and for the common worldling to prevent clinging to the sa³khæras with the wrong view of self.

This should be enough explanations on sa³khæras. We shall go on to consideration of viññæ¼a now.

IMPERMANENCE OF VIÑÑƤA, CONSCIOUSNESS

"Viññæ¼am niccam væ aniccæ væti, aniccam bhante. Yam panæ niccam dukkham væ tam sukham væti. Dukkham bhante. Yam panæ niccam dukkham viparinæma dhammam kallam nu tam sammanupassitum etam mama eso h'amasmi eso me attæti no h'etam Bhante."

"Is mind, consciousness permanent or impermanent?" asked the Blessed One. The Bhikkhus answered, 'Impermanent, Sir.'

Viññæ¼a is mind or consciousness; the term consciousness is not commonly employed as mind. Even mental concomitants such as cetæna, lobha and dosa are talked about as just mind, because mind plays a leading role. We shall also generally use Mind instead of consciousness in this chapter.

Those who cannot watch and note the mind as it is arising imagine that the mind is everlasting, permanent, thinking that it is the same mind that is conscious of seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, thinking; the same mind that sees for a long time, hears, smells, etc for a long time; the same mind that was in existence when young, still existing; will continue to exist till death. Right through out the whole of one existence, it is the same mind that has been functioning. Some even hold the belief that it will be the same mind that will move onto future existences. This is how mind is regarded to be permanent and everlasting.

When the Yogø who is ever watchful of the phenomenon of næma, rþpa while noting the rise and fall of the abdomen, notices the arising of an idea or a thought, he at once notes it as 'idea', 'thought'. When noted thus, the idea or thought vanishes. Thus the Yogø realizes that 'the thought was not in existence before; it makes its appearance only now and disappears at once. We have been imagining thought to be permanent because we have not carefully observed it before; now that we have watched it; we have seen it fast disappearing. We now know it truly as it is-its impermanent nature."

When hearing too, if noted 'hearing, hearing' it keeps on arising, vanishing, arising, vanishing, instantly. The same applies to consciousness of smelling, tasting. Consciousness of touch that is appearing inside the body is noted to be arising and vanishing quickly, here and there, all over the body. When the concentration is very strong, the act of seeing is observed to be happening and disappearing in a series of separate but continuous events one after another. Thus it is realized that consciousness of thinking, hearing, touching, seeing etc arise separately and disappear one by one, all impermanent, unstable.

The mind that wants to bend, change posture, get up, go etc., renews themselves afresh and gets dissolved instantly. The mind that takes note of each phenomenon also vanishes with each noting. Thus, the mind which is conscious of various kinds of subjects is arising and vanishing incessantly and is therefore impermanent. The group of five Bhikkhus had realized the same thing and had become Sotæpanas. And while listening to this discourse on the Anattalakkha¼a Sutta, they saw again the nature of impermanence by perceiving the constant arising and vanishing of consciousnesses such as eye consciousness, ear consciousness, tactile consciousness, mental consciousness, etc., Therefore, to the questions of the Blessed One, "Is consciousness, permanent or impermanent," they had replied, 'Not permanent, Sir.' To the Yogø who is ever watchful, this is of course very clear.

"Furthermore; that which is impermanent, is it dukkha or sukha ?" asked the Blessed One. 'Dukkha, the Blessed One.'

"That which is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change is it fitting to regard it as 'This is mind, This I am, This is my self.' 'Not fitting, Sir.'

These are the same types of the questions and answers as we have dealt before. We have only to know how thinking, knowing mind may be wrongly clung to with craving, conceit and wrong view and how to become free from these clingings.

Ordinary persons who cannot take note of the mind as it appears at the six doors at every instance of seeing, hearing, touching, knowing, takes delight in it as 'This is mine, This I am.' They are pleased with the mind which is manifesting at the present moment; they are delighted with the mind which had risen before and they wish to enjoy such delightful mind in future. This is clinging with craving. The Yogø who keeps on noting every phenomenon perceives that consciousness with respect to good sight or sound associated with gladness, happiness, all disappears even as he is taking note of them. He, therefore, does not takes delight in them, does not yearn for them. This is how one keeps free of clinging with craving.

Ordinary person who cannot take note of the mind cannot distinguish the preceding mind from the mind following it. They think the mind of their younger days still persist as one continuous permanent mind. The mind that was there before keeps on seeing, hearing, touching, thinking etc.. Believing it to be permanent and having special qualities, conceit is developed, 'I know in this way, I won't stand any nonsense, I have a courageous mind.' This is clinging with conceit. But the ever watchful Yogø knows that all these consciousness of seeing, hearing, touching etc., keeps disappearing as they are being noted. He knows their impermanent nature. In the same way, no conceit arises in a person who knows he is about to die, No conceit is developed by the Yogø with regard to his mind. This is how to become free from clinging with conceit.

Ordinary people believe 'It is I who sees, hears, smells, touches, thinks; I can know various kinds of objects; I want to bend, stretch, go, talk, all the thinking, all the actions are under-taken by my mind, by my self.' This is Kæraka atta clinging.

"Believing all actions, physical, vocal and mental are done by self is Kæraka atta clinging."

Clinging in the form of activities may be classed under sa³khæra, but is also concerned with mind. Generally desire to bend, stretch to go, talk are usually described as mind. Therefore desire to do an act is classed under mind or consciousness. 'This mind or consciousness as self exists permanently in one's person, it is this self which becomes conscious of seeing, hearing etc.' Believing in this manner is Nivæsø atta clinging.

"Believing there is a permanent self in one's person is Nivæsø atta clinging."

In modern times too some religions mention about a consciousness or soul permanently residing in one's body. According to some of them, when a person dies, the soul leaves the perishing body and goes to reside in a new body. At the time of the Buddha, a Bhikkhu by the name of Sæti, took consciousness to be self. The story of Sæti has been told in Part Four of these discourses. (See page ..) This is then the wrong view which takes consciousness to be self.

Then there is the belief that one can think if one wishes; one controls one's mind as one will. This is Sæmi atta clinging.

"Believing there is a self inside the body subject to one's control is Sæmi atta clinging.."

For the Yogø engaged in constant noting, even while noting, 'thinking, thinking', the thinking mind disappears; noting 'hearing, hearing', the consciousness of hearing disappears; noting 'touching, touching', the consciousness of touching disappears; noting 'seeing seeing', the consciousness of seeing disappears. Thus perceiving the disappearance of consciousness even while noting, realization comes that "these various consciousness concerning thinking, hearing, touching, seeing, noting etc are mere phenomena coming into being conditioned by their own causes and are dissolving away. They are not self, living entity."

Realization comes in this way. In accordance with 'cakkhum ca paticca rþpe ca uppajjati cakkhu viññæ¼am', eye consciousness arises because there are the eyes and visible forms; ear consciousness arises because there are the ears and sounds; consciousness of touch arises because there are the body and the tactile body; there is mental consciousness because there is the base mind (bhava³ga and thinking) and the mental object; the consciousness of noting because there is the intention (to note) and the object to note. They all arise because of their own causes and the conditions. When there are these conditioning causes, they come into being and perish away, whether we wish it to happen or not. In the absence of these conditioning causes, no amount of wishing will produce them. The pleasant mind, we wish to endure, does not last; it passes away quickly.

Thus the Yogø can decide with his own personal knowledge that 'consciousness is not self, which engages in activities, which is permanent and subject to one's control and will. It comes into being in accordance with its own conditioning causes and vanishes away as a mere phenomenon. The group of five Bhikkhus' knowledge of these phenomena was not ordinary knowledge; it was the insight resulting from the Sotæpattiagga ñæ¼a, entirely free from clinging. Thus when asked, 'That consciousness which is impermanent, suffering and subject to change, is it proper to regard it as 'This is mine, This I am, This is my self,' by the Blessed One, they replied, 'Not proper, revered Sir.'

We shall also ask you similar questions which you may answer as you deem fit:

1. Is mind permanent or impermanent? (Not permanent, Sir); While observing the rise and fall of abdomen a thought arises, is that thought permanent or impermanent? (Impermanent, Sir); When sitting for long, heat sensation manifests itself. While noting it as 'hot, hot', the wish comes for a change of posture. When this wish is noted, it disappears, does it not? (It does, Sir); Is it then permanent or not permanent (Not permanent, Sir). When feeling stiff, you note it as 'stiff, stiff, then the wish comes for a change of posture. When this wish is noted. it disappears, does it not? (It does, Sir). Is it then permanent or impermanent? (Impermanent, Sir). When you wish to bend, you note it as 'wishing to bend, wishing to bend' and the wish disappears. Is it then permanent or impermanent? (Impermanent Sir). There is the desire to stretch, when it is noted, it disappears. Is it then permanent or impermanent? (Impermanent, Sir). Again the desire to get up, to go; when it is noted, it disappears. Is it then permanent or impermanent? (Impermanent, Sir).

Whatever is being noted, the noting mind disappears even while noting. Is this noting mind then permanent or impermanent? (Impermanent, Sir). The consciousness of hearing when noted as 'hearing, hearing, disappears; is that consciousness of hearing permanent or impermanent? (Impermanent, Sir). The consciousness of touch when noted as 'touching, touching, disappears. Is that consciousness of touch permanent or impermanent? (Impermanent, Sir). The eye consciousness, is it permanent or impermanent? (Impermanent, Sir). Then nose consciousness, the tongue consciousness, are they permanent or impermanent? (Impermanent, Sir).

2. That which is impermanence, is this suffering or happiness (Suffering, Sir). Is Impermanence good or bad? (Bad, Sir).

3. Is it proper then to regard consciousness which is impermanent, suffering and subject to change, as 'This is mine' and take delight in it? (No, Sir); as 'This I am' and take pride in it or as 'This is my self' cling to it wrongly? (No Sir).

These questions are asked so as to prevent clinging with craving and conceit to consciousness which cognizes objects, regarding them as 'This is my mind, I know; the thinker and doer is my self' and for common worldling not to cling to it with wrong view.

We have fully explained the questions in the Teaching dealing with clinging of craving conceit and wrong view concerning with the five aggregates of rþpa, vedanæ, saññæ, sa³khæra, and viññæ¼a. Now we shall go on to the Teaching on how to contemplate to get clear of these three types of clingings.

Removal of three types of clingings. (Third Part of the Sutta).

(1) CONTEMPLATION ON RÞPA

"Tasmætiha Bhikkhave yam kinci rþpam atitænægatapaccu-ppannam ajjhattam væ bahiddhæ væ olærikam væ sukhumam væ hinam væ panitam væ yam dþre santike væ sabbam rþpam 'netam mama neso hamasmi na meso attæti' eva metam yathæbþtam sammappaññaya dathabbam."

"Bhikkhus, as stated above, since it is not fitting to regard as 'This is mine, This I am, This is my self', all forms of rþpa, whether past, future or present, internal or external, coarse or fine, whether inferior or superior, far or near, all rþpas should be regarded with right understanding, according to reality, 'This is not mine, This I am not, This is not my self.' All rþpas must be contemplated on so as to realize the truth, as it really is, with personal knowledge that 'This is not mine, This I am not, This is not my self.'

In the above statement, rþpa is described and enumerated in eleven ways such as past, future, present etc. With respect to time, rþpa is described in terms of past, future or present. 'The past' refers to what had happened in the past, what has arisen and ceased in the previous existences or in the past time of the present existence. 'By future' is meant that which has not yet happened, which is going to happen at some time in the future. The present means what is actually happening now. Sequentially it amounts to what had happened before, what is happening now and what will happen in the future. Thus when rþpa is enumerated in these three ways of difference in time, all the rþpas is self, in others, animate, inanimate, all are covered.

WHAT THE DISCIPLES SHOULD CONTEMPLATE ON

But, for the purpose of vipassanæ meditation disciples are mainly concerned with contemplating on what is happening in one's body, as definitely stated in the Commentary and subcommentary of the Anupadæ Sutta of Uparipannæsa Pæ¹i Canon. Phenomena happening elsewhere need be known only conjecturally. Thus the Yogø needs only to understand the phenomenon of næma, rþpa happening inside one's body and see with one's own (insight) knowledge, the true nature as it really is.

Even in connection with the phenomenon happening inside one's person, one can be only guessing in attempting to understand the phenomenon of the future, because it has not occurred yet, is not yet in existence. Concerning those that had occurred before, their nature cannot be known as they really were; it would be mere guess work. Even for those phenomena that occurs during one's life time, it is not easy to see what they really were what happened some years ago, some months past or even some days previously. It is hard even to know the absolute truth of what happened a few hours ago because, for ordinary persons, once an object is seen, heard, touched etc., attachment for it would have arisen immediately as 'I, he, a woman or a man' in terms of conventional concepts.

ONLY THE PRESENT SHOULD BE NOTED INITIALLY

Therefore, as stated in Bhaddekaratta Sutta, Paccuppannañca yam dhammam, tatthæ tatthæ vipassati: Only the present should be contemplated on in Vipassanæ meditation, that is, as the phenomenon is being seen, heard etc. In the Satipa¥hæna Pæ¹i Canon, also it is stated the present phenomenon actually happening now, while presently going, standing, sitting, lying, should be noted initially. We have provided a searching analysis of this paragraph, because this paragraph mentions 'past rþpa', which comes first in the sequential order of past, present, future, doubt may arise whether one should start meditating with what had happened in the past. This analysis should remove away that doubt.

Therefore, only those phenomena of næma, rþpa which manifest themselves at the six doors every time an object is seen, heard, touched should be constantly noted, just like our Yogøs who are now taking note of the phenomena of rising, falling, sitting, touching etc. Engaged in this manner as the concentration gets strengthened, Yogø comes to differentiate between the phenomenon of falling and the phenomenon of noting it. The extension, the pressure and the motion of the moment of rising do not last till the moment of falling; they disappear at the moments of their respective phenomena. The distension and motion at the moment of falling do not last till the next moment of rising; they disappear and cease then and there.

While walking too, the extension and motion involved in the 'right step' do not stay on till the 'left step'; similarly the rþpas of the 'left step' are not retained till the 'right step'. They vanish just at the moment of their respective appearance. The rþpas of the 'raising moment' do not last till the moment of stepping out; that of the stepping moment do not stay on till the moment of dropping down; they all vanish away at the respective moments of appearing.

Similarly in bending and stretching, each phenomenon disappears at the respective moment of appearing. When the concentration gets particularly strong, the Yogø will observe, during the period of one act of bending, or stretching, the process of dissolution in very quick serial motion happening in the same place without change of position. The Yogø therefore realizes "that the nature of phenomena was not known before because they were not heedfully noted. Now that they are noted, it is perceived that the aggregates do not pass on from one moment to another. They perish ceaselessly at the very moment of their appearance." Thus the rþpas which had occurred before do not last till the present moment; they have all perished. The rþpas which are manifesting themselves now in rising, falling, bending, stretching, dropping, stepping, moving will not reach a future moment. They will all vanish away presently. The rþpas of the coming phenomena will also cease at their respective moments of arising. Therefore all kinds of rþpas are impermanent, incessantly arising and disappearing. They constitute suffering, not self, but mere phenomena because they are not amenable to one's control, arising and vanishing in accordance with their own conditional causes. The Yogø comes to realize them through his own knowledge. To enable such realization, the Blessed One exhorted that meditative effort should be made until it is perceived that 'This is not mine.'

CONTEMPLATION ON NETAM MAMA AND ANICCA --- A DISCUSSION

'Netam mama- This is not mine,' according to which it may be asked, whether contemplation should be done by reciting this formula. No recitation should be done. Meditation should be carried out so as to know the true nature of anicca, dukkha, and anatta. To k now the real nature of anicca etc is to know the meaning of netam mama which is a peculiar ancient idiom of the Pæ¹i language.

In the Channa Sutta of Salæyatanavagga of Samyutta Pæ¹i Canon, there was a passage where Channa was asked 'Do you perceive thus 'This is mine, This I am, This is my self' and Channa replied, "I perceived thus, 'This is not mine, This I am not, This is not my self," The Commentary explained that it meant that Channa had perceived it merely as anicca, dukkha, anatta.

Here seeing "This is not mine" is the same as perceiving that incessantly arising and passing away, there is nothing delightful, not dependable, just suffering. Seeing 'This I am not' is the same as perceiving that it is not permanent. Conceit arises believing in permanence. When truth is known about its impermanent nature, there is nothing to take pride in. Seeing "This is not my self" is exactly the same as seeing that it is not atta. Failing to take note of every phenomenon of næma, rþpa as it arises at the six doors and then believing it to be permanent, the conceit makes its appearence 'This I am'.

But when perceived that the phenomenon does not last even the blink of an eye, everything is impermanent conceit cannot arise. When it is not known to be non-self, there is clinging as self; when it is seen to be non-self, no clinging is possible as atta - This is of course very clear and needs no elaboration.

Ordinary people who cannot observe the phenomena of seeing etc at the moment of their arising believe that the rþpas at the moment of seeing linger on to become rþpas at the moment of hearing; or vice versa lasting from one moment to the next. They believe also that it is the single I who sees as well as hears, touches, etc. The rþpas of the past have arrived at the present, and the present one will go on to the future. They believe in this way too which is clinging to the belief in their permanence.

But the Yogø who is ever watchful of these phenomena knows that the rþpas at the moment of seeing perishes then and there, does not reach the moment of hearing; the rþpas at the moment of hearing perishes then and there, does not reach the moment of seeing. Every act of seeing, hearing, touching, knowing is a new arising, rising afresh all the time. This is knowing the truth of impermanence as it really is. Knowing this, the Yogø realizes that the rþpa of the past has ceased in the past, has not come forward to the present; the present rþpa keep on perishing away even while being noted and will not reach the future. He knows also that rþpas of the future will also perish away at the moment of arising. He realizes that this rþpa does not endure even for a duration of a flicker of an eyelid. Realizing thus, there is no opportunity for arising of clinging by craving 'This is mine,' clinging by conceit, taking pride as 'This I am,' not clinging by wrong view as 'This is my self'. The Blessed One exhorted the group of five Bhikkhus to contemplate in this way so as to be rid of clinging by craving and conceit. The ordinary worldlings are also instructed to contemplate so as to be free of the clinging by wrong view.

SOTÆPANNAS INSTRUCTED TO CONTEMPLATE ON NON-SELF

Why was the group of Bhikkhus who had already become Sotapænnas instructed to get rid of Atta, 'This is not my self'? This is something to ponder upon. According to Visuddhi Magga, Sotæpannas are free from illusions of wrong view of atta clinging as well as illusions of perceptions (saññæ vipallæsa) and illusion of the mind. Being free from all the three kinds of Atta clinging, to rid of what clinging, was this exhortation to contemplate on Non-self given to the group of five Bhikkhus? In the first part of this book, it was explained how this Anattalakkha¼a Sutta was taught to remove the Asami mæna which is akin to Atta clinging. But here, as separate instruction have been given to get rid of Asami mæna in 'neso hamasami.. This I am not' the instruction to contemplate on na meso Atta.. This is not my self' cannot be said to be given to remove Asami mæna; then to remove what kind of clinging has it been asked to contemplate on 'Non-self', Anatta? This is the point to consider.

This problem is not easy of definite and accurate solution. We shall attempt to solve it in three ways. (I) The first solution. In Sølavanta Sutta, it is mentioned that the Arahats also do meditate on the nature of Non-self. Reference may be made to page 470 of the discourse on Sølavanta Sutta. Although Sotæpanna has no Atta clinging to be rid of, he nevertheless contemplates on non-self just like the Arahats for the attainment of higher knowledge.

If this first answer is found not satisfactory, here is our second answer (2) The second solution .. This is in accordance with what is provided on page 330 of Sølavanta Sutta. There is no doubt that Sotæpanna is free from illusion of wrong view which believes in self, in permanency of self. As to the illusion of perception, it should be taken that Sotæpanna is free from it only when reflecting intentionally it or when engaged in contemplate on it. Only on such occasions the Sotæpanna may be taken as free from wrong perceptions of permanence, wrong perception of self. If he is regarded to be free from these illusions on other occasions also when no particular attentive note is being taken on them, it will amount to putting Sotæpannas on the same level of developments as Arahats; He will be knowing all acts of seeing, hearing etc to be impermanent, mere phenomenon; he will have no conceit, no arising of lustful desires regarding men or women.

Therefore, on inattentive moments, Sotæpanna can have wrong perceptions, wrong notions of things. Thus to enable the group of five Bhikkhus to get rid of such wrong perceptions and notions, this exhortation to contemplate on Non-self was given by the Buddha.

(3) The third solution .. This based on explanation offered by the Venerable Khamaka who had already reached the stage of Anægam. Khamaka said that he did not cling to rþpa as 'I am' nor to each of the other aggregates vedanæ, saññæ, sa³khæra, and viññæ¼a. But with regard to the five aggregates as a whole, he still was not free from the notion 'I am.' Just as in this explanation, for a Sotæpanna, there is no clinging as self towards any of the aggregates such of rþpa, vedanæ, saññæ etc., but with regard to the five aggregates as a whole, Sotæpanna is not free from perception, the sensual passions still arise in him to the extent of sitting down in a married life. Therefore it should be regarded that the group of five Bhikkhus were exhorted to contemplate to Anatta so as to become free from such ordinary perceptions and notions.

This is an attempt to reconcile the text in the Pæ¹i Canon with the statement in the Commentary which says that Sotæpannas are free from perceptions of self or motions of self.

CONTEMPLATING IN ELEVEN WAYS SUCH AS PAST, PRESENT, FUTURE ETC.

We shall go on discussing how rþpas of past, present and future are contemplated as anicca etc. We have already described how the Yogø observing the rþpas at the moment of rising and falling perish away as they come into being comes to know the phenomenon of anicca, dukkha and anatta. The Yogø who knows thus can decide with his own knowledge that rþpas of the past have not reached the present; the presently occurring rþpas will not reach the future, they perish away at the moment of coming into existence and are therefore impermanent. Consequently, they are suffering, not self, but mere phenomenon. You will recite now how such decisions and considerations are arrived at as described in the Visuddhimagga; while reciting you should make an effort to reflect on them.

1. The rþpas of the past have ceased to exist; they do not reach nor come over to the present. As they have ceased and terminated now, they are impermanent. Because they disappear and perish instantly, they are dreadful, pure suffering. Not being a controlling authority (sæmi), a permanent entity (nivæsø), a doer (kæraka), one who experiences the sensations (vedaka), it is not self with any essence, just the phenomenon of Non-self.

2. The rþpas of the present will perish away and cease now. They will not reach the future. As they are ceasing and vanishing, they are impermanent. Because they are disappearing and perishing incessantly, they are dreadful, pure suffering. Not being a controlling authority, a permanent entity etc., it is not self with any essence, just the phenomenon of Non-self.

3. The rþpas which will come into being in the future will cease to exist then and there. They will not be carried over to any further future existences. Because they will perish and cease they are impermanent. As they are disappearing and perishing instantly, they are dreadful, pure suffering. Not being a self with any essence, it is just the phenomenon of Non-self.

This is how rþpas etc are generally considered with respect to its true nature. Now we shall recite how we reflect while contemplating on them.

1. The past rþpa at the moment of last rising did not reach the stage of falling; the last rþpa at the moment of falling did not reach the stage of rising. It perished away at the moment of rising and falling away and is, therefore, impermanent. Because it is impermanent, it is suffering. Because it is unmanageable, it is nature of Anatta.

The last rþpa at the time of last seeing and hearing did not reach the present moment of seeing and hearing; it perished away at the respective moments of coming into being; it is, therefore, impermanent, suffering, just of the nature of Anatta.

2. The presently rising rþpa does not reach the stage of falling; the presently falling rþpa does not reach the stage of rising. It perishes away even while rising and falling. It is, therefore, impermanent, suffering, just of the nature of Anatta.

The rþpa at the present moment of seeing and hearing do not reach the next moment of seeing and hearing. They perish away even while seeing and hearing. They are, therefore, impermanent, suffering, just of the nature of Anatta.

3. The rþpas at the moment of future rising and falling will not reach the next future moments of rising and falling. They will perish away at the respective moments of coming into being. They are, therefore, impermanent, suffering, just of the nature of Anatta.

This is how the rþpa of the past, present and future are considered while presently taking note of the phenomena of rising and falling. There is also this method of reflecting on the rþpas of the past and future by contemplating on the rþpas of the present. We shall recite about this method of reflection.

Just as there are impermanent rþpas with respect to rising, falling, bending, stretching, raising, stepping, dropping, seeing, hearing, etc., which rise and fall and perish even while they are being noted now, so there have been similar rþpas with respect to rising, falling, stretching, bending etc in the past perishing away at the respective moments of coming into being and are, therefore, of the nature of anicca, dukkha and anatta.

Having perceived by oneself how the rþpas in one's person perish away, there remains the task of reflecting on the rþpas of other people, the rþpas of the whole world. Just like the rþpas in one's person perishing away even while they are being noted, the rþpas in other people, the rþpas of the whole world, will also be perishing away and are, therefore, of the nature of anicca, dukkha and anatta.

We have sufficiently dealt with consideration of behavior of rþpas with regard to three aspects of time. We shall go to considering the internal and external rþpas.

CONTEMPLATING ON THE INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL RÞPAS

People imagine that when they spit, defecate or excrete, the rþpas from inside the body get expelled or discarded to outside the body. When food is eaten or air is breathed in, the external rþpas are believed to have comes into the body. Actually, it is not like this at all. Rþpas undergo dissolution at the moment and place of their coming into being; the new rþpas rise afresh to manifest themselves at the new place. The Yogø who is taking note perceives such dissolution and ceasing taking place at each place of origination.

And this is how it is perceived; when mindfulness and concentration get strong, while noting the rise and fall, the out-breath is seen to break into small sections in the chest, throat and nose before it finally make the exit from the body. The in-breath is also seen to be entering, pushing in, in succession of small sections. The Yogø who smokes knows the smoke, going out and pushing its way in, in series of small portions. Similar phenomenon is seen while drinking water when it pushes its away into the throat portion. Therefore, the internal rþpa does not get outside; the external rþpa does not get inside. It ceases, vanishes at the place where it comes into being. Therefore, it is impermanent, suffering, not self, (445). We must recite this: Internal rþpa does not get outside; the external rþpa does not get inside. It ceases, vanishes inside or outside, wherever it arises and comes into being. Therefore, they are of the nature of anicca, dukkha, anatta.

CONTEMPLATING ON COARSE AND FINE RÞPAS

Ordinarily people believe that it is the tender rþpas of our young days which have become the coarse, gross rþpas of the adults; the healthy, light, fine rþpas that becomes the unhealthy, heavy, gross rþpas; the unhealthy, heavy, gross rþpas that have becomes the healthy, light, fine, rþpas. The Yogø who is constantly watching the tactile bodies perceives these rþpas breaking up into tiny bits even while being observed. Thus perceiving, he knows the gross rþpas, does not form into fine rþpas, neither does not the fine rþpa become the gross rþpa. The gross, hot or cold rþpa does not become fine, cold or hot rþpa; fine, cold or hot rþpa does not become gross hot or cold rþpa. The gross, stiff, extending, moving rþpa does not become fine, stable, still rþpa. They all vanish at the moment of arising; they are, therefore, impermanent, and of the nature of Anatta. We must recite thus: (6&7). In the body, the gross rþpa does not become fine rþpa; the fine rþpa also does not become gross rþpa. They perish away at the moment of arising and are, therefore, of the nature of impermanence, suffering and not self.

CONTEMPLATING IN TERMS OF INFERIORITY OR SUPERIORITY

Ordinarily, it is believed that the unhealthy, inferior rþpas become the healthy, superior rþpas; the youthful rþpas have become the rþpas of the old man. But the Yogø who keeps track of the rþpas, at the moment of their arising, perceives that any rþpa that manifests itself ceases and vanishes as it is being noted and, therefore, knows that the inferior rþpa has not become the superior rþpa; neither does the superior one become an inferior one. They all disappear at the moment of arising; they are not permanent and hence of the nature of suffering, non-self. We must recite thus: (8&9) in the body, the inferior rþpa does not become superior rþpa; superior rþpa does not become inferior rþpa. Disappearing at the moment of arising, they are just anicca, dukkha and anatta.

CONTEMPLATING IN TERMS OF FAR AND NEAR

Ordinarily, it is believed that when a man comes from afar, he has arrived with his rþpas of that far distance. When a man departs from a near to a far distance, he carries away the rþpas of the near distance. But the Yogø who is always noting the phenomenon of næma, rþpa knows, when watching, for instance, the phenomenon of stretching the body, that the rþpa that stretches, vanishes away in a series of blurring fade outs without reaching any distance; when bending, the rþpa that bends, vanishes away in a series of blurring fade outs without reaching any distance. Perceiving thus, the Yogø is convinced that the rþpa which is near, has not gone afar; the rþpa from the distance has not come near. They vanish at the respective moments of becoming and are, therefore, not permanent, but suffering, of the nature of non-self.

While looking at someone coming from a distance and approaching, and when noted, 'seeing, seeing', the man disappears section by section, part by part in a series of quick blurring fade out. While looking at someone leaving from a near distance and when noted 'seeing, seeing', the man disappears section by section, part by part in a series of quick blurring fade out. Thus the rþpa from a distance has not come near; the rþpa which is near has not gone to a distance. The old rþpa keeps on vanishing and the new rþpa keeps on rising, making them appear as if someone is coming from afar and someone is going away. Only the Yogø who has reached the stage of Bha³ga ñæ¼a and whose intelligence sharp can perceive the phenomenon as it really is in this manner. Others with not so sharp an intellect may not perceive so clearly.

Again, while in the course of walking to and fro, taking note of raising, stepping, dropping etc, raising appears separately as one part, stopping separately as one part. When insight is well developed, the movements of body and limbs are seen as series of blurring fade outs. Perceiving thus, the conclusion is arrived at that rþpas do not reach from one place to another; they cease and vanish at the place they come into being. This is knowing in accordance with the statement of the sub-commentary, "absolute realities do not move over to another place; they cease and vanish at the places they come into existence."

(10&11). Therefore, rþpas from afar do not come near; rþpas which are near do not go afar. They cease and vanish at the place where they come into existance. They are, therefore, of the nature of anicca, dukkha and anatta. This is then an account of how rþpas described in eleven ways are contemplated on as 'This is not mine -- netam mama etc.'

To recapitulate.

"All rþpas whether past, future or present; internal or external; gross or fine; inferior or superior; far or near: all rþpas should be seen with own knowledge as they truly are; that 'This is not mine, This I am not, This is not my self.'

Let us stop here for today.

By virtue of having given respectful attention to this discourse on Anattalakkha¼a Sutta, may you all attain and realize soon, the Nibbæna, by means of the Path and Fruition of your own wish.

Sædhu! Sædhu! Sædhu!

End of the Sixth Path of the Discourse
On
The Anattalakkha¤a Sutta.