GTOG Sunday Meditation Session: Sutta reading (MN2 - Sabbasava Sutta) by Delson Armstrong

So today I'm going to be reading from Majjhima Nikaya number 2. And this is known as the Sabbasava Sutta. Sabbasava means all of the taints or defilements. So we'll go through understanding what the asavas are as we continue with this sutta. Let me begin. Thus have I heard, on one occasion, the Blessed One was living at Savatthi in Jetavana, Anathapindika's Park. There he addressed the bhikkhus thus. "Bhikkhus." "Venerable Sir," they replied. The Blessed One said this, "Bhikkhus, I shall teach you a discourse on the restraint of all the taints.

Listen and attend closely to what I shall say." "Yes, Venerable Sir," the bhikkhus replied. The Blessed One said this, "Bhikkhus, I say that the destruction of the taints is for one who knows and sees, not one who does not know and see." Before we continue, let me just give you a brief understanding of the taints, the asavas.

The asavas, if you look at it from the perspective of dependent origination, are actually the beginning point. Going back to Majjhima Nikaya 9, which is the Sammaditthi Sutta, in which Sariputta is talking about the ways to understand the Dhamma. And he goes through each process of dependent origination, each link, and the cause of that link. So he looks at it from the perspective of the Four Noble Truths.

And he says, this link is the first noble truth. The origin of that is the second. The cessation of that is the third, and the way leading to the cessation of that link is the Eightfold Path. He goes through each process all the way from Jara Marana, the 12th link, all the way to ignorance, as we understand it as being the first link. But then he says that there is this interdependency between ignorance and the asavas. So really, the asavas are the headwaters. If you think about the process of dependent origination like a river, the source of that river are the asavas. The asavas have been the origin point, so to speak, for every iteration of dependent origination.

So it's the kamasava, the bhavasava, and the avijjasava. Kamasava is essentially the inclination or the projection towards sensual craving. Bhavasava is the inclination or tendency or projection towards existence, and avijjasava is the tendency towards ignorance, it's the inclination towards ignorance. So the asavas are really strengthened by every choice that we make in every moment, and we'll discover this as we go through the suttas. But really the brief understanding here is the asavas give rise to ignorance, but ignorance is the base for the asavas. In other words, not knowing the four noble truths, not understanding the three characteristics and how to see them in reality, not having the attention rooted in reality, because of that there is a slip up in mindfulness, and because of that there is the tendency to act out of ignorance, the tendency to act out of craving, the tendency to act out of conceit, which gives rise to these three asavas. So any action that one takes that comes from the sense of I, myself, for me, that comes from the sense of craving or aversion,

or comes from this sense of not seeing the four noble truths, and when one does that, it leads back towards the asavas. So any action that's taken from these conditions feeds energy back to the asavas in this process of dependent origination, and those continue to influence ignorance, which continues to condition formations, which continue to defile consciousness, which then give rise to a particular kind of contact, and then that contact gives rise to a particular kind of feeling, and because the automatic response to that experience or that sensation, that feeling, gives rise to further craving, it is a vicious loop that continues on within this process of dependent origination. The way to stop it really is mindfulness, as we'll see, but here the Buddha prescribes six different ways, and we'll talk about how those six different ways cause or rather create the destruction of the taints. So he says, "Bhikkhus, I say that the destruction of the taints is for one who knows and sees, not for one who does not know and see. Who knows and sees what wise attention

and unwise attention. So this is yoniso manasikara and ayoniso manasikara. The way I translate yoniso manasikara is attention rooted in reality, because one is looking at reality as it is, and that essentially means seeing reality as being impermanent, and therefore through that impermanence seeing the intrinsic nature of dukkha, and therefore seeing the intrinsic nature of dukkha in it, one is able to see the not-self aspect, the impersonal aspect, because it would not make logical sense to take what is impermanent, and therefore a cause for suffering, to be self. Through that perception, through that understanding, there is given rise to dispassion, towards disenchantment, towards dispassion, towards abandoning the source of suffering, whether it's the craving or unwise attention, and from there there is release, there is this feeling of letting go, of relaxing, and thus experiencing cessation of suffering.

So that is really wise attention, and unwise attention is seeing the permanent in what is impermanent, seeing happiness in what is intrinsically dukkha, seeing self in what is essentially not self. And there is a fourth category, which is to say seeing the beautiful in that which is intrinsically unpleasant or repulsive. For example, taking the body, which is inherently repulsive with all of its processes, to be beautiful, which causes lust for the body, which causes further craving, and so on.

So one who knows and sees, meaning knows and understands, attention in the sense of what is wise attention and what is unwise attention. So he says, when one attends unwisely, unarisen taints arise, and arisen taints increase. When one attends wisely, unarisen taints do not arise, and arisen taints are abandoned. So when do the taints arise? The taints arise any time there is a choice made that is rooted in craving, either sensual craving, craving for existence, or conceit, or rooted in not seeing reality as it is, taking what is impermanent to be permanent, taking what is suffering to be happiness, and taking what is not self to be self.

Anytime this is done, this causes further fueling of the asavas. And so those asavas that haven't yet arisen are arisen due to that choice. And they continue to strengthen the already arisen asavas, meaning the effects of the already arisen asavas. But when you have wise attention, when you see things as they really are, and it leads to the mind abandoning any identification with the process, leading to a mindset that is free of suffering, then in that mind there are no asavas for that time being. And so if there is no fuel given through unwise attention, that leads to the further cessation of any asavas from arising, the further prevention of any asavas from arising. And therefore, the more one does this, the more one actually weakens the asavas, eventually destroying them.

Bhikkhus, there are taints that should be abandoned by seeing. There are taints that should be abandoned by restraining. There are taints that should be abandoned by using. There are taints that should be abandoned by enduring. There are taints that should be abandoned by avoiding. There are taints that should be abandoned by removing. There are taints that should be abandoned by developing. So if you go through the suttas you will see that the Buddha uses these two particular phrases or words to abandon something and to uproot it, and if you notice this you will see that the abandonment of a source of suffering, the letting go, the releasing of that, is through the process of wisdom, and that wisdom specifically is the wisdom of impermanence.

When you see that something is impermanent, your mind automatically turns away from it, and the turning your attention away from it is the abandoning. The uprooting is the second part that the Buddha talks about. The uprooting happens when you see the impersonal nature of that process. So when there's something that is impersonal, when there is something that is intrinsically not self, the mind automatically lets it go, further in the sense of destroying that cause altogether, destroying that hindrance, destroying that fetter, destroying that underlying tendency, destroying that root, that defilement, or even the asava itself. So abandoning arises from seeing impermanence, really experiencing impermanence, and uprooting comes from the experience of anatta. And so that is why you will see that anyone who experiences

or sees impermanence immediately has this dispassion, has disenchantment, in this dispassion the mind turns away, and somebody who then sees further into the impersonal nature of conditioned reality will automatically let go of it completely, will automatically uproot it. So one who experiences anatta deep enough, and therefore experiences the destruction of the first three fetters. Further, indeed, when you go into what is known traditionally as the second sermon of the Buddha, the Anattalakkhana Sutta, you have Kondanna who experiences arahatship upon listening, because he understands the impermanent nature and therefore abandons the conditions that cause further suffering, and then finally uproots those conditions with a deep understanding of anatta. After having uprooted that, all fetters are destroyed, and he experiences arahant. So this is a very powerful tool set in that sense, really deeply understanding impermanence, really deeply understanding the intrinsic nature of dukkha in that impermanence, and the not self within that

and that dukkha. So now he talks about the taints that are to be abandoned by seeing. What taints, bhikkhus, should be abandoned by seeing? Here, because an untaught ordinary person, a worldling, who has no regard for noble ones and is unskilled and undisciplined in their Dhamma, who has no regard for true men and is unskilled and undisciplined in their Dhamma, does not understand what things are fit for attention and what things are unfit for attention, since that is so, he attends to those things unfit for attention and he does not attend to those things fit for attention. What are the things unfit for attention that he attends to? They are things such that when he attends to them, the unarisen taint of sensual desire arises in him, and the arisen taint of sensual desire increases. The unarisen taint of being arises in him, and the honor and the arisen taint of being increases. The unarisen taint of ignorance arises in him, and the arisen taint of ignorance increases.

So before we continue, it's important to understand: how do these specific taints increase? In the case of the taint of sensual desire, it's any time there is a pleasant or unpleasant feeling that arises. And the underlying tendency that is intrinsic in that pleasant feeling, when acted upon, is what gives rise to further taints of sensual desire. In other words, if there is a pleasant feeling that can give rise to an underlying tendency towards craving, if one recognizes this and notices this with mindfulness, with awareness, with alertness, with wise attention, attention rooted in reality, and by not acting upon that underlying tendency towards craving, it won't feed back energy to the taint of sensual desire.

If one notices that there is the unpleasant feeling and there is an underlying tendency towards aversion, by not reacting or acting upon that underlying tendency towards aversion, by recognizing that such a tendency is arising and letting it go through the process of the 6R's, one doesn't feed energy back to that taint of sensual desire, within that tension, within that sensual desire, also intrinsic aversion, aversion towards sensual experiences. Likewise, when one identifies with that process of the neutral feeling or any of the three feelings, then there is a tendency towards ignorance. So if one notices that the mind is starting to identify with that process, noticing that the mind is causing this to be me, myself and I.

Then that gives rise to the experience of, or the taint of bhava, or the taint of ignorance as well, but specifically the taint of ignorance, because one sees that as being something that is not true, that is not reality, not being able to see the Four Noble Truths, not being able to see the three characteristics of that experience of feeling. This gives rise to the ignorance specifically in relation to the understanding of the bhavasava. It is in relation to the experience that happens in the mind when the mind is in jhana. This is why there is an emphasis on understanding that one should not identify with that process of jhana or the ayatana in this

experience. The mind has a tendency to conceive that I am entering this jhana, and so there is a craving for that jhana, there is a craving for that ayatana. And so this craving for that existence in the jhana, this craving for existence in the ayatana, gives rise to, or feeds energy back to, the taint of craving for existence, to the bhava, to the bhavasava, the taint of existence, the taint of craving for existence. So, or the taint of being, as it says in this sutta. And so the Buddha continues:

This is how he attends unwisely: Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what did I become in the past? Shall I be in the future? Shall I not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future? Having been what, what shall I become in the future? Or else he is inwardly perplexed about the present: Thus am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where will it go? So you might recognize these lines of questioning from a previous sutta, another sutta in which the Buddha talks about this in relation to dependent origination. If one understands dependent origination clearly, such questions will not arise, because one understands that this I, the sense of I, the sense of I am, the sense of being, the sense of self, arises because of certain causes and conditions. So in other words, there is no permanent underlying self that is present.

In one who has these lines of questioning, there is the idea that there is this self that is underlying and permanent, and therefore the substratum of one's experience. And so they might ignorantly contemplate, what was I, or who am I, or all of these other things, am I, am I not, where has this being come from, and so on. Initially such questions could arise from somebody who's starting out on the path, and that's quite understandable. But as you progress and start to notice the experience of that self, as you start to see it for yourself and you see the experience of the links of dependent origination, then you understand that there was no self to begin with. It was all a series of processes. There's a series of impersonal processes, causes and conditions, that led to this experience that I am experiencing this, that I am the one doing this, I am the one who is feeling this, I am the one who has started this, and so on and so forth.

So this sense of I am, the sense of self, when it is contemplated, will give further rise to the asavas, will give further rise to the conditions for reality, or the conditions for samsara, conditioned existence, to continue. In the same way, when he attends unwisely in this way, one of six views arises in him: the view self exists for me arises in him as true and established; or the view no self exists for me arises in him as true and established; or the view I perceive self with self arises in him as true and established; or the view I perceive not self with self arises in him as true and established; or the view I perceive self with not self arises in him as true and established; or else he has some such view as this: it is this self of mine that speaks and feels and experiences here and there the result of good and bad actions, but this self of mine is permanent, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and it will endure as long as eternity.

This speculative view, bhikkhus, is called the thicket of views, the wilderness of views, the vacillation of views, the fetter of views. Fettered by the fetter of views, the untaught ordinary person is not freed from birth, aging and death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair. He is not freed from suffering, I say. So these are the different kinds of self-view that can arise. And it is interesting to see, for example, this self exists for me. That doesn't make any sense at all. I mean, logically speaking, when you say this self may exist for me, who is that? Is that the self, or is that the me, or is the self equal to the me? You see, there's already this logical fallacy there when you see it for what it really is. And it says no self exists for me. So if you have that view that no self exists for me, then what is the me? There is some underlying taking of self as me that has no self. Likewise

I perceive self with self. How is that possible, that you can perceive self with self, or I perceive not self with self, or I perceive self with not self? And then of course, it is the self of mind, this idea of this underlying self that experiences everything. A similar thicket of views is also to see self in relation to the five aggregates: seeing self in any one of the five aggregates, seeing self as any of the five aggregates, seeing self as the origin of the five aggregates, or seeing self as originating from the five aggregates, or seeing a self separate from the five aggregates. All of these are views. All

essentially impose the sense of self without even understanding that one is doing this. There is this ignorance, there's this ignorance of the ignorance, there's this deep ignorance where one doesn't even realize that the mind is applying the sense of self, even when it says that it experiences not self with the sense of self, or experiences a self with not self, and so on and so forth. So in other words, it presupposes a self, whether it's the eternalist view or whether it's the annihilationist view, and in both cases it is wrong view. In both cases it leads to suffering, it leads to further samsara. Whereas if you have the experience of dependent origination, which is really the middle way, this is the wisdom that arises through the Middle Way of the Eightfold Path.

When you see it, you then realize, or in that sense the mind is able to see for itself upon reflection through this process, that there was no self to begin with. There was just this process that gave rise to this experience of self, and the mind identified with it through this process of fetters, through this process of taking it as personal. So the mind has to go from the perspective of this is myself, or I am experiencing this, to this is what is being experienced, this is the experience, and this experience itself is impersonal.

So in other words, there is a perspective shift, there is this shift in perception. By having seen dependent origination, the mind can continue to contemplate this whole process for many hours. But unless there is that deep intrinsic experience that allows the mind to completely abandon and let go and see anatta in that process, it's not it. Whatever contemplation you do will only be superficial, it won't be penetrative. The penetrative wisdom arises from actually experiencing dependent origination through the process of the Eightfold Path, that leads to insight and knowledge, that leads to the experience of cessation of suffering, and that leads to the experience of nibbana. So the Buddha says: Bhikkhus, a well-taught noble disciple who has regard for noble ones and is skilled and disciplined in their Dhamma, who has regard for true men and is skilled and disciplined in their Dhamma, understands what things are fit for attention and what things are unfit for attention. Since that is so, he does not attend to those things unfit for attention, and he attends to those things fit for attention.

These are the things fit for attention that he attends to. By not attending to things unfit for attention, and by attending to things fit for attention, unarisen taints do not arise in him and arisen taints are abandoned. So now we're going to see what it is that such a person would attend to wisely. He attends wisely: this is suffering. He attends wisely: this is the origin of suffering. He attends wisely: this is the cessation of suffering. He attends wisely: this is the way leading to the cessation of suffering. When he attends wisely in this way, three fetters are abandoned in him: personality view, doubt, and adherence to rules and observances. These are called the taints that should be abandoned by seeing. So when the Buddha talks about attending wisely to these things, he's talking essentially about the four noble truths.

When you use the process of the six R's to notice and recognize a hindrance, a fetter, an underlying tendency, or whatever it might be that arises, you are actually also applying the four noble truths. The way this is done is when you recognize that there is something that is unwholesome, whether it's a hindrance, a fetter, an underlying tendency, or whatever it might be. Any unwholesome quality of mind is the dukkha. You are seeing that this is suffering. You have recognized and understood that this is suffering. Then, when you release your attention away from that experience, you release the undue attention away from that process of that experience.

You are releasing the origin of that suffering. In other words, you are abandoning the craving, but more broadly speaking, the samudaya, which is technically the origin, which is technically the second noble truth, the cause of suffering. So anything that causes suffering, that could also be undue attention: attending unwisely to the hindrances, attending to the unpleasant feeling, attending to the fetter, attending to whatever it might be that is the process of suffering, that is the process of dukkha. Attending to that is the cause. Releasing the attention is therefore abandoning the cause of the suffering, the cause of the suffering being that attention. Releasing that, one then comes back to the mind and/or body, and so one is using mindfulness to come back, attends to the mind and body, and intends the relaxation of the mind and/or body. In this process of relaxation, what one is doing is tranquilizing the formations that arose because of this experience and that also caused that experience through the process of unwisely attending. When one releases, or rather relaxes, the formations, relaxes the mind and/or body, one actually experiences the third noble truth.

That is the cessation of suffering. One experiences nibbana in that moment, for that time being. If you attend wisely to that process of relaxation, you will see that the mind is open and spacious. It is this experience where you have this non-reflective mind, a mind that does not manifest or generate anything that is conditioned, because there are no conditions present in that mind. All conditions are gone, and you experience that unconditioned mind for that time being. After having relaxed, then through the process of re-smiling, you are developing the process of uplifting the mind. You are bringing up the experience of joy, the factor of joy. By doing this and returning back to the mind, the mind becomes collected. So you are again fulfilling the eightfold path, experiencing right collectedness, right samadhi. And any time you repeat this process, you're doing so with equanimity

without any aversion or anger or ill will or irritation towards the hindrance or towards suffering itself. By repeating this process you are fulfilling the fourth noble truth, which is the way leading to the cessation of suffering. Remember that the six R's are essentially the encapsulation of the eightfold path. The six R's are essentially the heart of the eightfold path, and that is right effort. Remember that it is through right effort that wrong view becomes right view, that wrong intention becomes right intention.

That wrong speech becomes right speech, that wrong action becomes right action, that wrong livelihood becomes right livelihood, that wrong mindfulness becomes right mindfulness, and that wrong samadhi becomes right samadhi. So the process of applying the six R's directly leads to the grinding away, the erosion, and final eradication of the asavas. Every time you notice the underlying tendency of craving arise, every time you notice any kind of underlying tendency at the level of feeling that can project further to cause any kind of craving: craving for senses or sensual experiences, craving for identification, craving for existence, leading to clinging and being, and so on. Anytime you notice that and you use a six R's process, you stop the further flow of dependent origination to cause suffering, and you dissipate and abandon any energy that can be fed back to further strengthen the asavas, which can further condition the ignorance, which can further condition the formations, which can further defile the consciousness, and which can further give rise to automatic reactions that continue this cycle. So if you use mindfulness, use a six R's process, you are stopping it right there.

And then the Buddha talks about taints to be abandoned by restraining. What taints, bhikkhu, should be abandoned by restraining? Here a bhikkhu, reflecting wisely, abides with the eye faculty restrained. While taints, vexation, and fever might arise in one who abides with the eye faculty unrestrained, there are no taints, vexation, or fever in one who abides with the eye faculty restrained. Reflecting wisely, he abides with the ear faculty restrained, with the nose faculty restrained, with the tongue faculty restrained, with the body faculty restrained, with the mind faculty restrained. While the taints, vexation, and fever might arise in one who abides with the faculties unrestrained, there are no taints, vexation, or fever in one who abides with the faculties restrained. These are called the taints that should be abandoned by restraining. So this is an extension of what we just spoke about earlier: when one sees that the mind, or any of the faculties that give rise to the process of contact and feeling and perception

and there is no mindfulness there, there is no wise attention there, there is no yoniso manasikara there, there is no hatefulness, no clarity there, it will cause the taints to arise. It will cause vexation, it will cause fever. In other words, it will cause further craving, clinging, and being to arise. But this restraint does not mean suppression. It does not mean control. It does not mean force. It doesn't mean any of those things. Restrained might be one translation to use, but the other translation is to see with wisdom, and through seeing with wisdom, or through mindfulness, letting go instead of restraining. Because the concept of restraining kind of gives the imagery that one has to tighten their focus around the eye faculty, the ear faculty, and the other sense faculties. One has to restrain the mind around what one is experiencing, and this gives rise to actually tension and tightness. Rather, with the mind that is actually relaxed and mindful, a mind that is just looking at things as they really are, a mind that is observing

a mind that is just observing without any expectation, a mind observing without any judgment, a mind observing without any identification, and just observing and seeing things as they arise, not reacting to them immediately, but just watching as things happen. In that process of observing, things slow down. So that means one already needs to have the intention to observe, but not with the sense that one is observing. Just relax into the mindfulness, relax the mind into the awareness of what is happening in the way of the experience. And in that process the mind is open enough, spacious enough, to notice: is there an underlying tendency arising, or no, there is nothing arising, and there is only the experience. And so there is no identification.

There is no craving. There is no clinging, and there is no being. There is just this process of seeing the feeling and seeing it as being impermanent, seeing it as being intrinsically, and seeing it as being not self. When that happens, all that's happening is the experience and nothing further. But if the mind is open enough to see it with just observation, then that is not restraint. That is just observing. The restraint there is, in so far as understanding the underlying tendency that arises, there's nothing inherently

rooted in craving with the eye inherently rooted in craving with the experience rooted in the object of the eye or any of the sense faculties those are all impersonal those are all just processes it's the underlying tendencies the the tightness that you experience in the way of either craving for something in the way of inclining towards something or in the way of identifying with it or in the way of pushing it away when you see this kind of resistance for this kind of push and pull then you know that there's an underlying tendency there and then you can use the six hours to let it go so that is what needs to be restrained and when it means when one means restrained when one says restraint really what me one means is using mindfulness to observe and abandon and let go to to relax

into the mindfulness of it and to let go of it and then replace it with something wholesome whether that is mindfulness or any of the enlightenment factors or loving kindness or whatever it might be taints to be abandoned by using what taints bhikkhus should be abandoned by using here a bhikkhu reflecting wisely uses the robe only for protection from cold for protection from heat for protection from contact with gadflies mosquitoes wind the sun and creeping things and only for the purpose of concealing the private parts

Reflecting wisely, he uses alms food neither for amusement, nor for intoxication, nor for the sake of physical beauty and attractiveness, but only for the endurance and continuance of this body, for ending discomfort, and for assisting the holy life. Considering thus: I shall terminate old feelings without arising new feelings, and I shall be healthy and blameless and shall live in comfort. This is very important to understand here. Specifically, the Buddha is talking about terminating old feelings without arousing new feelings in relation to eating, because what generally happens is when one is hungry, the mind inclines to words food; the mind gets agitated, the mind gets restless, and there is this old feeling of hunger, the experience of hunger.

But then when one eats, does one eat for the pleasure of amusement, meaning the pleasure of that, identifying with the taste of that, for building up the body and so on and so forth? Which means that one arouses new feelings, which means there's craving inherent in that process of eating, there's identification in that process of eating. Instead, if one has the mindset that one is eating for the sustenance of the body and nothing more, then one is only terminating the old feelings of hunger without causing the arising of suffering, which can give rise to new feelings, and those new feelings being unpleasant in the way of wanting more, craving more. And then eventually, if one stuffs oneself, experiencing indigestion and other unpleasant feelings. So in other words, being healthy, blameless and living in comfort is eating till one's fill and understanding that this process of eating is only to keep the body alive and nothing more, especially as a monastic. But in terms of training for meditation, it's very useful as well, because one is really mindful

of the experience of the feeling of hunger, of the unpleasant feeling of hunger, and in that process one can actually observe if there's an underlying tendency towards craving for food or aversion and annoyance at that hunger. In noticing that, one lets go of that and just eats with mindfulness, each with that understanding, and lets go of any craving for more when one's body has had one's fill. Reflecting wisely, he uses the resting place only for protection from cold, for protection from heat, for protection from contact with gadflies, mosquitoes, wind, the sun and creeping things, and only for the purpose

and only for the purpose of wording off the perils of climate and for enjoying retreat reflecting wisely he uses the medicinal requisites only for protection from unarisen on afflicting feelings and for the benefit of good health while taints vexation and fever might arise in one who does not use the requisites thus there are no taints vexation or fever in one who uses them thus these are called the taints that should be abandoned by using taints to be abandoned by enduring what taints bhikkhus should be abandoned by enduring here a bhikkhu reflecting wisely bears cold and heat hunger and thirst in contact with godflies mosquitoes wind the sun and creeping things he endures ill-spoken unwelcome words and arisen bodily feelings that are painful wracking sharp piercing disagreeable distressing and menacing to life while taints vexation and fever might arise in one who does not endure such things let me go back while taints vexation and fever might arise in one who does not endure such things there are no taxation or fever in one who endures them these are called the taints that should be abandoned by enduring

It's really important to understand what this word enduring really is implying. It doesn't mean that one has an ascetic lifestyle, because if there is asceticism that causes the mind to experience painful feelings, that can cause discomfort, that can cause resistance in the mind, that can cause tightness in the mind and the body, that can cause restlessness and all kinds of things that are not conducive for the practice of samadhi. Rather, here the endurance is in reference to understanding that there is present an unpleasant feeling. In noticing that, then one recognizes that, lets it go through the 6R's process and comes back to a mind or mindset that is balanced, wholesome, uplifted, naturally collected and conducive for the development of samadhi.

So endurance here is not like, there's a mosquito biting me or there's heat and I just have to stay here in the heat or whatever it might be. Remember, it's not the experience. It's not the pleasant experience, it's not the unpleasant experience, it's not the neutral experience. It's not the senses that are experiencing this process, it's not the objects of the senses that need to be restrained or endured. It's the understanding that there is present some kind of craving or aversion or identification, and one notices that when there is some kind of agitation, there is some kind of mental movement in the mind that causes restlessness, there is some kind of tightness or tension in the body, there's some kind of resistance in the mind. When you are able to hone in on that, recognize it and then use the 6R's process to let it go, then you are restraining, then you are enduring in that sense, and therefore you are letting go of further craving, further aversion that can lead energy back to the asavas to continue this vicious cycle of samsara.

And bit by bit you are tearing away, wearing away at the taints, carrying away and wearing away at the fetters, and thereby eventually leading to, first and foremost, the stream entry or entry into the stream, where one destroys the first three fetters after having experienced nibbana for oneself, and then continuing to do so every single time one experiences this process, cutting away at the rest of the fetters until there are no more fetters, there are no more underlying tendencies, there are no more taints and there are no more defilements, and there is just a mind of the arahant which is empty and void of all of these things. Taints to be abandoned by avoiding. What taints bhikkhu should be abandoned by avoiding?

Here a bhikkhu reflecting wisely avoids a wild elephant, a wild horse, a wild bull, a wild dog, a snake, a stump, a bramble patch, a chasm, a cliff, a cesspit, a sewer. So these are all the things that need to be avoided in terms of anything that can intentionally possibly cause body pain. In other words, avoiding wild elephants, avoiding wild animals that are prone to cause some kind of danger to the body because they are afraid you are in their territory and they are afraid. Instead, just leave that place and come to a place of safety. Why would you intentionally bring your mind and your body, or rather just walk towards danger? Why would you walk in places that can cause the mind and body harm? So avoid those places, avoid these circumstances. Reflecting wisely, he avoids sitting on unsuitable seats, wandering to unsuitable resorts, and associating with bad friends, since if he were to do so, wise companions in the holy life might suspect him of evil conduct.

This is specifically for monastics, and more specifically, you could say for bhikkhus, meaning sitting in on unsuitable seats or wandering to unsuitable resorts, or really being in presence of the opposite gender and sitting in alone with the opposite gender. These are parts of the Vinaya which specifically restrain the monks from doing so, because it can lead to suspicion even if the monk's mind is pure and so on and so forth. So it's best to avoid situations that can arise where people might suspect that monastic or whatever it might be, and associating with bad friends. So bad friends are those who cause one to

break the precepts, cause one to harm others intentionally, cause one to lie, cause one to steal, cause one to be lazy, cause one to detract oneself from meditation, cause one to forget about the practice and all kinds of things that don't lead towards nibbana. So, you know, you have bad friends in that sense. They might not have that intention, or they might, it doesn't matter, but if you see that such influence from friends causes the mind to become lazy and no longer inclined towards sila, samadhi and panna, then you want to avoid such people and start to make friends with people who are like-minded, who want to continue to develop and help you cultivate and develop sila, samadhi and panna. While taints, vexation and fever might arise in one who does not avoid these things, there are no taints, vexation and fever in one who avoids them. These are called the taints that should be abandoned by avoiding.

Taints to be abandoned by removing. What taints bhikkhus should be abandoned by removing? Here a bhikkhu reflecting wisely does not tolerate an arisen thought of sensual desire. He abandons it, removes it, does away with it, and annihilates it. He does not tolerate an arisen thought of ill will. He does not tolerate an arisen thought of cruelty. He does not tolerate arisen evil, unwholesome states.

He abandons them, removes them, does away with them, and annihilates them. While taints, vexation, and fever might arise in one who does not remove these thoughts, there are no taints, vexation, or fever in one who removes them. These are called the taints that should be abandoned by removing. So in other words, again, you are looking at the process of right and wrong intention. Specifically here, wrong intention: one notices that there is a wrong intention in the form of craving or attachment or identification with a sensual experience, and hence that sensual desire, and lets it go, and thus cultivates sense restraint or nekkhamma, renunciation. One sees that there is ill will that is arising in mind, or in the intention to say something that is infused with ill will, lets that go and infuses the mind with loving kindness, or there is an intention to cause harm

and you notice that, let that go and infuse the mind with compassion. Any other arisen evil, unwholesome state, this could be the five hindrances or whatever it might be, it could be the defilements of consciousness. You notice it, you use a 6R's process and let it go and come back to your mind that is balanced, come back to your mind that is naturally collected and therefore in an uplifted and wholesome state of mind. And so there are the taints to be abandoned by developing.

What taints should be abandoned by developing here? A bhikkhu, reflecting wisely, develops the mindfulness enlightenment factor, which is supported by seclusion, dispassion and cessation, and ripens in relinquishment. He develops the investigation of states enlightenment factor, the energy enlightenment factor, the rapture enlightenment factor, the tranquility enlightenment factor, the collectedness enlightenment factor, the equanimity enlightenment factor, which are supported by seclusion, dispassion and cessation, and ripen in relinquishment. So there is the understanding that as one gets into higher states of awareness and understanding, especially in the ayatana or neither perception or non-perception.

There is a certain stillness there in which the mind is utterly quiet. And so the mind can also be utterly bored because there is no input. And the mind wants input. So it can cause the mind to either shut down towards becoming lazy and sluggish and lead towards sloth and torpor, or it can cause the mind to overanalyze and think and cause the mind to be restless.

So the enlightenment factors are used in relation to this. So we understand that the mindfulness is the basis for whatever enlightenment factor you intend. By bringing it up, you are intending that enlightenment factor. So in other words, when you see that there's slot and torpor, you have the mindfulness, the recognition that there's slot and torpor. You have an intention of causing the mind to be first you have the intention of relaxing and letting go of it and coming back to your object of meditation in which case it will usually be quiet mind if you are at this level of perception or neither perception or non-perception and so the mind becomes further honed in you're using the investigation of states who discern the sluggish thoughts or the sluggish mind the slot and torpor is a mind that is not attentive by focusing in on the attention you're doing so through the process of investigating not through analyzing not through reflection not through uh

not through investigation in that active process but rather just noticing, okay, the mind is sluggish, the mind has sloth and torpor, and returning back and using energy to focus the attention a little bit, using interest in your object of meditation, which would be the quiet mind, and that brings about the joy, and so that joy uplifts the mind. In the case of restlessness you still have the mindfulness, you are able to still discern that the mind is restless, but in this case you relax, you relax into the client, you let go and allow the awareness or the attention of the mind to relax, which becomes naturally collected around the object and eventually brings about equanimity, and this equanimity is where the mind is neither craving for something, whether that's nirvana or coming out of the meditation

or having aversion towards the processes, saying that I don't like this meditation or I don't know what's going on here, nothing is happening, having irritation and everything else like that. So equanimity is really a mind that just sees reality as it is. This equanimity therefore leads to disenchantment, which then leads to dispassion, which then finally will lead to cessation. So it is at these higher states that one uses the enlightenment factors in this process, but there is another way to understand the enlightenment factors through the process of the 6R's. When you recognize, you already are developing the process of, or you're already awakening or developing, the enlightenment factor of mindfulness.

When you discern that the mind is distracted, this is using or developing the enlightenment factor of discernment or investigation of states. When you relax, release and relax, especially when you release, taking your attention away, you are doing something further, not just noticing but actually using your intention to do something. So you're fulfilling right effort through the process of the 6R's broadly speaking, but also specifically through the process of releasing the attention. You are utilizing energy to do that, you're utilizing effort to do that, and so you are fulfilling the enlightenment factor of energy or effort. Then when you relax you are actually activating the enlightenment factor of tranquility, but then when you come back to your re-smile, that's when you invoke the enlightenment factor of rapture or joy, and then when you return

you're bringing up the enlightenment factor of collectedness, and then you repeat this whole process through equanimity, just seeing the hindrance as it is without having any craving towards it, any kind of aversion towards it, or any identification towards it, just seeing reality as it is. When you do this in that way, you are also fulfilling the enlightenment factor of equanimity, and so while taints, vexation and fever might arise in one who does not develop these enlightenment factors, there are no taints, vexation or fever in one who develops them. These are called the taints that should be abandoned by developing.

Because when for a bhikkhu the taints that should be abandoned by seeing have been abandoned by seeing, when the taints that should be abandoned by restraining have been abandoned by restraining, when the taints that should be abandoned by using have been abandoned by using, when the taints that should be abandoned by enduring having been abandoned by enduring, when the taints that should be abandoned by avoiding having been abandoned by avoiding, when the taints that should be abandoned by removing having been abandoned by removing, when the taints that should be abandoned by developing having been abandoned by developing, then he is called a bhikkhu who dwells restrained with the restraint of all the taints he has severed.

Craving flung off the fetters and with the complete penetration of conceit he has made an end of suffering. So here the restraint of all taints really is indicating the destruction, really, because for the arahant there are no more asavas. He is called a khinasava, the one who has destroyed the asavas, the one who has destroyed the taints, he or she, the arahant. And so severed craving, and craving is severed in terms of the craving for sensual pleasures or sensual craving in general, when the mind destroys the first five fetters, and so then one enters into the state of the anagami. Then flinging off all the fetters, that is to say especially conceit, because it is here the complete penetration of conceit, that means not identifying with the five aggregates, seeing the five aggregates as they are in terms of being impermanent, intrinsically dukkha and impersonal.

There is complete destruction of any kind of relation of I am as a subject or object of the five aggregates, as a subject or object of the world or the world beyond or the sixth sense spaces or anything in this process. When all of that I am is all of that conceit is destroyed. And in fact there are 55 different types of conceit according to the mahana desa and chula desa, and these 55 types of conceit are so because there is the one-fold conceit all the way up to the tenfold types of conceit, and so when one is destroyed, all of this, the penetration of all of this conceit, they have also destroyed the fetters dependent upon that conceit, that is the craving for existence or the craving for a form existence or formless realm, and the restlessness. Destroying this, and then seeing the four noble truths, understanding them, and never again having the lack of mindfulness, one also destroys ignorance has and has made an end of suffering, made an end of rebirth, made an end of samsara, so to speak.

That is what the Blessed One said. The bhikkhus were satisfied and delighted in the Blessed One's words. Any questions or comments? Yeah, I've got one. Thanks, Delson, I appreciate the talk. At one point I think you said something along the lines of the implicit view of a self leads to either annihilationism or eternalism, and it's quite clear to me how eternalism requires the view of some kind of underlying self, but is it possible for somebody to hold the annihilationist view and also not self?

No, because the annihilationist view essentially presupposes a self there as well. The annihilationist view means that once the body is gone, that's it, that's the end. But there is the identification with the body itself, there's the identification with the mind itself, and so on and so forth. So with the destruction of the body there is the destruction of the self as well. Gotcha, okay, that's the view. Yeah, yeah, thank you. You're welcome. Thank you, Delson, for your talk. I have a question also along the whole conceit of I am and will I be, etc.

So if a person, I guess, as a person goes through the different stages of enlightenment, it would be incorrect for them to say I am sotapanna, I am anagami, right? How I don't even know how to ask this without getting stuck in the thick of views. Then who is, or what is, going through those stages, or who is breaking through, or who is a person that's reaching these levels? Because there's each whatever experience yourself that I have is dependent on those conditions, causes and conditions in that moment, which are constantly changing, right? So then if that's always constantly changing, then what makes it across the finish line, if you will? What gets over? Who gets the insight, if you will? I don't know, does that make sense? Yes, it does make sense.

So of course this question arises because there is again the presupposition of a self. There is the idea that, okay, well, if there is no self or there has never been a self, then what is this whole point? So that is why it's very important to understand this: that when one says that there never was a self to begin with, it means not that there was never a self in the sense of being a self or not a self, but that in essence the mind has been contaminated, so to speak. The mind has been defiled, so to speak, through many iterations of samsara, through many, let's say, rebirths in just one lifetime, where the process of conditioning continues to develop the sense of self even in an infant. As the Buddha says, there is still the underlying tendency towards something even if there are no concepts of certain things in that infant. So the building up of this causes the sense of self, and it is intrinsic in the mind.

But in reality, when one sees this process of cessation, it's also the cessation of the idea of self. When one says that there has never been a self, it's not to say that there is no self. There's a self that arises in every given moment, dependent upon causes and conditions, but there is no longer an identification with that process as being oneself. There is the process of seeing this as being impersonal, and in the process of seeing it as being impersonal, the mind automatically itself abandons and uproots the fetters. In that sense there's no intention except for the right intention of letting go. There's no intention except for the right intention of seeing with wisdom, through development and cultivation of the practice.

And through this development and cultivation of the practice, the mind automatically, because of the right causes and conditions, having seen, lets go of any further fuel for this process of samsara to continue. So, it sounds like, loosely speaking, there's some self that arises due to causes and conditions, but that's constantly changing. But that's not the level we want to get stuck at. It's the mind seeing this process and then identifying with that process, of these selves that are constantly arising, or assuming this is the one that's sticking around the longest, or something like that, or this is the one that gets enlightened, right? So it's not that there's no self per se, like there's no one home, right, completely empty mind. It's more like there's always a sense of self arising because of consciousnesses and perceptions and things that are going on, but the idea is to observe that and not get caught up. And I guess all the selves that keep coming and going and arising with all the changing causes and conditions, right? Because that's when we suffer, right? It's the

That's all I can say, that's as much as I can grasp right now. Yeah, to add to that, what you're talking about really is in the seeing of that. Then when there's a deep seeing of this, the mind automatically lets go of any idea of self, actually. So the mind essentially becomes dispassionate towards the idea of a self, becomes disenchanted with the idea of a self. So traditionally it's in relation to the sixth sense base, in the experience of the sixth sense bases, or the five aggregates, to root out that conceit, seeing the five aggregates as being impersonal, because that's usually the traditional

views that are taken: that any one of these five aggregates is self, or originating a self, or self originates from them, or there's a self separate from them, or whatever it might be. So in seeing this completely through the process of dependent origination, the final, well, when I say final process, it doesn't mean that it happens all the way at the end, but it just happens through this progression. It's the natural progression: when you see dependent origination, you also start to see, or you already start to see, that the five aggregates themselves, and when I say see, it doesn't mean contemplate but really experience, in that sense, let the mind actually experience it, that the five aggregates have no inclination or intrinsic sense of self within them. There's no self in relation to them, there's no self in them, there's no self arising from them, or any of the other views related to that. When all of that is gone, first intellectually, then that belief in the personal self is gone. When one becomes a sotapanna, for example, then when one sees that and experiences it deep enough

to that point of letting go of conceit, then the self no longer, or the five aggregates, are no longer experienced as self in any of these different types of views. So at that point there's no consideration for self or not self. Everything just is either a series of causes and conditions causing something, or the cessation of those causes and conditions. That's why the Buddha says that the middle path, in that sense, it's not that I say there is a self, it's not that I say there is no self, it's not I say that there is an eternalist view, or that there is an annihilationist. What I say is, what I say is that there is an arising of causes and conditions

that give rise to suffering, but there is a process of the cessation of suffering. So the Buddha doesn't go into the semantics, let's say, or this, this whole ticket of use as it's called, but just says all I'm showing you is that there is suffering and there is a cause of suffering, there's a process of the release from suffering, and there is a way out using that process to experience the release of suffering. And to encapsulate that further, all I teach is that there is suffering and there is a way out of suffering. Attachment to an I is definitely suffering. Yes, exactly.

Thank you, welcome. I have a question, please. Yes, I still... it's very hard for me to comprehend who is doing the seeing, who is observing the stream of consciousness. It's very hard for me to grasp that. Yeah. So the way to understand it is like, I will use an analogy, and let's see how far it goes in terms of how clear it can be.

So imagine you have the mirror, and you have the reflection of whatever it is in the mirror. So this is really talking about consciousness and mentality and materiality. Consciousness, awareness, is the mirror, and it is reflecting something, whether that is the name and form, or whether that is the process of one or more of the faculties of nama, meaning: it's the contact, the feeling, the perception, the intention or the attention. So when there is the mirror, there is the reflection of that. If you cease the reflection, is there still a mirror? Is there still something there?

So the mirror, in that sense, only exists insofar as there is a reflection, and the reflection exists only insofar as there is a mirror. So there is this interdependency between the awareness and the experience itself. With the awareness you have the experience, and with the experience there is an awareness of the experience. So the awareness is what is, let's say, seeing this process. But that awareness is not something that is permanent.

It is an awareness that is arising based on the arising of an experience. So for example, if one sees this process of dependent origination, it's through consciousness, through awareness, that is the mindfulness, that is the attention, that is seeing it. But it's not this sense of awareness that is permanent, that is just seeing it. When there is the arising of formations, has the understanding that the formations have arisen and that passes away, then it moves on to a new awareness of the arising of consciousness, to a new awareness of the arising of nama-rupa, the new awareness of the arising of the sixth sense base, to a new awareness of the arising of contact, feeling and perception, and so on and so forth. So whatever is seeing is still not some permanent sense of seeing. It's still an ex seeing dependent upon the experience itself

That's why when you're doing this whole process of cessation, you are ceasing contact, feeling, or well, contact, feeling, perception and consciousness, because it's the awareness that is dependent upon the contact, feeling and perception. And there, then you see, well, you don't see anything in cessation itself, but upon arising you see this whole process of having arisen. So the deeper understanding is, in the process of the arising, there are multiple awarenesses of that arising and passing away, dependent upon those arising and passing. Okay, so when one becomes an arahant and gets off the wheel, the awareness is no longer, it's proof, is that what you're saying? No. Oh, no. Okay. There will still be an awareness. There will still be an awareness dependent upon whatever experiences arising, but that will be a non-reflective awareness. That's why I use the analogy of the mirror. It's very, yeah, meaning there is still the awareness but there's no reflection. I see. Okay. Does that make sense? No, not really, but I think I have to, sorry.

No, that's okay. So I'll explain this way. The arahant's mind, being the non-reflective consciousness, the non-reflective awareness, when one says that, that doesn't mean that there is just one awareness or one consciousness of the arahant that is non-reflective, even in that awareness of the contact, feeling and perception, because there is no conceit, there is no reflection. Actually, oh yeah. So there's no sense of, there's no fuel that causes that reflection to be taken as me, myself, or I. There's no fuel that causes the awareness, the mirror of that awareness, to be taken as me, myself, or I. Okay, I'll have to absorb that. Thank you. Thank you. You're welcome. So there was a question that was, hey Tony, uh, can you wait, I just want to read this question that was in the chat, because somebody asked it. Uh, with death, if the self ends, then what about us having past lives? So that's the thing: there is no self ending with that. There's no self arising with birth or anything like that. It's just, again, an impersonal process.

Likewise with the process of rebirth, what is happening is there have been intentions, there have been choices that have been made, and these choices condition the formations, which is to say they condition the process of intention. They condition the way the mind inclines towards something, the way that the mind has an interest in something. And if there are certain choices that are made in, say, unwholesome intentions, certain choices that are made through unwholesome conditions and unwholesome activities, and mental, verbal and physical actions, then because of the continual process of using that choice, always personalizing, identifying with that choice, but more specifically continuing to act on those choices, then that will start to automatically give rise to those formations that then continue to again give rise to those same intentions. So at the dissolution of the body, what will happen is, because the mind has been preconditioned constantly through the process of activating these unwholesome formations, the mind will have a tendency to give rise to a reaction through these formations to something that is unwholesome, that then gives rise to a new consciousness dependent upon those formations.

which then transfers those formations and gets established in a new nama or a new nama-rupa, and then that consciousness dissipates and a new consciousness arises in its place. So it's not that there is an underlying self that is experiencing these past lives; it's the process of transferring intentions that are impersonal to begin with. It's the process of transferring these formations, intentions and choices, which were impersonal to begin with, but they have been taken as self. And so there is the idea that there is some somebody reincarnating, but that's not that process. Here, what's happening is it's just a transference of those same inclinations into a new existence, into a new bhava, into a new nama-rupa.

Tony, you had a question? Oh, yes, I have a question, just a curious one related to the previous when you talked about the mind of the arahant was not fixed, seeing things but not in the reflection. Does that mean that the formation, well, the process of the dependent origination still happening after that, but they don't create any new karma because the formation doesn't have the attached me, myself and I in it? Yes, so here's a way to understand it. You can also understand it's the process of kamma. So in the arahant's mind, the arahant is always mindful of this whole conditioned reality being impermanent, intrinsic of dukkha and being not self, meaning being impersonal. It is just happening because of a series of impersonal causes and conditions. So any kind of experience that they have is a result of previous choices prior to full awakening. So any kind of new kamma no longer arises for the arahant, which means that new kamma is anything in the way of

craving, clinging, being and rebirth, but the old kamma is anything that has already arisen in the way of the formations arising through contact and feeling and perception, the consciousness that is aware of this process, dependent upon that experience, of course, then nama-rupa and the six sense spaces, which continue to change depending upon the choices and intentions. It can still change based on things that somebody does, but what happens is, at the level of contact, feeling and perception, the arahant just sees it as it really is. So there's no clinging to it, there's no craving to it, there's no conceit, there's no identification that can fuel or strengthen those formations that were fettered by that conceit, fettered by that craving, fettered by that ignorance. That's why it is said that the arahant's formations are pure, pure in the sense that they are void, they're empty of any kind of fetters.

So any formations that arise arise as a result of any kind of contact, sensory or mental contact, but that's all it is. There's, in that contact itself, no identification process going on. In that contact itself there's no craving going on. So the formations that arise might come in the process of some kind of intention, or some kind of mental or physical feeling or experience, and that's it. There's no, there's nothing to further fuel more formations to arise that can cause further craving, and again being. Thank you, Delson. That's much clearer. You're welcome.

Hi, Delson. Thank you for your talk and thank you everyone for participating. I have a question and it's along the lines of self and free will. It seems to me that if there's no self we can kind of guide the ship right to wholesome activity and to a certain direction, and eventually when you do become an arahant and there is no craving, well, that's ultimate kind of free will, or freedom, because you could really see everything unfolding and have no... well, you're in complete freedom, learning how to respond rather than react, right, as your course is described. And yeah, I mean, we've all been in those situations where we ask ourselves, ah, why did I eat that extra donut or whatever it is, which has ultimately caused us suffering. So yeah, I was just wondering if you could talk a little bit about free will and does it exist at this stage? Like a thought arose from a telegram message that I was like, oh, I'd like to go see this talk, but like, who chose that? Is it my karma, or is it Jonathan, or you know, what's going on there?

There is a free will insofar as a conditioned free will. So in other words, all intention is still conditioned, even for the arahant. There is still a process of conditioned existence. For the arahant, all that the arahant is free from is continuing the process of samsara, continuing the process of further suffering. So insofar as their choices are concerned, there are choices rooted in freedom insofar as they don't have any identification or craving. But their intentions will still be conditioned by contact, will still be conditioned by some kind of feeling, some kind of perception. So even though there is freedom there, it is still conditioned. The free will that you talk about would be a will that is out of the scope of any kind of cause and effect, out of the scope of any kind of cause and consequence. So for the arahant, even though they have the intention to do something

that's all it is, right there and then. And it's not that they will cause any kind of suffering for themselves through craving. They will experience the effects of whatever previous choices they made, but it will terminate right there and then. So that process of seeing it as being impermanent, that process of seeing it as being intrinsic of dukkha, and that process of seeing it as being impersonal, is conditioned by wisdom, so to speak, is conditioned by mindfulness. The only thing that is unconditioned is the nibbana element itself. So if the arahant thinks, if the arahant feels, if the arahant experiences, they are still experiencing conditioned reality, they're still having an intention rooted in conditioned experience. Thank you. I have another question. Um, and just a quick one. I was wondering if you see any value in studying other lineages like Zen or Chan, or even other kinds of maybe New Age teachers like David Hawkins or whoever it may be, or should one only read the suttas, watch your videos and Bhante's and whoever else is within this tradition, and kind of stick to that

and completely disregard everything else. It's your choice, it's your free will. Yes. Hello. I have a question because, hello, I have a question regarding... we know this is a process, actually nothing is there, nothing from the outside, this is just a mental process, even if we like it or not or whatever, based on concept we are clinging with thoughts and this and that, that is just the process. Now, once in, when we are checking, when we are investigating and doing contemplating and things like that, one point nibbana means one point, everything, we, sankharas and feelings, everything slowly removed, and one point consciousness disappears. Then when that's what I want to know, then one, when everything disappears, we will get to know this is anatta, nothing, and there is no self. That is called nibbana. In one point the consciousness should be disappeared. Am I correct? See, the cessation of perception, feeling, and consciousness can bring about the experience of nibbana.

The realization of anatta can bring about the experience of nibbana. But nibbana in itself is, simply put, the cessation of suffering. So it's the cessation, or the putting out, the extinguishment of the fires that can cause further suffering. To that extent, wisdom born from the experience of anatta is that same nibbana as well. Oh, thank you. And other thing is, while I was meditating, uh, one point I feel really suffering, heavy burden in my mind. Then I work towards backwards, why this heavy burden, what's contemplating

and I find out nothing from outside. It's the one concept that was there for me. I was surrounded by thoughts and feelings, only on that concept. That's the way we need to contemplate. So what was happening is your attention there was undue attention to that concept, undue attention to that, which continued to aggravate or continue to strengthen or neutrify that suffering. So going back to what one had said earlier, where you see and recognize it and release your attention away from it and relax it, and then replace it with something that is wholesome, that's the process to do it. So contemplation here is insofar as understanding that there is here some kind of suffering, that there is here some kind of craving and aversion that is leading to suffering, or undue, unwise attention to it. So my suggestion there would be to have seen that the attention is continuing to fuel this concept, intending to fuel this unpleasant feeling or perception. So taking your attention away from that and directing it towards something that is wholesome

would then dissipate that experience. Yes, okay. That is then, the Buddha found out dependent origination from the backwards, I believe. So backwards, then contemplating on the backwards, you will get to know every point, right? So the way that process worked is really over multiple hours, actually, in the sense that the Buddha asked, or there was an intuition being asked, what is the cause of suffering, what is the cause of old age, suffering and death, and so on. And so there was an insight that arose that birth is the cause of that. Then he reflected further in the sense of just waiting for the mind, asking the question, and then the insight arose that being or becoming, or bhava

is the cause for birth, and so on and so forth. So what he, he essentially after his reflection was able to see this whole process of dependent origination over a long period of time, after having asked the question and then getting the insight in the mind that this is the cause, or this is the cause, and so on and so forth. There's a comment here: no contemplation during meditation, not seeing dependent origination backwards during the sit, which means there's no contemplation doing meditation. There is just the meditation, in a sense. So do you want to elaborate, please? Yeah, well, I was afraid that Sandani is talking about contemplating the suffering during the meditation, and the meditation is just plainly seeing what is happening, not analyzing during the meditation, not trying to see.

Backwards, how dependent origination is happening during the sit. Because I hear it quite a lot recently, and you don't do that during the meditation. You can do it before or after, but not during. Yeah, yeah, yeah. There is no contemplation in the meditation, because contemplation would imply analysis or reflection, which would imply that the mind is no longer in the state of jhana, because there is mental activity going on beyond the scope of the jhanic factors. So the contemplation into dependent origination, as you so rightly put, happens either before the practice or after the practice, and preferably after the practice, because the mind is quite collected after having gone through the process of meditating.

Thank you, Nelson. You're welcome. Nelson, when you started to talk, you said there were, you talked about three types of Asavas? You said Bhava Asava, Avijja Asava, and what was the... Kama Asava means Kama, which is a sensuality or sensual experience. Craving or sensual experiences. Got it. Also, I wanted to go another round with the whole 'I am' or 'I exist' and the awareness, and I was just wondering what your thought is on this. I'm wondering if one of the reasons why we tend to get confused, I get confused, is because we keep assuming there's a single consciousness or a single self. But then the Buddha talks about the six sense spaces, so there's not me seeing, me smelling, me touching. It's more like there is seeing, seeing consciousness, seeing contact, and then when that process is done the eye that's seeing disappears, right? The example I can think of is, I'm not smelling anything right now, so there's no nose contact, no nose consciousness. But if I walk down the street and I walk past the bakery

there will be nose consciousness, nose contact, pleasant feeling, and then it's like, oh, I like that, there's that eye. But then when I'm past the bakery a few blocks away, that whole bundle, if you will, of smelling and nose contact and pleasant nose feeling disappears, and whatever awareness around that, or eye around that bakery experience, also disappears, right? And now I'm on to like another I experience. If I see a bus, or I see a, you know, a handsome person, you know, whatever, then that's also a new bundle that comes up, and it also dissipates as the experience goes away. So when we're not, uh, I guess the unaware person, the uninstructed person, will say, I had a wonderful smell, I saw beautiful people, or I saw terrible things, or I smelled the bus going by and it was awful.

but the instructed person or the person who's had an experience of cessation or something like that might say might just recognize like oh there is this like pleasant no experience nose experience happening right now oh of course because i'm near a bakery that's why that's this stuff is happening or you know there's a pleasant eye experience oh because there's these people in front of me but as soon as those people are gone the eye experiences goes away there might be pleasant unpleasant experiences you know attached to the bakery or the people that i that i see but there's no attaching to it or disliking it's just kind of watching that this is what's happening right but there is no i who's watching each of these single experiences it's just there's eyes popping up at each of those experiences and those experiences disappear all those

Yeah, just to interject just slightly there. It's not the eyes that are arising there. It is the awareness of that arising there, upon which there is a superimposition of an eye. But continue, sorry, go ahead. Okay, no, no, thank you. That's what I'm trying to tighten up. So it's these awarenesses come and go, come and go, and then it's the identification with that. Like, I am aware, I am having, I like this bakery, and I always go there and I walk by it every day at five in the morning, and then today there's no smell, like, why isn't that smell there? I'm so used to it being there, right? But it's like you said, there's just an awareness, and then I impose a sign on that awareness, and when there is no awareness

that I'm attached to, that it happened to, like, now there's an eye that I'm almost also attaching to, like, why am I not having this pleasant nose experience? And that's, I'm creating the suffering by imposing that eye on awarenesses that come and go through all my sixth sense places. We're a hodgepodge of awarenesses, if you will. But I have approached Buddhism assuming there's just a single awareness that I have that's watching all these things, rather than know it's a stream of awareness that is always coming and going, coming and going, coming and going. And the mistake is imposing an eye on that, or collected, you know, unit unification of that. Is that kind of like

closer to what the Buddha is trying to say with the six sense spaces? I'm so glad you brought this up, because this refers to the Bahiya Sutta, one of my favorites, so to speak, and the Malunkyaputta Sutta, which is, of course, one of Sil's favorites. And in that, there is that refrain. In the seeing, there is only the seen. In the hearing, there is only the heard. In the smelling, there is only the smelled. In the tasting, there is only the taste. In the touch or in the touching, there's only the experience of touch. And in the cognizing, there is only the cognized.

There is no you, or there is no self, after the experience. When there is no experience there, and there is no self before the experience, just that is the cessation of suffering. This is how the Buddha puts it in the Bahiya, as well as they put this. So the thing that you mentioned, which was when you go around near a bakery or whatever it might be and you have that pleasant smell, but if you were not there, would you have that experience? Would you have the awareness of that? That is specifically talked about in some ways in the Malunkyaputta Sutta. So the Buddha says, if there was no contact or experience, and I'm paraphrasing here, but if there was no sensual experience, would there be an arising of craving for that experience? There would not be, because it was not there. So the craving is dependent upon the feeling, that feeling being dependent upon that contact, that contact giving rise to the awareness of that experience, and that awareness having the superimposition of a self

is what causes the further craving, the superimposition of the I or the I am. But when there is none of that, that itself is the end of suffering. Thank you. You're welcome. Yes, and that's a good point. Also, read the six sets of six. That's a very powerful sutta, though, if you just go back and read it, or watch one of Monte's videos where I think he just goes through that whole process. It's very meditative, because if you just listen to it the mind just goes into a state of collectedness, and then there's a possibility of just abandoning and uprooting and experiencing cessation right there, just by really listening to that. Hi Delson, hello. Yes, I have this just a question, that when you're bringing up the mirror, like a metaphor, analogy of the awareness and the reflection, which is that awareness is always there, but there is no reflection when you get to the unconditional state. Is that what... I was just asking and thinking, that is there still the reflection

but it is not just not that. That is that understanding that it is there, that that means that it is not that reflection, as Ven. Home Real is giving this example of the seeing as the seeing. At that point it's only the awareness, but it's not even the reflection is necessary there, where the impermanence or the ongoing arising is just by itself, that it doesn't need that reflection. Because my first question to myself when you say there is no reflection, I was thinking, is there still a reflection, that there is the impermanence, there is not worth holding on to, and the letting go, because the understanding of my practice or our practice here is hoping to go through the insights, or when we have that, in like that wise attention brought up to see that impermanence, at the point I still have that arising of that reflection which you were mentioning in the mirror, mirror.

the analogy that even the reflection is not there. It's not there, but the awareness is there. The awareness of the seeing, the seeing is the seeing, the hearing is the hearing, is there, but the reflection is not necessarily there already. Is that what you mean when it's going to an arahant state of the unconditioned? Because the condition, as far as I understand from your mirror image in imagery, is that there is the seeing because of the awareness, and there is the reflection of that image

comes to that consciousness. That was the understanding, like, also from the dependent origination to my understanding, but still, of course, in my own reflection there is already other tendency that I'm seeing that is underlying, which is another thing that I just learned, that even in the reflecting process the wise attention might be not enough there, but to the arahant's day even that reflection is not necessary. That is already, that is by itself, is seeing, is seeing, is something like that. Do I understand it correctly? Can you help me on that? Yeah, let me clarify the analogy. So when I say, for example, the non-reflective awareness, so to speak, I'm really translating, let's say, from the Pali, which you might have heard of, which is the vinnanam anidassanam

that is the non-manifestive or the non-illustrative or the invisible consciousness, sometimes it's known as. But not to further confuse anybody, I'm just saying that the reflection here is in reference to the nama-rupa, the mentality-materiality, which means the factors of mentality, which is contact, feeling, and perception. There's no eye there. There's no personalizing going on there. So the reflection here is meaning there's the mirror, and there's the reflected image. The reflected image is the eye that is seeing, rather than there is just the seeing happening.

There is 'I' that I'm hearing, instead of, rather, there is just the hearing happening. There is 'I am smelling' rather than there is only smelling. This 'I am' that. This experience is there no matter what. There is the mirror, there is the reflection. But when I say, or when one says, non-reflective, there can be two meanings to this. One is there is no reflection in the sense that there is no 'I am reflecting' upon that mirror. There is just the experience, there is just the image. But the reflection that you're referring to, so there is a dual meaning: the reflection that you're referring to is in the contemplation. For example, the contemplation of impermanence, the contemplation of the god, the contemplation of anatta, which is important. And I said at one part that you can contemplate all of this, but it will be superficial. You really experience it in the process of observing, in the process of the actual experience right now. For example,

listening to my voice, seeing me. Is there a sense of 'I am seeing this person, I am hearing this person', or is there just an observing? There is hearing going on, there is seeing going on, and that's it. There's an awareness dependent upon the hearing and nothing more beyond that. Just seeing, that in itself. One lets go of 'I am', let go further, feed of craving, clinging and being. Okay, yes, you clarify that, yeah. Because I mix up the reflection. I was thinking that there should be that reflection still, like the reflective thing when you have the awareness. According to my little knowledge about quantum understanding with the eye, and that awareness that happened back, because you have that observation, then you already had that reflection of the consciousness. But the other reflection, that means that we still have that reflective experience of that reflective awareness, but it is not a reflection of the wise attention to that. So the wise attention is the thing to that impermanence, seeing that arising and passing.

And going through that. Okay, yes. I have another, subsequent, and following up on this particular part which I brought up yesterday in my own practice. If I can allow a few more minutes here, that is, that during the reflection of the impermanence, or the arising, there is already an observation of an underlying current, which you have mentioned. It's a new term to me, but it is what I have. I can really resonate with this, a gravity of even that reflection, to go back to that understanding of impermanence. It is also an observation of that gravity. This passion is giving me a sense of a sensitivity of sadness. It was sadness already in arising, so it was obviously my underlying current, right? That is a current. And that gravity, though, that impermanent understanding, or that arising, passing, growing away, is something that is in me. That concept underlying that has already, in previous lives, that this was, or whatever, that my understanding.

The knowledge that it has connected something with even the dispassionate, is said so, it's by conceited. So I want to clarify that. Yes. So what I will say about that is, that sadness you speak of is really suffering. It's a result of having seen the impermanent nature of what the mind once took as being permanent. So the mind, having been used to seeing this as permanent, having now seen this as impermanent, is a reaction to it, because it is dukkha. So if you just see this dukkha for what it is, and then go to the next part of seeing it as impersonal, then you abandon even that sadness, because you see that sadness as an impersonal reaction of seeing this. Then when you see the anatta, then you completely have full dispassion, full abandonment and full cessation. Yes, that's where we apply the 6R's. That's what I mean: during the reflection, the 6R's has to also be there. Okay, I got it. Well, thank you very much. Thank you. Sorry. All right, please go.

Let's wrap it up, it's so late for them. Thank you so much for taking the time. Very much thank you. Thank you, thank you, thank you. You're welcome. So let's share merit: may suffering ones be suffering free, and the fear-struck fearlessly, may the grieving shadow grief, and may all beings find relief. May all beings share this merit that we have thus acquired, for the acquisitions of all kinds of happiness. May beings inhabiting space and earth, diverse and nagas of almighty power, share this merit of ours. May they long protect the Buddha dispensation. Thank you so much again, Delson. And thank you, everyone, for wonderful questions. Have a great vacation, Delson. Yes. Thank you, Delson. Thank you, everyone. Enjoy your time. Thank you. Thank you, Delson. Thank you. Take care, everyone. Thank you. Bye, everyone. See you all next week. Thank you. Thank you, everybody. Thanks, Delson. Thank you, Delson.