Mar 21 2021 - MN 74 - To Dighanaka - Non-attachment to Views through Non-attachment to Feeling

Majjhima Nikaya number 74. Thank you, Kun. Good morning, good afternoon, good evening, everyone. I'm reading from Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation of Majjhima Nikaya 74, and this is called the Diganaka Sutta, to Diganaka. Thus have I heard. On one occasion the Blessed One was living at Rajagaha in the Boar's Cave on the mountain Vulture Peak. Then the wanderer Diganaka went to the Blessed One and exchanged greetings with him. When this courteous and amiable talk was finished, he stood at one side and said to the Blessed One:

"Master Gotama, my doctrine and view is this: nothing is acceptable to me." He has an interesting nickname. Diga means long and Naka means nails, so the nickname for him is long nails. He was obviously a wandering ascetic who didn't really care for taking care of his grooming, as such, with his nails and his hair and beard and so on, as was the case in most ascetic sects during ancient India and even now in some parts of India. Modern-day Diganaka's real name, as you'll see, is Aggivessana, which is how the Blessed One, the Buddha, addresses him. But Diganaka is also, in some traditions, considered to be Sariputta's nephew or his cousin, or it's the other way around, where Diganaka is the uncle of Sariputta.

At any rate, before Sariputta took refuge in the Buddha and became a monk under the Buddha's dispensation, he, along with Mahamoggallana, was part of what was known as the sect of the Ajnanas. Ajnanas were considered to be radical skeptics. In some of the suttas they're known as eel wrigglers, because they don't really have any standpoint. They don't take any kind of positions, and so they're always wriggling their way out from concluding anything, and they don't really have a belief in anything whatsoever. The word 'ajnana' is from Sanskrit and Pali. 'Nana' means knowledge or belief or knowing, and 'a' is the negator. So it's basically

not knowledge or not knowing. It can be said that the word 'agnostic', which is basically the same thing, comes from the word gnostic, meaning wisdom, knowledge or belief, and 'a' meaning not. So here he says, "Master Gotama, my doctrine and view is this: nothing is acceptable to me." He's saying basically that he stands upon no views. He takes no views as his own, and so no view that was present at that point in time in India was acceptable to him, as a skeptic.

So the Buddha says, "Aggivessana, this view of yours, nothing is acceptable to me, is not, at least, that view acceptable to you?" The Buddha is pointing at the fact that even though he says he has no view, he's still holding on to the view that he has no view. And so he says, "If this view of mine were acceptable to me, Master Gotama, it too would be the same, it too would be the same." What he's saying is, if this view of mine were acceptable to me, I would let that view go as well, meaning it would not be considered acceptable. It's a lot of interesting, very subtle wordplay going on. Then he says, "Well, Aggivessana, there are plenty in the world who say it too would be the same, it too would be the same, yet they do not abandon that view, and they take up still some other view. Those are few in the world who say it too would be the same, it too would be the same, and who abandon that view and do not take up some other view."

So the Buddha is talking about two kinds of people here in relation to views. There are, in the case of Aggivessana or Diganaka, those who say, "I hold no views," and even that view, that I hold no views, they don't take as a view; they abandon that. But actually he's quite attached to it, because he's quite proud of it. When he comes to the Buddha he announces to him, "This is the view I have," quite emphatically, as can be understood from the context of the sutta. And so the Buddha tells him, "Well, that might be the case, but there are those who say that and aren't able to abandon that view, and there are those who are able to say that and basically let go of all views and not hold on to anything." In the case of the Dhamma itself, the Dhamma is a specific kind of view. We have wrong view and we have right view, and the Buddha goes through different kinds of wrong views, in relation to, you know, there is meaning or not meaning in generosity. The wrong view here would be, there is no meaning in generosity.

There is no gratitude towards one's parents. There is no karma. There is no cause and effect. There is no rebirth, and so on. And so he does establish a type of right view, which is the mundane right view. Insofar as views are concerned, he establishes it for the purpose of right view in the context of wholesome intentions and wholesome states of mind, which is to say that if one were to hold a view, it would be a view in relation to upholding the precepts, with the intention of upholding the precepts, but one still lets go of attachment to that view. One doesn't identify with that view as, "I am a follower of the Dhamma" or "I am a sort of panna" or so on and so forth. In fact, there is one sutta in the Sutta Nipata where the Buddha talks about different types of views, and ultimately having no views, as is the case with the arahant. He or she has followed through to the end of the path, but there is no attachment to that path, that path being the view itself, having first been

initiated by that mundane right view and then locked in by that supramundane right view, which is the four noble truths. So while one understands it to be the case, one doesn't have any personalizing or identifying with it. Then he goes on: "Aggivessana, there are some recluses and Brahmins whose doctrine and view is this: everything is acceptable to me. There are some recluses and Brahmins whose doctrine and view is this: nothing is acceptable to me. And there are some recluses and Brahmins whose doctrine and view is this: something is acceptable to me, something is not acceptable to me. Among these, the view of those recluses and Brahmins who hold the doctrine and view, everything is acceptable to me, is close to lust, close to bondage, close to delighting, close to holding, close to clinging."

The view of those recluses and Brahmins who hold the doctrine and view, nothing is acceptable to me, is close to non-lust, close to non-bondage, close to non-delighting, close to non-holding, close to non-clinging. So here we're really talking about understanding the two types of view. If one says everything is acceptable to me, that's very much similar to the idea that when we discuss the idea of the self, there are four different types of views related to the self: there is a self that exists, there is a self that does not exist, there's a self that both exists and doesn't exist, and there's a self that neither exists nor does not exist. So here, when one says everything is acceptable to me, it's real in relation to the idea of eternalism, that there is a sense of self that is apparent to people who hold this view, and that there is a self that is eternal. When one has that sort of view, one takes

one or more of the five aggregates to be self, and so there is craving that can arise from that. There is lust, bondage, delighting, and holding on to and clinging that can arise from that. But likewise he also says that this view of nothing is acceptable to me is close to non-lust, close to non-bondage, close to non-delighting, close to non-holding, close to non-clinging. He doesn't say that it is non-lust, it is non-bondage, it is non-delighting, it is not holding, it is non-clinging. It is close to... There are a couple of reasons why, when one says nothing is acceptable to me, it can also be in relation to that second idea of self, where one says that there is no self beyond the five aggregates, or there is no self that continues on, and so on. And so this view is related to annihilationism.

It can be considered to be a materialistic sort of view, or a nihilistic sort of view, that there is no meaning in anything, and so one doesn't identify with anything. But at the same time, it presupposes that there is a non-identification with a self. So there is still some inherent sense of self there in that annihilationism. But more importantly, when you see this idea of nothing is acceptable to me, it does lead to understanding that nothing is permanent. So if one gets onto that track of understanding, one gets closer to letting go of notions of self. So it's very, very subtle here. It's very, very subtle to understand, which is why, actually, at that time

the Buddha's dispensation, the Dhamma, was considered to be what they called shunyavada, and they said it in a way that was deplorable and demeaning. In other words, they criticized this type of view as being annihilationistic, when in fact it was not. The Buddha clearly stated that there is meaning in karma. There is meaning in rebirth. There is a sort of rebirth that arises, but it isn't in relation to some kind of eternal self or soul that continues to take rebirth.

So it's a very subtle understanding. The terms that some people used at that time were astika and nastika. Astika meant one in which there was a belief in a higher power and a supreme power, or belief in the atman, and so on, and nastika was that which negated all those beliefs. So they clumped together the Buddha's dispensation with the nastika viewpoint, which is where nothing's acceptable.

But while there is that understanding, as I said, one needs to understand that it starts with the understanding of impermanence of all conditioned things. Here, the idea of nothing is acceptable to me, from the standpoint of what Aggivessana is saying, what Diganaka is saying, is that nothing matters. And so there is no meaning in anything. There is no meaning in giving and being generous. There is no meaning in upholding the precepts, for that matter. There is no meaning in upholding any form of generosity, or having any form of right intention, right speech, right action, and so on.

So the other type of understanding that nothing is acceptable to me, which the Buddha talks about, is really that none of this is me, myself, or mine. And that is because all conditioned things are impermanent. In the case of the Buddha's dispensation, it's really about what he calls cause and causation, the law of causation conditioning, where dependent origination doesn't take into account either of these or any of these four kinds of views. And it's talking about how suffering arises.

So he will always talk about cause and effect. This leads to that, and the cessation of this is the cessation of that. In fact, Sariputta, when he heard this, had extreme entry, because he understood what he was being told in the way of: there is a cause and there is an effect. Take out the cause and you don't have that effect. Take out the conditions and you don't have suffering, because those conditions for suffering have been taken out. So here it says, when this was said, that "nothing is acceptable to me" is close to non-lust, close to non-bondage, close to non-delighting, close to non-holding, close to non-clinging. This is what Dighanaka thought. He says, Master Gautama commends my point of view.

Master Gautama recommends my point of view. So already Dighanaka is relishing in his own view and being praised, or what he thinks is being praised for this view. So obviously he hasn't even let go of that view. He's still attached to something. So then the Buddha remarks, Aggivessana, as to those recluses and Brahmins who hold the doctrine and view, "something is acceptable to me, something is not acceptable to me": this view of theirs as to what is acceptable is close to lust, close to bondage, close to delighting, close to holding, close to clinging, while the view of theirs as to what is not acceptable is close to non-lust, close to non-bondage, close to non-delighting, close to non-holding, close to non-clinging.

So here he's saying there are those who would say that there is both a self and there is not a self, or something is acceptable to me and some things are not acceptable to me. That which they say is acceptable leads them to consider that to be self, and there is the potential for craving and lust and so on to arise. Whereas those things that they don't consider to be self and they let go of, that allows the potential for letting go of clinging, letting go of craving, letting go of identifying.

there is still some attachment to this view, so one needs to let go of that. In the case of the Buddha's dispensation, in the Dhamma, as one continues to have this right view in relation to the mundane right view, and then starts to enter the path and cultivates and develops the path, there is this understanding of the four noble truths as one exercises the four right efforts or the 6R's, and sees for themselves how the four noble truths come together. One sees the suffering, one lets go of the causes of suffering, one experiences the cessation of suffering, and one develops the path to the cessation of suffering. But that is why, as one continues, there is still some self present, there is still identifying with the Dhamma in relation to a self, up until the arahant. So in other words, when it comes to the sotapanna and the sakadagami and the anagami, they still hold on to the view of: I am doing this, I am meditating, I am following the path, I am a

Buddhist, I am a follower of the Dhamma, I am, I am, I am. So this "I am" is an attachment to the Dhamma, it's an attachment to the view of the Dhamma. Whereas for the arahant, they understand the Dhamma as being a tool in which one lets go of suffering and experiences nibbana, experiences the cessation of suffering. To that extent they use the path, but they are not attached to the path. They don't identify with the path. They don't consider that path to be something affecting

them, because there is no view of any underlying permanent inherent self present in that. They can just understand that this is what the four noble truths are and experience it, but not have any form of self in relation to it. So as he's pointing this out, the Buddha starts to change the direction of his talk. Now he gets into the body and feeling and so on. So he's trying to get Aggivessana to understand the Dhamma through understanding the impermanence aspect of the body and the mind and feelings. As we'll see, he says: "Now, Aggivessana, this body made of material form, consisting of the four great elements, procreated by a mother and father and built up out of boiled rice and porridge, is subject to impermanence, to being worn and rubbed away, to dissolution and disintegration. It should be regarded as impermanent, as suffering, as a disease, as a tumor, as a dart, as a calamity, as an affliction, as alien, as disintegrating, as void, as not self."

When one regards this body thus, one abandons desire for the body, affection for the body, subservience to the body. So really what the Buddha is referring to is the understanding of the physical body and the mind, which is bound by that body, dependent upon the body. So he's referring really to materiality, but also the mentality that is dependent upon that materiality.

And the mentality here being the contact, feeling, perception, intention, and attention, which then give rise to the experience of contact, the experience of feeling, and the experience of perception. All of these are dependently originated. They are dependent upon its preceding causes and conditions. So what the Buddha here is doing is saying, don't hold on to any views, rather understand how views arise, dependent upon experience. So one has some form of an experience and then has a conclusion that this experience is so and so. But the thing about dependent origination is, once you understand it as cause and effect, why would anyone take any of the causes or the effects as self? Why would anyone take any aspect of that as self, when it is all just dependently arisen, and it's always impermanent, always arising and passing away.

so then he says there are agives not three kinds of feeling pleasant feeling painful feeling and neither painful nor pleasant feeling on the occasion one one feels pleasant feeling one does not feel painful feeling or neither painful nor pleasant feeling on that occasion one feels only pleasant feeling so what the buddha is saying is whatever sensation arises you feel it one feeling at a time in other words if there is a pleasant feeling you feel that iota of pleasant feeling and it might feel like it's uh fluid but it's actually iotas you know different frames of feeling of the experience of feeling in this case it can be the mental experience or the sensations

that are being experienced through the five physical senses and whatever one is experiencing, if it is pleasant, then there is only attention to that pleasant feeling. There is no perception of something being unpleasant, or a perception of something being neither painful nor pleasant. And so he says, in the same way, on the occasion when one feels painful feeling, one does not feel pleasant feeling or neither painful nor pleasant feeling; on that occasion one feels only painful feeling. On the occasion when one feels neither painful nor pleasant feeling, one does not feel pleasant feeling or painful feeling; on that occasion one feels only neither painful nor pleasant feeling. And now he says pleasant feeling is impermanent, conditioned, dependently arisen,

subject to destruction, vanishing, fading away and ceasing. Painful feeling too is impermanent, conditioned, dependently arisen, subject to destruction, vanishing, fading away and ceasing. Neither painful nor pleasant feeling too is impermanent, conditioned, dependently arisen, subject to destruction, vanishing, fading away and ceasing. So how does a view arise? Specifically, as we just mentioned, we say that there is an experience that arises, and one holds on to that experience as self, or has some kind of view related to that experience as being impermanent or as being self, and so on. These are the wrong types of view. Or one has the view and the understanding that this feeling is impermanent and therefore not worth holding on to. When one has that sort of perception, then there is no craving that arises. But any other type of view in relation to eternalism or annihilationism or skeptical thought, or any other kind of philosophy

that was there present during the Buddha's time, which holds the ideas other than the fact that feeling is impermanent, and therefore the idea of self is dependent upon causes and conditions. It arises based on causes and conditions by taking them personally. Then those views that one has will cause one to crave. So for example, if somebody has a sensation and then considers that sensation to be self, or says 'I like it' or 'I don't like it', or 'this is pleasing to me' or 'this is painful to me', there is the potential for craving to arise because of that. One then has clinging to the sensory experience and clinging to the view related to those experiences, mentally or through the senses. That then gives rise to being, the underlying tendencies, the habitual tendencies that create this sense of identity, from which one then expresses speech or has action towards something. And from that sense of self, when one acts, one causes suffering. There is then the birth of that action that causes the painful

suffering to arise, and so on and so forth. So here the Buddha is really pointing out to Aggivessana that any view that arises, arises dependent upon a feeling. It arises dependent upon some kind of experience to which one has perception towards it, and then holds on to a kind of view. But when you realize that these feelings and these experiences are dependently originated, that they are dependent upon causes and conditions, what is the point in holding on to them and having views about them, other than seeing them as dependently arisen? When one sees them as dependently arisen, one lets go of any holding onto it, one lets go of any sense of self to it, one lets go of any personalizing to it. And so this is what the Buddha says: seeing thus, a well-taught noble disciple becomes disenchanted with pleasant feeling, disenchanted with painful feeling, disenchanted

with neither painful nor pleasant feeling. So what happens is you start to see this and you let go of it, and you have equanimity towards all of these feelings. You see reality as it is, and you become disenchanted with it because you no longer hold on to it. You no longer see these experiences as self or something worth holding on to. You see them as impermanent, you see them as suffering because they are dependently arisen, and because they're dependently arisen you see them as impersonal, not self. And so the disenchantment arises

being disenchanted, one becomes dispassionate. Through dispassion the mind is liberated. So this dispassion is also known as viraga, or vairagya in Sanskrit, and that's really this very strong detachment from that sensory experience. One experiences this in meditation, for example when one sees that the formations that are arising in the eighth jhana, in the eighth level of perception, which is neither perception nor non-perception, where one takes the quiet mind as one's object, one has formations that might arise. And if the mind becomes disturbed or drifts away to those formations, away from the object, then one realizes this and uses the 6R's to come back. By doing so, one lets go of those formations. Eventually what happens is the mind becomes so stable, becomes so attentive and mindful, that it has equanimity towards those formations. This is known as the upekkha of sankharas. You have formations that you are equanimous towards; there's equanimity towards these formations

When that happens there is a deep sense of disenchantment with them, and they start to slow down, they start to dissipate because of the non-attention, because no attention is being given to them, and there is dispassion even for the concept of nimana. One just stays there as it is, and through that dispassion there is the experience of cessation of perception and feeling. And then one sees the links arise and sees it as dependently arisen. Doing this, one has liberation of mind. So as long as the mind doesn't attach to it, that sense of craving for that relief or that sense of 'I am' towards that belief. And so when the mind becomes liberated from the pains, from the asavas, when the wine when the mind becomes liberated from attaching any sense of self to sensory experiences, attaching any sense of craving towards sensory experiences

and one lets go of having any attachment towards the sense of identity and being and conceit and the sense of 'I am' towards anything and everything. And when one understands the four noble truths as they really are, in every moment, understanding suffering completely, letting go of craving and other causes of that suffering, experiencing nibbana, experiencing the roda, and having developed fully that path, thereby letting go of ignorance, one lets go of all these three taints and is liberated. And when the mind is liberated there comes the knowledge: it is liberated. One understands birth is destroyed, there is the holy life has been lived, what had to be done has been done, there is no more coming to any state of being. One has destroyed the links, one has destroyed the potential for those links to arise. When one destroys the asavas, when one lets go of the asavas, no more fetters arise that can cling to the formations through ignorance and that can then infect the rest of the links, from consciousness to mentality-materiality

to the sixth sense sphere, to contact, feeling and perception, where one has the potential to take it personally or have craving towards it or aversion towards it. All of that is destroyed, and all there is now is this understanding, this wisdom. Instead of the link of ignorance being present, there is the link of wisdom, of panna or insight, which then gives rise to the understanding of the three characteristics of reality for all the links, all the way up to feeling and perception, because at that point there is no holding on to that feeling, to want to cause the craving, to cause the clinging, to cause the being, to cause the potential for rebirth and to cause the potential for suffering. So then he says: a bhikkhu whose mind is liberated thus sides with none and disputes with none. He employs the speech currently used in the world without adhering to it. So a liberated mind doesn't have any standpoint, doesn't have any viewpoints, doesn't even hold on to the Dhamma. It understands the Dhamma also to be conditioned, understands the Dhamma also to be impermanent, understands the Dhamma also to be impersonal

and so there is no holding on to the Dhamma. For what reason? There is nothing to defend. One has experienced the four noble truths, and that is enough. So the liberated mind doesn't need to defend its, um, shall we say, identity of the liberated mind, for a lack of a better word. It doesn't need to defend the idea of the Dhamma. It doesn't need to defend the concepts within the Dhamma. It doesn't need to defend the noble eightfold path. It just is following it, being having equanimity, having right intention, and continues using, as the Buddha says, employs the speech currently used in the world without adhering to it. And what this really means is, even if a liberated mind would say things like 'I, me, mine' or 'self', they're just using the conventions

of speech in whatever language it might be to transact with the world, to just be able to communicate with the world. They could say, this certified aggregates or this set of causes and conditions has this feeling, or says hello to this set of causes and conditions, but that's kind of awkward and doesn't make any sense in a transactional world. So they use 'I', 'me', 'mine' and 'self' as just a way of understanding, to provide understanding to others, but they don't hold on to any sense of self when they use those kinds of words. So it says, now on that occasion the venerable Sariputta was standing behind the Blessed One fanning him, and so it mentions here Sariputta. This probably is just after Sariputta takes refuge and becomes a follower of the Buddha, and it's probably in that two-week span where he is training and has already had stream entry, when he just listens to the idea, to the understanding of cause and effect, and whatever is subject to arising is subject to cessation. When he listens to that he immediately has the understanding

and becomes a stream enterer. So at this point he's been training and he's listening intently to the understanding of what it means to hold on to views and not hold on to views, and what it means in terms of feeling, which can give rise to views, and the fact that feelings are dependently arisen means that there is no view to hold on to as self or to defend, and so on. So while he's fanning the Buddha he thinks, 'The Blessed One indeed speaks to us of the abandoning of these things through direct knowledge; the Sublime One indeed speaks to us of the relinquishing of these things through direct knowledge.' So Sariputta is really getting into a deep state of mind and really understanding it and contemplating it, and so as the venerable Sariputta considered this, through not clinging his mind was liberated from the taints. So it's interesting, there are two accounts of Sariputta's full enlightenment. There is, as we know, Majjhima Nikaya 111, which is one by one as they occurred, where the Buddha describes Sariputta's journey through jhanas and through cessation of perception and feeling

And there is the understanding here that Sariputta considered all of these things and let go of any view or any idea of self with relation to feeling and so on, and by not clinging he basically destroyed the taints. There is no reason to think that one is better than the other; that would be holding on to a view. But in terms of the historical understanding, there are those who say that Majjhima Nikaya 111 came later, and so it was

it had some elements of the Abhidhamma in it in relation to understanding the different types of jhana and so forth, but I would say, or one would say, that it doesn't matter which one you look at. What's more important to understand is how Sariputta was not clinging on to any of this, was not clinging on to the Dhamma itself. So he probably had this pride in the Dhamma that he had to let go of, and he contemplated, understood it, and let go of that. And then, when he had the deep experience of cessation of perception and feeling, he saw his taints were destroyed. When he saw for himself, through direct knowledge, the arising and passing away of the links of dependent origination... And in the wanderer Dighanaka, the spotless immaculate vision of the Dhamma arose.

All that is subject to arising is subject to cessation. So now he had the Dhamma eye opened, which is to say that he had stream entry. The wanderer Dighanaka saw the Dhamma, attained the Dhamma, understood the Dhamma, fathomed the Dhamma. He crossed beyond doubt, did away with perplexity, gained intrepidity, and became independent of others in the Teacher's dispensation. Then he said to the Blessed One: 'Magnificent, Master Gotama! Magnificent, Master Gotama! Master Gotama has made the Dhamma clear in many ways, as though he were turning upright what had been overthrown, revealing what was hidden, showing the way to one who was lost, or holding up a lamp in the dark for those with eyesight to see forms. I go to Master Gotama for refuge, and to the Dhamma, and to the Sangha of bhikkhus. From today let Master Gotama remember me as a lay follower who has gone to him for refuge for life.' That's a very interesting statement, he says.

'Remember me as a lay follower.' But, as we understand, Dighanaka was a wanderer, he was an ascetic. So there is some understanding that this could be handed down through different translations. There is one other side of the story where actually Dighanaka continues to take refuge in the Buddha, and actually becomes a monk, becomes a bhikkhu, trains under the Buddha, and then attains arahatship. So there are different ways of understanding this passage. Any questions, comments, reflections? I would like to add that it's not only about the views but also

that we always tend to divide in self versus others, and we also see all these views in concepts which are not really existing anyway. - Sorry, Isil, can you repeat what you said? I didn't hear the first part of that. - I would like to add two things. First of all, with a view, we are constantly dividing self versus others in everything.

And also, the idea of views is just a bunch of concepts, which are not really existing anyway. So, different perspective on that. Yeah, that's a great perspective, actually, because when one has any sort of view, even the view of the Dhamma, there is this idea of 'I'm a Buddhist or I follow the Dhamma and others don't.' So some people might be inclined to teach others, to try to persuade them, and things like that, and that causes quarrels and conflicts. And secondly, even the Dhamma is just a set of different concepts. We have the concept of the Eightfold Path. We have the concept of the Four Noble Truths. We have the concept of Nibbana.

But if one doesn't experience it through direct knowledge as Sariputta had, then all of that doesn't really mean anything until you actually practise. So those are great points. Thank you. Thank you, Delson. I do wonder, is there a method that you would suggest for uprooting some of these strong views? I certainly hold some things very strongly, and they're doing maybe a little bit of damage to my own mental health with what's going on in the world at the moment. Is there a way to let go of these ones by dealing with them specifically themselves, or is it just like a 6R's process when we see it arise?

It is, first and foremost, a 6R's process, which means you're recognizing that there is this view that has arisen, and you know that this view is detrimental to your mental health. This view is detrimental to your progress, or through to your spiritual practice, or whatever it might be, and in understanding that, you let it go. So one has to use discernment, one has to use investigation, to see if the views that you're having are in alignment with this path. So it starts with having the right intention. There's a view that arises which is unwholesome, which is a view of grasping onto things, which is a view of not cultivating loving kindness, which is a view that causes you to resist, causes you to have repulsion towards something, and then that causes you to have craving. Then you have to recognize it and let it go. Now, in day-to-day life, what you need to do, or what would be advisable, is to continually cultivate that mindfulness. So it is really that mindfulness, that careful attention in every moment, that allows the person, or allows the mind, to see if such views are arising.

So if the mind can catch itself before it expresses, from that view, then it can let go and then come back to a more balanced state of mind. Yeah, perfect. Thank you. Thank you. Hi, Delsa. Hello. Hi. It seems like the name Aggivessana is a family name instead of his own name. Is it? Because I see that there are many places the same Aggivessana is coming in with us.

Oh, that's interesting. Yeah. In India, it's quite possible. Like, when I was a child, people used to call me by my family name. Yeah, that's a good point. I mean, there are times where you have, for example, the name that comes up in different suttas and other names like it, so it could just be a family name, or it could be his name, or it could be two different people with the same name. Yeah, I just have a quick comment there. Gotama has a family name. That's right, yeah. So when we say Master Gotama, we could be referring to potentially different people in his lineage, right? So that, I mean, just have a quick comment there.

That was a very seamless presentation and talk between the sutta and the explanation, and at some point I think I hit a very deep spot, but I kind of missed something, so I would appreciate it if you can repeat one particular thing. When you were talking about how a view arises based on having a pleasant feeling, or a neutral feeling, or a painful feeling, I might have missed a few things there. Can you just... Yes. So, with regards to feeling, it can mean sensation, it can mean mental experience, or it could mean experience in general. But the experience one has always arises through one or more of the five physical senses, and the mind interprets that as an experience. Based on that, there is a perception of that feeling as being pleasant or unpleasant or neutral, and from there there is a further perception of having a view towards it. So if there is a pleasant feeling, and one considers that feeling to be self, takes that to be self, then craving can arise.

And from that craving, then clinging to that craving, clinging to that sensory experience, clinging to the view of that sensory experience being self. So when we talk about clinging to views, we're really talking about clinging to views from the traditional sense of eternalism and annihilationism, and also the clinging to views as self in relation to the experience.

So it can be likened to, for example, when a baby or a toddler or a child is on a swing, they really enjoy that swing because it feels good, and they're having a pleasant sensation. They fall off that swing and they hurt themselves. Now there is this fear that arises that if I go onto that swing again, I might get hurt. So there's a view towards it. So these views can also be related to belief systems, to certain kinds of associations, to experiences and memories. And some people associate good things towards feelings or experiences, and from there they will act. So it's still through that conditioning that there is these clinging to views.

Views can mean philosophically a certain type of view or belief, but also, in a large part, associations with experiences. Hello, Jason. Hello. I also have a question regarding the feelings. I guess it's possible that our view about a certain type of feeling also affects the way we perceive the feeling. A quick example: if somebody listens to a really sad song, and they immerse themselves in those sad and emotional, unpleasant feelings, but because they perceive it as good.

So in a way, our perception about a certain type of feeling can change the way we experience the feeling. It can definitely change. Yeah, go ahead, you were... Yeah, it can definitely change. Not taking into example the idea of listening to your sad music, and one does it because actually it feels good, because it's actually releasing certain emotions. So it could be unpleasant in that moment, where one feels sadness, but there is a dependence upon it. There is a craving for it, because it just feels good after having listened to it. There is also, yeah.

Did you want to add something to that one? - Oh no, that was just an agreement. - But there's also, for example, when you take the example of something that happened in your past that was quite pleasant or that was quite painful, new information about that sensation or that memory can alter your perception of that. So for example, if somebody found out that they were adopted, how they take that could be pleasant or unpleasant, dependent upon their memories, dependent upon the new information about those memories. Maybe they were adopted because they didn't come from a good upbringing, and then somebody else adopted them and had basically provided them shelter and food and clothing and upbringing, and so they're grateful for that, but it was dependent upon something that was unpleasant. So views about unpleasant and pleasant can change based on new information.

The great new information could be the Dhamma. For example, you have certain attachments to certain views, but now that you have the Dhamma you let go of all views and associations, all views and all kinds of perceptions of those views. And by doing so you no longer have any attachment to good memories or bad memories. You understand those memories have arisen because of certain causes and conditions. Or maybe you had a memory of, let's say, a parent or an elder who was quite mean-spirited, and might have used harsh speech and things like that. But then when you really contemplate it, and you realize that that parent or that elder who might have spoken harsh things to you, you were not responsible for what they said to you, meaning you were not what they said you were, or the things that they might have said to you. You have wisdom for that and you understand it, and you have compassion towards that, and you realize that they are the owner of their own kamma. So what they did doesn't say that anything

about you, and if you hold on to it, that is your kamma. So having this wisdom, having this understanding, you no longer have hatred or ill will towards that person. Rather, you have compassion, because maybe you then had information that that parent or that elder had abuse in their life, and you realize that this was caused because of their pain. And so you have more forgiveness, more understanding, and you try to heal yourself and that parent or that elder. Views can always change, feelings can always change, and the perceptions towards those feelings can always change. But the difference here in the sutta is talking about is you can feel one thing at a time. So if you have a pleasant feeling, you won't have a painful feeling while you're experiencing that pleasant feeling. And that really is dependent upon your attention as well. So if your attention is on a pleasant feeling, then it won't be on a painful feeling or a neutral feeling, and vice versa. Can we understand this in this way? Like when Buddha was saying that when there is a pleasant feeling,

he can, he stand, he will be attached to that pleasant feeling, right? So, but in the case of Aggivessana, how come this view arises in the beginning, even before he came to the Buddha? He got this view. Is he referring to that, something like he heard this view in the past, that holding to no view is good.

And after listening to that view, he got interested in that view and developed this attachment to that view, and the reason why this started for him was when he heard this view for the first time and there was this pleasant feeling, and that pleasant feeling led to this whole attachment for him. So can we understand this in this way? Yes, that's a very good analysis, actually, because if you look at it, the way you can interpret it is the way that Aggivessana is saying, that I hold, I mean, I have this view, or I say that nothing is acceptable to me. You have to understand that Dighanaka, or Aggivessana, came from the skeptical school of philosophy. So yes, the feeling of understanding, or of thinking of this view, when he was learning it from Sanjaya, who was actually the founder of the school, he then took that to be the view and he became proud of it. So that's a very good point.

Sanjaya was his teacher. That's right. Sanjaya was the teacher of him as well as Sariputta and Moggallana before they joined the Buddha's school of god. So before they became monks under the Buddha's dispensation, they learned from Sanjaya, who was the founder of the Ajhana school, which is skeptical. Yes. And he decided that he didn't want to follow Buddha because he had a lot of followers. Yes, that is a funny story. Yes, he was embarrassed and he said, if I followed the Buddha, then what does that mean for me, you know, as a teacher? So he did not follow them, and then I think 50 of the followers of Sanjaya then became followers and the other 50. Yes. In continuation of the earlier question by Mr. Savankumar, particularly in this sutta, the feelings and factors are maximum included in this sutta, and what we follow, Anupada Sutta, fetters were silent in Anupada Sutta.

According to feelings, these fetters slowly, one after one, got removed. This is what is expressed in this sutta, I feel. Please explain. So Sariputta started to understand the clinging to views as being one of the ways that the tendencies arose, and so there is the tendency towards views. He understood that having attachment towards feeling causes craving. So yes, it can be said that one by one the fetters were destroyed as he began to really contemplate and understand. And ultimately, in the case of the Anupada Sutta as well, if you look at it, you could say that he understood this after cessation of perception and feeling, wisdom, which is the understanding that this whole process is impersonal.

So in that way also he destroyed the fetters, because he did not hold on to any experience of seeing the links of dependent origination. He didn't hold on to that relief he might have felt, by not holding on to it and craving for it. The fetter of craving was destroyed by not identifying with it. The craving of conceit was destroyed, and when he understood that this was the way towards Nibbana, he had destroyed ignorance as well. So in both cases one could say that this is what happened, but you can understand it in the context of meditation through the Anupada Sutta, where if you take that relief to be self, or if you identify with it, there is still a better conceit. But he didn't even have that. He understood each element of each jhana, as it's listed out in the Anupada Sutta, from the five aggregates to the factors of mentality, materiality, to the enlightenment factors present, and to the factors of jhana present, all being impermanent, all being impersonal, and that is why he says there was something beyond, until he finally

got to cessation of perception and feeling, from which he saw the links of dependent origination. So in either case the fetters would have been destroyed, and they're always destroyed whenever one lets go of any kind of craving, or they are eroded whenever one lets go of any kind of craving, lets go of any kind of identification, and continues to exercise and utilize the whole noble truths in the way we understand them through the context of right efforts and the 6R's process. Thank you. Somebody has written a question here. It says, my question is

may it happen that various siddhis developed for a practitioner without him having an understanding of payment in terms of the Buddha Dhamma? I'm thinking of someone like Neem Karoli Baba. Oh, absolutely, yes. In yoga, for example, in the Yoga Sutras, there's a whole section in the third chapter where all of the different ways of developing the different psychic powers and the different siddhis are discussed. In that it's discussed in the context of using samadhi as a way of developing psychic powers, like telepathy, psychic powers like understanding the laws of nature,

being able to you know have multiple bodies and all kinds of things so the kinds of uh cities that are mentioned in the suttas are also mentioned in the yoga suttas they're mentioned elsewhere as well so there is an understanding that these cities are not dependent upon wisdom they are dependent upon mental development they're dependent upon samadhi and that can be right samadhi or wrong samadhi and one can attain them because of the the effort that is used the different factors that are involved as we understand in the buddhist context the iripadas the four aspects which are used as a way to develop the psychic powers i can't remember them from memory because there's so many different factors but i will say that in the same way as you have it in the buddhist context even in the yoga sutras and in other schools of thought you can develop these cities but these cities don't uh are not dependent upon wisdom and don't necessarily create wisdom or enlighten a person that's why in the case of the buddha's dispensation

we have the understanding that there are all of these cities all of these indies but the and the uh and the six higher knowledges within that which is a three-fold knowledge but the highest of them all which is the destruction of the thames are not discussed in the yoga sutras are not discussed elsewhere because the context of understanding and wisdom in the buddha dhamma is different uh as to what the yoga sutras understands as wisdom hi delson i have one questions you know uh holding on to the views can be some very subtle to recognize at one point you know in the beginning is yeah like your views are like contemplation is good enough but sometimes it's not that easy anymore because you don't even know you are hanging on to it that's that's my biggest problem so what would be the best way to recognize it like do you have any suggestions yeah when you feel tension in the head when you feel tightness now you know there's some grasping going like if somebody says something about a view that you might be holding on to how you react and how you respond

will tell you if there is the attachment yes and if you can recognize it then you can let it go yeah especially comes to the dharma right like this is you know you're attaching to something that it's really difficult for me to starting to recognize until you know i i will be you know talking to a teacher like yourself or you know then i realize oh okay i'm holding on to this so yeah okay thank you okay we'll wait for a few more seconds see if there's any last questions

I have a question, Delson. Yes. And the extension to what Kim was asking, and what I'm thinking is, at a higher level of attainment we talk about letting go of conceit, and also there is that element of hanging on to the Dhamma. Here, would it be right to understand that hanging on to this kind of view is also a type of conceit? Because it's so subtle that it takes to that level of higher attainment to let it go. So I just wanted to understand, is there a difference between letting go of conceit in terms of the five aggregates, versus the view and hanging on to the Dhamma itself? Uh, you could say they are one and the same, in the sense of when you take a look at the Dhamma, there are still the five aggregates experiencing the Dhamma. For example, when you have a certain understanding that comes about through the Dhamma, it happens through the five aggregates. It happens through feeling, through understanding, through perception.

There is attachment there in the way of conceit. That's why the Buddha talks about where, if there is relishing in the Dhamma, one would be an anagami. So in some cases the Buddha talks about it in that context. Really, for the anagami, the case here is really looking at conceit in relation to, yes, the five aggregates, but also in relation to the experience that private aggregates are having. So in this case it could be the Dhamma, it could just be other sensory experiences

or mental experiences. But it is that conceit. For example, there might be a holding on to view in relation to the Dhamma, where one has pride for the Dhamma, one has attachment for holding on to and saying that, no, this is wrong. This is how it should be. The Dhamma says it in this way, and that is wrong. And so there is this tension that might arise in mind when you compare. Remember that comparing is also known as mana in Pali, and mana has that dual meaning of conceit and measuring or comparing. So it does boil down to that mana that one needs to really let go of as an anagami. Thank you

I think we can share some merit. May suffering ones be suffering free, and the fear-struck, fearless beings. May the grieving shed our 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, devas and nagas of almighty power, share this merit of ours. May they long protect the Buddha's dispensation.