Mar 7 2021 - SN 22.86 - With Anuradha - Self and Not-Self and the Four Noble Truths

So I assume most of you are probably in North America somewhere, so good morning to you all. And I see some people also from India and the East, so good evening to you as well. So I'm going to start with the Samyutta Nikaya. This is called Anuradha. This is an interesting sutta because it is really related to different kinds of viewpoints, and specifically with regards to viewpoints related to the self. So what we're talking about really is the one of the first three fetters, which is sakkaya, which means the belief in a personality or the belief in a personal sense of self that is independent and permanent.

There are different viewpoints related to that, and related to the world, the universe. Sometimes it's referred to as whether the Tathagata exists or doesn't exist, or he both exists and doesn't exist, or whether he neither does exist nor does not exist. So there's this tetralemma, they call it. We're going to be talking about that and discussing it through this sutta. He uses the term Tathagata, but as you'll see in the sutta, the Tathagata is just another name for the Buddha, but it's not in reference to anything or any one that is a permanent self. So you could replace the word Tathagata with self, or with the arahant, or with the world, or whatever it might be. But specifically here, for the purposes of understanding the fetter of self-view, of personality belief, we'll be looking at it from that context.

There are different ways of understanding the different types of self-view. In the Abhidhamma there are about 20 different types of self-view, which you can still find in the suttas like this one, as well as in the Culavedalla. They have a little bit of a difference. We can discuss that later, but for the most part they're pretty much the same in terms of the kinds of views related to the self and in regards to the five aggregates. So with that sort of an introduction, let me start with reading, and I'll give you the explanation as we continue on. One occasion, the Blessed One was dwelling at Sala in the Great Wood, in the hall with the peaked roof. Now on that occasion the Venerable Anuradha was dwelling in a forest hut not far from the Blessed One. So this is Anuradha, not to be mistaken with Anuruddha. Anuruddha was one of the prime arahants

and disciples of buddha and he was known for his clairvoyance his ability to see into different realms of existence and read into people's minds and things like that in fact during the buddha's prayer nirvana he was able to discern with that clairvoyance whether the buddha had passed into praying nirvana or not and actually was able to record the buddha going through each of the jhanas uh in the forward direction and then in the reverse direction and then finally going into the forward jhana and then taking

uh pray nibbana as his object and then the dissolution of the five advocates so here this is a different person altogether and his name is anuradha so it says then a number of wanderers of other sects approach the venerable anuradha and exchange greetings with him when they had concluded their talk uh their greetings and cordial talk they sat down to one side and said to him friend anurada when a tathagat is describing a tathagat the highest type of person the supreme person the attainer of the supreme attainment here they've already made the mistake of assuming the target as a person which is not the case as you'll see he describes him in terms of these four cases

the target exists after death or the target does not exist after death or the target both exists and does not exist after death or the target neither exists nor does not exist so this is the tetral lemma that we were talking about so here the target exists after death that is a eternalist view the idea that there is a a life beyond death that is the same sense of self it is a soul that continues on after death the the dog that does not exist after death is the view of annihilationism which is to say that the self is equated with the body and so when the body is dissolved at the point of death so is the self the tathagat both exists and does not exist after that.

So this is, according to the notes, the commentary in this, it's regarding a syncretic view which is trying to basically appease both viewpoints in saying that it is a type of eternalism. Or the Tathagat neither exists nor does not exist after that. and this is more of a skeptical view this is uh in ancient india there was an entire group of people known as the anyana and that's really the skeptics the indian logical skeptics and they were also known as evasive skeptics and sometimes known as eel wrigglers in the sutras because of their inability to really stand to one point and really you know have some kind of a view that they they they talked about or professed.

So here Anuradha is trying to explain to them that none of these point to a sense of self. And none of these are valid in terms of trying to examine the nature of a Tathagat or examine the nature of a self. And he's saying there's a view apart from this. He says that the way to describe him is apart from these four cases.

But that is only partially right, assuming that Anuradha is talking about a fifth case. But we'll see that that fifth case is something different entirely towards the end. When this was said, those wanderers said to the Venerable Anuradha, this bhikkhu must be newly ordained, not long gone forth. Or if he is an elder, he must be an incompetent fool.

So the wanderers of these different sects were obviously considering Anuradha to be a monk who had just newly been ordained, and so they assumed that he didn't know what he was talking about completely, and that surely the Buddha must have one of these viewpoints in his philosophy and in his dhamma. Then those wanderers of other sects, having denigrated the Venerable Anuradha with the terms newly ordained and full, rose from their seats and departed.

But obviously the views that they had were inconsistent with the dharma with the buddha's dispensation so their assumptions were based on what they knew and understood as reality but was still under the uh conditional uh lens of reality then not long after those wanderers had left it occurred to the venerable anuradhan If those wanderers of other sects should question me further, how should I answer if I am to state what has been said by the Blessed One and not misrepresent him with what is contrary to fact? And how should I explain in accordance with the Dhamma so that no reasonable consequence of my assertion would give ground for criticism?

So he has a very valid line of thought. He wants to know what would be the best way to respond to questions like this. And so he goes to the Buddha. Then the Venerable Anuradha approached the Blessed One, paid homage to him, sat down to one side and reported to the Blessed One everything that had happened, asking, if those wanderers of other sects should question me further how should i answer so that no reasonable consequence of my assertion would give ground for criticism and now the buddha response he says what do you think anuradha is form permanent or impermanent impermanent venerable sir so form is impermanent you see we always see this in some of the sutras regarding the five aggregates as being impermanent or permanent.

But what does that mean exactly in terms of form, feeling, perception, formations and consciousness? Impermanence is really the understanding of anicca. And anicca means something that is not permanent, something that is transient and always in flux something that is always changing changing due to external causes and conditions or even internal causes and conditions like in the case of the body the body continues to age even though we don't really recognize it but if you look at it we were born as infants and you know went through the stage of toddlers went through the stage of childhood and adolescence and adulthood

and eventually we will all grow old and eventually the body will deteriorate and decay after death so the form that we see whether it's our own body or form in relation to anything else because there is another questionnaire that the buddha puts forward in regards to form which is form near and far past future or present so he talks about form in relation to not just this body but all forms whether you're talking about the earth itself the planet itself rocks whether you're talking about the form of animals and other beings whether you're talking about the form of stars and so on everything decays everything deteriorates everything goes into is in a state of

flux so he says it's impermanent and so he says therefore seeing thus uh he understands there is no more for this state of being so this is this has been an abbreviated version but the full version of that what he's talking about is if form feeling perception formations and consciousness if those are impermanent would one consider them to be a source of happiness because a source of happiness would be something that is unending something that doesn't deteriorate something that doesn't decay something that continues on and gives you you know satisfying

happiness happiness that continues to satisfy no matter the circumstances so in this case the form feeling perception formations and consciousness anuradha describes as being suffering not happiness not a cause for happiness because they are impermanent so he then the buddha says if what is impermanent and suffering should it be right to call that as uh myself my my me mine and myself should it be considered to be a self should be considered to be my essence my independent imperman permanent sense of self and it cannot be because if what is impermanent is supposedly uh you know going to be decayed then that can't be considered to be a permanent self if something that is a cause for suffering should be considered to be self that would be inaccurate because a self always is looking for happiness for itself that's the self is independent but the five aggregates are arisen because of causes and conditions

So any self attached to that would be impersonal, would be impermanent, and would not be considered to be independent. Excuse me. So he goes through this questionnaire with the five aggregates, and then he finally says, knowing so that these five aggregates are impersonal, are impermanent, and not worth holding on to, one lets go of the clinging to those five aggregates. Having not clung, their mind does not become agitated. Their mind, becoming not agitated, becomes peaceful, knowing reality as it is. And so there is that hallmark statement, which is that birth is destroyed, what had to be done has been done, the spiritual life has been completed, and there is no more for the state of being. So the Buddha goes through this as one aspect, where he says all five aggregates now we understand as impermanent, we understand as a cause for suffering, and we understand as impersonal. Now that we have this foundation, let's look at the next part of the questionnaire.

He says, "What do you think, Anuradha? Do you regard form as the Tathagata? No, Venerable Sir. Do you regard feeling, perception, formations, consciousness as the Tathagata? No, Venerable Sir. So here is the first set of views. In this case, we will consider Tathagata as self. So he says, do you regard self as form or feeling, perception, formations, or consciousness?

So that's equating the self as one of these five aggregates, and that cannot be the case, as we already know that each of the five aggregates are impermanent, suffering, and not self. So these first five, this set of five views, has been understood as invalid. It cannot be self. Then he says, what do you think, or rather, do you regard the self as in form? No, Venerable Sir. Do you regard... So now he's talking about the self as in form, meaning that there is a sense of self within form. There is a sense of self within feeling, there is a sense of self within perception, there is a sense of self within formations or consciousness. So the first set of views was self as the five aggregates, which would be invalid. Now, if the five aggregates as we understand them are impermanent, suffering, and not self, you can't say that the self is within any of the five aggregates either, because they are inherently impermanent. So that's the second set of views.

So then he says, do you regard the Tathagata as apart from form, as apart from feeling, perception, consciousness, and formations? So here is the third set of views. He's saying, do you regard that the Tathagata, or as we understand the self, is apart from form, so independent of the five aggregates? This is a view of what will be known as basically brahman, nickel brahman, like the brahman view, the atman brahman view. So basically the idea that the self is apart from any aspect of the body and its attributes. There is an atma, there is a soul that is functioning

outside of the parameters of the five aggregates, and they are controlling the five aggregates. That can't be the case either, because the idea of a self then would be dependent upon if they are apart or independent from the five aggregates. When the five aggregates are dissolved, what is left is this idea of the atman. But the idea of the atman is also based within thought. It's based within a concept that is rooted in the mind. The atman cannot be... if there is an atman, if there is a soul, it cannot be experienced through the mentality and materiality. Anything that is not able to be experienced through mentality and materiality, in that case, cannot be considered to be something that is true or valid, because within the Buddha's dispensation, everything that one experiences through conditions and causes happens through mentality and materiality.

So the concept of a soul, the concept of itself outside of the five aggregates, still exists within the mentality. It still exists as an idea through which the mind experiences it. So it's still this conditional thought that is there. So then he says, what do you think, Anuradha? Do you regard form, feeling, perception, volitional formations, and consciousness taken together as the Tathagata? No, Venerable Sir. So here he's saying that sense of self could be made up of all the five aggregates together. So when you add up all the five aggregates, the sum of that is the self.

But then that means the self is dependent upon these aggregates, which are already known to be impermanent. So if they fall apart, so does the self. But the idea of the permanent self does not exist on that basis. Then he says, what do you think, Anuradha? Do you regard the Tathagata as one who is without form, without feeling, without perception, without formations, without consciousness?

No, Venerable Sir. So this is again back to that Atman Brahman idea, but now it's talking about the self not as only apart from the five aggregates, but without any of these five aggregates. In the case of when the idea of the self was apart from these five aggregates, the self could slow control these five aggregates as a soul, as an atman. But if it is without the five aggregates, then it's considered to be Brahman. In this case, Brahman would refer to a cosmic oversoul.

And again, the idea of the eternal consciousness, a consciousness that is all pervading, is still rooted within the concepts of the mind and can only be experienced through the processes of the mind. Because of that, it is still conditional, and because it is still conditional and conditioned, it cannot be considered to be an independent sense of self. It's just an idea. It's just an experience one can have, especially at the point of infinite space, and infinite consciousness, but specifically at the point of infinite space, where there is this all pervasive sense of infinity, of just no body, no nothing, but just this spaciousness. A lot of times the experience of this Brahman is also experienced in that same way, but that's still within the conditioned reality. Once we understand this, we understand that even the first four jhanas and the ayatanas, the realms of infinite space, infinite consciousness, nothingness, and neither perception nor non-perception, are all conditioned. They arise because of a series of causes and conditions.

And they are also impermanent. They are also not worth holding on to, because they are impermanent, and they are also considered to be non-self. So now we have these four sets of viewpoints. We have, first, the first set of viewpoints, that we understand now that the self cannot be equated to any of the five aggregates. The self cannot be considered to be within any of the five aggregates. It cannot be considered to be apart from any of the five aggregates. It cannot be considered to be taken together as being created from the five aggregates together, and it can't be taken as being separate and something that is without the five aggregates. So after understanding, first and foremost, the impermanent nature of the five aggregates, just by understanding that alone

just not even looking at the other two marks of existence, you can apply this to those viewpoints and realize none of those viewpoints are valid when you test them against the understanding that the five aggregates are impermanent. So when you do it with all three characteristics, you realize that these viewpoints cannot hold. So then the Buddha says, but Anuradha, when the Tathagata is not apprehended by you as real and actual here in this very life, is it fitting for you to declare, friends, when a Tathagata is describing a Tathagata, the highest type of person, the supreme person, the attainer of the supreme attainment, he describes him apart from these four cases: that the Tathagata exists after death, that the Tathagata doesn't exist after death, that the Tathagata both exists and doesn't exist after death, or the Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist after death? So basically he's saying, after having taken a look and understood

all of these different viewpoints, and understanding that they are invalid through the perspective of seeing the five aggregates as they really are, the idea of a self cannot be apprehended. The idea of the Tathagata cannot be apprehended. All it is is a series of formations. So the idea of the Buddha talking and speaking and teaching, it's nothing more than just a series of formations and causes and conditions that create the wisdom, that create the understanding that is provided to the other monks and to other bhikkhus, and so on. So what he's saying is, you cannot say that there is a Tathagata or there isn't a Tathagata. What you can say is there are causes and conditions in every moment that create the sense of self, that create the sense of... but you cannot apprehend it. You cannot capture it in just one moment, because it's a series of flowing formations, causes and conditions. So this is what Anuradha says: "No, Venerable Sir." So the Tathagata says, "Good, good, Anuradha. Formerly, Anuradha, and also now, I make known just suffering and the cessation of suffering." So what he's talking about is

if one were to ask the Buddha about the existence of a self or the non-existence of a self, or the other two parts of the tetralemma, or about the world or anything else, the Buddha is not concerned with that. He will not answer in those ways, because they presuppose the concept of a self tied to something or another. But having seen dependent origination, having understood how dependent origination arises and creates the causes and conditions for this mentality materiality, for the experience of the five aggregates, and for the understanding of how the self is made up, to create suffering, to cause suffering to this impermanent self, the sense of self, he is saying that that's all I discuss, that's all I teach. It is this Dhamma of dependent origination, and it can all be encapsulated into the formula of the Four Noble Truths. Here he encapsulates it even further into two parts: suffering and the cessation of suffering. So what he's saying is, all I teach, as I was teaching before, is

what is suffering, what are the causes of suffering or how the suffering arises, what is the cessation of suffering, and how does one get to the cessation of suffering? That is it. That is the Four Noble Truths. So that's basically what the gist of the sutta is. - Thank you, Delson. Any one question, please? Thank you, Delson, for a very interesting read. I have a question about the view of the Atman.

So is the argument against the Atman not so much whether one exists or not, but it's more like, if it sounded like you were saying, if I can think about this concept then this concept is no good? So since I think about what an Atman is, it means that whatever it is, it must be conditioned because I can think about it, and so then this is no good. And is that why perhaps they never describe Nibbana? They just say it's a thing, but we don't describe it, because then it would also fall under, it would also be susceptible to the same argument raised against the concept of an Atman. Does that make sense? Yeah, it makes sense. Yeah. You know, Nibbana is also known as nippapanca, which is essentially non-proliferation

or non-conceptual mind. So even the non-conceptual mind is a concept, so that's why it is beyond the words, beyond the thoughts of a mind. Nirvana goes beyond the mind, and so it can be understood in the sense of quenching the fires of delusion, hatred and greed, which is a good way of understanding what a mind without craving would be like. But the actual experience of Nibbana as such is beyond words, beyond concept. Right? And so, but the concept of Atman falls within words and within concepts, I guess, and that's why it's rejected. It's rejected for one reason, but secondly, the experience of the Atman as people have experienced it, or have described their experience

still falls into that whole conceptual mindset. So when you are anything that you are experiencing in the way of mind is still a feeling and it's still a perception, and all feeling and perception is conditioned by the fact that it is happening within the mind and the body. Yeah, I see. So the Atman is more like an experience, it's not like the Christian idea of a soul. Yeah. So in Vedanta, for example, there is the idea that the Atman is Brahman, so the Atman and the universe, the soul and the universe, are one and the same thing. So that's the other part of it, where it's this cosmic soul, but that too falls within the array of conditioned thought in the way of mentality, materiality

So if you were to talk about the experience of an Atman or experience of a Brahman, even the Vedas or even the teachings of Vedanta say you can't describe Atman outside of, you know, everyday work. You can't describe it outside of concepts. It's just within the realm of concepts. That's why the Buddha didn't specifically say that there is an Atman or there isn't. Nothing. But every time anybody proclaims that there is an Atman, they are saying it because they're saying it from their understanding, through their mind, through the experience in the mind. So the soul in that sense, I guess the Christian soul, the Christian concept of a soul, is that it is eternal, and so that it exists beyond

the dissolution of the body. Which the Buddha is referring to here when they talk about the first viewpoint, which is of eternalism. You can't say that the soul is any of these five aggregates. So whenever he talks about the soul or the idea of a self, he's always relating it to the five aggregates, because this is really the totality of one's experience. It's a great way of summarizing the experience that one has in this world, whether it's related to the body, it's related to feeling in the sense of sensory experiences, mental experiences, whether it's related to perception, which is referring to memory and knowledge and learning and concepts, or whether it's formations, which are basically the impressions that one has in the mind based on previous choices one was taking, so behavioral patterns and things like that, and consciousness, which again, consciousness here referring to the awareness of something, the awareness of a sensory experience

Thank you. So, one question, please. The Tathagata cannot be described after his death. It is only in the shape of cessation of suffering, but not even a feeling of cessation of feeling also not mentioned. Next, coming to these words, particularly Dhamma, kamma, nibbana or anapana, all these things were before the Buddha also. When you mentioned about the Hindu literature, Upanishads and others, they were all quoting these words in a different way. Yeah. But Nibbana, what we say in our discourses, is different from their Nibbana, Nirvana. Yeah. For that matter, how come these same words are differing

in Hinduism and also the actual Buddha Tipitaka? Yeah, please explain. Yeah. So the Upanishads, there are different understandings of when they were written. Some people say it was around the same time as the Buddha, but there are a few Upanishads, like the Chandogya Upanishad and the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, that were written sometime before the Buddha. So yeah, in there they describe the concept of the Atma. They describe the understanding of Brahman. They describe Om and all sorts of things that are related to Hinduism, and that then evolved into what we know as modern Vedanta. They do have a concept of Nirvana. They call it Brahma, and sometimes they call it Brahma-nirvana

or in the understanding there is that the different conditions of the mind and the body are totally let go of, and there is a fusion, there is this joining of Atma and Brahma. So they call the Brahmalina also, one gets dissolved into Brahma, for example. So the Buddha, you just mentioned that the Buddha was there even before, but we have to understand that the Buddha in this case is the title first one who rediscovers the path in this way, who rediscovers the four noble truths, and who rediscovers the eightfold path. So there is one thing, according to this whole sort of complex matrix of Buddhism and the understanding of suttas and everything else, there is one thing that seems to be always there, but the difference is it's not known of until a Buddha is there to explain it, and that is the process of dependent origination. So it's not that when the Buddha arose

that that was the only time dependent origination was there. A Paccekabuddha would also find the same thing. The understanding of dependent origination, although they wouldn't be out there discussing it, they would just have the understanding for themselves. The Sammasambuddha, which is the Buddha as we know him, Gotama, and the other Buddhas before him, just rediscovered the same thing, the same information, which is understanding how dependent origination works. So the understanding of dependent origination is definitely different from how cognition is understood in the Upanishads.

For example, in the Upanishads there is the understanding of the Atman as the central force, and it's like a charioteer, and it's controlling the five horses, which are the senses. But here in Buddhism there's no central force, there's no central idea of a controller. The way the Buddha understood how the mechanics of cognition work was that it just arose because of contact with the six sense bases. And so he understood that once you understand this, you let go of your attachments to anything considered to be self, because he understood that these different five aggregates are not considered to be self. In the Upanishads also they say the body is not self. They have the concept of neti neti, which is the body is not self, the mind is not self, the organs aren't self, the senses are not self, and so on and so forth. But they still come to this understanding that there is still some kind of eternal self, which is known as, for example, sat-chit-ananda, which is this existence, consciousness and bliss. They describe it in different ways, but essentially it all is referring to this idea of Brahman

It is the substratum of existence. It is this idea that from that Brahman all things then arise, but the Buddha never professed that what he said was things arise because of causes and conditions. So the Nibbana that we experience, or that is experienced, the Nibbana that is the unconditioned, goes beyond the conditioned reality. It is something that is outside, so to speak, of conditioned reality.

The experience itself is the seeing of the links of dependent origination, letting go of the fetters, letting go of the conditions, and coming to that state of the unconditioned. And so to describe it you would have to describe it within conditioned reality, you would have to describe it within concepts and words. So the difficulty lies there, in trying to bring what is unconditioned into a conditioned reality, trying to bring it out. But the best way to understand Nibbana, and there are a lot of different ways Nibbana is described, as best as possible, in a lot of poetic ways and a lot of different descriptions, but the best, most foundational understanding of Nirvana is the quenching of the fires of greed, of hatred and delusion, which means one has completely let go of craving, one has completely let go of aversion, and let go of identification. So that's why for the Buddha, he was not concerned about the idea of the Atma or the Brahman. He was more concerned about suffering, mental suffering. His whole path when he

went forth was to find out why do people suffer, how do they suffer, and how can one relieve oneself, so to speak, from suffering. So that's how he came to his understanding of reality, which is the four noble truths. Thank you. Thank you. Sorry to just jump back in here, just to follow up on the question. So because the Buddha is concerned with suffering and ending suffering, worrying about, is there a self, there's no self, is there an Atman, is there no Atman, is there a ghost in the machine, is there a soul? Even if I got an answer to those questions, that's not going to end my suffering. So they're almost irrelevant to ending suffering. Is that a way of understanding? Yes, that's a very good way of saying it, because that's essentially why he didn't respond to these kinds of questions, because it was not a means to be able to experience the end of suffering

Somebody has their hand raised. Hi. Um, hello. Thank you, Nelson. I was wondering, uh, why can you see me? I have a kind of unstable connection. I'm sorry to have my camera on, but can you hear me all right? Yes. Um, I was wondering why we couldn't just say, I don't know. I don't know. What would be a problem with that answer? I don't know if there is a self or not a self, and or, or even with the argument of saying yes, that you know everything is in a flux and in a flow, and the whole discourse on, you know, whether there is or is not a self, what is the problem with the answer? This I that thinks it is a self doesn't know, because that's essentially what I understand. This I that has this concept of a self really does not know, and this I is what's trying to articulate, and it doesn't know. So this I that's articulating is saying, trying to tell this other I, there's no self

It doesn't know, the other I doesn't know, nobody knows, so saying I don't know seems like that would be quite appropriate? Yeah, it would seem like it's quite appropriate. But in fact, the Buddha had also talked about this in reference to some of the questions related to being the unanswerable questions. With the mere fact that, yes, one can say, I don't know. But then that idea of I don't know, it also lies in the territory of there is a self that doesn't know, if there is a self.

So he tried to answer in a way to say that, okay, yes, there is a self, but that self is conditioned. That idea of a self is conditioned, so there is a self in every moment through the process of dependent origination. So he was answering it from that context: that even if one's supposed to say I don't know, that I, that doesn't know, still there is an arising of that I, whether one knows it or doesn't know. So his understanding was that the I that arises comes through this process of nama-rupa, mentality-materiality. It comes through the mind and the factors of the mind, it comes through the form and the consciousness that is rooted to this form, to this body. The processes that arise through contact and feeling create this idea of a self, and from that idea of a self arises the craving, because once you have the concept of a self it causes you to personalize things. It causes the mind to relate everything through that concept of conceit, this concept of I am. And as soon as that happens, the craving arises, because now if something good was to happen there is this identification.

Once you personalize and identify with it, then all your actions are conditioned by them. So the Buddha is just trying to point out that he doesn't want you to figure out if there's a self or not a self, but he wants you to figure out: yes, there is suffering through conditions. Find out what those conditions are and let them go, and then experience the cessation of suffering. So it sounds like, um, it sounds like the reason he wants to teach that is because if I think that there's a self that's trying, that can be released from suffering, in other words it's a comp, the self accomplishes this understanding of being. This I understands the concept of dependent origination.

And then it has a sort of feeling that it's figured it out, there's an I that's figured it out, in other words. So if one said they didn't know, then they'd be open to saying, oh, the I conquered this idea of no self, and yeah, I think I understand it. Does that make sense? Is my understanding right? It makes sense, and I would want to bring it to the context of the understanding of the four levels of awakening in that case. Because when you talk about the four levels of awakening, we're talking about the sotapanna, the stream enterer, the sakadagami, the once-returner, the anagami, the non-returner, and the arahant, the one who has basically perfected this whole path.

So when it comes to the stream enterer, what happens in the case of a stream enterer is they understand through the process of insight consciousness. When you are in insight consciousness, you start to see the conditioning of consciousness. So you see that there are these conditions arising and passing away. Because of that, you start to let go of this idea of a self. You're no longer concerned about the idea of a self, you're no longer worried, or your mind is deluded by notions of self or not self or anything. It just lets go of the concepts of self, but there is still an inherent sense of self still there. This is called conceit, it's called mana, and probably, and this conceit continues on until the sakadagami, until the anagami. That's why, if one has experienced cessation and one experiences that nirvana, and then the post-cessation experience of the relief

that relief itself feels so good. There is a self attached there. There is this I that I feel this relief, and I feel amazing, and I really like this and I enjoy this. Immediately now there's a sense of self there. So this self-accomplishment also is there, until the point where one realizes even this idea of attaching the self to this relief doesn't make sense, because that relief came about because of contact with the nirvana element. And if you continue to take that as self, there's still a conceit there. If you let go of even that and see that as arising because of causes and conditions,

then you have weakened the fetter of conceit, and completely let that go, and now anything that you understand through the mind, your experience with the world, is seen as just impersonal causes and conditions. So there is another sutta called the Kemaka Sutta, yeah, the Kemaka Sutta, and we might discuss that another time. But in that sutta you have the old monk Kemaka, who's quite weak and ill, and he's staying somewhere else, and these group of monks are asking Kemaka if he has attained arahant, and he says he hasn't, even though he understands that the five aggregates are not self, even though he understands that the five aggregates are impersonal, because he said he still has the sense of I am within the five aggregates. So as he explains it, he then, for himself and then the other people listening, realize what he's talking about: the five aggregates being arisen because of causes and conditions. And so why take what is just a series of causes and conditions as me, mine, myself?

And just see it for what it is. In that seeing, even that seeing, even that perception, is impersonal. So it's really like the Matrix: you're just seeing all the codes of reality arising, which are the causes and conditions, but you're not referring it in the sense of self. You're not referring it as a self or outside of self or anything like that. And because of that, they attain arahant. Thank you. I would like to ask you one question, one more. Yeah.

they did not spell out properly as like how you are explaining in the same way. And for the last 2000, 3000, 2500 years, people have not come out with proper way of writing the books. Including Yogava Sista, it speaks about that self only. finally it will not conclude properly like this this is the fallacy in our literature that's what i feel ancient literature could you please explain anything about it it's out of the syllabus you know in reference to ramana maharishi he discussed the idea of this i thought he said if you look at the thought of the eye and you go behind that then you will experience just the self so you still have that concept of this pure consciousness this pure

idea of consciousness being self. In the Yoga Vasistha, they try to bring in Buddhist ideas. They try to bring in the ideas of understanding things as self and not self, but in the very end, even there, Rama, when he listens to Vasistha, concludes that all there is, is I am. So there is actually a greater sense of I am: I am that I am, I am that I am. The whole universe is me and all of that. But all that whole experience that you have of I am is still within the conditions of the mind. So when you go to the Brahmajala Sutta, the different kinds of views that the Buddha talks about, he says the idea of a consciousness that is eternal can only be experienced through mind, and anything that is experienced in mind is conditioned, which means that it is subject to change. So if you talk about the sense of self, the sense of an eternal consciousness, you're saying that it's always there, but is it actually always there? Because you're only experiencing it there for that time of being, for that time of experience.

When your attention goes away from it, is it still there or is it not there? You go back to it and it's a different experience. So it's not an all-pervasive experience. It's just that experience of consciousness tied to that experience. So it's like an iota, it's just fragmented, but it looks like it's flowing, and so it feels like it's all-pervasive. Thank you. Thank you very much. I have a small question about when you are doing the meditation. We realize, okay, feelings come, it's disappeared, and the perceptions come, it's disappeared, like that. When you understand in the process, when you're in investigation, the awareness is watching all these things.

And nibbana means awareness also vanished in that itself, even though in the process we didn't identify the non-self. If the awareness goes away, the full, there is no self, the conditions happening, you know, something like that. Yeah. So you're talking about the awareness that you see when you're watching how these things arise, that awareness. Yeah, that awareness is tied to that experience. So the experience that you have, whatever it might be, in your mind or just now, you're experiencing it through one or more of the six sense bases, which includes the mind. So when you're meditating, you have these different experiences that you're having, but each experience is like a frame in a movie, and each frame is a frame of consciousness that you're experiencing. And because it's fluid, it all looks like it's just one thing, but actually, every microsecond, you have millions of different frames of this consciousness. Now, when you have the cessation of perception and feeling, that is the nirodha samapatti. One experiences the nirodha, one experiences letting go of all formations.

There, there is no experience at all. You can't say there is an experience. There is no experience in the sense that there's nobody there to experience that cessation. You only know it after you come out of it. Like, you only... there is no consciousness, there is no consciousness there, in the no feelings, no perceptions, there is no consciousness. There's no consciousness that you... yeah, that stage. Yeah, that means there is no person to watch that they are. It itself, uh, you... you dropped off for a little bit. Can you repeat what you said?

Yeah, that, then, there itself we can recognize the non-self. You can recognize the not... So there is no feeling and perception. So when you have the cessation of perception, feeling and consciousness, there's absolutely no idea that there was a cessation at all, except after you come out of it. When I say when you come out of it, what I'm saying is, what happens is the formations arise. The formations arise and they're completely pure. It may, it has made contact on an element. So what is being seen, because the mind is so sharp, the mindfulness has become so clear, is seeing how the concept of self arises, the idea of self being creative, so long as there is this personalizing going on. But if no personalizing is going on, then all you're seeing is just this series of conditions that create the concept of cognition, that create the experience of cognition, that create the experience of consciousness. So the not-self, the understanding of not-self, is solidified when you see that there's no involvement of a you.

In the flowing, in the post-cessation event. Okay, thank you so much. Hi there. I have a similar question. I want to know if we are, like, in the process of... the meditation practice is trying to... this is the concept. As far as I have been trying to tap in and understand what the sutta and many suttas are about, like the non-I, right, is to get to a concept or a non-concept of like, and the practice also, like, to get rid of a concept. So it's something... can I, my own interpretation, I just would like your advice and guidance on this thought, whether it's correct. Is the neither-nor? Like, it's neither-nor, is everything neither-nor, there is nothing, even the concept is neither-nor. So everything we are experiencing is neither-nor. Can I be interpreting it like this way, or is it like... and also, how do we...

understand, to use the sitting to get to a mindset level of such. Can you give me a little bit of... yeah, can you give me a clarity? When you say neither-nor, are you referring to either-nor, meaning that neither there is a self or not a self, neither-nor of anything that has been experienced? Even though the experience itself is also like... first we have to understand that neither-nor of a self, right? That is the concept. But we're trying, it's a conceptual thinking here also, that we are trying to get to the level in the sitting and in the practice that this concept of having a leader, having a concept, is not there. Like, it's neither like this nor like that. So this neither-nor has always been swinging in my head, so that's why I've been trying to understand, and that is also what I want to try to get our mindset to, such things when we are experiencing the world, like with all this suffering.

All this uncontrollable concept, like perception, cognition, consciousness, that all happens, that we sometimes get on fire, like that on fire of those five aggregates, has to be understood as neither-nor. This is what I was trying to get myself to understand, how to get the seas of suffering. Am I on the right thought, or is it something I imagined? I don't know, please help. Yeah. - When you refer to the five aggregates, it's not that they exist or don't exist

because in that moment they do exist, but then they are gone. They arise and they pass away. So you have to understand it from that perspective. So when the five aggregates arise, that's the understanding that feeling has arisen, for example. That feeling arose because there was contact with the outside world, with the sense objects and the sense receptors. There was contact between the two and there was feeling. So, for example, the light hits my eye, or the light hits the eye receptor, the photoreceptors in the eye.

But then another ray of light hits, and it's happening in every microsecond. So you have to look at it from the perspective of arising and passing away. In the arising there is that sense of this feeling there, the feeling being present, but it goes away when it passes away, but there is another feeling. So it's everything that arises and passes away does so because of a series of causes and conditions. So neither-nor, you can't really apply it to neither feeling nor not feeling. So there is a feeling or not a feeling. There is a feeling in that moment of the arising, and then it passes away, and there is a new feeling in the new moment, and there's a passing of it. Likewise with perception, formations, and consciousness.

So the point is just to understand that is the process, but we are... it's not like we have to dis-, like this. It's not an alienation from it. This is what maybe I was always seeing, maybe trying an alienation, which is not right. Which is just to understand it, to be an ongoing, like a recurring, of whatever that is, the five aggregates action, but there is not an identification in it. It is that understanding is not a concept, but it is an understanding there. So, our practice, I'm trying to get this into, tied up with our practice. So the practice is to... trying to get to a state of the mind that we are able to see that happening. Is that correct? Yes, you want to be able to see it, but the thing is, in trying to do it, in trying to make a conscious effort to see it, you're strengthening that sense of self. So in trying to investigate into it, who is the investigator in this case

that is investigating into the nature of self and the nature of reality? So it's not about, I am investigating. It's not about, you know, I am being mindful of it. It's just that this perception arises, that the experience of not-self arises. Correct? So there is another sutta in which Sariputta is talking. Well, Ananda actually asks him. He says, is there an understanding, or is there a level of perception, or is there a level of awareness that goes beyond the understanding of four elements, that goes beyond the understanding of the planes of existence, that goes beyond the understanding of the four jhanas and the arupa jhanas, and goes beyond all concepts? And he said yes, there is, and it is this mana. He's experiencing nibbana through the experience of perceiving.

What he calls bhava nirodha. So anything that you're perceiving, you're seeing as the sensation of the causes and conditions for suffering. But in trying to look for it, it's going to only strengthen the sense of self. The reason why the meditation is happening, or why one does the meditation, is to come to a collected mind. The investigative factor, the investigation into it, is just this perception of it. It's like this: you have feeling and you have perception. Feeling is the bare sensation of what is arising, or the bare understanding of the mental experience as the experience. Perception is knowing that that experience is pleasant, unpleasant or neutral. In the same way, mindfulness is your attention on the experience, just the awareness that that experience is there. The investigation is knowing what kind of experience that is. So if you're investigating, you're investigating insofar as knowing what kind of state of mind the mind is in. But going beyond that would be reflection and analysis, and that going beyond into reflection and analysis creates mental proliferation.

So trying to look for the understanding of self and not-self is going to be counter-intuitive. Rather, you make the mind collected through the process of jhana, and allow things to arise as they arise, and watch them without identifying with them. So this process of trying not to identify with it, that also can create the sense of self, that's trying to disidentify with it. So it's just seeing clearly the arising and passing away without any involvement in there. That's why, when you come to that deepest level where you have cessation of perception and feeling and consciousness, and the formations arise again and create this cognition through this process of dependent origination, you're just seeing it clearly. There is this mindfulness, this perceiving, that is undirected, that is without any sign, which is signless. So this is the contact that they talked about post-cessation. It is the signless contact. It doesn't hold on to any object with any sense of self. It is undirected, it doesn't direct. It's a attention where it's just watching, just looking.

And it's empty, it's void, it's void of any personalizing of that process. So the further you deepen your mind to be able to just see clearly as things arise, without involving it, without involving a sense of self, the clearer you'll be able to see, the more clearly you'll be able to see how this process arises in? Thank you very much. Yes. Yeah, it's the watching, it's... yeah, the keeping, like the level of the distance, of layer and layer, of seeing how it happens. Well, thank you very much. Yeah, it's furthering the understanding and how... thank you, it helps a lot. Thank you, thank you for all your guidance here all the time. Kilson, after hearing you I've got one more question.

Yeah, people from the arupa realms, how do they get the formations after completing their rebirth, after completing their life in that arupa realm, and the dense bodies, how do they get the formations? And the dense bodies, are they... can they... should they... they're not supposed to get... no, there will still be formations there. See, the formations are not rooted in the physicality of the body. Formations can be likened to synapses. So in the same way your brain has different synapses that keep coming and going and keep changing, the neural plasticity. It's a metaphor for formations, but formations can be understood as carriers of kamma. They're carriers of experience. So there are thoughts, there are feelings, there are perceptions that can still arise in the process of the arupa jhanas. In what way, in perceiving that arupa jhana? So there's formations that arise based on the experience of infinite space. There's formations that arise based on the understanding of infinite consciousness, because there are those formations, you can access those arupa jhanas from the beginning. So what happens is, when you have contact with the arupa jhana experiences

It creates those formations. Those formations, having arisen, will still remain in some way, but they will keep arising and passing away. They're not just stored somewhere. They arise based on the conditions. So, for example, once you have gone beyond the four jhanas and you have experienced infinite space, you finish your practice and then you do something else, and then you continue your meditation later, and now you start from infinite space. How are you able to continue infinite space? Because you are perceiving that through your meditation. That perception of infinite space is rooted in the formations, which are the memory of that infinite space. So in the same way, when you talk about people in the arupa realms, let's say outside on the macro level, there are still formations there based on their experience of the arupa jhanas in a previous life.

I want to say this way, because mindfulness is there for a living being. It is coming back after the experience of meditation, it is coming back to their body. In the case of arupa realms, the mind is preparing some material. That is why they are getting bodies. Is it correct? They don't have materiality, they have mentality. Mentality, mind, mentality is preparing material within the room. Yes, they have the kamma seeds, because they have the kamma seeds the mind is preparing the material. We have to come to that conclusion because of your answer. Something is there, there is an experience, but the mentality is not rooted in any kind of materiality as we would understand. So the understanding of the arupa jhanas, the arupa realms, is that it is formless, which means there is no actual materiality there, but there is still some mental factors present. It's like this. It's like, you know, you have the concept of the mind-made body within the understanding of

even the suttas, or even outside the suttas, where one can do astral projection and things like that. So that experience is happening through the mentality. Now, yes, you can say that the mentality is within the materiality in the human realm and in the realms where there is still a physicality, but this understanding is there that the mentality is without the materiality. So there is still this idea of mentality that isn't rooted or dependent upon the materiality. So how they experience reality is not through the sixth sense basis, but it's just through the factors of mentality in some way or another. It's like how you're able to, in your own mind right now, if I tell you to think about a lion, the image of a lion pops up, but it's not dependent upon your materiality. It's dependent upon your ability to imagine that lion, which is in the mind itself. Thank you. Correct answer.

Hi Delson. So I have a question that I think is kind of, in a way, a follow-up to this last question. You know, I always have this question when there are discussions of not-self. Well, what is it that is accumulating karma? What is it that's reborn? What is it that's sort of continuing on? Is it formations that we're talking about here, or could you maybe clarify that a little bit, please? Yeah, sure, thank you. So there is this understanding of intention, which is one of the factors of mind, where you have an intention to do something, volition to do something. So that intention is within the nama, mentality. Material mentality is made up of contact, feeling, perception, intention, attention. These are the factors of mentality, the faculties. Now, there's a sutta in which the Buddha talks about the different states of existence and how they arise, and he talks about how if intention was fettered by craving and hindered by ignorance, that intention

drives forward a new consciousness that takes rebirth in that new state of existence. And he calls karma the field, consciousness as the seed, and craving as the moisture. So let's say we talk about rebirth between lifetimes. At the dissolution of one body, and before the rising of another body, in that mind of that being, there are certain things going on that are karmic impressions. Maybe they're thinking about things that happened in that life. Maybe they have remorse, or they have great joy arising, or whatever it is. Whatever that emotion is, it is fettered by conceit. It is fettered by this personal sense of self, and that craves for that experience to continue. It wants that experience to continue, and because it wants that experience to continue, that craving attaches, with that intention, a new consciousness to the formations.

Those formations are creating that sense of remorse or that sense of joy that it wants to experience. It drives out that consciousness from this life, and when that consciousness, that is called evolving consciousness, gets rooted in a new mentality-materiality, that's taken for simplicity's sake a new human rebirth, that consciousness is then implanted in a new mentality-materiality at the point of conception, and then a new consciousness arises. So those formations have now taken root in that new mentality-materiality, and they continue on. But there is a caveat that the Buddha has, which are essentially his final words before parinibbana: all sankharas are impermanent. So for anyone who thinks that sankharas are permanent, he explains that even these sankharas are dependent upon different experiences, dependent upon contact and so on. So even though we say these formations have now taken root in a new mentality-materiality, they are still impermanent, because they arise based on conditions of contact and they pass away. So ultimately it's not about the dissolution of formations that causes parinibbana. It's the non-attachment to those formations. It's the non-craving.

Because the mind of the arahant has destroyed craving altogether, there is no moisture for any more kamma to take place. There's no moisture for the seed of consciousness to be neutrified within that field of kamma. And so, because no craving is neutrifying it, not sticking through those formations, there is no new consciousness that is arising to take birth in a new mentality-materiality. All right. Thank you. Delson, I have a question.

When you are in arupa jhana, even though your mind doesn't go anywhere, can you hear the sounds? Can you hear the sound in arupa jhana? Yeah. You can hear a distant sound. Sometimes there is sensory impact. Now, the traditional understanding is that at the fourth jhana there is no more sensory impact. Even in infinite consciousness you might still hear something in the distance, for example, but it won't be as prominent as it would have been in a preceding jhana. But if you don't hear it at all, it could be because the mind has become too absorbed

because you still want to open awareness of all things, even the arupa jhanas. Even though there is no formation, there is no form, there's no rupa in the arupa jhanas, there's still mentality going, which means there's still feeling and perception still going on, even though that feeling and perception can be internal. So they can, because you can still experience things within the mind, and you can still experience any distant sounds that are arising. Only the sound, because the formation is not there? You don't feel the bodily sensations, only the sounds? Yeah. Thank you. So any of the, yeah, you can explain. No, any of the experiences of the five physical senses become quite weak, so they might be there, but it's very, very almost imperceptible. This is what I'm, according to, it's, it can be experienced, but the mind is so

so away from the concepts of sense, so away from the concepts of the body, that it doesn't really pay attention to anything that is related to the sensory experiences. So the sensory impact is still there, but the mind is no longer paying attention to it. If you put your attention there, you can hear it, but because your attention is not there, you're not really paying attention to that sound, even though it's existing. Thank you so much. Any more questions? I think Delson has been talking about one and a half hours now. Thank you so much again, and then we are going to do a sitting for half an hour. Thank you, Delson, so much. Really appreciate it. Very grateful. Thank you very much. Thank you, Delson thousand. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.