Romantic love? (Thich Nhat Hanh)

Does Buddhism support romantic love?

(Plum Village) Thich Nhat Hanh or "Thai" answers questions during a retreat in Plum Village (May 2014). Question: "If Buddhism supports love for Mother Nature, why doesn't it also support romantic love between two people and demonstrations of affection between two people?

(Plum Village App) Love, Desire, and Intimacy (short teaching video)

Help us caption and translate this video (amara.org/v/FzFP).

Dhamma Q&A live from Birken (Ajahn Sona)

Live from Birken: Dhamma Q&A with Ajahn Sona

(Ajahn Sona) Streamed live on June 15, 2025: Dhamma Questions & Answers. Join Birken Monastery on Sunday as Ajahn Sona answers Dhamma questions from listeners around the world. Questions may be submitted during the live chat (opens around 8:00 am on the day of streaming) or in advance, here: bit.ly/LivestreamQnA. Ajahn Sona Podcast: AppleAjSona, SpotifyAjSona, PodbeanAjSona. Question & Answer Archive: birken.ca/qaa/qaa.php.

• Not self (anattā) makes no sense. Can you explain?

Did the Buddha say there's no SELF?

There has to be a "self" -- and here he is!

Imagined debate between ordinary person and one who sees what the Buddha meant by "no-self"

Imagine a Mini Me driving this body to act.

Okay, if the Buddha himself said "there is no self," he himself must be cr*zy! How could there be no self? Anyone (any self) who thinks there's no self ought to have his (or her) head examined. The SOUL (Pali atta, Sanskrit atman, Spanish alma) is right here, in the chest, standing next to the heart with his arms crossed, a little homunculus who sometimes takes the backstairs of the spinal column into the cranium and looks out through the eyes of the head while manipulating levers and switches, which is how we live.

Driver's seat, where he steers the body

Who's inside of that guy?

Beg your pardon?

Who is driving the homunculus?

Well, um, there's an even smaller "mini me" homunculus driving that one.

And that one?

And that one what?

Who or what is driving that one?

And so on, ad infinitum! There's always a smaller one until we get down to the level of the cell, which has a mitochondria seat where the mini-mini-mini me homunculus sits to drive the cell.

And what's smaller than a cell?

An atom, of course.

Each with its own homunculus, I suppose.

Now you're catching on!

I'll knock the homunculus out of you, mofo

Well, it sure feels that way, that a homunculus is driving the human body, but have you ever known a guy to get punched in the head so hard, like a Pantera album cover (Vulgar Display of Power), that his homunculus gets knocked out of his seat and flies out of his ear and now doesn't have a big homme (Hummer) to drive?

Well, no, of course not. He would die.

And his body would disappear?

No, of course, not. Why would it disappear?

Because we don't find homunculi during autopsies.

Well, that's because they disappear, yes, disappear right out of existence once the car is undrivable, dead as it were, stuck with the levers and switches not working...

In a coma or vegatative state?

Vegatative state, yes, no longer functional and then, vamoose, homunculus goes to Heaven or the great beyond where all the homunculi gather and have parties by drinking and singing and dancing in circles until they're reborn into another body.

No hell?

Well, of course there's a hell, but, I mean, the homunculus has had to have gotten up to some pretty high hijinks to go there. Class dismissed!

Just one more question: You KNOW this to be true?

Just one more answer: I FEEL this to be true...

But that...

No more questions! Class dismissed! Get out, get out!

The Buddha never said, "There is no self"?

O, poor little homunculus self

It seems to us the Buddha did say such a thing, not to everyone. Nearly no one can understand this liberating truth. Even fewer can accept it. The entire practice is to bring about insight (clear seeing) so that we can see what is and is not true in order that the Truth set us free.

Liberation from all suffering takes insight, and long before insight arises, one needs calm, stillness, silence, serenity, samadhi (superconsciousness deriving from mental purification by "concentration" in the form of meditative absorptions called jhanas (dhyanas, zens, chans) -- overcoming the Five Hindrances and attaining equipoise, composure, equanimity, balance, brightened faculties now that everything has become coherent and gone online without hindrance and obstruction, a temporary state that serves as the foundation for the arising of insight (vipassana).

Insight cuts off the mental defilements at their roots and results in awakening, the experience of enlightenment (bodhi), which results in ultimate liberation known as a glimpse of nirvana (complete peace or ultimate bliss, the highest happiness), a thing so different it cannot rightly be called a "thing" at all because it is unlike all we have ever known in this world of things called samsara (the Cycle, the Wheel of Life and Death) or this simulation we have been endlessly cycling through due to karma (deeds) and delusion, i.e., ignorance of Dependent Origination).

Does the Buddha say there's a self? Yes but only because he is speaking conventionally. How does he define this "self"? He does so by the Five Aggregates clung to as "self." This is when he is speaking in conventional terms. However, when he is speaking in ULTIMATE terms (in terms of what is ultimately true), he points at what insight will reveal to anyone who develops it: There is, ultimately speaking, no self.

(The question "Is there a self?" is wrong because it is full of assumptions. We assume we have a self -- that is to say and speaking more correctly, the impersonal aggregates cling to the misunderstanding that a self is present -- even from the standpoint of asking the question. Form forms (the body bodies), feelings feel, perception perceives, mental formations will and intend, consciousness is conscious so that it seems as if Self is the Asker, the Thinker, the Doer, the Worrier, the Watcher (the Atman or Immortal Soul), the One who practices and will or will not be enlightened/awakened).

• There is an "Immortal Soul" in a way. That is to say, there is something mistaken for a soul, ego, essence, heart, personality, individuality, a "self," who persists through time unchanged as its perfect self, the Doer, the Knower, the Experiencer, but it is not what it seems. This is what the Buddha is pointing out. We are certainly more than we know, but all those things we cling to will ultimate frustrate, disappoint, and prove mistaken. Even if we (or these aggregates) cling to the exalted notion, "I am the ALL," "I am Brahman," or "I am that I am," Tattva, Tat Tvam Asi, all of these exalted Vedic, Brahmanical, Hindu, and later Judeo-Christian ideas,

There is a better way to ask and find an answer: "What is there?" There is Dependent Origination (the 12-link chain of causality, its elements each giving rise to the other in a causal chain), which is how all "things" come to be, how "self," that is, the illusion/delusion of self, arises and originates and seems to exist.

Some wrongly say, "There is no separate self." This is true, but some are wrong because they misunderstand "separate," imagining as Hinduism does, that there is unity (of Atman and Brahman), Union with Brahma or Brahman, a raindrop returning to the sea, plunging into its home again after a roundabout journey, now merged and losing itself into the ALL, the Whole, the Ultimate Reality)

The Five Aggregates clung to as self

IN BRIEF: All of reality, in this dimension and universe or any other, is marked by three universal characteristics: All "things" are (1) impermanent, (2) unsatisfactory, and (3) impersonal. These are the Three Marks of Existence. Nirvana is the only non-thing (non-composite), for it is not dependently originated, whereas everything else is. Therefore, the Path to Freedom the Buddha taught leads to nirvana, complete freedom.

SUTRA: "Discourse on the Not-Self Characteristic"

Ven. Ñanamoli Thera (trans), Anatta-Lakkhana Sutta (SN 22.59 PTS: S iii 66 CDB i 901) © 1993 edited by Dhr. Seven, Wisdom Quarterly

Thus have I heard. On one occasion the Blessed One (the Buddha) was living at Benares (Varanasi), in the Deer Park at Isipatana (the Resort of Seers). There he addressed the wandering ascetics known as the group of five:

"Meditators."

— "Venerable sir," they replied. The Blessed One then said this [with regard to the Five Aggregates clung to as a "self"]:

"Meditators, form [this body] is not-self. Were form self, then this form would not lead to affliction, and one could will: 'Let my form be thus, and let my form be not thus' [Let my form (body) be this way and not that way]. Since form is not-self, it leads to affliction (pain, distress, disappointment), and no one can will: 'Let my form be thus, and let my form be not thus.'

• [The body (form), though treated as one thing as if it were singular, is actually four things -- the Four Great Elements or four characteristics of materiality. They are condensed for simplicity into one because they are regarded as less worthy of note than the mind, which is treated in detail as the remaining four aggregates. "Mind" is not one thing but about 50 distinct processes -- feeling, perceiving, determining, and consciousness, all of which are mental formations; the remainder of the 50 are packed into the category of "mental formations" (sankhāra), of which the most important in the category is determination (cetana = intention, volition, impulse, will, motive). The Buddha considered these five the most important to single out for the sake of liberation by wisdom, that is, to gain insight (vipassana = clear seeing) that all we are, all "self" is, are heaps of these impersonal processes, not an actual "self" (soul, atta, atman, essence) that goes on unchanged and immutable through time and experience as philosophers and other religions hold the view. All that we are, all that we cling to as ourselves, is radically impermanent, ultimately disappointing (never able to fulfill us), and most unbelievably impersonal or not-self.]

"Meditators, feeling is not-self...

"Meditators, perception is not-self...

"Meditators, mental formations (determinations) are not-self...

"Meditators, consciousness is not-self. Were consciousness self, then this consciousness would not lead to affliction, and one could will: 'Let my consciousness be thus, and let my consciousness be not thus.' Since consciousness is not-self, it leads to affliction, and no one can will: 'Let my consciousness be thus, and let my consciousness be not thus.'

"Meditators, how do you conceive of it: Is form permanent or impermanent?"

"Impermanent, venerable sir."

"Is what is impermanent painful or pleasant?"

"It is painful, venerable sir."

"Is what is impermanent and painful (since it is subject to change) fit to be regarded this way: 'This is mine, this is me, this is my self'"?

"No, venerable sir."

Did the Buddha teach that there's no self?

"Is feeling permanent or impermanent?...

"Is perception permanent or impermanent?...

"Are mental formations (determinations) permanent or impermanent?...

"Is consciousness permanent or impermanent?"

"It is impermanent, venerable sir."

"Is what is impermanent pleasant or painful?"

"It is painful, venerable sir."

"Is what is impermanent and painful (since it is subject to change) fit to be regarded this way: 'This is mine, this is I, this is my self'"? — "No, venerable sir."

"So, bhikkhus any kind of form whatever, whether past, future or presently arisen, whether gross or subtle, whether in oneself or external, whether inferior or superior, whether far or near, must with right understanding how it is, be regarded this way: 'This is not mine, this is not I, this is not myself.'

"Any kind of feeling whatever...

"Any kind of perception whatever...

"Any kind of determination whatever...

The Middle Path leads to complete freedom

"Any kind of consciousness whatever, whether past, future or presently arisen, whether gross or subtle, whether in oneself or external, whether inferior or superior, whether far or near must, with right understanding how it is, be regarded this way: 'This is not mine, this is not I, this is not my self.'

"Meditators, when a noble [enlightened] follower who has heard (the Truth) sees thus, that person finds estrangement in form, finds estrangement in feeling, finds estrangement in perception, finds estrangement in determinations, finds estrangement in consciousness.

"When one finds estrangement, passion fades away. With the fading of passion, one is liberated. When liberated, knowledge arises that one is liberated. One [intuits] understands: 'Rebirth is exhausted, the supreme life has been lived out, what can be done is done, of this there is no more beyond [to come].'"

That is what the Blessed One said. The meditators were glad, and they approved of his words.

During this utterance, the hearts of the meditators of the group of five were liberated from the taints by letting go and renouncing clinging. Source

• Buddha Face - Etsy; Bhikkhu Jayasara, Student of the Path, Dhamma Short (anatta); Dr. Doug Smith (Doug's Dharma); Ven. Ñanamoli (trans), Anatta-Lakkhana Sutta (SN 22.59); Dhr. Seven and Ananda (Dharma Buddhist Meditation), Wisdom Quarterly

Who created God? The Buddha's answer

Western conception of Man (Adam) and God (Yahoo) by Michelangelo, Sistine Chapel

Who created God? (The Buddha’s answer)

Gnostics know this proud god is no God.

Ego Podcast (Buddhism) Ever wonder, "Who created God?" or "Why am I here?" This video explores the Buddha’s profound perspective on these timeless questions.

The Buddha didn’t answer such inquiries with dogmas but invited spiritual seekers to look inward, emphasizing personal experience over intellectual speculation. Knowing-and-seeing is what is important, not more words and wonderment.

Discover how the Buddha’s teachings or Dharma guide us from intellectual questioning to self-awareness and existential clarity.

Learn why the Buddha discouraged endless questioning about theoretical matters and instead encouraged the pursuit of actual self-discovery, mindfulness, and inner transformation.

Buddhism and the God-Idea

This journey is not about answers given by others but about finding the truth within ourselves.

• [Yes, all things (dhammas) being impersonal, ultimately there is no-self, but what is there? There is, conventionally speaking, a dependently originated "self," and it is a fabrication of the Five Aggregates clung to as self. So there is a self conventionally but, ultimately, what is it but five ever-changing processes and not at all what it seems. From the inside, it feels real, but looked on dispassionately. It leads to freedom. But we have to let go of our preconceptions and watch mindfully to "see clearly" (vipassana), which is the result of insight meditation by a serene mind purified by the absorptions (jhanas).



Wise brahmas are nevertheless deluded, too.

• The God (Maha Brahma) and Gods (brahmas) and gods (devas) all have origins and did not come out of nothing, nor can it rightly be said that they just always were. Karma (deeds bearing results) is the great divider and assigner; there are actions that result in rebirth as gods of all kinds, namely, samadhi ("stillness unifying the mind to superconsciousness"), which means gaining, developing, and mastering the meditative absorptions (jhanas), grounded in morality and virtue (sila) so as to bring about peace of mind free of remorse or worry. Then, when passing away, if one has mastered the absorption, one will be reborn in accordance with this very weighty skillful karma on a plane of existence corresponding to the level of that mastery. See the 31 Planes of Existence for details. Current deeds create future results. To the extent that we understand (have right view), will (intend), and accumulate actions, they will be foundations for our future experience. So in a sense everyone is creating his or her own future circumstances and fruitions.

Seeking answers to life’s deepest questions? The Buddha’s wisdom offers a path to self-discovery and liberation. Watch now, like, share, and subscribe for more profound insights. #Buddha #God #Truth #SelfAwareness #Mindfulness #Meditation #Enlightenment

• Gary Larson (The Far Side); Ego Podcast (Buddhism), Jan. 20, 2025 (video); additional text by Dhr. Seven, Pat Macpherson (eds.), Wisdom Quarterly

Is there a Self or not? (sutra)

Is There a Self or Not?

The Wanderer Vacchagotta went to visit the Exalted One (the Buddha) and said:

"Master Gotama, is there a self?" At these words the Exalted One was silent.

"Then, Master Gotama, is there not a self?" Again the Exalted One was silent.

Then the Wanderer Vacchagotta rose from his seat and went away.

Not long after his departure, Venerable Ananda said to the Exalted One:

"How is it, venerable sir, that the Exalted One gave no answer to the question of the Wanderer Vacchagotta?"

"If, Ananda, when asked by the wanderer, 'Is there a self?,' I had replied to him: 'There is a self,' then, Ananda, that would be siding with the recluses and Brahmins who are Eternalists.

"But if, Ananda, when asked, 'Is there not a self?' I had replied that self does not exist, that, Ananda, would be siding with those recluses and Brahmins who are Annihilationists.

"Again, Ananda, when asked by the wanderer, 'Is there a self?,' had I replied that there is, would my reply be in accordance with the knowledge that all things are impermanent?"

"Surely not, venerable sir."

"Again, Ananda, when asked by the Wanderer Vacchagotta, 'Is there a self?,' had I replied that there were not, it would have been more bewilderment for the already bewildered Vacchagotta.

"He would have said, 'Formerly, indeed, I had a self, but now I have not one anymore.'"

Anatta according to Theravada Buddhism

Anatta is the third of the Three Universal Characteristics of Existence (ti-lakkhana) or general characteristics (samanna-lakkhana). Like the teaching of the Four Enlightening Truths, it is the "teaching unique to Buddhas" (buddhanam samukkamsika desana, M. 56/vol. i. 380).

The most usual English rendering, which will be employed here, is "not-self" (or "not self"), though the words "soulless," "egoless," and "impersonal" are often used. (The rendering "Self" with a capital is not justified owing to the absence of capitals in Indian alphabets). More

• Ven. Ñanamoli Thera, The Three Basic Facts of Existence: III. Egolessness (Anatta) (SN 44.10); Dhr. Seven (ed.), Wisdom Quarterly

'Full of sh*t': Secret Service lies, evasions

• After BS'ing Congress, Director Cheatle resigns Was she in on conspiracy to step down and leave target open to FBI marksman from window behind Crooks and water tower sniper?
• Was CrowdStrike disruption part of larger plot to follow assassination? DOT opens investigation into Delta over flight disruptions (ABC News)
• Air Force veteran at Trump rally says 'something wasn't right' before would-be assassin opened fire
• Ex-SEAL Congressman posts video from roof where Thomas Crooks shot Trump [excluding shooter behind him at window and other on the water tower] — highlighting extent of Secret Service failure

[Evasive] SS Director Cheatle grilled by lawmakers on Trump assassination attempt

(FOX 11 Los Angeles) THESE ARE MERELY SOME HIGHLIGHTS: Stonewalling, dodging, perjury, lying, evasion, deception, obfuscation, playing dumb... Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle was GRILLED by lawmakers Monday (July 22, 2024) on the Trump assassination attempt saying, "We failed" but refusing to answer a majority of Congress members' questions.

The full disgraceful perjured testimony

Director Cheatle is clearly aware that there's a conspiracy and she cannot throw the FBI under the bus for their participation in this attempted assassination. She is probably wisely, sagaciously evading and lying to save her own life. While she may be killed anyway, she would almost certainly be killed almost immediately (as a staged suicide) if she said what she already knew. If viewers of investigative videos with only a casual interest in the topic of a failed shooting of an unpopular politician can know volumes more than Cheatle is claiming to know, that is just not credible. By saying she is waiting to say until she is sure is the political thing to do. It is career suicide, but it is likely extending her life. Cheatle, welcome to the Machine. Survive this, and there's a promotion in it for you. Crack and speak your mind and you're through. What a country.

US House Panel summons [subpoenas, forces] Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle | N18G

(CNN-News18) Donald Trump LIVE News | US House Panel Summons Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle | N18G Even as the investigators scramble to understand the motive behind the attempt on Trump’s life last week, US Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle has been summoned to testify before a Congressional committee. The Secret Service, the agency in charge of the security of president and former presidents, is under severe criticism for the failures and lapses that led to the shooting of Trump at a rally in Pennsylvania last week. #donaldtrump #secretservice #englishnewslive #news18live

What is the Buddha's awakening secret?

I'd like to connect with Wisdom Quarterly: American Buddhist Journal. I have a BIG question.

 

Never mind her. I have a fast question first.

Q: What was the Buddha's secret, you know, to be able to wake up when he did? I want to awaken now, to experience enlightenment. I'm ready.

A: Your question, if you reflect, carries an assumption. Would you like to reword it?

Q: No, there's no assumption. I'm completely open to his secret. What is it?

WQ: Ah, then, in that case, which one?

Q: Which one what?

WQ: Which secret?

Q: There's more than one?

Stop wasting time. I just want the secret!

WQ: Did you assume there was only one, that you had everything but that one thing? We understood that you were "completely open," not closedminded to the Truth he made known. Moreover, what if we were to give it just like that, you really think you could bite it off in one chunk, chew it, digest it? Nearly everyone else needed a process, but you [like Bahiya of the Barkcloth] are ready to just get it and assimilate it with no practice beyond a moment's reflection?

I prefer to work with koan-riddles.

Q: Uh. I just want the shortcut, the Teaching in brief, a koan maybe.

WQ: Oh, why didn't you say so? In that case, if we understand you correctly, you want THE answer to life, the universe, and everything?

Q: Yes, that's it!

WQ: "It" again, like there's just one thing, in that case here is the answer. Are you ready?

Q: YES!

WQ: 42.

Q: Forty-two what?

C'mon, tell me! I'm in a hurry.

WQ: Well, may we suggest you begin with the Five Precepts. Then, once you're settled into that and have made it a basic mode of living, without deviating, without wobbling or wavering, take up the 37 Requisites of Enlightenment.

Q: What are those?

WQ: Which?

Q: Those 37!

WQ: You mean you aren't going to ask about the first five?

Q: Which 5?

WQ: The basic five that when added to the other 37 (add up to 42 and) produce enlightenment, bodhi, awakening here and now, in this very life, of course.

Q: No, I want the secret.

WQ: And when given the secret, "42," you ignore the first portion, the foremost, the most basic division, and just want the juicier part?

I'm not a blank slate, you know? I'm smart.

Q: No, I want it all!

WQ: Ah, now we understand. You're like a Zen student, too eager. You know what they do to someone in Zen who comes asking?

Q: What?

WQ: So you don't know?

Q: No.

WQ: It would be helpful if you answered the questions we ask as asked and not change or reword them. They're asked with precision. We know where we're going with them. You, as yet, do not.

Q: I just want The Secret!

WQ: You keep saying THE secret, but when it is given, you fail to ask about the first part of it, and you fail to answer when asked a follow-up question.

Q: What question?

WQ: What happens to a Zen student wishing to learn?

Q: I don't know, what?

WQ: She is told no, and the door of the temple is slammed in her face. And if she persists and doesn't go away, she is made to sweep. Now, why do you suppose that is?

Q: I don't know. The Buddha wouldn't do that, would he?

WQ: No, he wasn't Zen. In his original way of teaching, the Buddha would give a gradual instruction -- assuming the recipient were ready to hear it, respectful, sitting, attentive, open, evincing a good heart and not holding an agenda or ulterior motive.

Is this Zen? Why are you avoiding my question?

Q: Gimme the gradual instruction!!!

WQ: Did you ever hear of Me First and the Gimme Gimmes?

Q: What the heck's that?

WQ: A punk band.

Q: Huh? A punk koan?

WQ: No, punk band. No, you aren't ready. And we aren't the Buddha. But just look at this dusty floor!

Q: Floor? What does the floor have to do with anything?

WQ: We can't imagine. Have you seen the porch? It's really nice.

Q: What?

WQ: Would you mind helping us test the door lock?

Q: I'm not a locksmith!

WQ: No, you needn't be. Just stand on that side and see if it opens.

Q: See if what opens?

WQ: The lock keeping the door closed.

Q: Which, the door or lock?

Hey! C'mon, I asked nicely.

WQ: Either. You've been given the secret. Develop it (both parts) and come back, maybe with a softened, malleable, pliable attitude that wants to know and will do whatever it takes to be handed wisdom.

Q: I am willing to do whatever it takes.

WQ: What if what it takes is to calm down?

Q: I'm in a hurry.

WQ: We can see that. We hate to keep you. We handed you the secret. Develop confidence (conviction, faith, saddha) in a teacher so that when that teacher speaks, his or her words will not be wasted on a skeptic, a spiritual shopper going around collecting doctrines, or a moody junior psychic seeing who or what strikes her fancy.

Q: Just convince me.

WQ: It isn't the job of a teacher to make the Path to Awakening more enticing than it already is, only to make it known, or to remind others that it is available for now. There are aeons when it is not available, when it is lost to history, when the human world wonders in darkness until no one can explain, and no one knows what to practice at all.

Q: Oh, I get it!

WQ: You do?

Q: Yeah, you want me to sweep!

WQ: No, we want you to be amenable to instruction. You ask for someone else's hard-won wisdom. If you had a sensible follow-up question, we would explain. But you only want "a secret," the whole thing. When given it, you fumble. That's not a surprise. Most people would. But when asked to pick it up, not change it, and follow it step by step, you over-eagerly leap ahead. You ignore the most basic component, those first 5 things and grasp only at the 37.

Q: OK, OK, OK, what are the five?

WQ: Is that any way to ask? You've already been told, and you were even told what the other 37 are. You have it all. There's the secret to life, the universe, and everything.

Q: Wait, that's it? I want the answer not the map to finding the answer. I don't want to have to go look!

The Gateless Gate? The temple door

WQ: Exactly. We still need help with the door lock.

Q: I'll help. Just don't lock me out.

WQ: What else is a door lock for?

Q: To lock things in?

WQ: Ah, then, the latch wouldn't be on the inside, would it?

Ananda: Okay, she's gone now. What are the first five things?

WQ: Good question, Ananda. They are the very foundation of Buddhist practice. The Buddha taught a path-and-practice, a Dhamma-Vinaya (Doctrine and Discipline) that leads to awakening for those who practice it.

Ananda: Did he give a shortcut?

Venerable sir. - Yes, Ananda?

WQ: Yes, as for a "shortcut," this is the shortcut. We don't need to reinvent the (Dharma-) wheel, because supreme buddhas make it known. We only need to learn the Dharma of a Supremely Awakened Buddha, usually from the Noble (Awakened) Sangha, the collective of enlightened disciple practitioners, who are not always in robes. It's easier to find them in robes, but from the time of the Buddha, most were not in robes. Many awakened when he taught, almost every time he gave a sutra. For those who did not immediately awaken and gain the "eye of the Dharma" at the end of it, his words stayed in their hearts and came to fruition later. It was not lost, except that they lost time and the opportunity to advance to the tipping point right then and there. When they entered the stream, not all of them abandoned the lay life to join the monastic community.

Ananda: Why not?

WQ: It's not clear. Maybe they had already done that and so could hear and benefit from the Teaching or had other obstructing karma to work through.

Ananda: I see. So one begins with basic morality to still the mind and heart, right?

WQ: Yes, right. The first 5 are the Five Precepts, the foundation of a Buddhist pyramid we are going to build. Central to it is to refrain from killing. The four other corners of the foundation are to abstain from stealing, sexual misconduct, deception, and intoxicants that occasion the breaking of these five.

Ananda: Aren't there more precepts?

WQ: Yes, they're wrapped up in these basic five. Avoid intoxicants.

Ananda: Even good intoxicants, like medicines?

WQ: Avoid the bad ones that do harm to oneself and others. Imagine a substance that when used, what one would not do sober, one might do intoxicated. Avoid that kind. Alcohol is that kind.

Ananda: But in a tincture sometimes there's alcohol as a preservative or solvent.

WQ: And taking it, will are you likely to do what you wouldn't do sober?

Ananda: No, it's just a trivial amount to get at the medicine.

WQ: So as long as you aren't fooling yourself and behaving foolishly, heedlessly, recklessly. View intoxication as possibly worse than all the other unskillful deeds. Look at intoxicated people around you. Is that any way to be? Some say lying is the worst of these five, worse than killing, because a person who readily lies and cover up unskillful deeds, what wouldn't that person do?

Ananda: It seems like commonsense.

WQ: Yes but, you know, commonsense has become uncommon now. These were just commonsense. After a while, they become commonsense again. Just do unto others as you wish others to do unto you. It's a common golden rule, fundamental, an ABC lesson. The Buddha said there was nothing about these five that he was saying new. They are agreed on from way back, spoken of by many wise people and traditions. With these established, we need the second layer before crowning our internal-monument with liberating-insight.

Ananda: That sounds like the good part, the unknown part that only the Buddha taught.

WQ: The teaching that all things are impersonal (anatta) is the unique teaching of buddhas. No other teacher was teaching the other 37 Requisites or "things pertaining to enlightenment" (bodhi-pakkhiya-dhammā).

The Buddha spoke of them in seven clusters to make them easier to digest as seven sets of factors. They comprise all of the important doctrines the Buddha taught for what it might take to wake up. (I say might because I have never seen a sutra or case where anyone systematically developed all of them then woke up. That might happen in good monastic training, as with Pa Auk Sayadaw, but even then, I do not imagine it would be explicit. It could be though).

One successful American student of the Sayadaw, who became a once-returner without being a monastic in this life, told me about stacks of notes that had to be studied and memorized overnight. What exactly these notes said or why there would be 50 pages of them I was not told in detail. The person said a book would have to be written about it and that would come later. So far as I know that book still has not come and is less likely as time passes. The point in being told this as I pried to understand what "work" was being done that took so much time or effort in doing. How could one have to hurry up to finish if the "doing" was enjoying the absorptions (jhanas). What else did this sayadaw teacher, after all? He teaches so much more. The image of him as teaching the jhanas is wrong; he doesn't really teach even the first one. The first one happens with practice as stated in the sutras (particularly the Maha Satipatthana Sutta). When the first one happens to a person, which is how they will report it rather than saying they "did" it, then the Sayadaw has much to teach to develop it and move on to the next seven or eight (depending how one is counting them, by the sutra method or the Abhidhamma commentarial method). Let's stick with the sutras and say there are eight because the ninth is a technicality of factors present; they're present either way. The point was that it's impossible to memorize 50 pages of notes in a day. Except it isn't -- it becomes possible due to strong mindfulness (Pali sati, Sanskrit smirti = "memory").

Even I noticed in my retreat practice that I could put my mind on a question to bring something up that I knew long ago, and it would come. I hadn't been able to remember in years. But asking a memory question and then leaving it, it would come. How? Not by force, I think it was due to the cleansing of the mind that practice produces. As the mind calms and gains coherence, it puts itself in order, then we regain our memory like Ven. Ananda had all the time, if just for a moment.

Here are the 37 in seven sets:

1. The 4 Foundations of Mindfulness (satipatthāna)
2. The 4 Right Efforts (see padhāna),
3. The 4 Roads to Power (iddhi-pāda),
4. The 5 Spiritual Faculties (indriya, see bala),
5. The 5 Spiritual Powers (bala),
6. The 7 Factors of Enlightenment (bojjhanga)
7. The 8 Ennobling Path Factors (see magga).

According to German Theravada scholar-monk Ven. Nyanatiloka (Buddhist Dictionary via palikanon.com), in MN 77 all 37 of them are enumerated and explained though not called by this name.

A detailed explanation of these factors is given in The Path of Purification (Vis.M. XXII). In S.XLVII, 51, 67, only the Five Spiritual Faculties (indriya) are calle bodhi-pakkhiya-dhammā and in the Jhāna-Vibhanga, only the Seven Factors of Enlightenment (bojjhanga).

• See The Requisites of Enlightenment by Ledi Sayadaw (BPS.lk, Wheel No. 169/172).
• Scientists say our universe might be a hall of mirrors
• We didn't know these 20 facts about early human life
• Dhr. Seven, Ananda (Dharma Buddhist Meditation), Jen Bradford, Wisdom Quarterly